User information for Sphinx175

Real Name
Sphinx175
Nickname
Sphinx
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description

Supporter

Signed On
July 6, 2004
Total Posts
204 (Novice)
User ID
21238
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
204 Comments. 11 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ] Older
7.
 
Re: Anyone playing this?
Dec 14, 2006, 13:19
7.
Re: Anyone playing this? Dec 14, 2006, 13:19
Dec 14, 2006, 13:19
 
I just picked this up and am enjoying it a lot more than I did Rome:TW. The thing that caused me the most headaches in Rome was the squalor factor which appears to work ok. Obviously there's some things the patches need to fix, especially at the tactical level though.

As for large map management, after a while in a larger campaign I often start putting territories on auto-manage. It is not nearly as a precise as managing them all on my own but as others have said that just becomes way too tedious.

The only unfortunate thing this game has never had is a multiplayer game where you can play at both the tactical and strategic level with a friend.
1.
 
Thanks Blue!
Nov 9, 2006, 11:00
1.
Thanks Blue! Nov 9, 2006, 11:00
Nov 9, 2006, 11:00
 
Thanks for posting the link, Blue!
36.
 
Re: No subject
Jun 3, 2006, 22:02
36.
Re: No subject Jun 3, 2006, 22:02
Jun 3, 2006, 22:02
 
I am not really certain how the rotating squad leader is an exploit or serious issue, at least in pub play.

I have a small group of friends and we like to server hop. We used the rotating squad leader feature to allow us to stick together and fight together rather than being spread hither and yon across the map. By spawning on whoever's alive we were able to help them out and get back into the fight quickly. Of course, that often didn't work as if they were pinned down then we were all pinned down, oops

Besides which even if that is the case the other team should encourage it since they basically won't get one easy kill but four or five.
1.
 
Thanks Blue
May 25, 2006, 12:33
1.
Thanks Blue May 25, 2006, 12:33
May 25, 2006, 12:33
 
As always, thanks for posting the link Blue.
1.
 
Thanks Blue!
Apr 17, 2006, 10:35
1.
Thanks Blue! Apr 17, 2006, 10:35
Apr 17, 2006, 10:35
 
Thanks for posting the link, Blue.
17.
 
Re: my only question
Mar 15, 2006, 13:52
17.
Re: my only question Mar 15, 2006, 13:52
Mar 15, 2006, 13:52
 
Learning,

I don't think you'll be able to buy it in a store anytime soon. If you can at some later point it would probably be a bundled pack with all the other parts of BF2. EA hasn't said they would do that but it wouldn't surprise me if they did at some later date.
16.
 
If you're using Windows 2000..
Mar 15, 2006, 13:48
16.
If you're using Windows 2000.. Mar 15, 2006, 13:48
Mar 15, 2006, 13:48
 
If you're still using Windows 2000 (like me), you'll come across a problem with EA not letting you use their downloader to get the file. For whatever reason it requires Windows XP.

What I'm going to post is a work around if you want the bump pack but still run Windows 2000. It's a little convoluted, but it works. Why I can't use a simple downloader with 2000 but can with XP is beyond my comprehension since in my time of working with computers I have not seen a huge difference between XP and 2000 in terms of gameplay. I guess the EA programmers see it differently.

Anyway here's what you do.

1. Find a friend who has Windows XP. This might be a stopping point for some of you because you might not have a friend. I personally buy all my friends so I got past this part pretty easily.

2. From their machine go to the download site for the bump pack. Click the Buy Now button.

3. This will start you on the sign up process for the bump pack. Fill out all the information, passwords, credit card numbers and so forth. Okay, so you're all setup in the EA mega-database now.

4. If you're friend already has the bump pack downloaded and installed, it's a ZIP file that's about 350 Megs. It's most likely in their browser cache. I'm sorry but I don't recall the filename right now

5. If they don't have it downloaded, download it with the EA installer.

6. Burn it to a CD and take it home, unzip it somewhere on your PC and install.
38.
 
Re: No subject
Mar 9, 2006, 07:14
38.
Re: No subject Mar 9, 2006, 07:14
Mar 9, 2006, 07:14
 
I have seen the missile through tank bug a few times which is definitely a problem that I hope is addressed in the patch. All in all though, the game runs fine on my machine. More importantly, I think the G3 machine gun was tweaked a little cause it drops people extra fast now. I do enjoy that weapon a whole lot.
3.
 
Re: No subject
Feb 16, 2006, 14:07
3.
Re: No subject Feb 16, 2006, 14:07
Feb 16, 2006, 14:07
 
Holding off on this one after playing the demo. There's nothing really really wrong with the demo I played but it doesn't strike me as worth $60. $40 sure but not $60
39.
 
Re: Star Wars: EaW
Feb 3, 2006, 07:47
39.
Re: Star Wars: EaW Feb 3, 2006, 07:47
Feb 3, 2006, 07:47
 
Demo runs fine on mine as well:

Athlon 64 3000+
1Gig Ram
Radeon 9700 Pro (this card refuses to quit!)
7.
 
Re: No subject
Feb 1, 2006, 09:38
7.
Re: No subject Feb 1, 2006, 09:38
Feb 1, 2006, 09:38
 
"Pathical?" Is that even a word?
1.
 
Doom 3?
Jan 30, 2006, 16:04
1.
Doom 3? Jan 30, 2006, 16:04
Jan 30, 2006, 16:04
 
I won't try to pretend that I get out reviews in a timely manner, but a Doom 3 review is just coming out now?
13.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 25, 2006, 13:33
13.
Re: No subject Jan 25, 2006, 13:33
Jan 25, 2006, 13:33
 
For instance, anyone that passionate about the greatness of SS2 is hard to respect in general.

Are you suggesting that SS2 is beneath other games or are you just being snarky?

These other people just have a different opinion then me which doesn't make my opinion any less valid than what others have said. That's cool of course. Internet opinions are like belly buttons. We all got one and they're useless.

No, SS2 isn't the greatest game ever made but it knows what it wants to do and does it and that's why I go gaga over it. And what it tries to do it does greatly. Tons of crazy monsters? Check. Tongue in cheek humor? Check. Oversized weapons as well as end bosses? Check.

I have a Pavlovian reaction to such games and I definitely won't apologize for that. A game like Serious Sam or Painkiller cuts away the excess fat on the shooter corpse and gets right down to what matters: killing stuff. Then they supersize that and throw in a free Frosty, too in the way they deliver the product.
6.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 24, 2006, 16:07
6.
Re: No subject Jan 24, 2006, 16:07
Jan 24, 2006, 16:07
 
It's all good. I wrote that while coming off the in-game buzz that the game gives you after shooting in literally every direction against bad guys and creatures which make you wonder exactly what the developers were smoking or drinking.

I can see their development meetings:

"Yeah, ok, here's something. How about soldiers. But soldiers with big guns and helicopter propellors on their back!"

"Yeah, I like it! And maybe some T-Rex's with rocket launchers."

"And clowns!! Man, clowns scare the hell out of me!"

As for the barbs at other gamers: completely tongue in cheek. Really I would think gamers and the visitors here would be jaded against such things by now.

As for the site: Yeah, I know, straight from 1999 with the HTML code. I should update it and will some day but real life doesn't allow for the time needed to do it. Gaming's the hobby but it doesn't pay the bills.

Don't get me wrong I loved Painkiller, Quake IV, AND Doom 3. They're the type of games that a shooter fan needs every once in a while when the game developers get too full of themselves and think they're shooter is going to make a difference.

I just think Serious Sam 2 beats them all from the purely adrenaline pumping, fast twitch reacting, circle strafing frenzy that is so lacking in most shooters. Plus the co-operative feature can't be beat for LAN parties.

Anyway, thanks to you both. Good stuff to read and maybe next time instead of doing a stream of concious review I'll make an outline. Now, where's my Strunk & White book from college?
3.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 24, 2006, 14:38
3.
Re: No subject Jan 24, 2006, 14:38
Jan 24, 2006, 14:38
 
Aw heck, I thought it was going to be another dogpile on Sphinx for the crummy review. I had the boxing gloves on ready to fight.

Maybe I should write a review about an Xbox game and just belittle it. That'll get the audience riled up for sure.
2.
 
Re: No subject
Jan 24, 2006, 10:57
2.
Re: No subject Jan 24, 2006, 10:57
Jan 24, 2006, 10:57
 
Yeah, that guy's a friggin' tool. I mean he doesn't talk about system specs or the history of Serious Sam or slobs the nob of all the game developers like Gamespy. What a jerk!

Wait, that's my review... Oh well my points are still valid.

What in particular is wrong with it (besides the fact that I wrote it about 15 minutes after having a serious multiplayer co-operative smackdown with my friends)?
52.
 
Re: On a roll
Dec 14, 2005, 08:18
52.
Re: On a roll Dec 14, 2005, 08:18
Dec 14, 2005, 08:18
 
Heya folks,

Ok, I play support all the time and have never had a huge problem with the accuracy of the support weapons. Sure it's a pain in the butt sometimes to have to go prone to get any sort of shot off well but I find my biggest problems occur when I just "spray and pray" by holding the trigger down. If you use short controlled bursts (3-5 rounds, release, repeat), then the guns hit with amazing accuracy.

A weapon like a light machine gun, IMO, should NOT be as accurate as say the G36 or G3 because if it was it'd allow people to use the S2000 or PKM and fire off nearly 50-70 rounds non-stop without overheat and be deadly accurate with it. Whether that's realistic or not I don't know but it certainly sounds like a way to jack down the fun by about 1000 percent since every corner you turn would be met with a hail of LMG bullets firing non-stop.

Now, if they were to increase the accuracy but also increase the overheat time, then it'd be doable I think.

And the sniper weapons weren't accurate enough? Is that what they are suggesting? *shudder*
6.
 
Re: CoF
Nov 30, 2005, 14:38
6.
Re: CoF Nov 30, 2005, 14:38
Nov 30, 2005, 14:38
 
What, did the AA missiles get borked again? 1.03 patch seemed to make the behave a lot better.
3.
 
Re: Quake 4 review
Nov 8, 2005, 13:17
3.
Re: Quake 4 review Nov 8, 2005, 13:17
Nov 8, 2005, 13:17
 
Well I wasn't discussing that matte painting which appeared to come straight from an 80s sci-fi movie, silly goose. I was thinking more along the lines of the areas where you were forced to ride that tank as if in a 3-d version of Atari's Combat.


This comment was edited on Nov 8, 15:51.
1.
 
Thanks Blue
Nov 8, 2005, 11:22
1.
Thanks Blue Nov 8, 2005, 11:22
Nov 8, 2005, 11:22
 
Thanks for posting the link Blue.
204 Comments. 11 pages. Viewing page 2.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  ] Older