Making a competitive game is the key to gaining a successful fanbase. If a game is too easy, too casual, people get bored and move on...quickly. I love how youre making the game moddable and including a level editor. Its things like this that make me believe this game might finally bring me back to what the glory days of CSbeta (and NS as well).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not think that. Competitive "professional" gaming is a itsy bitsy tiny fraction of a playerbase. And if this game would only look after these player it woul call for certain doom. I played NS from the first day it was out and I never did any clan gaming and I still refuse to use a mic (and I place sens first, which it not related to the topic).
When I play a NS game (which I have not done for years) I play as hard as I can, but I do not value any of the professional clan stuff. I really hate it when clan players assume they are some form of "driving force" behind a game. They are not. (Not necessarily accusing you of bein that).
<!--quoteo(post=1738184:date=Nov 19 2009, 01:41 PM:name=R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (R_e_n_e_g_a_d_e @ Nov 19 2009, 01:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1738184"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->TF2 has a low skill ceiling, it isn't "hard to master" . IF NS2 turns out anything like TF2 the casuals can have it, because I and every other NS1 player will be long gone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree somewhat. Coming from qwtf and tfc, tf2 seemed unbelievably dumbed down and shallow. I respect tf2 for what it is: a nicely polished, fast-paced, casual, pick-up-and-play game which you play for maybe an hour at a time before the novelty wears off - there is no lasting appeal, no depth, very little in terms of skills to master and giving a player something to aspire to.
NS is the last game I'd ever want to go in that direction, but I know all too well that it's the trend these days: in an attempt to make something as accessible or polished as possible, a game loses the X factor which would make it a true classic. Sure, the broader the audience, the more sales you get: this in a lot of people's minds is what determines the "success" of the game. However, the wider you go, the more you dumb down the content and risk ending up with a pristine swimming pool on a tropical island that you can't swim in because it's only 1 foot deep.
Anyway, back into the woodwork I crawl. Just remember there are a lot of the old and/or long-time NS1 players out there who are silently waiting and watching to see if NS2 will bring back some of the awesomeness the original game provided.
I think TF2 has more depth than any current teambased shooter. People are only fooled by the cartoon looks. If it had the realistic looks of COD6 or something people would think different.
<!--quoteo(post=1739446:date=Nov 24 2009, 08:16 AM:name=cat)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cat @ Nov 24 2009, 08:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1739446"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I do not think that. Competitive "professional" gaming is a itsy bitsy tiny fraction of a playerbase. And if this game would only look after these player it woul call for certain doom. I played NS from the first day it was out and I never did any clan gaming and I still refuse to use a mic (and I place sens first, which it not related to the topic).
When I play a NS game (which I have not done for years) I play as hard as I can, but I do not value any of the professional clan stuff. I really hate it when clan players assume they are some form of "driving force" behind a game. They are not. (Not necessarily accusing you of bein that).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Same here, I really tire of the competitive scene pretending they're god's gift to gaming. The fact is, there's almost no proof that this is true.
Starcraft and Counter-Strike are going to be the two cliche examples. In over ten years of online gaming, you have only two games that both came out around the same time to show as 'proof' that competitive gaming 'makes' games. The fact is, the reasons for the continued life of both of those games MAY have something to do with the competitive scene - but there's also a lot more factors at work than that. Starcraft, for example, was the Half-Life of RTS games as far as the technical side is concerned. Custom maps, Use Map Settings, and Battle.Net contributed far more to Starcraft's success more than any clan did.
So in the entire history of multiplayer gaming, we have two exceptions - we have exceptions on the other side too. What about games that were practically designed for competition, like Unreal Tournament and Quake Wars? The UT crowd was there more for mods than anything else, and currently UT3 has like 400 people playing. Do you call that 'living'? The fact is, games of all kinds that have appealed to both crowds show absolutely no correlative trends whatsoever with regards to competition being beneficial in any way.
Look at NS1 - the NS1 competitive scene died absolutely ages ago. People are still playing it - not for competition, but just because they want to play it. Tribes 2 still has players even after the master servers were axed. They're not playing in ranked matches - they're playing because it's a fun game and they like it. In fact, while we're talking about NS1, does anyone remember what happened to the NS-CAL league? It was shut down in part because half the teams were caught cheating and they all had piss-poor attitudes in general. The competitive scene of NS1 did more DAMAGE than it ever did anything good.
Point is this - with naught but a handful of exceptions, all games exhibit almost the same lifespan trends. As popularity grows, so does competitive interest. As it shrinks so does competitive interest. Eventually the clan scene will leave altogether, *FAR BEFORE THE LAST PUB PLAYERS DO*. All that's left is, well, a white dwarf, slowly burning for ages until it too goes dark eventually. The competitive scene is absolutely no more important than the pub scene (and in the case of NS's clans, they're actually less so). At the very least, I can think of no games except two freakish exceptions where the competitive scene was responsible for extending the life of a game.
I also fail to understand exactly what about competitive players would encourage them to stick with a game in the first place. Fr0st2k himself is here from Counter-Strike, complaining that the game should be like this or that. Why? If you were right, and competitive players do stick with certain games, why would you even be here? Why is there constantly whining and moaning that 'NS2 needs to be more like _____' and 'NS2 needs more TEH SKILLZ like _____'. Given how competitive players are drawn like a moth towards flame in regards to the same lousy cliche boring shooter mechanics that were old and tired ten years ago, I think it'd be more the opposite - competitive players will play a game up until their attention is broken even for a moment, and then jump to the next big thing. How many endless moaning rants about <b>SKILLZ BAESD MUVEMENTSZ</b> do we need before it's obvious that competitive players don't give a crap about games, they just care about playing with the same mechanics? I mentioned giving newbies or people who aren't good at the fast-reaction twitch skills of NS a way to meaningfully contribute to the game, and the response was that any concession at all in regards to that would be 'dumbing down' and 'KILL THE GAME LIKE TF2 OMGOMOMGOM'.
But you know what? Even if they did extend the life, so what? In 8 years, if NS2 has 80 players, vs. 180 it could have if it were more 'clan based', does that really matter? Even if it has zero, what good does that do anyone, especially since by the 8 year mark, the game's going to cost almost nothing, and everyone whose playing probably all bought their copies 8 years prior anyway. How many sales do you think they're going to pick up? Extended lifespan doesn't matter worth a damn.
There's a big deal of difference between professional gaming and competitive gaming. Suggest some of you keep that in mind, this community is apt to blame said players for most anything but I would argue most players are competitive and haven't even bothered "venturing" out of their public to give it a try in most games. It's a shame really, especially with this game. Once the anti-clanner propaganda gets set by the boss forum mods there's little to be done about it.
Don't forget the cost factor too, and how that affects popularity. CS and TFC were both free mods for a very popular game (as was NS1). Starcraft wasn't, but I don't know anyone who didn't have some pirated copies of that lying around. I have high hopes for NS2, but realistically it will likely never be as popular as NS1 because of the problem of actually having to pay for it. When a game is free, it's popularity can explode because people share it with each other freely and there is no restriction for doing so.
Of course it has to be a good game too, lord knows there's enough free games out there no-one plays. It makes me wonder if UW shouldn't consider releasing their first major balance/DLC patch along with making the game free for a period of time. So, profits could come from the initial sales, and from extra stuff (lots of people seem to be willing to pay for the extra $40 edition, as I have), and then additional sales after the free period once the free period has stimulated growth in popularity.
But personally, I don't care how cheap or popular the game is as long as I enjoy it for awhile at least. Not every game has to be one of those games you dedicate yourself to. We'll just have to wait and see what kind NS2 turns out to be...
Comments
Making a competitive game is the key to gaining a successful fanbase. If a game is too easy, too casual, people get bored and move on...quickly. I love how youre making the game moddable and including a level editor. Its things like this that make me believe this game might finally bring me back to what the glory days of CSbeta (and NS as well).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not think that. Competitive "professional" gaming is a itsy bitsy tiny fraction of a playerbase. And if this game would only look after these player it woul call for certain doom. I played NS from the first day it was out and I never did any clan gaming and I still refuse to use a mic (and I place sens first, which it not related to the topic).
When I play a NS game (which I have not done for years) I play as hard as I can, but I do not value any of the professional clan stuff. I really hate it when clan players assume they are some form of "driving force" behind a game. They are not. (Not necessarily accusing you of bein that).
I agree somewhat. Coming from qwtf and tfc, tf2 seemed unbelievably dumbed down and shallow. I respect tf2 for what it is: a nicely polished, fast-paced, casual, pick-up-and-play game which you play for maybe an hour at a time before the novelty wears off - there is no lasting appeal, no depth, very little in terms of skills to master and giving a player something to aspire to.
NS is the last game I'd ever want to go in that direction, but I know all too well that it's the trend these days: in an attempt to make something as accessible or polished as possible, a game loses the X factor which would make it a true classic. Sure, the broader the audience, the more sales you get: this in a lot of people's minds is what determines the "success" of the game. However, the wider you go, the more you dumb down the content and risk ending up with a pristine swimming pool on a tropical island that you can't swim in because it's only 1 foot deep.
Anyway, back into the woodwork I crawl. Just remember there are a lot of the old and/or long-time NS1 players out there who are silently waiting and watching to see if NS2 will bring back some of the awesomeness the original game provided.
When I play a NS game (which I have not done for years) I play as hard as I can, but I do not value any of the professional clan stuff. I really hate it when clan players assume they are some form of "driving force" behind a game. They are not. (Not necessarily accusing you of bein that).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Same here, I really tire of the competitive scene pretending they're god's gift to gaming. The fact is, there's almost no proof that this is true.
Starcraft and Counter-Strike are going to be the two cliche examples. In over ten years of online gaming, you have only two games that both came out around the same time to show as 'proof' that competitive gaming 'makes' games. The fact is, the reasons for the continued life of both of those games MAY have something to do with the competitive scene - but there's also a lot more factors at work than that. Starcraft, for example, was the Half-Life of RTS games as far as the technical side is concerned. Custom maps, Use Map Settings, and Battle.Net contributed far more to Starcraft's success more than any clan did.
So in the entire history of multiplayer gaming, we have two exceptions - we have exceptions on the other side too. What about games that were practically designed for competition, like Unreal Tournament and Quake Wars? The UT crowd was there more for mods than anything else, and currently UT3 has like 400 people playing. Do you call that 'living'? The fact is, games of all kinds that have appealed to both crowds show absolutely no correlative trends whatsoever with regards to competition being beneficial in any way.
Look at NS1 - the NS1 competitive scene died absolutely ages ago. People are still playing it - not for competition, but just because they want to play it. Tribes 2 still has players even after the master servers were axed. They're not playing in ranked matches - they're playing because it's a fun game and they like it. In fact, while we're talking about NS1, does anyone remember what happened to the NS-CAL league? It was shut down in part because half the teams were caught cheating and they all had piss-poor attitudes in general. The competitive scene of NS1 did more DAMAGE than it ever did anything good.
Point is this - with naught but a handful of exceptions, all games exhibit almost the same lifespan trends. As popularity grows, so does competitive interest. As it shrinks so does competitive interest. Eventually the clan scene will leave altogether, *FAR BEFORE THE LAST PUB PLAYERS DO*. All that's left is, well, a white dwarf, slowly burning for ages until it too goes dark eventually. The competitive scene is absolutely no more important than the pub scene (and in the case of NS's clans, they're actually less so). At the very least, I can think of no games except two freakish exceptions where the competitive scene was responsible for extending the life of a game.
I also fail to understand exactly what about competitive players would encourage them to stick with a game in the first place. Fr0st2k himself is here from Counter-Strike, complaining that the game should be like this or that. Why? If you were right, and competitive players do stick with certain games, why would you even be here? Why is there constantly whining and moaning that 'NS2 needs to be more like _____' and 'NS2 needs more TEH SKILLZ like _____'. Given how competitive players are drawn like a moth towards flame in regards to the same lousy cliche boring shooter mechanics that were old and tired ten years ago, I think it'd be more the opposite - competitive players will play a game up until their attention is broken even for a moment, and then jump to the next big thing. How many endless moaning rants about <b>SKILLZ BAESD MUVEMENTSZ</b> do we need before it's obvious that competitive players don't give a crap about games, they just care about playing with the same mechanics? I mentioned giving newbies or people who aren't good at the fast-reaction twitch skills of NS a way to meaningfully contribute to the game, and the response was that any concession at all in regards to that would be 'dumbing down' and 'KILL THE GAME LIKE TF2 OMGOMOMGOM'.
But you know what? Even if they did extend the life, so what? In 8 years, if NS2 has 80 players, vs. 180 it could have if it were more 'clan based', does that really matter? Even if it has zero, what good does that do anyone, especially since by the 8 year mark, the game's going to cost almost nothing, and everyone whose playing probably all bought their copies 8 years prior anyway. How many sales do you think they're going to pick up? Extended lifespan doesn't matter worth a damn.
Of course it has to be a good game too, lord knows there's enough free games out there no-one plays. It makes me wonder if UW shouldn't consider releasing their first major balance/DLC patch along with making the game free for a period of time. So, profits could come from the initial sales, and from extra stuff (lots of people seem to be willing to pay for the extra $40 edition, as I have), and then additional sales after the free period once the free period has stimulated growth in popularity.
But personally, I don't care how cheap or popular the game is as long as I enjoy it for awhile at least. Not every game has to be one of those games you dedicate yourself to. We'll just have to wait and see what kind NS2 turns out to be...