Enemy Territory: Quake Wars coming to Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3
by Christopher Grant 
{ Feb 13th 2007 at 1:53PM }
Id Software is rounding up the old gang, or gangs in this case, to develop Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 ports of the highly anticipated (and nebulously dated) PC-shooter, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. Id's fellow Dallasites at Nerve Software, who previously worked on other Id projects like Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Tides of War for Xbox and DOOM 3: Resurrection of Evil for the PC and Xbox, will be responsible for bringing the title to the Xbox 360 platform while Activision's very own Z-Axis, who most notably delivered Dave Mirra Freestyle BMX, will handle PlayStation 3 duties. The press release reveals that the console versions will feature 16-player multiplayer, whereas the PC version is slated to feature 24-players. Nevertheless, we're heartened that the game -- which is being produced by Id Software but developed by Splash Damage -- will be coming to both of the obvious new-gen systems despite John Carmack's rather outspoken feelings on the console wars. It should come as no surprise that there is no date for any of the releases, but we're sticking with Activision's guess of "before Christmas."
Gallery: Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
bigc @ Feb 13th 2007 5:52PM
this is great i love this news
Jason @ Feb 13th 2007 2:02PM
Hooray, I was considering buying a Macbook Pro to upgrade my old laptop so I could play this. Aces!
samred @ Feb 13th 2007 2:09PM
Proper terminology: Dallasite or Dallasites. FYI. We're a picky bunch.
umm....hello??? @ Feb 13th 2007 2:12PM
not that I really care about Quake, but wtf? RFoM offers 42person multiplayer, and this is only 16ppl while the PC has 24ppl?
Jake @ Feb 13th 2007 2:17PM
Yay. Another PC port of an FPS game. I can't wait to rent it on Gamefly for a week.
Matt @ Feb 13th 2007 2:23PM
I'm looking forward to this, Id has had a pretty decent track record.
roller @ Feb 13th 2007 8:15PM
It only does 24 player because this game is more centered on squad tactic based, instead of run, shoot someone, die, respawn. I'd much rather play this with 11 of my friends on my team, on teamspeak, working together, than 31 random tards that have no idea whats going on. I cant wait for this game to come out
Je2037 @ Feb 13th 2007 2:24PM
Whoa, nice screens.
Pedro @ Feb 13th 2007 3:03PM
How come nearly every game online is maxed at 16 players?
I mean I undertsand that larger numbers cut down on teamwork and stuff but 20 players or 24 would still be good.
Joe @ Feb 13th 2007 2:50PM
Hello I was thinking the same thing.
Why not let all the games have 24 player multi-player
That being said I knew this was going to happen and am thankful to finally know that it will happen.
I wonder which version will be better. I think the 360 would be better because of live but as of right now my PS3 is starving for a game. So I might just pick it up for that system
crabbz @ Feb 13th 2007 3:17PM
Would 360 and PS3 players be able to play online together?
Intentless @ Feb 13th 2007 2:46PM
Nice. Don't like it being a mad house of players anyway... Anymore than 16 can get too crazy. Even 16 is a little nuts. Hopefully Huxley does it right and lets you set up who you talk to so it isn't 100 people talking to 100 people at all times...
Geovany @ Feb 13th 2007 2:55PM
Damm i should buy an xbox360 my PC is not capable to run that game, console are cheaper and don`t have to spend a lot of money....
Intentless @ Feb 13th 2007 2:54PM
I don't think picking it up for the system that needs a game would be a good idea. You should pick that one you would be more likely to play.
alu @ Feb 13th 2007 3:01PM
this better not be the cause of the delay for the PC release.
Intentless @ Feb 13th 2007 3:25PM
Sadly individuals are under the deliusion that DSL is just as good as cable. Causing conditions to be less than optimal. Being as such it can't be relied upon to sustain high numbers of players. I don't know how resistance is doing but I imagine it can't be that great lag wise with 40 people in there... Although the only people playing it must be able to afford a 600 dollar system they must all have a reliable connection... Then again... Have there been any games of 40 people?
bootsielon @ Feb 13th 2007 3:27PM
So, PS3 is the good guys and X360 is the mean retarded aliens? What a total coincidence.
C. Grant @ Feb 13th 2007 3:42PM
Haha, thanks Samred! I meant to double check that before posting.
umm....hello??? @ Feb 13th 2007 4:43PM
@13 no, 360 and ps3 would NOT be able to play against each other (different server systems). I'll even go out on a limb and say that neither will link up with the PC version, either (although technically, XBLA LIVE anywhere on Vista should be available but from what the article says I doubt it will)
@8
yeah, that's my current self-debate, which system to get a multiplatform game...
@7
just use the new a-hole button!! heheh...but you did remind me of Halo2 with 16ppl max, and yes, that gets kinda frantic, ppl lagging, quitting midgame, waiting for 16ppl to join, etc...now if there were some way to guarantee that x-hundred-thousand or x-million people had a given platform and bought a particular game (ie- Halo2, GoW, R:FoM), and that said group of people had same gametype interest (ie- Halo2--TeamSwat, RumblePit)...
--maybe PS3 is lucky only having one online game...I don't need to really search for a game of R:FoM online when there's no competition (Burnout: Domination online, etc)...
...damn, I'm rambling, but I'm sure you ppl get the point...what is the max # of ppl that would be best for performance/playability? maybe the "Custom Games" section where you set up your own private online game (ala Halo2) would be where you can invite up to 24 or 42 people?
ps- is anyone else sick of GoW and all newer games not supporting 360 to 360 linkage? (ie- having to play xboxliveGOLDmember to play with someone in the same house/apartment to not have to play splitscreen?? what's with that?)
Fiery Food Dude @ Feb 13th 2007 4:44PM
I agree with #4. Woohoo!! another shooter for the 360. We need RPG's and MMO's.
alienclay @ Feb 13th 2007 4:39PM
another FPS?
won-*yawn*-derful
i play Rfom online regularly and i have no issues with lag. i think the sofeware handles it well as only once in a blue moon do i end up with mutual death when in a close in melee/shootout with an opponet. i play ranked matches and at least 2-4 times a night get into fights with 32-40 players on the map in resistance. the maps are thought out and big enough with the spawns in just the right spots to keep things from getting too hairy.
but really, are FPS games the new racing games on next gen (current gen?) consoles? straight forward to build, easy to make look good, easy to trick people to think they need them, and low on developer creativity. were are the games that take advantage of the new hardware in ways we never before thought were possible. even ones that make just the right twists. when i got the snes with super mario, stereo sound, better controller (possibly best ever) and wonderfully bright and smooth graphics made me say "wow". on the playstation one, wipeout and the physics of racing antigravity in 3d in a way never before possible made me say "wow". and those were launch games! iv'e played all three consoles at least briefly before making my final decision, but i'm still waiting for my "wow". somehow, unless we get some truly awe inspiring AI like in the 05 killzone trailer, i doubt i'll be getting my "wow" from a fps anytime soon.
Striderhayasa @ Feb 13th 2007 4:42PM
@ intentless
uh...I'm on DSL and Resistance is awesome with 40 people. No lag, silky smooth framerates...it's gravy
--------------------------------
But I will say this though. Play Grisby with 40 people in Resistance is one of the most intense multiplayer experiences I've ever had. Bodies flying through the air from grenades and rocket blasts....people slumped up against walls from shotgun slugs...the bastard hiding with the sniper rifle picking people off at will....awesome, just awesome.
I've been keeping an eye on quake wars and I'd be interested if it supports mouse and keyboard on PS3....or at least let me adjust the sensitivity on the dual analogs
Striderhayasa @ Feb 13th 2007 4:44PM
@ alienclay
what's your handle on Resistance? Mine is PhillyYakk, my clan is Smoke 13. All I play are ranked matches and yeah...the stage layout is hot to death. I'll be playing tonight...
crabby @ Feb 13th 2007 4:56PM
@19, thanks for the info. I suspected the two consoles couldn't play together but wasn't sure. It kind of sucks to split up the community like that when it isn't really necessary.
Grindstone @ Feb 13th 2007 5:21PM
Quote: "15. So, PS3 is the good guys and X360 is the mean retarded aliens? What a total coincidence.
Posted at 3:27PM on Feb 13th 2007 by bootsielon"
It should be the other way around, huh? I mean, PS3 has been rearing its ugly $600 head around and no wants to look at it. But the 360 seems to be doing well...
Yippie, another shooter! Oh great 360 console, bless you and your ability to satiate my violent tendencies. May you continue to keep my Columbine antics at bay. Aaaaaaaa-men!
alienclay @ Feb 13th 2007 8:33PM
i've found team tactics to be more dependant on how many people on the team have a headset of some sort than how many people are on the team.
30$ ebay bluetooth headsets FTW
DarkXaero @ Feb 13th 2007 9:23PM
The PC version is 32 players while this is 16 :D
I wouldn't even bother playing the console version because this game isn't very demanding. If you can run Doom 3, you can run this too.
Autocrawler @ Feb 13th 2007 9:24PM
Only retards are going to buy the console versions-because being retarded is what it takes to even contemplate buying a crippled console port version of a competitive online multiplayer-oriented game. The PC servers are better off without them I guess.
Spiza @ Feb 14th 2007 12:28AM
Is this game really highly anticipated? Quake 4 wasn't so hot, and the free wolfenstein version of ET was so bad they released it for free. Maybe battlefield players are looking forward to it?
Mindbleach @ Feb 14th 2007 1:59AM
Caption for the pic:
"The Strogg took my lips. What's your excuse for being a goofy-looking mouthbreather, meatbag?"
Kevin D @ Feb 14th 2007 9:28AM
Technically speaking, a DSL connection at 5 mbps DL and 1 mbps UL is BETTER at hosting a game than the same speed cable connection. Check out DSL reports and a HUGE thread about this.. Its to do with Cable Docsis and the way cable only allows 'so many slices' for its Upload. So when too many are needed, it drops a few UDP packets and if you're the unlucky person who 'missed' their data, you see LAG (person JUMPING around).
As for the PS3 40 players on RFOM, SONY had to make this their 'showpiece' so THEY are supplying the servers, making sure its lag-free. Note that this will probably only happen with this first game, since they've stated its up to the game developers/publishers to host the servers, so get ready for some real craziness.
As for the PC, you can have your 21" monitor in your tard chair...LOL.. I'll take my 65" HD tv with fibre surround sound in my lazy-boy..... LOL....
"Pay Beyond"... Enjoy kiddies....