Which Video Game Genre takes more SKILL you think, FG's or FPS's?

[MKF30]

Just curious, while I know some may say any game takes skill from platformer to sports games to RPG's and all in between. Then there's of course puzzle game, third person games, adventure, etc, etc.

However, for this topic was wondering as far as just FPS's vs. FG's in terms of competitively online, tourneys etc. I think Fighting Games takes a lot of time, skill to win in even if it's more accessible it'll still take a while to master. FPS's too, however from my experience I used to play Halo 2 a lot with guys who's mop the floor with me but at times managed to get at least top 3 in kills on my teams by being sneaky, stabbing people and just using as they call them "noob tubers" and I'm not that great, average I'd say now if I go onto Tekken(been years since I've played Tekken) I'd get absolutely mopped no doubt. So me personally, I feel I can at least have a decent shot or survive a lot longer in an FPS if I were to play one now compared to a FG outside of MK, Smash and some SF games. Those are my preferred go to FG's.

At any rate, what do you think? You think Halo and COD are harder or easier than say MK, SF or Tekken? Discuss.

I've also often had this argument with one of my friends, he's more pro FPS and hates fighters. He plays them but thinks they're all "spammy" and people can just do that to win. I try to explain to him the definition, tactics of zoning, keep away and rushdown. He is a Cage and Baraka fan so he likes to get in your face(naturally he hates zoners lol) so I disagree with him more often than not personally being a FG enthusiast. While I love FPS's, and respect their amount of skill as well. I have noticed people often camp in just about every FPS as a defensive tactic, some say it's cheap, others legit. IDK, I know it depends on your perspective. I have to tip my cap however for sniper players who can take people out on the move while moving and not just sitting there waiting. Some people will hunt you at least.

So discuss, I'll make a poll anyway if you want to make a case for another genre but for this topic specifically asking really in terms of FG's vs. FPS's. Have fun and discuss!

Everyone can pick two choices.

 

[Xerclipse]

Both stress execution, reading your opponents, movement, spacing and spacial awareness, MU knowledge and resource/meter management. But the genres challenge one issue over the other.

FGC is more 1v1 and learning your opponent's moveset. Of course we analyze frame data way more than FPS games so there is alot of technical memorization we use. You know exactly where your opponent is and its only a matter of how do you get there or get away. There is a lot of hit confirming too. So if you hit your opponent, they are stunned until your next attack can't juggle or chain. You are not always safe when you attack your opponent. Moves unsafe on block or whiff leave you a sitting duck. Reversals can happen anytime you mash buttons. If you lose, its 100% your fault for the mistakes you do. A 1v1 fight will last in a matter of minutes. Vampire Savior is the quickest competitive fighting game that still does not take as long as a 1v1 FPS fight. And when I mean fight, its when both players know exactly where they are.

FPS actually adds teamwork if the game/mode is based on it like Overwatch. Death match or free for all games not so much. Here is an interesting twist, you gotta think where your opponents could be even though you cant see them. Unlike FGC, you don't always know where your opponents are. Both you and your opponents can hide which turns the game into a tactical operation. However if your team is uncooperative and unwilling to adapt, there isn't anything you can do except tell them (which may not always work). If a player gets hit, they can always get away as long as it doesn't slow their mobility or completely demolish their HP. Objective based modes do encourage you to take risks diving into one spot everyone knows well. When you fire your weapon, you are still somewhat safe since it doesn't always leave you in stationary recovery frames. You can run away while reloading but can't always fire. Most FPS games i've played you can cancel reloading with shooting whatever partial ammunition you reloaded with. A 1v1 fight will last in a matter of seconds. FPS games have weapons and attacks that instant kill you.

 

[SaladPlateLover]

The question doesn't make sense. By winning do you mean competitively? You have things like mmo and adventure which are mostly a non competitive experience, and you're missing rts as starcraft is the original esport and debatably the hardest competitive game to get into.

 

[MKF30]

The question doesn't make sense. By winning do you mean competitively? You have things like mmo and adventure which are mostly a non competitive experience, and you're missing rts as starcraft is the original esport and debatably the hardest competitive game to get into.

Hmm, not sure how it doesn't make sense, if you read my OP dude, talking competitively, not casually. You can play any game casually, but not every game can necessarily be played competitively. You can try but if the game has broken mechanics or is limited, then the competition will naturally go down or be lacking. This is a general question regarding mostly FPS's and FG's if you've read my OP. If you want to talk about others games, feel free I offered other options just in case. But the question is pretty cut and dry here.


@Xerclipse Nice post, appreciate you taking the time to elaborate. Some FPS's require more teamwork oriented tactics than say a game like COD maybe where people tend to be all free for all(not counting zombie modes but standard winner takes all ones) Halo had modes very team oriented as well, COD not as much I'd say as say Overwatch, Halo etc for sure.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Fighting games by the power of 1,000 suns

 

[KeyserSoze]

Kidding around.

All involve different variations of mastery and excellence

 

[XxTheGoblinX]

When I use to play a lot of COD, I remember how easy it was for people to just pick up the most overpowered weapon and kill everyone. Or even by the new Dlc "Ripper" SMG for example and just go on massive killstreaks. Call the best weapon the top tier for FPS .

However in fighting games someone can pick a top tier and they have to put in alot more work to beat a skilled player. So in that aspect fighting games are harder.

Now in 1v1 its tough because for example 1v1 quick scoping you have to have good reactions, accuracy and make reads especially if the radar was off. If you wanted to win you really had to outplay your opponent . If they were even slightly faster or even sharper your getting mopped 30 to 4. This form of play most reminded me of a 1v1 in a fighting game because you need the same kind of tools to win minus the MU Knowledge.

In fighting games theres a lot more factors that go into a match so theres a high chance that your opponent didnt do his hw in one area and you can exploit that and beat him. In FPS all you have to do his run up and shoot but if that person has better reactions, youll never win.

Id say Fighting games are way harder to play, but FPS are easy af to play, but harder to win and improve.

 

[TyCarter35]

If u take something like Virtua Fighter and compare it to any other game FGs are hardest by a fucking landslide. FG it depends on which one. MOBAs and FPS require more teamwork n shit. Fighting Game is more MU knowledge dependent than other genres imo. That being said each game has different skill sets u need to master. Just my 2 cents

 

[asddgd]

Moba because you have to play against an entire team. If youre the only skilled player it’s essentially a 1v5

 

[OutworldKeith]

I’d say fighting games, but I’m biased towards them lol.

Up until recent, fighting games didn’t even tell your how to play them. They didn’t cover things like buffering, negative edge, spacing footsies, frame data, etc.

It was like Nen from Hunter X Hunter. Just something you either knew or you didn’t lol.

 

[Shania Twain]

I dunno. this is all very subject. for example i can't do First person stuff. the perspective just make me feel weird. But my dad used to always say Street Fighter or MK was like watching a prettier version of pong. I also don't care much for sandbox or open world if there is no main story going on. I don't really like Racing either, which is why Batman Arkham Knight I totally put down. too much Batmobile. MMOs can have a lot of dailys and padding so I kinda have to be in the mood. Most RPGs, Fightings, and platforming or third person stuff i can handle as long as I feel engaged.

 

[xenogorgeous]

Different gameplay mechanics and style ..... each demands lots of training and skill, but, cannot be compared .... it's like saying what demands more skill, basketeball or volleyball, being both hard to master and pretty different sports ....

 

[Icefyre]

The correct answer for most skill: RTS games.

I’ll assume you knew it was the correct answer since it wasn’t even an option on your list. Can’t have it dominating your question now, can we?

 

[Evil Canadian]

The correct answer for most skill: RTS games.

I was top 100 North america in Starcraft and top 200 in Warcraft 3 and the answer to that is.... sorta. Too many unknowns. You could lose just based off your build order compared to what the enemy chose and not know until its minutes too late because of lack of info and that's one of the more frustrating aspects of RTS games. When it all goes great a good back and forth game of any given RTS is hard to beat but taken as a whole when FG's everything is always on the table its more rough.

FPS games though you just click and shoot. If your reaction time is significantly better than the enemy it fully overwhelms any map or weapon knowledge and thats why its just fun casual games for the kids.

 

[neveradestroyer]

Fighting games of course... But wen the FPS fights in a 1v1 versus mode... They resembles fighting games a lot IMO.

 

[methademic]

Whoever said mmo is a goofy bastard

 

[Lokheit]

No strategic games as an option? They got loads of simultaneous micro management.

Fighting games are high on the list honestly, but I think strategic games at the highest level require a lot of brain power. Even a game as old as Age of Empire has some crazy games with top players.

 

[MKF30]

If u take something like Virtua Fighter and compare it to any other game FGs are hardest by a fucking landslide. FG it depends on which one. MOBAs and FPS require more teamwork n shit. Fighting Game is more MU knowledge dependent than other genres imo. That being said each game has different skill sets u need to master. Just my 2 cents

VF I think is more technical than most FG's but I would say in terms of being good, competitive etc games like MK, SF and Smash are equally challenging. Obviously all FGs have their own mechanics to get used to. VF pretty much inspired and paved the way for Tekken, something you don't hear often but truth.

No strategic games as an option? They got loads of simultaneous micro management.

Fighting games are high on the list honestly, but I think strategic games at the highest level require a lot of brain power. Even a game as old as Age of Empire has some crazy games with top players.

I see, but to be fair aren't all games strategic in their own way?

 

[MKF30]

No strategic games as an option? They got loads of simultaneous micro management.

Fighting games are high on the list honestly, but I think strategic games at the highest level require a lot of brain power. Even a game as old as Age of Empire has some crazy games with top players.

I see, but to be fair aren't all games strategic in their own way? I added it though

 

[CrimsonShadow]

Neither takes more skill. But if you want to be a top-level FPS player it’s going to be harder because you have 1000s more players to compete against.

FGC = smaller talent pool. Similar level of skill.

 

[Icefyre]

I was top 100 North america in Starcraft and top 200 in Warcraft 3 and the answer to that is.... sorta. Too many unknowns. You could lose just based off your build order compared to what the enemy chose and not know until its minutes too late because of lack of info and that's one of the more frustrating aspects of RTS games. When it all goes great a good back and forth game of any given RTS is hard to beat but taken as a whole when FG's everything is always on the table its more rough.

FPS games though you just click and shoot. If your reaction time is significantly better than the enemy it fully overwhelms any map or weapon knowledge and thats why its just fun casual games for the kids.

I was heavy into W3 in 2007/2008, so if you were online and ranked that high back then we might've actually played each other. Was an UD player (huge Madfrog fan here lol) in top 300.

I was being a little facetious with my post, I don't particularly consider any game type to require more/less skill than another. They each affect different areas of the brain, so it's a little hard to compare. There's an interesting Tedtalks video on youtube of your brain on video games, or something of a similar name, where a neuroscientist describes the effects of FPS games on your brain. Worth a watch for anybody interested in that kind of thing.

 

[NSR]

I was top 100 North america in Starcraft and top 200 in Warcraft 3 and the answer to that is.... sorta. Too many unknowns. You could lose just based off your build order compared to what the enemy chose and not know until its minutes too late because of lack of info and that's one of the more frustrating aspects of RTS games. When it all goes great a good back and forth game of any given RTS is hard to beat but taken as a whole when FG's everything is always on the table its more rough.

FPS games though you just click and shoot. If your reaction time is significantly better than the enemy it fully overwhelms any map or weapon knowledge and thats why its just fun casual games for the kids.

I'm pretty sure Quake wasn't just click and shoot and there's a shit load more to it (say, for example, memorizing map layouts, powerup/weapon placements and timing, general advanced movement mechanics like bunny hopping or rocket jumping, and probably even more stuff I'm forgetting about) but oh well.
Speaking of which, for a thread that asks whether FGs or FPSes take more skill I'm disturbed at the lack of Quake, UT and CS talk. (even Classic Doom could qualify here) ESPECIALLY Quake.

 

[AbeW]

Wow, a simpleton who actually thinks FGs and FPSs are even remotely comparable in difficulty. Now, i've seen it all.

 

[NaCl man]

All take skill but the skill set is different. Ive had a bit of a go at fps games and im dead before i know what has happened. Im sure if i played some of these guys in tekken it would be reversed.

 

[Evil Canadian]

I'm pretty sure Quake wasn't just click and shoot and there's a shit load more to it (say, for example, memorizing map layouts, powerup/weapon placements and timing, general advanced movement mechanics like bunny hopping or rocket jumping, and probably even more stuff I'm forgetting about) but oh well.

Quake you can know the map all you want and have the quad damage uptime memorized in your head down to the second. Doesn't matter a damn lick if I had the railgun and I was a quicker shot than you. Not to say there is no skill to be had, but in the end raw reaction speed is the best skill to have, to the point where it outshines the rest.