Rust is pre-alpha ffs, and people dont mind paying for this garbage apparently.
A million people bought BF4 and that launched in pre-alpha state too
...
server problems =I alpha state... the actually game was pretty damn finished.
So finished that it was completely unplayable on launch for weeks on consoles? Is that a common thing for finished games? Is that your version of finished? I guess you didn't play it or even bother to read about it.
You should research the game's launch. You should read about Sim City's launch too. It should give you insight into EA's version of a finished product. I guess your version of "finished" is "retail but unplayable on most platforms". Server problems didn't even account for the bulk the actual problems. I played DayZ while BF4 didn't work because a game in alpha state was more fun and playable ;)
It will only be a matter of time before DayZ outsells BF4 on PC in alpha state (if it hasn't already).
I played both BF4 and Sim City on launch, the crashes did annoy me. the fact that whenever the Siege of Shangai tower was dropped I would be kicked off a server was annoying. (my favourite map.).
Sim Cities log in problem went away after a week or 2... in which case Im not a 5 year old child that can't wait another week for things to even out.
but then, I payed £30 for BF4... everything worked in terms of gameplay... the game actually looks like it deserves millions in revanue from a graphical and presentation stand point.
My $60 copy of BF4 barely worked in terms of anything. Even now - the netcode is still in shambles compared to any other major FPS. Still can't use 1/3rd of my unlocked scopes because scoping in the game is broken. Broken scope = major broken gameplay. Defend it all you like, EA's reputation speaks for itself. Unlike BF4, a game that has been finished for almost a couple of months - All my scopes in DayZ work fine. 1 year pre release, too. I guess you have extremely high standards for unfinished games and extremely low standards for finished ones. You're welcome to this weird preference but it looks nutty.
Right now, this second, only 70k people are playing BF4, and 40k people are playing DayZ, a completely unfinished game. BF4 must really suck or DayZ must be really amazing for an unfinished game.
I just think people are weirdly obsessed with zombies. I think they're boring enemies.
PC gamers saying 6v6 doesn't bother them? LOL what ever happened to standards and quality control. I'm not buying into the hype of a launch title that claims to be the next COD4.
Because more players means better game? You're stupid and you have no clue how game balance works.
Cut down some of the quote chains. There's a difference between playing scared, playing smart and playing with aggression.
This isn't Madden football, it's the real world where you take points when you can.
In the real world there's proof that you're factually wrong: http://www.policymic.com/articles/75949/should-football-teams-go-for-it-on-4th-down-this-chart-tells-you
You can't use a chart to decide situational football. If statistics were all that mattered in sports, just put a coaches hat on a computer bot.
And most coaches coach scared. Payton is not one of those. The NFL is more offense oriented than ever. With all the rules favoring the offense, it only makes sense to put the ball in the hands of your elite QB rather than your special teams. Especially when you're in short yardage situation.
It really just depends on the situation at hand, and the time on the clock. Every scenario is different. Any coach who consistently goes for it on fourth instead of kicking an in-range FG will find himself without a job at the end of the season, and under justified criticism.
A 46 yard field goal in that situation was very difficult. A 4th and 4 is at worst just as difficult (I would argue easier) except it still allows you to get a TD out of it.
Thats that then, thanks so much guys. Loving the card, hoping mantle does some justice and helps optimize the games its said too.
Battlefield 4 seriously needs some good optimization
The game has been plagued by bugs and crashes, the optimization is actually just fine. What's probably happening is that it's a CPU heavy game and yours just isn't very good.
Cut down some of the quote chains. There's a difference between playing scared, playing smart and playing with aggression.
This isn't Madden football, it's the real world where you take points when you can.
In the real world there's proof that you're factually wrong: http://www.policymic.com/articles/75949/should-football-teams-go-for-it-on-4th-down-this-chart-tells-you
You can't use a chart to decide situational football. If statistics were all that mattered in sports, just put a coaches hat on a computer bot.
And most coaches coach scared. Payton is not one of those. The NFL is more offense oriented than ever. With all the rules favoring the offense, it only makes sense to put the ball in the hands of your elite QB rather than your special teams. Especially when you're in short yardage situation.
Points would have quieted that crowd a good bit, and getting your first points on the board is important for a team's morale. Now the Saints are playing scared and making mistakes for lack of confidence.
Payton should have kicked the FG in that situation, period. If he had missed a second time, you could then make your argument, but he barely missed the first time in the rain.
So 3 points would've shut up the Seattle crowd? Are you joking? And playing scared would've been settling for a field goal, in what world does playing conservatively means you're playing with aggression?
Cut down some of the quote chains. There's a difference between playing scared, playing smart and playing with aggression.
This isn't Madden football, it's the real world where you take points when you can.
In the real world there's proof that you're factually wrong: http://www.policymic.com/articles/75949/should-football-teams-go-for-it-on-4th-down-this-chart-tells-you
This game is over. It was kind of over when the Saints missed that FG.
Not kicking that FG and going for the first was stupid. Terribad stupid.
What? You do realize the kicker missed a 16 yarder earlier in the game? It was more risky for them to try the field goal at this point.
Three points could mean the difference in a low-scoring game like this. When a QB throws an interception, you don't just run the ball after that. Missing one FG is no excuse not to try for easy points when you have the opportunity.
But thats the issue, a 46 yard field goal would've been high risk low reward given the bad weather. While trying to keep the drive alive to get a TD was at least a high risk high reward situation.
Points would have quieted that crowd a good bit, and getting your first points on the board is important for a team's morale. Now the Saints are playing scared and making mistakes for lack of confidence.
Payton should have kicked the FG in that situation, period. If he had missed a second time, you could then make your argument, but he barely missed the first time in the rain.
So 3 points would've shut up the Seattle crowd? Are you joking? And playing scared would've been settling for a field goal, in what world does playing conservatively means you're playing with aggression?
Log in to comment