User information for DukeFNukem

Real Name
DukeFNukem
Nickname
DukeFNukem
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
Homepage
Signed On
October 19, 2004
Supporter
-
Total Posts
438 (Amateur)
User ID
22104
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
438 Comments. 22 pages. Viewing page 19.
Newer [  1    7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  ] Older
15.
 
Re: Evening Metaverse
Jan 12, 2011, 04:37
15.
Re: Evening Metaverse Jan 12, 2011, 04:37
Jan 12, 2011, 04:37
 
Great. An internet id for every American. Pair that up with a shitty new SandyBridge processor with a remoate kill-switch from Intel and the government will in fact control more of everybodys lives. And since the poor dumbasses who voted Obama in for "free healthcare"(triple bypass surgeries for everybody, can I get a hell yeah. :)) there is not much freedom left in America. Oh what a feeling!!! Thanks for the hope and ****ng change. I love it!!!
9.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 12, 2010, 23:42
9.
Re: Op Ed Dec 12, 2010, 23:42
Dec 12, 2010, 23:42
 
Denise Richards isn't as hot as she used to be? LOL. What idiot would make a statement like that. Like you wouldn't lay down for her still...Don't even lie.

The VGAs do suck but it has nothing to do with Denise Richards
10.
 
Re: motherfuckin GEORGE BITCHARD
Nov 21, 2010, 21:06
10.
Re: motherfuckin GEORGE BITCHARD Nov 21, 2010, 21:06
Nov 21, 2010, 21:06
 
Space Captain,
I don't really condone the use of marijuana for recreational use but I think society would agree with me in justifying a prescription for your special case. It would allow me to sleep easier at night.
9.
 
Re: Duke Nukem Forever Interviews
Nov 21, 2010, 21:02
9.
Re: Duke Nukem Forever Interviews Nov 21, 2010, 21:02
Nov 21, 2010, 21:02
 
And whats wrong with that? I would be very happy if Duke Nukem were NOTHING MORE THAN the same game that had been updated to a native game running under Windows 7 with better graphics. The core gameplay of Duke Nukem 3D was the most incredibly fun game I have ever played. Exactly where did you want this game to move to? Where does this classic need to go to jusify your purchase? You talk as though better graphics are some kind of virus that one should see a doctor about. Incredible visuals are a huge part of the enjoyment factor of ANY game. My advice to GearBox, although probably too late now, would have been to do nothing more than to bring the game up to date with improved visuals, native Windows 7 support, and multi-player over internet. The gameplay/fun factor needs no tweaking imho. Some people just crack me up.
7.
 
Re: Duke Nukem Forever Video Interview
Oct 23, 2010, 21:59
7.
Re: Duke Nukem Forever Video Interview Oct 23, 2010, 21:59
Oct 23, 2010, 21:59
 
I disagree. The people at 3DRealms are why Duke Nukem Forever has taken "forever" to get released. I feel very confident this game will be released in the next year.
1.
 
Re: DNF Interview
Sep 10, 2010, 21:18
1.
Re: DNF Interview Sep 10, 2010, 21:18
Sep 10, 2010, 21:18
 
Wow, over 10 years in development at 3DRealms and the game is finished within 1 year after being sold? Thank You God. They finally got the game in the hands of somebody who could do something with it.
38.
 
Re: Op Ed
Aug 19, 2010, 07:00
38.
Re: Op Ed Aug 19, 2010, 07:00
Aug 19, 2010, 07:00
 
"A huge chunk of gamers never finish games."
I haven't finished a lot of games I have purchased either. There's way more than one possible conclusion for this other than fun factor. Because Cliffski didn't finish HL 1, HL 2 or Bioshock the games suck? Is that the conclusion we should all come to?

"When I read about how some l33t haxxor ‘finished’ a game in 8 hours, I find it laughable."
Because someone finishes a game in 8 hours doesn't necessarily mean they were "racing" to finish the game. Maybe they were so "into" the game that the end came before they realized, like watching a good movie. Maybe the game was so good they didn't want to stop playing it.
"The idea is to enjoy the experience, not race to the end as fast as you can."
I guess these comments are an indication that their next game release will be quality over quantity and they don't want anyone whining about a short game even though they paid $60 for it.
13.
 
Re: StarCraft II Free Name Change Coming
Aug 17, 2010, 09:03
13.
Re: StarCraft II Free Name Change Coming Aug 17, 2010, 09:03
Aug 17, 2010, 09:03
 
In response to Petham: But thats why I believe my idea would work so well. If, as you say, the account/login name is separate from the screen name, you simply allow people to change their screen/nick with a command. All their win/losses/disconnects remain attached to the account/login name for the life of the account. This will prevent what you are talking about.
I am simply of the belief that you should be able to change your nick/screen name when you get tired of it. Its really, to me, simply an attribute of ones style. Its like changing your default song on a myspace page or whatever. You change the song but you don't create a new account to do it. As long as account/login name is completely separate from nick/screen name I see no harm in changing your nick/screen name a 100 times a day. Your past WILL STILL FOLLOW YOU. Maybe even on the users profile, Blizzard could show a list of all known Aliases for the account so that people still know who you are. This will make more people think twice about their actions, disconnects, backstabs, etc.
Now, if on the other hand, a user wants to erase his past, maybe charge a small fee for that. I honestly don't even believe in that but it would be the "only" justifiable reason to pay for a new account/login. Paying for a nick/screen name change is ******* ludicrous.

I guess what I am saying is that, people who change their account names fall into at least two different categories. Those who do it because they simply want a new nick/screen name and those who want a clean slate on their record. Theres no reason to punish the first group monetarily.
Edit: Okay, I can see allowing a nick/change a 100 times a day and storing it on the users main profile page would quickly become worthless. No one would have the time to wade through all that crap. So I revise my suggestion on doing that. The ultimate solution then would simply be to show the users main login/account name when checking his profile with his current alias/screen name. For example, "/whois Batman". "Account Name: Tom Smith Current alias: Batman - Wins:5 losses:2 disconnects:40, State:OH, whatever else".

Edit: One last thing I would like to add(Yes I am thinking my suggestions through thoroughly. Blizzard should hire me.) "Possibly" deny alias changes for ladder/tournament games. But definitely allow it for regular non-ladder/tournament games.
This comment was edited on Aug 17, 2010, 09:37.
6.
 
Re: StarCraft II Free Name Change Coming
Aug 17, 2010, 01:43
6.
Re: StarCraft II Free Name Change Coming Aug 17, 2010, 01:43
Aug 17, 2010, 01:43
 
Wait a second. Somebody slap me across the face in case Im dreaming. In the old days you could create an unlimited number of accounts on Battle.net and now you have to "pay" to change your name? Im a huge fan of Starcraft 1 and Warcraft 3. I guess Im old enough now that I dont have to buy a game the day it is released. I planned on picking up Starcraft 2 when it gets to a $20 price point. The weird stuff thats going on with video games these days just may bring me to a point where I say it just isn't something I care to do anymore. All the stupid shit. Nickeling and dimeing gamers to death. Oh well. It was fun while it lasted but it ain't no fun no more. I think thats a quote from a song. I could be wrong.
Edit for the post above me: I see no justificatino for this stupidity. Im not well educated on how the whole new battle.net system works since I haven't bought Starcraft 2 yet(maybe never will). Im assuming that you create a login/password account to log into battle.net and the login name becomes your in-game "screen name" or alias. It probably makes sense to restrict the creation of multiple login/password accounts. It makes absolutely no sense in restricting or changing your alias or scree name shown "in-game". You should be able to do that, on the fly, for free, for each and every game you play if you feel the need. So if a person wants to be "Superman" one game and "Batman" the very next game they can do that with a /alias = "new nick" command of sorts. That should be absolutely FREE! If someone wants to change their login/account they could allow that for free also, just don't allow multiple logins under one product key. Implementing an "alias" command would, as far as I can see, eliminate the need for changing the name of login/password account names all together. Of course if they implemented my idea, they couldn't nickel and dime people's asses off so, my idea probably isn't gonna happen.

This comment was edited on Aug 17, 2010, 02:04.
14.
 
Re: Pachter: Activision Should Charge for CoD Multiplayer
Jul 16, 2010, 13:20
14.
Re: Pachter: Activision Should Charge for CoD Multiplayer Jul 16, 2010, 13:20
Jul 16, 2010, 13:20
 
Very well said 'Anonymous' person. I will not purchase ANY game that charges for multiplayer content ever unless the game itself is free AND the multiplayer price is a good value AND I actually want to play the game(of course). The first 2 things will probably never occur though. Just as a personal example, I never bought World of Warcraft because it was a monthly subscription based game so whether I actually liked it or not could never really be determined. I had very little concern for whether I would like it or not. Only, that I would be charged a monthly subscription fee to play it. Therefore, it never happened. I bought Warcraft III and Frozen Throne. Those games kick ass. Probably would have never even looked at them if they were subscription based or pay-for-play.
11.
 
Re: Pachter: Activision Should Charge for CoD Multiplayer
Jul 16, 2010, 12:59
11.
Re: Pachter: Activision Should Charge for CoD Multiplayer Jul 16, 2010, 12:59
Jul 16, 2010, 12:59
 
Mr Michael Pachter, you are a complete moron. I have bought games I haven't even ripped the packaging off of yet, that I haven't even installed yet. Free multiplayer gaming is not the reason for sagging PC game sales. We are talking only about "PC" game sales, right? Why do people think that the way to increase "PC" game sales as the world changes is to punish the consumer? The consumer is the first person blamed for everything. One factor that I don't ever hear anyone even talk about is the laws of supply and demand. The fact is that gamers have an incredibly huge selection of games to choose from now days compared to 20 years ago when PC gaming was first taking off. I have bought so many games over the years that I haven't even opened some of them. I guess I should whine that the software developer pirated my money because I got no entertainment for my purchase. I was so tempted to purchase Grand Theft Auto IV when it went on sale on Steam for $5 but I controlled my addictive behavior and passed. I paid $35 for San Andreas and I wouldn't pay $5 for the sequel. Why? Because I haven't even installed San Andreas. There are so many incredible quality games available right now, that if they stopped making games today, it wouldn't allow me enough time to enjoy them all unless I did it for a living. All these gaming companies didn't mind making millions of dollars selling these multi-player games a few years ago. But now all of a sudden they want to start charging? Thats one hell of a good way to alienate ALOT of people.
The only possible way I would even "begin" to consider paying for multiplayer content is if the software is free. You want to charge for multiplayer on the next "Call of Duty" game? Give me the game for free. Otherwise, stick it up your ass.

This comment was edited on Jul 16, 2010, 13:10.
9.
 
Re: Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II Trailer
Jun 12, 2010, 19:02
9.
Re: Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II Trailer Jun 12, 2010, 19:02
Jun 12, 2010, 19:02
 
I will sue LucasArts and George Lucas if this is not released on PC on the grounds of emotional distress, pain and suffering. PC is still king.
4.
 
Re: Evening Metaverse
Jun 11, 2010, 22:52
4.
Re: Evening Metaverse Jun 11, 2010, 22:52
Jun 11, 2010, 22:52
 

I propose granting Barrack Obama emergency powers to hold my **** in the event I am unable to do so.
16.
 
Re: Duke Nukem Forever Lawsuits Settled
Jun 11, 2010, 16:15
16.
Re: Duke Nukem Forever Lawsuits Settled Jun 11, 2010, 16:15
Jun 11, 2010, 16:15
 
This game is like Jason. You keep thinking its dead but it just won't die for some reason.
3.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Jun 9, 2010, 12:23
3.
Re: Morning Consolidation Jun 9, 2010, 12:23
Jun 9, 2010, 12:23
 
Rockstar can thank Steam and any other digital download service that sold the game at an incredibly low price for a majority of those sales I imagine. I almost bought it myself when it was on sale for $7.50 on Steam. But two things stopped me. The poor reviews of the game and the fact that I haven't even started playing San Andreas since I bought it years ago.
Thats still an impressive number though, regardless.
11.
 
Re: Crytek's Demo Doubts
Apr 17, 2010, 13:46
11.
Re: Crytek's Demo Doubts Apr 17, 2010, 13:46
Apr 17, 2010, 13:46
 
I have a strategy for Crytek that might help curb piracy. Actually my advice applies to all developers. Try releasing new games at a more reasonable price. Give good pre-order discounts. If pre-order is equal to pre-paid thats money in the bank. Would I ever buy pre-release content? LOL. Someone please help me. I've fallen and I can't get up.
88.
 
Re: Ubisoft: DRM
Apr 17, 2010, 04:40
88.
Re: Ubisoft: DRM Apr 17, 2010, 04:40
Apr 17, 2010, 04:40
 
$60 is a good price for a game? LOL. I used to pay $60 for games until I realized that if I sit back and wait patiently that almost all games drop to reasonable prices after they have been out long enough. $60 is not a good price for an average hard working person.
38.
 
Re: Ubisoft: DRM
Apr 16, 2010, 13:33
38.
Re: Ubisoft: DRM Apr 16, 2010, 13:33
Apr 16, 2010, 13:33
 
Why is a boxed game more valuable than the downloaded version? Im getting ready to sell most of my boxed games on EBay. All they do is take up space in my house.

Also, Im not so sure that it takes a couple of days to download a DVD-sized game anymore given the incredibly fast broadband speeds that are available today. More like 4 hours or less.

I also do not see the joy in getting my car, driving to s brick-n-mortar store, finding the game, standing in line to purchase it, and driving back home all that fun or cost effective if you consider your time and the price of gas to be of any value. If I was buying something else at the store and picked up a game as an afterthought that would be a slightly different story.

Digital distribution does not eliminate the convenience or reliability of having a physical copy. When you purchase a game online, once its downloaded, you are free to burn it to a DVD as many times as you like as long as you only install it on one machine at a time.

Nor do digital downloads lose 100% of their value once purchased. The value in my digital download purchases is getting a legitimate key. Its the key that you get with your purchase that it gives it value, at least for me. I have a Steam account with approximately 20 games in it. I could probably sell this account and password to somebody for a good used bundle price.

I think the only thing I can agree with you on is your use of the phrase "over zealous DRM". Thats what will destroy the sales of games. Verifying that a customer has a legitimate copy when the game is installed is fine for a single player game, but what the hell up with requiring a constant internet connection to play a crummy single player game that doesn't ever offer multiplayer support? If the game had online play it might even be justified. But this type of DRM for the splinter cell game just doesn't make sense to me.

This comment was edited on Apr 16, 2010, 13:38.
30.
 
Re: Ubisoft: DRM
Apr 16, 2010, 12:59
30.
Re: Ubisoft: DRM Apr 16, 2010, 12:59
Apr 16, 2010, 12:59
 
So Ubisoft just gave everyone without an internet connection the middle finger. For a company to require "constant" verification that a game is legitimate has got to be the stupidest idea I have ever heard. Good luck with this one Ubisoft. Your gonna need it.
7.
 
Re: On Sale
Nov 27, 2009, 13:56
7.
Re: On Sale Nov 27, 2009, 13:56
Nov 27, 2009, 13:56
 
I gotta stop checking these sales. I can't believe how cheap some of these games are. $2.90 for Star Wars:Knights of the Old Republic? Im going to break down and buy that game. But I probably can't even finish all the games I own now. I just bought CoH:Gold for $5 and Painkiller:Overdose for $3.46 recently. I need help.
438 Comments. 22 pages. Viewing page 19.
Newer [  1    7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  ] Older