Is bad at game

I keep hearing about these K/D
What the fuck is a K/D?

but you don't understand, it's my team's fault that I'm failing to accomplish anything worthwhile!

people are just really bad at thinking critically of themselves.

Fuck off you fucking newfag.
You need to be 18+ to post here.

should meet this In MOBAs, if one person feeds the other team long enough then they snowball and kill fucking everyone else while being overleveled as fuck. Blaming the team mate is of course the natural reaction but sperging out only makes it worse

>game is badly coded
>blame the player for this

DSP in a nutshell

You're fucking useless

It's Kill/Death Ratio

>has a postive k/d
>also has a negative w/l
>thinks he's good

>game is badly coded
>it was supposed to be like that!
>it's a feature!
>git gud

>game is poorly balanced, poorly designed and hilariously easy
>blames the player for not actively avoiding all power-ups while playing in a blindold with his toes in under 20 minutes

Lala is cute

>Objective-based game mode
>lol fuck the objective gotta boost my kd

>Mediocre KDA in an objective based game
>Great W/L
>Friends think I'm just lucky and give me shit

people are dumb

>you need to draw a map irl and take fuckton of notes to beat the game
>I-It's part of the fun! is not bad design at all!

>is bad at game
>blames game

Literally Cred Forums talking about RTS games

I think dead or alive has a difficult mode like that.

anyone up for some kickball

>Game has input delay between skills
>Chaining skills becomes a game of mashing the next skill as soon as the first one triggers to make sure the chain goes right
>1, 22222222222, 3333333333333, 4444444444 instead of 1, 2, 3, 4
>This delay can vary between half a second and nearly two seconds

>Game has shit laggy or just unresponsive controls, bad and lazily made mechanics, lazily designed enemies with huge hitboxes
>most of the game is fighting its bad design rather than actually getting better at the gameplay itself
>criticize genuinely bad design
>fanbase that dickrides it on marketing hype goes super defense force mode like the corporation is their friend
>"WOW ITS SUPPOSED TO BE CLUNKY AND POORLY MADE, ARE YOU CASUAL, GIT GUD"

Guess the game and fanbase. Shouldn't be hard.

>doing poorly
>honestly not sure if I'm having an off game or if I can't get anything done with my team

>Need to be a chess professional player to complete a puzzle
>lol you are just bad

>game is bad
>blames the players

>be me
>am top fragging
>healer isn't healing
>tank isn't tanking
>everyone blames me when we get wiped

gee whiz

>is genuinely good at the game
>everyone else is shit
>blame them
>reported
:(

Demon Souls?

>you need 10000 actions per minute because every unit is retarded and will choke on air when you stop looking at it
>3 units can't go uphill together without spazzing out
>it's not the game's fault!

and this is why RTS is dead and everyone plays dota instead

>When you managed to do more healing than your team's top two DPS' damage together

Honestly, he's probably just sick of being the only guy running for the objective. If you have a high KD, there's a good chance you aren't actually contributing much to the team, or at the very least, aren't putting yourself forward to take the needed risks for your team to win.

Its the entire reason KD needs to be removed from objective based game modes, and shouldn't count on a players profile.

>cryptic, very punishing game with bad controls
>AT THE TIME THAT WAS THE BEST THEY COULD DO!

It is entirely possible for a person to impede the ability of other members of their team in many multiplayer games. More than just possible really, it's all too common.

If you think that teammates performing at incredibly poor levels does not affect the rest of the team, then you are just really bad at critical thinking.

I hear you, man.
Kill streak rewards too should be taken straight out of objective games. Reward the cunt who's getting the flag back to base not th eone who's just sitting there with a rocket launcher shooting everyone who moves.
Not saying though that guys who actually cover flag runners or other scoring players aren't important, but more games need to differentiate between these guys and cunts who are just out for kills.

>not very good at *character*
>come up against person who mains *character*
>wipe the floor with them after sitting there listening to them boast during setup phase
>point out they're constantly being outplayed and ask them to look at my *character* stats
>they responsd with "lol. well look at mine."
>they've played *character* for 50 hours
>I've played *character* for 2 hours

>Play L4D2
>Survivors
>One douche B-lines out, triggering all zombies within the area to get pissed
>Someone gets smoked, so I help them
>All the aggroed zombies start slapping my shit, because people spend more time charging like retards from point A to point B without killing a single thing along the way.
>Get Boomed
>All those pissed off hordes come for my dick in an instant
>Falling behind because of this
>Hunter pins me as I am trying to dodge a charger and a goddamn army of rot bots

>"Kick this slow ass faggot."
>3/4

Erytime.

the entire us FGC

Why the fuck people rush in that game?What's the fucking point?

Shadow of the Colossus.

I have diagnosed autism and I've never done this, not even once.
I always blame myself, even if it's not my fault, because I just assume I'm shit at everything because autism

It actually isn't bad design, except for maybe the notes thing. Many people find having to take notes and draw a map to be part of the charm of some games.

DUDE I WAS BLOCKING AH AH AH AH AH
THIS GAME IS GARBAGE

>bad at game
>need to check a walkthrough from time to time
>people get mad at me for that
Then what the fuck I'm supposed to do? just don't play it?
I'm bad at life but I'm not going to kill myself for that.

The game weighs its score on distance traveled, and the longer it takes for you to finish, the more automated hordes will be summoned by the AI.

Not only that, but rushing while the enemy infected team if on a 20-30 second respawn timer is the most efficient way to play Versus, because you can travel a good distance and make it incredibly hard for the infected to regoup/plan an attack.

The downside to this is that it spawns a pseudo-one man army mentality among the community, where people would rather only focus on themselves and MAYBE one other person and leave EVERYTHING else in the dust to be laughed at between rounds.

>game is bad
>y-you're just bad at it!

Stop being such a slow ass faggot, faggot.

So, Mike Matei thread?

>is bad at game
>"sorry guys I guess I still got plenty to learn! :)"

>previous game(s) in series super easy
>most recent installment finally makes it feel like normal difficulty
>people cry "artificial difficulty" because they try playing it like the past game(s)
>next game is probably doomed to be babby mode again (if it isn't already out)

What's her name?

Stop spawning the fucking tank before people even have a chance to heal up, retard.

So someone being a reasonable/honest person somehow pisses you off?

>bad at game
>it's just a game dude

If people can 1cc UMK3 then there's no excuse. Learn your character and AI patterns better to beat them at their own game.

Spot the MOBA player. I bet you unironically use the term ELO hell too.

Nothing wrong with a walkthrough. It's no different than kiddies reading Nintendo Power and they think that's legit.

>game is bad
>blames player

>first match online
>put in lobby with everyone maxed out
>obliterate everyone
>"Wow , You guys suck"

what kind of games does she plays?

>It's Kill/Death Ratio
Why answer such a basic question? You'll only encourage them to not bother looking it up themselves.

See Learn how to speed up.

>is bad at the game
>I ACTUALLY HAVE A LIFE, A WIFE, A JOB, AND 30 KIDS IT'S NOT MY FAULT
>other people who are even busier are good at the game

Bullshit. Nintendo power would help you with a boss, or a level. Reading a walkthrough is too much. Also, Nintendo power was for pussies if you actually needed it for help most times.

That one zombie game where the guys head comes off and you control it rolling around to get back to your body.

>is bad at game
>blames the other team

You don't "read" a walkthrough. You Ctrl+F to the part you're stuck at, find the answer, and resume playing. If you're following one step by step then it better be a second playthrough and for some really obscure run like getting the Excalibur in FF9.

People "read" walkthroughs all of the time. People play easy games, like say Skyrim by walkthroughs.

>"When you judge an old game's quality, it has to be from the time it was released!"
These people are the absolute worst, simply because they need a handicap to justify their nostalgia faggotry.
I'm judging this game right now, in 2016, I'm not judging it in 1999.
If a current game warps back to 1999 people would have their minds blown by the graphics alone, and nothing else, people are still circlejerking Crysis today because of the way it looks.

>is autistic
>thinks others are just "bad at game"

Well they're retards then.

>"When you judge an old game's quality, it has to be from the time it was released!"
It does unless you're comparing it to a new game. Saying Sonic is shit because it's so short is ridiculous as that was a common length for the time.

But then your evaluation of the game is very limited.

I just tend to look where the fuck is an important item or where do I need to go now after looking around in the game for a long period of time, it's not like you go and search what's the best strategy to beat a boss or something like that.

I agree, but it doesn't mean that they don't do it.

This user is right. If a game is good it will be just as good in 2016 as it was in 1999. If it's not still fun then it sucks, period.

I only look them up for character creation in a game like IWD so I don't end up making a party that can't complete the game. Anything else is for pussies in my book, unless you're replaying the game.
Not exactly. If I', exposed to better, then the older game will feel more like ass. Also, if I grow up with better, then the older one will definitely feel like ass.

That's why everything on the SNES is pixelshit by today's standards.

Giving something a handicap is showing it's clearly weaker to whatever you're comparing it too.
Do you think the golfer who's playing a handicap is better than a guy who's paring every hole with standard rules?
Of course not, you can't, not unless you're biased as shit because the handicap golfer is a family member and you're delusional as fuck.

>someone new playing ro2
>"wow I get constantly killed from the spawn/300 yards away what the fuck is this"
>someone tells him to play it slow, take cover and use lean/prone as much as possible instead of blindly charging through the open field
>"wtf I still get killed even when I'm behind cover fuck this"
>player3432 has left

Not even close to similar.

>Compare something side by side.
>"Well, this one deserves arbitrary extra points because it can't hold it's own by itself"
>"N-not because it'd be considered worse or anything"
That's exactly why you're doing it, it'd be weaker based on being judged by today's merits.
Deny it all you like but there would be no reason to give it a handicap otherwise.
Your old games aren't perfect and they never were.

I'm just saying that your assessment of a game's quality will be extremely limited, limited to your own preferences to be exact, if you ignore factors like historical context. It's exactly the same with movies, music, literature or even technological advancements. If you *artificially* remove historical context, then you won't be able to appreciate any older game's pioneering features. If those are things you don't *want* to look at in a game, that's perfectly fine, but don't tell those who do take such things into consideration that their evaluation is somehow "wrong".

Context isn't arbitrary.

>book was considered average at the time
>considered the epitome of literature now
See how that works? Times change and with them peoples opinions. Same can be said for how things improve. Just because we've improved on graphics doesn't make the art in older games shit or the music worse because we have more clear quality.

>Compare two games
>14 year old asks which one was better
>"Well before you were born this one was better"
>"...Isn't that because this wasn't out yet? Wouldn't that make the other one better?"
>"HISTORICAL CONTEXT!"
Are you now going to tell me that because a 1999 game was better than a 2016 game for 17 years on the merit of the 2016 game not being made yet that it's years reigning supreme over it make it better by default?

Look, here's how things go with me: You either quote what I actually say and respond directly to it, or you don't bother at all. I have zero interest in arguing against strawmen.

Think of it like this. Is Skyrim better than Morrowind because it has better graphics, less bugs and generally more casualized? Debatable. Now, is Morrowind shit for those same reasons? Is SMB shit because SMB3 is better? Is SF2 or MK Trilogy shit because the newer ones are pretty much better? That's why you judge a game based on how it was back in the day. Newer games should be better, but that doesn't make older one bad.