|
After playing this game some more, I've come to the conclusion that snipers are op, people just haven't figured it out yet. I had about 5 straight games of straight up domination as a sniper, and people literally have had no answer for me. The thing is, there are hardly any good snipers at all, I know I haven't met anything close to my equal yet.
Playing with >80 ping, aka, sniping hell in any other game, I've racked up scores of ~30-8 about 5 games in a row, leading my team, and basically shutting down an entire lane of bots and pros single handedly. Gunner, tank, and support get completely demolished, and assassins, assault, and enemy snipers are fairly easy to handle in an efficient manner. The thing is, the game was designed for console, and I could see sniping being fairly difficult for consoles. But for an ex-competitive CSS AWPer.....its ridiculously easy at times. One shot hs on ANY class not a deployed level 3 gunner is unfair considering how open the maps are.
The sniper can easily counter every single class.
The gunner and tank are stand out, slow targets that can be one-shot 90% of the time on sight. It's not even fair.
The assault basically has nothing to kill a sniper with other than grenades, which, while annoying, only keep the sniper at bay, not actively kill them unless he gets lucky. This is the only class that has consistently denied me kills.
Support is hopeless unless he just catches the sniper unaware, but then, they are that way for most classes, they aren't a combat class.
The assassin had been annoying me, but then i realized that level 3 traps basically nullify them. Drop one right in front of you and right behind you. Ez mode. Sure, they'll occassionally catch you unaware, or you'll miss a grapple, but they are not hard to avoid.
Then there are other snipers, but on most maps you can just outright avoid the lane they are on, and never even have to fight them, although i definitely actively hunt them down.
Oh yeah, and they absolutely wreck bots, level 3 flak is beastly, especially combined with traps.
Gold level rate of fire. Silver clip size. Bronze reload speed. Unlimited auto-fire. OP. Not to mention it even makes the smg pretty beastly.
|
The only part I disagree with that is there ARE good snipers online. I've played against snipers that go X-X-2 or some stupid thing like that, and it just makes the game terrible to play. Especially on Steel Peel, snipers just make me want to shut off the game.
|
On February 04 2011 23:13 Sm3agol wrote:
After playing this game some more, I've come to the conclusion that snipers are op, people just haven't figured it out yet. I had about 5 straight games of straight up domination as a sniper, and people literally have had no answer for me. The thing is, there are hardly any good snipers at all, I know I haven't met anything close to my equal yet.
Playing with >80 ping, aka, sniping hell in any other game, I've racked up scores of ~30-8 about 5 games in a row, leading my team, and basically shutting down an entire lane of bots and pros single handedly. Gunner, tank, and support get completely demolished, and assassins, assault, and enemy snipers are fairly easy to handle in an efficient manner. The thing is, the game was designed for console, and I could see sniping being fairly difficult for consoles. But for an ex-competitive CSS AWPer.....its ridiculously easy at times. One shot hs on ANY class not a deployed level 3 gunner is unfair considering how open the maps are.
The sniper can easily counter every single class.
The gunner and tank are stand out, slow targets that can be one-shot 90% of the time on sight. It's not even fair.
The assault basically has nothing to kill a sniper with other than grenades, which, while annoying, only keep the sniper at bay, not actively kill them unless he gets lucky. This is the only class that has consistently denied me kills.
Support is hopeless unless he just catches the sniper unaware, but then, they are that way for most classes, they aren't a combat class.
The assassin had been annoying me, but then i realized that level 3 traps basically nullify them. Drop one right in front of you and right behind you. Ez mode. Sure, they'll occassionally catch you unaware, or you'll miss a grapple, but they are not hard to avoid.
Then there are other snipers, but on most maps you can just outright avoid the lane they are on, and never even have to fight them, although i definitely actively hunt them down.
Oh yeah, and they absolutely wreck bots, level 3 flak is beastly, especially combined with traps.
Gold level rate of fire. Silver clip size. Bronze reload speed. Unlimited auto-fire. OP. Not to mention it even makes the smg pretty beastly.
Developers said before release that Snipe might be still OP, the massively weakened him compared to the console version, but if it turns out to be still not enough they will take more action. I think in a recent post they even said that they consider making the sniper rifle a repeating rifle or something
|
Yea, its annoying how there are so many snipers that dont go for HS and just body shot with RoF like its a long distance machine gun. I think damage against bots is ok, but body shots against pro's should be reduced.
|
On February 05 2011 02:26 pokeyAA wrote:
Yea, its annoying how there are so many snipers that dont go for HS and just body shot with RoF like its a long distance machine gun. I think damage against bots is ok, but body shots against pro's should be reduced.
Wut? It takes 3 shots to kill an assault or assassin, I think(mb the ones i remember had gold armor?) and unless they are idiots, you'll never get those three to hit consecutively. I have gold RoF selected, and I rarely hit more than two body shots in a row unless its a tank or something and I suck. I aim for the head at all times.
I really believe they could fix the sniper easily, though. Just make it a bolt action. Whatever they do, I hope they don't just give it ridiculous recoil, because that's a lazy way out.
|
A little bump and "update".
Once you get used to assassins, they no longer ruin the game for you at all. They become easy mode kills with both of my favorite classes, sniper and assault. They have been a complete non-factor to me for the last two or three days, despite facing teams with good assassins on them. Its like they almost don't even exist, except to kill my turrents and bots...what they are supposed to do. Sniping is still ez mode though, I really believe it should be nerfed, although there are so many terrible snipers that I think nerfing it any more would make the class useless to 90% of the sniper users. I myself have been assaulting it up, and its been hella fun. Between bombs, nade spamming, and the op charge, assault is a blast to play.
|
well i bought and downloaded this game last night, and its fun, but overwhelming to play well. i guess its just me though. i gues i don't do well in a more fast paced game like mnc. i am suited better to more caculated games like sc2 
|
Too similar to TF2 for my liking, already done this for hundreds of hours, its a new feel to the style, but its certainly far from a brand new style.
|
On February 12 2011 03:30 SichuanPanda wrote:
Too similar to TF2 for my liking, already done this for hundreds of hours, its a new feel to the style, but its certainly far from a brand new style.
How is it too similar to TF2?
|
On February 12 2011 03:33 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 03:30 SichuanPanda wrote:
Too similar to TF2 for my liking, already done this for hundreds of hours, its a new feel to the style, but its certainly far from a brand new style. How is it too similar to TF2?
Don't go all fanboy. Its very similar to TF2 in both its art style and its character classes (which is the most significant portion of the gameplay). The parallels are pretty obvious. There are some differences, but for some it may not be different enough to excite them and make them play it, which is perfectly understandable. You can tell me RIFT is totally different to WoW until you're blue in the face, but after trying out the Beta, you'll have a tough time convincing me to go buy it.
|
On February 12 2011 03:38 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 03:33 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:30 SichuanPanda wrote:
Too similar to TF2 for my liking, already done this for hundreds of hours, its a new feel to the style, but its certainly far from a brand new style. How is it too similar to TF2? Don't go all fanboy. Its very similar to TF2 in both its art style and its character classes (which is the most significant portion of the gameplay). The parallels are pretty obvious. There are some differences, but for some it may not be different enough to excite them and make them play it, which is perfectly understandable. You can tell me RIFT is totally different to WoW until you're blue in the face, but after trying out the Beta, you'll have a tough time convincing me to go buy it.
Don't presume I'm a fanboy when I haven't even bought the game. It's clear neither have you if you assume a game is similar in gameplay and pace by the art style and the traditional forms of class-FPS (Speed, Strength, Health/Defense and Cloak/Stealth are all commonly used in many games as much as Earth, Wind, Fire and Water in elementals).
I'm a fan of logic and it makes no sense to compare two games purely on aesthetic appearances.
Classic "judging a book by its cover". If it doesn't interest or excite you, fine by me, but if you're going to make your justifications public, don't make them so transparent.
|
On February 12 2011 03:41 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 03:38 Bibdy wrote:On February 12 2011 03:33 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:30 SichuanPanda wrote:
Too similar to TF2 for my liking, already done this for hundreds of hours, its a new feel to the style, but its certainly far from a brand new style. How is it too similar to TF2? Don't go all fanboy. Its very similar to TF2 in both its art style and its character classes (which is the most significant portion of the gameplay). The parallels are pretty obvious. There are some differences, but for some it may not be different enough to excite them and make them play it, which is perfectly understandable. You can tell me RIFT is totally different to WoW until you're blue in the face, but after trying out the Beta, you'll have a tough time convincing me to go buy it. Don't presume I'm a fanboy when I haven't even bought the game. It's clear neither have you if you assume a game is similar in gameplay and pace by the art style and the traditional forms of class-FPS (Speed, Strength, Health/Defense and Cloak/Stealth are all commonly used in many games as much as Earth, Wind, Fire and Water in elementals). I'm a fan of logic and it makes no sense to compare two games purely on aesthetic appearances. Classic "judging a book by its cover". If it doesn't interest or excite you, fine by me, but if you're going to make your justifications public, don't make them so transparent.
I own it. I've played it. It's very similar to TF2.
Defending something without trying it yourself is just as bad as someone judging something without trying it.
|
On February 12 2011 03:44 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 03:41 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:38 Bibdy wrote:On February 12 2011 03:33 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:30 SichuanPanda wrote:
Too similar to TF2 for my liking, already done this for hundreds of hours, its a new feel to the style, but its certainly far from a brand new style. How is it too similar to TF2? Don't go all fanboy. Its very similar to TF2 in both its art style and its character classes (which is the most significant portion of the gameplay). The parallels are pretty obvious. There are some differences, but for some it may not be different enough to excite them and make them play it, which is perfectly understandable. You can tell me RIFT is totally different to WoW until you're blue in the face, but after trying out the Beta, you'll have a tough time convincing me to go buy it. Don't presume I'm a fanboy when I haven't even bought the game. It's clear neither have you if you assume a game is similar in gameplay and pace by the art style and the traditional forms of class-FPS (Speed, Strength, Health/Defense and Cloak/Stealth are all commonly used in many games as much as Earth, Wind, Fire and Water in elementals). I'm a fan of logic and it makes no sense to compare two games purely on aesthetic appearances. Classic "judging a book by its cover". If it doesn't interest or excite you, fine by me, but if you're going to make your justifications public, don't make them so transparent. I own it. I've played it. It's very similar to TF2. Defending something without trying it yourself is just as bad as someone judging something without trying it.
I didn't say I haven't tried it. I said I haven't bought it. I've played it extensively.
If you owned it, then your arguments would be more than based on art and character classes because it's been noted that the gameplay is definitely different and not even remotely close to TF2.
Unless you assume all multiplayer online games are like TF2.
Not much to say to someone who's basis of comparison is anything but the actual game lol
|
On February 12 2011 03:52 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 03:44 Bibdy wrote:On February 12 2011 03:41 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:38 Bibdy wrote:On February 12 2011 03:33 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:30 SichuanPanda wrote:
Too similar to TF2 for my liking, already done this for hundreds of hours, its a new feel to the style, but its certainly far from a brand new style. How is it too similar to TF2? Don't go all fanboy. Its very similar to TF2 in both its art style and its character classes (which is the most significant portion of the gameplay). The parallels are pretty obvious. There are some differences, but for some it may not be different enough to excite them and make them play it, which is perfectly understandable. You can tell me RIFT is totally different to WoW until you're blue in the face, but after trying out the Beta, you'll have a tough time convincing me to go buy it. Don't presume I'm a fanboy when I haven't even bought the game. It's clear neither have you if you assume a game is similar in gameplay and pace by the art style and the traditional forms of class-FPS (Speed, Strength, Health/Defense and Cloak/Stealth are all commonly used in many games as much as Earth, Wind, Fire and Water in elementals). I'm a fan of logic and it makes no sense to compare two games purely on aesthetic appearances. Classic "judging a book by its cover". If it doesn't interest or excite you, fine by me, but if you're going to make your justifications public, don't make them so transparent. I own it. I've played it. It's very similar to TF2. Defending something without trying it yourself is just as bad as someone judging something without trying it. I didn't say I haven't tried it. I said I haven't bought it. If you owned it, then your arguments would be more than based on art and character classes because it's been noted that the gameplay is definitely different and not even remotely close to TF2. Unless you assume all multiplayer online games are like TF2.
No, I just think, that after playing a game for about 8 hours, that has the grenade launcher guy, the heavy weapons guy, the guy following the heavy weapons guy with a big beam of healing, the guy sitting at long distance getting lucky head-shots on people, the guy with the short range heavy damage weapon and the guy running around in stealth being a royal pain in the ass, is very similar to another game that has the grenade launcher guy, the heavy weapons guy, the guy following the heavy weapons guy with a big beam of healing, the guy sitting at long distance getting lucky head-shots on people, the guy with the short range heavy damage weapon and the guy running around in stealth being a royal pain in the ass.
Call me crazy.
Ergo, I find it completely understandable that someone who already owns TF2 would look at MNC and wonder "why should I spend $15 on this?".
|
On February 12 2011 03:54 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 03:52 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:44 Bibdy wrote:On February 12 2011 03:41 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:38 Bibdy wrote:On February 12 2011 03:33 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:30 SichuanPanda wrote:
Too similar to TF2 for my liking, already done this for hundreds of hours, its a new feel to the style, but its certainly far from a brand new style. How is it too similar to TF2? Don't go all fanboy. Its very similar to TF2 in both its art style and its character classes (which is the most significant portion of the gameplay). The parallels are pretty obvious. There are some differences, but for some it may not be different enough to excite them and make them play it, which is perfectly understandable. You can tell me RIFT is totally different to WoW until you're blue in the face, but after trying out the Beta, you'll have a tough time convincing me to go buy it. Don't presume I'm a fanboy when I haven't even bought the game. It's clear neither have you if you assume a game is similar in gameplay and pace by the art style and the traditional forms of class-FPS (Speed, Strength, Health/Defense and Cloak/Stealth are all commonly used in many games as much as Earth, Wind, Fire and Water in elementals). I'm a fan of logic and it makes no sense to compare two games purely on aesthetic appearances. Classic "judging a book by its cover". If it doesn't interest or excite you, fine by me, but if you're going to make your justifications public, don't make them so transparent. I own it. I've played it. It's very similar to TF2. Defending something without trying it yourself is just as bad as someone judging something without trying it. I didn't say I haven't tried it. I said I haven't bought it. If you owned it, then your arguments would be more than based on art and character classes because it's been noted that the gameplay is definitely different and not even remotely close to TF2. Unless you assume all multiplayer online games are like TF2. No, I just think, that after playing a game for about 8 hours, that has the grenade launcher guy, the heavy weapons guy, the guy following the heavy weapons guy with a big beam of healing, the guy sitting at long distance getting lucky head-shots on people, the guy with the short range heavy damage weapon and the guy running around in stealth being a royal pain in the ass, is very similar to another game that has the grenade launcher guy, the heavy weapons guy, the guy following the heavy weapons guy with a big beam of healing, the guy sitting at long distance getting lucky head-shots on people, the guy with the short range heavy damage weapon and the guy running around in stealth being a royal pain in the ass. Call me crazy. Ergo, I find it completely understandable that someone who already owns TF2 would look at MNC and wonder "why should I spend $15 on this?".
I remember another game. It has this guy who shoots explosives, a tanky guy that was only good at close range, a guy who followed the tanky guy to buff and protect him. A long distance accuracy guy, and a sneaky guy. I just called it Diablo 2.
That being said, it is very similar in style to TF2. I just think that the classes are far more enjoyable/balanced, and the map objectives make it a lot more fun. You can go 0-30 in MNC and still win the game for your team, whereas doing that in TF2 will just get you flamed into oblivion.
I don't go 0-30 though, I don't even remember the last game I was under 1:1 k/d ratio, its more like 2.5/3:1.
|
On February 12 2011 04:52 Sm3agol wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 03:54 Bibdy wrote:On February 12 2011 03:52 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:44 Bibdy wrote:On February 12 2011 03:41 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:38 Bibdy wrote:On February 12 2011 03:33 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:30 SichuanPanda wrote:
Too similar to TF2 for my liking, already done this for hundreds of hours, its a new feel to the style, but its certainly far from a brand new style. How is it too similar to TF2? Don't go all fanboy. Its very similar to TF2 in both its art style and its character classes (which is the most significant portion of the gameplay). The parallels are pretty obvious. There are some differences, but for some it may not be different enough to excite them and make them play it, which is perfectly understandable. You can tell me RIFT is totally different to WoW until you're blue in the face, but after trying out the Beta, you'll have a tough time convincing me to go buy it. Don't presume I'm a fanboy when I haven't even bought the game. It's clear neither have you if you assume a game is similar in gameplay and pace by the art style and the traditional forms of class-FPS (Speed, Strength, Health/Defense and Cloak/Stealth are all commonly used in many games as much as Earth, Wind, Fire and Water in elementals). I'm a fan of logic and it makes no sense to compare two games purely on aesthetic appearances. Classic "judging a book by its cover". If it doesn't interest or excite you, fine by me, but if you're going to make your justifications public, don't make them so transparent. I own it. I've played it. It's very similar to TF2. Defending something without trying it yourself is just as bad as someone judging something without trying it. I didn't say I haven't tried it. I said I haven't bought it. If you owned it, then your arguments would be more than based on art and character classes because it's been noted that the gameplay is definitely different and not even remotely close to TF2. Unless you assume all multiplayer online games are like TF2. No, I just think, that after playing a game for about 8 hours, that has the grenade launcher guy, the heavy weapons guy, the guy following the heavy weapons guy with a big beam of healing, the guy sitting at long distance getting lucky head-shots on people, the guy with the short range heavy damage weapon and the guy running around in stealth being a royal pain in the ass, is very similar to another game that has the grenade launcher guy, the heavy weapons guy, the guy following the heavy weapons guy with a big beam of healing, the guy sitting at long distance getting lucky head-shots on people, the guy with the short range heavy damage weapon and the guy running around in stealth being a royal pain in the ass. Call me crazy. Ergo, I find it completely understandable that someone who already owns TF2 would look at MNC and wonder "why should I spend $15 on this?". I remember another game. It has this guy who shoots explosives, a tanky guy that was only good at close range, a guy who followed the tanky guy to buff and protect him. A long distance accuracy guy, and a sneaky guy. I just called it Diablo 2. That being said, it is very similar in style to TF2. I just think that the classes are far more enjoyable/balanced, and the map objectives make it a lot more fun. You can go 0-30 in MNC and still win the game for your team, whereas doing that in TF2 will just get you flamed into oblivion. I don't go 0-30 though, I don't even remember the last game I was under 1:1 k/d ratio, its more like 2.5/3:1.
That's kind of a stretch, considering each of the character classes in most Action RPGs have a lot more depth to their gameplay. Each of the classes in MNC and TF2 are very simple by comparison.
Its hard to describe a game like MNC to someone without the summary starting with "Its a lot like TF2, but...". What comes after is basically what's supposed to entice people to play it. The DotA-like objectives combined with Tower Defense-like gameplay, the Monday Night Football theme (aka the story), the upgrade system and/or just something different in the theme of something they already enjoy. For some, like me, that's enough to interest them. But, I fully understand why it wouldn't be enough for others.
|
On February 12 2011 05:05 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 04:52 Sm3agol wrote:On February 12 2011 03:54 Bibdy wrote:On February 12 2011 03:52 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:44 Bibdy wrote:On February 12 2011 03:41 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:38 Bibdy wrote:On February 12 2011 03:33 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:30 SichuanPanda wrote:
Too similar to TF2 for my liking, already done this for hundreds of hours, its a new feel to the style, but its certainly far from a brand new style. How is it too similar to TF2? Don't go all fanboy. Its very similar to TF2 in both its art style and its character classes (which is the most significant portion of the gameplay). The parallels are pretty obvious. There are some differences, but for some it may not be different enough to excite them and make them play it, which is perfectly understandable. You can tell me RIFT is totally different to WoW until you're blue in the face, but after trying out the Beta, you'll have a tough time convincing me to go buy it. Don't presume I'm a fanboy when I haven't even bought the game. It's clear neither have you if you assume a game is similar in gameplay and pace by the art style and the traditional forms of class-FPS (Speed, Strength, Health/Defense and Cloak/Stealth are all commonly used in many games as much as Earth, Wind, Fire and Water in elementals). I'm a fan of logic and it makes no sense to compare two games purely on aesthetic appearances. Classic "judging a book by its cover". If it doesn't interest or excite you, fine by me, but if you're going to make your justifications public, don't make them so transparent. I own it. I've played it. It's very similar to TF2. Defending something without trying it yourself is just as bad as someone judging something without trying it. I didn't say I haven't tried it. I said I haven't bought it. If you owned it, then your arguments would be more than based on art and character classes because it's been noted that the gameplay is definitely different and not even remotely close to TF2. Unless you assume all multiplayer online games are like TF2. No, I just think, that after playing a game for about 8 hours, that has the grenade launcher guy, the heavy weapons guy, the guy following the heavy weapons guy with a big beam of healing, the guy sitting at long distance getting lucky head-shots on people, the guy with the short range heavy damage weapon and the guy running around in stealth being a royal pain in the ass, is very similar to another game that has the grenade launcher guy, the heavy weapons guy, the guy following the heavy weapons guy with a big beam of healing, the guy sitting at long distance getting lucky head-shots on people, the guy with the short range heavy damage weapon and the guy running around in stealth being a royal pain in the ass. Call me crazy. Ergo, I find it completely understandable that someone who already owns TF2 would look at MNC and wonder "why should I spend $15 on this?". I remember another game. It has this guy who shoots explosives, a tanky guy that was only good at close range, a guy who followed the tanky guy to buff and protect him. A long distance accuracy guy, and a sneaky guy. I just called it Diablo 2. That being said, it is very similar in style to TF2. I just think that the classes are far more enjoyable/balanced, and the map objectives make it a lot more fun. You can go 0-30 in MNC and still win the game for your team, whereas doing that in TF2 will just get you flamed into oblivion. I don't go 0-30 though, I don't even remember the last game I was under 1:1 k/d ratio, its more like 2.5/3:1. That's kind of a stretch, considering each of the character classes in most Action RPGs have a lot more depth to their gameplay. Each of the classes in MNC and TF2 are very simple by comparison. Its hard to describe a game like MNC to someone without the summary starting with "Its a lot like TF2, but..."
The classes in MNC do have a surprising amount of depth. Not RPG depth, but between gold/silver/bronze sponsors, vastly different primary and secondary weapons for each class, and choosing which upgrade route to go, each of the classes can feel pretty deep. Just learning all the grenade bounce points + explosion distances as an assault is pretty in depth.
And like I did say, stylisticly, it's a lot like TF2. The actual gameplay though, isn't really that close tbh. The wide range of different abilities per class and bots make it a lot different to play, though. I was a beast at TF2, but it took me over a week of playing every day to finally get a good feel for it.
|
TF2 INVENTED CLASS-BASED SHOOTERS, OBVIOUSLY YOU GUYS. /sarcasm
+ Show Spoiler +On February 08 2011 13:33 Sm3agol wrote:
A little bump and "update".
Once you get used to assassins, they no longer ruin the game for you at all. They become easy mode kills with both of my favorite classes, sniper and assault. They have been a complete non-factor to me for the last two or three days, despite facing teams with good assassins on them. Its like they almost don't even exist, except to kill my turrents and bots...what they are supposed to do. Sniping is still ez mode though, I really believe it should be nerfed, although there are so many terrible snipers that I think nerfing it any more would make the class useless to 90% of the sniper users. I myself have been assaulting it up, and its been hella fun. Between bombs, nade spamming, and the op charge, assault is a blast to play. I'm really happy at least one of you complaining babies actually took the time to learn the game instead of sitting in this thread bitching. I was never aware that the TL community was so full of idiots that judge a games balance before even playing at a high-level. Hopefully the rest of this thread will stop being so fucking terrible at the game and realize that Assassins aren't OP.
|
Why are people having this dumb argument about whether it is similar to Team Fortress 2 or not?
Let's break it down:
Aesthetically, the games are nearly identical. Cartoony characters with a bit of personality to them, bright colors, and really distinct animations and models.
The character classes mirror each other extensively. Support mixes medic and engineer. The assassin is modeled after the spy. The assualt plays similar to the demoman with his bombs and GL. The tank and gunner classes both have a mix of traits from the heavy and pyro. Monday Night Combat took a great deal of their character design straight out of TF2.
Gameplay wise, the objectives are fairly similar. Both TF2 and MNC emphasive combat breaking out along very specific lanes or areas of the map with a kind of slow push building up until one team beats the other. There are very few shooters with such specific areas of player interaction. The combat is also shockingly similar, as various classes directly or indirectly hard counter the others and range/mobility is a huge factor in deciding the victor of any battle. The ability to recover from fights and the general 'toughness' of the characters is also much higher than most other shooters.
Now I am sure you can go through and pull this line or that out and slap some stupid comparison to Diablo 2 or another game on it, but Monday Night Combat OBVIOUSLY draws a huge amount from Team Fortress 2. IMO, thats awesome. I find it kind of incredible that people are so found of picking fights online that they need to try and debate one of the most comically obvious connections I have ever see between two games.
|
On February 12 2011 03:41 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 03:38 Bibdy wrote:On February 12 2011 03:33 Torte de Lini wrote:On February 12 2011 03:30 SichuanPanda wrote:
Too similar to TF2 for my liking, already done this for hundreds of hours, its a new feel to the style, but its certainly far from a brand new style. How is it too similar to TF2? Don't go all fanboy. Its very similar to TF2 in both its art style and its character classes (which is the most significant portion of the gameplay). The parallels are pretty obvious. There are some differences, but for some it may not be different enough to excite them and make them play it, which is perfectly understandable. You can tell me RIFT is totally different to WoW until you're blue in the face, but after trying out the Beta, you'll have a tough time convincing me to go buy it. Don't presume I'm a fanboy when I haven't even bought the game. It's clear neither have you if you assume a game is similar in gameplay and pace by the art style and the traditional forms of class-FPS (Speed, Strength, Health/Defense and Cloak/Stealth are all commonly used in many games as much as Earth, Wind, Fire and Water in elementals). I'm a fan of logic and it makes no sense to compare two games purely on aesthetic appearances. Classic "judging a book by its cover". If it doesn't interest or excite you, fine by me, but if you're going to make your justifications public, don't make them so transparent.
If you can't acknowledge that both games are blindingly similar in art style, play style, class style, map design, and almost every other key feature of the game thats your problem, but don't sit there and tell me I'm judging a book by its cover, because I own TF2, and I've played MNC at a friends place. Therefore I'm judging the two 'books' that are these games from personal experience, and personal experience tells me while MNC does add some new and fun features to the TF2 formula they are not significant nor abundant enough for me to go out and purchase it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
