How Game Designers Protect Players From Themselves

Adjust content blockingContent Blocking

odstnsg Rank: #21

Channel: vidyagaems

next random

Comment

join list: neato (1058 subs)
Mention History
join list: Learning (903 subs)
Mention History

+673

Views: 43682 Submitted: 10/18/2017

Block User's Content

Block Channel Content

Related Top Content:

EA ----ed up Battlefront 2 so badly lmfao

The best gift of all, free stuff

739

A real fuckin remaster

If the wifi signal is good, I'm in

154

cool

Magic: The Gathering - Planeswalker Profiles Vol 2

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (126)

First 2 3 Last Next

[ 126 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#3 - anon id: 9aa6506f

Reply+145

(10/18/2017)[-]

Challenge the players who have figured out easy ways to beat your game. Limiting time is hack nonsense. Get Gud.

#45 to #3 - anon id: 37b0bc29

Reply+32

(10/18/2017)[-]

I just wish "git gud" actually meant something like it used to.
Nowadays it's just forced meme nonsense spouted by medicore tweens with poor judgment (often to players much better than themselves) as a specious attempt to justify flawed design concepts that they can't even comprehend.

#65 to #45 - iamnuff

Reply+16

(10/18/2017)[-]

It still means what it always meant.
Acquire skill and do better.

It's a sign or signal that there's no easy method, or cheat, shortcut or special item to make the problem go away.
This is a challenge that can only be overcome by user-skill.

#87 to #65 - dummerbaztard

Reply+7

(10/18/2017)[-]

No. People use it to justify ****** and unmotivating mechanics, like you can currently see in the game Elex.

The combat system is just bland and ****** as ****, just ******* you over sometimes, but you can see people in the comments of gameplay videos or reviews crying and defending it with exactly this phrase: "Just get better noob!!"

Of course that makes sense in some games but #45 is absolutely right, nowadays it's too often used by protective fanboys.

#37 to #3 - relaxandstaycool#228 on commentsRank#228

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

It worked for chess, one of the oldest and most famous games out there
So instead of throwing buzzowrords listen to what the guy is actually saying

#48 to #37 - anon id: 3e1180a5

Reply+18

(10/18/2017)[-]

Chess is a competitive game in which a skilled player can spend a huge amount of time analysing all possible moves with the pieces on the board. A time limit is necessary so that a game of chess between 2 excellent players doesn't devolve into playing out whole games in their head and taking an hour between moves.
This is completely different to something like X-Com singleplayer in which the only person who has to worry about time is the player, who should have full control over the pace they play at.

#10 - nanako

Reply+63

(10/18/2017)[-]

i think a more interesting approach is to figure out how players want to play, and focus on making that more fun.

In the case of a game like Xcom, people obviously want to stand back and be cautious. So why not find ways to make cautious play not-boring?
More indepth sniper mechanics, artillery and airstrikes, deployable sensors, turrets, barricades etc.

I really enjoy a turtling style in strategy games.
I don't mean i gravitate towards it even though it's boring. I mean i actually genuinely enjoy it, and i want strategy games that allow and reward that defensive style. It's for this reason that Total Annihilation, and the sequel Supreme Commander, are among my favourite RTS games. They allow you to build functionally infinite numbers of various types of turrets and walls, constantly adapting your defenses to various incoming forces. These keep scaling up until you can eventually build super longranged artillery that can fire over half the map, and nuclear silos that allow you to wipe out the enemy without ever leaving home

#28 to #10 - thefallenlord

Reply+9

(10/18/2017)[-]

Yes, so much YES to this. I love turtling in games as well and I also love singeing seemingly impenetrable fortress. SupCom was so ******* great for that.
Hell if it were up to me, proper siege-craft and defensive play would be viable strategy in every RTS.

#96 to #10 - rookierunningriot

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

Not to mention in games like Xcom you have a 90% chance to hit and its still feels like a 50/50 chance.

#64 to #10 - hikakiller#413 on commentsRank#413

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

I really enjoy defensive, strategic playstyles in some games. I love Siege because of these mechanics, and i play battlefield 4 defensively and strategically - but they let you. They have options for every play style and that's really nice

#29 to #10 - anon id: 02b74c70

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

in darkest dungeon stalling was getting punished several times and they still failed with the punishment as stalling is still the best way and least fun way to play the game, I used to play like that before I mastered the game and could finish it without any effort anymore but holy **** the most effective mechanic is often really ******* annoying and I wish it wasn't an option but if you limit yourself then there is no end to how much you could limit yourself

#24 to #10 - permanonymous

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

TA was great, I ******* loved the game and I would totally buy a new updated version that is vompatible with my modern gaming rig.

#121 to #10 - jewbob

Reply0

(10/19/2017)[-]

HOI4 is super ******* easy, but man is it fun to build max level forts all along your border and watch the AI headbutt your massive **** off wall repeatedly until their entire nation is depopulated.

#115 to #10 - lagingerninja

Reply0

(10/19/2017)[-]

I feel like the XCOM WotC dlc has helped that tremendously. Right off the bat theres an option to double the turn timers allowing for slower play (although they do say its "a lowered difficulty")

New classes, especially the reaper, are great for turtle play, especially later game. I wouldnt be surprised that if you focued all your AP on a reaper, got lucky with its additional abilities, and a few breakthroughs (i.e. you can get both a "conventional weapons upgrade" and "Vector rifle upgrade", paired with the ability to add equiptment to say, put in a talon round, so you're looking at 6-7 damage of the base rifle, as opposed to the 3-4 it starts with), you could probably duo a mission with a bonded pair of reapers, or even solo it at a push without being revealed.

My only gripe of it is the new varient of timed missions, the ones with the nodes. Considering you only get 4 turns initially it makes the concealment practically pointless (although a reaper with silent killer is a good node killer, killing a target lowers the chances of being detected. 80% goes to 50%, and 50% becomes 0%)

#106 to #10 - pentol#240 on contentRank#240

Reply-1

(10/19/2017)[-]

I don't think it's the turtling that is fun though, the fun is knowing that you are optimizing the play and playing in the manner you percieve to be optimal, and are getting results from it. You (percieve yourself to) have high skill in the game, and that feels good. One soulution for XCOM, would be to have a highly visible, gigantic ball of enemies that drop in behind your start point in one of the early turns, that search through the map in search of your squad. this makes thematic sense, allows some flex in the failure-state of the timer, and puts you in situations where you can take calculated risks in terms of if you can stay around for another turn.
My first idea for the searching party would be that it consists of highly bioluminecent enemies, which use their light to spot and blind you, and also lets you see them on the map, even if you don't have LOS to them.

#123 to #106 - nanako

Reply0

(10/19/2017)[-]

No it is, infact, the turtling that is fun
I do it whether or not its optimal. What matters is, its how i want to play, and i will play the way i want to or not play at all

#12 - zhuftiuv

Reply-30

(10/18/2017)[-]

Waah, gamers aren't playing games like I want! Waah, they don't take risks, and optimize their plays! Waah, they're not supposed to have fun like that, because I think it's not fun!

There. Entire video's point summarized. I just saved you 11 minutes of your life.

#13 to #12 - ragnagna

Reply+47

(10/18/2017)[-]

You missed the whole point of the video my dude.

#16 to #13 - milvus

Reply+27

(10/18/2017)[-]

I liked the video but I hate the the title "protect players from themselves". It implys that the players opinion is not as important as the designers or that the player has to be controlled tightly and given as little freedom in the game as possible.

#14 to #13 - zhuftiuv

Reply-4

(10/18/2017)[-]

I'm talking from perspective of game devs.

#17 to #14 - ragnagna

Reply+6

(10/18/2017)[-]

Yeah, he's saying that those are challenges that game devs needs to take in account if they want to make an enjoyable game : your summary makes it like they just whine about it, while it's just one aspect of their job they have to keep focus on.

#15 to #13 - westsidesneo#134 on commentsRank#134

Reply-6

(10/18/2017)[-]

Seems like a perfectly valid summary of the video to me.

#116 to #12 - lagingerninja

Reply0

(10/19/2017)[-]

The whole point of it was talking about finding a balance between penalising certain playstyles and rewarding others, but not directly punishing players.

Sure, you COULD have fun on a skateboard if you just sat on it, but you'd probably have more fun using the skateboard as the creator intended, even if it means putting more effort and learning.

And its the same with games, like XCOM for this instance. Sure, creaping forward a few units at a time and spamming the overwatch button faster than a pavlov dog might be a fine yet tedious way to play, but the developers feel you could have more fun taking risks for the rewards. If a fair few enemies have overwatch on you, you could take the RISK of moving a unit to draw fire, but your reward could be that the rest of your unit can now move up and return fire.

Going off a little bit but even then some games just arent designed for alternative styles of play. Hitman for instance is a STEALTH game. Sure, you could go in guns blazing, leaving a trail of corpses behind you, but you'd get a greater amount of challenge using the mechanic implemented, and probably more fun too.

#20 - kavrick

Reply+27

(10/18/2017)[-]

honestly i hate games that try to push you towards a certain playstyle, what's the point, what are you gaining from forcing the player to play a certain way? as long as you make both ways viable, you shouldn't try to force people to go a certain way, like games where stealth will always 100% get you a higher score.

#66 to #20 - iamnuff

Reply+15

(10/18/2017)[-]

In some games, it works.
Xcom 2 was a bad example, but Doom was a good one.

In doom, getting up close and mauling demons to death isn't just a gameplay thing. It's thematic. It's what separates it from any other FPS.

All of the good examples are methods that you don't really think about or question.
Doing things the more difficult or complex way BY CHOICE because you decided that you wanted to try and get the rewards for doing it that way, instead of being forced to do things the risky way because the game would punish you if you didn't.

#101 to #66 - angrybacteria

Reply+1

(10/19/2017)[-]

You're spot on about the thematic aspect. Going back to Xcom, it's a series where being cautious is perfect for the narrative. Xcom troopers (in the early game) are not crazy space marines who can take on enemies guns blazing, they're terrified rookies who bit off more than they can chew and they know it. Being cautious is very fun, Enemy Unknown: Long War is so deep that I just love watching the best players stream it to absorb their knowlege of the game.

#70 to #20 - bababuey

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

I think that's the point dude. You can play however you want but be rewarded for acknowledging certain mechanics. Like certain stealth games have a reward for not killing a single enemy on the map, but also a different reward for killing all of them. And most of the time rewards reflect and supplement your playstyle. But killing some and leaving some alive leaves you with no rewards and that is absolutely fine.

#93 to #70 - dudewitharake

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

honestly splinter cell: blacklist did that pretty well with the three gameplay types you could choose: straight stealth, straight action, or a balance of the two. you got rewards accordingly for which discipline you focused in. mark of the ninja is another example of that

#21 to #20 - arandomanon

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

Did you watch the ******* video? The guy said why: because developers feel that's the way the game should be played. In some situations, it's annoying, especially with penalties, but a developer should be able to identify what's the best way to enjoy a game and try to encourage it somehow to the player (although in most situations I'm against penalties like in XCOM2, they should instead encourage you to do what they want you to do like in mario and rabbids).

#22 to #21 - kavrick

Reply+16

(10/18/2017)[-]

there shouldn't be a "best way to play a game" that's dumb

#25 to #22 - kibuza

Reply+3

(10/18/2017)[-]

I agree. Just because some developer thinks that the game would be most fun played stealthily doesn't mean I personally will enjoy the game most when playing stealthy.

Just let people play the game the way the want.

#67 to #25 - iamnuff

Reply+9

(10/18/2017)[-]

Then don't play stealth-games.

it's really that simple.

Forced stealth sections in non-stealth games are bad game design, obviously, but if you're playing splinter-cell or MGS, then you know what you signed up for when you put the disk in.

There's also stuff like point or style systems, where the game rewards you for using complex combos, because if it didn't, you'd just spam the same move over and over again, because it's objectively the best move in the game and there'd be no incentive not to use it.

#69 to #67 - kibuza

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

Don't make games that punish players for playing how they want. And btw, the newer Splinter Cells are just as viable to play non-stealth as they are stealth. Probably because the developers realized that by ruling out on method of playing you're removing a possible player, and limiting the game. If you want stealth, it's available. If you don't, then you have another option.

Also >>#33

I prefer stealth over action.

#73 to #69 - iamnuff

Reply+2

(10/18/2017)[-]

It depends on the game, the theme and the setting. Sometimes going hog-wild and trying to kill everyone doesn't suit the game, so it can't be an option.

I wouldn't know about the latest splinter-cell games. I've not played them.

That said, if it's turned into something like, MGSV, for example. Then combat is now a viable option, but you'll always struggle if you try to solo an army, because you simply don't have the bullet-sponge resilience that one-man-army games require. It's incentivising stealth, but combat is still an option.
Given how many guns and bombs and suchlike you have, there's plenty of incentive to play competitively too.

You have to sort of... mix the approaches, based on the situation.
Which is probably intended, becuase it allows the developers to show off both the stealth and the combat mechanics, both of which are fun.

#71 to #67 - kibuza

Reply-3

(10/18/2017)[-]

And btw, it's funny that you claim there's no reason not to use certain 'moves' because they're objectively the best option but somehow that's not a developer failure yet not toeing the line to what the developer WANTS you to do is a player failing.

If the developer didn't want people to abuse an objectively better moveset then they should have designed the game better so that the move isn't objectively better than everything else.

#74 to #71 - iamnuff

Reply+3

(10/18/2017)[-]

They didn't. That's the point.

There IS a system in play that prevents one move from being objectively superior, and it's the one that means that you'll get nothing but bronze rankings if you only use that one move.

What's the alternative? Make all moves do exactly the same damage and go out at the same speed, thus making them completely interchangeable?
That's just incentivising focusing on a single move even more.

Use DMC as an example. I've got 100-odd moves but they're all complicated and I can't be bothered to learn which moves to use in which situation, so I'll just use the guns for everything.
Oh wait, the pistols do **** damage, so I can't fight purely with those.

I've got a launcher that stops the enemy from attacking me I'll start every combo with that, and then do an air-combo, then when we land on the ground, I'll just launch again.
Oh wait, that doesn't work on some enemies, and if it did I'd end the level with a crap score.

It's all incentive to get fancy instead of settling for the bottom rung of ''I've found something that works, and now I don't have to look any further.''

#75 to #74 - kibuza

Reply0

(10/18/2017)[-]

I'm not even sure how you can point out those examples and not see how they work exactly against what you're claiming.

You can't be bothered? It's not the game devs fault you're a lazy **** or don't care enough.

The air launch doesn't work on some enemies? Sounds like you'd better learn how to use some of those other moves or get ****** by the enemies it doesn't work on.

Pistols do **** damage? Well I guess you'll have to use some other skills instead of just pistols.

Adding a 'score' system or anything similar is the absolute height of laziness for game devs. It basically amounts to "I can't think of any practical reason why you shouldn't do this, so I'm just going to deduct some imaginary points for you not playing like I want you to"

#76 to #75 - iamnuff

Reply+4

(10/18/2017)[-]

THATS THE POINT ************.

That's exactly what I'm getting at. All of those thing you just ******* said where the things I was saying to you.

The pistols do **** damage SPECIFICALLY SO THAT YOU DON'T USE THEM TO KILL EVERY ENEMY.
The launcher doesn't work on every enemy SPECIFICALLY SO THAT YOU DON'T USE IT EXCLUSIVELY.

Forcing you to vary your combos and moveset is exactly why those moves work like that. That's what I'm ******* telling you.

If these things weren't set up like this, then players would find a simple 'bread and butter' combo that works and go through the whole game using it because they didn't need anything else.

As a game designer, you MAKE them need something else, by throwing challenges at them. Then you make them feel good about working out how the combat system works, by giving them a good score for doing well at it.

#78 to #76 - kibuza

Reply0

(10/18/2017)[-]

Do you know what the punishment is for using the same move over and over when other moves have a more practical use? You ******* die.

That's why you learn to use new moves on new enemies, and not because of some ******** point system.

#81 to #78 - iamnuff

Reply+3

(10/18/2017)[-]

But you don't, do you?

That's the entire point of picking out the one move that works the best, you don't die. you don't take risks.

Players will find an optimal route towards the goal. If that route is spamming stun-attacks and abusing the mechanic to the exclusion of all else, then they'll beat the game and complain that the combat was boring, as though the ****** way that they played was intended, simply because there was nothing in the game to force them to stop.

If you're talking about enemies that react to you using the same move over and over and learning to block it, then that's ALSO the game forcing you into a different playstyle. It's a different method, but it's working towards the exact same end-goal.

Raw S/A/B/C/D rank games like DMC do bore me a little. I prefer the Arkham system where instead of 'points' you get exp.

That way your score actually matters and you gain tangible benefits by playing skillfully, instead of simply laming it out.

#82 to #81 - kibuza

Reply0

(10/18/2017)[-]

No, because what you say about enemies learning to counter your moves is an actual PRACTICAL effect. Getting a lower score at the end of a mission is not.

If the game allows you to cheese the entire game by using one playstyle the entire time then that is bad game development. Don't blame the players for figuring out your weakness as a developer. Make better games.

If you constantly do night time assaults in MGS V the enemies start to use Night Vision. This is a perfect example of making the change of tactics PRACTICAL. Simply removing or giving less points when people do not play as you want is not, and should be frowned upon.

#85 to #82 - iamnuff

Reply0

(10/18/2017)[-]

You started off talking about games that incentivise playing in a specific way, now you're talking specifically about point-systems.
That's why we're talking past each-other.

Giving more points for making use of more skills or items is incentivising players to try out their entire arsenal

You can try to do that with practical effects, but there's always more than one way to defeat an enemy, so you could easily lead to them completely forgetting about half of their equipment and just using the other half over and over.

The flipside of that is introducing enemies that are only vulnerable to one tool, but that's going right back to forcing players to play in a specific way again.

Sniper Elite, for example. Most of the game heavily incentivised stealth and sniping (for obvious reasons) but the game does include machine guns, grenades and landmines.

Maybe the devs want to make sure that players don't forget about things things, so they give you an armoured enemy who needs to be blown up.

Except now they're 'punishing' anyone who doesn't want to use those weapons, because it's the only option.

So you add a submission to blow him up, so you need to do it to get 100% completion on the mission.
You don't HAVE to. 100% completion is just a number, it doens't effect anything in gameplay.
That's just another way of tallying your score.

But you want it. Right?

You don't need S-ranks on every stage, you don't need to play the combo-system the way the dev intended you to, but you get rewarded for doing it because this is what the game developer had in mind when he created this level.
It's a guideline, nothing more.

The fact that you get upset if the game doesn't give you a perfect score is your own issue. It's not universal.

That said, i do prefer score systems that have practical effects. EXP, Money, ect.
If i get paid to do sick comboes then I can use that money to buy new moves to add to my sick combos, then I'm going to enjoy it a lot better than just getting points for the sake of getting points.

#86 to #85 - kibuza

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

Personally I prefer games with no score system at all that allow for the player to play as they want. If I want to be 100% stealth then that is my choice as a player. If I want to be 100% loud then that is also my choice as a player.

It's been mentioned before but MGS V is a perfect example of this. You have both completely different styles of play which are both equally viable. If they removed the 'get a better score if you're sneaky' it would be perfect. Not that it really bothers me much since like I said I usually enjoy the stealthy gameplay anyways.

#77 to #76 - kibuza

Reply-1

(10/18/2017)[-]

No, you ******* idiot. Did you even read what I wrote? Making a score system is the exact antithesis of what you're claiming. If there was a PRACTICAL reason to use different skills then people would use them. If you just make it some ******** imaginary points garbage then literally all you're saying is "Hey, I know we suck at making games and you could really beat this by doing only 2 moves but we're going to remove some arbitrary points for not playing like we want"

#79 to #77 - iamnuff

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

Even with the practical differences between skills, there's still aways a way to lame it out with one or two combos. Using one set of weapons and excluding others, using one set of tactics on everything vulnerable to that tactic and having a second set for the second group.

''You can't launch shield-enemies, but you can sledgehammer them, so I'll just do that every single time''
You can do that, but you're still playing poorly so you're still getting a **** score.

Your phrasing from before was ''deducting points'' for playing poorly, which is rather telling.
You don't start with a perfect score and lose points as you play. You start with a score of zero and EARN points by playing.

The game isn't taking anything away from you, it's giving you things based on your performance.

#80 to #79 - kibuza

Reply0

(10/18/2017)[-]

What if for example in Ninja Gaiden 2 I absolutely hate the moveset for the Kusarigama? Do you think it's reasonable to have other alternatives and different weapons or do you just remove points because I don't like that weapon and you want me to use that weapon?

#83 to #80 - iamnuff

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

Again you're using the line 'remove points' I don't kno NG2, but if the score system works like DMC or Batman Arkham, then you don't lose points for not using everything. You just don't gain them.

And of course there's alternative ways to play the game and defeat obstacles. That's the entire point of having a varied moveset.

In DMC you don't have to use every ******* move. You don't start the level with a ******* checklist of moved to use and the game comes and kicks your ass if you don't use them all atleast twice.

You just have to use non-repetitive combos. You can manage that by picking out five or so moves and just mixing them together in different combinations.

#30 to #25 - kavrick

Reply0

(10/18/2017)[-]

Like that was the experience i had with MGSV, like sure the stealth in that game was really well done, but when i have to do the same mission 20 times to get a perfect stealth otherwise the game punishes you by making the game harder

#33 to #30 - kibuza

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

I actually totally prefer playing stealth in games but I get your point.

#34 to #33 - kavrick

Reply0

(10/18/2017)[-]

i enjoy stealth in games if it's done right but i like the option to do something else if i fail, like i cant stand payday 2's stealth because you have to have it down to a ******* T or you instantly lose

#68 to #30 - iamnuff

Reply0

(10/18/2017)[-]

Thats nonsense. At no point in MGSV force you to do perfect stealth.

You were never intended to ghost every mission. Getting spotted and getting into combat occasionally is intended, which is why the game gives you so many options for doing combat.

#26 to #21 - kibuza

Reply0

(10/18/2017)[-]

**** you I'll play the game how I want and I shouldn't be punished for doing so.

#107 to #20 - pentol#240 on contentRank#240

Reply0

(10/19/2017)[-]

One problem here is that the most obvious way to play the game, that is "good enough" will be the most prevalent, among the broad population of players. If the game also includes inscentives and nudges toward more playstyles, then you'll have players encountering more different playstyles, and therefore finding their actuall preferred method, instead of relying on the first one that is good enough. It's like you COULD go drake-sword in DS1, but you'd get your **** kicked in once you're past the point where it scales.

#109 to #107 - kavrick

Reply0

(10/19/2017)[-]

dark souls is **** for balancing weapons, the game has so many weapons and like 20% of them are viable

#111 to #109 - pentol#240 on contentRank#240

Reply+1

(10/19/2017)[-]

The game is beatable with fists. With the exceptions of broken sword hilts, all the weapons are viable with the right build and upgrades. Different story in PVP, but that's not what the game is primarily designed around anyways. Doesn't really contradict or supplement my point though.

#112 to #111 - kavrick

Reply0

(10/19/2017)[-]

"beatable" doesn't mean balanced, that's complete bull and you know it, just because you can beat the game with something, doesn't mean it's balanced

#114 to #112 - pentol#240 on contentRank#240

Reply0

(10/19/2017)[-]

fine, whatever. I wasn't talking about darksouls.

#92 - contextual

Reply+12

(10/18/2017)[-]

"Hey boss, the numbers are in! It looks like players took our risk management game, and played it carefully! They took a game based around maximizing percentages and exploring class interplay, and played it as a slow, tactically driven experience!"

"What? You mean they're not running and gunning and making sick plays? Ludicrous! They clearly do not grasp my artistic vision! They need to understand that this squad tactics game is not meant to be played tactically! Smithers, release the hounds!"

#84 - aceshot

Reply+10

(10/18/2017)[-]

I am all for this for single player type experiences because, personally, when playing against AI I don't really care about the play style of the game. Its when Multiplayer games are forced into a certain play style. This is one reason I cannot stand Call of Duty games past like Black Ops 1. You think you have a choice as a the player, there are usually around 20-25 guns in the game. There are a variety of perks and killstreaks and it may feel like you have a lot of control over how you play the game. But the game is not designed to really get the player variety in their experience. The game is designed to be a face paced run and gun shooter. They force enemy respawns way too close to you at all times, often watching people in killcams just having spawned right before turning and killing you. After a couple bullets of any weapon you drop to the floor. And the perks make it almost impossible to sit in any spot for longer than like 3 seconds without someone knowing your position. There is no variation in play style.

You cannot set up anywhere on the map, because nowhere on the map is ever actually securable. You cannot stand still and snipe because someone is always just around the corner from you. You don't even have a chance to run away from somebody once they've spotted you because 2 bullets and youre on the floor. The only gametypes I have ever found remotely interesting in Call of Duty is non respawn gamemodes, like search and destroy. When you only get one life, suddenly Call of Duty isn't about running into a building and spraying for then year and getting an airstrike. Its about actually trying to outplay people and playing an objective other than spray bullets and hope for a kill.

This is why I currently think game like PUBG and Fortnite are so popular right now. Both game play similarly, where there are 100 people in the game. There is loot on the map and the area that the players fight in gets smaller as time goes on. The players aren't forced into certain play style. There are different colors of guns that will give players the edge on each other if they obtain them. If you get lucky enough, you may find really good weapons out of the gate, it you are unlucky, you will find ****. The player is only forced to move to the new safe zone and nothing more. I would argue that 80% of the engagements in the game between other players is optional. (Meaning that you see the players from a distance and you decide whether or not to engage them) The other 20% is fighting people at the edge of safezones (where neither of you have any other option than to fight), both players are in close proximity and you shoot first, or end game where you are forced to kill players to actually win the game. The tradeoff of course is that if you engage the enemy and win, you get all of the loot on their body. If you lose, you lose all of your loot and have to move onto a different match. If the player has **** weapons, they may decide that engaging on enemies and being aggressive is more worth it because they desperately need better weapons. Or they may already have good weapons and decide to watch them from afar. Hell, they player could even have no weapons at all and still not decide to engage. Maybe the player noticed two teams about to fight and want to wait for the to kill each other and then clean up. Point is, you can win by being aggressive, you can win by camping and being passive. Its your choice and they both have tradeoffs. You can just as easily get shot while camping or being passive as you can by purposely running head first into any enemy team. Every game feels unique (different loot, different firefights, different safe zone locations. There is nothing truly stagnant about the game and that is why people prefer these games over the generic FPS that get pumped out the same every year.

#95 to #84 - imapsychiatrist

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

this kind of thing is exactly why i loved evolve so much, especially now that they fixed all of the issues that it had when it first came out. with the variety in monsters, maps, and characters (even within the same class) every match plays out completely differently. switching characters makes you feel like you are playing an entirely new game sometimes, and the difference is even more drastic if you are switching between classes or between hunters and monsters

#62 - useroftheLOLZ

Reply+9

(10/18/2017)[-]

******* turn limits were ******** because it was often TOO risky to charge in and do the mission.

You dawdle around, you miss enemies, lose potential gear and resources, and even at close ******* range, for some ******* reason my units will miss just as often in long range, not to mention the enemy has a reaction turn.

You ******* want to know why people hated turns, it's because everything else in the game grinds the pace to a meager slog.

#2 - zsass#70 on commentsRank#70

Reply+8

(10/18/2017)[-]

i'm agree with him, xcom 2 make me learn to planify each mission and calculate each step my soldiers need to be efficient.
War of chosen change the game because with skirmishers and reapers, time mission are easy but i always make mistake in the game so it's not a big deal for me.

#4 to #2 - funnyhatoo

Reply-1

(10/18/2017)[-]

>using skirmishers
>git gud, scrub

#5 to #4 - zsass#70 on commentsRank#70

Reply0

(10/18/2017)[-]

i'm enough masochist to prefer reaper than skirmisher

#6 to #5 - funnyhatoo

Reply0

(10/18/2017)[-]

uh... that was my point

reaper >> skirmisher

honestly, skirmishers are useful at low levels and then suddenly drop off and become useless, when compared to any other class

#7 to #6 - zsass#70 on commentsRank#70

Reply+4

(10/18/2017)[-]

for me this is the opposite i prefer more close combat unit ( i like skirmisher same for templar but it's a bit complicated since i'm really bad to save my soldier)
yes i'm a scrub

#8 to #7 - funnyhatoo

Reply0

(10/18/2017)[-]

to each his own
I prefer stelthy snipers and reapers with theit ******** shadow are OP in that regard

#27 to #6 - permanonymous

Reply+3

(10/18/2017)[-]

False. Absolutely false. Skirmishers can shoot and then move or shoot again. They can reposition easily for flanking attacks or pull an enemy out of cover.

Add Bluescreen rounds and Skirmishers demolish everything.

I play only Legend Ironman and I love Skirmishers, granted Reapers are a huge crutch but Templars when used correctly are the most powerful of the hero classes.

#38 to #27 - funnyhatoo

Reply-1

(10/18/2017)[-]

Nu-uh,

I said they are useful in the beginning, after that they become useless. And you must have tacktical rigging, otherwise you can't equip **** on your skirmishers OR reapers, or Templars

Sure, it's nice to have 2 attacks and COMEHERE, but as the levels pile up they don't gain much. All they get is retaliation shot once a mission, interrupt enemy turn (which works bad), as overwatch, which considering they can't have grenades is pretty much useless, and they also get IMCOMINGTHERE for, again, 4 damage.

This is absolutely zero, when compared to 5 armor ignore (bluescreen rounds, seriously?), 2 x 3 radius 8 damage from stealth (which means the enemies are in a nice tight group), revealed enemies stay revealed and extra damage vs basically everything.

Templars are absolutely worthless at the low levels and become cool but not-that-useful ninjas in the lategame.
At the start you must KILL an enemy to gain focus, before that you have 0 skills and 3 damage melee attack. Thank God they can "momentum" after attacking otherwise they'd be just target practice. "Jolt" is ******* useless, it can't even kill lost, let alone anything with muscle, Sun Strike is abhorrently devoid of any meaning, whatsoever and don't get me started on psy pillar. The only reason they become badass is because of the +30% miss chance on full focus, the deflect possibility and, occasionally, you might want to go full warpstorm on some fools. But that's only if you want to act cool, otherwise you just 'nade the **** out of all the things the Templar must stalk like a little bitch or just shoot them in the head with crits, which saves you about 10 turns, while giving you 600% damage output

#39 to #38 - permanonymous

Reply-1

(10/18/2017)[-]

I can tell you are only half good at XCOM 2. It's cool you have much to learn so I'll just send you to my YouTube channel and just prove you wrong with my playthrough speedrun using a Templar start.

Reapers are a crutch. Skirmishers are better if you know how to play, and Templars are the best. AGAIN, with proof through play.

No worries though m80, I'll teach you XCOM.

youtu.be/kAqFU5X-K3s

#42 to #39 - theacespecialist

Reply+2

(10/18/2017)[-]

I think its funny how much people hate skirmishers and especially templars. ESPECIALLY reddit. Its almost funny how much reddit hates templars, and I really don't understand it. There seems to be permanent stigma against melee or something and combined with reaper lovers, makes people never touch templars which I think is hilarious.

#44 to #42 - permanonymous

Reply0

(10/18/2017)[-]

Watch my speedrun. I destroy those stigmas on the absolute hardest difficulty. Shameless self promoting I know, but I have a point to make, ya know?

youtu.be/kAqFU5X-K3s

It's an L/I win in 10 hours. With a Templar start.

#125 to #44 - noseybonk

Reply0

(11/16/2017)[-]

Now I know what your youtube channel is. I'll take your tinfoil and your water-filters!

#126 to #125 - permanonymous

Reply0

(11/16/2017)[-]

Thanks for giving me views.

#43 to #39 - funnyhatoo

Reply-1

(10/18/2017)[-]

>is a scrub
>no worries, I have a YouTube channel
>my mistake, you are game-journalist-level scrub

Keep using those skirmishers, m8

#46 to #43 - permanonymous

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

I'm a "scrub" who beat a notoriously hard game using in your opinion, subpar units... in 10 hours.
Do you even use your brain?
Think before you post, especially to your intellectual superior.

#47 to #46 - funnyhatoo

Reply-2

(10/18/2017)[-]

>hurr durr im smarter then you
nice comeback, kid

btw, no wonder it took you 10 hours to beat that game, considering you use skirmishers AND have a YouTube channel you probably spent 5 of them tying to find the "Start" button

just keep yourself confined to your basement and don't make your tardguard's job anyharder

#49 to #47 - permanonymous

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

Come back to me when you can prove you're better than me. Until then, **** off ********. I proved you WRONG with video evidence.

That makes you the dumbass here. Dumbass.

#50 to #49 - funnyhatoo

Reply-1

(10/18/2017)[-]

All I need to prove you wrong is that your "superior intellect" is limited to insulting someone with "dumbass"

They don't teach you much in the 2nd grade, do they?

Why don't you prove me wrong by getting a job and doing something meaningful with your life? Is it because your mommy always tells you you are a special boy, no matter how much you repeat the 2nd grade and never leave the basement?

How much of a butthurt faggot must you be to spam reaction pics, thinking that validates your point in any way?
The answer - a little less than permanonymous

#51 to #50 - permanonymous

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

Hahahaha omg you're retarded. Whatever guy. My video proves you wrong. You just can't handle being proven wrong. Simple as that. Move on, I don't like blocking people unless they are trolls or too stupid to function. Which you are quickly proving to be the later.

#56 to #51 - funnyhatoo

Reply0

(10/18/2017)[-]

>BTW I made most of my money playing poker, which is impossible for the average person
>I also delete my posts, because I'm a whiny little bitch

lol, 20$ is far from impossible for the average person to make playing poker, especially since that is all you do in that basement you call a "mancave"

considering how you "make your money" it's a good thing your mom still supports you, unlike your deadbeat dad, who had the good sense to dump you as soon as he saw how much of a faggot you are

you might want to get some CO2 for that amount of butthurt but then again you are probably used to it, being homo and all

#57 to #56 - permanonymous

Reply+1

(10/18/2017)[-]

Or I delete my post because it's irrelevant to the discussion... and then block idiots for being an insufferable twat that can't handle being proven WRONG.

AGAIN, get back to me when you can PROVE you're better than me at XCOM.

#63 to #57 - funnyhatoo

Reply0

(10/18/2017)[-]

>Or I delete my post because I'm a little bitch

yeah, sounds about right

#53 to #50 - permanonymous

has deleted their comment [-]

#23 - permanonymous

Reply+7

(10/18/2017)[-]

I'm a simple man, I see XCOM and CIV content and I thumb.