The fact that they took 50 people at a station, put them in various ships, some holding like 20 and flew them to another planet for Battlefield-like combat, all without loading screens is crazy impressive technically, regardless of the latency.

What I liked about Rollcage was that you could destroy things off-track. It was awesome to make a building fall on other racers. This one doesn't appear to have that...

I love retro graphics, I think there's not enough good sidescrollers and I think that old first person level design is better in general than in modern games.

Edit: and about this game, I'm interested, but reviews seem to say that it's a bit better than mediocre, so I'm not going to run and buy it.

Looks like EA's working on re-releasing a version SimCity 2000 that is going to be worse than the open source one in every way.

Agent.X7 wrote on Jul 30, 2018, 18:24:

Steele Johnson wrote on Jul 30, 2018, 16:34:
I remember a day when it was ok to release a game that pushed the graphics knowing that it wouldn't run that great on the latest hardware. I liked it because you got a cool bonus when you upgrade your pc and play the game again. It was as if the game got a graphics upgrade too!

I suppose those days are gone and devs need to make sure that all hardware gets similar performance (i.e. lowest common denominator). There's no wonder why most games that get release today seem to have graphics from 5 years ago.

Yep, everything is developed for console and the PC is an afterthought port. Everything runs well because it can only be as graphically complex as the Xbox or PS4 can handle, so our PCs are light years ahead of the game. Nobody is doing Crysis level games just for PC because console is where the money is at. Sometimes they throw us a bone and we get some effect or something you can't see on the console, or we can run it at a higher resolution, but that is about it.

Star Citizen is doing Crysis level tech

I don't know if this game is optimized or not, but I don't understand why people expect that they can run every game at max settings. We can easily make a well optimized game where its max settings can't be run by modern PCs. The software has been ready for ages, we're just waiting for the hardware to catch up. Devs actually have to lower the quality of max settings in their games so that gamers won't complain they can't run them. This is the Crysis paradox.

jdreyer wrote on Jul 21, 2018, 01:33:
Kudos to Sean Murray and crew for making good on their initial promises despite a pretty rough launch. That's character.

I've got 50 or so hours in NMS, and have never found such a pure joy of exploration in a game before. The game's not perfect, but it certainly offers a compelling and unique experience.

Does the game contain significant challenges and difficulty, especially in the survival department. We're looking for good coop games, but it seems like this one has no real challenge and thus would end up boring us.

Sepharo wrote on Jul 20, 2018, 04:55:
I liked Dunkey's hate/love review of this game...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryQpA86ZC8U

My experience was different. I have 7 hours in this game. I barely made progress and barely unlocked anything which led me to just give up. Not enough reward for the pain.

This game is way too hard. It's such a painful grind because of that.

jdreyer wrote on Jul 18, 2018, 14:06:
Were there bots?

no

DangerDog wrote on Jul 18, 2018, 13:16:

ItBurn wrote on Jul 18, 2018, 11:19:
I was certain this was shut down a long time ago. Crysis had a pretty awesome Battlefield-style multiplayer mode. It's a shame no one tried it. You had two teams trying to blow the other team's core with nukes in their base. You needed to capture crashed alien ships to get power. With enough power you could use factories that you also had to capture. There were vehicle and weapon factories. You could buy a tank or better weapons. Finally, after captuing a bunch of required things, you could capture the special weapons building and get the nuke gun which was insane.

This came way late after the game was released, most people had tried the multiplayer and then quickly abandoned it. The problem was making everyone a super soldier didn't really come off as fun in a multiplayer game.

I was a huge fan of Farcry 1 multiplayer, but didn't really like the default Crysis one. Everyone was a bullet sponge and the maps were tiny.

I was certain this was shut down a long time ago. Crysis had a pretty awesome Battlefield-style multiplayer mode. It's a shame no one tried it. You had two teams trying to blow the other team's core with nukes in their base. You needed to capture crashed alien ships to get power. With enough power you could use factories that you also had to capture. There were vehicle and weapon factories. You could buy a tank or better weapons. Finally, after captuing a bunch of required things, you could capture the special weapons building and get the nuke gun which was insane.

jacobvandy wrote on Jul 18, 2018, 08:25:
They're flipping the business model completely, so it's $30 one-time with no microtransactions. Here's what I found on that:

“We made a lot of money from these players who spent thousands. They are known to the industry as “Whales”. Great. If you’re rich, please be my guest. But we don’t want this kind of money if it came from anyone who regrets their decision, if it made their lives significantly worse as a result. Unfortunately, those who have a problem are usually in denial about it, and would be too ashamed to ask us for a refund. We would give the refund in a heartbeat. It’s not like we have artists drawing each ruby by hand. It costs us nothing but payment processing fees.

“We really don’t like making money off players who are in denial of their addiction. And that’s what a large part of free-to-play gaming is all about. Everyone in the industry seems to rationalize it by shifting the blame, assuming way too much cognizance on the part of their victims. People can make their own decisions, right? But it just doesn’t sit well with me. Despite very few of our players having complained, it felt wrong when we started doing it and it still feels wrong now.”

Apparently they have an open and unlimited refund policy for the microtransactions in the first game, which is pretty cool.

This doesn't justify the price tag. Which game did you think cost more to make? Clicker Heroes 2, made by a studio of around 10 people using a very simple 2D engine? Or Hellblade, made by a studio of at least a hundred employees and using a complex 3D and physics engine with mocap and all that?

The first game was great, and free, like 99% of these games. This one is waaaay overpriced. I have no idea what they're thinking.

Edit: I just realized that this might be a joke... I'll leave this here anyway :p

This sounds really dumb to me. A programmer's job is to write good code with no errors, including typos. The guy who coded the alien AI should have noticed that it wasn't working properly and debugged and found the typo. If a single person was in charge of checking everybody's code, he would go insane and some programmers would stop debugging.

There's two main ways to prevent such errors, if you ignore debugging your own code...
- Code reviews. Every time a programmer wants to put his new code in the game, it has to be reviewed by another programmer. These are usually done one on one and last no more than a few minutes.
- Code analysis programs. Nowadays you actually have programs that go through code and find such errors. They are impressively good at it too.

I want to see all games by order of release date, so it's good that there's still a way to see the old list.

BIGtrouble77 wrote on Jul 10, 2018, 15:42:

ItBurn wrote on Jul 10, 2018, 14:27:
Yeah, I don't understand the hate.

I think the hate was mostly around how arrogant she got. To anyone interested in fighting, her fame never came close to meeting her perceived skill level. Since leaving the sport she once "dominated", she's now doing fake fighting, something her detractors can latch on to easily. Add to that she dated (married?) a guy accused of spousal abuse.

I don't hate her, but I don't spend much time looking into anything associated with her, this thread being the exception.

I maybe saw one of her fights and never saw anything else she did except an interview or two where I learned about the games and Pokemon. I just respect her for doing what she did and have a hard time with people saying that when a person fails, that person is now a failure.

Jivaro wrote on Jul 10, 2018, 12:50:
More power to her. Get yours young lady, you fucking earned it. It's probably nice to make bank these days without having to risk getting kicked in the face by somebody really fucking good at kicking people in the face. You guys and your salt..lol.

Yeah, I don't understand the hate. Ronda was doing a sport that is incredibly difficult and dangerous and was good at it. Losing matches doesn't diminish her feat in any way. Now she's still getting paid to entertain people, but she's not putting her life in great danger, it's a good thing. Also, Ronda is a gamer. She's a pokemon nut too. One more reason to be behind her.

Someone politely gives an opinion to a dev on the internet, which is a thing that happens a million times a day with no consequences. Dev who directly represents company freaks out, escalates it and makes it about sexes, which is a huge taboo topic these days that no company wants to be associated with. I don't see how anyone can be surprised about the firing. It's not about trolls or not valuing employees, it's about a dev who wasn't professional and didn't follow common sense with social media and work.

I never finished the past two games. They start strong, but really falter near the end. It becomes real repetitive and bland. Clearly, they just didn't have budget or time left. This game is from a different dev, so who knows how it'll end up, but in my opinion, a game is a dev team.