I think this whole "place" thing is stupid. I don't care about sales, I'm a gamer. What I care about is good games; another way to state it, for me, is to ask which console I use the most and which I use the least? So what "place" do I put Sony? Sony is first, no question. 360 is second, and they're probably not moving from that point. Wii is firmly, absolutely, irrevocably in last place, with no chance of them ever moving up. If I put in all the handhelds I ha...
People probably said the same thing about Valve and Steam many years back. But Steam has been around for NINE YEARS (or so). EA's service is new by comparison. They need time to make it on par with Steam.
I know this was more than a day ago, but one quick comment on this: you know that you don't have to use Origin, right? Origin will activate your game, and then you never have to have it running again. On the other hand, Steam will always have to be running in the background. Just to be clear.
You know, we say that (don't care about graphics) but we do. A lot actually. And more than gamers, critics care about graphics a LOT even if they say they don't. That's why a cool game that's graphics are a bit behind the top dogs will get crappy review scores, leading to bad sales. So it's no wonder that devs are always trying to keep their graphics up, possibly to the detriment of the other parts of the game.
As cool as it is reading about things like this, I really hate doing it. It always makes we wonder if we could have had a decent story and decent dialog to go along with the boring, old gameplay (as opposed to crap dialog/story to go with the boring gameplay).
Are you joking? You know how much flak EA takes over their online passes? People are probably STILL complaining about Bad Company 2 VIP (online pass) codes. I myself don't have a big problem with it, but don't think it's only Sony people are complaining about.
But you can see it from their point of view, right? Even for single player games (though this would be horrible); these games can be traded, who knows, 5, 10 times? Sold to gamestop, they rip off someone and sell it for $55, again, then gamestop sells it for $55, then $50, then $40, etc. It means all of the money goes to gamestop, and these people who buy used from them don't help the developer, even thought they could have bought it new on day one, OR waited for a sale and just bought it...
They (EA) might make some questionable decisions, but they also do a lot that other publishers don't. They will publish obscure and unique games where others will just want to rehash. I have to say that like 5 of my favorite franchises are EA published games. I haven't tried Shadows of the Damned or Alice Returns yet, but I'm sure they're good.
I agree, I'm skeptical of a LOT of things about the new system, but the benefits can outweigh it all. If they have a seriously powerful system, then developers have new hardware to play with. This means that Sony and MS can't just back their way into the next gen (not that I expect them to, but now they might have serious competition).
Hopefully we see a serious Nintendo system that is fun for ALL ages, especially 20+.
I think the only way to fix this is to implement a fee for selling a used game. If gamestop (or ANY used game retailer) sells a used game for $39.99 - $54.99, they owe the publisher 15% or so of the sale. If you think about the volume that gamestop deals in, you're talking a good chunk of money that can go to the publisher (and in turn they can get rid of online passes, and find out how much their games are traded in which will help them figure out what people don't like about their g...
"95 to 100 - AVOID AT ALL COSTS"
I lol'ed at that. To be honest though, it's sometimes true. I truly, truly, didn't like GTA4, and bought it based on the reviews. Such a boring game IMO. Funny article.
Until I read this heading, I hadn't realize that I completely forgot about this game. So, for me, no; I have no excitement for this game anymore. I might have at some point, but this is the 3drealms thing. How long are they going to take to release a GOOD game? There's so many other good games coming that this will be mediocre when it comes out.
#2 and #4 are the most important. We know Battlefield will play like Battlefield, so that's not so important. What is KEY is that the game works fine on release. They HAVE to realize that there will be 1m+ people playing it as soon as it's released (within 24 hours or so) so they have to be prepared. I'm surprised when big blockbuster games don't get the multiplayer correct on day one anymore; don't they know the figures, don't they know how many people bought the game...
That might be the point, since you can go prone in BF3. I think it might just be too much to have camouflage and prone at the same time.
Don't care about mod tools, 95% of the moddable games out there, you get total crap, maybe 5% of the time you get something really amazing (red orchestra, counter strike, etc). And if they come out with some mod tools later in the life cycle of BF3, then fine. But on release...? Who cares, because we'll have the actual game to play. I don't understand the complaints, to be honest. Anyway, I'm still getting it for the PC (or if enough of my friends also do it, then the PS3).
So, you're going to skip buying the game when it comes out, in favor of buying it LATER during a Steam sale, all because some guys comments on the MODDING TOOLS? ... Are you sure you were going to buy it in the first place? To be honest, and not even trying to be mean here (just calling it like I see it), but it sounds like you're just looking for an excuse to complain and skip the game.
Legitimate complaining, yes. However, about 90% of complaining on n4g is B.S. whining by either misquoting someone, or just being flat out lied to by some "journalist." But gamers whine more than anyone except hippies.
What would you do with a map editor? Make custom maps that can be played on custom servers? Can't be done anyway, so what's the problem? This game supports dedicated servers, but I don't think it supports custom servers; that's about piracy protection, so there's no hosting of games. A map editor, or ANY editor tools, would be a waste of time, IMO.
I want this to happen, for one reason only. I'm not talking about xbox live vs psn, or anything like that. I just want it so that games won't die as quickly. It's sad to see so few people playing on some multiplayer games. If they were linked, you would have more people to play with; that's the ONLY reason I would want this to happen. I would be in favor of it.
Terrible article, total idiocy. I can understand it's an opinion piece, but if that is SERIOUSLY his opinion and not a tactic for flamebait, then ... wow. So much wrong, so little time.
1. 30 fps thing: Almost every single game on consoles is 30 fps. So if you decide not to get battlefield 3 because it's 30 fps, I hope you decide not to buy or play ANY other games on consoles, except for maybe 1 a year.
2. console footage: can't comment on this,...