Splash DamageBlogCommunity Question: Multiplayer Game Modes

Splash Damage Blog

Community Question: Multiplayer Game Modes


This week's Community Question is all about your favourite multiplayer game modes. Splash Damage's games have traditionally been all about objective-driven gameplay, but there's a whole bunch of different game modes out there that people enjoy.

So, what we'd like to know from you is the following:

Which of the following multiplayer game modes do you like and why?

We've assembled the most common choices in a multiple choice poll attached to the comments thread of this post, allowing you to easily pick as many (or as few) modes as you like. In addition to voting in the poll, please also let us know why a particular mode appeals to you and what you enjoy most about it.

Go on, vote now! We look forward to your replies.

57 Comments

I prefer team play, so voted for all except deathmatch... never been a fan of deathmatch for some reason unless it was instagib, and even that wasn't too often.
Posted on 21 September, 2011 - 18:16
other : STOPWATCH
Posted on 21 September, 2011 - 18:17
Objective will win for sure, SD forums are plagued with people that actually love/tried SD games and more likely to like objective types... I would look from 2nd -> bottom
Posted on 21 September, 2011 - 18:24
I think this poll shouldn't have unlimited options (VOTE ALL THE THINGS!!1). It lowers the fidelity of the results. Two would've been enough, forcing people to make actual choices. Objective can emulate all other game modes. But next to that (didn't pick it to reinforce the value of objective) elimination guarantees the most exciting multiplayer/
Posted on 21 September, 2011 - 18:36
I voted for:
Objective - One team attempts to complete a series of objectives while the other must stop them Team Deathmatch - Two or more teams compete to get the most kills Capture and Hold - Teams fight to hold key locations on the map Deathmatch - Free for all combat where players compete to earn the most kills
However they should rename "Capture and Hold" to "Camper and Hold". -JJ EDIT: I should probably elaborate: "Capture the Flag": Been there, done that. Didn't enjoy it. "Elimination": Sounds like a lot of waiting around. "Horde/Last Stand": While I understand the need for bots I'd prefer to play against humans whenever possible.
Posted on 21 September, 2011 - 18:36
Objective - the most exciting for me, but what Brink taught me is that the mode itself isnt enough :wink: Duel - When its available in a game, I tend to favour this over tdm and ctf.
Posted on 21 September, 2011 - 19:54
First of all, I actually did the poll correctly this time! yay for me! :) Secondly, I like Team Objective because it stresses team. Then Horde Mode because you work together and its a shared experience towards achieving a high goal with cooperation. Then I selected Elimination because it makes the stakes very high. The only game I like Capture the Flag in is Halo. I like how its done in that game, but not as much in any other game. I am not a big fan of deathmatch unless its with the feeling of actual teamwork like in Halo where you can team-up on a vehicle or defend locations. I like how its done in Halo, but am not a fan of Deathmatch in a game such as COD where its all about hiding, camping, etc. The games I like the most are games like Halo or Gears of War. Horde Mode is really fun because you feel like you are part of a band of brothers, so the more that's played up with drama, the better. Brink has this type of feel particularly on a map like CC at the part where you escort the bot through the Shanty town of the Resistance after you fix the crane. Firefight is a fun mode in Halo Reach. L4D 2 has some innovative modes that are like Horde Mode or Firefight. Holding a position is very intense. Territory Capture is also a cool Mode in Halo, and there is a similar mode in Gears 3 which they call KOTH or Annex.
Posted on 21 September, 2011 - 20:54
All of them - done right. Obj/stopwatch is the king, of course.
Posted on 21 September, 2011 - 21:06
Objective...that is why we are all here, afterall.
Posted on 22 September, 2011 - 07:16
I think this poll shouldn't have unlimited options (VOTE ALL THE THINGS!!1). It lowers the fidelity of the results. Two would've been enough, forcing people to make actual choices.
Unfortunately vbulletin is limited to either one choice or meeeeellions of choices (i.e. unlimited). For this one, we felt that it's perfectly valid to allow people to enjoy more than one type of multiplayer mode, so it kind of worked out. :)
Posted on 22 September, 2011 - 09:51
Objective, team play FTW!
Posted on 22 September, 2011 - 10:07
All of them - done right. Obj/stopwatch is the king, of course.
This ^ Voted for Obj./Other - Stopwatch
Posted on 22 September, 2011 - 11:42
Unfortunately vbulletin is limited to either one choice or meeeeellions of choices (i.e. unlimited). For this one, we felt that it's perfectly valid to allow people to enjoy more than one type of multiplayer mode, so it kind of worked out. :)
Alright, as long as there's the notion that because of the equal weight it doesn't completely represent the true value of each mode.
Posted on 22 September, 2011 - 12:22
Stopwatch/Objective. Stopwatch is full of adre. Like in Wolfenstein:ET ratratratratrat,dududuududud,Objective Taken,Truck has stolen,Allies beated a clock.!!! Wunderbar.
Posted on 22 September, 2011 - 16:13
objective. if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Posted on 22 September, 2011 - 16:23
other : STOPWATCH
Posted on 22 September, 2011 - 19:17
Has to be Objective!
Posted on 22 September, 2011 - 20:39
Ow, I missed the multiple choice so voted only Horde/Last Stand, I meant to vote for Objective and Horde/Last Stand.
Posted on 22 September, 2011 - 20:59
Definitely Objective.
Posted on 22 September, 2011 - 21:08
My favorite would be Objective I also like (and voted) Capture the Flag: With nice teamplay this is a rush. Horde/Last Stand: sounds interesting (but not in a left for dead way and only if the enemies are very varied and ugly creatures) Other: I enjoy Freezetag a lot! So much fun.
Posted on 22 September, 2011 - 22:28
Objective of course, but duel can be fun, as well as ctf. If done right, as always.
Posted on 22 September, 2011 - 23:02
I picked objective and CTF. It's really a tough choice on what I like better; objective is really a great underutilized mode, however I think in a lot of ways CTF beats it. CTF, to me, is really the gamemode that really shows off how well a team can coordinate and out think their opponent. No team has an advantage when it comes to weapon pick ups or camping spots, so you have to really work together as a team to get those pick ups or to camp an arena; plus you have to play offense and defense, so you really see some great strategies that just aren't as prevalent in other game modes. One of the other things I see a lot is the fact that map design is a lot more creative for CTF maps and that really makes games and game modes shine.
Posted on 22 September, 2011 - 23:52
Objective, CTF and Other: FPS+RTS hybrid if the player and map scale is fairly small where it seems to work better.
Posted on 23 September, 2011 - 02:08
Conquest mode! with vehicles! But, OP vehicles are no fun. Large maps with a ton of objectives are fun too! Mario Kart styled racing is also pretty enjoyable (hopefully like we'll see in Rage XD). and a bit different, but a dark corridor shooter/dungeon crawler with friends is also a delight. Now SD make your next game run smoother on ATI/AMD * better than Brink. * My 5870 still stutters or I'd put much more time in!
Posted on 23 September, 2011 - 02:26
Objective, can't beat W:ET I also voted CTF, coming from DF2 CTF, it's what turned me on to team play (using conference call on speakerphones) :cool:
Posted on 23 September, 2011 - 02:37
I would really like a capture the flag mode... they could mix it with normal objectives as well... The could set up two walls each team needs to blow up with auto turret defenses (not the invincible ones guarding Spawns) then they have to fight over a hack spot to unlock a flag... and whenever flag is returned each team would have to hack again...
Posted on 23 September, 2011 - 02:51
Objective. I personally won't buy MP games that only offer DM, TDM, or CTF. However, it is very true that a doc run is just one sided CTF. I think what really impressed me with RTCW 10 years ago was that I wasn't just shooting people, I was blowing up a wall or repairing a bridge. I could interact with the map a way more than in Q3 DM/TDM/CTF. Maybe this is why I don't like hacking objectives or escort objectives. Those are more like a chore to me. Walking next to vehicles that go slower than my run speed isn't fun. Neither is standing next to a console for a 20 second hack (Brink improved this somewhat from ETQW). Now if there was a fast paced escort mission that provided a bit more adrenaline, then that might be fun. I'm certainly not afraid of expanding the objective mode. I also would consider game modes like CoD HQ an objective mode that I've enjoyed. Alternatively, an assasination missions where a bot is killed in the last phase of the map. The only conquest game mode I've ever enjoyed was Section 8. That game missed for other reasons imo, but in their conquest mode one didn't have to camp near a capture point for the entire capture. Lastly, why weren't there any dual objective maps in Brink?
Posted on 23 September, 2011 - 05:22
Ever since this game came out I was a huge supporter of the "No Team Deathmatch" band. But I have changed my mind, there's something that it brings to the table and I really can't even put my finger on it directley but it's a level of completion and a competitive edge that the masses just love to no end myself included. So though I'm all about BRINK remaining BRINK I would not be against adding some more popular game modes to bring in more players and re-playability. BiiG
Posted on 25 September, 2011 - 06:11
VIP is also a huge favourite of mine. One player assumes the role of the VIP, has a much weaker arsenal and relies on his team to defend him while he travels to an extraction point. Was amazing in Raven Shield.
Posted on 25 September, 2011 - 15:41
I like game types where you play both offense and defense at the same time. For example [brink-specific] 1. have two locations where the bomb can be planted, one for security one for resistance. 2. Escort mission. The escort (or bot) starts in the middle and both teams struggle for 'control' and have to try escort to the other side. Kind of like a tug o war escort mission. Note: escort does not respawn in the middle when control is shifted. 3. king of the hill with several command posts. both sides struggle for control of command posts (at least 4 for very dynamic gameplay) and you get both buffs and points for controlling the CPs. 4. Hacking and fixing: operative takes control of a hacking device and he sets it anywhere he wants. The engineers of both teams try to 'repair' that device, making the location of the device a very strategic and dynamic thing. hope you like those. And for the record, i think that multiple main objectives in one mission is cool and all, but if main objectives are divided into multiple missions it (oddly) makes it less repetitive. e.g. in Call of duty you played all game modes in all maps. In brink, i would have like to escort in all maps, not just some. Hope that got across clearly. And i hope the reason for all these polls is because you guys are already in the works (or at least considering) you next game, be it a brink sequel or not.
Posted on 26 September, 2011 - 01:32
I loved BRINK the first day... But after that it became more boring each day I played it. I'd LOVE to get some new gamemodes. I loved the objective (I've never really played games like that before) but still I realised that something was missing. I mean, COD is even more fun than BRINK is now (I've had it for halv a year soon), and I don't even like COD THAT much! :O I've always loved CTF, but I'd like to test out how SD would make elimination. It would be fun, but I'll have to say that team-deathmatch is almost a must... What can I say; Isn't BRINK a fps? Still no team-deathmatch! UNIQE! Oh and by the way! I love BRINK... But It's getting kind of boring now, so PLEASE do something! I beg you!
Posted on 26 September, 2011 - 21:41
CTF - its basic team oriented defence & offence gameplay all rolled into 1 ( my fav gamemode in any game ) Cap & Hold - Offence & Defence for both teams can get even more campy then CTF tho :( Horde - the only time camping is acceptable :cool: Other = Stopwatch - I like SD's objective mode in Brink, but with just 1 round, no chance to switch combat roles ( offence to defence vice-versa ), & annoying OT ( when u would hav clearly had the victory ) Stopwatch wins hands down :D Now i dont hav any problem with OT ( sometimes it can make that match extra special ), but for compedative ply Stopwatch is the way to go
Posted on 26 September, 2011 - 22:30
Objective : from W:ET and ETQW, best games ever CTF : Learned to play FPS (multiplayer) on SoF2 and Q3 CTF, so I'll allways love my "roots" Other : Instagib for the quick aim and because its super fun and accessible, and powerball :)
Posted on 27 September, 2011 - 12:43
Stopwatch.
Posted on 27 September, 2011 - 12:48
badman you forgot HC mode (locked vehicles/disabled radar/no health regeneration etc.)
Posted on 27 September, 2011 - 17:45
For team based games I like Objective, Capture the Flag, and Capture and Hold. Objective's different goals per map keep things interesting and (hopefully)funnels players into the action. In Brink this could be too defensive based though with the attacking team becoming stuck until time runs out. For objectives where progress is lost on failure tipping the balance over to attackers as time elapses may be worth testing. Capture the Flag can have moments of frantic excitement and is easy for any player to understand. Switching from attacking and defending to running like hell to cap or return is always fun. Capture and Hold I have only really played in the Battlefield games. I like the bigger conquest maps where there is the option to capture a strange corner of the map. It is the opposite of the Splash Damage design and sometimes it is a really fun. Killzone 2 on the playstation did some cool stuff by putting all the standard modes into one match in a random order. A match could start with bomb plant/defuse then change to VIP assassination to one flag ctf to capture and hold then back to bomb with teams switched in a new spot. Something like that might be useful to objective where both teams start on capture and hold and the outcome of that decides what the next stages are for that round. In stopwatch the attackers would be mandated to a set result and defenders could slow them down but not finish the cap.
Posted on 28 September, 2011 - 10:50
new question imo :P
Posted on 29 September, 2011 - 04:57
Objective/Stopwatch mode is great and the prefered mode but sometimes I want to play a bit of CTF or similar modes (powerball!!!!) without having to play another game, other games have different movement styles, different weapon styles and such. Brink with CTF would have been awesome and all that talk about it affecting the core game was/is bollocks.
Posted on 29 September, 2011 - 13:33
There's only a need for other game modes if the objective mode can't deliver.
Posted on 29 September, 2011 - 13:37
Objective mode isn't the same as other modes.
Posted on 29 September, 2011 - 14:06
There's only a need for other game modes if the objective mode can't deliver.
Had Brink had other modes the player base may still be here while SD worked Objective to perfection. Likewise maybe SD wouldn't need to make Objective so immediately accessible if it wasn't the ONLY way to play the game. In short, if Objective is so freaking awesome then people will play it, making it the only choice and forcing people is exactly the reason why Brink was accessible to the point of abandonment. Anyway rant aside. Game modes. I voted for everything but C&H and TDM, those just never tickled me that much. One thing is not to just plonk in vanilla CTF, or plain old DM. You guys are creative and talented, stamp your mark on the modes, make them your own while keeping the original flow. That said, you're a small team, maybe reach out to established modders or startup devs early, give them the tools to make some of this stuff and include it in the retail release. Some other modes Defrag JailBreak Freezetag Instagib
Posted on 30 September, 2011 - 05:53
Had Brink had other modes the player base may still be here while SD worked Objective to perfection.
Come on, you just know that's not true. The issue doesn't lie with the objectives, it's the combat that sucks, so any game mode you fling at it just won't stick.
Posted on 30 September, 2011 - 12:04
The weak combat doesn't explain the maps though.
Posted on 30 September, 2011 - 13:27
My opinion is, why not as many game-modes as possible? And I don't want to discuss the pros and cons of the more team-based and the less team based modes. In the end everybody plays what he prefers. If a game provides most of the standard game-modes people will stay with it. If a game only provides one mode, only a percentage of players will stay. The paradox thing is, that SD went multi-platform to reach more players, but passively excluded players wich weren't so much into the objective gameplay. And I allways say, I really became to like BRINK very much, but some additional game-modes wouldn't hurt. If you are a teacher you can force people to learn this and that stuff because the audince can't leave. But in videogames its a whole different story. I like the obj mode, but sometimes I just want to know who's the man(Elimination, DM). Another time I want a more symmetrical gameplay(capture and hold, capture the flag). Or just a mix of good ol' DM and teamplay, wich makes, taddaaa, TDM. Consider how reliefing it would be to not have to think about an obj at all, when you are Res in Resort or Sec on CC. This relief alone would allready be fun. It would mean, that even if you can't leave your spawn you don't necessarily lose. Because if the opponents can't reach you, they can't kill you, and if they can't kill you they won't win TDM either. Actually if you "smart nade" them from inside the spawn you could even win. That doesn't sound like much fun, but beeing spawn-trapped whilst your mission time is ticking also sucks. Aside from that, "capture and hold" of more than 3 sites would also mean 0.0 spawnrape since there wouldn't be enough players to concentrate on only one area. Additional gamemodes would also alter the way you look at the maps. And even though DM/TDM are almost kind of foul words in this forum, those modes would actually losen up the whole game and how people play it. No choke points, people would fight on the whole map all the time. You'd have to expect opponents everywhere, not only near the obj. And so on and son.
Posted on 30 September, 2011 - 14:44
Come on, you just know that's not true. The issue doesn't lie with the objectives, it's the combat that sucks, so any game mode you fling at it just won't stick.
The issue lies with expecting a single mode to bear the burden of selling an entire game and retaining the playerbase. And come on there are more issues with Brink than just the combat being off. Short of you not being interested in other modes and fearing resources would be wasted I've yet to hear an argument from you as to why allowing people to play other modes (and so make the game financially viable for long term support) is a bad thing. @Frost - Other game modes wouldn't necessarily have to use the same maps or all the same mechanics of the other modes. You include what works for that mode to make it play the best.
Posted on 30 September, 2011 - 18:04
Even that wouldn't be an issue if the core mechanics worked. It's easy to apply your own pet peeve to Brink and point it out as THE cause of failure, but in the end it's simply people being dissatisfied with the way the game plays, it's not the quantity of content or the variation offered, if a shooter can't deliver the shooting then nothing else helps.
I've yet to hear an argument from you as to why allowing people to play other modes (and so make the game financially viable for long term support) is a bad thing.
You visit a truly excellent restaurant, after you tasted that perfect wine and some incredible starters, the waiter hands you two menu cards. One is for the spectacular dishes made in-house and the other is a Mac Donald's delivery chart. Now what would that say about the confidence the restaurant has in their own food? You don't just waste resources, you also waste players and your displayed passion for type of game you're making. A shooter is more than just it's own sandbox with it's own slightly different parameters and it's own slightly different collection of guns and maps. Objective mode is where the true innovation happens, it's where new weapons, vehicles and tools are invented and it allows for completely different environments to be set in. The objective mode is still at it's infant stage, it needs so much more research and experimentation. Objectives are still too static, the next step is the map geometry changing along with the process of a mission. It calls for more complexity and that in it's turns calls for a more intuitive overlay so everyone can understand and participate. There are developers that want to keep polishing an existing formula and there are developers that want to redefine genres. A developer that attempts both is like the artisan restaurant offering big macs on the side.
Posted on 30 September, 2011 - 18:32
Even that wouldn't be an issue if the core mechanics worked. It's easy to apply your own pet peeve to Brink and point it out as THE cause of failure, but in the end it's simply people being dissatisfied with the way the game plays, it's not the quantity of content or the variation offered, if a shooter can't deliver the shooting then nothing else helps.
By having a single game mode you have a single set of core mechanics working in a single way. It's not about adding more modes to make the game bigger, it's doing so to widen the area of appeal, and lessen the impact of any shortcomings (and yes I'll accept some shortcomings could impact every mode, but that's not the rule), increase the retention in the game and make it more successful and therefore supported better. Even if Objective mode was perfect Brink would have still faced a niche audience simply because it's been proven that the mode is just a hard sell for many other players. Frankly I'd rather SD included CTF, TDM, DM and rolled in the filthy profits than they kept holding their hands out for insufficient funds to make a game
You visit a truly excellent restaurant, after you tasted that perfect wine and some incredible starters, the waiter hands you two menu cards. One is for the spectacular dishes made in-house and the other is a Mac Donald's delivery chart. Now what would that say about the confidence the restaurant has in their own food?
But this is just you being a snob again. :) Your appreciation of other modes isn't in question here, it's whether the inclusion of those modes would benefit the game as a whole. Now let me draw my own analogy where the waiter hands you a menu and it has a single item on it, you try it but it's not to your liking. You don't go back there again. Eventually the restaurant shuts down. Conversly the restuarant offers the same single item as the house special and then other items of equal quality but different flavours. You initially pick something you're familiar with from the regular menu but happy with the quality you come back again a week later and try the house special. It's a little salt and you have the balls to tell the chef as much, the next week you come back and try another regular menu item, they're still great and the chef stops by your table and says he's changed his recipe and asks you to try again.... get the picture?
You don't just waste resources, you also waste players and your displayed passion for type of game you're making. A shooter is more than just it's own sandbox with it's own slightly different parameters and it's own slightly different collection of guns and maps.
You mean the players that don't play Brink anymore or the players who didn't buy ETQW?
Objective mode is where the true innovation happens, it's where new weapons, vehicles and tools are invented and it allows for completely different environments to be set in. The objective mode is still at it's infant stage, it needs so much more research and experimentation. Objectives are still too static, the next step is the map geometry changing along with the process of a mission. It calls for more complexity and that in it's turns calls for a more intuitive overlay so everyone can understand and participate. There are developers that want to keep polishing an existing formula and there are developers that want to redefine genres. A developer that attempts both is like the artisan restaurant offering big macs on the side.
Again, I understand you see the value in Objective mode and none in others. The problem is that ETQW and Brink have arguably failed because their ONLY offering is objective mode and any flaws within that mode are game wide flaws. Adopting some snobbish highground doesn't sell games or make a design successful. If I have to be blunt I'd say I prefer SD payroll objective mode by retaining players with more accessible modes (with their own spin) than they continue to release compromised products due to budget limitations and worse ride over their own reputation to score cheap pre-release sales.
Posted on 30 September, 2011 - 19:30
But this is just you being a snob again. :)
Yeah I already regret picking it as a fancy restaurant, that's how I see it but it should work the other way around as well. The analogy would still work with Burger King or Pizza Hut offering Mac Donalds on the side. Quake suddenly trying to do class based objectives would be the same thing and would displease the quake fans.
. The problem is that ETQW and Brink have arguably failed because their ONLY offering is objective mode and any flaws within that mode are game wide flaws.
Arguably indeed, Brink failed to deliver as a shooter and ETQW lack of widespread popularity is due to poor marketing and a really unfavourable release window amidst big franchises. No amount of other game modes would help their sales by even one iota.
Posted on 30 September, 2011 - 19:31
Yeah I already regret picking it as a fancy restaurant, that's how I see it but it should work the other way around as well. The analogy would still work with Burger King or Pizza Hut offering Mac Donalds on the side. Quake suddenly trying to do class based objectives would be the same thing and would displease the quake fans.
My point was a restaurant offering a single dish is risking a great deal, it had better be good and it had better be right first time. Offering more choice means people are more likely to find something they like and come back more often, usually to try something else. Your attitude seems to be that you need to force people to eat the single item and they'll damn well enjoy it while ignoring the reality that you just can't do that. It also seems to count on the fact that the other choices are of a lower quality, this is your opinion jading your perspective.
Arguably indeed, Brink failed to deliver as a shooter and ETQW lack of widespread popularity is due to poor marketing and a really unfavourable release window amidst big franchises. No amount of other game modes would help their sales by even one iota.
I don't disagree those were aspects but I would argue that inclusion of other modes in both games may have seen them reach higher levels of success. Again, I'd rather see SD create a popular franchise with a shameless CoD clone IF it also allowed them to exert even more resources on the Objective mode. This aside it did get me thinking about another modes. Specifically that it would perhaps be an easy fit to scale the complexity of the objective modes. So at one end you have your RTCW class based game, in the middle a W:ET/ETQW non persistent perk type game and the far end a Brink style persistent character type game.
Posted on 30 September, 2011 - 20:43
Your attitude seems to be that you need to force people to eat the single item and they'll damn well enjoy it while ignoring the reality that you just can't do that.
Yeah that illustrates it quite well. Objectives may need some acquired taste, it's something that people will feel compelled to play, to give it some time. Part of that compulsion can be gained from the lack of alternatives.
Posted on 30 September, 2011 - 20:52
Yeah that illustrates it quite well. Objectives may need some acquired taste, it's something that people will feel compelled to play, to give it some time. Part of that compulsion can be gained from the lack of alternatives.
But I'm saying allow them time by keeping them playing the game in other modes and taste taste taste along the way. You seem to think that people will just keep tasting something they don't like until they like it. That's just wrong, people will give up and go play somewhere else, who buys a game to be bored or frustrated by it? Ultimately even if they only play DM SD will benefit from extra sales, which is more money they can invest in the objective game or an SDK or whatever. I just don't understand why you act so threatened by stuff you deem as inconsequential. It's like the stink of such low game modes would somehow affect your enjoyment of the objective gametype. Such elitism is pretty sad and doesn't benefit anyone. Again, a popular game is a rich SD. A rich SD, I am sure, would invest money into stuff they want to play not just stuff they have to make to pay the rent. But by all means, keep pushing for Brink 2.
Posted on 1 October, 2011 - 00:14
Objective is best, but stopwatch is second best!
Posted on 1 October, 2011 - 00:14
But I'm saying allow them time by keeping them playing the game in other modes and taste taste taste along the way. You seem to think that people will just keep tasting something they don't like until they like it. That's just wrong, people will give up and go play somewhere else, who buys a game to be bored or frustrated by it? Ultimately even if they only play DM SD will benefit from extra sales, which is more money they can invest in the objective game or an SDK or whatever.
Brink was a success in sales (and again, more modes wouldn't have made it a bigger success).That's what frustrated me the most about it. It (and thus objective mode) had every chance to shine but a coward aproach to the customer base ruined it.
Posted on 1 October, 2011 - 10:39
It's not cowardice, it's not wanting to throw your company under a bus, I understand their motivations and I think we're all in much better positions to criticise with nothing on the line. Gaining wider appeal with other more accepted modes and then nurturing their own objective mode in the exact way they want is to me a great compromise. Anyway, enough of that. Wanted to throw a few more ideas in here that have been said before but might get noticed a little better here. Make warmup a mode in itself, at least as a selectable option. This will alleviate some of the boredom while waiting for a server to fill. Something like DM or a survival type mode, largely brainless stuff. Keep it fast paced so it can be cut down to 5 minutes max. I guess consoles will get their lobbies but at least on the PC allow a P2P type warmup lobby where you can do the above but also set up a game and then transition to a server once your ready to go. Challenges. Said it many times but these were just great and exactly what should be used to teach the concepts of objective mode in more precise terms. Expand on these, make them a co-op mode (with unlocks and leaderboards), don't be submissive, keep all the good kit in there so people have to play through them and learn what the game is about. IMO this is where you teach, so you can do it once or people can go back and practice, keep the objective mode pure game and not simplistic to ease learning.
Posted on 3 October, 2011 - 05:05
It's not cowardice, it's not wanting to throw your company under a bus, I understand their motivations and I think we're all in much better positions to criticise with nothing on the line. Gaining wider appeal with other more accepted modes and then nurturing their own objective mode in the exact way they want is to me a great compromise.
It's a risk to break from a very successful, award winning formula by installing something else something completely untested that you think has a wider appeal. It's also not recognising the reasons for ETQW's lack of success, which were external. SD knows how to make amazing shooters that are played by millions, they broke away from that which cost them dearly.
Posted on 3 October, 2011 - 13:06
It's a risk to break from a very successful, award winning formula by installing something else something completely untested that you think has a wider appeal.
Um i dont know where u getting this from, but other gamemodes like DM & TDM have been tested before by other devs & have brought them great success & still do. Brink was originally advertised to a deverse audience ( it was said many times that this could be played the way u wanted to play ), many of which were from other non-SD shooters. So how would adding more modes, but still focussing most of there time in the objective mode damper the experience?
SD knows how to make amazing shooters that are played by millions, they broke away from that which cost them dearly.
They know how to make amazing shooters for PC... adding popular gamemodes from console shooters wouldn't have hurt anything...
Posted on 3 October, 2011 - 22:42
I don't think I can comment on that any further without repeating my initial points.
Posted on 4 October, 2011 - 12:27