Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited November 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1738184:date=Nov 19 2009, 03:41 AM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Nov 19 2009, 03:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738184"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->TF2 has a low skill ceiling, it isn't "hard to master" . IF NS2 turns out anything like TF2 the casuals can have it, because I and every other NS1 player will be long gone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hence the quotations on "deeper skill level". I know TF2 has close to no strategy beyond über rushing and strategically place stickies and sentries and even with those it is pretty shallow. Sticky/rocket jumping is easy as pie and getting headshots with the bow seems like auto-aim sometimes... I think the only thing of interest is situational awareness, which most TF2 players seem to lack in my experience. But then again, this has nothing to do with the game you're playing.
Also these idle threats about you and every other NS1 player leaving NS2 for what it is. Get over yourself, you're not that important. Casual gamers outnumber the "hard-core" players by a very large amount. UWE would be stupid if they wouldn't cater to that market! This doesn't even have to mean that NS2 will lose all of the depth and skill needed to be a good player, that NS1 had. It will just mean it will be more accessible to more players, which is good!
Also where does this "we are more skillful players and know more about games then casual players and the devs should listen to us or it will be Teh Fail" come from? Seriously, I've seen loads upon loads of clan tagged players and played on clan servers, during my years of FPS experience. Most do not really impress me with über skills. Sure some are good and a few are awesome even, but the majority is just there as canon fodder sometimes and some even resort to name calling if they cannot win.
I just want NS2 to be the game that is indeed easy to learn and deceptively shallow, so it will be fun for the newbies and hard to master, so people can keep improving their skills and knowledge of the game. Players should get that "oh hey!" feeling, seeing something ingame and then learning that it is also possible to do stuff "that" way (if you know what I mean :P )
THAT is what makes a good game and successful game!
<!--quoteo(post=1738209:date=Nov 19 2009, 04:33 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 19 2009, 04:33 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738209"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And what, pray tell, do you define as the "casual" crowd?
For what it's worth I always thought CS was a retarded game. Modern Warfare 2, Transformers 2, and Britney Spears are all popular too; quality has literally nothing to do with popularity. Like Starcraft, Counter-Strike's popularity can be attributed to far more than the fans of both would have you think.
That said, I can't really see what your original post, NS2, and CS have to do with each other - discounting the whine rant at the beginning about how 'casual scrubs' are ruining your PLAY2WIN PRO CAL VET BADASSEDNESS.
This may come as a shock to you, but most people don't play games just to slap a clan tag on like a retard and flip out into a nerd rage about being #1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, so tell me...how often do you play your favorite FPS? Rather, how long have you been playing it? And i dont think anyone thinks that quality has to do with popularity, which is not what i said at all. Longevity however, IS related to quality. And CS's longevity is unmatched except by Blizzard games. Hence why I used it to compare.
<!--quoteo(post=1738231:date=Nov 19 2009, 08:39 AM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Nov 19 2009, 08:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738231"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hence the quotations on "deeper skill level". I know TF2 has close to no strategy beyond über rushing and strategically place stickies and sentries and even with those it is pretty shallow. Sticky/rocket jumping is easy as pie and getting headshots with the bow seems like auto-aim sometimes... I think the only thing of interest is situational awareness, which most TF2 players seem to lack in my experience. But then again, this has nothing to do with the game you're playing.
Also these idle threats about you and every other NS1 player leaving NS2 for what it is. Get over yourself, you're not that important. Casual gamers outnumber the "hard-core" players by a very large amount. UWE would be stupid if they wouldn't cater to that market! This doesn't even have to mean that NS2 will lose all of the depth and skill needed to be a good player, that NS1 had. It will just mean it will be more accessible to more players, which is good!
Also where does this "we are more skillful players and know more about games then casual players and the devs should listen to us or it will be Teh Fail" come from? Seriously, I've seen loads upon loads of clan tagged players and played on clan servers, during my years of FPS experience. Most do not really impress me with über skills. Sure some are good and a few are awesome even, but the majority is just there as canon fodder sometimes and some even resort to name calling if they cannot win.
I just want NS2 to be the game that is indeed easy to learn and deceptively shallow, so it will be fun for the newbies and hard to master, so people can keep improving their skills and knowledge of the game. Players should get that "oh hey!" feeling, seeing something ingame and then learning that it is also possible to do stuff "that" way (if you know what I mean :P )
THAT is what makes a good game and successful game!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The games your describing are ... failures. TF2 was nothing what TFC was. Just as CS:S was nothing that CS was. Im sorry you missed the good old TFC and CS days...i really am. But don't use your ignorance as a reason you believe TF2 is a better game.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited November 2009
So calling <b>one</b> game shallow with a few small easy to accomplish strategy additions, while not even comparing it to TFC tells you that I think TF2 is a better game the TFC?
Drawing some weird conclusion and assuming I never played TFC/CS is quite a stretch as well...
Short essence of my post perhaps...
Easy to learn hard to master -> I most certainly think NS1 could've used more of the easy to learn part. I just hope that dropping a MC at the beginning of a round won't kill that round for the aliens, because some newbie went Gorge and built one. The fastest way to get rid of that potential new player is by yelling at them them using acronyms he/she doesn't even understand...
So you can have all your depth and hard to learn stuff, but it MUST be accessible for the newbies as well. This is also the main reason why NS2 just canNOT be a port of NS1... Heck, Charlie posted at one time, that he got a new player to test NS and was just stunned at seemingly trivial things, which were like impossible tasks to that player.
<!--quoteo(post=1738254:date=Nov 19 2009, 01:41 PM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Nov 19 2009, 01:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738254"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So calling <b>one</b> game shallow with a few small easy to accomplish strategy additions, while not even comparing it to TFC tells you that I think TF2 is a better game the TFC?
Drawing some weird conclusion and assuming I never played TFC/CS is quite a stretch as well...
Short essence of my post perhaps...
Easy to learn hard to master -> I most certainly think NS1 could've used more of the easy to learn part. I just hope that dropping a MC at the beginning of a round won't kill that round for the aliens, because some newbie went Gorge and built one. The fastest way to get rid of that potential new player is by yelling at them them using acronyms he/she doesn't even understand...
So you can have all your depth and hard to learn stuff, but it MUST be accessible for the newbies as well. This is also the main reason why NS2 just canNOT be a port of NS1... Heck, Charlie posted at one time, that he got a new player to test NS and was just stunned at seemingly trivial things, which were like impossible tasks to that player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i agree. I never meant to imply that NS2 shouldn't be easy to pick up for new players. However, i do advocate that those new players SHOULD be beaten, and beaten hard by experienced players. As noscos stated, they should know WHY they are getting killed however...this gives them the inspiration to get better under the thought process of, "im just not fast enough 'yet'" instead of, "what the **** just killed me?"
A simple solution? Create a tutorial for new players to play through. Use targets, and simple mission objectives. Keep to single player, no bots needed. The commander chair is also sometimes intimidating for new players. They never get a chance to try it out,and when they do hop in it..its an immediate "wtf" do i do.
<!--quoteo(post=1738208:date=Nov 19 2009, 12:58 AM:name=fr0st2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fr0st2k @ Nov 19 2009, 12:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738208"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I brought up CS because in its prime, it maintained a server list of over 40k. Remember "refreshing" back in the WON days?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Comparing sheer number of servers is a losing game due to the major apples/oranges comparisons inherent in them.
<ul><li>Comparative lack or relative infancy of alternative games, consoles, mmorpgs</li><li>The practical ease of piracy then vs now</li><li>Listing servers are more likely to be sharded and segregate game-servers by geographical area</li><li>The hardware requirements for a decent server versus the cost of hardware</li><li>Fake servers and redirecting servers, a problem which still exists today</li><li>Number of servers in excess of actual player population</li><li>Servers which exist solely as a claim-to-fame for an aspiring clan</li></ul>etc.
For any set of "criteria of a good game" that you put out that Counter-Strike happens to match, there are innumerable other games that fit the same criteria which have failed so hard barely anyone even remembers them.
Screw this ad-populum bull######, people, and use real arguments.
<!--quoteo(post=1738216:date=Nov 19 2009, 02:50 AM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Nov 19 2009, 02:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738216"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->because two things suddenly justifies an entire truckload of fail. maybe try thinking next time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're not exactly a powerhouse of cogent logical arguments yourself. Temphage has it right on: The awesome player on the crappy team has a lot less power in TF2 than they did on TFC. Especially when it comes to conc-jumping to cap repeatedly. (Which was artificially aided by the fact that HL1 required you to lead your targets, and a fast target has a correspondingly further lead and error rate.) And now that the LPB guy with godly aim can't carry the whole team as a lone gunman, so he goes and has teh raeg.
Simply being a competitive player of a game doesn't make someone a game designer any more than it would make them a game programmer. You could in fact argue that they are too close to the forest for trees, since they have a far more vested personal interest in <i>specific</i> game mechanics than the more-casual player.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->because the line between win and lose was drawn not only by raw skill or teamwork but often required cunning psychology.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, that's what they're calling "choose a camping spot" these days?
<!--quoteo(post=1738216:date=Nov 19 2009, 05:50 AM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Nov 19 2009, 05:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738216"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->because two things suddenly justifies an entire truckload of fail. maybe try thinking next time. thinking about the Benny-Hill-style gameplay that lacks any sort of higher purpose or structure beyond that of an ADD daycare center or the silly game mechanics that pander to the brainless such as randomized 'crits' (seriously?), 'nemesis' mode, and jars of piss.
And yes CS:S can be thought of in the same way since they dropped the bar faster than a weightlifter with a hernia (spray'n'pray headshots anyone?). CS 1.6, despite simple and reflective weapons, maps, and gameplay had depth (and still does) because the line between win and lose was drawn not only by raw skill or teamwork but often required cunning psychology.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can you possibly hate TF2, that game is fantastic. also, "truckload of fail" . What a tired meme. I hope you are really embarrassed when you catch up to the rest of the internet and realize how dumb 'epic' and 'fail' sound.
And what the F is this stuff about CS:S being easier than 1.6? Reflective weapons? Do you just make this stuff up? Please come play my team in CS:S with your amazing skills because I think you'd quickly learn that you cannot just spray your way to victory. Why aren't you out there winning tournaments for TF2 and Source if they are so easy. As a CS player since the first betas, I can honestly say that you are the exact reason the community is falling apart. Instead of embracing the next generation of CS, all you can do is moan about this mysterious drop in gameplay that is never quantified or explained. It's much easier to hate things than it is to appreciate them, and people don't seem to like the people that just go around hating everything. Maybe you should realize not everything is black and white, being either amazing or terrible. And usually hating things only serves to make people distance themselves from you, especially because your insults are so over the top, we are certainly not going to listen to you.
please go be born in a time that predates this century. then maybe you'll have a hope in finding a ounce of credence. Tired arguments aside, no one said it's not possible to balance a game and make it fun, but it's also much easier to do both simply by mainstreaming it. And since attempts at the former have taken even multimillionaire companies like Blizzard over decades to achieve (see balance in warcraft/starcraft) most devs today take the easy way out and opt for the latter. I've seen it more times I care to <a href="http://pcgamingcorner.com/wordpress/?p=1851" target="_blank">explain again</a>; so suffice to say if you don't see a problem with dumbing down the skill set and shallowing the pool to attract all the mainstream waders then you either need to get informed quick or enjoy being a tool.
To save those the embarrassment who thought they were somehow crusading for humility - I'm not touting any weight here or throwing ego; I mean it in the simplest, most manner-of-fact way possible: if this game goes TF2 or even hints that it might, consider the tradional playerbase gone. Take it whichever way you want.
<!--quoteo(post=1738076:date=Nov 18 2009, 02:00 PM:name=PSA)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PSA @ Nov 18 2009, 02:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738076"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This thread has potential to turn into something good. I understand where you're coming from but just tone it down since people on here are gonna get anal real fast, and I'd like to avoid another good-thread-turned-flame.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1738318:date=Nov 19 2009, 10:11 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Nov 19 2009, 10:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738318"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->To save those the embarrassment who thought they were somehow crusading for humility - I'm not touting any weight here or throwing ego; I mean it in the simplest, most manner-of-fact way possible: if this game goes TF2 or even hints that it might, consider the tradional playerbase gone. Take it whichever way you want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As i said in my original post (which i edited) was that the "traditional playerbase" is the metaphoric carrot on a stick. When a solid playerbase appears, they are a magnet for other players. They automatically and instinctively attract the mainstream(isn't this just a handicap/"special" way of saying casual?) audience. This is the same thing that happened to counter-strike. It started small, via word of mouth, and exploded into a full fledged revolution.
CS:S and TF2 lost their traditional fanbase, and did so by removing the things that make it interesting. CS:S for instance no longer requires crouching to aim...How could you do that to your fanbase? The people who learned through sheer torture that if you don't crouch to aim, you die? It became imprinted on the passionate player to crouch to kill. Then they introduced CS:S, and crouching =ed instant HS. WOW!!!!!!!! goodbye CS:S. Thanks for spitting in the face of your fans. /rant over. Sorry im slightly drunk, coherent thinking is not for me right now.
<!--quoteo(post=1738348:date=Nov 20 2009, 01:54 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 20 2009, 01:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738348"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Spitting in the face of your fans" because a mechanic was changed?
if you spent 2-3 years of your life learning a mechanic...then the developers you've come to respect release a "remade" version of that game, and essentially tell you, "relearn everything...oh and do the opposite of everything you've practiced up to this point," the player doesn't have a reason to ######?
not to mention, Temphage, you certainly are prone to targeting one specific part of what someone says. Are you into politics? perhaps the mainstream media?
<!--quoteo(post=1738352:date=Nov 19 2009, 11:25 PM:name=fr0st2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fr0st2k @ Nov 19 2009, 11:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738352"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->if you spent 2-3 years of your life learning a mechanic...then the developers you've come to respect release a "remade" version of that game, and essentially tell you, "relearn everything...oh and do the opposite of everything you've practiced up to this point," the player doesn't have a reason to ######?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said earlier: <!--quoteo(post=1738277:date=Nov 19 2009, 02:35 PM:name=Terr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Terr @ Nov 19 2009, 02:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738277"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Simply being a competitive player of a game doesn't make someone a game designer any more than it would make them a game programmer. You could in fact argue that they are too close to the forest for trees, <u>since they have a far more vested personal interest in <i>specific</i> game mechanics than the more-casual player</u>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that CS:S or TF2's major purpose was to recapture the all of the old crowd. Now, for CS:S, I can see that being a reasonable assumption, but any cursory examination of TF2's long germination or design commentary should show you it was <b>not meant</b> to be "TFC with better graphics". Instead, it has captured a <b>different</b> core group of players.
NS2 cannot satisfy all the "hardcore" NS1 players who spent ludicrous amounts of time learning specific gameplay mechanics <b>without being fundamentally identical to NS1</b>. I don't want to see it come out that way. Are you sure you want it to?
A far more constructive use of time would be to identify <b>specific</b> gameplay elements and provide a positive case for why they should be maintained. Ex: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Deus Ex 3 should not make the mistake DXIW did using universal ammo. A large part of the fun in the original Deus Ex was to juggle the scarcity of types of ammunition along with your desired way to dispatch a given target, but more importantly the fun of scrounging and acquiring rare ammunition. If there are concerns that it may not be flexible enough, the random chance of finding certain types of ammo could vary <b>slightly</b> based on what ammunition the player lacks and what ammo is already manually placed inside a level.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since when is a 'sequel' a remake? MAYBE for CS:S, but that's got nothing to do with TF2 or NS2. Sequels imply a level of similarity, not an identical copy-paste. And it's <i>extremely common</i>, if not <i>expected</i>, that sequels change up gameplay.
EDIT: Terr beat me to it :( Started writing this and went for lunch.
<!--quoteo(post=1738364:date=Nov 20 2009, 05:21 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 20 2009, 05:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738364"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Since when is a 'sequel' a remake? MAYBE for CS:S, but that's got nothing to do with TF2 or NS2. Sequels imply a level of similarity, not an identical copy-paste. And it's <i>extremely common</i>, if not <i>expected</i>, that sequels change up gameplay.
EDIT: Terr beat me to it :( Started writing this and went for lunch.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i completely expect gameplay to change, and honestly, that wasn't the point of this topic. This topic was meant to analyze what makes a game (like Counter-Strike) gain such a huge following and provide such longevity, and provide insight as to what NS2 can do to ensure its successful.
<!--quoteo(post=1738416:date=Nov 20 2009, 02:49 PM:name=fr0st2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fr0st2k @ Nov 20 2009, 02:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738416"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i completely expect gameplay to change, and honestly, that wasn't the point of this topic. This topic was meant to analyze what makes a game (like Counter-Strike) gain such a huge following and provide such longevity, and provide insight as to what NS2 can do to ensure its successful.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Counterstrike had a simple and easy to achieve objective each round, small and easy to learn maps, an easy to understand conflict and very low system requirements. It sounds like the devs are aiming for a similar low system requirement, easy to access game but with a bit more complexity.
Let's be honest about TF2 for a second. It's shallow, but not <i>that</i> shallow. There's actually a fair amount of depth to be had at higher levels, although it definitely doesn't match a competitive classic like CS or Quake.
The problem with TF2 is that it made itself more fun for new players at the expense of being <i>less fun</i> once you actually learned how to play. It has a fair number of obvious "crutch" mechanics that are irritating to basically everyone except the player using them. Sometimes these are even <i>more</i> annoying for the bad players they're supposed to help, simply because the bad players aren't yet good enough to counter them.
While there's nothing fundamentally wrong with accessible games or even outright crutch mechanics that server no purpose other than helping new players, the key is implementing them in a way that doesn't annoy the ###### out of everyone else. Ideally they should also help bad players develop the habits and skills of good players so we don't end up with stuff like the people who have played TF2 for 500 hours and still can't aim because they only play Engineer and Pyro.
<!--quoteo(post=1738620:date=Nov 22 2009, 08:56 AM:name=Voyager I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Voyager I @ Nov 22 2009, 08:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738620"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Let's be honest about TF2 for a second. It's shallow, but not <i>that</i> shallow. There's actually a fair amount of depth to be had at higher levels, although it definitely doesn't match a competitive classic like CS or Quake.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A lot of people here, probably close to less than 1 in 10 have actually played TF2 competitively by the looks of this forum thread. I'm not going to get in to an argument over any of that at all, however TF2 competitively isn't as simple or as shallow as some people seem to think.
<!--quoteo(post=1738622:date=Nov 22 2009, 09:46 AM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Nov 22 2009, 09:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738622"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A lot of people here, probably close to less than 1 in 10 have actually played TF2 competitively by the looks of this forum thread. I'm not going to get in to an argument over any of that at all, however TF2 competitively isn't as simple or as shallow as some people seem to think.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most likely their strongly negative opinions stem from public play, and in that case I don't blame them for holding TF2 in such low regard. For the most part (there are many significant exceptions, but you have to know where to find them), pubbing in TF2 is unbearably retarded for a number of reasons I hope NS2 will manage to avoid.
<!--quoteo(post=1738364:date=Nov 20 2009, 11:21 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Nov 20 2009, 11:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738364"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sequels imply a level of similarity, not an identical copy-paste. And it's <i>extremely common</i>, if not <i>expected</i>, that sequels change up gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have far too much faith in the games industry.
<!--quoteo(post=1738622:date=Nov 22 2009, 09:46 AM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Nov 22 2009, 09:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738622"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A lot of people here, probably close to less than 1 in 10 have actually played TF2 competitively by the looks of this forum thread. I'm not going to get in to an argument over any of that at all, however TF2 competitively isn't as simple or as shallow as some people seem to think.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
yeah I agree, most players just pick it up start playing it and shoot their way throu without thinking untill they die and then start over and do it all over again. but the best players are the ones who use strategy, and by doing that they win. and dont try to convince me otherwise, cause I am one of the few that use strategy, infact I came up with few strategies on cp_steel that secure us the win and its so funny and cool to sometimes join a server and see ppl trying out something u came up with.
<!--quoteo(post=1738259:date=Nov 19 2009, 04:09 PM:name=fr0st2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fr0st2k @ Nov 19 2009, 04:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738259"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i agree. I never meant to imply that NS2 shouldn't be easy to pick up for new players. However, i do advocate that those new players SHOULD be beaten, and beaten hard by experienced players. As noscos stated, they should know WHY they are getting killed however...this gives them the inspiration to get better under the thought process of, "im just not fast enough 'yet'" instead of, "what the **** just killed me?"
A simple solution? Create a tutorial for new players to play through. Use targets, and simple mission objectives. Keep to single player, no bots needed. The commander chair is also sometimes intimidating for new players. They never get a chance to try it out,and when they do hop in it..its an immediate "wtf" do i do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, tutorials are essential. NS would have been a lot less intimidating for new players had it included a nice tutorial.
But another thing is essential to retaining players in a game with a high skill ceiling ... namely not pitting the newbs against the pros. Let's just hope there'll be specially marked newbie servers, both at launch and afterwards. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. You may have gotten off easy, cause you started playing CS in the beta when everyone was new, and you may have a high tolerance for being completely pwned while learning the game. But a lot of people don't have that tolerance, and will quit the game early and give it a bad rep.
"Newbie servers" relying on name-only are fundamentally unreliable: Some experienced players will deliberately or unknowingly join...
Perhaps a better solution would be a server setting, e.g. "auto-handicap". Something that makes the game tougher for individual players depending on how they perform. It obviously would <b>not</b> be popular in some circles, but it would effectively ensure that (A) mainly newbies join (B) people who aren't newbies can't stomp everybody else.
<!--quoteo(post=1738832:date=Nov 23 2009, 06:19 AM:name=Terr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Terr @ Nov 23 2009, 06:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738832"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Newbie servers" relying on name-only are fundamentally unreliable: Some experienced players will deliberately or unknowingly join...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You say that like it's a bad thing. How are newbies supposed to learn the game if you only team them up with other newbies? Newbie servers with experienced admins who are willing to teach people the game could help, but without them they are as useless as bot servers.
<!--quoteo(post=1738832:date=Nov 23 2009, 04:19 AM:name=Terr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Terr @ Nov 23 2009, 04:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738832"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Perhaps a better solution would be a server setting, e.g. "auto-handicap". Something that makes the game tougher for individual players depending on how they perform. It obviously would <b>not</b> be popular in some circles, but it would effectively ensure that (A) mainly newbies join (B) people who aren't newbies can't stomp everybody else.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem with such systems is that it doesn't encourage people to learn the game. Newbie servers themselves are fine I guess, but people should be able to see when they've reached the level of play the server can offer. So, no scalability at least.
<!--quoteo(post=1739051:date=Nov 23 2009, 12:04 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Nov 23 2009, 12:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1739051"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem with such systems is that it doesn't encourage people to learn the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> On the contrary, players will learn-by-doing up to a certain point, and past that point they'll become challenged by the handicap system if they don't go elsewhere... as opposed to having all the newbies on the server become easy kills.
I doubt any significant number of players are going to decide to intentionally die to enemies in order to duck the system, all so that they can be victorious the next time around.
<!--quoteo(post=1739162:date=Nov 24 2009, 02:52 AM:name=Terr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Terr @ Nov 24 2009, 02:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1739162"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On the contrary, players will learn-by-doing up to a certain point, and past that point they'll become challenged by the handicap system if they don't go elsewhere... as opposed to having all the newbies on the server become easy kills.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Handicaps still send the wrong kind of message. Newbies can get away with absolutely terrible play and nothing signals that they are doing it wrong. Then again a progress in skills will be hindered by the scaling and the player can't once again tell the difference if he's playing better than he used to. I'd much rather just kickban players who score too much too consistently on newbie server and explain them to find a proper server. To get the handicap system working, every player had to understand the handicap mechanism and be able to tell the actual level of play he's at. I doubt that works unless there's a huge feedback system explaining how every encouter went and how scaling affected it.
Handicaps also add some problematic factors with the scaling: Should a SG blast kill a skulk even if the handicapped? How many bites does it take to kill a0 marine? Understanding and trusting the mechanics is an important part of the learning process.
Comments
Hence the quotations on "deeper skill level". I know TF2 has close to no strategy beyond über rushing and strategically place stickies and sentries and even with those it is pretty shallow. Sticky/rocket jumping is easy as pie and getting headshots with the bow seems like auto-aim sometimes... I think the only thing of interest is situational awareness, which most TF2 players seem to lack in my experience. But then again, this has nothing to do with the game you're playing.
Also these idle threats about you and every other NS1 player leaving NS2 for what it is. Get over yourself, you're not that important. Casual gamers outnumber the "hard-core" players by a very large amount. UWE would be stupid if they wouldn't cater to that market! This doesn't even have to mean that NS2 will lose all of the depth and skill needed to be a good player, that NS1 had. It will just mean it will be more accessible to more players, which is good!
Also where does this "we are more skillful players and know more about games then casual players and the devs should listen to us or it will be Teh Fail" come from? Seriously, I've seen loads upon loads of clan tagged players and played on clan servers, during my years of FPS experience. Most do not really impress me with über skills. Sure some are good and a few are awesome even, but the majority is just there as canon fodder sometimes and some even resort to name calling if they cannot win.
I just want NS2 to be the game that is indeed easy to learn and deceptively shallow, so it will be fun for the newbies and hard to master, so people can keep improving their skills and knowledge of the game. Players should get that "oh hey!" feeling, seeing something ingame and then learning that it is also possible to do stuff "that" way (if you know what I mean :P )
THAT is what makes a good game and successful game!
For what it's worth I always thought CS was a retarded game. Modern Warfare 2, Transformers 2, and Britney Spears are all popular too; quality has literally nothing to do with popularity. Like Starcraft, Counter-Strike's popularity can be attributed to far more than the fans of both would have you think.
That said, I can't really see what your original post, NS2, and CS have to do with each other - discounting the whine rant at the beginning about how 'casual scrubs' are ruining your PLAY2WIN PRO CAL VET BADASSEDNESS.
This may come as a shock to you, but most people don't play games just to slap a clan tag on like a retard and flip out into a nerd rage about being #1.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, so tell me...how often do you play your favorite FPS? Rather, how long have you been playing it? And i dont think anyone thinks that quality has to do with popularity, which is not what i said at all. Longevity however, IS related to quality. And CS's longevity is unmatched except by Blizzard games. Hence why I used it to compare.
<!--quoteo(post=1738231:date=Nov 19 2009, 08:39 AM:name=Kouji_San)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kouji_San @ Nov 19 2009, 08:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738231"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hence the quotations on "deeper skill level". I know TF2 has close to no strategy beyond über rushing and strategically place stickies and sentries and even with those it is pretty shallow. Sticky/rocket jumping is easy as pie and getting headshots with the bow seems like auto-aim sometimes... I think the only thing of interest is situational awareness, which most TF2 players seem to lack in my experience. But then again, this has nothing to do with the game you're playing.
Also these idle threats about you and every other NS1 player leaving NS2 for what it is. Get over yourself, you're not that important. Casual gamers outnumber the "hard-core" players by a very large amount. UWE would be stupid if they wouldn't cater to that market! This doesn't even have to mean that NS2 will lose all of the depth and skill needed to be a good player, that NS1 had. It will just mean it will be more accessible to more players, which is good!
Also where does this "we are more skillful players and know more about games then casual players and the devs should listen to us or it will be Teh Fail" come from? Seriously, I've seen loads upon loads of clan tagged players and played on clan servers, during my years of FPS experience. Most do not really impress me with über skills. Sure some are good and a few are awesome even, but the majority is just there as canon fodder sometimes and some even resort to name calling if they cannot win.
I just want NS2 to be the game that is indeed easy to learn and deceptively shallow, so it will be fun for the newbies and hard to master, so people can keep improving their skills and knowledge of the game. Players should get that "oh hey!" feeling, seeing something ingame and then learning that it is also possible to do stuff "that" way (if you know what I mean :P )
THAT is what makes a good game and successful game!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The games your describing are ... failures. TF2 was nothing what TFC was. Just as CS:S was nothing that CS was. Im sorry you missed the good old TFC and CS days...i really am. But don't use your ignorance as a reason you believe TF2 is a better game.
Drawing some weird conclusion and assuming I never played TFC/CS is quite a stretch as well...
Short essence of my post perhaps...
Easy to learn hard to master -> I most certainly think NS1 could've used more of the easy to learn part. I just hope that dropping a MC at the beginning of a round won't kill that round for the aliens, because some newbie went Gorge and built one. The fastest way to get rid of that potential new player is by yelling at them them using acronyms he/she doesn't even understand...
So you can have all your depth and hard to learn stuff, but it MUST be accessible for the newbies as well. This is also the main reason why NS2 just canNOT be a port of NS1... Heck, Charlie posted at one time, that he got a new player to test NS and was just stunned at seemingly trivial things, which were like impossible tasks to that player.
Drawing some weird conclusion and assuming I never played TFC/CS is quite a stretch as well...
Short essence of my post perhaps...
Easy to learn hard to master -> I most certainly think NS1 could've used more of the easy to learn part. I just hope that dropping a MC at the beginning of a round won't kill that round for the aliens, because some newbie went Gorge and built one. The fastest way to get rid of that potential new player is by yelling at them them using acronyms he/she doesn't even understand...
So you can have all your depth and hard to learn stuff, but it MUST be accessible for the newbies as well. This is also the main reason why NS2 just canNOT be a port of NS1... Heck, Charlie posted at one time, that he got a new player to test NS and was just stunned at seemingly trivial things, which were like impossible tasks to that player.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i agree. I never meant to imply that NS2 shouldn't be easy to pick up for new players. However, i do advocate that those new players SHOULD be beaten, and beaten hard by experienced players. As noscos stated, they should know WHY they are getting killed however...this gives them the inspiration to get better under the thought process of, "im just not fast enough 'yet'" instead of, "what the **** just killed me?"
A simple solution? Create a tutorial for new players to play through. Use targets, and simple mission objectives. Keep to single player, no bots needed. The commander chair is also sometimes intimidating for new players. They never get a chance to try it out,and when they do hop in it..its an immediate "wtf" do i do.
Comparing sheer number of servers is a losing game due to the major apples/oranges comparisons inherent in them.
<ul><li>Comparative lack or relative infancy of alternative games, consoles, mmorpgs</li><li>The practical ease of piracy then vs now</li><li>Listing servers are more likely to be sharded and segregate game-servers by geographical area</li><li>The hardware requirements for a decent server versus the cost of hardware</li><li>Fake servers and redirecting servers, a problem which still exists today</li><li>Number of servers in excess of actual player population</li><li>Servers which exist solely as a claim-to-fame for an aspiring clan</li></ul>etc.
For any set of "criteria of a good game" that you put out that Counter-Strike happens to match, there are innumerable other games that fit the same criteria which have failed so hard barely anyone even remembers them.
Screw this ad-populum bull######, people, and use real arguments.
<!--quoteo(post=1738216:date=Nov 19 2009, 02:50 AM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Nov 19 2009, 02:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738216"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->because two things suddenly justifies an entire truckload of fail. maybe try thinking next time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're not exactly a powerhouse of cogent logical arguments yourself. Temphage has it right on: The awesome player on the crappy team has a lot less power in TF2 than they did on TFC. Especially when it comes to conc-jumping to cap repeatedly. (Which was artificially aided by the fact that HL1 required you to lead your targets, and a fast target has a correspondingly further lead and error rate.) And now that the LPB guy with godly aim can't carry the whole team as a lone gunman, so he goes and has teh raeg.
Simply being a competitive player of a game doesn't make someone a game designer any more than it would make them a game programmer. You could in fact argue that they are too close to the forest for trees, since they have a far more vested personal interest in <i>specific</i> game mechanics than the more-casual player.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->because the line between win and lose was drawn not only by raw skill or teamwork but often required cunning psychology.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, that's what they're calling "choose a camping spot" these days?
And yes CS:S can be thought of in the same way since they dropped the bar faster than a weightlifter with a hernia (spray'n'pray headshots anyone?).
CS 1.6, despite simple and reflective weapons, maps, and gameplay had depth (and still does) because the line between win and lose was drawn not only by raw skill or teamwork but often required cunning psychology.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can you possibly hate TF2, that game is fantastic. also, "truckload of fail" . What a tired meme. I hope you are really embarrassed when you catch up to the rest of the internet and realize how dumb 'epic' and 'fail' sound.
And what the F is this stuff about CS:S being easier than 1.6? Reflective weapons? Do you just make this stuff up? Please come play my team in CS:S with your amazing skills because I think you'd quickly learn that you cannot just spray your way to victory. Why aren't you out there winning tournaments for TF2 and Source if they are so easy. As a CS player since the first betas, I can honestly say that you are the exact reason the community is falling apart. Instead of embracing the next generation of CS, all you can do is moan about this mysterious drop in gameplay that is never quantified or explained. It's much easier to hate things than it is to appreciate them, and people don't seem to like the people that just go around hating everything. Maybe you should realize not everything is black and white, being either amazing or terrible. And usually hating things only serves to make people distance themselves from you, especially because your insults are so over the top, we are certainly not going to listen to you.
Tired arguments aside, no one said it's not possible to balance a game and make it fun, but it's also much easier to do both simply by mainstreaming it. And since attempts at the former have taken even multimillionaire companies like Blizzard over decades to achieve (see balance in warcraft/starcraft) most devs today take the easy way out and opt for the latter. I've seen it more times I care to <a href="http://pcgamingcorner.com/wordpress/?p=1851" target="_blank">explain again</a>; so suffice to say if you don't see a problem with dumbing down the skill set and shallowing the pool to attract all the mainstream waders then you either need to get informed quick or enjoy being a tool.
To save those the embarrassment who thought they were somehow crusading for humility - I'm not touting any weight here or throwing ego; I mean it in the simplest, most manner-of-fact way possible: if this game goes TF2 or even hints that it might, consider the tradional playerbase gone. Take it whichever way you want.
Oh well.
As i said in my original post (which i edited) was that the "traditional playerbase" is the metaphoric carrot on a stick. When a solid playerbase appears, they are a magnet for other players. They automatically and instinctively attract the mainstream(isn't this just a handicap/"special" way of saying casual?) audience. This is the same thing that happened to counter-strike. It started small, via word of mouth, and exploded into a full fledged revolution.
CS:S and TF2 lost their traditional fanbase, and did so by removing the things that make it interesting. CS:S for instance no longer requires crouching to aim...How could you do that to your fanbase? The people who learned through sheer torture that if you don't crouch to aim, you die? It became imprinted on the passionate player to crouch to kill. Then they introduced CS:S, and crouching =ed instant HS. WOW!!!!!!!! goodbye CS:S. Thanks for spitting in the face of your fans. /rant over. Sorry im slightly drunk, coherent thinking is not for me right now.
Melodramatic much?
Melodramatic much?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
no, not at all.
if you spent 2-3 years of your life learning a mechanic...then the developers you've come to respect release a "remade" version of that game, and essentially tell you, "relearn everything...oh and do the opposite of everything you've practiced up to this point," the player doesn't have a reason to ######?
not to mention, Temphage, you certainly are prone to targeting one specific part of what someone says. Are you into politics? perhaps the mainstream media?
As I said earlier:
<!--quoteo(post=1738277:date=Nov 19 2009, 02:35 PM:name=Terr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Terr @ Nov 19 2009, 02:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738277"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Simply being a competitive player of a game doesn't make someone a game designer any more than it would make them a game programmer. You could in fact argue that they are too close to the forest for trees, <u>since they have a far more vested personal interest in <i>specific</i> game mechanics than the more-casual player</u>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that CS:S or TF2's major purpose was to recapture the all of the old crowd. Now, for CS:S, I can see that being a reasonable assumption, but any cursory examination of TF2's long germination or design commentary should show you it was <b>not meant</b> to be "TFC with better graphics". Instead, it has captured a <b>different</b> core group of players.
NS2 cannot satisfy all the "hardcore" NS1 players who spent ludicrous amounts of time learning specific gameplay mechanics <b>without being fundamentally identical to NS1</b>. I don't want to see it come out that way. Are you sure you want it to?
A far more constructive use of time would be to identify <b>specific</b> gameplay elements and provide a positive case for why they should be maintained. Ex:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Deus Ex 3 should not make the mistake DXIW did using universal ammo. A large part of the fun in the original Deus Ex was to juggle the scarcity of types of ammunition along with your desired way to dispatch a given target, but more importantly the fun of scrounging and acquiring rare ammunition. If there are concerns that it may not be flexible enough, the random chance of finding certain types of ammo could vary <b>slightly</b> based on what ammunition the player lacks and what ammo is already manually placed inside a level.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EDIT: Terr beat me to it :( Started writing this and went for lunch.
EDIT: Terr beat me to it :( Started writing this and went for lunch.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i completely expect gameplay to change, and honestly, that wasn't the point of this topic. This topic was meant to analyze what makes a game (like Counter-Strike) gain such a huge following and provide such longevity, and provide insight as to what NS2 can do to ensure its successful.
Counterstrike had a simple and easy to achieve objective each round, small and easy to learn maps, an easy to understand conflict and very low system requirements. It sounds like the devs are aiming for a similar low system requirement, easy to access game but with a bit more complexity.
The problem with TF2 is that it made itself more fun for new players at the expense of being <i>less fun</i> once you actually learned how to play. It has a fair number of obvious "crutch" mechanics that are irritating to basically everyone except the player using them. Sometimes these are even <i>more</i> annoying for the bad players they're supposed to help, simply because the bad players aren't yet good enough to counter them.
While there's nothing fundamentally wrong with accessible games or even outright crutch mechanics that server no purpose other than helping new players, the key is implementing them in a way that doesn't annoy the ###### out of everyone else. Ideally they should also help bad players develop the habits and skills of good players so we don't end up with stuff like the people who have played TF2 for 500 hours and still can't aim because they only play Engineer and Pyro.
A lot of people here, probably close to less than 1 in 10 have actually played TF2 competitively by the looks of this forum thread. I'm not going to get in to an argument over any of that at all, however TF2 competitively isn't as simple or as shallow as some people seem to think.
Most likely their strongly negative opinions stem from public play, and in that case I don't blame them for holding TF2 in such low regard. For the most part (there are many significant exceptions, but you have to know where to find them), pubbing in TF2 is unbearably retarded for a number of reasons I hope NS2 will manage to avoid.
You have far too much faith in the games industry.
yeah I agree, most players just pick it up start playing it and shoot their way throu without thinking untill they die and then start over and do it all over again. but the best players are the ones who use strategy, and by doing that they win.
and dont try to convince me otherwise, cause I am one of the few that use strategy, infact I came up with few strategies on cp_steel that secure us the win and its so funny and cool to sometimes join a server and see ppl trying out something u came up with.
A simple solution? Create a tutorial for new players to play through. Use targets, and simple mission objectives. Keep to single player, no bots needed. The commander chair is also sometimes intimidating for new players. They never get a chance to try it out,and when they do hop in it..its an immediate "wtf" do i do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, tutorials are essential. NS would have been a lot less intimidating for new players had it included a nice tutorial.
But another thing is essential to retaining players in a game with a high skill ceiling ... namely not pitting the newbs against the pros. Let's just hope there'll be specially marked newbie servers, both at launch and afterwards. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. You may have gotten off easy, cause you started playing CS in the beta when everyone was new, and you may have a high tolerance for being completely pwned while learning the game. But a lot of people don't have that tolerance, and will quit the game early and give it a bad rep.
Perhaps a better solution would be a server setting, e.g. "auto-handicap". Something that makes the game tougher for individual players depending on how they perform. It obviously would <b>not</b> be popular in some circles, but it would effectively ensure that (A) mainly newbies join (B) people who aren't newbies can't stomp everybody else.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
How are newbies supposed to learn the game if you only team them up with other newbies?
Newbie servers with experienced admins who are willing to teach people the game could help, but without them they are as useless as bot servers.
All of the unlockables are side-grades and generally are just annoying rather than useful.
But hey, it has Halloween celebrations, hats, and achievements - so it's great for casuals. Eat it up.
The problem with such systems is that it doesn't encourage people to learn the game. Newbie servers themselves are fine I guess, but people should be able to see when they've reached the level of play the server can offer. So, no scalability at least.
On the contrary, players will learn-by-doing up to a certain point, and past that point they'll become challenged by the handicap system if they don't go elsewhere... as opposed to having all the newbies on the server become easy kills.
I doubt any significant number of players are going to decide to intentionally die to enemies in order to duck the system, all so that they can be victorious the next time around.
Handicaps still send the wrong kind of message. Newbies can get away with absolutely terrible play and nothing signals that they are doing it wrong. Then again a progress in skills will be hindered by the scaling and the player can't once again tell the difference if he's playing better than he used to. I'd much rather just kickban players who score too much too consistently on newbie server and explain them to find a proper server. To get the handicap system working, every player had to understand the handicap mechanism and be able to tell the actual level of play he's at. I doubt that works unless there's a huge feedback system explaining how every encouter went and how scaling affected it.
Handicaps also add some problematic factors with the scaling: Should a SG blast kill a skulk even if the handicapped? How many bites does it take to kill a0 marine? Understanding and trusting the mechanics is an important part of the learning process.