Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kerlc]

because the multiplayer experience I had on the titles on pc was very bad. and the more those game become multiplayer oriented, the worse the experience will be.

as a casual gamer, I cannot follow the schedule of a proper team, so I'm relegated to those horrible public servers ridden with cheaters and 13y old rambos.

and wen I actually was in a team, the situation wasn't better either, trying to push stupid rules like 'no claymore on assault modes' and 'no scope attachment on teams' and so on because of their weird idea of what is 'competitive playing' (they played on ESL, by ESL rules)


sadly, there is no more space for casual gamers. I've a couple of hours top to play at day and between tam matching that drop you out if you miss a dlc, game ruined by cheaters, rage quitters, people running blindfolded and yelling camper and the stupid internet people in general, I can't stand unorganized multiplayer anymore.

(keep also in mind that part of the problem is that good communities are for the most part out of my timezone, for example there is that good arma community which has organized session and it's polite and genearlly awesome but they match at 3 a.m. local time)

thank you for your wonderful explanation. and i believe why i do not like multiplayer parts of games. i ahve played MW2 online on the PS3 at my friend's house, and my experience was only slightly better tahn the PC ones. that is, normal people are outnumbered 5 to 1 instead of 15 to 1. but there are some good PC multiplayer titles. the ones more co-op based, and MMOs,(but let's leave them out of this). but there are so few in the PC gaming these days. there's minecraft... but there are griefers and hackers, but you can throw them out of servers. or place elaborate traps around their beds, so that they will fall in magma the second they wake.

but i agree, the MP experience is bad on PC. but trust me, it's also bad on the consoles, just less. but when people figure out how to hack there.. god help the MP crowd.

[dogstile]

No disrespect to you JustinLee or anyone else but I have to say I don't think a lot of you actually read Origin's Eula, or the plain english revision they made later. It is no different than any other major software license.

Aye, but it doesn't mean we have to like being forced into using a program. I chose to use steam without any game forcing me into it, you couldn't do that with origin, that's where i'm sensing a lot of hate coming from.

On topic: I'm going to play through the MW3 campaign on saturday, so i'll likely come back on here and talk about how terrible it probably is.

[Orb]

I'm not exactly 'on top' of Origin, but I do know a lot of games require you to have Steam.

I myself was forced to use Steam, and I still don't like it, but I don't complain...much.

[Azkanan]

Steam is shite.

So, I've been using my mother's partner's account for years, because this was back when it was used mainly for Valve games such as Half Life 2. Which is all we used it for.

Over the years, my collection grew - Garry's Mod, Left 4 Dead, The Ship, Empire Total War, Civ5 and all my Orange Box games. All registered on this account.

Earlier this year, I decided to start a new account, so that my Mother's Partner could have his account back (lol), not that he uses it. But my name isn't his, and I wanted it to be "Azkanan".

I made a new account, tried to bring my games over - bam. "No."

I message Steam about it, explaining my situation. They copy-paste a link to their support pages, which I had already read. No use. I tell them this, they copy-paste more links. I get angry and tell them to fucking talk to me properly. They say, "Sorry, you can't move games from account to account".

So basically, they want me to buy new games. Fair enough, if this was an anti-piracy thing.

However.

Until I buy a game from them, with actual money, my access to Steam itself is limited. Can't message people, can't add friends, can't accept friends, can't do shit, other than add games to the list, download free games and play those.

They say this is for "Anti-spam" reasons. Such vghncgkyujk. Money-mongering thsyhseytwhy. [/rage]

Oh, and, none of my credit cards are supported. 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Asehujiko]

Steam is shite.

So, I've been using my mother's partner's account for years, because this was back when it was used mainly for Valve games such as Half Life 2. Which is all we used it for.

Over the years, my collection grew - Garry's Mod, Left 4 Dead, The Ship, Empire Total War, Civ5 and all my Orange Box games. All registered on this account.

Earlier this year, I decided to start a new account, so that my Mother's Partner could have his account back (lol), not that he uses it. But my name isn't his, and I wanted it to be "Azkanan".

I made a new account, tried to bring my games over - bam. "No."

I message Steam about it, explaining my situation. They copy-paste a link to their support pages, which I had already read. No use. I tell them this, they copy-paste more links. I get angry and tell them to fucking talk to me properly. They say, "Sorry, you can't move games from account to account".

So basically, they want me to buy new games. Fair enough, if this was an anti-piracy thing.

However.

Until I buy a game from them, with actual money, my access to Steam itself is limited. Can't message people, can't add friends, can't accept friends, can't do shit, other than add games to the list, download free games and play those.

They say this is for "Anti-spam" reasons. Such vghncgkyujk. Money-mongering thsyhseytwhy. [/rage]

Oh, and, none of my credit cards are supported. 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So what you are saying is that steam is terrible because it doesn't do what no other DD service in the world does either and you blindly expected them to fix stuff for you after you repeatedly failed to take into account basic facts about DD?

In related news, I completed the singleplayer. Did they ever explain why they changed all the guns to behave exactly the same? I ended up having to switch weapons when I lost track of what I was holding because I couldn't tell them apart by the gameplay and the gun itself was totally covered in rails.

Also, the game is nationalistic as fuck. Americans knock over a neutral building ontop of russians? Fuck yeah! Russians knock over a neutral building ontop of americans? Those monsters!

[NobodyPro]

-stuff-

Get a small demo (if that counts) or look for the free games (inc. HL2 Deathmatch) you can get if you have a Nvidia or ATI video card. This is why I use Steam.

[hemmingjay]

Also, the game is nationalistic as fuck. Americans knock over a neutral building ontop of russians? Fuck yeah! Russians knock over a neutral building ontop of americans? Those monsters!

All war is nationalistic. It is a realistic portrayal of the experience in that one narrow sense. If it was being told from the Russian army's perspective, the order of outrage would be reversed but still the same.

[justinlee999]

Also, the game is nationalistic as fuck. Americans knock over a neutral building ontop of russians? Fuck yeah! Russians knock over a neutral building ontop of americans? Those monsters!

All war is nationalistic. It is a realistic portrayal of the experience in that one narrow sense. If it was being told from the Russian army's perspective, the order of outrage would be reversed but still the same.

But from the point of view of the people in the 2 neutral buildings is that they're both monsters.

[Bdthemag]

I sort of expected that it would be the same thing.

I honestly prefer more tactical, realistic shooting games. For example, if you play Arma II no two multiplayer matches will be the same and it can get pretty intense. The only thing I do like about the CoD games are the hyped up action scenes in it, but otherwise its pretty meh.

[alway]

couldn't say better than this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxRp6Dg_VQ

I'm calling BS on that.

Spoiler: rant (click to show/hide)

 The only possible way to cheat in a multiplayer game, even assuming you have total control over the memory the game is using (which is actually relatively easy with a bit of C++), is if you either have control over the server host machine or terribly shitty multiplayer implementation. The first rule of multiplayer game development is NEVER TRUST THE CLIENT. Any game which trusts the client enough to allow for hacks of any sort is a terribly coded game and probably shouldn't be bought anyway, as that's likely the least of its problems. Aimbots, sure, but actual modification of objects outside of what a player could normally do should be impossible on any decent multiplayer implementation.

You can hack what your client does or shows you, but it should have 0 effect on anything; for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8VkSTm-U5o
That video shows what any sort of client memory hacking should do in any game where the devs aren't pants on head retarded.

[Nadaka]

couldn't say better than this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxRp6Dg_VQ

I'm calling BS on that.

Spoiler: rant (click to show/hide)

 The only possible way to cheat in a multiplayer game, even assuming you have total control over the memory the game is using (which is actually relatively easy with a bit of C++), is if you either have control over the server host machine or terribly shitty multiplayer implementation. The first rule of multiplayer game development is NEVER TRUST THE CLIENT. Any game which trusts the client enough to allow for hacks of any sort is a terribly coded game and probably shouldn't be bought anyway, as that's likely the least of its problems. Aimbots, sure, but actual modification of objects outside of what a player could normally do should be impossible on any decent multiplayer implementation.

You can hack what your client does or shows you, but it should have 0 effect on anything; for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8VkSTm-U5o
That video shows what any sort of client memory hacking should do in any game where the devs aren't pants on head retarded.

Not necessarily. In World of Tanks, the server handled everything including line of sight, but one of the game mechanics resulted in a hack. You see, every time a shot was fired it left a temporary tracer. One intended mechanic was that if an artillery unit was watching a distant area that a hidden tank fired from at the right time, it would be able to back trace it to its source and destroy the enemy Tank Destroyer or Artillery. However, GPU memory hacking allowed the track to remain visible permanently instead of for a half second. This was eventually fixed by removing the intended game feature. It also has another hack where tank model skins are replaced with high contrast skins that highlight each models weak points. While this can't override the server controlled visibility zones but it does make it possible to hit the sweet spots every time. There really isn't anything you can do about that kind of hacking.

[Knight of Fools]

From what I've seen, aim bots are the biggest hacking problem with FPS's, which can easily be solved with something like VAC or Punkbuster. Caught hacking? Boom, go play on non-secure servers. Lacking solid security measures like that, a clever dev could probably set something up to make aimbots shoot at the sky by setting up a bunch of random floating hit boxes, as long as there were no difference between them and real hit boxes client side.

As for changing skins, there's always encrypting the skins and making memory checks to make sure things aren't being changed.

It reminds me of the old Medal of Honor, where you could change all of your enemies into Ronald McDonald... Good times.

[Eagleon]

couldn't say better than this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbxRp6Dg_VQ

I'm calling BS on that.

Spoiler: rant (click to show/hide)

 The only possible way to cheat in a multiplayer game, even assuming you have total control over the memory the game is using (which is actually relatively easy with a bit of C++), is if you either have control over the server host machine or terribly shitty multiplayer implementation. The first rule of multiplayer game development is NEVER TRUST THE CLIENT. Any game which trusts the client enough to allow for hacks of any sort is a terribly coded game and probably shouldn't be bought anyway, as that's likely the least of its problems. Aimbots, sure, but actual modification of objects outside of what a player could normally do should be impossible on any decent multiplayer implementation.

You can hack what your client does or shows you, but it should have 0 effect on anything; for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8VkSTm-U5o
That video shows what any sort of client memory hacking should do in any game where the devs aren't pants on head retarded.

You're oversimplifying, and also assuming that it's always possible to do everything server-side. Yes, ideally you never have to rely on client-side data, but there are sometimes ways to get around it just through what the player does send to the server (movements, chat, etc.) because of bugs with memory allocation, hitbox glitches exploited with scripts, or other such esoteric things. This is rapidly disappearing because of standardization of netcode in higher level languages, but it used to be commonplace to have things like wallhacks and invulnerability glitches in multiplayer games.

Edit w/ disclaimer: I'm just as tired as you probably are of people whining 'aimbot!' when my reflexes that haven't been deadened by marijiuana, alcohol, and decades of soda abuse give me the win ;( This is more the reason I stopped playing FPSes, people are massively sore losers hurfurf

[kerlc]

there is a distinct saying in my land, originating from the old yugoslavian days, that i think can describe MW3 to it's best. in english it's "same shit, other packaging"

[Jopax]

The thing with MW3 is that it even has the same packaging so there is nothing different at all.And I'm really having a tough time figuring out why people aren't raging more about getting the same game as the last one for the same price, it's just boggling to see such a small attetion span with people, or is it perhaps that MW2 is so forgettable that 3 feels new and fresh again?