I'm sorry but it's a PC franchise and you're suggesting that they haven't included a PC logo simply because contractually they don't have to? That doesn't sit right. Surely, given current sentiment and their change of focus, they should go out of their way to highlight its definitely for PC?

They have said it is definately for PC... there was a PC magazine cover story, as I said, and even the program this "exclusive" video comes from, Gametrailers TV, had PC listed on the platform graphic. It's a PC game...

My point was that contract obligations with console makers often include requirements like having their logo in your advertisements... there is no such obligation with PC. Should they have the PC logo anyway? Of course they should, why would I argue otherwise. I was simply stating a reason as to why it often doesn't appear, because there is no requirement that it does and people overlook it.

given the recent school shooting in Germany, this will get banned in Germany most likely.

This comment was edited on Mar 22, 2009, 14:16.

Is that really a bad thing though? Suddenly the race on the pc is ended - I know my current PC (which is about a year old) is already 1 and nearly 2 "generations" behind in terms of PC GFX. But I also know it can play ANY console port from the current gen of consoles at the res I want with all the bells and whistles turned on.

Nonsense. Far Cry 2 has vastly superior visuals and works fine on X360, PS3 and PC. Nope, it's just a dated engine... plain and simple. Perhaps if Wolfenstein was pushing the boundaries with gameplay you'd have a point but it isn't.

They often leave the PC logo out of videos... probably because there is no contract with a console manufacturer that forces them to add it in.

I'm sorry but it's a PC franchise and you're suggesting that they haven't included a PC logo simply because contractually they don't have to? That doesn't sit right. Surely, given current sentiment and their change of focus, they should go out of their way to highlight its definitely for PC?

Maybe now the push for shinier and better graphics has effectively been stamped on by the consoles technical specification rigidity developers could actually go back to trying to make games with better quality.

What a load of crap. You're talking about nerfing an entire platform to cater to another in the mythical pursuit of "better quality". That's like saying you should limit racing cars to improve fuel efficiency in order to compete with family cars - they're different platforms.

Not every game is Crysis - and for that I really am grateful

So am I. Crysis was an example or how NOT to do a PC exclusive game. The PC generates less sales than consoles anyway and to design a game that runs poorly on most of those systems is a bad idea for a mainstream game. Crysis is the exception to PC exclusive games and trying to pass it off as the norm is completely disingenuous.

I'm probably one of the few that really enjoyed RTCW's single player game (Zombies and all).

Nah, I enjoyed it. It didn't try to be clever or particularly different... it was simply fun. It had its sci-fi elements, like Wolf3D did, but it never went crazy-overboard like I see here.

I think it's time for a new news.

I'm bored of WW2 games in general and the Wolfenstein 'brand' has never appealed to me.. Escape from a cold damp castle and kill Nazis.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hmmm... I'm just the opposite. I never cared for the other WWII games - CoD, MoH, Battlefield, etc.

Probably because I rather be the lone "kick-ass" hero in an FPS than have to manage or work with a squad, or rely on others in multi-player.

I'm probably one of the few that really enjoyed RTCW's single player game (Zombies and all). My only complaint is that it was too short, compared to FPS's of an earlier era. (Now they're even shorter)

Holy crap! it's the AntiElvis!

Is this supposed to have multiplayer?

Yes but that side is being developed by Threewave/Endrant; similar to RTCW SP & MP is being done separately. The Raven guy mentions in the interview that MP will have the alternate-reality special power thingummy but I wouldn't take that as gospel as Raven is not doing MP.

There really hasn't been much info released on the MP. Rumour has it the MP isn't even using the 100% same Tech 4 engine. Here you have SP adapting a DOOM3>Quake4 branch while MP is adapting a DOOM3>ETQW branch.

Sticking with unofficial sources of unknown reliability, apparently MP is going 8v8, broadly similar gameplay to RTCW (i.e. teams of varying classes work together with the aim of achieving/defending some objective, with time-controlled respawns) albeit with contructables from ET and streamlined class options.

They'll probably lead with the console releases and the PC version will follow.

I don't know why you would say that... it was announced for all three, and as someone else said it had a recent PC magazine cover story.

They often leave the PC logo out of videos... probably because there is no contract with a console manufacturer that forces them to add it in.

It's always had the occult elements - thats what the whole game concept is about.

I want this so bad I can't wear pants right now.....

-tAE-

I actually found out there is a bonus Nazi Zombies mode in World at War.

I was very happy!

I'm bored of WW2 games in general and the Wolfenstein 'brand' has never appealed to me.. Escape from a cold damp castle and kill Nazis.... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

They must be throwing in the 'occult' elements to try and zazz it up, but it's still WW2 and it's still the frickin Nazis

@ # 12
you'll be playing the game the minute it comes out. : P

Looks OK. Same as usual. I did like some the special effects. I will need a playable demo!

Is this supposed to have multiplayer?

And since consoles are now poor man's PCs and the target of every developer on the planet, we're probably rather stuck with 2005's texture detail level until new consoles with gigs of RAM.

Is that really a bad thing though? Suddenly the race on the pc is ended - I know my current PC (which is about a year old) is already 1 and nearly 2 "generations" behind in terms of PC GFX. But I also know it can play ANY console port from the current gen of consoles at the res I want with all the bells and whistles turned on.

Maybe now the push for shinier and better graphics has effectively been stamped on by the consoles technical specification rigidity developers could actually go back to trying to make games with better quality.

Nobody fussed about the technical advancement in graphics on the C64 or NES but recently PC gaming had become a case of spending more money on tech than games to get the newest games to look as good as possible. Personally if the multi-platform environment means PC tech can mature and actually represent value for money I'll be more than happy.

Not every game is Crysis - and for that I really am grateful; I'd rather play Dungeon Master any day.

This comment was edited on Mar 22, 2009, 00:04.

CJ_Parker: Born to troll:
Watch the interview, not just the trailer. You don't get thrown into the occult immediately, you gain a device that lets you view the multiverse sometime in the middle of the game. Thats where it gets really weird.

Well I don't know what I think about this game, but it looks mildly entertaining maybe. I have to say I'm getting rather tired of shooters that are just "kill wave after wave of cannon fodder".

But as for the dislike of the Doom3 engine, that's got me confused. Frankly, I don't believe that UE3 is worthy of being judged as better. Epic seems to do the game engine sales routine better than id Software and so we have buckets of games based on UE. And they are all rather recognizable too, unfortunately. The Wolfenstein engine is surely not the "Doom 3 engine". They improved that engine for Quake 4 and ETQW. I'm sure they've tweaked it again here. Game engines aren't static things at all. Raven itself mods stuff in the engine. Even their Quake 3-based games were heavily customized for games like JK2, JA, SOF2, etc.

What I thought I did see with regards to the gfx was some low detail texturing. That could be a remnant of console development. The damn consoles have so little RAM that texture detail on them isn't going to go anywhere. And since consoles are now poor man's PCs and the target of every developer on the planet, we're probably rather stuck with 2005's texture detail level until new consoles with gigs of RAM.

This comment was edited on Mar 21, 2009, 23:37.

Ah, well that certainly added clarity!

or am I just missing the point here.

no insult intended but I think you are. The marketing guys decide when the number of the engine changes but yes in effect we are still playing the original quake/unreal engines just modified to the point where they are practically unrecognisable - ala Pamela Anderson.

Make no mistake the ID engine was never as strong outdoors as Unreal. However saying that this game is going to look dated just because this game is 'based' on the Doom 3 engine is very akin to claiming that the new Riddick game will owe nothing to Pitch Black.

This comment was edited on Mar 21, 2009, 23:08.

Well, not realistic.. I'd just like to see it pushed even farther - like Team Fortress 2.

Right now it is sort of campy. If they could push it past that it would be really good cheese.

changing a number on the end of an engine's name does not make it a new one - anyone who has seen the advanced console for U3 knows it's the same as the one in U1....Half-life originally ran on the Quake 1 engine - you know; that blurry brown/grey engine?

Uh...so we're all playing heavily modified Quake / Unreal games? It's absurd to claim that 'changing a number does not make it a new one'. While they can be based off heavily modified iterations of their past counterparts, each update to the engine brings forth new features regardless of how they are implemented.

Adding features and those features which we see in UE3 or id Tech 5 are leaps beyond their initial predecessors in their respected advancements and thus, makes them 'new'. Otherwise, there would be no numeral name scheme to prove that they are new(er).

or am I just missing the point here.