The future of GG series not looking too good

[HGhaleon]

Just read this article on Dengeki Online and really am worried about the future of this series. It's implied that Xrd is being put in the grave and a new GG is in the works in similar vain of BBCTB and DBZ (dumbed down systems) to produce more numbers in sales. I think this going to kill the series and all the major fans of the game as this direction of watering ♥♥♥♥ down is not the answer. Any thoughts are appreciated as I'm pretty sure I am not alone in this boat and people should voice their opinion.

http://dengekionline.com/elem/000/001/730/1730787/

[The nameless Gamer]

引用自 Doolio：

引用自 The nameless Commander：

Seems to me like they don't understand where players see the appeal of Guilty Gear. Guilty Gear is played by people who enjoy it for what it is. They want the game to be deep, they want all those various mechanics, they want to invent their own combos, rather than mash buttons. Trying to turn a niche game into a mainstream one never ends well, just ask Relic entertainment what happened to Dawn of War III as an example. Guilty Gear is just fine as a niche game. Watering it down will not attract new players, it will just alienate the faithful ones.

That's only one side of the whole thing. And the other side people seem to ignore or simply aren't aware of. The other side being sustainability and how it's shifted to be more demanding regarding any game, in general, in the last decade or so.

The question is, can a game afford to be niche NOWADAYS? Of course, the general answer is "yes", but I am talking about more specific examples - ie, B to AAA games, which GG certainly is. While a two-man developed visual novel over the course of a year can be as niche and indie as possible still, most games that are at a higher level of presentation/programming/industry scale etc. can't afford to employ the same approach they did ten or twenty years ago.

For the sake of simplification, let's imagine you are some fantasy armorsmith or something:) And you sustained yourself and your wife by making three armor sets a year for some adventurers. Now, your cost of living can be covered only if you made twenty armor sets a year AND if you don't hire anyone else to help you (because then it will require thirty armor sets and so on). You can't do that. So, you will have to either quit with being an armorsmith or continue to make three armor sets per year, but have them cost five or ten times more or somehow start to make some less durable but pretty armor sets that you can make twenty a year, but your target demographic changes significantly. Perhaps you fail in that, perhaps not. But there's one certain thing you can't do - and that is, continue with the tried and true approach you had until now.


(please accept my apologies for truncating it)

This was a very thought-provoking and enlightening reply. One thing I'd like to add.
"Man reist nicht um anzukommen, sondern um zu reisen." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Translated: "We don't travel to arrive, but to travel." I'm a gamer for over 20 years now. And I always saw the journey to getting good as a big part of the fun in the game. But looking at the modern gamer, nothing except the victory screen matters. "I want it all, I want it now" seems to be the reigning motto. A question every player should ask themselves: "Do I have fun while getting good at a game?" Guilty Gear up until now WAS and Xrd IS fun to learn and get good at, at least for me. I am not Machaboo or FAB, but I still find a lot of fun in the learning process. If people don't, perhaps this game isn't for them.

[JBM]

The game doesn't need to become easier, the game needs to reward people for playing it.

I agree with that statement, but does that approach hold water outside of philosophical vacuum? That's my point.

In other words, read my post again - those loyal followers of the game, when they stop being able to sustain the game, what happens? The game sells for 300 dollars? The game dumbs down? The IP shuts down? You are rejecting this notion as if it's something outlandish.

You chose a condescending approach because you don't like what I had to say, that's petty and childish. You refuted my arguments with strawmaning, you went for specifics when it suited you (when I was talking in general) and went to general assessments when I was talking about specifics. Nice. Now what? The issue still persists, although you ignored the main point I was making in my post - which is sustainability. You keep mentioning loyal fanbase, that's exactly the problem, the size of that fan base and the ability to sustain a product.

[The nameless Gamer]

引用自 Doolio：

The game doesn't need to become easier, the game needs to reward people for playing it.

I agree with that statement, but does that approach hold water outside of philosophical vacuum? That's my point.

In other words, read my post again - those loyal followers of the game, when they stop being able to sustain the game, what happens? The game sells for 300 dollars? The game dumbs down? The IP shuts down? You are rejecting this notion as if it's something outlandish.

You chose a condescending approach because you don't like what I had to say, that's petty and childish. You refuted my arguments with strawmaning, you went for specifics when it suited you (when I was talking in general) and went to general assessments when I was talking about specifics. Nice. Now what? The issue still persists, although you ignored the main point I was making in my post - which is sustainability. You keep mentioning loyal fanbase, that's exactly the problem, the size of that fan base and the ability to sustain a product.

In that case, I really don't envy game developers today, since they are forced to cater to a lazy, entitled audience which wants rewards without making effort. Basically, people want the game to play itself today. Might as well add a big, shiny, red "win-button". Save them the trouble of even mashing keys.

[JBM]

引用自 The nameless Commander：

引用自 Doolio：

That's only one side of the whole thing. And the other side people seem to ignore or simply aren't aware of. The other side being sustainability and how it's shifted to be more demanding regarding any game, in general, in the last decade or so.

The question is, can a game afford to be niche NOWADAYS? Of course, the general answer is "yes", but I am talking about more specific examples - ie, B to AAA games, which GG certainly is. While a two-man developed visual novel over the course of a year can be as niche and indie as possible still, most games that are at a higher level of presentation/programming/industry scale etc. can't afford to employ the same approach they did ten or twenty years ago.

For the sake of simplification, let's imagine you are some fantasy armorsmith or something:) And you sustained yourself and your wife by making three armor sets a year for some adventurers. Now, your cost of living can be covered only if you made twenty armor sets a year AND if you don't hire anyone else to help you (because then it will require thirty armor sets and so on). You can't do that. So, you will have to either quit with being an armorsmith or continue to make three armor sets per year, but have them cost five or ten times more or somehow start to make some less durable but pretty armor sets that you can make twenty a year, but your target demographic changes significantly. Perhaps you fail in that, perhaps not. But there's one certain thing you can't do - and that is, continue with the tried and true approach you had until now.


(please accept my apologies for truncating it)

This was a very thought-provoking and enlightening reply. One thing I'd like to add.
"Man reist nicht um anzukommen, sondern um zu reisen." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Translated: "We don't travel to arrive, but to travel." I'm a gamer for over 20 years now. And I always saw the journey to getting good as a big part of the fun in the game. But looking at the modern gamer, nothing except the victory screen matters. "I want it all, I want it now" seems to be the reigning motto. A question every player should ask themselves: "Do I have fun while getting good at a game?" Guilty Gear up until now WAS and Xrd IS fun to learn and get good at, at least for me. I am not Machaboo or FAB, but I still find a lot of fun in the learning process. If people don't, perhaps this game isn't for them.

I agree. And it can be frustrating, or even sad. But, the question is, in a rational sense, what's the solution.

On the other hand, I don't think "gamers" changed, I just think the field got wider. People who do enjoy games the way you do and have longer attention spans are still there and perhaps even in the same numbers. That's just not enough to sustain (larger) games.

Like the movies, for example. Will Hollywood make a movie that's not a pandering common denominator product? Perhaps, but that's rare and it's always cautious and with smaller investments in case of a flop. Sadly, because they have the most money and the biggest talent pool and they can make really, really good movies if they wanted to. And people who actually watch movies would be grateful to them. But would the movie "survive"?

I've seen games and franchises die out, those that I loved, due to this very reason. Whole genres became a no-go zone as they started to become less profitable (RTS for example). It's not that less people played them, but that they needed more people to play them. Warcraft 2 certainly paid for itself multiple times, but Warcraft 4 would need to sell a whole lot more in order to bring back a desired profit. Not to mention that some kind of positive-but-not-ideal profit would still not suffice.


An interesting info - the whole Blizzard (with all of its cashcows, OW, WoW, fking Hearthstone which probably has like million to one ratio of profit to expenses etc) earned in the first quarter (I think it was the first quarter) of 2018. LESS than ONE GAME under the same company (candy crush). We can talk about different genres, types of games etc. but shareholders won't care. I am convinced that the whole lootbox-fest of OW and the whole thing with game being constantly deliberately imbalanced, structured in a paradoxical way and ridden with overly complex calculations in order to tell you you are doing good when you aren't - is not due to the devs liking that, it's due to fact that OW might be less successful if it was a better game, sadly.
And I am not just taking a wild guess, I was in the earlier tests and devs basically took a 180 turn from what their idea was (and that idea was good) during the latter half of closed beta test. This, I like to believe, they didn't like, but had to do.

[JBM]

引用自 The nameless Commander：

引用自 Doolio：

I agree with that statement, but does that approach hold water outside of philosophical vacuum? That's my point.

In other words, read my post again - those loyal followers of the game, when they stop being able to sustain the game, what happens? The game sells for 300 dollars? The game dumbs down? The IP shuts down? You are rejecting this notion as if it's something outlandish.

You chose a condescending approach because you don't like what I had to say, that's petty and childish. You refuted my arguments with strawmaning, you went for specifics when it suited you (when I was talking in general) and went to general assessments when I was talking about specifics. Nice. Now what? The issue still persists, although you ignored the main point I was making in my post - which is sustainability. You keep mentioning loyal fanbase, that's exactly the problem, the size of that fan base and the ability to sustain a product.

In that case, I really don't envy game developers today, since they are forced to cater to a lazy, entitled audience which wants rewards without making effort. Basically, people want the game to play itself today. Might as well add a big, shiny, red "win-button". Save them the trouble of even mashing keys.

Well, perhaps we might witness some kind of implosion and renaissance, but when? I don't know.

People are pretty fed up with some of these practices - BUT there's a huuuge silent group that isn't fed up and that is indeed sad. I have been disillusioned in this when I tested OW and later frequented OW forums and reddit. Those are good for social "experiments" as they show likes and dislikes. EVERYTHING that advocates for some kind of meritocratic experience, competitiveness, transparency etc. gets downvoted to oblivion. Anything that might hinder a player's self-entitlement in order to foster team environment, gets downvoted. And Blizzard follows that and complies. The most important thing in a game that could have been a mecca for lots of people who were waiting for years for an arcade competitive team shooter is basically relying upon "everyone must have fun" principle, which is the one principle you DON'T go by when designing a multiplayer activity, be it a sport or a game.

And yes, it's walking on eggshells for developers working on big projects, especially with the sociopolitical atmosphere adding to the potential backlash, alongside the entitlement notion.

The "perks" of the industry becoming huge, I guess.

[[reaVerNL@Rumble]ᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ]

Considering the recent events of which we probably all know, and I know this is going to sound mean but... I can't think of a better argument to keep this game as hard as it is. I mean there's just no better moron check than making it impossible for them to play/enjoy the game. It will keep them away from tournaments, which is the de facto meeting ground for Guilty Gear (as well as other FG) players and thus we as players will be safer.

Think about it, Doom, Quake, Street Fighter, Guilty Gear, Starcraft, Path of Exile... all games where violence levels are pretty significant yet nothing happens. Yet the really easy game is where some ♥♥♥♥♥♥ has to throw a fit. And if you look at other games such as LoL, DotA2, CS:GO which are arguably somewhere in between difficulty levels where griefing is also a significantly bigger issue than the aforementioned games, it can be argued there's a correlation here. And I feel we should assume the existence of the correlation for our own safety.

So ArcSys, for the sake of the current playerbase in the west, please do not pander to people with significant mental defects. We like the game as hard and unlubed as it is.

NB: it could also be that Madden is just really violent of course... who knows!

[The nameless Gamer]

Now that I think about it, a few games are quite popular despite being quite beginner-unfriendly. Starcraft is so popular, Blizzard decided to re-master it and its expansion over making a Starcraft III, and Starcraft is VERY beginner-unfriendly. Street Fighter IV has a number of excessively complex charge inputs for characters like Guile, Vega and Dee-Jay, as well as mandatory 1-frame links for combos, but that didn't stop it from being vastly popular. The skill ceiling for MOBAs is pretty high, especially compared to their very low skill floor. The list is likely longer, but that's as far as my knowledge goes.

[JBM]

引用自 reaVer：

Considering the recent events of which we probably all know, and I know this is going to sound mean but... I can't think of a better argument to keep this game as hard as it is. I mean there's just no better moron check than making it impossible for them to play/enjoy the game. It will keep them away from tournaments, which is the de facto meeting ground for Guilty Gear (as well as other FG) players and thus we as players will be safer.

Think about it, Doom, Quake, Street Fighter, Guilty Gear, Starcraft, Path of Exile... all games where violence levels are pretty significant yet nothing happens. Yet the really easy game is where some ♥♥♥♥♥♥ has to throw a fit. And if you look at other games such as LoL, DotA2, CS:GO which are arguably somewhere in between difficulty levels where griefing is also a significantly bigger issue than the aforementioned games, it can be argued there's a correlation here. And I feel we should assume the existence of the correlation for our own safety.

So ArcSys, for the sake of the current playerbase in the west, please do not pander to people with significant mental defects. We like the game as hard and unlubed as it is.

NB: it could also be that Madden is just really violent of course... who knows!

The issue isn't about whether games should be hard or not, but whether they can sustain themselves while being inaccessible (outliers aside).

引用自 The nameless Commander：

Now that I think about it, a few games are quite popular despite being quite beginner-unfriendly. Starcraft is so popular, Blizzard decided to re-master it and its expansion over making a Starcraft III, and Starcraft is VERY beginner-unfriendly. Street Fighter IV has a number of excessively complex charge inputs for characters like Guile, Vega and Dee-Jay, as well as mandatory 1-frame links for combos, but that didn't stop it from being vastly popular. The skill ceiling for MOBAs is pretty high, especially compared to their very low skill floor. The list is likely longer, but that's as far as my knowledge goes.

Starcraft was popular in other times, we still played what's on the plate and didn't choose much and didn't segregate ourselves regarding genres, SC2 isn't as popular and remastered version of SC is a guaranteed return on small investment, as people who bought it are mostly fans of the game. They, however, aren't going to do much for the game's popularity regarding sustainability online.

SFIV was basically the continuation of a household franchise and it was on PC.

But, even if SFIV was released relatively recently, it was still released in slightly different era.

MOBA games, as you said, have low skill floors and are popular (why? well, perhaps we can't get a direct answer to that, but they are). That's enough to secure a "position" for you if you try to play them - you will have decent MM and whatever your skill level is, you will feel at home, because relevant MOBAs of today are massive (lol, dota and even hots and smite to an extent).


The issue remains the same: production costs increased a lot. Profit expectations increased a lot. Player numbers stayed about the same for most fighting game franchises, especially more niche ones. What happens next?

[[reaVerNL@Rumble]ᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ]

引用自 Doolio：

引用自 reaVer：

Considering the recent events of which we probably all know, and I know this is going to sound mean but... I can't think of a better argument to keep this game as hard as it is. I mean there's just no better moron check than making it impossible for them to play/enjoy the game. It will keep them away from tournaments, which is the de facto meeting ground for Guilty Gear (as well as other FG) players and thus we as players will be safer.

Think about it, Doom, Quake, Street Fighter, Guilty Gear, Starcraft, Path of Exile... all games where violence levels are pretty significant yet nothing happens. Yet the really easy game is where some ♥♥♥♥♥♥ has to throw a fit. And if you look at other games such as LoL, DotA2, CS:GO which are arguably somewhere in between difficulty levels where griefing is also a significantly bigger issue than the aforementioned games, it can be argued there's a correlation here. And I feel we should assume the existence of the correlation for our own safety.

So ArcSys, for the sake of the current playerbase in the west, please do not pander to people with significant mental defects. We like the game as hard and unlubed as it is.

NB: it could also be that Madden is just really violent of course... who knows!

The issue isn't about whether games should be hard or not, but whether they can sustain themselves while being inaccessible (outliers aside).

We can state for a fact now that the games cannot sustain themselves if they become too accessible, because the playerbase will end up getting shot by some random retarded narcissist(s). Instead we should make sure that the mechanics of the game serves as a '♥♥♥♥♥♥ check' that keeps out the bad apples by virtue of inplayability (for them). This way the community can meet up just like it always has without fear of getting shot.

You will also have to accept that the Guilty Gear mechanics are not designed for the average person. It's a high level game among what can be classified as high level games. It will only satisfy a small number of players in the way it does and any step down from that would end it being Guilty Gear. They have other franchises aimed at the more normal gamers and they will never be able to facilitate the average person with any fightinggame as the average person of today is a narcissist that demand to always win.

We as players have never demanded the production cost of games to be as high as they are for AAA companies, they do that to themselves. Guilty Gear in itself is not a high cost game, it doesn't cost nearly as much as CoD/BFV/AC where the credit roll takes over 5 minutes. And I'm sure if it stays loyal to its players, the players will stay loyal to the game and will keep it alive.

[There'sNoStringOnMe]

I remember my early days getting online in Rev2. Was decimated completely by Japanese guys playing either Sol or Slayer and felt really disheartened, like I haven't known anything about the game at all. Looking back, it's just nearly impossible to find people at my level to play with. Arcade was my sanctuary. Whenever I went online, I was all "ok, time to get desytroyed" with a heavy sigh. But I didn't want to give it up completely, there were other, outside factors that kept me going online, but none from the game itself. After that, I started winning rounds, exhausting my options doing so. It took me a while before i won my first match, and even then it's a crushing 3-8 score in total against a Millia. I managed to pull through and keep playing until now, but I'm pretty sure a majority of beginners just fell off somewhere along the line.

I have not the solution to this, I just wish something could be done to expand the playerbase, so people can find others of their own level to 'git gud' and not felt as threatened/discourage. I understand the important of GG not being too casual, but we don't necessarily keep all the beginners on the other hand. But still, GG's isn't as big compared to other FSs' to start with. I'm thinking of something like a Mentor system, but then I remember TF2's Coaching doesn't work.

[[reaVerNL@Rumble]ᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ]

You cannot fix someone if he thinks he isn't broken. You can merely placate him which essentially means throwing some wins in his direction in hopes he keeps playing. It's what a lot of game developers have been doing and I'm going to assume that this ended with the recent shooting as a result. And don't worry, between that there's also feminism and other cancers infesting games. For as long as 'players' refuse to see the point in self-improvement and putting in the effort to get better, Guilty Gear will remain a relatively niche game.

And matchmaking as it has been done in most game is an absolute nightmare. Yes it gives you matches with people of your level, but you will never get to understand what it means to play against better people like that. It stunts talent of those that come in late and it prevents the overall growth of a community. People wouldn't be getting beat in DotA2 by OpenAI so convincingly if they had proper competition over there.

While the people you play with right now may make short work of you repeatedly, their presence is literally a blessing in disguise as they give you some of their time so you can get better. And because you are you, you will eventually start doing things they have not seen before, so eventually they will learn from you. And this way you keep going, ever climbing towards the top. If anything, this is what Guilty Gear is about and this should never change.

[The nameless Gamer]

You're only as good as your competition. So as long as you don't play someone who is better than you, you can't get any better. But I think that is the problem we all keep mentioning one way or another. The modern player doesn't want to get better. He or she just wants to win. Fighting games take effort to be good at. Worse, there are no team-mates to blame for a defeat. Yet the majority of players seemingly needs something other than themselves to blame their loss on. They can't accept it being them. It has to be their team-mates or the game. They're always perfect. And such behaviour is becoming a standard in modern gaming culture. It saddens me to see that people who like the game the most are the ones whose opinion on it matters the least. Those shareholders insisting on catering to the casual audience forget ONE thing. The casual audience is fickle and easily swayed. Their attention span for a game is short. They don't have the drive to commit to a single game, let alone an entire franchise. Guilty Gear has survived this long thanks to its faithful and committed audience. That's something to think about.

[JBM]

You're only as good as your competition. So as long as you don't play someone who is better than you, you can't get any better.

The issue here is in the nuance, ie what you described is true, but details are important. For example, if I am 30% better than you, that's a good practice. If I am 500% better than you, you will get zero benefits from that and you will waste your time - objectively so. Unless I decide to coach you as we play, but that's not what we're talking about.

And this isn't new. While I do agree that "gaming" has changed, this particular notion is recognized for a long time. Me entering the ring against Mike Tyson, who isn't there to teach me but to box against me will NOT be a learning experience - even though he's better than me. And this, I think is something most people completely ignore as a notion even though I think it's one of the more important ones. Everyone just goes by the mantra that you get better through baptism in fire, but that baptism has to have learning value in order for it to be beneficial. Most fighting games, including the most popular and most accessible ones offer no learning and analytical experience to a beginner because even the least capable regular player who just sniffed seven pounds of glue will mop the floor with any newcomer with his eyes closed and the newcomer won't know whether match started or ended and what their name is.

Worse, there are no team-mates to blame for a defeat.

I'd argue this is a positive. Team-based games present two pitfalls here:
1-you aren't in control. The more the game is team-dependent, the less control you have, thus your frustration is greater. This is certainly not positive. This is completely nonexistent in team-based games. This made me (and literally everyone I know) avoid some team-based games, which I fundamentally literally love to death.
2-performance anxiety. You have responsibilities and are on the stage, so to speak. There's none of this in 1v1 games. Even if I go afk in a fighting game, my opponent will just be thankful for free points or whatever. Not so much in a team game. I can play against MJ 1v1 basketball for the whole day, but I wouldn't be so carefree if I was on his team in a 5v5 game.

On the flipside, team-based games offer for a, well, team experience (sometimes) and when they do work and offer that in practice, that's a great thing. That's why I like 5v5 and 3v3 basketball more than 1v1 even though I might be best at 1v1 out of those three variants.

[The nameless Gamer]

引用自 Doolio：

You're only as good as your competition. So as long as you don't play someone who is better than you, you can't get any better.

The issue here is in the nuance, ie what you described is true, but details are important. For example, if I am 30% better than you, that's a good practice. If I am 500% better than you, you will get zero benefits from that and you will waste your time - objectively so. Unless I decide to coach you as we play, but that's not what we're talking about.

And this isn't new. While I do agree that "gaming" has changed, this particular notion is recognized for a long time. Me entering the ring against Mike Tyson, who isn't there to teach me but to box against me will NOT be a learning experience - even though he's better than me. And this, I think is something most people completely ignore as a notion even though I think it's one of the more important ones. Everyone just goes by the mantra that you get better through baptism in fire, but that baptism has to have learning value in order for it to be beneficial. Most fighting games, including the most popular and most accessible ones offer no learning and analytical experience to a beginner because even the least capable regular player who just sniffed seven pounds of glue will mop the floor with any newcomer with his eyes closed and the newcomer won't know whether match started or ended and what their name is.

Unfortunately, that happens. Even moreso within a victory-obsessed competitive culture. Ever since I started gaming online, around 2011, I have been witnessing a decline in good sportsmanship. Back then, it still was a thing. If it were for good sportsmanship, a new player would stand a chance of growing. In a predatory environment such as competitive multiplayer today, they just get devoured. It's why matchmaking became a thing, from my POV.

引用自 Doolio：

Worse, there are no team-mates to blame for a defeat.

I'd argue this is a positive. Team-based games present two pitfalls here:
1-you aren't in control. The more the game is team-dependent, the less control you have, thus your frustration is greater. This is certainly not positive. This is completely nonexistent in team-based games. This made me (and literally everyone I know) avoid some team-based games, which I fundamentally literally love to death.
2-performance anxiety. You have responsibilities and are on the stage, so to speak. There's none of this in 1v1 games. Even if I go afk in a fighting game, my opponent will just be thankful for free points or whatever. Not so much in a team game. I can play against MJ 1v1 basketball for the whole day, but I wouldn't be so carefree if I was on his team in a 5v5 game.

On the flipside, team-based games offer for a, well, team experience (sometimes) and when they do work and offer that in practice, that's a great thing. That's why I like 5v5 and 3v3 basketball more than 1v1 even though I might be best at 1v1 out of those three variants.

That's the flipside of teamplay. The only thing keeping one in a 1v1 match is a personal drive to perform well. In the end, it's all a thing of the mindset. Personally, I'm not a fan of team-based multiplayer, as I like to march to my own beat, develop and grow as a player on my own terms.
I've always viewed players like Teresa, Haaken, Hase, FAB and other well-known GG-players as an inspiration. Their matches were a display of where effort can get you. And to me, it feels good to reach a certain height through your own merit and committment. I can't possibly be the only one with that mindset. But if people who think like that are a minority decreasing in number, then of course, we can no longer carry the franchise. But just accepting the loss without a word isn't in our nature, as our mindset as players shows.

[[reaVerNL@Rumble]ᚱᛖᚨᚠᛖᚱ]

引用自 Doolio：

You're only as good as your competition. So as long as you don't play someone who is better than you, you can't get any better.

The issue here is in the nuance, ie what you described is true, but details are important. For example, if I am 30% better than you, that's a good practice. If I am 500% better than you, you will get zero benefits from that and you will waste your time - objectively so. Unless I decide to coach you as we play, but that's not what we're talking about.

This is a repeatedly proven fallacy. If a player learns the game from someone 500% better at him at the start, he will have improved more than when he's been up against people of his own skill or even 30% better. A player will learn more from repeated matches with N.O than repeated matches with me, regardless of his experience level.

Your boxing example is also a non-sequitur because you're comparing one professional match vs hundreds or even thousands of casual matches.

Worse, there are no team-mates to blame for a defeat.

I'd argue this is a positive. Team-based games present two pitfalls here:
1-you aren't in control. The more the game is team-dependent, the less control you have, thus your frustration is greater. This is certainly not positive. This is completely nonexistent in team-based games. This made me (and literally everyone I know) avoid some team-based games, which I fundamentally literally love to death.

I think you outplayed yourself writing that. But yes, teamgames remove control from players assuming the general reality that none of the players play together properly. This is singlehandedly the reason that OpenAI is so strong against the 'pro' players.

2-performance anxiety. You have responsibilities and are on the stage, so to speak. There's none of this in 1v1 games. Even if I go afk in a fighting game, my opponent will just be thankful for free points or whatever. Not so much in a team game. I can play against MJ 1v1 basketball for the whole day, but I wouldn't be so carefree if I was on his team in a 5v5 game.

Going AFK in a fightinggame better be followed with an apology because it's highly disrespectful. And I can assure you that 'teamplayers' are not suffering from performance anxiety, rather they are suffering from narcissism which means they shut down when called out on their responsibilities within the team. This mentality has been nurtured for a while now and it's to the point now where it's killing games.

On the flipside, team-based games offer for a, well, team experience (sometimes) and when they do work and offer that in practice, that's a great thing. That's why I like 5v5 and 3v3 basketball more than 1v1 even though I might be best at 1v1 out of those three variants.

Yes, when it all comes together a very interesting dimension is added to the game, this was these kinds of games' appeal. Sadly it never really happens anymore.