Jump to content



xg4bx's Photo

xg4bx

Member Since 17 Mar 2009
OFFLINE Last Active Today, 3:59 PM

Topics I've Started

5 Reasons 'Diablo III' Represents Gaming's Annoying Future

Thu May 17, 2012 4:36 PM

We as consumers have gotten to the point that we just accept this bullshit as "normal launch-day bugs," when it should have never gotten to this point in the first place. I read through those forums, and you wouldn't believe the number of people defending Blizzard through this whole ordeal. Throwing out arguments like "It's going to happen. You can't expect the servers to handle that many people logging on all at once." And "Every MMO in existence has these problems on launch day."


And nobody is getting the core point: The single-player version of this game should have never been hosted on a remote server to begin with. I and millions of other people bought this game because we love the Diablo franchise, and we have been waiting for 12 years to jump back in and throw fireballs at evil. There is an absolutely enormous amount of us out there who couldn't give two flying f*cks about an auction house or a chatroom or even the ability to play the game with our friends. We just want to play the goddamn thing.


If any other company in the world sold you a product that didn't work, and then refused to hand over some sort of compensation in return, you wouldn't even need a lawyer. The judge would tell them straight up, "Give them a working product, or give them their money back, or go to f*cking jail." But for whatever reason, the video game industry gets away with this now? Every time they have a problem with their servers, I can't play the game I already bought? In an era when people carry their entire music library around with them on their phones, I have less ownership and control of my games than I had in 1979?



And make no mistake, we have every right to bitch. We don't want to hear condescending assholes telling us, "Calm down. It's just a game. Be patient." It's not just a game. It's the principle: We paid for it.



Read more: 5 Reasons 'Diablo III' Represents Gaming's Annoying Future | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.c.../#ixzz1vAY74lj5



i don't play diablo but theres some damn fine points here.

Halo 4′s New Hero Is Revealed

Wed May 16, 2012 6:51 PM

At some point early in the story, Master Chief will encounter the UNSC Infinity. For those of you that read the Halo novels, you’ll already know that the UNSC Infinity is largest craft in the human fleet. The Infinity serves as more than just a ship in the game, however, as it will be an option available to you in the menu.


The mode serves as a side campaign where you’ll enlist as Spartan-IV on board of the Infinity. Each week after the game has been released, you’ll receive a short CGI episode of the Infinity’s adventures starring four new characters. Each episode is said to include five varied co-op missions which will star your “persistent Spartan” and your friends. What does this all result in? By the very end, you’ll have an animated series on your Xbox 360 and a second campaign featuring your Spartan-IV alongside Master Chief’s respective story.



http://stickskills.c...ro-is-revealed/



the title is a bit of a misnomer but a free second campaign that gets added to every week? pretty sweet.

Resident Evil 6 (new story trailer)

Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:04 AM


Double Dragon:Neon

Thu Apr 5, 2012 4:21 PM

Developer WayForward Technologies is an old hand now putting new spins on classic games, working on the Wii-make of

A Boy and His Blob

along with

Contra 4

back in '07. The devs are promising that

Double Dragon Neon

isn't going to be strictly a straight-up remake, and will instead be a "WayForward’s love letter to the decade that spawned the franchise - the music, the style, and culture of the 80’s pulse through the nucleus of Double Dragon: Neon." That's from WayForward Director Sean Velasco, who says that fans shouldn't expect this to be a "facelift" of the classic brawler.





http://multiplayerbl...o-xbla-and-psn/


Attached File  double_dragon_screen_3.jpg   68.4K   34 downloads

Why Video Games Need to be More Violent

Sun Apr 1, 2012 11:47 PM

Parent groups, politicians, and religious fanatics have long argued that the violence in video games desensitizes children and I’ll tell you why. It’s because the violence isn’t anywhere near as gruesome as it should be. If the industry pumped up the gore on these games, they could sensitize the shit out of kids. Of course Little Scotty is going to get desensitized to violence when playing a video game. If you shoot Oddjob in GoldenEye 64, it shows up as a yellow paintball mark on the shrimp’s hat. If you blow up a guy with a grenade in Halo, you can take the guy’s somehow-undamaged weapon. And if you kill a hooker in Grand Theft Auto, not only do you get your money back, but you get your money back without having to spend it on treatment for Chlamydia. Totally unrealistic. Acting violently in video games should not reward kids; it should traumatize the f*ck out of them.

So here’s my proposition: Make video games more violent. Not stylistically violent, but instead, realistically violent. If you shoot a security guard in Splinter Cell, that guy should be crying hysterically, while pleading for his life, while bleeding out all over the place. This guy should be coughing up pints of blood while screaming about how he has three kids and a wife at home. The consequences of violence should translate realistically to the video game medium. If somebody dies, you should see their eyes go motionless, they should crap their pants, and their blood should get on Fisher’s shoes. If they’re blown up by a grenade, intestines and lungs should be in bits and pieces all over the place. This is realistic violence and it would scare the Hell out of children. I’m sure their little hands wouldn’t be grabbing for a handgun or grenade anytime soon after seeing that.

http://www.planetxbo...be_More_Violent


i don't know if this was an april fool's piece but it does raise interesting points. here's my comment-

definitely an interesting point. I've played plenty of violent games. I've also watched videos on those 'real death' sites. there's miles of difference between the 2. real violence is ugly, painful, heart wrenching and gut churning. real people don't just disappear when they get shot. head shots aren't cool. war isn't fun, it's ugly beyond words.there's something to be said for showing the horrible reality, even if it's in a digital form. I think consequence-less, cartoonish and 'sexy' violence is more damaging than anything.

to expand a bit, i don't think violence in games truly desensitizes kids to violence. however i do think it could lead to a mind-set in that murder and death are these sterile, consequence-less things. violence isn't cool, its bloody, smelly and nasty. if these games are aiming to be realistic in their portrayal of warfare or whatever, let's see some real realism.