Shivoa's forum posts

Avatar image for shivoa
#1 Posted by Shivoa (1528 posts) -

So, we're still very much in the post-Assassin's Creed open world era of games (and some excellent games at that, there's never been a better time to play them). One thing that appears to not be going away is "towers" and endless commentary about if towers are bad, if they're good, if they need to work differently to be good, etc.

But one thing I've found striking: when people discuss how they don't like revealing icons on the map via towers, they rarely say they don't use them. They use them and dislike it. But I'm trying to think if that's an enforced issue or if people just need to learn to stop doing things they don't like when given the choice. Big open world, lots of options, me out here with my camera taking photos of everything because that's my jam, and less choices seems like an indisputable bad thing.

So I'm trying to think, which games are it that force your hand and which let you choose? My first impression is that almost all the games I'm remembering playing then it's optional - you can reveal locations on the map or just walk into them, you don't need to map reveal before you can engage/collect/run side-quests etc. For the purposes of this question, we'll assume that some games tutorialise this stuff so maybe the first tower you do really have to climb and reveal because it wants to teach that mechanic so the question is about the world after any tutorial/initial tower encounter. Also this can be towers but also anything that acts like them: open world map icon reveal systems which you unlock in bulk (so not looking down some binoculars to tag or getting really close to a location to reveal but a tower or buying a map reveal token from a vendor etc - thinking of how Horizon does some of those reveals on the map being not a tower but functionally that vendor credit it basically a super-tower for that location type).

Maybe this isn't a list answer but just a feeling - do you feel like most games don't actually force you to reveal stuff via a map reveal before you can engage with them in the section of the open world you're in? Or have I just not noticed how mandatory this stuff is because I both enjoy the slight time saving of it (no endless searching for stuff) and like it as an accessibility perk (spacial & verbal reasoning: not evenly distributed so while I'm pretty good at 2D map to 3D space, I'm not good at "it's over there" NPC narration to map location translation - in games where they do it like an (old, early-WoW style) MMO and give vague directions in flavour text rather than minimap reveals; I also understand it's pretty helpful for people with poor spacial reasoning to get another tool to help locate stuff).

Avatar image for shivoa
#2 Posted by Shivoa (1528 posts) -

Ah, I had never actually paid much attention to it (and sometime used it for when another service is being embedded to grab that). But that's cool if it's always the same url for the last livestream.

*Has clearly been wearing blinkers*

Avatar image for shivoa
#3 Edited by Shivoa (1528 posts) -

Is the new player actually removing the underlying video stream (unlike the old player) or is this just about the way the chat forces a refresh to the Börk Börk Börk! page?

If you're not live then you probably don't want to chat (because that's talking about a future bit of the stream) so what you can do is open just the video player - it's the chat page that has the javascript that forces a page refresh once the stream chat gets pulled down. If you (instructions for Chrome, other browsers may be slightly different) right-click on the menu bar of the livestream and then do view frame source (you only want it for the embedded video frame, not the entire chat page) then it opens a new window with the address bar filled with the location, in the format "view-source:[the embed link you actually want]".

So, for the last video I did this on, view-source:www.giantbomb.com/videos/embed/8635/?allow_gb=yes&ad_campaign_id=8635&autoplay=0. Cut the "view-source:" bit from the front, hit enter to load the page, and you've got the embed url (as long as you're logged in for premium livestreams & are a premium members) and an Unprofessional Friday stream ready to roll. You don't need the stuff at the end of the address (settings) for it to work but that's just what Chrome automatically grabs when you do view source.

That way you can go for a jog, go out with friends, etc while you've got a livestream paused and come back to it to resume exactly where you left off. No short grace period, no wondering how long it'll be for the archive to arrive. Just the premium livestream, preserved in amber, unless they ever take down the underlying video it streams from (so far, I've never seen that happen). All you need is to make sure you load the chat page at least once while a livestream is on and then you can grab the embed url you need to watch it when you want.

Avatar image for shivoa
#4 Posted by Shivoa (1528 posts) -

@flashflood_29: Despite the terrible vehicle controls in Wildlands, I was an exceptional pilot and no flamingos were harmed in the photography session. :D

Avatar image for shivoa
#5 Posted by Shivoa (1528 posts) -

Ghost Recon: Wildlands

No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for shivoa
#6 Posted by Shivoa (1528 posts) -
Avatar image for shivoa
#8 Posted by Shivoa (1528 posts) -

@bemusedchunk: I mean, I just googled for "PS4 deal US" and the internet told me a PS4 Slim with Uncharted 4 and a $40 gift card is $279 at Newegg.com so... That's a PS4 with a newish game and $40 to spend on another newish game (or pocket as effectively a price under $250 if you shop there for other things normally) for $20 less than the Switch is priced at.

So it seems the issue I talked about is exactly the same in red, white, and blue land. The Switch is significantly more expensive than the street price for the competing consoles which have massive libraries and access to far more releases going forward by the look of it.

Avatar image for shivoa
#9 Posted by Shivoa (1528 posts) -

Ah, so this is the console price.

Ye, maybe $299 vs $249 isn't a huge difference but TBH that makes it more expensive in Europe than street prices for the other two current gen consoles and what you get in a 720p screen and battery you lose in vastly weaker software library (and expectation of AAA titles going forward if the announced 2017 calendar of games is any indication) and hardware platform. You can get a PS4 or XB1 with a game for quite a bit less than the Switch asking price here and that just seems a bit off.

Considering this is kinda an nVidia Shield Tablet (newer SoC but no 1200p fancy display) with bluetooth controllers on the side and that thing was $199 then adding an extra $100 seems a bit excessive. Considering the competition then this really looks like something you'll only buy if you're really into owning Ninty 1st party titles as essentials.

Avatar image for shivoa
#10 Edited by Shivoa (1528 posts) -

I literally own thousands of games from years of great entertainment.

$100,000 for 2000 games is a significant investment. Even if you're financially comfortable.

$50 for a collection of mini-games that would be hard to sell as $1 apps for your phone seems far too much. I'd much rather devs sell to far more people for less per unit than ask for a lot and get no traction so low total revenue. Games are all about the development cost, not the per-unit reproduction cost (especially digitally) so the path to maximised revenue is not necessarily high unit prices.