Board 8 > How would you rate your gamer skill?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Voted 3

These poll results actually make me feel better about being terrible at fighting games

Uh 5 based on being a former record holder.

Confident 4. Occasionally wished I had pushed to higher.

I am the Ace of Games

Probably like a 3.7. Am not quite as good at fighting games as I'd like to be, but I'm great at most types of difficult games, and I was very good at - embarrassingly - League of Legends.

Four. Pretty good at fromsoft and fighting games, but going to tournaments always humbles me

3.5 prob rounded down to 3

Extremely uneven. Some games I could claim to be a 4 at, while most I settle for living at the 2 level. I think this needs to be approached on a game-by-game basis, which is something I've given a fair bit of thought to.

See, my theory, which lines up fairly well with the poll options, is that it should be on a 10-point scale. And learning/advancing only really takes place with proper motivation. It's very easy to coast on your current level until you feel compelled to improve, because most games can be beaten as a 5/10 gamer.

So my thought is that just for picking up a controller and learning what jumps and what shoots, you become in most cases a 3/10 gamer. With games with a high degree of complexity, maybe that's only a 2, but for a typical game, I'm going to call that a 3. So let's say we're talking about Hollow Knight. Getting to Dirtmouth shows basic understanding of the controls, and you can get around the first area as a 3/10 gamer. The enemies are basic, the room layouts aren't meant to challenge. Even the first boss is extremely simple.

But here's the thing: I died to that first boss. Twice. If I replay HK now, I look at False Knight and wonder how in the world could anybody die to him, and yet I did. Because at the time I was a 3/10 gamer. As one continues in HK, the difficulty slowly increases, but even in Greenpath and Fungal Wastes and City of Tears, 3/10 is sufficient.

Then you get to the Soul Sanctum, which is the first difficulty spike. The enemies there are hard to reckon with. You need to know what you're doing. And although Hornet wasn't exactly easy for you, to get through this area, you need to genuinely step up your game to reach and beat the Soul Master. By the time you've completed that area, you've reached 4/10. Because you have to.

4/10 gets you by for a large chunk of the game's content. You can rove the sewers, explore crystal mines, sneak up into howling cliffs on 4/10 np. The content's not brain-dead because you don't know it yet, but you don't have to git gud. You just have to experience it and maybe die once or twice along the way. But then you hit a couple areas that are tougher. Kingdom's Edge, Deepnest, Queen's Gardens...they push you. And even though it's not a single specific challenge, by the time you stumble across The Hive or try to finish the first Colosseum, you're forced to step it up to a 5/10.

And this would be where most games stop. Indeed, most of the basic content in HK is complete-able as a 5/10 gamer. There are, however, a few difficulty spikes. They're going to vary based on style -- I play very defensively, so Watcher Knights and Traitor Lord were incredibly tough for me. I died over and over on those two. I'm going to argue that those are 6/10 bosses. Even THK isn't as bad imo, but you need to be a 6/10 gamer to finish Hollow Knight.

And this is why people call it a "hard" game. Because 6/10 is not 5/10.

But obviously, that's not where the scale ends. Getting the true ending requires doing extra stuff. White Palace, dream bosses, Radiance, Grimm. That's 7/10 content. Some of it borders on 8. You've got to be good to finish third colosseum, let alone Path of Pain. Between that and Godhome, you're looking at 8/10. This goes beyond the level I've engaged with the game, so I'm not going to say where the line for 9/10 is, but there's no mistaking that the top speedrunners transcend even this and reach 10/10 status.

I have 100 hours in HK from replaying it, but because I've only engaged with a subset of the content and never 112%'ed it, at best, I can maybe call myself a 7/10 gamer and I think that's being generous. It's not a matter of physical dexterity, and it's not a matter of time spent with the game. I just don't feel compelled to try the really hard stuff. So I don't. And then I don't improve.

But 5/10, which I think correlates decently with 2.5 on the poll, is what an average game expects of you on a normal difficulty. That can take different forms, of course. A JRPG isn't about skillz, but in some you do need to display a mastery of the game in terms of party set-up and how you approach battles, etc.

TLDR: I should probably vote for 2 since I usually settle and don't push myself to what the poll describes as a 3, though I'm certainly capable of it and occasionally do.

Probably low 3, high 2 these days.

3.5, I could master harder games if I was willing to dedicate the time, but I don't have that kind of time anymore

Maximum Gamer

I voted 2 but I am decent at precision platformers listed in 4. I have the ability to do a platforming level over and over again until my muscle memory sets in and perfects the movement. But anything that requires reflexes or being good on the fly, no.

Pretty good. I feel like my reflexes and adaptability are still as good as they've ever been and I've always done very well. It seems like any time I actually focus on a game I improve and persevere pretty rapidly. But I also have a severe apathy problem that's gotten substantially worse in recent years.

Nowadays I'm a casual gamer so probably 2 or 3. In the past it would probably be a 5 since I've been involved in quite a few world firsts in MMOs and was part of that sort of crowd for like 10 years.

Somewhere between 3 and 4, probably closer to 4. I definitely have a bit of an Achilles heel for the NES era, but anytime I play a more modern difficult game - Celeste, Meat Boy, Furi, Cuphead, most recently Aeterna Noctis - I seem to have less trouble getting through it than the majority of people. And though I certainly wouldn't call myself a fighting game "master," I generally end up in at least the top ~20% of online players rank-wise when I commit myself to learning one, so I don't consider them a weakness either.

So I'll call it a 3.75 or something like that I guess. Really would love to get into speedrunning to try and push myself a little harder but I just don't think I'm ever going to have the time.

Average

3 - 3.5

depending on if my hands want to work that day

Maybe a 4 until fighting games entered the convo. Going with 3.

I want to say 5 even though I think there are still people way better out there.

I check all the boxes for #4

Fuck gamer

xenosaga posted...

Maybe a 4 until fighting games entered the convo. Going with 3.

I was thinking the opposite, heh. I woulnd't say I'm that great with general action games, but I do play fighters and think I do fairly well with them in general.

Like a 3 but it's uneven. Like don't ask me to play an RTS or rhythm game on normal mode.

A 3 I guess. Maybe a good few years ago coulda been a 4 but some things are beyond me now and I don't wanna spend time to practice on some to make myself a 4 again.

I coulda been a 3 but you named Super Meat Boy.

4

Play fighters competitively but not at a super high level. Good enough to win low level tournaments but one time I went to EVO I was first-second round fodder in every game. Also enjoy a lot of high difficulty games on high difficulties. Have beaten Devil May Cry 3 on DMD mode and a bunch of other 3d action games and tough NES stuff like Ninja Gaiden, Punch Out, Double Dragon 1-3, as well as having beaten every Guitar Hero 1-3 song on expert.

"Master" seems strong but I figure that's still good enough for a 4. Definitely closer to a 4 than a 3 anyway.

Mediocre.

Definitely depends on the genres. I can play shooters and survival horror at pretty high-tier levels.

Not remotely near a 5 at anything but I'm pretty happy to be close to/at 4 across just about all genres. My notable weaknesses are sports games (which I don't really play,) MOBAs and until recently fighting games, but that's starting to turn around with GG Strive and SF6. I'm very comfortable with pretty much all the stuff that's generally considered difficult like rhythm games, bullet hells, Souls stuff, character action games, hardcore platformers, etc. I can bust out absurdly long/flashy combos in Tales games, DMC, you name it. Games have been my primary hobby since I was a kid and it's pretty darn satisfying to have something to show for those decades of practice.

3.5 I guess
Fully beat Super Meat Boy
And Celeste I couldn't beat about 3 C-Side levels (and didn't bother with Chapter 9)
Been gaming all my life but my skills are nothing special

3: I can do fighting games, but online discussions about playing games always make me feel like a hopeless incompetent.

3

The only platformer I feel accomplished in is Crash Bandicoot. Not really into action or fighting games, prefer strategy.

I would say a 2. One of my symptoms of my aspergers is poor coordination, so I struggle with almost any kind of 3D game play (except Mario Kart). I'm proud to have beaten Battletoads on NES without cheating or savestates... perhaps that alone could boost me to a 3, but I dunno if that's enough. As for RPGs, I used to play Pokemon competitively clear back in the RBY days when we had "PBS". I won a 64-man tournament in 2001, but people weren't very good back then! So maybe there's another argument I could be a 3, but I haven't even played any true "strategy" games... though I do intend to play both FFT and 13 Sentinels before long.

I think it's interesting how when I looked this morning, 2 was dominant, and now it just looks like a normal distribution.

Somewhere between 2 and 3. I'm not very good but I've beaten plenty of games that require competence.

Solid 4 imo even if I don't really like arcade/NES games. Fighting game master is a stretch but I'm like the ultimate gate keeper. I will beat just about anyone who doesn't play the game seriously and lose to most competitive players. If I committed to one game I could probably be a solid midcarder but there's too much stuff I want to play to focus on one game