Yeah, I'm a big supporter of super easy modes for games that are heavy on the narrative or cinematic experiences, and making sure not to belittle players that choose it. Since it's a mode, those who want a challenge can choose higher difficulties if they want. And there's still a lot to experience in a modern game if the combat is easy, the exploration and experience of an Uncharted game is wonderful.
Another plus is that the easier you set the game, the more you can fool around having run doing stunts and acrobatics. I did a run through of U3 on Easy with as little aiming down sights as possible, trying to jump and move around as much as I could.
I'd be all over this if I hadn't already played the games half a dozen times each.
I may still be all over it.
I hope they've been bold enough to make a few changes, at the very least to the first game. Its gameplay mechanics have aged poorly compared to the sequels. I'd also like to see combat in the third game tweaked slightly, because they made some changes to the encounter design that made combat less fun than the second game. For me, much of the problem came from them sending enemies at you from every direction, often before you could react to their presence, making cover a liability, not an advantage.
Yep, poor encounter design in U3, I'm not sure who did that and why. The best example was an encounter set piece they showed in various stage demos clearly allowed Drake to stealth through most of it. But, in the full game on release, there's a magic trigger that prevents you from stealthing that segment at all, and as soon as you cross that invisible threshold it devolves into one of the most annoying firefights in the series.
For Uncharted 1, I think they should add a Very Easy mode that was in U2 and U3. I'm not sure they have the resources to make significant changes, but a Very Easy difficulty setting would only require blanket tweaks to health and damage. This allows people to play through it for the full story effect. Also, having solid 30/60 FPS will be a huge help to the game, as it was one of the reasons many found it hard to play.
Quote from: forgeforsaken on June 08, 2015, 02:45:38 PM
My thoughts, book spoilers...
Spoiler for Hiden:
I fear they will close on Jon getting killed by the Nights Watch (specifically in the show it will be Olly that stabs him). And while this happens in the book, and happens at the end of Dance with Dragons it is surrounded by a books worth of foreshadowing that he will come back either via warging into someone else or via the Red Priestess. Now all of us readers could be wrong and he could be dead dead, but when Dance ended it left most of us with a bit of hope that he wouldn't stay that way. None of that hope exists on the show, and assuming that the speculation about Jon's ultimate fate is correct D&D would be foolish to end the season on Jon's death as TV watchers only will just assume it's like Ned/Rob again and the show once again killing off one of it's only remaining likable characters. Now if we are wrong, sure end on that scene, but if we are right, they'd be smarter to start 10 with his murder and end on his resurrection, but I fear they'd save that for the season opener next season
More book spoilers:
Spoiler for Hiden:
I also think Jon will be stabbed/killed in the finale. However, I think there's a solution to that. I have a feeling that, if they were ever going to bring in Stoneheart, this would be the episode. Thus they bring in another character that was clearly dead and has come back. Dondarian counts, but he was just a side note, it means more if it's a Stark.
The way I think it'll play out is that Brienne, Theon, Sansa escape Winterfell, but encounter Ramsey's warband on the way back, leading to a fight. Just as things look the worst, Stoneheart appears with some Northmen and captures them. Then we get the scene with Brienne and Pod's hanging, establish that Stoneheart is out for blood. And Ramsey gets what he deserves. Then Sansa also gets a sad reunion.
Littlefinger's forces will definitely show up, and ends up helping Stannis, but finds Sansa gone.
There's apparently a rumor started a while back that because the game has voice acting, you can only play as a set male character.
Which is think is BS, but we'll see at E3.
The rumor was based off some old reddit post somewhere, but the problem with old posts is that even if someone sees something earlier in a game's development, usually doesn't mean that's how it will be in the full game. I think Bethesda knows it has a pretty wide audience and alienating them is not a good way to go.
I do like how they're folding in all the stuff they learned from Enemy Within, like adding a kind of loot system, but also making that loot time sensitive in the same way meld canisters were in EW.
I played XCOM in super conservative mode so nothing was that much of a risk barring super bad luck. So having a reason and reward for running forward is nice. Combined with the stealth-like mechanics and way to shut down the stupid enemy scurry moves, it should make for a fun experience.
Now that looks good. Was hoping for some shots of gameplay or gunplay.
I wonder if the dog being featured either means there will be a permanent dog companion at the start with unique mechanics. Although I hope it means that companion aspects of the game have been beefed up.
Also, does it look like they're using a bit of that megatexture tech, or that similar partial texture tech? There's a lot more variety in textures than usual.
I think it's too early to tell from a still screenshot of a random location with only a dog in it.
A lot of games these days are good in motion, and they'll focus more on the look of the characters. Heck, one of the biggest improvements they could make to the formula is to make animations not so clunky for everyone, have more character variation, etc.
And Bethesda open world games especially are made to look good on the whole, rather than bits.
If this looks good without everyone walking around like they were crammed into invisible un-powered armor, I'm all for it.
Timings don't need to match exactly. But there's some caveats that I don't remember.
I think the memory has to be rated at least at or better (below) your current memory or everything slows down to the slowest memory (which is not going to be much, you will likely never notice it). But that may have changed, and as you say, it's on a separate channel. I honestly haven't checked the timings on my memory for 8 years now and I've built 3-4 PCs in that time.
You can put in any size in the second channel with no problems, doesn't have to match. But if you want the advantages of dual channel, you'll want to make sure the two new ones are the same size. So yes, you can do 2x8GB chips. However, I don't see anything using that much memory, even the heaviest 3D modeling work I do never hits the 16GB memory I have.
I'm pretty sure this was prompted by all the quality issues as of late, which directly affect steam's image due to the crappy nonexistant return policy they had already. When a shitstorm of a game hit, they had to handle everything manually with all the news sites picking up stories of Steam manually involved in refunding people.
Combine that with Origin's return policy, GoG and Humblebundle's advancement, meant it was time.
Cool, if I remember correctly, that's the idea they originally had for X-COM 2, before they got shunted into TFTD. Er, well not on Earth, but rather XCOM invading Mars where the aliens were originally from.
Turn based stealth is kind of a thing now, I wonder how much they'll share with Incognita.
Also, it's crazy that they're going PC only in this day and age. But, I wonder if the sales on PC was so strong that they justified it. The studio is also saying they'll have strong mod support this time.
I don't think that Square and Konami are good examples to reference. Both companies almost completely botched the past generation in a way that was very much their fault.
I see them jumping hard onto mobile as much a desperation and saving face move than there being no way to make a profit in the traditional market. They lost touch, couldn't update the way their corporate and studio environment worked, and suffered from it.
Likewise, the mobile market these days is not a guaranteed win. Square sees good success from it, but only because they do a good job of leveraging their own well known IPs. But, with so much competition and entrenched customers, the mobile market is hitting a saturation point.
Community really is back. I have to admit that while I enjoyed all the yahoo episodes so far, I felt it was still suffering from the transition. Something was still off, although not as badly as during the Dan Harmon absence as the show was still very entertaining.
Now this new paintball episode and everything is back to the rapid fire greatness it was.
The only reason why the books weren't misery porn was that you got some distance by reading of it, and when it got so bad, the book could just characters to someone having a bad day in a different, but often less harrowing way (for a time).
First of all, F' sites that have non-mutable background music. What is this, the 90s? What's more it's an anime song, really?
Anyway, while I agree with a lot of EA criticisms, but I look at that chart and see as much bloat of BF2 and potentially BF3 than I see missed opportunity. It reads more like complaining about something that could never be this unattainable goal.
Stuff like number of planets and maps is a ridiculous comparison. BF2 maps, and all their associated art assets look like crap today. Massive stretched blurry textures, pitifull polycount, crappy FX stuff that takes relatively little time to produce. Meanwhile, this new battlefront has maps that look almost exactly like the movie, which takes time to do.
Ground combat doesn't need players hopping into starships and leaving the ground devoid of anyone. You don't want the only reason for players to be on the ground is due to passive aggressive objective placement forcing players to be there.
If anything, bring back XvTF so we get the best of both worlds.
But yes, F' EA for mishandling some of my most favorite studios then shutting them down when they couldn't meet those same unrealistic goals I mentioned. But, EA can make some good games regardless.
While it may seem they're stripping down so much from games these days, a big part of that really is that AAA games are just that much more expensive and time consuming to make these days. It's that just as much as it is money grubbing from publishers.
I suspect they might use the Flashpoint story where Cold's sister is murdered, making him go hero for a while, becoming Citizen Cold. This would explain why she's not shown.
Budget Iron Man + Ant-man is an interesting combo. But I'm glad to see him separate from Arrow/Flash, since I kind of like the character, but knew that he wouldn't be enough to carry his own solo show.
Kind of glad they went for this level of silliness. At the same time, the rationalizing hero stupidity the writers for both Flash and Arrow did towards the ends of their seasons went to an all time high. To the level of the worst comic book writers, only saved by their actor portrayals. I'm not sure I can handle an entire B cast.
Also totally called Sara getting revived by the pit. I suppose that helps alleviate one of my major peeves about Arrow's story, with Oliver working with Merlin after he literally murders Sara in cold blood. If they can play it as Merlin maneuvering him into getting access to the Lazarus pit to bring her back, then Arrow acting so stupidly the entire season is slightly more tolerable.
I guess the same goes for Captain Cold on the latest Flash.
I think we've all pretty much guessed that Fallout 4 is coming. The way the games leap frog each other it's only natural that FO4 comes out next since the dev team will be working on that the longest. Skyrim, while old, still was the last big open world game they've released, and it was already pushing
I think Fallout is probably a better game for a new engine and testing.
Just remember, the more bugs and design techniques they iron out for Fallout, the better the next Elder Scrolls game is.
My big question is whether they will retain their stance on providing mod tools and having an open modding scene. I don't think it was any coincidence that the Skyrim paid modding "experiment" happened recently. Which makes me think they will have open mod tools as before, but that the failure of the paid thing will either make them decide against that, or they will develop their mod tools even further. If they create their own backbone systems that are paid mod friendly, they circumvent those backbone modders that pretty much put a stop to the paid modding.
So, wow. Great season finale. So many things paying off.
Also, so strange seeing the IT girl from Castle as Agent 33.
Spoiler for Hiden:
Coulson and Cal's exchange and turnaround was a great. Cal's character was also weird and villainous, but had that compelling Dad aspect that they wove in over time. Great to see his character come to an interesting conclusion.
Raina dying as she did, wow, that was quite a redemption. I kind of hope she somehow survives just because I kind of thought they wasted her character a bit, especially after her new creature make-up restricted a lot of her actress' acting ability. But, this is a decent way to send her character off, and her abilities would be a bit much during the show. They'd have to make her annoyingly cryptic, or not around enough to matter.
Fitsimmons finally getting that moment before battle.
What's with them giving Skye so many crazy fight scenes. I wonder if her actress asked for more action.
Sad to see Agent 33 get offed like that, but also good to see Ward get one of his stupid and insane plans foiled. It's also nice to see him being positioned as a bigger villain, which also means at some point they'll be able to finally kill him off.
Coulson losing his arm at the end was a scary moment. Seeing him start to petrify, I knew he couldn't die, but I wonder what they would do. Just as I realized that Mac had an axe, and that arm was lying right there, the axe came down.
At least we also know what happens with the InHumans between this season of AoS and the InHumans movie. Unfortunately, we don't know what the deal with Jemma is being swallowed up like that. I don't know the marvel universe that well so I don't know if she might become something specific, or a new character.
Also, the spin off with Bobbi and Hunter isn't happening, and I'm kind of glad it didn't. But also very glad to see AoS doing really, really well in the ratings. I wonder if the plan is to spin off a Secret Avengers show as they were hinting in the final scenes. After all, if Skye is pursuing a secret team of powered people, it'll be hard to have both a powered team and a regular team cast at the same time. Although, Jemma might now be one of those powered types. Mac is also know established as being touched by Kree technology, so that might show up later too.
Well, it does relate to America heavily. It's not really subtle the allegories it makes.
A lot of these storylines in the comics were affairs that crossed every single comic in print at the time. They have to attach a name to it, and Captain America works best. The Avengers movies deal with bigger threats to the world. As Winter Soldier established, Cap will deal with as much internal strife as external strife.
I'm not too worried. The Civil War storyline ties pretty well into all the supers across the MCU, so it makes sense there will be a lot of appearances. For marketing reasons, you can bet even though they've announced all these appearances, some of them will be really, really quick appearances. Having them show up will help reinforce how this new, almost fascist directive is tearing apart the powered community.
Thanks for all these comments, given me a bit to think about. I'll probably end up with a chromebook at some point to cover roving use as a tablet replacement. As for tablet PCs, I ended up with my original choice of the HP Spectre, mainly because despite costing so much, it also runs all the 3D software I use as well as my very old gaming/3d work laptop, while still having amazing battery life, and there's a pen upgrade for it.
Anyone have personal opinions on Chromebooks or similar limited use cheap laptops?
I've been doing the usual searches on the topic, but wanted more personal anecdotes of anyone that might have tried them. I'm in the market for a very portable laptop to do a lot of writing and office work on the go.
Thanks to a new job(!), I'm eyeing one of the newly released ultrabooks, the HP Spectre x360, which is just within my price range of $1000. However, I'm wondering if I could save money and just buy a chromebook. Google docs is limited, but works well enough and ~$250 is always better than $1000.
I need a laptop that I can actually carry around and has battery life. It doesn't need to be current or powerful, just enough to do a lot of writing on. I actually already have a powerhouse laptop for work, but the battery doesn't hold a charge and only gets 30 minutes anyway.
I thought I'd check to see if anyone has an old laptop they want to get rid of before I pay for a new ultrabook.