I wish they never made Brink and just made ET:Qwake wars 2

(jonnykill) #1

Splash Damage made the same mistake Sierra made when they tried to out do them selves with a bunch of “Improvements” on a well polished diamond. Way back when I was totally addicted to Star Siege Tribes FPS.
This game was deeper then chess. It had the best combat ever to this day. 1200 meter straifing sniper fights, CCQ, base defense, base attacks, turrets. The game was perfect. I actually got really excited when I caught wind they were going to make Tribes2!!! And as luck would have it I got to see the beta at the E3 Expo in 2003. But before I went i also caught wind they were taking out 2 of my most favorite things to do. Rocket jumping and “skiing”. I frantically wrote a rant letter to the company and they replied. Real simple, they were going to “fix” the skiing “issue” and rocket jumping was a thing of the past. They also added water which did nothing but slow you down and make it feel like lava/molasses. They also change a bunch of other stuff like the size of the turrets and a bunch of other “fixes”. I’ll get right to the piont, at E3 I told them without rocket jumping and sking, the game is worthless and the studio will fold after the release of this stupid game. Well that’s exactly what happened. 6 months after release the studio was forced to shut down - game over.

All that happened because they deviated from their roots.

And that’s why I don’t care for Brink at all. I really tried to get into it but it just fell flat. What happened to the huge sprawling landscape? Where are all the vehicles? Why did they take out the sniper? I could care less about “seamlessly gliding over obstacles like never before”. All that meant to me is tap-tap-tapping the space bar like a mad man to get from one point to another. Lame. And they sold it as if it was some tech breakthrough. It might have been, but the end result was about as powerful as some dude telling us he just changed the world and rolls onto the stage on a Seway. Lame. They spent so much time and effort for character looks. Ummmm, what’s the matter with looking like a bad ass Sniper? Or a Soldier. I couldn’t care less about how my character looks because now I just feel like one in a million on-line.

I wish Splash Damage would make an ET QW2. Keep everything the same. ****, save a buck and use the old engine and graphics. The only thing I want from them is killer maps. I’d gladly pay $80 for that. Keep everything the same. Specially the AI. That’s all I play because it’s the best AI ever. Seriously want to see ET2 so bad. So sick of CCQ games. Feels so clousterphobic. Bah!

(Joe999) #2

not possible on a floating island

not possible on a floating island

snipers don’t contribute to any game. those who want to play sniper should better play moorhuhn

Me neither. Gliding over obstacles should have been an extension. Not the game itself.

That’s the way the world works nowadays. Games are about hats and buying weapons. Not about gameplay. And achievements are the worst invention ever.

(tokamak) #3

What happened to the tactically diverse and interesting indoor geometry?

That’s the way the world works nowadays. Games are about hats and buying weapons. Not about gameplay. And achievements are the worst invention ever.

The hats are only popular because TF2’s gameplay is superb.

(BioSnark) #4

Lots of games take place on open world islands and have vehicles. Brink has land, air and sea vehicles but they are props. Map size and vehicles were design decisions rather than universe/lore limitations.

I don’t think that would garner much of a playerbase.

(tangoliber) #5

Tribes 2 didn’t have skiing and disc jumping? Am I reading that wrong?

I think Brink just needed accurate weapons (hipfire), more player health, and a higher headshot bonus.

There are plenty of other tweaks you can make as well, like throwing out health and ammo and weapon buff packs instead of F keying-players…but you change those first three stats and you have an amazing game.

(tokamak) #6

The headshot bonus was already quite high. But combined with a low accuracy it resulted in highly random outcomes.

(jonnykill) #7

[QUOTE=tangoliber;402063]Tribes 2 didn’t have skiing and disc jumping? Am I reading that wrong?

I think Brink just needed accurate weapons (hipfire), more player health, and a higher headshot bonus.

There are plenty of other tweaks you can make as well, like throwing out health and ammo and weapon buff packs instead of F keying-players…but you change those first three stats and you have an amazing game.[/QUOTE]

I should ellaborate more. They didn’t take out skiing altogether, they just added the ski button (hold down shift err what ever). That totally killed it for me actually. Skiing was a bitch to master but it payed off when you did it right. **** you could cross the board from one base to the other in 20 seconds if done right. It was an artform later ruined buy simply holding a button and took all the fun. Disk jumping was in but it was so weak they might as well not even put it in. And to have the rocket to shoot down aircraft only was so fail. This is all about just keeping **** in place and not fixing what isn’t broken. I look at Brink and say to myself why would a studio that can make an open environment like they did in ETQW make some random CQC game? It’s like your dating Anna Kornikova and she comes back from the hospital with duck lips and a nose job.

(.Chris.) #8

You do realise they made W:ET before ET:QW right? That was rather CQC though did feature a fair amount of outdoor areas allowing for airstrikes and artillery. Brink wasn’t a random choice in that regards, it was meant to return to W:ET’s sized maps though they kind of dropped the ball…

Have you tried any of the custom maps for ET:QW? If that’s all you want, new maps, they’re already there. I don’t get why you would want an hypothetical ET:QW2 to be identical to ET:QW if you already own ET:QW? It’s good they tried something new with Brink it’s just a shame none of it really worked together and they tried fixing things that weren’t broken.

(Senethro) #9

Ah, the old mistake. The hardcore player thinks the game is made for them and that the success of any future game is dependent on it containing the features that appealed to whatever game’s hardcore players. These days there are so many old games with hardcore players wanting new entries or spiritual sequels to their pet series. Any time a new game fails it looks like prophecy fulfilled to most of the different groups when really they fail for completely unrelated reasons.

Of course, the guys that REALLY puzzle me are things like the Bad Company 2 players who claim BF3 has ruined the series.

(tangoliber) #10

Its only 1.5x damage…I still want it higher. I’m fine with the number of headshots it takes to get a kill. But I’d like to increase the number of bodyshots players can take by a significant amount, even if the number of headshots as are kept as they are now (but with accurate weapons.)
I like long ttk…but in my experience, the threat of a quick death by headshots keeps people always moving as much as possible.

(tokamak) #11

…the casual ignores the game altogether.

(_Megabyte) #12

I think, Activision don’t know what to do with ETQW. ETQW2 can be made by some indie dev, rent engine from id, and voila.

(Senethro) #13

Not that I was referring to any game in particular, but that usually happens because of those unrelated reasons I referred to. The casual do not actually give a damn about the hardcores perception of a game.

(tokamak) #14

Pandering to the mainstream creates a tunnel-vision in which any depth is happily sacrificed for accessibility. Games like Starcraft and Counterstrike show that big crowds are interested in playing the same game that the pros are playing just like boys want to play the same soccer game played professionally across the globe.

Hardcore gamers are right in assuming the game is made for them. The game ought to be tailored to their standards, they hold up the skill ceiling around which the balance needs to be maintained. Only if that’s ensured you can look at what parts of the gameplay can be streamlined for the casual gamers. That’s how Blizzard did it and thats how they ensured such huge success.

I’m not a hardcore Starcraft player. I occupy a pretty low league and some handlings are hard if not impossible for me to pull off. I don’t expect the game to be lowered to my standard, I expect myself to eventually reach the point in where I’m able to it. It generates an ambition and a drive to keep on playing and honing my skills. That’s where you get true satisfaction out of a game. Once you’ve made a skill or tactic your own you continue to reap the benefits of it during your career.

(Indloon) #15

If games aren’t made for players, then for who? :confused:

(Senethro) #16

[QUOTE=tokamak;402108]Pandering to the mainstream creates a tunnel-vision in which any depth is happily sacrificed for accessibility. Games like Starcraft and Counterstrike show that big crowds are interested in playing the same game that the pros are playing just like boys want to play the same soccer game played professionally across the globe.

Hardcore gamers are right in assuming the game is made for them. The game ought to be tailored to their standards, they hold up the skill ceiling around which the balance needs to be maintained. Only if that’s ensured you can look at what parts of the gameplay can be streamlined for the casual gamers. That’s how Blizzard did it and thats how they ensured such huge success.

I’m not a hardcore Starcraft player. I occupy a pretty low league and some handlings are hard if not impossible for me to pull off. I don’t expect the game to be lowered to my standard, I expect myself to eventually reach the point in where I’m able to it. It generates an ambition and a drive to keep on playing and honing my skills. That’s where you get true satisfaction out of a game. Once you’ve made a skill or tactic your own you continue to reap the benefits of it during your career.[/QUOTE]

Very few games are Blizzard games, especially Blizzard sequels made with their ridiculous resources, and a nation that has television channels for it. That said, Blizzard clearly believed enough in the casual appeal of their game to make an expensively produced singleplayer campaign for it and a fair amount of investment in a half decent skirmish mode. Hell, I even remember in the 6 month runup to SC2 release that there were hardcore complaints about the unit movement AI being too easy to use and that being able to queue units for multiple barracks at once was dumbing the game down.

I don’t see what namedropping Counterstrike proves. Maybe see where Global Offensive goes then come back with a point? The games barely from this decade and the active servers are playing gungame.

(Senethro) #17

My point that I make every few years is that the hardcore players of one game seldom transition to another and always complain bitterly that new games aren’t made for them. But they rarely matter and successful FPSs have mass appeal. My favorite example is TF2, which was very successful even before it turned F2P. Not much trace of the ancestor game there though.

The hardcore think that because a game is bad for them, then its bad for everyone. Their favorite examples in recent years though have just been flawed games from the bottom up, not just flawed at the hardcore level. On the other hand, plenty of successful games that completely ignore the hardcore been released.

Games are made for players, the hardcore just mistakenly think that they are the players.

(Humate) #18

Could someone elaborate what a hardcore gamer is?
Is it simply people that play 1000 hours of 1 game or is it a skill thing?

(Setlec) #19

[QUOTE=Humate;402117]Could someone elaborate what a hardcore gamer is?
Is it simply people that play 1000 hours of 1 game or is it a skill thing?[/QUOTE]

imo, it’s both… though i lack the skill thing. :stuck_out_tongue:

(YouAreGood) #20

ET:QW2 - sorry, I typed it just to look at.

And yes - I was expecting “Brink” to fill that gap, but sadly - not this time. I could spend hours talking about how good previous titles were, but I’m sure everyone in here knows it just as well. Maybe SD wants some other ppl, to go mainstream… well, I’d just suggest to put the brilliant idea into more brilliant package - no simplifying, no console version(how good it sounds now “Exclusively for PC” - “does it mean there is again a real PC game out there?! :)” - you make a customer smile, you make money in the long run, and you may even change he’s mind even if he hates ET/ETQW). Back to the earth with slightly more complicated reality: Games called “Mainstream” or “damn simple, requiring virtually no IQ nor teamplay abilities, nether developing them, what would make the playing time not just a wasted time” - these games market is a “place” where you already have little-to-no free space. Giants of the segment keeps selling their 1-year of… say fun games to tons of zombies :D, Zombie cannot change it’s mind, it’s hard(expensive) marketing task to accomplish. In the meantime - SD can produce sth for us again :).

And I believe they will - so, anyone who hates that type of discussions: Have a good day! And smile more, instead of pointless flaming. On the other hand - I liked some of your ironic joke-posts, so feel free to post more of them, together we will shorten the time before the next games coming out! Or at least it’s perception ;-).

Oh, one more thing - Think about something counter-strike’ish with the ET duel style, and ET objectives(and long, tasteful maps :))… What do you get?