No Team Deathmatch??

[LyndonL]

You people are WAY too pragmatic.
Just cause something happens in one part of the game doesn’t mean it would have to happen in another part of the game. Cinematics are scripted into the start of the map (no differently to any other game) so therefore they can be omitted.
Also there are a million different reasons for why everyone is trying to kill eachother, as has already been stated in this thread… CTF works better due to the many things you can be trying to capture.
And for that matter… Why does there need to be a story? Can’t it just be a fun mini game mode?

[SockDog]

What i don’t get is why you believe that if there were inputted regular straightfoward gamemodes like the ones you’ve mentioned that Brink will suddenly everybody who previously unaware of the game’s existence and will then flock to their local gamestops, just clawing at the chance to pre-order it. Honestly, this logic is fallible at best, utterly moronic at worst.

That’s why games have marketing budgets. Do you know about Brink through divine calling or did you read about it online, in a magazine, see it at a show. If, Bethesda wanted CTF, TDM or whatever in addition to OBJ then they would also market the existence of it which in turn would (ideally) drive more people as you say to flock to gamestop to pre-order.

It seems to me that you don’t understand much about game development.

And you haven’t read my posts in this thread. In fact the development cost and time is the one point I’ve conceded as being good reason not to include them (more so than narrative discrepancies or some laughable supremist agenda to convert people to only play OBJ mode).

I’m under no delusion that we’ll get these modes in Brink, and certainly don’t think a thread in a forum is going to have any influence over a decision as big as this covers. I do however think it’s fair play to discuss the merits of such modes being included (maybe it will influence Brink 2) and I’ve yet to hear someone argue why they shouldn’t be there beyond illogical stuff like splintering the community or because they’re not new.

Personally I’d much rather we’d have spent this time talking about what changes could be made to CTF, TDM etc in light of the classes, movement and other features Brink brings to the table. But I guess (like in the other thread) stick to just whether it should or shouldn’t be done.

@LyndonL
I think we’ve reached the point where people read the first post, skip to the last page and then post.

[BomBaKlaK]

If you want to play CTF come playing with on us on quake live !

[tokamak]

To successfully progress you need elements of same, so: Hook the players with a mode they know, and also have (Brink’s original) Obj mode. Hook them with CTF and let them progress to Obj and enjoy that and convert.

That is already happening. Objective based gameplay was the first thing out there in FPS genres, it just took a damn long time before it got implemented in the multiplayer properly. The first attempts were incredibly hardcore and now it’s finding it’s balance in making multiplayer objectives accessible again.

CTF is no use here other than being a major distraction.

The only problem I can see with that Tok is you’ll have to rub shoulders with those filthy scum “degenerate” players who are so clearly below you…

See, if I was bothered about that, I would welcome simplistic game modes like that so the players would stay away from objective mode.

[BomBaKlaK]

Objective mod ONLY !!! as the last SD releases !!!
That’s all !!! if you want play CTF or death match go play Quake live or for ones who can’t ! move on cod !!

[Rasputin17]

That’s why games have marketing budgets. Do you know about Brink through divine calling or did you read about it online, in a magazine, see it at a show. If, Bethesda wanted CTF, TDM or whatever in addition to OBJ then they would also market the existence of it which in turn would (ideally) drive more people as you say to flock to gamestop to pre-order.

See, that’s the kind of logic I’m saying is fallible. I don’t know what kind of people you’re talking about, but nobody in there right mind will buy something because they heard it has CTF in it. That’s a bit absurd, don’t you think so?

[QUOTE=SockDog;248319]And you haven’t read my posts in this thread. In fact the development cost and time is the one point I’ve conceded as being good reason not to include them (more so than narrative discrepancies or some laughable supremist agenda to convert people to only play OBJ mode).

I’m under no delusion that we’ll get these modes in Brink, and certainly don’t think a thread in a forum is going to have any influence over a decision as big as this covers. I do however think it’s fair play to discuss the merits of such modes being included (maybe it will influence Brink 2) and I’ve yet to hear someone argue why they shouldn’t be there beyond illogical stuff like splintering the community or because they’re not new.[/QUOTE]

I’ve read through a lot of this thread and maybe I did miss the point where you guys suddenly went hypothetical. If you’d be kind enough as to indicate this topic being discussed as you’re telling it, I’d appreciate it. (I’m not being condescending, I would concede my previous argument if you could give evidence of it.)

Also, I don’t think anyone here is arguing whether or not the gamemodes should ever exist. Yourself (i think) said modders could easily implement it. Why then should Splash Damage ever spend any energy on this (if there were ever a Brink 2) when it would be much more logical to go with the vision of multilayered complex objective systems they’ve been working on all this time. It just is not reasonable to think they should just plop these gamemodes in to appease some untouched audience.

[QUOTE=SockDog;248319]Personally I’d much rather we’d have spent this time talking about what changes could be made to CTF, TDM etc in light of the classes, movement and other features Brink brings to the table. But I guess (like in the other thread) stick to just whether it should or shouldn’t be done.

@LyndonL
I think we’ve reached the point where people read the first post, skip to the last page and then post.[/QUOTE]

Why the hell won’t you then?

And, no, I didn’t skip to the last page. I read a helluva lot of this damn thread.

…:stroggtapir:

[SockDog]

@Rasputin17

People who are maybe familiar with CTF or enjoy it. People who may find the idea of buying a game with only a single mode of play risky whereas a game offering multiple modes of play may seem a better bet. From my own experience, I’ve avoided buying every Battlefield game there is because I didn’t like the game mode it was sold with. Had they included CTF I would probably have given it a shot. Now for Brink I happen to like OBJ mode* so have no qualms about buying the game just for that but I expect there are others in similar positions to me where the appeal may not be totally there. That is all I am saying. BTW your original point was who’d know it had CTF, now you’re arguing that even knowing it’s there is worthless, please make up your mind.

My very first post in this thread acknowledged this wasn’t going to happen in Brink.

BTW - Know this isn’t going to happen but it doesn’t hurt to express interest in it.

It’s a bit hard having a light hearted discussion about how Brink mechanics would alter CTF when people are more determined to express how everyone should JUST be playing Brink.

Edit

• I was exposed to OBJ mode play through buying RTCW. A purchase done mainly for the single player but soon expanding into multiplayer and so seeing OBJ mode. Of course we also had a MP_TEST back then too.

[BioSnark]

See, that’s the kind of logic I’m saying is fallible. I don’t know what kind of people you’re talking about, but nobody in there right mind will buy something because they heard it has CTF in it. That’s a bit absurd, don’t you think so?

Yup. Just as absurd as marketing a game on any other single feature. That’s why it isn’t done and why this argument is a straw man.

Also, I think someone characterized CTF as simple. CTF is point attack, point defense, VIP and survival at the same time. And it’s also some of the most strategic/tactical gameplay I’ve had the pleasure of playing and quakewars / et never came close in terms of an adrenaline rush. That’s not to say that all or most ctf is awesome but the same applies to objective. That’s not to say that Brink should have ctf but rather that that argument is one that makes an assertion based on ignorance/inexperience in ctf excellence and not proof that ctf is objectively simpler than objective gameplay.

Both gametypes are fairly simple on the scale of fps complexity I’ve experienced.

[H0RSE]

People who are maybe familiar with CTF or enjoy it. People who may find the idea of buying a game with only a single mode of play risky whereas a game offering multiple modes of play may seem a better bet. From my own experience, I’ve avoided buying every Battlefield game there is because I didn’t like the game mode it was sold with. Had they included CTF I would probably have given it a shot.

But regardless of your decision to not buy them, the Battlefield franchise is hugely successful and popular, which is another point about Brink - even with offering only one mode, I believe it will be successful enough to stand up against the competition, with already existent ET and QW fans leading the way.

Perhaps if Brink was a new IP and it was being developed (and published) by a brand new, never heard of studio (or one with a not-so-good track record) then maybe the need to appeal to as many people as possible, through the inclusion of “familiar” gamemodes, would be a bit more in their interest. Seeing as how they have already proved themselves, I don’t think they are too concerned.

[BioSnark]

they haven’t in the console market. afaik, the objective gametype hasn’t, either.

[H0RSE]

they haven’t in the console market. afaik, the objective gametype hasn’t, either.

Battlefield Bad Company - It was successful enough to warrant a sequel. And it is one of the most popular console FPS games today.

Also, it’s a bit naive to assume that just because ET and QW were PC releases that nobody who plays console games knows about Splash Damage. Hell, some people who played those games on PC will buy Brink for console. Besides, Bethesda is well known on all platforms - regardless if they are publishing or developing.

[BioSnark]

if bfbc is objective then what are people talking about saying there’s already ctf/dm/whatever and not objective on the table?

[H0RSE]

if bfbc is objective then what are people talking about saying there’s already ctf/dm/whatever and not objective on the table?

I don’t understand what you are asking? BFBC2 introduced a TDM mode (4v4v4v4) but other than that, every Battlefield game I know of only offered some type of objective based gamemode (mainly conquest)

Yes, CTF/DM type games seem to be more mainstream and/or popular on console, but I don’t see the best solution to this or a way to deal with it, being adding those gametypes to every shooter that comes out.

If you can develop a fun, replayable, engaging experience for players, “conforming” to the current trends doesn’t need to happen. The way I see it, adding gamemodes like DM, TDM or CTF, will ultimately only be beneficial in attracting the “extremist” crowd - those players who ONLY play those modes.

For the most part, I see Brink in its current state, initially attracting plenty of players, and through time and word of mouth, attracting even more. I don’t see Splash Damage excluding “standard” modes as them “dooming” the success of Brink.

[madoule]

For the most part, I see Brink in its current state, initially attracting plenty of players, and through time and word of mouth, attracting even more. I don’t see Splash Damage excluding “standard” modes as them “dooming” the success of Brink.

let me add, that the initial crowd will at some point, make it after 6 months, will slowly boil down to the engaged community. this group hopefully will become as long lasting as the WET, QW community. this community finally will determine whats good and what’s not.

[Chris2]

Personally I’d much rather we’d have spent this time talking about what changes could be made to CTF, TDM etc in light of the classes, movement and other features Brink brings to the table. But I guess (like in the other thread) stick to just whether it should or shouldn’t be done.

Yeah me too, like I mentioned before I maybe putting together mod and would have been great to discuss how certain gamemodes would behave in Brink but sadly certain folk just love proving points instead of holding discussions.

[BioSnark]

[quote=H0RSE;248378]I don’t understand what you are asking? BFBC2 introduced a TDM mode (4v4v4v4) but other than that, every Battlefield game I know of only offered some type of objective based gamemode (mainly conquest)[/quote]Rhetorical question and directed toward a previous argument in this thread.

Also, it’s a bit naive to assume that just because ET and QW were PC releases that nobody who plays console games knows about Splash Damage.

As with the above post, this is a straw man. In other words, you are making the ‘no-console-gamers-know-sd’ assertion to inaccurately represent a position that sd is not widely known among console gamers.

I’ve bored myself responding to people to inform them that Bethesda is not developing Brink and that Splash Damage didn’t make Quake Wars for xbox/ps3. I don’t know if people generally mistake publishers for developers and haven’t polled any console gamers but that is my experience on the issue.

The way I see it, adding gamemodes like DM, TDM or CTF, will ultimately only be needed to attract the “extremist” crowd - those players who ONLY play those modes. For the most part, I see Brink in its current state, initially attracting plenty of players, and through time and word of mouth, attracting even more. I don’t see Splash Damage excluding “standard” modes as them “dooming” the success of Brink.

@first sentence
As with Rasputin17’s post, who, here, is making this argument? Games aren’t usually marketed on one single feature. The fact that Brink has multiple game types would be just one of many features that collectively sell the product.
@last sentence
Oh, or are you saying this exclusion will hurt Brink but not to an unacceptable degree?

As I noted, previously, I don’t know if additional game types would be a net benefit to Brink or the reverse. I’ve seen reasonable arguments for both. However, I’d love to play some ctf in Brink as a mod or added in, l4d style, post release.

[madoule]

what went wrong with this thread? been offline for 3 days and this thread’s gone frenzy.
first we can agree we all disagree.

facts, however are:

1. “No Team Deathmatch??” - “No, certainly not from SD side. Why would they if they wanted to create an objective based FPS?”
2. “Its hard to argue, if Brink would sell more with an TDM option included. Let’s leave it at that.”
3. “If the desire for TDM is large enough, it’ll pop up as a mod.”

[tokamak]

Welcome to the forums Rasputin, I wish all first posts were as substantial as that.

what went wrong with this thread? been offline for 3 days and this thread’s gone frenzy.

It’s the same trick as with female players, make the subject seem controversial and it’ll look like there’s a good point somewhere.

[madoule]

i mean we all are somewhat dedicated and/or steaming for this game. therefore its fun and interesting to stir up topics like that with the eyes of the other members (at best).

however it sometimes just drifts into oblivion. which is still hugely entertaining but quite a read.

[tokamak]

Oh definitely, there’s no need to walk away and say 'Hey I don’t care about this small thing" as sadly the small things are all that keep us entertained.