As I’ve pointed out numerous times before. Developer resources are scarce to the point of their development commitments. SD didn’t have the resources to support consoles, it was a commitment, so they hired more people.
Likewise if supporting more modes is a commitment deemed financially viable they’d hire more people or outsource the work to other developers for later integration.
Again your argument seems to be, you don’t want or need CTF so nobody else should, get the hell away from my toy!
Yes, that is my argument, stop compromising this toy with degenerate game modes. Besides, more platforms means that the game becomes less obscure which increases the playerbase.
Quake, UT, etc, etc ,etc. Degenerate game modes mhm. Are you high bro? You probably should have just said you personally preferred objective mode over the rest, but instead your asking to be burned at the stake.
or
"Besides, more modes means that the game becomes less obscure which increases the playerbase. "
[QUOTE=Nail;248182]or
"Besides, more modes means that the game becomes less obscure which increases the playerbase. "[/QUOTE]
That’s nonsense, the amount of modes have nothing to do with how well known the game is. Absolute nonsense.
Quake, UT, etc, etc ,etc. Degenerate game modes mhm. Are you high bro?
High on theanine at the moment, but yes, literary degenerate game modes, game modes of a previous generation. UT kind of pioneered with their objective based game mode and that was one of the defining moments in the history of the FPS genre. At that point people finally figured out that having one team defend, and the other attack ensures a focal point to fight over which leads to a far more tense and interesting game. It’s not just a personal preference, it’s objectively a more intensive game mode. Now if you would argue that the more intensive the game the better is a subjective point then yes I would agree with that. But seeing that very few people would say that less intensive is better -except the bunch of whiners with a ‘give me your finger and I’ll take your whole hand even if I don’t necessarily want it’ attitude in this thread - I think that is a nice premise we can all build on.
So yes I’ll repeat it, CTF is a degenerate game mode, it belongs in an era where headshotting players in Facing Worlds was the best thing you could do on your modem. But not anymore, we’ve moved on, we’ve found out that progressive scenarios is what grabs people by their balls and that rules that belong on a primary school gymnastics hour have become something of the past.
[QUOTE=Nail;248182]or
"Besides, more modes means that the game becomes less obscure which increases the playerbase. "[/QUOTE]
Your missing the simple math ofc, 2+2=banana phone… me wants to make a wall of such tasty quotes.
I play games for fun and enjoy variety. Nothing remotely wrong with classic game modes no matter how you would like to analyze the situation. As far as I can tell your only trying to convince yourself that anything you spout out makes the least amount of sense at this point. Perhaps you should lay off of your over complicated, self-indulgent gaming philosophies and try not to enjoy or talk about gaming like it’s a math problem… if your never going to get off your pedestal, I would like to at least see some credentials :).
If there’s nothing wrong with the CTF games you know, then why the hell do you want SD to waste time on it in Brink? You already have what you want.
[QUOTE=tokamak;248197]
So yes I’ll repeat it, CTF is a degenerate game mode, it belongs in an era where headshotting players in Facing Worlds was the best thing you could do on your modem. But not anymore, we’ve moved on, we’ve found out that progressive scenarios is what grabs people by their balls and that rules that belong on a primary school gymnastics hour have become something of the past.[/QUOTE]
That’s a bit like saying soccer or tennis is obsolete. In my opinion, it is, yet millions of others still enjoy both.
Like many people, old and young, still enjoy the rush of a good 'ol CTF game.
I really don’t understand your aversion for these ‘degenerate’ gamemodes, why you seem to look down on them.
Besides, why can’t we have both?
Also, everything you say about ‘intensity and interesting’ is subjective, not objective as you claim.
Silence, degenerates !!
Bow down to the master platform and the master gametype. Abandon your antiquated keyboards and mice and embrace whole body input. The age where interaction could only be input through wrists and fingertips should be brushed away with the previous generation. Burn the degenerate artform and from its ashes let progress rise as a phoenix!
They’re obsolete in the sense that they don’t need to be invented again. It would be an utter waste of time, money and talent.
Also, everything you say about ‘intensity and interesting’ is subjective, not objective as you claim.
It’s definitely objective. Whether you find intensity important is subjective.
From what I have read here, in extreme layman terms, it seems like Tok is comparing adding CTF to Brink to building a strip joint in a rich neighborhood. Regardless if it will boost the economy of the neighborhood or not (add longevity to Brink) He would prefer not to attract those types of people in the first place. (CTF and DM “degenerates.”)
I think that is your argument, not his. He said the economy would remain unaffected @ #105.
I like the analogy. But it’s not about the types of people (if the core set of rules is right, anyone should be able to play Brink without affecting others negatively), even without those people it would aesthetically devalue the location. It would be sending out the wrong message. It would be like saying “hey people, here’s the ground-breaking game we’ve been bragging about for the last year, oh and because we weren’t sure if you would like it or not, here’s the usual **** you play next to it”
“Here’s the Château Angélus, Premier Grand Cru Classé Saint-Émilion, but you know, in case you don’t like it, here’s some Heineken, we know you like that stuff right?”
I’m sure there’s a more accurate sports analogy out there, but yeah that direction. It’s snobbish, but then again, that’s what ET players are known for.
I can understand no team deathmatch at the initial launch, and the community will probably make ctf and deathmatch maps, but it sucks that console players will be left out again.
I would have payed if Valve had released the extra map and match types as dlc on XBOX live, but they didn’t and never will.
I hope SplashDamage supports its console players more than Valve did. I won’t be able to play Brink on a computer for over a year or more.
I can understand no team deathmatch at the initial launch, and the community will probably make ctf and deathmatch maps, but it sucks that console players will be left out again.
But they aren’t left out - there are ton of other games that have DM and CTF. I sympathize with what Tok says:
“Here’s the Château Angélus, Premier Grand Cru Classé Saint-Émilion, but you know, in case you don’t like it, here’s some Heineken, we know you like that stuff right?”
You don’t go to a fancy French restaurant and order ribs - Just like I don’t think Splash Damage has done all this work creating the game, just so players can play something they can play anywhere.
Well as far as metaphors go. Maybe you should look at ctf and dm as churches that keep the rif raff masses occupied and away from you while your at your fine restaurant.
I personally don’t care for CTF and DM which is partially the reason I disliked Halo.
Anyway, All I was saying is that it sucks being a console player because atleast when you play on the computer the choice of if you want the content or not is always there.
And I bet even though they haven’t talked about it yet there will be a courier mission Where you have to get a breif case, flag, little girl, or whatever and deliver it from point A to point B, so that should make all the capture the flag fan boys happy.
Back to the root of the topic. Brink has unique game mechanics that other games don’t have. I think that some of the said game modes would be quite fun in Brink and they definitely won’t play the same as other games (although the objective to win is the same). I personally want objective mode to come first, and I don’t think anything more than TDM can be done for Brink at this moment due to lack of time and resources. That however is not what you were saying so don’t think we are on the same page. I am not sure if you think your making a point by calling classic game modes degenerate because you had already dug yourself a hole and refused to accept it. If you read your above post then what would stop me from going “If there is nothing wrong with the objective games you know then why do you want SD to waste time on it? Go play wolf et, etqw, badcompany, etc.” Or perhaps SD should just invent a whole new mode eh? My personal vote would go to objective mode first, not because other modes are obsolete or bad, but because I like it more. I would however like to see more modes available if possible. I am not going to try and tell people what they should and should not like though, but you can never go wrong with having multiple game modes available. Your definitely high :).