alanschu

I was being facetious.

Well, we won gold with Women's Hockey. BUt I guess you won a medal there too.

Which would make them bad (or something) right? I mean, if they can't get it right in one shot...

The "bugfree" argument IMO is just a rationalization for the decision you have made. You clearly have a ton of time on your hands for large parts of the year. Surely you aren't that impatient that patching the game (while doing something else even) is a hideious inconvenience. Especially given that many games have auto-updaters now that do all the work for you.

*sigh* Apparently you took my post waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to literally. I don't always wait for a patch (I figured this was obvious since I did mention that I bought Half-Life 2 the day it came out). Especially seeing as the game might not actually need one. Plus, I do get games as gifts at times. For instance, I didn't buy Boiling Point because I heard that the game was particularly unstable. However, after its most recent patches, I'm starting to think that it's really the game that the next GTA should have been. Half-Life 2, as I mentioned earlier, I bought right when it came out. I only wait if I'm uncertain about a game. The odd time I do get burned, but I don't burn my bridges and if a patch comes out, will apply it. At the same time, you wouldn't know either. So I guess we're both equally unqualified to make the distinction. THe only difference is that I play PC games, whereas you don't. If it no longer affects you, then why do you buy 500 GB HDs, or even take part in a discussion about patching? If anything, it's just an admission to being out of touch with the PC gaming market. I'd much rather play a game I enjoy. I'm not going to deny myself an excellent game experience because a game needed a patch.

Obi-Wan doesn't lead Luke to Han Solo. Han finds him. All Obi-Wan does is tell him to go to Dagobah.

Hehe, I'll admit I enjoyed winning Gold over the US in 2002

I also suspect that the people that do encounter gamebreaking bugs are typically of the vocal minority.

I'd rather they complain that their goalie let in a goofy goal. Though as an Oiler fan that sucked for me because it pretty much ended Salo's career.

Bush is not an idiot. He is a heartless, corrupted warmongerererer. I would not be surprised to see him keep power by force once his term is up. And then we will have WWIII. (w00t) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bush is an idiot. His cabinet pulls the strings, not him. He's just a figurehead who was chosen specifically for his idiocy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And who pulls the strings of his cabinet? The Saudis. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sounds like someone takes Michael Moore a bit too seriously.

I'm hoping against the Swedes...in spite of Mkreku.

The original, or the remake?

The beef I have is that when you state it like this, you give the impression that games not working directly out of the box is actually the norm. Working being the "finishable" definition that you provided earlier. While you may consider it "supporting lazy programming" my purchase of the Hearts of Iron 2 game was more "supporting a small, independent developer that is still a bit wet behind the ears, that makes fascinating games that I can waste hours and hours of my life playing." Fortunately, every new game that I have played of theirs has been more and more stable upon release. There's still issues, but the game is a ton of fun. I eagerly anticipate their "standalone expansion" for it...Doomsday.

I prefer the term "stick explosions"

Surprised you didn't hate it for it's patches for joystick problems, as well as sound issues.

I thought it was clear that we had gone beyond a singleton instance of requiring a patch. Given your posts, I'd say it was. This is a backpedal. If you pulled your head out of you butt and actually recognized the stuff that YOU post, as you've already recognized the inherent difficulties of a variable configuraiton machine. It seems rather than understanding it though, you would rather put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and write it off as "it's not your problem to build the games." Quality is subjective. Patch-free game != good game. I guess I'm just supporting (allegedly) "lazy" developers, but I'd rather play a patched game that I like over a non-patched game that I don't like. I supsect you're just one of those "OMG OMG OMG I have to have this now" type. In the future, you should make sure that there's no webcams watching you next time you're on the computer.

I dunno....I'm a big fan of TIE Fighter, but I don't know if it's just nostalgia speaking.

Ovechkin of course....

Then why was there criticism about Empire at War, which released a patch pretty much the day of release. I had beaten the game as the Rebels, and my roommate as the Empire, without the patch. You have stereotyped all games that have patches as broken. Even if that's not what you were intending to do, it is what you did. No, I typically don't buy games until I see how they are via demo, and have gauged the feedback from intial reviews. If this was the case, then why throw in the "I thought we were talking about PC gaming here." For the record, I employed the exact same type of purchasing patterns when I bought console games too. It's not that I don't buy games until I know there's a patch for them. I bought Half-Life 2 the day it came out (and beat it in the following week). Even still, it had patches for it....but it clearly wasn't broken. Game patch != broken game. Unless it's a game that I know I want though, I never buy it on the day they come out. Don't blame me because you just absolutely have to have the game the second it comes out. Well, I could say that you're encouraging the "bigbux" market that Microsoft and Sony want, which stymies creativity (this is in the words of software developers by the way). Except that most people here think you're full of it, call it into question regarding your credibility, and see it as nothing more than flexing some sort of e-****. If you only wish to play with half of a deck, that's your perogative. I'm a gamer, and I like playing good games. I doubt you'd get Civ4 anyways, as there's a patch that came out for it.

What does it mean that something "doesn't work." Now you're just trolling. Considering the amount of PC games I play....unlikely. The game would never appear on your radar if it wasn't cross platform. Oh wait I forgot, you're independently wealthy, own 500 GB Hard Drives before they are available, and spend over $10000 per year on video game purchases alone. Never said otherwise. But you persist on ignoring a game that has been patched. Your loss.

A pisspoor definition at that. 1 & 2) Buying a knowingly fatal buggy game, hoping for a patch was never in discussion here. We're talking about a patch already released. 3) "Likely" introduce? I think you're just looking for a reason to knock it with this one. Yes it's possible.....but given my experiences with patching, not common. How would you know, given you don't want to buy games that have a patch out.

I have never really understood the "knock" that PC gaming gets because of patching. If a game is a great game after patch...then it is a great game. The way some people are talking, they'd rather skip on a fantastic gaming experience than download a patch. Call me stupid, but I'm not one to adamantly refuse a good game because there is a patch. Yes, it can be annoying when a game is released and there are issues. If it's patched though, I don't typically care. Maybe it's just me

I think people underestimate Obi-Wan personally.

Yeah, I was a bit confused about that as well. Perhaps it was still the "single leap" stage of things? I remember in an earlier season where he saved Lana from the tornados, and he said to his Dad that it almost felt like he was flying.

I don't suppose anyone knows of a radio station (preferably in Edmonton) that is picking up the Canada-Russia game do they?