Shadowrun which is awesome because it is cross platform for pc and xbox on same games and even with two sources of players there are very few to be found.
Multiplayer on games that no one is playing.
- Thread starter zombiejoe
- Start date
Recommended Videos
sadly, Bioshock 2 on PC
well, there actually ARE players and sometimes I get full lobbies
I gotta wait about 10 minutes 'till I find a lobby with people =P
which is sad, because that multiplayer is really unique and fun
oh, and Bang! Gunship Elite for PC
well, there actually ARE players and sometimes I get full lobbies
I gotta wait about 10 minutes 'till I find a lobby with people =P
which is sad, because that multiplayer is really unique and fun
oh, and Bang! Gunship Elite for PC
Red Faction: Guerrilla for the PC. GFWL scares off most people, and the ones that are left were hardly connected to me I guess. It was fun most of the times I was able to play, but alas, I too quit because of GFWL.
Fucking Red Faction 1 on PC had more players than RFG.
And it only gets harder to find a match for L4D1.
Fucking Red Faction 1 on PC had more players than RFG.
And it only gets harder to find a match for L4D1.
I know this game is terribly terribly old, but Kane and Lynch multiplayer. I fucking loved that.
Call of Duty 4. Since I didn't get the Steam version, that means I can hardly ever get a game with new people. And since I only play TDM, and I don't like pretentious people who go for 'BOLT SNIPERS ONLY!!!1', I should probably just trade it back in for something else.
Red Faction: Guerrilla on the 360. I kept getting paired up with the same few people. A month later and there wasn't a single game to be found.
ya MNC actually has a pretty lively community. you should take a look at their forums over at uber's website.zombiejoe said:
i picked up Fatal Inertia for like 8 bucks because it reminded me of F-Zero GX, and i think i can safely say that i was the only person on earth playing that game at that time. kind of a funny realization
Ned for Speed: Hot Pursuit (new one) for the PC I tend to race the same 35 people since it came out most of whom are from Russia or China.
Also Front Mission Evolved; fought the same 15 people for 6 weeks then just un-installed it.
Also Front Mission Evolved; fought the same 15 people for 6 weeks then just un-installed it.
Well, there are about over a hundred players online, but the number of servers has by now been reduced to only a handful. The game I am speaking of Battlefield 2142.
I keep hearing how bad it's supposed to be in comparison to Battlefield 2, and they might be correct. However 2142 was the game that introduced me into the franschise all together so I haven't had anything else previously to that to set my expectation. Now, I did try out Battlefield 2 a couple of times at internet cafés or "game dwellings" as they might be called, but found it lacking the same manner of utility and options, as it was firmly set in the reality focus on modern day warfare which has been done atleast a million times even by then.
2142 takes place in the future, which gives the developers much more freedom in designing combat factors. It had hover tanks, sonic defense turrets, walkers, -titanic air stations soaring over the battlefield while raining down destruction upon anything underneath-. How is that inferior to the same repeated setting of today? It was -refreshing- to have a new experience for once.
While Battlefield 3 is going to bring back some aspects which I preffered with the older games, I still look back on Dice's off-course experiment with longing. As said before by countless other people on this website and elsewhere, the term realism has spread in an almost epidemic manner through the gaming industry. New, interesting ideas are a secondary priority to high-budget productions trying to compete with Call of Duty by having the same setting. Which is much like attempting to compete with World of Warcraft with a medieval-fantasy MMORPG. Ugh...
I'd really like for Dice to continue on futuristic settings, or anything else for that matter. As long as it isn't the same thing that is being done a hundred times per year.
I keep hearing how bad it's supposed to be in comparison to Battlefield 2, and they might be correct. However 2142 was the game that introduced me into the franschise all together so I haven't had anything else previously to that to set my expectation. Now, I did try out Battlefield 2 a couple of times at internet cafés or "game dwellings" as they might be called, but found it lacking the same manner of utility and options, as it was firmly set in the reality focus on modern day warfare which has been done atleast a million times even by then.
2142 takes place in the future, which gives the developers much more freedom in designing combat factors. It had hover tanks, sonic defense turrets, walkers, -titanic air stations soaring over the battlefield while raining down destruction upon anything underneath-. How is that inferior to the same repeated setting of today? It was -refreshing- to have a new experience for once.
While Battlefield 3 is going to bring back some aspects which I preffered with the older games, I still look back on Dice's off-course experiment with longing. As said before by countless other people on this website and elsewhere, the term realism has spread in an almost epidemic manner through the gaming industry. New, interesting ideas are a secondary priority to high-budget productions trying to compete with Call of Duty by having the same setting. Which is much like attempting to compete with World of Warcraft with a medieval-fantasy MMORPG. Ugh...
I'd really like for Dice to continue on futuristic settings, or anything else for that matter. As long as it isn't the same thing that is being done a hundred times per year.
I keep finding plenty of people to play. And if you hate the connection, look me up sometime, I host a great match.Armored Prayer said:
