snared04's forum posts

Avatar image for snared04
snared04

455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 51

User Lists: 0

#1 snared04
Member since 2009 • 455 Posts

Not huge. I like playing with bots, though. Call me boring.musicalmac

Yeah me and 2-3 friends with 15-20 bots was just as good as the real thing, minus the lag. Lan ftw. Awesome games, I thought 2k4 was better than UT3 in everything except graphics. Hell, the original UT is still bad ass.

Avatar image for snared04
snared04

455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 51

User Lists: 0

#2 snared04
Member since 2009 • 455 Posts

Diablo 3 will be shelved or made into a pay to play format

DeViLzzz

Strange, outlandish, totally unsupported assertation inc.

They've already said it's coming out, and it's either due out this year or early next. I'm quoting actual sources here. And they have already confirmed it's not pay to play. So... really not sure where you're getting those ideas, but they must have been a dream you had, because Blizzard disagrees. Kk gg.

Avatar image for snared04
snared04

455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 51

User Lists: 0

#3 snared04
Member since 2009 • 455 Posts

[QUOTE="snared04"]

Err... I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they are intelligent enough to know that releasing an extremely similiar game next to a competing game launched by the most successful game company known to man is ALWAYS something to factor in.

That being said, seeing as how Diablo II is still going strong ten years after launch, I can hardly see 3-4 months as being an adequately long period of time for that honeymoon stage to wear off, and Diablo III players to even start thinking about other games in that genre to fill their time with.

Again, either release it before, or go home. And yes, I realise THQ's staff is small comparitively, but I think I have numbers to back my hypothesis.

Baranga

Grim Dawn has a different enough setting, mood, graphical design and weapon system to make it interesting for Diablo fans.

Which is why Titan Quest inevitably saw such a large draw from Diablo fans, having been released half a decade after Diablo II came out...

^ "half a decade" being the key term here.

3-4 months isn't going to draw jack from the Diablo crowd.

Avatar image for snared04
snared04

455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 51

User Lists: 0

#4 snared04
Member since 2009 • 455 Posts

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/brink/player_review.html?id=764741&tag=all-about%3Breview2

Avatar image for snared04
snared04

455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 51

User Lists: 0

#5 snared04
Member since 2009 • 455 Posts

Diablo is definitely the final boss. We don't have anything except CG and concept art pictures of him, but they've alluded to him so many times it's a foregone conclusion at this point. As to the story, Hell is apparently waging an all out war on the planet, and you're doing your best to stop them.

Act 1 starts you in New (Old?) Tristram, where you will delve into the monastery from the original game. Not sure if it's there, or somewhere else, but you'll fight King Leoric who is now the skeleton king.

Act 2 is set in a desert (again...?)

Acts 3 and 4 have no official information on them as of yet, aside from the fact that Blizzard has confirmed parts of Act 3 have appeared in various screenshots and or gameplay footage. Enjoy.

Once again, www.diablofans.com and the Diablo Wiki linked to it are excellent sources for Diablo III info.

Avatar image for snared04
snared04

455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 51

User Lists: 0

#6 snared04
Member since 2009 • 455 Posts

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]

That is probably the saddest thing I have ever read about a video game...

(probably even beats the ET Game buried in the desert)

rzepak

ET is holding an open seat in that burial mound for FFXIV

Yeah I cant really say Im sad becouse what SE tried to do was scam the customers. The game was months from being complete.

Hmm... where have I heard (actually, experienced) that before? Oh yeah.. Age of Conan. Didn't we learn our lesson there game devs? No? Oh yeah, they can basically sell you **** and get away with it.

Avatar image for snared04
snared04

455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 51

User Lists: 0

#7 snared04
Member since 2009 • 455 Posts

I don't think it's a joke at all, he just obviously didn't want to learn how to play, and so all the other 12 million people who enjoy it daily are obviously wrong.

Avatar image for snared04
snared04

455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 51

User Lists: 0

#8 snared04
Member since 2009 • 455 Posts

Never played it before today... i finally used those free for ten days things... but ive seen it before and i always thought that the game looked horrible. and today i can finally say that it is, heres why

-You have to pay for it

-free version isnt really a trial, just a demo

-really demanding graphics for no visuals

-too much useless space

-quest items are non-existent

-level up way too slow

-enemies are way too strong

SuperToshibaMan

Lmao... I was looking for something original and insightful, you have provided neither sir...

-You have to pay for it? Damn them for running servers for millions of people and demanding they help with the upkeep! Bastards.

-Again, no such thing as a free lunch.

-Really demanding? This game is one of the lightest system hogs I've ever seen. I can run several instances of the game at highest quality without breaking my computer.

-Would you rather the world be packed into a convenient, 8x8 box?

-Quest items are non-existent? L2killtherightmob?

-I can level from 1-85 in three weeks without breaking a sweat, not sure what y ou're doing wrong.

-If you fight the wrong enemies they are.

Avatar image for snared04
snared04

455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 51

User Lists: 0

#9 snared04
Member since 2009 • 455 Posts

[QUOTE="snared04"]

Mount and Blade: With Sword and Fire:

-Looting makes no money, you have to trade.

-There are maybe half the social interaction possibilities from MB: Warband, including the inability to marry.

-Guns are super powerful and pretty stupid because a wall of musketeers pretty much owns everything.

-Cavalry is pointless.

-You can only recruit from the very spread out mercenary locations

-You have to pay to upgrade soldiers' equipment.

I guess I just don't know what they were thinking with this game...

In my opinion, the original was awesome, and Warband pretty much fixed all those problems. I could have used a much better, less rigid social interaction system, some tweaks to skills, etc. But in my opinion, they pretty much took With Sword and Fire in the completely wrong direction. Very, very dissapointed in this, especially considering how much I loved Warband.

Thoughts?

Requem

You got some things right but also you got a lot of things wrong. Let me fix it for ya.

-Looting makes money, trading makes ridiculous amount of money.

-I wouldn't say "half the interactions" but it's certainly a step back from Warband but at least now it has 3 storyline quests.

-Guns are not that powerful, good armor will prevent you and/or troops from dying from 1 bullet and reloading takes forever. If you don't charge to a wall of musketeers and send in cavalry first, they will own them. Even better try using Swedish infantry and watch your armored swordsmen murdering musketeers 3 times their numbers.

-Lead a group of winged hussars or Swedish Reiters to the flank of a group of musketeers (cavalry have the mobility advantage after all) and see if you lose any cavalry at all.

-You can only recruit from Merc camps UNTIL you become a vassal of a country or have your own country. After you become a vassal, you can recruit faction troops from villages etc. Which seems logical to me. Also you can recruit as many mercs as you want from the camps. So when you need men urgently you don't have to run around village to village only to gather a handful of men.

-Upgrading equipment is a fine addition for the rich folk and you don't have to do it anyways. Became a vassal, recruit faction troops and don't worry about equipment. As for me even after I become a vassal, I keep recruiting mercs with good equipment when I need to gather strong men quickly.

Also There are new maps in multiplayer, a new mode which is pretty addicting and the inclusion of guns forced people to employ new tactics. Finally people can't play "Conan the Barbarian" with their characters, now they also need to think. Guns are not overpowered also. With good armor it takes 2 bullets minimum to take you down and reloading takes about 6-8 seconds and guns are really inaccurate.

Please don't forget people this game is not Mount and Blade 3, it's just an 15$ expansion. For me it introduced enough new stuff to varrant a purchase and I'm still enjoying the game. Don't hate something for the sake of hating it.

Guns are very powerful, and can cause more damage than virtually any other weapon, even in great armor. That has been my experience with it, if yours has differed, I guess I have no tangible way to debate that, other than saying that, with 30+ armor in every slot, I have been 1-2 shotted by musketeers.

I hadn't realized that becoming a vassal allows you to recruit, I'm very appreciative of that knowledge.

I don't hate the series, and I never hate just to hate. But I'd say that Warband was more charming and fulfulling from the get go, and this game seems to be one that you really have to look hard to find the quality, and by comparison, I'd say that it's a let down from the previous entry into the serious.

Avatar image for snared04
snared04

455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

17

Followers

Reviews: 51

User Lists: 0

#10 snared04
Member since 2009 • 455 Posts

[QUOTE="snared04"]

Saw this a few weeks ago, looks great and I'll definitely buy it as some point, however I have to say that their release schedule couldn't be worse. Get it out in the next 4-5 months, and that'll be good. But releasing it next year? In the wake of Diablo III...? gotta be kidding me on that decision making paradigm.

Renevent42

They are not intentionally releasing along side Diablo 3...nothing to do with decision making. The game is taking a long to to develop because they are an extremely small company and they only have so many man hours available. It's looking like (if Diablo 3 is released Q4 this year) that Grim Dawn will come out a good 3-4 months after Diablo 3 anyways. People do buy more than one game you know in the same genre. I know I personally will get both no matter the release. And Grim Dawn will be $20 as well so it's not like it's directly competing with Diablo 3 anyways.

Err... I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they are intelligent enough to know that releasing an extremely similiar game next to a competing game launched by the most successful game company known to man is ALWAYS something to factor in.

That being said, seeing as how Diablo II is still going strong ten years after launch, I can hardly see 3-4 months as being an adequately long period of time for that honeymoon stage to wear off, and Diablo III players to even start thinking about other games in that genre to fill their time with.

Again, either release it before, or go home. And yes, I realise THQ's staff is small comparitively, but I think I have numbers to back my hypothesis.