Clbull's forum posts

#1 Posted by Clbull (149 posts) -
#2 Posted by Clbull (149 posts) -

I think its absolutely wrong that Microsoft are even charging for online play, considering Sony and Nintendo don't. Yes, you can argue that Xbox Live is a bit surperior to PSN and far superior to Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection but the point still stands. 
Once Sony actually make their service better feature wise, Microsoft will have to stop charging for online play or else be left in the dust for the remainder of the console war.
For instance, why would I pay £40 - 70 per year (Depending on subscription model) just so that I can talk to friends cross-game?

#3 Edited by Clbull (149 posts) -

I have some huge criticisms about both games.


  • Has a point-and-click movement system which just makes the game feel the opposite of immersive when you're restricted to a grid and basic walking/running movements.
  • Has combat mainly consisting of auto-attacking and minimal combat interaction.
  • Stats are huge in this game, in the way that almost everything affects your chance of getting a hit or avoiding damage. Its far too luck based.
  • Some Members weapons are so overpowered that they can one-shot players with the right stats (e.g. 99 in Range and a Dark Bow could let you one-shot most players if lucky.)
  • The high level free game gets tediously boring to the point where you'd rather drill your eyes out with a Pneumatic Drill. This is because almost everyone has Rune armour, has killed the mighty (or rather piss easy) Elvarg nowadays, PKing has been dead since December 10 2007, Dungeoneering gets boring after a couple of days and Jagex have neglected free-to-play players in terms of content.
  • Has a moronic in-game community and a forum community that makes its ingame community look like Mensa.

World of Warcraft:

  • Decent combat system. Well by decent I mean the kind that has been in every MMORPG since EverQuest.
  • Damage is more consistent and less capable of one-shotting players. OH WAIT, Wrath of the Lich King came past and screwed all that up.
  • Stats don't play as big a role as Runescape's stat system does. Gear still kind of does though.
  • Gets better at level 80, and thats the huge problem. It takes around 10 - 20 days of /played for the average player to reach Level 80. When the game as they say "truly begins" with another grind.
  • Too grindy. Makes Runescape's grind look effortless.
  • £7.99 or $15 a month is much to pay for an MMO. Runescape is not even half of that price.
  • Game community is mixed (You can sometimes meet decent players) but usually stupid. Forum community is almost as idiotic as Runescape's.
Hence, I would recommend avoiding both games.
#4 Posted by Clbull (149 posts) -

Shrek The Third. I was talked into going by a few friends.
Clearly its been ages since I've ever gone to a cinema.

#5 Posted by Clbull (149 posts) -

Did anyone say "50 Cent"?
That bitch took my skull.

#6 Posted by Clbull (149 posts) -

This just begs the question.

Why haven't Nintendo given this guy a job yet?

Honestly, I think that Super Mario Land deserves a HD enhanced remake. As does SML2.
#7 Posted by Clbull (149 posts) -

The low position of the Zerg DOES NOT surprise me. I have played that race in multiplayer games before, and to me, they don't quite have the macro capabilities that the Protoss and Terran have. They much rather riskily expand and mass more units quickly. The only way you're gonna greatly increase a Zerg player's macro capabilities is multiple Hatcheries with multiple queens.

#8 Posted by Clbull (149 posts) -

Archon. Although it takes 2 High or Dark Templar to merge to create one, their health is almost completely shield based, and since that regenerates, they are really tough nuts to crack.

#9 Posted by Clbull (149 posts) -

I'm actually quite curious as to how the Zerg part of the campaign will start, considering that the Overmind is dead and Kerrigan is de-infested.

#10 Posted by Clbull (149 posts) -

This is one of the points which Nick Clegg got grilled on in the Leaders' Debates. And I don't quite see why he was grilled on this.
To be honest, I supported the idea of scrapping it as it was an incredibly expensive system, and we were in financial crisis. I think we are also in the stage where perhaps losing our own nuclear deterrent won't put us in any significant danger. I think if a nuke were launched at us, there would be huge sanctions or most likely military action from the United Nations,and maybe our allies such as the USA, Israel, all other members of NATO and perhaps the European Union.
Nuclear deterrents made sense back in the Cold War when nuclear war could have broken out at any moment and when stockpiling tens of thousands of weapons was a huge legitimate concern. For an island nation that doesn't quite have a vast empire anymore to have a nuclear deterrent when allies have thousands of nukes as deterrence already seems to make less sense.