What did you like about it? I tried it out, and thought it was fairly bland. It's basically a point and click adventure, except with depressing grey colors and a serial killer instead of crazy adventure, humor, and bright colors, like the old Sierra games. I'm really not getting the hype at all.
I thought the interaction was awesome. I was sitting back in my chair until the fight scene started and I was getting my ass handed to me until I got up on my toes. I thought the fight was pretty realistic and the interaction made it intense. I liked the little investigating I had to do as well, I'm looking for a game that actually might take some thought process and will take me a while to finish. I didn't get much from the demo about the story except the origami killer, but I know it's supposed to be an extremely personal story that has you searching for kidnapped family members, which just seems intriguing to me. Plus I'm getting kind of sick of MW, need a story game that I can get wrapped up in. Sorry if that sounds choppy I am exhausted right now.
Starcraft 2 Beta is out. After 12 years of waiting. Unfortunately the first wave appears to only be around 400 people so very few are able to play right now. You can dl it on certain trackers though if you want to have it ready in the chance you might get invited. edit: looks like even those with beta keys from Blizzcon aren't even able to get on right now.
It's a closed Beta. A closed beta in Blizzard-land usually means that there's at least a year and a half of dev time left before it's released.
http://www.break.com/game-trailers/game/god-of-war-3/god-of-war-3---vengeance-trailer?res=1 New God of War 3 trailer.
Blizzard has already said they expect it to be out at some point this year (definitely 4Q). Doesn't mean it won't get pushed back, but from the stuff I've heard about the beta it sounds like they are very near completion and are just balancing out the races and working on battle.net.We'll see. Diablo III is definitely 2-3 years out at the earliest unfortunately. Civilization V also just got announced for the fall also. 2010 is definitely shaping up to be one of the greatest years in gaming ever. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.joystiq.com/2010/02/18/sid-meiers-civilization-v-coming-to-pc-this-fall/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.joystiq.com/2010/02/18/sid-m ... this-fall/</a>
Civilization V coming out this fall. With HEXAGONS. Unfortunately I was never much of a war-monger. I preferred peace and prosperity, which is why I always did poorly on the more difficult settings.
Well I'm in SC2 beta and I gotta say, I really fucking suck. I never got into Starcraft all that much so I was never great. Warcraft 3 was more my game and its been years since I've even played that so as good as I was microing it is fair to say all that skill has gone to shit. The game itself is a lot of fun though. The new units are really interesting and change things up despite it being really similar to the original games. The only thing that sucks right now in beta is the lack of chat channels so unless you know people in the beta as well, you feel really isolated.
Lucky. Mind posting your system stats? People are saying that if your pc is closer to the minimum requirements you have a better shot of getting in, just wondering if that's accurate.
I don't get why this is a big deal; I've played every Civilization and expansion pack for it, and as of IV, it was an okay, very easy strategy game, nothing more. Something like Starcraft is many times more complex and exciting in the thinking portion alone. Hell, I've played dozens of indie strategy games that were more balanced and exciting. Civilization 1 was a masterpiece, and one of my favorite games ever, but it's an average franchise at best right now.
Civ4 would absorb me for 4-to-7 days at a time, I'd come out shell-shocked and swear I'd never play it again. Two months later the cycle continued. Same goes for SimCity4. I'm looking forward to Civ5, if only for the fact that it'll have HEXAGONAL TILES. FUCK YES.
I don't know how true, especially considering I am running everything on ultra without any lag or freezing. I'm running an nvidia 8800 GT, 8gb RAM on Windows 7 home 64bit. I think I was using 4gb RAM and Vista Ultimate 32bit when I submitted my info for the opt-in. I'd consider selling my beta account if it wasn't bound to my WoW-merged battle.net account. However, If any of you guys have any questions about the new battle.net or the game itself, I'd be more than happy to answer what I can. A lot of the features on bnet are disabled, though.
I sort of missed the boat on these kinds of games, but can you explain the appeal of StarCraft? I played it only when I was a kid (around eleven-ish years old) so I probably didn't get the strategic nuances, but when I played it, it seemed like yet another strategy game where it's mostly you playing bureaucrat. I just wanted to head into the fighting and didn't like having to sit there and gather resources. I remember an old game, released around the same time as StarCraft, called Myth: The Fallen Lords, a strategy game set in a dark fantasy world inspired by The Black Company. In this game, resource gathering and management were entirely removed in favour of tactics and terrain. It had a great physics engine that allowed arrows to become less accurate far away, bombs to putter out in rain, etc. I've never played the Total War series except for the first game because my computer sucks, but it's somewhat similar - in fact, it may have been a precursor to those games. Personally, I really enjoy these real-time tactics games Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is while I see the appeal in games like Myth or Total War, I don't get the appeal of StarCraft. Obviously, it must be just me, because fifty-million Koreans can't be wrong, but I still don't quite understand it. So then, what's the draw?
Myth TFL and Myth II Soulblighter were my favorite war games early in my high school life. The online battles were fucking awesome and my first foray into clans. I totally agree, I played warcraft/Starcraft a handful of times, and hated having to mine gold and mill forest just to prepare for an invasion. You were just given a group of differently skilled fighters and marched off to war. Originally a Macintosh game producer, Bungie, who created the Myth series, was bought up by M$ for the rights to Halo. The Myth rights were sold off to some shitty 3rd party that put out a abysmal third installment. Which really started my hatred for anything Microsoft. I never did get into any other war strategy games after that but if there was a game that had the similar simplistic game set up as Myth, I'd be totally down for it.
I only played it for a few months, and was never very good since my mouse clicking was too damn slow, but the strategy of Starcraft was plenty deep. First of all, it's not necessarily true that you have to gather resources for a long tperiod; if you're the Zergs, you can play a crazy rush that destroys the opponent in a few minutes. Beyond that, the game has great variety and balance; there is no single unit that is better than the rest, and there is no strategy that everyone uses on the top levels. Everything has a counter, and everything has parts of the map and situations where they excel at, and others where they are weak in. You can play an aggressive, crazy rush, or sit back, defend, and mine resources. Either approach can be successful against anyone. This is an extraordinarily hard thing to do, and I think it was accomplished thanks to Starcraft's constant updates; otherwise, one tactic would become way too powerful, and the strategy at a high level would become simplistic and degenerate. Beyond that, the metagame at the highest levels is quite interesting and exciting, requiring calculation and being able to accurately assess the position, like a simplified game of chess. I don't know what you have against resources. Resource management is a huge part of the excitement and tactics of a strategy game. If balanced properly, it adds a great deal to the depth and complexity of the title. Removing it makes the design space of the game smaller, and potentially far more basic and boring. Now, maybe you have a sufficiently deep and fun game without any resource management, or the latter is implemented poorly...but that doesn't mean the concept itself is any better or worse than a unit being able to "attack" one another. Overall, I like turn-based strategy more than real-time strategy, as I don't have to click fast with a mouse.
Speaking of turn-based strategy, I recommend extremely highly a game called King's Bounty: The Legend and its expansion pack, King's Bounty: Armored Princess. Developed by a small Russian company, the games are super addictive, long (about 75 total hours for the pair of them), complex, and fun. The translation and spelling and grammar in The Legend are horrible, but the dialog is hilarious so it makes up for it. There are also some minor bugs at least on my system, but they didn't kill the game. Armored Princess fixes all of these problems and is much better, but it's also considerably harder so I'd start with The Legend. Both are available on Steam. They're very similar to King's Bounty, which it's a remake of, and Heroes of Might and Magic, which is one of the best series of games ever.
Just picked up the God of War collection today, only about 20 minutes in but the game is fucking titties. Speaking of titties Ive never actually played a game that had unclothed digital titties before. So long ago all we could do was dream about a nude code to see Sonya Blades titties in Mortal Kombat.
GoW is one of the best games ever made for PSX. The third one which comes out next month is supposed to be off its tits from what I've seen/read/heard.