|
| Thread: Games are becoming labor. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted April 24, 2012 06:34 AM |
|
|
I guess what happened in the early 1990s has affected your psyche quite a bit, but then again the rigs was usually reneded useless for each update from ID and other "innovators". The entire "upgrade, a lot" trend stopped some point after the turn of the century.
I would say that the consoles receiving more "gems" is a lot bigger advantage, and its a bigger achilles heel than the "bought snowty rig, forced to update because of the hardware usage trends".
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 24, 2012 11:09 AM |
|
|
Consoles last longer, but you can't really upgrade them. You have to buy a new one every X years, and it's not cheap  Unless you don't want to play new games. Say, in maybe two years PS4 might come, and that will probably be another 1000$. I would say the difference in upgrading the PC (assuming you UPGRADE and not buy a new one every X years) and buying a new console isn't that big. Also, PC technology slowed down considerably, so upgrading each year is no longer a thing, like it was right after year 2000.
I myself can't afford a console - even though I'd love to. So it's not exactly the "cheap gaming" 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 24, 2012 03:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Consoles last longer, but you can't really upgrade them. You have to buy a new one every X years, and it's not cheap
My PS3 was about $350 and it's lasted far longer as a quality gaming machine than my $2000 PC. Considering PS3 was released in 2006, even at opening price of ~$600, that's not too bad for a machine that has lasted almost six years, and doesn't seem likely to be replaced for at least another year or two at the least - particularly since my PS3 also doubles as my Blu-Ray player for my TV. That's a great value. Plus let's face it, with only a few exceptions, every good game that appears on PCs also has a console version - in fact, many games are DESIGNED for consoles, because consoles have an overwhelmingly large part of the market share, and are only ported (often poorly) to PC later on. What's the advantage of PC gaming any more? Sometimes you get a slightly better textural resolution, and file/game management is a little easier, but I see little else. Gaming on a PC, for me, is virtually dead. Only value in it is to play old games that can't be played on consoles.
Anyway, didn't mean to derail the thread into a discussion of PC vs consoles - sorry DF.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted April 24, 2012 04:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Plus let's face it, with only a few exceptions, every good game that appears on PCs also has a console version
I dunno, man. Partly because I feel like those exceptions are usually the better games and I also believe that they are more common than you seem to believe. Minecraft, Tribes: Ascend, Dungeon Crawl, Legend of Grimrock, Kerbal Space Programme, any X-Com game and the HoMM-games are just a few of the games I believe will never see a (decent) console port, unless console controllers become more PC-like. Also consider that there are several large genres (as in popular) that the PC pretty much has a monopoly on, like MMORPGs(for some reason), most strategy game genres and browserbased games (they are huge, marketwise, though we as "real gamers" often overlook them).
I see your point though, since the publishers make more money on releasing games that can be played on consoles (since they are more expensive, reach an audiance that is easier to please and with less piracy) they will of course focus a bit extra on that. Then of course you might as well port the game to PC as it is, since the PC is usually more adaptable in comparison to the console, so porting a game from console to PC is often much easier than the other way around (easier means quicker, and quicker means cheaper).
This also brings up an interesting thing: PC gamers are not as easy to please as console gamers. This becomes obvious when games sold on PC sell so much less than the console version, even when the PC version is both cheaper and has some other advantage.
Or to instead get back on topic:
Quote:
Conclusion is that one is either deemed to be average (or below average) player getting owned left and right in most online games, or devote your life to training like the kids do (and waste your precious lifetime mastering a game with average lifespan of three years...).
Perhaps it's as simple as the fact that multiplayer focus is so much more common and vital these days. Just look at the FPS genre or the RPG genre, where the single player experience used to be the focus (Half Life, Unreal, Doom, Quake or Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, KotOR, TES-games, dungeon crawlers etc.). Now these are both primarily multiplayer (there are still some single player RPG franchises going on, but they are all considering multiplayer again and again, and some even implemented it (Assassins Creed, TES, Mass Effect etc)).
If the multiplayer is the focus, then another player is the obstacle you need to overcome, but humans are complex and it's usually hard, or even impossible, to just look at the game and then predict the enemies movement accurately. You need to practise against your enemies to see what tactics and strategies are most common. To beat a human enemy you need to understand the human, and if you don't know the person you'll just have to go with the next best thing; the meta game. To actually learn the meta game you first need to experience it, and you need to realise that you aren't as different as you think. You will most likely make the same decisions as the vast majority of the players and then, when you realise the meta game, you can use it to your advantage. To know the meta game you first need to experience the game to a certain level of subconsciousness as well as engage a wide array of players, and since most multiplayer games are balanced the meta game is important.
And I think that's the thing you miss. Most single player games are NOT BALANCED! Look at Oblivion, Mass Effect, Dragon Age or even Diablo 2. Anybody who would call those games balanced needs to go and replay those games with different tactics. In Diablo 2 there are builds that are so vastly superior that you can't even finish the game using other tactics. In Morrowind I could 99% reduction to both physical and magical damage as a mage in the late game, while I could usually only reach 80-90% physical with a warrior and the mage would also have more, mor versatile and ranged damage as well as out of combat spells (such as levitation, that teleportation spell or charm spells). Heck, as a high level mage I could do anything that any other build could ever do, and I could do it better.
If such imbalance was to be added to a multiplayer game it would only have versatility for the first couple of months before people realized what to do.
____________
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 24, 2012 05:10 PM |
|
|
|
The consoles are game platforms while the PC is basically a multimedia platform, comparing them makes little sense in the first place, except if you use the PC for gaming and gaming only. Besides, PC gaming will die when the PCs die which won't happen any time soon. On the other hand, the console games are limited to what you can do with a joystick which effectively rules out most strategies and generally all games which require more than a few buttons to be played (not that it's impossible, it just works 100 better with a mouse and a keyboard). The most popular MP games (WoW and most of the MMOs, StarCraft, Diablo, etc.) still reside on PC and will remain there (or mainly there) for foreseeable future.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted April 24, 2012 05:28 PM |
|
|
There have always been games that have required a lot of work to be successfull, simulators.
You can't just hop into microsoft flight simulator or iRacing and expect to make a successfull landing or win races off the bat. These have always required skill and knowledge in order for you to be succesfull.
In regards to the PC vs Console thing, in a modern world where a computer is a necessity I see no reason to own a console. Most games are shared platform nowadays and PC has the most exclusive games by far. In the last ten years I've used around 400 euros for my PC in regards to gaming power and it runs everything splendidly. Compared to 900 euro price for the PS3 when it came out or 500 for the X360 I can't say that I've exactly been on the losing end of the deal. Take into account that console games cost 60-70 euros whereas PC games cost 30-50 euros and it's a complete win.
Wii is another matter entirely and if I was rich, I would own one.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 25, 2012 01:20 AM |
|
|
Doomforge, you're using unusually 'high' level of english, and as you've so clearly pointed out, that the individual that you're adressing isn't capable of simple english (not criticising  ) and then you complain that he can't understand .
Professional online gamin' is almost like fencing (or dancing). If you don't execute a perfect counter/step, then you're 'doomed'.
Personally I enjoy online gaming, keeps you on your toes; makes you adapt to new tactics or different individuals using a tactic. Played ROTWK for two years and I've seen all manner of 'tactics' deployed, from cheap rushes to insane amounts of camping, one's ability to adapt his strategy is the key to any game. (imo)
Edit:
Quote:
Games are becoming labor. is not true for the mayority of the games. and that gaming for some people has always been a serious sport.
In my lifetime I've only known one person who could pick up a controller (or mouse) and play a game at a decent/master rank from the start, and he was half man; half devine. I doubt the rest of the gaming community can do the same, Id est, to get to the rank where you can make a living off gaming or participate in paid/unpaid competitions does indeed require practice/knowledge of the game, eeeergo you have to labour to achieve that 'status'. Whether labour is a tedius toil or simple dedication and love for a certain game, is up to the player, but I seriously doubt anyone who can play at 'master' level earned it by hating every step of the journey, noobs who consider it a toil perish looong before they can taste the fruits of their labour.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Dragon_Slayer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
toss toss toss
|
|
posted April 25, 2012 07:02 AM |
|
|
What a great topic! I agree, games do seem to be more about the grind these days then having fun, but this applies to some games more than others. For obvious reasons Online PVP games are the worst offenders. The style of game dictates how much grind and research you need to do.
For example. When i first bought Halo 3 i didnt have a good internet connection. So i finished the campaign on every difficulty solo. I was good, so when i finally got good internet i jumped straight into multiplayer. I wasnt as good as those who had been playing for nearly a year, however i could hold my own and within a few weeks i was racking up killstreaks and a respectable K-D ratio. When halo 3 died off i stopped playing. Didnt touch a FPS until Halo reach came out. I bought it, ignored single player and went straight online knowing little of the new weapons and abilities. Guess what, i still kicked butt.
Now moving along to another game that has been mentioned here a fair bit, SC2. I played SC1, offline only, but completed the whole thing on the hardest difficulty... eventually. When SC2 came out i took my time with the campaign, learning as much as i could. When i completed it i thought i would give online a try. Now im the kind of guy who likes to build a base, purchase upgrades, setup base defenses. I got destroyed within 10 minutes by a fleet of Carriers.
My moral wrecked, i decided to try again, this time ignoring the things that make the game fun for me and focusing on building units. 10 minutes later im destroyed by a fleet of battlecruisers. This style of game DEMANDS that you play a certain way online or be vapourized, and that style is completely different to the way you would play the campaign. Personally, i dont find it fun at all. Wheres the fun in a 15 minute match thats determined by who can rush the fastest?
Honestly its put me off playing SC2 online. Im the kinda guy who can pick up any game and be decent at it fairly quickly. For me to get to a stage where i can be competetive at SC would take countless months of loosing, frustration and not having any fun.
____________
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 25, 2012 07:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Now moving along to another game that has been mentioned here a fair bit, SC2. I played SC1, offline only, but completed the whole thing on the hardest difficulty... eventually. When SC2 came out i took my time with the campaign, learning as much as i could. When i completed it i thought i would give online a try. Now im the kind of guy who likes to build a base, purchase upgrades, setup base defenses. I got destroyed within 10 minutes by a fleet of Carriers.
Lol same thing happened to me, I went instantly into 'slugish camper' mode, thinking I have to build an impenetrable base of walls and towers and fill them to the brim with archers, but before that I bought some heroes. Defeated, but the EA generic message 'Experience may change with online play' kept me going, it really wasn't about 'grinding' per-se, it was just keeping an open-eye out and the willingness to learn from your mistakes and enemy tactics, but those were 'passive' trats, I just played for fun, and enemy tactics just 'stuck' .
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2012 09:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Consoles last longer, but you can't really upgrade them. You have to buy a new one every X years, and it's not cheap
My PS3 was about $350 and it's lasted far longer as a quality gaming machine than my $2000 PC. Considering PS3 was released in 2006, even at opening price of ~$600, that's not too bad for a machine that has lasted almost six years, and doesn't seem likely to be replaced for at least another year or two at the least - particularly since my PS3 also doubles as my Blu-Ray player for my TV. That's a great value. Plus let's face it, with only a few exceptions, every good game that appears on PCs also has a console version - in fact, many games are DESIGNED for consoles, because consoles have an overwhelmingly large part of the market share, and are only ported (often poorly) to PC later on. What's the advantage of PC gaming any more? Sometimes you get a slightly better textural resolution, and file/game management is a little easier, but I see little else. Gaming on a PC, for me, is virtually dead. Only value in it is to play old games that can't be played on consoles.
Anyway, didn't mean to derail the thread into a discussion of PC vs consoles - sorry DF.
So where are the turn-based strategy games for consoles?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2012 10:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Honestly its put me off playing SC2 online. Im the kinda guy who can pick up any game and be decent at it fairly quickly. For me to get to a stage where i can be competetive at SC would take countless months of loosing, frustration and not having any fun.
that's the trend I noticed too (hence the topic). Most of the time, if you go online and try to win (assuming that's the whole point of the game), you'll get brutalized on start, and afer the countless months of losing and frustration you may improve to the point of being able to win against average players at satisfying rate. It takes literally lots of labor to be able to have fun(while still playing casually, lol).
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 25, 2012 10:50 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 10:51, 25 Apr 2012.
|
Quote:
Wheres the fun in a 15 minute match thats determined by who can rush the fastest?
The situation was the same in StraCraft 1 - Blizzard never fully got rid of certain rushing tactics and while none of them is 100% lethal, you have to develop some very limited in number counter-tactics to have any chance. It's a script for the most part and yes, it's not fun.
This is the problem of all mass-MP games though (even Heroes to an extent) - if there are tools for quick win, they get exploited. Some people just can't play otherwise. I know players who are nigh perfect at rushes and totally suck at everything else and although I've never played SC 2 on-line (say what you want, this is SC 1 with a new skin and frankly I like the old one better) from what I've heard and read there are still countless of "pro-rushers" who learn how to win the game in 10 minutes at most and lose like complete amateurs if it gets longer than that. Getting through this crowd to the really decent players where you can have some fun among other things is a challenge. But that's not really new, maybe just more popular than before.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2012 11:00 AM |
|
|
That's because rushing in general is the easiest to learn & train. And yes, it does add extreme systematicness to the labor-based e-sport scene - to even have a chance in a game beyond average level, you need to master rush/counter rush. That means playing the **** out of it until you can do it blindfold.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Jabanoss
Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
|
|
posted April 25, 2012 11:44 AM |
|
Edited by Jabanoss at 12:01, 25 Apr 2012.
|
That games are becoming a labor is only natural at least if you want to be the best.
Today when we have endless sources of guides, build orders and strategies etc, being a natural talent isn't simply enough to be amongst the "elite".
Personally I don't see the problem with it, when it comes to single player games I don't care if I'm good or bad.(well actually I do, but I don't care how good I am compared to others.) And in multiplayer games or in the multiplayer aspect of a game I find it to be logical that the people putting the most effort into it, end up being the best. Now, don't get me wrong I would have loved it if I could still be amazing in SC2 with just playing lets say 1-2 hours a day. However I will never be as good as someone who plays 4-8 hours a day. (unless they are completely untalented, and those do exist  )
Being good at something isn't enough to be great or amazing, you have to harness your potential with huge amount of training. It's the same with all things really such as music, sports or painting.
I think we can rephrase to whole thing:
Games are only becoming a labor if you want to be the best. (or getting better )
Quote:
Blizzard never fully got rid of certain rushing tactics and while none of them is 100% lethal, you have to develop some very limited in number counter-tactics to have any chance. It's a script for the most part and yes, it's not fun.
Of course Blizzard never got rid of them, and why should they?
The risk of rushes is vital as it make the game exciting and alive, as a player you always have to be awake and vigilant. Besides, nothing is more satisfying than defeating a cheesy rusher. 
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 25, 2012 12:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think we can rephrase to whole thing:
Games are only becoming a labor if you want to be the best. (or getting better )
I think 'labour' should be better defined, when I was getting the **** kicked out of me back when I started, I knew full well that this is going to naturally happen (I'd mass huge armies; then unlesh them ^^) I only got annoyed by defeats much later on, when I 'fully' understood the game and the physics. (Id est when I began to construct my own tactics and gameplay, and watch it get crushed by a superior one  )
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 25, 2012 12:27 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 15:34, 25 Apr 2012.
|
Quote:
Of course Blizzard never got rid of them, and why should they?
The risk of rushes is vital as it make the game exciting and alive, as a player you always have to be awake and vigilant. Besides, nothing is more satisfying than defeating a cheesy rusher.
Because it reduces the game to a rush + counter-rush way too often. Why do you need a dozen units when you can win the game with Zerglings against anyone who can't be bothered with anti-rush scripts? And if this is so, why are the rest of the units there anyway? When I played Brood War somewhat seriously (i.e. on an average level by the on-line standards) I tended to beat rushers pretty often but had no fun with repeating the same thing over and over again just because the dumb brat on the other end couldn't figure out what to do with the 90% of his units which can't be used for rushes.
|
|
Dragon_Slayer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
toss toss toss
|
|
posted April 25, 2012 01:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, don't get me wrong I would have loved it if I could still be amazing in SC2 with just playing lets say 1-2 hours a day. However I will never be as good as someone who plays 4-8 hours a day.
Its RTS that suffer most from this. FPS seem to be easier to pickup and play your own way, as well as being easier to pickup after a year of absence. I also played a 2v2 match on SC2 in hopes that i could learn off the other person. In the end my partner asked for full control of my units and i was constantly bombarded with messages "build faster" "faster faster".
In a match thats over so quickly, how can you learn? This is why is takes so many months of failing before you start to work things out. Its not like wow where you discuss your strats pre-raid, nor is it like CoD where you can camp for a bit and evaluate whats going on. You need to be pro from the get go.
This is something id love to see addressed in RTS games, maybe give other game modes that promote proper base development. I mean i hate playing SC and only using 3 units out of 15, and barely purchasing upgrades... Man i effin love upgrades!!! lol
____________
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted April 25, 2012 01:46 PM |
|
|
Primary reason I love turn-based games... I want to have time to think.
____________
|
|
fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2012 03:48 PM |
|
|
but it seems that in modern FPS (I've barely played a few of them) you can gain ranks online which allow you to start matches with better weapons. it is really frustrating when you are beginner, because not only you get to play against people who trained much more, but also, they get much better weapons...
for example, on Far Cry 2, I decided to play only in unranked match since it forced people to begin every match at the lowest rank. but your rank could still increase as long as you stayed in the match, depending on your performance. that was much more fair imo.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted April 25, 2012 03:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
they get much better weapons...
Well here's the thing, each weapon is unique, one has high power, but insane recoil, the other is weak, but high accuarcy. There are a few weapons that bypass this and are naturally 'OP', but those you get either from the start or very early on. (in COD and battlefield atleast)
In reality though, weapons in FPS's are up to personal preference.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
| |
|
|
