TFC or TF1 anyone?

[alt.slack]

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.

The overall range of skill is much lower in TF2 than is in TFC. This is simply the player has far more control and capabilities in TFC than they do in TF2.

Valves idea of team balancing is to make the player wait for upwards of 20 secs after they die. Any game that makes the player wait for that long at all has terrible game design. Better level design, weapon balance or more abilities for each class would have been a much better way to balance out the gameplay than forcing the player to wait. Every time I wait I lose my "zone" a little. It just takes you out of the game to much for to long and is nothing more than a poor way of hiding the fact that your design team suffers in other areas.

TF2 has far more simplistic, slower, and predictable movement which in turn makes team strategy much less and aiming a lot easier. TFC required that everyone on the team not just be OK but GOOD in order to play it. I'm not saying there isn't a place for a TF2 type game just don't brand it Team Fortress then release a terribly simple slow paced half game.

[Bleck]

The overall range of skill is much lower in TF2 than is in TFC.

hey guys this is my opinion and it's right because I said so drrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[alt.slack]

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

TFC was the best looking HL1 mod out there. Had more colors and better animation than CS. It was the HL1 engine really, Valve took the Quake 1 engine and pushed it a bit farther than it should have for the time maybe. As long as I can tell what team is what and where I'm aiming on the model it's good enough for me.

In TF2 Valve just spent far too much time on the style and feel of the game and far too little on the actual gameplay. For the time it came out TFC looks great.

[alt.slack]

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.

Quake 3 was Quake game for little kids.

Video Games are the last place a story is needed. Not to mention a lot of older games did a much better job of portraying a storyline and a new game world/universe than most newer games do.

Now 99 percent of games are littered with cut scenes out the ass, boring pointless dialog and the developers call this game content. Take a game like Mass Effect, it received huge praise and reviews for it's dialog and interaction with NPC's. Sorry but I enjoy playing a game not watching cut scenes and listening to boring speech while I just sit there.

Older games like Doom, Duke 3d, Commander Keen, hell even Myst showed the story and got you to understand the place you were in and what was happening in it thru the use of visuals, level design tricks and enemy placement.

Video Games have the unique ability to show/convey a story in a totally new and innovative way, the problem is know one is using them in that way.

It's also that a lot of games are being knocked for the bad story or bad graphics even if every other aspect of the game is good. Not every game needs a good story or a story at all for that matter. It just needs to play well. Trying to add a storyline to a game like Gears of War or Too Human is just silly. Some settings make for good games but not for good storylines and visa versa. Just like not every game needs to have a multiplayer aspect to it.

Theres been too many times where a games story has really interested me but the games sequels lacked the good gameplay of the original so I was unable to ever complete the storyline. Metal Gear is what is coming to mind. MGS1 is perfect, more realism in the sequels made it more boring. Or, and this is far more rare because if the gameplay is good enough I can ignore every other aspect of the game, the gameplay is amazing but has such a horrid storyline that you can't avoid having to listen too/deal with that it makes the game unplayable in the end. FFXII is a shining example of this. I still got thru it, but the storyline was somehow eve worse than FFVII's (VIII still being the only good FF story).

In the end putting as much focus on the games story or graphics as devs are now a days will often hider the game more than help it.

[Vivi22]

The overall range of skill is much lower in TF2 than is in TFC. This is simply the player has far more control and capabilities in TFC than they do in TF2.

You don't actually know what game balance means do you? Instead of a game where a good portion of the classes are useless 95% of the time (or 100% of the time in the case of the Pyro) Valve cut back on the different weapons and abilities available to each class in favour of giving them more defined roles and making them more integral members of the team in various situations. And in the process, they also opened up more opportunities for people to master each class.

Is something like aim as important to be a successful Spy as opposed to a Sniper? No, but a Spy can benefit more from playing smart, and using some unorthodox thinking to get behind enemy lines and take out sentries, or half the team.

For all of the Team aspect of TFC, it didn't require team work and coordination on the same level TF2 requires against a good team. It was possible (and happened often) that individuals could solo it and be successful going off on their own to cap the flag or some such. The classes did offer differences, but most of those differences did little to nothing to encourage working together. TF2 put the team back into Team Fortress, and created a game with more depth in the process.

VIII still being the only good FF story

If you actually believe that then there's no point in arguing with you. You just invalidated every opinion you've ever had.

[Atomicfog]

HAY GUYS MY OPINION IS FACT

Wow, I'm sorry I took the time to post. I thought you were at least semi-rational, maybe young or misinformed, but apparently it's beyond that as you can't even grasp the basic concept of subjectivism. You wouldn't happen to have Asperger's would you?

[alt.slack]

You don't actually know what game balance means do you? Instead of a game where a good portion of the classes are useless 95% of the time (or 100% of the time in the case of the Pyro) Valve cut back on the different weapons and abilities available to each class in favour of giving them more defined roles and making them more integral members of the team in various situations. And in the process, they also opened up more opportunities for people to master each class.

Is something like aim as important to be a successful Spy as opposed to a Sniper? No, but a Spy can benefit more from playing smart, and using some unorthodox thinking to get behind enemy lines and take out sentries, or half the team.

For all of the Team aspect of TFC, it didn't require team work and coordination on the same level TF2 requires against a good team. It was possible (and happened often) that individuals could solo it and be successful going off on their own to cap the flag or some such. The classes did offer differences, but most of those differences did little to nothing to encourage working together. TF2 put the team back into Team Fortress, and created a game with more depth in the process.

If you actually believe that then there's no point in arguing with you. You just invalidated every opinion you've ever had.

I greatly disagree. Playing TFC on a very high level for years, teamplay is far more important in it than in TF2. Even more so in TF1 for QuakeWorld. Making the player wait to rejoin the game is never a good way to balance it. The classes in TF2 are all far to predictable as far as what they will do in combat and where they will go. The more control and abilities you give the player to utilize the more strategies they can come up with in turn.

Yes, FFVIII was the only decent story in the series. FFVII was there for emo 12 year old kids that somehow found Cloud to be a badass, Cloud is the biggest emo pussy in any game, period. FFX2 was the only other game in the series to have a concept and story close to FFVIII's. But I prefer RPG's over turn based adventur games anyways. Give me an Ultima or Elder Scrolls any day of the week.

[alt.slack]

I just look at every aspect of the game, not just give it a quick glance over. I delve into a game and try to learn everything there is about it in order to get the full enjoyment out of it. TF2 lacked quite a bit of depth and replayability that it's predecessors had.

[Barnsalot]

FFX-2? Really? The one that turned our beloved summoner into a cheesy pop-star? The one that trashed Uematsu, canned the sphere grid, and whose only appeal was young anime ladies dressed in skimpy clothing?

OK.

[alt.slack]

FFX-2? Really? The one that turned our beloved summoner into a cheesy pop-star? The one that trashed Uematsu, canned the sphere grid, and whose only appeal was young anime ladies dressed in skimpy clothing?

OK.

It has a simply awesome soundtrack. Sweet poppy visuals. It's one of those things Japan gives us that can't help but make you wanna jump up and dance with a giant smile no matter what mood your in.

Generally Squaresoft sucks to me, but they've come out with a few good gems.

[Vivi22]

I greatly disagree. Playing TFC on a very high level for years, teamplay is far more important in it than in TF2. Even more so in TF1 for QuakeWorld. The classes in TF2 are all far to predictable as far as what they will do in combat and where they will go. The more control and abilities you give the player to utilize the more strategies they can come up with in turn.

I'm just going to have to call bullshit again. Giving more abilities doesn't make a game more strategic, or somehow give it more depth. In fact, by limiting the abilities of the TF2 classes, there is more team strategy required. All that aside though, despite the limits placed on class abilities, I have seen some creative people come up with some pretty off the wall, and completely effective, strategies that you would never see in TFC. Believe me, I played TFC for years, but never have I seen the potential for team coordination and strategy that TF2 allows. TF2 was designed so that classes would have built in strengths and weaknesses. This insures that not only will they be favoured in certain situations, but barring an exceptional player they'll need to rely on their teammates to do the things they can't do well. This wasn't the case in TFC; at least not to the same degree as TF2.

Yes, FFVIII was the only decent story in the series. FFVII was there for emo 12 year old kids that somehow found Cloud to be a badass, Cloud is the biggest emo pussy in any game, period. FFX2 was the only other game in the series to have a concept and story close to FFVIII's. But I prefer RPG's over turn based adventur games anyways. Give me an Ultima or Elder Scrolls any day of the week.

So from what I can gather here, you've played few FF's besides VII, VIII, XII and X-2, and based on the fact that you somehow think X-2 was good, I can only further question your taste in games. VIII may have been filled with characters with no development, more plot holes than I can shake a stick at and a battle system that was broken and easily exploited, but at least it wasn't designed from the ground up for hentai loving fan boys. I may have enjoyed the actual battle system of X-2 a great deal, but the rest of it was pure garbage.

[alt.slack]

I'm just going to have to call bullshit again. Giving more abilities doesn't make a game more strategic, or somehow give it more depth. In fact, by limiting the abilities of the TF2 classes, there is more team strategy required. All that aside though, despite the limits placed on class abilities, I have seen some creative people come up with some pretty off the wall, and completely effective, strategies that you would never see in TFC. Believe me, I played TFC for years, but never have I seen the potential for team coordination and strategy that TF2 allows. TF2 was designed so that classes would have built in strengths and weaknesses. This insures that not only will they be favoured in certain situations, but barring an exceptional player they'll need to rely on their teammates to do the things they can't do well. This wasn't the case in TFC; at least not to the same degree as TF2.

So from what I can gather here, you've played few FF's besides VII, VIII, XII and X-2, and based on the fact that you somehow think X-2 was good, I can only further question your taste in games. VIII may have been filled with characters with no development, more plot holes than I can shake a stick at and a battle system that was broken and easily exploited, but at least it wasn't designed from the ground up for hentai loving fan boys. I may have enjoyed the actual battle system of X-2 a great deal, but the rest of it was pure garbage.

Give me a reason why limiting the players abilities adds to the level of strategy. I gave you a reason backing up my statement all you have done is say I'm wrong. The class limitations and overall player limitations just make it far more predictable in the end. In TFC if you had a good team where everyone was good at the movement and could utilize it well in any situation you had limiteless possiblities and patterns to run/control the map in. In games like TFC and CSS you already know a players movement capabilities and exactly how they can and can't move in certain situations or based on where they are on the map, this makes predicting the player and aiming on him much much easier. TF2's biggest issue to me still remains to be the speed though, simply put it's way to god damn slow to be considered part of the TF series. What FF game isn't designed for fanboys now a days. Seems like every FF game since the first one has been nothing but created for the fanboy's. Except for when Square tries something different with VIII or X-2 then immediately gets trashed for it thne gives us utter crap like FFIX.

No FF game has ever really had that decent of a combat system anyways. FFVIII's was just the most fun to master and replay with. Same thing with X-2. FFVIII was the only FF that had relaeable characters and cutscenes you didn't want to skip (well the same thing goes for X-2's cutscenes).

[H. Guderian]

Giving a player a greater tool kit for combat doesn't not translate directly into greater strategy, infact by making everyone independent, individual tactics rise but teamplay is less important. Limiting a toolset prevents people from charging around like Rambo and coordinating efforts, timing their movements, and supporting the team. Giving a single player enough tools to function apart from the team in a "Team" based game does not add to the level of team-based tactics. "Technically" Strategy by definition is too large scale for an FPS game, and the proper term you're fondling for is "Tactics." But surely, if you're running around solo with a full compliment of tools and occssionalyl find yourself supporting the team you might think thats wonderful teamplay.

TF2 also was jsut an ugly game any time in its history. It was fun though~

Other note: a game full of high-skill elitists just is unappealing to play. If there's no story or appreciable art people are either competing or trying to have fun. I was a good player of TFC back in the day as well, but since I don't compete I play for fun. But TF2 provides the Fun cake and lets me eat it too, with all the bells and whistles!

On FF games: What about FFV's combat? I hated FFVIII's combat system, it was really a GF spam and linking some resource-farmed magic to vital stats...but FF games are more like interactive movies. Though running around saying games with inferior combat/gameplay engines are inferior and not worth playing deprives you of so very much that is good.

And how is TF2 destroying the 'Series'? Haven't there been only 1-2 games in the series? Shouldn't the aim to be to innovate and give us as players as much as possible? The core mechanics have been improved, I'd say. Why don't you mod the TF2 game and make it more hardcore instead of backpedaling into a self-satisfying circle of elites playing the same game until it grinds against time into dust?

[Rambo]

Video Games are the last place a story is needed.

I can understand that you're one of those people who needs mindless action and instant gratification. You probably don't like it when those big obtrusive words that you're not allowed to blow up come on screen. And reading them takes too much time no doubt. You know, in some games they added voice actors for people like you, but then of course you probably complained that they took away from the game because they were too advanced right?

[The Coop]

Video Games are the last place a story is needed.

There is so much wrong with the above small sentence, I can't even figure out where to begin.

[alt.slack]

Giving a player a greater tool kit for combat doesn't not translate directly into greater strategy, infact by making everyone independent, individual tactics rise but teamplay is less important. Limiting a toolset prevents people from charging around like Rambo and coordinating efforts, timing their movements, and supporting the team. Giving a single player enough tools to function apart from the team in a "Team" based game does not add to the level of team-based tactics. "Technically" Strategy by definition is too large scale for an FPS game, and the proper term you're fondling for is "Tactics." But surely, if you're running around solo with a full compliment of tools and occssionalyl find yourself supporting the team you might think thats wonderful teamplay.

TF2 also was jsut an ugly game any time in its history. It was fun though~

Other note: a game full of high-skill elitists just is unappealing to play. If there's no story or appreciable art people are either competing or trying to have fun. I was a good player of TFC back in the day as well, but since I don't compete I play for fun. But TF2 provides the Fun cake and lets me eat it too, with all the bells and whistles!

On FF games: What about FFV's combat? I hated FFVIII's combat system, it was really a GF spam and linking some resource-farmed magic to vital stats...but FF games are more like interactive movies. Though running around saying games with inferior combat/gameplay engines are inferior and not worth playing deprives you of so very much that is good.

And how is TF2 destroying the 'Series'? Haven't there been only 1-2 games in the series? Shouldn't the aim to be to innovate and give us as players as much as possible? The core mechanics have been improved, I'd say. Why don't you mod the TF2 game and make it more hardcore instead of backpedaling into a self-satisfying circle of elites playing the same game until it grinds against time into dust?

God, I can't stand how people keep saying TFC was too easy to go solo in. If you were playing against a good team in TFC teamplay was far more vital to winning than it is in TF2. It's just that there is a lot more in terms of team strategy in TFC than in TF2 because all the players have far more options and abilities at there disposal that all work well together in certain situations. There is just far more tactics to be utilized in TFC than there is in TF2.

Limiting the players toolset does nothing but make the game easier to learn and play decently over a shorter period of time and helps to make the player and gameplay as a whole far more predictable. I'm sorry, but I enjoy games where I can still see a surprise or two in terms of map strategy or team tactics after the games been out for a couple of years.

At the very least valve shouldn't have removed the movement that TFC had. Now going in the air does absolutely nothing for you but make you a very very easy to hit sniper or SG shot, or an easy to land a direct rocket on noob. It's sad. The gameplay especially in terms of combat strategy is very very simplified in TF2 from TFC.

[alt.slack]

I can understand that you're one of those people who needs mindless action and instant gratification. You probably don't like it when those big obtrusive words that you're not allowed to blow up come on screen. And reading them takes too much time no doubt. You know, in some games they added voice actors for people like you, but then of course you probably complained that they took away from the game because they were too advanced right?

There is so much wrong with the above small sentence, I can't even figure out where to begin.

No, I just like PLAYING GAMES. That is the first and only thing that really matters about the game. How much it is to actually play it. I love games with huge open worlds and expansive universes, but only if it is still fun to PLAY in the end. Oblivion and Morrowwind are 2 of my favorite games and neither have instant action or the ability to just kill everything that moves in instant action. It's that Bethesda actually took the time to think about all aspects of the game and do all aspects well. Most developers now a days seem to lack the ability to do so. The main storyline in Oblivion was terrible and greatly overused, but the world was big enough and the gameplay expansive enough to the point where the player didn't even have to go anywhere near it. I've put more than 500 hours into Oblivion and the farthest I ever got in the main story is returning the Amulet to Jaffre.

Not every game needs a story to be good anyways. Take a game like SpyHunter on the PS2. Sure they tried to add somewhat of a story but you don't miss anything if you completely ignore it and the game is still amazingly fun to play.

It's not that games are to advanced or that the new stuff always detracts from the experience. It's just more times than not in new games I find myself actually playing the game about half the time I'm sitting in front of it. The other half is listening to some craptastic half ass story or watching a sub par poorly voice acted cut scene. The thing is most video game premises don't make for very good storylines nor do they need to. Developers just often get to far ahead of themselves now a days. They realize the technology is there to pretty much do whatever you want in a game now a days, but very very few take the time to fully utilize it or utilize it well.

Older games actually did a much better job of putting a story into a game because of the technological limitations. They would "SHOW" the gamer the story, in terms of level design, wall textures, certain events in the game. Hearing sounds in the background or creating enviroments that made the player feel like they really were in a different place. Relying on cutscenes to tell the story in a video game is a total cop out and makes for a boring game. I'm sorry but I enjoy PLAYING my games, not watching cutscenes half the time just to get what 90 percent of the time is a terribly weak story.

Game developers are just that, gameplay designers. It's a huge rarity when one is good at both game design and story writing.

[The Coop]

Not every game needs a story to be good anyways. Take a game like SpyHunter on the PS2. Sure they tried to add somewhat of a story but you don't miss anything if you completely ignore it and the game is still amazingly fun to play.

But virtually every game needs a story to even exist. Very few come about with no story whatsoever. Old games Spy Hunter, Defender, and Space Invaders wouldn't be around if it weren't for their stories. The reason they were created was because someone had a simple tale concept, and made a game to reflect it. Some games have "throw away" stories, others are deeply entrenched in telling the more elaborate tale that was written for them. Either way, the story is there, and game exists because of it.

It's not that games are to advanced or that the new stuff always detracts from the experience. It's just more times than not in new games I find myself actually playing the game about half the time I'm sitting in front of it. The other half is listening to some craptastic half ass story or watching a sub par poorly voice acted cut scene. The thing is most video game premises don't make for very good storylines nor do they need to. Developers just often get to far ahead of themselves now a days. They realize the technology is there to pretty much do whatever you want in a game now a days, but very very few take the time to fully utilize it or utilize it well.

Older games actually did a much better job of putting a story into a game because of the technological limitations. They would "SHOW" the gamer the story, in terms of level design, wall textures, certain events in the game. Hearing sounds in the background or creating enviroments that made the player feel like they really were in a different place. Relying on cutscenes to tell the story in a video game is a total cop out and makes for a boring game. I'm sorry but I enjoy PLAYING my games, not watching cutscenes half the time just to get what 90 percent of the time is a terribly weak story.

Game developers are just that, gameplay designers. It's a huge rarity when one is good at both game design and story writing.

If you don't like the game's story, that's fine. Not everyone will like what the game makers came up with. Opinions and all that. But before you make rather suspect comments like the one I originally quoted, put some thought into it. Saying you don't like it when the story interrupts the game is a lot different than blurting out "stories have no place in games". As I said, most, if not all, your favorite games are here because someone had a story concept, and built their game around it.

[alt.slack]

But virtually every game needs a story to even exist. Very few come about with no story whatsoever. Old games Spy Hunter, Defender, and Space Invaders wouldn't be around if it weren't for their stories. The reason they were created was because someone had a simple tale concept, and made a game to reflect it. Some games have "throw away" stories, others are deeply entrenched in telling the more elaborate tale that was written for them. Either way, the story is there, and game exists because of it.

If you don't like the game's story, that's fine. Not everyone will like what the game makers came up with. Opinions and all that. But before you make rather suspect comments like the one I originally quoted, put some thought into it. Saying you don't like it when the story interrupts the game is a lot different than blurting out "stories have no place in games". As I said, most, if not all, your favorite games are here because someone had a story concept, and built their game around it.

I'm really just saying not all games need to have a story and often times the attempt to include a story into a game can hurt it more than help it.

[SirChadlyOC]

Give me a reason why limiting the players abilities adds to the level of strategy.

MacGyver could save the world with a piece of silverware, duct-tape, and a quarter-roll of toilet paper. It was the bad guys who had all the tools and abilities.

Jack Bauer just needed people to say, "Sure Jack, whatever you want."

Chuck Norris just needs himself.

[alt.slack]

MacGyver could save the world with a piece of silverware, duct-tape, and a quarter-roll of toilet paper. It was the bad guys who had all the tools and abilities.

Jack Bauer just needed people to say, "Sure Jack, whatever you want."

Chuck Norris just needs himself.

All of those are terrible arguments. Especially the MacGuyver one since MacGuyver had the most skills at his disposal in the show.

Give me a good argument to the statement that the less abilities and control the player has the more strategy they have in turn. Please do, no one has been able to yet.

[The Coop]

All of those are terrible arguments. Especially the MacGuyver one since MacGuyver had the most skills at his disposal in the show.

Give me a good argument to the statement that the less abilities and control the player has the more strategy they have in turn. Please do, no one has been able to yet.

What SirChadlyOC referenced was the same idea being used in a different manner. In games, you have limited abilities/experience and money, yet all the weapons you could need. In MacGuyver, he had limited items, yet all the experience he could need. The same principle is at play in both cases. That principle being, it's boring to give the main characters everything they could possibly need to succeed right off the bat. It's more interesting to create a struggle that the main character must overcome in order to succeed.

[Dhsu]

Give me a good argument to the statement that the less abilities and control the player has the more strategy they have in turn. Please do, no one has been able to yet.

Well if you extrapolate on your statement, that means giving players more abilities makes a game even more conducive to strategy. So why even have classes? You could make one mega-class with everyone's abilities, that'll definitely open up endless teamplay possibilities. And as a side-benefit, the game will be automatically perfectly balanced.

[Wintermute]

You know what's more fun than playing TF or TFC?

Watching alt.slack make a fool out of himself OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER in this thread.

brb popcorn

[Bleck]

in fact, why not just make everyone play on the same team

in fact, why not just make the game automatically win

in fact, why not just make the game a blank screen with the words 'YOU HAVE A BIGGER PENIS THAN THE OTHER PLAYERS' flashing repeatedly