|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Mar 5, 2007 15:11:32 GMT -5
I forgot to mention this. It is funny that the "complexity" of the current/newest games always comes up in these types of discussions. To say that the graphics and almost virtual reality aspect of the newest games dwarf earlier versions on an exponential scale. That being said, most "gamers" also interpret that to indicate an escalation in the skill of the player as well. I have not found this to be true. What happens is that new games are generally designed from a foundation based on either the earlier generation of the same game, or a similar product (game) from a competitor. These steps are, or at least appear, gradual to anyone relatively "current" with regards to gaming. But if you somehow skip a generation, then you are out of the loop so to speak. My point is that if the question was simply a matter of dexterity or coordination/motor skills, then the newer generation player would be able to adapt rather quickly to the simpler/less advanced and complex games. I admit that regardless of expertise in earlier generations, a gamer new to the current models will have a serious learning curve to battle. But the opposite is equally true. In other words, most, if not all of the current Madden '07 protege's will have similar difficulty trying to compete with little old me at Mattel Intellivision Football or even Activision. P.S. I am still trying to figure out what you guys all see in that Ivan Drago game. It's called practice, High Fidelity Gator. When you do something frequently, you tend to get better at it. You've probably played Mattel Intellivision Football more than "current Madden '07 protege's," which is why you would likely be better at someone who regularly plays a different game. Older games have as little as two buttons and a directional pad. New games have 8 or more buttons, a directional pad, joysticks, etc. Hand eye coordination definitely has a lot to do with it, but more important is simply time spent playing the thing. Spend countless hours playing Madden '07 and I guarantee you'll be significantly better at it than you are now.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Mar 5, 2007 15:35:50 GMT -5
I understand that. I was never debating that issue. The point is that most games from similar generations use some kind of accepted control structure, and as they evolve from year to year, they build on the controls from the most recent version. Obviously someone who has never played Madden '07 for example, but who is proficient at Madden '06 can learn the new game much more easily than someone who has played neither. What I was illustrating is that if we take someone who is a modern gamer and put them in front of Mattel, Nintendo or Atari/Activision systems, then they show the same learning curve as someone who is equally unfamiliar with the older systems but also doesn't play the newer ones. In otherwords, I haven't seen a correlation between being adept with the newer and more complicated games, and picking up the older games more quickly. However the opposite is true in reverse. A skilled player from last year's PS2 game has a huge edge learning this year's game over someone unfamiliar with either one. Does that make it a bit clearer?
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Mar 5, 2007 16:53:38 GMT -5
I understand that. I was never debating that issue. The point is that most games from similar generations use some kind of accepted control structure, and as they evolve from year to year, they build on the controls from the most recent version. Obviously someone who has never played Madden '07 for example, but who is proficient at Madden '06 can learn the new game much more easily than someone who has played neither. What I was illustrating is that if we take someone who is a modern gamer and put them in front of Mattel, Nintendo or Atari/Activision systems, then they show the same learning curve as someone who is equally unfamiliar with the older systems but also doesn't play the newer ones. In otherwords, I haven't seen a correlation between being adept with the newer and more complicated games, and picking up the older games more quickly. However the opposite is true in reverse. A skilled player from last year's PS2 game has a huge edge learning this year's game over someone unfamiliar with either one. Does that make it a bit clearer? How do you have so much time on your hands?
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Mar 5, 2007 17:04:46 GMT -5
What I was illustrating is that if we take someone who is a modern gamer and put them in front of Mattel, Nintendo or Atari/Activision systems, then they show the same learning curve as someone who is equally unfamiliar with the older systems but also doesn't play the newer ones. I disagree. Like I said, most human beings get better at activities the more they practice them. In the case of video games, people who are especially good at translating what's on the screen in front of them into button pressing and joystick moving motions for complex games will also generally be better at those same things for simple games. True, they might not be great the very first time they pick up the controller, but their learning curve would absolutely be different. Think of two similar but ever-so-slightly different activities, one of which you are good at, the other of which you have never done before. For example, I skied a lot as a kid. The first time I went snowboarding I was equally as bad as my friend who had never skied. The second time, I was marginally better than he was, and by the third time, I was way better. Now, I know I am remarkable at everything I do so this might not be the best example, but you see my point.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Mar 6, 2007 13:44:31 GMT -5
Let's not beat this dead horse anymore. Suffice it to say that at least with regards to video games, we have different experiences.
Good point about skiing. I grew up water skiing. I skied when I was four, and slolumed (boy that word looks funny) ... in any case, I skied on one ski when I was 5. I skied hundreds of times every summer from then on. But I didn't snow ski until I was 19 or 20. From what everyone told me I picked it up very quickly compared to most first timers. Of course, like you I am great at everything I do as well.
|
|
DrumsGoBang
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
DrumsGoBang - Bang Bang
Posts: 910
|
Post by DrumsGoBang on Mar 6, 2007 14:16:02 GMT -5
If you can dance dance revolution, you should leave this board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2007 10:01:30 GMT -5
Let's not beat this dead horse anymore. Suffice it to say thatI grew up water skiing. I skied when I was four, and slolumed (boy that word looks funny) ... It looks funny because you spelled it wrong. Lemme guess: the only "B" you got in your time at UF was in Language Arts. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_skiing#Slalom
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Mar 7, 2007 16:18:27 GMT -5
Thanks Cam, I knew that looked funny, but like I said before, I never use a spell check program. In all honesty, I don't know if I have ever written that word in my life. I certainly don't remember doing so.
|
|