User comment history
< Newer [ 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 ] Older >
| News Comments > Gold (Candidate) - Battlefield 2142 |
 |
| 47. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 23, 2006, 20:47 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
i have to add my 4 cents.
the multiple flag/silo scenario is nice, until (like it was mentioned) you have a team of 20 players, 10 of which are retardedly uselsss and play "defense sniper" in a corner of the map the whole game.
i really detest some of the public players in BF2/2142 beta because they dont know how to keepthe flow going or, by sheer mechanics of the game, the action in too spread out and i only battle 2 on 2 or whatever. that is not war to me.. thats DM.
i LOVE the idea that QW will force the action to certain spots..BF totally hosed this for me. since i play on public servers most of the time, i am subjected to finding the action in the game..unacceptable.
i can see both sides.. the open action of BF..and the forced action of QW..and for me.. QW wins for too many reasons to mention
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Counter-Strike Free Market |
|
| 6. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 23, 2006, 19:16 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
i dont have any FPS's to play right now and wondered if i should grab CS:S until something comes out that i want to play..hrmm.
when does TF2 drop?
dangit.. i need a good FPS!! (i dont see 2142 cutting it, especially for 50bucks)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Gold (Candidate) - Battlefield 2142 |
|
| 19. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 22, 2006, 20:28 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
I'd buy it for 35 bucks.. but fark $49.00..hell no
i beta tested it, i had fun for the most part.
the titan battles reminded me of vintage Tribes 1 fights..there needs to be some things fixed/changed befor ei buy it though.
if i try the demo and it still has the same beta issues.. no sale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Q&As |
|
| 4. |
Re: Threewave |
Sep 22, 2006, 16:02 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
3Wave!!
quake 1 style.. Western Alliance!!
and the best FPS player i ever seen play.. Northbend|WA aka: soda
that dude was retardedly good..that's a word, i swear.
go go Burning Crusade!
and good bye social life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Gold - Dawn of War - Dark Crusade |
|
| 12. |
Re: long names FTW |
Sep 21, 2006, 20:44 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
i have a Pentium 930D .. 2 gigs..x1800xt and i have no issues with CoH at all.
with plenty of room to OC when the need arises.
Dawn of War has been a SOLID game so far.. the one thing i dont like, i have to expand and capture other areas, i suck in RTS's and prefer to turtle it up. haha
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Guild Wars: Nightfall Event Prep |
|
| 19. |
Re: GWN Info |
Sep 20, 2006, 19:50 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
i know this is a good game, but i played it hard core for about 3 weeks, leveled up 3 guys and left.
it really felt like a compilation of Diablo/Dungeon Siege/WoW/etc.. but what it took from those games it seemed to only do half way.
i dont wanna bash the game.. i'll be quiet now
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > City of Heroes/Villains Veteran Rewards |
|
| 34. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 20, 2006, 19:45 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
i would still be playing CoH if the game had more depth.
i went from Earth and Beyond (hated the grinding of the eploration and trade skills.. horribly boring) to Planetside (pure action.. no depth) to CoH.. mostly action..hardly any depth.
i had a blaster..he had a gun, i could not change the type/look of the gun i had.. why not? there was no crafting, no secret weapons or rewards (they added some greater enhancements sometime later).. no world bosses, no huge battles..the same old tired factories over and over.. blah.
if they just added some more depth in that damn game.. sigh.
they had the best travel powers, awesome action, clean graphics, great sound..some neat mobs..cool areas.. but not enough depth to keep me playing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Wednesday Hardware Reviews |
|
| 1. |
hardware reviews |
Sep 20, 2006, 19:39 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
help me understand why reviewers usually only review video cards against the other equally-priced video card from the other manufacturer?
okay, i know.. its so you can see which of the top cards performs better.. great.
but what about the large audience out there that doesnt always buy the newest/fastest.. why cant i see a 1950xt compared against a 7600/1800? that is more useful to me and i would assume, a lot of people than seeing a continual battle of the two top cards only in reviews.
i have thoughts:
the reviewer is afraid that the audience will see that the performance gain is not worth the ridiculous price difference -compared to their current card.
maybe if a reviewer showed me that my x1800xt is a dog compared to the x1950xt i might go out and buy it--maybe from a link from their review site?
i think its a double edged sword.. you show the audience a decent range of comparable products and let the user see how his card stacks up, and that either gets him to buy a new card (because now he can see how bad his card performs next to the top stuff) or.. you educate the consumer and he doesnt go out and buy th next big thing, because the performance to price ratio isnt worth it.
i have an x1800xt.. and i would LOVE to know how it would fair in the above linked review from t-break. i went there and only saw the x1900xt compared to two other top-end cards. if you showed me int hat review that my gaming performance would be atronomically better with this new card, i might be interested in buying it.
does any of this make sense? sorry.. distracted while trying to write this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Battle for Middle-earth II Patches |
|
| 1. |
No subject |
Sep 19, 2006, 23:40 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
i've been playing a ton of RTS's lately (no good FPS's to play..sigh) and i tried this one out.
seems to me that the archers just own everything in this game.
i seem to be able to mow down most stuff before it gets near me. if it scoots by, i can just use one melee unit (troll?) to hold it off while my archers own it. doesnt seem very tough that way.
also, the big dragons/birds whatever u get, are too powerful.
compared to a game like Rise of Legends, Earth 2160 (which i really like) and more recently, Company of Heroes, i find this game to be rather "dumb", and i dont think i have ever said that about an RTS before.
i could stop an attacking group of melee guys and make them appear to bug out (running back and forth in a 10meter pattern frantically) just by walling off one side of my base.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > BF2142 Beta Concludes |
|
| 3. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 15, 2006, 23:38 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
it was hacked pretty early into beta...sad really.
the beta was fun, but i will not be buying it for 59bucks or even 49, too much.
if i could get it for 35clams, sure.. but the game just didnt haven enough newness to be a 50+ dollar game.
anyhow..
things i think they need to look at:
the flak turret gun is useless agaisnt ground vehicles (sure, it's AA, but you cant tell me that it can damage a heli in 1 round but do absolutely nothing to an APC after 20+ rounds?) plus.. this turret has no splash damage, despite firing what looks like twin mortar charges..i could hit a railing an enemy is hiding behind.. with 99% of his body sticking out, and he didnt take damage?
the missile lock on part of the turret works well though.
way too much armor in the beta map. You had to use a vehicle to get from place to place, sure it was a demo where they wanted us to try out everything, but that was retarded. you couldnt defend a base because a tank/heli/apc would roll in.
the beta map was limited to 32, but shouldve been a 64 player map. as i layed it out on the quakewarscenter.com forums, having 16 players per side, and 5 silos really ruins the war feeling of this game. i figured that once you accounted for people at the 5 different silos, the people in helis and the dead people, you may be grouped with 2 other people while trying to defend to attack a base. thats not what i want in my war game.
not to mention that when the titan shield goes down, you have people spread out even more. there were times that i could be in the enemys titan by myself for 5+ minutes..no enemies.. no allies.. just me.
if the game had forced poitns of conflict, i would really appreciate it more. as it stands now, it will be just like BF2 public games. Run here, capture, 2 people stay to defend (if that) go forward, capture, lose last base, move to a different base..etc.. gets real fucking aggravating after a while. sure this wouldnt happen with a clan match, but in public matches (where the majority of this game is played) its frustrating.
is there enough new stuff to get bf2 players to say "oh joy, a new game".. not really. a few new weps, a horribly thought out unlock plan (they tell you that the unlocks do not unbalance the game, but then make you pick stuff in order..and you often times have to pick some useless items)
the most fun i had in the game is when i invaded or defended a titan.. brought back memories of Tribes1. however..I'm not sure if this game has the automated defenses like tribes did, in the beta map all i saw were console panel shields. it'd be nice to see some built in turrets (and please let them be better than the deployable turret..which blows ass.. the tribes 1 turrets obliterate the 2142 turrets..in terms of firepower and tracking)
it would be nice to see some sort of change in the game that forced more people to play in the titan when the shields went down. otherwise, you could be left with 16 people, trying to attack/defend 4 silos and a titan. tell me where you'll find the action there?
i would say that at least on the beta map, and maps of that size, i would stick to 40+ players per server. I noticed back in my BF2 days that the most popular servers were heavy infantry servers with 48 players, playing on a 16man map.. that ought to have been a HUGE clue to EA/DICE
and thats all i have to say about that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > The Early Show |
|
| 1. |
No subject |
Sep 15, 2006, 16:38 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
oooh.. muthafarker...
i thought that was high elves from the Warhammer MMOG.. i was like "this looks like shit"
haha. i misread.
damn public education!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Company of Heroes |
|
| 31. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 12, 2006, 21:33 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
" I liked DoW but it seemed like a lot of people impressed by it never played Kohan:Immortal Sovereigns (which I like better). "
i said the same thing about Warlords:Battlecry in reference to Warcraft 3.
i thoughts Warlords was a much better game
i think it was from IGN that i read the demo preview where the reviewer said "i just couldnt believe it..etc.."
he was floored by the initial impact of the game. i agree
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Company of Heroes |
|
| 29. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 12, 2006, 18:58 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
i just played the demo for the first time.. fucking impressive.
the flanking, the tanks being actual tanks, the cover, the off-map support, the voices.. omg..i dont ever care for voices in a game--but this game has it perfect.
so far, i am really digging this demo and i will be getting the game no question.
this campaign dealy where i have to defend the 3 bridges.. awesome. got my anti tank folks out there, mortar teams, mg tents.. etc.
troop position actually means something in this game.. and damn if i didnt set a trap for their infantry... lured em a few meters in on the west bridge and then hit them from two sides.. pinned em down.
currently i have on RTS rotation:
Rise of Legends
Earth 2160
Battle for Middle Earth 2
Dawn of War: Winter Assault
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Supreme Commander Beta Plans |
|
| 13. |
Re: rushing in SC |
Sep 9, 2006, 20:49 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
i just read the interview that was linked (thanks).. wow.. makes you really want to play it.
although, i know myself, 20 minutes into the game i'll lose my navy, my air force will go on strike and the only ground troops i'll have will be the equivalent to the cub scouts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Supreme Commander Beta Plans |
|
| 1. |
SC |
Sep 9, 2006, 13:17 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
I just hope this game isnt so big that i feel lost in it.
first off, i know i suck in RTS's, and if i am playing one that requires me to build multiple bases, have multiple attack squads, defend all kids of different areas (think about the listening posts in Dawn of War)..i will suck.
and from everything i have seen of SC, it looks like it'll confuse me 
again, i suck at RTS's. youre mileage may vary, see dealer for details
This comment was edited on Sep 9, 15:32. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > BF2142 Beta Opens |
|
| 50. |
been in |
Sep 8, 2006, 20:04 |
ColoradoHoudini |
|
|
I've been in since day 2 or so of the beta, and as much as i wanted to hate the game, i keep finding reasons to like it.
i'm an old school FPS vet from 3Wave days and i'm very picky about my games..FYI.
sure there are issues in the game, such as inconsistant damage or random hitscans (although, they sure did seem to fix the hitscan on beta 2).. but overall, the game is fun.
and let me tell you.. the first time i attacked a titan i had serious Tribes1 flashbacks. I wish there were a few more automated defenses that were useful (like the tribes built-in turrets, or cameras, better mines).. but maybe those will exist in the other titans.
anyhow, the game has a few issues i'd like to see worked out, but overall, it's a fairly fun game, if for no other reason the titan attack/defend scenarios.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
1263 Comments. 64 pages. Viewing page 48.
< Newer [ 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 ] Older > |
|
Twitter 
