The Ocean Mill "director's cut" fantasy course is available for DL on Live. Someone please DL it and tell us how it is!
I so need to get this game. :(
Printable View
The Ocean Mill "director's cut" fantasy course is available for DL on Live. Someone please DL it and tell us how it is!
I so need to get this game. :(
Im waiting for Mamoscott to come on this thread and flame MS for releasing a free addon.
Isn't there already an Ocean Mill fantasy course in the game? I wonder what's different about it.
That's probably where the Director's Cut comes in.
My router broke last week, so I need someone to download it so that I can live vicariously through them.
Yes, you do. Everyone with an Xbox does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
I suppose I could sell my copy. Tiger Woods pees on it.
Why would I flame MS for this? With this new content, Links 2004 almost has almost half the number of courses that Tiger Woods 2004 shipped with! Amazing! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
At any rate, kudos to whoever for getting more downloadable content on Live at no additional cost to subscribers. Didn't MS shit-can the entire Links development team as soon as the game shipped?
Tiger Woods had better be God, then, because this game is damn, damn good.
And after using the analog stick to perform your swing, sorry... I don't want to go back to that old "press the button three times" system. If Tiger Woods does that, then no thanks.
Last year's Tiger Woods uses the analog swing. So does this year's version.
While I like the left thumbstick swing in Links, I prefer the right thumbstick swinging in Outlaw Golf.
Tiger Woods is a fun game, but it's got nothing on Links.
If Tiger Woods 2004 was ever released in Japan they'd call it "Super Hip Hop Golf Man Dress Up Time."
Plus Links 2004 Online> Pees all over Tiger Woods' crappy EA online.
oh you didn't go there. mamoscott in 3.. 2..
I'll bet you've never even played Tiger Woods 2004 online, or any EA Sports game online for that matter. There seems to be a pattern here of people complaining about EA's online service even though they've never used it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildkat
EAOnline is the worst online "service" of all time. After it took me an hour just go create an account that wasn't taken (jared85872 or something ridiculous like that) I go online and realize that everyone is using uber-Tiger. No one uses voice. It's always laggy. Oh, and did I mention it brings great shame to SSX3 by only making it 2-player and with lag? Fuck all that.
I'll be getting Links very soon...in fact, I should just go to Gamestop tonight and get that if Ninja Gaiden allows that...hes been pretty hostile lately :(
seriously. teh online was the deciding factor for me. i finally got my ps2 online only to have game-breaking lag in every single race i played. just in case anyone doesn't know: in ssx3, if there's any lag whatsoever, the game simply freezes until you resync.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sl1p
it's a good thing the ps2 version has the best controls, or i'd be pissed that i avoided the xbox port.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sl1p
Those are terrible complaints.
1. The reason most account names are taken is because EA made a deal with AOL where people can use their existing screennames for their accounts. Additionally, your in-game nick is independent of your account name, so it doesn't matter what account name you choose. All the information gets saved to your memory card anyway, and you never have to worry about it again. So basically it took you an hour to create an account even though one was already created for you beforehand. You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
Maybe you should scratch "EA Sux" into your broadband adapter for trying to make your life more convenient. That would surely send them a message.
2. Tons of people use voice communication. Just head into one of the "Headset Only" channels that are always full of potential opponents.
3. I've never had any lag in Tiger Woods 2004. Ever. I do get occasional hiccups in NCAA or Madden though. Your connection must be exceptionally shitty to lag in a golf game.
For the record, I haven't played SSX3 online, so I don't know if that is integrated into EA's Service the way sports titles are.
Um, isn't SSX3 an EA sports game? Or does the BIG developer tag make it different?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamoscott
Woo! Time to start downloading. Maybe even time to start playing online at last. :)
James
Which by the way, dosen't work. I spent that hour attempting to make it accept my AIM SN.Quote:
The reason most account names are taken is because EA made a deal with AOL where people can use their existing screennames for their accounts.
And from personal experience, bullshit.Quote:
Tons of people use voice communication.
It is. Oh, and I never lag over any XBL game unless I'm on BitTorrent, so once again you're the bitch of XBL.Quote:
For the record, I haven't played SSX3 online, so I don't know if that is integrated into EA's Service the way sports titles are
PS: I just got back from buying Links XD!!! So now Mamo can cry some more because I bought another Live game instead of some fag game he would enjoy.
If that's true, WOW is that stupid. Great, I get to fight for a name due to people who picked that name years ago and have since never used that account again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamoscott
You don't really fight over any names. You just have one universal EA account, which you use to play all your EA games online and no one else sees. Once you have it set up, everything is saved to your memory card, and you're good to go. Then after you get on the network, you are free to choose your nicknames for each individual game.Quote:
Originally Posted by shidoshi
Yes, those millions of people who bought Socom bundled with the headset must have just vanished off the face of the earth and stopped buying other games altogether. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sl1p
99% of the games I've played on EA's service have been against another person with a headset. The only exceptions are when I actively seek out an opponent who does not have one, or if I do the "Play Now" option and let myself get auto-matched to an opponent.
Why would I even care how you choose to spend your money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sl1p
ever notice how every xbox live thread in gaming discussion eventually turns into a mamoscott/ea love-in? never gets old.
do you even have live, mamoscott?
Of course he dosen't. As the old saying goes, the only people who hate XBOXLive are the ones who don't have it.
Mamo, stop being such a korian.
Of course not. I'll readily admit that Live is the best online gaming service currently available for a console, but that automatically doesn't make it great or worth the money MS is asking for in subscription fees. Unlike some dipshits who prefer to carve stupid messages into products they've already purchased, I choose to send a message with my wallet. I won't subscribe to Live until I see the features that I want implemented (dedicated servers, less inferior ports of PC games I can already play online for free, more original titles, league play in Sega's sports titles, etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by epmode
Live has a pretty mediocre game lineup, especially if you're not a huge fan of racing games (like myself). The only title that's ever tempted me to get a subscription is Crimson Skies. Maybe if Kingdom Under Fire turns out to be awesome though...
http://www.y31.net/media/gcsux.jpg http://www.y31.net/media/gcsux.jpg
Waaaaaaaaaaah~
I love the fact that Mamo feels the need to cry about me in every post he makes now. The true meaning of owned.
PS: Dedicated servers have been around since I've been on live, the variety is already there (Every major sport, dancing, dogfighting, racing, rpg, fps, fighting, puzzle, strategy...Thats a hell of a lot more variety than the PS2 line-up which consists of football, SOCOM and Amplitude), inferior ports my ass (RS3 for example) and boo hoo about league support for Sega games.
Back to the topic....
I wanna play Links tomorrow night after I wrap up Ninja Gaiden, so I'll go post whore in the online gaming thread now. So was the new course radically different or lame?
the xbox live subscription fee is about the same you'd pay for a ps2 broadband adapter + headset. you can complain about the price when it comes time to renew your account, but by then, you'll be glad to pay it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamoscott
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sl1p
I honestly don't care how many time you post that picture. It's the equivalent of photographing yourself holding a sign that says, "Shoot me! I'm a dumb ass who lacks any semblance of common sense whatsoever!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Sl1p
No, they haven't. If that's true, why is Crimson Skies peer-to-peer? Or Wolfenstein? Or any other Live game for that matter?Quote:
PS: Dedicated servers have been around since I've been on live
Oh please. Every Sega sports game that is on Xbox Live is also online via the PS2 and with more features. The PS2 also has online modes in every EA Sports title, which covers a much larger variety of sports than Sega. Where are the college football games on Xbox Live? Boxing games? Online play in Fight Night will of course be PS2 Only. Funny...I don't recall any soccer games on Live, but Fifa 2004 is certainly playable online via the PS2. Every major sport my ass.Quote:
the variety is already there (Every major sport, dancing, dogfighting, racing, rpg, fps, fighting, puzzle, strategy...Thats a hell of a lot more variety than the PS2 line-up which consists of football, SOCOM and Amplitude),
You're also overlooking the likes of Everything or Nothing, Return of the King, Risk, Trivial Pursuit, Twisted Metal Black, SSX3, NFL Street, Everquest, Need for Speed: Underground, RE: Outbreak, and the Tony Hawk games. Yes, no variety at all. :rolleyes:
And I never said there wasn't a variety of genres available on Xbox Live. All I said is that the games were mediocre. And honestly, I like DRR, but there is no point to playing it online.
Exception, not the rule (Ghost Recon, Wolfenstein, Counter-Strike, Island Thunder, Unreal Championship, Soldier of Fortune 2 for example). You noticing a trend here? And don't forget the just announced Tron 2.0!Quote:
inferior ports my ass (RS3 for example)
You'd be boo hooing if you realized why there is no league support in Sega's sports games.Quote:
and boo hoo about league support for Sega games.
EA's sports games are the only sports games that aren't online on Xbox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamoscott
Just like you're overlooking Carve, DDR, Mech Assault, Top Spin, Jedi Academy, Midtown Madness 3, Music Mixer, and a host of others.Quote:
You're also overlooking the likes of Everything or Nothing, Return of the King, Risk, Trivial Pursuit, Twisted Metal Black, SSX3, NFL Street, Everquest, Need for Speed: Underground, RE: Outbreak, and the Tony Hawk games. Yes, no variety at all. :rolleyes:
As if all the online games on PS2 were AAA.Quote:
And I never said there wasn't a variety of genres available on Xbox Live. All I said is that the games were mediocre. And honestly, I like DRR, but there is no point to playing it online.
Funny that just about all the games you mentioned are also on PS2.Quote:
Exception, not the rule (Ghost Recon, Wolfenstein, Counter-Strike, Island Thunder, Unreal Championship, Soldier of Fortune 2 for example). You noticing a trend here? And don't forget the just announced Tron 2.0!
What I fail to realize is why someone who hates Live so much feels the need to post in every Live thread.
I think the second post in this thread is a good reason why. But he started out with a good point regardless--if Links gets 7 more courses in addition to the two already released, it'll still have less courses.
Do you realize how stupid this statement is? What percentage of sports games sales do you think EA constitutes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
I didn't overlook those. They're all more or less mediocre.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 never said they were.Quote:
As if all the online games on PS2 were AAA.
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:
Funny that just about all the games you mentioned are also on PS2.
I complimented MS for this downloadable content. I only continued posting, because people were bashing EA's Service without any type of justification whatsoever.Quote:
What I fail to realize is why someone who hates Live so much feels the need to post in every Live thread.
i've had enough of this.
congratulations, you're now the only person on my ignore list.
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!!!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamoscott
..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.
You're so right. We should all be playing Trivial Pursuit and Risk. :rolleyes:Quote:
I didn't overlook those. They're all more or less mediocre.
So Everquest on PS2 is free now? FF11 as well?Quote:
Sony isn't trying to charge me subscription fees to play them online though.
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?
Pot. Kettle. BlackQuote:
Originally Posted by Mamoscott
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sl1p
You could have just said that you like Links better, and at least then you wouldn't sound like an idiot.
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:
Originally Posted by Melf
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:
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.
MMORPG = Dedicated servers required = subscription fees required (and justifiable)Quote:
So Everquest on PS2 is free now? FF11 as well?
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?
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:
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 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:
No one gives a shit about XSN, because MS' sports series are terrible.
Yes, since Live is only good for Sega Sports games.Quote:
Why would I subscribe to Live and limit my options when I already have the best of both worlds on my PS2?
So you bash MS for charging but give the same behavior on PS2 a green light?Quote:
MMORPG = Dedicated servers required = subscription fees required (and justifiable)
"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.
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.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.
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~!!
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:
Originally Posted by Melf
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: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.
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.
In terms of major sports titles (baseball/basketball/football/hockey), yes.Quote:
Yes, since Live is only good for Sega Sports games.
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:
So you bash MS for charging but give the same behavior on PS2 a green light?
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:
"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.
It doesn't matter if EA puts their games on Live, because I can still play them for free on my PS2.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.
Sales figures would suggest otherwise. Reviews would too. Funny how that works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sl1p
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?
So sadly, MS will have to do without your $50. I think they'll get by.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamoscott
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:
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:
Again, your opinion.Quote:
In terms of major sports titles (baseball/basketball/football/hockey), yes.
No, but I see Sega charging for PSO, yet don't see you bitching about that.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?
$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.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?
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.
I'm sure that breaks Microsoft's heart.Quote:
It doesn't matter if EA puts their games on Live, because I can still play them for free on my PS2.
Funny, the only bitching I see in Live threads is from you; someone who doesn't even have the service.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?
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.