Why an RTCW sequel?
•
7 Nov 2005, 17:05
•
Journals
I'll have to be frank and admit that I don't understand the level of enthusiasm for an upcoming sequel to Return to Castle Wolfensten. What you like is a matter of personal preferences of course, and there's no "right" or "wrong" when speaking from an objective point of view, but here's my somewhat rantive point of view. Most of this applies exclusively to FPS games of the RTCW variety.
I'm sure there will be improvements over RTCW, and that the game will look awesome. I seriously doubt that the core of the game will be better the second time around though. Graphics is not what makes a good multiplayer first person shooter game, nor is it spectacular physics. In my mind the crucial element in a fast-paced online shooter is speed, swift response, precise control and relative simplicity - like Quake3 and RTCW for example. Most semi-serious, and certainly the hardcore, players of any particular game appreciate the games on a deeper level, demonstrated by the intensive tweaking of the game...not seldom leading to a graphically rather stripped experience, but an enhanced one in terms of gameplay.
In some ways I think that the FPS genre (speaking exclusively about games like Q3 and RTCW) is difficult to improve in any significant way because what the game is about is simplicity and ease of use. I don't want to play multiplayer games with hyper realistic environments in which every single straw and branch is visible. It detracts attention from what is important. The environment is simply an excuse used to create an arena where players can test their skills against other players. The more detailed the arena, the less the focus on the battle.
RTCW's glory days are unfortunately over, although there are still lots of people playing the game appreciating it today for the same reasons they did when it was first released. Unfortunately, but naturally, people move on to newer games in hope that it will give them a more enjoyable experience - I do it too - but I'm pretty sure that "newer is better" is far from a given. Sounds like the point of view of an old person perhaps, but I think it holds true in many cases.
Maybe this somewhat fearful view of what is to come is tainted by my experience from Doom3. I thought the game was great in single player mode, and very entertaining. However there was a certain feel over it that indicated that it wouldn't lend itself to gameplay Quake3-style, something which was confirmed when I tried it out in MP mode. What Nerve and Raven(?) can do with the engine remains to be seen I suppose, but allow some scepticism. Maybe those of you who have tried out Quake4 in an online enviroment can provide some feedback.
Or maybe I'm just an ignorant twit who needed a good rant. :O)
I'm sure there will be improvements over RTCW, and that the game will look awesome. I seriously doubt that the core of the game will be better the second time around though. Graphics is not what makes a good multiplayer first person shooter game, nor is it spectacular physics. In my mind the crucial element in a fast-paced online shooter is speed, swift response, precise control and relative simplicity - like Quake3 and RTCW for example. Most semi-serious, and certainly the hardcore, players of any particular game appreciate the games on a deeper level, demonstrated by the intensive tweaking of the game...not seldom leading to a graphically rather stripped experience, but an enhanced one in terms of gameplay.
In some ways I think that the FPS genre (speaking exclusively about games like Q3 and RTCW) is difficult to improve in any significant way because what the game is about is simplicity and ease of use. I don't want to play multiplayer games with hyper realistic environments in which every single straw and branch is visible. It detracts attention from what is important. The environment is simply an excuse used to create an arena where players can test their skills against other players. The more detailed the arena, the less the focus on the battle.
RTCW's glory days are unfortunately over, although there are still lots of people playing the game appreciating it today for the same reasons they did when it was first released. Unfortunately, but naturally, people move on to newer games in hope that it will give them a more enjoyable experience - I do it too - but I'm pretty sure that "newer is better" is far from a given. Sounds like the point of view of an old person perhaps, but I think it holds true in many cases.
Maybe this somewhat fearful view of what is to come is tainted by my experience from Doom3. I thought the game was great in single player mode, and very entertaining. However there was a certain feel over it that indicated that it wouldn't lend itself to gameplay Quake3-style, something which was confirmed when I tried it out in MP mode. What Nerve and Raven(?) can do with the engine remains to be seen I suppose, but allow some scepticism. Maybe those of you who have tried out Quake4 in an online enviroment can provide some feedback.
Or maybe I'm just an ignorant twit who needed a good rant. :O)
0
