Or why both the casuals and the hardcore are doing it wrong.

Imagine you've got a mountain near your house. You and a friend decide to climb it one day. You make it to the top, and it's pretty cool looking out over your town from high up. The climb was challenging, and you had fun doing it. What now? Well, you could try climbing it from the other side, seeing as how it's more technical, and the paths are more treacherous. You pick the hardest way up, see new sights along the way, and make it to the top. You've conquered the mountain.

So now what? Well, you say, I'm going to climb it faster. Your friend instead decides to travel and try climbing another mountain. You work out the fastest way up, and end up getting pretty good climbing. Over and over, you shave time off your ascent. You're not even enjoying the view or taking it in, instead your climb plan is your focus. Step, jump here. Eventually, you climb that mountain so fast, nobody else can beat you.

But was it worth it? Not only have you reduced climbing the mountain to a series of steps, cold and mechanical, but in doing so you race past not even taking in the view anymore. Yeah you're the fastest, but does that matter when your friend comes back having climbed ten mountains in different places, with tons of new views, paths, techniques, and stories to share?

One of the many reasons I've given up speedrunning, is that I largely feel that any sense of aesthetic, and even mechanical enjoyment of the game is ruined by doing so. If you've never made a speedrun, here's what you do:

1. Get good at the game.
2. Research known techniques / routes.
3. Find new techniques /routes.
4. Decide upon a route.
5. Execute the run.

The last two steps completely ruin games, because you are essentially boiling down your actions, that will be repeated over and over until you nail the run, into a series of steps divorced from the normal decision making of play. So play Mario, and you are no longer playing the game, but executing the pre-planned script: run, jump here, run, jump here, go down this pipe. The game goes from being something you feedback with, to a series of exact moves which if not done correctly, demand a reset. As competition gets more fierce, this part gets worse and worse.

I still have the record for MGS2. A while ago I played it through again the 'normal way'. And wow, what fun I had. Exploring, immersing myself in the world, and taking out guards and bosses in a completely free manner. It's much more fun to play a game, rather than just be running through a series of pre-planned moves. The fun comes from the immersion, a product of both the mechanics and the aesthetics together.

But like, it took me 4 months to do that run. Several hours a day. What if instead I would have played other games? As soon as I get good at MGS2, why not pick up another game and get good at it? One that will interest and challenge me in new ways? I'd rather be the traveling friend soaking up experiences, than they guy who just stayed on the same mountain reducing the experience to that of just the physics. You're not really climbing anymore.

Getting good at a game is still very satisfying (that's when you hit the summit), so I think maybe the optimal way that I think folks should play games is somewhere between casual and hardcore. Get good at a game, then move to another.

Other than ruining the actual enjoyment of the game, I feel like the time required for a record is a lot for something rather arbitrary, and meaningless ultimately. What does it mean to have the World Record for MGS2 on extreme? Not much really… That time spent means I have to forgo other things… While I'm not one to say what should be important to people, because obviously speedrunners care about getting these records, I have to ask, why do they in the first place put such importance on something so trivial?

Roger Ebert was right about the King of Kong: the stakes were utterly trivial. (It was however, still an excellent movie, despite what Ebert said. The stakes may have been trivial in real life, but the film was not. It also answers the question I just asked). Billy Mitchell, the 'player of the century', is selling hot sauce in florida. Michael Jordan has apparel lines, tons of cash, the opportunity to do whatever he wants from here on out, is in great shape, and is an inspiration to young people. Just sayin'.

I never ever liked step 5. Steps 1-4 were fun as hell. Actually DOING the run was tedious. Realize that the video you see is the product of many, many tries. I could go out and beat Cairo Station on Legendary no problem, but in 9 minutes? That would be tough… but hey, get the record and it's an accomplishment right?

I used to think that, especially when my runs landed me jobs doing guides. But man, just watch how often and for how long the runners on SRL stream. It's a huge chunk of their lives. Again, I'm not telling anybody how they should spend their time, but if you're going to spend all that time playing video games at home, why not climb a different mountain instead of the same one over and over, you know? How do you know the world you live in if you've only seen it from one peak?

I don't know what to call the type of player I've become: post-hardcore? I don't know. The philosophy now is to get good at the game, then move on. Can you beat it comfortably on the highest difficulty? Congrats, the game is done. Once you get to the point where you have to essentially play a new game to keep playing, it's time to move on. To me hardcore players seem as nuts as the casuals. The casuals don't have as much fun because they don't play at a level where they get the most interesting version of the game, and the hardcore players don't have as much fun because they reduce the game to the bare essentials largely stripping the aesthetic enjoyment away.

Runs are of course fun to watch. But man, doing them sucks.

The SDA charity marathon is literally the only thing keeping me running this year. That matters. If it weren't for that, I'd never run again. See you at AGDQ 2015.

The idea is that getting good at a game shouldn't mean that you have to basically play an alternative version of the game that isn't as good as the real one.

If you look at Diablo 3, a game about completing quests, fighting monsters, building your character, and finding loot - what are the good players doing? They are farming gold to buy items from the auction house. See what I mean? At that level, what you have to do sucks.

This is what happens when you weave a meaningful investment system into your game. Players go from playing your game, to playing your investment system…

Let's hope Tyson knows what he is doing :-p

The idea is that getting good at a game shouldn't mean that you have to basically play an alternative version of the game that isn't as good as the real one.

If you look at Diablo 3, a game about completing quests, fighting monsters, building your character, and finding loot - what are the good players doing? They are farming gold to buy items from the auction house. See what I mean? At that level, what you have to do sucks.

This is what happens when you weave a meaningful investment system into your game. Players go from playing your game, to playing your investment system…

I think it's also possible to just choose not play a game like that. When I play Skyrim, I'm having fun most of the time, but sometimes when my character becomes too powerful and I've beaten all the main quests, I'll start to realize I'm just doing things effortlessly, by the book, and not really enjoying it. So when that happens, I switch gears and run off into the wilderness and end up with a horde of Mammoths chasing me into a castle! Since the actual gameplay is fun and the world is responsive and interesting, I can hop off the investment system whenever I want. It's just a guide.

It looks that way to me, but hopefully the actual gameplay of Destiny is fun. That's the important part, right? This investment system is just a tool to move you along when you need it. I agree that sometimes it seems like there's lot of people playing games out there, grinding, and not enjoying themselves. Sometimes that's the games fault. Sometimes it's just people getting addicted to crap and forgetting why they got into the game in the first place.

Destiny looks like you're in an open-world, online, Halo campaign with some RPG elements added in. If the campaign part is hilariously fun, then that loot and menu screen in Destiny will be more like finding ammo or switching a pistol for a plasma rifle before you rush into the next wave of Covenant.

Maybe what I'm saying is: a game with an investment system isn't inherently bad and can actually benefit from it if it's as fun as a game like Halo where I'm still playing the same 10 levels and having a blast a decade later. In fact, in that case I wouldn't mind a little system that gives me some dynamic objectives and things to do to keep me creative and inspire me to keep playing the game a different way down the line. Maybe it's only troubling when the core game IS the investment system.

Once I began viewing Achievements, Super Hard Difficulties, leaderboards, as ideas (or other ways up the same mountain), and began making judgement calls ("Do I enjoy doing SLASO runs? Not really, but I like trying them sometime for silly fun") that informed what I chose to play, I began playing and enjoying more games.

I think most of us go through that train of though long before thinking about attempting speedruns. It's an impressive thing to watch, I applaud the achievements, and I enjoy playing around with some of the techniques originally developed by the speedrunning community.

But actually giving it a serious shot?

nope.gif

if you're going to spend all that time playing video games at home, why not climb a different mountain instead of the same one over and over, you know? How do you know the world you live in if you've only seen it from one peak?

I don't know what to call the type of player I've become: post-hardcore? I don't know. The philosophy now is to get good at the game, then move on.

lol - I hate to tell you this, Cody, but that attitude is not called 'post-hardcore'... it's called 'casual'. Some of us do it FIRST. :)

More difficult than speedrunning, more fun, and doesn't get stale.

git gud

if you're going to spend all that time playing video games at home, why not climb a different mountain instead of the same one over and over, you know? How do you know the world you live in if you've only seen it from one peak?

I don't know what to call the type of player I've become: post-hardcore? I don't know. The philosophy now is to get good at the game, then move on.

lol - I hate to tell you this, Cody, but that attitude is not called 'post-hardcore'... it's called 'casual'. Some of us do it FIRST. :)

No it's more hardcore than casual. Like in MGS2 for example, most casuals do not go for a Big Boss run, whereas I would. It's something like the desire to master the game as a hardcore player would, but with the mindset of a casual player as far as immersion goes.

More difficult than speedrunning, more fun, and doesn't get stale.

git gud

You're treading into territory that I'm now starting to explore, but the bottom line is that I think on a theoretical / philisophical level, e-sports are vastly inferior to real sports, and even are inferior to the single player experience. As in, the 'art' of the video game is compromised in competitive multiplayer. Please don't ask for an explanation just yet, I'm still working it out, but you can probably catch a glimpse of why in that post.

It's something like the desire to master the game as a hardcore player would, but with the mindset of a casual player as far as immersion goes.

So you're saying you actually enjoyed the game for what it was? I hope this really isn't a lost concept to the hardcore 2: core harder.

Seriously though, this is how games are so enjoyable to me. You can immerse and escape, but you aren't devoid of purpose or achievable skill.

More difficult than speedrunning, more fun, and doesn't get stale.

git gud

You're treading into territory that I'm now starting to explore, but the bottom line is that I think on a theoretical / philisophical level, e-sports are vastly inferior to real sports, and even are inferior to the single player experience. As in, the 'art' of the video game is compromised in competitive multiplayer. Please don't ask for an explanation just yet, I'm still working it out, but you can probably catch a glimpse of why in that post.

Totally. And even if you don't like the competition in real sports, it's at least getting you in shape, mentally and physically. E-sports skills have very little applications outside the game.

I wandered into competitive Halo 2 for a year back in high school and wandered back out. I was 'improving' something I suppose, but I wasn't enjoying it, and it seemed the only thing improving was a skill that had no meaningful uses outside itself. I still love multiplayer - but it requires friends or other similarly-minded players to be fun. Winning is a always nice bonus, though. :)

It seems to me there's an element of 'approaching the hobby as the job' aspect to this. During the PhD years, as I like to call them, I went completely off nature documentaries, science shows, things like that. I was too invested to enjoy them. Now I'm relaxing a bit and I last time I caught a nature documentary I really enjoyed it.

Burnout's a thing!

Life is about the journey, not the destination.

^_^

Life is about the journey, not the destination.

^_^

I think this worldview right here is why spoilers don't generally bother me, be it a movie, tv show, or a game. Mass Effect 3 is a fairly good example. Sure I attempted to avoid spoilers for a time, but eventually I stopped trying and spent an hour one day watching the various ways your crew could die or be written out, along with various other major plot points including the ending. When I finally played the game, I knew some of these moments were coming, but it didn't detract from anything, because the real joy was getting to those moments.

More difficult than speedrunning, more fun, and doesn't get stale.

git gud

You're treading into territory that I'm now starting to explore, but the bottom line is that I think on a theoretical / philisophical level, e-sports are vastly inferior to real sports, and even are inferior to the single player experience. As in, the 'art' of the video game is compromised in competitive multiplayer. Please don't ask for an explanation just yet, I'm still working it out, but you can probably catch a glimpse of why in that post.

Totally. And even if you don't like the competition in real sports, it's at least getting you in shape, mentally and physically. E-sports skills have very little applications outside the game.

I wandered into competitive Halo 2 for a year back in high school and wandered back out. I was 'improving' something I suppose, but I wasn't enjoying it, and it seemed the only thing improving was a skill that had no meaningful uses outside itself. I still love multiplayer - but it requires friends or other similarly-minded players to be fun. Winning is a always nice bonus, though. :)

...what. Why are you both making value judgments of real sports to multiplayer? How is this even relevant?

"Speed-running has gotten stale for me"
"Competitive multiplayer is more challenging and doesn't get stale nearly as quickly"
"Yeah but e-sports aren't as good as REAL sports"

This is a terrible argument. You both need to deadlift more.

This is a terrible argument. You both need to deadlift more.

In other words, do real sport instead of e-sport? My point exactly.

Also the argument is really:

Real Sport > e-sport
Single Player / Co-op > competitive multiplayer

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/soc/2011_08spoilers.asp

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/soc/2011_08spoilers.asp

So spoil Destiny then. It will make us enjoy it more :-p

This is a terrible argument. You both need to deadlift more.

In other words, do real sport instead of e-sport? My point exactly.

1. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

2. You're the one who started using the term "e-sports," something that implies obsessive, work-like time and energy. I just said multiplayer. You don't need a pro gaming contract to put your erstwhile speed running effort into multiplayer.

Also the argument is really:
Real Sport > e-sport

Again, not relevant.

Single Player / Co-op > competitive multiplayer

Not only is your opinion wrong, but it's a bold claim coming from the guy who started the thread about how he's burned out on single player.

Life is about the journey, not the destination.

^_^

I think this worldview right here is why spoilers don't generally bother me, be it a movie, tv show, or a game. Mass Effect 3 is a fairly good example. Sure I attempted to avoid spoilers for a time, but eventually I stopped trying and spent an hour one day watching the various ways your crew could die or be written out, along with various other major plot points including the ending. When I finally played the game, I knew some of these moments were coming, but it didn't detract from anything, because the real joy was getting to those moments.

I am your inverse, then. :)

I honestly don't know what we're talking about anymore. I saw a chance to agree with Cody Miller and I grasped it. Such things are rare in life! :P

- No text -

Not only is your opinion wrong, but it's a bold claim coming from the guy who started the thread about how he's burned out on single player.

Did you miss Cody's point? It seemed to be getting burned out on single player, via speed running, in specific games where they've been speed run to death. He's not burned out on single player generally speaking.

HUGE distinction there, bro.

More difficult than speedrunning, more fun, and doesn't get stale.

git gud

You're treading into territory that I'm now starting to explore, but the bottom line is that I think on a theoretical / philisophical level, e-sports are vastly inferior to real sports, and even are inferior to the single player experience. As in, the 'art' of the video game is compromised in competitive multiplayer. Please don't ask for an explanation just yet, I'm still working it out, but you can probably catch a glimpse of why in that post.

Totally. And even if you don't like the competition in real sports, it's at least getting you in shape, mentally and physically. E-sports skills have very little applications outside the game.

I wandered into competitive Halo 2 for a year back in high school and wandered back out. I was 'improving' something I suppose, but I wasn't enjoying it, and it seemed the only thing improving was a skill that had no meaningful uses outside itself. I still love multiplayer - but it requires friends or other similarly-minded players to be fun. Winning is a always nice bonus, though. :)

Pffft, filthy casual.

Not only is your opinion wrong, but it's a bold claim coming from the guy who started the thread about how he's burned out on single player.

Lol where did I say that? Reading comprehension is a good thing to have dude.

Not only is your opinion wrong, but it's a bold claim coming from the guy who started the thread about how he's burned out on single player.

Lol where did I say that? Reading comprehension is a good thing to have dude.

I not only comprehended what you wrote, I super-comprehended it. It's obvious that you never wrote "I'm burned out on single player" exactly. But I know what you meant. I know what you're feeling. I'm already arguing from farther down the line where we've established that you don't get the same level of enjoyment and engagement from casual run-throughs of games that you got from speedrunning, even if you think you do. You need to keep up.

Put another way, to borrow a way-overused analogy:

Single player : multiplayer :: checkers : chess

You started playing checkers. You got pretty good at it, but eventually you hit The Wall: checkers is a solved game. So you and your friends started playing speed checkers, trying to see who could remember the correct sequence of moves while under duress. Or blindfolded checkers. Anything to make the already-solved game more challenging. Eventually you got burned out because the underlying game was already solved. There was nothing intellectually new or refreshing about it. It was the same damn game over and over, and contests were just about execution with razor-thin margins for error.

So you started doing things differently. You started messing up the game on purpose, getting into new situations just to see how you could get out of it. You'd play against your old Perfecto-Checkers buddies, both of you making wrong moves at will, and you'd also play with your normie friends and relatives, throwing things to keep it competitive. But even if you got some pleasure from this, we know it's just a shell of what you felt when earnestly beating your friends in Perfecto-Checkers.

But it'd be a mistake to say you only got burned out on Perfecto-Checkers. You got burned out on checkers, bro. It's ogre.

Meanwhile us multiplayer buffs are still playing a 1000-year old game, fueled by a greater complexity and the freshness of human creativity.

Not only is your opinion wrong, but it's a bold claim coming from the guy who started the thread about how he's burned out on single player.

Lol where did I say that? Reading comprehension is a good thing to have dude.

I not only comprehended what you wrote, I super-comprehended it. It's obvious that you never wrote "I'm burned out on single player" exactly. But I know what you meant. I know what you're feeling.

Dude seriously. You clearly didn't understand a word of what I said. Please have the decency to either ask for clarification, or else just don't post.

As for multiplayer, you'll be the first to read when I finish. Basically, multiplayer games are less complex and meaningful competitions than real sports, so fail on that level. Additionally, they are inferior to Single Player when it comes to immersion, also causing them to fail on the level of what makes a video game interesting and indeed art.

Dude seriously. You clearly didn't understand a word of what I said. Please have the decency to either ask for clarification, or else just don't post.

I'm pretty sure that, while he is talking about a possible thread of thought you could have had, he was just making good fun while making a remarkable metaphor.

As for multiplayer, you'll be the first to read when I finish. Basically, multiplayer games are less complex and meaningful competitions than real sports, so fail on that level. Additionally, they are inferior to Single Player when it comes to immersion, also causing them to fail on the level of what makes a video game interesting and indeed art.

While I am very interested in what you have to say, I already disagree with your first premise, but agree with the third and am indifferent to the second.

Dude seriously. You clearly didn't understand a word of what I said. Please have the decency to either ask for clarification, or else just don't post.

I'm pretty sure that, while he is talking about a possible thread of thought you could have had, he was just making good fun while making a remarkable metaphor.

As for multiplayer, you'll be the first to read when I finish. Basically, multiplayer games are less complex and meaningful competitions than real sports, so fail on that level. Additionally, they are inferior to Single Player when it comes to immersion, also causing them to fail on the level of what makes a video game interesting and indeed art.

While I am very interested in what you have to say, I already disagree with your first premise, but agree with the third and am indifferent to the second.

Regarding the second, try playing Dishonored then throw in some Planetside 2. I mean, I get why people like PS2, but it's just no where near what Dishonored accomplishes.

EDIT: Maybe this is just me personally though. Not sure. New ideas brewing.

I have some friends that are kind of going through a similar situation.

When Guitar Hero was young, the three of us got really into it. I think we were in 8th grade at the time, so just the idea of playing a guitar was a big deal for us. I enjoyed the game, but didn't treat it like a competition the same way they did. For the next 6 or 7 years, they poured countless hours into Guitar Hero and Rock Band. Buying all of the DLC, joining online score communities, modding their Playstations to add custom-charted songs, going to events, building bands at PAX from other online players so they could just kill in the competitions. One of the guys was, arguably, the best GH/RB guitar player in the state for a number of years, and their RB band stomped everyone else every year they competed at PAX and Sakuracon.

I generally liked playing with them, but I could only do so much at once because of the difference in the way they approached it. They couldn't separate themselves from that competition mindset; the constant need to play to get the most points programmatically possible instead of just playing to play. There were certain songs I never got to play with them because they were too easy on the hardest difficulties or because they knew they couldn't possibly get a higher score.

Eventually, they started to tone it down and we could play a lot more casually. Just a couple of songs, screwing around, whatever. I don't know if it's necessarily because they realized it was more fun this way, or because the music game fad started to die, but it became way more enjoyable once they stepped out of the meta game and took the game at face value.

Another thing I learned was that the Guitar Hero and Rock Band communities were mostly garbage.

When Guitar Hero was young, the three of us got really into it. I think we were in 8th grade at the time, so just the idea of playing a guitar was a big deal for us. I enjoyed the game, but didn't treat it like a competition the same way they did. For the next 6 or 7 years, they poured countless hours into Guitar Hero and Rock Band. Buying all of the DLC, joining online score communities, modding their Playstations to add custom-charted songs, going to events, building bands at PAX from other online players so they could just kill in the competitions. One of the guys was, arguably, the best GH/RB guitar player in the state for a number of years, and their RB band stomped everyone else every year they competed at PAX and Sakuracon.

And imagine if they had spent that time learning to play a real guitar instead… Might they have been better off?

Is your premise now that video games are never the correct choice in life?

They both actually did learn to play in high school. One of them kind of half-assed it and quit, but the other guy- the really good GH player- used his same obsessive tendencies and got really good at playing acoustic guitar and began writing and playing his own music.

Dude seriously. You clearly didn't understand a word of what I said. Please have the decency to either ask for clarification, or else just don't post.

I'm pretty sure that, while he is talking about a possible thread of thought you could have had, he was just making good fun while making a remarkable metaphor.

As for multiplayer, you'll be the first to read when I finish. Basically, multiplayer games are less complex and meaningful competitions than real sports, so fail on that level. Additionally, they are inferior to Single Player when it comes to immersion, also causing them to fail on the level of what makes a video game interesting and indeed art.

While I am very interested in what you have to say, I already disagree with your first premise, but agree with the third and am indifferent to the second.

Regarding the second, try playing Dishonored then throw in some Planetside 2. I mean, I get why people like PS2, but it's just no where near what Dishonored accomplishes.

EDIT: Maybe this is just me personally though. Not sure. New ideas brewing.

I counter with Arma. It's completely multiplayer, yet just as immersive as any single player game.

Just finished my high chaos Dishonored run. Ghost playthrough is next. Love the game. I'd still say Arma is more immersive, if that's what you want out of games.

I counter with Arma. It's completely multiplayer, yet just as immersive as any single player game.

Just finished my high chaos Dishonored run. Ghost playthrough is next. Love the game. I'd still say Arma is more immersive, if that's what you want out of games.

But Arma isn't inherently immersive, is it? I assume very few people actually voice-chat using military-like practices and jargon, for instance. On the other hand, well-made games rarely deviate their presentation from what would expected of their universe, thus being inherently more immersive.

Mind you, I'm not saying, and I hope Cody isn't as well, that you can't be immersed in a MP game. I'm just saying it is inherently harder to do so.

Also, to avoid further confusion:

• 1st premise: MP games are less complex than real sports
  
• 2nd premise: MP games are less meaninful than real sports
  
• 3rd premise: MP games are less immersive than SP
  
• 4th premise (which I forgot was there): being less immersive makes it less interesting

- No text -

When Guitar Hero was young, the three of us got really into it. I think we were in 8th grade at the time, so just the idea of playing a guitar was a big deal for us. I enjoyed the game, but didn't treat it like a competition the same way they did. For the next 6 or 7 years, they poured countless hours into Guitar Hero and Rock Band. Buying all of the DLC, joining online score communities, modding their Playstations to add custom-charted songs, going to events, building bands at PAX from other online players so they could just kill in the competitions. One of the guys was, arguably, the best GH/RB guitar player in the state for a number of years, and their RB band stomped everyone else every year they competed at PAX and Sakuracon.

And imagine if they had spent that time learning to play a real guitar instead… Might they have been better off?

I know kanbo kinda debunked this already, but I'm not really subscribed to this notion that worth and effort/focus are tied linearly like you suggest. For example, playing video game baseball will not make you better at baseball physically, but it may make you better at understanding the rules of baseball, more easily discerning the strike zone, knowing what type of pitch would be best in situations, etc.

On the flip side, if you play real baseball, you will get better physically and you may pick up some of the game rules as well, but those physical skill are almost useful outside of baseball. Across the board, baseball players are some the least athletic players. You would not really be valued in football, tennis, or other realms of sports. And as far as sports go, the skills acquired in nearly all of them are useless outside the game.

At our core, our purpose is to survive. What sport gives you a skill that would help you survive? Track. Start running kids... yes that is a threat.

More difficult than speedrunning, more fun, and doesn't get stale.

git gud

You're treading into territory that I'm now starting to explore, but the bottom line is that I think on a theoretical / philisophical level, e-sports are vastly inferior to real sports, and even are inferior to the single player experience. As in, the 'art' of the video game is compromised in competitive multiplayer. Please don't ask for an explanation just yet, I'm still working it out, but you can probably catch a glimpse of why in that post.

Totally. And even if you don't like the competition in real sports, it's at least getting you in shape, mentally and physically. E-sports skills have very little applications outside the game.

I wandered into competitive Halo 2 for a year back in high school and wandered back out. I was 'improving' something I suppose, but I wasn't enjoying it, and it seemed the only thing improving was a skill that had no meaningful uses outside itself. I still love multiplayer - but it requires friends or other similarly-minded players to be fun. Winning is a always nice bonus, though. :)

Pffft, filthy casual.

I think they are calling it post-hardcore now.

Is your premise now that video games are never the correct choice in life?

What? Of course not.

BRB, booking travel to France.

Life is about the journey, not the destination.

^_^

I think this worldview right here is why spoilers don't generally bother me, be it a movie, tv show, or a game. Mass Effect 3 is a fairly good example. Sure I attempted to avoid spoilers for a time, but eventually I stopped trying and spent an hour one day watching the various ways your crew could die or be written out, along with various other major plot points including the ending. When I finally played the game, I knew some of these moments were coming, but it didn't detract from anything, because the real joy was getting to those moments.

I am your inverse, then. :)

I'm with you, Levi, although I certainly can agree that suspense and surprises aren't everything. It turns out that for some things, though, that's the best thing it has going for it. If it's really good, it bears experiencing it multiple times, and that's when you get the deeper appreciation. When I was in school and didn't have time to re-read everything, I would read synopses, and that definitely helped me get more out of a work with one read.

Not only is your opinion wrong, but it's a bold claim coming from the guy who started the thread about how he's burned out on single player.

Lol where did I say that? Reading comprehension is a good thing to have dude.

I not only comprehended what you wrote, I super-comprehended it. It's obvious that you never wrote "I'm burned out on single player" exactly. But I know what you meant. I know what you're feeling.

Dude seriously. You clearly didn't understand a word of what I said. Please have the decency to either ask for clarification, or else just don't post.

I understood everything perfectly. Including this paragraph:

The last two steps completely ruin games, because you are essentially boiling down your actions, that will be repeated over and over until you nail the run, into a series of steps divorced from the normal decision making of play. So play Mario, and you are no longer playing the game, but executing the pre-planned script: run, jump here, run, jump here, go down this pipe. The game goes from being something you feedback with, to a series of exact moves which if not done correctly, demand a reset. As competition gets more fierce, this part gets worse and worse.

Part of the problem is you've spent all this time and effort twisting an inherently non-competitive activity (single player) into a vehicle for competition. If you had stuck to competing in activities designed for human-vs-human competition (i.e. multiplayer) you'd be in a different situation right now.

I'm trying to help you. Multiplayer is what you want. You've become burned out on playing single-player in the manner you used to, and you trace the cause to be the fault of "games." You make statements like this:

Getting good at a game is still very satisfying (that's when you hit the summit), so I think maybe the optimal way that I think folks should play games is somewhere between casual and hardcore. Get good at a game, then move to another.

But you're drawing this conclusion from a wholly single-player-focused experience and background, either unwilling or unable to draw a distinction between single- and multiplayer. Was BoxeR wrong for disregarding your advice and not moving on from Starcraft after simply getting "good" at it?

And I still don't understand why you keep bringing up this "muh REAL sports" non sequitur.

I'm with you, Levi, although I certainly can agree that suspense and surprises aren't everything. It turns out that for some things, though, that's the best thing it has going for it. If it's really good, it bears experiencing it multiple times, and that's when you get the deeper appreciation. When I was in school and didn't have time to re-read everything, I would read synopses, and that definitely helped me get more out of a work with one read.

For the record, I never meant to imply I inevitably spoil everything for myself. I make my best effort to go into new experiences blind. Doctor Who is a good example of this. If you spoil Doctor Who before I have a chance to watch it, I will skin you. Ditto for Bungie produced titles. However, if something has been out a decent amount of time, and is going to take an additional decent amount of time to consume, spoilers cease to matter that much to me. And even then, it's largely on a case by case basis.

"Imagine you've got a mountain near your house. You and a friend decide to climb it one day. You make it to the top, and it's pretty cool looking out over your town from high up. The climb was challenging, and you had fun doing it. What now?"

"So now what? Well, you say, I'm going to climb it faster. Your friend instead decides to travel and try climbing another mountain. You work out the fastest way up, and end up getting pretty good climbing. Over and over, you shave time off your ascent. You're not even enjoying the view or taking it in, instead your climb plan is your focus. Step, jump here. Eventually, you climb that mountain so fast, nobody else can beat you.

But was it worth it? Not only have you reduced climbing the mountain to a series of steps, cold and mechanical, but in doing so you race past not even taking in the view anymore. Yeah you're the fastest, but does that matter when your friend comes back having climbed ten mountains in different places, with tons of new views, paths, techniques, and stories to share?"

"I'm trying to help you. Multiplayer is what you want. You've become burned out on playing single-player in the manner you used to, and you trace the cause to be the fault of "games.""

I think the key is people. People make games fun, either as the people making games who create worlds that are immersive and awesome or as the people we play games with. I think there is a third category of gaming: social gaming. People are the dynamic part of multiplayer - the challenge of facing other humans, and the joy of working with good friends to overcome the creative and fresh challenges. Also, people are what make speedrunning any fun at all. If you don't have someone to show, or a community to share with, than it really is for nothing (or is that too extreme?).

I think a good game is made great with friends. A good single player campaign is always more fun when you have a friend to compete with as you try to beat harder difficulties before each other. I think Co-op games create some of the best experiences in video games. Multiplayer is amazing, and is maybe the most pure social experience you can have in video games right now.

The interesting thing about Destiny, the highest hope I have for this game is that it will be an amazing new gameplay experience that also forges a new form of social gaming that blends the best of single-player, co-op, and multiplayer into one seamless world.

Awesome people make things awesome. (and the inverse of this statement is true as well)

Part of the problem is you've spent all this time and effort twisting an inherently non-competitive activity (single player)

LOL. Proof you don't know what you're talking about. Single player is definitely competitive! You are competing with the game designers, AI, Obstacles, etc.

And I still don't understand why you keep bringing up this "muh REAL sports" non sequitur.

That's why you should try to understand - everybody else has connected the dots.

Hint: Think of games as simulations.

I never want anything spoiled for me. I usually avoid trailers for movies I want to see whenever I can. It is definitely about not wanting my experience to be affected, but it's mostly about respect for the author. And those are two sides of the same coin. It just isn't fair to an artist for someone else to set up expectations about his work. Regardless of how many studies claim that spoilers don't actually matter, the point is that they change the experience.

(Spoilers for Hitchcock's Psycho incoming btw)

If you know that the first half of Psycho is a red herring, you watch it differently. You don't get as invested as Hitchcock wants you to. So when the apparent main character is murdered, it has a different effect. And that's just not fair to Hitchcock. It's not fair to anyone who's emotionally invested in crafting an experience in their work. It's also not fair to yourself, because then you'll never know what your true opinion of the work is. It'll always be influenced by an outside source.

Going off on a ranting tangent. I hated so much when The Sixth Sense came out, and people were going "I totally figured out what the twist was." No shit, dipshit. Everyone kept talking about what a great twist it had. They didn't need to give specifics. The point is that, even if you just know it has a twist, you watch it differently. Instead of watching the movie, you're trying to solve a puzzle. And when you figure it out, you go "Oh, that's neat I guess" instead of the intended "holy shit whaaaaaaaaaaaaa." That kind of thing really, really bothers me.

I think they are calling it post-hardcore now.

More like... BK scrub! Amirite?

Yo get donged on noob! Get bxr'd! Get quad shot! I'll push ur shit in bruh!

So... I entirely agree with Schooly D and entirely disagree with Cody Miller.

What happened to all of you?

Cody actually initially wrote the precursor to this OP after a discussion in IRC. It was a treatise on why speedrunning is objectively bad. I vomited.

Schooly nailed the core of the argument; it applies to what I read before and what he's posted now:

You've become burned out on playing single-player in the manner you used to, and you trace the cause to be the fault of "games."

Cody is tired of speedrunning and has now decided to take this opinion and translate it into an objective reality of gaming.

There's a whole lot of measuring enjoyment in this thread that just makes no sense. Let's look at two of them.

"Real sports is better than esports"

This requires deciding, arbitrarily, that physical exertion is of paramount importance. By this logic, all competitions that do not involve physical exertion are useless. Let's all throw entire swaths of human competition out of the window.

"Speedrunning kills games aesthetically"

This requires deciding, arbitrarily, that aesthetics and immersion is of paramount importance. Or to use a deceptive analogy, that "seeing new mountains and views" is important.

This means that those who enjoy optimization and mastery of something are just doing it wrong. Get out there you loser. Stop mastering one thing and go enjoy the view. What you're doing "doesn't matter"!

This is placing "immersion" and "mastery" on a scale and deciding one outweighs the other.

There's a whole lot of scale placing going on in this thread and it's utterly useless. You should all stop debating things in forum threads and go look out a window. The view is better. Something something mountains. *vomit*

This requires deciding, arbitrarily, that physical exertion is of paramount importance. By this logic, all competitions that do not involve physical exertion are useless. Let's all throw entire swaths of human competition out of the window.

Nope. Real sports require everything e-sports require PLUS physical exertion. Thus are more demanding and more complex, therefore are better. Also large amounts of human competition SHOULD be viewed with contempt.

Again, if you view games as simulation, you realize that the real competitive activity is always more involved. Fighting for real is more engaging than street fighter. Being a general in real war is more engaging than starcraft. Playing golf is more engaging than tiger wood 2013, etc.

This requires deciding, arbitrarily, that aesthetics and immersion is of paramount importance. Or to use a deceptive analogy, that "seeing new mountains and views" is important.

This means that those who enjoy optimization and mastery of something are just doing it wrong. Get out there you loser. Stop mastering one thing and go enjoy the view. What you're doing "doesn't matter"!

Do you read? I said mastery is still of paramount importance to enjoyment of games. The problem is that when you get to the point where you speedrun, you've already mastered the game, and are instead playing a NEW game, one far less engaging and with silly new rules.

Nope. Real sports require everything e-sports require PLUS physical exertion. Thus are more demanding and more complex, thus are better.

This, especially the bolded part, is wrong. How much of e-sports or, hell, reading a defense in football, is contained in strongman competitions?

Again, if you view games as simulation, you realize that the real competitive activity is always more involved. Fighting for real is more engaging than street fighter. Being a general in real war is more engaging than starcraft. Playing golf is more engaging than tiger wood 2013, etc.

I just don't understand why you keep wanting to fight this battle, but okay. I'll fight on your terms.

You say that real sports are "better" than e-sports. This is wrong because having sex with Gianna Michaels is way better than real sports. What do I win?

You say that real sports are "better" than e-sports. This is wrong because having sex with Gianna Michaels is way better than real sports. What do I win?

This thread.

You say that real sports are "better" than e-sports. This is wrong because having sex with Gianna Michaels is way better than real sports. What do I win?

Um, Sex IS better than sports. So what?

Part of the problem is you've spent all this time and effort twisting an inherently non-competitive activity (single player)

LOL. Proof you don't know what you're talking about. Single player is definitely competitive! You are competing with the game designers, AI, Obstacles, etc.

You're "competing" against something that never changes or adapts to you. This is my whole point and what's led to your burn out. You even said as much in your OP.

And I still don't understand why you keep bringing up this "muh REAL sports" non sequitur.

That's why you should try to understand - everybody else has connected the dots.

Hint: Think of games as simulations.

This is tiresome. I get your point and I have since you first introduced it, I just refuse to believe you actually see it as a legitimate counter-argument to mine.

Part of the problem is you've spent all this time and effort twisting an inherently non-competitive activity (single player)

LOL. Proof you don't know what you're talking about. Single player is definitely competitive! You are competing with the game designers, AI, Obstacles, etc.

You're "competing" against something that never changes or adapts to you. This is my whole point and what's led to your burn out. You even said as much in your OP.

LOL again. UT 99 had bots that you could set to adjust to your skill level and adapt their difficulty to you as you play. You can easily program AI to 'learn' player patterns. Not that it matters at all. Even if they didn't, it's still competition.

This thread.

You say that real sports are "better" than e-sports. This is wrong because having sex with Gianna Michaels is way better than real sports. What do I win?

Um, Sex IS better than sports. So what?

So, by your logic, sex makes sports irrelevant. Just as sports made e-sports irrelevant. Am I understanding you correctly?

Since this whole thread is an obvious cry for help from you, I'll make you an offer you can't refuse. I'll teach you how to Halo for the low low price of just $59.99 per week! That's right, for a limited time only, I'll help you get your BR up for half off! You'll be four-shotting BKs in no time! Call now, and get good before the Destiny beta!

So, by your logic, sex makes sports irrelevant. Just as sports made e-sports irrelevant. Am I understanding you correctly?

No of course not. Vanquish is better than Mario, but that doesn't make Mario irrelevant.

You should all stop debating things in forum threads and go look out a window. The view is better.

I missed you HP.

Mind you, I'm not saying, and I hope Cody isn't as well, that you can't be immersed in a MP game. I'm just saying it is inherently harder to do so.

Also, to avoid further confusion:

• 1st premise: MP games are less complex than real sports
  
• 2nd premise: MP games are less meaninful than real sports
  
• 3rd premise: MP games are less immersive than SP
  
• 4th premise (which I forgot was there): being less immersive makes it less interesting

I think you pretty much get what I'm saying. I don't know if MP games are inherently less immersive (I'd say probably not), but only become so when you focus on the competition to the exclusion of the aesthetics.

with silly new rules.

Maybe you're not trying varied enough rules? I get huge amounts of enjoyment from gameplay style changes - like the pacifist run in Mirror's Edge, High Chaos/No Magic runs of Dishonoured, etc.

Try more pacifist runs?

with silly new rules.

Maybe you're not trying varied enough rules? I get huge amounts of enjoyment from gameplay style changes - like the pacifist run in Mirror's Edge, High Chaos/No Magic runs of Dishonoured, etc.

Try more pacifist runs?

I kind of see that as climbing the same mountain over and over, but instead of faster, you do it with one hand tied behind your back.

You mean, without punching dudes? Can that even be done?!

You mean, without punching dudes? Can that even be done?!

The only fighting you are required to do is disarming celeste at the end of the boat. I think?

Again, if you view games as simulation

And why would you do anything silly like that?

The only fighting you are required to do is disarming celeste at the end of the boat. I think?

1: Spoilers
2: Don't you have to rush past some point-blank snipers within the sewers?

The only fighting you are required to do is disarming celeste at the end of the boat. I think?

1: Spoilers
2: Don't you have to rush past some point-blank snipers within the sewers?

Naw man, you can wall jump over them ezpz.

I have never managed to run through all that without being shot down... Well, not without disarming them. And I'm really good at fluidly climbing the under-construction mall, so there's that.

The snipers are the easiest part - I fail at the server room shoot out. I need to disable the machine gun guy at the door

Literally this entire thread