231 replies to this topic

[Utttand4]

But why can't a game be made different from the ones that already exist, and have competitive elements.

Of course they can, and they would be very welcome. Nobody is saying that games cant be different.

Take for example these two games: Warsow and Quake4. Both of their multiplayers were tailored towards the Quake community.

Warsow - Featured new mechanics that were never implemented in Quake games before. Very different, but in a good creative way.

Quake4 - Successor to Q3, poorly received, slower, stripped down version of previous games. New weapons were silly. New movement was a sorry replacement for cpma's bhopping. Required patches to be competitive.

People are fine with games being different, just not in a way that detracts from the core gameplay.

edit: and especially why does it have to strip the game of these mechanics.

It doesnt.

explain to me why a game can't be easily approachable, but still have massively complex mechanics and metagame.

A game can be easily approachable and still be viable as a medium for competition.

The problem is when people demand that the bar be lowered all the way, compromising on features that made the game fun in the first place.

Having a steep learning curve is not a detriment to "approachability". Look at SC2, it takes enormous amounts of skill to play competitively, but that doesnt stop thousands of bronze leaguers from having fun noobing around with each other. UT2k4 can be a fun pub game for new players with its interesting gametypes and tonnes of mods. 1v1 Competition-wise, it is still centered heavily around map control and skill and complex movement.

Learning curve =/= barrier to entry. In fact, having to learn things is what prevents games for getting boring and stagnant.

Difficulty curve has to do with the rate at which people increase in ability in a game, not the quantity of knowledge or depth of a game.

Uh huh, and it is also highly subjective and dependent on the individual's willingness and drive. So how do you propose this curve be lessened without making the game a recoiless sprayfest?

If they weren't competitive the ladders would be a clusterfuck with people flying all over the place, but clearly better people consistently do better than worse people. That is the truest evidence that a game is competitive.

Not really, there are some games that should never be played competitively but more talented players will still top consistently.

FEAR is a good example.

Edited by Utttand4, 01 September 2011 - 12:54 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

Having a steep learning curve is not a detriment to "approachability". Look at SC2, it takes enormous amounts of skill to play competitively, but that doesnt stop thousands of bronze leaguers from having fun noobing around with each other. UT2k4 can be a fun pub game for new players with its interesting gametypes and tonnes of mods. 1v1 Competition-wise, it is still centered heavily around map control and skill and complex movement.

Learning curve isn't difficulty curve. A learning curve is the rate at which you learn more information about the game. The difficulty curve directly measures the difficulty level as you progress through a game.

To illustrate the difference, the learning curve for tic-tac-toe would probably have exponential decay as you learned every move possible. The difficulty curve is, however, pretty much flat as even though you don't know anything about the game you can still draw 90% of the time.

Learning curve =/= barrier to entry. In fact, having to learn things is what prevents games for getting boring and stagnant.

how is learning curves being too steep not a barrier to entry? CS is a perfect example. For someone that has never played a PC game would have a terrible time with CS. There's no tutorials, very few indications of what keys you press to do half of the actions during gameplay, many of the weapons finer points are never explained anywhere, and there is no explanation of the different gametypes unless you go out of your way, often outside the actual game client, to learn more. How is that not a barrier to entry?

Uh huh, and it is also highly subjective and dependent on the individual's willingness and drive. So how do you propose this curve be lessened without making the game a recoiless sprayfest?

Game development companies measure their difficulty curves every day. Some use very concrete measures gathered from years of collected data through hallway testing or general QA playability testing. Others

Not really, there are some games that should never be played competitively but more talented players will still top consistently.

FEAR is a good example.

Why should fear never be played competitively? The largest argument for it would be that there are not enough players, which is a fine reason for it not to be used in serious competition. If, as you say, there is measurable skill difference between top players and lower ranked players, then there is no reason it couldn't be played competitively other than the obvious that there are not enough players.

[CakeCom]

Why should fear never be played competitively? The largest argument for it would be that there are not enough players, which is a fine reason for it not to be used in serious competition. If, as you say, there is measurable skill difference between top players and lower ranked players, then there is no reason it couldn't be played competitively other than the obvious that there are not enough players.

This is like asking why L4D2 can't be played competitively (which I believe it is... but lol @ anyone who actually does it)

You're drawing a fine line on what's competitive and what's not imo. There's just too many imbalances, too many random factors, etc. It's not just about the difference between the bad players and the good players. There's both bad players and good players in Bioshock 2, does that mean we can have competitive Bioshock? If there's both bad players and good players in the latest Medal of Honour game, does that make that latest MoH game competitive?

And yeah no, Halo's competitive, Modern Warfare isn't. I'm never going to accept MW as a competitive game, not on console at least (and on PC it's got too many problems imo).

[spiri7ussancti]

there's so much bias and fanboyism running rampant in this thread right now, that for now i'm actually just going to watch, and see what happens.


have to say though that i've actually gained some respect for way2lazy2care.

[way2lazy2care]

This is like asking why L4D2 can't be played competitively (which I believe it is... but lol @ anyone who actually does it)

You're drawing a fine line on what's competitive and what's not imo. There's just too many imbalances, too many random factors, etc. It's not just about the difference between the bad players and the good players. There's both bad players and good players in Bioshock 2, does that mean we can have competitive Bioshock? If there's both bad players and good players in the latest Medal of Honour game, does that make that latest MoH game competitive?

L4D2 probably could if you added competitive rules to figure out who wins. There are a bunch of situations you could run into where one team could have clearly done better but lost if you didn't establish a firm set of extra rules. That would be the largest argument against L4D as a competitive game imo. Asymmetric games like L4D would be an interesting thing to see in a competitive environment though imo.

But why not MoH (haven't played it) or Bioshock 2 (haven't played multiplayer)?

[CakeCom]

L4D2 probably could if you added competitive rules to figure out who wins. There are a bunch of situations you could run into where one team could have clearly done better but lost if you didn't establish a firm set of extra rules. That would be the largest argument against L4D as a competitive game imo. Asymmetric games like L4D would be an interesting thing to see in a competitive environment though imo.

But why not MoH (haven't played it) or Bioshock 2 (haven't played multiplayer)?

I could see Bioshock 2's multiplayer not being used competitively just because of how the game wasn't really designed for multiplayer... it's hard to explain, you have to try it first hand to really understand the odd and clanky feeling. It's kind of like slapping multiplayer on a game like Deus Ex, System Shock or Fallout- it will probably work and you might have some fun, but it's most likely going to feel really really weird compared to a regular FPS game.

Left 4 Dead 1 was used competitively quite a bit (not huge tourneys or anything, just small LAN competitions) but it was used for its versus and imo this is the wrong way to go. What should be measured (imo) is speed + distance in a singleplayer race, not a versus clusterfuck (imo, the versus mechanic's been broken for a long time- no matter what you give the special infected the survivors have ranged weapons, therefore the survivors only need to stay at a decent range and they always win. You could say that the spitter fixes this, but the spitter shoots in an arch- I dunno, just how I see it). L4D2 only adds more confusion with spitter / charger in versus, where charger controls / hitboxes have been a problem since the games release and the spitter really has no use against a team that knows how to play the game properly.

*edit*

Also hating on CoD's recent games isn't fanboyism, possibly anti-fanboyism. The original Modern Warfare is the only decent game to come out of that series in past few years.

Edited by CakeCom, 01 September 2011 - 02:52 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

Left 4 Dead 1 was used competitively quite a bit (not huge tourneys or anything, just small LAN competitions) but it was used for its versus and imo this is the wrong way to go. What should be measured (imo) is speed + distance in a singleplayer race, not a versus clusterfuck (imo, the versus mechanic's been broken for a long time- no matter what you give the special infected the survivors have ranged weapons, therefore the survivors only need to stay at a decent range and they always win. You could say that the spitter fixes this, but the spitter shoots in an arch- I dunno, just how I see it). L4D2 only adds more confusion with spitter / charger in versus, where charger controls / hitboxes have been a problem since the games release and the spitter really has no use against a team that knows how to play the game properly.

I think if you figured out a better rule set for versus that took into account time to complete/distance traveled/number of times downed/etc you could do versus, but it would be a hefty amount of work to balance the ruleset. I'd also have each team play each side once. The larger problem would be the random factor and dynamic difficulty. That would be hard to deal with imo.

Also hating on CoD's recent games isn't fanboyism, possibly anti-fanboyism. The original Modern Warfare is the only decent game to come out of that series in past few years.

I don't even like MW2 or Blops, but I still think they can be competitive. I dislike them because I think they could have easily been a lot better if they were given reasonable schedules to release rather than <2 year dev cycles. That's the reason I don't play them. That said, I still think they can be competitive and that they are pretty good with the above in mind even though I don't really like them.

I'm probably kind of skewed because the project I'm working on is an iterative sports title, so I have an inside view of the pressure you're on trying to finish a game in a year let alone trying to make it live up to such a monster reputation.

[Utttand4]

Having a steep learning curve is not a detriment to "approachability". Look at SC2, it takes enormous amounts of skill to play competitively, but that doesnt stop thousands of bronze leaguers from having fun noobing around with each other. UT2k4 can be a fun pub game for new players with its interesting gametypes and tonnes of mods. 1v1 Competition-wise, it is still centered heavily around map control and skill and complex movement.

Learning curve isn't difficulty curve. A learning curve is the rate at which you learn more information about the game. The difficulty curve directly measures the difficulty level as you progress through a game.

I mean what i said. Let me explain.

Not everyone would seek to attain all the knowledge a game has to offer, and hence, not everyone would enter into the steeper part of the learning curve.

So if you look back at my example, UT2k4 casuals would readily learn 'up down left right jump fire altfire' and have fun playing on a low level. Whereas the more competitive players have to learn dodging, dodgejumping, map control, item timings, shock combos etc... they would face a steeper learning curve and higher barrier before they can play on a high level.
SC2 bronze leaguers would quickly learn how to build structures, train units and attack the enemy. They can easily enjoy themselves if they are content on playing casually. However, if you want to progress higher, you need to memorise build orders, internalise timings, understand matchups, practice micro/macro etc.
Both games have steep learning curves due to the depth of gameplay they offer, but that does not impede new players from being drawn to the game if they want to just play it casually.

how is learning curves being too steep not a barrier to entry? CS is a perfect example. For someone that has never played a PC game would have a terrible time with CS. There's no tutorials, very few indications of what keys you press to do half of the actions during gameplay, many of the weapons finer points are never explained anywhere, and there is no explanation of the different gametypes unless you go out of your way, often outside the actual game client, to learn more. How is that not a barrier to entry?

That is plain unreasonable. There are some people i know who have never touched a multiplayer FPS before CS, and even they dont find fault with anything you just said.

Game development companies measure their difficulty curves every day. Some use very concrete measures gathered from years of collected data through hallway testing or general QA playability testing. Others

Uh huh, and the learning process is still varied from person to person, especially so in a multiplayer game (unlike a singleplayer experience). I dont even know which part of my original post you are addressing.

Why should fear never be played competitively? The largest argument for it would be that there are not enough players, which is a fine reason for it not to be used in serious competition. If, as you say, there is measurable skill difference between top players and lower ranked players, then there is no reason it couldn't be played competitively other than the obvious that there are not enough players.

What Cakecom said.

Asymmetric games like L4D would be an interesting thing to see in a competitive environment though imo.

You want an asymmetric game, play AVP2, competitive L4D is purely a joke.

Edited by Utttand4, 02 September 2011 - 01:21 PM.

[spiri7ussancti]

This is spam.. but it's pretty good. - Byakugan

Edited by x_byakugan_x, 02 September 2011 - 03:49 PM.

[Utttand4]

Thats nice.

[CakeCom]

You want an asymmetric game, play AVP2, competitive L4D is purely a joke.

I agree with most of your points on the topic, but I don't totally agree with this- like I said competitive L4D does have its issues right now. But I believe if you made a gamemode specifically for L4D Competitive, based on singleplayer / coop timed runs rather than Versus than you'd have a pretty competitive game. I don't know if you've ever seen speedruns for L4D games, but there are so many factors the runner has to worry about it's actually a really hard game to run at the fastest times.

Now you could say this about any singleplayer game, but L4D does have that bit of a luck factor and while normally in competitive games this would be a bad thing I think it'd just be a unique twist on these races. After all, there is a pinch of luck in poker yet that game's widely accepted around the world as a really competitive card game. I think luck and random factors can be involved, just not to the extent where you're totally basing your runs / competition on luck.

[spiri7ussancti]

On a side not. An elephant never forgets.

And yeah no, Halo's competitive, Modern Warfare isn't.

I still can't stop laughing about 'competitive' Halo tourneys.

[CakeCom]

On a side note.

Fixed.

I've changed my stance, I used to truly believe that no console FPS could be competitive. Then I realized that if you handcuff a game enough you can create a competitive game.

You cannot do that to a MW2 / Black Ops game though, no.

[spiri7ussancti]

Fixed.

I've changed my stance, I used to truly believe that no console FPS could be competitive. Then I realized that if you handcuff a game enough you can create a competitive game.

You cannot do that to a MW2 / Black Ops game though, no.

If you say so.

[CakeCom]

If you say so.

y'know what no, I change what I said. I never changed my mind, I think I was being sarcastic.

I've always thought Halo 3 / Reach could be played competitively with the right ruleset.

[spiri7ussancti]

y'know what no, I change what I said. I never changed my mind, I think I was being sarcastic.

I've always thought Halo 3 / Reach could be played competitively with the right ruleset.

You don't need to convince me bro.

[Utttand4]

I agree with most of your points on the topic, but I don't totally agree with this- like I said competitive L4D does have its issues right now. But I believe if you made a gamemode specifically for L4D Competitive, based on singleplayer / coop timed runs rather than Versus than you'd have a pretty competitive game. I don't know if you've ever seen speedruns for L4D games, but there are so many factors the runner has to worry about it's actually a really hard game to run at the fastest times.

I agree 100% that speedrunning can be competitive.

And yes, i have watched a few segments of the L4D speedrun. A lot of luck manipulation involved.

Now you could say this about any singleplayer game, but L4D does have that bit of a luck factor and while normally in competitive games this would be a bad thing I think it'd just be a unique twist on these races. After all, there is a pinch of luck in poker yet that game's widely accepted around the world as a really competitive card game. I think luck and random factors can be involved, just not to the extent where you're totally basing your runs / competition on luck.

I do know that luck manipulation plays a gigantic role in segmented speedrunning. I know some runners who take months to complete a speedrun project, trying to get their method perfect to the last frame. Even in 5-minute-long segments that require high amounts of luck manipulation, some people have clocked literally more than a thousand attempts before succeeding.

I understand what you are saying, but, in terms of more conventional competitive games, segmented speedrun projects are not the best medium. Single-segment speedruns (playing the game from start to finish in one sitting), are much better because they downplay the effect of extreme luck manipulation and generally require a lot of skill and mental stamina.
The L4D speedrun was segmented into the individual levels affording the runner ample time to perfect each level before moving on. Let me quote what the runner himself said:
"To summarize, these runs depend on luck, strategy, knowledge ... but not really on talent. Finally, I'm not the world's best player... Just the faster one. "
The run is good, no question, but doing this for competition? I dont think it would work.

Edited by Utttand4, 03 September 2011 - 02:08 AM.

[CakeCom]

I agree 100% that speedrunning can be competitive.

And yes, i have watched a few segments of the L4D speedrun. A lot of luck manipulation involved.

I do know that luck manipulation plays a gigantic role in segmented speedrunning. I know some runners who take months to complete a speedrun project, trying to get their method perfect to the last frame. Even in 5-minute-long segments that require high amounts of luck manipulation, some people have clocked literally more than a thousand attempts before succeeding.

I understand what you are saying, but, in terms of more conventional competitive games, segmented speedrun projects are not the best medium. Single-segment speedruns (playing the game from start to finish in one sitting), are much better because they downplay the effect of extreme luck manipulation and generally require a lot of skill and mental stamina.
The L4D speedrun was segmented into the individual levels affording the runner ample time to perfect each level before moving on. Let me quote what the runner himself said:
"To summarize, these runs depend on luck, strategy, knowledge ... but not really on talent. Finally, I'm not the world's best player... Just the faster one. "
The run is good, no question, but doing this for competition? I dont think it would work.

Ah you might be right, I do remember that quote now that you mention it too.

I agree that yeah, a single-segment speedrun would probably work better in a competition setting (meaning less luck manipulation) but I still say that either of these runs are still way more competitive than any form of versus- I really don't see a purpose in the use of the infected team just due to the sheer imbalance between the two teams.

[way2lazy2care]

Both games have steep learning curves due to the depth of gameplay they offer, but that does not impede new players from being drawn to the game if they want to just play it casually.

That is plain unreasonable. There are some people i know who have never touched a multiplayer FPS before CS, and even they dont find fault with anything you just said.

how is it unreasonable? I know tons of people that don't play CS for that exact reason. I didn't enjoy CS for a long time for that reason and the only reason i stuck with it was because my only other gamer friend at the time played almost exclusively CS.

Uh huh, and the learning process is still varied from person to person, especially so in a multiplayer game (unlike a singleplayer experience). I dont even know which part of my original post you are addressing.

difficulty curve is not the same as learning curve... I feel like I've said this before.

What Cakecom said.

All cakecom said about why fear can't be played competitively was that L4D can't be played competitively. He didn't say anything inherintly wrong wtih fear that makes it not competitive.

Any solid reasons or are you just going to carry on being a PC fps hipster?

[CakeCom]

how is it unreasonable? I know tons of people that don't play CS for that exact reason. I didn't enjoy CS for a long time for that reason and the only reason i stuck with it was because my only other gamer friend at the time played almost exclusively CS.


difficulty curve is not the same as learning curve... I feel like I've said this before.


All cakecom said about why fear can't be played competitively was that L4D can't be played competitively. He didn't say anything inherintly wrong wtih fear that makes it not competitive.

Any solid reasons or are you just going to carry on being a PC fps hipster?

Left 4 Dead and Fear competitively have the exact same problems (as the multiplayer in FEAR looks like it was modeled exactly from L4D), I'm just more familiar with L4D as it was the more enjoyable game.

Being a PC fps hipster is probably being right in this argument. There's only a few exceptions to console FPS games being competitive and Halo is one of the few I can think of.

(Also I believe both Fear and Left 4 Dead are on PC AND Console... Both ports are actually pretty decent to)