Tridus

This looks like it's going to be a lot of fun as things get hooked up to the mod tools. :)

Oh neat, I always liked Worms games. Though at this point I think we need a single "games on Steamworks" thread. Creating a new one every time is getting kind of silly (or depressing I guess, depending on your position on Steamworks).

I love remote desktop. Updating my home computer now. ;)

[quote who="CyrusNunn" reply="94" id="2697924"] Fail comparison is fail. There's one minor detail that completely destroys your entire point: the SC 2 single player modes work without Internet access. In fact, I just did it to prove that I could. God, the misinformation around here sometimes is just pathetic. If Ubisoft were a book publisher, they'd be saying "You have to check in with us every time you turn a page." If Blizzard were a book publishe

[quote who="John_Hughes" reply="19" id="2698039"] You do know the user map settings maps is where the real replayability is right? I played the original for two years and never played one competitive multiplayer match. And SC2 has a far more powerful map creator then SC1 did. And of the 2000 million maps that will be generated, if .00001% are actually any good, then that is great. Never met a Map that just wasn't the surface on which you played. So your an eye candy type then? and n

[quote who="VermillionChaos" reply="111" id="2697480"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 110Can we move away from complaining about SC2 and back to complaining about Elemental? OK! Why Brad why! Why do large mobs only take up 1 square in tactical![/quote] What he said! (Hey we do agree on something! :) ) And walls. If your city has walls you should be able to use them in tactical combat. AoW 2 city sieges were a lot of fun because of that (at least un

[quote who="GCFL" reply="6" id="2697468"] If I had to name two things I would do differently I would have made stability and performance as two things we would have addressed earlier. Yeah this would have been nice. I never really got to participate since I simply could not run the game BUT I look forward to all the fun and possibilities for the future. Looking forward to the latest release. It sounds like it will be great![/quote] Unfortuantely you can't

Wait, you mean the same Dawn of War 2 that only lets you play as one race in the campaign, directly following Blizzard's lead ? What a great example! :D (Also, it's comparable in length to the campaign in Wings of Liberty, so I guess they were also selling only a fraction of a game at full price. What jerks.)

[quote who="VermillionChaos" reply="108" id="2697420"] It comes from the global activision price hike model of +10. Almost everything out of their doors is 10 more than it was before. So you take Raven's reasonable expected price(and it is reasonable) of 39.99, and tack on the 'activision 10' and the excuse that 'it is really a standalone game!' and voila! - 49.99 for an xpack. Hell, I half-expected Cataclysm to cost 50. Edit: Frogboy, may I have a beagle

[quote who="Raven X" reply="20" id="2697422"] Quality is completely subjective. What one person calls quality another might call crap. Most of the units looks the same only in higher polygon models with brighter colors. The game-play is almost identical. The storyline....would be Awesome....if I got the whole thing in One Game. It doesn't reek of "quality" to me. I'm not saying it isn't a good game, it's just not as Earth shattering as people seem to be thinking it is. It's the same as a

[quote who="Raven X" reply="17" id="2697405"]I never bought any of the expansions for the first SC. When I finished it's storyline I called it "game over". I had no idea Kerrigan lived through the first one, much less the brood war.[/quote] So you didn't get the whole story then. You got part of the story. In SC2, you'll get the whole Terran campaign in one shot. That's their story. The idea that you're somehow getting less for your money here is just plain wrong.

Inception really was great. The whole theatre groaned at the ending, which was something I've not seen very often after a movie has been out this long.

[quote who="Raven X" reply="11" id="2697358"] Where did I say they didn't have to build the game before making the campaign, of course they need to build the game first. That never entered my argument. So supposedly the next two "Expansions" are going to cost $50 a pop. That's not what I'd call Expansion price. What pisses me off about the whole thing is they split up the 3 campaigns into different games. Plain and simple. They're charging 3 times for the same game. If you want the "Full

Where is that $50 number coming from? I've seen no actual announcement from Blizzard except that the expansions will be priced "appropriately for the content."

Yeah. Honestly I'm growing to hate cover in shooters. It's gotten to the point where the whole game consists of conveniently located things to hide behind and playing whack a mole. RTS is less bad for that, but you really don't need cover to make a fun game. Sins had nothing like that and it worked pretty well as a game. :P

[quote who="Raven X" reply="9" id="2697324"] I don't agree there my friend, and it being of better "Quality" is definitely an opinion. I honestly don't see SC 2 as THAT much of an improvement over SC 1. Also, how do you know the campaign is larger? Because Blizzard "says so" ? I'll believe it when I finish the campaign for my-self, with after jamming a good 6 hours on last night, I imagine I don't have that much farther to go. If the Zerg and Protos campaigns are going to be "Expansions"

[quote who="VermillionChaos" reply="80" id="2697067"] To be perfectly frank, SC2 is not really an RTS. As victory is more based on CPM and unit micro, than actual strategy. Honestly, I played the beta and knew right then I wouldn't be paying for SC2, or even playing it for that matter. It took them 7 years to do all of about nothing. P.S. paying 180+$ just to get the full singleplay story is an absolute joke. Bobby Kotick should be fired.[/quote] <

[quote who="lbgsloan" reply="89" id="2697216"] units can't move and fire (something that even the first C&C could do)[/quote] There's a unit in the campaign that can do that. So it's not an engine limitation. :)

Yeah it's nice. It was particularly galling to have a person at EB try to sell my wife $3 "scratch protection". That's one chain I won't miss in the slightest when digital distrubtion finally hits consoles and renders their entire business obsolete.

[quote quoting="post"] 1 - Do you have to be online even to play the single player?[/quote] No. If it can't find battle.net, you can just play in offline mode. It won't track achievements or such, but the entire campaign and single player modes are playable. (All the achievements really do is unlock things like decals and portraits for your online profile.) [quote]2 - Do you have a limited number of activations?[/quote] Not as far as I know. It certainly won't ca

[quote quoting="post"] Well, there's PLENTY of buzz going on all over the web about the pirated release of Starcraft 2. I haven't tried this for my-self, so I can only speak on what I've read on various web-sites, which I will Not post links to here, but I can at least talk about what I read. Apparently the pirating group known as RELOADED has already hacked SC 2. Normally when games are pirated they loose All multiplayer functionality but this appears not to be the case

[quote who="VR_IronMana" reply="81" id="2696791"] To me, I like those no-micro-workers, squad-based games more not so much because they move the genre forward but because I find the play-style more appealing. I'd rather be the general directing the flow of battle and the position of units than hopping inside each individual soldiers' head or handing units their orders individually in the middle of a war. So whether they move the genre forward or back or upside down or inside

[quote who="coreimpulse" reply="14" id="2696732"]On one hand i hear that upgrade cycles are too often needed, and on the other i hear that an old card is more than enough because games are made for console hardware. What gives?[/quote] In the era of early 3d games, PC games did require more frequent upgrades. That hasn't been true for a while (my wife's nearly 3 year old computer still plays everything on the market easily), but perception changes slowly.

[quote who="CyrusNunn" reply="60" id="2696473"] Quoting 4Nana, reply 59Done. You should go ahead and quit bitching about needing the internet in this day and age. You do not appear to have more of a clue than last time. Here's a small one: http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/07/ubisoft-drm-authentification-server-is-down-assassins-creed-2/[/quote] Fail comparison is fail. There's one minor detail that completely destroys your entire point: the SC

The scariest thing is that I think when MS started GFWL, they meant well. It's not malicious, they just completely misread the market and had the wrong people in charge. The company has serious problems with that right now, look at the total mess that is their mobile strategy as another example of the same thing.