Online gaming Question

User45701 · 13-11-2007 08:39PM #1

Instead of making games with better grafix and all would it not make sence for some company to make a game with ok grafix, nothing speicla about 8 or more years old. A game with low quality grafix redesigned with a modern engine would be able to support ALLOT more players online than a new game with amazing grafix?

Agree Disagree?

13-11-2007 08:40PM

I disagree. Look at call of duty 4. It looks stunning while maintaining a frantic pace online with a decent amount of players in the game.

The Queen · 13-11-2007 09:13PM

You do realise they have done this with lots of games already?

Look at WWII online. Thousands of players across a map that stretches thousands of miles in real time. Your friends could be fighting on the eastern front at stalingrad while you're on a bombing mission in normandy. its a massive game.

homah_7ft · 13-11-2007 09:15PM

First I heard of it. I like how it sounds. I would like to kill my friends in a global theatre

Bubs101 · 13-11-2007 09:23PM

IS it free?

SeantheMan · 14-11-2007 02:28AM

Team Fortress 2 is AMAZING and only requires a DirectX7 gfx card

Easily one of the best Multiplayers around

Cravez · 14-11-2007 01:12PM

Joint Operations would be one of those type of games. It supports 150 players on a game server but tbh its a poor mans Battlefield 2

Gunmonkey · 14-11-2007 11:03PM

SeantheMan wrote: »

Team Fortress 2 is AMAZING and only requires a DirectX7 gfx card

Easily one of the best Multiplayers around

So, so true. Never really played much games online but even after having Hellgate and Guild Wars I spend days a week playing this. It just runs so well.

KdjaCL · 14-11-2007 11:20PM

War rock is free sorta.

http://www.warrock.net/

kdjac

Azza · 14-11-2007 11:29PM

Am I'm the only person who think it would be a really good idea to remake Battlefield Vietnam or make BF Vietnam 2 with the Crytek 2 engine. It would be the perfect fit.

I would love to see the Vietnam setting with a really thick destructible jungle environment like what the Crytek engine has already done in Crysis.

I'd pay good money to play that.

Jazzy · 15-11-2007 01:38AM

www.warsow.net

Quake 2 engine, the game has sweet movement, its free, its fast and its fun.

Creamy Goodness · 15-11-2007 08:36PM

isn't this why pro gamers stick to the better games like quakeworld/cs 1.6/starcraft/wc3 etc.?

Jazzy · 16-11-2007 10:07AM

Cremo wrote: »

isn't this why pro gamers stick to the better games like QUAKE 3/cs 1.6/starcraft/wc3 etc.?

fixed

I think pr0s stick to games which are balanced and offer the most minimal chance of games being decided on an unfair feature in the gameplay.
The games which offer the most depth in the simplist methods, such as the Quake series & Starcraft are often the best for competition play.
BF2 is good and all, but for competition play and viewing its quite lame

Dr Strange · 22-11-2007 07:34PM

The Queen wrote: »

You do realise they have done this with lots of games already?

Look at WWII online. Thousands of players across a map that stretches thousands of miles in real time. Your friends could be fighting on the eastern front at stalingrad while you're on a bombing mission in normandy. its a massive game.

Do you mean this game here: http://www.playnet.com/scripts/wwiionline/index.jsp ?

I played that since 2005 and got hooked on it. However, the only front available since it started is the Western front. Unless something has changed recently (haven't played for the last 4 months as I want to finally finish that PhD :rolleyes: ). Definitely getting back into it afterwards. The most recent upgrade that I heard about was adding mortars to your outfit with a range of 500 metres. Very nice.

Online gaming Question

Comments