What games require actual skills from players?

[jDSX]

Legitimately speaking. Can call of duty be called "skillful" or just entirely luck based? Is tetris all blind luck too or needs careful planing for one to truly have fun? What about pokemon? MMOs/MOBAs are all "ZURG RUSH!!" to me. The old days were more skill based or is it the same as today's games?
What do you think?

 

[rdurbin]

dark souls games (and related titles) seem to be more skill based games. If you dont know what you are doing or you rush through the game, you will die and you will die a lot. You cannot really rush these games. Yes and most new games seem to be a lot easier (for the most part) than older games. I think part of this is due to old games were more limited in memory/space so the games couldnt be as long. So to make up for this they made the difficulty of the games very hard to make the game last longer.

 

[cvskid]

Fighting games require skill.

 

[Greymane]

This is just how i see it.

Allmost all games require a amount of "skill" and "luck" which can be either positively or negatively influenced, the amount at which this can be done changes depending on the game's played, and against who/what it is played IA or human. As in Tetris you could say that one would need "luck" to get the right block, or "skill" to use the block given to its fullest extent. With fighting games you would need at least some "luck" to get a enemy to "give" you an opening but you also need to be able to take advantage of it which would take "skill". Even if you get "luck" you would also need to be able to take advantage of it, thus "skill" is needed you could go through just using "luck". But with every step a increasing amount of "luck" would be needed, lets say you get 4 buttons you need to push in a certain order (Simon says) the "skill" part would be able to remember the order of the buttons. With "luck" the first one would if i remember right (i don't calculate luck much ) be 1/4 next 1/8, 1/12 and so on. in short "luck" is always a factor no matter how small and so is "skill", being capable of taking advantage of "luck" is what matters the most. one who is talented but does not train will just become a normal person in a few years, he had the "luck" but did not take advantage of it "skill", of coarse being capable of taking advantage of it is again based both on "luck" and "skill", and so it keeps going.

 

[jDSX]

This is just how i see it.

Allmost all games require a amount of "skill" and "luck" which can be either positively or negatively influenced, the amount at which this can be done changes depending on the game's played, and against who/what it is played IA or human. As in Tetris you could say that one would need "luck" to get the right block, or "skill" to use the block given to its fullest extent. With fighting games you would need at least some "luck" to get a enemy to "give" you an opening but you also need to be able to take advantage of it which would take "skill". Even if you get "luck" you would also need to be able to take advantage of it, thus "skill" is needed you could go through just using "luck". But with every step a increasing amount of "luck" would be needed, lets say you get 4 buttons you need to push in a certain order (Simon says) the "skill" part would be able to remember the order of the buttons. With "luck" the first one would if i remember right (i don't calculate luck much ) be 1/4 next 1/8, 1/12 and so on. in short "luck" is always a factor no matter how small and so is "skill", being capable of taking advantage of "luck" is what matters the most. one who is talented but does not train will just become a normal person in a few years, he had the "luck" but did not take advantage of it "skill", of coarse being capable of taking advantage of it is again based both on "luck" and "skill", and so it keeps going.

But don't forget: RNG manipulation/abuse/tactics are at work too.

 

[Greymane]

But don't forget: RNG manipulation/abuse/tactics are at work too.

Of course, but being capable of those you would still need the "luck" for the weaknesses to be present and the "skill" for taking advantage, otherwise one would get results that are smeared over the board.

 

[Guinea]

Pokemon games do, you need to know a lot to be good

 

[Hungry Friend]

Fighting games require skill.

Beat me to it but this especially, along with platformers like Mario(2d or 3d), Mega Man, Ghouls n Ghosts, Castlevania(2d) and other games that require pinpoint timing/precision. Shmups fit this description as well but I'm fucking awful at them.

 

[Arras]

Just about everything you named requires skill. Some take more time to learn than others, some are a combination of both luck and skill, but blindly pressing buttons won't get you far in any of those games. If there are any games that don't require skill, it's the free to play "wait X hours to build a new thing" games.

 

[jDSX]

So I must ask this what is required to have fun? Blind luck or having skill? A card game like yugioh (believe it or not) is very luck based while MTG isn't (think chess) then again it depends on who netdecks who and has the most money to blow on 'netdecking' and calls themselves "the best player" just from copying off of one person's idea. It's bad for the metagame which is why you have anti meta decks stuffs etc for mixing it up but short lived due to well..luck.

 

[Catastrophic]

I think pretty much any game that requires tight reaction and precision can be called skillful; platformers, fighting games, Counter-Strike etc. Being good at an RPG is somewhat skillful but is more or less knowing where everything is and what the best way to go through the game is.

 

[Hungry Friend]

Really depends on the RPG and how you play it, which is why I like them so much. There are millions of different ways to play them, kill bosses, challenge yourself and employ weird, unique strategies. Low level challenges, intentionally having shitty equipment and countless other things can make them either much easier or a million times harder. Memorization or grinding and brute forcing are just 2 ways to do it but there are so many other methods that all depend on the game you're talking about.

jDSX: Fun is completely relative. What one person finds fun, I may find sleep inducing and vice versa. If you like something then you like it, plain and simple and fuck anyone who gives you shit for it.

 

[RustInPeace]

Pokemon games do, you need to know a lot to be good

Competitive play, yeah, skill is needed big time. It's a bit telling though that there was no variety in the top 8 in VGC this year. Very similar teams, so sometimes it's just based on the Pokemon. More skill is shown when victory comes no matter what the pokemon is, like the Parchirisu guy.

Also time is important, the more of that you spend on planning and trying out teams against others, the better you can get. That's why I suck, I don't think things out for too long.

Another game though that requires skills, if fast reflexes counts, is Bayonetta 1 and 2. At first I was losing lives all the time. Once you beat the games, replays are more doable. They're not incredibly easier, but now I just try chapters over and over for Platinum and Pure Platinum. The repetition of those right after playing them helps. The problem is rust. I haven't played in months, so I may be back to sucking when I play both games. Bayonetta 1 is slightly harder too, but both overall are relentless.

 

[Cyan]

games on old consoles/computers requires more skills than newer games.
now players are spoiled with everything needed to be easy : easy visual, easy menu, easy difficulty, easy controls : like when you jump, you can move in the air and gauge the distance to the land spot by how much you press your controller, while in 8bit era it was either "jump vertically or jump a specific and always identical pixel precision distance". ever played Castlevania on Nes? or Battle of olympus? or TMHT ?

 

[Deleted User]

MOBA games like DotA 2 and League of Legends. Personally I suck at them.

Dark souls is ridiculously hard. Couldn't complete the first level.

Then there's games like Sm4sh and Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze which are tough, but doable.

Maybe I just couldn't bring myself to get good at games that I don't find fun.

 

[Atlas_Noire]

Almost all games require skill as far as I'm concerned. The only game that I don't have any skill at all are fighting games. I always get beaten by my older brother at Tekken and Mortal Kombat. I'm more into racing, RPG and hack'n slash games. Games like Dark Souls require a lot of skill, but it's just a matter of getting used to the controls. MOBAs like Dota and League of Legends require careful planning and sheer luck, so you can get ahead.

I find all games fun, whether if I win or lose, since I rarely worry about results.

 

[Hungry Friend]

games on old consoles/computers requires more skills than newer games.
now players are spoiled with everything needed to be easy : easy visual, easy menu, easy difficulty, easy controls : like when you jump, you can move in the air and gauge the distance to the land spot by how much you press your controller, while in 8bit era it was either "jump vertically or jump a specific and always identical pixel precision distance". ever played Castlevania on Nes? or Battle of olympus? or TMHT ?

Yeah, I started gaming with an NES and a ton of second hand games and just to get past most first levels in games back then you had to die over and over and over and memorize enemy placement. Fucking Ninja Gaiden is a perfect example of this and I was never able to come even close to beating it. Even the "easier" platformers like SMB were fairly hard if you didn't know what you were doing but when you beat some of those old NES games it felt GOOD because you knew you did it without your hand being held. I remember finally beating Double Dragon 3 on the NES when I was 8; the last boss is horrendously cheap but oh so satisfying to kill. I'm not about to attempt that again though. Kinda like beating Japanese arcade Ghouls n' Ghosts; it's one of those things I'd rather not put myself through again because I was screaming obscenities at my computer screen at 3 AM. I can beat the US Genesis version on professional because it has boss checkpoints but the JP/World arcade version is BRUTAL.

You have any games that were especially satisfying to beat? Karnov on the NES was another satisfying one despite the ending being shit.

 

[Megaben99]

Rogue likes require adaptation ... can't rely on memorization of timing / places.



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Yeah, I started gaming with an NES and a ton of second hand games and just to get past most first levels in games back then you had to die over and over and over and memorize enemy placement. Fucking Ninja Gaiden is a perfect example of this and I was never able to come even close to beating it. Even the "easier" platformers like SMB were fairly hard if you didn't know what you were doing but when you beat some of those old NES games it felt GOOD because you knew you did it without your hand being held. I remember finally beating Double Dragon 3 on the NES when I was 8; the last boss is horrendously cheap but oh so satisfying to kill. I'm not about to attempt that again though. Kinda like beating Japanese arcade Ghouls n' Ghosts; it's one of those things I'd rather not put myself through again because I was screaming obscenities at my computer screen at 3 AM. I can beat the US Genesis version on professional because it has boss checkpoints but the JP/World arcade version is BRUTAL.

You have any games that were especially satisfying to beat? Karnov on the NES was another satisfying one despite the ending being shit.

Dude taking out Alakatai was absolutely the best

 

[TecXero]

I think skill in games is: required planning, or required on-the-fly thought or a good reaction time. Obviously different games will require different levels of skill in different areas. That doesn't necessarily make a game good, though. I enjoy both Dark Souls and The Stanley Parable, but one requires significantly more skill while the other doesn't really require any skill. They're both still great in their own ways.

 

[Cyan]

You have any games that were especially satisfying to beat? Karnov on the NES was another satisfying one despite the ending being shit.

I never completed ninja gaiden. I always went up to the same level, which was very far, but always frustrated to reach so far and never can go further.

On NES, I've not beaten a lot of games.
- Snake Rattle 'N roll (took me ages, few years !!!!) I was sooo happy to finally complete it.
- Castlevania 2 ~ Simon's quest (one of my first completed game, and back then I didn't understood english... just went random everywere until I completed it ). It wasn't a very hard game for me.
- Dragon Ball (my first bought game on NES) easy to complete too, even if some parts or boss were hard.
- Zelda 1 (not hard) but it was satisfying to complete it
- Zelda 2 (hard, and I didn't like it at first, but you learn to like it. Finally I completed it multiple times) That one was satisfying to complete.
- Maniac Mansion.
- few others I completed, but they are not satisfying (like bubble bobble, it's only puzzle levels, one after the other. no real challenge)

There are games I don't remember if I completed or not (gradius, lifeforce, Mario2, Mario3, Chip'n Dale, duck tales, etc.). I think I did.

Games I wish I had completed but never could :
- Ninja gaiden (most frustrating game lol)
- Battle of Olympus (Always fall in a hole where I had to jump over it... damn those "fixed pixel long jumps" were horrible)

My NES stats : 33 never completed, 19 (almost certain) completed