So youtube randomly decided that I would enjoy watching videos of classic nintendo games (SNES, N64, etc.). They were right, of course. As I was watching them, I was thinking about what made those games fun, and why I felt like many of the games I have experienced today don't seem as fun. These are my thoughts:
Those classic games were skill games. Sure, most were single player, but the most enjoyable part about them was just playing them well. Not the story, the graphics, or any of that stuff, but the controls, the reflexes, the speed, and the excitement. Now, most of these aren't present in RPG games, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be.
To take a classic example, Super Mario RPG took skill in traversing the map in order to find hidden items, avoid enemies, complete challenges, or play minigames. Even in battle, you got bonus damage and defense if your reflexes were good enough.
Now, for a non-RPG example, Kirby Superstar. That was a game you could play over and over and over and over, mastering new abilities each time. Making it through a level with a certain ability or killing a boss a special way was very satisfying.
After realizing this, I'm going to be making a conscious effort to try and make my games more 'skilled.' What do you guys think?
Definitely. You know what my cousin said about FF13?
QuoteSure, it's Final Fantasy and all. But the game is way too easy. It's not the fact that it's easy that bothers me but the fact that everything is so automated. The game is literally idiot proof. When the battle is over, you get healed automatically. When you die, you don't get back to the last save point but only continue from where you entered the last battle. You even have no control over your party members.
From what I saw of the game at his place, you can win battles without doing anything. You can play through the whole game like that. Just grind a lot (again, without actually playing) and then go beat up the next boss. It's a no-brainer. :/
I recently noticed that , too, when i got my emulators for my IPhone I replayed alot of old games, and holy hell, some if them where difficult. I mean, In Super Mario Land 2, you even lost all your progress when you were out of lifes (Though that didn't happen this time) and in Zeldait was actually difficult to find new dungeons and solve side quests.
But that aside, yes, games back then were much more based on skills, especially the battle systems.
this is why I loved the Golden sun games. it wasn't as simple as walking through a maze while grinding and then launching an all out attack on the boss, with the same strategy working on every boss in the game. no, you had to think, solve puzzles just to find out where to go next, then you had to solve more puzzles to get to your goal. and then when fighting the boss you had to find its week points other wise failure was a real possibility. the extra bosses were especially difficult, one of them could use your set dijin agenced you, another was immune to psyenergy, another was so well balanced in its strengths that defeating it took real skill not just strength. and the last was just so over overwhelmingly powerful that the only way I found to beat it was an all out suicide attack. no really I have one pary member left out of 8 with 58/2356 hp when he finally went down.
it was made better because it had good story and good graphics (for it's platform).
I'll stand by this statement. a good game is one that challenges you in a way that requires skill.
my friend made a remark that playing FF13 was akin to watching a movie with interactive cut-scenes
I hope CP does that. xD
I have to disagree. What made the classic RPGs good is the story and characters. CT and FF7 are considered classics, and they had awesome and engaging stories. Later renditions of FF series are just badly repeated cliches, shallow characters (FFX is a great example, as every character seemed mentally handicapped), or poorly grounded story ideas (FF8). These games were also new and fresh. They were not cliches.
Puzzles were more in the NES era games. When I play an RPG it's primarily because I'm into the story. There are puzzle games and there are RPGs...
Quote from: Blizzard on September 28, 2010, 02:45:44 am
From what I saw of the game at his place, you can win battles without doing anything. You can play through the whole game like that. Just grind a lot (again, without actually playing) and then go beat up the next boss. It's a no-brainer. :/
Actually, they took pretty drastic anti-grind measures with FFXIII. The growth system is restricted and expands after each chapter. You don't get complete access until after the final boss.
Anyway, as RPGs are supposed to be games of numbers first and foremost, I think the ideal reflex systems would be affected by character attributes. For example, when using a bow, you'd need to drag a crosshair over the enemy which would remain relatively still or shake erratically depending on your accuracy stat. Combined with the ability to target individual sections/limbs of your enemies, you'd be able to strike weak points more consistently with higher accuracy, or be lucky to hit anything at all at lower values. Furthermore, your proficiency with bows would determine how many arrows you could actually fire.
Aside from that, I think the best way of implementing skill into an RPG is through good ol' fashioned strategy. Simply force the player to think about what they're doing in battle.
Sorry for double post - half asleep.
Edit: Just a side note: skill and reflexes are more involved in fps games. The bottom line is, for a Role playing game the role has to be convincing and engaging. I wouldn't skim through a crappy story for the gameplay, if the story is supposed to be the center piece.
Quote from: winkio on September 28, 2010, 12:28:48 am
So youtube randomly decided that I would enjoy watching videos of classic nintendo games (SNES, N64, etc.). They were right, of course. As I was watching them, I was thinking about what made those games fun, and why I felt like many of the games I have experienced today don't seem as fun. These are my thoughts:
Those classic games were skill games. Sure, most were single player, but the most enjoyable part about them was just playing them well. Not the story, the graphics, or any of that stuff, but the controls, the reflexes, the speed, and the excitement. Now, most of these aren't present in RPG games, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be.
To take a classic example, Super Mario RPG took skill in traversing the map in order to find hidden items, avoid enemies, complete challenges, or play minigames. Even in battle, you got bonus damage and defense if your reflexes were good enough.
Now, for a non-RPG example, Kirby Superstar. That was a game you could play over and over and over and over, mastering new abilities each time. Making it through a level with a certain ability or killing a boss a special way was very satisfying.
After realizing this, I'm going to be making a conscious effort to try and make my games more 'skilled.' What do you guys think?
I guess I'll have to play captain obvious... What made those games most fun was the bar wasn't set as high as it is today.
Quote from: poxysmash on September 28, 2010, 06:14:39 am
Just a side note: skill and reflexes are more involved in fps games. The bottom line is, for a Role playing game the role has to be convincing and engaging. I wouldn't skim through a crappy story for the gameplay, if the story is supposed to be the center piece.
So just because a game is story centered, it's okay if the gameplay is crap? My point wasn't that games should be all gameplay and nothing else. Rather, it was that people are focusing so much on developing the story and the graphics that they are forgetting about developing the gameplay as well. There's no reason that a game can't have everything polished.
Quote from: Ryexander on September 28, 2010, 03:06:45 ammy friend made a remark that playing FF13 was akin to watching a movie with interactive cut-scenes
FF Ive been a loyal fan.I loved X and I enjoyed 12
but 13 is an unforgivable piece of shit.
ill even llive throgh 8 agian before playing that ever agian
It's interesting to see so many different combinations. I liked 8 and what I played of 12, but I hated 10. The characters were awkward, annoying and unreal. I noticed that 8 is a love-hate game. Some love it, others hate it. There is no in-between. Of course, 13 sucked from I've seen (not heard).
EDIT: Oh god, I rhymed that. ._.
your a poet and didn't know it!
shortest poem in the world,
"Me, we" -Ali
Quote from: Blizzard on September 28, 2010, 02:03:32 pm
It's interesting to see so many different combinations. I liked 8 and what I played of 12, but I hated 10. The characters were awkward, annoying and unreal. I noticed that 8 is a love-hate game. Some love it, others hate it. There is no in-between. Of course, 13 sucked from I've seen (not heard).
I liked 8 somewhat its game play was trying to be original and different and the story was different side of square,so it was bound to get alot of love hate response.
I know one critic personaly made 9 videos disscussing how he thought it was complete shit.and even played through it.
X for me was All game play,only three of the characters are likable.
Lulu,Auron and Kimahri. My personal team.
I love the sphere grid idea and wished they would expand that style in 11,because I thought it would be cool if you could add stuff to it.using friend spheres to get abilities from your party.
the story was pretty hit or miss too.And i personaly think Wakka is a white* supremacist irl.Cause he says things that are simply insensitive.
"Boom like happy festival fireworks"
-on the subject of blowing up Home.
Quote from: 36inc on September 28, 2010, 02:19:59 pm
Quote from: Blizzard on September 28, 2010, 02:03:32 pm
It's interesting to see so many different combinations. I liked 8 and what I played of 12, but I hated 10. The characters were awkward, annoying and unreal. I noticed that 8 is a love-hate game. Some love it, others hate it. There is no in-between. Of course, 13 sucked from I've seen (not heard).
I liked 8 somewhat its game play was trying to be original and different and the story was different side of square,so it was bound to get alot of love hate response.
I know one critic personaly made 9 videos disscussing how he thought it was complete shit.and even played through it.
X for me was All game play,only three of the characters are likable.
Lulu,Auron and Kimahri. My personal team.
I love the sphere grid idea and wished they would expand that style in 11,because I thought it would be cool if you could add stuff to it.using friend spheres to get abilities from your party.
the story was pretty hit or miss too.And i personaly think Wakka is a white* supremacist irl.Cause he says things that are simply insensitive.
"Boom like happy festival fireworks"
-on the subject of blowing up Home.
Because white supremaciats definitely are the only persons i this world who say insensitive things.
Also, I never liked any final fantasy games, and trust me I tired. They jus could never match any of the tales games for me in terms of having realistic characters and a story that actually moves me.
QuoteBecause white supremaciats definitely are the only persons i this world who say insensitive things.
Also, I never liked any final fantasy games, and trust me I tired. They jus could never match any of the tales games for me in terms of having realistic characters and a story that actually moves me.
Well He hates the Al bed. which is kinda like a race apart from his own.
Wakka says simular things anyone would hear a white supremacist say.After all
he compared their home country being burned to ashes as "happy festival fireworks"
And I think the same way kinda FF is great but persona games are definitely better.
If I had to list my favorite 10 RPGs there would only be 1 FF
and of course thats VII.
it would look something like this.
10: Zelda (Ocarina of time)
9:Disgea 2
8:blue dragon series
7:Dark cload series
6:Paper mario
5:Frontier saGa
4:Kingdom hearts
3:FFVII
2:Xenosaga
1:persona series
Alright, but let's not let this become a topic about FF.
So... Super Mario 64. That game had a certain degree of difficulty if you have never played a 3D game before.
Quote from: Blizzard on September 28, 2010, 04:16:39 pm
Alright, but let's not let this become a topic about FF.
So... Super Mario 64. That game had a certain degree of difficulty if you have never played a 3D game before.
Nah its was fun though.
A game I remember for being totaly skill needed was bushido blade.
Chaos Legion was quite hard on hard mode. And I remember Mario Party. Wow, that game had a few really difficulty minigames. The racing one was pure hell. (I'm talking about single-player, Minigame Island.)
Quote from: Blizzard on September 28, 2010, 05:10:23 pm
Chaos Legion was quite hard on hard mode. And I remember Mario Party. Wow, that game had a few really difficulty minigames. The racing one was pure hell. (I'm talking about single-player, Minigame Island.)
Omg I love chaos legion!!
Quote from: winkio on September 28, 2010, 01:38:12 pm
So just because a game is story centered, it's okay if the gameplay is crap? My point wasn't that games should be all gameplay and nothing else. Rather, it was that people are focusing so much on developing the story and the graphics that they are forgetting about developing the gameplay as well. There's no reason that a game can't have everything polished.
No argument there. I'm just saying the story should be the main focus, otherwise, there's not much point.
I don't necessarily agree with that. A game can be very good and have a piece of crap story. How do you think Pokemon is still around, it still recycles the same dumb throwaway plot, for the fifth time now.
That said, regardless whether you want a game to focus on gameplay or story, you should never forget the other. IMO, it's ultimately the marriage of the two that make a game (ANY game) special.
No, no, no.
It's a threesome, or love triangle. (I personally prefer the threesome :naughty: )
You need gameplay, story and Graphics. :)
I don't like to categorize one element of game structure against the others, because on a general scale, a successful product really does need to be well versed in all the elements to be a relative success amongst customers around the world. Granted, the game may suck and sell well due to proper advertising, but I mean on a personal scale. (I know a lot of you will try to bash that statement with examples of games you've played, but I'm just trying to make a point.)
That point is...
Most of us have seen some games rise to the top quicker than other games on occasion, because of their predecessors, (FF Series) and we've all seen some games that seem to have come from out of nowhere with new and innovative gameplay features and shock the world with their originality and overall enjoyable gameplay. (Dark Cloud - they were the best!)
We've seen these games that lack one or two of the main elements succeed and some of you can point them out in great detail, but here is my question to you...we remember the games for what they were, you know; and we talk about them based on our personal experiences. In remembrance of a game, is what you have to say more argumentative in general, or is more satisfaction that triggers the comments?
When a game successfully combines all elements of gameplay into the structure of the product players tend to remember the satisfaction they got from playing the game. They lessen tend to argue over the elements of the game and have more positive feedback as a result. Games like Zelda didn't go over the top with their graphics, but they were good as heal for their no matter the system you were playing it on. You were introduced with new equipment all the time, but simply assigned what you wanted to a preset series of buttons! No confusion here, Lol.
This is my point...
A game like zelda was well versed in all aspects, but chose one area to excel in...
Zelda Storyline: Adequate
Zelda Graphics: Adequate
Zelda Gameplay: Dynamite!
It's my personal opinion, but games like these are the greatest games to play, and this supports Winkio's statement, and I think it's a fantastic idea for you to make your future games more skilled oriented...good luck Winkio!
Well it's all subjective anyway. I've played a few Pokemon and Zelda games, and only managed to finish one from each series (Pokemon Red and Wind waker). The argument for gameplay value is a good one, but for me personally, story and narrative is the determining factor.
Quote from: poxysmash on September 29, 2010, 02:54:33 pm
Well it's all subjective anyway. I've played a few Pokemon and Zelda games, and only managed to finish one from each series (Pokemon Red and Wind waker). The argument for gameplay value is a good one, but for me personally, story and narrative is the determining factor.
And thats why games like persona Exists.
though they still fallow what Cal said.
Story:nice
Graphics: nice
Gameplay:great
Sometimes the story switches with the game play(like in P3)
but mostly they still want skilled players
(such as P4 and elements in P3}
I can enjoy each element and all together. Even though I love good stories, I never had any story-related problems with the Zelda series. Sure, they story was almost always flat, but unlike others games that had "better" stories than Zelda, Zelda wasn't trying. It was the same old cliched save-the-princess story almost every time, but it didn't matter. The characters had emotions to what extent the story allowed and that was what gave them depth. Zelda was always a witty, clever and entertaining game because of the gameplay, not the story. On the other hand, I have played games that were just mediocre with gameplay, but their stories were amazing. And yet again I have played games that had weak gameplay, mediocre stories, but the game feeling was so intense that the game was in itself a masterpiece. e.g. Silent Hill series; the battle is not fueled with action, the stories were mostly not complex, but the characters were so amazing and the game feeling and tension was so great this series (at least the first 3 games) is simply awesome. And I have played games that had all of this (like Mass Effect).
and you know what Blizzard? in Zelda the characters had all that emotion without ever moving their mouth! ;)
True. Link didn't say a word in those games.
I find that funny, because they always had the camera on him too, Lol.
Like it would be panning and floating around his face, and he'd be blinking and shit, but that mouth of his remained sealed, haha.
hitting the 'A' button is skill?
Timing a button press is skill, yes. Just like timing a tennis swing.
True. It may be a skill that is easily acquired, but it is still a skill. Somebody playing a video game for the first time won't be able to hit the button at the right time as often as somebody who's done it before numerous times.
I really like Super Mario RPG for SNES, and Final Fantasy VI is probably one of my favourite FF games, even though its not one of the most popular. I just love Square Enix's (Or Square, as it was back in the SNES days) RPG games. :haha:
A lot of older games liked to confuse difficulty with muscle memory, and skill was rarely a factor. The games where skill is a factor are primarily competitive games, against another opponent, and that skill is the skill that comes with reading your opponent. Games that depend on having high reflexes and co-ordination result into forcing yourself to build muscle memory, which isn't fun or challenging to a player's mental state. Videogames are not an athletic event, they are as far removed from the physical world as possible, with the notable exception of rhythm and sports games utilizing motion control or a special controller altogether. The point of a videogame is to provide mental enjoyment. A good game stimulates your cognitive ability. This comes through things like story and gameplay, however the very notion that story and gameplay have to be entirely separate is silly (although that often tends to be the case with JRPG's, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.)
It can be okay for the gameplay to be crap if the story is good (almost every JRPG ever) for the same reason it can be okay for the story to be crap if the gameplay is good (almost every shooter or WRPG ever). Yes, a video game can have crappy gameplay and still be a good video game. IT HAPPENS. A LOT.
All videogames have some level of skill which is the basic ability to press buttons. For the rest of this post, skill does not refer to button pushing ability unless otherwise stated because I don't consider it a skill in the same way I don't consider your ability to dress yourself a skill. That is called figuring out how to work your game/clothes.
Games can be really skill intensive, but this does not come in the form of rapid button pushing. Because that is retarded. A game like SSX 3 however, involves timing your tricks, setting up massive combos and collecting as many multipliers as you can, and navigating an often treacherous map for a ridiculously high point total. Any one of those things is easy on it's own. You do not need superior reflexes or co-ordination to pull any of this off. What you do need is an understanding of the game's basic mechanics and an ability to link things together, while dealing with the stress and tension that builds up as your stakes raise (messing up the your 3 million point combo nets you nothing) and as subtle variations in how hard you press the analog stick send you on different paths with varying and often difficult terrain. THIS IS NOT A GAME WHERE YOU MEMORIZE A SERIES OF BUTTON PRESSES TO DO WELL IN. It is entirely optional to get this good though, you don't need a platinum medal, and you can place in the top three without getting a million points a run. But if you want a challenge, you can test your raw ability- your grasp on the gameplay and mechanics- by trying to do one massive trick down the entire slope. And it's hard. It isn't unfair. It doesn't require any sort of herculean physical ability. It is your pure mental ability to link together a bunch of different singular skills quickly and under rapidly changing conditions. IT IS A GAME OF MENTAL ABILITY.
Super Smash Bros Melee and Street Fighter demonstrate a different type of skill. You can select one moveset, and using this moveset with it's varying properties you need to challenge and beat a different human being with either the same or a different moveset. It doesn't matter that you can press the A button 500 times per second, because you have to wait for your lag to end after hitting it the first time. Rapid button pressing loses it's value. The value comes in predicting what your opponent is going to do so you can select the move out of your set to punish them, and knowing enough counters and set ups to throw your opponent off balance. It is a game of mental skill in the purest form- one person versus another. Since both players could be the same character if they wanted, the game is fair. THEY ARE GAMES OF MENTAL ABILITY.
Halo, Call of Duty, and most of the online shooter genre also are games of skills. You have terrain, with certain weapons and abilities being dispersed in certain locations. Control of certain vantage points, use of cover and cooperation between teams, and your ability to accurately predict a moving target's position and fire at it are all things the mind, and not the body, has to learn. THEY ARE GAMES OF MENTAL ABILITY.
The only kind of RPG to even simulate this is a strategy RPG. Other RPG's usually can't do this, and the methods of doing so are often restrictive. Is hitting the attack or a magic button repeatedly a skill? No. Is finding an enemy's weakness or devising a strategy to counter an enemy a skill? Yes, but only the first time. Your second playthrough of an RPG can be beaten identically to the first one by just using the same strategies. Granted, in SSX I could probably blaze through it on my second playthrough, but that's because I've developed the proper skills to do so. In an RPG, I'm just copying down the options that work.
I'm talking about JRPG's here for the most part, although WRPG's and JRPG's with an ABS are not far removed from this at all. The same strategies on the same enemies will work the second time, the cleverness needed to discover it the first time is not needed to discover it a second. An SRPG can get away differently. Take for example, Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics (the latter one a little more than the first, simply because there's more randomization involved in its processes like character retrieval, brave, faith, and such, although it suffers more in terms of balancing.) You have to adapt to changing position and deal with enemies that scale as you do. Furthermore, since a lot of features of your party start randomized, your second playthrough will not be like the first. THESE are RPG's involving mental ability.
So while JRPG's and WRPG's offer levels of mental stimulus in terms of their world, sidequests, weaponry, and story, they simply can't really be called skilled games because their foundation isn't about skill. It's about learning and understanding a mathematical system and using it to get through certain tasks. MMO's have a bit of advantage in that they can release enough new content to provide a constant mental stimulus to a player and so the lack of skill doesn't hit them as hard, but I'll rant about MMO's some other time.
This is where storytelling has become key. This is why a game like Final Fantasy 7, where I can defeat every enemy by doing nothing but pressing attack repeatedly (my attack does 9999 damage, beat only by Knights of the Round and some Limit Breaks because it can fuck the cap by using multiple hits. Magic of any sort has no use besides healing spells because my attack will kill them quicker than five Bahamuts using Megaflare constantly throughout the entire battle. That is not an exaggeration. I got to this point at ten years old.), can still be considered one of the best RPG's of all time. (Part of this was because it was groundbreaking, it was the first 3D RPG to really show off what a 3D RPG was capable of, and I could rant forever about how all your favorite childhood games aren't actually that good but we'll pretend they are for now.) You remember books? I love books. Books are great. They tell a story. They suck you in. Do you have a favorite book? Do you like even one book? They provide absolutely no room for interaction on your part. They stimulate absolutely none of your senses (they strain your eyes, but that doesn't count, movies would be stimulation for your eyes. Reading is just work.) Yet, somehow, a story can suck you in and make absolutely none of that necessary.
Stories supply mental stimulation.
Because you lose a lot of the suspense and surprise after reading a story, it's not as renewable as gameplay. Doesn't matter. It provides a mental stimulus, and that's what you're going for. You are attempting to entertain the brain. If you want a story heavy game, you may not want to use a video game to get it across simply because the interactivity is a hindrance, but it's in no way a problem.
I want this post in no way to get across the idea I don't like RPG's. We make RPG's for fun, it should be a given that this isn't the case. However, it my point that RPG's are not built on a skill-based system and that isn't a bad thing, nor is a story-dominated game a bad thing as it stimulates the brain in the same way as gameplay. Our preferences differ based on what kind of stimuli we take a liking to better, which is why people can take such extreme stances on the subject.
RPG's are built off of tabletop RPG's like Dungeons and Dragons, which were not meant to be games of skill but games of math and imagination that allowed you to do anything. WRPG's keep this feel with their open environments and worlds, and being a little choice heavy while JRPG's typically stray and replace some of the versatility and customization of the tabletop RPG with story. This is probably a result of console limitations (JRPG's are older, they have a foundation in text-based games) but the branch between the two primary RPG types is not a bad thing, it's simply different. However, this replacement does not alienate it enough from the tabletop system to give it a sense of "skill." You are not "skilled" at DnD if you can kill a Balor using a set of spells you know are broken. The point of DnD is not to go monster killilng. The point of a tabletop RPG like DnD is to gain access to a fantastic and imaginative world that's constantly changing based on your actions. This is the foundation of all RPG's.
If you're after different kinds of skilled games look into competitive, strategy, rhythm (to an extent, the "skill" at matching beats tends to fade at higher difficulties and become a game of muscle memory again, the "skill gain" is primarily rhythm training), and (some, they're too similar to want to play too many) sports games.
QuoteGames that depend on having high reflexes and co-ordination result into forcing yourself to build muscle memory, which isn't fun or challenging to a player's mental state
Then why am I so intrigued by learning to throw a frisbee well? It's just muscle memory, but the different ways it curves and the different ways I'm able to throw it are very interesting and continually challenging. It's comparable at some level to walljumping, mockballing, and shinesparking in Super Metroid.
QuoteIf you're after different kinds of skilled games look into competitive, strategy, rhythm (to an extent, the "skill" at matching beats tends to fade at higher difficulties and become a game of muscle memory again, the "skill gain" is primarily rhythm training), and (some, they're too similar to want to play too many) sports games.
Oh, I have played all of those genres, and I like competitive and strategy games, and play them against other people very often, but competitive games add a whole extra level of mind games and reaction. It's like playing full blown soccer, compared to being able to juggle the ball well.
Also, final note: you can't base your arguments off of personal opinion. Just because you only care about story and competition, and not about individual skill doesn't mean that others don't. It seems to me like you are using your own opinions as undeniable facts, which is just dumb. There's nothing wrong with having your opinion, but you can't make an argument out of it. Also, your definitions of 'skill' and 'mental ability' seem to be unclear, as they are mutually exclusive, yet overlapping. So, before you go on using
BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS and horrendously long posts trying to convince us that your opinion is actually fact, you should clarify your ideas, distinguish between opinions and facts, and present everything clearly and concisely. Thanks.
Quote from: winkio on October 30, 2010, 12:58:52 am
QuoteGames that depend on having high reflexes and co-ordination result into forcing yourself to build muscle memory, which isn't fun or challenging to a player's mental state
Then why am I so intrigued by learning to throw a frisbee well? It's just muscle memory, but the different ways it curves and the different ways I'm able to throw it are very interesting and continually challenging. It's comparable at some level to walljumping, mockballing, and shinesparking in Super Metroid.
It's not on the same level at all. Throwing a frisbee involves precise calculation and dealing with constantly changing environments. Pressing the A button 500 times per second as opposed to 300 times per second is not a skill. A sense of timing is something you can make precise, but jumping over the first bullet because you hit the A button in frame 10 of 10000 does not mean you can jump over the second identical bullet that's two frames off. Is blinking when someone flashes a light in your eye a skill? It's a trained response. I am not arguing that it's mindless, but it's not something you can compare to an actual skill at all. I was thinking more NES games, the ones with the brutal sense of difficulty which were more a series of HUMAN RESPONSE TRAINING TESTS than actual games in their own right.
QuoteQuoteIf you're after different kinds of skilled games look into competitive, strategy, rhythm (to an extent, the "skill" at matching beats tends to fade at higher difficulties and become a game of muscle memory again, the "skill gain" is primarily rhythm training), and (some, they're too similar to want to play too many) sports games.
Oh, I have played all of those genres, and I like competitive and strategy games, and play them against other people very often, but competitive games add a whole extra level of mind games and reaction. It's like playing full blown soccer, compared to being able to juggle the ball well.
Also, final note: you can't base your arguments off of personal opinion. Just because you only care about story and competition, and not about individual skill doesn't mean that others don't. It seems to me like you are using your own opinions as undeniable facts, which is just dumb. There's nothing wrong with having your opinion, but you can't make an argument out of it. Also, your definitions of 'skill' and 'mental ability' seem to be unclear, as they are mutually exclusive, yet overlapping. So, before you go on using BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS and horrendously long posts trying to convince us that your opinion is actually fact, you should clarify your ideas, distinguish between opinions and facts, and present everything clearly and concisely. Thanks.
Did I say I only cared about story and competition? Please find where I said it.
Do not take my points out of context. Did I say a game is bad if it didn't adhere strictly to competition or story? No, that isn't the case at all, and I
made sure to include sentences otherwise so you could do well to read them before mis-interpreting my post and attacking it with a holier-than-thou attitude. I said that pressing buttons is not a real skill, and skill in a video game, which is something almost entirely cut off from physical ability, is a test of mental aptitude. It's the way your mind analyzes and deals with information and uses it to accomplish a goal. My examples were games like SSX, strategy games, and competitive games because all of those games take a lot of mental foresight, adaptability, and focus to really play well. Skill is a test of mental ability in a primarily mental-based form of entertainment.
I did go on a rant about mental stimuli, but that was directed at some of the "gameplay versus storyline" posts which were entirely separate from the skill point. A game is just a bunch of stimuli targeted at your senses and made to excite your mental state. Both gameplay and storyline accomplish this, so if one can be strong and the other weak, it's totally acceptable for that to work both ways. I can have a weak game with good story, it happens. I can have a good game with weak story, that happens too. I'm not saying any one is superior than the other, or that skilled games are superior to non-skilled games. That's reading far too deeply into my post and making up opinions for me
which you have absolutely no place doing.If you're going to talk down to me, I expect you to at the very least back up your own point or read up mine properly. I do not have a problem with you disagreeing or even arguing with me, if you do so in a direction aimed at what I'm saying rather than how I say it. I am not up for a game of ad-hominem because logical fallacies are simply a waste of everyones time and don't add anything of value to the discussion at hand.
Flame war is immanent.
anyway no matter how much you call it mussel memory that fact remains that it still takes skill, playing a piano or trumpet is northing but mussel memory but you don't here any one saying that it don't take skill. mussel memory is just a of saying. "hey look you took the time to train you body to do this. congratulations you've acquired a skill!"
I agree that the muscle memory required to play a rhythm game is a skill, or an instrument, or even pressing buttons in some circumstances (I'd have to to admit video games have any skill whatsoever.)
I do not view jumping over enemy A as skilled if you can't consistently jump over enemy B without having to retrain yourself. A skill is something that stays with you, you don't have to train yourself to play the piano at your house and then reteach yourself to play an identical piano at a friends house. That is nothing but a trained response to "OH LOOK I'M RIGHT HERE". This is in reference to OLDER GAMES or games that claim they're "brutally hard". You know the ones. You play them a hundred times to get past this one part, and then die at an almost identical obstacle afterwards because you haven't trained your brain to send the "PRESS A" signal after you see the cloud or whatever. This is not in reference to games where the difficulty is not "PRESS A OR DIE". This was aimed at all "older classic games took more skill to play" which generally isn't true, they had more brutal levels of difficulty because they couldn't add as much depth into their gameplay, or in the case of arcade games to keep you playing, but they didn't necessarily take more skill to play because a lot of them were based on you self-training yourself to respond dto something.
Let me clarify a bit, yes it will take some skill to double jump. It will take some skill to triple jump in Mario 64. However it takes little skill that is easy to master, and is a skill that's prevalent in almost all video games. When I say "this video game is skilled and this isn't" I'm talking about games that take a significant amount of skill to play with a measurable ability that isn't just a series of trained responses. In a game where button timing and rapidity fall under the prime skill, they're either "unskilled" (Mario, Zelda, etc.,) where the game is not built around measuring skill at all, and where not much if any skill is required to beat it, or a rhythm game which aims to measure, well, rhythm. The skill to press the A button where pure timing is a matter is a basic skill in the same way that yes, dressing yourself is a basic skill, but it's so basic and ingrained into the entire process that calling it a skill means you have to call everything else you do a skill, but it's easier for purposes of classification to go "the level of skill is so small and unimportant that we can classify it as primarily unskilled, you do not need to be some significant beast to go to school, only able to dress yourself." And that's absolutely fine.
There are exceptions. There are games when your precision with timing is integrated in a way that is not a taught muscle memory response. It is not a reaction, but an action on the part of the player. This is a skill. There may be some game that manages to expand on this skill enough to be called a "skilled" game, where it's an aspect the player needs to grow and evolve in in order to do well. Starcraft turns this into a skill.
I'd also not worry about a flamewar. We may talk a bit aggressive and pricky, but I hightly doubt anyone's going to let this devolve into "NO YOU'RE STUPID." Well, not in those words anyway, and with actual discussion in the middle. :P
What I'm getting from the posts in this topic before your first post:
skill: player ability to master controls, use reflexes, play at a higher speed, and play more gracefully.
not skill: player playing the game in a very stale and unimaginative manner.
skilled game: a game where developing skill is a natural part of the game.
What I'm getting from your posts:
skill: precise calculation and dealing with constantly changing environments. a measurable ability that isn't just a series of trained responses. not a reaction, but an action on the part of the player
not skill: based on you self-training yourself to respond to something. Button presses, or dressing yourself.
skilled game: game where skill is an aspect the player needs to grow and evolve in in order to do well
The setup:
everything said under the first set of definitions has a general flow of agreement.
everything said under the second set of definitions has a separate general flow of agreement.
The problem:
You are evaluating everything written with the first set of definitions using the second set of definitions.
Let me just say this: with the rules that you established, your posts are all correct. What I've been trying to do is challenge your definitions, and try to see what relations they have to the first set. The only response I have gotten from you is restatement of your same definitions. I get your point, but I want to see what relation it has to the points made on the first set of definitions. This topic is not to limit discussion to just one certain aspect, but to tie everything together and see if we can come up with something that applies more universally to games.
@Ryex: I don't do flame wars. Heated arguments, yes, but not flame wars. So don't try and blow anything out of proportion. We have Dio for that.
If muscle memory is trained reaction to external stimuli, then so are these so called skill games.
Regardless if you face a human opponent, you would still use and build your "skillset" for that game to adapt to the new stimuli. Basically any game you'd play, whether it'd be a short pre-programmed game like Mario or a game where you adapt to circumstance of opponent, it's based on your ability to learn to respond to stimuli to produce desired feedback. This is like comparing playing the piano to boxing. You'd could be called skilled at either because you're brain is better at responding to stimuli and feedback of either the sound the piano makes when you hit the keys or the dodging and throwing of punches to avoid pain and deal blows to your opponent. You'd be called skilled because you're better trained to respond to the specific stimulus than someone who's never done it.
What about story? That is not trained response, at least not as simple as that. Gameplay could be fun and addictive but to me it's a good (or really bad) story that leaves a lasting impression.
Edit: Reygekan you were making a good point, but it lost substance in semantics. But I see and agree with the thing about challenge of gameplay. Adaptation of play style would really make a game stand out, unless of course it totally detracted from other aspects such as story or atmosphere.
Well, I always play a game if it's fun, you know.
Fuck skill. I do not give a rat's ass about whether it needs skill or doesn't; just if it's fun.
So let's all quit our bitching, yeah? I mean, before this thread heads into the stages of mega-faggotry.
It already went there, because almost nobody understood what I was saying in my first post.
I actually did understand everything you said up to this point. ._.
I fail to see why training does not develop a skill. Training is the very definition of improving a skill. Training oneself to respond to certain situations in certain ways IS developing a skill. A skill is an automated set of responses that have a meaning in a certain context. Whatever you do in your life for the first time, it will not be done well. Through repetition you will learn to do it better and better each time, developing a skill in that area. Of course, different skills aren't mutually exclusive. If you are a good chess player, chances are high that you will be good at anything that requires memory, reading tactics and foreseeing possible outcomes. That's why they say that strategy games help build organizational skills and FPS-es help improve eye reflexes and increase eye-hand coordination.
To me it seemed that Rey was saying that my above statement is not true.
@Branden: Are you saying that you actually LIKE casual games? I'm breaking up with you.
*sets curtain on fire to spark flame war* *leaves thread*
Quote from: Blizzard on November 01, 2010, 03:09:14 pm
I actually did understand everything you said up to this point. ._.
I fail to see why training does not develop a skill. Training is the very definition of improving a skill. Training oneself to respond to certain situations in certain ways IS developing a skill. A skill is an automated set of responses that have a meaning in a certain context. Whatever you do in your life for the first time, it will not be done well. Through repetition you will learn to do it better and better each time, developing a skill in that area. Of course, different skills aren't mutually exclusive. If you are a good chess player, chances are high that you will be good at anything that requires memory, reading tactics and foreseeing possible outcomes. That's why they say that strategy games help build organizational skills and FPS-es help improve eye reflexes and increase eye-hand coordination.
To me it seemed that Rey was saying that my above statement is not true.
@Branden: Are you saying that you actually LIKE casual games? I'm breaking up with you.
Let me clarify because I was unclear and this is all really my fault.
A
reaction is
not a skill. You can train yourself in the same way you can train your muscles to be better, but training yourself to blink whenever you see green is not a skill, it's a programmed response.
We can also break this down and say certain types of reactions are skills, and yes, we can go over technicalities forever, in the same way I could argue with you, with 100% accuracy, the blue and green are almost exactly identical.
That statement was made in reference to older games with brutal difficulty, that required you to pretrain yourself to hit A before you consciously knew there was a danger at a precise time in order to avoid it. Then you'd run into the next, identical A button trap but since you weren't trained to jump under the orange cloud instead of the blue cloud, you would never jump over the trap.
If you could jump over both traps with equal accuracy without having to retrain yourself, you've developed quicker reflexes, which is a skill.
If you couldn't jump over the traps because your brain didn't have that preprorgrammed response, you've developed an unconscious reaction. You've been trained, like salivating dogs to a pavlovian bell.
The only reason I feel the need to address this is because it was common in older games which were "more skillful" than common games thanks to a brutal sense of difficulty. When I say train, I mean it in the pavlovian sense.
Button tapping I don't see as a skill, even though it technically is, simply for simiplicity's sake when talking about skill in videogame. A game can be skilled requiring faster reflexes, this is true, but being a primarily mental media the more significant tests of skills will come from mental qualities- thought time rather than button tapping time- and so I value reflexes as almost insignificant in comparison.
I use a lot of exaggeration when I type and extremify things to make a point, because it forces you to inspect things and pick apart my statements on a more technical level and take things that are true and false from what I say, but I was tired when I typed my post and it was poorly written so it came out a lot more off than I intended and a bit more confusing than it should've been.
Quote from: Reygekan on November 02, 2010, 01:25:53 am
A reaction is not a skill.
Then martial arts are not a skill. And that would be a contradiction.
If martial arts was composed of nothing but reactions I wouldn't consider it a skill, but it's not. A martial artist who builds himself entirely out of reactions becomes predictable at any competitive level (if we're not talking about the competitive level at all but just typical street use then it doesn't matter how skilled you are as long as you know the basic forms and techniques, unless you're up against other martial artists but then we're back to the competitive mindset anyway), and is probably going to accidentally break his friend's hand when they try to psych him out with a play punch.
Point of this thread: nobody cares about one individual's strict set of definitions. Nobody cares if you don't consider reactions to be skill, because everyone else agrees that they are skill. Just drop it.
Wow, he's really trying hard to push his opinion through as fact. D:
Trust me. As one who's taken different schools of martial arts for years, it's just training your muscles to react PROPERLY to external stimuli. Fighting games that are muscle memory-based are NOT mindless repetition. Like martial arts, there's quite a bit of skill going into training yourself to (mostly reflexively) recognize which situations call for which set of motions you've trained yourself to use. For example, in super smash brothers, you don't have time to think "oh, he's going to use a smash attack that will take .4 seconds to hit. If I press down-b in .1 second (as marth/ike/roy), I can reflect the attack. You just do it. But it's from training your skills :P
*Looks at title*
Rock Band 3.
*Leaves*
Uh, there is way too much in this topic to even begin to sift through.
I'll just say that I don't think you're all that right in saying RPGs or modern games lack skill in general, they just lack that particular skill which would be timing. However, I'd like to see a more classic game and I fully support your choice.
Also:
Quote from: WhiteRose on November 06, 2010, 03:46:01 pm
*Looks at title*
Rock Band 3.
*Leaves*
Chess. Definitely Chess.
Quote from: WhiteRose on November 06, 2010, 03:46:01 pm
*Looks at title*
Rock Band 3.
*Leaves*
Don't worry, Reygekan will come up with another long post riddled with ignorance to try and say how that is not a skill game. ;)
This topic reminds me about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7VAhzPcZ-s
Quote from: Blizzard on November 01, 2010, 03:09:14 pm
@Branden: Are you saying that you actually LIKE casual games? I'm breaking up with you.
Let's be fair Blizzard, there are some pretty fun casual games out there.
The exceptions confirm the rules. :) I have played a few fun casual games, but I think I'm not exaggerating if I say 99% of them are horrible or copies of a copy of a copy of a copy.
I'm a huge zelda fan, the only thing that bugs me is how easy the zelda games actually are. I love the world, the story and the game mechanics are really good. But it is so easy I could probably play through it blindfolded with my hands cuffed behind my back. WTB Zelda game with multiple difficulties!
Quote from: Blizzard on January 30, 2011, 04:59:34 am
The exceptions confirm the rules. :) I have played a few fun casual games, but I think I'm not exaggerating if I say 99% of them are horrible or copies of a copy of a copy of a copy.
I agree, just saying it's not fair to those top-tier games that are truly fun. ;o
Yup. There are also many AAA titles that aren't that fun to play.
Quote from: Kagutsuchi on January 30, 2011, 05:51:58 am
I'm a huge zelda fan, the only thing that bugs me is how easy the zelda games actually are. I love the world, the story and the game mechanics are really good. But it is so easy I could probably play through it blindfolded with my hands cuffed behind my back. WTB Zelda game with multiple difficulties!
Have you tried Master Quest? The combat is still easy, but some of the puzzles are much more difficult than the usual Zelda fare.
Quote from: WhiteRose on January 30, 2011, 07:55:08 pm
Quote from: Kagutsuchi on January 30, 2011, 05:51:58 am
I'm a huge zelda fan, the only thing that bugs me is how easy the zelda games actually are. I love the world, the story and the game mechanics are really good. But it is so easy I could probably play through it blindfolded with my hands cuffed behind my back. WTB Zelda game with multiple difficulties!
Have you tried Master Quest? The combat is still easy, but some of the puzzles are much a tiny bit more difficult than the usual Zelda fare.
Fixed.
Not a tiny bit. It's significantly more complicated than your average Zelda fare. I found it to be just the perfect difficulty.
Meh, was a tiny bit for me. I guess it varies from player to player.