Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Team Fortress 2 - From Old To New

Posted by Zonk on from the i-call-shotgun dept.

As the Beta period for the incredibly fun Team Fortress 2 winds down, the website Rock, Paper, Shotgun offers up several pieces on the title. If you played the original TF and want to know how things have changed, they've got an in-depth series of posts on the nine classes. If you're more interested in the evolution of TF2 as a concept, the first of a two-part interview with game designers Robin Walker and Charlie Brown highlights the long road between there and here: "The arc of TF2 is something that's probably familiar to a lot of amateur developers or designers. When we got here the first thing we built was overly complex, very hard core, almost impenetrable to anyone who wasn't familiar with FPSs in general. And as we found as we played it, wasn't more fun because of it. I think one of the things we've learned as designers over the time we've been here is to better preserve our ideas while still making them more understandable ... If I looked back at various designs in the different versions of TF2, then I think that's the thing that moved the most. We were always doing interesting classes, interesting weapons, but I think the thing we succeeded at the most, that we were failing at the most, was that nugget of acceptability relative to depth." As for the best class, I tend to agree with Jerry.

99 comments

  1. Fortress Forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I prefer http://www.fortress-forever.com/ plus its free.

    TF2 is to slow and there are no grenades.

    1. Re:Fortress Forever by kevin.fowler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A day without grenade spamming is like a day without sunshine.

      --
      Bury me in mashed potatoes.
    2. Re:Fortress Forever by Nos. · · Score: 1

      Its taken some getting used to, but I am starting to like the no grenade thing in TF2. There's a little more strategy involved, especially when it comes to a well placed turret. They used to be fairly simple to take out, but not any more.

    3. Re:Fortress Forever by HairyNevus · · Score: 1

      I have heard rumors circulating in various TF2 games that grenades will come back once TF2 is out of beta. That said, anyone who claims that usually gets a "OMG thats a lie!" response, which has just as much credibility. Still, with the new Source engine the Spy's hallucinogen grenade has just too many possibilities to not be implemented.

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    4. Re:Fortress Forever by Brothernone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, in several interviews, they've clearly stated their reasons for removing nades. Most notable among them was the fact that it blurred the class lines, and that didn't fit in with their ideoligy. The other most notable reason was for the nade spamming, they felt it was a counterproductive mechanic and so removed it. From the way they talk about the 'nades being gone i'd put money on them not comming back, but i can't say it's a garuntee one way or the other.

      --
      He whom you called four-eyes yesterday, you call Sir tomorrow.
    5. Re:Fortress Forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The developers have said they aren't coming back. The official forums verify this: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=600765.

    6. Re:Fortress Forever by TobyWong · · Score: 1

      That's not what I heard.

      --
      - Toby
    7. Re:Fortress Forever by cthellis · · Score: 1

      Slower tends to make things more tactical. And grenade-spamming (and the stupid-as-shit concs) were what drove me away from Team Fortress to begin with.

      TF2 is glorious. (Though at some point it will no doubt lose its' luster. But it's going strong for now.)

    8. Re:Fortress Forever by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      Then why do several models who don't have nades have nades on their model? Like Heavy and soldier?

    9. Re:Fortress Forever by GearType2 · · Score: 1

      because at one point in time, they had grenades. But designs change, and they kept the models because they look great. Sure it doesn't make much sense, but neither does the purse in the pyro's locker in 2forts.

    10. Re:Fortress Forever by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Meh. Team Fortress went down hill with Team Fortress Classic. Remember how, in 1999, that was a short term thing to hold people over until TF 2 was released? TF2 has been in development almost as long as Duke Nukem Forever (seriously, only two years less), and after the first four years of anticipation I got bored of waiting. I also ditched my last remaining Windows machine. The original Team Fortress still works on *NIX on various architectures, but Half Life was never ported to anything else so, while I still play TF occasionally, TFC is gathering dust.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:Fortress Forever by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      Purse in the "pyro's" locker? those lockers are shared.. i haven't seen a purse?

      BTW the pyro has nades too..

      I don't think it looks great.. i think it looks stupid to have nades on a model that doesn't actually "have" nades.

  2. tf2 rocks by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 1

    it's the first fps since, hmmm, the original counter strike way back (around 1.5) that has me hooked and doesn't feel like yet another quake/doom/ut rehash. The polish level is amazing, and the art is just mind-blowing, amazing how they were able to create something so unique and yet make it run so well even on non super cutting edge hardware.

    major kudos to valve!

    --
    -- the cake is a lie
    1. Re:tf2 rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Playtime:
      98.6 hrs past 2 weeks

      Yeah, the beta is sweet. If you looked at how much I played any other game in any other two week period you'd find about 10 hours of game play. I actually have to get in a game before work, and then I want to play the entire time I'm out of work. My laptop plays it on low settings @ 25fps, which means I think I need a new laptop.

      Thank you Valve.

  3. Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by vertinox · · Score: 4, Informative

    I sort of had my doubts when I saw they were releasing TF2, but I'm slowly warming to the current concept.

    Back in 1997 when TF came out gameplay on the internet was very campy (literally) and very platform rocket jumping-esque. The original TF was a gem on Quakeworld because it provided more than just death match but rather a team cooperation game with different classes.

    Eventually, I went on to other games like Tribes, Counter Strike, and DoD and when I saw that the game was going back to its roots I had doubts that gameplay would work anymore since for a while they seemed to be taking a whole new direction with a more realistic atmosphere like counterstrike.

    But then I saw their art direction and rather than focusing on realism like counter strike, they made it look more cartoonish and platform jumpy which basically how things were back in 97 (Quake, Turok, and Tomb Raider were all out then).

    Of course it could be just nostalgia.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    1. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      One thing that really bothers me about TF2 (based on gameplay videos I've watched) is that when your team loses a game you'll be unable to attack until the next round begins. During this time the enemy team can freely frag you and there's nothing you can do about it. DoD has this "feature" as well, and it always made my blood boil with rage. Why would I want to play TF2 multiplayer when they have something like that in it? I may as well play by myself and repeatedly suicide with pipe bombs or rockets. I might skip TF2 completely because of this. Yes, it's that annoying.

    2. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? The free-frag period is only ~15 seconds long after your team wins a match (usually at least 10 minutes long). If it bothers you that much, either:
      A) run-and-hide when your team loses, or
      B) make sure your team wins

      It's designed to give an obvious penalty to the losing team, and a bonus to the winners. You'll often see players in other "team-based" multiplayer games just playing lone-wolf, maximizing their K/D ratio at the expense of helping their team. In TF2, you win and lose together. All of your l33t skills don't mean a thing if you can't lead your team to victory; thus you are faced with the consequence of running and hiding at the end of the round from all the "newbies" that managed to work together and win.

    3. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by godscent · · Score: 1

      I know it isn't long. It's exactly like in DoD. It's still enough to make me want to murder someone. The feature has nothing to do with any of that. It's just there to piss you off.
      I'm missing something. Why does this bother you so much? It's not like there's a penalty to getting killed.

      I've been playing TF2, and it never occurred to me to be upset, much less pissed off, by this. It's a silly 15 seconds of the winning team running around killing the losing team. I usually ignore what's going on during this time (win or lose), and instead look at the scores or how I did that round.

      If the designers put it in to piss me off, I think they missed their mark. And what a silly goal for game designers. That almost seems like something maybe they wouldn't try to do.
    4. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Skrapion · · Score: 1

      The feature has nothing to do with any of that. It's just there to piss you off.
      Actually, based on everybody else's reactions, it seems like it was only designed to piss you off. Congratulations! Valve made a design decision based solely on you!

      Seriously, I really enjoy the extra bonus of going on a rampage for 15 seconds when my team wins. But then again, I'm also the kind of person who would prefer to play a less glamorous class if it means my team will win.

      They're obviously pathetic noskill newbies if they're afraid of fighting against opponents who shoot back.
      If a team of noskill newbies beat you, what does that say about you?
      --
      The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
    5. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Skrapion · · Score: 1

      I was going to say that you're just being argumentative now, but I can see that the fact that you don't understand what I'm talking about is the very problem here.

      If you actually wanted to play a game about teamwork, you would understand that when I was talking about winning and losing I was talking about the map, not the person who got more frags.

      --
      The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
    6. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Where did I say I don't want to play a game of teamwork?

    7. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Skrapion · · Score: 1
      Okay, I suggest you take some courses in reading comprehension. In the meantime, let me spoon-feed you.

      If a team of noskill newbies beat you, what does that say about you?
      First, I'll remind you that the phrase "noskill newbies" was coined by you, in case you forgot.

      Now, when I made that statement, I was referring to the team beating you in the match, not when an individual person got one extra kill from you. (See how I specifically used the word 'team'?) This made your statement, which read:

      Beating someone is really hard when they can't return fire or otherwise defend themselves.
      make absolutely no sense.

      Then I went on to say:

      I was going to say that you're just being argumentative now, but I can see that the fact that you don't understand what I'm talking about is the very problem here.
      Here I'm being nice and assuming that you're not just being purposefully stupid to get a rise out of me, but instead made an honest mistake. In hindsight, the jury is still out on this one. (If you were in fact just being purposefully stupid to get a rise out of me, the rest of my theory falls apart. But whose fault is that?)

      Assuming that you just made an innocent mistake and missed the fact that I was talking about the team and the match, I formed this hypothesis:

      If you actually wanted to play a game about teamwork, you would understand that when I was talking about winning and losing I was talking about the map, not the person who got more frags.
      Clearly I have to explain this hypothesis further.

      Based on the fact that you assumed I was talking about your personal kills-to-deaths performance in the first message I quoted, it shows that you worry about your individual performance first and your team's performance second.

      If this is the case, it also clearly explains why this feature frustrates you so much.

      So, the question is, have you considered that you would simply prefer playing a game that's focused on individual performance, rather than team performance?
      --
      The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
    8. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Based on the fact that you assumed I was talking about your personal kills-to-deaths performance in the first message I quoted, it shows that you worry about your individual performance first and your team's performance second. If this is the case, it also clearly explains why this feature frustrates you so much.

      It frustrates me because it's fucking annoying and retarded that the enemy team can just kill me and I can't do anything because the game designers made the random decision of making me unable to attack when my team loses. This has fuckall to do with teamplay. The developers just want to annoy players.
    9. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Skrapion · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that a lot of people enjoy this additional reward for winning. In fact, everybody I've talked to about this feature enjoy it, as does everybody in this thread except for you.

      This is pretty good precedent that your claim of the developers' malevolence is baseless.

      --
      The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
    10. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Behrooz · · Score: 1

      Gawd, cry me a river. TF2 doesn't even keep track of deaths, but since you're so determined to do so, you may want to consider going back and camping some more counter-strike...

      --
      "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
    11. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Das+Modell · · Score: 0, Troll

      Then I guess there are a lot of cowardly noskill assholes out there who shit their pants if they have to go up against someone who can fight back.

    12. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Skrapion · · Score: 1

      You're still ignoring the fact that those "cowardly noskill assholes" won, and you lost!

      Oh hell, why am I arguing with a flamebaiting troll? I swear I'm going to suffer a concussion if I keep banging my head against this wall.

      I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer...

      --
      The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
    13. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by moonbender · · Score: 1

      For some reason TF2 attracts people who make a huge deal out of absolute non-issues, stuff that they are virtually alone in caring about. Recently a guy in the official forums was being abusive about the voice of the announcer, of all things, saying it was so annoying he had to turn off the sound. Mind you the announcer speaks about 4 times during a match... In the end he got so enraged, he got banned from the forums.
      So yeah, I think we have other things to complain about the game, although they seem to have the class balance figured out surprisingly well, judging by the approximate equal number of nerf/improve posts for every class.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    14. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're being an idiot.

      Don't like being shot for 15 seconds when your team loses? Then don't lose. It's really that simple.

      You're coming across as a whiny sore loser and nothing more.

      --
      No Comment.
    15. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      You're still ignoring the fact that those "cowardly noskill assholes" won, and you lost!

      Life is full of paradoxes.

      Oh hell, why am I arguing with a flamebaiting troll?

      Why are you accusing the opposition of trolling just because you have run out of arguments?
    16. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      I'm not a sore loser. I don't care if my team loses (which doesn't mean that I don't try to ensure victory), and I don't start flaming the winning team when it happens. This has absolutely fuckall to do with winning, losing or teamplay. There's no good reason whatsoever for this "feature," it's simply annoying and caters to chickenshit players who can't fight against enemies who shoot back. If I want to stand around and get shot without being able to do anything about it, I'll play offline and repeatedly suicide myself. Or maybe I just won't bother with this piece of shit game.

    17. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Where did I say this has anything to do with my kills to deaths ratio? Nowhere. It has nothing to do with my KDR. It seems everyone here is unable to deal with this subject without the use of ridiculous strawmen. People accuse me of being againts teamplay or being obsessed with KDR, even though this has nothing to do with either of those things.

      As for camping in Counter-Strike, it's actually a part of the gameplay mechanics so I don't know why the fuck you think it's supposed to be a bad thing, or why you even brought it up.

    18. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      And yet it has everything with whether you win or lose...as when that happens...the game is...wait for it...OVER.

      And if you're the one getting pegged at that point and getting pissed about it, you'd be on the losing team.

      It's the same as the winner of a race taking a victory lap. Are they chicken shit racers for taking that victory lap?

      No. They aren't. But you are indeed a whiny bitch.

      But please, if it pisses you off that much, then by all means don't play. That way I won't have to miss you when you're gone ;)

      --
      No Comment.
    19. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Das+Modell · · Score: 0, Troll

      And yet it has everything with whether you win or lose...as when that happens...the game is...wait for it...OVER.

      And if you're the one getting pegged at that point and getting pissed about it, you'd be on the losing team.

      Point not found. I already said I don't care about losing or winning. This has nothing to do with losing or winning.

      It's the same as the winner of a race taking a victory lap. Are they chicken shit racers for taking that victory lap?

      No. They aren't.

      Taking a victory lap isn't even remotely the same thing.

      But you are indeed a whiny bitch.

      Clearly anyone who opposes an unnecessary and irritating feature is a "whiny bitch."
    20. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      What are you, a fucking brick?

      I know you say you don't care about losing or winning, but this only happens AT THE END OF THE GAME. That would be to say: WHEN THE GAME IS OVER. In other words: WHEN NOTHING MATTERS AT ALL.

      It IS a victory lap you fucking moron. NOTHING that happens in that 15 seconds matters to THAT GAME, or THE NEXT GAME, except for morons like you jumping up and down screaming about something that doesn't matter one whit.

      No, people that are complete fucking idiots who don't 'get' things even after being bashed about the head with a clue stick repeatedly and insist on continuing to whine about it are whiny bitches, like you for example.

      Now, I've gone back and noticed that you HAVEN'T EVEN PLAYED, and thus have NEVER EVEN EXPERIENCED this feature to which you are so vehemently opposed.

      Maybe you should stop for a second and think about why that is and why it's resulted in such a reaction to your pathetic ranting against nothing.

      Either way, please oh please, just stay away from TF2. Don't worry, it's FULL of 'unnecessary' and 'irritating' features like that, you'll absolutely HATE the game, so don't bother mmkay?

      --
      No Comment.
    21. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Skrapion · · Score: 1

      You have two arguments:

      1) The developers developed this feature to piss people off.
      2) People who enjoy this feature have no skill.

      I've posited that the fact that you are the only sample we have of somebody who is pissed off by this feature is a good indication that the developers did not intend the feature to be malicious.

      I've also suggested that the other team required a certain level of skill if they were able to beat your team.

      You've not countered these claims. The best you've done is suggest that the reason why a crappy team beat yours is unexplainable. So you're right; I've run out of arguments. Presently, that doesn't matter, because you've yet to counter my existing arguments. Instead, you just repeat your claims and insult the rest of the world, each time with more inflammatory language than the last. That's why I'm suggesting the opposition is trolling.

      Is there anything else you've like me to help you understand?

      --
      The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
    22. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      You have two arguments:

      And you have none. Why else would you suddenly bring out the troll card? Go away.
    23. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      I know you say you don't care about losing or winning, but this only happens AT THE END OF THE GAME. That would be to say: WHEN THE GAME IS OVER. In other words: WHEN NOTHING MATTERS AT ALL.

      I know. I believe I already mentioned it's identical to DoD.

      It IS a victory lap you fucking moron. NOTHING that happens in that 15 seconds matters to THAT GAME, or THE NEXT GAME, except for morons like you jumping up and down screaming about something that doesn't matter one whit.

      Of course it matters. Otherwise I wouldn't be bothered by it.

      Now, I've gone back and noticed that you HAVEN'T EVEN PLAYED, and thus have NEVER EVEN EXPERIENCED this feature to which you are so vehemently opposed.

      Identical to DoD.
    24. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Skrapion · · Score: 1
      I don't even think I have to comment anymore. I'll just quote things you haven't bothered to read.

      I've posited that the fact that you are the only sample we have of somebody who is pissed off by this feature is a good indication that the developers did not intend the feature to be malicious.

      I've also suggested that the other team required a certain level of skill if they were able to beat your team.
      --
      The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
    25. Re:Transitioning from the late 1997 to 2007 by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      tl;dr

  4. Memories... by Diginosis · · Score: 1

    How I miss the old 28.8 and the origins of online CTF based gaming. Team fortress was certainly the most advanced game of its time with a balance and gameplay that I'll never find again. TF2 is a great mod and a decade later shows the concept of team fortress can still provide a great game even in todays video game market. Take me back to the days when games had a great supporting community of map makers and server modders (best was team fortress regular on quake levels with grapple, sounds weird but was EXTREMELY fun). TF2 is very nostalgic for me but in comparison to a decade ago seems a tad stale but still very fun.

    1. Re:Memories... by king-manic · · Score: 1

      How I miss the old 28.8 and the origins of online CTF based gaming.

      28.8.. such luxury. While in my day we made due with 9600. No fancy smancy k at the end.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    2. Re:Memories... by Osty · · Score: 1

      best was team fortress regular on quake levels with grapple, sounds weird but was EXTREMELY fun

      No way! The real best was playing plain vanilla TF (not the MegaTF crap or other variants) on the Holy Hand Grenade server. 24/7 Canalzon, where the canalzon map author (ramirez) would frequently play with us. Team Fortress on the Canalzon map pioneered the "territories" game concept that went on to feature prominently in many other games, from Tribes to UT to Halo. Respect your roots.

      Canalzon was the only way to play TF, IMHO. The 2fort and 4fort maps were okay, but it was still just CTF. Hunt the Prez was boring, and had horrible, eye-scarring textures. Canalzon required skill and tactics. We'd setup a medic in the command center (only accessible by members of the same team, or enemies who snuck in behind someone on your own team) to watch the board and direct pairs of scouts and heavies, soldiers, or demos to go pick up or protect specific territories. That's another game concept that others have borrowed and nobody has yet done quite right (Tribes and BF2 had/have commander views). Canalzon was way ahead of its time.

    3. Re:Memories... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      28.8.. such luxury. While in my day we made due with 9600. No fancy smancy k at the end.

      Pffft. I remember back when it was referred to as 'baud' and the numbers were measured in triple, or if you were really lucky, quadruple, digits.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    4. Re:Memories... by Diginosis · · Score: 1

      You missed my point a bit.. and I certainly agree with you that canalzon was a great map. What I was getting at was that the gameplay was highly dependent on the community whether it be the map builder or the way the servers were run. That type of free-form gameplay is what allows different people to come together to play a single game.

    5. Re:Memories... by cthellis · · Score: 1

      If you did not cut your teeth on 300 BAUD, you did not truly live!

    6. Re:Memories... by danlock4 · · Score: 1

      300 baud, pulse-dial-only...

      I felt privileged because it was direct-connect instead of having cups for a handset to be placed in. :-)

      --
      To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
    7. Re:Memories... by cthellis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, me too... I liked the cool factor of those handset-cradles, though! Where is it, where is it...? Ah, here it is!

      Hell of an upgrade when I went to the Avatex 2400 (could only find the 1200 BAUD model of this design in a good pic), though. I just about wet myself at how FAST the BBSes flew by!

  5. Original TF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By the 'Original TF' do they mean Teamfortress for Quakeworld or the much worse Team Fortress Classic for Half-Life?

    1. Re:Original TF? by Osty · · Score: 1

      By the 'Original TF' do they mean Teamfortress for Quakeworld or the much worse Team Fortress Classic for Half-Life?

      TFC wasn't so bad, once you got over the fact that heavies could shoot and walk at the same time. My biggest disappointment with TFC was the lack of a proper canalzon. canalzn2 tried, but it just couldn't match the feel of the original.

  6. Best game available on steam by Brothernone · · Score: 1

    I was verry impressed with the beta. I've played several recent betas (ET:QW for example) that were nowhere near as polished. I'd surprised if they changed anything as far as optimization. Small gameplay tweeks are easy enough through steam. What really got me though is the feel of the artwork. I have always enjoyed the Spy Vs. Spy type animation and this is right along those lines. I don't know why, but it reminds me of 50's boozerunners and their tommyguns. The gameplay is really fun as well as balanced. I think the lack of 'nades in general was a good idea. My favorite class, according to points and play time is the Demoman. Gotta love the nades. By far, in my opinion, the best game available on steam, rated on style and fun alone.

    --
    He whom you called four-eyes yesterday, you call Sir tomorrow.
  7. Is anybody here... by Veetox · · Score: 1

    ...a seasoned pyro; at least in TFC? I never found much reward in using this class, and it doesn't seem to have improved from what I've seen and heard.

    1. Re:Is anybody here... by Brothernone · · Score: 1

      I myself am not, but a freind of mine is. I've never been that effective with them, but No_legs will clear checkpoints single-handedly. A Pyro/Medic combo can really cook some people, especially if they are camping a checkpoint or corner. They can do massive damage, and the burning effect doesn't go away when your not directly in the flame. Taking sustained damage from the burning is pretty rough, and will knock a heavy down pretty quick if there is no medic to put you out.

      --
      He whom you called four-eyes yesterday, you call Sir tomorrow.
    2. Re:Is anybody here... by djarum72 · · Score: 1

      I play pyro all the time, it's the best anti-spy class.

      GTG, my sentries are getting sapped!

    3. Re:Is anybody here... by doojsdad · · Score: 1

      I've found the pyro to be especially good at guarding control points/pads. In general, they are best geared for close combat. What better way is there to defend your pad from 4 enemies at once than jumping in and setting them all on fire? When it seems all is lost I've been able to take out five people at once when 'critical hits' jumps in. The critical hit thing is also an interesting addition.

    4. Re:Is anybody here... by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, pyro is better than ever. Especially when you hear the soldier yell out "I'm on fire!"

    5. Re:Is anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been a long time since I played TFC, but back then I was the master of pyro. I never really had a need for the flame thrower because the rockets and the shot gun worked quite well. The way I played this class was like a solder but faster. I played pyro as a sort of fast attack guy where you use the rockets to cover your run up and then get to work close in with the shot gun and flamethrower also, the rockets were gold when it came to finding snipers. Hope that explains it

    6. Re:Is anybody here... by hocrap · · Score: 1


      Playing pyro was fun, especially when the map, like Fort, was crowded. Pyro was a class I would use when I would be tired of playing the others fun support classes like engineer and medic. I just loved to annoy these soldiers or snipers with rocket fire playing pick-a-boo. Great memories, almost ten years since TF on Quake, not getting any younger.

    7. Re:Is anybody here... by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      Engineer and Pyro are my two favorite classes, before and now. I'm very happy with how well the work together, both defensively and offensivly. The recent patch improved the pyro's point blank damage, making them a bit more effective on prolonged offensive drives where an engie team can get a turret and dispenser setup. Engineer and Pyro go together like Medics and Heavies, or Soldiers and Demos.

      On defense, the Pyro is the perfect match with Engineers. If a spy is stupid enough to sap something while a pyro's around, he'll get toasted and although his disguise remains and he can still cloak, the flames are a dead give away. Hopefully, the engineer is nearby and gets the sap repaired. If the spy goes after the pyro first, he's revealed and the turret get him. Outside of spies, the flame dot is usually enough to torch a scout, if he doesn't get a heal, so if you mark him on the way to the flag, he'll usually die on the way out, depending on how much damage was already done.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    8. Re:Is anybody here... by Mysterious+Stranger · · Score: 1

      I like playing Pyro in capture maps especially when I'm defending. They can be very effective close range but really suffer in large areas.

      Although... I played in a server today where half the server were pyro's (about half and half on each team). It was carnage and a lot of fun :)

    9. Re:Is anybody here... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      I never really liked TFC, but in the original TF engineer and pyro were the two most fun classes to play. Engineers would start defending, build a decent level sentry gun, and do a little lone attacking. A well-placed EMP grenade could cause a lot of damage to heavier classes. I plated a lot on CTF8, which had a pair of tunnels leading to the top of bases that you could drop grenades down (and then jump down quickly, because each base contained a button that killed anyone in the tunnel). Having an engineer drop an EMP down first, then a couple of pyros come in and take out the remaining defenders, before a scout ran in and grabbed the flag worked pretty well, unless the defending engineers had got their sentry gun placement exactly right.

      Pyros were great in close quarters against larger numbers. The incendiary rockets did serious damage to sentry guns at long range (and to clusters of defenders who didn't see it coming; good for making people move away from a certain area). The flame thrower, combined with the class's speed, was very effective for damaging a group of attackers. Run past them, circle strafe them with flame a bit, and then run away. The scouts can outrun you, but not much else (medics could keep up, I think). Everyone else is then sufficiently weakened that the heavy weapons guy and sentry guns in your base can cut them down quickly. Being on fire and twitching also made it much harder for them to shoot back.

      As I recall, TFC made the flamethrower much less powerful, and the lack of power combined with the lack of range made it completely pointless.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Is anybody here... by Floritard · · Score: 1

      I only played that class for a few minutes, but I didn't much care for it. It's funny that it has the least personality, just a guy in a mask. The Pyro would work if they made his fire do more to you than just suck health. It does obstruct visibility a little, but it should say, prevent your character from firing his weapon properly, maybe cause him to run around screaming that he's on fire. Then the Pyro could clear out a room. He'd be a force to be reckoned with. Alas, he's just a throwaway character now.

    11. Re:Is anybody here... by Hettch · · Score: 1

      Then the Pyro could clear out a room.

      This is the only thing i remember about the pyro from old TF. Except repace "room" with "server." Ha, in the quake days we all said he shot the "lag gun" since it just placed candle/flame entities around the map and after a couple minutes of shooting would cause everyone to lag out. When it was an annoying server, it was fun to run around with him for a while before back to the usual of sniping on 2fort.

  8. I've been waiting way too long... by msimm · · Score: 1

    I never played the original, but I became very interested after I started working on a Source mod of my own. I've been a big fan of class-based FPS team play since Tribes and an even bigger fan of fun/silliness since discovering (the tasteless) Postal 2 (not that it need be tasteless, but humor is good...especially with FPS where you can get WAY too serious). The thing I like about class play is if it's done right you actually end up in a situation where team members depend on other team member filling various roles. Most FPS really feel mostly like endless variations on standard DM. With good class-based play you have to opportunity to learn to excel at a variety of roles so that truly skilled players know the game and the teams responsibilities and make decisions based on more then simple kill-rates or individual point. Some of the most fun I've had was playing support competitively.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  9. TF2: AKA by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Incredibles Deathmatch.

    Everything about the art direction in the game reminds me of that movie... and I love it.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  10. Re:Not worth it. by nsanders · · Score: 1

    I have to highly disagree. I played TF back on QuakeWorld and I have been dying for TF2. Despite major changes I thought I couldn't get over (no more grenades, no more evil medics) I absolutely love the game. Instead of worrying about uber great graphics, they went for super fun game play. I've been having a blast with this update version of a classic.

    On the other hand, I have played QuakeWars and it felt like Battlefield 2, meets Doom 3 graphics, combined with Quake3 DM. The sound effects are almost all from Q3.. The Icons look just like Quake3, and the game play is what we've seen for years now.

  11. Re:Not worth it. by narcispy · · Score: 1

    I want to give this game a try been forever since I played the original TFC.

  12. Re:Not worth it. by TobyWong · · Score: 1

    TFC is not the original. Team Fortress for QuakeWorld is the original. TFC was originally a mod for
    Half-life, contained much brighter & cheerier versions of the maps and is looked down on by many of the QW TF fans.

    --
    - Toby
  13. Re:Not worth it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a huge fan of Enemy Territory and QuakeWars is a huge let down. It's basically a shitty version of Battlefield 2 with higher system requirements.

  14. First game that's hooked me for ages by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

    It's amazing. Almost worth the crazy long wait. Now I just need DNF and my gaming life is complete...

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
  15. Re:Not worth it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey. QW TF fan here. Played it way back when it was first released. I for one liked TFC and I'm loving the direction that Valve has taken TF2 in. I miss the old days of infecting medics and pyros that could ignite the ground, but I'm still happy to see my favourite multiplayer game alive and thriving.

  16. Re:Not worth it. by DudemanX · · Score: 1

    Off-topic, regarding the merits of ET:QW...

    I'm going to have to agree with the parent here and not with the many people here comparing it to a Battlefield clone. If you want to compare it to anything it's more like the Assault game type from the original UT. It will depend on how the retail maps end up playing but I really enjoy the mission and objective based gameplay more than the typical "capture the flag" or "control the nodes" type stuff which is all you typically see these days(granted, I have not played TF2 yet). I do think ETQW lacks some of the interface polish that games like Battlefield have but still I haven't had as much fun playing any recent FPS(excluding Metroid Prime 3) as I have the ETQW demo.

  17. Re:Not worth it. by narcispy · · Score: 1

    Oh my fault never played the original then, but I liked the TFC for HL, good stuff.

  18. can we start talking nerf/buff yet? by Some_Llama · · Score: 2, Interesting

    or is it too soon?

    Nerf scout shotgun or give them the sniper machine gun instead.. 2 shots from a scout's gun should kill a 175hp demo or 200 hp soldier.. i've seen 3-4 scouts rush a CP and kill everyone and cap the round.

    demo nades are a little under powered when laying ont he ground and exploding (direct hits are right, and stickys are fine).

    uber could last a little longer.

    overall tho you can tell a lot of balance was worked on prior to beta...

    1. Re:can we start talking nerf/buff yet? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      that should have read "2 shots from a scout's gun SHOULDN'T kill a 175hp demo or 200 hp soldier."

    2. Re:can we start talking nerf/buff yet? by cthellis · · Score: 1

      2 shots from a scout's gun should kill a 175hp demo or 200 hp soldier..

      Come now, "two shots can kill a demo or soldier" if you're getting a point-blank ambush on them; preferably shooting them up the backside of their head. It can't do nearly that damage if they're at any real engagement distance or in the middle of doing speedy maneuvers to try to not also get killed in one shot. (And the soldier's splash damage at that range can usually take them out.) This is about the only thing that turns scouts fun and USEFUL, as they trivialized before.

      Demos, meanwhile, are pretty strong, and keeping their splash damage under control is a way of keeping them from getting TOO strong and having their blind-fire/indirect-fire be too weighted. Why give them huge damage in each and every circumstance they could possibly be hitting with? Rewarding "lucky tags" also just seems like a bad idea, which is what shooting down stairwells and around corners and across boards into hallways indirectly really would be with their splash damage.

      Ubercharge could last longer, but I've seen it used amazingly well as it is, and it seems like one of those abilities that could easily get overbalanced and over-depended. For right now, I think it's pretty good, but it's also easy to tweak, so we'll see where it goes after a few months of EVERYONE playing.

      The game seems to be pretty damn solid right now, but we'll see what happens after it's really put through the paces.

    3. Re:can we start talking nerf/buff yet? by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      Bring bank bouncing grenades, what's the point of defending with them if you can't kill by lobbing them around corners? Scouts all giving x2 to cap is a little overpowered especially against the last capture point. How about a +2 limit for any one capture point, so more than 2 scouts doesn't cap any faster.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    4. Re:can we start talking nerf/buff yet? by Some_Llama · · Score: 2, Informative

      "It can't do nearly that damage if they're at any real engagement distance or in the middle of doing speedy maneuvers to try to not also get killed in one shot. (And the soldier's splash damage at that range can usually take them out.)"

      With the scout's double jump mid air switch direction maneuver there isn't any splash.. the scout is also so fast they can run right past the slow missle from a rocket.. the demo doesn't even have a chance since you have to hit them dead on with a nade, gl with that... the only choice for a soldier is aiming at his own feet thus taking a lot of splash himself, or stickies for a demo.

      I'm saying a soldier or demo should not fear a scout.. a scout should fear a soldier or demo.

      "Demos, meanwhile, are pretty strong, and keeping their splash damage under control is a way of keeping them from getting TOO strong and having their blind-fire/indirect-fire be too weighted."

      they aren't "too" strong is my point.. their sticky bombs are fine.. it takes 2 to kill a scout, 3 to kill a medic, 4 to kill a pyro and 5+to kill a heavy, but you can group up to 8 so no biggie, if you hit someone with a nade while it is in the air it is like a rocket blast/splash.. but if it is on the ground and goes off it is really nerfed.. hardly any splash or damage.. i've seen snipers stand next to 3 nades going off at their feet and live.. wtf?

      I'm not saying increase splash radius.. you should be able to dodge nades and dance around to avoid the splash.. but if someone just stands there with a nade at their feet there should be some repercussion.

      if i had to give numbers.. if a demo nade hits me in air and i am demo my hp goes to 40s so that is like 135 damage max, if I stand on one i'm at about 135.. so 40 damage? or 1/3 because it is on the ground?

      "Ubercharge could last longer, but I've seen it used amazingly well as it is, and it seems like one of those abilities that could easily get overbalanced and over-depended."

      Well i only meant another couple of seconds (you can't ap as uber anyway), esp with the slowness of the heavies while firing, right now everyone hides for 5 seconds and it's over.

    5. Re:can we start talking nerf/buff yet? by cthellis · · Score: 1

      With the scout's double jump mid air switch direction maneuver there isn't any splash.. the scout is also so fast they can run right past the slow missle from a rocket.. the demo doesn't even have a chance since you have to hit them dead on with a nade, gl with that... the only choice for a soldier is aiming at his own feet thus taking a lot of splash himself, or stickies for a demo.

      Soldier can splash the floor, wall, ceiling... Just a bit of predictive trajectory and you'll usually take the scout out in one if he's close enough to do real damage to you. And yes, you'll take some damage yourself, but then the scout will be dead, and you'll be free to walk to a resupply point. ;) Demos have a much harder time of it, of course, but they still have enough health to walk back to a defended area most of the time (since turrets tear scouts to shreds unless they are given 10-20 seconds of not being attacked to try hitting them from a tight vantage), and the closer a scout gets the easier it is TO get a straight hit and pop them in one. (Even if you have to get a bit lucky.) And let's not forget if you have a demo who's paying attention, if he gives himself enough space, he can switch off to his sticky bomb and create areas the scout CANNOT approach him from. Not to mention even their more meager splash damage does real damage to a scout. ;-)

      Usually, it comes down to who's the better player. I've seen some dizzying scouts, but I see plenty of adept players who can respond. Giving scouts a meager point-firing weapon essentially turns them as useless as they were previously in comparison to other classes. They'd have to ditch most of their maneuverability to get ANY range damage on. Hell, I think most of them would just go perma-bat at that point. Heh...

      they aren't "too" strong is my point.. their sticky bombs are fine.. it takes 2 to kill a scout, 3 to kill a medic, 4 to kill a pyro and 5+to kill a heavy, but you can group up to 8 so no biggie, if you hit someone with a nade while it is in the air it is like a rocket blast/splash.. but if it is on the ground and goes off it is really nerfed.. hardly any splash or damage.. i've seen snipers stand next to 3 nades going off at their feet and live.. wtf?

      Perhaps they need a bit more centerpoint damage so if you're close enough anyway they'll be forced to MOVE at the very least, but overall demos are very strong. Giving them notably more splash damage basically rewards careless mortar fire into areas where they're just trying to do ANYTHING risk-free, makes them always be a huge distraction, and lets them rout positions too easily. They become more of an ultimate OFFENDER at that point, which is not supposed to be the concept. Too strong and versatile; you would just have a few people guarding the demos, who would then just learn the trajectories that would let them rout almost any well-defended position with ease, as they no longer have to be accurate... just get close enough to splash away.

      ...and if you mean just give them a 10-20 damage buff, you're not talking much anyway, so it would hardly matter. It sounds more like you're saying they should get full "direct hit" damage at the center of impact, though, and scale down to half damage at the very edge.

      It's an adjustable thing, but I think they fit the role better right now the way it is, and would start to morph out of it the more you add to their primary fire in all forms without taking away anything else. The grenades could stand to jostle people a bit more, though, so there's at least more effect from sucking up part of the blast, if not more perminant damage. A bit of the old conc-swaying coming back might be fun. ;-)

      Well i only meant another couple of seconds (you can't ap as uber anyway), esp with the slowness of the heavies while firing, right now everyone hides for 5 seconds and it's over.

      Personally, I find heavies to be the o

    6. Re:can we start talking nerf/buff yet? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "and if you mean just give them a 10-20 damage buff, you're not talking much anyway, so it would hardly matter."

      It would make a difference tho.. last night i shot 3 nades and they landed at the feet of a sniper.. he just stood there and killed me and lived through their explosions.. if it was buffed by 10-20 he would have died as well.. so he would have to make a choice.. dodge the nades or take the shot and trade his life for mine.

      They already nerfed the demo. what nades are now is an inaccurate rocket launcher that becomes a dud when it hits the ground.

      "It sounds more like you're saying they should get full "direct hit" damage at the center of impact, though, and scale down to half damage at the very edge."

      no im saying the splash damage in total should be higher for nades on the ground.. whatever it is now +20 or so

      "And let's not forget if you have a demo who's paying attention, if he gives himself enough space, he can switch off to his sticky bomb and create areas the scout CANNOT approach him from."

      With the scout's speed the only time this is realistic is when the demo can see him coming from a long way away.. the sticky bomb has a delay before you can detonate and it takes 2 to kill a scout.. by the time they are launched and ready to fire the scout has already closed the distance.

  19. Re:Not worth it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's certainly true that quake wars is more of a crock than anyone expected it to be.

    the question has to be WHY oh WHY did they try to emulate bf2?

    as far as gameplay was concerned enemy territory is the greatest; all they needed to do was update the graphics, add a few maps, weapons, and abilities.

    splash damage will learn that you can only mess up this badly once; their name is pure dirt now.

  20. Re:TF2: AKA by Mex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Watch the Developer's Commentary on TF2. It's really interesting, and they mention they took inspiration from a 50's artist, which I forget the name of, but clearly the Incredibles ripped him off too.

  21. This Game Needs More Maps by CubeNudger · · Score: 1
    While I like some of the new additions, porting Warpath, Avanti and Crossover would do wonders for this game. It seems like some lousy TFC/TF maps got ported just for tradition (i.e. well and 2fort). Maybe they were fun in 1997, but they don't fit well in the current strategic game mechanic.

    Warpath especially needs to be in this game ASAP.

    1. Re:This Game Needs More Maps by GearType2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      the commentary explains the map situation pretty clearly. But the basic idea was this: Valve is great and awesome and all, so they focused on a core group of maps that everyone in their team wanted for TF2 that they could make *great*. Being very open to modding, the community would build the mapset up. If you compare TF2's maplist to TFC's you'll find TF2's maps are more in rotation than any of the basic maps in TFC(except for 2forts). Hell, granary, and well are some of my new favorites. Also, don't hit on 2fort too much, they changed it a bit, and it's nice seeing a familiar face in the list.

  22. Re:Not worth it. by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

    I've been playing the TF2 beta and I absolutely love it. It took me a while to get used to the changes since I came from the original QWTF and later Q3F... I was pretty upset at first when I found out that Valve removed grenades, medic infections, pyro rocket launcher, etc.. But I slowly began to enjoy TF2 for what it was and now I really enjoy it. It is basically a simplified version of Team Fortress, but it's still fun. I consider myself a hardcore TF fan, and even I can enjoy what Valve has done. Also, if I want to play a more classic version, I'll play Fortress Forever.

    I really like the stat system, though I wish it would keep overall stats for each class instead of just your best scores during one life. My TF2 stats: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Emetophobe/stats/TF2

  23. Re:Not worth it. by Puff+of+Logic · · Score: 1

    Off-topic, regarding the merits of ET:QW...

    I'm going to have to agree with the parent here and not with the many people here comparing it to a Battlefield clone. If you want to compare it to anything it's more like the Assault game type from the original UT. The tragedy is that it's not really comparable with the original ET, which in my opinion is one of the best multiplayer FPS games ever made and free to boot. ET just has a solid feel and gameplay that's plain fun, while the (admittedly demo) gameplay I've experienced in ET:QW just completely lacks that feel. I definitely thought ET:QW was closer to BF2 than to ET.

    On topic, however, I have to say that the TF2 beta has been nothing less than superb. I haven't enjoyed a game this much in many years and I've found myself roaring with laughter while playing. The art direction is superb, the sound excellent, the maps well-balanced, the humour spot-on, and every class is eminently playable. While my personal penchant is to play the medic, I've played every class (actually, except for the sniper) and have found something to enjoy in each one. TF2 is just pure, laugh-out-loud fun and that's probably the best compliment I can give a game.

    cheers.
    --
    P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
  24. Team Fortress 1.3 by FreekyGeek · · Score: 1

    Don't get me wrong, I am loving TF2. I think it's a hell of a lot of fun. I could suggest a few tweaks, but I'm sure everyone playing it could. I trust Valve to pay attention to beta feedback and gradually tweak things over time.

    But Team Fortress 2 this is not. It's Team Fortress 1.3. Lets' face it, what has really changed? The main thing is that the graphics are a lot better, and that's a very good thing. But as far as I can tell, all the changes are incremental. Unless I'm forgetting something, there aren't any new classes. All the classes pretty much do the same things. There are some minor changes, like no grenades. And the Medic ubercharge is pretty cool. But really, beyond the new skins and better physics, it doesn't really *play* all that much different from team Fortress Classic. And that's a bit of a disappointment.

    Maybe I just expect too much from Valve in the inspiration department. And having been a game designer myself, I *know* how tough it can be to balance gameplay. *Real* tough. But take a look at Starcraft 2, for example. now there's a whole new version of a game, with entire new levels of tactics. It's 3-D now, with elevations. They kept many of the tried-but-true units but have introduced some cool new ones.

    And that's the only remotely negative thing I have to say about TF2: it never really made me go "Ooooh! Cool!! THAT is new!" Even listening to the developer commentary, it's mostly about the art direction. Things they mention as big changes are the removal of grenades and stuff. I guess I just expected a bit more innovation from the people that brought us the Best New FPS Weapon In History, the Gravity Gun. I mean, come on, guys, you're using the same basic engine as HL2, right? Why couldn't we have a Gravity Master class that could catch or deflect rockets in midair, or grab that oil barrel and hurl it at a turret to knock it over? Or even a guy with a Portal Gun? Heck, I at least expected the environment to be a bit more destructible, at least, with objects flying everywhere like they did in HL2.

    I love TF2 the 2way it is, and I'll play it a lot. I've already racked up an embarrassing amount of hours with the beta. And the game is great, even if the sentry guns could use a few more hit points and range at level 3, and withstand a sap for a few more seconds. But while it's great at being a really souped-up version of the original, I don't give it 2.0 status. That implies a whole new version. That implies something really new and really cool. New classes and weapons that we haven't seen before. New strategies. You know - not just a much nicer version of the same thing.

    Anyways, kudos to Valve for a great job. I guess I can't expect groundbreaking innovation every time, and there's a lot to be said for sticking with the tried and true. But I just hold you guys to a higher standard, I guess.

    If anyone at valve reads this, consider some expansions

    1. Re:Team Fortress 1.3 by cthellis · · Score: 1

      But Team Fortress 2 this is not. It's Team Fortress 1.3.

      But the thing is... this is actually good. What other game has delivered the type of gameplay of Team Fortress SINCE TFC? I have never found a replacement game that fit the mold. Certainly I loved seeing games develop out of that kind of class-based, teamwork gameplay--from Tribes to 2142--but there hasn't been another game that's delivered Team Fortress.

      Frankly, polishing things up and removing the exploits was all they NEEDED to do. But in this case we also have more modes, more maps, and tight, polished gameplay. Hopefully that will continue and we'll just get... well... more. They have room to experiment later on, too. But for now, I'm just glad that I can come home. ^_^

  25. Re:Not worth it. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Team Fortress for QuakeWorld is the original Actually, it wasn't. Team Fortress for Quake was released three months before QuakeWorld. The QuakeWorld version was almost identical, as I recall, except you glowed the colour of the flag you were carrying (Quake only supported white dynamic lighting, QuakeWorld allowed multiple colours). Setting up a QuakeWorld server on a LAN was a lot of hassle (not least because it needed TCP//IP and we were all using IPX back then), and so I didn't play it much until a few years later.

    One big advantage TF had over TFC, other than the gameplay, was the fact that mods for Quake were compiled to some kind of bytecode, while mods for Half Life were Windows DLLs. I've player TF on DOS, Windows NT, Linux and FreeBSD on x86, and OS X on PowerPC using the same TF directory, just a different Quake binary. Someone joined a TFC game I was playing with Half Life under WINE, but it kept crashing. I still play TF sometimes over a decade after it was released. I don't even own a machine that can play TFC.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  26. TF2 is a golden game... b/c of balancing by syn1kk · · Score: 1

    The most amazing part of TF2 is not in the new art, graphics, map design, and certainly not the class based system, or UI... the real achievement is in how they chose to balance each class. Balancing like the different speeds of characters, the speeds of each weapon projectile, reload times, clip size, max ammo, critical hits (breaks up the monotonous turtling that is inevitable from good defense teams), uber charge. I mean every weapon is not new (see Q1 TF mod, weapons factory, TF mod for every freaking FPS game since Q1 lol). Every class is not new (see original TF mod). So really the most amazing thing is the fact that they managed to make it balanced... each class is playable! That is realllly hard to do when there are NINE classes... no other game really has NINE classes. There are soo many permutations that you have to think about. ----- I think the second biggest change in TF2 would have to be: no grenades. Wow. That is another huge change. Thinking back on all the TF I've played... ya grenades really destroyed a lot of the fun. The developers put it best when they say 'grenades didn't really add to the experience' and 'grenades took away a lot of the unique class differences' and my opinion is they were too often used for spamming. By the way I paraphrased the developer's comments. ----- I bet money that this game will be unrivaled as far as multiplayer experiences go for at least 2 to 5 years. And it'll probably be around with serious tourneys for at least 5 to 7 years.

  27. Are you an idiot? by syn1kk · · Score: 1

    ===1st point===
    Your supposed new ideas of a gravity gun or portal gun in the game... are idiotic. Yes these are fun and cool guns. Yes they would be interesting in the game. Would you have a cohesive team experience with lots of push and pull and multiple solutions to an offense / defense problem? No.

    ===2nd point===
    If the grav gun or portal gun were in multiplayer. They would be one huge gimmick. After a while they would be really old after everyone got accustumed to looking at the really cool yet shallow gameplay offered by the guns.

    ===3rd point===
    There is no way to balance those two guns no matter what you try.

  28. Re:TF2: AKA by cthellis · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._Leyendecker
    http://images.google.com/images?q=leyendecker

    While "inspired by," it seems to be in a very stylized sense, and pull a bit of the timeframe and lines and clothing... rather than the overall art style. I would not, for instance, match The Incredibles to him. You could more easily say that TF2 morphed the art direction of The Incredibles WITH Leyendecker.

  29. Classic by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Some people can't come up with a defense to a specific tactic, so they shoot nerf.

    Here's a clue, use your fucking head. There is a pretty simple defense against what you describe, but apparently you are so attached to a method of play or a type of defense you can't adapt, so you die.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect