Jump to content


Tetsuya

Member Since 23 Jan 2003
Offline Last Active Jan 14 2018 11:58 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Most missed hardware feature

14 January 2018 - 03:13 AM

View PostMatt Diamond, on 13 January 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:

In my car I sometimes need to charge the phone and have it plugged in to the sound system at the same time. Dongle doesn't solve that problem. Very happy with my iPhone SE, not looking forward to getting one without a jack one day. I'll deal with it one way or another, but I can understand the outcry.

a 10$ bluetooth dongle will solve your issue entirely.  its seriously that easy.  

I cant remember the last time i plugged in a pair of headphones to a mobile device, or used an audio cable in my car.  Ive had bluetooth headsets for my listening, and a bluetooth dongle in the car, pretty much since they were available.

In Topic: Startrek Discovery

09 January 2018 - 01:29 AM

I agree with The Orville being far better than people are giving it credit for.  Its actually a pretty decent homage to Trek.  

Discovery is an utter disgrace on every level.  Its worse than the Action-Sci-Fi movies bearing the Trek name.  (One of which is a good movie, just not a good Trek movie).  

Voyager...

Having watched through most of the series recently (its on BBC America right now which i often have on in the background)... its actually not very bad.  There is a major issue with the premise of WHY they stayed in the Delta Quadrant to begin with; Chakotay is a terrible character through no fault of Robert Beltran (the "Native American" expert they hired to write him was literaly a con-man, and Beltran hated it and kept trying to get himself fired), and There are 2 runs of episodes (part of Season 1, and a decent chunk of Season 2) that are just really, really bad.  Not just as Trek, but as a TV show.  (Writers Strike around that time).  

Otherwise.. though.  Its really not that bad.  It got a lot of bad press from Trek fans who had become enamored of DS9, because it was more of a throwback to ToS than anything since, but from Season 3 on, it wasn't too bad at all, and actually got quite good around the middle of Season 4.  As good as any of TNG anyway, and as good as the average/below average episodes of DS9.  

Janeway and Chakotay also got WAY better when (sometime in late Season 3/early Season 4) Kate Mulgrew  basically said that she was going to start writing arcs for her character and making her make more sense or they could fire her, and then went to bat for Beltran in the same way (give him creative latitude with Chakotay, or you can fire us both).  Youll notice around that time that Chakotay got more believably spiritual and less native-American-caricature (because Beltran was a spiritualist but wasn't raised in the native culture), became way less stiff, and started to have better character arcs.

Same with Janeway.  Her decision-making got a lot more consistent (in Seasons 1 and 2 she rubberbanded depending on who was writing), and they started to develop her character a lot more (dealing with her knowledge that her not-husband had moved on, being lonely, the Holodeck program with DaVinci (entirely written by Mulgrew) that featured in a lot of episodes afterwards (with the excellent John Rhys Davies as DaVinci).  

And even with the problems those two had... Voyager had three of the best Star Trek characters.  A lot of people still look to Nimoy for how Vulcans should act, but ... Tim Russ is my man.  Tuvok was an amazing character.  Not only did he have more episodes and seasons to develop, but i think he did a better job of being a Vulcan as described by Spock, who was, at his own admission, only half Vulcan.  

The Doctor was also an amazing character - not just a Data re-tread, but given a life of his own by Picardo.  (Who also threatened to quit unless they got him out of Sickbay).  Sometimes his arcs were silly, but some of the very best character-driven arcs in Star Trek were based around The Doctor (the episode where he cant deal with the fact that he had to let a crew member die?  SO GOOD.)  

And.. Neelix is probably the most undervalued character ever.  Really pay attention to him sometime.  He seems like a fool... but he isn't.  That crew would have died without him.  And his send-off was excellent.  

Now, im not saying Voyager was amazing or the best Trek show ever (because that is obviously DS9, and if you believe otherwise, it will be pistols at dawn), but it isn't nearly as bad as people remember.  

Its worth a re-watch.

Sorry for the info dump.  But i fell down a wiki-hole at Memory-Alpha.

In Topic: Bungie Caught With Their Pants Down by Destiny 2 Players?

07 December 2017 - 02:15 AM

View PostJanichsan, on 07 December 2017 - 01:41 AM, said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but what content did they lock behind microtransactions? What I've seen so far, Eververse still only sells cosmetics.

I guess If you consider the expansion content a Microtransaction, then they locked people out of Heroic Strikes (which are "new" to D2 with this xpac) and out of the raid and Nightfall.. mostly.  You can still do the Nightfall if you were close to the Power cap in the vanilla game.  

View PostFrost, on 06 December 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

And now Bungie has released a $20 expansion with an hour and a half of content and most of the cool gear locked behind microtransactions. Anyone who hasn't bought the expansion loses the ability to play most of the endgame activities.

You know, if you find yourself in a hole, maybe you better stop digging.

What gear is locked behind microtransactions?  Or are we calling the expansion itself a microtransaction?  Because AFAIK, there's nothing but cosmetics from Eververse.  And i've earned so many of the damn things that every other time i play for any length of time i have to have a 10 minute "dismantle" session to make room, because im at the cap (without ever purchasing any "Silver")

On the topic of how much content there was... yeah, not going to back Bingle on that one.  The campaign is ludicrously short.  Of course i felt the same about the vanilla campaign for D2 - it felt like it needed about six more major missions and some better narrative to show that this "Red War" was actually taking place over several months or more.  

I do dig the Heroic Adventures though.  They are satisfyingly challenging as a solo experience - i actually failed the timer on one (you still get loot, just lower level and only one chest instead of two).  They need to add that feature to the other planets.

In Topic: Bungie Caught With Their Pants Down by Destiny 2 Players?

07 December 2017 - 02:07 AM

View PostDirtyHarry50, on 05 December 2017 - 11:05 PM, said:

You really believe that Diablo III is a loss leader that simply bleeds money and makes none?

It certainly isn't selling tens of thousands of copies and making millions of dollars.  The number of concurrent people playing it is quite low.  

Quote

You think nobody buys the game anymore? The expansion didn't sell? Another one will never happen?

Actually, they HAVE confirmed (at Blizzcon) that they aren't working on anything major for Diablo and are focusing on other franchises.  

Quote

Maybe you could explain the recent $15. Necromancer that I'm sure has sold like hotcakes across multiple platforms and which I bought myself.

~25% of active players bought it.  Was it a money-maker?  Sure, because the actual effort of it was near nill.  But it isn't an ongoing revenue stream by any means.  Doesn't even total up to what Hearthstone makes in a month.  

Quote

Also, Activision is calling the plays ultimately now and they are not in the habit of giving away anything. In short, Diablo III makes money and no doubt more money making is planned or Diablo III would not exist because no matter what Blizzard might want, Activision is calling the plays now.

Which is not what ANY of the top level people at Blizzard say... including the ones who have retired or moved on (such as Chris Metzen) and are not obligated to "tow the party line".  

Quote

When I see Destiny using Battle.net and being wedged in with Blizzard's titles

"wedged in with Blizzard titles" - you mean the part where it ISNT next to the Blizzard games in the launcher and is in a separate section by itself labelled "Activision"?

Quote

I am inclined to think Battle.net is an asset at Activision's disposal even without reading a bunch of stuff I don't care about related to all of that. If Battle.net is at Activision's disposal, it follows that everything Blizzard is as well so far as top management is concerned.

So, your position is that you dont care to educate yourself about the situation, but you're sure you know the real story.  Got it.  FWIW, Metzen has talked about the issue since leaving Blizzard - it was *Bungie's* idea to use Battle.net, because Activision didn't want the game on Steam (they wanted to cut out Valve) and originally wanted Bungie to build their own launcher (Keep in mind, Bungie is NOT owned by Activision, they are merely the publisher) - Bungie has been independently owned since they left Microsoft).  Blizzard also could have said no.  They said yes because the more people that install the Battle.net client the better - the more likely they are to then buy Blizzard's games.  That was actually what convinced Mike Morhaime to say yes.  

Quote

Diablo III is just another example of a popular game many people like that is sustained by that and nothing else.

I was going to insert something snarky here about how much popularity is worth in USD, but i just dont have the heart.  No one here is claiming that the company is a saint or anything, but i am saying that sometimes "it makes us gazillions of dollars" isn't the only reason to keep supporting something, especially when the costs of doing so simply aren't that high.  

Quote

Need more money? Give them a new class they want, some virtual toys to go with them and watch the profits come rolling in 15 bucks at a time over a huge number of players.

Because there's a pattern of that, right?  Oh.. no, there isn't.  And the company has outright stated that there's not any serious new content coming to D3 and no work being done on the franchise at the moment.  
Diablo 2 was supported for 10+ years with new seasons and even new rune words and the like, and it certainly wasn't making them any serious cash at the end (and IIRC is still playable even?  I know there was an update a while back).  D3 is still around because having the people that like it as loyal customers is worth the cost of operating it (which is quite low at this point).

In Topic: Bungie Caught With Their Pants Down by Destiny 2 Players?

05 December 2017 - 03:18 PM

View PostSpike, on 05 December 2017 - 02:42 PM, said:

I dont know what DIAF stands for, but it sounds bad. I also (assuming) hate subscription models to just play a game.

The game I want THE MOST is WoW Classic and so the only thing I am praying for is it doesnt have subscription... please-o-please-o-please!

You might as well just let that hope go.  They arent going to invest millions re-creating (if you dont follow WoW closely these days, there are several threads on this topic at MMO-Champion that go in-depth; the TLDR version is Blizz doesnt have the source code for Vanilla.  They had to get the code being used by Nostalrius (a private Vanilla server) to even START working on it - they are essentially having to re-build Vanilla manually) Vanilla WoW and the run servers that cost about 55K a year each to run just for funsies.  Youll have to pay a sub.  Theyll likely just throw it in with your existing WoW sub.