Too hard to call! 
What SD game would you want to see next?
FacundoJose
(FacundoJose)
#42
i voted for Wolfenstein…i miss games like these…old school feel to the game…
H1ghty
(H1ghty)
#43
I would like to see ET 2.0.
but for now probably setting of ETQW will be better, people are pretty tired of “military” shooter and would like to see something science-fiction. ;p and imo publish it again on steam as f2p with some polishing and add some hats + skins = win ;p
but without id tech engine I think that I don’t want new game 
playaveli
(playaveli)
#44
[QUOTE=Wepohn;408610]Sounds perfect, minus any XP system. I’m sad though, I’m getting old. SD, feel sorry for me and make the above game before my senses go further down hill.
Thanks.[/QUOTE]
are your kidding? That was one of the things that made it epic. Yes the good players became Legendary/godlike at some point. The game was very arcade you could do anything and become great if you invested enough time or had good enough teamwork. I personally think fuel dump was the greatest map every created and once went 166-0 (field ops) and averaging around 30-0 every map.
Call of Duty your luck if you go like 13-4 or something because some 10 year old kid will just come behind you after you kill somebody they kill you with little to no skill involved. I remember Wolf ET Sweating bullets after some games just working for the kills and staying alive getting xp doing missions non stop action.
@Splash please bring back the most epic online FPS game ever created. If the Wolfenstien name is taken why not just make a similar wwii game with upgraded graphics UI and same/similar features and profit?
Ruben0s
(Ruben0s)
#46
Voted Other (please specify)
ETQW 2 or W:ET remake. Well, I don’t want the games to be exactly the same. They have to got something new and refreshing.
I won’t buy splashdamage next title if it doesn’t have a SDK, because they released 3 games so far and they were all buggy / not good at the release. ET got fixed by the community, ET:QW was fixed to late and Brink is still garbage.
I also hope they will drop this “smart” thing because it makes the game way to easy. It should be really hard to get to some places, and I don’t think people should be able to do so with only pushing one button.
Apocalypse_Pony
(Apocalypse_Pony)
#49
Other: G.I.Joe.
Why? Think about all the fun stuff in ET:QW. The different vehicles and toys. Now think about the world of G.I. Joe.
a M.A.R.S. Industries D57-A extreme environment tactical rifle – and a variety of other spy gear.
Don’t know what the hell that is, but I’d like to try it.
Honestly though, I’d just like to see anything that plays as well as ET:QW.
Kendle
(Kendle)
#50
I don’t hunger for a remake of anything, ET:QW is already ET2, Brink is already ET3, in as much as any of them bear as much resemblence to the previous game as any sequel ever will. What people mean when they say “I want <insert game name>2” is “I want to go back in time and play <insert game name>1 again”, which is never going to happen.
As far as SD is concerned I don’t really care, as long as this applies:-
SD have never made a decent comp game, and the “style” you’re refering to is not of their design either. ET was only ever a decent comp game because of ETPro, a version of ET made by someone else, and ET’s “style” came from RTCW, also made by someone else.
So whatever SD produce next they need to release an SDK, so that “someone else” can make it a decent comp game. If they’d done that for Brink we wouldn’t be talking about what SD do next just 6 months after it’s release.
BioSnark
(BioSnark)
#52
[QUOTE=Kendle;388972]SD have never made a decent comp game, and the “style” you’re refering to is not of their design either. ET was only ever a decent comp game because of ETPro, a version of ET made by someone else, and ET’s “style” came from RTCW, also made by someone else.
So whatever SD produce next they need to release an SDK, so that “someone else” can make it a decent comp game. If they’d done that for Brink we wouldn’t be talking about what SD do next just 6 months after it’s release.[/QUOTE]
If someone can just pull a fully formed competition game out of their ___ and not bother modding a base game then why should SD bother with an SDK, anyway? That, at least, the question that comes to mind reading how you prescribe credit.
Kendle
(Kendle)
#53
They probably don’t need to, in order to turn a profit, they seem to be happy with the number of copies of Brink they sold, but for games to last for more than a few months they obviously need someone else to tweak / refine / fix it because they’ve never produced anything so far that hasn’t required just that.
Whether they need games to last for more than a few months is questionable. How many more copies or Brink would they have sold if there were clans playing the game today? Probably not many, and almost certainly not enough to cover the cost of the SDK.
I was merely pointing out that if Brink had an SDK we’d probably all be too busy still playing it to talk about what comes next. 
tokamak
(tokamak)
#55
ETQW2.
The narrative should focus on the humans rounding up the last Strogg on earth (1 or 2 campaigns) then one campaign of humans boarding the Strogg Fleet and then one or two campaigns on Stroggos, set in the same period of time as Quake 2.
Innovation in gameplay naturally flows from the drastic change in environment. Because you’re no longer limited to terrestial environments you can build maps around large industrial complexes or big space-ports (always wanted to know what a Strogg hanger looks like). This means maps can be tight corridors but also big vertical spaces. It opens up so much more options than having to stick your objectives on a piece of terrain. Also Stroggos should lend itself great for natural environments that simply aren’t possible on Earth.
The narrative then allows for more advanced GDF technology (like walkers and eventually the grav-tanks) and because the Strogg are slowly pushed into their homebase, they’ll obtain bigger creatures.
To properly manage the new technology and the creatures we should be thinking about A: turning them into objectives: The first grav-tank /walker prototype can become an escortable objective. The Strogg big gribblies can be dynamic objectives. They can be player controlled, they can be AI mobile or AI fixed (like the big stroyent producing guy in Quake IV). And B: making hero classes. Now I know people are bristling at the thought of handing over really powerful privileges to certain players, but it can really work. Star Wars Battlefront executed this concept really well by making the privileges rewards for the first players who obtained enough xp to ‘spent’ it on the upgrades. It’s a one-life only deal and after that the slot becomes free for different players.
Having such power asymmetry within the team gives amazing dynamics. Players start to gather around the hero characters, fight to keep them alive and the hero players themselves are being extra careful not to waste their opportunity to matter more than ever. It’s really up in ET’s street as it amplifies the xp rat-race at the start of each campaign.
Also there’s no need to be afraid to close down the narrative for a third installment. Along the way the humans find out more about the origins of the Strogg, origins that Quake V should elaborate on. I’m sure that with a bit of slipgate time-travel plot-judo it can be conveyed that the Strogg are actually humans that became too greedy and curious after conquering Stroggos.
SockDog
(SockDog)
#56
What Apples said sounds pretty grand to me.
[ul]
[li]Others may not care for it but I’d also like to see a proper single player (and optional co-op) campaign mode.
[/li][li]OOTB top level Clan, Spec, Demo etc features. IMO this is the polish SD games lack and loose people as a consequence.
[/li][li]SDK/Map tools prior to or at release.
[/li][li]Alternative MP modes and built in mutator.
[/li][li]Cross platform play
[/li][li]Warmup/Lobby gametype (so you can game while you game). The idea is to give people something to do while waiting for the server/lobby to fill.
[/li][li]Keep all persistent grind out of the core game, the Challenges in Brink were an awesome way to teach concepts, provide a distraction and do the whole grind/leveling junk. You can put co-op in the challenges so people can grind off with their buddies (biscuits optional). Any in game rewards should be focused on team achivements, not individuals.
[/li][li]Social accountability. Give users tools to deal with tools. You have time to see how L4D2’s “***** list” feature works.
[/li][/ul]
DarkangelUK
(DarkangelUK)
#57
Probably unheard of these days but i’d take a W:ET universe setting without the XP and the unlocks and bring things back to RtCW gameplay level. I was never a fan of XP progression in the 1st place and I certainly wouldn’t miss it.
I’m with sock on the proper SP portion and of course everyone else with regards to SDK and community tools. If you insist on releasing on multiple platforms then bring in other companies to handle that.
tokamak
(tokamak)
#58
Keep all persistent grind out of the core game, the Challenges in Brink were an awesome way to teach concepts, provide a distraction and do the whole grind/leveling junk. You can put co-op in the challenges so people can grind off with their buddies (biscuits optional). Any in game rewards should be focused on team achivements, not individuals.
Persistant stuff should be purely cosmetic. I’m thinking about decals and camo you can stick on vehicles you enter.
SockDog
(SockDog)
#59
We’re going to disagree on this and we shouldn’t drag down this thread with another repeated argument about XP but it’s not a matter of what unlocks but the fact that there are unlocks at all. This sends out a mixed message about what the game is for, is it an RPG or an MP FPS game? Are people playing to level or to play? As I mentioned in another thread I think there were a lot of players that loved Brink purely for leveling and once done, obligatory post to forums for more content a given, they left for another game.
If you insist on rewarding grind or including unlocks then place them in a part of the game where they don’t impact the core MP gameplay (challenges). If they absolutely must be in the game then do so under the premise of the team’s performance. For someone so protective of the core ET gameplay you seem very content to bolt on distractions that have no relation to it.
@DA I’d still like to see XP be replaced by a L4D style director which issues upgrades based on the teams performance. It may seem unfair (and certainly not for competitive play) but I can’t help imagine it would bring about some interesting and more balanced pub games.
tokamak
(tokamak)
#60
Starcraft hands out decals and portraits to quantitative achievements on the ladder. There’s no confusion whatsoever about what the ladder is meant for: highly competitive play.
I’d still like to see XP be replaced by a L4D style director which issues upgrades based on the teams performance.
And toss individual recognition completely out of the window. People need that carrot. ET relies on egos being driven to cooperate with each other. There’s a parallel competition with the other team, but there’s a vertical competition amongst team-members to be the best of their team. This is a GOOD thing, the more you reward a player with status and vanity, the more he’ll work his ass off to be a good member of the team.
It’s just so elegant. Team-players play cooperatively for the sake of team-work and egotistical soloists do the EXACT SAME THING because the game rewards them for it.
I say, go even further in that and put the top three players of each team on an even bigger pedestal, with more influence and more allure. People get hooked in this rat-race and will work even harder to get into that top 3.