- Akamia179
- |
- Noble Heroic Member
"The truth is the key, and with it, I will unlock the doors of darkness and find justice."
-Me
"Why is it that lately, all I want to do is cry?"
-Phoenix Wright
Posted by: NickIsBest
Posted by: Akamia179
Posted by: NickIsBest
Posted by: Akamia179
Posted by: NickIsBest
The game is a casual game because the game doesn't commend you for improving your skills.
You lose what happens? You rank up. You win, same thing. And you don't get a bonus or a penalty for winning or losing.
The game is built so that no matter how good you do or how bad you do there is always a reward.
The only competitive aspect that the game contains is The Arena for you actually have to try harder to get the highest rank.
But that is one playlist. There will always be competitive players and casual players but more then 75% of the game is non-competitive in terms of how previous Halo games have been.
You say Reach and Halo 3 were equally as competitive? Halo 3 had a whole ranked section of more then one gametype that used a trueskill system. It wasn't the greatest system of all time but there were multiple playlist and all of them were more competitive then their social counterparts.
Halo 3 penalized you for losing and you were only rewarded for winning. This led to a more tactical and team-based type of gameplay that was highly competitive and Reach lacks this factor greatly.
And? That doesn't change anything. The game. Is not. Casual. It is impossible.
So what if it doesn't have much to commend your skills? So what if there's always some sort of reward? It's not the playlists, or any amount of content (or any kind, for that matter) that makes something competitive. It is the players, and the players alone.
The game is irrelevant in it's entirety, as to how competitive something is. It's the players. There is no such thing as a competitive or casual video game.
Look at Sonic the Hedgehog. The newest game, Sonic Generations. It saves your best times on each Act, and I think it saves your highest score, too. It's entirely up to you as to how fast you want to go through the Acts. Gameplay options can assist or impede this goal, but it's entirely up to you. The game is neither casual or competitive. It's all up to the player. And it works, too; You can compare best times/scores with other players if you wish, possibly creating competition between you and your friends on this matter.
And Halo Reach still has statistics. K/D, W/L, how many games played, the works. That's fine and all. But it's entirely up to the player to improve or otherwise.
It's all player driven. All of it. All of it. That is why a game cannot be casual or competitive, because it's up to the players. And as you said, it's inevitable that there will be both kinds of players.
What if there is no real incentive to improve your skills?
In Reach there is one playlist out of what like 15? One playlist that ranks you properly against other players. In Halo 3 there was a whole section of ranked playlist.
You don't understand. There is no incentive for the masses to improve their game. It was not like this in previous Halo games. Therefore people just play and couldn't care less about winning, losing, helping there team, etc. It's all about that K/D boosting and credit grinding.
In Halo 3 it was either win and rank up or lose and rank down. That instant difference changed the way people played the game. This led to a more competitive population of players and therefore a more competitive game.
Indeed, but therein lies my point. The players were more competitive in Halo 3. It wasn't more competitive, it just appealed to them more. I can understand why Halo Reach appeals to them less, but like Halo 3, it is neither competitive nor casual.
You're arguing for incentives, while I'm arguing for objectivity. Incentives are subjective. What's an incentive to one player is not an incentive to someone else. There's the problem with your argument. Objectively, no Halo ever was competitive or casual. They were all just video games. It's the players who were casual and competitive.
But the ultimatum was that since there was a higher population of competitive players, and that the game was geared to a more competitive playstyle, the game was ultimately more competitive. Bottom line.
No. The game was not competitive or casual. None of them are. That is the bottom line. It is an objective fact.
The players are the ones who are competitive who are competitive and/or casual. That is the bottom line. It is an objective fact.
The weight between the two populations is irrelevant in deciding if a game is competitive or casual, as the game in question cannot be competitive or casual in the first place. That is the bottom line. Because incentives are subjective. And, ironically enough, the fact about incentives being subjective is an objective fact.