I like a nice 8v8 cause then you can do nice teamplay etc… but if you are playing in a pub server you have a mix of better and more casual players, so then i’d prefer if there were a few more slots availible so the gamers can play properly and the casual people can do their part.
sure you can’t do tactics when you have 16v16, but in a pub server its hard to do tactics anyway. imo just like W:ET if you wanna do tactics go etpro scrims 6v6, you wanna just have fun tehn go pub 12v12 - 16v16
the servers that go up to 64 are a bit overkill though, but mostly because the maps just can’t handle it.
If the maps are tailored for the amount of people doesn’t matter.
[quote=engiebenjy;201883]I am the problem, the casual gamer who wants to run around and shoot at stuff… I paid the same amount as the ‘hardcore’ gamer so why would IW or Activision care?
I have modern warefare 2 (on pc) and its great, i get into a game quickly by just clicking the gametype i want and rarely get any lag. I am aware of the whole argument for dedicated servers and agree with it - but it wont stop me buying a game :o[/quote]
MW2 is the taboo breaker. They’ve pretty much removed anything that can make a PC version of the game superior to a console version. I’m sure if they could they’d remove M+KB support, I’d be stunned if MW3 doesn’t.
To be honest, I’m sick of developers who see the PC as no more than a cheap port platform to maximise their ROI. It’s not even like they try to hide their contempt for the platform and its users. So wrapped up in believing we’re petty whiners or all pirates they can’t see they’re crapping on their customer base. So quick are they to forget that they’re the ones who cut features and tweak gameplay to fit a game on a more profitable platform.
[QUOTE=Brandmon;201564]
But the bottom line is, for god’s sake SD, get the modding part of the game right this time. CS 1.6, Quake III, Quake World and a bunch of other games are still being played till this day for one reason, of which you certainly are familiar with.[/QUOTE]
What aspect(s) of modding ET:QW did you feel weren’t done right?
Personally I still think any Idtech based editor is an incredible difficult thing to work with. But that can hardly be an argument against Quake Wars (as the other games had similar if not worse versions).
The tools took wee while longer to be released than I hoped but least we got them unlike some other recently released game
The tools are really great though you did good job on them, especially with editworld, after trying to get into idtech4 mapping using doomedit and quakeedit it was a godsend, I’m hoping Brink’s version is just as great.
The megatexture business seemed to put some mappers off ET:QW even when mods started to add an auto-download ability for them but not sure why as you weren’t exactly forced to use them which I never did apart from one map where I got someone else to make it for me but yeah Brink isn’t using them afaik so yeah…
I think ultimately though it was the whole ranked server vs custom content thing that drove many away as players just couldn’t be parted from their ‘official’ stats and medals so there was no incentive for folk to make content that hardly anyone would be bothered to play, the first batch of maps weren’t exactly great either which may have contributed to low player counts and there was that problem with maps resetting people’s configs when it did the restart thing which also didn’t do custom content any favors.
Mr Data, set a course for the my-game-uses-Nurbs-and-a-software-renderer sector, density factor six-billion-polys-per-surface.
Engage.
This, mainly. Probably exclusively, tbh.
People simply were not willing to play when that time wasn’t being counted, and they were willing to invent all sorts of ludicrous nonsense to justify the behaviour. “I WISH NEW OFFICIAL MAPS”, “I don’t want to play maps half-covered with ‘CHALK’”, “I’m only willing to play custom maps after everyone else in the community has played them to make them good” etc.
Also though; there were a number of little niggling bugs - like if you wanted to do the megatexture thing, you’d need to try generating a detail map and surface type map twice if you had had the file open.
That was fine if you knew it was there, but it stumped me for days until I got my head round it. The wiki was never opened up to the mappers, so that information never went into the central resource.
If you get a mapping community with Brink, you almost definitely want to start handing out access so that kind of stuff can be put in the place where people go looking for it.
BTW, the wiki itself was very, very useful for people actually willing to put the effort in. Please do that again \o/
[QUOTE=Pegazus;201549]Compare COD to the Wolfenstein, 193 players online currently on PC.
I have never been a COD fan, but I think this game is not looking like a “Fail”.[/QUOTE]
A game/album/book/movie might be a financial success, but still a fail for everybody who is more familiar with the genre or medium. That is nothing new, authors have to decide if they want to write for critics and more educated readers or the masses since long before the music, the movie or the game industry came into existence. The game industry might currently suffer a little more then the others, because there do not seem to be any critics, just hype, supported by nearly all magazines. There is a huge gap between average magazine ratings and average reader ratings for MW2 on the pc, just like with GTA 4 on the pc.
And MW2 is a fail mp - wise, because they took away a lot of things that made online - shooters into what they are. Even if I was a CoD - fan I wouldn’t have bought it, because I will not support developers/publishers who do that. And everybody who bought it supported them, no matter how much you complain now. Your voice doesn’t matter to them, only the money which they already got from you.
Edit: Oh, and hopefully Brink will allow custom maps on ranked servers, if it has any. A filter option can be added for people who only want to play stockmaps, but it should be on “unfiltered” by default. A lot of newbies who play CoD 4 or MW2 do not know what they miss out on…
[QUOTE=H0neyBe4r;202214]
Edit: Oh, and hopefully Brink will allow custom maps on ranked servers, if it has any. A filter option can be added for people who only want to play stockmaps, but it should be on “unfiltered” by default. A lot of newbies who play CoD 4 or MW2 do not know what they miss out on…[/QUOTE]
If it’s done that way ranked servers serve no purpose… but then again they don’t serve a purpose anyway in my opinion
Everyone will want to get his XP in BRINK I guess, so no ranked/unranked system. Only something like pure/vanilla servers and those with custom settings/content.
I really don’t think it is a ‘fail’. I personally think that the MW2 multiplayer is excellent. I’m glad that MW2 isn’t the same as all other first person shooters, this is what they have done so well. They have kept the base FPS feel and gameplay and have really built on it and stretched it out, adding new gameplay elements. The MW2 gameplay experience is truly unique and I really hope Brink will be too.
I don’t want Brink to be lost in the crowd and to be seen as ‘oh, it’s another FPS’, it should be more like ‘Wow, look at Brink, it’s an FPS with awesome stuff on top!’. This game shouldn’t be like any other game out there, that is why I’m so interested with the concept of this game. Please, please, please, don’t make this game like all the others!!!
I’ll say this with full “shoot me down in flames” disclosure that I haven’t played MW1 or MW2 MP. But I find all the XP grinding, upgrades, killstreaks, perks, rewards, tinsel and general silicon booby treat of FPS distracting from the core gameplay of FPS.
I hope SD with Brink can look at MW2, ET, ETQW, BF, Quake etc and bring the best bits that work for the game rather than to just copy “popular” ideas to appeal to some demographic.
Sadly however, and I’ll cuddle ETQW here, pushing new ideas is very tough to do and playing to the crowd (which in the nicest way are easily pleased drooling fools) is rewarded greatly. I of course bow down to SD of old’s steely balls and SD of new’s expansive experience and genius to pull of a coup-de-ta of gargantuan proportions and gaming awesomeness to make the likes of MW and CoD quiver and soil their boots.
But it is, there is not a single outstanding feature in CoD:MW2. Instead its a very generic game, which does offer both quality and quantity, but no innovation. ET:QW wasn’t that innovative either, but at least it was a huge step in unknown territory for Splash Damage. In terms of the CoD:MW2 MP Infinity Ward have just added more guns, more killstreaks, different maps, but that’s about it (and in terms of the PC, they actually removed a large amount of things at the same time). It’s obviously working for them, so I can’t blame them for doing what they’re good at (Schoenmaker blijf bij je leest), but I am really disappointed when people talk about CoD:MW2 being the second coming for having “all” of these innovative things.
Imo ET:QW was very innovative but it lost to CoD4 and wasn’t all flawless. But it definetly had potential to be a big hit
About CoD:MW2 I absolutely agree with you. It’s just another CoD and it’s way worse than CoD 4 in terms of PC MP. Because this game totally fails @ modding, non-casual play and e-sports it will be forgotten next year just like CoD5. Mark my words
Imo it’s time for a big title to change the whole FPS scene and form a third big variety of playing next to CS/CoD and Quake. Guess which game I’m talking about
No, it is a generic game because it is the industry defining standard of First Person Shooters. Other games copy Call of Duty. The things which call of duty has are innovative. The ideas which call of duty brought to the table has fuelled the growth of First Person Shooters no end. The fast paced action of Call of Duty games is great. The more slow paced vehicle warfare of Battlefield games is great. Look at other Industry leading First Person Shooters and you will see that Call of Duty is on it’s own (apart from some games which have copied it). Modern Warfare 2 is quite similar to the other Call of Duty games, but that is what you would expect, it is a franchise and the COD games should be similar. I would quite like Infinity Ward to drop Call of Duty for a bit and move into something new, but for a sequel a game can’t change too much. How many other games let you jump into an AC130 gunship after 11 kills in multiplayer? How many other games let you control a Predator missile shot from an unmanned air vehicle after 5 kill streak. The features of COD and the structure of the game is so different to any other First Person Shooter out there. I’m not saying that it is the only good fps, because there are many other ones out there. Cod is Cod, leave it on it’s own. I want Brink to be a new fresh take on the classic fps genre, not another boring FPS.
If CoD is fast I hope BRINK is even faster because I think it’s a slow, campy game. Running speed is not very fast if you compare it to most of the other big FPS titles and the gunplay makes for very tactical gaming because you kill so fast (unlike ET:W which is more of a tracking game).
And about the killstreaks, I just hate them. Not only are they the n00biest weapons I have ever seen in a shooter, they also reward camping and give the player who already is very good even more kills. Why would you do that? And as the victim of a missile from the sky, what could you have done against it?
I would say a combination of things. The most obvious would be the ranking system, as it pretty much got people away from playing custom maps and instead play and get their stats saved instead of wasting time in a server that would not save their kills. Atleast that was the mentality of most of the ETQW community.
Also coupled to the fact that most custom maps are not up the the standard of the stock maps have. You need a hell lot of time and effort to create the map’s megatexture to what you want it, fill the whole map with enough detail and all this is certainly not something that one would just jump into the editor and finish such a map. One would have to finish smaller maps beforehand. But with the poor community for custom maps, people are discouraged to put in enough time and effort, producing the maps that could compete with the stock maps, encouraging people to play such custom maps.
But don’t get me wrong though, the tools were great! They were a huge leap from the Radiants of old and I learned loads from the guides posted on the wiki. And with BRINK having gameplay suited for smaller maps, it has the potential to have a much larger modding community, especially if the tools are as great as ETQW’s were. It’s just about not giving people reason not to play custom maps. Avoiding having 2 separate servers of ‘Ranked’ and ‘Non-Ranked’, where only the less ‘capable’ one can have custom content is a good start. Team Fortress 2 is a very good example in this matter, where it gives people free control to mod servers, maps and its much easier for them to get them to the public since when people play custom maps, they don’t have to worry that their stats are not being recorded.
I’m confused, I thought the question was to do with the modding tools themselves, yet everyone keeps mentioning ranked servers. This may have put people off playing mods and custom content, but it has nothing to do with the tools and creating mods, and i may be wrong but wasn’t the comment made regarding modding itself?
[QUOTE=RoryGreen;202265]No, it is a generic game because it is the industry defining standard of First Person Shooters. Other games copy Call of Duty. The things which call of duty has are innovative. The ideas which call of duty brought to the table has fuelled the growth of First Person Shooters no end. The fast paced action of Call of Duty games is great.[/QUOTE]I agree with you on the point that Call of Duty has managed to become the standard every FPS has to measure itself against. But as a matter of fact it has not always been like that.
You say it’s fast paced but actually it is not really. If you want to see fast paced FPS you have to go back a few years and have a look at the gameplay of games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein, the Quake Series and Tribes. These are games that are fast paced on many different levels. You have to learn to move fast, think fast and react fast. These things combined result in an amazing depth of gameplay that you never would expect at a first glance. Quake for example seems like such a simple shooter but it takes lots of hours to just learn the basics.
Compared to these games Call of Duty is very shallow. You can do a good job in the game without ever having played it before. All you need are good reflexes, aim and positioning / map knowledge. I found myself bored with Modern Warfare and World at War after about 20 hours of gameplay because I thought I had seen everything and arrived at a point where there just wasn’t any progress any more. The only thing that carried me on a bit where the unlocks but even those couldn’t save it.
I don’t know why FPS seem to get more similar to each other. Maybe it’s because of the much larger player numbers and production values. Trying to attract the widest audience may result in reducing the gameplay aspects to the lowest common denominator but often that just sucks.
