[AKA]PanamaJack said:
You will always look at things from a screwed perception that has no real basis in reality.
Wow, just wow. Talk about getting nasty. Well, if it's going to be that way, then I'll have to educate you fool. Read closely.
[AKA]PanamaJack said:
For every ONE T1 player that hated T2 there were probably HUNDREDS who liked T2 that replaced them.
Weren't you the one that posted that graph showing that T1 had more people playing it then T2? 100 to 1 T2 players to T1 players? Are you mental? Quit making stuff up.
[AKA]PanamaJack said:
You improve a franchise by bringing in MORE players
This is correct, but you take it as an ultimatum. I would point out that if this was the only criteria for improvement, then changing the game to Online Poker, which has more players then any tribes game by far, would be a huge step in the right direction to improve the franchise. This shows that you aren't a true fan of the game if all you care about is player count. Fun Gameplay is what matters to the true fan.
An improved player count can be achieved without butchering the living crap out of the game. Look at Soul Calibur 2(I realize it isn't an online game). Look at Half life 2. Both these games managed to be huge successes without completely changing their game as you seem to think is the only method
of increasing player count. You are wrong. I could even point to Everquest expansion packs which both keep old fans playing and draw in new players at the same time.
[AKA]PanamaJack said:
You can go on all you want about competition but competition does not bring in the player counts you think it does. There hasn't been a popular FPS game with high player counts that the competition players ever made a difference in how popular the game was. The fact of the matter is the competition players depend heavily on the player counts. Low player counts competition withers and dies. With high player counts competition becomes viable.
HAhahahahaahaha... You think competition doesn't matter? Wrong.
You think it doesn't impact player counts? WRONG.
I wonder why the CPL announcing it will sponser and fund competative tournaments for a game increases a game's player count ten fold?
It must be just some huge coincidence right? A huge coincidence that the second the CPL announces it's taking on the new game "Painkiller" that everyone then starts playing it as if by magic.
Or maybe your "Superior Perspective" on the issue isn't as sharp as you think?
[AKA]PanamaJack said:
Without high player counts a game is DEAD.
No way really? Man, I'm going out on a limb here, but I might say you're right. If nobody's playing the game, then it just might be dead. Good observation buddy. You and me agree on this one.
You seem to think that player count matters more than anything when judging the quality of a game. By this logic, wouldn't you think that Everquest was the greatest game ever made? Cus I think that game blows. Tribes was better.