"Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in."
There is way too much negative inertia for me to move, but I'm going to post this anyway. Guys, this wasn't meant as a negative article or a "review". It is quite literally some snapshot impressions from the beta that contrast Rob's take from the E3 demo.
From page 1 paragraph 1
Now I'm not a die-hard multiplayer shooter fan, but I've spent my time in Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, PlanetSide, Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142. ET:QW may not carry a "Battlefield" moniker but it liberally borrows from the franchise while also offering some new features that make it stand out.
That is a positive.
You don't agree that it borrows liberally from Battlefield. I get that. I think it does. I've played Quake and Enemy Territory more than I'd care to admit. This feels like a Battlefield game. It's my opinion. It's OK for us to disagree. I'm not saying Battlefield is better. I'm saying they feel similar.
From page 1 paragraph 2
You may have already read Rob's coverage of Enemy Territory: Quake Wars at E3 2007, but I wanted to discuss the public beta because it differs from the demo that was introduced at E3 this year. It's also important to note that the beta version of the game does not represent the final code (and may actually represent code that is several months old).
Sometimes when people play betas they get upset that they don't work. I've never understood this because you're basically getting to play an unreleased game for free. The above paragraph is in the article to let people know that even though there were some things in the beta that I didn't like there is still plenty of time to fix them. It's to let people know not to worry about these problems yet.
From page 1 paragraph 3
It's the mixture of tactics that accompanies multiple classes with differing specialties and a host of vehicles that make this genre of games so attractive. It's never just run-and-gun death match game play.
That's positive. I know run-and-gun death match is what Quake is all about, but what I'm saying here is that Quake Wars offers more than that. I'm saying it's more than just a "Quake" game.
From page 1 paragrah 7
I didn't read any documentation before jumping in so I was a little lost at first when I got into a match. In order to really be competitive and to get some good experience points, you'll need to be somewhat familiar with the map objectives and which classes can accomplish which stages.
This is how I try all games. We're all gamers and we can jump into these things without missing a step usually, but as a journalist I have to write with people like my mother in mind just in case they read the article. I try to imagine what it would be like to play this game as if you've never played an FPS before. This one would be a little daunting. What I mean by "lost" is that I didn't know exactly where to go or how to accomplish any objectives. I didn't mean, "Wait, I can't see myself. Where is my character?!"
From page 2 paragraph 1
I think the tiered objectives that differ per map are a nice step forward. Battlefield 2142 uses a similar system in Titan games, but for each map they are always the same. ET:QW differs from the Battlefield games in that it does not employ a ticket system where the first side to reach zero tickets loses. The objectives that require a specific class encourage players to try out new classes and demand that the team have a mix of all of them.
Maybe these kinds of statements are being misread, but that is saying that Quake Wars is better than BF2142 in that sense. I prefer varying objectives over the same ones. So that's a positive. Actually that whole first paragraph on page is positive in comparison to the Battlefield series.
From page 2 paragraph 2
Rob found ET:QW to be quite the looker at E3, but again, my experience with the beta has proven less impressive. I don't know this for sure, but it's probable that the beta does not include all the hi-res textures in order to keep the download size manageable, and this may be responsible for what I'm seeing.
Here's a negative statement followed by an explanation for why it shouldn't be a concern in the retail version. Yes, I'm pointing out a problem in the beta, but I'm also saying not to panic about it if you're see it as well. Let's call that one a neutral.
From page 2 paragraph 3
My first impression of the UI is that it is way too cluttered and that at 1600 x 1200 the fonts are far too big (check the slide-show to see for yourself). After playing for a few hours you start to get used to all that data on the screen, but I still feel that it gets in the way.
This one's a negative. I like all the fonts to scale down when I'm at a hi-res. It's a personal preference.
From page 2 paragraph 5
The last complaint I have is about the man-to-man shooting game play. The run-and-gun portion of the game is still too frantic to rely much on tactics or skill. It seems like everyone is moving too fast when they are running, and shooting anyone is mostly spray-and-pray with a dash of luck. Some of the player warping can be attributed to lag, which has been an obstacle in every game I've played. This has been a frequent topic of discussion among the other players on multiple servers. Again this could be chalked up to un-optimized code in the beta or it could just be a bad game design. We'll have to get our hands on a retail copy to find out which.
This seems to be the hot button. Again this is personal preference. Take a deep breath...not everyone loves Quake. I prefer more tactical shooters to Quake. You'll notice that nowhere in there is the Battlefield series named as a viable alternative.
From page 2 paragraph 7
Playing betas is a hit-and-miss proposition. Sure, it's a free taste of an unreleased game, but it's unreleased because a lot of it doesn't work yet. Rob's E3 experience with Enemy Territory: Quake Wars differs from mine with the beta, but he got to see a different map in a controlled setting while I'm out here in the wild (or more appropriately the Sewer) with the animals.
I don't mean to suggest that I'm in the Sewer because the game is garbage. The only map you can play in the beta is the Sewer.
Overall I think the article is kind of positive and certainly not attacking the game or the developers. I do point out some problems, but I also offer explanations for why they may exist. I'm not an EA fanboy or a Battlefield fanatic, but those games are recent, relevant, and on reader's minds. They aren't better. I wasn't expecting Battlefield, but after playing Quake Wars the Battlefield games certainly came to mind as something that was similar and recent. I think that ET:QW is a stride forward for the genre, and I wish I had gotten that across. Perhaps a less inflammatory headline would have been better...something like "Man Has Opinion On Subject!"
I came out of my corner a little strong in the forum and I apologize for that, but unlike other game sites you may go to Rob and I read these forums and we pay attention to what you guys say. It probably didn't help that I was posting while at Comic-Con where food and sleep were at a minimum for us. I suppose I could just dismiss you with a wave of my hand from a high and mighty tower, but I don't really have a tower...yet. In the end we all want these games to be good, but it's our responsibility to tell people what we honestly think. All reviews of any kind are subjective and little more than a single person's opinion. We have to consider if the game is fun for everyone, not just the guys who've been playing ET and Quake III from day 1. Having said all that, I stand by the article. Just because I don't agree with you guys doesn't mean I'm unfamiliar with these games. All it means is that we disagree.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled character assassination.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram