New look at no respawn

[shaynehb]

I think people are forgetting about the down but not out feature, it's not like Halo or GRAW where when you are shot, you're done, people have a chance to revive you, so it's not going to be that common that you actually go out, now if the other team has your squad mates pinned and they can't get to you, well, that's your fault for going away from your team, it adds so much more realism to the game. Because if you know that you get one life, and one chance, you are going to be extremely careful in every move you make, which is going to add so much more immersion to the game. I would say Epic decided first that they weren't going to have respwan, they play tested and figured out that they have to have a "second chance" feature so people wouldn't get bored of dying all the time, it's all going to balance out and make for the best "true" FPS out there, so for those of you who are worried about "no respawn" and the gametypes that support it, if you think about it, ALL gametypes would support it, you just have to be more tactical in the way that you progress your team or yourself to the goal. I know it's been done in PDZ, but those maps were so vast and linear that it didn't force you to stay with your team, GoW's maps are going to be close and have a forward progression to them so that you can use the cover points to your advantage, PDZ didn't have hardly any cover to it, that's why you mostly were killed and it didn't force you to stick together with your team. The essential team aspect is going to bulid bonds with players and enable us to really rely on the other which will seem like a "band of brothers/sisters" as quoted by CliffyB but in a virtual sense. This will encourage more engaging matches and enable players that are playing for the first time with someone else to really get to know the other person's tactics and I think it will result in a more richer, deeper, gameplay experience even if it's only for that match. This game is not only graphically a masterpiece, but it has that sense of realism that has been missing all these years from the FPS genre. GoW will offer us a way to connect to the other player in a way we were never given the opportunity to before. Next gen is upon us, and with that we need to accept and be open to the new opportunities of realism that this tech brings. Cheers to Gears and all the influences and inspirations it carries to others. It's time to usher in a new realm of gameplay, are you ready!?!

[VaporXX91]

I still want the option to make lives: 1,2,3,4,5...99, unlimited.

I want time limit options on the rounds.

I want round limit options as well.

[cakemonkey]

that will only work if you have a buddy near by, you should get the choice of responding, 2 min, multiplayer matchs?

[chrisbluedevil]

i think that this is a great innovation and should change the scope of multiplayer forever. . .

[Madfish]

I'm fine with no spawns by default, but as Vapor says choice would be nice. I understand the design need not to "break" the game mechanics by offering ALL settings (like infinite respawn, no timer) - but capped options would be nice (like lowest respawn of 1 minute or summit - or a respawn queue like day of defeat operated).

(er... for those who missed that, when you died you waited until X other of your side were dead and you all respawned together back at the base. It was trying to emulate a squad / wave mentality).

[M005E]

i have a question, can u go into DBNO, get revived, get shot and go back into DBNO, and get revived again, and again, and again???

[cakemonkey]

cliffy says that if you die in real life, u dont respond, unless your fakin it or something, or playing laser tag

[cakemonkey]

Ive got it, gears of war lazer tag, it will make billions, no zillions

[Ein Stein]

"i think that this is a great innovation and should change the scope of multiplayer forever. . ."

What is?

[Raidea]

No respawn is all well and good. But what multiplayer gamers really want are a wide variety of choices, so they can play the game how they like.

As in Halo, for example.

[Tenspeed]

cliffy says that if you die in real life, u dont respond, unless your fakin it or something, or playing laser tag
So then explain how your teammates can magically resurrect you? Well I know that use use a 'stimshot' but still, oh yeah and also how do you regenerate health overtime, unless you have super powers, and one more thing the characters in gears get shot 50 times before they die, is that realistic (maybe for locusts but not humans).

[Urbani666]

So then explain how your teammates can magically resurrect you? Well I know that use use a 'stimshot' but still, oh yeah and also how do you regenerate health overtime, unless you have super powers, and one more thing the characters in gears get shot 50 times before they die, is that realistic (maybe for locusts but not humans).
Who really cares , this game is going to be realistic enough to the point where it seems aas though your actually in the game, if they made it so realistic to the point where you get shot like twice or even once in the right spot and die , this game would suck and probably be covered in dust underneath the entertainment unit.:eek: It's the gameplay itself , the online expereince where you atually have to be some sort of Doctor and revive your team-mate or take cover So you dont get SHOT, its going to be way more realistic then any other game made besides the fact that there are females that look more like males then the actual males.W/E I may have contradicted myself a couple of times and this may have been hard to read but ... its hard to explain my thoughts as I am a very special(Not retarded) person,who looks at things in different perspectives to make the best of certain things.:confused:

[cakemonkey]

So then explain how your teammates can magically resurrect you? Well I know that use use a 'stimshot' but still, oh yeah and also how do you regenerate health overtime, unless you have super powers, and one more thing the characters in gears get shot 50 times before they die, is that realistic (maybe for locusts but not humans).
Yes, my guy will have magical powers, I have health packs and fairys in a bottle that will keep me alive, plus, I drank for the magical fountain of sera so I have info health, and I will mix the herbs to make capes like RE4, I win!

[The Evil Hat]

i have a question, can u go into DBNO, get revived, get shot and go back into DBNO, and get revived again, and again, and again???
yes you can

multiplayer looks great and i am not bothered by the no respawns thing.

[Quicksilver]

Trust me you really don't need respawns, haven't you guys ever played counter strike?

I mean I wouldn't mind both 'respawns' and 'no respawns' gamestypes I'd probably play them both, but I can live without respawns.


No respawn is all well and good. But what multiplayer gamers really want are a wide variety of choices, so they can play the game how they like.

As in Halo, for example.

This brings up a good point. A lot of people think gears will be a halo killer, but there's no way that would happen if gears doesn't have a variety of multiplayer options. Co-op is awesome but you can only play a campaign so many times.

[Skiddywinks]

Well, in the hype department, Gears has killed Halo imo. And defecated on the corpse. I am looking to this game far more than I was Halo 2.

As for sales, I think Halo 2 will win (at least in the short term) seeing as it was a sequel.

And I concur; the more options the better. The problem with Halo 2 was that you couldn't join a game with the Map, number of players, settings etc you wanted unless you went for custom, and even then you have to get people off your friends list to join.

As for Counter-Strike. I Love it. Go out and get your face AWPed, and it's your own damn fault. Play as a team, and use tactics to kick the other team's ass... just awesome...

[joeGraf]

i have a question, can u go into DBNO, get revived, get shot and go back into DBNO, and get revived again, and again, and again???

Yes. It's unlikely that you'll do that for very long though. A smart player shoots the one and lures the other to come revive. 2 for the price of one.

[elite94]

oooo, nice idea. thanks joegraf! lol

[Skiddywinks]

Awesome. Tips from the best :D

[Dr Digital]

i saw a screen cap where someone's head was completely blown to jello, how will you revive me if i'm headless?:confused:

[Raidea]

i saw a screen cap where someone's head was completely blown to jello, how will you revive me if i'm headless?:confused:

You don't.

[lockload]

that will only work if you have a buddy near by, you should get the choice of responding, 2 min, multiplayer matchs?

guess what the whol epoint is to work as a team.... the people who do will own

[Britainz-Finest]

I think that was epic has done is brilliant... But like someone said earlier... idd hope that you could put a time limit on the round... like as little as 2 minutes. IMO this way you would still have to work as a team, but youd have to work fast, (no camping) and be as tactical and dangerous as you can in as little as 2 minutes... I was going to say that maybe the only way to win would be to wipe out the whole other team, and if somone is still alive at the end of the 2 minutes or something, then its a draw, but then i got the thought that the last person alive would just sit in a corner untill time is up.. so i think id like it to be abit like GRAW, where the team with the most kills at the end of the time limit wins... But i definately think that a 2 minute round system would be good.. I think it would make a change to the normal gaming but also it would create a whole new face paced tactial assualt game where if the other team is working as a team , you cant run and gun... What do you think

[Marauder]

What makes it not run and gun is the no respawn. The use of cover helps the tactical or teamwork aspects of the game, but it really the no respawn that really the deciding factor. Also, the slowness of using grenades is probably a big fact as well, if you could just throw a nade real quick and back it up with some quick fire, it would be more run and gun. However, you can see how long it takes to throw a nade, very much like RB6, you throw a nade you need your team covering you.



I think that was epic has done is brilliant... But like someone said earlier... idd hope that you could put a time limit on the round... like as little as 2 minutes. IMO this way you would still have to work as a team, but youd have to work fast, (no camping) and be as tactical and dangerous as you can in as little as 2 minutes... I was going to say that maybe the only way to win would be to wipe out the whole other team, and if somone is still alive at the end of the 2 minutes or something, then its a draw, but then i got the thought that the last person alive would just sit in a corner untill time is up.. so i think id like it to be abit like GRAW, where the team with the most kills at the end of the time limit wins... But i definately think that a 2 minute round system would be good.. I think it would make a change to the normal gaming but also it would create a whole new face paced tactial assualt game where if the other team is working as a team , you cant run and gun... What do you think

[DeadPool]

yea, this is stop'n'pop, not run n gun. the whole luring sum1 out w/ a wounded teammate is a cool plan that joeGRAF mentioned earlier, thnx man

[Britainz-Finest]

yes ok , what do you think about the 2 min rounds , could be fun... for those a little less patient :p

[Stewby123]

well, as the man said, there will not be an extra lives setting, you wont die unless they come when your down and kill you, but you will be able to get back up if someone comes and helps you.

[D3LTA 38]

I think I will be able to get used to it because it will add so mjuch more realisim to the game.

[Arm4lite]

i think its cool that gears might have no respawns, as imo all respawns create are spawn campers *cough GRAW cough* which just pisses ppl off , also when u look @ others games like counter strike which is probaly the most played online FPS ( well @least till gears comes out :D ) and is played by 100's of thousands world wide , and seeming as GOW has been discribed as a more tactical version of cs , spawns just woudn't work with the gameplay

[The Evil Hat]

i think its cool that gears might have no respawns, as imo all respawns create are spawn campers *cough GRAW cough* which just pisses ppl off , also when u look @ others games like counter strike which is probaly the most played online FPS ( well @least till gears comes out :D ) and is played by 100's of thousands world wide , and seeming as GOW has been discribed as a more tactical version of cs , spawns just woudn't work with the gameplay
yeah i hate it in multiplayer game swhen you spawn and there is a guy with a shotgun a foot away who shoots you. then it happens again, and again...

[ShredPrince]

It's a sqaud based game guys: think about that.

[Trojanweed]

this is my first post, been here for the past few days but made an account for this topic.

with that said....
so far the best shooters i have played was the socom series. it was very relistic and you had to use cover to some extent but definatly camo was huge in that game. Everyting i've read so far about the way matchmaking will be looked at and even game play makes me think of socom but with a revamped cover system, and the ability to revive.

socom 1 was a game way before its time, and there have been very few like it. socom 1 didnt have respawn and the game required some skill to play, respawn games for me are not strategic games, as anyone can fluke out and respawn behind me to get a kill, or die 10 times to get one kill, without respawn these crap run and gunners will die alot and have to actually learn to play as a team and learn to live and not just kill people.

respawn games have always pissed me off, i can be the best player in the world but with respawn some crapy guy can get an easy kill by jumping into the middle of a gun battle where im at no health yet ive killed him twice in the gun battle all ready... then he talks **** about how he owned me give me a break..

no respawn = skill to play respawn = run till you get a kill...

i definatly perfer no respawn..

[shard765]

this is my first post, been here for the past few days but made an account for this topic.

with that said....
so far the best shooters i have played was the socom series. it was very relistic and you had to use cover to some extent but definatly camo was huge in that game. Everyting i've read so far about the way matchmaking will be looked at and even game play makes me think of socom but with a revamped cover system, and the ability to revive.

socom 1 was a game way before its time, and there have been very few like it. socom 1 didnt have respawn and the game required some skill to play, respawn games for me are not strategic games, as anyone can fluke out and respawn behind me to get a kill, or die 10 times to get one kill, without respawn these crap run and gunners will die alot and have to actually learn to play as a team and learn to live and not just kill people.

respawn games have always pissed me off, i can be the best player in the world but with respawn some crapy guy can get an easy kill by jumping into the middle of a gun battle where im at no health yet ive killed him twice in the gun battle all ready... then he talks **** about how he owned me give me a break..

no respawn = skill to play respawn = run till you get a kill...

i definatly perfer no respawn..

I'm not against respawns, matter fact there will be times that people will just wanna mess around and not have to worry about dying. Ciffy B even said this. But I agree about the skill thing. I just played a game of GRAW with my friends and even though I had 22 kills and 4 deaths, I catch crap from my friend who gets 25 kills but dies 20 times. I'm tired of the over emphasis on kills and not overall play. This had always been a problem with multiplayer games. I'm excited the ranking system is not just kill based. Finally you get rewarded if you help a fallen team member, etc.

[Trojanweed]

i do believe respawn has its place, for people who have never played this type of game to get some practice in before they hit the real deal. as well when i have a friend over i let them run around in respawn for a while. it also fun to go into a diferent type of game from time to time for a change of pace. I'm just glad this game has in its base no respawn for great clan matches and good rivalries will occour with this type of game style.

im so hyped to play this game, saints row was sooooo disapointing and its been a long time coming for a great tactical multiplayer shooter.

doom has been more impressive then saints for me atleast... and im glad they gave us doom to mess around with for the time being...

[Cypher73]

I'm new to posting in this forum, but it seems like alot has already been said about the "no respawn" issue. This obviously shows a widely spread group of playing styles which whoever posted their statements preferred that form of gaming. But this is Gears of war, a game created by a designer who wanted to change the way most team-based shooters play. They're influencing players to the mentality of relying on teammates rather than just individual skills and kill counts. It's true that most people would like to have a variety of choices in their games. But we all know what will happen when players have the option to choose respawn on their game mode. which in the end, defeats the purpose and goal of the designer. This is a similar issue to games like the multiplayer mode of Splinter Cell Chaos Theory. Many players wanted to have at least 16 player game modes for Spy vs. Mercs. Well guess what, the game developers actually started off with alot of players on the game when it was being play tested, somewhere between 16-24 players I believe. They wanted to see what would happen to their concept when that many players played it. What they found out was basically a totally chaotic gameplay from what was supposed to be a stealth action game. So slowly they brought the number of players down until they were satisfied with the results. Which basically ended up into a 2 vs 2 game for multiplayer, 2 spies and 2 mercs. Do you think choices should've been given to this game to allow upto 24 players? Maybe. But then take a moment and sit in the designer's shoes and ask yourself what would you do if this was your game and you created it. Would you listen to those people who want to have what they want? Totally changing your design and concept. Or, would you ignore them, but not totally, and try to create a new gameplay innovation that could change the mindset of many players later on. This is what Gears of War is about. New gameplay. But not entirely. Yes it's trying to be a little realistic, but not throwing out the fun factor at the same time for the sake of realism. Hence, the reason why the characters can take soo many hits, and the revival system. This will change the mentality of those who just go for the kills all the time and pretty much ignore their squadmates. If you leave them alone, they'll leave you alone when you're down. Lol. I always appreciate new innovation in games that take players in a differen't direction without losing touch on the fun factor. Take it as it is because it is the designer's creation. Look how squad games are developing more and more into a common standard. Imo, I can't wait to play this game. Hope to see yo guys on the battlefield.

[Red-Eye]

I'm new to posting in this forum, but it seems like alot has already been said about the "no respawn" issue. This obviously shows a widely spread group of playing styles which whoever posted their statements preferred that form of gaming. But this is Gears of war, a game created by a designer who wanted to change the way most team-based shooters play. They're influencing players to the mentality of relying on teammates rather than just individual skills and kill counts. It's true that most people would like to have a variety of choices in their games. But we all know what will happen when players have the option to choose respawn on their game mode. which in the end, defeats the purpose and goal of the designer. This is a similar issue to games like the multiplayer mode of Splinter Cell Chaos Theory. Many players wanted to have at least 16 player game modes for Spy vs. Mercs. Well guess what, the game developers actually started off with alot of players on the game when it was being play tested, somewhere between 16-24 players I believe. They wanted to see what would happen to their concept when that many players played it. What they found out was basically a totally chaotic gameplay from what was supposed to be a stealth action game. So slowly they brought the number of players down until they were satisfied with the results. Which basically ended up into a 2 vs 2 game for multiplayer, 2 spies and 2 mercs. Do you think choices should've been given to this game to allow upto 24 players? Maybe. But then take a moment and sit in the designer's shoes and ask yourself what would you do if this was your game and you created it. Would you listen to those people who want to have what they want? Totally changing your design and concept. Or, would you ignore them, but not totally, and try to create a new gameplay innovation that could change the mindset of many players later on. This is what Gears of War is about. New gameplay. But not entirely. Yes it's trying to be a little realistic, but not throwing out the fun factor at the same time for the sake of realism. Hence, the reason why the characters can take soo many hits, and the revival system. This will change the mentality of those who just go for the kills all the time and pretty much ignore their squadmates. If you leave them alone, they'll leave you alone when you're down. Lol. I always appreciate new innovation in games that take players in a differen't direction without losing touch on the fun factor. Take it as it is because it is the designer's creation. Look how squad games are developing more and more into a common standard. Imo, I can't wait to play this game. Hope to see yo guys on the battlefield.

totally agree w/ what you said.
the game has a realist feel to it w/ the squad base movement.. seems like squads will have to move like one and think like one like in rl. and the sense of no respawn will get rid of most run-and-gunners, but also since a player can get shot multiple times and live, people wont just sit there and camp a corner and furthermore with being shot multiple times i think that instead of everyone just meeting up in the middle and fighting right infront of eachother. They will have to flank to beable to get off enough shots to kill that other person so flanking is going to have a huge part to the game

yea, really what they need to do is release a video of multiplayer so our questions be answered

[XxinfurnoxX]

yeh they do i want to see how many shots it takes to kill some one and how many it takes to put someone down but not out. Also want to see the curb stomp!!!

[Chilled Chaos]

I agree with everyone but isnt this game a thirs person shooter not a FPS???