COD 4 in game vid
 

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/20756.html


Playing on the 360.

night vision was pretty cool, other than that its just another call of duty game in the end.

Looks pretty damn cool. For the first time in the COD series, I can say the player animations actually look right, instead of looking like retards with scoliosis.

You know what I hate though? Having the ironsights zoom in. Why not just make it like ARMA, RO, or AA where iron sighting has little zoom or no zoom at all? I think it looks a LOT cooler in ARMA the way they did their IS through the M68 aimpoint sight:


[url:cd1fa]http://youtube.com/watch?v=rPv35iRLq0k[/url:cd1fa]

I dunno but it looked jerky as hell to me it was annoying as fuck to watch

I liked everything except for how the guy was mad ADD on shooting

LOL yeah, that guy playing was horrible. I think he killed 2 people during that entire battle.

HAW HAW HAW! He showed that windowsill a thing or two, though.

I'll wait for the PC game action.

I think it looks cool as shit

I think the player animations and the weapon animations look awesome. Sounds are a bit weak imo.

looks ok but then again just seems like another ghost recon type game.


was telling milla and trip this on xbox live last night that they shoulda made a first world war game.

yeah, i've been wanting a good WWI game for a while. Don't know if it will ever happen. People don't have a long enough attention span for bolt action rifles and trench warfare. They'd rather run around bunny hopping unloading 500 rounds of ammo in 30 seconds.

Red Orchestra, although its WWII, has a lot of that slow paced, bolt action rifles, trench warefare(somewhat) aspect to it. Its fun just takes some getting used to.

[quote="Bean 2":11c19]Red Orchestra, although its WWII, has a lot of that slow paced, bolt action rifles, trench warefare(somewhat) aspect to it. Its fun just takes some getting used to.[/quote:11c19]

I am so tempted to get RO!!
I hear it's a great game with some cool stuff!

[quote="Scorpion -]M15F1T[-":fd11d][quote="Bean 2":fd11d]Red Orchestra, although its WWII, has a lot of that slow paced, bolt action rifles, trench warefare(somewhat) aspect to it. Its fun just takes some getting used to.[/quote:fd11d]

I am so tempted to get RO!!
I hear it's a great game with some cool stuff![/quote:fd11d]

I played it for UT2004 when it was a free mod and it was pretty cool. A lot of the time when u died, you had no idea where the shot came from. It was one of the most realistic WWII games ive played and when you actually got a kill, there was more of a sense of skill in it than you feel with most games.

holy shit i saw this vid a few days ago and it looks un fucking real

Thats what I thought initially, but then I remembered that half the servers on mohaa when I used to play were rifles only anyway....and not all WW1 battles were strictly trench warfare. Also there were a bunch of experimental automatic weapons made for trench raids floating around in the last few years of the war.

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.

Another vid showing bullet penetration.

http://www.charlieoscardelta.com/siteda ... HD_Med.zip

"OMFG HAX" get ready..

looks pretty awesome. when i watched the video i kept thinking about the modern warfare mod they made for original cod way back when.

I think its cool to see that, I get pissed in R6 Vegas that I cant shoot a fucking guy thru a piece of plywood. I mean c'mon

True but wait till you see the amount of "hack" accusations you see in online play. biggrin:

psh the way I play MP on 360 I dont have to worry about that....lol biggrin:

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:

LOL Jesus. Knew this game wouldn't live up to the hype generated by the trailer. It really seems to be Unreal Tournament with military skins honestly. There doesn't seems to be much recoil at all on full-auto fire, and the run speed looks about as ridiculous as ever.

PC game is 32 player MP

console game is 16 player MP

Wish they would make that clear in these vids instead of generalising like all versions have the same player cap. cuss:

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.

Delta force land warrior had 200+ players in beta testing (was beta testing back them) but in the long run net code and latency killed that kind of support.

Also the maps in small maps (vs BF or DF) wouldn't be able to handle that many players.

One last thing, the only video from IW to show the PC version is the deep impact one. All other video's have been from the 360. Hence the console hud vs PC hud is different in the latest video.

One more thing, I need to give EA some lovin so I will be heading out to a location that has not been released just yet for a MP preview of Airborne in about 2 weeks. This is not your typical EA located event.

So expect some Airborne MP info soon.

Whats the bets with their multi million dollar budget that they still can't play a game like dod source or red orchestra and copy the mobile mg's from them. cuss:

HOLY FUCIN SHIIT CHEK DA NU TRAILUR!!


http://www.gametrailers.com/player/21256.html?type=mov



rock: rock: rock: rock: rock: rock: rock: rock: rock: rock: rock:

ed: beer: ed: beer: ed:

[quote="mr.miyagi":2d56a][b]HOLY FUCIN SHIIT CHEK DA NU TRAILUR!![/b]


[url="http://www.gametrailers.com/player/21256.html?type=mov"]http://www.gametrailers.com/player/21256.html?type=mov[/url]



[/quote:2d56a]

Noice, just as well i finished building my new system yesterday then. happy:

[quote=geRV]Noice, just as well i finished building my new system yesterday then. happy:[/quote:425e4]
i refuse to install quicktime to view this

Noice, just as well i finished building my new system yesterday then. happy:[/quote:71730]
i refuse to install quicktime to view this[/quote:71730]

Theres a Windows Media player version too on the same site and OH BOY its worth it

nice. but lol @ gerv saying he needs a new system

Already built it and am using it right now. Sold off my other parts, shuttle, 8800gts, fx60, 2 gig ram. Used the cash i got for the parts to buy the new parts.

Intel core 2 quadro 2.4ghz @ 3ghz
EVGA 8800GTX ACS3 KO edition
OCZ pc2-8500 1066mhz ddr2-2gb
Thermaltake toughtpower 850 watt psu
Lian Li v1000+ case
Asus p5K intel p35 motherboard


[img]http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gerald.marley/new.jpg[/img]

happy:

the question isn't the new parts....its where THE FUCK did you get the money for the "old" parts?

eek:

If i got money for the old parts it should be pretty obvious to assume i sold them on. Some went on ebay others went on a pvt selling forum. happy: