I agree with what he's saying, though. We sorta touched on this in one of the lerk threads - the design of the spores is so limited that it simply isn't fun or interesting after using it for a while (because it's always the same low-skill activity). There are so many mechanics in modern games like this, and NS2 is no exception...
To me, it's just an unfortunate trend that comes along with games reaching a mass audience and gaining acceptance from new groups of people. My hope is that developers can start making games that are easy to get into (from designing them with behavioural psychology in mind), but still have the potential to be fun weeks, months and years later. Right now this isn't the norm, because as TrC mentioned, lots of games give the illusion of choice/strategy/teamplay/skill by design. A lot of people think they're "skilled" at world of warcraft because they invested the time to click a lot and get to level 999 or whatever - are they confused or am I?
Every discussion tilts toward this "no, aim/movement aren't as important as teamplay" versus "aim and movement are important" stuff, because players for whatever reason don't have a 'full game' perspective - aim, movement, communication, strategy and so on <b>are all important</b>. The game just de-emphasizes some of them with things like fully opaque spores, slow skulks and so on. Before you post that an activity in the game isn't important or somebody should not care about it, carefully consider what you're saying and whether you've actually tried to see things from the other side..
Lots of good points here. As a note, I decreased my resolution and things work much better. However, both sides still feel like they have bags of potatoes strapped to their back. Movement feels... awkward. Not crisp... leap is definitely nerfed.
I think NS1 was great because it took an engine that had been fined tuned for performance in mods like CS, and then implemented awesome team play on top of it. People that were experienced with other mods of the time didn't care how hard the game was because CS was already damn hard. Ultimately, I think being able to reach your full potential as a marine or a skulk is more important than team work. In NS1 there seemed to be three classes of players. The first who were the ones that had all the kills. These were the pro fades and shooters. The second were average players. The third were back up players that seem happier just being gorge and letting the game play out with out trying too hard. They'd bite res nodes and build stuff. I'd reckon it was a 10%/50%/40% split. And you really needed that division of players to have an effective team.
Now i forgotten what my original point was. doh. Anyways, it's a fun game.
One point I do find that bothers me is that I can't tell when a skulk lands a bite on me. I have to look at my health. In NS1 there is a knock back or a screen twitch or something.
If I was the DEVs I'd perfect marine with rifle vs. skulk combat first since this is 90% of play time.
I love all these rosy colored looks into the past.
Don't get me wrong NS1 WAS great and I loved playing it.
But HL1 was NOT NOT NOT a well worked networked engine out of the box. It took years of TFC and CS players screaming at Valve before it became a solid reliable network game platform. Playing NS1 during this waiting period was fantastic primarily because of the newness.
And the NS1 community was incredibly elitist and offensive at times. NS1 you could wait patiently for a shotgun only to have someone else pick it up. NS1 was primarily coordinated through voice and based on people knowing the maps. If you didn't you were a newb and sucked ass.
I agree with who followed the OP that skill will show MORE when the gameplay becomes smoother and crisper (PERFORMANCE) It is hard to discern who has better aim when everyone swims in oatmeal.
In NS2 I see far more skulks climbing the walls than in NS1. It looks so cool. In NS2 I see Marines run away from skulks simply because they are bigger than rats. In NS2 flying as lerk or a jetpack is less of mystery and more simple. In NS2 being a fade or onos is easier. In NS2 a commander can order a team to victory without saying a word (which is good because alot of RTS players are the strong silent type)
Skill is more than just twitch It is aim. It is ammo conservation. (don't you just laugh at the marines that hold the trigger) It is learning to be patient or impatient based on the situation.
The lower barrier of entry does not prevent skill...it means a larger player base. i am not saying it is all roses ...but it is better than NS1
and as performance improves and the engine tightens it will become a better experience for all. you will see the skill levels more when it is smoother for all.
They have a game for this, it's called Counter-Strike: Source and its much cheaper than NS2.
It appears as though you want to win games not because you controlled resources or had a great strategic/hardfought win, but becauuse you had 60 kills and 0 deaths. That is (hopefully) NEVER going to be Natural Selection.
Also not sure what this word "athleticism" means when applied to videogames lol
<!--quoteo(post=1922510:date=Apr 6 2012, 08:54 AM:name=Tinker)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tinker @ Apr 6 2012, 08:54 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1922510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->First off I see people go 30-4 and crazier scored as marine or fade almost every day. So obviously people have found that skill, perhaps you need to practice more?
I also hear "whaaa I can't go 50-1 and own everyone by myself this game isn't skill based." Perhaps instead of focusing solely on twitch skills to win you should practice some of the more interesting skills NS 1 & 2 requires...the skill that differentiates it from lesser games. Those skills would be Teamplay and Communication, that's where NS shines for a good portion of the community.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
"If you can't say something nice, say nothing at all!"
To me, it's just an unfortunate trend that comes along with games reaching a mass audience and gaining acceptance from new groups of people. My hope is that developers can start making games that are easy to get into (from designing them with behavioural psychology in mind), but still have the potential to be fun weeks, months and years later. Right now this isn't the norm, because as TrC mentioned, lots of games give the illusion of choice/strategy/teamplay/skill by design. A lot of people think they're "skilled" at world of warcraft because they invested the time to click a lot and get to level 999 or whatever - are they confused or am I?
Every discussion tilts toward this "no, aim/movement aren't as important as teamplay" versus "aim and movement are important" stuff, because players for whatever reason don't have a 'full game' perspective - aim, movement, communication, strategy and so on <b>are all important</b>. The game just de-emphasizes some of them with things like fully opaque spores, slow skulks and so on. Before you post that an activity in the game isn't important or somebody should not care about it, carefully consider what you're saying and whether you've actually tried to see things from the other side..
I think NS1 was great because it took an engine that had been fined tuned for performance in mods like CS, and then implemented awesome team play on top of it. People that were experienced with other mods of the time didn't care how hard the game was because CS was already damn hard. Ultimately, I think being able to reach your full potential as a marine or a skulk is more important than team work. In NS1 there seemed to be three classes of players. The first who were the ones that had all the kills. These were the pro fades and shooters. The second were average players. The third were back up players that seem happier just being gorge and letting the game play out with out trying too hard. They'd bite res nodes and build stuff. I'd reckon it was a 10%/50%/40% split. And you really needed that division of players to have an effective team.
Now i forgotten what my original point was. doh. Anyways, it's a fun game.
One point I do find that bothers me is that I can't tell when a skulk lands a bite on me. I have to look at my health. In NS1 there is a knock back or a screen twitch or something.
If I was the DEVs I'd perfect marine with rifle vs. skulk combat first since this is 90% of play time.
Don't get me wrong NS1 WAS great and I loved playing it.
But HL1 was NOT NOT NOT a well worked networked engine out of the box.
It took years of TFC and CS players screaming at Valve before it became a solid reliable network game platform.
Playing NS1 during this waiting period was fantastic primarily because of the newness.
And the NS1 community was incredibly elitist and offensive at times.
NS1 you could wait patiently for a shotgun only to have someone else pick it up.
NS1 was primarily coordinated through voice and based on people knowing the maps.
If you didn't you were a newb and sucked ass.
I agree with who followed the OP that skill will show MORE when the gameplay becomes smoother and crisper
(PERFORMANCE)
It is hard to discern who has better aim when everyone swims in oatmeal.
In NS2 I see far more skulks climbing the walls than in NS1. It looks so cool.
In NS2 I see Marines run away from skulks simply because they are bigger than rats.
In NS2 flying as lerk or a jetpack is less of mystery and more simple.
In NS2 being a fade or onos is easier.
In NS2 a commander can order a team to victory without saying a word (which is good because alot of RTS players are the strong silent type)
Skill is more than just twitch
It is aim.
It is ammo conservation. (don't you just laugh at the marines that hold the trigger)
It is learning to be patient or impatient based on the situation.
The lower barrier of entry does not prevent skill...it means a larger player base.
i am not saying it is all roses ...but it is better than NS1
and as performance improves and the engine tightens it will become a better experience for all.
you will see the skill levels more when it is smoother for all.
It appears as though you want to win games not because you controlled resources or had a great strategic/hardfought win, but becauuse you had 60 kills and 0 deaths. That is (hopefully) NEVER going to be Natural Selection.
Also not sure what this word "athleticism" means when applied to videogames lol
I also hear "whaaa I can't go 50-1 and own everyone by myself this game isn't skill based." Perhaps instead of focusing solely on twitch skills to win you should practice some of the more interesting skills NS 1 & 2 requires...the skill that differentiates it from lesser games. Those skills would be Teamplay and Communication, that's where NS shines for a good portion of the community.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This.