On 16/04/2012 08:00, Jonah Hirsch wrote:
The point is to get better and not die so quickly. Being the last guy alive
is a rush.
But you don't get better in 20 second chunks with 5+ minutes in between.
At least I don't, I just play something else that I find fun to do :)
It's the same thing that stopped me playing L4D2 as a monster, there's
simply not enough gameplay to practise getting good at it or to have fun
doing it.
Playing the main protagonists isn't too bad - because you have the
campaign mode where you get around 30-40 minutes of, mostly, continuous
playing.
But playing as, say, a hunter? You get some random chance of even being
that character, then you run around doing nothing, choose somewhere to
spawn and then die after trying this clumsy jump mechanic that usually
ends with you landing right in front of them so they can trivially kill
you. Then you sit and watch and the next time you spawn, you're not a
hunter. So, in an hour of trying to play, how much time do you get to
'get better' at it? Not enough.
It just ends up as one long depressing cut scene of other people playing.
Besides, they released TF2 which is infinitely better. It's the exact
opposite, it's a few minutes of playing followed by 10-20 seconds of
watching others and whilst you'll experience everything there is to
playing CS in the first 2 minutes of doing it - even if you don't do it
well. With TF2 you could play hours of one class, and then choose a
different class and the gameplay is completely different...and repeat
that another 7 times. Then later they update it and an existing class
plays very differently (and although the vocal crowd moan about this
updating, Valve appear confident enough to improve and change TF2.
Whereas they don't seem to feel the same with the CS community. e.g a
glance at the CS:GO blog suggests they are having to defend and justify
even the slightest difference in things like hitboxes or weapon accuracy
rather than some innovative new idea they've added to it)
But then I suppose it's horses for courses. Different games appeal to
different people.
Dota 2 is the opposite extreme. You can probably do a phd course in
figuring it out, it's so complicated. It just seems to me to be a bunch
of annoying clumsy game mechanics, e.g I can't see how last hitting
would ever be a fun thing to do. To try and not kill the enemy? I can
see that you can better at it and that there's arguably a skill to doing
it, but it just seems so clumsy having your character auto attack and
having to click all over the place trying to stop it from doing that in
order to score points (and even with auto attack disabled, it still auto
attacks if you attack once)
Arms race looks interesting though. I guess it'll depend how popular a
game mode that is. For the few minutes I've spent playing CoD games I've
played gun game - but it doesn't seem to be a popular mode there, you
mostly have to play against bots.
But it is slightly frustrating to me that Valve are creating these
amazingly well produced games at the moment for which the game play
doesn't really appeal at all. Because, in every other aspect they are
superb work. Dota 2 looks lush on a 42" plasma TV. My son's a huge fan
of it though. I just hope they start work on something soon that I want
to play (or indeed that any game developer does something that drags me
away from TF2 for a few hours at least - Portal 2 and Rage managed that.
Nothing multiplayer has though)
--
Dan.
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
