Lemme correct you here: Splash Damage is good, Bethesda is bad.
Brink was the last Bethesda-published game I'm ever going to buy. It's the shittiest and most overrated publisher/developer in the world. They fuck up every single game they publish that isn't their own. Brink and Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth from the ones I've played.
That's what I said. Except they aren't "just the publisher", they're "the publisher".
Publishers play a big role in the development of a game (because they want to watch over their investment), thus they can, and in Bethesda's case will, want to have their say over things. And Bethesda has nothing but bad says over things. Hence, shit publisher and I won't be paying for anything that has Bethesda on the can anymore.
brink was well over a year into development when beth soft got it, and et qw was just as bad i think we can lay the blame on splash damage here not bethsoft/zenimax tbh
The game was incomplete because the publisher rushed the release.
The patches fixed the bugs, but it still needs a mod SDK, which is not coming because the publisher doesn't want it.
A developer aims to make their game as good as possible, obviously. It is the elephant in the room (= the guy who pays for it all = Bethesda) that forces them to cut corners and rush the release in order to fit the budget and the deadlines. Any developer would take their sweet time perfecting the game until the end of times, but they can't, because that takes money, which the publisher only provides if they play by the rules.
stop blaming bethesda unless you can show the world some evidence that they rushed the game to market, "elephant in the room" isn't the right phrase but whatever
brink was delayed multiple times you can only fall so far behind schedule because you have expenses such as salaries and offices to pay for if you don't generate revenue by releasing then your studio will fold simple as that, do you have any idea how much (non-indie) games cost to develop ? it's a lot
your attempt at an analogy doesn't mean anything either, stop trying to be esoteric you can't pull it off
There is proof: It's called common fucking sense and realizing how the industry works.
As for the second paragraph, thanks for reciting my previous post. News flash: The publisher pays (most of) the expenses, and then takes a chunk of the profits. They're the ones who want to make a lot of money quick.
Also, if by analogy you mean the song, I think it fits perfectly. It was perhaps silly of me to assume that you would realize this, though. Since you don't, let me crack the nut for you: It's a bitter song about having to compromise your art (the game) to make it appeal to wider audiences (console casuals) and the people with the money (Bethesda and console casuals). SD did a good job at this, as the game could have been an awesome competitive title otherwise, but again, lack of mod tools.
There are a couple of reasons Bethesda would not want mod tools, for example: To be able to sell more map packs, to be able to sell more DLCs, to be able to make as much money out of this as possible at the expense of the "game's life" (because, face it, they don't give a flying fuck of how good the game is, or whether or not people actually play it, as long as they get their money).
hi i have worked as a gameplay/engine programmer and have a first class degree in game design and programming :)
e: oh and some games could be described as art sure, brink is not really a work of art though and no amount of polishing would change that; think with your head instead of your heart and stop blaming bethesda for SD's failures
And I'm not presenting any evidence, because there is none. Do you expect Bethesda to just announce that they don't really care whether or not people play Brink as long as they pay, or Splash Damage to tell publicly that they were forced to rush the release and not focus the PC-market, and that they're not allowed to release a mod SDK because Bethesda wants to make money selling map packs and DLCs?
On the other hand there's no evidence that Splash Damage is the one to blame for not releasing an SDK, and it's also unlikely seeing that every single one of their past games has had an SDK released.
He has checked back on other sites, but rarely. It's hardly necessary, though, because the game isn't being developed any more, thus even if he asked the community's opinion and understood their points, it would be hardly relevant: there's nothing he could do any more.
You calling creators of that mess good? Whatever "bad" publishers made them do, doesn't hide the fact that they can't code. Every game SD has made is worse than the previous one.
The fact that they simply can't create their own tech (every game they use is on 3rd party engine) or re-use something they've made before (crosshairs from etqw->brink for example) or even make up their own gameplay (Whats ET if not a copy of RTCW) without making dumb design decisions and further fucking up core concepts that do work.
If you fail to see that and still think bad publishers made good SD develop bad game, you are a moron.
Using an existing engine isn't that uncommon.
And while the game has several flaws, the core gameplay is very good. The sole reason for it being a lost cause is the lack of mod tools (and even if we got them now it would probably be too late already), and the only party I can blame for that is the publisher.
Considering that Splash Damage was only responsible for ET, ET:QW and Brink the overall outcome of acclaimed games barely reaches one (meaning that ET never found an actual community other than... us few). ET:QW died as quickly as Brink will, maybe even stay alive a tad longer.
Bethesda on the other hand failed pretty much equally miserably, especially on the FPS-part (I'm leaving out the Elder Scrolls and Fall Out series since they are RPGs and seem to pay for the entire bunch of games that don't do well competitively). Also, I can't be arsed to check up on actual sales, I'm basing my opinion solely on good reviews and coverage I've picked up over the years.
My point is that in terms of durability of competitive FPS games, neither of the developers stand out.
ET:QW out-lived Brink by a couple of years. Althought there are still competitions in Brink, player activity is terrible. ET:QW still HAD LANs a couple years after its release.
I thought so too, wasn't aware that it quite as active though. Lost track once the supposed former ET pros moved on and ET:QW coverage on crossfire cooled down. I never played ET:QW but from the looks of it it seemed far more enjoyable than Brink anyway.
It was, since the SDK was released in ETQW there was promod, just like etpro made by hannes. That made the game good for competition players. Without it, was just like et without etpro.
Bad argument. They created ET and it still rocks :>
The thing is, they are creating the game they were told to. Of course the "coding problems" it's just their fault but the idea itself or even the engine must be some kind of obligation.
And well, let's face it, ET wasn't perfect at the beginning either, just like ET:QW or Brink. They need to choose the people they are creating games to, instead of trying to create a game that gets players from cod/et/mirrors edge etc etc. I am pretty sure that if they select some kind of game improvement (old style!) to ET based idea, they would achieve more than ET:QW and Brink together.
And idTech 4 seems to be shitty, i haven't seen any good multiplayer game based on idtech 4 that haven't failed, even with mods.
At the other side of the coin, Cod devellopers were kinda smart by improving a good engine (idtech 3) and keep working it till nowadays. Splash Damage or whatever it is their current name should get a proper engine (no thx idtech 4... maybe idtech 5 ? doubt it gonna be good tho... they are concentrating to much at super cool visual effects, although it still seems shitty comparing to crysis one :D ), and improve ET or RTCW or even pick a completely new idea without copy-cat other games idea (and ask money for such crap...)
Publishers today only seem to have sales in mind rather than longevity, which is a shame. When you look at the most succesful games e-sport and longevity wise you'll soon find that the more basic and the more finalized the product, the more people will play for longer amounts of time.
The best example for that is Blizzard with its Starcraft II release. In many ways it was way more playable competitively than other games of any genre. You could tell it was shaped for competitive play from the beginning but most of all it was easy to get into for previous SC:BW and W3 players because it follows the same basic principles as SC did in 1998, a rastered map, similar unit control, building types etc.
Quake 4 and other id games never really managed to be on par with their previous releases, changing gameplay too much for players of previous games to get ahold of the new one. Whether it's engine-related movement in Q4, the aiming in Wolfenstein etc. The reason Q3 still happens to be around is that, unlike most other Duel based FPS, it combined a certain "what you see is what you get"-attitude with a highly customizable engine and timely mod support. Just like in SCII, W3 and SC:BW (I'll refer to those as they are, hands down, the best RTS ever made), in Q3 every action has a foreseeable outcome, every action is ultimately player based (except for critting in W3 maybe). You play well, you will probably win.
I'm well aware that CS and CoD are the exception to the rule as the spray of the guns is nothing but random and the best you can do is to learn to control it. To this day I account CS' success to the fact that in the beginning of online gaming there was no other team based shooter quite like it. CoD on the other hand, which I consider another big player regarding online FPS, has its fame mostly due the huge singleplayer fan base and good advertizing on Activision's behalf.
What I'm trying to say is that you'll have to find a way to keep old fans pleased to help attract new players and reward them for their trust in the brand but also create enough new content to justify a purchase the new product; something, and I hate to repeat myself, Blizzard has achieved outstandingly over the past couple of years.
To conclude my nonsensical rambling and close with a connection to what we were orignally supposed to talk about: ET has a similarly excellent basic structure but has its slight flaws here and there that we all know about and learned to love to hate. It's core principle is brilliant, but it could well deserve a decent, competitive scene oriented sequel, something that is well beta-tested, well rounded upon release, that is a bit more to look at and that doesn't try too many new things, like vehicles and bigger maps as in ET:QW or an entire revamping of the aiming and total fuck up for competitiveness as in Brink. What id/Splash Damage don't seem to realize is that ET had and for the most part still has a huge fan base and there are more people than they'd think that would look upon a release announcement and go "Oh, ET 2? I played ET a couple of years ago, that was mighty fun!" and might consider purchasing a full-on, maybe slightly cheaper, multiplayer-only release.
Even though I don't feel I have made a decent conclusive point here I'll just stop before I repeat myself endlessly.
The game has potential imo, they should just listen to the customer a bit more..
splash dammage + bethesda = shit ?
Can't be arsed to elaborate at fucking 5:30AM :D
Brink was the last Bethesda-published game I'm ever going to buy. It's the shittiest and most overrated publisher/developer in the world. They fuck up every single game they publish that isn't their own. Brink and Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth from the ones I've played.
and if they actually wanted to buy the brink IP at all is doubtful tbh, fairly sure they just inherited it as part of their id buyout
Publishers play a big role in the development of a game (because they want to watch over their investment), thus they can, and in Bethesda's case will, want to have their say over things. And Bethesda has nothing but bad says over things. Hence, shit publisher and I won't be paying for anything that has Bethesda on the can anymore.
Did you actually even try the game yourself? It wasn't any more fundamentally flawed than ETMain was. All it needed was a promod, just like ET.
it was infinitely more frustrating than et, map design and the audio engine were both horrific
maybe they'll patch it and release an sdk but i've totally lost interest in it and any future splash damage projects
e: oh and what made et good? i'm increasingly sure it was it being an rtcw mod rather than any good decisions by sd
The patches fixed the bugs, but it still needs a mod SDK, which is not coming because the publisher doesn't want it.
A developer aims to make their game as good as possible, obviously. It is the elephant in the room (= the guy who pays for it all = Bethesda) that forces them to cut corners and rush the release in order to fit the budget and the deadlines. Any developer would take their sweet time perfecting the game until the end of times, but they can't, because that takes money, which the publisher only provides if they play by the rules.
Barbra Streisand sang a song of this, by the way, and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic covered it. Both are very good. And very related.
brink was delayed multiple times you can only fall so far behind schedule because you have expenses such as salaries and offices to pay for if you don't generate revenue by releasing then your studio will fold simple as that, do you have any idea how much (non-indie) games cost to develop ? it's a lot
your attempt at an analogy doesn't mean anything either, stop trying to be esoteric you can't pull it off
As for the second paragraph, thanks for reciting my previous post. News flash: The publisher pays (most of) the expenses, and then takes a chunk of the profits. They're the ones who want to make a lot of money quick.
Also, if by analogy you mean the song, I think it fits perfectly. It was perhaps silly of me to assume that you would realize this, though. Since you don't, let me crack the nut for you: It's a bitter song about having to compromise your art (the game) to make it appeal to wider audiences (console casuals) and the people with the money (Bethesda and console casuals). SD did a good job at this, as the game could have been an awesome competitive title otherwise, but again, lack of mod tools.
There are a couple of reasons Bethesda would not want mod tools, for example: To be able to sell more map packs, to be able to sell more DLCs, to be able to make as much money out of this as possible at the expense of the "game's life" (because, face it, they don't give a flying fuck of how good the game is, or whether or not people actually play it, as long as they get their money).
e: oh and some games could be described as art sure, brink is not really a work of art though and no amount of polishing would change that; think with your head instead of your heart and stop blaming bethesda for SD's failures
And about your edit, you really don't get it, do you?
And I'm not presenting any evidence, because there is none. Do you expect Bethesda to just announce that they don't really care whether or not people play Brink as long as they pay, or Splash Damage to tell publicly that they were forced to rush the release and not focus the PC-market, and that they're not allowed to release a mod SDK because Bethesda wants to make money selling map packs and DLCs?
On the other hand there's no evidence that Splash Damage is the one to blame for not releasing an SDK, and it's also unlikely seeing that every single one of their past games has had an SDK released.
where has rahdo been since the release? certainly not checking back in on the community like he was when he was building sales; why?
You are batshit insane.
The fact that they simply can't create their own tech (every game they use is on 3rd party engine) or re-use something they've made before (crosshairs from etqw->brink for example) or even make up their own gameplay (Whats ET if not a copy of RTCW) without making dumb design decisions and further fucking up core concepts that do work.
If you fail to see that and still think bad publishers made good SD develop bad game, you are a moron.
And while the game has several flaws, the core gameplay is very good. The sole reason for it being a lost cause is the lack of mod tools (and even if we got them now it would probably be too late already), and the only party I can blame for that is the publisher.
Bethesda on the other hand failed pretty much equally miserably, especially on the FPS-part (I'm leaving out the Elder Scrolls and Fall Out series since they are RPGs and seem to pay for the entire bunch of games that don't do well competitively). Also, I can't be arsed to check up on actual sales, I'm basing my opinion solely on good reviews and coverage I've picked up over the years.
My point is that in terms of durability of competitive FPS games, neither of the developers stand out.
The thing is, they are creating the game they were told to. Of course the "coding problems" it's just their fault but the idea itself or even the engine must be some kind of obligation.
And well, let's face it, ET wasn't perfect at the beginning either, just like ET:QW or Brink. They need to choose the people they are creating games to, instead of trying to create a game that gets players from cod/et/mirrors edge etc etc. I am pretty sure that if they select some kind of game improvement (old style!) to ET based idea, they would achieve more than ET:QW and Brink together.
And idTech 4 seems to be shitty, i haven't seen any good multiplayer game based on idtech 4 that haven't failed, even with mods.
At the other side of the coin, Cod devellopers were kinda smart by improving a good engine (idtech 3) and keep working it till nowadays. Splash Damage or whatever it is their current name should get a proper engine (no thx idtech 4... maybe idtech 5 ? doubt it gonna be good tho... they are concentrating to much at super cool visual effects, although it still seems shitty comparing to crysis one :D ), and improve ET or RTCW or even pick a completely new idea without copy-cat other games idea (and ask money for such crap...)
The best example for that is Blizzard with its Starcraft II release. In many ways it was way more playable competitively than other games of any genre. You could tell it was shaped for competitive play from the beginning but most of all it was easy to get into for previous SC:BW and W3 players because it follows the same basic principles as SC did in 1998, a rastered map, similar unit control, building types etc.
Quake 4 and other id games never really managed to be on par with their previous releases, changing gameplay too much for players of previous games to get ahold of the new one. Whether it's engine-related movement in Q4, the aiming in Wolfenstein etc. The reason Q3 still happens to be around is that, unlike most other Duel based FPS, it combined a certain "what you see is what you get"-attitude with a highly customizable engine and timely mod support. Just like in SCII, W3 and SC:BW (I'll refer to those as they are, hands down, the best RTS ever made), in Q3 every action has a foreseeable outcome, every action is ultimately player based (except for critting in W3 maybe). You play well, you will probably win.
I'm well aware that CS and CoD are the exception to the rule as the spray of the guns is nothing but random and the best you can do is to learn to control it. To this day I account CS' success to the fact that in the beginning of online gaming there was no other team based shooter quite like it. CoD on the other hand, which I consider another big player regarding online FPS, has its fame mostly due the huge singleplayer fan base and good advertizing on Activision's behalf.
What I'm trying to say is that you'll have to find a way to keep old fans pleased to help attract new players and reward them for their trust in the brand but also create enough new content to justify a purchase the new product; something, and I hate to repeat myself, Blizzard has achieved outstandingly over the past couple of years.
To conclude my nonsensical rambling and close with a connection to what we were orignally supposed to talk about: ET has a similarly excellent basic structure but has its slight flaws here and there that we all know about and learned to love to hate. It's core principle is brilliant, but it could well deserve a decent, competitive scene oriented sequel, something that is well beta-tested, well rounded upon release, that is a bit more to look at and that doesn't try too many new things, like vehicles and bigger maps as in ET:QW or an entire revamping of the aiming and total fuck up for competitiveness as in Brink. What id/Splash Damage don't seem to realize is that ET had and for the most part still has a huge fan base and there are more people than they'd think that would look upon a release announcement and go "Oh, ET 2? I played ET a couple of years ago, that was mighty fun!" and might consider purchasing a full-on, maybe slightly cheaper, multiplayer-only release.
Even though I don't feel I have made a decent conclusive point here I'll just stop before I repeat myself endlessly.
made my... night