Johnny

Quake 4 did not suck. It had a horrible singleplayer yes. Too bad nobody gave the multiplayer a solid chance. Quake 4 is the best multiplayer quake. /offtopicrantover Doom 3, too, actually has quite cool multiplayer.

Man, there is no gentle way to say this, but. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vicarious Your definition of Vicarious is a bit off.

I did. For roughly 0.0001 seconds. I blame my above retardation on it being really fucking late when I posted last night =D The person below me (time to take this thread up a notch. or down.) masturbates to hentai.

I constantly feel like such a nerd, no matter what I wear.

Completely off-topic, but I've had a friend ruin a friendship over a game of StarCraft 2. He completely failed at analyzing what went wrong in my game plan and kept being an asshole about it until I had to block him on every service imaginable. To this day he believes I am simply angry at him for losing the match. Despite me explaining otherwise.

You all three answered the same question... What. In order excel_excel: Well... Love... yeah, ok, I do. Dean: hah, you know better Slithy toves: I AM UNEMPLOYED

Dean I'm pretty confident Morrowind isn't your kind of game. It's VERY rough around the edges. Actually very rough around the whole thing. It has a great world with great flavor and it FEELS SO DANGEROUS when you're walking around it.

None of you have heard of this band before. Now your lives are better.

I remember him talking about how SC2 was gonna have a subscription fee for people who didn't own World of Warcraft a few weeks before StarCraft 2's launch, for example.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl I'll leave it at that, if I start explaining we'll be here all week.

I alternate a lot. Mostly been Chrome ever since they released it, but I've also gone back to Firefox - and then driven away from it by the horrible performance - and tried out Opera some. I used to love Opera back in the day, but ever since they tried to copy the Chrome interface it's been... ugh. No thanks. Chrome is just nice. It has exactly the features I want, is fast, doesn't chug up on performance too much (unless I leave it on with 50 tabs filled with 720p youtube videos) and generally just works. Opera, on the other hand, has a lot of features I DO NOT use, which tends to get in the way all the time. About the only thing I miss from Opera is the snappy gesture support. There are some extensions for Chrome but none of them can really compare.

I was at the grocery store just now and saw something interesting. The local newspapers aren't talking about how horrible everything is in Egypt, not at all. Instead, they are talking about how horrible it is that the egyptian government doesn't want us common swedes to know about it. "The dictators do not want YOU to know about the fires in Kairo" read the headlines. I love how we can twist anything into being about us specifically.

Not yet. We still have developers who realize the value of having a proper beta to test things out. Although they are becoming rarer and rarer. Edited in: And really, in some cases it's really a key factor. Plain Sight, for example was first released in beta form several years ago. They thought it was about ready, but the criticism on the beta made them go back into development and polish everything. When they next rolled a beta out, it was much better. Imagine if Stardock had done a proper, public beta instead of just "all out fans who pre-order it will get in" for Elemental. Maybe the game wouldn't have been broken on release.

Oh hell no. I hate coffee. The person below me uses an iPad

Dean, you're assuming Bethesda bug tests before releasing the game. How foolish of you

Amnesia: The Dark Descent. Really, there is no other place to start.

I don't get the hate. At all. I'm glad they are changing up the fights. After playing through Awakenings I was about completely done with the sluggish responsiveness of Dragon Age's combat. As for streamlining the rest of it: I hated ME1 and loved ME2. Make of that what you will. So what if it didn't force me to go into the menu and make a quick calculation as to which generic, boring weapon was better than the other? If you don't make the weapon choices interesting, they are just another time padding. Everything that actually mattered, from dialog to combat to pacing was much improved. In the end, daring to change it up is worth so much more than sticking with the original's design just because it sold well.

So much of what I'm reading sounds like very weird design decisions. "Characters now transition more realistically between walking, jogging, and running, and the increased nuance between animations has allowed Bethesda to better balance the combat in both first- and third-person perspective by adjusting the timing values for swings and blocks depending on your perspective. “We definitely have made a significant jump in how it plays [in third person perspective],” Howard proclaims." That second part just makes me go... Why? Why would you balance first and third person combat differently?

Well that was short lived. The video has been taken down.

Uh. I saw it in theaters the first time and the death of Hollis as well as the scene where Dan finds out was in it.

The problem with their usage of video is that sometimes they use the video to make a problem seem much bigger/more usual than it really is.

Even if the movie ending was worse (And I would argue that it's better), I'd forgive it all for Jackie Earl Haley's amazing performance. Seriously. So good. I think the whole theater burst out laughing at "I'm not locked up in here with you, you're locked up in here with me!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlElVNSXuSw Yes, it is that long.

Really? I find them to be full of complaints about anything too far out there, inconsistent, filled with factual errors and largely obsessed with trying to review every game as if it aspired to the same throne "king of mainstream blockbusters".

The real question here is: what the fuck, gamerscore? Really.