22 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
 |
| 22. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 4, 2010, 15:54 |
Overon |
|
|
Jerykk wrote on Nov 3, 2010, 15:16:
That's not necessarily true. EVE is pretty hardcore and it's doing pretty well. I wil take your word for it.
I should have that the odds are against you if you make a hardcore MMO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 21. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 3, 2010, 15:16 |
Jerykk |
|
|
| That's not necessarily true. EVE is pretty hardcore and it's doing pretty well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 20. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 3, 2010, 13:10 |
Overon |
|
|
| The things that made Tribes great was that it had elements that appeal to "hardcore" gamers. You cannot make a successful MMO that only appeals to "hardcore" gamers, it's not financially viable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 19. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 3, 2010, 02:08 |
Kxmode |
|
|
Suddenly_Dead wrote on Nov 2, 2010, 16:05:
kxmode wrote on Nov 2, 2010, 11:24:
In other words while they own the Tribes name and technology this isn't going to be the same game we remember it being.
No, but it wouldn't be, would it? Dynamix is long-gone, and the last attempt at a Tribes game (far away as it may have been) was a bust.
But... but... but... oh, you're probably right.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 18. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 16:45 |
Warskull |
|
|
| So what I get from this interview is that it will be Global Agenda 2 with the Tribes name stamped on top of it to make up for how bad Global Agenda 1 was. These are pretty much all the same things they said about Global Agenda 1, then their lead dev decided he liked PvE more than PvP. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 17. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 16:37 |
Hellbinder |
|
|
I played combat arms for a while, and thought the purchasable items were pretty good and didnt ruin the game.
In a tribes game it might be better if it was not 10 different spin fusers, but perhaps different types of gadgets or vehicle upgrades.
the way combat arms works you basically rent time with whatever divice, weapon, gizmo you are getting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 16:05 |
Suddenly_Dead |
|
|
kxmode wrote on Nov 2, 2010, 11:24:
In other words while they own the Tribes name and technology this isn't going to be the same game we remember it being.
No, but it wouldn't be, would it? Dynamix is long-gone, and the last attempt at a Tribes game (far away as it may have been) was a bust.
I've still got more hope for Red 5's Firefall at this point, considering the lead designer is Tribes 1's. It's not Tribes, maybe even less than this game, but it's still got that spirit to it (and jetpacks). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 15. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 15:21 |
TangoBaker |
|
|
| So was Team Fortress, once. Welcome to the 2000's where everything has been monetized to hell and gone... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 14. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 15:13 |
Jerykk |
|
|
with unlocks or even purchacable items from a built in online store would be pretty fun stuff.
That would be terrible. Bye bye game balance. I don't want 20 versions of the spinfusor, with some versions being superior to others. Tribes is about skill, not loot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 13. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 15:11 |
space captain |
|
|
you are a complete moron if you think tribes was derived from battlezone
all games contribute to other games, but these werent even in the same genre
not much to argue about tho, debating with you would be like debating with a brain damaged monkey who thinks flinging shit proves a point |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 15:03 |
Surf |
|
|
3. Battlezone (Activision) > Tribes 1 > Tribes 2, this was the evolution of this style of game.
Retarded logic?
Hmm, guess you were thinking of the raster graphics BZ from the 70's. The stated Activision version had, and years before tribes mind you:
1. Vehicles
2. Ability to get out of vehicles
3. Ability to place objects like turrets
4. Snipers and the ability to single shot kill drivers in vehicles
5. Multiplayer
So unless you are that dumb to say that Tribes came out of thin air that there was no direct or indirect relationship to BZ and Tribes just proves you have your head completely up your asshole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 11. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 14:55 |
DangerDog |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 14:29 |
strich |
|
|
What happened to the Browser Based Tribes game?
I'd like to know this too. Hasn't Garage Games been promising us this for about two years now? I'd be happy if someone just reskinned the original game with some modern graphics and left the gameplay alone.
I don't want to play with 99 other players. Imagine the mortar spamming in a game that large. That's not fun, that's chaos. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I don't believe in a lot of things, but I do believe in duct tape. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 13:56 |
Hellbinder |
|
|
You guys MMO doesnt mean MMORPG. Tribes (especially tribes 2) already was an MMO just the 90's version of it.
You guys always talk so much crap about everything without actually seeing for yourselves. You spoil any chance a game could be good for yourselves before you even try it.
A Tribes 2 like game with built in community management like T2, with player and clan stat tracking, a persistant universe to fight over, with unlocks or even purchacable items from a built in online store would be pretty fun stuff.
The action would be hot and heavy just like T2 was, with 50 vs 50 teams (not that big an increase over 32 vs 32) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 13:28 |
mag |
|
|
Not terribly offended by large battles. 32 vs. 32 Tribes 2 matches were my favorite.
Am terribly offended by it being an MMO, though. GO MINE 5x SPINFUSOR DISCS. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 13:28 |
space captain |
|
|
Surf wrote on Nov 2, 2010, 12:54:
3. Battlezone (Activision) > Tribes 1 > Tribes 2, this was the evolution of this style of game.
this is some retarded logic..
first of all tribes was team based MP FPS only, based around high speed movement with jetpacks and combat with rocket style projetiles, and a couple support vehicles.. and spawned a new type of game based on acrobatic ctf flag throwing, called "rabbit"
battlezone was the first RTS in first person, it had nothing to do with ctf, everything was vehicular and you had to build your entire base from the ground up, it was primarily known for single player, MP was only between 2 people or 7 people in deathmatch mode |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 12:54 |
Surf |
|
|
1. Tribes 2 was slightly better than Tribes 1, but really I love them both!
2. What is wrong if they OFFER the option for 100 players? Surely they will allow you to scale it down to 1 vs. 1, 16 vs. 16, or whatever you like. Even 16 humans vs. 16 bots or whatever number?
3. Battlezone (Activision) > Tribes 1 > Tribes 2, this was the evolution of this style of game.
4. While I never played Planetside, I would enjoy a MODE where the game is more Battlefield like with objectives. But I would not accept them removing CTF! They must have everything that the old game had, even a couple of the old maps revamped, while adding new modes and features. If they go too far people will reject it, but not adding anything new is just plain stupid. They seem to know this.
5. What happened to the Browser Based Tribes game? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 12:42 |
Steele Johnson |
|
|
Did everybody miss the part of it being an mmo? It's not going to be a Tribes shooter remake or the next shooter in the series. They bought the Tribes franchise in order to make an mmo with it. That doesn't rule out them allowing other developers to extend the franchise by making another multiplayer shooter.
They're simply set out to make an mmo. Period. From what I gathered after reading the interview is that it's going to be similar to Planetside (not a bad thing at all) where you attempt to hold control or take control of different areas. Sounds like fun to me. Their biggest challenge is obviously game design. Planetside didn't quite get it right, so hopefully they look at all the games and determine what went wrong and then propose fixes to the model.
What's interesting is that SOE is currently working on Planetside 2. And I have this feeling that both games will be released around the same time.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 12:27 |
Jerykk |
|
|
| Tribes without CTF is like Quake without deathmatch. Just ain't right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Re: Tribes Universe Interview |
Nov 2, 2010, 11:56 |
bhcompy |
|
|
Jackplug wrote on Nov 2, 2010, 11:26:
Hi-Rez says: We are huge Tribes fans, and we certainly feel honored to own the Tribes Franchise, and are deeply aware of the expectations that carries
If they were huge fans of Tribes as they say they are, then why are they gonna introduce huge pvp 100+ player action. I just think it will be just a deathmatch shooter, in other words it will fall on its ass within the 1st 6months or less.
16v16 is adequate enough if not 12v12, but 50v50 will be just OTT in either offence or defence, ending in just a mess. I cant see ctf with 50v50 being any fun what so ever..
I imagine it's not going to be CTF. It's going to be like PlanetSide where you have objectives to take to gain control of the area and a grid on a map where you move from map to map based on what you own |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
22 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
