Why are they popular?

imagine sucking this much at bait

...

THIS
I see a lot of people complain about these games being simple or easy but that couldn't be more wrong. These games actually are very deep and have lots of intricacies that the player needs to learn and master before being considered good, that is ignoring the mechanical skills needed to actually play the game. People can spend years playing these games and never getting good at them.

inb4 the muh mods argument.
If you think the mods are the best thing about the game then that only means you hated the base game.

Arma 3 isn't so much a game as much as it is an autism simulator for a niche audience of military enthusiasts who are themselves dwarfed in their own game by autistic roleplayers.

CSGO and Dota are hard to play because of netcode, but they're extremely easy if you're on lan or have good ping.

...

I must disagree with you. Someone who has no FPS skills but knows the map's intricacies and mechanics of the weapons will have a clear advantage over someone who has FPS skills but no knowledge of mechanics nor the intricacies of the map.

You need this explained?

It's the type of game where good equipment gives you a huge advantage over those that don't own it. A person with 20 ping will score easier headshots than those with 70 ping. It's not like a fighting game where people play on the same machine.

...

Are you 15? Multiplayer games were always popular.

I'm not saying that it's simple like Overwatch. It's just simple under ideal circumstances.

CS:GO is completely different you retard. For example, the movement is clunky shit, they add the SHITTEST community maps, the trading system is cancer, it's filled with 12 year olds who kiss the asses of retarded streamers, Valve is still updating the game when they have absolutely no clue whatever as to what the fuck they're doing (like the R8 revolver. 1.6 was perfect, there's no reason to fuck with it at all.)

Looks like I fell for the bait though

On one of the Russian teams on csgo they had a guy from Kazakhstan play in tournaments that were hosted on European servers with nearly 150 ping and he still did quite well against people who had 50-70 ping. Having good ping isn't as big of an advantage as you make it to be. Let alone dota where US teams play against EU teams in online tournaments. I personally can play on burger servers no problem, everything up to 200 ping is completely acceptable in dota, as the game relies much more on strategic thinking and prediction, rather than reaction time, although reaction times obviously also play a role.

Are you 15? Multiplayer games only reached popularity after the Xbox 360 and PS3 came out. Before that, Video games were 80% single player games (Unless you count fighting and party games you'd play on one console)

he's not asking why the genre is popular you actual fucking retard

I miss when people didn't talk about videogames in public.

I used to play Dota 2 for a while. Basically I can boil them down to the following
>usually have toaster tier system requirements nothing particularly wrong with this
>are team games with not much(if any) focus or emphasis on individual skill so that streamers and "pros" can blame everyone but themselves for their losses groups of friends would play
Honestly I have nothing against the game itself.

Reflexes and knowledge are two distinct and equally important parts of any video orthogame (that is, competitive games which divide participants into winners and losers). There are plenty of ways to have a player's reflexes be challenged like the unfortunate player in webm related. The game can provide shields that only cover certain portions of players' character models, or defensive weapons capable of reflecting projectiles; the game in question could incorporate some kind of projectile hierarchy system where you can shoot your opponents' bullets/rockets/whatever out of the air. There's plenty of stuff to be done for the cause of challenging a player's reflexes, but game design for the last 10 years has intentionally not pursued that cause.

Many of the most popular competitive FPSs since CoD4 have had a focus on low TTK, rapid-fire automatic weapons, and heavy auto-aim because of controller accommodations. This has the side effect of emphasizing tracking as opposed to predicting, and rewarding map knowledge/exploitation over reactions to unusual circumstances. There are other ways for shooters to be, but publishers don't fund the ones which try something new.

I don't mean to say "casuals and graphics ruin everything" because the issue is more complex than that and we all already know that, but casuals and graphics ruin everything. With lower fidelity aesthetics, there'd be more resources on any given machine to devote to handling gameplay mechanics, and there'd be more money for dedicated servers and good netcode.

There's also the issue that the modern CoD-like style of gameplay is something people understand because the industry has been regurgitating it for the last decade, so moving from something designed to be accessible to mongoloids to something actually challenging is doubly difficult for an established series and unappealing for new blood.

I've digressed a bit, but there isn't anything inherently wrong with a game favouring reflexes over knowledge or vice versa. The problem comes from modern games claiming to be "tactial" or "strategic" when they have less depth than previous games.

You will never notice if you're not a super high level player. Or maybe you're one of those fags who thinks that bunnyhopping around the map at sanic speeds because of a physics glitch is something that should be in the game and isn't total cancer because it takes a bit to master. To that I have to say that CS is supposed to be a slow paced, tactical game, not an arena shooter and that kind of crap ruins the experience and destroys immersion. Yes, immersion, I know few people really care about the tacticoolness of cs but imo seeing operators hopping around like it's quake is very very silly.
And nobody plays them, instead 50% of the entire player base plays dust_2 24/7. You don't have to play them either, nobody is forcing you to play these maps, and if other people want to, let them, you're no authority to decide what maps people should and shouldn't enjoy.
Again, it's entirely optional. Nobody is forcing you to spend 1k dollars a year on retextures and other cosmetic garbage. You can only use default skins as a manner of protest if you hate it that much.
Who would have though. The unthinkable has happened. The only games that aren't are probably so niche that the entire community knows each other and keeps the game alive through sheer autistic will.
It was pretty bad when it first released and then it became a meme weapon on the level of the scout, perhaps even worse that than scout since the scout actually has a niche use while the revolver is pure garbage.

but all those games do have depth.

I don't even care for them.

tbh I don't know how people can have fun with DOTA. It just doesn't seem that fun to me. Maybe it's because I've been spoiled with too many 3D third person and first person games that the top down "click here to move" perspective no longer satisfies me.

Rocket League is incredibly skill reliant at any level

I agree b-hopping is trash, never said anything about it. The clunky movement is extremely noticable no matter who you are, it's hard to not miss it if you've played any other CS game in the past
Not an excuse, just shows that Valve has no idea what they're doing when they adds that are this unholy.
Doesn't make it any less cancer that 1.6 doesn't have
1.6 doesn't have this issue
Not an excuse, once again shows Valve has no idea what they were doing when they add a weapon that's stronger than the AWP but it fits in your pocket and only costs $850.

I don't even know what those last two are.

hi Holla Forums

Not playing the maps you don't like is the most reasonable decision to make. Complaining about shit maps being made is entirely pointless unless there is no alternative, except in the case of csgo there is. There are so many maps, there is really no excuse about complaining that some of them aren't good. Just play the ones the are.
Again, it doesn't affect you as a player in the slightest. You can perfectly play and enjoy the game without having any cosmetics unless you're mentally disabled or have problems controlling your spending.
Back in it's time 1.6 was just as much filled with kids and idiots. It's simply that most of them now moved to the more popular and recent game.
It was never good. Period. It's a joke weapon and nobody uses it. Again you're bitching about non-existent problems.

This, they are all multiplayer games that live on the fact that you will invite your own friends to play them. They get recognized by major streamers who are in turn watched by a big amount of people.

Nothing wrong with a game being like that but because that leads to a rise in popularity, they always have cancerous communities.

It's not the games themselves that are bringing people in, it's because you can do it with friends and everything is fun with friends. The only thing that those games need to do is not be absolute dogshit, they don't need to be amazing, but they have to be competent enough that someone who isn't well versed in the genre doesn't notice that. I'm not even saying that they are all that way, I'm just saying that they don't have to be really good to succeed

Don't give a fuck about CSGO. Don't know anyone who does.

Took one look at DOTA 2 and it's autismal hypermicromanagement bullshit and it's utterly pathetic fans who actually want their awful game to be a giant reddit meme like League of Legends and stayed the fuck away from it.

PUBG is just another flavor of the month streamerbait game like Day Z was.

I played Rocket League at a friend's house and thought it was pretty fun, but it's the kind of game that would just be an optional minigame for a larger, more developed game. The only thing seemingly keeping that shit afloat right now is the desperate e-sports sponsors who are so sure that this time they will totally have a game that makes them a fucktillion dollars in ad revenue.

Also generally, if you want to do something with a friend, you don't care what it is that much, you just care about them being involved. There is a reason why people can watch shit movies with friends, because then you have something to talk about, even if it is just ripping a movie apart. I used to play shit games with my internet friends just so that we could laugh at them.

ASSFAGGOTS appeals to me the same way end-game raiding in WoW did. I enjoy team-based games that require large-scale coordination and communication. The satisfaction of successfully working together as a team to achieve a common objective is actually fun to me, and it's a challenge that takes serious effort and time to get good at.

DOTA is fucking hard, too. League of ASSFAGGOTS is much more casual, but still takes a lot of coordination and effort to get used to shit. Aside from the general fuckery in all the games in that genre, like killing minions, teamfighting, objective-based gameplay, DOTA has you worry about denies, the courier, micromanagement out the fucking ass, a million active items, buybacks… When you get used to playing, a game can be a real trip, and a couple mistakes on either side can swing a made game in either direction.

It's not for everyone. Definitely not easy to play. I'm fucking bad at the game, and I still enjoy it, even if it makes me want to knife someone in the jugular occasionally.

...

To be honest ASSFAGGOTS games are not really that bad. I fucking hated them until one of my internet friends made me play them for a bit and I realized that I never really hated them for their gameplay as much for the trash, faggotry and normalfaggotry that surrounds their communities.

A whole collection of reasons:

I'd be embarassed to air my ignorance like this

There's a difference between depth/skill and complexity/mechanical talent. CSGO, ASSFAGGOTS and Rocket League have the latter and yes, that makes them hard to master but there's still only really a handful of 'right' ways to play at the top level and that shows a lack of depth. Anyone can get good at a shallow but complex game given time and repetition, not everyone can be skilled at a game with actual depth.

The best fighting games are relatively simple but very deep because depth =/= complexity. Adding an extra ~50 moves and ~70 characters would not make it any deeper, it'd just make it more complex much like adding extra heroes in an ASSFAGGOT.

Adding more layers of complexity onto a shallow game does not make it any less shallow, it just throws up a barrier to entry you have to grind through.

There's your problem buddy.

That's a cogent explanation on the difference of the two but I don't at all think you can prove there's a lack of depth just because some of these games couch it in a facade of complexity.

Yeah. The fucking community is trash. League's is better than DOTA by a long shot, where two mistakes and someone will start fucking feeding the courier to the enemy team every two minutes, buying more couriers, and sending them out into the wild like a treasure hunt for the enemy team.

That is, if they don't just decide to abandon the game outright. At least if someone leaves game in DOTA, everyone else can leave game with no penalty and the game just ends in a free loss for your team.

Also, drawing dicks on the minimap.

...

They tick the same boxes as normalfag sports except they take no physical effort. They're normalfaggotry for the fat and lazy.

Strictly speaking anyone with sufficient reaction speeds but what I mean is complex information about matchups between heroes and weapons and sheer mechanical skill are not difficult to learn given effort: there are only really so many 'correct' actions you can take in a game like CSGO and you only need to learn them by rote for each situation and away you go. There's a reason pro-play just comes down to whose mechanical skill was just slightly better or who picked the right strategy vs what the opponents picked (i.e. luck) in cases where it isn't luck one team had done a better job of learning the game's rules and mechanical skills by rote.

Look at it like this: Draughts (checkers in clapland) is fairly shallow game and obviously so: anyone given sufficient time could just memorise all potential moves in any situation and be guaranteed a win (if both players did it the winner would then just come down to luck over which one you picked vs which one they picked or whoever made a mistake first, essentially pro-play of CSGO). Take that game and add a bunch of extra pieces with specific rules (see: Chess) and sure you've made it more complex but the fundamental gameplay is just as shallow (take his pieces, try and get to the back row) and getting to the top level is the same process just with more stuff to memorise. You could even start adding isolated features that don't interact with the rest of the game (e.g. an artificial time-limit to force you to learn to quickly recall those memorised moves) without actually making it any deeper. Eventually a 'correct' meta will develop and never change because these games are poorly designed. The only way to refresh the meta of such a poorly designed game is to keep adding more pieces with progressively sillier rules or change the rules about what piece can do what, exactly the pattern ASSFAGGOTS and 'competitive' multiplayer FPS games fall into.

Being good at these games is not a function of your actual intelligence, skill or talent it's just a matter of memorising the overly-complicated rules and teaching your body the mechanical skills but even a fucking monkey could do that bit while also keeping up with the artificial changes they make to those overly-complicated rules every time a sufficient number of players have iterated it out to the point of staleness.

The easiest test is 'do these games have to refresh their meta by patching things?'. If so then the game is fundamentally shallow beneath a veneer of complexity. Honestly I just wanted to use the phrase 'veneer of'.

The community maps in CSGO are pretty dope, actually, the problem is that Valve forces you to pay money to play them in competitive after their seasons end.

Yes because you require pinpoint accuracy and to manage recoil in checkers.

Oh and fast reflexes while doing all this. And making critical decisions in a couple of seconds with all or just partial information about the scenario you find yourself into. And being creative and smart enough to explore new tactics.

All of it in checkers, mate.

This sounds like the trench of the trench.

I think Chess is an unfair example, if not a bad one. Chess has been around for thousands of years and the game comes down to

In other words, you can deviate from the formulas that chess players follow, but you will not get far because there's a chance your opponent will follow the formulas and will always one-up you using said formulas. Maybe formula is the wrong word for this, but I hope you understand what I mean

Also

is correct. You can't really compare the two. CSGO and ASSFAGGOTS are more comparable to physical sports than anything else.

You display an abysmal lack of tech savviness, stop making ridiculous claims like "better graphics means worse game mechanics and netcode".

You can boil any non-reaction based game to formulas and you'd still be destroyed by anyone who is better than you at implementing those formulas.
It's how strategies work, they are not meant to be infinite possibilities, just a bunch of good ones.

...

where do you think those formulas came from? do you think they had those when chess was invented in the users manual?

nigger they were invented over years and years by people who were really good. someone then decides thats the "best way" to handle that situation. but guess what? after the game is 4-5 moves in, you cant just follow a formula anymore since what you have before you isnt a common position.

I always thought that the "formulas" were just openings that allowed a player to open a game in a certain way but after that it depends completely on your tactical skill.

This.

Endless playing and accumulated game knowledge, it's a game with a finite set of moves small enough that over a few hundred years anyone can master it by using the knowledge from other players.

I will say that Rocket League does not pretend to be complex, it just has a high level of mechanical skill required. It's pretty much like any real life sport in that respect, you generally don't need to know much beyond 'put ball in goal' but you do need to be good at that. It is at least respectable for not throwing bullshit complexity into the mix and I play it now and then (though I don't bother with competitive play personally).

Chess is the game in which complexity is mistaken for depth and thus the game comparable to CSGO. Checkers would be comparable to some hypothetical version of CSGO stripped down to its fundamental (and shallow) gameplay.

Note that Chess does have an arbitrary mechanical skill-barrier requiring reaction speed in the form of the timer, something added specifically just to make it harder to puzzle out all possible moves every turn because of how shallow the underlying gameplay is. This is basically your recoil management, fast reflexes etc in its most fundamental form.
From another angle if I took checkers and added a mechanical-skill requirement for everyone to play while riding on a unicycle I haven't make the actual gameplay any deeper, just make it more complex on a physical level (and a lot more fun to watch).

There are no real tactics to be discovered in CSGO once a map has been fully 'explored'. Assuming nobody makes a mistake it just comes down to whose reaction speed was a little better (strictly speaking a mistake) or who picked the right counter from the narrow list available to the other faggots' tactic. Valve are aware of this and that is why they change the meta by rebalancing the guns on an almost monthly basis (and by messing with maps sometimes), it's pretty much the only thing stopping pro-play from settling into a handful of repetitive patterns.

Leave CSGO (without patching to change balance) with humanity for even just ~10 years and you'll get the same basic breakdown of the gameplay. Reaction-speed requirements just make it harder to see that because you can have a full understanding of reaction-speed requirements without being able to implement them.
Formula is 100% the correct word, given how computers win at chess.
That depends entirely on the physical sport, if it's one of the sports that comes down to reaction speed/mechanical skill and a handful of 'correct' plays and counter-plays then sure. I mean don't get me wrong, I find watching a pro-tier player of CSGO pull off amazingly accurate flick-shots etc (or a team perfectly execute a 'strat' even if the correct term should be tactic) as impressive as watching an olympic-tier athlete do their thing but it's still a shallow affair at the base level.

Are you shitting me right now? If they are following formulas for the first moves, the game states after these first moves will always be common. Do you actually play chess or are you just here to make yourself look like a complete fucking idiot by comparing chess to counter strike and dota?

Any shallow real life sport*

except even professionals now are unable to do that after the opening few moves.. but keep telling yourself that.
the game never turns into scripted turn taking at any point in the game.

there are a few situations in the formulas that can happen mid-game. for example the position of a rook, bishop, and queen while ignoring the rest of the pieces. but the vast majority of formulas/moves take place in the first few turns.

except thats wrong you fucking retard. no, im not comparing it to those games, im just pointing out chess isnt following formulas and memorization, even at the professional level.

Nice. I can see you're a real pillar of intellect from your other posts.

What I mean to say is that there'd be more money for the important parts of development like design, art, overall coherency of crunch & fluff, that sort of thing. It's also common sense that if less money is spent on the game overall, then it's not as much of a scrape for companies to provide dedicated servers post-launch.

High-quality post; what you're describing is the ultimate fate of any solvable game, which is to say a game where all parties have access to perfect information or can reasonably assume perfect information. Richard Garfield made similar points when he spoke about luck vs skill in Magic: the Gathering (vid related) and other games.

Yes though I'm not yet sure that strictly speaking all solvable games are shallow, at least not to human players. It should be possible to make one with a degree of depth such that any human or human-equivalent intelligence cannot distinguish it from an unsolvable game. I really can't afford to watch a 55 minute long video until Thursday but I assume he's talking about how managing luck can be a skill or similar. There is, of course, a fine line to treat between managment of luck and RNG gameplay.

Video games are shit and shallow on purpose, you double nigger, not because development companies of hundreds of people with departments for each aspect of game development are allocating more "resources" to graphics than to programming. The only resource that matters is time and they all have the same time because they don't have to work in turns you fucking retard.

If they're doing that, then they might as well break the bank and do CSO2.