What is Digg?68 Comments
- schroduggity, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22only on the consoles. on the PC you can expect 20 v 20 matches
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2216 players only is kinda weaksauce...=(
- bruin8uclap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Well, PC is the only way to play RTS IMO.
- Gunsmith, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16we have Sup Com, C&C3, Crysis, WoW, Company of Heroes....
- aydoubleyou, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Joe...Wii was intended for it's gameplay, not for it's "nextgen" capabilities.
- BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Fiscal year 2008, which is anywhere from April 2007 to early 2008.
- Megatog615, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Everyone knows the best maps in Wolf: ET are the defaults. Goldrush FTW.
- SaxxonPike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Quake 4 had great single player. Multiplayer was lacking. Not only did it seem to fall short of populated servers, but it just didn't feel as much of a rush as Q3A.
- Megatog615, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8And BF2 is a clone of Wolf: ET, but modern?
- Optimaximal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7How old are you?
You must be what... 5 if you get uptight about people posting comments about certain subjects which you don't agree with on digg.
Just go back to watching Teletubbies and don't read the ***** topics that don't *interest* you. - pathy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Oh goody goody gumdrops.
Hopefulyl this won't till out like Shadowrun, ugh.
I wish devs would realise that while the 360 and the PS3 might be close to each other, games play entirely different on the PC. I really hope this doesn't end up getting gimped just to come down and match the consoles. - Shpox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+84eloBeK, you are silly to compare Battlefield 2. No matter how great you think a computer has to be to play Quake wars, the general rule of thumb is if you can run a poorly optimized and resource extensive Bf2, you will run Quake Wars.
I for one, don't really mind. I'm not a quake player, I'm a Battlefield player, however from what I've seen, this is going to be a great game. With extensive mod support for people like and well thought out gameplay being 4 years in the making, I am ready to play. The engine for ET:QW is based on a heavily modified Doom 3 engine. From the gameplay footage I've seen, they've thrown in one hell of a physics system. Basically, you can shoot off tyres and the car will drive exactly how you expect it to without that tyre.
For all of you who are curious, and the gameplay is based upon TEAMWORK rather than points, (There is no point system like BF2) and hence, this allows players to focus on completing the objective based game as team. I'm not a fan of the strogg featured in this game as a side, but I really don't mind balancing the whole "monster" thing towards fun gameplay. Please note, there isn't a single player mod for this game, not sure how that will flow on the consoles and how limited they are to players but hey, at least this is giving the opportunity to those poor people who bought and Xbox / PS3 a taste of this great game. - aydoubleyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Right Saxxon. Raven focused mostly on the single player, rather than the multiplayer. They admit to that. Which was a big mistake. Considering Quake 3's fame for it's multiplayer.
Quake 4 was much slower than Quake 3, and didnt have the same smoothness. Strafe jumping was on a new level. And for the worse, the game was not the same. Supposedly, the upcoming updates should fix some of this, including a nerfed rail gun! hurray.
Anyway, back onto subject... Im reallllly anticipating Quake Wars. Should be a great game. Ill grab it for PC before the PS3 or 360 console though for sure. - NTolerance, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@ilyag
The difference here is that this game is made by id Software and will actually be finished upon release with minimal showstopper bugs. Performance will be up, aggravation will be down. *****, they ought to put a big sticker on the box that says "NOT published by EA, NOT coded by DICE!!!". - phatfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I still have nightmares about Deus Ex 2 *sob*
- dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Um, this is a "social-bookmarking" site, originally developed for nerds, by nerds, and we nerds like our computer games.
Further, why are you looking in a category called "Gaming News" which is a subcategory of "Games" if you are so horribly offended by the concept of someone over 13 enjoying a little interactive entertainment. Feel free to block this category, or ignore any topic with any of the following:
Xbox
360
PS3
Wii
Quake Wars
Duke Nukem Forever
Warcraft
etc.
And if you don't like a topic, don't be a troll and post a comment indicating that you have no interest in what's being said, but are incapable to go 15 seconds without saying something. - aldenhg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I love the original ET. I hope the new one has gameplay at least half as good.
- SigmaDraconis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yeah, you'd better disconnect from that there Netterweb before those vicious fiends discussing video game news pop out of your monitor and do absolutely nothing, you snowflake, you.
- fac51, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5dakotaclrk it was designed for the PC first and foremost and now heading for the 360 and PS3.
- Megatog615, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Any "next-gen"(if it can still be called next-gen, since the "gen" in question is ALREADY OUT) game can be ported to the Wii, but there would be a lot of work involved because the Wii's hardware is radically different from the other consoles. It's designed for new genres, not existing ones.
- AwesomeMonster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Um... no. The game is defenilty better with a full fledged 30 on 30 match. The maps are too big for just 16 people.
- broken22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4well thats good for us environment artists, more work. Now their is going to be the question consistency among the games.
- theRed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Nerve won't disappoint. Five years later RTCW MP still kicks the ***** out of most online first person shooters.
- unununium, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The Wii almost feels like it's in a different market, due to cheaper games and hardware, like the DS. I think it will do just fine with its own unique set of games.
- Megatog615, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And even more. If anyone here has played on bunker1.aaxxss.com:27960 would know that 30vs30 is common(on Wolf: ET).
- swrostmore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm glad somebody brought up the wii in this thread. Feeling insecure because QW isnt being ported to your baby daddy? Get used to that feeling. Right now the Q4/Doom3 engine is the golden standard for FPS. The wii is simply unable to run games that use this engine due to a lack of texture memory. Think its bad now? In a few months every game on 360 PC & PS3 will use Unreal3 and look like Gears of War. It will be even more obvious that the wii cant stand up to legitimate nextgen systems.
- madc0w, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Im sure they'll pop in some single player versions of maps.
- Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Sorry, not going to happen. PC gaming is where innovation occurs, then ported to game consoles.
Game console always jump in 5 year intervals. Even when they are released they are not truely state of the art because they are using technology that had to be invented 1 - 3 years ago in order to make it into a game console released today. Then, game consoles never improve or change their specs because game developers need a fixed platform to optimize games on. In the same time period (both during the development of the console hardware, and while a game console is released), PC components remain current with the latest technology thus game developers can always use the latest technology when targetting the PC platform. People are always buying newer PC's, not newer consoles.
Also, PC's are getting to the point where they are high performing, but relatively cheap in price. Within the next 5 years, expect PC's to match performance of the Xbox360 and PS3 but cost under $600. People prefer a PC because it can do more, and is still easier to use then a game console for many things. Sure, games consoles are doing a lot more then play games, but things like browsing the internet on a game console is a joke when it takes 5 minutes to enter text in a form.
Finally, there will always be a market for PC gaming because there are a hell of a lot more people that own a computer then game consoles. Game developers will develop to a wider audience as their source of bread and butter income, which helps to subsidize development of games for game consoles which could be feast or famine. A lousy exclusive game console title could ruin a company if they don't also have PC games ready to launch. - zulfy26, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It was inevitable. At QuakeCon 2006, they hinted at spreading out to other gaming platforms when discussing how the engine was built.
- Weebs43, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Wytefang
So basically, you bought your 360/PS3 for it's uber leet gfx. Graphics are just there to put the icing on the cake. It's like say for your birthday you got this delicious chocolate cake, but it was smashed a bit. It may not look to appealing, but it still tastes amazing. Graphics are just there to draw you in, it's gameplay what really makes a game. Just look at how many people still play the old counter-strike's, and some people have gone as far as ressurecting old versions of the game because the gameplay was just so great. - Wytefang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, yeah, and I was playing them before that on mainframes. Sorry youngspread but I got you beat in the age category. Also your pathetic and factually unsupported comments about a lack of innovation in PC gaming are way off base. It's a known fact that PC gaming is where most gaming innovation and creativity takes place these days - mainly due to the thriving mod and independent gaming scene. Also the cost to develop for smaller, more creative titles is very low. Furthermore, whining about innovation is so way off-base at this point. Most industry experts acknowledge that at this point in the game (pun intended) it'll be more about iterations than innovations. Meaning that games will provide smaller, more specific creative changes rather than something all consumingly different, like a whole new genre or something of that nature.
You also reveal your ignorance of PC gaming by saying something stupid like, "Why buy a $1800 PC if it'll just be outdated after buying two games for it?" My last PC could play every game over the course of 3 years, easily, and I could have probably squeezed out 4 years with little effort. Either you have no concept of hardware requirements or you're unaware of the fact that most PC games have video settings that allow you to (gasp!) change the resolutions and textures so it'll run better on your system - oh, and all while STILL looking better than the majority of most consoles. So yeah, go ahead and swear off PCs if you want - it's one less clueless PC user out there muddying up the PC gaming waters. Don't let the CD-ROM drive door hit you on your way out. - BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ilyag:
"This game is just a clone of Battlefield. Considering that the actual Battlefield port on the Xbox 360 sold so poorly, why is this nearly-identical game so much more exciting?"
You are very wrong on a couple of counts here. First of all, this game is a successor to Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. The gameplay in Enemy Territory is so much more complex and involved than what's in BF series, it's not even funny. Instead of just capturing enemy flag bases, each level has a unique set of complex, realistic, consecutive objectives for your team to accomplish and for the other team to prevent you from accomplishing.
The character class system is way beyond of what BF2 has, with each class having many distinct abilities. For example, the Special Ops guy can actually steal uniforms off of dead/wounded enemies and infiltrate enemy bases. The characters actually gain ranks and experience points throughout the campaign, allowing them to improve their abilities (the sniper gets better accuracy, spies can recognize enemy spies and see mines, etc). The game also rewards you for doing you character's jobs, so it's not about the frag count. IMO, no team-based online FPS to date has done it better than ET.
Also, there is no BF2 port for the 360. It's a very different (lamer) game.
"I mean, watch some videos. It looks EXACTLY like Battlefield. Lots of players, easily jump into tanks, helicopters, and other vehicles. Frankly, I fail to see any noteworthy differences between the two games."
Looks can be very deceiving. If it's anything like the first ET, this game is going to bury BF2 and UT3. - Wytefang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well no duh it's about gameplay but it's about graphics too. It's the entire package. Anyone who says otherwise either has a sh1t computer or thinks they're more 1337 than they really are when it comes to gaming. BTW, CounterSuck is hardly a good game. Kiddies play it because every other kiddie plays it and because most people are too cheap to upgrade their PC even though they'll gladly drool all over a $60 console POS game. Sad days we live in...
- assassinmaids, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Cool, a shooter for a next gen system! There aren't many of those around!
- BabyWookie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You obviously never played Enemy Territory.
- datalife, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3..yet still no launch date announced, hopefully '07
- aydoubleyou, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4at koopa:
not really.. its quake. even tho its quake "wars"... the game isnt meant to be an all out, mindless, DM. The game is much better played with less than 16 players. At least, as far as I am concerned with the other Quakes.
Hopefuly the new patch on Quake 4 fixes things up for that game.
Man, did i have expectations for quake 4 that were not fulfilled. Let's hope we dont see the same with Quake Wars. Although I dont think we will, since a certain team of idiots, no names mentioned, (cough Raven, cough cough) wont be working with it. - Wytefang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2And Wolf:ET is a clone of BF1942, etc..etc...
Wolf:ET sucked, I don't care if it was free or not. The graphics were so-so, the weapons had a crappy feel to them, and the animation was gawd-awful - it looked like you were a character skating around in Disney-on-Ice. Weak sauce. - MrFlesh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2WTF are you talking about "console fanboy" I was playing PC games before there was windows.....5 1/4" and 3 1/2" and cassettes were what my first PC games came on mind you. I was playin' space quest when you were crappin in your diaper and rubbin' it on your face. The only reason I've swtiched to console gaming is money. I don't buy tons of games anymore, especially the PC. I've lost intrest they used to always do something creative, orgional, and innovative...Now it's a world of franchises, sequels, and least common denominator....something I'm no longer willing to spend 5k a year on. What's the point of buying a $1800 gaming PC when I'll only buy two games for it before it's obsolete?
Last time I bought a gaming PC I bought Dawn of War, WoW, Sims 2 and Pirates..another game didn't come along that I wanted to play until Doom3 by then my computer wasn't up to snuff. - Weebs43, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1-edit-
- Caliente, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Quakes of War?
- radiofrequency, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Don't forget it's a PC port. Consoles used to offer unique gameplay (the Wii's strength - Nintendo still understands this), now they've morphed into poor replacements for PC games.
- MrFlesh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is cool. Now if Spore and Supreme Commander get ported to the console I'll have no reason to buy a new computer.
- Radan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Now when it is up as a topic. Personally I actually think that the world of PC gaming will eventually die out in the future (ok, a bit exaggerated but you get what I mean). The consoles are just better to play on, they are cheeper and you can always be sure that it will work for your machine (well most of the time). Also in multiplayer it is often more even, because everyone is playing with the same equipment.
I guess some of you will reply with the cliché of "It is easier to play with a mouse", and well, not really. Sure you can aim faster with a mouse for example, but as everyone else are also playing with the same controller, it doesn't really matter. Well, I agree that Strategy games are still a bit hard to play on a game console, though, but maybe that's something a Wii like controller can take care of. - X1pher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@madc0w
That is false, they simply don't recommend going over 24, they have stated from the beginning that the game it self does not impose any play cap. How ever after playing the alpha at QuakeCon I will say even 8v8 games are fun as hell. They keep every one at a focused front line which keeps the fighting going even with the large maps. The difference is the front line moves as either side progresses or digresses. - Wytefang, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You'd have every reason to buy a new system since there are about 20 great PC games coming out this year. Get a clue, console fanboy.
- X1pher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@awesomemonster
Wrong, due to the design of the gameplay even with the giant maps they keep the front line focused. I was at QuakeCon playing the alpha with 8v8 games and their was plenty of action go go around. - MrFlesh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You have to remember that consoles are doing things that the PC does. Playing internet videos and streaming music, and it doesn't take 5 minutes to input a web address if you use a keyboard and mouse something the PS3 can do....not sure about the 360. Honestly if you can hook a keyboard and mouse up to the consoles I dont understand why game developers don't offer keyboard support in thier games.
- Wytefang, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sure, Wolf: ET was SO much more complex than BF2. Wow, you achieve objectives by going somewhere and doing something just like you do by going to a flag and waiting for it to turn to your side in BF2 - only in Wolf:ET you go somewhere to flip a switch or shoot a box. What a difference that is from BF2. ::: sarcasm ::: There is in no way more complexity in that crap-fest you call Wolf:ET. The primary reason it was even remotely successful is because the same dipsh*ts that buy consoles because they think it's too expensive to have a good PC (which it isn't) all owned crap PCs and since Wolf:ET caters to crappy low-end PCs, they ate it up like candy - that and it was free. Other than the inexpensiveness of Wolf:ET, there was nothing even remotely good about it. It looked like crap, animated like crap, and was just as derivative as anything else out there.
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is