User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Older >
| News Comments > Would Pirates Have Bought Crysis? |
 |
| 15. |
No subject |
Aug 28, 2008, 07:54 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
Stop deluding yourselves. You can't seriously pretend that they wouldn't have sold a lot more if you couldn't get the game on the net. I don't care if it's shit or not, lots of people buy shitty PC and console games.
Nevertheless I don't think piracy is the PC's worst problem. It's more like this:
1) The majority of PCs ships with Intels crappy on-board chips that are 2 gens behind even a $20 card.
2) Buggy, unplayable releases.
3) the "doesn't work syndrome". I just bought a new PC, I installed all 14gig of Medieval 2 and it just doesn't work. Perhaps it doesn't like my hardware, or my drivers or the fact that it's sunny outside. There's no useful error message, it just doesn't work. (if you're wondering the difference to #2 is that #2 is the game developer's fault. This is MS+Nvidia+whoever wrote the rest of my drivers fault. Mainly MS because it's their platform but they have no real interest in making the PC viable again...)
4) ????
5) Profit. The lack thereof. Due to piracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Crysis on the Cheap |
|
| 72. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 19, 2008, 18:29 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
Thats right, go ahead, compare Apples (Crysis) to Oranges (Anno) if it makes you feel better. Fact is, you can't - at least not with a straight face - compare a game in a popular genre and with MUCH less system requirements, to the likes of Crysis. Gimme a break.
You're memory's faulty, might wanna check it. *You* said:
Highly unlikely. The European sales numbers for games - ALL GAMES - is much MUCH less. Even when tallied collectively.
The last time I checked Anno was a game. Therefore that's crap. QED.
So even if every single German gamer bought Crysis - which they obviously didn't - there is no way in hell the game sold 500K copies outside North America.
It's even more crap, because Anno proves the opposite with Germany alone instead of all of the rest of the world combined.
Now you resort to the time honored tradition of moving the goalposts but the fact remains:
Your blanket statement was wrong and you have no evidence whatsoever that your point is in any way valid. In fact the publisher and the developer of the game say the opposite.
So unless you come up with a prove of some kind. You. Are. Talking. Out. Of. Your. Ass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Tyranids in Dawn of War II |
|
| 20. |
Re: yay! |
Aug 19, 2008, 17:48 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
Dawn of War II is a bright light in the darkness of modern PC gaming.
Ah, come on, there's also Empire: Total War and Starcraft II and Diablo III. And probably a bunch of other stuff I forgot because I'm a strategy nerd 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Crysis on the Cheap |
|
| 66. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 19, 2008, 17:38 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
I am? OK good. Now prove it. I'll be waiting, m'kay?
Anno 1602 sold 650000 units in Germany alone before the first price drop. Considering that the PC is much stronger than consoles in most of Europe (with the exception of the 51st state) *you* would have to prove that your "there's no way that game sold 500000 units outside the US" is not just you talking out of your ass but in some way an informed and reasonably likely opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Crysis on the Cheap |
|
| 46. |
No subject |
Aug 19, 2008, 14:50 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
Highly unlikely. The European sales numbers for games - ALL GAMES - is much MUCH less. Even when tallied collectively. So even if every single German gamer bought Crysis - which they obviously didn't - there is no way in hell the game sold 500K copies outside North America. Thats just crazy talk. Especially to those of us who know how the numbers usually work and pan out.
What a bunch of crap. You are completely and utterly talking out of your ass.
You'd think a games developer wouldn't be so ill-informed...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Gatherings & Competitions |
|
| 1. |
No Microsoft conference at Leipzig. |
Aug 14, 2008, 13:00 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
Well, after Sony's PVR and reports that Nintendo ships its Wiis to Europe instead of the US it's reassuring to know that at least one video game corp is still committed to the industry's traditional "Screw Europe" policy.
Edit: Oops sorry, I hadn't read the article because of a server hiccup =)
This comment was edited on Aug 14, 13:02. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Bad Time at Spacetime |
|
| 15. |
Re: ...the space combat genre is d0med |
Aug 6, 2008, 14:36 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
But seeing how they took a bath on Auto Assault and Tabula Rasa - both non-traditional (i.e. no orcs, elves) sci-fi projects,
The more I read about TR the more it sounded like WoW in Space.
The problem is that space combat games are a very niche genre and doing an MMOG based on that genre - in this industry climate - is suicidal. At best.
I remember quite a few underwhelmed and sceptical previews for Starcraft (ugly, strange, in space, should have made Warcraft III instead) and Diablo (hack&slash is dead, dumb, not a "Real RPG"(TM)).
The biggest issue here is that while a small company like CCP can get away with their niche title and relatively
mmogcharts says eve is in the top 10 of mmorpgs. Considering the number that've been developed and tanked in the meantime I'd say that's pretty impressive for a game that plays like Excel in Space.
small install base,
200000 subscriptions is quite big
lower dev costs (they're in Iceland)
Iceland's the 5th richest country in the world.
...snip...
The rest of your post boils down to: "crappy developers and crappy publishers produce crap" (+5, insightful)
and: "if you can cut out the brainless monkeys that populate the upper management of big publishers you're better off"
I stand by my original post. If Blizzard would do a SciFi MMORPG it would be successful, too, because Blizzard produces great games not because their games have the setting du jour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Bad Time at Spacetime |
|
| 1. |
O Rly? |
Aug 6, 2008, 06:48 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
They'd have more luck if their SciFi RPG had elves and orks, their ships were the shape of mounts, their lasers were like swords and space looked like a fantasy setting almost indistinguishable from WoW for the casual player.
SciFi is niche and Eve is as successful as it gets and no publisher will touch it with a 10ft stick because you can't make a successful SciFi MMORPG.
Then at some point in the far future Blizzard will release Galaxy of Starcraft, it will be a smash hit and everyone and his dog will develop SciFi MMORPGs. Some small but excellent developer called Magictime Studios will lay off half their staff when they're unable to get a publishing deal because it's impossible to make a successful fantasy MMORPG.
(btw. no idea whether these guys are the best of the best or the bottom of the barrel but I don't think it matters anyhow. A retarded guy with a keyboard could get a publishing deal for a MMORPG as long as its WoWicity is high enough)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > It Came from E3 2008, Part 16 |
|
| 3. |
DoWII |
Jul 22, 2008, 14:45 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
I believe in Relic.
DoW2 sounds like a worthy successor of Ground Control. Both GCII and World in Conflict were pretty crappy and ruined what made GC1 great (tactics focussed with a limited number of squads and no resources).
And Relic proved with Homeworld 1+2 that they are top notch when it comes to heavily scripted missions.
jm2c
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Dawn of War II Free GFW Support |
|
| 27. |
GFW |
Jul 18, 2008, 17:38 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
The point of Games for Windows isn't to promote Games for Windows, it's to *kill* Games for Windows. By launching a major branding push Microsoft successfully prevents other initiatives (because it would be stupid to have a bunch of competing PC game standards) while its utter lack of anything useful besides shiny boxes makes it useless.
Worse, in fact, the whole DX10 fiasco leads to ridiculous stuff, like a friend of mine being told by a Sierra marketing idiot that World in Conflict is Vista-only.
The Xbox360 has the most PC-like games of all consoles. If MS manages to kill off PC gaming for good, the majority of gamers will migrate to the 360 where every game sold means cash for MS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Consolidation |
|
| 9. |
No subject |
May 20, 2008, 13:42 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
A 4.5 means the developer didn't pay IGN enough. 
In IGN ratings a 90+ means great, 75+ ok, 60+ bad, 50+ abyssmal and less that they didn't even try.
Note that I don't contest that Haze is crap. I haven't played it, I don't plan to change that and I'm ready to believe the others here that it's a crap game. But that never stopped IGN from dishing out 92s. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > World in Conflict New Content Details |
|
| 14. |
Re: No subject |
Mar 27, 2008, 16:35 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
Now for something (almost) completely different: since you liked Nexus, have you tried Sins of a Solar Empire yet?
Not enough time atm, unfortunately, but it's on my to-do list.
But I don't think the two are all that similar apart from both having spaceships. 
In Nexus you just controlled a few ships and it was more a ship simulator than a strategy game. Also the gameplay in Nexus sucked big time. But I loved the graphics, the feel and the storyline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > World in Conflict New Content Details |
|
| 11. |
Re: No subject |
Mar 27, 2008, 14:34 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
Sorry, if that reply was overly harsh. I didn't mean it that way. It's just that thinking of that whole incident makes me wanna shoot some marketing reps.
Of course you're opinion on whether you're controlling enough units in WiC is as valid as mine, it's just my main gripe with WiC and the reason I didn't buy it.
Nevertheless I don't hate or even dislike the game. I just wanted to like it and it does nothing for me.
Which is Massive's loss. I alternately loved and hated Nexus:The Jupiter Incident with a passion and they got my money
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > World in Conflict New Content Details |
|
| 10. |
Re: No subject |
Mar 27, 2008, 14:29 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
I may have misunderstood your comment, but World in Conflict is not Vista-only. I should know, I play it in XP.
Yes, and you'd think someone working at marketing for the fscking publisher of that game should be aware of that, don't you?
and the small number of units, along with no base building/management, are the main reasons why I like it so much. To each his/her own, I guess.
I like the no base building and small numbers of units but WiC's numbers aren't small, they're tiny. Unless there's lots of infantry you'll see less units in WiC battles than in some squad based fps...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > World in Conflict New Content Details |
|
| 8. |
No subject |
Mar 27, 2008, 13:58 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
Sierra's and Microsofts marketing departments should be shot.
A friend of mine always gets free games from someone who works at Sierra marketing. So he asked that guy for World in Conflict and was told that it was Vista only and he should try another game instead.
How incompetent are those Sierra guys? I by now accept that MS wants the PC to die as a gaming platform. So if MS is just stupid instead of malicious they just got away with it.
But I can't think of a reason why Sierra'd want that game to fail so there's no excuse for them.
About the game itself. Well, I loved Ground Control more than any other game and Ground Control II was a bitter disappointement so I was hopeful when they said WiC would be more like GCI.
Unfortunately, I played both the multiplayer beta and the demo and you just got not enough units. It feels more like Diablo than like an RTS. Your average army in GCI was about 12 tanks (in 4 units. There where fixed units) and equal numbers of artillery and a bunch of infantry with air defense and perhaps air units thrown in for good measure.
In WiC, at least in the multiplayer games I played, a major army consists of 4 tanks and 2 support vehicles.
Even worse, in multiplayer teamwork is so important that it trumps *everything* else. It hardly matters if you attack the opponents tanks with your tanks from the front or the back and in which formation. Your tanks need an eternity to wipe out the enemy. All the while helicopters kill tanks instantly.
Similar problem for the other roles. The paper rock scissors between the roles is just so strong that anything besides staying with the right guy on your team doesn't matter. Perhaps it's different for competitive play at the highest level where both sides are equally good at teamwork. But it ruins casual games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Sins of a Solar Empire Beta Plans |
|
| 8. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 19, 2007, 08:13 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
4X RTS seems like a wonky situation .. warcraft and such was hectic enuf.. multiply that x100 .. ??
All the Paradox stuff, Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, etc is realtime, too. Or Commandos, Joint Task Force, World in Conflict. All play completely different from your standard C&C clone.
Don't reduce RTS to Warcraft just because that's all you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Ghost Recon Free, Too |
|
| 3. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 3, 2007, 13:12 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
But in that case they could allow everyone to play these games and just switch out the ad rotation for non-US ppl later on.
It could be because of distribution agreements for some other countries, so Ubisoft can't make it available for everyone. So they follow the letter but not the spirit of the agreements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Labor Day Safety Dance |
|
| 1. |
No subject |
Sep 3, 2007, 13:07 |
nutshell42 |
|
|
Don't call it a rootkit.
Wikipedia defines it this way:
'''
A rootkit is a general description of a set of programs which work to subvert control of an operating system from its legitimate operators. Usually, a rootkit will obscure its installation and attempt to prevent its removal through a subversion of standard system security.
'''
All of it fits for Sony's drm fsck-up but not for this. It's an openly installed prog that can be uninstalled from "Add or Remove Programs" and the hidden directory only contains the keys. Norton and Kaspersky do (did?) something similar and malware that has admin access (which it'd need to write into this hidden directory, I assume) can too.
Now some people define rootkit a lot more loosely but I think that's stupid. If this is a rootkit there's no distinction to Sony's other rootkit that was pure evil.
Or, in the words of the IRC:
<bldude> Yeah, but Hitler was a Nazi
<rmty> grammar or sp nazi?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
202 Comments. 11 pages. Viewing page 10.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Older > |
|
Twitter 
