Knowledge vs Reflexes/Skill in conquering games

[snapshot]

There are of course other factors like having good knowledge of a map layout or a character's abilities and having sharp reflexes to know when to apply them but if you had to choose one of these which would you prefer.

Edited November 16, 2019 by sluggard : to clarify

[seed]

Grinding with a bit of knowledge in order to advance or improve further.

 

My poor reflexes and thinking makes me horrible at competitive games, so I avoid them.

[Octillion]

    Damn, that's really hard to decide. How do I even look at this objectively without bias to a genre? I mean, you could make a middle ground for all three points and then argue which one is the best, but it will still come down to preference.

 

    if I have to pick one of them, it would be knowledge. I think every game in any genre requires at least a bit of knowledge, regardless of it's learning curve and skill ceiling, to have fun. If two players with equal knowledge face each other, it becomes a chess situation of outplaying the other. This compliments reflexes greatly too.

 

    To me, grinding is the weakest, no offence to ARPGs/MMOs. (This kinda brings up the gear vs skill argument, but that's off-topic.) It doesn't attribute to knowledge or reflexes much since it can become tedious and boring and doesn't amount to learning something new. It can enhance your reflexes, but that's on specific occasions and on a linear situation on top of that. The player might not be aware of the same exact situation if it played differently.

 

    Kind of bias to player vs player situation, but that's more fun than facing an AI to be honest.

[MFG38]

A combination of both, which I feel is the case with Doom and others of its kind.

[Mr. Freeze]

Reflexes are important but game sense and game knowledge will always be first priority to improving. The best Quake players alive (rapha, cooller, evil) are in their thirties, but even with the decreased reflexes of age their first-class game sense allows them to always be a step ahead. 

[Cruduxy Pegg]

None. I play them all, with some hatred for grinding heavy games. 

[snapshot]

Good points, I'll go with reflexes / skill because I like the feeling of outsmarting opponents and I find them perfect for short 1 sitting play. Not saying knowledge isn't important because it definitely is, as most games require some degree of knowledge to play and being more familiar with the game's maps and mechanics will certainly help give you an advantage.

 

Grinding felt good initially, but became sort of dull as I had to constantly keep upgrading gear and getting new gear to face stronger enemies (eg: looter shooters) the excitement of getting new gear wore off and stronger enemies were basically just buffed versions of weaker enemies (most of the time anyways) eg: enemy level 115 was basically enemy level 15 with higher stats.

Edited November 16, 2019 by sluggard

[Phobus]

If you've played a lot of games in a genre, or better yet, across multiple genres, you do develop a bit of an eye for game design and cues, I've noticed. My brother and I sitting down for a couch co-op game will often have us both stumbling over secrets and climbing geometry to see where we can get to quite naturally as part of beating the game, because we've both played a lot of games and have an idea about where level designers hide things. By contrast, sitting down with people who have limited playing experience (or only play a few specific games) can lead to interesting situations where either I'm running off ahead because progression is intuitive for me, and/or I've got a trained comfort with video game controls, or they end up running off because that exploration instinct isn't there and they don't think to look for hidden areas in the first place, just following the obvious cues to keep going forward.

 

I guess we don't realise it because it's a hobby or a way to pass time, but we are training ourselves by playing lots of games. It may be in a specific mode of puzzle-solving, or in developing a comfort with the controls, but these are essentially niche skills. If you don't believe me, try stepping out of your own comfort zone and playing a game that's nothing like what you've played before. I find I'm pretty crap at even "simple" phone games like fruit ninja, because I'm not used to that style of play. I'm also prone to getting hopelessly lost in JRPGs (and relying on walk-throughs) because the design language is alien to me... Or struggling mightily with pre-SNES-era platformers because I'm used to smoother controls, pixel-perfect collision and a greater range of abilities.

[hybridial]

I think what it comes down to for me is, I want both. To me, both together works much better than one or the other. Its very easy for people to get into childish arguments over what makes challenge fun in a game, so I want to illustrate something here. 

 

Dark Souls 1 and 2. I finished them. I didn't really like them, and I think they're not challenging in any healthy sense. I don't really think they were challenging at all. And I don't think they were fun. Why I'd say that comes down to the general expectation of the player in certain situations and probably more how combat in the game was designed. Those games can be conquered fairly easily through repetition, patience and observation. I hate that. I don't play games to be patient, well, not combat games for sure. Strategy, maybe a different matter. But putting a sword in my hand and then expecting me to not play aggressively is to me, game design that just isn't fun. I'd define the game as placing less emphasis on skill or reflexes and more on gaming the system by doing what the developer intended for you to do. 

 

I tended to have fun with games in the past for different reasons but when it comes to action, I want the game designed more around aggressive, skilful play. And the reason knowledge comes into it is the assumption that when you die, you'll try again and are still dealing with the same situation. This is because the situation was designed by a person to be a particular way. And this might be controversial but I consider that to be a necessity to a game. Hence both elements working together. 

 

Roguelikes for the most part, I just have no use for them, at all. I consider them hollow shells of games lacking the most important component by far. 

[RonnieJamesDiner]

Based purely on what feels the most satisfying/rewarding to me, I had to go with reflexes. I’ve been a huge fan of games like Dota 2, Counter-Strike and R6: Siege for many years now, and although knowledge is a big part of those games (especially Dota), it’s when I’m matched against equally knowledgeable/skilled players where I have the most fun. When it comes down to second-to-second decision making, reaction, and adaptation, and I’m able to pull out that victory, I get a high from that kind of gameplay like no other.

[snapshot]

I like it when 1 on 1s turn into sniper pong.

[DynamiteKaitorn]

I'm always a fan of beating up small, innocent, frightened monsters constantly to suck up a tiny amount of XP and eventually level up to bully a boss who expected me to be a midget, but instead of being a 1-hit god I just have so much health everything does 1-2hp damage to me.

 

What can I say? I love upgrading the HP stat. @w@

[Master O]

2 hours ago, DynamiteKaitorn said:

I'm always a fan of beating up small, innocent, frightened monsters constantly to suck up a tiny amount of XP and eventually level up to bully a boss who expected me to be a midget, but instead of being a 1-hit god I just have so much health everything does 1-2hp damage to me.

 

What can I say? I love upgrading the HP stat. @w@

 

You sound like an overly cautious hero.... [/anime reference]

 

Also, you sound like a bully for beating up on those poor, innocent tiny-XP monsters.  [/sarcasm]