Another Links 2004 course available for DL

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

06 Mar 2004, 03:13 PM
Mamoscott

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melf

EA's sports games are the only sports games that aren't online on Xbox.

Do you realize how stupid this statement is? What percentage of sports games sales do you think EA constitutes?

Quote:

Just like you're overlooking Carve, DDR, Mech Assault, Top Spin, Jedi Academy, Midtown Madness 3, Music Mixer, and a host of others.

I didn't overlook those. They're all more or less mediocre.

Quote:

As if all the online games on PS2 were AAA.

I never said they were.

Quote:

Funny that just about all the games you mentioned are also on PS2.

Sony isn't trying to charge me subscription fees to play them online though. Either way, I'd rather have more original content than PC ports.

Quote:

What I fail to realize is why someone who hates Live so much feels the need to post in every Live thread.

I complimented MS for this downloadable content. I only continued posting, because people were bashing EA's Service without any type of justification whatsoever.
06 Mar 2004, 03:24 PM
epmode

i've had enough of this.
congratulations, you're now the only person on my ignore list.
06 Mar 2004, 07:25 PM
Sl1p

That thought never crossed my mind. I think I shall partake in this "ignoring" of this Korian wannabe.

You have joined MWF in the idiot panel of TNL. GOOD JOB! XD!!!
07 Mar 2004, 01:23 AM
Melf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mamoscott

Do you realize how stupid this statement is? What percentage of sports games sales do you think EA constitutes?

Nevertheless, there are plenty of online sports games on Live. Just because EA gives you a boner doesn't mean no one else will play XSN or Sega Sports.

..and when you consider that the most-played online PS2 is SOCOM II and not an EA game, that makes your EA gushing sound all the more fanboyish. Yes, EA games sell. Yes, an online Madden is license to print money. It isn't the only game in town however, and Live is doing pretty darn well without it.

Quote:

I didn't overlook those. They're all more or less mediocre.

You're so right. We should all be playing Trivial Pursuit and Risk. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Sony isn't trying to charge me subscription fees to play them online though.

So Everquest on PS2 is free now? FF11 as well?

Quote:

because people were bashing EA's Service without any type of justification whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by epmode

do you even have live, mamoscott?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mamoscott

Of course not.

Pot. Kettle. Black
07 Mar 2004, 01:31 AM
Sl1p

I just played my first game of Links online with a friend. Never before have I realized how bloated with useless shit Tiger Woods is. Soooo streamlined. I love it. If I weren't so into Ninja Gaiden I would be totally obsessed with Links...so I must find a way to cram more Links into my game time.
08 Mar 2004, 01:03 PM
Mamoscott

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sl1p

I just played my first game of Links online with a friend. Never before have I realized how bloated with useless shit Tiger Woods is. Soooo streamlined. I love it. If I weren't so into Ninja Gaiden I would be totally obsessed with Links...so I must find a way to cram more Links into my game time.

This has to the stupidest justification for less features I have ever read. Yes, shame on EA for including a large number of courses and play modes in their golf game. How bloated and useless! :rolleyes:

You could have just said that you like Links better, and at least then you wouldn't sound like an idiot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melf

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I choose not to subscribe to Live, but that does not mean I haven't used it for any length of time. Unlike many of the people here constantly commenting on EA's online service who seem to have no idea what features it does and does not offer.

Quote:

Nevertheless, there are plenty of online sports games on Live. Just because EA gives you a boner doesn't mean no one else will play XSN or Sega Sports.

No one gives a shit about XSN, because MS' sports series are terrible. The PS2 gets all the Sega Sports titles with more online features than their Xbox counterparts, so that argument is irrelevant as well. Why would I subscribe to Live and limit my options when I already have the best of both worlds on my PS2?

Quote:

So Everquest on PS2 is free now? FF11 as well?

MMORPG = Dedicated servers required = subscription fees required (and justifiable)

Too bad Live doesn't deliver dedicated servers for its games as MS originally promised, which is why Live was supposed to have subscription fees in the first place. And do you really think True Fantasy Online isn't going to cost you extra on top of your regular Live fees?
08 Mar 2004, 06:01 PM
Melf

Quote:

Unlike many of the people here constantly commenting on EA's online service who seem to have no idea what features it does and does not offer.

I don't care what people are saying about EA's service here. If you had made a thread to gush over it and they trolled it that way then you'd be in the right. The fact that you have to jump into every thread dealing with Live to bash it only detracts from any credibility your argument may have.

Quote:

No one gives a shit about XSN, because MS' sports series are terrible.

I presume you've played Amped 2, Links, and Top Spin at length? Oh that's right, you can't since you don't even have Live. Right to bitch -1.

Quote:

Why would I subscribe to Live and limit my options when I already have the best of both worlds on my PS2?

Yes, since Live is only good for Sega Sports games.

Quote:

MMORPG = Dedicated servers required = subscription fees required (and justifiable)

So you bash MS for charging but give the same behavior on PS2 a green light?

"Boo hoo, I had to pay $50 for Live." I don't recall Sony giving away their network adapter. Live is a one-time fee and almost a million people have gladly paid it and enjoyed the service. Accept it and move on.

Dedicated servers or not, most people are very happy with the Live experience; a fact you seem unwilling to accept. I really would like to hear you, should EA decide to join in.
08 Mar 2004, 06:23 PM
Sl1p

Quote:

This has to the stupidest justification for less features I have ever read. Yes, shame on EA for including a large number of courses and play modes in their golf game. How bloated and useless!

You could have just said that you like Links better, and at least then you wouldn't sound like an idiot.

I took him off ignore for this thread to see what kind of stuff Melf was going up against..I'm glad I did. Mamo has just because the worst poster on the board.

Have you ever played Links? I'm going to go ahead with a big NO because you don't know what you're talking about.

Tiger Woods is bloated with useless options. The power button set to L1? In air spin control (Which is cheesy), ridiculous putting style, yadda yadda. Links does away with a lot of this stuff, plays like a dream and still requires skills to get the job done. Your power is determined by how well you can swing the club and not your technique at mashing the L1 button. If you want to spin the ball you have to do so in the middle of your swing (With the use of the right analog which works brilliantly) just like a real golfer. Unless you want to argue with me that in real life people are telekenetics and can spin their ball in mid-air, which I wouldn't put above you. Putting is not only determined by your ability to read the green (You get a path for your ball, but you stil need to comensate for a lot) but by your ability to control your shot, unlike Tiger Woods where you just stick your marker in the ground and swing it as hard as you can since it dosen't matter. Oh, also everything in Links is pretty much controlled by the two analogs and the A button, super simple, effective and streamlined, unlike Tiger Woods. You see, I actually own both games, you do not. So once again, as in every other thread you've ever stepped into, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, Links has less courses and yes it dosen't have all the features Tiger Woods has. It still plays better, no one who plays golf gives a shit about Gameface anyways and no one cares about breakdancing. You could have just came out and said you've never played Links or own XBOXLive, at least then you wouldn't have sounded like such an idiot.

*Back on ignore*

You just got served. LOLZ~!!
08 Mar 2004, 07:49 PM
Mamoscott

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melf

I don't care what people are saying about EA's service here. If you had made a thread to gush over it and they trolled it that way then you'd be in the right. The fact that you have to jump into every thread dealing with Live to bash it only detracts from any credibility your argument may have.

My argument has credibility, simply because Live has no dedicated servers. Valve doesn't charge people to play CS/HL/DoD online, because the servers that people play on are run on the bandwidth, resources, and hardware of gamers. Xbox Live is set up the same way (subscribers host games on their own Xbox's and their own bandwidth), except MS is charging you money to do that.

Quote:

I presume you've played Amped 2, Links, and Top Spin at length? Oh that's right, you can't since you don't even have Live. Right to bitch -1.

Yes, I have played all those titles at length. Why do I have to subscribe to Live to comment on the service anyway? I guess you believe one has to purchase a game before they can truly see whether it sucks or not. :rolleyes:

I like Links a lot actually. It's not as good as Tiger Woods 2004 though, and I don't have time for more than one golf game.

Quote:

Yes, since Live is only good for Sega Sports games.

In terms of major sports titles (baseball/basketball/football/hockey), yes.

Quote:

So you bash MS for charging but give the same behavior on PS2 a green light?

I'm not sure you read my last post properly. I have no problem with developers/publishers charging subscription fees for MMORPG's. However, it's not ok to charge for a "service" where every single game is essentially peer-to-peer, because the costs of running a service like that are negligible, let alone $50/year per user. Do you see Blizzard charging for Battle.net?

Quote:

"Boo hoo, I had to pay $50 for Live." I don't recall Sony giving away their network adapter. Live is a one-time fee and almost a million people have gladly paid it and enjoyed the service. Accept it and move on.

Are you delusional? Live is not a one time fee. And much like the network adapter, I don't recall MS giving away Live kits free of charge either. Also, the Live userbase isn't even close to a million. They've been hovering at around 750,000 for months now, which is less than 5% of the Xbox userbase. How do you define successful?

Quote:

Dedicated servers or not, most people are very happy with the Live experience; a fact you seem unwilling to accept. I really would like to hear you, should EA decide to join in.

It doesn't matter if EA puts their games on Live, because I can still play them for free on my PS2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sl1p

Yes, Links has less courses and yes it dosen't have all the features Tiger Woods has. It still plays better, no one who plays golf gives a shit about Gameface anyways and no one cares about breakdancing.

Sales figures would suggest otherwise. Reviews would too. Funny how that works.

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/914790.asp
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/914918.asp

And as I already posted, you could have just said that you like Links better. Instead you spend god knows how long typing up an explanation of how a player swings in Links. I've played the game, so I already know all that. And when did I ever say Tiger 2004 was perfect?

If there are so many superior alternatives to EA's games, why is there so much bitching about them for not supporting Live anyway?
09 Mar 2004, 12:38 AM
Melf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mamoscott

My argument has credibility, simply because Live has no dedicated servers. Valve doesn't charge people to play CS/HL/DoD online, because the servers that people play on are run on the bandwidth, resources, and hardware of gamers. Xbox Live is set up the same way (subscribers host games on their own Xbox's and their own bandwidth), except MS is charging you money to do that.

So sadly, MS will have to do without your $50. I think they'll get by.

Quote:

Yes, I have played all those titles at length. Why do I have to subscribe to Live to comment on the service anyway? I guess you believe one has to purchase a game before they can truly see whether it sucks or not. :rolleyes:

No, there are many people here who have played EA's service and say it sucks, yet you refuse to accept that. Your opinion is just that, your opinion, and no matter how many Live threads you troll, no one will shed a tear that you're not on their friend's list.

Quote:

In terms of major sports titles (baseball/basketball/football/hockey), yes.

Again, your opinion.

Quote:

I'm not sure you read my last post properly. I have no problem with developers/publishers charging subscription fees for MMORPG's. However, it's not ok to charge for a "service" where every single game is essentially peer-to-peer, because the costs of running a service like that are negligible, let alone $50/year per user. Do you see Blizzard charging for Battle.net?

No, but I see Sega charging for PSO, yet don't see you bitching about that.

Quote:

Are you delusional? Live is not a one time fee. And much like the network adapter, I don't recall MS giving away Live kits free of charge either. Also, the Live userbase isn't even close to a million. They've been hovering at around 750,000 for months now, which is less than 5% of the Xbox userbase. How do you define successful?

$50 once a year sounds fine to me. Considering that Everquest on PS2 costs $10 a month, I think Live is a better deal. That's my opinion and you don't have to agree with it, but you do have to accept it.

I'm not going to get into it again with you about how much userbase is required to consider a service a success, as I believe Diffusion X said it pretty well in the other Live thread you trolled. I'm getting pretty tired of this so this will be my last reply to you.

Quote:

It doesn't matter if EA puts their games on Live, because I can still play them for free on my PS2.

I'm sure that breaks Microsoft's heart.

Quote:

If there are so many superior alternatives to EA's games, why is there so much bitching about them for not supporting Live anyway?

Funny, the only bitching I see in Live threads is from you; someone who doesn't even have the service.

Here's a thought: Go make a thread dedicated to EA's online service and let those who hate it troll there. That way, you can bash Live to your heart's content. I'm seriously getting tired of seeing you hijack these threads.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page