Fallout Studios Forums

E.V.E., on 25 May 2009, 13:24, said:

I'd say start off with finally giving the player the option to pick his weapons at the start of each mission . As to appearance, I personally don't give a lot about that; it's a first person shooter after all, not a third-person one.

That trailer was visual sex to me. Definitely gonna get this for later.

to be honest, that trailer seemed just like 4 to me, just with a few more animations

The Special Forces missions are gonna kick ass.

umm not dachamp, on 25 May 2009, 12:38, said:

You don't make a new game just by updating the graphics.

umm not dachamp, on 25 May 2009, 12:38, said:

Why is that a terrible bad thing? 4 was pretty sweet. I loved the campaign despite it being kinda short-lived.

Even if the Campaign won't be any longer than in 4, it won't bother me much because I think it's better to have a awesome short Campaign than a big time boring long one.

Offcourse a long and awesome Campaign would be best, but that's unlikely to happen.

- E.V.E.

i never said it was a bad thing... i think its a good thing actually

Ah ok. My bad.

E3 footage

Looks so epic, I cant wait.

The Aliens-type motion detector looked quite interesting, I must say ^^ . Also, there's the automatic Glock for you guys what wanted it .

FAMAS at 2:50!

That was one of the most atmospheric sequences I've seen in a long while. Shame my rig would in no way support that, really, because I'd be seriously thinking about getting it otherwise.

CoD games used to be comparably easy on the hardware requirements as far as I know.
Even the outdated casual-grade catalogue PC of my cousin can run 4 without trouble.

The processor on this thing is now six years old, and though my graphics card is fairly decent it's still in an AGP-8X slot, which precludes further upgrading. I could probably run it, but having bought a couple of other recent games that are really not that much fun to play at 10FPS I may give it a miss until I have the cash to buy it and something that will run it properly.
Edited by CommanderJB, 02 June 2009 - 07:26.

CommanderJB, on 2 Jun 2009, 8:25, said:

So...I got an AGP card and I can still run 4 with medium to high settings and still run at averagely 40-60 fps.

IW always knew how to make their games system friendly (well considering the fact that you could run CoD on a P2 processor with a 64MB card without lag)

As I said, the card is decent and is not the system's weak point; it's just that I can't upgrade it. The somewhat dubious honour of the bottlenecking component belongs to the processor. But I've already explained why I doubt Modern Warfare 2 will be a satisfying experience on my system, and if you will excuse the point I think I'd probably know, so I would ask it to be left there so that the topic can return to its original course.

I hope therell be multiplayer levels in blizzards, and you get that little heat detector. Would be like battle royal...
I like the blood splatter all over your screen when u get shot, a nice touch.

Lul what were those very first snowmobiles trying to achieve? run you over and the smash into the burning mig behind you? Thats boderline james bond villain stupidity

Overall it looks amazing.

TehKiller, on 2 Jun 2009, 11:15, said:

True, true... But this isn't CoD 4, and those blizzards and especially the ice-climbing stuff especially looks processor-demanding...

Pav3d said:

It's a motion, detector, I think. What does it go for? Micro changes in air density. Kudos to whoever gets the reference .

wow, i thought that snowmobile chase was going to bee to rigid and gimmicky, but that actually looks really sick

Well either way I really doubt those blizzards will be in MP (all weather effects from SP never made it to MP unless they plan to lag out 70% of the servers)

didnt it rain on wet work?

umm not dachamp, on 3 Jun 2009, 16:53, said:

It Does, Just Played Today

umm not dachamp, on 3 Jun 2009, 10:53, said:

I don't remember it being as intense as the mission as that would affect the MP gameplay anyway.