Raven10's forum posts

#1 Posted by Raven10 (1726 posts) -

I appreciate how much Kojima grew as a writer over the years. MGS has such terrible dialogue it's amazing the cast could deliver it with a straight face. The second game made no sense whatsoever but at least it reveled in how batshit crazy it was and you only had to play for like a quarter of the game. The rest was just cutscenes. The third game had semi-decent dialogue and a coherent narrative, but the pacing was awful and the romance still seemed like something out of a bad porn movie. Four I appreciate that the dialogue actually often sounds like how actual humans talk, and the women even behave like people not sex toys most of the time. Explaining the entire series by saying it all happened due to nano-machines is ridiculous but I think MGS4 did more to make me care about the characters than the entire rest of the series combined.

Also his trailer making abilities seem to have grown drastically over time.

#2 Posted by Raven10 (1726 posts) -

I played through 3/4 of the original game. That makes me entirely unqualified to answer this question, but I thought I would say that I loved the 30 hours or whatever I spent on that game, especially when I learned a spell that let me beat any enemy including bosses in seconds.

#3 Posted by Raven10 (1726 posts) -

Well I've seen threads brought back from the dead but this thread was made a day after this site launched. Doesn't get much older than that.

#4 Posted by Raven10 (1726 posts) -

@brendan: They also did the Wii RPG The Last Story which was most critics say was their best game.

#5 Posted by Raven10 (1726 posts) -

Get a 3DS or Vita if you don't already have one. Then purchase some lengthy RPG's. They'll last you the summer. Just make sure to bring headphones. I used to just bring an iPod Touch when I had a half hour commute and play various small games on it. I wasn't living in a great part of town and the bus was usually so full they couldn't even take everyone who wanted to get on, so headphones were usually out of the question. I must have played like 200+ hours of Tiny Wings the year it came out. Assuming you are taking the train, I don't think the subway in NYC is usually anywhere near that busy (at least not from my limited experience on it) so if you can get a seat I would go with gaming with headphones. People also commonly use Kindles to read on trains. I saw that a lot when I lived in Chicago. The main thing I always say is that if you are going through a not so great part of town, make sure whatever you have with you is not plainly visible at those stops. NYC is much safer than Chicago these days, but it still pays to be safe.

#6 Posted by Raven10 (1726 posts) -

Well for GTAV and The Last of Us I am happy they did it. GTAV really lacked foliage in the last gen version. I guess that might be a silly thing to complain about but all these green Hollywood style hills without a single shred of grass on them just really got to me. Combined with the iffy performance at times and I think the game could really use a next gen makeover. The Last of Us I think is even more clear cut. The performance was God awful. The whole thing felt like it ran at 20 fps not to mention the lack of AA on the environment left the whole game filled with jaggies and pixel shimmer. I don't have a PS4 yet but when I do I will absolutely buy and play both those games on it.

The only other example of a disc based game I can think of this generation has been Tomb Raider, which again performed pretty poorly on consoles, although those with a decent PC could get most of the features of the current gen version. Basically, if the game is under a year old and ran poorly on the previous generation then I'm more than happy with a current gen port. If we are talking about something like remaking the Modern Warfare games for current gen systems, I would hope they would include all three games in a single set for like $40 at most.

#7 Posted by Raven10 (1726 posts) -

@alex said:

@mikey87144: I don't think it was playable. Question mark?

I'm almost positive I saw video of people playing it. Maybe it just wasn't at judges week?

#8 Posted by Raven10 (1726 posts) -

Just finished watching that game. Insane. Can't believe we lost it in the final 30 seconds. Still, I think we have a very high chance of moving forward right now. Both of the final games would have to end up super lopsided for us not to get through.

#9 Edited by Raven10 (1726 posts) -

@manlyburger: That would be for a $1000 PC. At that point medium settings would likely be close to what consoles were doing, hence why I said you would need a $1000 PC. For $500 you'll be dealing with 720p at 20 fps on medium or low.

#10 Posted by Raven10 (1726 posts) -

These suggestions are mostly fine for running current games at console level framerates and resolutions. But if you want something that will last you 3 years then you are going to need to spend closer to $1000 and then expect to run far below max settings on games 3 years from now. My computer is about 4 years old and was $1500 when I got it including monitor. It wasn't just for games but the specs were a Radeon 5850 (brand new at the time), Core i7 920, and 6GB of RAM. I replaced the GPU a year later with a 560 ti 2GB. So that 3 year old graphics card today will run your average next gen game at no more than 30 fps on high settings at 1080p. I can't get anywhere near max settings or a flawless 60 fps at anything above medium settings. CPU's right now are rarely a bottleneck if you don't plan on going over 1080p and 60 fps, and for the price you want you simply aren't going to go higher than that. A Core i5 will likely serve you well for 3 years. By that time it will be limiting your framerate compared to a graphics card 3 years from now, but no graphics card under $300 will come anywhere close to bottlenecking a Core i5 or likely even a Core i3. As far as GPU goes, though, people will tell you that AMD gives you better performance per dollar and that is true to an extent, but AMD's drivers are awful, especially their OpenGL drivers. Look on the forums for the recently released Wolfenstein and you'll see countless complaints from AMD users blaming Id for making a broken game when it is AMD's fault for having straight up broken OpenGL drivers. People will debate that also but it is true. Plus Nvidia has several proprietary technologies that you'll actually want to use like PhysX, HBAO+, and TXAA. But the lowest you'll want to go as far as current Geforce cards go is a 760, which is something like $250 on its own which will leave you almost nothing for the rest of the computer and isn't even remotely future proof. For a card that will still hold up in 3 years you are going to want a 780 which costs $500 all on its own. Generally think of each new generation of graphics cards as pushing the previous lines cards back one level. So a 780 will likely be around as powerful as an 870 (next year's card), a 960 ti (2016's card) or a 1060/50 ti (2016's card). So in 2016 you'll be able to play most games on a mix of high and medium settings at between 40 and 60 fps.

If you really only want to spend $500 I would highly suggest waiting at least a year. We are still learning what the minimum specs are going to be for the average game this generation. Last time around a Geforce 8800 was the minimum card for 95% of games for the first 5 years of the generation and maybe 80% of games for the last couple of years. We just don't know yet what card will be the 8800 of this generation yet. Do yourself a favor. Be patient. Save up some more money and this time next year come back and ask the same question and people will be able to give you a better answer. Right now we just don't know enough to even say what parts to get in a $1000 computer that will last you 3 years. But I can say with 100% certainty that no $500 computer will run games at console quality 3 years from now.