Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
New Tribes Game
Makers of Global Agenda have bought the rights and announced development but, in this day and age, I doubt we'll see anything of the former glory, especially coming from MMO developers.
KotakuHi-Rez Studios, the team behind PC MMO Global Agenda, has bought the rights to the Tribes franchise. And, not screwing around with it, has promptly revealed that a new Tribes game is in development.Reads somewhat like Planetside with better gameplay but I'm not hoping anymore.
Built on a modified version of the Unreal engine, this Tribes game is being built with massive online battles in mind, Hi-Rez promising 100+ players, ground and air vehicles, a "full persistent world", "huge outdoor maps" and, of course, jetpacks.
The game will enter alpha testing in early 2011, with preference given in the pecking order for high-ranking Global Agenda players.
Tribes, an online combat series made famous for its wide open spaces and jetpacks, made its debut on the PC in 1998. The last Tribes game, Tribes: Vengeance, was released in 2004, and was developed by 2K Australia, who would then go on to help make BioShock.
Comments
Planetside was a great game, killed by the same whiners.
I see a pattern forming.
The tension of running through an area and no knowing if i were going to run into someone who was just going to tear me apart. One of the first towns I got to outside of the starting area was besieged by some guys who were 20 levels above everyone else in the town. They were decimating everyone, including me.
Until we organized and made an effort to whip the hell out of them. Good times that.
And you didn't have to stand for it, you could instantly go to another instance of the area to get away from some griefers. But they took that ability out, so you could only transfer between instances of an area at special points, and they killed PvP between really high levels and low levels ... /sigh.
PvP of damage classes vs healers was broken though. I couldn't kill a priest to save my life in that game. It was a bit funny.
But they nerfed so many aspects of the PvP in that game so fast it soon became un-fun. All because so many people cried that it was too hard.
Planetside too went through a similar trajectory.
err thats a lot to say about some random PvP game.
tl;dr Whiners will always whine, and the dev's that give into them will ruin the game IMO. Developers who stay with their vision will be successful.
Planetside was never good.
This game, I predict, will at no point be good. Just having the Tribes license doesn't mean dick. I would say that we should make our own Tribes game without the Tribes license, but someone did that already and it didn't really get much attention.
It was also killed because people bitched constantly about getting mauled while running around on their own.
Also, giant robots.
I call bullshit. If a game isn't good/fun on its own, then it's just not good period. If you have fun with the game in a group, then it's probably just the group itself that is fun. The game is just giving the group a reason to exist. You can take almost any piece of shit game, and have a ton of fun if you get a group around it who makes something happen.
Let's take a really bad game, like AVGN bad. How about Jekyll and Hyde. Now imagine you get 10 awesome people together and you decide to have a contest of who can get the furthest. If you are all really into it, it will be awesome and hilarious. Does this mean Jekyll and Hyde is a good game? No! It still sucks donkey dick.
Lots of people have lots of fun with D&D;, but it's usually not because of D&D; itself. It's because of what those people are bringing to the table.
When you judge a game, you have to judge the game itself. You have to separate an objective evaluation of what the game actually brings to the table from your own personal experience with the game, and anything you bring to the game. It's about what the game brings to you. Otherwise, what does it matter what game you play? Get all your awesome friends together and play a game at random, since the fun is coming from you anyway.
As for you sticklers, I guess I have to reword my point.
Obviously if you have a multiplayer game, you can't even play it without extra people. What matters is not the number of human beings you have playing. It is the fact that you approach the game with a group that brings in an extra dynamic.
So let's say you play some Counter-Strike on a pub server. There are other people there, but you don't know them. Now let's say you play Counter-Strike, but with a clan. You know everybody, and you all work together to bring something extra to the game. It is a completely different thing. The thing is, Counter-Strike is a good game with or without a clan, as long as there is no cheating. But let's pick a much worse multiplayer fps, how about some of the non-Goldeneye James Bond FPS games for the console. Yeah, pretty terrible. But if you have a clan and play that shitty FPS, you can turn shit into chocolate.
Even Desert Bus can become a fun and entertaining experience if you pile some meta on top of it.
When you judge a game, you need to judge the game on its own merits. That means you need to peel away any and all meta that has been heaped upon it.
I would argue that Counter-strike with no organization is a different game then two coordinated teams playing against each other.
However, if you are going to pass judgement on the game of NFL football itself, you can not just use either of these scenarios as an example. A game is nothing but a set of rules. If you want to judge the quality of a game you can only take those rules into consideration. Anything that happens outside of those rules can not be taken into account, positively or negatively.
You may personally enjoy a game of Counter-Strike with highly skilled players, and not enjoy it when it is played by novices. However, to suggest that Counter-Strike is good or bad based on this is a fallacy. You aren't judging the game, you are judging the players and their method of play. You aren't expressing like or dislike of the game itself. You are expressing feelings about the style of play. I like it a lot more when in football they use all sorts of trick plays and gimmicks instead of normal run and pass plays. That doesn't tell me whether football itself is a good game or a bad game. It just says that I find one particular style of play appealing.
I may watch Michael Jordan play basketball and really enjoy his performance. I may play basketball myself and really have fun. That says nothing about the game of basketball. It's just my opinion and feelings about one particular instance of the game being played.
It would be like a game of football where to win you can either win the game as a team or be judged by how many touchdowns you personally got (even if you were say a Tackle). The game wouldn't be the same if played by a team who is out for the personal prestige compared to the team who wanted to win the game as a team. One game would be infinitely more enjoyable then the other and be a better game.
I guess a better way of saying it is. Maybe a part of the game requires that you work as a team and together. If you play the game freeforall or on your own you are not playing the game properly.
Take Minecraft for instance. There is no winning and losing in Minecraft. Minecraft has no objective. It's just a sandbox with some constraints on it. If Minecraft is a game, then MS Paint is a game.
ArmA, from what I know about it, isn't a game. It is a platform upon which scenarios can be built. Those scenarios are the games. They have the constraints and defined victory conditions necessary to take them out of the Minecraft category.
/Unless you count bluescreens as antagonists.
Also remember, that every game is a combination of smaller games. Take for example Half-Life 2. The objective of the entire game is "get to the end." But along the way there are smaller games. The driving game. The setup turrets game. The physics puzzle game. And then again each of those is comprised of smaller games. The pick up the turret game. The kill that one enemy game. A platforming area with a series of jumps is a game, and contains many sub-games, one for each jump.
This is the way you think about what a game is when you are designing a game to sell.
If you are thinking about game theory in a strictly academic sense, no single player activity can be a game. A single player activity is a puzzle or challenge, but not a game.
There.
He is saying that he had an awesome time playing Planetside with a clan. The truth is he probably would have had that same awesome time almost no matter what game they played. It is possible to have fun while playing a shitty game, watching a shitty movie, reading a shitty book, etc. Don't falsely attribute the good feelings to the wrong source. The fun came pretty much entirely from the people. If you want to evaluate the game, you have to take those factors out of consideration. Almost all Internet discussions about quality, or lack thereof, in entertainment media stem from the inability of almost every human being to achieve this separation.