Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
Rye

Skill?

This topic is 4024 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Do you think games that reqire skill are more fun than those that dont? Take UT2004 for example, a complete novice goes for a 1v1 against an average player. The novice wouldnt score a single frag unless he was very very luck or the average player made a mistake. Now Take World Of Warcraft. A Complete Novice could play that game and being 10 levels above an expert WoW player, the novice would easily win. Take The Curse Of Monkey Island, The game requires no skill AT ALL, just a brain to work out the crazy puzzles. Its impossible to lose that game. Now, All 3 of the above games are considered good by me and many others. But which method is the best, IS there a best? This can now be catagorised. Multiplayer and Single Player I believe in Single Player, it doesnt actually matter, As long as the story is good, or the game is fun. Then whether it requires skill or not is irrelivant But in multiplayer.... thats a different matter. I think skill is what grips our competitive nature. Be it in football, chess, juggling, or gaming. We all strive to be the best. Skill or not skill, that is the question? Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Skill, always.

With the exception of simple, random games, that you can play for about 15 minutes just for something to do with a small amount of time (think Worms Armaggedon, simple.)

In both Single & multi-player, I opt for skill-based stuff. In single player, it gives you a reason to keep playing or play it again (maybe at a higher difficulty level). If it took no skill, and was just a set of puzzles + a story, you have very little reason to do it again, or at least you missed out on the skill reason.

In multiplayer, it makes people competitive, and if you've been playing a long time (expert) and you get beaten by a new person, it's very irritating. Especially if it is only because they're a higher level, like in WoW. Except, if you're a higher level, you generally would be much more of an expert (excluding people with multiple characters).

Overall, I think skill wins in every case except making just a simple game. But simple games can be fun, it's all what you're trying to accomplish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Dekasa
In multiplayer, it makes people competitive, and if you've been playing a long time (expert) and you get beaten by a new person, it's very irritating. Especially if it is only because they're a higher level, like in WoW. Except, if you're a higher level, you generally would be much more of an expert (excluding people with multiple characters).


One challenge to realize with MMORPG games is that they are both single and multi-player. Many more people play the co-operative ("single-player") version of the game than play the competitive ("multi-player") version of the game. WoW is a co-operative game with competitive play just tacked on as an afterthought.

Further, an RPG is arguably inherently at odds with a skill-based philosophy: how do you make it worthwhile to gain levels while keeping PvP skill-based? A core motivation in RPG games is the "omg more power" feeling that comes with gaining each level. It's hard to keep that feeling and make +10 levels not matter in PvP.

It's obviously possible to make a skill-based MMO (see GuildWars), but their PvP isn't really based on character leveling (anyone can create a max level character for PvP).

-me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You will find that skill based (twitch, primarily) will always be less popular than non-skill based. Why? Because everyone wants to win, and the vast majority of players don't have the time or dedication to practice (play) for the extreme amount of time it takes to develop skill (FPS is a very good example). Compare the popularity of skill based games in general to non skill based games. This is one of many reasons why WoW has become so popular.

The FPS genre demonstrates this concept very clearly. Tactical-strategy games require are easy to get into, and require less time to master than strategy-twitch games. Examples of tactical-strategy are games like Counter Strike (Source) and the Battlefield series. Examples of strategy-twitch are the Unreal Tournament and Quake series. Both CS and BF have notably larger playerbases than either UT or Quake, when considering all games and versions.

blah blah blah.

Personally, I'm in the camp that prefers skill based. I've been playing UT/Quake for several years, and I am still at best an average player (where as it took me a matter of months to become average at CS with no prior FPS experience). However, despite constantly facing defeat, it is very gratifying to know that when I do win it is entirely due to superior play. Both winning and losing is more displeasing in non-skill based games, because the outcomes in either situation are hardly based upon the players involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[good] Games that don't require skill are almost invariably more fun in the truest sense. Stuff like MarioKart, Wii Tennis, or even something like Guitar Hero are super bunches of fun if you've no skill at all or are kickass; even multiplayer.

That said; I almost always find a well matched game of a good FPS or even physical sport to be far more satisfying and enjoyable even if it's less pure fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skill, always.

I enjoy drawing and casting my spells (and how i can improve my performance through my own dexterity) in Arx Fatalis than mashing the cast button X times in Morrowind to increase my "skill". At least i have only myself to blame when i botch a spell in AF by drawing it a little funny instead of getting random "your spell failed" spam.

Same thing with Morrowind/Oblivions bow skills, in morrowind you have a random chance to hit/miss based on stats, no matter how well you aim and line up your shot. Whereas in Oblivion its based more on your own skill to aim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends heavily on the type of game you're developing.

UT 2004 is customisable and the combat is very quick. There's no save/load grueling waiting period when you die. So you can vs harder enimies without really caring that much (more-so for bots than other humans)

WoW is an online RPG, as we know, if you die in an RPG, it sucks trying to get back up on your feet, especially in an MMO. If the player is immersed in the story, he will not likley care as long as he is advancing at a good rate and seeing "new scenery" so to speak.

Monkey Island is a puzzle game, of course it's impossible to die, However, one of the things that puzzle games are good at is making people go "he he, I'm smart". In a way, it's a 50 hour gameplay ego-booster.

I think that the balance comes in with how immersed you want the player to be. If you want his life to be sucked into the game (as sadly some people do), then it should be challenging. If you want him to play it as an "I'm bored, and this game is addicting" thing, then make it moderatley easy with hard parts thrown in every once in a while.

However, if you want a lunch break game, super easy would be the way to go. You wouldn't want the boss to come in and have you reply "HOLD ON, I HAVE TO BEAT THE FINAL BOSS!!!!".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Palidine
Further, an RPG is arguably inherently at odds with a skill-based philosophy: how do you make it worthwhile to gain levels while keeping PvP skill-based? A core motivation in RPG games is the "omg more power" feeling that comes with gaining each level. It's hard to keep that feeling and make +10 levels not matter in PvP.


Considering that most every RPG equates power gain with strict, statistical advantage, they don't lend themselves well to a skill based implementation. I'm sure that an RPG that equated levels to an increase in potential instead of an automatic increase in power would be a more successful mesh of the two concepts, however. Players would feel disenfranchised if the learning curve of the game was too great and they were unable to personally advance at a pace that made their increases in potential (Say, an increase in maximum possible swing damage in a melee type RPG) stay meaningful, the RPG style player would become bored. But this is an issue with any game in any case. An RPG that equated character progression with an increase in potential and made character progression contingent on some sort of skill based progression with a good learning curve...

Would be kinda like how athletes in real life gain both physical prowess and learn to play their sport better, or guitar playing develops bother dexterity and finger strength. The issue with games today is they focus either on skill based progression or "material" progression: you need both for a complete experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!