Enemy Territory: Quake Wars; Why don't you play it?

daragon

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
224
In my opinion, it failed because it came out at the wrong time. They announced it's development and right after EA announced BF2142. EA dropped support for BF2 and rushed the development of BF2142 to beat Quake Wars to the market and it showed. BF2142 was probably a good game, eventually, but I was still enjoying BF2. I lost all taste for online shooters after that crap, in fact, the only FPS I've played since then is Bioshock.
 

Seelenlos

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
1,156
Did not have the same feel as ET and that was what I wanted. I played the demo for about a month when it first came out, just wasn't what i was hoping for.
 

melkore

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
268
It's just not my cup of tea. I play on occasion but something just feels off for me. Some of the maps are really cool and I've even played with some id employees on a server but it's just missing something unless you play in a coordinated group and make good use of the voip.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
59,090
I don't play it because the game sucked. Plain and simple.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
894
I don't play it because the game sucked. Plain and simple.

+1

Tried it at a LAN; couldn't get into it. Tried it SP, couldn't get into it, online same result. It was just more of the same as far as what was already out there, and those that were already out there did it better. The short time I played it on a LAN I had to mute the vol, (the voice work is probably the worst I've heard in a game in a long time.)
 

Silus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
6,477
+1

Tried it at a LAN; couldn't get into it. Tried it SP, couldn't get into it, online same result. It was just more of the same as far as what was already out there, and those that were already out there did it better. The short time I played it on a LAN I had to mute the vol, (the voice work is probably the worst I've heard in a game in a long time.)

Like what ? Do try to give me just one example of another game that has the same gameplay as Quake Wars.
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,866
I love ETQW. I don't like this style of game normally. I bought BF2 and BF2142, and hardly played them at all. I go through phases with ETQW though. I'll play non-stop for a week or so, then not play it for a while, repeat... I hear people saying that it doesn't look good. It's not amazing, but it's better looking than the other games of this type currently available. Anyway, it's a fun game. Probably not everyone's style, which may be the reason it pulled me in. Like I mentioned, I don't normally like this type of game.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
894
Like what ? Do try to give me just one example of another game that has the same gameplay as Quake Wars.

Anything in the battle field series would be the first stop.

They have 2 different races in ETQW but the actual differences between them is minimal. I burned a lot of time on the orig ET, and this is not even close to living up to it's name.
 

Silus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
6,477
Anything in the battle field series would be the first stop.

They have 2 different races in ETQW but the actual differences between them is minimal. I burned a lot of time on the orig ET, and this is not even close to living up to it's name.

ET and ET:QW share the same basic principle, which is team work. However, QW adds quite a few things to the already awesome mix in the original ET, which is much larger maps, vehicles and the mission system, which is directly related to team work.

This time, you are not forced into any specific mission as you were in ET, but in fact you may choose what to do. Do you just want to improve your character ? You can do it, by selecting the missions that suit you best. Or you can actually help your team and choose the mission based on priority, like an engineer repairing an anti-vehicle turret right next to a GDF's MCP, instead of a turret far from it. And these are just class objectives. You also have the traditional primary and secondary objectives, which were also part of the original ET, though to a lesser extent than those in QW.

As for your "minimal differences betweens races" comment, that's not true and it pretty much proves that you didn't even played the game enough to know what you're talking about. There are CRITICAL differences in classes of both races, which were done for balancing purposes. And I'll give you an example: The Strogg technician vs the GDF medic. Both have the main goal of healing fallen teammates, but they do it in very different ways. Strogg technicians have different tools, so they take some time to revive a fallen teammate, while the GDF medic just needs to zap the teammate and he's back up. To compensate for this, technicians drop stroyent cels that add both health and ammo to Stroggs, while GDF medics only provide health packs. Technicians can also create spawn hosts, using fallen GDF bodies, that can be used by any Strogg as the next spawn place, which is a great advantage, when trying to advance in the battlefield, if done and used by skilled players. GDF medics can also call in for a supply crate, that contains both health packs and ammo, but takes a while to get into the battlefield and can be easily destroyed. GDF medics can however destroy spawn hosts with their reviving tool. And this is just for ONE class out of 5 for each race. There are other advantages/disadvantages for all the other classes and even globally for each race, but there's no point in explaining them all, since I already disproved your "minimal differences" with just one example...

Also, how can you compare QW to the BF series ? What in BF even resembles what I just described in Quake Wars ? Nothing really...The only similar thing is that both are FPSs and mainly multiplayer games...
 

RW2112

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2002
Messages
728
Not to mention that all Strogg have the ability to sacrifice ammo to boost their health...and vice versa. A strogg with the obliterator doesn't use stroyent for rockets, so he actually has a free health boost if he doesn't care about his secondary weapon.

All the comments made by the ETQW haters are exactly the same one I make about BF and BF2142. I absolutely hate those games and feel the gameplay in them suck hard.

Just goes to show that everyone has their own opinions of what makes a great game and you simply have to make up your own mind as to weither or not you might enjoy it. After all, if we all had the same likes and dislikes this would end up a very boring place to live.... :D
 

obs

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 4, 2002
Messages
4,732
I played a ton of the demo a while back and recently picked up the game. I think it's a great game that is simply up against strong competition (COD4/TF2). I'll be trying to play it more.
 

Gabe3

2[H]4U
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
3,581
I play it almost every day and it's by far the best multiplayer game I have ever played, mainly because I like teamwork, which all other MP games out there lack.......

Have you ever played TF2?
 

Silus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
6,477
Have you ever played TF2?

I did, though only at a friend's. It's fun, but not my cup of tea. And it definitely doesn't come close to what QW has to offer, in both teamwork and gameplay options, if that's what you're trying to say.
 

phide

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
16,693
Played the demo for a bit and had a hard time with the game's 'feel'. The shooting isn't very satisfying -- probably due to the stiff animations, the damage weapons cause and how hits are communicated visually -- and the the speed and pace feels wrong and out-of-place. The vehicles also seem a bit...meh. It's a fun game I'm sure, but I tend to be really picky about how natural the shooting feels, and that's something that Splash Damage seems to have trouble getting 'right' for whatever reason. I guess it's hard for me to accept an "id-branded" game that gets the shooting 'wrong', because id always pulls that off really well (except for Q3A).

Combine that with too few servers and too few players and I have a pretty difficult time justifying spending the money on it. If it were much more active, I might consider picking it up, but not now.
 

imgneevrythng

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
64
i played the beta....a lot.

eventually went back to GOW for 360. i actually enjoyed enemy territory beta and felt the game itself would be muuuch better.

i enjoyed the deferent classes and found my self actually playing each one. never really did that before in a game where you can choose your class. i really loved how the 2 races (there was only 2 in beta dunno if there was more in the release) were so different from each other. it really opened up the gameplay more. different abilities, completely differnet weapons, and vehicles. loved it. i thought it brought muuuch more to the multiplayer then any other game has in a while. i wasnt too fond of the air vehicles, possibily because it was the beta, but i REALLY liked the idea of having different areas of the map to protect, and having to get passed one to get to the other instead of runnning around like a chicken with your head cut off trying to get too many objectives at once. being a former game design student, i found this very smart and very entertaining. it allowed for more focused gameplay.

just sad i never bought the game. my pc was struggling enough in the beta, i didnt want to buy the game and not be able to enjoy it. that and Halo 3 came out lol.

im definitly more of a console gamer now...raised on consoles, switched to pc, now im back to my roots.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
894
As for your "minimal differences betweens races" comment, that's not true and it pretty much proves that you didn't even played the game enough to know what you're talking about. There are CRITICAL differences in classes of both races, which were done for balancing purposes. And I'll give you an example: The Strogg technician vs the GDF medic. Both have the main goal of healing fallen teammates, but they do it in very different ways. Strogg technicians have different tools, so they take some time to revive a fallen teammate, while the GDF medic just needs to zap the teammate and he's back up. To compensate for this, technicians drop stroyent cels that add both health and ammo to Stroggs, while GDF medics only provide health packs. Technicians can also create spawn hosts, using fallen GDF bodies, that can be used by any Strogg as the next spawn place, which is a great advantage, when trying to advance in the battlefield, if done and used by skilled players. GDF medics can also call in for a supply crate, that contains both health packs and ammo, but takes a while to get into the battlefield and can be easily destroyed. GDF medics can however destroy spawn hosts with their reviving tool. And this is just for ONE class out of 5 for each race. There are other advantages/disadvantages for all the other classes and even globally for each race, but there's no point in explaining them all, since I already disproved your "minimal differences" with just one example...

I played it more than enough to draw my conclusions; which was I didn't like it and it was a crap game to me. All of the above to me is basically saying the same thing, a revive is a revive regardless if you put a different animation behind it and make one quicker or slower than the other doesn't make enough of a difference to stand out. The only 'useful' piece of that is the ability to make spawn points.

Also, how can you compare QW to the BF series ? What in BF even resembles what I just described in Quake Wars ? Nothing really...The only similar thing is that both are FPSs and mainly multiplayer games...

Fairly easily actually, both are online FPS's with vehicles and character leveling that give an illusion of teamwork. Both have vehicle controls that range from intuitive to bass akwards, and vehicles that range from useful to powder keg on wheels; and don't forget bunny hopping a plenty. Online community ranges from Nazi team hounds to pecker heads that find it amusing to blow up stuff in your own base. Granted the last is more of a comment on the players than on the game but still a similarity.

You like the game and that's all well and good I don't, found it to be dull and overstated, all they did was take the Quake characters and toss them into the ET world; we moved from WWII era to lasers and characters with a complexion problem, not overly inspiring in my book; the entire game reaked of trying to ring more money out of an over played IP. Different folks different strokes.
 

Gabe3

2[H]4U
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
3,581
I did, though only at a friend's. It's fun, but not my cup of tea. And it definitely doesn't come close to what QW has to offer, in both teamwork and gameplay options, if that's what you're trying to say.

I see your a huge fan of the game. But theres 800 people playing ET: QW and 8,000 playing TF2.
 

Syndicated_Death

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
1,603
Frankly I like the idea of a smaller player base.. the ones that are left are ones the most dedicated and certainly more skilled. larger player bases make for more fucktards and "1337 |-|ax". I've got a rather limited amount of play time these days. I don't have time for kids and hacks all night.

just because more people play one title more than another doesn't mean it's actually a better game. it just might be the newest and we all know how we get when there is something "NEW AND SHINY".
 

tesfaye

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Messages
3,421
I own it and played only a few times. Each time I just could not get into it. I didn't really care for the graphics or gameplay. It looked like it should have been more fun but it never really grabbed my attention.
 

Silus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
6,477
I see your a huge fan of the game. But theres 800 people playing ET: QW and 8,000 playing TF2.

And that makes TF2 a better game ? It's like saying CS is the best multiplayer game ever, because it still has the largest number of people still playing. That's really amusing...
 

Silus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
6,477
Frankly I like the idea of a smaller player base.. the ones that are left are ones the most dedicated and certainly more skilled. larger player bases make for more fucktards and "1337 |-|ax". I've got a rather limited amount of play time these days. I don't have time for kids and hacks all night.

just because more people play one title more than another doesn't mean it's actually a better game. it just might be the newest and we all know how we get when there is something "NEW AND SHINY".

Precisely!

And the QW community is not as small as some make it out to be for some reason. I usually play at night and from about 250 ranked servers (there are more than just ranked servers, but I usually only play ranked), there are at least fifty 24 player servers that are full or almost full. The others are either completely empty or half full.
 

Silus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
6,477
I played it more than enough to draw my conclusions; which was I didn't like it and it was a crap game to me. All of the above to me is basically saying the same thing, a revive is a revive regardless if you put a different animation behind it and make one quicker or slower than the other doesn't make enough of a difference to stand out. The only 'useful' piece of that is the ability to make spawn points.

Yet it's something you missed from your "vast experience" in the game. Also, the simple fact that technicians can give both ammo and health through stroyent cels, can be a MAJOR advantage when a team works, where GDF have to use both medics and field ops to achieve such combo and be as effective.

FallenMystic said:
Fairly easily actually, both are online FPS's with vehicles and character leveling that give an illusion of teamwork. Both have vehicle controls that range from intuitive to bass akwards, and vehicles that range from useful to powder keg on wheels; and don't forget bunny hopping a plenty. Online community ranges from Nazi team hounds to pecker heads that find it amusing to blow up stuff in your own base. Granted the last is more of a comment on the players than on the game but still a similarity.

I see no similarities and I played both (BF2 and QW). Illusion of teamwork in BF2 I can understand, but in Quake Wars ? If you do NOT work as a team, you CANNOT win a game. You can be the best fragger, the best engineer or the best medic, but that alone will not win you a game, while in BF2 any player can achieve and complete the goals. Also, if you played BF2 enough, you would know that skilled players in air vehicles could own a map by themselves. Do try to do that in QW...and you'll see what I mean.

FallenMystic said:
You like the game and that's all well and good I don't, found it to be dull and overstated, all they did was take the Quake characters and toss them into the ET world; we moved from WWII era to lasers and characters with a complexion problem, not overly inspiring in my book; the entire game reaked of trying to ring more money out of an over played IP. Different folks different strokes.

And I'm fine with that. But you clearly said something about the game that's not true, just to defend your point. There are major differences in classes and races, for balance reasons. Just because you don't understand them, doesn't mean they aren't there.
Quake Wars is not "Quake characters tossed into ET world". Quake Wars is set in the same old Quake universe (as would be expected for continuity) and succeeds Quake 4. It's ET:QW because the roots of ET are in Quake Wars, which is highly teambased gameplay focused on objectives, but greatly improved.
 

Opie

Gawd
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
986
Played the demo for a bit and had a hard time with the game's 'feel'. The shooting isn't very satisfying -- probably due to the stiff animations, the damage weapons cause and how hits are communicated visually -- and the the speed and pace feels wrong and out-of-place. The vehicles also seem a bit...meh. It's a fun game I'm sure, but I tend to be really picky about how natural the shooting feels, and that's something that Splash Damage seems to have trouble getting 'right' for whatever reason. I guess it's hard for me to accept an "id-branded" game that gets the shooting 'wrong', because id always pulls that off really well (except for Q3A).

Same here. I bought it and really tried to get into it but the movement felt all wrong, almost spongey, and I just couldnt get past it. With TF2 and CoD4 feeling remarkably solid and connected there wasn't a reason to perservere.
 

SlimyTadpole

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
107
True even my play time decline with the much hated 1.4 patch, however, with the recent 1.5 patch (to fix all the 1.4 garbage) player numbers have not increased. This does not bode well for this game.
Once players leave a game, they will find something else, and almost never come back. I noticed people making this same mistake with UT3, wondering why the patches didn't boost the player base. No patch has ever boosted the playerbase of any FPS. Ever. It doesn't work that way.
There hasn't been another online war game that's better than this game, including CS:S, any BF2 game and even Call of Duty 4 multiplayer. Quake Wars has it all, great fragging, aircraft, missions and classes, fire support, VOIP, plethera of munitions, deployables, and weaponry, stealth.
CoD 4 and TF2. Granted, TF2 isn't a war game, but you can't fall into the trap of thinking that ET:QW is competing only against "war games". It's competing against all team-based multiplayer FPSs. Also, I think you'll find a lot of people taking issue with your assertion that ET:QW is better than CoD 4.
Some say this game is dying, and it might be true. But as fellow gamers, why don't you play this game? What about it is a turn-off? Balance, learning curve, maps? Please tell.
I played the demo, and wasn't impressed. I don't like dying to field artillary a half second after spawning. If is was an occasional thing, I would have let it slide. But it happened several times almost every time I played. Weapons were unsatisfying, and vehicle handling left much to be desired. And I had a ton more fun with TF2.
 

Silus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
6,477
CoD 4 and TF2. Granted, TF2 isn't a war game, but you can't fall into the trap of thinking that ET:QW is competing only against "war games". It's competing against all team-based multiplayer FPSs. Also, I think you'll find a lot of people taking issue with your assertion that ET:QW is better than CoD 4.

For team based gameplay, it most certainly is. But if you want a more straightforward game, CoD4 is probably the game for you.

SlimyTadpole said:
I played the demo, and wasn't impressed. I don't like dying to field artillary a half second after spawning. If is was an occasional thing, I would have let it slide. But it happened several times almost every time I played. Weapons were unsatisfying, and vehicle handling left much to be desired. And I had a ton more fun with TF2.

Then you got a really, really bad team, because If you're getting killed in your spawn point, with artillery fire, any "good" engineer/constructor knows that an artillery turret is required, which is one of the many reasons that make this game a true team based game. You yourself could respawn as an engineer/constructor and try to cover up the probable lack of an engineer in your team, but I guess you didn't...

Unfortunately most gamers assume by default that if it's an FPS and multiplayer, then it's all about fragging other players and receive XP, but in QW, much like in ET, that's not true. Actually, to develop your character, there are more advantages in doing your class job, than just going around killing other players.

Anyway, the point from before is that being as hard as it is for the casual gamer, is probably the game's major fault, in a sea of simplistic multiplayer games.
 

HaMMerHeD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
10,398
Anyway, the point from before is that being as hard as it is for the casual gamer, is probably the game's major fault, in a sea of simplistic multiplayer games.

Very nice. More elitism is exactly what every game needs!
 

Silus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
6,477
Very nice. More elitism is exactly what every game needs!

How is it elitism ? Quake Wars just happens to be more complex than the multitude of other multiplayer games out there and it seems it's its major flaw, which leads most people to try it and dismiss it just as quick.
 

Gabe3

2[H]4U
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
3,581
And that makes TF2 a better game ? It's like saying CS is the best multiplayer game ever, because it still has the largest number of people still playing. That's really amusing...

I'm just saying that you seem to be defending the game saying how awesome it is and how the team work is great yet theres only 800 people playing it. It it was really that great of a game then there would be a lot more people playing it.
 

Dark Prodigy

Jawbreaker
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
2,803
I can dig everyones opinion. But you guys must remember that this simply isn't a "deathmatch style" type of game. If you run out there simply trying to kill every enemy you see, you are going to get owned rather quickly by some exceptionally skilled and critically thinking players. And that's what this game is about.

Its a team based game that requires you to THINK independently. Its about attack and counter while either defending critical points or trying to get to them, knowing when offense is the best defense, the right class balance on the team (like 7 covert ops and 1 soldier on destruction objectives -- that's a guaranteed loss), communication is BIG (if there's a sniper owning you all, someone needs to counter snipe and keep him busy - simple (unless its me, then you don't stand a chance =) )).

I've played all the major FPS theatre of war games such as BF2, 2142, COD4 and they left me wanting and movement was rather stiff. There's no persistent awards, everyone starts on equal footing every campaign - and that's a problem with most people. I actually like that feature.

People who play the game 3 hours and quit then complain about it sucks are likely the ones who can't stay alive for more than 2 minutes. Even as a seasoned FPSr for years, I kind of sucked when I started playing, I lost every one-on-one firefight for a while, I was getting picked off from accurized laceraters and railguns, running blindly into artillery -- until I LEARNED how to play the game. And that's what most casual players don't want to do. They want to come in like a normal FPS and start shooting stuff, and that's simply the wrong metric for this game.
 

HaMMerHeD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
10,398
How is it elitism ? Quake Wars just happens to be more complex than the multitude of other multiplayer games out there and it seems it's its major flaw, which leads most people to try it and dismiss it just as quick.

Instead of admitting that maybe people just don't like the game, you find it easier to assume that it is too hard for most people? Except for you of course. You are obviously far more skilled at FPS games than others, because you like Quake Wars.
 

SouLXIV

Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
670
Instead of admitting that maybe people just don't like the game, you find it easier to assume that it is too hard for most people? Except for you of course. You are obviously far more skilled at FPS games than others, because you like Quake Wars.

Wolfenstein ET and Quake Wars ET are alot alike, they require AIMING. I know right, big surprise for a FPS. Even more needed than CS, and if you aren't good, it's not fun. TF2 is a fun shooter that's very nooby friendly, anyone can pick up and start mowing down people. You can't do that in both of those ET games. It's sad but it's true.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
894
And that's what most casual players don't want to do. They want to come in like a normal FPS and start shooting stuff, and that's simply the wrong metric for this game.

Or maybe the game is just not fun to some people.... For me beyond the fact that its a slight variation on every other team based FPS with vehicles out there; it's dull, floaty feeling, unless your using an air vehicle then you don't feel floaty you feel like your flying a lead bubble which is quaint in an ironic sort of way I guess.

As I said to Silus just not my type of game; but for both you and he to basically say "it's not fun to you because you suck" is a hell of a generalization.... though I may not be leet as the Mt. Dew CS crowd I can hold my own in most games. I would typically do quite well in ETQW but still found it dull at any given time some of the maps were designed with such choak points that the only way the defenders could be beaten is if they were taking turns blowing each other up.

You guys like it, I get it; but from the looks of this thread alone you seem to be in the minority. Its just a fresh coat of paint, (a nasty piss yellow color at that,) on the standard fare that's out there and they've really done nothing to set themselves apart.

Why people take a good idea that was well implimented, (ET) and decide instead of building our own idea lets just cash in on our tired/over used IP and slap it around the ET formula... there ya have it. Are fresh idea's that difficult to come by anymore?
 

HaMMerHeD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
10,398
Wolfenstein ET and Quake Wars ET are alot alike, they require AIMING. I know right, big surprise for a FPS. Even more needed than CS, and if you aren't good, it's not fun. TF2 is a fun shooter that's very nooby friendly, anyone can pick up and start mowing down people. You can't do that in both of those ET games. It's sad but it's true.

I never said the game wasn't hard. I played the demo, and while it wasn't terribly difficult, it was terribly boring.

I'm well aware that different games have different levels of difficulty. I'm just saying that the level of elitist snobbery that Silus was displaying, insinuating that people didn't play QuakeWars because it is too hard for them, is ridiculous. I don't like the game because I find it dull. I play other games which I find to be more difficult than QuakeWars, but also more entertaining. It's not that QW is "too hard", it's that it's "too lame".
 

Technoob

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
5,641
Instead of admitting that maybe people just don't like the game, you find it easier to assume that it is too hard for most people? Except for you of course. You are obviously far more skilled at FPS games than others, because you like Quake Wars.

He's coming off a little elitist I agree, but there is some core of truth there i think, from someone who's just been fooling with the demo, I could see people picking it up in the store and saying "wow quake, fun game pew pew" and not getting a "quake" game at all.
 

Oompa

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
376
Why don't I play it? Well, TF2 has captured me by the throat and won't let go. If I started playing ET:QW full before TF2, then it might not be that way. The beta started to bore me so I pre-ordered Orange box and started playing TF2.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
59,090
I never said the game wasn't hard. I played the demo, and while it wasn't terribly difficult, it was terribly boring.

I'm well aware that different games have different levels of difficulty. I'm just saying that the level of elitist snobbery that Silus was displaying, insinuating that people didn't play QuakeWars because it is too hard for them, is ridiculous. I don't like the game because I find it dull. I play other games which I find to be more difficult than QuakeWars, but also more entertaining. It's not that QW is "too hard", it's that it's "too lame".

I agree completely. Quake Wars is dull. I couldn't stand it.
 

Dark Prodigy

Jawbreaker
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
2,803
I agree completely. Quake Wars is dull. I couldn't stand it.

Please tell us specifically what's boring you? I respect your opinion but I find it difficult to ascertain it. There's explosions, constant barrages of artillery, deployables firing off, crossfire EVERYWHERE. This game is in 3 dimensions: mines below you, aircraft and artillery above you, and of course enemy fire and missiles coming at you and from behind. This hardly equates to dull gameplay. If anything, it can overload the senses with all the commotion on the screen most of the time.

Do you find the objective based game play dull or just not enough 'war' in the game?
 

Silus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
6,477
Instead of admitting that maybe people just don't like the game, you find it easier to assume that it is too hard for most people? Except for you of course. You are obviously far more skilled at FPS games than others, because you like Quake Wars.

I just said that the problem with the game, is probably that's too hard for the casual multiplayer gamer, that only wants to shoot at everything that moves. And that's NOT what Quake Wars is about. I'm not saying that people need to like the game, but they are surely assuming the game is something it isn't, as FallenMystic for example and I gave examples of how wrong he was about some of the things he complained about. So again, I stand by my opinion that QW's main flaw is probably that it's too hard for the casual player, even if your narrow-minded view makes it an "elitist opinion".
 
Top