TFC or TF1 anyone?

[Dhsu]

IMO games have lost their fun value

[The Coop]

Actually Mario Galaxy and Super Mario 64 were both a lot better than Super Mario 3, so your argument falls a bit flat there.

Sonic 2 or Sonic 3 would have been a better example when compared to the current crop of Sonic games (if review numbers are to be believed).

Anyway, I'd play, but I can't play online games. 1kb/s upload speed kind of kills even the least demanding of games (400+ ping in DOOM? YOU BETCHA!).

[1337 1]

successful troll is successful

And soon the troll shall be set on fire

Let the flamefest begin

EDIT: Interesting point to consider; for all that TFC is being ridiculed, remember its thanks to it that we actually have TF2.

[Powerlord]

I vaguely remember playing the original TF (for Quake) and TFC, but found them really confusing.

That was a along time ago, though.

P.S. I swear I'm prone to running into stray rockets in TF2. :/

P.P.S. Don't the later versions of TFC use Steam? It's on my games list because I have HL1 registered with Steam.

[alt.slack]

TFC was horrid back in the day. Then again just about any HL1 mod sucked cause your character ran around like he had a stick up his ass IE Action Half Life.

TFC's movement was awesome though. Super Quick caps on 2fort. Being able to dodge and avoid enemy fire more meant more aim involved. TF2 is just far to slow and combat is mostly ground based just strafing around each other. If you do go in the air your just an easy target becaus you always fall in the same motion. Boring. It feels as if Valve designed it for the consoles first then ported it to the PC.

[alt.slack]

I agree more than the average person that graphics don't make a game. On the other hand, TFC's horrible graphics negatively impacted the gameplay. You couldn't tell who you were shooting, if you were hitting them, where grenades ended up, and where people were hiding, among other issues.

Also, TFC sounds like: HA! *BOOM* HA! HA! *KABOOM* HA! HA! *BOOM* HA! HA! HA! *THUNK* HA!

Sounds like you just sucked at TFC. Maybe practice more. Not all games are meant to be able to play decently within the first week.

[Zombie]

Better more strategic gameplay and you don't half to deal with steam.

What's wrong with steam? I think it's awesome.

[alt.slack]

Dude it's not the graphics that make TF2 better, though the art style IS a part of it. Aside from the basic gameplay mechanics that were taken from the first game [and refined], it's the characters and their different personalities that make the game fun. And the sandvich. Stand on the freakin' point, dumbass.

They just simplified the gameplay, slowed it down and took out a lot of the strategy. Trying to rely on neat characters or a cool graphics style in place of better more polished gameplay is one of the biggest things wrong with the game, hell with a lot of games now a days. If the gameplay is good enough nothing else matters. It's the reason QuakeWorld still keeps bringing me back. Or how I can play SMB1 for hours on end but Galaxy gets old after 1 play thru. Graphics and story don't make a game, the gameplay does.

[Bleck]

just because you don't like it doesn't mean TF2 is a bad game

if you can't convince people here to play TFC without bashing TF2 then it's because it isn't any better of a game

[alt.slack]

What's wrong with steam? I think it's awesome.

Some people enjoy older versions of some games. Steam is also a major resource hog. Main thing is I shouldn't have to have some program running just to play my games.

[Atomicfog]

Graphics and story don't make a game, the gameplay does.

You know what? That is crap. Disregarding your completely subjective argument; graphics and story can contribute to a game just as much as gameplay. They're all parts to a whole, which is why any decent game critic looks at all of those criteria and more before concluding how good a game is.

[OverCoat]

They just simplified the gameplay, slowed it down and took out a lot of the strategy.

that's arguable

In any case, I'd rather play this instead:

http://www.moddb.com/mods/suicide-survival

[SirChadlyOC]

Sounds like you just sucked at TFC. Maybe practice more. Not all games are meant to be able to play decently within the first week.

You have no idea who I am. That is all.

[EdgeCrusher]

Haaaaaaaay! This was one of the most fun HL1 mods out there ._. Diving at people and blowing them away with the handcannon was pretty loltastic.

Go play Action Quake 2, you know, the real version of the mod. Hell, even Reaction Quake 3 (which I worked with the group that did that) was leaps and bounds better than AHL. AHL's throat was cut because Lacutis thought someone leaked the beta code for it before the offical release, then turned around and added a lot of crap at the last minute to "improve" it, killing the release and making it a crap fest. And thank god the official A-team didn't make a full release of Action UT. They really should have stopped after AQ2. At least gooseman went on to do some of the skins for CS.

[Rambo]

Graphics don't make games... pure and simple

Take the likes of Super Mario 3, it's still better then the new Mario games their bringing out and that was on the NES

First of all, there have been some pretty awesome mario games since then. Secondly... I thought the graphics in Super Mario Bros. 3 were pretty fantastic....

I'd even argue that the graphics in Mario Bros. 3 were more appealing than the graphics on Mario 64. In fact, the majority of gamers would probably say that Mario 64 was nevertheless a better game. Annnd... this still argues your main point despite contradicting your other two points.

Anyway, the point is you're right. Graphics don't make a game.

But you also imply that they don't ruin a game, which they can.

You also imply they can't make a good game better. Which they also can.

You even hint towards the idea that good graphics can make a good game bad. Which is absurd.

EDIT: I seem to have missed an entire page before posting the above, and some of it has already been said.

On the other hand, some .slack guy said that graphics don't matter, and only gameplay does. To this I say: try playing your favorite game in the whole world with the best game engine you deem to have ever been designed, on a 4 fucking pixel screen. Since "nothing else matters", I know you will have a mind numbing blast.

[Necrotic]

One thing I miss about TFC that's not in TF2 is conc grenade jumping. Hilariously awesome good times.

Lack of little details like that does not make TF2 a bad game however.

TFC is hard to get into these days unless you're nostalgic. I agree it's more strategic and the gameplay requires some greater level of mastery (once again, things like mastering conc jumping took me months of practice for example) but at the same time that works against it for people who just want to get in, get out, and have fun.

Seriously though, the TFC heyday was in the late 90's/early 2000's and I don't see it many people being willing to pick it up again, including myself.

[Dhsu]

Have you guys seen strat videos for any of the classes (like Spy)? As you play more you find out there's a lot more to the game than it might seem at first.

[OverCoat]

try playing your favorite game in the whole world with the best game engine you deem to have ever been designed, on a 4 fucking pixel screen.

Done and done:

http://www.guimp.com/pacman_flash.html

[alt.slack]

just because you don't like it doesn't mean TF2 is a bad game

if you can't convince people here to play TFC without bashing TF2 then it's because it isn't any better of a game

I'm not bashing it I'm simply stating what valve did to it. I don't cotnsider that bashing it. TF2 is more style than it is substance, unfortunately thats all a lot of gamers seem to need now a days.

I was just hoping to find people to play the original with, what I got in turn was a bunch of people bashing TFC/TF1 for trivial reasons such as the graphics.

[alt.slack]

One thing I miss about TFC that's not in TF2 is conc grenade jumping. Hilariously awesome good times.

Lack of little details like that does not make TF2 a bad game however.

TFC is hard to get into these days unless you're nostalgic. I agree it's more strategic and the gameplay requires some greater level of mastery (once again, things like mastering conc jumping took me months of practice for example) but at the same time that works against it for people who just want to get in, get out, and have fun.

Seriously though, the TFC heyday was in the late 90's/early 2000's and I don't see it many people being willing to pick it up again, including myself.

Thats just it. Developers are making games much easier for the casual gamer to hop in and play, but in turn this detracts greatly from the games overall range of skill. If you want to make a casual game then make a new game don't take what was once an amazing series and hype up it's sequel for years just to give us half of the game. Create a new series if you want to do that. The same thing happened to the Quake series and UT.

Often times it's the little details that really make a game. Games now a days lack the level of "polish" that they used to. Developers concern themselves far to much with story and graphics and seem to forget more and more what there making in the end.

[alt.slack]

You know what? That is crap. Disregarding your completely subjective argument; graphics and story can contribute to a game just as much as gameplay. They're all parts to a whole, which is why any decent game critic looks at all of those criteria and more before concluding how good a game is.

Often times now a days I see many great games get knocked down in reviews due to lack of story or bad graphics or no multiplayer even though the gameplay was a lot of fun. Thats really sad in my opinion. We are gamers we PLAY games. In the end thats what brings us back. If the gameplay is good enough we can disregard a bad story or poor graphics. Take games like Mega Man 9, where the story is rehashed over and over (what little story there is) but it's the gameplay that makes it one of the best of '08.

With your sense of reasoning I could give you a game with addictive fun innovative gameplay but if it had no story and the graphics of frogger or even just copied the sprites from mario you would call it sub par. Gameplay first and foremost, everything else is just a bonus. The best companies were built on that philosophy.

[Schwaltzvald]

TFC was awesome back in the day, played a mean spy and fun HWguy. I didnt care how many times the running gag of calling him HWGay stuck it was fun. I still play it from time to time, but some times I find my self going back to TF2 for one big reason.

The fact that TF2 is more "accessible" to others than TFC, makes it more interesting. Think about it, every player that wants a challenge would usually go where the same kind of players would be. Normally TFC would be interesting because you'd be hardpressed to find a really good demoman there.

In TF2, the game's polished enough where any one can have that same level of skill or perhaps even beyond if they're creative enough.

I like how it's more accessible to others. This way nothing's truly the same, at least for me. The game play is not so different from TFC with the exception of no rea frag nades but that's fine. I rather play with those willing to put up a real good challenge with alot of people than some place with nothing but elitists who can't look ahead.

And sadly that's all I've seen in the TFC area as time marched on. Thats why I've moved away from being a mean spy/medic in TFC to whatever I feel like in TF2.

TL;DR - It all boils down to preference, both games are fun but who actually plays is another matter...

- - - - -

Another point

A lot of games these days actually have good if not better game play than their predecessors. Heck Persona 4, if you break it down everything that's added to it, is really nothing more than an enhanced dungeon crawler of past games. Megaman X8, another fun title (imo), is nothing more than an enhanced megaman game.

Game play ought to be the first priority when games are made, however there's absolutely nothing wrong when much better graphics, better controls, strong story/lines as well as even the possible multiplayer ability is added.

Hell Painkiller is an example of a DOOM95 game incredibly tarted up in graphics and design that still has the classic gameplay of kill every god damn thing; much like the old DOOM collection...

Once again... game play ought to be a priority, but nothing wrong with better graphics and the rest that's been added over the years. It's called evolution. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. That wild card aspect of games being made, whether it's awesome or shit, is the one thing that hasn't changed at all ever since pong came out...

[Vivi22]

Thats just it. Developers are making games much easier for the casual gamer to hop in and play, but in turn this detracts greatly from the games overall range of skill.

You (like many people) seem to confuse a game where it's easy to pick up and understand the underlying gameplay concepts yet has a great deal of depth and takes skill to master, and games that are made easier to attract casual gamers but require no real time investment to get the most out of.

TF2 has more depth than you give it credit for. In fact, despite my love of the original TFC, I have to say that TF2 is not only far more finely balanced, but it requires more skill and coordination on the part of an entire team to really play well. As much as I like TFC, there were plenty of times where a single really good player may be able to roll a team, or battles came down to which side had more grenades. Granted the problem of really good players can still happen, but it seems to be less of a problem now if a team is aware and working well together.

All that aside, I wouldn't mind playing some TFC again if other people are up for it. It won't be anytime soon since I'm away for Christmas, and I have to put all of my games back on my computer (just switched my OS last night and formatted my hard drive). Just avoid inflammatory statements like that TFC has superior gameplay to TF2 and the thread might not have degenerated into an argument over which is better.

[Atomicfog]

Often times now a days I see many great games get knocked down in reviews due to lack of story or bad graphics or no multiplayer even though the gameplay was a lot of fun. Thats really sad in my opinion. We are gamers we PLAY games. In the end thats what brings us back. If the gameplay is good enough we can disregard a bad story or poor graphics. Take games like Mega Man 9, where the story is rehashed over and over (what little story there is) but it's the gameplay that makes it one of the best of '08.

With your sense of reasoning I could give you a game with addictive fun innovative gameplay but if it had no story and the graphics of frogger or even just copied the sprites from mario you would call it sub par. Gameplay first and foremost, everything else is just a bonus. The best companies were built on that philosophy.

Lol, are you serious? Did you even read what I said? I said "graphics and story can contribute to a game just as much as gameplay. They're all parts to a whole..." I never said that a game lacking those things would be considered "sub par", though if someone released a game with NES graphics and no story, it'd better have some extremely innovative gameplay for me not to consider it sub par. I grew up playing the NES, but it's not often I find anything more than amusement from those games these days, regardless of innovation.

Also, just so you know, what makes a game good is completely subjective, so you're quite naive if you think everyone thinks the definition of "innovative gameplay" is the same. Not everyone even thinks gameplay is the defining factor of every game. My favorite video game series is the Final Fantasy series, but after playing through almost all of them, some of the older ones have what was once considered to be innovative gameplay, but now a lot of it feels like boring and repetitive stat building to me. However, the games still hold up extremely well today because of their amazing stories, incredible sound tracks, complex emotions... etc These things even offset the once innovative, but now archaic feeling gameplay enough to the point where I might play them again in time.

When I was younger I used to value gameplay more, but these days I generally don't even want to be playing a game unless it has gameplay and depth in other areas. You can have all the innovative gameplay you want, but without other things like story, visual style, good music, or well-implemented multiplayer, a game ends up feeling more like a brief period of amusement than something with substance. Or at least that's how I see things, and as I said, it's completely subjective.

P.S. If I had TF classic I'd be glad to check it out (I was too addictied to Quake 3 back when TF first came out.) Maybe I'll get a torrent of it and play if you can convince some other people to play without bashing the well-liked and all around enjoyable sequel.

[Bleck]

I'm not bashing it I'm simply stating what valve did to it. I don't cotnsider that bashing it.

TF2 is more style than it is substance

oh my god are you some kind of watermelon that somehow grew sentient but still stayed retarded because he is a fucking watermelon

edit: also there is a big difference from 'old' graphics and 'bad' graphics

just because Super Mario Bros came out on the NES means it looks shitty - it's a fantastic looking game for it's time

TFC however looks like a bunch of hurried fanmade models jerkily sliding around a plethora of shitbrown stages filled with big square buildings, which is uhhhh PRETTY SHITTY for it's time