Just a detail about the player count decreasing, you need to compare with other relevant games, does it decrease faster or slower than these games? Or is it a normal drop that is seen in every game?
Edit: Swiftspear started to address this issue here: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=125259&view=findpost&p=2035989" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...t&p=2035989</a>
All you people that are so unhappy with NS2, do you guys actually enjoy things in your life? I ask because it seems weird that you would waste time on a forum detailing how much fun you aren't having instead of just doing something fun.
Personally I have a ton of fun playing NS2 and it's the best FPS game I've played.
<!--quoteo(post=2036052:date=Nov 27 2012, 11:00 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Nov 27 2012, 11:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036052"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just a detail about the player count decreasing, you need to compare with other relevant games, does it decrease faster or slower than these games? Or is it a normal drop that is seen in every game?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In terms of overall shape? Yes. In terms of percentage of lost players? No. It's unheard of to lose over 50% of your players within a month of launch. BRINK is the only one that mimics such a huge failure, but I'm somewhat inclined to believe that Brink's steamgraph stats are bugged, because it registers ZERO players playing for most of its history, and I'm sure there's <i>some</i> people out there still playing it.
<!--quoteo(post=2035973:date=Nov 27 2012, 08:52 PM:name=ma$$a$$ter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ma$$a$$ter @ Nov 27 2012, 08:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2035973"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's the same as CS and many other games.. it's all the same run, gun, die, repeat.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yet, CS manages to thrive. It even saw massive amounts of e-sports... e-sports dedicated to a game that has the worst, most RNG weapons I've ever seen before or since.
I think what helps CS is that the rounds are incredibly short, so whether you do good or bad you're going to basically keep up in the action. Additionally, you're not really limited except for where you put the bomb and where the hostage rescue zones are. NS2 is extremely limited, especially compared to NS1. This isn't even about bunnyhopping - this is about things like CC walling and emergency relocations, stealth hiving, the viability of the sensory chamber, the gorge being able to actually build things...
Anyway, I think the reason Brink failed is much the same for the reason NS2 is failing. Brink didn't do anything bombastic or extraordinary. It had a somewhat neat movement system, somewhat neat shooting and class gameplay, somewhat neat map design... but that was it. It was just 'a little above average'. Nobody's going to dedicate tons of time to multiplayer that is one-note and very 'meh'. Brink overall didn't do anything new to stand out, and it tried to appeal to too many types of FPS gamers and in the end nobody liked it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In terms of overall shape? Yes. In terms of percentage of lost players? No. It's unheard of to lose over 50% of your players within a month of launch. BRINK is the only one that mimics such a huge failure, but I'm somewhat inclined to believe that Brink's steamgraph stats are bugged, because it registers ZERO players playing for most of its history, and I'm sure there's some people out there still playing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When it drops out of the top 100 games on steam the player count drops to 0.
Sorry, but i have to agree that the dev team outright ignored alot of feedback from beta. Flayra learnt alot about the design process from NS1, enough to make him get cocky about the direction he's taking NS2 in.
Factually, he's created a stale game where all the valued versatility and utility of NS1 abilities and tactics is now extinct. That's the issue with NS2 and something i've been trying to explain since creating this account.
I don't even know why people are ignoring this advice, i was correct on all the advice i've given to every major gaming company over the last 8 years, what would make you think NS2 is any different?
<!--quoteo(post=2036064:date=Nov 27 2012, 11:22 PM:name=purephoenix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (purephoenix @ Nov 27 2012, 11:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036064"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Factually, he's created a stale game where all the valued versatility and utility of NS1 abilities and tactics is now extinct. That's the issue with NS2 and something i've been trying to explain since creating this account.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's what happens when you balance around win rates, which I suspect was done in a misguided belief that competition was going to see this game succeed.
Lots of players must got bored, either gameplay wise, or performance wise. I'd rather say, mostly performance problem.
NS2 had plenty of cocurrent players even 2 weeks ago. It was stable. 5k. But now? It's always between 1k-2k. I find it really bad. That means so lots of players left playing it 'already'. I hope UWE bring something shining really soon, or i don't see any of good future of ns2. I don't only say as business wise, but also as a player who wanna enjoy NS2. Free weekend or sale will bring more money, but won't bring 'fun'.
I think the biggest issue is Flayra has invested alot of effort into making NS2 "Different" to NS1. I think he's forgotten that the ONLY reason he even started the NS2 project, was to fix the bugs in the Half Life engine by creating his own.
NS2 was never meant to be different, even from the very start. The players don't want "Different" either, they want "Better". In the same way most sequels keep the same strengths and improve upon them, NS2 should pay homage to it's NS1 popularity.
<!--quoteo(post=2036069:date=Nov 27 2012, 11:33 PM:name=purephoenix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (purephoenix @ Nov 27 2012, 11:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036069"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the biggest issue is Flayra has invested alot of effort into making NS2 "Different" to NS1. I think he's forgotten that the ONLY reason he even started the NS2 project, was to fix the bugs in the Half Life engine by creating his own.
NS2 was never meant to be different, even from the very start. The players don't want "Different" either, they want "Better". In the same way most sequels keep the same strengths and improve upon them, NS2 should pay homage to it's NS1 popularity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I certainly see the differences between the two, but at the same time, NS2 is something like 85% NS1 content in some capacity. Franchise sequels - and that's why this is NS2, not NS1 v4.0 - are supposed to be bigger, better, and offer more than the last. NS2 didn't do that. The aliens didn't get new lifeforms. The aliens not only didn't get a SINGLE new evolution upgrade, they actually lost a third of them. And the evolutions we have are the most passive, boring of the previous selection. Aliens should be <i>awesome</i> to play as. What the **** is so awesome about evolving an ability to... regenerate adrenaline faster? That's it? HOW EXCITING.
You say that he wanted to fix some engine shortcomings. That's fine. I know for a fact one of their shortcomings they ran in to was the hardlimit on weapon counts. You could only have <i>x</i> many weapon entities in your mod before things started to break. So we overcame this limit - and what'd we do with it? Nothing. No new alien abilities. HMG turned into a flamethrower, hand grenades turned into an arm-mounted minigun. That's it.
I said it before on here - if NS2 was trying to be like NS1, it changed too much stuff. If it was trying to be NS<u>2</u>, it didn't change <i>enough</i> stuff.
Another interesting thing to consider - who can name me some of the recent multiplayer-focused FPS games that have come out in the last year or two?
Nuclear Dawn - they literally couldn't GIVE copies of this game away. Nobody plays it, nobody gave a crap about it, it's dead. Blacklight - I'm pretty sure it's free-to-play, and even then it has only a thousand players or so at peak times. Nobody plays it, nobody gave a crap about it, it's dead. Brink - A triple-A title with big bucks and big budget behind it. Nobody plays it, nobody gave a crap about it, it's dead. ET:QW - A triple-A title with big bucks and big budget behind it. Got rave reviews. Nobody plays it, nobody gave a crap about it, it's dead. Tribes: Ascend - A title with lots of hype behind it and a huge legacy. Nobody plays it, nobody gave a crap about it, it's dead.
Battlefield 3 - Massive success. Still has tons of players. COD - Massive success. Still has tons of players.
I think what it comes down to is that these style of FPS games are the last of a dying breed. People expect more, much more out of their multiplayer FPS gaming experience. Once you had pointless clans and pointless competitions. Now you have pointless stat tracking and pointless progression. Once you had minimalist design that put a heavy emphasis on player skill, now you have bombastic design that puts a heavy emphasis on tons of features to play with.
Like it or not, there's a pretty good chance that NS2 was doomed to fail regardless. Nugamers don't care about these style of games anymore - we call them COD kiddies, I suppose - and given the numbers, most old gamers don't care much either. They (we?)'ve either moved on, grown tired of it, or just don't have time anymore.
<!--quoteo(post=2036065:date=Nov 27 2012, 03:26 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 27 2012, 03:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036065"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's what happens when you balance around win rates, which I suspect was done in a misguided belief that competition was going to see this game succeed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> IF THE 6 MINUTE ONOS IS SO GOOD WHY ARE THE WINRATES SO EVEN HUEHEUAHEUHAEUHAEHHEUhehEH?
I loved NS1, and i enjoy NS2, but i feel the game has been developed around the new mentality of a short attention span, and in an attempt to appeal to a greater (and these days perhaps only) market of players has become far too linear, the matches feel far more contrived than ns1, and too cinematic (relying on atmosphere to sell what is essentially a game of strategy and reflex.) Dont get me wrong - i love the atmosphere of feed hive on ns_bast, or the gentle hum of blue electricity running through triad, but it was simply an extra appeal to what was essentially strategy and reflex. All this loss of asymmetry and the adoption of simplified or controlled mechanics/physics makes for a more modern and polished title, which is exactly what ruins the emergent dynamics of the system. I dont want convexities, i want true chaos theory at work!
One may bring up the point that NS2 isnt suppose to be NS1, that its meant to be modernized in this way. I think this is a mistake though - 'reimagined' games appeal to nostalgia whereas more direct ports/updates appeal to the enjoyment of the original mechanics. To elaborate, Games like Quake World, Team Fortress, Doom and Descent have had such a long lived community (15+ years) because they were the first of their kind. Even NS lasted longer than most mods and other big-release titles of its time because it was an innovation defining the genre. Before the phrase "FPS" existed they were called "Doom clones". Before "6DoF fighter" was "Descent clone", Team Fortress was 'the' team based FPS, CS was the realistic military shooter. Half-life practically invented the story-based FPS. Ive actually heard modern fps/rts hybrids often explained in terms of NS showing its pioneer status.
Now, rather than a remake of what was a pioneering game, we have a 'reimagined' ns2 for a 'new audience'. Now lets compare this with the aforementioned titles. Quake 2 was a bit of a flop - it worked, but not as well as ID hoped. Quake 3 saw a return to the faced paced, arena-style FPS and was again hugely successful. Descent clones have come and gone, but they all fell into the trap of being 'reimagined' in core principals such as skill-based movement (trichording) or slower gameplay, and never took off whereas the project undertaken to update and modernize the original descent1/2 source code has seen a greater longevity than descent 3, or any of the clones! The CS1.6 team only refined the game rather than reimagine it, and CS:S team spent a great deal of effort keeping many hallmarks and the 'feel' of the game the same as to not alienate the older players. At one point (perhaps the cs:s beta) i remember the CS:S gun spreads being changed (fixed!) to bear greater resemblance to the cs1.6 spreads!
<!--quoteo(post=2036065:date=Nov 27 2012, 11:26 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 27 2012, 11:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036065"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's what happens when you balance around win rates, which I suspect was done in a misguided belief that competition was going to see this game succeed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is funny because in the US open division at the moment you have a grand total of four teams, one of which is Brazilian. It's pretty hard to make a game less popular competitively than that.
I don't really understand the 'short attention span' thing. One look at the BF3 server browser and you'll see that all the most populated servers have like 39,000 tickets and run the same couple of maps over and over. You have to go out of your way to find a server that doesn't have all kinds of ###### up rules like that. Point being, I think 'short attention span' is an ignorant way to dismiss phenomena that you don't quite understand. I don't see it as an attention span problem at all.
BF3 is still going strong with most of its playerbase having hundreds of hours dedicated to it. This completely flies in the face of any crotchety 'old gamer' who casually dismisses the "COD generation" as being ###### with short attention spans who simply jump from one game to another.
AurOn2COOKIES! FREEDOM, AND BISCUITS!AustraliaJoin Date: 2012-01-13Member: 140224Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Forum staff
<!--quoteo(post=2036083:date=Nov 28 2012, 10:45 AM:name=Gliss)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gliss @ Nov 28 2012, 10:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036083"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->IF THE 6 MINUTE ONOS IS SO GOOD WHY ARE THE WINRATES SO EVEN HUEHEUAHEUHAEUHAEHHEUhehEH?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 6min onos is GONE. you need 3 hives now, or don't you play aliens? sick of having to say this all the frickgen time now. :/
<!--quoteo(post=2036089:date=Nov 27 2012, 03:50 PM:name=AuroN2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AuroN2 @ Nov 27 2012, 03:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036089"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->6min onos is GONE. you need 3 hives now, or don't you play aliens? sick of having to say this all the frickgen time now. :/<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm aware. I was commenting that balancing based on winrate is what left the Onos in for months longer than it should have been.
<!--quoteo(post=2036089:date=Nov 27 2012, 11:50 PM:name=AuroN2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AuroN2 @ Nov 27 2012, 11:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036089"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->6min onos is GONE. you need 3 hives now, or don't you play aliens? sick of having to say this all the frickgen time now. :/<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Too late for that, it was there for the crucial first impressions stage, countless people already quit and told their friends to not waste their time with that piece of ###### ns2 game that has the strategic depth of a puddle and terrible gameplay all about rushing a giant hp blob.
<!--quoteo(post=2036088:date=Nov 28 2012, 07:48 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 28 2012, 07:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036088"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't really understand the 'short attention span' thing. One look at the BF3 server browser and you'll see that all the most populated servers have like 39,000 tickets and run the same couple of maps over and over. You have to go out of your way to find a server that doesn't have all kinds of ###### up rules like that. Point being, I think 'short attention span' is an ignorant way to dismiss phenomena that you don't quite understand. I don't see it as an attention span problem at all.
BF3 is still going strong with most of its playerbase having hundreds of hours dedicated to it. This completely flies in the face of any crotchety 'old gamer' who casually dismisses the "COD generation" as being ###### with short attention spans who simply jump from one game to another.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you missed my point on short attention span, i should have elaborated on it. I was referring to the necessity to glamorize a game to sell it, because of an increasing amount of titles on the market and the more fickle nature of gamers these days, games are played for 5 minutes and tossed. I have a younger friend who quite literally has never re-played through a game - ive met many of his friends who are of the same mentality. I believe this mindset is commonplace. Regarding battlefield, most people dropped BF2 as soon as BF3 game out but they are significantly different games. Why not drop BF2 for a COD game instead? Further, bf1942 was so utterly different from BF2 - more open, hacky and interesting, but its numberes severely dwindled when BF2 came out. Is it coincidence people just 'get bored' of a game they've played for 3 years at the same time its sequal comes out? I think its commercialism fueled by an instant gratification mindset and the need to feel trendy.
Let me just remind you, quite a few battlefield players are mature gamers. In fact, mature gamers have always out-numbered "Cod kids" in regards to the BF series. <u><b>Always.</b></u>
If you want to refer to a game as popular in that generation, at least pick a game or series that is actually populated by said generation.
<!--quoteo(post=2036202:date=Nov 28 2012, 01:42 AM:name=purephoenix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (purephoenix @ Nov 28 2012, 01:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036202"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you want to refer to a game as popular in that generation, at least pick a game or series that is actually populated by said generation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Challenge accepted:
Fact is, the "5-miunute gamer" is a myth with nothing to back it up but conjecture. There's a lot you can take from that:
- It was <b>four months</b> before MW3 really dropped below 50% and stayed there. This is slower than just about any other game we've put on these graphs in these discussions. - The small absorption of players from the previous titles in COD is but a tiny fraction of the huge influx of either new players or revitalized interest. - Battlefield 3, the successor (more or less) to Bad Company 2, came out in Oct 2011. Not only is there no serious drop in players around that time (indicating that most players probably lost serious interest in the franchise), but to me this also shows that <b>Battlefield failed to hold onto players even remotely as well as the ultra-cliche derision of the flash-in-the-pan flavor-of-the-month Call of Duty series</b>.
Fact is, these graphs show that COD retains players remarkably well, better than most games, as a matter of fact.
The fact is, it's much more accurate to say that games that don't hold onto their playerbase is because the games in question simply aren't very exciting and grow dull quickly, rather than dumping stereotypes and derision upon that particular playerbase simply because <b>you</b> don't like the game (or, more likely in the case of COD, because it's <i>popular</i> to dump on it and its players). There's literally no proof that the "COD-kiddies" - or that appealing to "COD-kiddies" - causes a game to burn brightly and burn out in an extremely short period of time.
It's sad that Steamgraphs only goes back a year and a half. I'd love to see the 2009-2010 stats for these games and we could really see how long they held players. Regardless, every other game we've analyzed so far on these stats never came close to the retainability that COD has had.
And this is just on the PC. Imagine what the XBox numbers are like.
EDIT: An additional interesting fact - it seems that the "COD kiddies" are growing tired of the series. If you look at the number of players that MW3 dropped with BlOps 2 came out, you'll see that it almost matches the difference in playercounts, which means that BlOps didn't attract nearly as much fresh blood as, well, as MW3 did. I would imagine, based on the playercounts of MW2 / BlOps 1, that this means that BlOps 2 is the least successful title in the franchise.
In these situations, it's more important to remember what percentage of gamers are buying into those big franchises.
Sure their sales numbers go up every year, but so does world population. We've gone from 6b to 7.5billion people worldwide in something like 10 years, seeing a big increase in game sales is only natural.
The overall percentage however is decreasing. 6 > 7.5b people is almost a 17% population increase where the CoD franchise is *Not* seeing a purchase increase. Current fans are simply moving onto the next release.
please, stop bringing up the release date issues. almost no one here, except for a few, has anything to do or could have done anything to the dates, nor we could put the infant back into mum. i dunno about the drama for release date but quite some told u that we werent ready for beta. if u regret it, stick it on your face and bring it up in your internal conference. i didnt lobby for a release date and i didnt agree the game is ready for release despite i really have no say to it.
YOU chose it.
game quality matters. not release date. did anyone care when minecraft come out? it is now a epic success. no graphs or sophisticated statistic tests needed. u produce crap, it is still crap in christmas. u produce diamonds, people queue up and crap in the queue to get it asap. stop blaming.
or did u even care about ns1 release dates?? despite almost no old ass forgets???
<!--quoteo(post=2035996:date=Nov 28 2012, 05:33 AM:name=[R8]DJBourgeoisie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ([R8]DJBourgeoisie @ Nov 28 2012, 05:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2035996"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 75% of what I loved in NS1 does not exist or has changed so much I don't recognize it in NS2. NS2 for me has less strategy, less dynamic gameplay and is really lacking in player skill reward. You play NS1 for a month and you just start to get the hang of it and can hold your own. In a month of playing NS2 I feel I'm about as good as I can be because the game does not have mechanics that have a deep and growing player skill cap. I'd list everything I dislike about NS2 and why I thought NS1 was superior in many ways but instead just read my NS2:C mod preview, I pretty much explain it all there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I'm getting bored here too. That's why I'm just taking a break. When I come back there will probably be more maps, content, balancing, and performance upgrades and pub servers will have less rookies. Really if they just made gorges, lerks, and fades more useful/versatile and maybe gave the marines a shotgun alternative/HMG equivalent it would probably fix most of the game for me.
<!--quoteo(post=2036084:date=Nov 27 2012, 05:45 PM:name=fiveseven)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fiveseven @ Nov 27 2012, 05:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036084"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I loved NS1, and i enjoy NS2, but i feel the game has been developed around the new mentality of a short attention span, and in an attempt to appeal to a greater (and these days perhaps only) market of players has become far too linear, the matches feel far more contrived than ns1, and too cinematic (relying on atmosphere to sell what is essentially a game of strategy and reflex.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, especially on the linear part. Every game feels exactly the same right now since the maps are so small and there are so few viable choices at the moment for lifeforms/equipment/strategies. Hopefully the NS2 classic mod goes well so even if they never fix this we'll at least have an updated version of NS1 (with widescreen!) with hopefully more players.
I'm struggling to make sense of why this game is the way it is. First you have powernodes, something that severely limits where marines can place structures on the map and at the same time providing a single point of weakness for the marines. If your main power node goes down you might as well F4 because your upgrades, spawning, visibility and phase gates are gone. Not only are powernodes severely limiting for the marines, they take a long ass time to build. Why should I waste my time every game building and rebuilding powernodes all over the map, followed by building RT's and whatever other structures that need to be built. Repetitive and dull mechanics. I seem to remember early on that they wanted to reduce base building in games but it seems like they've gone the opposite direction. There's also another problem, you cannot build on alien infestation. First marines are limited by powernodes and now they cannot build on infestation. I've had many games as commander where there is just infestation covered through a room and it takes just that extra time longer to setup base. By that time infestation is already spreading on other parts of the map due to the alien commander, infestation that would need to be removed by marines, again a time consuming and dull process. You also can't have ninja marines build phases into hives or setup secret seige due to infestation, exciting stuff in NS1 but impossible in NS2. This is only one example...
Overall I'm looking forward to the modding scene and what can be done.
Comments
Edit: Swiftspear started to address this issue here: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=125259&view=findpost&p=2035989" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...t&p=2035989</a>
Personally I have a ton of fun playing NS2 and it's the best FPS game I've played.
In terms of overall shape? Yes. In terms of percentage of lost players? No. It's unheard of to lose over 50% of your players within a month of launch. BRINK is the only one that mimics such a huge failure, but I'm somewhat inclined to believe that Brink's steamgraph stats are bugged, because it registers ZERO players playing for most of its history, and I'm sure there's <i>some</i> people out there still playing it.
Yet, CS manages to thrive. It even saw massive amounts of e-sports... e-sports dedicated to a game that has the worst, most RNG weapons I've ever seen before or since.
I think what helps CS is that the rounds are incredibly short, so whether you do good or bad you're going to basically keep up in the action. Additionally, you're not really limited except for where you put the bomb and where the hostage rescue zones are. NS2 is extremely limited, especially compared to NS1. This isn't even about bunnyhopping - this is about things like CC walling and emergency relocations, stealth hiving, the viability of the sensory chamber, the gorge being able to actually build things...
Anyway, I think the reason Brink failed is much the same for the reason NS2 is failing. Brink didn't do anything bombastic or extraordinary. It had a somewhat neat movement system, somewhat neat shooting and class gameplay, somewhat neat map design... but that was it. It was just 'a little above average'. Nobody's going to dedicate tons of time to multiplayer that is one-note and very 'meh'. Brink overall didn't do anything new to stand out, and it tried to appeal to too many types of FPS gamers and in the end nobody liked it.
Looks like most people are bored of the game or tired of the numerous problems.
<a href="http://www.steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=4920&from=1351486800000&to=1353996000000" target="_blank">http://www.steamgraph.net/index.php?action...o=1353996000000</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In terms of overall shape? Yes. In terms of percentage of lost players? No. It's unheard of to lose over 50% of your players within a month of launch. BRINK is the only one that mimics such a huge failure, but I'm somewhat inclined to believe that Brink's steamgraph stats are bugged, because it registers ZERO players playing for most of its history, and I'm sure there's some people out there still playing it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When it drops out of the top 100 games on steam the player count drops to 0.
Flayra learnt alot about the design process from NS1, enough to make him get cocky about the direction he's taking NS2 in.
Factually, he's created a stale game where all the valued versatility and utility of NS1 abilities and tactics is now extinct. That's the issue with NS2 and something i've been trying to explain since creating this account.
I don't even know why people are ignoring this advice, i was correct on all the advice i've given to every major gaming company over the last 8 years, what would make you think NS2 is any different?
That's what happens when you balance around win rates, which I suspect was done in a misguided belief that competition was going to see this game succeed.
NS2 had plenty of cocurrent players even 2 weeks ago. It was stable. 5k. But now? It's always between 1k-2k. I find it really bad. That means so lots of players left playing it 'already'. I hope UWE bring something shining really soon, or i don't see any of good future of ns2. I don't only say as business wise, but also as a player who wanna enjoy NS2. Free weekend or sale will bring more money, but won't bring 'fun'.
I think he's forgotten that the ONLY reason he even started the NS2 project, was to fix the bugs in the Half Life engine by creating his own.
NS2 was never meant to be different, even from the very start. The players don't want "Different" either, they want "Better". In the same way most sequels keep the same strengths and improve upon them, NS2 should pay homage to it's NS1 popularity.
I think he's forgotten that the ONLY reason he even started the NS2 project, was to fix the bugs in the Half Life engine by creating his own.
NS2 was never meant to be different, even from the very start. The players don't want "Different" either, they want "Better". In the same way most sequels keep the same strengths and improve upon them, NS2 should pay homage to it's NS1 popularity.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I certainly see the differences between the two, but at the same time, NS2 is something like 85% NS1 content in some capacity. Franchise sequels - and that's why this is NS2, not NS1 v4.0 - are supposed to be bigger, better, and offer more than the last. NS2 didn't do that. The aliens didn't get new lifeforms. The aliens not only didn't get a SINGLE new evolution upgrade, they actually lost a third of them. And the evolutions we have are the most passive, boring of the previous selection. Aliens should be <i>awesome</i> to play as. What the **** is so awesome about evolving an ability to... regenerate adrenaline faster? That's it? HOW EXCITING.
You say that he wanted to fix some engine shortcomings. That's fine. I know for a fact one of their shortcomings they ran in to was the hardlimit on weapon counts. You could only have <i>x</i> many weapon entities in your mod before things started to break. So we overcame this limit - and what'd we do with it? Nothing. No new alien abilities. HMG turned into a flamethrower, hand grenades turned into an arm-mounted minigun. That's it.
I said it before on here - if NS2 was trying to be like NS1, it changed too much stuff. If it was trying to be NS<u>2</u>, it didn't change <i>enough</i> stuff.
Another interesting thing to consider - who can name me some of the recent multiplayer-focused FPS games that have come out in the last year or two?
Nuclear Dawn - they literally couldn't GIVE copies of this game away. Nobody plays it, nobody gave a crap about it, it's dead.
Blacklight - I'm pretty sure it's free-to-play, and even then it has only a thousand players or so at peak times. Nobody plays it, nobody gave a crap about it, it's dead.
Brink - A triple-A title with big bucks and big budget behind it. Nobody plays it, nobody gave a crap about it, it's dead.
ET:QW - A triple-A title with big bucks and big budget behind it. Got rave reviews. Nobody plays it, nobody gave a crap about it, it's dead.
Tribes: Ascend - A title with lots of hype behind it and a huge legacy. Nobody plays it, nobody gave a crap about it, it's dead.
Battlefield 3 - Massive success. Still has tons of players.
COD - Massive success. Still has tons of players.
I think what it comes down to is that these style of FPS games are the last of a dying breed. People expect more, much more out of their multiplayer FPS gaming experience. Once you had pointless clans and pointless competitions. Now you have pointless stat tracking and pointless progression. Once you had minimalist design that put a heavy emphasis on player skill, now you have bombastic design that puts a heavy emphasis on tons of features to play with.
Like it or not, there's a pretty good chance that NS2 was doomed to fail regardless. Nugamers don't care about these style of games anymore - we call them COD kiddies, I suppose - and given the numbers, most old gamers don't care much either. They (we?)'ve either moved on, grown tired of it, or just don't have time anymore.
IF THE 6 MINUTE ONOS IS SO GOOD WHY ARE THE WINRATES SO EVEN HUEHEUAHEUHAEUHAEHHEUhehEH?
One may bring up the point that NS2 isnt suppose to be NS1, that its meant to be modernized in this way. I think this is a mistake though - 'reimagined' games appeal to nostalgia whereas more direct ports/updates appeal to the enjoyment of the original mechanics. To elaborate, Games like Quake World, Team Fortress, Doom and Descent have had such a long lived community (15+ years) because they were the first of their kind. Even NS lasted longer than most mods and other big-release titles of its time because it was an innovation defining the genre. Before the phrase "FPS" existed they were called "Doom clones". Before "6DoF fighter" was "Descent clone", Team Fortress was 'the' team based FPS, CS was the realistic military shooter. Half-life practically invented the story-based FPS. Ive actually heard modern fps/rts hybrids often explained in terms of NS showing its pioneer status.
Now, rather than a remake of what was a pioneering game, we have a 'reimagined' ns2 for a 'new audience'. Now lets compare this with the aforementioned titles. Quake 2 was a bit of a flop - it worked, but not as well as ID hoped. Quake 3 saw a return to the faced paced, arena-style FPS and was again hugely successful. Descent clones have come and gone, but they all fell into the trap of being 'reimagined' in core principals such as skill-based movement (trichording) or slower gameplay, and never took off whereas the project undertaken to update and modernize the original descent1/2 source code has seen a greater longevity than descent 3, or any of the clones! The CS1.6 team only refined the game rather than reimagine it, and CS:S team spent a great deal of effort keeping many hallmarks and the 'feel' of the game the same as to not alienate the older players. At one point (perhaps the cs:s beta) i remember the CS:S gun spreads being changed (fixed!) to bear greater resemblance to the cs1.6 spreads!
Which is funny because in the US open division at the moment you have a grand total of four teams, one of which is Brazilian. It's pretty hard to make a game less popular competitively than that.
BF3 is still going strong with most of its playerbase having hundreds of hours dedicated to it. This completely flies in the face of any crotchety 'old gamer' who casually dismisses the "COD generation" as being ###### with short attention spans who simply jump from one game to another.
6min onos is GONE. you need 3 hives now, or don't you play aliens? sick of having to say this all the frickgen time now. :/
I'm aware. I was commenting that balancing based on winrate is what left the Onos in for months longer than it should have been.
Too late for that, it was there for the crucial first impressions stage, countless people already quit and told their friends to not waste their time with that piece of ###### ns2 game that has the strategic depth of a puddle and terrible gameplay all about rushing a giant hp blob.
Though I can imagine it may get boring when you play on public servers only.
BF3 is still going strong with most of its playerbase having hundreds of hours dedicated to it. This completely flies in the face of any crotchety 'old gamer' who casually dismisses the "COD generation" as being ###### with short attention spans who simply jump from one game to another.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you missed my point on short attention span, i should have elaborated on it. I was referring to the necessity to glamorize a game to sell it, because of an increasing amount of titles on the market and the more fickle nature of gamers these days, games are played for 5 minutes and tossed. I have a younger friend who quite literally has never re-played through a game - ive met many of his friends who are of the same mentality. I believe this mindset is commonplace. Regarding battlefield, most people dropped BF2 as soon as BF3 game out but they are significantly different games. Why not drop BF2 for a COD game instead? Further, bf1942 was so utterly different from BF2 - more open, hacky and interesting, but its numberes severely dwindled when BF2 came out. Is it coincidence people just 'get bored' of a game they've played for 3 years at the same time its sequal comes out? I think its commercialism fueled by an instant gratification mindset and the need to feel trendy.
In fact, mature gamers have always out-numbered "Cod kids" in regards to the BF series.
<u><b>Always.</b></u>
If you want to refer to a game as popular in that generation, at least pick a game or series that is actually populated by said generation.
Challenge accepted:
<a href="http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&appid=42710q42690q202990q10190q24960&from=0" target="_blank">http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=gra...4960&from=0</a>
Fact is, the "5-miunute gamer" is a myth with nothing to back it up but conjecture. There's a lot you can take from that:
- It was <b>four months</b> before MW3 really dropped below 50% and stayed there. This is slower than just about any other game we've put on these graphs in these discussions.
- The small absorption of players from the previous titles in COD is but a tiny fraction of the huge influx of either new players or revitalized interest.
- Battlefield 3, the successor (more or less) to Bad Company 2, came out in Oct 2011. Not only is there no serious drop in players around that time (indicating that most players probably lost serious interest in the franchise), but to me this also shows that <b>Battlefield failed to hold onto players even remotely as well as the ultra-cliche derision of the flash-in-the-pan flavor-of-the-month Call of Duty series</b>.
Fact is, these graphs show that COD retains players remarkably well, better than most games, as a matter of fact.
It's sad that Steamgraphs only goes back a year and a half. I'd love to see the 2009-2010 stats for these games and we could really see how long they held players. Regardless, every other game we've analyzed so far on these stats never came close to the retainability that COD has had.
And this is just on the PC. Imagine what the XBox numbers are like.
EDIT: An additional interesting fact - it seems that the "COD kiddies" are growing tired of the series. If you look at the number of players that MW3 dropped with BlOps 2 came out, you'll see that it almost matches the difference in playercounts, which means that BlOps didn't attract nearly as much fresh blood as, well, as MW3 did. I would imagine, based on the playercounts of MW2 / BlOps 1, that this means that BlOps 2 is the least successful title in the franchise.
Sure their sales numbers go up every year, but so does world population. We've gone from 6b to 7.5billion people worldwide in something like 10 years, seeing a big increase in game sales is only natural.
The overall percentage however is decreasing. 6 > 7.5b people is almost a 17% population increase where the CoD franchise is *Not* seeing a purchase increase.
Current fans are simply moving onto the next release.
YOU chose it.
game quality matters. not release date. did anyone care when minecraft come out? it is now a epic success. no graphs or sophisticated statistic tests needed. u produce crap, it is still crap in christmas. u produce diamonds, people queue up and crap in the queue to get it asap. stop blaming.
or did u even care about ns1 release dates?? despite almost no old ass forgets???
75% of what I loved in NS1 does not exist or has changed so much I don't recognize it in NS2. NS2 for me has less strategy, less dynamic gameplay and is really lacking in player skill reward. You play NS1 for a month and you just start to get the hang of it and can hold your own. In a month of playing NS2 I feel I'm about as good as I can be because the game does not have mechanics that have a deep and growing player skill cap. I'd list everything I dislike about NS2 and why I thought NS1 was superior in many ways but instead just read my NS2:C mod preview, I pretty much explain it all there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This
God this game has been nerfed/ dumbed-down so much in the transition to NS2.
I honestly can't blame anyone who's gotten bored of it. They're entirely different creatures, enjoyment-wise.
<!--quoteo(post=2036084:date=Nov 27 2012, 05:45 PM:name=fiveseven)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fiveseven @ Nov 27 2012, 05:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2036084"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I loved NS1, and i enjoy NS2, but i feel the game has been developed around the new mentality of a short attention span, and in an attempt to appeal to a greater (and these days perhaps only) market of players has become far too linear, the matches feel far more contrived than ns1, and too cinematic (relying on atmosphere to sell what is essentially a game of strategy and reflex.)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed, especially on the linear part. Every game feels exactly the same right now since the maps are so small and there are so few viable choices at the moment for lifeforms/equipment/strategies. Hopefully the NS2 classic mod goes well so even if they never fix this we'll at least have an updated version of NS1 (with widescreen!) with hopefully more players.
Overall I'm looking forward to the modding scene and what can be done.