In other words, catered for the console generation where the mechanics are geared towards an inferior input device… the controller. Game’s back then didn’t have to take into account that the masses we’re using analogue sticks to aim, so didn’t have to adjust the pacing, combat and aiming to suit the slow input method. If only Sony and MS would get over themselves and allow proper mouse and keyboard support on their consoles, I think we’d see a slew of new and innovative shooters instead of the same old lacklustre games we see year after year… with terrible PC ports.
The Truth
Kendle
(Kendle)
#62
I do agree with this somewhat, in RTCW / ET your role in the team is determined by your choice of class, whereas in the games I mentioned previously your role is determined by your choice of weapon.
However it’s still a team game at the end of the day. Balance between players in individual gunfights should be secondary to balance between teams.
If both teams have a Sniper it shouldn’t matter that a Sniper -v- SMG gunfight is not fair on the SMG at range, or on the Sniper at close quarters. If the other team has a Sniper stopping you getting to the objective it’s up to your team to deploy it’s own Sniper to take him out. If the Engie only has a Shotgun and can’t compete 1-v-1 with the SMG’ers defending the objective it’s up to your own SMG’ers to clear the area so the Engie can plant etc.
The result of a match should be determined by which team chose the best class mix and employed the best tactics, not the cumulative 1-v-1 skills of each player, otherwise why have objectives, why not just play TDM?
DarkangelUK
(DarkangelUK)
#63
You’re a little off, it should be determined by all of that, including the players 1-v-1 skills as well… I never understood why people separate a players individual shooting skills from the team setup and tactics employed, as if they can’t and don’t co-exist.
Kendle
(Kendle)
#64
Perhaps I should amend that last sentence :-
The result of a match should be determined by which team chose the best class mix, employed the best tactics, and were able to execute them, not just the cumulative 1-v-1 skills of each player, otherwise why have objectives, why not just play TDM?
warbie
(warbie)
#65
That’s exactly why RTCW and ET worked. They had the tactics, teamplay, 1 v 1 movement and aiming skills. All bases covered. I can’t think of another team based fps that boasts the same.
Kendle
(Kendle)
#66
I’ve just watched the gameplay trailer again and I suspect this discussion is a bit pointless tbh, there are at least 4 different automatic weapons, a pump action shotgun, a sniper rifle and 2 pistols on display. DB is going to have more than one gun!
The only question is will one of them quickly come to the fore as the “best” gun to use (like the CARB-9 did in Brink), or will they all be useful enough that you’ll be free to choose whichever suits your play-style? And will gun choice be limited to class, or will each class be able to choose from a range of options?
jazevec
(jazevec)
#67
[QUOTE=Kendle;418672]Oh and btw
Urban Terror, old (2001) Quake3 mod, still also played today, very active comp scene.[/QUOTE]
Note what is shown in these videos. Not teamplay, not microphone communication, not coordination, not buffing, reviving or one teammate covering another. No, in these videos people brag how well they can shoot. And this is in a supposedly very tactical, team-oriented game. Almost all edited videos focus on shooting, kill streaks, great aim and nothing else.
This is what matters to 95% of FPS players the most.
jazevec
(jazevec)
#69
Frag video is the only kind of fan-made gameplay video. Besides, Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
Kendle
(Kendle)
#70
There are gazillions of Urban Terror jump movies as well on YouTube, jumping is a big part of UrT, seeing as it’s a Quake3 mod and features not only proper Q3 style strafe-jumping but also wall-jumping and climbing, basically parkour on steroids long before Brink ever thought of the idea 
I only posted those to show how guns “other than SMGs” can be, and are, used in fast arcade style games, seeing as there are those around here who seem to think offering players something other than high rate of fire recoil-less hip-firing hitscan weapons is somehow contrary to fast arcade style action.
montheponies
(montheponies)
#71
[QUOTE=Kendle;418773]I do agree with this somewhat, in RTCW / ET your role in the team is determined by your choice of class, whereas in the games I mentioned previously your role is determined by your choice of weapon.
However it’s still a team game at the end of the day. Balance between players in individual gunfights should be secondary to balance between teams.
If both teams have a Sniper it shouldn’t matter that a Sniper -v- SMG gunfight is not fair on the SMG at range, or on the Sniper at close quarters. If the other team has a Sniper stopping you getting to the objective it’s up to your team to deploy it’s own Sniper to take him out. If the Engie only has a Shotgun and can’t compete 1-v-1 with the SMG’ers defending the objective it’s up to your own SMG’ers to clear the area so the Engie can plant etc.
The result of a match should be determined by which team chose the best class mix and employed the best tactics, not the cumulative 1-v-1 skills of each player, otherwise why have objectives, why not just play TDM?[/QUOTE]
It is, first and foremost a FPS, so I don’t think there is anything contradictory in wanting good, balanced, gunfights alongside the class and objective based game setting. Do you really think a shotgun v SMG gunfight will make for an enjoyable duel? Turning the question on it’s head why would you want a variety of weapons open to anything more than one ‘weapon specialist’ class? Isnt that something that would/should only be of interest in TDM?
RTCW didn’t restrict people to only one weapon, but it did force you to consider the penalty of using a non-standard weapon, by basically limiting that choice to the soldier - ie. they were the weapon specialists who, as you say, would snipe/pf or in ridiculous cases even flame. The rest of the team used SMG which meant a level, gunfighting, playing field - putting the emphasis straight back onto choosing the right classes and tactics.
I really could care less for the plethora weapons in newer games, mainly as it seems to lead the developers to waste a lot of time dwelling on how to make sure the benefits of one is outweighed (artificially) by some other factor (magazine size, reload speed, dmg, range etc) and most players to complain about how some noob weapon is ‘so OP’.
Kendle
(Kendle)
#72
Not saying I do, I’m just pro-choice, and if choosing class means also choosing weapon then that’s still choice. I’ve played many games where choice of weapon IS choice of the role you play in the team, if you also get some extra goodies to help you perform that role all the better.
But like I said a couple of posts ago, moot point, there ARE a plethora of guns in DB, the question is who gets to choose what and how are they balanced?
V1cK_dB
(V1cK_dB)
#73
I agree and disagree. I agree that devs have gotten lazy and just catered to the popular console Halo controls. Halo is what stated this slow moving huge reticle crap. COD introduced the sprint, stop and ADS crap. Ever since then it’s been terrible and every dev just copies that.
Where I disagree is that people think you can’t make a good FPS on a controller. RTCW Tides of War on the original XBOX was a perfect example of how you can make a fast paced FPS on console without dumbing it down to a COD/Halo level. I played RTCW on the PC and on XBOX and they were both fun. It was the most skillful FPS gaming I’ve ever had on a console. Not even close. So I know it’s possible. Devs just won’t do it.
V1cK_dB
(V1cK_dB)
#74
[QUOTE=Kendle;418784]I’ve just watched the gameplay trailer again and I suspect this discussion is a bit pointless tbh, there are at least 4 different automatic weapons, a pump action shotgun, a sniper rifle and 2 pistols on display. DB is going to have more than one gun!
The only question is will one of them quickly come to the fore as the “best” gun to use (like the CARB-9 did in Brink), or will they all be useful enough that you’ll be free to choose whichever suits your play-style? And will gun choice be limited to class, or will each class be able to choose from a range of options?[/QUOTE]
DB sounds a lot like Brink. It has everything you are saying you want. Different weapons and a class based objective system. I don’t think that worked out too well for Brink. Again…none of that will matter if the shooting and movement mechanics do not mirror RTCW or at least is close to that. Shooting and movement are the 2 most important aspects of a shooter and Brink just wasn’t that good at either. But hey…it had objectives, classes and lots o’ weapons just like DB!
Kendle
(Kendle)
#75
Well, it might matter to you, but that’s not the same as “this game will fail”.
Brink failed for lots more reasons than not being made on idTech3, like badly designed maps, bugs, a control system designed for gamepad rather than keyboard, lack of demo / 1st person spec etc.
V1cK_dB
(V1cK_dB)
#76
[QUOTE=Kendle;418901]Well, it might matter to you, but that’s not the same as “this game will fail”.
Brink failed for lots more reasons than not being made on idTech3, like badly designed maps, bugs, a control system designed for gamepad rather than keyboard, lack of demo / 1st person spec etc.[/QUOTE]
Even if it had all of that…it still would have failed IMO without good shooting and movement mechanics. I guarantee you that had Brink been made on id Tech 3 that it would have been much more popular than it was especially with competitive players. Even with the bugs, map design, etc.
I also think that SD needs to get rid of this hardline view that they only want objective gametypes as I think that also limits the players that even try the game. A LMS mode would be nice. LMS, Stopwatch, Objective should be the 3 main modes IMO, include stats in-game and more customization options for custom games. You can make the maps smaller for 4v4 action on an LMS gametype with the shooting and movement mechanics I’m talking about and the class based system…it would be an instant classic.
ice
(ice---)
#77
Q3 and ETQW where the best games i have ever played. Highskilled MP-Gaming based on aim, movement and tactics.
Iam really looking forward to dirty bomb…
BioSnark
(BioSnark)
#78
I don’t see how engine (modified id tech 4 rather than 3) had anything to do with how successful Brink was.
Aside from map design, speed and bugs, Brink had far too much multiplatform focused automated/mechanized functions.
[ul]
[li]Movement was mechanized with smart ai.
[/li][li]Weapon handling was automated with large and highly dynamic spread ranges.
[/li][li]Objectives and cooperative elements were automated with smart ai and lockon mechanics.
[/li][/ul]
That’s all too much between player input and game output that loosens connection between player and character and misreads player intent. All that leads to frustration and detachment when your character isn’t moving where you tell it or hitting what you’re pointing at.
Without the design for automation, these functions would have been reliable and less frustrating.
ps: I played more Brink than any other 2011 released mp fps. It was good fun with friends even while obviously imperfect. Best with light-only and non-seagle pistol-only imo.
V1cK_dB
(V1cK_dB)
#79
[QUOTE=BioSnark;418953]I don’t see how engine (modified id tech 4 rather than 3) had anything to do with how successful Brink was.
Aside from map design, speed and bugs, Brink had far too much multiplatform focused automated/mechanized functions.
[ul]
[li]Movement was mechanized with smart ai.[/li][li]Weapon handling was automated with large and highly dynamic spread ranges.[/li][li]Objectives and cooperative elements were automated with smart ai and lockon mechanics.[/li][/ul]
That’s all too much between player input and game output that loosens connection between player and character and misreads player intent. All that leads to frustration and detachment when your character isn’t moving where you tell it or hitting what you’re pointing at.
Without the design for automation, these functions would have been reliable and less frustrating.
ps: I played more Brink than any other 2011 released mp fps. It was good fun with friends even while obviously imperfect. Best with light-only and non-seagle pistol-only imo.[/QUOTE]
I’m not exactly sure either…I’m not a developer, programmer or whatever but what I do know is that Quake 3 moves and shoots in a way that feels as smooth as RTCW. It doesn’t play the same…but as a pure shooter that’s why Quake 3 was so good. That engine is so damn smooth. There is NO tech 4 engine game that I can think of that has that smoothness. Nowhere close. Same goes for the unreal engine. I hope they can modify it to be as smooth but I doubt it.
The only engine that I’ve played that plays anywhere near as smooth as id Tech3 is id Tech 5 with Rage. Play that game and tell me it doesn’t remind you of a next gen RTCW. You can even bunny hop! If they used that engine then we’d be on to something. Unfortunately that probably will never happen. I still can’t believe they didn’t make a Rage MP FPS. That would have been amazing.
DarkangelUK
(DarkangelUK)
#80
[QUOTE=V1cK_dB;418995]
The only engine that I’ve played that plays anywhere near as smooth as id Tech3 is id Tech 5 with Rage. Play that game and tell me it doesn’t remind you of a next gen RTCW. You can even bunny hop! If they used that engine then we’d be on to something. Unfortunately that probably will never happen. I still can’t believe they didn’t make a Rage MP FPS. That would have been amazing.[/QUOTE]
You could strafe/trick in Quake 4, there was even a trick mod released for it called Q4Run