this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
92 points (93.4% liked)
Games
31990 readers
4 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"large scale 16 vs 16"
Are they kidding me? Their 20 and 25 year old predecessors could do 64 vs 64.
And where is vehicle combat?
Why call it even Tribes, if it only touches on the features of the previous installments?
Full disclosure, I played Tribes 2 when it was new, and I also have a close friend working on Tribes 3.
Tribes 3 is on a very different engine than 2 with totally different standards than games had then. Also, who even wants 64 players games? Maybe if we had the large maps of 2 with vehicles and stuff, but the game as it is now isn't focused on that. Maybe it'll get there eventually, but the current goal is not a Battlefield like game. It's a competitive CTF focused game.
64 player matches are great if you want to feel like you don't really matter, but fewer players are better for single person contributions. It's why CS is 5v5 and is so good. A single person actually matters. I agree chaos can be fun, and that my come in time. UE5 is pretty new though and it's all being worked on.
This is a pretty bad take and I feel like you must have not really played tribes very much. Comparing tribes to CS? Really? You think the popularity is because of the team sizes?
The fact that they are only implementing 16v16 seems like a warning flag to me. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up as a mediocre experience with a few tribes mechanics just largely trying to cash in on name recognition.
I wasn't comparing Tribes to CS. I was saying different sized teams have different reasons for existing. The larger the team the smaller a single person's contributions are.
They are only implementing 16v16 right now. The CEO of the company I think does care about the game. There's a reason they split from HiRez and he's spent a good amount of his fortune keeping things running. I do agree it's missing things, and they're still trying to figure out how to make Tribes again. I have some faith they'll eventually get there. The game feels good, even if it isn't what I want it to be right now.
Missing vehicle combat is one of the two points I listed, so "it doesn't need to be that big because there are no vehicles" is a bad reason.
I don't want to imply that the game called "Tribes 3" will be bad. I just think it should not be called "Tribes 3" when it is not an evolution of Tribes 2 but "only" a small subset with a different focus. "Epic scale" was one of the key elements of Tribes 1 and 2.
Yes but not at this kind of modern graphics level.
I'm assuming that is the reason but not sure.... Maybe it's just picking the easy route also.
Tribes (2) was pretty high end back then too. We shouldn't be taking steps back.
If your game relies on matchmaking, more players makes that problem way harder to solve. The best way to reduce queue times is to reduce players.
I would have thought that more users made it easier to find a match? Can you elaborate?