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 W:ET or ETQW now and be assured that I’ll get a match I won’t ever have played before. I can play TF2 or COD and be pretty confident that my match will be exactly like the ones I played before. Now which games over the most variation?
Anyway,yes I agree,the BRINK PC player base is gone,but meanwhile I’m having fun at console(Xbox360) part of BRINK.
It makes me sad,because…Splashdamage has always made successfully PC multiplayer games.
But I guess,the next game will have better success.
I also hope to see better graphics as Cryengine 3 look is(Good luck to the GPU programmer(s) @sd p.s please,OpenGL 4.1 support).Since the PC gamers like me are needing more more more and more beautifuler graphics.
You seem to forget that W:ET was a free game (with tons of money for development compared to other free games) based on a pre-existing IP that had lots of fans. Had the game actually had a price tag, do you truly think it would have lasted as long as it did?
All those games you listed have different matches every time you play; it all comes down to the players you are playing against and with. In all those games you’re attacking static points (besides the escort missions, of course, but again it’s following a static path), but the matches won’t be the same.
In ET:QW I can go play Outskirts and no matter how many times I play it, it isn’t as if the map actually changes. I’m still playing the same map using the same basic strategies as I’ve always used, but I’ll have to react and make decisions that I didn’t have to make the last time I played it. The same thing happens with TF2. I can go play Badlands and I’ll start out with the same roll outs to mid, the same basic strategies, but as soon as the game really starts to get heated I’ll be playing a match unlike any other I’ve played.
Those decisions make the games more dynamic and makes the matches feel as if they aren’t always the same. It isn’t as if the RtCW formula makes the games themselves feel “fresh,” every time you play, as let’s be honest the games are actually just as stale as every other MP game out there.
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.
I can play W:ET or ETQW now and be assured that I’ll get a match I won’t ever have played before. I can play TF2 or COD and be pretty confident that my match will be exactly like the ones I played before. Now which games over the most variation?[/QUOTE]
HOT NEWS everyone TF2 has no objectives. There’s no timer and no certain amount of points to cap. All that matters is killing each other, the team with the most kills and biggest e-peens wins.
I never specifically stated that ET:QW was less varied than TF2, but I also never said that ET:QW was a lot more varied than TF2. They both have lots of varying elements, and depending on how you play (pubstar, competition player, just play for fun, etc.) will influence how different each match is for you. In my competitive pugs/scrims/matches I never really noticed lots of variation, but if I was pubbing it up I’d notice a lot more variation (although most of it was utterly useless).
So you’re playing Brink right now then? Embracing the differences?
My response was aimed squarely at the question of SD’s prior fanbase being fragmented by changes made in each iteration of their games. I don’t understand how you can in the same breath state that the gameplay SD creates is unique and then also say that mashing each iteration together would actually work.
And yes, W:ET was a free game, of commercial quality, released when there was no other such games available. I would argue that had RTCW MP and ETQW been released free they’d have seen the same levels of success.
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.
You seem to have misread me. While I do feel other modes such as CTF/TDM are a perfectly valid (and preferential) area to explore. Thereby bringing them greater financial success and allowing them to focus on their core game’s strong points rather than rounding them off to appeal to a wide audience. This isn’t however what I was posting about and should probably be left for another thread.
What I was saying is that they should by design include the very modes that have appealed to their customer base. Some people just don’t W:ET they want RTCW style of play. Why not cater to those people when the design differences are so slight. Sure it’s not as easy as doing one mode but then I’ve been screaming about how risky that is.
I can play W:ET or ETQW now and be assured that I’ll get a match I won’t ever have played before. I can play TF2 or COD and be pretty confident that my match will be exactly like the ones I played before. Now which games over the most variation?
SD have done exactly what you wanted in Brink, focused on one mode and it’s fallen flat on its arse. You seem intent on believing that because you find something unique and deep that others should too or worse that SD should continue to cater to you despite it not being commercially viable to do so.
When you consider an adequate budget to do the things I’ve stated there is no reason why it would impact the game you want to play.
What I was saying is that they should by design include the very modes that have appealed to their customer base. Some people just don’t W:ET they want RTCW style of play. Why not cater to those people when the design differences are so slight. Sure it’s not as easy as doing one mode but then I’ve been screaming about how risky that is.
Right, you’re talking about the configurations of the parameters. I definitely go that wrong. Personally I believe in a universal mode that rewards different kinds of game, it may be impossible to reach but it should be an ideal to strive for. Different bodytypes game close but I see them as a missed opportunity to truly discern between the different player archetypes.
Not because I doubt or disagree with you, but I’m curious: what examples of emergent gameplay in previous Enemy Territory games are you speaking of? I agree that Brink is so rigidly structured and seems to actually punish player experimentation, but I don’t agree that every match of TF2 is the same or that there are no objectives in TF2/it’s a “kill canvas” game.
An anansi flying indoors in the area 55 objective. That recent thing I heard, emping a tank and calling down an Icarus on it (which destroys it). I’ve seen 8 infiltrators occupy the Salvage airvents to constantly pester the GDF with flyer drones (and win the match).
And this is the extreme wacky stuff, the more subtle, ordinary stuff like a great combination of class abilities (having an AIT near an AVT and a supply crate to maintain the infantry surrounding it). In ETQW these things just kept stacking on top of each other. People could build really congruent combinations of stratagems which then challenged the opposing team to probe for weak spots and see if they can topple it all.
Brink doesn’t have that. It tried to but it didn’t extend to keeping each other buffed which proved to be trivial and boring. They tried to capture almost all the teamwork into explicit buffs. Teamwork got institutionalised. Note that ETQW had no buff other than healing, it had far more profound ways to boost or protect your team.
As for TF2, most of that is spamming chokepoints. Which is fun because the gunplay is fun but as for the rest there’s very little cohesion between the team members, everyone is essentially playing for themselves.
I wouldn’t say W:ET was of any quality right out the gate, promod changed that… if wasnt for the community, W:ET, free or not would have shared the same Fate as Brink…
not sure how can say it was released “when there was no other such games available”- umm, RTCW MP ! ??
which at the time was huge! not sure about the UK… but in states, the game was very popular for many, many years…
hell, its still played to this very day… version 1.0 even!
the only reason why W:ET has any ‘success’ is because its free and, at the time, a very active modding community… no other reasons…
RTCW success can be contributed to developers and a very active modding community as well…
ETQW failure- can be contributed to its developers, SD… and EA’s lacks of vision with Ranked Servers… never gave the community a chance, to not only fix the game but give the masses easy access to those fixes and new content (i.e. Promod and community Maps)…
Brink’s failure- nothing but a dumb downed game to appease the console masses… and they couldnt even do that right…
I’m pretty sure the vast majority of W:ET players didn’t care about promod either way, they might even prefer it when but it wouldn’t be something they would pay attention to let alone desert a game over.
cause i was one of those, who played the vanilla version right at release… looking for something different but in the same vein of RTCW… which W:ET was/is… since it was going to be a Wolf2 or some crap… but the SP blew chunks or something… anyways…
love RTCW- was looking forward to W:ET… myself and many Wolf’ers played it for about a week… we all hated it… went back to RTCW…
when ProMod came out, we tried it again… ended up playing W:ET for many years… still have a W:ET server along with a RTCW server BTW…
And this rolls right back to the point we argued over many times. Attempting to model gameplay through rigid rules and rewards. ETQW wouldn’t see innovative play if the goal was to rack up XP to unlock this and feel good about that. Likewise for the class and skills. Rigidity that deters people from playing or doing things outside of the strict design.
It’s funny you complain about servers imposing stupid rules or running mods on a vanilla game and yet at the same time praise aspects of the game that are totally unintentional by design but more a consequence of the openness of the game.
By quality I mean it was produced to a higher standard than a majority of mods. It had traction out of the gate, it was an id game, it was free, it had quality assets etc.
not sure how can say it was released “when there was no other such games available”- umm, RTCW MP ! ??
which at the time was huge! not sure about the UK… but in states, the game was very popular for many, many years…
hell, its still played to this very day… version 1.0 even!
No other FREE games, to get a commercial game, a new one, for zero entry cost was unheard of back then.
the only reason why W:ET has any ‘success’ is because its free and, at the time, a very active modding community… no other reasons…
Well we’ll never know that for sure. It certainly wasn’t a bad game otherwise people wouldn’t have invested time in modding it. But yes it being free was a huge hurdle it never needed to mantle.
ETQW failure- can be contributed to its developers, SD… and EA’s lacks of vision with Ranked Servers… never gave the community a chance, to not only fix the game but give the masses easy access to those fixes and new content (i.e. Promod and community Maps)…
SD did an amazing job with ETQW. There were rough areas I really expected them to learn from (which they don’t appear to have) but the game was absolutely solid. Activision (not EA) sunk the game with terrible (non-existent) marketing on the PC among other things like the ranked server stuff.
Brink’s failure- nothing but a dumb downed game to appease the console masses… and they couldnt even do that right…
They tried a different approach and I hope they realise now that it was the wrong direction to take the game to solve the problems they had.
o yeah it was lack of vision wasnt it… i get them all confused, they all suck…
dont get me wrong about ETQW- i love the game, i still play it everyday… but i have to disagree its a “solid game” never have i played game, that was so laggy. i can only imagine its the engine, its just cant handle what ETQW wants to do… i dont know… or its the servers running the game… who knows.
all i know, it aint right went you call a vehicle drop (husky or Icarus) and the server locks up for a second or two… very annoying to say the least…
ETQW v1.5 was nearing the point of a solid game, but wasn’t quite there. It probably had the best improvement through patching compared to say… Brink. If it wasn’t for faulty net coding, I would say ETQW was on the verge of being one of the best fuses of infantry and vehicle combat in a game title. I think a bit more of a balance between infantry and vehicles, as well as a broader availability of modes between them would have benefited the game overall. I did appreciate the balances in both infantry and vehicles individually, but still thought there was perhaps too much of a spam variable added to compensate for the gap.
p.s please,OpenGL 4.1 support).Since the PC gamers like me are needing more more more and more beautifuler graphics.