I am wondering, the demo is out and nobody writes a comment about it? I am downloading it now. I am curious if it runs smoother on my pc than the beta.
I'm enjoying it immensely. There are certain similarities to BF, but it's not just a capture this one location and hold it type of thing. The map "Valley" that they've released has more than a few awesome similarities to the old W:ET, what with the escorting a vehicle to a location, the building of a bridge for said vehicle, and the ultimate last ditch attempt to defend an objective with the ability to defuse bombs. I love it.
just played it for an hour, really is lovely looking but rather fast paced so I didnt really get to admire the quality of it all until I was dead hehe.
The only 2 things that bother me are the weapons and their effects...particulary the standard GDF machine gun and strogg machine gun, they feel really pathetic, no big punch or recoil, it feels like Im shooting very fast pins. The death/hurt animations also dont seem impressive. So Im not incredibly impressed with the man to strogg combat so far. Vehicles are cool. I guess it might grow on me.
Watching the trailer definitely doesn't inspire me to play the game. I'll grab the demo at some point to give it a go, but QW is really looking like a BF2142 clone with some quake stylings to it. Who knows, I might just find the gameplay and combat balancing fun, but I'm not holding my breath on this one.
It's really not like BF, guys ... give it a shot please, it's fantastic. If you didn't like the original ET, then you won't like this one. There are the same awesome tactical choke points and alternate routes the first one had. My hats off to SD.
the objective based play style is really cool, just knowing that everyone on the team has a specific goal and isnt just randomly crowding around stratefic points like in BF is excellent. I need to get some friends to play this to make it really fun!
Despite multiple pathways there still are chokepoints where the map can and does come to a standstill.
The art level of the game just doesn't grab me, and the gameplay doesn't feel nearly fresh enough to make it stand out from BF and the like. I'll pass on this one for the time being...
[ QUOTE ]
If you didn't like the original ET, then you won't like this one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe it is just me, but I absolutly loved the original ET, but ET:QW really doesn't have much in common with it.
But I also think that vehicles and FPS just don't fit together... the mapdesign has to be extremeply boring to accomodate the vehicles
The only excerption from this rule I have found so far are the tanks in RedOrchestra.
I'm not liking the vehicle stuff either, sadly. I didn't want this to be BF. I hated that series. The best thing about vehicles in the original ET was that you were just as vulnerable in them because they were either big slow tanks or trains etc that people on foot could still catch up with. You were definitely making a trade off in multiple ways if you chose to board one. Like JKMakowka said, the maps have to be built to accomodate the vehicles. This eliminates everything that was cool about the maps in W:ET.
The game itself doesn't feel as 'meaty' or solid as W:ET did - from the movement to the weapon feedback. I just don't feel as immersed in the game without those things. Instead I have the sensation of floating or skating over the terrain while clicking on targets. I won't comment on the art since there wasn't much to it in W:ET either and I never had a problem with that. That wasn't what drew me to want to play that game nor is it this time around. It's nice to have good graphics to help pull you into the game, but it has to feel good to play first. Art is just gravy.
Sorry to frankie and the other polycounters who worked on this. I'm not bagging on anyone's efforts in the art dept - just the feel of the game itself, which seems to have lost something since Wolfenstein. I was a huge wolf player though so my crits come from that place.
Also, chokepoints in the original ET were one of the best parts of the game. Fighting was so intense during standstills and it made victories so much sweeter. It was all about not giving up ground or gaining it back in order to fulfill objectives. Without this the game would not have been as interesting.
tried it on lan today after work, i would rather play wolf enemy terrority, or battleifield. it seems they tried to merge them but lost the charm of both.
[ QUOTE ]
tried it on lan today after work, i would rather play wolf enemy terrority, or battleifield. it seems they tried to merge them but lost the charm of both.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tracy, honestly you only played a couple rounds and EVERYONE was still learning. I had the same first premonition as you but after a couple games (just like when I was learning the original ET) I picked it right back up and am in love. Just jump on with us a couple more times after work and I bet you will find that you can spam artillery in this one too.
Matabus had top scores in enemy kills AND team kills!
My shining moment came when I started running away from a medic who was throwing med-kits at me because I thought he was an infiltrator trying to kills me!
Tried to crank it on LAN today at work, but none of us were able to host a dedicated server and run ET:QW at the same time. The game itself would crash upon start up, but the dedicated server will remain functional. As far as I know that's the only way to set up a LAN only server.
We all ended up just running around in Single-Player to get used to the game. A lot of improvements from the BETA and I really enjoyed it.
Some of the guys here didn't quite like it that much, but only because they were doing a direct comparison to BF2.
we are playing the demo on the internal LAN, its pretty fun, but not the best looking game even with all the settings turned on. The strogg are definitely underpowered compared to the marines. After playing cod4 beta, team-based gameplay just doesn't feel the same anymore.
played again last night against some bots, Im starting to get to know the map, its a bit more fun, I still think the weapons feel weak though. I wish there was just a bit of kick and some cool sounds and that when I shot the enemy they showed some really strong hurt animations.
Matabus, how can you not say it's just like BF. It is 95% BF down tot he play mechanics class names etc. They would have been better off just modding the BF engine. I agree the weps feel weak, the fights are not really intense, the objectives are rather boring, but it's pretty. The vehicles were just downright ridiculous, and merely an excuse to move faster down the map. Playing online was the biggest headache, I'm not spending 50 bucks to play with hundreds of gibbering boobs that have no clue what they are doing or just clutter text chat or headsets with garbage. Feel more like ET:Myspace. Give me good old Q3 or 4 DM/CTF any day. This objective bullshit is overrated. There are thousands of ways to make ctf more interesting and it's much more intense running with a flag than grinding down holding a point. You can be a hero in ctf or dm, not these massive scale games.
To each his own, man. I personally love the move-from-one-objective-to-the-other play style this and the original ET had. It's what makes the two games stand out in a sea of CTF and DM. I think you should probably try playing with friends who know how to play and not a congested server full of people who don't know what they are doing. It's not really a "pick up and own" type of game. You have to take time to really learn each map.
What sea of CTF and DM? Quake and UT? I'm not counting the ridiculous flood of WWWhatever games. I wasn't trying to dis you man, but it's just like BF, they make the objectives small steps so people can easier identify what the goals are. I dig that, I really do. But it's nothing new.
I dont have 16 online friends to train up with and make leet clanz with. It is very possible to make objective gameplay cater to more people. Think UT2k4 assault. That actually required some skill in addition to knowing the objectives etc and it did'nt clutter the crap up with jobs, BF and the ET clones are just numbers games and random chance that you have people who know the game on your team. I enjoy playing the bots in ET though. Single Player campaign would have been a nice adition.
Being online in the game, and not being able to just complete the objectives because I'm a different class is ridiculous to me. I get to the objective and just sit around while my teamates goof off, and I have to change jobs and loose my xp points just to win the map when others are just dickin around. Not fun at all.
[ QUOTE ]
What sea of CTF and DM? Quake and UT? I'm not counting the ridiculous flood of WWWhatever games. I wasn't trying to dis you man, but it's just like BF, they make the objectives small steps so people can easier identify what the goals are. I dig that, I really do. But it's nothing new.
I dont have 16 online friends to train up with and make leet clanz with. It is very possible to make objective gameplay cater to more people. Think UT2k4 assault. That actually required some skill in addition to knowing the objectives etc and it did'nt clutter the crap up with jobs, BF and the ET clones are just numbers games and random chance that you have people who know the game on your team. I enjoy playing the bots in ET though. Single Player campaign would have been a nice adition.
Being online in the game, and not being able to just complete the objectives because I'm a different class is ridiculous to me. I get to the objective and just sit around while my teamates goof off, and I have to change jobs and loose my xp points just to win the map when others are just dickin around. Not fun at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
??? I never thought you were trying to dis me.
By sea of CTF and DM I meant every single FPS game that has come out. They all come with a tacked on CTF or DM and I am lumping BF in there with CTF. Like I said, to each his own. I really love the aspect of people NEEDING to be different classes to complete an objective. It's the teamwork there that I find the most enjoyable. I am not suggesting finding a group of "16 online friends to become a leet clanz" with, I was just trying to say I find it more fun when I am playing with people who know what they are doing and can communicate while playing.
not to derail the thread.. but i found Natural Selection to be the deepest and most enjoyable team-based online shooter..
Being a more teamwork/cooperation type of player myself I found the game to provide a level of communication and cooperation that any retail game is yet to match.
This game looks great but I don't think I'll ever find the kind of communication required to succeed as I've had with NS. I never clanned in Battlefield but the few times I did get some groups together to play the strategy aspect just wasn't there and there's very little team reliance on one individual surviving.
NS was pretty sweet, I found it to be an FPS version of StarCraft (to a sensible degree).
Played more Quake Wars last night when I got home, once again forced to play single player (couldn't play online, internet was screwy all night), because I couldn't run the dedicated server and the game on the same PC. MoP, little insight to this? Is there a way to host a server inside the game without starting a dedicated server?
Aside from that, played against bots for about 3 or 4 hours straight. I found I played as Engineer the most, where its my least favourite class in BF2. But only because the bots wouldn't really complete most of the objectives and had to carry the team. Really need to play online
casey, you need to edit some parameters if you plan on running a server on the same PC you're playing. This is for Beta 2, but it covers the procedure to specify a different folder for the server configuration:
And yeah, my thoughts on the game are that it's mint. I used to be a Tribes player and I took to this like a duck to water. It takes a while to understand what's going on, so stick with it for a bit and you'll really enjoy it more. And yes, although the bots are decent, the respective roles of each player, and the way people assert themselves to the objective work much better.
played again yesterday, and why i think it looks pretty good (props to all the polycounters) it feels like an enemy territory mod for battlefield. I definatly don't dig the asymetrical play. and so far none of the classes i've tried really seem to be memorable. I'll give it a few more trys when i get to play wiht more live people. but as of now the only thing its really done is make me reinstall bf2142
and by far the best team based game i've ever played was Planetside, i rember days of having our outfit split up into 3 30 man platoons each running sepertate mission, one on sabotage, one on offense and one on deffense, we would actualy schedule training time where we would get on line and practice formation tank and aircraft drills, nothing sweeter than bringing in like 15 liberator bombers in a perfect V squadron over an enemy base just laying waste to everything.
Terrans, having trouble rembering the outfit name now.. have to install it and check! USTKA was the name of the outfit. aparently they don't kick members!
I was on Konrad and then Emerald and hung with Sol Navy playing mostly Terran. My brother is on Markov now and played with Future Crew for a long run leading them for awhile.
Replies
My first impression though is that it is too much like Battlefield, which I really don't like at all
But I have to play it a bit more
The only 2 things that bother me are the weapons and their effects...particulary the standard GDF machine gun and strogg machine gun, they feel really pathetic, no big punch or recoil, it feels like Im shooting very fast pins. The death/hurt animations also dont seem impressive. So Im not incredibly impressed with the man to strogg combat so far. Vehicles are cool. I guess it might grow on me.
I absolutely LOVED the first ET. Most of my favorite multiplayer gaming moments were in ET.
Now that it's gone gold, I expect some stuff in P&P from our splash damage polycounters!
Despite multiple pathways there still are chokepoints where the map can and does come to a standstill.
The art level of the game just doesn't grab me, and the gameplay doesn't feel nearly fresh enough to make it stand out from BF and the like. I'll pass on this one for the time being...
If you didn't like the original ET, then you won't like this one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe it is just me, but I absolutly loved the original ET, but ET:QW really doesn't have much in common with it.
But I also think that vehicles and FPS just don't fit together... the mapdesign has to be extremeply boring to accomodate the vehicles
The only excerption from this rule I have found so far are the tanks in RedOrchestra.
The game itself doesn't feel as 'meaty' or solid as W:ET did - from the movement to the weapon feedback. I just don't feel as immersed in the game without those things. Instead I have the sensation of floating or skating over the terrain while clicking on targets. I won't comment on the art since there wasn't much to it in W:ET either and I never had a problem with that. That wasn't what drew me to want to play that game nor is it this time around. It's nice to have good graphics to help pull you into the game, but it has to feel good to play first. Art is just gravy.
Sorry to frankie and the other polycounters who worked on this. I'm not bagging on anyone's efforts in the art dept - just the feel of the game itself, which seems to have lost something since Wolfenstein. I was a huge wolf player though so my crits come from that place.
tried it on lan today after work, i would rather play wolf enemy terrority, or battleifield. it seems they tried to merge them but lost the charm of both.
[/ QUOTE ]
Tracy, honestly you only played a couple rounds and EVERYONE was still learning. I had the same first premonition as you but after a couple games (just like when I was learning the original ET) I picked it right back up and am in love. Just jump on with us a couple more times after work and I bet you will find that you can spam artillery in this one too.
My shining moment came when I started running away from a medic who was throwing med-kits at me because I thought he was an infiltrator trying to kills me!
We all ended up just running around in Single-Player to get used to the game. A lot of improvements from the BETA and I really enjoyed it.
Some of the guys here didn't quite like it that much, but only because they were doing a direct comparison to BF2.
-caseyjones
No game is ever gonna compare to Unreal XMP though in this genre. I loved that game so hard...
I dont have 16 online friends to train up with and make leet clanz with. It is very possible to make objective gameplay cater to more people. Think UT2k4 assault. That actually required some skill in addition to knowing the objectives etc and it did'nt clutter the crap up with jobs, BF and the ET clones are just numbers games and random chance that you have people who know the game on your team. I enjoy playing the bots in ET though. Single Player campaign would have been a nice adition.
Being online in the game, and not being able to just complete the objectives because I'm a different class is ridiculous to me. I get to the objective and just sit around while my teamates goof off, and I have to change jobs and loose my xp points just to win the map when others are just dickin around. Not fun at all.
What sea of CTF and DM? Quake and UT? I'm not counting the ridiculous flood of WWWhatever games. I wasn't trying to dis you man, but it's just like BF, they make the objectives small steps so people can easier identify what the goals are. I dig that, I really do. But it's nothing new.
I dont have 16 online friends to train up with and make leet clanz with. It is very possible to make objective gameplay cater to more people. Think UT2k4 assault. That actually required some skill in addition to knowing the objectives etc and it did'nt clutter the crap up with jobs, BF and the ET clones are just numbers games and random chance that you have people who know the game on your team. I enjoy playing the bots in ET though. Single Player campaign would have been a nice adition.
Being online in the game, and not being able to just complete the objectives because I'm a different class is ridiculous to me. I get to the objective and just sit around while my teamates goof off, and I have to change jobs and loose my xp points just to win the map when others are just dickin around. Not fun at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
??? I never thought you were trying to dis me.
By sea of CTF and DM I meant every single FPS game that has come out. They all come with a tacked on CTF or DM and I am lumping BF in there with CTF. Like I said, to each his own. I really love the aspect of people NEEDING to be different classes to complete an objective. It's the teamwork there that I find the most enjoyable. I am not suggesting finding a group of "16 online friends to become a leet clanz" with, I was just trying to say I find it more fun when I am playing with people who know what they are doing and can communicate while playing.
Being a more teamwork/cooperation type of player myself I found the game to provide a level of communication and cooperation that any retail game is yet to match.
This game looks great but I don't think I'll ever find the kind of communication required to succeed as I've had with NS. I never clanned in Battlefield but the few times I did get some groups together to play the strategy aspect just wasn't there and there's very little team reliance on one individual surviving.
About NS I've never played it before, but Ill give it a shot.
Played more Quake Wars last night when I got home, once again forced to play single player (couldn't play online, internet was screwy all night), because I couldn't run the dedicated server and the game on the same PC. MoP, little insight to this? Is there a way to host a server inside the game without starting a dedicated server?
Aside from that, played against bots for about 3 or 4 hours straight. I found I played as Engineer the most, where its my least favourite class in BF2. But only because the bots wouldn't really complete most of the objectives and had to carry the team. Really need to play online
-caseyjones
http://www.burial-grounds.com/quakewars/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.41
And yeah, my thoughts on the game are that it's mint. I used to be a Tribes player and I took to this like a duck to water. It takes a while to understand what's going on, so stick with it for a bit and you'll really enjoy it more. And yes, although the bots are decent, the respective roles of each player, and the way people assert themselves to the objective work much better.
Good job MoP
and by far the best team based game i've ever played was Planetside, i rember days of having our outfit split up into 3 30 man platoons each running sepertate mission, one on sabotage, one on offense and one on deffense, we would actualy schedule training time where we would get on line and practice formation tank and aircraft drills, nothing sweeter than bringing in like 15 liberator bombers in a perfect V squadron over an enemy base just laying waste to everything.
I was on Konrad and then Emerald and hung with Sol Navy playing mostly Terran. My brother is on Markov now and played with Future Crew for a long run leading them for awhile.