TDM/CTF/FFA a must Have!

(turtsmcgurts) #41

[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]

I think you suffer from minor down syndrome.

How is going from a 1objective map to a 2 in any way similar to implementing TDM/CTF/FFA?
You missed the point of this game, i’m sorry that you may have wasted your money. (Should have kept it to take an extra English classes)

(riptide) #42

Yes it is… you have zero imagination. As far as half the game play… LOL that is the most asinine thing I’ve heard of. This is one of the possibilities I think of when I hear " objective based gameplay"

I’d bet the the most popular Competitive maps made by the community will probably highlight this type of gameplay. Providing they actually get an SDK/Map editor to work with.

(tokamak) #43

Keyword ‘differently’. It may be your cup of tea but don’t say it’s the same gameplay. The objective driven gameplay stems from two teams… ah heck, you know the mantra.

(Bakercompany) #44

What you’re forgetting is this game is already set up to divide players and resources with secondary objectives. And every map has them, be it command posts, building stairs, etc.

So what i’m trying to say is with people dividing resources/strategy you’re not losing fun because we’re already doing it.

With the way it already highlights the guy carrying the objective in yellow, CTF in this game would be brilliant.

(SphereCow) #45

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.

(DarkangelUK) #46

[QUOTE=Luddens Desir;314939]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.[/QUOTE]

No one mentioned anything vs anything, the original point was that the OP wanted more choice in the game, and given his Halo comment I’m gonna bet he’s on console. Your solution was the users should just do it themselves, which leaves the console community high and dry, who are equally deserving of new gametypes as anyone else. And lets be honest, if any platform needs convincing to play the game more its the console crowd.

Also no one said don’t give the PC users the SDK either, you’re kinda adding stuff to this discussion here.

(Bakercompany) #47

So wait. Console guys spend 10$ more on their copy of the game, but they should get less?

(riptide) #48

Don’t even go there. Do you want me to list how much my PC set up cost?
I could even go as far as to say if you want to play the game at recommended requirements the cost of that PC vs the cost of a console.

I know more people that upgraded their PC specifically for Brink than I do that went out and bought a console for it.

BTW I’m not saying anybody is more deserving but you have to realize SDK’s for PC gamers are kind of expected. It’s the reason why there are still FPS PC gamers if it wasn’t for the community made content most of the games wouldn’t even be played still.

(SphereCow) #49

Covering my bases, not implying that anyone said anything. I made the point that PC players buy expensive computers to play these games. Just mentioning that they don’t deserve them for that reason. So, no. Not putting words in anyone’s mouth. See, I read things very carefully.

I never mentioned anything vs anything either. I’m saying Splash Damage made a very specific game that’s attempting to emphasize a very specific type of gameplay and drive a new market. Why would they re-introduce gametypes they specifically avoided throughout the length of their company’s existence? They might gain a larger audience, but they would never be able to gain an audience as large as the audience that is requesting these features, and at the same time, they would never be able to carve out their own niche. How would they carve out their own niche? Non-linear, dynamic objectives and campaigns with better story elements, which is the direction they are already going in.

When the OP purchased Halo, I’m sure he pressured Bungie to release a gametype that merged SP and MP into a seamless gametype, with new maps, right? Probably not.

In any case, I’m assuming he’s not on console, or doesn’t know what an SDK is because I’ve asked him the question regarding why SD should not release an SDK instead, many times, and he has not answered.

(Nefarious) #50

You all miss the point of wanting and having Player Options in a game.

Not for nothing. Here we go.

Campaign. (This game has a story???

Campaign Solo: Glorified Online play with bots.

Campaign Coop: Glorified Online play with bots.

Campaign Versus(same as Standered or Big Game): Online play…with some players…mostly bots.

Free Play.

Standered or Big Game(its the same thing!). Online play…with some players…mostly bots. Alot of players if you are lucky.

Old School: Filled with lv 20s and bots.

Advanced: FREINDLY FIRE…and Bots.

Competition: Small teams suck.

Its all the SAME thing! Whats wrong with adding TDM,CTF, FFA. Its the same thing you all come to love in Brink with a slight different taste and a good deal of change of pace. All the components that are in the Objective style of play will be more focused in TDM,CTF, FFA game types.

You want it…you just dont know it. FOOLS!:eek:

Gonna add this because thats how stupid this whole thing turned into.

:stroggtapir: <======X This makes more sense then all of YOU PEOPLE!

God forbid the game had more Player Options! But noooo nooo Im missing the point of …what??? Not having Options??? Are you Serious?:smiley:

(collin1187) #51

I agree completely; I mean, keep the stuff they already have but add the other game modes for more options and versatility.

(SphereCow) #52

[QUOTE=Nefarious;314989]Its all the SAME thing!

You want it…you just dont know it. FOOLS!:eek:[/QUOTE]

Yeah. That’s what a lot of us wanted. For MP, SP, and the story elements to be the same thing..

How are you complaining that we don’t know when we want when you’re not the one satisfied with a game that you bought, when the game was exactly advertised as that..

“Hey Bungie, why don’t we have awesome objectives and class based teamplay?”

“id? Why doesn’t Quake have headshots, classes, and vehicles.”

“Valve, WHY CAN’T I PLAY ZOMBIE MODE IN HALF LIFE 2 STORY.”

You’re asking for something to be part of a game that was specifically fundamentally designed not to be what you’re asking about..

You don’t get it.

(DarkangelUK) #53

I think i’ll leave whole vs thing in your head where it belongs :slight_smile:

A niche gametype draws a niche crowd, I know exactly what SD are aiming for, but for that to happen they need to draw the crowd in in the 1st place as this is a new IP and style of play for the console crowd (and many PC gamers as well). There’s an absolute butt-ton of TDM/CTF lovers out there that may very well love the gameplay Brink offers, but what good is that if they never get the chance to find out? There’s no demo for them to try, and no gametype they like to entice them here… so you’re either restricted to “Hey it’s awesome, honest! Take my word for it and go spend some money to find out!”, or word of mouth from players on that platform… and sorry but the unhappy ones are louder than the ones having fun atm.

Companies do it all the time, they have their goal of what they want to offer, but sometimes they have to go beyond that to get the punters in so they can experience this wonderful thing, or it just sits there without anyone taking the chance on it. Without a demo there are only words, and mistakes have meant that some of those words are bad…

(Nefarious) #54

lol from the gist of it they dont want it. It reminds them of other games or something like COD or Halo even though it will play totally different because of derr derr derr It has different gameplay elements!

They rather have nothing at all LOL. fanatics! Get Real.

(Nefarious) #55

I cant imagine this game with TDM, CTF, or FFA.

I just dont see how it would work in my head movies. Its to drastic. It wouldint meld together at all whats so ever. Its insain!

(SphereCow) #56

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;314996]I think i’ll leave whole vs thing in your head where it belongs :slight_smile:

A niche gametype draws a niche crowd, I know exactly what SD are aiming for, but for that to happen they need to draw the crowd in in the 1st place as this is a new IP and style of play for the console crowd (and many PC gamers as well). There’s an absolute butt-ton of TDM/CTF lovers out there that may very well love the gameplay Brink offers, but what good is that if they never get the chance to find out? There’s no demo for them to try, and no gametype they like to entice them here… so you’re either restricted to “Hey it’s awesome, honest! Take my word for it and go spend some money to find out!”, or word of mouth from players on that platform… and sorry but the unhappy ones are louder than the ones having fun atm.

Companies do it all the time, they have their goal of what they want to offer, but sometimes they have to go beyond that to get the punters in so they can experience this wonderful thing, or it just sits there without anyone taking the chance on it. Without a demo there are only words, and mistakes have meant that some of those words are bad…[/QUOTE]

Drawing in a huge crowd is obviously the goal of any financial enterprise, but as I said, once you start changing something to please a massive audience, you change it completely. The people who pay you money own you, and if you cannot convince them to pay you money for what you sought to do in the first place, then you’ve failed to accomplish your goal. Feel free to argue with me on that, but unless Brink was released the way it was with the intention of SD seeing a return, then they had no goal to begin with.

What would have helped them from allowing the people to have an incredibly poor interpretation of the design would have been to properly beta test the game and avoid some staggering errors that prevent the game from being played properly.

Also, playable demo.

There’s a ton of people also complaining that the game does not have a true SP. What should they ask for, pre-scripted AI, no multiplayer integration, and volumes of cutscenes?

(Oschino1907) #57

There are much much better ideas then TDM and FFA, though, seriously NO ONE but douches who dont understand the point of this game want that, people like you are who i am trying to get away from by playing this game. So please GTFO and go play COD or HALO or whatever the **** else is based around TDM and FFA.

Now having said that i could see a CTF type of a game but only if it had some changes to match this game, anything to break up the story only way of playing the large maps. Maybe a game mode or two for big maps and some bigger arena maps for the challenges game modes with something similar.

Here are some ideas off the top of my head for a CTF type of match for existing and future big story maps.

  • Keep the maps broken up into sections as is
  • Have two stories for each and in the end there is a victory or total victory based on if all obejctives have been done or if just a majority.
  • Have two main objectives per section (1 per faction) of which they have direct effect on one another and push the maps forward and backward through sections example: 1 team must use crane to raise bridge to move on to destroy weapons cache with single carriable bomb from previous area, 2nd team must use crane to raise bot over gap to move on toward bomb location and destroy/disarm it themselves with bot that came from their weapons cache in other location. (Edit: to keep it more CTF oriented maybe have the Bomb and Bot using the same power source which each faction much fight for in order to start pushing the match one way or another)
  • Have plenty of side missions to keep both sides busy blocking off and opening up passes, knocking out and turning on dyanamic level objectives.

Basically the concept i want to see is following whats already there but making both sides on each map having an offensive goal so the tides between offense and defense will switch back and forth through out the match and keep the replayability up for each map and taking the main story out and keeping it to the basics. In a way how in BFBC2 each map has a small intro and outtro with a basic short story to explain what the premise of the battle is but has no tie to the overall story directly.

(riptide) #58

[QUOTE=Nefarious;315015]I cant imagine this game with TDM, CTF, or FFA.

I just dont see how it would work in my head movies. Its to drastic. It wouldint meld together at all whats so ever. Its insain![/QUOTE]

CTF slightly modified is more than welcome imo… it is objective based. TDM and FFA are not. That would require K/D and that would undermine what SD wanted and we, the people that did their research, came to expect.

(DarkangelUK) #59

You keep throwing this ‘change’ around. Nothing is getting changed, it’s an ‘additional’ gametype where the core gametype stays intact and unchanged. As I said, you need to get the crowd there to begin with, and with a new IP there has to be something other than word of mouth to entice them there. Yes you need to convince them to pay… how do you suppose that’s going to happen with no demo? How would you convince your average Joe CoD’er to come play Brink?

What would have helped them from allowing the people to have an incredibly poor interpretation of the design would have been to properly beta test the game and avoid some staggering errors that prevent the game from being played properly.

Should have’s and could have’s aren’t going to help anything now, what’s done is done and I’m looking forward, not back… they ‘can’ add new flavours to get the people there, they ‘can’t’ go back and undo the mess of the release. You seem to think a new gametype is going to make the original suffer, or go against some morals or vision… sorry its just not true.

Also, playable demo.

Well that’s a given

There’s a ton of people also complaining that the game does not have a true SP. What should they ask for, pre-scripted AI, no multiplayer integration, and volumes of cutscenes?

The PC crowd (or certainly the ones coming from W:ET and ETQW) knew exactly what they were getting, don’t know about you but I never bought the whole single player pitch. Console crowd on the other hand took what they were told at face value, they expected a single player element which we know is just MP with bots. They’ve never had that before, and are quickly realizing “wait a minute, this is just MP with bots!” (and you surely can’t argue it’s anything else). There is nothing to ask for, because there’s nothing representing what would be classified as an on-rails SP campaign in its traditional form… its purely a MP game, and what they attempted with the whole SP/coop/MP thing just didn’t float. Realistically, those asking for a proper SP portion aren’t going to get it, so that’s a lost cause… new gametypes aren’t.

(SphereCow) #60

[QUOTE=Nefarious;314989]
Campaign. (This game has a story???

Campaign Solo: Glorified Online play with bots.

Campaign Coop: Glorified Online play with bots.[/QUOTE]

Guys, don’t argue on the side of the guy that didn’t understand that SP and MP were the same thing, and seeks to ridicule it by claiming it to be as much.

The game was specifically advertised an expected to be a mix of SP and MP, and if you cannot understand that simple idea, then your intelligence should come into question fore most.

It’s a wonder you’re so eager to play the mindless(again, but no less fun) gametypes, rather than those for the cerebral, and don’t have the attention span to answer a relatively simple question about why the SDK should not be released, but SD should work on gametypes they specifically avoided. DA presented decent arguments that tangentially prove my point, but you never even presented one.