TribesNext

TribesNext is a new project that revives the multiplayer gameplay of TRIBES 2, the shooter sequel by Dynamix that was released in 2001. The game was released for free in 2004, but CD keys to activate the game were only distributed for a short time, and are no longer available, and even if they were, Sierra shut down the TRIBES 2 authentication servers late last year. TribesNext offers a patch to eliminate the need for a CD key and provides account management. It looks like care has been taken to ensure this all remains legal, and hopefully this won't be an issue given the free TRIBES 2 release, and the fact that support for the sequel, Tribes Vengeance, was cut before the game's first patch.
View : : :
66 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older
66.
 
Re: TribesNext
Jan 13, 2009, 10:22
66.
Re: TribesNext Jan 13, 2009, 10:22
Jan 13, 2009, 10:22
 
I disagree. If for example Tribes was hyped much more, the playerbase would have been much stronger. For either version.
No Tribes was ever hyped much, and thats also why the playerbase was never really strong. If they brought out a new T1 now and there would be enough hype, even such "hardcore" gameplay a la T1 would get lots of players involved.
To blame the community of the series for its failure is pretty far fetched.
Not at all. Tribes 2 received quite a bit of press, though I read far more comments about Tribes 1 players disliking it. You forget that too much hype usually turns people off a game. The point is that the community tore itself apart with the criticism of Tribes 2 - everything from the skiing to the exception errors - and every change made in a patch was torn asunder. I loved Tribes 2 and the teamwork that came when the vehicle transports were used well but there's no denying the community was quite fractured.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
65.
 
Re: sweet
Jan 13, 2009, 04:05
65.
Re: sweet Jan 13, 2009, 04:05
Jan 13, 2009, 04:05
 
I disagree. If for example Tribes was hyped much more, the playerbase would have been much stronger. For either version.
No Tribes was ever hyped much, and thats also why the playerbase was never really strong. If they brought out a new T1 now and there would be enough hype, even such "hardcore" gameplay a la T1 would get lots of players involved.
To blame the community of the series for its failure is pretty far fetched.

And to say that all that only like T1 are hardcore is far fetched too, actually almost arrogant already. I only played a short time in a clan, the rest of that was just for fun. Its not that T1 was no fun and only a competiton game.
If it was no fun no one would have played it.
T1 was something new and T2 already steered into the broad mass again. Ill say it for the 10th time: Classic didnt do much. It was a nice tweak, but nothing more. Even with T1 maps it didnt come close to the T1 gameplay. For example it was still far too slow. You could see that (besides lots of other stuff) on how easy air discs still were.

This comment was edited on Jan 13, 2009, 06:10.
I have given up on waiting for BIS to come back to their senses and do a real ArmA 2 successor.
Avatar 12928
64.
 
Re: sweet
Jan 12, 2009, 22:12
64.
Re: sweet Jan 12, 2009, 22:12
Jan 12, 2009, 22:12
 
I still say tribes 2 was a good evolution of the game and I loved Tribes 1. T2 was killed a lot by the stock speed in the game that was foolishly nerfed in the retail release. If the game was released with physics from the classic mod, it would have been far more successful with the hardcore people even with the added vehicles, missiles and all.

If you think about it, if you built the game exactly like Tribes 1 but you kept it like LT without any base assets, vehicles, deployables etc (which is what Legions is currently), it will linger in mediocrity with a small player base.

Moreover if you put in tons of guns, turrets, deployables, vehicles and nerf the crap out of the speed and skiing it will fail with the major fanbase and hurt the games momentum. (ala T2 retail release)

And of course if you have a completely whacked variation that removes things from Tribes, waters it down, turns tribes skiing into something foreign from T1/T2C physics and converts vehicles into fisher price then it will also fail. (ala Tribes Venegance).

You need both. A modern successor taking all the elements from T1 and adding some T2, no nerfs. no changing the way things work.

Not everyone that loved the game played competition. A lot of people played it for fun as well and people try to hone it for one side (hardcore competition people) or the other (people who play for fun or newbies). I say it can be honed for both, but sadly the community is always split between hardcore and casual player. Thats the problem. The attitudes of many hardcore fans dont help either. For some reason, Tribes has a large fanbase full of thuggery and attitude which somewhat helped kill the game.


Wtf!, I have to say that i tried to play T2, but as a capper i have to say that T2 is and always will be fucking terrible, small flat maps dont work with tribes its as simple as that. Tribes was all about skiing down mountains while being chained by chasing enemies, finding the best ski runs & team work and so on.

I rather walk away and remember the good times than play that piece of crap.

Based on your comment I take it you joined some base server with those monster sized maps that are more tactical and vehicle oriented. Join a classic server for Gods sake. If I never played Tribes 1 and joined I probably would think everything was shifter mod. T2 has many of the maps from T1 and more that are not flat. Smash Better yet sell that damn Packard Bell you bought in 1998.

This comment was edited on Jan 12, 2009, 22:28.
63.
 
Re: sweet
Jan 12, 2009, 19:52
Prez
 
63.
Re: sweet Jan 12, 2009, 19:52
Jan 12, 2009, 19:52
 Prez
 
I rest my case. Tribes is now and forever dead because of opinionated hardcore fanatics who grade only on the "Shit or Brilliant" scale.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
62.
 
Re: sweet
Jan 12, 2009, 16:42
62.
Re: sweet Jan 12, 2009, 16:42
Jan 12, 2009, 16:42
 
we Tribes diehards should have rallied around Tribes 2 en mass

Wtf!, I have to say that i tried to play T2, but as a capper i have to say that T2 is and always will be fucking terrible, small flat maps dont work with tribes its as simple as that. Tribes was all about skiing down mountains while being chained by chasing enemies, finding the best ski runs & team work and so on.

I rather walk away and remember the good times than play that piece of crap.
Avatar 52166
61.
 
Re: sweet
Jan 12, 2009, 12:36
Prez
 
61.
Re: sweet Jan 12, 2009, 12:36
Jan 12, 2009, 12:36
 Prez
 
I still think that if Tribes 1 came out again and was given a proper sales pitch, it would take off again as it was that good a game, as
it had so many tactical elements.

I completely disagree. In my opinion, Tribes will forever be a critical darling and commercial disaster. It is simply too complex for the average gamer's tolerance. Hindsight being 20/20, we Tribes diehards should have rallied around Tribes 2 en mass because as it stands all we succeeded in doing is splintering an already tiny niche audience through bickering about which one was better, and the series is now dead, never to arise again.

This comment was edited on Jan 12, 2009, 12:43.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
60.
 
Re: sweet
Jan 12, 2009, 07:30
60.
Re: sweet Jan 12, 2009, 07:30
Jan 12, 2009, 07:30
 
http://project-rise.org/news.php
This looks promising. They even said they dont want to add vehicles right now.
I have given up on waiting for BIS to come back to their senses and do a real ArmA 2 successor.
Avatar 12928
59.
 
Re: sweet
Jan 12, 2009, 07:02
59.
Re: sweet Jan 12, 2009, 07:02
Jan 12, 2009, 07:02
 
Beaner said:
T1 was great no denying it, but T2 is a worthy successor and more fun in some ways.

Worthy successor to T1 hahaha, when did T1 ever have flat maps, only time you ever saw flat maps was for all the T2 noobs..
I still think that if Tribes 1 came out again and was given a proper sales pitch, it would take off again as it was that good a game, as
it had so many tactical elements. Ok the scripts part wasnt easy, but im sure with the talent nowadays they could knock up a standard script hud for everyone.

I also think if they did a proper tribes game and looked back at Tribes 1 and seen what the game was all about and listen for once to the community, ok most of us now are in our 20's 30's and 40's, but we still ache for that T1 feel in a proper updated world. May never happen but atm tribes 1 dont work in vista :o( & i need xp back on.
T2 and TV tried but failed, all the game creators have to do is look at the core gamers and that was T1 and you will have a winning formula for one of the best online games that I think everyone would play. get that skiing feeling over roaming hills with a spinfusor and lets play....

Sorry i got carried away with the emotion of them good old days :o)

This comment was edited on Jan 12, 2009, 07:16.
Avatar 52166
58.
 
Re: I totally agree....
Jan 11, 2009, 23:21
58.
Re: I totally agree.... Jan 11, 2009, 23:21
Jan 11, 2009, 23:21
 
I do have one complaint however. Newbies are going to have a real hard time. In the map loading screens for example there are all these server settings that I have no idea what they mean. Like "Allow smurfs" and things about networking settings. I don't know how to interpret these settings.

Not much different then someone setting up a basic wireless router or game system. The allow smurfs could be a bit confusing true. Some of this stuff is some overkill to satisfy some of the really hardcore people. Many of them are also at fault for hurting the very franchise they love.

This comment was edited on Jan 11, 2009, 23:22.
57.
 
Re: I totally agree....
Jan 11, 2009, 19:24
57.
Re: I totally agree.... Jan 11, 2009, 19:24
Jan 11, 2009, 19:24
 
I can't believe that this game came out in 2001. I was again reminded how the game's integrated email system, news system, chat, buddy system, and server browser and game tweaking options put today's equivalents to shame.

I can't believe the games that are coming out now whose server browser pales in comparison to the number of useful options Tribes 2's had. It's like the server browsers are going backwards.

All of you young one's that never played tribes 2 should take a just take a look for educational purposes and see how many of today's games are inferior in the above basics. A 7 year old game puts them to shame. It's amazing. I'm not even going to discuss the depth of gameplay...

I do have one complaint however. Newbies are going to have a real hard time. In the map loading screens for example there are all these server settings that I have no idea what they mean. Like "Allow smurfs" and things about networking settings. I don't know how to interpret these settings.

This comment was edited on Jan 11, 2009, 19:25.
56.
 
Re: I totally agree....
Jan 11, 2009, 03:40
56.
Re: I totally agree.... Jan 11, 2009, 03:40
Jan 11, 2009, 03:40
 
I agree with Jerykk. Pissing off the core fanbase in a game is not a good idea. The same dev/producer type game change decisions that hurt tribes 2 on release and TV would have caused the same type of uproar with other franchises such as Counterstrike or Halo. Plus with bandwidth and gaming today there is no reason to nerf or water down a good Tribes game. Tribes at is core is not for casual gamers but the same could be said of Halo, or BF2, or Counterstrike and you dont see those franchises getting nerfed or drastically changed with each iteration.

One of the best Things about TribesNext are all the new kids you seee trying it out for the first time. The comment are just marvelous:

"This game is amazing.."
"How come I've never heard of this game before?..."

Simply awesome. Most of us long time players will have Grandkids by the time someone in the industry gets it about the Tribes franchise.

This comment was edited on Jan 11, 2009, 03:44.
55.
 
Re: I totally agree....
Jan 9, 2009, 12:08
55.
Re: I totally agree.... Jan 9, 2009, 12:08
Jan 9, 2009, 12:08
 
You have to try to bring in new players, and if you release exactly the same game as you did the first time around, the people that didn't buy it then aren't going to buy it now.

Agreed. However, you don't go about this by pissing off your existing fanbase in favor of a new one. Unfortunately, that seems to be a growing trend these days.
Avatar 20715
54.
 
Re: I totally agree....
Jan 9, 2009, 10:50
54.
Re: I totally agree.... Jan 9, 2009, 10:50
Jan 9, 2009, 10:50
 
Dynamix should have just taken T1, upgraded the graphics, added new maps, a couple of new weapons, integrated the popular scripts and voila, instant sales. I'm pretty sure all the hardcore T1 fans would have bought that. I know I would have.

Which would have been... what? 50,000 copies or so? A game can't sustain a sequel off the "hardcore" fans alone. You have to try to bring in new players, and if you release exactly the same game as you did the first time around, the people that didn't buy it then aren't going to buy it now.

Creston
Avatar 15604
53.
 
No subject
Jan 8, 2009, 23:54
53.
No subject Jan 8, 2009, 23:54
Jan 8, 2009, 23:54
 
Tribes I sucked in a big part of the online fps community, especially TF fans. While Q2 set the standard for multiplayer fps, Tribes was described as the next generation team based fps that would support up to 32 players at a time (then to 64, then 128?). You could tweak Q1 & Q2 to improve multiplayer performance be picky about what servers you joined, but, net performance, particularly for those of us on 56k modems was superior in Tribes for right out of the box team based fps.
By the time tribes 2 came out, other games were being built on new engines with comparable net optimized code and community features.
When Tribes came out with its sophisticated community tools (e-mail, etc.) it was competing in a market where the first online games were using games matching services like Kali [url=]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_(software)[/url] which to this day has set the standard for features most welcome in playing online fps team based games where you have reasons to need to communicate, in different ways, both inside and outside the game, keep track of your buddies, etc, -- which most built in game browsers today woefuly lack . The problem with T1 and even with T2 was that it wouldn't allow you as great an ability to run your own mods on private servers or publish your server ... the anti-cheat, DRM, limited modability made it a closed cycle. But I'm really confused about the vehicles .. did tribes 2 introduce that slow moving six seater flyier and the ground assault vehicle with the inventory station in the back and rocket launcher on the roof? Most of the time riding around on that big transport I was prolly grinning about how stupid it was that while we were making our third attempt to cross the map and crashing into a hillside as one noob pilot after another tried to commandeer the controls the real battle was going on below. In recollection, spoilt by this thread, I probably enjoyed more the quite moments alternating between capping and defending on that flatish desert map with the smal pyramid bases (no vehicles, no gens, a couple base turrets, & that dastardly energy sucker). But Tribes Classic was back for a long time? Might be worth a revisit.
Avatar 11674
52.
 
Re: I totally agree....
Jan 8, 2009, 14:29
52.
Re: I totally agree.... Jan 8, 2009, 14:29
Jan 8, 2009, 14:29
 
I can't believe that this game came out in 2001. I was again reminded how the game's integrated email system, news system, chat, buddy system, and server browser and game tweaking options put today's equivalents to shame.

I can't believe the games that are coming out now whoseserver browser pail in comparison to the number of useful options Tribes 2's had. It's like the server browsers are going backwards.

All of you young one's that never played tribes 2 should take a just take a look for educational purposes and see how many of today's games are inferior in the above basics. A 7 year old game puts them to shame. It's amazing.

This comment was edited on Jan 8, 2009, 19:33.
51.
 
Re: I totally agree....
Jan 8, 2009, 10:07
Prez
 
51.
Re: I totally agree.... Jan 8, 2009, 10:07
Jan 8, 2009, 10:07
 Prez
 
Well, it's kind of hard to release exactly the same game and ask people to shell out more money for it. In fact, that only works if your name is Valve or Blizzard.

So most devs have to "add" to a game to entice people to buy it again.

I think Tribes is a perfect example of a game that was murdered by its own community. Nothing was ever good enough for the hardcore Tribes fans. *shrug*

Creston

Exactly. Well said.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
50.
 
sweet
Jan 8, 2009, 03:44
50.
sweet Jan 8, 2009, 03:44
Jan 8, 2009, 03:44
 
They did a pretty good job considering its home brewed. Its funny all of a suddent there is this small revival of T2. No CD key for the win.

And get over the T1 better then T2 babble. T1 was great no denying it, but T2 is a worthy successor and more fun in some ways.

Go Digg it
http://digg.com/pc_games/Tribes_2_is_back

This comment was edited on Jan 8, 2009, 03:49.
49.
 
Re: I totally agree....
Jan 8, 2009, 03:37
49.
Re: I totally agree.... Jan 8, 2009, 03:37
Jan 8, 2009, 03:37
 
I dont know what you guys are talking about classic. It did indeed tweak the game a little towards T1, but it came nowhere near it.
It still felt like T2 - slow, clunky and far too easy.

It might be the maps you played. If I'm playing classic on an old T2 base map like archipelago or Sanctuary it does indeed feel alot like base because the map layout isn't friendly to much skiing. Now if I load up classic on a map like Dangerous Crossings, Stonehenge, Titan or Hillside it feels so much like tribes1 that I've never had the urge to go back to T1. (I loved T1 too if it wasn't already obvious.)

The biggest difference between classic tribes 2 and tribes 1 is the missile launcher that carries over from base T2, and I've never found that to be game breaking in any way.
48.
 
Re: I totally agree....
Jan 8, 2009, 02:19
48.
Re: I totally agree.... Jan 8, 2009, 02:19
Jan 8, 2009, 02:19
 
So most devs have to "add" to a game to entice people to buy it again.

Yes, "add," not "remove." With T2, Dynamix added something that nobody asked for (vehicle focus) and removed what people loved (speed and mobility). They weren't trying to please the fans, they were trying to recreate the vision they had for T1.

A good comparison is Fallout Tactics. Nobody wanted a tactical strategy game. They wanted an RPG. While Tactics was a decent game in its own right, it utterly failed as a successor to FO1 and 2. Give the fans what they want.

Dynamix should have just taken T1, upgraded the graphics, added new maps, a couple of new weapons, integrated the popular scripts and voila, instant sales. I'm pretty sure all the hardcore T1 fans would have bought that. I know I would have.
Avatar 20715
47.
 
Re: I totally agree....
Jan 8, 2009, 01:36
47.
Re: I totally agree.... Jan 8, 2009, 01:36
Jan 8, 2009, 01:36
 
Yeah its sad that devs always feel forced to "improve" a game with crap that isnt necessary.

Well, it's kind of hard to release exactly the same game and ask people to shell out more money for it. In fact, that only works if your name is Valve or Blizzard.

So most devs have to "add" to a game to entice people to buy it again.

I think Tribes is a perfect example of a game that was murdered by its own community. Nothing was ever good enough for the hardcore Tribes fans. *shrug*

Creston

This comment was edited on Jan 8, 2009, 01:36.
Avatar 15604
66 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  ] Older