http://gamingtrend.com
September 02, 2014, 07:46:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hesitant to venture on-line  (Read 2100 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Rocketman
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 433



View Profile
« on: March 13, 2010, 12:37:13 PM »

Itís safe to say that Iím a pansy if it comes to playing games on-line. Iíve only seldom tried it, and almost never enjoyed it much. The reasons I donít enjoy going on-line are simple:
1) I lack the skills my competitors have;
2) I cannot stand rudeness;
3) I get bored quickly with multiplayer games. They offer no incentive for me to keep playing.

However, the forum activity concerning the recent releases of Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Left 4 Dead 2 tempts me. Iíve always enjoyed a good fps, and even more a good cooperative game. Cooperative games of Doom or Halo are among my best gaming memories, so Iím thinking I ought to give them another chance perhaps?

These games, are they accessible for a non-hardcore casual gamer? Are there servers or sites dedicated to players who want a good time with civil players? Or am I really kidding myself here, and does it remain a hardcore niche of gaming?
Logged
Harkonis
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9730



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2010, 12:39:36 PM »

I could make arguements with the first two, but not sure I could say anything that would change your mind on #3

I will say that the social aspect of playing with friends is a large part of why multiplayer is fun.  Regardless of skill level you can have fun, you just have to set goals to yourself that are realistic based on your skill level.

Logged
Huw the Poo
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3162


Please feed dog


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2010, 12:44:17 PM »

Points one and two are why I rarely play multiplayer games also.  However, they can both be circumvented by playing with friends, or joining a clan.  The FPS I've played multiplayer most was America's Army.  The reason for that is I found a clan who let me in and we just played friendly games against other clans all the time, while helping each other out with tactics and training and such.  It was great.
Logged

Resident anti-Steam troll
Steam profile
ydejin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 981



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2010, 02:35:58 PM »

Points 1 and 2 are mostly taken care of by a combination of playing only coop multiplayer and playing with friends.  I'd have to agree with Harkonis that there's not much to be done about point 3.

I actually had avoided playing online for quite a while until DoW2 came out.  I really wanted to play DoW2 and the AI was awful, so I ended up playing online.  I enjoyed teaming up with Jow, Turtle, and LordNine along with other OOers and Qt3ers and decided playing online could be fun after all.  DoW2 was a gateway drug for me Tongue  It lowered my distaste for playing online.  After that I tried playing LotRO -- which turned out to be a lot of fun.  Now I'm off playing STO.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2010, 02:40:51 PM by ydejin » Logged
Creepy_Smell
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 652

Load"*",8,1


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2010, 03:06:24 PM »

Why not try the MP forums here or at OO to find a game and group to play with (Coop or friendly MP)? That should be a good way to get into it. Or if you have other gaming forums try there too.

I used to play a lot of CS and it took forever to find a good server to play on, but once I did it was some very enjoyable MP. Probably part of why I stopped MP was the old server I played on closed down. Now I prefer just playing my SP games. Not enough time for MP if I want to enjoy the games I have.
Logged

Tscott
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 451


It's making me blue


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2010, 03:50:04 PM »

I'm pretty much the same way.  I've played 4 games in multiplayer and only really enjoyed two of them.

Team Fortress 2 - This game is tons of fun online.  When I get going I can play for hours.  Find a busy noob server, pick a soldier or demoman to start out with, get lost in the crowd as you get to know the maps.  The Goldrush maps are good to start out with.

Guild Wars - this was the first and only MMO I've played.  With the addition of Heroes and Henchmen that you can add to your party, a lot can be done alone- then you only run into other players in town.  I stuck mostly with players from an OO Guild when I ventured away from solo play and had a great time with them.  That guild's not too active now, but I've got high hopes for a resurgence when Guild Wars 2 comes out.

Left 4 Dead - Played several games of this online.  Mostly liked the co-op mode.  4 people working together to get to the end of the level.  The Vs. mode was interesting, but I never was able to get a good handle on how to play the different type of infected.  Also more apt to run into douchey players than TF2 if you venture away from your friends.

Left 4 Dead 2 - Played this twice online, both were bad experiences with dickish players annoyed that I didn't know the maps (the game had been out for about a week at the time), or that were running way ahead of the group and pissed we weren't there to help them when they got in trouble.  I wound up uninstalling the game soon after.
Logged

Mr. Horrible says, "I don't mind. The thing that bothers me is someone keeps moving my chair."
-TMBG
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11329


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2010, 04:13:09 PM »

Quote from: The Rocketman on March 13, 2010, 12:37:13 PM

Itís safe to say that Iím a pansy if it comes to playing games on-line. Iíve only seldom tried it, and almost never enjoyed it much. The reasons I donít enjoy going on-line are simple:
1) I lack the skills my competitors have;
What skills are you referring to?  There's a lot more to the equation than just heightened reflexes and good aim.  I'm hardly the quickest draw in Modern Warfare 2--I can't go charging in guns blazing the way Mikagami can--but I generally do very well because I know the maps well, know good spots, have a good feel for gaming the spawn system, and I'm pretty good at reading certain types of players and predicting what they're going to do.

Quote
2) I cannot stand rudeness;
There are a lot of assholes online, no doubt about it.  Most games are well set up to let you quickly mute an offensive person.  If you're on the PC, you can find a server to stick to that runs a lot of admins with little tolerance for bullshit and make that your happy place to play.  You can also use Ventrilo or Xbox Party Chat to make sure you only talk to your online friends.  The Xbox lets you only hear people on your friends list, if you want to lock things down that much.  The Steam friends list is another great way to grow your collection of not-assholes that you like to play with.

Quote
3) I get bored quickly with multiplayer games. They offer no incentive for me to keep playing.
If you want a game mechanic incentive to keep playing, the new trend is for multiplayer games to have roleplaying game elements to keep a carrot on a stick for you.  Just one more level!  One more gun!  I need to unlock that perk!  (Obligatory applicable Penny Arcade comic about filling bars for the sake of filling bars.)

For me, though, multiplayer keeps my interest because I'm playing against real people.  Single player games are fun for the story, but the enemy AI is always so, well, artificial.  Think of your favorite moments in those co-op games you've played, where you and your friend defeat some really tough part.  Now imagine that you're playing Bad Company 2 with eleven friends, and by working together you manage to pull off a come from behind victory against twelve real people.  It's awesome.  Even losing is more fun.  We got obliterated several rounds in a row last night, but together we could blame lag, or one particular stolen tank, or blame Teggy.  Much more tolerable that way.
Logged
Arkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6073


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2010, 04:28:51 PM »

About the only MP gaming I do anymore is MMOs, and usually not the PVP side of things.  I don't play games to be challenged or for competitive reasons.  I could care less how brain dead the AI is in my games.  Due to this I finally canceled my XBOX Live sub and just play EQ2 anymore.

I completely understand your reluctance to play MP games.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2010, 06:10:43 AM »

Quote from: Arkon on March 13, 2010, 04:28:51 PM

I don't play games to be challenged or for competitive reasons.

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. If there's no challenge, what's the point?
Logged
Tals
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2520


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2010, 10:15:23 AM »

Quote from: The Rocketman on March 13, 2010, 12:37:13 PM

Itís safe to say that Iím a pansy if it comes to playing games on-line. Iíve only seldom tried it, and almost never enjoyed it much. The reasons I donít enjoy going on-line are simple:
1) I lack the skills my competitors have;
2) I cannot stand rudeness;
3) I get bored quickly with multiplayer games. They offer no incentive for me to keep playing.

However, the forum activity concerning the recent releases of Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Left 4 Dead 2 tempts me. Iíve always enjoyed a good fps, and even more a good cooperative game. Cooperative games of Doom or Halo are among my best gaming memories, so Iím thinking I ought to give them another chance perhaps?

These games, are they accessible for a non-hardcore casual gamer? Are there servers or sites dedicated to players who want a good time with civil players? Or am I really kidding myself here, and does it remain a hardcore niche of gaming?


2 - you just have to get over, generally on the fps games it's not too bad as it can be harder to see the full picture but the strategy style games like LoL and HoN it can be insane. I'm trying to get myself to not getting involved in back chat. Most of the worst rage talkers are likely to be early teens so treat it as such smile

3. Well if you don't like MP it's probably a no brainer. All the games I have played for any length of time have been MP. World in Conflict + 100 hours Medal of Honor + 100 Hours, BF2 - + 100 Hours, LoL + 100 hours. At the same time whilst I wanted to like TF2 and Left 4 Dead they didn't tick the boxes so much so I found myself moving on pretty quickly. It could be you haven't found the MP game that ticks the boxes for you. I find the FPS style generally are a little too twitchy for me smile

Which brings me to 1 - join the club, if you find a good group the social aspect far out weighs that aspect and you get better. I play League of Legends a lot and whilst the likelihood of loosing is probably greater in our social group due to the different levels we play at I far prefer that - link up in vent and the gameplay can be awesome. Regarding the hardcore aspects this forum and Gamers with jobs are good places to find social buddies as no one takes it that seriously - all want to win but it's more like a Sunday afternoon football session rather than anything more serious. If you're Europe based the Overclockers forum is the best place to find likeminded buddies.
Logged

Currently Playing: Psyconauts, lol, wee raptr: Tals Steam: Talsworthy
The Rocketman
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 433



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2010, 10:16:40 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on March 14, 2010, 06:10:43 AM

Quote from: Arkon on March 13, 2010, 04:28:51 PM

I don't play games to be challenged or for competitive reasons.

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. If there's no challenge, what's the point?

Makes perfect sense to me. I play many games for their story, for the escapism into another world or character. I often can't care less for the 'mechanics' behind the games, or how to beat them.


The answers here mostly seem to refer to playing with friends. I don't have many pc-playing friends though, my friends like boardgames more (and have Apple iBooks and such, damn them!) paranoid But I think I will sooner or later end up with Battlefield 2, and try to find a good server with old, rusty, polite gentlemen and women smile


Logged
Tals
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2520


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2010, 10:21:26 AM »

Quote from: The Rocketman on March 14, 2010, 10:16:40 AM

Quote from: cheeba on March 14, 2010, 06:10:43 AM

Quote from: Arkon on March 13, 2010, 04:28:51 PM

I don't play games to be challenged or for competitive reasons.

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. If there's no challenge, what's the point?

Makes perfect sense to me. I play many games for their story, for the escapism into another world or character. I often can't care less for the 'mechanics' behind the games, or how to beat them.


The answers here mostly seem to refer to playing with friends. I don't have many pc-playing friends though, my friends like boardgames more (and have Apple iBooks and such, damn them!) paranoid But I think I will sooner or later end up with Battlefield 2, and try to find a good server with old, rusty, polite gentlemen and women smile




Depends what you mean as pc friends, if you mean have met them in person I have no pc friends. If you mean have met online then I have a wide circle i'd like to call friends smile
Logged

Currently Playing: Psyconauts, lol, wee raptr: Tals Steam: Talsworthy
Arkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6073


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2010, 11:33:39 AM »

Quote from: The Rocketman on March 14, 2010, 10:16:40 AM

Quote from: cheeba on March 14, 2010, 06:10:43 AM

Quote from: Arkon on March 13, 2010, 04:28:51 PM

I don't play games to be challenged or for competitive reasons.

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. If there's no challenge, what's the point?

Makes perfect sense to me. I play many games for their story, for the escapism into another world or character. I often can't care less for the 'mechanics' behind the games, or how to beat them.


This.

I play games to have fun, to enjoy a story, to go on an adventure.  I play games on easy so my focus can be on enjoying the game and not wanting to bash my monitor in with my keyboard because I just died for the 5th straight time on the same boss.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2010, 12:44:26 PM »

Wow. Then you're right and you should not be going online to play games. Online gaming is geared more to the active (playing games) and less to the passive (experiencing games).
Logged
morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2778



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 14, 2010, 02:09:26 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on March 14, 2010, 12:44:26 PM

Wow. Then you're right and you should not be going online to play games. Online gaming is geared more to the active (playing games) and less to the passive (experiencing games).

That's kind of silly.  In both you are playing a game.  Online gaming leans more towards competitive gameplay.  However, there are plenty of CoOp games to play online together.  Borderlands for example.  Plenty of MMORPG can be played non competitively as well.  You can take your time, do some exploring, actually read the quest.  That is all experiencing the game (while still 'playing' it).  Or you can just chase carrots.

Back to the op.

Based on your 3 points it sounds like your mind is already made up.  though I will say that your first two points are leading towards your third.  I would suggest you take a little more time.  Try and find a game you are decent enough at to not just think 'i suck, this is lame'.  Or give a game enough time to get better at it.  Thee are plenty of beginner guides out there, just read up on the game if you are struggling. Finding some like minded folks to play with would certainly help.  There all types of players online.  Good, bad, helpful, asshats.  Much like in life they come in all shapes and sizes and tend to congregate together.  I have seen 'newb' friendly clans/groups in all types of games.  Just pick a game that you enjoy playing single player, get online and get your hands dirty.  Stop over thinking it and just 'play'.  Bad company 2 is a good choice imo.  There are plenty of ways to contribute to the overall success of your team that do not rely on super twitchy awesomeness.  You will die, and die a lot but you can still finish in the top 5 (if that is your thing) in points by just being a good team player.  Healing, providing ammo, spotting enemies, driving and attacking with a tank.  None of those require great twitch skills but all of them help your team win.  My highest point round I ever had my kill to death ratio was terrible, like 6 to 25.  I only killed peopel by accident slywink
Logged

morlac00 on PSN
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12466


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2010, 02:51:09 PM »

Quote from: The Rocketman on March 14, 2010, 10:16:40 AM

Quote from: cheeba on March 14, 2010, 06:10:43 AM

Quote from: Arkon on March 13, 2010, 04:28:51 PM

I don't play games to be challenged or for competitive reasons.

This makes no sense to me whatsoever. If there's no challenge, what's the point?

Makes perfect sense to me. I play many games for their story, for the escapism into another world or character. I often can't care less for the 'mechanics' behind the games, or how to beat them.

I'll add a +1 to this, and the reasons the OP avoids MP games are similar to my own (Guild Wars is the only MMO i've enjoyed as well smile).  I've actually tried playing a couple MMO's with some of my more hardcore friends, and ended up completely annoyed by the way they simply charged from location to location to get the next big loot item or encounter, without ever taking even 2 seconds to soak up the scenery and atmosphere of the game.  Playing that way made no sense to me at all.

Guess I'll just stick to my Final Fantasy's and Mass Effect's, and keep yelling at all you kids to stay off my virtual lawn.  Tongue
Logged

ďMy next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11329


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2010, 03:19:22 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on March 14, 2010, 12:44:26 PM

Wow. Then you're right and you should not be going online to play games. Online gaming is geared more to the active (playing games) and less to the passive (experiencing games).

There's lots of ways to play games online without being "challenged" or whatever.  How about playing a Gears of War co-op campaign online on easy?  A non-combat character in an MMO?  Goofing around with friends in a racing game, Worms Armageddon, or Crackdown?  "Casual" online games like Carcassonne, Settlers of Catan, Fat Princess, Uno?  A comp-stomp in an RTS?
Logged
ericb
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1652



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2010, 03:49:52 PM »

My only comment...why do you care if you suck?  I can assure you most of the other people I encounter playing multi-player games suck just as bad but don't care.  There's always going to be the "elite", play nothing but this game 20 hours a day, twitch masters but everyone else is in the same boat as you.
Logged
Blackjack
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10823



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2010, 04:04:15 PM »

Quote from: The Rocketman on March 13, 2010, 12:37:13 PM

Itís safe to say that Iím a pansy if it comes to playing games on-line. Iíve only seldom tried it, and almost never enjoyed it much. The reasons I donít enjoy going on-line are simple:
1) I lack the skills my competitors have;
2) I cannot stand rudeness;
3) I get bored quickly with multiplayer games. They offer no incentive for me to keep playing.

However, the forum activity concerning the recent releases of Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Left 4 Dead 2 tempts me. Iíve always enjoyed a good fps, and even more a good cooperative game. Cooperative games of Doom or Halo are among my best gaming memories, so Iím thinking I ought to give them another chance perhaps?

These games, are they accessible for a non-hardcore casual gamer? Are there servers or sites dedicated to players who want a good time with civil players? Or am I really kidding myself here, and does it remain a hardcore niche of gaming?

I can vouch for either L4D being a lot of fun if you prefer co-op. However, in pickup games, you may run into someone who gets pissed off about accidental friendly fire (it's easy enough to jump out of a game and find another one though). And of course you can always play it single player until you're comfortable with it.

I've had my most co-op fun with things like Diablo I/II and Titan Quest. And I used to be in semi-regular groups that would play more deliberately paced tactical shooters like Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, SWAT 3 and 4. Usually we'd all pretend we were better at the games than we really were, but we had fun.  icon_smile
« Last Edit: March 14, 2010, 04:09:02 PM by Blackjack » Logged

Playing
PC
-Halfway (sci-fi, turn-based squad strategy)
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2010, 05:01:07 PM »

Quote from: morlac on March 14, 2010, 02:09:26 PM

That's kind of silly.  In both you are playing a game.

No you're not. A game is designed to be a set of challenges to the player. Most good games actually train you how to play them - they present different challenges and you become better as you play them, and then they use your newly found skills to beat a boss or whatever. If you remove all challenge from a game then you are not playing it. You've become a passive participant in its content, akin to hitting the fast forward button to get through the parts you don't like.

Co-op games just present different challenges. You have to learn to work as a team. You have to help your teammates. Overcome different obstacles, etc.

MMO's always reward time sunk into the game. There are MMO's you can played non-competitively, but as I said, if you really want a decent story you'd be better off looking into books. For example, in Star Wars Galaxies you can play a musician, dancer, or crafter, but each of them has their minor challenges. Oh and there's not really any story to the game whatsoever.
Logged
EngineNo9
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11019


I said good day, sir!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2010, 07:29:04 PM »

I'll just say that I also hate rude people of the sort often found online, but frankly if you're not playing with a headset you never really have to deal with them in a game like Bad Company 2.  You can use the auto-social key for communicating most interactions ("need ammo/health", "attack that", etc), so unless you are playing full hardcore with no HUD and minimap that should work just fine.

And don't worry if you think you're not that good.  You can see my stats in the BC2 thread and even with the low k/d ratio and time alive I always find ways to help my team and not come out on the bottom of the stack in-game.  You can always provide ammo or med packs, revive people, spot enemies, defuse bombs, put tracer darts on tanks, etc.
Logged

Sandwiches do fix everything.
morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2778



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2010, 06:51:28 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on March 14, 2010, 05:01:07 PM

Quote from: morlac on March 14, 2010, 02:09:26 PM

That's kind of silly.  In both you are playing a game.

No you're not. A game is designed to be a set of challenges to the player. Most good games actually train you how to play them - they present different challenges and you become better as you play them, and then they use your newly found skills to beat a boss or whatever. If you remove all challenge from a game then you are not playing it. You've become a passive participant in its content, akin to hitting the fast forward button to get through the parts you don't like.

Co-op games just present different challenges. You have to learn to work as a team. You have to help your teammates. Overcome different obstacles, etc.

MMO's always reward time sunk into the game. There are MMO's you can played non-competitively, but as I said, if you really want a decent story you'd be better off looking into books. For example, in Star Wars Galaxies you can play a musician, dancer, or crafter, but each of them has their minor challenges. Oh and there's not really any story to the game whatsoever.

I never realized it was so black or white...

So exploration in an open world game is not playing it?  Ie, If I venture off the main quest to go see the sites in Oblivion or any MMORPG, I am not activly 'playing' the game anymore?  Even though I am choosing where to go, how to get there, whom to talk with, what to say, etc.?  I dunno that still seems rather silly and going to the extreme to try and make a point. 
Logged

morlac00 on PSN
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2010, 02:23:52 AM »

Quote from: morlac on March 15, 2010, 06:51:28 PM

So exploration in an open world game is not playing it?  Ie, If I venture off the main quest to go see the sites in Oblivion or any MMORPG, I am not activly 'playing' the game anymore?  Even though I am choosing where to go, how to get there, whom to talk with, what to say, etc.?  I dunno that still seems rather silly and going to the extreme to try and make a point. 

Look up. Look at me. Read the part where I said, "if you remove all challenge from a game then you are not playing it" again. Now look at me. Is exploring in a game "removing all challenge", or are there perhaps more challenges in the game yet? Read it again. You're not making sense. I'm on a horse.
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11329


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2010, 12:57:43 PM »

How ironic that this thread began with someone saying he can't stand online rudeness.  icon_surprised
Logged
Arkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6073


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2010, 01:31:27 PM »

Playing a game on easy, so that there is little to no challenge, doesn't take away playing the game.  I played ME2 on easy so that I didn't have to worry that my lack of FPS skills would hinder my ability to play and enjoy the game.

I was still playing the game, exploring, making choices, growing my characters.

When I play Civ IV, I play on a difficulty that I know I can always beat.  I don't play the game to loose, I play the game for the experience of building my civilization from the ground up.

When I play EQ2, 99.9% of the time I am fighting things I know have no chance in beating me.  I am doing quests once they are blue or green and I play a class that is very forgiving.  I am still playing the game.

Perhaps we have a different definition of the word challenge.
Logged
raydude
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1506


SPICE! Nomnomnomnom


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2010, 02:40:42 PM »

I understand that people play many games for their story. I do the same thing. But that's not to say that multiplayer games don't have their own story, or can't.

Remember the D-Day invasion scene from Saving Private Ryan? How the camera focuses on individual soldiers only to see them die a few seconds later? Yet the entire group as a whole moves slowly towards their objective? That's the way it feels for me when playing online. Especially with the newest craze, Battlefield: Bad Company 2.

Yes, there are times when I spawn and die after 15 seconds. Then I'm another person and kill a few before dying after 20. Next I'm a medic and saving a few lives before dying again. But the meta-story is the group dynamic of always moving towards the goal (especially as the attacker on rush maps). Even better is when we're on defense for Rush maps. The 15-30 second snapshots of me helping to stem the tide of the attack. Crazed moments frantically repairing a tank only to see it blown up in front of me. Hilarity when I revive a man before we both go down in a hail of mortar fire. The tense final moments when the voice chatter says to "hold it together, we've almost got it". And the exhilaration when we finally win. Or even when we lose, the feeling that a good game was played.

Yeah there's story there. It all depends on your point of view.
Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush.
"Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."
EngineNo9
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11019


I said good day, sir!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2010, 02:50:59 PM »

Quote from: raydude on March 16, 2010, 02:40:42 PM

It all depends on your point of view.

Exactly, now everybody shut up and let the man have his thread back!  Tongue
Logged

Sandwiches do fix everything.
Aganazer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 502



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2010, 03:04:00 PM »

Quote from: Arkon on March 16, 2010, 01:31:27 PM

Playing a game on easy, so that there is little to no challenge, doesn't take away playing the game.

It definitely depends on the game. If its a content rich story driven game that you know will take 40+ hours either way then easy-mode is fine. Your motivation to play is in the story, world, and characters more than whatever puzzles and strategic challenges the game may contain.

Then again, if the game IS the puzzles and strategic challenges then easy-mode can ruin it. A trivially easy version of Braid or Spelunky would be no fun at all. A trivially easy Dragon Age or ME2 would still have a lot to offer.

Back on topic, what I find hilarious is when someone turns a purely coop game into a competition. If a person feels the need to compete with others while playing Borderlands or non-PvP WoW then I can't imagine it as healthy behavior. Finding self worth through a video game is not a good idea. I've done it plenty and its never had a good psychosocial outcome.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3613


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2010, 03:49:12 PM »

Quote from: Arkon on March 16, 2010, 01:31:27 PM

Perhaps we have a different definition of the word challenge.


Actually, it sounds like you two have different definitions of the word "game."  cheeba sees them as a test to overcome through planning and skill that some people would find frustrating if they fail.  You like them as a low-impact way to relax, enjoy a good narrative, and in the case of Everquest 2, probably hang out with some friends at the same time.  Players like cheeba would probably find that dull and question the point of playing a game if there's no danger of losing.

Since I like both kinds, I think you're both right.  I love playing games like Ninja Gaiden, Thief, or Resident Evil 4 because there's an incredible satisfaction in besting enemies who won't hesitate to knock me dead if I slip up.  On the other hand, I also enjoyed Dreamfall, The Sims 2, and Knights of the Old Republic -- three games that are about as challenging as putting on socks -- because I really enjoyed their stories.  I play Civ IV on a difficulty level where I'll win some of the time because it keeps me on my toes.

My favorite games are the ones that do both really well.  Dragon Age, System Shock 2, Baldur's Gate, God of War: all games with tough challenges, well-defined game mechanics to overcome them, and stories where I'm genuinely interested to find out what happens next.  Even our online Dungeons & Dragons games were equal parts tactical strategy game and hanging out with friends. icon_cool

Where cheeba goes wrong is in claiming that his approach is the only "right" way to play games.  That's just being an ass.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Huw the Poo
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3162


Please feed dog


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2010, 03:52:31 PM »

Autistic Angel wins this thread. thumbsup
Logged

Resident anti-Steam troll
Steam profile
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2010, 07:09:05 PM »

Quote from: Arkon on March 16, 2010, 01:31:27 PM

Playing a game on easy, so that there is little to no challenge, doesn't take away playing the game.  I played ME2 on easy so that I didn't have to worry that my lack of FPS skills would hinder my ability to play and enjoy the game.

I was still playing the game, exploring, making choices, growing my characters.

There's nothing to really explore in ME2, it's all linear. And what do the choices or the growing matter when there's no challenge? What's the point of being a soldier or an infiltrator or a vanguard if the game play is basically the exact same with no challenge whatsoever? Can you really say your character is growing if your choices don't really affect your character because regardless of what you choose there's no challenge anyways?

That's why I say you're more passive - you're experiencing the game rather than playing it, because you are intentionally bypassing the challenges. And that's fine, I mean it's your buck and all. But if you're going online then it's going to be more difficult for you guys because most people like to play their games, especially when they're online, where they can find a better challenge than the game creators can make - a human mind.

Quote
Perhaps we have a different definition of the word challenge.

I'm not so sure that we do. You and I both know what the word challenge means, it's just you don't want it while I do.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: March 16, 2010, 07:15:50 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on March 16, 2010, 03:49:12 PM

Where cheeba goes wrong is in claiming that his approach is the only "right" way to play games.  That's just being an ass.

Ah there's the personal insults you're known for smile.

I'm not claiming my approach is the only "right" way to play games. I'm saying that if you remove ALL challenge from a game then you're not really playing it - you're experiencing it, going through the motions to get through it.

And for the record, exploration can be and often is a challenge in lots of games. I get the more casual play, I really do. In Star Wars Galaxies I had a crafter. The challenge there was to make the best part, so you had to find the best resources. You had to barter with other people who had resources you wanted. It was a challenge. But many nights I just sat in the cantina and talked to people. Other times we had raids that lasted 3 days solid. You don't need a challenge all the time, you just need to have some challenge in the game somewhere or else you may as well be reading a book.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: March 16, 2010, 07:20:25 PM »

This thread makes more sense if you recognize that Cheeba thinks of "posting in forums" as a game for which he needs to generate challenges.
Logged
Arkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6073


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 16, 2010, 11:40:39 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on March 16, 2010, 07:09:05 PM

Quote from: Arkon on March 16, 2010, 01:31:27 PM

Playing a game on easy, so that there is little to no challenge, doesn't take away playing the game.  I played ME2 on easy so that I didn't have to worry that my lack of FPS skills would hinder my ability to play and enjoy the game.

I was still playing the game, exploring, making choices, growing my characters.

There's nothing to really explore in ME2, it's all linear. And what do the choices or the growing matter when there's no challenge? What's the point of being a soldier or an infiltrator or a vanguard if the game play is basically the exact same with no challenge whatsoever? Can you really say your character is growing if your choices don't really affect your character because regardless of what you choose there's no challenge anyways?

That's why I say you're more passive - you're experiencing the game rather than playing it, because you are intentionally bypassing the challenges. And that's fine, I mean it's your buck and all. But if you're going online then it's going to be more difficult for you guys because most people like to play their games, especially when they're online, where they can find a better challenge than the game creators can make - a human mind.

Yes, my character is growing, because the growth of my character is independent of challenge.  I am gaining new skills to use, I am making decisions that are either paragon, or renegade, I am becoming more powerful.

In Dragon Age, I still had to fight the battles and use strategy, but by playing on easy it allowed me a very large margin for error so that even tho I wasn't good at it, I still was able to take on every encounter to experience all the game had to offer.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 17, 2010, 02:05:13 AM »

Quote from: Arkon on March 16, 2010, 11:40:39 PM

In Dragon Age, I still had to fight the battles and use strategy, but by playing on easy it allowed me a very large margin for error so that even tho I wasn't good at it, I still was able to take on every encounter to experience all the game had to offer.

Except you didn't experience all the game had to offer. The developers put what I would assume was significant time and energy into creating challenges that would... well, challenge, the normal player. I haven't yet played Dragon Age so I can't really speak to specifics there (it's the first game I'm getting with my new PC in a day or two). But look at Mass Effect 2, which I believe we both played. In the higher difficulties you had to contend with barriers, shields, armor and health, forcing you to play very differently from the lower difficulty levels. In lower difficulty levels, you could have had anyone on your team and it wouldn't matter. In higher difficulty levels you had to make sure your team was diverse and that you had skills/weapons to take out any challenge - each weapon affected each challenge differently.

The game offered you challenges. If you removed or bypassed them, then you certainly have not experienced all the game has to offer. Now, again, I'll state that it's perfectly OK for you to do so. It's not wrong to play a game like you play it. It's just not what I would call "playing." It's like solitaire, when it was played with actual cards and not on computers. If you cheat at solitaire and select any card through the deck that fits, are you really playing solitaire? I'd say no, not really.
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11329


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: March 17, 2010, 02:48:28 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on March 17, 2010, 02:05:13 AM

If you cheat at solitaire and select any card through the deck that fits, are you really playing solitaire? I'd say no, not really.

But even if you're not playing the game, are you playing a game?  Certainly.  That's the point that's everyone's trying to make.  Some of us can still have fun just goofing around playing Calvinball.
Logged
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12466


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: March 17, 2010, 03:56:21 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on March 17, 2010, 02:05:13 AM

Quote from: Arkon on March 16, 2010, 11:40:39 PM

In Dragon Age, I still had to fight the battles and use strategy, but by playing on easy it allowed me a very large margin for error so that even tho I wasn't good at it, I still was able to take on every encounter to experience all the game had to offer.

Except you didn't experience all the game had to offer. The developers put what I would assume was significant time and energy into creating challenges that would... well, challenge, the normal player. I haven't yet played Dragon Age so I can't really speak to specifics there (it's the first game I'm getting with my new PC in a day or two). But look at Mass Effect 2, which I believe we both played. In the higher difficulties you had to contend with barriers, shields, armor and health, forcing you to play very differently from the lower difficulty levels. In lower difficulty levels, you could have had anyone on your team and it wouldn't matter. In higher difficulty levels you had to make sure your team was diverse and that you had skills/weapons to take out any challenge - each weapon affected each challenge differently.

You call it "challenge", I call it "completely unnecessary frustration".  I'm horrible at FPS on consoles (always have been) and "playing" the game at higher difficulty as you suggest, becomes nothing more than an exercise in frustration, not fun.   I have enough stress in my real life and play games to escape from that, not add to it.  Also, if the developers really didn't want anyone to play at an easier difficulty level, they wouldn't have included one.

Using the ME2 example, I didn't really care whether or not the enemies were difficult or challenging, I just wanted to blast through them to get to the next segment of the story and character development.  You seem to see it differently where the enjoyment of the game is all about the overcoming the difficulty level.  Both are perfectly acceptable ways of playing a game.
Logged

ďMy next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: March 17, 2010, 04:32:47 AM »

Quote from: Gratch on March 17, 2010, 03:56:21 AM

You seem to see it differently where the enjoyment of the game is all about the overcoming the difficulty level.  

Argh, no. People keep trying to pigeonhole me into that role and that is ignoring what I've written several times now.

1. A game with no challenge whatsoever, where you just skate by to see the cut scenes or whatever = more like an interactive book, passive.
2. A game with at least some, in other words, not zero, challenge, which can (and almost always does) include some exploring or other non-active challenge = active, playing a game.

Both are valid.
Neither one is right.
In my view, one is more active (and more representative of online gameplay) and the other is more akin to reading a book or flipping through a graphic novel online, and is much more difficult to find in online gaming.
Logged
morlac
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2778



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: March 17, 2010, 06:37:08 PM »

Quote from: wonderpug on March 16, 2010, 12:57:43 PM

How ironic that this thread began with someone saying he can't stand online rudeness.  icon_surprised

Yea seriously.  I'm done commenting.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2010, 06:43:44 PM by morlac » Logged

morlac00 on PSN
Harkonis
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9730



View Profile
« Reply #39 on: March 17, 2010, 06:40:32 PM »

Quote from: morlac on March 17, 2010, 06:37:08 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on March 16, 2010, 12:57:43 PM

How ironic that this thread began with someone saying he can't stand online rudeness.  icon_surprised

Yea serisouly.  I'm done commenting.

you would be     ninja
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.198 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.051s, 2q)