User comment history
< Newer [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ] Older >
| News Comments > Evening Consolidation |
 |
| 2. |
Re: Evening Consolidation |
May 5, 2011, 23:25 |
Cram |
|
|
Wallshadows wrote on May 5, 2011, 22:44:
I would like to se more third party support and quality M+ rated games in general but okay.
This, thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > The Old Republic Date Uncertain |
|
| 8. |
Re: The Old Republic Date Uncertain |
May 5, 2011, 12:46 |
Cram |
|
|
Despoiler wrote on May 5, 2011, 12:44:
The Game Testing Program is made of people that signed up on the website. They are not internal employees or paid QA.
Ah, sweet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > The Old Republic Date Uncertain |
|
| 4. |
Re: The Old Republic Date Uncertain |
May 5, 2011, 12:37 |
Cram |
|
|
From my understanding of the definitions of Alpha and Beta testing, you're describing Alpha as everything you mentioned is internal based.
I myself was not aware that any public testing beyond inside of Bioware, ie involving the public (a beta) like family and friends, had started yet. Family and friends being public since they are not employed by Bioware or being paid to play the game.
As for the 1000 concurrent players testing the game. Was not aware of that either but if true, that's cool. Where'd they find these people anyway?
Despoiler wrote on May 5, 2011, 12:30:
Your friend must be a janitor or something because beta has in fact started. Did you see the feature from the Lead Combat Designer? Scroll to the bottom and read from "How are we making these decisions?" Notice the phrases, "Game Testing Program", "focus groups", and "internal testers".
http://www.swtor.com/news/blog/20110408 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Diablo III Details? |
|
| 7. |
Re: Diablo III Details? |
Apr 14, 2011, 14:40 |
Cram |
|
|
I'll keep this post spoiler free and summarize a bit. This fellow claims to have been a tester, and blatantly does not like the game he was testing: Diablo 3.
I do not want to believe a lot of what he has said, but I can't completely discount some of the bad news. After the audience member question/answer period at D3, I was not left with an overwhelming feeling of confidence in the D3 team. Way to many "uhhhh" and "we aren't sure" and "we'll talk about that later" answers to basic questions. Albeit a lot of the audience questions were absolutely pathetic.
Flux at diii.net has some good points why this is probably a hoax. Also, I find it very difficult to believe this person did not sign an NDA separately from his contract; of course that doesn't mean he wouldn't break his NDA, guy seems overly pissed off about everything.
Most of what little "new" info he provides is predictable. Bosses, location/settings of acts three and four etc (location of Act3 has more or less been confirmed anyway) and console ports. Everything else he's says has already been said. If this person is as mad as he is and wants to stick it to Blizzard, why doesn't he provide some actual info that he would easily have? Lore and story info? More info on mechanics, pvp, quests, artisans, unannounced systems, battle.net info, the works. He could have spent 5 minutes writing down facts he should have as a game tester and completely spoiled all of D3 in every way, something someone as mad as he's trying to be I assume would do.
A major reason I don't believe this persons story is that he brought up Titan.
Blizzard is notorious for separating development teams. The SC2 & WoW teams had no idea what the "Hydra" (Diablo 3 code-name) team were working on (though I'm sure they assumed). They were not privy to any information on Hydra, or allowed in the Hydra development offices. Numerous online sources out there on that, I can find and provide those later if this point is important to anyone. I find it difficult if not impossible to believe that a Diablo3 game/bug tester would have any information at all on Titan. However, I don't work at Blizzard and obviously have no idea what's going on in their offices more recently. For all I know it's a massive Titan festival everynight for all employees.
This comment was edited on Apr 14, 2011, 14:46. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > On Sale |
|
| 1. |
Re: On Sale |
Apr 13, 2011, 20:33 |
Cram |
|
|
Got an expired error on "SHOWERS". Maybe because you can't use it already discounted products; no idea if you can use promo codes on sale items.
$3.75 for Torchlight. Winning.
If anyone's looking to kill a few hours playing an excellent homage to Diablo style games, now's the time. Considering how much more money people willingly pay for poor quality DLC, this is an amazing price for the game.
$10 for Amnesia is also very reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > etc. |
|
| 1. |
Voice Actors... |
Apr 1, 2011, 11:56 |
Cram |
|
|
| Surprised Rob Wiethoff as John Marston (RDR) and especially David Warner as Jon Irenicus (Baldur's Gate 2) weren't mentioned. My personal opinion I suppose, but those are the only two characters whose voice acting ever caught my attention. God damn Irenicus was a badass. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Game Reviews |
|
| 17. |
Re: Game Reviews |
Mar 24, 2011, 02:07 |
Cram |
|
|
| Painkiller had the best of both worlds, quicksaves at your command and an excellent checkpoint system. It can be done..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Consolidation |
|
| 3. |
Re: Morning Consolidation |
Mar 24, 2011, 00:50 |
Cram |
|
|
Well....RE4 being my favorite in the series I can't complain (if this is true, I don't think it has been confirmed yet).
It's like a FFVII situation, like FFVII was the first RPG/FF for many people (not me) and thus is their favorite (not mine), RE4 was my first Resident Evil game I played. I've played all the previous ones, but RE4 stands out for me well above the others. Had I played the others first long before RE4, I'm sure the situation would be different. RE5 made me sad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Out of the Blue |
|
| 1. |
Re: Out of the Blue |
Mar 11, 2011, 10:17 |
Cram |
|
|
Fortunately I've heard from everyone and they're all ok. They're in Tokyo where the worst of it was definitely not felt.
Hope every Bluesnews'er that has friends/family in Japan has heard from or will hear from them soon and that they're safe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > 20 Years of Blizzard |
|
| 37. |
Re: 20 Years of Blizzard |
Mar 10, 2011, 02:00 |
Cram |
|
|
Heh lol now this huh?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001734/
Cerebral palsy is condition, sometimes thought of as a group of disorders that can involve brain and nervous system functions such as movement, learning, hearing, seeing, and thinking.
I think it fits just fine.
Edit: Post after post I've made in this thread, the replies have deviated further and further away from the points I've made. It's unfortunate so much of it fell on deaf ears  If all that's left is discussing a irrelevant sentence in my last post, I concede I'll be the first to walk out the door out of this thread not letting it hit my ass on the way out.
This comment was edited on Mar 10, 2011, 02:10. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > 20 Years of Blizzard |
|
| 35. |
Re: 20 Years of Blizzard |
Mar 10, 2011, 01:41 |
Cram |
|
|
*facepalm*
Really? So the more money a company makes, the more you're deserving of having your dick sucked? In that same logic, I just bought a Microsoft Keyboard and Mouse Combo for $60. I guess I'm supposed to feel like their entire hardware division, hell the entire company, should serenade me with gold, women and wine? I'm entitled to Office2007 for free because I bought Windows 2007. What is it you think you're entitled too from Blizzard anyway?
I find it interesting you pick on Blizzard for a lack of, or low, integrity. You must have a jaded view and seething hatred for not only the PC Gaming industry, but the Gaming Industry as a whole considering Blizzard is far and beyond almost every other company in the industry in just about every way that counts...: customer support, continued product support and quality product. These area's all speak to Blizzard's integrity, and are the reasons why they make as much money as they do.
I feel like I'm talking to someone with Cerebral Palsy.
This comment was edited on Mar 10, 2011, 01:56. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > 20 Years of Blizzard |
|
| 30. |
Re: 20 Years of Blizzard |
Mar 8, 2011, 23:51 |
Cram |
|
|
Yifes wrote on Mar 8, 2011, 23:00:
Real stuff though, mind you; splitting Starcraft 2 apart, dropping lan support or selling horses on Wow doesn't count.
Again, the same old retarded arguments that never held any water. Yes man, JRR Tolkien is a total dick for splitting LOTR apart into 3 books. And the same with Star Wars, and every trilogy ever made.
It's difficult trying to have a respectful debate with those that have such a immense sense of entitlement, as well as the inability to support anything they're saying.
I can't fathom how Blizzard supporting one of their franchises with two guaranteed expansions is an issue with anyone. Like Yifes said, it's ok if LotR or SW is split up, but it's unacceptable if SC2 is. I don't get it. What if there had been three campaigns in the original release and then no expansions, that was it. The same people would now be upset about the complete lack of expansions to the game and then say things like, for example, "Activision moved all the SC2 people to Titan instead of making new content for SC2 so Titan can come out faster and Activision can make lots of $" On top of that, these same people would be further upset about how much longer SC2 would have taken to be released had it contained three equally sized campaigns at release. SC2 would still be in development this very moment if that had been the case.
I already expressed my disappointment with the LAN issue, and I don't even own or play the game. All I was trying to say was that there is no way to confirm Activision was responsible for that decision. In ones opinion they may think Activision was the cause, but there is no way to know that for sure. For Microtransactions, like the horse I mentioned, Blizzard is simply filling a demand for novelties. The demand exists and is huge. People with $$$ get irrelevant bonus stuff that makes them happy, Blizzard profits which makes its stake/shareholders happy and simultaneously in no way is their integrity or quality design philosophies compromised. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > 20 Years of Blizzard |
|
| 20. |
Re: 20 Years of Blizzard |
Mar 8, 2011, 07:17 |
Cram |
|
|
Go ahead and edit that mess of a post there Luke.
I don't need to re-read my entire previous post, I know what I said.
Oh, I do see there is some irrelevant new sentence added somewhere in that mess. Interesting one, considering I specifically stated I have several massive issues of my own with Blizzard that piss me off to no end.
By the way; English, do you speak and can you write it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > 20 Years of Blizzard |
|
| 18. |
Re: 20 Years of Blizzard |
Mar 8, 2011, 07:02 |
Cram |
|
|
InBlack wrote on Mar 8, 2011, 06:04:
Well said Cram. Although I too have deep reservations about Activision. I just dont trust them to keep their promise of "hands off approach" with Blizzard. As soon as WoW's bottom line starts dropping off (and its bound to happen, sooner or later people will get tired of the same old thing) they will start to meddle.
We'll all move to Titan.
I do admit that, at this time, it is impossible to in any way predict what Activisions meddling/involvement may be in that one (Titan). For the sake of my arguments, I speak only of what has happened until the present (from 20 years ago to today). You may very well be correct, and Blizzard may shortly 180 on us. They, however, have not yet done so as others seem to think due to the Activision merger. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > 20 Years of Blizzard |
|
| 16. |
Re: 20 Years of Blizzard |
Mar 8, 2011, 06:46 |
Cram |
|
|
That's a matter of opinion. Blizzard innovated. Activision Blizzard just improve upon the previous.
Blizzard didn't start improving upon the previous after they merged with Activision. When did Blizzard innovate beforehand?
Starcraft set the bar. Then Diablo 2 set the bar. Then Warcraft 3 set the bar. Then World of Warcraft set the bar.
It can be argued Diablo was just an improvement from Ultima and a handful of other games beforehand. Diablo was not the first of its kind. Darkstone and Revenent, despite coming slightly later, were a far greater source of innovation in the genre then Diablo was at that time, and to be honest that is not saying much since did neither of those two games innovate much beyond graphics and new system or two. Starcraft? Ideas stolen and improved upon from Command and Conquer and a handful of other games, who no doubt got their ideas from other games before that, just in a different setting albeit a vast amount of improvements, but not innovative at all. How did Diablo 2 set any bar from previous games in the genre? Skill trees had already been done a couple years before. Nothing else to discuss there. How did Warcraft 3 set any bar over WC1 and 2? It was, to some (not everyone) an improvement over the previous two games. To those others, from what I remember, it was actually a step backwards.
Now WoW is a touchy subject because of how successful it became. How do you argue anything against this glorious empire right?
I personally think it ONLY improved upon Everquest and a handful of other MMO's of the time. It also brought a recognized IP into the fray. I do not see any innovations in Vanilla WoW compared to the MMO's before it. At all. It was just an unbalanced a level grinding mmo as any other before it, that thanks to a massive budget and excellent team it eventually received decent end/game content and subsequently very well developed expansions and support. Expansions that, compared to other similarly priced expansions in the genre, offers far more polished content and experiences. Again, not saying too much since it's all an unbalanced mess just like most other MMO's.
Starcraft set the bar.
Starcraft 2 did not set the bar.
What were you expecting? Starcraft 1 was and for all I know still is one of the most played games in the RTS Capital of South Korea. It was the pinnacle of RTS genre perfected (and not through any form of innovation). Why would Blizzard reformulate the sequel to something that has already been proven right? If you were expecting some sort of revolution, that was on you and in no way is Blizzard at fault. You're disappointed in your own self-mislead expectations. They did exactly what they wanted to do with Starcraft 2 and they did it right and I say that as a non-RTS player.
Maybe I've just tired of RTS games in general, and Diablo 3 will do it for me, but that their first major release since the merger has turned me off definitely has me thinking that the company is no longer what it was.
I see nothing that shows their first major release would have been any different merger or not. From a business standpoint, it works. From a gamers standpoint, it works. SC2 was an excellent complete release, sans LAN support which I agree kinda blows but I don't see how Activision would be to blame there, and its expansions look to improve the storyline and gameplay. You are the only one that may have set the expectation that you should have gotten three massive campaigns at release of SC2.
In an era where single player portion of games are 4-5 hours long, SC2 was far beyond that. Its multiplayer is again proving timeless. None of this came from innovation, but from support and improvements in the genre and the IP.
I will concede my argument if you can list and prove what Blizzard has done to innovate the respective genres they've developed games in. Forcing MMO developers to develop perfected games with huge end game content at release in order to be at all successful, fyi, is not an innovation. In the last few posts, it may come off that I've both defended and attacked Blizzard. I respect the hell out of them, despite being extremely pissed off at how they've handled SC2 and D3 with massive pre-release information drawn out over years etc. I stand firm, however, that Activision has yet to do anything to degrade Blizzards integrity in any way over the last three years. And I despise Bobby K.
How about Micro-transactions? Hah, no one is forcing you to buy that flying star horse for 25 bucks, nor does it give you any advantage. No matter what money grubbing things you think you've seen to shake your fist in Activisions direction, it has not given anyone the advantage for having money, effected their integrity, quality or gaming social responsibility in the products themselves.
Blizzard is the same Blizzard they were last year, three years ago, 10 years ago and 20 years ago. It's your own self-created expectations that have let you down if anything.
This comment was edited on Mar 8, 2011, 07:06. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Alice: Madness Returns GDC Trailer |
|
| 8. |
Re: Alice: Madness Returns GDC Trailer |
Mar 8, 2011, 05:38 |
Cram |
|
|
I enjoyed the trailer; it's enough to keep me interested till June.
I did get, for the first time in awhile, a consolized feeling from some of the battle scenes. This may just be in my head, and I don't say consolized in a negative connotation like others may. For example, I love Thief 3 on the PC, despite an entire of legion of people saying it's a consolized and a piece of crap (I just don't get that at all...Go Shalebridge Cradle!) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > 20 Years of Blizzard |
|
| 13. |
Re: 20 Years of Blizzard |
Mar 8, 2011, 05:15 |
Cram |
|
|
Actually, no, it didn't. Certainly not Starcraft 2 at any rate. Despite being a day one purchase, it didn't do anything for me, and while I may be in the minority here, others will no doubt agree. I might be wrong, but I get the feeling that most of those who have spent a significant amount of time with Starcraft 2 either really didn't play much of the first, or were just hoping for a high definition version of it.
Nothing to do with, and you'll have an impossible time proving to me it was, Activision; the issue I was tackling.
The WoW expansions have been about milking what's already been established. It's just more of the same, and for me, that's largely the problem. They're not trying anything new, and they're not setting the bar again. Which is fine, if that's what floats your boat, but I was hoping for something new.
Nothing to do with, and you'll have an impossible time proving to me it was, Activision; the issue I was tackling. This is what MMO expansions do, period.
Here's hoping we get that with Diablo 3, but to be honest, I won't be holding my breath. Not now.
What I'm about to say has been said by a dozen other people on this site, and thousands elsewhere. Blizzard does NOT innovate. They improve upon the previous. To what extent may be a matter of opinion.
Diablo 3 will be Diablo 1 and 2, HD'd with a couple new things. That's what I'm expecting and TBH that's what I want. I love the Diablo universe and I absolutely don't need Diablo 3 to go bad shit insane with new ideas and innovations. To have EVER expected anything else, those were expectations you made NOT what Blizzard made for you. To be disappointed with that is to be disappointed with Blizzard in general (all 20 years of Blizzard), not to be disappointed with Activation's involvement (again the issue I was tackling). Blizzard improves upon, they do not innovate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
795 Comments. 40 pages. Viewing page 21.
< Newer [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ] Older > |
|
Twitter 
