|
|
 |
| [Jun 26, 2003, 10:42 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
There's a TRIBES
Vengeance Q&A on PC Gameworld talking with VU Games producer Chris
Mahnken. Along the way he picks up the gauntlet when asked about comparisons to
other highly anticipated shooter sequels, and tosses it right back: I
think we’ll stand up quite well with those titles, which is really saying
something. The Doom 3 engine has no outdoor spaces, and the Half-Life
engine has been in development since before Tribes 1 shipped. The real
question is how they will match up to Tribes Vengeance game-play.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 115. |
TRIBES Vengeance Q&A |
Jul 1, 2003, 23:29 |
banksie |
|
|
Cheater, were you playing a different game from me? Tribes 2 had a similarly robust network code to the first game - especially when you played it with the same number of players. Where it suffered a little over modem was the number of players jumped to wanting 24 minimum which was pushing what could be streamed through a 56k data rate. Battlefield 1942 suffers from precisely the same problem and is largely unplayble for modem users on the bigger battles.
I agree with you on the skill aspect, teams dominated in T1 or T2 because they practiced the skillset and it means very little to say that either group would dominate the other. The key requirement is practice and dedication to that team.
But T2 wants a different skillset from T1 and is very heavily oriented to squad warfare as opposed to the more organised team of individuals that T1 favoured. The whole design is very clearly aimed at squad tactics with a heavy requirement for co-ordination and support. I loved that as I said because it pushed the Tribes franchise in a new direction and challenged me as a player in a clan in new ways.
Did it affront T1 players? Some yes. But they always had the option of sticking with T1 if the new game disappointed and instead a bold move was made to shift the game to new territory. I have a lot of respect for Dave Georgeson for making that decision and giving us a sequel that wasn't a graphicly updated rehash of the first game like many sequels are. Indeed it seems he has gone on to take the progression he started with T2 to the next step in Planetside where co-ordination between squads is required to acheive a goal.
If anything I wish could be done differently it was that T2 was given the extra three to four months it needed before launch, the code was clearly immature, and perhaps to have changed the direction on the community features.
Marweas, T1 was good enough for everyone because it was the only game of it's kind. It was among the first to pioneer a strongly multi-player only gameplay in FPS games. First to feature jetpack mobility and the first to really feature large outdoor environments well integrated with the more traditional cramped interiors FPS' love.
Would people be as vocal about T2 being a bad game if it came first? I doubt it. T2's major problems were being a sequel, rushed release and then an arduous patching process. It didn't help that it kept changing core gameplay over the course of a good six months. Even with those problems it still had 500,000+ customers.
I'll be watching the development of T3 with interest.
Philip
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
