To collect all your thoughts: You don't like games where people get something in return for having it played before you.
This isn't a matter of me liking it or not. I loved BF2. I love CoD4. I don't really like TF2. However, I'm not talking about the subjective enjoyment of games, I'm discussing the issue of whether a game is "balanced" or not. You can enjoy games that are not balanced, they can be tons of fun. However, the original Team Fortress was designed as a game which was perfectly balanced and the only difference between you and the other players was your pure skill; not how long you have played it or not.
And opinions ARE based on prejudice and assumptions because you haven't played it yet.
Again, they are not assumptions because I know the rules of the game. You don't have to play Candyland in order to know that it's purely random and there is no skill involved.
I remember when the game came out and some complained that the game was too balanced and they wanted a Valve to shake it up a bit. Now they have done it and now you are complaining that they changed a game you aren't even playing.
I bought the game when they first released it as a beta for pre-ordering the Orange Box. My complaint wasn't that it was too balanced, it was that they didn't require enough skill to play the game. It was too slow, the models were too large, and the aiming was too inaccurate comparatively.
And opinions ARE based on prejudice and assumptions because you haven't played it yet. I remember when the game came out and some complained that the game was too balanced and they wanted a Valve to shake it up a bit. Now they have done it and now you are complaining that they changed a game you aren't even playing.
I've had enough of this. There is some amount of truth to the old saying "don't knock it if you haven't tried it". Someone who has never eaten fois gras probably shouldn't be saying that it tastes like shit.
However, just because someone knocks something they haven't tried doesn't always mean they are basing their opinion on complete prejudice and assumption. You see, there are other ways to acquire information about things besides experiencing them first hand. I've never read anything by Deepak Chopra, but I know all his books are full of new age bullshit. Do I have to actually read his books to have my opinion validated? It would help, but it isn't necessary. I have learned enough information about Chopra and his books from other sources than the books themselves that I can make an appropriate judgement. Prejudice and assumptions is when you form an opinion based on nothing. It is possible to form an opinion based on information other than the experience itself. Therefore, you can knock something without having tried it, but also not be prejudiced.
I know enough about game theory, something that applies to games of all kinds, and I know enough information about the changes to TF2, that I can make a proper judgement that the changes make it a worse game, and an unfair game. The changes give incentive for people to play with goals other than beating the other team. The changes give advantages to players who play for greater periods of time, even if they play with less skill over that period.
Yes, Valve is smart. They are excellent game designers, and they know exactly what they are doing. They, and the rest of the video game industry, have realized that good, fair, competitive, skill-based games do not sell. Games that have psychologically optimized low skill work/reward cycles sell extremely well, and get extended play. People don't like hard games. People don't like games where skill wins all the time. People like getting rewarded based on how long they are playing, rather than skill. Also, basing rewards on time playing makes it much easier to psychologically optimize the reward cycle. People also seek novelty. By releasing small bits of novelty over time, they will get more players coming back more often and for longer periods of time.
Neither Valve, nor any other game designer, has any interest in making a game that is actually a difficult, yet fair, pure test of skill. It is not necessary to play a game, if you have sufficient extra information about it, to figure out that it is not a balanced game. As someone who enjoys skill-based games, and detests games of time investment, I don't have to play TF2 to know that it's gone down the shitter. It's a simple deduction.
Guys, guys. Please, calm down. We really need to start getting Rym and Scott away from their day jobs so they can get on with making the ultimate sports game but I am a very casual gamer and usually play just to clear my mind. Would hard games sell anymore?
Scott, to make knowledge out of something without confirming it requires perfect knowledge of every factor that influences it, which you don't have. With only partial information you can only make an assumption of what the object or experience probably is like, but until you have checked or acquired perfect information it is only an assumption.
Also, there are no achievement that says "play x hours", only achievements that require a certain amount of kills, damage done, buildings destroyed, people set on fire etc. If you are playing normally, doing what your team needs to win, those achievements will happen incidentally, but nobody except stupid or lame people play only to get them. Normal guys play the game to have fun and kill people. If you are good at the game the achievements will happen sooner for you than for others. Those achievements are mostly just positive reinforcement and a thanks for sticking with the game if you will.
However, I agree with you that if the only you want is to be better than others, you are probably at the wrong address with TF2. I for my part play games for entertainment rather than trying to show off and pwn noobs. In the end, TF2 gives me a whole lot of entertainment and thats what counts in my book.
Scott, to make knowledge out of something without confirming it requires perfect knowledge of every factor that influences it, which you don't have. With only partial information you can only make an assumption of what the object or experience probably is like, but until you have checked or acquired perfect information it is only an assumption.
There is no such thing as "perfect information"... Even playing the game doesn't give you "perfect information" about the game. You would have to play through every possible situation for that - which would take an infinite amount of time.
Hence some level of conjecture is always necessary.
Scott, to make knowledge out of something without confirming it requires perfect knowledge of every factor that influences it, which you don't have. With only partial information you can only make an assumption of what the object or experience probably is like, but until you have checked or acquired perfect information it is only an assumption.
You don't need perfect information to make a fair judgment. Quite often, a little bit of information is enough.
Let's say the news comes out today that the assholes in Hollywood got their act together, and Peter Jackson is going to direct The Hobbit. That's a very small amount of information. Yet, I'm sure we can all safely assume that it's going to be a holy shit awesome movie. Yes, we are making an assumption on imperfect information, but it's a safe one. We're not being prejudiced, though. We don't need every single piece of information to pass judgment.
As for this specific case of TF2, we know plenty of information. We played the game before it was ruined. We know what the achievments are, and how they work. We know what all the changes to the gameplay are. That's pretty damn well effectively perfect information. By your reckoning, only the people at Valve, with full access to the source code, can make a fair judgment.
Also, there are no achievement that says "play x hours", only achievements that require a certain amount of kills, damage done, buildings destroyed, people set on fire etc. If you are playing normally, doing what your team needs to win, those achievements will happen incidentally, but nobody except stupid or lame people play only to get them. Normal guys play the game to have fun and kill people. If you are good at the game the achievements will happen sooner for you than for others. Those achievements are mostly just positive reinforcement and a thanks for sticking with the game if you will.
Of course the achievement doesn't literally say "play x hours", but it effectively says so. Even with the best player, it will take a certain amount of time investment to get that number of kills. There are other achievements I heard about such as "kill the spy while he's taking a smoke". Seriously. That's not something that happens naturally in gameplay. That is the kind of thing that encourages people to go after other objectives besides winning the match, thus ruining the game.
Finally, we've said it before, we'll say it again. If one player has more gameplay effecting options than another player, even if those options are "equal", that is unbalanced and unfair play. If you give players who have achieved some goal in a previous match an advantage in a future match, that is not good. It changes the definition of where the game begins and ends.
Let's say we play a fighting game where both of our characters are identical. I win the first match. Because I won the first match, I now have the option of making my character a little bit more powerful, but also slower. Still effectively equal, but different. This is bad for two reasons. Obviously I now have an unfair advantage in the second match. Even though the options are equal, having more options always helps. Perhaps a slower more powerful guy fits my fighting style better? Perhaps it works well against your fighting style? Even if it is identical on paper, it can't be identical in the real world.
The other reason it is bad is because it blurs the line of when the game begins and ends. If this second match is a completely separate game from the first match, then why should something that happened in the first game change what happens in the second game? Even though I don't know anything else about these changes to TF2, I know that these changes blur the lines between rounds of the game. A single round of TF2 is no longer an isolated match. Things that happened in previous, unrelated matches, when I was not present, now have an effect on the outcome of a future match I am involved in. Imagine playing tennis, but your opponent gets to use a bigger racket because they got an achievement in a game they played yesterday against someone else. Not cool.
If you're just looking for a crazy game where you run around shooting shit and capturing flags, whatever. If you think that's fun, good for you. But if you're like Rym, or myself, and you enjoy games for the purity of competition and the test of skill, then TF2 is now shit.
OK, maybe I used the wrong term. The point is that unless you have absolute knowledge of every factor influencing an object of verified it's current status, you don't have knowledge and you can only assume the status of the object. Schrödinger's Cat is the prime example here.
Also, there are still games produced that are immensely difficult and that take a lot of skill being produced. The rhythm game genre consists mostly of such games.
Also, we were not debating the ability to make judgment, but the difference between knowledge and assumption. Also, you are assuming that the acquired weapons are 100% better in every way imaginable than the weapons before, which is not true.
I think that really what this comes down to is basically that Scott hates achievements, and some of us don't. And also that some of the achievements are just plain bad (ie: that spy smoking one.)
I think if we can agree on that much, and more forward there can be a more substantial discussion.
Also, you are assuming that the acquired weapons are 100% better in every way imaginable than the weapons before, which is not true.
They don't have to be better, just different.
Let's say we play a fighting game where both of our characters are identical. I win the first match. Because I won the first match, I now have the option of making my character a little bit more powerful, but also slower. Still effectively equal, but different. This is bad for two reasons. Obviously I now have an unfair advantage in the second match. Even though the options are equal, having more options always helps. Perhaps a slower more powerful guy fits my fighting style better? Perhaps it works well against your fighting style? Even if it is identical on paper, it can't be identical in the real world.
This is the first time that I have heard someone saying that adding strategic depth to a game is a bad thing.
Anyways, the Pyro is still the Pyro and the Medic is still the Medic, with or without extra weapons. They still are effective against some other classes and bad against others. The complaint of changing between rounds is pretty worthless anyway as you could easily just change the class like you can change your weapons if you have upgraded ones to fit your fighting style.
OK, maybe I used the wrong term. The point is that unless you have absolute knowledge of every factor influencing an object of verified it's current status, you don't have knowledge and you can only assume the status of the object.
And you have absolute knowledge of every factor in TF2? I seriously doubt that.
Both you and Scott are making judgements as best you can from limited knowledge. However, it seems you still don't understand Scott's argument. Surely it's simple, a player with more options has an advantage over a player with less. This is clearly unfair.
This is the first time that I have heard someone saying that adding strategic depth to a game is a bad thing.
Your point would only be valid if everyone got the unlocks straight off the bat.
Actually, I haven't found a major problem with the unlockables in CoD4. The reason for this is that players drop weapons on death, unlike in TF2. This means that a newbie player will still have access, albeit limited, to more powerful weapons. It adds a bit of tension to the game:
I just found a powerful rifle! I don't want to die, because I'll lose this rifle! Unlike in normal games, where there is a minimum penalty for dying.
Otherwise, I would agree that unlockables are bullshittery. When they're available, though, it minimize the suckitude immensely.
I think that really what this comes down to is basically that Scott hates achievements, and some of us don't. And also that some of the achievements are just plain bad (ie: that spy smoking one.)
These are a step beyond achievements: they affect the actual gameplay of a versus game.
This is the first time that I have heard someone saying that adding strategic depth to a game is a bad thing.
It's not. What's bad is adding strategic depth, and only allowing people who spend the time to level up to even access it.
Also, you are assuming that the acquired weapons are 100% better in every way imaginable than the weapons before, which is not true.
The fact that you brought this point up again makes it clear that you have no idea what we're actually arguing about. I don't know if you just haven't read the rest of the thread, or if you honestly didn't get it, but you've missed the point entirely and in epic fashion.
@lackofcheese: I never said I did have absolute knowledge. I also didn't say I needed it. My argument is that you can't acquire knowledge about an object without checking it first hand or acquiring absolute information of the influencing factors. Until then, your opinion is only based on assumption. However, it's my personal believe that I don't trust people's opinions about something if they haven't tried it and only go by their assumptions, especially when I had experienced the actual product and it formed a contradicting impression.
@Rym: As said before, you don't have to play for them. The achievements to get the bonus weapons often happen incidentally as you are playing completely normal games. You are still standing the same chances with or without them. They only really change how you play. You don't have to have the weapons but it's nice to have them. What's so bad about giving people a reward for having it played some time? And where do you draw the line? Is the next thing you guys are going to complain about that you don't start out in Half-Life with an automatic weapon and only get it later in the game? Or that you have to play a few rounds, be good and save your money to buy an AWP in Counter-Strike?
The "100% better all the time" was on Scott's tennis racket example.
In general: It's just the rules of the game now. If you don't like them, just don't play the game, which you aren't doing anyway so why complain about it? I think that most of you just need to get over the fact that it isn't the game you all wanted it to be, which was apparent long before they added the achievements and unlockable weapons.
@Rym: As said before, you don't have to play for them. The achievements to get the bonus weapons often happen incidentally as you are playing completely normal games. You are still standing the same chances with or without them. They only really change how you play. You don't have to have the weapons but it's nice to have them. What's so bad about giving people a reward for having it played some time? And where do you draw the line? Is the next thing you guys are going to complain about that you don't start out in Half-Life with an automatic weapon and only get it later in the game? Or that you have to play a few rounds, be good and save your money to buy an AWP in Counter-Strike?
Once again you aren't getting Rym's point. All your examples actually support Rym's points, every player are treated equally and previous time spent does not have any current in game additions (In CS you all start off with the same moneys, every player has the option to purchase superior weapons dictated by their current form only. Half-Life is a single player scripted game, you are playing through a story, you are not challenging someone else, even if you were comparing scores/times etc it's all the same for all players).
When you are playing against other people in a verses game you would want it to be fair and let skills to determine the victor (otherwise why are you even playing?). The reward for the time that you have spent as apposed to someone who is new is experience and that should be sufficient.
I am all for new and updated weapons and supposed game improvements, but like most of the people in this topic, only when everyone who is playing gets them without the condition of achievements or other bullshit like it. Valve has even seen this issue and I would like to believe softened the achievement process for unlocking weapons so that TF2 players are able to be of equal choice sooner.
In general: It's just the rules of the game now. If you don't like them, just don't play the game, which you aren't doing anyway so why complain about it? I think that most of you just need to get over the fact that it isn't the game you all wanted it to be, which was apparent long before they added the achievements and unlockable weapons.
So your saying that user feedback or the venting of disappointment from long term fans is not important and that you should always be happy of what your given or just leave it alone? I am a TF2 player and enjoy most of the game but what they are doing with the achievement detract from the purpose of the game and I (as a user) believe is not required.
No I was saying that people who aren't playing a game have no business complaining about changes in the game when they don't affect them anyway. Life is to short to get annoyed by little things that don't even concern you. After the Final Thoughts episode and a whole lot of forum posts I got the impression that most people here already put away TF2 for good anyway. I just can't see the point in stating that you think it has become even worse when you already have a bad opinion of it and haven't even tried out the changes they made.
The game still is fair. In an earlier post Scott stated that what appears to be fair in theory can be unfair in reality. The opposite is also true. The added weapons are balanced out to the previous weapons and the game situations. You gain something and lose something different. If one guy has the air-blast flamethrower and the other has the backburner, the guy with the superior skill will come out of as the victor, even if he only has the air-blast thrower.
The difference between CS and TF2 is simply that CS resets between the games, and TF2 has a threshold system. This allows Counter-Strike to have absolute superior weapons because they are not permanent. In TF2 it would be bad and TF2 doesn't have absolute superior weapons. I am also well aware of the fact that the achievements and the unlockables are just an artificial extension of the game and it could be pretty much the same if they were all unlocked in the beginning, but it actually feels rewarding when you earn something rather than being given it (who could have seen that?). If your sole motivation to play the game is the achievements and unlockables, you are playing it wrong and the only person to blame is you. How dare Valve to offer rewards for playing their game.
Once again, judge the game on what it is, not on what you want it to be.
How is it not fair? Every player has the same capabilities and the same possibility to gain the extra weapons. The weapons are balanced to each other and it doesn't give an inherent advantage by choosing one over the other, only a situationally dependent one. If you call that unfair you must also call it unfair for the soldier to be able to efficiently destroy turrets over a great distance while the Pyro is not.
The only way to make this unfair is to make it impossible for some players to unlock the additional weapons.
But please enlighten me. What is unfair about people using something they earned when you have the opportunity to earn the same thing but have yet to?
How is it not fair? Every player has the same capabilities and the same possibility to gain the extra weapons. The weapons are balanced to each other and it doesn't give an inherent advantage by choosing one over the other, only a situationally dependent one. If you call that unfair you must also call it unfair for the soldier to be able to efficiently destroy turrets over a great distance while the Pyro is not.
The point is, everyone can choose Soldier or Pyro right off the bat! The same does not apply to the unlocks.
Contrast someone who plays, say, 1 hour a week with someone who plays 20. Even if the guy playing 1 hour has way more skill, he's going to spend almost all of the time it takes for him to get the unlocks playing against people who already have them. Is that fair??
Yes it is, because everybody has the same conditions and has to do the same to get the unlocks. The "unfairness" you are describing stems from different amount of free time or allocation of free time. In the same manner it would be an unfairness for a good player to reach the conditions to unlock weapons faster than a bad player even if they play the same amount.
Yes it is, because everybody has the same conditions and has to do the same to get the unlocks.
No, the conditions are not the same. The person who plays less ends up playing against a lot of people who already have the unlocks while trying to get theirs. The person who plays a lot more does not.
That's dependent of the servers you choose and when you start playing. The majority of the players already unlocked the extra weapons and the percentage will only go up.
The majority of the players already unlocked the extra weapons and the percentage will only go up.
This is a great reason for me, someone who has yet to play TF2, to not pick it up. Right off the bat, I won't be able to see half of what the game has to offer, and all the other players will have a superior amount of options. If it so happens that one of the unlocked abilties fits my playstyle completely and would help me compete, I'm never going to know because I'll have to suffer through getting to it.
In short, all these additions may keep existing players playing, but denies the chance of any money leaving my pocket.
Dependent of when the percentage starts to stagnate. Let's say the 1 hour per week guy (but who really plays a game like TF2 for an hour a week?) starts now and the 20 hours guy starts a month from now when the percentage has risen. Are they going to face the same amount of Pyros with unlocks? Nobody can really tell. What if they start at the same time after the point when the threshold was reached and virtually everybody already has the unlocks?
chaos, you're considering all TF2 games ever played to actually be part of a single game. We're looking at each individual match of TF2 as a single game. Yes, if you take every match of TF2 ever played and combine them into a single game somehow, then yes it is fair. If you look at an individual match of TF2, it is not fair.
Comments
However, just because someone knocks something they haven't tried doesn't always mean they are basing their opinion on complete prejudice and assumption. You see, there are other ways to acquire information about things besides experiencing them first hand. I've never read anything by Deepak Chopra, but I know all his books are full of new age bullshit. Do I have to actually read his books to have my opinion validated? It would help, but it isn't necessary. I have learned enough information about Chopra and his books from other sources than the books themselves that I can make an appropriate judgement. Prejudice and assumptions is when you form an opinion based on nothing. It is possible to form an opinion based on information other than the experience itself. Therefore, you can knock something without having tried it, but also not be prejudiced.
I know enough about game theory, something that applies to games of all kinds, and I know enough information about the changes to TF2, that I can make a proper judgement that the changes make it a worse game, and an unfair game. The changes give incentive for people to play with goals other than beating the other team. The changes give advantages to players who play for greater periods of time, even if they play with less skill over that period.
Yes, Valve is smart. They are excellent game designers, and they know exactly what they are doing. They, and the rest of the video game industry, have realized that good, fair, competitive, skill-based games do not sell. Games that have psychologically optimized low skill work/reward cycles sell extremely well, and get extended play. People don't like hard games. People don't like games where skill wins all the time. People like getting rewarded based on how long they are playing, rather than skill. Also, basing rewards on time playing makes it much easier to psychologically optimize the reward cycle. People also seek novelty. By releasing small bits of novelty over time, they will get more players coming back more often and for longer periods of time.
Neither Valve, nor any other game designer, has any interest in making a game that is actually a difficult, yet fair, pure test of skill. It is not necessary to play a game, if you have sufficient extra information about it, to figure out that it is not a balanced game. As someone who enjoys skill-based games, and detests games of time investment, I don't have to play TF2 to know that it's gone down the shitter. It's a simple deduction.
Would hard games sell anymore?
Also, there are no achievement that says "play x hours", only achievements that require a certain amount of kills, damage done, buildings destroyed, people set on fire etc. If you are playing normally, doing what your team needs to win, those achievements will happen incidentally, but nobody except stupid or lame people play only to get them. Normal guys play the game to have fun and kill people. If you are good at the game the achievements will happen sooner for you than for others. Those achievements are mostly just positive reinforcement and a thanks for sticking with the game if you will.
However, I agree with you that if the only you want is to be better than others, you are probably at the wrong address with TF2. I for my part play games for entertainment rather than trying to show off and pwn noobs. In the end, TF2 gives me a whole lot of entertainment and thats what counts in my book.
Even playing the game doesn't give you "perfect information" about the game.
You would have to play through every possible situation for that - which would take an infinite amount of time.
Hence some level of conjecture is always necessary.
Let's say the news comes out today that the assholes in Hollywood got their act together, and Peter Jackson is going to direct The Hobbit. That's a very small amount of information. Yet, I'm sure we can all safely assume that it's going to be a holy shit awesome movie. Yes, we are making an assumption on imperfect information, but it's a safe one. We're not being prejudiced, though. We don't need every single piece of information to pass judgment.
As for this specific case of TF2, we know plenty of information. We played the game before it was ruined. We know what the achievments are, and how they work. We know what all the changes to the gameplay are. That's pretty damn well effectively perfect information. By your reckoning, only the people at Valve, with full access to the source code, can make a fair judgment. Of course the achievement doesn't literally say "play x hours", but it effectively says so. Even with the best player, it will take a certain amount of time investment to get that number of kills. There are other achievements I heard about such as "kill the spy while he's taking a smoke". Seriously. That's not something that happens naturally in gameplay. That is the kind of thing that encourages people to go after other objectives besides winning the match, thus ruining the game.
Finally, we've said it before, we'll say it again. If one player has more gameplay effecting options than another player, even if those options are "equal", that is unbalanced and unfair play. If you give players who have achieved some goal in a previous match an advantage in a future match, that is not good. It changes the definition of where the game begins and ends.
Let's say we play a fighting game where both of our characters are identical. I win the first match. Because I won the first match, I now have the option of making my character a little bit more powerful, but also slower. Still effectively equal, but different. This is bad for two reasons. Obviously I now have an unfair advantage in the second match. Even though the options are equal, having more options always helps. Perhaps a slower more powerful guy fits my fighting style better? Perhaps it works well against your fighting style? Even if it is identical on paper, it can't be identical in the real world.
The other reason it is bad is because it blurs the line of when the game begins and ends. If this second match is a completely separate game from the first match, then why should something that happened in the first game change what happens in the second game? Even though I don't know anything else about these changes to TF2, I know that these changes blur the lines between rounds of the game. A single round of TF2 is no longer an isolated match. Things that happened in previous, unrelated matches, when I was not present, now have an effect on the outcome of a future match I am involved in. Imagine playing tennis, but your opponent gets to use a bigger racket because they got an achievement in a game they played yesterday against someone else. Not cool.
If you're just looking for a crazy game where you run around shooting shit and capturing flags, whatever. If you think that's fun, good for you. But if you're like Rym, or myself, and you enjoy games for the purity of competition and the test of skill, then TF2 is now shit.
The point is that unless you have absolute knowledge of every factor influencing an object of verified it's current status, you don't have knowledge and you can only assume the status of the object. Schrödinger's Cat is the prime example here.
Also, there are still games produced that are immensely difficult and that take a lot of skill being produced. The rhythm game genre consists mostly of such games.
Also, we were not debating the ability to make judgment, but the difference between knowledge and assumption. Also, you are assuming that the acquired weapons are 100% better in every way imaginable than the weapons before, which is not true.
I think if we can agree on that much, and more forward there can be a more substantial discussion.
Anyways, the Pyro is still the Pyro and the Medic is still the Medic, with or without extra weapons. They still are effective against some other classes and bad against others. The complaint of changing between rounds is pretty worthless anyway as you could easily just change the class like you can change your weapons if you have upgraded ones to fit your fighting style.
Both you and Scott are making judgements as best you can from limited knowledge.
However, it seems you still don't understand Scott's argument. Surely it's simple, a player with more options has an advantage over a player with less. This is clearly unfair.
Your point would only be valid if everyone got the unlocks straight off the bat.
I just found a powerful rifle! I don't want to die, because I'll lose this rifle! Unlike in normal games, where there is a minimum penalty for dying.
Otherwise, I would agree that unlockables are bullshittery. When they're available, though, it minimize the suckitude immensely.
Not trying to be rude but you are being a bit loud.
@Rym: As said before, you don't have to play for them. The achievements to get the bonus weapons often happen incidentally as you are playing completely normal games. You are still standing the same chances with or without them. They only really change how you play. You don't have to have the weapons but it's nice to have them. What's so bad about giving people a reward for having it played some time? And where do you draw the line? Is the next thing you guys are going to complain about that you don't start out in Half-Life with an automatic weapon and only get it later in the game? Or that you have to play a few rounds, be good and save your money to buy an AWP in Counter-Strike?
The "100% better all the time" was on Scott's tennis racket example.
In general: It's just the rules of the game now. If you don't like them, just don't play the game, which you aren't doing anyway so why complain about it?
I think that most of you just need to get over the fact that it isn't the game you all wanted it to be, which was apparent long before they added the achievements and unlockable weapons.
When you are playing against other people in a verses game you would want it to be fair and let skills to determine the victor (otherwise why are you even playing?). The reward for the time that you have spent as apposed to someone who is new is experience and that should be sufficient.
I am all for new and updated weapons and supposed game improvements, but like most of the people in this topic, only when everyone who is playing gets them without the condition of achievements or other bullshit like it. Valve has even seen this issue and I would like to believe softened the achievement process for unlocking weapons so that TF2 players are able to be of equal choice sooner.
So your saying that user feedback or the venting of disappointment from long term fans is not important and that you should always be happy of what your given or just leave it alone? I am a TF2 player and enjoy most of the game but what they are doing with the achievement detract from the purpose of the game and I (as a user) believe is not required.
The game still is fair. In an earlier post Scott stated that what appears to be fair in theory can be unfair in reality. The opposite is also true. The added weapons are balanced out to the previous weapons and the game situations. You gain something and lose something different. If one guy has the air-blast flamethrower and the other has the backburner, the guy with the superior skill will come out of as the victor, even if he only has the air-blast thrower.
The difference between CS and TF2 is simply that CS resets between the games, and TF2 has a threshold system. This allows Counter-Strike to have absolute superior weapons because they are not permanent. In TF2 it would be bad and TF2 doesn't have absolute superior weapons. I am also well aware of the fact that the achievements and the unlockables are just an artificial extension of the game and it could be pretty much the same if they were all unlocked in the beginning, but it actually feels rewarding when you earn something rather than being given it (who could have seen that?). If your sole motivation to play the game is the achievements and unlockables, you are playing it wrong and the only person to blame is you. How dare Valve to offer rewards for playing their game.
Once again, judge the game on what it is, not on what you want it to be.
Every player has the same capabilities and the same possibility to gain the extra weapons. The weapons are balanced to each other and it doesn't give an inherent advantage by choosing one over the other, only a situationally dependent one. If you call that unfair you must also call it unfair for the soldier to be able to efficiently destroy turrets over a great distance while the Pyro is not.
The only way to make this unfair is to make it impossible for some players to unlock the additional weapons.
But please enlighten me. What is unfair about people using something they earned when you have the opportunity to earn the same thing but have yet to?
Contrast someone who plays, say, 1 hour a week with someone who plays 20. Even if the guy playing 1 hour has way more skill, he's going to spend almost all of the time it takes for him to get the unlocks playing against people who already have them. Is that fair??
In short, all these additions may keep existing players playing, but denies the chance of any money leaving my pocket.
What if they start at the same time after the point when the threshold was reached and virtually everybody already has the unlocks?