Well, December 3 is the 20 year anniversary for the launch of the original Playstation in Japan. Though what that would have to do with a game announcement is beyond me. Looking at the Japanese launch lineup for the PS1 doesn't offer much insight, with the only game of note being King's Field. Considering Bloodborne, a revival or sequel of that doesn't seem likely.
ll_Exile_ll's forum posts
Yea they were in a tough spot. The original reviewer I'm sure was let go along with everyone else last month so it's not like they could do as they normally do and just update the existing review. And the new reviewer didn't seem to like the game at all. I dunno how I feel about it. I mean I get why they had to get a new reviewer for the PC version, but if they were going to score it that wildly differently I might have had the new review listed under their alternate takes section or something like that.
And also him basically not mentioning any of the technical issues at all in the review made me really wonder if maybe they chose the right person for the job. I see his issues with the racism and sexism but on the same token it's supposed to be a parody. Not finding the joke funny isn't reason enough to trash a game in my opinion. Tough call all around there.
Yeah, the whole situation is weird. One would think the point of reviewing a port is to asses the quality of the port, not re-review the game. It's essentially a second opinion, which would be fine if that's how it was presented, but that isn't the case. If you were to just glance at the scores for the game you'd think the PC version was a broken mess compared to the Xbox One version, and while the port isn't perfect that isn't at all the reason for the discrepancy between the two versions.
Not to say the reviewer isn't entitled to his opinions, but there's little point in reviewing a port if you're not going to actually address it as a port at all.
So maybe I'm blaming the wrong thing, but sometimes I get the feeling a fair chunk of people are using things like the CronusMax.
Things of that ilk basically allow people to use keyboard & mouse to play console games, Destiny included. So just puttin' it out there, if you feel certain people are just getting a bead on you a *little* too quickly, things like this do exist and there are no current easy ways of detecting them.
That makes no sense. A keyboard and mouse wouldn't help you at all in a console shooter. The controls are designed for a controller, so even if you were somehow using a mouse the game is still built to handle with a controller. With the way aim assist works, the way turning works, and just the way the game handles playing with a mouse would actually feel off if you're used to playing on a PC.
Also, give me a break. If anyone is using something like this it's probably less than 1% of players, not a valid excuse for anything.
@ll_exile_ll: If by attempt the raid you mean lvl 24, yeah good luck with that. But for a sane effort at it it will take far better gear and hence more grind.
No, I meant 26. You can buy legendary armor via crucible play, two pieces will get you to 26 after you upgrade them and that would cost 130 crucible marks (between 44 and 65 games of MP) which would be around 10 hours at an average of 10 minutes per game.
@ll_exile_ll: I have two pieces of legendary armor, still level 25
And yeah a lot of people have no desire to play the PvP in destiny, it's not the draw it is in BF or CoD for me, in fact im pretty sure i hate it more then the PvE grind. Also asking your payers grind pvp in order to gear up for pve content is not a good design choice.
It's not really a "grind" though, you just play PvP. I can sympathize if you're not into PvP, but most people that are into multiplayer oriented shooters do enjoy it, and like I said you can get to the point of being able to attempt the raid after like 10-20 hours of PvP. Considering millions of people play Call of Duty hundreds upon hundreds of hours every year I don't think that's too much of a barrier.
I really don't get this sentiment that you can only get to a point where you could undertake the raid by ginding for hours and hours. I got to level 24 almost entirely through PvP drops, and unless you consider the entire selling point (competitive MP) of games like Call of Duty, Halo, and Battlefield to be grinding I just don't get the complaint.
With a crucible mark payout of 3 per win and 2 per loss, you only have to play between 34 and 50 games of multiplayer a week to reach the weekly cap on earnings (that's only like 5-8 hours of play a week at ~10 minutes per game), and if you take and complete as many crucible bounties as possible you'll have no trouble getting to crucible rank two (the requirement to buy legendary gear) in a fairly short amount of time. Legendary chestpieces, gauntlets, and boots cost 65 marks each (only a couple hours worth of multiplayer to earn) and helmets cost 120 (a bit more of a time investment, but not overly).
Sure, it'd takes several weeks to fully outfit yourself in legendary gear, but you could easily reach level 26 with one or two pieces of legendary gear and the rest the rares you're all but guaranteed to get as drops simply for playing crucible games (I can't tell you how many rare armor pieces I've gotten in only about 25 post level 20 PvP matches, probably something like 1 every 2 or 3 games).
The only reason you'd have to grind for hours and hours in order to get to level 26 is if you have no desire to play PvP at all and spend all your effort on vanguard activities, because they are certainly more of a grind. However, if you like PvP I 100% guarantee that you'd be at least level 26 after less than 2 weeks of like 1 hour a day, quicker if you play more than that.
Why on earth would you want one of the most interesting aspects of the PvP sandbox removed? Supers are part of what makes Destiny unique in a competitive environment. Given the relatively lacking suite of multiplayer features compared to other games, without supers Destiny wouldn't be nearly as unique or interesting as it is in competitive multiplayer. Without supers you may as well be playing any other multiplayer shooter.
The game still has to run on the consoles, taking that into account i'd say a 280x, 4GB GTX 770 or greater will crush it at 1080p.
The fact that it's running on consoles will have no bearing on the high end settings. It's a PC game first and foremost, so while yes it is running on consoles, it's a safe bet it's not being maxed out on consoles. Running at an equivalent of medium-ish (most likely) on PS4 isn't really a worthy point of speculation about what it's going to take run it at Ultra on PC.