And? It's still pointless to have a mode in the game where you move faster, but there's no limit to how much its used. Why bother? Why not just always have your character move the faster speed? It was a bad game mechanic; the "run" mechanic only works if there's some limit to it.
Of course it's not free. When you run you make louder breathing noises so are easier to spot. If you fire your weapon while you run the spread is horrible. You can't scope your weapon while running.
Look, you like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. I get it. But that doesn't make it a good game; in fact, I'd argue it just means you haven't played enough games of that genre to get a sense of which are good and which aren't.
I played a lot of similar games (RTCW, W:ET, BF, Assault mode in UT, Tribes, Tremulous) but they only have a small set of features. There's no other game that has class based gameplay with objectives, vehicles and asymetric teams.
It is if a large portion of the "good"-ness of the game depends on there being a lot of players! Are you saying that World of Warcraft would be a good game if there were only 5 players on each server?
There are enough people playing that I can find a game whenever I want to play (6500 players today from the stats website). It's not as much as some other games but it's enough to enjoy the game.
1) Quake or Unreal games don't have any limits on running. I'm not sure about ET as I only played a little ET Pro but I think it didn't have any limits either.
2) There are good reasons that you can only deploy on certain places. I also don't agree that they take too long or are easy to destroy. They are that way because of balance issues.
3) Humans have 2 extra vehicles. A boat that is pretty much useless and a second flyer that is very rarely used. It's balanced by the fact that the strogg vehicles have different abilities. For example the Dessecrator and Cyclops can strafe, the Hog can ram other vehicles/deployables, the Icaruses can be a pain to destroy. The point is that even if they have more vehicles that doesn't make the humans better. In fact if you look at the stats more maches are won by the Strogg than the GDF. Also you can respawn at whatever spawnpoint that your team has secured, so you don't have to backtrack to get the vehicles you want.
4) There are tutorials that teach you the objectives of every map in the game and what you are supposed to do.
5) A couple of maps favor one side over the other, but in general it's very well balanced. But then you can't know that if you didn't play the game for very long.
As for your last point, just because a game (or music or movie or whatever) is popular doesn't mean it's any good.
I don't agree with that. If you thought it was worse than ET then you probably expected it to be something else that it is. A lot of people expected it to be an ET clone and were disappointed. Others thought it was a Battlefield clone and were disappointed when it wasn't. Others still were expecting a Quake clone and weren't pleased. That's the big problem the game had I think, in that it wasn't a clone of any of those games, which is what the majority expected, but a game of it's own.
It was available in the beta or demo but was disabled in a patch. They said they would add an option to enable it again in the future (probably through the console) but won't support it on PC. They mainly added it for the Xbox version.
Well you are obviously in the minority since a lot more people like the games that are being released. The developers wouldn't make them if they didn't sell very well.
Slashdot Mirror
IMO Qt does everything wxWidgets does and more, better and easier.
Because you can't know if it's something you want to play before you try it.
Of course it's not free. When you run you make louder breathing noises so are easier to spot. If you fire your weapon while you run the spread is horrible. You can't scope your weapon while running.
Look, you like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. I get it. But that doesn't make it a good game; in fact, I'd argue it just means you haven't played enough games of that genre to get a sense of which are good and which aren't.
I played a lot of similar games (RTCW, W:ET, BF, Assault mode in UT, Tribes, Tremulous) but they only have a small set of features. There's no other game that has class based gameplay with objectives, vehicles and asymetric teams.
It is if a large portion of the "good"-ness of the game depends on there being a lot of players! Are you saying that World of Warcraft would be a good game if there were only 5 players on each server?
There are enough people playing that I can find a game whenever I want to play (6500 players today from the stats website). It's not as much as some other games but it's enough to enjoy the game.
2) There are good reasons that you can only deploy on certain places. I also don't agree that they take too long or are easy to destroy. They are that way because of balance issues.
3) Humans have 2 extra vehicles. A boat that is pretty much useless and a second flyer that is very rarely used. It's balanced by the fact that the strogg vehicles have different abilities. For example the Dessecrator and Cyclops can strafe, the Hog can ram other vehicles/deployables, the Icaruses can be a pain to destroy. The point is that even if they have more vehicles that doesn't make the humans better. In fact if you look at the stats more maches are won by the Strogg than the GDF. Also you can respawn at whatever spawnpoint that your team has secured, so you don't have to backtrack to get the vehicles you want.
4) There are tutorials that teach you the objectives of every map in the game and what you are supposed to do.
5) A couple of maps favor one side over the other, but in general it's very well balanced. But then you can't know that if you didn't play the game for very long.
As for your last point, just because a game (or music or movie or whatever) is popular doesn't mean it's any good.
I don't agree with that. If you thought it was worse than ET then you probably expected it to be something else that it is. A lot of people expected it to be an ET clone and were disappointed. Others thought it was a Battlefield clone and were disappointed when it wasn't. Others still were expecting a Quake clone and weren't pleased. That's the big problem the game had I think, in that it wasn't a clone of any of those games, which is what the majority expected, but a game of it's own.
No they just like a different kind of fun.
Games with depth don't sell. See ETQW.
Because it's off-topic. XNA is meant for smaller games where performance is not very important, certainly not for things like GTA.
Fun is subjective.
$25 billion? Is that for replacing the broken chairs?
If you notice all your complaints deal with proprietary stuff and there's not much that can be done about it without reverse engineering it.
What GUI?
But you didn't answer his question. What to do about it?
It was available in the beta or demo but was disabled in a patch. They said they would add an option to enable it again in the future (probably through the console) but won't support it on PC. They mainly added it for the Xbox version.
Yes. It's not like you are forced to use it if/when it's available.
Not buying their game won't change their mind either.
TFA says it supports MPEG, H264 and VC1.
Except that will never happen. People in general just don't care about DRM. If you don't buy their game millions of others will.
Of the current-gen consoles, the PS3 is the only one who hasn't been cracked yet.
Well you are obviously in the minority since a lot more people like the games that are being released. The developers wouldn't make them if they didn't sell very well.
The mac isn't even hybrid SLI. You can use either the 9400 or the 9600 but not both at the same time.
Too late...
It may come as a shock to you, but not everyone uses their programs the same way you do.
What is this 'it' you keep talking about?
This is an unmanned vehicle designed to test new technologies that would be used on a future larger vehicle. It doesn't even have any cargo.