<!--quoteo(post=1857016:date=Jun 29 2011, 03:58 AM:name=KuBaN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBaN @ Jun 29 2011, 03:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857016"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This thread is full of unsubstantiated claims, and yours is no better just because it's stated matter-of-factly.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, there's a difference between for example between mu or tjosan who have both played at high level and these random gamers, making claims about this game and quoting other baddies in signatures even. The difference between them and other people is that they know what they are talking about. It is like Nada vs your-random-guy-from-silver-ladder talking about Starcraft. These random guys plague youtube comments, blizzard forums and whatever but they all make horrible game analysis.
<!--QuoteBegin-KuBan+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBan)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, attacking the individuals making the claims instead of invalidating the claims themselves does not make you look intelligent. In fact...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Scientists don't bother to correct all the armchair DIY climate scientists either, guess why. I don't take medical advice from amateurs either, and I don't bother with their "arguments". Call that unintelligent if you want.
<!--quoteo(post=1857080:date=Jun 29 2011, 09:22 AM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jiriki @ Jun 29 2011, 09:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857080"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, there's a difference between for example between mu or tjosan who have both played at high level and these random gamers, making claims about this game and quoting other baddies in signatures even. The difference between them and other people is that they know what the f they are talking about. It is like Nada vs your-random-guy-from-silver-ladder talking about Starcraft. These random guys plague youtube comments, blizzard forums and whatever but they all make horrible game analysis.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> To clarify at least my viewpoint:
A silver ladder guy has every right and even should post his viewpoint, but it would be extremely good if he kept in mind that there are levels above silver. "It doesn't work on my level of play" and even "It's not fun for me" are just fine and very valid argument. Then we can start figuring out what would work and ect. Sunshine and happiness.
However, when the silver ladder guy starts yelling over NaDa about Starcraft high level strategies and such it gets pretty sad. NaDa gets frustrated because all the discussion effort goes into correcting false statements, arguing over most ridiculous things, dodging strawmen and ect. NaDa feels like he can't contribute the slightest bit and quits the forums.
That's roughly what you see on the Internet forums. I don't know if there's any way to completely avoid it, but I'd certainly like to try it whenever possible.
Edit: And by no means people should stop questionizing stuff or start pampering anyone. It's more about respecting posters a bit and not directly proceeding to make ridiculously bold statements over things that someone has spent years learning and mastering.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the skill difference between a newcomer and a pro is just massive. A game that does not scale with skill is skill-limited. NS1 also scaled a lot with skill, it took a lot of practice to be able to match the best players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Skill = training =! talent, dont use it as if its some kind of god given magic powers.
Just because something is not as complex doesnt make it less strategic/good whatever. All it does is smaller the huge gap between newbies and masters at first - since you dont have to spend many hours to learn and memorize only the basics... (like you have in sc2)
Removing bhop doesnt make the game scale less with skill, it only shifts the skill to other aspects of the game.
Lets take css, doesnt have bhop - is it now a skill-limited game? It shifted. Ppl had to focus more on better tactics, positioning and reaction - and it is still one of the top competitive games.
Jiriki makes an extremely good point. Sad to see people disregard it when <b>essentially he's right</b>. The fact of the matter is if a game scales with skill there is going to be a gap between newer players and the experienced. Small gap means there is less to learn, and will more than likely cause the game to get boring quicker. Smaller the gap the less room to improve one's game: fact.
Skill gap is also probably why I played through mirror's edge so many times (and it was singleplayer); there were many ways to go about jumping between buildings running on walls etc, but it took a lot of practice to get good at. If the game had less movement mechanics and was just run and jump across building without all the extra movement skills/freedom, I would have probably only played through once and moved on. I could go on and on about this but unfortunately it just doesn't seem to register with some (who probably won't play this game long either).
The phrase 'easy to learn, hard to master' exists for a reason.
If a game is difficult to learn, it's badly designed, good design emphasises making things easy to learn without compromising depth, this is evident in all the best games. Mario for example has a pretty simple control scheme, you jump, run, and shoot fireballs. Astonishingly you can extend that pretty simple move set to make a variety of levels, each of which is difficult and challenging in its own way. Any idiot can figure out how to play it, but it is very difficult to play well, and playing it a lot will steadily increase your ability to play it well. At the same time however, the game does not require you to be perfect, it has a skill cap, because most people in the world don't have any interest in perfecting their ability to play a game.
Of course in multiplayer games, you can't control that, you can't just make the platforms a bit wider to accomodate less than exact jumpers, if you pit players against each other in a contest of pure skill, you will end up with people who perfect their game, not many of them, but some of them, and when they are introduced into the general population, the result is annoying. You get a few people making the game unplayable hard for the rest of the people on the server, and that is not good. A few players are not more valuable than many players, it does not make sense to allow the game to impede the enjoyment of many players for the sake of a few.
So, you introduce skill caps in other ways. You add weapons with limited mechanical performance, guns that simply cannot shoot above a certain degree of accuracy. You add speed limits, so players cannot move fast enough to be unhittable, you add building restrictions, so that people cannot use knowledge of exploits to place disproportionately difficult to remove buildings in some parts of the map. And perhaps most of all, you abide by easy to learn, hard to master. You make sure everyone that picks the game up very quickly learns everything there is to learn about the game, so that the only thing they need to work on is their execution. Combine that with limits to how good any one person can be, and you shift the game from being reliant on a few exceptional players in any given match, to relying on all of its players. If one person cannot carry the team, and every player knows what to do, you will win based on numbers, team coordination, strategy, all sorts of team-related elements. Ultimately, this ensures that more people can enjoy the game, and does not make the game 'less skilled', it instead forces everyone in the game to develop their skills in more areas and encourages new players to participate, lending their skills to the game as a whole.
You do realise that if the NS2 will be even half as popular as NS1 was those terrible pro players, who seem to cause you some kind of childhood trauma, won't be playing on public servers. If you want to play on server where players don't want pursuit perfection, you can do it! There were also different skill level of public servers in NS1, hell there were servers in which BH was forbidden. Why wouldn't there be different kind of servers in NS2? I don't want to ruin your fun, why are you so keen to ruin fun from players who enjoy competition (one could argue that whole point of mp gaming is competition)? You can have "immersion" and still have bunnyhop in same game.
<!--quoteo(post=1857141:date=Jun 29 2011, 04:08 PM:name=Tane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tane @ Jun 29 2011, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857141"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You do realise that if the NS2 will be even half as popular as NS1 was those terrible pro players, who seem to cause you some kind of childhood trauma, won't be playing on public servers. If you want to play on server where players don't want pursuit perfection, you can do it! There were also different skill level of public servers in NS1, hell there were servers in which BH was forbidden. Why wouldn't there be different kind of servers in NS2? I don't want to ruin your fun, why are you so keen to ruin fun from players who enjoy competition (one could argue that whole point of mp gaming is competition)? You can have "immersion" and still have bunnyhop in same game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Your point about choosing where you play is valid, but Online Services features such as integrated server tiering based on player stats are much less likely to happen in NS2. First and foremost they are divisive, which is not what you want for an indie multiplayer launch where your initial playerbase may not be large enough to survive a forced hardcore/casual/beginner split. Secondly Online Services beyond the most basic of features are a luxury that most indie teams don't have the budget to justify.
<!--quoteo(post=1857119:date=Jun 29 2011, 03:06 PM:name=Lazer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lazer @ Jun 29 2011, 03:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857119"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Jiriki makes an extremely good point. Sad to see people disregard it when <b>essentially he's right</b>. The fact of the matter is if a game scales with skill there is going to be a gap between newer players and the experienced. Small gap means there is less to learn, and will more than likely cause the game to get boring quicker. Smaller the gap the less room to improve one's game: fact.
Skill gap is also probably why I played through mirror's edge so many times (and it was singleplayer); there were many ways to go about jumping between buildings running on walls etc, but it took a lot of practice to get good at. If the game had less movement mechanics and was just run and jump across building without all the extra movement skills/freedom, I would have probably only played through once and moved on. I could go on and on about this but unfortunately it just doesn't seem to register with some (who probably won't play this game long either).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The whole point of mirrors edge was the jumping... (Parkour) If you remove the jumping, in a game thats about jumping it kinda gets boring - what a suprise. :P
The smaller the gap the less to improve... ever seen(e.g.) formula 1 races? No matter how small a gap is - there is a gap - and the smaller it is, the more important skill gets.
What i want to say: IT doesnt really matter if a gap is big or small - your argument isnt true. Its just harder to improve if a gap is smaller.
<!--quoteo(post=1857080:date=Jun 29 2011, 04:22 AM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jiriki @ Jun 29 2011, 04:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857080"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Scientists don't bother to correct all the armchair DIY climate scientists either, guess why. I don't take medical advice from amateurs either, and I don't bother with their "arguments". Call that unintelligent if you want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But you did bother. You bothered with a response, and it was a needlessly rude one.
And that was my point. You are rude, and it makes me, and likely others, unwilling to listen to you.
EDIT: But hey, you only seem to value ELITE individuals, so not sure why I'm surprised.
I swear to god, its like reading the same exact thread in a different forum of a different game...years ago.
I played MechWarrior 4 in leagues for about 8 years. It never ceased to amaze me how guys who I played with and against competitively for years could be so fcking clueless about the game. Old league vet =! always right
If you have been keeping up with the ModDB awards you are probably familiar with MechWarrior: Living Legends (crysis mod). Many of the MW4 players migrated to that game. Just like here, many of the old MW4 league guys were telling all the new guys how they have no clue what they are talking, they don't know what makes the game good and that they don't know what they missed in the 'good ole game'. However its a totally different game, requiring a completely new set of skills to be good at it. However that didn't stop some of the MW4 players from making threads claiming that without mechVmech only gameplay, "hill humping" and "jump sniping" the game is not good and devoid of skill. Sound familiar? Same ######, different game. Of course they would be pissed. Skills they were good at and found fun suddenly became meaningless. I am always constantly playing different games, so it didn't really bother me. Be willing to learn a new set of skills for a new game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You bothered with a response, and it was a needlessly rude one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you were a climate scientist and you see politically motivated pesudoscience done by amateurs, how can you tell them to "stfu" without being rude. Sure you can use emoticons and tone down the rhetoric but it does not change the underlying message. Usually you can just ignore them but not always.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->EDIT: But hey, you only seem to value ELITE individuals, so not sure why I'm surprised.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I value professional opinion in medicine and that has nothing to do with "elite individuals".
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What i want to say: IT doesnt really matter if a gap is big or small - your argument isnt true. Its just harder to improve if a gap is smaller.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, your argument is not true. A game where a person could only aim has less to improve than a game which has aiming and movement, and gets boring really fast. A game that has skill-based movement, tactics and aiming has a lot of room to improve. Your argument is like saying "if we make all F1 race tracks straight road, the gap is smaller but the skill exists, it just is harder to improve!". Needless to say in such F1 tracks the skill gap between the top driver and casual driver would be nothing compared to a real F1 track.
And yes, skill gap matters. If I could pick up tennis (again) and win a round against Federer, the game would definitely be very skill-limited because if the skill gap between a noob and professional were that small, it would be a very boring sport without much room to improve.
At the current state of the game, how can one seriously talk about skill gaps? Most people haven't been able to play the game before the last patch and still the gameplay for many, many players is barely playable at best. Also the game isn't even feature complete and we are alreay (or better: still) talking about "skill" and "skill gaps"? Seriously?
<!--quoteo(post=1857285:date=Jun 30 2011, 11:35 AM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jiriki @ Jun 30 2011, 11:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857285"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your argument is like saying "if we make all F1 race tracks straight road, the gap is smaller but the skill exists, it just is harder to improve!". Needless to say in such F1 tracks the skill gap between the top driver and casual driver would be nothing compared to a real F1 track.
And yes, skill gap matters. If I could pick up tennis (again) and win a round against Federer, the game would definitely be very skill-limited because if the skill gap between a noob and professional were that small, it would be a very boring sport without much room to improve.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ns2 is NOT ns1 without bhop - much more changed. (groundbreaking changes)
Look, i play lots of games and switch a bit around from time to time - i never stick to only one game, i adapt to new games and dont demand them all to copycat e.g quake - maybe you should try that too.
Bhop wont decide if a game gets boring quick, or if the skill gap is too small. By your logic every fps game is crap and not interessting for competition in the last 5-10years, and thats NOT true.
PS: look at other genres, DotA vs. League of Legends vs. Heroes of Newerth... In LoL they removed denys(more than compareable to no bhop in ns2), creep blocking and a lot more - there is still a huge skill gap, and its more played than 1:1 DotA copycat HoN. (i guess more than dota too)
Even tho a lot dota pros said LoL wont be as skillfull and good. (=> a lot changed to hon, and after they realized they were wrong to LoL)
<!--quoteo(post=1857307:date=Jun 30 2011, 07:48 AM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Jun 30 2011, 07:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857307"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Im getting bored, you are ignorant and dont want to understand.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The irony of this is unbearable.
<!--quoteo(post=1857312:date=Jun 30 2011, 04:13 PM:name=Lazer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lazer @ Jun 30 2011, 04:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857312"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The irony of this is unbearable.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If arguing against bhopping as a required feature for "skill based gaming" is being willfully ignorant then I guess I am too. And he's right it is getting boring. Frankly, the "pro" arguments are just many different ways to say the same thing: learning to exploit a glitch is pro, if you don't like the glitch you must be a noob.
The arrogance of comparing oneself to a scientist while people disagreeing are by default uninformed rabble is just astounding. If some jaded self-styled "pros" need to feel elite because they know how to exploit some glitch that the noobs don't know about, well frankly I can do without them in the community.
If the game gets to be as good as NS1 was, there'll be plenty more to take their place.
<!--quoteo(post=1857285:date=Jun 30 2011, 05:35 AM:name=Jiriki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jiriki @ Jun 30 2011, 05:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857285"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you were a climate scientist and you see politically motivated pesudoscience done by amateurs, how can you tell them to "stfu" without being rude. Sure you can use emoticons and tone down the rhetoric but it does not change the underlying message. Usually you can just ignore them but not always.
I value professional opinion in medicine and that has nothing to do with "elite individuals".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You aren't a climate scientist, and these people aren't amateurish politically motivated pseudo-scientists. This isn't medicine. They aren't trained professionals educated by some standardized institution.
Even if you are and they were, it doesn't make you any less of an ass by being incapable of carrying out a civil and objective discussion. You can't tell people to STFU without being rude because IT IS rude. If you're incapable of showing respect regardless of an individuals status, then you are a sad individual. And that isn't a stab at you.
I'm done with this. This thread's been dead for months.
<!--quoteo(post=1857291:date=Jun 30 2011, 05:56 AM:name=gorge.ous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gorge.ous @ Jun 30 2011, 05:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857291"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At the current state of the game, how can one seriously talk about skill gaps? Most people haven't been able to play the game before the last patch and still the gameplay for many, many players is barely playable at best. Also the game isn't even feature complete and we are alreay (or better: still) talking about "skill" and "skill gaps"? Seriously?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats what I was getting at. Some people [want to] believe that skills from NS do and/or should translate near perfectly for NS2. And if they don't..the game sucks and is worse off for it. I saw the same exact haughty talk in the MWLL forums.
<!--quoteo(post=1857324:date=Jun 30 2011, 09:07 AM:name=marsvin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (marsvin @ Jun 30 2011, 09:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857324"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->learning to exploit a glitch is pro, if you don't like the glitch you must be a noob.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's already been established that once the hl dev's were aware of this and left it in the game, it became an intended behavior. Anyways, I don't even mind the current movement that much since it still allows for this:
Not the most thoughfully structured post, but whatever. Try to hang on.
<!--quoteo(post=1857330:date=Jun 30 2011, 04:02 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 30 2011, 04:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857330"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thats what I was getting at. Some people [want to] believe that skills from NS do and/or should translate near perfectly for NS2. And if they don't..the game sucks and is worse off for it. I saw the same exact haughty talk in the MWLL forums.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've said this quite a few times before, but I think a notable share of this is that most NS veterans want people to understand what made them love NS1 so much. It's not easy to walk away from a discussion where you're trying to explain things that you've spend years learning and enjoying and someone shrugs them off by saying 'its just an exploit' and pretends it has nothing to learn or discuss about.
I'm quite fine with NS2 taking different direction than NS1 did, but I don't like the idea that it would do it because of misinformation or ignorance - I'd much rather like to see NS2 doing it due to a well thought out decision, even if it doesn't favour me.
As silly as it feels and sounds, I think for me the biggest reason to even try to argue with these things is that I don't want people to go thinking that some modern CoD system is the only option of doing things for the future game generations. Future gaming is going to be very boring if everyone stops thinking about the more controversial system with both huge issues and gains. Things like that are not for everyone but I'd really like keep people aware that such systems exists and that the systems may be something that ends up providing the very defining moments of someone's gaming.
So yeah: Long story short: NS1 movement system is the thing I've enjoyed most in my 10+ years of FPS history. I'd really like to see people trying and approaching both the possibilities and negative effects of it with open mind rather than reading a forum post here and judging it to be some completely useless piece of junk. Even if it's not for NS2, it's a thing of wonder on it's own and should not be forgotten as some outdated phase in gaming history.
CoD isn't going to be the standard for all of time, someone will find a better one, then every game in the universe will use it, and then it will become cliched, and then someone will invent a better one, repeat ad nauseum.
I played quake 3, and loved it, I played halo, and loved it, I played modern warfare, and loved it. The interesting thing is that I can't go back and play quake 3 any more, because now it seems very mediocre. I can enjoy halo but I prefer modern warfare. Gaming is appealing to a wider and wider audience, and I think the reason for that is that most of them don't want quake 3 style games. Good games are ones which find new ways to appeal to people, running around shooting people is a very limited experience, modern games try to incorporate that with things like storytelling and immersive graphics. It becomes more about being an experience rather than a game.
This sort of thing is key to keeping games as an industry afloat, finding ways to make it appeal to new people, so when someone says 'Quake 3 was perfect I don't want anything to change' I find it difficult not to be reminded of old people complaining that being bombed into oblivion by the germans during world war 2 was better than modern society where the government gives them money for being old.
I remember playing metal gear solid on the playstation when I was little and it was the absolute best thing ever in my life. Everything seems better when you're younger. You're twenty-something, most games are still being made for people between 15 and 17. That's why you don't like modern games, and also why you should support a departure from old ideas and embrace things which expand the industry and theory of games to appeal to more people, because you're one of the people who need appealing to.
Appealing to more and more people by appealing to no one in particular doesn't mean you have a good product. Modern Warfare is a prime example of this. Ya I played for a few months, but the crowd it attracts just sucks. Every time I ever mentioned counter-strike no one would even know what I was talking about. These aren't gamers, they're blind consumers who happen to play video games and buy what gets the most advertising. You want to attract these people in here there's so many other things that need to be thought about first other than if a well-skilled skulk can hop semi-evasively. I just don't ever see that being the deal-breaker.
Anyway now that I've figured out the spark variation of strafe jumping all's good.
The UWE mission statement is to 'unite the world through play'. Initially I thought that was just stupid idealist rubbish, but I actually think it applies rather nicely here, although likely for different reasons.
I have no tolerance for elitism, saying that people who view gaming as a fun, but ultimately small part of their lives aren't 'real gamers' and should not get games made for them is short sighted and nauseatingly egotistical.
If you want to make games, for any reason, you need to make money, if you want to make money, you need to find someone to buy your stuff, if you want to find someone to buy your stuff, you should probably aim it at somebody other than the very small but very noisy group of people who hate everything and everyone new when it comes to gaming.
Good modern games appeal to everyone, or try to, that's why they sell so many copies. That people only play them for a few months and then buy the next one probably suggests that most people don't really want to play the same game over and over for ten years, I know I certainly don't. Change is refreshing, even if I really like a game I will still play something else after a few days of it, because I and most other people in the world like variety.
It doesn't matter if you remade quake 3 perfectly with lovely new graphics, most people in the world would not care to play it for more than a month or two, because most people just don't care about games that much. Most people in the world work for a living, most people in the world have friends and families and other things in their lives outside of video games, most people in the world don't have the time or interest to spend devoting their lives to becoming the ultimate starcraft master or whatever, and most people in the world have more money than 12-17 year olds. Or 22-25 year olds who used to be 12-17 year olds nearly a decade ago but haven't moved on.
If gaming is to be inclusive, which I believe I should be, and if it is to be profitable, it needs to start appealing to most people. It needs to be transient, you play it for a while, then you do something else, you can pick it up and play it, and it remains fun even if you play it a lot, but it doesn't exclude you because you don't play it constantly.
If it makes you feel better, I'm sure NS2 will be just as stagnant and full of elitist plebs as NS1 and CS1.6 and TFC and starcraft are in 7-8 years time when everyone else has found a new game.
I don't know how many times this has to be gone over, but as many brilliant people in this thread have stated a better game would be one with the potential to skill climb throughout the player's experience. This includes strategy evolution on a finite number of maps throughout gameplay, and skill based movement.
Comments
Yes, there's a difference between for example between mu or tjosan who have both played at high level and these random gamers, making claims about this game and quoting other baddies in signatures even. The difference between them and other people is that they know what they are talking about. It is like Nada vs your-random-guy-from-silver-ladder talking about Starcraft. These random guys plague youtube comments, blizzard forums and whatever but they all make horrible game analysis.
<!--QuoteBegin-KuBan+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KuBan)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, attacking the individuals making the claims instead of invalidating the claims themselves does not make you look intelligent. In fact...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Scientists don't bother to correct all the armchair DIY climate scientists either, guess why. I don't take medical advice from amateurs either, and I don't bother with their "arguments". Call that unintelligent if you want.
To clarify at least my viewpoint:
A silver ladder guy has every right and even should post his viewpoint, but it would be extremely good if he kept in mind that there are levels above silver. "It doesn't work on my level of play" and even "It's not fun for me" are just fine and very valid argument. Then we can start figuring out what would work and ect. Sunshine and happiness.
However, when the silver ladder guy starts yelling over NaDa about Starcraft high level strategies and such it gets pretty sad. NaDa gets frustrated because all the discussion effort goes into correcting false statements, arguing over most ridiculous things, dodging strawmen and ect. NaDa feels like he can't contribute the slightest bit and quits the forums.
That's roughly what you see on the Internet forums. I don't know if there's any way to completely avoid it, but I'd certainly like to try it whenever possible.
Edit: And by no means people should stop questionizing stuff or start pampering anyone. It's more about respecting posters a bit and not directly proceeding to make ridiculously bold statements over things that someone has spent years learning and mastering.
Skill = training =! talent, dont use it as if its some kind of god given magic powers.
Just because something is not as complex doesnt make it less strategic/good whatever. All it does is smaller the huge gap between newbies and masters at first - since you dont have to spend many hours to learn and memorize only the basics... (like you have in sc2)
Removing bhop doesnt make the game scale less with skill, it only shifts the skill to other aspects of the game.
Lets take css, doesnt have bhop - is it now a skill-limited game?
It shifted. Ppl had to focus more on better tactics, positioning and reaction - and it is still one of the top competitive games.
Skill gap is also probably why I played through mirror's edge so many times (and it was singleplayer); there were many ways to go about jumping between buildings running on walls etc, but it took a lot of practice to get good at. If the game had less movement mechanics and was just run and jump across building without all the extra movement skills/freedom, I would have probably only played through once and moved on. I could go on and on about this but unfortunately it just doesn't seem to register with some (who probably won't play this game long either).
If a game is difficult to learn, it's badly designed, good design emphasises making things easy to learn without compromising depth, this is evident in all the best games. Mario for example has a pretty simple control scheme, you jump, run, and shoot fireballs. Astonishingly you can extend that pretty simple move set to make a variety of levels, each of which is difficult and challenging in its own way. Any idiot can figure out how to play it, but it is very difficult to play well, and playing it a lot will steadily increase your ability to play it well. At the same time however, the game does not require you to be perfect, it has a skill cap, because most people in the world don't have any interest in perfecting their ability to play a game.
Of course in multiplayer games, you can't control that, you can't just make the platforms a bit wider to accomodate less than exact jumpers, if you pit players against each other in a contest of pure skill, you will end up with people who perfect their game, not many of them, but some of them, and when they are introduced into the general population, the result is annoying. You get a few people making the game unplayable hard for the rest of the people on the server, and that is not good. A few players are not more valuable than many players, it does not make sense to allow the game to impede the enjoyment of many players for the sake of a few.
So, you introduce skill caps in other ways. You add weapons with limited mechanical performance, guns that simply cannot shoot above a certain degree of accuracy. You add speed limits, so players cannot move fast enough to be unhittable, you add building restrictions, so that people cannot use knowledge of exploits to place disproportionately difficult to remove buildings in some parts of the map. And perhaps most of all, you abide by easy to learn, hard to master. You make sure everyone that picks the game up very quickly learns everything there is to learn about the game, so that the only thing they need to work on is their execution. Combine that with limits to how good any one person can be, and you shift the game from being reliant on a few exceptional players in any given match, to relying on all of its players. If one person cannot carry the team, and every player knows what to do, you will win based on numbers, team coordination, strategy, all sorts of team-related elements. Ultimately, this ensures that more people can enjoy the game, and does not make the game 'less skilled', it instead forces everyone in the game to develop their skills in more areas and encourages new players to participate, lending their skills to the game as a whole.
I don't want to ruin your fun, why are you so keen to ruin fun from players who enjoy competition (one could argue that whole point of mp gaming is competition)? You can have "immersion" and still have bunnyhop in same game.
I don't want to ruin your fun, why are you so keen to ruin fun from players who enjoy competition (one could argue that whole point of mp gaming is competition)? You can have "immersion" and still have bunnyhop in same game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Your point about choosing where you play is valid, but Online Services features such as integrated server tiering based on player stats are much less likely to happen in NS2. First and foremost they are divisive, which is not what you want for an indie multiplayer launch where your initial playerbase may not be large enough to survive a forced hardcore/casual/beginner split. Secondly Online Services beyond the most basic of features are a luxury that most indie teams don't have the budget to justify.
Skill gap is also probably why I played through mirror's edge so many times (and it was singleplayer); there were many ways to go about jumping between buildings running on walls etc, but it took a lot of practice to get good at. If the game had less movement mechanics and was just run and jump across building without all the extra movement skills/freedom, I would have probably only played through once and moved on. I could go on and on about this but unfortunately it just doesn't seem to register with some (who probably won't play this game long either).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The whole point of mirrors edge was the jumping... (Parkour) If you remove the jumping, in a game thats about jumping it kinda gets boring - what a suprise. :P
The smaller the gap the less to improve... ever seen(e.g.) formula 1 races? No matter how small a gap is - there is a gap - and the smaller it is, the more important skill gets.
What i want to say: IT doesnt really matter if a gap is big or small - your argument isnt true. Its just harder to improve if a gap is smaller.
But you did bother. You bothered with a response, and it was a needlessly rude one.
And that was my point. You are rude, and it makes me, and likely others, unwilling to listen to you.
EDIT: But hey, you only seem to value ELITE individuals, so not sure why I'm surprised.
I played MechWarrior 4 in leagues for about 8 years. It never ceased to amaze me how guys who I played with and against competitively for years could be so fcking clueless about the game. Old league vet =! always right
If you have been keeping up with the ModDB awards you are probably familiar with MechWarrior: Living Legends (crysis mod). Many of the MW4 players migrated to that game. Just like here, many of the old MW4 league guys were telling all the new guys how they have no clue what they are talking, they don't know what makes the game good and that they don't know what they missed in the 'good ole game'. However its a totally different game, requiring a completely new set of skills to be good at it. However that didn't stop some of the MW4 players from making threads claiming that without mechVmech only gameplay, "hill humping" and "jump sniping" the game is not good and devoid of skill. Sound familiar? Same ######, different game. Of course they would be pissed. Skills they were good at and found fun suddenly became meaningless. I am always constantly playing different games, so it didn't really bother me. Be willing to learn a new set of skills for a new game.
I think there is nothing more<b> fear inducing</b> then seeing a fade or pair of skulks and having to turn your back to them to run to safety!
If you were a climate scientist and you see politically motivated pesudoscience done by amateurs, how can you tell them to "stfu" without being rude. Sure you can use emoticons and tone down the rhetoric but it does not change the underlying message. Usually you can just ignore them but not always.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->EDIT: But hey, you only seem to value ELITE individuals, so not sure why I'm surprised.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I value professional opinion in medicine and that has nothing to do with "elite individuals".
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What i want to say: IT doesnt really matter if a gap is big or small - your argument isnt true. Its just harder to improve if a gap is smaller.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, your argument is not true. A game where a person could only aim has less to improve than a game which has aiming and movement, and gets boring really fast. A game that has skill-based movement, tactics and aiming has a lot of room to improve. Your argument is like saying "if we make all F1 race tracks straight road, the gap is smaller but the skill exists, it just is harder to improve!". Needless to say in such F1 tracks the skill gap between the top driver and casual driver would be nothing compared to a real F1 track.
And yes, skill gap matters. If I could pick up tennis (again) and win a round against Federer, the game would definitely be very skill-limited because if the skill gap between a noob and professional were that small, it would be a very boring sport without much room to improve.
Most people haven't been able to play the game before the last patch and still the gameplay for many, many players is barely playable at best.
Also the game isn't even feature complete and we are alreay (or better: still) talking about "skill" and "skill gaps"? Seriously?
And yes, skill gap matters. If I could pick up tennis (again) and win a round against Federer, the game would definitely be very skill-limited because if the skill gap between a noob and professional were that small, it would be a very boring sport without much room to improve.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ns2 is NOT ns1 without bhop - much more changed. (groundbreaking changes)
Look, i play lots of games and switch a bit around from time to time - i never stick to only one game, i adapt to new games and dont demand them all to copycat e.g quake - maybe you should try that too.
Bhop wont decide if a game gets boring quick, or if the skill gap is too small. By your logic every fps game is crap and not interessting for competition in the last 5-10years, and thats NOT true.
PS: look at other genres, DotA vs. League of Legends vs. Heroes of Newerth... In LoL they removed denys(more than compareable to no bhop in ns2), creep blocking and a lot more - there is still a huge skill gap, and its more played than 1:1 DotA copycat HoN. (i guess more than dota too)
Even tho a lot dota pros said LoL wont be as skillfull and good. (=> a lot changed to hon, and after they realized they were wrong to LoL)
The irony of this is unbearable.
edit: removed it, maybe you can bear it now? (i dont want you to cut yourself :,( )
PS: @ iept It was, but i gave up. Flow with the OT crowd.
If arguing against bhopping as a required feature for "skill based gaming" is being willfully ignorant then I guess I am too. And he's right it is getting boring. Frankly, the "pro" arguments are just many different ways to say the same thing: learning to exploit a glitch is pro, if you don't like the glitch you must be a noob.
The arrogance of comparing oneself to a scientist while people disagreeing are by default uninformed rabble is just astounding. If some jaded self-styled "pros" need to feel elite because they know how to exploit some glitch that the noobs don't know about, well frankly I can do without them in the community.
If the game gets to be as good as NS1 was, there'll be plenty more to take their place.
I value professional opinion in medicine and that has nothing to do with "elite individuals".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You aren't a climate scientist, and these people aren't amateurish politically motivated pseudo-scientists. This isn't medicine. They aren't trained professionals educated by some standardized institution.
Even if you are and they were, it doesn't make you any less of an ass by being incapable of carrying out a civil and objective discussion. You can't tell people to STFU without being rude because IT IS rude. If you're incapable of showing respect regardless of an individuals status, then you are a sad individual. And that isn't a stab at you.
I'm done with this. This thread's been dead for months.
Most people haven't been able to play the game before the last patch and still the gameplay for many, many players is barely playable at best.
Also the game isn't even feature complete and we are alreay (or better: still) talking about "skill" and "skill gaps"? Seriously?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats what I was getting at. Some people [want to] believe that skills from NS do and/or should translate near perfectly for NS2. And if they don't..the game sucks and is worse off for it. I saw the same exact haughty talk in the MWLL forums.
It's already been established that once the hl dev's were aware of this and left it in the game, it became an intended behavior. Anyways, I don't even mind the current movement that much since it still allows for this:
<center><object width="450" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LDGM623Fbe0"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LDGM623Fbe0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="356"></embed></object></center>
Now just wishing for mwheeldown +jump back :)
<!--quoteo(post=1857330:date=Jun 30 2011, 04:02 PM:name=OutlawDr)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (OutlawDr @ Jun 30 2011, 04:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1857330"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thats what I was getting at. Some people [want to] believe that skills from NS do and/or should translate near perfectly for NS2. And if they don't..the game sucks and is worse off for it. I saw the same exact haughty talk in the MWLL forums.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've said this quite a few times before, but I think a notable share of this is that most NS veterans want people to understand what made them love NS1 so much. It's not easy to walk away from a discussion where you're trying to explain things that you've spend years learning and enjoying and someone shrugs them off by saying 'its just an exploit' and pretends it has nothing to learn or discuss about.
I'm quite fine with NS2 taking different direction than NS1 did, but I don't like the idea that it would do it because of misinformation or ignorance - I'd much rather like to see NS2 doing it due to a well thought out decision, even if it doesn't favour me.
As silly as it feels and sounds, I think for me the biggest reason to even try to argue with these things is that I don't want people to go thinking that some modern CoD system is the only option of doing things for the future game generations. Future gaming is going to be very boring if everyone stops thinking about the more controversial system with both huge issues and gains. Things like that are not for everyone but I'd really like keep people aware that such systems exists and that the systems may be something that ends up providing the very defining moments of someone's gaming.
So yeah: Long story short: NS1 movement system is the thing I've enjoyed most in my 10+ years of FPS history. I'd really like to see people trying and approaching both the possibilities and negative effects of it with open mind rather than reading a forum post here and judging it to be some completely useless piece of junk. Even if it's not for NS2, it's a thing of wonder on it's own and should not be forgotten as some outdated phase in gaming history.
I played quake 3, and loved it, I played halo, and loved it, I played modern warfare, and loved it. The interesting thing is that I can't go back and play quake 3 any more, because now it seems very mediocre. I can enjoy halo but I prefer modern warfare. Gaming is appealing to a wider and wider audience, and I think the reason for that is that most of them don't want quake 3 style games. Good games are ones which find new ways to appeal to people, running around shooting people is a very limited experience, modern games try to incorporate that with things like storytelling and immersive graphics. It becomes more about being an experience rather than a game.
This sort of thing is key to keeping games as an industry afloat, finding ways to make it appeal to new people, so when someone says 'Quake 3 was perfect I don't want anything to change' I find it difficult not to be reminded of old people complaining that being bombed into oblivion by the germans during world war 2 was better than modern society where the government gives them money for being old.
I remember playing metal gear solid on the playstation when I was little and it was the absolute best thing ever in my life. Everything seems better when you're younger. You're twenty-something, most games are still being made for people between 15 and 17. That's why you don't like modern games, and also why you should support a departure from old ideas and embrace things which expand the industry and theory of games to appeal to more people, because you're one of the people who need appealing to.
This thread gets better...
Anyway now that I've figured out the spark variation of strafe jumping all's good.
I have no tolerance for elitism, saying that people who view gaming as a fun, but ultimately small part of their lives aren't 'real gamers' and should not get games made for them is short sighted and nauseatingly egotistical.
If you want to make games, for any reason, you need to make money, if you want to make money, you need to find someone to buy your stuff, if you want to find someone to buy your stuff, you should probably aim it at somebody other than the very small but very noisy group of people who hate everything and everyone new when it comes to gaming.
Good modern games appeal to everyone, or try to, that's why they sell so many copies. That people only play them for a few months and then buy the next one probably suggests that most people don't really want to play the same game over and over for ten years, I know I certainly don't. Change is refreshing, even if I really like a game I will still play something else after a few days of it, because I and most other people in the world like variety.
It doesn't matter if you remade quake 3 perfectly with lovely new graphics, most people in the world would not care to play it for more than a month or two, because most people just don't care about games that much. Most people in the world work for a living, most people in the world have friends and families and other things in their lives outside of video games, most people in the world don't have the time or interest to spend devoting their lives to becoming the ultimate starcraft master or whatever, and most people in the world have more money than 12-17 year olds. Or 22-25 year olds who used to be 12-17 year olds nearly a decade ago but haven't moved on.
If gaming is to be inclusive, which I believe I should be, and if it is to be profitable, it needs to start appealing to most people. It needs to be transient, you play it for a while, then you do something else, you can pick it up and play it, and it remains fun even if you play it a lot, but it doesn't exclude you because you don't play it constantly.
If it makes you feel better, I'm sure NS2 will be just as stagnant and full of elitist plebs as NS1 and CS1.6 and TFC and starcraft are in 7-8 years time when everyone else has found a new game.