How do people get started in something completely new for them?
I know that a lot of people can only get into gaming as adults, and I have no idea how they do it. I grew up playing all sorts of games, so I'll try/enjoy anything from Harvest Moon to Baldur's Gate 3. But something that's been frustrating for a while is whenever I can't "get" something. An individual game is tolerable; I couldn't get into Stardew Valley the way I could Rune Factory, but oh well.
But shooters and (grand) strategy games feel incomprehensible to me. I enjoy Deep Rock despite being not any good at it, but it's my sole exception and probably because of the focus on PvE. Anything focused on PvP in general feels really unapproachable since I'll probably spend forever staring at a respawn or loss screen (I was just lucky growing up with SSB). I enjoy throwing myself at Dark Souls bosses way too early until I've finally gotten good, but in a team-based game I'd hate to force others into dealing with that. Strategy games are also kind of mind-boggling, but I also have trouble getting in the "conqueror" mindset that they seem to all require.
My friends really like those two kinds of games, so I'd really like to at minimum not zone out whenever they start talking to each other about them. Best case scenario, I could even try some of them myself.
Playing any game, competitive or not, should be fun. If you still enjoy the games despite struggling with them then just keep playing and you will definitely get better. Your friends should be fine with having you on their team whatever your skill level or they aren't very good friends. But if you really don't enjoy playing competitive games then just don't play them, you shouldn't feel pressured into it.
You could also ask your friends to stream the games they play for you so you can get a feel for what they are talking about without jumping in blind. I did this when I first tried MOBAS, I was still awful but it helped me know what to improve on at least and I ended up really enjoying them.
I think I've given this exact same advice to another friend with similarly hard "barriers" lol. I appreciate the warning, but yeah this is mostly an internal "wanting to be interested" vs external "being bad". I have games like Insurgency and Hoi4, but my playtime is noticeably a mere percent of my friends'. I actually forgot about MOBAs since I'm not that interested in them, but you reminded me that I actually had enough veteran friends that when they got me to try League, our entire team was people in VC, which definitely helped mitigate the guilt of being "the bad rando". Hmm...
I mostly only got into games when i was older. Mostly from watching my partner play. Id 'backseat drive' on playing options, and eventually I started to take over his games that i liked. Stuff like fallout, skyrim, civ, some others.
I also got into watching let's plays, and sometimes they made me want to play (some i was happier watching). Let's plays also helped me understand games like civ, and made them less frustrating to learn and enjoy.
That said, if I dont like a game, i dont like it. It doesnt bother me. I stop playing. If Im with someone who does, Im happy to watch them play while I hang out and chat (if its not a high stress game). Ill occasionally pick up a controller if another player is realllllly needed for mario party.
It's nice to be into common things, but it sort of seems like you know what you enjoy.
I don't have any answers for you but I've been trying unsuccessfully for years to get into Civilization and Crusader Kings II. Neither clicks for me and they are both completely overwhelming. But I like the ideas of them and I want to enjoy them. Just can't... seem to get there.
I love both those games but I highly recommend Crusader Kings 3 over CK2 because while the gameplay is very similar they've done a wonderful job on streamlining the interface to make it easier to find information without overwhelming you too frequently.
I think the latest Civ games are much easier to play but perhaps harder to understand the underlying mechanics since so much of it is hidden away and can only be learned with trial and error.
I would agree that the CK3 has an interface that is much, much easier for a new player to learn and not be scared off from. However, the gameplay itself is more cutthroat and war-strategy-ish, which I don't think is so great for new players. It's easy to lose due to making small mistakes from not fully understanding things (like units' strengths and weaknesses). I am an experienced CK player, and I really dislike this aspect of it (mind you, I don't really like war games; I play CK and Civ because they are also society simulation games, which is the gameplay I'm after).
CK2 has an interface that's easier for someone to use if they are already comfortable with the interface. It has a lot of options visible and a lot of redundancy that saves you clicks when you know exactly what you're doing. In many ways, it is the more streamlined interface. It's just visually complex and therefore highly intimidating to new players. On the other hand, the gameplay itself is much gentler on new players; my recommendation would be to just hit play and learn as you go. There is war in the game, but it is much easier to handle without understanding it well, in my experience.
I have been playing Civilization games since Civ II, but I would say that I basically don't "get" the game anymore. I do enjoy it, but I've just accepted that there are a lot of things going on that I don't understand and that I'll probably never bother to learn because they really aren't necessary to play the game. As far as I'm concerned, it's just fluff to give the game a shallow aesthetic of complexity. However, I would maybe recommend newcomers start with some of the early games, which are closer to a board game in scope and don't have tons of confusing, extraneous details to distract you and make you feel lost.
Both Civ and CK2 are games that are best played by just doing stuff and seeing what happens. If you are the kind of person who is prone to analysis paralsysis (I definitely am), they can be good practice for getting out of that habit.
CK3 is also playable this way...until a more powerful nation declares war on you, which could happen at any time. It's can be pretty demoralizing. I used to do long legacy games in CK2, going generations and generations, but I don't bother in CK3. I just quit when enemy nations start paring up my realm and leaving me too weak to defend myself effortlessly anymore. (I hate poring through documentation about the different units' strengths and weaknesses, I hate studying my commanders' skills, I hate staring at mercenary stats, I hate studying the enemy's troops. This kind of gameplay is a real bore to me.)
Oof, I feel that. I'm only motivated by wanting to have fun with the games that my friends love, but I even already enjoy base-building and management (rimworld, kingdom, etc). And here I am having known them for almost a decade with no success... I wish you better luck at least.
One alternative "strategy" for enjoying games that don't click for me, is to find different things to enjoy rather than truly beating the game the way it's intended to be played.
Example, my friends are playing a RTS and we all know I'm rubbish at it. If I join them basically I'm just feeding whoever gets to me first, like a prize pinatas. So we play it differently: "no one is allowed to attack Chocobean". I take my sweet time following one unit and watching the resource gathering animation, I put down buildings that look nice together, I build little gardens....etc. My friends basically have to sort of navigate around wherever I happen to be, so instead of a goody bag, I'm a map terrain variability generator.
I think that is how griefing was "invented": alternative goals. Just less of being a jerk side of it.
So if your friends want to play simultaneous turn civ together, let them know you're not in it to win it, and make a different aim such as discovering all the natural wonders, or building a wall across the continent, or monopolize whaling somehow, or go to space, etc.
I love this because this is also how I play RTS (I love "decorating" my base) 😂 thanks for sharing your experience!
I agree with you, but I don’t beat myself over it. I want to enjoy CKIII but I can never get into it and since accepted that. That doesn’t stop me from watching and enjoying other people play it.
Might be worthwhile to see if there are any demos or free weekends available for any of the games they want to play with you.
Also, I find watching some YouTube beginner's guides for whatever game your friends are playing would help give insight whether or not you might like it. Or how much time you would need to invest for it to become enjoyable.
In the end, if you don't think you'll have fun then don't play. Maybe offer some alternatives as well.
Something I haven't seen mentioned here yet, but also unfortunately only applies to singleplayer games: don't be afraid to lower the game difficulty.
As many others have already said, games are supposed to be fun, and you are allowed to play any game any why that is the most fun for you (well, singleplayer games at least, it gets messy in regards to multiplayer...). This can mean lower difficulties, mods, guides, or whatever else you want. Nobody gets to dictate to you how you should have fun.
Unfortunately, in anything that is based on competition between players you'll always have a big disadvantage if they sink way more hours into them than you, experience and knowledge are paramount in those games. Which is one of the reasons I myself don't really play those games online.
But if you want to be more involved in those games with your friends in a more general sense, you could check out some let's plays or streams of those games, especially those that explain what and why they are doing what they are doing. That way you can get some second hand knowledge and could then theoretically watch your friends when they play, either by them streaming the game to you (something I'll do with my friends in both ways over Discord) or by joining the game as a spectator (not all games have such a mode, but many do, especially strategy games).
Hope this helps!
Myself, I only try new/challenging genres when I absolutely have to, and it's usually "because it is cute" or because it has cute waifus, that kinda thing. ie, my desire for X overrides my dislike for Y.
For example, I played a boring gacha game called Princess Connect because the anime was good, and I would never willingly play tower defence or RTS but I am doing so for Pikmin 4's sake.
I don't go out of my way to get into anything else that didn't already have a draw personally for me, even if it's award winning or reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Life is far too short for that.
While I (obviously) personally don't mesh with it, I just wanna say kudos for being so aware of what you like. I sorta struggle with identifying what I look for beyond "idk, fun" even though there's clearly more to it than that. I'm glad that you found Pikmin worth making an exception for; funnily enough, I actually just started playing through 2 since everyone's lovin' 4 and I remember enjoying 1 years ago.
I'm a very casual sort of gamer and what @Landhund said is spot on: lowering the difficulty helps make them more fun for me. Modern games are far more gentle in that regards.
I actually did purchase Pikmin 1+2 while waiting for 4, and once I'm finished with 4 I will get into it :D it'll be hard, I'm sure.....I did get the switch re-release so hopefully they put in a difficulty settling. Do you know off the top of your head if they do? (Don't look it up Im just being lazy)
If not, if it's as difficult as the original release, then my strategy is to take it super easy and play the tiniest chunk a day, including failure to progress any future days.
Even with games, I think practice is the key. And if you find something fun, that's all that matters. Do not force yourself to play something others like if you don't find it fun. For example, I tried Dark Souls but the combat was so slow and sluggish I got bored very quickly.
With FPS games, if you genuinely like them, I highly recommend Halo Master Chief Collection. Halo 1 was many people's first FPS game for a good reason. The games have great singleplayer story and they kind of prep you for the multiplayer, which is also fun and honestly very chaotic: It doesn't matter if you're good or not when you throw plasma grenades at tanks etc. :D
If you decide to try Halo, play them 1-3, then Reach, then 4. That's the order they were released and the best way to experience them, IMO. But I also personally don't like Reach at all :P
So I guess my that's my tip: Try something "older" first. They are often more difficult games, but they also prep you well. Then any newer titles may be less daunting :) And if something is not fun, do not force yourself playing it.
Tangential to your experience with FPS games, I will say that for games that seem hard due to a lack of skill on my part, I tend to remind myself of how much better I'm getting as I'm playing them and learning, which motivates me to continue. I recently played through Elasto Mania, which is mechanically obvious but tough as nails. At times it felt insurmountable, but every time I got past a major hump I felt much more confident that I could do it, given enough time.
Oh, getting into FPS and RTS games ten years back was super easy!
Either play 2:2 or 4:4 online.
No idea about the contemporary always online, ladder games, though.
If someone is way too good, agree on a handicap. Give you a head start in RTS, not use some weapons in FPS and so on.
I never could get into competitive shooters on my own, all the times I did was because my friends wanted to play toghether. So that's definitely something to consider!
As for Grand Strategy, one series I could recommend is Total War. It's not as free-form as the Paradox lineup but it scratches some similar itches, and the real-time battles will ease you into the long campaign mindset. I think for many people TW was a gateway to more complex stuff like PDX.
I totally get where you're coming from, theres some games I've really wanted to get into, like Dota 2, but haven't due to the team aspect. Knowing that me getting better is going to involve making other peoples experience worse just isn't for me.
I can give some advice for shooters though, and that would be to play old school "boomer" shooters that look fun, I found the fast gameplay of them a great way to get better at fps's for me. There are so many that you can pick and choose what seems interesting but a few I'd recommend are Dusk, Amid Evil, and ULTRAKILL. For multiplayer games you could just focus completely on the casual modes of whatever games you'd want to play, it's what I do most the time, just vibe to some music in a quick respawn team deathmatch or gun-game.
For grand strategy I'd recommend playing Crusader kings 3, it's more of a story generator/role playing game, and is the easiest of the paradox games. Failure is just part of the game and accepting that makes it so much easier to enjoy. Stellaris is another option, it requires a bit more investment to figure out but the setting might be preferable to you. I'll also say when I got into the games I didn't spend hours watching tutorials, instead I just learned through trial and error, looking up stuff as I go. Also watched streamers play and asked them why they did something.
Of course the most important thing when it comes to video games is knowing when something just isn't for you, theres no right way to enjoy games so just sticking to what you know you like is completely valid.