Shivoa's forum posts

#1 Posted by Shivoa (679 posts) -

@finaldasa said:

I wear glasses. Without these glasses I can't see very far. I need these glasses.

Do you think someone could either wear glasses while wearing the Oculus? Or are there enough lenses to use that someone like me could probably find a decent substitute for my glasses?

I would think occulus would be a problem for nearsided people, not farsided people (since the screen is right up in your face. Then again, Im not really adept at science shit, so I'm not really sure how it actually works or who it might present an issue to.

The lenses actually put the screen at infinite depth (this is basically anything 30m+ where the light is as good as parallel for government work) so that's why you get B lenses with the kit (for people who can't sharply resolve parallel light when their iris muscles are totally relaxed and so need a slight angle/the screen to be closer). This also means you don't get eyestrain from using them as your muscles (that change the shape of the iris) are relaxed because that's natural for focus at infinity.

I got my DK2 recently and have ok but not great vision (I wear glasses to have great vision because we have the technology so why wouldn't I want 20:12 vision) and have found the B lenses are better for me (I can use the A lenses and wouldn't complain if that was the only option but it's not as good as with the Bs in). The reason why Oculus recommend contact lenses is that the further away from your eyes the lenses in the headset are, the lower the FoV you get so if you make enough space for glasses then you'll lose some peripheral vision and have a less than ideal experience.

#2 Edited by Shivoa (679 posts) -
@humanity said:

@shivoa said:

Then two hours later you'll be locked out of the game and counting down the days until you can play any more of it.

How so? From what I understand you get full access to the game 5 days early and your progress carries over?

"Starting 5 days before release, you’ll be able to try the game for at least two hours and then save your progress." [source]

This is a demo and it locks down - this isn't playing the game for 5 days before release and before needing to buy it. It's a subscription that is in part normalising paid access to time-limited demos of EA games, available 5 days before the official launch date (but with a save state that allows you to import your progress in the demo into the full game).

#3 Posted by Shivoa (679 posts) -
@humanity said:

@darkest4 said:

Been a sony fanboy for life but this is a ridiculously bad decision. I was interested in EA's service it's a shame Sony gets to decide for me that I shouldn't be, apparently I'm a toddler who can't make purchasing decisions for myself. If I would rather pay a small fee monthly for a broad spectrum of games months or years after their launch than buy them for $60 at launch then that should be my decision if the publisher wants to offer that option.

This reaks of the old cocky PS3 Sony who just gave the finger to their customers and told them they know whats best. But Sony just doesn't want competitors to their service, that's all this really is, at least be honest about it instead of this lame ass "we know what's best for our customers and how they should spend their money, better than themselves" bullshit.

I had a similar thought. Maybe they don't think it's good value proposition but as the customer I'd like to be able to make the decision on my own. Personally I would pay $30 a year for the chance to play games a week early alone. I can't count the times when I would be quite literally counting down the hours until the release of some highly anticipated game. I would get discounts and some free games on top? Hell that doesn't sound half that bad.

Technically you're still going to be counting down the hours until the release of a game. You're just doing it a week earlier.

Then two hours later you'll be locked out of the game and counting down the days until you can play any more of it.

#4 Posted by Shivoa (679 posts) -
@thehbk said:

This is very narrow minded. You are not paying $5 a month for a demo to Dragon Age. You are playing the full game. [...] Please do us a favor and think and read before posting. You're welcome.

If it was the full game then you'd be able to play all of it but the language (2 hours explicitly mentioned) clearly indicates this is not the case. Narrow minded or I actually read (and considered) the offer before commenting?

Maybe keep the tone civil.

#5 Posted by Shivoa (679 posts) -

@patrickklepek said:

I have to imagine paying a few dollars to start playing Dragon Age: Inquisition nearly a week before release is going to be awfully tempting, especially since your progress will be saved. Any takers?

Would I pay $5 a month to get access to a demo of Dragon Age: Inquisition 5 days before release? Even with progress from the demo carrying over to the full game that is a massive step too far, not a chance I'll pay EA to normalise charging for demos.

#6 Edited by Shivoa (679 posts) -

@patrickklepek: I'm not sure equating "speak honestly" with lying (seemingly not maliciously but by being uninformed about a core, publicly stated dev goal of the xbox team) about the current status of major development platforms at a developer conference with press in attendance is really a fair comparison.

It would be like saying CGI bullshots (from a 3rd party CGI studio) that claim to be "real time footage from actual gameplay", when called out, creates a silencing effect for sharing early work from games in development. The exec lied to devs, that got picked up, and later the truth was disseminated as a retraction. It could easily have happened the other way round (exec says programme is coming son, retraction is the programme was cancelled but they didn't know) with the same effect.

#7 Posted by Shivoa (679 posts) -

I wonder how much content they're making with that cast. Maybe $40 of DLC. So pre-order now from Gamestop and you get this much game, plus (potentially) the nagging feeling you should spend $40 more on the post-launch DLC to complete the work hinted at from this announced content.

Or wait for a $20 digital sale for the GotY edition and enjoy it all, the complete package, for so much less. And this makes me want to pre-order now because?

#8 Posted by Shivoa (679 posts) -

Would be good to see an Unfinished for this at some point (or maybe a QL).

#9 Edited by Shivoa (679 posts) -

The Patrick J. Barrett III comments in that The Sims piece seemed very much to be rewriting the history of PC games.

No other game had facilitated same-sex relationships before...

That's a weird way to talk about a game from after the big 2000 party or even to talk about an E3 '99 showing. Here's a quote (source) from Tim Caine about the big 1998 release, Fallout 2:

We kind of liked pushing boundaries a bit. Not always with violence. We wanted a game which is full of social commentary. So [same-sex marriage] was just another thing we were doing. I don’t even think anybody in the team really argued over it. We didn’t think ‘Oh my god, this an amazing thing.’ It was just ‘We’re going to cover every possible base here.’ And then we moved on.

And then we've got the testimonials from people like Patricia Hernandez, who explained her relationship with Fallout 2 here.

But according to the interview reported by Parkin, 2 years later was when maturely handled same sex relationships came to computer games. Not to say that EA were the ones to suggest a piece about The Sims history as part of their PR offensive for the new sequel, coming soon, but it does seem like this piece could do with more research (hey, at least the piece got corrected to no longer claim The Sims came out in late 1999). It's nice to have behind-the-scenes dives into games, but I'd much rather a piece that didn't pay for that exclusive access by removing the critical eye and fact checking.

#10 Edited by Shivoa (679 posts) -

For consideration in next week's Best of Blogs: Infinite Shelves with Consumer Protection.

I've always really liked how GiantBomb treats games, even pretty terrible FMV games or glitchy projects that reviews should basically say "don't buy". There is no hate there (unless it's @jeff talking about Dota2) so when something like Harvester comes up on Steam/GOG, people here sometimes think it'd be cool to buy it, even knowing how it looked on a Friday show. The "make Greenlight even harder to get past"/"delist everything I don't like" discussion seems completely counter to the GB style of celebrating games, and yet there are big voices (out there in games journalism) championing that stance. So in response to a good blog about why we should celebrate games, I added some notes about how we should already be legally protected (with links to actual UK law if people care about sources) from fraud and substandard products we don't see coming on services like Steam. Buying with confidence that we have a right to cancel/return seems like the actual solution to all this shouting about how stores should be curated spaces where only games you like should be sold.