ET:QW - SP & Bots ???

(Joe999) #41

i know.

so why don’t you just stick with bf2 or joint ops then?

ps: i really do wonder how less than 3000 people could separate on 1000 servers. :bump:

(DarkangelUK) #42

Have less servers. tbh if there is a 1000 servers and only 3 players in each, it should tell the server owners something. Indeed all your points are valid, but as i said… there’s a fraction pf people use bots. And as i said again, if the public wants bots… they’ll make them… just like they did for ET. I think if ET did have the SP portion attached and we did have to pay for it, i still don’t think there would have been bots for the MP portion. As i said, i’d rather they spent the time fine tuning the MP experience than spending time on something that a fraction of gamers use. The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.

(BR1GAND) #43

Hmm were is the evidence that only a fraction of gamers use MP AI. Do you have some stats to back that up? I’ve played many games, Q3 and ET competitively… Ive used the bots in q3 alot and would have used the bot mod for ET more if it wasnt so limited… I doubt im outside the mainstream on this. But if you can prove otherwise please do.

I dont agree that time spend on AI is time taken away from the rest of the game development. Like ive said BF2, Joint Ops, CSS and others are doing it and and some even include an in-depth sp game too. The bar has been set high, I hope SD chooses to raise it higher.

(DarkangelUK) #44

I guess like any counter argument i could say the same… where’s the demand for it? Every server i’ve seen with bots, it’s only been bots in there… which makes me not want to join it. All the servers with a few players, only have players. Can’t say i’ve ever seen mixed matches in any MP game i’ve played… and i’ve been playing a hell of a long time. Maybe SD are putting up their own bar and creating a purely MP only game. It also seems SD’s greatest release of free ET is also their achiles heel. I actually read a reply when ET:QW was announced saying “this game BETTER be free!”. in fact you almost make a similar statement yourself “Don’t be so close minded and challenge SD to put a game out well worth paying for.”… so if there is no bots or it doesn’t reach your expectations it should be free? Have they released anything to make you doubt their ability to make games? People need to realise that this was a one off special circumstance, and ET was NOT free because it simply didn’t have bots, so expecting other games without bots to be free is just completely ignorant. People are expecting too much from SD, and think that since they’re actually going to have to pay for this game, it should be something uberly spectacular over all other MP games. Your points about the reasons for bots are valid, but weak at best. Not one thing in that list is a necessity or leads to the over all effect of the game in general. Would any of the previously stated games have failed without bot support? I doubt it very much. From ET we can see SD do produce high quality games, and there’s no reason to doubt ET:QW will be any less. Hell how many people couldn’t believe such a quality game as ET was free? Had it been a pay for expansion, it would have sold no doubt.

(SCDS_reyalP) #45

One also has to realize that every feature has cost. More time spent on bots means less time spent on something else (or more development time, or more developers, but schedule and cost tend to be the least flexible factors.) Making bots for a game with relatively complicated gameplay is much harder than making them for straight DM.

For myself, I’d much rather see really good online play, rather than unpolished online play (cough bf2) and mediocre bots. There have been a number of online only games, with no SP or bots, which did very well. The original tribes comes to mind…

(BR1GAND) #46

This whole “time spent on making the game complete makes for a mediocre game” logic is bunk… I seriously doubt ID Software is going to release Q4 without some sort of offline play. ET: QW is going to be built on the Q4 engine, I hope they follow ID Software’s’ lead.

(Joe999) #47

yeah SD, now give us QW for free!!! and maybe like in the devloper diary thread here:

http://www.splashdamage.com/index.php?name=pnPHPbb2&file=viewtopic&t=13139

you could again set up the webcam, so that we can watch you working for free for us and if you don’t and instead of working play other games or watch porn, we can :twak:

:smiley:

btw: really documented? i always had my doubts and wanted to know, gimme that documents. :eek3:

but back to bots: honestly, i don’t understand all that bot thing. if other games with bots are that good, why don’t people play that games then? and if they liked ET and still play it instead of other games, well, then SD must be doing their job pretty damn good and it looks like they know what’s best for their games. :clap:

speaking of recent games and multiplayer: anyone tried the fear mp demo? man, that one sucks. so for the future i really do hope that companies release SP ONLY and MP ONLY games, or at least sell them separately.

(SCDS_reyalP) #48

Huh ? You are grossly distorting what I said. Surely you understand that time spent on one feature makes less time available for other features ?

I seriously doubt ID Software is going to release Q4 without some sort of offline play. ET: QW is going to be built on the Q4 engine, I hope they follow ID Software’s’ lead.

Q4 does have a significant SP component, along with q3 style MP. As stated previously, it is much easier to make bots for a deathmatch style game than a complex team oriented game (whether Q4 MP is expected to have bots or not, I don’t know… or care). FWIW, Q4 was made by Raven, not ID, and last I heard (from the SD folks in one of these threads perhaps) ET:QW is based on splashdamages branch of the Doom 3 engine, not directly on Q4.

Both are made under the direction of ID, so if they thought bots were a requirement for ET:QW, I’d think the SD folks would be aware of that by now.

(BR1GAND) #49

Lil history…

It is a well documented fact that ET was cancelled by Activision in part due to the Single Player part of the game not being finished…

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory began life as a retail product, but when the single player component failed to meet expectations…
http://www.frictionlessinsight.com/PC_Reviews/WolfET/WolfET.htm

However, development of the singleplayer part wasn’t turning out all that well it seems… http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/24947

And from the Activision site… http://games.activision.com/games/wolfenstein/index.asp?section=february03

The other part you dont hear much about was the MP bots… Discussed in these forums before the release of ET… http://www.splashdamage.com/index.php?name=pnPHPbb2&file=viewtopic&t=822 and
http://www.splashdamage.com/index.php?name=pnPHPbb2&file=viewtopic&t=782

And further documented in the IGN preview…

Oh yeah… did I mention that multiplayer will now support bots as well? I should have if I didn’t.

While they were only showing the multiplayer portion of the title, we did manage to squeeze out a bare amount of information about the new and revamped single player campaign. You’ll return in the shoes of B.J. Blazkowicz, but this time will be accompanied by several of his ranger friends. All of these individuals will be controlled by the new bot technology I was so happy to go in depth about.

You’ll have to outfit your team each time you enter a mission, assigning classes and equipping your men. These guys aren’t main characters in the game, so dying is an option for them, so you’ll need to keep them out of harms way if you know one of them will have to come in handy later on in the mission. Conversely, you’ll be able to refill the spot if one of them does fall in battle. Once in a mission, the bots will generally run themselves, but you’ll be able to vaguely control them via chat commands and waypoints. It’s one tiny step above those great missions in Medal of Honor where you had a group at your back. Let’s just hope they turn out as good. The bots will apparently know their roles pretty well however, so little direction should be needed. We’ll have to wait to see if this proves to be true.
… http://pc.ign.com/articles/368/368380p2.html

So much for ET was free because it was free… :eek:

:bump:

(BR1GAND) #50

Actually seeing how just like with ET, Activision is publishing, ID is oversight and SD is developing… maybe leaving out SP and MP AI content will cause ET: QW to be released for free too… :clap:

(DarkangelUK) #51

The way ET was being marketed, we were all told about the new SP campaign and the MP AI and everyone was looking forward to it. When this didn’t work out, they couldn’t just simply sell the MP portion on it’s own cos everyone knew there was other stuff to be had, therefore it was released for free. Had ET been announced and marketed as an updated MP expansion and treated as this from the start, no time would have been wasted on the SP or the AI and we would have seen a more fulfilled MP game and we would have had to pay for it. ET:QW has made no such promises so if it’s not there we won’t miss it or expect it, no SP campaign has been announced, no bots have been announced, therefore from the get go we know what we’ll be paying for.

Half these comments kinda make we wish we DID have to pay for ET, seems too many people have been spoiled by a quality free game and expect it all the time now. What’s the old saying… don’t look a gift horse in the mouth?

(SCDS_reyalP) #52

There is one small problem with your thesis. ET was planned and advertised as a game with both MP and SP, developed by two different companies. (ET was also at one point an expansion to RTCW)

ET:QW, OTOH, has been planned from the start as an MP only game, developed by a single company. Or at least that is how it has been presented in every public statement about it.

(eRRoLfLyNN) #53

Amen brotha

(BR1GAND) #54

Yes I agree ET is a great 6 map mp game… better than most MP games out there with both SP and MP AI content… But to say it was complete would be WRONG. To say ET:QW will be complete as a stand alone MP game is WRONG. Your loyality to the game has been noted and you will be getting a discount off the 59.99 retail price (sarcasm). Maybe most of those commenting here are so loyal there is no way they can be objective about this. But that doesnt mean SD shouldnt step up and put out what the broader market expects.

(kamikazee) #55

If they say there’ll be no bots, the broader market shouldn’t expect bots. :stuck_out_tongue:
Of course they haven’t said so, but I for one wouldn’t need the bots. I just like the bot-mods to frag a little, rarely, so I could live without them.

(eRRoLfLyNN) #56

Why can a MP-only game not be what you call ‘complete’? Maybe SD are raising the bar in making such a game. Maybe you need to think about games in a different way. Who wants to play SP games after they’ve played MP anyway? Certainly not moi! :moo:

(Sauron|EFG) #57

If the MP part of ET:QW is cancelled they will probably release the rest for free. :wink:

It’s not about loyalty, it’s about waiting to see when it’s released, what is included, at what price they sell it, and how good it is before assuming anything. If there are no bots and you don’t think it’s worth paying for then why not spend your money on some other game?

So basically you know more about what makes a game succesful than SD, id and Activision? :moo:

(Joe999) #58

ever considered a career as sales manager or game designer? you’ve got quite a lot ideas and critics there about what others do wrong. maybe you should try to make money of that?

(BR1GAND) #59

No Im just a demanding consumer that wants a lot for his money. This is a forum to exchange ideas, critique game design, and give feedback or if you like you can just be a fanclub groupie, thats ok I dont mind the heat.

(kamikazee) #60

Well, I’m more in quality then quantity, so getting a lot for my money ain’t that important in this case. :wink: