1. sounds good at first.
but wont it be pretty nuch the same after I while?
I mean their can only be so many combinations, and sooner or later youre going ot get used to them all.

"oh they chose territory C again...everybody go left"

Posted at 4:53PM on Oct 25th 2006 by Johnny 0 stars

2. WHY ARE THEY NOT WORKING ON FALLOUT 3!?!?!?!?

Posted at 5:01PM on Oct 25th 2006 by aragorn 0 stars

3. Why do people keep making the same games over and over, with a different package. I am tired of all these first person games. They are all the same with different guns and different characters.

I would like to see something original for a change.

Posted at 5:17PM on Oct 25th 2006 by Shamma Banks 0 stars

4. Richard: Yes, that does sound like an interesting feature.

But it's not what I think about whenever a new company announces the next-best-thing in multiplayer FPSs coming to the 360. I don't think about the graphics, I don't think about the 'huge' number of players online at once [a colossally overrated feature,] I don't think about the maps, the guns, or whatever.

Nope. I think about how annoyed I'm going to be when I turn the thing on, select the "Xbox Live" button in the menu, and then commence my surf through server after server after server after server of complete garbage. Perhaps, after 10-15 minutes of said searching, I'll find a game. Rejoicing will ensue.

Then, invariably, a trainwreck will be close on the heels of my elation. For instance, I ccould look up and notice that there's 11 empty spots left in the lobby, all the people in the room right now are level [HIGH ENOUGH TO INDICATE UNEMPLOYMENT], and have been in a clan for ten years, and even if I wanted to leave the host won't stop readying-and-unreadying repeatedly and quickly enough so that it would be impossible, and I'm forced to sit in his lobby until his friend jimmy finsihes his meatloaf and spinach, or turn my 360 off and reboot.

Now I could power off, but there's no guarantee that it won't be just to go through the same menus, loading screens, etc... to get to the same result.

Or, alternatively, I could just get kicked off of the server just as we're about to start playing the game. Vexation, assemble!

I can say in total honesty that less than 10% of the time am I able to serach, find, and enter an online match on the 360 with someone of my skill level in under 10 minutes.

Why can't developers realize that this is lunacy? Do they think we enjoy this kind of torture? It just shoudln't be this way, expecially when 7 million or so solutions are staring them in the face:

Why don't they adopt a matchmaking system like Bungie's?

Sure, you have less control over the nuts and bolts of the each match when you move to a system like that. Fair enough. But you PLAY the goddamned match. You don't wait for jimmy, you don't sift through garbage, and you don't wait 45 seconds to refresh the same damned server list that your TV displayed 5 friggin' seconds ago [ubisoft I'm looking in your direction.]

This is why I do not, and still have not, gotten excited about basically any online gaming experience for the 360 so far. My 360 kicks ass, but it ain't because of Multiplayer (unless H2's in the drive). The MP of most 360 games (with a couple of exceptions) have been fun but absolutely riddled with problems that common sense should have deemed a fix-at-all-costs priority.

There's an extremely simple remedy to that, Developers: make joining an online game more user friendly. Make a product with a LARGE amount of SIMILARITIES to Bungie's Matchmaking. Make us say "this REMINDS me of the way Halo 2 worked." If possible, PURCHASE the LICENSE for their CODE. COPY them. We do not CARE what you do.

In return, you'll get more people to bother slogging through your game's online learning curve, so that the game becomes enjoyable to them. These people will continue to play the game online. That will build a sort of community fanbase for your product. Other gamers will then learn that there is great fun to be had playing your game. You may then proceed to sell more of them.

It really seems that simple to me. So get to it!

P.S. Aragorn: I thought the same thing as well (right after I thought the above.)

Posted at 6:02PM on Oct 25th 2006 by KilgoreTrout XL 1 star

5. Considering that it's being DEVELOPED by Zombie and not Bethesda, no, none of it sounds interesting. Zombie always has great ideas and horrible execution.

Posted at 6:45PM on Oct 25th 2006 by Anthony 0 stars

6. For those who didn't bother reading that huge post up there by KilgoreTrout XL, he's saying "GRAW's multiplayer is annoying." And I agree. But that's not how it always is.

I think Bethesda should stick with what they're good at. Why not?

That feature does sound good, but I'd prefer it if every player could make their own custom spawn area or something. As #1 said, eventually, if there's a set number of pieces, everyone will just know what's up.

Posted at 6:48PM on Oct 25th 2006 by Tim 0 stars

7. I'm going to back what Anthony said ... this story was over once you said "Gamers will recognize Zombie Studios as the developers of Shadow Ops".

Posted at 9:57PM on Oct 25th 2006 by refinedsugar 7 stars

8. I've read the rouge warrior books by richard marcinko(sp?) If its as gripping as the books, the game will be awesome. ktk

Posted at 10:56AM on Oct 26th 2006 by keenan 0 stars

9. KilgoreTrout XL - I think microsoft is now enforcing all game to have a matchmaking type system.

Posted at 8:00PM on Oct 25th 2006 by Joel 0 stars

10. It'll also be annoying if one section is better comparitivly. Then people will all just choose the same thing...

Posted at 9:38PM on Oct 25th 2006 by Cal Capuozzo 0 stars

11. For the record, the book shown is really a great read.

Posted at 5:43PM on Oct 26th 2006 by Ryan 0 stars