Day of Defeat: Source Available Now

[Evil Avatar]

Day of Defeat: Source is available now via Steam. Visit www.steampowered.com (http://www.steampowered.com) for more.

[kid cabelgo]

I'm confused.

I bought the fancy collectors edition in stores. (the one that came with the shirt)

Yet somehow, I don't get DoD: Source included?

[bapenguin]

I wish they had a demo of this...I'm not about to just drop 20 beans on this. Sure I liked the original...but....I don't know. I'd like to see what improvements are there over the free version besides graphics.

[Draft]

I'm confused.

I bought the fancy collectors edition in stores. (the one that came with the shirt)

Yet somehow, I don't get DoD: Source included?Yeah, sucks, don't it?

Don't fret too much though. From what I hear, it's laggy to the point of unplayability at this moment.

[kid cabelgo]

hehe that does make me feel better

[Bones4lyf]

wow...i got all of my steam files deleted. :confused:

[Kefkataran]

I'll be checking out some DoD Source soon. Possibly this weekend if I have nothing else happening.

[EvilBob46]

I wish they had a demo of this...I'm not about to just drop 20 beans on this. Sure I liked the original...but....I don't know. I'd like to see what improvements are there over the free version besides graphics.

It's basically DOD with better graphics and a lack of maps. EDIT: Is the # of maps really = 4 or is something screwy here?

[fozy]

It's basically DOD with better graphics and a lack of maps. EDIT: Is the # of maps really = 4 or is something screwy here?

Yeah, 4 maps. There's promise of more in the future, but who knows how soon that will be.

[KarmaGhost]

No you're right. It's just 4.

However, HL2: deathmatch only had 2 when it was released.

[Draft]

That's not a whole lot of maps.

edit: Seriously, I don't want to be that valve bashing guy. It's only $20 bucks, but what do you get? Are there vehicles now? A lot of new weapons? Are the 4 maps new maps at least? Is the game significantly different? Throw me a bone here.

[Beelzebud]

HDR is pretty cool stuff. I got HL2 with an ATI card, so to me it was only 10 dollars. Not a bad deal at that rate.

Although the machine guns seemed buggy. I couldn't get them to sit on the tri-pods correctly. Kept messing up real bad. Even on a 1 player listen server with 0 lag.

And now, when I try to restart DOD I get this message box:

"This game is currently unavailable.
Please try again at another time."

Anyone else getting this? Did they release the wrong version, and have to bring everythig down to repatch it? :D

[Furtive]

yeah... thats happening to me too beelz. I changed some settings and had to restart but it wouldnt let me restart. Im sure its just overload. Despites Valves purchase of extra bandwidth the past couple weeks it hasnt been enough to keep up with demand.

The thing that bugs me about this is that i cant even start up my own server now and just dick around and learn / re-learn the maps.

[Chagrinful]

Vehicles? NO Alot of new wepons? NO actually they REMOVED one, the faster rifle.

I'm one of the Collectors Edition owners pissed at not getting it, I've had the conversation a zillion times I don't care to have it here.

OMG 4 MAPS!!! W00t!! ONLY $20!! Why thats a steal!!! NOT REALLY AT ALL what a fucking rip off, I hope they fail on this one, although they won't as they never do. DOD though greatly pails in comparison to any multiplayer FPS out there today, but all the reviewers won't take that into consideration of course because of who put it out there and how they want their exculsives no the next big thing. Really DOD has a fun gameplay mechanic, but its far too simplistic to be considered a real game today, it seriously doesn't warent the $20 price tag, $10 for sure! maybe even $15, but there something wrong with the #20, thats $5 a map there guys, and I know sure as fuck that Anzio ain't worth a damned nickle, Avalanche is worth a few shinies though but not really $5.
Fuck steam, you want a Valve product these days? Your best bet is to go with the non-steam pirated editions, you don't get any headaches or online play but at least you get what you've paid for.
Personally I bought HL2 CE because it seemed like a good value, and I thought I was getting a real guide with it, what did I get? A fucking skimpy POS that wasn't even the size of a dvd case and filled with bullshit. The T-shirt was O.K, so thats why alot of use expected to see DOD:source or at least a better discount than the general public got on it.

[Varsity]

It's not laggy, those people have their configs messed up. It does have the same hit registration problems as CSS though. I remember shooting a guy crouching still, getting more than enough blood spurts to kill, dying, then seeing my bullet decals on the wall behind him after he moved away. Not good. I've also done 200 damage to people who have lived and had shots against me register for 0 damage...that could be the console though. There's also a fun bug where you don't respawn at the start of the next round, but don't have any weapons. You've got to rush around capping without meeting anyone. :p

Still fantastic fun, though.

I'm confused.

I bought the fancy collectors edition in stores. (the one that came with the shirt)

Yet somehow, I don't get DoD: Source included?
DOD: Activision
HL2: VU

Seriously, I don't want to be that valve bashing guy. It's only $20 bucks, but what do you get? Are there vehicles now? A lot of new weapons? Are the 4 maps new maps at least? Is the game significantly different? Throw me a bone here.You're paying over $12.95 for the future.

Edit: Restart Steam to solve the unavaliable error.

[thecrazyd]

Piss off Chagrinfull. You know they will add more maps and continue to support it.

[Zurik]

Yeah it sucks, don't buy it. That's the power you have.

[Varsity]

...and another loser. I should try to get something down on the ignorance + arrogance combination, I see it a lot.

[Sensei-X]

Piss off Chagrinfull. You know they will add more maps and continue to support it.

I'm sure they will, the day after they add the missing CT and T models to CS:S. :rolleyes:

[Orphiuchus]

Well, there arent really many good servers up yet, and those that are up are full at all times and I cant get into them, so thats kind of annoying.

I like the gameplay for the most part, the only thing that really annoys me is how long it takes to look down the sites of your gun or to get up from prone. I see a grenade land near me, I have 4 seconds to get up and move, but it takes 5 fucking seconds to stand up in this game. What the hell is that.

The HDR looks great, but it kills my framerate so I'm forced to play without it. The game still looks great without HRD, but knowing that I cant use it kind of bites.

And dont complain about the maps. 4 maps is fine at launch, because there will be a ton more out in no time from the community anyway.

Overall I love it. Just give us some damn servers and let me stand up faster than a lethargic john candy and I'll be set for years to come.

[Namielus]

I didn't really like it, why:

-For starters my sound doesn't work... while it works great in half-life 2.

-This might be a personal issue and I haven't played the original DOD in at least 1.5 years, but the guns seem to jump around too much, I can't hit anything with the second shot (might just be my lack of fps play in the last months)

-Nothing looks all that much better for the wait, the models seems to jerk about as much as they did in Half-Life 1. The weapons don't look all that much better. The physics to have a bicycle fly across the map also seems rather unpolished.

-The mini-map interface is very cheesy with the little grenade icons flashing back and forth.

-Four maps ouch...

-I only visited 2 servers, but I was seeing the same crap from when I quit counter-strike "Way to win campers" (only with l33t speak).

I'm glad it came free with my subsription because I would be downright disappointed if I waited (how long has it been?) and then put down 20$ where I could be playing the original for free.

[Draft]

You're paying over $12.95 for the future.

Edit: Restart Steam to solve the unavaliable error.What? I know you've got a serious boner for all things Valve, but I don't get what you're saying.

[Achilles]

I was interested in this but 4 maps, 1 less gun, jittery, lagy and bugy is something that I’m not looking forward to enough to pay $20. Even if that $20 is "for the future" or some strange thing. I’ll just wait a couple months for CoD 2.

[Draft]

The thing is, I think the price point is fantastic. $20 bucks for a multiplayer only game sounds just about right. The problem is that the bar is set kind of high. UT2K4 cost $40 brand new, came with about 2 billion maps, 7 or 8 game mods, a fuck ton of built in mutators, and not to mention an entire DVDs worth of walkthrough for building your own skins, maps and mods. I'm not saying every multiplayer only game has to come through like that, but for $20 bucks, yes, I expect more than 4 maps.

[a|A]

Yeah, sucks, don't it?

Don't fret too much though. From what I hear, it's laggy to the point of unplayability at this moment.

I assure you it's quite playable
and quite fun :D

HDR - Lighting = win!

[Nesta]

Well I've been playing it for the last couple of hours and it's a ton of fun. After a hard time getting on a server initially, I found one that regularly was 20-30 ping for me and have been having a blast since. Classes seem well balanced, love the rifle grenades, I haven't played a game with those since Enemy Territory. Lag is not heavily present, about the same as when I play CS:S and that's not bad at all.

Hopefully they get some more maps out soon, but the maps they have are pretty big, so I'm not feeling too ripped off on that count.

[Thin_J]

I'm having a great time with it.

I think the switch to the source engine was just the kick in the pants that DoD needed.

I have no complaints.

[omnithrope]

My one word review:
Meh.

[Bubby]

Jesus.

How many WWII shooters do we need?

[51|RandoM]

Eh, I had a blast playing it tonight, and my experience was mostly lag-free. Just give the admins a few days to tune their servers.

[dead]

two words: steam down

My advice, download it for free over steam down then if you like it enough, and i suppose if you have money to burn, buy it legally!

[Varsity]

What? I know you've got a serious boner for all things Valve, but I don't get what you're saying.
A multiplayer game isn't something you produce then forget about, at least not in Valve's case. It's going to be expanded massively over the next few months, just like CSS was. You could always buy it next year when the maps are out, but why deprive yourself in the meantime?

[Orphiuchus]

Ok, so after playing a little more(on minimum, and I do mean minimum settings) I have come to a few conclusions about the game.

First, on the balance issue. The garand is so close to useless that it hurts. A karg can fire more aimed shots in less time and the karg is a 1 hit kill weapon, while the garand has lower damage to adjust for the semi auto fire. But, because of recoil, the semi-auto fire on the garand is slower in practice than the bolt on the karg. It makes the allied rifleman useless next to a german rifleman.

Second, on the community issue. Yes, its still the same jackasses from cs. The people I've run into so far in game have been just about the worst I've ever played with on a launch day. Just try to get everyone work together, or god forbid, take a 2 person objective. Teams get unbalanced fast and stay that way because people like whoring up high scores, people camp the same lame spots over and over, and you generally get to play with retards. I tried 3 different servers today and all 3 were full of people who just... sucked. This for me really ruins the game, and its unfortunate.

Third, on the tech note. I got the game working well enough to use a rifle at 640x480 with everything bottomed out, no AA, no AF, no HDR, and lowest everything. I cant believe that this is right, considering I can run CS at a normal rezolution with max everything and 2xAA at a constant 60 fps. I'm guessing that my computer is having some specific issue with dod:s, but I dont feel like fixing it.

I would love for this to be my new game, but with the tech issues I have and the community I would be forced to play with I think I'll just stick with battlefield 2.

[Kefkataran]

Jesus.

How many WWII shooters do we need?

Uh... what?

No, really, I understand the complaint about too many WW2 shooters, but this isn't a new one. It's just a Source-ified version of an old one that was much-loved. So... what?

[Citizen Philip]

Citizen is pleased. Although it does look like my 9600 Radeon is in its twilight months, Winter Assault on low graphics, DoD:S on low graphics. I think it's time to retire it and trade it up for one.. maybe two sexy sisters.

[CraigHB]

Well, I won't be interested. After my experience with Steam, I'll be avoiding all titles from Valve. It's bad enough that I have to punch a giant hole in my firewall to run that stinking client, but that hideous piece of **** requires a connection every damn time I start one of its titles. I wouldn't mind terribly if I only needed to drop the firewall once in order to authenticate an installation. But with the brain damaged way it works, if my internet connection isn't wide open, it won't let me play. Imagine if all your PC programs refused to start-up until they first logged into a server over an unsecured internet connection. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. **** you Valve!!! I hope you eat **** and die.

[baz]

Well, I won't be interested. After my experience with Steam, I'll be avoiding all titles from Valve. It's bad enough that I have to punch a giant hole in my firewall to run that stinking client, but that hideous piece of **** requires a connection every damn time I start one of its titles. I wouldn't mind terribly if I only needed to drop the firewall once in order to authenticate an installation. But with the brain damaged way it works, if my internet connection isn't wide open, it won't let me play. Imagine if all your PC programs refused to start-up until they first logged into a server over an unsecured internet connection. It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. **** you Valve!!! I hope you eat **** and die.

Dude, are you a little insane? Steam only requires a few outbound ports to work, no incoming, if your firewall can't deal with that its the bungest firewall I have ever heard of.

[51|RandoM]

Steam works just fine for anybody with modern gear, a good connection, and two brain cells to rub together. Most people who bitch about it are those who had issues with it YEARS ago, lol. Sorta like comparing WinXP to Win/286.

I guess the Luddites can pick their games up at the store instead.

[retsudo]

No point getting it till the broken gameplay is fixed, as someone else mentioned, the kar railgunning issue and so on. Its turning into CS: WWII. Too much arcade shit.

[51|RandoM]

...and if everybody waits, what are the odds it'll get fixed if nobody is playing it? :-)

I feel sorry for people who can't have fun playing it the way it is now, even if it does need tweaking. I'd be tweaking the grenade spam before anything else.

I played for 8 hours and had a blast the entire time. It was a refreshing change from my bf2/cs routine.

[Citizen Philip]

...and if everybody waits, what are the odds it'll get fixed if nobody is playing it? :-)

I feel sorry for people who can't have fun playing it the way it is now, even if it does need tweaking. I'd be tweaking the grenade spam before anything else.

I played for 8 hours and had a blast the entire time. It was a refreshing change from my bf2/cs routine.

Agreed. I was playing with 300 ping, at 800x600 it:

BOOM, HEADSHOT. I CAN DANCE ALL DAY!

Mad flag captures all over the Allies. Assault solider for the win.

[XxSATANxX]

Dead:

THANK YOU

[retsudo]

BF2 and CS, no wonder you like it. It used to be good till all these 'lets make all FPS games play like quake' fucks started joining half-decently realistic games and getting the gameplay changed.

[Nerv]

I've been playing it for the past hour or so, and I fucking loved it, and I used to play DoD for hours on end.
And I have no complaints about the community yet, I just played on a UK server, and inbetween shooting each other people were discussing tweaking, console commands (cl_showfps 1 is popular today), graphics cards, and general tech support.
The game is only 18 hours old people, give it at least a month.

EDIT:

Alot of new wepons? NO actually they REMOVED one, the faster rifle.
I assume you mean the M1 Carbine (and German equilivant)?
Try playing as a Bazooka soldier and press "2".

[thecrazyd]

BF2 and CS, no wonder you like it. It used to be good till all these 'lets make all FPS games play like quake' fucks started joining half-decently realistic games and getting the gameplay changed.
Right, because games should be tedius. Moving slow and having guns that are totally inaccurate and only hit people if you are lucky is the funnest way to play!

[retsudo]

Right, because games should be tedius. Moving slow and having guns that are totally inaccurate and only hit people if you are lucky is the funnest way to play!
No, games shouldn't be tedious; thats the point. Games with soldiers running faster than olympic sprinters firing with pinpoint accuracy when moving, or with almost no accuracy when in a firing position... are tedious and get old very fast.

If people like you want to play quake so much, play fucking quake instead of what was a semi-realistic shooter. Don't want realism, dont play realistic games. I don't like spray and pray bunny hopping matches against soldiers in jet powered rocket pants, I don't play them. DoD was changed because of the influx of whining fucking arcade kiddies who wanted less skill, tactics and more running and shooting; so was CS a long time ago.

[thecrazyd]

Not everyone thinks that liniting the speed and accuracy causes more skill. I think the looser the settings, the more it results on actual shooter, and not on dumb luck. Bitch about CS kiddies all you want, but alot of them are damn good.

[Zurik]

So why the big deal about HDR? From what I can tell, it just makes some spot really bright, and makes it harder to see. Game is still fun though, I miss some of the old guns. Here's hoping they put a bunch of stuff back into it later.

[Nesta]

Right, because games should be tedius. Moving slow and having guns that are totally inaccurate and only hit people if you are lucky is the funnest way to play!

And besides, if you want to play a game like that, go check out Red Orchestra, which is all the way realistic, slow moving, and highly inaccurate fire unless prone, etc, etc.

[RandomViolence]

So why the big deal about HDR? From what I can tell, it just makes some spot really bright, and makes it harder to see. Game is still fun though, I miss some of the old guns. Here's hoping they put a bunch of stuff back into it later.

I'm actually a bit disappointed with the HDR implementation in Source. It looked a hell of a lot more mind-blowing when they put it in Far Cry. Perhaps it's the way each engine works. I feel like the visual style of the Source engine just doesn't lend itself to the changing color range. It lacks a certain amount of vibrance, at least in DoD.

Half-Life 2 was graphically great because of the wonderful detail you saw in everything, and sometimes Valve's HDR is obscuring that. Far Cry was immaculate in many places, too, but there's some qualitative difference I can't quite put my finger on.

[51|RandoM]

The big deal about HDR is it comes somewhat close to how you expect lighting to work in reality, instead of obviously being a light map or some other software fabrication.

It is just another step on the road to suspension of disbelief.

Course, if they don't implement it right, it makes things even less believable.

I wonder how much stuff they have to do to the map itself when implementing HDR? Maybe the issue is more of a map design problem than their implementation of HDR?

The sound is pretty damn good too. The muffled roar of a machine gun that is a few blocks away, vs. the way it sounds when the bullets are screaming over your head, the sound of a bazooka round flying by, slamming into the wall behind you and shellshocking the crap out of you.

Game plays a bit fast for my taste, I'll admit. People look like they're on speed sometimes.

[Zurik]

I totally agree about the sound. Hearing the guns from a long distance, really reminded me of Private Ryan/Band of Brothers. That and the animations for guys now. My new favorite: Seeing guys go flying from a rocket blast!

[retsudo]

a lot of you who seem to play too much CS think that inaccurate = random. If done properly, it shouldn't. CS, BF and now DoD have far too random weapons. Random means luck. Weapons in real life dont fire in a 5m wide cone @ 30 metres, no matter what you are doing. About the only game to do it correctly is OFP (don't think RO does it right either)

[CraigHB]

Dude, are you a little insane? Steam only requires a few outbound ports to work, no incoming, if your firewall can't deal with that its the bungest firewall I have ever heard of.Well, that's a distinct possiblity. But let me try to be rational. Most firewalls only block incoming traffic. That's known as a weak firewall which is the one that comes canned with WinXP and is the default configuration for most hardware firewalls. A strong firewall (which is what I'm using) regulates both incoming and outgoing traffic. To look at it from a hacker's point of view, all I need is an open port on in the inbound side and an open port on the outbound side to install my hackware on your system and then transmit your data to my computer. With a weak firewall, I only have to find an open port coming in. Once my hackware is running, I have every port available to transmit from. With a strong firewall, it's not so easy. I need to find open ports in both directions.

A normal internet connection say to this website always connects from my computer on a port within 1024 to 65535 to a particular destination on port 80 (www.evilavatar.com). This is easy to set up strict firewall rules in both directions (incoming and outgoing). I just say, "only allow connections outbound on 1024 to 65535 to any server on port 80 and return traffic inbound from any server on port 80 to ports 1024 to 65535."

Steam does not do this. It connects from my system on a port from 1024 to 65535 to any one of a number of servers on a port from 1024 to 65535. There's no way to easily set up firewall rules around this and basically requires me to allow all traffic both ways between any of my upper ports and any server's upper ports. This makes my system a fertile place for hackware.

Steam could have easily used http on port 80 instead of using the upper port range. People would not have had any firewall issues because everybody is already set up for web traffic regardless of how strict their firewall is.

I think it's exceedingly lame that Steam requires me to blow such a big hole in my firewall to use their products and then requires me to log into one of their content servers every time I want to run one. To me, that's way too much to ask just to play a stupid video game. It makes me think that Valve is either really full of themselves or they have some brain damaged software engineers calling the shots. Personally, I will not be buying any of their products in the future. I don't think that's insane at all.

- Craig

[baz]

I didn't realise that steam used a random destination TCP port, I assumed it would use a small fixed set of known ports.

I don't agree that they should have used port 80 though, but they should have chosen a few known ports. Are you sure that the ports aint fixed? Is your firewall running on a different box than the one that you are running steam on? If so thats more understandable, but if its running on the same box then it should be configurable per app, otherwise I will reiterate - its a pretty bung firewall. Locking down your outbound ports doesn't really give the home user that much more security.

[CraigHB]

I didn't realise that steam used a random destination TCP port, I assumed it would use a small fixed set of known ports. I didn't examine things long enough to determine for sure whether they are using a fixed "set" of ports or any one of the available upper ports. I did see them jumping around enough to assume that any upper port is fair game.

don't agree that they should have used port 80 though, but they should have chosen a few known ports. Are you sure that the ports aint fixed?Yes, I'm positive that Steam servers do not take their connections on a fixed port. Port 80 could have been used. There's no reason they could not have or should not have used it. Regardless, any fixed port would have been fine. In that case, I could set up rules only for that port which is the way other services are normally set up (like http, smtp, etc).

... but if its running on the same box then it should be configurable per app, otherwise I will reiterate - its a pretty bung firewall.My personal computer is on a network that uses a software firewall on the server. It does not have the ability to use application based rules. Even hardware firewalls don't have that capability (and when configured properly, they're the most secure).

Locking down your outbound ports doesn't really give the home user that much more security.Well, there never is perfect security. Just like anything, if someone really wants to violate your property, there's not much you can do about it. But, if it's more trouble to get your stuff than the next guy's, guess who's going to get hit. A strong firewall makes your system less of a target. Just like FTP, I won't run Steam because it requires an insecure firewall.

- Craig

[baz]

Extending your logic though would mean that you don't play any multiplayer games as they don't (in 99.9% of cases) use 80 as their destination TCP port. I don't really get your argument for using port 80 in all circumstances, as that nullifies any benifit you get from having so many TCP ports. Do you expect people to have a different IP for each service that they want to run?

I think you are limiting yourself a bit here for the sake of extra, none too valuable security, as in your own admission it is to protect agaist malware that has already installed itself inside your firewall. If it was actually decent malware it's going to get out on port 80 anyway.

Also, steam does run in offline mode once you have validated, so you would only need to open up your outgoing ports once in order to play half life 2.

[CraigHB]

Extending your logic though would mean that you don't play any multiplayer games as they don't (in 99.9% of cases) use 80 as their destination TCP port. I don't really get your argument for using port 80 in all circumstances, as that nullifies any benifit you get from having so many TCP ports. Do you expect people to have a different IP for each service that they want to run? Correct, I don't play multiplayer games nor do I have any interest in multiplayer games. I just like to play single user games on my PC every now and then. Multiplayer games require more time and effort than I'm willing to spend. If that weren't the case, I suppose you're right. I probably wouldn't be able to connect to many servers. But, maybe not. Since I don't play any online games, I don't know how they typically connect.

A single port can accept a large number of connections. That's not the issue. I use 80 as an example because it's a port that everybody allows outgoing connections to. It could just as well be another port. The reason TCP provides so many ports is not for so many connections but to provide so many services. The RFC that describes TCP/IP actually states that a service is to be associated with a particular host port. Steam doesn't conform to that standard. Steam clients make their connections on a wide range of host ports.

Based on what information I've gathered, most malware sets itself up as a service then transmits data to some host port, usually from one upper port to another. Assuming a hostile program finds a way to install itself, it can't do that on a system that allows outbound traffic only to a handfull of lower host ports. If that malware is able to send data in a way that looks like legitimate outbound traffic (like a connection to a web site), then you would be right, any limit on outbound traffic would not make a difference. Since I don't have a whole lot of specific knowledge about what tools hackers are using, I can't say one way or the other. Regardless, I figure it's better to make it more difficult then to make it easy by allowing outbound traffic to any host port. This is also what I've read about using firewalls to improve security. Otherwise for what reason? To run a trivial video game? I don't think it's worth reducing the security of my system for that. It really torques me that Valve insists I do.

- Craig