Jrad's forum posts

#1 Edited by Jrad (621 posts) -

@slag: @mb: I don't know, I feel like people look at what I see as poor design elements being removed from dota and call it over simplified. There's things in both games that the other doesn't have that lead to different strategical decisions. Also, I played DotA first but think League is way more fun. DotA has too many bullshit mechanics and the champion design just feels kind of bland to me.

@alyssia: I'm pretty active on LoL. Currently ranked Platinum IV, my best roles are mid and support, but I'm pretty decent everywhere. My name on there is YIOrange, feel free to hit me up.

There are only a couple of truly bullshit mechanics in Dota 2; pretty much everything else has some excellent reasoning behind it. The result is a much more balanced metagame where literally 80%+ of the heroes are competitively viable versus LoLs 20% or so. Stuff like stacking and pulling neutrals, denying (though denying actually used to be even more important -- it gave no XP at all, then XP in a smaller range, and now, just slightly less XP) let a lot of heroes who otherwise aren't excellent laners catch up elsewhere or harass the enemy indirectly. There are heroes in Dota that would simply never survive in LoL; they'd be utterly broken or overpowered within the relatively strict confines of the game's meta. Heroes like Tinker (teleport to literally any friendly unit pretty much whenever you want, use any item over and over again with effectively a 1 second cooldown) or Meepo (which LoL's terrible micro implementation prevents entirely) simply couldn't exist in League. Instead, you get the typical champions with a slow, a skillshot, a gap closer... pretty sure I just described half the LoL hero pool. The lore for Dota heroes might be kinda bland, but when it comes to actual design, you can't imply that League's heroes are even slightly more interesting, from a gameplay perspective.

#2 Posted by Jrad (621 posts) -

I assume your sound card supports 7.1 output and you have its drivers configured properly? While personally, I've never understood the appeal of surround sound headsets (headphones literally only need two channels to provide a pretty much perfect surround sound experience: see virtual barbershop, and with only two sound drivers vs. 7+ the fidelity is much higher) it's entirely possible there's an issue with the mixing in Watch_Dogs.

#3 Posted by Jrad (621 posts) -

A lot of people seem to think Dawkins is an asshole, but outside The God Delusion he's really not. He's a scientist first and foremost, and he tolerates absolutely zero bullshit. He can be abrasive because of this, but he devoted basically his entire life to studying biology and contributing to the field, and people who ignorantly disregard a hundred years of scientific progress because of their religion piss him off, and rightly so. If any of them had any decent counter-arguments or evidence to present, he wouldn't be half as dismissive. The big problem is that a lot of people seem to think that Creationism is valid science. It isn't. It's complete and utter horseshit. It's on the exact same level as the Flat Earth "theory", but disgustingly, it actually gets scientific funding in some states. Among the scientifically literate, there is no "controversy". But then again, if religious people could be argued with or convinced, they wouldn't be religious in the first place.

#4 Edited by Jrad (621 posts) -

Have 360 games always looked this bad? This looks way worse than, say, Half-Life 2, which came out 10 years ago.

#5 Posted by Jrad (621 posts) -

10/10

#6 Edited by Jrad (621 posts) -

@trafalgarlaw: Except to achieve market penetration and actually make the social aspects worth using, they need the screen to not be complete trash. The 720p Oculus Rift is an amazing proof of concept, but it's not anywhere near good enough to use for any stretch of time. You can barely read text on it. I know. I own one. If they tried to bring that to market, it would fail. Horribly. What Zuckerberg was talking about -- virtual classrooms, for example -- requires high fidelity. The same fidelity games need. He's not making a 3D text reader for your Facebook news feed, lol. There's no market for that.

As for the SDK, it assists Oculus development, but that's it. The specifications are open source. You don't need the SDK to develop for the Rift, it just makes things a bit easier. I'm not gonna say it's 100% impossible for Facebook to fuck it up, but they would have to actively work against everything that OR's already developed, and no one benefits from that situation. Even if games aren't the focus anymore, the technology that makes virtual classrooms possible is the exact same tech that would make immersive games possible too. Facebook wants to make Oculus better. Developers and consumers want the Rift to be better. They are not going to shoot themselves in the foot here.

#7 Posted by Jrad (621 posts) -

@jrad said:

@trafalgarlaw said:

@devil240z said:

Why people why?

Now Oculus have enough money to actually take the rift to retail! its a good thing!

They already had enough money to do that. This stinks of pure greed, with John "MegaTextures" Carmack whose last relevant game was Doom II making it of with a billion after 5 months of being a CEO. I don't blaim him though.

There are people who actually think this?

The kickstarter pitch (literally): "By Gamers for Gamers"

Today's official statement: "We believe virtual reality will be heavily defined by social experiences that connect people in magical, new ways. It is a transformative and disruptive technology, that enables the world to experience the impossible, and it's only just the beginning."

It's a load of bollocks to me how quickly they changed tune.

Explain to me how this is anything but good news. Oculus was never going to be in a position where they were developing games. Their primary objective was to deliver a platform to allow other developers make amazing games with their hardware. More money means Oculus can deliver even better hardware even faster. Facebook might be sticking its hand in the cookie jar, but that's not going to stop the Oculus Rift from being a phenomenal piece of hardware. Oculus is going to deliver the technology. Developers will make the games. This acquisition is only good.

#8 Posted by Jrad (621 posts) -

@devil240z said:

Why people why?

Now Oculus have enough money to actually take the rift to retail! its a good thing!

They already had enough money to do that. This stinks of pure greed, with John "MegaTextures" Carmack whose last relevant game was Doom II making it of with a billion after 5 months of being a CEO. I don't blaim him though.

There are people who actually think this?

#9 Posted by Jrad (621 posts) -

Having been out of high school for a couple years, I can say with confidence that working is awful. I don't know how anyone can put up with this shit for 30+ years. I'm planning to retire by the time I'm 28 and work part-time for a few years after that, until my investments can sustain me indefinitely. Fortunately living is dirt cheap where I am, which is the only reason I can save the $40,000 a year I need to make my early retirement a reality. After I retire I plan on playing video games, writing, learning a few instruments, studying some more languages. It'll be so nice to have free time again.

#10 Posted by Jrad (621 posts) -

The moment this comes out on Steam I'm buying a copy for everyone on my friend's list. This game's great. We need more amazing VNs translated and brought over.