They are too busy on projects that will actually make lots and lots of money- (at least that is the theory for TWI)- like KF2 for PS4 or Xbox. I wonder if they have the ability to pull off KF2 for UE4- there will be lot of competitors out there that they will be up against. I also am starting to believe that TWI merely put out RS to enhance their resume and look like they have been actually up to something- one needs to have a fairly good looking corporate resume (or at least appear to be busy) when approaching the console commanding heights to get onboard the early dev inner track and access.
Decision not to go Combined Arms- TWIlight
- Thread starter Sullumvoe
- Start date
I highly doubt they are making a KF2, but if they were, I would love it if it were cross-platform. I mean, it's a co-op game, so it wouldn't hurt to allow PS3/4 players play with PC, would it? Valve got it working with Portal 2 through Steam on PS3, and I'm sure other devs would be able to use the same tech if they sought out to do so.
Can anyone who wishes their arguments to be taken seriously please stop saying stuff like "..and it's 74th place in Steam sales," like that proves anything. There are a lot of games on sale at the moment - many at very deep discount. I might also point out that Bioshock Infinite, released around the same time as RS, was also discounted at 50%.
Similarly, the people who cite falling online player numbers as 'proof' that the game needs to be classic only/have more tanks/have fewer tanks/be action only/include the sound mutator/whatever their own pet peeve happens to be etc.
Player numbers fall after release, that is their nature, check pretty much any game. Updates bring people back but, again, for many that is temporarily. What IS interesting is that the baseline number of players has remained higher after each update. Incidentally, if you want a really good laugh, look at player counts for Aliens: Colonial Marines.
As for implementation of tanks costing 'a few thousand' - dream on.
Sorry if that seems like I am 'talking down' to anyone but, please, get a grip.
Similarly, the people who cite falling online player numbers as 'proof' that the game needs to be classic only/have more tanks/have fewer tanks/be action only/include the sound mutator/whatever their own pet peeve happens to be etc.
Player numbers fall after release, that is their nature, check pretty much any game. Updates bring people back but, again, for many that is temporarily. What IS interesting is that the baseline number of players has remained higher after each update. Incidentally, if you want a really good laugh, look at player counts for Aliens: Colonial Marines.
As for implementation of tanks costing 'a few thousand' - dream on.
Sorry if that seems like I am 'talking down' to anyone but, please, get a grip.
Last edited:
True dat.
You know, between Free Weekends, you might consider bonus experience weekends where players level faster. This generation of gamers is addicted to loyalty rewards and collecting stuff.
Match Double Exp weekends with free passes and 25% off and Bob's your uncle.
Cheers
You know what....that's....a brilliant idea. This generation IS attracted to "Double XP!!! OMGZ!!!" It works wonders in Planetside 2.
I can see every classic mode purist raging about this
or maybe they won't care since "XP doesn't matter to them" anyway. Naw, they'll lament the fact that we're attracting the "COD crowd" or how the average new player isn't up to *their* standards.
Also- as Nestor Makhno said, and as I have noted before, the baseline keeps jumping after every update. Check out the numbers here:
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=92081
Last edited:
A little over the top there Nestor. I skimmed over most of the topic and found almost no evidence of what you are speaking of. Almost Everything recently posted has been very civil discussion.
I don't think he ever implied people werent discussing the topic civilly, but rather that some the arguments used are a bit on the subjective side while being passed for "the one and only true solution" to save the game - which according to his stats apparently was never "dying" in the first
Last edited:
ooops indeed. There goes the entire lectures I've gotten in some writing courses about not relying on spell check.Edited: I think you meant this
I agree Moe, the discussion has been civil. It is refreshing so see, and props to the OP for keeping it on-track in that respect.
My only real quibble was that there is a tendency in threads use the 'facts' to which I referred as support for fairly or even totally subjective arguments. I just wanted to make sure this one did not go down that road.
My only real quibble was that there is a tendency in threads use the 'facts' to which I referred as support for fairly or even totally subjective arguments. I just wanted to make sure this one did not go down that road.
It certainly wouldn't hurt the playerbase if you would release a 40GB update consisting of tanks, vehicles, uniforms and weapons from all nations/years
Seems like the release history is as follows:
UT2k3 Version
1.0 = October 10, 2003
1.2 = January 10th, 2004
UT2k4 Version
2.0 = May 21, 2004
2.1 = June 6, 2004
(Vehicles First Added)
3.0 = August 26, 2004
3.1 = November 17, 2004
3.2 = March 31, 2005
3.3 = June 30th, 2005
Ostfront = March 14, 2006
So that's about 10-11 months of no vehicles, and about 19-20 months ( 1 year 8ish months) with vehicles up until the Release of Ostfront.
If I remember correctly, before vehicles were added to the mod there was a bit of a stink about it in the forums. People thought vehicles were being put in just because everyone else in the contest was doing it and didn't want effort being distracted from infantry. Or maybe I am thinking of the mod Frag Ops.
Edt: Also I think it might be worth noting all the pre-release talk and such where people look forward to infantry-based gameplay with no vehicles ever mentioned early on. This date would be Nov 9th, 2002
Last edited:
I dont really mean it in a judging way but I doubt TWI will add more vehicles (exept maybe 1-2 tank for each side) to the game. The question I ask myself about is why would they? RO2/RS sold pretty well and beside the usual voices who call the game dead, the game is played by a large number of people and by the looks of it most of these people dont seem to mind the low number of vehicles. Creating and releasing more vehicles like troop carriers would also mean creating maps with that work very differentely from what we have now in the game (come custom maps not included). To make it short, I think RO2/RS the way it is now works also with the current number of vehicles or with no vehicles at all. You can either think that this is a bad or a good thing, however it wont change the situation.
So I doubt TWI will invest a lot of time and money to create content that depending on your point of view is not important or even unnecessary at all. The only thing I can really critize about that is the information policy TWI runs these days. I think in the end a lot of people would be happier if they would simply know what they can expect and what now.
Over and out.
So I doubt TWI will invest a lot of time and money to create content that depending on your point of view is not important or even unnecessary at all. The only thing I can really critize about that is the information policy TWI runs these days. I think in the end a lot of people would be happier if they would simply know what they can expect and what now.
Over and out.
You mean to tell me, that making a small M3 tank in the virtual world costs more than $25K. Come on man- Arma and several other games have a plethora of vehicles- I am sure they do not cost hundreds of thousand to develop. And lets just say that most of the models and such you already own from previous incarnations. There must be some cost savings.
Also, with the objective you seem to have set and have accepted for this product, RS will not be a classic game. Well that is one fact that currently is a real fact. The community surely have been set on that pathway without going combined arms. I tell you what Nestor- don't go down this route with me, the facts speak volumes no matter how much you try and distort them. You will not win this argument no matter how much you think you are justified in letting us all believe RS is a raging success. Quite simply without combined arms and a more encompassing approach, you will sit low in sales and the servers will be empty- RO2 was nearly a corpse, or alternatively in Nestor speak a NICHE market product- the optimist sense of seeing the world! In case you did not realize it- and having an average of a couple hundred player bump in players 4 weeks after RS was released is not my idea of a lofty goal. I think you need to rethink your logic.
I am all in with you on stating that cranking out combined arms NOW- will not do much in terms of transforming this product. You are right- the product has been defined and it has been culturally niched into the 2000 player club and there probably will not be much opportunity to redefine it- that was May 30th that the opportunity presented itself.
So yes for a FPS- it is not a bad game, but there are plenty of not bad games out there. The question was having a vision for something much more, and obviously you accept less than that.
Last edited:
Guess not everyone can be as lofty and ambitious as you, especially not a brand new dev team releasing their first game, which is still an expansion pack for RO2.
You talk of setting your sights too low, yet its setting their sights too high that created this vehicle shortage in the first place (i.e TWI insisting on fully modelled and animated interiors and crews)
Last edited:
I dont really care for tanks, but this game has been in dire need for transports for almost two years now they should have been a priority before anything else content wise imo.
The decision to waste dev time on Classic/Action mode was a big mistake considering the majority of the playerbase at the time was perfectly content with realism and we are seeing the results now with both alternative modes hardly being played.
The decision to waste dev time on Classic/Action mode was a big mistake considering the majority of the playerbase at the time was perfectly content with realism and we are seeing the results now with both alternative modes hardly being played.
Last edited:
Lofty expectation???? You tell me watching the marketing and such for RS that people did not expect some sort of combined arms- I mean a mode of a game typically means at least staying at the leading edge of the previous game. RS - lost 2 tanks???? Lofty expectations- hope about baseline expectations bordering on false advertising for pre-order?
TWI says this http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/13/call-of-duty-red-orchestra-2-interview/ and still creates an COD-ish action mode. lel.