On C-Z and DNF Release Dates

GameStop is now the second e-tailer to push the release date of Counter-Strike: Condition Zero back to March 2004. Valve has not given any indications that the game is delayed to that point, but their expected November 18 release date (story) for the supposedly gold shooter has come and gone without comment, reminiscent of the tight-lipped handling of the Half-Life 2 delay (thanks HomeLAN Fed). Also on HomeLAN Fed is a report based on this morning's conference call with Take Two Interactive saying the publisher is passing along indications they have received from 3D Realms that Duke Nukem Forever is heading for a release in "late 2004 or early 2005." Of course the game's release is entirely in the hands of 3D Realms, and it's doubtful that their official release date for the game has changed from their hard-line mantra of "when it's done."
View : : :
112.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 24, 2003, 12:24
Re: No subject Dec 24, 2003, 12:24
Dec 24, 2003, 12:24
 
If you take an old car, let's say a Datsun 240z, and you replace the engine, the seats, the suspension and the tires with newer versions. At what point is it a new car? Would you tell people you built that car from scratch? If they couldn't see the parts that were still in it, but that were vitally important to it running, like the frame, would they believe you?

First of all, if you've ever played any computer game ever, you know that 99% of marketing says about it before it comes out is extremely over exaggerated hype. No I don't believe verbatim everything Gamespy and IGN say. And no I don't believe everything Valve or Id says, verbatim.

The fact is I've played the leak, and I know a lot about how computer games work, especially Quake, and there are still a LOT of vestiges of the Quake engine plainly visible WITHOUT seeing any source code. That doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is Valve lying saying it's "from scratch" and that it's "the Source Engine" without giving any credit to the fact that without the Quake engine it'd just be a bunch of code snippets of plugin features to any generic modern game.

As for the r_speeds thing, there is a self-imposed limit as evidenced by the fact that on the r_speeds screen it shows "x/y" where y is a static number which I can't remember off hand, but it was extremely low, something like 2000. Also, while walking around with r_speeds on any time x went over y, the frame rate dropped dramatically. Now I understand a few things, being that this could be raw wpoly and not include shader passes, which could increase the actual count by as much as 4. I also realize that because it was a leak, it could easily be improved upon or changed completely before release, especially after it was delayed for 6 months. None of these things really bother more, nor do I care about them. What really bothers me is the way Valve conducts themselves. The way they strategically keep quiet on certain subjects, and they never give a straight answer to any question that might expose a limit of their game. They are marketers first, and game designers second. 95% of game companies are like that, but what bothers me is that the HL/CS fanboys REFUSE to accept that marketing for any game is mostly lies and exaggeration. Valve tells them HL2 is the second coming of Jesus and they believe in it absolutely.

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
3.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
24.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
44.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
48.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
   Re: DNF
54.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
    Re: DNF
56.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
     Re: DNF
57.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
      Re: DNF
58.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
       Re: DNF
60.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
        Re: DNF
63.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
       Re: DNF
59.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
     Re: DNF
30.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
31.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
2.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
42.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
67.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
4.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
5.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
6.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
8.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
16.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
7.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
9.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
11.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
10.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
12.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
13.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
17.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
14.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
15.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
18.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
19.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
46.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
66.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
     Re: No subject
20.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
107.
Dec 21, 2003Dec 21 2003
21.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
23.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
25.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
26.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
28.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
33.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
39.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
40.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
41.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
27.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
29.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
32.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
35.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
36.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
38.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
43.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
45.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
47.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
49.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
50.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
52.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
72.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
51.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
53.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
55.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
61.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
62.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
 Re:
74.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
 Re:
75.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
  Re:
64.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
65.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
91.
Dec 19, 2003Dec 19 2003
68.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
69.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
70.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
71.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
73.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
76.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
77.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
78.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
79.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
80.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
81.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
82.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
83.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
84.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
86.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
 Re:
89.
Dec 19, 2003Dec 19 2003
  Re:
90.
Dec 19, 2003Dec 19 2003
   Re:
93.
Dec 19, 2003Dec 19 2003
    Re:
94.
Dec 19, 2003Dec 19 2003
     Re:
95.
Dec 19, 2003Dec 19 2003
     Re:
97.
Dec 19, 2003Dec 19 2003
      Re:
98.
Dec 19, 2003Dec 19 2003
       Re:
100.
Dec 19, 2003Dec 19 2003
        Re:
99.
Dec 19, 2003Dec 19 2003
85.
Dec 18, 2003Dec 18 2003
87.
Dec 19, 2003Dec 19 2003
88.
Dec 19, 2003Dec 19 2003
92.
Dec 19, 2003Dec 19 2003
96.
Dec 19, 2003Dec 19 2003
101.
Dec 19, 2003Dec 19 2003
102.
Dec 20, 2003Dec 20 2003
103.
Dec 20, 2003Dec 20 2003
104.
Dec 20, 2003Dec 20 2003
105.
Dec 20, 2003Dec 20 2003
106.
Dec 20, 2003Dec 20 2003
108.
Dec 21, 2003Dec 21 2003
109.
Dec 21, 2003Dec 21 2003
110.
Dec 23, 2003Dec 23 2003
111.
Dec 24, 2003Dec 24 2003
 112.
Dec 24, 2003Dec 24 2003
  Re: No subject
113.
Dec 25, 2003Dec 25 2003