yuastnav wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 13:34:

Sphinx wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 13:28:

yuastnav wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 11:05:
Please tell me you are not serious. TFC/TF2 are nothing like Enemy Territory, I even dare say that ET was rather unique in its gameplay, not only concerning how the maps were designed and how the game mechanics worked but that every map had some background i.e. a small story behind it.
Team Fortress on the other hand never seemed very interesting to me.

From the simple fact about how many hours I sunk into Enemy Territory and TF2 they are exactly the same. So many, many hours wasted

Plus, some of the game mechanics were pretty similar but that comes with the whole team shooter territory I suppose.

Well, I have to admit that I am not overly familiar with Team Fortress, I always assumed that it is mostly CTF based whereas Enemy Territory seems to be based on achieving objectives.
I guess I'm probably wrong.
Still, no game will ever be like Enemy Territory (because no game engine will ever have the same movement as the Quake 3 engine *sigh*).

No, you're evaluation was pretty spot on. If you consider ET and TF identical you'd probably say that about most, if not all FPS's that have objectives and classes.

They have similarities, sure. I don't think its fair to lump them together as the same game though, they play quite differently.

Sphinx wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 15:22:
[...]

Hell, TF2 is free now, give it a shot.

Nah, the reason why I never got interested in TF2 is because I was really put off by that cartoonish style. Can't stand it, really.

DangerDog wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 14:08:
It had objective multiplayer? I thought it was just team deathmatch nonsense.

Well just like how your friend might have had sex with your dad to "take one for the team" your buddy Sphinx here tried to play a lot of the re-release of Wolfenstein.

The single player was good fun -- as Raven often has done well -- but the multiplayer was by another party and it just fell really flat. It did have objective and stopwatch maps but with each side being limited to less than 12 players and the feel and weapons not being nearly as much fun made it a very poor sequel to such a fine game like RtCW and RtCW: ET.

It's disappointing too when all that needed to be done was take everything from Quake Wars, remove the vehicles, reskin it, and make a few new maps. And there would've been RtCW2.

yuastnav wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 13:34:
Well, I have to admit that I am not overly familiar with Team Fortress, I always assumed that it is mostly CTF based whereas Enemy Territory seems to be based on achieving objectives.
I guess I'm probably wrong.
Still, no game will ever be like Enemy Territory (because no game engine will ever have the same movement as the Quake 3 engine *sigh*).

Well look what assuming does. It makes an ass out of you and me. But in this case, mostly you.

In TF2 there were escort maps (like the tank on Enemy Territory or the goldrush map) but instead the objective was to escort a cart with a bomb in it.

Unlike ET the escort object in TF2 would move backwards if you didn't stay near it. A few community made maps had a cart for both sides so you had to push your own and try to push the other team off theirs.

There are also capture the point maps but I preferred the cart maps.

It might behoove you to play the game before you accuse someone of "not being serious." RtCW:ET is one of the finest shooters ever made and TF2 expanded on it a bit and of course gave us hats to look totally pimp in while murdering people. TF2 is the younger nephew who idolized and improved on what his uncle did in life.

Hell, TF2 is free now, give it a shot.

This comment was edited on Jan 24, 2012, 15:29.

Sphinx wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 13:29:

DangerDog wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 12:51:
Watch it turn out to be Wolfenstein Enemy Territory revamped and reskinned, mostly for console gamers.

That was the Wolfenstein game from two years ago. It's understandable if you forgot about it though either through the passage of time or suppressing the terrible memory of the awful multiplayer in that game.

It had objective multiplayer? I thought it was just team deathmatch nonsense.

...special things planned to take full advantage of the changes our industry is experiencing...


Their core platform is now the mobile platform (Phones & Pads/Tablets), and then they'll port their games to the consoles. So now everyone will have to hear the console players complain about how crappy the mobile platform ports are. Sound familiar? HAHAHAHAHA…

I’m joking of course, but never say never.........

Sphinx wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 13:28:

yuastnav wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 11:05:
Please tell me you are not serious. TFC/TF2 are nothing like Enemy Territory, I even dare say that ET was rather unique in its gameplay, not only concerning how the maps were designed and how the game mechanics worked but that every map had some background i.e. a small story behind it.
Team Fortress on the other hand never seemed very interesting to me.

From the simple fact about how many hours I sunk into Enemy Territory and TF2 they are exactly the same. So many, many hours wasted

Plus, some of the game mechanics were pretty similar but that comes with the whole team shooter territory I suppose.

Well, I have to admit that I am not overly familiar with Team Fortress, I always assumed that it is mostly CTF based whereas Enemy Territory seems to be based on achieving objectives.
I guess I'm probably wrong.
Still, no game will ever be like Enemy Territory (because no game engine will ever have the same movement as the Quake 3 engine *sigh*).

DangerDog wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 12:51:
Watch it turn out to be Wolfenstein Enemy Territory revamped and reskinned, mostly for console gamers.

That was the Wolfenstein game from two years ago. It's understandable if you forgot about it though either through the passage of time or suppressing the terrible memory of the awful multiplayer in that game.

yuastnav wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 11:05:
Please tell me you are not serious. TFC/TF2 are nothing like Enemy Territory, I even dare say that ET was rather unique in its gameplay, not only concerning how the maps were designed and how the game mechanics worked but that every map had some background i.e. a small story behind it.
Team Fortress on the other hand never seemed very interesting to me.

From the simple fact about how many hours I sunk into Enemy Territory and TF2 they are exactly the same. So many, many hours wasted

Plus, some of the game mechanics were pretty similar but that comes with the whole team shooter territory I suppose.

...special things planned to take full advantage of the changes our industry is experiencing...


Their core platform is now the mobile platform (Phones & Pads/Tablets), and then they'll port their games to the consoles. So now everyone will have to hear the console players complain about how crappy the mobile platform ports are. Sound familiar? HAHAHAHAHA…

I’m joking of course, but never say never.........

yuastnav wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 11:05:
Please tell me you are not serious. TFC/TF2 are nothing like Enemy Territory, I even dare say that ET was rather unique in its gameplay, not only concerning how the maps were designed and how the game mechanics worked but that every map had some background i.e. a small story behind it.
Team Fortress on the other hand never seemed very interesting to me.

TF massively influenced RTCW to which ET is, well somewhere between an offshoot and a sequel. TF2 is more or less an offshoot-sequel to TF.

Folks who played those games can certainly say each of those games have major differences in just about everything. On the other hand, step back a bit and it's also clear these games are the TF genre.

Won't touch anything of theirs unless it has an awesome demo and stellar reviews, after being burnt by BRINK. Was hugely let-down by that game.

Remake ET and make it free for those who bought Brink then I might be able to forgive some of the shit they did with Brink.
Just compare the map design from ET to Brink and class design.
I just don't get how they can go from epic game play (ET) to utter fucking pile of shit game play (Quake Wars, Brink).

Watch it turn out to be Wolfenstein Enemy Territory revamped and reskinned, mostly for console gamers.

elefunk wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 11:52:
Why do you conflate "free-to-play" with "browser"?

Because that's the latest trend in the game industry? There's a number of established developers and startups working on browser-based game engines for HTML5 and the free-to-play model is eminently suited for that.

Why do you conflate "free-to-play" with "browser"?

After playing a ton of Tribes: Ascend, and quite a few hours of Firefall at PAX, I have no doubt that BRINK (if completely fixed and re-launched with a huge marketing push) could do "Super BRINK" (obviously not with that name) in the exact same way the Monday Night Combat guys are doing Super Monday Night Combat.

...special things planned to take full advantage of the changes our industry is experiencing...

Anyone else read that and immediately think free-to-play browser game?

Prez wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 10:32:
I really liked Quake Wars, though I'd guess I am in a minority there. It was fun in coop against bots, and the objective-based maps were pretty cool.

I'd like another Quake Wars game, ideally with more maps and a map editor. There was never enough content for the game, which is one reason it underperformed I think.

Don't get me wrong, Quake Wars was really good and it is still a fun game but the lack of continuous support (e.g. new maps etc.) and the lack of fanmade maps kind of killed the game. I guess you can still find a couple of servers but that is not really enough to sustain a game, although it is pretty cool that they haven't shut down the master server.
I remember that there was a 32 player CTF server for Jedi Outcast called [United] Coruscant and it was pretty full, at least until 2007 or so, wonder whether it's still online.

Sphinx wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 10:31:

yuastnav wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 09:54:

[...] as well as exploring spaces completely new to us. [...]

So no real successor to Enemy Territory Wolfenstein?

That was TF2.

Please tell me you are not serious. TFC/TF2 are nothing like Enemy Territory, I even dare say that ET was rather unique in its gameplay, not only concerning how the maps were designed and how the game mechanics worked but that every map had some background i.e. a small story behind it.
Team Fortress on the other hand never seemed very interesting to me.

Quake Wars was fine, but it was no Enemy Territory nor was it ever going to compete with TF2. Shit, UT3 couldn't compete with TF2.

Sphinx wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 10:31:

yuastnav wrote on Jan 24, 2012, 09:54:

[...] as well as exploring spaces completely new to us. [...]

So no real successor to Enemy Territory Wolfenstein?

That was TF2.

What?