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:
Germany 08/31
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Bhruic

Real Name Bhruic   
Search for:
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Homepage http://
Signed On Nov 14, 2004, 23:07
Total Comments 3146 (Veteran)
User ID 22304
User comment history
< Newer [ 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 ] Older >

News Comments > etc.
6. Re: etc. Jan 14, 2012, 18:40 Bhruic
Because the person voicing Kerrigan before wasn't Six?

She did the first SC2 one, sure, but Glynnis Talken Campbell did the voice for both SC1 and Brood War.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > etc.
2. Re: etc. Jan 14, 2012, 15:07 Bhruic
Really? That's disappointing, why didn't they stick with the woman who was voicing Kerrigan before?  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Op Ed
69. Re: SOPA Isnít the Solution, But Can We At Least Agree Thereís A Problem Jan 12, 2012, 23:44 Bhruic
I don't care if I'm alone on this, but I'll take 8 hours of modern shooter over 30 hours of Doom.

Sure, but why are those the only 2 options? Why not 30 hours of modern shooter? Quality increases don't have to come at the expense of quantity.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Op Ed
53. Re: Op Ed Jan 12, 2012, 12:20 Bhruic
Actually I'm pretty sure 99% of the population (and governments) consider stealing "wrong". Because it is wrong (and harmful), it is illegal.

No, downloading an .mp3 isn't the same caliber crime as stealing a physical object, but it is stealing. It's wrong. It's illegal.

"Wrong" is a subjective term. Many of that 99% of the population have pirated things. Apparently they don't consider it so wrong as to prevent them from doing it. Much like, say, speeding. It's "wrong", but people do it anyway.

Also, it's not actually illegal to pirate material (in the majority of cases), which is why you see civil court proceedings rather than criminal court ones.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Op Ed
46. Re: SOPA Isnít the Solution, But Can We At Least Agree Thereís A Problem Jan 11, 2012, 23:18 Bhruic
If you can't afford it then don't buy it.

Your argument falls apart here. There are two ways to approach the piracy issue - one that it costs publishers/developers sales, and the other that it's morally wrong. You start out trying to make the former, but the above comment clearly only works for the latter.

If someone can't afford it, they can't afford it. Not pirating it won't make them able to afford it, and it won't get the company a sale. So the only argument you can make is that it's morally wrong. And as morals are entirely subjective, you can, of course, make that argument, but there's absolutely no reason for anyone to accept your morals over their own.

They did everything that PC gamers asked for but because they went after pirates people that pirate games got annoyed and kicked up a stink.

People "kicked up a stink" because they are using the idiotic "IP = person" rationale. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that that's not a valid way of identifying people, but companies do it anyway. And when they do, they deserve the scorn they get.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Steam Group Seeks Communication
5. Re: Steam Group Seeks Communication Jan 11, 2012, 23:09 Bhruic
If it's such a big deal, don't buy it when they (eventually) release it. But crying that you are "entitled" to some information about it just makes you look like a whiny brats.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Diablo III in February?
264. Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 18:31 Bhruic
If, on the other hand, you take connectivity as a given

And this is where the stupidity of your position jumps out. The reason we're actually having this discussion at all is because connectivity isn't a given. If 100% of the population had a 100% stable connection 100% of the time, then there'd be no rational reason to be upset about this decision. It doesn't take much thinking, however, to easily come up with numerous situations for which there wouldn't be a 100% stable connection. Or one that's available 100% of the time. Or for 100% of the people.

Now, Blizzard can just say "fuck you" to those people, which they've done, and that's fine, it's their business, and they are welcome to ignore whomever they wish. But apologists like you coming in here and acting as if we don't even have the right to be upset about it, on the other hand, is not kosher. You're like the idiot coming in to a thread to say that a game works fine for him, so anyone complaining about bugs is wrong.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Diablo III in February?
253. Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 11, 2012, 12:48 Bhruic
there is no defensible reason to require constant online connectivity.

I don't agree with him, but he's claiming that it would be too much work for Blizzard to not require an online connection. It's not worth the effort for Blizzard to cater to people who want to play single player in situations where they don't have an internet connection.

Which I agree, is Blizzard's position - they've already said to "buy another game" if that's a concern. So re-hashing the point is probably not worth it, you're not going to get a better response.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Diablo III in February?
211. Re: Diablo III in February? Jan 10, 2012, 14:47 Bhruic
Is D3 the same as WoW? No. Is it as inherently multiplayer? No. But it is, as a whole, a connected experience. There is no dedicated single-player content. Most players will play with friends at least some of the time. Most players will use the auction houses. And for that to work, everyone needs to have continuous connection.

This has to be the dumbest reason I've read yet. There's no "dedicated single-player content" in Terraria either, does that mean it should have required a constant connection? There are plenty of games (including Diablo 1 and 2) that didn't differentiate between singleplayer and multiplayer content. That's no excuse for making singleplayer content more difficult to access than it previously was.

And that, of course, is why people have a problem. It's the exact same situation that DRM provided us with - more annoyances for customers, with no added advantages (and more advantages for pirates). If a company is going to inconvenience the customer, they damn well better be giving the customer something back for that inconvenience. Sadly, Blizzard is not.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Op Ed
42. Re: Op Ed Jan 10, 2012, 11:27 Bhruic

True, there probably weren't 10 million Xboxes back then but I'm pretty sure there were a lot more than 2 million.

77% of Xbox360 buyers also bought CoD2. So, yeah, you can talk about what "most people" would agree, but it's pretty clear that the CoD franchise was already massively popular well before 4.

For the sake of clarity, what criteria do you use to distinguish weapons?

Depends on how you want to define "weapons". You can use a naming system, which is accurate, but also not really useful. If you take a weapon in-game, re-skin it, and call it something else, is it a separate weapon? I'd say no. On the other hand, when you use real-world examples, you tend to run into situations where that happens, and the weapons are considered different.

At the end of the day, it's a rather academic point, and I'm willing to allow your version if that would end the debate - Borderlands having 17+ million "guns" doesn't, imo, support your position any better than it having only 8.

How can you assure that? You have no idea what id was thinking when they were designing Quake.

Basic understanding of game design?

As for not knowing what they were thinking, no, but then you have no idea what "most people" are thinking, and you have no problem claiming to do so.

Or the Croteam guys working on Serious Sam?

Chose this as the easiest to work on - no, I don't. They thought of the type of game they wanted to make first, and then they picked the weapons that would work best within that setting. You keep insisting on getting basic game design backwards, which would explain your confusion.

Games like Painkiller, Bulletstorm, Quake, UT, Tribes and Bulletstorm are defined by their weapons, as are shooters in general.

And yet they aren't. If Quake were designed by it's weapons, that would mean that any game that had the same weapons would, by definition, be a Quake game. And yet games with similar games have managed to not be Quake games. Because, of course, weapons are only one part of a game.

Anybody who played/plays Quake multiplayer would take serious issue with the lack of rocket launchers. Rocket launchers are a fundamental part of the multiplayer experience and the Quake series is defined by multiplayer.

And yet I played Quakeworld extensively, and I wouldn't have an issue with the lack of rocket launchers. And the focus of Quake 4 was pretty heavily on the single player experience. I'm starting to wonder if you even know what you are talking about with Quake.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Op Ed
38. Re: Op Ed Jan 9, 2012, 12:19 Bhruic
You're aware that the CoD series didn't become really popular until CoD4, right?

Really? You might want to go look up some sales numbers before you throw off such blatant untruths. As an example:

Call of Duty 2 was the most popular launch title on the Xbox 360, with 250,000 units sold in its first week of availability.[43] 77% of people who purchased an Xbox 360 also purchased the game, which contributed to its high sales.[44] As of July 2006, 1.4 million copies of the game had been sold on the Xbox 360.[45] By January 2008, the game had sold 2 million copies.

Did it have the 10+ million copies that we see today? No, but there weren't 10+ million Xbox 360s to sell to.

And then, of course, there's the fact that CoD:Black Ops was set in the 60s, and featured weaspons that were available at that period of time, rather than modern ones.

No, people expect sequels to play like its predecessors and the weapon selection is a fundamental part of how a game plays

Funny how you start with "No", and then go on to say exactly what I said.

You're arguing semantics.

No, I'm arguing the point. The FAMAS with the flashlight has different specs than the FAMAS with the suppressor. The slight variation in specs (and performance) doesn't stop it from still being a FAMAS, and doesn't make it a separate gun in either case.

Again, you're wrong. Certain weapons are staples of certain games

No, certain weapons become staples of certain games. I can assure you that even if you were right, and no Quake game would be made without a rocket launcher, no one at id was sitting around saying "Man, we need to make a game with a rocket launcher in it, what game can we make to do that?" when they were first designing Quake.

Quake without a rocket launcher is not Quake, which is why every Quake game has a rocket launcher. You seem to dismiss this fact, even though it's plainly obvious to anyone who has played those games.

If id made a Quake 5, and didn't have a rocket launcher in it, then I'm sure there would be complaints. But at the same time, I'm sure there would be many people who would buy it and would completely consider it a "Quake" game.

On the other hand, many people didn't consider Quake 4 a true "Quake" game, despite the fact it did contain rocket launchers, so that's hardly a relevant point.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Op Ed
36. Re: Op Ed Jan 9, 2012, 07:04 Bhruic
If you're working on an established franchise, you pretty much have to include the most popular weapons from the previous games

I'm curious, did you just completely miss the fact that Call of Duty went from being set in WWII, and containing WWII-era weapons to being set in modern times with modern weapons? Did you miss the fact that people continued to buy the game despite the fact there were no weapon overlaps?

Regardless of that fact, that's an irrelevant point, as it doesn't address the actual issue - whether guns are the "defining element" of shooters. The fact that people may come to expect a sequel to a game to contain weapons from previous versions of the game is nothing more than people expecting a sequel to be similar to its predecessors.

So you're saying that if two weapons are of the same basic type, they are the same weapon?

No, I'm saying that two weapons that are called the same thing, but have minor variance in their listed stats are both the same base item. You want to count each separate variation as being a completely unique weapon - which is just plain stupid.

Or, to use your "modern weapons" example, you're suggesting that when I have a FAMAS in BF3, and I switch the accessory from a flashlight to a muzzle suppressor, that I suddenly have a completely new gun in my hands. Sorry, that's not how it works.

You're implying that weapons are completely irrelevant and have no impact on gameplay.

No, I'm not implying any such thing. No wonder you're putting forth so many irrelevant arguments, you don't even have a handle on what I'm saying.

Of course weapons are relevant to a game. The weapons in Quake are quite different than the weapons in CoD, and that definitely helps differentiate the games. But if two games share weapon sets, that doesn't make them undifferentiated. There are many, many more factors that go into that. And it is those factors that end up defining games, not which particular guns they happen to have included. Again, the guns that end up in a game are almost always a result of other factors that have been decided on before the guns are ever considered.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Op Ed
33. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 21:32 Bhruic
While I agree that the setting generally defines what guns are used, I strongly disagree that the series would be as popular if it used fictional guns

Did the developers sit down and say "We want to use modern day weapons, what do we have to do to do that?" or "We want to use a modern day setting, what do we have to do to do that?" Pretty obviously the latter. I doubt there's a FPS in existence (although who knows, there might actually be one or two) where the developers sat down and planned out what guns they were going to use before they planned anything else.

Guns are figured out after the setting. Therefore guns can't define a game, because they are a by-product of the setting.

Different stats are equivalent to different weapons.

No they don't. A shotgun with +5% accuracy is not functionally different from a shotgun with +10% accuracy. The actual gun is still the same in both cases - a shotgun. You wouldn't (I would hope) suggest that a +1 Longsword and a +2 Longsword aren't both Longswords, so why try and make the distinction here?

I'm pretty sure you'd be the only one to hold that opinion. A Quake game without a rocket launcher is not a Quake game.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be. If you asked people what makes a Quake game a Quake game, I doubt more than 1% would answer you with "a rocket launcher".

Again, you'd be the only one to hold that opinion. What you're basically saying is that you could take Halo, change the name to UT2012 and that alone would be enough to qualify it as a UT game. Most fans would disagree

Again, no I wouldn't. And again, your blinders are showing. You're implying that the only difference between Halo and UT is the weapons. Anyone who's played both would wonder wtf you were smoking were you to make that claim to them.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Op Ed
27. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 09:59 Bhruic
Would CoD be so popular if it didn't use real-world guns?

Probably. The appeal of CoD is in the frenetic gameplay, not the names of the guns. However, it's the setting that defined the guns, not the reverse. A game set in WWII will have (generally speaking) WWII-era weapons. A game set in modern times will have "real-world" guns. It's the time period that defines what guns are used.

Would Borderlands have any appeal whatsoever if it only had 10 weapons?

Luckily yes, as it doesn't have more than 10 weapons. It just has a bunch of various stats for its weapons.

Would Quake really be Quake without the railgun, rocket launcher and lightning gun?

Sure, if I were playing a game called "Quake X", and it didn't have those, I wouldn't consider it any less a Quake game.

Would UT be UT without the shock rifle and translocator?

Well, the translocator isn't a gun, but if we're stretching... Again, sure. There's no requirement for those items to be present for it to be a UT game.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Op Ed
25. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 06:51 Bhruic

Guns (or weapons that fire projectiles) define the shooter genre

Sure, ok, but you're not using the same definition used in the article. There's a difference between being the defining element of a genre, and being a defining element of a game. Yes, guns are defining elements of the shooter genre - by definition. But they are not the defining element of individual games.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Op Ed
23. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 06:25 Bhruic
You can't have a shooter without guns.

Sure you can, you can have bows and arrows, slingshots, etc.

However, that's beside the point - it doesn't matter even if guns were necessary, being necessary doesn't mean they are the defining element. Guns do not define the games, the setting, storyline and adversaries do.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Op Ed
21. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 04:55 Bhruic
Out of curiosity, how is that statement invalid?

Because guns are rarely, if ever, the defining element of a game.

Take Crysis. I don't remember any of the guns in the game. What I do remember is a cool island, beautiful (for the time) graphics, an interesting powersuit system, and a silly "aliens" concept. Those are the things that "define" the game. What guns it had is almost completely superfluous.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Op Ed
17. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 01:49 Bhruic
Well, the blurb quote above was bad enough, but when I got to:
Now riddle me this: What's the defining element of any shooter? Why, it's the guns!
it became painfully clear that the author doesn't have a clue wtf he's talking about.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Steam Grows: Eyes Your Television
48. Re: Steam Grows: Eyes Your Television Jan 7, 2012, 03:14 Bhruic
The Steam client is very poor at dealing with large game libraries and completely unequipped for downloading your entire library should you ever need to. It's got a lot better than when it first started but that mainly occurred when they first added grouping - it hasn't improved since then.

Yeah, frankly I'm surprised at how feature-poor Steam really is. I mean, I know their main focus is on selling games, but the more "user friendly" they make it, the more people will focus on it exclusively. I mean, I know a lot of people already do, so maybe they just don't care.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Evening Legal Briefs
6. Re: French court fines Google $65K Jan 7, 2012, 03:05 Bhruic
Bit late MLG, since GoDaddy had already reversed their course on SOPA last week.

They didn't remove their support for the bill, they just removed their public statement of support for the bill. It's not like they actually changed their minds and think SOPA is bad.

If a company said "Murdering people is awesome!", I'd stop doing business with them, even if they released a "Ok, murder isn't really that awesome after all" statement.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
3146 Comments. 158 pages. Viewing page 51.
< Newer [ 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 ] Older >


Blue's News logo