No Team Deathmatch??

(INF3RN0) #41

Didn’t have the will power to read any of these posts carefully, but TDM is not too hard to add in when all you do is take an existing objective map and rope off a smaller section of it. It’s not uncommon to do this, and you don’t really need to put resources into making unique maps specifically for TDM. Map makers can do that stuff later down the road, but the above method requires very little resources and just makes the best sense imo.

(Nail) #42

W:ET was the best game I’ve played and I love it’s team based objective gameplay, but that doesn’t preclude me enjoying a different gameplay as well. I started online with CTF on Delta Force 2 and defending runners from the hills w/ a Barrett was great fun. As stated all that’s required for other modes are different maps, don’t have to be included on release, the community can cover that. Point is, there’s no need to “mod” the game for other game modes, all the elements exist in game already.

(tokamak) #43

No the elements do not already exist in the game. Objective maps make terrible DM/TDM/Arena and CTF maps. I think that if the objective mode is given as the only option, people will stick with it and learn to appreciate it rather than going for simplicity.

(Nail) #44

you just don’t get it, mappers can and will make ctf maps, just like they did for W:ET.

the main point is that people asking for different game “modes” don’t realize they are not neccessary to add when the entities exist in game, No one is suggesting those modes be played on release maps, completely different community made maps would be used.

(tokamak) #45

Good, all I’m saying is that any demand for SD to do digress from what they do best is totally unwarranted.

(SockDog) #46

@Tok. I’d have no problem with SD doing a 1:1 CoD mode if it made the game successful, as long as we also got the SD mode as well. End of the day they are seperate modes and can easily sustain seperate communities as well as healthy cross over.

IMO that is a lot less damaging than the pandering to the ADD crowd with XP, Levels, Customisation etc that is largely unnecessary to the core gameplay but is expected to be there because of titles such as CoD.

@Nail, I agree that an official mode or mod isn’t necessary but it does help with gaining traction if it’s there out of the box.

As I said, maybe not for Brink but I’d hope if Brink is successful, Brink 2 will see it expand the engine, mechanics and online philosophy beyond just a single game type.

(SockDog) #47

That is your opinion because you value only the SD Objective game type (to be clear there is nothing wrong with that). For SD/Bethesda expanding Brink to appeal to other audiences may make the game a bigger success. SD have said they want to do as you’ve said, expand on what they’re good at, but this doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a demand for other stuff and it is just stupid to ignore what the market wants (which they clearly aren’t doing with other aspects of the game).

So the real question is, “would added more modes make the game more successful and so warrant the extra investment required to make them?”

(tokamak) #48

I thought SD invented the xp in shooters, not COD.

Also, I’d like to see other companies become interested in the objective type of play. If Brink could truly challenge the lame status quo that hangs around shooters these days, then it could raise the bar for everyone and companies couldn’t just get away with releasing the same deathmatch games over and over again.

I want people to start looking down on the games that don’t have anything else going for them.

(H0RSE) #49

[QUOTE=SockDog;247882]For SD/Bethesda expanding Brink to appeal to other audiences may make the game a bigger success. SD have said they want to do as you’ve said, expand on what they’re good at, but this doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a demand for other stuff and it is just stupid to ignore what the market wants (which they clearly aren’t doing with other aspects of the game).

So the real question is, “would added more modes make the game more successful and so warrant the extra investment required to make them?”[/QUOTE]

Although SD has said they are trying to expand their audience, I don’t think they meant by offering “more of the same.” I think they are simply trying new ways to get people interested in playing what they like - team objective, multilayer gaming.

Like Exedore said:

and in an interview - http://brutalgamer.com/2010/10/04/brink-splash-damage-interview-with-neil-alphonso/

"We know the game will be enjoyed by Enemy Territory fans, people who play team class objective based shooters. We’ll know they’ll like it. We’re trying to pull in the more main stream people. That’s why we have things like iron sights and our controls are very similar to those major shooters. Then we’ll introduce more advanced elements like “No this isn’t just capture the flag. We’ve been doing those modes for 20 years. There’s something more interesting why don’t you give this a try”.

(SockDog) #50

I love SD but the mechanics they’ve introduced in Brink are clearly to placate the CoD crowd and aren’t anything to do with what and where they were with W:ET or ETQW. That writing was clearly on the wall when ETQW was met with a load of “WTF do you me XP isn’t persistent” and “I have to earn this gun every time I play??!?! WTF Game Suxorz I’m going to back to CoD”.

I’m not saying SDs touch and sensibilities won’t be apparent but come on, they’re going to consoles and playing to CoD for a reason, Money.

Also, I’d like to see other companies become interested in the objective type of play. If Brink could truly challenge the lame status quo that hangs around shooters these days, then it could raise the bar for everyone and companies couldn’t just get away with releasing the same deathmatch games over and over again.

I hope it does but then again I’d say ETQW did and the market (or marketing) rejected it. Brink seems to be much more focused on keeping people entertained while they learn which ETQW didn’t, maybe that’ll be the difference but the core remains the same.

I want people to start looking down on the games that don’t have anything else going for them.

Offer them alternatives but nobody is wrong for enjoying CoD or peggle if they enjoy the games, isn’t that the point of playing? This is why I’d like it to be easier to ease across to try different things rather than have this franchise barrier preventing it. But we’ve been here and discussed this before so maybe we agree to disagree here.

I would never want Brink to be just an SD CTF game or TDM game. I’d like to think that is the core message behind those quotations. That they’re making something new and not that they look down on a solid CTF game as being inferior.

However my point was that if including CTF in addition to that core game made it sell better then why not do it? Shouldn’t be some philosophical discussion over new vs old, it should be whether a significant number of people want it and want to pay for it. You know, like the significant number of people on consoles that SD have taken into account when designing the game.

(H0RSE) #51

However my point was that if including CTF in addition to that core game made it sell better then why not do it? Shouldn’t be some philosophical discussion over new vs old, it should be whether a significant number of people want it and want to pay for it. You know, like the significant number of people on consoles that SD have taken into account when designing the game.

It seems like you are turning it into a balancing act between ethics and profit - Do they continue to make the games they have been making - sticking to what they love or “conform” to maximize profits?

(LyndonL) #52

Holy Crapstickles there are a lot of elitists in this forum. Get a grip on reality guys, there is no “best” game mode. The best game mode is the game mode that suits you on the day you want to play it. Grow up.

(INF3RN0) #53

Squabbling over something with a simple solution to satisfy all sides. Get that post count up folks…

(SockDog) #54

At the very simple level I enjoy the creativity and quality SD brings to the table and would like to see that applied to more than just a single gametype BUT clearly not at the expense of their primary objective mode. I see nothing wrong in wanting a quality version of CTF , DM or other modes in an engine and environment with the potential of Brink’s and with official support.

As for making what they love. I’d consider the hobbling performed to fit on consoles and appealing to the CoD ADD crowd a far greater compromise than including proven and established alternate modes of play. I don’t blame them for this but lets not be naive and suggest that including popular game modes for more sales isn’t exactly the same thing.

(SockDog) #55

Says the guy contributing nothing to the thread and missing the entire point of a discussion forum. Go get em champ! :penguin:

(INF3RN0) #56

Scroll up and perhaps you will find a treat lost in your garbage heap of a thread :wink:. lul

(SockDog) #57

Your post was trollish and hypocritical. Your prior posts have nothing to do with that. Lulz indeed.

But to continue the discussion, I had previously stated why I’d wanted out of the box support not mods or maps. So really it’s not a simple solution because there are more factors involved that if it’s possible.

(Je T´aime) #58

It looks like a lot of u guys are more “old school players” not the typical Cod next gen so do i, i came from a team fortress classic background, and in the old era of fortress games we had ctf and it seems that in the new era it still exist and still have a lot of fans so why not implement it.
Also im sorry to say but i dont think brink is a revolution in terms of fps but it does a pretty good job joining a lot of cool features from diferent games so why not use the ones that are sucefull in other games.

(INF3RN0) #59

[QUOTE=SockDog;247898]Your post was trollish and hypocritical. Your prior posts have nothing to do with that. Lulz indeed.

But to continue the discussion, I had previously stated why I’d wanted out of the box support not mods or maps. So really it’s not a simple solution because there are more factors involved that if it’s possible.[/QUOTE]

? What is this argument about then eh? Lots of games have the exact system I mentioned for TDM. You just section off a suitable section of an existing objective map and make it TDM mode… it’s the easiest method of saving resources. Sure you sacrifice having a special TDM only map, but it’s an easy compromise. If there is any need to expand into special maps designed purely for a specific game mode, you can leave that to modders or even DLC. Now if that doesn’t make any sense or have anything to do with what your talking about, then perhaps I am missing something. I’ll let your royal highness be the judge.

(THEJORRRG) #60

SD wants to discorage playing fo kills. They say you can get a good score without even firing a bullet. It accommodates more styles of play, and your most favourate classes and types. Team Deathmatch would undermine that.