A question about Quake Wars campaigns

(datoo) #1

Hi everyone!

I was just reading this preview of Arcane Studio’s Dark Messiah of Might & Magic: http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=64041, and it describes this really cool-sounding multiplayer where you play through a set of linked maps like in Quake Wars, but in this game you move forward or back through the campaign depending on if you win or lose. I know QW will have campaigns, but I also remember reading in some preview that which team wins a map will change how the next map plays, simillar to Dark Messiah. The thing is, I can’t find this in any of the recent previews. Am I high?

(Joe999) #2

yes, you are :slight_smile: what’s the point of your post? making a commercial for a non-QW game? please note the term: non-QW!!! because in the near future there will only be Quake Wars on the one side (including ET), and non-Quake-Wars games on the other :smiley: :moo:

but yes, it was mentioned in some of the previews that the maps will change depending on who wins. just follow the links in:

http://www.splashdamage.com/index.php?name=pnPHPbb2&file=viewtopic&t=12809

:wink:

ps: M&M isn’t cool. never was, never will be.

(datoo) #3

It wasn’t intended as a commercial, I was merely pointing out a similarity between the two games, and Dark Messiah features objective classed based FPS action, so I thought some people here might be interested. And as for M&M, I’ve never been into it, but I did like Arcane Studio’s last game Arx Fatalis, and this new game has nothing to do with the other ones except for the brand name AFAIK.

Anyway, this is what I was looking for:

*These maps will be divided into territories, and you’ll have specific objectives to be accomplished in each one. The flow of battle will always lead through these so you’ll know exactly where the combat will be. The progression through these areas will depend on who wins each match. If the Strogg win, your next match will be different than if the Marines do.

So I’m not high, sweet! The future of PC gaming is looking good, real good.

(Joe999) #4

no offense dude, but trying to raise interest for a game which has nothing to do with the game everyone else is talking about here, is a commercial :slight_smile:

if you need more here’s some collected stuff by rosone:

http://www.theredstuff.com/faq.php?g=Enemy+Territory+Quake+Wars

(ParanoiD) #5

NO HE ISNT! I know what he means. I saw this idea in the ET mod (which is canceled for ET) Price of Peace. In a map you can win or lose. Lets say were allied on d_day. We win and get further in france. Now the next map the axis win. Normal we would just go to the next map in ET in the campaign rotation. In Price of Peace and the game datoo is mentioning you would get pushed back by the axis and will be back at omaha beach again to fight there instead of doing operation Market Garden or something. Its a nice realistic idea. Still I dont know how campaigns are in ET:QW. If theyre on teh same area this could be nice. If the maps in a campaign are all over teh world it doesnt matter as you coul say there are more GDF teams and more Strogg invasions all over the world so you would just play in another squad of the war. Still I like the idea!

(carnage) #6

i dont know about this i mean if the campains move back and forth on a linear fasion then you could end up playing the same 2 maps for many rounds

but to create capains where the progress but not in a linear fastion would need a large number of maps more then i think where going to get and could mean that sertain maps often avoid getting played since the map before favours one team and they oftne win it

(datoo) #7

No offense taken, but the whole reason I mentioned the other game is because it has similarities with ET:QW. I’m not trying to shill Dark Messiah, in fact I’m far more excited about Quake Wars, simply because I have more faith in Splash Damage. I don’t really know anything about Kuju, the studio that is developing the Dark Messiah multiplayer.

I’ve already seen rosone’s FAQ, but thanks for the link.

And thanks for backing me up ParanoiD. :smiley:

Yeah that does sound like a downside to what they’re doing, but it all depends on how it’s implemented. Hopefully Kuju has got the sense and the resources to develop it properly.

(B0rsuk) #8

It sounds like a nice idea at first, until you start to realize it’s not exactly replayable. You’d have to get very specific combination of win/lose to play a certain map. This means some maps would appear much more often than others, because it’s very hard to create perfect balance, and even if you succeed, there’s the human factor.

(Bongoboy) #9

Let me put yet another shout out for Atomic’s Close Combat games which had a similar campaign system. The damage from previous battles was cumulative, so you’d end up fighting in a junkyard of knocked-out tanks and mortared-out buildings. Ah, good times.

(ayatollah) #10

I’m I the only one that thinks this is a big statement from the SD team? I think that idea would suit the QW world perfectly. With a bit of thought this would lead to immersive battles…

//thinking cap off

(Rhoades) #11

whats with the devs blatantly not answering any questions/ being sneaky?

(datoo) #12

I’m just glad they post at all, it’s more than you can expect from most developers.

(Ragnar_40k) #13

Here some screens from the “Close Combat: Invasion Normandy” campaign system:
http://www.splashdamage.com/index.php?name=pnPHPbb2&file=viewtopic&p=117076#117076

(Deth_Metal) #14

Honestly, if you think this is bad, try other game developers, most don’t even have forum accounts in their own forums, much less post anything. Besides, if the devs spent all their time answering your questions instead of working on the game, it wouldn’t turn out that great because some features would be lacking due to lost development time and the features that do work that they spent all that time explaining to you will be a bit of a let down since you already know all about them before you even pick the game up.

Besides, it’s in the Developer’s Code of Conduct: Rule #1 All answers about upcoming game features must be vague and unspecific. It’s not their fault, they simply have to live by certain principles :wink:

Back on topic though: I do like the idea of dynamic campaigns, being that you can have an almost infinite tree of consequences for winning or loosing a round which, if you take the time to develop a fairly large number of maps (this is a good thing guys, not a bad thing. Small file size at the cost of gameplay is stupid, not cool) greatly enhancing replayability as you may have guys on your team who are used to playing through a certain route and may be useful on one map and mere dead weight on another, making players have to adapt more quickly to their circumstances.

On that note, would the devs be able to shed some more light on just how the campaigns will progress? I’m familiar with how the old ET system worked and it was pretty good at first, but tended to get old after awhile. QW has the potential to make this model much more viable and I hope you guys do well with it!

(CrazyGuy) #15

Anyone gong to E3 ?
Find the SD guys and asked your questions. Since, they are showing off the game.

And bring a cam corder.

(Joe999) #16

maybe because they are pure evil? :slight_smile:

recently i thought it over and i love holding back information and the slogan “when it’s done” more and more. example: xbox360 games. i had no real reason to buy an xbox360 because there were no good games at launch, mostly only the EA crap. then M$ said that Gears Of War would be in the launch window, game to be released in march. so i bought an xbox360 in december. and what now? GoW delayed until further notice. imo GoW was never intened to have a real release date, instead they always made it a competition product to ps3, that can easily be traced by looking at it’s several launch dates. they all match the ps3 launch date rumors. now both are scheduled for november. the release date lies apply to several other good sounding games, like eg dead rising etc.

what i’ve learned? M$ told only lies and i’m very pissed off by them. what i’ll do? switch over to Revolution & PS3 in november.

seriously, i think giving no real information about a game until “when it’s done” is a good thing for everyone as there are so many things in development that could change and could cause disappointments at the potential customers.