[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;314838]I would LOVE to see dual objective maps in Brink, you had them in RtCW and they rocked! Think of them as CTF if you will. The best examples were Bridge and Wizerness, it meant both teams were on offense and defense at the same time and required some major communication.
On Bridge, each team had important documents stored at their base, and they had steal from the enemies base and transport it back to their radio room and transmit. On Wizerness both teams had a missile silo and you had get into the enemy’s base and blow up the missile controls.
It IS possible to have that style of play in an objective based game, you just need to stop taking the word ‘flag’ literally and Brinkify it.[/QUOTE]
Ye I would like to see this idea also, where both teams had to defend and to attack that sounds good : )
Its a step backwards imo, although I feel CTF would work really in Brink but if the SDK is released then this could be modded in or dual objective maps could be implemented. Base race anyone?
The core gameplay in Brink is no different to RtCW, W:ET and ETQW… the 1st 2 had mods coming out of their ears. Gamers loved the choice that they had with all these mods, it brought something new to the table and spiced up a game they already loved. In some games, the mods became more popular than the game they were born from. New gametypes are no different than having mods… and I sincerely hope those shouting for the SDK and wanting to create the ‘next best thing’ that’s different from Brink’s gameplay aren’t against new gametypes
Retards like the op just cant see the point, i also want this, but no exactly that, i want game modes that are brink objective based still, CTF and TDF could be tailored so its still brink objective based, but FFA? you deserve a slap for that.
i’ve asked this one time and nobody could answer me so maybe you can.
Why would doing the same objectives get dull quick but playing gamemodes like CTF (where you have to take the flag from point A to point B) or payload on TF2 (where you have to push the cart the same way everytime) wouldn’t?
I’ll hazard a guess… choice! Because you’re not removing a gametype and replacing it, you’re adding it as another option. So if you’re in the mood for doing multi-objectives, you can… if you want to just run and gun and cap… you can. There seems to be this illusion somewhere that the people requesting this want to replace the original gameplay, and it’s just not true.
People like the op just dont see th epoint, i would love generic game modes, but still with the objective prio still in place, but for FFA? id slap you fo that crap.
[QUOTE=Nefarious;314846]OMG Dark this is not the game for you then!
How dare you look at a videogame and think of cool and fun ways to improve it. Shame on you!
And you bring such thoughts to a Online fourm for said such game?..NO!
What you see is what you get!
Now go escort a robot to get a Bio weapon in the Guest slums for the 476th time![/QUOTE]
So in your opinion, Blowing a door, escorting a robot to a safehouse and grabbing the enemy bio weapon is boring and repetitive yet camping a hallway and aimlessly running around killing randomly over and over and over again is fun? I dont understand people like you, its completely backwards thinking TDM is the repetitive gametype because most players get comfortable in one spot and camp the hell out of it and the other players just wander aimlessly shooting everything thats not on their team. Meanwhile every map on brink is different, for the most part you cant just wander aimlessly.
Oh and by the way, calling yourself old school for playing Halo 1 on LAN is not oldschool. When you played the original Doom with buddies on LAN then you can say something, but not Halo.
No one is under that illusion. I keep saying that SD should release an SDK for people to make their own gametypes, while expanding and improving the type of game they’ve worked on, since they’re the only people that really do it.
The people working at Splash Damage in the United Kingdom should not work on CTF because it is not the direction the wanted to go in. Instead, they should release an SDK, while fixing bugs, and working on making their own maps less linear, improving story elements and creating dynamic objectives/campaigns. The people they release the SDK to should do whatever they want with it, because that is why SDKs exist.
I would love the choice of stupid basketball CTF maps and mindless TDM games, but SD working on things, anywhere near that type of play, is a colossal waste of time, and would cause me to loose faith in them. Releasing an SDK would be real choice, because the people will decide what they want.
[QUOTE=Nefarious;314839]Luddens, there is nothing to answer. More game types means more options and more fun.
Ppl love options right?..No? I guess not most of you guys!
Regardless of how I think these Standerd gametypes will play out (hence Daydreaming like I said) or how you think they will play out because of some fancy mumbo jumbo crap. It dont matter. We dont know bc these things in the game are nonexistent. Its a wishlist.
And whats the harm if more game types came out…none!..Play your objective types all you want. I wouldint mind messing around in a frantic FFA or playing a TDM where you would have to tread carfully because of all the trinkets this game has. Or maybe not. Mabey TDM would be a sloppy mess where everyone just grenades themselves and laughs![/QUOTE]
I don’t think anyone is arguing against that point. Dual objs are fine and all, but the problem is that the people who make threads about CTF, almost exclusively also want CTF and TDM, while some also want FFA. All of that reminds me of the CTF/TDM and FFA of Quake, which is far too overly simplistic for this game
The problem is, though, that
A: SD would waste time working on gametypes that every game does, and probably would do better, rather than expanding the style of play they already have done.(You still haven’t answered why CTF/TDM is so pressing that SD should do this. “Fun” does not suffice. Merging SP and Mp for CoD would also be fun, but that’s not what the people who play it like, or the people who made it, designed it for.
B: An SDK is a far more productive thing to ask for. You’re asking for maps and a gametype, that in and of themselves indicate contrivancy because they’ve been done a thousand times, and are quite minuscule in scope compared to the style of maps SD puts out. If an SDK came out, people would make CTF maps because there’s apparently some what of a demand for them, unless you’re really part of the loud minority.
C: What you want are CTF maps, not an entire gametype. Brink, ETQW and W:ET could already do CTF, but you would need to strip some scripting information while modifying the way objectives and scoring are done in order for it to work. There’s no real reason to assume that with an SDK, players who want CTF wouldn’t make CTF maps or revisioning of maps from older, nostalgic games, even.
The only condition i would approve or be impartial on those generic game modes would be if it didnt impede (at all) the presentation of new maps with new objectives and narratives. However, if having ctf or koth means i have to wait a second longer for the game modes that actually mean something to the game. then no. I dont support impeding the progress of the game to satisfy a larger consumer base. In fact, im perfectly fine with having a small consumer base for this game. Its unfortunate though that in these dire times companies have found profits to outweigh the value and essence of the challenge and narrative. I hope SD feels nothing but pride for what the game is (technical issues arent inherent values of the game).
A bit of speculation: adding ffa and tdm would widen the consumer base but then would invite all the COD lovers. Im not saying COD lovers are bad people, im just saying if they take an interest to this game (which anyone who enjoys smart and the style of the game would) then their needs, their input, and their demand would become the overbearing voice of SD’s future developments. Its not rocket science - theres more of them than us. thats a fact. I refuse to allow a window to open thatll do to this game what EA has potentially done with mass effect 3.
[QUOTE=trigg3r;314859]i’ve asked this one time and nobody could answer me so maybe you can.
Why would doing the same objectives get dull quick but playing gamemodes like CTF (where you have to take the flag from point A to point B) or payload on TF2 (where you have to push the cart the same way everytime) wouldn’t?[/QUOTE]
It will break things up.
It like taking a different route to work for a change of scenery. Still pretty much the same thing…but not quite.
Or getting a Chicken Cheese Steak instead of a regular Cheese Steak. Has the same taste…but not quite.
Im not saying ‘Hey lets take this Pizza Hut here and knock it down to turn it into PF Changs’
Im saying ‘Hey Pizza Hut remember the Full House XL pizza? Bring that back to the menu! It had a crust that was not as thick as Pan Pizza, and not as thin as the Thin Crust. It was kinda in the middle.’
It like taking a different route to work for a change of scenery. Still pretty much the same thing…but not quite.
Or getting a Chicken Cheese Steak instead of a regular Cheese Steak. Has the same taste…but not quite.
Im not saying ‘Hey lets take this Pizza Hut here and knock it down to turn it into PF Changs’
Im saying ‘Hey Pizza Hut remember the Full House XL pizza? Bring that back to the menu! It had a crust that was not as thick as Pan Pizza, and not as thin as the Thin Crust. It was kinda in the middle.’[/QUOTE]
Still skipped the questions, like you guys always do. So I’ll ask again.
Why not work on improving the style of gameplay they have created, rather than the styles they avoided, while releasing an SDK where people can create the style of gameplay they want?
They can create generic game modes with the brink objective prio still in place.
I would explain, but alas i am to high and dont believe i should be the one doing the thinking, its what SD get payed for.
[QUOTE=Luddens Desir;314910]Still skipped the questions, like you guys always do. So I’ll ask again.
Why not work on improving the style of gameplay they have created, rather than the styles they avoided, while releasing an SDK where people can create the style of gameplay they want?[/QUOTE]
There are tons of post and no one is avoiding you. Some players do play on the very very popular Xbox 360 and PS3 video game consoles.
Hey here is a thought, why dont they work on both! Ill Buy that for a Doller!
Im all for on improving the style of game play as is. Wouldint mind some team death match though:D
Then why is it ridiculous amounts of fun in other games with half the players?
Gears 3 is what 5v5? CTL is a blast. Same with Halo.
Either way that statement is entirely false. Provided you at least have like a 3v3 or 4v4 CTF, KOTH etc will always be tons of fun.
Please stop thinking that the only way to have fun in this game is by launching all 16 people at the exact same objective. I get it, more intense battles. But sometimes that translates into 16 people throwing as much ordnance out as chaotically as possible.
CTF in this game with this kind of mobility would be amazing. Actually theres a few missions that are 50% ctf (hack the safe, return the document). All you would be doing is adding that again, somewhere else in the map.
You say it would divide the players thus divide the fun. I say thats already being done when guys run off task to capture a command post. So wouldn’t your logic want to remove command post objectives as well? Or any secondary objective?
You don’t lose any gameplay what so ever, you said it yourself… split resources. Split is not sacrifice, therefore nothing is lost, it’s just distributed differently.
The argument of PC vs Consoles doesn’t fit here, even though that’s not what you’re aiming at. PC games have largely supported SDKs far more frequently than consoles because all games are developed on computers, which cost a ton of money compared to consoles.
PC users should not get an SDK simply because they payed a ton of money, but they shouldn’t be deprived of one because console players would not get the benefits of one.
Also, another point that I rarely bring up because of it’s “slipper slope” nature:
For a parallel analogy that actually makes sense..
“Hey, let’s allow politicians to accept donations from anonymous corporations with vast amounts of wealth and power.”
See how well that worked out for us?
Start putting in things like CTF/TDM, and soon you’ll be having people asking why the hell the game does not have 1 hit headshot kills for all weapons, and killstreaks. The type of gameplay SD makes would no longer mean anything because it does not stand alone. Other games have done objective style gameplay, too, but they’re not as popular as CTF/TDM because they’re far more simplistic and easier to wrap your head around.
I wouldn’t mind CTF/TDM either, but the community will take care of that. For the people who bought the game on consoles, they got what they payed for, and what SD advertised in their volume of developer blogs.
