Somebody's a bit defensive. Are you and Quake Wars dating now or something? I remember you and Cake used to mock me because I defended the C&C series. Now I realize you've got that love for the Quake series. You recently were debating with me about the series' place of importance in gaming history.
Ok, well I'll try not to be too harsh with your love...
That nice big long description sounds like other online games. No offense. Sure, they took a few levels of some other games and stuck them into one (any loading times between these objectives? Different maps?), but there's nothing new there. Hell, there have been persistent MMO FPS worlds that did all this stuff.
Again, I need to point out to you Mr. Defensive, that I'm MORE interested in playing QW than TF2. However, since you're arguing...
Try and argue with me now, guy who has never played either, and doesn't really know anything about ET:QW except what I have told him and is really just arguing for the sake of arguing because you can't possibly have an informed opinion about this game. I don't care about the ratings numbers, in this case. It is chess vs. checkers, and nobody is going to claim checkers is a deeper game.
I know everything about ET:QW. Everything. You know how I know everything? The same way you know everything about TF2:
I've played a shitload of Team Fortress Classic, probably more than anyone else reading this. I KNOW that game. And I'm up to speed on the changes made to Team Fortress 2, even if I haven't played it. Major changes are small tweaks to engineer and medical classes. Upgraded visuals and art style. The game remains basically the same, and that's fine.
I've played the Quake games and read the reviews of ET:QW therefore I know everything about it and can declare it nothing more than gay porn turned into a video game.
Right Gordo?
So I go ahead and blow the obstacle
And no you didn't play TFC more than anyone else. I played the shit out of TF2 even when you and Cake moved to CS. I was recruited by shit tons of clans due to my l33t Engineer skillz. I played the hell out of that game.
I haven't even touched on the things that can happen even when you are trying to accomplish a mission:
So there I'll be trying to be sneaky and plant a demo charge on their radar tower (and hoping they only deployed 1), when crap, the enemy captured a forward spawn point, and they are spawning right on top of me. SO now in order to accomplish my mission to blow up the radar, I also need to rally peeps to recapture that spawn point so I'm not getting bumrushed. And during this time there is a fucker sniping at me from a mile away. And another fucker calling in a laser strike from a ship in orbit on me. And an engineer who investigated who his turret's health is going down. And an enemy mech just walking around stomping people.
And yet missions get accomplished... or don't.
Depth.
You should've said "depth" in your earlier large rant. Nothing in that smaller paragraph screams depth. It's the same gameplay from Tribes.
Oh, and to address your increasingly flippant remarks about player base, I have the server list filtered by sub-75ms ping, PunkBuster-only, and Ranked servers-only. If I unfiltered, I'd see a lot more people online. If I moved to the west coast, I'd see different sub-75ms ping servers.
So what're you thinking? 6000? Just kidding. I'm sure it's smashing sales records.
And, to be fair, Cake's comments about the number of players/popularity was much harsh than mine.
Leisher wrote:Also, I showed you Quake Wars' average rating (84%) and Team Fortress 2's average rating (93%). Just those ratings alone would indicate that maybe Quake Wars isn't "a deeper, better game".
But, to be fair, I looked at the average user ratings too: Quake Wars - 7.8
Team Fortress 2 - 9.1
And these numbers have nothing to do with depth. I bet Tetris got a high user rating when it came out, too, but I'm sure Neverwinter Nights had a lower general score. These numbers have very little to do with gameplay, and merely reflect what the game was trying to be.
What? Ok first, of all, you're attacking me at the one point where was actually defending QW:
I thought UO was vastly superior to EQ despite EQ being more popular and getting better ratings. Thus, I completely understand how WQ could be a "better, deeper game" yet get ranked lower across the board.
So let me respond with your very own: "Psycho".
Secondly, what the hell does that paragraph you wrote say? The numbers don't account for depth or have any reflection on gameplay or what the game was trying to be? I am completely baffled by that statement. So when a reviewer writes a review about a game, he's actually basing his opinion on the box cover? I mean, if he can't judge a game on its depth, gameplay(!), or what it's trying to be, then what is left?
You lost me on that one.
I'd bet money that the people who ranked ET:QW what they did didn't put a lot of time into it, and judged on first impression. As you play more, your appreciation for the subtleties grows. Hell, look at my initial review of it, compared to now.
I've always hated that logic. "Hey, this sucks! Let's keep doing it until we think its fun!" It's like all the idiots who tell me "Yeah, I thought Napoleon Dynamite was terrible, then I watched it again and it was funny." They lost me at the fact that they sat through it again. How can I trust their judgment when they actively sought out to torture themselves by sitting through something they hated the first time?
Back to the point, I do get what you're saying. A lot of folks will give something very little time to make an impression and will not go out of their way to really figure out what something has to offer and that might affect their ranking of ET:QW.
Of course, your example doesn't quite prove your point:
Neverwinter Nights -
Avg media rating: 89%
Avg user rating: 8.7 (IGN) / 9.0 (Gamespot)
To sum up:
"Bah"
You willing to do a money back guarantee?
