SectorEffector wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 14:21:
Sadly everybody is now at the point of "do I have enough time to play this" Having 13 possibly great indie games added to the evergrowing steam list



Go fourth and enjoy Dishonored! (hopefully you didnt pay 50+ for it)

SectorEffector wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 14:11:

Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 13:42:

Mr. Tact wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 13:37:
Didn't get your money's worth out of Terreria? Really? Great game IMHO.

Hated it. Felt like there was nothing interesting to do. Hated it times a billion.

Really hated Amnesia? That's surprising, given the lower price and clear cut gameplay style that gets explained within one viewing of a gameplay vid. Not saying you're not entitled to not like it, I just remember seeing a 5 min gameplay vid and I knew what I needed to know.


Sidenote: Doom3... is a great example of why first day purchases are a kick in the bag of marbles.





RE: Doom for GMOD. so strange to watch sprites with shadows effecting them... most doom ports just sorta give soft lights to the sprites... seeing them very nicely lit in the source engine is fantastico!

Mr. Tact wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 13:37:
Didn't get your money's worth out of Terreria? Really? Great game IMHO.

Quboid wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 13:34:

Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:43:

Gadzooks wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:37:
Reviewers dont say games are supposed to be long

GAMERS say games are supposed to be long

Especially when said games cost 60 bucks.

60 bucks = 12 hours of movie time if you go to the theater
60 bucks for a game should at least be comparable. This whole 5 hour campaign is just BS.

I blame 80% of short games on publishers who push for a quick release, and 20% of lazy devs.

It's money, not time, that causes the short gameplay. It isn't that they rush the game out, it's that each hour costs so much money to make that, at some point, it's a losing proposition.

Is there a difference? The saying "time is money" is applicable here I think.

Mr. Tact wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 13:26:

Darks wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:52:
How many times have many of us been burnt by a bad game? I can’t even count how many times over the past 15 years.

Since the existence of numerous on-line gaming sites, not that often. I generally don't pre-order or impulse buy games. I usually wait at least a week and let the reviews of the actual release to come out. But I'm probably more cautious than most. *shrug*

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:51:

The data for gun crimes is out there, google is your friend. If you want to ignore that data however and still call for tougher gun laws, then I'm sorry if I disagree. The data is also out there for how opinionated MSNBC is 85% opinion, 15% actual news, I linked to it yesterday.

You're really no better than I beamer, with your constant name calling and pot shots. You're like the perfect example of Hello pot meet kettle.

Axis wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:44:

Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:33:

Axis wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:09:

Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:08:

Axis wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:06:

Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:01:

Axis wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:21:
You're also assuming people don't give a shit about their health enough to buy insurance if they don't already get it from their employers.

And don't even start with the "other" talking point about affordability, an individual can get full coverage in any state for less than $100 bucks a month, and if you are truly poor, you can get almost everything paid for via the ALREADY EXISTING Government programs.

But ya if you wanna gamble your life so you can instead buy all the other stupid shit people buy and don't need, that's your idiocy and not my responsibility. I count the health of me and my family as the #1 spot on my "budget" list.

Even with insurance getting cancer or some other terrible illness is going to take your finances to the brink unless you're very well off. For someone so reliant on anecdotal evidence you'd think someone you know would've experienced this. Also you must've heard during all your time analyzing cable news talking points that a major part of Obamacare was to reform the way insurance deals with pre-existing conditions... Because they were dropping people when they got sick. Even the opponents of Obamacare don't argue against that one anymore because saying, "I think insurance should be able to drop sick people when they get sick" is ridiculous.

But this stuff has already passed anyway, I don't really need to rehash the same debate with someone who still thinks everything was hunky-dory the way it was with nearly 50 million uninsured.

Entitlement much?

And seph, you certainly are the talking points guy, you won't find my real life experience in any news. Maybe YOU should have surgery in the military or in England, or maybe YOU should have a family with "responsibilities", or YOU should buy insurance -- real world might help adjust your boob tube vision on the subject.

You're equally entitled.

Beamer do you EVER think before you post?

You think you're entitled to give as little back to a society that protects you and fosters you as possible.

How is that not entitled thinking?

The difference is that you somehow think money you get at a job is more important than anything in the world. You have such a narrow, small view (and likely mind) that this is all that matters. You're like some kind of animal. "It's mine, I earned it! My salary is my previous!"

You're probably the same idiot that believes in the welfare queen, happily living in squalor doing no work but living gleefully off your money.

Not worthy of my time for a proper response. Everything you've written in this thread (and many others I've followed) is some far out self-created assumption followed by contradictions, or just cutesy responses for the sake of 'being a part of it'. Wake up Beamer. It's crap that you write that turns a somewhat serious conversation into a jokefest of stupidness.

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:36:

Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:33:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:12:

Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:54:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:50:

Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:40:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:36:
[...] why areas in the US with the toughest gun laws already, tend to have the most crime in regards to guns.

Same reason that states with bans on fireworks still have people launching huge illegal fireworks every 4th of July.

So because it's "tougher" to get guns in those areas, people want to kill more with them? Yeah sorry not buying it.

I would imagine it has alot more to do with criminals in those areas have far less fear that someone they assault will have a concealed carry permit and be able to fight back. Criminals tend to think a bit harder in areas where they're not sure someone is going to shoot back or not.

Or are the gun laws tougher because people want to kill each other more, and maybe without those laws there would be more death?

Interesting.

Not sure how looking state-by-state really matters more than country-by-country, given that culture doesn't change much by state, but hey, whatever helps prove your points in your mind and helps you read between whatever lines manage to get through your tin foil hat.

Culture certainly does change in some degrees, perhaps not extremely however. The FBI data does alot to back up the notion that tough gun laws don't really work, which is prolly a tough pill for liberals to swallow. Numbers don't lie, as much as you kick and scream and twist.

By all means continue the cheap comments though.

"Numbers don't lie" is the kind of thing that gives us insight into the simple workings of your mind.

More ad hom. Par for the course with you however.

Gadzooks wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:37:
Reviewers dont say games are supposed to be long

GAMERS say games are supposed to be long

Especially when said games cost 60 bucks.

60 bucks = 12 hours of movie time if you go to the theater
60 bucks for a game should at least be comparable. This whole 5 hour campaign is just BS.

I blame 80% of short games on publishers who push for a quick release, and 20% of lazy devs.

Axis wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:09:

Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:08:

Axis wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:06:

Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:01:

Axis wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:21:
You're also assuming people don't give a shit about their health enough to buy insurance if they don't already get it from their employers.

And don't even start with the "other" talking point about affordability, an individual can get full coverage in any state for less than $100 bucks a month, and if you are truly poor, you can get almost everything paid for via the ALREADY EXISTING Government programs.

But ya if you wanna gamble your life so you can instead buy all the other stupid shit people buy and don't need, that's your idiocy and not my responsibility. I count the health of me and my family as the #1 spot on my "budget" list.

Even with insurance getting cancer or some other terrible illness is going to take your finances to the brink unless you're very well off. For someone so reliant on anecdotal evidence you'd think someone you know would've experienced this. Also you must've heard during all your time analyzing cable news talking points that a major part of Obamacare was to reform the way insurance deals with pre-existing conditions... Because they were dropping people when they got sick. Even the opponents of Obamacare don't argue against that one anymore because saying, "I think insurance should be able to drop sick people when they get sick" is ridiculous.

But this stuff has already passed anyway, I don't really need to rehash the same debate with someone who still thinks everything was hunky-dory the way it was with nearly 50 million uninsured.

Entitlement much?

And seph, you certainly are the talking points guy, you won't find my real life experience in any news. Maybe YOU should have surgery in the military or in England, or maybe YOU should have a family with "responsibilities", or YOU should buy insurance -- real world might help adjust your boob tube vision on the subject.

You're equally entitled.

Beamer do you EVER think before you post?

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:12:

Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:54:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:50:

Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:40:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:36:
[...] why areas in the US with the toughest gun laws already, tend to have the most crime in regards to guns.

Same reason that states with bans on fireworks still have people launching huge illegal fireworks every 4th of July.

So because it's "tougher" to get guns in those areas, people want to kill more with them? Yeah sorry not buying it.

I would imagine it has alot more to do with criminals in those areas have far less fear that someone they assault will have a concealed carry permit and be able to fight back. Criminals tend to think a bit harder in areas where they're not sure someone is going to shoot back or not.

Or are the gun laws tougher because people want to kill each other more, and maybe without those laws there would be more death?

Interesting.

Not sure how looking state-by-state really matters more than country-by-country, given that culture doesn't change much by state, but hey, whatever helps prove your points in your mind and helps you read between whatever lines manage to get through your tin foil hat.

Culture certainly does change in some degrees, perhaps not extremely however. The FBI data does alot to back up the notion that tough gun laws don't really work, which is prolly a tough pill for liberals to swallow. Numbers don't lie, as much as you kick and scream and twist.

By all means continue the cheap comments though.

xXBatmanXx wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:01:

Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 08:37:
The game argument is coming from a screenwriter.

It's true in some sense. Some games do feel padded just to hit a certain mark. And games like the Call of Duty games would wear out their welcome if single player went beyond 7 hours (they start getting grating before that.)

But when you're paying $60, you expect a certain return both in quality and quantity. CoD can get away with it due to multiplayer being the focus. Other games? A 7 hour game without a strong multiplayer component would irk me at $60 but feel fine at $30.

I wonder how long Dishonored took me. Went through it in a week, but I feel like it was a least 15 hours. Which reminds me, I should write my comments in the Games section of the board...

Was just talking to someone yesterday about Dishonored. It feels very short. I played half of the game in 1 sitting. Maybe the 2nd half is a lot harder/longer, but it already feels pretty short. I get it, it has replayability as you can do things different, cheevos, etc etc etc. But I don't see myself replaying it.

Axis wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:06:

Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:01:

Axis wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:21:
You're also assuming people don't give a shit about their health enough to buy insurance if they don't already get it from their employers.

And don't even start with the "other" talking point about affordability, an individual can get full coverage in any state for less than $100 bucks a month, and if you are truly poor, you can get almost everything paid for via the ALREADY EXISTING Government programs.

But ya if you wanna gamble your life so you can instead buy all the other stupid shit people buy and don't need, that's your idiocy and not my responsibility. I count the health of me and my family as the #1 spot on my "budget" list.

Even with insurance getting cancer or some other terrible illness is going to take your finances to the brink unless you're very well off. For someone so reliant on anecdotal evidence you'd think someone you know would've experienced this. Also you must've heard during all your time analyzing cable news talking points that a major part of Obamacare was to reform the way insurance deals with pre-existing conditions... Because they were dropping people when they got sick. Even the opponents of Obamacare don't argue against that one anymore because saying, "I think insurance should be able to drop sick people when they get sick" is ridiculous.

But this stuff has already passed anyway, I don't really need to rehash the same debate with someone who still thinks everything was hunky-dory the way it was with nearly 50 million uninsured.

Entitlement much?

And seph, you certainly are the talking points guy, you won't find my real life experience in any news. Maybe YOU should have surgery in the military or in England, or maybe YOU should have a family with "responsibilities", or YOU should buy insurance -- real world might help adjust your boob tube vision on the subject.

Axis wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:01:

Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:52:

Axis wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:46:
Don't confuse responsibility with liability.

The answer isn't to instead pay for every idiot for every ailment all the time.

For real?
LIABILITY:
The state of being responsible for something, esp. by law.
A thing for which someone is responsible, esp. a debt or financial obligation.

Apparently you don't know the difference between having a responsibility and having a liability.

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:50:

Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:40:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:36:
[...] why areas in the US with the toughest gun laws already, tend to have the most crime in regards to guns.

Same reason that states with bans on fireworks still have people launching huge illegal fireworks every 4th of July.

So because it's "tougher" to get guns in those areas, people want to kill more with them? Yeah sorry not buying it.

I would imagine it has alot more to do with criminals in those areas have far less fear that someone they assault will have a concealed carry permit and be able to fight back. Criminals tend to think a bit harder in areas where they're not sure someone is going to shoot back or not.

Axis wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:46:
Don't confuse responsibility with liability.

The answer isn't to instead pay for every idiot for every ailment all the time.

Axis wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:21:
You're also assuming people don't give a shit about their health enough to buy insurance if they don't already get it from their employers.

And don't even start with the "other" talking point about affordability, an individual can get full coverage in any state for less than $100 bucks a month, and if you are truly poor, you can get almost everything paid for via the ALREADY EXISTING Government programs.

But ya if you wanna gamble your life so you can instead buy all the other stupid shit people buy and don't need, that's your idiocy and not my responsibility. I count the health of me and my family as the #1 spot on my "budget" list.

Bhruic wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 10:22:
I'm not sure what game designers are getting most of the flak for innovation. Until the recent trend with Kickstarter, most dev studios were at the mercy of their publisher. It's hard to do much innovation when the publisher wants you to churn out the latest clone of the last successful game.