Quake3World

ok guys watch this video. for real. this guy is sick and on 360.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPajlON_ ... re=channel




I don't understand how someone can be that good...perhaps that is why i fail lol. also... that is a good example of no lag

Fuckin hell!

Rented it the other night, it's freakin' awesome. I think I will probably just buy it, but I'm still on the fence as to which version, leaning towards the 360. I feel dirty. Fuck you Infinity Ward.

What about; Fuck you Orio (Coriolis)

andyman wrote:ok guys watch this video. for real. this guy is sick and on 360.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPajlON_ ... re=channel




I don't understand how someone can be that good...perhaps that is why i fail lol. also... that is a good example of no lag

i don't see what's so exceptional. Looked like an average PC player.

Dr_Watson wrote:

andyman wrote:ok guys watch this video. for real. this guy is sick and on 360.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPajlON_ ... re=channel




I don't understand how someone can be that good...perhaps that is why i fail lol. also... that is a good example of no lag

i don't see what's so exceptional. Looked like an average PC player.

it's on 360 hellooooooooooooo... even i can do that on a pc.

being on a console doesn't mean you should be held to a lower standard.

that reminds me... I wonder if they're going to continue to splinter online communities or ever allow all platforms to play in the same pool.
It seems to me that it would be in everyone's best interest if PS3, XBOX, and PC games could all play together.

Dr_Watson wrote:being on a console doesn't mean you should be held to a lower standard.

that reminds me... I wonder if they're going to continue to splinter online communities or ever allow all platforms to play in the same pool.
It seems to me that it would be in everyone's best interest if PS3, XBOX, and PC games could all play together.

THen why aren't there console vs pc games

i bet 1% of console players want to play against people with keyboard/mouse. and of that 1%, half are banned from xbl.

Dr_Watson wrote:being on a console doesn't mean you should be held to a lower standard.

that reminds me... I wonder if they're going to continue to splinter online communities or ever allow all platforms to play in the same pool.
It seems to me that it would be in everyone's best interest if PS3, XBOX, and PC games could all play together.

Nah that won't happen. Just look at this thread. People base the platform they're buying for on which system friends have the game for. This is all due to multiplayer. If XBox Live people could play against PC people, then there would be no reason for a number of people to buy the XBox version. Keeping the multiplayer locked to your system makes people stick to your system.
Then there's the technical difficulties of it as well, and the question of how fair it is. Remember what happened with the Dreamcast Quake 3 players when PC gamers were let loose on them.

This could all be avoided if Microsoft wasn't afraid of letting us use USB keyboards and mice with our 360s.

lol, looks like PC gamers will have to pay for online play in COD games in the future as well:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/activ ... cod-online

They really are trying to kill the platform.

Good SP game though.

"there is demand from the core players".
what, you mean there are 50 page threads going on on the COD forums petitioning they want to pay extra?

wait what ?

Activision is quickly growing into a serious shithead of a company. Fuck em.

PC gamers still have Valve and they make 10x better games anyway.

Valve just needs to not release console games.

Valve - supporting L4D all the way...

Eraser wrote:Remember what happened with the Dreamcast Quake 3 players when PC gamers were let loose on them.

That shit was hilarious.

Transient wrote:This could all be avoided if Microsoft wasn't afraid of letting us use USB keyboards and mice with our 360s.

Nah... it would become a necessity to use them for fps games, as standard-controller-users would end up getting utterly shafted. Then your xbox360 basically turns into a pc hooked up to an hdtv with access to XBL.

vesp wrote:Then your xbox360 basically turns into a pc hooked up to an hdtv with access to XBL.

Foo wrote:

Eraser wrote:Remember what happened with the Dreamcast Quake 3 players when PC gamers were let loose on them.

That shit was hilarious.

That shit was brutal

vesp wrote:Nah... it would become a necessity to use them for fps games, as standard-controller-users would end up getting utterly shafted. Then your xbox360 basically turns into a pc hooked up to an hdtv with access to XBL.

This does seem to be the way things are being pushed. It won't be long before all of the more popular titles turn into "pay-to-play".

It's also strange that even with our current economic situation; many industries are increasing their prices/cost to the consumers. You would think that the companies selling services would consider the fact that many people are unemployed and the ones employed aren’t getting raises, and know that raising prices wouldn't be a sound business practice. Especially the entertainment industry, because entertainment is one of the first things consumers cut back.

This recession warped. It's like the law of supply and demand doesn't apply anymore. Who would have thought that raising the price of a game would make it a best seller? Weird…

Eraser wrote: Nah that won't happen. Just look at this thread. People base the platform they're buying for on which system friends have the game for. This is all due to multiplayer. If XBox Live people could play against PC people, then there would be no reason for a number of people to buy the XBox version. Keeping the multiplayer locked to your system makes people stick to your system.
Then there's the technical difficulties of it as well, and the question of how fair it is. Remember what happened with the Dreamcast Quake 3 players when PC gamers were let loose on them.

It's that kind of fragmented online community that I dislike and I hope will eventually go away.
Right now we have an environment that is good for Sony and Microsoft but bad for the consumer and the developer. They each setup their own sequestered networks that they use to leverage players into buying their console. This means the manufacturers have to spend less effort on delivering good hardware, good interfaces, and a quality user experience. As one vendor gets more and more of the online share on their network the majority of users will continue to migrate to that platform and stay on that platform regardless of the platform actually being superior.

However, If the consumer can play games in a platform agnostic world it means that we can chose a platform based on the merits of the hardware and how it fits in with our personal tastes. The developers also win big because their game can enjoy the extended life given by having a single large online community. They also don't have to make concessions or deals to please whatever vendor has the largest multiplayer network, they can develop one product that makes the customer happy, not the middleman.

Games are now in the same 'fuck the consumer love the carrier' model that we had with cell-phones before unlocked phones became legal. Phones were (and for a large part still are) sold to the carrier not the consumer. All the power in this scenario is in the hands of the middleman network provider. If you want an iPhone you have to be on the AT&T network, if you want to play games with your friends you have to get the XBOX version regardless of what platform actually suits your needs.

Games have no business going down this road given that the technical hurdles are so small. The PC XBOX PS3 are on a very even playing field from hardware/software standpoint. And all they need to facilitate interop is a common communications protocol. If the netcode from one platform is understood by the others, it becomes trivial to provide a platform independent experience to the user.

Dr_Watson wrote:

Eraser wrote: Nah that won't happen. Just look at this thread. People base the platform they're buying for on which system friends have the game for. This is all due to multiplayer. If XBox Live people could play against PC people, then there would be no reason for a number of people to buy the XBox version. Keeping the multiplayer locked to your system makes people stick to your system.
Then there's the technical difficulties of it as well, and the question of how fair it is. Remember what happened with the Dreamcast Quake 3 players when PC gamers were let loose on them.

It's that kind of fragmented online community that I dislike and I hope will eventually go away.
Right now we have an environment that is good for Sony and Microsoft but bad for the consumer and the developer. They each setup their own sequestered networks that they use to leverage players into buying their console. This means the manufacturers have to spend less effort on delivering good hardware, good interfaces, and a quality user experience. As one vendor gets more and more of the online share on their network the majority of users will continue to migrate to that platform and stay on that platform regardless of the platform actually being superior.

However, If the consumer can play games in a platform agnostic world it means that we can chose a platform based on the merits of the hardware and how it fits in with our personal tastes. The developers also win big because their game can enjoy the extended life given by having a single large online community. They also don't have to make concessions or deals to please whatever vendor has the largest multiplayer network, they can develop one product that makes the customer happy, not the middleman.

Games are now in the same 'fuck the consumer love the carrier' model that we had with cell-phones before unlocked phones became legal. Phones were (and for a large part still are) sold to the carrier not the consumer. All the power in this scenario is in the hands of the middleman network provider. If you want an iPhone you have to be on the AT&T network, if you want to play games with your friends you have to get the XBOX version regardless of what platform actually suits your needs.

Games have no business going down this road given that the technical hurdles are so small. The PC XBOX PS3 are on a very even playing field from hardware/software standpoint. And all they need to facilitate interop is a common communications protocol. If the netcode from one platform is understood by the others, it becomes trivial to provide a platform independent experience to the user.

yes yes yes it all starts with small separate things molding into one, sharing all information as a single entity and then before you know it, bam:




game over.

what's to keep console developers from using competition to design a console better than the next guys when the pace to run the new game is set by the slowest participant? all of this is already present with pc's.... guy A's computer is a couple years old and has to run low graphics and settings to be able to keep up with new boxes that run super hi-res, giving them an advantage (better precision, if you ask me). All console gamers are on an even playing field with the only real variable being the tv (inet connection wouldn't matter on a lan so that doesnt count.... also, look at mlg standards even though mlg is gay), kind of like in rocket arena... everyone starts with the same thing... the best player wins, not the best equipment. *que people saying 'i can win on anything blah blah' yeah sure you can.

YourGrandpa wrote:
[ Especially the entertainment industry, because entertainment is one of the first things consumers cut back.

My guess...is that video games, movie rentals, board gaming w/ yer pack of critters...all of these are still relatively inexpensive compared to competing 'entertainment' alternatives.

And if there is one thing humans are good at (besides self-deception, natch) it is in finding ways of staying distracted from the shitstorm of modern life.