Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

RTCW: Enemy Territory Test Released 188

Posted by michael from the chaingun dept.
Ant writes "Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory Test is released for Linux and Windows! It doesn't require the original game." See the news blurb and player guide.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RTCW: Enemy Territory Test Released More

RTCW: Enemy Territory Test Released

Comments Filter:

  • ahhhh, i knew there was a reason .... (Score:5, Funny)

    by thrashncarry ( 528967 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @08:40AM (#5798109) Homepage
    that my manager didn't turn up to work this morning. the bastard is sitting at home playing this!

  • Fileshack link FYI (Score:5, Informative)

    by Obiwan Kenobi ( 32807 ) <evan@misterFORTR ... m minus language> on Thursday April 24, 2003 @08:40AM (#5798115) Homepage
    Windows version here [fileshack.com]

    and your Linux version is here [fileshack.com].

  • What no Mac Version (Score:5, Interesting)

    by norwoodites ( 226775 ) <pinskia@ g m a il.com> on Thursday April 24, 2003 @08:41AM (#5798118) Journal
    Why is there a x86 Linux version but no Mac Version?

    • Re:What no Mac Version (Score:5, Funny)

      by FrenZon ( 65408 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @08:51AM (#5798186) Homepage
      Why is there a x86 Linux version but no Mac Version?
      Because they realised that the mac gaming scene is too dominated by Photoshop?

    • Re:What no Mac Version (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The game engine was designed on x86 UNIX machines and ported to Windows. A Linux port is a no-brainer, and has been around for years now.

      Apples, on the other hand, have PPC chips. That's a lot of time and money to get the game ported, unless you design it for PPC Linux, which is just a simple compile.

      The open UNIX and Linux machines are the *only* OSs that can easily have code ported between the different CPUs.

    • Because ... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by theefer ( 467185 )
      ... if there were a Mac Version but no Linux version, it wouldn't be on Slashdot.
    • I haven't heard much on this download/expansion pack/whatever the hell it is, but chances are that iD's Graeme Devine, who does most of the Mac work on the Quake 3 ports, may become involved. Give him a week or three to update his plan and maybe we'll get a version of it.
    • Why is there a x86 Linux version but no Mac Version?

      Some games are ported to Linux only because they want Linux based servers, not because the developer thinks a sizeable Linux gaming market[1] exists. However once your have the game server the client side game is only a small incremental step and the cost is no longer out of step with the size of the market.

      [1] The Linux gaming market does not include all those who would buy a Linux port of a game. It only includes those who would never buy a Win32
    • Real-time programs, especially games, tend to have a lot of hand-optimized assembly code. Lots of programmers trust their own optimizations better than those of a compiler -- though I suspect most are wrong to do so. Anyway, porting assembly language between two Pentium-based platforms is easy. Whereas porting to PPC essentially means starting from scratch.

      There's also the testing issue. I'm suprised they were willing to spend the bucks to do QA on two different platforms. Forget about three. Especially w

  • This is will not be a full blown retail game. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24, 2003 @08:51AM (#5798185)
    RTCW: Enemy Territory will be a multiplayer only game that is completely free. A while back Activison decided not to make it a full blow retail game but since so much of it was done they are going to make it free for everyone.

  • No Mac Version?! What Gives?!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by LordYUK ( 552359 ) <jeffwright821@noSPAm.gmail.com> on Thursday April 24, 2003 @08:55AM (#5798208)
    Everyone KNOWS that REAL gamers play on Macs. Only "n00bz" use linux as their gaming platform of choice.

    Nothing says "l33t g4m3r" more than fragging someone using a one button arrow mover.

    =)
    • Everyone KNOWS that REAL gamers play on Macs.
       /me falls off chair laughing! Honestly, I didn't think there were ANY games available for OSX...

    • Googles Zeitgeist tells me 4% of people are using Macs whereas only 1% are using Linux. It would be more profitable to make a Mac game than a Linux game.

      Besides, I don't think Linux's graphics acceleration support is so mature a casual Linux-user would get the best performance from their machine. At least my Radeon 8500 gives me less FPS than TNT2 I previously had.

      • ATI's drivers aren't known for their speed in Linux, although I hear they show pretty pictures.

        Go nvidia if you want speed.
        • I want speed in addition to quality. nVisia's inexpensive gForce4-based cards do not offer the same 2D image quality ATI does. It's just that I need to boot to Windows if I want to play games...
          • 2d quality? Who gives a rat's ass? Nvidia is 'good enough' and the 3d image quality and speed is better than 'good enough'. I've had zero complaints with my ti4200.

            Then again, I don't spend 90% of my time in Photoshop either. ATI might matter then, but right now, it doesn't.

      • Because those stats are bogus, there are probably more linux users than mac users, but because linux dosen't always involve a sale, it's hard to track, that 1% is total shit.
        • How do you know they're bogus? I know some users fake their User-Agent stings to match Win/MSIE to fool witty JavaScript writers. But I doubt Google would lie on purpose. Do you have any links that might shed some light to it? Like statistics which show there are more Linux users...
          • Some? If you want to do uninterrupted web browsing, it's almost a must. (Fortunately, Opera makes it really easy. I assume that other linux browers do as well.)

            That said, based the computer owners I know, I would bet that Macs still outnumber Linux machines by a good two to one -- and that universities, which often deploy Linux extensively in computer labs, comprise a rather large proportion of total linux systems.
        • No, it's not. Linux is not a user OS. Organizations like Lindows, Mandrake, etc. are working on changing that, but no sane person would contend that Linux is currently good for the average user.

          In addition, the sales numbers don't affect this at all. The Zeitgeist tracks browser traffic, and Google gets approximately 1% of their browser traffic from Linux user-agents. That's especially interesting to me, since most geeks I know (read: Linux users) are also Google users, while Windows (and Mac) users ar
      • At least my Radeon 8500 gives me less FPS than TNT2 I previously had.

        If that's the case, it's because you either don't have ATI's linux drivers installed, or you don't have them properly configured.

        Dinivin

        • Can you point me to some place where tuning them is discussed. I don't like to hack them myself. I've installed the FireGL drivers from ATI. They were the only drivers that I found from their site. Work fine with X, only OpenGL applications are slow, like 140 FPS with Radeon versus 250 with TNT2. My guess is OpenGL acceleration is not working, or something. But I don't know how to turn it on. nVidia's drivers were accompanied with nVidia's OpenGL implementation, but I didn't see anything like it with the Fi

      • Maybe soo. But according to my weblogs I this month have 141582 classic MacOS hits and 8407 OSX hits. Linux are 17853 hits. Should they develop for classic then?

        Just a point that Zeitgeist doesn't tell you everything. My figures are from a stockmarket game so it's not an obscure Linux site or anything like that.
      • It would be more profitable to make a Mac game than a Linux game.

        And just what would be the profit for them to distribute their free Mac platform game? I am guessing the release of Windows and Linux represents some common development tools for both platforms that are not supported, or as easily supported, on the Mac. Of course, this is a question for the developers....

      • "Besides, I don't think Linux's graphics acceleration support is so mature a casual Linux-user would get the best performance from their machine. At least my Radeon 8500 gives me less FPS than TNT2 I previously had."

        Outright wrong and you obviously don't have your graphics card setup properly.

        Linux > Mac for gaming performance in FPS's. I had also seen some tests where linux outpaced windows in framerates a while ago.

  • I hope so... The main link in the post seems already to be slashdotted, so I can't read all about it, but if, as it seems, this is a New Game, coming with a linux port right off the starting block, it certainly seems that would be a Good Thing.

  • New gameplay (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Openadvocate ( 573093 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @09:05AM (#5798277)
    The important part, is there any new gameplay?
    From scanning the guide I'd say yes. I am looking forward to playing as "Covert OpS", I always liked blowing up enemy sentry guns in TFC.
    Besides from that, I must say that Desert Combat [desertcombat.com] is providing a lot of new fun stuff too for BF1942, although in alpha stage and team strength/weapon balancing still are a bit off, and some strange errors, it's nice to see that we can expect more from the bf1942 platform that has many cool features but the original WW2 concept is getting old.

    • Well, how about other great wars then?

      • American Revolution & Civil war

        Player takes aim with a musket, chance to hit is based on random numbers and skill, strafing in impossible and not allowed as you're to stay in formation. Reloading requires a tedious procedure and after getting hit, player is likely to still live and spend the rest of the game incapacitated, only to die of wounds later on anyways. No good game scenario here.
      • World War 1

        Player stares are mud walls of a trench most of the ga
      • Some of your complaints about Revolutionary, Civil and WW I scernerios are some of my complaints about a lot of the FPS gaming scenerios -- not enough group combat situations. It's usually you vs. a zillion (sometimes limitless) enemies. I'd like to be able to participate in combat situations involving many vs. many.

        I also think you're overstating the civil war and the revolutionary war a little. A fair amount of both wars were more than formation rifle fire.

        Also, I think there's a great opportunity fo
      • o Vietnam

        Player goes into jungles and swamps on foot.
        Enemy is better than player 99% of the time.
        Player may or may not get help from support lines.
        Player may randomly be hit by leftover chemicals from air strikes to destroy enemy troops.
        Pretty good scenario.
      • Gulf War 1 & 2

        Remember Falcon 3.0? Arguably the best jet combat game ever created.. based on the Gulf War.
      • You forgot bonus points for team killing.

  • Torrent (Score:2, Interesting)

    by scatter_gather ( 649698 )
    Would someone put up a bittorrent link please?

    Thank you!

  • Doesn't require original RtCW? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mahdi13 ( 660205 ) <icarus.lnx@gmail.com> on Thursday April 24, 2003 @09:07AM (#5798290) Journal
    Could someone explain how that works? I realize that this is made by the same people that made RtCW, but skimping out of the original engine doesn't seem right. It's a faily new engine (tweaked off of Quake 3, but updated) so I don't see how/why they would do this.
    • Here's my guesses (and none of these are based on what I've heard):
      1. It's not a moddable version of RTCW, it's a complete game
      2. Activision has payed Id for the license already, so it's Activision's choice if they want to lose money to give us a freebie
      3. It won't detract from sales of the engine to other companies
    • It was made by the same group who produced RtCW, and Enemry Territory was going to be the big expansion everyone wanted. Unfortunately cost overruns and time forced it to be cut short, but they graciously decided to finish what was there and release it to the world.

      They've already paid the licensing fee for the engine, and since they're using the same engine here, they don't have to pay for it again.

      You're not getting any of the RtCW content, which is single and multiplayer, so they're not losing money there. And since this is a multiplayer-only mod, it can only boost sales of the existing retail product.

      So there ya go.
      • And since this is a multiplayer-only mod, it can only boost sales of the existing retail product.
        Bzzzzzt - this isn't a mod, by the strict definition of the term "mod" - you don't need the original game to play. It might generate a few indirect sales, but that's it.
      • Actually the story as I heard/read it was this:

        The single player portion of W:ET was being done by Mad Doc Studios [maddocsoftware.com] (Star Trek: Armada 2, Empire Earth: The Art of Conquest), but it didn't progress as well as they (Activision) had hoped, so they cancelled it. However, the multiplayer portion, done by mod team Splash Damage (Q3F for Quake 3: Arena) wasn't having the same problem, so they decided to allow Splash Damage to finish it and release it. I think the idea was basically a "map pack" for RtCW, but it's

    • Could someone explain how that works?

      I believe it's a standalone game, as in not an add-on, like say a mission pack.

      Did I understand you question correctly?

      z
    • They aren't skimping out on the original engine. It is still using their modified Q3A engine, it is just new levels and such. Why would you think they ditched the Q3A engine they used?

  • This is only a TEST (Score:1, Informative)

    by GiMP ( 10923 )
    Thank you for your participation in the Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (ET) Multiplayer TEST. This TEST consists of one multiplayer map and represents an unsupported version of the multiplayer mode of ET. The final release version of ET will include six multiplayer maps and a full campaign mode.


    This is *only* a test. This is not a full-release. Yes, *this* is free.. but the final version will, very likely, not be.

    • Re:This is only a TEST (Score:4, Informative)

      by Dean Sas ( 614171 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @09:44AM (#5798570) Journal
      the final version *is* free, activision has stated this a few times, as someone whos still involved in the RtCW scene you will find this out by actually reading the official site, and many fan sites.
    • The full version WILL be free and will be released only on the internet. This information comes straight from one of the developers speaking on IRC.
    • The full release was supposed to be an expansion that would cost money, but the expansion was scrapped and now it is being released as a free multiplayer game that doesn't even require RtCW to play. In other words, it's sort of like America's Army. It's an organization releasing a product simply to say, "Hey, we're cool. We make good products, we're nice to our customers. Think about buying another one of our products some time down the line, eh?"

      Just to make sure there's no confusion: The final release WI
  • For anyone with a FilePlanet subscription, here are the Linux/Windows clients:

    Linux Client [fileplanet.com] || Windows Client [fileplanet.com]

    And for anyone without a subscription, save your trolling and go find a freebie mirror. :o)

  • I think someone just fragged the web server. hey you... put that rocket launcher down.

  • sweet! maybe now... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by clarkc3 ( 574410 )
    the Germans will speak German! I mean, you are in 'enemy territory' after all, it should only make sense

  • Disguising yourself as an enemy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cjpez ( 148000 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @10:53AM (#5799182) Homepage Journal
    I've never understood why games that go to so much trouble to be realistic do things like have players' names show up above them when you're targetting them, or "Don't shoot!" icons. I mean, really, you've got the ability to disguise yourself as the enemy; that's really cool. But then your teammates can automatically know it's you from afar just by leaving their crosshairs on you for a second or two. Riiiiight.

    • Re:Disguising yourself as an enemy (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Uhmm... I don't know about you but in real life I don't see a HUD that tells me how many cigarettes I have left, a little green bar that tells me how long I can drink and a counter showing how close I am to passing out. It's a game, Poindexter. There's nothing 'realistic' about running around with an MP40 shooting people who will just pop back into life a few seconds later. It's simulation. The information has to be conveyed somehow and clearly. Sheesh.

      • Well, I disagree. The general trend seems to be moving more and more towards realism. Obviously you're going to have some health meters and stuff like that; you'd know you got hurt in real life, and you have to have a way of knowing that you just got hurt in the game. Also obviously respawning is an impediment to the realism, but that's just the framework for how the game is played. While you're alive and moving about, overall realism is more and more the point of these games. Why else would they be p
    • Well, in Quake Team Fortress you could play a spy class, which can disguise itself as enemy, ie, change to enemy skin. I believe the team color on the player list would also change, making a positive id very difficult if you haven't been paying attention, or haven't been a good team player. I always thought that was very cool, and played spy occasionally to amuse myself. Oh yeah, your weapons were an assassin blade, a sleeping dart gun, and a trippy fart cloud :)

      I so wish that game hadn't gotten so corrupt

  • The final version will be FREE. (Score:5, Informative)

    by antdude ( 79039 ) on Thursday April 24, 2003 @02:27PM (#5801464) Homepage Journal
    Source [shacknews.com]. Hellchick (I think she works for Activision?):

    Some notes...

    There is no catch to it being free. The final version of Enemy Territory will also be free and stand alone. Completely free, no strings attached. There's no spyware, there's no collection of email addresses, we do not ask you to do us any "favors" and "get rid of a problem" for us in the future. The multiplayer was a labor of love for Splash Damage, id, and Activision, and it would just be a shame for all of that to go to waste. So you're getting a free game. No one believes us when we tell them this, and I can understand them. But it's true. :)

    Second, people seem to be having problems identifying team mates. There are two ways you can do this:

    - When you mouse over a team mate, you'll see their rank, name, and their health bar. You won't see anything when you mouse over an enemy.
    - The Axis and Allies have very different uniforms. The Allies have American tan utilities, while the Axis are wearing black coats or uniforms with red armbands (on all of them, I think).

    Quick tips:

    - There's a player guide that came with ET -- check it out for some info.
    - The voiceovers will often tell you what objective your team needs to accomplish at that moment.
    - The basic idea of the map is this: the Allies have to get the tank through the tunnel doors, then to the base (where it'll destroy the depot doors), then around the side of the base where it'll destroy the corner of the depot (allowing a second route in), and then finally dynamite the fuel dump. The Axis have to prevent this, and they have some command posts they can build and MGs in their base to help defend.
    - Engineers can plant land mines. They are very fun. :)
    - Covert Ops' can find planted land mines from the other team - use your binocs to scan.

    There's a lot more but maybe that will help people.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close