To call the battlefield franchise "well made" is a bit of an insult to high quality fps games. BF2 was released CHOCK full of bugs (if you played it, you'll know) and was left unmaintained. Certain game-breaking bugs were left in for months and months at a time despite ruining huge aspects of the game. On top of the bugs that were not fixed, new content was released and promoted - that ALSO contained bugs. Even when bugs were fixed, new bugs were introduced. And many of the fixes involved changes that negatively affected other aspects of play! How can this be called "well made"?

I consider myself an experienced gamer. I enjoy many genres, and have been playing for ~18 years. I don't just play huge titles, but i do play those too. I play indie games, casual games, you name it. The only company that i go out of my way to avoid is EA and that's due to bad experiences with their games. I am not "just a hater", as i did play dragon age and sang its praises once i'd come to accept that it wasn't simply another standard EA title.

Take bioware for example. Before they were 'bought' by EA they made some of the (arguably, but almost universally accepted) best games of their particular genre. Baldur's gate 1 and 2, neverwinter nights.... we're talking sweeping epics that involved in depth and original story lines that carried the game single handedly (i mean, it was only isometric, the story was everything). Then suddenly, EA get involved and bioware produce mass effect - instead of being able to choose from a plethora of moral and immoral dialog options, actions, we get a good/neutral/evil meter and equivalent options. I'm not going to tell anyone mass effect is a bad game; it is up to the public to decide and they have decided it's good. But i insist that, but for the dated graphics, their earlier RPGs were better in every single other way, and what they provide in their modern RPGs falls short on any RPG checklist you care to make when you put it up against Baldur's gate, icewind dale, etc.

I was very excited when dragon age was released, but then immediately disappointed again when dragon age 2 was released - and who can honestly claim that 2 lived up to 1? Can anyone deny that it was shat out at maximum velocity to cash in quickly on the success of the first? It was a completely different game!?

I hope i have managed to not sound like an anti-fanboy cock; i have spent hundreds and hundreds of pounds on game flops by EA which were underhandedly promoted by reviewers that i then learned not to trust. I feel utterly cheated by them but that is why i don't buy their games now, and that's why you'll find more and more people expressing the opinions herein and in the video. So yes, it's very easy to say "lolz u shudnt buy there gamez u foolz", but when there's several teams of people working together to try and trick you into doing something it may take you a few goes before you learn what the shape of the turd looks like. It's underhanded and i would have thought you could understand why people get annoyed by that.

I'm not surprised piracy has increased with the steady decline in VALUE FOR MONEY. I payed £30 for half life 1 and i still play it to this day. I'd gladly pay £100 for it in retrospect. The first installment of a battlefield game costs me £40, and £15 for an extra few maps or guns they add. Valve are still giving me stuff for free, and i cannot thank them enough for putting pride in their work, and for that they will have the kind of brand respect that EA will never get.

@Fletch hit the nail right on the head. I don't think people who disagree are stupid, or wrong, or anything. But if you haven't experienced the old AND the new (that goes for everyone, not just fans of the new or just fans of the old), then you are not in an ideal position to put forward arguments about whether or not games have increased in value for money, or decreased in value for money; i'm glad you enjoy modern games, but i feel disappointed and cheated by them and that's a perfectly valid thing to express, and it is not your place to tell someone they're over reacting or being a baby. If you haven't tried it yourself, you can't know for sure.

I think that is what this guy was trying to say in a humourous way, probably didn't do the best job of it ever but it was at least funny. And do remember it was meant to be funny. I think some people in this thread in favour of EA have looked more foolish in their pro-EA arguments than this guy did in his anti-EA exaggerations. Remember it was meant to be funny.

TL:DR - i don't blame you

Ah. It says right here that "Bōsōzoku" is Japanese for "really really really really fucking ugly cars that Gundam fanboys drive">> ^blutruth:

The vehicles are "bōsōzoku style", you might want to make mention of that in the tags.

Chris Pirillo is a tool. born again apple fanboy of the worst kind.

>> ^Deano:

Hmmm. Surely this is more interesting as a talk? talks
He's a skilled musician but he takes an awful long time to do anything and then he doesn't totally blow you away.
Thing is, if I removed the recent UFO video which had, to be fair, some very impressive guitar work why should this stay in?
I'll remove for now but if you can convince me I'll put it back in - though that mean UFO getting in. And you know I don't like music sifts in Skillful


Yeah, don't worry about it. I'm just being a fanboy.

>> ^Fletch:
Ugh...
Ok, you win, Fanboy. Have fun. I hope it lives up to all your dreams.


Sigh.

Look, I know it sucks that D3 is online only. Blizzard has been very good about communicating with their customers. You know exactly what you're getting into so don't waste your money if this is important for you.

The fact is, Blizzard can do whatever they want with Diablo 3, as long as they don't deceive their consumers. Just because you resent Blizzard because they're not making the game that you want does not give you the right to troll other people's videos and piss on their parade with false information.

>> ^mentality:

@Fletch
"You'll have to stop barking first."
Classy. Nice tone you set for the rest of the discussion.
"Not surprised that you have nothing to say about this, as it is, probably, the primary reason so many former Diablo players won't be playing D3.
How many is so many? Did you do a survey? Diablo's core audience, many of whom continue to play D2 to this day, are those who played D2 on BNET. That's where the meat of the game is, and that's where the community is built around. Who do you think Blizzard keeps on patching and adding new content for, more than a decade after D2's release?
" Nothing in D2 required you to go to "sketchy websites" and spend money. [...] Sure, you still don't have to, but both drops and crafting have been nerfed in order to encourage spending."
Did you know that D2 had a huge online item black market? It has basically the same effect as an auction house, except people had to go to 3rd party vendors for it. But guess what? This kind of stuff only matters if you're playing on the ladder. Want to have a nice quiet solo game, or run through the game with a few friends? Who the hell cares if you have elite gear? Play the beta - they definitely did NOT nerf drops and crafting.
The rest of your post is nonsense. D3's stash size is 10x7, larger than the one in D2. And blizzard manipulating drop rates for players depending on their auction house usage? That's just pure bullshit.
Have you even played D2 or kept up with all the interface "streamlining" in D3 at all? Those pets I mentioned above don't do anything except pick up your gold. Talk about "dumbed-down". This game is headed for consoles.
Those pets were removed from the game due to player feedback. "Streamlining" - have you even played the beta? The additional skill slots make this game LESS console friendly than D2. Face it, D2 was already perfect for consoles. And Torchlight? ALREADY on consoles.
SOME randomized dungeons, last I read. Although, if I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. I said "linear", not "non-random". One does not mean the other. I have little hope you can understand the difference. I'll try to use them both in a sentence for you later.
I said randomized dungeons and quests. If the first time you play the game you get quests ABC, and the second time you play the game you get quests XYZ instead, is that NON-LINEAR enough for you? It looks like you're the kind of person who, rather than play a game, justs makes up bullshit instead and then bitch about it.
Oh, please. The textures look like they shot primary-colored paint balls onto an easel and captured it through a shear stocking.
Like I said, people seem to forget D2's graphics. In D2 you were fighting against red, green, blue, yellow colored monsters while your character was decked out in purple. D2 was cartoony. D3 is less. You complain about D3 being cartoony, then you talk about playing Torchlight? Are you fucking kidding me?
It's Blizzard's loss, not mine. I don't get too emotionally attached to "things". With Torchlight2, Grim Dawn, Path of Exile, and even Legend of Grimrock in the works, I won't miss D3 one bit.
With D3's sales, I doubt Blizzard will miss you one bit. And the Diablo community won't miss you one bit. One less whiny brat to clog up the BNET forums.


Ugh...

Ok, you win, Fanboy. Have fun. I hope it lives up to all your dreams.

@mentality

I absolutely LOVE list comments! Anda here we gooooo....!

"I'll bite."

You'll have to stop barking first.

"1. Online-only: Yup."

Not surprised that you have nothing to say about this, as it is, probably, the primary reason so many former Diablo players won't be playing D3. The rest of this list is just icing. There is simply no reason whatsoever to require a persistent online connection for single player, at least from the player's perspective.

"2. Overly-monetized: So was Diablo 2. Now those who want to spend money don't have to go to sketchy websites."

Huh? Nothing in D2 required you to go to "sketchy websites" and spend money. Some items were only available in the online game, but the player still had the choice whether to participate or not, and I didn't. In D3, spending real money is an integral part of the game. Sure, you still don't have to, but both drops and crafting have been nerfed in order to encourage spending.

The inclusion of the AH turns everybody into an open wallet that can be manipulated. How? Say Blizzard's stats show a player sells the majority of his uniques in the AH. Up his unique drops. Make more money when he sells in the AH. How about giving players more drops of valuable items they already possess? More duplicates, more selling in AH, more profit for Blizzard. Need more storage space in your stash? Unfortunately, Blizzard just made it smaller in the beta. Luckily, you'll be able to buy more space in the AH. Want a pet to pick up all your gold for you? Oops! Removed, but no doubt you'll soon be able to buy one in the AH.

The whole monetizing thing is offensive to me as a PC gamer and former Blizzard fan. You wanna be a chump? Go for it. Buy yourself some Ancient Armor of Win and have a blast.

"3. Dumbed down: nope. With the skill rune system and the crafting, as well as the new skill bar, there's going to be more depth in D3."

Have you even played D2 or kept up with all the interface "streamlining" in D3 at all? Everything is being nerfed to encourage participation in the AH. Those pets I mentioned above don't do anything except pick up your gold. Talk about "dumbed-down". This game is headed for consoles.

"4. Linear: nope. Still randomized dungeons and quests."

SOME randomized dungeons, last I read. Although, if I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. I said "linear", not "non-random". One does not mean the other. I have little hope you can understand the difference. I'll try to use them both in a sentence for you later.

"5. Cartoony: Nope. The beta is anything but cartoony. I'd say D2 was way more cartoony with its rainbow pantheon of monsters."

Oh, please. The textures look like they shot primary-colored paint balls onto an easel and captured it through a shear stocking. Again though, doesn't matter. Very low on my list of issues, if it's there at all. I mainly just needed an adjective.

"Your loss."

Please edit your videos before you hit "submit new comment". The original gets immediately sent to me in it's entirety via email notification. Your original comment of...

"Your loss and good riddance."

...sounds pretty fanboy-ey and I can see why you wouldn't want people to see it. It explains alot. However... on the chance it was just a random typo and not an example of your linear thinking, I'll just say this...

It's Blizzard's loss, not mine. I don't get too emotionally attached to "things". With Torchlight2, Grim Dawn, Path of Exile, and even Legend of Grimrock in the works, I won't miss D3 one bit.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Out of interest, what was the answer (both Romneys and the correct one if different)?

There's nothing in the Constitution about contraception.
That said, the controlling SCTOUS decision (Griswold v. Connecticut) says that people have a right to privacy, which bars states from trying to enforce legislation against contraceptives.
The Romney answer was essentially "I have no fucking clue, why don't you tell me what the SCOTUS said?"
And I forget if Paul weighed in, but I'm sure he'd have said "The tenth amendment says states can do whatever they fucking want to anyone," if he said anything at all.


First we need to ask "what" the constitution is in the first place before we say what is "in" the constitution...nobody seems to know what it truly is. It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)

You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.

In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

But this is a double edged sword because it leaves much not covered completely to the Federal Government and States with only the people to balance them out with their morality.

If the federal and state government both said Pot was legal--pot is legal. If they say alcohol is banned, it is banned. If they say contraceptives are prohibited, they are prohibited. Period. If they made rape legal, RAPE is LEGAL. We may not like that scary thought--but that's the power, that's the force of government, even in a democracy (Adolph Hitler and his followers would have agreed, so would Rome and many other democracies.)

Sadly, dumb fucks even say the constitution only applies to citizens...even though it really has nothing to do with "The people." It cannot apply to anyone because it only applies to the State...

Now, and this is where I detach and am not a blind fanboy of Ron Paul's, he get's the constitution ass-backwards... Still, I would take his broken views and make honest men out of politicians than to propagate the election of spineless bad-guys-finish-first shit bags.

*rolls eyes at ancient fanboy arguments*

"The 500000 glitches are nowhere near game breaking!!!!"
"It's not as buggy as this other game!!!!"

We get the game quality we deserve, gentlemen. Stop settling for less. The game is fucking riddled with bugs, and most of them reek of lazyness. Little things that they MUST have seen and just thought "ah fuck it, they'll eat any old shit up"

Great game otherwise, but it DOES matter.

Nothing? Fanboys are welcome too...

I agree with you in principle but s**t man, relax. It's only the internets. >> ^jackhalfaprayer:

argumentum ad hominem. it's not my job to do better; it's rockstar's job to do better. we weren't talking about me or anyone else until you changed the subject. i'd say that bethesda has been doing better open world games since the mid-to-late 90's, konami's silent hill series has been better at telling stories (read: making one feel like playing through a movie, which rockstar wishes they could accomplish), and just about any third-person game from tomb raider to max payne has a better 3-rd person targeting system than that broken-ass excuse rockstar has been trying to fix for 10 iterations or so. so pretty much everything that GTA has been mashing up into a huge meaningless sandbox of drivel has been done before in a less broken fashion, with more variety, less linearity, less repetitive gameplay, and without falling back on hopelessly cliche, hackneyed mafioso stereotypes and slipshod driving mechanics.
but if you wanted to give me money to write a game and pay some programmers and artists and designers, absolutely! i'd be happy to present to you a game that is better than anything rockstar has produced to date. until then, fanboy, defend this mediocre studio with some actual points instead an ad hominem logical fallacy... or just stfu about what i or anyone else should be doing better than rockstar. rockstar puts out unoriginal crap with semi-impressive tech and people like you eat it up, bloat their egos, and line the pockets of corporate lackeys that are afraid to do anything new with an old IP. there's better work out there. you must not hear about it because it's not mentioned in your gamepro subscription. so go preorder this re-hash bullshit, and rest ignorant of the knowledge that people like you are destroying this industry, and this community, by buying into the hype machine of some fake gangster-sim crap with nothing new to offer since version III. and don't tell me that I should put up with it because there's nothing better out there, wtf sort of defense is that?
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
GTA III was the last time there was any innovation in this series. I'm tired of sandbox missions with a half-assed organized crime drama throughline. I'd rather watch Goodfellas or something where there's real writing and acting. Rockstar games are overhyped and underdeveloped.

You...or ANYONE do better. Seriously we've seen other sandbox games try and fail...this is like criticizing WoW for being what it is. Do something better or accept that this is as good as it gets right now and shut up.

argumentum ad hominem. it's not my job to do better; it's rockstar's job to do better. we weren't talking about me or anyone else until you changed the subject. i'd say that bethesda has been doing better open world games since the mid-to-late 90's, konami's silent hill series has been better at telling stories (read: making one feel like playing through a movie, which rockstar wishes they could accomplish), and just about any third-person game from tomb raider to max payne has a better 3-rd person targeting system than that broken-ass excuse rockstar has been trying to fix for 10 iterations or so. so pretty much everything that GTA has been mashing up into a huge meaningless sandbox of drivel has been done before in a less broken fashion, with more variety, less linearity, less repetitive gameplay, and without falling back on hopelessly cliche, hackneyed mafioso stereotypes and slipshod driving mechanics.

but if you wanted to give me money to write a game and pay some programmers and artists and designers, absolutely! i'd be happy to present to you a game that is better than anything rockstar has produced to date. until then, fanboy, defend this mediocre studio with some actual points instead an ad hominem logical fallacy... or just stfu about what i or anyone else should be doing better than rockstar. rockstar puts out unoriginal crap with semi-impressive tech and people like you eat it up, bloat their egos, and line the pockets of corporate lackeys that are afraid to do anything new with an old IP. there's better work out there. you must not hear about it because it's not mentioned in your gamepro subscription. so go preorder this re-hash bullshit, and rest ignorant of the knowledge that people like you are destroying this industry, and this community, by buying into the hype machine of some fake gangster-sim crap with nothing new to offer since version III. and don't tell me that I should put up with it because there's nothing better out there, wtf sort of defense is that?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^jackhalfaprayer:
GTA III was the last time there was any innovation in this series. I'm tired of sandbox missions with a half-assed organized crime drama throughline. I'd rather watch Goodfellas or something where there's real writing and acting. Rockstar games are overhyped and underdeveloped.

You...or ANYONE do better. Seriously we've seen other sandbox games try and fail...this is like criticizing WoW for being what it is. Do something better or accept that this is as good as it gets right now and shut up.

Bah, now they're just panderen to the fanboys.

Get it? Get it? I crack myself up.

I love Britta. Everyone talks about Annie and how she's this and that, but I'm a total Britta Fanboy.