Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDes 50Mb connection?! Are you in South Korea???
Most of western europe has those, 100/100Mbps is fairly common in Sweden (even in rural areas) aswell and 1000/100 and 1000/1000 are available in some urban areas.
Of the western countries its pretty much only the US and the UK that have bad consumer internet connections. (UK is getting there, it looks like their prices have gone down, most of their 50Mbps connections are asymmetric though which is a fairly big drawback)
[size="1"]I don't suffer from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it.
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!
Except for the place where I live (of course, the 50Mbit/16Mbit border had to be 50 meters from my house), you can have 50Mbit DSL around pretty much everywhere here for between 30 and 50 euros per month, not unusual at all. 32MBit goes for between 9 and 12 euros monthly via digital cable tv anywhere in the country. Again, of course, except for the one street where I live, the provider having the monopoly for this quarter is asking 30 euros for 32Mbit and 45 euros for 64Mbit. Isn't cable monopolism a great thing...
In somewhat larger cities, from 50 to 100Mbit via optical fiber is "the new normal thing", costs between 25 and 40 euros per month. And obviously, if you pay for it, 1000Mbit is no issue.
Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDes 50Mb connection?! Are you in South Korea???
Most of western europe has those, 100/100Mbps is fairly common in Sweden (even in rural areas) aswell and 1000/100 and 1000/1000 are available in some urban areas.
It's the same over here actually, and Norrkoping with a population of 83k even has 100/100mbit for like $40 / month.
When I lived in Iowa, I was happy to pay $80 / month for 20/20. In the LA area, I'm now paying $70 for Fios at 25/25. Fios does have a 50/50 package in some areas, but it is even more expensive.
I don't really care for CoD games anymore. I played some of the first ones, the WWII games, when they were pretty new. And I also played some of their "Modern Warfare" games. They were ok; mediocre for a "war game". Far too easy, and the "life" of the games was always less than 24hrs before I beat it on "hard" mode. That's all they are, and I think what they're designed for. A quick bang and a quick death.
I think they're popular because most war games are just arcade crap. And there are usually A) no alternatives or B) people don't know about them. So far, I've yet to play anything other than combat flight sims (like IL-2 Sturmovik) which I found to be realistic, immersing and compelling.
I don't know if it's since changed, but one of my biggest complaints for CoD games was that the ballistics were garbage. To me, the weaponry's accuracy (in the sense of how true to real life it is, not how accurate a gun fires) and the realism of the ballistic physics and damage model is one of THE most critical things. All of the CoD games I've played have virtually NO ballistics. Bullets are just like flat light-beams (they probably use a ray and just test for intersections) that scatter around the center of the little cross-hairs. I also, as a firearms collector and enthusiast, always see problems with the models...i.e., the iron sights on guns are usually totally wrong and offer a bogus sight-picture. I often end up target practicing on a wall to figure out where the aim-point actually is because the sight-picture is so off.
They also grossly twist how powerful certain guns are in many titles, not just CoD. For instance, you shoot a man in the leg with an M-4 (which fires a very small 5.56mm aka .223cal round) and he flies 3ft and falls to the ground. That's just absurd. He might drop to his knees from the searing pain, but the round makes a narrow wound channel, bores a hole straight through and delivers little kinetic energy. Even worse, they "nerf" or under-model things; i.e., I've seen it take multiple shots to center mass with an AK-47 (firing a heavier 7.62x39mm round) to drop a guy. IRL, if I got hit in the gut with one of those, I'm going to flop backwards and probably never get up.
I often wonder if they do this intentionally to make the American/British weapons more "bad ass" so kids will eat it up, or if they're just that ignorant or just don't care. I think the under-modeling of firepower is probably the worst...I hate games where you have to shoot a man in the heart 3x just to take him out, or you shoot him in the head multiple times and he keeps firing back, lol. Another absurd thing is that you can nail someone right in the helmet, and the helmet flies off but the guy is fine. In reality, a rifle round would beam straight through the helmet and kill him. Even if it's moving slow and at a bad angle, the shock is enough to knock someone unconscious, cause brain damage or outright kill. Helmets are made to deflect shrapnel and slow moving pistol rounds from intermediate ranges, not stop a 30-0-6 round at 100m, moving at 3000fps and delivering several elephants worth of hurt condensed into a pencil tip! :D
I also find the treatment of grenades and hand-held explosives quite comical in games. You toss a grenade 5m from a group of guys, and it makes them fly 2 stories high and crash to the earth with a thud, hahhaha. In reality, the effect could be one of two depending on the TYPE of grenade. Offensive grenades generally rely on concussive power and make little shrapnel (like the infamous German "stick grenade"), because too much shrapnel poses a risk to the advancing troops who throw the grenade. These would tend to knock the guys out or jostle them around, and kill by the intense shock wave of pressure. Defensive grenades (like the "pineapple grenade") rely on shrapnel to do the killing; sometimes little steel BBs inside the case of shredded parts of the outer and inner shell. These would spray the guys with chunks of metal which would penetrate them like a close range shotgun blast. Powerful grenades dropped close to someone can surely lift them off their feet and throw them. But in games, it's just pathetic. You'd think they were launched into the air from a catapult, doing somersaults and gymnastic twists as the fly into the heavens, LOL. :)
Anyway, enough of my groaning about how silly most shooters and "war games" are. That's why I usually can't bear to play them. Ironically, a CoD commercial just came on as I was finishing the last sentence, heheh.
Quote:Original post by d000hg Fast internet exists in the UK but it's the exception rather than the rule. I'd say 2-8Mb is most common unless you happen to live the right place.
However for online gaming, surely 8Mb is as good as 50Mb if your ping is good?
It is, if you're the only one using the connection.
[size="1"]I don't suffer from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it.
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!
Quote:Original post by keinmann I don't really care for CoD games anymore. I played some of the first ones, the WWII games, when they were pretty new. And I also played some of their "Modern Warfare" games. They were ok; mediocre for a "war game". Far too easy, and the "life" of the games was always less than 24hrs before I beat it on "hard" mode. That's all they are, and I think what they're designed for. A quick bang and a quick death.
I think they're popular because most war games are just arcade crap. And there are usually A) no alternatives or B) people don't know about them. So far, I've yet to play anything other than combat flight sims (like IL-2 Sturmovik) which I found to be realistic, immersing and compelling.
I don't know if it's since changed, but one of my biggest complaints for CoD games was that the ballistics were garbage. To me, the weaponry's accuracy (in the sense of how true to real life it is, not how accurate a gun fires) and the realism of the ballistic physics and damage model is one of THE most critical things. All of the CoD games I've played have virtually NO ballistics. Bullets are just like flat light-beams (they probably use a ray and just test for intersections) that scatter around the center of the little cross-hairs. I also, as a firearms collector and enthusiast, always see problems with the models...i.e., the iron sights on guns are usually totally wrong and offer a bogus sight-picture. I often end up target practicing on a wall to figure out where the aim-point actually is because the sight-picture is so off.
They also grossly twist how powerful certain guns are in many titles, not just CoD. For instance, you shoot a man in the leg with an M-4 (which fires a very small 5.56mm aka .223cal round) and he flies 3ft and falls to the ground. That's just absurd. He might drop to his knees from the searing pain, but the round makes a narrow wound channel, bores a hole straight through and delivers little kinetic energy. Even worse, they "nerf" or under-model things; i.e., I've seen it take multiple shots to center mass with an AK-47 (firing a heavier 7.62x39mm round) to drop a guy. IRL, if I got hit in the gut with one of those, I'm going to flop backwards and probably never get up.
I often wonder if they do this intentionally to make the American/British weapons more "bad ass" so kids will eat it up, or if they're just that ignorant or just don't care. I think the under-modeling of firepower is probably the worst...I hate games where you have to shoot a man in the heart 3x just to take him out, or you shoot him in the head multiple times and he keeps firing back, lol. Another absurd thing is that you can nail someone right in the helmet, and the helmet flies off but the guy is fine. In reality, a rifle round would beam straight through the helmet and kill him. Even if it's moving slow and at a bad angle, the shock is enough to knock someone unconscious, cause brain damage or outright kill. Helmets are made to deflect shrapnel and slow moving pistol rounds from intermediate ranges, not stop a 30-0-6 round at 100m, moving at 3000fps and delivering several elephants worth of hurt condensed into a pencil tip! :D
I also find the treatment of grenades and hand-held explosives quite comical in games. You toss a grenade 5m from a group of guys, and it makes them fly 2 stories high and crash to the earth with a thud, hahhaha. In reality, the effect could be one of two depending on the TYPE of grenade. Offensive grenades generally rely on concussive power and make little shrapnel (like the infamous German "stick grenade"), because too much shrapnel poses a risk to the advancing troops who throw the grenade. These would tend to knock the guys out or jostle them around, and kill by the intense shock wave of pressure. Defensive grenades (like the "pineapple grenade") rely on shrapnel to do the killing; sometimes little steel BBs inside the case of shredded parts of the outer and inner shell. These would spray the guys with chunks of metal which would penetrate them like a close range shotgun blast. Powerful grenades dropped close to someone can surely lift them off their feet and throw them. But in games, it's just pathetic. You'd think they were launched into the air from a catapult, doing somersaults and gymnastic twists as the fly into the heavens, LOL. :)
Anyway, enough of my groaning about how silly most shooters and "war games" are. That's why I usually can't bear to play them. Ironically, a CoD commercial just came on as I was finishing the last sentence, heheh.
Its fair that you prefer realistic games but the point of modern shooters is to be fun. For me COD gameplay isnt evolving, its simple and mainstream.
Battlefield isnt much more realistic but it is a thinkers game.
Quote:Original post by RivieraKid Its fair that you prefer realistic games but the point of modern shooters is to be fun.
This is true, all games are meant to be fun. But you seem to be suggesting that enhancing the realism would make the game "not fun"; unless I'm mistaken. This certainly isn't at all the case. You could definitely take "realism" too far; like requiring your player to find a Port-o-Potty half way through a gunfight, haha. But I don't think your players will ever make a complaint like: "Geez, they modeled the weapons too well." or "These guys put too much work into this". However, I've heard many people complain about a game being totally unrealistic and having "bogus" material/features. Games and simulators which were made to be realistic prove this point as well. Even the training simulators the military use not only look very fun, but according to many of the soldiers who use them they are very fun and interesting...these weren't even intended to be fun or "games", yet reportedly still are.
Quote:Original post by RivieraKid For me COD gameplay isnt evolving, its simple and mainstream. Battlefield isnt much more realistic but it is a thinkers game.
Absolutely. To me, there's nothing to it but walking through a series of "canned" missions and shooting hundreds of guys; utilizing your "superman" combat powers. There's nothing new or innovative about that. :(
Quote:Original post by keinmann But I don't think your players will ever make a complaint like: "Geez, they modeled the weapons too well." or "These guys put too much work into this".
Well, yes, you would get those complaints if thats not what people wanted from the game.
People play CoD and MoH style games for just the reason you went on to describe; a game where you use your super human skills in a "realistic" world in order to save the day. I enjoy them for just that reasons; they are great cinematic shooters, and don't really pretend to be anything else. When I first played the new MoH, having never played one before, I was sucked into the experiance and loved it.
On the flip side, yes there are people who like games with more realism in them, and I'm glad of those people because they are effectively paying my wages right now [grin]
So what if CoD or MoH have nothing 'new' or 'innovative' about them, doesn't stop them being fun for those that enjoy that sort of thing...
End of the day, if you don't find it fun then great, but guess what there are people who don't find what you think of as 'fun' to be fun either... and frankly it annoys me when people start pushing their version of 'fun' as if its the only thing which matters..
