My Feedback

(Smooth) #41

[QUOTE=INF3RN0;471504]Why are we all so mad that our games died and no one plays them while CoD is one of the most successful FPS games of all time? We should be really focused on helping the mass of gamers to want more, but just brushing it off as a waste of time or “we’re just too good for it” is very poor thinking. I’m way too tired of the constant ranting of the 0.1% that don’t want to accept reality.

I don’t like CoD that much personally because I find the game play overly simple and not too challenging. I consider it a solid game design for what it is though, and it obviously is doing something right. I don’t think it’s a problem to want more nor do I think it would alienate the majority of FPS gamers to have more, but you have to always be focusing on keeping them satisfied first and foremost. That doesn’t mean copy and paste CoD, but rather you look at why gamers like aspects of the game so much and then you try to find means of maintaining those things. Something like advanced matchmaking is already proven to be an incredibly effective method of giving a continuous feeling of reward to all players and helping them slowly transition into a higher level of play. There’s plenty more things that are silly in the pov of a “hardcore gamer”, but really are quite necessary for a niche game to get the attention it deserves.[/QUOTE]

I like your style.

It’s refreshing to read a well-reasoned post :slight_smile:

(stealth6) #42

CoD is not a bad game, but due to the lack of innovation it’s become stale over the years. Also killstreaks are rubbish and so is their spawn system. Those are some reasons why it’s not so great. Their marketing team is amazing though, so that counters most of the games problems.

This thread is funny though, dismissing claims to make the game more like previous titles because “old guard”. but make it more like CoD is perfectly acceptable. In the end we’re going to be left with a game that the “old guard” doesn’t want to play because the TTK is too low and gameplay is slow and boring. Meanwhile it’ll be too fast for casual gamers so who does that leave you with?

You’ve admitted yourself that most gamers are biased one way or the other so where are they going to find this untaped market of open minded players? Either way you’re taking a risk.

(DarkangelUK) #43

Isn’t the perceived TTK kinda skewed just now due to the fact the gun firing sounds don’t match the actual firing rate of the weapon? Some guns -sound- like they’re firing faster than the are so the view is that it took for example 10 bullets to kill that guy when really only 6 bullets were fired. There’s a lot of miss-matching going on that means we can’t really accurately comment on the TTK compared to the weapon used to achieve the kill.

(Humate) #44

Quick TTK I’ve found tends to drive players to lemming one attack path, instead of split attacking.
And if there is a split attack, it fails because the capacity to multi-kill when outnumbered is pretty small.
So you tend to have two teams ramming into each other head on, not using the map to its fullest potential.

Split attacking while “traditionally” powerful has an in-built balancer. You dont have access to your resources other than your own, and you dont have a firepower advantage. You bank on drawing the defending team into 1v1’s where you know you will win, which then gives you access to greater area control allowing your objective players do their thing untouched.

Why the **** am I explaining this stuff? I think sometimes its easy to delve too much into the whole accessibility side, without looking at the bigger picture. Nonetheless interesting post OP. :wink:

(attack) #45

[QUOTE=Smooth;471567]I like your style.

It’s refreshing to read a well-reasoned post :)[/QUOTE]

so our posts arent well reasoned :/?

(BAMFana) #46

[QUOTE=spookify;471460]I hate matchmaking stuff! PC games should be dedicated servers.

Im all for naming servers Noob or beginner so that keeps advanced players out but dont do that match making crap that COD does…[/QUOTE]
We’re talking about matchmaking in the sense that players should be matched against other players of roughly the same skill level, not in the sense that players should be forced to join listenservers. My understanding is that all Extraction games will be played on dedicated servers.

(FireWater) #47

[QUOTE=stealth6;471571]CoD is not a bad game, but due to the lack of innovation it’s become stale over the years. Also killstreaks are rubbish and so is their spawn system. Those are some reasons why it’s not so great. Their marketing team is amazing though, so that counters most of the games problems.

This thread is funny though, dismissing claims to make the game more like previous titles because “old guard”. but make it more like CoD is perfectly acceptable. In the end we’re going to be left with a game that the “old guard” doesn’t want to play because the TTK is too low and gameplay is slow and boring. Meanwhile it’ll be too fast for casual gamers so who does that leave you with?

You’ve admitted yourself that most gamers are biased one way or the other so where are they going to find this untaped market of open minded players? Either way you’re taking a risk.[/QUOTE]

Sure I agree with that, and in no way did I say CoD was perfect, I just said they did something that makes them a massive commercial hit,and it wouldn’t be a bad idea to open to some of the things that make that so.

As far as your hypothetical assessment, I think it’s a bit of a stretch. The reality is the last great pc FPS competitive titles were CS 1.6 q3 and wolf et. Dozens of game companies have tried and have failed. Also those games were popular when online console FPS were practically non-existent, or just developing. Now the PC has to compete with a cheaper more convenient medium for the same style of game we play,and honestly the industry thus far has failed to adapt and so have the communities.

The industry has failed to adapt by creating game after game that does not develop a consistent player base.

The old guard has failed to adapt because they fail to recognize that the same old school gameplay does not have the mass market appeal as it once had, and will generally blam any title that would perhaps force them to learn a new skill set in FPS.

Hence our current state of hipster PC FPS.

(acQu) #48

well-reasoned = along the line what SD marketing department also thinks. Everything not going in that line automatically is not well-reasoned :slight_smile:

(stealth6) #49

Not sure what you’re saying here? Has the industry has created game after game not innovating and trying to build a consistent player base or constantly tried to innovate and replacing their player base? or neither?

[QUOTE=FireWater;471627]The old guard has failed to adapt because they fail to recognize that the same old school gameplay does not have the mass market appeal as it once had, and will generally blam any title that would perhaps force them to learn a new skill set in FPS.

Hence our current state of hipster PC FPS.[/QUOTE]

Meanwhile BF4, CoD:Lost count, Tribes:ascend, Dota2, … Seems like old school gameplay still has some appeal?

(DarkangelUK) #50

That all depends on what’s making it a success. For me it feels like the ‘pat on the back’ approach is making everyone feel special so a wider range of players are getting more enjoyment out of it while staying at the same skill level… there’s no need (or ability?) to ‘get better’ as it were because anyone can do well due to the way it’s set up. In Black Ops, the Revenge Spawn was introduced so players were guaranteed to get a kill no matter how bad they were. Basically it would spawn you behind the enemy on purpose to ensure you got an easy kill… suddenly everyone thinks that they’re great with all these kills thrown at their feet and gives the illusion of accomplishment. If they played a game like CS, Q3, ET etc they’d more than likely get trounced, back in the day you had to get better to do well as most games were like that, these days if a game pisses you off you can just jump on good ole CoD and feel good about yourself again.

The question now is, do you want to give a false sense of accomplishment to poor or new players just to keep them there? Yes, you will alienate the ‘old guys’ and probably cause them to stop playing, but then what’s to say the new players will stick around when there’s games out there already giving them their satisfaction probably better than Xt will… if you don’t satisfy either groups then you’re left with no one.

(FireWater) #51

[QUOTE=stealth6;471632]Not sure what you’re saying here? Has the industry has created game after game not innovating and trying to build a consistent player base or constantly tried to innovate and replacing their player base? or neither?

Meanwhile BF4, CoD:Lost count, Tribes:ascend, Dota2, … Seems like old school gameplay still has some appeal?[/QUOTE]

Bf4 isn’t out yet, but is expected to sell a lot of copies, but didn’t EA promise a massive tournament for BF3 and didn’t deliver?

new CoD we will see, but they are so console heavy its tough to tell what will happen.

T:A was abandoned by their developers to focus on smite, which just got a major Chinese distribution deal.

Dota2 is not an FPS not sure why it was mentioned.

(Volcano) #52

bf3 had a big tournament for the console players didn’t it, but nothing for the pc players?
tribes is dead in the water and has been since its release

(FireWater) #53

I could have sworn EA announced a huge BF3 tournament for PC and failed to deliver, either way if one wasn’t planned or if one was planned and canceled its still pretty bad.

(Volcano) #54


yeah there it is for the console ,but it never happened it seems. Carry on

(FireWater) #55

I hear what you are saying with freebie kills, its kind of reinforcing ineffective in game behavior, and at the sametime is it necessary for every player for XT to “want to get better” Gaming for the overwhelming majority of players is about fun. Login, get a few frags, maybe win a game or two and hop off. CoD facilitates that very well, and at the sametime does offer a competitive scene that isn’t based off random chance and spawning, as the top teams continually stay the top teams, with some healthy fluctuations of course. CoD right now dominates both the casual and competitive market on console. Why does it matter if a player who is good at CoD is not good at other FPS games like Quake CS etc… Gaming is about fun again for most players. Gaming is about feeling empowered in a world which tries to disempower you regularly. In terms of the “False Sense of Accomplishment” why is that so important?

Why can’t XT cater to both communities successfully? If you are not good at a game, should you not feel good when playing it? If so how are we supposed to grow a community that rejects players that aren’t good (yet)?

See where I am going with this path of logic? If yer not good, get better! if you can’t go back to CoD!

Most gamers (including some on this forum) are not as good as they think they are. If hopping in and getting a few frags is a sin, then this game will die out like the rest and become forgettable.

XT needs to grow community, even if its at the expense of the old guard in my opinion.

The question now is, do you want to give a false sense of accomplishment to poor or new players just to keep them there? Yes, you will alienate the ‘old guys’ and probably cause them to stop playing, but then what’s to say the new players will stick around when there’s games out there already giving them their satisfaction probably better than Xt will… if you don’t satisfy either groups then you’re left with no one.[/QUOTE]

(shaftz0r) #56

guttertrash dota clones and failed mmofps games… what has the world of gaming come to :frowning:

(DarkangelUK) #57

Because as soon as the realization hits that it’s false, then the emptiness starts, hence having to reiterate the franchise once a year. Since we’re talking about a PC only game here (I could forgive a lot of design choices if Xt was going to be multi-platform), can we really count CoD these days as dominating the PC fps comp scene? I wouldn’t say so, I also wouldn’t say it’s particularly dominating the casual market either where older games are continually standing head and shoulders above each refresh that gets released. The ‘thrill’ of the fake pat on the back is wearing off, so now is the wrong time to embrace a mechanic that’s on a downward slope.

Why can’t XT cater to both communities successfully? If you are not good at a game, should you not feel good when playing it? If so how are we supposed to grow a community that rejects players that aren’t good (yet)?

I’m more curious as to why players are so quick to jump ship in the early days of a game when they aren’t instantly good. CoD gives the ‘instant gratification’ early on, has that turned players these days into OCD gamers that lose interest at the first hint of having to try? Again if console was in the mix here then sure, but it’s not, but I get the nasty feeling that the fps player base as a whole is being considered when design choices are made when really the console players shouldn’t be getting thought about what so ever. SD is trying to cater for a larger crowd than they need to here.

See where I am going with this path of logic? If yer not good, get better! if you can’t go back to CoD!

I can certainly agree with that, problem is I think SD are worried that they actually will so they’re trying to keep them here with the lure of CoD mechanics… which also sounds like the kind of thing you’re suggesting, unless I’m mistaken. The PC crowd has never needed to feel special and given a hug to stay, but devs seem to think they do for some reason.

XT needs to grow community, even if its at the expense of the old guard in my opinion.

Understandable, it’s business at the end of the day, but surely you’re not naive to think that the ‘old guard’ are just going to sit by and let it happen, or stay quiet when someone says what you’re saying? We’re back to the risk of SD losing everyone by dedicating to neither side and annoying everything with half measures… time will tell.

(BAMFana) #58

I don’t see this discussion going anywhere. There is no designing for pros or designing for newbies, there is only good design and bad design. Sometimes a feature that primarily rewards inexperienced players will be good design (all games need some form of “noob tube” or “combos” – features that are immediately gratifying but have a limited learning curve), and sometimes it will be bad design (“revenge spawns”), and the same is true for features that primarily reward experienced players.

(Smooth) #59

You can still have a game with ‘high skill’ game mechanics but the supporting services (such as optional skill-based matchmaking) to make the game less intimidating to new users.

That’s what I think FireWater is mostly on about. We’re not talking about lowering the skill ceiling at all, we want a high skill ceiling to support competition and give the game depth (and yes we know there still a lot more to do here) but we can do it in such a way that newer players are NOT instantly overwhelmed the first time they play.

The way I see it; ‘high-skill’ is fine (and desired!) but ‘unintuitive’ is not. That’s the fine line we need to tread.

(FireWater) #60

Yes that is what I am trying to say. Let’s look at what other successful PC FPS titles have done well and where their shortcomings are and I think we should look at what console fps has done well and see if it is worth implementing into XT.

This I fear is something the old guard would reject.