Splash Damage how does it feel to go to work each morning?

(Kalbuth) #101

[QUOTE=el1as;332968]obviously i was not talking about any personal opinion, but general consideration made by facts

clearly a player can consider etqw or brink a good game, but there are facts that state if the game was generally good and a general success or if the game is still alive and so on
numers give you an objective standpoint to evaluate that[/QUOTE]

If the masses would go for any quality, yes.
But, they don’t, as simple as that.
Many people playing/using “X” simply prove “X” is simple and to the point. “Accessible” is key word to success. You can have the most innovative product on the market, if it is not accessible, it won’t be a success.
(not saying that Brink is innovative, perfect, etc… Just demestifying the “numbers == quality” myth)

(legend123) #102

[QUOTE=Crytiqal;332972]I know Jamieson, he’s a cool guy.

I also played W:ET. Never heard of Jamieson in that connection tho? Does that make me a moron? What did Jamieson do for W:ET?[/QUOTE]

lol. i played W:ET from 2003 till the NA competition community died.
who the heck is Jamieson?

(legend123) #103

[QUOTE=Crytiqal;332972]I know Jamieson, he’s a cool guy.

I also played W:ET. Never heard of Jamieson in that connection tho? Does that make me a moron? What did Jamieson do for W:ET?[/QUOTE]

lol. i played W:ET from 2003 till the NA competition community died.
who the **** is Jamieson?

(el1as) #104

[QUOTE=Kalbuth;332992]If the masses would go for any quality, yes.
But, they don’t, as simple as that.
Many people playing/using “X” simply prove “X” is simple and to the point. “Accessible” is key word to success. You can have the most innovative product on the market, if it is not accessible, it won’t be a success.
(not saying that Brink is innovative, perfect, etc… Just demestifying the “numbers == quality” myth)[/QUOTE]

i agree in general, but a large number of players not dropping for a long time simply confirm that there is quality in your product, tech and gameplay

even if a product is accessible it does not mean that it has no quality
while a quality product does not mean it is accessible
but brink is not so accessibile and his quality is really low…so double fail…

etqw and brink may have good basic ideas, some part of the project may be theoretically good, but a game has to be a CONCRETE fact, it has to be funny, its goal is not to be an abstract perfect theory
the definition of a game implies concreteness

that’s why SD failed, maybe they would have success if they took the old wet engine, the well known and appreciated id3, modifying it as IW did for years, obtaining a not so innovative but really concrete and well running game

(Kalbuth) #105

Can’t say much for Brink atm, but I happen to not agree in ET:QW case.
It was fun, for far enough people to have full servers for several years, if we must talk about numbers, which in my book, is not a failure, while not being CoDesque success, still talking about numbers

As for game mechanism and such, QW was undoubtefully a success in my eyes. To each his own, though.