RadJoshCon's forum posts

  • 21 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by RadJoshCon (26 posts) -

Looking for folks to run with on PS4. Put in a request for NA East 2.

Add me on PSN: RadJoshCon

#2 Posted by RadJoshCon (26 posts) -

I would love to get a team together. I don't know how serious you are about it, but I would love to get a group together to practice and get better as a team.

My LoL name is CarbonNeutral and I'll be on a bunch over Thanksgiving except when I am playing Skyrim!

#3 Posted by RadJoshCon (26 posts) -

@Abyssfull said:

@RadJoshCon said:

@Abyssfull: I read your review and I really agree with what you said about Uncharted 3 falling back on some of the mistakes made in the first game. The combat in 3 did that stupid trick of spawning a bunch of enemies from the area where you entered, which was one of the biggest problems with the first game and was hugely improved in 2. I just feel like Naughty Dog thought that they needed more combat when really I just wanted to quickly dispatch the enemies present and then move on to the better parts of the game.

Cheers for that! And yeah, it's weird, because during the first half I was thinking to myself how so fewer combat scenarios there were over Uncharted 2. Then as soon as you hit Yemen to join Elena it all goes ape shit, completely overwhelming you with a stupidly huge amount of enemies in every turn. Playing the campaign on hard mode from the outset was the worst mistake I made, too... it completely spoiled my first ever playthrough, and so many set-pieces were ruined because of me dying over and over. But I had no reason to expect such looming frustration, though, because Uncharted 2, while not exactly easy, was very doable and I had loads of fun starting straight from hard mode.

I didn't use that frustrating to tamper with my review, though, because with whatever difficulty you're playing on, a lot of the later combat encounter designs were still outright lazy.

Yeah. I had the same experience cause I played 2 from the start on hard and I did the same with 3, which caused a lot of frustration. I would say that I would play it again on Normal to see if that is more fun, but unlike 2 I don't really feel like the story beats and character interactions are good enough to get me to do that.

Like @Hashbrowns said, the story just didn't come together. They tried to play Salim off like a Tenzen from 2 but the character interaction is almost completely non-existent. And, I don't know about you guys but I get a fuzzy feeling inside whenever I see Drake and Elena interact and, despite the implied developments, I felt like the most interesting couple of characters didn't get enough of the snappy interaction that was present in 1 and 2. Honestly, thinking back, Uncharted 1 may have had better moment to moment dialogue than 3.

Ultimately, like I said in my first post, I think that Uncharted 3 is a technical marvel, but it takes so many steps backwards in terms of its storytelling and combat scenarios.

#4 Posted by RadJoshCon (26 posts) -

@Abyssfull: I read your review and I really agree with what you said about Uncharted 3 falling back on some of the mistakes made in the first game. The combat in 3 did that stupid trick of spawning a bunch of enemies from the area where you entered, which was one of the biggest problems with the first game and was hugely improved in 2. I just feel like Naughty Dog thought that they needed more combat when really I just wanted to quickly dispatch the enemies present and then move on to the better parts of the game.

#5 Posted by RadJoshCon (26 posts) -

I need to go back and play Uncharted 2 to make sure, but my initial reaction after finishing 3 is that 2 was a more fun experience. I really believe that Naughty Dog is doing some next level shit in Uncharted 3 and their tech is the best in the business, but I think that the storytelling and the great pacing of 2 got lost in 3.

#6 Posted by RadJoshCon (26 posts) -

I really appreciate the critiques that Parkin brought up in his review. Uncharted 2 is one of my favorite games of all time and I hope that 3 is too, but his points were completely valid and made me really think about the series as a whole. I really think that this type of critique is very valuable to both consumers and actually developers. I would hope that Naughty Dog reads his review and doesn't think "Fuck that guy. He only gave our game an 8" but instead takes his well made points into account.

The problem lies in the fact that, in the end, Parkin had to attach a number to his critique. This seems to me to be unfair to both the writer and the reader. It is unfair to Parkin because it seems to me like he tried to make an entirely valid criticism, but then also had to make some sort of evaluative judgement in the form of a score. It seems that most of the backlash is "Fuck that guy. He gave it an 8." not "Fuck that guy. He wrote a criticism of Uncharted 3." I don't know who, if anyone, is to blame for this, but it seems like most of the outrage could have been avoided if the evaluative portion was separated from the critique.

I don't want to excuse the people who are freaking out about the score, because 8/10 is still a great score and even then it is only one opinion, but I still feel that there is some kind of disconnect between the thoughtful critique of a game and then the evaluative score at the end that doesn't benefit either the critique or the evaluation.

In the end I think that Parkin was entierly justified in presenting a critique of the Uncharted franchise, but it is unfortunate that he was forced to also attach an evaluative judgement to that critique. Also I may be totally wrong and crazy to please tell me what you all think.

#7 Posted by RadJoshCon (26 posts) -

Just a heads up that Dominion will be up again today from 11:30 pacific to about 1:30. Would love to test it out with some GBers!

#8 Posted by RadJoshCon (26 posts) -

Username: CarbonNeutral

Level: 30

Mains: Morgana, Amumu, Nocturne, Caitlyn

#9 Posted by RadJoshCon (26 posts) -

@100_Hertz: I see what you're saying and you may be right, but how I look at it is that if you aren't gonna build some absolute monster machine then a solid 30fps at max settings on a game like Crysis 2 is completely acceptable. As for BF3, if it is as well optimized as people are saying then I bet it will perform similarly and even if it doesn't, turning down a few settings will still result in a game that looks better than almost anything out there.

#10 Posted by RadJoshCon (26 posts) -

I built a PC in May that has an i5 2500k, 8gb of Ram, and the EVGA 560GTX ti and it runs everything great. Runs Crisis 2 at 1920X1080 Extreme at a solid 30fps, gets as high as 50 sometimes. With everything maxed at dx11 and ultra specs it runs at about 24-28 fps...not great but playable. It should be enough to run BF3 at your resolution easy.

  • 21 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3