Enemy Territory: Quake Wars - demo release today :)
- Thread starter /linuX/gitano
- Start date
Kraut you belong to this group of posters that seem obsessed with ridiculing others POV on realism. Some posters go from thread to thread ridiculing people who mention realism in any game other than RO (or any game, period), and ridiculing others opinion on realism whatever it may be.
Contrary to what you may think, not everyone is obsessed with realism or the lack thereof. For me RO is unrealistic as it is, other games even more so, but I don't like or dislike the game only because of "realism". I am as prepared to love or hate any game - pseudo-realistic or not.
Having said that, Quietus does have a point. It is STUPID to have some future tanks and badass mega vehicles, that we may safely assume cost millions of future dollars to produce, armed with piss poor weapons, and being constantly destroyed by small arms or el cheapo future RPGs.
So, yeah, we are not "debating realism in a game that is about cyborg-zombie-aliens invading earth" we are debating the stupidity of having million-cyborg-alien-dollar badass vehicle destroyed by cyborg-alien-AK47. That's a valid point IMO.
Upvote
0
There's no question the vehicles are weak compared to say RO's tanks. But on the other hand QW tanks can stop on a dime, move incredibly fast and you can aim their main gun with your mouse. People also don't seem to be using decoys on ground vehicles (and hardly on aircraft). Whenever you see the big MISSLE LOCK text press 1 to release decoys. Typically one guy with a rocket laucher can't hurt you if you do this unless he's dumbfiring, since his reload is longer than the decoy reload.
In any event, If you ever had the chance to see where damage you take is actually coming from, I'd say only 10% comes from small arms. 60% comes from AVT deployables, and another 30% from other vehicles.
In any event, If you ever had the chance to see where damage you take is actually coming from, I'd say only 10% comes from small arms. 60% comes from AVT deployables, and another 30% from other vehicles.
Upvote
0
You can shoot down the GDF attack helicopter thingy with two "overheats" of the Lacerator. Easy as pie.
Upvote
0
Is there any site where i can read/see all the maps?? If they convince me i'd maybe actually buy it.
Upvote
0
Oleg, I can assure you I visit the forums way too infrequently these days to keep track of any witchhunts, be they real or imaginary. The past five topics i've visited over the last weeks were about games other than RO and, inevitably, someone either compared the game to RO or otherwise complained about its lack of realism. And yes, i find that rediculous when it comes to a game like this one. Moreover this thing that we are debating is a non-issue as stated multiple times by Soviet. Small arms damage to vehicles is just way to low. But feel free to prove me otherwise. Btw, iirc small arms do damage vehicles in UT Onslaught, too.
Some would like it better if vehicles were immune to small arms, point taken. To act like it would completely unhinge the basic game mechanics of tank>infantryman, though, is just plain bull****. The emphasis is just different from BF2, JO:E etc... and that's why I like it more because to me vehicles are always just secondary in these type of games. I especially loved the "skilled rampage ruined by some guy running up behind you with a piddly assault rifle" part, because yes, nothing requires more skill than picking the toughest vehicle in the game and running for the weakest actors (infantry) in the game. That's exactly why I like it the way it is.
Upvote
0
I laugh because it's true.
Anyways I understand the viewpoint of people bothered by the fact that vehicles take damage from small arms. It ruins immersion and that kills the game. I felt the same about various aspects of Bioshock. But the framing and humor in this game is different, I don't think it takes itself that seriously, which in a way is really cool.
It's better to compare Quake Wars to Team Fortress type games than serious realism oriented games like RO and . . . well . . . maybe Arma. BF wants to be realism oriented but isn't, which is why I haven't played it and won't.
Anyways I understand the viewpoint of people bothered by the fact that vehicles take damage from small arms. It ruins immersion and that kills the game. I felt the same about various aspects of Bioshock. But the framing and humor in this game is different, I don't think it takes itself that seriously, which in a way is really cool.
It's better to compare Quake Wars to Team Fortress type games than serious realism oriented games like RO and . . . well . . . maybe Arma. BF wants to be realism oriented but isn't, which is why I haven't played it and won't.
Upvote
0
It's not so much an immersion ruiner as a gameplay hindrance. Using the tormentor against any competent opponent is extremely difficult.
Upvote
0
In RO, on combined arms maps like Konigsplatz, it's almost like there are two seperate games being played. Infantry vs Infantry and tank vs tank. If one side has tankers that know what they're doing that trumps the infantry game. No matter how much better one infantry side is than the other the constantly firing tank mg is going to lock down at least one side of the map.
This is nice and realistic etc but what ends up happening is the game depends on the skill of a couple players on each side. Which is fine. But in QW the firepower of the team is spread out evenly among everyone like 16 rock paper scissors games going on at the same time. This is different and in some ways more fun, but doesn't give you the realism high of RO or Arma.
As for your tormentor example, if you have a critical mass of better players on your side, the focus of the entire enemy force is going to be on the ground game, because all of their attention is being tied up by your advancing forces. Couple that with some evasion skills and you should have some lifespan in the tormentor and be able to contribute to your team, even further weakening their firepower reinforcing the success of your ground forces.
I've seen the GDF Anansi just ream the Strogg base defences using trick flying and decoys. In fact the Anansi might be overpowered.
This is nice and realistic etc but what ends up happening is the game depends on the skill of a couple players on each side. Which is fine. But in QW the firepower of the team is spread out evenly among everyone like 16 rock paper scissors games going on at the same time. This is different and in some ways more fun, but doesn't give you the realism high of RO or Arma.
As for your tormentor example, if you have a critical mass of better players on your side, the focus of the entire enemy force is going to be on the ground game, because all of their attention is being tied up by your advancing forces. Couple that with some evasion skills and you should have some lifespan in the tormentor and be able to contribute to your team, even further weakening their firepower reinforcing the success of your ground forces.
I've seen the GDF Anansi just ream the Strogg base defences using trick flying and decoys. In fact the Anansi might be overpowered.
Upvote
0
Eh, I made a post yesterday but somehow it got 80% cut off, so I'll respost in summary. I don't like how small arms damage armored equipment. Aircraft, fine I can understand that since aircraft aren't usually armored so enough small arms yeah aircraft can go down. But armored equipment being "finished off" by some dude with an assault rifle/ weak lacerator type weapon is just really not needed.
It cheapens things when you know that despite being in something heavily armored you have to worry about some little infantry taking you out. It distracts from other more important targets you might have, so instead you are left playing "ant squisher" trying to stem the flood of infantry all trying to KO you with their rifles. It's just plain stupid and not necessary for game balance. All it does is cheapen the value of heavy equipment. But whatever, that's how people like it I guess.
It cheapens things when you know that despite being in something heavily armored you have to worry about some little infantry taking you out. It distracts from other more important targets you might have, so instead you are left playing "ant squisher" trying to stem the flood of infantry all trying to KO you with their rifles. It's just plain stupid and not necessary for game balance. All it does is cheapen the value of heavy equipment. But whatever, that's how people like it I guess.
Upvote
0
There is a list of all maps in demo documentation (HTML docs install with the demo itself).
Upvote
0
I had the same problem. I had to download the demo from a game site instead.Every time I try and play it it tells me the game is currently unavailable...
Upvote
0
Every time I try and play it it tells me the game is currently unavailable...
It's Steam related, don't use the Steam demo, download from some other place.
Upvote
0
BS to that mate, "Fun" is not a universal constant or law of nature, "Fun" is a highly subjective thing that will not be bound to your definition of it, nor mine, your idea of fun may be my idea of torture, and vice versa.
Upvote
0
You know what really makes me laugh is these players who deride others for not "fighting like men" or "yeah you're just a skilless whore cause you use that vehicle/weapon/tactic" As if any of the weapons are in some super skilled elite category of being impossible to use except by "the chosen ones". Oh yeah because strafing with your crosshaired assault rifle is SO much more skilled than anything else. These guys have NO CONCEPT of real skill other than twitch.
If you don't play their twitch whore gamestyle you are unskilled and "cowerdly". Yes because using superior "tactics" rather than relying on RAMBO showdowns is stupid. This one guy on GDF kept *****ing about this and I felt like saying "don't blame us because your TACTICS suck". Of course most of them don't understand what "tactics" are and only want to get by with their single "tactic" of strafe RAMBOing. Remember if you don't play like a total idiot you must be a coward!
If you don't play their twitch whore gamestyle you are unskilled and "cowerdly". Yes because using superior "tactics" rather than relying on RAMBO showdowns is stupid. This one guy on GDF kept *****ing about this and I felt like saying "don't blame us because your TACTICS suck". Of course most of them don't understand what "tactics" are and only want to get by with their single "tactic" of strafe RAMBOing. Remember if you don't play like a total idiot you must be a coward!
Upvote
0
I said by only playing games that are groundbreaking you are limiting yourself and it will make you miss on some fun games... I never said anything about definitions of what makes a game fun.
Upvote
0
You said that he's missing a lot of fun... So you said that Quake Wars is a lot of fun. So fun = quake wars. There's the definition
Upvote
0
Sorry Xendance you do not get the cookie.
1) Kraut merely stated that by playing only games that were groundbreaking, one would be missing a lot of fun.
2) This statement only claims that games that are not ground breaking can be a lot of fun.
3) Quake Wars may fall into this category of non-innovative but fun games, or it may not.
Personally, to me, imho, the game is ground breaking, as I've never played RTCW:ET, or Battlefield.
BTW by "ground breaking" we don't mean actually breaking any physical ground, like a rototiller would do.
Amazingly "rototiller" is in the Firefox spell checker word list.
1) Kraut merely stated that by playing only games that were groundbreaking, one would be missing a lot of fun.
2) This statement only claims that games that are not ground breaking can be a lot of fun.
3) Quake Wars may fall into this category of non-innovative but fun games, or it may not.
Personally, to me, imho, the game is ground breaking, as I've never played RTCW:ET, or Battlefield.
BTW by "ground breaking" we don't mean actually breaking any physical ground, like a rototiller would do.
Amazingly "rototiller" is in the Firefox spell checker word list.
Upvote
0