What appears to be deep analysis is just 'my team sucked it wasnt my fault, someone needs to fix the system'.
You are responsible for your own skill in games, no pro player gets stuck in the lowest ranks, and this has been demonstrated countless times by pros smurfing. They make new accounts with low ratings and play completely solo, and they get the accounts to the same level as their main accounts in very short time periods.
And im sure if it doesnt exist now, it will soon and thats OW boosting services. If you are stuck in the low 40's someone will play your account for 8 hrs and get you up to the high 60s for a reasonable hourly rate. Most competitive games have had these services appear and corrupt matchmaking.
So if someone else can play your account and climb with ease.... why are you complaining that the system is broken or needs fixing? They can climb, but you cant, and thats where the problem lies.
People commonly suffer the dunning-kruger syndrome and assume they are far more skillful the worse they are, and not only this but they just cannot recognise their own incompetence in a task. In the case of gamers, no experienced gamer thinks they are 'bad' at games. When they really are when it comes to something new and challenging. It requires skills you have never had to use in the past and its based on a game system that has depth you dont fully understand and can manipulate to your success.
If a pro analysed your gameplay they would be shaking their heads in horror at all the mistakes you make, your poor aim, lack of synergy with team mates, poor awareness, lack of foresight etc
In team based matchmade games, you cannot depend on your team to win. You have to obviously work with them, but you have to make the real difference, and that doesnt mean by performing epic plays and clutch 1v6's. It means having solid fundamentals and not making mistakes that can be punished.
@halexandra64: I think you will find most people are really not going to games for social commentary and gender politics, most characters are often exaggerations and cliches and it would be foolish to worry in most cases that people are learning about social diversity from trashy hollywood-style narratives found in most AAA titles.
Most people will be misrepresented in games, hell im English, how many games portray English people as greeting people with "Ello, guv'na!!" or some other cringeworthy canned phrase, or overly exaggerated posh accent. Noone in England would ever relate to the 'Britishness' of game characters.
Much of the disgust in recent times for games like Baldurs Gate, is not centred around people being intolerant of LGBT people, but the shoehorning of unnecessary and ill-fitting social activism.
Baldurs gate was even criticised by LGBT people for actually making bad characters and script, purely for the purpose of sending a message, when what the core audience wanted was more BG. The demand wasnt there for that story line, and the topics raised are really contentious currently for the wrong reasons.
Many people in recent years have had to suffer through the factual inaccuracies and media stigmas of the gaming population being shamed as intolerant racist, straight white, misogynistic males. Who have always had games created to cater for this sick ego stroking mentality, which has obviously really irked many people to just go and protest the people who feed that social agenda.
I might be a straight white male, but 3 of my family members are gay, i have had many gay friends and colleagues over the years, and i have no issue with peoples choices in life. However when people decide they need to focus on games (a hobby i have had for almost 30 years now) i know what is what. You cannot blind side me like the media journalists who will believe that gender portrayal is one sided.
If you want to say back in the 90's games didnt really focus on female roles, well about the 90s... i tell a girl 'Hey i spend about 20-30hrs+ playing my playstation' on a first date. Or tell my prospective employer in an interview 'well i spend my free time mostly playing games'... you would have seen some real intolerance as neither would call you back. That was how things really were. Gaming for a 16+ was as socially acceptable as masturbation, maybe even more awkward to be caught in the act when a girl shows up in your room and sees your magazines and game collection as you scrambled to turn off the TV and shove everything under your bed.
You would have been labelled a manchild because attitudes were that young boys played games, that was the market back in those days. So now yes games in the last 20 years (really since the dawn of CD tech) have been able to flesh out narrative, although for business reasons many devs played safe with the tactic of appealing to the lowest common denominator, when targeting audiences.
I largely kept my gaming hobby personal, sure my friends played games too, but when a girl showed up the topic of games went awkwardly hush as we pretended we were not kids. I still wouldn't tell a girl the same age as me openly about my passion for this culture, as most girls my age still think the same way they did back then.
To sum up, i dont think there is a fraction of the intolerance many LGBT people worry about. Yes everyone gets hate online and even in the street sometimes, but to dont forget the fact that 9/10 people are straight, and the current trend of legalising same sex marriage in developed countries has been driven by this majority straight population who had to actively go and vote on this issue. People who some activists portray as hating them and holding them back, actually bothered to leave their houses and go vote for them to have equal rights.
I think your struggle largely is not an issue the majority of people worry about or encounter, so please dont worry yourself that poor/inaccurate representation equates to intolerance. I mean Eskimos never get put in games, and when they do they always have those big round hoods and fish in holes in the ice...i even think the voice acting isnt really bona fide eskimo...
Things will change, just have some faith in humanity.
This looks like a good investment on the surface, but doesnt only a small proportion of the candy crush and free to play user base in general, actually pay real money?
If that number is 10% then already each of those users needs to be making $100 net (after costs/overheads are deducted) to pay off just this investment.
Im sure they have plans to find ways to squeeze the casual market, and of course they can sell ads to get money from the non paying customers, but surely its a risk if the next flappy bird takes 300m of those casual users somewhere else. This is not exactly a hardcore crowd who are looking for a niche experience, the only thing keeping them playing is complacency.
Digitised's comments