Given the levels that SD have gone to to make Brink a console-familiar affair (unibutton controls, separate grenade button, aim-assist well thingy, single-multiplayer mix thing, perma stats, achievements, perks, barbie, ridiculous huge ironsights, terribly slow movement, simplified movement, and all the other console-FPS silliness that I’ve forgotten), it seems odd that they wouldn’t just add in all the game modes that console FPS games typically have.
Not that I’d prefer any other modes myself over objective+stopwatch, but if you’re going to make a game for people who are demonstrably unwilling to try anything outside their comfort zone I see no reason to not give them game-modes that are inside it.
I guess “Jack of all trades master of none” doesn’t applied to gamemodes then?
Seriously though. I’m not knocking Objective mode or the fact it offers a lot of variety. However I’m not going to look down my nose and say CTF, TDM, KoTH, S&D etc are in any way less enjoyable ways to play multiplayer. Sometimes I’ll want the varied goodness of a Neapolitan ice cream, other times I just want some chocolate. Eating round the Strawberry and Vanilla to get it is a waste and frustrating, and so is having to get a different brand of ice cream.
The problem is not that one game mode isn’t sufficient. The problem is that many people have no idea what real object based gameplay is about and what’s special about it. That has to change and not the game.
And how do you do that? Massive marketing works, it can sell CoD by the millions. Accessibility and ease help but you still need to sell the game in the first place. So, I’m not saying change objective gameplay I’m saying make the game more attractive (familiar modes) and give alternatives within the game (different modes available) rather than making the decision to play Brink a totally binary one.
That pretty much sums most of it up.
(although I still maintain that I’d love to see SD do a vertical take on CTF)
You’re almost there, think one step further. You don’t get people out of their comfort zone by pandering to what they expect to be in their comfort zone.
[QUOTE=SockDog;240628]I guess “Jack of all trades master of none” doesn’t applied to gamemodes then? :)[/quote]The difference may be that in this case it’s not every game mode simply mashed together but elements of those game modes on their own. You are not playing every mode at the same time which probably helps in not making it a rubbish experience.
[QUOTE=SockDog;240628]Seriously though. I’m not knocking Objective mode or the fact it offers a lot of variety. However I’m not going to look down my nose and say CTF, TDM, KoTH, S&D etc are in any way less enjoyable ways to play multiplayer. Sometimes I’ll want the varied goodness of a Neapolitan ice cream, other times I just want some chocolate. Eating round the Strawberry and Vanilla to get it is a waste and frustrating, and so is having to get a different brand of ice cream.[/quote]Sure. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to add other objective based modes like KotH or S&D though. You can just as easily look for maps that feature this type of gameplay the most. That’s what I did when I used to play ETQW.
[QUOTE=SockDog;240628]
And how do you do that? Massive marketing works, it can sell CoD by the millions. Accessibility and ease help but you still need to sell the game in the first place. So, I’m not saying change objective gameplay I’m saying make the game more attractive (familiar modes) and give alternatives within the game (different modes available) rather than making the decision to play Brink a totally binary one.[/quote]Massive marketing for the win! With Brink it seems to have worked quite well so far. It shouldn’t really matter if it is something new for the players as long as it is good. I doubt that many people have a clear view on what the game offers and yet the comments on the usual sites are generally positive so far.
[QUOTE=darthmob;240636]The difference may be that in this case it’s not every game mode simply mashed together but elements of those game modes on their own. You are not playing every mode at the same time which probably helps in not making it a rubbish experience.
[/QUOTE]
I was more taking a humourous shot at the (for example) S&D component of OBJ by sheer definition won’t be as focused as a specific S&D mode.
Sure. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to add other objective based modes like KotH or S&D though. You can just as easily look for maps that feature this type of gameplay the most. That’s what I did when I used to play ETQW.
I guess it can appear redundant but I’d disagree. Having pure modes that can excel in their own right mean if you want to play S&D you do so and only play S&D. I feel forcing people to peck away at OBJ for the bits they like doesn’t sound like you’re selling them on OBJ mode, just limiting them to it. Eventually those people will just find another game to play and that’ll be ‘user count -1’.
Development time aside I just don’t see how it hurts to give your customers a wider package to enjoy and choose from.
Massive marketing for the win! With Brink it seems to have worked quite well so far. It shouldn’t really matter if it is something new for the players as long as it is good. I doubt that many people have a clear view on what the game offers and yet the comments on the usual sites are generally positive so far.
I agree the marketing thus far has been on the whole very good. Maybe even with newer games taking a more objective approach to Multiplayer it’ll be easier this time round. SD need to do a very good job on easing people into this though because if they don’t “get” OBJ they’ll just rant and have no choice but to play another game.
All the mechanics for different modes already exist in the game, when people wanted to play W:ET CTF, they made CTF maps, a couple were extremely successful, when they wanted DM, they made dueling maps, Container City would be great for DM
[QUOTE=BioSnark;240712]Same. In etqw I still find plant objectives interesting because they switch who’s on offense and who’s on defense. Rest kinda meh.
.[/QUOTE]
Even on attack, you’re pretty much defending. You’re defending your objective player(s) as opposed to defending a static area.
[QUOTE=Zhou Yu;238281]The automatic chatter/mission system somewhat bugs me too, I can easily see a situation where, right in the thick of it, spraying revive needles around you like a madman, pressing an extra button to gain some exp is a bit silly and counter-intuitive.
We will have to see what the mechanics and pacing of revive situations are, but it seems at the moment like you could be given less exp for reviving more quickly/outside of the mission structure. I know that once I got to a certain stage in et:qw I felt that the mission structure didn’t exactly follow what I felt I should be doing in a game, and was a bit of a faff to organise so it would. Inevitably I didn’t follow the missions and forfeited a bit of exp. It seems a bit silly to argue this is “unfair”, after all a better player tends to accrue exp faster than a worse one, and newer players are more likely to use the mission system. The system would appear to balance out. Nevertheless, it feels unfair to a better player who doesn’t want to fiddle with the ai mission construct in order to be rewarded for doing the things he would do anyway.[/QUOTE]
I want this game so badly but I am already seeing cracks. A game cannot lean on an “action, movement button” and new unlocks. Just doesn’t work. The game needs more or it will die sooner than anyone here will be willing to admit."]I mentioned the decay of this game due to its limited system in my first post . I’ve already preordered the game but the features will not keep the community happy after 6 months. More games, hell, huge MMOs are coming out that will also pull away much of the interest.
I want this game so badly but I am already seeing cracks. A game cannot lean on an “action, movement button” and new unlocks. Just doesn’t work. The game needs more or it will die sooner than anyone here will be willing to admit.
SD’s first game Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory has kept players interested for over 6 years (7 to be exact) never mind months and that was much more simpler game in terms of features.
Interestingly enough it’s not the features that keep you interested but the gameplay itself. Many modern shooters have boring shallow gameplay so features are needed to keep you playing. Here you can have fun for years in simply discovering new ways of playing the different classes and taking different approaches to gameplay or trying to master the movement.
