ETQW Demo Details

The Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars Website now offers details on the demo for Splash Damage's now-gold teamplay shooter. The demo is still expected on Monday, with an IRC release party planned to surround the release. The story also reflects system requirements, and describes its content. Word is:
The Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars PC Demo comes with the final version of Valley, one of the larger battlegrounds in the game. Set in Yosemite, California, Valley has the Global Defense Force on the attack, as they attempt to foil a Strogg contamination plot centering on a water treatment facility. Valley features a great blend of close quarters infantry action, vehicle battles and aircraft dogfights, and the varied terrain combining mountains, waterways, tunnels and industrial structures allows for many different playing styles. To top it all off, there's a multitude of optional side missions and plenty of opportunities to try out the various defense turrets, artillery and radar deployables - Valley is a prime example of the frantic and diverse action you'll find in Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars.

If you want to learn more about Valley, read our Valley Map Guide for a full run-down of the team objectives, secondary missions and a host of tactical tips for getting the most out of the various GDF and Strogg weapons, items, deployables and vehicles.

For those who already played Valley in the Public Beta, the map has undergone further balance improvements based on your feedback. Most notably, the GDF can now capture the Contaminator Forward Spawn before the Shield Generator is hacked, which really cranks up the action around that objective. On top of that, the Demo contains the final XP and weapon balance, player movement, and vehicle handling.

The Demo also features ETQW's bots, so you can explore the map and gameplay in single player mode with computer-controlled opponents, or use the bots to fill up empty slots on multiplayer servers. We are also including the standalone server as well as the server launcher tool, so you can host your own online and LAN games.
View : : :
35 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older
35.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 7, 2007, 09:40
35.
Re: gah! Sep 7, 2007, 09:40
Sep 7, 2007, 09:40
 
It's not a matter of controlling an area in Quake Wars, once you capture the area it's yours not matter what. Which is one of the things I HATE about Quake Wars. I believe Objectives should be captured and lost.

Why? So if your team blows ass, they should be given a second chance? No. You lose it, it's done. Do better the next time.

The fact that anyone could suggest BF has more depth than Quake is downright laughable. If you want to see the depth of games, you look to the top players, and the activity of stuff like the CPL, in which case, Quake has gone through much more evolutions in terms of tactics than BF has (which has a clanscene that's dwindling only a year or two in)

Depth is not created by adding more things to the game. Depth is created through gameplay. Does Team Fortress have more depth than BF since TF has 9 very different classes?

This comment was edited on Sep 7, 09:41.
34.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 7, 2007, 06:50
34.
Re: gah! Sep 7, 2007, 06:50
Sep 7, 2007, 06:50
 
It's not a matter of controlling an area in Quake Wars, once you capture the area it's yours not matter what. Which is one of the things I HATE about Quake Wars. I believe Objectives should be captured and lost.

Avatar 12670
33.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 7, 2007, 04:44
33.
Re: gah! Sep 7, 2007, 04:44
Sep 7, 2007, 04:44
 
Quake doesn't have points on the map to capture
It does have powerful items that respawn in certain parts of the map. If you can control these areas, you have an advantage over your opponent. Rather similar, except Quake offers a tangible reason for map control versus Battlefield's seemingly arbitrary setup (note that I only played the BF2 demo).

It doesn't have classes that have different weapons
Since Quake is much more 1v1-centric than BF, this is probably a good thing (or not?). More importantly to me, Quake has much more diverse weapons which mean that players can master both 'normal' aim and 'prediction' aim (see rockets and hyperblaster, but especially rockets).


I assume that infantry combat in BF is largely about headshotting the other guy before he can headshot you . . . and this is why I think Quake has much more depth.



it doesn't have vehicles
Is it not usually easier to kill people when you are in a vehicle?

and it doesn't have a commander
yet coordination is the most important thing in a Team DeathMatch. I guess team mates do not need a commander when they have chat macros and teamspeak.

Apologies if my response sucks, I am le tired

32.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 7, 2007, 01:41
32.
Re: gah! Sep 7, 2007, 01:41
Sep 7, 2007, 01:41
 
Just curious - do you know what strafejumping is?

Also, why do you say this? I feel that Quake's item control + advanced movement + projectile weapons are quite unforgiving.

I stand with Jerykk.

What?

Quake doesn't have points on the map to capture. It doesn't have classes that have different weapons, it doesn't have vehicles, and it doesn't have a commander.

I stand with The Half Elf.

31.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 7, 2007, 01:08
31.
Re: gah! Sep 7, 2007, 01:08
Sep 7, 2007, 01:08
 
Actually Jerykk I agree with what you say only in reverse. Anyone can play Quake. Not everyone can play the Battlefield Series.

Just curious - do you know what strafejumping is?

Also, why do you say this? I feel that Quake's item control + advanced movement + projectile weapons are quite unforgiving.

I stand with Jerykk.

30.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 7, 2007, 00:48
30.
Re: gah! Sep 7, 2007, 00:48
Sep 7, 2007, 00:48
 
Umm.. if you don't like bots, don't play against them? Really, how hard is that?

Since only about half of xbox 360 owners even have Live (not everyone agrees with "pay to play") bots are still there as an OPTION for those who would prefer to play offline, or for those who don't even have Live.

It's hilarious seeing people complain about a bot they've never even played against and never have to use in the first place.

I'm glad they decided to add bots and those who bitch about them being there as an option, SIMPLY DON'T USE THEM!

29.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 7, 2007, 00:34
29.
Re: gah! Sep 7, 2007, 00:34
Sep 7, 2007, 00:34
 
Actually Jerykk I agree with what you say only in reverse. Anyone can play Quake. Not everyone can play the Battlefield Series.

Avatar 12670
28.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 6, 2007, 23:36
28.
Re: gah! Sep 6, 2007, 23:36
Sep 6, 2007, 23:36
 
Heh, I think you're giving the average Quake/Battlefield gamer much more credit than he deserves.

I don't think the average Quake gamer can be compared to the average Battlefield player. Quake is a much more specialized game and requires far more skill to play well. Battlefield, on the other hand, is much like CS in that it is accessible to all audiences, regardless of intelligence.

Avatar 20715
27.
 
Shall we play a game?
Sep 6, 2007, 23:29
Kxmode
 
27.
Shall we play a game? Sep 6, 2007, 23:29
Sep 6, 2007, 23:29
 Kxmode
 
How about Global Thermonuclear War.
Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
Later. Right now lets play Global Thermonuclear War.
Fine.

***nuclear launch detected***

DEFCON 1

-----
Ah ha! I caught you red handed Green cheating on Blue!
http://www.myspace.com/kxmode
latest track and artwork posted (9/6)
"Listen, Peter... with great horsepower comes... the sickest drifts..." - source
Avatar 18786
26.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 6, 2007, 23:24
26.
Re: gah! Sep 6, 2007, 23:24
Sep 6, 2007, 23:24
 
People may be stupid but bots will always be worse. Even the most base of human player is capable of at some moment even a meager display of cunning.

Heh, I think you're giving the average Quake/Battlefield gamer much more credit than he deserves. Either that or, maybe we've just been playing on very different servers all these years.

25.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 6, 2007, 23:08
PHJF
 
25.
Re: gah! Sep 6, 2007, 23:08
Sep 6, 2007, 23:08
 PHJF
 
Yeah I've played enough online games to have no satisfaction from playing bots. People may be stupid but bots will always be worse. Even the most base of human player is capable of at some moment even a meager display of cunning.
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Avatar 17251
24.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 6, 2007, 22:55
24.
Re: gah! Sep 6, 2007, 22:55
Sep 6, 2007, 22:55
 
Killing a bot is ZERO satisfaction. Killing a human being, especially a little kid who cries and whines and goes on and on about it; that's satisfaction right there.

I think you'll find the satisfaction comes from not having to play with the "little kid who cries and whines and goes on and on about it". I've done my time playing against real people, and because of that, I'm more than happy to leave them behind and play against the computer controlled variety. More than happy.

It's not like most games don't allow you to heavily set the odds in their favour, so you can't argue that the challenge is not there. I've played BF2 games with the opposing side having 3x the number that's on my side, and it's a rush when you take a spawn point and they come at you to get it back. By about the time you've dropped anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen of them, and the next one's finally gotten you, you'll still die with a smile on your face.

It's because this game has bots, that there's even a chance I'll be buying it. If it didn't, I wouldn't even bother with the demo.

23.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 6, 2007, 17:02
23.
Re: gah! Sep 6, 2007, 17:02
Sep 6, 2007, 17:02
 
The sheer volume of cheaters and hacks in some games makes bots a welcome relief.


"Well that sounds like fun times, Peter. Tell me...where does James Woods fit into the "fun times"."
- James Woods, Family Guy
"Van Gogh painted alone and in despair and in madness and sold one picture in his entire life. Millions struggled alone, unrecognized, and struggled as heroically as any famous hero. Was it worthless? I knew it wasn't."
22.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 6, 2007, 16:57
22.
Re: gah! Sep 6, 2007, 16:57
Sep 6, 2007, 16:57
 
Zephalephelah

My prozacs...

...let me show you them.
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishfull thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.
-Robert Heinlein
Avatar 17580
21.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 6, 2007, 16:54
21.
Re: gah! Sep 6, 2007, 16:54
Sep 6, 2007, 16:54
 

My other favorites are when groups of people think they are safe because they are in a group. I got a secret for you fuckers too. Semi-autos have more than one bullet & I practice changing to different targets quickly. Fuckin mob ass mother fuckers deserve every one of these hits. Faggots!

http://www.break.com/index/skaterfight.html

http://my.break.com/media/view.aspx?ContentID=280739


20.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 6, 2007, 16:49
20.
Re: gah! Sep 6, 2007, 16:49
Sep 6, 2007, 16:49
 
I completely agree that bots are a bad idea in games for online multiplayer.

I think that the reasoning is that bots lure in the first few players. Well, maybe, but Counter-Strike did just fine without them for a coupe years before they added them in for CS:S and now you can still find bots even in large games because the server owner wants 28 people minimum and pathetic shit like that.

Killing a bot is ZERO satisfaction. Killing a human being, especially a little kid who cries and whines and goes on and on about it; that's satisfaction right there.

This is why this is my favorite fight video ever:
http://www.break.com/index/wussy-skater-fight.html

Because that bitch came at a kid with a weapon and got hit with a weapon. What the fuck did he think was gonna happen?
I can't wait til some smart ass prick of a bitch head teenager comes at me with a knife or something. He's gonna be shot right on the spot with a real gun. Outside, I'll be nice and calm. Inside, I'll be laughing, "BITCH, WHAT NOW YOU STUPID MOTHER FUCKER!"

You can't get this kind of pleasure from a bot...

19.
 
Re: gah!
Sep 6, 2007, 16:28
19.
Re: gah! Sep 6, 2007, 16:28
Sep 6, 2007, 16:28
 
Whats with the ****ng bots? I cant stand playing on servers with bots. Why do people even like bots? Can someone who actually enjoys playing against bots, ,especially on an on-line server, please explain the ****ng fascination with playing against computer code versus an intelligent human being?

I'll admit that I prefer to play against bots rather than people. For me, it's just that the fun of a shooter isn't the competition as much as just the joy of blowing things to smithereens.

Another part is that bots don't latch onto one particular weapon and strategy that works, they don't bunny hop or try to use exploits, they don't talk about how l33t they are, and they don't blow up your tank on you just because you finally got to drive one after weeks of playing and they wanted it instead.

18.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 6, 2007, 16:27
18.
Re: No subject Sep 6, 2007, 16:27
Sep 6, 2007, 16:27
 
After the first few weeks of online play where it will appear that people are trying to teamplay to achieve the objectives laid out in the design of the maps and everyone turns the game into one big outdoor deathmatch battle, you’ll be glad that there’s bots to play against, offline.

remember, blame the player(s), not the game.


Exactly... the only "advantage" that a human-populated public server has over offline bots is that the humans will surprise you with new ways of being idiotic, while the bots are quite consistent.

17.
 
No subject
Sep 6, 2007, 15:20
17.
No subject Sep 6, 2007, 15:20
Sep 6, 2007, 15:20
 
seems to me that the game is pretty balanced, since some people are saying it's Strogg biased, and others are saying it's GDF biased (in certainly phases). in my experience, if the team is trying for the objective vs screwing around, things gets accomplished...(for example, a well organized strogg sniper team can delay bridge building forever; a good GDF team can have the MCP in the base in no time)....there are many ways an 'exploit/bias' can be minimized just by having the right deployables or right class.

16.
 
No subject
Sep 6, 2007, 14:59
16.
No subject Sep 6, 2007, 14:59
Sep 6, 2007, 14:59
 
Whats with the ****ng bots? I cant stand playing on servers with bots. Why do people even like bots? Can someone who actually enjoys playing against bots, ,especially on an on-line server, please explain the ****ng fascination with playing against computer code versus an intelligent human being?

After the first few weeks of online play where it will appear that people are trying to teamplay to achieve the objectives laid out in the design of the maps and everyone turns the game into one big outdoor deathmatch battle, you’ll be glad that there’s bots to play against, offline.

remember, blame the player(s), not the game.

Avatar 6174
35 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  ] Older