How to get a new Wolfeinstein Multiplayer

Is it possible to creat a petition and request new Wolfenstein multiplayer strongly based on RTCW and ET? Has anyone ever done this before? I don't say this is the solution, but maybe the developers would see the demand and our burning desire for a playable Wolf Multi.

Maybe petition is not the best word, instead I mean a tool or platform where we could catch their attention.

Stopwatch mode with simple abilities like constructing barriers and defusing bombs, nothing like a MOBAFPS.. (I don't mention reviving, it has never been simple for none of you.)

Someone creat it and lets sign it!
Quote(I don't mention reviving, it has never been simple for none of you.)

image: 32vHITu
I love this guy nejm <3
I think we have "new Wolf Multi".
Dirty Bomb
Indeed. It is a dead game like ET :D
while the game was born 10 years after ET ! DB is a fail..
you didn't even play it lol
No and will never do, I knew from the beginning it would be a fail !
average number of players in DB is higher than quake champions, battalion 1944 and ETpro combined
DB is shit. Fact
Then it's a total fail..
What you talkign about? There was already new Wolfenstein multiplayer game, sadly it sucked ass. Then there was Brink, Dirtybomb. Yeah, all those games been bad, but as if they will go for it one more time to waste money&time :D People are not interested about those kind of games anymore, maybe in 10 years it will be a hit again. Right now there aint even room anymore for more teambased fps games, when csgo ow and battalion rolling over.
"What you talkign about? There was already new Wolfenstein multiplayer game, sadly ..."

Do you mean the Wolfenstein version of Star Wars XMas special? :) :"D
e: not canon
No I, I dont mean ET:QW, tho I even forgot about that. I mean this:
I mean the game you linked. It is absolute bs. We were so hyped when they released it, but it was massive fail
e: but thats just an opinnion...
Yes, it's a failure =(
People nowadays are searching for easier games.. when I say easier I mean a game where they can get correct pretty fast, where everyone can kill everyone..
ET / RTCW / Quake and co are too "elitist" games as they require brain, aim, moves, placement, aiming while moving someone that moves and hit you with the recoil.. etc..

sad people don't like difficulty
Even if they made a real ET 2.0 (no bullshit clunky dirty bomb, qc and failcraps like that) noone on earth would play it, and heres why

- People who played ET in its active years got old, everyone is close to 30s I guess, hence not as much time to play
- hard to attrack new players in a skill based FPS games (CS,R6 are way too easy and random , thats why the huge playerbase)
- developers would fuck up anyways, look at QC, DB, Brink and other failures.

To make an FPS succesful u have to make it "random" so casuals and lowskilled people can enjoy the game too, they are the ones who make the numbers, but then a game with random 1 taps and stuff is not skill based, so it cannot be ET.
If this was hltv you'd have your inbox full of shit right now :D "REEEEEEEE cs is the most skill based fps in the world because onetaps"
R6 are way too easy and random
CS is one of the few games with a lot of players I would still consider decent. I have a lot of complaints about that game too, but "too easy" is not one of them. Too random, perhaps, but so is ET.

A game has to be relatively simple to get any kind of meaningful competition going in my opinion. Once you add explosives, luck factors, too many different weapons or abilities and too many players in one team, it becomes nearly impossible to play against your opponent rather than playing against the game mechanics. Like playing public in ET.

Even 6on6 is a bit on the edge, in my opinion, but with decent teams it was possible to have some kind of teamwork back in the day. Now it's just a messy pile of spammy shit, with the team who has the better aimers almost always winning the game.
I don't know mate, I played ET "competitively" until 2010 and I remember it as one of few games that had the perfect balance of aiming and teamplay. You could win with either sick aiming skills or very structured teamplay. I can't remember it being "too spammy". But then it could be the years messing with my memory. All I know I never enjoyed a game as much as ET/QL.
Adding RNG and 1shot 1 kill stuff into a game makes it noobfriendly, since random (not intended) stuff will be awarded with a kill. It wasn't a big deal in ET, I mean getting a kill with a random nade, cause you had the ability to revive, and spawns in 20/30 secs. Random things in round based games (CS, COD whatever) take it to another level, and a random running headshot can decide rounds. So when u are supposed to be punished cause you made a stupid move but somehow u land a lucky stray bullet and get awarded with a kill then playing the game makes no sense, atleast* for me.
There will always be moments in CS when you get* random 1 tapped by someone far worse than you, but this is how the game is designed, it favors worse players in some situations.

In ET you couldn't just get random 3 headshots, that was extremly RARE.
In Quake you can't just land 3 random facerockets like that.

Less stack = lower skill ceiling.
Anyways I find CS a decent game, I got like 3k hours in 1,6, CSS and GO together. Just not my style.
I agree with you that ET is a better competitive game than CS. Quake is far superior to both.

My point was that out of all the other popular games, CS stands out as one that's clean enough to allow people to actually compete against other teams (aim, strategy, teamwork) instead of just finding the best ways to use the abilities given to them by the developers.

There are probably other games like this, but for example Overwatch is goddamn terrible and it was made with only money in mind (all them lootboxes you can buy and stuff...)
Why exactly Overwatch is terrible? Thought ET players would definetly choose overwatch over csgo, based on the fact Ow is designed ultimately on teamplay and aiming, whereas csgo.. pretty much aim only and some random bullshit "teamplay" if people want call that some serious teamplay game. The only real booring thing about overwatch is the heroes abilities, which rules fully your mobility so there is nothing like strafejumping et cetera. Tho rocketjumping, for some heroes :) And of course the fact everyone can not play dps if u want to win games
I can see why Overwatch would attract a lot of ET players, especially 6on6 players. I don't like the game because it has always appeared way too chaotic for me.

It's somehow the wrong way around. In ET, the objectives are complicated and the classes are simple. In OW, the objectives are simple and the classes (heroes?) complicated. It makes it feel like I never have to think what I have to do to win the map. I just have to think what I have to do to be able to kill someone.

Then there's also the playerbase... I never met such a community before... So much screaming, trolling and arrogance. I can't stand it. I suppose if I joined a proper team I might actually be able to enjoy the game for a while.
Thing is CS is a commercial game, made to attract people and be a popular game so how to get popular ?
-> game everyone can play
-> reduce the frustration of being rekt without being able to kill
-> increasing the random actions to satisfy everyone

and many point I cba to approach cause I don't like CS ^^
I'm sorry, but who are "they"? Splash Damage? id Software? Game developers in general?

Did you know that these days developers tend to make products that make the most money? The market is ruining it for people who actually enjoy good games instead of addictive games with in-game purchases. It's not really the fault of any developers.

I would say your best bet is the FOSS community, if you want to get this kind of an idea going.

It doesn't take flashy graphics and a billion different abilities to make a good game, as anyone who has ever played ET would know. Keep it simple. If anyone made a game and focused only on gameplay, minimal RNG and community effort (mapping, modding), I would pay more for it than any modern game... The sad thing is, not many others would.
Agreed with what you said

You must think who are the most kind of player (age) and what do they really search
2018, a high % of players are bellow 20 yo and most of people are searching for a beautiful game cause it looks hyper you know... you must be glad to say to your friend you play to the lastest game, it sounds better.. (imo when i talk about games to my friends i'm proud to mention ET, RTCW and Quake)

(sorry if all my sentence are not really clear, I'm still a little bit under my yesterday party ahah)
QuoteDid you know that these days developers tend to make products that make the most money?

Hi, game dev here, that is not really true. Most of us don't care one bit about making "the most" money, but about making "enough" money. And what's enough depends on your budget expectations.

I could make a game with ET-like gameplay and potato graphics, no problem. But how many of you would want this, let alone pay for it? I'd still have to cover my development time and maybe a couple of hired hands, which would come to at least a low six digit figure per year.

If you expect AAA graphics for a modern take on the ET formula, then the money required is exorbitant. Even with hugely successful crowdfunding, you'd end up having to get more loans from major publishers, who of course want to have some say in how you develop the game and what your target audience is. Adding to the difficulty is that highly detailed graphics are often difficult to combine with the fluid, floaty movement style of older engines that we all love so much.

If you want anything in between, it's not easy. It's a huge risk, as you will either have to front hundreds of thousands from your own pocket, or at least run a successful crowdfunding campaign (which is expensive to begin with) or convince a small publisher that your project will at least be a niche success.

This is not as simple as "hey let's make ET 2.0". ET was successful because it had that certain spark, the right combination of smooth gameplay and (for the time) great atmosphere. It just won't feel the same if you'd tried the same thing with a similar budget today.

With multiplayer games there is the additional complication that you really need a critical mass of players for it to be an enjoyable experience. If there aren't enough players then the project will be considered "dead" and nobody will care much about it, even if you do everything right for a small niche of players.

So the challenge is to come up with an original concept, that captures the core of what made games like ET great but adds a spin on it that makes it relevant for modern times. PUBG is an example of how a game can be a huge success despite a modest development budget, but it's successful because it provides an experience that is still new to most people. Back in the days, RTCW/ET also felt new and fresh to people, in a way that a simple remake wouldn't.

Then you need to figure out how to do the same. How to do a lot with a modest budget that matches the size of the niche audience you are going for. This is particularly challenging when you go for something like a WW2 theme, which draws a lot from authenticity and detail. It's much easier with stylised or abstract themes. But would you play "Minecraft the FPS"?

Finding the secret sauce is by no means easy, and the only reason I am not currently working on a game like that is that I haven't quite found it yet. But I will keep looking...

As for FOSS, I'd say don't hold your breath. It's incredibly hard these days to find people willing to put the amount of time in that is required to see a project like this through from start to finish. In the old days there was no better way to get into the game industry, but nowadays people can just join some small indie team instead and get paid for their work or at least have a better chance of getting noticed.

Then you have the problem that volunteers won't follow a leader who doesn't pay them (it wasn't a problem back in the days when a single person could basically do it all in a mod), so you most likely end up with a mess designed by committee.

Not saying it's impossible, but again the major challenge is that you would have to find that "special something" formula that rallies people together and makes them want to give up their free time for it. And if you do find this, you might as well make it a proper indie game.
I admit, I was more or less pulling what I was saying out of my ass. Thank you for the reply. Very enlightening.
I don't understand why you mention possible reasons of fail, or why we talk about people who might hate the game becaues it requiers too much skill and practice. Who cares?

Would you play a decent new wolf multi or not? If someone feels the spirit open a topic/ petition and the rest who feels like yea i support this will sign it.

But of course I agree with all of you who say players don't prefer ET style games. People are whiners, they wan't to be the best, get everything but they don't want to work for it :)

Side note:
I will sign some petition if you make one, sure. But I honestly think it won't help you.

Also, read my reply to Adze about that post.
Someone make id sell the license and we're good to go
The license to use the name? You know the name of the game is trivial...

I doubt they're gonna sue anyone for making a game with similar gameplay.
No, it isn't about the game
What license are they supposed to sell then? Am I missing something? :D
I think he meant the sourcecode
It's under a GPL license now. It's not necessary to buy it if you want to keep it opensource after you edit it, and that was my suggestion, more or less...

If you wanted to actually make a new game, I don't think you should start with the existing ET source code but rather start from scratch. But I doubt anyone's gonna do that.
/msg madscientist
RtCW is very much alive for Multiplayer though, all you guys need to do is actually get on and play. There's OSP servers still running, and a shrub server. There's even an upcoming tournament, check it out:
1.0 only unfortunaly
It depends on what you like, but 1.0 AoD DM and Chicago DM aren't really bad at all. It is almost solely aim-based, the gameplay is much faster than usual, and there are a few old and experienced players still there regularly. And on top of that, both of them are quite active, and I see them being so in foreseeable future as well.
No, not just 1.0. 1.4 is very much alive, and there is even a tournament on the horizon.

1.0 has AOD which is a DM server that is EURO and is usually used a lot through-out the day. As it gets later there is a Chicago DM server that is used into the early mornings. Last night we got to tryout maps for DM like tram, tundra, sub, and more so not just base anymore.

1.4 has OSP OBJ nights which are every week on Thursday and Sunday starting at 9pm EST. If you wish to still play the competitive OBJ side of RtCW, you still can as the game is free and so is the key. We have many different players join us, whether your NA or EURO.

Discord link for RTCW channel that is used for tournaments or OSP nights:
Any questions you have can be asked on this discord, and someone will help you get rtcw setup and ready to go.

Rtcw Tournament info:

People have to stop saying 1.4 is dead when there is tournaments every year, regardless of it's size or teams.
People need to realize the main problem lies in their heads, not in the games they play.
Why even wish for another game when RtCW and ET already exist? To draw the masses to it by shiny graphics? You will never achieve anything by it, they will linger on for some time, but the part of community which takes it seriously will be small as always. Not to mention that such a game is unlikely to ever come, as it simply would not be profitable to its maker.

You think the problem lies in the fact that RtCW/ET are old? It doesn't. Take CS 1.6 as an example. It is just as old, yet millions play it over the world, with hundreds of different competitive scenes (yes, the main e-sports events have dropped it, but we are not talking about monetary gains here), with almost each country having its own. What is the reason for its persistence, you may ask? Of course, it is being noob-friendly. I do not say that CS lacks any skill to begin with, just that it takes way less skill, and that the randomness factor is still high enough to make a new player comfortable.

You need to understand that the amount of people playing the game (in serious manner) exponentially drops the more skill game requires. If you want to enjoy a difficult and highly skilled game, then you have to pay price for it, and that is the small playerbase (in comparison with other games). It was, is, and will, always be like that.

Being elitistic about the choice of game is not anything bad- on contrary, it is a very positive trait which ought to be encouraged.
What ought to be shunned, however, is the condescending demeanor towards new players who want to become better at game. They very well understand the difficulty that becoming proficient at it poses, and are willing to take it up and actually find joy in the process, but the last thing they need is a shithead demeaning them as they do it, or snobs playing a totally random and casual 3v3/6v6 mix and acting with such importance and pseudoelitism like they are playing a World Cup in football or something similar. Such demeanor actually tells more about the person having it that about the one onto which they unleash their pathetic betarage. That, among aforementioned things, is one of the reasons why already small community (there is not anything bad in it being small) fails to even sustain its low numbers (in RtCW at least, haven't played ET long enough, but I reckon it can't be much different).

On an semi-related sidenote, if you are looking for another highly skilled and competitive game, there is not a single one beyond RtCW, ET, Quake (and similar) which will give you enough satisfaction, period.
But, if you wish to try something different, albeit almost as skilled, try your hand at Mount&Blade: Warband (multiplayer, and multiplayer mod "Mercenaries"). I know, it sounds ludicrous to someone who plays shooters, but trust me, it really isn't. There are some servers filled with persistent noobs looking for fun, but competitive scene is almost as small as that of ET, and it takes a lot to become truly proficient in it. The combat system is relatively simple to begin with, but the amount of variation which can be applied to it is what makes it so highly skilled. Good reflexes, real-time decision making, and muscle memory are certainly needed. There is a part of community which focuses extensively on 1v1 duelling as well. I knew of a Quake 3 CPMA player who played, and at best he could be described as middling in it. Not saying that it takes more skill, of course, just mentioning an example.
Back to top