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.

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. It’s utter rubbish. It’s 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 we’re to not see it incredulously accepted as fact. I do worry it’s 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

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.

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......

Redmask wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 23:45:
It'll probably be from a list of $5 EA games. I'd like to be less cynical but this is the company that said they would give refunds then did exactly the opposite. You can't trust them with anything anymore after this disaster.

Cutter wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 22:43:

Flatline wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 19:28:

Cutter wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 16:42:

Jerykk wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 15:31:

Cutter wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 13:12:
Environmental art isn't bad but could be grittier. Character art is horrenedous. What is this? A kids cartoon? Too much combat focus. Dialogue looks poor so far. Standard Bioware G/N/E responses. So yeah, at this point I'm really beginning to regret my investment.

You'll be hard-pressed to find any RPG that doesn't have a combat focus. Even PST has a lot of mandatory combat. That said, if you listened to the narration, you would have realized that there are non-combat opportunities in the demo. The street thug fight could have been avoided if the player had enough charisma and the interior fight could have likely been avoided if the player had a disguise.

It would be boring without combat but it's another thing when that's the main focus. And the dialogue seems to be very Bioware...so far. Limited G/N/E, one or two sentence conversations because god forbid anyone should have to read some real dialogue. So far I'm not impressed. The saving grace *may* be the editor. However, that all depends on how difficult it is to use and the amount of assets involved.

Wow. You're seriously judging an entire game based off of a 20 minute alpha clip of a side mission. Why aren't you playing the stock market with that kind of predictive skill?

Tell ya what. If you don't like the dialogue in the mission... write your own fucking mission. That's what the mission editor will be for. The damn thing is drag & drop. You can finally show us how the game *should* be.

Clearly you didn't watch the same clip I did. Nor have you obviously ever played a real (C)RPG.

Creston wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 12:14:

Redmask wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 22:54:
SimCity 1.3 Patchnotes:

- Added "Skip Tutorial" button.
- Removed Llama Speed. Llama Speed and Cheetah Speed now move at Turtle Speed.
- Disabled High Density Streets/High Density Streetcar Avenues.
- Large regions (>12 city zones) reduced to 4 city zones.
- Removed skyscrapers. Height is too taxing on servers.
- Removed positive Simoleon gain. Earning money is too taxing on servers.




Obviously not real. They could be real tomorrow at this rate.

The funny thing is, I didn't realize you were joking until I came to the skyscrapers line...

Creston

Verno wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 08:42:

Redmask wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 07:10:

Julio wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 06:49:
Add the features back in as microtransactions!

There will be a Big City Moving On Up expansion, just watch. They already admitted they kept bigger cities sizes held back as a feature.

Wait, they they're actually holding back city sizes on purpose? How is that not the headline? The more I hear about this game, the more it sounds like one big facepalm after another.

Edit: Read that interview link, that's ridiculous, almost every PC sold in the past three to five years is a dual core with 2GB of ram minimum. My fathers laptop could beat the piss out of that game.

Tomas wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 23:11:
So glad I didn't buy this game.

Creston wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 18:06:

Ghola wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 16:44:
I have yet to get past the no servers available screen which is right after I connect to a server. With D3, I was able to play some of the time within the first week. At this rate, I will be lucky to play SimCity before the EA turns the servers off and the game goes dark.

Well, I hate to be that guy, but ya know, ya kinda coulda seen this comin'...

Creston

Cutter wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 17:45:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 16:56:

Cutter wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 15:29:
Oh please, EA touting how progressive they are about this is entirely negated by the fact of what giant assholes they are all around. It's like Unilever trying to take credit for their Dove "natural beauty" campaign when they're the same assholes that produce and market AXE where women are treated as nothing more than dumb sluts to be used. It's marketing and nothing more.

Stay classy Cutter.

Shouldn't you be at a Brown Shirt rally somewhere?

Cutter wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 15:29:
Oh please, EA touting how progressive they are about this is entirely negated by the fact of what giant assholes they are all around. It's like Unilever trying to take credit for their Dove "natural beauty" campaign when they're the same assholes that produce and market AXE where women are treated as nothing more than dumb sluts to be used. It's marketing and nothing more.

Jivaro wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 15:58:
Love the game. Have a 6xx series Nvidia card on Ultra and the only issue I am having is that her hair keeps changing color from brown to black. Not flickering, but for extended periods of time, usually in odd lighting with a lot of shadows. No crashes at all. Of course, now that I have bragged....I will now go turn the game on and have it promptly blow up my computer.

As for the QTEs...I think you have to be bothered by the very existence of QTEs to be bothered by them in this game. They are incredibly simple and get further and further apart as you progress through the game. I am only 52% through the game (according to the save game) and I have been averaging only like 1 an hour for the last 8 hours of game time. The first couple hours of the game though it seemed like their were quite a few. I don't know if there really were or if it was just that they stood out more because I hadn't quite gotten a grip on the QTE system and thus had to redo the first couple of them a few times each.

The knock on the size of the tombs is something I would agree with generally speaking but I have been looking at it as a design necessity. I mean, the story line is hectic and it would seem a bit odd if Lara took an extended period of time to go explore some random tomb given what is going on in with the plot. (I know we are all about to die..but Sam...SHINY!!! Be back in a few hours!) I am going to let the devs off the hook provided the next game offers compensation by including ridiculously huge tombs.

Overall, the game is as good, if not better, then I hoped. So glad this isn't the horrible mess that some folks were predicting.

Verno wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 15:24:

Creston wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 14:03:
Really, EA, you should just stop talking. Everything you say is stupid, it's followed a day later by a hasty and desperate attempt to backtrack because everyone called you on your fucking bullshit, and it just makes you look like a four year old with a severe mental handicap

Yep, it's funny how EA is always on the wrong side of public opinion. When a problem keeps happening over and over you have to ask whats the common denominator? EA. Not Ubisoft, not Activision, not Valve, it's always EA. Not just this site either, its a pretty common thing to see on most sites, even the console boards. I think people are pretty fair and accurate in calling them out for it all the time, its just checks and balances for their silliness.

jdreyer wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 14:53:

Darks wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 11:55:

jdreyer wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 11:37:
I'm calling bullshit. What kind of last minute change could cause all these issues? I'm thinking that their was a major screw up. Either CD sent them a very old version to optimize, or Nvidia just didn't bother until now to check it out.

Okay, so now you’re a resident expert and actually work at NVidia and know without a doubt that they are lying to us? So tell me, what are the winning numbers in this weekend’s lottery?

C'mon Darks, you don't smell a rotten fish here? Someone screwed up, and now they're covering for it. Either CD didn't supply Nvidia, or Nvidia got it, but put it off.