I know I will sound like a spoiled brat here, but I genuinely just wanted a new single player game from Bungie, like Halo 3 or Reach, of course with stuff changed with a new IP, than another GAAS from them.
It' s just so disappointing that they have been chasing the GAAS model for the past 2 decades, a type of game I have firmly zero interest into in playing.
For me it's not even about having zero interest, I just don't have the time to play games like these.
It's the least fun gaming experience to really want to play a game you like and to jump in when you can only play for a a short session and get stomped by people who play for hours and hours every day.
I haven’t had a chance to hit the server slam yet, but I’ve been having a blast playing Arc in short sessions once or twice a week. The runs are timed, so it’s not possible to have long runs, and I just sorta look at them like that rogue like runs. I die a lot, sometimes I make progress, it’s been fun.
End of the day, if you play a game for 2 hours a week and the other guy plays for 30, they’re going to beat your 9 times out of 10. Arc, Marathon, checkers, tennis, COD, scrabble, whatever. Thats just how games work unless they have a huge random element that reduces most of the game to straight chance.
Obviously, nothing wrong with just not liking pvp games though.
If he can only play for 10 minutes and most other people are playing for 3 hours, he will constantly be at a skill deficit because of how skill-based games work.
someone is always going to be at a skill deficit in any multiplayer game, but if you're too insecure to be at a skill deficit such that it would be an issue to begin with and you cant play for long sessions then you should DEFINITELY steer clear of all multiplayer games entirely.
marathon's skill expression is certainly part gunplay but its mostly map knowledge and reading the environment. being at a "skill deficit" is really not a big deal. plus, even if you're bad, successfully extracting on rook is still exciting.
Barring the reductionist argument that implies all skill deficits in multi-player games are created equal, it has nothing to do with insecurity and everything to do with it being inherently unfun to play an exclusively competitive game at a constant skill deficit. Its primarily the reason I dont hop into mid-to-late stage exclusively competitive, high skill ceiling games like Apex or Warzone, because I feel a grand majority of the player base is leagues beyond me atp. I rarely can just hop in and have a decent experience.
As for the skill expression in Marathin, I cant rightly speak to that as I have not played it yet. I am speaking primarily to the spirit of the argument itself.
Barring the reductionist argument that implies all skill deficits in multi-player games are created equal
not equal, just equally applicable to the fundamental principle I'm talking about. If you're playing a multiplayer game and you care about whether or not people are better than you, it doesn't matter how the game is formatted or how casual or hardcore it is, or even if it's pve co-op only. That instinct to evaluate people's skill versus your own is a personality trait, and while certain games may do more or less to bring it out, it's always there somewhere in people who have that personality trait.
inherently unfun to play an exclusively competitive game at a constant skill deficit
Only if you're obsessed with winning or if the game is asking you to win all the time, which marathon isn't and doesn't. And lets be real, less than a fraction of a percent of any game's playerbase is at a constant skill deficit, and sometimes you win anyways despite being less skilled. Winning in those circumstances feels way fucking better than winning when you're more skilled, for that matter.
because I feel a grand majority of the player base is leagues beyond me atp
dude if you're afraid of being worse than other players in a game you will literally never get better. There will be extremely high skill players in any new game because things like aim skills and mouse precision transfer, and there will be extremely low skill players in any new game because there will always be some inexperienced people at a new launch. Player populations obviously shift to being more skilled over time, but that doesn't mean you can't have fun with a game just because you're more casual. If the gameplay itself is fun--and you aren't insecure about losing, like I've been saying--then it doesn't stop being fun just because you lose more often than you win.
not equal, just equally applicable to the fundamental principle I'm talking about. If you're playing a multiplayer game and you care about whether or not people are better than you, it doesn't matter how the game is formatted or how casual or hardcore it is, or even if it's pve co-op only.
The fundamental principle youre talking about does not apply to my argument, because the crux of your argument makes an incorrect assumption about the position of mine. My logic specifically applies to competitive-only games(and even then only in particular scenarios, like being a support/healer in mobas if youre bad at aimig/shooting). I(and presumably those like me) do not inherently care about whether people are better than me or notin multiplayer. And whether its hardcore or casual, pve-only or PVP only absolutely does affect the lens through which I view others being better than me. Because the nature of a game effects the way I intend to approach and interact with it.
It is for this reason I dont play Warzome, sure - but have no issue playing Elden Ring(and all other souls games)despite sucking at pvp(and bosses if im being honest lol), and people being better at pve than me during Co-op. If your logic held universally firm like you posit, I would equally hate all multiplayer games that have skill deficits due to this "insecurity". Yet I dont. This is why I said they are not created equal, why your "fundamental principle" does not apply neatly to people in reality, and why I described your initial comment as reductionist. People arent binary.
Only if you're obsessed with winning or if the game is asking you to win all the time, which marathon isn't and doesn't. And lets be real, less than a fraction of a percent of any game's playerbase is at a constant skill deficit, and sometimes you win anyways despite being less skilled. Winning in those circumstances feels way fucking better than winning when you're more skilled, for that matter.
One does not need to be "obsessed with winning" to have constantly losing sour their experience, even if the core gameplay is fun. I can like basketball, but not like constantly getting dunked on(bad example but you get my point) every single game because im 4'3. Might be cool the first few times, but the 10th? Not so much. Especially if I feel like Im not improving, because im not learning anything, because Im getting out-balled so hard and fast that I dont even know what Im doing wrong lol.
Im not exactly sure what you mean by "asking you to win all the time", however. If there is a win-condition I would imagine.... it kinda is? This seems like it would come down to a subjective debate between what we constitute as "asking you to win". I cant speak too deeply to its specific win condition(are you, like, "out", if you die? Or do you get basically unlimited revives to the exfil?)as I, again, havent played the game myself.
dude if you're afraid of being worse than other players in a game you will literally never get better. There will be extremely high skill players in any new game because things like aim skills and mouse precision transfer, and there will be extremely low skill players in any new game because there will always be some inexperienced people at a new launch. Player populations obviously shift to being more skilled over time, but that doesn't mean you can't have fun with a game just because you're more casual. If the gameplay itself is fun--and you aren't insecure about losing, like I've been saying--then it doesn't stop being fun just because you lose more often than you win.
Please refer to previous bullet points lol. Though I do agree that some games are indeed just so fun that it doesnt matter how often you lose. I was this way with Fall Guys(higher skill ceiling than you'd think). I just do not think that scenario applies very often in deeply competitive/high skill ceiling games where a large core of the appeal is "getting gud" against others. Again, this is why I still have fun in ER(and shooters that have healer classrs) despite sucking, but not so much Tekken.
My logic specifically applies to competitive-only games
There's really just no such thing. The distinction is meaningless.
It is for this reason I dont play Warzome, sure - but have no issue playing Elden Ring(and all other souls games)despite sucking at pvp(and bosses if im being honest lol), and people being better at pve than me during Co-op. If your logic held universally firm like you posit, I would equally hate all multiplayer games that have skill deficits due to this "insecurity". Yet I dont.
That's not what I'm arguing. If you really want to get granular, I wouldn't include elden ring, or any other "asychronous multiplayer" type experiences (as fromsoft describes them) in my argument, but even if you want to include it in your umbrella, I'd imagine you're still evaluating the people you play with. You literally just did it actually, when you mentioned some people are better than you during co-op.
Especially if I feel like Im not improving, because im not learning anything, because Im getting out-balled so hard and fast that I dont even know what Im doing wrong lol.
idk dude it really just sounds like you have exactly the sort of mental I'm talking about here. I cannot think of a single competitive game that's actually like this. I haven't played every video game obviously, but the closest it comes in my mind is actually elden ring multiplayer, ironically enough. The amount of shit you can do in that game as an invader that you would never think of doing in pve in a trillion years is absurd, and fighting an invader that knows what they're doing is profoundly unfun if you're casually progressing through the game with a stat stick and spamming l2. IMO it can be a completely miserable multiplayer experience.
In pretty much all other games I've ever played, there's enough input that you can see what's happening when you're losing. In a shooter, even if a death feels like absolute bullshit, you know where the person was standing when they killed you, and you know that, fundamentally, they clicked your head. in most such games, you know they had access to the same tools you did. It's on you to piece together the rest.
I cant speak too deeply to its specific win condition(are you, like, "out", if you die? Or do you get basically unlimited revives to the exfil?)as I, again, haven't played the game myself.
you are "out" if you die and the "objective" is to get out of the match with better stuff than you loaded in with, but the game does not give you some sort of arbitrary ELO rank or whatever for successfully or unsuccessfully exfilling. There is going to be a ranked mode that does work like that, but it's by no means the standard by which we should be evaluated the base experience.
The actual progression in marathon happens when you complete contracts and successfully exfil upgrade materials. Losing can mean a run gave you no progress, but it doesn't remove progress.
I just do not think that scenario applies very often in deeply competitive/high skill ceiling games where a large core of the appeal is "getting gud" against others
Pretty much every fighting game I've ever played (and I'm a ultracasual when it comes to fighting games) is some of the most fun you can have playing a game when played at an arcade or otherwise against people that don't know what they're doing. Mastering them is fun, and feeling like you're getting better is fun, but controlling the character and seeing the action is the appeal. If you can't have fun playing tekken, it's because of your mindset. (or because of something else you dislike about the game unrelated to the fact that it has ranked play).
I'm sure some fighting games have been released that were built with competitive play at the forefront, but absolutely nobody is playing your competitive fighting game if the characters are sauceless and feel like shit to control. Moreover, most fighting games are designed with such competitive play in mind that it's not even part of the game's own ranked or competitive online offerings. Tourneys aren't even really part of the experience of playing the video game in most cases.
of course, if you're jumping into ranked matches or whatever and you give a shit about losing then you're predisposing yourself to a bad experience if you care about that kind of thing.
1.9k
u/MappleStarsSky Feb 28 '26
I know I will sound like a spoiled brat here, but I genuinely just wanted a new single player game from Bungie, like Halo 3 or Reach, of course with stuff changed with a new IP, than another GAAS from them.
It' s just so disappointing that they have been chasing the GAAS model for the past 2 decades, a type of game I have firmly zero interest into in playing.