I had no idea this was being made by the people that made World In Conflict. I LOVED that game.
There's also the more traditional game in the same vein as the original called Plants vs. Zombies 2: It's About Time.
http://www.ign.com/articles...
If you're looking for something like the original, get that one. I think it comes out mid-July but it's only on Apple devices. I'm pretty sure they have a timed exc...
They're forced to if they play on PC and want to play any EA game like BF3, Crysis 3, etc.
No but I'm sure it'll help you rally 'round your family with a pocket full of shells.
They're just as bad. They claim they're DS's but they really aren't and they use lag compensation which is just as horrible.
Everything after COD4 had major lag because they didn't use "true" dedicated servers. They also started using lag compensation which is just as bad.
They don't do DS's anymore because P2P relies on the gaming population to keep it alive. Once the new games come along, the older ones slowly die out, thus, killing the old game and forcing people to buy the new one.
The fewer people there are playing the game, the higher the lag (well, in theory. It's always been horrible post COD4). Kotick has been quoted saying he doesn't think it's fair that people can play a game for years and years and not have to...
He also said Xbox Live trumps PS+ but fails to say why. He just goes on to say that it's now giving away free games too and even admits they're old ones.
If you want to persuade people that something is better, at least give examples as to why you think it's true. And by examples, I don't mean something that's not even as good as the competition (i.e. 2 free OLD games).
Here, I'll even give an example. One thing that's better ...
I love how he even acknowledges that the used game industry is capitalism. Well, guess what? Using capitalism, those developers could easily one-up GameStop and other used game businesses by offering an incentive for gamers to skip GS and go back to the dev. The devs could easily offer money, just like GS, or even offer other incentives like discounts on other games they've made or games associated with the publisher. There are many ways the devs/publishers could get the consumer to d...
At this point, why don't they just change the name as well? The whole point of the "One" moniker was to signify everything being connected. It's not that way anymore and Xbox One was a bad name to begin with. It just adds confusion with the first Xbox and the name just doesn't sound right (purely my opinion).
Only if you let him touch yours.
Stop with the "woe is me" crap about MS. MS got trashed for trying to take away "certain" rights that gamers should never have to part with. Some people will inevitably trash MS because they're fanboys just like the MS fanyboys would reciprocate on Sony. THere's no escaping that. But for most people it has nothing to do with brand loyalty. It has everything to do with losing rights and value and people decided to stand up as a matter of principle. It's ni...
Unless you had the RROD or had your console bricked by one of MS's past updates.
They both have their issues with updates.
I understand where people that think that are coming from but you have to consider how innovative Nintendo is in terms of hardware. They're always thinking of interesting new ideas with their consoles that many times get copied by the other console manufacturers. Sure, they don't always work out, but I'd still hate to lose that originality in the industry.
For a lot of people, it has nothing to do with brand loyalty or fanboyism. It has EVERYTHING to do with principle. Many people don't want the practices that MS if forcing down the consumer's throat. If Sony was the company that was forcing this crap on us, I wouldn't be buying their console.
Why can't people see this?
I'm all for not being a fanboy/girl but when it comes to the future practices and policies of gaming, I'm sorry if I have to draw a line in the sand. This generation I can honestly say that I DO NOT want MS to win. In the past, I couldn't have cared less about who "won". With what MS is trying to push in this generation, I would absolutely hate it if they were successful because it would mean more draconian policies being put in place and gamers getting less value for...
MS already tried doing a cross platform game and it was a disaster.
http://www.techspot.com/new...
Even mediocre mouse players were wiping the floor with the best controller players.
I think it's a matter of personal preference. I don't like any dead zone at all. I hate moving my finger and not having a corresponding movement on screen.
Also, you can only adjust the dead zone on some games and it doesn't get rid of the dead zone that's already in the sticks due to poor mechanical implementation.
I'm more concerned about the dead zone of the analog sticks. There's WAY too much of a dead zone with the old controllers. That pretty much applies to all controllers I've played with. I don't want ANY dead zone. If I move the stick a millimeter, I want there to be movement.
Are you 13 or just that stupid?