Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Yorker)   Eighteen-year-old Iraqi is one of the best Battlefield 3 players in the world because his hometown was too dangerous growing up to go outside. Bonus: It's also one of the levels of the game   (newyorker.com) divider line 43
    More: Interesting, battlefields, Iraqis, Middle Eastern countries, Kurdistan, ROM cartridge  
•       •       •

3087 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Nov 2013 at 9:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-17 09:42:47 AM  
It's highly likely that the "top 2%" stat is misleading.  If he's even just decent, but matchmaking always pairs him up with people who play terribly(due to the low population with which he'd get a good connection), it would artificially inflate his stats.
 
2013-11-17 09:43:43 AM  

omeganuepsilon: It's highly likely that the "top 2%" stat is misleading.  If he's even just decent, but matchmaking always pairs him up with people who play terribly(due to the low population with which he'd get a good connection), it would artificially inflate his stats.


Battlefield doesn't have matchmaking, it has dedicated servers...
 
2013-11-17 09:45:22 AM  
Nice find, subby.
 
2013-11-17 09:59:37 AM  

SashiRomanenko: omeganuepsilon: It's highly likely that the "top 2%" stat is misleading.  If he's even just decent, but matchmaking always pairs him up with people who play terribly(due to the low population with which he'd get a good connection), it would artificially inflate his stats.

Battlefield doesn't have matchmaking, it has dedicated servers...


It just means he's good at hacking, then. It cant be because he's better than me.
 
2013-11-17 10:06:52 AM  

Dedmon: SashiRomanenko: omeganuepsilon: It's highly likely that the "top 2%" stat is misleading.  If he's even just decent, but matchmaking always pairs him up with people who play terribly(due to the low population with which he'd get a good connection), it would artificially inflate his stats.

Battlefield doesn't have matchmaking, it has dedicated servers...

It just means he's good at hacking, then. It cant be because he's better than me.


Does it count everyone who bought the game and then never looked at the MP? Then most players are probably in the top few % if they've bothered to play a few matches.
 
2013-11-17 10:08:30 AM  
There is a Kumail joke in here somewhere.
 
2013-11-17 10:14:58 AM  

Sid_6.7: Does it count everyone who bought the game and then never looked at the MP?


Does anyone buy a Battlefield game for the single player? Did the first couple of them even HAVE a single player?
 
2013-11-17 10:20:38 AM  

Confabulat: Sid_6.7: Does it count everyone who bought the game and then never looked at the MP?

Does anyone buy a Battlefield game for the single player? Did the first couple of them even HAVE a single player?


This.

/who buys a battlefield game for single player?
 
2013-11-17 10:55:47 AM  

Confabulat: Sid_6.7: Does it count everyone who bought the game and then never looked at the MP?

Does anyone buy a Battlefield game for the single player? Did the first couple of them even HAVE a single player?


Amen.  I'm actually glad Titanfall and Destiny are just skipping the single player stuff altogether.  Take whatever time and expense spent on that and dedicate it to multiplayer.  I think the overwhelming majority of people will be able to live without some crappy set-piece 6 hour single player campaign that has almost zero replay value.
 
2013-11-17 11:07:52 AM  
CAMPER!
 
2013-11-17 11:20:47 AM  

Shrugging Atlas: Confabulat: Sid_6.7: Does it count everyone who bought the game and then never looked at the MP?

Does anyone buy a Battlefield game for the single player? Did the first couple of them even HAVE a single player?

Amen.  I'm actually glad Titanfall and Destiny are just skipping the single player stuff altogether.  Take whatever time and expense spent on that and dedicate it to multiplayer.  I think the overwhelming majority of people will be able to live without some crappy set-piece 6 hour single player campaign that has almost zero replay value.


Agreed.

On of my favorite games on PS3 was MAG. loved that game, bummed MAG2 never happened.
 
2013-11-17 11:20:56 AM  

SashiRomanenko: omeganuepsilon: It's highly likely that the "top 2%" stat is misleading.  If he's even just decent, but matchmaking always pairs him up with people who play terribly(due to the low population with which he'd get a good connection), it would artificially inflate his stats.

Battlefield doesn't have matchmaking, it has dedicated servers...


Um...yes it does, even on PC not just consoles like some games.  Or so 2 million and some odd hits on google tells me.

Same thing still applies if he's picking from low latency servers, he's playing with a much smaller pool of players, the other 12 kids in the middle east with an xbox( or whatever), so saying top 2% doesn't really mean anything.

Sid_6.7: Does it count everyone who bought the game and then never looked at the MP? Then most players are probably in the top few % if they've bothered to play a few matches.


Don't know about BF3, but it can in CoD.  I had a relative play a couple games and manage to get a couple killstreaks and very few deaths and never touched it again, his leaderboard markings are ridiculous.
 
2013-11-17 11:31:56 AM  

Shrugging Atlas: Confabulat: Sid_6.7: Does it count everyone who bought the game and then never looked at the MP?

Does anyone buy a Battlefield game for the single player? Did the first couple of them even HAVE a single player?

Amen.  I'm actually glad Titanfall and Destiny are just skipping the single player stuff altogether.  Take whatever time and expense spent on that and dedicate it to multiplayer.  I think the overwhelming majority of people will be able to live without some crappy set-piece 6 hour single player campaign that has almost zero replay value.


I just started playing Planetside 2, so I'm getting a kick.

Fun little open warfare game, plays a lot like Battlefields.  Capture stations and such, advance your territory one goal at a time, only it is a persistant continent instead of round-based.

No real story, no crappy AI, just fighting other players.  3 factions that don't ever ally, so zerg's are only a matter of happenstance.

It is also free to play.  Normally that's sort of a shiatty deal that turns into pay 2 win, but that's not the case here as the noob weaponry is some of the better stuff.  Anyone can hop into vehicles right off as well, provided your faction doesn't waste them and run low on resources.  Includes ATVs, tanks, and airborne vehicles.

Sci-fi themed, but not really all that bad.
 
2013-11-17 12:03:01 PM  
Shrugging Atlas:  I think the overwhelming majority of people will be able to live without some crappy set-piece 6 hour single player campaign that has almost zero replay value.

Don't underestimate the single players. Half of all Starcraft II players only play the single player campaign. More than half of all Gears of War players on Xbox 360 never play online. The designer of CoD Black Ops 2 biatched about how many players of the game only play the SP mode. Many game designers put SP campaigns in their games because they know they can't rely on the multiplayer folks alone.
Personally: I hate multiplayer and I think it's crap that so many game designers only put in SP content as an afterthought.
 
2013-11-17 12:32:19 PM  
MP is fun but I love single player campaigns and play that 99% of the time. Bad Company 2 and CoD4 MW are probably some of my fav single player games.
 
2013-11-17 12:36:19 PM  
Yousif is also one of the fattest 18 year olds in Iraq.
 
2013-11-17 01:06:55 PM  

Klopfer: Shrugging Atlas:  I think the overwhelming majority of people will be able to live without some crappy set-piece 6 hour single player campaign that has almost zero replay value.

Don't underestimate the single players. Half of all Starcraft II players only play the single player campaign. More than half of all Gears of War players on Xbox 360 never play online. The designer of CoD Black Ops 2 biatched about how many players of the game only play the SP mode. Many game designers put SP campaigns in their games because they know they can't rely on the multiplayer folks alone.
Personally: I hate multiplayer and I think it's crap that so many game designers only put in SP content as an afterthought.


This.
 
2013-11-17 01:20:59 PM  

Boojum2k: Klopfer: Shrugging Atlas:  I think the overwhelming majority of people will be able to live without some crappy set-piece 6 hour single player campaign that has almost zero replay value.

Don't underestimate the single players. Half of all Starcraft II players only play the single player campaign. More than half of all Gears of War players on Xbox 360 never play online. The designer of CoD Black Ops 2 biatched about how many players of the game only play the SP mode. Many game designers put SP campaigns in their games because they know they can't rely on the multiplayer folks alone.
Personally: I hate multiplayer and I think it's crap that so many game designers only put in SP content as an afterthought.

This.


Absolutely, I hate online multi-player.  Back in the N64 days I used to destroy my friends in Golden Eye.  Then Halo on the xbox.  But once Halo 2 came out with the online multiplayer I realized that I was total crap compared to other people who play online.

I play games to escape my wretched life and have fun, not to get my ass kicked every time I play while prepubescent teens scream at me in their high pitched whiny voices.
 
2013-11-17 01:52:36 PM  

Klopfer: Shrugging Atlas:  I think the overwhelming majority of people will be able to live without some crappy set-piece 6 hour single player campaign that has almost zero replay value.

Don't underestimate the single players. Half of all Starcraft II players only play the single player campaign. More than half of all Gears of War players on Xbox 360 never play online. The designer of CoD Black Ops 2 biatched about how many players of the game only play the SP mode. Many game designers put SP campaigns in their games because they know they can't rely on the multiplayer folks alone.
Personally: I hate multiplayer and I think it's crap that so many game designers only put in SP content as an afterthought.


All the more reason Battlefield shouldn't have a single player at all.  It IS an afterthought, and if you don't like online multiplayer, well, there isn't anything wrong with that, it just means the Battlefield series isn't for you.  Shooters like Halo or Goldeneye/Perfect Dark or the Half Life series have fantastic campaigns, and I've played the crap out of them.  If you buy Battlefield knowing you will never go online, you really can't complain about the sub par campaign.

Personally I'm annoyed that in BF4 there are multiplayer unlocks tied to the single player campaign.
 
2013-11-17 02:19:01 PM  
So many hackers in the BF games he'd have to be one in order to compete at that level. The most they ever do to punish them is wipe their stats, so hardly anyone even reports them any more.
 
2013-11-17 03:00:15 PM  

MrSplifferton: Multiplayer used to be fun when I was winning, but once I realized I wasn't very good, and that I would have to actually understand the games in order to be good, I started to realize how much multiplayer sucked.


That's really all I got out of this.
 
2013-11-17 04:04:02 PM  
Shouldn't this be more of a Sad tag?
 
2013-11-17 04:19:05 PM  

Klopfer: Personally: I hate multiplayer and I think it's crap that so many game designers only put in SP content as an afterthought.


I like multiplayer and singleplayer....and there are titles that inherently lend themselves to one or the other and I think it's crap whenever one side or the other gets what seems like 90% of the effort.

Battlefield and COD really should be MP only.  Each iteration has less and less time dedicated to developing the SP campaign and each have gotten to the point I can't even fathom why someone would fork over $60 if that's all the intend on doing.  In the case of BF there's never any additional SP DLC content (not sure about COD since I haven't played it in a while) whereas Dice has already announced 4-5 DLC packs for it.  LIke it or not these games have evolved into something where MP gets the vastly overwhelming amount of attention.  Hell, the entire BF4 marketing campaign was 100% focused on MP.  I suppose they'll keeping having SP if as you say there are enough people still willing to pay $60 for a 5-6 hour campaign...but that's not the fault of the developers in my opinion, it's the fault of the players since at this point it shouldn't be a mystery to anyone that SP has been completely marginalized.  Right or wrong, MP is where the money is for these games.  Massive replayability means their games are less like to be resold at Gamestop with zero profit going to them.  DLC sales are through the roof for all the MP content.

But at the same time, the exact same thing happens when a developer shoehorns some shiatty MP into what is inherently a SP game.  I can't help but think EA wouldn't have shat the bed so horribly with the ending of ME3 if they had spent whatever time and money they put towards that horrible MP on writing and developing a proper ending .  Another perfect example is Bioshock 2.  Fable as well.

The problem is it's very difficult to do both well given time and money constraints.  Halo seems to get both right more than it does wrong.  I never played MP in any of the Gears games and wasn't left with the impression I got jobbed so I have to think the SP in those was good enough though it's been too long for me to really remember.
 
2013-11-17 05:03:18 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: But at the same time, the exact same thing happens when a developer shoehorns some shiatty MP into what is inherently a SP game.  I can't help but think EA wouldn't have shat the bed so horribly with the ending of ME3 if they had spent whatever time and money they put towards that horrible MP on writing and developing a proper ending .  Another perfect example is Bioshock 2.  Fable as well.


The multiplayer was done by a different studio, and money spent on it wouldn't have magically made the writers, who took over from the original crew after 1 and most of 2, any better.

/I personally enjoyed the multiplayer for a while, though more so than when playing against people, playing with random people on the internet who can't actually play properly when you're relying on them to win gets old fast
 
2013-11-17 06:56:53 PM  
This thread would have read a lot differently on the Politics tab.
 
2013-11-17 07:02:28 PM  

Mike_LowELL: MrSplifferton: Multiplayer used to be fun when I was winning, but once I realized I wasn't very good, and that I would have to actually understand the games in order to be good, I started to realize how much multiplayer sucked.

That's really all I got out of this.


Only having a couple of hours to play a week vs 20+/week when I was younger made a huge difference.  Though playing with people that have elitist attitudes about playing a video game came a close second.
 
2013-11-17 07:44:12 PM  

MrSplifferton: Only having a couple of hours to play a week vs 20+/week when I was younger made a huge difference. Though playing with people that have elitist attitudes about playing a video game came a close second.


If the game is well-designed, you should still be able to get enjoyment out of it.  Of course, the recent slate of team-focused games (which lack any and all effective sandbox game modes) don't help either, where you're immediately becoming a burden on other players by merely playing the game as intended.  But hey, various players may be a pain in the ass, but I don't see any reason to let them get in the way of something I enjoy.
 
2013-11-17 08:23:36 PM  

HalEmmerich: The multiplayer was done by a different studio, and money spent on it wouldn't have magically made the writers, who took over from the original crew after 1 and most of 2, any better


I'm guessing you're talking about ME3?  There's more than just the writing at the end.  There's the infamous day one DLC for the Prothean crew member for example.  And they delayed the launch of ME3 once due to it being in an unfinished state.  It's a fair assumption to conclude whatever time or effort that was dedicated to the half-assed MP component could have been better applied to the single player element or simply not expended at all.

The point remains though:  Why throw in a half-assed MP component that was uninspired and nothing more than an all too obvious cash grab since it was pay to win?  The obvious answer is cash, which I suppose is why we're stuck with obligatory 5-6 hour single player campaigns like you see in BF and CoD as well since it seems enough people are buying the games for those reasons alone.

I get it, but if I'm interested in multiplayer I'm happy games like Destiny and Titanfall are making dedicated multiplayer games in the near future.
 
2013-11-17 08:26:32 PM  

Mike_LowELL: MrSplifferton: Only having a couple of hours to play a week vs 20+/week when I was younger made a huge difference. Though playing with people that have elitist attitudes about playing a video game came a close second.

If the game is well-designed, you should still be able to get enjoyment out of it.  Of course, the recent slate of team-focused games (which lack any and all effective sandbox game modes) don't help either, where you're immediately becoming a burden on other players by merely playing the game as intended.  But hey, various players may be a pain in the ass, but I don't see any reason to let them get in the way of something I enjoy.


Most games have a mute feature of some sort or another too.  My xbox is set to "friends only" for just such a reason.

I broke down and bought CoD Ghosts on a whim today, because, hey, I can afford it.  As it ends up, I kind of like it, with about an hour of gameplay at any rate.  Dialed back the tiny map cage map run and gun a LOT.
Maps are huge and multi-leveled, guns seem to work in a more or less balanced way.(don't think we'll see much SMG and pistol sniping, though I haven't seen quickscoping, I'm not going to get my hopes up on that being gone), and you can stay off sat-coms completely.  No heavy handed approach to holding down an area/map control.

All in all, it feels like a worthy successor to MW2, in the short time I've had with it.  Teamwork and tactical choices are more important than they have been in the last couple games.

/my 1.5 cents
 
2013-11-17 08:33:27 PM  

Mike_LowELL: MrSplifferton: Only having a couple of hours to play a week vs 20+/week when I was younger made a huge difference. Though playing with people that have elitist attitudes about playing a video game came a close second.

If the game is well-designed, you should still be able to get enjoyment out of it.  Of course, the recent slate of team-focused games (which lack any and all effective sandbox game modes) don't help either, where you're immediately becoming a burden on other players by merely playing the game as intended.  But hey, various players may be a pain in the ass, but I don't see any reason to let them get in the way of something I enjoy.


Against my better judgement I am going to ask exactly what you think an "effective sandbox game mode" would be in something like Battlefield.
 
2013-11-17 08:35:53 PM  

Klopfer: Shrugging Atlas:  I think the overwhelming majority of people will be able to live without some crappy set-piece 6 hour single player campaign that has almost zero replay value.

Don't underestimate the single players. Half of all Starcraft II players only play the single player campaign. More than half of all Gears of War players on Xbox 360 never play online. The designer of CoD Black Ops 2 biatched about how many players of the game only play the SP mode. Many game designers put SP campaigns in their games because they know they can't rely on the multiplayer folks alone.
Personally: I hate multiplayer and I think it's crap that so many game designers only put in SP content as an afterthought.


Personally, I havent enjoyed the shooter SP in various AAA titles lately.  It seems they all consist of lame cutscene/on-rails easy objective/cutscene/etc.  They all feel the same; and more like a b-action movie than a game.
 
2013-11-17 08:37:35 PM  

Shrugging Atlas: I get it, but if I'm interested in multiplayer I'm happy games like Destiny and Titanfall are making dedicated multiplayer games in the near future.


Titanfall looks pretty awesome.  There was a similar mech game for xbox where you could get out and hijack other people(at least in a local mode), much fun was had.

Destiny I'm very uncertain of.  Looks more like an RPG with classical "multiplayer"(ie just a few people, and not all the time) functions.  Besides that, they're Bungie..while I can't fault someone who chases their dream as such, they dev more for their own enjoyment than appeal to the masses.  I think they were burnt out on all the criticism from fanboys so went for something different but still to their tastes.
 
2013-11-17 08:50:22 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Most games have a mute feature of some sort or another too. My xbox is set to "friends only" for just such a reason


It's worth mentioning that absolutely none of the issues with "whiny kids" were an issue back in the way, when the entire structure of online FPS was built around dedicated servers, and you could ban those whiny kids at your discretion.  But alas, those people were "pirates" and they were "ruining gaming", so we needed to take away control of the game from them.  Or something.

miniflea: Against my better judgement I am going to ask exactly what you think an "effective sandbox game mode" would be in something like Battlefield.


Proper bots, meaningful single-player campaign, multiplayer game modes in which individuals can dominate, etc.  The entire design of the modern multiplayer experience is "TEAMWORK LOL", because all the crappy players want to win without actually learning and understanding the games, and attaching yourself to stronger players is the easiest way to do this.  I don't see any fundamental reason that you couldn't implement good, strong artificial intelligence in a game like Battlefield, but good A.I. costs money, keeps people out of the multiplayer modes and extends the shelf life of a game, so it's bad for business.
 
2013-11-17 09:07:11 PM  

Mike_LowELL: omeganuepsilon: Most games have a mute feature of some sort or another too. My xbox is set to "friends only" for just such a reason

It's worth mentioning that absolutely none of the issues with "whiny kids" were an issue back in the way, when the entire structure of online FPS was built around dedicated servers, and you could ban those whiny kids at your discretion.  But alas, those people were "pirates" and they were "ruining gaming", so we needed to take away control of the game from them.  Or something.


It was all fine and well, until people got corrupt and started using admin rights to boot/ban players just because they ended up being better players or were simply winning a match.

The problem with ded servers, imo, aside from that, is that you play with the same small group game after game.  It gets old once players get predictable.  Same with typical AI as you went on to talk about.(with which difficulty tends to ramp up with automated precision and knowledge of where you are(feeling like a hack), not tactical choices and playstyles)

That's what I love about xbox live, it's worth the occasional lag(you can always back out and get a different lobby) and lack of social order(hooray for mute) to have a challenging match that you have to adapt to.  Playing with random thousands keeps it fresh.

/another cent before bed time, I hate sunday nights
 
2013-11-17 10:19:33 PM  
This is kind of a misleading headline (crazy, right?).  The kid has somewhat average stats, he's good in a jet, and he is top 2% for knife kills and P90 kills, but otherwise completely mediocre.  If he is elite top 2% BF3 players worldwide, then apparently I only play with the top echelon players (everyone I know who plays has better stats than this kid).
 
2013-11-17 10:39:50 PM  
Mike_LowELL:miniflea: Against my better judgement I am going to ask exactly what you think an "effective sandbox game mode" would be in something like Battlefield.

Proper bots, meaningful single-player campaign, multiplayer game modes in which individuals can dominate, etc.  The entire design of the modern multiplayer experience is "TEAMWORK LOL", because all the crappy players want to win without actually learning and understanding the games, and attaching yourself to stronger players is the easiest way to do this.  I don't see any fundamental reason that you couldn't implement good, strong artificial intelligence in a game like Battlefield, but good A.I. costs money, keeps people out of the multiplayer modes and extends the shelf life of a game, so it's bad for business.


Ah, I see.  My own opinion is that Battlefield is just fine the way it is- bots and single player might be welcome additions for some but I am perfectly fine without them.  I like the fact that the design pushes teamwork, and I like that you can be an effective member of the team even if you aren't twitchlord mcheadshoterson.  I'd even say that a teamwork-oriented game means it is more important to learn the ins and outs of the game, not less.  Sure there are times when a few highly skilled players carry a team but when you have a full squad of good players supporting each other they will stomp all over one good player and a lot of mediocre ones.    When I play the game alone, I have an ok time but often get frustrated at other players doing the "wrong" thing, but when I play with three or four buddies, I have a fantastic time, even if we are losing.  It helps that my buddies and I have a weekly Battlefield get together, where there are several of us in the same room playing at the same time.
 
2013-11-18 12:47:55 AM  
Weapons of mass destruction. Tens of thousands of Iraqis killed each year. American forces withdrew from Iraq. Saddam had a clean country without terrorists, even if tried to have Bush killed, and boys could play in the streets. He wasnt a saint, but this boy could play in the streets. Iraq was stable.

How many Iraqis killed since America "won" that war?

Its the saddest thing ever, that a boy is forced to play in his basement, on a video game, on a level that happens in his own streets, playing the American forces, against the... "terrorists".

I will not play BF, ever, because I dont want to play with him. I wouldnt be able to look at the screen.
 
2013-11-18 01:57:13 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Shrugging Atlas: Confabulat: Sid_6.7: Does it count everyone who bought the game and then never looked at the MP?

Does anyone buy a Battlefield game for the single player? Did the first couple of them even HAVE a single player?

Amen.  I'm actually glad Titanfall and Destiny are just skipping the single player stuff altogether.  Take whatever time and expense spent on that and dedicate it to multiplayer.  I think the overwhelming majority of people will be able to live without some crappy set-piece 6 hour single player campaign that has almost zero replay value.

I just started playing Planetside 2, so I'm getting a kick.

Fun little open warfare game, plays a lot like Battlefields.  Capture stations and such, advance your territory one goal at a time, only it is a persistant continent instead of round-based.

No real story, no crappy AI, just fighting other players.  3 factions that don't ever ally, so zerg's are only a matter of happenstance.

It is also free to play.  Normally that's sort of a shiatty deal that turns into pay 2 win, but that's not the case here as the noob weaponry is some of the better stuff.  Anyone can hop into vehicles right off as well, provided your faction doesn't waste them and run low on resources.  Includes ATVs, tanks, and airborne vehicles.

Sci-fi themed, but not really all that bad.


downloading now.  this may cure my world of tanks addiction.  WoT is awesome because i can smoke and drink the whole time without worrying about twitch run and gun bull shiat.  just mozy along with a tank and make sure the few shots you get off per round count.  planetside looks awesome, will try.  thanks for the recommendation.  markoff8585 on both for a friendy.
 
2013-11-18 03:17:12 AM  
halolz.com
 
2013-11-18 04:08:28 AM  

omeganuepsilon: That's what I love about xbox live, it's worth the occasional lag(you can always back out and get a different lobby) and lack of social order(hooray for mute) to have a challenging match that you have to adapt to. Playing with random thousands keeps it fresh.


They both certainly come with their tradeoffs, and I absolutely love modern matchmaking as a means to meet new people and hone your mechanical skills at a steady rate.  (Though I think people understate the detriment that matchmaking can have on the player's skill level, because in the pursuit of "equal skill", you're lulling the player into complacency, since you're only being exposed to tactics and strategies found in that skill range.)  I personally think the best option is to have both, if possible, something akin to a Battle.net where you can search for ranked matches and always play your own on the side, though the whole nature of FPS (and the nature of dedicated servers) complicates that formula.  I haven't played a console FPS online since Halo 3, so I don't know how much they have improved in this regard.

miniflea: I'd even say that a teamwork-oriented game means it is more important to learn the ins and outs of the game, not less. Sure there are times when a few highly skilled players carry a team but when you have a full squad of good players supporting each other they will stomp all over one good player and a lot of mediocre ones.


I think there's a general misnomer that a lot of old-style FPS games did not have "teamwork" until Counter-Strike came around, and generally speaking, they just tend to value teamwork differently, though it tended to be more interesting in games like Unreal Tournament and Starsiege: Tribes because they had much more interesting and skillful means for individual play.  Individuals could still dominate within the context of team game modes, which ultimately provided a more interesting dynamic than the one where the individual skill curve tends to cap out fairly quickly, and teamwork becomes the dominant, overwhelming skill required to be successful.  (Though I don't always think this is an awful one--see Counter-Strike, Halo 3--I can only derive pleasure from the things that I accomplish in that game world, so stripping individual agency is to strip my power.)

miniflea: When I play the game alone, I have an ok time but often get frustrated at other players doing the "wrong" thing, but when I play with three or four buddies, I have a fantastic time, even if we are losing. It helps that my buddies and I have a weekly Battlefield get together, where there are several of us in the same room playing at the same time.


I hear you.  That's kind of what I'm getting at.  The game model in many of these genres--whether military shooters, DotA games, etc.--place such a strict burden on successful team engagements that it's extremely difficult to learn the game without infringing on someone else's play session.  Playing with people that you know may be a great way to alleviate this, but I'm largely convinced that the best sandbox is a game where people can succeed in spite of you.
 
2013-11-18 05:27:03 AM  

Mike_LowELL: omeganuepsilon: That's what I love about xbox live, it's worth the occasional lag(you can always back out and get a different lobby) and lack of social order(hooray for mute) to have a challenging match that you have to adapt to. Playing with random thousands keeps it fresh.

They both certainly come with their tradeoffs, and I absolutely love modern matchmaking as a means to meet new people and hone your mechanical skills at a steady rate.  (Though I think people understate the detriment that matchmaking can have on the player's skill level, because in the pursuit of "equal skill", you're lulling the player into complacency, since you're only being exposed to tactics and strategies found in that skill range.)  I personally think the best option is to have both, if possible, something akin to a Battle.net where you can search for ranked matches and always play your own on the side, though the whole nature of FPS (and the nature of dedicated servers) complicates that formula.  I haven't played a console FPS online since Halo 3, so I don't know how much they have improved in this regard.


Matching for skill is a myth.  It sounds good on paper, but it just doesn't happen, or "skill"(quotes because skill isn't necessarily a stat or equation of them is never apt) is given so little weight as to be negligable.

Much more attention is given to the size of your party.  If you're in a group of 4 players, it will try to match you with another group of 4.  This can really extend matchmaking wait times.  IIRC, the theory behind the "equality" there came from Halo, where one team would be dominating the vehicles and weapons on the map, so randoms who were matched really sucked balls, really had no options.

That's what I disliked about Halo, it became a race for map control, first to weaponX got more kills, the game could often be more or less decided in the first 60 seconds and just become a spawn kill fest.

Markoff_Cheney: downloading now.  this may cure my world of tanks addiction.  WoT is awesome because i can smoke and drink the whole time without worrying about twitch run and gun bull shiat.  just mozy along with a tank and make sure the few shots you get off per round count.  planetside looks awesome, will try.  thanks for the recommendation.  markoff8585 on both for a friendy.


Steep learning curve, be aware.  Arial vehicles can be outfitted to pwn tanks(not sure about visa versa).  Tank upgrades will cost some money or farming time(true for all upgrades).  You do earn a minor amount of credit while off line(per character, no trading at all).  It can be great fun though, no real need to party up, great battle dynamics that way.  You can also just go off on your own, roam the low population areas and xp up(albeit slower).

Still a bit of a twitch game even in vehicles, but it's worth a try for free.
 
2013-11-18 06:15:27 AM  

Klopfer: Shrugging Atlas:  I think the overwhelming majority of people will be able to live without some crappy set-piece 6 hour single player campaign that has almost zero replay value.

Don't underestimate the single players. Half of all Starcraft II players only play the single player campaign. More than half of all Gears of War players on Xbox 360 never play online. The designer of CoD Black Ops 2 biatched about how many players of the game only play the SP mode. Many game designers put SP campaigns in their games because they know they can't rely on the multiplayer folks alone.
Personally: I hate multiplayer and I think it's crap that so many game designers only put in SP content as an afterthought.


I'm with you
 
2013-11-18 12:22:38 PM  

Klopfer: I hate multiplayer and I think it's crap that so many game designers only put in SP content as an afterthought.


This would be why I don't even bother with games that are hyped for their multiplayer.

If I wanted to be screamed at by foul-mouthed 12 year olds, I would have become a teacher.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report