TheVille

Looking at what Steam has done with the success of TF2 years after its introduction, any idea why someone hasn't tried to copy this model and be the new version? Something in a similar mold but updated? Is the field too crowded with fps? is it not as much a money maker as it seems (after all Steam hasn't bothered to introduce a 3rd installment)? Just curious why in this copy cat world of computer games, we haven't seen one. Or at least one that's worked.

Blizzard is making Overwatch, essentially a copycat of TF2 from what I can tell.

The market is pretty saturated with FPS games (CoD, Battlefield, etc) so there is not a lot of room for new IPs.

Market saturation is the biggest factor. It's nearly impossible to get noticed for your FPS nowadays given how many other options there are, especially from big-name studios. Valve is well-known enough that they can sell things on their brand identity alone. (But for how much longer with the way they're going?)

Another problem I think is the fact that TF2 has long been thought of as the undisputed king of the class-based FPS gameplay model. As such, any game trying to use a remotely similar model instantly gets marked as a "clone," "rip-off," or as Domer put it, "copycat." Even a game that plays quite differently from TF2 will be marked as an imitator if people see too many parallels.

And as a long time wow player I'm always hesitant of blizzard trying to branch out anymore... Things usually don't go well lol

As far as I can tell, shooters can be divided in to two categories:

1) Single class/Team class. These are the games where every person has access to identical weapons, equipment, and abilities, and the only difference between one person and another is the players themselves. The characters are typically anonymous. Balance is not an issue, because everybody is equal, and some weapons are just meant to be outright better than others. The Quake series of games are an example of this. Team class games are similar, but do have minor variability between the teams, but it's really not a huge difference as everything tends to have an equivalent on the other side. The Counter-Strike series is an example of this second version. Both of these types of games lend themselves extremely well to competitive play and competitive attitudes, as well as soloing, because they do come down to the skill and experience of the players, and it's very easy to compare stats in meaningful ways. We have never used one of these as a main game at The Ville.

2) Class-based. These are games where there are multiple options of who/what to play, each granting access to different weapons, equipment, and abilities, and characters may be distinctive in nature. These require a great deal more time and effort by developers to balance, because it will rapidly become a functionally single-class game if all the classes don't maintain their utility. It's hard to rate individual efforts in general play, because it's all very teamwork dependent, and each class typically is a counter for, and is countered by, one or more other classes. While individual performance is certainly notable, competition focuses around the performance of entire teams, rather than single players. Examples of this would be DoD and TF series games. These are community-friendly games, and are the games that we have always used at The Ville.

Current production largely seems to focus on the first type of game - ones where teamwork takes a back seat to personal achievement (hell, just look at the rise of Achievements as a thing in the last 5-10 years - especially the frequency of seeing those that require actions probably detrimental to your team to get). Lobby systems and matchmaking have replaced communities and casuals as the primary multiplayer mode, with their inherent assumption that everybody should always be personally competing for rank against others, and being judged based on their abilities. These games fuel the profitable micro-transaction market, which is entirely focused on personal distinctiveness or advantage, which I'm sure draws even more developer attention to that, instead of a simply balanced-as-is teamwork-based shooter that I believe is the unspoken desire of our community for a replacement.

I get some of what is being said here. That being said, this is an industry where copycats abound! Most games being generated seem to be based on something before it (as one would expect) and if some model is successful, many try to copy its elements. Has TF2 been copied and I'm not aware of it? (its entirely possible as I was real late to the TF2 party and since until lately Mac has not been a big game platform, so I miss a lot that comes out)

Curious why you think the second group of shooter is community based and not the first? The more team/less individual nature of the games in the second group? It is ironic I suppose that the type of game where you have distinct individual characters is more team based than the one where all the players are the same. Isn't there some way to combine the two elements as TF2 has where I can be team focused but still unique thanks to my hat (and the micro transactions that come with it)? perhaps the model isn't as profitable and so no attempt has been made to emulate it. Better to get people to buy better weapons and items or feature a leveling up mechanism to make your money.

Do mmo type games fit the community model? I've only ever played one and it features an in-game community feel, encourages teamwork, has roles and classes with the ability to be unique while trying to balance the game. Are shooters just more popular (TF2 is honestly my first shooter and only one I think outside of L4D)

I'm holding out hope on Overwatch and The Division. Just a little hope thou.

Anyone play Dirty Bomb yet? Its pretty good Ive been playing it lately

Peahats wrote:Anyone play Dirty Bomb yet? Its pretty good Ive been playing it lately

I've played that a bit, it's pretty fun so far.

The main issue is really that there's a strong trend in MP gaming away from community servers and toward matchmaking. There are a fair amount of good/interesting games out there, but very few big new games give you a chance to run a community server to support things like what we do. It may be we have to adjust from being a server-based community to a place where like-minded gamers gather to play games together (like we already do with L4D and MvM).


One game I'm very interested in is Reflex - which is still in development but I believe you can run your own servers for. It's more of a Quake type DM game but it looks fun and a lot of people I know are actively playing it.

Plinko wrote:One game I'm very interested in is Reflex - which is still in development but I believe you can run your own servers for. It's more of a Quake type DM game but it looks fun and a lot of people I know are actively playing it.

I'll try to take a look at that too - will be interesting to see where it goes as it develops.

(Link for those interested)

I don't love that the first things they advertise on one of their videos are "Matchmaking!" and "Everybody ranked and scored," but I am glad to see that they also advertise "Dedicated Servers - Run your own servers, with your own settings. Just one of our completely obvious features that should be in every game but for some reason isn't anymore!" Will read up and maybe buy in.

Reflex looks interesting. Making all those jumps though.....

Seems like they have many of the elements of a TF2 (or at least plans to use them).

Why has there been a move away from community based servers? Isn't it easier (and cheaper) for a company to allow others to have the servers to run the game? Is it just simply the loss of control? Or something else?

It's probably not gonna be the go to game for the whole community as it's only 4 player matchmaking, but Duck Game looks like crazy fun.

YoullNeverWalkAlone wrote: Why has there been a move away from community based servers? Isn't it easier (and cheaper) for a company to allow others to have the servers to run the game? Is it just simply the loss of control? Or something else?

Ranking permits matchmaking. Matchmaking allows competition ladders. Competition fuels profit and publicity. Ranking only works if you retain official control over servers, so you can guarantee un-tampered results.

No doubt there are other things, but I strongly suspect that to be the major force.

YoullNeverWalkAlone wrote:Why has there been a move away from community based servers? Isn't it easier (and cheaper) for a company to allow others to have the servers to run the game? Is it just simply the loss of control? Or something else?

To me it also feels like, in the case of TF2, that all the servers who let people have the ability to wear any unusual or get different things like that through a mod by paying money was a driving force behind QuickPlay and the requirements that go along with it.