Support NeoGAF

[SapientWolf]

Actually, it's interesting you say that, because I loved all the games involved in this post but, purely impressions from the Supcom2 demo, would be inclined to say that much of what made SupCom interesting was removed from the sequel.

It's not that a smaller number of units on a smaller map is less interesting since I also love DoW2, which takes small scale tractical RTS quite a long way, it's just that from my impressions Supcom2 isn't actually trying to be a small scale tactical RTS, but rather, a large scale strategic RTS that's also console friendly which simply results in less strategy.

But again, these are simply demo impressions, if you think otherwise then I'd like to hear because honestly, I want to be able to like the game.

I think the tech tree allows for a lot of strategic diversity. SupCom 2 is also rather combat heavy, especially when compared to other similar RTS games in the same space. You spend most of your time directing units on the field rather than dealing with the minutiae of logistics. It still isn't a purely tactical RTS like DoW2 or World in Conflict but, when compared to its predecessor, it's a big step in that direction.

I also consider the game to be far more PC friendly than console friendly. It runs at 60fps on even single core PCs now. The console port had a low unit cap, and people playing this game with a gamepad are at a severe disadvantage.

 

[Archie]

Looks like Darksiders was delayed until September. Boo.

 

[Erudite]

Looks like Darksiders was delayed until September. Boo.

Bah. I was hoping to play it over the summer

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I am definitely going to get Duels of the Planeswalkers and will be pre-purchasing it as soon as it gets a real release date. I haven't played Magic hardcore in a very long time, but I was very big into it from 1996 - 2001 or so. I also loved the Microprose PC game and played it over and over. I wish I could find a copy of it and play it on Windows 7. Come on GOG! Make it happen!

Honestly, I've been tempted many times to give MTG:O a try, but I just can't justify the expenses for cards that only exist online. Someone mentioned that you can get online cards by buying the physical product, but according to the Wikipedia page at least, you can only exchange full online sets for an equivalent in physical product (and lose the digital set at the same time).

However, the Wiki did have this little bit of information:

The client software for Magic Online may be downloaded for free from Wizards of the Coast's website, but to play the game, it is necessary to register an account and purchase cards. Registration costs $9.99 and comes with a new account package.[15] This package has 2 event tickets, one Magic 2010 booster, and 300 common and uncommon cards.

I think I might give it a try if they give you a decent base of cards for $10. Their website for MTG:O is horrible and offers very little information, though.

 

[AcridMeat]

Alright yeah, I love the deck building aspect (though I was never good at it). I guess this isn't for me.

I really hope I don't cave and try M:TGO, unless I maybe had some GAF members to play with. How much are boosters after the initial $9.99?

edit: Oh and those who asked about the community of Shattered Horizon after the free weekends, from experience it is very poor. The last few times I've booted the game up there were only a couple servers populated. Recently the populated servers were perfectly playable/fun with a good amount of people. Hopefully it gradually gets better and there will be more who stick with it after the weekend.

 

[Fragamemnon]

I really hope I don't cave and try M:TGO, unless I maybe had some GAF members to play with.

How much are boosters after the initial $9.99?

You can usually get MTGO boosters for around $3-$4 or so from the vendors. That being said, no one buys boosters online unless you're drafting-the digitalized economy and huge amounts of limited versus constructed players on MTGO make buying individual singles from the card seller's bots way better if you are looking to build a casual or tournament deck.

I play MTGO online, and play in the player-run Pauper (commons-only format) events run by pdcmagic.com . They are super cheap to get a deck for ($3-$10 , usually) and offer a diverse metagame, large card pool, and good players to compete against. I'd probably play Legacy online if there were more people playing and some of the cards (namely Force of Will, most everything else is pretty OK in price) weren't ridiculous in price.

One more thing about MTGO-it's scary bad interface. They are revamping it to be web based with Silverlight at some point but goodness knows when that'll be done.

 

[archnemesis]

Boosters were 4 tickets last time I logged on. You can often get boosters from the current expansions for less from online traders. Drafting can be expensive unless you're really good. If you're a newbie and want to try a limited format, you'll probably get more value out of entering a Sealed Deck tournament. If you want to play Magic Online without spending a shitload of money there's the Pauper format where only commons are allowed.

Edit: Beaten. @Frag: Are there any screenshots from the Silverlight version?

 

[Fragamemnon]

I am definitely going to get Duels of the Planeswalkers and will be pre-purchasing it as soon as it gets a real release date. I haven't played Magic hardcore in a very long time, but I was very big into it from 1996 - 2001 or so. I also loved the Microprose PC game and played it over and over. I wish I could find a copy of it and play it on Windows 7. Come on GOG! Make it happen!

http://www.slightlymagic.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1446

Haven't tried it, but this should work.

 

[Fragamemnon]

Edit: Beaten. @Frag: Are there any screenshots from the Silverlight version?

Presumably that's a mock-up of the next-gen MTGO interface. Moving it to web-based seems like a total no-brainer when you start messing around with their creaky Win98-era tech in the current client.

 

[AstroLad]

One more thing about MTGO-it's scary bad interface. They are revamping it to be web based with Silverlight at some point but goodness knows when that'll be done.

Exactly. I played MTGO for a while but this is ultimately what drove me away, even more so than the digital-cards thing that most people have a problem with. This is also one way in which Magic XBLA stands out -- it looks absolutely gorgeous.

 

[Minsc]

You can usually get MTGO boosters for around $3-$4 or so from the vendors. That being said, no one buys boosters online unless you're drafting-the digitalized economy and huge amounts of limited versus constructed players on MTGO make buying individual singles from the card seller's bots way better if you are looking to build a casual or tournament deck.

I play MTGO online, and play in the player-run Pauper (commons-only format) events run by pdcmagic.com . They are super cheap to get a deck for ($3-$10 , usually) and offer a diverse metagame, large card pool, and good players to compete against. I'd probably play Legacy online if there were more people playing and some of the cards (namely Force of Will, most everything else is pretty OK in price) weren't ridiculous in price.

One more thing about MTGO-it's scary bad interface. They are revamping it to be web based with Silverlight at some point but goodness knows when that'll be done.

You'd think it'd be a gold mine for them. Strange it's stuck in the cave ages, I remembered hating the interface when I played it years ago, looked it up, and it seems like it is almost exactly the same.

Anyone who thinks they want to look in to it, make sure to read this, and save yourself some money! You can basically play for months on just the $10 registration fee if you want. There's some mode you can play were your opponent's only have access to the same starting cards as you, no super-expensive rares.

 

[Minsc]

[urllink

Haven't tried it, but this should work.

Aren't you essentially linking to a retail copyrighted product being distributed for free?

 

[Fragamemnon]

The thing is, if you're going to play with a limited (read: bad) card pool like that, why not just play DOTP on Steam, which costs the same amount, has a gorgeous interface, and lots of single player content?

The only reason to play MTGO over DOTP is if you want to draft boosters or play constructed Magic with a large cardpool. If price is the overriding issue, just play Pauper, where you can still play with good cards for cheap.

 

[speculawyer]

So I guess this week was a bust for a new Mac game? Quite nderstandable . . . from the update news I keep seeing, it seems they are still nailing down the Source engine running on the Mac. Better to stabilize that than add more products based on the same engine.


Please re-run the SteamPlay Indie pack instead though.

 

[archnemesis]

Thanks Fragamemnon. That looks like a small step in the right direction. Maybe it's time for me to revisit the beta boards.

 

[crimsonheadGCN]

Swords of the Stars: Complete Collections is being added to the store for $29.99

 

[kamspy]

Does SupCom2 have base building?

Not uber complicated base building like SupCom1, just a simple little abode like StarCraft.

 

[wolfmat]

Blindly prepurchased DOTP. Hope it comes to Mac!!

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You can usually get MTGO boosters for around $3-$4 or so from the vendors. That being said, no one buys boosters online unless you're drafting-the digitalized economy and huge amounts of limited versus constructed players on MTGO make buying individual singles from the card seller's bots way better if you are looking to build a casual or tournament deck.

I play MTGO online, and play in the player-run Pauper (commons-only format) events run by pdcmagic.com . They are super cheap to get a deck for ($3-$10 , usually) and offer a diverse metagame, large card pool, and good players to compete against. I'd probably play Legacy online if there were more people playing and some of the cards (namely Force of Will, most everything else is pretty OK in price) weren't ridiculous in price.

One more thing about MTGO-it's scary bad interface. They are revamping it to be web based with Silverlight at some point but goodness knows when that'll be done.

Thanks much!

You'd think it'd be a gold mine for them. Strange it's stuck in the cave ages, I remembered hating the interface when I played it years ago, looked it up, and it seems like it is almost exactly the same.

Anyone who thinks they want to look in to it, make sure to read this, and save yourself some money! You can basically play for months on just the $10 registration fee if you want. There's some mode you can play were your opponent's only have access to the same starting cards as you, no super-expensive rares.

This is awesome, thank you!

Does anyone know how up-to-date Magic Online is in terms of reflecting rule changes for the physical game? Are rule changes implemented pretty much at exactly the same time?

 

[Minsc]

The thing is, if you're going to play with a limited (read: bad) card pool like that, why not just play DOTP on Steam, which costs the same amount, has a gorgeous interface, and lots of single player content?

The only reason to play MTGO over DOTP is if you want to draft boosters or play constructed Magic with a large cardpool. If price is the overriding issue, just play Pauper, where you can still play with good cards for cheap.

Yea, that makes more sense. I thought there'd be enough randomness to keep going for a while from what I read, but that Pauper mode sounds much better.

Shame they can't put the MTGO client in to a similar interface as the Steam one, I haven't played it yet, but it looks beautiful from the screenshots.

 

[out0v0rder]

From arstechnica

Windows 7 has overtaken XP.
Mac OS is at 8%

 

[Minsc]

The steam survey was actually updated for May to include Mac system data (expand the OS field).

Probably where that article got it's data from... but glad to see Windows 7 doing what Vista was never able too!

 

[panda21]

yeah! take that 32bit

 

[speculawyer]

http://static.arstechnica.com/assets/2010/06/steam_windows_0510-thumb-640xauto-14385.png

From arstechnica

Windows 7 has overtaken XP.
Mac OS is at 8%

:lol @ Vista. I only used Vista for a month before I got the free upgrade to Win7.

 

[Mrbob]

The steam survey was actually updated for May to include Mac system data (expand the OS field).

Probably where that article got it's data from... but glad to see Windows 7 doing what Vista was never able too!

Vista definitely got a bad rap. I was one of those who went from Windows XP to Windows 7, skipped Vista.

Of course it helped MS had those awesome pre order discounts last summer. I got my upgrade disc for $49.99 from amazon during the sale.

 

[Wallach]

Vista definitely got a bad rap. I was one of those who went from Windows XP to Windows 7, skipped Vista.

It really did. I went from Vista to 7 and there's hardly any difference except for the axing of UAC (which you could just turn off).

 

[Zzoram]

I'm very happy with my Vista Ultimate x64. It helps that I got it free from Microsoft for submitting a bug. I'll skip 7 and wait for 8.

 

[Rubezh]

I got a question that might seem like it's come out of fucking nowhere. I bought the Rockstar complete pack a while ago but I never got around to playing San Andreas. I've finished GTA 3, Vice City, and more recently GTA IV and the Lost and Damned. My friend is bugging me to go back to San Andreas because he says I missed something special. It's now 2010, should I even bother?

 

[SapientWolf]

:lol @ Vista. I only used Vista for a month before I got the free upgrade to Win7.

Windows 7 and Vista pretty much have the same kernel.

 

[erpg]

Considering how much time you've likely wasted on GTAIV, San Andreas would be holy redemption.

 

[Blizzard]

It really did. I went from Vista to 7 and there's hardly any difference except for the axing of UAC (which you could just turn off).

I just paid way too much money for Windows 7 finally, which probably means Windows 8 will come out in a year and I'll have to upgrade...

I used the Windows 7 beta and RC for a long time before switching back to Vista home premium 64 once it expired, and I definitely like 7 better. I feel like Vista has issues aside from the UAC, and 7 definitely made my hard disk grind less if I recall correctly. I'm talking performance/user interface/etc. stuff, not kernel stuff. And in Vista, I think I sometimes got like 95% of 4GB memory used by running a couple of web browsers, maybe an IM client, and TF2 in a window. WHAT. On Windows 7 the only time I recall ever getting close to 4GB was when I was trying to load and test huge sections of Mirror's Edge in the editor.

But really, the main reason to pay $200 for Windows 7 is the taskbar. It's cool! :lol

Either way, I really wish they had kept the Windows XP file search. I have never found anything in Vista that lets me use that fine granularity of searching, i.e. "search INSIDE all *.txt files in this directory and search for the string 'Crysis'."

 

[Darklord]

Vista definitely got a bad rap. I was one of those who went from Windows XP to Windows 7, skipped Vista.

Vista is actually pretty good and better than XP these days.

 

[Struct09]

I think it's cool to see how popular 64-bit Windows has become. It's about time!

Also, chalk me up as someone who never had any major issues with Vista x64 (Steam games or otherwise).

 

[IceMarker]

Still loving my Vista x64 system!

 

[52club]

The Defense Grid $1 map pack is pretty cool. One of the maps is just a basic square (like your basic tower defense games) which once full of enemies and towers turns into full out war. That one map is was worth $1 in my opinion. The other map is pretty tough, but enjoyable as well.

 

[Zzoram]

The Defense Grid $1 map pack is pretty cool. One of the maps is just a basic square (like your basic tower defense games) which once full of enemies and towers turns into full out war. That one map is was worth $1 in my opinion. The other map is pretty tough, but enjoyable as well.

I'm cheap so I'll wait until they make a bundle of all the map packs for $2 this xmas or something.

 

[Servizio]

I got a question that might seem like it's come out of fucking nowhere. I bought the Rockstar complete pack a while ago but I never got around to playing San Andreas. I've finished GTA 3, Vice City, and more recently GTA IV and the Lost and Damned. My friend is bugging me to go back to San Andreas because he says I missed something special. It's now 2010, should I even bother?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes.

It's kinda regarded as the pinnacle of the series. There's more to do in it than any other GTA game. Actually, compared to all other sandbox style games, I think only Saints Row 2 comes close, but I'm pretty sure the world isn't as big.

 

[erpg]

Wrong video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guDYTNxzd8k

Bahh, speedy edit. ;p

 

[Stallion Free]

I'm cheap so I'll wait until they make a bundle of all the map packs for $2 this xmas or something.

...Gaf reaches new lows in the Steam thread. And I thought the sense of entitlement that people have when expecting sales for games that they want was irritating.

 

[52club]

I'm cheap so I'll wait until they make a bundle of all the map packs for $2 this xmas or something.

Normally this is exactly my attitude, but considering I picked up the full game for $5 which is a crazy good price I looked at this purchase being more of a donation. I also like the fact they are releasing new content for a solid Desktop Tower Defense game.

I do think you are right about this getting cheaper down the road, as all content does. It will probably just get tacked on to the full game at that same $5 I'm guessing.

 

[NIN90]

That's not even a box of cereals.

 

[faceless007]

I got a question that might seem like it's come out of fucking nowhere. I bought the Rockstar complete pack a while ago but I never got around to playing San Andreas. I've finished GTA 3, Vice City, and more recently GTA IV and the Lost and Damned. My friend is bugging me to go back to San Andreas because he says I missed something special. It's now 2010, should I even bother?

I'm gonna go against the grain and say...maybe. I won't straight up say you should pass (I played through 2/3 of the story myself), but well, it's rather dated. The graphics were subpar even in 2004 and they haven't aged well at all. I personally find some of the gameplay mechanics clunky and unpolished and a lot of things about the world to be...distractingly inconsistent. I'm not saying it's a bad game, but I won't say it's a modern masterpiece as it has a fair share of things that just wouldn't hold up in a top-rated AAA game today. Basically, you should expect it to be more GTA. If that's what you want, go for it, but don't expect it to be a genre-redefining experience.

That "It's Been Good" video someone posts below you, highlighting all the awesome things in the game, is kind of misleading; a lot of the things shown are only possible with mods and the video uses post-processing and editing to make the graphics look better than they are (to great effect, it's a great video).

 

[SapientWolf]

...Gaf reaches new lows in the Steam thread. And I thought the sense of entitlement that people have when expecting sales for games that they want was irritating.

It's not entitlement. It's a backlog defense mechanism. If you jumped on every good Steam deal it would kill your wallet, and you'd still sell the corpse for more Steam games.

 

[Stallion Free]

It's not entitlement. It's a backlog defense mechanism. If you jumped on every good Steam deal it would kill your wallet, and you'd still sell the corpse for more Steam games.

I'm not saying you should jump on every sale. I'm saying that Publishers and Valve (especially) don't owe you shit, so I don't know why people act like they are owed sales and take offense to sales that aren't for games they want. It happens all the time in this thread and it's annoying as hell. Of recent it has become focused on lack of ports to Mac, where fans are offended when there is a week with no new games released.

 

[Schmattakopf]

I'm not saying you should jump on every sale. I'm saying that Publishers and Valve (especially) don't owe you shit, so I don't know why people act like they are owed sales and take offense to sales that aren't for games they want. It happens all the time in this thread and it's annoying as hell. Of recent it has become focused on lack of ports to Mac, where fans are offended when there is a week with no new games released.

I don't think anyone takes serious offense to missing sales, even if it sounds like they do, but what you quoted does not even hint at offense or entitlement.

 

[Stallion Free]

I don't think anyone takes serious offense to missing sales, even if it sounds like they do, but what you quoted does not even hint at offense or entitlement.

I was responding to him and I was referencing Gaf in this thread in general as an example?

 

[Twig]

I'm not saying you should jump on every sale. I'm saying that Publishers and Valve (especially) don't owe you shit, so I don't know why people act like they are owed sales and take offense to sales that aren't for games they want. It happens all the time in this thread and it's annoying as hell. Of recent it has become focused on lack of ports to Mac, where fans are offended when there is a week with no new games released.

I completely agree that some of the entitlement issues we see in here are fucking ridiculous.

However, that has nothing to do with the post you quoted. U:

 

[Dipswitch]

I got a question that might seem like it's come out of fucking nowhere. I bought the Rockstar complete pack a while ago but I never got around to playing San Andreas. I've finished GTA 3, Vice City, and more recently GTA IV and the Lost and Damned. My friend is bugging me to go back to San Andreas because he says I missed something special. It's now 2010, should I even bother?

It's a great game. Well worth playing, especially if you already own it.

 

[zombieshavebrains]

It's a great game. Well worth playing, especially if you already own it.

I say bullshit, go play GTA London 1969 if you want something special.

 

[wolfmat]

San Andreas is a bit too easy on PC, but of course, it's fun to dick around in the city and stuff. Story's alright, gets really crazy later on, but that's cool.