Rhythm versus FPS gamers

[Patricoo]

Re: Rhythm versus FPS gamers

Especially because both types of games can have their difficulty altered dramatically. In modern games, both FPS and Rhythm, can be set to "moron easy" or "no-life difficult".

Now if you want a difficult genre... RTS is totally up there!!

[-Fallen-]

Re: Rhythm versus FPS gamers

I started playing Ghost Recon and FFR around the same time back in 2003ish so this is how it turned out for me at least.

FPS: Pointing + Clicking is, fairly easy to get used to. Two downsides when I was new, was being able to prefire and adapt to maps quickly, I had a bit of trouble memorizing but other than that, couple of weeks and I was scoring a positive kd ratio no problem. Secondly, the game was pretty terrible at the time, when Counter Strike came into my life and had better hitboxes and maps and I got a better computer, it was much easier to adapt.

Rhythm gaming (FFR in particular) was very hard for me but it was exceptionally more difficult to learn because of the old FFR timing window in it's first stages, made it impossible to get used to even though you knew you were on beat. At the time I didn't know how new it was so I never found out the timing window was actually just a piece of junk. I just played unregistered for a couple of months wondering why I never got better until I decided to become part of the community full time. Once the newer timing window was released I had an easier time playing and didn't mind putting more time learning different styles and getting comfortable.

Rhythm (DDR): I had only tried it once thinking it was dumb (this was right before finding FFR) so I didn't get good or bother caring. After playing a few months of FFR occasionally (few times a week with maybe and only a few basic AAA's at the time) I went straight to my local arcade one afternoon played some DDR for my first real attempts. First few attempts I played on Light, then I tried Standard then moved onto Heavy. Once I played Heavy, I stayed on Heavy and that was that, picked up DDR in no time. Within a few weeks I was SDG'ing songs on DDR and FC'ing Max300 LotM with some decent PA.

Basically, I came into both worlds with poor versions of both forms of games and didn't adapt very well to either, but if I had to say if someone picked up Counter Strike and then played some FFR/DDR/ITG or any Rhythm game today, they'd equally be able to compete at tournament level if they put the time in it.

Anybody can learn to point and click a mouse and memorize maps and in most cases if you're in decent shape and willing to build your cardio, I'm sure you could do great in a Rhythm game too.

Commitment is the only difference. Eventually your ability to improve will feel like it's going nowhere, but it's just the competition settling in and the realization that "somewhere someone is better than me no matter how good I'll get".

[who_cares973]

Re: Rhythm versus FPS gamers

fallen pretty much summed up what i was going to say

[masuat]

Re: Rhythm versus FPS gamers

Normally I'm a fan of debates like this, but this comparison is strange: with regards to skill and learning curve etc, FPS and rhythm games are very different.

I think we're on which genre is more difficult to learn and excel at (didn't read the thread) but that too is very user specific so...

I'd say learning certain things in fps's would be pretty easy such as strategies and weapon spawn times. How ever there are a lot of aspects to an fps that would take time to develop like aim, handling game mechanics, and in the case of the strats I mentioned you'd have to play a certain game for awhile to know how to react based on different situations which are constantly changing in game.

Rhythm games take a while to get used to for some and require a decent amount of time for most to become acquainted with each individual game's timing window and such. In some cases there are physical boundaries that can occur such as strength in forearms or legs and, in the case of ddr, even cardiovascular and respiratory strength and endurance.

Both require different skills and (like everything) time to fully master or get a good grip on. But for the most part I'd say the main thing that would be difficult in fps are the situational differences. Rhythm each specific rhythm game plays the same every time you play it (with the exception of lag mods game changes etc), you just have get acquainted with the game you're playing.

So you could say fps is a tad harder because it requires a little bit more thinking in addition to the aiming and playing skills of a gamer, but again someone might have a natural affinity for fps and not for rhythm so it goes back to individual difference...plus all of you probably already are aware of these points. blah.

Edit: not whoops CT lol.

+rep. Apparently I was just about to produce an echo in here... my thoughts exactly, especially regarding situational differences in FPS and physical boundaries in rhythm.

The main factors between rhythm and FPS are complete opposites: physical versus mental.

For rhythm games, you usually have to be physically "able" to play to your full potential. ex. "warming up", cold fingers hindering play, and as mentioned the strength of your own body. Physical ability is more important than factors of the game because the game stays relatively consistent. Say if there are mods, you are the one that sets them. If there's a fast bpm change in a song, you will remember it on subsequent plays. There may be changes and unpredictable things, but for the most part you can overcome them with repetition. Everything else does not change and luck is never involved. This makes a player's ability to be good at the game rely solely the player's skill.

FPS does not put as much emphasis on physical ability. Sure it takes a good hand to get a headshot, but rarely do you have to click the LB within x seconds or be able to drill W x times. Knowledge and experience of the game is more important. The player who knows the map better will probably be able to flank the player who has perfect aim. By simply having the ability to move in 3 dimensions, you have an experience that is already far more variable than in a rhythm game. Throw in the radius of a grenade blast, your current ping, and the possibilities of where every other player is and what they're doing, and you have something that's infinitely more complex, and also less in your control, than a rhythm game. To be good at FPS, you need a combination of skill, wisdom, and even luck.

Some days I just can't play Stepmania. My fingers will be freezing and slow to react. I know I'm not playing at my normal potential so I decide to play Call of Duty instead. My fingers are in bad condition, but my mind isn't. I still remember where to throw my GRENATAAAAAA to hit the first chokepoint, and it takes me but one middle click to do it.

[MrGiggles]

Re: Rhythm versus FPS gamers

My arm hurts like a bitch when I play some hard song on SM.

CoD4 also makes my arm hurt like a bitch but that's usually because I hit something flailing about in my impotent rage.

In conclusion video games are hurtful and damaging to society as a whole. Rhythm gamers are nerds and FPS gamers shoot up schools. They both lose peace rofl

ps games don't require skill. EDIT: wait hang on. I'm having trouble putting this concept into words, I'll try to edit it in when I figure it out. =(

[Wineandbread]

Re: Rhythm versus FPS gamers

I agree with OnixRose and masuat for the most part. It's difficult to compare genres in this sense because of how differently they play at a higher level.

I think when people talk about skill in shooters, they usually refer to multiplayer ability. This is almost entirely relatively to the people you play. Playing well means learning to read opponents, aiming well, map positioning, and sometimes collaborating with others. But for single player, it's about memorizing the levels.

Rhythm games are... well, rhythm games. There's not much to them other than learning how to play effectively, reading notes, and timing.

I think in the end, it's about learning (a) specific game(s). Ability to play one FPS may let you play another decently, but you'll have to learn the new controls, new maps, new guns, new playstyle, etc. if you want to become sufficiently good. Same thing for rhythm games, to some extent.

[dore]

Re: Rhythm versus FPS gamers

I think versatility in rhythm gaming is harder to achieve than in FPS gaming. Most shooters fall within to one category or another (realistic, futuristic, retro/fast, slow/team-based, individual, etc.). So as long as you can adapt between the different styles and learn controls pretty quickly you will do well when switching from one FPS to another. On the other hand, with rhythm games, you almost universally have to learn some sort of new peripheral and a different style of coordination for each game. That's not to say playing DDR won't help you play Guitar Hero, because it will. But you have to realize playing DDR is vastly different than playing Guitar Hero. So it will take more practice to become awesome at multiple rhythm games than it would to become awesome at multiple FPSs.

I will say that FPS is a much deeper genre than rhythm gaming, and that it requires a lot more concentration and strategy to play consistently well. Rhythm games are more individual: your score is 100% due to your effort (ignoring cooperative modes which require a little strategy but still are equal to the sum of the two players' efforts). FPS is more interactive: how well you play depends on how you respond to other competitors.

[Mousethecat]

Re: Rhythm versus FPS gamers

When comparing two different things, saying something like "You can't compare them because they're entirely different" is just stating the obvious.

Take what is the same, and compare those.

No matter what, you, the player will always be the main factor. For this discussion especially, imagine yourself as a video game character, and give yourself some stats related to your skills.

You can break this down into things like Reaction time, dexterity, memory, judgement, ect...

Your ability to play a game, no matter what genre, will come down to two things. Skill and Knowledge.

The more you know about a game, the more you can apply your skills. The more skilled you are, the more your knowledge of the game will help.

FFR is almost entirely skill based. You pick a stage (song) to play, and it will always be the same because there are no other factors that will change the same stage. The variety is in the 700+ songs there are to choose from. The entire game revolves on how good you can time your button presses and if your hit the correct button. Skills a person uses to play this game should already be common knowledge.

FPS have much more depth to them, there's even the huge difference between playing single player and multi-player. Knowledge matters much more because there are weapons that are better in different situations, and maps that you need to know in order to use them to your advantage. You need to do things like move, aim and shoot in order to win by defeating your enemies who (in the case of multiplayer) happen to be other people, which adds an another element of randomness no one can control.

[Flaming_Dingleberry]

Re: Rhythm versus FPS gamers

The gameplay for rhythm games can differ much more drastically than FPS's. Then again:

Story: FPS
Violent Satisfaction: FPS
Artistic Satisfaction: depends on whether you like good music vs. pretty scenery+blood
Reaction Speed Development: both
Pattern Recognition/Memory/Dsexilya: rhythm

I like rhythm games more, but that's just my taste. I don't think one is better than the other, unless we're talking exceptions and extremes... Left4Dead is definitely better than Dance Factory, and Rock Band is definitely better than Black (idk).

FFR is almost entirely skill based. You pick a stage (song) to play, and it will always be the same because there are no other factors that will change the same stage. The variety is in the 700+ songs there are to choose from. The entire game revolves on how good you can time your button presses and if your hit the correct button. Skills a person uses to play this game should already be common knowledge.

FPS have much more depth to them, there's even the huge difference between playing single player and multi-player. Knowledge matters much more because there are weapons that are better in different situations, and maps that you need to know in order to use them to your advantage. You need to do things like move, aim and shoot in order to win by defeating your enemies who (in the case of multiplayer) happen to be other people, which adds an another element of randomness no one can control.

Why would you talk about FFR, just one rhythm game, and then all FPS's? FFR, Rock Band, Taiko Drum Master, DDR. There's your variation. And the "FPS" examples are also examples of a lot of other games. Weapons, maps, moving, even aiming, shooting, and defeating enemies is a part of almost every other game. There's fighting games, 3rd person shooters, RPG's, monkey catching games, strategical horror games, hack & slash, etc... Rhythm games are just one of the few games that don't have those aspects. The only other example I can think of is puzzle games.

[Mousethecat]

Re: Rhythm versus FPS gamers

Why would you talk about FFR, just one rhythm game, and then all FPS's? FFR, Rock Band, Taiko Drum Master, DDR. There's your variation. And the "FPS" examples are also examples of a lot of other games. Weapons, maps, moving, even aiming, shooting, and defeating enemies is a part of almost every other game. There's fighting games, 3rd person shooters, RPG's, monkey catching games, strategical horror games, hack & slash, etc... Rhythm games are just one of the few games that don't have those aspects. The only other example I can think of is puzzle games.

Because this is the FFR forum, and all rhythm games are essentially the same, only key difference being the form of input. Dance panels, guitar buttons, drum pads, keyboards, are all just different ways of letting the game receive your rhythmic input. Being good at one and bad at another is simply because you haven't learned how to use that specific form of input yet, a matter of knowledge. Once you know how to interact with the form of input the games use the same skills the same way, only to different degrees.

My main point pertaining to this discussion, is that all games require a certain degree of skill and knowledge. How difficult it is for a person to play and get better at a game depends on that persons ability to gain skill and knowledge. How much knowledge and skill a game demands depends entirely on the game.

FFR and rhythm games focus mainly on a few things, things like mental quickness, coordination, and endurance of your fingers/arms/legs/whatever.

FPS's have much more levels of depth and things to be thinking about than just a scrolling bar of notes and if you're going to hit them.

What really affects how difficult a game is, is how difficult the programmers of the game want it to be.

[Flaming_Dingleberry]

Re: Rhythm versus FPS gamers

I agree with what you're saying, for the most part anyway. I have something to say about the following:

Because this is the FFR forum, and all rhythm games are essentially the same, only key difference being the form of input. Dance panels, guitar buttons, drum pads, keyboards, are all just different ways of letting the game receive your rhythmic input.

This may be the FFR forum, but when there's a thread about rhythm games, the topic is rhythm games, not FFR. Which FPS has a different objective than any other FPS? When a different FPS game is created, the button configuration changes, but the movement, shooting, and objectives are similar, regardless of the change in setting. When a different rhythm game is created, sometimes the developers have to change the entire controller. That's not enough of a change?

FPS's have much more levels of depth and things to be thinking about than just a scrolling bar of notes and if you're going to hit them.

Correction plz:

FPS's... and a ****load of other genres that have the same qualities. Rhythm games are unique in that there are no genres similar to it.

[Garquillex]

Re: Rhythm versus FPS gamers

Thanks for the topic, now I'm writing out an essay instead of going to bed.

[rajdaddy]

Re: Rhythm versus FPS gamers

What have I created lol, I deserve a medal.

I can beat all of you in Guitar Hero.
You can all beat me in Halo/COD/etc..

Anyway,

This might be an interesting test to do scientifically to see what kinds of games show the most amount of brain activity.

None of us here, in our porn watching, arrow killing ways have those capabilities though.

I agree with this, do it scientifically, but I don't know how to go about it.
Suggestions?

[Garquillex]

Re: Rhythm versus FPS gamers

Brain activity would be too dependent on the subject. It also doesn't show the limits. It's a lot easier to do it logically and theoretically.

Halfway done with my writeup. It should be really useful here.

Also, I can tell you right now that the most competitive and brain intensive genre is RTS. There's no doubt about it. Starcraft is the most complex and competitive game there is. It's virtually impossible for a human to hit the allowed skill ceiling because it hardly exists.

[Garquillex]

Re: Rhythm versus FPS gamers

Son of a *****, I just lost 8 paragraphs after firefox froze. I still have half of it. I'll finish tomorrow...