<!--quoteo(post=1760782:date=Mar 23 2010, 04:49 PM:name=DrDopehat)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DrDopehat @ Mar 23 2010, 04:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760782"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The very good points.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wish everyone were like you :)
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
People interchange the difficulty of a game and the difficulty in learning a game without specifying what they are talking about.
From what I've read, I think a lot of people thought NS was fine in terms of gameplay difficulty. THis is often called depth or richness.
I think a lot of people have a problem with how difficult it was to learn NS. This is in relation to the esoterics needed to understand why you should use air control to blink, or why your framerate mattered so much etc.
I personally have no problem with a game having a very deep skill curve, requiring years of play to achieve the ultimate levels of ability, but I think people should find the initial experience intuitive. You should watch someone blink into a room and own it up and gain a general understanding of what is involved in doing that.
Naturally I have to agree with you in general. There is a rather large vagueness in saying something is "too hard", but please follow me when I say there are only so few ways you can interpret that without someone explaining to you what they mean, which very few do. I've played a bazillion worth of NS1 games, and close to half of them I had my proverbial posterior handed to me on a platter while I was still going "O_o wut?", and I've had annoying games but lets be perfectly clear on this. I've never come out on the other side and thought I had a bad time or that the game should be easier.
The really hard things you did over and over and over an*interupts self* you get the idea..those were the things I enjoyed because I *wanted* to figure it out..I wanted to be better...I wanted to be challenged and be up against nigh-impossible odds. It was part of the charm of NS1, even more so given its gruff scifi image along with the powerful insinuation of evolution..survival of the fittest.
Yeah I sucked at the game from the perspective of a competitive player (those in leagues etc.) but I didn't care, why should I care? It didn't make the game less accessible to me, and in my humble opinion, I was a pretty good commander..I had to learn some hard hard lessons and suffer through some angry angry players to get there, but that was part of the fun. I didn't let "OMFG NOOB COMM!!1" "BAN CHAOS * BLACKHEART !!111" (that was my name Chaos * Blackheart..my clan was Chaos..small group of danish people :P ) get me down. I was one of the people ignoring others when they said "If you dont know how to comm, let someone else do it". Oh well :P ----
Okay ill stop with my vitriolic self-victimizing speech now and say this:
I've worked in the game industry for quite a few years (sadly I don't anymore :( ). Not as a game designer (alas that is the wet dream of many folks in the game industry), but as a Quality Assurance test specialist and expert. So in reality I have no foot to stand on in regards to saying what is good or bad for NS2 or games in general, and I'm not really trying to. I just think its important to consider things from more than 1 perspective before you consider something a damning factor that has to go. I could easily provide a lot of industry argumentation for it as well, but it would be biased and not relative to the methods of Unknown Worlds...and really, who am I to tell them or anyone else how to do their job. I can only have faith in that they won't go about reinventing the wheel when the first one seemed work just fine :)
The magic word here though that you've pulled out is "intuitive". Its a word you cant touch or argue against because its one of those holy concepts which has no constant but largely relies on presentation and natural flow of a game. I *have* to agree that intuitive controls, gameplay and so forth are a major component of whats important, but it shouldn't be at the cost of diminishing what makes NS..well..NS. You know what I mean? :) I think you can come a lot of the way with proper UI design and perhaps a purpose-built interactive tutorial level which tries to showcase as much of the fundamental gameplay experience.
But..as I said, I might be the idiot here because I have spent a long time just lurking instead of participating actively and thus not understanding where the game is at right now.
Quick Edit: jealous at puzl for being in Cork, Ireland...pretty sure he knows why :P
i'll answere the original post, too lazy to read all 8 pgs someone should post some cliffnotes of it <!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->I have to agree that both alien commanders and set starting hives seem like taking away a big peice of NS1 gameplay<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<!--quoteo(post=1760830:date=Mar 23 2010, 06:48 PM:name=DrDopehat)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DrDopehat @ Mar 23 2010, 06:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760830"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But..as I said, I might be the idiot here because I have spent a long time just lurking instead of participating actively and thus not understanding where the game is at right now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> To be honest, aknowledging that you don't completely understand something is far better starting attitude than a lot of people have in Internet discussions. At least I'm far more willing to discuss with a person suggesting or speculating something rather than just stating complete nonsense as fact or flawless logic.
Something I've been thinking about for a while (well the past three hours or so) is single player.
I can honestly not think of one widly succesful FPS or RTS game that didn't have a fun and engaging single player campaign that was actually the focus of the original game release. Every half-life mod had the awesome half-life single player campaign. Starcraft had.. well starcraft is a sp game. Quake is a single player game. C&C is most definitely a sp game. The exceptions are games that were originally arcade, but then those game has a mechanic similar to that of sp in terms of engaging new players (social venue instead of interactive story).
New franchises need a casual and fun way to play the game where the player is the sole master of his story. Then you can go on to saying "hey that was fun, I dont want it to stop" and start engaging other players online or at LAN parties.
CS:S can get away with just being a mp game because it's already been introduced through HL. NS got away with it by living off of the playerbase the sp-game halflife built.
If you have this then you can make your mp game as deep and challanging as you'd like and even (imo) extremely "unintuitive", because you already have your players who like the game and the experience of playing, and they build the library of knowledge necessary to play themselves. Intuitiveness and archane mechanics like air control etc only matter in direct conflict with other players, and won't matter much at all if the basic playerbase is built separate from this.
[Edit] Perhaps a simple interactive tutorial is all that's needed, but I have a feeling the only really effective tutorials are full sp campaigns.
<!--quoteo(post=1760838:date=Mar 23 2010, 10:09 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Mar 23 2010, 10:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760838"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Perhaps a simple interactive tutorial is all that's needed, but I have a feeling the only really effective tutorials are full sp campaigns.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Indeed I think tutorial should be made as a small story, much like the one NS1 had sometime ago 2.0ish? Also instead of just telling about lifeforms somekind of basic strategy/movement should be included.
<!--quoteo(post=1759904:date=Mar 18 2010, 03:59 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Mar 18 2010, 03:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1759904"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Renegade (with the stupid amount of "_"s), TrC is not the whole voice of the competitive community. The EvolveNS community sure, but they're a bunch of whiny nobodies who flame everything about NS2 because of the following:
- It isn't their vision - They've yet to play it - They just want a prettier NS - They're players, if they really whined enough they'd learn to create their own game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
TrC is from Finland. EvolveNS is a North American community.
I'm going out on a limb and guessing he doesn't represent EvolveNS.
All you do is flame competitive players because they don't agree with your opinions.
My point was that by establishing a relation between the game and the player outside of an assumed pvp situation you can more or less circumvent the entire issue of intuitiveness and the need for arcane knowledge to compete.
If that's not possible I guess a tutorial explaining whatever arcane knowledge exists would have to suffice, though as always however much we know about a game engine at the start craploads of new ###### which isnt covered by the tutorial is bound to appear and then we're back to square one.
<!--quoteo(post=1760838:date=Mar 23 2010, 01:09 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Mar 23 2010, 01:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760838"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Perhaps a simple interactive tutorial is all that's needed, but I have a feeling the only really effective tutorials are full sp campaigns.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I recommend everyone try out <a href="http://www.dystopia-game.com/" target="_blank">Dystopia</a>. It has very complex and intricate upgrades, classes, features, and gameplay. To help get you in, there's a quick tutorial map.
It's not the greatest, but it's a step in the right direction.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited March 2010
@tsojan NS2 needs a SP campaign as much as TF2 did.
@DrDopehat I wasn't necessarily accusing you of confusing the term. I was basically observing that when most people want NS to be easier what they hopefully mean is they want it to be less 'quirky' or 'esoteric'. I mean, TF2 fits this fairly well. Most people can get to grips with each class at a very basic level. Take the spy as an example.. in the hands of a novice they can sneak around and get cheeky kills, but in the hands of an expert it can be devastating. Same with the combinations. You can run around healing people, or you can be very clever and support a heavy in a choke spot etc. As for Cork Ireland, I can assume you are either referring to beer or games companies? There are a few of both ;)
<!--quoteo(post=1760833:date=Mar 23 2010, 06:56 PM:name=ghost in the shell)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghost in the shell @ Mar 23 2010, 06:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760833"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i'll answere the original post, too lazy to read all 8 pgs someone should post some cliffnotes of it <!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->I have to agree that both alien commanders and set starting hives seem like taking away a big peice of NS1 gameplay<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In NS1 most competetive teams (and in a lot of cases pub games) had a designated 'alien commander', or in pub terms a guy who talks a lot on his microphone coordinating people. Also, any competent marine commander would know which "random" hive the alien team had spawned with ... probably within about 10 seconds of the game starting. If you're talking about different RT locations and different game flow around the map depending on the starting hive, I agree that NS2 will have lost a lot of replayability by removing that aspect.
Best regards - Drdopehat<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great point of view. Can't agree with you more DrDopehat.
<!--quoteo(post=1760838:date=Mar 23 2010, 12:09 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Mar 23 2010, 12:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760838"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Something I've been thinking about for a while (well the past three hours or so) is single player.
New franchises need a casual and fun way to play the game where the player is the sole master of his story. Then you can go on to saying "hey that was fun, I dont want it to stop" and start engaging other players online or at LAN parties.
If you have this then you can make your mp game as deep and challanging as you'd like and even (imo) extremely "unintuitive", because you already have your players who like the game and the experience of playing, and they build the library of knowledge necessary to play themselves. Intuitiveness and archane mechanics like air control etc only matter in direct conflict with other players, and won't matter much at all if the basic playerbase is built separate from this.
[Edit] Perhaps a simple interactive tutorial is all that's needed, but I have a feeling the only really effective tutorials are full sp campaigns.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GREAT IDEA! I'd actually love to see this in NS2. If they could keep the depth and skill curve of NS, and put it into NS2. I think a short n sweet SP would be just....perfect.
Absolutely loving the ideas floating around here, I really hope UWE reads through this thread and considers it. Although most these brilliant thoughts would probably push back the official release date on the game >.< Keep posting!
<!--quoteo(post=1760838:date=Mar 23 2010, 03:09 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Mar 23 2010, 03:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760838"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Perhaps a simple interactive tutorial is all that's needed, but I have a feeling the only really effective tutorials are full sp campaigns.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have to disagree, while a SP campaign might teach the most basic player actions, like how to drop an RT, it will never come very close to approximating the multiplayer experience. There are very few games out there that do manage to do this. Starcraft sp won't teach you anything about how to micromanage; you have to figure that out on your own or watch replays to see what can really be done. First person shooters suffer the same problem; differences like restarting from a checkpoint on death will completely change my behavior from a psycho killer willing to jump into the middle of any situation to a cautious, methodical person worried about his own survival.
The issue is that once you decide to include a single player campaign, it really becomes a separate game, with the same theme and controls. Blizzard does a pretty good job describing this problem in this article: <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4174/the_design_of_starcraft_ii.php" target="_blank">http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4174...tarcraft_ii.php</a>
The other problem with including a real single player campaign in NS2 is the amount of work necessary to create it. Single player pretty much always requires more work than multiplayer to create(aside from issues of balance)...since a player will only generally pass an area once in a playthrough, a huge number of extra maps and art assets would need to be created, and the maps would need to be populated and enemies scripted, etc. (I'm talking about a "real" campaign, with specific mission scenarios; like escorting a siege cannon as part of a heavy train, or repairing a ship's engine to escape infestation, rather than simply copying the multiplayer exactly) Good, unit-specific AI would have to be written, and that is a very big job. Frankly, they would need to put together a much larger team to create a single player experience that doesn't suck.
<!--quoteo(post=1760963:date=Mar 24 2010, 08:14 AM:name=monopolowa)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (monopolowa @ Mar 24 2010, 08:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760963"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Frankly, they would need to put together a much larger team to create a single player experience that doesn't suck.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Instead of SP, make tutorial it does not have to be long. I dont know if you are familiar with the NS1 equivelent but it had basicly a briefing section where known aliens excludin onos and about their abilities and how should they be engaged. Then a little about how res work and a bit about commander then some action, building sieges and after getting hive down "new" lifeform appearence to create mood.
Obviously the game is going to be different so not exactly the same but similar. This way new players gain insight how this game should be played and hopefully not get pissed after getting asswhipped by fade/lerk. It would a nice mood starter too. A bit of coding, voice acting and mapping which would relatively easily done consirering it has been done in NS1 without special tools.
I feel my main point is still being missed. If you already have players invested in the game, explaining things isnt as important. Establishing the game through other means circumvents the importance of making things simple.
And TF2 is not a good example since it builds from former TF-mods as well as the legacy of HL through HL2 and the source engine.
SP != a complex tutorial.
Trying to launch a new multiplayer only game on a new engine without a legacy playerbase is difficult. It'd point to Warsaw which is a great mp game in itself but never really 'made it' as an example.
Also to further tjosan's point, Heroes of Newerth - would never have been possible without a pre-existing playerbase from DotA. The game is just too complicated to sell on marketing and reviews alone.
<!--quoteo(post=1760905:date=Mar 23 2010, 11:23 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (puzl @ Mar 23 2010, 11:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760905"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->@tsojan NS2 needs a SP campaign as much as TF2 did.
@DrDopehat I wasn't necessarily accusing you of confusing the term. I was basically observing that when most people want NS to be easier what they hopefully mean is they want it to be less 'quirky' or 'esoteric'. I mean, TF2 fits this fairly well. Most people can get to grips with each class at a very basic level. Take the spy as an example.. in the hands of a novice they can sneak around and get cheeky kills, but in the hands of an expert it can be devastating. Same with the combinations. You can run around healing people, or you can be very clever and support a heavy in a choke spot etc. As for Cork Ireland, I can assume you are either referring to beer or games companies? There are a few of both ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh I didnt think you were accusing me of anything, so no worries! ^_^ You are of course right though, and this type of "easy" or..intuitive as I'd like to call it, should be the immediate goal of anyone making a game. However in regards to NS2 you have to remember that this is a pre-established franchise. Largely everyone buying this game are people who played NS1 (note: largely..not absolutely everyone :P) and so they already "get it".
This is also part of my point that I've been talking about. You mostly know what this is about, and making it easier for the casual gamer in terms of actual difficulty is something I just dont understand. Hard games are fun too..way more fun imho :)
In regards to Cork, Ireland..that would be both..mainly the latter ;P
<!--quoteo(post=1760830:date=Mar 23 2010, 01:48 PM:name=DrDopehat)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DrDopehat @ Mar 23 2010, 01:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760830"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But..as I said, I might be the idiot here because I have spent a long time just lurking instead of participating actively and thus not understanding where the game is at right now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, you're definitely doing it right; too many with zero experience here are quite content to get up and post their every whimsy and brainfart. You and wesman are a refreshing change in thought and resourcefulness, and I only wish lurking were are prerequisite to posting (as you've no-doubt seen, it's just too easy to fire off a dozen threads in I&S about why you think the game should have sniper rifles and headshots).
I wholeheartedly agree with your questioning of "intuitiveness", as too many simply throw around the term without acknowledging what it comprises and that often in practice, it's skill at high-levels that is sacrificed to obtain it.
<!--quoteo(post=1760993:date=Mar 24 2010, 06:50 AM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 24 2010, 06:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760993"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also to further tjosan's point, Heroes of Newerth - would never have been possible without a pre-existing playerbase from DotA. The game is just too complicated to sell on marketing and reviews alone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the latest podcast UWE also observed the way LoL was made and "based" on DotA and what they changed to make it more casual, I'm not sure that's the right approach and would be very disappointed if the same thing would happen to NS2 (or at least I can understand the points of those who are not in favour of the easier mechanics)
LoL is maybe a game that has to be judged on it's own and if you come from a "hardcore" DotA background and look for something equally competetive (even some of these things in DotA can be compared to quite unintuitive and esoteric mechanics, as mentioned above) you will be disappointed by League of Lame (oh sry typo, I thought I wasn't subjective enough up to this point) you also have to consider though that LoL might be fun to play, even if you played DotA for years.
So this is what I can't understand, for me it's nearly never about graphics and all about game mechanics, depth, you know when you can feel that the developers loved and cared for their game, instead of trying to get their pockets filled. Why would anyone of us need a game with polished graphics and maybe a engine that makes it more playable in competetive games, I don't think you need this at least not as a competetive player, because if you are hooked for a game and play it hardcore, you'll do that, because you love the way it's played and not the way it looks. That's why I can't understand, why some people demand a NS Source. (It might not be anyone demanding a NS:S here, but at least that is the impression I get from what they are talking about, so maybe they should consider to make it more clear what they want, or I should take a closer look and read it again ...)
Now talking about the Hives and starting positions, I have to say that I'm not a competetive player (I played in a noob clan some looong time ago) but I can tell you from what I remember that the claims made in the very first post by the thread starter do not indicate that he has been comanding or being a competetive player, nearly every commander knows how to identify the kharaa starting hive and most competetive commanders know, depending on the maps, what Hive will be chosen next by the aliens, because there is either only one good second hive position on the map, or you can "track" this by where the alien team builds Ressource Towers. Now this doesn't offer such a variation that you think it might offer. The problem with fixed starting locations might only be a problem if the map is designed unbalanced as it might be the case in some hive spots in NS1 (maybe unbalanced is a too strong word here) so that it is clear where the aliens or marines are going to expand next, but if you have more options or even if you have lesser options let's say 1 Marine Start, 1 Alien Start, 3 Techpoints, you can have a real intense match, ofcourse I would love to see something like in maybe WC3 where you can have "close" positions or "crossed" positions if you are playing a 1v1 match on a 2v2 map, this adds to the depth of the game, so I can see your point.
I'm pretty sure that Max or Charlie stated that they'll have fixed positions for the release, but that they would love to add random start positions for both teams and let the dynamic infestation handle the "feeling" of being a alien start location, but this is not going to happen for release, because they can't handle this kind of transformation of an ordinary tech point to a hive room. [you might want to look out for this post via the NS Wiki, I'm unable to do it myself right now, because I'm stuck in a **** village with slowmo internet ( it's like 5 kb / s and it took me 5 mins to load the first pages of this thread ....)]
On the whole "afraid of change" buisness, isn't it easy to say how a feature works to make it easier for players to get into the game, I mean it has to be easy to realize, because that's what the feature is about and might it not be possible that we just aren't able to see how a feature can add a higher skill maximum and more depth to the game, because that's exactly how the feature works (or at least some of them work like that), you have to practise or understand it in it's context to fully enable it's potential. It wouldn't be a skill if it is so obvious that you can even tell from looking at the movie of the pre-alpha footage, that's not how a "skill" works for me, it is something you have to experience and at this point, we just can't do that ! And that's why we have so many disappointed people around here.
Okay I hope you clawed your way all through this mess, I guess I have quite a good point at the very end, so let's wait and see where we get off the bus (or whatever this metaphor earlier stated was about :) )
<!--quoteo(post=1761053:date=Mar 24 2010, 01:58 PM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marks @ Mar 24 2010, 01:58 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1761053"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->LoL is also massively shallow compared to HoN and was squarely aimed at the casual market which DotA never catered to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which isn't my point.
TF2 doesn't "need" a tutorial/single-player because it has 2 basic tenants going for it. It has very simple individual mechanics and it has wonderful UI+mapping to explain the game in-game. This means players learn on the fly. Whether or not TF2 is "competitive" enough is a totally separate matter from the fact that you can learn TF2 just form jumping into a game.
However, more complicated games like DotA and NS might benefit from a small tutorial run to explain the basics and what to look out for. Sure you COULD learn from getting bashed repeatedly, but getting the groundwork done and giving basic tips by using a tutorial is, in general, a good idea and will help alleviate the initial learning curve, thus allowing more new players to join and keep the community vibrant.
Well there is a -tip command in DotA it even is good and helpfull and not necessarily out of date for most of the heroes, but it's implemented stupidly, because you have to type the command and a new player will never do that, so it should've been turned on by default and the "pro" players know what to do to turn it off.
No matter what I stick with "my" idea from my last posts why we see the easy mode changes, but not the hardcore changes (you might want to read that, it's at the very end :P) sorry for advertising, but I sometimes have the feeling to get overlooked on these forums, maybe I'm babbling to much none sense or too much wall of text style, but I would like to take part in the discussion :)
Greetings,
1mannARMEE
PS: The main problem with the learning curve of NS is that a tutorial would basically have to say, well go to this site and read through this tutorial to get to know the config commands of half life and how they change the way you can play and that's not what most of the people want to do ( I enjoyed it though, made me feel like a programmer :P )
<!--quoteo(post=1761066:date=Mar 24 2010, 10:40 PM:name=spellman23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (spellman23 @ Mar 24 2010, 10:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1761066"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->TF2 doesn't "need" a tutorial/single-player because it has 2 basic tenants going for it. It has very simple individual mechanics and it has wonderful UI+mapping to explain the game in-game. This means players learn on the fly. Whether or not TF2 is "competitive" enough is a totally separate matter from the fact that you can learn TF2 just form jumping into a game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And *pow*, we have a watered down game.
Easy access in a mp only game really does oppose depth in most circumstances, since the ease with which you close the gap to better players skillwise is coupled with how many players keep at the game.
Note I'm not suggesting a sp campain for NS2, I'm just trying a new way of explaining the supposed trend of more and more shallow multiplayer games by comparing the contexts in which they are made in and the... circumstances under which the most successful multiplayer games to date evolved.
It might be that this idea of mine has nothing to do with the real reasons for this trend but I'd like to explore it nontheless. The idea that 'bonding' the game with the players before throwing them into cutthroat competition where ways to win get more and more obscure (not because the game is designed with that in mind but because it's left open enough that it is allowed to evolve there) is an enticing one imo.
<!--quoteo(post=1761062:date=Mar 25 2010, 12:20 AM:name=1mannARMEE)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1mannARMEE @ Mar 25 2010, 12:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1761062"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's why I can't understand, why some people demand a NS Source. (It might not be anyone demanding a NS:S here, but at least that is the impression I get from what they are talking about, so maybe they should consider to make it more clear what they want, or I should take a closer look and read it again ...)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because NS is such a great game. In competitive play there are about 10 teams in europe, some of them play only ENSL tournaments and it is mostly playing against 2-3 different teams with wide skill level. The reason NS is not expanding is mostly because it is old and nobody is interested in playing it competitively due small scene.
Theres a chance that with new graphics and as a free game it would be open to more players and that would hopefully increase the population and therefore competitive scene.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
I only found out about MBS in SC2 yesterday.
You can put multiple different types of buildings in a single hotkey group and do your macro with a few simple key presses while keeping an eye on your active troops.
For me this is amazingly helpful.. my brain explodes when I have to macro and micro.. I'm not an RTS player at all.. so I usually end up coming out of a battle with 1000 resource sand no queued units :(
Comments
I wish everyone were like you :)
From what I've read, I think a lot of people thought NS was fine in terms of gameplay difficulty. THis is often called depth or richness.
I think a lot of people have a problem with how difficult it was to learn NS. This is in relation to the esoterics needed to understand why you should use air control to blink, or why your framerate mattered so much etc.
I personally have no problem with a game having a very deep skill curve, requiring years of play to achieve the ultimate levels of ability, but I think people should find the initial experience intuitive. You should watch someone blink into a room and own it up and gain a general understanding of what is involved in doing that.
Naturally I have to agree with you in general. There is a rather large vagueness in saying something is "too hard", but please follow me when I say there are only so few ways you can interpret that without someone explaining to you what they mean, which very few do.
I've played a bazillion worth of NS1 games, and close to half of them I had my proverbial posterior handed to me on a platter while I was still going "O_o wut?", and I've had annoying games but lets be perfectly clear on this. I've never come out on the other side and thought I had a bad time or that the game should be easier.
The really hard things you did over and over and over an*interupts self* you get the idea..those were the things I enjoyed because I *wanted* to figure it out..I wanted to be better...I wanted to be challenged and be up against nigh-impossible odds. It was part of the charm of NS1, even more so given its gruff scifi image along with the powerful insinuation of evolution..survival of the fittest.
Yeah I sucked at the game from the perspective of a competitive player (those in leagues etc.) but I didn't care, why should I care? It didn't make the game less accessible to me, and in my humble opinion, I was a pretty good commander..I had to learn some hard hard lessons and suffer through some angry angry players to get there, but that was part of the fun. I didn't let "OMFG NOOB COMM!!1" "BAN CHAOS * BLACKHEART !!111" (that was my name Chaos * Blackheart..my clan was Chaos..small group of danish people :P ) get me down.
I was one of the people ignoring others when they said "If you dont know how to comm, let someone else do it". Oh well :P
----
Okay ill stop with my vitriolic self-victimizing speech now and say this:
I've worked in the game industry for quite a few years (sadly I don't anymore :( ). Not as a game designer (alas that is the wet dream of many folks in the game industry), but as a Quality Assurance test specialist and expert. So in reality I have no foot to stand on in regards to saying what is good or bad for NS2 or games in general, and I'm not really trying to. I just think its important to consider things from more than 1 perspective before you consider something a damning factor that has to go.
I could easily provide a lot of industry argumentation for it as well, but it would be biased and not relative to the methods of Unknown Worlds...and really, who am I to tell them or anyone else how to do their job. I can only have faith in that they won't go about reinventing the wheel when the first one seemed work just fine :)
The magic word here though that you've pulled out is "intuitive". Its a word you cant touch or argue against because its one of those holy concepts which has no constant but largely relies on presentation and natural flow of a game. I *have* to agree that intuitive controls, gameplay and so forth are a major component of whats important, but it shouldn't be at the cost of diminishing what makes NS..well..NS. You know what I mean? :)
I think you can come a lot of the way with proper UI design and perhaps a purpose-built interactive tutorial level which tries to showcase as much of the fundamental gameplay experience.
But..as I said, I might be the idiot here because I have spent a long time just lurking instead of participating actively and thus not understanding where the game is at right now.
Quick Edit: jealous at puzl for being in Cork, Ireland...pretty sure he knows why :P
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->I have to agree that both alien commanders and set starting hives seem like taking away a big peice of NS1 gameplay<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
To be honest, aknowledging that you don't completely understand something is far better starting attitude than a lot of people have in Internet discussions. At least I'm far more willing to discuss with a person suggesting or speculating something rather than just stating complete nonsense as fact or flawless logic.
I can honestly not think of one widly succesful FPS or RTS game that didn't have a fun and engaging single player campaign that was actually the focus of the original game release. Every half-life mod had the awesome half-life single player campaign. Starcraft had.. well starcraft is a sp game. Quake is a single player game. C&C is most definitely a sp game. The exceptions are games that were originally arcade, but then those game has a mechanic similar to that of sp in terms of engaging new players (social venue instead of interactive story).
New franchises need a casual and fun way to play the game where the player is the sole master of his story. Then you can go on to saying "hey that was fun, I dont want it to stop" and start engaging other players online or at LAN parties.
CS:S can get away with just being a mp game because it's already been introduced through HL. NS got away with it by living off of the playerbase the sp-game halflife built.
If you have this then you can make your mp game as deep and challanging as you'd like and even (imo) extremely "unintuitive", because you already have your players who like the game and the experience of playing, and they build the library of knowledge necessary to play themselves. Intuitiveness and archane mechanics like air control etc only matter in direct conflict with other players, and won't matter much at all if the basic playerbase is built separate from this.
[Edit] Perhaps a simple interactive tutorial is all that's needed, but I have a feeling the only really effective tutorials are full sp campaigns.
Indeed I think tutorial should be made as a small story, much like the one NS1 had sometime ago 2.0ish? Also instead of just telling about lifeforms somekind of basic strategy/movement should be included.
- It isn't their vision
- They've yet to play it
- They just want a prettier NS
- They're players, if they really whined enough they'd learn to create their own game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
TrC is from Finland. EvolveNS is a North American community.
I'm going out on a limb and guessing he doesn't represent EvolveNS.
All you do is flame competitive players because they don't agree with your opinions.
Talk out your ass more please.
If that's not possible I guess a tutorial explaining whatever arcane knowledge exists would have to suffice, though as always however much we know about a game engine at the start craploads of new ###### which isnt covered by the tutorial is bound to appear and then we're back to square one.
I recommend everyone try out <a href="http://www.dystopia-game.com/" target="_blank">Dystopia</a>. It has very complex and intricate upgrades, classes, features, and gameplay. To help get you in, there's a quick tutorial map.
It's not the greatest, but it's a step in the right direction.
@DrDopehat I wasn't necessarily accusing you of confusing the term. I was basically observing that when most people want NS to be easier what they hopefully mean is they want it to be less 'quirky' or 'esoteric'. I mean, TF2 fits this fairly well. Most people can get to grips with each class at a very basic level. Take the spy as an example.. in the hands of a novice they can sneak around and get cheeky kills, but in the hands of an expert it can be devastating. Same with the combinations. You can run around healing people, or you can be very clever and support a heavy in a choke spot etc.
As for Cork Ireland, I can assume you are either referring to beer or games companies? There are a few of both ;)
<!--sizeo:4--><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->I have to agree that both alien commanders and set starting hives seem like taking away a big peice of NS1 gameplay<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In NS1 most competetive teams (and in a lot of cases pub games) had a designated 'alien commander', or in pub terms a guy who talks a lot on his microphone coordinating people. Also, any competent marine commander would know which "random" hive the alien team had spawned with ... probably within about 10 seconds of the game starting.
If you're talking about different RT locations and different game flow around the map depending on the starting hive, I agree that NS2 will have lost a lot of replayability by removing that aspect.
It's custom, although The Great Clash Dash sidescroller is pretty fun.
Best regards
- Drdopehat<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great point of view. Can't agree with you more DrDopehat.
<!--quoteo(post=1760838:date=Mar 23 2010, 12:09 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Mar 23 2010, 12:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1760838"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Something I've been thinking about for a while (well the past three hours or so) is single player.
New franchises need a casual and fun way to play the game where the player is the sole master of his story. Then you can go on to saying "hey that was fun, I dont want it to stop" and start engaging other players online or at LAN parties.
If you have this then you can make your mp game as deep and challanging as you'd like and even (imo) extremely "unintuitive", because you already have your players who like the game and the experience of playing, and they build the library of knowledge necessary to play themselves. Intuitiveness and archane mechanics like air control etc only matter in direct conflict with other players, and won't matter much at all if the basic playerbase is built separate from this.
[Edit] Perhaps a simple interactive tutorial is all that's needed, but I have a feeling the only really effective tutorials are full sp campaigns.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GREAT IDEA! I'd actually love to see this in NS2. If they could keep the depth and skill curve of NS, and put it into NS2. I think a short n sweet SP would be just....perfect.
Absolutely loving the ideas floating around here, I really hope UWE reads through this thread and considers it. Although most these brilliant thoughts would probably push back the official release date on the game >.<
Keep posting!
I have to disagree, while a SP campaign might teach the most basic player actions, like how to drop an RT, it will never come very close to approximating the multiplayer experience. There are very few games out there that do manage to do this. Starcraft sp won't teach you anything about how to micromanage; you have to figure that out on your own or watch replays to see what can really be done. First person shooters suffer the same problem; differences like restarting from a checkpoint on death will completely change my behavior from a psycho killer willing to jump into the middle of any situation to a cautious, methodical person worried about his own survival.
The issue is that once you decide to include a single player campaign, it really becomes a separate game, with the same theme and controls. Blizzard does a pretty good job describing this problem in this article: <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4174/the_design_of_starcraft_ii.php" target="_blank">http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4174...tarcraft_ii.php</a>
The other problem with including a real single player campaign in NS2 is the amount of work necessary to create it. Single player pretty much always requires more work than multiplayer to create(aside from issues of balance)...since a player will only generally pass an area once in a playthrough, a huge number of extra maps and art assets would need to be created, and the maps would need to be populated and enemies scripted, etc. (I'm talking about a "real" campaign, with specific mission scenarios; like escorting a siege cannon as part of a heavy train, or repairing a ship's engine to escape infestation, rather than simply copying the multiplayer exactly) Good, unit-specific AI would have to be written, and that is a very big job. Frankly, they would need to put together a much larger team to create a single player experience that doesn't suck.
Instead of SP, make tutorial it does not have to be long. I dont know if you are familiar with the NS1 equivelent but it had basicly a briefing section where known aliens excludin onos and about their abilities and how should they be engaged. Then a little about how res work and a bit about commander then some action, building sieges and after getting hive down "new" lifeform appearence to create mood.
Obviously the game is going to be different so not exactly the same but similar. This way new players gain insight how this game should be played and hopefully not get pissed after getting asswhipped by fade/lerk. It would a nice mood starter too. A bit of coding, voice acting and mapping which would relatively easily done consirering it has been done in NS1 without special tools.
Hopefully, such things should be much easier on NS2 thanks to LUA scripting. Well at least I hope so.
And TF2 is not a good example since it builds from former TF-mods as well as the legacy of HL through HL2 and the source engine.
SP != a complex tutorial.
Trying to launch a new multiplayer only game on a new engine without a legacy playerbase is difficult. It'd point to Warsaw which is a great mp game in itself but never really 'made it' as an example.
@DrDopehat I wasn't necessarily accusing you of confusing the term. I was basically observing that when most people want NS to be easier what they hopefully mean is they want it to be less 'quirky' or 'esoteric'. I mean, TF2 fits this fairly well. Most people can get to grips with each class at a very basic level. Take the spy as an example.. in the hands of a novice they can sneak around and get cheeky kills, but in the hands of an expert it can be devastating. Same with the combinations. You can run around healing people, or you can be very clever and support a heavy in a choke spot etc.
As for Cork Ireland, I can assume you are either referring to beer or games companies? There are a few of both ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh I didnt think you were accusing me of anything, so no worries! ^_^
You are of course right though, and this type of "easy" or..intuitive as I'd like to call it, should be the immediate goal of anyone making a game. However in regards to NS2 you have to remember that this is a pre-established franchise. Largely everyone buying this game are people who played NS1 (note: largely..not absolutely everyone :P) and so they already "get it".
This is also part of my point that I've been talking about. You mostly know what this is about, and making it easier for the casual gamer in terms of actual difficulty is something I just dont understand. Hard games are fun too..way more fun imho :)
In regards to Cork, Ireland..that would be both..mainly the latter ;P
No, you're definitely doing it right; too many with zero experience here are quite content to get up and post their every whimsy and brainfart. You and wesman are a refreshing change in thought and resourcefulness, and I only wish lurking were are prerequisite to posting (as you've no-doubt seen, it's just too easy to fire off a dozen threads in I&S about why you think the game should have sniper rifles and headshots).
I wholeheartedly agree with your questioning of "intuitiveness", as too many simply throw around the term without acknowledging what it comprises and that often in practice, it's skill at high-levels that is sacrificed to obtain it.
However, LoL has a pretty solid tutorial.
LoL is maybe a game that has to be judged on it's own and if you come from a "hardcore" DotA background and look for something equally competetive (even some of these things in DotA can be compared to quite unintuitive and esoteric mechanics, as mentioned above) you will be disappointed by League of Lame (oh sry typo, I thought I wasn't subjective enough up to this point) you also have to consider though that LoL might be fun to play, even if you played DotA for years.
So this is what I can't understand, for me it's nearly never about graphics and all about game mechanics, depth, you know when you can feel that the developers loved and cared for their game, instead of trying to get their pockets filled.
Why would anyone of us need a game with polished graphics and maybe a engine that makes it more playable in competetive games, I don't think you need this at least not as a competetive player, because if you are hooked for a game and play it hardcore, you'll do that, because you love the way it's played and not the way it looks.
That's why I can't understand, why some people demand a NS Source. (It might not be anyone demanding a NS:S here, but at least that is the impression I get from what they are talking about, so maybe they should consider to make it more clear what they want, or I should take a closer look and read it again ...)
Now talking about the Hives and starting positions, I have to say that I'm not a competetive player (I played in a noob clan some looong time ago) but I can tell you from what I remember that the claims made in the very first post by the thread starter do not indicate that he has been comanding or being a competetive player, nearly every commander knows how to identify the kharaa starting hive and most competetive commanders know, depending on the maps, what Hive will be chosen next by the aliens, because there is either only one good second hive position on the map, or you can "track" this by where the alien team builds Ressource Towers. Now this doesn't offer such a variation that you think it might offer.
The problem with fixed starting locations might only be a problem if the map is designed unbalanced as it might be the case in some hive spots in NS1 (maybe unbalanced is a too strong word here) so that it is clear where the aliens or marines are going to expand next, but if you have more options or even if you have lesser options let's say 1 Marine Start, 1 Alien Start, 3 Techpoints, you can have a real intense match, ofcourse I would love to see something like in maybe WC3 where you can have "close" positions or "crossed" positions if you are playing a 1v1 match on a 2v2 map, this adds to the depth of the game, so I can see your point.
I'm pretty sure that Max or Charlie stated that they'll have fixed positions for the release, but that they would love to add random start positions for both teams and let the dynamic infestation handle the "feeling" of being a alien start location, but this is not going to happen for release, because they can't handle this kind of transformation of an ordinary tech point to a hive room. [you might want to look out for this post via the NS Wiki, I'm unable to do it myself right now, because I'm stuck in a **** village with slowmo internet ( it's like 5 kb / s and it took me 5 mins to load the first pages of this thread ....)]
On the whole "afraid of change" buisness, isn't it easy to say how a feature works to make it easier for players to get into the game, I mean it has to be easy to realize, because that's what the feature is about and might it not be possible that we just aren't able to see how a feature can add a higher skill maximum and more depth to the game, because that's exactly how the feature works (or at least some of them work like that), you have to practise or understand it in it's context to fully enable it's potential. It wouldn't be a skill if it is so obvious that you can even tell from looking at the movie of the pre-alpha footage, that's not how a "skill" works for me, it is something you have to experience and at this point, we just can't do that ! And that's why we have so many disappointed people around here.
Okay I hope you clawed your way all through this mess, I guess I have quite a good point at the very end,
so let's wait and see where we get off the bus (or whatever this metaphor earlier stated was about :) )
Which isn't my point.
TF2 doesn't "need" a tutorial/single-player because it has 2 basic tenants going for it. It has very simple individual mechanics and it has wonderful UI+mapping to explain the game in-game. This means players learn on the fly. Whether or not TF2 is "competitive" enough is a totally separate matter from the fact that you can learn TF2 just form jumping into a game.
However, more complicated games like DotA and NS might benefit from a small tutorial run to explain the basics and what to look out for. Sure you COULD learn from getting bashed repeatedly, but getting the groundwork done and giving basic tips by using a tutorial is, in general, a good idea and will help alleviate the initial learning curve, thus allowing more new players to join and keep the community vibrant.
Let them learn the advanced stuff as they play.
No matter what I stick with "my" idea from my last posts why we see the easy mode changes, but not the hardcore changes (you might want to read that, it's at the very end :P) sorry for advertising, but I sometimes have the feeling to get overlooked on these forums, maybe I'm babbling to much none sense or too much wall of text style, but I would like to take part in the discussion :)
Greetings,
1mannARMEE
PS: The main problem with the learning curve of NS is that a tutorial would basically have to say, well go to this site and read through this tutorial to get to know the config commands of half life and how they change the way you can play and that's not what most of the people want to do ( I enjoyed it though, made me feel like a programmer :P )
They need to change stuff around, whether it is the combat being tweaked or something else.
And *pow*, we have a watered down game.
Easy access in a mp only game really does oppose depth in most circumstances, since the ease with which you close the gap to better players skillwise is coupled with how many players keep at the game.
Note I'm not suggesting a sp campain for NS2, I'm just trying a new way of explaining the supposed trend of more and more shallow multiplayer games by comparing the contexts in which they are made in and the... circumstances under which the most successful multiplayer games to date evolved.
It might be that this idea of mine has nothing to do with the real reasons for this trend but I'd like to explore it nontheless. The idea that 'bonding' the game with the players before throwing them into cutthroat competition where ways to win get more and more obscure (not because the game is designed with that in mind but because it's left open enough that it is allowed to evolve there) is an enticing one imo.
Because NS is such a great game. In competitive play there are about 10 teams in europe, some of them play only ENSL tournaments and it is mostly playing against 2-3 different teams with wide skill level. The reason NS is not expanding is mostly because it is old and nobody is interested in playing it competitively due small scene.
Theres a chance that with new graphics and as a free game it would be open to more players and that would hopefully increase the population and therefore competitive scene.
You can put multiple different types of buildings in a single hotkey group and do your macro with a few simple key presses while keeping an eye on your active troops.
For me this is amazingly helpful.. my brain explodes when I have to macro and micro.. I'm not an RTS player at all.. so I usually end up coming out of a battle with 1000 resource sand no queued units :(