The voice of The Rest Of Us
Mortos
Join Date: 2006-11-28 Member: 58763Members
Join Date: 2006-11-28 Member: 58763Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Non-competitive players</div>After reading through thread after thread on these forums where people bicker about who is really the voice of the competitive community, what is best for competitive players, and how best to be like Starcraft, I felt that the rest of us needed a place where we can talk of a game that maybe isn't all about competitive play.
First of all, I love natural selection. I"ve played it since the days of babblers, but never got really good. I couldn't play anything bigger than a lerk with the slightest bit of skill, and had a tendency to rambo as a marine (often to hilarious results). After enough time I became better than average sheerly by playtime, but just got destroyed by any truly skilled or competitive players. These are my credentials, and why I'm someone who would rather the game be fun than competitive.
When I think back to the reasons that I fell in love with NS to begin with, it wasn't the varied gameplay, or the exploits to 'give me an edge' (ie, bunnyhop), or the way that an expert player can dominate an entire team of amateurs; it was sneaking into the marine base and biting the command chair, it was finishing off an onos with a knife, it was sneaking past an alien hive to install a phase gate knowing at any second they'd hear and alert their team, it was a commander accidentally building a turret factory on an elevator so just by pushing the button you could disable their turrets.
NS was a game where a player could take a risk and try something unexpected, and it would either succeed fantastically or fail hilariously, and either way we had a good time. I have no desire to play a game where a poor player can't occasionally beat a good player, whether through luck, creativity, or just trying something silly and it working. I personally think that aiming for competitive play may garner the long term support of a hard-core player base who want a vehicle through which they can compare their skill and reflexes against other competitive players, but there are also those of us who would play the game over and over again just because it's fun, with no desire to eventually join the competitive leagues.
------------
Anybody else feel like their favorite parts of NS were before getting really good at the game? Feel like luck and risk taking add to the fun of a game, not subtract? Don't want the game to go the way of starcraft? Or want to nitpick parts of my argument?
Then post and let's get a discussion going.
First of all, I love natural selection. I"ve played it since the days of babblers, but never got really good. I couldn't play anything bigger than a lerk with the slightest bit of skill, and had a tendency to rambo as a marine (often to hilarious results). After enough time I became better than average sheerly by playtime, but just got destroyed by any truly skilled or competitive players. These are my credentials, and why I'm someone who would rather the game be fun than competitive.
When I think back to the reasons that I fell in love with NS to begin with, it wasn't the varied gameplay, or the exploits to 'give me an edge' (ie, bunnyhop), or the way that an expert player can dominate an entire team of amateurs; it was sneaking into the marine base and biting the command chair, it was finishing off an onos with a knife, it was sneaking past an alien hive to install a phase gate knowing at any second they'd hear and alert their team, it was a commander accidentally building a turret factory on an elevator so just by pushing the button you could disable their turrets.
NS was a game where a player could take a risk and try something unexpected, and it would either succeed fantastically or fail hilariously, and either way we had a good time. I have no desire to play a game where a poor player can't occasionally beat a good player, whether through luck, creativity, or just trying something silly and it working. I personally think that aiming for competitive play may garner the long term support of a hard-core player base who want a vehicle through which they can compare their skill and reflexes against other competitive players, but there are also those of us who would play the game over and over again just because it's fun, with no desire to eventually join the competitive leagues.
------------
Anybody else feel like their favorite parts of NS were before getting really good at the game? Feel like luck and risk taking add to the fun of a game, not subtract? Don't want the game to go the way of starcraft? Or want to nitpick parts of my argument?
Then post and let's get a discussion going.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I doubt this was because there was something better about the game itself because games become more polished over time, but the fact that games tended to be more about fun than about doing everything perfectly certainly helped.
I have a feeling that a lot of this will be reset with ns2. New maps, mechanics, and updates will hopefully help to mitigate some of these problems... and yes they are problems. Competitive players who complain that they might lose their exploit should quit crying and put in the time to figure out how to do better the new way. Winning still requires effort and skill, and having less discrepancy between what classes can do only opens up the playing field for more players to be competitive. Afraid of losing to some nubs? :)
NS2 is as much a rebirth of NS as it is a start of a successful future career life for multiple people, and its going to make certain people whine to hear it's not going to be their golden egg. But the player base of those people is small in comparison. Just the general things explained in NS2 already create a more user friendly environment such as personal weapon purchases and resource distribution.
Any smart developer would build their game with 80% focus on newer players and general excitement, and 20% towards creating a system of mastery for a certain crowd. UWE has shown they are definitely a knowledgeable developer, and as they said in their recent podcast, they rent really indie, but they are not AAA either. They rest in between with relatively massive financial backing (500,000+ in development costs)
I'm convinced NS2 will be spectacular, but anyone who expects NS1's competitive and skill based depth on release really needs to realize it's just not gonna be that way. They as a company cannot afford the rift that has occurred in with NS.
What you're describing there is, I believe, what is generally known in developer community as "good gameplay". That - and good atmosphere - is generally what I personally want from a game, as your generic "casual" player.
Either way, UWE is not catering to competitive players and the casual player's concerns are obviously taking priority. When I first read the name of the title I assumed it was another competitive player trying to lay out some points on why he thinks NS2 is going to garbage.
I have a feeling you will enjoy NS2 just as much as, if not more than, NS1.
/edit:
It's also worth noting that skilled and successful competitive/hardcore gamers aren't really voicing their opinion on these forums too much. <b>-snip-</b> Most competitive players will wait to see what the game is like before passing judgment.
<b>There's no need to call out individuals for judgement, especially in a thread they've not posted in.</b>
That is a very good point, those seeking competitive modes can now make it happen.
Agreed, although who doesn't want a million voogru 2.0's? lol
I have a feeling that a lot of this will be reset with ns2. New maps, mechanics, and updates will hopefully help to mitigate some of these problems... and yes they are problems. Competitive players who complain that they might lose their exploit should quit crying and put in the time to figure out how to do better the new way. Winning still requires effort and skill, and having less discrepancy between what classes can do only opens up the playing field for more players to be competitive. Afraid of losing to some nubs? :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, mostly.
As a player somewhere typically between casual and pro my take on every game is the following: 1) Does it have good/interesting gameplay, 2) is it fun?
Of course, plenty of factors go into both of these. For example, I loved how in NS1 it wasn't all twitch, there was this huge strategy component. I loved the phase gates and responding to enemy movements on the map just as much as cleaning out a Marine squad solo with a well-timed Skulk ambush from the ceiling. I adored the fact that there was progression from Skulks versus LMGs to epic Heavy versus Onos wars. The asymmetric gameplay was stellar and gave each round diversity. The equipment versus lifeform mechanics was awesome, even though I started out as a career Gorge (which I got so good at that my friends would groan when I randomed to Aliens). There were just so many great gameplay elements that clicked with me.
How was it fun? I was COMPLETELY lost my first 5 games. But, it was at a LAN party, so I came back the next week. Still lost on 50% of the game, but hey, I was learning. I did some research, and on my 3rd week was biting and shooting with the rest. If I was a casual player, I would have left. However, I was playing with friends who enjoyed it and were willing to help me out. I see it every time I introduce it to the new incoming crowd of LAN players, they just get lost and go back to their vanilla CoD games. That initial barrier is killer, especially since the awesome pushing of the HL1 engine doesn't impress people who grew up on Halo. It was fun because of the gameplay and because I was playing with friends.
If anything, moving into the more competitive scene killed the game for me. It became formulaic. I knew where to go, how to do it, what was the gambit versus the safe, while Mines were almost always better than a turret factory for your PG, and so on. I began to rage at noobs for being.. well... noobs. Sure I felt awesome since I could totally dominate most noob Marine squads as a Skulk, but the joy of playing was diminished for me. In fact, once I realized how big the skill gap could be, it became decidedly less fun and more about getting our top player Fade in time.
So, in summary, what do I want in NS2? I want an easier entry barrier. I want to keep the diverse, fun, dynamic gameplay, both the shooter and strategic portions. I want enough skill curve to let you explore and learn. I want to be able to play with friends and make new friends.
I want to have fun in a game.
Competetive players arent trying to make the game more fun for us and less fun for you. We're trying to make it more fun for everybody, because imbalanced games suck for everyone. What you guys need to do is realise that we're more qualified to help with that than the average casual player is, and not fight us tooth and nail over <b>every</b> point of discussion.
And to further SentrySteve's point about the 'real' competetive players not posting here ... they gave up years ago. For every well constructed and thought-out argument which will take a skilled and knowledgeable competetive player maybe more than 20-30mins to write - theres about 20 posts afterwards which misunderstand the points made, make redundant points etc etc. The people conducting valid critical discussion of the gameplay literally get drowned out by idiots posting in the threads.
I'd like to nominate you for President of Unknown Worlds Entertainment, where do I sign?
Competetive players arent trying to make the game more fun for us and less fun for you. We're trying to make it more fun for everybody, because imbalanced games suck for everyone. What you guys need to do is realise that we're more qualified to help with that than the average casual player is, and not fight us tooth and nail over <b>every</b> point of discussion.
And to further SentrySteve's point about the 'real' competetive players not posting here ... they gave up years ago. For every well constructed and thought-out argument which will take a skilled and knowledgeable competetive player maybe more than 20-30mins to write - theres about 20 posts afterwards which misunderstand the points made, make redundant points etc etc. The people conducting valid critical discussion of the gameplay literally get drowned out by idiots posting in the threads.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not really something you can help with.
The very act of playing a game damages it, because the more you play it the more you discover the basic repeatable methods of play that result in success, and everyone will automatically follow them. Initially they will do it to avoid losing, because if you lose you can't play, but later they will do it out of habit, and if you do all the best moves for any reason it boils the game down into following the same script every match.
The only thing that can stop it becoming stagnant is by changing the rules constantly, so nobody can find the right strategy because there is no right strategy, nobody can form habits because you're constnatly trying to understand the game.
Some games do this by randomising the game, like left4dead throwing random tanks at you, left4dead doesn't do it all that much but when it does it works, because every time you face a tank it's probably going to be a different experience due to occuring at a different place and in a different situation. NS I suppose tried to do it with the random hive but that kind of just boiled it down to a big gamble at the beginning, whereas L4D tanks aren't something you can do anything about, there's no choice to win or lose against them, they just happen and you have to adapt.
NS2 could do it a few ways, it could use the large potential for player created content to constantly change the NS classic game to prevent stagnation, or perhaps a little better, a new game could be created which hits all the same notes as NS, but which is more of a left4dead style experience where the game throws the same challenges at you that NS does, but randomises it. Imagine a coop game for marines where you have to fight through the randomised computer controlled aliens on a randomised layout map and every so often it throws a big challenge at you, as well as set pieces like hive rooms or bases to set up, or res nodes to defend against waves of aliens.
Either way I think constant change in the game itself is the only way to prevent stagnation, not the actions of any group of players.
People who want NS2 to be a solely out and out competitive retail game need to wake up to the fact that it's not going to be and they're going to be angry about it, because they really have nothing better to do with their time.
That being said, Team Fortress 2, love it or hate it, works well for both casual and competitive community.
If the gameplay needs to be substantially changed in order to be competetively viable, it will split the community and lots of players will quit. A healthy competetive (aswell as a healthy casual/pub) scene, is beneficial for everybody.
Priority Number One.
there was a game which was fun for noobs AND competitive
nhaa... it will never happen
All games stagnate, hence why we need new games, either you can make a game which is always new each time you play it, or you can make a game which will spawn lots of derivatives. NS2 has the potential for both, I would expect to see lots of sufficiently different NS2 classic variations to keep classic from stagnating, and also I would hope that someone makes a big mod which takes the left4dead or similar idea of something which is a very different game every time you play it, and sets it in the NS universe and plays on all the things NS classic does.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Well, if this thread wants to keep existing, it's fine by me. I won't interfere with this more than this in case you want to keep this a pubber-only discussion.
"Vocal minorities" would be the term. While there may be few competitive players in reality, those who feel strongly about being such will make sure everyone knows, and hence the rest will feel overwhelmed.
To date I have yet to see a thread on a gaming forum where a self-proclaimed "pro" will not eventually step in and nag about their superiority, or some other bee in their bonnet, whatever... Including this very thread. It doesn't matter how mannered or well-behaved the rest of competitive community is - which I have great doubts it is, partly for aforementioned reasons - this will happen regardless.
I believe there are multiple scientific studies linked to this, it's true for every walk of life.
Sure.
<!--quoteo(post=1760518:date=Mar 21 2010, 05:59 PM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 21 2010, 05:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760518"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If the gameplay needs to be substantially changed in order to be competetively viable, it will split the community and lots of players will quit.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt it, people are just concerned their discovered advantages (exploits) will be neutralized. I dont think NS2 is going to be substantially dumbed down. The people who are afraid their game will change from this:
<img src="http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/8439/nsfix.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
need to ask themselves what game they are playing.
If the game is dumbed down EVERYONE will complain, I just think this "competitive" hysteria is a non-issue.
I see an F4 on the way!
:)
I'm worried this may happen no matter what. While classic was all fine and good, I loved combat when it was released. The worst thing about combat was all of the mods. I don't find UWE touting how easy NS2 is to mod as necessarily good thing.
<!--quoteo(post=1760528:date=Mar 21 2010, 06:23 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Mar 21 2010, 06:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760528"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Vocal minorities" would be the term. While there may be few competitive players in reality, those who feel strongly about being such will make sure everyone knows, and hence the rest will feel overwhelmed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In reality there are many competitive players but most don't throw away endless time on the forums. UWE has at least one developer who self identifies as a competitive player working on NS2 and Flayra has met with the top NS euro teams (currently the best and most active NS players) on vent/teamspeak to discuss the state of NS1 and where NS2 can improve. I'm hopeful that there is enough in NS2 to provide for a healthy competitive scene. The few competitive players left on these forums that are worth anything don't invade every thread and I can, off the top of my head, name only two people who fit the description you're providing.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To date I have yet to see a thread on a gaming forum where a self-proclaimed "pro" will not eventually step in and nag about their superiority, or some other bee in their bonnet, whatever... Including this very thread. It doesn't matter how mannered or well-behaved the rest of competitive community is - which I have great doubts it is, partly for aforementioned reasons - this will happen regardless.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? This discussion has been nothing but civil and not a single person has tried to nag someone or claim they're better than someone. Provide quotes.
How is that in <b>any</b> way related to what I posted?
NS was a game where a player could take a risk and try something unexpected, and it would either succeed fantastically or fail hilariously, and either way we had a good time. I have no desire to play a game where a poor player can't occasionally beat a good player, whether through luck, creativity, or just trying something silly and it working. I personally think that aiming for competitive play may garner the long term support of a hard-core player base who want a vehicle through which they can compare their skill and reflexes against other competitive players, but there are also those of us who would play the game over and over again just because it's fun, with no desire to eventually join the competitive leagues.
------------
Anybody else feel like their favorite parts of NS were before getting really good at the game? Feel like luck and risk taking add to the fun of a game, not subtract? Don't want the game to go the way of starcraft? Or want to nitpick parts of my argument?
Then post and let's get a discussion going.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->From what I can tell, your post is about how making mistakes and taking ludicrous risks made the game fun(ny), and how you're complaining about this not being viable in a game that is balanced/designed to competitive standards. So it seems like what you're after is a setting that allows these things to happen, which is more dependant on the players in the game than the mechanics. There's nothing to say a game that works well for competition can't provide the situations you describe, provided the players are willing to carry out these types of actions.
If the game is broken, there will be exploits, and it won't only be the competitive community who take advantage of these exploits. As soon as an optimal strategy or tactic is uncovered, it will filter down to anyone and everyone who wants to take advantage of it. These people will not solely be those who play competitively, it will be any player who desires a competitive edge. This is why it makes sense to design a game for every/anyone (to make it accessible and attract a wide audience), but to <i>balance</i> a game with competition in mind.
Please re-read it, there are two things going on. There are intended game mechanics and there are discovered exploitable "features". All I was saying is that as long as the game mechanics are not dumbed down, then the only remaining thing missing for those that complain it isn't "competitive" enough would be these unintentional or unaddressed "features".