WTF is with all these comparisons between BF and TF??
They really have very little in common.
BF may have been one of the pioneers (I use that term lightly) of this form of gameplay but there really is MUCH room for improvement in the sub-genre and I think Valve could've done it much better than the pedestrian,arcadish, ho-hum gameplay of Battlefield. Just because BF got there first doesn't mean Valve should've just packed up & gone home (which may/may not have been the case).
This really has me scratching my head... TF got there first, and it's always been "arcadish" in terms of it's gameplay. It's all about rocket jumping (and surviving), or setting guys on fire (who may survive), scouts running faster than The Roadrunner, etc.. I mean.. there's no solid connection between TF gameplay and what you find in BF. Nor is there any solid connection between TF gameplay and reality. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING!!
Personally I'm looking forward to seeing how the new TF pans out with utter morbid curiousity...but there will always be that thought of what could've been had they stuck to their guns and got TF2 out the door.
Given the kind of over-the-top gameplay that makes TF great, how utterly foolish would the game be if they had "stuck to their guns" and kept the realistic visual style they had been promoting for TF2 way back though?? Those guys just don't look like they could survive a grenade-jump, let alone the blast from one going off even nearby..
OTOH, by going with this cartoony feel, all of that stuff becomes completely feasable. AND THAT'S A GOOD THING TOO!
We don't really need any more "realistic" military sims, IMO.
It may be that one day a young man will adore a Pinata.This comment was edited on Jul 19, 14:45.
I'm not even angry. I'm being so sincere right now, even though you broke my heart and killed me.