Hey! Don't lump us old-school COD players in with the new ones! I still play UO from time to time, and I own the newer ones up to MW1 and World at War (though they are very stale, more worth playing once for the single player). I finally lost faith in the franchise when they announced their new multiplayer system, which completely threw us original PC fans under the bus, and I said "never again". I agree modern COD games are terrible, not because they're mainstream but because they're just mindless, boring games. And the people who play them are now the console crowd, which should tell you everything. People who buy consoles to play FPS games are either really poor or just stupid. And anyone who goes out and buys the new game every year is a complete idiot because they spend a full high production value's worth on the game when they just took a previous game and reskinned it, just like last year, and the year before. It's basically like buying the new Madden game every year. You know it's going to be worthless next year when the new one comes out and almost nothing's different.
Far as the battlefield games go, I like em, as long as you're playing on PC. That's a franchise that's even WORSE to play on console because the consoles cant handle the huge server sizes that dedicated servers can.
I feel like a huge problem with the industry is that once they find an extremely successful franchise they start pumping out new games exactly like the previous one every year, and the idiot fans actually buy them. They don't innovate, they steal a few aspects from other popular games of the genre. Halo does this too. Game sequels should take years to make because it's truly a new game, and is often on a new engine. That's how it always used to be, but tell that to EA/Activision who cares not about the quality of their products, only how much money they can scam people out of selling the same product and selling 4 maps for $15.
This is why Steam is helping to save the industry, because they give indie devs the ability to skip publishers and distribution, and just send their game right out for download. After all these years I finally understand why Steam really DOESN'T suck :P
<!--quoteo(post=1877939:date=Oct 3 2011, 09:05 PM:name=BJHBnade_spammer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BJHBnade_spammer @ Oct 3 2011, 09:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1877939"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->black ops only meaningful cod game ever<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry but BO is half as good as MW2 (at actual patches) only thing that keeps me playing BO is ZombieMode. Common.... Dogs, RC-Cars usless ultraslow mortar??? 8.11.2011 BO will be old!
CoD players (I play it on console because my friends don't play pc....old guys) are no problem for NS2 they stay and learn the game or they leave playing an arcade shooter (CoD).
The only 2 groups I am afraid of are: •Cheaters •Kids/Griefers
I have to say that the NS1 comu is one of the most adult comu (beside co only players ;-) ) I ever met! And I am sure the "adults" will be more attracted to NS. Most of us started FPS gaming with: Doom, Hexen, Wolfenstein3D, Pong or CS beta 6 and RTS like C&C1, Civilisations,Leisure Suite Larry, Dune or maybe Dungeon Keeper. We have seen all the great things of both sides but actual games never are so good as to old ones (and I don't talk about Graphic and co). And NS (beside Black and White) is a game with a gameplay you and me never had seen before.
the battlezone games not talking bout the one on atari the pc ones those where fun and where fps rts so ive seen that kind of game before ns1 came out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlezone_%281998_video_game%29" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlezone_%2...8_video_game%29</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1877888:date=Oct 3 2011, 03:37 PM:name=Cygone)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cygone @ Oct 3 2011, 03:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1877888"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Activision bought out Blizzard, not the other way around, Blizzard wwere getting them selves so far into debt with the creation of WoW (original), they had no choice but to 'sell out'. (oh how I bet these wish they didnt!).
Activision makes a loss, the only part of that company that makes money is Blizzard (probably the best game developer ever). So you could say, Activision saved Blizzard, and now Blizzard saves Activition.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just that everything belongs to the Vivendi Group/ Vivendi Games. (Blizzard since 1998, and since 2008 the fusion called Activision Blizzard)
The fusion was to form the "world's largest and most profitable pure-play video game publisher" because they believed with this fusion they ll have "leading market positions across all categories"
PS: CoD is a good franchise, and so is Bf - and every argument you have against either of this two it applies to them both - this fanboy crap of whining noobs is pretty sad. If you want innovation, both of this games dont deliver since years. (and they are both fragfests - which isnt necessary something bad - at least i like to dominate noobs)
Cool kids atm say they like/ed: Battlefield 1942, CoD 2, Cs, Quake, Tribes 2, bf3...
Cool kids atm hate: every CoD after 4, Halo, ns1 combat, css, ...
Cool kids statement falls flat. At least for me - Cool and all you know ;)
In all honesty, I think I will enjoy NS2 more than I will enjoy BF3. BF3 is a locked system similar to Homefront and the latest Cod games.
Yes there are dedicated servers, but without mod tools to make the mods you want for those servers the game will grow old within the blink of an eye. It's like driving a turbocharged tractor. It might be fun to some extent but once the novelty of having driven one goes away it's not so fun anymore.
If my prediction comes true, BF2 will rise over BF3 in number of players within two or three years from it's release. If BF3 still has players worthy of a mention by that time I'll save a box of candy which will be stale by that time and eat it(since I lack hats).
As for Cod. While the singleplayer is (very)good for a cinematic driven single player(modern rail shooter, but actually entertaining), the multiplayer is horrid. This is OFC just my opinion, but any game that kills of their own multiplayer franchise by introducing paid DLCs is not a game you want to follow.
Yeah I played BF3 beta, and it looks amazing, however I really really DONT like it, i think that BFBC2 was just better for playabiliy, having to stay prone all the time, and dying from people you just cant see when you have to run imo just sucks. However this is MY OPINION
<!--quoteo(post=1877967:date=Oct 4 2011, 12:22 AM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Oct 4 2011, 12:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1877967"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just that everything belongs to the Vivendi Group/ Vivendi Games. (Blizzard since 1998, and since 2008 the fusion called Activision Blizzard)
The fusion was to form the "world's largest and most profitable pure-play video game publisher" because they believed with this fusion they ll have "leading market positions across all categories"
PS: CoD is a good franchise, and so is Bf - and every argument you have against either of this two it applies to them both - this fanboy crap of whining noobs is pretty sad. If you want innovation, both of this games dont deliver since years. (and they are both fragfests - which isnt necessary something bad - at least i like to dominate noobs)
Cool kids atm say they like/ed: Battlefield 1942, CoD 2, Cs, Quake, Tribes 2, bf3...
Cool kids atm hate: every CoD after 4, Halo, ns1 combat, css, ...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would cool kids say they liked BF 1942 and CoD 2?
BF 1942 was a hunk of buggy ###### that barely worked and CoD 2 was a piss poor follow-up to the game Ive had the second most enjoyable team experience within the last 12 years of online gaming.
So called "CoD players" are more than welcome in my opinion.
Those withexperience with NS or any other team/strategy based game have the advantage due higher level learning experience but in the end what matters is the dedication and attitude towards gaming.
Only thing im afraid these "CoD players" could do is cause even further dumbing down. Imo the game is way too soft as it is.
The real question is why play CoD when there is just going to be another version of it in 6 months. They are all about the money and black ops completely blows. They had so many bugs.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited October 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1878013:date=Oct 4 2011, 12:55 PM:name=noodleZ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (noodleZ @ Oct 4 2011, 12:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878013"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->BF 1942 was a hunk of buggy ###### that barely worked<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmm, dunno about that as I've never had issues at all, except on the rare occasion it crashed to desktop... Blame your rig at the time, not the game? :P
This is the most stupid thread I have ever read, and you see them popping up in nearly every gaming forum. People used to say the same about the effect of the CS community on the likes of NS.
The fact is that COD is aimed at a completely different market, the casual gamer.
COD is fun, but it doesn't give me the satisfaction of games like NS2 or L4D2. I like more depth in my team play experience.
Like many, I play all sorts of games. It doesn't mean I'm one or the other.
The whole idea of communities effecting other gaming communities is absurd. In games you are ruled by the law of the game. NS2 requires you to play in a certain way, that happens to be a more complex than the likes of COD.
The only thing you should worry about as the 'hardcore' consumer, is that in times of uncertainty (such as the recession we are in) business will try to appeal to the 'mass market' to cover any losses and maximise profit. That means games will be made to suit the less 'niche' markets and target the casual gamer.
Luckily NS2 is independent and has a strong vision, a strong following and is refreshing in the current market. Yes, they want it to be more understandable to the 'average' gamer, but that doesn't mean losing vision or complexity, it just means making the learning curve easier.
Like has been said, griefers or hackers are the only issue here. Like in any game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->QUOTE (noodleZ @ Oct 4 2011, 12:55 PM) * BF 1942 was a hunk of buggy ###### that barely worked<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Remember BF1942 was riddled with serverside mods and most CTD you seen was from incorrectly naming of modded files, example: gazala.rfa was serverside modded rather than using an updated file like gazala_001.rfa resulting in map version mismatch and causing errors (CTD). I still play the hell out of this game to this day even on win7 64bit and it runs perfectly fine for me.
<!--quoteo(post=1878059:date=Oct 4 2011, 01:11 PM:name=gorge.ous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gorge.ous @ Oct 4 2011, 01:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878059"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->BF1942 might have been buggy but there was nothing remotely comparable to play. So we played it until our fingers bled!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then we played the DC and DC Final mod until our hands where worn to stumps!
<!--quoteo(post=1878085:date=Oct 5 2011, 02:06 AM:name=SN.Wolf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SN.Wolf @ Oct 5 2011, 02:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878085"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Remember BF1942 was riddled with serverside mods and most CTD you seen was from incorrectly naming of modded files, example: gazala.rfa was serverside modded rather than using an updated file like gazala_001.rfa resulting in map version mismatch and causing errors (CTD). I still play the hell out of this game to this day even on win7 64bit and it runs perfectly fine for me.
Then we played the DC and DC Final mod until our hands where worn to stumps!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hear hear!
(I miss good old bf1942..why? Cause it was moddable, had huge maps and tons of vehicles, and the DC Final mod was beyond awesome. Now we have BF3..which isnt moddable, doesnt have tons of vehicles and has larger maps, but not in the same way. Oh well, maybe I'm just an old bitter man)
I got Nuclear Dawn a while back and later got this. I never played NS1.
Nuclear Dawn is very addicting. I feel as though commanding is more space management than RTS, but I really love how the game gets people communicating. At first I hated the combat, because I really dislike aiming down sights in modern games. The two main games in my background are Unreal Tournament 99 and Killzone 2. Killzone 2 taught me to love hipfiring and hate ADS, since no one uses sights in that games, you just strafe and shoot short bursts from the hip or tap fire. The main reason I can never get into CoD or BF3 is that those games force you to aim down sights to be effective..which means that you aren't very mobile when shooting, and your opponents aren't very mobile. It ends up being a lot of people standing still while firing. Later on, I realized that strafing and shooting medium to long bursts from the hip in Nuclear Dawn is actually best for dueling as the Assault class. So I learned to appreciate the combat a lot more.
As for NS2, I feel that it is a lot better than Nuclear Dawn. Of course, it is still in Beta so it is glitchier and not optimized, but other than that, it is probably better in every way. It provides an atmosphere that Nuclear Dawn lacks, and the RTS mechanics seem deeper. Also, I love the fact that there is no ADS! The community seems friendly so far.
Hey guys, I hear you all talking about this COD and Battlefield... and how some of you are worried, others are not, and ultimately, most here think this is a stupid discussion...
but uh... what's COD and whats Battlefield? I haven't heard of these two games before. I also heard a Black Ops mentioned, the name sounds cool, like a stealth game, or something similar to the old Syndicate game, that was cool.
Anyway, I think arguing about things is stupid, and more often than not, only exist for the sake of arguing itself.
You can't really generalize all players of a genre by whatever game's elitist views you currently subscribe to.
I guarantee you there a re plenty of gamers that exist in any game, no matter how nub you think it is, that will make you eat your words when they try our NS2.
"CoD" and "BF3" are both "Cash Cow's" you have COD made for kids and BF3 made with a stupid DRM called Battlelog (also adding the fact that "EA plans on derailing COD" AKA "Cash Cow"), they claim BF3 is the fastest loading game, I disagree, Loads of games load faster hell BFBC2 has the same load time as BF3.
Now on topic I wouldn't worry about COD kids or BF3 noobs playing this and besides if they did, they would be sooking about how a web browser is the future of PC gaming and how extraordinary DICE and EA are with a cheap and completely broken (DRM) system :D
I played the BF3 beta (hell I loved BF2 and didn't mind BC2), It's just terrible, to many gimmicks/bull######. (Yes, I played Caspian Border with 64 players still bad)
Battlelog is a window into the future of gaming. The mechanism of finding servers, organizing with friends, parties, squads, stats, *loading the game, map, and connecting to the server, all huge things done better in this manner.
Basically, the biggest accomplishment of the Battlelog process, is I no longer have to waste time booting a game, logging in, waiting to connect to a server, loading the respective map. This is all eliminated (with regards to what I am doing on my computer), I can keep doing whatever I am doing while this process occurs, browsing the net, watching a tv show, etc.
Battlelog is not DRM, that is Origin. (Also, as for loading times, BC2 has a long drawn out process you have to sit there for, BF3 does not.)
I am not a COD kid, or a BF3 noob, but I am a very experienced, and quite skilled FPS player.
Not everyone is, but the games are aimed for those people.
LOL...
Actually your right Battle-log is the future, why? because its cheaper and allows the big companies to yet again bend us over and give it to us without lube.
Battle-log is still a DRM just like UBIsofts crap. Origin is just a steam knock off (nothing wrong with competition for Digital Downloads) but, Origin is not for competition, its for EA to make the most amounts of money as they will only sell EA games (and sell your info to other people (I think steam does the same thing)), this ###### is stupid and I hope BF3 flops on the PC because this whole way they have handled this, BF3 is pretty much turning out to be just how MW2's case went.
And for the record with Battle-log, you still launch a damn browser you still have to look for a server, all this can be done in an in game menu. Ever heard of Magic? example; Because I told you I put the Ace of Spades (and I showed you) faced down and you believe that the card facing down is the Ace of Spades and then you flip it around and it turns out to be the 3 of diamonds I have fooled you into thinking that I put the Ace of Spades down, its the exact same thing with this Battle-log, the amount of people that have been deceived by the bull###### that DICE/EA claims, it takes just as long to get BF3 running as any other game out their but just like magic you are blinded by the deception, the game does not load any quicker its just a bull###### claim to make people think that it launches quick.
But, of coarse the people that defend Battle-log completely forget to face the fact that you still have to load Origin, then open a web browser and then click on a server to get into one, it takes the same amount of time to load a game and choose a server with every other game.
If your going to compare, do it right or don't do it at all.
I'm not the least bit concerned about the COD crowd. Mainly because it's a designation for a group of people that largely doesn't exist.
People who follow one particular brand within a game market (MMO, FPS, RTS etc) often fall into the routine of stereotyping those who play other, similar games, as being some kind of different entity. Now to be fair, there are a few players who stick to one brand and don't touch others. But they're a minority. The average player who likes FPS games will check out most major FPS titles that come out. Case in point, over time I've played Quake 2, CS, TF2, HL series, Bad Company 2, BF1942 (And Codename Eagle. Now that was hilariously broken), NS and Borderlands, to name a few. Don't want to play with the COD crowd? You've been playing with them the whole time. They're called "FPS players"
<!--quoteo(post=1878276:date=Oct 6 2011, 03:09 PM:name=Ironsoul)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ironsoul @ Oct 6 2011, 03:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878276"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hey guys, I hear you all talking about this COD and Battlefield... and how some of you are worried, others are not, and ultimately, most here think this is a stupid discussion...
but uh... what's COD and whats Battlefield? I haven't heard of these two games before. I also heard a Black Ops mentioned, the name sounds cool, like a stealth game, or something similar to the old Syndicate game, that was cool.
Anyway, I think arguing about things is stupid, and more often than not, only exist for the sake of arguing itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now really you never heard of them? No joke? Black ops is CoD (Call of Duty a game first developed in 2003 and almost every year a new one comes out, a total of 7 games, including the one that comes out 8. November, are out to play.)
Btw NS2 is a 5 in one game FPS, RTS,FPM, Flight Simulator and a Gardening Simulator.
Yeah, not a fan of having to load Origin, and originally was not a fan of having to load my browser to open BF3.
In all honesty though, I'd prefer battlelog for all my FPS games. Server slot reservations? For myself, and all of the party I am in. This alone is a massive step forward. Not having to do any of this ingame is a massive improvement, and makes the entire process easier, faster, and does not waste any of my time if I had to do it in game. Loading the game, map, and server in the background? Again, massive improvement. Not sure why you dislike this so much Doom.
I find the enjoyment of online gaming comes mostly from other players. Ns1 had a awesome community in the servers i used to play in, and to be honest id prefer the cod crowd stick to their death match search and destroy bull*######. Dont want them here, never will.
Comments
Far as the battlefield games go, I like em, as long as you're playing on PC. That's a franchise that's even WORSE to play on console because the consoles cant handle the huge server sizes that dedicated servers can.
I feel like a huge problem with the industry is that once they find an extremely successful franchise they start pumping out new games exactly like the previous one every year, and the idiot fans actually buy them. They don't innovate, they steal a few aspects from other popular games of the genre. Halo does this too. Game sequels should take years to make because it's truly a new game, and is often on a new engine. That's how it always used to be, but tell that to EA/Activision who cares not about the quality of their products, only how much money they can scam people out of selling the same product and selling 4 maps for $15.
This is why Steam is helping to save the industry, because they give indie devs the ability to skip publishers and distribution, and just send their game right out for download. After all these years I finally understand why Steam really DOESN'T suck :P
Being a hardcore old-school doom fan/mapper I recognized e1m6 :p
Sorry but BO is half as good as MW2 (at actual patches) only thing that keeps me playing BO is ZombieMode.
Common.... Dogs, RC-Cars usless ultraslow mortar??? 8.11.2011 BO will be old!
CoD players (I play it on console because my friends don't play pc....old guys) are no problem for NS2 they stay and learn the game or they leave playing an arcade shooter (CoD).
The only 2 groups I am afraid of are:
•Cheaters
•Kids/Griefers
I have to say that the NS1 comu is one of the most adult comu (beside co only players ;-) ) I ever met! And I am sure the "adults" will be more attracted to NS.
Most of us started FPS gaming with: Doom, Hexen, Wolfenstein3D, Pong or CS beta 6 and RTS like C&C1, Civilisations,Leisure Suite Larry, Dune or maybe Dungeon Keeper.
We have seen all the great things of both sides but actual games never are so good as to old ones (and I don't talk about Graphic and co).
And NS (beside Black and White) is a game with a gameplay you and me never had seen before.
the pc ones those where fun and where fps rts so ive seen that kind of game before ns1 came out
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlezone_%281998_video_game%29" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlezone_%2...8_video_game%29</a>
Activision makes a loss, the only part of that company that makes money is Blizzard (probably the best game developer ever). So you could say, Activision saved Blizzard, and now Blizzard saves Activition.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just that everything belongs to the Vivendi Group/ Vivendi Games. (Blizzard since 1998, and since 2008 the fusion called Activision Blizzard)
The fusion was to form the "world's largest and most profitable pure-play video game publisher" because they believed with this fusion they ll have "leading market positions across all categories"
PS: CoD is a good franchise, and so is Bf - and every argument you have against either of this two it applies to them both - this fanboy crap of whining noobs is pretty sad.
If you want innovation, both of this games dont deliver since years. (and they are both fragfests - which isnt necessary something bad - at least i like to dominate noobs)
Cool kids atm say they like/ed:
Battlefield 1942, CoD 2, Cs, Quake, Tribes 2, bf3...
Cool kids atm hate:
every CoD after 4, Halo, ns1 combat, css, ...
In all honesty, I think I will enjoy NS2 more than I will enjoy BF3.
BF3 is a locked system similar to Homefront and the latest Cod games.
Yes there are dedicated servers, but without mod tools to make the mods you want for those servers the game will grow old within the blink of an eye.
It's like driving a turbocharged tractor. It might be fun to some extent but once the novelty of having driven one goes away it's not so fun anymore.
If my prediction comes true, BF2 will rise over BF3 in number of players within two or three years from it's release.
If BF3 still has players worthy of a mention by that time I'll save a box of candy which will be stale by that time and eat it(since I lack hats).
As for Cod. While the singleplayer is (very)good for a cinematic driven single player(modern rail shooter, but actually entertaining), the multiplayer is horrid.
This is OFC just my opinion, but any game that kills of their own multiplayer franchise by introducing paid DLCs is not a game you want to follow.
The fusion was to form the "world's largest and most profitable pure-play video game publisher" because they believed with this fusion they ll have "leading market positions across all categories"
PS: CoD is a good franchise, and so is Bf - and every argument you have against either of this two it applies to them both - this fanboy crap of whining noobs is pretty sad.
If you want innovation, both of this games dont deliver since years. (and they are both fragfests - which isnt necessary something bad - at least i like to dominate noobs)
Cool kids atm say they like/ed:
Battlefield 1942, CoD 2, Cs, Quake, Tribes 2, bf3...
Cool kids atm hate:
every CoD after 4, Halo, ns1 combat, css, ...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would cool kids say they liked BF 1942 and CoD 2?
BF 1942 was a hunk of buggy ###### that barely worked and CoD 2 was a piss poor follow-up to the game Ive had the second most enjoyable team experience within the last 12 years of online gaming.
Those withexperience with NS or any other team/strategy based game have the advantage due higher level learning experience but in the end what matters is the dedication and attitude towards gaming.
Only thing im afraid these "CoD players" could do is cause even further dumbing down. Imo the game is way too soft as it is.
Can you say "invisible napalm?"
dont like any of the other cod games at all.
battlefield is more of my game
Hmm, dunno about that as I've never had issues at all, except on the rare occasion it crashed to desktop... Blame your rig at the time, not the game? :P
The fact is that COD is aimed at a completely different market, the casual gamer.
COD is fun, but it doesn't give me the satisfaction of games like NS2 or L4D2. I like more depth in my team play experience.
Like many, I play all sorts of games. It doesn't mean I'm one or the other.
The whole idea of communities effecting other gaming communities is absurd. In games you are ruled by the law of the game. NS2 requires you to play in a certain way, that happens to be a more complex than the likes of COD.
The only thing you should worry about as the 'hardcore' consumer, is that in times of uncertainty (such as the recession we are in) business will try to appeal to the 'mass market' to cover any losses and maximise profit. That means games will be made to suit the less 'niche' markets and target the casual gamer.
Luckily NS2 is independent and has a strong vision, a strong following and is refreshing in the current market. Yes, they want it to be more understandable to the 'average' gamer, but that doesn't mean losing vision or complexity, it just means making the learning curve easier.
Like has been said, griefers or hackers are the only issue here. Like in any game.
BF 1942 was a hunk of buggy ###### that barely worked<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Remember BF1942 was riddled with serverside mods and most CTD you seen was from incorrectly naming of modded files, example: gazala.rfa was serverside modded rather than using an updated file like gazala_001.rfa resulting in map version mismatch and causing errors (CTD). I still play the hell out of this game to this day even on win7 64bit and it runs perfectly fine for me.
<!--quoteo(post=1878059:date=Oct 4 2011, 01:11 PM:name=gorge.ous)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gorge.ous @ Oct 4 2011, 01:11 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1878059"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->BF1942 might have been buggy but there was nothing remotely comparable to play. So we played it until our fingers bled!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then we played the DC and DC Final mod until our hands where worn to stumps!
Then we played the DC and DC Final mod until our hands where worn to stumps!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hear hear!
(I miss good old bf1942..why? Cause it was moddable, had huge maps and tons of vehicles, and the DC Final mod was beyond awesome. Now we have BF3..which isnt moddable, doesnt have tons of vehicles and has larger maps, but not in the same way. Oh well, maybe I'm just an old bitter man)
I got Nuclear Dawn a while back and later got this. I never played NS1.
Nuclear Dawn is very addicting. I feel as though commanding is more space management than RTS, but I really love how the game gets people communicating.
At first I hated the combat, because I really dislike aiming down sights in modern games. The two main games in my background are Unreal Tournament 99 and Killzone 2. Killzone 2 taught me to love hipfiring and hate ADS, since no one uses sights in that games, you just strafe and shoot short bursts from the hip or tap fire. The main reason I can never get into CoD or BF3 is that those games force you to aim down sights to be effective..which means that you aren't very mobile when shooting, and your opponents aren't very mobile. It ends up being a lot of people standing still while firing.
Later on, I realized that strafing and shooting medium to long bursts from the hip in Nuclear Dawn is actually best for dueling as the Assault class. So I learned to appreciate the combat a lot more.
As for NS2, I feel that it is a lot better than Nuclear Dawn. Of course, it is still in Beta so it is glitchier and not optimized, but other than that, it is probably better in every way. It provides an atmosphere that Nuclear Dawn lacks, and the RTS mechanics seem deeper. Also, I love the fact that there is no ADS! The community seems friendly so far.
but uh... what's COD and whats Battlefield? I haven't heard of these two games before. I also heard a Black Ops mentioned, the name sounds cool, like a stealth game, or something similar to the old Syndicate game, that was cool.
Anyway, I think arguing about things is stupid, and more often than not, only exist for the sake of arguing itself.
I guarantee you there a re plenty of gamers that exist in any game, no matter how nub you think it is, that will make you eat your words when they try our NS2.
Now on topic I wouldn't worry about COD kids or BF3 noobs playing this and besides if they did, they would be sooking about how a web browser is the future of PC gaming and how extraordinary DICE and EA are with a cheap and completely broken (DRM) system :D
I played the BF3 beta (hell I loved BF2 and didn't mind BC2), It's just terrible, to many gimmicks/bull######. (Yes, I played Caspian Border with 64 players still bad)
Bottom Line.
Natural Selection 2 should be fine.
Basically, the biggest accomplishment of the Battlelog process, is I no longer have to waste time booting a game, logging in, waiting to connect to a server, loading the respective map. This is all eliminated (with regards to what I am doing on my computer), I can keep doing whatever I am doing while this process occurs, browsing the net, watching a tv show, etc.
Battlelog is not DRM, that is Origin. (Also, as for loading times, BC2 has a long drawn out process you have to sit there for, BF3 does not.)
I am not a COD kid, or a BF3 noob, but I am a very experienced, and quite skilled FPS player.
LOL...
Actually your right Battle-log is the future, why? because its cheaper and allows the big companies to yet again bend us over and give it to us without lube.
Battle-log is still a DRM just like UBIsofts crap. Origin is just a steam knock off (nothing wrong with competition for Digital Downloads) but, Origin is not for competition, its for EA to make the most amounts of money as they will only sell EA games (and sell your info to other people (I think steam does the same thing)), this ###### is stupid and I hope BF3 flops on the PC because this whole way they have handled this, BF3 is pretty much turning out to be just how MW2's case went.
And for the record with Battle-log, you still launch a damn browser you still have to look for a server, all this can be done in an in game menu. Ever heard of Magic?
example; Because I told you I put the Ace of Spades (and I showed you) faced down and you believe that the card facing down is the Ace of Spades and then you flip it around and it turns out to be the 3 of diamonds I have fooled you into thinking that I put the Ace of Spades down, its the exact same thing with this Battle-log, the amount of people that have been deceived by the bull###### that DICE/EA claims, it takes just as long to get BF3 running as any other game out their but just like magic you are blinded by the deception, the game does not load any quicker its just a bull###### claim to make people think that it launches quick.
But, of coarse the people that defend Battle-log completely forget to face the fact that you still have to load Origin, then open a web browser and then click on a server to get into one, it takes the same amount of time to load a game and choose a server with every other game.
If your going to compare, do it right or don't do it at all.
People who follow one particular brand within a game market (MMO, FPS, RTS etc) often fall into the routine of stereotyping those who play other, similar games, as being some kind of different entity. Now to be fair, there are a few players who stick to one brand and don't touch others. But they're a minority. The average player who likes FPS games will check out most major FPS titles that come out. Case in point, over time I've played Quake 2, CS, TF2, HL series, Bad Company 2, BF1942 (And Codename Eagle. Now that was hilariously broken), NS and Borderlands, to name a few. Don't want to play with the COD crowd? You've been playing with them the whole time. They're called "FPS players"
but uh... what's COD and whats Battlefield? I haven't heard of these two games before. I also heard a Black Ops mentioned, the name sounds cool, like a stealth game, or something similar to the old Syndicate game, that was cool.
Anyway, I think arguing about things is stupid, and more often than not, only exist for the sake of arguing itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now really you never heard of them? No joke?
Black ops is CoD (Call of Duty a game first developed in 2003 and almost every year a new one comes out, a total of 7 games, including the one that comes out 8. November, are out to play.)
Btw NS2 is a 5 in one game FPS, RTS,FPM, Flight Simulator and a Gardening Simulator.
In all honesty though, I'd prefer battlelog for all my FPS games. Server slot reservations? For myself, and all of the party I am in. This alone is a massive step forward. Not having to do any of this ingame is a massive improvement, and makes the entire process easier, faster, and does not waste any of my time if I had to do it in game. Loading the game, map, and server in the background? Again, massive improvement. Not sure why you dislike this so much Doom.
Dont want them here, never will.