Re: Day of Defeat\'s out
on 09-27-2005 10:59 AM
That's why I liked in back in 2000. Cause it was far more strategic than Counter-Strike.. You really had to fight with a bit of common sense, rather than being able to own with a quick connection.
Turret Points, Prone, Stamina, Greater Weapon Variety (which they've added about 8 new weapons from the original 12.. a bit of a bonus), Capture Point, More Realistic Objectives.
I dunno the levels also are built in a way that just allow for so much varying gameplay styles without it actually feeling like some cocky ass is better than anyone else.
You have camping points, terrain to play duck'n'run tactics, or just to run around aimlessly. Because of the level designs there often were little issues with Spawn Campers, or getting killed before really getting too far from your base. It's also odd that on such small maps you can support quite large numbers of people without feeling like it's crowded.
[ QUOTE ]
How much power does the X-Box really have?!
About as much as Cheapy's PC.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah you'd think so.
According to a number of online sources though the NV21A is capable of easily out-performing my 5200. Seems wrong when a GF3 Ti 200 is about half the speed.
This said, how come I can only just run Half-Life 2, Doom 3 and Halo are 'playable' framerates when the X-Box plays them smoothly? I've never been able to grasp the whole, power-difference between them.
and my experience developing for consoles is limited to the Playstation2 (which is a pain) and the X-Box 360 which is basically equal speed to an X850 XT.
Seems that graphically either X-Box developers are weaning performance that PC owners unfortunately never see; or that is one hell of a GPU. More so from the CPU because I remember trying to run Doom3 on a P3 1GHz, 512MB, GF4.. it didn't like that at all. Had to upgrade the CPU to a 1.5GHz before it started seeing reasonable framerates. Yet since the X-Box Doom release, and this new Half-Life update both games don't seem to have gained any speed.