|
|
 |
| [May 08, 2008, 09:41 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
The Enemy
Territory: QUAKE Wars Development Blog has a lengthy post with full details
on the upcoming version 1.5 patch for Splash Damage's teamplay shooter, which
they say is "steaming ahead at full knots" (presumably that's good) and
undergoing final internal testing. The post outlines UI improvements, new
customization cvars, fixes and tweaks to how ranked servers and statistics are
handled, bot improvements, and fixes for a number of bugs and exploits. The post
concludes with an explanation of just how complicated it will be to distribute a
patch covering a game that's out on three platforms over multiple distribution
systems, and a set of complete patch notes.
42 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next >
| 42. |
Re: So how.. |
May 10, 2008, 05:53 |
Jerykk |
|
|
For example, more players would rather operate an M1 tank in a Battlefield game than play Steel Beasts. A lot of players would rather play Halo than Tribes. Or WoW over anything else.
So does clinging to restrictive or anachronistic notions of what isn't allowed in FPS shooters or other game genres. To an extent. However, the vehicle/FPS combos aren't exactly innovative anymore. In fact, they've become generic. ET:QW, BF, Frontlines... in terms of gameplay, they aren't terribly different. Players aren't expecting variety, they are expecting accessibility, which vehicles provide.
No, it's simply a case of players' tastes and expectations having evolved to the point where they are no longer satisfied with simple or repetitive gameplay. The difference is that players have shorter attention spans and want a game they can just pick up and play without having to learn the nuances of combat, movement, etc. Instead of adding more depth, developers just add more stuff in order to appease these shorter attention spans. It becomes a matter of quantity over quality. There is a market for games that focus on doing something really well, it just isn't as big as the market for games that have broader appeal. Unfortunately, developers don't seem to make specialized games anymore.
I personally find killing a skilled Manta driver who has been repeatedly squashing my hapless teammates at close range with my Avril or rocket launcher to be one of the all-time thrills of multiplayer FPS gaming because it takes such a unique blend of movement skill, weapons skill, and a good feel for your ping to pull it off. I personally find disc-jumping after an enemy capper, flying over him, dropping a mine on his head and then shooting the mine with my disc-launcher to be a particularly thrilling experience. Unfortunately, no shooters really let you do stuff like this anymore because they don't dedicate the time to really making deep combat.
In the end, I suppose it's just a matter of taste. I prefer games that really excel at doing something specific. I'd much rather see one superb shooter and one superb vehicular combat game than one shooter with vehicles that is merely decent in either regard. Other people favor variety because they don't have the dedication to stick to one type of gameplay long enough to appreciate its depth. I see the addition of vehicles as an effort to broaden the appeal and accessibility of shooters to a more mainstream audience.
This message was edited at May 10, 05:54. |
| 41. |
Re: So how.. |
May 10, 2008, 04:09 |
>U |
|
|
I don't think I've ever seen an FPS excel with vehicles. If you fly planes in an FPS, the experience won't hold a candle to dedicated flight sims. If you drive tanks, it won't hold a candle to tank sims. If you drive a car, it won't hold a candle to a racing game. Actually I find the current experience of vehicles in FPS games perfectly suited for the gameplay because I don't want that much realism. I am not a fan of ultra-realistic simulation games because to me they suck the fun out of a game and turn playing it into a job. And given the popularity of FPS shooter with vehicles and arcade-style vehicular games in comparison to hardcore simulation games, a lot of people agree with me. For example, more players would rather operate an M1 tank in a Battlefield game than play Steel Beasts.
Think of it like this: If you took away the vehicles in BF, ET:QW, Halo, etc, would they be able to stand on their own? That's a totally moot point because those games were designed specifically with vehicles in mind. They're not some tacked-on afterthought. That's like saying if you took away all of the weapons in a game, could it stand on its own. No, because you wouldn't have the same game.
Would they be able to compare to the pinnacles of the genre? You're comparing oranges to grapefruits. Yes, FPS games with vehicles are similar to those without, but they are a lot larger and they appeal to a different taste. The Battlefield series is not supposed to be Quake. Yes, there are similar elements, but one game is a predominately indoor, corridor shooter with 1-on-1 or small team combat and the other game is larger scale outdoor combat between two larger military forces and their vehicles.
WoW and Sims are huge sellers. Does that mean all games should imitate them? No, because those aren't the only games which sell well.
Halo is a huge seller. Does that mean regenerating health should be in every shooter? No, but on the flipside, you can't tell people what they prefer or force them to buy something they don't like. I don't think every game should imitate the most popular ones in the same genre, and it's obvious that not every developer does either because if they did, all FPS games would still look and play like Doom or Quake because those used to be the standards which the other games copied. It was only through the willingness to experiment and evolve the genre that FPS games like Halo were developed. Halo isn't a better Quake than Quake because it's not supposed to be. It's a broader and more diverse FPS game. Even though I am not a fan of many of its gameplay elements like restricting weapons carried and regenerating health I do respect the fact that Halo does things differently from the dominant FPS games that preceded it.
e way I see it, the over-reliance on sales figures for design choices have largely ruined gaming by stifling innovation So does clinging to restrictive or anachronistic notions of what isn't allowed in FPS shooters or other game genres. That kills innovation as much as the Halo copycat mentality.
The game shouldn't have needed those levels to keep the gameplay from getting monotonous. If you have to add vehicles to keep your game entertaining, then your combat is inherently lacking. This is why relatively simple games like Quake have persevered over the years. No, it's simply a case of players' tastes and expectations having evolved to the point where they are no longer satisfied with simple or repetitive gameplay. Quake was good in its day, but most FPS players wouldn't buy a game today that simply mimicked its gameplay even if it were gussied up with modern visuals. Players today expect more variety in the gameplay, and vehicles can and do provide that.
tossing in vehicles isn't going to make the fundamental combat any deeper It will make it deeper in the sense that you will have to learn to use additional weapons and/or develop unique strategies to combat vehicles when on foot. UT2004 is a perfect example of that. Combating vehicles like the Manta when on foot especially at close range takes a lot of movement and weapons skill, and it's different from the typical foot combat. Successfully piloting a Manta also takes a lot of skill as well. I personally find killing a skilled Manta driver who has been repeatedly squashing my hapless teammates at close range with my Avril or rocket launcher to be one of the all-time thrills of multiplayer FPS gaming because it takes such a unique blend of movement skill, weapons skill, and a good feel for your ping to pull it off.
This message was edited at May 10, 04:32. |
| 40. |
Re: So how.. |
May 10, 2008, 02:20 |
Jerykk |
|
|
Or, you end up with a game that excels in multiple areas instead of just one. I don't think I've ever seen an FPS excel with vehicles. If you fly planes in an FPS, the experience won't hold a candle to dedicated flight sims. If you drive tanks, it won't hold a candle to tank sims. If you drive a car, it won't hold a candle to a racing game. If you drive a mech, it won't hold a handle to a mech sim.
The more a game tries to tackle, the less time it has to iterate and polish each component. When you toss in vehicles, you automatically lose polish on the actual FPS combat aspect. Think of it like this: If you took away the vehicles in BF, ET:QW, Halo, etc, would they be able to stand on their own? Would they be able to compare to the pinnacles of the genre?
The market is simply providing what the majority of players want, and it demonstrates that FPS shooters can be done successfully with vehicles. The market shouldn't dictate game design. WoW and Sims are huge sellers. Does that mean all games should imitate them? Halo is a huge seller. Does that mean regenerating health should be in every shooter? No, it shouldn't. The way I see it, the over-reliance on sales figures for design choices have largely ruined gaming by stifling innovation, catering to those with lower standards and destroying specialized genres like space sims.
My point is that those levels provided diversity to the gameplay and kept the game from becoming monotonous. See, that's the problem. The game shouldn't have needed those levels to keep the gameplay from getting monotonous. If you have to add vehicles to keep your game entertaining, then your combat is inherently lacking. This is why relatively simple games like Quake have persevered over the years. They focus on doing one thing really well rather than tossing in a bunch of things to compensate.
Now, I can tolerate vehicles in single-player games. But I hold multiplayer games to much higher standard. Multiplayer games need to hold my attention for years and tossing in vehicles isn't going to make the fundamental combat any deeper or engaging. Since I only care about the core FPS experience, this is a problem for me. If you want to make a shooter, make a shooter. If you want planes, make a flight sim. Make games that excel at what they do instead of trying to appease all audiences with one game.
|
| 39. |
Re: So how.. |
May 9, 2008, 22:57 |
>U |
|
|
If you try to broaden your game's appeal by adding in things that don't belong in the genre (like vehicles in an FPS), you end up with a game that has variety but excels in no specific area. Or, you end up with a game that excels in multiple areas instead of just one.
Except that isn't true. The success of CoD4's multiplayer shows that players do not demand vehicles in military shooters. No, it is still true, just not exclusively. It simply shows that the market is diverse enough to support both FPS games with vehicles like the Battlefield series, UT2004/3, ET:QW, and Halo and those without like COD4 and Counterstrike.
The number of shooters with vehicles far outnumbers the number of shooters without vehicles. The market is simply providing what the majority of players want, and it demonstrates that FPS shooters can be done successfully with vehicles.
The few single-player rail shooter levels don't really count, as the player had no control over the vehicles and the vehicles were not a fundamental part of the game as a whole. My point is that those levels provided diversity to the gameplay and kept the game from becoming monotonous. I also would have liked to have been given more control over the vehicles on those levels instead of just firing from them. It wouldn't have ruined the game at all.
This message was edited at May 9, 22:59. |
| 38. |
Re: So how.. |
May 9, 2008, 18:50 |
Jerykk |
|
|
It would also be balanced if there were only a single weapon like a pistol too, but that wouldn't give the game much variety or make it much fun for everyone. I don't think games should be fun for everyone. If you try to broaden your game's appeal by adding in things that don't belong in the genre (like vehicles in an FPS), you end up with a game that has variety but excels in no specific area.
That certainly doesn't mean that any FPS game can't be properly designed for vehicles. FPS games by their very nature aren't designed to have vehicles.
It is a merit because it's a realistic expectation. Players today expect vehicles when they assume the role of a soldier in a modern or futuristic military because it's realistic and because game technology has advanced to the point where vehicles can be properly presented in games. Except that isn't true. The success of CoD4's multiplayer shows that players do not demand vehicles in military shooters.
Fortunately the FPS market is still diverse enough that I can tell you to simply choose a game that does. I wish that were true. The number of shooters with vehicles far outnumbers the number of shooters without vehicles.
COD4 had controllable or at least participatory vehicles in the AC130 mission and in the missions where you fired from a moving truck and from aircraft. The few single-player rail shooter levels don't really count, as the player had no control over the vehicles and the vehicles were not a fundamental part of the game as a whole. Regardless, I was mainly referring to CoD4's vehicle-less multiplayer mode which is the main attraction for most players.
|
| 37. |
Re: So how.. |
May 9, 2008, 12:54 |
>U |
|
|
The game would be balanced if you just left the vehicles out in the first place. It would also be balanced if there were only a single weapon like a pistol too, but that wouldn't give the game much variety or make it much fun for everyone.
Two opposing forces clashing can be applied to just about anything. It doesn't necessitate the inclusion of vehicles. It's unrealistic not to expect a modern or future military force not to use vehicles of some kind.
Vehicles were in the game but nobody used them. That only proves that the gameplay was poorly designed for vehicles. That certainly doesn't mean that any FPS game can't be properly designed for vehicles. Every FPS shooter I have played which included vehicles did a good job of integrating them well into the game, while not obviating the role of infantry.
Yes, but again, realism in and of itself is not a merit It is a merit because it's a realistic expectation. Players today expect vehicles when they assume the role of a soldier in a modern or futuristic military because it's realistic and because game technology has advanced to the point where vehicles can be properly presented in games.
The people who want a man-to-man combat experience are stuck trying to avoid getting run over or hit by a stray tank shell. Fortunately the FPS market is still diverse enough that I can tell you to simply choose a game that does.
Of course, this is all just a matter of a taste but I for one am glad that shooters like TF2 and CoD4 show developers that they don't have to toss in vehicles where they don't belong. COD4 had controllable or at least participatory vehicles in the AC130 mission and in the missions where you fired from a moving truck and from aircraft. The game would have also benefitted from optionally allowing the player to jump in and be a part of the "warpig" tank crew if its gunner or driver died in the mission where it was featured.
This message was edited at May 9, 16:31. |
| 36. |
Re: So how.. |
May 9, 2008, 04:02 |
Jerykk |
|
|
That's called having a balanced game. Those additional weapons offset the vehicles. If you're the type of player who prefers to fight on foot, you can still do so. Just pick or pickup the weapons you need or stay out of the way of the vehicles. The game would be balanced if you just left the vehicles out in the first place. And it's somewhat difficult to avoid vehicles when they are attacking your base.
FPS games have evolved from being more than just corridor shooters, and vehicles are a part of that. I agree with the first part. Tribes had large, open environments and evolved shooter gameplay to compensate for that. Vehicles were in the game but nobody used them. Instead of relying on vehicles, developers should find new ways of evolving player movement so that they can gain the mobility of vehicles without compromising the mechanics of gunplay.
Two opposing militaries fighting battles in outdoor settings is certainly a realistic theme even if the particular sides and settings are fictional. Two opposing forces clashing can be applied to just about anything. It doesn't necessitate the inclusion of vehicles.
The particular mechanics of the game don't have to be realistic for concepts in it to be. Yes, but again, realism in and of itself is not a merit unless you are playing a simulation where the primary goal is realism.
A powerful weapon or any other element added to a game can unbalance it. Which is why the best shooters don't have overpowered weapons. If something is going to upset the balance of the game, don't put it in.
Sure both of those types of CTF won't appeal equally to all players, but having that additional choice gives players more value out of the game. If the game gives you that choice, then sure, that's fine. But most shooters with vehicles don't give you that choice. The people who want a man-to-man combat experience are stuck trying to avoid getting run over or hit by a stray tank shell.
Of course, this is all just a matter of a taste but I for one am glad that shooters like TF2 and CoD4 show developers that they don't have to toss in vehicles where they don't belong.
|
| 35. |
Re: So how.. |
May 9, 2008, 03:59 |
Bet |
|
|
Just pick or pickup the weapons you need or stay out of the way of the vehicles. You don't even need to do that in ETQW. I frequently finish off a vehicle with my pistol since my assault rifle got the vehicle I'm hitting down close enough by the time I had to reload. When 3 or 4 people on a team are taking potshots at a tank when they're running to defend or attack an objective, it will be in the red within a few seconds, at least as long as their aim doesn't suck.
I've killed more vehicles with my pistol in this game than I have with a rocket launcher.
|
| 34. |
Re: So how.. |
May 9, 2008, 03:14 |
>U |
|
|
No, you don't absolutely have to use those weapons but if you don't, you're at an inherent disadvantage. That's called having a balanced game. Those additional weapons offset the vehicles. If you're the type of player who prefers to fight on foot, you can still do so. Just pick or pickup the weapons you need or stay out of the way of the vehicles.
Shooters are supposed to emphasize guns and man-to-man combat, not tank-to-man combat. No, many shooters portray or recreate modern and futuristic military combat, and such military combat involves vehicles. Sure vehicles aren't appropriate in an indoor, corridor-style shooter. But, in a large, outdoor setting they not only make perfect sense, they add a lot of variety to the gameplay. Not only do you need players to drive the vehicles and fire the weapons, but you also need players to repair them and in some cases spawn them. FPS games have evolved from being more than just corridor shooters, and vehicles are a part of that. Vehicles don't have to be part of every FPS game, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be part of any.
Quake Wars doesn't have a realistic theme. Neither does UT2K4 or Renegade. Two opposing militaries fighting battles in outdoor settings is certainly a realistic theme even if the particular sides and settings are fictional. It would be unrealistic for their NOT to be vehicles in such battles.
Aside from that, realism isn't necessarily a good thing unless you are playing a simulation. The particular mechanics of the game don't have to be realistic for concepts in it to be.
There would be no need to balance the game if vehicles didn't unbalance them in the first place. A powerful weapon or any other element added to a game can unbalance it. Vehicles aren't unique in that aspect. The fact that vehicles can be successfully counteracted by additional weapon choices for infantry proves that vehicles can be a successful and welcome part of FPS shooters.
Q3 was beautiful because it was so pure. It focused on the core fundamentals that really define shooters. Adding vehicles to the equation just dilutes the experience. It doesn't dilute the experience. It simply adds an additional one. UT2004 and UT3 are good examples of that. In those games you can still play traditional CTF if you wish, or you can play CTF with vehicles. Each is a unique experience while retaining overall familiarity. Sure both of those types of CTF won't appeal equally to all players, but having that additional choice gives players more value out of the game.
This message was edited at May 9, 03:30. |
| 33. |
Re: So how.. |
May 9, 2008, 02:35 |
Jerykk |
|
|
But, even in those three games I cited, you don't absolutely have to have those special weapons to take down a vehicle. No, you don't absolutely have to use those weapons but if you don't, you're at an inherent disadvantage.
There is nothing about the first-person perspective which mandates or even suggests that a game should not have vehicles. It's not the perspective that's the problem. It's the "shooter" part. Vehicular combat is not "shooter", it's vehicular combat. If I want vehicular combat, I'll play a vehicular combat game. Shooters are supposed to emphasize guns and man-to-man combat, not tank-to-man combat.
Actually since people in real life control and ride in vehicles all while doing it in the first-person perspective, it is ridiculous for an FPS game with a realistic theme NOT to have any vehicles in it. Quake Wars doesn't have a realistic theme. Neither does UT2K4 or Renegade. Aside from that, realism isn't necessarily a good thing unless you are playing a simulation.
No, it simply reinforces the fact that games need to be balanced when elements like vehicles are added to a game. There would be no need to balance the game if vehicles didn't unbalance them in the first place.
Adding controllable vehicles to an FPS game adds additional gameplay variety to it and also makes it more realistic since real militaries and police forces use vehicles. Adding vehicles to an FPS game taints it. Q3 was beautiful because it was so pure. It focused on the core fundamentals that really define shooters. Adding vehicles to the equation just dilutes the experience.
|
| 32. |
Re: So how.. |
May 9, 2008, 00:46 |
JaZeeL |
|
|
I completely agree with Riley...wow, that's scary.
|
| 31. |
Re: So how.. |
May 9, 2008, 00:31 |
JaZeeL |
|
|
You're a moron. Watch the fucking trailers -- they pushed vehicles like no other. If you were expecting "quake" you're a dumbass.
|
| 30. |
Re: So how.. |
May 9, 2008, 00:30 |
>U |
|
|
If you have to carry a specialized weapon just to stand a chance against vehicles But, even in those three games I cited, you don't absolutely have to have those special weapons to take down a vehicle. In UT2004, the standard rocket launcher will also do just fine as will some of the other weapons. In C&C Renegade, every class gets a timed detpack and even the flamethrower (which is a free weapon) is highly effective against all of the land vehicles. Having the specialized weapons simply helps balance the game for players who aren't as skilled.
Simply put, vehicles have no place in first-person shooters. That is simply ridiculous. There is nothing about the first-person perspective which mandates or even suggests that a game should not have vehicles. Actually since people in real life control and ride in vehicles all while doing it in the first-person perspective, it is ridiculous for an FPS game with a realistic theme NOT to have any vehicles in it.
Adding weapons that specifically counter them doesn't change that fact, it only reinforces it. No, it simply reinforces the fact that games need to be balanced when elements like vehicles are added to a game.
Adding controllable vehicles to an FPS game adds additional gameplay variety to it and also makes it more realistic since real militaries and police forces use vehicles.
This message was edited at May 9, 01:56. |
| 29. |
Re: So how.. |
May 9, 2008, 00:15 |
Jerykk |
|
|
That's just bullshit. UT2004 has the Avril which is a great vehicle neutralizer in the hands of even a mediocre player because it can lock onto the target and packs quite a punch. ET:QW has the rocket launcher, which though not as versatile as UT's Avril, is quite effective against both land and air vehicles. C&C Renegade has detpacks and a sniper/railgun-type of weapon specifically designed to takeout vehicles (although I forget the exact name of it). I think you missed the part where I said "unless they have specialized weapons or backup." If you have to carry a specialized weapon just to stand a chance against vehicles, the vehicles are obviously unbalanced otherwise you wouldn't need special weapons to take them out. And since an increasing amount of games have weapon carry limits, being forced to carry a weapon that's only really good against vehicles is irritating.
Simply put, vehicles have no place in first-person shooters. Adding weapons that specifically counter them doesn't change that fact, it only reinforces it.
Space sims aren't supposed to have infantry combat. Strategy games aren't supposed to have car racing. First-person shooters aren't supposed to have vehicles. The only reason developers started adding vehicles was to appeal to a broader audience and give players who suck a better chance of getting a positive score.
|
| 28. |
Re: So how.. |
May 8, 2008, 23:45 |
>U |
|
|
Wrong. Wolfenstein's Enemy Territory is usually top 5. Quake Wars is top 10. Actually it depends on when you look. I have seen ET:QW have over 5000 players before which would put it into the top 5 at some times.
|
| 27. |
Re: So how.. |
May 8, 2008, 23:40 |
Beamer |
|
|
If gamespys info is correct, I have noticed that ET floats around the top 5 and mostly #3 or 4 overall.. so I'm assuming it's decently popular... but what's Blues community take? Wrong. Wolfenstein's Enemy Territory is usually top 5. Quake Wars is top 10. Often it's behind Quake 3.
Right now:
1. Half Life
37338 servers, 78843 players
2. Half Life 2
34303 servers, 40134 players
3. Battlefield 2
4305 servers, 7562 players
4. Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
3302 servers, 6873 players
5. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
9277 servers, 6773 players
6. Unreal Tournament 2004
1348 servers, 3466 players
7. Battlefield 2142
1446 servers, 3088 players
8. Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
630 servers, 2103 players
9. Quake 3: Arena
2008 servers, 2021 players
10. Neverwinter Nights
711 servers, 1786 players |
| 26. |
Re: So how.. |
May 8, 2008, 23:40 |
>U |
|
|
it was never supposed to be? they made that pretty clear from the first announcement of the game. That's not true. I remember sitting through early presentations of the game at E3, and that is not the impression I got at all. The emphasis was repeatedly on the Quake theme of the game, and the visuals backed that up. It looked and sounded like it was going to be a Quake 4 multiplayer game with vehicles.
|
| 25. |
Re: So how.. |
May 8, 2008, 23:35 |
>U |
|
|
The addition of vehicles to any shooter is inherently unbalancing, as a player on-foot won't stand a chance against a vehicle unless they have specialized weapons or backup. That's just bullshit. UT2004 has the Avril which is a great vehicle neutralizer in the hands of even a mediocre player because it can lock onto the target and packs quite a punch. ET:QW has the rocket launcher, which though not as versatile as UT's Avril, is quite effective against both land and air vehicles. C&C Renegade has detpacks and a sniper/railgun-type of weapon specifically designed to takeout vehicles (although I forget the exact name of it). Plenty of FPS games have solved the problem of how to balance vehicles with infantry. Sure in a class-based game, not every infantry class can be effective against vehicles, but they're not supposed to be because it would unbalance the game.
This message was edited at May 8, 23:49. |
| 24. |
Re: So how.. |
May 8, 2008, 22:39 |
Jerykk |
|
|
A whole half of the game is dedicated towards the Strogg, the other half was referenced throughout Q2 and Q4. What more do you want? I want the game to actually play like Quake..?
Using the title as a reason for anything is pretty much dumb. Not really. Titles are supposed to mean something. If Deus Ex 3 turns out to be a pony breeding simulator, it will defy the expectations set forth by its title and invite due criticism.
|
| 23. |
Picked it up again |
May 8, 2008, 22:34 |
Zoomboy27 |
|
|
Finally got into playing it. Very stable - never crashed. Slower paced than UT3 DM  and I enjoy contributing to a team effort. Getting better at it and enjoying the very different roles and both sides.
There is also the competitve stuff that I watch and don't mind pimping.
Shoutcasts and Video Replay d/loads on EnemyTerritory TV - http://www.enemyterritory.tv/
The GreasedScotsman and his team are doing a great job.
TGL(a 5v5 infantry league) just completed its season and a few leagues are starting up their season.
Tonight I saw projectMalice defeat Silent service on "Island"
|
42 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next >
|
News script copyright © 1999-2009 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News.
