good LAN games?

Home of discussion, generally. If it doesn't go in any of the other forums, post it in here.
User avatar
Stainless
Living Legend
Living Legend
Posts: 3053
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2002 5:52 am
Location: Melbourne, Futureland
Contact:

Post by Stainless »

I find Natural Selection one of the few remaining games I play multiplayer with.

MoO2 If you've got the patientce (fuck it. I can't be bothered spelling it right).
Burnov
Wanderer
Wanderer
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 12:31 pm

Post by Burnov »

Operation flashpoint would -not- be good for a 750mhz box. The barest minimum I'd recommend is 900, and even then it's not even coming close to achieving what OFP is intended for, and remain playable. That is. Simulating massive battles.
Kashluk

Post by Kashluk »

NO

OFP is not about simulating "massive battles" it's about squad-sized tactical maneuvers.

THAT'S what it says on the official website and
THAT'S why all those mods with tons of tanks and planes and dozens of troops run so slow.
Burnov
Wanderer
Wanderer
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 12:31 pm

Post by Burnov »

That's funny I don't see it on flashpoint1985. I see military simulator. That's it.

You are in control of only one squad in ofp. And yes in the single player game you're relegated to that. However come on. They didn't implement support for a maximum of 700 entities in the game world at once for nothing.


CoC has changed that fact, the countless scripts etc in the community have changed that fact... Let's face it. OFP can't get by as just another run of the mill fps like MOHAA, or Battlefield 1942. It's a battlefield simulator. It's absolutely ludicrious to think they implemented military assets such tanks and helicopters to simply serve as ambience. By comparison two or three tank platoons versus anything remotely close to competing with that constitutes a "massive" battle compared to any of the aforementioned games or any other quasi-realistic fps out there. It's not a pretty game. They obviously were opting for quantity over quality in terms of the economy of performance. Lets see. Four tanks to a platoon. Three guys to a tank multiply that by 4 and the product by 3. Well you have already just about come to the capacity of most multiplayer FPS games out there just with the opposing side. Match that with an opposing force of approximate parity. You have just out stripped the capabilities of any so called realistic game out there save for OPflash itself. That's only just barely scratching the surface of it's capabilities. For opflash that's a small skirmish. Compared to any other game. That's a "massive" battle.


You -could- play OFP on a shitty box. With one squad versus another, but you might as well just play another game that's just as capable of doing that.
Kashluk

Post by Kashluk »

Take a look at the scenarios brought to you by the developers. Do you see massive battles? No. Do you see squad-based, "being-part-of-the-action-although-there's-only-less-than-20-people-on-the-field" stuff? Yes.

With Red Hammer there came a "quick combat" scenario which included more troops at once than any of the campaigns or quick combat scenarios together. Before playing it a warning pops up saying that there are more troops on the field than originally designed, so it will require a good computer to run this map smoothly. And there still was *nothing* like 300 rushkies running down that hill. Less than a hundred I say.

I'm not denying it from being a battle simulation, but the using the word "massive" is too much. Flashpoint simulates a small-scale battle, something that happens on squad-level, where a dozen men work as a team. Not 100, not 1000, just 12.

But I do agree with the last part, that compared to many other games OFP is pretty "massive".
User avatar
Mismatch
Paragon
Paragon
Posts: 2366
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2004 7:16 pm
Location: Over yonder hill

Post by Mismatch »

Civ3: conquests
It'll keep you buy the whole LAN.
Post Reply