interesting quotes
There’s other neat little things to notice, like the display inside a vehicle that relates to your battle causes
Could any dev expand on this. ive seen the hud’s but i thought they were random anims
The vehicles themselves, ranging from an ATV bike to a land rover
hope the landrover isnt the discovery they are horrible to drive :lol:
you must have a bot that constantly scours the net for the latest qw news. =P
as always, thanks for the link. =)
Thnx m8:)
Many interviews and previews coming up now, ze hype machine is on, good news indeed 
thanks []v[] 
hope this daily news stuff keeps up n runnin’ … and something’s commin’
I’m not entirely sure what was meant by “relates to your battle causes”, but no, they’re definitely not random animations. The vehicle displays vary quite a bit depending on the vehicle and what crew position you’re sat in, but you get stuff like a speedometer, a weapon overheat indicator, an artificial horizon and a separate top-down satellite view of the surrounding terrain (like the Command Map, but without the unit icons). It is conceivable that certain trickjumps are only possible at certain velocities, in which case the speedometer could be handy.
Thanks for those tidbits of info Bongoboy. I can just imagine the the Dukes of hazzaed style YeeHaww’s as people jump gorges when they time it right.
I don’t like the article. Some parts are too shallow to do right to the game. In fact, the “One minute preview” above the article seems to explain it from a better angle.
Whilst Quake fans are always welcome, I guess it’ll be mostly W:ET fans. Because when I hear Quake, I think of DM, which ET:QW isn’t.
If the name sounds familiar, it should. Splash Damage first introduced the Enemy Territory brand when they did an off-shoot game for Activision’s other first-person series, Castle Wolfenstein, a little while back. The title wasn’t an enormous success but did garner quite the following for fans of the brand, and it also put Splash on the map with their development prowess. …
I wonder what kind of definition of success they use here. Or would they think of it like that because the game was never commercially released?
… They’re put right smack into the middle of a map with a number of separated area, each controlled by different parties. The Strogg may have control of one area, but the Earth soldiers easily take control of another…until they lose it in the midst of battle, of course. Your job is to take control of each area with the help of tactical moves, as well as fast-paced action that puts you right into the shoes of one of your soldiers or Strogg. So, squad based right down to the letter, but some people will like that kind of approach.
This block shows that they wanted to keep the article short, but it just leaves “tactical moves” too much in the open field.
However, the second page does improve, with all the references to the presentation and they will be back with a full review at the game’s release.
But oh well. It could well be me being too fanboy-ish.
Thanks for the info Bongoboy. I hope there’ll be a working cigarette lighter aswell in the land rover because I tend to always lose my pocket lighters :roll:
Did the guy even play the game? The article is not only ridden with small misinformation - still calling GDF “EDF”, saying it’s “nearly 10 years” Quake has been out (it’s more than 10 years), saying ET wasn’t successful (uh? it was either free, so with no ground for commercial success, or successful because it got a good number of players) - but the description of gameplay he gives for the game is just plain wrong… it basically describes the Battlefield series, with one team capturing an area while the other captures another and so on and so forth. ET/ET:QW is about completing objectives, not plain “control” of areas.
It doesn’t portray the game on a negative light, or compare it to another series, but a small fact check as well as paying attention to the presentation would do it well.
PS. somebody turn off the hype machine. I got work to do. 
Zeh, I had just the same impression. See my post above.
We definately got a hype on our hands. Whilst I expect that the SD team can certainly live up to W:ET standards, I wonder what the average non-W:ET playing gamer would expect to get.
Didnt like ít.
It felt like the guy just made the whole story up without even playing the game.
Zeh, i agree STOP the hyping. It’s distracting as hell
Kamikaze you said:
wonder what the average non-W:ET playing gamer would expect to get.
Well what I think to get (I’m a non-W: playing gamer) Is a fuckin Battlefield beating game with cool giant maps and vehicle’s and a game where it especially takes teamwork to win (and lot’s of cool other think I don’t post here now)!!
Hope I’m quite right or am I completely wrong???
Well, I’m not sure if this is serious or not, but anyhow… I think the problem, here, is exactly people thinking this is going to be a “Battlefield killer”. Not because I don’t think it will be better, but because the gameplay is NOT like Battlefield, even if it has “vehicles” and “guns” and “terrain”. I feel that people who join the game expecting another Battlefield with shinier graphics/less bugs/different jeeps will be disappointed, simply because the gameplay will be so different to what they’re used, that they’ll be left frustrated and feeling mislead.
If they join the game with an open mind, I’m sure they’ll be happy. The RTCW/W:ET gameplay has always been miles ahead of BF, IMO. Squad-based combat on BF2 is nice, but it’s not even close to the amount of depth you expect the W:ET teamplay to have. Not because BF is bad, but because BF’s scattered gameplay is pretty random… W:ET is not like that, it’s a lot more linear, and much, much more focused. Focus is the right word when comparing the two games, it’s the main difference between them. I feel ET:QW is much more comparable to UT2k4 Onslaught (or Assault) than BF2/2142.
TL;DR: The games are different. I think ET is much better, but not everybody would agree. People have to realize ET:QW is a different game; it’s not trying to be BF*.
That’s just my uninformed, third-party point of view, of course.
Lol to ze:
I like UT2k4 too so (and I don’t like BF)
I don’t like BF2 cuz I was seeking enemy’s all the time, and it really started to bore after a month
omg sorry for some much posts, but forgot some, like the huge amounts of patches BF has and the bugs that are still in the game when it’s released (yeah that’s where they need the patches for) and more things that’s great in ET: QW and not in BF:D
Well, in my eyes ET:QW stands quite easely for: Teamwork & TeamLogics, Earth (GDF) vs Strogg.
Where Teamwork & TeamLogics comes from ET and the Earth (GDF) vs Strogg comes from Quake and the war between both party’s. So the game has been attracked towards the ET players and the QuakeWorld/Quake2 players and not towards the Q3 & Q4 where you can choose to play solo and frag a lot (though, QW & Q2 are solo games also, yet, they’re bound to the story as far as I remember)
Where as BF2 only can get the TeamLogics and Decent TeamWorks when you’re playing with person willing to work with those. Anyhow, BF2 & a couple of mods is still better then BF2142 imo! Where as BF2142 is a VERY LARGE BF2 mod (File Structure, engine, etc. = the same bollox) but only supported by rankings where other mods doesnt :(.
I think that its important to point out two things.
Firstly: Quake Wars hasn’t come out yet. I’m sure it will be as great as it looks and SD will do us proud coding wise.
Secondly about your sig: Shit makes BF look like shit. End of.
Please Upgrade Your Web Browser
Your Web browser does not meet the necessary requirements to access this content.
AOL recommends upgrading to improve your overall online experience. Download the latest version of Netscape Navigator or Microsoft Internet Explorer.
You may also proceed without upgrading, however some content may not be accessible or display properly. Continue without upgrading.
Apparently Opera 9 isn’t hip enough to view their webpage :poke:
(and no, I cant ‘continue without upgrading’, it’ll simply redirect me to teh ‘upgrad’ page again, silly web programmers)