This game should not be compared to Enemy Territory


(porov) #1

What a let down. I played this for 6 hours and got bored. While I have played ET for hundreds of hours. Below is a review I wrote, that explains why this game is not the successor to ET and why it is inferior.

Dirty Bomb is often compared to Enemy Territory, even called it’s successor. While I do agree that there are some similarities between the games, this game is of a much lower standard. This game is essentially a dumbed down version of the original with fancy graphics. That’s why I would not call it it’s succesor.

Similarities:

  • objectives
  • respawn system
  • movement speed / mechanics
  • shooting mechanics

Differences:

The maps:

In Dirty Bomb the maps are much smaller, less sophisticated and shorter to complete. No side objectives. The ET maps were very big (probably 3x bigger than Dirty Bomb maps supporting 32+ players) and long (30 minutes to complete a map) with many main and side objectives.

Also in the original most of the action was centered around the objectives, creating a frontline, while in Dirty Bomb the action is chaotic and dispersed.

No campaign or map rotation. And a very annoying intermission between matches that can take up to 3 minutes or more. Considering that most matches take between 5 or 10 minutes, this makes those intermissions around 20% of your play time. Extremely annoying.

No real tactics to win a map. In the original the maps were made in such a way that ensured that maps had a frontline and flanks to attack / defend. Meaning that, if one side fell, another would become exposed, this forced players to think more strategically as to which positions to defend or attack. In Dirty Bomb everybody is mindlessly rushing the same place.

The class system:

Completely different, while there were 5 classes each with different weapons and abilities in ET, here we have a dozen or so different mercs, that essentailly do very similar things. This makes the classes watered down and reduntant. For example in ET the engineer class was crucial to winning a game, while in Dirty Bomb an engineer is almost useless as any class can plant explosives and repair objectives.

The class abilities are very limited, in ET you could steal the uniform of a dead soldier, spot landmines, construct a command post, plant multiple mines, repair mg positions, inject yourself with adrenaline, in this game every merc has a very limited set of abilities, making it not very useful to the team.

Some weapon types are completely missing from the game, such as the bazooka / panzerfaust, heavy machine gun and the flamethrower. Grenades not available to every class. No binoculars.

In ET there was a campaign leveling system, where you would level your soldier with new abilities as the campaign progressed, there is nothing like that in Dirty Bomb and even if there was it would be useless since there is no campaign.

Teamwork:

This game is advertised as a game that requires teamwork, but most of the time one or two good players can win a match on their own.

The different class types provide no real advantages to your team. If your entire team was the same class (merc) you could still win the game, this was impossible in ET. In ET every class had one or more unique abilitilties that made them indispensible to the team. The engineer was required to repair tanks and plant explosives. The medics were required to heal and revive the engineers while they were fighting on the front line. The field ops was required to provide artillery fire to damage the enemy tanks / bridges. The covert ops was required to spot landmines, destroy command posts and open locked doors, the soldier was required to provide suppresive machine gun / mortar fire.

Because the classes in ET were so crucial to the game you could play an entire campaign barely firing a bullet and still have a lot of fun. I remember so many players that used to just give out med-packs, heal teammates, provide ammo, repair objectives and plant land mines. I rarely see that in Dirty Bomb.

In Dirty Bomb it goes like this:

  • Medics are severely limited because they can’t provide med-packs, or provide them at a very slow rate.
  • Engineers not required as anyone can repair / plant explosives.
  • No covert ops class or something similar.
  • FIeld ops artillery and airstrike support very limited / weak.
  • No heavy class to supress the enemy (panzerfaust, MG, mortar).

One very easy way to determine that there is barely any teamwork is to listen to the quick chat (accessed via ‘v’ key by default), in ET you would always hear your teammates requesting help (‘I need a medic’, ‘Need ammo’, ‘Need an engineer’, ‘Need backup’), in Dirty Bomb nobody is using the quick chat feature AT ALL.

So overall I would give this game a 5/10 if we consider it on it’s own. If we compare it to the original ET I would give it a 2.5.

We will probably never see another game on ET’s level again.


(Volcano) #2

ignoring the map section because they are pretty ****. the rocket launcher is in the game, there’s a minigun and lmg. 1 nade for everyone was something most people miss me included it used to be in the game and most likely removed to lower the amount of spam which i guess is something new players aren’t used to. not sure why you want bino’s again considering you said the maps were small.

that medic statement is just wrong. engy is always needed if you ever wanted to win a game. the snipers are classed as the covies in the game files even though they dont act like the ET ones. the fops statement im assuming your talking about arty yeah he does have a pretty average ability which i think i heard they were looking into. mortar wouldn’t fit these maps as you said they were to small, but we do have plenty of spam classes to keep the enemy back

the vsay section is more a case of just because you don’t hear it doesn’t mean noone is using it. on my pubs i hear them all the time.



(AssortedStuff) #3

Because it went the Free to Play route it had to attract a wider audience, hence not being “ET version 2”.
No, you really can’t compare the 2.


(porov) #4

[QUOTE=Volcano;531979]ignoring the map section because they are pretty ****. the rocket launcher is in the game, there’s a minigun and lmg. 1 nade for everyone was something most people miss me included it used to be in the game and most likely removed to lower the amount of spam which i guess is something new players aren’t used to. not sure why you want bino’s again considering you said the maps were small.

that medic statement is just wrong. engy is always needed if you ever wanted to win a game. the snipers are classed as the covies in the game files even though they dont act like the ET ones. the fops statement im assuming your talking about arty yeah he does have a pretty average ability which i think i heard they were looking into. mortar wouldn’t fit these maps as you said they were to small, but we do have plenty of spam classes to keep the enemy back

the vsay section is more a case of just because you don’t hear it doesn’t mean noone is using it. on my pubs i hear them all the time.


[/QUOTE]

The minigun and lmg are useless, you can’t suppress **** with them. The MG in ET was actually useful, especially when you had a supporting medic / field ops. This brings me to another point: you can’t go prone wtf?

I didn’t see anyone with a rocket launcher or find one in the loadouts.


My team was able to win plenty of games without an engy. Sure it might be easier with one, but it is not a requirement to have one like in ET.


The medics cannot operate efficiently the way they are now. At least the medics that I was able to access. Considering that only one was unlocked, it does not matter if the other ones are better. The one that was available had only a healing station and a defibrillator. This is very limiting. In ET good medics would patrol the entire front line and distribute med packs to everybody, you can’t do that with the default medic in Dirty Bomb.

That’s also another issue, because so many classes (mercs) are locked, the teamwork system cannot be utilized to it’s full potential.


(Bloodbite) #5

Realistically speaking, W:ET is too fond an experience for most, including myself, to think there will ever be anything considered a successor beyond an outright remake + minor enhancements.

Playing more than 6 hours and, far more importantly, playing a consistent amount of time amongst good quality players… not just K:D ratio nerds and the randomly-curious-cause-its-free. The game is getting more interesting now with each merchant being released. A lot of tactics and strategies and satisfaction in the right environment… a lot more frustration when its a team/server that is distinctly “not” right.


(Protekt1) #6

" I played this for 6 hours and got bored."

Clearly an expert.


(Mustang) #7

Haven’t read your entire post yet, but just wanted to ask where/when/who has been referring to DB as the successor to ET? Spiritual successor yes, but successor no, I’m not surprised that anyone approaching this as ET2 would be disappointed, the two games are not really comparable (that’s not to say one is better than the other, I love them both for different reasons).


(Domipheus) #8

One reason why nobody uses the v-says is because you get spam-banned after a single use of it.


(BioSnark) #9

I agree on maps. This is a significant limiting factor right now that is negatively impacting a lot of elements.

Classes are watered down and simplified, and that’s annoying, but they are still important. My extended response on this has nda stuff so nvm, meh.

Teamwork is currently being limited by other factors. You mentioned map design, already. User interface design problems, including vsay blocking, is also big but it’s likely not in a finalized state. Also, lack of friendly fire, which exists but only on the passworded servers, and lack of team collision would significantly alter how people treat their allies and how they manage their relative positioning as well as working against enemy positioning.

Right now DB doesn’t compare favorably to some of Splash Damage’s other work but it is still in beta. And yeah, 6 hours actually is a long time to put into a game you aren’t enjoying. Currently there isn’t a rocket launcher in the game but there is one in the files so it’s possible that it will be added. Maybe come back in a few months and see if you like how things are evolving


(Glottis-3D) #10

I am not even going to says such words as “Magic”, “Captures”, “ET”


(NeroKirbus) #11

Maps wise, they need to be “smallish” to be able to keep shotguns viable, which is the reason for many close quarters or choke points. Also they wanted to keep the matches to around 15 minutes tops, hence the smaller maps.

It isn’t all that bad, but more secondary objectives as well as putting some objectives in other parts of the maps to allow some focus in less popular areas would go a long way. It would definitely make the maps “feel” more utilized and a bit bigger. The ammo crates do this to some extent, but some secondaries with bigger impact to game play would do much better. IE Command posts that give team wide buffs that would be in contestable areas of maps.

A better way to go about it are command posts that only work during certain parts of maps; a command post for each point that would be deactivated due to certain objectives being completed. This would prevent teams from having a perma buff like what would happen in Wolf:ET.


(BioSnark) #12

Is that a stated reason? I have not read/heard it to my recollection.


(NeroKirbus) #13

It’s an assumption to why they have kept the maps that way; it would not make sense otherwise, since it would be quite unfun to have a weapon that is completely unviable on a specific map. Even in dome there are moments that a shotgun works decently, especially with the rework of the northern part which made it a bit claustrophobic.

So I guess I shouldn’t have stated it so confidently.


(kenpokiller) #14

This game is like 1/2 ET 1/8 Brink 1/8 CS 1/8 COD & 1/8 ETQW

:'D


(sunshinefats) #15

I will agree that this game is not any kind of successor (or whatever you’d like to call it) to ET or ETQW in that it lacks the freedom and originality of those.
Really I think that’s what a lot of it boils down to for me. I like to have a certain degree of creativity and freedom in an FPS, and that’s sorely lacking here unfortunately. I too often feel like a rat in a maze in DB.


(mccrorie) #16

Spiritual successor I suppose…

The one thing that really bugs me is the lack of imagination in level design. It’s quite drab. The blend of indoor/outdoor spaces is not terribly inspiring either. The Chapel is probably the most memorable landmark among all the maps and it is mostly a cosmetic feature. (I read a post where someone mentioned that the obj used to be taken from there?) It should have been the focus of the map.

I expect to see more maps, and soon. 5 maps is not nearly enough, and they have had plenty of time to get something together. I feel like SD are over analysing instead of producing content. Not every map they make is going to work, no matter how long they tweak it. Someone I knew and used to play RTCW with produced mp_frostbite by himself (I produced mp_pacific, which was ****, lol) and that got quite a bit of play afaik. No, the detail in graphics was not nearly as complicated as they are now, but the essential layout and mechanics were all there and people enjoyed the hell out of it.


(Glottis-3D) #17

enjoying the hell out of a map is realy the only way to make a good map.

-throwing away part, that do not work
-improving things, that can get better
-keeping and treasuring things that are already awesome

a Glottis school of mapmaking at your service


(Amerika) #18

The OP can have their opinion but a lot of what was said was wrong. DB isn’t the successor to ET. They just share similarities. DB is it’s own beast and it borrows from many games including MOBA’s. And almost every bullet point for what was wrong with teamwork from a class perspective was hilariously wrong. They also obviously haven’t looked up the list of Mercs that are going to be in the game.

Right now the merc meta and how it affects strategies on maps is one of the most interesting things about the game. There is the possibility of people finding a new strategy or meta or it simply being changed with the release of a new merc compared to being locked into the same tried but true strats the get developed over time in games. I am not a MOBA fan at all but one thing I do like is that the constant changing of the champions and introduction of the new ones keeps people talking about the game and the strategy meta. For example, Kira right now is definitely VERY interesting due to her laser. Players and teams are already coming up with ways to use it that upsets previously well known/used strats. And now teams have to figure out how to counter that or play around it.

I do want different maps but I like that the DB maps are smaller and more focused. They have areas that are obviously intended to be high engagement points that gets players to the action quicker. ET had this too in most of it’s maps once you completed an objective. Some people are remembering ET for huge maps but forgetting you typically only played on a small section of them at a time. DB maps are more like two or three of these small sections. You might like bigger maps but I like the efficiency of the DB maps in getting players to action points. Which is what Brink tried to do but horribly failed (at least with the launch maps) where players literally spawned right next to choke points making things a chaotic meat grinder (might have changed in later maps/map revisions…I didn’t play long enough). DB, for the most part, has managed that pretty well with the current maps.