What makes 'team fortress'?

[Bridget]

I was going to offer this question to the public on another thread, but it seems (at-least to me) to be worthy of its own thread. People are constantly arguing over what constitutes a team fortress game. Some suggest that certain games are team fortress while others, such as Team Fortress 2, are not. This happens even when pertaining to development of such games. 'Oh no, we can't have this implemented, that wouldn't be team fortress!' or 'Nope! We can't remove that! We wouldn't have a team fortress game without it.' I think there's a lot of gray area people constantly step into. So, the question for you all is this:

What makes a team fortress game?

[Rutabeggar]

Team Fortress games should be centered around the team. While individuals can be successful independent of their teammates, they should be exponentially more successful with the incorporation and use of other teammates skills, advanced knowledge, and a team oriented strategy. Thus, the game should be designed with the intent to enforce team play and perpetuate team based strategy. Each class should lend itself useful to another and visa versa. It should be cohesive so that 1 class is no more dominant over another without the help of teammates.

[WiFiDi]

ah this is a good question, and the answer to that is what ever you want it to be however to answer the team-fortress 2 question is tf2 is just as much of a fortress game as tfc the main and only real difference that makes these games seem so different are graphics and game-play speed tf2 is a much slower game. i dont know why poeple use its not fast paced an excuse not to call it a fortress game. i guess its some subconscious way not to accept the new reality. even call of duty is slower paced than most games of the older generation, tf2 is a bit slower perhaps.

but what i think a fortress game is a game that is based apon team work the rest is up to the people who make it (whether it be fast paced or slow paced). want more what the guy above me said exactly.

[Dexter]

there is no fortress around a control point

[angrypyro]

Originally Posted by Rutabeggar

Team Fortress games should be centered around the team. While individuals can be successful independent of their teammates, they should be exponentially more successful with the incorporation and use of other teammates skills, advanced knowledge, and a team oriented strategy. Thus, the game should be designed with the intent to enforce team play and perpetuate team based strategy. Each class should lend itself useful to another and visa versa. It should be cohesive so that 1 class is no more dominant over another without the help of teammates.

I think that this definition is too broad and could define a lot of other games that most people wouldn't call team fortress. ex: project reality

Would it still be a team fortress game if classes were added/removed such as the sniper or does it need to have the same 9 classes?

[Iggy]

The 10 classes(if you count the civilian) are part of what define a Fortress game, but that's not the only element. It's the versatility of the game to handle different playtypes(CTF, CMD, AVD, Escape, Sniper, Hunted, Mulch, etc) without any major changes to those classes. Yes, certain maps remove nades, or give extras. Others limit the classes to specific teams(or out of the map entirely), but the same classes are available throughout the game, with a consistancy between all of those map types. A Soldier in CTF is the same as he is in AVD, or Hunted, etc. I know of no other game that does this, besides a Fortress game.

[donkeyhacks]

Anything Not Tf2.

[Bridget]

HA HA HA... NO.

[KubeDawg]

I think we should keep to the 10 class tradition we have now, and improve upon those classes as much as we can. I have hope for the sniper, I am optimistic that the devs can overcome this great hurdle of a class, but the focus should remain on the characters.

[Eon Seig]

Fortress games all have the following elements.

1. The 9 primary classes.

2. Large variety of different game types offering an expanding gameplay experience that can appeal to everyone.

3. Fast gameplay. In my opinion, TF2 is slower than most Fortress games, but it is a hell of a lot faster than many of the popular games today and it still holds on to many of its roots in Quake. The slowness, though, is really only in movement. Pace of combat is still very high.

4. High degree of community involvement in the development process. Virtually every Fortress game is either built by the community or gets many ideas directly from the community. The commuity usually gets to give its opinion directly to the developers, or the community IS the developer. TF2 is a lot more introverted in terms of its development, but pretty much every decision made by Valve is based directly off of input they get from players.

5. Humorous non-realism. Pretty much every Fortress is game is far from realistic about anything, including TFC and Fortress Forever. These days, we're all upholding the quirks of being the sequels of a Quake mod and kind of making fun of those quirks at the same time. TF2 simply took this to the logical extreme of being absolutely not serious about any of these traits, but making an extreme effort to act serious about it.

6. Team-focused mechanics. Everyone can be effective by themselves, but because every class has strengths and weaknesses, teamwork is essential and significantly improves the overall experience of the game. TF2's choice in its development phase was to make sure that this single idea was more important than everything else. In this area, I believe Fortress Forever has failed greatly. The only strategy in any pickup game, or in any public game where either team is serious about having a competetive play session, is to throw as many scouts and medics at the flag as you can while everybody else sits back at home killing the other team's scouts and medics.

7. Highly competetive environment. Fortress games, in the end, are about competition. Every Fortress game has an extremely competetive atmosphere, such that every one is played like a professional sport by the most serious players. Fortress Forever was built on this concept, and that's pretty much why every one takes it so damn seriously.

These are the things that do NOT make a Fortress game.

1. Grenades. Shut up now. It is not automatically a fake if it doesn't have grenades. Grenades do not make a fortress game. There are a wide variety of other factors that go into this idea that have a much greater impact on the personality of the game. The way grenades have been done in the past have actually been extremely damaging to the balance and speed of gameplay for Fortress games. Fortress Forever has probably come closest to making grenades a good mechanic, but there is still work to be done.

2. Bunny hopping. It's a glitch that you made into a real mechanic. Good for you. It's your game and you can do whatever you want with it, and it helps keep the game moving quickly. It's also damn fun sometmes. It doesn't make FF the best Fortress game, nor does it make FF more of a Fortress game than TF2, TFC or any of the many now-dead Fortress mods that have come and gone over the years.

3. A focus on capture the flag. There are lots of other game modes that Team Fortress is made of. Not every mode has to revolve around a flag. However, CTF has to exist in every Fortress game in order for it to fit. Without CTF, it's not a Fortress game. However, it doesn't have to be all about the flags.

[chilledsanity]

Originally Posted by Iggy

The 10 classes(if you count the civilian) are part of what define a Fortress game, but that's not the only element. It's the versatility of the game to handle different playtypes(CTF, CMD, AVD, Escape, Sniper, Hunted, Mulch, etc) without any major changes to those classes. Yes, certain maps remove nades, or give extras. Others limit the classes to specific teams(or out of the map entirely), but the same classes are available throughout the game, with a consistancy between all of those map types. A Soldier in CTF is the same as he is in AVD, or Hunted, etc. I know of no other game that does this, besides a Fortress game.

I don't really see the significance of this and it's not altogether true. A civilian has different mechanics in waterpolo than he does in hunted and he doesn't even exist in CTF and AvD. In dm_squeek the mechanics are different for soldiers and demomen, as they are in ff_buggy, conc_cave, etc. The speeds are changed, firing rates, splash damage, etc, not just grenade amounts and class limits.

Even if this was true and all classes were always the same in different maps and gameplay types, I don't understand why this is important. Considering the massive balance shortcomings for some game modes that FF has experienced, I think this focus has actually contributed to its downfall. I've learned the hard way that what's good and balanced for pickups is a disaster for AvD. I think tweaking the classes for optimal in balance in different game modes would be a great compromise and would make development and testing significantly easier on the devs, since they would be pleasing all camps simultaneously. This proposal has been shot down before because it was said this would "divide the community", but what ended up happening is that the majority of people who disliked the changes left. It's easy to keep the community united when everyone who dissents leaves!

[Iggy]

The only thing I disagree with in the above post, is the part about grenades.

Frag nades are a standard across all classes(except Scout and Civilian), and are basicly a combat weapon. Combat is a huge part of the game, and thus so are frag nades. Class nades are specialized per class(except Sniper and Civilian), and each is designed to assist the class in some way. In essense, they give each player a way to DO something without danger/damage to their health/armour.

Concs- Allow movement bonus', plus have the effect of screwing with an enemy players aim.
Spy Gas(removed in the current FF)- Clouds the victims view, allowing the player to kill or escape.
EMP- Set off ammo both on person and laying around.
MIRV- Creates an area of danger to anything within range. Can be used against Constructs or Players. Kills or slows down pursuers.
Nail Nade- Area denial. Causes damage to anyone/anything in the path of the nails. Excellent for taking down SG's and harming pursuers.
Pyro- Again, creates an area of fire, which causes damage to enemy players that get caught in the area of effect. It obscures vision.

Taking those abilities out, changes the dynamic of the game.

[squeek.]

I think Eon Seig's point is more that grenades don't "change the dynamic" in a way that couldn't be done a different way.

That said, grenades add the ability to do two things at once in combat (shoot your weapon and throw grenades), which is relatively unique to TF games. The actual effects of the grenades could be moved to something like a weapon or special ability easily, but then the ability to "multi-combat" might be lost. Grenades aren't important because they add combat, they are important because they create a new kind of combat that could be hard to replace.

Whether or not that type of combat is necessary for a game to be a Team Fortress game is definitely up for debate.

[Raynian]

Knowing how to combo with ALL your weapons at once, including grenades, is a huge part of fortress-based combat. Especially in TFC, what separated the best sollies from the mediocre ones was being able to rocket someone into the air, shotty, then do it all again via juggling.

[chilledsanity]

A note to add: I think some people may redefine their definitions of Team Fortress as a result of Team Fortress 2. To be clear, TF2 is a team fortress game. The difference is that it changes so much about the gameplay that it feels like something else. This happens all the time in series games. The Quake series is known for fast-paced deathmatching. Quake Wars has none of this, but it's still a Quake game. Fallout Tactics doesn't have the same kind of rpg and exploration elements as other Fallout games, but it's still a Fallout game. I think the best analogy of TF2 to regular team fortress games would be Simcity Societies. Compared to the others, it's meant for a more casual crowd, has been dumbed down, and doesn't have as much as depth as other Simcity games, but it's still a Simcity game.

[WiFiDi]

Originally Posted by Eon Seig

Fortress games all have the following elements.

1. The 9 primary classes.

2. Large variety of different game types offering an expanding gameplay experience that can appeal to everyone.

3. Fast gameplay. In my opinion, TF2 is slower than most Fortress games, but it is a hell of a lot faster than many of the popular games today and it still holds on to many of its roots in Quake. The slowness, though, is really only in movement. Pace of combat is still very high.

4. High degree of community involvement in the development process. Virtually every Fortress game is either built by the community or gets many ideas directly from the community. The commuity usually gets to give its opinion directly to the developers, or the community IS the developer. TF2 is a lot more introverted in terms of its development, but pretty much every decision made by Valve is based directly off of input they get from players.

5. Humorous non-realism. Pretty much every Fortress is game is far from realistic about anything, including TFC and Fortress Forever. These days, we're all upholding the quirks of being the sequels of a Quake mod and kind of making fun of those quirks at the same time. TF2 simply took this to the logical extreme of being absolutely not serious about any of these traits, but making an extreme effort to act serious about it.

6. Team-focused mechanics. Everyone can be effective by themselves, but because every class has strengths and weaknesses, teamwork is essential and significantly improves the overall experience of the game. TF2's choice in its development phase was to make sure that this single idea was more important than everything else. In this area, I believe Fortress Forever has failed greatly. The only strategy in any pickup game, or in any public game where either team is serious about having a competetive play session, is to throw as many scouts and medics at the flag as you can while everybody else sits back at home killing the other team's scouts and medics.

7. Highly competetive environment. Fortress games, in the end, are about competition. Every Fortress game has an extremely competetive atmosphere, such that every one is played like a professional sport by the most serious players. Fortress Forever was built on this concept, and that's pretty much why every one takes it so damn seriously.

These are the things that do NOT make a Fortress game.

1. Grenades. Shut up now. It is not automatically a fake if it doesn't have grenades. Grenades do not make a fortress game. There are a wide variety of other factors that go into this idea that have a much greater impact on the personality of the game. The way grenades have been done in the past have actually been extremely damaging to the balance and speed of gameplay for Fortress games. Fortress Forever has probably come closest to making grenades a good mechanic, but there is still work to be done.

2. Bunny hopping. It's a glitch that you made into a real mechanic. Good for you. It's your game and you can do whatever you want with it, and it helps keep the game moving quickly. It's also damn fun sometmes. It doesn't make FF the best Fortress game, nor does it make FF more of a Fortress game than TF2, TFC or any of the many now-dead Fortress mods that have come and gone over the years.

3. A focus on capture the flag. There are lots of other game modes that Team Fortress is made of. Not every mode has to revolve around a flag. However, CTF has to exist in every Fortress game in order for it to fit. Without CTF, it's not a Fortress game. However, it doesn't have to be all about the flags.

what he said almost exactly dont feel like picking it apart. nice post.