User information for Pure Luck

Real Name
Pure Luck
Nickname
MoreLuckThanSkill
Email
Concealed by request - Send Mail
Description
More Luck Than Skill.
Homepage
None given.

Supporter

Signed On
March 31, 2009
Total Posts
7375 (Guru)
User ID
54863
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
7375 Comments. 369 pages. Viewing page 367.
Newer [  1    354  355  356  357  358  359  360  361  362  363  364  365  366  367  368  369  ] Older
1.
 
Drakensang 3?!?
Jun 2, 2010, 21:49
1.
Drakensang 3?!? Jun 2, 2010, 21:49
Jun 2, 2010, 21:49
 
This calls for a WTF.

Drakensang 2, if you even want to call it that, considering it's a prequel on the same engine as Drakensang, STILL has not been released in the US, or even in English, as far as I know.

Those evil Germans, if they aren't trying to take over the world, they are withholding one of the few good PC RPGs from Western markets!

For the record, Drakensang 1 was great, if a bit of a narrow path, and definitely less funding than Bioware's Dragon Age, of course.
Avatar 54863
2.
 
Re: Perpetuum Online Interview
Jun 2, 2010, 18:37
2.
Re: Perpetuum Online Interview Jun 2, 2010, 18:37
Jun 2, 2010, 18:37
 
According to the interview, this company has (about)10 employees total working on the game.

Although I hate MMOs by default, I wish them luck, if they have even gotten to a beta stage for game theoretically that big(MMO size) when every other MMO team has hundreds of members.

Somehow I suspect the quality will reflect the size of the team though.
Avatar 54863
9.
 
Re: Natural Selection 2 Jetpacks
May 31, 2010, 20:42
9.
Re: Natural Selection 2 Jetpacks May 31, 2010, 20:42
May 31, 2010, 20:42
 
NS1 was pretty fun, if completely imbalanced.


I'm looking forward to playing NS2 when it is released in 2015.

Avatar 54863
7.
 
Re: Steam Top 10
May 31, 2010, 20:40
7.
Re: Steam Top 10 May 31, 2010, 20:40
May 31, 2010, 20:40
 
Off topic a bit, but here is even more data refuting certain companies' belief that the only way they can make money is to charge 49-59 dollars or more for a game.

How many speeches is Gabe Newell going to have to give before non-Valve publishers get the hint?

Of course, customers need to stop buying the games for 59 bucks in the first place...

Avatar 54863
48.
 
( . )( . )
May 28, 2010, 12:42
48.
( . )( . ) May 28, 2010, 12:42
May 28, 2010, 12:42
 
HellSlayer wrote on May 28, 2010, 04:07:
lol Greed...name a country or a person that is not running on some sort of self-interest. You are on a gaming site because you like games. Is that a form of greed? Greed can be seen when we call someone rich greedy; greed wants what they have.

Self-interest: Concern for your own interests and welfare

A good video about greed is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76frHHpoNFs&feature=related


Yes, self-interest/greed whatever you want to call it, who claimed they had no self-interest? Obviously we all do. However the fact every person has some degree of self-interest really doesn't lead to, and really would seem to PREVENT people from just laying down and taking whatever nonsense any random multi-billion dollar corporation does on any given day, without even speaking about it.

Congratulations, you linked a Milton Friedman video, what's next, Gordon Gecko? Lol. By your own reasoning, we all SHOULD be complaining about Blizzard's policies, for our own self-interests.

Avatar 54863
5.
 
Typo in that youtube page...
May 28, 2010, 03:57
5.
Typo in that youtube page... May 28, 2010, 03:57
May 28, 2010, 03:57
 

"BluesNewsDotCom — May 27, 2010 — The first trailer from Two Worlds II, the pole-playing game sequel in development at Topware."

Pole-playing sounds pretty dirty.

Avatar 54863
46.
 
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided
May 28, 2010, 01:20
46.
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided May 28, 2010, 01:20
May 28, 2010, 01:20
 
Cutter wrote on May 27, 2010, 20:28:
Blizzard is slowly being consumed by the evil taint of Activision. Not long now before they're Actiblizz for real.

I feel sorry for Blizzard's insanely talented artists and other staff, not that they are starving obviously, but that their amazing work is sullied by greed and nonsense.

It's too bad WoW was/is such an amazing financial success, Blizzard can no longer even think of producing a game that isn't going to make a billion dollars.

Avatar 54863
45.
 
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided
May 28, 2010, 01:16
45.
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided May 28, 2010, 01:16
May 28, 2010, 01:16
 
Zyr wrote on May 27, 2010, 18:08:
Blizzard has already confirmed that the additional campaigns will be charged at expansion price, not the full price that Wings of Liberty is being charged for. Since..y'know, they're *expansions* this is kinda obvious. Did you complain about Blizzard being greedy for releasing Brood War for $29.99 back in the day, too? After all, they charged you more and made you wait to get the COMPLETE game!

No, they haven't actually announced a price yet, but early interviews indicated they would be full price(maybe they have backed off a bit due to negative feed back, who knows):

http://us.starcraft2.com/faq.xml

Objectively, one would think you would find SC1, with 3 playable race campaigns(of admittedly shorter length), to be more complete out of the box, than SC2, with 1 race campaign, followed by 2 expansions of unknown price, at least 2-3 years later.

Wings of Liberty, for that matter, is also easily found at ~$40-$50 pre-order if you know where to look. Like mine, which I snagged for $45. No, Amazon.com and Gamestop are not the only places to order games from. This price will likely be more widely available once it's released digitally as well, since retailers love to undercut.
Really? Where would that be, exactly? URL to back up your baseless claim would be appropriate. If you pre-ordered 1 year ago, congratulations, some of us were waiting to read about DRM and other nonsense tied to this game first.

The reason for the region division is A.) lag (no, 200ms is not very fun to play) and B.) integration with the World of Warcraft servers, which are already like this, for cross-game communication.

200ms is playable, and comparable, at least on my ISP, to playing people in California, who will be in the same realm as me if I actually bought the game. Aside from that, is there REALLY a reason to integrate anything in Starcraft 2 with WoW? Tons of other apps already allow communication during any program use. Even if this was the case, there is no evidence at the moment that realm competition, or lack thereof, would necessarily prevent realm-realm communication.

And yes, let's throw in accusations of most of us being pirates after multiple people have proven you wrong.

It's called a joke, I don't even care whether you pirate this or buy it, but please be offended.

And, by the way? Most mods/maps are going to be free. They'll be allowing a micro-transaction marketplace as an option due to the power of the map editor and as a way to reward modders for supporting their game. It'll be a completely optional thing, kind of like NWN's premium modules worked.

You are just talking out of your ass here, and I haven't seen any percentages for Blizzard/The actual map creator listed yet either. Hopefully you are close to being right though. I admit to being a pessimist here, but it sounds more like Blizzard/Activision wants to cash in a little on the insane success of mod maps like DoTA.


Avatar 54863
32.
 
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided
May 27, 2010, 15:04
32.
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided May 27, 2010, 15:04
May 27, 2010, 15:04
 
Verno wrote on May 27, 2010, 14:45:
I'm more into the custom map and singleplayer stuff myself. SC2's multiplayer is too competitive by nature, it makes it difficult to play amongst friends. But yeah I have no problem handing over $60 to get a top notch SP campaign and the eons of free maps. I'm a bit worried about the whole paid map thing but hopefully they have some form of demo functionality for UMS maps or the map authors figure out a solution themselves. No way I'm paying for maps sight unseen.

Ahh yes, Blizzard's new plan of charging for "premium" USER made maps, just when my rage was starting to subside... Their nickel and diming knows no bounds.

I could almost understand them charging for maps Blizzard actually makes, but charging for the next DoTA(SC2 version) or whatever, made by a random private citizen? Permit me to Lol.

Avatar 54863
2.
 
Re: Op Ed
May 27, 2010, 15:00
2.
Re: Op Ed May 27, 2010, 15:00
May 27, 2010, 15:00
 
I know publishers feel Metacritic is important, but do any players/customers actually go by aggregate scores like Metacritic? I surely don't.

Avatar 54863
29.
 
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided
May 27, 2010, 14:19
29.
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided May 27, 2010, 14:19
May 27, 2010, 14:19
 
nin wrote on May 27, 2010, 13:52:
I wonder if any of the people arguing with me are actually going to even buy SC2 in the first place.

I've had my pre-order in for awhile now.


I don't doubt that you plan on buying the game, but more than a few people I know did pre-orders with the intent of cancelling, just to get Beta keys. I got my key through similar means, and I really wish Blizzard had put more AI levels in than just "Very Easy."

Beta ends june 26th, unlock all AIs now Blizzard, so boycotters can get their fill of skirmishes now! (yes, I understand they have zero reason to actually do this)

Avatar 54863
25.
 
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided
May 27, 2010, 13:50
25.
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided May 27, 2010, 13:50
May 27, 2010, 13:50
 
kxmode wrote on May 27, 2010, 13:46:

I thought Deathbishop's observation was spot-on and worthwhile.

I think your icon is wearing that eyepatch for style reasons only, and doesn't really have an injury. What now?

Avatar 54863
24.
 
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided
May 27, 2010, 13:49
24.
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided May 27, 2010, 13:49
May 27, 2010, 13:49
 
nin wrote on May 27, 2010, 13:34:
But two of the key points people have included in their argument are:

1. Blizzard games have never cost this much before.

2. Because it's just one campaign, the game is shorter in length.

From everything I've seen, both of these are incorrect.


Apparently you are correct, Blizzard have always had higher(than other pc games) prices, at least as suggested retail. However I don't really see many people arguing the actual game is SHORTER, just that in order to get the 'complete' game you are going to end up spending somewhere around $180, and it will be at least 2-3 years later before you have the entire thing, according to Blizzard.

Also there really doesn't seem to be any debate over 29.99 or whatever the expansions were for SC1 and War3 vs 59.99 for each SC2 expansion, potential single player campaign game length aside. The multiplayer is the same client you get with the first game.

This site cracks me up, I wonder if any of the people arguing with me are actually going to even buy SC2 in the first place. I'm sure most of you will PLAY it, but...

Avatar 54863
22.
 
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided
May 27, 2010, 13:39
22.
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided May 27, 2010, 13:39
May 27, 2010, 13:39
 
Deathbishop wrote on May 27, 2010, 13:29:
I love it when someone's argument (yours) gets absolutely destroyed and there is no comeback.

I never argued the MSRP, all I knew is I didn't pay that much for it, on release day. Thanks for randomly jumping in with nothing worthwhile to add though!

Avatar 54863
21.
 
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided
May 27, 2010, 13:35
21.
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided May 27, 2010, 13:35
May 27, 2010, 13:35
 
kxmode wrote on May 27, 2010, 13:25:
Blue wrote on May 27, 2010, 13:00:
If you live on the East Coast of the US you will probably have better pings to the UK than to California.

I don't think that is the case, as overseas traffic has to use trans-oceanic cabling. I just tried speedtest.net and my ping from the greater NYC area to London is 182 but just 81 to Los Angeles.

Exactly Blue. I rest my case.

No offense, but have you never played Starcraft 1 or Warcraft 3 vs somebody on another continent, even as a test? It is(or at least was) perfectly playable.

Even if somehow Starcraft 2's netcode requires a lot less latency to make the game playable than their older RTS games, I'm sure people will be annoyed at missing out on trying competition from different regions. I used to play War3 on Lordaeron all the time.

Incidentally, apparently Comcast Florida is horrible cross country. I get 200ms to London, 160ms to San Diego. (using speedtest.net, nice site Blue) Come on, Comcast!

EDIT: Lol, I ping 220 to Seoul, South Korea according to speedtest.net. Open up all realms immediately, Blizzard!
Avatar 54863
16.
 
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided
May 27, 2010, 13:25
16.
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided May 27, 2010, 13:25
May 27, 2010, 13:25
 
nin wrote on May 27, 2010, 13:13:
How disgusting. You should boycott this game at full price now because of Blizzard's apparent long history of greed

But I thought you liked it? You even said you bought it on release day!


Of course I liked starcraft 1/Warcraft 3... that's the problem. LAN battles were a highpoint of those two games especially, and yes we all had legal copies. Blizzard has (in my opinion) betrayed their fans of 12-15 years with this new generation of nonsense. If I had hated all their games I wouldn't care to post in any Starcraft 2 thread. However that doesn't prevent me from feeling this company has become boycott worthy. Also, in the 'old' days, Electronics Boutique(EBGames now?) and a host of other stores were in my opinion afraid to try to sell PC games for more than 39.99 or 49.99... whatever the MSRP was, you could buy brand new titles for somewhere in that range always. Especially in the college town where I was 10 years ago. The price actually mattered to my low-no income ass back then. Now it is just the principle.

I still stand by my belief that the insane money they have made from World of Warcraft has really screwed them up as a company... I can't see the campaigns being THAT long and well done to really make the full suggested retail price of a RTS game be 180 dollars($60x3 of course), and take a total development time of what, 14-15 years? Opinions will differ on this, I'm sure.

Avatar 54863
12.
 
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided
May 27, 2010, 13:09
12.
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided May 27, 2010, 13:09
May 27, 2010, 13:09
 
nin wrote on May 27, 2010, 13:00:
Wow you paid $60 for Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 1?

That was the MSRP. Same as SC2.

http://i46.tinypic.com/raxog7.jpg

edit:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010204015800/www.blizzard.com/press/000717.shtml

http://www.bluesnews.com/a/383/warcraft-iii-reign-of-chaos-now-available




How disgusting. You should boycott this game at full price now because of Blizzard's apparent long history of greed, and wait for a sale price.

Here's hoping the Amazon/Gogamer sales start around the same time those battle.net alternatives become available for SC2.

EDIT: And expansions for SC1/War3 were of course in the range of 29.99 or so, definitely not 59.99... yes yes the SC2 campaigns will be much longer, hooray. Is it just me or is the campaign portion of any RTS, aside from Homeworld, the always the worst part of the game?

ps. Nostalgia for old school Command and Conquer cheesy live action video sequences in the campaigns doesn't count!

This comment was edited on May 27, 2010, 13:15.
Avatar 54863
11.
 
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided
May 27, 2010, 13:06
11.
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided May 27, 2010, 13:06
May 27, 2010, 13:06
 
Blue wrote on May 27, 2010, 13:00:
If you live on the East Coast of the US you will probably have better pings to the UK than to California.

I don't think that is the case, as overseas traffic has to use trans-oceanic cabling. I just tried speedtest.net and my ping from the greater NYC area to London is 182 but just 81 to Los Angeles.

Hrm, it is entirely possible that my friends in San Diego have the worst ISP available, and it would hardly surprise me. Still, 180 is playable, and hardly a valid reason to prevent cross-realm play entirely, but oh well.
Avatar 54863
7.
 
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided
May 27, 2010, 12:55
7.
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided May 27, 2010, 12:55
May 27, 2010, 12:55
 
nin wrote on May 27, 2010, 12:51:
higher price

You mean the same price as Starcraft? That same price?


Warcraft 3

You mean $60 WC3, right?


Wow you paid $60 for Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 1? I feel sorry for you. I believe I got each of them for like $40-49 bucks, release day. Not that I kept my receipts, but I don't pay more than that for computer games, ever. Not to mention their 'expansions' were 29.99, not 60 dollars also.

Avatar 54863
6.
 
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided
May 27, 2010, 12:51
6.
Re: StarCraft II Regions Divided May 27, 2010, 12:51
May 27, 2010, 12:51
 
kxmode wrote on May 27, 2010, 12:43:
There's a problem with lag if matchmaking connects you with someone in Russia. I don't think this should be a problem.

Well if you want to talk about lag, there will be lag problems for somebody from east coast US connecting to the west coast US also. If you live on the East Coast of the US you will probably have better pings to the UK than to California. This smells more of yet another nickel and diming of their customer base, and/or some sort of weird attempt at more control.

But whatever, nothing about this game seems at all like the old customer friendly Blizzard.
Avatar 54863
7375 Comments. 369 pages. Viewing page 367.
Newer [  1    354  355  356  357  358  359  360  361  362  363  364  365  366  367  368  369  ] Older