Raven10's forum posts

#1 Posted by Raven10 (1793 posts) -

The crazy October '14 rush has now all but completely vanished. Seems making current gen games is taking a lot more time than developers were expecting.

#2 Posted by Raven10 (1793 posts) -

@ghostiet: You can put a player in a no win situation without resorting to chance based difficulty. The film The Dark Knight was all about the Joker creating no win situations where no matter what you did you ended up the villain. You can put similar mechanics in a game. You have 1 minute to beat the level but there are two hostages that need to be saved. The hostages each take 30 seconds to get to in the opposite directions when going at your fastest speeds. You only have time to save one. Choose. You've now put the player in a no win situation. The Walking Dead (at least the first season, I haven't played the second) puts in quite a few situations where no matter what you do you fail in some way. And, again, there is no chance to it. Another way you could do it in this style of game would be to have limited resources with no chance of winning unless you sacrifice someone to get more or preserve what you have. By making it impossible to do without sacrifice you can achieve the same goal while making gameplay fair.

#3 Posted by Raven10 (1793 posts) -

@victork said:

Thank you all for your help! I will probably go ahead and buy the Sony. The difference of 2ms lag input versus 2.42ms lag input will not be noticable? I do not notice any controller input delay playing on my LG, and I would like to keep it that way.

To put it into perspective, in a 60 fps game every frame is rendered in 16 ms. So your delay has moved from about an 8th of a frame to about a 7th. Neither will be remotely noticeable. At 30 fps a frame renders in 33 ms. At that level the additional delay from your screen should not be noticeable in any way whatsoever. As long as your response time is under half a frame (between 7 and 8 ms) then you should be perfectly fine for anything but the highest level eSports level play.

As far as Sony TV's go, I have a five year old Samsung TV that I have to put in a specific game mode to lower response time down to acceptable levels. My parents bought a new Sony TV last year and I brought over my PS3 to try some blu-rays and games on it. I didn't notice any lag even with the default settings and I personally think Sony has the best looking TV's out there despite many claiming that Samsung's are better.

#4 Posted by Raven10 (1793 posts) -

An endlessly necro-ed thread. Well I've rated almost every film I have seen in the past decade on Netflix for a total of around 900 films. Of those I have given 59 of them a rating of 5 stars. So here are a selection of those, not limited to 10 because reasons.

1. Several Miyazaki movies including Nausicaa, Totoro, and the underrated Howl's Moving Castle

2. Wall E and the Toy Story franchise

3. Stanly Kubrick films, my favorite probably being Clockwork Orange

4. Lincoln because I could watch Daniel Day Lewis just sit in a room and give inspiring speeches for months without getting bored.

5. There Will Be Blood because I get to see both Daniel Day Lewis being crazy and a great story and production.

6. Brazil

7. City of Lost Children

8. American Beauty

9. Pan's Labyrinth

10. The Lion King

11. Road to Perdition

12. Picnic at Hanging Rock

13. The Matrix

14. Into the Wild

15. Dead Poets Society

16. A Beautiful Mind

17. Titanic

18. The Dark Knight

19. Talk to Her

20. And my most recent addition to this list - Her

#5 Posted by Raven10 (1793 posts) -

@nickhead: I tend to wait for GOTY Editions and the like as well. My personal issue with DLC is that I would prefer to play it all at once in the form of a major expansion, especially when we are talking about minor single player DLC that adds an hour or less to the game. In total you might get as much content in all the DLC that you would in a traditional expansion, but just the way I enjoy playing games I don't like starting and stopping every couple of months. As far as the map packs go, you can blame Microsoft for that. Epic stated that back when they were first making map packs for Gears of War they were going to release them for free but Microsoft insisted they charge for them. Microsoft has traditionally limited how little or how much a developer can charge for a certain type of content to keep prices stable. So as much as a developer might want to give you something for free or for cheap Microsoft often won't let them.

@mb: Yes I am a game developer. I don't want to say what I am describing is how it works 100% of the time. What I have outlined here wouldn't be true for a small team where members take multiple roles, or in cases where art duties are outsourced. And some studios will simply hire temporary staff to perform certain tasks when needed and therefore don't have the extra manpower to do what I am describing. But for a large AAA studio this is often how things work. And as far as production goes, the process of conception, pre-production, production, and post-production is a process taken from film and television creation that you can easily learn about yourself. I was a film major in college for a while before getting a degree in game development, and worked on the sets of various student film productions, so I know a fair bit about both game development and film development. I don't want to overstate my experience as I am new in the field but I can assure you that from both personal experience and from secondhand experience working with and learning under very experienced developers that what I am saying is true.

#6 Posted by Raven10 (1793 posts) -

@marcsman: The PS3 didn't have a ton of new IP's at launch. In fact they didn't have many games at all at launch. I'm pretty sure there are more games for the PS4 already than there were during the entire first year of the PS3. Sony has always had very weak first years. They'll get a couple good games year one, but it usually takes two or three years before the big new guns hit. Consider this. The PS3 came out in 2006. It wasn't until 2009 that we got the following games - Infamous, Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, Demon's Souls, Borderlands, Dragon Age, and Assassin's Creed 2. And 2008 saw GTAIV and MGS4 come out. As far as major titles in year one we got Uncharted, Oblivion, Call of Duty 4, and Assassin's Creed. Note that all but the first of those were cross platform titles where the 360 was the lead platform, meaning developers had spent 2 years with the lead platform. And COD4 and Assassin's Creed were both vastly technically inferior on the PS3.

To All: Two things. First off every game on that list outside of Deus Ex featured a vastly compromised PS3(and usually 360) version. All of those games had awful framerates on PS3 and all felt like games designed for hardware far more powerful than the PS3. Tomb Raider's release saw a game running at between 45 and 60 fps (compared to the rarely above 25 fps of the PS3 version and not that much higher on 360), as well as including almost all of the bells and whistles from the incredible looking PC version. Sleeping Dogs also rarely ran at above 25 fps on PS3 or 360, plus had a PC version that looked absolutely fantastic compared to the console releases. The Last Of Us ran so poorly on PS3 I often felt motion sick, and the hideous aliasing and sub pixel crawl made all the beautiful artwork feel terribly compromised. GTAV ran fine on consoles but the parts outside of the city felt barren, like there should have been plants and animals and instead there were just big flat textures. And sure enough the current gen port includes plants and animals in all those awful looking sections. I could go on. Beyond (which is also supposed to be getting a remastered version) had possibly the worst framerate I have ever seen in a AAA console release. I'm pretty sure some entire levels never broke 20 fps. And I don't think a single second of the game ran at 30 fps. And that is with them using a "cinematic aspect ratio" that let them only have to render a third of the screen. And Metro 2033/Last Light can barely run at max settings on a $3000 computer so I highly doubt that even these ports will be able to show the games in their best light. Basically a lot of these games really should have been released on current gen consoles in the first place, and this seems like a chance for many of these games to come into their own (or at least let console players play the game as it was meant to be played as seen on the PC version). And as far as Deus Ex goes, I would assume this new version includes the updated content from the Wii U Director's Cut. Not sure if that version ever made it to last gen consoles but it is supposed to greatly improve parts of the game. And even though the PC version didn't look amazing it still was a nice boost over last gen versions and the tech included DX11 features that could be enhanced even further.

And with all that said, I think the other thing to note is that games take longer than ever to make these days. Activision didn't move Call of Duty to a three year cycle just to increase quality. They did it to maintain quality. More RAM means you have to create higher resolution textures and more detailed models. Those take longer to make. And it took several years even last generation before things really took off. The 360 came out in 2005 and it wasn't until 2007 that we got Call of Duty 4, Assassin's Creed, and Halo 3. These things take time. Look at Nintendo and the Wii U. It has taken them a couple of years to really get things rolling. Games just take a long time to make. For AAA games 3 years is becoming more of a standard. 4 years or more would not be surprising. Pixar takes 4 years minimum to make a movie. Sometimes they spend as much as six or seven years. The more detail you need the more time you have to spend. Even with all that said we're already getting more major games more quickly for current gen consoles than for any previous 3D generation.

#7 Posted by Raven10 (1793 posts) -

I have a feeling that buying all the DLC on XBL or PSN would set you back somewhere around $50 so this isn't the worst deal in the world as long as it looks as good or better than the maxed out PC version (minus super sampling of course).

#8 Edited by Raven10 (1793 posts) -

@dberg: Turtle Rock (the game's developer) was at one point owned by Valve when they co-developed the first Left 4 Dead. They then pulled a Bungie and returned toindependence to make Evolve.

@kippers: Seems like a normal start as far as I can recall. Usually takes at least two years before we start seeing regular quality releases on a new system. Especially since the dawn of 3D games and their increased development requirements.

#9 Edited by Raven10 (1793 posts) -

@laxbro19: Glad to help! I find that what most people don't think of are the little things. They'll realize the first night they didn't buy soap or toilet paper or shampoo. Or they'll want a toothbrush holder or a cup for their bathroom. Just as you go through your day take note of everything that you are using that you may not even be thinking about and decide whether you can live without that or if you want to have something similar to take with you.

#10 Posted by Raven10 (1793 posts) -

If I was a betting man I would bet that they have been waiting for a new generation of consoles. Source is a decade old engine at this point. They need to make something completely new but I have a feeling their vision wasn't going to be possible on last gen consoles. There will be a Half Life 3 eventually. I just don't expect Valve to release it until they get it right. They have the issue that both Half Life and Half Life 2 redefined shooters in their respective eras. The pressure to meet such crazy expectations is very high I'm certain. As some others mentioned, Blizzard took a decade to make Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3. The new Doom will hit over a decade after Doom 3. And like is likely the case with Half Life 3, Id scrapped their work multiple times before settling on their current design.