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 Matt C

Real Name Matt C   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname MattyC
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage None given.
Signed On May 23, 2007, 03:50
Total Comments 626 (Apprentice)
User ID 39012
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ] Older >


News Comments > Alpha Centauri TMs
4. Re: Alpha Centauri TMs Aug 11, 2011, 11:59 MattyC
 
If done right I would LOVE a new AC game. Not sure if that will happen though. Games of that style seem to be very niche now. Sure Civilization is still kicking, but that is about it.  
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming
173. Re: Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming Aug 11, 2011, 11:55 MattyC
 
Creston wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 10:43:
MattyC wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 09:36:
And even if both of these are down Blizzard has been cool with ICCUP and WarCraft 2 Combat edition.

Blizzard is also the company that sued the bnet emulator guys out of existence...

Creston

As far as I know they only did this with one of them and I am not sure why. I guess because it added no additional functionality? I couldn't say. They never really messed with ICCUP and WarCraft II Combat edition. Not sure why those two were given carte blanche and FSGS (that was it right?) was not.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Runic on Diablo III vs. Torchlight 2 RMTs and DRM
38. Re: Runic on Diablo III vs. Torchlight 2 RMTs and DRM Aug 11, 2011, 11:51 MattyC
 
Bhruic wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 11:42:
To me, Diablo has been an online only game.

I'm not sure what you are using this to explain? You only play it online, so that negates all the people who didn't? Or everyone should be forced to play it the same way you do? Everyone playing it single player is wrong?

It'd be like me saying that if I only played Diablo solo, if they completely removed all the multiplayer aspects, that shouldn't bother anyone.

Only if you ignored all my other posts in this thread...
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Runic on Diablo III vs. Torchlight 2 RMTs and DRM
31. Re: Runic on Diablo III vs. Torchlight 2 RMTs and DRM Aug 11, 2011, 10:46 MattyC
 
Verno wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 10:15:
Are there? I haven't seen any video of such. There could be, but I would imagine with an always on requirement it is just 'play game' and you can invite people to your game or not.

I was referring to Diablo 2 there.

I don't know/care what most people perceive about games with stories. To me some games are just made on playing together.

Ok but that has nothing to do with a persistent connection being a requirement for playing through the campaign when you don't need other players to do it. It's a technical requirement that doesn't make any sense except on a business level. People aren't asking that you play the game any differently, you can continue to treat them as multiplayer experiences and only play with your friends blah blah blah etc. They just want to be able to play them as boring Rogue clones and so on and if their connection happens to drop not interrupt the experience. Blizzard solved this problem already with Starcraft 2 and offline activation hashes. It's a proven method of DRM that works reasonably for all parties.

I am not a fan of always on DRM. I am just trying to be reasonable with my complaints. To me, Diablo has been an online only game. This greatly reduces the hacking/cheating that has always been rampant in Diablo and to be honest if internet wasn't available I wouldn't bother playing a Diablo game anway.

Again, I can see why some people wouldn't like this but the "OMG CONTROL DRM SKY FALLING DEATH AND DOOM!" seems silly. To anyone who played Diablo online it has been an always online game since Diablo II. Open Battle.net there was a nightmare. It was all hackers and cheaters. You couldn't go on regular Battle.net with a single player character so it basically was an online only game.

With D3 I am willing to accept online only as having benefits outside the realm of DRM. It fits with my play style and offers me benefits similar to the way Steam is restrictive but gives me things in return.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Evening Safety Dance
1. Re: Evening Safety Dance Aug 11, 2011, 10:13 MattyC
 
Did Adobe hide 400 vulnerability fixes in latest Flash Player patch?

It is Flash... I wouldn't worry. Yet another patch will be out in about 3 seconds. I swear that thing updates hourly.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Runic on Diablo III vs. Torchlight 2 RMTs and DRM
26. Re: Runic on Diablo III vs. Torchlight 2 RMTs and DRM Aug 11, 2011, 10:09 MattyC
 
Verno wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 09:56:
How you played it doesn't change the fact that there are singleplayer and multiplayer entries on the game menu, not to mention a traditional singleplayer campaign with story and that most people perceive a story mode as a single user experience in those types of games

Are there? I haven't seen any video of such. There could be, but I would imagine with an always on requirement it is just 'play game' and you can invite people to your game or not.


I don't know/care what most people perceive about games with stories. To me some games are just made on playing together. Diablo and Gears of War are both games like that. I love them and played them many times with my friends. However I am not sure I would have really bothered with either if I played them solo. They just don't have much depth without other people. Playing with others, the co-op play, is what made them fun. Like I said before my opinion doesn't invalidate the opinions of others, but people need to stop stating theirs as fact.


When I first played Diablo years and years ago I wasn't like "WOW! Look at this incredible story and RPG elements!" because they weren't that impressive. I was like "Awesome we can play this rogue clone with great graphics and sound together!"
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Runic on Diablo III vs. Torchlight 2 RMTs and DRM
24. Re: Runic on Diablo III vs. Torchlight 2 RMTs and DRM Aug 11, 2011, 09:53 MattyC
 
Undocumented Alien wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 09:20:
Diablo 1&2 were NOT MMO's, in any way. This word "MMO" is thrown around WAY to much these days.

Diablo 1&2 were incredible SP experiences with a fun LAN/Internet party MP option.

As I have said here before that is an opinion. It is a valid one, but it isn't a fact. People keep stating that like it is. My friends and I, for example, viewed them as purely online games. That is what was fun and awesome about them. Without others to play with they were fairly bland and boring Rogue games.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming
163. Re: Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming Aug 11, 2011, 09:36 MattyC
 
Prez wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 18:09:
For the frickin' BILLIONTH time, it's not MY computer I'm worried about being always online; it's theirs; i.e. whoever decides to use this bullshit DRM scheme insultingly disguised as a "feature".

I play games from 1988 on GOG. That's 23 years ago for the trolling retards who can't be bothered to see past the nose on their face and keep telling us "Your computer is always connected - quit whining!"

Maybe Blizzard will still be running the Diablo 3 services then; maybe they won't. Who's to say? Point is, I like to revisit old games for nostalgia, history, and just plain fun. I'm not going to be told by anyone that I can no longer do that because they want to treat me like a thief and then insult my intelligence by giving me some utterly lame excuse about how they "have to do this", and how it's a "bonus" or a "feature".

As it stands now, the only way I will ever play Diablo 3 (as I am only interested in LAN and singleplayer) is if Blizzard abandons this stupidity or I pirate the warez version.

It is worth noting that you can still login to Diablo released in 1996. I haven't tried WarCraft 2 BnE, but I would be surprised if it wasn't also online. And even if both of these are down Blizzard has been cool with ICCUP and WarCraft 2 Combat edition.


I am not saying that totally invalidates your argument or anything silly like that. I am just pointing out that Blizzard has a damn good track record here. You might want to target another company if that is the angle you are going for. Blizzard has proven its merit in that department more than any other company I know of.


I guess they could take down the servers after a year and not release an offline patch. They could. I could also suddenly sprout wings and be able to shoot lightning from my ass, but no evidence exists that either is likely.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
Hardware > Pads, Laptops, etc.....input needed
4. Re: Pads, Laptops, etc.....input needed Aug 10, 2011, 17:01 MattyC
 
Creston wrote on Aug 6, 2011, 00:59:
As much as I dislike Apple, there currently is no real competition for an iPad 2. All the other tablets are just flawed. However, I fully understand your dislike of their DRM, and no flash is just plain Steve Jobs Retarded

I agree with the iPad 2 being the king. If you just have to have a tablet RIGHT NOW then the iPad is the one to get. If you can wait then I would do that if you just don't want to go Apple.

On the flash bit, meh. I hate Flash Click2Flash or a Flash blocker is one of the first things I install on any browser. It was clearly coded by the devil in hell and you can find an app for most anything or just jailbreak it.

EDIT: I should add that I understand that for now Flash is a necessary evil, I just wanted to point out that it is plenty rational for Jobs to hate it.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming
109. Re: Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming Aug 10, 2011, 16:34 MattyC
 
ASeven wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 15:08:
MattyC wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 14:36:
ASeven wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 13:25:
you're in the tiny majority in accepting this.

What?

Hooooly crap, what a comically idiotic mistake of mine. Tiny minority.

MattyC wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 14:36:
ASeven wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 13:25:
Be with mainstream games, the rest of us will be having fun playing rreal fun games. You know, indies.

And good strawman use by throwing pracy. Notch doesn't care about it, he's become rich nonetheless.

I honestly haven't seen much worth buying from indie developers lately, so not crossing my fingers there. I mean for 'single player Diablo' I could just play Nethack until the end of time. It is honestly a much deeper game anyway. That is probably why I don't mind this so much. Diablo has always been an online series for me. There just isn't much there if you are just going to play it yourself offline.

But either way for all the touting I see here, most pay indie games are generally a huge letdown for me. If I did have to give up studio games I would just as soon go play something free and open source, probably a lot more fun anyway. Obviously there are some gems out there, but they seem quite rare.

Most open source or freeware games, like Tactical Assault or Overdose, are still indie. Being indie doesn't mean you charge money for it. Hell, dwarf fortress devs are indie, the nethack devs are probably the oldest indie devs out there.

Not charging money does not make a dev not indie. Also, indiedb.com, use it to find new games, maybe your opinion on not finding enough good indies may change.

True I guess I worded that poorly. I just meant that a lot of the ones I see for sale look ok, but not worth paying for. A lot of them are just TowerDefenseClone9000 or YouveTotallyPlayed20FlashGamesJustLikeThis.


Thanks for the link though, I'll check it out. I like to support Indie devs whenever I can, I just don't want to get ripped off.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming
90. Re: Quoteworthy - id's Tim Willits on Always-on Gaming Aug 10, 2011, 14:36 MattyC
 
ASeven wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 13:25:
you're in the tiny majority in accepting this.

What?

ASeven wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 13:25:
Be with mainstream games, the rest of us will be having fun playing rreal fun games. You know, indies.

And good strawman use by throwing pracy. Notch doesn't care about it, he's become rich nonetheless.

I honestly haven't seen much worth buying from indie developers lately, so not crossing my fingers there. I mean for 'single player Diablo' I could just play Nethack until the end of time. It is honestly a much deeper game anyway. That is probably why I don't mind this so much. Diablo has always been an online series for me. There just isn't much there if you are just going to play it yourself offline.

But either way for all the touting I see here, most pay indie games are generally a huge letdown for me. If I did have to give up studio games I would just as soon go play something free and open source, probably a lot more fun anyway. Obviously there are some gems out there, but they seem quite rare.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
19. Re: Op Ed Aug 9, 2011, 13:23 MattyC
 
Bhruic wrote on Aug 9, 2011, 11:19:
Indeed, it's what most Steam competitors seemingly don't understand about Steams success.

I'd disagree, I think they just recognize(d) that as the later-comer to the party, people didn't want another "service". Once you're running Steam, who wants to have to run a client for another DD? That's one of the big sticking points with Origin. It's fine to have something like GoG, where you just download the game, and then don't associate with them from that point on, but service based systems are going to have a massive uphill battle. Frankly, a big publisher like EA is about the only company that would have a decent shot at it (although it'd help if they hadn't burned so many PC bridges).

This is how I feel. I just don't want another 'service'. If you want to sell me the game and just have me download it fine, but the last thing I was is to have my games scattered across multiple Steam clones. Steam got there first so that is what I have. Sorry EA, but that is just the way it is.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > StarCraft II: Starter Edition Replaces Demo
33. Re: StarCraft II: Starter Edition Replaces Demo Aug 8, 2011, 13:32 MattyC
 
An update on people watching replays with this - it should work for all replays 1.3.5 and later. If you can't watch one it is likely because it is from an earlier version.

I didn't see any info on if they were planning to fix that or not.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Safety Dance
10. Re: Sunday Safety Dance Aug 8, 2011, 13:21 MattyC
 
nin wrote on Aug 8, 2011, 11:13:
Also, UAC is hardly annoying.

It's extremely annoying, and the first thing that gets disabled on any Windows 7 machine I touch.


Must be a Windows only user thing. If you are used to working on Linux or OS X machines it is pretty normal and is just good security. If the PC is setup properly it really isn't something you should see very often.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sunday Safety Dance
6. Re: Sunday Safety Dance Aug 8, 2011, 09:24 MattyC
 
Maybe I am different because I 1) use Linux and OS X and 2) don't install into Program Files (games go in D:\Games and apps go in C:\Apps) but I just don't get how UAC is 'annoying'. It rarely pops up and it is a basic security feature present in pretty much every other operating system. It just took Windows forever to catch up.


Maybe by 2030 they will have multiple desktops... I am not holding my breath.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > WoW Drops More Subs
86. Re: WoW Drops More Subs Aug 5, 2011, 09:15 MattyC
 
xXBatmanXx wrote on Aug 5, 2011, 08:50:
For all you WoW haters, no WoW is not going to die overnight, or in the next 10 years.

Won't die overnight - but it sure won't last the next 10 years.

EQ is still around so I am sure WoW will be. But yes that falls under your "being around" clause. I just feel the game needs massive changes to draw people like me who have quit back. I am not even sure I know what those are, but atm I feel zero desire to return and I haven't been playing since StarCraft 2 came out.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > StarCraft II: Starter Edition Replaces Demo
24. Re: StarCraft II: Starter Edition Replaces Demo Aug 4, 2011, 15:13 MattyC
 
Creston wrote on Aug 4, 2011, 14:20:
Bhruic wrote on Aug 4, 2011, 13:08:
Plus, what risks? Other than the final map, I never got anywhere near close to disaster on normal difficulty.

The maps were designed to be pretty easy on normal. That's why they had the two higher difficulties.

I played through on Hard, and there definitely were some points I had to restart because I muffed things up, and the timer meant I didn't have time to recover. I don't really enjoy the timed maps, as I said, so that was annoying. But more annoying was the fact that there was no longer a "normal" speed. You had the choice between "fast" and "faster". Awesome. Some of us don't have the control speed we used to. The final Protoss mission I ended up having to replay many frustrating times, just because I couldn't control the units fast enough to avoid losing them when I shouldn't have.

But what you should do is play through the SC1 campaign with SC2. They ported over the Terran and Zerg campaigns so far, not sure if they've finished the Protoss one or not. They're quite enjoyable, and the modern graphics and control systems keep them from feeling dated.

That sounds effing awesome. Where do I go to do that???

Creston


I think you can find both in this TL thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=208996

It is pretty well done though (at least when I played it) the camera glitched out in some of the third person shooter bits.

If you haven't you should really check out some of the SC2 mods and custom games. The SC2 editor is really a neat peace of software and people are already doing awesome things with it. E.g. http://www.starcraftuniverse.org/

This comment was edited on Aug 4, 2011, 15:22.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > WoW Drops More Subs
1. Re: WoW Drops More Subs Aug 4, 2011, 12:24 MattyC
 
Interesting though I am not sure they could net me back at this point. Would require pretty drastic changes that I am not even sure I could name. Interesting to see that I wasn't the only one that burned out on Cata pretty quickly.  
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > StarCraft II: Starter Edition Replaces Demo
21. Re: StarCraft II: Starter Edition Replaces Demo Aug 4, 2011, 11:30 MattyC
 
Creston wrote on Aug 4, 2011, 11:25:
MattyC wrote on Aug 4, 2011, 11:13:
I played the SP for both SC1 and SC2 and I liked both, but I am not sure that much of the praise showered on either was for the single player. I think it was always more the multiplayer aspects of StarCraft (both 1 and 2) that were the big deal.

I'm talking about MY preferences, not those of the gaming audience at large. 20 million people think Call of Duty is the tits too.

That said are you sure you don't have on some rose tinted goggles? I replayed SC1's single player right before 2 came out and I have to say that while the story was kinda meh 2's missions were a lot more varied and fun.

They were? "We're dumping you in area A. You only have x amount of time to go to area B / achieve goal C, because of

- Lava swamping your camp
- a laser drilling down a door
- enemy units taking control over "shrines"
- massive enemy fleet showing up to wipe you out

It's all just a time limit. The large majority of missions are "Land here, quickly build a small base, pump out units like a motherfucker, then charge and take over the next area. Rinse, repeat."

I am also not too sure what you mean 'artificial' timers or that attacking lacks strategy.

See above. Also, because on every map, the enemy is weak enough that literally any combination of units will wipe them out, as long as there's enough of them, and you can get them out before the artificial timer fucks you over. That's not strategy. That's "click fast enough to feed the grinder."

Now remember SC1, where you had maps where the enemy bases were set up to specifically counter a particular type of attack, which you usually didn't find out until you'd sent 50 land units and got wiped out (for example.)


Micro is indeed a part of SC2, but it isn't the crazy mechanical 1.

There's Micro in SC2? Really? Maybe my definition of Micro is different than yours, but to me, having 5 minutes to pump up a random variety of units before you HAVE to be at area X to take over / defend random object M isn't Micro.

Again, to each their own. I'm not saying it was a bad game, it's just that because every map was basically the same, in a style that I personally hate, it was a HUGE disappointment to me.

The APM requirement also isn't that high in SC2. Some pros even have fairly low actions per minute.

I'd say that 100 APM is still really really really frakking fast.

Creston

I guess its largely because we look at it differently. I mostly got it for the MP, whereas I am guessing you got it for the SP. I viewed the campaign more as a bonus than an integral part of the game. I had fun with it.

100 APM isn't that fast compared to say StarCraft 1 where you didn't have automining and had horrid AI pathing and no massive control groups or multiple building select.

As for the micro StarCraft 2 has plenty. Spreading marines out to avoid banelings, blinking damaged stalkers to the back in an engagement to keep overall DPS up, stutterstepping marines, getting surrounds with speedlings etc.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > StarCraft II: Starter Edition Replaces Demo
19. Re: StarCraft II: Starter Edition Replaces Demo Aug 4, 2011, 11:21 MattyC
 
Creston wrote on Aug 4, 2011, 11:17:
Bhruic wrote on Aug 4, 2011, 11:07:
With SC2, they wanted to force players to take risks.

Especially in a campaign with Terrans, who are fucking DESIGNED to be a turtle race.

I always felt Terran was strongest midgame. Using mobility, drop play, and those nasty scary ghosts. If I had to pick a turtle race I would say Protoss. A toss on 3 bases after about 17 minutes of game time is a scary thing.


And don't play it on normal! No wonder you didn't like it! Normal is wayyy too easy for my taste.
 
Avatar 39012
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
626 Comments. 32 pages. Viewing page 18.
< Newer [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo