@Tyashki: You don't need the new weapons to be able to compete. If you start playing the game, you have to learn the game anyway by playing it. Unless you already bring a whole load of raw talent and skill already with you, no matter what the game, if you play against experienced players you will get pwned anyway. Here you get something in return while you are in this learning phase.
@Scott: Match by match comparison just doesn't apply anymore. I would even argue that it never did since the more matches you play the more experience you gain and you hopefully get more skilled at the game.
@Scott: Match by match comparison just doesn't apply anymore. I would even argue that it never did since the more matches you play the more experience you gain and you hopefully get more skilled at the game.
You see? That's the kind of bullshit we're talking about. With your point of view, maybe I shouldn't go capture the flags this round. Instead I'll just follow this spy around until he lights a cig, that way I can have an advantage in future rounds.
A match is a match with a winner and a loser. Every game of Monopoly I play isn't just a small part of a larger game of Monopoly. Every game of Counter-Strike I play isn't part of some larger game of Counter-Strike. Each game is a game with a winner and a loser. Everyone playing should be fully concentrated on winning or losing the present game, and no other past or future game should have any relation to it. If you want to view all the games of TF2 as some larger game, then go play some WoW instead. Well, actually play some TF2, I sure won't be.
Scott, you are basing your opinion on your preferences in a game. However, this is not a basis on which to judge if a game is fair or not. If you don't like how the game is structured, it's fine by me. But you still have to judge a game by it's actual properties and not condemn it because it isn't what you think they should be.
You are correct that the games influence each other, so now you can only judge the overall fairness of the game on this level.
If you start playing the game, you have to learn the game anyway by playing it. Unless you already bring a whole load of raw talent and skill already with you, no matter what the game, if you play against experienced players you will get pwned anyway.
At least for myself and Scott, we did bring a whole load of raw talent and skill to the game. Now the game's telling me that, to get access to the rest of the game's options, I have to level.
Here you get something in return while you are in this learning phase.
You get something in return for the learning phase without crowbarring WoW onto it: you learn how to play the game. Are you really so shallowly-invested in a game that you require some sort of tangible reward for simply learning how to play a game? Is the low-risk/constant rewards psychology so strong?
Match by match comparison just doesn't apply anymore.
Again, it clearly does. Team Fortress 2 was a stateless skill-based versus game. Liken it to baseball. Some people started stronger, faster, or better, but everyone uses the same field, the same equipment, etc. Some fields are different in and of themselves, but again, within each game of baseball, everyone is competing in the same environment.
By adding persistent, artificial rewards of additional options for arbitrary behavior, they have made the game stateful. In baseball, this would be as though, if you stole fifty bases in the course of your career, you gained the option of using a corked bat instead of a normal one in future games. If you caught ten fly balls, you could choose to use a longer but heavier mitt. If you ever pitched over 100mph, you could choose to throw a softball instead of a baseball every five pitches.
If these options were available to everyone from the start of an individual game of baseball, then it would still be perfectly fair. If players could unlock them in the course of an individual game of baseball, only to lose them at the end of it, it would still be fair. Even if they persisted for a single season, it would still be fair. But, having them persist between games, between seasons, and forever, inherently changes the very core of the game. The game is fundamentally different.
By making Team Fortress 2 stateful, they have fundamentally changed what the game is. They've taken baseball and made it WoW.
cott, you are basing your opinion on your preferences in a game. However, this is not a basis on which to judge if a game is fair or not.
Good god. Again, you're ignoring the argument. Are you really this dense? I'm sick of repeating myself.
But you still have to judge a game by it's actual properties and not condemn it because it isn't what you think they should be.
It's clear that TF2 was one kind of game. By changing it in this way, they have fundamentally changed the game into something different.
You're free to be of the opinion that these changes are good for the game, just as you're free to think that adding leveling to baseball is good for it. You can't, however, pretend that the game is still a fair, match-based game.
Your arguments in this thread have been laughable, and you've repeatedly missed the point. You're conflating the values argument with the mechanics argument, and you've added not a single point of insight.
I have to say that although I like the achievement unlocks, I do think that it would be better for them to have just unlocked them from the start for everyone. I think the best solution that Valve could implement now would be to let servers choose to have everything unlocked for players on the server, have players only able to play the with standard weapons (none of the new ones,) or players only allowed to play with those weapons they have unlocked. That way the achievement unlocking is still there, but its not really a barrier to play with the new weapons anymore.
Just like you stated, TF2 is not an entirely match-based game anymore as it now has an overall progression built in. It has changed from what it was before. I wasn't saying it was a fair match-based game, but it is a fair game in overall if you include the overall progression the players go through which is uniform for all players. Or would you say that World of Warcraft is not a fair game, and if so, why?
Yet you guys are trying to measure it by the values of a solely match-based game which is just not possible any more. That is my entire point.
We can argue into all eternity if "leveling" is an inherently bad game design, but many people like that stuff. In the case of TF2, even more people don't even really care because it doesn't heavily alter the core gameplay and the progress will be attained anyways if you play long enough. If you have more skill you will achieve them faster.
That poses an interesting question: if something is theoretically bad game design, but people like it, is it really bad game design? I mean the point of game design is to make a game to is enjoyable, so if people are enjoying something that is considered poor game design. Doesn't that then mean that said design can be good game design since it is doing what it's supposed to?
@Rym: Any books on game theory you would recommend?
if something is theoretically bad game design, but people like it, is it really bad game design? I mean the point of game design is to make a game to is enjoyable, so if people are enjoying something that is considered poor game design. Doesn't that then mean that said design can be good game design since it is doing what it's supposed to?
Not really. Look at Go. One could argue it's the greatest game devised from a mathematical standpoint but not many people enjoy it (in the Western World at least), yet this does not mean that it's not a good game. There is a difference between being a fun and popular game and being a mathematically good game.
That poses an interesting question: if something is theoretically bad game design, but people like it, is it really bad game design? I mean the point of game design is to make a game to is enjoyable, so if people are enjoying something that is considered poor game design. Doesn't that then mean that said design can be good game design since it is doing what it's supposed to?
@Rym: Any books on game theory you would recommend?
Games are interesting compared to other art forms in that they have both an aesthetic component and a mathematical component. Most other artistic mediums, such as painting or film, are purely artistic. Sure, there is some science involved, but you can't define the end product with a mathematical model.
Perhaps this is part of why we geeks enjoy games so much. They simultaneously provide stimulation for the left brain as well as the right. When you play a game like TF2 you are analytically thinking about how to win, using your muscles to execute the strategy, and also enjoying the visual and audible pleasantries. What other medium does all that simultaneously?
If you are someone who enjoys, or doesn't enjoy a game, you must ask yourself why. Because games, especially video games, have many more components to them compared to say, a painting, there are many more factors that could be the source of like or dislike. If you dislike a painting it is because the way it looks doesn't appeal to you. It's just a visual component. If you dislike a video game, it could be because you don't like the look, the sound, the feel, the rules, or any other number of factors.
You're free to like or dislike any game that you want for any reason, but as with anything, you should know what those reasons are. We are telling you that we do not like TF2, and we are telling you why. The fact that TF2 is the kind of game it is, and is not the kind of game we want it to be, is indisputable. That we do not like TF2 because of this indisputable fact is our opinion. We don't like multiplayer fps games that don't offer fair stateless skills-based match play. If you do like multiplayer fps games with tasteful unbalanced play, good for you. Just be sure you know why you like that kind of game, and why we don't.
As for the question of what constitutes good game design, it begs the question of what is good game design? Good design depends entirely on goals. Many people would say the iPod is well designed. Well, it is well designed in terms of being appealing to the eye and having an intuitive user interface. It is poorly designed when it comes to maximizing its technological potential. If your goal for a game is to sell many copies, have people play for a long time, and get rich, then WoW or Spore are excellently designed games. If your goal with a game is to provide a context in which people can fairly compete and test their abilities, Spore and WoW are miserable failures. To measure how well something is designed, you must first state the purpose of the design itself.
Listening to you talk about TF2 on the show today, I think I finally see what you are getting at. I can't really argue with it since you make some good points, and I do think the game could be improved on with bigger maps and whatnot. But that's in a CTF capacity. As TF2 is now I think its more a control point game then a ctf one, (and the new payload style too, but mostly cp.) For cp I think its fine as is, but its definitely broken in regards to the ctf. Which is probably why there are only 2 official ctf maps, and no one really plays them.
For cp I think its fine as is, but its definitely broken in regards to the ctf. Which is probably why there are only 2 official ctf maps, and no one really plays them.
It's Team Fortress. CTF and TF are synonymous. This control point bs wasn't around until valve shoehorned it in there. A Team Fortress game is capture the flag + teams + classes. That's what it is. Take out the CTF, and it's not team fortress anymore.
This thread is now overflowing with bollocks but I'll play along. I move that Gravelpit and Dustbowl of probably the two most enjoyable maps in it and, as they are enjoyable, I honestly don't care what you think. I am, however, interested in this idea of modding TF2 though I think the level of skill you want to express may come into conflict with the tactical element. As I see it, tactics is the use of the right units to do the right things whereas if you want to base things so heavily on skill then how do you maintain distinctions between classes if the skill of the individual can tip the balance, unless you want to have everyone at the same high skill level then, in this case, does the skill of a player matter if all those around him are he same skill? In short, how does such a high skill difference make way for tactics?
In short, how does such a high skill difference make way for tactics?
The two things are not mutually exclusive. They add together. A team of people with amazing fps skill, but no team coordination and strategy, will lose. Likewise a team with awesome coordination, but no fps skill will also lose. A team with both will be a winner.
In TF2 having enough skill to be effectively perfect is incredibly simple. Strategies and tactics matter, but they are simple and obvious. Even a moderately coordinated group of people can mount a perfect defense on 2fort. If the game were actually tactically deep, there would be no such thing as a perfect defense. The team would have to be constantly communicating and coordinating like a well oiled machine, with every piece in place, to even have a chance. In TF2, just a few players doing the smart thing can capture many flags, and perfectly defend their own.
The old TF games are actually incredibly similar to TF2. They had engineers building turrets, pyros with close range fire, soldiers with rockets, slow heavies with mini-guns, snipers, spies, the whole thing. Actually the spies could do more than the spies now, they could pretend to be dead. Choosing a pyro for close range damage, or choosing a recon(scout) to cap the flag, were just as tactically significant as they are in TF2. The difference is that skill determined effectiveness. It wasn't enough to just know that you should become an engineer and build a turret in a certain location. You actually had to be good at it, or you would just get killed. Every team had one or two snipers defending from the ramparts. However, if those snipers sucked, good luck hitting anybody. A shitty pyro might burn a few people here and there. A good pyro would burninate twice as many people.
Here is an example of some QuakeWorld Team Fortress gameplay. Ignore the shitty graphics, this is Quake 1 after all. Pay attention to how fast everything goes, how hard it is to actually hit anything, and mostly how large and complex the map is. Also, note the grenade jump around 1:15.
See, that is the gameplay I cut my teeth with, so I understand when people say TF2 is far slower. It is. But I like the new flavor of the game as well. I'd probably still play mega-TF since I still have my old quake CD, but it's non-existent on the net.
See, that is the gameplay I cut my teeth with, so I understand when people say TF2 is far slower. It is. But I like the new flavor of the game as well.
Imagine a game with the flavor of TF2 and the gameplay of MegaTF. Hell, I'd even be satisfied with Weapons Factory, which was a fair midpoint between MegaTF and the big-model slow-fests of every CTF game since Quake 3 was released.
Oh, the obvious solution to the whole leveling/achievements thing (assuming you don't really care about them like me) is to jump into an achievement_box or similar map. A few are set up very intelligently with bots and such to help you band out enough achievements to unlock everything in a short amount of time.
I played this game again the other day for a few hours.
Observations:
There are very few maps that receive regular play.
They've changed the one good capture map they had to make it basically the same as their 2fort.
Hardly anyone plays ctf, and if they do, they play 2fort nearly exclusively.
Most servers that have people are running modified games.
Popular servers are full of players who have unlocked all of the new weapons.
The Pyro unlockables are simply better in every way than the regular equipment.
On non-full or non-popular servers, it's mostly kids who aren't aware of the "achievement servers" trying to get their achievements
By killing them and capturing their intel while they're up to the above, you can get twelve-year-olds to scream at you unceasingly.
Most people playing are absolutely terrible at the game.
There aren't that many people playing.
We really need to set up some Quake 2 Lithium deathmatch/ctf. At this point, I'd even settle for Quake 3. NS and CS are fun, but sometimes I want to play a symmetrical team-based FPS.
I will disagree with #6, the flare gun and backburner are not superior to the shotgun and flamethrower, they just are better in certain situations/maps. The Ax-icushioner is better then the normal ax though.
TF2 definitely isn't a serious FPS, but its certainly fun to play with a few friends who you can team up with.
I will disagree with #6, the flare gun and backburner are not superior to the shotgun and flamethrower, they just are better in certain situations/maps.
Better in certain situations/maps is better: you have more capabilities and thus an advantage. Plus, their drawbacks are greatly outweighed by their benefits in almost all situations I've run across.
On another note, we really need to set up an official FRC FPS server. Some 6v6 listener-only TF2 would almost be worth playing, let alone our ever-delayed NS class.
Better in certain situations/maps is better isn't better since the other ones are better in other situations/maps. Having spent a lot of time playing TF2 since the pyro pack I can say that the flare gun really isn't better then the shotgun, its really only useful in long corridors, and when you want to hit a sniper or a camping engie. Otherwise its far more useful to have the shotgun around. I will say that the benefits of the backburner outweigh the drawbacks of the gun, but they do as well with the flamethrower because of the addition of the airblast. The airblast is an amazingly versatile tool.
Flare gun can take out sentries, and it's excellent in 2fort. Also, situations do not change quickly in TF2. It's trivial to have the right weapon at the right time.
The airblast is an amazingly versatile tool.
Maybe if people actually shot rockets at me and rockets were faster. I used it to good effect only once. We set up a sentry in the sewer and then had four pyros just knocking people into the water. They either had to die by sentry or go all the way back through their own sewer and out again only to be knocked back into the water.
I will disagree with #6, the flare gun and backburner are not superior to the shotgun and flamethrower
You're obviously doing it wrong. As a Pyro you should be flanking, the backburner is a hundred times better for that than the normal flamethrower. Also, the flare gun 'fixes' a small gap in the Pyro's weaknesses. Long range. Shoot a flare or two at that sniper, and you can get past him.
Yes the backburner is great in situations where you can actually get behind the other team (ie: offensive) the flamethrower however is great for defensive pyro-ing. Popping out quickly to set a few people on fire where an enemy is clumped up, or defending a sentry or delaying a charge or uber.
I get a feeling this all really come down to how you play the game, what kind of load outs you prefer.
I get a feeling this all really come down to how you play the game, what kind of load outs you prefer.
But this gets back to the real reason I stopped liking this game: having the options is clearly advantageous in a substantial way over not having them, thus forcing you to either Wowgrind or play at a disadvantage.
If we run an FRC game, all unlockables will be banned. ^_~
Yes the backburner is great in situations where you can actually get behind the other team (ie: offensive) the flamethrower however is great for defensive pyro-ing. Popping out quickly to set a few people on fire where an enemy is clumped up, or defending a sentry or delaying a charge or uber.
You're a static defensive pyro? Even when defending you can get behind the other team. And the best defence is a good offence.
Comments
If you start playing the game, you have to learn the game anyway by playing it. Unless you already bring a whole load of raw talent and skill already with you, no matter what the game, if you play against experienced players you will get pwned anyway. Here you get something in return while you are in this learning phase.
@Scott: Match by match comparison just doesn't apply anymore. I would even argue that it never did since the more matches you play the more experience you gain and you hopefully get more skilled at the game.
A match is a match with a winner and a loser. Every game of Monopoly I play isn't just a small part of a larger game of Monopoly. Every game of Counter-Strike I play isn't part of some larger game of Counter-Strike. Each game is a game with a winner and a loser. Everyone playing should be fully concentrated on winning or losing the present game, and no other past or future game should have any relation to it. If you want to view all the games of TF2 as some larger game, then go play some WoW instead. Well, actually play some TF2, I sure won't be.
You are correct that the games influence each other, so now you can only judge the overall fairness of the game on this level.
By adding persistent, artificial rewards of additional options for arbitrary behavior, they have made the game stateful. In baseball, this would be as though, if you stole fifty bases in the course of your career, you gained the option of using a corked bat instead of a normal one in future games. If you caught ten fly balls, you could choose to use a longer but heavier mitt. If you ever pitched over 100mph, you could choose to throw a softball instead of a baseball every five pitches.
If these options were available to everyone from the start of an individual game of baseball, then it would still be perfectly fair. If players could unlock them in the course of an individual game of baseball, only to lose them at the end of it, it would still be fair. Even if they persisted for a single season, it would still be fair. But, having them persist between games, between seasons, and forever, inherently changes the very core of the game. The game is fundamentally different.
By making Team Fortress 2 stateful, they have fundamentally changed what the game is. They've taken baseball and made it WoW.
You're free to be of the opinion that these changes are good for the game, just as you're free to think that adding leveling to baseball is good for it. You can't, however, pretend that the game is still a fair, match-based game.
Your arguments in this thread have been laughable, and you've repeatedly missed the point. You're conflating the values argument with the mechanics argument, and you've added not a single point of insight.
Yet you guys are trying to measure it by the values of a solely match-based game which is just not possible any more. That is my entire point.
We can argue into all eternity if "leveling" is an inherently bad game design, but many people like that stuff. In the case of TF2, even more people don't even really care because it doesn't heavily alter the core gameplay and the progress will be attained anyways if you play long enough. If you have more skill you will achieve them faster.
@Rym: Any books on game theory you would recommend?
Perhaps this is part of why we geeks enjoy games so much. They simultaneously provide stimulation for the left brain as well as the right. When you play a game like TF2 you are analytically thinking about how to win, using your muscles to execute the strategy, and also enjoying the visual and audible pleasantries. What other medium does all that simultaneously?
If you are someone who enjoys, or doesn't enjoy a game, you must ask yourself why. Because games, especially video games, have many more components to them compared to say, a painting, there are many more factors that could be the source of like or dislike. If you dislike a painting it is because the way it looks doesn't appeal to you. It's just a visual component. If you dislike a video game, it could be because you don't like the look, the sound, the feel, the rules, or any other number of factors.
You're free to like or dislike any game that you want for any reason, but as with anything, you should know what those reasons are. We are telling you that we do not like TF2, and we are telling you why. The fact that TF2 is the kind of game it is, and is not the kind of game we want it to be, is indisputable. That we do not like TF2 because of this indisputable fact is our opinion. We don't like multiplayer fps games that don't offer fair stateless skills-based match play. If you do like multiplayer fps games with tasteful unbalanced play, good for you. Just be sure you know why you like that kind of game, and why we don't.
As for the question of what constitutes good game design, it begs the question of what is good game design? Good design depends entirely on goals. Many people would say the iPod is well designed. Well, it is well designed in terms of being appealing to the eye and having an intuitive user interface. It is poorly designed when it comes to maximizing its technological potential. If your goal for a game is to sell many copies, have people play for a long time, and get rich, then WoW or Spore are excellently designed games. If your goal with a game is to provide a context in which people can fairly compete and test their abilities, Spore and WoW are miserable failures. To measure how well something is designed, you must first state the purpose of the design itself.
I am, however, interested in this idea of modding TF2 though I think the level of skill you want to express may come into conflict with the tactical element. As I see it, tactics is the use of the right units to do the right things whereas if you want to base things so heavily on skill then how do you maintain distinctions between classes if the skill of the individual can tip the balance, unless you want to have everyone at the same high skill level then, in this case, does the skill of a player matter if all those around him are he same skill? In short, how does such a high skill difference make way for tactics?
In TF2 having enough skill to be effectively perfect is incredibly simple. Strategies and tactics matter, but they are simple and obvious. Even a moderately coordinated group of people can mount a perfect defense on 2fort. If the game were actually tactically deep, there would be no such thing as a perfect defense. The team would have to be constantly communicating and coordinating like a well oiled machine, with every piece in place, to even have a chance. In TF2, just a few players doing the smart thing can capture many flags, and perfectly defend their own.
The old TF games are actually incredibly similar to TF2. They had engineers building turrets, pyros with close range fire, soldiers with rockets, slow heavies with mini-guns, snipers, spies, the whole thing. Actually the spies could do more than the spies now, they could pretend to be dead. Choosing a pyro for close range damage, or choosing a recon(scout) to cap the flag, were just as tactically significant as they are in TF2. The difference is that skill determined effectiveness. It wasn't enough to just know that you should become an engineer and build a turret in a certain location. You actually had to be good at it, or you would just get killed. Every team had one or two snipers defending from the ramparts. However, if those snipers sucked, good luck hitting anybody. A shitty pyro might burn a few people here and there. A good pyro would burninate twice as many people.
Here is an example of some QuakeWorld Team Fortress gameplay. Ignore the shitty graphics, this is Quake 1 after all. Pay attention to how fast everything goes, how hard it is to actually hit anything, and mostly how large and complex the map is. Also, note the grenade jump around 1:15.
I'd probably still play mega-TF since I still have my old quake CD, but it's non-existent on the net.
Observations:
- There are very few maps that receive regular play.
- They've changed the one good capture map they had to make it basically the same as their 2fort.
- Hardly anyone plays ctf, and if they do, they play 2fort nearly exclusively.
- Most servers that have people are running modified games.
- Popular servers are full of players who have unlocked all of the new weapons.
- The Pyro unlockables are simply better in every way than the regular equipment.
- On non-full or non-popular servers, it's mostly kids who aren't aware of the "achievement servers" trying to get their achievements
- By killing them and capturing their intel while they're up to the above, you can get twelve-year-olds to scream at you unceasingly.
- Most people playing are absolutely terrible at the game.
- There aren't that many people playing.
We really need to set up some Quake 2 Lithium deathmatch/ctf. At this point, I'd even settle for Quake 3. NS and CS are fun, but sometimes I want to play a symmetrical team-based FPS.TF2 definitely isn't a serious FPS, but its certainly fun to play with a few friends who you can team up with.
On another note, we really need to set up an official FRC FPS server. Some 6v6 listener-only TF2 would almost be worth playing, let alone our ever-delayed NS class.
I get a feeling this all really come down to how you play the game, what kind of load outs you prefer.
If we run an FRC game, all unlockables will be banned. ^_~
There are also no good stateless symmetrical class-based capture-the-flag games left, which are what I really want to play...