Frijoles wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 09:38:
After 6 hours of playing, I still have no idea what I'm doing in this game.

Prez wrote on Aug 16, 2012, 17:18:

I don't care if you listen to "The Glenn Beck" (as everyone who listens to him seems to refer to him), just... keep it out of the goddamn video game business. And if you don't, don't be surprised when people avoid doing business with you.

Agreed. Brad's problem was that he never realized the value of staying completely apolitical from a business standpoint (At the time I occasionally listened to Beck myself, but I soon realized he was a self-marketing melodramatic fear mongerer). Best to just STFU and see to running your business as best as you can.

Prez wrote on Aug 16, 2012, 13:16:
It kills me that things turned out the way they did for Stardock. Back when Galactic Civilizations first shipped I absolutely loved it. The company was mod friendly to the nth degree, they were indie and also supported other indies, and just seemed to want to do right by the customer always. Sins of a Solar Empirecame out, was awesome, Impulse launched with no DRM (unlike Steam), and for a time it seemed Stardock could do no wrong. Despite his penchant to say to much, I even loved Brad's passion. Along the way though the wheels just fell off the wagon. Suddenly Stardock couldn't release a working game, Brad's constantly running mouth became a huge liability, and it seemed controversy followed them everywhere. They were laying off employees and shafting customers left and right. The shit icing on the turd cake was selling off their digital service to one of the worst companies in gaming. It's sad if you stop and think about it. The company that was poised to become the modern day champion of PC gaming ended up another sad footnote in the PC's sordid 21st century history. It really couldn't have gone any worse for Stardock. They had so much promise too.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Aug 12, 2012, 16:55:
Based on your recommendations, I am buying Legends of Pegasus! j/k

How many times are they going to be able to sell Counter Strike, that is the real question. Also, bonus points if you remember when CS was a free mod.

Orcs Must Die 2 is the best title on this list, by the way.

Jivaro wrote on Aug 10, 2012, 12:00:
Sony finally makes an awesome handheld, in terms of the hardware, and they can't give it away. I mean, it is the best gaming solution for people who want to game on the move in nearly every technical way but because everyone already owns a tablet or a smartphone they don't want to carry another device.

eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 9, 2012, 23:15:
But why would anyone want to play this broken ass MP in MP3 ... I have no clue.. it's filled with hackers and obvious ones at that. 0 Moderation, 0 Cheat protection, and 0 fun. Completely imbalanced, terrible spawn system (puts even BF3 Close Quarters with 64 players to shame!)

The Half Elf wrote on Aug 8, 2012, 16:03:
I wouldn't mind a game like SPAZ (Space Pirates and Zombies) with a Trek coat of paint on it.

deqer wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 13:19:
Wouldn't a reboot be a reboot of the original side-scroller style game?

Ever since Prince of Persia went 3D with that abomination release "Prince of Persia 3D", the franchise has not been the same since.

Sure, Sands of Time may have been a good game, but that's not the real Prince of Persia. Sands of Time is just another game with the name "Prince of Persia" in it.

If they want to reboot Prince of Persia, they should be rebooting the original, in 3D while maintaining the same perspective view as the original--which is side view--side scroller; not first-person view.

Fail.

eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 13:44:
It can never be true 3D when you have a flat screen. For true 3D you need dynamic focus depth. Ie, your eyes can focus on any part of the scene and it seamlessly shifts the focus to there. As long as this does not happen there is no real 3D.

Even if both eyes get different perspective and thus pseudo 3D, you can not focus on any part of the scene - the focus would be infinite (like it is now on a normal screen) and thus, not real 3D.

Tumbler wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 16:14:
Funny thing happened recently for me.

I bought max payne 3 for $40. When it came out at $60 I thought that was a rip off. When it hit $40 it was ok.

I bought diablo 3 at launch more out of morbid curiosity than anything else and feel like that was a bad purchase. (Paid $0, all trade in credit)

I recently purchased Borderlands 2 PC via green man gaming. I'd decided to pass on the game recently and pulled my pre-orders. The game looked interesting but not for $60. But $40? Ok. I'm even willing to cut you some slack if I end up not liking it.

But $60? You better deliver something that knocks my sock. Most companies don't and I think that is where the problem is.

$60 is no longer a realistic price to expect for games. Some companies, the so called self made brands:

Tim Schafer, Notch, Cliff Bleszinski, and Gabe Newell can afford to be frank because they either own their companies or are brands in and off themselves, functionally unfirable.

Those guys are successful because the games they make have continually met expectations of gamers. (not sure how Bleszinski is in there...) If you make games that meet expectations gamers will be happy with you. If you don't and you expect everyone to pay the same price as if you did then people will (and do) feel ripped off.

Lower prices. $40 should be the norm. $50-$60 for the biggest games. Don't and you're only signing your own pink slip. Enjoy!

Creston wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 12:20:
My big hangup on this is, what's the actual purpose of it? It won't make a shit's worth of difference in the game whether you played Leviathan or not. It'll probably add 150 points to your War Assets score...

PHJF wrote on Aug 2, 2012, 21:20:
I saw the PPC in the text and wondered why Bethesda were such noobs when LRMs and Gauss Rifles are so much cooler.

Bucky wrote on Aug 1, 2012, 11:23:
Given how long they'd been working on Diablo 3, in one form or another, it's surprising that so many elements feel missing from the game. Lackluster legendaries, sets that are impossible to find, map randomization that barely exists, and the painful writing. I remember a quote from someone at Blizzard that said no one would remember if the game was late if it was great, but the truth is in another six months I don't think anyone will remember the game at all.

jdreyer wrote on Jul 31, 2012, 21:56:
You know, I love politics, and I love games, but the idea of a game based on politics is just so unappealing? Is it just me? Maybe I feel this way because games are fantasy and politics is reality?

deqer wrote on Jul 31, 2012, 19:49:

Graham wrote on Jul 31, 2012, 17:20:
Hopefully they see some success with F2P,

There is never success with F2P model. Who the fuck wants to waste their time playing a demo? ...

and to the guy that's saying "release more content at more intervals", just be quiet. Who the fuck wants to play a game that doesn't end? Just release the game once, and stop changing shit.

Verno wrote on Jul 26, 2012, 13:50:

Endo wrote on Jul 26, 2012, 13:08:
With ME it's pretty simple actually. If you bought a new PC that came with ME preloaded you actually had pretty good odds of never having trouble with the OS. But God forbid you try installing it on some other system. In that case you were virtually guaranteed to have no end of trouble.

I don't know, the common advice back then was to downgrade to Windows 98 if you got a PC with ME installed. That's what I did for clients after getting so many Windows ME calls that I could recognize a dozen of its many BSOD dumps. It was notoriously buggy, it had problems both complex (exploitable stack) and simple (large file transfers could literally BSOD it). In addition to be worthless, it's own file restore functionality would continue running frequently after being disabled and so virus authors would dump their code into there. It had severe compatibility problems with many programs. It was just a buggy operating system, a half baked stop-gap that even Microsoft has long regretted.

It's amusing because Vista had many issues but few were anywhere near as severe as Windows ME. Unlike ME, most of Vista's problems were related to drivers. Nvidia and HP were notoriously shitty back then, Nvidia alone caused something 20% of all BSODs Microsoft had projected internally (to be fair though Microsoft often "certified" these). It's a big part of the reason the entire driver model was revisited again for Windows 7.