LaceratingSlyer
LaceratingSlyer
LaceratingSlyer

I presume the latter, in that yes the majority of questions are along these lines and is why these sort of questions are answered. You'd be amazed how many people think this way because it's how they were raised - not just by their parents, but peers and society.

Mark Wahlberg really isn't that good of an actor, and in Shia LaBeouf's defense it's not like he was written as some complex character in these films. There's only so much you can work with in regard to acting when it comes to being in a Michael Bay film. When he's not playing the derpy dork in a film he's actually

That's the thing though, I think they intentionally design the game to not be informative of how to play it due to word of mouth doing that for them basically. You're also over-complicating it a bit I think, as a major aspect of the game is to explore and find out the little secrets of the game. If they told you where

Again, yes the last round was luck, however everything leading up to that point wasn't as much luck as it was about deck design.

You say if any of his spells had been near the bottom of the deck, yet the last card he drew was the the last card in the deck, so while he drew cards when he needed them, there's an even likelier chance that he would have had that card in his hand already. He even says that on the turn before the final one where he

That's just a factor in this game that's always going to exist. Just because 2 out of 3 times he'd die in the last hand doesn't mean he had no business winning because, as I said, his deck is designed to delay until you can kill the opponent with spells in one turn. There's not that much RNG in the game to where it

When you look at it overall though, there wasn't all that much RNG involved. It was mostly the Rag hits that were lucky. Everything else was pretty much done the way the deck is designed to be played, to stall until you get cards you need to kill the other hero with spells. The other player also hurt himself by

If you mean streaming Hearthstone, then no. There's very few top players who are willing/able to think out loud to bring you into their thought process. He even counts aloud, so he likely had to practice doing for a while before it just became second nature for his stream. Artosis is pretty good, but he rarely streams

Trump is easily one of the best Hearthstone streamers, not just in terms of entertainment factor, but knowledge of the game. He doesn't just play, he explains why he plays and answers questions in chat as to why he didn't do another play when it comes up. There's a reason he constantly gets 15k-20k people watching

— Yeah but where do you find the time to level by questing all the way to level 90? I can understand why people want to do something that hasn't been done before, but i can't see how his journey to level 90, by doing quests, has provided him with any form of fun. —

To be fair, they're only offering it as such a high price to make up for backers who paid similar prices to gain access to beta. The other thing to keep in mind is that this was a crowd funded project, so they'll be much better off with consumer testing and feedback than relying solely on their staff for it instead.

To be fair, they're only offering it as such a high price to make up for backers who paid similar prices to gain

Wasteland 2 is worth it, even at that price, but I still suggest to not buy it. I'm pretty sure it'll be even cheaper than that at release as I thought they were aiming for a $30 range, I could be wrong though. Secondly, of all the types of games to not experience in a beta version this is the type you shouldn't try

Wasteland 2 is worth it, even at that price, but I still suggest to not buy it. I'm pretty sure it'll be even

Has MLG really not picked up a Hearthstone tournament yet?

They don't have higher margins on consoles. Even if the cost of the console version tends to stay higher for longer the cost of licensing to release on consoles alone makes them less profitable. It's why you typically see some PC games selling for only $50 upon release because PC games don't require licensing.

There's a problem with this though. The "disgusting" factor is all purely subjective, and depending on the person, and more importantly their culture, there will be varying levels of acceptance of this topic. With that, one point of view on it shouldn't be the defining factor, especially when that point of view has no

The problem with what you suggest, in simplifying things, isn't as helpful to them when designing these cars. For one, the majority of these concepts of super cars won't actually be made, and if they are then the regulations that are required to make the vehicles road ready typically cut down on a lot of the work that

If anything, Ubisoft has basically sold out by being more focused on producing yearly sequels than actually improving/innovating their games.

That says a lot about how enjoyable they are to watch when games 3-5 were all blow outs but still entertaining. Well, except the last quarter of game 5 I'd say, where the Heat weren't even trying any more.

That's exactly my point. Their future of developing games is dictated by current game sales. I'm not saying that they have to do what we want, but they are obliged to please us if they want to profit and that very much dictates what they do in development. They're not obliged to appease everyone perfectly, but they

Actually they are there to please us as a private company whose goal is to sell to consumers. That's entirely what they do. Now, they don't aim to please everyone obviously, but their goal is to please people by making a game people want to buy. Whether you disagree or agree with their reasoning it's completely