Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Ted Smith

Real Name Ted Smith   
Search for:
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
Nickname Teddy
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Homepage http://
Signed On Feb 5, 2004, 02:08
Total Comments 1069 (Pro)
User ID 20096
User comment history
< Newer [ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ] Older >

News Comments > Battlefield 3 PS3 Footage
32. Re: Battlefield 3 PS3 Footage Jun 17, 2011, 22:17 Teddy
everyone wrote on Jun 17, 2011, 21:33:
Wildone wrote on Jun 17, 2011, 20:41:
Sorry to bust your bubble but bullets can really do that, think you can hide behind a car door? no way bub
I never mentioned realism and I never mentioned car doors, but thanks for the entirely irrelevant input.
Suddenly_Dead wrote on Jun 17, 2011, 20:58:
It's also fun as hell. Destruction and adapting to it is part of the strategy.
Being able to just shoot someone you would have had to flush out with a grenade or try to flank in BF2, is not more strategical.
I don't consider making the game more spammy and brainless to be conducive to 'fun times', either.

Calling it brainless is being pretty naive. You're only looking at it from one side. KNOWING that the walls can be torn away from right in front of you requires the one hiding to plan better, rather than running and hiding within an enclosed building.

Many buildings also have alternate exits, it's a rarity to see buildings with only one way in and one way out. Barring that, to escape, he could just blow a hole in the far wall behind him and pop out from behind the building to ambush the people who expected him to be inside. Or he could position himself so that he can get behind entire buildings as opposed to single walls.

As for the concept of strategy. Strategy is built on options. If the only options you have are to stand outside the building waiting for him to try and get out, try to run in, or throw a grenade inside. That's just 3 different tactics. Your opponent on the other hand is left with 2, hide or run out.

When you can destroy the walls as well, you have all 3 of those options, plus the option to fire blindly into the wall hoping to hit your opponent. Failing to do so, generally means your death as you're desperately trying to reload while your opponent pops out to kill you. You can alternately use some form of explosive to put a hole in one of the walls, hoping to expose or possibly kill your opponent. Failing to do so means he now has two locations to return fire from or attempt an escape, or worse, he was waiting for that and lobs a grenade out just as you take the wall down and you're left either dead or scrambling for cover while he escapes from the building.

Destruction doesn't in the LEAST make combat less strategic. Quite the contrary, it allows for more. If you're looking for simple, clean cut strategy then no doubt you'll hate it. This is much messier, more chaotic and requires you to think more, since there are more possible actions to anticipate from your opponent.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Call of Duty: Black Ops Annihilation Announced
17. Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Annihilation Announced Jun 16, 2011, 16:10 Teddy
Dades wrote on Jun 16, 2011, 16:00:
Teddy wrote on Jun 16, 2011, 15:58:
Pretty sure they said that elite subscriptions would give you the dlc without additional cost.

This is pretty easy to figure out. Which method would make Activision more money? That's the one they're choosing.

Cute, except they already said that you get them for free if you subscribe to elite. I don't intend to buy MW3, much less pay for elite but making shit up about a company because you don't like them is pretty pathetic. Activision does enough to inspire hate, they really don't need your help, or lies to do that.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Call of Duty: Black Ops Annihilation Announced
15. Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops Annihilation Announced Jun 16, 2011, 15:58 Teddy
Respen wrote on Jun 16, 2011, 14:49:
I'm voting with my wallet. Elite online gaming services for a fee in addition to this 15 bucks a shot for DLC is ridiculous. I miss the days when I could go back to a game I hadn't touched in 6 months and have a blast... now I have to pay 60 bucks again to go back because of the DLC I missed.

I'm sorry but my PC isn't a slot machine, I'm not THAT addicted that I can't say no and it has no coin slot for all of his nickel and dime bullshit. Fuck Activision and CoD, Battlefield is on a slippery slope as well.

Pretty sure they said that elite subscriptions would give you the dlc without additional cost.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > DNF Review Dust Up
78. Re: DNF Review Dust Up Jun 15, 2011, 15:24 Teddy
Teddy wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 13:46:
He's just trying to keep his job now. Nothing more.

Seems he just failed at that.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > 2K on DNF PR
5. Re: 2K on DNF PR Jun 15, 2011, 15:23 Teddy


I'm not ordinarily one to laugh at another's misfortune, but I have a REAL dislike for PR suits. The irony of a PR person making a rash and completely unnecessary comment that costs them their business just makes me smile.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > DNF Review Dust Up
77. Re: DNF Review Dust Up Jun 15, 2011, 15:15 Teddy
yonder wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 14:35:
I think someone is missing one of the entire founding points of Duke. Part of what *SHOULD* be the appeal of the game is it's horrible over-the-topness and unapologetic juvenile humor. And I love it for that. This quote (the one above, not mine) pretty much summarizes what's wrong with about 20% of the negative opinions (20% of each opinion). If you're offended by the juvenile idiocy of Duke... that's like being offended by torture in a Saw movie or blood in a zombie movie. Or, to be blunt... you're kinda an idiot.

I'm not offended by the humor. I'm simply not amused by it. That's the problem. I would say this needs to be compared to something relevant. Take South Park for example. They use over the top, unapologetic, juvenile humor, but the difference is, they have a point behind all their jokes while DNF does not. It's the difference between satire and flat shock humor that's only 'offensive' for the sake of being 'offensive'.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned?
133. Re: Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned? Jun 15, 2011, 14:48 Teddy
StingingVelvet wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 14:03:
I have also seen indie devs comment that if they can't get on Steam they won't be successful.

I don't doubt that people have said that, but perhaps you need to ask yourself WHY they say that. You can try and blame it on Steam's marketshare, but take a look at their competitors for a moment.

Steam has done more to try and promote indie games than any other digital distributor out there. They even have a simple and handy category to click ON THE FRONT PAGE and it will show you all the indie games they offer. They've given indie titles front page advertising and offered countless sales and created bundle packs all to try and get people buying indie games. Hell, they even offered an incentive for their own AAA title to get people buying indie games, and regardless of how it was receieved on here, I imagine the indie developers were thrilled with the result for them.

The only other DD that seems to be trying to do the same thing is impulse and their method of finding them is clunky, requiring me to go to alternate pages, search through a dropdown box of absurd length to find the "independant" developer section.

It's a very simple thing. When people make it easier to find and buy your game, more people buy it. Steam has become a bastion for indie developers on PC because they put forth the effort to BE just that. Now you're faulting them for the effort? Or for being successful with that effort?
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > DNF Review Dust Up
65. Re: DNF Review Dust Up Jun 15, 2011, 13:46 Teddy
Elessar wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 10:58:
To the article... He was a douche but he also apologized. He deserves some of the flack he's getting, but it seems he realizes that opinions are opinions and he can't control them.

The only thing this man realizes is that it was a stupid idea to post his threat online, and the only thing he's sorry for is that it got noticed.

That's why he apologized, not because he actually thinks he was wrong. This is a PR person who not only made his firm look bad with that tweet, but made his client look bad as well. He's just trying to keep his job now. Nothing more.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned?
19. Re: Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned? Jun 15, 2011, 01:42 Teddy
Esoteric wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 01:24:
I'm definitely in the Valve/Steam camp, but this competition MAY be good for us all. That is if EA actually tries to be better than Steam, and not just rely on exclusives.

Unlikely. That would require them to work harder than they need to and expend more money than they need to.

All EA needs to do to make this successful is restrict all their new titles to Origin and have the games link to it for updates. Their games are big enough that MOST people will accept it, even if it annoys them. The few that claim to boycott may do so for one or two titles, but they'll captiulate once they realize the world has ignored them once again.

I've no doubt in my mind that this will be successful and will result in more money for EA with no cut to pay to steam or brick and mortar retailers. The system, once developed (and it already is) requires almost no additional money from EA and since you won't be able to buy the titles elsewhere, there's no concern for competition to drive them to improve service.

Valve made Steam what it was today because when they envisioned it, they had to compete with a very dominant brick and mortar system and the few scattered other digital delivery systems that showed up. The only titles they could control where they were released were their own, so they were forced to improve their service because of the competition they faced. EA will have none of that with their system. Not unless they intend to allow other publishers to release games over Origin, which I doubt they will.

Once Ubisoft sees this successful, they'll follow suit as well with their own system, no doubt (if they're not already developing one).
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned?
9. Re: Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned? Jun 15, 2011, 00:41 Teddy
headkase wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 00:33:
Well. While EA is measuring how far they can piss with Valve.. Meanwhile I won't be picking up Alice. I'm not going to go to an service that says: "Valid for one copy of.." Yeah, screw that. I only have Steam and Impulse accounts and I'm not getting any more. Impulse I only have because you can't get Galactic Civilizations II anywhere else and if a game is on both Impulse and Steam I get the Steam version: which, ta-da, I can download as many times as I need to in the future.

Screw EA - they screw you too!

The "Valid for one copy of" bit isn't exactly clear at this point. That doesn't necessarily mean valie for one download of. I'd imagine it's more a necessity of digital download contracts, saying you can't download it and play it on your computer, and let your friend download and play it as well, etc.


Which sounds very distinctly like you can download and install it multiple times, but only one copy of it can be played at a time.

edit: From the Origin FAQ:

Q: Can I re-download old games I purchased?
A: Absolutely. All your previous purchases are still accessible from Origin.

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2011, 00:47.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned?
6. Re: Crysis 2 Steam Crisis, Origin Exclusivity Planned? Jun 15, 2011, 00:23 Teddy
tony wrote on Jun 15, 2011, 00:15:
If EA decides to stop selling games on Steam and not release future titles on Steam they won't get anymore money from me. It's that simple.

It is a bit of a weird thing to do. Selling games in less locations is just going to mean less sales on the whole.

I get that they're trying to build up their own system, but Crysis 2 was neither good enough, nor a new enough title to make any number of people jump over. I have no doubt that Battlefield 3 and Mass Effect 3 will be Origin exclusive for digital downloads.

Those 2 titles, plus The Old Republic are the only ones they have that are big enough that too many people won't just shrug and not buy. Hell, most of the people who proclaim that they won't buy from Origin, will probably buy them anyways. We all know full well that most people who scream boycott haven't got the balls to hold to their convictions.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever
60. Re: Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever Jun 15, 2011, 00:13 Teddy
Edited the first sentence for clarity after you started your reply, evidently. Nonetheless, my point is, people are claiming it's not evolution because THEY don't like the way things changed. That's what I'm arguing against.

Admittedly they are a bit rare, but at last check at E3, there were 2 major new WW2 title shown, 2 futuristic titles, 1 post-apocalyptic title, and 2 modern day titles. (Major titles only, I mean)

That's a fair amount of variety in the shooter genre. You really can't pick a sub-genre (or worse, sub-sub-genre in modern day military shooters) that is, in it's very nature restricted to realistic locales for conflict and then complain in any justifiable manner that there's not enough variety in that sub-genre. Of course there's not a great deal of variety in enemies or weaponry. If there was, it wouldn't be a modern day military shooter.

I'm with you that since it's the dominant form of shooter at the moment, things have stalled somewhat, but that's more a function of the fact that everyone jumped on the bandwagon and the teams that were really skilled in making shooters didn't really step outside of the box for financial reasons.

There's some change on the horizon though. Respawn is making a sci-fi shooter, Red Orchestra is set for release, that weird looking WW2 game from Gearbox (I think) is something different.

My biggest hope for modern day shooters lies with the Rainbow Six series, if they ever decide to make a decent one again. Since they're not restricted to engagements based on nationality, they could easily bring some other conflicts into gaming light. Rescuing hostages in the Burmese jungle? Interceding in civillian massacres in Darfur? Clandestine operation in Rwanda? Or yes, even good old, stop the terrorists in the Met. It has the same weapons for the most part, but can place itself in the widest array of terrain and locales on a mission by mission basis.

I don't see it happening, since it would mean they'd have to forego the 'cinematic linear campaign' in favor of a variety of disconnected missions, each with their own small storyline, rather than one overarching thing. It's a dream, but one I still hold to.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Steam Top 10
85. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 14, 2011, 23:50 Teddy
Sepharo wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 18:17:
Sounds like people wanted Serious Sam gameplay but they got HL gameplay without the narrative and polish.

That's pretty close to spot on. The D3d that I remember is more akin to Serious Sam than Half-life. The "story" bits in Duke Forever were appalingly bad, interfered with gameplay and intentionally dragged things out for no forseeable reason.

Why do I have to stand there and listen to the president babble on endlessly about something I don't give one shit about? Why can't I leave the room until he's finished his tirade? Why do I have to run around without a weapon at the start, even though I'm in my own freaking military installation? At least Half-life had an answer to those questions and had a narrative and world that was interesting enough that I didn't want to shut the game off before I'd even so much as seen an enemy.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever
57. Re: Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever Jun 14, 2011, 23:34 Teddy
Jerykk wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 23:14:
I would argue that there's been several evolutions since HL2. Cover mechanics, and regenerating health among them. They may not be to your liking, but they are changes from the time of HL. You can't call it stagnation if it's changing, just because you don't like what FPS' have evolved (or devolved) into.

It depends on what you consider evolution. Games have "evolved" into accessible and cinematic experiences rather than deep or challenging ones. While this is certainly good for business, it's not so good for hardcore gamers.

In recent years, the shooter genre has completely stagnated. Everybody is copying CoD. It's like the stagnation that was seen in the early 90's when everybody was copying Doom, except at least the Doom clones were slightly different from one another. Military shooters are the second least creative genre out there (second only to sports games). They all have the same enemies, weapons, vehicles, settings, etc.

Evolution has never meant "better for me". People liked to attribute that term to it, they like to believe it means that things have changed in a way that THEY wanted them to. Evolution simply means different, the same base with some alteration. Cover mechanics are an evolution of the genre. So is regenerating health. So is the 'cinematic' nature of the games lately.

It doesn't matter whether it's what I want or not. Denying evolution because you don't like the result is silly. Deny progress if you like on some sort of esoteric level, but then I'd counter with the fact that the games that people like to point at and say how terrible all the mechanics in them are, still end up being amoung the highest selling titles of all time. If evolution means changes to the base of something that remain when they are successful, then yes, FPS games have very much evolved since the time of Half-life.

I agree they've become stagnant since the most recent changes, (cover system in single player and unlocks in multiplayer). But there are some changes on the horizon. Larger scale and more detailed destruction in BF3 and the two examples I provided in the previous post. Whether or not they prove successful, and thus don't vanish into history is another matter entirely, but the possibility for change in a positive direction is there.

As for the final statement, I'll agree that military shooters have more in common than most genres (which isn't surprising since it's really a sub-genre in itself), I have to disagree with your final bit.
The enemies are generally the same, in that they're always soldiers, occasionally from different countries or made up collectives. The weapons are only the same if you are looking at modern day military shooters only. Taking into account, WW2, Vietnam, and Modern day, then you can't rightfully say the weapons and vehicles are the same, nor the settings. From desert terrain, to middle east villages/cities, to jungles in vietnam, to first world cities in games like Homefront or Rainbow Six Vegas 1/2.

The variety is there in all those things. Of course it's not as varied as games where you can create your own world to fit the game you want to make, but that's the expectation in a sub-genre like this.

This comment was edited on Jun 14, 2011, 23:41.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Footage
23. Re: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Footage Jun 14, 2011, 23:10 Teddy
<Electric-Spock> wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 18:36:
uuuuummmmmm... I've read several posts about people being upset that there are no bots in BF3? I'm not sure how much fun is to be had in an open sandbox environment with vehicles playing against bots. At best, you can learn to pilot or drive a vehicle knowing you won't be shot at much. Other than that, whats the point?

Can't speak for anyone else, but sometimes I don't want to deal with other people online, or be forced this way or that is a single player campaign.

Sometimes I just want a shooting gallery. Sometimes I want to mess around in a map, play with game mechanics and weapons without too much interference. Bots allow me to do that.

I don't always want that, but the option is nice, and takes remarkably little development time to add since the bulk of the AI code already has to be there for single player campaign.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever
55. Re: Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever Jun 14, 2011, 22:59 Teddy
Lorcin wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 19:24:

The FPS genre hasn't advanced since hl1/2 it's developed into a state of hyper-stagnation. Every new mainstream title is easier, more samey and more generic than the last.

I would argue that there's been several evolutions since HL2. Cover mechanics, and regenerating health among them. They may not be to your liking, but they are changes from the time of HL. You can't call it stagnation if it's changing, just because you don't like what FPS' have evolved (or devolved) into.

That said, there hasn't been any significant changes (to single player shooters) since the cover mechanics started showing up. Not that I can think of anyways.

I'm hoping the next real change will be something akin to Mirror's Edge / Brink style fluid movement enhancements. It's a good idea, it just needs someone to pull it off well in a popular title. Brink handled the mechanic fairly well with the lightweight charactger model, but the rest of the game fell flat on it's face.

Bulletstorm TRIED something different with a reward system for varied ways of killing enemies, but much like Brink, they relied too much on the mechanic to sell the game. They even failed to deliver a competitive multiplayer option, which done properly WITH the skill/kill system in place could have been some solid fun (assuming they removed the constant slow-mo bits with the leash).

Imagine the chaotic fun that could be had combining the two mechanics in even a simple DM style multiplayer.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever
54. Re: Ships Ahoy - Duke Nukem Forever Jun 14, 2011, 22:35 Teddy
StingingVelvet wrote on Jun 14, 2011, 19:10:
I don't mind the recharging health as much as I thought I would, I guess because the idea of an ego shield is amusing and finding ego-boosting things in the environment is fun. Checkpoints I have gotten used to for linear games and it doesn't really bother me anymore to be honest. It does make it more of a game than quicksaving, as there are consequences to failing at a battle.

QTEs and weapon limits I agree with though... massively irritating, and the second one has NO place in a game like this.

I don't necessarily mind regenerating health in SOME games. This is one that it stands out as a TERRIBLE idea. All it does is force you to cower in a corner when your health is low. The problem is, that's completely contrary to what the character and game are all about.

Health packs often forced you to barrel through danger to get to them, with the risk of death at a single wrong move if you were low on health already. THAT is more in line with what Duke is supposed to be. Calling your health 'ego' was a cute gimmick, but that's all it really is.

The only part of the game I've actually legitimately enjoyed thus far is the monster truck sequence and the surrounding mayhem. Everything up to that point was pretty ho-hum for me.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Steam Top 10
24. Re: Steam Top 10 Jun 12, 2011, 21:50 Teddy
shponglefan wrote on Jun 12, 2011, 21:48:
Hump wrote on Jun 12, 2011, 19:19:
Jerykk, would you say its worth the 50 bucks or no?

Obviously not, since he stole it.

While I can't speak for how Jerykk got the game himself (since I have no idea where he lives), DNF was released elsewhere in the world on the 10th. The 14th is the US release. Multiplayer is locked out on international releases until the 14th though, for some reason.

This comment was edited on Jun 12, 2011, 21:55.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Epic Hacked
40. Re: Epic Hacked Jun 11, 2011, 23:21 Teddy
killer_roach wrote on Jun 11, 2011, 22:54:
Teddy wrote on Jun 11, 2011, 22:27:
Do you also defend a police officer who stands aside when a crime is committed? It's not like he's paid to stop criminals, right? Much the same way, say, a company's network security administrator is?

You're assuming a) a network administrator works 24/7 and b) is able to root out any potential hack threat on his own. Either is ludicrous, and show a fatally naive view of information security technology.

To use your analogy, in many hacking cases it'd be like blaming a police officer in Boston for a terrorist attack in San Diego.

My view of IT security is naive? You seem to think they actually sit on their computers when at work actively snooping through the network looking for hackers like some security guard patrolling the halls.

The bulk of network security is automated, it is their task to set up and configure that security such that it functions effectively, properly alerts the correct people when something unusual is happening.

My analogy is about the responsibility of those individuals to stop crimes. You are still attempting to deny that they have any responsibility to do so, despite being paid to do so, on the pathetically naive view that crimes should simply not happen.

Again and again, you completely try to avoid any notion of personal responsibility, conveniently skipping over those sections of the argument. It's pretty sad, really. Either address the topic at hand, or I won't bother responding to your inane nattering about inconsequential issues. THe effectiveness of the analogy is irrelevant, the point was made and you tried desperately to ignore it.

Let me put this in bullet points for you to make it easier to understand.

1) People were paid to ensure the security of that network.
2) Those people failed at their task.
3) You state that those people are not at all responsible for that failure, because someone actively attempted to circumvent the security.

Can you really not see the disconnect in logic here? If no one was ever going to try and get by security, there would be no need for the security at all. It exists because it IS needed, and if it fails, then those who's JOB IT WAS to ensure it succeeded bear responsibility for their failure.

No one is saying the hackers are innocents, but absolving people of the responsibility for which they are paid is just plain stupid.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Out of the Blue
10. Re: Wii U question... Jun 11, 2011, 22:46 Teddy
Fantaz wrote on Jun 11, 2011, 17:28:
In comparison, the PSVita (silly name, and so was Win Vista) had a great showing and we pretty much know most about it so no questions, and most of us want one.

That I'm going to have to disagree with. It had a decent showing, but there's a huge question still hovering over it's head that many people haven't yet asked.

The system is able to pause a game and then pick it up on PS3, but per the Ars Tech article on the matter, Sony has yet to decide whether or not you'll need to buy a copy of the game for both PS3 and Vita for that functionality.

I also question whether "most" people in fact want one. I certainly don't, and neither did any of the friends I spoke with once they saw the price tag.

edit: Ars Tech article here
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
1069 Comments. 54 pages. Viewing page 27.
< Newer [ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ] Older >


Blue's News logo