My Impressions of an Awesome Game
buffaloburger
Join Date: 2012-11-28 Member: 173530Members
Join Date: 2012-11-28 Member: 173530Members
Hello everyone.
I recently picked up Natural Selection 2. I had not so much as heard of natural selection until I saw a steam ad advertising NS2. Seeing it was an asymmetrical rts/fps, I became interested. I had played a ton of Savage, and while its gameplay wasn't all that "tight" the concept of rts/fps made for incredible competitive multiplayer experiences. Thus I decided to pick up NS2, and I am extremely glad I did.
First a little about me as a gamer, as I consider a reference point important. The absolute number one over anything else aspect about a quality video game to me is the gameplay. Things like impressive graphics, stat tracking, and storyline are appreciated perks to me. I see games as gameplay, and thus a game can be only as good as its gameplay. I concede that other elements can prove rare exceptions that make a game great, for example; Mass Effect 1 featured rather bad gameplay, yet unique gameplay and some of the best characters and storytelling ever in video games. I do not consider “addictive†gameplay good gameplay. To elaborate, “rewards†for “accomplishing†something in a game are… addictive but potentially detrimental to good gameplay. I see Oblivion and Skyrim frequently worshipped as amazing recent action rpgs, but they have such limited and boring combat in part due to being Open World(the source of the nigh infinite content). I see Open World games as detrimental to gameplay as they limit the ability to structure the combat effectively, or as easily feature direct/construct a great story. This leads me to beleive Dark Souls and The Witcher 2 are superior in the recent action rpg category. They have much deeper gameplay and The Witcher 2 pulls off 2 of 2 for games I could enjoy for their storytelling alone. Examples of games I consider having great gameplay: Starcraft, Unreal Tournament, Super Smash melee (gamecube), vanquish (God Hard mode > you), I recognize Counter Strike and Warcraft 3 to be great but not to my preference, and Diablo II is the most addictive game ever created.
NS2 has some of the best gameplay I have ever experienced. The game is fast. Movement speeds are high and there are numerous movement mechanics. Times to deaths are generally low yet leave enough room for movement to be significant. The overall skill ceiling to this game is HUGE compared to almost all recent games. Skill, strategy, and cooperation all are significant factors of success. Weapons and evolutions all feel unique and have relatively different roles. These factors create a gameplay experience deeper than the vast majority of multiplayer fps I have experienced, let alone recently.
I will compare the general gameplay to that of the multiplayer fps that I considered to have the best gameplay, Unreal Tournament, in order to illustrate what makes for great competitive fps like NS2 is/will eventually be. Unreal Tournament has incredible competitive multiplayer gameplay for several reasons: weapon diversity/balance, high skill ceiling, and a fast pace. On the downside (depending on preference) was a somewhat lesser focus on teamwork. These features went a long way in creating a deep competitive fps. I feel NS2 offers a wide gameplay variety of weapons/movement/utility which contributes to such a deep multiplayer experience.
Weapons are something that UT did perfectly, all weapons were relative side-grades with unique functions that were for certain types of situations and generally behaved differently. These weapons allowed for diverse gameplay options and keep the gameplay dynamic and interesting. Natural Selection has a diverse number of "weapons", by which I mean to include unique combat roles (individual alien life forms, marine weapons, suits, jetpacks, etc.). They are all relative side-grades, as in they excel at certain things/have pros and cons while retaining generally unique mechanics. They offer a wide range of gameplay styles varying in offensive abilities/movement/utility etc.
Considering the core of fps games is killing the opponent, a variety is necessary to keep gameplay fresh (keeping in mind balance). Yet, at least in terms of diverse gameplay, a false variety is useless. I will use Call of Duty games as an example (but it holds true for many fps), most weapons in any and every iteration of multiplayer have the same fundamental function. They are hit scan, and while they may vary slightly in Rate of fire/Damage per shot/reload/ etc. they all remain effectively redundant. Natural Selection's life forms, upgrades, weapons, etc. all offer a real alternate function relative to the others.
A high skill ceiling is a necessary component to a quality competitive fps. Games in which one can reasonably become as good as is possible within the confines of the system do not offer much for real gameplay. Many current multiplayer fps threaten this as they contain hilariously few components that factor into the skill ceiling. One hardly has to worry about more than putting a slow moving target in crosshairs and briefly holding a recoilless fire while minimizing exposure to possible fire and maximizing sight lines on high traffic areas to "own" at most Call of Duty-esque casual FPS. A game like counterstrike features a great skill curve, but I feel the gameplay is only slightly more diverse than the casual level FPS despite being richer somewhat richer in mechanics as most weapons have the same fundamental function, yet there are only several almost undisputable best weapons period, leaving a metagame void of variety. I theorize we see preference toward simple games because they are much more accessible, something NS2 isn't. Factors such as game speed, movement, degree of accuracy necessary, team coordination, strategic/tactical depth all generate a large skill ceiling. Natural selection offers some impressive potential skill ranges, which may prove annoying at times in pubs, but is a key component of great gameplay.
Fast paced games offer the best competitive multiplayer experiences. Speed contributes to the skill ceiling, but it does much more than that. A fast game enhances strategic and tactical elements because one must prioritize actions. This contributes to dynamic gameplay. Of course a game too fast isn’t a good thing. For example, if one has time to perform 5/100 possible and useful actions in a time period or reactions are demanded outside of human reaction times, gameplay can fall apart. Natural selection is fast: commanders can aid the team with well-timed power-ups, movement is generally fast and quite variable necessitating a quick and consistent aim, and when timing windows exist they are generally brief. The speed of the game drives the deep and fairly dynamic gameplay of Natural Selection 2.
Teamwork and coordination are emphasized in Natural Selection 2. I personally am generally not a team player. My strategy in fps multiplayer games is generally to Rambo/flank whenever viable. I have generally avoided team sports and feel massively greater satisfaction from personal victories. Natural Selection proves to be a rare exception for me. The game was clearly designed with teamwork being an essential component to the experience. Sticking with teammates is encouraged, but that is common in many games. A general coordinated strategy is necessary to win a remotely competitive round, while most “team games†I have experienced at most levels of play consist of who can carry the hardest (before I hear people can carry NS2 lobbies, yes a good player makes a huge contribution among the less skilled, but a beastly player can essentially solo most “team†games. Such is not possible in NS2). Teamwork matters in NS2. I find players actually discussing strategy, coordinating with teammates, and providing tactical information mid match in public games. This team work has direct impact and often immediate impact on rounds. I hadn’t realized this was possible in multiplayer fps at less than organized level play.
I do feel Natural Selection is a perfect game yet. However, it features the potential groundwork for what could continue to develop into one hell of a competitive fps game. I sincerely thank all those who worked on this game. I hope you continue with your efforts. For the sake of any who prioritize quality gameplay in their games, do not miss Natural Selection 2.
I recently picked up Natural Selection 2. I had not so much as heard of natural selection until I saw a steam ad advertising NS2. Seeing it was an asymmetrical rts/fps, I became interested. I had played a ton of Savage, and while its gameplay wasn't all that "tight" the concept of rts/fps made for incredible competitive multiplayer experiences. Thus I decided to pick up NS2, and I am extremely glad I did.
First a little about me as a gamer, as I consider a reference point important. The absolute number one over anything else aspect about a quality video game to me is the gameplay. Things like impressive graphics, stat tracking, and storyline are appreciated perks to me. I see games as gameplay, and thus a game can be only as good as its gameplay. I concede that other elements can prove rare exceptions that make a game great, for example; Mass Effect 1 featured rather bad gameplay, yet unique gameplay and some of the best characters and storytelling ever in video games. I do not consider “addictive†gameplay good gameplay. To elaborate, “rewards†for “accomplishing†something in a game are… addictive but potentially detrimental to good gameplay. I see Oblivion and Skyrim frequently worshipped as amazing recent action rpgs, but they have such limited and boring combat in part due to being Open World(the source of the nigh infinite content). I see Open World games as detrimental to gameplay as they limit the ability to structure the combat effectively, or as easily feature direct/construct a great story. This leads me to beleive Dark Souls and The Witcher 2 are superior in the recent action rpg category. They have much deeper gameplay and The Witcher 2 pulls off 2 of 2 for games I could enjoy for their storytelling alone. Examples of games I consider having great gameplay: Starcraft, Unreal Tournament, Super Smash melee (gamecube), vanquish (God Hard mode > you), I recognize Counter Strike and Warcraft 3 to be great but not to my preference, and Diablo II is the most addictive game ever created.
NS2 has some of the best gameplay I have ever experienced. The game is fast. Movement speeds are high and there are numerous movement mechanics. Times to deaths are generally low yet leave enough room for movement to be significant. The overall skill ceiling to this game is HUGE compared to almost all recent games. Skill, strategy, and cooperation all are significant factors of success. Weapons and evolutions all feel unique and have relatively different roles. These factors create a gameplay experience deeper than the vast majority of multiplayer fps I have experienced, let alone recently.
I will compare the general gameplay to that of the multiplayer fps that I considered to have the best gameplay, Unreal Tournament, in order to illustrate what makes for great competitive fps like NS2 is/will eventually be. Unreal Tournament has incredible competitive multiplayer gameplay for several reasons: weapon diversity/balance, high skill ceiling, and a fast pace. On the downside (depending on preference) was a somewhat lesser focus on teamwork. These features went a long way in creating a deep competitive fps. I feel NS2 offers a wide gameplay variety of weapons/movement/utility which contributes to such a deep multiplayer experience.
Weapons are something that UT did perfectly, all weapons were relative side-grades with unique functions that were for certain types of situations and generally behaved differently. These weapons allowed for diverse gameplay options and keep the gameplay dynamic and interesting. Natural Selection has a diverse number of "weapons", by which I mean to include unique combat roles (individual alien life forms, marine weapons, suits, jetpacks, etc.). They are all relative side-grades, as in they excel at certain things/have pros and cons while retaining generally unique mechanics. They offer a wide range of gameplay styles varying in offensive abilities/movement/utility etc.
Considering the core of fps games is killing the opponent, a variety is necessary to keep gameplay fresh (keeping in mind balance). Yet, at least in terms of diverse gameplay, a false variety is useless. I will use Call of Duty games as an example (but it holds true for many fps), most weapons in any and every iteration of multiplayer have the same fundamental function. They are hit scan, and while they may vary slightly in Rate of fire/Damage per shot/reload/ etc. they all remain effectively redundant. Natural Selection's life forms, upgrades, weapons, etc. all offer a real alternate function relative to the others.
A high skill ceiling is a necessary component to a quality competitive fps. Games in which one can reasonably become as good as is possible within the confines of the system do not offer much for real gameplay. Many current multiplayer fps threaten this as they contain hilariously few components that factor into the skill ceiling. One hardly has to worry about more than putting a slow moving target in crosshairs and briefly holding a recoilless fire while minimizing exposure to possible fire and maximizing sight lines on high traffic areas to "own" at most Call of Duty-esque casual FPS. A game like counterstrike features a great skill curve, but I feel the gameplay is only slightly more diverse than the casual level FPS despite being richer somewhat richer in mechanics as most weapons have the same fundamental function, yet there are only several almost undisputable best weapons period, leaving a metagame void of variety. I theorize we see preference toward simple games because they are much more accessible, something NS2 isn't. Factors such as game speed, movement, degree of accuracy necessary, team coordination, strategic/tactical depth all generate a large skill ceiling. Natural selection offers some impressive potential skill ranges, which may prove annoying at times in pubs, but is a key component of great gameplay.
Fast paced games offer the best competitive multiplayer experiences. Speed contributes to the skill ceiling, but it does much more than that. A fast game enhances strategic and tactical elements because one must prioritize actions. This contributes to dynamic gameplay. Of course a game too fast isn’t a good thing. For example, if one has time to perform 5/100 possible and useful actions in a time period or reactions are demanded outside of human reaction times, gameplay can fall apart. Natural selection is fast: commanders can aid the team with well-timed power-ups, movement is generally fast and quite variable necessitating a quick and consistent aim, and when timing windows exist they are generally brief. The speed of the game drives the deep and fairly dynamic gameplay of Natural Selection 2.
Teamwork and coordination are emphasized in Natural Selection 2. I personally am generally not a team player. My strategy in fps multiplayer games is generally to Rambo/flank whenever viable. I have generally avoided team sports and feel massively greater satisfaction from personal victories. Natural Selection proves to be a rare exception for me. The game was clearly designed with teamwork being an essential component to the experience. Sticking with teammates is encouraged, but that is common in many games. A general coordinated strategy is necessary to win a remotely competitive round, while most “team games†I have experienced at most levels of play consist of who can carry the hardest (before I hear people can carry NS2 lobbies, yes a good player makes a huge contribution among the less skilled, but a beastly player can essentially solo most “team†games. Such is not possible in NS2). Teamwork matters in NS2. I find players actually discussing strategy, coordinating with teammates, and providing tactical information mid match in public games. This team work has direct impact and often immediate impact on rounds. I hadn’t realized this was possible in multiplayer fps at less than organized level play.
I do feel Natural Selection is a perfect game yet. However, it features the potential groundwork for what could continue to develop into one hell of a competitive fps game. I sincerely thank all those who worked on this game. I hope you continue with your efforts. For the sake of any who prioritize quality gameplay in their games, do not miss Natural Selection 2.
Comments
But, at least someone "gets" this game. Glad to see another UT fan around these parts. I also like your stance on "false variety," as you put it.
Most people complaining are the elitists who played NS1 for 45 years straight and dislike NS2 because it isn't NS1.
It's new, it needs balance tweaks and optimization but the core is there and its great.