<!--quoteo(post=1900626:date=Feb 7 2012, 02:45 AM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Feb 7 2012, 02:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900626"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't like an obfuscated screen period, so that's the annoying flashlight (or rather mist-generator), the ridiculous fog, the seizure-inducing red-flashes when on low-health, the stupid blurring when being melee'd with a rifle, the vomit-colours of alien-vision and indeed many more things. This isn't particular to NS2, I always try to kill all kinds of blurring, depth-of-field and other assorted post-processing effects (current-generation technology just can't do it properly yet). What I really wanted was for NS2 to just stick to non-intrusive graphics-upgrades (higher texture-resolution, higher polygon-count, more complex geometry WITHOUT OBSTRUCTING MOVEMENT).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm curious about what you mean by "just can't do properly yet." What would be "done properly in your opinion. Your personal preference is obviously that nothing block your screen, which is fine, for me its just "as long as it makes sense why it's blocking my screen."
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then there is the issue with movement, I don't like it when it feels like you're on rails, and that's what NS2 really feels like (although it is getting slightly less). The slow walking-speeds, low jumping-height, ###### INVISIWALLS. When the map's brushes are doing all the clipping, you're on the right track, it gives you certainty and freedom, whereas in NS2 I feel like I'm in a walled-garden. Never sure whether you're going to make a jump over a railing, never sure whether you're allowed to go in a particular area.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Slow walking speeds seem sort of moot when you can choose to sprint or walk, low jumping height also seems to fit the feel of a heavily armored marine. I think BF3 made the best middle ground to satisfy immersive/free movement style when they allowed you to simply vault over taller obstacles without issue. It got rid of the ridiculous looking hopping and added a very satisfying and realistic leg over while in play allowed you to easy traverse obstacles.
Current gen games are starting to catch up with this sort of thing but I think free, realistic, movement is good. I much prefer low jumps for gaps, vaulting for low/middle obstacles at speed, mantling for chest high obstacles at fast or slow paces depending on movement speed prior, and full on climbing from standing jumps on obstacles above the head.
As for invisible walls, I can't recall any I've actually run into and really that seems to be more of a map issue.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When I mean fast I mean quake-fast, CoD\Battlefield is elderly-folks fast. I would try out Tribes, but it's pay-to-win, and I'm kinda resistent to that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's why I said the newest one is Tribes while the soft mil sims (CoD, Battlefield) straddle immersive/free movement games. I don't include them in the genre of fast paced arena shooters or immersive games because they land in the middle.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The constant comparisons to L4D are getting silly, L4D's infected-team is completely built around the concept of entangling the survivors, they haven't many other means of defeating them, whereas NS' aliens need no such mechanics to put the marines in their place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's really not about needing, it's about wanting. Do marines really need every gun they have? Couldn't they just have one gun that sort of did everything well? Variety is the spice of life and that's why the topic keeps getting brought up, because no other FPS really delivers that kind of interaction between the sides(illusionary as they are, of course being just an animation/screen effect) where you might feel what it's like to suddenly be knocked over by a human sized jumping thing (hunters in L4D, but any similar creature works in comparison) or see the effects of having slime splatted onto your visor, etc. That's what attracts people to it, the ability to get a close to the real thing as possible in a game format, not because it's necessary. Ultimately all that's really necessary in an FPS is targets that move and the ability to aim and move plus an environment to do it in. Lighting, textures, fancy models, multiple guns, they're all window dressing designed to increase immersion.
<!--quoteo(post=1900632:date=Feb 7 2012, 01:08 PM:name=azimaith)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (azimaith @ Feb 7 2012, 01:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900632"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm curious about what you mean by "just can't do properly yet." What would be "done properly in your opinion. Your personal preference is obviously that nothing block your screen, which is fine, for me its just "as long as it makes sense why it's blocking my screen."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't get immersed into the game, it's just a collection of polygons\sprites in my view, so instead of thinking "gosh that looks cool and makes me feel like I'm really livin' it!", I think "yea alright I get it, real-time shadows, now shut the ###### flashlight off I can't see ###### through all this fog (/me does r_fog 0)".
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Slow walking speeds seem sort of moot when you can choose to sprint or walk, low jumping height also seems to fit the feel of a heavily armored marine. I think BF3 made the best middle ground to satisfy immersive/free movement style when they allowed you to simply vault over taller obstacles without issue. It got rid of the ridiculous looking hopping and added a very satisfying and realistic leg over while in play allowed you to easy traverse obstacles.
Current gen games are starting to catch up with this sort of thing but I think free, realistic, movement is good. I much prefer low jumps for gaps, vaulting for low/middle obstacles at speed, mantling for chest high obstacles at fast or slow paces depending on movement speed prior, and full on climbing from standing jumps on obstacles above the head.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again I'm not immersed at all, so it is only bothering me. I want to get from A to B in a quick enough fashion to execute strategic plans, not play mini-games with myself, sprinting, watching the adrenaline-bar, hopping over railings like I'm on a ###### obstacle-course.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for invisible walls, I can't recall any I've actually run into and really that seems to be more of a map issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> When I say invisiwalls I really mean clipping-hints, which cause uncertainty whether or not you can get away with certain movement-interactions, you never know for sure until you try it. That sucks.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's really not about needing, it's about wanting. Do marines really need every gun they have? Couldn't they just have one gun that sort of did everything well? Variety is the spice of life and that's why the topic keeps getting brought up, because no other FPS really delivers that kind of interaction between the sides(illusionary as they are, of course being just an animation/screen effect) where you might feel what it's like to suddenly be knocked over by a human sized jumping thing (hunters in L4D, but any similar creature works in comparison) or see the effects of having slime splatted onto your visor, etc. That's what attracts people to it, the ability to get a close to the real thing as possible in a game format, not because it's necessary. Ultimately all that's really necessary in an FPS is targets that move and the ability to aim and move plus an environment to do it in. Lighting, textures, fancy models, multiple guns, they're all window dressing designed to increase immersion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's that word again, immersion, I think we can agree that we're both looking for something different in this game, which is all fair game, it's moddable after all. Now we've deviated from the doors-topic a bit too much I guess, /quits.
I wonder why nobody even cares to comment on my post(bottom of page 1)... :,(
PS: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think this is the wrong game for you, player. Try Q3Arena. That is what you want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the most useless and ignorant comment i have ever seen... if you are not able to make a good argument or communicate in a nice way why you dont agree with others, better post nothing.
IeptBarakatThe most difficult name to speak ingame.Join Date: 2009-07-10Member: 68107Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow
Would prefer doors to be closed by default and opened temporarily by marines via terminal. And forcibly opened by infestation and destroyed by an Onos.
Evil_bOb1Join Date: 2002-07-13Member: 938Members, Squad Five Blue
edited February 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1900745:date=Feb 7 2012, 03:08 PM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Feb 7 2012, 03:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900745"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I wonder why nobody even cares to comment on my post(bottom of page 1)... :,(<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1900745:date=Feb 7 2012, 10:08 PM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Feb 7 2012, 10:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900745"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is the most useless and ignorant comment i have ever seen...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I bet, this isnt true. ;)
But seriously it was no offense. Its simple a fact. He wants a game with zero immersion and 100% focused on competitive gameplay. NS2 will not be this kind of game. You can't pay the development of a game only by the competitive players. You need the normal public masses to get enough money out of the game. And this people want nice graphic and stuff.
ArgathorJoin Date: 2011-07-18Member: 110942Members, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1900923:date=Feb 8 2012, 08:59 AM:name=_Necro_)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (_Necro_ @ Feb 8 2012, 08:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900923"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I bet, this isnt true. ;)
But seriously it was no offense. Its simple a fact. He wants a game with zero immersion and 100% focused on competitive gameplay. NS2 will not be this kind of game. You can't pay the development of a game only by the competitive players. You need the normal public masses to get enough money out of the game. And this people want nice graphic and stuff.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think they are mutually exclusive, if implemented carefully. The problem arises when functions are added that detract from gameplay, purely for aesthetic reasons.
Counter-Strike was pretty successful and offered little immersion. It allowed you to easily perform the desired actions without hastle. This allows you to focus on strategy, tactics, etc.
<!--quoteo(post=1901020:date=Feb 8 2012, 07:27 PM:name=Argathor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Argathor @ Feb 8 2012, 07:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1901020"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think they are mutually exclusive, if implemented carefully. The problem arises when functions are added that detract from gameplay, purely for aesthetic reasons.
Counter-Strike was pretty successful and offered little immersion. It allowed you to easily perform the desired actions without hastle. This allows you to focus on strategy, tactics, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the same is true in reverse. Sacrificing atmosphere or tactical movement would take away a lot of NS2's unique appeal.
Sure you can be successful with a game that relies solely on mechanics, but NS2 is not that game. Trying to compete with CS, TF2, BF, COD, on "their turf" is not going to happen.
fanaticThis post has been edited.Join Date: 2003-07-23Member: 18377Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
NS1 had both great immersive aspects for casual players and great gameplay mechanics for more competitive minded players.
NS2 is currently almost solely focused on the immersive aspects for casual players. There's barely a single mechanic, outside of aiming, that truly rewards time spent practicing. I know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of competitive players I know from NS1, and there are a lot of them after eight years of playing it, find NS2 incredibly boring and will not play it when it is released, even though many of them have already bought it.
I don't think anybody really wants NS2 to be NS1 with better graphics, but there's no reason why it can't cater to both playerbases just as well as NS1 did.
Comments
I'm curious about what you mean by "just can't do properly yet." What would be "done properly in your opinion. Your personal preference is obviously that nothing block your screen, which is fine, for me its just "as long as it makes sense why it's blocking my screen."
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Then there is the issue with movement, I don't like it when it feels like you're on rails, and that's what NS2 really feels like (although it is getting slightly less). The slow walking-speeds, low jumping-height, ###### INVISIWALLS. When the map's brushes are doing all the clipping, you're on the right track, it gives you certainty and freedom, whereas in NS2 I feel like I'm in a walled-garden. Never sure whether you're going to make a jump over a railing, never sure whether you're allowed to go in a particular area.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Slow walking speeds seem sort of moot when you can choose to sprint or walk, low jumping height also seems to fit the feel of a heavily armored marine. I think BF3 made the best middle ground to satisfy immersive/free movement style when they allowed you to simply vault over taller obstacles without issue. It got rid of the ridiculous looking hopping and added a very satisfying and realistic leg over while in play allowed you to easy traverse obstacles.
Current gen games are starting to catch up with this sort of thing but I think free, realistic, movement is good. I much prefer low jumps for gaps, vaulting for low/middle obstacles at speed, mantling for chest high obstacles at fast or slow paces depending on movement speed prior, and full on climbing from standing jumps on obstacles above the head.
As for invisible walls, I can't recall any I've actually run into and really that seems to be more of a map issue.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When I mean fast I mean quake-fast, CoD\Battlefield is elderly-folks fast. I would try out Tribes, but it's pay-to-win, and I'm kinda resistent to that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why I said the newest one is Tribes while the soft mil sims (CoD, Battlefield) straddle immersive/free movement games. I don't include them in the genre of fast paced arena shooters or immersive games because they land in the middle.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The constant comparisons to L4D are getting silly, L4D's infected-team is completely built around the concept of entangling the survivors, they haven't many other means of defeating them, whereas NS' aliens need no such mechanics to put the marines in their place.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's really not about needing, it's about wanting. Do marines really need every gun they have? Couldn't they just have one gun that sort of did everything well? Variety is the spice of life and that's why the topic keeps getting brought up, because no other FPS really delivers that kind of interaction between the sides(illusionary as they are, of course being just an animation/screen effect) where you might feel what it's like to suddenly be knocked over by a human sized jumping thing (hunters in L4D, but any similar creature works in comparison) or see the effects of having slime splatted onto your visor, etc. That's what attracts people to it, the ability to get a close to the real thing as possible in a game format, not because it's necessary. Ultimately all that's really necessary in an FPS is targets that move and the ability to aim and move plus an environment to do it in. Lighting, textures, fancy models, multiple guns, they're all window dressing designed to increase immersion.
I don't get immersed into the game, it's just a collection of polygons\sprites in my view, so instead of thinking "gosh that looks cool and makes me feel like I'm really livin' it!", I think "yea alright I get it, real-time shadows, now shut the ###### flashlight off I can't see ###### through all this fog (/me does r_fog 0)".
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Slow walking speeds seem sort of moot when you can choose to sprint or walk, low jumping height also seems to fit the feel of a heavily armored marine. I think BF3 made the best middle ground to satisfy immersive/free movement style when they allowed you to simply vault over taller obstacles without issue. It got rid of the ridiculous looking hopping and added a very satisfying and realistic leg over while in play allowed you to easy traverse obstacles.
Current gen games are starting to catch up with this sort of thing but I think free, realistic, movement is good. I much prefer low jumps for gaps, vaulting for low/middle obstacles at speed, mantling for chest high obstacles at fast or slow paces depending on movement speed prior, and full on climbing from standing jumps on obstacles above the head.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again I'm not immersed at all, so it is only bothering me. I want to get from A to B in a quick enough fashion to execute strategic plans, not play mini-games with myself, sprinting, watching the adrenaline-bar, hopping over railings like I'm on a ###### obstacle-course.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for invisible walls, I can't recall any I've actually run into and really that seems to be more of a map issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When I say invisiwalls I really mean clipping-hints, which cause uncertainty whether or not you can get away with certain movement-interactions, you never know for sure until you try it. That sucks.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's really not about needing, it's about wanting. Do marines really need every gun they have? Couldn't they just have one gun that sort of did everything well? Variety is the spice of life and that's why the topic keeps getting brought up, because no other FPS really delivers that kind of interaction between the sides(illusionary as they are, of course being just an animation/screen effect) where you might feel what it's like to suddenly be knocked over by a human sized jumping thing (hunters in L4D, but any similar creature works in comparison) or see the effects of having slime splatted onto your visor, etc. That's what attracts people to it, the ability to get a close to the real thing as possible in a game format, not because it's necessary. Ultimately all that's really necessary in an FPS is targets that move and the ability to aim and move plus an environment to do it in. Lighting, textures, fancy models, multiple guns, they're all window dressing designed to increase immersion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's that word again, immersion, I think we can agree that we're both looking for something different in this game, which is all fair game, it's moddable after all. Now we've deviated from the doors-topic a bit too much I guess, /quits.
PS:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think this is the wrong game for you, player. Try Q3Arena. That is what you want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the most useless and ignorant comment i have ever seen... if you are not able to make a good argument or communicate in a nice way why you dont agree with others, better post nothing.
To encourage more ventplay and ambushes.
Because it is so right everybody speechless :p
I bet, this isnt true. ;)
But seriously it was no offense. Its simple a fact. He wants a game with zero immersion and 100% focused on competitive gameplay. NS2 will not be this kind of game. You can't pay the development of a game only by the competitive players. You need the normal public masses to get enough money out of the game. And this people want nice graphic and stuff.
But seriously it was no offense. Its simple a fact. He wants a game with zero immersion and 100% focused on competitive gameplay. NS2 will not be this kind of game. You can't pay the development of a game only by the competitive players. You need the normal public masses to get enough money out of the game. And this people want nice graphic and stuff.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think they are mutually exclusive, if implemented carefully. The problem arises when functions are added that detract from gameplay, purely for aesthetic reasons.
Counter-Strike was pretty successful and offered little immersion. It allowed you to easily perform the desired actions without hastle. This allows you to focus on strategy, tactics, etc.
Counter-Strike was pretty successful and offered little immersion. It allowed you to easily perform the desired actions without hastle. This allows you to focus on strategy, tactics, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But the same is true in reverse. Sacrificing atmosphere or tactical movement would take away a lot of NS2's unique appeal.
Sure you can be successful with a game that relies solely on mechanics, but NS2 is not that game. Trying to compete with CS, TF2, BF, COD, on "their turf" is not going to happen.
NS2 is currently almost solely focused on the immersive aspects for casual players. There's barely a single mechanic, outside of aiming, that truly rewards time spent practicing. I know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of competitive players I know from NS1, and there are a lot of them after eight years of playing it, find NS2 incredibly boring and will not play it when it is released, even though many of them have already bought it.
I don't think anybody really wants NS2 to be NS1 with better graphics, but there's no reason why it can't cater to both playerbases just as well as NS1 did.