|
Post by sovietstu on Feb 14, 2010 19:09:28 GMT
Hey mike, i'm just wondering if, when you chose the handle "Asani" all those years ago in SWG, you knew it meant "rebellious" in Swahili?! I noticed this at Chester Zoo today...
|
|
|
Post by sovietstu on Feb 26, 2010 14:05:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by si on Feb 26, 2010 14:21:19 GMT
What you on about?... I already have more DLC than your legitimate version. It's another case of companies adding extra incentives for legitimate purposes, but actually ending up screwing the paying public - Because they can't use them all unless they purchase the game multiple times from different retailers/ etc. And no doubt i'd have this DLC on release day too if it wasn't already done with the game.
|
|
|
Post by asani on Feb 27, 2010 9:06:34 GMT
Hey mike, i'm just wondering if, when you chose the handle "Asani" all those years ago in SWG, you knew it meant "rebellious" in Swahili?! I noticed this at Chester Zoo today...
|
|
|
Post by sovietstu on May 13, 2010 17:34:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sovietstu on Aug 4, 2010 17:22:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by si on Aug 4, 2010 21:08:19 GMT
You know what I say to that Stuart.. ABSOLUTE BOLLOX! They touted a similar claim between ME1 and ME2 and some of the variables it carried over were so minute they didn't matter at all. I hate these lame marketing shit just to get the fanboys excited! I guess the PR department have to have something to do between game releases
|
|
|
Post by sovietstu on Aug 4, 2010 22:24:53 GMT
You know what I say to that Stuart.. ABSOLUTE BOLLOX! They touted a similar claim between ME1 and ME2 and some of the variables it carried over were so minute they didn't matter at all. I hate these lame marketing shit just to get the fanboys excited! I guess the PR department have to have something to do between game releases STFU. My game was very different to iain's and terry's. Some characters were dead, some weren't, the atmosphere on the citadel was a fucking fascist state cause i put human's in charge in ME1. Christ. De ja vu. Si knocks game. Game comes out. Si pirates game, enjoys it, but never admits it in public. I'm losing count...
|
|
|
Post by si on Aug 5, 2010 8:08:01 GMT
"Christ. De ja vu. Si knocks game. Game comes out. Si pirates game, enjoys it, but never admits it in public."
haha. That NEVER happens. I liked ME2.. Much better than that steamy pile of ME1 shit IMO.
Starcraft 2 on teh other hand, i've more or less given up on the single player caimpaign. It's a chore to play.
|
|
|
Post by sovietstu on Aug 5, 2010 8:52:15 GMT
I'll never "get" you. It's always the same. Ask anybody. You'll have universally hailed games, no BS now, games that are good by reputable developers, that pretty much everyone likes, you'll do the "meh" thing. You're entitled to not like stuff, but it's the reasons that raise an eyebrow. It's funny We take bets these days, me, Iain and Terry. "Fiver si goes "meh", complains and doesn't like it "
|
|
|
Post by si on Aug 5, 2010 9:01:43 GMT
Does it *really* matter if I don't like something? -- Just because a game is developed by a "reputable dev" and "everyone" likes it is no reason for me personally to like it -- I'm not a sheep. I think i'll stick to judging a game based on what I see and how it appeals to me, rather than who it's developed by and who else likes it thanks I mean taking bets on if I like something or not is rather sad.. perhaps you 3 should get a life or something I couldn't care less if you guys liked game x or not, or film y or not, etc.
|
|
|
Post by sovietstu on Aug 5, 2010 9:30:47 GMT
Does it *really* matter if I don't like something? -- Just because a game is developed by a "reputable dev" and "everyone" likes it is no reason for me personally to like it -- I'm not a sheep. I think i'll stick to judging a game based on what I see and how it appeals to me, rather than who it's developed by and who else likes it thanks I mean taking bets on if I like something or not is rather sad.. perhaps you 3 should get a life or something I couldn't care less if you guys liked game x or not, or film y or not, etc. I'm just saying - we can pretty much guarantee that if us 3 really like something, you'll hate it. Oh, and if it's by Blizzard, you'll probably hate it too. Oh, or, if it's sci-fi. Or if it's an MMO. Or Star Wars. Or a console game. Or on the PS3 specifically. Or I said it looked cool. ;D
|
|
|
Post by si on Aug 5, 2010 9:55:00 GMT
Does it *really* matter if I don't like something? -- Just because a game is developed by a "reputable dev" and "everyone" likes it is no reason for me personally to like it -- I'm not a sheep. I think i'll stick to judging a game based on what I see and how it appeals to me, rather than who it's developed by and who else likes it thanks I mean taking bets on if I like something or not is rather sad.. perhaps you 3 should get a life or something I couldn't care less if you guys liked game x or not, or film y or not, etc. I'm just saying - we can pretty much guarantee that if us 3 really like something, you'll hate it. Oh, and if it's by Blizzard, you'll probably hate it too. Oh, or, if it's sci-fi. Or if it's an MMO. Or Star Wars. Or a console game. Or on the PS3 specifically. Or I said it looked cool. ;D Well, your sweeping generlisaions fail you sir. Blizzard - I liked WoW when I played it back in the day.. Just because i'm not prepared to play the same game over a period of 6 or 7 years doesn't mean I hate Blizzard -- But the game got stale for me. Initially I was interested in SP of SC2, but nothing to keep me going at it. Sci-Fi - I LOVE Sci-fi.. Just different Sci-fi from you. No Halo or Killzone or starcraft , but Portal, Dune, Fallout, even Bioshock MMO - The one's i've played since WoW try to emulate WoW, and are all based on grinding. I can do without that. Team based multiplayer or good single players story based games is where i'm at. Star Wars -- I'm no star wars fan - So any game with a star wars story does NOT interest me.. That being said, Star Wars Pod Racer is STILL one of my favourite racing game -- Decent Star wars settings, no star wars story, good game mechanics Console game -- Depends on the game type. I Prefer to use mouse and keyboard over a control pad anyway. That said GTA4 was fine, I enjoy music based games and simple "bomberman" style games on Console. PS3 - I don't want to play FPS games on a console so Killzone2 can suck my dick. There's only been 3 games that appeal to me on PS3.. hardly worth me spending money on one Games you said looked cool - Mostly true. I'm not interested in your Killzone3, MOH 2010, etc -- But you're not excited about games I I think look cool like Portal2, CIV 5, Dragon Age 2, Witcher2, etc So, it works both ways
|
|
|
Post by sovietstu on Aug 5, 2010 10:18:19 GMT
I get excited about games that.....I don't know what i'm in for. Portal 2 - well, yeah, we know what we're gonna get. Civ 5 - the same civ i've played across 7 other civ games, but now with hexagons!!1111 Dragon Age 2 - DA1 was "ok", but not "omfg super amazing" for me. The story of ME grips me more. I'll still give DA2 a chance. The Witcher - i'm not a huge RPG fan, doesnt mean I wouldnt have liked it, but then I never had anyone say "try it, trust us, you'll love it", so... Oh, and they're sweeping generalisations unfortunately steeped in fact.It's like a lot of gaming is beneath you, like it's not worth your attention, like some kind of gaming snob
|
|
|
Post by si on Aug 5, 2010 10:39:18 GMT
"...like it's not worth your attention.." - That statement is true, the rest is rubbish. I don't like games as much as you guys - It has to be something that grabs my attention to get me to try it.. I can't be bothered to waste time trying every little thing that's every released.. When I find something I like I stick with it (That explains the 500+ hours of L4D) I'm also not an RPG fan, The first Witcher changed that, and Dragon Age 2 cemented it. The witcher is still the best RPG i've played purely because it makes you make hard decisions and is impossible to be either good or bad. Portal2 has many more things than just portals and includes a co-op mode which should be interesting. The lack of unit stacking in Civ5 will completely change the strategy involved. Your statement about how Civ is the same game is how I felt about Starcraft MP.. I felt like RTS games I was playing 10-12 years ago, with slight tweaks.. but you can always enjoy it if you like that sort of thing Talking of which though, if you still have one of your SC2 trial keys, throw it my way tonight and test some MP co-op -- I'll see if it's any better/ changed since beta
|
|
|
Post by sovietstu on Aug 5, 2010 11:17:01 GMT
Yeah that's fine, still got 2 guest keys. Rob really hit the nail on the head for me last night, with Starcraft 2 multiplayer. "Think of it like PvP in WoW" he said. To be any good at PvP in wow, you really had to know the classes in and out. You had to know what classes you were facing, get a feel for what spec and in turn that gave you an idea what strategies they would be using, so you could counter it. Multiplayer in Starcraft 2 is, and i'm gonna just say this cause it's true, the most tactical and strategic RTS available. It really is. Cause Starcraft 1 was. The 3 sides are so perfectly balanced, it's the epitome of the rock/paper/scissors setup. There's so many strategies and ways to play (most of which I don't know ;D ), and in turn so many ways to counter them. Early recon is essential. Get a feel for what they're doing and you might get a clue as to what strategy they're taking, so you can compensate and try to counter it. However, time is so short and resources scarce that, putting all your eggs in one basket might pay off bigtime, or might leave you open to get raped. Go with a force of one unit type to Blitzkrieg the fuck out of them might catch them with their pants down (reference: see Rob's marauder's in medevacs tactic), or they might have air units or AA and you get raped in 2 seconds, with no real time to adapt, and they press that advantage. I dunno, the game opened up in a completely different way last night when i started in the Practise League, having played the campaign and mainly CO-OP VS AI with terry/iain/doom etc. I'm gonna continue to play CO-OP vs AI to practise some build techniques and some "tactics", get the build order down, before i try them on real people. I'm quite comfortable with Rob's marauder plan now against real people (6 1v1 games, 6 wins, 3 2v2 games, 2 wins). Cause making noobs ragequit in this game just feels right
|
|
|
Post by si on Aug 5, 2010 11:41:21 GMT
"Multiplayer in Starcraft 2 is, and i'm gonna just say this cause it's true, the most tactical and strategic RTS available."
Hmm.. I don't agree with that statement myself.
Ask a pro-starcraft player and they'll say it's all about "APM" (Actions per minutes).. It seems that the games comes down to doing as much as you can in as little possible time.
I believe games like the Total War series will always be the most tactical games - Set armies, no reinforcements, major campaign effects with each battle, different unit types for different situations, cover - But mainly where teh speed at which you do things is less important and you can actually sit back and plan a strategy on a battlefield and impliment it.
*Note: I've never played a few multiplayer games on Total War.
|
|
|
Post by sovietstu on Aug 5, 2010 11:52:39 GMT
No, it is the most tactical and strategic. Simply cause you cannot "wing" it, you have to develop and use some strategies, and counter theirs. It's a system developed over 12 years.
Yes, how fast you can do stuff helps, but its not the be-all and end-all, unless you're a pro player competing for £30,000 and your skill level is all the same, so the only way to win is be faster.
From the gamespy review, says it better than I;
"Multiplayer offers a huge bevy of possible tactics, mostly because the races are so damn well-balanced against each other. Indeed, as you play more and more multiplayer matches, you'll realize that multiplayer SC2 is more like a match of Street Fighter II than a match of Company of Heroes. Both SF2 and SC2 require good players to try to anticipate their opponents' next moves (making intelligence-gathering absolutely critical), preparing a counter-strategy, and then making the most of any openings they get to slam the heck out of the enemy. How fast you can click and how many actions-per-minute you can bash into your keyboard are, of course, major factors for pro gamers, but the more dilettantish among us need not worry overmuch about such stuff.
StarCraft II does an absolutely fantastic job of encouraging you to make a plan and execute it. It doesn't have to be a clever stratagem, and it doesn't have to be some fancy-pants multi-part scheme -- it just has to work. This clever sort of straightforwardness is what separates a traditional model like SC2 from some of the newer RTS setups (say Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II or World in Conflict) -- amateurs can enjoy it just as much as experts can on a metagame level, even if their actual skill level is considerably lower."
|
|