Not that you'll take it from me of all people, Scott, but seriously. Just because games are different from how you like them doesn't make them bad. TF2 being perhaps slower than that doesn't make it bad, just different. It's not lower-skilled either, it just requires different skills than the skills you and Rym like in FPS'. I watch my roommate play TF2 a lot, and it's not that slow. Maybe not that fast, but there are skills, classes, equipment, and other variable things to take into account. TF2 and Counter-Strike are just straight-up different kinds of shooters, different kinds of games even. It's the same as with your argument about any beat-em-up, RPG, or any of that stuff. A game that doesn't do things exactly like your favorite thing in the genre isn't bad, in fact, it is trying to be different and not be like your favorite, more than likely. To those people who like newer FPS', yes, maybe they're worse at CS than you, but not at FPS' in general, because FPS as a genre isn't simply defined by your standards. You're not the FPS God. Additionally: No one in this thread is saying that people with mouses aren't probably a lot better than people with a pad. We don't care about that argument. The fact that you make such a big deal about it is what bothers us. Who cares what's better? People play what works for them. If I played FPS', I would probably play console ones, because I don't have regular access to a strong enough computer.
QFT. It'd be like taking those mob at the Discovery institute and the Intelligent Design museum seriously on the topic of Evolution.
Geek hipsters like Scott.
If it's not obscure, vintage, or preferably both, it's rubbish. Now out of my way, philistine, as I ride my fixie in nut-hugging jeans, down to the gamestop to make fun of everyone who wants to buy a game made in the last ten years and tell them whey they're stupid and bad people. Fuckin' mainstream sheep.
Why can I totally see Scott making the trollface going "problem console-fags"?
I would say he honestly believes this stupid shit, but then I noticed it comes up every time he gets caught out on the issue of a game, For example, say, Getting caught out talking out of his arse, about a game he hasn't actually played.
TF2 being perhaps slower than that doesn't make it bad, just different. It's not lower-skilled either, it just requires different skills than the skills you and Rym like in FPS'. I watch my roommate play TF2 a lot, and it's not that slow. Maybe not that fast, but there are skills, classes, equipment, and other variable things to take into account. TF2 and Counter-Strike are just straight-up different kinds of shooters, different kinds of games even.
Individual skill at anything other than coordination of basic team strategy plays a minimal role in TF2, as the cap on the maximal action on an individual player is fairly low. This is due primarily to substantial weapon spread, slow player movement, and large models relative to the environment.
Scott's hyperbole aside, TF2 is a poor test of most skills that would reasonably be considered a part of an FPS of any sort. It's a good game for people who aren't terribly skilled at precision FPS play or who want a more casual experience (less time to achieve proficiency/mastery of basic gameplay) in a competitive multiplayer environment. It's a bad game for skilled players, but not a bad game overall: it serves its purpose.
My only problem with TF2 is that they also made it stateful and micro-transaction-based. Fuck that.
Myonlyproblem with TF2 is that they also made it stateful and micro-transaction-based. Fuck that.
I had no problem with the stateful if done right it guides a player into being familiar with the game and trying the different aspects of the different weapons. However, the way they did it through achievements or random timed unlocks and micro-transactions was stupid.
This is more egregious than rewards through achievements. Once you're actually exchanging money to actually get better stuff, you're no longer playing a game.
I had no problem with the stateful if done right it guides a player into being familiar with the game and trying the different aspects of the different weapons.
Name one competitive multiplayer game that's done it right.
Myonlyproblem with TF2 is that they also made it stateful and micro-transaction-based. Fuck that.
As much as I argue with you guys about the whole FPS thing, This is one thing you'll get no argument from me about. While being stateful isn't inherently bad, in this case, it's implemented badly, and while Micro-transaction based is a bit hyperbolic, it's not far from the mark, it's inclusion is unnecessary and reeks of nothing more than trying to grab cash from a game which isn't pulling the same number of new players and thus profit that it used to.
cash from a game which isn't pulling the same number of new players and thus profit that it used to.
It never pulled that many players. The numbers dropped off pretty rapidly in the weeks after the game was first released, and it's been a slow decline ever since with bumps as they've taken marketing steps.
This is more egregious than rewards through achievements. Once you're actually exchanging money to actually get better stuff, you're no longer playing a game.
CCGs aren't a good test of tactics. They are, in most cases, tests of deck building, which itself, due to the collectible nature of the cards, a test of money and time.
You will rarely make a decision when playing, say, Magic: the options and information before you present an obvious maximal strategy.
The numbers dropped off pretty rapidly in the weeks after the game was first released
So What? They don't care that much if you buy the game and never even take off the shrink wrap, or download it from steam, because you bought the game. The money is already in their pocket. What they want is for you to buy the game. All the marketing was focused on that, and keeping people who bought the game, playing the game(as to provide a large enough community to bring in new players), until the microtransaction business came along.
The numbers dropped off pretty rapidly in the weeks after the game was first released
So What? They don't care that much if you buy the game and never even take off the shrink wrap, or download it from steam, because you bought the game. The money is already in their pocket. What they want is for you to buy the game. All the marketing was focused on that, and keeping people who bought the game, playing the game, until the microtransaction business came along.
Actually someone pointed out, quite cleverly, the true reason to keep updating TF2. Whether or not they sell more copies of the game or more DLC is good for them, obviously. But the real benefit of TF2 is that every time thy update it, the gaming news sites all report about the new changes. That brings a surge of traffic back to Steam, where hopefully people will see something like, a huge crazy sale on some other game. Why make funny videos like meet the so-and-so? It might sell TF2, but more importantly it gets people to check Steam.
Honestly one of the best reasons Counter-strike has stayed as popular as it is, was because they never technically made "Counterstrike 2" You see that there is a cut between Source and old Counter strike and if they continued to make more games it would have divided the number of players further. The Call of Duty games are like that. Look at the ones that place on the list there are like 4 of them all in the top 20 diluting each games total player base. There are like 87,000 players playing Call of Duty games right now at 10am. But each individual game has much less players.
Another important factor that can be demonstrated by looking at the peak for the day is that a majority of the Counter-strike players are in other countries. It's low system requirements help it work it's way into markets that the newer Call of Duty games can't even compete in due to people not having the specs to run the newer games. Counterstrike has a extremely low cost of entity on the PC spec side.
Between not diluting their player base and an extreme low start up cost parred with an excellent pick up and play game have combined to make Counter-strike the world wide monster that it is. With something like that on the market TF2 can't compete in raw numbers and it doesn't help that they keep making the game worse ;-p However I'm sure they made quite a bit of bank off it already.
Actually someone pointed out, quite cleverly, the true reason to keep updating TF2. Whether or not they sell more copies of the game or more DLC is good for them, obviously. But the real benefit of TF2 is that every time thy update it, the gaming news sites all report about the new changes. That brings a surge of traffic back to Steam, where hopefully people will see something like, a huge crazy sale on some other game. Why make funny videos like meet the so-and-so? It might sell TF2, but more importantly it gets people to check Steam.
More of a side benefit than a sole purpose, but I'd agree for the most part. If you can't get them buying product A, then get them into the store to buy product B, it's an old idea - Same reason many stores advertise a particular product as on sale, and then advertise about having much more in the store, because they don't just want you to buy that, they want you to come down and maybe buy some other stuff, too.
Same reason many stores advertise a particular product as on sale, and then advertise about having much more in the store, because they don't just want you to buy that, they want you to come down and maybe buy some other stuff, too.
Which is also why a lot of stores don't have small hand-held baskets to carry around anymore and force you to take a cart. If you're carrying the hand-basket then you're going to fill it up with just the things you need and then leave with the small amount of purchases, whereas if you have a cart you're more likely to fill it up with a greater amount of products. There is no altruism in marketing, only the drive to prey on human shortcomings.
The idea that console pubs are worse than PC pubs is something I have trouble conceiving.
I've got no trouble at all. My old roommates played console shooters, my new roommates play PC shooters. There is a HUGE improvement in the quality of players (the players themselves, not necessarilly their skills) from console to PC.
You misunderstand, I don't see how it's possible to get worse than pubs on the PC already are.
PC pubs, while often bad, are not as bad as it could possibly be. Imagine 100% shitcock 100% of the time. And not only that, but the shittiest cockiest of all shitcocks. That is the console pub.
Back when I was still playing TF2 I had trouble finding servers that didn't completely futz with the fundamental rules of the game or just do stupid annoying garbage. No, I don't want fast respawn because that BREAKS THE GAME. No, I don't want your Unreal Tournament sound effects or party hats. *sigh*
Back when I was still playing TF2 I had trouble finding servers that didn't completely futz with the fundamental rules of the game or just do stupid annoying garbage. No, I don't want fast respawn because that BREAKS THE GAME. No, I don't want your Unreal Tournament sound effects or party hats. *sigh*
Even in good games, people who run servers feel a very strong need to futz with the game as much as possible. Look at NS1. Just about every server is running some crazy mods and shit. Yet, the most popular servers that are always full of real players are the ones that are running the game straight up. That's also something that contributed strongly to the death of Tribes 2 was that towards the end you couldn't find a vanilla server to play on.
Comments
It's the same as with your argument about any beat-em-up, RPG, or any of that stuff. A game that doesn't do things exactly like your favorite thing in the genre isn't bad, in fact, it is trying to be different and not be like your favorite, more than likely. To those people who like newer FPS', yes, maybe they're worse at CS than you, but not at FPS' in general, because FPS as a genre isn't simply defined by your standards. You're not the FPS God.
Additionally: No one in this thread is saying that people with mouses aren't probably a lot better than people with a pad. We don't care about that argument. The fact that you make such a big deal about it is what bothers us. Who cares what's better? People play what works for them. If I played FPS', I would probably play console ones, because I don't have regular access to a strong enough computer.
Scott's hyperbole aside, TF2 is a poor test of most skills that would reasonably be considered a part of an FPS of any sort. It's a good game for people who aren't terribly skilled at precision FPS play or who want a more casual experience (less time to achieve proficiency/mastery of basic gameplay) in a competitive multiplayer environment. It's a bad game for skilled players, but not a bad game overall: it serves its purpose.
My only problem with TF2 is that they also made it stateful and micro-transaction-based. Fuck that.
You will rarely make a decision when playing, say, Magic: the options and information before you present an obvious maximal strategy.
Another important factor that can be demonstrated by looking at the peak for the day is that a majority of the Counter-strike players are in other countries. It's low system requirements help it work it's way into markets that the newer Call of Duty games can't even compete in due to people not having the specs to run the newer games. Counterstrike has a extremely low cost of entity on the PC spec side.
Between not diluting their player base and an extreme low start up cost parred with an excellent pick up and play game have combined to make Counter-strike the world wide monster that it is. With something like that on the market TF2 can't compete in raw numbers and it doesn't help that they keep making the game worse ;-p However I'm sure they made quite a bit of bank off it already.