cool idea

[ChickenSkin]

Nope, most other maps are planned to not have the CT-feel. The problem is, they dont even have layouts yet, so it's also for us still uncertain how they might differ. Basically, Lakehouse is supposed to be one-of-a-kind, as a guide for old-skool players.

He means the "CT feel" gameplay wise rather than graphically. I assumed all the maps would play similarly to CT, seeing as thats what its being compared with, and I really hope they do.

[Vega]

Nope, most other maps are planned to not have the CT-feel. The problem is, they dont even have layouts yet, so it's also for us still uncertain how they might differ. Basically, Lakehouse is supposed to be one-of-a-kind, as a guide for old-skool players.

I could be wrong as you're on the development team, but based on what I've seen and how hacking terminals work (unless you have changed that somehow) then I'm too assume we're going to see objectives that have the same structure as they do in CT.

[Spekkio]

Honestly, if you're going to keep a lot of the core elements from CT/PT around, then the maps are going to play similar enough to the 15 or so we've seen so far in the previous games. There are certain parts of those maps that link them all together, and you can't change that without changing the game drastically or just producing maps that are no fun to play.

[Roberto1223]

Nope, most other maps are planned to not have the CT-feel. The problem is, they dont even have layouts yet, so it's also for us still uncertain how they might differ. Basically, Lakehouse is supposed to be one-of-a-kind, as a guide for old-skool players.

I could be wrong as you're on the development team, but based on what I've seen and how hacking terminals work (unless you have changed that somehow) then I'm too assume we're going to see objectives that have the same structure as they do in CT.

Dude vega, u think ur post is very smart but it dosent contribute anything except for negativism...
first of all, CT does have terminals out in open (Clubhouse Garden area, factory map and many others)

secondly, DA has objectives out in the open but it also contains objectives inside small pent houses and other enclosed structures. (i dont know map names of DA, but there are very easily noticeable examples)

so yeah your whole smart talk about "complex structures and lots of work" is just full of bull... >:(

Thirdly, let the devs decide if its gonna be too hard to do or not.

as i said, both CT and DA have objectives both covered or out in the open, so its not like they have to redo any work.
and since it isnt too late because they dont have to redo anything exept think very well where to place the terminals in the map, then this is not a bad idea in my opinion.

so yeah, your post is really just built based on false assumptions and generalizations.

[Vega]

Dude vega, u think ur post is very smart but it dosent contribute anything except for negativism...
first of all, CT does have terminals out in open (Clubhouse Garden area, factory map and many others)

I don't think my post is "very smart" at all, but thanks for the compliment, I guess.  Coming from you that's questionable though.  Clubhouse garden area is decently open, but there are still walls to cover the spy from multiple angles.  Factory supports my examples far more than it supports yours.  Actually, my theory engrosses far more covered areas than your argument of open areas in the majority of maps CT has.

secondly, DA has objectives out in the open but it also contains objectives inside small pent houses and other enclosed structures. (i dont know map names of DA, but there are very easily noticeable examples)

...which can be hacked through vantage points and most of the time through elevation.  I've seen a decent amount of DA maps from personally playing them myself on a friend's 360 and seeing multiple videos.

Thirdly, let the devs decide if its gonna be too hard to do or not.

I can certainly give my opinion on the matter, if you don't like it then too bad.  Nothing you can do about it.

so yeah your whole smart talk about "complex structures and lots of work" is just full of bull... >:(

You're not understanding the point of my argument.  To sum it up for you: the way the design behind objectives works is either CT-style or DA-style, not both.  I guess you could put in both, but that would be kinda awkward and I theorize imbalanced. 

Sounds like someone is a little sour because I'm not accepting their idea.  :'( :'( :'(

[Roberto1223]

Dude vega, u think ur post is very smart but it dosent contribute anything except for negativism...
first of all, CT does have terminals out in open (Clubhouse Garden area, factory map and many others)

I don't think my post is "very smart" at all, but thanks for the compliment, I guess.  Coming from you that's questionable though.  Clubhouse garden area is decently open, but there are still walls to cover the spy from multiple angles.  Factory supports my examples far more than it supports yours.  Actually, my theory engrosses far more covered areas than your argument of open areas in the majority of maps CT has.

secondly, DA has objectives out in the open but it also contains objectives inside small pent houses and other enclosed structures. (i dont know map names of DA, but there are very easily noticeable examples)

...which can be hacked through vantage points and most of the time through elevation.  I've seen a decent amount of DA maps from personally playing them myself on a friend's 360 and seeing multiple videos.

Thirdly, let the devs decide if its gonna be too hard to do or not.

I can certainly give my opinion on the matter, if you don't like it then too bad.  Nothing you can do about it.

so yeah your whole smart talk about "complex structures and lots of work" is just full of bull... >:(

You're not understanding the point of my argument.  To sum it up for you: the way the design behind objectives works is either CT-style or DA-style, not both.  I guess you could put in both, but that would be kinda awkward and I theorize imbalanced. 

Sounds like someone is a little sour because I'm not accepting their idea.  :'( :'( :'(

hahaha learn to read then reply... i said " you think your post is smart"  not "i think your post is smart" (there is no compliment lol) , so the "coming from you makes it questionable" proves that even if i hadnt said something mean to u, you would have replied like an arsehole lol.

and it looks like your the one who didnt understand me because i very well understood what u said about "both styles not working together" and what i said is that IN MY OPINION BOTH STYLES DO WORK TOGETHER! "the only real problem would be to rethink where to place obj in maps"

but yea whatever we dont agree and thats the end of that.

*edited... silly curses are lame. Give your negative feelings towards someone a humourous twist. *