Wolfenstein Multiplayer Q&A

We get the full rundown on what sort of occult powers, weapons, modes, and reward systems you'll see when you take this World War II shooter online.

by

When Wolfenstein arrives in stores on August 18, it will be the first major release in this long-running World War II series since Return to Castle Wolfenstein helped establish Xbox Live as a haven for multiplayer shooters back in 2003. Naturally, Wolfenstein will carry on that tradition with its own online multiplayer component. We recently spoke with lead game designer Matt Wilson of Endrant Studios (the team behind Wolfenstein's online features, who is working alongside single-player campaign developer Raven Software) to see what fans can expect when they boot up the game and head online.

It's Axis vs. Resistance--not the Allies--in this iteration of Wolfenstein.

GameSpot: One way that Wolfenstein's single-player campaign distinguishes itself from other World War II shooters is through the use of the veil, a collection of supernatural powers. How have you implemented the veil into multiplayer?

Matt Wilson: The veil is a big part of the new Wolfenstein single-player campaign, and we wanted to retain the overall feel and impact it has in single-player in the multiplayer side of things. Players can enter the veil dimension and use veil powers much like the ones BJ has access to, as well as all the standard weapons and items. The veil is very much an additional layer of gameplay on top of what fans of the previous games have come to expect from Wolfenstein.

GS: Are there any major differences we can expect to see in the way these powers work in single-player versus multiplayer? Obviously, the ability to slow down time is going to present some issues in a multiplayer setting.

MW: The main difference is that in single-player, you're BJ, you're the hero--you get to do everything and use every power. In multiplayer, you're not BJ--you're a member of either the Resistance or the Axis, and you play as one of three roles: soldier, medic or engineer. We wanted to keep the three roles distinct, so we gave them their own unique veil powers that are specific to their responsibilities within the team. The medic's veil power helps him heal other players, for example.

The problem with mire--the power that BJ has, which slows down time--is that it's a relative effect; each player would experience it differently. For the player using mire, it appears as if the world is slowing down. From his victim's perspective, he'd appear to move at superhuman speed; impossible to hit and everywhere at once. Even ignoring the technical constraints, this would be no fun for 50 percent of the players involved, so we've tried to come up with veil powers that fit the multiplayer game and are fair to all the players.

All the veil powers are still game winners, however, and using your abilities at the right time can turn a game around. Fundamentally, the multiplayer in Wolfenstein needs to be about skill, and knowing when to use your veil powers is part of that skill.

Expect new maps that don't exist in the single player game.

GS: In terms of weaponry, Wolfenstein's single-player campaign has you going from a basic MP40 up to a massive particle cannon. What sort of weaponry will be carried over into multiplayer, and what was the thought process that went into choosing these guns over others?

MW: Wolfenstein multiplayer includes all of the standard weapons found in the single-player campaign. There were two things we looked at: whether the weapon was a classic Wolfenstein weapon from earlier games in the series and if adding it would cause any issues--balance or otherwise. As it turned out, single-player hit the nail on the head when it came to the selection of weapons there, so it was a really easy decision to include most of them.

We elected not to include some of the more exotic veil weapons for two reasons: Firstly, Wolfenstein has a tradition of keeping the more over-the-top weaponry out of multiplayer in order to keep it balanced and skill-based, and we didn't really want to mess with that. The second reason is that the veil weapons are important to the single-player game and, therefore, quite powerful. And if we did them justice in multiplayer, the game would have ended up centered around them at the expense of the other guns. Rather than have them appear as shadows of their real selves, it made more sense to stick with the traditional weapons the Resistance and Axis soldiers would have actually used and leave BJ to handle the fancy tech.

GS: It's probably a safe bet that Wolfenstein will have some form of Deathmatch, but what about other gameplay modes? What are some of the ways teams will have to work together as a more tightly knit unit?

MW: Deathmatch is one of three gameplay modes in Wolfenstein. Adding it was an obvious decision because we found that even in the previous games where there was no Deathmatch mode, players often set up servers with the intention of just fighting and would actually kick unaware players who tried to complete the maps. So there was definitely a requirement to have something for people who just want to shoot it out. One of the core features of Wolfenstein has always been its multiplayer team play, so we've gone with Team Deathmatch rather than free-for-all in order to let players continue to use their class abilities and items to the fullest. Medics still heal and revive; you still want an engineer to deal out ammo; and so on.

Don't expect to see the game's more ridiculous weaponry in online matches, but do expect to see some veil powers.

The two other gameplay modes are Objective and Stopwatch. In Objective mode, the attacking team tries to complete one or more objectives in the map while the defending team tries to stop them. In Stopwatch, you do the same but swap over at half-time, and the attacking team which completed the map fastest is the overall winner. Existing Wolfenstein players will be intimately familiar with these because they're the defining game types that made Return to Castle Wolfenstein so groundbreaking when it first came out in 2001. Wolf set the standard for many of the games which followed later, so we're excited for players to get the chance to once again work as a close team to complete objectives, such as destroying experimental tanks or protecting vital research documents. New players will also get a chance to see what they've been missing, too.

GS: Will the maps be taken directly from the campaign, or will they be entirely new areas? What are the major differences between each of them?

MW: The multiplayer maps take place in new areas that don't exist in single-player. We use the same assets, but the map layouts, cover, and objectives are all tailored for the three multiplayer game modes. They're really extensions of the world defined by the single-player campaign. You could imagine turning a corner in a street in Isenstadt and finding yourself in the bank courtyard in one of the multiplayer maps, for example.

Each of the eight maps has a unique setting and objectives. In the map, Facility, the Resistance must break into the facility workshop via a disused rail yard at the rear and disable a prototype veil tank before the Axis can transport it to a safer location. In Rooftops, the Axis have managed to get their hands on a list of Resistance safe houses, and it's a race against time for the Resistance to get to a transmitter tower to radio a warning so their operatives can get clear in time.

GS: Lastly, let's talk about the persistent unlock system. What sort of unlocks and upgrades can we expect to see? Are there rewards gathered from the single-player campaign that carry over into your multiplayer unlocks?

MW: We had two goals for the unlocks. Firstly, they must offer a tangible advantage . The same system in single-player is geared toward letting you upgrade your equipment as you progress, and we wanted to get a flavor of that in the multiplayer part of the game. Secondly, they need to offer the player some choice as to how they play the game, but without making players overpowered if they happen to have tons of unlocks.

A lot of the time, when you have a framework of upgrades or unlocks or whatever, even if you set out to make them balanced--such that the weapon you start with is as good as any you might unlock later--you still end up with the unlocks offering an advantage over the starting weapon simply because they give you a choice. Maybe you're just better with one of the other weapons or maybe certain weapons are more suited to certain maps.

Someone call a medic! Yes, there will be medics.

With this in mind, we made all the weapons available from the start. The unlocks for each give you options on what to upgrade and when, but you can only have one unlock per category (weapon, item, veil power, etc.) active at once. This is the main reason the unlocks in multiplayer diverge from the ones found in single-player. In the single-player campaign, the unlocks are intended to stack: You upgrade your gear and become more and more powerful (and you need to be to defeat some of the later challenges, as you might expect).

For multiplayer, we just didn't want new players to be killed in one shot by a veteran with all the weapon unlocks, but we did want players to be able to pick and choose upgrades according to how they want to play the game. Some of the choices you'll have to make are things like power versus accuracy, reload time versus recoil/muzzle kick. If you're a medic, do you want your veil power to heal people faster, or would you prefer it to also heal you a little bit as you're healing other people? Those are the kind of decisions the unlocks introduce to the player.

Discussion

122 comments
AlexanderRahl
AlexanderRahl

Is there split-screen, how many people can play at the same time if there is, and how do I use it?

juan99692k6
juan99692k6

I could see how good COD4 is!! everybody is talking about it. is like the new generation of Golden Eye from N64

Posiedonrox666
Posiedonrox666

really everybody?? stop bringing up COD 4 and COD:WAW. sure those are great games but Wolfenstein is way different. sure they're both shooters but Wolfenstein mixes all these amazing powers. stop plugging COD on a Wolfenstein page. I am getting this game cause it different. its not COD. and because RTCW was amazing.

twfuzionv2
twfuzionv2

Speaking of CoD, I do agree the game was created for noobier players. The guns dont have any recoil and you can easily just hold down the trigger to spray your enemy. Furthermore, I believe there is just too much running and gunning in the game. As someone who has played tons of FPS games, I think CoD 4 and 5 are the easiest FPS shooters to play out there. Back to RTCW, I loved this series and loved Enemy Territory. ET Quake Wars wasnt as good but ET was just great. Even though the guns didnt have any recoil, it took skills to master the game.

kyilmaz
kyilmaz

Since EA/Dice hasnt been too prolific - your only alternative is COD. COD is good/great- but ive played it too death and want more alternatives. I dont know about you, but BFBC is pretty bad and wheres BF3? I understand Treyarch/Infinity ward developed COD- but Activision must own the engine so if Wolfenstein uses/improves on the engine that would be good. Im just saying Im glad its activision since they have successful games with COD. Even prototype was very good.

Zac_Hicory
Zac_Hicory

is there a multiplayer rank that u lvl up in this game?

DiscipleGD
DiscipleGD

I dont understand how u haters can keep hatin on cod when its the best selling fps of all time.They must have done somthing right.

EXxile
EXxile

@kyilmaz: Activision is not the developer of Call of Duty or this, they are the publisher. The developer of this game is Raven, who created games like X-men Origins Wolverine and the Marvel Ultimate Alliance games. Infinity Ward and Treyarch are the two developers of Call of Duty (Infinity Ward being the original, and better developer). Also, if I recall correctly I believe this game is actually being published by Id Software, with Activision playing a very little part (even though GS list the publisher being Activision). Other than that, I hope and hope that this game will be just as good as I imagine. Raven is a great developer and I believe they can pull it off.

kyilmaz
kyilmaz

I agree- this could be one of the few good games. I think its from developer Activision so thats a good sign(the creator of the great call of duty series-and Id). It make you wonder where Id has been since they created the genre years ago with DOOM. They could have been a needed game maker over the past years- we'll see. Since activision keeps pumping out great games and new maps - very hopeful. What happened to the Battlefield series I dont understand. I played BF2 BF2142 like 100 hours - a BF3 would be a big hit and BFBC isnt so good- the shooting dynamics arent so good, the mecahnics. I NEED BF3!!!! BF1943 is pretty good but not the enormous maps of BF2 BF2142 that i miss.

siarhei
siarhei

I can't believe I almost missed this game! Sounds like one of the few fun games this summer. PS: Whoever called this a historical shooter must really suck at history.

catdadanddog
catdadanddog

Sounds like the game is dependent on the single player, which, is fine by me. The multiplayer seems like any other FPS where you can find a roll in a squad but it really doesn't offer anything new. Going to pick up the game for the SP and check out the MP for a bit, but after reading the article, I'll stick to KZ2 for quite awhile.

Blade8Aus
Blade8Aus

@ecs33 no theyre not also maybe their not innovating too much but look at halo and dont tell me thats not succesful... they havnt really advertised the game much though =/

ecs33
ecs33

I thought the Return to Castle Wolfenstein had unique multiplayer elements that were ahead of its time. It looks like not much has changed here. Does anyone get the feeling that Raven was lazy with this one? Aren't the "veil powers" in multiplayer nothing more than another name for the class abilities present in RTCW?

eric1511
eric1511

thanks for the last word - i'll try and tone down my disdain for COD in this one: Yeah, I play the PC version which unforunately has 32 player TDM servers, however I have played proper scrims and pugs using competitive settings using 5v5, getting rid of perks + other nonsense, and i still stand by my argument that COD's gameplay revolves around map knowledge + positioning, since people can be taken out in 3 - 4 shots using guns with no recoil. Plus the only guns allowed in competetive ESEA or whatever ladder settings are: AK47, M4A1, deagle, that one sniper rifle, mp5 and some other sub machine gun and 2 other pistols and although the Ak47 and M4A1 deal different damage and slightly different ROF, it still operates the same away as "click and shoot" gun, that being said, there is littler variation in gun mechanics in RTCW, but quake is vastly different. Rocket launcher, grenade launcher, lightning gun, rail gun require VASTLY different aiming variations to master the guns but yeah, we can agree to disagree

PixelAddict
PixelAddict

I can't wait for this game. Wanted to pick it up on the original release date... which I think was end of July. Then it got bumped to first week of August, now it's bumped 2 more weeks. Regardless of all the fanboy BS, and that is truly what it is. I own every COD and brought my xbox and copy of RTCW to Hawaii to play it during down time, so clearly I bought that game and will buy this one. REGARDLESS, if they push it back again.. and again.. pretty soon I am just going to buy something else. I'm getting sick of the bump.

Bloodmoney09
Bloodmoney09

ohhhhhh I just thought of one more thing, sorry eric, after this you'll have the last word. YES, I DO agree that the PC version is much less about accuracy and more about spamming. I just now remembered that the PC version can have up like 52 players I think. Which is WAY too many people. The xbox version is 6 on 6 every time unless you play ground war or team tactical. Team work is much more necessary and much more present on the console versions. So on the console version my argument is valid, for the PC version, I absolutely agree with you.

Bloodmoney09
Bloodmoney09

@maxxgold I think that call of duty games try to keep players moving, to keep the excitement high. If everyone found their said good position the game would be even slower paced and more boring. Complain about an enemy spawning behind is the same as complaining about spawn killing or camping in my eyes. why not just be more aware of your surroundings and watch your back. is that so much different than being able to kill your way out of a spawn camping/killing scenario?

Bloodmoney09
Bloodmoney09

There is no point for me to continue talking to you about this because this is a matter of opinion really. No one is right or wrong, and I respect that you are entitled to your own opinion. I understand the points you were trying to make, and I hope you understood the ones I was. I think it really comes down to which type of MP fps you like. Saying one is worse than then other is ridiculous because they are so different. I'll let you have the last word.

Bloodmoney09
Bloodmoney09

I play my video games on my console, because no one has the ability to cheat and I get to use a 55" screen. So that means everyone can use every weapon, there are no restrictions. So people will use anything they can to get the upper hand. Clan matches are far more fun than normal matches, so saying you play for fun not competition doesn't really apply here. Playing competitively is where a lot of people get their enjoyment. I play on the xbox and no one in my clan has an accuracy rating lower than 22%. Which is hella good. It is clear that you have very little understanding of the game when you say the things that you do. Or maybe it's just the PC version of the game. I don't know. Much of what you said about quake also applies to cod in it's own way. Such as the regeneration, spawning, weapons, choke points, and the timing of all of these things. Those things are present in the game, you just must not be to the level that it happens and is present.

Maxxgold
Maxxgold

Sorry Eric 1511 I thought you were bashing RTCW. My bad. It's really a shame that it's been so long since they updated the franchise. These other mp games just don't seem to understand gameplay any more. Point in case is that they have the revolving spawn points because now generation gamers can't keep from getting spawn killed. The lamest thing in the world is the random spawn. Nothing says you suck more than crying about spawn killing. If you can't keep from getting spawn killed you shouldn't play shooters. I love being respawned to a random point in a COD game where i am positioned right behind the enemy. Yeah thats stupid. You get good position and then the enemy just re spawns behind you . How lame is that.

eric1511
eric1511

and if you like COD, you're probably going to like WOLF. I've been playing the beta for the past couple of days and it feels like a hybrid between RTCW and COD (yes fellow rtcw players, i know it sounds bad) but really, i don't mind the gameplay element since theres definitely focus on the old rtcw elements of 1v1 gunfights and it is still very aim dominant. probably the biggest pitfall(s) of the game is the movement speed (slower than ETQW and probably a little faster than CS) and the tech 4 engine its running on, which is notorious for being clunky and heavy, even the COD engine is better than it. It's still a beta so hopefully, the final game will be ALOT more polished.

eric1511
eric1511

you're right, i guess some people do want to live a different life. if i personally play FPS for fun and also for competition so I wouldn't understand, if I wanted to roleplay, i'd play an RPG like BG2. and this debate only escalated because I was replying to someone else said WOLF was inferior to COD. and you play in clan matches? I've never heard of a ladder which supports perks. Every good COD ladder would get rid of perks, uav, helicopter, airstrike and take away 75% of the weapons, so really its kind of like a worse version of CS. and every game needs some level of understanding, like in RTCW and ET you needed to time your enemy respawns, be able to track your enemy with the mouse for extended periods of time, know how to use your recharge bar efficiently, or in quake you need to time the item respawns, predict the enemy's spawn location after you killed him, learn how to use 9 different weapons and control the map. What i'm arguing, is that COD needs the LEAST amount of understanding and knowledge in any game, even under competition settings. Understanding COD is understanding the flow of a map and positioning, theres LITTLE to SOME emphasis on aim.

bobswartz
bobswartz

ohh and for the record, Return to Castle Wolfenstein got a higher score than any of the Call of Duty games so Kvan, once again, should should probably check your facts before you go spouting off again and trying to hate on a classic

bobswartz
bobswartz

Why is cod4 even a discussion topic???? How wolfenstein is even remotely similar baffles me. It was never about realism, it was about insane monsters and occult magic while using one of histories most memorable wars as a back drop. All you call of duty fan boys need to close ur traps and stop bashing new games. Go spend your time on something worthwile, and when this game gets a high score........ur all gonna look like jackasses and hear a lot of "I told you so's" and Kvan, I think it goes without saying that the only person jerking to video games on this forum is you buddy

Bloodmoney09
Bloodmoney09

By the way this game does look sweet, and I did pre-order it. I'm not attacking this game or any other game. I'm just defending a game against haters.

Bloodmoney09
Bloodmoney09

Once you get a good understanding of game, like with most games, you know how to get around the cheap stuff people try to pull. I play cod4 in clan matches, my kill to death ratio is around 1.96 which is pretty decent for someone who plays clan matches as much as I do. Rarely do I even die from a grenade, and almost never do I die from martyrdom. I'm just smart enough to not walk close to a body of an enemy after I kill them, no matter who they are. For example. The game requires an understanding of it. Which I'm assuming you didn't acquire when you played it. Lack of understanding doesn't = god awful in a right mind.

Bloodmoney09
Bloodmoney09

My argument is that the game is called modern warfare. Not quake. Or wolfenstein. It is it's own thing, for you to compare this game to completely different games doesn't make any sense. Of course a game called modern warfare is going to include the stuff it does. I equally make the argument that you want to pretend to be in the future running around like a mad man killing everything in sight if you play quake. Or you are pretending to be a soldier in the WWII era. People with imaginations aren't god awful for using them. So what if they pretend to be a soldier. Isn't that the purpose of some games? Live a different life in some cases? Regenerating health makes more sense to me than getting shot close to a hundred times and picking up a health kit which instantly restores a bit of health. Seems less realistic to me. watch your grenade indicator? War is supposed to be hell, and not always fair. But there is always a way to counter x3 grenade throwing and martyrdom.

mattman127
mattman127

@kvan33, and all the other idiots who think this game looks like crap. Nobody gives a crap about Call of Duty 4 and its screwed up multiplayer. You have obviously never heard of Wolfenstein untill now, and most likely don't know that this is coming from a very reliable developer. Go play your "good" games, while we play ours. Also, don't say I was bad at Call of Duty 4, because I wasn't, I just thought "perks" were stupid and ruined the multiplayer.

kvan33
kvan33

I love people like VINNYHERMAN who think only fans should be posting comments. Well, I am a fan...of good games, and this looks like absolute crap. If you want to talk to people that agree with you, then start a forum post with the subject "Wolfenstein Circle Jerk".

eric1511
eric1511

oh and quake is boring? i can admit that it's not everyone's cup of tea, since in order to actually get any sense of enjoyment from a fps game, you need to be able to kill people and frankly, if you can't track with your mouse on a moving animation, then yeah, its hard. Unlike COD4 where really, the only thing you need to do to get a kill is throw all your 3 frag grenades, die, then pray someone walks past your martyrdom nade anyways i like your name, blood money is a good game

eric1511
eric1511

so your whole argument is based around realism? that's whats wrong with fps today: realism. Every new game is trying to add realistic elements so kids can pretend they're in the army and frankly, its god awful. There needs to be a grassroots movement back into the oldschool FPS like quake. Is it also realistic for people to be shot twice in the chest and regenerate their HP? oh, and millions of people would buy a bad game for the same reason that Transformers 2 is a box office success: it's accessible, it requires no thought processes whatsoever and it has AWSUM GFX oh and professional video game reviewers are such jokes. ever heard of the guy getting kicked from gamespot for giving a bad game a bad review? the only reviewer i enjoy watching is yahtzee and even though i don't agree withe verything he says and enjoy games that he pans, he actually has the balls to point out every flaw in a video game, even the ones i love the only credit i'll give to modern warfare was its SP, it by far had one of the best singleplayer campaign i've ever played. too bad the MP is such god awful trash

Bloodmoney09
Bloodmoney09

The game mechanics of cod4 are balanced. AC-130's are used in modern warfare. And were fun in cod4 single player. Again, why wouldn't they put it in the game? Why would millions of people buy a bad game? The game scored an average of 9.3 out of 41 professional reviews. Either you are the 41 professional video game reviewers are stupid. hmmmmmmmmmmm. we all wonder....

Bloodmoney09
Bloodmoney09

1. The maps are reasonably sized, and a real life grenade could probably shoot that far. but not accuratly obviously 2. The modern warfare tactics we use today include UAV, airstrikes, and helicopters. 3. The MP5 is a world famous gun because it (in real life) has close to literally zero recoil. Real soldiers in the real world actually hit the target they are shooting at less than 2% of the time. So "spamming" is very much the reality of warfare. 4. It's one of the only ways in a video game of "hearing the shots." Of course it's not realistic, but this is not a simulator. 5. Grenade launchers are a real weapon, used in modern warfare, and believe or not, are very deadly. That's why they kill people in the game. 6. Quake was boring. People like to customize and feel unique, so why wouldn't they put it in the game?

eric1511
eric1511

lol @ COD game mechanics 1. Ability to fire nades across the map from spawn into the enemie's spawn 2. UAV, airstrikes, helicopters = lol 3. A game where you can die in 3 - 4 shots using guns with little recoil? cool, lets spam those guns! 4. you come up as a little orange blip whenever you shoot? cool, lets shoot into the walls with said spam guns! 5. grenade launchers = lol 6. Perks = lol. perks doesn't equal to deep gameplay, nor is the ability to customize your classes. Want a deep fps? take a look at the quake series now the new modern warfare will let you shoot from AC130s? jesus christ It baffles me why a game would include slow gameplay AND spam at the same time. but i guess thats how you make money nowadays, release bad games that appeal to the mainstream public = $$$. now to make the perfect game, lets add everything in cod4, but include AIRPLANES AND VEHICLES, YAY! and I've just tried the new wolfenstein beta, engine feels too clunky

PixelAddict
PixelAddict

Good lord people. We already have fanboy troll wars with PS3 vs 360. Do we REALLY need a COD vs RTCW troll war? I mean... really? If Wolfy comes out rated high and sells well, with its own unique offerings to the multiplayer (and single player) arena, well then that's just good for all gamers!!! COD will feel they have another game to compete with, gamers will rejoice in whatever dope game they have spinning in the drive. Most importantly, and because people will be playing GAMES and away from the keyboard, there won't be time to post how and why "their" system or game is best!! Brilliant!

Bloodmoney09
Bloodmoney09

people who suck and get owned in cod come to the WS forums and complain about how it is such a terrible game.

Bloodmoney09
Bloodmoney09

yeah cod4 is such a terrible MP game. and so is codwaw. so freaking terrible. just so terrible. wondering why hundreds of thousands of people play it. hmm. it's just so terrible. they must be "blind" to good games, and they just like to jump on the bandwagon. that must be it. right? oh yeah, and grown ups like you stay away from the "kiddie" console. wow, some people amaze me these days. how can someone be so childish and play a console game. how immature.

eric1511
eric1511

To Maxxgold I said ANY FPS game is better than COD. COD has the worst MP features of any fps game released in the last 5 years, its a prime example of the fps game dedicated to console kiddies, i was quoting what Jbentkowski2 said about WOLF. notice his halo 3 avatar? yep COD is the perfect game for him and I've been defending RTCW and ET in the comment box of this news article

VXLbeast
VXLbeast

Looks really interesting.

biagio55
biagio55

seems different to multiplayer fps' now at least. im glad theyve inroduced some viriety.

Maxxgold
Maxxgold

To Eric 1511 RTCW multiplayer from 2001 beats Call of Duty Current Multiplayer. If its anything like the initial game it will be awesome. Call of duty still has the same boring game types it always had. RTCW and Enemy Territory for the WIN !!!!! Dont get me wrong COD has done a great job but they don't even compare to RTCW. Your probally really young so I forgive you

eric1511
eric1511

"if you really expect the multiplayer here to beat call of duty's... then you must be smoking some kind of crack..." Any FPS MP game is better than COD. COD4 = biggest lolfest in history.

Tombackman_5
Tombackman_5

They better do right by the Wolfenstein name!

blackfray
blackfray

Raven and Id did great on quake and doom and i hope they do it again on this one

SouSou
SouSou

just hope they don't make a fail online game . i love et but lately all online games/modes are pretty crappy (i still play et but now you take dod source for example and is like..1shoot=kill=boring) ..hope they don't make it crappy like that)(talking from pc experience i couldn't aim on a pad on a shooter

Pa70
Pa70

the final battle with hitler on the old wolfenstien was EPIC. too bad hes not on this one. =(