Creston wrote on Apr 25, 2013, 11:34:
So the one part of EA that actually was doing well, actually cared somewhat about customer service, and which was making money gets closed?

New CEO, same insanity. Ca plus ce change, etc.

Creston

Verno wrote on Apr 25, 2013, 09:19:
No surprise here, EAs future plans seem to be doubling down on internal projects and microtransactions. Shame, Partners had some very creative stuff released but ultimately EA is more focused on things they can iterate on every year, their entire business is structured around it now.

Ant wrote on Apr 25, 2013, 05:04:

Saboth wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 21:24:
I enjoyed the game, but honestly, the puzzles in dungeon crawlers are my least favorite aspect. Looking for a discolored rock for an hour after inching through an entire level, or memorizing teleport patterns blows. How about letting me buy pet that is good at figuring out puzzles, and I just tell him to do it?

Ditto. I want action based with little/simple puzzles!

Creston wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 16:52:

Beamer wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 15:09:

Creston wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 15:01:

Yifes wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 13:14:
Also, alien packs DO roam around the map, just not all of them.

All of them CAN roam, but there is a limit of 5 monsters being 'active' at any one time on Impossible. (4 on classic, 3 on normal.)

If you use a mod to turn that limit off, things can get pretty hairy, as every monster in audio range will come see what's shooting the shit out of their ship. It's probably the most fun option to turn off in the game

Creston

This isn't quite true. I'm pretty certain that the limit is 5 on normal, and it's definitely above 5 on classic. I think I had 12 active at one point. It may have been 15. It was 4 or 5 groups that just kind of converged on me. Thank god for highest-level snipers.

I mean active as in "roaming." I should have explained that better.

Creston

The Phantom Chicken of CS_Italy wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 16:52:
I dunno.. I think it is possible to operate within this market and economy, earn a living, and still be aware enough to point out that many aspects are sexist even while contributing to it. For example, just because a meth addict says that meth is bad while still using it does not make the comment any less valid. If anything, it can be understood as all the more legitimate since the person making the comment is experiencing some of the negative consequences of these processes.

Blue wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 15:52:
You can't quote a post and then report it... you are reporting yourself too.

And as for the original rage-filled post, we try to post links to quarterly financial reporting of Microsoft, AMD, Intel, and Apple as well as game companies. You can type "quarterly" in the search box and see that for yourself.

If you don't trust me or don't approve of the coverage here, feel free to leave. Or you can make another post like that last one and you will be asked to.

Creston wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 15:01:

Yifes wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 13:14:
Also, alien packs DO roam around the map, just not all of them.

All of them CAN roam, but there is a limit of 5 monsters being 'active' at any one time on Impossible. (4 on classic, 3 on normal.)

If you use a mod to turn that limit off, things can get pretty hairy, as every monster in audio range will come see what's shooting the shit out of their ship. It's probably the most fun option to turn off in the game

Creston

Cutter wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 14:45:
Ball's Deep would be better.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 14:13:
XCOM:EU was great. The enemy spawning was certainly an annoyance but not a major issue in the grand scheme of things. Personally I think the decision to allow saving in-mission was a mistake, as it makes it too easy to save-scum - it devalued the strategy map and the consequences for failure.

As for this game, at least they seem to have recognised the game was on the wrong track and hopefully the new direction will be an improvement. We'll see.

Yifes wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 13:14:

Beamer wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 10:44:
Screw editor. It needed to be random. Enemy placement needed to be random and roving rather than 3 guys in the same places, sitting there until discovered, and occasionally teleporting in front of you. And it needed to stop showing that damn in-engine cinematic every single time you come across 3 new enemies. Every time. Every damn time!

Alien placement is random. Try restarting the same mission multiple times (not from a saved game), a problem I've run into when I consistently failed the first mission on ironman impossible like a dozen times in a row. There are multiple spawn locations, which changes every time. The only enemy locations that are not random are some of the spawns in the story missions, like thin men add-ons halfway through a bomb diffusal, or "boss" locations.

Also, alien packs DO roam around the map, just not all of them. Incidentally this is why the teleportation bug exists, as it is a problem with unactivated alien pack movement when your line of sight is blocked.

Cutter wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 10:43:
Its biggest failure was the lack of a random map generator and/or editor. We'd all still be playing it if had that. Huge mistake not to do that. Huge.

Mikus_Aurelius wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 09:25:

Beamer wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 09:18:
I think it was, at best, a moderate success.

I'm under the impression that it did very well for a strategy game. It surely didn't pull AAA FPS numbers, but it also didn't cost AAA FPS money to produce. I haven't heard anything about layoffs at Firaxis, which is generally a sign of a successful product.

Verno wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 09:13:
Good call, this is pretty much what they should have done from the start. I think last years X-COM was a moderate success and they don't want to potentially damage the brand going forward as well.

Draugr wrote on Apr 23, 2013, 22:19:

Redmask wrote on Apr 23, 2013, 19:55:

LittleMe wrote on Apr 23, 2013, 18:13:
All that said, I support a consumption tax more than an income tax. I'd support getting rid of the latter, replacing it with consumption tax.

If the goal is reducing the deficit then just having consumption tax would be about the most absurd way to go about it, not to mention completely unrealistic as a way to tax an entire populace the size and advancement of America.

Especially when you consider not everyone consumes at the same levels, so it would disproportionately effect different groups.
It's the same reason the GOP was okay with signing off on this, despite it being a tax increase, as when it comes to this kind of tax increase, it does little to effect those whose taxes they are concerned with.