Verno wrote on Aug 9, 2012, 11:38:

El Pit wrote on Aug 9, 2012, 10:51:
I know ActiBlizz sold like a gazillion copies of this game. I wonder how many people are still playing it after one playthrough.

No idea but my Steam list used to consist solely of "In Non-Steam Game Diablo 3" but now it's down to like one old college buddy. I do know a few people who still "play" but only do it make money using the RMAH. There will have to be a lot of substantial changes to get the game where it should be.

Dev wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 10:27:
I dunno why they couldn't have done a kickstarter for this. If its F2P then surely it has premium currency, just offer like 4 times normal currency for participation in the kickstarter. If they already have the license, and all they need is funding, why not give it a try?

Jivaro wrote on Aug 7, 2012, 15:25:
My first thought: A side scrolling brawler...wtf....*facepalmheaddesk*

After I watched the trailer...I am even less optimistic.

I loved the first two Sacred games...I am not feeling all that optimistic about Sacred 3 at this point.

ledhead1969 wrote on Aug 7, 2012, 12:10:
the problem with this game is the engine. It is horrible in every aspect. Standalone and it will be considered but if it is anywhere close to the current engine I have other games to fill my time.

Ozmodan wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 15:03:
Don't know why Blizzard bothers, no one is playing this POS any more.

Techie714 © wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 10:57:
Ghost Recon is dead to me.....

ItBurn wrote on Jul 31, 2012, 13:31:
There's no way Bethesda can do a proper STALKER, but it could definitively be worse. I'm just glad we'd get another STALKER. The game was all about atmosphere and harshness. Bethesda's games are super easy and always fully bright. My favorite feature of STALKER was the complete darkness.

Prez wrote on Jul 27, 2012, 20:20:

Darks wrote on Jul 27, 2012, 19:56:
Prez, I will keep on harping this tune until you get sick of hearing it. If you’re to fucking stupid to get it through your thick head that HARDWARD has everything to do with performance then you are lost cause. I know all about the limitations of this game and it only using one core. Again moron your hardware has everyone to do with performance.

Hardward has everyone to do with performance huh? Funny how you jumped my shit for a small gaffe meanwhile you keep spitting them out in your nerd rage. Well, you keep arguing a point I'm not making, probably because you have no answer and are just trying to save face now. You are wrong, not about hardware in general (a point no one is arguing but you persist because you have nothing else), but in this particular case, you are comptetely wrong and you KNOW it, hence the childish lashing out, and knowing that is enough for me. Good day, matey.

NegaDeath wrote on Jul 27, 2012, 02:10:

Darks wrote on Jul 27, 2012, 01:11:
blah blah rant rant

Why are you being such an asshat about this?

First you said the game doesn't slow down, that they "fixed" it.
Then you said our systems are too old.
Now your saying we're all trying unreasonable settings.

You can't even pick an argument. The conversation moved on to ways to help people with lag issues but you just had to keep fighting it, that we're all apparently doing it wrong. I guess all the mod developers incorporating lag optimizations are doing it wrong too?

You want specs? Here's some damn specs.

Intel Core2Quad Q9400 OC'd to 3.2GHZ
MSI Twin Frozr 2 OC Edition 560 Ti
8GB Ram
Windows 7 x64
Game running off an OCZ Vertex 2 SSD

More than exceeds the hardware requirements for the game. The game, as I have said before, that has hardware requirements of systems from 6 years ago.

Slowdown occurs for people on MEDIUM maps with SMALL fleet size option set and 4 AI. After 4-5 hours or so the lag becomes so bad it's like playing in slow motion. Again, it doesn't matter if this runs fine on your system, your experience is not universal. I don't even play large maps as it takes too long to finish and it gets too slow. This same rig runs BF3 on High detail with smooth FPS.

Go stand in front of a mirror and congratulate yourself that you don't have issues. Accept that MANY people have slowdown issues and are NOT making unreasonable requests of the game. Enjoy your copy of Sins Rebellion. And finally please exit the thread with the realization that you are making ZERO contributions to the conversation. Good day sir.

Edit: One more note in case you think I'm trying to attack the game or developers. I LOVE The Sins series. I've purchased each entry, and barring a debacle like Sword of the Stars 2 I will purchase the next Sins game without reservation. When the developer says implementing multicore to fix performance issues is too expensive and time consuming for an expansion I take their word for it, just as I do when they promise the next full sequal Sins2 will have a new modern engine.

Prez wrote on Jul 26, 2012, 16:21:

Jedi Master wrote on Jul 26, 2012, 10:18:
How in the world do you get a game to last 55 hrs?? I've never had one even approach 10 on the largest maps.

I had to check my original post - "55" hours should have been "15" hours. I think I had 55 on the brain because my Steam stats showed I had played Rebellion for 55 hours. Still, I don't understand how length of game even matters - the late game lag is ridiculous, and it occurs in every single random large/ huge galaxy once there are several large empires with huge fleets roaming around. *EDIT* And this is in Rebellion. It has not been "fixed" by any means, since fixing it would mean optimizing the engine (which is shared between both Trinity and Rebellion) to use more than a single core of your cpu, something which Iron Lore themselves have said they don't have the resources to do. The best that can be done is the same thing that was done with the original, which is making various tweaks that lessen the load on the cpu.

Again, does anyone really think you’re going to have a smooth playing game after 10 or more hours? If you do you’re diluted.

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've read on these forums. Holy shit that was stupid. Playing a strategy game for over 10 whole hours is asking for trouble? Jesus tap-dancing Christ, do people even think before they type anymore?

And seriously - we are STILL throwing around the goofy "your hardware must not be up to snuff" excuse? Really? Is that a mandatory response every time someone mentions a problem in any possible game?

Jedi Master wrote on Jul 26, 2012, 10:18:
How in the world do you get a game to last 55 hrs?? I've never had one even approach 10 on the largest maps.

Bhruic wrote on Jul 26, 2012, 04:42:

InBlack wrote on Jul 26, 2012, 03:40:
I was thinking of getting this (never played a single Sins game before) but the setting looks to be quite rich and well realized and the different factions are quite cool. All this talk about an end game bog down is giving me second thoughts....

It mainly happens on larger maps with larger numbers of opponents. If you play on medium or smaller, you really won't notice it.

Of course, playing on large maps with large numbers of opponents is fun, so it's a bit of a drag not to be able to enjoy them properly...

NegaDeath wrote on Jul 25, 2012, 17:14:
The power of Steam.

It's an ok game but having owned Diplomacy already it's a pretty underwhelming expansion. For someone going vanilla sins to Rebellion it would be a good purchase. Considering how much they were charging for it multicore support should have been added to the engine. The lag gets really bad on any large or long game.

Now use that cash and get going on GalCiv3.

McSterls wrote on Jul 19, 2012, 10:10:
Diablo III DRM was too much for me, I won't buy another game that requires always-on DRM.