Sign in to follow this  
WhiteKnight77

Respawns, TDM and Different Game Modes

Recommended Posts

Boy what a firestorm I seem to have started, but all for a good cause.

 

may I ask as to how CS:S and RVS seem to do quite well with the lack of Respawn option seeing as its "Suicide" to not include them?

 

Rainbow Six and Rogue Spear never had respawns either, they were first used in a TC game with GR. People are still playing RS though not in the numbers previously.

 

No respawns is far from being suicide. It may force people to consider that there's more to MP gaming than kill counts though. ;)

 

Exactly. Why do all games have to feature get the most kills type games to begin with?

 

One more comment that i think ties back to WK's original post.

 

I really hope that we see some innovative gametypes/options in MP from BFS and GB. I also firmly believe that those innovative gametypes/options can include respawns if it is done well.

 

NORG does not exclude respawns ... it just means they need to be approached differently.

 

More on this later.

 

Not as long as I'm around!

 

Choices are good, yes. But that's no reason to cave into the same old same old just because people always want to play games the same way. Respawns are ok, BUT need to be handled in a way that no other game that I know of has *bothered* to do. Magically springing back up from the grave, like all other games do, does not need to be included. If there are to be respawns, be creative. Make it make sense somehow (like described earlier). Don't just allow them because that's what people are used to. What we're used to pretty much sucks.

 

It's a myth that all MP games have to be capture the flag, sharpshooter and last man standing. MP *can* be treated seriously and with as much thought as the SP game.

 

Again, do all games have to have the same features to be popular or great? Why is a game considered a failure or a bomb if it doesn't have TDM? Why do people only have to play TDM to enjoy a game? GB is supposed to create a new trend in gaming by giving the community something different.

 

I would never have realized how much more fun no respawns are unless I was forced by the R6 series to play that way.

 

Not only does adding options take time, but it can make the game take on so many other "forms" and lose its true vision and goal.

 

And GB is all about vision. So the question really is, how realistic is BFS's vision?

 

With all the options people have been requesting for GB, it would take a 2 DVD's and lots of time and resources to create and most likely cost more. While options fopr everything can be a good thing, does making everything an option define GB? GB should define itself before expanding on it and adding more features to it that fit with the game.

 

The following threads all delve into game types and most of what is seen here is that people here want GB to offer more than just the same old game modes and types.

 

Game types

 

Realism and NORG

 

Multiplayer gametypes

 

Team Vs. Team Games

 

What would you like to see in Multiplayer for this upcoming game?

 

Now the game NYR was referring to that was a failure last year was GRAW as it only had Domination for TvT gameplay on release. This is what I was referring to also. People raised a big stink about no TDM. Yet here, some of those same people are wanting more than TDM. Is this true? Are you willing to accept a game next year that does not have TDM?

 

Maybe GB can pull a GR and give everyone TDM, CTF or other similar game types under an "arcade" mode where you can sustain more damage, unlimited respawns and unlimited ammo. Develop game types for the "hardcore" portion of GB that offer objectives, penalties for not using your head and criteria for the win over and above getting the most kills. The above threads all have great ideas for game types. Which would you really liked to see developed over and above the same old tired game types?

 

I so much want GB to offer something that isn't found anywhere else as that is the biggest reason why everyone is here, or at least I thought it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYR: Your post is the most discouraging thing I've read on this site about this game. You seem to want to squash creativity and that which I thought this place was going to be founded on: something different, not the same mindless game that every other shooter mimics.

First off let me start, this is all my opinion and should not be taken as coming from a member of the development team. I am not a dev team member, I just help with the forums.

 

I do NOT want to squash creativity, first off. All I have argued is removing what are considered "standard" or "baseline gametypes", because some people feel they have no place in the game, will do nothing more than to hurt it in the long run. There will be ALOT in this title that is different from the run of the mill first person shooters out there today. With that said, that doesn't mean the whole game has to be radically different from everything else on the market.

 

Even Operation Flashpoint and Armed Assault have what equates to TDM and CTF. Those titles are not your run of the mill first person shooters, the former is a game of the year winner and both title have a huge community behind them. Those games are recognized for being very open ended, and it's gameplay is extremely unique, but it still includes “standard” gametypes found in most games.

 

 

In this very thread you've read several ways to implement respawns--from me directly, as well as others. Nothing too crazy either. Feel free to put those in the game, I need no compensation. I'm all about variety. I WANT variety. But more CTF and sharpshooter like we already have IS NOT variety. It's the same package 100 other games are offering me. Therefore, NOT variety.

I was under the impression that variety meant more choices? Like various things to pick from. That is the point in having gametypes such as TDM, CTF and Sharpshooter. If you personally do not want to play them, no one is forcing you. It is your choice. I don't know how to put that any other way. Do you honestly think though that those would be the only gametypes? I highly doubt that….

 

 

What game? All I can think of is Gears of War. What does GOW have in common with this game? That should be a completely different crowd. If this game is going to try to recruit the Halo2/Gear of War crowd, then it's not at all what I thought it was. That's like a flight sim trying to grab the hardcore Crimson Skies fans.

What realistic games are you talking about that failed? AA: ROAS wasn't a failure, I still see people playing that even though is on a console a generation ago. The PC game is going even stronger. Play much sharpshooter on that? What game failed? Maybe it was a game I'm not aware of, but not many are out there to judge by IMO. What gets LOST these days are the cookie cutter dull shooters that do nothing BUT the same old CTF/sharpshooter games. They've fallen out fo favor. GRAW2 is a fairly new game on the 360 but it's barely on the top 10 list. I've heard the PC version is limited. Rainbow Six on PC is supposedly not so great too. What's been nice on Rainbow console is assassination, not a commong game type in the world of shooters.

I addressed the game in question in my second post in this thread. GRAW 1 PC. Out of the box that title provided little to no options, variety or choice for MP. No TDM, no SS, nothing except the one “creative” gametype. Even after it's three “map packs” it still lacked a lot in my opinion. Yet that is the very thing people seem to advocating for in this thread. How long did that title survive? Compared to it's 5 year old predecessor, which out of the box provided more options, choice and variety, GRAW1 was a major step backwards, and is dead one year later.

 

 

 

Don't put your eggs in one basket, but you can at least show creativity in what you offer. Call of Juarez has some basically CTF gametypes, but they dressed it up to fit the feel of the game. You don't capture a flag, it's a bag of gold, which FITS with the plot of the game. There could be more than one to grab, offense vs. defense. A small step, but that little bit of creativity was refreshing. If it was a literal FLAG I woudn't have even tried the game. DIFFERENT is good now. Too many shooters do the same lame brain game types that people are getting sick of. Most games, the only difference in MP is the environment and the weapons. Otherwise, it's the same game with a different look.

Yet at it's core the gametype is the same as it always was. Just be cause the art assest is different doesn't change the objective of the gametype. GR1 had SAR, which was basically the same thing, except they substitued POWs for flags. So slight tweaks to the "old and tired" gametypes make them something different? Doesn’t seem like it to me, it is still just CTF.

"...build your game around a community"

 

The community here seems to want realism and some creativity. We're excited about this game because it promises to be DIFFERENT and realistic. We aren't here because we want MP to be the same as every other game out there. We're here because we are excited that someone wants to offer us something BETTER and not the same old crap we get on every other shooter out there. I was under the impression that this game was to address the crowd that wanted realism, "NORG", not to be yet another shooter like all the others. To say that SP will offer that but not MP is a cop out. I don't think that's the case though.

This title is driven by NORG, the Natural Order of Realistic Gameplay. That doesn't mean that this is purely a simulation, it still needs to be fun. Realism will be there, when you have someone like Hatchetforce on the development team you know that will be the case. However, like I said the game has to be fun. Like it or not, there are people out there just like me who can have a lot of fun with those simple gametypes and play for hours upon hours. I did it for years with GR1. The thing is though, that is not the only way I play. I'm a veteran of over 20 cooperative Ghost Recon 1 tournament mission drops, if you don't know what those missions are like, well trust me they aren't easy nor are they nearly as simple as those found in stock GR1. I know there needs to be more to the game than just "basic gametypes", and do you honestly think that is all you'll get? After all you have seen and heard this early in the development process, do you think GB will not offer something new, fun and creative? But what is the harm in including things that are proven? I see none.

 

 

Then your next game will compromise even more and you'll be even further from where this thing started out.

If John Sonedecker wanted to keep making games that went in that direction he wouldn't have started his own company.

 

Offer respawns, that's fine, but set a new standard and do it RIGHT. Get people a little out of their comfort zone, show them something new and exciting and be the game that changes what MP gaming can offer.

I addressed this before, what if it comes a point in time where the new idea isn't working? Do you just dump the option of respawns altogether because some people don't like it that way? Again the option of respawns. I really do not understand why people need to force their wishes on everyone else. Play with no respawns, it's that easy.

 

 

That's understandable. However, EVERY game doesn't have to offer you that. That's why there are DIFFERENT GAMES out there. If I want plasma grenades, an M1 rifle or vehicles, I don't need THIS game to offer me that. There are other games to cover those areas. NO game can cover all the bases. If games could all be homogenized like that, gaming would be incredibly dull. Pick what you want to do with a game and then do it better than everybody else. I don't need Ground Branch to be Shadowrun. I don't want Shadowrun to be Ground Branch. I'm perfectly willing to own more than 1 game. Get the realism right. Do it better than the next guy. Don't try to cover all the bases because YOU CAN'T.

Rainbow Six, Rainbow Six: Rouge Spear, and Ghost Recon 1. Those are the titles that people feel started the "tac-sim genre" yet they offered the gamer choice, variety and options. No plasma rifles, vehicles or M1's. They gave the players the ability to play how they wanted, yet the core never changed. Ghost Recon 1 allowed me to played serious, methodical coop, fast paced SAR, siege and various, "creative", user made gametypes, but the core of the title never changed. It was always just good 'ole GR. I just want to see an evolution of a genre, not a drastic upheaval. Removing the basics leaves you with untried and untested gametypes that may very well not be enjoyable to a lot of people. Just because you or I like something doesn’t mean everyone will, even those who are fans of the genre.

 

I don't want to kill, that's ridiculous. I wouldn't be here a YEAR before a game comes out, without even confirmation of a console version, if I wanted to kill it. However, if this is going to be just another generic shooter, then I'm wasting my time. Obviously, I don't really think that's the case or I wouldn't be here.

So to you I say: don't try to kill this game by trying to make it like every other cookie cutter game out on the market. We HAVE those. If that's what we wanted we wouldn't be here cheering this game on.

Who said I want it to be a cookie cutter title? I know I didn't. There will be a lot about this game that won't be the same as everything else out there. However, how does it hurt to provide players the choice to play what they like? The removal of TDM for example would be a HUGE blow to laddering communities, it is their bread and butter. I don't care for laddering personally but I recognize the fact that there are a lot of folks who enjoy it greatly. It wouldn't be right that they can't enjoy the game because others believe that, an optional, TDM gametype will lessen their experience. That’s just down right elitist.

 

Get out of your comfort zone. You'll probably find that there are more fun ways of gaming out there if you're willing to try it.

Listen up and listen good. You just said that to the wrong person. My comfort zone has expanded to cover many a genre, over the course of 20 years of my life. Just in recent years I went from playing GR1 over Ubi.com, to private servers, and finally to a member of a very good team. I'm now a veteran of 20+ GR1 mission drops with Team [GRNET], covering 5 large scale tournaments, some of which had some very nice prizes. I stepped up to the plate, learned IGOR and cranked out over 30 full-fledged missions utilized for team practices, all of which are far more complex than any stock mission you’ve ever seen. I also got out of my comfort zone, and stepped up to the plate as a member of our team’s Recon element. I ran point on more than half of the missions I played, and if I messed up, I just ruined it for 8 other guys. I’ve put my self in situations in games that were very different from what I’m used to time and time again. I didn’t even mention sim racing, trust me I know how to step out my comfort zone.

 

There is no harm in covering the basics and then coming up with your brand new, innovative and exciting idea that appeals to a certain element of your fan base. But here’s the key, not everyone is going to like those ideas, but maybe, just maybe, they'll enjoy the tried and true based on the new titles core gameplay The core of the game will not magically switch from Unreal Tournament to VBS over a few options like respawns, and "standard" gametypes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do all games have to feature get the most kills type games to begin with?

Because it is a simple and effective method of keeping score? People really do enjoy just squaring off team versus team and seeing who comes out on top.

 

Again, do all games have to have the same features to be popular or great? Why is a game considered a failure or a bomb if it doesn't have TDM? Why do people only have to play TDM to enjoy a game? GB is supposed to create a new trend in gaming by giving the community something different.

Maybe people play TDM because they enjoy it that much. What if someone said “why do people need to play COOP to enjoy GB”? Seriously put yourself in the shoes of a team, or person, who plays on TDM ladders; that is their COOP tournament. They love it just as much as I love playing in tournaments. Why take that away from them? The core elements and features of the title are what is different for them, you don't need to remove what they like about the tac-sim genre just because GB is going to be "different".

 

Now the game NYR was referring to that was a failure last year was GRAW as it only had Domination for TvT gameplay on release. This is what I was referring to also. People raised a big stink about no TDM. Yet here, some of those same people are wanting more than TDM. Is this true? Are you willing to accept a game next year that does not have TDM?

Why can't they have both? TDM and something new? What is so hard about that? I really cannot understand why there needs to be one or the other.

 

Maybe GB can pull a GR and give everyone TDM, CTF or other similar game types under an "arcade" mode where you can sustain more damage, unlimited respawns and unlimited ammo.

Why do those gametypes have to play under different rules? Why can't they be played the same way as SP, or the "non kiddie" gametypes. By making TDM etc. into "arcade" gametypes all you have done is made them into “kiddie gametypes” and insulted the people who enjoy them. TDM etc. should play by the same rule book as everything else, not a different one.

Develop game types for the "hardcore" portion of GB that offer objectives, penalties for not using your head and criteria for the win over and above getting the most kills.

Why not develop new and innovative gametypes for everyone and let them choose to play them or not? The SP and MP experience are going to play by the same rules, NORG, plain and simple. Special, non "arcade designated" gametypes should not be the only ones to play by the NORG rule set. By creating two sets of rules you fall back into artificial balancing of a title, which NORG is kicking to the curb.

I so much want GB to offer something that isn't found anywhere else as that is the biggest reason why everyone is here, or at least I thought it was.

And GB still can, and will, offer new, and innovative things, but that doesn't mean the popular gametypes of the past need to be dumbed downed, or outright removed. They can all coexist under the rules of NORG and let the gamers decide which ones they want to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree with NYR 32. NORG itself will change the gameplay even with "Standard" gametypes. Add to that some new gametypes and OPTIONS for various respawn mechanics and you have truly offered up something new and innovative to the community.

 

As for the resources (time and money) that adding options would consume ... there is ample evidence that MP content can generate ongoing revenue streams for developers so investing resources into that area is a smart thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One major difference between GRAW 1 and GB, is GRAW was mass marketed, touting itself as a MP game as well as an intense single player campaign ( a discription of GRAW 1- "Top-notch multiplayer experience: Tom Clancy?s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter? returns to deliver industry-leading multiplayer and cooperative gameplay for one of the hottest online franchises."). Therefor, when it shipped and had no real MP to speak of, of course the MP players are going to be in an uproar. The game was patched to add more game types and all was better, but the initial failure of having 1 MP mode, cannot be compared to a game that might not be released with one particular type of mode, like sharpshooter, because the majority of the current community feels it isn't required. When I play MP, I want the people I play with to play seriously, act like the professional soldiers that they are portraying, no taunting, no teabagging, get your kills and move on, unlike the antics you find on most of the current FPS MP servers on the market right now. BFS has said that they are not aiming for the mass market, so why would they add modes, to do just that, just because a few vocal individuals, demand it. In the end, it's up to them what they include, my only hope is that they don't buckle under the pressure to release a game that appeals to all gamers, not just us realism enthusiasts.

 

Sincerly - A big Shark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I so much want GB to offer something that isn't found anywhere else as that is the biggest reason why everyone is here, or at least I thought it was.

 

Or do you really just want GR 3.0?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am of the opinion that the more host options the better. Sure respawns are not Norg .. but they could come close if handled well (reinforcements arrive at a certain point).

I haven't had a chance to read all the posts yet, but had this thought in thinking about the reinforcement idea.

 

Reinforcements come in forms of groups, not individuals. Maybe have a setting where there are respawns, but only after there have been xx (say 4) number of deaths on that team. Then as a group the four would respawn as a group for reinforcements.... possibly in the form of a helicopter drop near the team leader and only if the team leader "requests" reinforcements.

 

Hope that makes some sense.

 

EDIT: I just turned to page two and see that Raw mentions a similar idea. That will teach me not to read the entire thread before posting. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the type of thinking I am talking about ... by developing some decent parameters for time and location you can add to the game and not detract from it.

 

For instance say you are playing as teams of six and 3 of your team are down. They can respawn but only if the remaining team members can secure an LZ and a helo will come and drop off the "respawning" members. Of course the opposition can shoot down the helo or use it to get a good fix on the location and take down the whole team ...

 

Or the respawning/relieveing squad is dropped off at a far point requiring the remaining team to either hold and wait for them or break off and try to reunite.

 

So forcing group respawns vs. individual is a great idea. Add in some realistic effort needed for the fresh troops to rejoin the fray and you have a decent game dynamic.

 

 

You mean something along these lines ZJJ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Wing, something like that. Use those in the deadroom as reinforcements, but not on a timer and not just anywhere. The team leader should be the one to designate when and where, tactically, but also where they could fall under enemy fire while inserting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as traditional TDM is concerned I don't mind it being there, but I'm definitely ready for a more asymmetric multiplayer experience. I'd love to see a MP feature where you could fight a series of battles where the outcome of one battle can affect the location and resources available to each side in subsequent battles. Which side controls things like roads, towns, geographical features would determine where you could fight next, whether you have access to additional supplies or are cut off and forced to conserve your ammo, explosives, and medical supplies if they are featured in the game (not that there should or would be any form of instant healing medikits). f you could keep wounded players Ifrom bleeding to death or perhaps even getting infections that could worsen their fighting abilities that would be kind of cool. Mission objectives could be based on what gives each side a strategic advantage and may or may not be the same or similar for each side.

 

(Edit: There should also be leaders for each side could also make the strategic decisions before and during each battle)

 

 

Now my opinion regarding respawns, count me down for 'no respawns, ever.'

It completely changes the way people play the game, catering mostly to those that are too impatient to be playing tactical games in the first place. Rogue Spear, while less realistic than newer games in many regards usually played out much more realistically than a lot of newer games because people wouldn't arbitrarily kill themselves to gain an advantage in the long run. People used to chat with each other after they got killed which, in my opinion, strengthened the game's community. The 'dead' players absolutely have to be entertained you could give 'em some kind of competitive mini-game to play while the match finishes up. The worst part is I've noticed that if it's even an option when the game gets older and players become scarce the lowest common denominator almost always wins out among server hosts. I'm not on ASE every day anymore, but I can't recall having seen a no respawns of GR played in years.

Edited by Thoramir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im torn on this...

 

i personally love no respawn games but alot of the guys i LAN with,not so much.

 

this is probably a good compromise.

 

If you die, you don't respawn until the rest of your team dies OR a longer period of time elapses. And then you all respawn TOGETHER and at the SAME place. That way you respawn but still function as a team. The problem with respawn games is that when you respawn, you go from a team based game to being an individual. You aren't part of the team since you're so separated from your squad. That's what makes respawn games become chaotic and then fall apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if your whole team dies why not just end the match? That seems like the logical time to do it to me.

 

For one thing I am hoping we see some in depth MP scenarios the have multiple objectives for each side and are not necessarily a 5 minute frag fest but a 30 minute tactical battle. So being able to "reinforce" your squad part way through makes a lot of sense.

 

Again the main thing is to offer options - If you don't like respawns don't play with them. I have heard a lot of "fear" in posts that somehow including respawns MAY corrupt the core gameplay but I have yet to see a real argument that states any true gains to be had from limiting the respawn option.

 

If this is going to be a truly groundbreaking FPS experience it should have groundbreaking respawn functionality. There have already been plenty of suggestions that would create a NORG based respawn.

 

IN GRAW 2 the vast majority of rooms I hosted were No respawn/IFF off ... but I also played a lot of other variations based on who of my friends were on, how many were on, what everyone felt like playing etc. As I have stated before - the majority of the people in my rooms are pc to console converts (or still play PC games) and all of us like and practice Tactical gameplay - and we found numerous gametypes with various options including limited respawns, team respawns etc - that allowed us to maintain tactical play and still keep the game and maps fresh.

 

It is not the options that create a run and gun atmosphere but the players use of those options. If the core NORG gameplay is well done and respawn options are plentiful and well thought out we will have a game that has not been seen before and it will have a great following for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard a lot of "fear" in posts that somehow including respawns MAY corrupt the core gameplay but I have yet to see a real argument that states any true gains to be had from limiting the respawn option.

 

This is a bit on the unfair side.

 

I made the biggest assertions (and well spoken, I thought) that instant respawns reinforced the RunNgun 'I don't care if I die' form of gameplay.

 

And that is a fact, not a fear.

 

And that in itself, is the argument that supports true gains are made from limiting respawn.

 

Of course, you have to be on the side that desires tactical team work as opposed to RunNgun disorganized chaos;

 

But please don't dismiss my very valid argument as only 'possibility' and 'fear'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Monolith ... but I also ask that other factors be taken into consideration ... GB is supposed to be based on NORG which means that run and gunners should have some severe disadvantages from the start - poor aim winded etc. plus I would hope that the maps are large enough that contact will not occur in 10 seconds. So perhaps instant respawns will not have a detrimental effect.

 

Add to that the desire that many have posted (myself included) to provide respawn options such as realistic locations, forced team/group respawns, delays, meeting conditions for respawn etc. and it is obvious that "instant" respawns are not - and should not be considered - the only option available.

 

If the only respawn option that is being considered is instant with no thought given to teamwork, location etc. than I agree there MAY be an issue .. but that is not the only respawn option that is available or should be considered.

 

Also consider that you may never have to play in a respawn game - if that happens how has it affected your tactical gameplay in a negative fashion? Why do you care how anyone other than the players in your room play the game? So again the "threat" of respawns impacting your game are minimal if they are an option ...

 

And I am on the side that desires tactical teamwork ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think WhiteKnight might have actually been asking if brand new, never before seen game types is what GB needs to bring to the tactical genre to keep it fresh and exciting?

 

I'll get to this in a few moments...

 

But as much as some of you may hate this I also think the whole, "If respawns are added this automatically attracts "idiot gamers who like to run and gun" is a Straw Man argument. It is taking things to the extreme -- like the same argument that says if we allow options this somehow makes a NORG-based game resemble Unreal Tournament -- And is not using any common sense in my opinion. This sound harsh, but it is true.

 

Wingshot said it best:

 

It is not the options that create a run and gun atmosphere but the players use of those options. If the core NORG gameplay is well done and respawn options are plentiful and well thought out we will have a game that has not been seen before and it will have a great following for a long time.

 

I believe options are almost essential if BFS wants this game to have a large enough following to turn a profit in order to continue making sequels and similar games to GB.

 

This doesn't mean making GB a Call of Duty, or BF2 clone. What this means (IMO) is they acknowledge GB is still a video game first and foremost. And in the end, to be a successful and competitive video game in 2007, it MUST offer a lot of choices out-of-the-box for MP. Even if the core audience might at first seem very limited, a.k.a. small.

 

Operation Flash Point is a prime example of this in action. Options up the ying-yang and look at how large a market segment it had (and still has to some extent with Armed Assault).

 

Also a lot of this fear or hesitancy for options is because the tactical FPS genre IS very small and is slowly being eroded by the more mainstream arcade shooters. Hardcore tactical gamers see what UBISoft did with the R6 franchise and don't want it to happen to GB...

 

But this is also what I meant when I said common sense isn't being used in a lot of these arguments against respawns and other features. What we are seeing here is a lot of knee-jerk reaction. And it is a fearful reaction whether anyone wants to admit it or not (no offense, Monolith). At least, at the subconscious level.

 

However, what a lot of former tactical games that were converted to mainstream arcade shooters did not have that BFS and GB have is NORG. Plain and simple. A stated design philosophy that should keep the core vision and mechanics intact regardless of how many options are included. This is how I look at the whole respawn vs. no respawn debate.

 

Now as far as what WhiteKnight might have really been asking...

 

Yes.

 

I think there needs to be completely new game play modes no tactical FPS game has ever seen. And maybe even no FPS has ever included as well.

 

What are those new game modes?

 

I don't know ;)

 

I'm not a developer. That's there job to come up with what hasn't been thought of before.

 

All I know is with NORG in place I trust whatever the devs come up with to be more in line with realism and tactical based than if this was just any other developer.

Edited by TacSimFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I am on the side that desires tactical teamwork ....

 

 

As am I. :thumbsup:

 

 

 

Also consider that you may never have to play in a respawn game - if that happens how has it affected your tactical gameplay in a negative fashion? Why do you care how anyone other than the players in your room play the game? So again the "threat" of respawns impacting your game are minimal if they are an option ...

 

Don't confuse me with others. I never voted for a no respawn option.

 

I don't care how anyone on a different server is playing. In fact, I made several posts telling people they shouldn't limit options for others. I'm on the side voting for every option imaginable.

 

I even support making maps specifically designed for RunNgunners. Heck, I don't care what someone else does.

 

My only concern with your position was, don't try to say that the concept that respawns reinforce runNgun and poor playing behavior is just a myth or a fear.

 

If you specifically hook up with team mates who all agree to play as a team, with respawns, that's great. I love it.

 

But I can log on to Xbox live right now, jump into a GRAW MP game, and I will see people just running all over the place wildly flinging frags everywhere with no rhyme or reason, because they know when they blow themselves up, they will be back in the game with another life in 20 seconds.

 

Respawns PROMOTE that style of gameplay in casual gamers.

 

Conversely, if those same players did not have a respawn, and they were forced to sit and wait until the next round if they stupidly gave away their life, they would start to play the game in the more intended, tactical manner that the game mechanics were designed for.

 

My concern with your post was that you're trying to play that off as unfounded fear and myth, when it clearly has truth to it.

 

 

 

I think we're actually on the same side. There's just some semantics or perspective thing happening here.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But as much as some of you may hate this I also think the whole, "If respawns are added this automatically attracts "idiot gamers who like to run and gun" is a Straw Man argument. It is taking things to the extreme --

 

Wingshot said it best:

It is not the options that create a run and gun atmosphere but the players use of those options.

 

 

You're right, it's not the option, it's the players. Exactly right.

 

What is NOT a straw man argument, is my point that respawns re-inforce, allow, and enable RunNgun behavior.

 

When you do not have to protect your time in the game. you can play with careless abandon. And so they do.

 

That's fact.

 

 

 

But this is also what I meant when I said common sense isn't being used in a lot of these arguments against respawns and other features. What we are seeing here is a lot of knee-jerk reaction. And it is a fearful reaction whether anyone wants to admit it or not (no offense, Monolith). At least, at the subconscious level.

 

 

So, not only have you lumped me in with the wrong group, but now you're applying Wingshot's fear comment to me.

 

You have it completely wrong.

 

Go back a page and see my post where I said "It's not your place to tell others how to play. Options are good".

 

I think people should have all the respawn options they can imagine, all I said was what you see above here with your other quote. And I stand by it. No knee jerk reaction. No fear. Maybe you saw that in someone else.

 

You also said this...

 

I don't think run-and-gun is all that bad. Especially depending on the situation. In fact, running and gunning is part of combat if you want to survive. And this goes double for a video game where players do not fear for their virtual life.

 

Obviously, that statement clearly says 'not fearing for your virtual life promotes runNgun behavior.'

 

Is your same statement, which is identical to mine, also kneejerk and fearful?

 

I offer you the respect of not labeling it as so, so do the same for me.

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Monolith.

 

I think we have both stated our positions - and as you said we are probably closer rather than far apart in our views.

 

Options are good ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monolith:

 

I was not aware (or didn't read clearly enough) that you were for options.

 

This we agree on.

 

My point is that those voting for "No Respawn Ever" might be reacting because of what has happened to the tactical FPS genre in the last few years. It's slowly dying (shrinking) and they are attributing this to certain factors that are not just linked to one simple thing. It is not just a cause-and-effect relationship in my opinion. It's just not that simple.

 

There are a ton of factors outside the game mechanics which aren't being considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem.

 

 

We just all need to try to voice differing opinions, without labeling others with condescending terms.

 

We're all on the same team here, tryng to get to the same place; A good game that accomodates all.

 

 

 

I'm going to get a beer. You guys are wearing me out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is the point in trying to hide respawns under a different name, such as "Reinforcements". They take massivley away from the value of life in the game.

 

And throwing resources at developing clever ways to hide the fact is not going to change those facts.

 

The only place i have ever found them useful was when a server was to empty, and there are better ways around that than respawns. Having AI characters to make up the nuumbers would be preferable like you can have in RVS.(except with ai that isnt thick as mince, no offense to the devs of that game, it just because it is so old).

 

I can understand having options with elements which are already in the core gameplay, such as weapons restrictions, etc, etc. I really want them.

 

But developing components for the game which are not needed for the core gameplay, which could require a lot of resources, just so people have those option to use them, to me, sounds stupid.

 

If they can add these things (Respawns, TDM and Different Game Modes) in once the core game (SP and COOP) are finished, then great. But I do not think people should be expecting / demanding them. Or having hissy fits when people state they are not needed.

 

Now nod your head because you know it makes sense, :yes:

Edited by Relinquish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"once the core game (SP and COOP) are finished," again a really myopic view ... who says that MP is not CORE?

 

GB is based on NORG .. what is anti NORG about reinforcements?

 

 

"And throwing resources at developing clever ways to hide the fact is not going to change those facts." What facts? That Reinforcements allow players to enjoy a good 30 minute coop mission? That if you don't want to play with respawns you don't have to? That at the end of th eday MP could very well be the best revenue stream GB sees and that spending resources to make MP the best it can be may well be the better choice than spending then on SP?

 

You seen to think that scripting AI takes less work/resources than implementing respawn functionality ... is that a FACT?

 

here is my head nod for you .. :whack:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this