Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Fallout 3 still had some really stupid things about it.
For one, its auto-aim system was unintuitive and even if you did figure out how it worked, it was still configured stupidly so it made hitting anything outside of VATS very difficult. Which seems like sort of a minor complaint but if you're making a game about shooting things you should make sure that shooting things actually works properly.
I've never really noticed that. What exactly is the problem with it?
Bullets are fired from the actual location of your gun, rather than from the center of the screen. This means that ordinarily, your crosshair doesn't actually line up with where your bullets are going to land. To counter this, they added in a system where when your crosshair is pointing at an enemy, your bullets will change trajectory so that they hit whatever it was you're aiming at. But the system for determining when you're aiming at an enemy is somewhat finicky and it's not even clear that this is what's happening in the first place, so if you aren't used to the way it works then it's easy to miss a shot that looks like it should hit, or hit with something that looks like it should miss, or have your bullets seemingly change direction to hit a body part you didn't think you were aiming at.
EDIT: Also I realize now that this post basically reads like "They have auto-aim. It doesn't work well." which isn't exactly very illuminating. But it's hard to provide concrete examples when I haven't played the game in a really long time.
They were made using the same game engine (Gamebryo). Obsidian showed pretty clearly that they know how to make a better-designed game with it than Bethesda does.
Thus, Crimson's comment about wishing Obsidian would be involved in the development;
^^Oh, okay, that makes sense.
^I'm not arguing that Obsidian aren't better, but Bethesda has demonstrated that they can do a lot better than TES.
Not with Gamebryo.
Um...yes with Gamebryo? Fallout 3 is made with Gamebryo. It has better gameplay than any TES game. Ergo, Bethesda is capable of making a game with better gameplay than the TES games.
Not in the open-world manner consistent with Oblivion and New Vegas then. There.
Although it's a moot point because Skyrim wasn't even made with Gamebryo, so whatever.
How is Fallout 3 not open-world like Oblivion or New Vegas, exactly?
I specified 'consistent with Oblivion and New Vegas', not just open-world.
Yeah, and what does that mean?
I don't see what open-world has to do with combat that isn't complete shit.
Primarily, feeling; where Fallout 3 was more about desolate emptiness, New Vegas/Oblivion had many small (but apparently, attempted-to-feel-vibrant, although Oblivion failed with that- no comment regarding New Vegas's) communities, which leads to a different focus in both narrative focus (Oblivion/New Vegas focusing on exploration, but with NPC's all around), and how gameplay relates to that (really badly).
If you're looking for specific examples... well, sorry. Haven't played any of the three in too long to be able to remember specifics, only my impression of each.
In light of recent events, I'm trying not to get too hyped about games before they're out, but if nothing else, this concept is at least interesting.
...this is a game?
^^Ghost Trick did it first.
^I have a feeling this will be a significantly different game in tone and execution than Ghost Trick.
...which actually might work against it.
Brutal Legend is coming to Steam. It's more of a metal-fan thing than a hardcore gamer thing but if you like metal and vidya, you should check it out.
The PS4 has been announced.
EDIT: Controller looks a little questionable though.
Yet another thing I have no interest in buying.
I might be interested if they make a sequel to Gravity Rush on it, but even then I'm not buying an entire console (especially one as ridiculously expensive as the PS4 is bound to be) for one game.
While these blurbs are kinda interesting, what I (and I'm sure everyone else paying attention to this) really wanna see is the damn console itself. Also, "8GB of unified memory"? The hell is that supposed to mean? Is this the PS4's basic model they're talking about here or what?
The 8GB of unified memory is that the cpu and gpu share 8GB of memory between them. This is a good thing. I wish I knew what the models are on the cpu and gpu they are using.
PS4 UPDATE: According to Blistered Thumbs, the PS4 will not be able to play any of the previous PlayStations' games regularly, but instead will have a library of PS3, PS2 and PS1 games available to download via that Gaikai thing.
Welp, there goes my interest right out the window.
^then again, the reason why the first PS3 model was so expensive was because it had a PS2 and PS1 crammed in there too. Still sucks though.
Yeah, and because the different PlayStations are based on architectures which are rather incompatible with each oher, you can't really build one system that supports all those platforms without a ton of software emulation, which is really fucking hard to do well.
Then again, there are open-source PS1 and PS2 emulators already, and if the PS4 actually turns out to be the easy-to-develop-for "platform by game creators, for game creators" that Mark Cerny says it will, then I don't really see why those emulators wouldn't come to the PS4 eventually...
...so yeah. It's not out-of-the-box compatibility by any means, and you'll most likely have to wait until a few years after the release of the console itself, but one day you could well set up a PS4 to be able to play any PS1 or PS2 game you have at hand.
And that's not even giving any mention to all the emulators available for non-Sony systems.
Of course, DOA did it way before Ghost Trick.
Anyways, this article is pretty hilarious, if only because they actually use "Gearbox" as a verb, meaning exactly what you think it does.
And throughout all of that, there wasn't a single glimpse of the important stuff. Namely, the price or the console itself.
Oh god. I was really hoping that was fake.
Anyway, just got home from work and don't want to do research, so do we know anything about launch titles, exclusives, or...well, reasons to buy it other than "a PS3 that can render slightly higher-fidelity things?"
Oh, shit. If they don't want to tell us the price, that's evidence that they haven't learned a damn thing.
I have no desire to get a PS4 but anything that forces game developers go to 64 bit executables and forces better multicore support is a good thing in my book.
Honestly my next console depends mostly on games coming out/what people I play with are getting.