September 12, 2007

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars - Initial Impressions

The developers and fans of Enemy Territory: Quake Wars do not want the game to be compared to any of the Battlefield (1942, Vietnam, 2) games. Unfortunately, they built a team based multi-player shooter that has vehicles and unit classes, so comparisons are imminent. After all, Battlefield 1942 sort of defined team based multi-player shooters with vehicles and unit classes. It may not have been the first, but it was the most defining in my opinion.

Whether players believe ET:QW is anything like Battlefield or not, for me, there are enough comparisons to be made. Honestly, both games play the same. In Battlefield you are advancing from flag to flag. In ET:QW you simply advance from objective to objective. ET:QW has the benefit that objectives are a lot more interesting and can change on the fly. For example: the demo map has the GDF forces charging forward to build a bridge in order to advance on to securing the bridge, followed by advancing a mobile base.

Err well, I think those are the objectives. Battlefield's flag capture system may be static, but at least it is understandable to pretty much everyone. The objectives in ET:QW tend to be confusing at first and confusing in the end. Players can hit the "m" key to select a new mission (objective), but often times missions disapear as the objectives are met. As a new player, I spent most of my time confused on what I should be doing. There is little guidance to indicate what objectives need to be done or in what order they should be done to maximize effect. I guess it is up to the players to figure out?

Part II has been posted here.
Part III has been posted here.

4 comments:

Scott said...

"As a new player, I spent most of my time confused on what I should be doing. There is little guidance to indicate what objectives need to be done or in what order they should be done to maximize effect. I guess it is up to the players to figure out?"

Transposing that sentiment to our favorite MMORPG genre, perhaps that is a perfect validation to my opinion/rant/belief that a 100% sandboxed gaming environment can be a Bad Thing. As much as we whine and cry about being hand-held and led by the nose through a game, the moment we're turned loose and told to sink or swim, we miss the security of holding Mommy's hand.

heartlessgamer said...

Exactly, a sandboxes main selling point becomes its biggest barrier to entry.

Sandboxes can exist, but we all need rails to get to them.

Cow Nose the 50 Pound Cat said...

Hmmm, interesting. I look forward to reading part 2! OFC I must disagree with the idea that ALL sandbox mmos need rails. That might help to make the game more enjoyable but I think that part-sandbox part-rails has its own set of problems compared to pure sandbox or pure rails.

Take EVE's missions for example. I know most people think of EVE as pure sandbox but with its missions that is not entirely true. But again, mots people don't even think about the missions because they... well they suck! They feel stale and repetitive and i highly doubt anyone feels "in-character" when they are running missions. They are more of a chore then any sort of story.

heartlessgamer said...

Cat Nose... most of EVE feels like a chore. All in the vain hope you will get the chance to shine in a PvP conflict or grand scheme.

It...


Never...


Pans...


Out.


Ever.