<!--quoteo(post=1760342:date=Mar 20 2010, 07:42 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Mar 20 2010, 07:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760342"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->b) @Thaldrin's naivety: yes, successful is having only <b>15%</b> more players for a sequel that was 4+ years in the making.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not a failure. Sold well. Is played by a lot of people. I think you need to stop getting wound up and just accept that fact.
<!--quoteo(post=1760343:date=Mar 20 2010, 02:44 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Mar 20 2010, 02:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760343"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not a failure. Sold well. Is <b>played by a lot of people</b>. I think you need to stop getting wound up and just accept that fact.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1760342:date=Mar 20 2010, 02:42 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Mar 20 2010, 02:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760342"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->See Thaldrin's post or <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/stats/" target="_blank">here</a>. Contrary to what he may imply: a) it is only a momentary snapshot of the userbase, and not indicative of total stats which (CS1.6) have been claimed to surpass those of CS:S b) @Thaldrin's naivety: yes, successful is having only <b>15%</b> more players for a sequel that was 4+ years in the making.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So in other words you don't have any stats to suggest that the reason for CS:S's "lackluster" sales is because it was too different. I think it's exactly the opposite - people who played CS1.6 and had their fill already had no reason to go buy CS:S, because it was the same game. Had they gone and made a full TF2-style sequel(not necessarily that casual, but in that is was a full remake) it would have been more successful.
<!--quoteo(post=1760343:date=Mar 20 2010, 02:44 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Mar 20 2010, 02:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760343"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not a failure. Sold well. Is played by a lot of people. I think you need to stop getting wound up and just accept that fact.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I haven't denied that; it's enjoyed by a healthy userbase of millenium kids and casuals. That you can't see the difference between sales and failed potential is again ostensibly naive.
<!--quoteo(post=1760349:date=Mar 20 2010, 03:22 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Mar 20 2010, 03:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760349"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So in other words you don't have any stats to suggest that the reason for CS:S's "lackluster" sales is because it was too different. I think it's exactly the opposite - people who played CS1.6 and had their fill already had no reason to go buy CS:S, because it was the same game. Had they gone and made a full TF2-style sequel(not necessarily that casual, but in that is was a full remake) it would have been more successful.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've no will to collect testimonials from the CS competitive community to explain to you the failings of CS:S, you can do that on your own. There are no "stats" to support any exact reason for a game's failing, just anecdotes and theories. Suffice to say this topic is not to discuss the failings of others, but to address valid concerns so that we may not talk of another failed sequel shortly after the release of NS2.
<!--quoteo(post=1760295:date=Mar 20 2010, 09:30 AM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Mar 20 2010, 09:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760295"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So far I dont see improvements in competitive side but a whole load in the casual side. This does make sense granted, casuals > competitive in numbers but is it worth sacrificing the very good parts of NS. For example if the movement is not as good as it was in NS1 I doubt Ill stick with this too long.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point. Although there are more casual players than competitive players overall, The casual players aren't devoted. This is where you'll see "staying power". I'd say UWE doesn't care about how their game does in the long run, but care more about total sales, but I don't know the UWE people. It seems to me they actually want to create a good game, and rather have a game that lasts as long as it can.
But casual players usually play a game untill a different/new game of the same type comes out. Whereas competitive players stick with it. I would just hate to see NS being a FotM.
<!--quoteo(post=1760309:date=Mar 20 2010, 10:34 AM:name=Donner & Blitzen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Donner & Blitzen @ Mar 20 2010, 10:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And of course, given enough time and practice, players will <i>always</i> find ways here and there to give them an edge here or there. The Spark engine may come with its own sets of quirks that players can take advantage of.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Awesome point. When NS1 came out, they had no idea about bunnyhopping at all. Like we know, it's an exploit but it's completely accepted. Even if they take out bunnyhopping I'm sure the GOOD players will find some kind of harmless exploit to use that will differentiate them from the noobs.
<!--quoteo(post=1760363:date=Mar 21 2010, 02:37 AM:name=wesman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wesman @ Mar 21 2010, 02:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760363"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Awesome point. When NS1 came out, they had no idea about bunnyhopping at all. Like we know, it's an exploit but it's completely accepted. Even if they take out bunnyhopping I'm sure the GOOD players will find some kind of harmless exploit to use that will differentiate them from the noobs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Indeed this "exploit" was very fortuned, I personally dont know time when there was no bunny (started 1.04) but I believe we all start relatively same level when alpha/beta comes out. I fear they cannot produce such a feature again at least not as good but that really isnt the problem. If the game is too simple meaning no room for improvement (much like cs 1.6) it becomes boring and really frustrating when someone with no real skill is capable of killing you. Bad example would be 2 stationary cs players, other starts shooting 0.5 sec earlier than the other with the same weapon same spot etc but ends up dieing.
<!--quoteo(post=1760365:date=Mar 20 2010, 05:53 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Mar 20 2010, 05:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760365"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bad example would be 2 stationary cs players, other starts shooting 0.5 sec earlier than the other with the same weapon same spot etc but ends up dieing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree with CS1.6 "having no room for improvement". Indeed it may be a "simple" skill, but tracking and twitching headshots has enough depth that it cannot be mastered yet a noob has very little chance of pulling it off repeatedly. Your example is poor since such a situation would never occur between a pro and a noob (the pro would be strafing and bursting, the noob stationary and spraying).
Wesmen brings up very good points in that we know UWE are trying to tap into the casual crowd and we've seen many concessions for them (reduced movement complexity, more damage soaking, more opportunity to range) yet we've seen very little that will, so to speak, raise the roof.
UWE isn't trying to sabotage their own game. While it's unlikely NS2 will not have as high of a skill ceiling as NS1 there still may be plenty of ways for good players to differentiate themselves from bad players.
<!--quoteo(post=1760363:date=Mar 20 2010, 05:37 PM:name=wesman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wesman @ Mar 20 2010, 05:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760363"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Good point. Although there are more casual players than competitive players overall, The casual players aren't devoted. This is where you'll see "staying power". I'd say UWE doesn't care about how their game does in the long run, but care more about total sales, but I don't know the UWE people. It seems to me they actually want to create a good game, and rather have a game that lasts as long as it can.
But casual players usually play a game untill a different/new game of the same type comes out. Whereas competitive players stick with it. I would just hate to see NS being a FotM.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> On the contrary, the large majority of people who stick with a game for a long time(NS included), i.e. everbody playing exclusively on pubs, are "casual" by the definition of most people here. Most hardcore gamers still don't actually play games with the objective of getting good at them, they're simply good at them because they play a lot. I don't think any of the people with hundreds of hours in TF2 could realistically be called casual gamers. These are hardcore gamers, but most of them still don't play games with the objective of continuously getting better. TF2 casual is a very different thing from Mario Party casual, and the former is what keeps games alive in the long run.
Nah, Zek, you got it wrong. There's casual and then "pubber". Yes, granted, to most comp's the difference between a "pubber" and a "casual" is moot; however there is a big difference extrinsically. As wesman pointed out, casuals are your typical average dunderheads who go "oooh look shiney new game me want play", there the one's who buy every NHL or CoD sequel with a turnaround time of about 6 months. In contrast a "pubber" may be casual, but they, as NS pubbers, are not as flaky as the casuals and will typically pub on a game they enjoy for years.
So yes, there is a difference, an important one. casual =/= pubber.
I wish that were true Zek, but it's why this topic exists. When you make a game "more accessible", then naturally more casuals will access it. And although I have faith NS2 isn't going to be as casual as TF2 or MW2, threads like these help bring attention to changes that may sway it in this direction.
TF2 and MW2 both have dedicated hardcore communities behind them though. Categorize people however you like, but NS is a very pubber unfriendly game and that's what the changes are really intended for. I don't know why you guys all turn up your noses at people who just play games for the fun of playing them("dunderheads," really?), but they are not the enemy. They're the backbone that keeps any game alive for any length of time. Counter-Strike was massively successful because it had a huge pub scene, the vast majority of whom never joined a real clan. If a game doesn't have sufficient competitive depth then it won't have a competitive scene - call it what it is and don't spin stories about the whole community grinding to a halt.
NS was as successful as it was because it was a mod for Half-Life, a game which everybody already owned for the aforementioned mod - UWE doesn't have the luxury of keeping the game so inaccessible if they want to charge a cover fee.
<!--quoteo(post=1760343:date=Mar 20 2010, 01:44 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Mar 20 2010, 01:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760343"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not a failure. Sold well. Is played by a lot of people. I think you need to stop getting wound up and just accept that fact.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if you look at the total time ever played by CS1.6 versus CS:S, I'm sure CS1.6 would win.... because it existed 4 years before CS:S. Same for total # copies sold. And yes, I seem to recall a period of time right after CS:S was released that CS1.6 was played more game-hours than CS:S.
I'm really bummed Steam doesn't reported player hours per game anymore, that was really useful. Just measuring # of players could be a bunch of players who only play 5 minutes versus dedicated 5 hours players.
Anyways, I see a 25% today (A Saturday, so more people playing games)
Current Peak Game 26,934 88,420 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer 20,404 84,363 Counter-Strike: Source 18,243 24,645 Team Fortress 2 16,196 70,980 Counter-Strike 15,178 22,382 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Once again it's a combination of factors. Without new players (pubbers/casuals) the community isn't sustained. Without competitive players there's nothing to aspire to and people just leave unless they play socially.
That's the other thing. A major reason I haven't played NS1 in a while is because all my favorite servers have gone bottom up and the people I used to play with have left. While I enjoyed the skill involved and the strategic depth, I also played it as a social venue. It was fun, even as a bottom 50% score player, to have people you knew around and who would josh you for epic or stupid things you did. Like holding double as the Gorge against 3 Marines. Or that one game where we all ran around heal spraying Marine Start. If you remove any social interaction, if it's just avatars that you're trying to get kills on, many people leave if they don't have a group of friends to play with. That's the whole point of VOIP, the Steam Community, being able to join dedicated servers, and so many other things. I want to play with people I know.
<!--quoteo(post=1760401:date=Mar 21 2010, 01:17 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Mar 21 2010, 01:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760401"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Once again it's a combination of factors. Without new players (pubbers/casuals) the community isn't sustained. Without competitive players there's nothing to aspire to and people just leave unless they play socially.
That's the other thing. A major reason I haven't played NS1 in a while is because all my favorite servers have gone bottom up and the people I used to play with have left. While I enjoyed the skill involved and the strategic depth, I also played it as a social venue. It was fun, even as a bottom 50% score player, to have people you knew around and who would josh you for epic or stupid things you did. Like holding double as the Gorge against 3 Marines. Or that one game where we all ran around heal spraying Marine Start. If you remove any social interaction, if it's just avatars that you're trying to get kills on, many people leave if they don't have a group of friends to play with. That's the whole point of VOIP, the Steam Community, being able to join dedicated servers, and so many other things. I want to play with people I know.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Agreed and agreed wholeheartedly.
The only reason why I stopped playing NS1 years ago was because the local servers went belly-up (shout out to AirINC, h.factor and SGNS peeps if anyone's reading this) , and the local community started to migrate to foreign servers such as HK/Chinese/Taiwan servers. The SGNS scene effectively went kaput, and there was no longer a good reason for me to play the game. I admit that I, like spellman, played the game more for the social aspect.
The shiny graphics pulled me in, but the community made me stay. Sometimes I still reminisce fondly about those days, making Wall of Lames, trying map exploits (seige in the furnace in ns_bast / building outside the cockpit of that space-themed map...ns_eclipse? / etc.)
<!--quoteo(post=1760393:date=Mar 20 2010, 10:55 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Mar 20 2010, 10:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760393"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->NS is a very pubber unfriendly game<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While we're making the distinction between pubber and casual, I would say that while NS is a nightmare for "casual" players due to its unintuitiveness and complexity, NS is certainly pubber friendly, evidenced by many server communities that were not competitive-driven.
In fact I would say it was best designed for pub play, where the design goals of communication, coordination, and social elements of the game are most significant.
<!--quoteo(post=1760373:date=Mar 21 2010, 04:03 AM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Mar 21 2010, 04:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760373"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I disagree with CS1.6 "having no room for improvement". Indeed it may be a "simple" skill, but tracking and twitching headshots has enough depth that it cannot be mastered yet a noob has very little chance of pulling it off repeatedly. Your example is poor since such a situation would never occur between a pro and a noob (the pro would be strafing and bursting, the noob stationary and spraying).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Like I said it was a bad example, but the point was that even a complete noob can kill you by bursting towards you even later than you but in NS chances of good marine dieing is lower (because of the movement, game insight instead of camping and burstin). The depth of insight and predicting is less meaningful in cs than it is in NS. Saying that cs is completely out of room for improvement is wrong, but I would say 80% is up to your aim and reflexes.
<!--quoteo(post=1760460:date=Mar 21 2010, 12:14 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (juice @ Mar 21 2010, 12:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760460"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While we're making the distinction between pubber and casual, I would say that while NS is a nightmare for "casual" players due to its unintuitiveness and complexity, NS is certainly pubber friendly, evidenced by many server communities that were not competitive-driven.
In fact I would say it was best designed for pub play, where the design goals of communication, coordination, and social elements of the game are most significant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, sure, assuming we're talking about Combat. Why do you think half the servers switched after 3.0?
No, I'm not talking about Combat. But that game DOES appeal to casual players. Again, I'm using the definitions of casual vs. pubber that people have been talking about in this thread.
Fleeb the MadJoin Date: 2010-03-21Member: 71033Members
As a long-time casual player (pubber, if you feel like making the distinction.), I feel compelled to say something regarding the more acidic messages coming from this thread.
In the face of so much fear of changing the cherished dynamics of NS, I have to wonder why nobody seems to remember the evolution of gameplay that's occurred since the early days. There was a time when things, to me at least, worked vastly different than they do now. It might be hard to remember just how different things were when lerks had spikes, fades literally blinked around the map and when gorges could spawn skulks, but there have been fundamental changes in the abilities of both sides not too much removed from what NS2 is proposing thus far. There was a time when the number of hives controlled what life forms were available. Things like electrification and hand grenades weren't always in the game, and neither was bilebomb. Alien teams needed a permanent gorge to accumulate resources for structures. That's certainly not all that's changed, but I'm sure that the conventional wisdom of tactics and overall strategy from the early iterations of NS certainly have not been consistent all through its run. Did the community respond to all those past changes with the same sort of speculation, fear and drama?
I'd say at least a part of it did. And even then, there was a much wider breadth of information available in terms of playing experience and more explicit data concerning changes (Because even I knew what increasing skulk armour to 10 at Hive 0 would do). There were servers for a long time that still ran 2.X when 3.0 rolled around. Are the same people that rejected the 2.0 changes still here? Did they adapt, or did they just go? Myself, I'd be comfortable saying that it's come in the right direction. But I also have to remember that the development of NS has been an evolutionary process and carries a lot of baggage from previous iterations. NS had a certain engine with certain limits, with certain fundamental aspects built in from the get-go that could not be changed without a huge amount of rework. Maybe randomizing marine starting locations could've been an awesome addition, but then what would've happened if none of the maps worked for that? Do you redo all of them? Would the investment of effort in testing, balancing and coding been practical?
Resistance to change isn't new here. I can't say I agree with everything that NS2 has proposed, but the community at large also has to understand that UWE has a lot more at stake here than the players do. They must agonize over decisions because the long-term survival of the company is linked to that of the community. And while it's in their best interest to listen to the voice of the community, these forms neither wholly represent the entire breadth of those who still play NS, or those who did during the peak. And from what I see here, there's an underlying fear amongst some of the elite players that they just won't be as good relative to the average if certain mechanics change to make the game more newb-friendly or if things are different in a way their prior experience doesn't help. I can understand that position and although nobody outright advocates it, it's certainly there between the lines. And even though experienced players can offer a wealth of information, it would be damaging to the community and to the long-term viability of NS if people assume that is the best (or only) point of view.
And I would ask that the community treat new players with a bit more respect than 'dunderheads'. Just keep in mind that as far as supporting UWE and the future, that guy's twenty bucks matters just the same as anyone else's. Anyone who puts money behind the game has helped towards it development and also has a chance of becoming a long-time member of the community. It doesn't do well to spurn them with that kind of elitism, since it may take a while for completely new people to understand how the game actually works if they walked into it blind.
<!--quoteo(post=1760462:date=Mar 21 2010, 05:45 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Mar 21 2010, 05:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760462"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like I said it was a bad example, but the point was that even a complete noob can kill you by bursting towards you even later than you but in NS chances of good marine dieing is lower (because of the movement, game insight instead of camping and burstin). The depth of insight and predicting is less meaningful in cs than it is in NS. Saying that cs is completely out of room for improvement is wrong, but I would say 80% is up to your aim and reflexes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those situations arent really comparable. And I can tell you from personal experience of playing CS at a very high level, that the game is about 5%-10% aim/reactions. When there are that many people who have been playing a game for that long .... <b>everybody</b> has good aim and reactions. What then differentiates you as a better player is more consistantly making the right decision at the right time, which is really a lot harder than it sounds. And you say "oh a noob can kill you really easily in CS". I consistantly score 20-0 or higher in CS pubs - they really cant.
<!--quoteo(post=1760393:date=Mar 20 2010, 10:55 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Mar 20 2010, 10:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760393"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't know why you guys all turn up your noses at people who just play games for the fun of playing them("dunderheads," really?)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you're able to figure out the distinction between "noob" and "newb", you'll understand who it is I'm calling a 'dunderhead'.
<!--quoteo(post=1760462:date=Mar 21 2010, 12:45 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Mar 21 2010, 12:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760462"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like I said it was a bad example, but the point was that even a complete noob can kill you by bursting towards you even later than you but in NS chances of good marine dieing is lower (because of the movement, game insight instead of camping and burstin).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The expression "lol nubbed" is very popular in NS because it was easy for nub rines to just hang in the back and range spam kills, even against pros. I don't think the point is any more or less valid than it is in CS (possibly less, since at least in CS all players are relatively equal, not like in NS where nubs can go onos or HA)
<!--quoteo(post=1760582:date=Mar 22 2010, 02:18 AM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Mar 22 2010, 02:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760582"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you're able to figure out the distinction between "noob" and "newb", you'll understand who it is I'm calling a 'dunderhead'.
The expression "lol nubbed" is very popular in NS because it was easy for nub rines to just hang in the back and range spam kills, even against pros. I don't think the point is any more or less valid than it is in CS (possibly less, since at least in CS all players are relatively equal, not like in NS where nubs can go onos or HA)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jeeze, wait until the alpha/beta and actually play a vague representation of the final product before complaining how bad something you've never played or even seen in action is. The engine supports scripting of gamemode right? If you want to recreate NS1 mechanic for mechanic then you can.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->that's still more maps than de_nuke, de_dust2, de_train, de_inferno, isn't it ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think you mean "de_dust2, de_dust and occasionally cs_office and if the stars are right de_assault".
<!--quoteo(post=1760604:date=Mar 22 2010, 07:30 AM:name=-=Gradius=-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (-=Gradius=- @ Mar 22 2010, 07:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760604"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think you mean "de_dust2, de_dust and occasionally cs_office and if the stars are right de_assault".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was talking about maps played in competition, but thanks for participating anyway :)
long-time lurker here...played the game since...well ...at a very early stage. I don't remember exactly when I started :P
I've been sitting and reading this thread, and many other threads like it, and something strikes me as odd, or..curious. There is a lot of talk about simplifying things, reducing all the micromanagement and making the game more accessible. I mean sure..accessibility to a larger crowd means potentially making more money, but first of all you can't please everyone and second of all..wouldn't that remove a relatively large chunk of what makes Natural Selection..well..Natural Selection?
The consensus seems to be "NS1 was too hard!" etc etc. Now..I cant for the life of me understand (and this is me personally) why everything has to be easy. I mean isn't the whole fast-paced commanding (I was a commander a lot in NS1) a rough rough ride and some really hard learned lessons to get you to a level where you were..lets say..reasonable. Isn't the thrill of having to think fast and maneuvering the dark corridors at racing speeds part of what makes it fun?
If everything is so easy, then why play the game?..Why have an RTS (real time strategy) element if there is no need for you to be strategic, and barely in real time because everything is so easy. Why indeed have Natural Selection 2 if it isn't Natural Selection (the meaning of the words)..I mean wasn't that was Natural Selection 1 was. I'm not talking about competition (I never played on a competitive level..ever), just really hard/challenging gameplay that requires you to think, act and work together..whats so wrong about that?
I know what the argument is..its a game..its entertainment..you don't want to stress through entertainment, you want to relax and have fun. Fine but one of the major reasons why many/most people are here is because they play(ed) and enjoy(ed) NS1, so why play NS1 ? If you didn't play NS1 how would you have any basis for saying its too hard or that NS2 needs to be easier. Maybe I'm the idiot..I just don't get why hard(to the point of being nearly impossible) games are so bad..really I don't see the problem. :-/
<!--quoteo(post=1760605:date=Mar 22 2010, 01:00 PM:name=huhuh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huhuh @ Mar 22 2010, 01:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760605"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was talking about maps played in competition, but thanks for participating anyway :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah because cpl_mill and tuscan are totally never played competetively, right? 6 maps used in competetive rotation is pretty comparable to NS tbh (veil/eclipse/lost/tanith/origin/metal make up the vast majority of competetive play in ENSL).
Comments
It's not a failure. Sold well. Is played by a lot of people. I think you need to stop getting wound up and just accept that fact.
Well,
not in competition ( compared to .6 )
a) it is only a momentary snapshot of the userbase, and not indicative of total stats which (CS1.6) have been claimed to surpass those of CS:S
b) @Thaldrin's naivety: yes, successful is having only <b>15%</b> more players for a sequel that was 4+ years in the making.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So in other words you don't have any stats to suggest that the reason for CS:S's "lackluster" sales is because it was too different. I think it's exactly the opposite - people who played CS1.6 and had their fill already had no reason to go buy CS:S, because it was the same game. Had they gone and made a full TF2-style sequel(not necessarily that casual, but in that is was a full remake) it would have been more successful.
I haven't denied that; it's enjoyed by a healthy userbase of millenium kids and casuals. That you can't see the difference between sales and failed potential is again ostensibly naive.
<!--quoteo(post=1760349:date=Mar 20 2010, 03:22 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Mar 20 2010, 03:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760349"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So in other words you don't have any stats to suggest that the reason for CS:S's "lackluster" sales is because it was too different. I think it's exactly the opposite - people who played CS1.6 and had their fill already had no reason to go buy CS:S, because it was the same game. Had they gone and made a full TF2-style sequel(not necessarily that casual, but in that is was a full remake) it would have been more successful.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've no will to collect testimonials from the CS competitive community to explain to you the failings of CS:S, you can do that on your own. There are no "stats" to support any exact reason for a game's failing, just anecdotes and theories. Suffice to say this topic is not to discuss the failings of others, but to address valid concerns so that we may not talk of another failed sequel shortly after the release of NS2.
Good point. Although there are more casual players than competitive players overall, The casual players aren't devoted. This is where you'll see "staying power". I'd say UWE doesn't care about how their game does in the long run, but care more about total sales, but I don't know the UWE people. It seems to me they actually want to create a good game, and rather have a game that lasts as long as it can.
But casual players usually play a game untill a different/new game of the same type comes out. Whereas competitive players stick with it. I would just hate to see NS being a FotM.
<!--quoteo(post=1760309:date=Mar 20 2010, 10:34 AM:name=Donner & Blitzen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Donner & Blitzen @ Mar 20 2010, 10:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760309"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And of course, given enough time and practice, players will <i>always</i> find ways here and there to give them an edge here or there. The Spark engine may come with its own sets of quirks that players can take advantage of.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Awesome point. When NS1 came out, they had no idea about bunnyhopping at all. Like we know, it's an exploit but it's completely accepted. Even if they take out bunnyhopping I'm sure the GOOD players will find some kind of harmless exploit to use that will differentiate them from the noobs.
Indeed this "exploit" was very fortuned, I personally dont know time when there was no bunny (started 1.04) but I believe we all start relatively same level when alpha/beta comes out. I fear they cannot produce such a feature again at least not as good but that really isnt the problem. If the game is too simple meaning no room for improvement (much like cs 1.6) it becomes boring and really frustrating when someone with no real skill is capable of killing you. Bad example would be 2 stationary cs players, other starts shooting 0.5 sec earlier than the other with the same weapon same spot etc but ends up dieing.
I disagree with CS1.6 "having no room for improvement". Indeed it may be a "simple" skill, but tracking and twitching headshots has enough depth that it cannot be mastered yet a noob has very little chance of pulling it off repeatedly. Your example is poor since such a situation would never occur between a pro and a noob (the pro would be strafing and bursting, the noob stationary and spraying).
Wesmen brings up very good points in that we know UWE are trying to tap into the casual crowd and we've seen many concessions for them (reduced movement complexity, more damage soaking, more opportunity to range) yet we've seen very little that will, so to speak, raise the roof.
But casual players usually play a game untill a different/new game of the same type comes out. Whereas competitive players stick with it. I would just hate to see NS being a FotM.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the contrary, the large majority of people who stick with a game for a long time(NS included), i.e. everbody playing exclusively on pubs, are "casual" by the definition of most people here. Most hardcore gamers still don't actually play games with the objective of getting good at them, they're simply good at them because they play a lot. I don't think any of the people with hundreds of hours in TF2 could realistically be called casual gamers. These are hardcore gamers, but most of them still don't play games with the objective of continuously getting better. TF2 casual is a very different thing from Mario Party casual, and the former is what keeps games alive in the long run.
To me that implies that they aren't serious about the game.
So yes, there is a difference, an important one. casual =/= pubber.
NS was as successful as it was because it was a mod for Half-Life, a game which everybody already owned for the aforementioned mod - UWE doesn't have the luxury of keeping the game so inaccessible if they want to charge a cover fee.
Well, if you look at the total time ever played by CS1.6 versus CS:S, I'm sure CS1.6 would win.... because it existed 4 years before CS:S. Same for total # copies sold. And yes, I seem to recall a period of time right after CS:S was released that CS1.6 was played more game-hours than CS:S.
I'm really bummed Steam doesn't reported player hours per game anymore, that was really useful. Just measuring # of players could be a bunch of players who only play 5 minutes versus dedicated 5 hours players.
Anyways, I see a 25% today (A Saturday, so more people playing games)
Current Peak Game
26,934 88,420 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Multiplayer
20,404 84,363 Counter-Strike: Source
18,243 24,645 Team Fortress 2
16,196 70,980 Counter-Strike
15,178 22,382 Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Once again it's a combination of factors. Without new players (pubbers/casuals) the community isn't sustained. Without competitive players there's nothing to aspire to and people just leave unless they play socially.
That's the other thing. A major reason I haven't played NS1 in a while is because all my favorite servers have gone bottom up and the people I used to play with have left. While I enjoyed the skill involved and the strategic depth, I also played it as a social venue. It was fun, even as a bottom 50% score player, to have people you knew around and who would josh you for epic or stupid things you did. Like holding double as the Gorge against 3 Marines. Or that one game where we all ran around heal spraying Marine Start. If you remove any social interaction, if it's just avatars that you're trying to get kills on, many people leave if they don't have a group of friends to play with. That's the whole point of VOIP, the Steam Community, being able to join dedicated servers, and so many other things. I want to play with people I know.
That's the other thing. A major reason I haven't played NS1 in a while is because all my favorite servers have gone bottom up and the people I used to play with have left. While I enjoyed the skill involved and the strategic depth, I also played it as a social venue. It was fun, even as a bottom 50% score player, to have people you knew around and who would josh you for epic or stupid things you did. Like holding double as the Gorge against 3 Marines. Or that one game where we all ran around heal spraying Marine Start. If you remove any social interaction, if it's just avatars that you're trying to get kills on, many people leave if they don't have a group of friends to play with. That's the whole point of VOIP, the Steam Community, being able to join dedicated servers, and so many other things. I want to play with people I know.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed and agreed wholeheartedly.
The only reason why I stopped playing NS1 years ago was because the local servers went belly-up (shout out to AirINC, h.factor and SGNS peeps if anyone's reading this) , and the local community started to migrate to foreign servers such as HK/Chinese/Taiwan servers. The SGNS scene effectively went kaput, and there was no longer a good reason for me to play the game. I admit that I, like spellman, played the game more for the social aspect.
The shiny graphics pulled me in, but the community made me stay.
Sometimes I still reminisce fondly about those days, making Wall of Lames, trying map exploits (seige in the furnace in ns_bast / building outside the cockpit of that space-themed map...ns_eclipse? / etc.)
While we're making the distinction between pubber and casual, I would say that while NS is a nightmare for "casual" players due to its unintuitiveness and complexity, NS is certainly pubber friendly, evidenced by many server communities that were not competitive-driven.
In fact I would say it was best designed for pub play, where the design goals of communication, coordination, and social elements of the game are most significant.
Like I said it was a bad example, but the point was that even a complete noob can kill you by bursting towards you even later than you but in NS chances of good marine dieing is lower (because of the movement, game insight instead of camping and burstin). The depth of insight and predicting is less meaningful in cs than it is in NS. Saying that cs is completely out of room for improvement is wrong, but I would say 80% is up to your aim and reflexes.
In fact I would say it was best designed for pub play, where the design goals of communication, coordination, and social elements of the game are most significant.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, sure, assuming we're talking about Combat. Why do you think half the servers switched after 3.0?
In the face of so much fear of changing the cherished dynamics of NS, I have to wonder why nobody seems to remember the evolution of gameplay that's occurred since the early days. There was a time when things, to me at least, worked vastly different than they do now. It might be hard to remember just how different things were when lerks had spikes, fades literally blinked around the map and when gorges could spawn skulks, but there have been fundamental changes in the abilities of both sides not too much removed from what NS2 is proposing thus far. There was a time when the number of hives controlled what life forms were available. Things like electrification and hand grenades weren't always in the game, and neither was bilebomb. Alien teams needed a permanent gorge to accumulate resources for structures. That's certainly not all that's changed, but I'm sure that the conventional wisdom of tactics and overall strategy from the early iterations of NS certainly have not been consistent all through its run. Did the community respond to all those past changes with the same sort of speculation, fear and drama?
I'd say at least a part of it did. And even then, there was a much wider breadth of information available in terms of playing experience and more explicit data concerning changes (Because even I knew what increasing skulk armour to 10 at Hive 0 would do). There were servers for a long time that still ran 2.X when 3.0 rolled around. Are the same people that rejected the 2.0 changes still here? Did they adapt, or did they just go? Myself, I'd be comfortable saying that it's come in the right direction. But I also have to remember that the development of NS has been an evolutionary process and carries a lot of baggage from previous iterations. NS had a certain engine with certain limits, with certain fundamental aspects built in from the get-go that could not be changed without a huge amount of rework. Maybe randomizing marine starting locations could've been an awesome addition, but then what would've happened if none of the maps worked for that? Do you redo all of them? Would the investment of effort in testing, balancing and coding been practical?
Resistance to change isn't new here. I can't say I agree with everything that NS2 has proposed, but the community at large also has to understand that UWE has a lot more at stake here than the players do. They must agonize over decisions because the long-term survival of the company is linked to that of the community. And while it's in their best interest to listen to the voice of the community, these forms neither wholly represent the entire breadth of those who still play NS, or those who did during the peak. And from what I see here, there's an underlying fear amongst some of the elite players that they just won't be as good relative to the average if certain mechanics change to make the game more newb-friendly or if things are different in a way their prior experience doesn't help. I can understand that position and although nobody outright advocates it, it's certainly there between the lines. And even though experienced players can offer a wealth of information, it would be damaging to the community and to the long-term viability of NS if people assume that is the best (or only) point of view.
And I would ask that the community treat new players with a bit more respect than 'dunderheads'. Just keep in mind that as far as supporting UWE and the future, that guy's twenty bucks matters just the same as anyone else's. Anyone who puts money behind the game has helped towards it development and also has a chance of becoming a long-time member of the community. It doesn't do well to spurn them with that kind of elitism, since it may take a while for completely new people to understand how the game actually works if they walked into it blind.
Those situations arent really comparable. And I can tell you from personal experience of playing CS at a very high level, that the game is about 5%-10% aim/reactions. When there are that many people who have been playing a game for that long .... <b>everybody</b> has good aim and reactions. What then differentiates you as a better player is more consistantly making the right decision at the right time, which is really a lot harder than it sounds.
And you say "oh a noob can kill you really easily in CS". I consistantly score 20-0 or higher in CS pubs - they really cant.
If you're able to figure out the distinction between "noob" and "newb", you'll understand who it is I'm calling a 'dunderhead'.
<!--quoteo(post=1760462:date=Mar 21 2010, 12:45 PM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Mar 21 2010, 12:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760462"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Like I said it was a bad example, but the point was that even a complete noob can kill you by bursting towards you even later than you but in NS chances of good marine dieing is lower (because of the movement, game insight instead of camping and burstin).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The expression "lol nubbed" is very popular in NS because it was easy for nub rines to just hang in the back and range spam kills, even against pros. I don't think the point is any more or less valid than it is in CS (possibly less, since at least in CS all players are relatively equal, not like in NS where nubs can go onos or HA)
The expression "lol nubbed" is very popular in NS because it was easy for nub rines to just hang in the back and range spam kills, even against pros. I don't think the point is any more or less valid than it is in CS (possibly less, since at least in CS all players are relatively equal, not like in NS where nubs can go onos or HA)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
what
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->that's still more maps than de_nuke, de_dust2, de_train, de_inferno, isn't it ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you mean "de_dust2, de_dust and occasionally cs_office and if the stars are right de_assault".
I was talking about maps played in competition, but thanks for participating anyway :)
long-time lurker here...played the game since...well ...at a very early stage. I don't remember exactly when I started :P
I've been sitting and reading this thread, and many other threads like it, and something strikes me as odd, or..curious.
There is a lot of talk about simplifying things, reducing all the micromanagement and making the game more accessible. I mean sure..accessibility to a larger crowd means potentially making more money, but first of all you can't please everyone and second of all..wouldn't that remove a relatively large chunk of what makes Natural Selection..well..Natural Selection?
The consensus seems to be "NS1 was too hard!" etc etc.
Now..I cant for the life of me understand (and this is me personally) why everything has to be easy. I mean isn't the whole fast-paced commanding (I was a commander a lot in NS1) a rough rough ride and some really hard learned lessons to get you to a level where you were..lets say..reasonable.
Isn't the thrill of having to think fast and maneuvering the dark corridors at racing speeds part of what makes it fun?
If everything is so easy, then why play the game?..Why have an RTS (real time strategy) element if there is no need for you to be strategic, and barely in real time because everything is so easy.
Why indeed have Natural Selection 2 if it isn't Natural Selection (the meaning of the words)..I mean wasn't that was Natural Selection 1 was.
I'm not talking about competition (I never played on a competitive level..ever), just really hard/challenging gameplay that requires you to think, act and work together..whats so wrong about that?
I know what the argument is..its a game..its entertainment..you don't want to stress through entertainment, you want to relax and have fun. Fine but one of the major reasons why many/most people are here is because they play(ed) and enjoy(ed) NS1, so why play NS1 ? If you didn't play NS1 how would you have any basis for saying its too hard or that NS2 needs to be easier.
Maybe I'm the idiot..I just don't get why hard(to the point of being nearly impossible) games are so bad..really I don't see the problem. :-/
Best regards
- Drdopehat
Yeah because cpl_mill and tuscan are totally never played competetively, right? 6 maps used in competetive rotation is pretty comparable to NS tbh (veil/eclipse/lost/tanith/origin/metal make up the vast majority of competetive play in ENSL).
I agree.