In which way does Quake Arena Arcade not play the same? Sorry but you’re completely wrong, the controller is a plenty good excuse when the masses are concerned because it’s an inferior, cumbersome and hindering input device. Exactly what are you counting as doing well exactly? According to vgchartz, RtCW:ToW didn’t even sell a million copies (0.67m global), not exactly stellar stats for a game that ‘did it right’. It was a slow paced game in general compared to all the shooters of its time, and watching it on xbox it still looks slow. I don’t see anything in the xbox version of RtCW that does anything different from other shooters today, it had aim-assist, it had sprint, it had an accuracy modifier via crouching which you could call the precursor to ironsight (which I doubt most console players even knew about back then). Please explain what RtCW did back that games don’t do now? All I can see in today’s games is higher damage per bullet and more spread combined with aim assist which is all down to the controller… RtCW had aim assist to aid the controller.
The Truth
No smg recoil, being able to shoot across the map with a thompson - without even aiming down sights, can travel insanely fast by jumping, etc. Such great stuff to have in an FPS, it would make me happy.
Who was the foolish person to decide FPS games need to be more realistic? I thought we played video games to get away from real life? Pretty soon FPS games wont let you kill someone just by shooting them in the foot anymore…
Lol you clearly didn’t play RTCW ToW. It had sprint? Really? No it didn’t. Aim assist? It was only an option for single player. What it did different that the shooters of today is it didn’t have sprint, stop completely then ADS to shoot gameplay. You could run and gun, strafe left to right, jump, bunnyhop, etc with a controller. I don’t know how else to explain it to you. That’s what it did different. You are trying to tell me that games need to be slowed down because of the controller and I’m showing you that it’s been done before where you don’t need to sprint, stop, ads in a shooter. You also mention the crouching modifier as if people didn’t know that back then lol. You really have this elitist attitude towards console players but I guess I don’t blame you I did too before I actually played with good players. BTW the crouching modifier was also in the PC version so I don’t understand what you’re trying to say with that.
Like I said, I’ve been playing on both PC and Console for a very long time. RTCW on the original XBOX plays nothing like Q3 on the 360. I put in over 1500 hrs on RTCW believe me I would know. You googled ToW and you think you know? RTCW on the original XBOX let you bunnyhop, dodge bullets, etc which led to intense gun fights. RTCW on the PC was better but the XBOX version was fun and it required skill. You clearly have some type of bias towards the controller and I can’t say I blame you because developers had led you to believe that sprint, stop and ADS is the only way they can make a shooter for a controller.
You also mention sales figures as a measure of how good a game is? Really? Shadowrun on 360 was probably the best competitive shooter in it’s entire run and it didn’t sell as well as COD. Does that mean COD takes more skill to play?
RTCW ToW on the original XBOX was the best MP FPS not only on the original XBOX but I still have yet to play a game on 360 that is as skillful as that was. You can read all of the articles and sales figures you want but I know what I played.
Many of the top competitive “MLG Pros” began their “career” on RTCW Tides of War. I know many of them. Everything from Halo to RB6 “pros”.
BTW RTCW ToW had over 300,000 consistent online players in it’s “prime”. It all changed when Halo launched and that’s when the slower paced stuff started coming out. You also have to consider it was early in XBOX 1’s lifecycle and online gaming was new to consoles at the time. VGcharts? lol.
Typical console player response, suddenly I’m being elitist when I can see obvious reasons why games adjust to the controller. I’m defending console games for their design choice to accommodate the controller, how the hell is that elitist?? So it’s because it didn’t have sprint that made it faster right, as I said, it was a slow game to begin with, and if everyone knew about the crouch modifier then they didn’t use it? Cos you still need to run, gun then stop completely to use it. "You could run and gun, strafe left to right, jump, bunnyhop, etc with a controller Nothing you can’t do on other games, in fact have you seen this Halo 4 tricking movie? Seems like more can be done movement wise with that than you ever could in console RtCW. Are you also counting bunny hopping as just mashing the jump key?
Like I said, I’ve been playing on both PC and Console for a very long time. RTCW on the original XBOX plays nothing like Q3 on the 360. I put in over 1500 hrs on RTCW believe me I would know. You googled ToW and you think you know? RTCW on the original XBOX let you bunnyhop, dodge bullets, etc which led to intense gun fights. RTCW on the PC was better but the XBOX version was fun and it required skill. You clearly have some type of bias towards the controller and I can’t say I blame you because developers had led you to believe that sprint, stop and ADS is the only way they can make a shooter for a controller.
You still haven’t explained how it plays nothing like ToW. I had it on PC and my brother had it on xbox, I was quite the fan so used to go to his house and we’d take turns about playing online… it was a while ago so excuse me if I don’t remember every single detail. Yes you can mash jump in other games and dodge bullets as well, and yes believe it or not, other console games have intense gun fights. I’m assuming you made great use of the crouch modifier to get better accuracy like a good little gamer? Cos sorry mate, that’s just the equivalence of stop and ADS.
You also mention sales figures as a measure of how good a game is? Really? Shadowrun on 360 was probably the best competitive shooter in it’s entire run and it didn’t sell as well as COD. Does that mean COD takes more skill to play?
It means it did something right to attract the masses. As I quite clearly said “not exactly stellar sales for a game that apparently ‘did it right’” <-- notice not a single use of the word ‘skill’ there, please stop seeing what you want to see and actually read.
RTCW ToW on the original XBOX was the best MP FPS not only on the original XBOX but I still have yet to play a game on 360 that is as skillful as that was. You can read all of the articles and sales figures you want but I know what I played.
I played it as well, due to the controller it did nothing new. What exceptional skills were required for that game that you don’t need for others? RtCW’s additional skill tree was movement that required strafing jumping, since you can’t strafe jump with a controller then that’s it removed completely. Anyone worth their salt would use the crouch modifier for headshots, that meant you had to stop completely which goes against your argument here.
Many of the top competitive “MLG Pros” began their “career” on RTCW Tides of War. I know many of them. Everything from Halo to RB6 “pros”.
So none of the other shooters helped at all, it was just ToW lol
BTW RTCW ToW had over 300,000 consistent online players in it’s “prime”. It all changed when Halo launched and that’s when the slower paced stuff started coming out. You also have to consider it was early in XBOX 1’s lifecycle and online gaming was new to consoles at the time. VGcharts? lol.
Halo was a launch title for the xbox dude, so it was there before ToW, in fact a lot of shooters were there before Tow including RB6 which had slow game play. The xbox launched in 2001 and the 360 in 2005, ToW was released in mid 2003, thats half way the xbox 1’s life cycle. The Dreamcast and the PS2 were both online consoles so online gaming wasn’t new. That’s a lot of incorrect excuses you’ve got going on there. And also yes, vgcharts, you know, so I can get some actual numbers instead of ones pulled out my arse cough300,000cough
So really all it’s come down to is you saying it had no sprint and no ironsights, and if devs start doing that with their fps games from now on then everything will be shiny? (I didn’t mentioned aim-assist as most games allow you to turn that off). Now I will agree that devs in general need to stop churning out tactical shooters, but the masses in general need pandered to and devs don’t want to scare them away considering the sheer amount of shooters that are on the go these days. Back then there weren’t a huge amount of online shooters to contend with, and people back then suffered a lot less from ADD gaming. If devs create a game with an increased skill gap, in other words where more hrs = better at the game, then the largest audience, the casual gamer, get’s annoyed at doing crap and leaves, then doesn’t buy your sequels or DLC. So they make the game more accessible to the controller user because its cumbersome to use, they make the enemy easier to shoot and they make headshots more likely for a poor aimer and less likely for a good aimer by adding random spread. 3arch admitted themselves that they purposely spawn players close behind enemy players so they’re guaranteed to get some kills… do you honestly think that CoD would be doing as well today if it wasn’t so easy for people of any skill level to do well? The masses are happy and are made to feel good, so they keep buying… that’s CoD’s winning formula.
Oh before I forget, tell me again how Quake Arena Arcade is different? Decent run speed, no sprint, no ADS, you can strafe and dodge, mash the ju I mean bunnyhop, idtech3 engine and I doubt they removed or gimped the movement physics.
I don’t agree SD improved upon the experience system.
In W:ET, it was introduced as a way to reward(and encourage) players for doing things useful to the team, or at least using their class abilities. Rewards were fairly quick, and you could get level4 something pretty easily by the end of the 3 map campaign. Even sooner. You could even max most or all of the skills, depending on the wind and who you played with.
In ET:QW, they changed the system by greatly increasing XP requirements. Suddenly you could try very hard and NOT get the level4 skill. I know the most reliable way to get Light Weapons for me was to play on attack, and pepper enemy turrets with grenade launcher (so much for light!). And akimbo pistols were meh. For me, it made the system less fun. It also discouraged switching classes as needed, because you would no longer max a skill.
In Brink, they made all xp rewards permanent. This removed the incentive to do useful things in a match, removed the incentive to switch classes. Additionally, people were reluctant to play classes they had poor unlocks in.
I call it regress.
I don’t think you played the game. If you did you weren’t good at it by the comments you’re making. You needed to crouch and stop completely to be good? Lmao. Between that comment and “forgetting” that the game had no sprint is a dead giveaway.
Q3’s shooting is different by design so it plays differently that way. It didn’t translate well to console. RTCW is slower by design and that worked out well for the console translation. Also little but important things like the best implementation of quickturn ever in a console FPS on RTCW made a huge difference. In Q3 you press a button and you turn completely around with no control. In RTCW you had total control over where you wanted to stop your “quickturn”. Those are just 2 small examples that made huge differences in gameplay. But of course you’d know that if you played RTCW ToW.
Also you’d know the 300,000 number easily because it always came up in the leaderboards when you checked stats. It was consistently over 300,000 total players for months. I believe this number to be more relevant as it confirms the popularity of this game on console for how good it really was. I remember reading reviews about how good the MP was.
Also Halo was the launch game but it didn’t have online capabilities yet brah. Don’t call me a console player…I play both PC and console. I do agree that games today are dumbed down but I think there’s room for at least 1 game to be different…yes even on console. Different meaning no sprint, stop, ADS gameplay. Run and gun. Sure a game like RTCW won’t be a carbon copy on console but it can still be skillful and fun. My main point is that games don’t have to be sprint, stop ADS on every single console game because of the controller. It doesn’t have to be that way.
Everyone include us PC players should be supporting this type of message even if you don’t play console because obviously devs focus on console 1st vs PC. If we can get them to make more run and gun games that would benefit PC players in the long run.
Either way you are taking me away from my point of this thread which is that DirtyBomb needs to have gunplay and movement similar to RTCW for it to be successful.
That’s just the amazingly large skill gap between PC and console then, go watch clan match on PC and you’ll see them all crouching and shooting from mid to long for the increased accuracy and headshots… if you can’t understand that then I don’t think you played RtCW to anything resembling a high level. I still watch RtCW matches every Sunday on www.twitch.tv/warwitchtv
Q3’s shooting is different by design so it plays differently that way. It didn’t translate well to console. RTCW is slower by design and that worked out well for the console translation. Also little but important things like the best implementation of quickturn ever in a console FPS on RTCW made a huge difference. In Q3 you press a button and you turn completely around with no control. In RTCW you had total control over where you wanted to stop your “quickturn”. Those are just 2 small examples that made huge differences in gameplay. But of course you’d know that if you played RTCW ToW.
It didn’t translate well… because of the controller. Thanks, that explains quite well that changes should have been made to make up for the poor input device. You also just completely and openly supported my stance, slower games translate well for consoles… thank you very much, that’s exactly what we needed to hear… console shooters need to be slower due to the input device therefore making the controller a perfectly viable excuse for the way shooters are today.
Also you’d know the 300,000 number easily because it always came up in the leaderboards when you checked stats. It was consistently over 300,000 total players for months. I believe this number to be more relevant as it confirms the popularity of this game on console for how good it really was. I remember reading reviews about how good the MP was.
Since you can’t provide actual numbers then I guess I just need to take your word for it. If someone comes in and said they played it and only saw 30,000, should I take their word for it too?
Also Halo was the launch game but it didn’t have online capabilities yet brah. Don’t call me a console player…I play both PC and console. I do agree that games today are dumbed down but I think there’s room for at least 1 game to be different…yes even on console. Different meaning no sprint, stop, ADS gameplay. Run and gun. Sure a game like RTCW won’t be a carbon copy on console but it can still be skillful and fun. My main point is that games don’t have to be sprint, stop ADS on every single console game because of the controller. It doesn’t have to be that way.
Halo had system link up to 16 players, not quite online but the same premise done locally. There’s only room for 1 game to be different if devs are willing to take the risk of losing money… and none of them are. The studios with the money to take the risk already have embedded franchises and aren’t going to make away from that.
Everyone include us PC players should be supporting this type of message even if you don’t play console because obviously devs focus on console 1st vs PC. If we can get them to make more run and gun games that would benefit PC players in the long run.
Again, no one will take the risk and avoid losing millions when the tried and tested methods are doing so well.
Either way you are taking me away from my point of this thread which is that DirtyBomb needs to have gunplay and movement similar to RTCW for it to be successful.
Funny, I thought we were talking about your point that the controller is no excuse for slowed down gameplay. Since DB is PC exclusive, what you just mentioned is a moot point.
It’s not a moot point. Just looking at the video the overall speed and movement looks artificially slowed down. I see no evidenced of advanced movement at all. It’s one of my big concerns along with the shooting. I predict we will see many threads complaining about those two things when this game launches.
As for Q3’s gameplay not translating well …I’ll concede that point but it doesn’t change the fact that RTCW played well on console and it didn’t need sprint, stop and ADS gameplay.
Lastly I already knew why devs aren’t making different games but my position is that we don’t have to accept it. Outside of the real COD series and the other major franchises I don’t see why if you are a new IP you have to make your FPS similar to established games with your own little twist. These games usually fail miserably because they don’t provide anything different so people just go back to the more established game because that game does it better. So why not try something different?
Enemy Territory was fun, BRINK wasn’t. You can analyze it all you want but it all comes down the fun factor and it was next to non existent in BRINK. It does a great job at inducing frustration though. If the game had any redeeming values, people would still be playing it today. ET is a decade old yet there are still more people that game than all of other Splash Damage’s titles combined. Sadly, BRINK didn’t manage to retain any of the fun factor of ET nor did Quake Wars. Which leads me to believe that RTCW: ET was nothing more than a fluke. The mods success should be mainly attributed to id Software and their game. Both, Quake Wars and BRINK turned out to be colossal disappointments and failures. Keep that in mind before you invest your money into their “founder’s pack”.
Be weary of any developer that starts offering these kind of incentives before you can even get a taste of the product.
Quake Wars may not have been all that similar to ET but I certainly found it fun and people are still playing. Despite the best efforts of Activision, the dodgy netcode and the hackers. Maybe fifty or one hundred souls huddled around a couple of full servers each night like homeless folk around a trashcan bonfire. There’s still a little spark of magic there.
There were quite a few underlying issues with Brink. Biggest in my opinion was performance and balance.
Tons of players had issues even running the game properly in the beginning. That in combination with the audio glitches, it was pretty unbearable for a while.
Balance issues could be broken into some sub-categories too:
[ul]
[li]Weapon Balance: In the beginning (pretty much the only time people played the game) every scrim pretty much consisted of everyone running around with the carb9. There was no reason for anyone to use any other weapon. I heard it was eventually patched but most people had already stopped playing at that point.
[/li][li]Class Balance: Besides having to use it for objective hacking, the operative class was pretty weak compared to the others. It definitely needed a lot of retooling.
[/li][li]Gameplay: The game was WAAAY too defensive heavy. Most scrims and matches you would watch/play in ended up being constant full holds and replaying of the map until it wasn’t. This caused a lot of the competitive community to be burned out COMPLETELY/bored after the very first tournament. They did make adjustments to this I understand later on, but once again it was far too late. Games that run on stop watch style competition modes need to be OFFENSIVE friendly. Not a complete steamroll but something that gives the offense a better fighting chance to complete the objective and set a time to be beat.
[/li][/ul]
There was also a large lack of variety. Their idea of a single player campaign was playing exactly the mutliplayer version but with bots (aside from the jump/obstacle map thingy & the first tutorial map).
You guys can sit here and argue the gun mechanics all you want and the lack of recoil which did make things boring for some, but the underlying issue of why the game ultimately failed I feel are best listed above. Pretty much every one of these issues seem to be already looked into with dirtybomb via their “echo” system and hopefully history won’t repeat itself. I’m optimistic. I hope others are too because I’d like some people to frag =)
[QUOTE=bromontana;423069]There were quite a few underlying issues with Brink. Biggest in my opinion was performance and balance.
Tons of players had issues even running the game properly in the beginning. That in combination with the audio glitches, it was pretty unbearable for a while.
Balance issues could be broken into some sub-categories too:
[ul]
[li]Weapon Balance: In the beginning (pretty much the only time people played the game) every scrim pretty much consisted of everyone running around with the carb9. There was no reason for anyone to use any other weapon. I heard it was eventually patched but most people had already stopped playing at that point.[/li][li]Class Balance: Besides having to use it for objective hacking, the operative class was pretty weak compared to the others. It definitely needed a lot of retooling.[/li][li]Gameplay: The game was WAAAY too defensive heavy. Most scrims and matches you would watch/play in ended up being constant full holds and replaying of the map until it wasn’t. This caused a lot of the competitive community to be burned out COMPLETELY/bored after the very first tournament. They did make adjustments to this I understand later on, but once again it was far too late. Games that run on stop watch style competition modes need to be OFFENSIVE friendly. Not a complete steamroll but something that gives the offense a better fighting chance to complete the objective and set a time to be beat.[/li][/ul]
There was also a large lack of variety. Their idea of a single player campaign was playing exactly the mutliplayer version but with bots (aside from the jump/obstacle map thingy & the first tutorial map).
You guys can sit here and argue the gun mechanics all you want and the lack of recoil which did make things boring for some, but the underlying issue of why the game ultimately failed I feel are best listed above. Pretty much every one of these issues seem to be already looked into with dirtybomb via their “echo” system and hopefully history won’t repeat itself. I’m optimistic. I hope others are too because I’d like some people to frag =)[/QUOTE]
Gunplay and movement are the primary reason most people are even following these games. It’s what made RTCW different. Brink could have fixed everything you mentioned and it would’ve still flopped. The gameplay wasn’t different enough and it definitely wasn’t good enough.
[QUOTE=V1cK_dB;418771]
Any time I hear “realistic” or “military” FPS I think of dumbed down and slow gameplay. Clunky, slow movement combined with sprint, stop, ADS then shoot gameplay. TERRIBLE.[/QUOTE]
There is so much truth in this words. Slow movement, vision blur, headbobbing … the stuff that makes the new games suck. All these years I enjoyed playing ID Software / Splashdamage games because of the strafe jump, circle jump and air control mechanics in their games. It was their ultimate trademark and the reason why the gameplay experience was so smooth.
I spent days and weeks in those games just to improve my strafe jumping and trickjumping skills. The ability to outrun the enemy or flank them due to the usage of trickjumping or just pure speed momentum, made the gameplay so exciting for me. It was the key how to break through the enemy lines at jokepoints or key positions where gameplay in other fps shooters usually ends in a boring “shoot-getting killed-get-revived” loop.
When BRINK came out I thought they gonna bring it all to a whole new level. I will never forget the slogan “BRINK - Freedom of movement” … but there is no freedom of movement if you are limited to pesky movement animations. Strafe jumping, circle jumping and midair movement control - those are the things that made all your games so special.
Is there anyone who has been playing the game that could let me know how it feels? i always wanted brink to be good and it wasn’t bad but the game felt clunky to play imo. Does dirty bomb feel comfy to play?
yorkey1, all our Closed Alpha participants are under NDA, so they won’t be able to comment on how the game feels at the moment.
If you don’t fancy joining the Founder’s Club or signing up for free beta queue entry, you’ll be able to give DB a spin at launch since the core game will be free.
[QUOTE=badman;423312]yorkey1, all our Closed Alpha participants are under NDA, so they won’t be able to comment on how the game feels at the moment.
If you don’t fancy joining the Founder’s Club or signing up for free beta queue entry, you’ll be able to give DB a spin at launch since the core game will be free.[/QUOTE]
ah ok, sorry i hadn’t realised this.
No worries! We’ll be releasing more videos in the future showcasing different aspects of Dirty Bomb for those who aren’t yet in the Alpha or want to know more about the game. Stay tuned. 
[QUOTE=badman;423312]yorkey1, all our Closed Alpha participants are under NDA, so they won’t be able to comment on how the game feels at the moment.
If you don’t fancy joining the Founder’s Club or signing up for free beta queue entry, you’ll be able to give DB a spin at launch since the core game will be free.[/QUOTE]
Aw, you mean we can’t tell them about the giant octopus or when the game switches to a 2D Street Fighter view for boss fights and 1000 hit combos? That’s a shame 