![]() |
Quote:
I can easily see a good WW1 FPS game in my head, I just wish someone would go ahead and make one. Even if it were just trench warfare, BIA was just covering fire/flank the entire game and it did pretty well. I find it odd that its never been explored and instead gaming companies would prefer to just make another 101st airborne in europe 1944 clone shooter game. They've raped the fuck out of D-Day and the normandy campaign. |
I think this looks phenomenal, the reload animations, movement animations, and they got the NVG's right with the IR lasers only visible to NVGs, thats a great small detail that makes a game awesome, ill defiantly get this game
Just saw the IR patches on their sleeves, thats sick. |
|
Quote:
|
looks pretty awesome. when i watched the video i kept thinking about the modern warfare mod they made for original cod way back when.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'll snag it for the pc instead, the old tank fps controls on consoles get on my nerves far too much happy:
|
Just wached a dev interview, the game only supports 16 players online. oOo:
Why is it that games for pc are getting more and more dumbed down just to suit consoles? Would have expected 32 at the least but 16. rolleyes: |
Quote:
|
PC game is 32 player MP
console game is 16 player MP |
Quote:
|
When is there going to be a game with hundreds of players per side?!
When I played BF1942 I always thought the next step would be to increase the player count, focus on the netcode to support that and make battles more epic then ever before. I don't see any company having the balls to pull off such a thing or is there such a game in the works? mad: |
[quote="mr.miyagi":0cf01]When is there going to be a game with hundreds of players per side?!
When I played BF1942 I always thought the next step would be to increase the player count, focus on the netcode to support that and make battles more epic then ever before. I don't see any company having the balls to pull off such a thing or is there such a game in the works? mad:[/quote:0cf01] The problem with hundreds of players is you have to have linear objecives or it just turns into a clusterfuck. BF2 etc have objectives spread out a over the place you can cap in any order you want, as a result of this normally theres only a handfull of players fighting over these areas. Thats one of the few things quakewars does well, you have to do things in sequence so the action is around those objecives, its only 24 players but usually it feels like theres a lot more. BF2 initially was meant to support 128 players but they scaled it back. If a game is gonna do 128 then it should probably have linear objectives like quakewars so it seem more like a massive battle. I dont thing having 100 plus is that hard, when dod source came out it had 64 player suipport but the maps were too small of it and it got scaled back, even with 64 players and physics objects and ragdoll etc i never really seen much more lag than a standard 32 player server. It can be done easily enough, they just need to do it in a way that its not just an all out clusterfuck, and with 100+ players that wont be easy. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.12 by ScriptzBin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1998 - 2007 by Rudedog Productions | All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.