Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

So a long long time ago in the ages of old there were games that while praised for their story telling and gameplay were bashed because you needed to read a guide in order to play.

Yet now we are in a new age a different age where guides are not only common but for a lot of games they outright expect you to read them, to know the metagame in and out, and for there to be absolutely no surprises or else you will pretty much be shamed out of the community.

I have always been a "I'll read the instructions" sort of person but I've always stood that I should be able to play a game by myself and be decent at it. Sure it might take you to understand

But MOBAs, Roguelikes, and now even card games (mostly because of super limited resources against a world of people with infinite resources) all now depend highly on this meta knowledge.

How far are you willing to go to enjoy a game?

[Kot]

Anything that has an "only right" loadout, build, whatever is horrible and people who play it should feel horrible. That's why I avoid "competetive" games (like CS:GO. What's the point of having tens of guns when only few are actually used?), there are munchkins everywhere and only real way to not be considered a noob (and thus, not insulted at every step) is become one of them.

[RoguelikeRazuka]

Personally I don't mind learning to play a computer game, especially if it's a really complicated one and promising to deliver much fun after you get into it. There were a few cases in my gaming experience when a dull and annoying at first glance game proved rather entertaining later on. In reference to cases of that kind I have to mention Wizardry 8 which eventually became a #1 game for me after my managing to grasp its rpg system, though at first it seemed infernally difficult and I was MAD at its contradictions and inconveniences.

[Tellemurius]

Anything that has an "only right" loadout, build, whatever is horrible and people who play it should feel horrible. That's why I avoid "competetive" games (like CS:GO. What's the point of having tens of guns when only few are actually used?), there are munchkins everywhere and only real way to not be considered a noob (and thus, not insulted at every step) is become one of them.

Really for CS:GO? I find that each gun is balanced for what you need, sure you got the people that swear behind the AKs and all the AWP campers but each gun has their own way to play. Hell I snipe people with the SCAR 20 which is considered a worst buy but works well enough for me on clearing lanes.

[Kot]

Anything that has an "only right" loadout, build, whatever is horrible and people who play it should feel horrible. That's why I avoid "competetive" games (like CS:GO. What's the point of having tens of guns when only few are actually used?), there are munchkins everywhere and only real way to not be considered a noob (and thus, not insulted at every step) is become one of them.

Really for CS:GO? I find that each gun is balanced for what you need, sure you got the people that swear behind the AKs and all the AWP campers but each gun has their own way to play. Hell I snipe people with the SCAR 20 which is considered a worst buy but works well enough for me on clearing lanes.

Well, all those weapons are guns and all of those can kill (pretty quickly, it's CS after all), but some of them are just better, there is reason why people use AKs and AWP after all. If you're playing ranked expect to be screamed, insulted and sometimes votekicked a lot for dying when you take something that's not widely accepted as proper thing, even if it was completly unrelated.

[Neonivek]

Anything that has an "only right" loadout, build, whatever is horrible and people who play it should feel horrible. That's why I avoid "competetive" games (like CS:GO. What's the point of having tens of guns when only few are actually used?), there are munchkins everywhere and only real way to not be considered a noob (and thus, not insulted at every step) is become one of them.

Really for CS:GO? I find that each gun is balanced for what you need, sure you got the people that swear behind the AKs and all the AWP campers but each gun has their own way to play. Hell I snipe people with the SCAR 20 which is considered a worst buy but works well enough for me on clearing lanes.

Just don't use shotguns or a shield because those are "For noobs"

Which the funny thing is, they are considered "For noobs" because they are so effective that they allow even a noob to get a good hit on a skilled player... while likewise not being so good as to outdo skilled tactics. (Or rather... a Shotgun makes a noob able to fight against skilled players somewhat effectively, but a shotgun also isn't any better then the weapons the skilled players use.)

[Nighthawk]

I'm just going to throw my two cents into the fray, here.

I believe truly good games are capable of teaching you seamlessly as you play them, or at least setting up situations in which you can learn and improve just by playing.

There's a video by Egoraptor that does an excellent job showcasing this form of passive teaching using Megaman as an example.

Basic stuff like controls being in a booklet are all well and good, but if a game requires you to search through a wiki to play it properly and/or beat it, I think it's bad design. I might still play it if the gameplay is fun, but I'll still think it's bad design.

[Erkki]

I read through Falcon 4.0's 270 and WitPAE's 350 page manuals before I started playing.

[Gunner-Chan]

It kinda depends on the type of game more than anything.

For strategy games or 4x I'm willing to try a lot more things and read a lot more extra resources since, those tend to work BETTER if they leave you to your own devices and not try to make everything super simple. Same for wargames, those are supposed to be fairly complex and trying to explain everything at every turn would make them insufferable.

For tac-fps or squad games same thing, let them have a section to show you how things work if you want but learning off the game is also likely important and okay for those.

For most other games though? So long as it doesn't have the potential to ruin your gameplay it's mostly okay if something has to hit you in the face first to understand it. So mostly for me that boils down to hiding annoying shit in games with permadeath.

So for the most part, Roguelikes that give into being spoiler heavy, or refuse to give good feedback are my limit.

[Frumple]

Perfectly willing to pull out a memory editor and bugger a game into playability if it starts to annoy me. Or mod the thing, if it's something I can actually manage on my own (and something's not already available). Guides, code-diving, etc., are the half-way point to that, ha. So... fairly far, I guess.

Mind you, when it comes to multiplayer games, if I'm not playing with people I actually know, generally my first action is "Mute Everyone", so all that community shame bullshit is preemptively stuffed up their collective tukhus. Similarly, people that insist on reading guides, etc., as being necessary to play the game get ignored. My enjoyment of a game usually comes after shutting up everyone else playing it :V

[BurnedToast]

Not very far at all, if I don't enjoy a game why would I play it?  That's not to say I don't like hard games, or games with a learning curve.... but if I'm not having fun at all, why would I keep playing?

I generally find that even things like dota are usually pretty self-explanatory, you don't need to read guides and such to be good at it unless you want to be super competitive. If you don't really care that much and just want to enjoy yourself, you can just jump in pick whatever, and (here's the key) ignore/mute the chat and have fun.

[Virtz]

I think the only time I ever read up on a game before playing is RPGs and their character creation, cause I've gotten into too many situations where some class or build was just crap and made the game overly hard for me. Not that I'll go into too much depth and actually look through the numbers to make an optimal build myself, tho. Just gonna look up if any stats/skills/classes are particularly important or useless.

Otherwise I tend to prefer to just learn as I go. I find it more fun to discover features myself than read about them and how they exactly work beforehand. Like I know I'm probably crap at the game that way, but it's just more enjoyable to me.

[Delta Foxtrot]

I think I spent a week browsing through the manual and wiki before I started playing the first Victoria game. I'm quite willing to dig into a game even if it "requires" external reading. It's fun to learn new systems.

Nowadays I do that less but only because I lack the time. I did read through Realms of Chaos books just to get psyched up for Space Hulk

[miauw62]

Anything that has an "only right" loadout, build, whatever is horrible and people who play it should feel horrible. That's why I avoid "competetive" games (like CS:GO. What's the point of having tens of guns when only few are actually used?), there are munchkins everywhere and only real way to not be considered a noob (and thus, not insulted at every step) is become one of them.

Really for CS:GO? I find that each gun is balanced for what you need, sure you got the people that swear behind the AKs and all the AWP campers but each gun has their own way to play. Hell I snipe people with the SCAR 20 which is considered a worst buy but works well enough for me on clearing lanes.

Well, all those weapons are guns and all of those can kill (pretty quickly, it's CS after all), but some of them are just better, there is reason why people use AKs and AWP after all. If you're playing ranked expect to be screamed, insulted and sometimes votekicked a lot for dying when you take something that's not widely accepted as proper thing, even if it was completly unrelated.

TF2 lobbies seem lot better in that way, there is an established meta but at least in highlander loadouts have some sort of variety (although shitty weapons exist, see huo-long heater, vaccinator, etc). Heavy, for example, currently has two miniguns that are viable and two more that are situationally viable. Some classes such as pyro have it worse, though, with only one viable primary and a very preferred secondary and melee. Actual comp tf2 is played in persistent teams, and I assume a good team would let you try out any strats you can come up with, if you try them somewhere else first.

A bit more on topic, I have issues with things such as oldcom, because I feel like I'm not doing it right you get tons of research subjects but no real guidance on what to do, and looking it up or asking always feels cheap. More or less the same thing with mount and blade. I feel like it has to do with the sheer number of games I own, yet I keep going back to the games I am actually good at and playing those all the time, such as TF2.

[itisnotlogical]

Depends on the type of game. I'm usually willing to look up a thing or two about multiplayer games, because (in my mind) there's a line between wanting to be better at the game and being a munchkin. So I won't look up the best build for the most OP character in LoL, but I'll figure out what stats I should build first, which characters are sorta OK and which ones are objectively bad, and then wing it from there. Most players are actually willing to help noobs out (in the early levels) so I've very rarely had to mute or report anybody. Besides, it's a team game, so part of the fun is playing as a team and communicating, which doesn't happen if you mute everybody and play it like a single-player game on the chance that somebody on your team is toxic.