SpaceInsomniac's forum posts

#1 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3885 posts) -

A casual gaming friend of mine just got a PS4 and asked what his first game should be, so I told him that he should just get PS+ for all the games. His immediate reaction was "yeah but aren't those just indie games? I don't want to play those."

You'd think he'd be the perfect candidate for these games since he probably wouldn't check them out otherwise, but if you can't get him in the door with a couple heavy-hitters, he's not going to sign up in the first place. PS+ being an "indie paradise" is not necessarily a good thing. It needs to strike a balance, which it used to.

Plus, for me, a loyal customer who has been having more fun with the indie games than big budget AAA titles this year, PS+ is quickly becoming way less valuable. It's devalued indie games to me because I know if I just hold off for a few months, they'll probably just appear on PS+ for free. I feel burned as someone who buys most of them on day one.

As much as Sony's marketing has tried to fool us into thinking these games are "free," they're not. It's like calling Netflix movies free. I pay for a library. Sony needs to reevaluate its strategy because right now it's not satisfying hardcore or casual players.

Full agreement. I love indie games, replaying Dust was still a great experience, but they really need to start thinking about some older retail titles at this point. The console has been out a year next month, and there have been retail titles on PS3 that went to PS Plus in much less time than a year.

#2 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3885 posts) -

Honestly I wish games on consoles were just 720p and tried for 60fps. You could probably even make the actual graphics prettier if you did that. So disappointed devs are always going for the highest resolution they can reach, especially since the consoles clearly don't handle it well. So tired of games barely running at even 30fps most of the time.

Agreed. Having 60fps is way more important to me. Give me a smooth frame rate and then whatever resolution your game can handle. Thankfully, COD is always a 60fps game. Now that You Tube allows 60fps video, it should help developers and publishers take frame rate a lot more seriously.

#3 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3885 posts) -

Earlier this month, Digital Foundry confirmed that the Xbox One version runs in 900p:

As played at this year's Gamescom and EGX on Xbox One, multiplayer in Advanced Warfare is a very different beast to the work-in-progress Seoul campaign mission shown at Microsoft's E3 event.


Running at a native 1600x900 at both events (a boost from the E3-era 882p), little has changed to Xbox One's rendering setup for multiplayer, suggesting this number is a lock for all modes in the final release.


Opaque panels now line the screen's edges, showing the map, bullet counter and target points - rendered in the same pass as the actual gameplay. To our pixel count, these element are upscaled from the same 900p base resolution as the core gunplay - a mix-up for a series which, until now, delivered HUDs at the highest resolution possible, independent of the 3D rendering side.

Meanwhile, a NeoGAF member recently posted a direct feed image of the PS4 version, which was then confirmed to be 1080p native. Of course, the Xbox One version could get a day one update that would increase the resolution, but with the game's release only four days away, I have to think that we would have heard that announcement by now.

#4 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3885 posts) -

I picked Ghosts to take a break. Looking back, all the 360 launch titles I bought seem like crap, and I knew that I'd feel that way if I picked up Ghosts. It also screamed cross-gen in a big way, which was certainly understandable. This game will at least benefit from being fully developed for current consoles, while another dev team entirely is working on the last-gen ports.

That fact alone might not have sealed the deal for me, but I loved Mass Effect 3 multiplayer with its random loot system, and the supply drop system seems like it's going to have a lot in common. Collecting slight variations for each weapon sounds like a lot of fun. The character customization also looks pretty cool.

#5 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3885 posts) -

Now publishers are going to have many more problems marketing a 30fps title if a competitor's game runs at 60fps. If this leads to graphically less impressive console games with better frame rates, I'm okay with that.

#6 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3885 posts) -

Just thought of another suggestion in addition to Diablo III. Battle Block Theater. Fun co-op platformer with almost no death penalty to speak of.

#7 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3885 posts) -

If she liked WoW, I'd suggest perhaps Diablo III. The PS4 / Xbox One version has fantastic local multiplayer, and almost no punishment for death. If you die, your equipment loses 10% of its durability, and you're spawned right back where you left off. Worst possible situation if you die too much is you either equip different armor, or you go back to town and pay a little gold to have it fixed. You can do this at any time, and you can resume exactly where you left off.

If she enjoys playing as female characters, the game offers both female and male choices for each of the five character classes, which is also pretty cool.

#8 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3885 posts) -

Twitch streamers could take a tip from Jemaine Stewart:

#9 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3885 posts) -

@sarahsdad said:

I'll go with cautious optimism. The passing a controller part seems neat, but the scheduling seems like the hurdle to overcome, especially with so many games having adaptable difficulty. What's the chance it will take you less time to find someone to do it for you than to adjust the difficulty, or look up a let's play that shows how it's done.

The co-op part looks interesting, but I'm wondering if I read correctly that it only works if the game has a couch co-op option.

You did read that correctly, because the system works by taking the activity of your console and sharing it with someone else. That's why only the host has to have the game. If you could play non-local multiplayer through the share system, the host's console would have to be essentially running the game for both players at once, which is why Diablo 3 local multiplayer should now work online through Share Play, but Battlefield 4 multiplayer would not.

And while getting a friend to play a hard part in a game for you is one possible application of the feature, I think calling up a friend and saying "Hey, I just got a great new game, hop online and I'll let you try it." will be much more useful.

Of course, Share Play is only one of the new features in the update. Here's a nice overview:

#10 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3885 posts) -

I'm reminded of a story Jeff once told on an old Bombcast about his band, Midnight Brown. Jeff said that when they sold CDs for 5 dollars each, they actually ended up selling fewer CDs for that price than they did for 15 dollars. It's not just about providing value, it's about providing perceived value.

With that in mind, I'm not sure if this was the best thing MS could have done.