Pros and Cons of only having ONE game mode : Othor Games

» Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:31 pm

I think I fixed it for you.

Good work there Krytt
Have a turtle....

» Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:41 pm

I think I fixed it for you.

Well done!

» Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:40 pm

I don't understand the hate on TDM (for the gameplay and not tactic side). I don't think it will work for Brink but I see a lot of people hating it for people only wanting to get kills. Kills are pretty important even in objective games. Why do you thnk there is a Soldier class? They specialize in explosives (for objectives and killing), stick bombs (killing), and are described as "the leading force" in any push. It kinda seems contradictory to the whole objective only aspect.

I do know that there is a difference between just running around and getting kills compared to sticking towards your objective. I'd much rather have soldiers protecting the outside of the perimeter than directly on it. The further away your enemy from the objective the easier it is right? So I think it's kinda unfair that people totally hate on K/D in a game. That's what the scoreboard is also there for, they get those extra points telling who truly did well mixing in the killing and objective play.

most people who :" hate" on TDM, are feeling like that, coz tdm- thinking( when only kills are important for players) ,stays with many permanently, and they play like that even in case of some objective - based games.

I ' ve seen so many times ppl not picking up the flag , not planting the bomb,etc, watching their team going for objective like, 2 on 6, just because they afraid to go and do the mission. I have always struggled to have positive k/d in most games coz I would go for a objective. And I dont get what about ppl spending whole game in few spots just for the kills- its a game, why to afraid to get " killed" by someone, or what fun from watching teammates backshoot'ed ?

In objective based game I rather have in the team guy with most mission points than with most kills.

» Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:55 am

From what I've read, brink only has one game mode. The objective based game mode that varies on each map. So some maps would have an escort type mechanic then a capture point mechanic followed by a bomb plant mechanic or something like that (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not sold 100% on only having this game mode.

Pros - Forces everyone to play one game mode (doesn't spread out the player base with 10 game modes like CoD), attempts to have players work together, doesn't get boring since each map has unique objectives, blends the single and multiplayer together, focus's more on the team aspect rather than individuals performance.

Cons - Limits people to one game type (which some may not like, which in turn can hurt sales for people who like Deathmatch for instance), rarely do players work together as the dev's intended (think of TF2 or BFBC2, where many people ignore the objectives and just try to make frags), tends to split up teams between those who are just fraging and those attempting the objectives (usually causing arguments over the mic), people may get tired of being forced to play one game type.

IMO - I think it's a BAD idea to only have one game type, but I also think it's a bad idea to have a ton of game types. In a game like this, I think there should be TDM, CTF, some kind of single objective game like the counter-strike style bomb planting or search and destroy as CoD refers to it, and than the big multi-objective game mode that the game is currently running. So that's a total of 4 game types, which give a good variety of what almost every FPS player would want.

Thoughts?

Technically, theres two, resistance campaign, and security campaign.

In response to the cons,

We don't want people who only play TDM here. Or can't play objectively.

We don't know all the missions they have.

They've stated that if you play through both campaigns, no going back, 10 hours of gameplay. Not including, replaying stages, leveling up your character, getting credits for guns and gun attachments, seeing how outcomes could be different, etc...

if you try to be a kill [censored] in this game, it won't work. You get 25 xp for killing a guy, assuming your teammate doesn't help. In comparision, you get around 300 xp for planting a bomb, 200 for healing someone (it may depend on how much health they have), 150 for changing your class to the one needed for the current objective, and you get XP overtime for simply standing over the objective and a potential XP bonus for killing someone near the objective.

Having 2 gametypes (if that's what you wanna call it) is still good. Because then, you can think of it containing several subcategories within those gametypes for you to play and replay.

The game is about playing objectively, acting like a team and playing together. If you try to go Rambo or don't play as a team, you'll get slaughtered by people who do. Just make sure your that team playing objectively.

It also seems like a mission to me. Because, there are more than 1 objective for people to complete on the side. Like saving civilians, capturing command posts, simply reviving a teammate, clearing a path for a flanking route or for progression, etc....

So, I don't mind there being 2 campaigns, as long as there are enough missions for us to do and replay.