[T:V]it's not T1 or T2, it's a totally new game!

I'm not buying this line.

If it's a "totally new game" why call it tribes? Just to sucker us for money?


Did halflife drasticly change it's physics between one and two? Did Max Payne? Did tomb raider? yes on tomb raider for it's latest incarnation, but that's why I can now buy it used for 10 bucks.

Why do the devs of the tribes games feel it's so important to change the physics for every sequel? Learn from dave. Give us the T1 that kept a loyal following for 6+ years.

compare Mario to Super Mario 3 to Mario 64 to Mario Sunshine

all very different games...yet...the same.

Because its a totally new tribes game, just cause its totally new doesnt mean its not tribes..it still has all the key elements of a tribes game just they have been made from the ground up, which is new :p

if you dont like it;
http://www.fileplanet.com/files/140000/140246.shtml

compare Mario to Super Mario 3 to Mario 64 to Mario Sunshine

all very different games...yet...the same.



on 3 different systems.



mario is a different case, it's like mickey mouse for the nintendo company.

Yet they are all still mario games.

25. Starsiege TRIBES
214 servers, 258 players

Thrax would be fired if he made a game just for the 500 or so T1 players that are left.

Thrax would be fired if he made a game just for the 500 or so T1 players that are left.


500 or so 6 fudgeing years after it releases.

Quiet Shred.

yes, those mario games are on different systems.

Gaming on PCs is basically a new system every 2 years. It's been 6 years, so think of it likes this.

Tribes 1 = Super Mario Bros 3

Tribes 2 = Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's stupid idiotic quest (then just regular Mario World after it was fixed)

Tribes Vengeance = Super Mario 64.

It's the same game, only completely new with a bunch of innovative changes for a younger generation :)

on 3 different systems.

so you're still playing on a V3? I think your system is quite a bit different too.

Haven't had time to catch up completely on everything T:V-related, but wasn't the version you played pre-alpha? I'd expect that some things, like physics, wouldn't be tweaked yet. I imagine those are pretty small changes, and as such are close to last in their list of things to do to get ready for beta, or even alpha.

I can understand the concern about radical changes in the game, such as the grappling hook, the sensor change, etc., but something like physics of some things (I'm guessing from your review you're talking about the jetting acceleration and the disc speed stuff?) should be relatively easy to iron out and find a good balance with. I imagine they'll get some of this done during alpha, and the rest done during beta.

Steps to Musashi's Tribes Happiness..

1. Go buy the Tourque engine for $100
2. Make T1 with pretty graphics
3. Live in sweet bliss.

It tooks months of Tribes 1 to produce the joy of Tribes everyone so dearly loves. Give T:V some time and tuning to become the game it can. Patience.

In the games you mention the physics play less of a role. You're not jetting around everywhere. In Tribes games they've used a new engine every time. There is no constant between the games to say "Ok lets set this variable exactly the same as the last game."

If you want T1, go play T1.
If you want something new and interesting, wait for T:V.

It's a simple concept: don't ask for the new game to be just like the old because you can already play the old one for free instead of waiting for something to spend 50 bucks on. That 50 bucks has to be well-earned by the devs and, so far, they're earning it.

I don't like the "It's not T1 or T2, it's a totally a new game" line for a couple reasons.

1) it's dismissive of criticisms. if i criticize the physics, you can tell me it's a new game; if i criticize the lack of a mine-disk, you can tell me it's a new game; if i criticize the functionality of the packs or deployables, you can tell me it's a new game - all instead of responding coherently to the criticism with your reasoning for creating the game that way.

2) it's not accurate. it's the 3rd installment in a line of games, not a completely new game. obviously some features are going to be carried over from previous games and some will be new. thus, we have expectations for it. we *expect* certain things to be a certain way. that's not to say that the new features/physics/whatever are bad and we won't like them, but it doesn't make sense to completely throw out our expectations since it isn't an entirely new game.

3) i've heard it before. dave g threw this out every 5 minutes in interviews to dodge criticism. it's depressing to hear it from thrax and the irrational guys.


i just want to hear solid reasons for things being the way they are in T:V. no mine-disk --> why not? allegedly floaty physics --> why not more gravity? souped up mediums but scrawny lights --> why did this change?

"it's a new game" doesn't cut it with me for a valid answer. obviously you're not accountable to me, but it'd be nice to hear that you at least consider criticisms or are concerned with people understanding the vision you have for the game.

I don't like the "It's not T1 or T2, it's a totally a new game" line for a couple reasons.

1) it's dismissive of criticisms. if i criticize the physics, you can tell me it's a new game; if i criticize the lack of a mine-disk, you can tell me it's a new game; if i criticize the functionality of the packs or deployables, you can tell me it's a new game - all instead of responding coherently to the criticism with your reasoning for creating the game that way.

2) it's not accurate. it's the 3rd installment in a line of games, not a completely new game. obviously some features are going to be carried over from previous games and some will be new. thus, we have expectations for it. we *expect* certain things to be a certain way. that's not to say that the new features/physics/whatever are bad and we won't like them, but it doesn't make sense to completely throw out our expectations since it isn't an entirely new game.

3) i've heard it before. dave g threw this out every 5 minutes in interviews to dodge criticism. it's depressing to hear it from thrax and the irrational guys.


i just want to hear solid reasons for things being the way they are in T:V. no mine-disk --> why not? allegedly floaty physics --> why not more gravity? souped up mediums but scrawny lights --> why did this change?

"it's a new game" doesn't cut it with me for a valid answer. obviously you're not accountable to me, but it'd be nice to hear that you at least consider criticisms or are concerned with people understanding the vision you have for the game.


very well said.

* Minedisc wouldn't make much sense to a new player, when you pick up Bf42 you don't try to throw mines at the enemy and then shoot it midair with your no.4. Instead of minedisc there is the Buckler.

* Floaty physics - dunno, hard to comment before I can try it out myself. It's not like KP, Thrax etc are saying there is no way they are changing the physics, they are open to change it would seem.

Inspite of these 2 details I would agree that yes, it's kind of a marketing scheme... NEW GAME. ;)

if you keep up with the dev tracker, most of those questions have been addressed.

and always remember, it's not called Tribes 3 for a reason.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not waving the "T:V IS GONNA BE THE BESTEST GAME EVAR" flag, because I simply haven't played the game. I'm just witholding judgement until I get my hands on the beta. I like a lot of what I hear is in the game...and other aspects 'scare' me.....but I'm open to anything, as long as it ends up being a great game.

I'm not buying this line.Then leave. It is a new game, it is not T1 or T2, and if that concept is beyond you then I apologize, but it doesn't change facts. New Engine + New weapons + New packs + New deployables + New vehicles + New (better) physics = New Game. Trying to make that all equal the same old thing would not just be impossible, it would be stupid and pointless. :shrug:

The fact that you were unable to ski for shazbot in your 15 minutes of playing the game is not an indictment of the game, only your ability to adapt to anything new.

I don't like the "It's not T1 or T2, it's a totally a new game" line for a couple reasons.

1) it's dismissive of criticisms. if i criticize the physics, you can tell me it's a new game; if i criticize the lack of a mine-disk, you can tell me it's a new game; if i criticize the functionality of the packs or deployables, you can tell me it's a new game - all instead of responding coherently to the criticism with your reasoning for creating the game that way.

Very well said, especially as "It's a new game" without a reason for why those changes were made to be like this in this "new game" aren't given. A game can be a new game and still have reasons for why decisions were reached.


2) it's not accurate. it's the 3rd installment in a line of games, not a completely new game. obviously some features are going to be carried over from previous games and some will be new. thus, we have expectations for it. we *expect* certain things to be a certain way. that's not to say that the new features/physics/whatever are bad and we won't like them, but it doesn't make sense to completely throw out our expectations since it isn't an entirely new game.

The physics and everything are new. Or at least different. All the "important" features of what made Tribes, Tribes seem to be there. Jet packs? check. Skiing? check. Outdoor and Indoor environments on the same map? check (though this is standard in FPS games of late it seems). Staple weapons from the series? check. We have features carried over, the important features at that. Now the trick to making a successful sequel (sequels are still new games) is to improve upon what people loved about the original, and add new things as well to help draw in more people. It seems Irrational is doing this.


3) i've heard it before. dave g threw this out every 5 minutes in interviews to dodge criticism. it's depressing to hear it from thrax and the irrational guys.


i just want to hear solid reasons for things being the way they are in T:V. no mine-disk --> why not? allegedly floaty physics --> why not more gravity? souped up mediums but scrawny lights --> why did this change?

"it's a new game" doesn't cut it with me for a valid answer. obviously you're not accountable to me, but it'd be nice to hear that you at least consider criticisms or are concerned with people understanding the vision you have for the game.

No mine disk -> They've reworked how the mine works. Also in an attempt to make everything from the games(previous and T:V) they've tinkered around with the armors. Lights are now incredibly light, and mediums are like the old lights. Now think about it, do you really want a tactic in the game that one-shot kills 2/3 of the armor? Especially when it can be done so fast that you really have no chance to defend against it?

From what I've read, it seems like mine-disking is in essence still in the game. Just where as before it was almost a twitch/script reaction where you throw a mine than shoot it in mid-air to get the kill, now you'll have to deploy the mine and shoot it when your opponent gets close. More like a trap (which is what mines are, traps).

As for Floaty Physics, I believe experimental or KP said that they've tweaked the gravity and it's now a lot better. I don't remember, but I think they said it was actually tweaked before E3, only they had shipped an earlier build for E3.

Armor changes: Why do we have a super-light light and a souped up medium? Because in Tribes 1 and 2 while there are 3 armor choices, there really is only 2 when you look at usefulness in your standard game play (CTF). yes Medium is great for deploying, but that was about it. How do you make the medium more useful? Make it signifgantly faster than the heavy, and signifgantly more hardy than a light. Which they did, only now what is the point in the light armor? The medium is almost as fast as it, and with a lot more health to make the light almost the defunct armor. So they went and they made the light incredibly fast, and balanced out the fact that a light can pretty much out run, out fly, and out maneuver anything by making it have less health.

They seem to have gone with an almost similar idea to this:
Light Armor - Scout, harasser, not really meant for combat but able to defend itself.

Medium Armor - fighter, able to move about quickly, take punishment and dish it back out.

Heavy Armor - cavalry. Shows up and makes things go boom. Not very maneuverable but tons of armor to make up for it.

Almost everything I've just said here has been said in countless other threads.