TMGeorge wrote on Jan 7, 2017, 16:49:Rigs wrote on Jan 7, 2017, 15:51:
I've owned this game, at one point or another, a total of four times over the last two decades. I bought it at release in June (July?) 2001.
Same boat. Imported it at release to europe for 125 bucks. I got my 1st CC for it. (you dont really need CCs in europe) It sounded good but was terrible done. I gave up after 1 hour
jacobvandy wrote on Dec 31, 2016, 20:56:yonder wrote on Dec 31, 2016, 19:53:
"Just 5 more minutes" is a way of saying "Just one more turn" and there's no way CS deserves it.
Have you ever played Counter-Strike? It's literally composed of short rounds under 5 minutes each, and it's very addicting. Tons of people who play are thinking "oh, just one more round/match/map."
Blackhawk wrote on Dec 31, 2016, 20:06:
It is interesting that, out of all of the votes, not one game older than six years ended up winning a nomination, unless they happened to be made by Valve.
In other words, every candidate that won the 'vote' was something Valve could still make money off of by extra exposure.
Cutter wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 16:12:Fion wrote on Dec 2, 2016, 14:03:
Ok am I the only one who wonders why this new galaxy - and the planet in the trailer - seems to be populated by Humans, Asari, Krogan & Turians? This is a new galaxy with a few big ships carrying refugees from the Milky Way and all the planets & stations are populated by... the above Milky Way races? Is it lazy development or am I missing something?
A quick google search reveals that the game features just a single new race native to andromeda. It's an entirely new galaxy so the only Milky Way races in the game should be the ones on the either the Arcs or your ship! Just smacks of lazy development trying to squeeze out a cash-grab. I hope I'm wrong.
No, you're absolutely correct. This is EA afterall. It's just a cheap way to reuse existing assets. Apart from the Krogran the other 3 are all the same with minor tinkering. It's not like Star Wars where they'd have to build at least several dozen different models to get some variance in the species. Yeah, it sucks huh?
shiho wrote on Nov 30, 2016, 21:12:
I tried to read that article and it was both confusing and pompous. AdBlock was a blessing to the Internet poisoned with ads, some of which contain exploits.
Paywalls are garbage too.
Learn to integrate ads into your content, Internet. Product placement. TV has done it, radio shows have done it. It's the only chance you have.
Cutter wrote on Nov 30, 2016, 20:18:The Half Elf wrote on Nov 30, 2016, 19:20:
Should have given away Black Flag or Rogue.
Three was pretty meh but Black Flag kicked major ass which is why they're not giving it away. I'd suspect they're still doing decent sales on BF and little to none on Three.
jacobvandy wrote on Nov 30, 2016, 19:40:
Works for me, AC3 is the only one I never got around to playing!
Also, I read that someone dug around in the site code to find out what all the 30 Days of Ubi whatever things are, and free AC3 is listed for December 7th. So only a week to wait for that.
Other notable goodies include a first-come, first-served giveaway of 300 copies of a few "latest Ubisoft titles" on Dec. 9th, and repeats of previous monthly giveaways from the 22nd-25th: Prince of Persia, Rayman Legends, Splinter Cell, and The Crew.
ItBurn wrote on Nov 27, 2016, 13:35:
In my opinion, if you believe everything devs tell you about a game that is far from being released, you're the one at fault. Especially for that kind of indie game... I didn't have unrealistic expectations, I didn't preorder and I harbor no ill sentiment against them. A tiny novice indie team with an AAA fan base and expectations, it's impressive they actually shipped something without complete mental breakdown. Also, a ton of other devs have done things similar to this and you almost never hear about that kind of backlash from the public. It's a bit hypocritical. I didn't buy the game yet, especially because it's way too much money for what it is, but I'll definitely check it out later when they finish it.
Retired wrote on Nov 10, 2016, 22:09:How does 45 bucks for the generic edition, 60 for the edition with soundtrack and map and avatars and lil thingies, and 80 bucks for the version with all the bells and whistles including a "Digital Collector's Guide" seem overpriced?
Did I miss something somewhere? Game seems over priced....
ledhead1969 wrote on Nov 5, 2016, 18:30:Prez wrote on Nov 5, 2016, 15:58:
It's a Trump presidency simulator!
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
A closer analogy would be a Hillary presidency. I forgive your partisan viewpoint as you must be one of Hill's uninformed and complacent sheep.
People seem to forget that Trump and his followers are now the revolutionaries. It isn't 1968 people. Republicans, Trump, anyone who doesn't tow the liberal party line are now anarchists, counter-culture, outside the main stream. It is Hillary who must crush that dissent and have her followers inform on it.
(queue The More You Know)
Ozmodan wrote on Oct 8, 2016, 16:59:
I just stopped buying their dlc, it just seems like a soak your gamers blind strategy. Especially when the music is separate? No one does that than this idiot developer.
Saboth wrote on Oct 8, 2016, 16:59:
Soda is definitely bad for your health, but not nearly as bad as some other things that we tax, like cigarettes. I'm never in favor of more taxes on people, as I think most people pay enough in taxes, and a soda tax is highly regressive. It could (and probably would) also be the start of a slippery slope. First the government taxes soda for having too much sugar and high calories. Then candy, chocolate, etc. Then on to snack cakes, pies, ice cream, fast food, etc. Finally high-fat meats, sausages, bacon, etc. Why not? Soda is not the single cause of obesity in the country. Singling one unhealthy item out of hundreds of thousands isn't right, and I think once the government gets their foot in the door, the sky's the limit.
Soda is no worse for you than these supposedly healthy "juices" that have the same number of calories and similar ingredients.
SirKnight wrote on Oct 6, 2016, 11:12:
I first read that as "..give low scores for DICKS."