Oh, that's right, VHS didn't exist before DVDs for that to have previously been a probable cause -- try again.

from best I can tell it looks as if Rainbow Six: Vegas will require SM 3.0, too.

The more force up front wins the game, it is about CAPS not KILLS.

Not while defending the titan -- it's kills, kills, kills.

Sniping doesn't belong in online combat games.

You obviously haven't defended one of the long titan corridors.

I loved me some Tie Fighter

of course it'll come to the PC -- GTA was born on the PC and all of the other PS2 releases have been ported as well.

lol, you gave me a good laugh to start the day out with

Yeah, honestly it wasn't frame studder or jumpiness that turned me off in the video, it was the dullness of the gameplay, awkwardly artificial environment (look at those fabulous mountains), and less than impressive visuals (which is sad, considering nVidia was showing off their card).

32 players is "large scale"?

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree then because this is all opinion.

Oh, and I wasn't referring to your 2 years remark about map making, I was referring to your 3 years remark in the following paragraph...it seemed like you arbitrarily pulled that number out of nowhere.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

Maps COULD be downloading dynamically through QW...what world did you live in? It was FASTER to quit the game and go download the map, sure (I did that quite a lot), but you could go take a break and sit back and you'd load in fine. The more popular servers probably ran 2fort5 exclusively, yes, but there were easily found servers (my fav was Primer & Assman's) that ran anything BUT 2fort5 and stayed full.

As far as the quality of the maps, sure, there were some bad maps, but that's still the case today. The beauty of it all back then was that you could make a decent map in a fraction of the amount of time that it takes you to make a decent map today (and a fraction of the knowledge) -- simply because map making in general was much more simplistic (you had less options), and it made it all more about gameplay and much less about aesthetics.

Where's the 3 years thing coming from? We're referring to a brand new product. Further, if you're content with such a narrow selection of maps, you were probably one of those who played 2fort4/2fort5 into monotony.

This comment was edited on Nov 11, 12:49.

wow, yeah, i'm glad i'm not alone in thinking this video makes the game look funky.

Playing the PS2 version I can't find anywhere that there's a stealth score? It was blatantly obvious in the mission review screen of SC:CT, but I don't see it in the SC;DA one.

This comment was edited on Nov 11, 08:53.

Yeah, TF2 will probably be entertaining, but I don't expect it to be just as good QWTF. I don't think it's possible to have the thriving community flooded with user-made maps of varying and unique themes that QWTF had (and of server admins who actually use them and a community of players willing to download them to play on said servers...the original was a mod that you had to download in the first place, so this wasn't such a big deal). TF2's probably going to get old really fast because it'll probably come with 3 maps, and Valve will be forever slow in releasing more (at the rate of maybe 2 per year).

Priceless.

The think the levels are more interactive than in previous Splinter Cell games (note: I'm only speaking from experience with the PS2 (last-gen) version)

Well, I disagree -- by "BF" you're definately only referring to 1942, BF:V, and BF2 because DEFENCE is a huge part of the titan mode. Corridors 1 & 2 of the titan are generally death traps for even an organized team if the defending team can get a couple of supports & medics down there (a recon sniper doesn't hurt, either...plus he can keep laying out APM's). I find myself spending at least half of the round defending in every titan game, and it's a blast.

There are more deployables in 2142 (sentry, support shield, squad leader assets, medic & ammo hubs, plus the APMs and C4 like you had in BF2). I have yet to have to deal with a "tank whore" or any vehicle whore for that matter...I can't think of anything in 2142 that doesn't have an exploitable weakness. Tanks & APCs are a breeze to take down if you aim at their rear, and the walkers are pretty weak in the legs and especially the undervents. Also, there isn't any arty in titan mode. I'm really trying to think about it...yeah...I can't think of any "whore" tactics in 2142. The gunships aren't ridiculesly strong in health, the transports can't be repaired from all passenger seats in flight & don't repair overly fast from the ones that can repair it, and everything's got an exploitable weakness. I guess the titan's guns can be a little unbalanced on Suez Canal because there are only 3 anti-aircraft turrets sparsely placed, but you can always take them out with a gunship or the engineer's anti-vehicle toys.

I know you all call it a mod, but once you seriously get to know 2142 better there are more diverse playing styles than BF2 offered -- and thankfully nothing seems to be overpowered / improperly balanced (at least not in titan mode...I haven't played conquest at all).

Why would anyone buy a game that they didn't like?

Apparently every one of you bitter asses here on the forum has -- so ask yourself. It is quite common for someone to buy a game and find out they don't like it...not all of us are pirates, matey.

My point is that you don't see people who have actually bought the game and have actually played the game bitching about it.

Damn. People keep complaining, and yet they keep buying?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only people who are complaining in this thread are people who didn't actually buy the game. Those of us who bought it are enjoying it.

Well, you could also consider that if Dell/Emachines/Gateway/HP/etc start selling higher end PCs on the low end of their product offerings, due to Vista requirements, then the cost of higher end components will drop because they'll be more mass produced to meet the demands of these companies.