Malefactor wrote on 03/25/15 at 15:37:13:
Did you not understand that I brought up the fact that the old games had 1 v 1 multiplayer FIRST to counter your argument that 1 v 1 was not part of intentional design? In response you didn't even acknowledge the problem in your thinking and instead CHANGED positions and started arguing that was solely due to hardware limitations.
My point in bringing up hardware limitations was to illustrate that the original TM only offered 1v1 split-screen not because that's all they wanted to do, but was
all they could do. If they could have incorporated multiplayer with greater than two players, I'm sure they would have. Why wouldn't they? It makes your argument about the early games only allowing 1v1s negligible. Why are there more than two vehicles depicted in combat on the cover of the original Twisted Metal if the grand vision, and the ultimate way to enjoy the game was in 1v1 combat? The fact that the original TM only allowed for 1v1s has nothing to do with my argument that team-based multiplayer is deeper than 1v1s, and it's totally a moot point.
Malefactor wrote on 03/25/15 at 15:37:13:
You also act as if you've provided some great argument for why 1 vs 1 is NOT that deep and yet all you've mentioned is your shallow intent argument and perhaps something about dealing with multiple opponents.
You say I'm mislead and you don't even explain why. Seeing that your original responses to me were quotes I had directed towards others, go back and read what I posted. You're basically just posting a longer version of "you're wrong, just cause I say so!". If nothing I say is compelling, just quote it and shut me down. Not that hard.
Malefactor wrote on 03/25/15 at 15:37:13:
Finally, I don't think you understand that for many of us TM2012 is like comparing apples to oranges with past Twisted Metals. At least on the subject of 1 v 1. I played that game for a while in the 1 on 1 arena and couldn't stand it. I even deemed it worthless as a 1 v 1 game and entirely unfun. In short, the reasons that I would give for loving 1 v 1 didn't exist as far as I could tell in the new game. Maybe that's precisely why you, a player of the new game, can't see it.
How much did you play of it, and during what period? If it was within the first couple of months the game was released, I would agree that 1v1s were stale for the time. Really very few players were actually playing competitively and most people were just concerned with playing ranked and trying to earn experience towards their unlocks. Most players were machine gun jousters at the time. There were 1v1 tournaments that occurred shortly after, but even those had no regulations that prevented cheapness, and it wasn't until rules were later set and people gained more experience playing competitive that the game evolved. If you only played during the early era and never developed to the level that current players play at, you don't possess the authority to claim it to be unfun.
---
Magnum wrote on 03/25/15 at 12:15:14:
Ok. That's fine there is a misunderstanding here. Just to warn you though, you can't take the things that are said here to seriously. Especially from me. I don't go out of my way to shit on people, and I never have. Just don't think I'll take it either.
Thanks for clarifying, I'll certainly admit to being rash with my response. I guess I'm just used to getting jabbed at a lot around these parts, so it was pretty easy to interpret that impression as a mockery towards TM 2012's supposed spamming, but considering TMBO's scoring system and the emphasis on finishing kills, that makes sense.
We've got an option for unlimited weapons too in TM 2012, but those kinds of lobbies have never been popular. Even with unlimited spam, players that use manual aim weapons typically still prevail, but it makes the majority of weapons useless and is just shallow.
Magnum wrote on 03/29/15 at 14:59:08:
Does this help with a little more of an understanding now?
I get where you're coming from, yeah. There's a lot of parallels to TM 2012's community, whether by coincidence or not. There's still lots of scrubs that continuously play ranked matches and never enter the competitive unranked environment, and stick to playing in ranked lobbies where they can target weak or new players and win more often since not a lot of pros enter such lobbies. Most of the players that have the most "XP" are like that since we don't gain XP in unranked. I had 1v1s with a lot of these scrubs in the first year, but since then they just don't enter competitive lobbies because they just can't perform on an even playing field. It's the people who play competitively and set themselves up to become a better player that are the best in modern day, regardless of how much raw in-game time they've logged.
There used to be a few advocates of 1v1s in the TM 2012 community, but it really wasn't sustained because competitive team-based multiplayer prevailed as a much better indicator of skill. The fact that the game had the infrastructure to support team matches and the better connections of current day (and better social functions with voice chat, PSN messaging, etc.) allowed the team experience to be more accessible than in Black. In that regard, I totally respect how Black's community was more based around individual prestige, and 1v1s would be an ideal method for backing up your rep. The buzz around the TM 2012 community revolved around clans, rather than individuals. People disliked ranking and comparing players, but there was lots of excitement around teams and how certain vehicles and playstyles could function.
Alt accounts have been a big element of TM 2012 as well, for better or for worse. Later on some players tried forming what were basically super clans with select players from certain clans hidden behind an unknown name, and create lobbies for others to challenge them. It got to the point that people became paranoid when clan battles came around and if players were legit, because it was even possible to disguise yourself as another player if they had a capital I/lower l or capital O/zero (0) in their ID since those characters appeared the exact same with the font TM used. So in a lot of regards, I can relate to your experiences in TMBO, with the major differentiating element being that team matches were the method of exhibiting one's skill, rather than 1v1s.
So, by no means do I mean to deny the relevance of 1v1s in any title. They're an important part of the community and its history. All I've been trying to argue is that TDM contains more depth overall, and a person's consistent performances in that mode is a better indicator of a person's overall skill if team matches are considered the better than FFA. 1v1s are an indicator to an extent as well, and may have more immediate prestige and pressure since you either win or lose, whereas in TDM your team can lose, but you can still have a strong performance. In fact, performing well on a playing field where the balance is not in your favour is even more telling of a player's abilities, and can show whether they'll easily be shut down, or will still manage strong scores regardless of carrying a larger target due to being paired with weaker teammates that don't require as much effort to bank points off of.