Dear Developers, Stop Listening to Pros
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 чер 2022
- Join the Discord: / discord
Should developers listen to pro players? maybe not.
The Next Major RTS Will Fail. This Is Why: • The Next Major RTS Wil...
User Research on Destiny: • User Research on Destiny
Jaime Griesemer isn't good at Halo: • Changing the Time Betw...
The Truth Behind Halo's TTK: • The Truth Behind Halo'...
Horizon obsessive hints: / 1500683870815109120
KingKrush8's Death by a Traffic Cone: • KingKrush8's Death by ...
Halo 3 UX: maxhoberman/statu...
Halo 3 matchmaking: / 1519826305319067649
#competitive #fps - Ігри
The pros are supposed to be good at the game, not change the game so they can be good at it.
Very well said. I think all developers need to see this comment. Seriously
True, but if you dotn listen to them then they'll just play a different game.
@@KrolKaz Then fine. The pro scene is an absolute minority compared to the casual scene in any large-scale multiplayer game.
You can host all the pro tournaments you want, but its the casuals who'll be watching and paying the revenue for all the sponsors of your pro teams.
@@KrolKaz I don’t think that’s true, you need a lot of things to become a pro gamer, some of those being passion and commitment. Most importantly passion.
A pro player who is very passionate about the game will want to play it regardless and won’t easily quit. Even if it had a over powered Spartan laser that makes driving any vehicle extremely risky. I don’t remember pros getting but hurt about the Spartan laser in Halo 3, Reach and 4.
Edit: Dodging/evading the Spartan laser in a warthog or a falcon adds another layer of skill gap which separates the pros from the normies. However I will say the Spartan laser is even more of a problem now due to people being able to play the old games with a keyboard via MCC. It will definitely be harder to avoid the laser in vehicles against a mouse user.
yeah no wonder why the only liked elder ring and called other games trash
"You can't force a game to be an eSport."
Blizzard: "I'mma pretend I didn't hear that."
How does this NOT have a thousand likes??
@@Rune3D 8 months late to post the comment of the month
overwatch coulda been a great esport if they just let it grow organically, sadly they decided to go the franchise route and now the game is dead 💀
The guy of the video is lying, Overwatch is the perfect example of a casual Game Made for not offend the casuals, now is in a hole. Valorant was made for proplayers, that's the reason why have trash graphics, just for optimise fps and fast reactions like Counter Strike. Just ignorant youtubers talking about things that they don't understand.
Makes me think of Cliff Bleszinski and lawbreakers.
"Calling yourself a good designer because you're good at games. Is like saying a porn addict is good at sex"
I feel like a lot of this audience needed to hear that.
Holy shit your right. I can't argue with that.
@FROEZOEN
This audience? What'd they do? 💀
@@ivoryas1696bro why u feel attacked lmao
@@maximumeffort2381
I'm not a member of this audience. I was just curious, tbh. 🤷🏾♂
Isnt this why every sports movie has a training arc? So they can train and get good? WTF am I missing here?
This will probably show my age. But I remember that there was a Half-Life 1 mod called "The Specialist". It's really just another Deathmatch/Team Deathmatch game, but the whole gimmick about it is that the game lets you do action movie-esq stunts, complete with the same 80-90's action movie esthetics in map designs and character models. It was super fun seeing everyone doing dives, somersaults, and the signature Matrix dodges during a match. Every update some new interesting features gets added in. Until one day then the top "Pro" players in the community started whining about how the mod has become "too slow paced" and that the mod is now all about looking cool while shooting, instead of "skill" in shooting. And the developer ended up listening to those guys exclusively for the next overhaul update. They massively sped up the TTK, and sped up the movement speed. To the point that doing any stunt just make you more likely to die with no upsides. The mod turned into a railgun arena, where the most optimal way of play is just circle strafing. Community basically died within months of the overhaul. Even after the developer tried to revert most of the changes in the overhaul, the community population never really recovered. And guess what, the "Pro" players also left soon after they stank up the mod with their inputs. I'm still bitter to this day how a bunch of elitists murdered one of the most unique mod that came out of the Half Life 1 era. That other mod Action Half-Life was nowhere near as polished as The Specialist.
Oh my god I remember this! It really was exactly like what this video described 😂
Fps pros are some of the worst pros there are when it comes to fun. All they want to do is point and click.
I kinda want an fps that aims for you but forces you to strategize by handling your kit and positioning better than your opponent.
That way all the fps pro aimbot players won't play it lol.
@@zs9652umm, you already have to do all that stuff in fps (both competitive and casual). It isn’t point and click, that’s entirely reductive of the genre.
@@fantasticmrmonkSomeone's never played... TF2, CoD, Fortnite, etc.
@@commentextary played them, and examples that have that aren’t proof against ones that don’t.
The worst case of this is when a game was not designed to be competitive, then the developers try all the sudden to engineer it to be competitive.
@@scrimbim6056 exactly what i was referring lmao, but many others
@@lonec1777 melee but its the fans themselves juryrigging a competitive scene
@@MrToddino lmao true
@@scrimbim6056 Except it is still an amazing game
Cod
Being a pro doesn’t make you smarter than an actual game developer
True it's like saying a skilled soldier is smarter than the tactician that makes sure the skilled soldier don't take any unnecessary risks
@@jayvhoncalma3458 fax
I do think some pros have a good idea about what games need...maybe even more than the actual game developers sometimes. I mean don't forget that the devs are human and make mistakes too.
But emphasis on "some" in that sentence. In general, most people are not game designers, that much has definitely been shown to me throughout my experiences on the internet.
It's so annoying when devs listen to the minority that wants to nerf everything. *"Please nerf Fireball. Please nerf Backstab. Please nerf the Archer. Please nerf the Assassin. Please nerf the Cleric."* Yes they are the most prominent posters on the forum, but they're just 20 people circle-jerking themselves, they don't represent the 500,000 customers that will buy this game. Most players are annoyed every time a nerf is announced..
@@TomCruz54321 facts
I used to play Smite years ago, and I remember watching the patch notes constantly thinking: "Why are they changing this?" and a friend having to explain to me a random moment at the Pro League where someone used a weird tactic or build and the entire game had to be updated regarding it. I hated those moments.
1 that's why arena is the only valid mode and conquest is a hellhole never to be touched
2 league also had a lot of these like lvl 1 bard invade they had to change the jungle spawns for
This is fault of the developers who cant let go of the vision of their game and give control of the meta to players. There is a infamous website that is basically a massive rant about developers doing this stuff.
@@user-fn2mx6dd5kdon't even get me started being forced to play a losing hour and half game because duo is feeding and refuses to surrender the game.
I'd rather just push siege minons all day.
@@alphadeltaroflcopter arena superior
Conquest inferior
The death of Golden Blade was when I realized HiRez only listened to Conquest players
The casual scene is much more important than competetive
💯
Too bad we're getting shoved away. This is why I chosed to play Survival Games and Dungeon Crawler games.
@@Waaaltz_until games like rust start doing the same thing
@@PosterityIslesNews I don't play Rust, by Survival Games I'm talking about Green Hell, Valheim and Sons of the Forests
Literally just give the two fanbases two separate game modes lmfao. It's not that hard.
It’s important to remember that a good chunk of FPS players don’t ever even touch competitive multiplayer. Many only dabble in it. Very few actually play competitively.
Been playing CS go for years and play so little competitive I am technically unranked.
Yeah, as much as I love Halo, I haven't touched Infinite's ranked play much at all. If SBM was to blame, half of my matches were against guys way above my weight class that turned a seemingly casual match of slayer into a one-sided stompfest. Competitive just ramped up that power creep to 11 and I felt completely outmatched. I'd rather play for fun with the boys since to me, that's what Halo was always about. Squading up with your friends to kick as much ass as possible and have a blast while doing it.
This is exactly how I feel. I touched ranked in Rainbow Six and Black Ops 2. Both modes didn't feel like my thing. I respect those who get the highest rank, but that doesn't mean I enjoy seeing my casual experiences getting treated like competitive. This has pretty much led me to stick to single player and coop games instead of having a headache with games I can only force myself to like.
I touched competitive overwatch and quick play is better. Competitive overwatch has smurfs and once you end up in a low rank it's near impossible to get out as it'll match you with worse players as your rank drops even if you get better at the game.
Only FPS I play are basically coop PvE exclusively.
I played Overwatch for a while back in the day, and I had a good time with it, but as things got more competitive I just lost interest, and thats probably the only PvP shooter I've ever played, and I basically avoided ranked games like the plague.
Other than that, admittedly the only shooters I think I've actually played are Borderlands 2 & 3, with friends, and most importantly, Deep Rock Galactic, solo or with friends or randos, and those have all been a blast.
Gotta remember that Halo's MP didn't start as this hyper-competitive sweat fest. It started on the couch with split-screen, which is about as casual as you can get. Even down to the screen cheating. Though I never use to do that... Never.
Right that’s what I said. It was only competitive when your buddies were trying to shit on you and you got serious all of a sudden. But at its core it’s always been a fun sandbox shooter with multiple ways to manipulate the sandbox to your advantage. If you didn’t know how to manipulate the sandbox then it was just all out casual fun with cool ass space/human weapons with your buddies on the couch.
And still CE was the most skillful
Suuure buddy
@@runningoutofnames6956 we believe you...
@@greedyclown851 I miss being able to stick my sticky grenades to each other to launch one across the map at the enemy team, or straight up in the air as a misdirection tactic
Is no one old enough to remember quake or UT? Created the entire genre that we know it and had(still to this day) some of the most impressive pros in the world. Don't recall any of them changing the game. Instead, they embraced the game and found out how to work around perceived problems.
Old pros: improve, adapt, overcome
New Pros: WAHHHH Change the game to suit meeeeeee!!!
Quake was my very first PC game!
@@markfreeman4727Truly, this is a problem with post launch updates and "seasons," games as live service etc. When the game was shipped, and there were not going to be updates, things were better. No amount of complaining could push change. Now, the games are shipped in beta, and the players actually have input on changes and that's a detriment to the final product, because the loudest person does not represent the playerbase, but moreso the opposite. Nobody wants the stuff that the skilled players demand. Nobody benefits from it except the self serving people trying to get games tailor-made to match their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.
@@markfreeman4727 if u cant adapt. then thats a big skill issue lol.
it's way easier to change a game now than it was then, especially to actually have people play the new version. + most people who have sentiment towards quake have moved on from avid gaming
The reason pro players are better than the developers is because the developers actually have a real job.
You mean worse
Rn It's probably better to be an esport player then a game dev at a triple a company won't even lie
Games should have the same motto...
"Easy to get good at...but Hard to get great at"
Mahjong: a minute to play, a lifetime to master
Easy to play, hard to master
Yeah, easy to learn, hard to master
I'm the fourth comment repeating or rephrasing what you already said
“Easy to play… effort to get good… hard to master… impossible to perfect”
Anybody else remember that time when halo 3 launched with a bug that caused melele kills to randomly send people flying into orbit? There was a dev post on the forums replying to it that said, if I remember correctly word for word, "This is awsome, we are keeping it in".
Within 3 months MLG had cried enough mountain dew tears to get them to fix it... making everybody's lives worse as a result.
Remember kids, pro gamers don't want you to have fun, they want to beat your ass on stream for views.
This is why it's 100 percent ethical to target anyone with "TTV" in a match.
I target anyone with YT or faze on their names.
Did the glitch affect damage or was it just a ragdoll bug? Because pros demanding a funny visual bug be fixed is the pinnacle of pettiness.
@@Chicky_Lumps In one match at least it flew up and intercepted an incoming rocket launcher shot. 1 in a million odds, but pros get mad when they lose.
@@reidwallace4258 I need footage?
My best experience for multiplayer games is when I actually just play it with my friends (irl) casually and not strangers who might just talk smack at you for making a mistake by the ones who take it too seriously.
Which is what SBMM is for. TF is your point?
@@suntzu6122 just cap lil bro, what if you wanted to sweat sometimes and play casually some other times... what are you going to do when ur mm is just sweats you cant even have fun
@@pxritus play unranked obviously.
If the only time u can have fun is destroying 8 year olds go be a preschool treacher lmaooooo
@@suntzu6122 Not every game has that. And SSBM does not guarantee having tryhards in your group.
@@skorpion7132 Damn near every single game with a matchmaking system uses glicko 2.
And how tryhard people are is 100% irrelevant. It pairs like-skilled players together.
Its more 'clean' in a 1v1 setting but still works in higher numbers. At 6v6 or higher its prob not the move. For 5v5 its still perfect for dota 2, for example.
In Pokemon, there is a creature known as Zoroark. It has a simple ability: it can disguise as the last pokemon in your party.
It does not change Type. It does not change stats. It does not change moves. It is just a normal pokemon that lies about what it is.
Pokemon Showdown has a feature where players can look at their opponent's team.
Zoroark still fools people. Even pros.
That is the DEFINITION of skill issue. If you can't just look at a PNG and remember this one gimmick meant to throw off newbies, then that loss is your fault.
The only time strategies and pokemon have been banned is when it turns the match into a coinflip, since whoever goes first can pull off their strategy fastest.
Cough cough. Baton Pass. A move that lets you swap out and pass positive stat changes onto your other pokemon, essentially letting you skip most of the mindgames.
my favorite part of this is when both players have a zoroark (especially h-zoroark with its weird typing) and you get to play the fun game of "is this a zoroark or am i paranoid"
One of the best things about Pokémon is that it has inherent RNG included meaning that you can't always play the perfect game. Damage rolls and inaccurate moves plus other factors mean that there's randomness that makes no two games identical.
arent the videos of pokemon tryhards falling for dumb strategies like zoroark fake
The competitive eater analogy is perfect. A competitive eater might want a chef to make more slimy hot dogs so they can eat them faster when they visit the chef’s restaurant.
While 99% of the costumers that go to the chef’s restaurant don’t wanna eat slimy hotdogs, they wanna eat good food and enjoy a pleasant ambience.
Slimy hotdogs????
@@Okarabouzouklis slides down faster
@@niegilsuck3072 Hmmm... I wonder what other kind of use can I implement further.
LOL
@@Okarabouzouklis have you never seen an eating competition?
Griesemer identified them as "optimizers" in his taxonomy of player types, they are perfectly happy to use only one strategy if it's the most optimal. If they're having "too" much fun, something is probably wrong and needs nerfing or buffing.
This is the playstyle I can’t stand. For some people it’s all about what the literal best thing they can do to win absolutely every engagement with the fastest TTK. It’s such a boring way to play, these people will use the same thing for years if it doesn’t have anything that statistically beats it.
@@221Prohunter it’s not a boring way to play because most of you casuals/scrubs like to be weak in game and we like to be strong
I would actually like to see where you got this from, I tried searching for it and I can't find it
@@Jontohil2 It's one of his design in depth talks from GDC.
@@doltBmB I think I found it, thanks!
Actually with the OG Halo 3, you could change a setting to either, skill based matching, OR quickest server connection. So they let you choose, a fast connecting game, or a closer skill level matched game. So weve kinda gone backwards...
that and the monotony of current day:
Play match, get kicked back to menu, start matchmaking for the same game againg
compared to older games where you could stick with a lobby & as long as most people didnt leave & just have match after match with the only matchmaking to fill empty spots
@@sniperyuniYeah. Its literally the dmmbest idea to send people back to the main menu after every game. People would stick with the same lobby, and before they knew it, 4 or 5 hours would pass.
Sticking with the same lobby, got people to play the game for longer. Its almost like they dont want people to make friends these days or something.. lol
@@VashStarwindnice samurai champloo profile pic :)
@@VashStarwind that would mean servers and we all know how much devs nowadays love matchmaking so i doubt stuff like that will come back :/
I gotta mention. I recently looked on OG halo 3. And it wasnt Skill based match making and quickest connection. It was quickest connection or BEST (most stable) connection. I thought it was either quick connection or skill based connection, but i guess i was wrong. Sorry dudes.
It's for these reasons you mentioned I've been back and forth on Destiny 2!... PvP is ruined because "try hards" complain when some nube ends there 20 kill streak with a ability thus making that ability "to easy" and PVE is increasingly becoming more difficult because "try hards" blow through content with the best weapons, gear and teams then they complain about how they ran out of stuff to do and it's to easy! When in reality they *NEED* to get a life and get out more! It's crazy man...
As a wise man once said: "it's a good thing you guys aren't designing ultrakill or it would suck"
Hakita my beloved
hakita
whats ultrakill?
@@justsomepersonyoudontknow8401 its a movement shooter currently in early access, think quake but with a faster pace and some elements from the doom reboot and devil may cry, it's an amazing game and I thoroughly reccomend it, especially considering that there is a free demo on steam
@@justsomepersonyoudontknow8401 It's an extremely fun skill-based movement shooter
think Get To The Orange Door/DOOM Eternal, and then take all limitations away
I'm sure there's a review that talks about it better than I ever could, but I highly recommend taking a look at it.
Unpredictability is what creates nostalgic memories. People reminisce over crazy shit happening in games, which can only happen if there's some unpredictability. Nobody says "man remember that time that I held m1 and kept my crosshair on the enemy until he died just like every other fight in every other match in almost every other game?"
It makes me wish that more games has *actual* random encounters
I feel like you're really downplaying how fun it can be to play a game well though. As an example, pulling off a series of absurdly nasty Hanzo shots while evading enemy cc in Overwatch to clear a point, that's pretty cool and can be both really fun and pretty hard to do. While on the flipside, getting the squad and dicking around with a team that's nothing but Torbjorns, also pretty fun.
These things don't have to be mutually exclusive, the game can be balanced and built for competitive while still being fun to dick around in. Your "I just held m1" example is exactly something that people remember, because at the end of the day literally anything you do in a shooter can basically be boiled down to that. Oh you played league? Well regardless if you're making a nutty play in competitive or fucking around with friends all you really did was right click. This just feels like a dishonest argument.
nice reductive analysis
@Paul Martin fr fr I was 4th in Mario Kart, I threw a Bob omb, it hit the 1st and 2nd then u overtook everyone and got first just before the finish line
Or you're ninja and you reminisce about some shit you were doing in League and your braless wife brings you a sandwich unwarranted
I’m glad someone finally made a video like this. I’ve always felt that pros can’t have their hands in the cookie jar. Developers should be sticking to walking their line and making their games fun for everyone. Not just sweaty players.
You're right they should stop listening to pros. But I think we can go further than that. They should stop listening to streamers and youtubers too.
I think that’s a bit too far, most streamers/yourubers aren’t playing games competitively enough to hurt games with their game ideas.
/sorry for the longer comment in advance:
Plus not all content creators are tied to playing games, which means they are more likely to be casual players, and are thereby part of the larger playerbase. However, I can agree that some of them shouldn’t be listened to as they can cause more harm to games than good, but that can just be any person. So in my opinion it should just stick to ignoring most of the pro’s ideals for game balancing, and companies should listen to the player base they care about most (while sometimes the important player base is the professionals, the goal shouldn’t be about satisfying pro’s because their pro’s, but because it makes the game better which can then indirectly satisfy pro’s. If the pro’s aren’t happy because it doesn’t make them “play” better, then you should just ignore them).
@@Burning_Marshmallow most of pros complains are about things that they cant deal just with their skill, (no real but are always dumb things like that) average pro complaint: "huh these shotguns are too op and require no skill to use, they kill snipers too easyly in shorter ranges"
Far to black and white youtubers and streamers bring players they are the advertisement not listing to them is dangerous because if a viewer sees something they don't like and a youtube makes note of that the devs could analazy that what really needs to happen is Devs need to get better at deciding what changes are good and bad
@@Burning_Marshmallow You my sir have to be the dumbest man i have ever seen in my 15 years of life. And i live in romania so that is saying something.
It is not a bit far because most streamers or youtubers are going to be tryhards or pros. optimize your ads time and recoil instead of optimizing the amount of fun you get ingame for picking something else, tech this, tech that how about some of you go down the skill tree and get a few upgrades into something named "fun". I am not saying all youtubers are going to be people who play competitively and try to win at all costs. because that would be a lie, most of them will, but not all of them will.
TL:DR: i think your opinion sucks ass.
Also, "pros" are usually insufferable and eager to optimize all of the fun out of a game. I've never seen a game that moved more in the direction the pros wanted become more fun as a result.
especially otzdarva and dead by daylight lmfao and his audience just amplify his words
most accurate comment I've ever read
@@kokushibo7501Honestly i think OTZ is the only pro i can say who doesn't do that
As stated by him he does not like players needing to only use the meta, he doesn't like needing to know what perk someone took to be able to play the match, cause while competitively viable as a gamplay loop, getting fucked because you couldn't know someone had something is just not fun. He also was pushing for DS nerf so that it doesn't make every game a chore while still being good, he even let out the idea of DS to be base kit i believe
In general i believe his stance on balancing is, even if something is fine in a pure balance standpoint, if it's not fun it should change
Can relate heavily with rainbow six siege, they even go as far as to remove unnecessary things entirely.
@@expl0sives4day58 Yup, recently I went back to Rainbow siege and...man...
They took so many Little things out of the game, things that don't even matter at all. Like the little Effects that happen when your bullets hit someone, or the red X when you kill someone
Really why take that off?...I'm pretty sure that was something a pro player woke angry about and made developers remove
This is my feeling back when TF2 still got updates. The competitive scene demanded nerfs for weapons that really didn't need them and were only a problem at the highest level of optimal play like the Base Jumper (parachute). The nerfs we got completely ruined them in pubs and made them more acceptable for the rather stale tf2 competitive meta.
Many good weapons were destroyed because valve for a time was only listening to the top 1% of the playerbase....
We lost the caber's ability to oneshot light classes even though all anyone used it for in pubs was to harass clueless snipers.
We lost the fun fast heavy loadout because "heavy shouldn't be allowed to get to mid fast" and that butchered two weapons.
We lost the versatility of the cleaver because it made scout too effective in chokepoints.
We lost the hijinxs one could do with the base jumper because "Scout can't hit soldier when he uses it"
Basically anytime a class had a weapon that threatened the tf2 comp scene meta, it's weapons got nerfed into boring, useless options that no one touch anymore.
this comment needs more likes
The same happened with R6 Siege
They did the same thing with the Axtinguisher too! It was too strong in competitive play so they gutted it. This caused it to become useless and encouraged the majority of players to play Pyro as a Mouse 1 Pyro.
At least the caber is still silly
Its funny because despite these nerfs, the BASE Jumper is STILL banned in competitive 6s because the mere ability to hover over a point and spam out damage was way too strong. Like, what was the point of even trying to nerf this thing to get it to work in competitive if the core concept is too incompatible with the format? Just keep it banned and everyone would have been happy.
Games should be fun first and foremost. If your game is fun, people will want to play it more, and a competative scene will form out of genuine love for the game. That's what makes a game last. Take Team Fortress 2 for example, that game is wacky and fun, and it's lasted with a dedicated competative community despite not being supported by Valve in any meaningful way. Make a fun game, and you will have more players that stick around.
and then comp players want to take all the fun out of the game just so soldiers can stomp even harder.... 🙄
You touched on individual focus vs. team focus in Halo, and it reminds me of the Battlefield games. I used to play a lot of Bad Company 2. Healing and giving ammo were hugely important, and the objective based modes had placements that made it virtually impossible to be on your own, thanks to exposure and flanking. The vehicles were powerful, and you were incentivized to protect yours and destroy the hostile ones quickly or your team would suffer. Furthermore, the playerbase was aware of this.
In Battlefield 1, healing and ammo is typically only thrown out by the player when HE needs it. They switched medics to assault and ammo to support, meaning that a support with LMG can now just give himself infinite ammo rather than seek out another player. The medics play medic because they want to rush with shotguns and heal themselves, not because they want to help their team. You can skip revive even though it doesn't hurry respawn, and everyone does it as a knee-jerk reaction out of dying. The maps are designed in a way that cater to pros and sniper campers.
The result is that it sometimes plays more like COD than Battlefield. My friends and I always stuck together in BC2, nowadays you just sprint around.
I disagree honestly. It doesn't feel any different when it comes to classes in modern BF games. It's just that people want faster games, and the games are faster and smoother to facilitate that with more movement options. They had reduced ammo and no bandage in BF5, and everyone hated having to hope a teammate would resupply or having to run over to a resupply station buildable. So they changed it. There's no demand for 'attrition' gameplay.
Independent play is always going to happen. Even ARMA and Squad has lone wolves because it's an incredibly powerful strategy. Just one guy in the middle of nowhere ambushing you, that's how you get crazy streaks.
Just a natural evolution of shooter games. People do the same thing in every single game where you can attack enemies. People just want to rush forward.
@famulanrevengeance3044 the thing is in BF1 medics don't have shotguns
@@themcfunnel Sure, but who really gives a damn about that? Why shouldn't they have shotties
Checkmate pros: If you hate rng so much, why do you like battle royales a lot?
They don’t want to lose an engagement to something dumb like bloom but they like how every match is different in battle Royales
@@Shoegaze- Ah so they prefer top lose by not being able to find a weapon at the start instead?
They don't.
@@mrosskne by logic of gamers and even the human mind not one likes fortnite, warzone, and apex. They like to think they like it.
Even then, BRs USED to be fun. Anyone remember when Pubg was an ArmA 3 mod and was actually fun? Yea....I do....
Finally someone who's speaking about this. I'm so tired of big pro players and/or streamers acting as if they're carrying an entire playerbase on their shoulders whenever they speak their minds about the games they play, as if everyone sent them as their ambassador. And devs acting like that's the case is not helping either.
This is what turned me off from
Fortnite. The devs are catering to the big streamers/pro players, while leaving the casual gamers(who just want to play for fun) on the back burner. Matchmaking is screwed up now, cheaters running rampant, etc.
@@SirBlckBerryAnd its not like the pro's only win, if they lose they call it a bad game and complain, its so annoying
Don't blame the devs, please. These AAA companies just want to make big bucks and just listen to content creators and pros. The devs just make what they're told to.I'm glad i'm a dev from a smaller company, so we try our best to make what is reasonable to our consumers, doesn't cost us much and is "friendly" to our software environment. But the bigger the company, lower the dev's power to say or do something.
@@camilasuemi6850 When I say "the devs" I mean like the people responsible for a game's production such as CEOs and Managers. It definitely is not the actual developers' fault as far as big game companies are concerned of course.
what pros are doing that?
3:10 the handicap image is 10/10 lol
As a casual gamer who grew up with video games in the 90's and early 2000's, I couldn't agree more with the sentiment that Esports culture and greed have had a negative impact on gaming for everyone else. Back in the day, gaming was all about fun, camaraderie, and escaping into immersive worlds that allowed us to unwind and share great experiences with friends.
But in recent years, it seems like the gaming industry has become more about profit margins and competition than about the joy of playing. Esports, while exciting for some, has brought a level of intensity and pressure to gaming that many of us simply don't want. We used to pick up a controller or sit at the PC to relax and have fun, not to feel like we're in a high-stakes tournament every time we play.
Moreover, the greed aspect has become painfully evident. Microtransactions, loot boxes, and pay-to-win mechanics are becoming increasingly prevalent, making it feel like you need to constantly open your wallet just to enjoy a game fully. This goes against the spirit of gaming in the 90s and early 2000s, where you bought a complete game, and any additional content was often a bonus, not a requirement.
I miss the days when the gaming industry was more focused on creativity, storytelling, and providing a fantastic experience rather than just maximizing profits. Don't get me wrong; I appreciate that the industry needs to make money, but it's disheartening to see the pursuit of profit come at the expense of the casual gamers who built this industry in the first place.
Let's hope that game developers and publishers can strike a better balance between competitiveness and the simple joy of gaming, ensuring that the culture of gaming is enjoyable and accessible for everyone, just like it used to be.
Play single player s m h
I've felt abandoned by game devs for years as someone that cares about story first, game play second and finally multiplayer leading "art and graphics".
I would think that's an unpopular perspective, people usually play games for the gameplay. Usually, if the gameplay is fun they will play it, story second graphics fidelity second. The reason games nowadays push for multiplayer is because they want to keep selling you something, there will be incentives if the thing they sell holds value and how they create value for that is to make it embedded in social interaction. You will be more eager to buy in-game items purchases if you can show off or gain an advantage with your purchased items.
@@muhammadzulkarnaen4229 I agree and disagree with you. Story is central to world building in a video game which is done by graphics and game play systems. Many don't think about it as they play I give you that, however a bad story does negatively effect a game.
Games like Journey is telling a story. It's similar to the Souls franchise, including Elden Ring, but does it with a different approach.
The primary reason I got into gaming is social interaction and you have great points with that! However the game and its community does not benefit from the current systems in place.
I’m just watching this about a year behind its release and I agree with this sentiment big time. I’m super bummed to hear that the Marathon reboot will be multiplayer only because I won’t play it. I barely played Destiny and refuse to again because it’s all online. That’s just not as much fun for me.
Personally, I care about the pvp first in games, but I still feel somewhat similar, I want a game with unique and fun mechanics, nothing more, but it seems like devs try to make their game toxic
I heavily disagree with the idea of a good story being more important to a game than good gameplay
Edit: Didn't realize it was mainly your opinion, sorry
I started hating pros' opinions with the Zofia incedent in Rainbow Six: Siege. Zofia had an ability to self revive if she was downed but not killed. She was the only operator with this ability, and was the only "healer" on the attacking side for a while. However, there was a pro championship match were the defenders forgot about that ability, and the Zofia got back up and won the tournament. The losing team complained about it so much that Ubisoft removed that ability from her
Played rainbow since alpha 2015 and all my friends stopped playing the game since 2019 Rainbow six siege is so trash now they should call it "E sports Six Siege" all in favor for all those e sport Lamers who are not even good at the game they ruined the whole experience for all the others and especially rainbow six Fans who really liked siege at first. They are probably only in the e sport scene because they have connections to some higher up people or something or maybe a family member is involved with the game...but those "pros" are definitely not the best players! the best players are people you probably don't know.
@@Lemi713 I was tired af hope you understand now
Are you sure you're not talking about Finka? or is Finka what became of this bullshit?
@@kasper7574 Finka was not able to get herself up at that time. They later added that ability sometime after removing it from Zofia
didn't they also add the ability to self res with ALL defenders as long as they have a rook plate equipped?@@ryxceb9977
This is a year old, but I'm one of those people who will say I don't think there is such a thing as a real competitive video game, or an "E-Sport" that can be taken seriously. Part of this is the corporate mentality and the need to produce new product, with each game that get's called an E-sport largely just using that for promotional material.
To be a viable e-sport you need to create a game that is popular, long lasting (multi-generationally so, very hard with current GMs), and has a combination of depth and simplicity that anyone can play it to some extent, but only a few people are going to be really, really, good at it. This is important as part of getting interest from spectators is that it helps if they have some experience with and love of the game on a personal level. On top of this the matches need to be both visually appealing, and easily unpredictable enough where they can be exciting for the crowd. There have not yet been any video games that have really met all of these criteria to my knowledge.
The problem I have with pro-gamers right now is that their input seems to be based mostly on self promotion and what I see as largely sociopathic behavior. The modifications they want for games typically tend to be things that will simply allow them to dominate easily and even more spectacularly, I don't think I've seen any who really had advice on how to make these things more exciting, have wider appeal, or more competitive. In fact most pro-gamers, as described, have a complete disdain for less skilled players, and really love to chase people out of the game, and see anyone beneath them as just an easy way to rank up. Hence the fascination with "time to kill" as the faster they can kill scrubs the more impressive their rankings.... also let's be honest, whether it's an FPS or MMORPG PVP, the reason why the "high end" players hate skill based match making or any attempt at balance is that most of them just want to look good and feel powerful, they do not want a challenge against equally skilled players because that could lower their rankings. You will notice in your average MMORPG for example, all of the hardcore PVPers resist the idea of pre-made groups and such being forced to fight only other pre-made groups made up of people with similar win/loss ratios because then they couldn't terrorize people or farm benefits, and would risk losing far more often. The same type of thinking seems to apply to everything from FPS games to League Of Legends.
I do agree with highly skilled players that you don't want to make games too scrub-friendly because then you wind up with a game where luck, not skill, begins to matter more than anything, but I do agree they tend to be some of the last people that they need to listen to. As a general rule if we were to ever see E-sports come close to it's potential in the end it's not going to be sold by a bunch of "pros" steamrolling everyone and grandstanding, it's going to be based off of consistently producing very close matches and unpredictable results in a game anyone can see themselves playing.
Perhaps with the next phase of technology we'll see someting like proper professional gaming, but right now, for the rest of web 2.0, I just don't think it will happen. That said I think this era might be ending sooner than most realize.
Reminds me of Due Process, not sure if you guys heard about that game. It was a really interesting PvP tactical shooter with randomly generated maps. It was pretty fun! Until they decided to make it so casual matches was only a waiting lobby for ranked matches.
If you queued for a ranked match, you'd be put in a casual match while you waited, instead of being two separate lobbies.
The average amount of players being 4.1 now speaks for itself.
I miss when games like cod were just fun and chill to play with friends or even apex at launch when everyone was just trying everything out and having a blast
Like stacking octanes jump pads?
Even as early as black ops 2 I vaguely recall pro players complaining about snipers and them getting changed to fit their demands
@@door_productions4896 and what change was that? Bruh most in cod hate snipers being op. The sniper community is small compared to the majority of AR & SMG players
Maaan, I WISH I was able to play Apex way back in the day when it launched, despite me not vibing much with the original roster. I really dislike how sweaty it has gotten.
@@meurumtrain4747 I don't remember exactly, pretty sure they wanted the ballista to be able to ADS faster
i am SO GLAD someone brought up the lack of campaigns in a lot of modern FPS games.
If i'm gonna pay 60+ dollars for a new game, it better damn well have something i can do on my own, especially when all the major consoles require you to pay EXTRA just to use the online features of a game you already own.
I agree with this as well since not only do i have trouble affording those online features. But if i do play online im usually kicked out due to horrible ping. (300ms to 1sec regularly)
Yeah, but games are getting unavoidably more expensive dontcha know
It's not like we have dedicated engines, a much wider supply of workers, decades of existing assets and code, a unified design language that didn't exist 15 years ago. How an we possibly keep costs down in today's age
@@mobbs6426 this isn't the complete argument here. If the game is getting expensive, then there should be a complementary amount of content within. FPS games (especially on new generation consoles) shouldn't charge $70-60 only to have something either solely or essentially focused on online matchmaking, which will have an additional payment to do for online access on the console.
@@imaginatics i think his sarcasm was pretty well done
@@yeetus_reetus_deeleetus Now that I read it again, you're right, I suppose I was too focused on the text haha, my bad
8:15 - AMAZING take, because it's so right and people miss it completely.
Some of the most popular competitive games of all time are either completely casual arcade/adventure games, party games, completely broken and unbalanced, unrefined, or all of the above (smash (ESPECIALLY MELEE), older fighting games like tekken, street fighter, etc, minecraft as you pointed out, FORTNITE became competitive with custom box matches players set up for 1v1s - yknow, the exact opposite of how the game works...
The esport formula isn't set in stone, and the amount of companies producing the same fkn games just because another one got popular as an esport is annoying.
Yes, these often work (like Apex, Valorant, counters to games like hearthstone, dota, starcraft, etc.) but at the end of the day, that's more because of having a huge dev backing, tons of advertisement and support, and a community and developer set on making the game competitive from before the first alpha drops.
Nowadays, streamers and pro players will roam to whatever the new fps is, complain about balancing, play it until views go down, then return to react content.
The games don't exist to be fun, they exist to be a seasonal competitive kick. You can tell based on the ACTUAL COMPETITIVE SCENE. While scenes like fighting games, minecraft tournaments, smash, league, etc. continue going strong, Overwatch league just died, and countless other "esports" titles lose their entire playerbase the second a new game comes out and takes the streamers attention.
Some of the biggest comp games have come from devs that DIRECTLY DISLIKE THE COMPETITIVE SCENE (as annoying as it is on nintendo's part)
Rainbow Six Siege is a good example of why listening to the pros will just make the general player base loose interest and uninstall the game. It happened to me and many of my friends back in 2019.
Someone once said to me. Make a game to be fun. If you do that, people will enjoy it and it will grow. The more intricate parts of the game will bring out pro play later.
They'll become a pro by adapting to the game.
@@conndor2753 exactly
@@conndor2753 that's literally how cs became as big as it is
it was literally just meant to be this small little half life mod about special forces units and was novel for making everyone fragile, people found it fun, then guess what, those same people found out about the intricacies of it's movement, or of it's shooting mechanics, or the metagame that emerged from the simple concept of having an attacking and a defending team, then they said "hey, if i learned some tricks, this game could be even more fun!"
now, it's the prime competitive fps game, and way too many devs are trying to replicate the competitive aspect of it, truth is that there's much more to it than that, you're talking about the very same game that also allows for gamemodes like bhop, surf, or even casual fun modes like minigames, jailbreak, etc, it's also the same game that lets you, in that very same competitive mode, to jump with a .338 lapua bolt rifle, and kill two people in mid air, that's an actual thing that happened, and turned into a legendary moment imbedded into it's community.
and the funny thing is that you can easily wind up with the same problem while going in the opposite direction that halo went, R6S was a fun game that forced it's players to adapt to each other, and how their environment changed, it asked you "what would you do if you were behind cover, but all of the sudden the wall behind you blew up?" the spectacle factor stemming from those people that answered that question with "i'll just kill everyone who blew up the wall", and actually did, or those that went with an unorthodox genius approach that put them at an advantage. but now it's having an identitiy crisis cause the pros aren't fond of mechanics that show a little bit of variability, and now the game's all about just throwing garbage at each other until someone gets bored and decides to do something different, only to get shot down and end up with the same situation, sure, it's competitive? but it's fucking boring, and makes you miss games like cod, csgo, and even valorant, which despite focusing purely on comp, still has a fun factor since it's took most of it's design philosophy from counter strike.
sure, esports is important, it gives you a feedback loop that could theoretically go on forever, but that loop isn't gonna work if you can't replicate the enjoyment from watching the game when you're playing the game.
That's smart
Games that appeal to everyone attracts pros. Games that appeal to pros only attracts pros.
Been playing a lot of Apex in the past 4 or so months and i absolutely despise how Respawn just agrees on whatever stupid idea the 0.1% of players have. I hate what game developers do to competetive or casual games today, creating changes that simply cater to the 'professionals' and completely forgetting/not caring about players that just play the game casually for fun. It's actually ruining certain games and removing the fun and enjoyment.
Day one apex player. I swapped to Fortnite because it's much more fun for me. The devs aren't simps for pro players, I know because they removed building, and that's what make it fun.
@@Spubbily01 I’m just playing Halo 3 custom games
@@Spubbily01 funny since comp players have been leaving fortnite this chapter lmao
Play war thunder it gets worse
Some changes made for casual players ruin games too lol
The basic problem with competitive/hardcore players is quite simple; they forgot that they're playing a game, and that games are supposed to be fun....
Instead they treat games like something that needs to be achieved for some greater goal or that brings great honour/prestige, but doesn't have to be enjoyable in any way. In fact, the expectation is that at least some of it will definitly suck. You will have to put up with some kinda janky mechanics or other nonsense. How else would they weed out the noobs?
So it shouldn't be a surprise that when you design specificly for such a group, the endresult isn't particularly fun....
It also results in a constant stream of absurd balance updates where things get changed in utterly meaningless ways in order to please the gods of win-rate. Marginal buffs and debuffs which don't meaningfully impact moment to moment gameplay and individual players are unlikely to ever notice them. But they will affect things on a statistical level over 100's of games and thus "fix" the winrate.
People really forget that games are supposed to be fun and not an “ego stroker” or “realistic”
4:32 "I cannot think of one game/one shotgun that was... fun to use" The entire Doom franchise is based around shotgun based combat
Team Fortress 2: "Adios"
It’s literally the hottest take of them all.
"i cannot think of one game/one shotgun that was skillful but most importantly fun to use"
Yeah say that to ultrakill players
To me, Halo CE's shotgun was fun to use, and every single DOOM shotgun too.
Clearly he's never played a valve game
I think listening too much to competitive players probably ruined Gears 5 pvp.
Gears only exist for Horde. PvP should strictly be ignored. It says a lot that Cliffy B wanted to remove the Gnasher for Gears 3. He hated Gears PvP with a passion and The Coalition just don't get it
@@requiemagent3014 why does one persons opinion warrant removing an entire game mode from the product? Kind of stupid
@@cheesenibbla8339 Do you even know who Cliffy B is? Apparently not or else you wouldn't talk shit like this
@@requiemagent3014 Gears was a campaign game first and mp was thrown together in the first game and happened to be good. Horde only came in Gears 2. Basically your comment is a Reddit tier circle jerk of "only my way of playing matters".
@@cheesenibbla8339 I don't agree with Agent's opinion of ignoring the PvP mode but removing the Gnasher shotgun would make the PvP a lot more enjoyable.
Just remember. If a streamer is playing your game and 10,000 people are watching him. That means ten thousand people would rather watch him than play the actual game
These "pros/streamers" are ruining gaming... period. Its just that simple.
The thing with player feedback in general is that players are immediately able to tell that something is off, but are horrible at pinpointing exactly where the problems are
Which is why you listen to many players, and not to just a few pros.
The more opinions the easier it should be to find where the issue is. You can always run a poll too.
@@migueeeelet The words of a million laymen are still the words of a layman. Most players don't know the first thing about game design, balancing, etc. They know if a game feels bad, but that's the extent of it. No matter how many you ask, they won't be able to provide an answer. They can only tell you the problem.
@@Navajonkee I disagree, heavily. A million laymen will include a lot of different people, plenty of whom will have relevant professions or hobbies to the question at hand, not to mention that playing that very game is a relevant hobby. There are plenty of very insightful players whos ideas likely could make games better, perhaps only in one minor aspect, perhaps in a more major fashion, but better.
The difficulty comes from finding the actually good ideas among the playerbase, something for which there doesnt tend to be anywhere near enough man hours for. But the ideas exist.
@@andrek6920 "A million laymen will include..." It doesn't matter what it *includes*. The majority vote will not be professionally relevant, and the stray educated criticism will be lost in among the mass opinion.
An example for +tabnk2 comment, from a game I don't remember the name of sadly:
- In a ww2 fps game beta, one smg (the german one) was thought to better by the players than the other nation one (usa).
They both had the same dps and devs initially were dumbfounded when the usa team players asked for the german one to be nerfed.
Further studies found the issue: The sound of firing them made the german one seems to have more oumph.
A bit of sound balancing and all players were happy, some player even though that the nerf occurred while it was just a matter of sound.
It’s one thing to understand that you’re probably a better chef than the people who eat your food. It’s another when everyone tells you the chef that your food is terrible and used to be better, and you just ignore them.
This really summarizes the point really well, honestly. It's the old advice of "players are great at identifying problems with your game...but they're not good at coming up with good solutions."
@@ZeroKitsuneand if they’re pro players. They notice problems that don’t matter to others. And only help them
@@theolympiyn8670 Nah the majority of problems pro players point out affect everyone to varying degrees. They might not give good solutions to those problems, but its not hard to point them out.
@@DaisiesTClaughs in CS:GO
@@dwarf9938 not sure what your point is lol
MWII tried to appeal to a more casual audience, look how that went.
yea thats always the issue with cod even the better ones. WWII and mw19 multiplayer were the only 2 I liked like that but they were still either incapable of balancing the guns/gunsmith, or don't intentionally to appeal to casuals. and mwIIs netcode is so bad I cant even play it, they're too focused on pumping out skins, dlc and another mw game back to back...
still think mwII is one of the less casual cods though, at least the core movement mechanics. seems to be most cod fans issue with it. take it with a grain of salt though I haven't played since before the movement buffs.
It was fine. I think adding fucking Nicki Minaj is where is starts to go weird. I just play for the guns and having a fucking pink blob in the middle of my battlefield is really immersion breaking.
I’m10000000000％ sure pro players want both kindergarten and nursery home in whatever games they play.
Most people don't actually know what they want so listening to the community doesn't works most of the time. Devs should focus on their original vision and only take the community opinion as suggestions.
The problem is 343's original vision was Halo 4 and that was a step in the wrong direction. If they wanted to make a Halo game they should make a HALO game.
@@gabethebabe3337 i mean it was a Halo game you just don't like it.
Maybe they should listen for infinite, they've gone their own route and it's flopped
@@human_npc yeah but for different reasons that don't necessarily have anything to do with community suggestions
@@human_npc They had a great launch. Just nothing to follow it up and 0 experience on handling F2P game doesn't help either.
Im really happy that other people are annoyed that devs listen to pros and streamers more than the majority of the community. I stopped playing FPS games as much because everything is so sweaty
You should never listen to your average silver player who dosent understand the gamw
@@marcushoglund5893 yeah don't listen to the 99% of players, listen to the 1% who do it for a job and what would personally benefit them
@@marcushoglund5893 Yeah like those casual player who is actually the majority of the player base useless for the game...
Yeah the game died when that happen.
@@marcushoglund5893 oh so if i have 500 hours in the game, been playing since day one, am active in that games community, and love the game my entire opinion is invalid because "durr hurr, stupid low rank silver player means bad, you don't know what you're talking about"
That mentality is why games like overwatch died out so fast
@@VonSnuggles1412 yet league is going strong and balances with that mentality. And you dont sound like your average silver player tho. But your average player is dumb as fuck and you should never listen to them. They call out that shit is op or up because they cant use it properly
Pros work well as a focus group, not as consultants.
“I’m good at the game so I identify as a developer now!!” 🤣🤣🤣
It's also worth noting that real-world sports are subject to randomness/unpredictability by virtue of, you know, physics and human imperfection: You could sprain your leg, the weather could suck, the field isn't as nicely maintained, etc.
To me, skill is far less about rote memorization of systems than it is being the best at adapting to changing circumstances. That's the basis of survival, after all.
I think you just explained how a user named "TierZoo" exists on UA-cam.
The rules for those sports were also made
A very long time ago
Real sports have real athletes that train for years. They deserve the money they get. Videogame sports are nothing but skinny and fat couch potatoes I would never pay a dime nor should youtube or any social media platform. Put down the games and get a real job play a real sport
agreed.
well in terms of real-world sports...skill is also the ability to even execute the mechanics of the sport well enough to be at that level.
You can adapt all you want to what's happening, but if you don't have to ability to act on that information, you're not going to make it.
The basis of survival is adaptability AND execution.
Players are generally quite good at identifying problems and horrible at suggesting solutions. It is definitely important if your competitive dedicated tryhards have a problem - but it is up to you to either solve it or not in a way that fits the overall design.
r6 players have been great at suggesting solutions, devs just dont listen
I generally agree, most players are decent at identifying large balance problems, but most aren't creative enough to propose a solution that's both balanced and fun.
Idk I think it's kind of fun to try and come up with ways to fix small problems in games. I've come up with a few possible solutions for problems in games that I'd like to at least see attempted. I remember back a couple of years ago I was complaining about how I wished there was an option to disable pre-edits in fortnite because as a high ping player it's easy to press the edit button faster then your builds place. To my surprise a few months later fortnite actually added the feature and it's so much better now. I think because I have had this line of thought before I can understand the players who are able to identify these issues. Sure a lot of the time the players can't exactly identify how to fix the problem, but it's the times when they do find a solution that makes it worth listening to their ideas at least.
@@ArmorFN Eh what people come up with is always hit or miss. Of course it's possible that fans deeply understand a game and its design philosophy and come up with something genuinely cool.
That doesn't happen very often, though. At some point I realized that a lot of the people who scream the loudest don't even want the game to be good or fun for anyone who isn't them. They literally just want everyone to have to play exactly the way they do.
@@ZeroKitsune TBH It's double sided. I think it's bad if a game dev accepts or worse prides themselves being bad at games. A dev needs passion and if they don't they need a team that does and willing to listen. It's the job of a dev to listen to feedback and filter it but if they lack game sense they need someone who does to filter feedback. The dev just needs to make a good solution.
I remember for the original halo games, Bungie would play their game for days and days before they released it. If they didn't want to play it, they knew it wasn't ready
I watched through this video, and while i felt the point in the first couple of minutes, I never felt like we go anywhere as it just devolved into a long rant and I can't make out what's being said. Even with the summary/suggestions at the end I feel confused with what the message is as its pointing in all directions at once.
Making to just sound like: developers, do everything better, for everyone! Thanks.
I think you meant to refer to Smash Bros Melee competitive players instead of Brawl. But yeah as a former Smash Tournament Organizer I'd agree with the comparison for the kind of sweat you'll encounter.
I thought this as well, Melee and H2 both are exploitable and broken when you know what to do. Both of their competitive scene are built around exploiting the game, not playing it how it was supposed to be played.
There's a reason it was a smash Melee tournament where the winner got a fucking dead crab thrown at him because he won........... and this was *BEFORE* the grooming was known
@@Sonichero151 There were only like one or two Melee platers involved with that, and they were pretty small-time. Ultimate was the community with the big grooming problem
@@Twisted_Logic exactly. The melee community, compared to the brawl/4/ult community is relatively nice. Youd meet toxicity much rarer
@@Twisted_Logic Okay but they still don't shower
I remember when a COD zombies youtuber said the game should have a larger player count and he able to kill other players so it's competitive.
Keep in mind this is a gamemode where you are working together against the hordes of zombies. Who the hell wants to fight other players?
PS ik greif was a a thing but that was an extra gamemode and this guy was talking about the core experience
Bro at that point just play multiplayer smh
Who was it, gotta to clown on em
him when he finds out multiplayer: 😱😱😱
Smartest COD player
Literally The Division. Spec ops agents killing each other for their loot just because they know they're the most lethal force. 😂
Idiots in 2016; " We want battle-royale games! We want battle-royale games! It's fun for only me! Me! Me! Me! Me! MeMeMeMeMe!!!
In 2022; " I don't want to fall in Olympos in APEX!! We want our perfect kindergarten nad nursery homes for us together!!!"
"I don't know of a matchmaking system in a game that doesn't group people based on skill" - tf2 casual is a matchmaking system that doesn't group players based on skill
Money. Every company nowadays wants a massive eSports scene around it? Why? I don't know. eSports doesn't even make any money currently besides like two or three exceptions. Games are not made with passion anymore. They are solely made with profit in mind. So this will never happen what you propose. Which is a shame.
Esports, despite making no actual money, is like one of the biggest marketing campaigns they can do
Most games that are made solely to be fun nowadays are made by Indie devs, who sadly don't have the resources they need to succeed
@@beta4239 The ones who do tho are *_legendary._*
As the Sauce dude said, Esports are a massive marketing campaign. The keyword is "relevancy", if your game remains relevant, more people feel like going into it is a good move, casual players hop in because it's an interesting new game, competitive players hop in to climb the ladder and maybe partake in actual tournaments for prizes or whatever.
Esports don't give immediate return for those companies, but in the longer term? Absolutely.
tl;dr; esports keep game relevant, more people buy relevant game, big money ka-ching
esports is big in countries like China
I dont want to be good at a game that will last like 1-2 years, I want to play a good game that will give me memories that last for years
Modern games are built with planned obsolescence (as are many products). Many things are built this way to protect a business model. If the players keep playing the same game for too long, the company cannot sustain itself. I completely agree with you and that's what the player is up against.
This underscores the need to go back to single player focused gaming. Multiplayer is constantly focused on the "next big thing." The problem many companies see as a blocker is competitive gaming has strong marketing/PR behind it and will attempt to shame a company for not focusing on their niche of the community. Scarcity is manipulated for profit. Its an ancient tactic to fool consumers into buying fools gold. In this case, every few years.
counter strike opens its arms
@@don_chan3638 i love counterstrike, csgo is bad tho
@@Miggggy it isn’t though
@@cristiadu It is filled with micro transactions now
Rainbow six siege us a perfect example of devs favoring E-sports too much.
At first, the game was meant to be a slow, tactical SWAT game, like the actual SWAT series of games.
...but nowdays? It's a rainbow mess of battlepass skins and a literal sport arena as a map. Every update, every new character became more and more detatched from reality. They started off with simple devices. One guy had a big shield. The other had a simple grenade launcher. And they stayed grounded for a while, with bear traps and such.
..but slowly the sci-fi crept in. Cloaked hover drones. Lazer walls deployed by an amputee. Batman-esque grappling hooks. Bullet proof, insta cure foam walls that cometely block the objective.
While I do agree that the developers shouldn't exclusively to pro/tourney players. They certainly have a better *overall* idea about the game. I think the best example of this is Flats from Overwatch or Otzstarva from Dead By Daylight. I say they should listen to players that are pretty much ambassadors for the game as a whole. And usually, top players do kinda have a better idea of whats going on. And besides, this new wave of whining casuals about nerfs it starting to get really bad because in Helldivers 2, one *TINY* nerf to the railgun and they were crying like someone ate their favorite juice. All it did was made you turn on Unsafe mode and wait two seconds longer. And in the end, we got another update that give us more armor busting and the armored bugs are more spread out instead of popping out of every bug hole-as that was the *real* issue. Do I agree the railgun should had gotten nerfed? Not in the way it did, but in the end it was needed because PLAYERS WERE KICKING OTHERS OUT JUST FOR NOT RUNNING THE WEAPON. And these guys wouldn't even be top level-it would really be other casual players enforcing meta.
What I want is them to kill meta and we'd all have way more fun. That's it. More buffs, less nerfs-I do agree with that statement, we've been in nerf hell for too long as a response (except for outliers that really deserve it), but buff other weapons, other characters. Dark Souls 2 quite literally has almost no meta. You can do well with just about any weapon so long as you know what you're doing-and it absolutely rocks for it. Unlike in DS3 where it's all curved swords and running away with magic balls.
Datto made a good point when talking about Destiny. While he would love Devs to make the game he would enjoy, he realises that due to his skill level and the amount of time he can put into the game it would suck for 95% of the playerbase. Devs should make the game fun for the majority of people, not the content creators who can put 100's of hours a week into it
Datto being incredibly based as always.
Datto is one of the reason we got sunsetting and the game bled players. Fuck him.
Most people don't think about others, or systems, etc etc. Most just think how will this affect me. Most streamers and youtubers aren't gamers and don't want gaming to improve or thrive. They want to make money.
The objective evidence shows that SBMM is killing crucible right now. Why design the game for players who only play 3 games a week ?
13:50 we all know the real reason there is less physics based stuff in Infinite is because of the shoddy networking and lack of time to test and develop things.
Because people wanted it rushed bud.
@@terrelldurocher3330 they actually had more than enough time and just had internal issues
they should listen to the community feedback as a whole not "pros"
I used to play an ink-based shooter game that has an ok-ish competitive community but my god how they influenced how a special attack worked despite it was easily avoidable and killable before it got nerfed. It kind of made me mad on how the developers were listening to that community instead of focusing on main weapons, sub weapons and other special weapons with obvious problems. But they keep listening to the comp community who keep shouting about a weapon that doesn’t actually need a change and it feels depriving every major and minor update.
Splatoon?
Im gonna guess youre referring to missles, in which case
No that nerf was absolutely deserved, you could spam an infinite range locating displacement special.
Listening to the comp community made brellas viable, made blasters viable, and nerfed splash
Not missiles, another special.
@@TroopaKoopaReal ink armor?
@@TroopaKoopaReal if youre talking about the inkjet nerf it wasnt horrible like missles design wise but it was definitely a bit overtuned, skilled inkjets would be able to just spam large projectiles
I remember having a comment argument with "pro" youtuber that if you balance a game around mechanical skill only (reaction time, aiming, hearing, eyesight) then what will happen is there will be 1% of players absolutely dominating the other 99%, it will be even more unbalanced than before.
That's gonna happen regardless but I understand what you're saying lol
This is such a bad point, you can put all the randomness in the world and the 1% will destroy the 99%. I agree there should be randomness because strictly skilled based games leads to boring gameplay/boring to watch but you aren't going to help bad players have a more fair chance by introducing randomness.
no, it will be balanced, but you will have to learn how to play it for this balance to work for you. It's still much better than it being unbalanced no matter how good you are
@@bj_cat103 you cant "learn" faster reaction time, you cant learn "faster information processing in your brain" you cant learn "faster and more precise hand movements", any game that is balanced around mechanical skill only will be dominated by 12-18 year old kids who won genetic lottery.
@@tezwoacz you can "learn" reaction time. If you doing stuff that remands it regularly, it increases. Doing so also prevents you from losing it until you're 45-50 years old. The same goes with the other things you mentioned. Our brain degrades the sections we don't put to use and develops the ones we actively use
Escape from Tarkov had a stream with the main developer and some streamers. The streamers wanted to be able to make more ingame money from selling enemy loot, then they where asked do you care about the ingame money and all of them said no. I was like what is wrong with these streamers?
It's showmanship idk the twitch drop streams seem neat
Do you remember the context or which stream? EFT is having a pretty big issue with its fleamarket fees, vendor prices, and demand/supply balance right now. Some items(often quest associated) have such large listing fees that they aren't even worth selling, which cripples supply and makes them unobtainable on the market. Nerfed barters, crafts, and poor weapon balance have killed the sale/purchase volume of half the loot in the game and removed much of its use, hamstringing sale/purchase volume.
This isn't an issue for skilled players or streamers since they're always ahead of the gear/quest curve, but this does make for a pretty dull gameplay loop and unrewarding loot. I'm saying this as someone who has never wanted for money in Tarkov: loot(including weapons/armor) needs to hold higher average minimum(vendor) value and Flea fees for loot/keys needs to be lower to help new/casual/time-restricted players' quality of life.
@@jubbin4849 video called "Streamers & BSG Podcast w Nikita - Escape From Tarkov"
EFT has some real anti grass touching streamers guys like Lvndmark and Pestily and those are the type of streamers that will suggest something to the devs because it would be better for "newer players" which obviously isnt the case most of the time.
@@osterhai Pestily makes a series that helps new players every wipe. he cares more about fun then competition.
As a pro gamer competing in small tournaments I agree with you everyone deserves to play the game and have fun regardless of how well or bad you play
I agree with most of this however the match making Is the only part I'd like to refute, because pros don't hate matchmaking because it makes the game but because it makes the game feel unfair, firstly it's def not sbmm cause no way the skill ceiling changing that drastically from 2 games when u have hundreds secondly the match making is bs at times and I can give 2 examples from my experiences. Firstly apex, in apex it feels more like the mm affects the enemies more than my allies cause it feels like it's giving me bots whilst the enemies are triple stacking preds and I'm sure if it's someone actually new to the game they feel the same way being in these lobbies, secondly cod, they only care about match making so it feels like u wait minutes for a single match and it's a 200 ping lobby when just 1 game ago it was a 80 ping lobby as well as it being proven(as far as I've been told) that ur skill actually affects the damage ur gun deals and the volume of ur footsteps.
4:32 the Scout's Scattergun from TF2 is a prime example of a shotgun that is both skillful and fun to use.
Or slug shotguns in destiny 2
DOOM super shotgun, the love of my life
i like how these people get mad at shotguns. i get that it may seem annoying to go a corner and get 1 tapped but dont these games have grenades lmao
BASED
Also the Widowmaker and the Family Business and the Panic attack and the Reserve shooter and-
The real problem with modern matchmaking is not that the skill grouping is too tight. The real problem is what's known as "forced 50", something developers completely do not and probably do not want to, understand. They say "ah but if you have 50% win rate then matchmaking is working". But there is a difference between having a 50% winrate because you had a variety of interesting matches that challenged you in different ways, and the actual reality, which is that you get alternated between carrying a team of babies against a stack of terminator like pros, and being carried by that same team of terminators against a team of babies. You get alternated between matches you cannot win and matches you cannot lose. This is why "SBMM" sucks now.
It happens because the tuning of the skill estimator is wrong, like a spring that's too weak for the load it's supposed to dampen. One victory propels your skill to astronomic heights, and one loss sends it plummeting, so it always bounces wildly around your real skill level, but never settles. It's important to realize that the major modification Halo 3 made to TrueSkill was to relax exactly this phenomenon, it took longer to react to wins and losses, making it more stable, and more likely to have time to settle. You can read up on PID control to see a real world example of how badly tuned control algorithms can lead to these kinds of problems.
Now why do developers not want to hear this? Probably it's because if you are able to categorize a match that a player is having into a clear "win" or "lose" match, rather than something more unpredictable and varied, then you can use that to drive Engagement Optimized Matchmaking. Where the system dripfeeds you wins on purpose to keep you playing and make you more likely to spend money on a cash shop or battle pass. Matchmaking for fun is not a priority anymore, and being able to control whether you win or lose with this kind of pendulum matchmaking means that you can be manipulated more easily by EOMM. So you get the wilful ignorance and canned responses about 50% winrate being "ideal".
Interesting when you consider the progression actively discourages most elements of that design method.
Nutty.
Yeah you need to check out how they programmed the SBMM with TrueSkill2 all of your points are pretty much spot on.
Yeah, he got this totally wrong. SBMM is crap. This on top of some games not having dedicated servers like Destiny 2 he showed. Also they hide these stats from the players.
@@luisfuentes3846 We need transparency on exactly what's happening under the hood in our games. Other industries aren't allowed to hide what they're selli g and changing this much.
@@EggEnjoyer This is kinda the nature of anything when it becomes massive and the motivation goes from just making really fucking good games to getting as much money as possible.
Trust me, indie games have a lot of good shit *and* they are cheaper.
In regards to matchmaking ranked is usually a seperate option in multiplayer games so unranked doesnt need the same systems
SBMM isn't the issue. OUTCOME based matchmaking, however, sucks donkey balls. Win 3 games in a row? Well don't do that, because now we will force bad teammates onto your team to force you to lose 5 in a row to make up for it. (Never had this problem 10 years ago, it's a recent phenomena). Oh you lost 5 in a row? Dang I'm so sorry, here is an enemy team full of literal babies. *Sits still on obj most of the match letting the team fight the other team easily with 1 man down.*
I'm not a pro, but I am above average. I shouldn't be put in unwinnable games because games are placing bad players on my team to compensate for giving the enemy team players of relatively similar skill. Matching good players with worse players does not even out the match.
Its been documented how pro play killed overwatch, The devs always had a firm grasp on the meta of the game. Every single time a new trick was discovered that did not adhere to the meta they were trying to create it would be patched out. Being able to fling yourself from spawn to the objective as Genji was patched because they wanted to make support characters and Tanks the highlight up until people got sick of it and created segregated match matchmaking. The pros killed the game for the average player and its no surprise the massive playerbase dwindled out
tbh genji flinging himself to the objective does sound pretty op lol
The issue wasn't just 'listening to pros' it was how they went about it, they didn't change what was too strong, they added hero's that countered the entire meta. Along with the the existence of brig absolutely destroyed the game with how overpowered she was and still is in the game and is still game breaking after like 16 nerf. Listening to pros is usually a good idea due to the fact they often have a shared idea of what is wrong with the game and ways to fix it, Devs should most definitely look at this but they shouldn't stay glued to it
@@EggEnjoyer open q was pretty bad. Goats was just cancer. Brig made it worse. Lack of updates was what properly killed the game.
Exactly. Part of the reason old games were so fun is because of that random factor. Finding unique uses for certain characters that weren't planned is an unmatched good feeling.
Overwatch wasn't killed so much because they just listened to the pros; the pros hated goat comp and casuals hated goat comp, but it was so strong that Blizzard had no idea how to nerf it without restrictions that weren't fun for the end user (such as role limits).
Successful competitive games didn't stay around because they were balanced. Look at Marvel vs Capcom 2, Smash Bros Melee, Dragonball Fighterz, and (like mentioned in the video) Fortnite. They all feel good and fun to play at a casual level.
One of my most treasured memories was a private match with my brothers in Halo CE where I bounced a frag off 3 walls to kill both of them at the same time
God damn that was a "calculated" throw
@@ghosty3494 I was on cloud 9 for like a week after
@BradynLee09 Bounce a nade off a few walls to them.
damn would have love to see that
I think it's also important to note the type of game... in a game like Counter Strike, you absolutely need to listen to competitive & pro players, they're your core audience.
While a game like Halo or Call of Duty can afford to listen to the more casual audience.
Love the analysis, i want to add RNG is a skill, the risk management skill. POKER is a competitive game after all.
The problem is that "pro gamers" hate RNG because they want to shape the game into the skills they already have, its an ego problem.
Thats why they hate when a "noob" kills them, they game have to be broker right? It can't be because i made a mistake! Im perfect im a pro!!
It reminds me of how players, especially in cod, begged for maps to not have “safe spaces”. They wanted maps that were tight, pushed you directly into the action constantly. And with halo infinite, the maps are exactly that and everyone hates them bc you never even get the chance to breathe.
section 8: prejudice & battlefield series
these games offer the best of both worlds by letting you choose your spawn point
allowing everyone to play at their own pace, in their own time
Clash royale is a mobile game but has an esports scene ect. They ruined the casual experience once by buffing a card that pros dont use but most casual players have that card in their deck so it become insanely OP and they had to revert it. Balancing a game solely round the top 1% is stupid.
@@Sl1mch1ckens who would have thought that pro gamers would become the equivalent of the greedy elites
@@Sl1mch1ckens the ad I got before this was for Clash Royale😂
It's a battlefield, you'll break bad
I can say it simply:
Pro players aren't "THE" community, they are PART of the community.
And when you build an experience to target a specific sub-group, you shouldn't be surprised when only that specific sub-group wants to experience it.
a part is not the whole.
Agreed. It'd like taking, imho, a game meant for exploration and such like Skyrim and having it cater to speed runners, tailoring every aspect to them.
This is just me, but I believe a game should focus on itself, first and foremost. What is the game? What does it convey to the player? What is the story? Above all else, games need to engage the player. Skyrim felt awesome because of the expansive world, a somewhat okay story, and the sense of adventure it conveyed to the player. After the cave scene and the encounter with the first dragon, the player is given control of their own destiny. Imagine how crappy the game would have felt if all other quests were locked off until you progressed 70% the way through a linear story. Doesn't sound great, right.
The problem can also be compounded when a game tries to do too many things at once; at least, that's my sense and feelings towards FO4. The game's story didn't drag me in, nor did the world feel like an adventure. Base building had a niche charm to it, but many parts lacked that special unique sense of wonder. Heck, by the third, fourth, or fifth base... sorry, "settlement," I kinda gave up. If we had one settlement, maybe two at most with them being really, REALLY fleshed out, things could have been awesome.
And the worst part is that by targetting one sub-group you're not guaranteeing anything. They could still dislike it.
Not only "part," they are absolute minority
@@Sos_tenuto I mean yeah but it also depends on the game for example fighting games almost always tend to be more competitive even if they are casual players but I agree still
Here's what I'm gonna say about balance in regards to FPS games specifically:
Randomness (especially in things like Spread) in fact _increases_ the potential skill gap, it doesn't decrease it
at least in good implementations
Weapon spread objectively makes shooters more skillful and improves the amount of actual variety in what the game can do
Sounds completely wrong doesn't it? Well let's put it this way, as mentioned in the video, a shooter without spread or recoil would essentially become a multiplayer aim trainer rather than an actual game. We already sort of agree that recoil is essentially necessary for a shooter to not just be about pure aim, but why spread? We hate randomness, why would we want some of it in aspects like especially the guns you're actually using?
Let's look at a game that takes this approach to their design, rainbow six siege, with the exception of shotguns, every ranged weapon in the game has 0 spread when aimed down sights, what consequences does this have for the gun balance in that game? Well... SMGs and Rifles are essentially identical in terms of how they're used. Yes, rifles technically have more damage on average and have longer range before dropping off, but given that headshots always kill in one hit (unless it's a shotgun pellet) and especially since the typical range of engagement in that game is 9 meters, there's effectively no difference between SMGs and Rifles other than arbitrary number changes for the sake of "realism"
For the record, SMGs start dropping damage at 11 meters and further in siege, so every gun is effectively doing their max damage output in 95% of engagements in that game.
So how would we go about actually differentiating SMGs and Rifles? Well, spread when aimed, it sounds cringe to a lot of people I imagine, but it's the truth, and it's not like it actually reduces skill, it just substantially lowers effectiveness of a weapon when it's being used outside of its intended ranges.
Siege has had an issue of "Spawn Peeking" (Defenders peeking out of the windows of buildings and shooting attackers while they're still walking to the building) and an absolutely huge part of the issue is that despite Defenders (typically) using SMGs and Attackers (typically) using Rifles, Defenders still have pinpoint perfect accuracy while aimed down sights and can easily get headshots on enemies from the tops of buildings.
If you give a spread range on SMGs when aimed in that gives them an "effective range" of something like 11ish meters, what that entails is simply making first shot spread hit 100% of the time on a dinnerplate at a particular distance.
To explain this with a better visual, in Siege you have a crosshair when you're not aimed down your sights, that crosshair is a direct indication of your spread at hipfire, if that crosshair's circle is filled 100% with _something_ you're looking to shoot, then you will hit that target 100% of the time
The same can be applied to when aiming down sights, it's not out of the question to maybe show the player a crosshair on top of their aimed reticle as a way to show what the spread of their shots are going to be (Apex Legends does this with at least two of its weapons using a certain hop-up) and if that aimed-in spread... for example is filled entirely by a head hitbox, because you're within your weapon's "effective range" then you will hit that headshot 100% of the time
The point of spread is _specifically_ to reduce consistency at ranges that are not intended for a weapon and to force players to use other systems of the game to compensate.
This is outright, giving better genuine _players_ of the _game_ more room to express that skill. Being good at a shooter shouldn't _only_ be about aim skill, it should be about movement, however limited or however free that movement might be, it should be about mind games and messing with people, it should be about good positioning, as well as knowing your optimal ranges or employing strategies to lower your spread like tapping the trigger or crouching.
There's a reason Battlefield 4 and 1 are such genuinely great games, and it's _because_ they implemented Spread while aimed, and a system called "Spread Increase Per Shot" to try and further de-emphasize things like mag-dumping, because it turns out a lot of people don't really like the spammy nature of just holding down the trigger and getting kills.
CS:GO also has weapon spread and spread increase per shot, and given it's one of _the_ most consistently watched competitive shooters still to this day, I think it's worth giving it credit for genuinely having good systems for skill expression and an actual meaningful skill gap.
the nanosecond you mentioned AoE2 and how the randomness is a benefit, you gained a lot more credibility for me. If only because I know enough about that game's comp scene to know you're right.
For the longest time the sweathard community has been responsible for killing off dual wielding and elites in Halo because it puts other players at a "significant disadvantage".
They really out here putting so much effort against diversity.
I still hate it when some popular people whined that Halo Infinite should have a BR mode because it would be a dead game on arrival if it didn’t.
Except it still slowly died off….not because it didn’t have a BR, but because it was so barebones it wasn’t worth the effort to play it.
I don't know if I agree with that. Dual Wielding was removed because it significantly harder to balance weapons and served no purpose other than to look cool. I can kinda understand Elites being removed because it would potentially put players and teams at a disadvantaged but If you really care about fair play, just play Ranked. I believe 343i is just being lazy and don't want to put in the effort in making models for Sanghelli players. Bungie took a different approach in Reach by making the models slightly bigger and bulkier but also gave them regenerating health to make it more balanced, Which made custom game modes still fun to play, Elite only games fair and Invasion fun.
@GoKllyoslf x they.... definately have a ranking system. Hey I hate the game too but at least I played it first
@@TheDarkkilla12 I left after a slew of performance issues and the lack of content. News of Forge and some incoming new content does have me interested, but I won't get my hopes up for it. The game should have launched with co-op campaign, Forge, and a slew of MP playlists.
I don't care I'm at a disadvantage. duel wielding as an elite is fucking awesome
Already a correct take from the title alone.
Even in purely non-competitive games this is true. Warframe for instance - every time the devs bow to the ultra minmax sweatlords, the game gets worse and less fun, and every time they balance for the rest of the players they put out some decently balanced and entertaining content.
What are the examples you mentioned about in Warframe? I play it but never cared that much about the balance changes. I just take them as "Back to the planning table" moments.
Someone's comment brought up a nice point: "You're just forced to have fun in different ways," and isn't that true for every change?
@@IllusionistsBane They haven't reworked eidolons since launch because it would disrupt an arcane economy dominated by obsessive, frame-perfection-chasing meta hunters who abuse animation skips to lock the eidolon in place and capture it fast enough to fit in six cycles in one night or something. They introduced the Warframe Refresh update that finally made enemies' EHP feel balanced relative to guns, then immediately undid it with the Steel Path basically restoring old tankiness, forcing them to reimplement new forms of powercreep in the form of weapon arcanes and galvanized mods, because people whined that their ultra super minmaxed Kuva Brammas trivialized the game. There are way more, going back years.
Warframe's problems have historically been the result of two separate factors: 1) Too much grind for an item to be obtainable in a time frame that feels fun (see the new Aeolak rifle or the Ambassador before it), and 2) trying to appease the most obnoxious, loudest, sweatiest minority of the playerbase whose criticisms mainly just stem from their stratospheric egos being threatened by not being able to hold exclusivity or "skill" over others in some way, or being asked to play different game modes.
On that note: Content islands are kind of on the players in a way. DE releases a new mode like Railjack... It's great and it's fun and has stellar QoL updates not featured anywhere else, but launches with bugs and makes players progress through a new thing for once. Players complain about not being able to skip to the very end where all their minmaxed warframe builds are, gravitate to a mindless lootcave to farm it out in a week, then say the mode is dead and lacks content. And also complain if the lootcave is patched. They then call the entire game mode bad and worthless and say DE should go back to the real game. DE does exactly that. Then they complain about DE leaving a bunch of abandoned content islands that aren't integrated into the game, after complaining about those things being integrated into the game more...
Can't win if you try to please the entitled. Ever. The solution is to just make the game the best it can be and listen only to the level-headed, constructive, fact-based criticism.
@@FelisImpurrator Yeah, sometimes I feel Warframe players complain too much... and cacophonously.
@@IllusionistsBane It's always the same obnoxious minority who make being Better than You at Videogames their source of self-esteem. The Dark Souls and Monster Hunter franchises have these idiots too. They contribute nothing meaningful but elitism borne of insecurity. DE is just too damn Canadian to say no sometimes.
@@FelisImpurrator ah yes the arcane traders of warframe they went through 2 great depression
Great video. You are absolutely right, stop catering to the "Pro-scene" and instead cater to the average player, as they will make up the vast majority of a games player base, and will get them to stick around and not stop playing their game.
Adding randomness factors to a game that makes people lose for things that are completely out of their control is bad game design. Gamers want to play the game, not get played by the game. Asking to add randomness in a game is like asking to add a super ball inside a basket ball so the ball wiggles in random directions. It would ruin the sport.
As a current dev, I’ve been saying this often. In recent years I’ve actually seen a lot of things cut from studios I’ve worked at and saw backlash WITHIN the studio about changing it only for nothing to change and for there to then be the same backlash from the player base calling us incompetent.
To me this is less a dev issue and more a production/executive issue. These people are spending too much time getting online opinion instead of letting us take direct surveyed information from the player base and our own ideas as players. A lot of people I work with are not top players myself included I’m casual and I try to put as much of that into my games as possible with out getting punched down by production. But yeah we hear you I just wish they would too. Been trying to make that statement louder but it’s hard since usually you are just a worker vs making those calls.
Since you're a dev. Can I ask why does gaming feel so cut and paste since ps3 360 days? Even brand new original games are just a rejumbled mix of shit we've already had for years
@@J.Wolf90 Not a dev,but large companies just don't want to take a risk by doing something unique,a game is a large investment and if you're too radical with your ideas it may end up being a flop. That's why small indie games tend to be very varied,they don't have much money at stake and can take a gamble with a never before seen mechanic (and have to,because without an unique quirk they won't stand out among the crowd)
King
@@J.Wolf90publishers are cowards and snakes who prioritize profit over culture or quality and so they are incentivised to take no risks by copy and pasting the shit they think works until the concept has been driven to the ground and stomped on. In other words, the over corporatization of the industry has taken priority over art
@@robob4465There are several indie games that don't have new and cool mechanics, but they do build their worlds around one mechanic and make it extravagant.
As a Xcom dev said best: “give the chance gamers will optimize the fun out of the game.”
He was talking about gamers in general but it can apply pretty easily to pro players
I'm fairly certain that is a Sid Meier's quote, which isn't exactly an Xcom dev (though he does work at Firaxis Games), he's the guy behind the Civ franchise though. And I do believe he was in fact mostly refering to hardcore Civ players.
@@NandolfBlockbuster no this goes across all games; case and point, camping. No one really considers sitting in a corner until the opportune moment comes but people do it anyway because its more optimal to not engage and take risks.
I’m very guilty of doing this
Pros are the optimum optimizers at taking the fun out of the game.
@@NandolfBlockbuster Sid's first company MicroProse published the original X-Com game, though I belive it was developed by a British studio.
This issue plagues all of gaming and the worst is, players started to accept it as good blindly
Never let pros or others determine your game systems or mechanics, take advice sure but the game should be how the team working on it dictates and not some outside influence.
Even as a competitive player I agree with this, Halo 5 showed us that if theres no casual scene, competitive doesnt matter anyway. competitive play depends on a large casual playerbase staying engaged over a long period of time. it doesnt matter how high the skill ceiling is if no one wants to play the game in the first place
Reminds me of a game called Battallion 1944 which was meant to be like an modern version of the old CoDs... however they designed it around eSports later on in the development. Lets say this game literally launched, had an eSports/Pro scene but had literally no playerbase at the same time outside of them. Obviously it died eventually and never took off into popularity
I think the lack of casual scene for halo 5 has more to do with 343's utter incompetence when it came to the halo 5 campaign. I'm a casual and campaign is important for me and I decided to skip halo 5 after I saw the horrendous reviews and how they mismarketed the campaign.
@@Invictus_Mithra doubtless that was a significant contributing factor
Yep, and I think that's the biggest issue with competitive in general; companies don't understand that there needs to be natural mass appeal. Starcraft didn't become one of the bigger old school competitive scenes because Blizzard forced it, it became that because people loved it and it kept people coming back again and again.
@@nigeltheoutlaw factual. look at smash bros too. Nintendo doesnt even support the competitive scene. they do everything they can to stomp out the competitive scene. shutting down events that didnt buy a license from the company. threatening to sue tournament organizers. yet the competitive scene is still thriving, because people love the game. and people love the game because its easy to pick up. theres no barrier to entry. simple to learn the basics, but with a high skill ceiling.
I've seen it happen quite frequently where the pro scene's demands end up causing problems for the casuals. I theorize that part of the impetus is that developers are trying to follow a "trickle-down" philosophy: If this is balanced for the 1%, then it's balanced for the 99%. I remember first witnessing this when I got into R6S around 2017. A lot of my favorite features, strategies, or weapon configurations would get removed because the pros complained. I also see it quite frequently in Final Fantasy 14, where the classes are balanced for the high-end, hard-core raiding community -- which has, in turn, homogenized a lot of the unique features about the classes in order to make them all equally viable for high-end raiding (Creating a much less enjoyable experience for the average player.)
It's happening to Minecraft out of all games. Nothing is safe.
@@borico62 .....how? o.O
It feels like they trying to please everyone even tho doing so will appease no one because you just making the game worse for everyone else by catering to that 20% of people who play as a job.
I agree 100%, siege just became so bland and boring to me after they started catering toward the pro leagues
@@The_one_the_only881 Yeah, I haven't played it in so long -- kinda fell off around when the Australian operators came out. I've popped in a few times here and there to relive the glory days but I definitely feel that blandness. I miss all the whacky strategies you could do to get an edge on your opponent. Maybe it was just a simpler time before the meta really sunk in, but the pro league definitely had their hand in removing things I found fun.
I say that to counter something in a game, it should take a similar amount of skill as what it is countering. It depends obviously, but if you can just swing over and over and over, I should just be able to hold my block button and stop your button mashing entirely until you start actually mixing it up. it's not about designing a game to take skill, it's about encouraging better playing from everyone. Pro players will say things just to benefit themselves, while me as just a gamer wanting to make it fun and fair for everyone. I can recognize that not everyone has put in the time I have to work on my 'gaming skill'. playing a bunch of different games and getting good with them, so when new games role around I have muscle memory for all these different games that bleeds through. I recognize what makes a good and bad combat system. I can see it's strengths and faults. Something pros should be able to do if they cared about the game itself, not just how the game can benefit them. that is a huge problem I noticed years and years ago. people will bitch and whine about things that are balanced just because they refuse to understand them, then they get nerfed into uselessness. Jackal in Rainbow 6 Siege (Dokeabi is just the better Jackal in everyway), bleed in Dark Souls 3 pvp (yet UGS-GS are still stupid op), Spy's kits in TF2, are three I can think of off the top of my head.
I can't believe you didn't mention Justice Bison.
@@uligallardo8110 what or who is justice bison? Never heard the term.
I gave up on multiplayer gaming a long time ago. I’m not trying to be a “pro” or “competitive”. I just want to have fun and unwind. People naturally get better at the games they play, but that doesn’t mean you want to sweat every game.
My 1 point whatever K/D looks different than someone else’s. So while I prefer to run around and be creative with how I play, I often found myself in games with people desperately trying to preserve their K/D. Using the same tactics and meta weapons. It’s not fun.
You either end up another stat zombie or become annoyed until you just move on.