This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Video Game Offers

18889919394148

Comments

  • I bought Saints Row 3 for €7,49, and at a later date the SR3 Season pass with Walking Dead and DLC for other games for €22,81. So yeah, it was already ~€10 before. EU had a good deal from the start on that. The US was ~$16 and no clue about Australia.
    Oh, the US only went down to $12.49 each time for just the game. I keep forgetting they had different prices over there.
  • edited July 2012
    Well, I paid $9.79 for the franchise pack, which was apparently a 91% discount. I gather that in that final sale, the U.S. price was $13.29 for the franchise pack and the European price was €17.57, so Australia got the best deal for once.

    The earlier deal here in Australia was 75% off, which meant $14.99 for the base game, $4.99 for the season pass, and $24.99 for the franchise pack. As far as I know, the U.S. prices were much the same, except that the main game was $12.49 rather than $14.99. The European prices, I gather, were €7.49 base, €3.49 pass, €24.99 franchise pack (which is ridiculous).

    There's a whole bunch of DLC in the franchise pack too, though the three bits in the season pass are likely to be the only significant ones.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • Like Spelunky but wish it was harder and had an ending? La Mulana
  • Like Spelunky but wish it was harder and had an ending? La Mulana
    What you mean "ending"? Spelunky has ending. 16 levels and after that cutscene and credits.

  • Like Spelunky but wish it was harder and had an ending? La Mulana
    La Mulana's not a roguelike.
  • Like Spelunky but wish it was harder and had an ending? La Mulana
    What you mean "ending"? Spelunky has ending. 16 levels and after that cutscene and credits.

    ...I only got to level 12 :(
  • There's a whole bunch of DLC in the franchise pack too, though the three bits in the season pass are likely to be the only significant ones.
    Correct, unless you love the shit out of the mostly cosmetic items in the other DLC.

    Good to see Australia got some love on SR3 full bundle.
  • Old, but amusing.

    image
  • Holy shit, the new Indie Royale bundle is actually really good, if only for the five Geneforge games you get.
  • Borderlands 2 now available for pre-order on Steam. If you already have Borderlands on Steam you can get 10% off by July 30th for pre-ordering.
  • edited July 2012
    For those who have a blackberry playbook, Fractal: Make Blooms not War is going to be released on it soon.

    Unity supporting the most obscure platforms.
    Post edited by Coldguy on
  • edited July 2012
    Borderlands 2 now available for pre-order on Steam. If you already have Borderlands on Steam you can get 10% off by July 30th for pre-ordering.
    Better yet, if you don't already have Borderlands,
    A. What the fuck is wrong with you
    B. Free weekend for Borderlands on Steam

    Post edited by ProfPangloss on
  • Borderlands was a fun, but it was barely multiplayer. The co-op was poorly put together, and I'm not super trusting of the new game being worthwhile from any perspective than as a single-player pseudo-FPS.
  • I'm going to wait till Borderland 2 is under 20 dollars, no need to buy it for 60 dollars, though I did have a lot of fun with the first game.
  • I'm buying the 4 pack with a British friend. It will cost me 35 dollars.
  • I had fun with it, and the new co-op will not be using Game Spy. This is the first game in a long time that I've purchased for over $50.

    Jeremy and I will be playing it co-op, along with the fact I'll play it solo and co-op probably with Jason and Omar.
  • Borderlands was a fun, but it was barely multiplayer. The co-op was poorly put together, and I'm not super trusting of the new game being worthwhile from any perspective than as a single-player pseudo-FPS.
    Looks like they're improving on their model quite a bit. It's gonna have Steamworks right out of the box, so multiplayer and other online aspects are gonna be way better, at least technically. Dunno about gameplay mechanics, but at least based on the new features they're boasting, it looks like they're putting a lot more effort into separating out the PC and console experiences.
  • If I miss a session and everyone else I was playing with levels up, will the game fuck me like the first one did? ;^)

    That's the only thing I care about. Multiplayer in a game like that should have the option to normalize levels for disparate players: the "MMO" stateful aspect was pointless and served only to annoy.
  • Would buy Borderlands 2 for $5.
  • If I miss a session and everyone else I was playing with levels up, will the game fuck me like the first one did? ;^)

    That's the only thing I care about. Multiplayer in a game like that should have the option to normalize levels for disparate players: the "MMO" stateful aspect was pointless and served only to annoy.
    Yea I agree, though you did level up pretty quickly if you were with high level guys and managed to not get killed outright.
  • Borderlands was a fun, but it was barely multiplayer. The co-op was poorly put together, and I'm not super trusting of the new game being worthwhile from any perspective than as a single-player pseudo-FPS.
    That's funny, because I found Borderlands to be an extremely boring single-player game. Literally MMORPG-style "go here, kill this many, come back, gain exp, go there, collect that many, come back, gain exp." Seems to me like that game is only fun in the way that playing with other people can make any game fun.
  • Would buy Borderlands 2 for $5.
    Scott Rubin's commentary on video games:


  • If a game lets me be a sniper, I love it. However in a Multiplayer game I don't enjoy being the sniper because most likely everyone else is running forward real quick killing everything.
  • I'll outbid Scott Rubin. $10!
  • RymRym
    edited July 2012
    Borderlands was a fun, but it was barely multiplayer. The co-op was poorly put together, and I'm not super trusting of the new game being worthwhile from any perspective than as a single-player pseudo-FPS.
    That's funny, because I found Borderlands to be an extremely boring single-player game. Literally MMORPG-style "go here, kill this many, come back, gain exp, go there, collect that many, come back, gain exp." Seems to me like that game is only fun in the way that playing with other people can make any game fun.
    Oh, I didn't beat it. The single player got boring fast. Multiplayer should have been where it shone. But, since you can't arbitrarily set a level, you're fucked if you EVER play more or less than the people you started playing with, or EVER want to play with anyone else and not start at the beginning of the game.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • The multiplayer was incredibly fun, but the implementation of a number of things I do hope has been improved. There was a ton of "stupid bullshit" that got in the way of the fun part of multiplayer for me.
  • edited July 2012
    But, since you can't arbitrarily set a level, you're fucked if you EVER play more or less than the people you started playing with, or EVER want to play with anyone else and not start at the beginning of the game.
    True, but since experience is shared among the group, even if you don't fight, you can keep safe and level up incredibly rapidly from the stronger enemies. I recall once, I played with Jason, and leveled up about six levels after a handful of kills from him.

    The real boring one is when you're higher level, and you join a host that's lower level than you - you can just walk around one-shotting everything instantly, it just becomes a shooting gallery. First time I played with nine, I simply walzed up and one-shot one of the early-game bosses with my ludicrous revolver.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • I played on the opposite side of that being way lower level. I didn't level fast enough in the few hours we played for it to even remotely catch me up, and the enemies all one-shotted me if they so much as looked at me. I hung back using my best sniper rifle to do like 12 damage per headshot against the goons.
  • edited July 2012
    I played on the opposite side of that being way lower level. I didn't level fast enough in the few hours we played for it to even remotely catch me up, and the enemies all one-shotted me if they so much as looked at me. I hung back using my best sniper rifle to do like 12 damage per headshot against the goons.
    To be fair, the level difference between Jason and I was roughly 30-odd levels, that might have made a difference, I don't know.

    I've been on both sides, and you're right, it is a pain in the ass - but then again, it's not like you can't have multiple characters, so I figure it's just fine to start another to play along with your mates. I've also got a character or two that are essentially created whole-cloth with a character editor, to save all the leveling up bollocks just to catch up - but admittedly, I've only used them in moxie's arena.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • The solution the game Age of Conan implemented was that everyone became level -1 of the highest player if they were not scaled. The Old Republic also had a bolstering system that accomplished relatively the same in PvP. It is a think they might have worked out, potentially.
Sign In or Register to comment.