El Pit wrote on Jan 26, 2016, 12:04:

The Half Elf wrote on Jan 26, 2016, 11:47:
Blue, please don't get any crazy idea's with the Infinite Spherical Video Magic when they decide to do pictures/videos of your work environment.

Blade Runner squeal? Please keep George Lucas and JJ Abhrams away from it please (like 3 continents away).

A sequel to Blade Runner is so unnecessary. But if they really have to do it, at least they should have a better screenplay than The Force Awakens or Prometheus.

Although the Martian was a pretty decent adaptation and a solid film, and probably the best he's done since the Gladiator, I've kind of lost all faith in Ridley Scott to deliver another solid SF film all on his own. The Blade Runner sequel reeks of a cash grab, although I can't make up my mind whether Ridley Scott producing instead of directing is good or bad in this case.

Where are all the Blues cultists defending their vaporware? Did we luck out and get them all to quit visiting Blues out of resentment and disgust?

The ironic thing is that MMOs existed which had the perfect formula, both as actual MMOs and earlier as MUDs, or Multi User Dungeons. Yes this was back in the 90s...again. Some of you younger folks may not remember them, but they were glorious. The gameplay and leveling system was fun and unparalleled, however a person was responsible for his own avatar, and death was usually permanent for each character you created. This is how you create an exciting and "meaningful" world.

Perma-death in combination with exciting gameplay mechanics. Some noob areas where people can be relatively safe. Not too high level caps so that people can actually reach the "end game" before inevetabely dying. Meaningful rewards for high level players for helping out with questing with low level players, essentially teaching them the game on the way and helping to keep them alive. Huge rewards for your faction for risking your neck in raids or PvP so that people don't end up care bearing all day long in towns.

Basically you take today's "new" (what a joke) survival games, and mix em up with some Ultima Online, or LOTR Mud, or WOT MUD or similar...

This is the kind of MMO that I would go back to. Publishers have such an aversion to creating anything that isn't accessible or "easy" (read dumbed as fuck down) so fat chance of that ever happening. Well there are always indies, so maybe we should watch that space...

This comment was edited on Jan 26, 2016, 02:59.

Did they add some PvP to the game? Are the games still limited to 4 players? I doubt that they removed the BOA on Legendaries and that they improved upon the skill trees enough to make a lot of viable builds. These last two points would be enough to make me have another look at Diablo3 today. Seasonal play is also only interesting if there is a point to it, did they add seasonal leader rankings to the game that are clear and precise?

Jerykk wrote on Jan 25, 2016, 04:36:

jdreyer wrote on Jan 25, 2016, 04:19:

Jerykk wrote on Jan 25, 2016, 01:41:
24 hours seems like a lot of time to spend playing one of the worst games he's ever played.

Sometimes you just want to give a game a chance before making your mind up. 24 hours isn't much when it's easy to put 100 or 200 hours into an RPG.

True, some games require more time before you can pass proper judgment. But anything more than 10 hours seems dubious, even for an RPG. You don't have to play Raven's Cry or Two Worlds or Gothic 3 for 20+ hours to realize they suck. If a game is objectively terrible, you'll realize it within an hour. If a game just isn't your cup of tea, you'll realize it within 10 hours. Cutter claimed that Dragon's Dogma is one of the worst games he's ever played and if that were true, he wouldn't have needed 20+ hours of gameplay to realize it.

My guess is that Dragon's Dogma just isn't Cutter's cup of tea. That's fine but hyperbolic criticism isn't really necessary if that's the case.

You make good points, and Cutter has not provided a single argument for why he feels the way he does. In my case (With D3) I wanted to give the game the chance it deserved, since I was such a huge Diablo1&2 fan, and because I had some hopes that many shortcomings would be improved upon. Also an important point is that many of my RL friends were playing it and lastly the "skinner box" gameplay was addictive up to a point, the point being when you realize that there really is no point to continue playing. No persistent builds, BOA items, low level cap, no meaningful PVP, etc. etc.

This is by no means a criticism of Dragon's Dogma, all Im saying is that with some games its hard to figure out whether they live up to their potential and promise, sometimes you have to keep playing for quite a while to figure that out, especially if the base gameplay is pretty solid, you want to see the "end game", and you have hopes that things will be changed for the better after release. Some people will say "You got your money's worth, that proves the game is solid". I'm more inclined to say that not only did I waste my money on the game, I also wasted a whole lot of time.

This comment was edited on Jan 25, 2016, 06:10.

Jerykk wrote on Jan 25, 2016, 01:41:
24 hours seems like a lot of time to spend playing one of the worst games he's ever played.

I put in at least 50-60 hours into Diablo3 (and about 30-40 into the expansion) before deciding it was a piece of shit that doesn't deserve to be on my PC anymore and that the time I spent playing was wasted.

I have to say most of that was spent playing Hardcore characters, which is where the game is supposed to shine the brightest yet falls flat on its face in so many ways.

I cannot stress how much Diablo3 fucking sucks, it just takes a while to get to that point because you are impressed with the Blizzard polish and because you want to give it all the chances it can get.

Sepharo wrote on Jan 22, 2016, 03:35:

InBlack wrote on Jan 22, 2016, 02:33:
I liked what I saw here, Blizzards take on Team Fortress. At least I did from the promo and gameplay videos. Didn't get into the beta, but hey ce la vie. Problem is Im not going to pay Blizzard 60$ (plus however much the DLC+ expansions end up costing) for a multiplayer only game. They can go fuck themselves with that shit, this has free to play written all over it. Even back when TF2 was released as part of the Orange Box, you got HL1, HL2 and TF2 in one DVD case, for the price of one game. Ok rant over, Ill probably die of old age before this comes out anyway...

It's $40.
I forget if you're estadounidense

Nope. EU, so 40 euros here. Still kind of steep for a multiplayer only FPS if you ask me, but I guess it's better than 60 Euros..

Total-Khaos wrote on Jan 22, 2016, 00:54:

Cutter wrote on Jan 21, 2016, 19:40:
I see a lot of female comments there objectifying that male and making inappropriate comments. Where's Anita and the SJW patrol to stop that?

Well, the dude does kind of resemble Ben Affleck just a little bit in the face.

You mean you want to punch him in the face a little bit, don't you?

Krodge wrote on Jan 22, 2016, 01:35:
Looks interesting. But I have no idea what the actual game is.

Let me help you with that. Its a ship simulator, that's placed in an open world Age of Sail setting. You are the Captain of the ship, and command the crew. I guess the closest analogue is that this is a mixture of Sid Meier's Pirates and Silent Hunter, so it's pretty hardcore. This is not Assassins Creed so you don't walk around the ship pointlessly, and the ship actually needs skill to sail properly. Ive been looking for a detailed Age of Sail simulator for AGES. Found this a couple of years ago and have waited for some kind of EA ever since! Oh joy!!!!

Time to (re)install Steam!

GinRummy wrote on Jan 21, 2016, 23:52:

Grokk wrote on Jan 21, 2016, 23:28:
I'll definitely grab a copy of X-COM2, but most likely it'll be when it goes on sale.

I think it's still 25% off on Greenman gaming for a Steam key. I got mine there. Probably not gonna see a better discount on it for a pretty good while.

Is it region locked? Yeah might be a stupid question for a single player game but I don't want to buy a key that won't end up working on Steam because Im from Europe.

MOD support from the get-go? Shiiit. In the last game playing on Iron Man, was some of the most fun Ive had on the PC with a single player game in the last decade. I almost never, ever pre-order games but this is tempting as fuck. I hope this time around there is a more strategic element to the base management part of the game, as that was pretty shallow in the last game. Damn...to (pre)order or not to pre order...

I liked what I saw here, Blizzards take on Team Fortress. At least I did from the promo and gameplay videos. Didn't get into the beta, but hey ce la vie. Problem is Im not going to pay Blizzard 60$ (plus however much the DLC+ expansions end up costing) for a multiplayer only game. They can go fuck themselves with that shit, this has free to play written all over it. Even back when TF2 was released as part of the Orange Box, you got HL1, HL2 and TF2 in one DVD case, for the price of one game. Ok rant over, Ill probably die of old age before this comes out anyway...

Creston wrote on Jan 21, 2016, 10:45:
Burn them. Burn them hard.

The trial to decide whether Dish was aware that it was breaking the law

Really? Since when is ignorance now a valid excuse to be breaking laws? I guess it is for corporations??

Corporations getting a pass...nothing new to see here, move along...

13 missions? Wtf? Well Ok I guess, not at this price point though. (Im not going to be touching the multiplayer anyway)

Retired wrote on Jan 20, 2016, 21:36:
wow....Seriously considering buying this....

LG Electronics 34UC98 34-Inch WQHD IPS Curved LED Monitor (34" Diagonal)

How much is it?

What about Let's Fuck?

SunnyD wrote on Jan 21, 2016, 06:42:

jacobvandy wrote on Jan 20, 2016, 15:53:
But in terms of actually running around killing dudes on foot in a city, Syndicate is the best thus far.

Please tell me I wasn't the only one that read that and had dancing visions of cybernetically-altered agents (that I'd apparently gathered by hitting people in the streets with my car) stalking cityscape jungles with chainguns ablazing?

..gawd I'm old..


~Finis~

Nope. Welcome to the club. Happens to me every time I skim Bluesnews and this title pops up.

The only reason people liked the rehashed story of ep. VII (well the reason why I liked it really) is because it was a nice introduction to a new set of characters and a welcome nostalgic pull back into the Star Wars World. Thats it. If Abrams and his cronies think they can get away with rehashing the empire strikes back, then they better be prepared for the fallout.

NKD wrote on Jan 21, 2016, 06:43:

InBlack wrote on Jan 21, 2016, 02:54:
The people who are really running this shitshow are not on TV or in any government or subject to Putin or his cronies. Those are the people you should be concerned about...

Who would that be? The Illuminati?

Why the bait? Or do you deny something that Forbes publishes yearly? I don't fall for conspiracy theories. Here is the Forbes 500 list, so you can have a look at it yourself.

Forbes 500

If you don't believe that these people are ultimately the ones influncing politics worldwide (mostly through US policy, where campaign and lobby dollars is the name of the game) I've got a bridge to sell you, dirt cheap.

How so?

Well for one thing she completely ignores the fact that in BSG women are equal in all resepects to men. Starbuck is a tomboy, so what? Don't these women exist in real life? Don't they deserve respect and recognition even though they are indifferent to gender roles? She brings up her instability as a sign of typical woman "weakness" yet she ignores the fact that Starback was abused as a child, and she completely ignores the fact that her instability is a source of strength and resources that not only Starbuck recognizes but pretty much every other character on the show. She also ignores the fact that Cylon society is basically the "ideal" society without gender, racial or any other inequalities, created by the final five, where the leading scientist is...can you guess it? A woman. Fail, fail fail....

Nothing is good enough for this woman, she completely rips to shreds one of the few shows on TV that ignores inequalities and empowers minorities and women. This benefits only one person, Anita Sarkesian...

This comment was edited on Jan 21, 2016, 05:36.

Demonizing? So that's what criticism is called if you happen to have some against a person who happens to be "politically correct"? Ive read her masters thesis, have you? There is some good stuff in there and had she stuck with that then maybe she would have a pretty solid argument, but the way she demonizes an entire industry and even worse an entire user base (gamers) is completely unjustified and least of all scientific. The way she makes herself out to be some kind of victim in nearly all of her public statements is hardly scientific itself. It doesn't help her cause (feminizsm & equality), it doesn't help those who are really feeling the burn, in fact the only one her antics help is herself, thanks to sycopanths like yourself who lack the ability to think critically.