is that sometimes you don't learn how to improve, you might see mistakes but don't know how to fix them.
Not a problem for me. I generally understand what units are capable of instead of what they're used for, and etc. To properly weave a build that can counter most / all things a race has to offer early game is absurd, and that's why scouting is the easiest way to counter.
With commentators that provide useful information about the match
I wouldn't say TB was the one who done that exceptionally well for me, granted he was essential for pulling me into Starcraft II but after watching all of his videos I recognized things pretty quickly.
At the moment I've seen too much of his videos, of all the Starcraft II professional casts he has made I think I've seen them all - and that is over 200 if I understand correctly.
I haven't got a huge amount of experience in professional levels (as in, I have none), but I have seen it more than enough to recognize mistakes in mine and others play.
My point exactly.
Good
You could always interest them in a non-FPS game, games like demon souls, from dust, minecraft, etc...Who knows, they might enjoy the games I've enlisted more then any FPS gmae you've mentioned.
True, although it would have to be equally time consuming.
That makes me think Minecraft :P
I don't believe they would change their ideas based on how large they are.
I wouldn't accuse Frictional of doing that, although I also would not be surprised.
Luckily it's hypothetical and we have Amnesia for what it is... Wait... what were we talking about?
If a game is good, why change it? Games like amnesia shouldn't be in any way altered because the game is already perfect as far as it can be.
The manner in which it was made. I get the idea that Indie Developers make their games in a labour of love, whereas big head developers (IW and Treyarch, I'm looking at you) look more for publicity and simple MUNNNEHHH!
Spelled phonetically, of course.
Also who finds it ironic that phonetically isn't spelled phonetically?
Let's see who gets caught out. :P
I see no need to fuss about it.
Simply put, whoever buys the darn game should get whatever was made prior to release. If I don't pre-order and then I decide to buy the game at a later date (which probably won't happen) then I will be at a disadvantage to anyone who bought it prior to launch, bam! This LMG which you get with the preorder will kill me, and it's only because of that LMG - I don't care if another LMG had the same capability.
Also, the Physical Warfare Pack, is it purchase after release? If so, the game itself is a rip off, given how it's being made PRIOR to release.
The same way the first Map Pack for Modern Warfare 2 was held back to be released months after, is the way I feel about the Physical Warfare Pack.
I pretty much agree with him, not much to add to that. Hopefully you will change your view of preorder bonuses, seeing that they aren't that bad.
Sadly no, the guy is kind of dumb, or very misleading.
I'll point of why:
Just pre-order the game and get your free stuff,
Wrong. Anything made prior to the release of a game should be gotten once you buy the game, when you put it as "free", it's actually not when they limit the window of oppurtunity to get it on pre-order. It should be available always.
Which again brings me to the question of why don�t they just pre-order the game too?
It's fine logic.
But I don't want to win over anyone because I had the Flashlight that they didn't, because they didn't pre-order. If you wanted to use that logic, why not just take out the pre-order bonuses and make it fair for everyone? Not everyone can afford BF3 prior to release (or even know of it), and thus once that previously mentioned window of oppurtunity dissipates, they need to spend more money to get on the same level.
His moral standard would be acceptable, if it didn't have consequences.
I agree, taking out modding is a terrible idea, but they must have a motive for doing so, otherwise I have no idea why would they do it on a whim.
It doesn't take a genius to realize how amazing modding is, and that it should be in any game you can manage to shove it in. Removing it is inexcuseable, it obliterates the longevity and variety the game has to offer besides what Blizzard creates WHICH, I might add, is not obliged to be anything.
Agreed, starcraft 2 seems to be on top right now, and will possibly stay that way for awhile.
I think it will stay that way anyway, considering what I've seen from Brood War, I actually wouldn't be surprised if that was still the best even when WoW first came out, and etc.
Are you insinuating I'm effecting you in a bad way? xD
Not necessarily :P
A major change like that that effects the core of the game is something not many people can get used to, I agree.
It's not about "getting used to" however. Time should never be a factor with these things. For the average person, maybe, but morality doesn't shift over time unless you're changing / advancing it. The removal of Modding is a terrible thing which backstabs the fanbase of Diablo, and after it comes out I will say "The removal of Modding was a terrible thing which backstabbed the fanbase of Diablo".
True, it will be a major dissapointment for some people, the game will be different and how it is played, and the essence of competition will not be the same =/.
This. Instead they try to replace this essence of competition with PvP which can be overruled by people who bought the best items. A gear game is never balanced based on skill - need I explain why?
I wouldn't have guessed if you hadn't told me :]
lol
I was being sarcastic about my notion, but maybe people with some kind of influence could do something about this auction house and it's outcome.
I doubt it, sadly. Blizzard doesn't have this tendency to change its games based on what people want. In some ways I can't blame them - do you read what people say on the World of Warcraft Forums?
Ughhh... ruining it for the rest of us :P
Now all we need is a good debate to represent :P
Oration and presentation make a huge deal, it elaborates on your intent of the action at hand, but nonetheless the action itself is the best consideration if you're the one making the choices - it means what you want it to mean, after all.
Otherwise if you had the smae agenda I don't think you would be disagreeing about it in the first place.
Unless of course it's the METHOD, in which case its another point of discussion.
I see how that would ruin the game, but some people would still think it's a good game even with the change.
The majority of people don't know what I good game is.
Look at CoD (yay for being on-topic)
Oh, and that opinion is open to discussion, but it's been over 30 pages and no valid argument has been thrown, I'm kind of nearly certain COD is an objectively bad game.
Sometimes "beyond saving" is interpreted in the wrong way,
Believe me I don't give up till I know I'm down xD
Generally I can have better (dare I say much better) macro capabilities than others simply because I go as fast as possible with everything I do with proper shortcuts etc to make it as efficient as possible, the only bad thing is when all that goes into Units that are countered by the enemy.
That's why scouting is so awesome
never give up and you will sometimes become the victor instead of the loser.
Back when I was Terran I had a 50 minute game against another Terran who was demolishing me. My minerals were terrible by the 45 minute mark (it was over 9 thouusaaaaannnnd! It was 10 thousand, actually) and I just build 7 Rax (nearly all with Reactor) and spammed Marines.
I told you they counter tanks!
Strive for victory even in the brink of losing and it just might happen.
It happened to me three times before, one was a 12 minute game, one was a 40 minute game, and one was a 50 minute game.
I like to play long macro games btw, I'd say my average game is 22 minutes long.
Nothing we can do about that :P I agree that the hype was the good part, but it also had some good parts in the game.
It was decent, but the reason I don't put it higher is because it didn't go higher than any other CoD campaign I've played. It's the same thing.
why not pre-order and get some bonus stuff with it?
Again, it isn't a bonus. You can view it as that but it isn't when they put a release date on a game, and then tell you content made before that is only gotten by paying for it or preordering.
Actually, you need to give him money, lives aren't free, you know.
Has he got one... relatively cheap, possibly in Scotland? I've got a friend in Scotland who I'd like to meet, that, and the accents are awesome. :P
Or some people won't bother sharing an opinion because they see no point for it.
Or because they don't have one.
People don't generally THINK about games, it's just a past-time and that's all it is to them. That's also why people don't care about the moral parts of it, hell - £30 for the newest destructo-simulator (Battlefield 3) that looks amazing?
GETTING IT!
It doesn't work like that, sadly. :<
That proves nothing, it could still turn into a fail game when it comes out.
Let me give a quick run by.
Trailers? It was 4 locations using 3 in each of their names, based on Single Player and highly scripted scenes. This shows a lack of confidence in the Multiplayer or general gameplay aspect and even if it did not, it didn't show anything anyway.
The weapons list is meaningless, we all know one or two weapons in each type will be picked over the rest and that'll be it.
And even if that DIDN'T happen, the weapons won't be sufficiently different because the amount of situations you can get in with small-map and fast-paced gameplay is much smaller to a game with vehicles, huge maps with varying terrains, with destruction.
Bad Company 2, incase you didn't notice. :P
I have seen my fair share of dissapointments from trailers that looked promising but were nothing of the sort.
Not too much for me, it's only really CoD that bored me, I don't game with all the games I don't know about, and I don't buy much in general anyway (considering all the games I have now could literally last me my entire life if I wanted it to), but when I do, I don't go unimpressed :P
Since COD WaW came out they have gotten much better at making FPS games.
If so then I hope you're confident asking or answering to my accusations / questions / etc about how and why CoD is a bad game.
Refer to
nearly every single page up until this one.
They have the best mutiplayer layout out there.
With an interesting lack of Dedicated Servers and no Matchmaking Rating.
Neat.
I have every edition COD ever made lmao , true.
I hate using these words in this fashion, but hey, that
is sad, dude.
- H
