Team Fortress 2

[trepid_jon]

Originally Posted by mistermojo

lol

HL1 - Ok, I'll give you that one
HL2 - Fun game, really overrated because of the engine
TFC- Not Valve's game
CS - Not Valve's game
DoD - Not Valve's game

Let's see what happened when Valve worked on the Source sequels:

CS:S - Simplified game, more newbie friendly, not nearly as fun as CS
DoD:S - Worse than DoD, no real DoD player takes it seriously

While it's true that CS wasn't technically Valve's game at first, they picked it up very early on its life and hired Gooseman and Cliffe (the 2 creators...Gooseman did most of the development, though...well, aside from all the mappers like that cs_docks creator that killed himself like a little bitch...don't know how many of the CS mappers work for Valve) who then worked on CS:S and other games. Just like the TF creators for TFC and TF2, and just like a lot of the DoD team for DoD:S...and now just like the Narbacular Drop people making Portal.

So collectively, people at Valve made all of those games.

Did your point die in a fire yet?

[DirkPitt]

jon makes me lol

[Lost]

I'm gonna record him and Jesse in Vent and leak it someday. I lol'ed myself to tears yesterday.

[Nezumi]

Originally Posted by summit

Nezumi - thanks for the 101 on imagination, I was a bit lost there for a little while, but I think I got the basics down. So your imagination substitutes for real facts eh?

This is roughly what making assumptions is, fyi. I'm basing my opinions on the assumption that they're telling us about the biggest changes, and any other differences will have a smaller impact on gameplay than the differences they've already mentioned. It's a stretch, I know, but this isn't rocket science. Soooo by filling in the gaps with TFC we get a fairly complete picture from which to begin making assumptions. See? It's like magic how the mind makes these connections.

That's pretty sweet, but unless you happen to be clairvoyant your imagination actually counts for very little in terms of substance and value.

No shit dude, we're just talking about my opinion here, not world peace. If you don't want to hear people's opinion on TF2 then wtf are you doing in this thread?

I mean, you don't even have a full list of features in front of you, so whatever you're imagining must be pretty dull and incomplete - dare I say too incomplete to make an assessment about?

See first paragraph.

The rest of us unfortunately have to wait to play the game to understand how it'll work - sure we have imaginations, but we aren't daft enough to assume we've been told everything, or that we even understand the workings of a game months away from release, that we've only been shown snippets of. You even mention public evidence, which is unfortunately very scarce and limited.

Lord, you just put an awful lot of words in my mouth...

The problem I see the developers facing is they have no control over what upsets you

I disagree. I think Valve can be held accountable for the extent of the popular appeal of their games, to gamers as a whole anyway. As for myself, I don't think anything I'm saying isn't being said by a significant portion of the TFC community. I know Valve playtests their games extensively, but to my mind they tend to fail to make positive changes to their multiplayer games fairly consistently. I don't think Valve keeps in touch with any community larger than their in-house testing group*.

seeing as that's entirely based on an admittedly rough projection of your imagination. Call me crazy but that sounds ignorant more than anything

Wait, valve not being able to tell what will upset me is ignorant of them? Is that sarcasm or did you mean something else? Could you clarify this?

*TFC being the notable exception, with the addition of another set of models, teleporters, and the bhop and conc tweaks, etc.

[GhOsT]

Nezumi, you know what happens when you assume....(I really shouldn't have to complete this)

[Gunslinger]

I love it when people cry that CS:S is crap or noobified compared to CS1.6. Aside from graphics, there's almost no difference between the two.

[tu!]

Originally Posted by Gunslinger

I love it when people cry that CS:S is crap or noobified compared to CS1.6. Aside from graphics, there's almost no difference between the two.

lol.

[squeek.]

Originally Posted by Gunslinger

I love it when people cry that CS:S is crap or noobified compared to CS1.6. Aside from graphics, there's almost no difference between the two.

Originally Posted by mistermojo

Also, the difference is huge: Hitboxes, hit detection, walking and running speed, grenades, maps, wallshooting, movement, the entire game feels better in 1.6

That, and the added randomness to everything--hence why there are really awful teams in CAL-M+ (which could NEVER be done in 1.6)

[mistermojo]

my favorite part of CS:S has got to be how all hit detection changes based on server ticrate. And for some reason they made the CS:S default ticrate 33, one of the lowest, compared to 66 for all their other games.

It's like a challenge just figuring out where you have to aim every time you join a different server.

[Coronius]

Wasnt it proved like OVER AND OVER again that the hitboxes thing was fixed like a year ago?

[Dospac]

Yep.

[Everything]

But, you gotta admit CS:S has alot of servers!
I can't be exact, but i'd estimate the last time I counted it was around 10,000 with nothing filtered, and 4-6,000 with a "No password" filtered or "has players" filtered.

[mistermojo]

Originally Posted by Kenny

But, you gotta admit CS:S has alot of servers!
I can't be exact, but i'd estimate the last time I counted it was around 10,000 with nothing filtered, and 4-6,000 with a "No password" filtered or "has players" filtered.

1.6 has like 4x as many people playing as CS:S

[GhOsT]

That still doesn't discount that fact that CS Source is by far the second most played MP game on steam. Just because the diehard CS people didn't all move over to CS Source doesn't mean that a lot of people are not having fun playing it.

[Nezumi]

That, in turn, doesn't make it a good game.

[PsYcNeT]

But, didn't you hear?

The majority always makes the best decisions!

Why do you think the Top 40 is always the best music available?

[fishBurger]

I'm sensing some connection between commercial gain and popularity.

Somehow quality has a negligible effect on the equation.

[Gunslinger]

lol @ hitbox whinging. They are just as bad/good in CS:S as any other valve game; sometimes it seems completely random, others it's spot on, usually depending on the quality of server and whether the target is lagging or spanish.

Still, you stick to what you know (CS1.6) and I'll stick to playing a game which is the same with prettier graphics.

[mistermojo]

Originally Posted by Gunslinger

lol @ hitbox whinging. They are just as bad/good in CS:S as any other valve game; sometimes it seems completely random, others it's spot on, usually depending on the quality of server and whether the target is lagging or spanish.

Still, you stick to what you know (CS1.6) and I'll stick to playing a game which is the same with prettier graphics.

Huh? You yourself said the hitboxes are random depending on the server, and you can't know CS very well if you think they're the same game. But, hey, knock yourself out.

[GhOsT]

Originally Posted by Nezumi

That, in turn, doesn't make it a good game.

But that is just your opinion. For it to have ~60k people playing it at any given time seems to point to not everything thinking it's a bad game.

A lot of TF players though TFC sucked. Yet you on the other hand do not. So just because a bunch of TF diehards didn't like TF makes it a crap game?

It's all in how you view the game and enjoy the game. Just because you and a bunch of CS diehards don't like a game doesn't mean people are not enjoying the game and think it's the best thing out there right now.