User information for Jeff Waite

Real Name
Jeff Waite
Nickname
Tephlon
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Homepage
None given.

Supporter

Signed On
June 18, 2007
Total Posts
12 (Suspect)
User ID
40713
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
12 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
75.
 
Re: ...
Oct 10, 2007, 18:46
75.
Re: ... Oct 10, 2007, 18:46
Oct 10, 2007, 18:46
 
Yeah, I remember me and my buddies recognize the Firefly gang while playing Halo 3, but honestly now I couldn't tell you where we remembered hearing them.
I'm pretty sure though that they were all just random UNSC soldiers.
Either way it's fun when cameo's like that make their way into video games.

*sniff sniff*
I miss Firefly. God, I miss it so bad.
*sobs*
Ohhh, it hurts!

*Clenches hands towards the heavens*

WHY GOD, WHHHYYYYYY?!

103.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 16, 2007, 02:10
Re: No subject Sep 16, 2007, 02:10
Sep 16, 2007, 02:10
 
maximus0402 said "Tephlon you have thoroughly convinced me to stay at my samsung 244t 24" choice.....Thank you for your very thoughtfull comment."

My pleasure. I've just been so very thrilled with my monitor, I don't like the idea of having fellow gamers miss out on the experiance a good monitor like that can bring. My advice to anyone is that if it's in their budget, then go for it.

"As far as Nvidia new card the G92 I think?? It is still speculative at this point but rumors were favoring it to be 10.1 directx, yet midstream card, not the high end one"

Yeah, I haven't been following it all as closely as I normally do (tend to do so more when upgrade time rolls around), but I'd just heard something about it, just not much in detail. If that's all it's gonna be, then I'd say current generation cards will do perfectly.

"I agree that Crysis will be a factor and the demo will be out in 12 days so the benchmarks will be there. But as far as I am concerned, if I can have a single 8800 gtx run crysis at 1900 x1200 on very high settings and get fps at 40 or higher then I am completely fine."

Again, I can't give any promises about a game like Crysis, as we don't know much about performance yet. But it'll really be great to see how well it scales to lower-end hardware/graphics settings, that way you'll know you have plenty of flexibility to confidently tweak as you see fit... but I'm still gonna make the bet that you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Like I said before, I'm still tickled pink with the way [i]my[i] machine performs, and if I very rarely have to compromise my resolution (only from 1920x1200 to 1680x1050), you should have no issues at all. Widescreen gaming is the best favor you can do yourself as far as I'm concerned!



theyarecomingforyou said "It's not about problems but the user experience. The whole point about having a top end machine it getting an experience that is silky smooth with the eye candy turned on (that means AA at 2x minimum and everything on max)."

I can understand the desire to have the game look as good as possible, but there's a point when you step past what's reasonable. There's lots of graphics settings (that vary by game) that don't scale well... by that I mean the visual result does not outweigh the cost in performance. If I can't tell the difference between 2x and 4x AA in a particular title (at a particular resolution), or at least not enough to sacrifice the 10fps, why do it? If taking my aniso from 8x to 16x tanks my machine for so very little gain graphically, why do it? Better yet, why even be bothered by it at all? So many times the only way you'll tell the difference between one setting to another will be through analyzing screen-shots, which is silly in my opinion. If you play it and it runs smooth and looks pretty, well done. I don't understand the need to max things out for the sake of having them 'maxed out.'

"I guess I have high standards but a 7800GTX with a 24" screen... that is not what I'd class as a nice experience."

I guess thats just where you and I differ, because I wouldn't call being stuck with a small screen and a max res of 1280x1024 a 'nice experiance' either. Having options to go up and down as you see fit is the beauty of having a pc. Having OPTIONS. Being stuck in 4:3 (or 5:4) with (relatively) low resolutions doesn't leave way for many choices.

"Then you have to factor in newer games. Performance at 1920x1200 in Crysis with max settings and 4xAA is just not going to be good with current generation cards like the 8800GTX"

How do you know this? Source? The devs have to be using something to test/build the game on. Even in the wild chance that they have access to some 'top secret un-released' hardware, the difference between it and current gen hardware can't be earth-shattering.
EDIT: http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_id=25311788&union_id=3092&print=1
From the link: "A single 7800GTX will run the game quite well on fairly high settings according to Crysis Art Director, Michael Khaimzon"

"- even in SLI it's entirely likely the framerates will drop below 50, which is far from ideal."

Again, I don't want it to sound like I'm calling you a liar, but I think you're exaggerating. Source?

"Obviously others are free to disagree with me and I'm not claiming my viewpoint is any more relevant or true than anyone else's (except for Riley - he's always wrong)."

I completely agree. It's all a matter of opinion, and I certainly hope my comments don't come across as if I'm attempting to 'invalidate' yours.
The other thing thats good to remember is that with a screen that big and beautiful, sacrificing a jaggy here or slightly more muddled texture there isn't going to detract from the fact that that's a big honkin', immersive field of view you're sitting in front of. Better to sacrifice those small things, in my opinion, than having graphics cranked up on a screen too small to enjoy them.
But again, that's the wonderful thing about PCs... you can have it your way. :-)

This comment was edited on Sep 16, 02:16.
63.
 
No subject
Sep 14, 2007, 10:55
63.
No subject Sep 14, 2007, 10:55
Sep 14, 2007, 10:55
 
just to jump in here real quick.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on the 24" monitor statement theyarecomingforyou.

"For a single 8800GTX get a 22" widescreen"

I've been running my 24" Dell 2405FPW for several years now... and I wouldn't trade it for anything! (ok, except maybe a 2407FPW) I'm only running a 7950GX2, and I run my games fine.
In every situation, I can run a game the way I want at 1920x1200 with a little AA, or 1680x1050 w/decent AA quite well. My roommate has a 2405FPW on a 7800GTX, and he has no problems either.

The size and resolution come in handy for me so often that I just can't see working/gaming without it.
It also has the convenience factor of having tons of inputs, including tv inputs, which come in handy when working on tvs, pcs, xboxs, etc. When my buddies come over for a quick xbox lan, my 24" monitor instantly becomes a damn handy extra tv.

maximus0402, make what ever decision you want, but just know that an 8800 GTX will push a 24" monitor JUST FINE. However, your hopes of "be(ing) able to run on max settings for now and future games in the next year or two" is just unfounded and won't happen. Even if you buy a 17" lcd with a max res of 1280x1024, you won't run every game for the next two years at MAX settings. You just WONT. Software will always push the hardware envelope in a way that will keep the hardware humble.
With that said, you should have no problem running your games VERY NEARLY all the way up. There's always a happy medium when it comes to graphics settings, a give here, take there kind of thing. Something you have to remember (or clarify) is what "MAX settings" really means. That means very different things to different people. And with the games adding more technologies all the time, there's more and more for you to consider when "maxing out" your graphics settings. Games now-a-days have shader, physics, aa, texturing, shadowing, fog, draw distance, Diffuse, Bump, Specular, AF, (etc) settings, and keeping them maxed out will always be a chore. But finding a mix you're comfortable with should be very easy to do with an 8800GTX (at 1920x1200) for several years.
Still, I would say opting out of getting a 24" monitor simply because you can't blast every game out of the park at 1920x1200 for the next two years is pretty foolish, in my opinion, because it's simply not going to happen anyway, regardless of resolution.

Something else to consider is if you are that concerned with getting the most insane performance possible, wait a few more months for nvidia to unveil their new gpu line that should hit sometime this fall, or maybe winter. As far as SLI goes, I PERSONALLY don't think it's worth it. It certainly has it's performance advantages, but I just personally think those advantages come too little too late too much of the time. This is because SLI is so very driver/software dependent. This is normally fine when your cards are new, as your equipment is their flagship product and keeping the support up is paramount for them, but once your card is a generation old, support for you goes on the back burner behind the new king, and you often won't find proper SLI support for the newest game you just bought for weeks or months. And then, in the end, unless you're trying to push insane graphics at insane resolutions (2560x1600), the gain you might eventually get will only really apply in that ultra high end space. And personally, I don't think being in that space is worth the cost of entry, and then the on going cost of searching for sli profiles/settings that work best for that newest game that 'doesn't have native support yet'. Again, this is all just what I've seen from my experiences. Your mileage (and tolerance) may differ.

My X2-4800+ and 7950gx2 still pushes my 24" quite well... better than I could have ever hoped for considering how long ago I bought them. I don't think you could possibly be disappointed in your purchase either.

10.
 
No subject
Aug 7, 2007, 02:45
10.
No subject Aug 7, 2007, 02:45
Aug 7, 2007, 02:45
 
Cool. I'm glad you're having fun with it. Besides a chosen few, I really do believe most people who give the game a chance will enjoy it.

The vehicles are a bit hard to handle, and takes a fair amount of practice to master. This is done intentionally, as the devs didn't want the game to be vehicle driven, or even vehicle heavy, as Battlefield has always seemed to be. They're useful in their specific goals, but they'll never really decide a match. I, personally, prefer it this way.

As for not being able to tell what upgrades you're earning... go into the limbo menu. Directly under the buttons you'd click to choose your class, there are two tabs. The one selected by default says 'Roles', while the other says 'Rewards'.
Click on the 'Rewards' tab to see all the goodies you've unlocked, as well as what you have the to potential to unlock. (Look close, as one category is class specific. So if you want to see all the rewards available, switch to all the classes)
But unlike, say, BF2, these upgrades are not persistent. They reset every time the campaign ends (by default, 3 maps), or when you change servers. They do this because they didn't want to reward players who play 'all the time' in a way that unbalances the game for the newbies. This was the same for Wolf:ET. This way, the better players advance quicker during the campaign, and access the upgrades as a reward for kicking ass, but don't keep them. To counter act the xp/reward reset, some servers will change the campaign's length to anywhere from 6 to 20 (or even more) maps, or create/use a mod dubbed XP save (as done in Wolf:ET). This way, the server remembers you and keeps your xp (and therefore upgrades) for as long as their settings dictate, which can technically be forever if they choose. Unfortunately, we have no such options with the beta as of yet, so the default 3 map campaigns (comprised currently of... well, ONE map) are all we've got to play with.
They, instead, opted to reward players with a permanent global rank increase, which can be seen from the Persistent Stats option in the main menu. This rank increase is strictly superficial, as no upgrades to the game play are associated with them, but are simply there to show your skill/time spent with the game. They hold many similarities with the Xbox 360's achievements.

As for not knowing what needs to be done... this has always been a bit of an issue with ET. There's simply just SO many objectives in each map, on each side of each map, and for each class on each side of each map, that it always has taken a bit to understand. It's because of this complexity, though, that the game has lasting appeal. Every objective can be achieved in a bit different manner, each time, some of which are by sneaking behind enemy lines. This keeps the game different, and in my opinion, interesting and fun. To attempt to counteract the complexity of each map, race, and class, the devs implemented a 'mission' system. This essentially suggests things you can do as your current selected class to help your side complete their current objective, and you can cycle through each mission available to you with 'm'. In limbo, the class with the little star next to it signifies that that class is needed to complete the current main objective. In any case, although this new mission system is neat, dynamic, and somewhat helpful, the only thing I think really helps you learn the objectives is simply dicking around. Follow others, listen closely to your teams' commander voice (just a scripted npc voice letting you know your current status on the battlefield), and look at the map. This will help you find named areas of the map, which are usually crucial to your teams objectives at some point during the match.

Hope this helps a bit.


EDIT: Edited for clarity

This comment was edited on Aug 7, 12:18.
8.
 
No subject
Aug 6, 2007, 11:20
8.
No subject Aug 6, 2007, 11:20
Aug 6, 2007, 11:20
 
I'm truly not trying to hate, but just because you might 'suck' doesn't mean the game sucks.

I, truthfully, was a little disappointed in beta 1. It personally didn't run right on my machine (no love for the 7950gx2), and it didn't feel like it was running... right. I dunno. I just know what it was supposed to feel like and knew it wasn't it.

After getting to quakecon and playing beta 2 and the new map, my opinion changed dramatically. It finally feels the way it should, and runs properly on my 7950gx2 (largely due to the new nvidia drivers released July 26th). Valley (the new map) is WAY better of a map, in my opinion, than Sewers (the beta1 map) is.
For the entire 4 days of quakecon, I saw TONS of people playing it. Over and over and over again. The same map. For 4 days. Again and again and again. I'll admit, for me personally, the same map got old after several hours. But later that day or the next day, thats all any of us could think of, so we'd play it for 4 more hours. Besides some AOE3 or COH thrown in between, that's all we played all weekend. It's really quite fun.

If you are truly just having too much trouble trying to build the bridge, change classes and try out some different things. Or if the GDF are really getting that torn, try a different server. The game's pace and outcome changes dramatically just from the server's population.

While the game simply might not be for you, (which is understandable; not every game is for everybody), it really is quite a fun game. Give it another chance before you walk away from it.

My faith has been restored. Especially after talking with the devs about the different maps and features to come!


EDIT: I'm sorry. I misread your post when I glanced over it. I thought you said you were having trouble building the bridge. If you can't live for 5 seconds after spawn, it sounds like you're in a server with a bunch of spawn-killing fucktards or a server full of snipers. All in all, I still think a different server will yield different results.
This comment was edited on Aug 6, 11:25.
6.
 
No subject
Aug 5, 2007, 21:39
6.
No subject Aug 5, 2007, 21:39
Aug 5, 2007, 21:39
 
"do you need the beta key to run your own server and play on a lan?"

nope.

getting the server running is pretty easy too. We actually ran our own server at quakecon, and during the con the online authentication servers were unavailable. So yeah, running your own server on a lan, with bots, is completely doable without a key.

EDIT: I just remembered. The server launcher they released with the 'lite dedicated server' is kinda neat, but buggy in places. If you start to have trouble, it's much easier to edit the config file yourself and run the dedicated server (without using the server launcher), and then simply execute the config manually. Also, remember they now have tab completion in this engine, which is totally your best friend when playing with commands and settings.
This comment was edited on Aug 5, 21:43.
189.
 
No subject
Jun 21, 2007, 20:00
No subject Jun 21, 2007, 20:00
Jun 21, 2007, 20:00
 
I don't disagree with either of you.

I'm fully aware that there are games to play without adverts.
I guess I just feel that it's silly to ban/embargo/avoid a game you'd enjoy otherwise, if not for the ads.
If the ads are done tastefully (which I believe they will be), it's not going to be a big deal.

I guess all I was trying to say is that ads are an everyday part of life, and I don't think games an exempt medium.

Again, I'm not a fan of advertisements, but I guess I'm just assuming that history will repeat itself, and I don't see how making a big deal about it's gonna help.

Maybe I'm too much of a pacifist.

185.
 
No subject
Jun 21, 2007, 19:06
No subject Jun 21, 2007, 19:06
Jun 21, 2007, 19:06
 
I've been out sick and not checking the news, and now I'm dreadfully scared to reply on this topic, seeing how much it's exploded, and also because of the 'your a shill' accusations from before, but here it goes anyways.


I'll start off by saying that I don't prefer ingame advertising by any means, but at the same time I don't believe they spell doom like some of you seem to believe. In fact, I believe they're inevitable.

I wasn't there, but what do you think it was like when TV started getting advertisements? From what I understand, TV used to only come on at 6 and end at 8, and it was basically just news. It grew from there, but I'm nearly positive ads weren't in the medium from day one. Did everyone freak out about how they bought a TV for TV, not to be bothered by ads?
How about radio? Was there a hissyfit then?
How about nascar/racing? What was it like to watch a race without your favorite car being covered in Corn Flakes and Penzoil ads?
A football game?
The interstate/freeway without billboards? I pay taxes to maintain the roads, I shouldn't have to look at that SHIT!
The Internet?

I'm sure there are a BILLION examples, and I'm sure each one had people who were PISSED about there being advertising added to their favorite *insert thing here*.

Hell, I'm not happy about it either. But it's how life works. It's how we, as a people, work. They show ridiculous advertisements in ridiculous places because they work. (although, ironically, I read somewhere today that supposedly they've been proven ineffective in videogames.)
And as noble as it is, I don't think banning together is going to make the advertisements go away. I don't know of a place/group that has done so so far.

No, as much as it sucks, advertising is a way of life. And as there are more people and more revenue associated with a given activity, there is advertising.

Technology is growing fast and it gets more expensive every day. Nascar Im sure has a lot of technology involved, and those cars get more expensive as the years pass, and thus adverts are crucial to the teams' ability to race.
(Sorry, that might be an awful analogy. I'm not much of a sports fan.)

Still, the idea stands. It's not going to go away. If the activity hits mainstream, it hits advertising.
How many of you have a favorite radio station, but they often play awful commercials (many of them local commercials) that you despise? Is it annoying? Sure. Does it throw you into a fit of rage and you go bitch about it on forums and/or ban the station? No. If you want ad free radio what do you do... you pay for it. (XM, Serious, etc)
Same for TV. Everything gets more expensive, and they've discovered one way to keep money in your pockets is to advertise instead. Does it suck that Quake Wars happens to be one of the earlier-ish-ish games to do it? Absolutely. Is it the end of the world. Does it make the game that much less fun? Many of you will argue Yes, but it simply isn't true. It might annoy you, but it's not keeping the game from being fun or not fun. Thats some personal issue/decision you make.

And please remember, this is not the first game to do this. In fact, the first place I saw an in game advert (personally, that I can remember) was in Splintercell: Chaos Theory for the PC. They advertised movies and such as screen savers on laptops, and things of that nature. It wasn't bad. Rainbow 6: Vegas is blatent as well. Axe ads EVERYWHERE. How about Crackdown? Intel posters all over the buildings. Does it make the game not fun? NO. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. You might have personal feelings against it (as most of us do), but it doesn't kill the game for you. Shitty players, ai, levels, or weapons might, but not silly ads. Please grow up.

I will say again, I'm not an advocate of advertising. I personally hate that it's everywhere. But you just learn to live with it. Like that burning sensation when you pee. It's just a way of life.

No, but seriously. I do agree with some, that I think Splash Damage/id/Activision should offer a "pay a small fee to not see ads" thing, but I'm sure that'll just piss people off too.

In any case, I think that many of you may be overreacting. I think this happens every time ads get added to a new medium, I just think we're geeks living in the age when its easy to express those feelings to others, anonymously.

And remember, Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad

I think this will cool down and become accepted, just like everything else that sucks in life.

This comment was edited on Jun 22, 10:07.
54.
 
No subject
Jun 19, 2007, 11:18
54.
No subject Jun 19, 2007, 11:18
Jun 19, 2007, 11:18
 
I'm not here to recruit. I know some of you won't like the game. That's totally fine.

What mostly got me were the comments likening it to battlefield 2. It's simply not.

Again, it still FEELS like enemy territory. And I think most people would agree, Wolf:ET and Battlefield are nothing alike. This also holds true to ETQW. They're NOTHING alike.

I guess all I'm saying is don't come in expecting Battlefield, cause you won't find it. That will please some of you, and it won't please some of you, but that's just all there is to it.

But if you enjoyed the first enemy territory, I can almost guarantee you'll like this one.



As for the quakecon = idfanboys remark... eeeehhhhh, MAYBE.

I've seen alot of non-id games being played in the byoc (i'd say most of them aren't), and there are always demos of very NOT id games being displayed and played as well.

I would venture to say that to most people quakecon is just another CPL-ish event that's free and only once a year. I spent many years going to largescale lan's like quakecon and CPL events, and I never saw a huge difference in the type of people that attended. People don't see it as a big DOOM party, they see it as another huge event to buy BAWLS, play games together, and get free stuff.
I don't know if you've been to quakecon before, but if you haven't you can't possibly know what kind of people REALLY show up to them.

With that, I do understand the skewed angle a big event can put onto a NEW game. DOOM3 was the prettiest game anyone had ever seen when we played it at quakecon. And it was new! And they stuck you in this dark cubicle next to 3 other dark cubicles and you played deathmatch with people who knew as little about the map and weapons as you did. And it was cool. And it was fun. Getting the berserker powerup for the first time incited alot of screeming and freaking out by everyone. Most who played it felt excited by it, and it felt top notch.
But did that game's multiplayer turn into anything special?
No. Do I understand that? Yes.

Quake wars was presented differently, though. You sat down and played some gritty 12 on 12 for about 25 minutes. It was a GOOD chance to really see what it was like. And it was fun.
I havn't played it since then and I'm STILL excited about it.

Ahhh, who an I kidding, no one's reading these comments anymore.

Creamyblood, thanks for the compliment. They weren't anything terribly professional, but we liked them and had fun making them and wearing them.

-Peace out

This comment was edited on Jun 21, 12:28.
47.
 
No subject
Jun 18, 2007, 15:37
47.
No subject Jun 18, 2007, 15:37
Jun 18, 2007, 15:37
 
Yes, we are an ET clan, although in just a casual sense, not a professional sense. We're really just a group of friends that grew up together, and are all also gamers. So we go by a common clan tag (gauntlet bitches; [gb]) and call ourselves a clan, but it's really in the loosest sense of the term. We'd like to think we're good enough to be a "real clan", but we're not.

No, we're not from Canadia, but I'd like to think I'd be cooler if I was.
Nah, we're all from East Texas. Born and raised.

If there were some crazy canucks at qcon, they weren't us, and as far as I know we're the only ones who's come in crazy glowing ET helmets.

Hopefully you'll see some more crazy helmets there this year as well.

EDIT: From qcon 05!
http://68.178.221.78/modules/coppermine/albums/userpics/10002/gb_devoted.jpg

This comment was edited on Jun 18, 15:48.
44.
 
No subject
Jun 18, 2007, 13:29
44.
No subject Jun 18, 2007, 13:29
Jun 18, 2007, 13:29
 
I don't know where you get that I'm a corporate shill.

I hate it when people assume a new poster has to have an alternate agenda. I've been visiting Bluesnews for 10 years now, and often read users comments when it's a topic I care about.
I've just never taken the time to create a user so i could post comments, That is, until I read this thread, and I happened to have the time and care enough to finally post a comment.

Just because I'm new doesn't mean my post is invalid.

It IS a decently pretty game. It IS fun to play. It was at quakecon and YES, people did thoroughly enjoy it.

I have no affiliation with splash damage what-so-ever, and I gain nothing by talking up a game on a Bluesnews message board. (and I think I should point out, neither does Activision/id/Splash Damage.)

I'm an IT Systems Administrator for a small clinic in a northeast Texas town. I'm a gamer. I have small lans every few months with my buddies and we play lots of Joint Ops, Wolf:ET, and AOE3, with some occasional quake 3 and other random games that come along. We appreciate what Wolf:ET brought to the FPS table and we've enjoyed it thoroughly throughout the years. We're EXCITED about ETQW and we think it'll be a great game.

We liked ET so much we made Wolf:ET helmets the last 3 years and wore them to quakecon.

BUT I/WE HAVE NO AFFILIATION WITH ACTIVISION, ID, or SPLASH DAMAGE.

I'm a new poster, not a corporate plug.

Accept it.

This comment was edited on Jun 18, 14:01.
38.
 
No subject
Jun 18, 2007, 10:31
38.
No subject Jun 18, 2007, 10:31
Jun 18, 2007, 10:31
 
I hope that enemy territory is not going to be too much like bf2. I hope it takes the bf formula and makes it way better.

It's nothing like BF2. (this is coming from someone who's played ETQW, by the way.)
Its VERY MUCH like Wolf:ET. It feels like ET. It shoots like ET. It moves like ET. It PLAYS, like ET. This game is taking nothing from Battlefield, and it never has.

In my opinion, BF2 is a decent game, but I hated the way there was so much 'back and forth'. It turns into too many stalemates and circlejerks. (again, in my opinion.)
In ET, the distinctive Offense and Defense typically leads to more teamwork and teamplay, something that other games only achieve when playing with a clan/guild/tribe.

I'm not sure which gameplay videos you guys are talking about, but again (coming from someone who's played it), its quite pretty. Not Unreal3 engine pretty, but pretty. And more importantly, its a joy to play.
While the game is at it's core built on the Doom 3 engine, it's been largely reworked, and it doesn't have an iota of 'Doom' feel left in it. Locki (owner of Splash Damage and lead designer of ETQW) said it's been mostly reworked from a networking standpoint, ensuring smooth gameplay over the web.

Also, to those who are complaining about paying to play a beta... can you not READ? ALL you need to play this beta is a free subscription to File Planet for the key. Pretty soon others should be hosting the actual file, and even if not, waiting in line for a FREE download isn't THE END OF THE FUCKING WORLD, like some of you make it out to be.
Do I like file planet? Hell no. Do I understand that they (SD) don't have the resources to host the beta for 60k people? Yes

All you guys can talk all the shit you want, but this game will be great. Maybe not the 'BE-ALL END-ALL' shooter in everyones opinion, but I don't think they ever claimed for it to be so. No one can please everyone. Everyone has different tastes for different shooters. And holy shit... thats OK!

When I played the game at quakecon, guys stood in line 45 minutes to play this game (including myself), and I heard nothing but praise from everyone. Almost every time I stood in line (4 times) I talked to a guy in front or behind me who was standing in line for their second, third, or forth time. A few even said they'd never played Wolf:ET, but loved this.

I'm thinking some of you will be changing your mind, come playtime.
Either way, keep an open mind.

This comment was edited on Jun 18, 12:59.
12 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older