CurseTheseMetalHands's forum posts

Avatar image for cursethesemetalhands
#1 Posted by CurseTheseMetalHands (181 posts) -

Sadly, when it comes to 3rd party controllers, it's pretty much a complete crapshoot. The two biggest issues you'll run into are horrendous deadzones on the analog sticks and what piss poor quality control.

If you very specifically want an Xbox 360 model controller - and I can understand that, because I vastly prefer it to the Xbox One changes and wish Microsoft had just stuck with the exact same design but just put the new Dpad on that model - your options are severely limited. I think your only option would be one of the PDP controllers, either the Rock Candy or Afterglow. You can usually find the Rock Candy (no LED, no vibration) model for around $15. The Afterglow, assuming you can find it in stock, will normally sell for $30. I don't believe either model is hardwired anymore (the Afterglow used to be) but they are wired in the sense that they use USB cables for power (no battery option).

I've been using a Rock Candy controller for several months now (Amazon had them on sale for $11 and change) and, thus far, haven't had any major issues with it - but, again, your mileage may vary because lax quality control will let a higher percentage of bad controllers through. The analog sticks aren't as firm as an official 360 controller (though, not as loose as, say, the Dualshock 3) and they're just hard plastic (so I'd highly recommend buying some rubberized grips for them), but there's doesn't appear to be much of a deadzone or, at worst, only a very negligible one. I think the Dpad, while identical to the 360 model, is actually slightly better. It's tighter, firmer. Of course, that also makes it a little rougher on the thumb; I wouldn't recommend any 2D platformer marathons with the thing. And it seems slightly (maybe 5%) smaller than the 360 controller. The Afterglow is nearly identical to the official 360 controller other than the more budget build quality. Either controller should meet your needs, though I'd highly recommend putting the controller through its paces when you get it. Actually, I'd recommend that for any 3rd party controller.

If you're open to using an Xbox One style controller, then...well, your options are still pretty limited for anything halfway decent. I'd stick with either PDP or PowerA. Of the budget 3rd party controllers, theirs seem to be the best, though it's an extremely low bar. They're both prone to poor quality control and you definitely feel the budget in the build, but they tend to be functional. Again, if you buy one, use it excessively. Push it to see if anything is going to fail while you still have the option to return it or exchange it. If you manage to get one with decent quality, and you don't abuse it (i.e. dropping it, throwing it in a tantrum, yanking the cord from the controller, coiling the cord around the controller, etc.) then it should last you a respectable length of time. But don't expect them to last like official controllers. My 360 controller lasted a good 7 years and survived a couple drops before it started having issues. These budget controllers...if you get two years of use then I'd say you're a winner.

Personally, if it's for playing games on PC, I would just wait for a sale and then buy an Xbox One or PS4 controller. They're regularly on sale for around $40 and you get a much better build quality for that extra $10.

Avatar image for cursethesemetalhands
#2 Edited by CurseTheseMetalHands (181 posts) -

I'm more interested in Watch Dogs Legion than I thought I would be, but I still have a lot of questions regarding the whole recruit/play as any NPC thing. Is it really as simple as tagging someone with the phone, pressing RB, and completing an origin mission? Because that...would be disappointing. Is there any sort of DedSec reputation that plays into it? Or what about a morality system? I feel like those really ought to be factors in who you can recruit. Some citizens should be anti-DedSec, people who appreciate the iron-fisted rule of an authoritarian government, or. at the very least, they should be on the fence about joining up until you've shown you actually have a chance of winning the fight. Similarly, maybe they believe in what DedSec is trying to do, but they object to the methods - specifically, tapping a dude on the shoulder and then, when he turns around, shooting him in the fucking face. In fact, that sort of shit should actively push some citizens to join up with whatever the opposing force is, feeling that DedSec are the ones perpetuating the violence in the city. Point is, not everyone should be open to joining, and potentially dying for, DedSec. It'd also be appropriate to have members of your crew leave DedSec if your body count rises too high, or abandon your cause because you aren't violent enough. If it's not nuanced - even if that nuance amounts to nothing more than managing meters - then, I have to admit, I'm way less interested.

Also, have they fleshed out Watch Dogs to an Assassin's Creed Odyssey size? Are there enough missions to actually warrant building a crew of dozens of characters? If the campaign is only 12-20 hours long...I can't see why you'd ever bother having more than a handful of characters, only recruiting new members when favorites die. Will there be missions that are varied enough that you want to have a diverse crew with a variety of skill sets? Will there be multiple ways to complete them, depending both on personal play style and on the skill sets you have available? And do the various NPCs start at different levels, do members of your crew all level up together, or do you level and upgrade each character individually? Still a lot of unanswered questions.

While I applaud the ambition and innovation, I'm left wondering if they were ambitious and innovative enough.

Avatar image for cursethesemetalhands
#3 Posted by CurseTheseMetalHands (181 posts) -

It has a very direct-to-video/made for TV movie vibe about it. Maybe it's the casting. (Is it really so damn hard to find actors who would make an imposing terminators?) Maybe it's the sort of cheap, bland look it has going on. I don't know. But it doesn't excite me in the slightest. And it doesn't help that David S. Goyer is attached as a writer.

Avatar image for cursethesemetalhands
#4 Posted by CurseTheseMetalHands (181 posts) -

That's some "$600 for a PS3" level stupid on the pricing.

Avatar image for cursethesemetalhands
#5 Edited by CurseTheseMetalHands (181 posts) -

Shooters on PC. I've been trying to get back into playing more games on PC and, where appropriate, as PC games, meaning with keyboard and mouse. I think the last time I played an FPS on PC was Quake II, so I'm seriously hating it and I keep wondering how I ever played this way back in the day. I mean, sure, the mouse is worlds better for aiming, but using a keyboard for everything else...fucking sucks. I fear consoles may have ruined me forever.

Avatar image for cursethesemetalhands
#6 Posted by CurseTheseMetalHands (181 posts) -

Have they pushed any major updates for the game? It was a neat idea and had a lot of potential, but I thought it lacked the depth to keep it interesting beyond the initial few hours.

Honestly, I kinda forgot the game existed. Sadly, that's what this world of early access releases has done to gaming.

Avatar image for cursethesemetalhands
#7 Posted by CurseTheseMetalHands (181 posts) -

Unless Sony does something completely unexpected by announcing that the PS5 will be on sale this holiday season, I have no doubt The Last of Us Part II, Ghost of Tsushima, and Death Stranding will all be PS4 titles. Which isn't to say they won't have PS5 versions, or that they won't receive some sort of patch/update that improves the visuals and performance on the next gen system, but there's no way Sony holds back titles just for the PS5 launch.

I'd be shocked and saddened if Cyberpunk 2077 released on current gen systems.

Avatar image for cursethesemetalhands
#8 Posted by CurseTheseMetalHands (181 posts) -

If the developers at From Software decide to implement an easier difficulty, I'm fine with it, because it's their call. But they shouldn't be pressured and bullied into it. If their artistic intent is to make games that are brutally difficult, that require you to work through frustration and rage to find a zen state of pure focus that allows you to master the combat systems and know the elation of that triumph, then an 'easy' mode betrays that vision. The game is that experience. So, when people argue that they want to experience the game but they want it easier, then they don't actually want to experience the damn game. If they just want to see the art, the world and character design, and see the story from beginning to end, then they should just watch a friggin' playthrough video on YouTube or Twitch.

As for the argument that an easy mode would make the games more accessible for people with disabilities... I have personal feelings on the matter, but I'll keep them to myself because 1) this isn't the place, and 2) I don't have the energy for the arguments that might arise. So, my thoughts aside, the cold reality is, people with disabilities who want to play these games are a very small percentage of the market. From a purely business standpoint, is it really worth the time and money they'd spend balancing an easy difficulty just to sell maybe a few thousand more copies? There would have to be some balancing, because I imagine those people still want the experience to be at least somewhat satisfying. I can't imagine they'd want a complete cakewalk playthrough where the enemies never attack and the bosses can be killed with a single hit. If you asked a dozen people who want an easy difficulty what that difficulty should involve, you'd likely get a dozen different answers. Resources would have to be spent on making the easy difficulty easy, but not too easy, and they'd probably still end up with people who wanted that mode that are dissatisfied. Then, if they did offer an easy difficulty, how much would that impact the sales from those people who appreciate that From Software's games have already had only one mode and demanded players meet the games on their terms? If a large percentage of people feel like From Software has sold out and compromised their vision, will the new audience that change brings in be able to fill that void? And how many of the developers like making games that are balls hard? Might there be an exodus of talent as the developers feel that they've been pushed to make generic, mass appeal games? There are at lot of angles to consider beyond the fact that some people can't play and/or enjoy these games because they're too unforgiving.

For all we know, From Software has already considered this matter and it was decided long ago that they're catering to a very niche market and, for better or worse, some people just aren't going to be able to play these games, whether it's lack of skill, lack of patience, a disability, or whatever. They have a vision of the type of games they want to make, they have their target market, their established fanbase, and that's all they're concerned with. Some people are just going to get left out. It is what it is.

As others have said, including Ben who caught some shit for it on Twitter: not everything has to be for everyone. And I just want to point out that we're talking about a fucking video game. Sure, it sucks that some people are left out of the experience because they have some physical disability, but this isn't life and death. This isn't the lack of a wheelchair ramp outside a polling station robbing people of their right to vote. This isn't a case of discrimination where a company refuses to hire someone because they don't believe the individual would be capable of doing the work. This is a goddamn hobby. This doesn't - or shouldn't - impact anyone's life in a truly meaningful way. If you feel compelled to focus your outrage into not being able to play a damn video game, then maybe you need to reexamine your priorities. And, similarly, if From Software decides an easy mode is good business and you can't fucking handle that, then just don't buy the games. As I said, it's their call. And there are more important things in life to worry about, and certainly more important issues worthy of your indignation.

Avatar image for cursethesemetalhands
#9 Posted by CurseTheseMetalHands (181 posts) -

If it has the same busted loot system as Borderlands 2, an equal or greater amount of Tiny Tina, and the inclusion of dances for the scumfucks who demand such things (unless they troll those people by offer dances as microtransaction DLC and charge $99.99 per dance), then I'll pass. Otherwise, while I'd love to see them improve on the formula, I'd be fine with 'just' more Borderlands, though maybe not nearly as excited as I'd like to be.

While I'd be seriously disappointed in Gearbox if they made a Borderlands Battle Royale, I'd be fine with it as DLC. It can be the shitty Mad Moxxi DLC that I don't buy (or get but never play with the Game of the Year Edition).

Actual character creation, not merely customization, would be certainly be welcomed, but if they aren't going to go all the way with it - the inclusion of voice options with different line reads (if Saints Row could do it all those years ago, why the hell can't anyone else?) to give your character at least some touch of personality, a fair number of cutscenes that actually include your character and show off the abomination you've wrought, etc. - then there's really no reason to bother.

I'm cautiously optimistic and hope we'll learn more at E3.

Avatar image for cursethesemetalhands
#10 Posted by CurseTheseMetalHands (181 posts) -

You have to imagine Sony's attitude towards Stadia will be similar to how they smirked at Microsoft's all-digital/always online plans for the Xbox One and, if the comment at all, they'll just highlight how the Playstation 5 will be the place for collectors, for people who want to actually own their games and share them with friends and family. I mean, Sony still have a vested interest in keeping physical media - particularly Blu-ray - alive and well. While they'll need to make concessions for streaming possibilities, I honestly can't imagine they following the all-digital path in the immediate future. (Unless it turns out that the percentage of people who actually care about physical media isn't high enough to keep Sony on top come next gen.)

This will likely be a focus on Sony's upcoming games and services, and maybe announcing a price cut for their systems. (If new consoles are coming next year - and Microsoft's All-Digital console will be on shelves in May - then there has to be a serious price cut for current systems coming soon. And it's conceivable that Sony would want to jump out there and have the cheapest system on the market, even if only temporarily.) Whether or not they delve into the Playstation 5...might depend on 1) whether it's actually coming out next year or the year after (if it's not launching until 2021, talking about it now seems pointless) and 2) if they feel confident about it, if they want to tip their hand before knowing what Microsoft rolls out at E3. Even though Sony's hubris has been steadily creeping back into the brand, I'd like to think nobody at the company wants a repeat of the PS3 fiasco.

I don't have any particular expectations, but I really hope that it's interesting and worth my time.