Pros and Cons of only having ONE game mode

Post » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:36 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?
User avatar
Dina Boudreau
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:59 pm

Post » Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:09 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?


It's not really a "Game Type". It's more comparative to an actual campaign where each mission you play determines the outcome of the story you're in. You can be stuck on mission (but can always skip it; but let's say you're role-playing) due to the fact that you're objective was not accomplished. So you attempt it again and again, and little factors determine these outcomes. Yes, there is no TDM, CTF, and Bomb Planter modes. This was to break the monotony in generic FPS shooters, that eventually burned down to Death Matches with "Stay here for 5 seconds." However there are clear influences of these game types in different objectives, so it's almost if having all the game types in a smooth flowing harmony, without the main idea being shoot, shoot, shoot, KDR, KDR, KDR. The team-based objective gives people many more things to do than one game mode would anyways, without having to change menu screens too. You also make the point of people not wholly working as a team. They devs tried to deter from this situation by making the game revolve around team-based gameplay. Leaderboards were determined by the amount of EXP gained within the match, accounting everything you did. Since completing class specific objectives (which by the way, can be switched in the middle of a battle, opening up more options) gave the most EXP in a single task, it would drive people to do these. TDM, CTF and such don't do this. This is why you don't see people really working as a team in CoD and BFBC2 and such. They didn't make it with the intention of that. They[SplashDamage] made Brink with the intention of having people play multiple maps, with a vast array of mission-objectives to choose from, while player decisions could have infinitesimal results in the outcome, making for intense team-based, action packed gameplay. So in the end, it's Brink that you're playing. No TDM, no CTF. It's a war, in a world no one wants to live in, and you're outcome determines your destiny. Welcome to the Ark.

/dramaticexplanation
User avatar
Pete Schmitzer
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:20 am

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:52 pm

It's not really a "Game Type". It's more comparative to an actual campaign where each mission you play determines the outcome of the story you're in. You can be stuck on mission (but can always skip it; but let's say you're role-playing) due to the fact that you're objective was not accomplished. So you attempt it again and again, and little factors determine these outcomes. Yes, there is no TDM, CTF, and Bomb Planter modes. This was to break the monotony in generic FPS shooters, that eventually burned down to Death Matches with "Stay here for 5 seconds." However there are clear influences of these game types in different objectives, so it's almost if having all the game types in a smooth flowing harmony, without the main idea being shoot, shoot, shoot, KDR, KDR, KDR. The team-based objective gives people many more things to do than one game mode would anyways, without having to change menu screens too. You also make the point of people not wholly working as a team. They devs tried to deter from this situation by making the game revolve around team-based gameplay. Leaderboards were determined by the amount of EXP gained within the match, accounting everything you did. Since completing class specific objectives (which by the way, can be switched in the middle of a battle, opening up more options) gave the most EXP in a single task, it would drive people to do these. TDM, CTF and such don't do this. This is why you don't see people really working as a team in CoD and BFBC2 and such. They didn't make it with the intention of that. They made it with the intention of having people play multiple maps, with a vast array of mission-objectives to choose from, while player decisions could have infinitesimal results in the outcome, making for intense team-based, action packed gameplay. So in the end, it's Brink that you're playing. No TDM, no CTF. It's a war, in a world no one wants to live in, and you're outcome determines your destiny. Welcome to the Ark.

/dramaticexplanation


Woah. Way to cover all the bases there homeboy. No further questions.
User avatar
Helen Quill
 
Posts: 3334
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:12 pm

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:52 pm

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?


I think it will work perfectly. SD has used the formula in the past and it works. If it turns away K/D obsessed TDM people all the better, they can go play Call of Duty or any other TDM dominated game.

The thing is the objectives can only be done by certain classes which makes it dynamic depending on map. Also you can do things besides the major objectives to help your team.
User avatar
StunnaLiike FiiFii
 
Posts: 3373
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 2:30 am

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:19 pm

Also its not just one objective per mission, there is the primary (container city; escort the robot thing) but there are also secondary objectives (blow up door/blockage to open secondary route) and dynamicaly generated missions depending on the class you happen to be playing. Also i play a lot of BFBC2 and always play with friends, if you have a team that knows what needs to be done to win (not get a massive amount of kills, yes i know it helps) i find it works quite well. In fact most of my friends don't deathmatch any more, its boring, running around for 30 seconds then being quick scoped by some asshat is not fun. Brink should hopefully not have that.
User avatar
A Boy called Marilyn
 
Posts: 3391
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 7:17 am

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:42 pm

The Objective wheel also works to push people into working as a team. Instead of having only the one large objective, and leaving it up to each individual to decide what to do, you have the objective wheel that tells you how you can help your team, offers secondary objectives to directly help people who are doing primary objectives, and even bribes you (with exp) to take said missions.

Like DoneGotIt said, if players are concerned only with stats, exp is the only stat thats recorded, and the best way to get exp is working as a team.

Like Wraith said, if a player is only interested in killing, and team-play makes them not buy the game, I'm glad they aren't going to be in the same game as me.
User avatar
Andrea P
 
Posts: 3400
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:45 am

Post » Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:49 am

Woah. Way to cover all the bases there homeboy. No further questions.


:thumbsup:
User avatar
Sista Sila
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:25 pm

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:30 pm

The Objective wheel also works to push people into working as a team. Instead of having only the one large objective, and leaving it up to each individual to decide what to do, you have the objective wheel that tells you how you can help your team, offers secondary objectives to directly help people who are doing primary objectives, and even bribes you (with exp) to take said missions.

Like DoneGotIt said, if players are concerned only with stats, exp is the only stat thats recorded, and the best way to get exp is working as a team.

Like Wraith said, if a player is only interested in killing, and team-play makes them not buy the game, I'm glad they aren't going to be in the same game as me.


In all respects someone only interested in killing could be useful. You need a pointman.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:
User avatar
Emma Copeland
 
Posts: 3383
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:37 am

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:32 pm

You're wrong, I don't need one, because that's my job.
User avatar
Adam Kriner
 
Posts: 3448
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:30 am

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:04 pm

You're wrong, I don't need one, because that's my job.


???;
Security, Heavy Medic


I think someone there to kill everyone wouldn't hurt. Just do everything else along the way.
User avatar
IsAiah AkA figgy
 
Posts: 3398
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:43 am

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:39 pm

???;

I think someone there to kill everyone wouldn't hurt. Just do everything else along the way.

The first quote was a response to wraith, hope that clears things up.

Being good at killing, being at the front, clearing a path, or just plain making it easier for your team are good ideas, but when people lose focus of the goal and just start wandering around looking for kills, they have lost sight of what Brink is about, and i would rather they not be on my team. That's all I mean.
User avatar
Amy Masters
 
Posts: 3277
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:26 am

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:19 pm

Although there is one macro objective, the strategy changes with the class, body type and weapons/abilities loadout you choose. Therein lies the replayability. I think it is genius and I'm glad Brink focuses on smaller based, team oriented objectives as opposed to mindlessly running around trying to get kills ala infinite DM. It's refreshing, you know?
User avatar
louise fortin
 
Posts: 3327
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:51 am

Post » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:56 am

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.
User avatar
Claire Jackson
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:38 pm

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:40 pm

It's still a shooter...

but in shooters there is a massive difference between TDM and Objective modes.

Of course killing helps complete objectives, but it isn't THE objective.

I think what they have planned is perfect. CoD is ur arena TDM game anyways
User avatar
Rude Gurl
 
Posts: 3425
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:17 am

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:37 pm

The first quote was a response to wraith, hope that clears things up.

Being good at killing, being at the front, clearing a path, or just plain making it easier for your team are good ideas, but when people lose focus of the goal and just start wandering around looking for kills, they have lost sight of what Brink is about, and i would rather they not be on my team. That's all I mean.


I figured as much. As the devs have said people who like to kill can play soldier and head the charge.

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.


Exactly. You can't take an objective until the enemies are defending it.
User avatar
Jake Easom
 
Posts: 3424
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:33 am

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:57 pm

It's still a shooter...

but in shooters there is a massive difference between TDM and Objective modes.

Of course killing helps complete objectives, but it isn't THE objective.

I think what they have planned is perfect. CoD is ur arena TDM game anyways

This. A good team can win even with horrible KDR, if they focus on the objective.
But, it's a fact that killing more people will make it easier to get certain objectives.
User avatar
Robert Bindley
 
Posts: 3474
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:31 pm

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:08 pm

The first quote was a response to wraith, hope that clears things up.

Being good at killing, being at the front, clearing a path, or just plain making it easier for your team are good ideas, but when people lose focus of the goal and just start wandering around looking for kills, they have lost sight of what Brink is about, and i would rather they not be on my team. That's all I mean.


I was actually just messing around, referencing how you Said you would make a Medium Medic, but claiming you don't need a pointman :D

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.


But the thing with TDM in general is, well let's put it in perspective. When was the last time you saw any militarized force tasked with gaining the most kills, and calling it a mission? There will always be killing involved, but for a bigger picture. Not just, "I'm paid by the KDR, so I'm going postal." That's not how real life, or Brink really works.
User avatar
Melung Chan
 
Posts: 3340
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:15 am

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:00 pm

I've got to disagree here.

I want to keep it the way it is, and if people don't want to play what it offers, then it'll still have great sales with what it has. It's perfectly understandable why, and I wouldn't want it any other way.
User avatar
Phillip Brunyee
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:43 pm

Post » Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:03 am

:thumbsup:


:thumbsup:

Eh, are we on Facebook here?
User avatar
Connor Wing
 
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:22 am

Post » Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:24 am

This. A good team can win even with horrible KDR, if they focus on the objective.
But, it's a fact that killing more people will make it easier to get certain objectives.


Well, Dysfunkshion, you have it.

People are trying to grasp the idea here. It's Objective based game play. Yes, killing is required to complete these, and it makes it quite a bit easier. People need to see though, that it is about completing the objective, and that's what you need to focus on. Even if you are focused on killing, have your main focus to be to stay close and protect those completing the objectives. The objective should always be the main goal, and not just killing. For those that don't like it, then please do not join and go running around our game trying to just score kills. K/D doesn't make the player good.
User avatar
Nice one
 
Posts: 3473
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:30 am

Post » Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:31 am

Well, Dysfunkshion, you have it.

People are trying to grasp the idea here. It's Objective based game play. Yes, killing is required to complete these, and it makes it quite a bit easier. People need to see though, that it is about completing the objective, and that's what you need to focus on. Even if you are focused on killing, have your main focus to be to stay close and protect those completing the objectives. The objective should always be the main goal, and not just killing. For those that don't like it, then please do not join and go running around our game trying to just score kills. K/D doesn't make the player good.

Well, it has been said before, I just summed it up, with the help of Ronin0ni's post.
User avatar
Lexy Dick
 
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:15 pm

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:13 pm



But the thing with TDM in general is, well let's put it in perspective. When was the last time you saw any militarized force tasked with gaining the most kills, and calling it a mission? There will always be killing involved, but for a bigger picture. Not just, "I'm paid by the KDR, so I'm going postal." That's not how real life, or Brink really works.


I actually laughed at the example there.

Anyway I don't look at any gametype and try and compare it to real world situations. They are just suppose to be for fun. Again I'm not in full support for TDM, I just don't understand some peoples blind hate on it in other games.
User avatar
Michelle Serenity Boss
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:49 am

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:20 pm

I actually laughed at the example there.

Anyway I don't look at any gametype and try and compare it to real world situations. They are just suppose to be for fun. Again I'm not in full support for TDM, I just don't understand some peoples blind hate on it in other games.


I'm not hating, I was just stating a point that Brink is mainly about KDR. And I do agree fun>than real life. Balanced fun > real life :P
User avatar
Carlitos Avila
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:05 pm

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:59 pm

But the thing with TDM in general is, well let's put it in perspective. When was the last time you saw any militarized force tasked with gaining the most kills, and calling it a mission? There will always be killing involved, but for a bigger picture. Not just, "I'm paid by the KDR, so I'm going postal." That's not how real life, or Brink really works.

In Vietnam, when you had situations where soldiers were killing anyone they could, including civilians, just to get a higher head count.
User avatar
Roanne Bardsley
 
Posts: 3414
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:57 am

Post » Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:40 pm

I'm not a mad hating hatter, I was just stating a point that Brink is mainly about KDR having fun. And I do agree Brinkfun>than real life. Real life > real life CoD :P


I think I fixed it for you.
User avatar
Ebony Lawson
 
Posts: 3504
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:00 am

Next

Return to Othor Games