[QUOTE=.FROST.;464457]The gunplay definitely feels better, compared to earlier builds, and the movement has improved immensely as well and the fact that one can turn off all kinds of fancy view bobbing let’s me play the game in the first place…
BRINK was my first strongly objective based shooter and I loved the artstyle and the setting wich really set that game apart from every other shooter at that time and kept me interested…[/QUOTE]
You’re right, Frost, the game has made improvements. The problem is that the improvements have been incremental for the betterment of the game, then something comes along that makes the game take two steps back, which in the latest patch, for me, was the agnostic objectives. I know the “everyone can do everything” patch was the first phase of it and it’s supposed to get better and before I had a chance to test it I was actually interested to see how well that would work out. I went in with tons of optimism (since I was so sure this was being tested in-house and the dev team found it fun) and came out with pessimistic views about the state of Dirty Bomb and its future.
Also, being proud that you can turn off view bobbing and the sort is something that first person shooters have done for over 15 years. There are just those other games out there that don’t make it an option because they want to lock in “realism”. Dirty Bomb is an arcade shooter, not a realistic war simulator. If they were to go the war simulator route, I can tell you that Battlefield 4 would like to have a word with them. But, if they go the arcade shooter, class objective route then they would be fulfilling a huge blank in the market right now. Look at the success that is Team Fortress 2 starting as a paid game and going free to play and still pulling in a huge community. I wasn’t aware until recently, but even on the competitive side TF2 still has big tournaments being thrown for it like at ESEA. Why? Because, there aren’t other games out there like it… It fills a void.
A void that I talk to non-alpha testing players about everyday. I have people who have been playing competitive FPS games for years and they reach out to me in hopes to squeeze out information about Dirty Bomb or a chance to play the game. They tell me how excited they are to play the game because of what it promises…a team based, class touting, objective running game. A game that I’ve read and heard compared to every objective based game out there. In the exact same breath I hear them also say they are excited to play despite the gameplay videos looking lack luster. It kills me to remain tight lipped that the “magic of ET” is not there and this is not the game they are looking for…yet?
I say, “yet”, because I am hoping for a turn around in this game. I am hoping things will change for the better. Unfortunately, I think there is a lot of tunnel vision on the forums and the development side of things. There’s this big picture that I know the developers believe they have more pieces of the puzzle to than us because they have things they are working on, but the problem is the CORE GAMEPLAY is not there. The core is not fun. Yes, Frost, it was getting better, and then things were being changed over and over. I know we are a minority (right, Anti?) of people posting on these forums our disdain for the current state of the alpha, but when I see the same complaints being said about the game over and over for months on end, patch after patch…when are we supposed to believe that this game is getting better instead of worse? When are we actually taking a step towards that big picture that makes Dirty Bomb a success? In reality, are we just painting with the wrong palette and killing off all those “happy little trees” that were the foundation of this masterpiece?
All the things Valdez mentioned are absolutely true and if anyone can refute it then I’d like to see valid replies of how the maps are amazing or how the gameplay is exciting. Name an exciting moment in the game? Would it be on Waterloo when the attackers have planted a C4 and were able to camp upper to stop the trickle of spawning defenders from getting off a defuse? Or would it be the Defenders getting that last second defuse only to look at the clock and see that there’s 9 minutes left on Objective Mode.
What about on White Chapel? How about the excitement of the EV storming the gates of the last objective and having to carry the two milk jugs into the final data center? Is it exciting when your team is defending the final point cutting off the one real chokepoint, but somehow your team dies and they don’t have any chance of spawning before the wave of attackers walks in the objective? Seriously, how many times has this happened? I heard it ALL the time on voice or read it in chat: A team (or individual) felt so hampered and devastated because they knew that they died when their spawns didn’t match the enemies’ and both objectives were going to be walked in since after that the attackers were able to hold the defenders to their corner spawn on White Chapel’s finale.
Anyways, you also do have it right, Frost, that the game’s art style is great. I love what the art team has done and I only hope that the actual gameplay changes so that their work will be much more appreciated by a broader audience. It’s too bad the graphics don’t make the game.
[QUOTE=MrFunkyFunk;464496]Once in a while someone sends a S.O.S. on the forums, a lot of people agree and we hug it out.
It’s still true today as it was months ago so I can only agree, problem is that those issues haven’t really been adressed.
I’ve pretty much emptied my “tdm DB kills” gauge and I can’t find motivation to keep on participating as much as I used to when the core gameplay is so unsatisfying.
I’m not necessarily asking for past features but currently doing objs and killing enemies feels so unrewarding, it’s a dire problem.
I wish I could come up with solutions but some of those were rejected a long time ago. Hopefuly there are more inspired people out there that can.[/QUOTE]
I feel just about as defeated as you do MrFunkyFunk. I have literally avoided writing these wall of texts pouring out my opinions on the matters because I got “we’ll wait and see”'d one too many times. Too many times the excuse of “It’s just an alpha!” has been thrown around and honestly I think the game is well off as far as an alpha goes, but that’s just a fancy title at the end of the day. How far away is Dirty Bomb from beta, realistically? Do we expect the core gameplay to change that much from alpha to beta? Will the gameplay change so much that all of us will feel like we’re playing that team based, class objective FPS we signed up for? Or will it be a team deathmatch with no real coordination and instead people just shooting for high frags. Which also highlights that people are not worried about dying in this game due to the short respawns (especially objective mode) and lack of spawn waves for the team (I know, I know – objective mode is getting spawn waves as a test in the future – something we’ve requested for months).
Objectives get done because a team is too busy playing TDM. I see it over and over on Camden on the third objective (and now second objective sadly since there is so much cover). People are off trying to rack up kills away from the fight zone that someone sneaks in and plants or delivers. Then, everyone is too busy fragging to be bothered to go actually try to defuse or defend from further deliveries.
Inferno did say it best. I hope this is the last of these threads because the next “progress update” is going to say, “Hey, we’re taking a huge look at how we can make maps better…What are your ideas community? We’d like to listen to you.” We’re not a hive mind playing your game, we are gamers from all different backgrounds, games, and mentalities, yet so many of us (I mean, few of us, right, Anti?) have been saying the same thing for a long time.
And, I truly believe surveys are the worse way to garner how well the alpha is going. I know you’re trying to reach out to hear more people’s opinions, but I think people tend to be a little nice on surveys especially when the scale of dislike to agree is so broad. I was even nice on it, but when I heard how much weight was being given to the survey, I realize I made an error. I didn’t think that multiple choice would trump the paragraphs of text that have been written on the forums stating clear concise reasons why some things are good and others are bad.
Valdez laid it all out for you guys here. He’s a man of few words, unlike myself when it comes to writing, yet he hit the nail on the head. I guess at this point this is just me finally writing out my opinions on things (especially since I’ve even had people ask me to do this…). I don’t see the need of repeating myself any further, but I have one final request:
Please address the issues raised in Valdez’s original post.
