Raven10's forum posts

#1 Posted by Raven10 (1768 posts) -

I think big publishers have decided they can charge as much for the PC version of a game as the console version. I don't see why it should be any different.

#2 Posted by Raven10 (1768 posts) -

I have nothing against the concept. If they provide a good value for the price then that is fine. On the same token this is $5 a month right? That's more than PS Plus ($60 a year compared to $50) and the same price as Xbox Live Gold. PS Plus and Gold though give you new free games every month (4 games in Microsoft's case and 6 in Sony's case). EA just isn't going to be able to match that. With this being an Xbox One exclusive thing they are already including almost every game they released for the system thus far. So what do you add to that? Do you put games onto the service when they are six months old? If so you are still only going to get a couple of games a year. I guess my issue is that compared to the value for PS Plus and Xbox Live Gold I just don't see it. Of course we don't know the degree of the discounts. If every EA game was also 50% off on release then I might say it is worth it, but you would have to really like a lot of EA series, which just doesn't seem especially likely for most people.

#3 Posted by Raven10 (1768 posts) -

@neonie said:
  • Put it together your self and feel accomplished. Always good to know the inner workings of the thing you're using.
  • Every PC you build is a custom piece of equipment. You choose it's parts, you put it together, and no one has anything else like it.
  • Games on the PC are pretty good.
  • Putting one together your self is cheaper and more efficient then buying store bought junk.
  • Buy the right parts, and unlike your laptop, it won't sound like a wind tunnel every time you turn it on. (For graphics cards and power supplies, make sure you see multiple positive feedbacks on a piece of equipment that note how "quiet" they are before buying.)
  • Laptops are garbage
  • Apple is over priced

Also you say you're developing for Java, but that platform is hella old, maybe try something else? I actually don't know how relevant Java is in the current computing landscape maybe I'm wrong.

This pretty much covers everything I would have said. I'd also add that in addition to being "pretty good" PC games more often go on sale and can sometimes be modded or altered in ways that console games can't. If you can afford a decent gaming PC I don't know why you would choose a console outside of the exclusive games on those systems. At 13 years old I should mention that making a good gaming PC is costly. I don't know how wealthy your parents are, but before you begin this process understand that you'll need around $1000 to build a decent system assuming you already have a monitor. If you don't then add another $200-500 onto that depending on the quality of monitor you want. For that price, assuming you are patient and wait for good sales, you should be able to play any game released on close to max settings at 1080/1200p and at least high settings on most current releases should you go with a 2k or a 4k monitor. If you want to assure 1080p/60fps for every single game completely maxed out then you'll probably have to spend closer to $1300 without monitor although I wouldn't recommend getting such a computer if you have any sort of budgetary restraints.

#4 Posted by Raven10 (1768 posts) -

Look up the term player agency. It's the concept of a player placing himself into the game and feeling that he has a direct effect on the game world. Early academics theorized that a player would be more easily able to become engrossed in a world if they felt they were playing a representation of themselves. To allow for this the character had to be silent so that he or she wouldn't say something that the player wouldn't say in the situation. The reason it is popular in first person games is because you don't ever see your character so it is easier to place yourself in the role of that character. Gordon is supposed to be a shell for the player to inhabit. This line of thinking is also why Square traditionally makes the lead characters of the Final Fantasy series the least interesting or detailed of the group. Cloud, Squall, Lightning, Vaan, and so forth are supposed to be as blank a slate as possible so that the player can imprint him or herself onto that character. In White Knight Odyssey Level 5 actually had the player create a character to represent themselves in the game who played only a minor part in the story. The idea is that players are trying to role play and it is easier to do so with a character who is silent and/or who has few background details. Even characters that do talk in shooters usually have very little to say. Why does Master Chief never take off his helmet? Why did Bungie not ever say his name(John) until Halo 3? Because Master Chief can be any race. He can be from any part of the world. With no name and no face, players can put themselves into the role more easily. Another example is how Insomniac gave Nathan Hale almost no lines in the Resistance series. If you play the first game I believe Hale speaks two sentences the entire game. The second game he speaks a bit more, while in the third game the character you play doesn't speak at all during gameplay, just during cutscenes. It's all about making the player feel that sense of agency.

Now in recent years the whole concept of creating greater agency through a silent protagonist has been debated with many people now saying that the concept doesn't work. People point to Bioware and how they made Commander Shepard have a voice while still allowing players to create a character they could attach themselves to. I personally think that is the future. But Valve continues to push silent protagonists and they hold a ton of sway in the industry. I think if Gordon Freeman talks in Half Life 3 then you'll see silent protagonists go away permanently.

#5 Posted by Raven10 (1768 posts) -

I guess my response would be that for fans of comic books this won't matter because this is true of the comics as well. I mean Batman is always going to succeed. Hell DC tried killing off both Batman and Superman and neither stuck. If you enjoy comics then you enjoy them despite knowing that at the end of most story arcs everything will be reset. You get occasional major change, but that is like a once a decade thing at most. Look at the films like episodic TV shows if you aren't into comics. One of my favorite episodes of Family Guy has a fourth wall breaking conclusion where after a bunch of crazy shit happens, Peter just looks directly at the camera and says that people were crazy if they thought any of that would stick because everything has to reset for next week.

I totally agree that the lack of tension takes away a lot from the Marvel Cinematic Universe but I also think that comic book fans are used to this type of thing. At some point you know Spiderman is never going to die. Nor is Wolverine or The Hulk. We just heard this week that Thor is being recast as a woman in the comics. Let me tell you how long that will last. About six months after which things will revert back to how they were. Same with Captain America. Completely changing a superhero is a very rare thing. I can think of three examples off the top of my head. The original Robin became Nightwing and was replaced by several characters over the years. Green Lantern was recreated to become Hal Jordan but that was in the 1950's after the character had been left unused for over a decade. He has been Hal Jordan (among others) since. And lastly Nick Fury started out as a white guy before becoming Samuel L Jackson.

#6 Posted by Raven10 (1768 posts) -

If I'm ever in an emotional mood this soundtrack and this song in particular gets to me.

Also this song:





#7 Edited by Raven10 (1768 posts) -

@walreese55: To push graphics cards here is a pretty definitive list:

Crysis 1-3 (The first game is CPU bound and only single threaded so regardless of how good your GPU is or how many cores you have on your CPU, you still likely won't be able to max it out. If for some reason you have a current gen Core i7 Extreme then turn multi-threading off and overclock it as far as it will go and you'll experience the magic. If you have an AMD CPU then you are out of luck sadly)

The Witcher 2 (Play the first one first if you actually care about the story and unless your PC cost at least $1750 turn off Uber-sampling. It just isn't worth it)

Far Cry 3 and Blood Dragon (Experience how the game was meant to be played)

Metro 2033 and Last Light (There are some remastered editions coming out soon so I would wait for those)

Sleeping Dogs (If you want to push your rig then turn on super sampling and watch your framerate plummet)

Tomb Raider (If you have an Nvidia GPU consider turning off TressFX and be sure you have the absolutely latest drivers)

Arkham City and Origins (Only if you have an Nvidia GPU. Turn on the Nvidia exclusive PhysX effects to again see magic being made)

GRID 2/Autosport (If you have a 360 controller or racing wheel handy only. Great looking racing games that perform well on a wide variety of systems. Actual fun factor may vary depending on your tastes)

Hard Reset and Shadow Warrior (Oldschool shooters by Flying Wild Hog. Great action and beautiful worlds)

Outlast (Best looking horror game on the market)

Gone Home (If you don't think you can make a great looking game in Unity talk to the makers of this game. Note there is very little gameplay. Think of it like the portions of Bioshock Infinite without combat)

I know you specifically said nothing like Battlefield 4, but I would suggest trying Planetside 2. It's free so you don't have to spend anything on it. Try it out. At the very least you'll see some of the most impressive visuals out there and you can uninstall it and move on.

That pretty much covers it. If you enjoy action games I might also suggest playing DMC and Darksiders 2 on PC as they really come into their own at 60 fps.

EDIT:

Forgot the Total War games. Anything from Empire forward is mighty impressive and will push your system to the brink.

#8 Posted by Raven10 (1768 posts) -

I always have multiple games I am playing at once. I try to keep the number of RPG's I am playing at once down, but I always fail. Just to give a sense of how ridiculous my RPG backlog is I currently am 20-60 hours into the following games - Demon's Souls, Ni No Kuni, Kingdoms of Amalur, Baldur's Gate, Divine Divinity, Dragon Age (Expansion content), Final Fantasy 13, and my second playthrough of The Witcher 2. I have the problem that I can't accept not doing every side quest in an RPG. Everyone says to not do all the side content in Amalur but I just couldn't stop myself. So I reached a point where I was virtually invincible going into the second half of the story. For those who have played it, I spent well over 70 hours before even sailing to the second continent. And I spent another 15 to get where I am now which is on the verge of entering the final region. And I'm still doing side quests despite having pretty much the best possible gear in the game and entering into the later zones over-leveled.

Another example of my insanity with RPG's - In games like Baldur's Gate or Divine Divinity where you have your big square regions connected by a map, I will explore each region in the following manner. I will walk to the top left corner of the map. I will then walk down to the bottom left corner. Then over to the bottom right. Then up to the top right. I will then move inward, basically forming the rectangular equivolent of a spiral until I have explored every inch of each zone. I will hand notate the map if allowed to mark any items of importance that I might be interested in coming back to. These types of things basically make it so I never finish RPG's. I try my best to overcome and just fail.

#9 Edited by Raven10 (1768 posts) -

I have taken several courses that involved game history. Some commonly taught games include

1960-1984 (Pre-Nintendo)

- SpaceWar (arguably the first fully digital game ever. Not played of course. Either shown in video form or merely discussed)

- Pong (both in the form of Pong arcade/home machines which aren't played and Pong as a game on the CVS/2600. Generally you play a browser based version)

- Space Invaders (Generally used to show the rise of Japanese games in Arcades)

- Asteroids

- Battlezone (Used as an example of vector graphics and early first person gameplay)

- Adventure (Example of games with a story and an end state)

- Various other CVS and arcade games tend to be shown but what games generally depend on the personal preferences of the professor

- Wizardry (Early influential RPG)

- Ultima (Another early influential RPG)

- Ultima IV (Early example of a system of morals and moral choice in games. Early game Warren Spector worked on)

- Donkey Kong (First game by Miyamoto)

8-Bit

- Super Mario Bros

- Legend of Zelda

- Metroid

- A selection of Konami NES games including Contra at the very least

- Final Fantasy

(Note that generally these games won't be played in class due to their length and the technical difficulties of displaying an NES on a modern projector. You'll get videos at the most while some will merely be discussed in lecture and read about in text)

- Early Sierra adventure game will likely be discussed

- Other games are largely based on instructor preference

16-Bit/Late Arcade/DOS/Windows 3

- Sonic The Hedgehog

- Final Fantasy VI

- Street Fighter 2

- Ultima VII

- Ultima Underword, System Shock, or Thief (Basically some sort of mention of Looking Glass, Warren Spector, and/or Ken Levine)

- Doom

- Likely some sort of mention of early attempts at 3D rendering including the pre-rendered Donkey Kong Country, Star Fox, and Sega's Virtua line

- Discussion of Westwood, Blizzard, and the birth of the RTS

Rise of Polygons (From 1995 to the release of the PS2)

- Quake

- Mario 64

- Tomb Raider

- Starcraft and/or Command and Conquer may be mentioned

- Half Life

- Discussion of the rise of online multiplayer will be included with various examples

- Goldeneye

- Mention of FMV games and their failure possibly including a rant from the instructor about their focus on story over compelling gameplay and how to never ever make a game like that.

- Final Fantasy VII

- Other games will be mentioned based on preference.

This Century

- Deus Ex

- Ultima Online

- Everquest

- World of Warcraft

- Grand Theft Auto 3 and the rise of the open world and sandbox style of game design

- Halo and Halo 2

- God of War and the character action genre

- Call of Duty which will likely be used to contrast the more freeform mechanics of Deus Ex, Halo, Far Cry, and Half Life

- Call of Duty 4 will likely be used to discuss gamification and how games use drip-feed upgrades to compel players to play games that don't have compelling gameplay

- Doom 3 and Half Life 2 will be used to discuss modern graphics techniques

- Zynga and Angry Birds will represent casual, mobile gaming

- Some sort of discussion will likely occur over the evolution of gender roles in games with a mention of modern movements for gender equality in gaming. I would assume that these discussions might these days also include sexual orientation.

- Red Dead Redemption is a current academic favorite that I have a feeling will be getting more class time going forward.

- Mario Galaxy is sometimes brought up to discuss IP evolution and using popular characters to sell risky gameplay mechanics

- And of course Wii Sports will be used to discuss alternative control mechanics

#10 Posted by Raven10 (1768 posts) -

@shagge: I was thinking about Dead Space 2 when writing this actually. I think the difference there is that by the end of the game you get better armor and weapons and you have enough resources to fully upgrade everything. So it made the first third of the game easier, but definitely by the halfway point I felt like it wasn't giving me a huge advantage. Like the first half of the game I beat on the normal difficulty, but by that point the pre-order bonuses had run their course and I had to drop down to easy. Whereas I felt overpowered in Bioshock from beginning to end because the infusions you got made you more powerful at every point in the game than you could be otherwise, and because that one piece of gear is easily the most powerful piece of gear in the game and getting it right at the beginning means you barely even have to aim due to the ridiculous amount of ammo you have and because you can tank so much damage with all those infusions.

@ghostiet said:

@fredchuckdave said:

Infinite is not a difficult game to begin with and also isn't so amazingly tight on the controls/gameplay front to suddenly make it matter how you play it/how hard it was. The game is far from Vanquish.

Pretty much. Although I have to say that I support TLoU's option of letting you just switch off the season pass bonuses.

Like I said, I really suck at shooters. Vanquish was ridiculously hard for me. I beat it on the easiest difficulty after hundreds of attempts. So Bioshock Infinite was actually pretty perfect for me on the default difficulty my first time through. I died a couple times in each level, and at least once during all the major battles. It challenged me but wasn't frustrating until the final level, which, like I said, took me over an hour to complete.The combat wasn't great, but I think a lot of issues people had were those who played it on consoles where the framerate could get pretty choppy and response times weren't great. Playing at 60 fps with a mouse and keyboard the combat felt just fine. It wasn't anything masterful, but it was better than average.