Casuals vs. Bads: A Gaming Issue

Recommended Videos

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
-Firstly, the problem is most players don't fucking know how to play properly and don't care. Look at any shooter and 90% of the players just don't play properly regardless of their shooting skills, they simply don't know how to play an objective and probably never will. If you're lucky (and have people at least trying to WIN), playing a shooter these days is like watching a game of kids playing soccer with everyone running to the objective at once instead of staying in their area. Or it's just everyone camping.

CeeBod pretty much sums it up:
CeeBod said:
...a Noob will always be a Noob because they are incapable of learning...
---

-Secondly, every game should have classes/characters/playstyles that don't require a high skill level like a medic or a shotgunner in shooters. You don't need great shooting skills to play those roles/classes. Whereas probably less than 1% of a shooter community actually has the smarts and shooting skill to play sniper PROPERLY.

Basically what BloatedGuppy says:
BloatedGuppy said:
A well designed game should have an incredibly low skill floor, and an incredibly high skill ceiling...
---

Phasmal said:
And hey, we'll always have Dark Souls/Bloodborne.
I'm still waiting for the "hard" version of a Souls game, every enemy outside of a couple bosses are so easy to kill and can all be killed by the same strategy. Bloodborne kinda made everyone "git gud" to a degree because you couldn't use cheap magic or turtle your way through the game. Even with the faster pace and removal of cheap mechanics, all the enemies were still extreme pushovers that all require the same strategy. Playing well in a Souls game just requires a mindset of every action you take is the action that allows for the most survivability. There's very little skill required to play a Souls game.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
Paragon Fury said:
So, this was brought to mind again by this article here:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...ing-To-Play-Fighting-Games-and-EVO-Rising-Thu

Its about how to make fighting games better for those who aren't very good at them. However, both in the article and the discussion afterwards the term "casual" seems to be getting used the wrong way and it seems to be causing some confusion over what some people are opposing.

This is true of many other games too - WoW, Halo, Call of Duty, Battlefield etc. What I, and I suspect many others when they use the word "casual" when they really mean "bad" is that we're getting tired of developers changing and developing games to cater to bad players. Not casual players, but people who are bad at the game(s).

The difference lies in this - "casual" is a measure of time, not ability. Casual players can still be pretty good; they just don't play a lot or need help finding other players. Bad players on the other hand, are increasingly getting catered to, and people who aren't bad and who like higher quality and competition in their games (like me) are getting kind of miffed.

Examples of games catering to bad players; WoW since the introduction of LFR (ironically, this could've been an awesome feature for casuals, but wound up being a place for bad kids), the entirety of Halo 4, 3D Spotting added into Battlefield starting in Bad Company 1 etc. These are all things that were added specifically to help bad players beat better[/]i players that they shouldn't have a chance against.

Or, in the case of fighting games; reducing a game to the simple inputs and not requiring combos without adding complexity somewhere else is dumbing down the game for bad players - adding a more in-depth tutorial and and guided matches helps the casual player learn (and helps the skilled player get better).



You're factually incorrect about your assumption. You simply can't get good in a fighting game as a casual because by definition, the genre requires TONS of time spend on it to breach even the "slightly ok" level of skill. This is the reason why they use the term interchangeably with the term "bad". It's an intricacy of the genre, one not shared within the broader game world.


The fighting game competitive scene is one that has had members participate in it literally for decades. They have elated the level of the "common match" to an exorbitant degree. As a result, you can't expect to catch up to this in a casual playtime.
 

the_dramatica

New member
Dec 6, 2014
272
0
0
I wish I had more to contribute to this rare topic, however I must say casual markets do not bless the fighting game genre. Devs know this as well. There are very, very few casuals(people not willing to put time down) that want to play fighting games, since they revolve around pvp and therefore practice, and thus little point in catering to them in this genre. I mean, it's not like fighting games have ever had great ways to present narratives or anything, the gameplay is all they have.
 

Phasmal

Sailor Jupiter Woman
Jun 10, 2011
3,676
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
Phasmal said:
And hey, we'll always have Dark Souls/Bloodborne.
I'm still waiting for the "hard" version of a Souls game, every enemy outside of a couple bosses are so easy to kill and can all be killed by the same strategy. Bloodborne kinda made everyone "git gud" to a degree because you couldn't use cheap magic or turtle your way through the game. Even with the faster pace and removal of cheap mechanics, all the enemies were still extreme pushovers that all require the same strategy. Playing well in a Souls game just requires a mindset of every action you take is the action that allows for the most survivability. There's very little skill required to play a Souls game.
Hahaha, I knew as soon as I posted that I'd get someone quoting me being like `They're not even hard!`.
Personally I think doing all the achievements takes skill, definitely a few of the bosses in the Chalice dungeons in Bloodborne.
But whatever, to each their own.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Paragon Fury said:
So, this was brought to mind again by this article here:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...ing-To-Play-Fighting-Games-and-EVO-Rising-Thu

Its about how to make fighting games better for those who aren't very good at them. However, both in the article and the discussion afterwards the term "casual" seems to be getting used the wrong way and it seems to be causing some confusion over what some people are opposing.

This is true of many other games too - WoW, Halo, Call of Duty, Battlefield etc. What I, and I suspect many others when they use the word "casual" when they really mean "bad" is that we're getting tired of developers changing and developing games to cater to bad players. Not casual players, but people who are bad at the game(s).

The difference lies in this - "casual" is a measure of time, not ability. Casual players can still be pretty good; they just don't play a lot or need help finding other players. Bad players on the other hand, are increasingly getting catered to, and people who aren't bad and who like higher quality and competition in their games (like me) are getting kind of miffed.

Examples of games catering to bad players; WoW since the introduction of LFR (ironically, this could've been an awesome feature for casuals, but wound up being a place for bad kids), the entirety of Halo 4, 3D Spotting added into Battlefield starting in Bad Company 1 etc. These are all things that were added specifically to help bad players beat better[/]i players that they shouldn't have a chance against.

Or, in the case of fighting games; reducing a game to the simple inputs and not requiring combos without adding complexity somewhere else is dumbing down the game for bad players - adding a more in-depth tutorial and and guided matches helps the casual player learn (and helps the skilled player get better).


I understand the desire to want to pull away from the casual stigma, after all casuals do not like to be treated as second class citizens by serious gamers. HOWEVER the bottom line is that with most games even those without talent achieve a certain level of proficiency through playing a lot. Casuals by definition tend to be "bad" by not having invested the time to reach even the level of rote learning. Usually it burns because casuals are identified correctly as those who are not seriously invested in gaming. Get used to it, it's the return fire for those who aren't into the gaming "lifestyle" being told to "get a life" and otherwise insulted for it.

Casual can also have a lot to do with your investment in a specific game, someone who games a lot might still be a casual player of say "Street Fighter" if they don't play it regularly.

Today due to my aging hands and other problems I'm a casual player of most games even though I used to be quite hardcore. It's been this way for years now and I doubt it will return to the way it was without a time machine (and face it, if I had one of those, my first thought wouldn't be to recapture gaming "glories").

Face if, if your one of those people mocking someone for making say Street Fighter IV their "life's work" you can deal with having the same mockery thrown back at you. It's a back and forth that will never end as long as there are enough people seriously into games for there to be a subculture of sorts.
 

joest01

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2009
399
0
21
I am guilty of playing fighting games in "non meaningful" ways. Thing is, I don't really play them. I have dabbled in trying to learn VF5 but never got into it enough to stick with it.

But I think the situation for fighting games is very different. You know what I think the difference for me is? In fighting games I feel absolutely no connection between my input and what my toon is doing on the screen. I am trying to remember the combo for a simple batarang through in injustice, it was silly, and that is supposed to be an "approachable" fighting game.

And I like to have that connection. I have no problem in Ninja Gaiden. Throwing a Shuriken is a friggen circle. Pressing jump and light attack to jump on an enemy makes sense. Going STSSST somehow feels like I am actually picking him up spinning him around and dropping him down. Etc.

But maybe I fall inbetween the cracks here. Maybe at heart your definition of hardcore is somebody who is completely removed from the action, presses buttons to achieve objectives in the most efficient manner. At the other end of the spectrum, the casual player just likes to be immersed in the game world. (btw this can be a very time consuming task, I imagine a lot of mobile players spend much more time gaming than I do). And I like the two to be connected. I like a challenge, but in the context of the game.

The other small point I would like to make is that there are games coming out that are basically love letters to the more skill oriented player. And you know what happens? Nobody buys them. Examples? Dustforce. Velocity. Even something like Korra. Or the Wonderful101.
 

Dalsyne

New member
Jul 13, 2015
74
0
0
Paragon Fury said:
The difference lies in this - "casual" is a measure of time, not ability.
Yeah I don't know about that. There's a direct correlation between skill at a game and time played, and "bad" players are only that way because they haven't learned the necessary things to compete at a higher level. Someone who is still bad after 1000 hours of play simply hasn't gone through enough struggle and/or learned the things he needs to learn. This is usually because they've been too casual to get interested in the nuances of competitive play.

But you can play the game for 1000 hours and still be casual - case in point, people who do not engage in endgame content in an MMO (say, WoW) preferring instead to level alts, do pet battles and other content aimed at casual play. You can have an accumulated lifetime of playing an MMO casually, and you won't be good at it nor will you be hardcore. And you can also play 12 hours per day doing only casual stuff.

The issue is not making it easier for bad people, but getting people to play the hundreds of hours necessary for practicing and being good at a higher level. More accessibility helps with that (in fighting games, doubly so) but the best method is just making a good effin' game that you can play over and over without getting bored.
 

SquallTheBlade

New member
May 25, 2011
258
0
0
joest01 said:
But I think the situation for fighting games is very different. You know what I think the difference for me is? In fighting games I feel absolutely no connection between my input and what my toon is doing on the screen. I am trying to remember the combo for a simple batarang through in injustice, it was silly, and that is supposed to be an "approachable" fighting game.
You press a button and your character does a move. Is it really that different from any other game?

And I like to have that connection. I have no problem in Ninja Gaiden. Throwing a Shuriken is a friggen circle. Pressing jump and light attack to jump on an enemy makes sense. Going STSSST somehow feels like I am actually picking him up spinning him around and dropping him down. Etc.
Lambda in BlazBlue. Pressing button D is a projectile. Jumping and pressing any button is a jumping attack. How is that any different from Ninja Gaiden? You press a button, you get a action.

The other small point I would like to make is that there are games coming out that are basically love letters to the more skill oriented player. And you know what happens? Nobody buys them. Examples? Dustforce. Velocity. Even something like Korra. Or the Wonderful101.
But there IS a audience for those. I know people who have bought those. I've even heard good things about Wonderful101 from those people.
 

joest01

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2009
399
0
21
SquallTheBlade said:
joest01 said:
But I think the situation for fighting games is very different. You know what I think the difference for me is? In fighting games I feel absolutely no connection between my input and what my toon is doing on the screen. I am trying to remember the combo for a simple batarang through in injustice, it was silly, and that is supposed to be an "approachable" fighting game.
You press a button and your character does a move. Is it really that different from any other game?

And I like to have that connection. I have no problem in Ninja Gaiden. Throwing a Shuriken is a friggen circle. Pressing jump and light attack to jump on an enemy makes sense. Going STSSST somehow feels like I am actually picking him up spinning him around and dropping him down. Etc.
Lambda in BlazBlue. Pressing button D is a projectile. Jumping and pressing any button is a jumping attack. How is that any different from Ninja Gaiden? You press a button, you get a action.

The other small point I would like to make is that there are games coming out that are basically love letters to the more skill oriented player. And you know what happens? Nobody buys them. Examples? Dustforce. Velocity. Even something like Korra. Or the Wonderful101.
But there IS a audience for those. I know people who have bought those. I've even heard good things about Wonderful101 from those people.
The difference - to me, maybe I am alone here - is that pressing left right light attack has nothing to do with throwing a batarang. and throwing a batarang should be something quick and simple. And I remember my dabblings with VF5 were like that across the board, you dialed combos and your toon reacted, yes. But there is a fine art to making it intuitive. Of course STSSST for Izuna drop is the same concept but it feels intuitive to me. In my mind it becomes jab uppercut spin spin spin SMASH :) I think there is a reason that recent character action games have experimented with getting away from dial a combo combat engines. (specifically DmC and MGR:R)

Thanks for the Blazblue tip. Maybe I should pick that up the next time it pops up on a psn sale :) Is the Vita version any good?

And good news on the love for W101!

To the guys debating *.souls above. Back in Demon's I could look at somebodys blue or red sign and look at their stats and rating before summoning. Was a decent filter to weed out the "bad"'s :)
 

briankoontz

New member
May 17, 2010
656
0
0
Something Amyss said:
And hey, we'll always have Dark Souls/Bloodborne.
Well, until they add that optional easy mode which will totally ruin the game for me because how can I possibly enjoy the game knowing other people are playing it wrong?
It wouldn't hurt the enjoyment of play for US, but rather for *them*. A substantial part of the artistic value of those games is in their difficulty, which matches up with the despair, terror, and mystery of their themes. A faceroll mode would hurt the quality of the game.

The psychic *weight* of the enemies depends on their difficulty. A faceroll Dark Souls boss wouldn't actually be wielding a giant club, but rather a giant feather disguised as a club.

The lack of difficulty settings for Dark Souls is part of respecting the game world. New players can't be expected to understand this. A narrative gamer might be at the store, pick up the Dark Souls box modified to include easy mode, and play through the game without being allowed to appreciate a good deal of the value of the game. He can't unsee what he's seen - he can never undo what he did and go back to get all the value from playing the current version.

Part of being a gamer is adapting *ourselves* to the game, not adapting the game to ourselves. This is true of any work of art. If we decide we don't completely understand the Mona Lisa we don't "touch-up" the painting here and there so that we can "fully appreciate it" - we develop OURSELVES, our own understanding of the world, and then re-examine the painting with a new mind.

We are there to explore the game. The game is not there to explore us. What we are actually doing when we ask developers to make games to cater to us is asking them to explore us, to examine us and then make a game for us. Developers become spelunking delvers into our souls so that they can "give them what they want".

If Da Vinci had begun with an analysis of "painting buyers" and then tried to paint something to cater to them, he would have produced crap which may or may not have sold well. Art brings some element of reality into the world, truly understood by no one, certainly not the artist who does so precisely *because* he lacks an understanding. Art for the artist is an attempt to further explore some issue. By bringing it into the world he believes that this exploration can benefit others besides himself.

By asking developers to make games to cater to us, we are saying that we are greater than the art they produce. We're greater than the Mona Lisa. We're greater than Dark Souls. WE should be the subject of every work of art.

This is often mislabeled "entitlement". What it really is is self-aggrandizement. It's sick, and it's wrong.
 

SquallTheBlade

New member
May 25, 2011
258
0
0
joest01 said:
The difference - to me, maybe I am alone here - is that pressing left right light attack has nothing to do with throwing a batarang. and throwing a batarang should be something quick and simple. And I remember my dabblings with VF5 were like that across the board, you dialed combos and your toon reacted, yes. But there is a fine art to making it intuitive. Of course STSSST for Izuna drop is the same concept but it feels intuitive to me. In my mind it becomes jab uppercut spin spin spin SMASH :)
But you can apply that to throwing a batarang too. Your character prepares to throw it by putting his weight back(holding back) and then throws it forward when you press forward + light attack. That seems intuitive to me. You just need to apply different mental images to different inputs.

Again a example of Lambda. She has a special move in the air where she spin around summoning a projectile in front of her that that strikes downwards. The input is 214D. In my mind I think of the motion as the same direction Lambda is spinning during the move. After that it feels intuitive.

Thanks for the Blazblue tip. Maybe I should pick that up the next time it pops up on a psn sale :) Is the Vita version any good?
There is no cross platform play on Vita so you propably can't find that many players online.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
briankoontz said:
It wouldn't hurt the enjoyment of play for US, but rather for *them*.
No. Stop. Right there. The notion that there is any harm in this is too absurd to even entertain, and I won't continue this line of discussion. The notion that you could even make such an argument in the same thread where someone has already pointed out (correctly) that you can simply cheese your way through the game with little difficulty is just farcical.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
joest01 said:
But maybe I fall inbetween the cracks here. Maybe at heart your definition of hardcore is somebody who is completely removed from the action, presses buttons to achieve objectives in the most efficient manner. At the other end of the spectrum, the casual player just likes to be immersed in the game world. (btw this can be a very time consuming task, I imagine a lot of mobile players spend much more time gaming than I do). And I like the two to be connected. I like a challenge, but in the context of the game.

This is sorta correct. You don't think "I wanna kick him with fire into the sky", indeed. You think in terms of move-properties. So that, for example, when you land a fire kick, what you're thinking is "this move will launch the foe thus, allowing me to combo into this other move thus, allowing me to do this specific string of attacks off of that move" and so on.

You don't think in terms of what the moves do visually as much as what they do mechanically in terms of bouncing the foe off a wall or tossing them up into the air or crumpling them and leaving them open for further hits. That sort of stuff. When you play fighting games competitively, the cool thing isn't just doing the fancy move any more. Anyone can do those. We've literally seen them thousands or even tens of thousands of times. They're not cool any more.

The cool thing is doing the fancy, hard, tricky and timing-specific SEQUENCE of moves. The moves themselves may not be at all impressive, it may just be the same one kick 6 times in a row. If it takes a lot of technical skill to perform that move in the heat of the match with adrenaline coursing through your veins, that's much more impressive than just using the coolest move a char has in itself.


On a high level, the mindgame behind what allows someone to land a move is much more beautiful and spectacular than the move in and of itself. This is what we're looking at when we see fights occur. Of course, to appreciate that, you need to be able to actually notice this mindgame and not just see random moves hitting in odd sequences that don't mean anything to you.
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
@Something Amyss
Thing is, those cheese ways are often not something first time players attempt(or even know exist for the most part). Hell, it's not something people on their third run through do that often. There's even speedrunners that don't do the cheese shit because it's not always reliable. Because it requires intimate knowledge of game mechanics, world, locations of items, exactly how many souls certain things cost, exactly how long it takes to get the starting equipment, and a variety of other factors. So honestly you can continue to argue that any attempt to dumb down the game makes it worse at the expense of catering to people that don't pay enough attention or refuse to learn from their mistakes and blame it on the game(there are a handful of areas where this is actually true in the Souls franchise, don't get me wrong, but there's not many of them.)

Hell, if you want numbers, look at Twitch, something like five Bloodborne streams with barely double digit numbers, a dozen each at least of DS2 and DS1, each with at least fifty(with the exception of TPDS, which I'll leave out for obvious reasons), hell, even Demon's Souls has more viewers than Bloodborne right now. The game died nearly as fast as Evolve did, and alot of it was the removal of options, you get something like seven weapons, only like three of which are actually any good and aren't just gimmicky as all hell. They took out alot of magic and just made them into rechareable use items, limiting builds immensely. They got rid of shields, and moved it completely to dodging(which I was personally fine with, it was the easiest playstyle for me in DS1 and 2, but alot of people liked that extra security, even if it was mostly just in their heads), and introduced a parry system that sometimes didn't work on the same types of enemies at the same frames of the same attacks. Not to mention PvP turned into who farmed up the most blood vials before banging the bell on the nearest wall instead of actual skill or outplay. Which leads into the next thing that was an absolute nightmare in that game, namely the farming mechanic which was a gigantic waste of time later on, because as Souls likes to do, their bosses chunk you each time you get hit, and you will get hit alot more in BB than any other game, it's just the nature of the way it's set up, so each boss attempt you're going to go through at least five vials, and you can only have like a total of 120 before you have to go and kill some easy to kill, but also costly in terms of bullets.

At least later on you can just buy them, but it's still such a waste of time. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed BB, but I've gone through DS1 and 2 with three different playthroughs each, with a total of six different builds. I played through BB once, and still have no desire to go back to it, because you can't go tanky, Ima face tank and trade blow for blow against this mother. You can't go rapier and just have one GOOD blow every five minutes. You can't be the rolling mage that screams terrified around a fight throwing random spells at people. Instead, everyone is the guy they wished they could be in those other games by design, you're the pro dodger that knows exactly when to jump to get away from an attack and get in a couple hits while parrying and insta-killing shit.

I mean, it's fun for a while, and then you realize there's not a huge amount more to the combat of the game. I mean you can still do Chalice dungeons, but their components are once again farmed items that don't have a guaranteed drop. And you can still find easy 5-second ways to kill the boss like Dragonrider in DS2 or Bed of Chaos in DS1, but that's not something people do on their first few attempts at a boss.

And then there's fighting games, where there's honestly a pretty wide variety, but all people see is the Netherrealm shite and Street Fighter(both of which are very pretty and visually exciting for the most part, but NR likes projectiles way too much so most fights become just standing and throwing shit at each other past a certain point, and anyone that doesn't have them had better have an endless combo you can pull off)

In short, yes, simplifying games makes them "worse". In some cases it can be good, but there's alot of genres and games that need that complexity to work. Rimworld's an ok DF clone, in some ways it's even nice that you can directly control the colonists, but they're braindead if you don't in so many situations. And there's no Z modifier, meaning that you're stuck with whatever is randomly generated with your map, but it also makes some things easier because you don't have to worry about aquifers and primordial evil Ratkings or whatever. Divekick's a simplified fighting game, it gives quite a bit of practice on spacing and footsies, but that's about all it's got, it's a party game.

Dreiko said:
On a high level, the mindgame behind what allows someone to land a move is much more beautiful and spectacular than the move in and of itself. This is what we're looking at when we see fights occur. Of course, to appreciate that, you need to be able to actually notice this mindgame and not just see random moves hitting in odd sequences that don't mean anything to you.
Gonna second this. I'm not really impressed by Dudley's ultimate anymore, I'm just surprised I'm able to get it off. Slayer's endless combos I've got memorized and can pull off against most players besides maybe Bridgette mains. I love being able to outplay them anymore, not how spectacular the moves themselves are.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Phasmal said:
Hahaha, I knew as soon as I posted that I'd get someone quoting me being like `They're not even hard!`.
Personally I think doing all the achievements takes skill, definitely a few of the bosses in the Chalice dungeons in Bloodborne.
But whatever, to each their own.
Dark Souls was one of the most disappointing games because I expected a hard as nails game as I heard you have to learn each enemy's moves and such. I played and realized you can do the same thing to every enemy and there's really no point in learning enemy move sets whereas even a game like Uncharted makes you change up your strategy. Even with a thief/rogue, you can block everything. People only die in a Souls game because they don't have the right mindset. The Souls games are odd in the sense that I like the challenge of having to make it from point A to B without dying but then you can't really play in a more fun, stylized manner (going for ripostes, fighting groups of enemies, etc.) because you will die doing that even if you are good enough that you can execute into the 90 percentiles. The game actually punishes you for trying to play in a more skilled manner.