Quote:
|
Originally Posted by summit
What sound logic. Thanks!
A pace isn't the definitive aspect of any game, sorry. And if it is, it mustn't have been much of a game to start with.
|
Ah but here you are so very wrong.
I define "pace" as simply: how long does it take for relevant events to occur?
Take two highly successful game franchises: Thief and Serious Sam. Different pace? Most certainly. The pace of these two excellent choices is what defines them, separating them from the rest of the FPS pack. For a multiplayer version of this example look no further than Counterstrike and Team Fortress.
When I play CS (and I have), I'm playing a game where setup, positioning, and realism are critical aspects of a simulation experience.
When I play TF, I'm playing a game where frenetic skills, instant decision making, and immediate action are critical aspects of a gaming experience.
My point is, the fundamental rules and concepts of TF lend themselves to a fast-paced, high-action, instant gratification kind of experience. The designers of TF2 seemed to realize this in appearance (graphics), but not in the actual gameplay. It's an unwanted and serious deviation from the kind of experience which people (myself included) associate with the Team Fortress franchise.
The designers of FF realize this in gameplay (if not necessarily appearance), which is why FF remains my favorite of the new versions of TF. Valve, I want my money back.
