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 RollinThundr

Real Name RollinThundr   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description Banned
Homepage None given.
Signed On May 5, 2009, 08:31
Total Comments 2460 (Senior)
User ID 54946
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 ] Older >


News Comments > More on Offline SimCity
58. removed Mar 13, 2013, 11:50 RollinThundr
 
* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Mar 13, 2013, 13:04.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on Offline SimCity
49. Re: More on Offline SimCity Mar 13, 2013, 10:33 RollinThundr
 
wtf_man wrote on Mar 13, 2013, 09:09:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 13, 2013, 08:56:
That's not hurt feelings, it's disgust at how whiny half the people here are.

Let me put it this way...

I didn't buy Sim City, but I am outraged because I wanted to buy a new Sim City.

I didn't buy several UBI games when they had always online DRM, and was outraged, because I wanted to buy Driver San Francisco, and a couple of others. (Now I can, since they reveresed it with just one time activation with UPlay)

I didn't buy Diablo III, and actually had no interest, but I'm still outraged about the always online DRM and Pay to Win Auction House. Why? Because it sets precedence... which is why EA tried this crap with Sim City.

And yes, I'm really irritated with everyone that bought these games and supported always-online-DRM. They are the reason these publishers keep trying this shit.

Eh if it isn't online DRM they'll try something else. At this point in life I have more important things to rant about than how evil EA is. Really it should be how evil their CEO is.

I think a lot of people forget back in the Trip Hawkins days, EA was a completely different company, they valued the people working on their games, it's where they got their name from.

That being said I get what you're saying WTF, and I can't say I disagree, to me it just gets tiring to see the same couple posters, essentially say the same exact thing 50 times in the same thread. Like really? You have nothing better to do than whine and complain about a company who's titles you're not buying anyway, yet feel the need to repeat yourself 30 times on the same thread.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on Offline SimCity
40. Re: More on Offline SimCity Mar 13, 2013, 08:56 RollinThundr
 
Kajetan wrote on Mar 13, 2013, 08:43:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 13, 2013, 08:19:
...
And EVERYTIME you chip in to blabber about your hurt feelings.

That's not hurt feelings, it's disgust at how whiny half the people here are.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on Offline SimCity
35. Re: More on Offline SimCity Mar 13, 2013, 08:19 RollinThundr
 
Creston wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 22:37:
In other words: EA is full of shit, as usual. This is about DRM and about preventing mods so they can DLC it out the ass. This comes in addition to reports from EA's forum that the engine is just plain broken and just goes into full "what the fuck ever" mode once you reach a certain number of people. I hope the whole fucking thing burns around them and their shit-ass company.

Bye Maxis. You can join the corpses of Origin, Westwood, Bullfrog and all the other once great developers who were fucking murdered by EA. Once upon it time, it was nice playing your games. Not anymore.

Creston

Instead you'll make 50 post per EA thread bitching because that's oh so more productive than swearing off EA titles. I get the outrage with SimCity, terrible design choices and crippling DRM. If I had bought the game I'd be pretty livid myself. You Creston take the cake though, I've never seen someone waste so much time and energy on something they clearly hate.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
61. Re: Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Mar 12, 2013, 18:20 RollinThundr
 
edaciousx wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 18:08:
You guys are pretty amazing. QQing that you get owned within 10 minutes of the game... I was ranked high in SC2 and if the game is not good at high level of play then it's even worse at lower level of play. Look at company of heroes 1, the allied forces get creamed all the time when going up against the germans. If you want to play an unbalanced game play COH. Awesome awesome game but insanely unbalanced. At high levels of play the balancing becomes an even greater issue, that's why blizzard focuses so much on the high level players.

Then explain why it takes them so long to ship a product along the lines of "balance time" then generally completely change the balance of units every patch there after.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
58. Re: Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Mar 12, 2013, 17:55 RollinThundr
 
Darks wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 16:33:
AngelicPenguin wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 15:15:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 15:09:
AngelicPenguin wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 15:05:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:31:
Fati wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:24:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 13:20:
There's a difference between sending a scout or 2, and sending 15 starter troops all aimed directly at your resource gatherers. Sure sometimes I micro quick enough to counter it, but every game is just about the same unless playing with friends. It's the mentality of SC players apparently that every game needs to hurry up and end. At least that's been my experience with SC2.
I don't think RTS is for you. You need to learn how to defend early pressure. Once you realize that the players who pressure early put themselves at a significant economic disadvantage, you'll see that all you need to do is successfully defend, counter-attack and it's gg.

Right, but what if I want to enjoy the game I paid for? What if I'd like to go up the tech tree and not have the game end in 10 minutes? I can do this just fine in every other RTS that is MP. Blizzard titles? Hell you're lucky if you don't have shit in your base 2 and a half minutes in.

I always thought the same thing about the NBA. I want my team to play methodical defense and push the shot clock to the limit, so I think they should ban fast breaks and teams that like to run.

Who said anything about banning playstyles? holy strawman batman.

How can I strawman talking about myself? Nothing fast should happen in the NBA darn it!

edit: I'm just messing with you, but it does sound like competitive RTS isn't really your thing. Most RTS games have some sort of early game rush - in fact I can't think of a single one that didn't.

This is the main problem I have with this game. Blizzard purposely designed this game so matches only last 20 mins. They purposely give you limited resources and force you to expand. They also made defense practically useless. Most of the time when being rushed, your defense fall faster than units. Most defenses felt like they were made of paper. They get ripped through so fast.

This is what turned me off about SC and why I will never go back to it.

Blizzards track record recently is 0 - 2

Thanks Dark, that's pretty much my point. Even if you're half way decent at micro managing, half the time it doesn't matter because 2 mins in you have 60 zerglings tearing you a new asshole. Some people may call that fun. Me I just find it fucking tedious.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
43. Re: Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Mar 12, 2013, 15:09 RollinThundr
 
AngelicPenguin wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 15:05:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:31:
Fati wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:24:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 13:20:
There's a difference between sending a scout or 2, and sending 15 starter troops all aimed directly at your resource gatherers. Sure sometimes I micro quick enough to counter it, but every game is just about the same unless playing with friends. It's the mentality of SC players apparently that every game needs to hurry up and end. At least that's been my experience with SC2.
I don't think RTS is for you. You need to learn how to defend early pressure. Once you realize that the players who pressure early put themselves at a significant economic disadvantage, you'll see that all you need to do is successfully defend, counter-attack and it's gg.

Right, but what if I want to enjoy the game I paid for? What if I'd like to go up the tech tree and not have the game end in 10 minutes? I can do this just fine in every other RTS that is MP. Blizzard titles? Hell you're lucky if you don't have shit in your base 2 and a half minutes in.

I always thought the same thing about the NBA. I want my team to play methodical defense and push the shot clock to the limit, so I think they should ban fast breaks and teams that like to run.

Who said anything about banning playstyles? holy strawman batman.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Consolidation
3. Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 12, 2013, 15:01 RollinThundr
 
xXBatmanXx wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 09:55:
Controversial God of War: Ascension trophy altered in upcoming patch.

Rated M game, where you decapitate people, gods, etc., and they fold to "Bros before Hos".

LAME!

This is what's known as caving into the PC crowd because a particular word might offend them.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
39. Re: Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Mar 12, 2013, 14:58 RollinThundr
 
Silicon Avatar wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:41:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:31:
Fati wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:24:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 13:20:
There's a difference between sending a scout or 2, and sending 15 starter troops all aimed directly at your resource gatherers. Sure sometimes I micro quick enough to counter it, but every game is just about the same unless playing with friends. It's the mentality of SC players apparently that every game needs to hurry up and end. At least that's been my experience with SC2.
I don't think RTS is for you. You need to learn how to defend early pressure. Once you realize that the players who pressure early put themselves at a significant economic disadvantage, you'll see that all you need to do is successfully defend, counter-attack and it's gg.

Right, but what if I want to enjoy the game I paid for? What if I'd like to go up the tech tree and not have the game end in 10 minutes? I can do this just fine in every other RTS that is MP. Blizzard titles? Hell you're lucky if you don't have shit in your base 2 and a half minutes in.

You'll have to play with friends and agree not to rush.

That's the case with a lot of RTS though.

You can go to Youtube and memorize a few build lists that help vs. most people, but at that point you might as well be an AI since you're just following a script anyhow. That's how a lot of people play though.

To me that gets boring, so I probably won't bother with the expansion.


Which is why I always preferred hard comp stomps with friends over vs. in Blizzard RTS titles. The whole rush rush rush mentality is so completely opposite how I enjoy strategy games.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
38. Re: Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Mar 12, 2013, 14:52 RollinThundr
 
Flatline wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:40:
So how many days do you think it'll be before Blizzard patches the game for balance reasons to the point that they entirely undo the "balancing" that they've been doing for the last 2 years?

I never understood that with Starcraft. Yeah we'll sit on the f*cking game for 2+ years "polishing" it and "balancing" it, and in the first month we'll get more real-world feedback on balance than in our entire development cycle, rendering that 2 year wait pointless.

I wonder if it's just meant to build up hype, or if the devs really don't give a shit about shipping product in a timely manner.

It's a little of both. Though it does a better job of showing the severe lack of project management that permeates throughout Blizzard on the whole.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
34. Re: Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Mar 12, 2013, 14:31 RollinThundr
 
Fati wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:24:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 13:20:
There's a difference between sending a scout or 2, and sending 15 starter troops all aimed directly at your resource gatherers. Sure sometimes I micro quick enough to counter it, but every game is just about the same unless playing with friends. It's the mentality of SC players apparently that every game needs to hurry up and end. At least that's been my experience with SC2.
I don't think RTS is for you. You need to learn how to defend early pressure. Once you realize that the players who pressure early put themselves at a significant economic disadvantage, you'll see that all you need to do is successfully defend, counter-attack and it's gg.

Right, but what if I want to enjoy the game I paid for? What if I'd like to go up the tech tree and not have the game end in 10 minutes? I can do this just fine in every other RTS that is MP. Blizzard titles? Hell you're lucky if you don't have shit in your base 2 and a half minutes in.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
27. Re: Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Mar 12, 2013, 13:20 RollinThundr
 
MattyC wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 13:06:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 12:42:
No I have, and every mp game boils down to who can base rush quickest. Hardly what I would call fun for a strategy game.

Most people are going to give you a poke pretty early but calling that 'base rush' is silly. They are just just getting a look at what you are doing and making sure you aren't getting away with risky play. If they can break you there, sure, they will, but there is no reason the game can't continue to a long macro game.

Most of my games are around 30-40 'Blizzard minutes' (they really need to change that - terrible idea). What level were you playing at?

There's a difference between sending a scout or 2, and sending 15 starter troops all aimed directly at your resource gatherers. Sure sometimes I micro quick enough to counter it, but every game is just about the same unless playing with friends. It's the mentality of SC players apparently that every game needs to hurry up and end. At least that's been my experience with SC2.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
22. Re: Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Mar 12, 2013, 12:42 RollinThundr
 
MattyC wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 12:30:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 12:13:
m00t wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:54:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:20:
Sempai wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:03:
Sure wish they'd allow me to move that damned camera out a little..

Adjustable camera in an RTS? That's so 2004 on! How dare you expect Blizzard to innovate rather than rehash the same 10 year+ old starcraft with a new subtag line? Heresy!

Or pulling the camera out in multiplayer gives you a huge advantage, but hey why let balance get in the way of your bashing.

lol balance in a blizzard RTS where 99.9% of the games played are over in under 10 minutes. Balance is the last thing I'd worry about in their RTS'es.

Based on your comments I am pretty sure you never actually played SC2.

No I have, and every mp game boils down to who can base rush quickest. Hardly what I would call fun for a strategy game.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
19. Re: Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Mar 12, 2013, 12:13 RollinThundr
 
m00t wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:54:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:20:
Sempai wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:03:
Sure wish they'd allow me to move that damned camera out a little..

Adjustable camera in an RTS? That's so 2004 on! How dare you expect Blizzard to innovate rather than rehash the same 10 year+ old starcraft with a new subtag line? Heresy!

Or pulling the camera out in multiplayer gives you a huge advantage, but hey why let balance get in the way of your bashing.

lol balance in a blizzard RTS where 99.9% of the games played are over in under 10 minutes. Balance is the last thing I'd worry about in their RTS'es.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
14. Re: Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Mar 12, 2013, 11:20 RollinThundr
 
Sempai wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:03:
Sure wish they'd allow me to move that damned camera out a little..

Adjustable camera in an RTS? That's so 2004 on! How dare you expect Blizzard to innovate rather than rehash the same 10 year+ old starcraft with a new subtag line? Heresy!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
8. Re: Ships Ahoy - StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Mar 12, 2013, 10:49 RollinThundr
 
Verno wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 10:48:
Creston wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 10:39:
Quick! RUSH to give Blizzard more of your money!

I feel like I had my fill of Starcraft with the sequel. It was alright, nothing special, I had fun for parts of the campaign and some ok times with the custom maps. I just don't feel like I need to go back any time soon, I'm not into the crazy meta game and spectator aspects of multiplayer.

I picked up Tomb Raider so I think I will give that a go instead while I finish up Ni No Kuni. Maybe I will grab this down the line when it's cheaper, I guess we'll see. At least it has an offline mode of sorts.

Good choice with Tomb Raider, it is a pretty excellent game imo.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > SimCity: Now With 92% Less Crashing; Maxis Walks Back from Offline Comment
104. Re: SimCity: Now With 92% Less Crashing; Maxis Walks Back from Offline Comment Mar 12, 2013, 08:38 RollinThundr
 
Creston wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 23:12:
ASeven wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 19:31:
RPS really nails this.

"What EA and Maxis have done with SimCity is attempt a year-long PR assault to suggest that the online-only nature of SimCity is designed to offer enhancements for gamers. This is simply not true. Itís utter rubbish. Itís a backward step for a format that seemed to be managing for years to offer single player and multiplayer options for games without the universe cracking in two. The idea that multiplayer-only is an enhancement is such an obvious piece of newspeak, such a ridiculous untruth, that we can only loudly and furiously react against it if weíre to not see it incredulously accepted as fact. I do worry itís maybe already too late."

"To see anyone defending EA and Maxis for the state of SimCity, even were it in perfect working order on launch, depresses me to my core. This self-flagellation-as-skincare notion, where gamers loudly and proudly defend the destruction of their own rights as consumers, is an Orwellian perversity."

This last paragraph reminds me too much of some people here.

RPS are being giant, giant hypocrites here, though. They were sucking the Diablo3 cock just as hard as everyone else, then after it was a terrible failure at launch as well, they wrote an article in which they said something to the effect of "Well, it doesn't matter that we were all weak-willed assholes and swallowed Blizzard's DRM whole. We just need to stand really strong against the NEXT always-on DRM game that comes out! Protect our rights!"

Kind of hard to take that stance when you willingly bent over for Blizzard. Like I said back then, every publisher in the industry saw that, no matter how hard PC gamers complain, they will happily take whatever a publisher foists on them if the game is cool enough.

So yeah, great way to take a stance now, RPS. Too bad you're about 7 months late.

Creston

It's one thing to be mad at EA for dropping the ball and forcing online DRM needlessly with SimCity. Heck I'm mad and had zero interest in the game to begin with. It's another thing to hate a publisher just because they're said publisher.

I hate a lot of things EA has done, I'd love to play another Origin made Wing Commander, or a Bullfrog made Dungeon Keeper. Though at the end of the day I love the hockey game they put out. I like some of their shooters. I'm not going to not play games just because a publisher's name is on the box if there's something there I'd enjoy.

I just don't share the PC's Master Race's hate of all things EA.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > SimCity: Now With 92% Less Crashing; Maxis Walks Back from Offline Comment
76. Re: SimCity: Now With 92% Less Crashing; Maxis Walks Back from Offline Comment Mar 11, 2013, 16:16 RollinThundr
 
NegaDeath wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 14:28:
I can see why they wouldn't want to invest in an offline single player, it would probably take a sizable amount of time to move the server functions to the client and then bugtest it.

But you know what? Square botched FFXIV and are rebuilding it, Kerberos released Sword of the Stars 2 well before it was even finished and spent the next year patching it (the success of both measures is course debatable). EA has the resources to fix this, no excuses.

Agreed, and considering this game had zero need to have always on DRM in the first place, they have even less a reason to not make it function offline.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > SimCity: Now With 92% Less Crashing; Maxis Walks Back from Offline Comment
72. Re: SimCity: Now With 92% Less Crashing; Maxis Walks Back from Offline Comment Mar 11, 2013, 15:22 RollinThundr
 
lol another hate filled EA thread where half of the posts are from Creston. That obsession of yours isn't healthy man. Might want to get help for that.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA Will "Look Into" Offline SimCity; New Patch Released
57. Re: Im not buy SimCity Online Mar 11, 2013, 08:33 RollinThundr
 
Tim Collins wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 07:23:
d3 was fail because of this, this game is a fail because of this. Watch the dlc flood in lol......

D3 was fail due to terrible itemization and the AH. Though the always on certainly doesn't help. You would think that these publishers would start getting the idea that no one wants forced always on for single player titles.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2460 Comments. 123 pages. Viewing page 53.
< Newer [ 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo