Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
!VOTE YES EDIT: I THINK
They've made some good games over the years. If you guys hate the stuff, then just don't buy it, or download it.
I'm starting to like them a bit more now, but it's hard to forgive them for fucking up Westwood and for still not making a sequel to System Shock 2, or selling the franchise to someone who is competent enough to do it right.
Hopefully they have a huge success with Tiberium, they have done their best not to fuck up with C&C 3. I liked BF2, and a about every madden game they have made has been good. So I can't say I hate them.
I don't not like them. I enjoy EA games. I just disagree with some of their decisions... but name me one game company that you know that does exactly what the fans want.
EA...worst piles of crap the world has ever seen. Not to mention that they will be the monopoly and every high profile game will be made by EA or an affiliate. STOP selling your companies to them and sell to VALVe or Activision. It literally like you people can't see what is going to happen or the poor quality in which they make games.
Well they're definitely at least trying to please their fans, so they get a gold star for that. But is it successful would be a good question. I thought C&C 3 was pretty fun, it was a pretty good installment to the C&C saga gameplay-wise. Story had its obvious plot holes and mess-ups though. I personally think C&C would be better off with Westwood still around. We would've gotten Renegade 2, Continuum, and C&C 3 years ago - possibly another few C&C games if they made it till 2008. I also don't like how EA dropped some of Westwood's other hit titles like the Dune series and Nox. Emperor and Nox were some of Westwood's best games. But as a whole, I don't think EA is that bad - as I said at the beginning of this post, they definitely are trying their best to please the community.
I will continue to sell and download as many pirated copies of EA games as I possible can to ensure losses in profits. But other than that I love them
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Tue, 15 April 2008 23:41]Well they're definitely at least trying to please their fans, so they get a gold star for that. That's what they say but they only do what their wallet pleases. They never ask anybody shit anything. If they did, SAGE would of been retired long ago.
trooprm02 wrote on Tue, 15 April 2008 22:56 I will continue to sell and download as many pirated copies of EA games as I possible can to ensure losses in profits. But other than that I love them Hopefully EA will have you arrested so we won't have to read your stupid posts anymore.
Why do people go around saying they hate EA, and still download their games? If you guys hate the company so much, don't give them your money, and don't even illegally download their shit. If they see their games get no audience whatsoever, then they might actually develop something worth playing. I'm sure half the idiots who say they absolutely hate Electronic Arts will be torrenting 'The Sims 3' the day after it's released.
nikki6ixx I've been saying that also stop buying their games and maybe they will come out with something that will please us. Quote: Well they're definitely at least trying to please their fans, so they get a gold star for that. They are not trying to please the fans whatsoever if they did they would not keep a game secret up to the point where it was almost done and they were not going to change anything, lately EA has been doing that a lot they keep a game secret allowing no fan feedback and then just say pretty much when they announce it "If you don't like it too bad we're not changing anything!". Final Statement EA SUCKS!
They did a good job with the C&C campaign, in my opinion, including Havoc, the Dead-6, CABAL etc. However, in all their games I've played the multiplayer has been at least a bit annoying at some point. I stopped playing C&C3 multi because it was unbalanced, and apparently they've only recently patched that up completely, and I stopped playing BF2142 multi because a) I installed the beta 1.4 patch, then had problems getting back to 1.2 or whatever it was, and then b) when I installed the proper 1.4, it corrupted my game. And I do think they care a lot more about money than quality. You just need to look at Renegade and what it could have been to see that.
They may be a bit annoying with some of their decisions, but they have still been responsible for a lot of good games.
Oblivion165 wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 04:20 EA...worst piles of crap the world has ever seen. Not to mention that they will be the monopoly and every high profile game will be made by EA or an affiliate. STOP selling your companies to them and sell to VALVe or Activision. It literally like you people can't see what is going to happen or the poor quality in which they make games. I'm with this guy. VALVe software care for their fans, So look them up and see what they say.
Nune wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 10:28 They may be a bit annoying with some of their decisions, but they have still been responsible for a lot of good games. Yeah, that's basically my opinion about EA as well. Not all EA games suck, just their decisions. Stuff like dropping support shortly after it's release, releasing the other half of the game in an expansion pack, dropping support for that as well, then releasing the same game with some changes/additions and adding '2' after it's name, then making an expansion pack for that. THAT is basically why EA 'sucks', but if you look at the 'complete' game, it's really not a bad game at all. They are just trying to make maximum profit out of games by selling it in pieces, but the people still like the 'complete' game, whether they hate EA or not. But, as a true Renegade player, the most important reason as to why I don't like EA is what they've done to Westwood, end of story.
IronWarrior wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 11:40 Good games, crap support.
well, I think EA never gives a game enough time to develop the style of most EA game I like to much, like Renegade ore Generals
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 01:42 They are not trying to please the fans whatsoever if they did they would not keep a game secret up to the point where it was almost done and they were not going to change anything, lately EA has been doing that a lot they keep a game secret allowing no fan feedback and then just say pretty much when they announce it "If you don't like it too bad we're not changing anything!". Final Statement EA SUCKS! Dead on, one or two screenshots get leaked and then BAM, game is out. No input, no changes. WTF is with this "Tiberium" game and the control point gameplay...It's Command and Conquer people...keep that gas ass crap in Warhammer. Company of Heroes is the only game I've ever enjoyed that had the control point system and any FPS based around that will be terr-orible.
I remember the good old times throughout the 90's when so many awesome games were made by several hundred game studios. Now the industry has smudged together with many game studios bought out, sold, or going bankrupt to be replaced by a couple powerhouses. This was going to happen anyway in a Capitalist environment over time. EDIT: *@$%&#$ typo.
The answer is "yes I did," but not anymore. Their games used to be products of respectable quality, but over the years they've become increasingly lax in quality control and also have been pushing more and more "same old, same old" games targeted at competitive gamers exclusively (as opposed to, you know, those of us who play games for recreation instead of sport). I do not like the way EA operates and I do not like the direction they've been heading with their games.
Most people who say they don't like EA don't have any particular reason as to why they dislike them. And when they say they do, it is a completely crap bias answer that they made up on the spot. ...keep in mind I said most people, not all people.
I dislike EA because it seems they make stupid last minute decisions. EX: Killing Westwood because Renegade wasn't selling right off the bat as much as they wanted. Also their developers also make stupid last minute decisions. EX: In CnC3 they removed the walls, the way you build buildings is to quick, one engineer to capture a building (which in the original games I kind of liked but without walls and the retarded building method an engineer captures just one of your buildings and 10 seconds later GDI has 50 of their sonic turrets deployed in your base, and your construction yard is dead). Also the base defenses are under armored and relatively weak, virtually building them is just a waist of money. All in all EA = bad.
I would rather have the solid, bright, sharp, almost-cartoony graphics of RA2/YR rather than 3D eye candy crap. Yesterday, I was playing the first Nod mission in C&C3. I quit in disgust after blowing up the 2nd pair of GDI power plants. Total game time: like 2 minutes. I also uninstalled the game. I doubt I would ever play the game again. Then I went online and played Renegade for a couple hours.
1. EA games if far behind the standard of excellence. They use the SAGE engine for anything they possibly can and this is worsened by the fact that it wasn't that good of an engine to begin with, let alone be using in 2002+ They have no desire to update or keep with the times, they add a new lighting module and truck on. Games like Bioshock, HL2: Ep2 and Call of Duty 4 are all using the latest and greatest, while EA is using a engine coded in the 90's and is soon to be a decade old. 2. Reluctance to add any decent gaming standards. Play some Company of Heroes and then play C&C3, you will think that C&C3 is just a mod of some really dusty RTS to have better graphics. There are 2 buttons and not much you can do with them, features like tank facing and queued commands should be a standard in any RTS but EA feels that the genre should remain in the past. With the lack of needing any strategy in any EA RTS, the game is very hollow. You build a crap load of harvesters, pick you out a spot for your mass o' war factories and blindly send any unit until the opposing team is dead. No need to worry about classes really, anything will do as long as its not AA only. 3. Test your games before you release them. Seriously, what's C&C3 up to now? (9?) patches? The game was better before you patched the crap out of it, the whole construction mechanics have been re-vamped. Before you start changing a major game play mechanic you might want to stop and think how people would feel about this. 4. Get better plots and stories. Kane blows, Tiberium blows and Scrin blows. Tiberian Sun was the worst game to ever hit C&C and you just rolled with it. I thought nothing could get the series more off-track than Red Alert 2 but by god Westwood, you ruined it all. The only good thing about a company buying out a legacy chain would be to take it back to the golden days and un-do what the original company did but neh, EA continued on with the failure. What do you think RA3 will be like? Good? Well it wont, it will be just like C&C3 and that gayfer future crap. RA is about WW2 but I bet EA will go with a WW3 aspect to make sure they make it all tiberium and futuristic. I have no problem with the Sci-Fi, Tesla Coils, Chrono Tanks etc etc is what made RA:R the best damn C&C to ever hit the shelves. 5. Monopoly. EA at this rate will be the #1 game developer on the market despite their (1-4). They buy all the companies they can and soon they will have no competition at all, the only games we will get are the EA trash they decided to make in under a year. Graphics you ask? Well it will be the SAGE or now the SAGE+ engine called RNA that is just...uhg. Let it die, license the Company of Heroes engine and spend more than 12 months making a game (or mod I should say in their case, they don't actually make games). 6. As long as they buy it, who cares what they want. All of you are enablers, its all crap and you people just keep buying it. I pirate everything they put out and it's not even worth my internet bill for this junk. They don't care about the fans, they make what they want and to hell with everything else. Look up C&C Tiberium, any real info or means to voice your opinion? I personally despise the idea of a control point C&C and I'm sure that the majority of people don't want C&C to turn into Warhammer. They will make this game, release a screenshot or two and ship it out. They don't even give a crap about the players at all and you people let them do it. 7. What can be done? My avatar, EA Headquarters (All of them) and a date/time. Lets make it happen people.
Oblivion165 wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 12:58 What can be done? My avatar, EA Headquarters (All of them) and a date/time. Lets make it happen people. Or... we can, you know... just not play their games...
nikki6ixx wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 20:05 Oblivion165 wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 12:58 What can be done? My avatar, EA Headquarters (All of them) and a date/time. Lets make it happen people. Or... we can, you know... just not play their games... Heh, appeasement does not work this time. A non-violent protest is necessary.
[LAW Starbuzz wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 13:24] nikki6ixx wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 20:05 Oblivion165 wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 12:58 What can be done? My avatar, EA Headquarters (All of them) and a date/time. Lets make it happen people. Or... we can, you know... just not play their games... Heh, appeasement does not work this time. A non-violent protest is necessary. I dunno guys... EA is making games a lot of people want to play. Sure it's likely generic BF/COD/Crysis garbage with fancy graphics, but if that's what the market demands, that's what the market will get.
I can't say that I have hatred for EA when they decided to come out with this lovely game.
cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 13:51 I can't say that I have hatred for EA when they decided to come out with this lovely game. EA can't buy Valve so they gonna try to kill it this way! LMFAO
Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 12:16 EX: In CnC3 they removed the walls, the way you build buildings is to quick, one engineer to capture a building (which in the original games I kind of liked but without walls and the retarded building method an engineer captures just one of your buildings and 10 seconds later GDI has 50 of their sonic turrets deployed in your base, and your construction yard is dead). Also the base defenses are under armored and relatively weak, virtually building them is just a waist of money. All in all EA = bad. I miss the walls also
cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 14:51 I can't say that I have hatred for EA when they decided to come out with this lovely game. Heh. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I think that's a great idea... lets hope it sticks around, unlike the ad-supported Far-Cry games where selfish retards bypassed the ad-system and ruined it for the rest of us.
I would LOVE EA, if only they included an AOW mode in either Tiberium, future update or even an expansion. I'd buy 3-5 copies of it. And im sure atleast at that point all of us would, thats 10-15,000+ sales just for adding a game mode. thats why I think theres a slight chance they will do it.
trooprm02 wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 16:14 I would LOVE EA, if only they included an AOW mode in either Tiberium, future update or even an expansion. I'd buy 3-5 copies of it. And im sure atleast at that point all of us would, thats 10-15,000+ sales just for adding a game mode. thats why I think theres a slight chance they will do it. Yeah if they did a C&C mode like Renegade's (with PTs, MCTs, buildings, defenses, credits, etc.) then I think they'd win the hand of the Renegade community. It'd be a big success - and the game would be sure to last a long time through this community. Though, Apoc said that this was never meant to be a sequel of Renegade, or even in the C&C series, but rather its own series. I just hope it's not too late for EALA could throw in a C&C mode. But from reading the interviews and such, it seems like the EALA team really doesn't like C&C mode. It would've been nice if they told us about Tiberium a year or two ago (it's been in development for over 2 years), because then we'd be able to give in some input and opinion as a community. Instead of going "sorry, it's too late now!" "This is marketed towards consoles, will be nothing like renegade. You can all quote me on that." - Titan1x77, December 13th 2007
It's not just Tiberium as I stated in a post on the first page, it's all the new C&Cish games that are coming out Tiberium, RA3, and who knows what game they are working on now and not telling us knowing EA I would assume it's another Generals in otherwords another instant fail like RA3.
random question i'll throw out there, is it better to have no cnc games coming out at all? it's cool that they're continuing where westwood sort of left off, but their reason for it is solely money, what else would it be my question is can they meet their ecnonomic needs while still making a game that we will want to play and find fun? can they produce a halfway decent game? i try to be optimistic but to me it seems like they're using cnc as a prostitute in an attempt to make money they put titans in kane's wrath, at least that made me happy
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 17:58 It's not just Tiberium as I stated in a post on the first page, it's all the new C&Cish games that are coming out Tiberium, RA3, and who knows what game they are working on now and not telling us knowing EA I would assume it's another Generals in otherwords another instant fail like RA3. TBH, Generals was a very smart EA decision marketing/business-wise. People just hate it for the wrong reasons. If you looked into the RTS market at the dawn of the new century, you will see there were very few RTS games that were based on modern units in a "modern warfare" theme with units all taken from current military arsenals. Actually, there were many but only a few were successful. Generals was one of those solid, sharp, RTS games touting good units with a modern theme. It was just what the common RTS market needed. For better or for worse, I think it should be accepted that C&C is a brand...not a story of it's own (not anymore). And that's Westwood's fault anyway.
[LAW Starbuzz wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 23:27] Generals was one of those solid, sharp, RTS games touting good units with a modern theme. It was just what the common RTS market needed. I could not agree there at all, I thought it was done poorly and unrealistic.
Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 12:16 I dislike EA because it seems they make stupid last minute decisions. EX: Killing Westwood because Renegade wasn't selling right off the bat as much as they wanted. I might be wrong with this but didn't Westwood die BEFORE Renegade was released? Meaning EA canceled (or took over) development and sales had nothing to do with it.. Jerad Gray wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 12:16 Also their developers also make stupid last minute decisions. EX: In CnC3 they removed the walls, the way you build buildings is to quick, one engineer to capture a building (which in the original games I kind of liked but without walls and the retarded building method an engineer captures just one of your buildings and 10 seconds later GDI has 50 of their sonic turrets deployed in your base, and your construction yard is dead). Also the base defenses are under armored and relatively weak, virtually building them is just a waist of money. Well actually it wasn't a last minute decision and I support it 100%. It is a reasonable excuse too. The building system in TW is a free-build system meaning you can build anywhere there is flat accessible terrain. This causes a problem with structures that aren't structures (i.e. Walls). The AI pathfinding gets screwed up and messes up the game. They did have walls in the game up until the final stages but the pathfinding just wouldn't work right. You can see how it screws up in all the wall mods that are out there. I would rather have a game that works rather than looks pretty. However in Red Alert 3, they are going back to the grid system they had in the past games, except now it is in 3d. The grid system helps pathfinding a lot and allows walls to be in. APOC recently said that walls will be in. But as for TW, I know I really wanted walls to be in it, but I support them not putting them in because I know they don't work. And lengthening development just to fix some walls bugs seems kind of dumb to me. At least they left the code in the game for modders.. And also at the quote that was quoted in the above post: Generals sucked all forms of failure. As a C&C and as an RTS in general.
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 22:51 [LAW Starbuzz wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 23:27] Generals was one of those solid, sharp, RTS games touting good units with a modern theme. It was just what the common RTS market needed. I could not agree there at all, I thought it was done poorly and unrealistic. I was not being that specific with the gameplay (there are flaws). Overall, it was a solid package. Compared to the other modern RTS games that came out, Generals was way better. It is safe to say that Generals was the best modern RTS back in 2003 thru 2005. Of course, now World in Conflict is the best modern RTS game around.
Oblivion165 wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 12:58 1. EA games if far behind the standard of excellence. They use the SAGE engine for anything they possibly can and this is worsened by the fact that it wasn't that good of an engine to begin with, let alone be using in 2002+ They have no desire to update or keep with the times, they add a new lighting module and truck on. Games like Bioshock, HL2: Ep2 and Call of Duty 4 are all using the latest and greatest, while EA is using a engine coded in the 90's and is soon to be a decade old. 2. Reluctance to add any decent gaming standards. Play some Company of Heroes and then play C&C3, you will think that C&C3 is just a mod of some really dusty RTS to have better graphics. There are 2 buttons and not much you can do with them, features like tank facing and queued commands should be a standard in any RTS but EA feels that the genre should remain in the past. With the lack of needing any strategy in any EA RTS, the game is very hollow. You build a crap load of harvesters, pick you out a spot for your mass o' war factories and blindly send any unit until the opposing team is dead. No need to worry about classes really, anything will do as long as its not AA only. 3. Test your games before you release them. Seriously, what's C&C3 up to now? (9?) patches? The game was better before you patched the crap out of it, the whole construction mechanics have been re-vamped. Before you start changing a major game play mechanic you might want to stop and think how people would feel about this. 4. Get better plots and stories. Kane blows, Tiberium blows and Scrin blows. Tiberian Sun was the worst game to ever hit C&C and you just rolled with it. I thought nothing could get the series more off-track than Red Alert 2 but by god Westwood, you ruined it all. The only good thing about a company buying out a legacy chain would be to take it back to the golden days and un-do what the original company did but neh, EA continued on with the failure. What do you think RA3 will be like? Good? Well it wont, it will be just like C&C3 and that gayfer future crap. RA is about WW2 but I bet EA will go with a WW3 aspect to make sure they make it all tiberium and futuristic. I have no problem with the Sci-Fi, Tesla Coils, Chrono Tanks etc etc is what made RA:R the best damn C&C to ever hit the shelves. 5. Monopoly. EA at this rate will be the #1 game developer on the market despite their (1-4). They buy all the companies they can and soon they will have no competition at all, the only games we will get are the EA trash they decided to make in under a year. Graphics you ask? Well it will be the SAGE or now the SAGE+ engine called RNA that is just...uhg. Let it die, license the Company of Heroes engine and spend more than 12 months making a game (or mod I should say in their case, they don't actually make games). 6. As long as they buy it, who cares what they want. All of you are enablers, its all crap and you people just keep buying it. I pirate everything they put out and it's not even worth my internet bill for this junk. They don't care about the fans, they make what they want and to hell with everything else. Look up C&C Tiberium, any real info or means to voice your opinion? I personally despise the idea of a control point C&C and I'm sure that the majority of people don't want C&C to turn into Warhammer. They will make this game, release a screenshot or two and ship it out. They don't even give a crap about the players at all and you people let them do it. 7. What can be done? My avatar, EA Headquarters (All of them) and a date/time. Lets make it happen people. you can refute your entire rant by quoting one of your own phrases: Oblivion165 wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 12:58 I pirate everything they put out kinda like some scrub on welfare complaining about the government
Correction* I am now pirating everything they put out after I bought C&C3. And it depends on what the "scrub" is complaining about.
Quote: I might be wrong with this but didn't Westwood die BEFORE Renegade was released? Meaning EA canceled (or took over) development and sales had nothing to do with it.. Actually, Westwood was still around after Renegade. They released patches and such, which added the maps and flying units. Westwood wasn't disbanded until after they presented C&C Renegade 2 to EA (and had done considerable work on C&C3: Tiberian Twilight and C&C Continuum)
Oblivion165 wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 11:27 Correction* I am now pirating everything they put out after I bought C&C3. And it depends on what the "scrub" is complaining about. ok, so buying one product from a company and not liking it gives you the right to steal all their other products in the hope you'll like one of them? dipshit. you know, you're worse than you make EA out to be. WAH WAAAH THEY ONLY WANT MONEY. they're a company, of course they want to make money, they want to release games a lot of people will like so a lot of people will buy them. that > you, since you think you're entitled to their games for free, no matter how much they spent actually producing the damn things.
Tiberian Sun and Firestorm was one of my favorite games.
I agree with most of Oblivions rants except for the Tiberian Sun part... I thought it was pretty damn good to be honest. However, they MAJORLY fucked up C&C3, both story-wise and gameplay wise. Alot of the teams just seem to be "same shit, slightly different". Everything has some form of close equivilent . And also, spoony, to be honest, would it be better for him to complain "OMFG I AM NEVER BUYING THEIR GAMES AGAIN", then he ends up buying them again?
why do you ask? it's got nothing to do with what I said. since you asked, however; yes, it would
That's what I don't understand about pirating EA games. People bitch and moan about EA, complain about their engines, patching, etc... but continue to play the games. If you hate something, you generally don't want to touch it, or use it at all. You don't even want to look at it. I'm starting to get this crazy idea that people saying they "hate" EA are merely trying to justify to themselves that it is OK to illegally download their games. Hell, I think it's just popular to hate EA because they are the 'top-dog' in town, and everybody loves to hate #1. That's my only idea... I mean, why waste your internet speed, and use up a monthly download limit on something you hate?
Yup Nikki poses a good point, there's no sense in hating a company and still playing their games. I don't hate EA, but I dislike some of their games and game ideas - so those games I don't play. But I'll probably buy a game that I deem worthy.
I, like probably most other people, hate EA because it's taking over all our favorite game companies, (including westwood), and adding their own crap to it!
@Spoony Those comments might bother me if you were of any importance but to defend my opinion: Spoony wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 12:49 they're a company, of course they want to make money, they want to release games a lot of people will like so a lot of people will buy them. Some companies care about quality assurance, I support those companies out the ass. IE VALVe and Activision. Spoony wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 12:49 that > you, since you think you're entitled to their games for free, no matter how much they spent actually producing the damn things. I'm looking through my post and see nothing mentioned about me being entitled to anything from those people. I hurt them intentionally the same way a person would beat the crap out of someone with a steel bar. It's not because I think I am entitled, its because I want them to die. There are a crap load of OBLV releases out there and the reason they're EA games is not because I'm a fan.
A game is a game, I don't care who makes it... unless they suck at making games... but I usually enjoy games made by EA and am not blinded by empty angry feelings against them. EA hate is pointless and you should give up video games and anything related to them if you dislike EA enough to segregate yourself from their merchandise just because their name is on it.
My point was spoony, is that it'd be outright retarded to say "LOLZ YA I HAET THEM 2 CUZ DIS GAEM R BAD" when you've not even played the game. This way, if he plays the game and thinks it's bad, he doesn't have to waste his money. To be honest, if I actually think a game is good, I'd probably buy it even if I pirated it earlier. Not that I pirate games, but yes. Also, I don't quite HATE them, but their decisions are pretty damn low. I know that in the end most companies want money, but is it THAT hard to ask for quality? I'm not blaming the dev teams, I'm blaming the EA management themselves that think it's such a grand idea to pump out games pretty much 6 months apart and expect it to maintain quality.
Oblivion165 wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 15:05 @Spoony Those comments might bother me if you were of any importance ouch... interesting to see I struck a nerve and you're pretending I didn't... they bothered you enough to get this defensive. Oblivion165 wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 15:05 but to defend my opinion no need to defend your opinion, nobody's attacking it... just your actions. Oblivion165 wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 15:05 I'm looking through my post and see nothing mentioned about me being entitled to anything from those people. I hurt them intentionally the same way a person would beat the crap out of someone with a steel bar. It's not because I think I am entitled, its because I want them to die. k... I figured you were just a self-righteous scrub, but I guess in truth you're a disturbed outcast... judge for yourself whether that's a step up or down
@Oblivion165, just FYI Spoony never loses any debate.
Spoony wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 18:10 Oblivion165 wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 15:05 @Spoony Those comments might bother me if you were of any importance ouch... interesting to see I struck a nerve and you're pretending I didn't... they bothered you enough to get this defensive. Oblivion165 wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 15:05 but to defend my opinion no need to defend your opinion, nobody's attacking it... just your actions. Oblivion165 wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 15:05 I'm looking through my post and see nothing mentioned about me being entitled to anything from those people. I hurt them intentionally the same way a person would beat the crap out of someone with a steel bar. It's not because I think I am entitled, its because I want them to die. k... I figured you were just a self-righteous scrub, but I guess in truth you're a disturbed outcast... judge for yourself whether that's a step up or down Section 1: That wasn't defensive. Section 2: You did. "WAAH they only want money" etc Section 3: It's none of your concern. @TD I would be willing to take that on. If there is one thing I'm willing to argue about, it's EA Games.
I hereby approve this debate, go for it.
TD wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 18:24 @Oblivion165, just FYI Spoony never loses any debate. Of course he has lost debates, he just keeps posting though as if he never lost so it is hard to tell.
If I go to take someone/something down, I make it so that people avoid them/it. I don't actively attack it. I absolutely fucking hate Hillary Clinton, but I'm not going hit her over the head with a crowbar (if I even could)... no matter how much I want to or think she deserves it.
cheesesoda wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 23:17 If I go to take someone/something down, I make it so that people avoid them/it. I don't actively attack it. I absolutely fucking hate Hillary Clinton, but I'm not going hit her over the head with a crowbar (if I even could)... no matter how much I want to or think she deserves it. I would, but then I'd go to jail. Oh well. Anyways, to be honest spoony, while blindly bitching about EA IS retarded, Oblivion has many reasons to bitch about EA. They're a mega millionare company... Why do they need even more money? You'd think, that with more money, they'd be able to deliver quality games that people will buy. However, if people keep buying shitty games, then they'll shrug it off as "who cares, lol, less support we have to do for it then". However, if very few people buy their products because they're shitty, their income would lower. So if they're intelligent in any meaning of the word, they would start increasing the quality of their games, aswell as stop buying out EVERY company on the market and ruin their games.
EA should just buy all the gaming companies already so games can be more standardized. I'm tired of buying a game and not knowing what exactly to expect in the different aspect(s) of the game. As you can see with EA's current games they have a very linear approach, making it much simpler to predict how games with play out. Sometimes I try games and there's all these weird new features that I've never seen before, I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want to just control different points around the map for various lengths of time until they get blown up by grenades. I guess that's why EA is so successful though, stick to what you know best and milk it continuously. Creativity was so 90s
EAA. Electonic Arts America. Then we got other countries' gameing companies like Sony and Nintendo... and I highly doubt that EA could buy Microsoft so they would be the odd ones in the lot. Europe would have to make their own company... either that or EA take them over completely then they would be called EAWW or Electronic Arts World Wide.
Renx has put me in such a rage with his last post.
If no other game developers existed besides EA, there would be no competition and, in turn, mean higher quality games because there isn't a need to beat other companies.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 02:44 If no other game developers existed besides EA, there would be no competition and, in turn, mean higher quality games because there isn't a need to beat other companies. *psst* You got it backwards.
Oblivion165 wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 17:40 Section 1: That wasn't defensive. lol ok Oblivion165 wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 17:40 Section 3: It's none of your concern. it's more my concern than the quality of EA games are your concern... perhaps if this forum had a compulsory subscription fee which every forum user had to pay, but I just hacked my way in because LOL THIS FORUM SUCKS, then perhaps you'd have a point. Oblivion165 wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 17:40 @TD I would be willing to take that on. If there is one thing I'm willing to argue about, it's EA Games. you've already lost... see the "scrub on welfare" analogy. let's compare EA to you. EA What do they want? Consumers to buy their games. What do they do to achieve it? Make games they think will sell. Oblivion165 What do you want? EA games. What do you do to achieve it? Steal them. EA > you
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 03:44 If no other game developers existed besides EA, there would be no competition and, in turn, mean higher quality games because there isn't a need to beat other companies. Err, no. Never in history has a company's product improved in quality as an affect of no competition. @Spoons Section 2: What the hell are you talking about? I guarantee that I am more involved with the success or failure of EA Games than you will ever be. I'm involved in ways that would hurt your little mind. Section 3: Your analogy was flawed and challenged, it got you no where and was far from anything critical. (Seems like you had some typos there) EA What do they want? Consumers to buy their mods. What do they do to achieve it? Make mods they think will sell. Oblivion165 What do you want? To marginalize the profit on all sales. What do you do to achieve it? Usenet and Torrents. Should I add one of your > < comparisons now?
Oblivion165 wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 02:57 I guarantee that I am more involved with the success or failure of EA Games than you will ever be. okiedokie... well, I don't pretend to be some kind of community god or something, but at least my efforts are positive... let me quote you word for word about your "efforts" Quote: I hurt them intentionally the same way a person would beat the crap out of someone with a steel bar. It's not because I think I am entitled, its because I want them to die. Oblivion165 wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 02:57 I'm involved in ways that would hurt your little mind. k... you complain about products you steal, and apparently I'm the one with the "little mind"? dude, stop humiliating yourself Oblivion165 wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 02:57 Your analogy was flawed and challenged, it got you no where and was far from anything critical. It wasn't flawed at all. If it was, you'd be able to point out the flaws, and you clearly can't. Go pick up your welfare check from EA, you scrub. Oblivion165 wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 02:57 (Seems like you had some typos there) ...did I? oh, the humanity. I don't see any though? since you bring this up, let me correct a few of yours: "affect" is a verb, the word you want is "effect" "no where" is one word, not two "EA games if far behind the standard of excellence." there's no 'f' in 'is' "vamp" isn't a word in the context you're trying to use it, so there's no hyphen in "revamp" "wont" isn't correct in the context you're trying to use it Oblivion165 wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 02:57 EA What do they want? Consumers to buy their mods. What do they do to achieve it? Make mods they think will sell. Oblivion165 What do you want? To marginalize the profit on all sales. What do you do to achieve it? Usenet and Torrents. Should I add one of your > < comparisons now? sure... EA is still > you, by a long, long way. You're just some shit-for-brains wannabe-anarchist who thinks he has the right to actively harm a company just because you don't like their products... seriously, go get a job and a social life.
if there's anything ad hominem in my post you're going to have to point it out to me.
TD wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 17:24 @Oblivion165, just FYI Spoony never loses any debate. Anthrax cheating debate?
Surth wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 13:58 TD wrote on Sat, 19 April 2008 17:24 @Oblivion165, just FYI Spoony never loses any debate. Anthrax cheating debate? He still hasn't lost that debate since anthrax couldn't prove he didn't cheat.
how was that a "debate"... I asked him for a ss in a community match, he didn't post it and the reason why he didn't post it changed four times, I still ended up letting him off scot-free and he nonetheless brought it up intermittently for a good 6 months in an attempt to flame me, lol
Oblivion165 wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 03:57 Err, no. Never in history has a company's product improved in quality as an affect of no competition. I don't think so. Especially in EA's case. I'm going to be completely honest, I have never seen a gaming company as involved with the community as EA is. In recent years their game support has gone up exponentially. (9 patches for C&C 3 in under a year?!.. that is a lot... and C&C3 isn't even an MMORPG!) I think that the reason why most games EA makes seem rushed is because for the reason that they are a hostile company. They eliminate the other companies because they are very competitive. That is why they spring so many games out so fast, they are trying to blow away the competition. Less competition means longer development which means less "rushed" games. Especially for a company like EA because if they where the only gaming company, do you know how much heat they would receive for every little screw up the make? There would be no alternatives either, so for them it would be do or die. If people stopped playing their games, they would be losing business and they couldn't afford to let that happen being the only active gaming company out there.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 12:30 I don't think so. Especially in EA's case. I'm going to be completely honest, I have never seen a gaming company as involved with the community as EA is. In recent years their game support has gone up exponentially. (9 patches for C&C 3 in under a year?!.. that is a lot... and C&C3 isn't even an MMORPG!) that's not because there is supposedly "less competition"... it's because they're learning from poor choices made in the past.
Spoony wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 12:38 if there's anything ad hominem in my post you're going to have to point it out to me. "You're just some shit-for-brains wannabe-anarchist who thinks he has the right to actively harm a company just because you don't like their products... seriously, go get a job and a social life." That.
well, all of it before "seriously" isn't ad hominem because it's directly drawn from his arguments (or lack of). so, out of a reasonably large post, eight words provoked you to say "less ad hominem, more debate please" how much more, exactly?
Section 1: Community God? Does someone doing something more than you automatically bump them from being involved at all to God status? You do nothing, I do something. This is not that hard... Oh wait, this might help you: Your involvement < My involvement I'm sure H.R. Puff n' Stuff appreciates your positivity. However I want something to get done and I don't see any of those hundreds of EA related petitions going anywhere. Section 2: It's called being pro-active, I'm not sitting here complaining, I'm doing. Also again, for another attempt at getting you to actually read and debate on the subject.. "Since C&C3", I have a crap load of EA Games. It's not like I wasn't a customer and just camped outside their headquarters in 1982 and started downloading. I was a customer and have actually dealt with them and their products before. Section 3: "kinda like some scrub on welfare complaining about the government" Flaw A: EA Games does not provide me with anything of value. If anything, I've paid them. Hence the whole "as of C&C3 I'm not buying any more of their crap". Thats a lot of The First Decade, Generals and a few other non-C&C related games that came before it. Am I satisfied with the product? No. Flaw B: The walk to getting on welfare is a long and tedious task. Not only does it take years, it takes hundreds to thousands of your own money to get on the system when you have been denied from the initial claim. (Which is most of claims) There is only one system more screwed up than welfare and that is disability. My mother had to fight for 6 years and 10 thousand dollars later to get on disability with every doctor in 3 counties telling her to get on it as soon as possible. I'm not on either of the systems but I say bitch away. A flawed government needs to be challenged, not accepted. Flaw C: The category of complaint is not defined in your analogy. Complaining about the war in Iraq? Bush blew up some boat in the Pacific? I would assume that you mean complaining about Welfare but.....see flaw b. Flaw D: The fact that EA's products are not large sums of money or even worth anything at all completely undermines the act in question. Flaw E: People on welfare don't send checks into the Government. Section 4: If you bothered to read the section and not try to think of more puns and jokes to post back you could see that I wasn't actually talking about your spelling. Your uninformed "wanna-be" statement just shows how much of that vail is over your eyes. There are things outside of this forum and your world that go on without you being witness.
Oblivion165 wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 14:41 Section 1: Community God? Does someone doing something more than you automatically bump them from being involved at all to God status? You do nothing, I do something. This is not that hard... Oh wait, this might help you: Your involvement < My involvement I'm sure H.R. Puff n' Stuff appreciates your positivity. However I want something to get done and I don't see any of those hundreds of EA related petitions going anywhere. 1. no, doing something more than me doesn't make you a god, but that's not relevant because: 2. you don't do something positive, you've just convinced yourself you do... you're just a self-absorbed thief 3. "you do nothing"... ok, I do more than you probably realise, I'm just not quite so desperate for recognition that I need to tell everyone about it... you apparently are so desperate that you need to boast about your petty crime, and that's frankly when you need to get off the internet altogether for your own good. my involvement > your involvement, because I do something positive, you don't, and anyone reading this thread knows it... you, apparently, are too stupid to draw such a simple conclusion. You remind me of the retards who make cheats for Renegade... the justification they always parrot out is they're doing it for a good reason to make WW/EA fix the game, and they probably believe it just like you probably believe the bullshit you're parroting out, but everyone else can see it for the garbage it is... truth is, they make cheats because they're assholes and they couldn't give a shit whether the games get fixed, just like you're lying when you pretend you give a shit whether anything improves with EA. If you truly did, you'd actually do something to help instead of hinder... as if that ever even occurred to a selfish dipshit like you.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 18:30 Oblivion165 wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 03:57 Err, no. Never in history has a company's product improved in quality as an affect of no competition. I don't think so. Especially in EA's case. I'm going to be completely honest, I have never seen a gaming company as involved with the community as EA is. In recent years their game support has gone up exponentially. (9 patches for C&C 3 in under a year?!.. that is a lot... and C&C3 isn't even an MMORPG!) I think that the reason why most games EA makes seem rushed is because for the reason that they are a hostile company. They eliminate the other companies because they are very competitive. That is why they spring so many games out so fast, they are trying to blow away the competition. Less competition means longer development which means less "rushed" games. Especially for a company like EA because if they where the only gaming company, do you know how much heat they would receive for every little screw up the make? There would be no alternatives either, so for them it would be do or die. If people stopped playing their games, they would be losing business and they couldn't afford to let that happen being the only active gaming company out there. VALVe released 8 in the first 2 months of Team Fortress 2's Beta. VALVe are more community involved than EA will ever be.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 12:30 Less competition means longer development which means less "rushed" games. Less competition = cheap buck. Fierce competition = innovation. Buying off the competition stiffles innovation. In EA's case, we have more of the same hurried games made to make a quick buck.
Spoony wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 16:53 Oblivion165 wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 14:41 Section 1: Community God? Does someone doing something more than you automatically bump them from being involved at all to God status? You do nothing, I do something. This is not that hard... Oh wait, this might help you: Your involvement < My involvement I'm sure H.R. Puff n' Stuff appreciates your positivity. However I want something to get done and I don't see any of those hundreds of EA related petitions going anywhere. 1. no, doing something more than me doesn't make you a god, but that's not relevant because: 2. you don't do something positive, you've just convinced yourself you do... you're just a self-absorbed thief 3. "you do nothing"... ok, I do more than you probably realise, I'm just not quite so desperate for recognition that I need to tell everyone about it... you apparently are so desperate that you need to boast about your petty crime, and that's frankly when you need to get off the internet altogether for your own good. my involvement > your involvement, because I do something positive, you don't, and anyone reading this thread knows it... you, apparently, are too stupid to draw such a simple conclusion. You remind me of the retards who make cheats for Renegade... the justification they always parrot out is they're doing it for a good reason to make WW/EA fix the game, and they probably believe it just like you probably believe the bullshit you're parroting out, but everyone else can see it for the garbage it is... truth is, they make cheats because they're assholes and they couldn't give a shit whether the games get fixed, just like you're lying when you pretend you give a shit whether anything improves with EA. If you truly did, you'd actually do something to help instead of hinder... as if that ever even occurred to a selfish dipshit like you. Apparently there has been a misconception here, I don't think what I am doing is positive. I never said that and I would never think that..mine just actually gets stuff done and actually effects something...so > < whatever. As for the people who cheat...They effect the people, not the corporation. I have yet to do anything to harm the people of this or any community and never will. I want EA to see the wrong and start the right. Petition.com will never get that done. "so desperate for recognition that I need to tell everyone about it..." If that was the case I would of just mention the number of times RenHelp.net is linked on this website and how many people that has helped.
In before lock.
Holy dick TD, you're so right that Spoony never loses debates. That's why he he can't actually argue with all the statements Oblivion makes- Only a few. And, spoony, incase you havn't noticed, Oblivion helps around the community. I recall him answering quite a few topics in the Mods sub-forum that other people either didn't bother to, or he knows more about the stuff to help with it. There's a big difference between what he does and what a cheater does. For the most part, cheaters just cheat because they either can, or because they can't win normally. I've rarely seen the "but i r doing it 2 help da community!1". Maybe that's just me, but yes. Oh, and I'm reading this thread. I don't think your involvement>his involvement. Guess you might wanna re-write that statement. Don't be arrogent. Also, this belongs in heated discussions and debates.
Spoony wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 13:39 that's not because there is supposedly "less competition"... it's because they're learning from poor choices made in the past. Ok.... sure what ever... I never said anything about them having "less competition." Ryu wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 17:33 VALVe released 8 in the first 2 months of Team Fortress 2's Beta. VALVe are more community involved than EA will ever be. Key word in that sentence: "Beta." A company that doesn't patch a beta deserves to get shut down. C&C3 was not in Beta when the patches came out.
Quote: Key word in that sentence: "Beta." A company that doesn't patch a beta deserves to get shut down. C&C3 was not in Beta when the patches came out. I don't even think EA tests C&C3 ATALL. Seriously, if they did, they wouldn't need the ridiculous amounts of patches they had to put in it. Honestly, Renegade mods have better testers than EA does.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 23:25 Ryu wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 17:33 VALVe released 8 in the first 2 months of Team Fortress 2's Beta. VALVe are more community involved than EA will ever be. Key word in that sentence: "Beta." A company that doesn't patch a beta deserves to get shut down. C&C3 was not in Beta when the patches came out. VALVe got down 12 patches since the beta. 27 patches after the official release of TF2. That's 39 altogether. EA got.. 10 down in one year while VALVe got 39 down in 7 months? Sorry, EA just got ass kicked in game support. TF2 Update list
This thread has become totally retarded. Seriously, if you hate EA, and it's products... then just don't buy the fucking games, or pirate them. Holy Shit, boys.
Cabal8616 wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 18:27 Quote: Key word in that sentence: "Beta." A company that doesn't patch a beta deserves to get shut down. C&C3 was not in Beta when the patches came out. Honestly, Renegade mods have better testers than EA does. I agree with this, but only to an extent. Because EA doesn't have beta testers. & R3 agrees with the above statement.
Oblivion165 wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 22:47 Apparently there has been a misconception here, I don't think what I am doing is positive. I never said that and I would never think that..mine just actually gets stuff done and actually effects something...so > < whatever. ok, you're openly admitting your efforts are negative... why are you still posting? Oblivion165 wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 22:47 I have yet to do anything to harm the people of this or any community and never will. I want EA to see the wrong and start the right. Petition.com will never get that done. I don't believe I ever said petitions would achieve anything? Oblivion165 wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 22:47 "so desperate for recognition that I need to tell everyone about it..." If that was the case I would of just mention the number of times RenHelp.net is linked on this website and how many people that has helped. k, that's still a crapload less than me... but you're right, your contribution > mine, guess I won't be on your level until I steal a bunch of computer games Cabal8616 wrote Holy dick TD, you're so right that Spoony never loses debates. That's why he he can't actually argue with all the statements Oblivion makes- Only a few. rofl, oblivion lost this debate in his very first post when he admitted pirating games. Feel free to quote an argument he presented (it's quite hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in this case, there being so much chaff and so little wheat) and I'll respond to it... Cabal8616 wrote And, spoony, incase you havn't noticed, Oblivion helps around the community. I recall him answering quite a few topics in the Mods sub-forum that other people either didn't bother to, or he knows more about the stuff to help with it. so does 0x90. more on that in a moment Cabal8616 wrote There's a big difference between what he does and what a cheater does. For the most part, cheaters just cheat because they either can, or because they can't win normally. I've rarely seen the "but i r doing it 2 help da community!1". Maybe that's just me, but yes. I don't know where you got this from, because I didn't compare him to people who download and use cheats in servers, I compared him to people who make cheats... the similarities to 0x90 are just racking up, aren't they? Cabal8616 wrote Oh, and I'm reading this thread. I don't think your involvement>his involvement. Guess you might wanna re-write that statement. Don't be arrogent. uh, are you slow? He's the one who started this LOL MY INVOLVEMENT IS > YOUR INVOLVEMENT pissing match, not me. You don't even know most of what I've done for the community... his is limited to answering a few questions in the mod forum (wow) and actively attacking EA because he's too selfish to actually consider genuinely helping the games' communities.
Cabal8616 wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 17:27 I don't even think EA tests C&C3 ATALL. Seriously, if they did, they wouldn't need the ridiculous amounts of patches they had to put in it. r4z0r wrote I agree with this, but only to an extent. Because EA doesn't have beta testers. this is just plain ignorant... from C&C3 onward EA genuinely made the effort to get the balance+bugs situation right (yes, I'm aware more than anybody here that this wasn't true before C&C3), but there are bound to be some that don't get sorted... trust me on this. I'm guessing neither of you have made a game the size of C&C3 or a complete patch for it?
Neither of them have 1000s of programmers and £1000000 at their disposal.
Quote: rofl, oblivion lost this debate in his very first post when he admitted pirating games. Feel free to quote an argument he presented (it's quite hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in this case, there being so much chaff and so little wheat) and I'll respond to it... Yet another arrogent response. How did he "lose" the debate? Because you said so? Yeah, no. Doesn't work that way, sorry. Quote: I don't know where you got this from, because I didn't compare him to people who download and use cheats in servers, I compared him to people who make cheats... the similarities to 0x90 are just racking up, aren't they? Minor reading mistake, my bad. But still. There's a difference between cheating, and what Oblivion's done. If you can't see that, then maybe you should just stop posting in this topic. Quote: uh, are you slow? He's the one who started this LOL MY INVOLVEMENT IS > YOUR INVOLVEMENT pissing match, not me. You don't even know most of what I've done for the community... his is limited to answering a few questions in the mod forum (wow) and actively attacking EA because he's too selfish to actually consider genuinely helping the games' communities. My point was, don't say "anyone reading this thread can see that" when I'm among the people reading it. Although, I suppose I exaggerated myself a bit too, so I 'spose it doesn't matter. Anyways, if that's ALL you think he's done, that's pretty lame. I don't know how many times renhelp has answered my various modding questions. And, why is it so hard to comprehend that he pirates them because if he bought it and still ranted, it'd look retarded that he then just payed for a product he thinks is shitty? If he were to actively buy alot of EA games, then just say they're shitty, wouldn't it seem retarded that he's saying EA sucks when he's just fueling them more? To be honest, it baffles me as to how so many people bitch about EA, yet continue to buy their products. If they're not buying it, they're not fueling EA atall, regardless of whether they play it somehow or not. If anything, playing it first hand is the best way to KNOW something actually sucks. Oh, and the MAIN reason why EA rarely tests their products (Aswell as half-assing most games) is because they're rushed. Short deadlines != a quality product.
Roshambo wrote Neither of them have 1000s of programmers and £1000000 at their disposal. neither do I, you don't see me using that as an excuse Cabal8616 wrote on Mon, 21 April 2008 02:37 Yet another arrogent response. How did he "lose" the debate? Because you said so? Yeah, no. Doesn't work that way, sorry. because as I said right at the start and has yet to be refuted... stealing games < making games some people don't like actively attacking a company just because you don't like their products < making games some people don't like There's NOTHING you can say that will change these facts, and frankly you're a moron if you can't accept them. Cabal8616 wrote on Mon, 21 April 2008 02:37 Minor reading mistake, my bad. But still. There's a difference between cheating, and what Oblivion's done. If you can't see that, then maybe you should just stop posting in this topic. Why are you using straw-man arguments? When did I compare cheating to Oblivion? I compared MAKING CHEATS to Oblivion. I don't know how many times this fundamental difference needs pointing out to you. It's rather confusing that you admit your reading mistake, and then forget saying that and make the mistake again almost immediately. Cabal8616 wrote on Mon, 21 April 2008 02:37 Anyways, if that's ALL you think he's done, that's pretty lame. hey, he said I've done nothing... in terms of accuracy I think I'm winning so far Cabal8616 wrote on Mon, 21 April 2008 02:37 And, why is it so hard to comprehend that he pirates them because if he bought it and still ranted, it'd look retarded that he then just payed for a product he thinks is shitty? it's not hard to comprehend at all, it's just a really feeble argument that scarcely warrants acknowledging. Cabal8616 wrote on Mon, 21 April 2008 02:37 If he were to actively buy alot of EA games, then just say they're shitty, wouldn't it seem retarded that he's saying EA sucks when he's just fueling them more? the solution is simply not buy EA games, buy a different company's games... or better yet, use the front door once in a while. Only a self-righteous prick would see the "solution" to his personal dislike to be actively attacking the gaming company, potentially ruining other gamers' enjoyment of said games... they do exist, you know, otherwise why does EA have so much money? Is this good old renegade community syndrome (RCS) whereby there are "real" gamers and everyone else is wrong, no matter how the relative size of the two groups? You know, the mentality which causes half the community here to spout idiocy like "EA doesn't listen to the community because they're not trying to please us, they're trying to please a different (much bigger) group of people than us"?
I think this is a good exemple of a heated discussion, hence moved to the right subforum. Small warning here for everyone involved in this discussion: be careful with references to Warez. Reminder of the rule: Quote: Warez: This is a warez-free forum, and supports legitimate ownership of all games, software, music, movies, etc. Do not come here looking for CD/DVD images, serials, or any other form of warez. Also, try to play the ball, not the man .
Spoony wrote on Mon, 21 April 2008 08:11 I'm guessing neither of you have made a game the size of C&C3 or a complete patch for it? I was replying to that. Or are you writing a game as big as CnC3 and keeping it up to date?