This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

What makes you a 'good player' in a video game?

#1Tommy2GoGoPosted 11/13/2013 5:51:09 AM
Should a good player have the experience to be able to adapt to any if not most situations on a video game they claim to be skilled at?
Or just having that knowledge of the game WITHOUT the experience is best?
As in, you just read on the damage a gun can do or the strongest magic you can dish out. Yet you don't have experience to be able to use said gun or magic.

I was playing with some guy online earlier ago and we got into this argument.

His idea of a good player was "having knowledge of a game but no experience. As long as I have a team mate to make up for that experience. I'm a good player."

Where as to my idea of a good player is "Having the experience to be able to adapt to anything. as in, if I need to go in and help my allies I will.Or if I have to sneak into a building I can. That way when I'm in a team, I can help them out as much as I possibly can and at the same time be able to carry each other out."

The way he implied it was that as long as he has knowledge of how a certain aspect works it's OKAY cuz his 'team-mate" has the experience that he lacks. He made it seem as if it's 'okay to suck' as long as you have a teammate to back you up.

In a way it just makes me think of how games have changed. Especially FPS games.

Back in the day, Quake 3 for example, you needed skill to be able to use the better guns in the game. You can't just equip a rail gun and expect to kill everything that comes your way.
Considering it had a recharge time and you can only shoot one shot at a time + the game move fast. You had to get use to moving AND shooting AND aiming. Otherwise you will get killed. Of course they had the noob friendly rocket launcher. But it was pointless against a good player considering he can use it better than you can. Plus that whole having health meant you wont get a one hit KO. So you had to have skill to be able to play properly.

Where as to now a days you can easily camp in a shooting game and just snipe people to dead. Or just use the best gun in the game and you'll get 1 hit ko all the time. No real skill. Just more or less being able to know the 'good spots' to camp and whatnot.

I guess this is more of a question based on team games. Better to know ins and outs of everything or just master one skill and rely on your teammate to do the rest? vs You are skilled at everything in that game and your teammates as well. So none of you really have any 'faults'

tldr: Experience vs Knowledge / relying on a teammate to do what you lack
#2Flaktrooper123Posted 11/13/2013 5:55:13 AM
Depend on the game. In games like World of Warcraft, having no knowledge could easily means doom, I am talking about people who buy or powerlevel a character to max level.

In cooperative FPS, as long as you have some basic knowledge, being a team player helps a lot. For example, games like BF3, even if you shoot with stormtrooper accuracy, reviving friendly players, repairing vehicles, and spotting enemies means you do a lot for the team.
#3Tommy2GoGo(Topic Creator)Posted 11/13/2013 5:59:59 AM
^ What about in a team based game.
Is it more ideal to just have specific knowledge and experience in ONE thing. Like let's say camping, versus having experience and knowledge on more than just camping. So let' s say you had to tail it and run. You'll be able to move around and shoot people with just your pistol or something like that.

I just feel as if having just experience in ONE specific thing limits you so terribly. I mean if you're in a close group with friends. Then I see no problems cuz you can all back each other up. Yet when you play with others. Not having that knowledge can result in you just not being able to adapt to that team.
#4happyscrub1Posted 11/13/2013 6:08:48 AM(edited)
A good player is someone who

1. picks up stuff easy
2. Has quick reflexes
3. Has experience in binding - I.E. knows where the most used keys on the keyboard are
4. Has some experience in the genre of the game. Like if you played 1 FPS, you can pick up any FPS easy. Or if you never played a RTS before, you'll have a LONGGGG learning curve to go.

Edit:

5. Someone who doesn't have tunnel vision!!!
6. For team games? Having the eyes on the prize of winning as a team. Too many team pvp games where you have guys who could destroy anyone 1 vs 1... even 1 vs 2 yet always lose games because they play solo minded.
---
Never forget.... Building #7
#5ShubPosted 11/13/2013 6:06:11 AM
It looks like my signature is relevant to this topic.
---
-What is best in life?
-To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.
#6schadowPosted 11/13/2013 7:22:41 AM
You're either good or bad at a game. Some games rely on reflexes, some rely on vast knowledge of everything in an entire in-game world, and some on a bit of both.

"having knowledge of a game but no experience. As long as I have a team mate to make up for that experience. I'm a good player."

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Everyone can read the manual for counter strike and watch how-to's and whatever, but without actual skills you'll just be feeding the opposing team cash.
---
MageofBlood391 posted...
GameFAQs: Because if all else fails, you can always argue semantics.
#7lost_withinPosted 11/13/2013 8:03:13 AM
Clearly it depends on the game...

But to me a good player has a mix of skills going for them...

knowledge - it is important to know what you are doing so you can put your skills to work efficiently and effectively

experience - without experience, your knowledge is useless, and often times knowledge is gained through experience..

teamwork skills - if you are playing a team game and you go alone all the time, can you say ball hog?

communication skills - if you can't communicate with other players then whats the point? If you are on a team and you can't communicate this is just going to end bad... if you are playing a multi-player game that isn't a team based game, there is nothing worse then logging into a room with 20-30 players and no one is shooting the breeze.... that is part of the game play experience and the devs mean it to be that way, otherwise they wouldn't take the time to include that functionality.

That is just a few things that come to mind when I think of a good all around gamer... sure there might be more, but that is what I think of..
---
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity."
Harlan Ellison
#8fuzzymanPosted 11/13/2013 8:52:40 AM
Simply paying attention; utilizing his surroundings, tools, options...

sure having a steady hand helps, and fast hand to eye coordination, but an uncoordinated player isn't an old slow person.... heh a lot of old gamers are better players because they pay attention to design detail.
---
http://i.imgur.com/hOjV6w3.jpg
#9JKatarnPosted 11/13/2013 9:00:39 AM
Well, like anything, you can have great reflexes and decent skills, but little gaming experience, or you could be an older gamer with much more experience, and tap into that experience to better read your opponents/predict what they will do but of course your reflexes/skills may not be what they once were due to age/RL responsibilities etc. There is of course a whole spectrum of skill/experience between. "Skill" also has a vastly different definition dependent on what game/genre you're talking about...some games/genres have a lower barrier to entry than others (anybody can jump into most non-ARMA FPS titles and get a few kills, or dominate if their reflexes are particularly good, but it takes a more thoughtful, perspective approach and different skills to for example become proficient/skilled at a turn-based strategy game)
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES