Cutter wrote on Mar 13, 2013, 14:03:
Hope Yelp and these other racketeers do get the shit sued out of them and they're shut down.

The amount of idiotic criminals never ceases to boggle the mind.

"You go to a Walmart with a printer to return and no receipt, with your counterfeit bills still lodged in it, and you want to dicker with the clerks to get half price back, when you have warrants out for you," Smokowicz said. "There are a few lessons here about not drawing attention to yourself."

Lulz. What a tool.

OpenBand apparently convinced a lot of communities to sign exclusive franchise agreements that ran for between 25 to 75 years. While users in these developments could sign up for other TV or broadband services, they still had to pay the $150 monthly association fee to OpenBand.

Are you effing kidding me? Cereal? Who would move into one of these places?

It isn't just activists that are concerned, either. In 2009, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said the government's use of "Section 215 is unfortunately cloaked in secrecy. Some day that cloak will be lifted, and future generations will ask whether our actions today meet the test of a democratic society." In 2011, two US Senators, Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mark Udall (D-CO), publicly voiced their concerns, too, suggesting the government had a pretty wild interpretation of what it was allowed to do under the PATRIOT Act. "When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry,” Wyden told The New York Times.

Nice to see as always at least the Democrats are concerned with citizens rights. However they're wrong. The American public will, by and large, be as apathetic as always otherwise things like the PATRIOT Act would never occur in the first place.

Darks wrote on Mar 13, 2013, 11:28:
Blizzard has lost its creativity; they are now a company that is all about long development cycles and pretty CGI. Short on story and overpriced.

When was the last time blizzard came up with a new game? A completely different IP that has nothing to do with their Three Prime Evils? That’s right, nothing!

The keep force feeding the masses with updated games that are nothing more than an over lay of new graphics over an old concept.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Sempai wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:03:
Sure wish they'd allow me to move that damned camera out a little..

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.