User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Older >
| News Comments > Super Monday Night Combat Announced (Last Week) |
 |
| 8. |
Re: MNC |
Aug 29, 2011, 23:07 |
007Bistromath |
|
|
descender wrote on Aug 29, 2011, 19:15:
I think that's one of the larger issues people have with the game without realizing it.
You can't just play this game like an FPS. It's very much a MOBA game... and you need to pick your spots and battles accordingly.
If you try to rambo in those games you just get killed and "feed" the other team. just killing bots and hiding from the other pro's is infinitely more effective than just trying to deathmatch your way through a round. That's great in a traditional MOBA, but MNC is different enough from the rest of the genre that they seriously need to modify their approach. What you'd probably call "ramboing" in MNC is decent teamplay in most FPS. The way you control movement and the amount of information you have about your situation in a shooter is simply too far from the RTS paradigm the genre was created in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Super Monday Night Combat Announced (Last Week) |
|
| 4. |
Re: Super Monday Night Combat Announced (Last Week) |
Aug 29, 2011, 17:31 |
007Bistromath |
|
|
descender wrote on Aug 29, 2011, 10:18:
Boring? Nah. MNC is very, very fun. The style was fun. I wanted to like it. Even the tutorial was pretty fun. I blew up a bunch of robots! Woo!
The actual gameplay was a death march. Up to a minute to drag myself up to the front to find anything worth shooting, only to be killed on sight by somebody who already knows the map. Again. And again. And AGAIN. The game was clearly trying to feel like TF2, but instead it was the worst moments of CS and DoD combined. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Origin EULA Amended |
|
| 49. |
Re: Origin EULA Amended |
Aug 28, 2011, 19:07 |
007Bistromath |
|
|
eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 28, 2011, 09:13:
So you just hate on EA because its in I'm pretty sure you're either trolling or shilling at this point. Nobody could accidentally miss the dozens of times people in this thread have made it clear that they're hating on EA because they have had consistently poor policy and leadership for years. It doesn't matter one bit that Valve's EULA is similar, nor is their lack of mastery over the world currency market at all relevant. Valve has proven through their deeds that they are a better company to buy from than EA. The only name in the industry I trust less than EA is Activision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Origin EULA Amended |
|
| 40. |
Re: Origin EULA Amended |
Aug 28, 2011, 08:39 |
007Bistromath |
|
|
0day prices aren't remotely relevant to me. Especially not on Steam, since I know that anything on it will generally wind up with massive cuts if I let it sit for three-four months.
I know I'm not the only one who buys this way, either. Everytime something goes on sale, it usually winds up on the top seller list immediately.
What does being European have to do with anything? They still have a customer service department and it listens. The only two reasons I've ever heard of them suspending accounts is cheating and chargebacks, the latter of which is valid since they have no way to tell the difference between an unauthorized "refund" and outright fraud. They've had false positives for both, but such issues are quickly resolved if the customer puts any effort whatsoever into communicating with Valve. Their intention is clear and just: if you don't do business with them honestly, they will not do business with you at all.
The system does have its flaws. I don't necessarily agree that being a jerk once should cause you to lose the rest of your shit, either. But yes, it definitely is less evil than bundling spyware with your service or taking users' shit for no actual reason, which is what the "pruning" language allows them to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Origin EULA Amended |
|
| 35. |
Re: Origin EULA Amended |
Aug 28, 2011, 00:45 |
007Bistromath |
|
|
eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 27, 2011, 22:35:
You know whats funny, i intended to add a link as edit but for the life of me, i can't find where exactly it was ,)
But heres the quote for you, which for some reason, google won't find
The Origin terms of service are designed to protect against misuse of the Origin system. No Origin user who has paid entitlements and/or downloaded games will have their account cancelled or games expired due to extended non-use. The term regarding account cancellation for non-use is designed to guard against creation of non-active accounts for inappropriate reasons. I don't care what they say they're going to do. If the EULA says they can do that, I don't trust them not to. I wouldn't trust Valve with something like that, and they've always been much better to their customers than EA. They need to unfuck the language in their EULA or I'm not biting.
eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 28, 2011, 00:00:
If people accepted steam they have no logical argument not to accept Origin though The logical argument is that Steam is better and EA is an awful company. If you'd stop playing stone deaf for two seconds, you'd see that we've been saying that the whole time. I don't even need to read Steam's EULA to know that. I've been using it for a long time now and Valve has sufficiently proven during that period that they have no foul intentions.
This comment was edited on Aug 28, 2011, 00:53. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Origin EULA Amended |
|
| 28. |
Re: Origin EULA Amended |
Aug 27, 2011, 22:14 |
007Bistromath |
|
|
| The difference being that with a system for reselling such things, it would be easy to craft schemes where you make money from your dishonesty and make victims of the honest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Origin EULA Amended |
|
| 25. |
Re: Origin EULA Amended |
Aug 27, 2011, 21:43 |
007Bistromath |
|
|
eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 27, 2011, 19:22:
They already did that, and if you really cared, you'd know that 
*hint* google Google only shows me a bunch of links to places reporting the original story. Maybe try being helpful instead of smug? News that important should be here, so at least send it to blue.
zincthallinide wrote on Aug 27, 2011, 20:26:
My only guess is that they feel it could somehow encourage account selling, which is the other thing about Steam (and other similar services), essentially zero resellability. The nature of a digital distribution service is such that the ability to resell sets the distributor up for terrible fraud and theft risks without very careful construction. That's before considering the fact that any seller that doesn't actively work against the second-hand market will have a number of publishers and devs walk on it.
Valve tries as best it can to implement pro-consumer policies. Gifting, and the new trading system, aren't enough, but they represent an effort nobody else has been willing to put forth. I fully expect Origin to take several steps backward with respect to these issues.
Thelemite wrote on Aug 27, 2011, 21:18:
If you guys hadn't swallowed Steam as willingly as you swallow Twinkies, a lot of the stuff you blubber about wouldn't exist. Blame yourselves for lacking both foresight and self-control. I "swallowed" Steam because it does what I want it to do very well when it's not soaked with a huge release, and doesn't impose restrictions or threats that I find onerous. The latter cannot be said of Origin, and unless it proves to be significantly less annoying to use than EADM was, it will not do the former, either.
This comment was edited on Aug 27, 2011, 22:03. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Origin EULA Amended |
|
| 18. |
Re: Origin EULA Amended |
Aug 27, 2011, 19:01 |
007Bistromath |
|
|
| When they remove the bullshit about losing "entitlements" after two years of whatever they decide to define as "inactivity," they stand a chance of being half as good as Steam. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Gabe Newell on EA vs. Steam |
|
| 60. |
Re: Gabe Newell on EA vs. Steam |
Aug 18, 2011, 09:19 |
007Bistromath |
|
|
Verno wrote on Aug 18, 2011, 09:16:
If you're going to do the whole "Gabe is fat LOL" thing at least make it funny  I don't think this board has image tags, so I can't post a picture of him. Sorry. :V
Beamer wrote on Aug 18, 2011, 09:18:
Haven't we been over why digital costs the same as retail about a thousand times on this board since Steam launched back in 04?
Maybe even a hundred thousand times?
But still some of you bring it up. Lightweight. They do this like four times a day on the Steam forums. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Gabe Newell on EA vs. Steam |
|
| 57. |
Re: Gabe Newell on EA vs. Steam |
Aug 18, 2011, 09:10 |
007Bistromath |
|
|
I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I like Steam, and I don't like Origin, and I am so annoyed about this nonsense that I'm probably going to miss BF3, which I was really excited about. Depending on how much they screw with Bioware's existing systems, (which are already pretty annoying) I may even miss ME3, which I have been hungry for.
On the other hand, everytime Gabe Newell talks these days, he sounds more like he's trying to inherit Steve Jobs' reality distortion field. Take this advice from another heavy guy: it's not going to work, Gabe. You're too fat.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Modern Warfare 3 To Feature Dedicated Server Support |
|
| 2. |
Re: Modern Warfare 3 To Feature Dedicated Server Support |
Aug 17, 2011, 12:02 |
007Bistromath |
|
|
That's great and all, but uh... Too late. I don't even play BlOps anymore. Haven't for quite a while, never bothered buying the expansions. I even liked BlOps, I'm just... done with it. Don't want more of the same, which is what CoD by any name will always be.
Maybe this surprise pro-consumer move will spur EA to unscrew themselves about what they're doing with BF3? That'd be good news. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Diablo III Will Require Persistent Connection, Feature Cash Auctions, and More |
|
| 22. |
Re: Diablo III Will Require Persistent Connection, Feature Cash Auctions, and More |
Aug 1, 2011, 12:03 |
007Bistromath |
|
|
Cutter wrote on Aug 1, 2011, 11:52:
There is ZERO need to be constantly connected. This is just another Acti-Bliz ploy to blahblahblah With any other game, you'd have a point, but with Diablo II, it was more like "there is ZERO reason to make an offline character." Same deal here, only you don't have the option of doing something that had no purpose to begin with. Nothing to complain about.
Now, with Diablo II, there were alot of people who played offline or on private online systems so they could screw around with the mechanics of the game. It will be alot harder to do that with D3, but ultimately, somebody's going to figure out how to circumvent the lockdown pretty fast, and people will be able to do what they've always done.
Blizzard has done some stupid things since Activision bought them, but I wouldn't count this as part of that. They're just taking how things worked in Diablo II and making it more robust. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
145 Comments. 8 pages. Viewing page 5.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Older > |
|
Twitter 
