67 replies to this topic

[Pasidon]

What did you think of Heart of the Swarm, Wulfy?  All the reviews I can find of it are just people going, "OMG, Starcraft" and not really willing to present any problems... and I know there are problems.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

I didn't know there was a remake of AOE2 being made that is awesome.

I just looked it up and it looks good.

[Beowulf]

What did you think of Heart of the Swarm, Wulfy?  All the reviews I can find of it are just people going, "OMG, Starcraft" and not really willing to present any problems... and I know there are problems.

The same as I thought about Wings of Liberty. It was a worthy extension to the grand story that Starcraft is trying to tell. The same little things still persist but they don't get in the way. And I'll be damned if I can name anything off the top of my head that actually sucks. I've moved on to Bioshock Infinite for now. Let me tell you... that game is flawless.

[Hostile]

Sim City 5, enough said....

[Pasidon]

Yea, I really want Simcity 5... but I called a boycott on EA games, and I'll be darned if I go back on it.  Maybe if the game drops below 15 bucks one day...

 

Oh, and Wulfy.... so far, my progress through Bioshock has been pretty awesome.  I'm surprised I haven't encountered any glitches yet... I guess all those release date push-backs payed off.  

Edited by {IP}Pasidon, 28 March 2013 - 08:39 AM.

[Gen.Kenobi]

I guess I must buy Bioshock them.... I have never played a single BIoshock game, but... there's always a first time to everything.

 

Add Battlefield 4 to that list.

[Beowulf]

Sim City 5, enough said....

 

Seriously. That game is trash.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

Just pirate SimCity 5 it's easy enough to counter the DRM and work is already under way to overwrite the "cloud saving".

(Not that I endorse it)

[Pasidon]

Neither do I.  Pirating doesn't really solve any problems... it just puts black marks on PC gamers.  But it's an EA game we're talking about, so I actually won't make an argument to stop people from doing it.

[Beowulf]

Being an EA game doesn't mean much really. They've put out some great titles over the years. SimCity was just... not their best launch ever. It was quite... pathetic really and that's a shame because SimCity is such an awesome series. I guess I'll be sticking with SimCity 3000 and 4.

 

Piracy really doesn't solve anything. If it does anything at all, it just generates more DRM. I'd rather see companies slide away from this approach and stick with DLC, microtransaction markets or real money marketplaces like Diablo 3. Consistent revenue means more money for their coffers and a better return on their investments. If they have more money and have a consistent way to generate revenue, the need for DRM will basically disappear. If they make it so pirated copies cannot make purchases on DLC, microtrans markets and real money marketplaces. I mean, incentives to buy like cheaper prices and neat extras will see more benefit than buttfucking legit consumers.

Edited by Beowulf, 01 April 2013 - 01:36 AM.

[MattTheLegoman]

Oh, please not stuff like that. It turns into a Pay to Win style (which EA does exceeding excellent in Command & Conquer Tiberium Alliances).

[Bofur]

AoE2:HD will be good...

[Kwen]

Nobody had better mention Cock-sucking Dooty again in the same sentence as "a good game". There are very few better examples of regurgitated crap then that series. They haven't changed anything except guns, maps, and stories for five god damn games now. 

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

Yet they make like $300 million+ a year :(

Meanwhile plenty of good companies go bankrupt or are raped by bigger companies (Westwood, Pandemic).

The Game industry is more hollywood than hollywood now.

[Beowulf]

Oh, please not stuff like that. It turns into a Pay to Win style (which EA does exceeding excellent in Command & Conquer Tiberium Alliances).

That's an example of doing it very wrong, and that should be avoided at all costs. World of Tanks, League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth, Team Fortress 2 and a few other free to play games do the microtransaction market nearly flawlessly. The concept is not damaging, but the implementation can be. I would agree that those are indeed bad but simply having them exist is not the issue. They are the way forward as are real money markets a la Diablo 3.

 

Nobody had better mention Cock-sucking Dooty again in the same sentence as "a good game". There are very few better examples of regurgitated crap then that series. They haven't changed anything except guns, maps, and stories for five god damn games now. 

Nice rage out blanket statement. I have yet to find a series that has let me connect with the characters as strongly as Call of Duty has. Trash it all you like but that won't actually dimish the effect it has had on the industry as a whole and just how powerful the games really are. Multiplayer is probably about the same, but why change mechanics that aren't broken? Methinks you're just bashing Call of Duty because it's popular and appeals to a massive audience. I don't like making assumptions, but I'm sure you fellate a series that has run on too long.

 

Yet they make like $300 million+ a year :(

Meanwhile plenty of good companies go bankrupt or are raped by bigger companies (Westwood, Pandemic).

The Game industry is more hollywood than hollywood now.

The games industry is not Hollywood and never will be. Gaming is an interactive experience; movies are passive experiences. While we do see cinematics in gaming, they have their reasons for use. It's slightly unfair to claim that gaming is Hollywood because the technology has improved by leaps and bounds over the last ten years.

 

Also. Westwood was a mediocre studio at best. Yeah, they had a hit with Command & Conquer and Dune 2000, but everything else they did was mediocre or flat out sucked. They moved on to Petro and haven't released anything noteworthy. At all.

[Pasidon]

Yea, I've had many fun years with Call of Duty, as have most gamers, so I can't go out and agree with you 100% there, K-Dawg.  The series brought some of the first competitive ranked FPS experiences on the market, and it was fun for awhile.  I'm a bit over it now, since 60 dollars for shooters and 10 dollars for 3 maps every month is a rip and a half.... and it's a bit too full of itself on ultra-realism for my liking.  True, the franchise is a bit pretentious since it has had the same engine for the past 50 billion years and all it does is tweek weapons, add one or two new ones, add a perk system in, update the graphics and relabel it as a new game.  They crank one out every year now, so I'm quite satisfied with just not supporting the franchise anymore and letting people realize there are much better games on the market now.

 

The games industry is not Hollywood and never will be. 

You might find yourself wrong in a matter of years, Wulfy.  If you think about it, the older generations are dying off, and the first generation of gamers are becoming integrated into society.  Before long, gaming will be a cultural impact.  You can look at movies this day 100 years ago in 1913 and say they didn't really make much of an impact on the older generations... then they died, and movies became bronzed in culture. 

[Kwen]

It's mostly a closet-gamer bias brought forth simply because I detest the people who let themselves become hypnotized year after year over the "best game ever". I'm fine with agreeing that the mechanics of the game are not bad. It does provide hours of (literally) mindless fun. But being forced to work, live, interact, and socialize with the general masses instead of the more deeply intelligent folk, I see countless people debating blindly of how CoD is the superior game in every way, while never being able to quote a single point more valid then the fact that's it's fun.

 

As I stated before, when it comes to a War-simulation online FPS game, the Battlefield series is superior due to its size, freedom, relative realism, and ability to create your own fun out of quite often, nothing.

 

Yet I'm wrong because CoD sells more copies, and more people play it? Phooie.

 

/rant stage 2

[Pasidon]

That's because Battlefield does too much.  I remember trying Battlefield 3 online last year, and I really tried to get into it... I did.  They put quite a bit of effort into their game, but it just wasn't syncing right with me.  I think Battlefield's goal was just to put as much as possible into their game and tweek the balances.  Well my problem with it is that there is too much... which is odd since I say CoD doesn't really have enough.  I think Halo does it for me on what an FPS should do.  It's the right pace, it doesn't have a dumb equipment unlock system (well I guess the new one does) and it doesn't make my think box hurt when I  want to play a simple team death-match mode.  Battlefield has to have 50 bells and 10,000 whistles connected to it just so it's different to CoD. Neh, I just don't buy into either of them... AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU.  This message sponsored by The Universe.

[duke_Qa]

I think Battlefield does pretty well by having the possibilities for these different battle-types based upon how the map looks(tank field, infantry docks, airplane dam etc etc). I'm more skeptical to the corporate heads running the show on new releases and the likes, but if they feel that they got a good game then I guess they feel they got a good game. I think it will be 3 years since bf3 was released when this bf4 gets released, so thats better than what we usually see.

 

I might, but only might, get battlefield 4. If there's a ton of DLC just waiting to be released before it gets shipped I probably won't but I suspect the core game would last a few months.

[Pasidon]

If you should suspect anything, suspect that it'll be the exact same game with improved graphics.