254 replies to this topic

[F4T 4L]

Ghogiel, on 05 February 2015 - 09:50 AM, said:

3/10

That's for presentation right?

I admit I'm not one for fancy fonts and such..

[pbiggz]

F4T 4L, on 05 February 2015 - 09:55 AM, said:

That's for presentation right?

I admit I'm not one for fancy fonts and such..

Ignore him, he does this everywhere.

[F4T 4L]

pbiggz, on 05 February 2015 - 09:58 AM, said:

Ignore him, he does this everywhere.

Thx for the warning.

Edited by F4T 4L, 05 February 2015 - 09:59 AM.

[Galenit]

Brody319, on 04 February 2015 - 09:48 PM, said:

Give an Elder Scrolls game, FTL: Faster than Light, Civilization, Terraria, State of Decay, Don't Starve, Alien: Isolation ect, there are plenty of games that Don't hold your hand through the whole thing and teach you through gameplay. quit thinking of CoD and other bullshit games when you think of modern games because they aren't all like that. Because I can point to the original 3 mario brothers games and say, you go right and jump. and sum up the entire games. Every generation of game has linear games, and those tend to be the most popular because its simple minded for simple minded people, who have no experience with games.



but for ever linear game, there are a ton of non-linear ones that are complex and hard.


Oh we are bringing up auto saves now? Then I point to the Quick save, Save ANYWHERE you want, and retry as MUCH as you want.

Deus Ex and Deus Ex HR are great examples what they have done to games
and shows perfectly that most new games are more show and no substance.

But the best is still Dead Space: A interactive movie with a sigleplayer cashshop.

[Brody319]

Mister Blastman, on 04 February 2015 - 10:02 PM, said:

Good point! I nearly forgot that abomination. Morrowind had a form of it but you at least had to pay money for it and couldn't use it in the middle of nowhere (other than mark/recall--but that required magic).

technically Daggerfall had fast travel, Morrowind was the only one without it. and they refined it and fixed it up a bit as they go on and will continue to do so. Also you don't have to use it, you aren't forced to use it. Daggerfall's fast travel and Oblivion's fast travel were really similar, with knowing where the cities are and having to travel to new locations to find them.

If anything Morrowind was the oddman of the group.

I find Oblivion and Skyrim's creature system rather interesting. Rather than just being like "NO! Don't go there!" and forcing a linearity approach like older RPGs did, they wanted to try and make it so you could go anywhere and fight enemies that were decently challenging. Its not a bad idea, just not implemented very well, but they are sticking with it and are making it better as they work on it. I imagine eventually it will be a hybrid of the old creature system and their leveled creature system, but at least they are willing to change the game's formula a bit and not just rehash the same **** over and over again. You can instantly tell Morrowind, Daggerfall, Oblivion, and Skyrim apart from each other just by their feel, art style, and how they play, yea they all have their flaws but no game is perfect, and I find it rather insulting you aren't willing to admit that plenty of older games had their flaws too.

I also fail to see how losing all your progress is fun. yea its challenging, but it seems more like a flaw in game design rather than a good challenge. in the past they were limited by their technology. but if I put a lot of hard work in a game, I'd rather the player ******* see more of it rather than constantly being stuck. Like building a house and putting in hours of work, then putting up brickwalls in the doorways, and repairing them every night if the owner doesn't knock every single one down and removes every brick. Challenging? yes, Fun? NO.

just because a game gets out the door doesn't mean they didn't surrender anything. If the devs are willing to take the risk and pour lots of money into something that will only appeal to a fraction of the gaming community, then they can and some work, however you don't mention all the ones that failed to do this either. how many indie games, or projects get scrapped because the demographic is just too small. either not wanting to water it down or change it just a bit to get it to open to a new market, or just not seeing any cash there.

Do you know how many games series had sequels planned, or talked about only to have it scrapped because they don't want to bother with such a tiny market? I doubt it, because most don't disclose that information.

Not defending CoD, or BF, or any other modern game that is clearly a flawed pile of crap they keep shoveling, I'm saying blanket accusations of "all new games are ******* ****" is really making it look like you just keep putting on thicker nostalgia goggles to blind yourself. I gave other examples of games and you picked one series. What about Terraria? GTA series? Don't Starve? KSP? there are tons of games that are not linear crap, games that could not be created with older technologies, but you refuse to talk about them because it doesn't fit your "all new games are ****" idea. Lots of new games are ****, but there were just as many ****** old games.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Escef, on 04 February 2015 - 11:29 PM, said:

What? Are you on drugs? Did I say it was? Tell me where the hell I said that. And you accuse me of strawmanning? You are literally attributing to me an idea I never stated and attempting to attack me for said idea. Hypocrite.

I'm attributing this to you for good reason. Most people think the current PGI maps are bad because they all follow the same theme of 3 paths, no jungle and some central engagement point. A good chunk of the same people you have attacked as "complaining" support a return to the MW4 maps which don't use paths as a primary terrain feature.

Not to mention YOUR defense of the removal of the pathing features on the PGI maps is that it removes the ability to capitalize on an enemy's mistakes. Meaning that without that specific feature, you can't suddenly capitalize. Maybe if you used less hyperbolic language this wouldn't be a problem?

Now are these same people suggesting that these areas just be flat and featureless (even then, that IS a terrain feature)? I doubt it, but that's not that point, the point is that the fork pathing leads to very linear gameplay and definitely needs to be done away with or at least limited in its usage.

Escef, on 04 February 2015 - 11:29 PM, said:

Except, y'know, that's not what we have here. Yes, all avenues are risky, they're supposed to be, it's a wargame and you are attacking a fortified position. Dare I to ask, what exactly is your expectation here? If you were trying to defend a fixed point, would you grant the opposing force multiple low risk avenues of attack? Do you have any conception of how stupid that would be?

Just because you type wargame instead of just game, doesn't mean it is somehow an exception to certain rules of a game. That is if one side has such a serious advantage that it becomes un-fun to play against, something is wrong. I'm not against sides getting advantages but it has to be a two-way street and surmountable if two evenly matched teams are playing against each other.
Now another thing, why does a defensive match have to be static? The whole reason people wanted objective based gameplay was for a more dynamic battlefield. That is to say, people wanted objectives to force players to have to consistently adapt to the battle depending on the objective rather than it just be a one sided version of deathmatch.

[F4T 4L]

WM Quicksilver, on 05 February 2015 - 01:01 PM, said:

I'm attributing this to you for good reason. Most people think the current PGI maps are bad because they all follow the same theme of 3 paths, no jungle and some central engagement point. A good chunk of the same people you have attacked as "complaining" support a return to the MW4 maps which don't use paths as a primary terrain feature.

Not to mention YOUR defense of the removal of the pathing features on the PGI maps is that it removes the ability to capitalize on an enemy's mistakes. Meaning that without that specific feature, you can't suddenly capitalize. Maybe if you used less hyperbolic language this wouldn't be a problem?

Now are these same people suggesting that these areas just be flat and featureless (even then, that IS a terrain feature)? I doubt it, but that's not that point, the point is that the fork pathing leads to very linear gameplay and definitely needs to be done away with or at least limited in its usage.


Just because you type wargame instead of just game, doesn't mean it is somehow an exception to certain rules of a game. That is if one side has such a serious advantage that it becomes un-fun to play against, something is wrong. I'm not against sides getting advantages but it has to be a two-way street and surmountable if two evenly matched teams are playing against each other.
Now another thing, why does a defensive match have to be static? The whole reason people wanted objective based gameplay was for a more dynamic battlefield. That is to say, people wanted objectives to force players to have to consistently adapt to the battle depending on the objective rather than it just be a one sided version of deathmatch.

The disadvantage is one you chose. Let's say not because you're simply following the herd, but because you appraised the scenario and made a call.

It was your call.

[D1G17AL]

There needs to be a greater emphasis placed on layered defenses and allowing the defense to sally forth from the bases. Wider open maps would help a lot.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Huh..some of you have vastly different memories of the previous MW title maps than I do, that's for certain. MW2 through MW4 and even the abominations MechAssault and MA2 had exactly what we see in MWO, terrain features that determine where the combats will take place. They may not have always FORCED us to those areas, but that's where we always ended up as those were the best places to fight, advantages for team on X side, perceived or real, always existed and that's what we want, the advantage.

I see far less terrain forced avenues on the majority of the MWO maps myself, except for the CW maps naturally, and those, well...what exactly did you expect when you have a static defended position? Thank the gods you aren't in charge of deciding where real world military forces put their bases, as giving your enemy multiple attack lanes and covered approaches is something that's been a serious no no since before the Roman Legions were trampling all over Europe, which btw, is my main problem with the CW maps, too many approaches, too much cover for the attackers. Defenders in a position of their choice ALWAYS have the upper hand in an engagement ladies and gentlemen, that's a well known fact, going back to the famous Spartan defense of Thermopylae where a much smaller force was able to stop a much larger force due to the location they made their stand. Why do you think castles and forts are built where and how they are, hint..it's rarely for the view.

I designed maps for some games in the past, and the first rule is..how do I get the idiots playing this game to fight each other? Given maps of essentially infinite size, you can't always get the players to fight anything but sniping wars or hit and runs out in the hinterlands, and that tends to lead to VERY long and protracted matches, which tends to be bad for the game as the LCD masses want instant gratification and being unable to decisively and completely destroy the enemy makes them unhappy. The LCD masses being unhappy means they go to another game, which means YOUR game doesn't make any money, which means YOU are out of a job. So it's really in the best interest of a good map maker to force the combat to happen, however that gets done, it MUST get done.

I keep seeing references to MW:LL and how great it's maps were and how great it was. I have a few questions for you about that.

Where is MW:LL now? How many people actually played MW:LL at it's most popular?

The answers to those 2 questions tells you everything you need to know about how great those maps REALLY were. They WERE beautiful maps, don't get me wrong, but they didn't do what needed to be done to be successful. And look at the maps people loved playing on the most and look at where the most combat took place on those maps...yeah..see...it's not what you think it was now is it.

Want people to fight and get a match over quickly, you MUST force them to do so. Give them room to muck about and do things besides engage the enemy and guess what, they WILL muck about and not engage the enemy, players will be bored because they did NOT download this to play MWO: ComStar Explorer Corps(which would be a nice idea for later if they ever get around to PvE), they wanted to get in big stompy robots and STOMP on other players!

We have maps where you can play hide and seek, and what happens when that occurs? Ain't no one happy but the people hiding, the other team is usually PO'd and complaining the entire time. Why do you think the caldera is where most of the combat takes place on Terra Therma? You can hide on that map real well, but gods help you if you do. Same with Alpine and Tourmaline, lots of map to explore, but we all know what happens if you do that.

PGI is doing good on the map designs, not great, but good. Oddly enough, the maps that don't force you to go anywhere in particular are some of the most disliked maps in this thread because those maps almost always end up with the battle happening in a few specific locations. That's the PLAYERS forcing the action, not the map, so why do you folks blame PGI for that? Why don't YOU pick some other place on those maps to force the action....go on, try it, get back to us on how well it works.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kristov Kerensky, on 05 February 2015 - 02:05 PM, said:

Where is MW:LL now? How many people actually played MW:LL at it's most popular?

Talk about loaded questions...

[Brody319]

Galenit, on 05 February 2015 - 10:12 AM, said:

Deus Ex and Deus Ex HR are great examples what they have done to games
and shows perfectly that most new games are more show and no substance.

But the best is still Dead Space: A interactive movie with a sigleplayer cashshop.

Both those games are very different in style. Different people working on it and putting it out, so they will be different even if they are sequels. I personally found HR pretty enjoyable. its fun and interesting. It seems like they wanted to focus more on the story rather than the gameplay, they do encourage exploration of the map, and have multiple routes. gunplay is pretty solid and fun.

I seriously don't understand what you mean by the Dead Space 1 being a interactive story. I've played interactive stories, go play the Walking Dead, game and you will know what an interactive story is. Dead Space 1 was a solid game, plenty of gunplay, interesting concept, and really fun.

development is different for games now. Its not a few people in a small office working on a single game. its a ton of people working on one game, or multiple games.


You understand that the CONSUMER aka, YOU. decides what gets made right? when a new game comes out that is shallow, and people buy millions of copies of it, the publishers go "well people want more of that, keep putting it out, we need money!".
after the IGP incidents I would have figured this community would know the dangers of a publishing company. Developers can't make what they want, they make what the publisher wants. and the publishers want what makes them money.

[F4T 4L]

WM Quicksilver, on 05 February 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

Talk about loaded questions...

And the Ammo's live..

D1G17AL, on 05 February 2015 - 02:02 PM, said:

There needs to be a greater emphasis placed on layered defenses and allowing the defense to sally forth from the bases. Wider open maps would help a lot.

OK. Since you have such strong ideas. Draw a level. Indicate elevation, spawn points and such, and show us how it should be done.

[Escef]

F4T 4L, on 05 February 2015 - 06:31 AM, said:

Caught me out.. You're right, I am an Escef alt. Well played.

Not only that, but apparently I composed that post without knowing it, while driving home from work... Damn, I'm good.

[Escef]

WM Quicksilver, on 05 February 2015 - 01:01 PM, said:

I'm attributing this to you for good reason.

You being a liar and a hypocrite is not a good reason.

WM Quicksilver, on 05 February 2015 - 01:01 PM, said:

Not to mention YOUR defense of the removal of the pathing features on the PGI maps...

Wait, I was DEFENDING that idea? Um, no.

WM Quicksilver, on 05 February 2015 - 01:01 PM, said:

...is that it removes the ability to capitalize on an enemy's mistakes. Meaning that without that specific feature, you can't suddenly capitalize. Maybe if you used less hyperbolic language this wouldn't be a problem?

Not at all. I'm saying it removes from the attacker the option to make a mistake. At this point, not only do I think you incapable of comprehending what I write, I don't think you even comprehend your own writing. And at this point, I'm done with you.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Escef, on 05 February 2015 - 04:44 PM, said:

Not at all. I'm saying it removes from the attacker the option to make a mistake. At this point, not only do I think you incapable of comprehending what I write, I don't think you even comprehend your own writing. And at this point, I'm done with you.

Notice your language here, you don't say it makes it easier for the attacker to reduce the effect of a mistake or that the mistake is somehow lessened. YOU stated that removing the lanes removes the ability to make a mistake. THIS IS SAYING THAT LANES ARE REQUIRED FOR MISTAKES TO BE MADE BY AN ATTACKER. There is no language here to suggest you believe it is a sliding scale, your language simply says it is binary. Thus it must be the only terrain feature to allow this otherwise you would use different language to explain this point. That isn't a leap in logic, hyperbolic, or a strawman. This is me re-explaining what you just said to point out the flaw in your argument.

The fact that during this conversation you have had to revert to character attacks like below to try and strengthen your point only further proves the weakness of your argument.

Quote

I answered it. Get some reading comprehension, I hear it's going for $10.95 at WalMart.

Quote

What? Are you on drugs? Did I say it was? Tell me where the hell I said that. And you accuse me of strawmanning? You are literally attributing to me an idea I never stated and attempting to attack me for said idea. Hypocrite.

Quote

You being a liar and a hypocrite is not a good reason.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 05 February 2015 - 07:09 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

WM Quicksilver, on 05 February 2015 - 02:27 PM, said:

Talk about loaded questions...

Not loaded at all, I'm fully aware of what happened with MW:LL, I played it myself, good mod, lots of fun, NEVER a model for a successful video game however, and that's why it's not existent today, which is a shame. Keep the other bs that's been tossed around about the end of MW:LL out of it please, it's not relevant and isn't why MW:LL never had a large player base.

[Ghogiel]

Kristov Kerensky, on 05 February 2015 - 02:05 PM, said:

I keep seeing references to MW:LL and how great it's maps were and how great it was. I have a few questions for you about that.

Where is MW:LL now? How many people actually played MW:LL at it's most popular?

The answers to those 2 questions tells you everything you need to know about how great those maps REALLY were.

The DLs of the mod is in the 10s of thousands it might be 100k but I really can't remember . The number of active players at it's zenith is in the hundreds. At least about hundreds of regulars who played regular. During peak times about 60-100 people were online at a time which it held for years. Best ask the server admins for logs and they can tell you exactly.

Was voted as mod of the year by ModDB. A few devs made careers off that mod.

Hard to say it isn't a popular and successful for a mod for crysis imo.

Edited by Ghogiel, 05 February 2015 - 08:36 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kristov Kerensky, on 05 February 2015 - 07:36 PM, said:

Not loaded at all, I'm fully aware of what happened with MW:LL, I played it myself, good mod, lots of fun, NEVER a model for a successful video game however, and that's why it's not existent today, which is a shame. Keep the other bs that's been tossed around about the end of MW:LL out of it please, it's not relevant and isn't why MW:LL never had a large player base.

Why it's non-existent today isn't because it wasn't a successful model (at least gameplay and development wise). It didn't use marketing tactics like PGI has had, it didn't have the same level of artwork that PGI had, most importantly, though tied in with marketing tactics, it didn't generate the hype that PGI did with MWO or did it try to cater to the BT purist crowd; considering the people who started it knew nothing about BT at the time.

What you try to imply with your question is that the gameplay elements are what caused it to turn into a failure which is BS. There is only one reason why NBT never even created a league for it: There wasn't enough demand, the fact it was a mod and required a game a lot of people didn't care about was a contributing factor, as was how computer intensive it was. Not to mention it was felt that a mechlab was crucial to being a Mechwarrior and many were holding out for that, and would inevitably be disappointed with how that debacle turned out. Another part of the lack of demand was the lack of hype behind it, especially compared to MWO which had an actual gaming company behind it rather than a few modders perception wise that is, I bet programmer wise there wasn't much difference.

This is also ignoring the love for MW4 maps. Having played in NBT:HC and NBT:MP3 leagues, I thoroughly enjoyed the MW4 maps compared to the PGI ones, including the controversial repair bay maps (hillfort is one of my favorite maps). Even some of the more linear maps still felt better because of the illusion of choice (which is an important topic in game design imo).

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 05 February 2015 - 08:38 PM.

[Ghogiel]

I do want to note the one possibe point about MWLL maps detractors haven't brought up. MWLL had respawn. imo every other critisism against MWLL maps in this topic is vague or just misinformed. I think it is worth pondering that as imo that is one of the reasons why some MWLL maps wouldn't be good in MWO.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Quicksilver, the reason there wasn't a big enough player base for MW:LL WAS the game play. It got lots of hype, won awards(tons of free PR for years in a row), it was built on a free SDK of the CryTek engine that was given out before the commercial release of the SDK(lots of free PR), it had MicroSoft's permission to exist, as long as it wasn't being sold for a profit(free PR again), and there was lots of articles and blurbs about it. It just wasn't that much fun to most people. It was fun to me, but not fun enough to play it very often or very much, mainly hop in after an update, see that..yeah, not there yet, maybe NEXT time...repeat, for years. After almost 4 years, I wasn't getting excited for the next update, ya know? It was one hell of a total conversion mod, no two ways about it, but it just wasn't all that nor did it seem to be getting there after 4 years.

The love of MW4 maps..ok, I'll bite. First off, never had any freedom of choice on those maps, not even the illusion of it. Start match, everyone knows where to go because the battles are always at X spot. Same as MW2, MW2:Mercs, MW3, MW3:PM. They were big wide open maps, but that didn't actually matter, you still went to the same spots every damn drop no matter who you were dropping against, exactly as you did in the previous MW games. Same as you do in every other online multiplayer game. Certain areas have perceived or real advantages, so that's where you go. As I said, look at the maps in MWO, people fight in the same spots on certain maps every drop BECAUSE! There's no terrain features forcing you there, there's no actual advantage to either side, but that's still where everyone goes. The LCD crowd wants to fight, NOW, not hunt for other players through a real canyon network or swamp or urban setting because that's boring. They want to kill stuff NOW!!!!!!!!! So they go for the center on Tourmaline and Terra because that's where..well..why exactly is not real clear to me, but it's where they go every damn drop regardless. Caustic, Swamp, etc, people tend to go for the center of the map in the solo/group que drops, there's often NO tactical reason for it, they just do it. We get the circle dance for a reason, and it's not the map design, it's the circle straffing that PGI wanted to try and avoid, just can't get away from it with MW games, even MW:LL had it going on, just more varied dancers involved due to the combined arms.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see some seriously complicated maps with borders that were literally 10 minutes apart at 100kph, with tons of places for ambushes, sniping, LRM storms, brawling, all that fun stuff. Give Lights a REAL reason to be out front, actually scouting for the team. But that type of map leads to very long drawn out combats for a while, before everyone starts to just head to a certain spot every damn drop to get that dance going on ASAP. It's just the nature of the beast, that beast being the players. Say what you will about how the DOTA maps give you no real choices, they WORK and they are successful and that's really all that matters. And that's because when you get down to it, people want to just get that dance going in earnest ASAP, not spend time searching for foes that could be anywhere.