http://gamingtrend.com
August 20, 2014, 10:27:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Empire total war - anyone still playing  (Read 1635 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Razgon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8273


The Truth is out there


View Profile
« on: April 30, 2009, 08:53:08 AM »

So, it seems that the game had gone deadsilent around here - anyone still playing?

I love the game, but...I am seriosuly waiting for the update that fixes the 5 minute wait between each turn and the rest of the update fixing the games tactical portion as well...

I wonder if they have all died horribly, since there hasnt been a single update in a month, even though they promised it...
Logged

A new one
Soulchilde
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5141


You and I have unfinished business


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2009, 09:16:01 AM »

I still fire it up from time to time.  Still working on my English short game.  My steam client applied some type of update to E:TW last night
Logged

Quote from: Devil on January 12, 2007, 01:14:38 AM

NiM$
kratz
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4201



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2009, 04:59:28 PM »

I'm playing it... was the thing that makes ships in formation act less retarded part of a patch, or did I get that once I had an admiral ship?  It seems new...

Turns are still long as hell.  But they've never been as long as 5 minutes for me...
Logged
Dan_Theman
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 418


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2009, 06:29:31 PM »

There was an update on Steam just yesterday:

Quote from: Patch Notes
Crash Fixes:

# Fixed crash when disbanding generals unit.
# Fix for crash on trying to merge ships from port into ships next to port.
# Fixed rare crash relating to boarding.
# Fixed crash to do with reinforcing armies.
# Fixed crash on revolution video attempting to play.
# Fixed crash for double clicking on sinking ship on campaign map.
# Fix for crash on merging units but moving into fort before army arrives.
# Fixed several crashes related to rakes.
# Fixed crashes relating to battles when running Czech or German versions of the game.
# Fixed crash on moving army into region of faction player has military access and then cancelling military access.
# Fixed crash on trying to exchange ships between 2 fleets.
# Fixed crash on spamming move orders to puckle guns locked in melee combat.
# Fixed hard lock on inviting host to their own MP game.
# Fix to prevent loading of mod causing crash post patch.
# Various end turn crash bugs fixed.
# Fixes to crash bugs relating to completion of revolutions.
# Some fixes relating to merging and disbanding.
# Fix for several crashes in land battles.
# Several crashes relating to attacking cities fixed.
# Several load save game crashes fixed.

Campaign:

# Armies now placed correctly on battlefields in relation to campaign.
# Fix for nearby ships sometimes not being included as reinforcements for battles.
# Fix for incorrect numbers sometimes showing on trade routes.
# Units with limits on how many can be recruited now show how many are available.
# Various fixes relating to rakes and infiltrating.
# Fixes relating to problems moving armies/merging into army's right next to settlements.
# Various trade bug fixes.
# Fix for moving agent from settlement moving army instead of agent.
# Fix for several bugs relating to military access and armies being in regions.
# Fix for tattered flags appearing on fleet/armies even when at full strength/fully repaired.
# Fix for sallying out armies breaking siege at times even when losing the battle.
# Fix for bugs relating to capturing ships on returning to campaign map from naval battle.

Land Battle:

# Improvements to path finding have been made.
# Some fixes to units not garrisoning buildings.
# Fort gate ownership made clearer with faction flags appearing at the gatehouse.
# Fix for problem relating to artillery unlimbering after being ordered to limber.
# Fix for puckle guns moving on their own in some circumstances.
# Fix for big slowdown in unit movement on some battle maps in the Road to Independence episodes.
# Fix for missile cavalry not reloading when out of combat.
# Jaegers now have muskets instead of incorrect rifles, Prussian Jaegers keep rifles.
# Quebec episodic land battle fixed ground type in deployment area
# Fix for unrealistic numbers when ending a land battle by quitting on the battle results screen.

Naval Battle:

# Several fixes for ships clipping into each other.
# Improvements to boarding have been made. Crew is more fluid in attack and more resolute in defence. Men survive long fall and officers join in the boarding attack.
# Crew uniforms improved to make identification of the crew type and faction easier.
# Defending ship is not allowed to fire cannons anymore during boarding procedure.
# Improved naval grouping UI and group movement made.
# Improvements made to ship collisions to reduce chance of ships getting stuck.
# Fix for sail damage not being shown when volumetric effects turned on.

Multiplayer:

# Various fixes for joining games/game lobby issues.
# Fixes for problems relating to spectators being kicked/locking up on other players joining games in certain instances.
# Long riflemen and winged hussars removed from early era battles.
# Fix for insufficient funds always showing on unit cards even when enough money is available.
# Player name is now displayed on unit tooltips.
# Team chat is now displayed in a different colour.

AI:

# Basic fix for AI being unable to move army by fleet.
# Aggression of factions in campaign improved, as well as tweaks to diplomacy.
# Improvements to campaign AI relating to its waging of wars, recruitment and movement of armies.
# Improvements made to battle AI to make it more reactive, use buildings better as well as squares and rakes.
# Siege battle AI improvements made.
# Improvements to naval AI to make it bunch up less, its use of galleys and long range units such as bomb ketches.

Miscellaneous:

# Delete save game button added to save game list.
# View replays button added to single player Play Battle menu.
# Various sound fixes and improvements.
# Various incorrect text messages fixed.
# Fixes to various graphical glitches with display of walls.
# Fixes made for stuttering videos.
# Fix for several game option settings not being saved correctly, including settings such as floating flags.
# Fix for unit voices/attack confirmation being heard for all units in an alliance instead of just for the player's army.
# Armour and shield values are now added into melee defence value shown on unit cards.
# Lots of other small and minor bug fixes.

Balancing:

# Land unit recruitment cost in campaign has been increased, with higher cost on higher difficulty level.
# Ship recruitment and upkeep costs have been increased in campaign.
# Various balancing and cost adjustments to improve multiplayer land battle balance.
# Ship costing improvements made for both campaign and multiplayer.
# Economic tweaks have been made to campaign to reduce amount of money made in later part of campaign.

Extra Note:

# We are aware of an issue with community created maps that results in a crash when someone without the map tries to join the game. This crash will be fixed in the next patch.
# Further work is being done on improving AI Naval invasion behaviour and this will be included in the next upgrade patch.
# Please also note that this update is save game compatible but you should start a new game to see all of the benefits.
   And yes, now I'm playing again  icon_wink
Logged
Razgon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8273


The Truth is out there


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 30, 2009, 06:40:35 PM »

But no fix on the huuuuge waittimes between turns...still out
Logged

A new one
Lockdown
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5587


LD


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 30, 2009, 07:11:45 PM »

I've been waiting for the patch.

I'll jump in again shortly now that it appears to be here. 
Logged

LD

"Let your enemies fear, for a harlequin of the Laughing God dances at your side."
Dan_Theman
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 418


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 30, 2009, 08:43:37 PM »

Quote from: Razgon on April 30, 2009, 06:40:35 PM

But no fix on the huuuuge waittimes between turns...still out
I'm not sure I've seen that particular syntax in the bug reports  icon_lol

You may want to give it a try, as it could very possibly be related to one of the (extraordinarily many) other bugs in the game and could therefore be fixed.  I'm not an EA or CA fanboy so no sweat off my back if you don't, but I hate seeing gamers miss out on a good thing.
Logged
Razgon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8273


The Truth is out there


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2009, 08:47:21 PM »

Quote from: Dan_Theman on April 30, 2009, 08:43:37 PM

Quote from: Razgon on April 30, 2009, 06:40:35 PM

But no fix on the huuuuge waittimes between turns...still out
I'm not sure I've seen that particular syntax in the bug reports  icon_lol

You may want to give it a try, as it could very possibly be related to one of the (extraordinarily many) other bugs in the game and could therefore be fixed.  I'm not an EA or CA fanboy so no sweat off my back if you don't, but I hate seeing gamers miss out on a good thing.

oh, never thought about that- thanks! Oh,and I'm a professionel tester...ahem ;-)

I'll fire it up!!
Logged

A new one
Harkonis
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9704



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2009, 03:13:35 AM »

I have this but haven't played it much yet.  Is multiplayer just the battles or do you do the world map as well?
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9204


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2009, 03:03:51 PM »

Just the battles still, I believe.  That's been the norm for the total war series since the beginning. 
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
Harkonis
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9704



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2009, 03:35:34 PM »

I'd love to be able to play the strategy portion MP. The battles aren't nearly as fun for me as the overall world control.
Logged
Jancelot
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1348



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2009, 06:51:38 PM »

Ugh, I picked this one up but never started playing.  Stupid lack of time.   icon_cry
Logged
ANZAC
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 299



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2009, 03:25:56 PM »

Seen so much negativity on this title and it seems that it is mostly well founded. Hell, even Hitler didn't like it.

That being said, I really liked the previous titles and was pretty annoyed when they screwed this one up so badly.

So, at this point being patched,is it worth buying at full price or are we still in a wait and see mode?
Logged

Byte me
Sarkus
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2593


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2009, 07:54:50 PM »

Quote from: ANZAC on May 02, 2009, 03:25:56 PM

Seen so much negativity on this title and it seems that it is mostly well founded. Hell, even Hitler didn't like it.

That being said, I really liked the previous titles and was pretty annoyed when they screwed this one up so badly.

So, at this point being patched,is it worth buying at full price or are we still in a wait and see mode?

There are a lot of factors behind the negativity, not all of which were fair.  That said, the patches have probably now brought the game up to where it should have been at launch, IMHO, outside of a few remaining technical issues that only affect some users.  Of course it also depends on what you expect, particularly of the AI.  It's going to be some time before the AI is as good as it should be for a game like this, but that is hardly new for games in this series. 

While the fix for the lack of AI naval invasions has gotten a lot of attention, the biggest change in this latest patch was in the economic model. 
Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.
Syndey: That's alright.  I have both.

- American Dad
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2009, 05:23:41 PM »

Quote from: ANZAC on May 02, 2009, 03:25:56 PM

Seen so much negativity on this title and it seems that it is mostly well founded. Hell, even Hitler didn't like it.

That being said, I really liked the previous titles and was pretty annoyed when they screwed this one up so badly.

So, at this point being patched,is it worth buying at full price or are we still in a wait and see mode?

I certainly wouldn't buy it at full price.  I haven't played it post-patch, but some of the earlier errors were inexcusable.  The AI was pretty broken in both the battles and the graphical map, the tactical choices were extremely limited, the naval battles weren't much fun IMO and the game performance was horrendous.

Now much of that probably has changed.  But remember because it's Steam activated, you really can't trade it.  So if you buy it at full price and you don't like with it, you're shit out of luck.  Also, I don't know if they changed the stupid victory conditions, which is something that's held me back from starting a new game.  Because you're tasked with taking far-flung areas, you're really limited in your tactical choices.  For example, you can't play a game as the Brits and keep the Ottoman Empire as your friends because you have to eventually attack them since one of their provinces is a victory condition of yours.  For me, it's a horrible design decision that ruins the game.  It's like starting a game of Civ and being told you HAVE to attack the Romans to win, even though it's the Mongols and Aztecs that you really want to go after. 

So if you're interested, I'd recommend waiting for another 2-3 months and buying it for $30 (or less).  That way, if you don't get the enjoyment out of Empire, you don't feel cheated.  I think that buying Empire at $50 was a poor choice and that will impact future purchasing decisions from Creative.  I don't think I'd feel that way if I spent $30.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
StriderGG
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 446


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2009, 08:54:10 PM »

Quote from: ANZAC on May 02, 2009, 03:25:56 PM

Seen so much negativity on this title and it seems that it is mostly well founded. Hell, even Hitler didn't like it.

That being said, I really liked the previous titles and was pretty annoyed when they screwed this one up so badly.

So, at this point being patched,is it worth buying at full price or are we still in a wait and see mode?

I just wanted to point out that Blackadar didn't (and couldn't) answer the question, since he hasn't played the game after patch. smile Neither have I btw.

I do agree with him though. Creative simply does not deserve full price. The game might be playable and enjoyable now (actually IMO it was pretty enjoyable even when it was released), but the release was so buggy and sloppy, I just wouldn't encourage them by paying a full price.
Logged
Razgon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8273


The Truth is out there


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2009, 09:00:14 PM »

I agree completely with Blackadar and StriderGG - and I've played the game post the latest patch...didnt solve my major pet peeve, which is that turns take forever in the grand campaign...And, I fear its a design decision that cant be patched out
Logged

A new one
Sarkus
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2593


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2009, 09:18:30 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on May 04, 2009, 05:23:41 PM

Also, I don't know if they changed the stupid victory conditions, which is something that's held me back from starting a new game.  Because you're tasked with taking far-flung areas, you're really limited in your tactical choices.  For example, you can't play a game as the Brits and keep the Ottoman Empire as your friends because you have to eventually attack them since one of their provinces is a victory condition of yours.  For me, it's a horrible design decision that ruins the game.  It's like starting a game of Civ and being told you HAVE to attack the Romans to win, even though it's the Mongols and Aztecs that you really want to go after. 

It sounds like you don't have much experience with the series, because those kind of victory conditions have been true in the previous games as well.  I don't disagree that it is a rather unfortunate choice on their part, but Empire has bigger issues then that particular carry-over design decision.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.
Syndey: That's alright.  I have both.

- American Dad
Razgon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8273


The Truth is out there


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 04, 2009, 09:45:53 PM »

Quote from: Sarkus on May 04, 2009, 09:18:30 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on May 04, 2009, 05:23:41 PM

Also, I don't know if they changed the stupid victory conditions, which is something that's held me back from starting a new game.  Because you're tasked with taking far-flung areas, you're really limited in your tactical choices.  For example, you can't play a game as the Brits and keep the Ottoman Empire as your friends because you have to eventually attack them since one of their provinces is a victory condition of yours.  For me, it's a horrible design decision that ruins the game.  It's like starting a game of Civ and being told you HAVE to attack the Romans to win, even though it's the Mongols and Aztecs that you really want to go after. 

It sounds like you don't have much experience with the series, because those kind of victory conditions have been true in the previous games as well.  I don't disagree that it is a rather unfortunate choice on their part, but Empire has bigger issues then that particular carry-over design decision.


but the time limit has never been imposed like this before. Not only do you have to take a certain objective BEFORE some year, but now you have to wait until that exact year to win....
Logged

A new one
Sarkus
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2593


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 04, 2009, 10:07:55 PM »

Quote from: Razgon on May 04, 2009, 09:45:53 PM

Quote from: Sarkus on May 04, 2009, 09:18:30 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on May 04, 2009, 05:23:41 PM

Also, I don't know if they changed the stupid victory conditions, which is something that's held me back from starting a new game.  Because you're tasked with taking far-flung areas, you're really limited in your tactical choices.  For example, you can't play a game as the Brits and keep the Ottoman Empire as your friends because you have to eventually attack them since one of their provinces is a victory condition of yours.  For me, it's a horrible design decision that ruins the game.  It's like starting a game of Civ and being told you HAVE to attack the Romans to win, even though it's the Mongols and Aztecs that you really want to go after. 

It sounds like you don't have much experience with the series, because those kind of victory conditions have been true in the previous games as well.  I don't disagree that it is a rather unfortunate choice on their part, but Empire has bigger issues then that particular carry-over design decision.


but the time limit has never been imposed like this before. Not only do you have to take a certain objective BEFORE some year, but now you have to wait until that exact year to win....

That's true, and annoying, but it wasn't what Blackadar was complaining about.   icon_wink
Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.
Syndey: That's alright.  I have both.

- American Dad
Daehawk
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11755



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 04, 2009, 10:08:15 PM »

Dont own it yet. Planning to pick it up once it hits a low price point.
Logged

---------------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.

Check my trader rating. Im 22+ and zero negs. Trade with me! smile
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: May 04, 2009, 10:18:34 PM »

Quote from: Sarkus on May 04, 2009, 09:18:30 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on May 04, 2009, 05:23:41 PM

Also, I don't know if they changed the stupid victory conditions, which is something that's held me back from starting a new game.  Because you're tasked with taking far-flung areas, you're really limited in your tactical choices.  For example, you can't play a game as the Brits and keep the Ottoman Empire as your friends because you have to eventually attack them since one of their provinces is a victory condition of yours.  For me, it's a horrible design decision that ruins the game.  It's like starting a game of Civ and being told you HAVE to attack the Romans to win, even though it's the Mongols and Aztecs that you really want to go after. 

It sounds like you don't have much experience with the series, because those kind of victory conditions have been true in the previous games as well.  I don't disagree that it is a rather unfortunate choice on their part, but Empire has bigger issues then that particular carry-over design decision.



No, I have a fair amount of experience - Shogun, Medieval and Rome (my favorite of the bunch) - and I know the style of victory conditions in the series.  I just never remember them being this...arbitrary.  In Rome, I understand that if I'm one of the houses, I might need to take out the other two.  It makes perfect sense.  If I'm invading the Romans, I might actually need to take something important like Rome.  But why do the Brits need Egypt, New France AND Florida?  Why do the French need Hindustan and the Leeward Islands to win?  Why do the Ottomans need Poland?  Some of the victory conditions seem so far-flung and patently absurd.  In many ways, it also dictates the entire diplomatic course of the game.  I can't start a game with Britain and keep the Turks as my allies.  When you create a strategy game, it's not good to arbitrarily limit the strategy the players can employ.  It's never been a problem in the other games in this series, but it stuck out like a sore thumb to me in this one.

Oh yea, I forgot about the waiting 20 years until you can actually win thing.  When I conquer the entire world and have to hit "end turn" 40 times (and wait for a minute each time), I'm going to get more than a little annoyed.  
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Sarkus
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2593


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 05, 2009, 04:09:25 AM »

Quote from: Blackadar on May 04, 2009, 10:18:34 PM

No, I have a fair amount of experience - Shogun, Medieval and Rome (my favorite of the bunch) - and I know the style of victory conditions in the series.  I just never remember them being this...arbitrary.  In Rome, I understand that if I'm one of the houses, I might need to take out the other two.  It makes perfect sense.  If I'm invading the Romans, I might actually need to take something important like Rome.  But why do the Brits need Egypt, New France AND Florida?  Why do the French need Hindustan and the Leeward Islands to win?  Why do the Ottomans need Poland?  Some of the victory conditions seem so far-flung and patently absurd.  In many ways, it also dictates the entire diplomatic course of the game.  I can't start a game with Britain and keep the Turks as my allies.  When you create a strategy game, it's not good to arbitrarily limit the strategy the players can employ.  It's never been a problem in the other games in this series, but it stuck out like a sore thumb to me in this one.

We can argue about how "arbitrary" they are this time compared to the previous games, but they've always had requirements that went beyond the historical reality of the situation.  Being required to capture Rome in RTW isn't necessarily logical unless you are playing one of the Roman factions.  M2TW has similar requirements forcing you to eliminate factions to "win."  Britain never eliminated France, but you have to do that to win in M2TW, for example.

Logged

Roger: And you should know, I have no genitals.
Syndey: That's alright.  I have both.

- American Dad
tcweidner
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 316



View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 07, 2009, 02:39:19 PM »

Quote
Britain never eliminated France, but you have to do that to win in M2TW, for example.

umm well Britian never really "won" in reality either.
Logged

Project Reindeer Games- Exclusive Family Friendly PC Games to Give, Play, and Share for Free.
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 07, 2009, 03:31:15 PM »

Quote from: Sarkus on May 05, 2009, 04:09:25 AM

We can argue about how "arbitrary" they are this time compared to the previous games, but they've always had requirements that went beyond the historical reality of the situation.  Being required to capture Rome in RTW isn't necessarily logical unless you are playing one of the Roman factions.  M2TW has similar requirements forcing you to eliminate factions to "win."  Britain never eliminated France, but you have to do that to win in M2TW, for example.

I already said I realize the victory conditions were in a similar style to previous games.  I just think that they did a poor job of creating them.

1.  The victory conditions are more far-flung and rather isolated versus previous games, making them feel arbitrary by geographical location.  For example, having to take Egypt (but nothing else remotely close to it) as the Brits makes little tactical sense in the grand scheme of things.
2.  Because they are far flung, they also seem to impact more AI countries than ever before.  This impacts/limits your diplomatic options more than in previous games - and diplomacy is probably more important in Empire than in any other game in this series.  With some conditions, you're forced to make enemies of countries that might be considered natural allies.  I never noticed any of the other games in the series doing this, but I really feel that I'm handcuffed in Empire.

In many ways, they would have been better off using an "or" condition rather than an "and" condition when creating these victory conditions.  For example, the Brits have to take Egypt (and 2-3 territories around it) -or- some of the areas in India.  And this would open up more long-term diplomatic strategies in Empire. 

You might think these things are fine, or that there are other more important problems in Empire.  But for me, the victory conditions are one of the main reasons I haven't restarted a campaign.  Frankly, I'm hoping a mod comes out that lets me play as the most interesting faction in the game - one of the North American native tribes.  Playing as the Cherokee would kick some serious ass.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 03:32:55 PM by Blackadar » Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
ANZAC
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 299



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2009, 04:24:20 PM »

Think I will probably skip it. Paying full price for a game and having limitations placed on it by a third party really bugs me.

A title like this should not have been released in the deplorable condition it was.

Play time is always limited and I play for fun not frustration.



Logged

Byte me
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2009, 04:44:52 PM »

Quote from: ANZAC on May 07, 2009, 04:24:20 PM

Think I will probably skip it. Paying full price for a game and having limitations placed on it by a third party really bugs me.

A title like this should not have been released in the deplorable condition it was.

Play time is always limited and I play for fun not frustration.





It's not a deplorable game - it still has its moments.  I'd just suggest waiting for that $30 price point.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Chaz
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5212



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2009, 12:37:05 AM »

Quote from: Blackadar on May 07, 2009, 04:44:52 PM

It's not a deplorable game - it still has its moments.  I'd just suggest waiting for that $30 price point.

Apparently, that would mean waiting until Sunday.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.309 seconds with 79 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.07s, 2q)