Im haveing no problems with this game albiet im running my own private server over a lan using just bots. but i do have 24 bots running around my graphics are maxed in game but i went further and enabled AA thru the advanced force AA option on my vidcard 8800GTS and im running at 1280x1024 res this game FLYS. im getting 40 to 60FPS. graphics look great and hot location is way better than it was with beta 1.

This is still just a beta and for me its miles better than BF im into the ranking system and promotion system and i like the fireteams and missions that you can assign on the fly.

Bots are kinda smarter than most bots i have seen with calling for help completing objectives and providing covering fire and proper healing. these bots act better than most spammers which is the way im gonna play this game when it comes out.

It has a extensive singleplayer mode with several campaigns.
Thats why im getting it for singleplayer only.

I know what you mean about the fluid feel of Quake 3, Quake engines or engines like Torque. The game has that klunky Unreal movement feel. The maps are nice for outdoors. You really have to focus on learning a class to appreciate the game. Its not bad but needs some tweaks.

I guess the question is, do you really want a realistic war multiplayer game (which is not ET:QW) or do you want a fun game thats not slow as hell but still requires teamwork to get the win. Personally I wouldn't want an ultra realistic war game, that would be a bit boring.

Any other reviews? I won't get the beta, but i want to lower my excitement level if it should be lower.

Fun but I'm not impressed as much as I had hoped. I've played pretty much everything except 2142. Also this is coming from somebody who hasn't been following every post/word/ramblings of id or Splash Damage.

Like someone else posted earlier it just felt a little off. Hard to describe. I will tweak it so that it run a bit smoother but I fear some of the speed bumps are net-code issues.

Time will tell when the real public beta comes out...

Yes, the game also chooses the lowest possible refresh rate for CRT monitors, and some common resolutions aren't on the list. All of this makes it look worse then it needs to, but there's a solution. You can make a config file that will force the resolution and AA to whatever you want. Here's how.

http://www.forumplanet.com/QuakeWars/topic.asp?fid=28177&tid=2064135

I'd like to ad that the game doesn't permit you to enable AA, somethign I found odd for a beta to do. That might improve the quality of teh graphics immensely

I would have to agree with the majority of the people though, after playing this beta for a while, it just isnt the game I thought it was. Maybe my expectations were raised too high. I just forgot it would be a QUAKE game, so the majority of the combat involved strafing and bunny hopping. Thats not a knock against the players, thats how it was meant ot be played.

Vehicles too are hard to steer sometimes. Its too easy to overturn and constantly correct yourself- leading to a weaving drive rather than a straight line.

This comment was edited on Jun 21, 12:44.

It's not a BAD looking game per-se but its just nowhere near what I think we all expected to see.

I mentioned this on the community forums too, actually. It's a problem with a lot of games: the screenshots are taken in obscenely high resolution (since print is 300dpi while your monitor is 72 dpi) and scaled down. Being scaled down, this actually makes the game a lot better than it looks: anti-aliasing is a lot nicer, textures should look a fair bit better.

With that said, if you turn on 16x FSAA, running on an 8800 at 1280x1024 and above, you should be able to get pretty close to the released screenshots.

eh looks awsome on my box, and very muchly like that demo...

It's not a BAD looking game per-se but its just nowhere near what I think we all expected to see.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Blues Nazi.

53. No subject Jun 20, 20:16 Hump


I'm watching the original movie from that first E3 that was supposedly done "in-game" and I'm wondering what the hell happened to THAT particular game.

------------


eh looks awsome on my box, and very muchly like that demo...

Honestly it's crap. The more I play it even for a 'beta' it's crap, and I don't see them fixing the glaring issues before the game is released (which is in july?).

Ok, a demo of the game in alpha state? You hit tilde and check the version..it says Alpha, thus my labeling it as such.

This comment was edited on Jun 21, 02:23.

The alpha (which only lucky Geforce 3 owners could download and play), although obviously an alpha, seemed more scary/authentic (the way you encountered monsters was far more creative than the eventual closet-spawn crap) in parts than the actual finished product.

That wasn't an alpha, it was a tech demo.

I really wish id/Splash would just lease the BF2142 engine and copy their art assets over to it.

Don't get me wrong I enjoyed Wolf:ET, and bits of Quake 4, but overall they have been competing with the BF series (they have not directly compaired it but they keep refering to 'in other games') and they are gonna end up loosing.

The Quake name just doesn't carry the 'ohh/ahhh' it use to.

I'm watching the original movie from that first E3 that was supposedly done "in-game" and I'm wondering what the hell happened to THAT particular game.

I said the same thing when Doom 3 came out. The alpha (which only lucky Geforce 3 owners could download and play), although obviously an alpha, seemed more scary/authentic (the way you encountered monsters was far more creative than the eventual closet-spawn crap) in parts than the actual finished product. You did have to play it though almost exactly like they did in the 11-minute demonstration vid but still had a blast.

Deep down I really am still hoping I won't be let down by this game.


This comment was edited on Jun 21, 00:12.

I'm watching the original movie from that first E3 that was supposedly done "in-game" and I'm wondering what the hell happened to THAT particular game.

That ran through my mind today as I watched the BETA videos then rewatched the trailer.


Gun Control isn't about guns. It's about control.

CJ Parker wrote:

"Can't believe my eyes seeing so many motherfucking n00bz who signed up for FP just to take part in this retarded beta. Seriously, if I were one of those marketing geniuses at a publisher like Activision, I'd just directly charge you idiots money for playing betas in the future instead of letting FP have your money. There seem to be enough sheepy tards around who would bite at the sight of a pay-to-preview opportunity.

Congrats, folks. Most. Incredible. Display. Of. Dumbfuckery. Ever."

Heh, what are you talking about?! PC Gamers paying full game-price to be beta-testers is now par for the course anyways. The last two games I bought were Silent Hunter 4 and Armed Assault (Combat Operations in North America), and both games were so fucking riddled with obvious game-ruining bugs that to call them beta-tests would be a compliment. Nowadays, game publishers don't see the point in wasting money on quality assurance when millions of idiots will keep buying games at full price and report the countless bugs for free, hoping all the bugs will be patched before the sequels come out. At least ID is trying to get the game right BEFORE it hits the shelves, though the cheap bastards should be paying inhouse personel to thoroughly test it. And what's worse is that when those reporting all the bugs that should never be there in a final release phrase their reports in the form of complaints in the company's forums, countless company-bag-licking lapdogs flame them for their insolence and wonder what their problem is.

ET looks like just another Battlefield rip-off with monsters anyways, and since they're gonna emulate the corporate cockroach marketing-down-the-throat mentality and actually put ads in the game, they can shove their software up their collective ass (like millions of customers paying full price isn't enough to keep them in business...greedy bastards).

This comment was edited on Jun 20, 23:30.

the mortar wasnt GIVING me trouble, i was DEALING trouble.

Mortars useful in "select map"?!?!?

Goldrush

Battery

Fuel Dump

Oasis

Radar

Railgun

which would be all of the default maps.

Sure, in maps like Battery mortar was only useful for a small opening (read: maul at the beachhead) but it was CERTAINLY very useful in large assaults. It was very satisfying being able to check your map and hit a target zone on the first shell, especially in tight-walled maps like goldrush.

------
"If anyone needs me, I'll be in the angry dome!"

Am I able to camp in my spawn as a soldier and launch devestating mortar shells all over the effing map?

If I can't, it's not ET.

Most maps where to big for the mortar to reach every where. A vast majority of the spawns where indoors, and so you had to leave the spawn. The mortar is not an effective weapon for all over, only laying down fire at specific places. It is trivial to take out a encamped mortar who is laying down suppressive fire with airstrike or employ your own mortar.


The mortar is basically only useful for keeping the moving tanks down, and only by a skilled player constantly moving mortar position. Other wise, if the mortar was giving you trouble, you are just one crappy player!


Live Chat with other BluesNews forum members (beta; GreaseMonkey script;updated 1-14-07):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesChat.user.js

Alternating Logo (GreaseMonkey script):
http://www.ualr.edu/szsullivan/scripts_/BluesNewslogo.user.js

THAT particular game was on a state-o-the-art puter

-----
"SUPREME COMMANDER PATCH: 2008"
(http://music.download.com/kxmode)

Am I able to camp in my spawn as a soldier and launch devestating mortar shells all over the effing map?

If I can't, it's not ET.

No mortar, although you may be able to use tank shells as mortars form your spawn. I haven't tried it yet.