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.
Raven10's forum posts
@brendan: They also did the Wii RPG The Last Story which was most critics say was their best game.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yea I initially thought the gas must be more worthwhile but considering the price of the shoes and the number released each month, it would actually be pretty insane not to go for the shoes assuming you could sell them. I'd keep them in a cool dry room unopened for 20 years and then sell them for staggering levels of money.
Also, @kindgineer I would recommend doing a little more research before acting all high and mighty. The shoes are obviously the better value from an economic standpoint if you look at the number released and price per shoe, plus the increase in value of past models over time.