SF may be TOO team-based.
Okay so this is bugging me.
SF is the only game I have ever played where i feel compelled to change teams if I end up with a bunch of idiots. I'm no elitist and I know I'm far from the best player sf has seen, but it's an incredibly frustrating experience in SF.
I'm going to use TF2 as an example here, because it is by far the best multiplayer game I have ever played. In TF2, if your team is full of idiots then you still have a chance of winning. Yes, it will be hard, but unlike SF, you are not guaranteed to lose. I think this exposes a significant flaw with the current incarnation of SF - it is simply too team-based. In TF2, a single player (in a 16 slot server, the way TF2 was meant to be played) has the ability to pull his or her team through to victory, whereas in SF, nearly no matter HOW good someone is, it's nigh-on impossible for their team to win if the rest of the team is retarded.
I don't know if this issue is being dealt with in 2.0, but I would like for the devs to look into it and see what they can do about it, because it's definitely the worst thing I've found wrong with this game. I'm sure other players on here get nowhere near as frustrated as I do when stuck with a bad team, but that doesn't make it not a problem.
I for one enjoy team-based games, but at the moment, it's ridiculous how much you have to rely on your team in order to win. I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks of it. It could be a non-issue, but if you think so, then I'd like to hear some valid reasons as to why you think so - just straight-up denying it doesn't make it go away either.
Last edited by Sauce; 09-07-2008 at 10:50 AM.
|