• 86 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Unequivocable (214 posts) 1 year, 2 months ago

Poll: Do you consider yourself to be good at video games? (343 votes)

Yes, I would go pro if someone gave me the chance 3%
Yes, I'm very skilled 33%
I'm competent. 47%
No, I just enjoy the fun of games 14%
No, I try to be good but I lack the skill 2%

I was having this conversation with a friend of mine and when I stopped and thought about it, I realized that I'm not actually very skilled at video games--I'm just competent. I don't have amazing twitch reflexes or a strategic master-mind. I play most mainstream games that come out and a lot of indie ones, and I finish most everything I play--but finishing a game on Normal these days doesn't take a huge amount of skill. I prefer to just enjoy games for the world and the story. If I have any skill it's in being persistant and looking in every corner and being a completest--but that's really more patience than skill. My second thought was that I don't know that I really care if I'm all that good. I think I'm content at being just ok.

So what do you all think? If you're honest, do you think you're any good? If so, is it just in one genre? Do you care if you're any good? Do you actively try to get better?

#51 Edited by big_jon (5709 posts) -

Typically in very good at shooters and all right at other games.

#52 Edited by supermonkey122 (811 posts) -

Not really

#53 Posted by Slag (3989 posts) -

for how many games I've played I should be awesome, but for most I'd say I'm decent not good not bad. I generally beat most games I play with minimal effort. I don't generally fare well in competitive multiplayer for the most part though, I can usually pull my weight but I rarely excel.

heavily depends on the genre though, some I just suck at, roughly something like this.

Platformers, SRPGs, Action RPG, cag- above average

RTS,3PS, racing games- average

Fighting games,FPS, MOBAs- below average

SHUMPS- god awful

#54 Edited by devotfeige (116 posts) -

Considering I just finished ragequitting Mario 64 and chucking my controller across the room, I'd say I'm below average at a good chunk of games. Specifically, platformers 2D and 3D alike give me an unholy amount of trouble and I don't feel like I've improved one whit at them in over fifteen years. I've played far fewer third or first-person shooters, but I'm competent enough at those to get through the story and more or less enjoy my time with them. I'd be eaten alive if I tried to play competitively, though. I don't touch multiplayer in much of anything for that reason.

I'm better in games where strategy is more important than my ability to not over-correct a jump or to shoot a guy once in the face instead of several times in center body mass, but there are only so many times you can play through Fire Emblem or Generic RPG #47 before you want to see or experience something new for a while (even if you do suck at it).

#55 Edited by Nev (539 posts) -

Nope, I'm pretty terrible at them. I just have fun with them, but there is no doubt I'm going to get murdered horribly in any game I play several times.

#56 Edited by Rafaelfc (1313 posts) -

I don't think i'm good at most games (online experiences back me up on this) but, among my friends i'm the best so, i'm fine with my skill level.

Online
#57 Edited by Live2bRighteous (314 posts) -

I feel like I could go professional in two specific games... (Max Payne 3, Kane and Lynch) but they have absolutely no competitive background at all. Or... well... no players in general. :(

#58 Posted by ThePhantomnaut (6185 posts) -

I can be aiite.

Online
#59 Edited by TooWalrus (13135 posts) -

I've always been good at games... when compared to people who don't play many games. It would drive me crazy as a kid, playing Super Mario World with other kids who wouldn't use the run button, when I'd just fly through those levels... ALWAYS BE RUNNING, PEOPLE!

#60 Edited by NMC2008 (1231 posts) -

I feel like I was better when I was a kid, not to say that I am bad now, I am very skilled but I feel like I had more passion and determination as a kid, now I am lazy and tired with my game playing.

#61 Posted by Demoskinos (14559 posts) -

Depends....my domain is shit like Ninja Gaiden or Devil May Cry. You need someone to beat that impossible hack n' slash game and I'm your dude, dude. I'm awful at many other genres of games though. I love Civ 5 but I still can't win a game beyond the 2nd difficulty tier because I'm fucking awful. Then again... I'm really good at most shooters. I've beaten all the Call of Duty games and most shooters I play on the hardest difficulty out of the gate. So again, it depends. I vary from being pretty damn great to awful depending on the genre of game.

#62 Edited by Chibithor (574 posts) -

I'd say 'very skilled'. Probably on the low end of very skilled. Still, I think competent would be underselling it.

#63 Posted by AiurFlux (901 posts) -

Fine.

When online I can hold myself against some people and get my shit pushed in by others, depending on the genre. Fighting games I'm really good at. RPG's I'm good at. Strategy games are probably my best genre. Shooters I'm fucking terrible at. Sports games I'm terrible at. It depends, like my underwear.

#64 Edited by RioStarwind (482 posts) -

Eh I would rather not choose the middle option but that seems to fit my skill level with most games. Since I don't spend a long time on one certain game I don't get that much of a chance to get really good at it. Such is the fate of one that plays way to many games.

#65 Posted by BaneFireLord (2909 posts) -

I'm super good at Star Wars Battlefront and can hold my own in Battlefield. Otherwise I'm total dogshit.

#66 Posted by bobafettjm (1404 posts) -

I would say competent at most games, but once I do dedicate myself to a game I can usually get pretty good at it. I found been finding that as I get older I really don't care as much as I did when I was younger. I used to be able to beat a good percentage of NES games, now days I don't even bother worrying about which difficulty I play on and just stick with normal.

#67 Posted by Robot_Sneakers (418 posts) -

I don't really feel like I'm more than competent, but at the same time I feel like for the most part I do well online, usually at or towards the top. Though I imagine it's built to feel that way, if I felt like I always lost I probably wouldn't play, and I probably remember victories better than losses.

I guess I have no clue, but I highly doubt I could be a pro.

#68 Edited by MikeJFlick (436 posts) -

I'd say yeah, I'm very good "pro" even, although saying that makes me feel like a jack-ass and makes me even sicker equating myself to a "MLG"er, but honestly enough most of the games I actually enjoy playing at a high level of competition, aren't "mlg" games, I don't like MOBA's, I don't like Starcraft and I don't like fighting games, so that leaves me in the dust.

#69 Edited by IrrelevantJohn (1026 posts) -

It really depends on the game and how much I like it. I tend to be very good at racing games (mostly simulations).

#71 Posted by MEATBALL (3057 posts) -

I consider myself bad at games. It varies from game to game, but it works as a general rule.

#72 Edited by BeachThunder (11687 posts) -

Well, I S-ranked The Walking Dead, so that means I'm pretty good, right?

#73 Edited by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

I'm pretty skilled at like 3 games (BF3, SC2, Planetside 2) but over all I'm only competent.

#74 Posted by InfiniteSpark (296 posts) -

I'm not that good at a majority of games, but I'll do my best to still enjoy the experience if I'm enjoying the game. I'm happy just to complete a game nowadays.

There are a few games that I have surprised myself. Any game that I S-rank, no matter how easy it is (my highlight S-rank being Rayman Origins). I'm also still playing a bit of Persona 4 Arena online despite my terrible win percentage, have over 2,000 battles under my belt.

#75 Posted by Icemo (642 posts) -

I'm pretty good at first person shooters because of immeasurable amount of hours spent playing various counter-strike games. I'm about average at most other games like RPG's, action games and platformers. Then on the other hand I'm not that good at RTS's and fighting games because I haven't simply played enough of them to develop decent enough skills.

I think that if a person just has the time to invest in a game, you can get to at least average skill level in that game. But sometimes time investment is not enough if you lack fast enough reflexes to survive in an online match of some fps.

#76 Posted by Bollard (5245 posts) -

I gave up on being really good at any one game a long time ago. I play too many games to get good at any of them, all from different genres. But I feel that the amount of games I do play makes me above average skill in most of them. Fighting games and Rhythm games however, I am very poor at.

#77 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5321 posts) -

I don't have to, verifiable facts friends. I was the best overall player in Warhammer Online, a top 10 tank in WoW, a high end player in Starcraft Brood War's extensive Used Map Settings scene (by far the most skilled playerbase I've seen; just amazing how much they destroy SC2 players), one of the best Uncharted 3 co-op players, the best Morph player in Assassin's Creed, and presently in the top 50 in the world at Injustice (hadn't really tried a fighting game before). That said I find the notion of esports to be disgusting and the notion of being "pro" at games laughable and thus shit on your poll options.

#78 Edited by Atlas (2430 posts) -

Yes and no, but mostly no. If being intelligent gives me an advantage in a game, then I have a chance of being above average due to my above average IQ - I'm able to play and enjoy games that others have described as impenetrably complex, such as Paradox's grand strategy games i.e. Crusader Kings II (my greatest CKII empire included all of Western/Central Europe from Portugal to Poland, and North Africa too) - but I often make stupid risks, rush into hasty decisions, get frustrated, and act impulsively. I suffer from rigid thinking which involves me wanting to do things my way, regardless of whether it's the best or most appropriate tactic - this is why I never tried to play Civ online, because I would want to just build a small empire and play for culture and wouldn't build enough military units and get steamrolled by aggressive expansionist empires - I can sometimes win against 6th tier difficulty A.I. in Civ 5, and I have 1 win against 7th tier, but almost all of my wins are cultural wins on 5th tier. I'm not good at metagame, or at exploiting the weaknesses of others for an advantage.

I don't have the dexterity to play twitch games well, and can often feel overwhelmed by too much action happening on the screen and trying to manage too many disparate elements, which is why I suck at RTS games - another RTS weakness is that I'm a turtle, and always want to get far up the tech tree and build a strong base before I attack. One good Zerg rush would pretty much lay all my plans in ruins. I could probably take the time to get better at games like that, but I also lack patience, and get easily disheartened. I also suffer from performance anxiety, which means I'm much more likely to be at my best when playing singleplayer compared to multiplayer. I can be a productive member of a team - I was a decent medic and engineer when I played TF2 regularly - but struggle when asked to act purely independently and be self sufficient. I'm OK at racing games - can play Forza with only partial assists on against hard A.I. - but would probably get destroyed online.

I almost never play games on the hard difficulty, unless I feel that there is a particular reason to do so, and almost none of the games that I'll play on hard are action games - tends to be RPGs. I wouldn't ever describe myself as being good at videogames. But that's fine, but mostly, I just enjoy playing them...and I mostly play singleplayer games on normal difficulty.

tl;dr version - I no games good.

#79 Posted by MildMolasses (3213 posts) -

I bet on the whole if we compared ourselves to all the players in the world, most of us would be above average simply because we play a lot of games. However when we come to a site like this, where we are surrounded by people who also play a lot of games, the base skill level becomes much higher. There's a few games I'm good at, and a bunch that I'm not. I went with competent. I can make it through most games without issue, and occasionally play on harder settings. However at the moment I would say I'm very low skilled because I've been going through the backlog of shitty steam games I have and playing them on easy. There is no reason why I would want to play Kane & Lynch, Rogue Warrior or Infernal on anything difficulty that may present a challenge

#80 Posted by gkhan (417 posts) -

It varies wildly between games, but yeah, sure, I'm pretty skilled in general.

It was a nice realization a couple of years ago that if I'd put in a bit of time into a multiplayer game, I could usually clock in at the top 3 players within my team, and even when I personally felt I was playing terribly I would still come close to that.

Also, I've realized that I really enjoy playing games on harder difficulties. I remember when ME3 came out and all the guys on the bombcast said that they played it on Normal because they only really cared about the story and found the combat a bit tedious. I started playing on Normal as well and also found the combat a bit tedious, but pretty early I bumped it up to Hard, and it was suddenly way more fun. Instead of just spending time blasting my way through enemy after enemy (which is what made the combat tedious), the combat scenarios actually became interesting even if they took longer. It still wasn't super-difficult, but it was at least a bit challenging, and I felt a little bit like a bad-ass. It was nice! I replayed it later on Insanity, and it was even more fun.

Try playing your games on Hard, people! It sometimes makes them way more fun!

#81 Posted by Veektarius (4580 posts) -

In terms of innate talent, I'm competent. It depends on whether we're talking about talent or skill. In terms of talent I'm probably better off than skill, because I have good instincts for teamwork and strategic play, but I don't have the kind of dedication it would take to excel from a skill perspective and am easily bored by repetitive tasks.

#82 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7048 posts) -

I was the top Warlock on my server in Vanilla WoW and the first on my server to get Atiesh, Greatstaff of the Guardian. My guild was the first in our server to down Ragnaros, Onyxia and Naxxramas as well. So I was good at WoW. I don't play anymore, though. Other than that I was pretty good at CoD4 when it came out. Overall I'd say I'm decent or above average at most games. Certainly not all, though. I'm terrible at fighting games.

#83 Posted by PenguinDust (12450 posts) -

Nope, I make other people look good by being so piss poor. I like games though so I don't care. I don't do online multiplayer though because I feel bad about dragging other teammates down by my ineptitude.

#84 Posted by JouselDelka (967 posts) -

You mentioned finishing all the games you play, and that itself is a form of skill.

I believe I'm very skilled, I quickly maximize and get the most out of the tools and mechanics of a given single player game, and I'm always among the top 5 players in Battlefield 3 matches (when I'm playing serious and without distractions or friends).

Hotline Miami, Splinter Cell Conviction, Deus Ex Human Revolution and Max Payne 3 are among the latest games I completely went balls out in and just pushed my actions to the max in them. If I don't do crazy stuff and defy the level I'm in, then I don't enjoy myself.

My only problem is, unlike you, I for some reason get exhausted by some games, more than some actually, and just gradually stop playing around the end, never to see the credits roll.

#85 Posted by Mrsignerman44 (1100 posts) -

I'd say that I'm above average in fighting games but nowhere near pro. With every other game genre though, I'm competent.

#86 Posted by JJOR64 (18904 posts) -

I think I'm pretty skilled at video games.

#87 Posted by Ben_H (3305 posts) -

Competent I suppose. I am at the higher end of Master league in Starcraft 2. I used to have a pretty decent E. Honda in SSFIV, I think like B rank or something like that. I've always been pretty decent at shooters but those are not usually to difficult. I am ok at DOTA 2 but I don't play it much. I find those games kinda dull.

#88 Posted by MentalDisruption (1618 posts) -

Depends on the game. I'm a pretty quick learner when it comes to games, but where my skill caps out differs from genre to genre. I feel pretty comfortable saying that I'm skilled in most. Nowhere near the level of being best or professional though. I've never been able to commit to a competitive game long enough to be that good anyway. I bounce around from game to game too much.