Jump to content

Magister Lajciak

Members
  • Posts

    1634
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Magister Lajciak

  1. I absolutely loved King's Bounty on my old Commodore 64, but for some reason I just can't seem to find the energy to be excited by this new version.. Even though I think the screenshots look awesome. Odd.

     

    The game is getting rave reviews from fans of the old King's Bounty (which I haven't played) and from the HOMM crowd (HOMM is among my favorite franchises), so they must have gotten something right. There just wasn't any marketing for this game - what a pity. Given the positive reception of the game by people who share similar taste in games, I will be sure to pick it up - would have done so already, but I cannot afford to play a game seriously at the moment due to time-constraints. Maybe in a few more weeks.

  2. A patch that removes both online activations and install limits would work for me... except that I don't really trust that they will provide it with 100% certainty. My confidence in EA is already damaged by the DDRM they have imposed on Mass Effect and Spore. This is especially the case if something goes financially wrong with EA over the next X number of years - I doubt they will use their scarce resources, if they are a failing company unable to pay for keeping their activation servers up and running, to patch out their DDRM on their whole library of games.

     

    Also the one game where such a patch was provided (Bioshock) did remove the install limits, but not the online activation, so if the servers go down, so will the ability to install and play the game.

     

    Still, I have to say that this explicit promise is a MAJOR step in the right direction and shows that EA is at least listening to the complaints and is beginning to understand what troubles many of us about their DDRM schemes. For me it is precisely the impact on the longevity of the game that is the main problem with DDRM. As such, after they provide a patch removing DDRM for a specific game, I will purchase it (provided it is a type of game I want to purchase of course, and RA3 is such a type of game), but I will wait until the patch materializes.

  3. Obviously, since it needs to run on poor peoples computers.

     

    I doubt that making it in a more "realistic" style -id est the other two KotOR games- would task people's PC too much.

     

    Poor people are also unlikely to be able to afford a game with monthly fees - unless they are very, very motivated indeed to play it.

     

    Not true. A small monthly cost is much easier to swallow than a large upfront payment for high end computer components.

    Depends on how small "small" is. A year's subscription of WoW would cost you $180 (not including the initial game cost), for which you could buy a fairly high-end card (9800GTX) and plop it into any run-of-the mill Dell machine and turn it into a Crysis-capable monster. Now if we're talking $5 a month, then yes, your comparison is valid.

     

    Indeed - plus also bear in mind that the game usually does have an initial cost as well!

  4. 2. I agree. Easy LAN play is a major bonus, but I can't really hold the lack of it against anyone. Requiring everyone that wants to play to have a copy seems reasonable to me. It would be nice if more companies would implement something like what Blizzard did with spawned copies of Starcraft and Diablo that allowed only LAN play and only against the original.

    It's interesting you mention this as Blizzard has taken it a step in a more restrictive direction -- completely removing LAN play from Diablo 3 in order to help prevent piracy. Want multiplayer? You'll have to play through Battle.net. I don't know if they have / will do the same with Sarcraft 2 though.

    Really? I hadn't heard about that. Blizzard is just full of good ideas these days, aren't they?

     

    I don't like it either (I don't like it at all in fact), but it is still far better than EA's DDRM, since it impacts only the longevity of the multiplayer component of the game. Unlike EA's DRM, I will probably not pass up the game because of this factor.

  5. It is not certain, but it makes sense to me that Revan is the Sith Emperor. Then they can spring the news on the unsuspecting (or very suspecting) SWOR players as a major plot twist or just keep everybody tantilized with information pointing in that direction, but not outright confirming it.

  6. Well, reading the description of the setting, it looks like that pretty much eliminates even the slightest chance that a KOTOR III -- or a closure of the Revan saga -- will be developed. I'm disappointed for a couple of reasons. One, what can I say? I'm a fan of Revan. I thought he (yes, he) was an interesting character. So I dislike this "he left but never came back" vague stuff. And two, the MMO seems to kind of now use the events from the KOTOR series and shift it to suit their own story.

     

    I wish they'd have just set the game a few hundred years before the events of KOTOR, instead of afterward.

     

     

    Repeat after me: Revan is most likely the mysterious Sith Emperor, Revan is most likely the mysterious Sith Emperor, Revan is most likely the mysterious Sith Emperor, Revan is most likely the mysterious Sith Emperor, Revan...

  7. I have a question about the amount of content in the game: BioWare mentioned that the game has more content than all its other games put together and is like making KOTOR 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Does this amount of content apply to the story of each class, or is that the amount of total content altogether spread over X number of classes?

     

    If it is the latter, than the amount of real content per class will be about the same as in a single-player game, which does not make it worthwhile as an MMO for those who like the single-playthrough forms their cannon paradigm, as it does for me. Not that I personally like MMOs anyway, but still an interesting question, I think.

×
×
  • Create New...