I wonder how many times I can activate this expansion before I have to pick up the phone, call EA, wait on hold for 60 minutes, try to explain why I need to activate again, and hope they buy my story.
I actually still play Asheron's Call from time to time. It's a great game if you take the time to learn it.
I really don't understand why so many people are frowning over the number of patches. These are not just bug fix patches. These are patches that add new things to do and places to go. Only about 5% or less of the patches are fix related.
Even with all the newer mmorpg that came out, AC still did things that nobody has topped. It has the largest packs, a unique feel to the combat and spell system, and an open-ended skill advancement system. It's truly unique.
Not quite. I am disgusted by the color palette and the cheesy disney characters to the point where I won't be giving the game a chance. I guess manly men like me are in the minority.
ISPs can do whatever they want, but I will vote with my wallet. If they do anything to limit my bandwidth or IPs, I will simply switch ISPs. Just go to dslreports.com and look at how many companies are out there. I find it unlikely that all companies will unite against P2P.
Apparantly we are supposed to by "oohed" and "ahhhed" by the names of these games alone. I've had it. I'm boycotting sequels to games. Is the industry in such bad shape that no developer would risk an original title? Originality worked 10 years ago, and it should work just as well today.
It looks like EQ2 is following the same path as AC2. Buggy release, eventual merger of servers despite bug fixes over time, and eventual shut down. Odd that the original AC is still in good shape and showing no signs of a server merge.
Blaming second hand games is a cop out. I think the problem is the 4+ million dollar budget needed in order to make a modern game. We seem to be paying more and getting less when it comes to gaming these days. Perhaps if we look at the reasons that games have become more expensive over the past 10 years, we can change the entire economic model of game development to make the most out of the development dollars.
It's not just that games are more expensive to develop these days, but the problem is that we are overall seeing less creativity in gameplay. The xbox in particular lacks creative design. It seems like the Japanese games for the playstation and nintendo have a lot more creativity and depth than the American made Xbox titles. For the xbox all we see are generic shooters, generic war simulation games, generic sports games, and of course the often terrible movie based games. Just go through the list of xbox games and you will see that most fall in those categories.
They say that developers are not taking chances on innovation these days so that they don't lose their investments. By not taking chances, they are losing their money. Players can only buy the same style of sports game for so long until they realize the old game is about the same as the new. Give us a reason to buy a new game, developers! Better graphics just don't cut it anymore.
G4TVs first mistake was getting rid of the thoughtful shows like Call for Help and the Screensavers, and all the smart people who were on those shows. They replaced those smart people with stupid people with very little technical background. I would like to actually learn something about computers or games on TV, but that channel just went downhill after G4TV took over.
I am also tired of seeing the most popular games on that channel. I would like to actually learn about an underdog. I want to hear about some games I've never heard about before. There are hundreds of indie games released each year that are actually fun to play, but that channel only featured the top %5 of the game market. They just don't explore the entire gaming industry.
The 360 launch lineup was a good one, but probably not the best ever. It very much lacks variety in genres. FPSs, sports games, and racing games make up far too high a percentage of games. At least it had 3 action adventure games (Gun, Condemned, and Kameo), but not other genres such as RPG, strategy, adventure, platformer, or simulation. These are some of my favorite genres, but they are hardly being utilized down the road on the 360. I guess I'll stick with PC and PS2 for now.
I guess the xbox 360 is great if you love sports games and shooters, but I already have most of the shooters for PC and I don't like sports games. They also copied too much off the success of PC shooters for me to consider this a great launch lineup.
I want to see a show about indie games and other relatively unpopular games. I would like a show that digs deep to find the gaming gems from small companies or groups with limited budgets. Give us more information about development crews from other countries such as the Croatian team who created Serious Sam or the Czech Republic team who created UFO Aftershock. Give us a show that goes beyond mainstream.
An even more interesting finding about cancer was made by Otto Warburg in 1932. Cancer occurs in the abscense of oxygen. What nutrient is the most beneficial in retaining oxygen? Calcium. Is calcium used in any cancer treatment regimen in the US? No. Why? Because it doesn't make any money for the drug companies.
Saying that gaming his highly destructive to society is highly subjective. I think that certainly the right kind of gaming is good for society. I can only hope that more video game designers can lead to more unique ideas and mind-stimulating gameplay.
The amount of low quality games cashing in on franchises is at an all-time high. I blame us, the consumer, because we keep buying the garbage games.
This may not be the best place to ask this, but I can't resist.
Is it true that people with the core system will be unable to save in their games unless they buy an additional memory card?
I've been a gamer for a long time, and it is difficult to explain how computer gaming is more in-depth than console, but I will try.
First, I just want to say that I was trying to reinforce the post I replied to. I think it's better to just upgrade or build a new computer than get the 360 or PS3.
Now, I will try to cite some examples of the differences in depth of play. Let's start with FPSs. Halo 2 is the current most popular online console FPS, but how does it compare to PC games? I find several computer FPSs to have more maps, better map design, more game types, and more weapons. My favorites are Half-Life 2, Tribes Vengeance, Battlefield 2, and Unreal Tournament.
I also think roleplaying games are more in-depth on the PC. I find console RPGs to do a good job of telling a linear story, but I find PC RPGs excel in giving the player more freedom to move around, more detailed gameplay elements such as more spells, special moves, unique traps, side quests, dungeon design, replayability, and interactive environments. Some of my favorites are Baldur's Gate I and II, Neverwinter Nights, Might and Magic series, Elder Scrolls series, and Fallout series.
When it comes to strategy games, there is no contest. It looks like Nintendo is actually doing the best with their Advance Wars games for the consoles.
Sports games have been improving over the years, and there are definitely more on consoles than PC, but sports games are still a shallow genre. I find that sports games lack the storytelling, mystery, adventure, and variety that I find in other game genres. Sports games work better on consoles because they are generally a more shallow genre.
As for gameplay regressing, I have a few examples. The biggest one that comes to mind is Doom 3. The game does an amazing job at invoking emotions, but the gameplay is no different from what we've seen before. I actually still find the first two Doom games to be more pure fun than Doom 3. Doom 3 is a straightforward, cramped game with enemies that have no AI and usually a single attack. The only unique gameplay element was the skill in swapping between the flashlight and your gun. Other than that, the level design was simpler than the first dooms, the enemies were fewer in number, and the action was slower paced.
Sports games occasionaly release games that are a throwback to the old days, but usually they just make small changes. Just look at the Madden series. I'd like to see a sports game that mixes up the rules a bit. Maybe even create a new sport with a full set of rules. I miss that old Mutant League series of games for the Genesis. Those games had creativity and personality.
I feel like graphics are replacing gameplay these days. All I see are licensed games with uninspired gameplay. While the PC is not immune from this problem, I find that the consoles are getting the most of these poor quality games with all the hype but none of the delivery. A thoughtful gamer will not be impressed much by graphics. He will be more impressed by gameplay choices, balance, control, replayability, mysteries, and puzzles.
I'm with you. I'm just going to build myself a new computer. I don't see any reason to get a console if you are a computer gamer.
Not only are computer games much more in-depth and detailed, but the only advantage to a console is the ability to have 4 players in the same room playing all together without having to worry about moving heavy computers around and setting up network connections.
Even with the online play, the hard drives, the DVD playback, and all the features they have been adding over the years, consoles are still inferior to computers for the serious gamer.
I've been finding lots of good older games on Amazon for cheap prices. I'm still buying computer games that came out from the years 1995-2000, and I'm having more fun than ever. In my opinion, gameplay has not evolved much in the past 10 years. In many cases it has regressed. Also, if you are a real gamer, graphics shouldn't matter.
It is possible that Darwinia will not require the user to be logged into Steam in order to play the game. While the game will be distributed by steam, it may not need steam running in order to work.
I've played plenty of PS2 online, and I never felt that the online features were lacking. I could get into games with my friends and other people. I don't see an advantage to a central service.
I don't really understand what problems people have with this game. It has just as much action as the first serious sam. I also don't understand the lack of satisfaction in the weapons. I thought some of the weapons were more satisfying. Nothing like sending a flying death bird towards your enemies, and the sniper rifle is very satisfying.
The music sounds great. The sound effects are good.
I don't understand why it's so bad for some of the humor to fail. I watched all the cutscenes, and I at least laughed some of the times. It's a silly game, but that shouldn't make it bad. We need more sillyness out there.
I've read several reviews of this game, and none of them satisfactorily explained what was so unsatisfying about the game. I personally give it a 9.5 out of 10. I love it.
Has anyone tried Asheron's Call 2 recently? It is now a very different experience, and actually a solid, mostly bug free game. There are a lot more quests and NPCs now.
I'll agree that AC2 was in bad shape early in its life, but man this expansion is a massive improvement. You can't keep judging the game by how it was when it released.
I suggest packing up and moving on to a company that cares more about the game than the money. I recommend Turbine. They are making D&D online, and Middle Earth Online. They have an Asheron's Call 2 expansion pack coming out on May 4. If you want to read about it, here's the homepage.
http://ac2.turbinegames.com/
It also is having upgrades to some major game systems, but player testers have generally shown approval for the changes.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how many times I can activate this expansion before I have to pick up the phone, call EA, wait on hold for 60 minutes, try to explain why I need to activate again, and hope they buy my story.
I actually still play Asheron's Call from time to time. It's a great game if you take the time to learn it. I really don't understand why so many people are frowning over the number of patches. These are not just bug fix patches. These are patches that add new things to do and places to go. Only about 5% or less of the patches are fix related. Even with all the newer mmorpg that came out, AC still did things that nobody has topped. It has the largest packs, a unique feel to the combat and spell system, and an open-ended skill advancement system. It's truly unique.
How about Kid Chameleon? Vectorman? Bonk? Aero Acrobat? Keith Courage?
Not quite. I am disgusted by the color palette and the cheesy disney characters to the point where I won't be giving the game a chance. I guess manly men like me are in the minority.
ISPs can do whatever they want, but I will vote with my wallet. If they do anything to limit my bandwidth or IPs, I will simply switch ISPs. Just go to dslreports.com and look at how many companies are out there. I find it unlikely that all companies will unite against P2P.
Apparantly we are supposed to by "oohed" and "ahhhed" by the names of these games alone. I've had it. I'm boycotting sequels to games. Is the industry in such bad shape that no developer would risk an original title? Originality worked 10 years ago, and it should work just as well today.
It looks like EQ2 is following the same path as AC2. Buggy release, eventual merger of servers despite bug fixes over time, and eventual shut down. Odd that the original AC is still in good shape and showing no signs of a server merge.
Blaming second hand games is a cop out. I think the problem is the 4+ million dollar budget needed in order to make a modern game. We seem to be paying more and getting less when it comes to gaming these days. Perhaps if we look at the reasons that games have become more expensive over the past 10 years, we can change the entire economic model of game development to make the most out of the development dollars.
It's not just that games are more expensive to develop these days, but the problem is that we are overall seeing less creativity in gameplay. The xbox in particular lacks creative design. It seems like the Japanese games for the playstation and nintendo have a lot more creativity and depth than the American made Xbox titles. For the xbox all we see are generic shooters, generic war simulation games, generic sports games, and of course the often terrible movie based games. Just go through the list of xbox games and you will see that most fall in those categories.
They say that developers are not taking chances on innovation these days so that they don't lose their investments. By not taking chances, they are losing their money. Players can only buy the same style of sports game for so long until they realize the old game is about the same as the new. Give us a reason to buy a new game, developers! Better graphics just don't cut it anymore.
At least we have the first Asheron's Call which is going quite well right now.
G4TVs first mistake was getting rid of the thoughtful shows like Call for Help and the Screensavers, and all the smart people who were on those shows. They replaced those smart people with stupid people with very little technical background. I would like to actually learn something about computers or games on TV, but that channel just went downhill after G4TV took over.
I am also tired of seeing the most popular games on that channel. I would like to actually learn about an underdog. I want to hear about some games I've never heard about before. There are hundreds of indie games released each year that are actually fun to play, but that channel only featured the top %5 of the game market. They just don't explore the entire gaming industry.
The 360 launch lineup was a good one, but probably not the best ever. It very much lacks variety in genres. FPSs, sports games, and racing games make up far too high a percentage of games. At least it had 3 action adventure games (Gun, Condemned, and Kameo), but not other genres such as RPG, strategy, adventure, platformer, or simulation. These are some of my favorite genres, but they are hardly being utilized down the road on the 360. I guess I'll stick with PC and PS2 for now.
I guess the xbox 360 is great if you love sports games and shooters, but I already have most of the shooters for PC and I don't like sports games. They also copied too much off the success of PC shooters for me to consider this a great launch lineup.
I want to see a show about indie games and other relatively unpopular games. I would like a show that digs deep to find the gaming gems from small companies or groups with limited budgets. Give us more information about development crews from other countries such as the Croatian team who created Serious Sam or the Czech Republic team who created UFO Aftershock. Give us a show that goes beyond mainstream.
An even more interesting finding about cancer was made by Otto Warburg in 1932. Cancer occurs in the abscense of oxygen. What nutrient is the most beneficial in retaining oxygen? Calcium. Is calcium used in any cancer treatment regimen in the US? No. Why? Because it doesn't make any money for the drug companies.
Saying that gaming his highly destructive to society is highly subjective. I think that certainly the right kind of gaming is good for society. I can only hope that more video game designers can lead to more unique ideas and mind-stimulating gameplay.
The amount of low quality games cashing in on franchises is at an all-time high. I blame us, the consumer, because we keep buying the garbage games.
This may not be the best place to ask this, but I can't resist. Is it true that people with the core system will be unable to save in their games unless they buy an additional memory card?
I've been a gamer for a long time, and it is difficult to explain how computer gaming is more in-depth than console, but I will try.
First, I just want to say that I was trying to reinforce the post I replied to. I think it's better to just upgrade or build a new computer than get the 360 or PS3.
Now, I will try to cite some examples of the differences in depth of play. Let's start with FPSs. Halo 2 is the current most popular online console FPS, but how does it compare to PC games? I find several computer FPSs to have more maps, better map design, more game types, and more weapons. My favorites are Half-Life 2, Tribes Vengeance, Battlefield 2, and Unreal Tournament.
I also think roleplaying games are more in-depth on the PC. I find console RPGs to do a good job of telling a linear story, but I find PC RPGs excel in giving the player more freedom to move around, more detailed gameplay elements such as more spells, special moves, unique traps, side quests, dungeon design, replayability, and interactive environments. Some of my favorites are Baldur's Gate I and II, Neverwinter Nights, Might and Magic series, Elder Scrolls series, and Fallout series.
When it comes to strategy games, there is no contest. It looks like Nintendo is actually doing the best with their Advance Wars games for the consoles.
Sports games have been improving over the years, and there are definitely more on consoles than PC, but sports games are still a shallow genre. I find that sports games lack the storytelling, mystery, adventure, and variety that I find in other game genres. Sports games work better on consoles because they are generally a more shallow genre.
As for gameplay regressing, I have a few examples. The biggest one that comes to mind is Doom 3. The game does an amazing job at invoking emotions, but the gameplay is no different from what we've seen before. I actually still find the first two Doom games to be more pure fun than Doom 3. Doom 3 is a straightforward, cramped game with enemies that have no AI and usually a single attack. The only unique gameplay element was the skill in swapping between the flashlight and your gun. Other than that, the level design was simpler than the first dooms, the enemies were fewer in number, and the action was slower paced.
Sports games occasionaly release games that are a throwback to the old days, but usually they just make small changes. Just look at the Madden series. I'd like to see a sports game that mixes up the rules a bit. Maybe even create a new sport with a full set of rules. I miss that old Mutant League series of games for the Genesis. Those games had creativity and personality.
I feel like graphics are replacing gameplay these days. All I see are licensed games with uninspired gameplay. While the PC is not immune from this problem, I find that the consoles are getting the most of these poor quality games with all the hype but none of the delivery. A thoughtful gamer will not be impressed much by graphics. He will be more impressed by gameplay choices, balance, control, replayability, mysteries, and puzzles.
I'm with you. I'm just going to build myself a new computer. I don't see any reason to get a console if you are a computer gamer. Not only are computer games much more in-depth and detailed, but the only advantage to a console is the ability to have 4 players in the same room playing all together without having to worry about moving heavy computers around and setting up network connections. Even with the online play, the hard drives, the DVD playback, and all the features they have been adding over the years, consoles are still inferior to computers for the serious gamer. I've been finding lots of good older games on Amazon for cheap prices. I'm still buying computer games that came out from the years 1995-2000, and I'm having more fun than ever. In my opinion, gameplay has not evolved much in the past 10 years. In many cases it has regressed. Also, if you are a real gamer, graphics shouldn't matter.
It is possible that Darwinia will not require the user to be logged into Steam in order to play the game. While the game will be distributed by steam, it may not need steam running in order to work.
I've played plenty of PS2 online, and I never felt that the online features were lacking. I could get into games with my friends and other people. I don't see an advantage to a central service.
I don't really understand what problems people have with this game. It has just as much action as the first serious sam. I also don't understand the lack of satisfaction in the weapons. I thought some of the weapons were more satisfying. Nothing like sending a flying death bird towards your enemies, and the sniper rifle is very satisfying. The music sounds great. The sound effects are good. I don't understand why it's so bad for some of the humor to fail. I watched all the cutscenes, and I at least laughed some of the times. It's a silly game, but that shouldn't make it bad. We need more sillyness out there. I've read several reviews of this game, and none of them satisfactorily explained what was so unsatisfying about the game. I personally give it a 9.5 out of 10. I love it.
If I have to spend $75 for a motherboard with some integrated hardware, it sure would be nice to only spend $40 on a reliable barebones motherboard.
Has anyone tried Asheron's Call 2 recently? It is now a very different experience, and actually a solid, mostly bug free game. There are a lot more quests and NPCs now. I'll agree that AC2 was in bad shape early in its life, but man this expansion is a massive improvement. You can't keep judging the game by how it was when it released.
I suggest packing up and moving on to a company that cares more about the game than the money. I recommend Turbine. They are making D&D online, and Middle Earth Online. They have an Asheron's Call 2 expansion pack coming out on May 4. If you want to read about it, here's the homepage. http://ac2.turbinegames.com/ It also is having upgrades to some major game systems, but player testers have generally shown approval for the changes.