Jump to content

Henderson

Members
  • Content Count

    1,194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

325 Excellent

About Henderson

  • Rank
    Lower Midcarder
  • Birthday 11/01/1983

Recent Profile Visitors

1,633 profile views
  1. Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. I'll have to check it out, sounds interesting.
  2. This isn't a branch off of Lemony Snicket is it?
  3. I think part of it is also the lifestyle they all had in the late 70's and into the 80's is catching up with all them. The amount of blow they all consumed is probably comparable to Mt. Everest. Prince and George Michael in the same year? The only thing that would've been worse is if they had the trifecta and Michael Jackson held off for a few more years.
  4. The first time I ever went by myself to the movies was to see World War Z. I had to stay awake to get on my nightshift schedule and figured I'd go to the movies as a way to stay awake. It was also a new release so they had a late showing. There turned out to be several people that went to that show and sure, it seemed weird at first just sitting there but once the movie started, I didn't think anything of it and really enjoyed myself. It was a combination of seeing a movie I wanted to see and not having to worry about keeping someone else sitting next to me entertained. I could just do what I want; watch the movie. Just this year I broke the "eat by myself at a restaurant" thing. It was odd walking in and saying I was by myself, but then I just sat at the bar (Mexican place). When I felt like talking, I'd say something to the bar tender, but it was nice ordering whatever I wanted and taking my time. The second time I went, I didn't feel nearly as weird and even sat at a table that time.
  5. That's what I mean. I have Stellaris also and I agree with that. I think if Stellaris had first person and had the open nature that NMS has, that would be my perfect game that I'm looking for. For some reason, no game developer has ever seen the value in a first person open space sim...Not a really good one anyway.
  6. I'm sort of mixed. I really was wanting there to be a genuine space sim where you could take off from a planet and go out into space and then explore space. This is probably the closest thing I've been wanting as far as mechanics go. I wish that it looked a little bit more realistic though because in my opinion, it looks a bit cartoonish. Space is too bright in my opinion. Stellaris is also pretty close also. If only these two games were mixed, it'd probably be exactly what I am looking for. The first person ability to explore in NMS with the graphics and realism (starting from Earth and actual planets) of Stellaris.
  7. I'm waiting for it to get released on PC.
  8. I can't remember who my first opponent was when I moved up, but I know it wasn't Cena or Brock. One of my first matches though, was against Triple H and I pretty much squashed him. I also had a feud with a "mystery superstar" but nothing seemed to happen with it. I just eventually got the note that I was no longer feuding with "mystery."
  9. Not much of a surprise that the forum vultures wasted no time jumping on my carcass when it was still warm. If anyone's blowing stuff out of proportion, it's you guys who can't even seem to realize that all of us who are talking about the "old game styles" aren't complaining about new marketing agendas or feeling "entitled" or anything else. We're simply saying that it's pretty outrageous what gaming companies (as that's what we're talking about right now) are doing nowadays, which is selling a game at full price when it really isn't the full game. Yes, I'm fully aware that it's my perogative to buy the game or not. I've already said I'm not buying it because of the additional cost I would have to pay in order to have a complete game. Just the same, it's your perogative to shell out "$200" for it if you feel the desire. You've got the time and ability to play 200+ hours of a video game, be my guest. I'm not complaining or feeling entitled to a certain product. I'm stating my opinion on things and you guys are always quick to jump on people's opinions when they differ from your own. Like I said, it's a business and they're in it to make money. In this case, they aren't getting my money. Throwing insults at people when you know nothing about them shows your ignorance. I have dabbled in game coding. Have I messed with WWE 2k15? No, because for a few reasons. 1, it's not even released yet. 2, 2k sports will never release their code. I'll give you points for argument's sake, but you really are grasping at straws while trying to sound like you know everything. The argument's really simple.....The game hasn't even been released yet, so nothing they are saying in DLC can even be considered "post release" because the game hasn't even been RELEASED yet. All DLC is in the game code itself so it will be compatible and WORK with the game. It's already there because game footage has been shown with it there. How else are they going to give you a trailer or preview? It's not a 3d video put together just to hype it...It's actual game footage. Seriously guys, it won't hurt you to accept that some people have different opinions than yours, and just because they're different, doesn't mean they're wrong. You want to pay $60 for a game and up to $60 more, go ahead...No one's complaining about your choice to do so. Just because someone else doesn't see the point in it doesn't make them an "idiot."
  10. The entire reason I've been tossing around the idea of buying this game is because why am I going to spend $60 on a game and then have to pay probably another $30 for extra things that should've been included in the first place? In the old days, you simply "unlocked" the extra features and didn't have to pay an additional $10 each for what's already in the game itself. On top of that, I have a PS3, not a PS4. They've left out either the "season" mode or "universe", I can't remember which one from the PS3 and other modes are exclusive to the PS4 and Xbox One, for no particular good reason other than to get people to buy the new systems. So because I don't have the brand new systems, I'd pretty much have half of the game. This isn't because the feature can't be done on the XBox or PS3. If that were the case, I'd accept it fine, but it isn't. The game makers are in the business to make money. It's not a matter of time constraints. Someone awhile back realized that they can sell a game for regular price (new PS and XBox games have always cost the same - $50-$60 which would give you the "full game" without paying more) and instead of adding in the extra features and making them unlockable, they can put it up for DLC and make people pay for it, because people WILL pay for it. It essentially doubles their profits on one single game. Saying they didn't have time to program it in and that's the reason for DLC is ridiculous. They aren't upgrades they do over time, those are called patches and we don't have to pay for the patches (yet). DLC are features that are already included in the game code, they just make you pay for it to unlock it. It's like the modern day expansion pack, except with expansion packs, you actually got pretty much an entire additional game. They've known from the beginning that Sting was going to be in the game, yet the only way (currently) you can get him is to pre-order. I'm not even sure about Hogan, as he's probably only DLC at the moment. The stuff's already clearly in the game, otherwise they wouldn't be added in the trailers. Buying the game alone isn't what "was originally intended to be the full game." There's still a full list of other things included in the game that I can only get if I pay more. The argument was that isn't how it used to be. It used to be we bought a game for the same price and got the FULL game. It wasn't "go online and buy this to unlock this!" It's about making money guys....That's the same reason we'll never see gas prices back to $.89/gallon....Because the oil companies realized they can triple their profits. Game makers realized they can at least double their profits with DLC.
  11. Ok, I sort of can get where you're going with this, but it really makes no sense. Paint wearing off in a match doesn't have anything to do with presentation or image licensing. If companies were concerned about it, they would just have the workers simply not wear it. As far as I have known, wrestling companies don't have any control over the actual gameplay of videogames. Features are left up to the makers while the wrestling organization may have some input here and there. With your logic, you could say the same about including blood. In addition to that, you could say racing games like Need for Speed, etc. would have issues from car manufacturers like Ford, Dodge, etc by allowing damage to show up on the vehicles...Afterall, why would Ford want to have their Mustang get all banged up in a video game? I'm sure they would much rather the car look pristine no matter how many times you run into a wall or another vehicle. Or with Football games; Why would the Denver Broncos franchise want Peyton Manning's game character have the ability to get injured in Madden? With your logic, Manning getting injured in the game and the Broncos picking up Curtis Painter off waivers to be their starting QB would be detrimental to the actual Bronco's organization....Afterall, someone catching a glimpse of that could think that Painter was indeed the starting QB for them rather than Manning, right? Like I said, I can kinda get where you were going with it, but it really doesn't make any sense. It's not about licensing, because WWE or TNA don't have copyrights to facepaint. As a matter of fact, the only character that WWE owns from who you mentioned is Goldust, and Rhodes could still go somewhere else and use the exact same facepaint design he uses with the character, even though he wouldn't be able to use the name or character. It's really just a feature that I don't think video game makers have ever really thought of adding and I was curious as to why it's never really been brought up or thought of. Like I said, I never thought it would be something very difficult to add.
  12. Has anyone else ever thought why wrestling video games never program it in to have a worker who wears facepaint, actually lose their facepaint during the course of a match? It seems like it would be a fairly simple concept to pull off, especially with grapics of today and capabilities, yet no one has ever tried it as far as I can tell. In WCW vs NWO World Tour and WCW/NWO Revenge, if you did an "eye gouge" enough times on workers with either a mask or facepaint, it would cause them to come off. That's the closest I've ever seen anyone getting to it. For all the "realism" that they boast about on games now, that seems like something they would look in to. No, it doesn't really bring anything to the game, other than that "realism" factor...Just like showing sweat on a wrestler or adding facial expressions doesn't add anything to it other than the look. It would just look a lot better, and pretty bad ass, if you had Sting, for example, in a 15 minute match where he gradually loses his paint....As opposed to having that same 15 minute match where his paint looks just as good at the end as it did when he walks out.
  13. Any update on if any of these have been converted to 2010?
  14. I've actually enjoyed Herschel's character. Kinda glad Shane's done. He was interesting, but I think it ran its course. There was really nowhere else for him to go. The only other option would've been for him to just leave, maybe form his own "group" where a couple others left. That would've opened up the possibility of Rick's group running into them later on down the road and leading to a confrontation....But I liked the way they had him go out. I am pretty curious about the no bite/scratch and still coming back. My first thought was that Shane was already infected and didn't know it, but that wouldn't explain Randall. Really, with all that zombie killing and blood splattering everywhere, it'd be pretty tough for some zombie blood/saliva not getting in someone's eyes or cut, especially because they don't keep very clean anymore. As for who's next? Someone in Herschel's family other than Maggie. I hope they keep Glenn around for awhile since he's such a likable character. I don't see Carol lasting much longer, but then again, I thought she was gonna go a long time ago.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. To learn more, see our Privacy Policy