Mar 24th 2012 11:54PM Dear Matthew:
You are officially my favorite writer of the site. Please don't stop being so awesome, thorough, and unflinchingly logical. Unless, of course, it negatively impacts your personal life. You are like the sabremetricians in Moneyball (I just read it): pure unadelterated objective analysis.
Mar 23rd 2012 11:04PM @Curlyxz
I don't know about anyone else, but in ME3 I got a sort of perverse satisfaction from loading up Cryo Ammo on my assault rifle and watching my rounds freeze and then shatter the [spoiler] reaper enemies. So much fun.
Mar 23rd 2012 10:56PM @Dubiousity
I've only played about 10 hours of the game, but I think the answer depends on what component of RPG, you need to get your "fix." I would answer your question thusly: If you liked the geographic candy, exploration, and sprawling lore components of Skyrim, you'll probably be a little disappointed by KOA:R. If you like loot whoring games like diablo/torchlight, talent tree systems like WoW, and excellently tuned, fast paced combat, you'll probably like KOA:R a lot. If you're expecting another Dragon Age, stay away because the character depth just isn't there.
Mar 19th 2012 7:15PM Sorry, typo. My thought train should have said:
If Villain = negative emotions and war causes negative emotions, in order to eliminate the villains, we MIGHT have to end the war to kill the villain. Not saying they'll do it, but it appears they've laid the foundation for it.
Mar 19th 2012 7:13PM It seems to me that they're building up a lore-reason to eliminate the horde/alliance player barrier.
"The sha, as you've heard by now, are the core external villains in the land of Pandaria. They are the manifestation of negative emotion."
That's from: http://wow.joystiq.com/2012/03/19/mists-of-pandaria-dungeon-preview/
Here's my thought train: If Villain = negative emotions and war causes negative emotions, in order to eliminate the villains, we could have to end the war. Not saying they'll do it, but it appears they've laid the foundation for it. What do you guys think?
Mar 16th 2012 2:22PM @hwacha
If you signed up while that text was printed, you would legally be entitled to access to the beta as soon as it was available because this was a term of the wow annual pass contract. This is assuming, of course, that there's not some other fine print which gives Blizz discretion to delay the date.
If you did sign up with this language and Blizzard refused to grant you day-1 beta access, Blizzard would be in breach of their obligations under your contract. If blizzard breached it's contract you would be entitled to:
(a) money damages;
(b) (possibly. see below) rescission of the contract (wherein you are refunded your money and released from your obligation to sign on for 12 months, but Blizzard would also be released from its corresponding obligations); OR (NOT AND)
(c) an order of specific performance requiring blizzard to give you day-1 beta access. (you could only get this if you knew in advance you weren't going to get day-1 access. Obviously, you can't be given retroactive access).
To receive any of these remedies, you'd have to at least send a demand letter to blizzard and possibly sue them if they don't concede to your demand. I see several practical or other difficulties though. First, how do you calculate money damages for a lack of Beta access? $5 per day? $15 per month (same as the subscription fee)? You'd probably never be able to dream up enough in money damages for it to be worth your money (or even time) to sue Blizzard.
Second, if you wanted to go the rescission route, you'd have to prove that Blizzard's breach of contract by failing to give you day-1 beta access was a *substantial* term of the WoW annual pass contract. You could prove this by showing that for you, immediate access to the Beta was a primary or significant inducement for you to sign up for the annual pass (i.e. without day-1 beta access you wouldn't have signed up)
Third, if you wanted to get a court order forcing Blizzard to allow you access to the beta, you'd have to file a motion for a preliminary injunction. You'd have to convince a court that your claim was likely meritorious (i.e. that you have a strong case on paper, which I think you could do if you have a screenshot of the "as soon as it's available" language) you'd probably win) and also that injunctive relief, rather than plain old money damages is the appropriate course of action. I'd say it's a toss-up on whether a court would force blizzard to grant you Beta access.
So, technically, yes you would be entitled to day-1 beta access, but Blizz could most likely easily screw you out of it because it knows the red-tape and logistical barriers to you gaining day-1 access are substantial. If you really took it to a court, though, blizzard would probably just give you beta access as quick as you could. I bet you could get a case on and a preliminary motion before a court within about 1-2 weeks. Once it hit Blizzard's lawyers, they'd probably just give you a beta key and have you sign a settlement agreement making the case go away.
Mar 13th 2012 10:48PM @miles82
I'm not affiliated with EA in any way, I just figured $10 bucks for ME1 & 2 is pretty good. I didn't know they got down to $5 on Steam. I guess if someone hasn't played either and they want to wait until the next Steam sale (is the Summer Sale next?), they could save $10. I still think Batman AC + ME 1 & 2 for $30 total is a pretty nice deal. I appreciate when others on this site notify when there's a good sale going on, so I was trying to be helpful.
I love steam as much as the next guy, but I don't mind using another platform if the price is right. Perhaps I'm a little defensive of Origin because my experience there has been very positive and I think it's been given a bit of a bad rap, so I try and counter some of the negativity.
Mar 13th 2012 10:15PM @Wackydavo
Woops, looks like it's not a store-wide 50% off sale, just certain titles. But I did just log in and if you buy ME1 and 2 for $10 each, you can get Batman: Arkham City for $10. That is a sweet deal. Otherwise Batman AC is 1/2 off.
I got Batman AC for $1 on Onlive for some reason one lucky day. I am a distribution platform libertarian, I discriminate only based on reason and price.
Mar 13th 2012 10:08PM Also, Origin has Mass Effect 1 and 2 on sale for $10 for those who haven't played them yet. (plus a store-wide 50% off sale). If you haven't played ME1 & 2 before 3, now's your chance to get them for the cheapest they ever get.
(Just ignore the Origin hater downvotes, it's really not that bad)
Mar 1st 2012 1:44PM I agree 100%. I also factor in to the equation my opinion that the Horde/Alliance player wall makes absolutely no sense from a player/convenience perspective, as recently pointed out by Matthew Rossi.
It kind of sounds like blizzard is going to try and force players to PvP. In my mind, Orcs vs. Humans was a necessary and logical component of the RTS titles. In WoW, the only justification I can think of for the strict barrier is that it is more "true" to the flavor of the WoW universe. However, this gameplay feature that preserves narrative accuracy presents significant player inconveniences (as noted in your post).
The lesson I would hope Blizzard would learn from Cata is that they can't force the player-base to play a certain way. I don't PvP because I don't like it. If Blizzard tries to force me (and others) to PvP in the name of the abstract goal: "we like the factions to be separate," I think the players will respond negatively.
Also, what's the point of promoting faction warfare, when you have a ton of paying players on both sides? We know neither side can truly win the war because it would piss off a large portion of the player-base. Perhaps the end result of the war will be a peace treaty and the faction separation disappears in a later patch. That would be cool.
But I'm okay if they can tell a compelling story and keep things mostly in the pve-style of gameplay.