Toxikk (arena-style FPS) Just Released! [Early Access, NOT Free-to-Play]

[smackababy]

So, anyone that has it, worth it?

 

[12andy]

Whole-hearted yes

Beta is such a tease - I'm stoked for the advancements, per their roadmap.

 

[Dankk]

So, anyone that has it, worth it?

Depends. On the upside: It's a very polished, functional, and fun game. On the downside: It's lacking content right now (there's only a single playable map).

If you're a big fan of Unreal Tournament style gameplay and this game looks interesting to you, I say go for it. But if you're turned off by the lack of content and you'd rather wait until the game is in a more completed state then I understand.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

It sounds intriguing. Will Capture-the-Flag be one of the game modes?

For those who long for another Unreal Tournament...a new UT is right around the corner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyR6EIBN2Ac

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I read the Steam description and came across this:

#4 CLASSIC AND MASSIVE MAPS: CLASSIC MAPS offer fast-paced gameplay in small to medium-sized maps for up to 8 players, while MASSIVE MAPS feature more strategic gameplay in bigger environments for up to 16 players. Vehicles (gliders, attack-bombers, hoverbikes and other ground vehicles) are exclusively available in Massive Maps.

What if you want to have 16 players on a "medium-sized" map? Also, the problem with 16 players on larger vehicle maps is that those games really work out better with more players. In UT 2004 Onslaught (which is what I suspect they have in mind) it was most fun with 28-32 players, not 16.

It does look interesting, though. Do they have a variety of weapons to accommodate different players' strengths? (Not everyone is a great hitscan player.)

<Edit> I looked over the weapons at their website. They have a shotgun but it would be nice to have something with bouncing projectiles (like the Flak Cannon or Ripper/Razorjack). I'd love a shock rifle, but that weapon is so unique it would be difficult to replicate without treading on a potential copyright problem.

Are they only aspiring to have Deathmatch and Team Deathmatch and perhaps Onslaught? How can they fail to include Capture-the-Flag?

 

[PrincessFrosty]

There seems to be some confusion, it helps if you can read. The trailer says "No Free 2 Play"

You pay a single price and get access to the entire game, no DLC, no paid mods, no microtransactions. There's early access which means you can get in before the game is finished but you pay less, the final game with all the content will be full price.

That seems pretty reasonable to me, not just because the early access is quite cheap, but also because early access members get to give feedback on the game and help guide the direction and balance which essentially means it's got a really good 4-6 month beta period.

 

[Morbus]

It's advertised in their trailer as free to play yet they expect me to put up $17 for "early access"?

Actually, the trailer is the best trailer I've seen in ages, and it's advertised as not free-to-play.

Direct quote: "NO FREE-TO-PLAY"

The Trailer says "Free To Play" at first but then pops the "No" in front of it. I think they are trying to please the anti-P2W crowd.

Indeed. Every sentence in the trailer is meant as a jab at consolified arena shooters. To quote them again "NO BULLSHIT".

I'd love a shock rifle, but that weapon is so unique it would be difficult to replicate without treading on a potential copyright problem.

You're kidding right? That's like saying "Harry Potter infringes on The Lord of The Rings' copyright because Gandalf!"

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Just bought and played a bunch of rounds, my advice is to hold off until they've learned how to balance the weapons.

Right now they have a rocket launcher which has near hitscan speeds for the projectile travel time, a fast reload, it kills in 1 direct hit, does loads of splash damage.

Everyone just runs for it at the start of the match and 50% of your deaths (and kills if you're a good player) will be attributed to it.

A really REALLY bad sign of things to come if they're not able to get basic weapon damage balanced. If they can sort that out then it could become a fairly strong shooter with more maps and game modes.

 

[norseamd]

Can we get an academic paper on negative psychology advertising and how iron sights and reloads are casualized, unrealistic, and totally not cool?

 

[Dankk]

I read the Steam description and came across this:

What if you want to have 16 players on a "medium-sized" map? Also, the problem with 16 players on larger vehicle maps is that those games really work out better with more players. In UT 2004 Onslaught (which is what I suspect they have in mind) it was most fun with 28-32 players, not 16.

It does look interesting, though. Do they have a variety of weapons to accommodate different players' strengths? (Not everyone is a great hitscan player.)

<Edit> I looked over the weapons at their website. They have a shotgun but it would be nice to have something with bouncing projectiles (like the Flak Cannon or Ripper/Razorjack). I'd love a shock rifle, but that weapon is so unique it would be difficult to replicate without treading on a potential copyright problem.

Are they only aspiring to have Deathmatch and Team Deathmatch and perhaps Onslaught? How can they fail to include Capture-the-Flag?

Capture the Flag will be included in the next major update.

Here's the development roadmap: http://forum.toxikk.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=993

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Can we get an academic paper on negative psychology advertising and how iron sights and reloads are casualized, unrealistic, and totally not cool?

It's not negative psychology, it's just good advertising. Old school games didn't have many of these features, they become more prevalent during gaming's rapid expansion into the casual arena with increased sales of consoles, console/PC ports and multi-platform games.

There's a niche group of older gamers who prefer games with less of a skill ceiling and less pandering to casual users and this game is aimed at those kind of gamers, it just makes sense that the advertising is designed to appeal to those gamers.

Someone asked for controller support on the Toxikk forums and kinda got laughed off, quite funny really. If you're a newb then avoid this game at all costs (if you're not sure if you're a newb or not then you're a newb).

 

[DigDog]

what's the movement like? is it the same dodge-based as in UT4? is there ground acceleration, as in Q3A? air control ?

i said i would buy it but i went for BF3 instead (yeah, i never played BF), and i need to install a new SSD first, but i'm moving my OS, so .. you know, procrastination.

 

[EDUSAN]

well... its definetely interesting... gonna keep an eye on this one

 

[12andy]

There's a niche group of older gamers who prefer games with less of a skill ceiling and less pandering to casual users and this game is aimed at those kind of gamers, it just makes sense that the advertising is designed to appeal to those gamers.

I think you meant, prefer more of a skill ceiling, no?

NorseAMD: The rise of military-based shooters paved the way for more accessibility within the general public. While there's no denying that those kind of games (CoD, Battlefield, etc.) require some skill, they simply pale in comparison to the arena shooters of the golden age (circa 90s).

You managed up to 9 weapons at once, flew around maps with advanced movement, and developed muscle memory to have split-second precision for hitscan (ie. machine gun) and projectile-based guns. Everyone was on equal footing (NO PERKS), with equal opportunity to succeed/ fail, much like sports.

The "watering down" of this genre is the reason why us older-heads have a sour-taste of the aforementioned, and console shooters in general.

 

[12andy]

what's the movement like? is it the same dodge-based as in UT4? is there ground acceleration, as in Q3A? air control ?

Movement feels very similar to UT2004 (so, dodge, dodge-jump, wall-jump).

No ground accel, and very minor air control.

 

[norseamd]

The rise of military-based shooters paved the way for more accessibility within the general public. While there's no denying that those kind of games (CoD, Battlefield, etc.) require some skill, they simply pale in comparison to the arena shooters of the golden age (circa 90s).

You managed up to 9 weapons at once, flew around maps with advanced movement, and developed muscle memory to have split-second precision for hitscan (ie. machine gun) and projectile-based guns. Everyone was on equal footing (NO PERKS), with equal opportunity to succeed/ fail, much like sports.

The "watering down" of this genre is the reason why us older-heads have a sour-taste of the aforementioned, and console shooters in general.

No I have no problem with this type of genre or the original games I just have a problem with this game in particular and the advertising and philosophy of the production team on how they view games and gameplay. Implying that iron sights and reloads are casualized gameplay mechanics is not impressing me. And I like to play games like Arma and Planetside not COD although I also do play some games like Space Marine which could use a lot more maps, huger maps, and far more players.

 

[12andy]

No I have no problem with this type of genre or the original games I just have a problem with this game in particular and the advertising and philosophy of the production team on how they view games and gameplay. Implying that iron sights and reloads are casualized gameplay mechanics is not impressing me. And I like to play games like Arma and Planetside not COD although I also do play some games like Space Marine which could use a lot more maps, huger maps, and far more players.

Well, put it this way: their intent is to spit in the face of almost every shooter released within the past 10 years or so.

A bit extreme mind you, but they do have a point.

Think about it: the gameplay mechanics for 95% of the shooters out there today involve taking cover, ADS'ing (iron sights) and firing in bursts, managing a primary/ secondary with accessories, and so forth.

ARMA and Planetside are special in their own regard, and I'd easily put them above most games of today.

People are always looking forward to the next CoD, Battlefield etc., since they're getting bored already just a year into release. Meanwhile, there are active Quake and Unreal players to this very day - games that were released 10+ years ago.

If you grew up playing arena shooters, you'd understand more. There are many Youtube clips that draw comparisons to the stark differences in gameplay.

 

[norseamd]

Well, put it this way: their intent is to spit in the face of almost every shooter released within the past 10 years or so.

Possibly. But also they are reminding me of Planetary Annihilation who made bank off their kickstarter by marketing off old school total annihilation and look at how they made far less the the hypetrain and they apparently are not fully supporting the game anymore so I think it is good to be wary when purchasing games right now.

taking cover, ADS'ing (iron sights) and firing in bursts, managing a primary/ secondary with accessories, and so forth.

Which is far more realistic.

Meanwhile, there are active Quake and Unreal players to this very day - games that were released 10+ years ago.

When I was at Savers about 2 years ago or so I thought about getting the Unreal Trounament 2004 for probably somewhere around $5 or less but I never did get it. They have a lot of very old consoles and games plus old boardgames and books for very cheap so lots to find at those used merchandise businesses. And I still play Age of Empires 1 and 2 plus the old DND games so I know how good some old games are especially compared to the stuff the big video game publishers make now.

 

[DigDog]

i just dont get UT movement.

i understand people who play it and love it, but i could never get the hang of it; while,on t.o.h., i have no problem with quake strafejump (ground accel movement, with mouse/camera movement that breaks animations for added speed). even CPMA air control im fine with.

 

[Ichigo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12andy
taking cover, ADS'ing (iron sights) and firing in bursts, managing a primary/ secondary with accessories, and so forth.
Which is far more realistic.

What an utterly irrelevant factor for a video game.

Anyway, is this game more like UT or Quake? Because I enjoyed UT but really didn't care for Quake.

 

[12andy]

NorseAMD : Suffice to say, it truly seems like Reakktor is in for the long-haul with this one. I have faith, anyway.

Keep in mind that realism is not what they're going for - arena shooters have never been about realism, anyhow. Over the top fun/ physics? Hell yes.


DigDog: IMO, UT's (well, UT2004 in this context) movement shines when in close to medium range combat. Strafing, dodging and wall-jump-dodging opens up many opportunities for evasive/ offensive action, versus the usual ADADADADADAD in Quake.

Gaining momentum to traverse maps can get quite cumbersome though; feels very stop-and-go'ish.

Personally, Xonotic takes the cake for movement for me, but nobody plays it.

 

[12andy]

Anyway, is this game more like UT or Quake? Because I enjoyed UT but really didn't care for Quake.

Movement mimicks UT2004; weapons are inspired by both Quake and UT.

 

[DigDog]

i'm an early backer of Reflex, which is essentially this, but for quake. right now it's very barebones, and i'm really looking forward to bigger maps. between reflex and toxikk, you've got both the UT crowd and the Q3. And tbh, the developers inspire confidence.

Like Norse, i dont think there's anything wrong with modern shooters (well, the CoD from 10 years ago was rubbish, but its gotten better), but i like the fact that both dev crews are saying "we like our game THIS WAY, and if you dont like it you can fork off".
I'd rather take a smaller community of people that think alike, than a whole bunch of Steam randoms who are impossible to cater to.

 

[12andy]

i'm an early backer of Reflex, which is essentially this, but for quake. right now it's very barebones, and i'm really looking forward to bigger maps. between reflex and toxikk, you've got both the UT crowd and the Q3. And tbh, the developers inspire confidence.

Like Norse, i dont think there's anything wrong with modern shooters (well, the CoD from 10 years ago was rubbish, but its gotten better), but i like the fact that both dev crews are saying "we like our game THIS WAY, and if you dont like it you can fork off".
I'd rather take a smaller community of people that think alike, than a whole bunch of Steam randoms who are impossible to cater to.

I'll most likely check Reflex out once it's further into development; have always loved CPMA-based movement. In fact, I wish Quake Live's default physics was set to that. Felt really good with the netcode and all.

Don't get me wrong with the modern shooter flak I've been giving on this thread: my most-often played game right now is Insurgency (bunch of BRILLIANCE, that game is!).

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I think you meant, prefer more of a skill ceiling, no?

What I was trying to say is that there is less of an artificial ceiling on the skill level. I didn't phrase that very well.

Basically a lot of modern shooters pander to casual users by making competition more normalized, things like random critical hits allow bad players to score kills without needing to try (I'm looking at you TF2) which closes the gap between the scores of good vs bad players.

These old school games appeal to the harsh nature of competition where there's losers and winners and to win you have to earn it.

I'll play some more of this game over the next few weeks and report back on how it's progressing. It seems like is has some promise but I'm concerned about balance still and it's offputting to load it up and play it right now.