Does anyone else feel that the growth in 'professional' gaming is ruining most of the online fun? I don't know how many times I'll join in on a FPS game and there will be a team of these 'professional' gamers (I know this because most of them describe gamebattles and/or mlg in their profiles) and they're just dominating everyone. Its no competition, therefore the game is usually not fun or very demanding for the other side.

I've also noticed everyone is implementing their ranking systems now, but from what I have noticed in games like the Halo series and Battlefield Bad Company 2 (BFBC2) (we can now add bf3 to this list), it offers very little in separating the skill levels of players. In one instance I had enjoyed BFBC2 immensely, until I arose above a rank 10 and then I was stuck with people who were 50s that would just clean the floor with everyone in the game (the amount of time to go from 10 to 50 is actually very long in my opinion).

Why can't recent games improve on their ranking systems? I'd be more than happy to wait longer for a game if it would mean the ranking is fair. I liked Starcraft 2's ranking system the most, because it did feel like I was ranked against people at my skill level.

Nowadays, it seems like you have to play 10 hours a day to have any actual fun in a FPS. It's the sad reality of kids with way too much time on their hands in their pursuit of 'professional' gaming and/or just avoiding their real life problems entirely. Most of my close friends and I have somewhat retired from this genre of gaming until it is taken under control (especially when the studios start noticing a decrease in their sales).

There are waaaaaay too many fans of the modern FPS games for a pretty small minority of crotchety old folk boycotting purchases to make any sort of difference.

Some games are better than others at skill matching, but it is pretty damn difficult to get anything resembling 'perfect'. I do like how in how some of the top games (re: Halo and CoD) have specific modes for the more hardcore players. You still have some hardcore people playing in the 'general' play modes, but it just means you get the opportunity to see what some of the people who are really good at the game do tactics wise. There will always be matches where you get completely and utterly owned; is just part of playing online. Even when that happens I'm still usually having a good time, because I'm playing online with my friends. :/

You sound like you suck at FPS.

Most of my close friends and I have somewhat retired from this genre of gaming until it is taken under control (especially when the studios start noticing a decrease in their sales).

*looks at sales figures for the top FPS games these days*

So, you never plan on playing an FPS game again then?

Just out of intrest, are you talking about the console versions of these games?

I played with some competitive Halo 2 players when Halo 2 was popular. I know what it takes to become a pro gamer in terms of practice and gameplay. I'm not willing to put in that kind of effort to dominate in games.

That being said, when I dominated at a Halo 2 LAN, people there said the same thing about some of the tactics I was using and the amount of time I was putting into the game.

Everyone's at different levels of play. What you think might be over the top, other pro gamers might consider weak.

That's why good ranking systems and finding comptatible servers really improve gameplay IMO.

Without putting quite so fine a point on it as tstrimple, the problem is certainly not competitive gaming in general, professional or otherwise, but rather an ineffective match-making system that does poorly at taking relative skill into account.

Halo, which you mention, actually does a pretty good job in my opinion. I've spent a significant amount of time playing matchmaking since the second game (and plenty of time LAN'ing the first) and I've always found the matches in general to be competitive, and only rarely overwhelming for one side or the other. Yes, it can be frustrating when you and 3 random players get matched against an organized group with superior skills, a group of boosters, or a group that is really good at controlling the map (a valid tactic, however one that is beyond unorganized groups or most casual players in general), but saying that this is evidence that a slim minority of competitive players are ruining the experience is just belly-aching. At any given time, I'd estimate that less than 50% of players are "organized" (2 or more familiar players acting in concert) and far fewer have any real competitive aspirations.

If you find yourself consistently losing more often than not, its either poor matchmaking on the part of the developer, or its a sign that your skills, strategy, or comrades are lacking. If you're a casual player, the problem is that you're not playing against other casual players, not that the game isn't an even playing field -- a dedicated player should, of course, regularly best a more casual player; the game does not exist to coddle the less initiated, after all. Furthermore, while everyone *likes* to win, you're not entitled, and if you can't have fun without winning, then you have other issues entirely outside the realm of video games. Sportsmanship applies to the virtual realm too -- do your best, compete honorably (no cheating, avoid exploits and "cheap" behavior), find a group of people you *enjoy* playing with -- even when you aren't winning, and have some freaking fun. Don't be a spoil-sport.

On 10/3/2011 at 5:05 PM, Ravyne said:

...the problem is certainly not competitive gaming in general, professional or otherwise, but rather an ineffective match-making system that does poorly at taking relative skill into account.

+1

Plus this highlights the need for smart social aspects of game interfaces in general. For instance, unless you're one of the best in the world, who cares how you rank against everyone in the world? You'd probably rather see how you rank against your friends. And you're probably not interested in getting into games against "pros", "griefers", or maybe even "noobs". If possible, you'd probably rather play against names you recognize, or who are at least relevant matches in some way.

It's the sad reality of kids with way too much time on their hands in their pursuit of 'professional' gaming and/or just avoiding their real life problems entirely.

Wow, judgmental and p[color=#222222][font=arial, sans-serif][size=2]resumptuous [/font]much?

I liked Starcraft 2's ranking system the most, because it did feel like I was ranked against people at my skill level.

And there we get to the root problem -- it's not a problem that people are learning to play games well, it's a problem that the player base isn't able to connect to people in the same league as themselves.
The fact that there are so many levels of SC2 play, yet each level of talent is segregated, works wonderfully for the SC2 community.

Nowadays, it seems like you have to play 10 hours a day to have any actual fun in a FPS.[/quote]You specifically point out BFBC2, which I find odd, as the traditional twitch-shooter-FPS skills that rule counter-strike are less important in that game. In BFBC2 I've gotten the top score in plenty of matches by using land-mines or C4-choppers to destroy objectives, instead of using bullets to kill people. I have a great time in BC2, but usually only play it socially with friends. I don't find it half as much fun when I play without any friends in my squad, because then it's just a competition against the internet, instead of an adventure with friends.

When I used to play COD and CS, I joined a clan to play with. They had 'competetive' teams for tournaments, but mostly it was just an organisation to provide a social framework for gaming. It meant that whenever I wanted to play COD, I could jump into Ventrillo and have a handful of other people to team up with. Suddenly the solitary pursuit of a great K:D ratio became a social past-time.

Similarly, I have a great time playing Arma2, but that's because the people on the servers that I play all communicate and work as a team. If you're bleeding out, someone will actually sacrifice 60 seconds of their own playing time to drag you to cover and heal you, whereas in the Call-Of-Duty servers I play, people will complain about a 10 second respawn count-down... The sense of adventure and team-work that I get from a good game of Arma can't be matched by a run-of-the-mill team FPS.
Perhaps if you're not into ADHD twitch-based gameplay, then the problem isn't competitiveness, but simply that you're looking for a different genre of experience?

The key thing about games going more hardcore for the casual gamer, is time. Upon launch, the game is new and fresh to everyone. As time advances, those that have better reflexes and/or a better learning curve, dominate. After even more time, it is apparent who puts days into training and who just plays casually. As far as FPSes go, I suspect that there isn't enough of a pool of players to have everyone happilly matched with their suitable skill level -- take into account localisation/lag issues, times of day the players play at, how often and for how long they do. The pool at all times isn't that much, and it is even lessened by your own gaming habits, not to mention those of others.

As such, you can't really blame FPS matchmaking for facing you off with pro players, or at least organised ones. While it is frustrating, and some games that I like are starting to go the evil path (automatic matchmaking instead of a lobby system? WTF?), I think that it is the best thing games can muster. Unless you wish for Bots with adjustable AI to return, which would be an idea.