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 Ted Smith

Real Name Ted Smith   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Teddy
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Feb 5, 2004, 02:08
Total Comments 1063 (Pro)
User ID 20096
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ] Older >


News Comments > Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned?
133. Re: Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned? Jun 15, 2011, 14:48 Teddy
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 14:03:
I have also seen indie devs comment that if they can't get on Steam they won't be successful.

I don't doubt that people have said that, but perhaps you need to ask yourself WHY they say that. You can try and blame it on Steam's marketshare, but take a look at their competitors for a moment.

Steam has done more to try and promote indie games than any other digital distributor out there. They even have a simple and handy category to click ON THE FRONT PAGE and it will show you all the indie games they offer. They've given indie titles front page advertising and offered countless sales and created bundle packs all to try and get people buying indie games. Hell, they even offered an incentive for their own AAA title to get people buying indie games, and regardless of how it was receieved on here, I imagine the indie developers were thrilled with the result for them.

The only other DD that seems to be trying to do the same thing is impulse and their method of finding them is clunky, requiring me to go to alternate pages, search through a dropdown box of absurd length to find the "independant" developer section.

It's a very simple thing. When people make it easier to find and buy your game, more people buy it. Steam has become a bastion for indie developers on PC because they put forth the effort to BE just that. Now you're faulting them for the effort? Or for being successful with that effort?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > DNF Review Dust Up
65. Re: DNF Review Dust Up Jun 15, 2011, 13:46 Teddy
 
Elessar wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 10:58:
To the article... He was a douche but he also apologized. He deserves some of the flack he's getting, but it seems he realizes that opinions are opinions and he can't control them.

The only thing this man realizes is that it was a stupid idea to post his threat online, and the only thing he's sorry for is that it got noticed.

That's why he apologized, not because he actually thinks he was wrong. This is a PR person who not only made his firm look bad with that tweet, but made his client look bad as well. He's just trying to keep his job now. Nothing more.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned?
19. Re: Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned? Jun 15, 2011, 01:42 Teddy
 
Esoteric wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 01:24:
I'm definitely in the Valve/Steam camp, but this competition MAY be good for us all. That is if EA actually tries to be better than Steam, and not just rely on exclusives.

Unlikely. That would require them to work harder than they need to and expend more money than they need to.

All EA needs to do to make this successful is restrict all their new titles to Origin and have the games link to it for updates. Their games are big enough that MOST people will accept it, even if it annoys them. The few that claim to boycott may do so for one or two titles, but they'll captiulate once they realize the world has ignored them once again.

I've no doubt in my mind that this will be successful and will result in more money for EA with no cut to pay to steam or brick and mortar retailers. The system, once developed (and it already is) requires almost no additional money from EA and since you won't be able to buy the titles elsewhere, there's no concern for competition to drive them to improve service.

Valve made Steam what it was today because when they envisioned it, they had to compete with a very dominant brick and mortar system and the few scattered other digital delivery systems that showed up. The only titles they could control where they were released were their own, so they were forced to improve their service because of the competition they faced. EA will have none of that with their system. Not unless they intend to allow other publishers to release games over Origin, which I doubt they will.

Once Ubisoft sees this successful, they'll follow suit as well with their own system, no doubt (if they're not already developing one).
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned?
9. Re: Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned? Jun 15, 2011, 00:41 Teddy
 
headkase wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 00:33:
Well. While EA is measuring how far they can piss with Valve.. Meanwhile I won't be picking up Alice. I'm not going to go to an service that says: "Valid for one copy of.." Yeah, screw that. I only have Steam and Impulse accounts and I'm not getting any more. Impulse I only have because you can't get Galactic Civilizations II anywhere else and if a game is on both Impulse and Steam I get the Steam version: which, ta-da, I can download as many times as I need to in the future.

Screw EA - they screw you too!

The "Valid for one copy of" bit isn't exactly clear at this point. That doesn't necessarily mean valie for one download of. I'd imagine it's more a necessity of digital download contracts, saying you can't download it and play it on your computer, and let your friend download and play it as well, etc.

The same place you got that line from also says "GAME USES SOLIDSHIELD CONTENT PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY. (WWW.SOLIDSHIELD.COM). GAME CAN BE PLAYED ON UP TO FIVE COMPUTERS; USERS CAN MANAGE WHICH COMPUTERS ARE AUTHORIZED OR DE-AUTHORIZED TO PLAY GAME."

Which sounds very distinctly like you can download and install it multiple times, but only one copy of it can be played at a time.

edit: From the Origin FAQ:

Q: Can I re-download old games I purchased?
A: Absolutely. All your previous purchases are still accessible from Origin.

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2011, 00:47.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned?
6. Re: Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned? Jun 15, 2011, 00:23 Teddy
 
tony wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 00:15:
If EA decides to stop selling games on Steam and not release future titles on Steam they won't get anymore money from me. It's that simple.

It is a bit of a weird thing to do. Selling games in less locations is just going to mean less sales on the whole.

I get that they're trying to build up their own system, but Crysis 2 was neither good enough, nor a new enough title to make any number of people jump over. I have no doubt that Battlefield 3 and Mass Effect 3 will be Origin exclusive for digital downloads.

Those 2 titles, plus The Old Republic are the only ones they have that are big enough that too many people won't just shrug and not buy. Hell, most of the people who proclaim that they won't buy from Origin, will probably buy them anyways. We all know full well that most people who scream boycott haven't got the balls to hold to their convictions.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever
60. Re: Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever Jun 15, 2011, 00:13 Teddy
 
Edited the first sentence for clarity after you started your reply, evidently. Nonetheless, my point is, people are claiming it's not evolution because THEY don't like the way things changed. That's what I'm arguing against.

Admittedly they are a bit rare, but at last check at E3, there were 2 major new WW2 title shown, 2 futuristic titles, 1 post-apocalyptic title, and 2 modern day titles. (Major titles only, I mean)

That's a fair amount of variety in the shooter genre. You really can't pick a sub-genre (or worse, sub-sub-genre in modern day military shooters) that is, in it's very nature restricted to realistic locales for conflict and then complain in any justifiable manner that there's not enough variety in that sub-genre. Of course there's not a great deal of variety in enemies or weaponry. If there was, it wouldn't be a modern day military shooter.

I'm with you that since it's the dominant form of shooter at the moment, things have stalled somewhat, but that's more a function of the fact that everyone jumped on the bandwagon and the teams that were really skilled in making shooters didn't really step outside of the box for financial reasons.

There's some change on the horizon though. Respawn is making a sci-fi shooter, Red Orchestra is set for release, that weird looking WW2 game from Gearbox (I think) is something different.

My biggest hope for modern day shooters lies with the Rainbow Six series, if they ever decide to make a decent one again. Since they're not restricted to engagements based on nationality, they could easily bring some other conflicts into gaming light. Rescuing hostages in the Burmese jungle? Interceding in civillian massacres in Darfur? Clandestine operation in Rwanda? Or yes, even good old, stop the terrorists in the Met. It has the same weapons for the most part, but can place itself in the widest array of terrain and locales on a mission by mission basis.

I don't see it happening, since it would mean they'd have to forego the 'cinematic linear campaign' in favor of a variety of disconnected missions, each with their own small storyline, rather than one overarching thing. It's a dream, but one I still hold to.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Steam Top 10
85. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 14, 2011, 23:50 Teddy
 
Sepharo wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 18:17:
Sounds like people wanted Serious Sam gameplay but they got HL gameplay without the narrative and polish.

That's pretty close to spot on. The D3d that I remember is more akin to Serious Sam than Half-life. The "story" bits in Duke Forever were appalingly bad, interfered with gameplay and intentionally dragged things out for no forseeable reason.

Why do I have to stand there and listen to the president babble on endlessly about something I don't give one shit about? Why can't I leave the room until he's finished his tirade? Why do I have to run around without a weapon at the start, even though I'm in my own freaking military installation? At least Half-life had an answer to those questions and had a narrative and world that was interesting enough that I didn't want to shut the game off before I'd even so much as seen an enemy.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever
57. Re: Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever Jun 14, 2011, 23:34 Teddy
 
Jerykk wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 23:14:
I would argue that there's been several evolutions since HL2. Cover mechanics, and regenerating health among them. They may not be to your liking, but they are changes from the time of HL. You can't call it stagnation if it's changing, just because you don't like what FPS' have evolved (or devolved) into.

It depends on what you consider evolution. Games have "evolved" into accessible and cinematic experiences rather than deep or challenging ones. While this is certainly good for business, it's not so good for hardcore gamers.

In recent years, the shooter genre has completely stagnated. Everybody is copying CoD. It's like the stagnation that was seen in the early 90's when everybody was copying Doom, except at least the Doom clones were slightly different from one another. Military shooters are the second least creative genre out there (second only to sports games). They all have the same enemies, weapons, vehicles, settings, etc.

Evolution has never meant "better for me". People liked to attribute that term to it, they like to believe it means that things have changed in a way that THEY wanted them to. Evolution simply means different, the same base with some alteration. Cover mechanics are an evolution of the genre. So is regenerating health. So is the 'cinematic' nature of the games lately.

It doesn't matter whether it's what I want or not. Denying evolution because you don't like the result is silly. Deny progress if you like on some sort of esoteric level, but then I'd counter with the fact that the games that people like to point at and say how terrible all the mechanics in them are, still end up being amoung the highest selling titles of all time. If evolution means changes to the base of something that remain when they are successful, then yes, FPS games have very much evolved since the time of Half-life.

I agree they've become stagnant since the most recent changes, (cover system in single player and unlocks in multiplayer). But there are some changes on the horizon. Larger scale and more detailed destruction in BF3 and the two examples I provided in the previous post. Whether or not they prove successful, and thus don't vanish into history is another matter entirely, but the possibility for change in a positive direction is there.

As for the final statement, I'll agree that military shooters have more in common than most genres (which isn't surprising since it's really a sub-genre in itself), I have to disagree with your final bit.
The enemies are generally the same, in that they're always soldiers, occasionally from different countries or made up collectives. The weapons are only the same if you are looking at modern day military shooters only. Taking into account, WW2, Vietnam, and Modern day, then you can't rightfully say the weapons and vehicles are the same, nor the settings. From desert terrain, to middle east villages/cities, to jungles in vietnam, to first world cities in games like Homefront or Rainbow Six Vegas 1/2.

The variety is there in all those things. Of course it's not as varied as games where you can create your own world to fit the game you want to make, but that's the expectation in a sub-genre like this.

This comment was edited on Jun 14, 2011, 23:41.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Footage
23. Re: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Footage Jun 14, 2011, 23:10 Teddy
 
<Electric-Spock> wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 18:36:
uuuuummmmmm... I've read several posts about people being upset that there are no bots in BF3? I'm not sure how much fun is to be had in an open sandbox environment with vehicles playing against bots. At best, you can learn to pilot or drive a vehicle knowing you won't be shot at much. Other than that, whats the point?

Can't speak for anyone else, but sometimes I don't want to deal with other people online, or be forced this way or that is a single player campaign.

Sometimes I just want a shooting gallery. Sometimes I want to mess around in a map, play with game mechanics and weapons without too much interference. Bots allow me to do that.

I don't always want that, but the option is nice, and takes remarkably little development time to add since the bulk of the AI code already has to be there for single player campaign.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever
55. Re: Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever Jun 14, 2011, 22:59 Teddy
 
Lorcin wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 19:24:

The FPS genre hasn't advanced since hl1/2 it's developed into a state of hyper-stagnation. Every new mainstream title is easier, more samey and more generic than the last.

I would argue that there's been several evolutions since HL2. Cover mechanics, and regenerating health among them. They may not be to your liking, but they are changes from the time of HL. You can't call it stagnation if it's changing, just because you don't like what FPS' have evolved (or devolved) into.

That said, there hasn't been any significant changes (to single player shooters) since the cover mechanics started showing up. Not that I can think of anyways.

I'm hoping the next real change will be something akin to Mirror's Edge / Brink style fluid movement enhancements. It's a good idea, it just needs someone to pull it off well in a popular title. Brink handled the mechanic fairly well with the lightweight charactger model, but the rest of the game fell flat on it's face.

Bulletstorm TRIED something different with a reward system for varied ways of killing enemies, but much like Brink, they relied too much on the mechanic to sell the game. They even failed to deliver a competitive multiplayer option, which done properly WITH the skill/kill system in place could have been some solid fun (assuming they removed the constant slow-mo bits with the leash).

Imagine the chaotic fun that could be had combining the two mechanics in even a simple DM style multiplayer.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever
54. Re: Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever Jun 14, 2011, 22:35 Teddy
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 19:10:
I don't mind the recharging health as much as I thought I would, I guess because the idea of an ego shield is amusing and finding ego-boosting things in the environment is fun. Checkpoints I have gotten used to for linear games and it doesn't really bother me anymore to be honest. It does make it more of a game than quicksaving, as there are consequences to failing at a battle.

QTEs and weapon limits I agree with though... massively irritating, and the second one has NO place in a game like this.

I don't necessarily mind regenerating health in SOME games. This is one that it stands out as a TERRIBLE idea. All it does is force you to cower in a corner when your health is low. The problem is, that's completely contrary to what the character and game are all about.

Health packs often forced you to barrel through danger to get to them, with the risk of death at a single wrong move if you were low on health already. THAT is more in line with what Duke is supposed to be. Calling your health 'ego' was a cute gimmick, but that's all it really is.

The only part of the game I've actually legitimately enjoyed thus far is the monster truck sequence and the surrounding mayhem. Everything up to that point was pretty ho-hum for me.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Steam Top 10
24. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 12, 2011, 21:50 Teddy
 
shponglefan wrote on Jun 12, 2011, 21:48:
Hump wrote on Jun 12, 2011, 19:19:
Jerykk, would you say its worth the 50 bucks or no?

Obviously not, since he stole it.

While I can't speak for how Jerykk got the game himself (since I have no idea where he lives), DNF was released elsewhere in the world on the 10th. The 14th is the US release. Multiplayer is locked out on international releases until the 14th though, for some reason.

This comment was edited on Jun 12, 2011, 21:55.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Epic Hacked
40. Re: Epic Hacked Jun 11, 2011, 23:21 Teddy
 
killer_roach wrote on Jun 11, 2011, 22:54:
Teddy wrote on Jun 11, 2011, 22:27:
Do you also defend a police officer who stands aside when a crime is committed? It's not like he's paid to stop criminals, right? Much the same way, say, a company's network security administrator is?

You're assuming a) a network administrator works 24/7 and b) is able to root out any potential hack threat on his own. Either is ludicrous, and show a fatally naive view of information security technology.

To use your analogy, in many hacking cases it'd be like blaming a police officer in Boston for a terrorist attack in San Diego.

My view of IT security is naive? You seem to think they actually sit on their computers when at work actively snooping through the network looking for hackers like some security guard patrolling the halls.

The bulk of network security is automated, it is their task to set up and configure that security such that it functions effectively, properly alerts the correct people when something unusual is happening.

My analogy is about the responsibility of those individuals to stop crimes. You are still attempting to deny that they have any responsibility to do so, despite being paid to do so, on the pathetically naive view that crimes should simply not happen.

Again and again, you completely try to avoid any notion of personal responsibility, conveniently skipping over those sections of the argument. It's pretty sad, really. Either address the topic at hand, or I won't bother responding to your inane nattering about inconsequential issues. THe effectiveness of the analogy is irrelevant, the point was made and you tried desperately to ignore it.

Let me put this in bullet points for you to make it easier to understand.

1) People were paid to ensure the security of that network.
2) Those people failed at their task.
3) You state that those people are not at all responsible for that failure, because someone actively attempted to circumvent the security.

Can you really not see the disconnect in logic here? If no one was ever going to try and get by security, there would be no need for the security at all. It exists because it IS needed, and if it fails, then those who's JOB IT WAS to ensure it succeeded bear responsibility for their failure.

No one is saying the hackers are innocents, but absolving people of the responsibility for which they are paid is just plain stupid.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
10. Re: Wii U question... Jun 11, 2011, 22:46 Teddy
 
Fantaz wrote on Jun 11, 2011, 17:28:
In comparison, the PSVita (silly name, and so was Win Vista) had a great showing and we pretty much know most about it so no questions, and most of us want one.

That I'm going to have to disagree with. It had a decent showing, but there's a huge question still hovering over it's head that many people haven't yet asked.

The system is able to pause a game and then pick it up on PS3, but per the Ars Tech article on the matter, Sony has yet to decide whether or not you'll need to buy a copy of the game for both PS3 and Vita for that functionality.

I also question whether "most" people in fact want one. I certainly don't, and neither did any of the friends I spoke with once they saw the price tag.

edit: Ars Tech article here
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Epic Hacked
37. Re: Epic Hacked Jun 11, 2011, 22:27 Teddy
 
killer_roach wrote on Jun 11, 2011, 22:17:
Teddy wrote on Jun 11, 2011, 22:03:
That you put hackers and rapists in the same category shows a pretty sad sense of logic.

How many other crimes can you think of where people blame the victim? That's exactly what's going on, as much as you may try to demonize the targets of the hackers. Criminal behavior is criminal behavior - full stop.

Demonizing? Really? Is that what I'm doing by suggesting that these companies have a responsibility to secure their servers?

As a matter of fact, I can think of innumerable crimes where the 'victim' carries some of the blame. Our society has gotten so pathetically coddled that they're starting to believe they have no responsibility to defend themselves, physically or otherwise. While there are those who legitimately are unable to do so, the majority are simply too lazy to learn.

Do you also defend a police officer who stands aside when a crime is committed? It's not like he's paid to stop criminals, right? Much the same way, say, a company's network security administrator is?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Epic Hacked
35. Re: Epic Hacked Jun 11, 2011, 22:17 Teddy
 
space captain wrote on Jun 11, 2011, 22:08:
Teddy wrote on Jun 11, 2011, 22:03:
It WILL NOT CHANGE.

tsk tsk - thats what the neanderthals said

While they were no doubt clubbing a neighbouring tribe over the head and stealing their women.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Epic Hacked
33. Re: Epic Hacked Jun 11, 2011, 22:16 Teddy
 
Cutter wrote on Jun 11, 2011, 17:44:
I doubt it's Anonymous as they're much more political. It's probably just asshole thieves out of Russia or China or the like. And regardless, it's not like these corporations lack the funds to properly secure our information, they simply choose not to. But that's what class action suits are for.


That's a possibility. But then recall not too long ago the general consensus was that there was a splintering of Anonymous. One of the unofficial spokesmen for the group basically said that there were a lot of people who had joined in that weren't there for the right reasons. They were just people looking to be shit disturbers, rather than interested in any of the things that Anonymous claims to stand for.

As is the nature of any group of people, when it becomes large enough, there will be factions and when the divide in philosophy becomes great enough, they'll part ways. If one of those splinters happens to have little to no moral or ethical compunctions, then with the skills they learned as part of the collective, they could become anything from annoyances (as we're seeing here) to real, actual, threats to society.

So while yes, it doesn't seem that Anonymous is directly responsible, I'd hazard a guess that they could be indirectly so, via the technical education of people who just want to stir the pot for no reason, or worse for their own personal gain.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Epic Hacked
31. Re: Epic Hacked Jun 11, 2011, 22:03 Teddy
 
killer_roach wrote on Jun 11, 2011, 21:00:
yuastnav wrote on Jun 11, 2011, 19:13:
Right, because pretending that a problem doesn't exist makes it go away. That always works like a charm!
Maybe banks shouldn't use vaults and just keep the money in the lobby! Surely people aren't douche bags and won't just, you know, take it. No, that thought is completely preposterous!

If people aren't taking stuff, there's no problem where it's kept. Love the "blame the victim" logic, by the way... I see a future for you in defending rapists.

That you put hackers and rapists in the same category shows a pretty sad sense of logic.

The question here is not one of morality, but one of practicality and personal responsibility. People WILL take stuff. That's the reality of the world, and the reality of humanity. It WILL NOT CHANGE.

Knowing that, then if there is something you don't want others to take, you have the responsibility to secure and defend it. Would you leave your family's life savings in a pile on your front yard and then when it goes missing, would you then tell them it's not your fault? That you're a victim?

This is the same reason that if you leave your car unlocked and it gets stolen, then you get nothing from the insurance company. Because your own personal negligence in terms of security enabled those who stole from you. That is the same thing we're seeing here, minus the involvement of insurance companies.

There is a question of how much more they could have done vs how talented the hackers were, but none of us know the specifics. Either way, in a business that involves people PAID to secure the servers and website, to exonerate them for their failure and place all the blame on the hackers is just stupid and naive.

Both sides are to blame, one more than the other certainly, but there are no helpless 'victims' here for you to raise on a pedestal.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > BF3 Campaign Around 6-10 Hours
42. Re: BF3 Campaign Around 6-10 Hours Jun 10, 2011, 16:30 Teddy
 
Shineyguy wrote on Jun 10, 2011, 10:15:
People are commenting on the fact that the Battlefield series of games proper, were MP only games (1942, Vietnam, 2, 2142. They all had "Singleplayer" in that you were playing on the MP maps with bots filling out both teams.)

Quite right, but was and is are two different things. The previous games (before the bad company series) were all advertised as multiplayer games. Those are the trailers they showed, that was what they talked about, and ALL they talked about.

Bad Company 2 (never played 1) was sold as BOTH single player and multiplayer, and BF3 is being sold the same way. Single player trailers shown, hands on demos for it, etc.

Battlefield is no longer JUST a Multiplayer series, and as such, customers have every right to expect a solid single player experience. Whether it's wise to purchase it ONLY to play single player is another question, but denying the fact that it has single player and proclaiming Battlefield 3 as JUST a multiplayer game is, again, just plain stupid.

As for the quote from Dice, thank you for sourcing it. Frankly, that was downright fucking stupid of them to say and I'm glad that no media picked up on it. If Kotick saw that exact same interview, those words would be thrown in EA's face and spouted in every interview he did from now on and like it or not, it would cost them sales from those people who are only interested in single player (yes, they still exist).
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > BF3 Campaign Around 6-10 Hours
14. Re: BF3 Campaign Around 6-10 Hours Jun 9, 2011, 22:37 Teddy
 
DangerDog wrote on Jun 9, 2011, 22:31:
They've already said it's mostly just a glorified tutorial to get people new to Battlefield up to speed.


Cite source, please. Trashing a component of their own game shortly before release? I don't believe they said that for a second.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1063 Comments. 54 pages. Viewing page 27.
< Newer [ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo