ramboknife

@Bulby33:

I don't think I played the same game as you...I played stealth and collected everything and I beat the game in 20ish hours. This is coming from a guy who usually beats games way faster than the average player. My run through the game collecting nothing and killing everyone on the direct path took like 3 hours, so I somehow think you might be underestimating your playtime.

Same thing happened to me twice with the whole losing of saves. I had to replay the first 4 episodes twice. Although I did manage to finish the game, the technical reasons are why it won't be higher up on my game of the year list.

@Snail said:

@Colourful_Hippie said:

Is that the game where the "expert" nosedived that flying thing into the ground and exploded?

The "pro", yes.

If I can get something as similar and hilarious as that out of this game, then it is worth the 2 dollar admission price.

Not really sure how this game is, or how many people are still actively playing it, but Green Man Gaming has it on sale right now for 75% off. http://www.greenmangaming.com/s/ca/en/pc/games/action/ravaged/

Enter this code to receive a further 25% off the sale price, bringing it down to $1.87 :

GMG25-CZPYL-D5MQ6

If you're the kind of person who only wants their digital games on Steam, then you'll be ok here as it is a Steamworks games. Enjoy.

@Deathstriker said:

I was just listening to the latest podcast and they (well, really just Brad) made it sound like Far Cry 3 was crap on 360, since it was just "barely playable". I've spent over 4 hours with the game so far, a lot of that was setting stuff on fire, gliding, causing explosions, etc, all of which is technically demanding, and I haven't run into any frame-rate issues at all and the graphics look good. Halo 4 looks better on a technical level, but Far Cry 3 looks better or on the same level as most big 2012 console games, so I'm curious why it's so horrible to play... maybe someone here can shed some light or is it just PC elitism? It definitely looks and runs way better than Red Dead while doing more complicated things, and I don't remember anyone saying Red Dead was "barely playable". I was also surprised at some of their graphic complaints towards AC3, other than a few things like the textures on certain trees and stuff looking plain/bad sometimes, that was a good looking game, especially the faces. Anyone else think they sometimes complain about graphics and/or frame-rate quality when there's nothing bad going on?

If you think sub 25 frames per second isn't barely playable for a first person shooter and shouldn't be considered "an issue", then I feel incredibly sorry for you. Check this out for more information:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-far-cry-3-face-off

@Demoskinos said:

You really could have dumped all these keys into one thread rather than clogging up the boards with one for each game.

Guy gives away free games...people still manage to complain. Great job.

I wouldn't say the buzz is low at all, Bethesda has been doing quite a bit of advertising for it and there have been several videos on Giantbomb. Like any game, I hope it's going to be good...having it be a bad game doesn't benefit anyone.

The one thing that makes me slightly nervous is the fact that Bethesda likes to publish shitty games (besides their own), so their track record leading up to Dishonoured is a little shaky, to say the least.

You sure there isn't any pre-order bonuses? Thought I saw somewhere on the site that you still get the Steam bonuses if you pre-order from them...oh well, for 45 bucks it's worth taking a risk I guess.

Well, whenever someone finds out when we can actually download, be sure to report it here. I'll make sure I do, I'll check every half hour or so.

A couple white cards that I submitted:

A bone-shattering sneeze

The meat sweats

Boopin' Obama's nose

Farting at a funeral

Stubbing your fucking toe

Water balloons full of pee

Penis enlargement spam