deadlawyer

I'm no fan of the "gimmick" but I guess you always pay a premium for impatience. If you wait about a year after release, any half decent game will still be around, at a discounted price, with a full array of patches. I've taken that tact with "The Witcher", and it appears an "enhanced" version will be released in the fall, with a whole bunch of goodies.

By the way, EA has already tried to setup a subscription based game ("EA land") and failed. See http://www.gamespot.com/news/6190268.html?tag=latestnews;title;4

By the way, EA has already tried to set-up a subscription based service "EA-Land", and failed. See http://www.gamespot.com/news/6190268.html?tag=latestnews;title;4.

Yes, EA is in this to make money, just like every other business. May as well just say that to state the obvious. But, I think EA may walk into some backlash here. I think a lot of people are expecting big things from this game. Again, I think EA has created hype that not even Will can live up to. EA has advertised a lot of pieces of this game, but the challenge will be how they all fit together- I think that will make or break it.

I like the premise behind the game. When I first read about the premise, a long time ago, I was excited about it. Maybe, based on the original description, I imagined something different from what seems to be developing. Originally, Spore appeared to be the ultimate "God Game". I played SimAnt and some of the other Sim games and I did find them enjoyable for a while. I do not recall nearly the amount of press coverage for earlier EA titles. I think it would be difficult for any game to

Let's see, beef with EA... Well I've been playing PC games since I was a kid (about 15-20 years). The first problem I had with EA involved a copy protection fiasco. We called the company's help line, and got blown off. So, my dad, who was a software engineer at the time, was a bit annoyed- so he cracked the copy protection, and sent his "cracked" copy to EA, so that they could give it to other unsatisfied customers, since they couldn't figure out how to do this themselves. I wo

I thought this game looked revolutionary a few years ago but two things have dampened my enthusiasm: (1) EA is producing it- a $10 demo, are ?!?!? kidding? They will milk this like they are the SIMS- they will try to get you to spend hundreds of dollars on this game. (2) Although the game sounds ambitious, it really isn't. To achieve what they have been touting (especially with how the creatures must be ported) the game will need to be massively simplified. Of course what is likely to happen is

There have been far too many threads that have been unfairly and hysterically critical of the AI in 1.03. I just finished an 9 hour game, large random map, with 8 hard opponents (FFA). I did not throw in the towel when my home planet was attacked simultaneously by three Ai's. I survived it, then really worked on those missions. I managed to get a cease fire with all but two of the AI's. Unfortunately, not the most powerful ones. I knew it was not possible to "win" by conquering the galaxy...but

I think CyrussIII (and others who posted similarly) is right. I'm playing a large random map with eight other ai's. I didn't initially complete the missions that were given to me, and I paid the price. My home world was attacked by two TEC ai's simultaneously (4 cap ships). My navy was nearly destroyed. I pulled out to two surrounding systems to rebuild while I held off the ai's by continually building cheap tactical units (the ai likes to destroy these first- you can run the fleet in circles if

It does seem like a lot of the posts lately are a little less than constructive. It's hard to tell if people are angry about any real issue with the game, or if they are just angry in general, and looking for someone to take it out on. This is a solid game. It has obviously been well beta tested. The only "bug" I have experienced with this game was actually caused by Vista- and I found a fix for that problem on this forum. As far as the balance issue goes- changes that enhance