Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ET: Quake Wars Beta Unsatisfying

Last response: in Video Games
Share
July 25, 2007 1:15:41 PM

The demonstration of Enemy Territory: Quake Wars may have blown them away at E3 2007, but the public beta is less than spectacular. We analyze some of the problems in the beta, which may not be in the retail product.

http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/07/25/enemy-territory-quake-wars-beta/
July 25, 2007 1:37:38 PM

There's suppost to be a 2nd beta, valley map. I need to get in on that, I couldn't get the first keys, damn exclusive Fileplanet bs (i have been a registered user for years though, but the early morning keys.. ugh).
July 25, 2007 2:11:21 PM

Well I am glad that it seems they have kept some of the original objective(forces team work) based maps instead of just a kill fest.
Related resources
July 25, 2007 3:59:57 PM

Not that I want to bring out the whole UT vs Quake argument... but the whole objective thing... seems to me that UT's assault game mode has been doing that for years. Each map has different objectives w/ one side attacking and one defending. (and yes, regardless of map the defenders were always "kill enemy when they show up here" while the attacker had to figure out more tactics)

diff is that you play first match until attackers win or time is up, it then switch sides and new attackers try to beat first time. That and UT did not have defined classes or races either. (UT3 looks to have that though)

I dunno, just seems stale and "been there, done that" to me... and assault was never the most favored of UT game types, mainly b/c n00bs tended to miss the point and give up. Was always hard to get good team dynamics. (battlefield and UT's onslaught made team games more n00b friendly) Looking at the "new" conquest mode in UT3 (described as onslaught meets assault) it may prove to be an evolutionary fix for that, where quake wars seems to be the old-school throwback. Not saying that is "bad" per-se... I really like UT's assault mode. just seems strange...
July 25, 2007 8:21:38 PM

We are all dumber having read your review...

::sigh::

I think the real issue is evident in your first paragraph... sadly, all you really know is 1.) EA &, 2.) their most pathetic Battlefield series. I can't fault you for expressing your feelings, because you really don't know any better. But pleaz don't confuse EA w/ ID Software, Epic, or Valve... cuz they just aren't on the same playing field, not in the slightest. You've got some pretty pessimistic views, and they slant your entire article. If this were EA, I'd say they are justified... but it just isn't the case.

...Next time, do us a favor, and review something you're more familiar with. :non: 
- TheShniz
July 25, 2007 10:29:54 PM

I think the tiered objectives that differ per map are a nice step forward.

You realize that Enemy Territory (yes, this is a SEQUEL, not a new franchise) did it many years ago, right? Please tell me you knew that. And for the record, Battlefield borrowed from Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory if there was any borrowing going on at all.
July 25, 2007 10:51:35 PM

I still believe UT had it even before wolf:ET... but that is just mincing the main point that ET:QW is looking to be nothing new at all. (granted, being a "ET" game... maybe they just wanted a quake mod of ET?) Kindof a letdown IMO. Sure, it could still be fun even though it is old-school... but I really wanted something NEW and cool... but maybe that is just me. ;) 
July 26, 2007 12:01:02 AM

Settle pettle, it's a beta. If twitchguru is as widely read as I expect, why didn't you put a call in to ID and see if there was limitations to the beta like the graphics etc? They might have offered you some assistance.

The EA BF series is a world away from ID in both style and gameplay and objectivety really needs to be observed. Once you start to make direct comparisons you are stating your personal preference.

Bf2 has a customisation option for each vehicle etc which I find useful as I prefer the mouse to be a particular way for flying. ET:QW didn't let me do this so I was the guy flying upside down and all over the place because I couldn't set the the mouse up specifically for what I was used to. No biggie though, instead of crying I contributed to the beta forum.

There were areas of ET:QW I didn't like either but I'm prepared to wait to see the final product before I make a final decision.

Criticism is the disapproval of people, not for having faults, but having faults different from your own ie. EA/ID
July 26, 2007 4:09:44 AM

I thought he did fine w/ his explanation of how the beta test was code that was probably older than what was on display when Rob tested it. Throughout the whole article he kept saying that it was at a state that would probably change or it has already changed... he was just giving an opinion on the state of the beta... which, if you read twitchguru much at all is mostly what that site is... opinion from a couple of obsessed geeks. ;) 

maybe that is why I like it... lol.

as for the BF comparison... every review site has been hyping that since quake wars was announced... however different they are, that parallel will be there no matter what. IMO BF has influenced both UT and Quake so much that some of that comparison is warranted.
July 26, 2007 12:47:30 PM

Didn't mean to gripe too much. I guess I was just sitting here optimising shaders, stuck at 62% and had nothing else to do.
I just got really tired of all the rubbish in the ET:QW forums. I needed help and all I could find was people bitching and moaning...it's not as good as BF...this sucks... that sucks - like they'd paid for it!
Once upon a time the gaming community rallied together to support each other and help each other out. This helped the games and the players.
I was guessing that what the beta was for, try it, contribute in the forum, improve the game. If you don't like it uninstall it, easy as that.
All I read forum after forum was people bawling like someone took their dummy, it was just dissappointing.
Whoops, gotta go finally connecting to account server....
July 26, 2007 4:13:30 PM

Gotta say screen shots don't look that pretty. I agree that the angulated ground with very flat textures (i.e. no displacement or even bump mapping applied) look naff. Most noticable is the lighting - it's just bland - missing HDR? I hope they can improve it for the release.
July 26, 2007 5:14:14 PM

I must've been stupid for hoping for something objective from this preview-review. All your comments are almost 100% irrelevant. Yes bindings can get annoying but you do it once. Yes graphics aren't up to par (probably the most relevant but that's still not saying much), but you can guess why right? Yes people bunny hop in shooters, and to use an example you could understand - ever seen someone in BF2 jump INTO a prone position? My problem isn't really with your review, it's mostly because of the title and your reasons behind it.

Next time, just write "I HATE <GAMEXYZ> BECAUSE IT'S BLUE" so I can skip your nonsense.
July 26, 2007 8:44:30 PM

The game is a sequel, as was mentioned earlier. Jumping around and the killfest during warm up are old standards in the game. It is the only opportunity you can kill your own teammates with impunity. Plus, based on how much exp you have playing this franchise that may be the most kills you get in the game, ha ha.

The jumping bit is to keep from getting head shot. It takes some time and skill to adjust for the jumping. It is in no way impossible. If you can track your opponent well you won't have a problem adjusting that tracking to a jumping player. Jumping and getting behind your enemy is key to multiple kills and your survival. One thing to keep in mind about ET, at least the original ET, is that the only thing you can count on is that if you are shooting at someone someone else is shooting at you, even if it isn't your direct opponent.

The fluidness of the dueling is important to me as I don't want to loose the flavor of the original ET. If they took that away I'd just rather stay with the original ET. I've played it for over 3 years now.

The ticket counter thing is part of other games and it is nice to not have it part of ET. I could never stand those types of games.

OH, and by putting advertisements into the game. Well, there'd either have to be some serious restrictions on the ads, such as only in the ranked servers, only on the servers managed by id, only on the maps designed by id. That way we can escape the advertising crap that always turns into an abuse. I personally could care less about coke, fritos, crucial, etc. I'm there to play a game. I don't want to see advertisements. If there's a coke bottle on the ground fine. If there's an empty Tide box on the ground fine. If I can blow up the billboard with the "buy sony" advertisement, then fine. But I don't care less about this advertisement crap. It always gets abused and it the same as spam.
July 26, 2007 11:17:05 PM

I'm really disappointed at this review. The reviewer gets frustrated because there are bugs in a BETA.

Unbelievable, I cannot believe that tomshardware would allow this poor journalism to exist in their network.
July 26, 2007 11:27:15 PM

GyRo567 said:
I think the tiered objectives that differ per map are a nice step forward.

You realize that Enemy Territory (yes, this is a SEQUEL, not a new franchise) did it many years ago, right? Please tell me you knew that. And for the record, Battlefield borrowed from Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory if there was any borrowing going on at all.


Yes, GyRo, bith Travis and I are well aware that Quake Wars is a sort-of sequel to the first ET title. We've documented as much in earlier ET:QW coverage.
http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/06/04/image_preview/

For all the folks that hate Travis' take on the beta, and there seem to be a few (I'm looking at you, Neosoul and TheShniz), then check out my take on the E3 demo: http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/07/13/quake_wars_first_i...

Not sure if anyone out that has played the E3 demo or beta or -- better yet -- both, but maybe we could share some impressions here. It sures makes for more fun than beating up on Travis for offering his opinion and sharing his views of the game, which is what we do in game reviews after all.

And thanks, Sojrner, for calling us obsessed geeks....
July 27, 2007 10:06:07 AM

Hmm, cant say i particularly liked that review either, sorry Travis, to much BF comparison (;

Well, lot of the crytasism was about features that made the original ET great to me, i like the objective based game play, and if you've got a good defensive team, defending isn't just all about shoot here when player appears around corner, there's lots of ways to attack and defend. Granted this meant that when i stared playing ET i didn't have a clue what my player class did, what the objectives where, where they were on the map and just how quirky the shooting is in this game (ET), at first i though it was just spray and pray, but there is a subtle art to shooting well in ET, hopefully the same in ETQW.

But after a couple of days playing and with a bit of help from more experienced players i really got into ET, it's got by far the most impressive team based play, you cant win by running off, shooting anything that moves and try solo all the objectives, you really, REALLY need other player classes around you that support you and who you can support.

Anyway i side tracked myself from the point i was trying to make and that was that for the first couple days ET was just plain frustrating and complicated, but after some time you eventually figure out what you're supposed to be doing and then the game becomes really enjoyable, and to me this review seems to be written from the standpoint of the early days of playing a complicated, team based shooter.

Then again since people are all different (shocking i know), there will b people who love this game (Rob) and people who hate this game (Travis), for exactly the same reasons!

Just my 2c worth (in my country 2c isn't worth much)
July 27, 2007 2:27:48 PM

Quote:
does the warm-up period really have to be non-stop team killing?


Umm. Yes.

That is the mentality of quake that has been around since Q1. If you didn't know/understand this, then you shouldn't be writing an article about a quake based game. I've played Quake since Q1, spending an ENORMOUSLY large amount of time on QuakeWorld TeamFortress (I was one of the best HPB snipers around). Bunny hopping, rocket/nade/pipe jumping are *SKILLS* to have. Yes, I'm sure some idiots just jump because they can, but if you knew ***anything*** at all about the history of this 11 year old gaming tradition, then you would understand why people jump and do other things not conducive to an EA gaming environment. You can log into any Quake server and see people doing these things the second you log in. Again, the fact that this isn't just basic knowledge to you leads me to believe that you're not exactly qualified to write an article about this game.

On a side note, it's funny that you point out bugs in a beta version of this game and then compare it to BF2142, which has some pretty drastic bugs in its production application.

For instance:
- Because I use the mouse for movement, I have to rebind my mouse keys in all 3 movement tabs EVERY time I start up BF2142, because there is a bug that prevents BF2142 from keeping mouse binds for movement controls.
- I (as well as quite a few other people), CANNOT EVEN CONNECT TO ANY BF2142 SERVERS. It's a bug that's well known, and for absolutely no reason, makes it impossible for people to play a game they spent $50 on.

I got a lot out of the article, but your lack of knowledge of a series that has been around for 11 years, and your obvious devotion to EA makes your color commentary about the game quite a bit out of place.
July 27, 2007 5:21:33 PM

Wow. That is a lot of hate.

You guys are aware that id has NOTHING to do with this game right? You're so well-informed that you all knew that, right?

Yeah, I thought you did.

Borrowing from the original ET? I don't remember being able to drive vehicles around in ET.

I didn't voice "frustrations" about there being bugs in the beta. I mentioned that there were bugs. And then I mentioned that it was a beta. At no point did I complain about , "OMG, this beta is so buggy I can't believe they're making me play this game for free."

As far as being annoyed at multiplayer shooter conduct? I have to say yeah, you guys do annoy me. I'm well aware that hopping is a long-standing tradition in shooters. It was stupid then, and it's stupid now so I put it in the article.

Do not mistake anger for ignorance.
July 27, 2007 6:10:35 PM


Let's all take a deep breath and collect ourselves, please, before we lose sight of the purpose of the Forumz: intelligent discourse.

FireWater said:
I'm really disappointed at this review. The reviewer gets frustrated because there are bugs in a BETA.

Unbelievable, I cannot believe that tomshardware would allow this poor journalism to exist in their network.


FireWater, I understand what you're saying. However, Travis doesn't harp on the bug. He merely mentions it. Furthermore, for those of us that have played Betas, well, we know that sometimes the bugs that we hope will be fixed somehow sneak through in the final retail version of the game. So when we review Betas, I think it's our obligation to mention them. Why? Well, think of this way: if we didn't mention a particular bug and that bug makes it into the final game, and then in our review of the complete retail version we write "There's an unfortunate bug in the game that was present in the beta but never fixed," I have a feeling you guys would be pretty upset with us for not disclosing the fact that there was a bug. At least, I know I'd be upset.

I may disagree with Travis on some assessments of ET:QW, but I don't think he's misleading anybody or reporting anything that isn't true. Travis doesn't like bunny-hopping. It's his right. Let's not crucify him for it, please.
July 27, 2007 6:12:34 PM

... more like unjustified arrogance.

Previous statements stand, better to write about BF3 or racing or something.
- TheShniz
July 27, 2007 6:25:19 PM

tmeacham said:
You guys are aware that id has NOTHING to do with this game right? You're so well-informed that you all knew that, right?


Yes, well, kind of. You're not exactly correct in saying that ID has nothing to do with this game, considering ID made the texture rendering engine for the terrain. But I was aware that ID itself was not developing the game as a whole, because Rob's articles covered this. However, Rob also goes on to mention that one of the whole points in the design of this game was to keep w/the Quake series in terms of playability (rocket jumping, bunnyhopping), so my argument still stands. If you don't understand the Quake series, perhaps you shouldn't have covered this article.

tmeacham said:
As far as being annoyed at multiplayer shooter conduct? I have to say yeah, you guys do annoy me. I'm well aware that hopping is a long-standing tradition in shooters. It was stupid then, and it's stupid now so I put it in the article.

Do not mistake anger for ignorance.

Obviously, I was not mistaking your anger for ignorance, as it is your ignorance that I was pointing out, not your anger.


The fact of the matter is, this was a very poor show on your part. I kind of got that feeling when I read,
Quote:
I didn't read any documentation before jumping in so I was a little lost at first when I got into a match.

I figured that was just because you knew a lot about the quake series already, so you decided to wing it. I was mistaken in my assumption.

The problem with your article is that you clearly did not know your subject matter, decided not to research your subject matter, and then gave it the overall assessment of "unsatisfying" because you were basing your ignorant view of this series on a different series which is vastly different from the one you were reviewing. ALL of the above points are simply signs of poor journalism. Even in Jr. High school you are taught that you have to research your subject matter before you write about it, or you fail your paper.



Now, that all being said, please don't take this as a personal attack. I don't hate you or think that you suck, I'm just pointing out that you wrote a very poor article. My opinion is not based on fanboyism of any type, but rather the facts that your article was not well written based on the very fundamentals of journalism.
July 27, 2007 6:49:54 PM

Phrozt said:
The problem with your article is that you clearly did not know your subject matter, decided not to research your subject matter, and then gave it the overall assessment of "unsatisfying" because you were basing your ignorant view of this series on a different series which is vastly different from the one you were reviewing. ALL of the above points are simply signs of poor journalism. Even in Jr. High school you are taught that you have to research your subject matter before you write about it, or you fail your paper.


Please explain how this is VASTLY DIFFERENT from the Battlefield series in your eyes and instead much more similar to the original ET. I'm not being snarky, I just want to know what you think I'm missing.
July 27, 2007 7:26:00 PM

You're missing my point. Quake is Quake, not Battlefield. I'm not looking at this from the Quake ET vs Battlefield, Quake being a representative for all ETs; I'm looking at this from Quake vs Battlefield, the Quake series vs the Battlefield Series.

Quake has almost always been closer combat, faster paced, bigger jumps, non-human abilities (rocket/pipe jumping), etc. Battlefield has always been huge, more strategic, run a long way to do a little bit, camp here, hold that type of game. The two play styles are entirely different. Log into a Q3 arena server for awhile and you may get a bit better understanding of what I mean.

A similar comparison would be Counter-Strike DeathMatch vs Day Of Defeat. Guns do different types of damage, playstyle is different, ranges are different, etc. CS:D M is more of getting a high score, while DoD is working as a team. Same thing in Quake vs BF. Even though Quake is really more about who has the highest score... and it has always been... which is why it's faster gameplay and more highly charged players. Even though QuakeET now includes objectives obtainable by certain classes, I wouldn't imagine that the type of players or the gameplay would be any different.

Like I said though, don't take my word for it... go log into a Q3 server (even a team CTF or TF server) and see what I mean.
July 27, 2007 8:28:28 PM

You guys are aware that id has NOTHING to do with this game right? You're so well-informed that you all knew that, right?

I'm curious:

Are you intentionally ignoring the fact that iD provided both the engine and the intellectual property of the Quake franchise?

More on topic, I can't imagine any game with the "Enemy Territory" brand in its title possibly receiving anything but hate if it didn't first try to perfectly capture the feel of the original before trying to implement new things. I haven't played it, so I don't have an opinion on whether it's a great game, a good game or a bad game, but I do find it a bit silly when any criticism isn't first aimed at the point of view of a former Enemy Territory player.
July 27, 2007 8:32:13 PM

Using the criteria you've just laid out, I can tell you that this is a Battlefield game...not a Quake game. If you're expecting something more akin to Quake III you may want to read some reviews before putting the money down on this one.

ET was RtCW, not Quake. The Quake technology may have been there behind the scenes, but the setting was Wolfenstein. I guess the Quake comparisons come out of the title being Quake Wars and the setting being the Strogg invasion, but the gameplay is very much Battlefield.
July 27, 2007 8:55:41 PM

Your intentions may be good, but you're just digging yourself a bigger hole... readers shouldn't have to lay out an entire timeline of Quake, Battlefield, or Wolfenstein for your education. The point is, you're just not knowledgable in this area.

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is what happens when you take the gameplay of Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory [which was directly based off of Return to Castle Wolfenstein] and the Quake Universe.

^^^ Nowhere in the above statement do you see the words EA or Battlefield. Because you truly don't understand the game's roots (let alone the genre), you lack a basic understanding of the game and should refrain from such reviews (until said education).

The gameplay is in no way even remotely comparable to Battlefield...
...it IS directly comparable to RtCW and Wolf:ET.
- TheShniz
July 27, 2007 10:23:43 PM

OK. Of the people posting in this thread how many have actually played Quake Wars?

And I'll say this again...in which Quake game and which Wolfenstein game can you drive vehicles?
July 27, 2007 10:43:56 PM

I have, and I continue to play Quake Wars each day, thanx...

...technically, you could drive in a tank in both RtCW and Wolf:ET, although it was in the form of escorting.

Q: In what game back then could you drive a vehicle (as in steer)?
A: NONE!
Q: Did Battlefield 1942?
A: NOPE!
Q: Does Vehicular combat define Battlefield-esque gameplay?
A: NOPE!
Q: Does it define BF2/2142?
A: Yeah, but then again so did Carmageddon!
Q: Is BF2/2142 the only FPS games w/ vehicles?
A: NOPE!

Your own definition of what BF2 is so poorly defined itself, it's hard to say anything other than... "well if there's a car in it, it must be Battlefield".

If it does NOT walk like a duck, does NOT talk like a duck, nor does it leave duck crap everywhere... it must NOT be a duck!
- TheShniz
July 28, 2007 10:59:35 AM

Holey cow, i reckon everybody needs to count to ten,... then drink a whole lot of beer, you'll feel a lot better for it. Easy on the personal attacks guys, disagree with a statement, and then give a good reason why you disagree, don't just insult the guy because you don't like what he said.

I really have nothing more to add then, i hope the games great when it's released, i know i'll focus my next computer build around ETQW and Crisis when they eventually come out :) 

Ok i lied, i actually do have a couple more things to add.

Team killing in the warm up is pretty childish, I'd expect that from primary school kids, not rational thinking adults, just because "that's the way it's always been" dose not qualify as a good reason to keep this kind of behavior.

Second i think any comparison between this game and Quake are a little pointless, Quake you kill anything that moves, ETQW is team and objective based. Just because the game engine is the same means nothing, like Dark Messiah is noting like HL2, same game engine though (ok, as far as i know, i may be wrong, and I'm waiting with eager anticipation for the first person to call me a noob for getting that wrong) oh yes, and we're calling the opposing sides and GDF and Strog, not Axis and Allies, chalk another one up to the Quake franchise there.

And finally i really must emphasize the importance of regular beer, it'll help you all relax a little, and this thread needs a little more relaxation, this is a game we're all looking forward to after all, lets just hope the final version gets all the bugs ironed out because of the positive feeback the game developers will get from releasing a public beta, and not have to wade through mounds of "you suck guy" feedback. Sadly i don't think this will happen...

July 28, 2007 3:11:06 PM

tmeacham said:
Wow. That is a lot of hate.

You guys are aware that id has NOTHING to do with this game right? You're so well-informed that you all knew that, right?

Yeah, I thought you did.

Borrowing from the original ET? I don't remember being able to drive vehicles around in ET.

I didn't voice "frustrations" about there being bugs in the beta. I mentioned that there were bugs. And then I mentioned that it was a beta. At no point did I complain about , "OMG, this beta is so buggy I can't believe they're making me play this game for free."

As far as being annoyed at multiplayer shooter conduct? I have to say yeah, you guys do annoy me. I'm well aware that hopping is a long-standing tradition in shooters. It was stupid then, and it's stupid now so I put it in the article.

Do not mistake anger for ignorance.


A game has vehicles, therefore it is a battlefield clone. Are you a real journalist or an expert at internet? Sorry if that appears rude but I have to question your ability to research as well as be coherent.

I don't understand by MP shooter conduct, are you upset that you keep getting TKed during a dead round? Also, if there is hopping in the game, how is that LIKE BATTLEFIELD. The only similarities between the games is that they both have sets of vehicles. other than that they are nothing a like.

tmeacham said:
Using the criteria you've just laid out, I can tell you that this is a Battlefield game...not a Quake game. If you're expecting something more akin to Quake III you may want to read some reviews before putting the money down on this one.

ET was RtCW, not Quake. The Quake technology may have been there behind the scenes, but the setting was Wolfenstein. I guess the Quake comparisons come out of the title being Quake Wars and the setting being the Strogg invasion, but the gameplay is very much Battlefield.


No it is not a quake game, it is an enemy territory game that has expanded with vehicles in the Quake Universe. Would you compare aBattlefield 2 infantry combat game to enemy territory wolfenstein? No you wouldn't. Why? Because even though they are both infantry (in this example) both shooters play VERY DIFFERENTLY. I'll explain why.

The battlefield series, is a series of tactical shooters. I define tactical as not raw skill, but better positioning and initiative. It is also a much slower game.

Enemy Territory series, is about run and gun action. Jumping, crouch tapping, strafe-jumping are not only common place, but necessary to survive in the game atleast a high levels of play. Quake wars adds vehicles to the mix, but they are different than in Battlefield. Quake Wars is all about speed an rushing.

My point is if the ET:QW gameplay is like a battlefield series type game, then the skills you learned in that game should directly correlate into this one.

Fact is, it is easier for a previous ET player to adjust to this game, then it is for a player who exclusively played the BF series. A lot of BF series players on the forums have been complaining about the speed the of the game being too fast. Several W:ET players have been saying either the speed is fine, OR too SLOW.

W:ET players would not thrive based on that background alone in a BF series game. They would have to learn new skills to adjust to that game style.

Same applies to both W:ET and BF series players in ET:QW, only the W:ET have an easier time adjusting as the game is not as dominated by vehicles like in BF2

Also I posted this article on the official forums, to gather other opinions of peoples who are probably playing the game as we speak.

http://community.enemyterritory.com/forums/showthread.p...
July 28, 2007 7:38:42 PM

tmeacham said:
You guys are aware that id has NOTHING to do with this game right? You're so well-informed that you all knew that, right?

Yeah, I thought you did.


Wow that's a pretty wicked bit of sarcasm and attitude there... especially considering that your statement is completely false.

This is from badman... the Community Manager that works for SD. He posted it on the official community site in response to a thread posted there linking to your post:

Quote:
The id guys closely involved with all aspects of development. Design, code,art, level design, marketing, you name it. ETQW is id's game and nothing happens without their approval.

That said, most of the negative issues he outlined in the article are taken care of in beta 2.


tmeacham said:
Do not mistake anger for ignorance.


It seems you've got a pretty even mix of both going on.
July 29, 2007 12:01:23 AM

Schismatic, you beat my reply out!
July 29, 2007 2:14:57 PM

Yeah, the review actually had facts in it which is nice. It is nice to know that the reviewer was also a previous W:ET player.

Even if the reviewer said he was unsatisfied, it would be because he analyzed the facts in a logical manner, rather than spitting out a lot of non-sense.
July 29, 2007 8:10:32 PM

I'm just curious if the author has anymore to say on his behalf?
July 29, 2007 10:27:34 PM

Nope. I'm afraid I've moved on. Thanks for commenting, guys. Perhaps we can spar again when I review the full version.
July 30, 2007 2:38:56 AM

Well at least you will have your research, we've pretty much done it all for you.
July 30, 2007 5:36:40 PM

This is like a review for an MMORPG written by someone who thinks WoW was the first one created and all the rest should conform to it. Just admit that you're not used to strafing shooters and, because you died a lot and didn't have much fun playing, you decided to give the entire review a negative spin.
July 30, 2007 8:23:56 PM

Jeez, tough crowd....I'm deathly afraid of what will happen once my Unreal Tournament 3 beta article goes up soon.

I would just like to point out the following paragraph: "Being a beta, QW has a tons of bugs. Sometimes, during game play, things will freeze for a few seconds. Player animations appear very choppy, almost sprite-like. Certainly not the smooth movement we expect from a next generation game. The stats component is also very poor. It doesn't calculate individual stats like how many kills you have or what your accuracy was. It only tells you who was the best soldier, medic, etc... This can definitely use an improvement. There are more that I can list. At this point, I hope this is an early beta because this game is no where near production ready. Hopefully, they will be patient and release it when it's ready."

Now, given the negative response Travis' beta review has received from some of the members on this forum, you might think that the above quote would be from his article. And that would be incorrect. The above quote is from the pwngamer.com article that Wickedmonster cited.

Here's what Travis wrote: "One of the first things I noticed about the beta was a bug involving the server filters. When you populate a new list of servers and try to filter them down, the game will sometimes hide all of them, regardless of the filters you've left open. In order to get the filtered servers to appear, you need to go in and make a change to your existing filter setup and refresh the list. It isn't a deal-breaker by any means, but it's the kind of bug that may also show up in the retail version to be patched later. It's also only a minor annoyance."

And the pwngamer.com, which is detailed and a good read, ends with the following quote:
"Enemy Territory: Quake Wars has a lot of potential. It certainly is the most ambitious shooter of all time. The depth of game play in this game is amazing and complex. There are so many different nuances that are waiting to be explored by gamers worldwide. However, with the added complexity, I worry that Splash Damage has bit off more than they can chew. Game play is still very buggy and not ready for prime time. How they plan to polish it will be interesting. Can't wait for the release though!"

Again, this reviewer goes to great lengths to point out the shortcomings of the game. Is that a negative spin? Or is pwngamer.com excused from criticism because, even though it criticizes the game, it also calls Quake Wars "the most ambitious shooter of all time"? (which I don't understand at all, by the way). Which review is more negative?

I think what a lot of the heat boils down to here is Travis comparing ET:QW to Battlefield titles. Well, if you disagree with his statements about the game being influenced by Battlefield, I can understand that. However, I think if you guys look at some of the other beta reviews out there for ET:QW, you're going to find a lot of Battlefield comparisons, too.

In any event, I think it's time we all take GeOMan's advice, drink a beer and chill out.

And finally, I'll put an open call out to the forum: anyone who wants to write something on ET:QW, beta or finished product, feel free to pitch me. We're certainly open to running contrasting opinions (see the Counter-Points).
July 30, 2007 9:24:30 PM

I wouldn't mind trying my hand at a review...


As for the bugs comment, I think the difference is again in the backround of knowledge that each reviewer possesses.

The pwngamer reviewer's bugs all directly related to gameplay that you'd expect from a Quake based game. Fluid action, and statwhorishness (which happens to be probably one of the biggest components to the quake industry ever). Travis picked on server list filters...

Hell... Valve's filtering is horrible, BF2142's is worse, and most other games have filtering/UI display issues. Tell me about bugs that relate to how this game plays, don't nitpick on crap that you pretty much have to deal with at some level in every game. To Travis's credit, I felt that the comment on the landscaping was spot on with something that I wanted to hear.

I don't mind the fact that he compares it to BF2142 except for the fact that it's the ONLY game he compares it to. To me, other games should only be referenced as something to help the reader get a feel for what the game is like... not as a checklist of, "this new game should be like this existing game, but it's not." The only exception to that being a new game in a series comparing to an older game (like Starcraft/StarcraftII).

Sure, I think we all got off on a hot foot... it's just a bit annoying to see a journalist write about something that he's obviously not familiar with, and it's more annoying the closer you are related to the subject he's writing about. Like I said, I've been playing Quake since it's earliest conception, and I felt that the author did not represent the view of an individual educated in the series. On the same token, I would get pretty pissy if someone to pit Asheron's Call 1 (a game I've played sine 2000) against WoW.
July 30, 2007 10:39:12 PM

"Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in."

There is way too much negative inertia for me to move, but I'm going to post this anyway. Guys, this wasn't meant as a negative article or a "review". It is quite literally some snapshot impressions from the beta that contrast Rob's take from the E3 demo.

From page 1 paragraph 1
Quote:
Now I'm not a die-hard multiplayer shooter fan, but I've spent my time in Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, PlanetSide, Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142. ET:QW may not carry a "Battlefield" moniker but it liberally borrows from the franchise while also offering some new features that make it stand out.


That is a positive.

You don't agree that it borrows liberally from Battlefield. I get that. I think it does. I've played Quake and Enemy Territory more than I'd care to admit. This feels like a Battlefield game. It's my opinion. It's OK for us to disagree. I'm not saying Battlefield is better. I'm saying they feel similar.

From page 1 paragraph 2
Quote:
You may have already read Rob's coverage of Enemy Territory: Quake Wars at E3 2007, but I wanted to discuss the public beta because it differs from the demo that was introduced at E3 this year. It's also important to note that the beta version of the game does not represent the final code (and may actually represent code that is several months old).


Sometimes when people play betas they get upset that they don't work. I've never understood this because you're basically getting to play an unreleased game for free. The above paragraph is in the article to let people know that even though there were some things in the beta that I didn't like there is still plenty of time to fix them. It's to let people know not to worry about these problems yet.

From page 1 paragraph 3
Quote:
It's the mixture of tactics that accompanies multiple classes with differing specialties and a host of vehicles that make this genre of games so attractive. It's never just run-and-gun death match game play.


That's positive. I know run-and-gun death match is what Quake is all about, but what I'm saying here is that Quake Wars offers more than that. I'm saying it's more than just a "Quake" game.

From page 1 paragrah 7
Quote:
I didn't read any documentation before jumping in so I was a little lost at first when I got into a match. In order to really be competitive and to get some good experience points, you'll need to be somewhat familiar with the map objectives and which classes can accomplish which stages.


This is how I try all games. We're all gamers and we can jump into these things without missing a step usually, but as a journalist I have to write with people like my mother in mind just in case they read the article. I try to imagine what it would be like to play this game as if you've never played an FPS before. This one would be a little daunting. What I mean by "lost" is that I didn't know exactly where to go or how to accomplish any objectives. I didn't mean, "Wait, I can't see myself. Where is my character?!"

From page 2 paragraph 1
Quote:
I think the tiered objectives that differ per map are a nice step forward. Battlefield 2142 uses a similar system in Titan games, but for each map they are always the same. ET:QW differs from the Battlefield games in that it does not employ a ticket system where the first side to reach zero tickets loses. The objectives that require a specific class encourage players to try out new classes and demand that the team have a mix of all of them.


Maybe these kinds of statements are being misread, but that is saying that Quake Wars is better than BF2142 in that sense. I prefer varying objectives over the same ones. So that's a positive. Actually that whole first paragraph on page is positive in comparison to the Battlefield series.

From page 2 paragraph 2
Quote:
Rob found ET:QW to be quite the looker at E3, but again, my experience with the beta has proven less impressive. I don't know this for sure, but it's probable that the beta does not include all the hi-res textures in order to keep the download size manageable, and this may be responsible for what I'm seeing.


Here's a negative statement followed by an explanation for why it shouldn't be a concern in the retail version. Yes, I'm pointing out a problem in the beta, but I'm also saying not to panic about it if you're see it as well. Let's call that one a neutral.

From page 2 paragraph 3
Quote:
My first impression of the UI is that it is way too cluttered and that at 1600 x 1200 the fonts are far too big (check the slide-show to see for yourself). After playing for a few hours you start to get used to all that data on the screen, but I still feel that it gets in the way.


This one's a negative. I like all the fonts to scale down when I'm at a hi-res. It's a personal preference.

From page 2 paragraph 5
Quote:
The last complaint I have is about the man-to-man shooting game play. The run-and-gun portion of the game is still too frantic to rely much on tactics or skill. It seems like everyone is moving too fast when they are running, and shooting anyone is mostly spray-and-pray with a dash of luck. Some of the player warping can be attributed to lag, which has been an obstacle in every game I've played. This has been a frequent topic of discussion among the other players on multiple servers. Again this could be chalked up to un-optimized code in the beta or it could just be a bad game design. We'll have to get our hands on a retail copy to find out which.


This seems to be the hot button. Again this is personal preference. Take a deep breath...not everyone loves Quake. I prefer more tactical shooters to Quake. You'll notice that nowhere in there is the Battlefield series named as a viable alternative.

From page 2 paragraph 7
Quote:
Playing betas is a hit-and-miss proposition. Sure, it's a free taste of an unreleased game, but it's unreleased because a lot of it doesn't work yet. Rob's E3 experience with Enemy Territory: Quake Wars differs from mine with the beta, but he got to see a different map in a controlled setting while I'm out here in the wild (or more appropriately the Sewer) with the animals.


I don't mean to suggest that I'm in the Sewer because the game is garbage. The only map you can play in the beta is the Sewer.

Overall I think the article is kind of positive and certainly not attacking the game or the developers. I do point out some problems, but I also offer explanations for why they may exist. I'm not an EA fanboy or a Battlefield fanatic, but those games are recent, relevant, and on reader's minds. They aren't better. I wasn't expecting Battlefield, but after playing Quake Wars the Battlefield games certainly came to mind as something that was similar and recent. I think that ET:QW is a stride forward for the genre, and I wish I had gotten that across. Perhaps a less inflammatory headline would have been better...something like "Man Has Opinion On Subject!"

I came out of my corner a little strong in the forum and I apologize for that, but unlike other game sites you may go to Rob and I read these forums and we pay attention to what you guys say. It probably didn't help that I was posting while at Comic-Con where food and sleep were at a minimum for us. I suppose I could just dismiss you with a wave of my hand from a high and mighty tower, but I don't really have a tower...yet. In the end we all want these games to be good, but it's our responsibility to tell people what we honestly think. All reviews of any kind are subjective and little more than a single person's opinion. We have to consider if the game is fun for everyone, not just the guys who've been playing ET and Quake III from day 1. Having said all that, I stand by the article. Just because I don't agree with you guys doesn't mean I'm unfamiliar with these games. All it means is that we disagree.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled character assassination.
July 31, 2007 4:46:43 AM

TheShniz said:
Your intentions may be good, but you're just digging yourself a bigger hole... readers shouldn't have to lay out an entire timeline of Quake, Battlefield, or Wolfenstein for your education. The point is, you're just not knowledgable in this area.

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is what happens when you take the gameplay of Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory [which was directly based off of Return to Castle Wolfenstein] and the Quake Universe.

^^^ Nowhere in the above statement do you see the words EA or Battlefield. Because you truly don't understand the game's roots (let alone the genre), you lack a basic understanding of the game and should refrain from such reviews (until said education).

The gameplay is in no way even remotely comparable to Battlefield...
...it IS directly comparable to RtCW and Wolf:ET.
- TheShniz

Ahhhh ET so much killing/defending/glitching(play dead in the tank :) , use another player to jump a wall)/sneaking with new maps always coming out.....

BTW @ op - you need to take a little criticism(maybe not this much...but still some). its part of the job.....it is no matter what anyone says it is ET + Quake. And I am awaiting it's full release.
July 31, 2007 5:14:34 AM

I don't care if someone says something bad about the beta Rob, but your writer didn't even do research. He had the nerve to say that Id had nothing to do with the game, which is absurdly false. He stated that the gameplay is like battlefield, which is probably the most backwards thing I heard all day.

The vehicles are more like TRIBES than BF series. I don't understand why any game with vehicles has to be directly compared to BF. His narrow minded journalism as well as his inability to even get BASIC facts correct is the problem here.

If he does not like the beta thats fine, but he should at least be responsible and do some research before making absurd claims.

I really like tomshardware too, but articles like this one really make me second guess the quality of writers you let on to your staff.
August 1, 2007 3:02:42 PM

Hey, wondering if anybody has an extra cd key or if anyone doesnt use thier account anymore. I've been tryin to get a key for quite some time now. Thx in advanced
August 2, 2007 12:49:23 AM

OP, I haven't posted in this thread before now because I didn't see any problem with your beta review.

What I find both disgusting and hilarious is the epeen-flexing going on here:

"OH. MY. F#%@ing. GOD! How DARE you say that this game feels like Battlefield on MY FORUMS??!?! OMGOMGOMFG I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU SO MUCH WAH WAH WAH QQ!! QQ!!"

That's mostly what I'm seeing from you immature testosterone-pushing "l33t gamers who know so much better than the OP." You flare up into an uncontrollable murderous rage just because some "f4gg0t" journalist had the AUDACITY, the (quote FireWater) "nerve" to dare to write about your one subject of expertise! What is this? Have you been studying the Quake series, compiling a comprehensive deluxe guide to the series and its nuances? Only you should ever be allowed to have anything to say about the Quake games? Give me a f%#*ing break, superstars!

Firewater managed to duct tape his mouth closed again long enough to write something quite intelligent regarding the feature difference between the Battlefield and Quake series. I laud him for that. Sorry to pick on you, FW, you're just the last poster I saw spewing something idiotic. This trend is by NO MEANS confined to you.

You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You type so big and loud and strong, so important and authoritative when on the internet. You'd get your a$$ kicked in a heart beat by some of these people you're flaming if you ever met them in real life. I don't want to hear your life stories proving who you are or whom you've beaten up. I'm not interested.

There's a term for the way most of you behave, though. It's "nerd rage." It's dispicable. Grow up, get laid, stop beating your girlfriend or wife, grow some balls and be a real man, a calm self-controlled man.

Rob and tmeacham (why can't I remember your name right now?), keep up the good work, guys. I've almost always enjoyed reading your work; and when I haven't, don't worry because I've always refrained from damning you to the ninth circle of Hell for your "insulting mistakes."
August 2, 2007 6:50:20 PM

tmeacham said:
Guys, this wasn't meant as a negative article or a "review".


ET: Quake Wars Beta Unsatisfying


Hmm... let me help clarify a few words for you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/title (as in, title of this article)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unsatisfying



This is how I try all games. We're all gamers and we can jump into these things without missing a step usually, but as a journalist I have to write with people like my mother in mind just in case they read the article. I try to imagine what it would be like to play this game as if you've never played an FPS before. This one would be a little daunting. What I mean by "lost" is that I didn't know exactly where to go or how to accomplish any objectives. I didn't mean, "Wait, I can't see myself. Where is my character?!"
said:

This is how I try all games. We're all gamers and we can jump into these things without missing a step usually, but as a journalist I have to write with people like my mother in mind just in case they read the article. I try to imagine what it would be like to play this game as if you've never played an FPS before. This one would be a little daunting. What I mean by "lost" is that I didn't know exactly where to go or how to accomplish any objectives. I didn't mean, "Wait, I can't see myself. Where is my character?!"


A lot of reviewers take time to look at the faq/manual to comment on how well (or poorly) it was put together. That's just part of reviewing the game/product/whatever. Again, not doing this just shows poor journalism. If you're going to report on something, do your research. Simple as that.
August 5, 2007 5:42:17 AM

Two words... BETA TWO!!! - TheShniz
August 6, 2007 3:49:37 AM

cpburns said:
OP, I haven't posted in this thread before now because I didn't see any problem with your beta review.

What I find both disgusting and hilarious is the epeen-flexing going on here:

"OH. MY. F#%@ing. GOD! How DARE you say that this game feels like Battlefield on MY FORUMS??!?! OMGOMGOMFG I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU SO MUCH WAH WAH WAH QQ!! QQ!!"


I never saw anyone say they hated anyone else. Some people exaggerate points without even a shred of truth.

Quote:
That's mostly what I'm seeing from you immature testosterone-pushing "l33t gamers who know so much better than the OP." You flare up into an uncontrollable murderous rage just because some "f4gg0t" journalist had the AUDACITY, the (quote FireWater) "nerve" to dare to write about your one subject of expertise! What is this? Have you been studying the Quake series, compiling a comprehensive deluxe guide to the series and its nuances? Only you should ever be allowed to have anything to say about the Quake games? Give me a f%#*ing break, superstars!

Never resulted in personal attack other than questioning the merit of the writer. You seem to be one projecting the insults and pawning it off as if I did.

Quote:
Firewater managed to duct tape his mouth closed again long enough to write something quite intelligent regarding the feature difference between the Battlefield and Quake series. I laud him for that. Sorry to pick on you, FW, you're just the last poster I saw spewing something idiotic. This trend is by NO MEANS confined to you.


Umm I never posted anything idiotic, and thank you for your praise on my post on differentiating between ET and BF. I really do not care if you pick on me, because based of your projections you are just making me smile :) 

Quote:
You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You type so big and loud and strong, so important and authoritative when on the internet. You'd get your a$$ kicked in a heart beat by some of these people you're flaming if you ever met them in real life. I don't want to hear your life stories proving who you are or whom you've beaten up. I'm not interested.


You are the only one who appears to be taking some sort of authority, again projection. If I saw the article writer in real life I would have discussion about the merits of it. I would still question the writer's ability to research as well as coherence with the other games within the series. If that enrages the writer to engage in physical combat, then so be it. I would defend myself to the best of my ability, and if I failed I would probably goto a hospital. But barring that mind, if I lose a fight does that mean my points are still not valid? Does that make the article more coherent and correspond with reality? No it does not. I'm not a tough guy by any stretch of the means but I will stand up for what I believe in, if that means getting my *** kicked, so be it.

I don't believe I have revealed any personal information about myself in this discussion.

Quote:
There's a term for the way most of you behave, though. It's "nerd rage." It's dispicable. Grow up, get laid, stop beating your girlfriend or wife, grow some balls and be a real man, a calm self-controlled man.


Again some more projection. It is ok for you to experience nerd rage (as in insulting the members who posted against the article and its merits) but those who do not agree with you are "nerds" therefore not valid despite the logic, and if A is true than B leads to not having regular intercourse with opposite gendered individuals, having below averaged sized testicles and not being calm and self-controlled (ironically, which you clearly are what you chastise while posting this)

Quote:
Rob and tmeacham (why can't I remember your name right now?), keep up the good work, guys. I've almost always enjoyed reading your work; and when I haven't, don't worry because I've always refrained from damning you to the ninth circle of Hell for your "insulting mistakes."


Again another exaggeration, nobody said that these people are stupid or not worth anything, they just question the merits of what was written.


August 6, 2007 6:31:50 PM

Where to begin?

I d/led the beta and played this weekend.

As a longtime FPS player from the first days of Doom through Quake/UT with stints in COD & the BF series, I'd tried most variations. I played RtCW:ET extensively and many of the mods to it.

The original review is dead on. I am still anxious for the release which I assume will address many of the issues. I pre-ordered it months ago.

For those of you trying to 'defend' the game, you need to chill. It's a game review by someone the reviews games for a living. You may be a long term Quake fanboy, but most people aren't. If iD & Splash want to sell a lot, then need to know what the causal FPS player will think.

Here's a few facts:

Bunny hopping is lame.
Snipe whoring campers are lame.
Flopping is lame.

Your pathetic arguments about them being 'skillz' are silly. Most players hate that crap. The fact that you abuse the game mechanics is a huge sign that you rely on them rather than true FPS skills like tactics...

Two things bothered me about the beta:

Camping the hillsides: Snipers up in the hills where you can't go knife them is unbalanced. Snipers are a part of the game, but opponents need a way to deal with them other than artillery or air strikes. Strogg using Icarus units to fly to prime spots may be within the game mechanics, but there should be an effective counter besides going sniper yourself. Now you can begin your defense of snipe whoring...

Spray & pray: The actual feel of the close combat is fairly un-Quakelike and more like UT. The patterns are all over the place with random headshots every now and then. The close combat feel varies from FPS game to FPS game. The precision of the COD series is very different than the UT feel or the BF style. Quake is going to be Quakelike, but Quake Wars: ET doesn't feel much like the RtCW:ET. I think it should. Now you can begin your rant about how I shouldn't feel this way.

Lastly, to the super negative posters, there are a lot of decaf coffees on the market these days, why don't you give them a try. You might also remember that it's OK to like many types of shooters. Nobody cares how hardcore Quake you are...
August 8, 2007 2:18:50 PM

I've got beta2 on the weekend, railgun owns. It fires just like it did in alternate fire mod for quake 3, except no charge up. I play quake 3 at work everyday, a bunch of us do, sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. Quake Wars ain't the same, but it's still pretty fun. I especially like it since no one likes to drive tanks, I haven't gotten used to the air vehicles, is there countermeasures? I'll haft to check, because I've never seen anyone use em.
!