Dizazter's forum posts

Avatar image for dizazter
#1 Posted by Dizazter (98 posts) -


That is horrendous.

Avatar image for dizazter
#2 Posted by Dizazter (98 posts) -
@Zakihashi said:
" I don't see how you can complain over GFWL. It's there, it's not in the way, and it got way less issues then steam do with games. For the PS3+Steam, I really think is a half ass'ed test out crap. We'll see it in 1-2 games, so pointless, but Valve love to experiment i guess.  "
It's TOTALLY in the way for me. It's a nightmare. Buggy, causes crashes, and totally unnecessary extra level of redundant security and extra log ins on top of what Steam does. It also encrypts your game saves. So if you lose your log in, you lose your game saves. Awesome! And it forces you to create a new friend list and everything. Everything it does is redundant to Steam, and done in a horrific and poor conceived way that interferes with getting to your game. Totally unneeded junk. Just like Gamespy.
Avatar image for dizazter
#3 Posted by Dizazter (98 posts) -


"...I think because it was designed originally as a partner to the console service more than the PC service, we had a rocky start.”

Ya think? Gee sounded like such a brilliant plan - "a partner to the console service instead of a PC service" - wow man, no idea where you guys went wrong there. I mean obviously PC gamers want to pretend like they have a console, along with all the restrictions and problems - finally the worst of both worlds!  And really - it's just a "rocky start"? How about it started a nightmare, and it's still a nightmare? And they think the biggest problem with it is not enough games? Hah! The less games on there the better, as far as I'm concerned! They know its a disaster, they just aren't going to full blown admit it.

It's sad how console-centric Microsoft's view of the gaming world is. I think they're quickly becoming a victim of their own success and I think we'll be seeing more of these "Sony-like" blunders in the future.

Speaking of Sony - it will be very interesting to see how the partnership with Steam goes for Portal 2.
Sony + Steam = Big Win
XBox + GFWL = Epic Fail

Avatar image for dizazter
#4 Posted by Dizazter (98 posts) -
@Wrighteous86 said:
" So what's the dichotomy in this situation? "
The dichotomy here is the two contradictory concepts of pre-order DLC marketing - they want you to make pre-order people feel like they're getting something that is an advantage, while convincing non-preorder people that it isn't an advantage. Maybe it is an advantage, maybe it isn't, but it can't be both, and I thing the marketing people want us to believe it can.
Avatar image for dizazter
#5 Edited by Dizazter (98 posts) -
@Lemi said:

" @Dizazter said: 

Yeah, you know. Making statements that contradict facts is pretty close to trolling.  Also wrong again. You still join with your own charachter. In fact, it doesn't matter if said charachter/class isn't in the party or wasn't even picked up at all. The Boarderlands comparison makes no sense. "

People just making incorrect statements does mean anything like trolling, you understand that right? Trolling is posting inflammatory statement (true or not) on someone else's thread to get a desired reaction, generally an argument or flame war. So I just ask that you take a closer look at your own actions before pointing fingers, please.
It sounds like you misunderstood what I said. I never said you couldn't join with your own character, I specifically said you could. So I'll try and clarify. Say my character is "Lucas the Warrior" and I want to join a DS3 game where another player is already playing "Lucas the Warrior". I won't be able to join that game, unless the other player switches to different character, as I understand it. Is that what you're saying, that DS3 allows duplicate, redundant characters in a multiplayer game, because from what I've read, I highly doubt that.
Sorry if my Borderlands comparison didn't make sense to you. I was using it as an example, as it is a 4 player action coop game, with 4 character "types" like DS3 has. But DS3 has a more limited multiplayer as it always has to maintain the 4 specific characters at all times. Where as Borderlands you could always have a mix. 
But none of these details change the fact that they've completely altered the game type and structure.  For me, they've changed it away from what I liked into something I don't really like, which I feel like I'm already seeing too much of already hitting the market. If it's something you dig, great! But it's not really my thing, so I'm disappointed at most of the news I've heard on this game.
Avatar image for dizazter
#6 Posted by Dizazter (98 posts) -
Yeah, I bought Demon's Souls, and I've mostly enjoyed it. Although it's still best in modest quantities.
Avatar image for dizazter
#7 Posted by Dizazter (98 posts) -
Well said. You know I was looking at some video footage and screenshots of the game and they don't really show a party in most of it. I mean sometimes you'll see what looks like a group fighting together, but in all the videos they just show one person running around. I wonder what is up with that? But yeah I agree, I feel like they're changing genres on us. And I guess that's good news for people who like Action RPGs, but for fans of the original, abandoning the hack n slash loot & level game will lose the developers many of those fans.
Avatar image for dizazter
#8 Edited by Dizazter (98 posts) -
Yeah.......not sure how starting a thread and looking for opinions is trolling. Although making snarky comments to illicit an argument on someone else's thread definitely could be construed as such....*AHEM*
I just read the escapist one, and although it is more positive, and says that it's a multiplayer focused game, it still shows the same features in place which are things I have little interest in. 

I do not remember Dungeon Siege 1 having a separate MP map of any kind, but its been a lot of years since I played it, and I don't have it any more to check.
But yeah I didn't say there wasn't customization, I said you couldn't create your own character - but you are stuck  with the pre-created  names and skins you're given. But yeah the concept of me bringing my pre-existing character template and dropping it into someone else's game to substitute their pre-existing character with the same name, just doesn't appeal to me at all.   
I would hope the PC version  "looks" better (all PC games should, considering they have had the last few years of hardware progression that consoles haven't), and hopefully it will be less prone to bugs if it's co-developed on all platforms at the same time instead of porting.

It sounds a lot like if you took Borderlands and made it so you always had 4 different character types in play at all times, and if someone wanted to join your game they'd have to take the role of one of the available characters. I would have had zero interest in Borderlands if it was done this way. I guess they're going very story-centric (as opposed to loot/progression centric) with the game, and as such, requiring all of the 4 characters to be in place at the same time, and that just isn't my thing. I feel like it will kill the replayablity, because after you're sick of the story, you're sick of the game.
Avatar image for dizazter
#9 Posted by Dizazter (98 posts) -

Just read through some early reviews of Dungeon Siege 3, and I've gone for very interested/optimistic to virtually zero interest.
 I was really hoping it would be an awesome next gen throw back to the original that I enjoyed for hours on end.....

But I am NOT at all digging where it sounds like they're going with Dungeon Siege 3. They're really going the console-ified route, and making it "action Party RPG" which seem to be the rage these days. You don't make your own characters - you are assigned a group of 4 characters that will always be the same. (weak!) And it's coop is a secondary add on. A friend hosts, you join their storyline as a henchman. This game, like the original, should have been designed to be coop from the start, not designed as a single player game, with a coop option thrown in for fun. Boooo:

For one thing, your party is made up of characters, not classes. Unlike the first game's freewheeling experience system, the second game did introduce abilities and classes, though DS3 abandons that idea for four named characters (only two, Lucas and Anjali, have actually been revealed so far), each of which have ability lists that cross over the various fantasy archetypes.

In the full release, you'll be able to manage a party of up to four heroes, either in a single-player game where you control all four characters, or with a group of three other people in co-op mode. Two players may share the screen locally, and you can bring in two more players online. The other players will serve as assistants to one main player, and no progress will be carried over to their game.
And so it's obviously a console to PC port, I always look forward to how buggy and clunky those are. (looking at you, Borderlands!)
I feel like this consolification of all these games is just taking something good, and turning it into whatever is the latest Justin Bieber of the video game world, because that's what everyone else is doing, or at least what seems to sell for now, instead of just making a great game.
Oh well....I guess it's back to biding my time till Diablo 3.
How do you guys feel about this news? Excited or disappointed?

Avatar image for dizazter
#10 Posted by Dizazter (98 posts) -
@moelarrycurly said:


  • No need for expensive equipment
  • Reflected light means less eye strain
  • Unchangeable yet perfect difficulty setting
  • Much less expensive
  • Infinitely good graphics (cannot be quantified)
  • Food can be eaten while reading
  • Exceedingly portable and highly appropriate in a public setting
  • Less social stigma
  • Much better story and dialogue
  • No tacked-on multiplayer
  • Much wider variety of subject material
Am I missing anything?
I know you're just making joke here, so I'm jokingly responding.
#1 Not if you're reading from a computer!!
#2 They are working on LED color screens (non color already exist, kindle) that rely on reflective light. (again point is nul if reading from a  computer or a nook)
#3 Different books require different skill levels to read. Game difficulty is there for a good reason, its an asset.
#4 Really the same point as #1, but ok yeah the average video game costs more than the average book, true.  
#5 Food can also be eaten while playing many games. And I question how well you're really able to read while stuffing your face.
#6 Hello PSP, Hello DS, Hello iPhone and Android!
#7 Who the hell gives a crap about social stigma?!? (sounds like you just pretend to read to impress "Tha Laydees"
#8 Arguable, but yeah, fair enough.
#9 Yeah, um, zero multiplayer. How is that a good thing? People like multiplayer, A LOT.
#10 Yeah, well books have been around for what, thousands of years? Of course there's more material there.
Yup, missing a lot, (but you know that)...
But you seem to imply that "imagining" something is better than seeing it. If this were the case, there would be no artwork of any kind, as it would better for people just to have the art piece described than to see it themselves. On top of that is the concept of interactivity and choice. Games you can make choices, basically rarely are two video games experience identical, yet with a book, every time you read it its EXACTLY the same. (unless you're reading a choose your own adventure) Additionally, with a book your are completely dependent on the narrator, where as in more interactive experiences, the environment can be shown to you, and you can explore it at will, instead of just relying on a description conceived by someone else with their own set of biases and focus.