I'm not going to ridicule you for not knowing how to use the controller, as you stated that you do know how. I will however ridicule you for trying to use a controller on a PC FPS game in the first place.
I play too many games to mess with Wine. And I don't really feel like tinkering with crap just to get a game to run. I DO like Ubuntu as an OS, but for running Windows based stuff, I'll just stick to Windows.
Hi, I have played world of warcraft on and off for 3 years (or so) and I reeeally like the game. But i just have one problem. I can only get to a level 20 and then i get really bored and see other people in stormwind and I like their characters so I go and make a new one! I can't stop myself and I have trouble reaching high levels because of it. Any tips to keep me interested/ leveling tips or something? Anything is appreciated. Thank you a lot! (oh and I only have the burning crusade expansion)
AKS01
I don't feel so bad now. I haven't played WoW for a while....played off and on over about a 3 year span like you did. BC was the only expansion when I stopped for good. I took a mage to level 22 I believe, but my main was a hunter and I took him to 44 (is that the level that hunters can start wearing chain armor?....either way, I got him to 44). I played a few other characters, but never got past level 10 with them. I played on the Alliance side....I swear every person I ran into or teamed up with was some pathetic little kid, none of them could work together and getting answers from them was worse than pulling teeth. I think that was my real reason for quiting WoW. Such is life. But like others have said, you just have to buckle down and push through. It does become more interesting if you can find a good group to play with and that is helpful with questions. Find a class that really sparks your interest and push on with it.
That was my issue with WoW as well. I got to around level 35 with my hunter, but never found a decent group to team up with. It was full of immature little kids who would leave in the middle of quests and instances.
The vast majority of quests don't require a group and you can skip those. Also, instances aren't required to level. And now they have the random LFG tool that puts you instances so thats not nearly as big of an issue as it used to be.
So EA should get praise because they are not the only company screwing us over ? That's setting the bar kind of low.
carlosjuero
Did I say that? No. I merely pointed out that C&C 4 DRM will be akin to Blizzard's Starcraft 2 'DRM' (they call it a 'feature' of Battle.net, but it boils down to DRM for me). I find it funny that people jump all over certain companies for some things, but ignore other companies that do similar things is all. Ok - the info I had was off, apparently you need a full time net connection for C&C 4 just like Ubi DRM games. I don't see alot of 'EA is the debil' posts though O.o. For those of you who thought like I did (that it didn't require online for every tidbit) I got a new article across my twitter feed today :/ - looks bad: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=239583&site=pcg Guessing EA didn't notice the flak Ubi was getting? There was plenty of time since Ubis announcement and C&C 4 release to change the model I would think. It's more tolerable in C&C4 though because the game can be played online and they tried to integrate it to make a more seamless online experience, even for singleplayer. If EA starts putting that into strictly offline singleplayer games, then that will be just as annoying as Ubisoft.
They most likely already sent C&C 4 to factories to multiply it even before AC 2 was released and they most likely integrated it before Ubisoft announced that DRM but, there's a big but, C&C 4 actually needs internet unlike AC 2 since it has multiplayer.DanielDust
Yeah I don't really mind it at all in C&C4. The game can be played online, and they tried integrating the chat lobby even into single player between missions, so it feels more like a seamless online experience. You can unlock stuff in any game mode, even single player. So in that respect it is actually tolerable. And for everybody complaining about it in C&C4, doesn't Starcraft 2 basically work the same way with the new Battle.net? I'm not in beta so I don't exactly know, but it sounded awfully similar. Nobody really complains about that. But then, we're talking about Starcraft 2 and everybody and their mother wants to play that.
Battlefield 2...you need a killer rig and the graphics aren't even that impressive.
Good thing I got the game for only 10 dollars.
Desulated
Errr... BF2 isn't that demanding, it runs fine on my 5 year old laptop. If you're talking about BC2, just set it to DX9 mode and you get a massive FPS boost.
Meh, it may not be as demanding now but when it came out, you needed a killer rig to run it.
I don't really remember that. I've owned Battlefield 2 since shortly after release and I never had problems. I'm running a 5 year old core 2 duo, and I think I even ran it on my Pentium 4 I had before that.
Hmm. I don't have time to listen to that right now, but that sounds interesting. I think it's a bit odd however that they didn't decide to make the units a tad smaller then to give you a better view at once of what is going on if that is the case. Like I've said, I think the units look good, and being up close and personal in the battle is fun, but ultimately, if the game engine is preventing them from adding zoom, then they needed to scale those units down. Or code a new engine that fixes that problem. But I guess that would be more time and resources than they wanted to spend. Though in the long run it would have been worth it (from a gamer's standpoint).
Log in to comment