Why are modern PC games so newb-friendly?

[VulgarDisplay]

This made me think of an interesting debate that started around the beginning of cod4 competition a few years back. Everyone was saying that the game didn't have a steep enough skill gap which made more teams play on the same level. Promod was made to increase that skill gap so that a few teams would be cal-m/cevo-p and steps down in skill level would follow from there. The people advocating these "pro" mods were the same ones complaining about how the competitive PC gaming scene was almost nonexistant.

So by creating a mod that basically made it easier for them to dominate the game they cut out a large portion of players that could add to the competitive community which would have insured larger lans, and more competition. While you might think that the dumbing down of PC games is killing the entire PC gaming community it is actually increasing the number of players who would be willing to try their hand at competitive gaming. The great teams/players would still be great, but with a more accesible game they would have more people to play against. That's the one thing about modding a game for competition I never understood. They are limiting their game of choice's own chances at being competitive by doing it.

 

[BladeVenom]

Want some hardcore games? They are still around!

ARMA II
DOW
COH
to name a few.

DCS Black Shark
Dangerous Waters
Il-2 1946
Even UT3 is faster paced than most FPS
almost any turn based strategy game
Blood Bowl is what I've been playing lately

 

[Modular]

I have to second the idea that quality SP campaigns are superior to pretty much any MP experience out there. I used to be huge into playing MP shooters, but they are getting really old. There's no content to the majority of them which makes them nothing more than time wasters.

I guess as I mature my mind has begun to desire some semblance of thought provoking material in games.

 

[bhanson]

Unreal Tournament (99 and 2k4) were the quintessential example of a game focused solely on player skill. With a mobility and accuracy focused game, the difference between a player and someone just a little bit better than them was huge.

Basically, in a 1v1 situation if you were just a little bit better than someone you would beat them nearly flawlessly. I personally think UT was very close to being a perfect game from a competition standpoint.

Out of all of the games mentioned so far, none of them beat UT in terms of ability for a player to showcase their individual skill. A good player in UT could beat multiple lesser capable players by literally dodging bullets. In some of these other games 1vX situations are almost impossible. I think this is what the OP is referring to in terms of new player friendliness.

Even in a game like CS, the gap between skill levels of players is much smaller. With UT you could have unlimited accuracy because the guns had no recoil and were perfectly precise. In CS there's only really so much you can do.

In the end whatever sells the most games is what's going to be done, and it's not necessarily that bad of a thing, even for the professional scene. A game needs to be popular and have a good fan base for any sort of professional gaming to exist. If this means there is less room for an individual to exemplify their skill, well c'est la vie.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I have to second the idea that quality SP campaigns are superior to pretty much any MP experience out there. I used to be huge into playing MP shooters, but they are getting really old. There's no content to the majority of them which makes them nothing more than time wasters.

I guess as I mature my mind has begun to desire some semblance of thought provoking material in games.

As I've matured, I've moved in the opposite direction--from single player to online multiplayer (which the coming of the Internet) and haven't found anything that compares to playing an organized FPS clan match or clan-match style pickup game match.

Single player against dumb AI just does nothing for me at all now. Gaming is so much more intense against human opponents where ego is on the line. Single player also removes any and all aspects of teamwork.

 

[gramboh]

As I've matured, I've moved in the opposite direction--from single player to online multiplayer (which the coming of the Internet) and haven't found anything that compares to playing an organized FPS clan match or clan-match style pickup game match.

Single player against dumb AI just does nothing for me at all now. Gaming is so much more intense against human opponents where ego is on the line. Single player also removes any and all aspects of teamwork.

Agreed. I only play some single player RPG and arcade racers now. Single player FPS (other than Half-Life) is boring and easy. MP is the way to go, the competition makes it fun. I find as long as you have decent FPS skills they translate enoguh in new games. Maybe it's because of all the CS, QW and Q3 I played 10 years ago, but I don't have much trouble adapting to new games now.

 

[Modular]

Double-post...see below.

 

[Modular]

As I've matured, I've moved in the opposite direction--from single player to online multiplayer (which the coming of the Internet) and haven't found anything that compares to playing an organized FPS clan match or clan-match style pickup game match.

Single player against dumb AI just does nothing for me at all now. Gaming is so much more intense against human opponents where ego is on the line. Single player also removes any and all aspects of teamwork.

Hmm, good point. Now that I think about it a bit, maybe the real reason I don't play online as much is because I don't have the time to dedicate to a clan, or at the very least a group of gamers who are actually looking to play competitively. To be honest, the majority of people playing MP games (at least FPS's) aren't looking to work as a team. They're looking to get the next achievement, or to get the next weapon unlock. That's not fun to me, what was fun was the aspect of the gameplay that you mentioned; being in a team.

However, there is something very fun about playing SP campaigns that are high quality and have a well told story that you feel a part of. Maybe it's just a phase I'm going through, but I'm leaning towards playing that type of game recently.

 

[mmntech]

It seems this trend probably started around 2006. Prior to this, games were unforgiving to those who were not skilled. I'm thinking specifically about games like TFC, CS, BF2, UT, WC3, Q3, etc. In these games if you were a newb you were basically demolished by more experienced players to the point where you would either quit the game or got better.

Now it seems every recent PC game I have played is very forgiving to new players. Look at the difference between TFC and TF2 -- TF2 is a joke in that you can give keyboard/mouse to any random person who hasn't played it before and they can probably get a few kills. I don't think this is due to consoles, seeing as how Valve is a PC-centric developer, so please don't turn this thread into a console-vs-PC thread.

Basically, it seems like at some point there has been a paradigm shift among developers where they want to encourage players to remain in-game. Perhaps some future move towards serious in-game advertising?

Think about what you said in the first paragraph. It's not fair to throw new gamers to the wolves.

It's not as if the hardcore elements are gone but brining a more friendly environment to new gamers is welcome IMO. Not everyone has the time or desire to endlessly grind to build their skill up. Casual gamers is where the money is anyway.

 

[simonizor]

Think about what you said in the first paragraph. It's not fair to throw new gamers to the wolves.

It's not as if the hardcore elements are gone but brining a more friendly environment to new gamers is welcome IMO. Not everyone has the time or desire to endlessly grind to build their skill up. Casual gamers is where the money is anyway.

You don't have to dumb down the entire game to lure in casual gamers. Most games have noob friendly servers for people who aren't pro at the game and just want to have fun. This way, the game can be played competitively by people who want to do so, or it can be a game where you just take it easy and have fun all without changing the way the game works.

 

[Pia]

This made me think of an interesting debate that started around the beginning of cod4 competition a few years back. Everyone was saying that the game didn't have a steep enough skill gap which made more teams play on the same level. Promod was made to increase that skill gap so that a few teams would be cal-m/cevo-p and steps down in skill level would follow from there. The people advocating these "pro" mods were the same ones complaining about how the competitive PC gaming scene was almost nonexistant.

So by creating a mod that basically made it easier for them to dominate the game

You have completely missed the point of such mods. For there to be a meaningful competition it has to be possible to dominate. If everyone is a "winrar", the game no longer remains a viable competitive game. How long would a shooting event last in Olympics if 30+ competitors shot a perfect score every time? There would be no point to it. To say that it makes life "easier" for the top players is the opposite of the truth: with the raised skill cap they have to try harder to be at the top, because other top players are also trying.

The other point of such mods is eliminating degenerate tactics in high-level play. A particular mechanic or glitch or whatnot, when used in an organized fashion by top players, might be so overwhelmingly powerful that large swathes of the game cease to matter and the remaining game is dull and uninteresting. When that happens the only way to keep the game alive at high level is to use rules which somehow block that thing out. A mod is a good way to do that.

they cut out a large portion of players that could add to the competitive community which would have insured larger lans, and more competition. While you might think that the dumbing down of PC games is killing the entire PC gaming community it is actually increasing the number of players who would be willing to try their hand at competitive gaming. The great teams/players would still be great, but with a more accesible game they would have more people to play against. That's the one thing about modding a game for competition I never understood. They are limiting their game of choice's own chances at being competitive by doing it.

Absurd. When top players of a game - which is to say, the foremost experts on how that game plays - stand behind a competition mod, they are saying the game is not good enough as is. Sure it sucks for the userbase to be fractured, but that's thanks to the devs not balancing well enough and not setting skill cap high enough, and the alternative is no solid competition scene at all. And it's not like installing a free mod is a big threshold to overcome at the point where you are good enough at the vanilla game where you start to see the problems and want to play with them fixed.

 

[motsm]

My problem with new games is they always cater to inexperienced players without the ability to turn off features if you are an experienced gamer. In game tutorial hand holding, cluttered HUD's and center screen text full of useless information, regenerative health, leveled enemies. So many games ship with features to level the playing field and offer no alternative, so while they gain casual players, they lose the experienced loyal fans. Obviously its smart from a business standpoint, but I can still bitch about how horrible it is. I haven't really enjoyed a game since developers started pulling this crap. I'm certainly not just talking about online games either, its just as bad in single player.

Luckily, Windows 7 has pretty good compatibility with old games.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

You have completely missed the point of such mods. For there to be a meaningful competition it has to be possible to dominate. If everyone is a "winrar", the game no longer remains a viable competitive game. How long would a shooting event last in Olympics if 30+ competitors shot a perfect score every time? There would be no point to it. To say that it makes life "easier" for the top players is the opposite of the truth: with the raised skill cap they have to try harder to be at the top, because other top players are also trying.

The other point of such mods is eliminating degenerate tactics in high-level play. A particular mechanic or glitch or whatnot, when used in an organized fashion by top players, might be so overwhelmingly powerful that large swathes of the game cease to matter and the remaining game is dull and uninteresting. When that happens the only way to keep the game alive at high level is to use rules which somehow block that thing out. A mod is a good way to do that.Absurd. When top players of a game - which is to say, the foremost experts on how that game plays - stand behind a competition mod, they are saying the game is not good enough as is. Sure it sucks for the userbase to be fractured, but that's thanks to the devs not balancing well enough and not setting skill cap high enough, and the alternative is no solid competition scene at all. And it's not like installing a free mod is a big threshold to overcome at the point where you are good enough at the vanilla game where you start to see the problems and want to play with them fixed.

The thing is that if there is an overpowering aspect of the game everyone would have the ability to use it thus negating it. The good teams would still be on top, but there would be a much larger crop of players to compete with if the mods were left out. This is basically the reason why PC fps competition is dying. No new players want to try it out because the powers that be ("pro" gamers) make the game a lot less accessible, and still have certain things that are overpowered in their competition mods. So now you have a mod that has the same balance problems the orginal game had, and you lose 3/4's of the people who would have been willing to try their hand at the game.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

You know, there is a huge fundamental flaw in this discussion.

Accessibility does not equal low skill ceilings. The fact that a low skilled player can still be useful does not mean that there are no high skilled players, and it most certainly does not mean that the high skilled player will not be much more effective then the low skilled player, and it's nowhere near the same thing as having a low skill ceiling.

These equivalences simply are not the case.

 

[clok1966]

I think its far simpler. In the old days people didnt buy 5 games a month (no rentals or gamefly then), they bought one, and played the crap out of it, if you beat it in a few hours you where not happy. When video games where new (and consoles/PC) we didnt all have cars, we didnt all have Ipods, we didnt all have phones that IM'ed (or you could carry in your pocket). We didnt have Video stores, cable TV was ony in about 20-30% of homes. No internet. Basicly we didnt have 20 other things besides video games. For the gamers, we gamed, nowdays you do 25 things, gameing is just one of them. Making a game hard or challangeing means people will leave it and do something else, and forget it. Back int eh past we played or we watched Mork and Mindy.

And on a even baser level, we all like to Win. A game that lets you do that leaves a better taste then one that beats us over the head and makes us "work" for it.

Just look at games of the past, you couldnt actually win many of them. Defender, Space Invaders, etc. the challange was seeing how far you could go, not about reaching the end. Most of that was probebly about making money more then anything.

Play Mega Man, metroid, or many of the ones that did have endings, they could take weeks. Then play the Singel Player of MW2 (it was like 4 hours long!!! beat in a singel night!!!!). Now dont get me wrong MW2 is a skill based game and most of its play id derived from the MP not the SP game.

I find it interesting that a game that recently came out got so much "its brutal" reviews. DEAMONS SOULS for the PS3 isnt even remotly BRUTAL, its almost easy if you are used to timed attacks (old school game staple). I would say its much simpler and easier then many of the games the NES or genisis had. I must admit DEAMONS SOULS is one of my favorite games int he last year as its kinda Mega Man in 3D in a way, levels are the same, you learn to be ready for anything, pattern based attacks, reflexes are key.

And one last thing, people like me who started on the original games are getting OLD our reflexes are starting to suck (used to be a GOD (in my own mind) in Q2 and UT2K in the past, but cant do crap in um nowdays), but we still play and buy alot of games (some of us) and reflex or reation gameing isnt our thing anymore.

 

[JoshGuru7]

There's an inherent tradeoff in most games between chance and skill, and "noob-friendly" games really just come down to the increasing the impact that chance plays on the game. This is often ostensibly for the sake of realism but the result is the same since reality itself does contain a huge element of chance.

I agree with Bhanson's opinion of UT as possibly the FPS which tilted the furthest towards skill and away from chance. Quick weapon switching, no scatter, no movement penalties, minimal range penalties, strong powerups, and movement abilities (dodge/translocate/hammer jump) all added up to a game where a 5% difference in skill could lead to a 20-3 match.

However, the people in this thread who think the draw of a game like that is the ability for pros to dominate new players are completely wrong. The reason why many people loved UT so much was that when players of about the same skill level played together, minor differences still mattered significantly because the skill level curve was so steep.

 

[kalrith]

EXACTLY this.

It's the main reason I've never touched an MMO (or really any multiplayer). Where is the fun for me in getting my ass kicked by a 13 year old who gets to game 20+ hours a week (I'm lucky if I get an hour a night after work/the kids are in bed/the bills paid/the dishes put away, etc., etc., etc.).

It's been single-player campaigns only for me and will likely stay that way for a long time.

Same here. I played Everquest for a little while when it first came out, and I even had a good chunk of time to devote to it, because I was in high school. I constantly had to switch from group to group, because there were people playing 25-40 hours per week! I'd game for 6 hours one night, and by the time I got back from school everyone in my group had gained a few levels.

I like single-player games that can be played for fun by a novice but can also reward greater experience in the game.

 

[EvilComputer92]

As I've matured, I've moved in the opposite direction--from single player to online multiplayer (which the coming of the Internet) and haven't found anything that compares to playing an organized FPS clan match or clan-match style pickup game match.

Single player against dumb AI just does nothing for me at all now. Gaming is so much more intense against human opponents where ego is on the line. Single player also removes any and all aspects of teamwork.

Multiplayer removes all aspects of story, plot and characters. You can never have a game like Mass Effect in multiplayer form. Multiplayer doesn't tell a story like good single player does.

They are two completely different forms of gaming. Multiplayer gaming is more similar to a sport, while single player gaming is like a choose your own adventure book.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I agree with Bhanson's opinion of UT as possibly the FPS which tilted the furthest towards skill and away from chance. Quick weapon switching, no scatter, no movement penalties, minimal range penalties, strong powerups, and movement abilities (dodge/translocate/hammer jump) all added up to a game where a 5% difference in skill could lead to a 20-3 match.

However, the people in this thread who think the draw of a game like that is the ability for pros to dominate new players are completely wrong. The reason why many people loved UT so much was that when players of about the same skill level played together, minor differences still mattered significantly because the skill level curve was so steep.

I don't think the skill differences in UT99 are as significant as what you guys think. I'm not an elite player and probably wouldn't be regarded as pro level by the clan community, but I have been playing capture-the-flag PUG matches for years and while I might be one of the worst players, I can still get a good number of kills on the pros and elite players, make a significant contribution to my team, and capture flags.

Years ago I played on public servers and merely average players seemed to have a good time and would get kills. I don't think UT99 was an elitist game in any way. I think part of its success was that newer players could pick the game up quickly and start making contributions. A new player will get beaten down for his first three weeks, but after that I think he'll be up to speed and able to rack up some kills.

 

[JoshGuru7]

Years ago I played on public servers and merely average players seemed to have a good time and would get kills. I don't think UT99 was an elitist game in any way. I think part of its success was that newer players could pick the game up quickly and start making contributions. A new player will get beaten down for his first three weeks, but after that I think he'll be up to speed and able to rack up some kills.

Having played FPS games competitively for a long time I'm convinced of completely the opposite and would point out two things.

1) CTF is a completely different animal precisely because the goal is not simply fragging and a few kills do not really matter. The incentives are therefore a lot different and new players who look for kills can find them but often at a detriment to their team. The skill differentiator here would be something like cap time, and new players simply don't know what to do when confronted by a runner on lava giant with a <15s cap time. You're either a lot better than you think you are or playing with people a lot worse than you think they are.

If you spent a lot of time in TDM where kills are what matter I think your views would change very quickly.

2) It's really about the role of luck. Of course average players get tons of kills against average players but what I enjoyed most about UT was the minimized element of luck in this. If we meet at the damage amp in november and you kill me, it was because you played better in that exchange. It wasn't because your bullet spread connected while mine missed but because your aim was better in that five seconds. It wasn't because you camped the spawn from the opposing ledge but because your strategy was better and I was lazy in taking a direct translocate at the amp. Now I might be better than you on average, but when you kill me it is usually because you are better than me in that exchange and not that you just got lucky.

A lot of hardcore FPS players loved UT not because it allowed them to farm noobs but because it let them play against each other with much less luck involved than the "realism" games that soon followed that were friendlier for new players.

 

[rivethead]

Multiplayer gaming is more similar to a sport, while single player gaming is like a choose your own adventure book.

Well stated. I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

[rivethead]

A new player will get beaten down for his first three weeks, but after that I think he'll be up to speed and able to rack up some kills.

Wow. Please tell me where the hell the fun is in getting beaten down for the first three weeks?

If I get beaten down, after 30 minutes I'm done and move on to something enjoyable.

I just don't understand the logic there. Time is just too valuable to me.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Wow. Please tell me where the hell the fun is in getting beaten down for the first three weeks?

If I get beaten down, after 30 minutes I'm done and move on to something enjoyable.

I just don't understand the logic there. Time is just too valuable to me.

Oh man! You mean I *get* to spend three weeks as cannon fodder!?!?! Wow! Sign me up! *That* sounds like a blast!

Games are supposed to be fun. If I wanted a job, I'd go to my job.

 

[marmasatt]

Yes, it is indeed a surprise that the vast majority of people enjoy games in which they do not die constantly to "pros".

Yeah, I was going to say. Some may call that an "improvement." Like after all these years, they finally found a balance where newbs see light at the end of the tunnel and don't put a game down after one try....

 

[StinkyPinky]

Problem is kids just play 12 hours a day and therefore become way better than Joe Public with a wife, job, and family who only plays a few hours a week (like me).

I hate MP games. The people are often hostile, you often get owned by smart mouthed kids....yeah fun. Not.

Give me a good SP game anyday