So...as I always like to say with these types of blog posts, I don't like to primarily discuss video games on here, although I can if it's in at least a quasi political context, in which I discuss the state of modern gaming or the political divides within video games, and I'm going to be honest, video game communities can quite frankly be toxic AF.
Basically, it's the obsession with "skill". While there has always been some level of trash talking in games, in this era of "modern gaming" and esports and hyper competitiveness, the problem has gotten WAY WORSE in recent years. In the past, this behavior would mostly exist in like, say, the counter strike community, where you had these hyper competitive tryhard buttholes who loves to sniff their own farts after they played 29492392 hours of dust 2 to the point that they could headshot someone exactly 3.2 seconds after the match starts through random door slits from the other side of the map, and they'd mostly stay in their own communities, acting like normal games were "too easy" and generally having an ego bigger than TFS's version of Vegeta's.
But, again, modern gaming. We started getting these esports pro types migrating to other games, and as a result, FPS gaming has, in general, become much more toxic and try hardy than it was in the past. I mean, for me, gaming is a recreational activity. Unlike zoomers and the like who need constant reward systems and seem to be doubling down on the competitive try hard mindset, gaming has always, for me, been an activity as an end in itself. I play games for gaming's own sake. Because games are fun. And yes, I like modern shooting games. I like to compete to some level, but I've always been laid back with it. And it's a huge reason ive always been attracted to traditionally casual franchises like COD, battlefield, planetside, and more recently battlebit. Because those games are generally not about being the most sweaty games on the planet, they're about just having casual fun.
But....it doesnt mean those franchises dont have a hardcore competitive problem at times. Battlefield has these old crusty vets I've discussed in past blog articles that seem to romanticize some past that never existed or never was that great to begin with. I call them "battlefield boomers" or the "make battlefield great again" crowd. And even battlebit is getting this problem as the player base starts to decline.
And after being told I have a so called "skill issue" any time I dare have an opinion on ANYTHING, I wanted to actually lay out my thoughts and philosophy on this subject.
So, let's talk about, first of all, skill in video games. In FPS games, KDR (kill death ratio) is one of the most common metrics to measure skill. This is basically the idea that the more kills you get relative to the amount of times you die, the better at the game you are. Statistically, the average KDR is going to be around 1. Because for every kill, there is a death. For every death, someone gets a kill. It isn't always 1. Like suicides exist so maybe it's closer to 0.98 or something. And then in games like battlefield/battlebit revives happen and maybe KDR is higher if your "death" doesnt count in the stats. But generally speaking, 1 is your average KDR. I also would argue skill exists on a bell curve. Where 1 or thereabouts is average, but then as you get further away from it, the better or worse you are. Idk what the standard deviation is in a game, it probably varies, especially since a 2 KDR on one end might translate to like a 0.5 on the other end, but generally speaking there is probably some bell curve like function going on there, and there is a standard deviation.
And that's relevant when I talk about these games online. Because in most games, i'm the epitome of average. We're talking 0.9-1.1 KDR typically. Some I do a bit worse than that, but that's where I normally line up after spending a significant amount of time on a game.
But then any time I give an opinion on forums I'm told that I have a so called "skill issue" but these toxic sweats who have KDRs upwards of 2.0 or even higher. Even people like 1.6 or 1.7 like to talk crap, and they act like they're "average" when they're not, they're actually really good players well beyond the skill level most players have. And they act like their opinion is more valid simply because they're better at the game than me.
But in reality...they're a very small insular minority. A lot of these players are hyper competitive, they play with clans or teams, they in the old days owned their own community servers, and they often act like their experience is the average experience, and they typically demand the game is balanced around them.
This is why games are getting more punishing with recoil. it's to satisfy these players. because for them, everything is higher skill ceilings. They want the skill ceiling of the game to be high to inflate their ego. Now, what's the benefit of a high skill ceiling? Well on the plus side there's more room to improve, but on the down side, it leads to the best players absolutely DESTROYING everyone else, where they can't fight back. Like, imagine picking up a gun, and not being able to aim properly, but since they played for 292834892828 hours they can laser you like its nothing. And if you say this is too hard, they say "skill issue."
The fact is, most gaming wasn't like this for the vast majority of its existence. Most games WERE casual, and they WERE easier for casuals to play. But "skilled" players dont like that. Because it doesnt stimulate them. They're stimulated by dumping tons of hours into a game and being the best, and they think everyone should have to "earn" their skill. They dont like dropping into a so called "easier" game and being lasered by some guy with a low recoil gun, because it's not fun for them. And in the past, those guys would just screw off back to counter strike where they hung out with like minded people and continued to huff their own farts. Now these guys tell us to "go play Call of Duty", never mind that COD isn't even super casual friendly in some ways these days and has a sweat issue too (thanks, warzone).
And here's the thing. If these guys are a small insular minority, with KDRs well above the average, then where are they on a bell curve? Normally at the top, by themselves, with the masses just being completely stomped by them. Keep in mind, if they got some crazy 2.5 KDR, that means your average player is getting destroyed by these guys over and over again. it's just the statistics of the situation, for every kill, there is a death. The low skill analogue of a 2.5 KDR player is a 0.4 KDR one. And most players are probably somewhere between 0.75 and 1.33 or so.
I'm not saying that we should listen to the feedback of anyone who genuinely sucks. At some point, there's going to be a statistical minority that's just bad at the game, and at some point, that IS a skill issue, and it IS their problem.
But I'm of the opinion that someone who is within a standard deviation or so of the norm is going to be far more in touch with the majority of the community than people on either end. I mean, 68% of your player base, around 2/3, are going to be within 1 standard deviation. 96% are going to be within 2. Even going by the 68% figure, there's gonna be about 16% who is above that, and 16% below.
So if we're listening to these players that are 2 standard deviations above the norm, then how in line are their experiences and opinions with the rest of the player base? Not much. But it seems like in FPS communities, everyone cedes to them because they're the most skilled. I'm not saying a high skill level can't reveal certain things about statistics with weapons and the like average players might miss due to not dedicating as much time to the game or not caring, but generally speaking, a game that is balanced around the top 2-5% of players is generally going to be absolutely grueling and punishing to the other 95%. And this has actually caused me to leave a lot of games I otherwise enjoyed in recent years. Because as the game just got harder and harder to play, eventually I just say screw it, quit cold turkey, and move on to another game. PUBG is one example of this. BF2042, despite being more casual, is another (quit once battlebit came out as it's far more fun and engaging to play).
The fact is, when devs listen to these kinds of people, games end up not getting better, but worse. Because casuals start dropping like flies and suddenly all you have left that care about the game ARE those sweats who remain whose toxic opinions alienate everyone else. Sometimes it even kills games after a while. I know the arena shooter subgenre died in part because of this, because the old grizzled UT vets and the like wouldn't bend even a little to make their game more casual friendly. Games like Halo and even BF to some extent (although 2042 has so many issues its ridiculous) are also having these problems. Again, you get the most die hard players just bullying the community into submission, devs listen to them, and then you get crappy games no one wants to play and people long for the good old days of the franchise, with those longing for them often the most out of touch.
If you listen to a 50th percentile player, or thereabouts, you actually are capturing how the MAJORITY of the player base feels. because again, 68% of the player base is within one standard deviation of that. Maybe the bottom 16% who actually do suck to a point that their opinions are never gonna be worth considering, and the top 16%, who are so above the rest of the player base that in a "high skill ceiling" environment, no one can compete, won't be happy with the results. But tough crap. Again, at some point, yeah, some players are gonna be so bad that they can't be saved and dumbing down the game around them will just cause more problems and solutions. And some players aren't gonna be stimulated by the "lower skill ceiling", but hey the majority will have fun, and those guys can just go back to counter strike where everyone just sits around huffing their own farts at how good they are.
Basically, we need to make hyper competitive gaming a niche again, and return to the pre 2017 casual feel of most FPS games. I had A LOT more fun gaming when games were made for the middle of the player base out, than from the top down.
It's the same problem with politics in america. Everything serves the top 0.1%, and to a lesser extent the top 20%, while 80% are kinda just...existing and struggling to get by. Similar phenomenon. We used to think in those terms too, growing the middle out, rather than the top down.
I will insist that gaming is always going to be more of a meritocracy than the economy should be, since the point of a lot of games is to compete and some are statistically gonna lose, in politics I generally think most in terms of the social libertarian interpretation of rawls "veil of ignorance" where I think from the worst off person up, but in PVP gaming, I'm fine to settle on "from the middle out." And I honestly think games are more fun when designed for your more casual 50th percentile player than your top 16% or 2% or whatever player. All game play decisions do when they serve the top is help the top stay on top at the expense of everyone else. They dont make games more fun or fulfilling, except for those extremely toxic try hards who take competition to insane degrees.
And yeah, I know this is an extremely unpopular philosophy in gaming circles, given how they seem to skew "right wing" in a general sense, but that's how I honestly feel about this issue as a leftie who games for its own sake, rather than in a weird cut throat hyper competitive format.
No comments:
Post a Comment