RTCW: Enemy Territory Test Released 188
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.
"Pok pok pok, P'kok!" -- Superchicken
ahhhh, i knew there was a reason .... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ahhhh, i knew there was a reason .... (Score:1, Funny)
Fileshack link FYI (Score:5, Informative)
and your Linux version is here [fileshack.com].
Re:Fileshack link FYI (Score:1)
Re:Fileshack link FYI (Score:5, Informative)
et-linux-test-2.32.x86.run is the linux text filename
Re:Fileshack link FYI (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fileshack link FYI (Score:2)
Re:Fileshack link FYI (Score:4, Informative)
What no Mac Version (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What no Mac Version (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What no Mac Version (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What no Mac Version (Score:2, Funny)
-B
Re:What no Mac Version (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
there would be (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Because ... (Score:2)
Re:What no Mac Version (Score:2)
Ported to Linux for Servers not Gamers (Score:2)
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
Assembly code and QA (Score:2)
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)
Re:This is will not be a full blown retail game. (Score:1)
I was wondering why they would make this free, I am not going to complain though, since I play Day of Defeat [dayofdefeatmod.com] a lot(check it out if you want a good mp ww2 game) this should be a fun game to try out.
Re:This is will not be a full blown retail game. (Score:1)
Re:This is will not be a full blown retail game. (Score:2)
No Mac Version?! What Gives?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing says "l33t g4m3r" more than fragging someone using a one button arrow mover.
=)
Re:No Mac Version?! What Gives?!? (Score:1)
It's strange (Score:1)
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.
Re:It's strange (Score:2)
Go nvidia if you want speed.
Re:It's strange (Score:1)
Re:It's strange (Score:2)
Then again, I don't spend 90% of my time in Photoshop either. ATI might matter then, but right now, it doesn't.
Re:It's strange (Score:2)
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.
Re:It's strange (Score:1)
Re:It's strange (Score:2)
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.
Re:It's strange (Score:2)
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
Re:It's strange (Score:2)
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
Re:It's strange (Score:1)
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
Re:It's strange (Score:2)
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.
Re:It's strange (Score:1)
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....
Re:It's strange (Score:2)
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.
Could this be a trend? (Score:1)
Nope, side effect of Linux Servers (Score:2)
New gameplay (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:New gameplay (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, how about other great wars then?
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.
Player stares are mud walls of a trench most of the ga
Re:New gameplay (Score:2)
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
Re:New gameplay (Score:2)
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.
Re:New gameplay (Score:2)
Remember Falcon 3.0? Arguably the best jet combat game ever created.. based on the Gulf War.
Re:New gameplay (Score:2)
Re:New gameplay (Score:2)
Torrent (Score:2, Interesting)
Thank you!
Re:Torrent (Score:4, Informative)
I've setup a bittorrent tracker. It's very experimental so don't complain if it goes down.
Doesn't require original RtCW? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? (Score:1)
I believe it's a standalone game, as in not an add-on, like say a mission pack.
Did I understand you question correctly?
zRe:Doesn't require original RtCW? (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't require original RtCW? (Score:1)
This is only a TEST (Score:1, Informative)
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)
Re:This is only a TEST (Score:1)
Re:This is only a TEST (Score:2)
Just to make sure there's no confusion: The final release WI
FilePlanet mirrors (Score:1, Informative)
Linux Client [fileplanet.com] || Windows Client [fileplanet.com]
And for anyone without a subscription, save your trolling and go find a freebie mirror. :o)
Re:FilePlanet mirrors (Score:2)
Used these bittorrent links instead (Score:2)
FFS! (Score:1)
sweet! maybe now... (Score:2, Insightful)
Disguising yourself as an enemy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Disguising yourself as an enemy (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Disguising yourself as an enemy (Score:2)
Re:Disguising yourself as an enemy (Score:2)
I so wish that game hadn't gotten so corrupt
The final version will be FREE. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Going to play it soon :) (Score:2, Informative)
http://games.activision.com/games/wolfenstein/inde x.asp?section=april03 [activision.com]
I have to go to class soon but I'll sure as hell be playing it when I get back. I hope the single player isn't like the first one. I was impressed until those uber soldiers and skeletons started coming out. I love those realistic WWII games.
Re:Going to play it soon :) (Score:1)
Re:Going to play it soon :) (Score:2)
What? Do you mean AT ALL? That's the one thing I missed when Q3A came out. The game is great and all, but even when you're not online, it's still kind of a MP mode (same can be said for Tribes et al, it's still a MP style game even when playing offline).
That's why I fell in love with the id games. I could creap around in a dungeon (or turn on god mode and let off a bit of steam shooting imps or nazis or whatever with a gattling gun in Bring It On mode), or the same thing i
Re:Going to play it soon :) (Score:1)
Re:Going to play it soon :) (Score:1)
There seems to be something fishy going on.
Re:Going to play it soon :) (Score:1)
Re:I've played this game already (Score:1)
Or, you could just run it with wine.
Re:I've played this game already (Score:5, Informative)
P-III 866 with a Geforce4 MX (Low end $39.00 geforce 4) it screams as well as UT2003 Quake3 etc... I get over 30fps all the time. (much more if I drop to sane resolutions like 800X600)
Sounds like you either dont have a good videocard (read that as not having an Nvidia) or you have something horribly mis-configured.
30fps *is* slow (Score:2)
Re:30fps *is* slow (Score:2)
Over 120? What exactly do you need 150 fps for? As long as they don't use to drop below 30-40, that's fine with me.
Re:30fps *is* slow (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:30fps *is* slow (Score:2, Informative)
Re:30fps *is* slow (Score:1)
Re:30fps *is* slow (Score:1)
Re:30fps *is* slow (Score:2)
Afterimage is produced in low lighting conditions, such as movie theatres, which means that filmmakers can use less film to produce good results. There's nothing medical about it.
If you can't tell a difference between 30 fps and 60 fps, then you're blind and should go and see an optometrist.
Re:I've played this game already (Score:5, Informative)
Although I got a much heavier-duty machine (PIV-2.4GHz / GF4-ti4600), I get on the average of 200 FPS (varies between 180 - 200 depending on the map) with every piece of eyecandy cranked to the max at 1024x768. RTCW is not slow on my box at all. Actually, I get lower frame rates in Q3A (120 - 130) for whatever reason. I dunno about that, but still, RTCW is not slow. (period)
Disclaimer: granted I haven't played this yet since the servers are dead it seems, but I do get the same results out of UT2003 as you're reporting as well.
Re:I've played this game already (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re:I've played this game already (Score:2)
something's not configured right (Score:1)
What type of video card are you trying to use? Do you have the correct drivers installed?
Try running glxinfo
What does the third line of output show you? Is direct rendering enabled?
Re:I've played this game already (Score:2)
Re:I've played this game already (Score:1)
Then the Linux machine you were using was misconfigured. I've played RTCW on both sides of a dual boot box and if anything, Linux is a shade smoother.
Re:I've played this game already (Score:2)
Re:I've played this game already (Score:1)
Ok, Mr. Gates, nice move trying to convince folks to stick to using windows and not using linux...
Re:I've played this game already (Score:1)
Well, a few points still:
Q3A -> RTCW -> ET (in code base order)
I never got complains about Q3A being slower on Linux than on Windows. Actually it seems it's a bit faster, probably related to the OS itself.
There are a few areas in the Linux code that are using a C implementation instead of optimized asm. But that was never a noticeable performance hit, and gcc produces good quality code otherwise.
I'm just a bit sad that you claim being on the id-beta list. Maybe instead of just
Re:I've played this game already (Score:1)
Re:I've played this game already (Score:1)
Yea, that part really kinda irked me about that post too. I've been giving id my money since (litterally) the very first Wolf3d came out for DOS on 5.25" floppies however many hundreds of years ago. I'll happily continue the trend.
Re:I've played this game already (Score:2)
Tom's Hardware and others have proved that the game is faster on Linux.
He made a comment that the game is free.
How is that flamebait?
Re:That Was Fast (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Bittorrent Link for the Windows Version (Score:5, Informative)