Log in or sign up to comment
126 Comments
  • 126 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Edited by NagolH

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is not pronouced as he said at the start of the deathmatch. and i agree with vorbis teams that dont have support usaully get murdered and die real fast or surrender in LOL

Posted by SatelliteOfLove

"MMO combat and preset characters"
 
That's ever so slightly bass-ackwards.

Posted by xite

This game is awful. Really.

Posted by redjacked

I just gave it a shot as well, and it was kind of a clusterfuck.  I'm definitely not the best judge of this type of game, particularly after only a few matches played, but it seems pretty awful and unbalanced for people just starting out and matchmaking.  It's strangely hard to find basic information about the game, too.  I just wasted a bunch of time trying to find out who that giant winged man-crow hero is.  He (she? it?) isn't in the hero list, and maybe I missed something, but I couldn't find any ability or item that would transform one of the other heroes into that monstrosity.  The guy playing as that thing would pretty much walk into an area and everything around him would die.  Really frustrating all around.

Posted by FMinus

Gave it a try, conclusion; Complete lack of balance makes it not worth even getting into it.

Posted by SSully

I think comment in the beginning about how people who have other stuff to do besides play a different game, like Jeff with this game, will tend to be worse then people who play more is a bit unfair, especially in a game like this. I only get to play League of Legends every other weekend or so because my school has extremely strict internet. Yet I still have a positive K/D ratio, and more wins then loses.

With something like call of duty or starcraft where reaction's and "feel" for controls plays a big part in the game, I would agree with Brad. But something a game like this, Super Monday Night Combat, or LoL, where strategy, builds, and teamwork are more of importance, then its more about knowledge of the game then how much you play.

Posted by oturista

Wait... is this 2005 and no one told me?

Sorry, this looks like a game made back then, not in 2012...

Posted by huser

@d715 said:

@huser:

Kinda its weird

It used to be Warhammer FB world took place in the center of the Eye of Terror, as a result many 40k stuff was in FB in early editions.

However later they changed it to be two alternet universes connected by the warp. If you go into the northern waste near the poles you'll see warhammer 40k planets and things.

Oh, I thought I had heard they had split it up more as they've cleaned things up over the editions. Thanks for the insight though. I find it fascinating how MUCH Warcraft is really just a weird mirror universe of Warhammer, right down to the weird meta stuff.

Posted by TekZero

That first capture the flag fight was pretty much lifted straight from the Warhammer MMO. That's one of the first battlegrounds.

Posted by Seppli

Jeff's gonna love Guild Wars 2's matched instanced PvP. Completely even playing field. Customize your gear and traits as you please. Everything unlocked and ready to go.

Just got to play it for more than 2 minutes Jeff.

Edited by Tennmuerti
@Xeirus said:

@Tennmuerti said:

@Xeirus said:

@Tennmuerti: Talking about video games and -arguing- about console graphics are two different things. Talk about getting a clue.

Who gives two fucks, don't fight about, grow the fuck up.

Wait discussing graphics in videogames is not part of talking about videogames now? How is an argument not a form of conversation? How are graphics not a part of videogames? Tell me exactly how these are two different things, or shush.You are the one who came in and insulted everyone for no reason, so i responded in kind. People argue about whatever they want especially about topics interesting to them an a site dedicated to such topics, apperently this is hard to grasp. If you don't give two fucks about it then stay out of the conversation. Throwing around phrases like "get a life" and "grow the fuck up" stinks of immaturity and is especially ironic directed at working adults. So far you are the person here exhibiting a childlish attitude.

Oh right, sorry, get back to your "mature" conversation, you big working adult you.

Do please point out which part of my conversation, before you came in insulting everyone like a child, was immature? Not that I have actually implied that my conversation was such anyway, but it seems you do not know better.
And you still so far have failed to provide an explanation as to how the two things are entirely different.
Is all you can reply with just more "clever" comments?
Well I guess I should have expected as much.
Posted by Xeirus

@Tennmuerti said:

@Xeirus said:

@Tennmuerti: Talking about video games and -arguing- about console graphics are two different things. Talk about getting a clue.

Who gives two fucks, don't fight about, grow the fuck up.

Wait discussing graphics in videogames is not part of talking about videogames now? How is an argument not a form of conversation? How are graphics not a part of videogames? Tell me exactly how these are two different things, or shush.You are the one who came in and insulted everyone for no reason, so i responded in kind. People argue about whatever they want especially about topics interesting to them an a site dedicated to such topics, apperently this is hard to grasp. If you don't give two fucks about it then stay out of the conversation. Throwing around phrases like "get a life" and "grow the fuck up" stinks of immaturity and is especially ironic directed at working adults. So far you are the person here exhibiting a childlish attitude.

Oh right, sorry, get back to your "mature" conversation, you big working adult you.

Online
Posted by thebigJ_A

So... they took the worst part of traditional mmos (the 1212314125 combat) and made it its own game? Boy, that sounds... lame.

Edited by Tennmuerti
@Xeirus said:

@Tennmuerti: Talking about video games and -arguing- about console graphics are two different things. Talk about getting a clue.

Who gives two fucks, don't fight about, grow the fuck up.

Wait discussing graphics in videogames is not part of talking about videogames now? 
How is an argument not a form of conversation?
How are graphics not a part of videogames?
Tell me exactly how these are two different things, or shush.
You are the one who came in and insulted everyone for no reason, so i responded in kind. People argue about whatever they want especially about topics interesting to them an a site dedicated to such topics, apperently this is hard to grasp. If you don't give two fucks about it then stay out of the conversation.
Throwing around phrases like "get a life" and "grow the fuck up" stinks of immaturity and is especially ironic directed at working adults. So far you are the person here exhibiting a childlish attitude.
Posted by Xeirus

@RotBot said:

@Xeirus: @Xeirus said:

@RotBot said:

Played a few rounds today. So basically, the team with 2 healers beats the team with 1 healer beats the team with 0 healers. And the healer class costs money. Pay to win at its finest.

Edit: Forgot to mention that the healer class costs 60,000 gold while all other classes cost 30,000. They know what they're doing.

Yeeeah, I played about 6+ games and uninstalled. Zero fun at all, when I saw how little I got from a win and that the cheapest class was 30,000 and the one I wanted was 60k I laughed and removed it from my comp.

This game is a text book case of how -not- to do F2P.

I got 1400 gold in 2 hours. At that rate it will take 42 hours of playtime to unlock a single 30,000 gold hero. 11 hours to get a 8,000 gold random tactic or perk, which is the cheapest upgrade item you can buy. Compare that with World of Tanks or Tribes: Ascend, where you get enough points to unlock small upgrades every 2 hours or so.

That shit is nuts, I didn't even need the math to know that game rubbed me the wrong way. Felt like a cash in fromt he second I booted it up.

Online
Posted by RotBot

@Xeirus: @Xeirus said:

@RotBot said:

Played a few rounds today. So basically, the team with 2 healers beats the team with 1 healer beats the team with 0 healers. And the healer class costs money. Pay to win at its finest.

Edit: Forgot to mention that the healer class costs 60,000 gold while all other classes cost 30,000. They know what they're doing.

Yeeeah, I played about 6+ games and uninstalled. Zero fun at all, when I saw how little I got from a win and that the cheapest class was 30,000 and the one I wanted was 60k I laughed and removed it from my comp.

This game is a text book case of how -not- to do F2P.

I got 1400 gold in 2 hours. At that rate it will take 42 hours of playtime to unlock a single 30,000 gold hero. 11 hours to get a 8,000 gold random tactic or perk, which is the cheapest upgrade item you can buy. Compare that with World of Tanks or Tribes: Ascend, where you get enough points to unlock small upgrades every 2 hours or so.

Posted by Xeirus

@RotBot said:

Played a few rounds today. So basically, the team with 2 healers beats the team with 1 healer beats the team with 0 healers. And the healer class costs money. Pay to win at its finest.

Edit: Forgot to mention that the healer class costs 60,000 gold while all other classes cost 30,000. They know what they're doing.

Yeeeah, I played about 6+ games and uninstalled. Zero fun at all, when I saw how little I got from a win and that the cheapest class was 30,000 and the one I wanted was 60k I laughed and removed it from my comp.

This game is a text book case of how -not- to do F2P.

Online
Posted by MrAriscottle

@Capt_Ventris: I really hope you lot win that game... But then lose the next one! (From a Palace fan).

Don't think the game looks great.

Posted by Scotto

@Xeirus said:

@Tennmuerti: Talking about video games and -arguing- about console graphics are two different things. Talk about getting a clue.

Who gives two fucks, don't fight about, grow the fuck up.

You may have noticed that we weren't the ones "fighting" - we were responding to the dude who tried to call out the people who say consoles are holding back PC graphics.

But you interjecting to essentially be a dick and tell us to "grow up" was definitely more helpful.

Posted by Xeirus

@Tennmuerti: Talking about video games and -arguing- about console graphics are two different things. Talk about getting a clue.

Who gives two fucks, don't fight about, grow the fuck up.

Online
Edited by FoolishChaos

Someone should tell Jeff that GW2 lets you get into competitive PvP at level 1.

WvWvW you would be better suited to at least get the weapon you want and some armor before going in, but that also scales. Their battleground equivalent decks you out in "pvp gear" and gives you access to all skills and abilities.

Posted by Tennmuerti
@Xeirus said:

@Scotto said:

@Tennmuerti said:

@paulunga said:

@Scotto said:

Which, while a good port, looks like the PC version run through a video compressor. A decent troll attempt, though.

Consoles do hold back the bleeding edge of graphical fidelity, but that doesn't mean PC games like these, which are designed to run on as many different computers as possible, aren't going to exist.

Don't strawman that shit. The best-looking game out there is both out on PC and consoles. That's a fact. No pure PC exclusive looks better. THAT was my point, not how good the console version looks (which is irrelevant). Do you want me to put "A decent troll attempt" here, too?

You kind of just made the argument FOR the people that say "consoles hold games back graphically". There are almost no PC exclusives left, most everyone is developing for multiple systems hence there is less insentive to push the envelope, because the envelope is bound to the console market quite tightly. And this also hurts PC exclusives, because of more limited budgets generally then they would have had otherwise with a multiplatform game. There is no strawman here, Witcher 2 has been PC exclusive for almost a year and is the best (arguably) looking game to date on the PC. It's console countepart looks like something running on medium settings (of PC settings tool) at 720p, without AA, AF nor any complex shadows, it's graphically way way less impressive, a 5 year old PC rig could run it at those settings at this point, if not older. Thus making it really a meaningless sentiment: "best lookign game is on both platforms, etc" Not that graphical comparisons like these actually have anything to do with the "consoles hold games back graphically" argument anyway. That's not the basis for it. It centres around the hugely extended console lifecycle of this generation, and the subsequent slowdown of GPU advancement during the same period, there being less reason for developers to try to go for amazing things on the PC with large funding. (partially after the Crysis bit the devs in the ass). As well as developers optimising more around DX9 rather then DX11. (it is however not quite fair to hold consoles fully responsible, they are but one part of a larger tapestry of reason, causes and effects) Do note that I'm not personally even against the slowdown of graphical advancements, the lower pace has made PCs much more affordable for a lot of people as this console generation has stretched on, as well as allowing a lot of developers to improve on the artistic side of games more rather then chase after pure technical goodness. And has made a lot of developers far more efficient with using limited resources rather then relying on brute hardware power. At this point I would argue that the holding back has done more good then harm. There will always be shit looking games on all platforms, not everyone is aiming to develop graphical masterpieces. Pointing out that some game doesn't look so hot is irrelevant.

My point exactly.

Who cares, are you seriously arguing about how a game looks? Get a life.

You are on a website and forums about videogames, that's what people do here. Get a clue.
Edited by RotBot

Played a few rounds today. So basically, the team with 2 healers beats the team with 1 healer beats the team with 0 healers. And the healer class costs money. Pay to win at its finest.

Edit: Forgot to mention that the healer class costs 60,000 gold while all other classes cost 30,000. They know what they're doing.

Posted by Xeirus

@Scotto said:

@Tennmuerti said:

@paulunga said:

@Scotto said:

Which, while a good port, looks like the PC version run through a video compressor. A decent troll attempt, though.

Consoles do hold back the bleeding edge of graphical fidelity, but that doesn't mean PC games like these, which are designed to run on as many different computers as possible, aren't going to exist.

Don't strawman that shit. The best-looking game out there is both out on PC and consoles. That's a fact. No pure PC exclusive looks better. THAT was my point, not how good the console version looks (which is irrelevant). Do you want me to put "A decent troll attempt" here, too?

You kind of just made the argument FOR the people that say "consoles hold games back graphically". There are almost no PC exclusives left, most everyone is developing for multiple systems hence there is less insentive to push the envelope, because the envelope is bound to the console market quite tightly. And this also hurts PC exclusives, because of more limited budgets generally then they would have had otherwise with a multiplatform game. There is no strawman here, Witcher 2 has been PC exclusive for almost a year and is the best (arguably) looking game to date on the PC. It's console countepart looks like something running on medium settings (of PC settings tool) at 720p, without AA, AF nor any complex shadows, it's graphically way way less impressive, a 5 year old PC rig could run it at those settings at this point, if not older. Thus making it really a meaningless sentiment: "best lookign game is on both platforms, etc" Not that graphical comparisons like these actually have anything to do with the "consoles hold games back graphically" argument anyway. That's not the basis for it. It centres around the hugely extended console lifecycle of this generation, and the subsequent slowdown of GPU advancement during the same period, there being less reason for developers to try to go for amazing things on the PC with large funding. (partially after the Crysis bit the devs in the ass). As well as developers optimising more around DX9 rather then DX11. (it is however not quite fair to hold consoles fully responsible, they are but one part of a larger tapestry of reason, causes and effects) Do note that I'm not personally even against the slowdown of graphical advancements, the lower pace has made PCs much more affordable for a lot of people as this console generation has stretched on, as well as allowing a lot of developers to improve on the artistic side of games more rather then chase after pure technical goodness. And has made a lot of developers far more efficient with using limited resources rather then relying on brute hardware power. At this point I would argue that the holding back has done more good then harm. There will always be shit looking games on all platforms, not everyone is aiming to develop graphical masterpieces. Pointing out that some game doesn't look so hot is irrelevant.

My point exactly.

Who cares, are you seriously arguing about how a game looks? Get a life.

Online
Posted by Alwaysrun

I'm really trying to turn over a new leaf and stop being so hyper critical of bad games. This game is testing my resolve.

Posted by Undeadpool

"Who's this jaunty fellow?"

If you just posted that quote without context or authorship and told me nothing more than "One of the GB editors said this," I think I could guess it was Brad. Just one of the things I love about this site: the editors all have their own voices.

Posted by f0ulre3k

No MAC love...lame

Posted by Recall

Looks like a decent little f2p game. Something to just play on here and there between everything else

Posted by Scotto

@Tennmuerti said:

@paulunga said:

@Scotto said:

Which, while a good port, looks like the PC version run through a video compressor. A decent troll attempt, though.

Consoles do hold back the bleeding edge of graphical fidelity, but that doesn't mean PC games like these, which are designed to run on as many different computers as possible, aren't going to exist.

Don't strawman that shit. The best-looking game out there is both out on PC and consoles. That's a fact. No pure PC exclusive looks better. THAT was my point, not how good the console version looks (which is irrelevant). Do you want me to put "A decent troll attempt" here, too?

You kind of just made the argument FOR the people that say "consoles hold games back graphically". There are almost no PC exclusives left, most everyone is developing for multiple systems hence there is less insentive to push the envelope, because the envelope is bound to the console market quite tightly. And this also hurts PC exclusives, because of more limited budgets generally then they would have had otherwise with a multiplatform game. There is no strawman here, Witcher 2 has been PC exclusive for almost a year and is the best (arguably) looking game to date on the PC. It's console countepart looks like something running on medium settings (of PC settings tool) at 720p, without AA, AF nor any complex shadows, it's graphically way way less impressive, a 5 year old PC rig could run it at those settings at this point, if not older. Thus making it really a meaningless sentiment: "best lookign game is on both platforms, etc" Not that graphical comparisons like these actually have anything to do with the "consoles hold games back graphically" argument anyway. That's not the basis for it. It centres around the hugely extended console lifecycle of this generation, and the subsequent slowdown of GPU advancement during the same period, there being less reason for developers to try to go for amazing things on the PC with large funding. (partially after the Crysis bit the devs in the ass). As well as developers optimising more around DX9 rather then DX11. (it is however not quite fair to hold consoles fully responsible, they are but one part of a larger tapestry of reason, causes and effects) Do note that I'm not personally even against the slowdown of graphical advancements, the lower pace has made PCs much more affordable for a lot of people as this console generation has stretched on, as well as allowing a lot of developers to improve on the artistic side of games more rather then chase after pure technical goodness. And has made a lot of developers far more efficient with using limited resources rather then relying on brute hardware power. At this point I would argue that the holding back has done more good then harm. There will always be shit looking games on all platforms, not everyone is aiming to develop graphical masterpieces. Pointing out that some game doesn't look so hot is irrelevant.

My point exactly.

Posted by DCam

Reminds me a lot of Savage. I played it a lot while the humans were free to play. (Some kind of beta, I think?)

http://www.giantbomb.com/savage-the-battle-for-newerth/61-4548/

Edited by Trilogy

Getting your ass kicked in a competitive game? Blame it on the the other team for not having a life. Classy.

Posted by raiz265

Way too much grinding involved if you want to really play it for free and the fact that it's 6vs6vs6 makes it pretty retarded to begin with.

Posted by algertman

Jeff: "I was a super badass at this game."

Of course you were, just like NFL Blitz.

Edited by paulunga

@Tennmuerti: My reasoning there was that CD Project tried to push the graphics as far as they could for their primary platform, the PC, and chose to scale it back for the consoles. They haven't been held back by the aging console generation at all. I don't feel like, say, Batman or Mass Effect 3 were held back either. If anything Bioware would've been hardpressed to bring out this sequel as soon as they did if they went for better graphics (not that I'd mind leaving it in development for another year).

I do feel like GPUs have been roughly doubling in power every cycle for at least the last 6 or so years though. The things that push them in newer games are just AA, AF, tesselation etc. instead of higher res textures and with all of those on PC versions still look markedly better than their console counterparts.

I am also not all that hugely invested in this topic. Sure, a new generation would be nice, if only so I could get all my games at a rock-solid 1080p, but on the other hand I'm fine with where we are right now, graphically. What I would want from future games is more accurate physics models, better AI and more choices and free will in story-heavy games. Issues that are far more challenging than just throwing more power at them (well, except for physics).

Posted by Ghostiet
@captainanderson said:

@roguehallow said:

Patrick Klepek is the April O'Neil of Giant Bomb.

Patrick is a porn star?

April O'Neil is an instant hit in my opinion.

If desperate, Klepek would be in consideration after that Guitar Hero video.

Edited by Tennmuerti
@paulunga said:

@Scotto said:

Which, while a good port, looks like the PC version run through a video compressor. A decent troll attempt, though.

Consoles do hold back the bleeding edge of graphical fidelity, but that doesn't mean PC games like these, which are designed to run on as many different computers as possible, aren't going to exist.

Don't strawman that shit. The best-looking game out there is both out on PC and consoles. That's a fact. No pure PC exclusive looks better. THAT was my point, not how good the console version looks (which is irrelevant). Do you want me to put "A decent troll attempt" here, too?

You kind of just made the argument FOR the people that say "consoles hold games back graphically".
There are almost no PC exclusives left, most everyone is developing for multiple systems hence there is less insentive to push the envelope, because the envelope is bound to the console market quite tightly. And this also hurts PC exclusives, because of more limited budgets generally then they would have had otherwise with a multiplatform game.
 
There is no strawman here, Witcher 2 has been PC exclusive for almost a year and is the best (arguably) looking game to date on the PC. It's console countepart looks like something running on medium settings (of PC settings tool) at 720p, without AA, AF nor any complex shadows, it's graphically way way less impressive, a 5 year old PC rig could run it at those settings at this point, if not older. Thus making it really a meaningless sentiment: "best lookign game is on both platforms, etc"
 
Not that graphical comparisons like these actually have anything to do with the "consoles hold games back graphically" argument anyway.  That's not the basis for it. It centres around the hugely extended console lifecycle of this generation, and the subsequent slowdown of GPU advancement during the same period, there being less reason for developers to try to go for amazing things on the PC with large funding. (partially after the Crysis bit the devs in the ass).  As well as developers optimising more around DX9 rather then DX11.
(it is however not quite fair to hold consoles fully responsible, they are but one part of a larger tapestry of reason, causes and effects)
 
Do note that I'm not personally even against the slowdown of graphical advancements, the lower pace has made PCs much more affordable for a lot of people as this console generation has stretched on, as well as allowing a lot of developers to improve on the artistic side of games more rather then chase after pure technical goodness. And has made a lot of developers far more efficient with using limited resources rather then relying on brute hardware power. At this point I would argue that the holding back has done more good then harm.
 
There will always be shit looking games on all platforms, not everyone is aiming to develop graphical masterpieces. Pointing out that some game doesn't look so hot is irrelevant.
Posted by paulunga

@Scotto said:

Which, while a good port, looks like the PC version run through a video compressor. A decent troll attempt, though.

Consoles do hold back the bleeding edge of graphical fidelity, but that doesn't mean PC games like these, which are designed to run on as many different computers as possible, aren't going to exist.

Don't strawman that shit. The best-looking game out there is both out on PC and consoles. That's a fact. No pure PC exclusive looks better. THAT was my point, not how good the console version looks (which is irrelevant). Do you want me to put "A decent troll attempt" here, too?

Posted by Rongaryen

@Romination: No...we can't. It's not like it was in the days of UT and Quake.

Posted by d715

@huser:

Kinda its weird

It used to be Warhammer FB world took place in the center of the Eye of Terror, as a result many 40k stuff was in FB in early editions.

However later they changed it to be two alternet universes connected by the warp. If you go into the northern waste near the poles you'll see warhammer 40k planets and things.

Posted by daedelus

Why do the graphics look 10 years old?

Posted by Beaudacious

Looks bad, what else can you say?

Online
Posted by Romination

@monkeystick said:

Looks neat but without any sort of persistent leveling I'm not sure how compelled I'll be to keep playing it.

Are we at that point? Can we no longer play games unless they have some consistent bar or number that always exists?

Posted by CharAznable

Yeah, this is not the game for me.

Posted by Tsuchikage

This seems more like a third-person action game with MMO-style combat than a true MMO.

Posted by AxleBro

i heard this game was bad! but it was from a random asshole on the internet

Posted by Troispoint

@Mumrik: Exactly, Brad is full of it. And lacks total self-awareness.

Posted by huser

As far as I know on the matter there is no direct relationship between Warhammer and 40K. 40K is NOT their future and probably more like Azeroth's place in say Starcraft's greater universe (ie possibly a single world somewhere in the galaxy that may or may not be a minor cameo).

Posted by CitizenJP

Played WoH for a bit myself. It was kinda cool. Really intense and confused me at first with all the people running around lol. Honestly though, I really miss Age of Reckoning sometimes. That's all I thought about most of the time I played this. :P

Posted by Aevar

This doesn't look particularly fun, but I'll give it a try.

Posted by Mumrik

@Scotto said:

Brad's offhand comment about how "people with things to do" tend to become bad at games like this, was kind of ironic, coming from a guy who has been in StarCraft 2's Diamond bracket more than once for long stretches, and by his own admission has spent more than a few minutes watching SC2 live streams.

I like Brad, but y'know - stones, and glass houses and all of that jazz.

This.

And they always say it with a bit of pity and disgust. You're on of them - own it.

  • 126 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3