By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
scottie on 06 April 2010
Edit Thread
aragod said:
scottie said:
aragod said:
scottie said:
aragod said:

 

 

Actually I have played hundreds of hours of counter strike. Mostly 1.6 but a bit of source as well. It is a very easy shooter to be alright at, but a hard shooter to be incredible at.

Ragebot - I would argue that Brawl is considered by many (who are mediocre at it) to be an easy fighting game, and obviously you think blazblue is a hard one. However, as a self confessed pro at smash bros, I can say that this is not the case, it is again easy to learn, hard to master because of the sheer variety in the games due to level design and items, as well as the inability to button bash. I haven't played blazblue, but the majority of conventional fighting games come under hard to learn easy to master

As for starcraft, you want me to compare a racer, a shooter and a fighter to an rts? No. I shan't. Same genre comparisons only

Since you've played hundreds of hours of CS, you are saying that it's easy to be alright at. Define the meaning of alright as used here. I still feel that you haven't played CS on the level where you're able to diferentiate between alright and incredible. I've played CS for money for 2 years as "progamer", 7 years total. Playing on the highest level (never actually made the absolute "top" of the world, but was part of our national team as well as high level contender on some of the european events) there was still huge difference between the best players and teams and incredible players and teams. If you ever encountered the real pro, you'd have no idea that CS can be played like that. But that's clanwars, years of hard work on aim servers, watching replays, playing maps with transparent walls, teamwork excercise.

I know players that were incredible considering the cs population, but didn't hold a candle to the level where we played, and we couldn't touch the top teams. Beeing alright in CS is a very wide term, it can mean both top player and complete noob, it's just matter of your point of view. From my point of view, you still have no idea what you are talking about.

Everything is easy to learn and hard to master, unless it's incredibly shallow experience. But some games have wider scale of how "hard" they are to master. No matter how you look at it, MarioKart and Brawl are nowhere near close to Gran Turismo and whatever pro fighting game that is used to measure "skill". If it weren't true, those pro tournaments would be in MK and Brawl instead of these other games.

 

We'll I would certainly get schooled by the majority of people who play for money

 

And yes, you're right that the majority of games that we play are hard to master to some degree, however I am arguing that many games considered 'easy' are actually harder to master than games considered hard. The fact that you're detailing the amount of training required to master CS just proves my point, because it is one of the games that many people claim is infact easy. Come to think of it, aren't we both saying the same thing?? That CS is a very hard game to master.

 

And no, the game that gets chosen for pro tournaments has very little to do with difficulty curves. IMO it has more to do with the amount of money put in by the developer/publisher to put their game forward in the eyes of the hardcore crowd. Additionally, the gamer's ego must be taken into account, being a pro gamer at cartoony games is considered less a source of pride than photorealistic games, as an example