[QUOTE=naedae;278425]
last but not least… NO MICRO$OFT SHENANIGANS AMIRIGHT??? IM TIRED OF M$ GETTING DLC EARLY FOR MULTIPLATFORM GAMES… :mad:
thank you:D[/QUOTE]
I doubt they will. The only reason Xbox gets DLC early is because MS paid to get it first. This is also one of the reason they increased the price of live. Yes I love paying more for live just for CoD map packs that I will never download! You don’t have much of a reason to be mad, seeing as how the early DLC have all been bad.
Wolfenstein Enemy Territory by todays standards had nothing, the one thing it did have though was the best gameplay and shooting I have ever seen in an objective team shooter. You don’t need a rank system, you don’t need achievements or perks, if the gameplay is great and addictive people will play it for years, and thats exactly what I did because every game was different.
At its core how the game feels and how it works is the most important consideration, if the shooting style is lame like COD then its incredibly boring, ranks/perks/achievements wont matter if the shooting and combat doesn’t feel right.
I wouldn’t really call them perks, They were certainly not implemented in the same way as today. The big difference between W:ET and today is how long the rewards last for. In W:ET they lasted for a campaign or 3 maps today the perks/abilities span your gaming time in the chosen game. The rewards in W:ET were just upgrades of the existing abilities whereas today you see much more variety and diversirty, giving players abilities their characters didn’t have from the start.
Even if for the sake of argument you say they are perks, my point was that in W:ET things were less advanced and it was still a great game hence why you don’t need ranks/perks like you see today. That doesn’t mean you should not have them, that was not my point, again my point was that game play is the one of the most important considerations. A rank or perk system alone is not going to make a game great.
They were at least as powerful as the way they’re used now. Someone completely decked out with upgrades had an immense advantage over someone who didn’t have anything. There were moments you felt godlike just because of your upgrades.
I must’ve played Valley from ET:QW hundreds of times. Never gets old. And I hate that map.
Don’t get me started on Goldrush.
So, no. If Brink gets old for you, the redundancy of the maps probably won’t be why.
Not the wolf server I play on. : D
The lady that owns it cycles like 30 something maps in, and every time I come back from a hiatus there’s always new maps I’ve never seen, plus the classic amazing ones.
You’ll know what you have to do, whether or not you can actually do it depends on how you, your team and the enemy team play, just like any other multiplayer game.
You mention demolition, you know the above is true for a demolition map, the bomb site is always the same, the map geometry is always the same, the teams spawn in the same areas, yet it’s replayable.
So why wouldn’t Brink maps be, as they are essentially a series of such objectives?
I’m not worried about replayability in Brink because I have enjoyed the maps the talented guys at Splash Damage have put out in their games. I can count on one hand the maps I haven’t liked. Quarry is the only one I can think of. From Wolf:ET to Quakewars the map design for quite a few of their maps has been some of the best I have seen. There are a few that miss the mark and can be entirely too frustrating when your team sucks, but that’s not really their fault if your team sucks.
ive been hearing ppl say things like this. but, as the devs have said , they’re trying to make it fun for everyone.
fact is, we are gunna repeatedly play campaign and tht wont get boring ? hard to believe
[QUOTE=naedae;278615]ive been hearing ppl say things like this. but, as the devs have said , they’re trying to make it fun for everyone.
fact is, we are gunna repeatedly play campaign and tht wont get boring ? hard to believe[/QUOTE]
From the interviews I’ve seen there should be a stopwatch mode for those who want to play competition. Also by “fun for everyone” I took that as catering to lots of different gaming styles while keeping it all balanced. Like snipers aren’t going to dominate a map and make everyone afraid to jump out. I’m just looking forward to see how fast the light body type plays. I doubt it will be that fast. I haven’t played anything that was really fast since QWTF. The Smart system sounds like it might be fun for all the trick jumpers out there.
which reminds me… I’ve seen quite a few people posting on here that I played with in ETQW and a very few I played Wolf ET with. Glad to see you all coming over to the Brink ship with me. I can’t wait to shoot you all in the face.
[QUOTE=naedae;278615]ive been hearing ppl say things like this. but, as the devs have said , they’re trying to make it fun for everyone.
fact is, we are gunna repeatedly play campaign and tht wont get boring ? hard to believe[/QUOTE]
First of all, you dont have to play the campaign in order, if you dont want to, so its just a collection of maps that happen to fit on a timeline if you care to pay attention to it, and each has a story.
So could you please explain why you seem to think it will be any more boring than playing the same maps over and over in any other FPS? I don’t see a difference.
I wonder how the devs feel, seeing these threads pop-up everyday. Not exactly motivational stuff.
Everyone is talking about prior SD games, and objective game style, and multiplayer games are always different…
But hold on a second… What this person is describing is basically describing EVERY SINGLE GAME EVER CREATED. You start the game, you do moves, you win or lose.
Quite open ended. Every game is (in effect) repeated and ends the same. So this just shows how silly this question really is.
I’m happy there’s only a limited amount of maps. that way you can get good at them. Practice makes perfect, which is much more fun than playing new maps all the time with everyone running around clueless about where to go and what to do.
[QUOTE=naedae;278615]ive been hearing ppl say things like this. but, as the devs have said , they’re trying to make it fun for everyone.
fact is, we are gunna repeatedly play campaign and tht wont get boring ? hard to believe[/QUOTE]
Yes and No. For some, playing the same maps over and over is a big deal.
For others, the map numbers are of little significance, its how you choose to play them.
3 bodtypes, 4 classes, 50 abilities and 24 weapons… theres lots of different ways you can approach each map. 
Practice makes perfect
Nope. Perfect practice makes perfect. 
maps getting boring?
hmm i played the 6 Wolf:ET maps hundreds of times and to this date all i do is missing em…
[QUOTE=naedae;278615]ive been hearing ppl say things like this. but, as the devs have said , they’re trying to make it fun for everyone.
fact is, we are gunna repeatedly play campaign and tht wont get boring ? hard to believe[/QUOTE]
Trololololol 