Apparently I was wrong

So I wanted to get:

Transformers: War for Cybertron

Which seems like a pretty standard fast paced shooter, and it was available for steam! Since it was £30, i decided to really look into it: basically ignoring all reviews and videos but instead getting down into the meaningful stuff. Controls and dedicated servers. Apparently it has controller support and no dedicated servers, i will not be getting this one.

Oh and for the record, I was wrong because steam didnt say "controller enabled" this time, I went into the steam forums to find players discussing the same things I wanted.

Meh. Next.

Console port trickery

Something which has affected me on more than one occasion is the console port. There are so many things wrong nowadays than in the old days where programmers would recreate the game for a pc, rather than a console game wrapped with pc controls to make it 'playable'. So ok, I have the game, but gameplay is always ruined with awful controls and i mean terrible controls. Though it annoys me even more that the majority of players put up with it which makes it seem that everything is ok with the port.

Why I decide to bring this up? well, i've lost money buying these crappy console ports without being able to get money back on them. I guess when a game says "controller enabled" just be wary that it means controller buttons are bound to a keyboard, so use a controller instead or better yet, buy a different fucking game.

Player Reviewing Games.

Players are not allowed to judge a game based on the spec of their own computer. The game is not bad because *you* can't play it. I see this everywhere in reviews, there should be some kind of filter for this.

Why it bothers me so much? I don't wanna hear how bad a game is based on the fact that one player couldnt boot it up. I seek to find a review, and all I get is an idiot.

MMMMmmmm

A few days ago, my friends played SSF4 on my PS3. When asked what the difference was between ryu and ken, after some thought I replied "ryu wears white, and ken wears red" Which I think was the correct response. But I still think it was bad to say it.

Super Street Fighter 4.

No again, not a review, but I will say this.

It suffers from the same multiplayer crap as the first one. I mainly point fingers at playstation network since the interface is slow and painful just o say "hello" to your friend. All of this would be sorted if they had some sort of global VoIP. Oh well.

Super Street Fighter 4

This friday, i cannot contain my excitement.

Borderlands

I give it a 6 or 7, you can choose what that is out of.

As for supcom2, theyve released a new update primarily aimed at AI improvements. It is a regression, definately. Maybe i should talk about that some time.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

This game is a success, apart from broken friends list / connectivity issues. Probably one of the best FPS out there to date.

I still havent played l4d2 since my experience is ripped apart from l4d. However i think thatll be l4d+++ so it should be good (i.e i dont have to play it. i'll just rate it 7/10 for now.)

Anyway. Bad company 2, get. It's even better if you have +3 friends since it's squad oriented.

Side note, AVP 3 is dead (but not officially), I shall not give it a send off (maybe a small review?). Burn in hell Rebellion.

supreme commander 2

I should really make a post about this game...

All in all, one of those games which has potential but failed.

Personally, i blame the xbox360.

Aliens Vs Predator

So it was released slightly early. First impressions are terrible (from a multiplayer perspective)

This is because there are no dedicated servers and experienced players who know hands on what it is like to see your bullets being fired out of your gun 2 seconds later. (funny with grenades)

Since there are no dedicated servers, it's all local hosting, meaning it will take you forever to find a game... AND someone who can actually host locally.

This is a disappointment much like l4d was. But like l4d, i'll still be playing this for ages waiting for the constant neglect which developers give to their players.

I paid for a £25 game, i expect £25s worth, not £10s and then a £15 patch later.

This friday

AVP3 comes out, in the name of balance, i can look past the fact humans can block a metal claw..

something which bugs me

Super Street Fighter 4

Ok, so you can choose between 2 ultras, hurray. But I notice most ultras (if not all) uses the counterpart of what their first ultra was. I.e x3 kicks instead of x3 punches for the 2nd ultra.

Here's the kicker, if you can only have one ultra anyway, why not just have it x3 punches and keep it that way. He is, afterall, using his fists.

ewwwwwwwwww......

I really hate to see when a company states something as "free" and leaves small print, or not even small print but just saying the free part is only half of the subscription...

Im talking about global agenda here, I knew microsoft are sneaky and knew it was too good to be true. And it was, global agenda "free" is the shit part of the game, and the subscription part is what you'd expect from a subscription based game. Then why promote it as a one time purchase only? Fuck you microsoft.

Get Hype

SSF4
FF
AVP

Games to get for this year... hopefully will be more of a successful one than 2k9