I know this is probably falling into the flame bait and will inevitably turn this post into a complete and utter pissing match, but I'll reply to your post.
<!--quoteo(post=1894825:date=Jan 16 2012, 01:28 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jan 16 2012, 01:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894825"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I never knew so many people who played NS1 were game designers too...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, because you need to be a game designer to critique a video game. That's like saying you need to be an _______ engineer in order to judge any product on the market. If consumers don't like your product, its not going to sell, no matter how awesome you think it is.
<!--quoteo(post=1894825:date=Jan 16 2012, 01:28 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jan 16 2012, 01:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894825"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i think konata said it best when he said people that are upset only have a "suggestion of things such as moving back to the NS1 system" good thing this is <i>NS2 </i> :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Successful sequels take what made the first game successful and build onto it, not redefine it to something almost unrecognizable. Alienating your original audience is a surefire way to having poor sales at launch.
<!--quoteo(post=1894825:date=Jan 16 2012, 01:28 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jan 16 2012, 01:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894825"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->its good to know people are at least passionate about the game i suppose<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> People are passionate about this game. Natural Selection was easily one of my favorite games of all time and many others claim the same. I would love to see their second endeavor succeed.
The rest of your post is just passive aggressiveness.
Soul_RiderMod BeanJoin Date: 2004-06-19Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1894846:date=Jan 16 2012, 09:06 AM:name=Primal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Primal @ Jan 16 2012, 09:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894846"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Successful sequels take what made the first game successful and build onto it, not redefine it to something almost unrecognizable. Alienating your original audience is a surefire way to having poor sales at launch.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is believed within industry circles, and I believe Charlie once quoted these figures himself, that a sequel should be 33% the same as the old, 33% updates to the old, and 33% new.
<!--quoteo(post=1894854:date=Jan 16 2012, 01:53 AM:name=Soul_Rider)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soul_Rider @ Jan 16 2012, 01:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894854"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is believed within industry circles, and I believe Charlie once quoted these figures himself, that a sequel should be 33% the same as the old, 33% updates to the old, and 33% new.
I think NS2 is right on track at the moment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've got about 80 NS1 players, most of them ex-competitive, on my Steam friendslist.
Out of all these players, Veritas is the most active NS2 player. Only the hopelessly optimistic and the punishingly masochistic even check out the new updates from time to time. If you examined the NS1 pubber population, I suspect you'd get a similar result. If UW was aiming to retain their NS1 playerbase, I would hardly describe the current direction as "right on track".
Seems kind of pointless posting a video like that of a game that will be very different by the time its released, but hey, its got peoples attention clearly. Didn't really see the need for the 'what the f*ck' every other sentence either, just came across as a bit of a ttit.
Think a lot of people are just growing more and more impatient now, they are a small team, it was always going to take an absolute age to create a game as awesome as NS2.
Personally i'm loving the beta at the moment, look forward to each and every build that's released. Played more hours on NS2 beta than I have BF3, CoD and Skyrim combined. Still a hell of a lot of fun even though their are quite clearly huge balance issues at hand and the game runs like crap at times.
I've got a lot of problems with the reasoning behind the arguments made, though I don't disagree with all of them, and I will make the reasons why I find the arguments bad here.
First: NS1 was the result of years of balancing. NS2 is not NS1, and it was never made to be a graphical overhaul of the original game. Things are different because it is a different game from the same IP with similar elements. You are arguing for the game to be essentially NS1 with new graphics, which is a problem, especially when you reason that "people don't pay attention to graphics after the first hour." Why would anyone pay money for a game whose only difference is graphics when you stop paying attention to graphics after the first hour. One of these two points must be false as they are contradictory. Either the game must diverge from the original, or you must concede that graphics matter beyond initial impressions.
And the points...
1: Marine Units: You only address this idea from the view of the marine commander. Imagine if you were a player and you couldn't choose any weapon you wanted to fit your playstyle, but rather had to wait around for the marine commander to give you something, which may not even be what you want. That would be incredibly frustrating because you'd have to wait for the commander to decide what you should be allowed to do. Imagine playing starcraft as a FPS but rather than picking a load out and going into battle, you'd have to wait around for the commander to decide if you should be a marine, a marauder, or maybe just an SCV, and not having any say in the matter. This isn't about pleasing the COD crowd, its about allowing players to play the game. The biggest problem with this "argument" more than anything else is the lack of any reasoning why it doesn't work. Saying "It just doesn't ****ing work here, seriously, **** this idea" is not an argument. There is no reasoning about why this is bad, other than you don't like it.
2: Alien Commander: You begin by complaining that this is overcomplicating gameplay, but you never come out with a cogent reason why complicating gameplay is always a bad thing. Certainly the game could be even less complex than it is now, we could remove all the movement and all the may design, put everyone into a corridor, and have everything attack automatically. Complexity isn't innately bad or good. The prime part of the argument is that this leaves both commanders relatively unable to do much. Well, this is a solid point to make, and it could be logically traced that being unable to do many things (or impactful things) is ultimately boring. However, claiming the gorge is "relegated" as to building offensive chambers and healing, is like claiming a skulk is relegated to "biting things" because he can't build structures. Some people find placing offensive chambers and supporting the team by healing to be every interesting gameplay. (Like myself, I'm always looking for places to put those hydras to make the best possible effect.) Your personal dislike of healing or placing hydras is ultimately arbitrary, as is my like of placing offensive chambers and cysts.
3: This is probably where the most egregious problems in logic are. 1A: Once again what you think is overcomplicated is not what everyone else thinks is overcomplicated.
2A: "All it does is slow down the gameplay." Slowing down gameplay is not necessarily bad. Games need pacing or games are finished in handfuls of minutes where it is difficult for some to achieve a satisfactory play experience. Imagine if a game of starcraft normally lasted 2 minutes. Games would spend more time in the lobby (or in our case, ready room) rather than in the actual game itself. Games also use pacing to build atmosphere. You hold down E on a powernode over time not because the game designers want to bore you, but because you're basically defenseless, hoping it finishes in time before some skulk bites your head off. It's about tension building and that is why it's there.
3A:"Imagine if all you did was spread creep." This works on the idea that creep and infestation are identical, which they are not. Infestation is meant to do many things, indicate to marine players the level spread of the alien team, eventually, blocking doors, putting out lights, unlocking sealed doors, and removing easy to see landmarks in rooms, not to mention increasing the atmosphere and feel of the game. In Starcraft all creep does is allow you to place structure and slightly snare enemy units on it. In NS2 it's meant to be serve many purposes and to "seal the deal" at the end of the game by preventing marines from building freely in the rest of the map once they've become cornered.
4A: "All it does is limit the game play options." This is inaccurate because limited gameplay options would imply that by having placeable infestation there is nothing added. Infestation and pustules actually add game play options as well. You can deny areas to marines by building pustules, use them to spoof sentry guns, use them to make a key corridor more dangerous for marines to walk through, sneak them into bases through vents so they can put out power nodes, or when infestation works to close off areas, use it to cut off avenues or approach or retreat.
4: "Shooting a stationary object that aimbots is a dull, repetitive, task." Inaccurate because it implies all you have to do is stand and shoot them. If you stand and shoot a sentry gun, you'll die. You have to flank them, which involves movement through the map to bypass the defense networks. They can also add a level of depth to the game by allowing for false safe zones. The number of games I have personally torn through 3-4 marines in a row with a skulk by simply coming through crossroads into the back of data core, at the rear of all the sentry guns by players who think they are covered, are numerous. Essentially you've gone to hyperbole to just claim dealing with a turret is standing in front of it and pressing Mouse 1, which is not the case. Even with hydras, gardens have to be approached with caution, full body cover has to be picked out, and it can force you to try another path that may be less favorable. This means players placing these objects can use them to try and control your access to different areas, thus funneling you into areas you may not wish to be in, thus we find players not only pitting their actual gameplay skills against each other, but their tactical acumen.
1A: "We all know how successful that game was..." This is a fallacy because it doesn't connect the premise with the consequent. In short, you can't connect the game having turrets with the game being unsuccessful (it had a 71 on metacritic, which is not unsuccessful), unless you have direct proof turrets caused the game to be unsuccessful. Add into this that TF2 (and 1) has a class that is based entirely around a turret and other structures and was wildly successful, would serve as evidence again turrets being the killing factor. The major complaints I've seen about Nuclear Dawn is that its buggy and laggy.
5: Optimization: Individual quality of gameplay is important, but my experience is nothing like you're experience, as mine runs very smoothly. Thus just like I can't (and won't) use my smooth performance as evidence the optimization is good for everyone, you can't use your poor experience, as proof that optimization is bad for everyone.
1A: "People don't pay attention to graphics after the first few hours, if they did, Crysis would be the best game of all time." Fallacy being the argument that if people cared about graphics, then all they care about is graphics." The logic is not sound here, for example, lets say instead of graphics, we were talking about applies. This following argument is illogical: "If a person likes applies, he can't have a girlfriend because all he cares about are apples." You may not think graphics matter, or even care personally, but you can't use that as an argument that no one cares about graphics, because the logic you use in the example of Crysis is, well, not logical.
2B: "My point is, sacrificing performance for the sake of making the game look slightly better isn't worth it." This is under the assumption the game only looks slightly better, which you may believe, but looking at the earlier video of NS1, I would argue the game looks vastly better, some much better that some performance hit over playing NS1 may well be worthwhile.
6:"The changes I've outlined in this video are just changes for the sake of being changes." This is a bad argument because it functions on a couple of assumptions. First that changes that aren't necessary are innately bad. Is this really true? I doubt it, there's a reason why games give options to change how characters look, what color their clothes might be, what skin you use for a game, etc. It's called novelty, and it's a powerful attraction to humans. You have to argue why the changes are bad based on what they do, not that they are simply changes, and for that you'd need to actually outline why there are problems with the changes rather than simply stating your opinion, which is ultimately as arbitrary as any opinion. Of course one proof for that, provided you could get it, would be that other people agree with your opinion, thus making it an argument for fiscal sensibility in an effort to sell to as many people as possible.
1A: "So much of the original game has been copied that it's really a no-brainer that most of this new stuff is ****ing terrible." A fallacy because it doesn't actually operate on evidence, saying something many times doesn't make it more true, after all.
2A: "These are things a lot of people have been complaining about for a long time but they're so engraved in the developers minds that they're not going to change." Fallacy because it fails to actually address other reasonable possibilities, such as that many people also like the new changes so they're keeping them, or that they believe the new changes simply need to be tweaked until they work well.
Final: Ultimately, the problem I take from this video is that all of this is your subjective opinion. You didn't argue points with facts, but rather with off the cuff remarks such as "it would be boring" or "it limits game play options" without actually providing examples of why that are based on solid logic. I can tell there is obviously a very large difference between what you and I look for in a game. I don't want super fast moving games, I like finding out ways around tough situations as well as making them. I like to place turrets, cysts, mines, all because I like trying to preempt opponents and trick them with placement. I want to focus on the mental aspect of the game, planning, maneuvering. For me I'd rather have 1 kill and 10 deaths but be the one who sneaks into the enemy base and takes out their power node allowing our team to win, than have 100 kills and 10 deaths but lose the game because I just killed marines all game.
You are obviously very different, you want lots of action, fast moving twitch gameplay where it's all about that critical moment when players round a corner in each others faces and whose faster on the trigger, more accurate, more evasive, which is why you want (and I've seen you talk about it before) "skill based movement" no automatic defenses, and simple building schemes. Both of these are valid play styles and UWE is going to want to cater to both (and anyone else who has money who wants in.) In game players like you are both the ones who are my bane and my greatest source of pres (because you're fast movement and emphasis on aggressive evasive action often leads you into my hydra nests I've prepared) and because when I meet you face to face, you're emphasis on the skill of fighting, leaves me totally outmatched in the actual combat ability. I don't think this should be seen as a problem that both sides are catered to, but rather just the nature of anything competitive. People operate in different ways and will have different strengths, just because they don't only cater to your strengths doesn't mean it's bad, and same with me.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why would anyone pay money for a game whose only difference is graphics when you stop paying attention to graphics after the first hour. One of these two points must be false as they are contradictory. Either the game must diverge from the original, or you must concede that graphics matter beyond initial impressions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gross assumption here : people are rational. They are not, they can pay for eye candy graphics even though it doesn't matter on the long run.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Imagine if you were a player and you couldn't choose any weapon you wanted to fit your playstyle, but rather had to wait around for the marine commander to give you something, which may not even be what you want. That would be incredibly frustrating because you'd have to wait for the commander to decide what you should be allowed to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd probably pay 100$ for a NS1 graphical remake if it also meant a fresh and healthy community and modern engine. The two things that killed my NS1 enjoyment were the struggles with HL1 engine on modern systems and the shrinking community that caused it difficult to regularly find quality games of your level and made improving your gameplay take more time and effort than it is worth. When everything comes together, it's still one of the most enjoyable gaming experiences ever.
I think DotA 2 is doing a graphical remake from a pretty similar situation as NS1 has, although DotA probably has more active remaining community than NS. In a similar way DotA has unique, brilliant gameplay plagued by the mod background and inaccessibility.
I don't really want to have any say on whether there should be NS remakes or anything like that - that's something for people involved to judge and decide - but I don't think it's anything as irrational or impossible as some of you make it sound.
I don't think ironwhatshisface got my post. It's the people getting upset because they can't accept NS1 concepts work better than the new completely foreign ones. So you take the concept, replicate and work on it. Use it as a foundation, not removing the chunk and replace with another that simply just does not work but hey, it sounds cool so why the heck not! I was talking about that not being listened to from the community.
EDIT:
In the spirit of the OP's video I have to reply to Bacillus and his claim of paying $100 for NS1 with a graphics update: Bull######. It's a game, not your monthly insurance payment.
<!--quoteo(post=1894885:date=Jan 16 2012, 01:52 PM:name=konata)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (konata @ Jan 16 2012, 01:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894885"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In the spirit of the OP's video I have to reply to Bacillus and his claim of paying $100 for NS1 with a graphics update: Bull######. It's a game, not your monthly insurance payment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it still seems much more inviting than shelling $50 to games you play for a month or two max and forget a month later. If NS really had a new fresh and healthy community and modern engine and all the benefits so that it looks like it's going to last for years, I'd definitely give it a strong consideration.
I'm much more worried about spending time playing games that never manage to provoke any feeling or to provide any interesting experiences and then forgetting them next month than I'm about skipping a couple of trips to a bar or restaurant to save up that $100.
To Konata: if you play NS2 for 2000 hrs, yet play skyrim for 70; and if NS2 costs 100 and Skyrim costs 60; then the question must be answered with a firm: NS2 would be the better buy. And I think I played it in well excess of probably 2000 hours, lol, as did many of us.
Q: The further question must be: was Dota and NS in a similar situation? A: Well they're a different game.
Q: Yes, but even though they're a different game, they were both on an ancient engine, looked terrible, yet played absolutely fantastic for the most part except for glitches and stuff here and there. A: Yes but Dota had devs still working on it, and NS did not. 3.2 was the -final- patch and long before then, people had stopped playing the game.
Q: But the same can be said of many other games, yet the devs for Dota2 decided to NOT remake the wheel like LoL and Hon both did, but instead they just redid the game over on a new engine while releasing new balance changes as needed. A: Yes, however, NS had many less variables to deal with than with Dota2. Dota has more like 90 heroes with 4 skills each with approximately 10 unique starting stats/animation. In total that amounts of over 10,000 different variables. In addition they would have changed the game enough where veterans would HATE dota2 and never play it and viceversa. They would have split the community.
Q: But is that not what NS2 did? A: Yes, but hardly anyone plays NS anymore. The amount of rage towards bad commanders, and being eaten by onos's would rage any sane person.
Q: But could they not have patched these obvious problems that were present in NS1 so as to make a more enjoyable experience? Surely they knew when players literally F4'd and then joined back on their team, and something was wrong with being eaten and having to stare at a horrible red glob was a terrible thing to endure. A: But they wanted to add new stuff that the Halflife engine was never capable of doing!
Q: But could they not have slowly added things in that they did not have in NS1? It's not as if they're under-the-gun with 100 competitors fighting for the premiere spot in a FPS-RTS environment. A: I guess, but sequels have to be 33% new and 33% changed!
Q: Tell that to Dota2 with $1 million dollar tourneys......
<!--quoteo(post=1894888:date=Jan 16 2012, 04:14 PM:name=MasterPTG)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MasterPTG @ Jan 16 2012, 04:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894888"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A: Yes, but hardly anyone plays NS anymore. The amount of rage towards bad commanders, and being eaten by onos's would rage any sane person.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ditch alien commander bring the gorge back to its former glory...
Change the way infestation spreads, make it so all alien buildings spread infestation.
Leave in buying weapons from the armory but make them more expensive, the commander needs incentives to get his men to do as needed and in NS1 giving weapons was a good way to reward players who followed your orders...
The fellow no doubt has some valid points, and I generally agree with him.
That leads me to something that really irks me...
Gorge made the Kharaa magical and unique. Now it seems alien base building is a strange mating of marine commander and the Zerg from Starcraft 2. The lack of an alien commander in NS1 made alien gameplay feel more organic.
<!--quoteo(post=1894889:date=Jan 16 2012, 02:19 PM:name=konata)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (konata @ Jan 16 2012, 02:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894889"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->These things won't go away in NS2 either buddy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The idea is they're trying to fix rage-worthy stuff, eg. devour has already been ditched.
Not really sure where you're getting your information about them ditching devour, but okay. Whoever your source is has no clue. Maybe you guys really should trying to datamine the playtesters for info. I love watching all of you with your "insider information". Cracks me up!
<!--quoteo(post=1894898:date=Jan 17 2012, 02:47 AM:name=acid_rain)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (acid_rain @ Jan 17 2012, 02:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894898"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not really sure where you're getting your information about them ditching devour, but okay. Whoever your source is has no clue. Maybe you guys really should trying to datamine the playtesters for info. I love watching all of you with your "insider information". Cracks me up!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It wouldn't surprise me if devour was in one day, out the next, in one day, out the next. It seems like development decisions around game play aren't thought about enough.
Yeah, I'm failing to see where UWE posted that. There's been no talk of it being in or out, so I wouldn't assume either. Either way, I loved devour and will miss it quite a bit if it's not around for NS2. I really enjoyed some of the dark humor involved with NS. I really want some Tom Waits-like dark marine sayings. I think it'd be pretty killer.
i think the most worrisome thing is that a lot of gameplay elements are still up in the air and undecided or not even in the picture yet, and it doesn't seem like there is a clear vision of what the final game is going to look like. i think all the other issues will be resolved eventually, but from the dev videos it just feels like the piecemeal dev style doesn't lend an air of confidence to knowing that there is an endgame planned for the dev process.
What's f_____ (you know, to stay with the theme) brilliant is, everyone who just posted in this thread with a calm, considered opinion free of personal attacks probably just contributed to NS2 in a very real way. Devs will read this thread, and they will think about it.
Acid_Rain's point about playtesters existing to identify, document, and report bugs and on the success of their fixes has a fantastic corollary: It's not the playtesters contributing to the design of NS2, it's all of us out here in the public community. Even if you don't agree with Veritas and his swearing, <i>we are having this discussion and it is meaningful and that is brilliant.</i>
I won't add any of my thoughts, because I'm obviously considered the Lord Imperial Fanboy, but I just wanted to chime in and do my optimism thing. I love reading those big, considered balance/design posts.
<!--quoteo(post=1894878:date=Jan 16 2012, 02:57 AM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Jan 16 2012, 02:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894878"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Gross assumption here : people are rational. They are not, they can pay for eye candy graphics even though it doesn't matter on the long run.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This misses the point. They payed for the game, obviously the graphics mattered. They don't get their money back, thus graphics do matter in the prime purpose of the game, making sales.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->? ns1, are you here ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't understand what you're saying here. Did I play NS1? If that's it, yes, I did. And I didn't like not being able to get the weapon I wanted to do the job I needed because some commander got it in his head the only thing the team should get is shotguns because the forums say that's the best thing to get, this doesn't even mention the parts of the game where you had to sit in base asking for stuff from the commander who was otherwise occupied.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1894986:date=Jan 16 2012, 10:51 PM:name=NS2HD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NS2HD @ Jan 16 2012, 10:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894986"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I won't add any of my thoughts, because I'm obviously considered the Lord Imperial Fanboy<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
<!--quoteo(post=1894825:date=Jan 16 2012, 01:28 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jan 16 2012, 01:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894825"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I never knew so many people who played NS1 were game designers too...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, because you need to be a game designer to critique a video game. That's like saying you need to be an _______ engineer in order to judge any product on the market. If consumers don't like your product, its not going to sell, no matter how awesome you think it is.
<!--quoteo(post=1894825:date=Jan 16 2012, 01:28 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jan 16 2012, 01:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894825"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i think konata said it best when he said people that are upset only have a "suggestion of things such as moving back to the NS1 system" good thing this is <i>NS2
</i> :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Successful sequels take what made the first game successful and build onto it, not redefine it to something almost unrecognizable. Alienating your original audience is a surefire way to having poor sales at launch.
<!--quoteo(post=1894825:date=Jan 16 2012, 01:28 AM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Jan 16 2012, 01:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1894825"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->its good to know people are at least passionate about the game i suppose<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People are passionate about this game. Natural Selection was easily one of my favorite games of all time and many others claim the same. I would love to see their second endeavor succeed.
The rest of your post is just passive aggressiveness.
It is believed within industry circles, and I believe Charlie once quoted these figures himself, that a sequel should be 33% the same as the old, 33% updates to the old, and 33% new.
I think NS2 is right on track at the moment.
I think NS2 is right on track at the moment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've got about 80 NS1 players, most of them ex-competitive, on my Steam friendslist.
Out of all these players, Veritas is the most active NS2 player. Only the hopelessly optimistic and the punishingly masochistic even check out the new updates from time to time. If you examined the NS1 pubber population, I suspect you'd get a similar result. If UW was aiming to retain their NS1 playerbase, I would hardly describe the current direction as "right on track".
Think a lot of people are just growing more and more impatient now, they are a small team, it was always going to take an absolute age to create a game as awesome as NS2.
Personally i'm loving the beta at the moment, look forward to each and every build that's released. Played more hours on NS2 beta than I have BF3, CoD and Skyrim combined. Still a hell of a lot of fun even though their are quite clearly huge balance issues at hand and the game runs like crap at times.
First: NS1 was the result of years of balancing. NS2 is not NS1, and it was never made to be a graphical overhaul of the original game. Things are different because it is a different game from the same IP with similar elements. You are arguing for the game to be essentially NS1 with new graphics, which is a problem, especially when you reason that "people don't pay attention to graphics after the first hour." Why would anyone pay money for a game whose only difference is graphics when you stop paying attention to graphics after the first hour. One of these two points must be false as they are contradictory. Either the game must diverge from the original, or you must concede that graphics matter beyond initial impressions.
And the points...
1: Marine Units: You only address this idea from the view of the marine commander. Imagine if you were a player and you couldn't choose any weapon you wanted to fit your playstyle, but rather had to wait around for the marine commander to give you something, which may not even be what you want. That would be incredibly frustrating because you'd have to wait for the commander to decide what you should be allowed to do. Imagine playing starcraft as a FPS but rather than picking a load out and going into battle, you'd have to wait around for the commander to decide if you should be a marine, a marauder, or maybe just an SCV, and not having any say in the matter. This isn't about pleasing the COD crowd, its about allowing players to play the game. The biggest problem with this "argument" more than anything else is the lack of any reasoning why it doesn't work. Saying "It just doesn't ****ing work here, seriously, **** this idea" is not an argument. There is no reasoning about why this is bad, other than you don't like it.
2: Alien Commander: You begin by complaining that this is overcomplicating gameplay, but you never come out with a cogent reason why complicating gameplay is always a bad thing. Certainly the game could be even less complex than it is now, we could remove all the movement and all the may design, put everyone into a corridor, and have everything attack automatically. Complexity isn't innately bad or good. The prime part of the argument is that this leaves both commanders relatively unable to do much. Well, this is a solid point to make, and it could be logically traced that being unable to do many things (or impactful things) is ultimately boring. However, claiming the gorge is "relegated" as to building offensive chambers and healing, is like claiming a skulk is relegated to "biting things" because he can't build structures. Some people find placing offensive chambers and supporting the team by healing to be every interesting gameplay. (Like myself, I'm always looking for places to put those hydras to make the best possible effect.) Your personal dislike of healing or placing hydras is ultimately arbitrary, as is my like of placing offensive chambers and cysts.
3: This is probably where the most egregious problems in logic are.
1A: Once again what you think is overcomplicated is not what everyone else thinks is overcomplicated.
2A: "All it does is slow down the gameplay." Slowing down gameplay is not necessarily bad. Games need pacing or games are finished in handfuls of minutes where it is difficult for some to achieve a satisfactory play experience. Imagine if a game of starcraft normally lasted 2 minutes. Games would spend more time in the lobby (or in our case, ready room) rather than in the actual game itself. Games also use pacing to build atmosphere. You hold down E on a powernode over time not because the game designers want to bore you, but because you're basically defenseless, hoping it finishes in time before some skulk bites your head off. It's about tension building and that is why it's there.
3A:"Imagine if all you did was spread creep." This works on the idea that creep and infestation are identical, which they are not. Infestation is meant to do many things, indicate to marine players the level spread of the alien team, eventually, blocking doors, putting out lights, unlocking sealed doors, and removing easy to see landmarks in rooms, not to mention increasing the atmosphere and feel of the game. In Starcraft all creep does is allow you to place structure and slightly snare enemy units on it. In NS2 it's meant to be serve many purposes and to "seal the deal" at the end of the game by preventing marines from building freely in the rest of the map once they've become cornered.
4A: "All it does is limit the game play options." This is inaccurate because limited gameplay options would imply that by having placeable infestation there is nothing added. Infestation and pustules actually add game play options as well. You can deny areas to marines by building pustules, use them to spoof sentry guns, use them to make a key corridor more dangerous for marines to walk through, sneak them into bases through vents so they can put out power nodes, or when infestation works to close off areas, use it to cut off avenues or approach or retreat.
4: "Shooting a stationary object that aimbots is a dull, repetitive, task." Inaccurate because it implies all you have to do is stand and shoot them. If you stand and shoot a sentry gun, you'll die. You have to flank them, which involves movement through the map to bypass the defense networks. They can also add a level of depth to the game by allowing for false safe zones. The number of games I have personally torn through 3-4 marines in a row with a skulk by simply coming through crossroads into the back of data core, at the rear of all the sentry guns by players who think they are covered, are numerous. Essentially you've gone to hyperbole to just claim dealing with a turret is standing in front of it and pressing Mouse 1, which is not the case. Even with hydras, gardens have to be approached with caution, full body cover has to be picked out, and it can force you to try another path that may be less favorable. This means players placing these objects can use them to try and control your access to different areas, thus funneling you into areas you may not wish to be in, thus we find players not only pitting their actual gameplay skills against each other, but their tactical acumen.
1A: "We all know how successful that game was..." This is a fallacy because it doesn't connect the premise with the consequent. In short, you can't connect the game having turrets with the game being unsuccessful (it had a 71 on metacritic, which is not unsuccessful), unless you have direct proof turrets caused the game to be unsuccessful. Add into this that TF2 (and 1) has a class that is based entirely around a turret and other structures and was wildly successful, would serve as evidence again turrets being the killing factor. The major complaints I've seen about Nuclear Dawn is that its buggy and laggy.
5: Optimization: Individual quality of gameplay is important, but my experience is nothing like you're experience, as mine runs very smoothly. Thus just like I can't (and won't) use my smooth performance as evidence the optimization is good for everyone, you can't use your poor experience, as proof that optimization is bad for everyone.
1A: "People don't pay attention to graphics after the first few hours, if they did, Crysis would be the best game of all time." Fallacy being the argument that if people cared about graphics, then all they care about is graphics." The logic is not sound here, for example, lets say instead of graphics, we were talking about applies. This following argument is illogical: "If a person likes applies, he can't have a girlfriend because all he cares about are apples." You may not think graphics matter, or even care personally, but you can't use that as an argument that no one cares about graphics, because the logic you use in the example of Crysis is, well, not logical.
2B: "My point is, sacrificing performance for the sake of making the game look slightly better isn't worth it." This is under the assumption the game only looks slightly better, which you may believe, but looking at the earlier video of NS1, I would argue the game looks vastly better, some much better that some performance hit over playing NS1 may well be worthwhile.
6:"The changes I've outlined in this video are just changes for the sake of being changes." This is a bad argument because it functions on a couple of assumptions. First that changes that aren't necessary are innately bad. Is this really true? I doubt it, there's a reason why games give options to change how characters look, what color their clothes might be, what skin you use for a game, etc. It's called novelty, and it's a powerful attraction to humans. You have to argue why the changes are bad based on what they do, not that they are simply changes, and for that you'd need to actually outline why there are problems with the changes rather than simply stating your opinion, which is ultimately as arbitrary as any opinion. Of course one proof for that, provided you could get it, would be that other people agree with your opinion, thus making it an argument for fiscal sensibility in an effort to sell to as many people as possible.
1A: "So much of the original game has been copied that it's really a no-brainer that most of this new stuff is ****ing terrible." A fallacy because it doesn't actually operate on evidence, saying something many times doesn't make it more true, after all.
2A: "These are things a lot of people have been complaining about for a long time but they're so engraved in the developers minds that they're not going to change." Fallacy because it fails to actually address other reasonable possibilities, such as that many people also like the new changes so they're keeping them, or that they believe the new changes simply need to be tweaked until they work well.
Final:
Ultimately, the problem I take from this video is that all of this is your subjective opinion. You didn't argue points with facts, but rather with off the cuff remarks such as "it would be boring" or "it limits game play options" without actually providing examples of why that are based on solid logic. I can tell there is obviously a very large difference between what you and I look for in a game. I don't want super fast moving games, I like finding out ways around tough situations as well as making them. I like to place turrets, cysts, mines, all because I like trying to preempt opponents and trick them with placement. I want to focus on the mental aspect of the game, planning, maneuvering. For me I'd rather have 1 kill and 10 deaths but be the one who sneaks into the enemy base and takes out their power node allowing our team to win, than have 100 kills and 10 deaths but lose the game because I just killed marines all game.
You are obviously very different, you want lots of action, fast moving twitch gameplay where it's all about that critical moment when players round a corner in each others faces and whose faster on the trigger, more accurate, more evasive, which is why you want (and I've seen you talk about it before) "skill based movement" no automatic defenses, and simple building schemes. Both of these are valid play styles and UWE is going to want to cater to both (and anyone else who has money who wants in.) In game players like you are both the ones who are my bane and my greatest source of pres (because you're fast movement and emphasis on aggressive evasive action often leads you into my hydra nests I've prepared) and because when I meet you face to face, you're emphasis on the skill of fighting, leaves me totally outmatched in the actual combat ability. I don't think this should be seen as a problem that both sides are catered to, but rather just the nature of anything competitive. People operate in different ways and will have different strengths, just because they don't only cater to your strengths doesn't mean it's bad, and same with me.
Gross assumption here : people are rational. They are not, they can pay for eye candy graphics even though it doesn't matter on the long run.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Imagine if you were a player and you couldn't choose any weapon you wanted to fit your playstyle, but rather had to wait around for the marine commander to give you something, which may not even be what you want. That would be incredibly frustrating because you'd have to wait for the commander to decide what you should be allowed to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
? ns1, are you here ?
I think DotA 2 is doing a graphical remake from a pretty similar situation as NS1 has, although DotA probably has more active remaining community than NS. In a similar way DotA has unique, brilliant gameplay plagued by the mod background and inaccessibility.
I don't really want to have any say on whether there should be NS remakes or anything like that - that's something for people involved to judge and decide - but I don't think it's anything as irrational or impossible as some of you make it sound.
EDIT:
In the spirit of the OP's video I have to reply to Bacillus and his claim of paying $100 for NS1 with a graphics update: Bull######. It's a game, not your monthly insurance payment.
I think it still seems much more inviting than shelling $50 to games you play for a month or two max and forget a month later. If NS really had a new fresh and healthy community and modern engine and all the benefits so that it looks like it's going to last for years, I'd definitely give it a strong consideration.
I'm much more worried about spending time playing games that never manage to provoke any feeling or to provide any interesting experiences and then forgetting them next month than I'm about skipping a couple of trips to a bar or restaurant to save up that $100.
Q: The further question must be: was Dota and NS in a similar situation?
A: Well they're a different game.
Q: Yes, but even though they're a different game, they were both on an ancient engine, looked terrible, yet played absolutely fantastic for the most part except for glitches and stuff here and there.
A: Yes but Dota had devs still working on it, and NS did not. 3.2 was the -final- patch and long before then, people had stopped playing the game.
Q: But the same can be said of many other games, yet the devs for Dota2 decided to NOT remake the wheel like LoL and Hon both did, but instead they just redid the game over on a new engine while releasing new balance changes as needed.
A: Yes, however, NS had many less variables to deal with than with Dota2. Dota has more like 90 heroes with 4 skills each with approximately 10 unique starting stats/animation. In total that amounts of over 10,000 different variables. In addition they would have changed the game enough where veterans would HATE dota2 and never play it and viceversa. They would have split the community.
Q: But is that not what NS2 did?
A: Yes, but hardly anyone plays NS anymore. The amount of rage towards bad commanders, and being eaten by onos's would rage any sane person.
Q: But could they not have patched these obvious problems that were present in NS1 so as to make a more enjoyable experience? Surely they knew when players literally F4'd and then joined back on their team, and something was wrong with being eaten and having to stare at a horrible red glob was a terrible thing to endure.
A: But they wanted to add new stuff that the Halflife engine was never capable of doing!
Q: But could they not have slowly added things in that they did not have in NS1? It's not as if they're under-the-gun with 100 competitors fighting for the premiere spot in a FPS-RTS environment.
A: I guess, but sequels have to be 33% new and 33% changed!
Q: Tell that to Dota2 with $1 million dollar tourneys......
These things won't go away in NS2 either buddy.
Ditch alien commander bring the gorge back to its former glory...
Change the way infestation spreads, make it so all alien buildings spread infestation.
Leave in buying weapons from the armory but make them more expensive, the commander needs incentives to get his men to do as needed and in NS1 giving weapons was a good way to reward players who followed your orders...
That leads me to something that really irks me...
Gorge made the Kharaa magical and unique. Now it seems alien base building is a strange mating of marine commander and the Zerg from Starcraft 2. The lack of an alien commander in NS1 made alien gameplay feel more organic.
The idea is they're trying to fix rage-worthy stuff, eg. devour has already been ditched.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=115036&st=40" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...15036&st=40</a> no?
Buuuurn.
Acid_Rain's point about playtesters existing to identify, document, and report bugs and on the success of their fixes has a fantastic corollary: It's not the playtesters contributing to the design of NS2, it's all of us out here in the public community. Even if you don't agree with Veritas and his swearing, <i>we are having this discussion and it is meaningful and that is brilliant.</i>
I won't add any of my thoughts, because I'm obviously considered the Lord Imperial Fanboy, but I just wanted to chime in and do my optimism thing. I love reading those big, considered balance/design posts.
This misses the point. They payed for the game, obviously the graphics mattered. They don't get their money back, thus graphics do matter in the prime purpose of the game, making sales.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->? ns1, are you here ?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand what you're saying here. Did I play NS1? If that's it, yes, I did. And I didn't like not being able to get the weapon I wanted to do the job I needed because some commander got it in his head the only thing the team should get is shotguns because the forums say that's the best thing to get, this doesn't even mention the parts of the game where you had to sit in base asking for stuff from the commander who was otherwise occupied.
The post does come with that dope hat though.
avoiding the swear filter.