Frag grenades

[Player]

The only good bond film starring Brosnan was Goldeneye, all of the other films were utter shite; I hate cheese--especially when films are coated with it.

All other Bond films are shit with the exception of Casion Royale and all Sean Connery films

[Dospac]

Haha I was gonna look that up w/one more click on imdb but I didn't. Funny that the last two good Bond films were both directed by him 12 years apart.. If Brosnan stopped at Goldeneye, I could see him putting up a fight to Craig.. But the other movies sucked and even though it wasn't Brosnan's fault, it still hurts his Bond standing.. Anyway .. yeah...

[mistermojo]

Brosnan was a great Bond, he just got a bunch of shitty movies

[Dospac]

Meh, he was good but.. Craig has the character down much better after 1 film imo. Brosnan came off as snobbish, basically like every other character he's played in film.. that over the top haughty air(Kinda like how the younger Clooney as an actor always reverted to the same gestures and facial expressions with every character he played). Not really out of place when playing Bond though I guess..

Dunno, Craig is better at conveying a wider range of emotion. His portrayal is much more modern and really the first interesting take I've seen on the character in film since the original Connery films. This could be entirely because of the director though, and I suspect Craig now doing Goldeneye then would have outshined Brosnan's performance.

But I hated Moore's bond so that puts me sorta 'out there' already on the series.

[fishBurger]

I was skeptical of the new bond.. then I saw layer cake.


Couldn't wait. Daniel Craig's got just the right combination of brosnan suave and connery badass.

[mistermojo]

he didn't look like I imagined Bond to look though. Like the scene where those two girls look back at him, that would have been perfect with Connery or Brosnan but seems unbelievable with Craig

I like Bond because he is that cool high class agent, not another Vin Diesel or Transporter

[Norris]

Originally Posted by mistermojo

he didn't look like I imagined Bond to look though. Like the scene where those two girls look back at him, that would have been perfect with Connery or Brosnan but seems unbelievable with Craig

I like Bond because he is that cool high class agent, not another Vin Diesel or Transporter

never liked Brosnan. he just didn't fit at all in the movies. the new one seams to be acceptable.

btw: Jason Statham and Vin Diesel are pretty cool.

[mervaka]

i dont know why everyone slated craig before CR's release. ive always thought he's an awesome actor

[jimbo]

about the gren thing:
What if you could pick up the (primed) gren and throw it back at the attacker. Kind of 'real life' solution to spam.

[Player]

Originally Posted by mervaka

i dont know why everyone slated craig before CR's release. ive always thought he's an awesome actor

Indeed.

My brother disapproved of him though. The silliest complaint that came from his mouth was: "James Bond cannot be blonde!" :S

[Circuitous]

Originally Posted by jimbo

about the gren thing:
What if you could pick up the (primed) gren and throw it back at the attacker. Kind of 'real life' solution to spam.

Then you can't hit people with them.

[Nezumi]

The only other movie I've seen Craig in was Road to Perdition. He was really good in that though. Creepy mofo.

I do agree that all the Bond films between Goldeneye and Casino Royale were pretty bad, but I think brosnan really made the most out of them. Brosnan also does torture scenes way better than Craig. (And that's saying something :P)

[unf]

The whole slapping the nuts thing was just creepy.

[Agret]

Originally Posted by Leandros

Casino was boring shit. All he did was sit on his lazy ass playing cards. Real Bond films are shot in 500 different countries. Such as Living Daylights

Damn straight, after watching Casino Royale I thought i'd just watched one of those poker shows they seem to have on TV. Just watch World Poker Tour if you're thinking of seeing Casino Royale.

Originally Posted by Circuitous

Then you can't hit people with them.

Sure you can, you can throw grenades back in Day of Defeat and people still get killed by them....

[AmazingNurseEnrique]

Originally Posted by STA_SirTiger

What are you talking about...........

FORTRESS FOREVER = FREE REMAKE OF TFC FOR SOURCE ENGINE WITH MODS, DONE BY THE FF TEAM

TF2 CRAP GAME THAT IS BEING DEVELOPED BY VALVE

FF will NOT do the same mistake and remove concing sir.......that's TF2 . Anyways you did not say anything about them removing....but you did get get TF2's article mixed up with this mod. Definately no, double jumping is not more effective than concing.

Concs = Gold = Life = TFC or it aint shit

Simply put, you're wrong. Concing and grenades is not what makes a Fortress game a Fortress game. They are part of what made TFC what it was, but it is not core to newer renditions, and is certainly a feature that can be discarded or adjusted if you build around it.

Excuse me if I'm a bit harsh, but your view is narrow, short-sighted, and shows you don't understand a thing about game design. Taking what you liked to do out of the game doesn't make the game worse -- it simply means you need to adapt and learn a new skillset to survive within a new game. Yes, FF decided to go with the classic staples of primary/secondary grenade mechanic, but assuming this makes or breaks either FF or TF2 is a ludicrous statement.

TFC had a lot of bad or sub-optimal mechanics that lessons can be learned from. Conc jumping is fun, yes, I agree, but so is the idea of classes that fight in completely different ways, By removing the higher-damage grenade capabilities of the lighter classes, you can achieve this more easily. EMPs alone made Engineers much more combat-worthy than intended, as did frags on medics. The two solutions to adjust the game in a more role-driven direction is to lower the effectiveness of these or remove the mechanic entirely to try something else that could prove fun also.

Did you remember original TF's release? No one understood conc jumping or anything, that stuff really wasn't designed in the game, it was part of an emergent strategy that formed as the game and players matured into the community. These things will exist in nearly any game that requires skill. For example, maybe in a new fortress game, a light class could more readily jump off of another soldier's rocket, or you can use sticky bombs on walls to make a ladder and hop your way up to otherwise unreachable places.

I don't expect everyone to go "Wow TT2 looks great," but I do expect people to think about their statements as why a game is good or bad instead of maintaining a short-sighted view that they have to learn a new game and new tricks, and that it sucks.

So, let me leave you with this: assuming a new game takes skill to play and is based on Fortress, how does the lack of concs or grenades in general make it worse? And, if you're looking for original TF mechanics, why are you looking towards new games when TFC still has servers up?

[unf]

tl;dr

[snakeater]

It's difficult to say if grenades should be slimmed or restricted in some way; it's true that if you go on ANY TFC server, there are millions of nades being spammed everwhere whereever you go, yet surely that's just part of TF, wouldn't be the same without explosions going off every 5 seconds

Probably best to leave the nades unrestricted and see how people play; if nade spamming becomes a problem, it's always something that can be looked into I'm sure.

[Nezumi]

I agree with a lot of your statement, but

Originally Posted by AmazingNurseEnrique

how does the lack of concs or grenades in general make it worse?

Because then we can't throw grenades. It's not hard to understand. It's possible that whatever other positive changes they make will outweigh any changes that I may not like, but it's a fact that I like throwing grenades.

[AmazingNurseEnrique]

Originally Posted by Nezumi

I agree with a lot of your statement, but


Because then we can't throw grenades. It's not hard to understand. It's possible that whatever other positive changes they make will outweigh any changes that I may not like, but it's a fact that I like throwing grenades.

I do too, you're right in that it doesn't make the -game- worse, but can detract from a single individual's enjoyment of that game. I think the statement "I really enjoy grenade combat" is fine, but saying that the lack of them makes a game worse from a design or balance standpoint is what I have a problem with.

[Nezumi]

I think 'worse' is a terrible word to use. To me a game is worse than another game if it's less fun than that game, subjectively, while at the same time the more fun game may have worse balance, objectively.

In any case, I don't think anyone will deny that Valve is making TF2 more noob friendly than TFC. This doesn't mean better balance, necessarily, but from my point of view it seems likely that it will make the game less fun in many ways. Being fun, being balanced, and being appealing to a wide audience are all distinct and worthwhile goals that will often conflict. If TF2 appeals to a very broad audience but isn't as fun as TFC (in my opinion), then that's bad for me but good for valve. If it's both, then everyone wins. Chances are there will be things I like about TF2 but grenade priming is one of my favorite game mechanics in ANY game.