Quake Wars for 360, PS3 Related content
-
Exclusive - Quake Wars: Enemy Territory - Comparison video
-
Latest Enemy Territory: Quake Wars screenshots
- Review Enemy Territory: Quake Wars [60]
Quake Wars for 360, PS3 News
PC
Xbox 360
PlayStation 3
News
by
Robert Purchese
The war between the GDF and Strogg has spilled over into console territory, as Activision has announced Enemy Territory: Quake Wars for PS3 and Xbox 360.
Sony's offering will be developed by Z-Axis, the team behind the X-men: The Official Game; whilst Microsoft's version will be handled by Nerve Software, who has previously worked on Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
They'll join Splash Damage's PC effort when the games are released, which we recently found out will be sometime in Activision's fiscal 2008.
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is an online multiplayer game being described as a faster-paced Battlefield experience.
You'll play as either Human or Strogg, choose from five unique classes, then go at it with up to 16 other players. There will be numerous vehicles to pile into, from alien-walkers to quad-bikes, and you can expect a vast array of weapons to blast about whilst you scream obscenities into your headset.
You can catch-up with our E3 impressions of the game elsewhere on the site.
Are you excited about Enemy Territory: Quake Wars on PC/Xbox 360/PlayStation 3?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Related Games
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
Latest Features
-
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars Review [60]
-
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars Interview [21]
-
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars First Impressions [57]
-
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars Interview [20]
-
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars Preview [44]
Latest Videos
Exclusive - Quake Wars: Enemy Territory - Comparison video [3] 30 June, 2008
Latest News
-
Wedgwood: Metacritic strain "ridiculous" [50]
-
Quake Wars demo lands on Live [14]
-
Retailers talk Quake Wars console date [4]
-
Quake Wars 1.2 patch soon [4]
-
ETQW demo this afternoon [21]
Latest Screenshots
23 August, 2007 [20]
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-27 of 27 in total
|
peak_performance
14/02/07 @ 15:47
0
It's just so id can show gamers how much the PC owns the consoles :)
|
|
Emilia'sHorse
14/02/07 @ 15:57
0
Nope not a suprise at all.
I would say RTS work better on PC therefore should remain PC based, however the system specs to run this game make a console version very tempting. My age old gripe about PC gaming is the experience of any given game boils down to how powerful your machine is. |
|
0
I don't really get why console multiplayer always has less people than the PC version of the same game?
They use the same internet connections don't they. I know some are slightly short on RAM, but even CS many years ago had more than 16 players back when 512 RAM was unheard of. I'm sure there's a reason but what is it? |
|
groovychainsaw
14/02/07 @ 17:06
0
I'm pretty sure that even PC version is down to 24 players now, so its not much of a downgrade...
|
|
asphaltcowboy
14/02/07 @ 17:24
0
Now all we need is tri-platform multiplayer gaming! :D
Who's the best?! |
|
asphaltcowboy
14/02/07 @ 17:26
0
"I think Resistance uses Sony provided servers (for free), whereas 360 games use peer to peer servers (for £8 a month)."
£8 a month? You're not talking about Xbox Live are you? |
|
AtomicBanana
14/02/07 @ 19:42
0
'16 players eh...wow is it the year 2000 ?'
Yeah because number of players equals games technical ability, and how much fun it is to play as well! Honestly, nonsense. I love 64 player games as much as the next guy, but to think every game needs to have that number of players to work or be fun is pretty laughable. EDIT: And with regards to resistance having more players. Big fucking deal, that's a much simpler gameplay style that lends itself well to having tonnes of players. Before the game is released, how are we to know what number of players works best in a game like this? Here's a thought, perhaps the developers are aware of this, and have chosen the number of players more appropriately, instead of trying to cram 256 players into a server because a few vocal idiots thought it would be cool.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 14/02/07 @ 19:45
|
|
asphaltcowboy
14/02/07 @ 20:59
0
"You're right, I'm probably thinking of WoW. Whatever the price, it's more than free so the point still stands."
Yes, well £8 a month compared to the more realistic £3 is indeed quite a big difference. Frankly, having experienced LIVE, I'm more than happy to pay for it because it is a BRILLIANT service. |
|
YourMessageHere
14/02/07 @ 21:28
0
For the way ET appears to play, i.e. Battlefield mod in Quake II/4 universe, the more players the better. 16 player Battlefield is rubbish, 64 player is much better. Then again, a lot of that's due to the naff way BF scales maps, also it may play differently; if it's closer/smaller scale than I'm imagining from all the videos etc, or spawning is better handled than in BF, it might be fine.
I'd love to see PC/360/PS3 players playing together. That would be fantastic. No way in hell it'll happen though. Didn't realise Live didn't even include hosting servers. That sucks. |
|
0
I prefer 16 players more chance of team work, also id buy this on x360 even though my pc will run it fine. I can't be arsed with the moding and cheating that goes on with pc games plus all my friends are on live and those are the people you ultimately want to play with.
not understanding the "consoles are rubbish", "no pc's rubbish" remarks. why would any one give a toss if the game is on more than platform. /stops talking to a brick wall |
Comments: 1-27 of 27 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
