Verno wrote on Jun 3, 2011, 10:34:This new iteration does or are you just guessing? I never played the first because of the negative reception, not sure if they improved anything on this release or not.
You're in a for a big surprise. It sucks. Surprise! Ok that wasn't a big surprise I guess.
Verno wrote on May 31, 2011, 15:17:I was concerned when I first read the headline, but when I dug into it a bit further it seems like they're charging for a bunch of extra stuff that wasn't in the box anyway. Now if they're going to start using this as a platform to charge for content, then I can see panic setting in. My comment about it not mattering to non-CoD fans was taken (or put) wrong and has detracted from my main point a few posts back, but oh well.
I don't think that people should necessarily panic or conclude the absolute worst but I think they are more than justified in worrying about it.
Verno wrote on May 31, 2011, 15:05:It is well said, but out of place. He's assuming that "a company makes a decision to monetize something that used to be free". What are they, exactly, charging for that you used to get for free? My intent wasn't to indicate that gaming news is isolated to one game, just that this is not a huge issue to be concerned about with CoD (let alone other games) until we find out more.
Very well said. Those kinds of remarks are about as useful as the terrible posts about how bad X website they continually read and post on a daily basis is.
Bhruic wrote on May 31, 2011, 14:58:You're taking that out of context. That was more directed at those who come in here and say "See?! I told you they were going to do this, they suck!". My overall point was, for what this service affects, it really doesn't impact anyone. At least not yet, until more details come out. It's just tiring to see people use any headline news as a platform to bitch with little to no substance or information.If you didn't like or care about CoD anyway, none of this should matter to you
This sort of logic always strikes me as strange. It's as if people think that games are completely enclosed entities that never have any impact beyond themselves.
When a company makes a decision to monetize something that used to be free, why would we assume they would restrict it to a single game? Or a single game series? If it turns out they make money off of this, is there any reason to believe that they wouldn't want to port the system to all of their other games?
So yes, I might have little interest in the next CoD game, but that doesn't mean that I don't have an interest in the business decisions they are making regarding that game, because it's very likely the success or failure of this new system will spread to other games that I do care about.
StaTik wrote on May 25, 2011, 08:47:For some reason, I've always glossed over the idea of using a wheel for racing games. Just never appealed to me. But after reading these posts and seeing the youtube link above, I'm very tempted. Is it truly that much better than a controller? Also, any wheel recommendations to get started with?
I'm loving this game! If you like Dirt2 you will like Dirt3 it's just a better game in all aspects.
Wheel support on the PC is awesome there is true H-shifting with clutch. Once in a while when I get high centered on a berm the gravel grabs the linkage under the car and takes it out of gear. Truly the best driving game I have ever played.
Tumbler wrote on May 24, 2011, 12:03:Dude, I'm so bummed I bought into Brink at the onset. I would gladly trade Brink for Duke. In a second.
I hope ppl buy this because I am interested in playing it but I'm not going to be the sucker who plunks down $60. Already did that with brink, someone else's turn now, I give you brink you give me duke, balance restored.
Icewind wrote on May 23, 2011, 15:39:Yeah LOC get your shit together! Don't come in here with your anti-gaming attitude and your uneducated drivel! It's seriously offensive. Like seriously!LOC wrote on May 23, 2011, 15:21:
Sweet. Don't know why exactly, but I'm rather looking forward to this game for some reason.
I hate when people say that. "Oh gawd, I don't know why but I want this."
Then why are you even gaming?
It's being made as a modern day equivalent to the Dark Alliance games, the devs even admitted to being BG:DA fans and they want to recreate that same type of casual gameplay with this one.
StingingVelvet wrote on May 19, 2011, 23:55:/threadTurdFergasun wrote on May 19, 2011, 22:32:
i thought you'd love cookie cutter souless franchises, being the financial parasite you are.
My like or dislike of Call of Duty has absolutely nothing to do with how stupid it is to criticize a company for making a game 10+ million of people want to buy.
Jonny5 wrote on May 20, 2011, 20:52:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo&t=0m2sMajorD wrote on May 20, 2011, 17:30:
I didn't like this game out of the gate as much as I thought I initially would, but the more I play it and get used to the character, maps, physics/movement (SMART), etc., the more I am liking it. It is the same concept of 'teamwork' as QW: ET, but as of right now I think I like QW: ET much better. More time will tell...... See you on 'The Ark'. ;-P
Why do people say this... Ya heard enemy Territory and Assumed it was Quake Wars :ET that this game is like ....WRONG... This is a modern day WOLFENSTEIN : ENEMY TERRITORY.... so many people around claiming they know chit. This game is NOTHING like Quake Wars. The BRINK forums are the same way , all these 15-16 year olds claiming they KNOW Team based combat, HEAR ET mentioned and Assume it is QW:ET then repeat the same drivel on the forums just looking stupid.
Oh well, glad the BRINk you are playing is like QW:ET, the BRINK I am playing IS WOlfenstein:ET...jus like it , same classes, almost same mechanics.. NO FLYING AIRCRAFT or Vehicles... TEAM/CLASS based combat.....
Old school Gamers WILL remember the ET this game is made after, HEck they even use the SAME announcer voices.
Mashiki Amiketo wrote on May 9, 2011, 23:07:Classic argument for someone who's bitter about the changes Blizzard made. Which is understandable, but don't kid yourself into believing age isn't the primary reason people drop off.Doombringer wrote on May 9, 2011, 22:51:It's not so much the age, but the fact that they screwed talents so badly that everyone is cookiecutter, and the content is mediocre.
. WoW is 6 years old, you're going to see some drop-off in subscribers.
Jerykk wrote on May 6, 2011, 03:16:Totally agree. The reasons you listed are why I like zombie movies so much. I like to imagine myself there and what I'd do. How better to do that than in an interactive form with a game. Yet we get zombie waves. I'll have to check out that Dead State preview.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the zombie genre. Compared to military shooters, zombie games are still relatively fresh. The problem is that developers are focusing on the wrong elements of zombie fiction. Zombie fiction isn't about heavily-armed badasses killing wave after wave of zombies. It's about normal people trying to cope with the breakdown of society and the end of civilization as they know it. Watch any zombie movie and that's what you'll see. What you won't see is Rambo vs Zombies, which is basically what all zombie games have been thus far. They haven't explored any of the interesting elements of zombie fiction, like infection, survival, human interaction and ambiguous moral choices. Dead State is the only game that looks to incorporate these aspects and as such, I'm really looking forward to it.
If you haven't already, you should really check out PCGamer's recent preview of Dead State: http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/05/03/dead-state-preview/
The official forum also has some very interesting info: http://www.irontowerstudio.com/forum/index.php/board,11.0.html