TarickStonefire Comments

Page 1 of 50

  • Reporting on the Xbox 360: stories from behind the scenes

  • TarickStonefire 27/11/2015

    So Wesley Yin-Poole forced some woman who was actually NOT going to break the street date to make a single one-time exception for him, then ran straight back to Microsoft to grass her up?

    You fucking cunt.
    Reply +46
  • TarickStonefire 27/11/2015

    We here at Eurogamer have been covering video games for years (some longer than others)
    What does this even mean? That some of you have been working there longer than other people working there? No shit, Sherlock. That some years have been longer than others? Really? By what, one day, every four years? I mean, what. does. that. even. mean.
    Reply -3
  • PSN struggling under the weight of Black Friday

  • TarickStonefire 27/11/2015

    Doesn't seem to be that much worth getting. Almost all those games are cheaper to get on disc, and you can flog them when you're done. The digital prices they offer on sale are what they should be all year round. Reply +4
  • Donkey Kong diva denied in Cartoon Network depiction lawsuit

  • TarickStonefire 24/11/2015

    @iceytoa1 Did someone maybe not read the article to the end?

    Or did EG edit to add that bit?
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 24/11/2015

    Is it just me or, surely the actual reason Billy lost was the free speech and the right to parody? The stuff the comedy judge cited was just for a laugh, right? Reply +4
  • Heroes vs Villains is much more than Star Wars Battlefront filler

  • TarickStonefire 24/11/2015

    How can riceNpea NOT understand the point of this article? Is he a bit slow in the ol' head area? Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 24/11/2015

    whichever team dies first, loses
    That's... that's... GENIUS!

    Reply +2
  • Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 Nuketown map has a Doctor Who Easter egg

  • TarickStonefire 16/11/2015


    Really, annoying American dude who doesn't know what the Weeping Angels are? Really? LITERALLY trolling you?
    Reply +26
  • Getting started with Fallout 4 base building

  • TarickStonefire 11/11/2015

    @KrispyKrispy Eurogamer submit star ratings to Google so they show up in search results. ShopTo will have got it from there. Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 11/11/2015

    Eight minutes? Fucks sake, PLEASE can you post transcripts under these videos? I hate watching videos. Takes way longer than just reading the text, it's not searchable, I can't quickly scan it for the stuff that isn't blindingly obvious, and I have to put up with all TEH QUIRKY. Reply +15
  • Rise of the Tomb Raider review

  • TarickStonefire 11/11/2015

    "Black Ops is just another sequel or retread and it got a 'recommended'"
    Maybe, just maybe, that retread does it really well, and really appealed to that reviewer.

    This one clearly didn't appeal to this reviewer.
    What. Is. So. Fucking. Hard. To. Understand. About. That?

    A game should be judged on its merits not on the baggage of being in a franchise
    YES! EXACTLY! This particular game didn't appeal to this reviewer. That other game did!

    Jesus, you people are dumb as fucking fuck.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 11/11/2015

    @lowestformofwit "This review is a little transparent Eurogamer. Not that I would ever trust a review from a site too cowardly to score anything. Shameful."

    What's 'cowardly' about not calculating a specific number from a purely subjective opinion?

    I think the problem here is you can't handle reading paragraphs of subjective text and drawing your own conclusions. Instead, you need to be told what to do, and when you're not you dissolve into a mess of accusatory wibbling.

    I got a perfectly good idea of whether I'll like this game from the text.

    I also got a good idea of whether I'll enjoy FO4 from that review. Spoiler: I won't, despite it having a RECOMMENDED badge.

    QED: it doesn't matter one iota what score a game gets, you need to decide for yourself from the text, you numpty.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 11/11/2015

    @the_rydster "Eurogamer used to be a trusted site for me."

    Aww boohooo, some people don't have exactly the same tastes as you waaaaaaah.

    The way you say it used to be "a trusted site" suggests that you believe the above review is full of lies, and I doubt that. It describes the game, and then the reviewer says what he thinks of it.

    Why don't you just read the review and see if your opinions of what's important in a game match? Do you find what's described above an exciting prospect? Great! Ignore what the reviewer *thinks* of it, and buy it.

    It just so happens I also have little interest in a tedious retread of the same old plots, or an extension of the last Tomb Raider game, and am equally fed up of them not cramming these games with actual tombs to explore. So, for me it's not high on my list either.
    Reply +1
  • Fallout 4 review

  • TarickStonefire 11/11/2015

    @SpaceInvader2 Well that's your opinion, and fair enough too.

    I don't really think these sound like "serious" technical flaws. They sound like pretty bog standard technical flaws. I get what you're saying, but they don't sound game breaking to be honest. I do think the scale of the game puts them into perspective.

    Still got no interest in the game right now, because I'm burned out on this gameplay from playing NV up to last month.

    See, I can take a reviewers RECOMMENDATION and put it into my own perspective, just like how you have :)
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 11/11/2015

    "However. Just wondering if there are any others out there like me who are playing FO4 with this tiny nagging suspicion in the back of your mind that says -perhaps if I hadn't played a fully moded FO3 or NV I'd probably be enjoying this a lot more..."
    Yeah I can understand that. A couple of months ago I decided to give NV a go having skipped it first time as I'd only just finished FO3 and was pretty burned out on the gameplay. And having left it so long since playing FO3 I absolutely loved it and poured hundreds of hours in, still haven't finished because I bought an PS4 for MGSV.

    So, despite being so excited for FO4, I lost all my enthusiasm for it a couple of weeks ago when I saw some of those gameplay leaks and remembered/realised that it would be pretty much identical in core gameplay to FO3 and NV.

    I'll wait a couple of years, pick it up then and love it I'm sure.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 11/11/2015

    @thekitkatshuffler "So Tomb Raider can't get a Recommendation from you but a game that doesn't work properly can? Keep trying Eurogamer."

    So, you're saying you don't accept that a game could be incredibly engaging and fun but have technical issues, and still be more entertaining to a reviewer than a game that's technically proficient but left him/her cold?

    Well I don't need to ask. You are clearly saying that. If that's your opinion, you're welcome to launch your own website and dole out your own opinions to those who want to read them :)
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 11/11/2015

    "So, this morning from EG we've had a technically flawless game (Tomb Raider) receive an average review, and then a technically dodgy game (Fallout 4) receive a 'Recommended'. And you wonder why game publishers keep releasing broken games? Surely the minimum we should expect is that a game works. Once that's been established, then we can start talking gameplay and story.

    Edit: It's astonishing that I'm being negged for suggesting that games should be technically proficient and that reviews should take that into account."
    It's not astonishing at all. The review I just read does take the technical issues into account. And on reflection the reviewer felt the technical issues were worth tolerating.

    Perhaps - just perhaps - the technical proficiency of Tomb Raider didn't make up for gameplay that left that reviewer cold?

    Why don't people understand this? Why are they so inflexible and objectively minded?
    Reply 0
  • Alien: Isolation mod removes alien

  • TarickStonefire 11/11/2015

    I couldn't enjoy this game. I was too terrified less than 10 minutes into it, never played it again. Reply 0
  • Watch: Fallout 4 - your guide to the nuclear apocalypse

  • TarickStonefire 05/11/2015

    Wow it takes a whole video to say "Have you played FO3 or NV? Yeah it's like that but with better lighting."

    Reply -3
  • Assassin's Creed Syndicate sales "clearly" impacted by Unity

  • TarickStonefire 05/11/2015

    @dragulagb "id love to know how many people calling for them to stop releasing assassins creed each year actually play assassins creed because on gaming sites i see alot of "i dont like that game so they shouldn't get made" kind of attitudes, i enjoy assassins creed each year, one of the games ive had every year, if you arent enjoying them theres a simple solution..... dont play them"

    I'm one of them. And I don't buy them. Because they never seem to advance much. Plus if they're littered with bugs, even less reason to buy them.

    But here's the thing: if they release the same game every year, they'll never have chance to stop, think about how to develop the franchise, and move it along. They'll just stick to the template.

    So I don't see anything wrong in both refusing to buy it, and asking them to stop releasing annually.

    If you see what I mean?
    Reply +2
  • Big Fallout 4 gameplay leak a week before launch

  • TarickStonefire 03/11/2015

    @BobbyDeNiro "@TarickStonefire I share some of your malaise at seeing the gameplay vids, but I'm hopeful that it will have enough new mechanics to feel fresh"

    I'm certainly going to be reading a lot of reviews, but I'm definitely not going to be buying at launch any more, and don't feel at all excited by it. It's now something I might get many months down the line during a game release drought perhaps.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 02/11/2015

    @BlinkyB "Not sure how folks ended up expecting bleeding edge graphics and unheard of amounts of novel, innovative gameplay mechanics."

    I don't expect those gameplay mechanics. I've just realised that I'm thoroughly burned out on the gameplay it does offer. Same as with AC, but perhaps even worse as I tend to spend far longer in FO games.

    As for the graphics, I'm just astonished at how much they look like FO:NV but with more colours and some nice light beams here and there. It's surprising how bad they look compared to anything else on current gen consoles.

    So all in all, I am underwhelmed to a significant degree. I don't see what's wrong with that.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 02/11/2015

    Jesus, it looks terribly disappointing. Graphically almost *exactly* like Fallout 3 but more colourful and yeah okay, some nicer lighting, but also exactly the same gameplay.

    Trawl across the wasteland, add quests, wander around derelict buildings, build a character, add more quests even though I've not finished what I've got yet, kill stuff, add yet more quests, accumulate more loot than I can carry, trek back somewhere to sell stuff, encounter multiple tribes, deal with their politics, add even more quests, totally forget what I was even supposed to be doing, blah blah blah blah blah.

    Do I really, really want to spend hundreds more hours of my life doing all this stuff yet again? Not really if I'm brutally honest. Once absolutely and utterly enthralling, don't get me wrong, but after the better part of 300-400 hours of that over the last two games, not so much. I'm as bored of Fallout 3/NV gameplay as I am of Assassin's Creed gameplay.

    I want a new game franchise, with new stuff to do and explore.
    Reply +4
  • What the Fallout 4 leaks tell us about perks

  • TarickStonefire 02/11/2015

    @bigjimbeef "About a month ago, I wasn't even that hyped for Fallout 4. I'd basically forgotten about it. Now I'm back to warning friends and relatives to make sure they understand that I'm still alive next week."

    Oddly, I am the *exact* opposite. Once hyped as fuck, now I'm just "this is going to be pretty much like the last two. I'm kind of over that, really. Gimme something new."
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 02/11/2015

    Looks very much like a remastered version of the last two games. I have to say, I'm going to pass on this. It's just a tedious timesink really.

    I want a new game franchise, with new things to do and new stuff to play with. This looks like another 200 hours of something I've already spent 400 hours on over 3 and NV.
    Reply -3
  • Marathon, the original Bungie sci-fi shooter

  • TarickStonefire 01/11/2015

    Man I loved this game and the first sequel. The terminal text gave it such depth, if you bothered to read it all and follow the twists and references to stuff you couldn't quite grasp - yet. And man alive, those goddamn Pfhor! And the assault rifle! And the BOBs! And the floaty robot enemies that hovered around terminals! Loved loved loved it. Reply 0
  • Assassin's Creed Syndicate time-lapse: world in motion

  • TarickStonefire 31/10/2015

    All very nice but I'll be honest, it looks sterile and characterless, and none of it makes up for gameplay that hasn't advanced far beyond AC2. Reply +3
  • Watch: Fallout 4's Pip-Boy edition - what's it like?

  • TarickStonefire 30/10/2015

    What a hunk of junk. People paid hundreds for this, wow. Reply +5
  • Halo 5: Guardians review

  • TarickStonefire 30/10/2015

    @kevinkdobdobson yadda yadda I have a wife yadda yadda. Yes yes, off you go then. Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 30/10/2015

    I've seen so many other reviews that basically say, "It's so meh." To see a RECOMMENDED here is quite surprising. Reply -2
  • A Beginner's Guide to the world of Fallout

  • TarickStonefire 28/10/2015

    Having recently burned myself out on NV, which I still haven't finished, I'm afraid I've totally lost interest in FO4. It just looks like more of exactly the same gameplay, in higher resolution. I'll wait a few years I think. A shame, but no point retreading the same game so soon after I tired of the last one (after 100s of hours, granted!). Reply -3
  • Zelda fans have a bone to pick with Nintendo over doge meme

  • TarickStonefire 28/10/2015

    I'm more curious about how Nintendo appropriate the internet's creations and profit from them, while banning the internet from daring to appropriate some of Nintendo's content to mainly market it and as a side-benefit profit from it. Reply +2
  • UK tabloids point the finger at Call of Duty, GTA in coverage of 15-year-old TalkTalk hacker

  • TarickStonefire 28/10/2015

    I see none of them mentioned his addiction to breathing the earth's atmosphere. IT'S ALL MOTHER NATURE'S FAULT. Reply +1
  • Assassin's Creed Syndicate review

  • TarickStonefire 22/10/2015

    It may well be a return to the form of the series of old, and that's great news on one level, but on the 'will I buy it?' level I'm very bored of the series of old and don't need to ever play it again.

    Time for a new franchise and new gameplay!
    Reply +7
  • Does Metal Gear Solid 5's Eva costume DLC really have a "tactical advantage?"

  • TarickStonefire 21/10/2015

    @Mr.DNA "withering on"

    I thought she wrote a pretty funny article that managed to make a good point (Kojima is a pathetic little boy) and do so with very good humour about the whole thing, all at the same time.

    Go watch some porn if you like tits so much dude. Don't need them being quite literally rubbed in my face when I'm trying to play a tactical espionage action game, myself.
    Reply -4
  • TarickStonefire 21/10/2015

    At the root of this article is the fact that Konami was selling something for actual money and claiming it offered a tactical advantage. In a game where having an actual tactical advantage would be desirable, saying something they're selling for real money has a tactical advantage when it doesn't is simply false advertising. That's just a fact. It's a boring fact, but a fact.

    Yeah okay, maybe it's an in-joke to players of MGS3. The blurb for a product you're selling for real money isn't the place for an in-joke unless directly underneath you add "(not really)".

    Boring, but a fact of advertising stuff, folks.
    Reply +4
  • Kingdom review

  • TarickStonefire 21/10/2015

    @kinky_mong "Sounds guff."

    And that's the beauty of personal taste. One man's Recommended is another man's self-consciously withering internet comment.
    Reply +4
  • Steam Link and Steam Controller don't work with Macs - yet

  • TarickStonefire 19/10/2015

    People seem shocked by this "all future games" thing, but that's been on offer as part of the $99 Valve pack for ages.

    And as we've all pointed out, do Valve even make games any more? ;)
    Reply +3
  • Remaining Batman Arkham Knight Season Pass content revealed

  • TarickStonefire 16/10/2015

    @WezH Did I miss a post? Where did Roper bang on about the quality of the game on different platforms? Reply -1
  • Why Warhammer 40K: Deathwatch is £19 on Steam but £2.29 on mobile

  • TarickStonefire 16/10/2015

    @Empedocles That's interesting, genuinely: so how does the whole 'card' thing work then? Why did they say they'd lopped it into chunks you can buy separately, if that's not what they did at all, I wonder? Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 16/10/2015

    @mannyYearsAgo It's terribly easy to say "doesn't seem to be worth that to me" and "loads of other titles launch at less than that" without citing examples. Maybe if you could give some, your comments would have some useful context to discuss. Reply -1
  • TarickStonefire 16/10/2015

    @Bertie It looks to me that while they represent their iOS pricing in their reply to you as "We offer a small part for £2.29 and then you can buy the rest if you want it," (which would be perfectly fine by me!) what they've actually done on iOS is unbalance the game to make it impossible to play a satisfying 'full game' without constantly coughing up for 'card packs' which 'randomly' award you bits and pieces of kit until maybe, possibly, if you're lucky, eventually you get that 'full game'.

    I think that's an interesting choice they've made.

    I'd love for you to get back to them and ask them how they felt about doing that to their game, as presumably the Steam version isn't unbalanced enough to require buying potentially infinite 'card packs'.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 16/10/2015

    @kutsurogu Actually, there's barely anyone here complaining about the Steam pricing. The overriding sentiment seems to be: that's fair enough.

    The questions are about how they say you can unlock the full game through IAPs, but what they mean is, "we buried the full game on iOS behind a potentially infinite number of gouging 'card pack' purchases".

    If they'd sold the 'locked' parts of the game as one-off purchases that added up to approximately £10-£15 that'd be great. But they didn't. And they totally misrepresented the model in their reply to EG.

    I think EG should ask them to clarify why they went that route and not just offer the locked parts as one-off extra purchases.
    Reply +1
  • TarickStonefire 16/10/2015

    @jamyskis1981 Okay well I disagree. I think what allows them to release a game of the quality that it evidently is (in it's full form) is their ability.

    It's the other assholes that have raced to the bottom and indoctrinated the almost entire user base that games on that platform aren't worth much more than a dollar or two that have ruined it for most developers of quality who'd like to sell a game on the platform that isn't just a time-killer.

    We'll just have to agree to disagree.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 16/10/2015

    @FlySays Some people do want those experiences on mobile, though. And some people want to make them.

    Just because most App Store gamers are entitled whining assholes doesn't mean everyone else should do nothing to let them continue making it worse and worse for everyone else.

    Depressingly, though, you're right. It's not going to change much, if at all, ever. Not now.
    Reply 0
  • TarickStonefire 16/10/2015

    A side effect sadly of opening the floodgates and lowering market entry barriers. The very market mechanism that has allowed Rodeo to release the game in the first place is the same one that has forced them into this scenario.
    Not sure I agree. What allowed them to release the game in the first place was their ability as developers. It's the market forces already in place that led to them deciding to hide most of the content behind an potentially infinite stream of 'card purchases'. No?

    But mobile games simply aren't worth more than a couple of quid to me, regardless of quality, simply because the mobile experience very rarely trumps a proper handheld, a proper console or a proper PC. They fill the 5-10 minutes it takes to get somewhere on a bus or when waiting for a doctor. As soon as I have more time available to me, I'd much rather go for my Vita or 3DS, and if I'm at home, I'd rather use my PC or oen of the consoles.
    Can't subscribe to this as a rule either. XCOM launched on iOS as a £15 game (I think) and the sequel is now just under a tenner, and while it's arguable the hardware was only just able to handle it at the time of release, it's *easily* worth more than Angry Birds and it's ilk (and even that's gone free with gouging IAPs now). Sure, a game that's only meant as a bus-stop time filler can charge a few quid. But not all games on there are like that.

    I agree that they can't charge console or portable-level prices, but devs should feel able to make a sophisticated, deep game with hours of proper gameplay and charge a reasonable price for it.

    I do agree that the market has kind of fucked all chances of that happening, and I also think that just because it's happened, that doesn't make it right. Most mobile app customers really are assholes. I've even heard my friends, people I respect on every other level, say "I hate paying for apps, why should I have to? Free or fuck off."

    If someone makes a thing, and it's got value to you, why is it so offensive to you to pay for it?!
    Reply +3
  • TarickStonefire 16/10/2015

    Okay so I looked up how they price it on the App Store.

    In the article it says they cut the game up into chunks and you get a bit for £2.29 then pay to unlock the rest. Well, iTunes says you can unlock the rest for free by simply playing the £2.29 game, the gouging 'Deathwatch Card Packs (£26.99 for 30 packs! BARGAIN!) are 'optional'.

    Rodeo said this:

    We really wanted to put Deathwatch iOS on sale at a premium price, as that's what we feel it's worth. However, knowing that the audience wouldn't buy it like that, we had to chop the game up by putting in in-app purchases for the card packs and having a lower entry price. Which means that for £2.29, you only get a very small section of the full game.
    Which implies that you can outright buy the full content of the game if you want it. But actually, iTunes says this:

    This app offers in-app purchases. You can disable in-app purchasing on your device.
    Please note you can play or unlock all the missions and collect all the game’s content without any in-app purchases.
    So presumably what they did for iOS is cripple the game to make it deeply frustrating without paying for the packs. How many packs do you need to stand a chance of getting the full game on iOS? And besides the extra content, how have they changed the base game for PC to justify the price for stuff that is allegedly unlockable for free from a £2.29 purchase?
    Reply +11
  • TarickStonefire 16/10/2015

    @chrisboers Well they can wait until it does wind up in a sale, and buy it when it does, can't they? :) Reply +2
  • TarickStonefire 16/10/2015

    It would be helpful if the article told us what the full price of all the content is on iOS after in-app purchases... ;)

    But on the face of it, assuming it comes out relatively close, seems fair enough. Mobile customers are assholes about what stuff costs, demanding free or less-than-a-coffee most of the time, even if it's easily worth a tenner or more.
    Reply +17
  • Fallout 4's fancy pants live-action trailer

  • TarickStonefire 15/10/2015

    @Sousuke_Sagara You don't think you might just get negged because some people simply have a different opinion? That's usually how sharing an opinion goes, you see. Reply +5