CS/mario kart actually harder than UT/gran tourismo?!?!

[Kenryoku_Maxis]

RageBot said:

Kenryoku_Maxis said:

scottie said:

Note for those who haven't played CS/UT, just insert any old game that's decried as easy instead of CS and any 'hard' game instead of UT. Brawl with items on is considered 'easy' brawl without is considered hardcore and hard.

 

Basically, the argument used to show that CS and Mario Kart are easy is that Due to things like the noob cannon (autoshotgun) in cs and bullets in mario kart, it makes it easy for bad players to beat better players, thus they are easier.

 

This makes sense right?

...

No, this is extremely specious reasoning. A game like UT, it is very hard for a noob to beat a pro, or in other words, it's very easy to get to the skill level where you can do awesomely. 

 

In a game like mario kart, you can get to the stage where your chances against a noob, or even an average player are as high as in UT (if you get a bit ahead in Mario Kart, you can avoid the shitfights and the shell throwing and just treat it like a timetrial, the only thing that slows you down but doesnt slow second is blue shells, but you just need to be good enough to get a lead so this doesnt matter

 

The truth of the matter is, Mario Kart, just like CS and Brawl with items are all easy to learn, hard to master. Games that are usually considered hard are infact hard to learn, easy to master

The problem with your argument is Mario Kart DS and Wii totally broke the gameplay.  I can argee that a lot of people whine about CS and Brawl when those games are actually quite balanced, but the latest Mario Kart games have been totally broken to the extent that you can be completely in the lead for the entire race, and then get hit by 2 blue turle shells and a POW block in the last half of the 3rd lap and be in 11th place.  And there's nothing you can do about it.  And it happens quite often.

Now if you're talking about Mario Kart 64 or Super Mario Kart, then its a little more balanced.

As for harder games being easier to learn, I think that's dependant on the game.  Take a game like Starcraft.  That game takes some time to learn, but to get 'good' at it now adays takes years due to all that ridiculous rules and techniques people employ.  Now on the flip side, look at a game such as Smash Bros Melee, that game doesn't take much to learn at all, but on the same token, just like Starcraft, if you want to consider yourself 'good', you have to learn all these 'techniques' and 'exploits' that people do to keep up or else you can't consider yourself 'pro'.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong about Melee (right about Brawl, though), in order to play Melee competitively you need to learn some basic techniques, that without them, a person who knows them, but otherwise is in the same "skill level", will still win in 9 out of 10 matches.

Edge guarding, L cancelling, Sliding, Teching, Wave Dashing, Shuffling and Chain Throwing aren't basic techniques.  That is, they aren't things a normal player learns by playing the game normally.  And as such, it makes the gap between an 'advanced' player of melee and someone who doesn't use those techniques very large.  You can learn those techniques over time however.  But on the same token, someone can also play the game on the basic level just fine without learning those things.

aragod said:

What the hell does CS in that sentence, another b00n that doesn't have any clue what's he talking about.

Game like Starcraft is the exact same thing as CS. It's not complex, but it's about experience expectations and micro. You can be complete douche with IQ below -50 as long as you can micro 4 Pool or basicaly any similar tactic. Starcraft of Warcraft RTS games have never been as much about tactics as about quick decision making, adaptation and super fast reflexes. Yes, experience comes with that, but I can learn every single tactic there is to be played in that given game (I was never big in starcraft, but amongst my friends are some of the former W3 WGC contenders, we've played fair amount of W3TFT on LANs and Bootcamps) and still sucks, since my micro is so lame and I get lost during the game thanks to my nonexistant multitasking ability.

So rules and techniques are the least you have to worry about. It's your micro and multitasking abilities, which can be improved only upon playing and getting your ass handed to you over and over. That's where it's so similar to Counter Strike. It's not about the ability to learn some tactics, it's about the true gaming "skill".

Sorry...I don't quite follow what you're trying to say.  First off, I'm not saying Starcraft or CS don't require skill at all.  Nor did I say Starcraft wasn't about Micromanagement.  However, Starcraft and CS are not at all alike, even when it comes to being about skill.  Counter Strike is about quick reflexes and memorization of levels while Starcraft is about micromanagement and staying ahead of your enemy (in resources, map space and knowledge).

My comment about 'rules and techniques' applied to when you were trying to play 'advanced Starcraft'.  Which would basically mean you were playing Koreans or high level players (who mostly play Koreans).  AKA you would be mostly playing Lost Temple 1v1 matches.  When you're always playing the same map with the same set of conditions, the game constantly comes down to the same scenarios.  Which turns out to be who can scout the best and who can expand the fastest.  And that's what 'advanced' Starcraft is.