[cod] IS COD and other FPS's DEAD? On topic and off topic unfortunately!

[BludGeonT[EUG]]

What is needed is a mixture of COD, BF1942, BF2, and all those put
together to make a massive, persistent world of fighting.   Where you
go to sleep one night, and wake up to notice your alliance has long 2
miles of front line.

World War II online was a futile attempt to get this done.  Being a
huge booth at E3 last year, this year they were no where to be found. 
  It is just a matter of time before the real nextgen video games hit
- with computers getting faster and faster, video cards getting better
and better, game makers are leaving the Q3 engine and all like it in
the dust, going with the DoomIII engine, hybrids of Doom III engine,
CryTek engines, etc.

We all crave a game that has the graphics of COD and the like, but the
scalability of having hundreds if not thousands of people playing is
what we really want.  WWII oline was a good idea, but the graphics
were horrible.  The best they could do with teh technology they had.

So after getting whooped by Fatal1ty at E3 in DM-Compressed in UT2K4,
I wont share the score but it was a skunking, and for everyone that
played against him, EVERYONE, Im back into the UT2K4 world, and moving
around the Q3 engined games again, the ones I love.

One more thing, Star Wars: Battlefront.  This game was released some
time ago, and it is cross platform.  You can play in on PC against
Xbox and PS2 players.  Console players have an extra set of characters
in front of their name, signifying they are console, but not like you
need that.  You ever tried playing a first person shooter on a
console, more directly, ever tried to AIM?  Ever watched someone try
to hit you while they use a console, when you are on a keyboard and
mouse running circles around them?  its fun. very fun. lol

Enough, later all

BludGeonT[EUG]
Earthlink Ultimate Gaming
http://www.earthlinkultimategaming.com
Architect

On 5/26/05, Mark J. DeFilippis <defilm at acm.org> wrote:
> At 10:37 PM 5/25/2005, you wrote:
> From: |PxR| TazAnimal <tazanimal at rifleteam.com>
> Subject: RE: [cod] IS COD and other FPS's DEAD? On topic and off topic
>  unfortunately!
> In-reply-to:
> <5.2.1.1.2.20050525212938.00bcc888 at mail-hub.optonline.net>
> To: cod at icculus.org
> Reply-to: cod at icculus.org
> Message-id:
> <KCEKLIBDHNICMIMMAPKEGEKGJBAA.tazanimal at rifleteam.com>
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Precedence: bulk
> Delivered-to: mailing list cod at icculus.org
> Mailing-List: contact cod-help at icculus.org; run by ezmlm
> X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 P:95.0616 M:97.0232 )
> X-pstn-settings: 2 (0.5000:0.5000) s gt3 gt2 gt1 p m
> X-pstn-addresses: from <tazanimal at rifleteam.com> [db-null]
> List-Post: <mailto:cod at icculus.org>
> List-Subscribe: <mailto:cod-subscribe at icculus.org>
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cod-unsubscribe at icculus.org>
> List-Help: <mailto:cod-help at icculus.org>
> X-No-Archive: yes
> Original-recipient: rfc822;defilm at optonline.net
> 
> Mark:
>   In my personal experience, the FPS "Genre" has never gotten it right.  The
> discrepancy between
> players systems and internet connections causes lag which makes the game
> hard to play on
> an even level.  However, I would still be playing COD and / or COD:UO even
> with the "lag" issues
> IF the cheating community was not ruining the experience for me.  No matter
> what PunkBuster has done
> in COD and UO, there are still cheats that can get around PB.  And for me,
> playing games cheat free is the only way I enjoy playing.
>  
> TazAnimal
> Brett Stinson
> tazanimal at rifleteam.com 
> 
> I hear you 100%.  It is very frustrating.  I even saw an listing on Rent A
> Coder (www.rentacoder.com), for a COD wall hack that can "not be detected by
> PB".  Bad enough the people that write these cheats, and the ones that
> download them and use them.  But to go out and hire a programmer to write
> one, that had to be an all time low for me.
> 
> I too have watched my first string guys (The ones that can easily dominate
> with bolt rifles against
> those with PPSH's), fall left and right to a person clearly with an aimbot. 
> You know.. The one that you shoot at, he turns does a quick down-sight for a
> split second, not even bringing it above his chest before the rifle is moved
> back to hold position. Fires your way, walks away with a head shot.  WOW! 
> What a sniper shot with a M1.  Yea, it happens.  But then it happens 10-15+
> times, and he is the board leader.
> 
> Very frustrating.
> 
> I recall reading so much material about MOH, specifically Spearhead.  What
> many called the near perfect balanced weapon FPS. However much of the death
> was attributed to lack of EA follow-through anywhere near the level of
> follow-up COD and COD:UO have received, and the inability to resolve the
> chronic cheating dilemma.
> 
> The US is somewhere in the middle.  We are better off in home broadband
> connectivity than Russian Republics, India, China, Western Europe. But we
> lag places like the U.K., and Canada.  In Canada
> you can get SDSL at 6Mbs for about the same price we pay here in the states
> for cable/broadband.
> U.K.  hopped on the Ethernet local loop provider access for business early,
> and hence is able to deliver
> it residentially for about 45# (Which currently is $90US approx), but
> similar in UK #'s, and they
> get 3Mbs down, 1Mbs up.
> 
> I have Optimum On-line cable and Verizon ADSL.  (Optimum used to be at
> inception 10Mbs down, 2-3Mbs up), but quoted "10Mbs down from their data
> center, and 1Mbs up".  Their hubs are overloaded and now you get lack of
> consistency, which is worse than "slower". Anywhere from 700Kbs - 2.5Mbs
> down, 768Kbs up, policed).  ADSL, at < 12000' from the CO, you get 3Mbs
> down, 768Kbs up, otherwise you get the regular 1.5Mbs down/384Kbs up, which
> is normally the case, but at 1/2 the price of cable.
> 
> We are not there yet for the next leap in bandwidth in residential service.
> VOIP with QOS is "really,
> QOS over other traffic in/out of your home, but still best effort if your
> local ISP is not the company
> providing your service. Voice is low throughput, and can sustain relatively
> high jitter (Or what I call high jitter at 10-20ms+) so there is little
> business reason to drive higher bandwidth to the residence.  We really can
> not include "Content on demand", although IMHO, I believe in the long run,
> "Content on Demand" will be the venue to provide us with more bandwidth to
> the home....  But not tomorrow....
> 
> Thanks for your insightful observations. I agree, it is a part of it. 
> 
> Md
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mark J. DeFilippis,Ph. D EE           defilm at acm.org
>                                       defilm at ieee.org
> 
> 
>