Users who are viewing this thread
AWdeV said:
Bull****.
No matter how hard I train, I will never be an NBA player, I just don't have the talent.
Some people are born with it, some aren't. Some people have more natural ability in different areas than other people, and that's fact.
Sure, if you practice something, you'll get better, but some people will never rise above a certain point. I know people from beta that have been playing religiously since then and they're still bad, and I saw people (myself, Kyky, Vanidar) in beta destroying entire servers in beta after playing for a week or two. You can throw theorycraft around all you want, but those are facts.
Practice helps, but talent is a requirement to be elite. Anyone can be decent with practice.
Talent is natural ability, skill is a learned one. It's impossible to be talented at playing a game, utilising a keyboard is not an inherent trait. You can have talents which may assist in playing a game, like faster reactions or better hand-eye co-ordination, but that's it. To use the drawing analogy, nobody is a naturally talented artist. They might be more observant, have better motor control or another talent which feeds in to the skill, but they won't be naturally more talented at putting graphite on paper, not least because a pencil is the same pencil no matter who is using it.Rhade said:
Generally it'll only be decisive in cases where the two players are otherwise at an equal skill level. And even then, simply because someone possesses a talent doesn't mean they can apply it in a given situation. People who have a talent for learning language tend to be quick to pick up coding languages, but only when they see it as another language. Some will naturally do this, others need to be taught to view it as a linguistics problem rather than a mathematical one.
And your examples are spurious. Physical sports differ from skills because they're physical, thus talents are involved directly. A boxer can be technically the best in the field, but if his body lacks mass he's limited to how good he can be; a four foot midget is never going to qualify for a heavyweight competition (barring perhaps Sumo). A footballer with a talent for throwing is always going to be better than one without, because no matter how well you understand throwing a ball it's still your arm muscles that do it.
And yes, some people can practice as much as they want and never improve. It's not due to talent or a lack of it, it's largely a matter of dedication. There were several players who rapidly dominated in beta but ended up being surpassed by others simply because they lacked the dedication or desire to improve their play beyond a certain point. Similarly some of the best players today were absolutely pathetic back in the beta. The problem with skills is it's a question of not only wanting to improve, but identifying what you need to do to improve. Some people will only take it to a given level and leave it there as "good enough", others can plateau despite wanting to improve because they can't understand how to improve.
Talent is no more a requirement to be elite than being black or white. By the time you're at that level ability should far surpass talent.
Archonsod said:
That's like saying "Playing in the NBA doesn't take talent, it just takes the ability to jump high, react quickly, shoot a ball accurately and run fast."
Yes, otherwise known as being a a talented Basketball player. There are certain traits that you can have natural skill at that will accumulate to give you talent in specific fields.
Let's take the drawing example: Yes, the instrument is the same no matter who's hands it's in, be it a pencil or a keyboard, but some people are naturally more proficient at using them, and certain people will never be able to reach past a certain ceiling with them. You can take ten people, sit them down at Warband and let them all play for 75 hours, and what will happen is that one player is going to be the best -- that's because he has more talent.
The fact is that in beta, I was destroying people who had been playing for months after I had been playing for only a few weeks. I see people from the beta who are dedicated warband players, play more than I do, and I still beat them badly when I play them -- Why? Because I'm faster, I have faster reflexes and I have better timing. Those traits I would call talents that allow me to be better than an average player.
Time helps, talent is required. No one will ever become elite at anything simply by doing it over and over, there has to be skill/talent associated with it. As I said, you or I can spend every day, all day, attempting to become an NBA player but I highly doubt that will happen because only certain people have the appropriate skill sets. Just like that example, only a certain group have the appropriate skill sets (reflexes, quick critical thinking, timing, the ability to multi-task extremely well, spatial awareness, etc) that will allow them to rise to the elite of gaming.
I'm sorry, but time invested =! results. It helps, but it's not the main variable. I have seen players pick up Warband and absolutely destroy "veterans" after their first week of playing. That is not an opinion, its a fact.
Gaming is no different from sports in that it involves an understanding of what you're doing, which is gained by learning (helped along by time), but you must have the talent and skills to execute that knowledge in an amazingly fast, proficient manner that few others can match.
You can read all you want about running, you can spend all day every day learning about running, but if you have no legs, you will never be a world class runner. Knowledge (or time) is important, and anyone can gain it -- It is a given. However, talent, or the ability to execute that knowledge in a manner better than someone else, is the x factor that only certain people have.
Mr.X
I have to agree with rhade. Some people are just naturally better at video games. I, never playing a xbox before, wrecked my friend in Halo the first time I played it (back in the day) as soon as I knew what button did what. Took me about 20 minutes. He played for weeks before I played with him. Also
The "X" factor eh? I guess I see how you would associate me with talent and all that jazz...
Rhade said:
The "X" factor eh? I guess I see how you would associate me with talent and all that jazz...
I agree with both Rhade and Archonsod in parts. It is a terribly complex subject matter, it's really hard to make any generalizations. There are several parameters that could be justified in parts, such as "skill ceiling", "learning rate", "persistence", and so on, but in the end they are generalizations, and as such fail to describe some people.
Some examples from my gaming "career" (feel free to skip reading if you don't want to endure my self-analysis with regards to this subject):
My eye sight sucks - I cannot hit with pixel perfect accuracy, which really impaired my ability with e.g. Counter-Strike. I never made it anywhere close to "better than average" players, despite playing it a lot. In CS, great players kill you on sight more or less.
In Mount&Blade vs random people I'm usually top 1-3 of score board after a few rounds [at cavalry which I play 99% of the time], but I'm not anywhere as good as the absolutely best [cavalry] players. I think that after 16 years of computer gaming, my reflex rate is quite good. But I think there are some people that were born with capacity for even faster reaction times, or so it seems. Note that M&B doesn't require pixel perfect accuracy in near all cases.
Another thing that always mattered hugely is how rested I am. In near all games I've played (but which seems to affect FPS games more than RTSes where there seems to be a greater skill gap): I'm tired = I play crap. In FPS games like Warband (yes Warband is not a "shooter" but I place it in that category), it also seems to be an advantage not to play too much - I get sloppy if I play more than 1 hours per day on average for a prolonged period (because I then get bored).
Another observation: I'm starting to get so old it takes me longer time to learn games. E.g, it took me a few months to reach a level of Starcraft 2 that some other, often younger, people reached in weeks. On the other hand, I seem to play the games I already know as well as ever (e.g. I remain near pro @ Dawn of War, and now approaching very decent on Warband).
Some examples from my gaming "career" (feel free to skip reading if you don't want to endure my self-analysis with regards to this subject):
My eye sight sucks - I cannot hit with pixel perfect accuracy, which really impaired my ability with e.g. Counter-Strike. I never made it anywhere close to "better than average" players, despite playing it a lot. In CS, great players kill you on sight more or less.
In Mount&Blade vs random people I'm usually top 1-3 of score board after a few rounds [at cavalry which I play 99% of the time], but I'm not anywhere as good as the absolutely best [cavalry] players. I think that after 16 years of computer gaming, my reflex rate is quite good. But I think there are some people that were born with capacity for even faster reaction times, or so it seems. Note that M&B doesn't require pixel perfect accuracy in near all cases.
Another thing that always mattered hugely is how rested I am. In near all games I've played (but which seems to affect FPS games more than RTSes where there seems to be a greater skill gap): I'm tired = I play crap. In FPS games like Warband (yes Warband is not a "shooter" but I place it in that category), it also seems to be an advantage not to play too much - I get sloppy if I play more than 1 hours per day on average for a prolonged period (because I then get bored).
Another observation: I'm starting to get so old it takes me longer time to learn games. E.g, it took me a few months to reach a level of Starcraft 2 that some other, often younger, people reached in weeks. On the other hand, I seem to play the games I already know as well as ever (e.g. I remain near pro @ Dawn of War, and now approaching very decent on Warband).
gingerbill
Recruit
Rhade said:
dont like quoting one point and picking on it , but this is such nonsense it has to be highlighted. Plenty of Sc2 tournaments outside of korea for good money , intel have done plenty . And as far someone writing a script to beat the pro's , haha , go ahead and write a script and make loadsa money beating the pro's , hehe. Wether you like SC2 or not its an amazingly designed game , brilliant in fact for e-sports . Watched plenty of games and theres still no winning build or style , so many diffrent ways to win at the top level.
Joy
Squire
agreed with Chaingun 
and there is another factor which is very close to talent and has not been mentioned yet: intelligence...
it sounds kind of harsh, i know, but since tactics are very important both in team plays and duels, clever ones would be more advantaged in terms of success, as they are in any area of life...
gaining experience would help to catch up with them, but still they would be more successful in terms of creativity, finding new solutions, etc.
and there is another factor which is very close to talent and has not been mentioned yet: intelligence...
it sounds kind of harsh, i know, but since tactics are very important both in team plays and duels, clever ones would be more advantaged in terms of success, as they are in any area of life...
gaining experience would help to catch up with them, but still they would be more successful in terms of creativity, finding new solutions, etc.
