Leaked ET;QW Beta Screenshots

Sinny · 12 Jun 2007 at 17:44

dont ask why but it looks a bit like the Source engine, cant say it looks top end dx9 but still looks very nice, yet to see gameplay though.

Gerard · 12 Jun 2007 at 17:54

Weebull said:
Perhaps, but they don't have to be pandered to by copying what already exists. New and unique games become big hits all the time. You can't judge stuff purely on what went before. So just because BF2-style games happen to be the big thing right now, doesn't mean that every game should be like that, or that everybody out there wants it like that.

I mean hell, what would be more likely to attract a long-term fanbase, yet another BF2 game that people abandon for simply not being as good, or a solid mainstream quake-style game that gets the old UT/Q3 players interested again?

It probably is, but according to you, daring to ask for more quake-like physics is some horrible slur upon humanity. I wasn't knocking the game in the slightest (I'm not going to judge it yet), just your apparent irrational hatred of fast-paced games.

Because I like bouncing around like a tool? Because I've always quite enjoyed the physics of movement and jumping in certain FPS games, and like the extra challenge of negotiating jumps and gaps within certain game levels? Because I think the difficulty of controlling your aim while jumping, whilst also adjusting for your targets jumping to be a good challenge, and a nice trade off for the ability to jump in the first place? Because it's fun?

For the record ive no "hatred" of fast paced games, to me it just seems that people that like quake games would be very willing to pay for more or less the same game every year with better graphics.

When it all said and done quake 2,3 and 4 are all about deathmatch experience, this games not so why do people expect the exact same quake gameplay to be incorperated in this game if its meant to be a departure from the "deathmatch" experience?

gurusan · 12 Jun 2007 at 17:58

Gerard said:
For the record ive no "hatred" of fast paced games, to me it just seems that people that like quake games would be very willing to pay for more or less the same game every year with better graphics.

When it all said and done quake 2,3 and 4 are all about deathmatch experience, this games not so why do people expect the exact same quake gameplay to be incorperated in this game if its meant to be a departure from the "deathmatch" experience?

Capture the Flag adds a LOT of depth to the "deathmatch experience"...I still play deathmatch occasionally...but get bored very quickly as it doesn't seem as goal-oriented as CTF...the only goal in DM is to get as many frags as possible...and I'm quite good at that but it's just not challenging enough.

Gerard · 12 Jun 2007 at 18:04

gurusan said:
Capture the Flag adds a LOT of depth to the "deathmatch experience"...I still play deathmatch occasionally...but get bored very quickly as it doesn't seem as goal-oriented as CTF...the only goal in DM is to get as many frags as possible...and I'm quite good at that but it's just not challenging enough.

Ctf may add more to it but would quake gameplay on massive maps combined with vehicles actually work? The image i have in my mind is taking on a guy with a rocketlauncher with a tank, and the tank losing because the guy was bounding around all over the place. For a game that has pretty realistic looking characters seeing this kind of scenario would look absolutely retarded. And would reinforce my line of thinking that this game is set to be quake 3 on bigger maps plus vehicles.

The trailers of the game look really good and i don't see anyone bouncing around in them, however according to Paul Wedgewood strafejumping has been turned on and off a couple of times so its not set in stone to definately be in the game...Sooner a demo or a public beta is out the better.

furnace · 12 Jun 2007 at 18:11

I would hate to see any kind of bunnyhopping or quake 3 style gameplay, personally. It really isn't the kind of game I enjoy. I always thought ET:QW was going to be slower paced, battlefield style... I'll have to wait for a demo to come out to make sure it is, 'cos I don't find quake/UT style gameplay as easy to play casually (ie when you're not very good at it).

peetee · 12 Jun 2007 at 18:24

either way, atleast theyre putting thought into it

theyll do better at nerfing any jumping etc and will figure ways to gimp any scripts people bring out probably, it wont be the utter joke battlefield is in the least.
Battlefield sold because of the franchise, and there wasnt much choice(except battlefront, but christ that was rubbish too)
QuakeWars has to come out and try and take battlefields userbase, meaning theres already a benchmark, it will crash and burn if its as shoddy as battlefield, since whats the point in spending more on something thats no different

Gerard · 12 Jun 2007 at 18:30

Lot of positives i like about quakewars, main one being the way you can disable a vehicles motion but the cannon can still be operable, all the battlefield series the vehicles were basically treated as a block, one part got damaged they all got damaged. This game takes vehicle damage one step further.

peetee · 12 Jun 2007 at 18:56

was hoping that would be the case

good stuff, should be good being able to incapacitating a vehicles movement and running away for someone to finish the job(if you didnt have the means to yourself)