User comment history
< Newer [ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ] Older >
| News Comments > Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars Demo Released |
 |
| 47. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 10, 2007, 17:32 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
What I get is more Quake, with vehicles thrown in (that honestly shouldn't be in it) and more twitch vs strategy.
Play at a slower pace. The game is only twitch if you beserker rush the enemy immediately after respawning. The game is very, very tactical but only if you hang back and assess the best way to help your team before rushing in. Otherwise you'll just get killed nearly instantly and you'll assume the only way to succeed is with better deathmatch skills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Q&As - Crysis "10-20 Hours" |
|
| 10. |
Re: ...about 10 hours. |
Sep 6, 2007, 19:21 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
Gone of the days where average games took 30 hours to complete.
Amazing how much longer games are with rose colored glasses on. The average shooter length has stayed relatively constant over the years at around 8-10 hours. Either Doom can easily be completed in under 6 hours, even on your first time through. Same deal with Quake. Half-Life? Ten hours tops, replay it if you don't believe me. Even a longer shooter, like Unreal, was still only about 15 hours long. The only thirty hour shooter I know of would be Deus Ex, but even that is closer to 25 hours, less if you know what you're doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > ETQW Demo Details |
|
| 12. |
Re: gah! |
Sep 6, 2007, 13:31 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
They really need to reevaluate the vehicle dynamics of Phase 2.
I agree to a point. On the other hand, a couple of rocket launcher armed soldiers seems to more than make up for the GDF lack of vehicles. It seems like whenever GDF gets hung up on Phase 2, there are hardly any Soldiers playing. With soldiers you can easily disable the Strogg deployables, which forces the Strogg to move forward and engage on the even ground of an infantry battle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > ETQW Demo Details |
|
| 11. |
Re: gah! |
Sep 6, 2007, 13:24 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
Strogg sits with a 2/1 win ratio over GDF.
Really? I wasn't aware of that. I had assumed that my own experience of each team winning in roughly equal measure was generally holding true globally. In that case, hopefully the earlier access to the forward spawn will help even things out.
GDF get no airpower in the first phase, strogg have the Icarus and the Tormentor.
First phase generally goes pretty quickly in my experience. In general, GDF seems to be able to get the bridge build pretty fast unless the Strogg team is made up of substantially better players. The big balance issue isn't air power, in my opinion, but rather that the Strogg can get a desicrator up on the ridge and fire down on the construction point. The only real counter, as far as I can tell, is to have a field ops call in a hammer strike, or manually guide in rocket artillery.
Not to mention the massive deployable area that that the Strogg have in all three phases of the map compared to the horrendous deployable area tha GDF gets.
True. Although if the GDF has access to dam forward spawn early, then that means they can set up anti-vehicle turrets at the entrance to the phase 3/4 compound. That ought to help limit the value of Strogg vehicles in defending the phase 3/4 area.
Yeah GDF can spawn camp the back Strogg spawn with a goliath, but it isn't easy or quick to get a tank up there to do it.
If GDF vehicle rushes immediately after capturing the phase 2 outpost (to get there before strogg AV turrets get up) then it's a straight shot to the spawn. Otherwise, a tank can cross the dam, hang a left and skirt around the contaminator building and pop out right at the spawn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > ETQW Demo Details |
|
| 4. |
Re: gah! |
Sep 6, 2007, 11:49 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
I hope they made some serious changes to Valley...the beta 2 version is so biased in favor of Strogg that it is somewhat pointless to even play it.
It all depends on which team has their act together. When Beta 2 was first released, all of us on the first server I played on were convinced that the map was horribly biased in favor of GDF. The reason? In Phase 3 and 4, GDF can easily spawn camp the Strogg's main spawn with vehicles, if they know what they're doing. Since then I've rarely seen it happen, but if GDF can vehicle rush straight across the bridge, up the ramp and hang a right into the Strogg spawn, they can easily tie down enough Strogg players that Covert Ops shouldn't have any problem hacking the shield gen. The point is that the map offers opportunities for both teams to dominate if and only if the teams have their acts together. Otherwise it has seemed to be roughly even as to which team wins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars Demo Next Week |
|
| 18. |
Re: ... |
Sep 4, 2007, 20:56 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
I'm interested in ET: QW, but I'm still concerned that it's going to have an enormous learning curve.
The learning curve is big but manageable. Once you learn the mechanics and adjust to the pacing of the game, you should be fine. This isn't like Tribes where a significant part of the learning curve was practicing jetpacking and skiing to the point that you could do both proficiently. Rather, you just need to learn the mechanics (i.e. Field Ops deploy ammopacks for their teammates, Strogg Technicians can create one time forward spawn points by "using" enemy corpses, etc.) and you're good to go.
The following website is really handy if you want to get a headstart on learning the mechanics:
http://4newbies.planetwolfenstein.gamespy.com/ETQW/index.php
It sounds like this might be more tactical than a complete twitch-fest
In terms of a team winning a game this is very true, but it is important to note that if you get in a close range one on one fight with another player, it is very much a matter of who has the better twitch skills. As a result, it's generally a good idea to avoid close range battles unless your DM skills are up to snuff. Better to sidestep a concentration of enemy troops and hit them from the rear or call in an airstrike on them or something. Either that or only rush into close combat if you've got teammates backing you up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars Demo Next Week |
|
| 16. |
Re: ... |
Sep 4, 2007, 19:47 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
Haven't played this game, MIGHT try the demo but am skeptical and not expecting much. I think there's been one positive comment around here to every 50 or so negative ones. If it was a good game, the ratio would be more like 1:5 or 1:10.
Definitely try the demo. I have not understood why people have been so negative with regard to Quake Wars as I have played it almost every day this summer and have absolutely loved it. If the demo improves upon Beta 2 to the same degree that Beta 2 improved upon Beta 1, then it ought to be one very solid game as well.
As for all the people complaining I suspect most of them played for a half-hour on pre-patch Beta 1. The initial release of Beta 1 was very, very rough. Couple that with a significant learning curve and punishing combat and I suspect most of the complainers gave up before really learning the ins and outs of the game. If you don't understand the mechanics of the game such as the roles of the various classes, you really aren't getting a clear picture of what the game has to offer. Likewise the sheer amount of stuff going on is liable to leave a newb completely bewildered as to what it is they are supposed to be doing or how to use their class's abilities.
As for mechanics not matching the game speed, those people aren't playing the game right. If you just berserker charge the objective, you'll get there really fast and die even faster. It will seem as if death comes so fast that you can't make use of any of the games tactical features. Then you'll go complain on message boards that there's no point to any of the teamwork and tactics oriented features because you respawn, enter combat and die so fast. Again, such a person is playing the game wrong. It would be like being upset that your Quake deathmatch skills don't work in pre-Lockdown Rainbow Six. The way the game is meant to be played is much more methodically. Engage the enemy at the maximum effective range of your weapon and you'll start realizing that those previously "useless" iron sights and stances come in real handy; you'll also discover that you tend to live a heck of a lot longer and get a lot more kills per spawn, too. Hang back a moment and get a scope on the situation before charging into the maelstrom. Where as before it seemed like all this explosive spam was coming from everywhere, now you'll see where that "spam" is coming from (i.e. deployables, field ops calling in artillery) and can take steps to either avoid or disable it. Suddenly you'll realize how frickin useful it is to have radar up, because now you can do stuff like prep a grenade and toss it into an attackers face right as the round the bend. With the realization that radar is absolutely essential, you also realize the value of disabling enemy radar and perhaps sneak into the enemy rear to destroy or disable it.
I could keep going for a while but the point is that the game is very, very deep and that depth won't manifest itself during your first 30 minutes of play, especially if you never played W:ET. So I'd say ignore the complainers, download the demo, and give it a shot before dismissing the game outright.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Op Ed |
|
| 54. |
Re: balderdash |
Sep 4, 2007, 17:15 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
If you do the quest, you blow up the town and lose all the potential quests therein. If you don't do the quest, the town survives but you don't get access to a new area with new quests. That, to me, is a meaningful choice.
And it's also stupid design. 99% of players will do all of the other quests in Megaton, then blow it up, then get access to the new area, thus missing out on nothing and rendering the choice meaningless.
If developers were to make games that catered to the hardcore gamer, they wouldn't make nearly as much money.
And that's a problem? Do games really need to be treated as commodities that exist only to provide a return to shareholders? The hardcore gaming market hasn't gone anywhere. If publishers found greater satisfaction in a product well-made than in the bottom line, there is still enough of a hardcore market for them to sell to and still make a modest profit. Gaming didn't have to go mass-market the way it has. The industry wouldn't be worth as much, but much better games would be being made. Which would you rather have Jerryk, a great game or richer shareholders? The fact that you defend Bethesdas decision to pursue profit ahead of quality makes me wonder.
This comment was edited on Sep 4, 17:26. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Op Ed |
|
| 51. |
Re: balderdash |
Sep 4, 2007, 15:35 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
Except you miss the point: Combat is not the focus of an RPG.
I didn't say that combat is the focus of an RPG, I said it's the focus of previous Bethesda games and looks to be no different in Fallout 3. Hence, Fallout 3 primarily being a console shooter.
However, you can't really judge these things based on a 45 minute press demo. You need to play the full game.
No but we can get a sense of things, compare that with past experiences and draw conclusions from there. What your arguing is tantamount to "Well, how can you know that if we invade Iran things will go badly? The only way we can know is if we actually do it." One doesn't need to invade Iran to predict that such an invasion would be a very poor choice with very negative results. Likewise, one doesn't need to play Fallout 3 to be able to make an educated guess about what it will be like. Bethesda had not had very good writers in the past, and the writing in the demo is poor, hence we can predict that writing will not be Fallout 3's strongpoint. Likewise, Bethesda has not in the past done a good job of allowing player choice, the Megaton quest seems to be just a matter of choosing whether or not to do it, and as a result we can predict that player choice will probably not be as prevalent in Fallout 3 as in it's predecessors. Could it turn out differently in the final game? Sure, I hold the possibility entirely open. But maybe if we did invade Iran it could turn out well, but that doesn't mean it is at all likely.
This comment was edited on Sep 4, 15:41. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Op Ed |
|
| 46. |
Re: balderdash |
Sep 4, 2007, 13:41 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
I thought 2K published Oblivion..?
2K Games did some of the marketing. It was a relationship similar to the relationship between id and Activision. Activision's name is on the box, and they market the title, but id funds the title and has complete authorial control. The point is that Bethesda, like id, is not beholden to the wishes of a publisher.
Regardless, Bethesda obviously believed that a turn-based, isometric cRPG would not sell as well as a first-person, real-time console RPG. Sales charts would not prove them wrong.
Are you arguing that profit is a justifiable reason to make a dumbed down product? I don't care how much money they make, Michael Bay films are a blight on American cinema. Likewise with the EA-model videogame. Its not as if Bethesda's Fallout 3 was the only way that a Fallout 3 could be profitable. Traditional RPGs and the franchise still have enough appeal to make a tidy, if not enormous, profit. NWN2 is the prime example, it didn't sell anywhere near as well as Oblivion but it made enough of a profit to justify an expansion pack and routine, high quality patches and updates. The point is that Bethesda valued profit above a quality product, and I don't see how that is remotely laudable.
still think it's a bit premature to call Fallout 3 an FPS. An FPS is an action game. A game that focuses on and revolves around action and more specifically, shooting.
First Person Shooter are action games, I agree. The action revolves principally around placing your cross hairs on a target and clicking until its dead. This is how combat is handled in Fallout 3. The only changes are that your damage and accuracy are character-skill determined and that you can have a recharging special targetted attack that you pause the game to execute. Combat will play like a first person shooter, most Bethesda games have lots of combat and Fallout 3 thus far looks to be no different, so it is not unreasonable to call the game a first person shooter.
An RPG is a game that focuses and revolves around meaningful high and low level choice.
And we all know how good Bethesda has been at executing that in all of their other games. Couple this with the "stellar" writing we've seen in the press demo, and it's looking increasingly likely that fans of Fallout 1 and 2 and CRPGs in general need not apply for Bethesda's outing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Op Ed |
|
| 44. |
Re: balderdash |
Sep 4, 2007, 12:48 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
A couple of points:
1. There is a perception out there that Fallout 1 and 2 did not make any money. That is false. I don't have the sales figures handy, but both games made enough money to be considered financial successes. The franchise would not have persisted the way it has had Fallout 1 and 2 merely broken even like Planescape: Torment. The decade long wait for Fallout 3 is attributable to Black Isle mismanaging it's product development (Torn anyone?), legal issues at Interplay (losing the D&D license which screwed up Black Isle's development schedule) and finally Interplay's death, not the supposed financial failure of Fallout 1 and 2.
2. Bethesda fully funds and publishes all of its own titles. The arguments about getting the green light from a publisher are all well and good so long as we are talking about a developer dependent on outside funding, Bethesda is not. Had Bethesda decided that creating a Fallout sequel faithful to the originals was worth merely breaking even, they could have chosen to do so. They could have chosen not to go for AAA production values [i.e. hiring an oscar winning (read: much more expensive) actor to voice a character] to ensure that they didn't have to sell a million copies just to make a profit. Bethesda, by virtue of being independent and self-funded, was completely free to set whatever financial goal they wanted for Fallout 3 and to develop the game accordingly. They chose to make a Fallout 3 that will be most profitable but will have least to do with its predecessors. In other words, Bethesda chose greed. They certainly can do whatever the hell they want, I just wish they didn't have to destroy what was left of the franchise, the franchise that got me hooked on PC gaming to begin with.
3. Finally, there is a perception that Fallout fans would only have been happy if the game was a-2D, tilebased, isometric, turn-based, stat-heavy game that included the ability to play a child-killing, drug-using, transvestite prostitute. There are certainly individuals within the Fallout community that feel that way but there are also individuals out there who believe the world is flat. I think if you were to look at the Fallout community as whole, you would find that they would not only accept a 3D game, but also expect one. With regards to perspective significant "concessions" would be happily made there as well. Look at how NWN2 handles the camera, it can be played from a third-person perspective like WoW or a free-roaming isometric camera just like Baldur's Gate, and everything in between. A 3D engine frees you up in that respect, and a system where by you can explore in 3rd person WoW style and fight in isometric BG style would've been gladly accepted by most of the community. I could go on but the point is that the Fallout community is not the arch-conservative it is made out to be. Rather, changes and improvements around a very successful core design were not only acceptable but also desired. The community is upset with Bethesda not because Bethesda made changes, that was expected, but because Bethesda has thrown the baby out with the bathwater and made a console first-person shooter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > The Witcher Movie |
|
| 9. |
Re: HardCore Fan Said What? |
Aug 31, 2007, 01:58 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
I'm assuming that Veng3ance was being sarcastic, seeing as how he mentions the NMA community thinking that Bethesda is on the right track, when in fact they seem to pretty unanimously hate the direction Fallout 3 is going. Either that or he is insane/retarded/on crack/all of the above.
This comment was edited on Aug 31, 01:59. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Gold - Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars |
|
| 69. |
Re: lol |
Aug 31, 2007, 01:54 |
Scottish Martial Arts |
|
|
Another guy taking screen shots at 1024x768 trying to show that QW looks bad?! hahaha seriously BUY A NEW CARD!
See that little blurb above the image that says:
This image has been scaled down to fit your computer screen. Click on it to show it in the original size.
Maybe you should try that sometime, then you'll realize the screenshots weren't taken at 1024x768.
Likewise, you might want to work on your reading comprehension a bit as I was arguing that Quake Wars looks as good as any contemporary shooter and looks far better than any of the older shooters bizarro2000 was comparing it to, not the opposite as you assert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2494 Comments. 125 pages. Viewing page 22.
< Newer [ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ] Older > |
|
Twitter 
