[QUOTE=Seanza;416236]I don’t like this suggestion, sorry.
We have all played a Battlefield and a Call of Duty, we’re perfectly qualified to give those perspectives, imo.[/QUOTE]
I think the difference is our favorite games are rtcw/et/etqw, theirs are bf3/cod/cs, which means they would have different opinions than ours.
I think the point you’re missing here is that Splash Damage are known for making games that are different and not replicas of Battlefield and Call of Duty (I feel like I’m repeating myself here). I’ve played enough Call of Duty, enough Quake, enough ET:QW, enough of whatever else to feel that I can personally give an objective, unbiased and well-educated opinion. I also know I’m not the only person here who is able to give such an opinion.
Actually I think the point you are missing is the fact that splash damage is trying capture new players, not just players of old SD games. Nobody ever asked for a replica of bf3 or cod, if it was up to me I would tell them to remake rtcw or et thats what i personally want. But SD wants to get new players on board, that are not just SD game fans.
Exactly, I hate to burst some peoples bubbles here but the W:ET and ETQW community isn’t big enough to keep this game afloat on their own. Sure SD can release DB and hope that players from other games pick it up and like it, or they can go ahead and get it in the hands of those players and show them exactly what makes this genre great which will then start of some word of mouth viral marketing. I don’t get this inherent fear that letting someone from another game player automatically means SD will purely listen to them and no one else and turn it into their style of game… do you think SD are that weak minded?
What you guys are failing to realize is that there’s a huge difference between the casual COD kid and good competitive gamers. I suggest you all get the chance to meet WiKeD in game- just a COD/CS player I invited so go easy. Oh and he makes me look like nub sauce…
I have never implied that they don’t want new players nor have I implied they just want the players of old SD games. I’m just saying that with Battlefield and Call of Duty players chiming in with their input, all we’ll get is constant movement arguments etc. People who just play those types of games are likely to be unfamiliar with objective-based shooters, which is what Dirty Bomb is.
Not sure if this was aimed at my comments or somebody else’s, but that isn’t my concern at all. I know that, if anything, the SD folks don’t want to be just another shooter on the market, they want to stand out. My concern is that getting BF & CoD players into test it is going to put them off. In my experience in testing alphas and betas in BF & CoD (and similar games), people struggle to give good feedback. I’m just very passionate about making sure the right people have this game in their hands during this testing phase.
I find it slightly funny that some people who are against this idea have actually played COD competitively, oh but they played SD games too so that makes them superior…
There’s bugger all wrong with a different perspective, ET:QW closed beta had plenty of BF2 players in it and I don’t remember that game turning into a BF clone.
Suggested as much in the invite suggestion thread. While we want the game to feel SD like I think it’s not only healthy but also necessary to at least get opinions from other leading MP FPS gamers.
Flame all you like but I see a concerted effort by some people to make DB into [insert their past favourite game] and damn anything that stands in their way regardless of whether that means the game would be better for it being in.
Gathering different perspectives, from of course sensible open minded people, can only help the game. I’d also say they having a share of herp derp and noob players wouldn’t hurt too unless DB is expected to just exist on high level competitive gamers.
We definitely need more casuals. Problem with casuals is that they’re also casual in their feedback.
[QUOTE=Seanza;416268]I have never implied that they don’t want new players nor have I implied they just want the players of old SD games. I’m just saying that with Battlefield and Call of Duty players chiming in with their input, all we’ll get is constant movement arguments etc. People who just play those types of games are likely to be unfamiliar with objective-based shooters, which is what Dirty Bomb is.
[/QUOTE]
Firstly, you all argue all the time anyway, adding these kinds of guys in and having them argue wouldn’t make much of a difference 
Secondly, we know what we’d like the game to be, that’s not an exact copy of any of our previous games but a game that has the core momentum and skill of those titles, along with our signature classes and objectives. With that being the case, I’m not sure that many players of ‘other’ PC FPS games are much further away from what we’re aiming at than ET and ETQW players might be.
The value those kind of players would add to an alpha is not telling us ‘make it like CoD’, we’d likely ignore that as it doesn’t match our vision. The benefit of the feedback comes from people telling us, in large quantities, that mechanic X or feature Y definitely wont work and would put players off, that helps us shape our decisions.
We’ll never be able to find a consensus where everybody likes something, but there are plenty of things the majority won’t like that we can avoid with a varied set of feedback.
All that said, I don’t think we need to go after specific community leaders from other games. We already have a lot of folks here from across the FPS game spectrum and we’ll naturally get more as the alpha and beta expand in size.
[QUOTE=Seanza;416236]I don’t like this suggestion, sorry.
We have all played a Battlefield and a Call of Duty, we’re perfectly qualified to give those perspectives, imo.[/QUOTE]
A while back I invited a friend who comes from COD, he just played a few hours ETQW and he told me he didn’t like the movements because you can jump unrealistic high and run very fast.
These players won’t show up here so you get only one sided discussions.
When you make a F2P (for everyone, including CS, COD fanboys/girls) it’s not bad to have different views from players with another gaming background. That’s another story when you make a game for the “Quake franchise”.
I think this is a pretty good idea in some ways. There’s a big gap in the competitive FPS scene at the moment, with COD 4 being pretty dead, BO2 not being competitive enough and BF3 not getting the competitive dev support it needs. There’s lots of people who are looking for a new game to play, and for many ShootMania/CS:GO is not that game. Also, most of you need to realize that competitive BF3 isn’t usually about vehicles at all. The main game mode for a long time has been 5v5 infantry, which doesn’t include vehicles. I’ve played both cod and BF at a competitive level myself, but that doesn’t mean I want DB to be exactly like any of those games, it just means that I (and other players from such games) might be able to give valuable input that will make the game appeal to a larger player base.
This will probably happen when the game is closer to being finished though, as I’d guess they want to keep the Alpha quite tight for now. Hopefully they’ll get closer to the finished version of the weapon/movement feel before opening the beta, so that most people will get a good impression of the game.
I’d say now was the time to get a lot of the crazy feedback. Of course you don’t want to drown out important fundamentals but if you leave it too far down the line there becomes less and less that you can change.
We’ll never be able to find a consensus where everybody likes something, but there are plenty of things the majority won’t like that we can avoid with a varied set of feedback.
You can play with the standard deviation of the way most combat situations in the game look. Some games have a very rigid way in which battles are decided (TF2 and R6 are pretty repetitive) and other games have broader scope in which fights are fought.
[QUOTE=Breo;416387]A while back I invited a friend who comes from COD, he just played a few hours ETQW and he told me he didn’t like the movements because you can jump unrealistic high and run very fast.
These players won’t show up here so you get only one sided discussions .[/QUOTE]
My Clan OCB were accused off bunny hopping,the whole Clan In BF3 were accused lol we got banned of a lot of clan servers.Cause they didnt get strafing.
Bringing other people with different ideas should never be shunned a good idea is a good ldea after all .
I think SD needs a success on a large scale .I get that SD are trying to bring out a newer game i always feel that they are always unlucky never hitting that BF3 or Cod high level success .
The ingredients are there for a great game in DB it was there for ET and QW not so much for Brink but if the timing is right and the game is right SD can knock it out the park. I think as long as Sd has confidence in their style of games and dont deviate and copy other Games we will all be happy. Apart from zombies i still want Zombies
So you’re saying COD has a high skill ceiling? I’m not disagreeing, just an important note for the record.
How is that what I am saying? I’m saying that there are plenty of people who play COD/CS who are highly capable gamers and can easily transition into an ET setting without QQing about it. It is acknowledged by most COD players that COD doesn’t have a very high skill ceiling, but that was not the point here.