Future respawn plans?

[MrGood]

Hi, Just to let you know, The single player of this game is great.
The Multiplayer however lets my particular tastes down abit.

I was wondering if there are any plans for a respawn option or something? I was disappointed that a standard deathmatch mode wasn't included. Since ive completely finished the single-player ive rarely touched the game so if there is something planned I will keep hold of it.

[Tagmaster]

You never know...but probably not
Respawns would open a window,door or whatever to new Gametypes
But probably not

[Private MERC7]

I love the fact that there is no respawn, keeps spawn killers out of the game and it focus' more on tactics and team work

[TBS rocker]

the game is very team based. with spawns it might ruin that. you wouldn't have to worry about reviving a teamate because they would simply respawn in a few seconds. it might be okay, but i am glad with what they have now.

[Dcay]

It would be great. DM! You would have to fight your way to the power weapons all game. CRAZYYyy!

[MrGood]

I know what you mean, however if they added it. We would have the option to choose between counter strike style gameplay or simple team deathmatch. I would go for the tdm all the time. Those of you who like the no resspawns get your way and we are all happy little gamers:) . At the minute I am :( .

[gloomlord]

Adding respawns would serve to remove one of the few things that actually set this game apart from the masses (and make it far more desirable for many gamers). I truly hope this doesn't happen.

[Cyborgmatt]

A pure team deathmatch mode with respawns for player matches would be great.

[MrGood]

C'mon dev's just add a respawn option! - PLEASEEE!!

[Just Cause]

I wouldn't mind playing Gears with respawns once in a while. It isn't high on my list of wants because it could end up like GRAW with spawn camping etc.

It could be fun once in a while but the gameplay as it is is damn near perfect so I am quite happy.

[AZRoboto]

I want respawns and more gametypes, because this game, in its current state, is really boring.

It is fun to play, but then you die and wait and wait and wait. It's really dumb that they didn't include an option for respawns.

The developers are being really selfish with their game. They are holding back on something that would make the game more fun to the vast majority of gamers because they don't want to see it become like other games. Not only would I play the game more, but my friends would too. And having people playing your game means a lot more than having it sell and sit on the shelf.

[AZRoboto]

Adding respawns would serve to remove one of the few things that actually set this game apart from the masses (and make it far more desirable for many gamers). I truly hope this doesn't happen.

The game is fun enough and has good enough graphics to set it apart from most other games. When I tell my friends about GoW, I tell them about how good it looks and how much I enjoy playing it....and then I tell them how bad the multiplayer is and how I can't play ranking with anyone I know (because they know that Halo 2 has that feature).

[gloomlord]

The game is fun enough and has good enough graphics to set it apart from most other games. When I tell my friends about GoW, I tell them about how good it looks and how much I enjoy playing it....and then I tell them how bad the multiplayer is and how I can't play ranking with anyone I know (because they know that Halo 2 has that feature).

Not to mention the fact that they specifically stated up front long before the release that they did not want a game with respawns. It's not as if they tried to pull a fast one on you, we've known for a very, very long time that this was going to be the case and there is a huge population of gamers (myself included) who prefer it this way.

If you are interested in an arcade style game with respawns then Gears is not the game for you. That's all there is to it.

[Cobalt]

Respawn games would be fine for pick up and play. Heres an idea. Time the respawn. If four guys get taken down at once, they respawn ten seconds later or so and can go back to working as a team.

You're worried about spawn camping, but what's the difference between that and rushing the sniper rifle at the start of every Warzone round at Gridlock? I was in a game where that was the course of action for -both- teams a solid 80 percent of the time.

Respawn was what made Halo 2 a decent multiplayer game, until the people who took it way too seriously ruined the fun. I don't want that to happen here. Making respawn an OPTION for players will let everyone get what they want without falling to one set of demands.

[Triba]

The question is, how far can Epic stray from the original essence of GoW. Deathmatch gameplay might be fun in GoW but it's available, as the OP said, in nearly every other game. Hundreds of different gametypes would also spread the GoW gaming community thin or make one gametype popular and all the others redundant.

[FOXX]

Hi, Just to let you know, The single player of this game is great.
The Multiplayer however lets my particular tastes down abit.

I was wondering if there are any plans for a respawn option or something? I was disappointed that a standard deathmatch mode wasn't included. Since ive completely finished the single-player ive rarely touched the game so if there is something planned I will keep hold of it.

Cliff stated himself that there would be no or at the VERY maximum extremely long respawns. After all, who cares about bothering to stay alive if you can just repeatedly charge at an opponent? Sure, I would, you might, but most people won't. It'd destroy the very concept of the game and remove tension.


It'd basically turn into a brawl with no consequences for dying. Nobody likes to die now because you have to wait it out...hence the incentive to live. It's a Good Thing.

[FOXX]

I want respawns and more gametypes, because this game, in its current state, is really boring.

It is fun to play, but then you die and wait and wait and wait. It's really dumb that they didn't include an option for respawns.
It's only "dumb" if you don't try to survive. Focus first on living longer, that means running like hell when you don't think you can win a battle, helping your teammates stay alive, and using cover.

After you figure out how to stay alive an entire match THEN you can focus on denying that right to the other team.


What gets me is that people managed to figure this out easily with Counter-Strike YEARS ago but present the same concept in a game now and it's completely lost on most people. How does that work? I have no idea.


The developers are being really selfish with their game. They are holding back on something that would make the game more fun to the vast majority of gamers because they don't want to see it become like other games. Not only would I play the game more, but my friends would too. And having people playing your game means a lot more than having it sell and sit on the shelf.

Vast majority? What vast majority would that be? The vast majority that plays it more than Halo 2, the only title to trump it (not even R6: Vegas, nice as it is, can claim that one)? Last time I checked that'd be a HUGE amount of people who like having to stay alive.


Counter-Strike, a game with a highly similar style of combat, is still one of the most played games online (next to WoW obviously). That's even millions more that like staying alive instead of playing Deathmatch with either HL or HL2.




Before claiming that "everyone" or even "a significant amount" of people want to drop survivability as a game mechanic you've got to get some evidence to present. Heck, the MP on Quake 4 (Xbox 360 version for this discussion) is smooth (shame the SP isn't), brutal, streamlined, features respawns, looks good and...nobody plays it. Says something about survivability versus respawning.

[Cobalt]

After you figure out how to stay alive an entire match THEN you can focus on denying that right to the other team.

What if I just wanna hop in and hop out of a game for a few minutes?



What gets me is that people managed to figure this out easily with Counter-Strike YEARS ago but present the same concept in a game now and it's completely lost on most people. How does that work? I have no idea.

Well, for me, CS was ruined by the playerbase who take it much too seriously.



Vast majority? What vast majority would that be? The vast majority that plays it more than Halo 2, the only title to trump it (not even R6: Vegas, nice as it is, can claim that one)? Last time I checked that'd be a HUGE amount of people who like having to stay alive.

Again, you could make it an -option.-



Counter-Strike, a game with a highly similar style of combat, is still one of the most played games online (next to WoW obviously). That's even millions more that like staying alive instead of playing Deathmatch with either HL or HL2.

Yet, those games still have their respective fanbases. It isn't like they're completely dead.




Before claiming that "everyone" or even "a significant amount" of people want to drop survivability as a game mechanic you've got to get some evidence to present. Heck, the MP on Quake 4 (Xbox 360 version for this discussion) is smooth (shame the SP isn't), brutal, streamlined, features respawns, looks good and...nobody plays it. Says something about survivability versus respawning.
Nobody in the thread directly said they should fully lose the current gameplay. The rest of us just want a quick and dirty good time.



If you want a feasible way to even add it to ranked matches, make a points based match.

Kills earn your team 50 points, a revive could earn 30, but suppose you don't help your teammate out while he's down, team loses 15 points. There might be a way to prevent spawn camping by marking off the areas where people spawn, and if they die in there, their team gains the points rather than lose them. I don't know if that could work, but I'm just throwing ideas out there. There's a way to make everyone happy, but some people just seem paranoid about it.

[FOXX]

What if I just wanna hop in and hop out of a game for a few minutes?
Then this is not the game for you. It's like wanting to hop in and out of a game of Civilization. If you're spending a short amount of time playing you're defeating the purpose of the game. There are MANY games for a quick thrill, Gears requires time.


Well, for me, CS was ruined by the playerbase who take it much too seriously.
Yes, and that took quite a bit of time to develop. However, the player base itself managed to figure out the point I was making long before that happened, so the current playerbase is a moot point.


Again, you could make it an -option.-
That would be a problem though. It's like how the Xbox *could've* made the hard drive an *option.* Until the 360 practically no gamer would've taken it (look at how well the hard drive sold on the PS2 for instance) because the proper amount of time for it to sink in that it was worthwhile hadn't sunk in yet. You introduce it as an option now and it'd be easy to envision a massive amount of people making it very difficult to locate a game where it is played as originally intended (and that's not my idea of intention, that's Mr. CliffyB's).

You *could* yes, but historically if you're going to grow a market you have to give it no other alternative whilst making your own that much better. There's millions of people out there playing right now who think the latter and there's certainly no shortage of the former.



Yet, those games still have their respective fanbases. It isn't like they're completely dead.
Of course, but they are nearly so. And, more important to the point, they are not options in Counter-Strike, they're completely different games altogether. They are completely separate from Counter-Strike (engine and history as a modification semantics aside, CS is an entirely new game). What you're talking about is as if HL:DM and HL2:DM were in fact options to turn on and off in CS...something they are not.


Nobody in the thread directly said they should fully lose the current gameplay. The rest of us just want a quick and dirty good time.
That's the issue though, there are plenty of ways to have a quick and dirty good time, Gears is not one of them. If it was, it wouldn't be Gears. Imagine chess where your pieces simply come back after a few rounds. It's not really chess anymore since it defeats the idea of how it was designed to be played.


Games like UT2k4 aren't the same example unfortunately because they were built to be modified, recreated, and rearranged. GoW is not.


If you want a feasible way to even add it to ranked matches, make a points based match.

Kills earn your team 50 points, a revive could earn 30, but suppose you don't help your teammate out while he's down, team loses 15 points. There might be a way to prevent spawn camping by marking off the areas where people spawn, and if they die in there, their team gains the points rather than lose them. I don't know if that could work, but I'm just throwing ideas out there. There's a way to make everyone happy, but some people just seem paranoid about it.

Trust me, there is NEVER a way to make everyone happy. If there was there'd be a world of peace instead of war.

The points system isn't the issue that's under fire. It's the style of gameplay that would change. When people join a GoW game they expect to use cover, think, and work as a team or else they die and have to wait. If you change that it's not Gears anymore, it becomes another Halo with smaller maps, no vehicles, and an interesting but completely pointless cover system (why bother when you can just respawn after charging in and annihilating your enemies?).




While it's going to be a stress because it crosses into a dissimilar game there's a quick test to see how people would play differently. Boot up UT and play a regular round of Deathmatch. Then play a round of last man standing where you only have one life. Granted the style of game itself never deviates, but notice how VASTLY different your tactics have to work in order to win. That's a drastic change in gameplay for one simple modification. It's also the reason why Gears has no respawn.





Note: I should note that I was a hardcore Quake and UT player for many years (and hope to continue to be in the future). I like the styles of game they are...but do not wish for other games to become them. That's why they're other games. Don't have a problem with respawning or quick-n-dirty fun at all. I only have a problem when I think of GoW, a game that's the completely antithesis to that, becoming it.

[Cobalt]

Then this is not the game for you. It's like wanting to hop in and out of a game of Civilization. If you're spending a short amount of time playing you're defeating the purpose of the game. There are MANY games for a quick thrill, Gears requires time.


Oh, well I rather like the Gears atmosphere. But occasionally I just want to blow up a few people and move on with my day. I would imagine there are quite a few people who just don't give a damn enough to become "good" and want to still play in a competitive fashion.





Trust me, there is NEVER a way to make everyone happy. If there was there'd be a world of peace instead of war.

I disagree. The concept of world peace has absolutely nothing to do with discussing a videogame's multiplayer aspects.



The points system isn't the issue that's under fire. It's the style of gameplay that would change.

Speaking of points, you clearly missed one. It is possible to make a respawn mode that also stresses teamwork.


When people join a GoW game they expect to use cover, think, and work as a team or else they die and have to wait.

And at the same time I've seen people play it JUST LIKE Halo and still win. A friend of mine took on four people at once and won, on his own, without really using the cover system.



If you change that it's not Gears anymore, it becomes another Halo with smaller maps, no vehicles, and an interesting but completely pointless cover system (why bother when you can just respawn after charging in and annihilating your enemies?).


Then, why bother when, as I stated, it can be pointless as is? The last few games I played were the same as practically any other shooter. Rush for the big guns, snipe the enemy team. One guy essentially decides to win on his own.

You can still have the same mechanics of gameplay, and work it to where respawns are a decent option.



That would be a problem though. It's like how the Xbox *could've* made the hard drive an *option.* Until the 360 practically no gamer would've taken it (look at how well the hard drive sold on the PS2 for instance) because the proper amount of time for it to sink in that it was worthwhile hadn't sunk in yet.
The failure of the PS2 HDD was caused by more than just sheer ignorance on the part of consumers.



You introduce it as an option now and it'd be easy to envision a massive amount of people making it very difficult to locate a game where it is played as originally intended (and that's not my idea of intention, that's Mr. CliffyB's).


Look at your own example, CS. Apparently there -are- plenty of people who want it that way.

If you wanted, you could make a straight up free for all deathmatch that'd end up as last man standing. When you start arguing what the game was supposed to be about, you're losing the point of the game in the first place. To entertain.

I'd imagine it would show up in the server information IF it were an option.

And nobody would be forcing you to play that anyway.

[Hazed and Abused]

I don't like the idea of respawning. This game is centric on tactical teamwork. Reviving is part of the intensity of the game, and once you take a player out, you are *that* much closer to accomplishing the goal. All out death matches would be kind of lame too, for the reasons stated above.

[Zoso Fan]

Re-spawning wouldn't work that well with GOW i don't think...

[MrGood]

I dont think people are getting my point.

> People that dont want their Respawning play the existing game mode.
> People like me, that bore from the current style of gameplay get to play what they really want. A More DM orientated gameplay. I dont care if its TDM or DM aslong as it has respawns. I dont even care if its ranked or not ranked - I JUST WANT RESPAWNS!

If you look now on Counterstrike there are actually many respawn servers around. These are the ones I join.

Can someone sticky this topic. I think us guys that want respawning need to keep this thread alive. We want any developer that works on the game to see it!

[gloomlord]

I dont think people are getting my point.

> People that dont want their Respawning play the existing game mode.
> People like me, that bore from the current style of gameplay get to play what they really want. A More DM orientated gameplay. I dont care if its TDM or DM aslong as it has respawns. I dont even care if its ranked or not ranked - I JUST WANT RESPAWNS!

If you look now on Counterstrike there are actually many respawn servers around. These are the ones I join.

Can someone sticky this topic. I think us guys that want respawning need to keep this thread alive. We want any developer that works on the game to see it!

I'm pretty sure we get your point, but you seem to be missing what everyone else is saying:

1) There is no evidence whatsoever to support the fact that a "majority" of anything is interested in including respawning in GoW.

2) GoW is hugely successful without respawns and current trends indicate no change on the horizion.

3) The developers (CliffyB included) stated up front that this game would not have respawns for obvious reasons to keep the gameplay running as they had intended. What you are asking for is outside the scope of what they wanted this game to include, therefore simply because you make some wild claim won't justify anything in their mind about changing the game that they designed since it is working as they had intended in this regard.

4) This is not a revolutionary concept: Games like CS have proven this already.

The point is this: There are plenty of games in existence that do what you want, several of them even do it well... if you are so dead set on respawning you can play any of those games. The droves of happy gamers who prefer the gameplay the way it has been presented in Gears are not interested in including something, even as an option, that strays from this style of gameplay in this regard.

[HanSolo2187]

Cliff has said in the past that this game doesn't lend itself to a deathmatch style of play. He really wanted to resist people from just running in, guns a'blazing, with no regard of death. As it stand, though, aren't the shotgun battles just about the same thing???

[N B K WOLVERINE]

Well, you could prevent spawn camping by having random spawn points like COD2 managed to do..... yes i love COD2 i mention it alot.... only because no game has managed to have a decent flawless multiplayer like it. well... after six months of fixing it!

[RandoM51]

Respawn would be ok, if, IF they add new matches and gamemodes to support it. I don't want respawn anywhere near the current maps/modes.

A couple king of the hill maps, a king of the hill mode, and respawn with it would be a tasty bundle.