15minutes of gaming?
-
Wrong dychotomy. It's not "t1 gameplay vs t1/t2/t3/t4 gameplay". It's "turtle gameplay vs dynamic gameplay". Dynamic games generally don't last as long cause any mistake gets punished immediately, so games tend to be shorter. But long dynamic games are the best.
-
@Sainse said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Wrong dychotomy. It's not "t1 gameplay vs t1/t2/t3/t4 gameplay". It's "turtle gameplay vs dynamic gameplay". Dynamic games generally don't last as long cause any mistake gets punished immediately, so games tend to be shorter. But long dynamic games are the best.
That makes no sense. And you too fail to see the larger point.
Why are long games turtley? They're not. Long game does not = turtle game.
A long game can only occur if a game is launched to begin with. A long game can only occur once a certain amount of time has passed. A long game can only occur if the opening stage has passed. Which is the t1 phase, which is "dynamic" as you say. A long game will include way more elements of what the game has to offer than any almost any 15 minute game. Which is to say is more dynamic.
-
@ThomasHiatt said in 15minutes of gaming?:
I don't think playing the game is inherently satisfying. When I play competitive games, I do so because it is satisfying to learn new things, improve at the game, and defeat increasingly stronger opponents. Once the learning and improvement have plateaued the game is no longer fun. There is generally nothing useful to be learned by extending the game time unnecessarily, so the optimal thing to do is win the game and go on to the next stronger opponent where you can actually improve and learn something. If the opponent is strong there will be no way to win in 15 minutes because they do not make game losing mistakes in the first 15 minutes. With stronger and more balanced opponents the game will naturally last longer.
A games primary function is not to win the game. A game is not made so that one day someone will play the game and win the game, however that translates: a story campaign or online match. Every games function is by definition an activity that you engage in for amusement and fun. Most players playing this game are doing so to have fun. They are not entirely interesting in learning more about the game and improving their skill, although satisfying and rewarding this is. I believe it is not the reason most players play this game. They play this game because it is fun to play.
You can also make an argument that many of the top players in terms of skill have essentially plateaued already, since their rating remains relatively stable within a few hundred global points worth of rating. Yet they continue to play the game on a regular basis. Because the game is fun to play.
So whilst your comment may be true for you, it does not seem to be true for most players.
It is a quantity vs quality debate, which gamers seem to be particularly confused about. Gamers typically want to spend money to receive a product which will occupy the largest amount of their time. Alternatively, you can spend time in order to receive concentrated quality experiences. If you value your time then you would prefer to watch many good, unique, short films as opposed to 4 hours of bloated fan service. What do you value more between time, money, and quality of experience? Do you just want something to keep you occupied until you die or do you want to have a variety of quality experiences? I tend to feel bad about myself when I think I've "wasted" a large amount of my life, but I actually think that all approaches are fine and it doesn't really matter in the end.
This is all entirely subjective and depends on ones preference, and their prerogatives for what they personally deem worthy of the time. Which will further determine to what extent they use their time doing whatever thing it is they enjoy. I value my time, just as much as the next person. And I would value watching a 4 hour high quality, bloated service catering to my fandom of that movie, as opposed to many good unrelated and potentially obscure short movies.
-
Same thing with com snipes really, some players actively just try to kill coms as quickly as possible mostly with t2 air, but it just ends the game quickly and there is literally no enjoyment from either side, just one player who gets to say I win and its over. this is one of the issues that honestly make me just want to quit FAF altogether as theres no point in playing games that end quickly and in this way. I would rather just give a player 20 points than spending 10-12 mins in game and boom com gone, game over, next. What a complete waste of time.
-
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
@Sainse said in 15minutes of gaming?:
long dynamic games are the best.
That makes no sense. And you too fail to see the larger point.
Long game does not = turtle game.Well you failed to see a basic point that I didn't claim "Long game does not = turtle game", I even directly stated "long dynamic game" is a thing. My point was that dynamic games tend to end faster, so most of them is relatively short as a result.
You could just read other people's messages carefully before claiming they fail to see something
-
@Sainse said in 15minutes of gaming?:
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
@Sainse said in 15minutes of gaming?:
long dynamic games are the best.
That makes no sense. And you too fail to see the larger point.
Long game does not = turtle game.Well you failed to see a basic point that I didn't claim "Long game does not = turtle game", I even directly stated "long dynamic game" is a thing. My point was that dynamic games tend to end faster, so most of them is relatively short as a result.
You could just read other people's messages carefully before claiming they fail to see something
If you paid attention to the entire threat you would see I have carefully and diligently responded to every single response.
Please read my original post though first before you make 2 sentence replies. They are hardly worth the effort to respond to, let alone read.
-
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Call it what you will. Eco is half the game. You don't see "eco players" calling out aggression as "aggression simulator". Or "rush sim" when someone is fulfilling the 15 minute prophecy.
I am calling what I will. But you're the one asking "why don't people let me eco sim?", you can't then flip it into aggressive players having some kind of superiority complex when you are the one questioning the way others prefer to play.
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Which is the t1 phase, which is "dynamic" as you say. A long game will include way more elements of what the game has to offer than any almost any 15 minute game. Which is to say is more dynamic.
No, a more dynamic game is by definition less stable. A less stable game is less likely to turn into a long game. You can have dynamic, aggressive, games that last a long time because no side is able to gain a decisive advantage. That is different from both sides deliberately deciding to extend the game. That is what leads to less dynamic gameplay.
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
I value my time, just as much as the next person. And I would value watching a 4 hour high quality, bloated service catering to my fandom of that movie, as opposed to many good unrelated and potentially obscure short movies.
And many players, specifically the ones you're asking about, have no interest in a bloated game. They are interested in an action packed (even if shorter) game. You might disagree, but your opponents are under no obligation to play the game you want them to.
-
let people play how they want to, early agression equals a very dynamic game that generally do not last long due to the high price of errors. If you play extremely passive and you significantly stall / take bad trades, whereas your opponent doesn't and plays agressive - that's already an almost certainly lost game in a matter of 10 minutes because of the snowball effect. Gamers play from their opponent's mistake and win games fast, almost nobody wants to drag out an already won game
-
There's always the option to host 20 minute no-rush games. That'll go some way in giving you your high-eco long-duration games. Not sure how much luck you'll have filling such a lobby, but you can try I guess.
-
@Deribus said in 15minutes of gaming?:
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Call it what you will. Eco is half the game. You don't see "eco players" calling out aggression as "aggression simulator". Or "rush sim" when someone is fulfilling the 15 minute prophecy.
I am calling what I will. But you're the one asking "why don't people let me eco sim?", you can't then flip it into aggressive players having some kind of superiority complex when you are the one questioning the way others prefer to play.
I am not asking why people don't let me "eco sim". I am asking why the majority of players for most of the time think playing a game for 15 minutes is more fun than play a game for 60 minutes. Which is not the same as, please let me "eco sim". Regardless of whether one chooses to "eco sim", in my mind, objectively speaking, playing a game for 60 minutes is in most cases inherently more fun than playing a game for 15 minutes.
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
Which is the t1 phase, which is "dynamic" as you say. A long game will include way more elements of what the game has to offer than any almost any 15 minute game. Which is to say is more dynamic.
No, a more dynamic game is by definition less stable. A less stable game is less likely to turn into a long game. You can have dynamic, aggressive, games that last a long time because no side is able to gain a decisive advantage. That is different from both sides deliberately deciding to extend the game. That is what leads to less dynamic gameplay.
You just nullified your own point. There is no clear correlation between time playing in game and "dynamic" play. And the same is probably true for "less stable" game and time spent in game.
Not to mention too how you're defining a dynamic game. What exactly is this? By your admission, the degree to which a game is stable or not? And how is game stability measured? A chaotic opening can and does go into a long game. Although many players give up after the slightest of disadvantages.
I don't know why you conflate my desire for long games with, both sides "deliberately" extending the game. These 2 are separate. It's quite rare for 2 teams to conspire to deliberately extend the game. There is always someone trying to win as fast as possible.
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
I value my time, just as much as the next person. And I would value watching a 4 hour high quality, bloated service catering to my fandom of that movie, as opposed to many good unrelated and potentially obscure short movies.
And many players, specifically the ones you're asking about, have no interest in a bloated game. They are interested in an action packed (even if shorter) game. You might disagree, but your opponents are under no obligation to play the game you want them to.
-
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
I am asking why the majority of players for most of the time think playing a game for 15 minutes is more fun than play a game for 60 minutes.
Already answered.
@xclkvnspoijfoisn said in 15minutes of gaming?:
in my mind, objectively speaking, playing a game for 60 minutes is in most cases inherently more fun than playing a game for 15 minutes.
in my mind, objectively speaking
objectively
