STEAM | April 2014 - Insert witty title here.
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
- Status
Actually, so I've been playing AC4 in 1080p
and I'm suspecting that it might have fucked up my eyes, kinda. Does this happen to anyone else? It's like Arthea said, I think the tiny background details are too visible (leaves, etc.) and it's too tiresome. My TV might be a tad too far away from my couch as well.
(Thread worthy?)
on a PS4
(Thread worthy?)
Mah Football Manager 2009 arrived today
BernardoOne
living in the past
I still haven't bought any Football Manager on steam. Something must be wrong with me.
Maybe he keeps Shaq on his SSD, then. Gotta load fast.
Atraveller
Banned
man asking me to do super meat boy achievements for playfire is torture
i'm so fucking bad at this game it's painful to watch
1) native res - 1920x1200
2) 60 fps
3) prettiness
so i'll sacrifice whatever i have to to get those first two
pretty much
can't afford a new videocard so why bother thinking about it
i'll just play mainstream games however i can and still fully enjoy indies.
if you know the kind of games i like you'll know it doesn't take gfx to impress me anyways
i'm so fucking bad at this game it's painful to watch
my priorities are
1) native res - 1920x1200
2) 60 fps
3) prettiness
so i'll sacrifice whatever i have to to get those first two
well yeah. that's the spirit. cant do anything about it anyway
pretty much
can't afford a new videocard so why bother thinking about it
i'll just play mainstream games however i can and still fully enjoy indies.
if you know the kind of games i like you'll know it doesn't take gfx to impress me anyways
imho Worms Armageddon is the best one, but to be honest they are very similar to each other. It seems that controller is not supported? http://steamcommunity.com/app/217200/discussions/0/648813728609385595/
Yeah, the game's 15 years old. There's no native controller support.
You ever thought about, you know, not running the games at ultra settings?
Doing the finish one and five warp zones achievements aren't massively hard if you do a couple of the character unlock ones as you get infinite lives and their abilities make the stages easier. The 50 bandages one can go jump off a cliff. There's only 101 bandages in the game and they're split between the light and dark worlds. So yeah fuck that noise.
Tizoc
Member
Reposting for my fellow 50 pp
ModBot said:Instructions for participants:
I am giving away a Steam key. To enter this giveaway, send a PM to ModBot with any subject line. In the body, copy and paste the entire line below containing the key.
Rules for this Giveaway:
- This giveaway is a raffle. The winners will be selected by random draw 3 hours after the draw was created. Any games not claimed after that point will be given away first come first serve.
- Do not trade keys you win off-site to enrich yourself. Don't try to claim games you have no interest in collecting or playing. Don't claim games to give them to friends off-site.
- If the key is already taken you will not receive a reply. Replies may take a minute or two:
Motte Island -- MB-AC19D3C829DD51D5
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
Just don't get Revolution because that shit is hardcoded to 30fps and the ninja rope is FUCKED.
I got 28 bandages in SMB so far, I kind of enjoy the game overall but if it gets frustrating later I'll probably stop.
I sacrificed 2 for 1 and 3 in gta4 because I couldn't take how ass ugly it looked at very low, I don't deserve that considering it wasn't that good of a game >.> I'd rather it be pretty
Same card I have and ALL OF THE REGRETS. Time to upgrade this bad boy in the coming months.
Yeah, I was just giving an example if I wanted to be at full Ultra. I'm okay with 720p on High.
I don't know if the version released on Steam was updated to fix this, but in the original release of Worms 4, at least, the ninja rope is practically unusable because of how the camera perspective changes when it's selected. That the game shipped with such an awful usability oversight is ridiculous.
Dusk Golem
A 21st Century Rockefeller
Armageddon or Reloaded. Armageddon has the advantage of 6-players, even online. Reloaded only has four, but has the best art for the series and some fun modes and additions, in my opinion. Reloaded is my personal favorite, but some prefer Armageddon for some the things unique to it (like the best Ninja Rope).
I want to buy a new rig and local prices are making me want to cry. I don't feel like paying $500+ for a graphics card alone :/
A GTX 780 is basically double your current performance.
Oh, guess I'll skip em, at least this time, as I wanted to play multiplayer locally.
Here's to consider Two Worlds II and Red Faction: Guerrilla instead.
You totally have your priorities wrong! Mine would be reversed, beauty will save the world, as we all know, and better fps makes games more fun, while res does nothing! Well not entirely, but if we disregard RPG maker games, res isn't a problem.
The visual difference between high and ultra is often not worth the huge performance hit anyway.
I'm playing Bioshock Infinite now and I'm pretty impressed with the performance, my GTX670 can get a fairly consistent 60FPS on ultra @2560x1440. Very High is basically a locked 60.
I always play at 1920x1080 if the game allows it (and it's not stretched like in some old games). If the performance is bad even with everything on min (Far Cry Blood Dragon, Retrovirus) I'll stop and leave it for when I get another PC instead of lowering the resolution. I don't care at all about frame rate unless it becomes virtually unplayable.
Aye, may get a 290 though because
But Nvidia Shadowplay, and that DX11 offload to GPU drivers and that full DX12 support for future, etc.
yea i'm doing the warp zones one and having a lot of trouble with the fifth one
i hate how this jill dude controls
i kinda hate everything about this game
not really saying it's a bad game or anything, but i hate it
yea it's fine for a game like gta 4 since it's not like you can get 60 fps anyways
well i dunno, bad res annoys the fuck out of me
blurry fonts drive me insane
$500+ for a graphics card?! Which card is that?
EmergentFocus
Member
The priority really depends on the game / genre, I think. For example, in most TBS (e.g. Civilization) having the smoothest framerate is less important due to the limited animations. I play these at 1080p on high settings, but generally lock them to 30fps, even if I can easily play them at 60fps. In fact, I even used to lock the framerate of Crusader Kings II to 20fps on my old PC because there was simply no need to waste that power (though admittedly, I started doing this because one of the early patches for the game introduced a bug that put excessive load on the GPU).
A city-management game might require a more careful balance, depending on how closely you wish to observe the minutae of your virtual citizens' lives. Likewise, with an open-world game you'd probably want to enjoy the environment around you in all its detail, while keeping things fluid as you travel around it.
At the other end of the scale, FPS stands for more than just "first-person shooter". I'd definitely want it to be as smooth as possible, no matter how low the settings need to be in order to make this possible.
Rickenslacker
Banned
Third person shooting is a large component of the game, and the actual character mobility is generally better than using vehicles as well. If anything, it's a game that should be more suited towards KB+M.
I'd buy that if it revved like a supercar when you turned your PC on.
Well, if you're not gonna play it right away (what am I saying), then it's better to get it during a sale.
Yeah. I just started replaying City, so I can go for a while and wait for the summer sale. It's 85% off at GMG though, which is a hard discount to beat.
Dusk Golem
A 21st Century Rockefeller
Oh, also before the FEAR series goes off sale on GMG, some impressions on the title no one has mentioned today, FEAR 3, the black sheep of the franchise.
FEAR 3 represents what is wrong with many 'modernization' processes of games. It takes everything that people liked about the first few games in the series and just replaces or modifies them to work with current trends, such as in this case regenerating health, co-op, perks... However, I would also argue FEAR 3 is not a bad game. If you're looking for a game akin to FEAR 1 or 2, this unfortunately is not it. It also is pretty lacking in the horror department. It's not scary, or even really atmospheric, though it attempts to be. What it is though, is a pretty fun multiplayer experience.
The story will probably piss-off long-time fans. Without going too deep into spoilers, the story basically focuses mostly on Fettel, the antagonist from the first game. The stories already kind of in a mess from the out-go, as we have things from psychic powers, clones, the fact our two main characters are the sons of the series main antagonist Alma, and just other plot elements that just scream they're so bad. But it's not badly written to be fair, and if you kind of turn off your brain it's kind of stupid entertainment. But you really shouldn't be playing this game for the story.
The campaign should last for about 5-7 hours, with some highs and lows, but that in no way compares to the previous two games. The co-op helps make it a bit more fun, for better or worse. The two brothers play completely differently though, with Pointman basically being your typical action hero with the guns and the slide-kicks, and Fettel being actually surprisingly rather fresh, being a psychic man who can levitate enemies, possess them, shoot energy blasts, and more. Honestly, both are pretty fun, but I have to hand it to Fettel as for a game with very little inspiration behind it, his gameplay is actually rather original for this sort of game and fun.
But it's not the campaign you should be buying FEAR 3 for, as weird as that might sound. I find most people never delve into the multiplayer modes in this game. And it's sensible, as the campaign is disappointing and usually multiplayer modes are tagged on without much thought or effort, so it's probably nothing special, right?
Well, that's wrong, as it turns out the multiplayer modes in this game are actually the best part of the game.
I can't even count how many friends who got FEAR 3 that ended up loving the multiplayer modes and hating the campaign. Let me explain; The campaign lacks tension, and often is a bit repetitive, on-top of the fact it just feels rather uninspired most of the time, its horror elements fail, and its action sequences aren't particularly great. But something FEAR 3 does surprisingly well is understand the fun elements of multiplayer shooters. Hell, some of the multiplayer modes are even far more tense and more horror-like than anything in the campaign.
Multiplayer is split into four modes, and all four are pretty fun for up to four-players either locally or online. Each mode has different maps. One mode has you all as ghost phantoms who possess bodies and try to kill other enemies and your friends to collect souls, most souls at the end of a wave wins the round, and at the end of all waves, person with the most rounds won wins. Another mode has you in an open arena with multiple areas to station yourself in as you and friends fight hordes of enemies that come in waves, boarding up windows and between waves going out to collect supplies. It's a sort of rip-off of Zombie mode from CoD, but it has some interesting twists, such as Alma, who you should not look at as she'll cause randomized effects against you, ranging from just downing you to making you see your friends as enemies, making the screen go black, or teleporting you to another random point on the map. Or a fog, that gets thicker and thicker as the waves go on, and an unseen red-light monster lurks in the deeper parts of the fog... And in yet another mode, you and up to three friends run away from a giant wall of death. Really challenging, frantic, tense, panic-worthy, but a lot of fun as a lot of enemies get tossed your way and you only get small breathers to quickly recollect supplies before the wall is out it again. A race from death and survival that is both primal but also strategic and fun.
The game also looks pretty good, and the PC port is well-done. Music works, but nothing outside of the credits song sticks as being particularly memorable.
FEAR 3 is against most everything the FEAR series stands for, but if you can look over that and a disappointing campaign, I guarantee you there's some multiplayer fun here that is worth experiencing.
FEAR 3 represents what is wrong with many 'modernization' processes of games. It takes everything that people liked about the first few games in the series and just replaces or modifies them to work with current trends, such as in this case regenerating health, co-op, perks... However, I would also argue FEAR 3 is not a bad game. If you're looking for a game akin to FEAR 1 or 2, this unfortunately is not it. It also is pretty lacking in the horror department. It's not scary, or even really atmospheric, though it attempts to be. What it is though, is a pretty fun multiplayer experience.
The story will probably piss-off long-time fans. Without going too deep into spoilers, the story basically focuses mostly on Fettel, the antagonist from the first game. The stories already kind of in a mess from the out-go, as we have things from psychic powers, clones, the fact our two main characters are the sons of the series main antagonist Alma, and just other plot elements that just scream they're so bad. But it's not badly written to be fair, and if you kind of turn off your brain it's kind of stupid entertainment. But you really shouldn't be playing this game for the story.
The campaign should last for about 5-7 hours, with some highs and lows, but that in no way compares to the previous two games. The co-op helps make it a bit more fun, for better or worse. The two brothers play completely differently though, with Pointman basically being your typical action hero with the guns and the slide-kicks, and Fettel being actually surprisingly rather fresh, being a psychic man who can levitate enemies, possess them, shoot energy blasts, and more. Honestly, both are pretty fun, but I have to hand it to Fettel as for a game with very little inspiration behind it, his gameplay is actually rather original for this sort of game and fun.
But it's not the campaign you should be buying FEAR 3 for, as weird as that might sound. I find most people never delve into the multiplayer modes in this game. And it's sensible, as the campaign is disappointing and usually multiplayer modes are tagged on without much thought or effort, so it's probably nothing special, right?
Well, that's wrong, as it turns out the multiplayer modes in this game are actually the best part of the game.
I can't even count how many friends who got FEAR 3 that ended up loving the multiplayer modes and hating the campaign. Let me explain; The campaign lacks tension, and often is a bit repetitive, on-top of the fact it just feels rather uninspired most of the time, its horror elements fail, and its action sequences aren't particularly great. But something FEAR 3 does surprisingly well is understand the fun elements of multiplayer shooters. Hell, some of the multiplayer modes are even far more tense and more horror-like than anything in the campaign.
Multiplayer is split into four modes, and all four are pretty fun for up to four-players either locally or online. Each mode has different maps. One mode has you all as ghost phantoms who possess bodies and try to kill other enemies and your friends to collect souls, most souls at the end of a wave wins the round, and at the end of all waves, person with the most rounds won wins. Another mode has you in an open arena with multiple areas to station yourself in as you and friends fight hordes of enemies that come in waves, boarding up windows and between waves going out to collect supplies. It's a sort of rip-off of Zombie mode from CoD, but it has some interesting twists, such as Alma, who you should not look at as she'll cause randomized effects against you, ranging from just downing you to making you see your friends as enemies, making the screen go black, or teleporting you to another random point on the map. Or a fog, that gets thicker and thicker as the waves go on, and an unseen red-light monster lurks in the deeper parts of the fog... And in yet another mode, you and up to three friends run away from a giant wall of death. Really challenging, frantic, tense, panic-worthy, but a lot of fun as a lot of enemies get tossed your way and you only get small breathers to quickly recollect supplies before the wall is out it again. A race from death and survival that is both primal but also strategic and fun.
The game also looks pretty good, and the PC port is well-done. Music works, but nothing outside of the credits song sticks as being particularly memorable.
FEAR 3 is against most everything the FEAR series stands for, but if you can look over that and a disappointing campaign, I guarantee you there's some multiplayer fun here that is worth experiencing.
Add me to the low-end yet playable crew
toddhunter
Member
A tip is to unlock the double jump guy if you have not already
3-16 Ogmo
Once I did that the rest of the bandages fell pretty easily.
Darkroronoa
Member
Α6-5400K APU (with 1600mhz dual channel rams) with 1280x1024 or even 1024x768 resolution here (i played nazi zombie 2 at 800x600)
I will upgrade in a year, until then i am satisfied.
Atraveller
Banned
The new Sajjaja is here!Α6-5400K APU (with 1600mhz dual channel rams) with 1280x1024 or even 1024x768 resolution here (i played nazi zombie 2 at 800x600)
I will upgrade in a year, until then i am satisfied.
Dusk Golem
A 21st Century Rockefeller
I'm surprised my graphics card works with no hitches to run games on highest quality settings, 60fps. AMD Radeon 7770.
I got this PC thinking the graphics card was outdated and I'd have to replace it but chose one that purposely had decent RAM and a fantastic cooling system, but I thought I'd have to replace the graphics card, but so far I've had absolutely no problems for even modern games on full settings and performance. To be honest, I'm not quite sure how it does it, and been working fine now for two years with modern games, but certain somewhere in the near future I'll have to replace it.
I got this PC thinking the graphics card was outdated and I'd have to replace it but chose one that purposely had decent RAM and a fantastic cooling system, but I thought I'd have to replace the graphics card, but so far I've had absolutely no problems for even modern games on full settings and performance. To be honest, I'm not quite sure how it does it, and been working fine now for two years with modern games, but certain somewhere in the near future I'll have to replace it.
spindoctor
Member
Fear 3 single player is pretty much straight up garbage. Is the multiplayer populated these days?
Well, you do have the latest AMD tech...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked