ET: Quake Wars Beta Unsatisfying

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
There's suppost to be a 2nd beta, valley map. I need to get in on that, I couldn't get the first keys, damn exclusive Fileplanet bs (i have been a registered user for years though, but the early morning keys.. ugh).
 
Not that I want to bring out the whole UT vs Quake argument... but the whole objective thing... seems to me that UT's assault game mode has been doing that for years. Each map has different objectives w/ one side attacking and one defending. (and yes, regardless of map the defenders were always "kill enemy when they show up here" while the attacker had to figure out more tactics)

diff is that you play first match until attackers win or time is up, it then switch sides and new attackers try to beat first time. That and UT did not have defined classes or races either. (UT3 looks to have that though)

I dunno, just seems stale and "been there, done that" to me... and assault was never the most favored of UT game types, mainly b/c n00bs tended to miss the point and give up. Was always hard to get good team dynamics. (battlefield and UT's onslaught made team games more n00b friendly) Looking at the "new" conquest mode in UT3 (described as onslaught meets assault) it may prove to be an evolutionary fix for that, where quake wars seems to be the old-school throwback. Not saying that is "bad" per-se... I really like UT's assault mode. just seems strange...
 
We are all dumber having read your review...

::sigh::

I think the real issue is evident in your first paragraph... sadly, all you really know is 1.) EA &, 2.) their most pathetic Battlefield series. I can't fault you for expressing your feelings, because you really don't know any better. But pleaz don't confuse EA w/ ID Software, Epic, or Valve... cuz they just aren't on the same playing field, not in the slightest. You've got some pretty pessimistic views, and they slant your entire article. If this were EA, I'd say they are justified... but it just isn't the case.

...Next time, do us a favor, and review something you're more familiar with. :non:
- TheShniz
 
I think the tiered objectives that differ per map are a nice step forward.

You realize that Enemy Territory (yes, this is a SEQUEL, not a new franchise) did it many years ago, right? Please tell me you knew that. And for the record, Battlefield borrowed from Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory if there was any borrowing going on at all.
 
I still believe UT had it even before wolf:ET... but that is just mincing the main point that ET:QW is looking to be nothing new at all. (granted, being a "ET" game... maybe they just wanted a quake mod of ET?) Kindof a letdown IMO. Sure, it could still be fun even though it is old-school... but I really wanted something NEW and cool... but maybe that is just me. 😉
 
Settle pettle, it's a beta. If twitchguru is as widely read as I expect, why didn't you put a call in to ID and see if there was limitations to the beta like the graphics etc? They might have offered you some assistance.

The EA BF series is a world away from ID in both style and gameplay and objectivety really needs to be observed. Once you start to make direct comparisons you are stating your personal preference.

Bf2 has a customisation option for each vehicle etc which I find useful as I prefer the mouse to be a particular way for flying. ET:QW didn't let me do this so I was the guy flying upside down and all over the place because I couldn't set the the mouse up specifically for what I was used to. No biggie though, instead of crying I contributed to the beta forum.

There were areas of ET:QW I didn't like either but I'm prepared to wait to see the final product before I make a final decision.

Criticism is the disapproval of people, not for having faults, but having faults different from your own ie. EA/ID
 
I thought he did fine w/ his explanation of how the beta test was code that was probably older than what was on display when Rob tested it. Throughout the whole article he kept saying that it was at a state that would probably change or it has already changed... he was just giving an opinion on the state of the beta... which, if you read twitchguru much at all is mostly what that site is... opinion from a couple of obsessed geeks. 😉

maybe that is why I like it... lol.

as for the BF comparison... every review site has been hyping that since quake wars was announced... however different they are, that parallel will be there no matter what. IMO BF has influenced both UT and Quake so much that some of that comparison is warranted.
 
Didn't mean to gripe too much. I guess I was just sitting here optimising shaders, stuck at 62% and had nothing else to do.
I just got really tired of all the rubbish in the ET:QW forums. I needed help and all I could find was people bitching and moaning...it's not as good as BF...this sucks... that sucks - like they'd paid for it!
Once upon a time the gaming community rallied together to support each other and help each other out. This helped the games and the players.
I was guessing that what the beta was for, try it, contribute in the forum, improve the game. If you don't like it uninstall it, easy as that.
All I read forum after forum was people bawling like someone took their dummy, it was just dissappointing.
Whoops, gotta go finally connecting to account server....
 
Gotta say screen shots don't look that pretty. I agree that the angulated ground with very flat textures (i.e. no displacement or even bump mapping applied) look naff. Most noticable is the lighting - it's just bland - missing HDR? I hope they can improve it for the release.
 
I must've been stupid for hoping for something objective from this preview-review. All your comments are almost 100% irrelevant. Yes bindings can get annoying but you do it once. Yes graphics aren't up to par (probably the most relevant but that's still not saying much), but you can guess why right? Yes people bunny hop in shooters, and to use an example you could understand - ever seen someone in BF2 jump INTO a prone position? My problem isn't really with your review, it's mostly because of the title and your reasons behind it.

Next time, just write "I HATE <GAMEXYZ> BECAUSE IT'S BLUE" so I can skip your nonsense.
 
The game is a sequel, as was mentioned earlier. Jumping around and the killfest during warm up are old standards in the game. It is the only opportunity you can kill your own teammates with impunity. Plus, based on how much exp you have playing this franchise that may be the most kills you get in the game, ha ha.

The jumping bit is to keep from getting head shot. It takes some time and skill to adjust for the jumping. It is in no way impossible. If you can track your opponent well you won't have a problem adjusting that tracking to a jumping player. Jumping and getting behind your enemy is key to multiple kills and your survival. One thing to keep in mind about ET, at least the original ET, is that the only thing you can count on is that if you are shooting at someone someone else is shooting at you, even if it isn't your direct opponent.

The fluidness of the dueling is important to me as I don't want to loose the flavor of the original ET. If they took that away I'd just rather stay with the original ET. I've played it for over 3 years now.

The ticket counter thing is part of other games and it is nice to not have it part of ET. I could never stand those types of games.

OH, and by putting advertisements into the game. Well, there'd either have to be some serious restrictions on the ads, such as only in the ranked servers, only on the servers managed by id, only on the maps designed by id. That way we can escape the advertising crap that always turns into an abuse. I personally could care less about coke, fritos, crucial, etc. I'm there to play a game. I don't want to see advertisements. If there's a coke bottle on the ground fine. If there's an empty Tide box on the ground fine. If I can blow up the billboard with the "buy sony" advertisement, then fine. But I don't care less about this advertisement crap. It always gets abused and it the same as spam.
 
I'm really disappointed at this review. The reviewer gets frustrated because there are bugs in a BETA.

Unbelievable, I cannot believe that tomshardware would allow this poor journalism to exist in their network.
 


Yes, GyRo, bith Travis and I are well aware that Quake Wars is a sort-of sequel to the first ET title. We've documented as much in earlier ET:QW coverage.
http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/06/04/image_preview/

For all the folks that hate Travis' take on the beta, and there seem to be a few (I'm looking at you, Neosoul and TheShniz), then check out my take on the E3 demo: http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/07/13/quake_wars_first_impressions/

Not sure if anyone out that has played the E3 demo or beta or -- better yet -- both, but maybe we could share some impressions here. It sures makes for more fun than beating up on Travis for offering his opinion and sharing his views of the game, which is what we do in game reviews after all.

And thanks, Sojrner, for calling us obsessed geeks....
 
Hmm, cant say i particularly liked that review either, sorry Travis, to much BF comparison (;

Well, lot of the crytasism was about features that made the original ET great to me, i like the objective based game play, and if you've got a good defensive team, defending isn't just all about shoot here when player appears around corner, there's lots of ways to attack and defend. Granted this meant that when i stared playing ET i didn't have a clue what my player class did, what the objectives where, where they were on the map and just how quirky the shooting is in this game (ET), at first i though it was just spray and pray, but there is a subtle art to shooting well in ET, hopefully the same in ETQW.

But after a couple of days playing and with a bit of help from more experienced players i really got into ET, it's got by far the most impressive team based play, you cant win by running off, shooting anything that moves and try solo all the objectives, you really, REALLY need other player classes around you that support you and who you can support.

Anyway i side tracked myself from the point i was trying to make and that was that for the first couple days ET was just plain frustrating and complicated, but after some time you eventually figure out what you're supposed to be doing and then the game becomes really enjoyable, and to me this review seems to be written from the standpoint of the early days of playing a complicated, team based shooter.

Then again since people are all different (shocking i know), there will b people who love this game (Rob) and people who hate this game (Travis), for exactly the same reasons!

Just my 2c worth (in my country 2c isn't worth much)
 
does the warm-up period really have to be non-stop team killing?
Click to expand...

Umm. Yes.

That is the mentality of quake that has been around since Q1. If you didn't know/understand this, then you shouldn't be writing an article about a quake based game. I've played Quake since Q1, spending an ENORMOUSLY large amount of time on QuakeWorld TeamFortress (I was one of the best HPB snipers around). Bunny hopping, rocket/nade/pipe jumping are *SKILLS* to have. Yes, I'm sure some idiots just jump because they can, but if you knew ***anything*** at all about the history of this 11 year old gaming tradition, then you would understand why people jump and do other things not conducive to an EA gaming environment. You can log into any Quake server and see people doing these things the second you log in. Again, the fact that this isn't just basic knowledge to you leads me to believe that you're not exactly qualified to write an article about this game.

On a side note, it's funny that you point out bugs in a beta version of this game and then compare it to BF2142, which has some pretty drastic bugs in its production application.

For instance:
- Because I use the mouse for movement, I have to rebind my mouse keys in all 3 movement tabs EVERY time I start up BF2142, because there is a bug that prevents BF2142 from keeping mouse binds for movement controls.
- I (as well as quite a few other people), CANNOT EVEN CONNECT TO ANY BF2142 SERVERS. It's a bug that's well known, and for absolutely no reason, makes it impossible for people to play a game they spent $50 on.

I got a lot out of the article, but your lack of knowledge of a series that has been around for 11 years, and your obvious devotion to EA makes your color commentary about the game quite a bit out of place.
 
Wow. That is a lot of hate.

You guys are aware that id has NOTHING to do with this game right? You're so well-informed that you all knew that, right?

Yeah, I thought you did.

Borrowing from the original ET? I don't remember being able to drive vehicles around in ET.

I didn't voice "frustrations" about there being bugs in the beta. I mentioned that there were bugs. And then I mentioned that it was a beta. At no point did I complain about , "OMG, this beta is so buggy I can't believe they're making me play this game for free."

As far as being annoyed at multiplayer shooter conduct? I have to say yeah, you guys do annoy me. I'm well aware that hopping is a long-standing tradition in shooters. It was stupid then, and it's stupid now so I put it in the article.

Do not mistake anger for ignorance.
 
Let's all take a deep breath and collect ourselves, please, before we lose sight of the purpose of the Forumz: intelligent discourse.



FireWater, I understand what you're saying. However, Travis doesn't harp on the bug. He merely mentions it. Furthermore, for those of us that have played Betas, well, we know that sometimes the bugs that we hope will be fixed somehow sneak through in the final retail version of the game. So when we review Betas, I think it's our obligation to mention them. Why? Well, think of this way: if we didn't mention a particular bug and that bug makes it into the final game, and then in our review of the complete retail version we write "There's an unfortunate bug in the game that was present in the beta but never fixed," I have a feeling you guys would be pretty upset with us for not disclosing the fact that there was a bug. At least, I know I'd be upset.

I may disagree with Travis on some assessments of ET:QW, but I don't think he's misleading anybody or reporting anything that isn't true. Travis doesn't like bunny-hopping. It's his right. Let's not crucify him for it, please.
 
... more like unjustified arrogance.

Previous statements stand, better to write about BF3 or racing or something.
- TheShniz
 


Yes, well, kind of. You're not exactly correct in saying that ID has nothing to do with this game, considering ID made the texture rendering engine for the terrain. But I was aware that ID itself was not developing the game as a whole, because Rob's articles covered this. However, Rob also goes on to mention that one of the whole points in the design of this game was to keep w/the Quake series in terms of playability (rocket jumping, bunnyhopping), so my argument still stands. If you don't understand the Quake series, perhaps you shouldn't have covered this article.


Obviously, I was not mistaking your anger for ignorance, as it is your ignorance that I was pointing out, not your anger.


The fact of the matter is, this was a very poor show on your part. I kind of got that feeling when I read,
I didn't read any documentation before jumping in so I was a little lost at first when I got into a match.
Click to expand...
I figured that was just because you knew a lot about the quake series already, so you decided to wing it. I was mistaken in my assumption.

The problem with your article is that you clearly did not know your subject matter, decided not to research your subject matter, and then gave it the overall assessment of "unsatisfying" because you were basing your ignorant view of this series on a different series which is vastly different from the one you were reviewing. ALL of the above points are simply signs of poor journalism. Even in Jr. High school you are taught that you have to research your subject matter before you write about it, or you fail your paper.



Now, that all being said, please don't take this as a personal attack. I don't hate you or think that you suck, I'm just pointing out that you wrote a very poor article. My opinion is not based on fanboyism of any type, but rather the facts that your article was not well written based on the very fundamentals of journalism.
 


Please explain how this is VASTLY DIFFERENT from the Battlefield series in your eyes and instead much more similar to the original ET. I'm not being snarky, I just want to know what you think I'm missing.
 
You're missing my point. Quake is Quake, not Battlefield. I'm not looking at this from the Quake ET vs Battlefield, Quake being a representative for all ETs; I'm looking at this from Quake vs Battlefield, the Quake series vs the Battlefield Series.

Quake has almost always been closer combat, faster paced, bigger jumps, non-human abilities (rocket/pipe jumping), etc. Battlefield has always been huge, more strategic, run a long way to do a little bit, camp here, hold that type of game. The two play styles are entirely different. Log into a Q3 arena server for awhile and you may get a bit better understanding of what I mean.

A similar comparison would be Counter-Strike DeathMatch vs Day Of Defeat. Guns do different types of damage, playstyle is different, ranges are different, etc. CS😀M is more of getting a high score, while DoD is working as a team. Same thing in Quake vs BF. Even though Quake is really more about who has the highest score... and it has always been... which is why it's faster gameplay and more highly charged players. Even though QuakeET now includes objectives obtainable by certain classes, I wouldn't imagine that the type of players or the gameplay would be any different.

Like I said though, don't take my word for it... go log into a Q3 server (even a team CTF or TF server) and see what I mean.
 
You guys are aware that id has NOTHING to do with this game right? You're so well-informed that you all knew that, right?

I'm curious:

Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that iD provided both the engine and the intellectual property of the Quake franchise?

More on topic, I can't imagine any game with the "Enemy Territory" brand in its title possibly receiving anything but hate if it didn't first try to perfectly capture the feel of the original before trying to implement new things. I haven't played it, so I don't have an opinion on whether it's a great game, a good game or a bad game, but I do find it a bit silly when any criticism isn't first aimed at the point of view of a former Enemy Territory player.
 
Using the criteria you've just laid out, I can tell you that this is a Battlefield game...not a Quake game. If you're expecting something more akin to Quake III you may want to read some reviews before putting the money down on this one.

ET was RtCW, not Quake. The Quake technology may have been there behind the scenes, but the setting was Wolfenstein. I guess the Quake comparisons come out of the title being Quake Wars and the setting being the Strogg invasion, but the gameplay is very much Battlefield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom