haha yeah dux, that is actually how I divide games (crudely) into two genres.
1. The shout genre
2. The peaceful genre.
10 Years back I absolutely loved the first genre (CS, Quake, and later on DotA), but now I almost never play a game unless it belongs to the second genre. For example, has a 2 player coop against machine, where I can just relax and enjoy myself instead of pretending im paying some elite sport.
Only Valve would do something like this and actually be able to pull it off. They think outside of the box; that's why they have Steam and a ton of now very valuable IPs. Whether you like it or not, it's the key to all of their success. I think Dota2 is another brilliant move. It's an unexploited but highly valuable IP. I don't know why neither HoN or LoL could (or would?) call their game Dota2 but appaerently Valve can. Kind of evil in a way I guess, but at the same time; both HoN and LoL where made way earlier, and if they didn't see the value in aquiring actual Dota IP name, I feel like it's their own shortcoming. The original name is always the strongest. It's like Coca Cola and Pepsi.
Anyway, HoN is complex but lacks accessability. LoL is accessible, but lacks complexity. With L4D and TF2 on their belt, I think Valve can make a truly accessible multiplayer game, but can they retain the complexity and depth of Dota? Neither TF2 of L4D are complex games, and I think this will be the main obstacle for Valve.
Considering that everyone and their cat have already made a DotA clone, I'd say that is a pretty wrong move. 
Anyway, HoN is complex but lacks accessability.
I beg to differ, but there's no point in discussing a competitive game's mechanics, is there? I'm already getting my DotA mojo from HoN. *shrugs*
Quote from SindwillerI beg to differ, but there's no point in discussing a competitive game's mechanics, is there?
Is there not? 
Quote from NurbOnly Valve would do something like this and actually be able to pull it off. They think outside of the box; that's why they have Steam and a ton of now very valuable IPs. Whether you like it or not, it's the key to all of their success. I think Dota2 is another brilliant move. It's an unexploited but highly valuable IP. I don't know why neither HoN or LoL could (or would?) call their game Dota2 but appaerently Valve can. Kind of evil in a way I guess, but at the same time; both HoN and LoL where made way earlier, and if they didn't see the value in aquiring actual Dota IP name, I feel like it's their own shortcoming. The original name is always the strongest. It's like Coca Cola and Pepsi.Anyway, HoN is complex but lacks accessability. LoL is accessible, but lacks complexity. With L4D and TF2 on their belt, I think Valve can make a truly accessible multiplayer game, but can they retain the complexity and depth of Dota? Neither TF2 of L4D are complex games, and I think this will be the main obstacle for Valve.
I couldn't agree more!
I agree about L4D, but how is TF2 not complex? I've watched some competitive TF2 and it just boggles the mind.
Quote from CampaignjunkieI agree about L4D, but how is TF2 not complex? I've watched some competitive TF2 and it just boggles the mind.
Ok, I may have chosen the wrong words slightly. I didn't mean to say that TF2 is an uncomplex game, nor is L4D for that matter. But I think that the complexity in these games comes from how you play them rather than having mind boggling gameplay features. While TF2 obviously takes time to master it is still pretty easy to get into it thanks to relatively "few" choices and none of these being inherently bad ones for a new player. In Dota a large part of the complexity derives from the crazy number of choices that the player has to make, most of which are actually quite bad - especially for a new player. The core gameplay features of Dota certainly poses a higher threshold for a new player to climb past, and I would say that it is a tough(er) challenge to make these features accessible.
TF2 is TFC with half the features removed and the maps turned into domination deathmatch because the concept of defence is lost on 90% of pub players. Competitive play comes with so many class restrictions and rules that just weren't required in TFC because it was built around (or, at least, on) a competitive game. Not achievements and hats.
Though people will only remember TFC for dustbowl grenade spam. And those no skill medics jumping around really fast somehow.
There are plenty of solutions for the player having to make choices where some are bad and potentially unclear. Fighting games have to deal with this all the time and led to the introduction of tutorial, training and challenge modes, as well as in game slack mechanics. It's also paired with RTS/RPG elements that can highlight good, safe choices when it comes to character development or positioning... Or, you can just remove huge chunks of the game, only hardcore players like that stuff and you can spin is as 'streamlining' or 'back to basics'.
Quote from TaylorTF2 is TFC with half the features removed and the maps turned into domination deathmatch because the concept of defence is lost on 90% of pub players. Competitive play comes with so many class restrictions and rules that just weren't required in TFC because it was built around (or, at least, on) a competitive game. Not achievements and hats.
Pow.
More people care about options to help blind players play the game than give two shits about "competitive" play.
TFC is a pretty bad example when saying "it didn't need restrictions because it was based around a competitive game". I played TFC extensively and was in one of europe's best clans, as well as playing in |404| in North America (yup, I was a mega nerd). The leagues certainly had some rules but the vast majority of top teams adhered to various pieces of restrictive etiquette (either because they felt it made for a more enjoyable game, or they felt pressured to agree).
It was considered bad form to:
Use more than one HW
Use a HW in the mid map
Go all defence to hold a flag (unless it was in the midmap as the time ran out)
Swap / Swing (temporarily move an attacker into defence)
Potshot (have your attackers shoot other attackers on their way to the enemy base)
Backtrack (have your attackers chase the other team's attackers)
Spam respawns
... and all manner of things between.
I took part in plenty of flame wars over stuff like that (good times 
), including quite a few teams quitting midgame because of a dispute over unfair/unenjoyable tactics etc. In the NA leagues, there were a few clans in particular who were infamous for their tactics. Barely anyone liked playing against CNBL -- not because they were skilled (they had a few good players), but because they would try to win at all costs.
and the maps turned into domination deathmatch because the concept of defence is lost on 90% of pub players
This is also true, but I don't think it's a negative. IMO TF2's non-CTF game modes are much better in general. My guess is that capture the flag will barely figure in modern team based games. Indeed, one of my biggest regrets about Fortress Forever was making so many CTF maps instead of AD/Domination/other game modes -- CTF just doesn't work as a public game mode when compared to more modern alternatives. The same CTF problems existed in TFC -- typically nobody likes attacking (seemingly) alone, so they die a lot, give up and go defence. You end up with either lots of attack or lots of defence, but rarely a good mix on both teams. It was great on 'organised' public servers where admins kicked folk who refused to attack (admins 'fixing' your game is a sign it's broken) but most pubs were terrible and boring. You can go onto any TF2 server running non-CTF maps and get the same base experience because instead of having to divide between objectives, everyone is forced to pull in the same direction. The only schism tends to come in when teams stall instead of pushing for the next cap, but most of the recent maps are pretty fluid. As such, I believe capture point gameplay is superior to CTF for general gaming.
I have quite a few TFC friends who play clanned TF2 and they claim it's good in a different way, and that there's a lot more teamwork & tactics involved, too. In TFC your tactical discussions basically went "ok, 3 soldiers, an engy and maybe a HW. If the flag is in the rr, build a sentry outside spawn, reset after it reaches the yard". It was very prescribed and inflexible. Most offence tactics were simply kill a forward defender (like top spiral on 2fort) then pile down the spiral. Since you were getting in 60-100 attacks per map, there wasn't much time for fancy thinking, it was just blunt attacking pressure combined with a bit of familiarity.
I've played quite a lot of TF2, but it just doesn't do it for me in the way TFC did I personally liked TFC a lot more because there were more esoteric tricks and skills to learn (concing, bhop, trimping, ramp sliding, ramp jumping, skimming, conc aim and so on), whereas in TF2 you have a smaller set of skills and have to focus on improving those. I always seem to be attracted to games with a wide range of things to do, lots of classes and lots of nuances.
Basically, I think games like QWTF/TFC were amazing, but they were also very much of their time.
Quote from Defrag(concing, bhop, trimping, ramp sliding, ramp jumping, skimming, conc aim and so on), whereas in TF2 you have a smaller set of skills and have to focus on improving those. I always seem to be attracted to games with a wide range of things to do, lots of classes and lots of nuances.
And because of consoles being the primary platform now, these will be the things of the past for the majority of modern day fps games. In other words: Shit for simple minded idiots.
Quote from DefragTFC is a pretty bad example when saying "it didn't need restrictions because it was based around a competitive game". I played TFC extensively and was in one of europe's best clans, as well as playing in |404| in North America (yup, I was a mega nerd). The leagues certainly had some rules but the vast majority of top teams adhered to various pieces of restrictive etiquette (either because they felt it made for a more enjoyable game, or they felt pressured to agree).
Quote from DefragI've played quite a lot of TF2, but it just doesn't do it for me in the way TFC did
Quote from DefragAs such, I believe capture point gameplay is superior to CTF for general gaming.
I think we can make a distinction between actual event rules and gentlemen's rules. A lot of clans I played didn’t mind taking potshots, for example, and the game wasn’t rendered unplayable. But you didn’t have to hard-cap classes and remove whole gameplay mechanics (Ex: critical hits).
Personally my clan experience was quite brief but I did spend a lot of time on skill maps learning little tricks then going on public servers and flying around like superman or detonating dispensers to build sentry guns on light fixtures. There’s just no scope for stuff like that anymore.
Domination is a "better" game mode for "modern" "team" games because Joe Average helps by just running to the nearest chokepoint and shooting people. That doesn't mean CTF was bad, though.
Quote from DefragI always seem to be attracted to games with a wide range of things to do, lots of classes and lots of nuances.
Play Guilty Gear
Quote from JetsetlemmingMore people care about options to help blind players play the game than give two shits about "competitive" play.
As long as you do the former by not removing stuff from the latter everyone is happy.
I think domination is definitely a better game mode for the masses, because it's much harder to do something wrong / counter-productive. I agree that CTF wasn't bad (it was great fun on certain servers), but in the general case, domination is ... less bad. You get a more consistent game experience from server to server, at least. It's that age-old chestnut : trying to make a game that satisfies the casual player as well as the hardcore. It's bloody hard!
There’s just no scope for stuff like that anymore.
I agree to an extent and things like that are getting sparser and sparser nowadays, but there is still scope for it. My last 'big' game addiction was Battlefield 2, and it was absolutely packed full of nuances / tricks like:
General gunplay mastery
C4 chucking
Strafe jumping
Chopper TV missiles / soloing choppers
Jet skills / missile avoidance patterns / tricks
Long range TOW missile shots (always fun blowing up a chopper on the pad about 1 mile away via dipping it over a hill)
There was always something to learn and master Loved it.
Soooo we're going to see gameplay tomorrow then?
I really hate pre-rendered cinematics 
I love good pre-rendered cinematics.
Like Valve's!
Quote from PuddyI love good pre-rendered cinematics.Like Valve's!
Yeppers.
Though I can't say I care much about the game, seems so odd that a Valve game can look so warcraft-esq.
Keep in mind they use the engine and the game assets for these! So this is actually what you get in the game (probably minus the motionblur and the face rigs)
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
