EA Needs to F*** off and die

[Frank]

So you're calling for a turn based real time strategy game.

 

[Bowielee]

Heck, I thought even CoH was a bit too micromanagey even, though it wasn't as bad as DoW2. Still, when did soldiers have to radio back to base to decide when to use grenades?[DOUBLEPOST=1376954880,1376954743][/DOUBLEPOST]
I still say that RTSes, and MOBAs too, for that matter, would be made so much more interesting and strategic if your APM were capped. IE, you get to issue no more than one command per 3 seconds.

That'd show all those Mountain-Dew-mainlining sugar fiend preteen korean coke-fiends what strategy really is.

You're basically describing turn based strategy games

 

[GasBandit]

So you're calling for a turn based real time strategy game.

No turn based strategy gamer would accept a 3 second time limit on turns. Action would still progress in real time, no pauses.[DOUBLEPOST=1376955076,1376955030][/DOUBLEPOST]

You're basically describing turn based strategy games

Not at all... true turn based strategy games have turns that can take dozens of minutes to take - feeling closer to playing Civ than C&C.

 

[Frank]

I know there's no pauses, but it's like a compromise between the slow paced thoughful turn based games and the finger screaming madness of the high end real time ones.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Everyone already knows I've been playing the shit out of Blood Bowl recently. It's turn based, where usually you have 4 minutes per turn to move all of your 11 pieces and make actions with them.

I recently started playing 40 second turns, and that shit is intense.

 

[GasBandit]

I know there's no pauses, but it's like a compromise between the slow paced thoughful turn based games and the finger screaming madness of the high end real time ones.

Yeah, I'd say it's a compromise. Which is different than saying "basically that's turn based."

Could even shorten it to 2 seconds per command.

The point is to eliminate THIS bullshit as a playing method:

 

[Tress]

Turn-based > Real-time.

Always.

 

[PatrThom]

The biggest problem I have with any APM game is that I like to play the turtle. I derive immense satisfaction from climbing the tech tree and emerging from my fortified corner of the map to steamroll the AI's units on my way to victory. I do not enjoy playing against someone who gets off on winning as quickly as possible. When I sit down to play a game, I want it to last some leisurely amount of time, where I do a bunch of stuff, the balance of power swings back and forth a few times, and then I finally emerge victorious. I do not sit down to play a game in order to win in the absolute shortest time possible. I play my games competently, not competitively. Oh sure, I could probably train to play at a competitive level, I'm sure. But I wouldn't enjoy it as much if the focus was placed on "winning" instead of "playing."

I'm sure this says a lot about other aspects of my life.

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

The biggest problem I have with any APM game is that I like to play the turtle. I derive immense satisfaction from climbing the tech tree and emerging from my fortified corner of the map to steamroll the AI's units on my way to victory. I do not enjoy playing against someone who gets off on winning as quickly as possible. When I sit down to play a game, I want it to last some leisurely amount of time, where I do a bunch of stuff, the balance of power swings back and forth a few times, and then I finally emerge victorious. I do not sit down to play a game in order to win in the absolute shortest time possible. I play my games competently, not competitively. Oh sure, I could probably train to play at a competitive level, I'm sure. But I wouldn't enjoy it as much if the focus was placed on "winning" instead of "playing."

I'm sure this says a lot about other aspects of my life.

--Patrick

Me too. I always insist on the "no-rush" option being enabled for at least 10 minutes in Supreme Commander. 20 mins ideally.

 

[Tress]

I'm the exact same way. I agree 100%.

 

[Bubble181]

Good. All of us have taste and prefer thinking and/or crafting/building an empire over fast-paced clickfest nonsense.

I'm the same in board games, and it's why I usually prefer games with not too much interaction. Dominion, San Juan, Agricola, Puerto Rico - even if the other guy's scoring 3x the points, if I can still build up my city/town/farm/whatever into what I wanted to, I'm happy and don't mind losing. If I win, despite constant bickering and blocking each other at every turn, undercutting other people's tactics, I'm not happy.

 

[figmentPez]

The Humble Origin Bundle is well past it's half-way mark, but no extra games have been added to the bundle. It's the best selling Humble Bundle by a huge margin, anyway, but it's pretty normal for any two-week long bundle to get some sort of addition. Oh well, I'm not going to complain, I got my $1 worth.

 

[Ravenpoe]

The average is still under $5, which seems unusual. It seems it's selling very well, but has far more $1 bids than past bundles.

 

[bhamv3]

It might be because both of the bonus games are Origin-only, which would deter quite a few people, given Origin's reputation.

 

[AshburnerX]

It might be because both of the bonus games are Origin-only, which would deter quite a few people, given Origin's reputation.

Basically this. Origin has already lost to Steam and it doesn't have a killer app to keep people on it. So the bonus games just aren't worth it... people only want the stuff that is DRM free or Steam.

 

[figmentPez]

I think it's a combination of things.

1. The Steam codes are only for the $1 games (this goes along with what @bhamv3 said, but in addition to hating Origin, people love Steam.)
2. The beat-the-average games are fairly different from the $1 games. I'd think that there's less overlap between people who would want both than in previous bundles.

Heck, looking at the top donations, I'm wondering if something else might be going on, bringing up the average more than it would be otherwise. More sites seem to be using this as advertising than in other years, considering a site selling game keys is #3

 

[Bubble181]

Eh. I think there're also just a whole lot of people buying these to spite EA - get their games in a way they don 't profit from. Their corporate image is so bad I do'nt buy their games at full price, and I'm pretty moderate. Plenty of people who've pirated every EA game since Spore; this is a chance to snatch up a bunch of games legally, giving EA jack shit. Plus giving to charity.
I'd have liked the message sent to be "we love your games but hate you" by having lots of people give 20+ - but since gamers are cheap bastards, it isn't so. Now the message is "we all still want all of your crappy sucky P2W games with Origin, but as cheap as possible" - which will lead EA to ever more nickel-and-diming, since we seem to be too stupid to understand 50x $0.99 is pretty much the same as $45.99 - and they have to give far less game to get it.

 

[figmentPez]

Two more games were added for beating the average:
- Populous (yes, the 1990 god game), Origin only
- Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 Uprising, Steam & Origin

What a weak addition. A stand-alone add-on pack for a game not in the bundle, and a 23 year-old game that would be a tough sell to anyone not playing for nostalgia.

 

[Bubble181]

1989, really /pedant

And I already own both of those - one on Steam, one on GOG, so both "better" versions than the one they're giving here. Ridiculous add-ons. At the very least I'd have expected C&C 4 or C&C Generals - the one is the latest game (and it stunk to high heavens), the other one's the predecessor for the next one they're releasing (Generals 2), so it'd have made sense. 3 Uprising is a, frankly, quite crappy expansion on an already sub-par game, that isn't linked with anything about to come out - they've pretty effectively run that story line into the ground.

And Populous....I just don't understand at all. I can see people playing it (heck, I replyad it a few years ago), but not the same people interested in the other parts of the bundle.