Well, that's the whole point of online multiplayer; it's not who you know in real life, but who is willing to play on a server with you that counts. If you're going into it looking to play with people you already know, you're going in with the wrong idea. It's like joining an amateur soccer league and complaining that none of your friends play; you make friends while playing.Motoko_Urashima said:You know, the fact that I own a large number of the valve games, and don't like the majority of them is strange.... I didn't like L4D or L4D2, because they're horrible without at least one other human player, I didn't like Team Fortress/TF2 because of a similar lack of ability to play with other people in a fixed-class shooter similar to battlefield 2 etc.. I haven't yet played counter strike (no flames plz), but I loved Portal, Half Life and sequels, HL2 and it's sequels and portal 2.
It's probably pretty obvious where that line is drawn for me. These are mostly computer games, and most people I know either don't have a good enough internet connection to play or the powerful hardware to run the game in the first place. playing on a console has it's own problems of either spit screening or multiple copies of the game.
I don't get it, what's so great about multiplayer games? yeah, sure, DDR, Guitar Hero and Deff Jamz Rapstar are awesome multiplayer games, but they don't require the entire screen and can switch between drunken friends very easily. But, none of those are *online* multiplayer. perhaps there's something bound to that.
I think Valve is missing the mark by putting out these online-based multiplayer games, I don't even know a person IRL that spends more then a single hour a week playing one.
It sounds like you're just bad at the game. TF2 is about as easy to pick up as any game that involves skill can be; part of playing online in any game is getting your butt kicked for at least the first couple of hours of play. However, if you stick with it, you eventually get better. Heck, the whole point of team based games is to let players who aren't the best on the server still contribute to and have a chance of winning. In the early days of online multiplayer, it was every man for himself, and there was only one winner on any server. As for how TF2 has changed over the years, even the drops don't give that big of an advantage. A lot of the best players use the vanilla loadouts, because they're the general purpose loadouts, while the other ones are situational, and will get you killed if you're using them except at exactly the right time, where they deliver a slight advantage over the standard loudout -- but there's usually another class that counters the same thing with the vanilla loadout, making the drops completely optional.Cheesus333 said:I didn't really like Team Fortress 2. I got it very shortly after release and it was still already too late to even try and get into it. It's the sort of game where, if you're not one of the first in, you're doomed to get beat down by everyone you come across and therefore get nowhere.
Maybe I'm just really bad at it, I don't know, but either way I'm not a big fan.
OT: I was going to say Alien Swarm, not because it was bad so much as because it was the worst of a very good lot, but after seeing the video of Ricochet, I think we have a winner. Space maps with jump pads generally make for bad maps; and entire game built around it must be awful, especially when you realize just how small the landing areas are. I have a feeling people are more likely to kill themselves than get killed by someone else.