A thread for Gamers.

[Fischermann]

Looking at it, I should probably get Space Marines for my birthday.

If you play PC, let me know when you've got it.

Do you play it over steam?

[Indeos]

If you play PC, let me know when you've got it.

Do you play it over steam?

Kinda have to. It's all connected via Steam, even if you bought a physical copy.

[Mosasauria]

Do you play it over steam?

Kinda have to. It's all connected via Steam, even if you bought a physical copy.

Crap...
My desktop and my laptop computers both have problems with Steam...

[Indeos]

Kinda have to. It's all connected via Steam, even if you bought a physical copy.

Crap...
My desktop and my laptop computers both have problems with Steam...

You can probably play it offline fine, and install it, but it does try to connect it to Steam. Talk to tech support or something about it beforehand?

[Mosasauria]

Crap...
My desktop and my laptop computers both have problems with Steam...

You can probably play it offline fine, and install it, but it does try to connect it to Steam. Talk to tech support or something about it beforehand?

I guess. I'll get to that problem when I come to it.

[Wiztopia]

Butchering characters and story is never a good thing.

For once, I have to agree with you. If they're gonna base something off a book, it better be close to the damn book.

It reminds me of an anime that cut out plot and character development that was in the manga.

[Indeos]

For once, I have to agree with you. If they're gonna base something off a book, it better be close to the damn book.

It reminds me of an anime that cut out plot and character development that was in the manga.

Compare the Eragon movie to the book. The movie gets rid of so/changes many things it's not even funny.

[The Corparation]

It reminds me of an anime that cut out plot and character development that was in the manga.

Compare the Eragon movie to the book. The movie gets rid of so/changes many things it's not even funny.

OR Starship Troopers to its movie. Nobody involved even read the book. All they did was skim it and take cut and paste names to an existing B-movie script.

[Indeos]

Compare the Eragon movie to the book. The movie gets rid of so/changes many things it's not even funny.

OR Starship Troopers to its movie. Nobody involved even read the book. All they did was skim it and take cut and paste names to an existing B-movie script.

At least that was a pretty enjoyable movie with NPH. Eragon was just terrible.

[The Corparation]

OR Starship Troopers to its movie. Nobody involved even read the book. All they did was skim it and take cut and paste names to an existing B-movie script.

At least that was a pretty enjoyable movie with NPH. Eragon was just terrible.

It was an enjoyable film if you cut out all the names. NPH was good, its a disgrace to the book. Eragon though I agree was just about the worst adaptation ever.

[Conserative Morality]

It was an enjoyable film if you cut out all the names. NPH was good, its a disgrace to the book. Eragon though I agree was just about the worst adaptation ever.

TBF, the source material didn't give it much to work with.

[AETEN II]

I'm sorry, but that title is likely either going to B3 or (god forbid) MW3. The other games simply don't have the punch and marketing that EA and Activision does. Then again, knowing Act, they'll just pay for MW3 to get the title.

Also

Caspian Border > everything

Neither of them deserve it, honestly. I'd rather see an indie game like Nuclear Dawn or E.Y.E Divine Cybermancy get the title. (Even though I haven't played the former and the latter was kinda terrible and weird.)

I wouldn't mind Fable 3 getting it, either.

An indie game? Why in Hell should they get that? Indie games lack the power that big titles such as Battlefield command, lack the servers, and lack the visuals. Sure, the games can have unique gameplay, but they lack the large multiplayer experiance of games such as Halo and Battlefield.

[The Corparation]

It was an enjoyable film if you cut out all the names. NPH was good, its a disgrace to the book. Eragon though I agree was just about the worst adaptation ever.

TBF, the source material didn't give it much to work with.

TBF I'd hardly call it source material seeing as it was well into pre-production before they shoveled the names in, and no one involved read more then a few chapters into the book or even understood anything about it.

[Indeos]

Neither of them deserve it, honestly. I'd rather see an indie game like Nuclear Dawn or E.Y.E Divine Cybermancy get the title. (Even though I haven't played the former and the latter was kinda terrible and weird.)

I wouldn't mind Fable 3 getting it, either.

An indie game? Why in Hell should they get that? Indie games lack the power that big titles such as Battlefield command, lack the servers, and lack the visuals. Sure, the games can have unique gameplay, but they lack the large multiplayer experiance of games such as Halo and Battlefield.

Because visuals and power are fluff, and indie games can't get recognition if shitty games that are practically remakes of the last game in the series always win titles. Tbh even multiplayer is fluff because it's not hard to make people get hooked on the multiplayer.

[AETEN II]

An indie game? Why in Hell should they get that? Indie games lack the power that big titles such as Battlefield command, lack the servers, and lack the visuals. Sure, the games can have unique gameplay, but they lack the large multiplayer experiance of games such as Halo and Battlefield.

Because visuals and power are fluff, and indie games can't get recognition if shitty games that are practically remakes of the last game in the series always win titles. Tbh even multiplayer is fluff because it's not hard to make people get hooked on the multiplayer.

Because multiplayer is fun, as it draws on the common urge of humans to best those other guys and show em' up. Indie games largely focus on campaigns and single-player, which are the aspects of games that I always pass over. I have yet to even play the campaign of many of my games, including many non-shooters.

[Norstal]

Neither of them deserve it, honestly. I'd rather see an indie game like Nuclear Dawn or E.Y.E Divine Cybermancy get the title. (Even though I haven't played the former and the latter was kinda terrible and weird.)

I wouldn't mind Fable 3 getting it, either.

An indie game? Why in Hell should they get that? Indie games lack the power that big titles such as Battlefield command, lack the servers, and lack the visuals. Sure, the games can have unique gameplay, but they lack the large multiplayer experiance of games such as Halo and Battlefield.

Minecraft is an indie game. And it has a huge multiplayer gameplay.

[Indeos]

Because visuals and power are fluff, and indie games can't get recognition if shitty games that are practically remakes of the last game in the series always win titles. Tbh even multiplayer is fluff because it's not hard to make people get hooked on the multiplayer.

Because multiplayer is fun, as it draws on the common urge of humans to best those other guys and show em' up. Indie games largely focus on campaigns and single-player, which are the aspects of games that I always pass over. I have yet to even play the campaign of many of my games, including many non-shooters.

This is exactly why I hate so many of the games that are coming out. They're marketing to people like you, when they should be focusing on the important parts of the game. I've played better multiplayer on a free FPS than on most of the big-name $60 titles.

[AETEN II]

Because multiplayer is fun, as it draws on the common urge of humans to best those other guys and show em' up. Indie games largely focus on campaigns and single-player, which are the aspects of games that I always pass over. I have yet to even play the campaign of many of my games, including many non-shooters.

This is exactly why I hate so many of the games that are coming out. They're marketing to people like you, when they should be focusing on the important parts of the game. I've played better multiplayer on a free FPS than on most of the big-name $60 titles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDDfPxF3EFE
Sorry, but whatever you played cannot rival the gameplay, visuals, and audio of Battlefield combined. Each gun in bad co 2 has its own unique sound, a veteran player can identify what gun is being fired simply by the sound of it.

[Indeos]

This is exactly why I hate so many of the games that are coming out. They're marketing to people like you, when they should be focusing on the important parts of the game. I've played better multiplayer on a free FPS than on most of the big-name $60 titles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDDfPxF3EFE
Sorry, but whatever you played cannot rival the gameplay, visuals, and audio of Battlefield combined. Each gun in bad co 2 has its own unique sound, a veteran player can identify what gun is being fired simply by the sound of it.

Yet that's nowhere near as entertaining as Combat Arms, which is free and constantly coming out with new free content. Granted, it's all multiplayer and the graphics aren't that great, but I have yet to find a game that keeps me as entertained. It's pretty sad, really.

[The Corparation]

Because multiplayer is fun, as it draws on the common urge of humans to best those other guys and show em' up. Indie games largely focus on campaigns and single-player, which are the aspects of games that I always pass over. I have yet to even play the campaign of many of my games, including many non-shooters.

This is exactly why I hate so many of the games that are coming out. They're marketing to people like you, when they should be focusing on the important parts of the game. I've played better multiplayer on a free FPS than on most of the big-name $60 titles.

This, mostly. ^ There's way too big an emphasis on multiplayer these days. Look at Cod, they haven't had a decent single player campaign in years because they focus on the multiplayer so much, and then most of the rest of the market focuses on ripping off CoD's multiplayer. That said multiplayer can be fun and even better then single player BF3 is particularly nice (Except the interface for joining, fuck you EA, fuck you for making me run 3 different programs to play the game), but the majority of it is shit and they need to go back and insert things like plot and story into games. I don't care about leveling up to get the shiny unlocks, I just want to play the game with my friends and mess around after playing through a great campaign. I dislike having to have to play for hours just to get a a decent gun to use. I miss the games of yesteryear like Counterstrike where everyone had an even playing field and you didn't have to devote hours of your life or shell out extra money for DLC to get the good weapons.

[AETEN II]

This is exactly why I hate so many of the games that are coming out. They're marketing to people like you, when they should be focusing on the important parts of the game. I've played better multiplayer on a free FPS than on most of the big-name $60 titles.

This, mostly. ^ There's way too big an emphasis on multiplayer these days. Look at Cod, they haven't had a decent single player campaign in years because they focus on the multiplayer so much, and then most of the rest of the market focuses on ripping off CoD's multiplayer. That said multiplayer can be fun and even better then single player BF3 is particularly nice (Except the interface for joining, fuck you EA, fuck you for making me run 3 different programs to play the game), but the majority of it is shit and they need to go back and insert things like plot and story into games. I don't care about leveling up to get the shiny unlocks, I just want to play the game with my friends and mess around after playing through a great campaign. I dislike having to have to play for hours just to get a a decent gun to use. I miss the games of yesteryear like Counterstrike where everyone had an even playing field and you didn't have to devote hours of your life or shell out extra money for DLC to get the good weapons.

COD fails because they got the balance wrong. Battlefield is like COD, with low health, however, there are medics which can revive you with magic paddles that fix bullet holes.

[The Corparation]

This, mostly. ^ There's way too big an emphasis on multiplayer these days. Look at Cod, they haven't had a decent single player campaign in years because they focus on the multiplayer so much, and then most of the rest of the market focuses on ripping off CoD's multiplayer. That said multiplayer can be fun and even better then single player BF3 is particularly nice (Except the interface for joining, fuck you EA, fuck you for making me run 3 different programs to play the game), but the majority of it is shit and they need to go back and insert things like plot and story into games. I don't care about leveling up to get the shiny unlocks, I just want to play the game with my friends and mess around after playing through a great campaign. I dislike having to have to play for hours just to get a a decent gun to use. I miss the games of yesteryear like Counterstrike where everyone had an even playing field and you didn't have to devote hours of your life or shell out extra money for DLC to get the good weapons.

COD fails because they got the balance wrong. Battlefield is like COD, with low health, however, there are medics which can revive you with magic paddles that fix bullet holes.

Battlefield is marginally realistic. (Hence the low healthIn RL bullets kill you really really easily and only a hit or two can ruin your day), the maps are huge, tons of people in the rounds, guns actually have realistic ballistics, scope flash, plus vehicles. I admit The medic thing is a little bit dumb, but it is just a game.

[Norstal]

There's barely any single-player games left, except for indies and ME.

Oh, what happened to those times. Multiplayer games are unsustainable. At some point, only a few people are still left playing it.

[AETEN II]

COD fails because they got the balance wrong. Battlefield is like COD, with low health, however, there are medics which can revive you with magic paddles that fix bullet holes.

Battlefield is marginally realistic. (Hence the low healthIn RL bullets kill you really really easily and only a hit or two can ruin your day), the maps are huge, tons of people in the rounds, guns actually have realistic ballistics, scope flash, plus vehicles. I admit The medic thing is a little bit dumb, but it is just a game.

I love how each of the guns has a unique sound, I now can tell ANY gun that is fired in Bad co 2 and tell where it came from.
Also
Battlefield Bad Co Vietnam FTW!

[The Corparation]

There's barely any single-player games left, except for indies and ME.

Oh, what happened to those times. Multiplayer games are unsustainable. At some point, only a few people are still left playing it.

This ^ So many great multplayer games have just been left dead, including ones that had so much potential. I for one miss World in Conflict, that game was a brilliant Strategy game and badly needs a sequel, I'd still play it but there's not much online action and you can only plkay a campagin so many times.