Do you prefer slower or faster-paced games?

[KnightoftheWind]

This video by ShreddedNerd still sticks with me, because I think it makes a really good point. I find myself beginning to enjoy the more "twitchy" kinds of games less and less, where reflexes and speed are all that matter and is the difference between having a good time or a bad time. It may be fine in short bursts but it gets fatiguing after a while, especially when every new FPS title, including from indies, share the same formula. This issue even extends beyond FPS games, with many other genres having an abundance of flashy, caffeinated visual effects and a million and a half collectibles to find. Games prey on your sense of FOMO and desire for 100% completion (or even 50% completion). It seems Halo was one of the few franchises that bucked the trend for a short while, and makes me miss it's golden years all the more.

[Vergil]

I think games need to have a good balance between "down time" and in the moment combat encounters. The issue with boomer shooter inspired indies is that they basically want to give you nothing but frosting with no cake. Some people like stuff like that (like boss rush modes in games) but most people want a well paced experience instead of constant in your face action/spectacle. I like Devil May Cry 3. If the game consisted of only the bloody palace mode (basically endless waves of enemies with no plot) I would like it a lot less.

[KnightoftheWind]

I think games need to have a good balance between "down time" and in the moment combat encounters. The issue with boomer shooter inspired indies is that they basically want to give you nothing but frosting with no cake. Some people like stuff like that (like boss rush modes in games) but most people want a well paced experience instead of constant in your face action/spectacle. I like Devil May Cry 3. If the game consisted of only the bloody palace mode (basically endless waves of enemies with no plot) I would like it a lot less.

It's why I appreciate the downtime in Bethesda games, I think that's one area they do very well in. If the art design is good, I'd rather they give the player time to appreciate it and get amped up for the next encounter all the more.

[Vergil]

It's why I appreciate the downtime in Bethesda games, I think that's one area they do very well in.

It has been but they've slowly been getting worse and worse at it as their cities (where you typically return to in order to turn in quests, get new ones, sell gear, buy new gear, make repairs, re-up on healing items etc.) have gotten scaled down, the life more and more sucked out of them and the game mechanics getting boiled down into getting you in the "action" longer and longer. Starfield could have excelled at this with the ship content being something like KOTOR or Mass Effect instead of being a ****** player home from Skyrim but even less functionality.
The proc gen slop also makes this worse as you no longer have an interesting hand crafted world to walk around in (assuming you aren't fast traveling everywhere, another bethesda addition that has been creeping more and more into keeping you "in the action") and you are punished for trying to do so since outside of the handful of randomly picked identical dungeons you're not going to find **** out there.

[KnightoftheWind]

It's why I appreciate the downtime in Bethesda games, I think that's one area they do very well in.

It has been but they've slowly been getting worse and worse at it as their cities (where you typically return to in order to turn in quests, get new ones, sell gear, buy new gear, make repairs, re-up on healing items etc.) have gotten scaled down, the life more and more sucked out of them and the game mechanics getting boiled down into getting you in the "action" longer and longer. Starfield could have excelled at this with the ship content being something like KOTOR or Mass Effect instead of being a ****** player home from Skyrim but even less functionality.

Thankfully I will never touch Soyfield with a ten-foot pole, but that is sad to hear. It's probably a symptom of everything else that's wrong with the game. It's not as if they made any stunning environments that were worth savoring to begin with.

[Norfleet]

I find myself beginning to enjoy the more "twitchy" kinds of games less and less, where reflexes and speed are all that matter and is the difference between having a good time or a bad time.

Welcome to getting old.

[Falksi]

Fast Paced for me. I've not got time to **** around with slow ****, real life exists and finding time to game is hard enough as it is.

[rusty_shackleford]

Slower, methodical play is more fun.

[Vergil]

Fast Paced for me. I've not got time to **** around with slow ****, real life exists and finding time to game is hard enough as it is.

An hour of gameplay is an hour of gameplay no matter what you're doing.

[Falksi]

Fast Paced for me. I've not got time to **** around with slow ****, real life exists and finding time to game is hard enough as it is.

An hour of gameplay is an hour of gameplay no matter what you're doing.

But an hour of fast paced gameplay allows for more fun in that time. So if the gameplay is good, the experience is better.

[KnightoftheWind]

Fast Paced for me. I've not got time to **** around with slow ****, real life exists and finding time to game is hard enough as it is.

I will say that some genres lend themselves to playing a certain way. For example, shmups need to be fast because that's the only way they can be entertaining. Tactical RPGs and puzzlers need to be slow, because you need time to think and plan. A fast-paced FPS is a lot more fatiguing however, because there is a lot of visual information to take into account. You have to always be on your feet and jumping all over the place, and in a multiplayer scenario like Quake 3 other players are doing the same. It takes a certain kind of person to enjoy games like that. I used to love Unreal, but I doubt I can play those sorts of games now and be good at it.

[Falksi]

Fast Paced for me. I've not got time to **** around with slow ****, real life exists and finding time to game is hard enough as it is.

I will say that some genres lend themselves to playing a certain way. For example, shmups need to be fast because that's the only way they can be entertaining. Tactical RPGs and puzzlers need to be slow, because you need time to think and plan. A fast-paced FPS is a lot more fatiguing however, because there is a lot of visual information to take into account. You have to always be on your feet and jumping all over the place, and in a multiplayer scenario like Quake 3 other players are doing the same. It takes a certain kind of person to enjoy games like that. I used to love Unreal, but I doubt I can play those sorts of games now and be good at it.

Personally, I like a fast pace to most my games. Inject that buzz into my veins.

I get why other people prefer slower stuff, but I like to think and plan quick too.

[Kowe]

As Knightofthewind wrote about two post before, certain genres lend themselves to either slower-paced or faster-paced gameplay-loop.
In general RTS, FPS are on the fast-paced side. Of course, there are exceptions, like Clive Barker's Undying for the slower, story-focused Horror shooter.
Some points ShreddedNerd raised can be avoided by allowing players with these implementations: dedicated servers with their own rules, proper skill-based matchmaking, single-player. This allows some players to still find enjoyment despite the gap in skill or knowledge to another part of the general player-base and to more so play at their own pace. Mods can also alleviate the issue.

My preference here is fast-paced over slow-paced. Hence Quake 1-3, Starcraft + Warcraft 3, all being in my top 10/20. A great part of it is their focus on movement and input (APM/keybinding options).
Notwithstanding, certain slower-paced games do have their charm. Taking a bit of a guess here, but most of us if not all probably play both types of games. With a different tendency to one over the other.

[Irenaeus]

The slower the better, unless it's an arcade game like Golden Axe. Paging @Falksi

[maidenhaver]

It just depends on the day.

[Xenich]

This video by ShreddedNerd still sticks with me, because I think it makes a really good point. I find myself beginning to enjoy the more "twitchy" kinds of games less and less, where reflexes and speed are all that matter and is the difference between having a good time or a bad time. It may be fine in short bursts but it gets fatiguing after a while, especially when every new FPS title, including from indies, share the same formula. This issue even extends beyond FPS games, with many other genres having an abundance of flashy, caffeinated visual effects and a million and a half collectibles to find. Games prey on your sense of FOMO and desire for 100% completion (or even 50% completion). It seems Halo was one of the few franchises that bucked the trend for a short while, and makes me miss it's golden years all the more.

Slow and fast is a style, not a metric of quality.

[Xenich]

Fast Paced for me. I've not got time to **** around with slow ****, real life exists and finding time to game is hard enough as it is.

An hour of gameplay is an hour of gameplay no matter what you're doing.

But an hour of fast paced gameplay allows for more fun in that time. So if the gameplay is good, the experience is better.

Relative.

[DDC]

I have less attention span in my 40s than I did when I was younger. A lot more partially played but unfinished games. The slow vs. fast dichotomy doesn't make much difference though.

In past decades, I would slog all the way through a JRPG even if it was mid. These days, I'm a lot better at cutting off a game once I realize it's going to be ****. I tend to gravitate to all manner of roguelike games (from traditional to deckbuilder to action based) and obviously they hit the full spectrum in terms of pacing. I'm selective about getting sucked into long games though. The exception I guess would be Soulslike games because I tend to play any of those that are halfway decent all the way to completion.

[SpellSword]

[Irenaeus]

I prefer them so slow they are played in "turns".

[Manny V]

slow cause me brain slow

[CSM-101]

Just depends on what I'm in the mood to play. I'm not a fan of twitch shooters but I do like reflex heavy games like Audiosurf.

[somerandomdude]

If slow means spending most of your time in game watching cut scenes, dialogue, and lengthy animations play out, then I'd prefer fast.

I agree with DDC, I care less about story/dialogue/cut scenes as I've gotten older, if given the option to do so I frequently skip them if they drag on for too long. I'll use Ghost of Tsushima as an example, unskippable cut scenes pretty much made the game unplayable for me. If I bought the game, I'd have 100% refunded it before 2hrs was up.

If a slower paced game means more strategic, choices depending on build/loadout/approach to the game, and less dependent on clutch reaction speed, I might prefer slower depending on how it's executed, as long as it doesn't bore me with story/dialogue/cut scenes.

[Xenich]

If its action, I prefer slow combat, longer endurance based fights where the point is strategy in managing resources, selective use of skills/spells/items (ie CC or similar) to beat an encounter... basically the essence of a "dungeon crawl" of slow progression. The point of slow action play is the progression of choices weighting a fight to the point where you eventually win it, or lose it, but... because it is slow progression, you have time to learn and adapt various tactics in play through mistakes before you cross a certain line of no return (ie you lose).

If its turn based, well... these days I enjoy it more than action.

Most games these days are... fast kill, mass AOE with no time to really implement strategy of learning and adaption other than reflex gimmicks and I got my fill of that in the 80's.

[Element]

I liked episode 1 of Ultrakill

[Norfleet]

If its action, I prefer slow combat, longer endurance based fights where the point is strategy in managing resources, selective use of skills/spells/items (ie CC or similar) to beat an encounter... basically the essence of a "dungeon crawl" of slow progression.

I prefer a sort of balance between these: Where fights are thoughtful and proceed at a pace with some level of urgency, without being simple twitchfest quickdraw head clicking, and certainly CAN become long when both sides are skillfully managing their resources, but not simply attritional slogs where you repeat a sequence against a pattern while slowly grinding away a few million hitpoints one at a time. That's just boring.

The difference is something like a space battle where one side can achieve its objectives in mere minutes of engagement if the other side is exceptionally incompetent (okay, in practical play, it tended to be that one side was USUALLY incompetent, but still), while a battle between two master-class captains could last for hours with both sides finally withdrawing inconclusively (and this was still considered a satisfying conclusion) or a duel between wordsmen where the parry and thrust could go on indefinitely between masters, but a scrub will eat it in the head and die instantly, vs. hacking away at a giant million-hitpoint dragon that just flips between a "biting people" phase, a "the floor is lava" phase, and a "wheezing for breath like an asthmatic smoker" phase where you're supposed to whack it, vs. "who clicks the other guy's head first".

The first is a dynamic action where length of the action is a product of the depth of choices, rather than intrinsically baked into the system, and the skill of the participants is the primary deciding factor.

The second is a boring attritional slog where you're just repeating a sequence in response to a pattern ad nauseam, and involves little in the way of actual thought because your opponent is a static script.

The third is just a twitchfest for hyperactive children with short attention spans.

[Decline]

Funnily enough, the best movement shooter - Tribes - is comparatively slow to the turbo overkill movement shooters of today.

[Norfleet]

Funnily enough, the best movement shooter - Tribes - is comparatively slow to the turbo overkill movement shooters of today.

That's because you want enough movement that moving is a relevant factor, but not so much movement that it's just ******* bunny hopping and zooming around like a hamster on crack.

[A Chinese opium den]

I enjoy slowing the pace down in fast pvp shooters, zone controlling and keep-away is more fun when you're doing it to adhd rattled zoomers trying to ook out on you.

[Decline]

Funnily enough, the best movement shooter - Tribes - is comparatively slow to the turbo overkill movement shooters of today.

That's because you want enough movement that moving is a relevant factor, but not so much movement that it's just ******* bunny hopping and zooming around like a hamster on crack.

Movement in tribes is another weapon in your arsenal, another tool you wield, that must be strategically and tactically employed for it to be useful, just like any of the other.