Any word yet on the Linux dedicated server binary? I've been waiting to put up a server for it, but it seems to be taking quite a while. I thought they said it was supposed to come out simultaneously with the Win32 patch.
I believe this does have something to do with the surround sound option. I even made sure to set my sound options correctly in windows, which made no difference. After turning off surround sound, I've had no problems at all with the sound cutting out.
Actually Virus, I'm in Salem as well and Electronics Botique in the Salem Center mall has it in stock...I don't know about on the shelf as I had mine preordered, but they got it in just after 3:00 this afternoon.
This does not work cross game. The PB GUID, which is used for banning in this case, is generated from the CD key of the game. That means that the PB GUID is specific to that game only. Still, the person is banned from all MBL supporting servers of that particular game, which is a great start.
I'd be interested to see you back some of these statements up. I personally run a SoF2 game server that has PB enabled and I couldn't imagine trying to run a cheat free server without it.
I have no idea what bugs you're referring to as neither I, nor anyone that I know, have ever experienced major bugs in the software. All of the small bugs that were introduced during the natural course of program development were rapidly fixed by EvenBalance.
Wallhacks that are not immediately caught by PB are typically easily detectable via PB's auto screenshot functionality. Aimbots and other types of hacks can often be detected via the more indepth logging that PB offers. Of course, this means that you need a well-administered server. You cannot go into a pub server and expect that PB will automatically bust every cheat that joins. That isn't how the system is designed to work. But it is simply untrue to claim that "almost every server is loaded with wall hacks and aimbots."
Is it perfect? Certainly not. No system could be 100% perfect given the requirements that must be met. Is it a failure? Certainly not. Does it do it's job? Certainly yes, and more. It is the best anti-cheat software that I currently am aware of. With each new release (seamless across the web, I might add) EvenBalance continues to improve their product and add even more functionality to it.
I think that we all owe EvenBalance our thanks for their effort to promote cheat free games.
The difference with the industries that you mentioned is the fact that the respective media runs on predetermined platforms. The argument about different system specs still stands because it is accurate. A company can display recommended specs, yes, but what about regular system maintenance? Tons of background apps? Failing hardware? Old/outdated drivers? Those issues (as well as many others) can all negatively affect a system that is supposedly at the recommended specs. Developers cannot account for or predict these occurences.
I guess it all comes down to what you find "unacceptable." My system is slightly lower than yours, and yet I find Splinter Cell to be completely playable and enjoyable. Every now and then when looking over a large area of the map I can feel the framerate take a hit, but that does not detract from my enjoyment of the game. IMO, the framerate for SP does not need to be near as high as it does for MP.
Finally, if you look at the trend over some time, as engines increase in power and complexity the recommended hardware continues to increase as well. Proportionally, the performance of brand new games on recommended system specs has remained roughly similar and it will continue to do so. For gaming enjoyment to be eventually eliminated because of low frames is not what I want, because that is never going to happen.
If you don't enjoy the way games such as Splinter Cell run on today's hardware, that is just fine with me. In the end, we all play games because we enjoy them...so if you don't enjoy it then it really isn't worth playing. I just have a problem with people who rag on developers for not being able to deliver excellent graphics *and* high framerates on any system. As I mentined before, I feel that Splinter Cell hit a happy medium between these two extremes.
I'm not sure what you're thinking about, but there is no such thing as an "industry standard" framerate. The framerate in any given game is completely dependent on the consumer's hardware as well as the amout of eyecandy they are desiring. No where in this demo did they promise a mininum FPS, nor would I expect them to. Most new games are forced to strike a median between eyecandy and playable framerates. I believe that Splinter Cell hits that mark rather well. In addition, the imminent patch promises a FPS increase.
I think it is rather baffling that gamers spend hundreds of dollers on the latest in video cards, and then scream and holler about (so called) "low" framerates when brand new games actually push those video cards to the limit. If you want rediculous framerates, play the original Rainbow 6. If you want to enjoy the beauty of a next-generation engine, play Splinter Cell. I paid a fair bit of money for my gaming hardware and I enjoy having an engine that actually utilizes it. I really have no use for "feel good" framerates.
You also might want to consider that fact that in a year when you have that "fast enough computer" to play the game, the average level of gaming engines will have risen as well. But, I'm sure you will enjoy boasting of the framerate you're getting in a game that no one is playing anymore.
There go those "stupid" game developers again, trying to support their product to the best of their abilities. All I want to do is just buy the game and they are already trying to improve the graphics, update the AI, and improve the framerate. Can't they just understand that I don't want those things? I also wish they could just give me a choice instead of coming to my house and *forcing* me to download and install the patch.
On a less sarcastic note, I really don't think it is reasonable to expect game developers to be able to release bug free games right off the bat. I mean, stop to think about it. In the last few years, games have continued to become larger and more complex, now requiring entire teams of people to complete them. In addition, the hardware market has become more fragmented to the point where it is impossible to test a game on each of the more basic of platforms. On top of that, the publisher is quite often the date setter, even if the developement house would rather keep the game internal for another week or two.
You also have to consider the issue from a non-gamer point of view. There are probably a number of people who aren't extremely hardcore about gaming, and so it is important that the developement house be able to release a timely product to them before they lose interest. While a hardcore gamer would be more than willing to wait on a title for another month, many others would not. That means less revenue for the development house, which means a tighter budget for the next game.
At this point, many people point to consoles and say "Well, *they* don't have issues, why can't PC games be the same way?" That really isn't a fair question, and I think the people who ask it are well aware of that. Consoles have a set hardware configuration which can be stress tested to its fullest. PC rigs on the other hand contain an almost limitless assortment of hardware and driver configurations for which it is impossible to anticipate every eventuality. Secondly, console games *are* released with bugs. However, usually they aren't game critical so the game is updated and the next set of cartridges/CDs are released with the fix. I personally own two copies of a console game because the newer one fixes some of the bugs that exist in the older one. You can't tell me console games are bug free...the bugs are just less noticeable.
I know that there are a number of people who will disagree with this opinion, but I still stand by it. I am a programmer myself and I am well aware of the complexity involved in writing code. For anyone who wants to argue, however, my answer is always this. Go out and program a game of this scale and complexity and release it to thousands of gamers all over the world. If it works perfectly on every system and configuration the first time out the door, then I will take back what I have said here...but not before. Until new ways are designed to program/debug software, patches are something that are necessary and welcome. I personally am grateful for the team behind Splinter Cell who are not only actively trying to fix problems with the game, but also improve the quality of the game at the same time. Up until a couple of days ago I was rather passe about this game, but after playing the demo that was just released, I cannot wait until I can get the full version into my hands.
I really wasn't expecting a patch for Silent Hill 2...I figured it wouldn't get much support at all. This certainly was nice to come across. Hopefully they will continue fixing some of the game's minor but still noticeable bugs.
I completely agree Vigil. I mean what's with these developers who keep trying to support their products? Don't they realize that we would rather them not fix problems or add features in a timely manner? If they make a single mistake in the release of a perfectly free beta of a game, I would much rather them leave it in the unworking, unfinished state than have the gall to release a fully fixed version a couple hours later.
(for those of you who strugge with it, yes, that is sarcasm)
I personally really appreciate how on the ball this fix was. Not only that, but the fix was for a update that adds a new map, new gametype, and several needed fixes for a free demo! How someone can turn this around and attempt to construe it as negative is beyond me.
This is awsome...I (unfortunately) passed on T1, but T2 is still my favorite multiplayer game. It is incredible the sheer scale of the game, as well as the incredible depth that it offers. It is great to see an FPS break out of the mold.
Yes, I would say that the demo is worth the download. The demo is not limited in features (as I remember), only in length, so it gives you a good idea of what the full game is like. I bought the full game for $20 and had a blast with it. I've since stopped playing it, but I more than got my money's worth.
The mod community does seem rather active though, one of these days I will get around to reinstalling the game and try out some of the great looking mods.
I've played it quite a bit (both MP and SP) and I have to say that it is one of the best RTS games I have ever played. Coming off of AoK: Conquerors, I had my doubts about the game. On first playing it, I felt like it was just the same thing, but rehashed...it also felt more limiting than Conquerors. After playing for a while however, I really began to appreciate the depth of the game. The Myth units are more than just powerful troops, they add an entirely new complexity to the genre. The game ends up with an extremely polished, finished feel. The ESO service is a litte rough, but they are working on that as this patch attests.
I really think that some people haven't given this game the time it deserves. Like I said, I had to work into it before I began to understand all of the streamlining and features that had been implemented. If you're an RTS player, I'd say that you can't go wrong with AoM.
I've been able to play a tech demo for this game, check out the beta test, as well as read any info that I have found on the web for it. To me, this game just keeps looking better and better. I can't wait until it hits the shelves, I've already got my copy preorderd at EB.
Not only that, but reading this made my work day go faster