StarDestroyer.Net BBS

[Another periodical rant form me]

It's one of the things that inevitably comes up every time I talk about playing games:I have a lack of time in which to play them. But I still try and play as often as I can and as great a variety of games as I can. Which naturally leads to my time being spread a little thinly amongst them all. Directly related to this is my hate for unnecessary padding and the usual grind and dissatisfaction it incurs.

These issues are perfectly addressed by many games, which offer skills based gaming. That is, a gameplay experience which rewards skill rather than time. It's one of the reasons I've been enjoying Skate 2 so much. Right from the very start you have available to you every trick and the ability to do it, your skater will never level up, or unlock new abilities. It is purely up to you as a player to make it work.

This means that when I fail a challenge I know that it is on me. I failed because I couldn't find the right line, or fucked up in some way. Not because I haven't levelled up my skater enough and need to go and play for another few hours to get the points to unlock a new level of skills or get a better board. That way, when I do finally nail a trick, kill a spot or win a competition, there is a real sense of achievement to it. I know that I got that outcome because of my skills or because I figured out where a better line was. Sure, there is some time aspect to it - as time goes on I've learnt more and more little tricks to get better and better at the game. The fact remains though, that the game is not artificially limiting me because I haven't spent enough time with it yet.

Where I've encountered the most issues to do with this split between games that reward time vs skill is in unlockable stuff - why do I have to play through story mode in a fighting game 20 goddamn times to fully unlock the main roster of characters when I've already bought the game? Why do I have to put 20 hours into Call of Duty 4 or World at War to unlock all the weapons and perks. Certainly I have no problem with having bonus characters and special items as unlockables in fighting games. In the CoD games - having some unlockables is fine but can we please speed up the advancement curve or give me a better selection to begin with?

I've recently gotten back into Team Fortress 2 (a by-product of finally having a gaming PC again) and it has become very apparent to me that I am far behind the curve there. Previously, I had been able to drop in occasionally and enjoy the game - but now, because I'm not playing every night and whoring achievements every time a new release is made, I'm feeling left behind. I don't have a lot of the alternate weapons and items which most players seem to be using and that certainly seem to be just plain better than the basic stuff. What was a skills based game has now been tainted for me by the inclusion of such unlockable items.

If I am already behind the curve on a game where time spent is not the core mechanic, as I am in Team Fortress 2, then I am already naturally disadvantaged as I am not familiar with many class and map related tactics. To increase the gap between casual players like myself and the dedicated players by then adding unlockable items seems more like punishment for not playing often, rather than an incentive to keep playing. This isn't World of Warcraft where at a glance I can see that the player over there is way above me in levels and likely to be able to eliminate me with a single strike and is pimped to the max with items. Frequently the first you know of an alternate item being used in play is when you get killed and it shows you the special stats on what killed you.

Perhaps my problem here isn't so much that there are unlockables - but that the requirements to unlock them are so high. It is patently ridiculous to expect a casual player (or even anyone who doesn't fall into the hopelessly addicted category) to obtain some of those achievements which are critical to unlocking items. I can see myself slowly inching towards these unlocks, but the fact is that I know I will never actually get there. I might get the first tier for one or two classes, but that's it.

I will credit EA's intentions, but not their implementation of the "Time is Money" DLC for Skate 2. I didn't purchase it, because Skate 2 isn't the kind of game where unlocks are critical to my enjoyment. But if Valve offered me the chance to pay $5 in Steam to unlock all the new items - then I would do so without a moments hesitation as it would drastically improve my game experience.

There are certain games and genres in which I avoid in their entirety due to the central gameplay mechanic being "Spend time playing to advance". Hence, JRPGs and MMORPGs are off the table for me. Sure, every game requires a commitment of time, but for me at least, being the cranky gamer-with-a-job that I am, any game that rewards time played over skill or thinking is not worth my time to start with.

You have summed up feelings I've had for a while. Thanks for posting this, it was a cathartic read, knowing others feel the same way I do about certain things.

Skate is a damn good game for these reasons; it's hard to do anything, but you can do anything right from the start. The 'feature bleed' in SP games has always been horrible.

Burnout has a lazy unlock option too.

I'll second TheMuffinKing. I have several friends who are WoW players who just don't seem to understand that time is a limited resource and I'll play something that rewards my skill over my time spent any day of the week.

I really wish unlocks were either fast to obtain or purely aesthetic- like new skins or slightly different models. I don't mind if some guys effort lets him look cooler than me, but it shits me when it actually enhances his performance in a competitive game.

Unlocks should be limited to singleplayer games, and only where it makes sense for an ongoing progression of difficulty of challenges (unlocking new and harder events).

Unlocking items for a multiplayer game, especially when unlocking items for multiplayer has to be done in singleplayer, is just an arbitrary and annoying barrier to entry.

Unlocks don't bother me when it's an aesthetic upgrade; I don't care if your 30,000 unlock-point gun is made of gold and fires pellets of solid awesome at a million miles an hour, as long as gameplay-wise it is functionally identical to the stuff everyone else is using.

Players should be rewarded for committing vast amount of time to a game or achieving high levels of success, but that reward doesn't have to unbalance the game for new or casual players if developers have their shit together.

Concerning the topic of unlocks, I love them and find myself agreeing with elements of Lagmonster's and Vendetta's ideas. I like having extra content unlocked in both single and multiplayer, however I don't like unlocks that would give a massive advantage to players in multiplayer matches. I really enjoy the challenge of unlocking stuff like background information, new costumes and weapon upgrades.

Weapon upgrades can really expand your playing experience and I love the idea of multiple upgrades (sights, grenade launchers, bipods, etc.), however I feel that they should be regulated by offering some performance penalty (for balancing purposes). Preferably, these unlocks would be based on player skill, sort of how they are awarded now on CoD4 and Killzone2, but with less emphasis on point grinding. This reminds me of an idea I had for a time based unlock, something purely cosmetic, say after a few weeks of playing you could utilize an alternate "war worn" skin, where your character is disheveled, dirty, and your weapon shows signs of wear.

While I can appreciate your unhappiness with having to unlock weapons/abilities for multiplayer, I've got to say I think your concern about not having the unlocks in TF2 is an artifact of your lack of experience. I play quite a bit of TF2 and have most of the unlocks, but in most circumstances prefer the original weapons. You can do very well and get very high scores without using Sasha or the Backburner or whatever. You are getting owned because someone with all the unlocks has playe the game a lot more often than you, not because the weapons they are using are intrinsically better.

Thirdfain wrote:While I can appreciate your unhappiness with having to unlock weapons/abilities for multiplayer, I've got to say I think your concern about not having the unlocks in TF2 is an artifact of your lack of experience. I play quite a bit of TF2 and have most of the unlocks, but in most circumstances prefer the original weapons. You can do very well and get very high scores without using Sasha or the Backburner or whatever. You are getting owned because someone with all the unlocks has playe the game a lot more often than you, not because the weapons they are using are intrinsically better.

But the fact that the weapons are intrinsically better adds a whole other layer to their capacity as a more skilled player. That's my issue.

weemadando wrote:

Thirdfain wrote:While I can appreciate your unhappiness with having to unlock weapons/abilities for multiplayer, I've got to say I think your concern about not having the unlocks in TF2 is an artifact of your lack of experience. I play quite a bit of TF2 and have most of the unlocks, but in most circumstances prefer the original weapons. You can do very well and get very high scores without using Sasha or the Backburner or whatever. You are getting owned because someone with all the unlocks has playe the game a lot more often than you, not because the weapons they are using are intrinsically better.

But the fact that the weapons are intrinsically better adds a whole other layer to their capacity as a more skilled player. That's my issue.

Do you acquire these weapons based on rank? I am ignorant as to how TF2 works.

Killzone 2's weapons are segregated by rank. You have the option to play games against only people in or near your rank so as to have a level playing field. Would you find such a system preferable?

I don't have a massive problem with TF2, it just drives me nuts that as a person who only plays casually, I know that I will never unlock most of the weapons and items because the requirements for them are so massive that only the most dedicated players will ever actually get them. Which means that you are giving usually more powerful items to more skilled players which makes the barrier to entry/enjoyment that little bit higher.

weemadando wrote: But the fact that the weapons are intrinsically better adds a whole other layer to their capacity as a more skilled player. That's my issue.

My point is that, in fact, the weapons are NOT intrinsically better. For instance, Sasha's -25% damage drastically decreases it's utility specifically with regards to taking down other Heavies or Engineer nests, while the Kritzkrieg's 8 seconds of crits are far less of a useful tool for breaking stalemates than the vanilla medigun's invincibility. The Force a'Nature can do better burst damage, but with only two shots is pretty incapable if you have to kill more than one target. The Backburner is, imo, distinctly inferior to the vanilla flamethrower, as it's air blast is totally necessary for defense against grenades and rockets while the Backburner's very finicky definition of what counts as a rear attack often negates it's advantage.

So, I'd argue that what you are experiencing is simply the righteous ass-kicking a relative noob would recieve, regardless of armament, at the hands of a vet who's spent hours upon hours playing.