Yakoob on 31/8/2011 at 00:01
Dethski - source is the only engine you still need to spend goddamn HOURS rebuilding a level before you can test a tiny tweak to it, something modern engines haven't required you to do for a good several years now. Not to mention incomplete dynamic light support on reliance on light maps, poor material system and other "design nightmares" I've heard from modders. Source is getting behind the curve compared to pretty much every other modern engine out there, but they are currently saved with an amazing art team who has style and knows how to push the engine to its limits.
EvaUnit02 on 31/8/2011 at 07:32
Quote Posted by sNeaksieGarrett
But my point is that they are using the same maps, same teams, just adding new content on top of it. It's sort of like how Left 4 Dead 2 is still left 4 dead, but with new content. However, like I said I'm fine with it. If they built it on a new engine it might not be "largely the same," but considering this is Valve I guess you're right.
How many times must I restate this point? Counter-Strike is an E-Sports title. Yes, even if they were recreating the game on an all new engine, the developers would deliberately try to make the core game largely the same. Just like how Starcraft 2 is and how Dota 2 will be, because those are E-SPORTS GAMES. These sorts of games have a very picky hardcore audience who are difficult to please, Global Offensive with it's matchmaking system and console releases (and more attractive to broader audiences with the introduction of achievements and a CoD-esque challenge + ranking system) might be making the game from the outset easier to get into, but they're very deliberately leaving the core fundamentals of the game pretty much intact.
Left 4 Dead was literally the same game as L4D1, but with new content and a few new features - it was the epitome of a (
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MissionPackSequel) Mission Pack Sequel. With CS:GO THE ASSETS ARE REMADE FROM SCRATCH, NO PORTOVERS. CS:GO is a DELIBERATE REMAKE OF AN E-SPORTS TITLE, including REMADE MAPS, REMADE WEAPONS which behave very similarly as they did in the last game. Do you understand what I'm saying now?
Eldron on 31/8/2011 at 09:16
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Left 4 Dead was literally the same game as L4D1, but with new content and a few new features - it was the epitome of a (
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MissionPackSequel) Mission Pack Sequel. With CS:GO THE ASSETS ARE REMADE FROM SCRATCH, NO PORTOVERS. CS:GO is a DELIBERATE REMAKE OF AN E-SPORTS TITLE, including REMADE MAPS, REMADE WEAPONS which behave very similarly as they did in the last game. Do you understand what I'm saying now?
Actually, l4d2 had mostly new or remade assets, even the zombie system was remade and fixed up to allow for more dynamic damage and more variety.
(unless you count the ported over l4d1 missions)
june gloom on 31/8/2011 at 19:56
evaunit likes to throw around tvtropes phrases like it makes him sound intelligent
except he's pretty much wrong, calling L4D2 a mission pack sequel- when it uses almost completely new assets, several updates to gameplay, and even a slightly updated engine- is insane, because the point of sequels is that they're similar to their predecessors
sNeaksieGarrett on 1/9/2011 at 00:45
I guess I see your point Eva, but in regards to l4d...
I checked that tvtrope page and it says
Quote:
Remember that just being part of a series doesn't make a game an example of this. Having a similar game system is part of the definition of being a series; a game only qualifies as a Mission Pack Sequel if the sequel adds almost nothing in the way of innovation or new features.
Which makes me question whether l4d can be considered a Mission Pack Sequel or not. For example, the new "boss infected" changed the gameplay, at least from a Versus standpoint. No longer could you "camp" a spot and expect to get away with it, provided that you have a good spitter on your team of course.
EvaUnit02 on 1/9/2011 at 01:09
Left 4 Dead 2 when it was first released (and prior) was a cash-in sequel with a short dev cycle, taking advantage of their new found console hit franchise. It was released only a year after L4D1 FFS. The fact that L4D2 was designed with easy portability of L4D1 mods speaks volumes.
Valve could've totally released everything that L4D2 had to offer as piecemeal upgrades for L4D1, like almost every one of their prior MP games. Why didn't they? MS' stupid read tape on patches (size limits, having to go through a slow certification + $10,000 fee per patch) and DLC (demand royalties on all traditional DLC released on their platform = no free releases possible) made it a difficult task. Even all of the aforementioned they could've easily released L4D2 as a standalone 360 game and on PC delivered it to L4D1 owners via free upgrades. There was no good reason to justify the fracturing of L4D's playerbase on PC, other than franchise milking.
From a gameplay standpoint it overall is a better experience than L4D1 and they have added noticeably more content post-release (and half-arsed their promise to do the same for L4D1, to hush criticism), but it doesn't the nature of the game's development and initial release any less true.
Quote Posted by sNeaksieGarrett
Which makes me question whether l4d can be considered a Mission Pack Sequel or not. For example, the new "boss infected" changed the gameplay, at least from a Versus standpoint. No longer could you "camp" a spot and expect to get away with it, provided that you have a good spitter on your team of course.
This is no different than adding new content to an existing MP game and then altering game rules + rebalancing to accommodate it. I.e. what has been happening with serious PC competitive online games since forever ago.
june gloom on 1/9/2011 at 02:03
Microsoft aside, your arguments have no basis in anything except parroting what the boycotters cooked up. Nevermind that you've just been told why it wouldn't have worked.
sNeaksieGarrett on 1/9/2011 at 02:17
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
This is no different than adding new content to an existing MP game and then altering game rules + rebalancing to accommodate it. I.e. what has been happening with serious PC competitive online games since forever ago.
Okay fine, but I still disagree. If you're going to make that point, we might as well say that sequels are ALL just "altering game rules + rebalancing to accommodate it." EVERY (okay maybe that is an overstatement, but in general) sequel builds upon the last one, as far as I know. Hell, you could call Dead Space 2 a "Mission Pack sequel", since all it really did was add new monsters, new maps, new armor... OH WAIT. That's what a sequel does. (Also, the only reason why people bitched about l4d2 was because they expected "valve time" and instead they got a game released earlier, and instead of being thankful they bitched. )
Also, I don't buy the "well valve is just milking the franchise" argument. (Not your exact words, I know, but that's what it sounded like.) I don't think valve is at all like that. Case in point, HL2:Ep3 STILL isn't out. (Unless it's a trick to cover up that they've been working on HL3 instead this whole time. In that case, well played Valve.)
Mr.Duck on 1/9/2011 at 06:28
Well, that pretty much sums up -all- Internet discussions.
And just as futile...in most cases.
I am curious to see what they do with this new CS. Though the last one I played was the original, heh...
:cool:
