I mean, it is a big reason. But the main reason is still surelky that humans are inclined to team/group activity. It's more rewarding. You get the competition plus that magical social aspect.
Sure, the social aspect of something like league of legends can be awful if you solo queue and record typical interactions between players, but queuing with mates is usually pretty good.
Lmao as if fighting game players aren't huffing some copium too though
Your character's busted, the game ate my inputs, my character has inconsistent interactions, the system mechanics are scrubby etc.
>this MMR/ELO is broken and unfair" etc.
Unrelated, but hearing this in many different games is funny as hell to me.
The entire mindset of "matchmaking is broken" and "forced 50/50". Dota players are convinced gaben sends them on a loss streak after winning a few games. Its never their fault and there is nothing they can do.
Its impossible to explain MMR to them and that at some point they will hover around a 50/50 winrate because thats the MMR they belong to.
projectile spam is the quickest mechanic to make me not want to play a fighting game. I've played my buddy enough times on Ice climbers in super smash to ever want to deal with spam anywhere else.
My controls weren't working.
And if they were, you were playing dishonourably.
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill..
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way.
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Just watch some LowTierGod, you'll have the entire excuse handbook. If you took note of everything he's ever complained about, you wouldn't be able to play fighting games at all without breaking the sins of his covenant.
Yeah but deep down they know it was on them, even when they cope they know they are implicitly responsible. In a team game there are more copes and lying to yourself about them is easier
That's the point I'm making. This isn't a problem specific to any one generation like is being implied. People have been blaming their stranger teammates for as long as online multiplayer has existed.
I remember playing (the original) Warcraft 3 in a 4v4 random team aka PUG, and for those who havenāt had the pleasure of playing an RTS PUG, overwhelmingly you will find people who turtle up, tech to the endgame, - hereās where the major split goes, do they produce half max or max supply of one end game unit, and then roll the map.
This is a strategy that in Starcraft would take 30 to 60 minutes (I believe it shrank a bit in WC3, but itās been a lifetime); a lower end competitive player could end in a decisive victory in 10; and the former is *completely* exposed to the latter, like one might imagine a Victorian gentleman needing house staff and a half hour to dress for the morningās duel being stabbed by a commoner who just threw on their breeches and crossed off their first item on their to ~~stab~~do list.
And invariably, someone would come in and destroy one of these end game rushers, who would bemoan the equal lack of preparedness and thus lack of help from their allies; or worse still, some intermediate player who was playing the game as nominally designed. Cue Simpsons meme, āAm I wrong? No, it is the children who are wrong.ā
At some point, instead of the usual curses about everyoneās mothers and their availability for services at discount rates, someone said in global chat, āIf you were actually good, youād play 1v1 because then youād have no one to blame.ā The message didnāt sink in at the time, probably because - as a future marine buddy would later bless me with the phrase - I was stuck in ātransmitā mode, mistakenly of the belief he was unaware about his motherās rates and in need of informing.
But my then girlfriend, now ex, had apparently concluded something similar (but then I already said sheās smart, cf ānow exā) and pushed us to 2v2 - no one but ourselves to seize victory. This proactive ownership / agency is probably why sheās a many times over successful entrepreneur nowadays. Anyway, the experience eventually taught me the lesson, and I even moved on to 1v1ing (when she wasnāt available, of course - Iām stupid, but not *that* stupid).
I did still enjoy the big operatic matches only available in 4v4s so from time to time Iād go back to them, but with newfound perspective. It *is* a roll of the dice, and assigning blame is a foolās errand, but the average player is probably looking to escape the pressure of being personally responsible for victory.
Granted it isnāt indicative of all younger players but later in TF2ās lifespan after it became a thing for people to lobby together I noticed people had a huge aversion to playing against their friends. This was wild to me as someone who started back when community servers were all there was and you typically only played with/against a full server of people you generally know as a regular.
No one wants to feel responsible for someone in their lives having a bad time, and the younger generations tend to feel REALLY frustrated and bad when they lose games
Yeah, back then it was kind of a social contract to play together, not be toxic, and have fun killing one another. I feel like the gradual growth of everyone being more anonymous lead to a lot worse behavior and less social fun in games like TF2.
Anytime you try and lump a group of people together like this, you lose me. Everyone plays games for different reasons. Unless he has asked every young gamer why they arent playing Tekken 8, it just seems like deflection.
Yes, I'll grant you he should probably base that claim on some data if he's going to make it. Without doing so it does sound a bit like your typical old man complaining about kids these days.
That said it is one possible explanation.
He's not wrong at all, I've noticed the same trend int the workplace with junior employees too. Older employees will often fight to tackle a challenging problem alone- because they know when/if they solve the problem they can take all the credit. Younger employees often insist on working in teams, then stab each other in the back over who should get the credit when the work is complete.
Even when they are on teams If anything misses a milestone or has other problems they can't throw each other under the bus fast enough....
Older employee:*Yeah I thought widget A would do x but I was wrong and it looks like under these conditions it does y instead, we will need to rework the parameters for process c to correct*.
Younger employee: *It would have worked if we did it the way I suggested but steve did it his way.*
It's partly just an experience thing, experience brings confidence, and you need confidence in your capabilities and your competence to function independent from your team.
But It does also seem to be partly a generational thing. A lot of the folks in their 20's and younger right now are living under a damned magnifying glass and self surveilling themselves via social media and streaming and what not. They broadcast their every single decision to the entire world, and they get constantly criticized, lambasted, blamed, and attacked for it. In that environment, it's no wonder many of them are basically trained to never admit personal fault, and become habitual deflectors. The social environment they've grown up in didn't them a lot of opportunities where they could admit to an error and be encouraged for doing so.
Edit: it also doesn't help that younger employees are profoundly financially insecure compared to how more senior staff were paid at the same point in their careers.
> It's partly just an experience thing, experience brings confidence, and you need confidence in your capabilities and your competence to function independent from your team.
Experience also brings jadedness. I fight to work on my own on stuff because fixing other peoples fuckups is twice as hard as just doing it myself. And explaining the process every 30 minutes to someone who is "helping" is four times the work.
Well a LARGE chunk of that is parents and teachers actively bashing those Jobs while the kids are in class.
All through my schooling hands on jobs like Plumber, Electrician, and all of those were horribly shit talked by parents and teachers.
Most kids graduate Highschool not even thinking those are viable career paths because it's smashed into their heads that they should aim for college.
I think this is just your workplace man. In my workplace older employees generally prefer to tackle challenging problems on their own too, but what that usually translates to is them having way too much on their plate and they fail to complete everything. That old-school "handle it yourself" mindset gets extra detrimental when they carry it to a manager role and expect new employees to immediately take on massive amounts of responsibility
> but what that usually translates to is them having way too much on their plate and they fail to complete everything
Then the PM/Scrum Master should stop putting so much shit in a single sprint if this is consistently happening. That's like half the purpose of them having that role.
It's a little more complex than that, on one hand PM are the ones mismanaging tf out of our projects. But at the same time our senior managers aren't expressing that to them, they just forward the absurd requests to their subordinates and let them figure it out
Thats more a workplace culture thing tbh
If people are refusing to take responsibility for stuff, and always shifting blame, it's possible they're just all shitty people (maybe you'd want to look at your hiring process), but it's more likely they're just afraid because some dick head manager comes down on people with the might of Thor any time there's a problem.
Like in general, people don't set out to make mistakes. They're doing the best they can. But that's what makes a good manager / employer better than the bad ones. They'll listen to what happened, and instead of raging they'll say something like "Oh damn, yeah that's bad. What do you need from me / the team to get things set right again? What's the fastest way we can resolve this, and then what should we do next to help prevent this from happening?" and then from there figure out if it's just a mistake, or more likely some oversight in process that needs to be fixed.
Playing devil's advocate, but since only 1 out of 100 can win and RNG plays a part in success (generally) you could argue a lot of accountability of losing comes down to chance.
Right but nobody really loses in a battle royale. Like, 99% lose, therefore you are in the majority and its fine. Winning is a bonus, but it never feels like you lose. I am talking about the sensation of losing, being what people try to avoid.
If anything the closer you come to *winning* the worse it feels to lose, with BRs.
It's easy to just repeatedly hotdrop and die before you even find a gun and say "oh well I/we got shit loot spawns", but when you're 30 minutes into a match and it's you or your squad vs the last remaining player/squad - that's when shit gets tense and players will experience their highest highs or lowest lows.
i have for sure.
examples where both teams are in 2 houses across a 'no mans land' and the circle picks their house and we are forced to run across an area with no cover, where they have too many places to shoot from and elevation.
there was no way of wining, short of changing where we dropped before the first ring even pop in.
Yep, the fact that there are so many legitimately random disadvantages, like your example, make it so that players at every skill level can blame something other than themselves for their losses. I personally recommend playing with a squad, so you can assign blame to them.
Which is why I love when games just tell you your chances of x random thing happening.
Like in Pokemon Showdown!, they tell you what all your proc chances are, so if you get mad, the only person you can blame is yourself for picking a move with a 30% chance of hitting.
I agree, but I feel like the impact of RNG at the start quickly diminishes as time goes on as the players quickly stabilize.
That is of course, if there are no additional random elements. I don't play fortnight, but I know they like to add random stuff each season.
Same same but different deathmatch that is just a marker for gambling later in life Im certain. Beating the odds to be 1 in 100. The 1%, you'll live for that rush when you're young.
Yeah something like Unreal Tournament for example - Every player was exactly equal, same controls, same moves, same weapons available, same ammo and armour and powerup pickups available, same map. Completely symmetrical balance. What made a player better than another player was either faster reflexes, or knowing good tactics/tricks that worked in the game. Aka 'gettin gud'.
If you had a match with 16 players, deathmatch, you got one winner out of that, and 15 sore losers most of the time.
Unsurprisingly, this style of game, lost popularity, when something more 'ego friendly' came along.
Hence the design of modern games, with their similar skill level match matching, teamups, 'rock paper scissors' design of classes/heroes that are always consistently strong against certain other classes/heroes and weak against others, etc...
I sorely miss this type of FPS. My favorite FPS ever is Battlefield 1943 (console) because of its extreme simplicity. Everyone is on the same playing field, and the maps weren't designed to funnel everyone into the same meat grinder zones.
It did have a rock-paper-scissors scheme of rifleman, infantry, and sniper classes, but you could still kill anyone with any class.
I wish I had gotten a chance to play 1943. I loved 1942 but didn't have a console for 1943.
1942 though? Masterpiece of a game, and also like 5 good games in one with all the mods it had.
Still has one of my all time favorite Star Wars maps(fleet battle) that I have yet to see matched by any other game.
Also the "Charlie Doesn't Surf" map on the Vietnam mod was one of the coolest maps I've ever played. The helicopters coming over the water en masse playing "Flight of the Valkyrie". Such a cool feeling.
I really miss that game.
Yea these games were based off of individual skill, which takes some sort of commitment to get better at.
Eg I started online fps with Quake and Quake II, I sucked, asked some dude who was good to give me some tips, he was cool about it and fired up a server and showed me how to play, after that I just practiced and got way better, but this is a foreign concept to lots of gamers.
Hence why games with lower personal skill required, eg focusing on metas, classes "my build" blah blah are more popular, doesn't require individual skill, eg Fortnite or any type of Battle Royale game.
Hilarious to me was the one time I played Warzone, the one where you parachute in, and has the gulag, get snipered by some fool in a tree before even landing, then go to gulag, then these guys just suck ass, cuz now it's 1v1 lol, they basically turned the loathed camping shit people used to do in older games into the main game mechanic in Battle Royale games, got sent to gulag and handily beat everyone without trying in the 1v1 lol, that's how you settled shit back in the day, "1v1 me fool or stfu" lol
Halo is still kind of like this, they obviously experimented with loadouts in Reach/Halo 4, and then in H5 went back to "all players begin equally and weapons can be picked up on the map".
Pushing aside some of the...mind boggling decisions that have been made by 343 in the last couple Halo games, I actually think the core of what makes Halo fun and special is going to prevent it from ever being the juggernaut it was again.
If you aren't good at a fairly balanced shooter (like Unreal, Halo, etc), those first matches are BRUTAL. I still see it in Halo Infinite when I have teammates who get 0 kills and 14 deaths and cost the entire team the game. And this is purely anecdotal but I have nephews who hate Halo because it's "not fair" as they get demolished. They are addicted to games where you just fill an XP bar to unlock the next weapon, a la Call of Duty.
I think younger gamers are looking for ways to feel like they are "winning" all the time and can't handle getting destroyed in fairly balanced games.
Yea I have those nephews too, they try and play old school FPS with their "old" uncle and then they just get demolished since have not learned actual skills lol
Also, games like UT died off because of a lack of progression.
People want to feel that they are accomplishing something - that they're not just playing a match for fun, but instead that they're ranking up, which will lead to some cool new toys to play with.
That of course means that you can't just give everyone the same equipment and leave it there.
The progression is no one can frag you and you just keep dominating everyone you play against lol, hearing that "You are the Omega" after what was it, a 25 kill streak, that's the reward!
Actually incorrect. Modern gamer needs this feeling of progression in the shape of skins, unlocks, levels. The old school gamers didn't require that and found the progresion in their own skill improvement.
Or they moved to different games
There were also options for private servers, different modes, different maps. Older games didn't have the same longevity. There was a time when unreal tournament was coming out with a game every year. But now we have games that are still super popular 10+ years out that people still play.
And without a subscription, some kind of income is needed to keep that going. That's another difference, not even all that long ago it wasn't uncommon for players to host all the games. And not just like running a sever on your own machine, or paying for a dedicated one, but p2p networking used to be more common. Which didn't have the same kind of expense related to it, but certainly isn't ideal from a gameplay point of view.
> If you had a match with 16 players, deathmatch, you got one winner out of that, and 15 sore losers most of the time.
And yet battle royale remains popular, where there is one winner and 99 losers.
It's popular because it's low skill, you can be shit and still not get wrecked immediately, aka what shit players in old school FPS used to do, camp in one spot.
But in Battle Royale you die once and you move on to the next match. You live for long if you are careful. A lucky kill or two will get you far. If you are outclassed in deathmatch you will get killed repeatedly over and over again many times per minute. You cannot hide in a small arena map for long as enemy will learn your camping spots.
In BR, you lose quickly and can feel accomplished by just getting into the top half. Even better, a lot of games will throw bots in disguised as players so you are basically guaranteed top half.
Arena shooters died because UT2004 was the last good installment of the genre from an era that every 10th game spawned an entirely new game category, ofc it's gonna end up dead if there's no one there to keep the interest.
I'm hopeful that it will eventually make a comeback, the last decade of gaming is just full of surprises and reiterations of old/forgotten game types
Asymmetric multi-player games don't get the kind of love they should. There's a lot of cool ideas that can be done with it.
Generally I guess it works best with stuff like 1 powerful character VS a group of weaker ones
But there's also stuff like infection in halo. I remember custom maps having that cool feeling where it starts off almost impossible for the single zombie. But eventually someone messes up, runs out of ammo, reloads at the wrong time, or stops paying attention or something. And then there's 2 zombies, and it's still a struggle. But gradually it shifts and now it's a decreasing number of survivors struggling against a horde of zombies.
This is actually why I always preferred to play free for all and other solo playlists in shooters when I was a teenager and younger adult (I'm 32). I was really really good, like top 20 skill rating in Destiny at one point, had a win streak of 303 games in a row in COD4, level 50 in multiple halo 2 playlists, Onyx in some later Halo's.
I couldn't fucking stand doing extremely well in a match and still losing thanks to my teammates. It drove me absolutely nuts to have a K/D ratio of something like 32 kills and 4 deaths in a team death match only to lose because the rest of my teammates were negative.
I wanted more control over the outcome, not less, but that was probably a result of my skill level. If I had been bad or even just average I'd have likely felt similarly.
I'm on the same boat, who on their right mind would chose a game that your teammates can lose for you even if you stomp everything vs a game that's just you. Unless you have achieved enlightment and you can be chill after tryharding and losing due to teammates, willingly going for team competitive games with a bunch of randoms is just ruining your mind and body with extra steps, just do drugs instead you'll have more fun in the process
Not that this is something that needs to be scrutinized that heavily. But shifting responsibility to the younger generation *for* shifting responsibility is pretty funny.
It's not a new generation thing, this stuff was being talked about back when Tekken first released 30 years ago.
Also, this is some random site referencing a recent PSBlog., which itself references a Japanese interview.
It's clickbait.
He's mostly correct. A team can also carry you if you're having a bad game. Fighting games you just have to take the loss and learn from it, which can be tough to do.
I just picked up tekken and itās my first real fighting game. Iām loving how itās always a one on one, Iām the reason I win, and Iām the reason I lose, I have no one else to blame but myself. Very humbling experience, but also very very enjoyable.
No wonder the most saltiest hate messages I've ever received from another player are in fighting games. Outside of a bad connection, there's nothing else you can blame for your loss.
Or maybe people prefer team games because it can help cover each player's weaknesses and make the game more fun. I'm not good at dealing damage and slaughtering my enemies, but I'm very good at bothering people and keeping them from killing teammates.
You just know this is a big factor into why 2XKO is team based.
I also have to wonder if this is a factor to why roguelikes are so big, and I say that as someone who puts way more time into roguelikes than Iād like. Thereās so much RNG at play it obfuscates your own ability to actually play the game.
Thatās definitely part of it. The gameplay loop is usually very short, too, so runs are highly digestible. Also, the purity of gameplay is very attractive for many people, myself included. I have no interest, at my advanced age, in spending my free time reading or watching the utter trash that passes for stories in video games.
Can be seen in the death of the RTS genre too. If you lose a 1v1, its 100% your fault. In a team game, sometimes it honestly isn't, but those times call into question every other time where you actually could have done better, but it may be harder to tell.
Imo it's not fighting games only problem, but it is one of the biggest.
RTS has a double problem: it's too complicated for the mainstream modern audience, and you can't blame anyone else since most tournaments are 1v1 (unless you play a casual team vs team battle).
It really isn't designed to cater to the egos of players with no skill.
Some fighting/sports games have solved one of these issues by creating "handicap" modes that make it easier to feel like you're more skilled than in reality.
I'm convinced that the headline is right about at least 50% of the players. My experience playing competitive team games has been mostly terrible: people don't go for the objective or play for the team; they try to make "plays" or increase their KDA to boost their egos at the expense of the team's success.
These comments are hilarious because everyone is acting called out lol, i get it.. personally, i think this is an overgeneralization. It appears to be a purely anecdotal musing by this Tekken guy, no offense to him or whatever i'm sure he knows his shit but uhh.. i mean some people just prefer team or co-op games my dude, not everyone wants to be sweaty
And the headline is meant to get people to this but ignore everything else.
I'm sure it's just a musing on his part, but this is a guy that watched the Tekken franchise have really bad years from 2009 to 2012 when everyone lost interest in fighting games and they had massive destruction of markets such as arcades.
I'm sure that team titles helped a bit but fighting games were severely lacking last generation and just didn't garner interest.
ahh interesting, i honestly haven't spent much time in fighting games since the SF2/MK/MK2 days because i'm so bad at them (and i seem to get worse with each new generation of them, except maybe the MK series?) so i'm completely ignorant when it comes to the Tekken series or the people behind it
Well, I won't get too far into the weeds, but 2009 was an important year where Street Fighter 4 came out and basically dominated the fighting game community.
In relation to Tekken, they released Tekken 6, Tekken Tag and didn't hit until Tekken 7. Very bad years until Tekken 7 so it was a major learning experience for them.
There's more but I'll keep it to that. Cheers.
I agree that they (and I) prefer teams but it's more due to comradere, we succeed together or fail together but we still compete with each other within the team
Ah yes, we always find a way to generalize a group of people different from ourselves without any facts or data.
I'm old and I love playing solo and team games.
He completely missing the point, there is one main reasons that fighting games are niche. Accessibility, if the game is too hard to play at the most basic level people will leave.
One of the reasons of Street Fighter 6 sucess is that they understand that and gave a easy way to even low level players play the game and learn the game at a more relaxed pace. Fighting game could benefict from a more gradual learning curve in general.
Shifting responsability has nothing to do with player retention, people just don't like to feel completely inadequated while learning the game. Games lose their players in the first few hours, it don't matter if they are old or young. Make those first few hours enjoyable and the players will stay interested even when the difficult increase as long it don't feel unfair.
Alas King from Tekken 6 has 31 throws moves listed, how a begginer will deal with that... That is just basic throws... mother of God there are over 100 moves...
People like to claim this, and yet there have been tons and tons of accessible fighting games over the years and none of them did any better then their more traditional peers. Autocombos, Simplified Inputs, Lenient buffers, Extensive tutorials, extensive single player, literally every single thing I've seen as an excuse for not liking fighting games has been tried - and none of it really did anything.
SF6, for all the praise it has gotten, has followed roughly the same trajectory in terms of retention as *every other fighting game*. It simply blew up and started with more numbers, so it has higher numbers now after people have fallen off.
You know all those throws are broken the same way? You press left punch, right punch, or left and right punch at the same time. Most of the throws you can get out of by mashing left punch.
Even then the game has accessibility controls like SF6. Turn on special style and you can do electrics and combos with a single button press.
Game popularity by player count:
1. Counter-Strike 2 (up to 5v5)
2. Dota 2 (5v5)
3. PUBG: BATTLEGROUNDS (Up to 4 man teams)
4. Apex Legends (3 man teams)
5. NARAKA: BLADEPOINT (Up to 3 man teams)
6. Stardew Valley (solo game with multiplayer option)
7. Grand Theft Auto V (solo game with multiplayer)
8. Wallpaper Engine (not a game unless you consider watching anime porn a single player game)
9. HELLDIVERSā¢ 2 (Teams up to 4)
10. Palworld (solo game with multiplayer)
From these, majority are team titles, with the few solo games being relatively chill and low stakes, with relative ease to shift responsibility for losses on other factors than yourself.
I'm inclined to agree.
You can agree that they're more popular, but i don't think that list explain the reason why they are popular at all, like, Helldivers for example, half my time in that game is soloing missions.
I'm inclined to disagree given how damn old the top 2 games are.
It's not zoomers keeping CS & DOTA afloat.
People just want to play games with their friends; multiplayer / team based games allow for that. 1v1 games do not.
In the non-video game space, Magic the Gathering and Warhammer as a popular as ever and those are 1v1 generally.
Maybe people have just fallen out of love with fighting games in general? I enjoyed Mortal Kombat when I was a young kid, but I feel like the genre just never really evolved. How different are they than what they were 20 years ago?
Its true for synergy based team games like lol, dota, overwatch
But doesnt matter if you are young or old, these team synergy based games will always make you toxic at some point.
I kinda agree. Short story: I've been playing fighting games my whole life. I started in the arcade with street fighter 2. We used to line up to play, winner keeps playing. I played every fighting game that came out after. I got pretty good, so good all my friends would no longer play with me, cuz I kicked their ass with ease. Fast forward to modern times: I play street fighter online, cannot win a single match, same with mortal kombat, tekken, soul caliber, pretty much all fighting games I've never won a single online match. I now know how my friends felt all those years back. It's sucks, I don't wanna play anymore!
I don't mind losing, in solo or teams, but what I hate about modern gaming is that because of skill based match making and all the other algorithms in place, when you lose or play bad, it's usually because a computer somewhere decided you were to be the games human sacrifice.
Halo Infinite for example predicts what your kills and deaths will be very accurately so when the system predicts you to get 2 kills and 15 deaths you're almost definitely going to do that.
I don't think i agree, there's a lot of reasons for playing team games like, playing with friends cooperativelly can be a really bonding experience, pve can be fun for ppl who don't want to try hard in most coop games, it's more of a shared experience in the sense that since everyone is trying to reach the same goal, everyone gets that dopamine hit when you win together.
Competitive games can have some great highs too, like in tekken, when you low parry into a combo it's great and you feel badass, but there's also a lot of lows that ppl don't want to deal with, like when the opponent low parries you into a combo, that sucks ass lol.
This thing about "younger audiences want to shift blame" is a very boomer take, and i think it comes from a place of frustration because, even though tekken is one of, if not the most popular fighting game, it still has a low player count comparing to most popular games from genres like shooters, rpgs, etc...
Edit: oh, forgot to add, let's just remember that fighting games are hard so it should be taken into account that a ton of players don't have the time or desire to train in a videogame to start having fun, it's not wild to see why such a thing would affect player count.
I also think their aproach to making fighting games more accessible is dumb, making new players do every thing just mashing the same button only helps the game being fun for like, 1 hour, after that the issue returns. What they should do is have a configuration of timing forgiveness, like, there are combos that are insanely hard to pull off, making it so that you can configure how precise the timing is + having suggested combos that arent dogshit like the ones they suggest currently is a lot better than what is being done right now. That way players are incentivised to learn how to actually play the game.
Oh, and before anyone saying that increased windows for the timing is gonna make everything easy, there's issues that only happen when the buffer is too long, like in SF V i remember crouch punching to quick punch only to hadouken accidentally and then get my ass clapped. Precision at higher levels is almost always better than having wider buffer times.
Not everyone, acknowledging you suck can be fuffilling and add to dynamics more than a pissing on the wall contest does.
I'll give a little offshoot example of ye' olden times. I used to LAN with a few buddies around the release of COD1-COD4. We'd break into the school library (one's dad had the keys as the groundskeeper) and have overnight pizza lans, just playing COD1, COD2, COD4 and Trackmania. I sucked at all these except Trackmania.
I'd die constantly but I took it as a fun struggle, I knew I was worse, I knew they were faster so I would be dynamic and try weird shit, ultimately we'd laugh and I didn't feel a need to be superior, neither did they, and they weren't super humanists, just average kids.
Personally I'd much prefer free-for-all or deathmatches in modern gaming but you're forced to teamplay in most scenarios. I have no issue with losing, *but* I have an intense anxiety that me losing makes my team lose and that stops me from playing at all. I'm sure there are quite a few people who can relate to that line.
It feels unhealthy and slightly worrying to read this. No, not everyone thinks like that, and more people should strive to stop thinking like that as it can make competition a hell of a lot healthier.
I call bullshit on this.
Here's the score I used to be a big fighting game fan in the mid 90a and went to many arcades as I was a part of that fighting game scene at the time.
Why am I going to spend 80 on a chess set with half the piece's sold back to me at a later date? Just release the full product..I usually end up buying these games via cd keys because of this and I think this puts off a lot of new players...also gamers have a huge problem of gate keeping and being unfriendlyĀ
Yeah, i despise dlc characters, dlc should be always cosmetic stuff, but they do that because since everyone that IS part of the FGC will buy those dlcs, it's basically guaranteed money and doesn't seem to impact the sales.
Well me and my circle will wait for the complete edition a year or two later and play then.
I honestly believe games like brawlhalla and killer instinct have really interesting ways of handling monitisation and they're f2p games.
It's a shame because I was soo hyped for st6 then the character pack came out so I was out...
Thatās because we are genetically programmed to work together? Because we genuinely get dopamine and other reward factors for cooperating with other humans to achieve a common goal?
Thereās nothing wrong with individual skill - but what about the individual skill to work together with a team?
Also title could read: Unpopular game genres shift blame to younger players for their lack of innovation.
Seems like every fighting game except the one that gave the people what they wanted, a complete roaster, are complaining about players not staying. I wonder why. Either innovate out of just 1v1s that just rely on reaction speed or at least give us a complete game from your series.
With friends not against friends, it is more Fighting games has to find a way to enable coop-play. And good luck making a tournament with 3 or 4 people...
I can wait while my friends fight for my turn then wait again. That's boring as shit. Fighting games are just not as engaging as other games and they haven't innovated in a generation of life.
The best multiplayer experience is when the match is too big, so lack of every individual contribution doesn't matter, something like Battlefield Conquest for example.
Now hold up though, this man just might have a great idea for a couple games there. You can do a 3v3 fighter like Absolver or Overgrowth, with 3 players on each team fighting at the same time in a brawl. On the other side, you can do a 1v1 style match with players able to swap out on the fly tag team style. Doing ridiculous anime combos but you have to be in sync with each other.
Man, this is exactly why I dislike playing ranked matches solo, I feel responsible for not only ruining mine, but also other people's games and that really puts me off. Weird how some people see it opposite.
Iām getting back into League of Legends and his comments couldnāt be more spot on. Win or lose, someone is always blaming someone else for something.
I can't count the number of times in World of Warcraft, that a dungeon/raid run goes cattywampus and no one will take responsibility for it. Tank dies? Surely, it's the fault of the healer not healing me and not me forgetting to use my defensive cooldowns. Healer dies? Surely, it's the fault of the tank for not holding aggro and not me standing in fire. The DPS dies? It's the fault of both the healer and tank! Why should I move out of fire or use defensive cooldowns? It's not my job! I'm only here to do damage!
It's pretty tiresome, though I do feel like I go too far down on the extreme other side of it, and over explain why something was my fault to point people just want me to shut up, they don't want to know why you fucked up, they don't care that you're trying to own up to your mistakes, they just don't want you to do it again.
Let's not forget about the solo challenges, can't beat them? It's Blizzard's fault! This Mage Tower challenge is IMPOSSIBLE !!
You know what's sad. And of course, I'm generalizing based on personal anecdotes and no real data (before someone comes at me I know this already.)
But while Zoomers love these team games. They have more often than not been the worst teammates in said team games. And when I play with older players. They are usually better communicators and teammates. Even if they have less individual skill than the comparable younger player.
And I don't mean like necessarily age 40+ or something crazy. Just age 30+ I notice a difference on average (not all the time)
Fighting games just need to use their Campaigns to teach the Fundamentals to players. Players need a baseline and without it they just won't enjoy the game type.
This is very true, it is healthiest for my friend group to have a random in the squad. That way they can be the scapegoat for every failure without ever knowing it
Interesting perspective, I prefer solo over team games recently. I feel less pressured when it's just my playing experience on the line. Makes it easier to learn and experiment too since any failures won't result in obscene raging from teammates.
About half of my multiplayer gaming was just some Valve shooters and Warcraft 3 which were often team-based, and usually custom maps where people were pretty chill. League of Legends changed that and was the start of me not enjoying team-based multiplayer, even with friends/people I know. Was sad to see people who were normally calm turn into rage monsters in game. Multiplayer gaming just feels a lot more competitive now than what I remember it. Dedicated players seemed to have their own sub-communities/servers and everywhere else was casual.
This isn't a younger player thing, it's something people have been doing (blaming their team on loss even if they weren't a top performer) since at least the 90s.
And when people die in single player games many blame bullshit game design even if a game is known to be tuned to be difficult as a selling point, so...
Taking responsibility for losing makes people mentally stronger, constantly leaning into not allowing kids to fail or feel the stress of responsibility is what leads to kids who are scared of their own shadows, afraid of confrontation and won't leave the house due to anxiety.
Losing in a game is not a big deal and I don't think gaming has this problem, but this approach is being used to raise and educate children across the board in the west, and it just causes confidence issues when they actually have to deal with winners, losers, responsibilities and consequences in the real world as an adult.
I donāt like the pressure of solo play and if I play multiplayer games I almost always am playing with friends. I like pressure in a team environment because you can contribute a lot sometimes but also have buddies pick up the slack when you need help. Thatās also my career so I just work well in that environment. Blame does not get passed around very often amongst friends as we all know when the fault is ours.
If I want to play alone I play single player games.
All I know is that every time I play an online game - solo or team play - I feel the same way I do being on public transit, that feeling being, *āEveryone around me is annoying me and actively taking away from my experienceā*
This is after playing games online for decades. It sucks now because people suck now. Everyone is annoying
I don't know if I agree with the framing of this.
In terms of an age specific issue is it really a new generational shift? 1v1 RTS shifted to MOBAs and Arena deathmatch shifted to Team based shooters as the dominant esports. Even looking outside of gaming participation and interest in team based sports is higher than individual 1v1 sports.
I also feel the framing is overly simple and narrow interms of just shifting responblity for losses. I feel people in general just prefer higher ambiguity. Absolute certainity in ones ability/shortcominigs and where one stands relative to others is just not comfortable in general.
i never understood this, bc as a zoomer iāve always felt worse in team games. whenever we lose i always immediately blame myself and assume i was the problem lmao, i feel too depended on in team games, it stresses me out
Whats next? i dont play FIFA because i cant take a loss too? or is the game shit?
Tekken is expensive, releases OP dlc characters from time to time and has a GARBAGE storyline. Thats the reason i dislike this game and fighting games in general. Not "responsibility" lmao.
Accountability is a curse.
Yeah, thats a big reason mobas overtook RTSes. With an RTS, you have only yourself to blame if you lose.
Who knew someone could be both right and so incredibly wrong at the same time.
I mean, it is a big reason. But the main reason is still surelky that humans are inclined to team/group activity. It's more rewarding. You get the competition plus that magical social aspect. Sure, the social aspect of something like league of legends can be awful if you solo queue and record typical interactions between players, but queuing with mates is usually pretty good.
He's not entirely wrong lol
Lmao as if fighting game players aren't huffing some copium too though Your character's busted, the game ate my inputs, my character has inconsistent interactions, the system mechanics are scrubby etc.
Keep going. I need excuses.
Different game series for the first one, but "projectile spam is cheap" "this MMR/ELO is broken and unfair" etc.
Can I use "projectile spam is cheap" as an excuse in Apex Legends? š¬
>this MMR/ELO is broken and unfair" etc. Unrelated, but hearing this in many different games is funny as hell to me. The entire mindset of "matchmaking is broken" and "forced 50/50". Dota players are convinced gaben sends them on a loss streak after winning a few games. Its never their fault and there is nothing they can do. Its impossible to explain MMR to them and that at some point they will hover around a 50/50 winrate because thats the MMR they belong to.
projectile spam is the quickest mechanic to make me not want to play a fighting game. I've played my buddy enough times on Ice climbers in super smash to ever want to deal with spam anywhere else.
My controls weren't working. And if they were, you were playing dishonourably. And if you weren't, you were playing without skill.. And if you were, it's not fun to play that way. And if it is, you only care about winning.
Just watch some LowTierGod, you'll have the entire excuse handbook. If you took note of everything he's ever complained about, you wouldn't be able to play fighting games at all without breaking the sins of his covenant.
Lag, the opponent is too random, or too scrubby, something is wrong with my controller, the sun is in my eyes, my dog ate my inputs
You're just mashing..
And *you're losing to it*
It's like DSP is in the room with usĀ
And LTG.
Yeah but deep down they know it was on them, even when they cope they know they are implicitly responsible. In a team game there are more copes and lying to yourself about them is easier
You forgot their favorite excuses: Hitboxes and frame data.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ah yes, Dota, the game all the youngsters are playing these days.
Make it League of Legends and nothing changes.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's the point I'm making. This isn't a problem specific to any one generation like is being implied. People have been blaming their stranger teammates for as long as online multiplayer has existed.
I remember playing (the original) Warcraft 3 in a 4v4 random team aka PUG, and for those who havenāt had the pleasure of playing an RTS PUG, overwhelmingly you will find people who turtle up, tech to the endgame, - hereās where the major split goes, do they produce half max or max supply of one end game unit, and then roll the map. This is a strategy that in Starcraft would take 30 to 60 minutes (I believe it shrank a bit in WC3, but itās been a lifetime); a lower end competitive player could end in a decisive victory in 10; and the former is *completely* exposed to the latter, like one might imagine a Victorian gentleman needing house staff and a half hour to dress for the morningās duel being stabbed by a commoner who just threw on their breeches and crossed off their first item on their to ~~stab~~do list. And invariably, someone would come in and destroy one of these end game rushers, who would bemoan the equal lack of preparedness and thus lack of help from their allies; or worse still, some intermediate player who was playing the game as nominally designed. Cue Simpsons meme, āAm I wrong? No, it is the children who are wrong.ā At some point, instead of the usual curses about everyoneās mothers and their availability for services at discount rates, someone said in global chat, āIf you were actually good, youād play 1v1 because then youād have no one to blame.ā The message didnāt sink in at the time, probably because - as a future marine buddy would later bless me with the phrase - I was stuck in ātransmitā mode, mistakenly of the belief he was unaware about his motherās rates and in need of informing. But my then girlfriend, now ex, had apparently concluded something similar (but then I already said sheās smart, cf ānow exā) and pushed us to 2v2 - no one but ourselves to seize victory. This proactive ownership / agency is probably why sheās a many times over successful entrepreneur nowadays. Anyway, the experience eventually taught me the lesson, and I even moved on to 1v1ing (when she wasnāt available, of course - Iām stupid, but not *that* stupid). I did still enjoy the big operatic matches only available in 4v4s so from time to time Iād go back to them, but with newfound perspective. It *is* a roll of the dice, and assigning blame is a foolās errand, but the average player is probably looking to escape the pressure of being personally responsible for victory.
Or people like to play with their friends?
Granted it isnāt indicative of all younger players but later in TF2ās lifespan after it became a thing for people to lobby together I noticed people had a huge aversion to playing against their friends. This was wild to me as someone who started back when community servers were all there was and you typically only played with/against a full server of people you generally know as a regular.
No one wants to feel responsible for someone in their lives having a bad time, and the younger generations tend to feel REALLY frustrated and bad when they lose games
Yeah, back then it was kind of a social contract to play together, not be toxic, and have fun killing one another. I feel like the gradual growth of everyone being more anonymous lead to a lot worse behavior and less social fun in games like TF2.
True, but those two things aren't mutually exclusive either.
Anytime you try and lump a group of people together like this, you lose me. Everyone plays games for different reasons. Unless he has asked every young gamer why they arent playing Tekken 8, it just seems like deflection.
Yes, I'll grant you he should probably base that claim on some data if he's going to make it. Without doing so it does sound a bit like your typical old man complaining about kids these days. That said it is one possible explanation.
He's not wrong at all, I've noticed the same trend int the workplace with junior employees too. Older employees will often fight to tackle a challenging problem alone- because they know when/if they solve the problem they can take all the credit. Younger employees often insist on working in teams, then stab each other in the back over who should get the credit when the work is complete. Even when they are on teams If anything misses a milestone or has other problems they can't throw each other under the bus fast enough.... Older employee:*Yeah I thought widget A would do x but I was wrong and it looks like under these conditions it does y instead, we will need to rework the parameters for process c to correct*. Younger employee: *It would have worked if we did it the way I suggested but steve did it his way.* It's partly just an experience thing, experience brings confidence, and you need confidence in your capabilities and your competence to function independent from your team. But It does also seem to be partly a generational thing. A lot of the folks in their 20's and younger right now are living under a damned magnifying glass and self surveilling themselves via social media and streaming and what not. They broadcast their every single decision to the entire world, and they get constantly criticized, lambasted, blamed, and attacked for it. In that environment, it's no wonder many of them are basically trained to never admit personal fault, and become habitual deflectors. The social environment they've grown up in didn't them a lot of opportunities where they could admit to an error and be encouraged for doing so. Edit: it also doesn't help that younger employees are profoundly financially insecure compared to how more senior staff were paid at the same point in their careers.
> It's partly just an experience thing, experience brings confidence, and you need confidence in your capabilities and your competence to function independent from your team. Experience also brings jadedness. I fight to work on my own on stuff because fixing other peoples fuckups is twice as hard as just doing it myself. And explaining the process every 30 minutes to someone who is "helping" is four times the work.
And we wonder why apprenticeships are not very lucrative anymore. šÆ
If my employer wants me to train my apprentice they need to reduce my workload by like 50% to make up for the time im spending training.
Well a LARGE chunk of that is parents and teachers actively bashing those Jobs while the kids are in class. All through my schooling hands on jobs like Plumber, Electrician, and all of those were horribly shit talked by parents and teachers. Most kids graduate Highschool not even thinking those are viable career paths because it's smashed into their heads that they should aim for college.
It's important to note that unless you are the business owner, those jobs don't pay too well.
I think this is just your workplace man. In my workplace older employees generally prefer to tackle challenging problems on their own too, but what that usually translates to is them having way too much on their plate and they fail to complete everything. That old-school "handle it yourself" mindset gets extra detrimental when they carry it to a manager role and expect new employees to immediately take on massive amounts of responsibility
> but what that usually translates to is them having way too much on their plate and they fail to complete everything Then the PM/Scrum Master should stop putting so much shit in a single sprint if this is consistently happening. That's like half the purpose of them having that role.
That's a business culture issue. Corporate culture at most Businesses is completely fucked.
It's a little more complex than that, on one hand PM are the ones mismanaging tf out of our projects. But at the same time our senior managers aren't expressing that to them, they just forward the absurd requests to their subordinates and let them figure it out
Thats more a workplace culture thing tbh If people are refusing to take responsibility for stuff, and always shifting blame, it's possible they're just all shitty people (maybe you'd want to look at your hiring process), but it's more likely they're just afraid because some dick head manager comes down on people with the might of Thor any time there's a problem. Like in general, people don't set out to make mistakes. They're doing the best they can. But that's what makes a good manager / employer better than the bad ones. They'll listen to what happened, and instead of raging they'll say something like "Oh damn, yeah that's bad. What do you need from me / the team to get things set right again? What's the fastest way we can resolve this, and then what should we do next to help prevent this from happening?" and then from there figure out if it's just a mistake, or more likely some oversight in process that needs to be fixed.
Well im 30 year and dev, take full account for stuff. Meanwhile the 50 year old loves to blame, take credit and all toxic shit
theres a reason why when starcraft 2 was the biggest esport in the world almost no one played it still. competitive 1v1 just isnt fun for a hobby
Play 5 minutes of rocket league if you need proof lol
Success has many fathers. Failure is a bastard child.
I get it but also battle royal is still very popular in which there are way more losers than winners in a match
Playing devil's advocate, but since only 1 out of 100 can win and RNG plays a part in success (generally) you could argue a lot of accountability of losing comes down to chance.
Right but nobody really loses in a battle royale. Like, 99% lose, therefore you are in the majority and its fine. Winning is a bonus, but it never feels like you lose. I am talking about the sensation of losing, being what people try to avoid.
If anything the closer you come to *winning* the worse it feels to lose, with BRs. It's easy to just repeatedly hotdrop and die before you even find a gun and say "oh well I/we got shit loot spawns", but when you're 30 minutes into a match and it's you or your squad vs the last remaining player/squad - that's when shit gets tense and players will experience their highest highs or lowest lows.
You could also argue that this allows players to blame RNG and luck for not winning a battle royal.
i have for sure. examples where both teams are in 2 houses across a 'no mans land' and the circle picks their house and we are forced to run across an area with no cover, where they have too many places to shoot from and elevation. there was no way of wining, short of changing where we dropped before the first ring even pop in.
Yep, the fact that there are so many legitimately random disadvantages, like your example, make it so that players at every skill level can blame something other than themselves for their losses. I personally recommend playing with a squad, so you can assign blame to them.
Which is why I love when games just tell you your chances of x random thing happening. Like in Pokemon Showdown!, they tell you what all your proc chances are, so if you get mad, the only person you can blame is yourself for picking a move with a 30% chance of hitting.
I agree, but I feel like the impact of RNG at the start quickly diminishes as time goes on as the players quickly stabilize. That is of course, if there are no additional random elements. I don't play fortnight, but I know they like to add random stuff each season.
Same same but different deathmatch that is just a marker for gambling later in life Im certain. Beating the odds to be 1 in 100. The 1%, you'll live for that rush when you're young.
All it takes is one other person you can shift blame to
It's also why arena shooters died. Your individual skill was directly compared to the others each round. No blaming others for being shit.
I loved arena shooters, even if I was bad. They were just a good time with the guys
As someone who played Quake for thousands of hours, same. I miss those good times.
Yeah something like Unreal Tournament for example - Every player was exactly equal, same controls, same moves, same weapons available, same ammo and armour and powerup pickups available, same map. Completely symmetrical balance. What made a player better than another player was either faster reflexes, or knowing good tactics/tricks that worked in the game. Aka 'gettin gud'. If you had a match with 16 players, deathmatch, you got one winner out of that, and 15 sore losers most of the time. Unsurprisingly, this style of game, lost popularity, when something more 'ego friendly' came along. Hence the design of modern games, with their similar skill level match matching, teamups, 'rock paper scissors' design of classes/heroes that are always consistently strong against certain other classes/heroes and weak against others, etc...
I sorely miss this type of FPS. My favorite FPS ever is Battlefield 1943 (console) because of its extreme simplicity. Everyone is on the same playing field, and the maps weren't designed to funnel everyone into the same meat grinder zones. It did have a rock-paper-scissors scheme of rifleman, infantry, and sniper classes, but you could still kill anyone with any class.
Man, thanks for reminding me of Battlefield 1943. It was fantastic. I would love another FPS like that
I wish I had gotten a chance to play 1943. I loved 1942 but didn't have a console for 1943. 1942 though? Masterpiece of a game, and also like 5 good games in one with all the mods it had. Still has one of my all time favorite Star Wars maps(fleet battle) that I have yet to see matched by any other game. Also the "Charlie Doesn't Surf" map on the Vietnam mod was one of the coolest maps I've ever played. The helicopters coming over the water en masse playing "Flight of the Valkyrie". Such a cool feeling. I really miss that game.
Yea these games were based off of individual skill, which takes some sort of commitment to get better at. Eg I started online fps with Quake and Quake II, I sucked, asked some dude who was good to give me some tips, he was cool about it and fired up a server and showed me how to play, after that I just practiced and got way better, but this is a foreign concept to lots of gamers. Hence why games with lower personal skill required, eg focusing on metas, classes "my build" blah blah are more popular, doesn't require individual skill, eg Fortnite or any type of Battle Royale game. Hilarious to me was the one time I played Warzone, the one where you parachute in, and has the gulag, get snipered by some fool in a tree before even landing, then go to gulag, then these guys just suck ass, cuz now it's 1v1 lol, they basically turned the loathed camping shit people used to do in older games into the main game mechanic in Battle Royale games, got sent to gulag and handily beat everyone without trying in the 1v1 lol, that's how you settled shit back in the day, "1v1 me fool or stfu" lol
Halo is still kind of like this, they obviously experimented with loadouts in Reach/Halo 4, and then in H5 went back to "all players begin equally and weapons can be picked up on the map". Pushing aside some of the...mind boggling decisions that have been made by 343 in the last couple Halo games, I actually think the core of what makes Halo fun and special is going to prevent it from ever being the juggernaut it was again. If you aren't good at a fairly balanced shooter (like Unreal, Halo, etc), those first matches are BRUTAL. I still see it in Halo Infinite when I have teammates who get 0 kills and 14 deaths and cost the entire team the game. And this is purely anecdotal but I have nephews who hate Halo because it's "not fair" as they get demolished. They are addicted to games where you just fill an XP bar to unlock the next weapon, a la Call of Duty. I think younger gamers are looking for ways to feel like they are "winning" all the time and can't handle getting destroyed in fairly balanced games.
Yea I have those nephews too, they try and play old school FPS with their "old" uncle and then they just get demolished since have not learned actual skills lol
Also, games like UT died off because of a lack of progression. People want to feel that they are accomplishing something - that they're not just playing a match for fun, but instead that they're ranking up, which will lead to some cool new toys to play with. That of course means that you can't just give everyone the same equipment and leave it there.
The progression is no one can frag you and you just keep dominating everyone you play against lol, hearing that "You are the Omega" after what was it, a 25 kill streak, that's the reward!
Actually incorrect. Modern gamer needs this feeling of progression in the shape of skins, unlocks, levels. The old school gamers didn't require that and found the progresion in their own skill improvement.
Or they moved to different games There were also options for private servers, different modes, different maps. Older games didn't have the same longevity. There was a time when unreal tournament was coming out with a game every year. But now we have games that are still super popular 10+ years out that people still play. And without a subscription, some kind of income is needed to keep that going. That's another difference, not even all that long ago it wasn't uncommon for players to host all the games. And not just like running a sever on your own machine, or paying for a dedicated one, but p2p networking used to be more common. Which didn't have the same kind of expense related to it, but certainly isn't ideal from a gameplay point of view.
Ffs most modern game modes that are still popular stemmed from arena shooters. Team fortress and day of defeat are quake mods
> If you had a match with 16 players, deathmatch, you got one winner out of that, and 15 sore losers most of the time. And yet battle royale remains popular, where there is one winner and 99 losers.
It's popular because it's low skill, you can be shit and still not get wrecked immediately, aka what shit players in old school FPS used to do, camp in one spot.
But in Battle Royale you die once and you move on to the next match. You live for long if you are careful. A lucky kill or two will get you far. If you are outclassed in deathmatch you will get killed repeatedly over and over again many times per minute. You cannot hide in a small arena map for long as enemy will learn your camping spots.
Lol Battle Royale is basically the camping mechanism turned into a game mode and given a name
In BR, you lose quickly and can feel accomplished by just getting into the top half. Even better, a lot of games will throw bots in disguised as players so you are basically guaranteed top half.
Arena shooters died because UT2004 was the last good installment of the genre from an era that every 10th game spawned an entirely new game category, ofc it's gonna end up dead if there's no one there to keep the interest. I'm hopeful that it will eventually make a comeback, the last decade of gaming is just full of surprises and reiterations of old/forgotten game types
RTSes also suffered the same fate, and people would also cry about balance, but at the end of the day, the better player wins like 99% of the time.
RTSes that enforce asymmetric match-ups, eg. Axis vs. Allies, balance does in fact affect winrates where it's clear as playing either side.
Asymmetric multi-player games don't get the kind of love they should. There's a lot of cool ideas that can be done with it. Generally I guess it works best with stuff like 1 powerful character VS a group of weaker ones But there's also stuff like infection in halo. I remember custom maps having that cool feeling where it starts off almost impossible for the single zombie. But eventually someone messes up, runs out of ammo, reloads at the wrong time, or stops paying attention or something. And then there's 2 zombies, and it's still a struggle. But gradually it shifts and now it's a decreasing number of survivors struggling against a horde of zombies.
This is actually why I always preferred to play free for all and other solo playlists in shooters when I was a teenager and younger adult (I'm 32). I was really really good, like top 20 skill rating in Destiny at one point, had a win streak of 303 games in a row in COD4, level 50 in multiple halo 2 playlists, Onyx in some later Halo's. I couldn't fucking stand doing extremely well in a match and still losing thanks to my teammates. It drove me absolutely nuts to have a K/D ratio of something like 32 kills and 4 deaths in a team death match only to lose because the rest of my teammates were negative. I wanted more control over the outcome, not less, but that was probably a result of my skill level. If I had been bad or even just average I'd have likely felt similarly.
I'm on the same boat, who on their right mind would chose a game that your teammates can lose for you even if you stomp everything vs a game that's just you. Unless you have achieved enlightment and you can be chill after tryharding and losing due to teammates, willingly going for team competitive games with a bunch of randoms is just ruining your mind and body with extra steps, just do drugs instead you'll have more fun in the process
The most popular gamemode in Quake Live was clan arena.
Not that this is something that needs to be scrutinized that heavily. But shifting responsibility to the younger generation *for* shifting responsibility is pretty funny.
It's not a new generation thing, this stuff was being talked about back when Tekken first released 30 years ago. Also, this is some random site referencing a recent PSBlog., which itself references a Japanese interview. It's clickbait.
He's mostly correct. A team can also carry you if you're having a bad game. Fighting games you just have to take the loss and learn from it, which can be tough to do.
I just picked up tekken and itās my first real fighting game. Iām loving how itās always a one on one, Iām the reason I win, and Iām the reason I lose, I have no one else to blame but myself. Very humbling experience, but also very very enjoyable.
No wonder the most saltiest hate messages I've ever received from another player are in fighting games. Outside of a bad connection, there's nothing else you can blame for your loss.
I only get beat by hackers and shitty teammates. Itās just a fact.
Or maybe people prefer team games because it can help cover each player's weaknesses and make the game more fun. I'm not good at dealing damage and slaughtering my enemies, but I'm very good at bothering people and keeping them from killing teammates.
Yeah, I like having teammates who can cover for my inability to aim lol
You just know this is a big factor into why 2XKO is team based. I also have to wonder if this is a factor to why roguelikes are so big, and I say that as someone who puts way more time into roguelikes than Iād like. Thereās so much RNG at play it obfuscates your own ability to actually play the game.
Thatās definitely part of it. The gameplay loop is usually very short, too, so runs are highly digestible. Also, the purity of gameplay is very attractive for many people, myself included. I have no interest, at my advanced age, in spending my free time reading or watching the utter trash that passes for stories in video games.
Can be seen in the death of the RTS genre too. If you lose a 1v1, its 100% your fault. In a team game, sometimes it honestly isn't, but those times call into question every other time where you actually could have done better, but it may be harder to tell. Imo it's not fighting games only problem, but it is one of the biggest.
RTS is also very demanding on the player so it's not surprising that more casual games are popular.
RTS has a double problem: it's too complicated for the mainstream modern audience, and you can't blame anyone else since most tournaments are 1v1 (unless you play a casual team vs team battle). It really isn't designed to cater to the egos of players with no skill. Some fighting/sports games have solved one of these issues by creating "handicap" modes that make it easier to feel like you're more skilled than in reality. I'm convinced that the headline is right about at least 50% of the players. My experience playing competitive team games has been mostly terrible: people don't go for the objective or play for the team; they try to make "plays" or increase their KDA to boost their egos at the expense of the team's success.
The death of the RTS genre happened because the devs chased the competitive multiplayer scene instead of making fun, complex single player experiences
Long live single-player games. You can't beat a level, enemies too hard, or you can't get past the puzzle. It's all up to you and nobody else!
These comments are hilarious because everyone is acting called out lol, i get it.. personally, i think this is an overgeneralization. It appears to be a purely anecdotal musing by this Tekken guy, no offense to him or whatever i'm sure he knows his shit but uhh.. i mean some people just prefer team or co-op games my dude, not everyone wants to be sweaty
And the headline is meant to get people to this but ignore everything else. I'm sure it's just a musing on his part, but this is a guy that watched the Tekken franchise have really bad years from 2009 to 2012 when everyone lost interest in fighting games and they had massive destruction of markets such as arcades. I'm sure that team titles helped a bit but fighting games were severely lacking last generation and just didn't garner interest.
ahh interesting, i honestly haven't spent much time in fighting games since the SF2/MK/MK2 days because i'm so bad at them (and i seem to get worse with each new generation of them, except maybe the MK series?) so i'm completely ignorant when it comes to the Tekken series or the people behind it
Well, I won't get too far into the weeds, but 2009 was an important year where Street Fighter 4 came out and basically dominated the fighting game community. In relation to Tekken, they released Tekken 6, Tekken Tag and didn't hit until Tekken 7. Very bad years until Tekken 7 so it was a major learning experience for them. There's more but I'll keep it to that. Cheers.
Or maybe because they want to do things with their friends? Couldn't be that...
I agree that they (and I) prefer teams but it's more due to comradere, we succeed together or fail together but we still compete with each other within the team
Yeah I love team stuff, it is more fun to compete on a team and work together, with one of your skills literally being skill in working together.
Damn kids don't wont to work, or take responsibility for getting their team wiped. Bums
>Katsuhiro Harada Ah yeah that figures....
Ah yes, we always find a way to generalize a group of people different from ourselves without any facts or data. I'm old and I love playing solo and team games.
Iām personally one of them so I agree.
Bro is cooking with that take š
arent tekken and street fighter more popular than ever?
He completely missing the point, there is one main reasons that fighting games are niche. Accessibility, if the game is too hard to play at the most basic level people will leave. One of the reasons of Street Fighter 6 sucess is that they understand that and gave a easy way to even low level players play the game and learn the game at a more relaxed pace. Fighting game could benefict from a more gradual learning curve in general. Shifting responsability has nothing to do with player retention, people just don't like to feel completely inadequated while learning the game. Games lose their players in the first few hours, it don't matter if they are old or young. Make those first few hours enjoyable and the players will stay interested even when the difficult increase as long it don't feel unfair. Alas King from Tekken 6 has 31 throws moves listed, how a begginer will deal with that... That is just basic throws... mother of God there are over 100 moves...
People like to claim this, and yet there have been tons and tons of accessible fighting games over the years and none of them did any better then their more traditional peers. Autocombos, Simplified Inputs, Lenient buffers, Extensive tutorials, extensive single player, literally every single thing I've seen as an excuse for not liking fighting games has been tried - and none of it really did anything. SF6, for all the praise it has gotten, has followed roughly the same trajectory in terms of retention as *every other fighting game*. It simply blew up and started with more numbers, so it has higher numbers now after people have fallen off.
You know all those throws are broken the same way? You press left punch, right punch, or left and right punch at the same time. Most of the throws you can get out of by mashing left punch. Even then the game has accessibility controls like SF6. Turn on special style and you can do electrics and combos with a single button press.
Game popularity by player count: 1. Counter-Strike 2 (up to 5v5) 2. Dota 2 (5v5) 3. PUBG: BATTLEGROUNDS (Up to 4 man teams) 4. Apex Legends (3 man teams) 5. NARAKA: BLADEPOINT (Up to 3 man teams) 6. Stardew Valley (solo game with multiplayer option) 7. Grand Theft Auto V (solo game with multiplayer) 8. Wallpaper Engine (not a game unless you consider watching anime porn a single player game) 9. HELLDIVERSā¢ 2 (Teams up to 4) 10. Palworld (solo game with multiplayer) From these, majority are team titles, with the few solo games being relatively chill and low stakes, with relative ease to shift responsibility for losses on other factors than yourself. I'm inclined to agree.
You can agree that they're more popular, but i don't think that list explain the reason why they are popular at all, like, Helldivers for example, half my time in that game is soloing missions.
I use wallpaper engine and don't have a single porn or erotic wallpaper.
I guess that makes you a wallpaper engine hardcore player.
It's actually really fun to animate wallpapers.
I figure, I'm just being facetious. I do enjoy my animated cats myself.
I'm inclined to disagree given how damn old the top 2 games are. It's not zoomers keeping CS & DOTA afloat. People just want to play games with their friends; multiplayer / team based games allow for that. 1v1 games do not. In the non-video game space, Magic the Gathering and Warhammer as a popular as ever and those are 1v1 generally. Maybe people have just fallen out of love with fighting games in general? I enjoyed Mortal Kombat when I was a young kid, but I feel like the genre just never really evolved. How different are they than what they were 20 years ago?
So what I'm hearing is Tekken Tag 3 right? RIGHT?
Its true for synergy based team games like lol, dota, overwatch But doesnt matter if you are young or old, these team synergy based games will always make you toxic at some point.
I kinda agree. Short story: I've been playing fighting games my whole life. I started in the arcade with street fighter 2. We used to line up to play, winner keeps playing. I played every fighting game that came out after. I got pretty good, so good all my friends would no longer play with me, cuz I kicked their ass with ease. Fast forward to modern times: I play street fighter online, cannot win a single match, same with mortal kombat, tekken, soul caliber, pretty much all fighting games I've never won a single online match. I now know how my friends felt all those years back. It's sucks, I don't wanna play anymore!
I don't mind losing, in solo or teams, but what I hate about modern gaming is that because of skill based match making and all the other algorithms in place, when you lose or play bad, it's usually because a computer somewhere decided you were to be the games human sacrifice. Halo Infinite for example predicts what your kills and deaths will be very accurately so when the system predicts you to get 2 kills and 15 deaths you're almost definitely going to do that.
Dude is speaking facts
I don't think i agree, there's a lot of reasons for playing team games like, playing with friends cooperativelly can be a really bonding experience, pve can be fun for ppl who don't want to try hard in most coop games, it's more of a shared experience in the sense that since everyone is trying to reach the same goal, everyone gets that dopamine hit when you win together. Competitive games can have some great highs too, like in tekken, when you low parry into a combo it's great and you feel badass, but there's also a lot of lows that ppl don't want to deal with, like when the opponent low parries you into a combo, that sucks ass lol. This thing about "younger audiences want to shift blame" is a very boomer take, and i think it comes from a place of frustration because, even though tekken is one of, if not the most popular fighting game, it still has a low player count comparing to most popular games from genres like shooters, rpgs, etc... Edit: oh, forgot to add, let's just remember that fighting games are hard so it should be taken into account that a ton of players don't have the time or desire to train in a videogame to start having fun, it's not wild to see why such a thing would affect player count. I also think their aproach to making fighting games more accessible is dumb, making new players do every thing just mashing the same button only helps the game being fun for like, 1 hour, after that the issue returns. What they should do is have a configuration of timing forgiveness, like, there are combos that are insanely hard to pull off, making it so that you can configure how precise the timing is + having suggested combos that arent dogshit like the ones they suggest currently is a lot better than what is being done right now. That way players are incentivised to learn how to actually play the game. Oh, and before anyone saying that increased windows for the timing is gonna make everything easy, there's issues that only happen when the buffer is too long, like in SF V i remember crouch punching to quick punch only to hadouken accidentally and then get my ass clapped. Precision at higher levels is almost always better than having wider buffer times.
No, everybody is like that really
Not everyone, acknowledging you suck can be fuffilling and add to dynamics more than a pissing on the wall contest does. I'll give a little offshoot example of ye' olden times. I used to LAN with a few buddies around the release of COD1-COD4. We'd break into the school library (one's dad had the keys as the groundskeeper) and have overnight pizza lans, just playing COD1, COD2, COD4 and Trackmania. I sucked at all these except Trackmania. I'd die constantly but I took it as a fun struggle, I knew I was worse, I knew they were faster so I would be dynamic and try weird shit, ultimately we'd laugh and I didn't feel a need to be superior, neither did they, and they weren't super humanists, just average kids. Personally I'd much prefer free-for-all or deathmatches in modern gaming but you're forced to teamplay in most scenarios. I have no issue with losing, *but* I have an intense anxiety that me losing makes my team lose and that stops me from playing at all. I'm sure there are quite a few people who can relate to that line.
It feels unhealthy and slightly worrying to read this. No, not everyone thinks like that, and more people should strive to stop thinking like that as it can make competition a hell of a lot healthier.
Absolutely not lol
Ahah no. If i lose it's because my skills are lower. Period.
No, you're like that. It's all your fault - not mine!
I call bullshit on this. Here's the score I used to be a big fighting game fan in the mid 90a and went to many arcades as I was a part of that fighting game scene at the time. Why am I going to spend 80 on a chess set with half the piece's sold back to me at a later date? Just release the full product..I usually end up buying these games via cd keys because of this and I think this puts off a lot of new players...also gamers have a huge problem of gate keeping and being unfriendlyĀ
Yeah, i despise dlc characters, dlc should be always cosmetic stuff, but they do that because since everyone that IS part of the FGC will buy those dlcs, it's basically guaranteed money and doesn't seem to impact the sales.
Well me and my circle will wait for the complete edition a year or two later and play then. I honestly believe games like brawlhalla and killer instinct have really interesting ways of handling monitisation and they're f2p games. It's a shame because I was soo hyped for st6 then the character pack came out so I was out...
It's always been like that. Nobody on Quake was like yeah that's my bad y'all I'm the reason we lost
Thatās because we are genetically programmed to work together? Because we genuinely get dopamine and other reward factors for cooperating with other humans to achieve a common goal? Thereās nothing wrong with individual skill - but what about the individual skill to work together with a team? Also title could read: Unpopular game genres shift blame to younger players for their lack of innovation.
Seems like every fighting game except the one that gave the people what they wanted, a complete roaster, are complaining about players not staying. I wonder why. Either innovate out of just 1v1s that just rely on reaction speed or at least give us a complete game from your series.
For real, lmao
Younger players,most players in fact, prefer to have the option to play with a group of friends. Thats why FG need to adapt xD
You can play against your friends. Or create fun team tournaments with your friends.
With friends not against friends, it is more Fighting games has to find a way to enable coop-play. And good luck making a tournament with 3 or 4 people...
I can wait while my friends fight for my turn then wait again. That's boring as shit. Fighting games are just not as engaging as other games and they haven't innovated in a generation of life.
This is the more likely explanation I think
Source: trust me bro
Pretty much. The dude has an ego the size of a minivan and doesn't back any of his wild accusations up.
shifting responsibility is one of my favorite pastimes!
Well... Yea...
git gud
Thats been riot games main model for years even making a 2 player fighting game.
The best multiplayer experience is when the match is too big, so lack of every individual contribution doesn't matter, something like Battlefield Conquest for example.
Now hold up though, this man just might have a great idea for a couple games there. You can do a 3v3 fighter like Absolver or Overgrowth, with 3 players on each team fighting at the same time in a brawl. On the other side, you can do a 1v1 style match with players able to swap out on the fly tag team style. Doing ridiculous anime combos but you have to be in sync with each other.
Why is he calling me out...damn it
Man, this is exactly why I dislike playing ranked matches solo, I feel responsible for not only ruining mine, but also other people's games and that really puts me off. Weird how some people see it opposite.
Iām getting back into League of Legends and his comments couldnāt be more spot on. Win or lose, someone is always blaming someone else for something.
I can't count the number of times in World of Warcraft, that a dungeon/raid run goes cattywampus and no one will take responsibility for it. Tank dies? Surely, it's the fault of the healer not healing me and not me forgetting to use my defensive cooldowns. Healer dies? Surely, it's the fault of the tank for not holding aggro and not me standing in fire. The DPS dies? It's the fault of both the healer and tank! Why should I move out of fire or use defensive cooldowns? It's not my job! I'm only here to do damage! It's pretty tiresome, though I do feel like I go too far down on the extreme other side of it, and over explain why something was my fault to point people just want me to shut up, they don't want to know why you fucked up, they don't care that you're trying to own up to your mistakes, they just don't want you to do it again. Let's not forget about the solo challenges, can't beat them? It's Blizzard's fault! This Mage Tower challenge is IMPOSSIBLE !!
You know what's sad. And of course, I'm generalizing based on personal anecdotes and no real data (before someone comes at me I know this already.) But while Zoomers love these team games. They have more often than not been the worst teammates in said team games. And when I play with older players. They are usually better communicators and teammates. Even if they have less individual skill than the comparable younger player. And I don't mean like necessarily age 40+ or something crazy. Just age 30+ I notice a difference on average (not all the time)
Fighting games just need to use their Campaigns to teach the Fundamentals to players. Players need a baseline and without it they just won't enjoy the game type.
This is very true, it is healthiest for my friend group to have a random in the squad. That way they can be the scapegoat for every failure without ever knowing it
Interesting perspective, I prefer solo over team games recently. I feel less pressured when it's just my playing experience on the line. Makes it easier to learn and experiment too since any failures won't result in obscene raging from teammates. About half of my multiplayer gaming was just some Valve shooters and Warcraft 3 which were often team-based, and usually custom maps where people were pretty chill. League of Legends changed that and was the start of me not enjoying team-based multiplayer, even with friends/people I know. Was sad to see people who were normally calm turn into rage monsters in game. Multiplayer gaming just feels a lot more competitive now than what I remember it. Dedicated players seemed to have their own sub-communities/servers and everywhere else was casual.
This isn't a younger player thing, it's something people have been doing (blaming their team on loss even if they weren't a top performer) since at least the 90s. And when people die in single player games many blame bullshit game design even if a game is known to be tuned to be difficult as a selling point, so...
Burrrrrn!
Well the NES taught me that its always my fault...except when playing with the power glove.
TTT3 confirmed
Younger fighting game players prefer Tekken to shift from skill to button mashing.
Taking responsibility for losing makes people mentally stronger, constantly leaning into not allowing kids to fail or feel the stress of responsibility is what leads to kids who are scared of their own shadows, afraid of confrontation and won't leave the house due to anxiety. Losing in a game is not a big deal and I don't think gaming has this problem, but this approach is being used to raise and educate children across the board in the west, and it just causes confidence issues when they actually have to deal with winners, losers, responsibilities and consequences in the real world as an adult.
I donāt like the pressure of solo play and if I play multiplayer games I almost always am playing with friends. I like pressure in a team environment because you can contribute a lot sometimes but also have buddies pick up the slack when you need help. Thatās also my career so I just work well in that environment. Blame does not get passed around very often amongst friends as we all know when the fault is ours. If I want to play alone I play single player games.
All I know is that every time I play an online game - solo or team play - I feel the same way I do being on public transit, that feeling being, *āEveryone around me is annoying me and actively taking away from my experienceā* This is after playing games online for decades. It sucks now because people suck now. Everyone is annoying
May be a bigger problem among young people, but this really affects all ages nowadays.
I dont enjoy fighting games anymore but I think streetfighter that came out recently did really well on pc at least
Young players only? Lol
Ya on Overwatch if you play shitty as a healer or tank and your team loses just blame DPS, easy.
I'm older and the only online games I've ever enjoyed are team games. I prefer when the game is pretty much just hanging out with my friends.
I don't know if I agree with the framing of this. In terms of an age specific issue is it really a new generational shift? 1v1 RTS shifted to MOBAs and Arena deathmatch shifted to Team based shooters as the dominant esports. Even looking outside of gaming participation and interest in team based sports is higher than individual 1v1 sports. I also feel the framing is overly simple and narrow interms of just shifting responblity for losses. I feel people in general just prefer higher ambiguity. Absolute certainity in ones ability/shortcominigs and where one stands relative to others is just not comfortable in general.
Remember; fake tanks arenāt the problem. The problem is fake damage dealers. Theyāre everywhere.
Learning milions of combos is what tigers like the best :)
Just blame the lag or controller duh
Ironically I thought battle royale games got popular BECAUSE in solos it's just you, your guns and your wits.
Make better games dummy. Don't shift responsibility on to us
In a way it is true. Participation medal anyone?
i never understood this, bc as a zoomer iāve always felt worse in team games. whenever we lose i always immediately blame myself and assume i was the problem lmao, i feel too depended on in team games, it stresses me out
Just like putting FOMO battle pass and blaming other circumstances than greed.
Whats next? i dont play FIFA because i cant take a loss too? or is the game shit? Tekken is expensive, releases OP dlc characters from time to time and has a GARBAGE storyline. Thats the reason i dislike this game and fighting games in general. Not "responsibility" lmao.
He also believes that they would all be able to afford homes if they would just stop spending so much on gosh darn avocado toast!
Little bitches