When did gaming become so complex?

After reading an article on http://www.gearheadsofwar.com about MP Accessibility "exert below":

This past week's 1up Yours had a really interesting discussion about multiplayer games and the fact that many people find them scary and intimidating. I would actually tend to agree with a lot of the discussion, especially because guys like me who have a wife and a child and a full-time job don't necessarily have the amount of free time to play as someone going to high school or college and doesn't have to worry about a mortgage.

It's already kind of happened with Halo 3. I want to play more frequently, but I just don't have the time and I'm looking at some of the people on my friends list and they've already played 200 plus games. How can a person who doesn't have the time to dedicate to the shooters wind up enjoying the experience with someone who has been playing for basically 24/7?

It got me thinking"…

Gaming is my only true hobby I have left from my younger years. Currently I am been married 12 years, two kids, one with autism, full time job, old home need a lot of repairs, etc... My gaming time is limited to mostly late nights and some weekend days when kids-wife are "distracted". Currently if I even think of playing when I get home from work I get the death look from my wife. Do not get me wrong, my wife knows I game, but as kids came into the picture and both of us working, my game time just started to disappear.

It is not just a problem with games like Gears of War or Halo, even as I played World of Warcraft the same problem showed up. As I played I got further and further behind friends, or I was forced to play into the wee hours of the morning. This caused me to be very grumpy, needing more sleep in my old age. End game hit and that was just even more frustrating. Raid times where scheduled during my work hours or at times when it family prime time. Most would say just quit, which I did; but is that fair? I enjoyed World of Warcraft and feel my $15 a month is the same as everyone else.

Now I do not pick on World of Warcraft because it is the only game with this problem. Using World of Warcraft as just an example because this where I began to noticed the separation of casual versus hardcore as it is referred too. Or; maybe is it where my family life became very complex and there just did not seem there was enough hours in the day. I have been reduced for the most part to playing just single-player games or the single player portion. Another example is GRAW 2, I want to play the ranked MP, but I get ejected about 90% of the time because my rank is to low. I just do not have the time to sit and rank up every free second I get. Even if I did, it would reduce my options to games drastically. World of Warcraft is a good example. I missed out on so many games from 2004 – 2006 and again when BC hit. Finally one day I said enough and quit in frustration for the second time. As stated before the same type of problem seems to loom in all MP or MMOG games. Now I just do not even want to start any game. I love Lord of the Rings Online, but the cost in time is just too great. Every time I login to LOTRO I get he feeling of frustration.

Maybe I am whiner and need to suck it up? Maybe I'm just too competitive and need to shrug it off. Still even if I just suck it up or shrug it off I will not get to do what I want. For the most part anymore in MP or MMOG I do not get to play on my terms for the things I love. I know if some cases I could just play in an unranked or an open game. Still I am competitive by nature I love the playing in ranked games. With other games this just not and option; especially MMOG. MMOG are time sinks by nature, I can accept this. MMOG are social on most levels, hence the massive part. However; it is just frustrating that I cannot get things done when I have a few free minutes. I love being able to get the "sword slaying of death" as much as the next person. Gears or War, HALO, BFMC, etc"… I cannot rank up and stay competitive on my terms. World of Warcraft, LOTRO, etc"… I cannot login and go do a dungeon with out pre-scheduling.

My finally thought as I write the babble, because mostly likely this is just me babbling on as always; my close friends can contest to this. What is the balance? Do game developers have families? Do games have to use up some much time to be challenging and rewarding? Has the ranked system in games taken the "fun" out of games?

When did gaming become so complex? Or; I'm just making it complex and gaming is just it's same old self.

Lighten up Francis

*disclaimer Please feel free to critque spelling and grammar. When writing I have problem of thinking past my current thought. But do not be rude... I have feelings; somwhere, I think there out for a smoke.

I'm in pretty much the same situation, minus the kids. I am about ready to quit WOW for the second time because of the time investment issue. My guildmates (who are also all good and longtime friends) are a bit younger than me and have a lot more time to play. So now they are doing BC end-game content and I am still struggling to hit level 66. So my game time is mostly relegated to PUGS and solo grinding, neither of which is much fun.

I also enjoy other online games, mainly RTS. I never worry about ranking. I don't have the time to make the kind of effort to compete with those who can play virtually 24/7. It used to frustrate me, but I eventually let it go. There will be groups that will boot you when they see your low rank, thinking you are a noob. But I have found that there are other players in similar situations as us, and are happy to group up.

As far as complexity goes, yes games have become very complex compared to years past. I liken it to movies, the product becomes more complex as the audience evolves and demands more to keep the entertainment factor going.

I think it's a little bit of both. You seem like the type that enjoys competition. Perhaps not the bleeding edge of it, but all the same. In that aspect, shrug it off and move forward. Now that I'm thinking about it, that seems to be the overall solution. I'm not really the 'suck it up' type when it comes to things like this.

All in all, I think as you get older, your priorities change. I know mine have; apart from WoW, I don't have nearly as much time for gaming anymore. I plug along at the stack occasionally, but not nearly like I did a few years ago. And to think, I still have marriage and kids in the future to suck away more time. I don't see it as such a big deal though. After all, you take the good with the bad, right?

I think as the gaming population has increased and gaming has become a way of life for many people, games have become more complex and larger time sinks. I, too, have watched my gaming time dwindle as I try to keep real life balanced. For a number of years I was deeply entrenched in MMOGs like Anarchy Online, City of Heroes and WoW. I neglected family, friends, and work/school in favor of grinding for xp or raids. Having taken a huge step back from gaming in the last couple of years, I've had a number of theories floating about in my skull about why gaming has become this way.

Remember back in the days (maybe you do, maybe you don't) when part of the marketing hype for the Ultima series was the hundred hours of gameplay? I think some of us are still in a mode where we want the most game for our dollars, and the Scrooge McDuck in us demands that a game have replay value. Game companies have given us what we want with MMOGs, multiplayer maps for GRAW, GoW, Halo, etc. How many times did you justify your continued monthly sub fee to WoW or XBL by saying 'Hey, it's keeping me from spending $50 on a new game.' I know I did it many times. Now throw in the obsessive competitiveness of people like us who always want to be a part of the big Molten Core raid or the always awesome Goodjer sessions. Add a sprinkle of camaraderie that a lot of teens and even adults don't get in their real lives and you start to see people grinding away their lives and ignoring everything else around them. As long as they have net, electric and money to pay their fee, they don't care about anything else. If mom lets them live in the basement until they're forty, so much the better. more time to game and less time spent on menial things like work, RL relationships, school, etc. This puts a lot of pressure on us working joes because hey, we used to be hardcore, why can't we keep up now?

My other theory is that gaming is a government subsidized program to keep the populace subdued and placid. I would elaborate more, but the microchip They implanted in me at birth is signaling the black helicopters to come stop me. I have to go buy a copy of Catcher in the Rye.

I think this has to do more with changes in a person's life than changes in game development. Sure games have changed since we were younger. The online community aspect has changed how people play games in a significant way. But what really seems to be the heart of the matter is how our lives change and how our hobby fits within that context. There are always going to be changes in our lives over which we have no control, but for many people, most of the big ones we choose to make, like getting involved in a serious relationship, owning a home, having children or choosing a career. The specifics of these choices will almost always have a considerable impact on not only how many hours can be spent on gaming, but also which hours. As for the competitive aspect, I'd turn to a Demotivators quote, which was written as a joke, but I consider sage advice: "If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly."

I certainly don't have the same number of responsibilities as you have yet, but I've noticed the same effect creeping up. High school's long since done, university is nearly finished and I'm now independent financially and my free time has really dried up.

I used to play all sorts of multiplayer games competitively, such as Age of Empires, but certainly don't have the time to commit to get any good anymore. So I just play single player games. That, or Battlefield. Really, that franchise is awesome, doesn't matter how good you are, I'm just going to blow stuff up.

Unfortunately, I don't see anything else like it coming up, so I might be forced to stick with single player stuff like Mass Effect (Oh darn, that'll be terrible...).

Two quick thoughts:

1. Gaming got complicated when the Genesis decided to put 6 buttons on their controller. It's gone downhill since.

2. It's not quite whining, but it sure does sound like sour grapes. The fact of the matter is that you get better at things -- you get good at things -- by practicing. Gaming is no different. If you don't practice, you won't get good. To complain that you aren't near the top of the game when you don't put much time into it is... bizarre. I doubt you're upset that you're not a guitar rock god after you put down your axe after your once-a-month session. I would find it strange to hear you complain about not being in the Masters when you're only out on the greens twice a season. The reasons why you don't game much are largely irrelevant; some things take precedence (as I'm learning, with a three-month old), and if gaming isn't one of those things, many others are going to surpass you. I feel your pain; I truly do. You're still not going to be able to hang with the folks that have 8 hours a day to play, even if you really, really want to.

I think the fact that it's a leisure activity makes it seem like it should be easier somehow; it doesn't. It's not a matter of sucking it up or letting it slide, it's a matter of accepting that life changes. With two kids (especially with one high-needs) and a full-time job and a house and a marriage, you're not going to be able to game the way you want to. Period. It's not a matter of shifting things around, or juggling schedules, or being efficient. You are not going to be able to game the way you want to. Once you accept that, you can start to figure out how gaming still fits into your life. Not accepting that means that you'll be upset about missing gaming and resentful of all the things that 'get in the way'.

Yeah, what Chumpy said.

Yeah, but no one wants to "practice" gaming, right. I've been feeling bad the last couple days (stomach issues), so I've spent a little time in the late evening with Halo. I'm through the first 3 levels and I have to admit that I'm not terribly happy with it. It's an alright game, but I really just want to play the multi-player. And I don't want to "practice", really. I just want to play when I have time and otherwise enjoy my life. So I don't think I'm going to press too much in this regard. I'll probably just pick up Halo 2, then 3 when it comes out, do Zombie Skate and otherwise not worry about being competitive. I love playing multi-player, but not at the expense of my free time. Luckily (or unluckily) I had free time due to being sick the last couple nights. But it's not something I can or want to do on a regular basis.

I totally empathize. I still enjoy jumping into ranked games and seeing if I can at least stay in the middle of the pack, but the only real solution is to game with people who are equally screwed in the 'gaming-time' department. Which pretty much rules out ranked games. I jump back and forth, and try with all my might to take public beatings in good humor.

I'm finding that as time goes on with my child (4 in a week...my god where did the time go) I'm going to be playing more Lego Star wars II and less FPS style games. I'm still gaming so its cool. When he's 12 and is kicking my ass in Halo 8 I'm going to be proud and sad at the same time

My experience is limited to PC shooters, but not putting in huge amounts of time a week doesn't mean you have to be bad or sit at the bottom of the pack.

One strategy is to pick one game and play that game only. Hardcore gamers often are moving between lots of games, so if you focus on one game you might end up playing that game as much as they do in any given week.

Practicing in single player mode is also a good idea, because it allows you to learn the maps and practice aiming and using the weapons without getting frustrated. It's easy to slip onto the computer for a half hour of practice and then go back to other things.

Use your head and figure out what you're doing wrong. This can be done when you aren't playing. This is all about figuring out how to turn match-ups to your advantage.

I did this with the BF2/2142 series and while I'm not a dominating player, I'm still doing better than a lot of pubtards on the servers we play on.

I don't think they've gotten that much more complex overall. For every additional layer of complexity, there's been something to simplify or help organize. Remember when you needed your own graph paper to make a map because the game didn't have an on-screen one? Additional buttons make the control schemes awkward, and difficult to remember, but is that really more complex, or is it our bias from coming from a 2 or 4 button past? To a teenager, the controls might seem simple and easy to grasp.

I think the combination of losing your free time, additional distractions and gaming history all combine to make games seem much, much more complex. You can't spend 8 hours in a single sitting playing anymore. So, what was a grand, cohesive story devolves into jumbled mess because you've been getting it in 1 hour chunks over the course of a week. When you do get to play (in my case), the kid wakes up, the dishes need to be washed, laundry needs to be done, trash needs to be taken out, bills need to be paid, etc... All of these things sit in the back of your mind and pull your focus away from what you are currently doing to what you "should" be doing. When you cannot focus on what you're doing, you make mistakes. These mistakes are not the game being more complex, it's you not being able to devote as much attention as you once did. Finally, as I said above, maybe our gaming history makes us more likely to believe something is more complex just because it's different. Yes, multiple buttons, dual analog sticks and D-pads are more complex to someone who started out with a joystick and one button, but would the addition of a couple of shoulder buttons be more complex to someone who started gaming on a Xbox and moved to the 360?

I agree that established multiplayer games tend to be brutal to new players. I experienced this the first two days of the Halo 3 beta. I had only played some Halo single player and no Halo 2. I was pretty much turned off by it. I adjusted some control settings and went back in and had a better time, but I'm still not convinced it's for me. No one wants to get beaten into the dirt every time the step onto the field, and that's what can, and often does, happen. In order to grow the multiplayer population, mechanisms need to be put into place to help with this imbalance. The underdog setting on Halo 3 sounds interesting. I'd like to see some more info on how it actually works, but it's a step in the right direction.

A closed system will eventually face extinction. You won't replace any of the players you lose to other games. You have to be able to bring new players in. Will underdog do it? Perhaps, or maybe it's some other developer's idea that hasn't been announced yet. At least someone realizes that it's a problem and is taking steps to address it.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

2. It's not quite whining, but it sure does sound like sour grapes. The fact of the matter is that you get better at things -- you get good at things -- by practicing. Gaming is no different. If you don't practice, you won't get good. To complain that you aren't near the top of the game when you don't put much time into it is... bizarre.

Wow, I think you've completely mischaracterized his position. When he complains about GRAW 2 rank, he's not saying that he's not good enough to play, but that there's a direct correlation between total number of hours and rank. He's being punished not for his skill, but for his inability to simply dump time into the game. In effect, the raking system exacerbates his lack of time by punishing him twice, especially when he says he's ejected from games from having too low a rank. I'm not familiar with the GRAW 2 rank system at all, but I can relate by looking at BF2 and BF2142. Not only do you need to spend time practicing to get good at the game, you need to dump pure time into it in order to unlock gear that gives a clear and undeniable advantage (especially in 2142). Considering how many badges and ribbons have specific time prerequisites (50 hours, 120 hours, etc.) and reward you with rank points, this is a big issue for the "casual gamer". At least I've never seen anyone in BF booted for having too low a rank.

And I know exactly what he means with WoW. If you miss your guild's run through instance X, then you may lack the necessary items to participate in their run through instance Y and you're screwed. It's the structure of WoW's endgame that made me leave. It seemed deliberately designed to discourage my method of solo or casual grouping play.

bushido, developers started doing this type of design when they saw that this type of "reward cycle" creates a psychological pressure to continue playing. It doesn't take long to develop a pavlovian response to the WoW "ding!" as you level up. It makes people all fuzzy and gooey inside. They figure that the ones who are driven away are made up for the ones who feel the need to keep going beyond when they'd normally stop. And they may very well be right, I don't know.

Not every game works this way. There are plenty that don't, but then they may not be games or play modes that you prefer.

I can understand the confusion, but this belongs in Games & Platforms.

In all fairness, though, I think games have gotten bigger and more complex as budgets have gone up. But really it's multiplayer that's the problem. I love multiplayer. It's the reason I'm playing the XBox. But I will probably have to stick to my sports games and XBLA games.

I just don't have time to practice, nor do I want to spend time practicing.

Great thread bushido - it's something that I've been thinking about a lot. Gaming has always been a huge part of my life and it's been difficult for me to come to grips with the realization that I can't afford to invest the hours I used to on gaming. I now work 40+ hours, go to school full-time online, and handle the responsibilites with having a new house and living with my soon-to-be spouse (I can't image what it'll be like when I throw a few lil' 93s in the mix). What bothers me the most is that no matter how hard I try to keep up with my knowledge and skills in the games I play, I'll never be able to maintain the skill level of the types of gamers who I used to be myself. All I can hope to do is rely on my experiences in previous games to hopefully outhink and outmanuever my opponents without having the ridiculously vast knowledge that they do from playing 24/7.

In the end, one of the most powerful ways to console (no pun intended) myself when getting depressed about gaming time is to reflect on real-life goals, achievements, value, relationships, etc. that will be there no matter how poor my mutliplayer skills are!

Indeed. I'd much rather be who I am now. A guy who is in pretty good shape, plays basketball and cycles regular. I have a healthy love life, I get out of the house to watch NBA games and Broadway shows and I manage to find time to relax and read books and magazines. Oh, and somewhere in there I manage to write now and then. I'm sure there are people that do all that and are L33t gamers, but if I had to choose... I'd choose to be a bad gamer and have a good life. It is just a hobby, after all.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

. . . you need to dump pure time into it in order to unlock gear that gives a clear and undeniable advantage (especially in 2142).

Far be it from me to disagree with you, Quintin, but I disagree. I've played some of my best rounds in 2142 with unlocks disabled. Try it. Go in, start a new character and play. You'll find yourself doing about the same as you ordinarily do, and that's because you know the maps, the tactics, and can predict what other players can do because you've spent so much time playing it. You can do that as well as a private as you can at Colonel in that game.

In short, I think competitive videogames need to pick a few ideas from organized sports and institute stratified skill levels, but them are some challenges unique to playing online games that are big hurdles. When you play a videogame in a public league you may well be competing with up-and-coming superstars, weekend warriors, and kids in little league. Occassionally it can pay off really well but it can be rather frustrating as well.

Spoiler wrote:

[color=white]I think when online multiplayer gaming was first possible people tended to play with people they already knew (LAN parties) or with groups they belonged to (BBS's?). Initially there wasn't an integrated method to match you up against the rest of the world, connections couldn't handle it, and even if you did, stats weren't tracked. Even if stats were tracked, they weren't widely reported or commented on. I don't think games were as comptetitive, or if they were, it was competitive on a local scale, not a global scale.

With games that track stats and coverage of the top players, we have a much better idea of what a really good player plays like, and the mere act of broadcasting the performance acts as incentive for others to try and one up them. The game gets more cutthroat as people try to outdo one another and raise the bar.

Unfortunately that doesn't suit what some people are looking for. If you're a working professional you're not likely to want to play on a club team full of high school students - some of them are trying to get scouted for the pros, and the rest are just at a different phase in their life. They are probably playing for different reasons than the guy who plays pickup games at the gym 2-3 times per week. Those distinctions haven't been made yet for gaming leagues. There are some professional leagues, but the rest, the "public ranked matches" are a mess and we are still sorting ourselves out. If a game comes out that sorts people appropriately by skill it would have a huge step towards being wildly successful.

In sports, however, we don't all ditch basketball after 15 months (or 2 months) to go play football. A community that sets up youth soccer leagues can count on new players coming in year after year to fill the ranks of those who move up and move on to different leagues (or games). An adult softball league can count on people recruiting friends, neighbors, and co-workers to fill spots when the rosters thin out. Games don't have that luxury - people are constantly jumping ship to play the next hot thing, before people settle down and skill levels begin to stratify clearly.

I think most people would enjoy playing in a league or group appropriate for their skill level, but the way competitive games and their coverage are set up you only see and hear about the best of the best, which is the standard most people are (unfairly, I believe) held to. Not enough people want to play in the "beginners league" or at least they don't want to have to admit it.

This is from someone who was one of the "best" at Guild Wars. I put in a lot of horus and I saw the same problems develop there. Early on people were content to mix it up but over time, with better coverage, competition got more fierce. When a team at the top plays a team at the bottom neither side particularly enjoys it, but the playerbase just wasn't there to support dividing the playerbase by skill level.[/color]

*Edit* That's a wall of text so the main body is spoilered to save your eyes.

DSGamer wrote:

Yeah, but no one wants to "practice" gaming, right

Wrong.

Back in the Quake 2 days I had a clan and we sure as hell were practising. We had leagues, tournaments, strategies, roles and that was awesome. By far, very, very far, the apogee of my gaming life. I wish I still had the time for this.

Funkenpants wrote:

Far be it from me to disagree with you, Quintin, but I disagree. I've played some of my best rounds in 2142 with unlocks disabled. Try it. Go in, start a new character and play. You'll find yourself doing about the same as you ordinarily do, and that's because you know the maps, the tactics, and can predict what other players can do because you've spent so much time playing it. You can do that as well as a private as you can at Colonel in that game.

I've done it. When I join a server and forget to customize a kit or for some reason the game spawns me with the kit I didn't customize and select. I can't stand it. Yes, I still play, and I can still shoot straight. And when I try to switch to grenades to nail a dug-in opponent but can't, there's 20 seconds of mental swearing. Or throwing down APMs for titan defense. Or pulling out the defib because Swampy got killed again. You can't deny that you're rendered less effective without these unlocks.

It's usually not enough to make a difference in the outcome of a game. Then again, sometime it might be. The point is, the multiplayer landscape isn't as simple as it used to be.

Mr.Green wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Yeah, but no one wants to "practice" gaming, right

Wrong.

Back in the Quake 2 days I had a clan and we sure as hell were practising. We had leagues, tournaments, strategies, roles and that was awesome. By far, very, very far, the apogee of my gaming life. I wish I still had the time for this.

What's really sad is that about once a year I get all hyphy and log in to my clan's (Q3) server and remake acquiantances and play for a while. And I get crushed by the people that were newbies when I was at the top of my game. By extension, had I kept at it continuously, I'd be an unstoppable machine. An unstoppable divorced machine, but unstoppable nonetheless.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

You can't deny that you're rendered less effective without these unlocks.

It depends on what's considered effective. I use motion mines, APMs, defibs, nades, and all that jazz, but they account for only a pretty small percentage of my kills overall. Everything else is guns or armor kills. I'm not saying they aren't useful or handy, but I don't see the lack of them as a major disadvantage.

This is because probably 80% of my infantry kills come from shooting people in the back. That's got nothing to do with equipment. It's just knowing the maps, knowing where people are going to be, using the HUD to know what direction they're facing, and maneuvering into the right position to shoot them. (The rest of my kills mostly come by whoring armor against poor defenseless infantry, which anyone can do)

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

2. It's not quite whining, but it sure does sound like sour grapes. The fact of the matter is that you get better at things -- you get good at things -- by practicing. Gaming is no different. If you don't practice, you won't get good. To complain that you aren't near the top of the game when you don't put much time into it is... bizarre.

Wow, I think you've completely mischaracterized his position. When he complains about GRAW 2 rank, he's not saying that he's not good enough to play, but that there's a direct correlation between total number of hours and rank. He's being punished not for his skill, but for his inability to simply dump time into the game. In effect, the raking system exacerbates his lack of time by punishing him twice, especially when he says he's ejected from games from having too low a rank. I'm not familiar with the GRAW 2 rank system at all, but I can relate by looking at BF2 and BF2142. Not only do you need to spend time practicing to get good at the game, you need to dump pure time into it in order to unlock gear that gives a clear and undeniable advantage (especially in 2142). Considering how many badges and ribbons have specific time prerequisites (50 hours, 120 hours, etc.) and reward you with rank points, this is a big issue for the "casual gamer". At least I've never seen anyone in BF booted for having too low a rank.

I didn't mean to sound quite as... unpleasant as I did, but I characterized his position as being upset at not having more game time. In the case of GRAW2 rankings, more time = "better", at least from the perspective of the players playing ranked games (apparently). It's no different from any MMOG you care to name, it's just unfortunate that that particular aspect carried over to a non-MMOG. His post still comes across as a lament for missing time, which I understand and empathize with, but don't sympathize much, as that's the way life goes.

I think the only real answer is to take what I term the "Soul Calibur" route, have enough randomization in the gameplay to allow newbies to occasionally win against skillful players. Sure, the time-sinking perfectionist might be a little annoyed, but he's still winning 90% of the time. And all it takes is the possibility of winning to keep someone who doesn't have alot of time to practice happy and content. It's why I maintain Soul Calibur was one of the most popular games in my college circles, because anyone could pick it up, button mash, and kick a good players ass. But there was enough skill involved that it was clear to everyone involved who was the better player.

To me the "experts dominate" problem just seems like a balance problem between random gameplay elements vs skill. To have a game based entirely on skill just completely ruins the game for new and casual players.

DSG - if you don't like Halo, just play Halo 3 multiplayer (and Halo 2 in the meantime) - you don't REALLY have to play through the single-player games. In fact, in the hundreds of hours I must have put into Gears, I've only played a couple levels of the single-player game; I've realized that I might not ever bother finishing it. You can ultimately learn multiplayer skills better doing multiplayer anyway.

PyromanFO wrote:

I think the only real answer is to take what I term the "Soul Calibur" route, have enough randomization in the gameplay to allow newbies to occasionally win against skillful players. Sure, the time-sinking perfectionist might be a little annoyed, but he's still winning 90% of the time. And all it takes is the possibility of winning to keep someone who doesn't have alot of time to practice happy and content.

I didn't play much Soul Calibur (we played Tekken Tag) but I agree with the idea. To add to it - the hardcore player is going to piss and moan for a short while, but is likely to come back. That loss is not likely to be memorable - nailbiter matches against an equally skilled opponent will be the sort he remembers.
For the new player though, that victory sticks with you and keeps you going - the promise of pulling out a win as a underdog. If you jump into a multiplayer game 6 months after it comes out and you never have a chance at winning a match, how many times are you going to touch the metaphorical hot stove? 5? 10? 15 times? You have to believe you'll have a chance at winning and actually win a match here or there.

I think games benefit from catering to both ends of the spectrum - the hardcore people who play pre-beta and dedicate themselves to the game become opinion makers and free advertising for the game, and you want them to spread positive buzz so you get a good rep. New players sustain you, because a lot of people will sample then leave for something different.

Funkenpants wrote:

This is because probably 80% of my infantry kills come from shooting people in the back. That's got nothing to do with equipment.

It's cuz yer yella!

Fedaykin98 wrote:

DSG - if you don't like Halo, just play Halo 3 multiplayer (and Halo 2 in the meantime) - you don't REALLY have to play through the single-player games. In fact, in the hundreds of hours I must have put into Gears, I've only played a couple levels of the single-player game; I've realized that I might not ever bother finishing it. You can ultimately learn multiplayer skills better doing multiplayer anyway.

DSG, I would flip what Fed said (and not just to be contrary). Single player gives you an opportunity to see which weapons you like and are good with without the pressure of a frantic multiplayer pace. I can't speak for Halo, as I'm a total newb, but Gears single player exposes you to new weapons slowly through the single player's short campaign. You'll get to use everything. It will also give you an idea of the weapons particular idiosyncrasies (reload rate, active reload bonus, jam punishment), without having to learn them the very hard way.

Fed, go and finish Gears. I need the co-op achievements if you want to get together and play through it.

DSGamer wrote:

Yeah, but no one wants to "practice" gaming, right.

Someone already replied to this, but I will anyway. YOU might not want to. I might not want to. But there are people that put their leisure time into practicing and perfecting their gaming just as there are those that do the same for all known sports and recreational activities known to man (watch ESPN air darts competitions if you're unconvinced).