User information for Mystic Geek

Real Name
Mystic Geek
Nickname
mysticgeek
Email
Concealed by request
Description
Homepage
Signed On
February 3, 2004
Supporter
-
Total Posts
82 (Suspect)
User ID
20074
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
82 Comments. 5 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  ] Older
17.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 13, 2005, 09:48
17.
Re: No subject Jul 13, 2005, 09:48
Jul 13, 2005, 09:48
 
The only redeeming quality in any MMO game is that it keeps the people playing it inside and removed from the rest of society.

As oppose to keeping people inside and posting on forums?

Really, it's a hobby like any other hobby. Name ANY hobby and one can apply the "keeps these kinds of people away from society". Why do people have to shit all over everyone else? Honestly Nefilim, I know you're trying to be cute and all, but are they really your thoughts on this? You judge people that quickly?

14.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 13, 2005, 08:03
14.
Re: No subject Jul 13, 2005, 08:03
Jul 13, 2005, 08:03
 
GW has no content?! Hmmm, that's news to me. All this while over the last two months, I thought I was looking at beautiful environments, questing, completing missions and bonuses with a team of other players. I did not know GW did not have content. Thanks for pointing that out.

And as I said, if you like it, party on! But there wasn't enough there to hold my interest for very long. Meh, perhaps I have ADD.


11.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 13, 2005, 03:56
11.
Re: No subject Jul 13, 2005, 03:56
Jul 13, 2005, 03:56
 
Yeah, it's a game. You get what you make out of it. I have a level 60 character, but then again, after leveling up to 60 and exploring the world I started a new character on the Alliance side with a different class. Wow, guess what, it's like a new game to me!

Anyone can sit there and say "this game sucks" or "world of shitcraft" all they want. No game is perfect nor can it be all things to all people.

I especially like the people that think that WoW isn't "hardcore" cause it doesn't take 2 years to get to level 60. That's right folks, they think that grinding forever and ever is what makes a game hardcore. These are the folks that spent months leveling up in Everquest...all the while bitching and moaning that it was taking forever to level. This is fun for people? WoW at least is fun AND it has content...unlike Guildwars. But hey, if Guildwars is fun for you, more power to ya!

27.
 
BF2 firewall ports
Jul 11, 2005, 15:59
27.
BF2 firewall ports Jul 11, 2005, 15:59
Jul 11, 2005, 15:59
 
Did anyone notice in the BF2 manual...for those that actually read the manual...that there is a section on opening up a ton of ports on your router/firewall to get a playable game? It's near the back of the manual and it has like 7 client side ports for TCP and UDP they want you to open up or forward so you can play this game.

I haven't touched anything on my router with this game and I get good performance (after the patch) on most servers. Is anyone actually doing what the manual says to do?

30.
 
Re: How to return shit to the fucking st
Jul 9, 2005, 09:30
30.
Re: How to return shit to the fucking st Jul 9, 2005, 09:30
Jul 9, 2005, 09:30
 
Hey, great idea gerauchertes! I think they have a term for that also...let me see...oh yeah, it's called fraud.

But hey, it's only illegal if you get caught, right?

28.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 9, 2005, 09:23
28.
Re: No subject Jul 9, 2005, 09:23
Jul 9, 2005, 09:23
 
no way am I downgrading from this patch. It's the only way I can play the game. Before the patch the lag made the game unplayable on 9 out of 10 servers. You'd be going to shoot someone and bam...they jump ten feet away, then ten feet back. Tanks would fly through the air in a kind of free fall before the lag caught back up and showed where they really were.

It's not the graphics, it's not my ping (unless the ping numbers for this game mean nothing...my ping times are usually like 20). I honestly don't know what it was, but after the patch every server I went to was fine. Oh sure, there were lag spikes here and there, but for the most part the game was playable. Even the snipers.

And you can't tell anybody this because you ask 10 players and you'll get 10 different answers from "no lag here" to "it's your graphics" to "it's the server" to "it's the netcode" to "it's your connection" to "upgrade your system" to "dude, STFU already with all this".

And no, you can't return opened software. Especially to Best Buy...that is if you can get a word in edge-wise between them asking if you want a subscription to Sports Illustrated or Entertainment Weekly and if you want to put an extra warranty on that 50 dollar CD player so it automatically becomes a 60 dollar CD player.
This comment was edited on Jul 9, 09:28.
8.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 1, 2005, 10:20
8.
Re: No subject Jul 1, 2005, 10:20
Jul 1, 2005, 10:20
 
No, it's not my computer. I could see that being the case if every single server I join were like that...but that isn't the case. I can join some servers, I'd say 1 out of every 10 I join, and it's absolutely smooth gameplay. No joke. It's smooth, doesn't get bogged down at all. But it takes me searching and joining about 10 servers before I find one like that.

Nothing is different really...all 64 player servers, all filled with players. Most are laggy, one or two are not. Which leads me to belive it's something to do with either the netcode or the server itself. Perhaps over reaching server operators that think they can handle a 64 player server. But I doubt that because some of the worse servers in terms of lag are the Gamespy and EA offical servers...which you would think would have server Ops that know what they're doing.

Dunno

3.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 1, 2005, 09:57
3.
Re: No subject Jul 1, 2005, 09:57
Jul 1, 2005, 09:57
 
Yeah, all the "fixes" they mentioned are ones that I can live with. The one that I can't live with is that the game is totally unplayable due to lag issues for no reason.

Also, I'm sick of everyone that plays thinking they're a fucking computer genius when they talk with such authority about what the problem is. "It's not your ping, it's your graphics settings....It has nothing to do with the graphics settings it's the netcode....no, it's the server code that can't handle 64 players the netcode is fine...no it's only on the ranked servers...don't know what any of you are talking about, this game never lags for me..." And on and on and on and on.

Multiplayer browser? Who the fuck cares? Left mouse button binding issues? Huh? WORK ON MAKING IT PLAYABLE JACKASSES...THEN work on this other stuff. Make a stable, playable game without the horrid lag, then work on the browser etc etc. Honestly, how many people would have bought this knowing what they know now? The demo was great. Very little lag at all even on the big maps. Once it went live with ranked servers, all hell broke lose.

Do they even know there is an issue? They seem to not even talk about it.

Oh well, 50 bucks down the drain so far...

10.
 
Re: I think EA has a weird strategy
Jun 29, 2005, 17:40
10.
Re: I think EA has a weird strategy Jun 29, 2005, 17:40
Jun 29, 2005, 17:40
 
Jesus people..calm down. I was saying "as if" they were taking the patch team and just throwing them to a new game. I didn't say they were. Calm the fuck down!

And what am I doing in the LOTR thread? It's an EA game and if you cared to read my comment instead of a few words and then going off half-cocked, you'd see why I'm losing my faith with EA overall. Shoddy work on BOTH BFME and BF2.

Why do I still buy this crap. Oh well, will probably buy the next big thing from them too so I have nobody but myself to blame.

Again, take a deep breath and calm down.

6.
 
I think EA has a weird strategy
Jun 29, 2005, 13:57
6.
I think EA has a weird strategy Jun 29, 2005, 13:57
Jun 29, 2005, 13:57
 
I think they honestly start to patch a current game...let's say Battlefield 1942. But during the patch, the higher ups say "hey, while we're patching this, let's just make a whole new game since everyones working on it! We'll call it BF: Vietnam!".

Then, when the poor slobs that are the developers start to patch Vietnam the suits at EA say "hey, since we got all these guys working on some stupid patch that we'll get no money from, let's put them on BF2!

Soon, instead of patching BF2 to make it actually work, they'll pull them off the non-paying project to work on BF2:Canada or something...

Can you tell I'm kinda bitter?

1.
 
Huh?
Jun 28, 2005, 11:59
1.
Huh? Jun 28, 2005, 11:59
Jun 28, 2005, 11:59
 
Cool!

This comment was edited on Jun 28, 18:05.
1.
 
Who cares?
Jun 26, 2005, 14:00
1.
Who cares? Jun 26, 2005, 14:00
Jun 26, 2005, 14:00
 
Who cares if the stats update now when you can't even play on the ranked servers due to the terrible lag. It's unplayable. I would say 1 out of 20 ranked servers is in the "no bad" lag area...which isn't saying much.

I've given up on the ranked servers now and just go to the unranked ones. But there they won't allow them to turn on global unlocks. WTF is up with that? Then why even have it as a server option? I mean, it's right there on the screen "allow global unlocks". OK, if no one, ranked or otherwise, can unlock globals then why even mention it as an option?

They've got their heads up their asses. Yet again the story of a developer forced to release a game that isn't ready cause the money-guys at EA want the cash NOW.

1.
 
No subject
Jun 23, 2005, 11:11
1.
No subject Jun 23, 2005, 11:11
Jun 23, 2005, 11:11
 
It's more than just that. I was experiencing MASSIVE lag on every server I went to. I don't know what the problem was. But ping time had little to do with it as everyone was below 100 ping...but I think the server hardware itself just couldn't handle the 64 players or something. I don't know. I played a few games today and it seems better. But yesterday I gave up. Everyone else was complaining also, and I tried a good 20 servers or so.

And before anyone asks, it's not my hardware or connection. Those are fine. Also, my connection and hardware would have little to do with everyone else experiencing the same thing.

This comment was edited on Jun 23, 11:12.
9.
 
Re: Rope trick.
May 8, 2005, 15:39
9.
Re: Rope trick. May 8, 2005, 15:39
May 8, 2005, 15:39
 
Really, that rope trick isn't really that great of a link-of-the-day. Just go rent "Giant" staring James Dean, Rock Hudson and Liz Taylor...Dean's character was doing the rope-tied-to-a-rock version of this. Now, I know a bunch of you won't really go out and rent this movie...but as a kid I was forced to watch this when it came on by my dad cause he thought Rock Hudson and James Dean were such "men's men"...lol, little did he know!

1.
 
Two reviews?
Apr 8, 2005, 10:51
1.
Two reviews? Apr 8, 2005, 10:51
Apr 8, 2005, 10:51
 
mwhahaha...made a post on this one! No consolidation for YOU!

5.
 
Wow! 700 accounts banned!
Apr 7, 2005, 08:54
5.
Wow! 700 accounts banned! Apr 7, 2005, 08:54
Apr 7, 2005, 08:54
 
So with these 700 accounts banned, they have what...6 people left in the game?

4.
 
Re: News Blooper
Jan 13, 2005, 10:57
4.
Re: News Blooper Jan 13, 2005, 10:57
Jan 13, 2005, 10:57
 
Yeah, the news blooper reel is gone now. In it's place is just:

"These clips weren't supposed to be public

I'm sorry if I caused anyone any embarrassment"


Any chance it's somewhere else?

13.
 
Re: Eye of the Tiger
Jan 6, 2005, 12:02
13.
Re: Eye of the Tiger Jan 6, 2005, 12:02
Jan 6, 2005, 12:02
 
The parts where he's grabbing drinks off of people's trays and pouring them over his head like a runner in a marathon were priceless. Especially that guy hauling ass after him.

And getting up on the scales to weigh himself was pretty funny when the other guy pulled him off.

French Jackass?

11.
 
Re: To reiterate:
Dec 23, 2004, 14:21
11.
Re: To reiterate: Dec 23, 2004, 14:21
Dec 23, 2004, 14:21
 
For charging $15 a month for a game with numerous issues that still have not been fixed (they could add an instance to Desolace, but not spend the time to fix the Desolace missions???) I think, at least in this regard, Blizzard's conduct is contemptuous.

I hate to break it to you, this game will NEVER be "fixed"...there will ALWAYS be an issue here or there that may or may not drive some people to shout Blizzard's conduct is contemptuous!! These game, with their massive scale will always have something wrong with them. To think a company can ship something like this totally bug free is a little naive.

Also, what do you want them to say? They're working on it. Does everyone want detailed time schedules with work lists with the programmers assigned to each bug or something? No matter WHAT they say, they will ALWAYS have someone spouting off "Blizzard doesn't care about it's customers...I'm paying 15 bucks a month so I should have a personal GM follow me around helping me out 24/7!!!!" or some such non-sense.

It's 15 bucks a month. For that 15 you get a pretty descent game. But again, it will always have a bug cropping up. There's just no way around it. Blizzard is not some magical company that can just wave a wand of QA and instantly remove all bugs. All MMORPGs have bugs throughout their life. Blizzard is not immune to this. The next big MMORPG coming down the pike will have bugs too...and so on and so on.

But having said all that, they COULD change their patch distribution methods.

This comment was edited on Dec 23, 14:22.
5.
 
Re: To reiterate:
Dec 23, 2004, 12:25
5.
Re: To reiterate: Dec 23, 2004, 12:25
Dec 23, 2004, 12:25
 
ok, BS alert. 14 hours? Give me a break.

I downloaded this patch in less than 10 minutes. What are you on, a 300 baud modem?

But hey, guess they're NOT cheap as Blizzard has made availible the patch through other download sites.

82 Comments. 5 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  ] Older