Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Beaver

Real Name Beaver   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Muscular Beaver
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Apr 28, 2002, 23:21
Total Comments 1785 (Pro)
User ID 12928
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ] Older >


News Comments > Runic on Diablo III vs. Torchlight 2 RMTs and DRM
18. Re: Runic on Diablo III vs. Torchlight 2 RMTs and DRM Aug 11, 2011, 07:57 Muscular Beaver
 
Yeah I consider my Fiat 500 to be a Ferrari 458 too.

P.S. Thanks Rhett for that link. It hit me right in the face.

This comment was edited on Aug 11, 2011, 08:15.
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > New NVIDIA WHQL Reference Drivers
8. Re: New NVIDIA WHQL Reference Drivers Aug 9, 2011, 14:57 Muscular Beaver
 
Optional nickname wrote on Aug 9, 2011, 13:46:
Luke wrote on Aug 9, 2011, 13:05:
Optional nickname wrote on Aug 9, 2011, 11:52:
are these drivers made to work with Diablo 3 beta?

No they will come later on the AH in D3

hmm perhaps they should stick to WHQL (whore house quality) instead of AHQL (auction house..)

looking forward to AMD 7000 series this fall, Nvidia will have nothing new to show for it until end of Q1 2012.

What makes you so sure about that? They already said they will also have a new one this year.
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > World of Warcraft Hotfixes
6. Re: World of Warcraft Hotfixes Aug 7, 2011, 15:58 Muscular Beaver
 
People have put years into their chars and now Blizzard is just playing ping pong with em and everyone gets pissed that their class that they choose years ago isnt anything anymore what it once was.
Just look at the druid changes. It was like taking the the wheels off a Porsche and say "well, its only fair, because now everyone has a chance to beat you".

You cant just try harsh balance changes and then if it doesnt work, try to fix the mess with tiny bits all the time on live servers.
You need to betatest changes properly - that makes it much less likely to change things often.
I really dont know what rode them when they decided this new way. I can only guess it was some new young managers idea, who doesnt even know the product he is managing.

Worst thing they ever did to this game, and I was never really happy with this game.
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > WoW Drops More Subs
44. Re: WoW Drops More Subs Aug 4, 2011, 17:22 Muscular Beaver
 
Not enough casual content anymore - or too easy casual content. I really liked the new 5 man instances, but they dumbed them down again, instead they should have been even harder, especially for DPS classes.
Cata didnt even keep me for 1 month. No expansion before that only kept me playing one month - and I even leveled 2 chars and brought them both up to like 354 gear level plus proper PvP gear.
Also the constant massive class changes they do are just too much. I seriously liked most of the changes until Cata. But in Cata and the patches after it they overdone it like never before.
Especially because of those class changes PvP (the by far biggest time sink for me so far) was suddenly completely uninteresting. Some classes were so ridiculously overpowered and others so fucking weak and laughable, that the only way to win was to have the perfect team combo and actually completely ignore some classes.

I noticed ALOT of players leaving at or around the same time like me, so I still doubt their official numbers.
I seriously hope they lose much, much more, until they realize what they did wrong.
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Call of Juarez: The Cartel Trailer
4. Re: Call of Juarez: The Cartel Trailer Jul 21, 2011, 05:58 Muscular Beaver
 
xXBatmanXx wrote on Jul 21, 2011, 04:05:
First game sucked, second game had sever consolitis...i expect the same with this.
Sucked? The first game was actually very good. I had very high hopes for this developer after it, but then they prostituted themselves to the worst publisher there is and the sequel was a horrible console shooter with even autoaiming on the PC.
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam
163. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 18, 2011, 20:49 Muscular Beaver
 
The fact of the matter is that Steam was accepted by the sheep just so they had stuff they had before - in one convenient bloatware DRM. And that acceptance brought us ALL that other crap like GFWL, Social Club, extreme DRM, etc, etc, etc. Theres much worse to come, too.
Thanks, sheep! Outtahere
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam
161. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 18, 2011, 20:39 Muscular Beaver
 
Sepharo wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 17:42:
I know I'm a Steam/Valve fanboy but I don't think I'm irrationally so.

Since when are fanboys rational?
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Blizzard's Real ID Testing Live
56. Re: Blizzard's Real ID Testing Live Jul 16, 2011, 14:15 Muscular Beaver
 
Luke wrote on Jul 16, 2011, 13:07:
Just an example for the complete idiots here...

well i guess it good for the world that we have some1 like you then , mr muscular Beaver

Dont put words in my mouth. Its very simple, and if people cant understand that simple stuff and actually try to argue about it, nobody should be surprised that people get pissed at such audacity and arrogance.
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Blizzard's Real ID Testing Live
55. Re: Blizzard's Real ID Testing Live Jul 16, 2011, 14:12 Muscular Beaver
 
fujiJuice wrote on Jul 16, 2011, 12:42:
Muscular Beaver wrote on Jul 16, 2011, 09:47:
Theres some invention thats called numbers. And you can hide them too! I even heard that login names are unique too! OMG!
Just an example for the complete idiots here...

In no way did you outline an alternative for Real ID, you just gave options for new identifiers, it would still be essentially the same system, I conceded full names were not necessary.

But they are the essential part of it and the main reason why people dont want it!
What could anyone do with a fucking internal Blizzard number? They have our data already anyway.

This comment was edited on Jul 16, 2011, 14:39.
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Blizzard's Real ID Testing Live
52. Re: Blizzard's Real ID Testing Live Jul 16, 2011, 09:47 Muscular Beaver
 
fujiJuice wrote on Jul 16, 2011, 00:47:
WoW borrows all if it's new UI ideas from the most popular user addon's something which I think is benefit to most players, probably where the other MMO's got them as well.

As far as everyone saying Real ID wasn't necessary for all these new features, I would like to hear what you would have done. You need some sort of unique identifier for players across all servers, their battle.net account is an ideal choice, instead of making something entirely new. I don't think a lot of you are considering the backend operations needed for everything to work properly, granted displaying someones real name isn't necessary, but the rest is. I think the name is just bad, and has a stigma attached to it, it really is just a blizzard system wide unique identifier.
Theres some invention thats called numbers. And you can hide them too! I even heard that login names are unique too! OMG!
Just an example for the complete idiots here...
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Battlefield 3 Specs?
71. Re: Battlefield 3 Specs? Jul 15, 2011, 06:34 Muscular Beaver
 
Jerykk wrote on Jul 11, 2011, 12:29:
Console to PC games were delayed because at that time developers actually still tried to make it a good PC experience, and that took its time.

Bwahaha! I think you need to take another look at console-to-PC ports in the 90's. Trust me, they were pretty half-assed. Compared to ports back then, today's ports are awesome. Today's ports usually try to at least take full advantage of mouse and keyboard. Ports of yesteryear were pretty much barebones ports with support for texture filtering and occasionally higher resolutions. The Legacy of Kain series, Shadow Man, Resident Evil 1-4, FF7 & 8, Dino Crysis 2, Devil May Cry 3, Battle Arena Toshinden, Virtua Fighter, Virtua Cop... the list of bad ports goes on and on. Their delays definitely weren't due to a focus on quality. The delays were due to the fact that the developers only developed one platform at a time, so ports didn't start development until after the lead platform was finished. Hell, most ports weren't even handled by the original developers. They were outsourced to the lowest bidder.
Uh, I am not talking about the 90s, I am talking about 2000 to 2006. Console ports in the 90s were horrible, not only because people didnt know how to convert the controls to the PC properly, but also because the console games, except some very few exceptions, in that era were horrible too. They even cut out a lot of features from the console version to make the conversion faster. Even in the timespan I am talking about console ports were horrible mostly, but they got better and better, and you noticed how much they struggle to port games to the PC. Thats why everyone who wanted to release on the PC aswell, made their games PC first and then ported to the consoles or even made a specific console version, since porting was so fucking hard AND TOOK THEIR TIME.
There were always bad ports from the console since there were so few of them anyway and nobody knew how to do them properly, but there were also good ones, yeah that was rare, but they showed it was possible. But since the console doesnt really offer a good source, of course they were never really good games.


Sorry if it came over that way, but for me console games are all easily recognizable by their simple gameplay. And that includes the stuff I mentioned most of the time.

Except not all console games have simple gameplay. Fallout: New Vegas is a console game and isn't simple at all. It's more complex and offers more meaningful choice than most PC games. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory was designed for consoles and again, it's just as complex (perhaps even moreso) than Thief.
To quote you: Bwahaha!
NV complex? SP TC complex??? Sorry but they are nowhere near being complex. I think you played too much console crap already... Look at real PC games and their complexity and compare them with them. In TC many features were actually cut from the PC version.
Its kinda hard to give examples since all we get is console ports nowadays. There are a few, but you should know them. ArmA for example. But I bet thats also why you argue this way. You know very well that there are almost no real PC games anymore to compare with, and since youre only comparing to 10 year old games, that would nowadays be much more complex, I cant really say anything against that and just call on your intelligence and objectivity.

Do PC games have the potential to be deeper and more complex with large, open worlds, dynamic AI and near photorealistic graphics? Sure. But that doesn't mean that all PC games are.
Exactly, but such games would set standards and we are talking about standards here.

Even if that is true, I dont see it being an indicator for anything except a try to show the game from its best side.

Except if that were true, every publisher would always show the PC version because the PC version always looks and runs the best. However, that's not what happens. Publishers show the console versions because they always show the lead SKU and consoles are the lead SKU 99% of the time.
No, they show the ones that look and are best for them.
1) As I said its much easier and safer to bring a few consoles to the presentation. Nobody will be able to just jump to the desktop, screw things up or try to steal info from the computer.
2) Its much safer to use the polished console version, because in PC versions bugs or instabilities are much, much more common - even nowadays.
3) Console versions nowadays dont look much different from the PC versions since the PC versions become more and more gimped (thats also a reason why console ports dont take that long anymore, btw).
4) PC gamers are rare compared to console gamers.
5) PC gamers are much more critical and thus it would be a problem if they would show shitty console ports where some mouse buttons wont work, the gameplay is extremely simple or other console-typic stuff would be obvious. I mean, why have PC demos become so rare?

Im just saying that there have been more than enough claims in the last years that this or that game has the PC as lead platform or that extra work has been put into the PC version, but almost all of them exposed as just superficially tweaked console ports or PC games with very noticeable console limitations. And those that actually were real PC games, came from developers that were known to make only PC games anyway.

I don't disagree. However, all the evidence suggests that PC is the lead platform for BF3. That doesn't mean that there won't be any console-centric design choices. The Witcher 2 was a PC-exclusive but it has QTEs and a radial menu. Crysis was a PC-exclusive but it had radial menus and regenerating health.
Radial menus being console-typic? Not even I think that.
And I am not saying at all that PC games nowadays have adapted much from consoles. Its actually the thing I criticize!
As I said, if you think PR talk suggests that, go ahead and base your opinion on that. You should know better.
I will trust my experience.
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > World of Warcraft Hotfixes
3. Re: World of Warcraft Hotfixes Jul 12, 2011, 04:38 Muscular Beaver
 
Kajetan wrote on Jul 11, 2011, 18:22:
Endo wrote on Jul 11, 2011, 18:16:
They break so much shit every patch now ...
May be, but they fix this shit fast
Say what?
Should I remind you how long it took them to fix even the worst bugs after patch 4.0.1? For at least 3 months I thought I am playing a fucking Alpha. Then I quit.
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Hi-Rez on F2P Tribes Ascend
38. Re: Hi-Rez on F2P Tribes Ascend Jul 11, 2011, 11:13 Muscular Beaver
 
Krael wrote on Jul 11, 2011, 10:13:
There's probably a better place to ask this, but what exactly made Tribes 1 so much fun? I played the heck out of it back in the day, and still have a soft spot for it. I just can't quite put my finger on exactly *why* I loved it
Speed (that includes skiing).
Flying.
Acrobatics.
Airdiscs.

Oh and of course: SHAZBOT!

This comment was edited on Jul 11, 2011, 11:23.
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Hi-Rez on F2P Tribes Ascend
31. Re: Hi-Rez on F2P Tribes Ascend Jul 11, 2011, 08:35 Muscular Beaver
 
Geez, you guys have problems!
I only worry about it being too slow, which it looks like it is!
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Battlefield 3 Specs?
69. Re: Battlefield 3 Specs? Jul 11, 2011, 06:38 Muscular Beaver
 
Jerykk wrote on Jul 11, 2011, 05:38:
Its not hard to say, since DICE already said they will be 4 x 4 km max.

Okay. That sounds pretty big to me but I'm not very good with metrics. How big were the maps in BF2?

BTW, where did you get those numbers from? According to this (and several other) sites, the PC version of BF3 will have larger maps than the console versions. That makes sense, given that it will support more than twice as many players.

http://bf3blog.com/2011/03/console-bf3-multiplayer-maps-will-be-smaller/
Big? 4x4 km dont allow that much of tactical options, especially with vehicles and planes.
BF2 maps were smaller. PR maps were about as big.
That info is running around in forums. I read it myself in some interview myself but I dont remember where. That size was for the PC version.

As for the simultaneous release not suggesting a lead platform: How has it been done in the past 5 years since consoles are the lead platform and how was it before when there were still games that had the PC as lead platform? Go figure.

Back when PC was still the lead platform for a lot of genres, multiplatform development was pretty rare. The vast majority of games were initially platform-exclusive. Ports were eventually made, sure, but they were always significantly delayed. This applied to both PC-to-console and console-to-PC ports. These days, ports are developed while the game itself is being developed. That's what multiplatform development means. A simultaneous release does not equate to console being the lead SKU any more than it suggests that PC is the lead SKU. The only thing it suggests is that the ports were started early in the dev cycle.
Youre mixing things up. PC to console games were only delayed because they were planned and started later, based on PC sales. Yes, the PC was actually used for that at some time.
Console to PC games were delayed because at that time developers actually still tried to make it a good PC experience, and that took its time. Of course there were the rare occasion where people whined so much that they decided to make a PC port afterwards, which then turned out to something like Halo.

No its not based on that argument. You just put it that way. Stop putting that crap in my mouth and read my posts again. Those were examples and things that for me define the typical console game. There are a lot of other things that make a PC game out of something. Especially the gameplay and use of power potential. BF3 isnt using anything of it. Its a simple console shooter tweaked a bit for the PC.

You've repeatedly cited linear and highly scripted level design as proof of a console focus. That's simply not true, as proven by that long list of linear and highly scripted games I listed that used PC as the lead SKU.

There are many things that are symptomatic of consolitis: QTEs, huge text and icons, text-based inventories, radial menus, low-res textures, 30 FPS framerate caps, lack of mouse and hotkey support, etc. Linear and highly scripted level design is not one of those things.
Sorry if it came over that way, but for me console games are all easily recognizable by their simple gameplay. And that includes the stuff I mentioned most of the time.
That list consists of very old games except for one. Thats no proof for anything, if at all its proof for my side.
As I said you completely ignore the PC ACTUAL potentials. You cant compared them to the PC from that timeframe. I mean if that logic was true, we would still play Doom 2-like games.

I don't know if you've been to E3 recently but pretty much all multiplatform games are shown exclusively on console. You'll see X360 and PS3 versions of the games all around but PC? Not so much. Seriously, you won't find any kiosks showing off the PC version. Not a single one. Except for BF3, that is. That was the only multiplatform game being shown on PC. Not only that, but it was only shown on PC. That alone is a pretty good indication that PC is the lead SKU.

Ive never been to E3. Its a little too far from here.
Even if that is true, I dont see it being an indicator for anything except a try to show the game from its best side. I never said the PC version would look as bad or worse than the console version. I mean they said they would put more effort in the PC version. So, if thats true, they are just showing the best side of their product. But with the generic games today I completely understand to not show it on the PC since it looks almost the same on PC as it looks on consoles, and its much less effort and actually cheaper to bring a console to an exhibition instead of an PC. Not to mention for gameplay testing purposes, since especially in the US PC gaming is just a small fraction of console gaming.

Im just saying that there have been more than enough claims in the last years that this or that game has the PC as lead platform or that extra work has been put into the PC version, but almost all of them exposed as just superficially tweaked console ports or PC games with very noticeable console limitations. And those that actually were real PC games, came from developers that were known to make only PC games anyway.
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Battlefield 3 Specs?
67. Re: Battlefield 3 Specs? Jul 11, 2011, 04:23 Muscular Beaver
 
Jerykk wrote on Jul 10, 2011, 19:35:
I was more talking about the dumbed down gameplay, generic scripted gameplay and again only small and limited maps, and there is no question that todays console shooters really overdo their scripted shit.

Once again, highly scripted and linear gameplay does not mean a game is designed for consoles. MoH:AA and CoD1 were highly scripted and linear and designed for PC.

Once again, they are very old games.

As for small maps, hard to say. EA hasn't shown much of BF3 multiplayer yet. However, DICE has confirmed that the PC version of BF3 will have more than double the player limit of consoles (64 vs 24). That's a pretty significant difference, so I assume that the maps are designed for 64 players and thus appropriately sized.
Its not hard to say, since DICE already said they will be 4 x 4 km max.

DAO was delayed about year so that the console version could be released at the same day because they decided so late to make it for consoles aswell. And you saw what they did to DA2, thanks to the consoles. Anyway, that would suggest that BF3 is already complete on either the PC or console. You think that?

No. As you said, DAO was a PC-exclusive for years until EA bought Bioware and decided to make it multiplatform. The game was essentially finished for PC before development started on the ports. However, that's not how most multiplatform games work. In most cases, development of the ports starts early in the dev cycle to ensure a simultaneous release for all versions. As such, a simultaneous release does not suggest any specific lead platform. It suggests only that development of the ports started early in the dev cycle.

Exactly, did you forget you brought up the DAO example?
As for the simultaneous release not suggesting a lead platform: How has it been done in the past 5 years since consoles are the lead platform and how was it before when there were still games that had the PC as lead platform? Go figure.

Your entire argument is based on the fact that the single-player portion of BF3 is linear and scripted. I hate to break it to you but there are plenty of PC games that are linear and scripted. HL1 &2, MoH:AA, CoD1, MoH: Pacific Assault, Prey, Quake 4, FEAR, NOLF1 & 2, Portal, Doom 3, Call of Juarez, RtCW, Metro 2033, etc. Conversely, there are a lot of games designed for consoles that have open-ended and dynamic gameplay. Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Just Cause 2, GTA4, Saboteur, Bioshock, etc. Just because a game is designed for PC does not mean it will be open-world with sophisticated AI and deep, complex gameplay.

No its not based on that argument. You just put it that way. Stop putting that crap in my mouth and read my posts again. Those were examples and things that for me define the typical console game. There are a lot of other things that make a PC game out of something. Especially the gameplay and use of power potential. BF3 isnt using anything of it. Its a simple console shooter tweaked a bit for the PC.
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Battlefield 3 Specs?
64. Re: Battlefield 3 Specs? Jul 10, 2011, 08:28 Muscular Beaver
 
Where did I say they were invented by consoles??? Sigh indeed.....
I was more talking about the dumbed down gameplay, generic scripted gameplay and again only small and limited maps, and there is no question that todays console shooters really overdo their scripted shit. No AI at all.
Just because 10 years ago the average PC FPS looked like the console FPS today, doesnt mean it still would be PC game now. The PC has far more potential than those limited maps, simple gameplay, and scripts instead of AI. Yeah, the graphics are a bit better, but if you look closely you will see that they are limited just like on every other console shooter. There is no huge view distance, there is no real open world, there is no freedom. Its BF1942 with better graphics, a different theme and a few tweaks.

DAO was delayed about year so that the console version could be released at the same day because they decided so late to make it for consoles aswell. And you saw what they did to DA2, thanks to the consoles. Anyway, that would suggest that BF3 is already complete on either the PC or console. You think that?

Sorry to hear you havent noticed that games that use the PC as lead platform were almost nonexistent for 5 years, especially on AAA titles. And now all of the sudden that changes in an *EA* game? IN AN EA GAME? Mad
As I said, if you have reasons to believe that crap, go right ahead. We will see when its released. I dont have any reasons at all from experience. I also dont see anything that suggest that it is indeed a real PC game except for some PR-phrases that said they would put more love in the PC version than normally.
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Battlefield 3 Specs?
62. Re: Battlefield 3 Specs? Jul 10, 2011, 02:52 Muscular Beaver
 
Yeah and I dont believe that. Sorry, but for a real PC game it would show much better gameplay. So far it only looks like another heavily scripted CoD with just a little better graphics. Also, if it was a real PC game, the console versions would be released months after. But they are released at the same day. Especially since they act as if they dont show any console footage, that is very fishy.
I have no reason to believe anything they say. Have you?
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Battlefield 3 Specs?
58. Re: Battlefield 3 Specs? Jul 9, 2011, 11:41 Muscular Beaver
 
Jerykk wrote on Jul 9, 2011, 05:27:
For comparison, gamrReview.com puts console sales of BFBC2 at 5.25 million and PC sales at 0.62 million.

Did gamrReview cite the sources for these numbers? It seems odd that EA would agree to PC as the lead SKU for BF3 if the last BF game sold so poorly on PC.

EA talks lots of crap when the day is long enough. What counts is if it is the lead platform and thus developed directly for the PC and then ported to console. Which it isnt.
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > World of Warcraft Recruit-A-Friend Program Levels Up
14. Re: World of Warcraft Recruit-A-Friend Program Levels Up Jul 9, 2011, 05:34 Muscular Beaver
 
OldScho0l wrote on Jul 8, 2011, 18:39:
I turned my wow account back on a few weeks ago. After acquiring a full set of Vicious Gladiator gear, I once again realized why I always end up quiting the game. I play for PVP and it's terrible these days.

A PvP Battle starts and your sapped, stunned, slowed, frozen, dazed, trapped, silenced, and so on. The game has waaaaay too many stuns and the like while a player only gets one 'get out of stun free card' per 2 minute cooldown. It's completely annoying. Having 3.5k of resil doesn't help either. The game that I used to love is gone and what remains is garbage.

I can't wait for the day that Blizzard is gone and their games are a distant memory. WOW is junk imho.

Yeah thats why I played too and I feel 100% the same way. As a druid you had at least a little chance to get anywhere as a melee because you could at least break roots, but they nerfed that ability of druids so ridiculously hard, that I quit altogether. Even my mage was no fun anymore, even though, or maybe because, he was overpowered beyond belief.
 
Avatar 12928
 
Oh that is so lame... You will PAY for your use of inappropriate dialogue!
- Mojo Jojo
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1785 Comments. 90 pages. Viewing page 17.
< Newer [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo