This game isn’t going anywhere at this point. I’m sure there’s still a lot of content that never made it into the game but it really doesn’t matter at this point. This game has basically no following anymore. I’m not really sure if SD should make a new game unless they actually stick true to what ET was.
At this point I wouldn’t mind if SD got downsized and became a outsourcing dev for id.
I think SD need to take a really, REALLY long hard look at themselves before going into production of their next game.
Most RTCW purists would probably argue SD took what RTCW did well and made it worse, and called it ET.
Most ET purists would probably argue SD took what ET did well and made it worse, and called it ET:QW.
Most ET:QW purists would probably argue SD took what ET:QW did well and made it worse, and called it Brink.
(see what I did there 
)
SD can either go on down the fast buck console route, churning out pretty but meaningless games, taking the money and telling themselves what a great job they did, and I wouldn’t blame them if they did, just please don’t release a PC version or someone somewhere will kid themselves it’s a proper PC game and be disappointed when it isn’t.
Or they can ask themselves why RTCW worked so well and ET only ever matched it’s success because it was free (and ET:QW didn’t because it wasn’t).
It’s time to go back to basics and try to properly understand how and why the objective game mode works, because I don’t think SD ever truly have.
Damn, it seems to me that the PC version of the game really didn’t go well!
I can only say that I play the Xbox version and there are a few minor issues, but these PC-favored theads don’t do it justice. I’ve played Wolf:ET (among others) on PC, but switched to console shortly after that when the first technically acceptable consoles arrived. So NO, I’m not some n00b console kid.
I can say that I’ve followed the evolution of PC to consoles the last decade, and yes there are some downsides to it, but I favor the consoles above PC these days. Most certainly the quality has been deminishing more than not to compensate accesibility, but there are several magnificent games out there. Sadly the decline of skill is directly proportional to public popularity, in time these players will gain some skill aswell.
The thing is that the evolution has been made and I’d like to argue that whatever the numbers you want to use, consoles have more players per game. This is probably why the PC versions of games get less attention these days.
If you don’t mind skipping the debate over pixel perfection and want to play more games and have fun, I’d suggest you try something else. We can’t go back in time, the only thing we can do is get more decent players on popular platforms and push the developers to integrate better features.
[QUOTE=Nosferatu;385663]Damn, it seems to me that the PC version of the game really didn’t go well!
I can only say that I play the Xbox version and there are a few minor issues, but these PC-favored theads don’t do it justice. I’ve played Wolf:ET (among others) on PC, but switched to console shortly after that when the first technically acceptable consoles arrived. So NO, I’m not some n00b console kid.
I can say that I’ve followed the evolution of PC to consoles the last decade, and yes there are some downsides to it, but I favor the consoles above PC these days. Most certainly the quality has been deminishing more than not to compensate accesibility, but there are several magnificent games out there. Sadly the decline of skill is directly proportional to public popularity, in time these players will gain some skill aswell.
The thing is that the evolution has been made and I’d like to argue that whatever the numbers you want to use, consoles have more players per game. This is probably why the PC versions of games get less attention these days.
If you don’t mind skipping the debate over pixel perfection and want to play more games and have fun, I’d suggest you try something else. We can’t go back in time, the only thing we can do is get more decent players on popular platforms and push the developers to integrate better features.[/QUOTE]
The reason for the game not doing well on PC is because the interface is not tailored to PC (console-like controls with a single “action” button for everything for example) and the locked netvars (PC admins are used to playing with their setup) and the lack of linux servers (various admins just don’t want to run win servers), the lack of any modding support (yes, sdks are expensive and degrade the value of dlc but they also extend the life of your game and foster a community) and the need to wait for microsoft certification fo rthe xbox patch before the PC gets patched.
This is ignoring the arguments about gameplay being simplified (partially because the community could fix most of those issues if the previous issues were fixed).
There is still plenty of skill in the games that demand skill out there. There may be a host of dumbed down games out there but there are also still a load of technical, high skill games. Consoles are not the death of gaming. Publishers that don’t want to spend the time polishing the games for their respective platforms so that they can be first out in the market to start recouping their massive advertising expenditure are the death of gaming.
And the PC is still a popular platform. It may not be the most popular but it’s still a chunk of profit when you get down to the nitty gritty (especially since a lot of code is so easily portable between xbox and PC). Hell… Blizzard don’t have a single console game out (that I can think of) and they’re extremely profitable.
What we need to do is stop buying games from publishers that release them buggy as hell and without a proper interface for the platform. Then maybe they’ll get the message and start spending a little more time on QA and polish.
[QUOTE=Nosferatu;385663]
If you don’t mind skipping the debate over pixel perfection and want to play more games and have fun, I’d suggest you try something else. We can’t go back in time, the only thing we can do is get more decent players on popular platforms and push the developers to integrate better features.[/QUOTE]
The reason why I don’t play on a console is because the games are rediculous expensive. Take skyrim for example on the xbox360 I have to pay 60 euro’s , the pc version cost like 16 euro ( russian version). If you do this for every game you can build the biggest gaming rig ever, which is completely useless.
And why would I buy a console if my pc can do exactly the same. I can plug a cable from my pc into my tv, buy a xbox360 controller and profit.
Console on the other hand can’t do the same things as a pc.
Last months I bought:
FIFA 12 : 17 euro
BF3 Limited edition: 21 euro
SKYRIM: 16 euro
That saved me already 100+ euro.
Another thing to consider is the licensing arrangement on the consoles. Both MS and Sony charge per unit produced, not units sold. That means if you make a million copies and and only sell half that, you’re still paying royalties on a million copies. I can understand why publishers are looking to recoup their investment as quickly as possible. I don’t have to like it, but I do understand.
As for what a console can do that that a PC can’t? Simple. Splitscreen multiplayer. Sure PC is capable of it, but most games on PC don’t offer it. PC isn’t well suited to the “buy a 12-pack of beer and game with 3 buddies all night” proposal.
[QUOTE=ArchdemonXIII;385689]
As for what a console can do that that a PC can’t? Simple. Splitscreen multiplayer. Sure PC is capable of it, but most games on PC don’t offer it. PC isn’t well suited to the “buy a 12-pack of beer and game with 3 buddies all night” proposal.[/QUOTE]
That’s indeed a big + for the consoles.
Games like FIFA, PES, NBA2K12, etc. works perfectly with 4 players on the PC.
I only know one game that supports splitscreen on the pc and that is Dirt 3.
It’s kinda bad that PC games don’t support splitscreen. I have seen alot of movies were you could enable splitscreen with changing a config variable.
L4D
I think the development of the game is pretty much dead. I can only speak for what i see on PS3, but its certainly not dead, i get full games whenever i play, see new faces, and alot of the old names still around. I actually prefer it like this, when AoC came out there was a nice influx of new player which i thought was cool until i played with em, skilless numbskulls, stuck in DM + KDR mode then sending smack talking messages to me, cuz they either didnt understand that holding the trigger down will lead to you getting taken down by someone who understands the weapons or the fact that even tho they got 50+ kill alone they still lost.
I would like to see slightly bigger community, but i fully accept and understand that after the clans patch is injected cleanly, that will be the last of the game development we recieve.
But if you want to see real bad game management/DLC/Development go play crysis2…made SD here look like jebus crust
I am on PC and as far as what I can see in my Brink game sessions is that the game is pretty much dead and that there are either the same more advanced players always playing, or the teams are full with newbies which probably purchased the game through a special deal somewhere, but these players suck mostly and it’s frustrating for them and also for me because it’s difficult to find a well visited server with the right people on it and Brink is a so called multiplayer game at first and not a single player game.
So the entire situation is very much ****ed up and the clan update is a good sign and the right step forward but SD simply needs to continue the work on Brink and release new maps for free or they should just tell us the truth and say that they gonna stop supporting Brink because it was simply a dead birth and releasing the clan update with no following support or new maps is fubar!
On the other side it’s difficult to keep a player community stick on a game these days. So much AAA titles have been released this year and most stopped a game because another was out and they started playing that. It’s at some point our own fault because we are acting like nerdy nomads moving ahead from one game to the other… but sometimes it’s also not our fault if game studios/publishers ****ed a release up…
[QUOTE=Kendle;385657]I think SD need to take a really, REALLY long hard look at themselves before going into production of their next game.
Most RTCW purists would probably argue SD took what RTCW did well and made it worse, and called it ET.
Most ET purists would probably argue SD took what ET did well and made it worse, and called it ET:QW.
Most ET:QW purists would probably argue SD took what ET:QW did well and made it worse, and called it Brink.
(see what I did there )
SD can either go on down the fast buck console route, churning out pretty but meaningless games, taking the money and telling themselves what a great job they did, and I wouldn’t blame them if they did, just please don’t release a PC version or someone somewhere will kid themselves it’s a proper PC game and be disappointed when it isn’t.
Or they can ask themselves why RTCW worked so well and ET only ever matched it’s success because it was free (and ET:QW didn’t because it wasn’t).
It’s time to go back to basics and try to properly understand how and why the objective game mode works, because I don’t think SD ever truly have.[/QUOTE]
Or very simply they make a game with modes and maps that serve all these niche of the niche groups.
I see it more like this… RTCW>ET>ETQW>Brink, but in more detail… Playable: RTCW, ET, ETQW 1.5 / Unplayable: Brink.
ET has that spam factor, but it’s not as bad as ETQW.
ETQW tried to absorb the BF games look and vehicle aspect, there was nothing much Quake to it besides the theme. The infantry game play in the latest patch however is a lot more polished than beta. They at least attempted to balance the vehicle/non-vehicle maps. Overall spam increase as well.
Brink retains very little resemblance to anything at all, other than it dropped vehicles and had objectives; I won’t count the classes in Brink because they function so differently. I feel that Brink has the most spam though… even though it might seem like an infantry game, but the way the weapons were designed to function your basically maximizing your teams ability to spray in the same general directions and mashing the f button lika pr0.
The main trend in development is the dilution of that skill-based tactical team shooter formula that was the FPS genre in it’s most pure form. Maybe it’s because they wanted to add new content, but there’s so many better ways to do that stuff.
The DICE team are hard at work supporting Battlefield 3. To date, we have implemented several server updates to improve stability and performance. Next week we are publishing a significant Battlefield 3 client update for the PC. Console patches take a bit longer due to the certification requirements for console content, but it will follow shortly after the PC update.
I wish splashdamage did this.
They did in the first month or so, was an update each week.
Then the play numbers dropped so what was the point afterwards?
The same would happen with BF3 if no one was playing it, support needs to be justified.
Most ET:QW purists would probably argue SD took what ET:QW did well and made it worse, and called it Brink.
The only things that were taken from etqw were the turrets and repair/hacking objectives.
Purists would need to compare ETQW to ETQW2… or W:ET2 using the ETQW model, which as we know dont exist (yet cough).
Yeah while they’re at it they should also include different genres like RTS, Racing and Simulator just to cover all their bases. After all, that’s why Spore has been heralded as one of the best games ever.
I’m just glad there usually seems to be one full server again. After the update, when we lost a lot of servers it was hard to find a game with more than 2 people for a while. Now it seems we are at least back having a full 8v8 most of the time (On the NGG 1 server). I went on to play a game or two last night and got sucked in for five hours.
Oh come on. The differences between RTCW, W:ET, ETQW* and Brink are far far less than the similarities. You’re being pedantic to say it would be the same as including a totally different genre of game.
Why do you (or SD) feel it’s in everyone’s interest to fragment an already tiny population? Much better, IMO, to gain financial and critical success through offering a product that’s popular to multiple groups than continue to iterate the concept into some bland shadow of itself in order to appeal to an audience who are driven more by marketing and buzz than actual design and content.
*Perhaps ETQWs requirement for more expansive maps would be a barrier.
Which is why we should embrace the similarities rather than fragmenting it into different niches. People don’t give a hoot about different game modes, that’s not what makes a game popular. W:ET didn’t rank in the top 3 most played shooters for years because of it’s range of game modes.
You seem to be forgetting that unlike COD and TF which are basically a canvas of weapons, items, and mechanics for game modes to be played out on, ET IS the gamemode. Without Objective, it stops being what it its. All the weapons, the classes and the upgrades only serve one thing, to get the objective done. That’s the single goal which every single thing in the game revolves around. The moment you start applying that to other game modes many things become obsolete, the moment you start readjusting the content of the game towards these modes, you compromise it’s essence.
I can play ET or ETQW and know that I won’t get a match I’ve played before. I can go play TF2 or COD and be pretty confident that i’ll get a match just like the ones I’ve played before. Which of these games offer the most diversity?