BioWare Confirms Dragon Age 3 in Development
Printable View
Pigs fly, Hell freezes over, DNF goes gold.
MW3 to have no dedicated servers.
Reskin of MW2 incoming!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noKUH-PUHCI
Latest from Crytek. Seems like X360-exclusive where you are a Roman in civil war.
I was interested until I saw the Kinect garbage.
Also, they're really determined to keep up the "y" thing, huh.
Heh, that "pointless dick move" would actually have made my DII experience more hassle-free and enjoyable. Kinda funny, really.
Sword of the Stars II is out and the launch was a complete screw-up. Martin Cirulis (Kerberos CEO) went from arrogant and dismissive to arrogant and moderately apologetic with a few old excuses. I guess this is not really "news" per se, but rather a word of warning.
Past experience indicates that the game should be somewhat playable in 6 to 12 months or after the first expansion.
I made the mistake of pre-ordering. A mistake I shall never make again (except for Hegemony: Rome and Crusader Kings 2).
Pretty disappointing, but I think the game will be playable in three weeks. Feature complete in 2-3 months, and they'll start adding really good stuff with expansions in 6-12 months.
I'm suddenly having flashbacks to when the first SotS was released. People were complaining then about how arrogant Kerberos was, but I'd kind of forgotten about that until now.
A pity to hear the sequel has been released in such a sorry state (that's about all I've been hearing on the various gaming forums I've visited the last several days), though. I've never been particularly enthralled with Sword of the Stars, but I can see its appeal, and I feel bad for all those who were waiting for SotS II with such obvious anticipation. As someone who suffered similarly through the debacle that was Master of Orion III, I certainly sympathize. :sad:
HAHA MOO3 may have had the most disappointing ending ever. I slaved away on the hardest difficulty on the most enormous map, and when it was all said and done it was terrible, just terrible
Yeah, sorry for adding a bit of hyperbole there. Of course, it all depends on what one considers playable... perhaps "worth playing" would've been a better expression. :tongue2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Not sure if I've told the story already, but Kerberos's forum is the only one where I've ever received a perma-ban - or any ban, for that matter. IIRC, my first post there was some pretty tame criticism about the interface and some suggestions to make it better. Some of it was reiterated from other complaints, but I did my best to find something new to say, to make it constructive and to offer new suggestions. After a brief exchange, I was banned without warning or explanation. What's even funnier, they ended up implementing some of those suggestions by me and others later on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
I still have the MoO3 box. I'm gonna burn it when a worthy successor to MoO2 comes along.Quote:
As someone who suffered similarly through the debacle that was Master of Orion III, I certainly sympathize.
While I very much second GC's endorsement of Armada, I would add a word of caution: The game lacks ship design, and the combat is IMHO pretty "meh".
I don't miss the former myself, but for those who absolutely have to have ship design as a feature in their 4x games, then this is one to skip. My main complaint with combat is that it moves a little too quickly and is over far too soon for my tastes. (Battles last no longer 5 minutes, after which it's declared a victory, defeat, or draw, depending on the circumstances.)
Otherwise, though, it is indeed a most excellent space strategy game -- it's finally tied with my beloved Birth of the Federation for my favorite 4x title...and for me, that's no mean feat! ~:)
Uhm, I think I played the demo some time ago and wasn't impressed. Ship design and, particularly, combat are important to me, so perhaps that's why Armada didn't grab me, whereas SotS is right up my alley.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I thought this would get a laugh from some of you.
Quote:
And finally, when you see a story like this, it’s always worth looking at where the funding came from. And this time it was from a group called The Center For Successful Parenting, whose stated goal is “to help parents understand the consequences of our children viewing video violence”. Which might suggest they’ve already rather made their minds up. But of course they could be a science-focused, results-based organisation. But, well, that slightly falls down at the first hurdle, when you look at their “NEWS UPDATES” section, which impressively seems to begin in 1945.
“Television was introduced in 1945
From 1945 to 1974 homicides in the United States increased 93%”
Oh come on.
From 1900 to 1945 homicide rates in the US increased 400%! Based on those figures I’m claiming the arrival of television massively prevented homicide! And why do these figures mysteriously stop in 1974, despite the world having aged a little since then? Because since 1974 homicide rates in the US have rather awkwardly been falling. This isn’t the sort of organisation I really want to be behind the scientific data I’m studying. (Also, as an aside, in their mission statement they explain that “Our culture used to protect the innocence of our children.” Um, when was that exactly? I’m struggling to put my finger on that period in history when children were more protected than they are right now.)
Magna mundi opens a closed beta http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...-Mundi-Beta%21