BF:2142 PR guy talks ET:QW!

(Hansel) #21

BF2 style gameplay has many problems, when compared to the Enemy Territory system:

Because players are so spread around the map, you need to play in 64 player server in order to get some good fights going on with many people in same area.

Many players always find themselfs from the wrong place doing nothing important, far away from main battle. This is really frustrating

Even if you do your own job well capturing and defending locations, there is always enemies who sneak thru to undefended zones and get easy captures, and then when you get there and retake those zones, the locations you were earlier defending are captured by the opposing team. This whole system does not have the feeling that there is a real war going on. There is no actual military missions going on, just a huge capture and hold game.

I dont see how objective based gameplay stops me from doing whatever I want, but atleast in ET you can actually see solo player like me helping out the other team members. Something you wont see me doing in BF2. :slight_smile:

(ParanoiD) #22

Hmm I finaly found what made BF2 so good for little kids and why they play it. They have a sandbox!

(carnage) #23

by making the game simpler (sandbox) then it is more playable by a larger audience particualry younger players who strugle with the concept of objectives/team requirments. but making a game where the players have to engage is probably more likely to get a more loyal fanbase as they have a much more in depth view of the game. ET allows for a nice large variety of stratergies especaly in clan play that just wouldnt work in bf2 since no matter how well you plan there will alwyas be someone just driving the long way around or flying over your lines

i dont see the point in having a 64 player server when realy only a small amount of the players/map will be active by groups of players. rather then allowing the team to work as a whole by giving them a common objective to work towards

even if you are 100% sucesful in your fights and capturing you could still lose because of battles the rest of your team lost that you had no infualence on and dint observe. its almost like randomly asigning wins, no wonder that a lot of the players are purley xp oriented i sertainly was since it seemed more of a goal i could work towards rather then the map objectives that i felt i had very little influence over

(GlobalWar) #24

I never felt any adrenaline when playing a BF2 match. But every ET match i played was exciting…
There is no adrenaline when capping a flag and lower tickets.

(Gringo) #25

I dont know how the guy thinks its good that in BF u can just drive vehicles anywhere with no real aim only to kill. Not exactly the purpose of vehicles is it. Th epoint is to drive them from A to B so as to aid the team. Driving it to point Z is pretty stupid but something i imagine players like to do in BF!

(madness) #26

who is forcing you to do objectives and teamwork in wolf ? noone…mostly in pubs everyone is just running around and fragging :stuck_out_tongue:

In clanwars they gonna have to work together anyway, no matter what type of game it is…

(SCDS_reyalP) #27

But the RTCW/ET gametypes and typical maps focus the action even when people are just ramboing. This is much less true in BF.

(Shanks) #28

But the RTCW/ET gametypes and typical maps focus the action even when people are just ramboing. This is much less true in BF.[/quote]
Care to explain how the RTCW CP gametype focuses the action? IMO it was just like battlefield…without vehicles.

(jjpron) #29

Wils,
it’s great that you take time to mention TF, as I believe, I’ve read that you guys did a lot of modding for that. But I may be completely wrong on that.
TF was a great game, and I remember many a times playing an engie and babysitting my poor turret when an enemy decided to use my ammo discharger thingy. Next thing you know… BANG! off with his head. Or one time when I killed 4 people through the wall with an EMP nade. I think there was a big slow fatty chaingun guy in the middle of them.
And the incindiary rockets from the flame guy… boy those were the days of pure fun.
ET is kinda the same way, but on a little bit more serious level. Yes, it is about teamplay and it is about objectives, but it is also about fun. Many a times after a funny kill I laugh out loud. No other game makes me do that, and that’s why I still keep coming back to ET. (And I hope to QW.)
Keep up the good work and throw us a media bone every now and then!

#30

But the RTCW/ET gametypes and typical maps focus the action even when people are just ramboing. This is much less true in BF.[/quote]
Care to explain how the RTCW CP gametype focuses the action? IMO it was just like battlefield…without vehicles.[/quote]

ET has mostly gameobjective checkpoints, where the war takes place at 1 checkpoint at a time. And the warline/checkpoint/objective are often attackable/defendable from 2 ways, but the ways meet in the middle, so whereever you go, you end up where all the others are, and the action becomes great. BF and ET are two very very different games.

(SCDS_reyalP) #31

You mean checkpoint ? Ever notice that hardly anyone played that mode ? The one map that was fun in CP was destruction, which was designed such that it did focus the action.

I was refering the the normal objective gametypes (i.e the ones people actually play), not checkpoint or LMS.

(B0rsuk) #32

Revives wouldn’t work in TF. Remember TF ? Lots of rocketlaunchers. Grenades can be thrown without weapon change. All classes except recon/scout have frag grenades. Cluster grenades, napalm grenades… Players are rarely without ammo, because usually you can take ammo from your dead opponents. There’s no reloading. Unless you made fallen players INVULNERABLE for, say, first 5-10 seconds, it wouldn’t matter. And reviving wouldn’t work very well in a game with instant respawn, and ability to do rocket/grenade jumps, not to mention strafe jumping. No one would wait unless you forced them with a respawn timer.

What the PR guy is saying is essentially that you don’t have to care about objectives in Bf2142. I’ve been never bothered with objectives in W:ET, because there are many ways to accomplish them. It’s important to get the tank past the bridge, but having a footbridge built helps a lot. (smart engineers like myself love to deploy a minefield past barbed wire, so you can’t really jump past). There are 3 entrances to the tank in Gold Rush. And so on.

I just hope we shouldn’t take literally the information that ET:QW is going to concentrate fights around bottlenecks. I mean, I hope there are still multiple entrances to most objectives. There’s nothing more sucky than a single bottleneck. If you disagree with last sentence, go play tremulous.

(Nishua) #33

I hope that Splashdamage realizes that they are in strict competition against BF2142, and they must deliver in all areas if they want to transcend aboves EA’s hyped up game.

(Joe999) #34

lol, i just checked those 2 gameplay vidz of bf2142:

http://www.vitivi.tv/show_video.php?var=1360;wmv;0;0;224;1;0

http://www.vitivi.tv/show_video.php?var=1378;wmv;0;0;224;1;0

check em out, they speak for themselves. you’re lost all over the playfield with neither enemy nor friend to kill.

and there’s also an interview about bf2142: they say they’re giving the game 5 times as much persistence as bf2 because “people wanna get the next rifle, people wanna get that next unlock” … erm … i’m seriously wondering how a game developer can think that way. persistent unlockables are for single player games to give them a replay value, they are not for multi player games.

(Rhoades) #35

lol, all that walking around looks real fun.

(Mav63) #36

Any german members here? I posted a report about this on et-qw.de and it would be much apprechiated when some of you find a couple of min to post a comment on this issue. Thx in advance m8s.

Link >> http://et-qw.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=153&Itemid=81

(Joe999) #37

about that “borrowing”: if someone meets that guy ask him why all of a sudden AFTER the announcement of QW a battlefield clone was announced that plays in the future? did they run out of ideas? :smiley:

(crumblycake) #38

Oh man! That doesn’t look fun at all. What are you supposed to be doing? What’s the objective? I think after the third time the commander chimes in about what’s going on during the game I would have voted to mute that. It sounded more like static chiming in. Let’s see, QW has been in deveoplement long before the E32K5 trailer came out…and it MIGHT come out this fall. Now BF2142 is anounced some time after E32005 and THAT game MIGHT come out this fall as well. Looks like SD is more effort in trying to make the “umltime online Stratigy game” and BF2142 is it’s retarded brother. I think I will be buying QW this fall and pass on BF2142…

(Rhoades) #39

Looks like SD is more effort in trying to make the “umltime online Stratigy game” and BF2142 is it’s retarded brother.

LMAO

(Isabel Lucas) #40

Activision did a great job there and it pretty much stood a guy behind you yelling to you what you needed to do. And that is almost necessary because there is a really steep learning curve in it.
But for clanwars it will be a popular game but what to chose is just a matter of likening and taste.
BF2142 will be the “open sandbox� that BF2 is today.

Read Activision did a great job at making a skillful game but BF2142 will remain noob central just as BF2 is today.