Originally posted by madazz

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by JeroKane

In wich game aren't there known issues with ATI cards? lol.

I have always been a dedicated fan of ATI cards, but ever since after the Radion 9xxx series it has gone steep downhill with ATI, specifically with their Catalyst drivers.

I am not saying NVidia has no driver issues, but those are far and few between compared to the issues with ATI cards each and every time!

Last year I tried to buy an ATI card again, just to check it out if things had improved, within 2 days I returned it and exchanged it for a NVidia card again!

Never ever will I buy an ATI card again.

Interesting.  I've had the exact opposite experience since going to ATI.  Unless there is a known issue with the card running this game, it doesn't really help to speculate with such little info to go on.

I may be using an nVidia card at the moment, but I have nothing but luck with ATI. The only issue I can remember having in the past few years was in Oblivion. And that was AA with HDR turned on. Otherwise, its been a flawless experience. Back in the Radeon 9XXX series and earlier I do remember there being driver issues though. Since then, smooth sailing for me and the people I know.

ATIs drivers are rather famous for not being trustworthy. It is not really fair since they have made a huge effort the last 5 years and improved reliability a lot. I still think Nvidias drivers generally are somewhat more reliable, but not that much.

Some games do run better in Nvidia and others in ATI, and fans of one or the other type of cards like to point out a specific benchmark where their favorite do better.

It is very possible that D3 do better with one type of card, or that some driver is not working as it should.

It is also possible that many people who complain don´t use the latest drivers, that can create issues as well.

Nothing wrong with either NVidia or ATI, exactly which card anyone should get is depending on a lot of factors...

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

Originally posted by OldManFunk

"Three years from now, if someone makes a brand new character in the game, a place that has 100 events in it might have 300 by then.”

Aye... but i think 130 will be closer to the actuall number in 3 years, just lets hope its not 103, as even that would mean they hold their promise.

I think that will depend a lot on the zone. They have added plenty of stuff for GW1and it was done by a handful people with very little money.

I will not guess any number though, since it is rather pointless right now and you might as well roll a dice. But I have played GW over 5 years on and off so I do know some things about how ANET work, they will add stuff and a lot more than 3%.

Originally posted by Ashen_X

I think that kanezfan was using, "you," in the generic sense, not making a personal attack. His decision to use vulgar language may be inappropriate, but the basic question of (as translated from gamereez):

And really, if someone is good at competitive play, wouldn't they prefer the challenge of a good fight? If someone just goes to the highest ranke server, aren't they avoiding a real challenge ?

Is valid in my opinion.

It still isn't true, the highest rank servers will play against other highest rank servers so at least theoretically will WvW be as challenging a good high pop server as on a bad lo pop one. In fact it probably gets harder on the high ranked server.

Originally posted by Sorrow

Do not forget NC lovesssssss expansions... by the time you get one avatar to 80 if you take your time I am willing to bet the first expansion will be waiting..

That is a good bet, you kinda have to make expansions for B2P games rather often.

Expect one every 9 months. That still might make some people take a 2 months break but frankly is that just healthy.

Relax, explore and enjoy the game. Once you explored everything (or close to) run the dungeons in explorable mood and PvP. If you take your time instead of powerleveling you will do fine.

If you on the other way love doing all content rushing through the game in one month you are missing part of the fun but it is your choice. Then you are a so called "bungee player" that jumps in a while after every expansion.

Remember that it is you that should have fun so try to play the game so you maximize your fun, and forget what other people say. Since your friend will level down if they get into your zones the old "hurry so you can play with us" doesn't really work.

Pre searing Ascalon, it seems so peaceful and beutiful.

But I am not really that impressed by MMO worlds, compared to P&P RPG worlds they feel rather one dimensional.

Oh, and they place I don't want to live is Miscatonic...

Originally posted by gestalt11

During BWE I tried to get into the Eternal BG at one point and it told me that it was full.  I was able to go to the borderland zone just fine.

But from that I drew the conclusion there may be a hard cap on population in the WvW zones.  This is also something we have to keep in mind for the "servers".

I don't think PvE plays much into their calculations for server populations.  I think even the term "server" is purely convienence word that is only really applicable to WvW.

However that hard cap on the Eternal BG does concern me I don;t want to miss out on great fights because of it.

There is. Last time I heard it each side can have 100 players in each zone.

Originally posted by Four0Six

Thus making my gaminig experiance a job. I have a job in RL. I don't want gaming to be a job, unless it pays cash.

Uhm, what? There will always be stuff you want to buy for your gold. If you feel that you must change server then blowing some of that gold on a transfer hardly sounds like a job, you would buy some other stuff for it otherwise.

Or you can use real money for it of course, whatever rocks your boat.

As far as I know don't MMOs give away free server transfers unless they are closing your server. GW2 does it for PvE players which is generous. Here you get the option to pay with real money or gold. And if you stay your server will be paired up against a similar server anyways so even if it will be less massive at least it will still be a competition.

Originally posted by Anolev

Yes I do.

The invested LOTS to build the game, they aren't just going to pull the plug less than 6 months after they've launched it.  I also think it's funny everybody says they're bleeding subs like crazy, when in fact they're still the 2nd biggest MMORPG ever launched, even after having bled all of those subs.  No other game has ever had 1M subs (except WoW) within 1 month of launch let alone 5, and SWTOR is still bigger than that.

I swear, it's like your Ferrari has a dent on the hood, so you're saying screw it, it's worthless now, let's drive it off of a cliff. 

Amazing.

They invested plenty in Sims online and still pulled the plug within a year, I think it had something like 150K players then.

If TOR go that low they might do it again (yeah, they are morons).

Hopefully will they instead fix up the game, and put focus on the multiplayer aspect they so far could have done better with. The soloexperience is already good enough but a game with monhly fees need more multiplayer if it want the player to continue pay the fees.

But with EA (and Activision for that matter, i still can't believe they fired the MW lead designer) you never know, I can actually see them drive off a cliff.

Originally posted by TurkeyBurger

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii

And the bad user reviews cannot come in fast enough. I was fortunate enough to beta test the game before launch and was left completly unimpressed. I am noticing the reviews are reflecting what my beta input stated. I wrote incredibly detailed lenghty messages on the beta test forums but let's be honest, it is far easier for Blizz to just stand up on the table, unbuckle their belt, pull down their pants and drop a gigantic steaming pile of shit onto your plate. 

I am not surprised, people can't log in, gets upset and post a bad score.

But it ain't really fair, don't expect any fair votes until 2 weeks after the game is out, and that goes for any game.

I can admit that I partly want the game to fail, not because it is bad but because of the RMTAH, I would hate to see that in all games.

But that doesn't mean that I just will unfairly trash every part of the game, let´s have the discussion when enough people here played it through on at least the second difficulty. Then peoples score might actually be fair. 

Originally posted by Valkaern

...Maybe it's just worded oddly, but I'm not sure what you mean by questioning it's 'staying power', as I'm sure the vast amount of people who have had the opportunity to play GW2 will agree that it's far superior to traditional static task hub grinds.

I wonder if things wont continue to move instead and that ANET ot someone else will take this a lot further.

I really hate questhubs, they make a linear game feel 10 times as linear as it already is and tend to turn large prt of the gameworld into an empty waste where you only go to kill x mobs.

Originally posted by Dewm

Its sooo quite this time of year (speaking about games), just waiting for E3... 

So what games are you exited to learn more about? I'm looking forward to SC5 information, Elderscrolls Online (video) and maybe unveiling of a new xbox?

What´s SC5? Soul Calibur 5? Starcraft 5 (you have to waita while for that) or something else?

Well, normal people are out drinking beer or wine in the afternoon sun when they have time off this time of the year.

But I wouldn't call this anything else than loud anyways, Diablo 3 just released and so did Tera, TSW and GW2 are getting close as well... So there are some choices if the weather is crappy.

Originally posted by Wakygreek

 I am a big fan of players creating change in the gameworld. For example capturing outposts etc. I wonder if they will focus more on this feature, if they do I can easily see myself picking this up.

It is more common in PvP than PvE but it does happen there as well. Monsters can take over an outpost, build  a base there and move to the next place for a new attack until someone stops them.

Originally posted by Wakygreek

Hey,

As someone that is looking at potentially buying GW2, I would like to hear from you guys what the game does so drastically different that warrants a purchase?

A few things I am curious about:

1) I hear great things about the new quest system, but I am dubious at best to see if this has any staying power.

2) I hear you can customize your skills, but I feel that this may go the way of Rift. In other words you get a ton of skills you can use but a clear "best" build to use. I hope this is not the case.

while there are other features these 2 seem to be the more focused of the lot. Would you like to add your thoughts, please post below.

1. Well, it feels really new but it is not that different. Heart quests are exactly like quests except you don't have to take them and they usually offers you a few choices, so you could do one thing or mix a few as you like. 

DEs are a bit similar but happens while you are out and walking, they are sometimes chains, sometimes triggered by enviromental effects, players, others events or just randomly.

The real difference besides you usually having a few choices and that they scale is that there are no questhubs anymore. Good riddance.

2. It feels rather different from Rift. You unlock skillslots and get skillpoints to buy skills by playing, and some of these skills make good combos with others or work better for your playstyle. There are however plenty of useful skills and knowing ANET they will add more later. 

The big difference between this and Rift however is that there are more possible playstyles in GW2 and therefor the numbers of good builds will be more. A few skills might be rather useless, or used for weird combos no.one thought about yet. GW1 do have many good builds, in Rift I always felt there were about 3 for each of the 4 classes.

GW2 doesn't really do things so dramatically different from other games, but it present things in a new way. The most interesting things to me is the fact that you usually work together with other players even when you just solo, and that they re-introduced exploration, a feature that used to be great in MMOs but been dead for almost 10 years.

Originally posted by Elikal

I really hope it works out. But SWTOR burned me. I am hesitant to believe any claims these days.

You shouldn't. The only one that can judge if a game is good for you is of course yourself. There will be a weekend trial for everyone before launch so you will get your chanse to try it out for free and make your own judgement before you decide to buy it.

In my case does it look good, really good. The first days in a beta is usually rather fun but this is past any fun I had the last 10 years in a MMO. But that is my experience, your might differ and I could get tired off it rather soon of course. But so far so good.

Originally posted by aesperus

Short answer, yes. They do have a plan.

How well it will play out is another matter entirely. People seem to be enjoying the game, but there is a lot of heavily skewed criticism going both ways for this game. It's to be expected, but it's difficult to see how many people will be playing this game going in with the wrong type of mindset and then leaving.

I am also concerned about the longevity of WvW servers. They are a ton of fun, and a lot of people seem to be enjoying them, so we'll have to just wait and see i suppose.

Yeah, hard to tell.

The other type of PvP with 2 small teams will be popular for a long time since it still is in the first game, but noone really made anything like this before. DaoC is possibly the closest and RvR was popular there but here we just have to wait and see.

Originally posted by Jyiiga

Some of the Korean players are already lvl 60 and in Inferno mode. I believe they have even downed King Leoric in Inferno mode.

Blizzard actually stated that Inferno would be so hard that it would not be completed for months.

Looks like that may be BS.

All devs always believe that the content will last longer than it does. Some people are really fast and skilled.

If you get on a smaller or incomopetent WvW server you will be balanced against other servers with about the same difficulty once they have enough stats to do that. So at least you don't get steam rolled.

But you might be forced to buy gems for gold or real money if you want to be on one of the better servers. Even if new players come in as old ones quit some servers will become worse with time while others become better.

Originally posted by Thorbrand

Player housing does nothing for a better gaming experience in MMOs. Just a waste of money, time and resources.

Some people actually like it alot and it isn't that expensive to add so i fail to see why they shouldn't include it.

A friend of my played a house broker for 3 months in "Daggerfall" because he liked how the economical sytem worked. What is boring to you might be fun to others and housing does not make things less fun for you.

Originally posted by Lobotomist

You are preaching to the preacher mate.

Originaly you had Rogue , it was not only first random generated "dungeon hack" but one of first computer games at all.

Diablo 1 was born from attempt to convert Angband(roguelike) to graphic+mouse friendly interface , but in the making Blizzard (the company that blizzard bought actually) had strange idea to make it action based instead of turn based.

Thus new genre was born called "Hack&Slash" wich is used to refer to Diablo clones (or simply Diablo clone)

So although you have games like Gauntlet and many other dungeon running RPGs

Hack and Slash is used in corelation with Diablo like  gameplay

I thought I was agreeing with you, not preaching. Reason I mentioned Gauntlet is that I played it alot in 1985, not because it was first. And of course because it was action based.