The fact that they'll always use whatever headroom they get to just squeeze out better images for the back of the box instead of actual performance gains.
No shit Sherlock! You are telling me stagnant hardware won't get better as developers try to do more and more things that aren#t possible on this hardware?
This game though is just poorly optimized. id Tech 5 is designed to run at 60 on everything and these fools can#t even manage constant 30.
I haven't watched much Destiny footage after release and was looking forward to playing through its content at least once eventually, but honestly, if what I'm seeing on that stream is the best Destiny has to offer (by all accounts) it's turning me right off.
The conflux section teaches and then reinforces a concept that you can't beat the raid without - teams of 2 splitting up for different simultaneous objectives and preventing a wipe. It also teaches you about the
sacrifice wipe
that comes into play later where the tension is much higher and there's a lot more going on. Ultimately, they didn't do a great job of remembering the team splitting later on (specifically for
the gatekeepers
, where the group made it about 20 times harder than it needed to be), but it's really important in the optimal strategies.
As for the Templar, they weren't grasping a lot of the mechanics - I don't think Brad (or anyone, maybe) ever figured out
that he could shoot his way out of the detain field. That fight took a long time because they were missing out on a huge amount of DPS time due to people stuck outside of line of sight to the boss and they weren't blocking the teleport - everyone was ignoring the big column of light that shows where he was going to go next that you can stand in to block his teleport and keep his shield from coming back up, and so they were never able to get a sustained period of fire on him as a result, which is the single biggest reason that fight took so long for them. He goes down in a couple of minutes when your team does that and properly utilizes the burn phase.
The game isn't perfect, but that was not a representative display of people fully grasping the mechanics of the fights. Whether that's because the group never really stopped and scrutinized what was going on or because the game doesn't always do a great job of visualizing the mechanics (or demanding absolute mastery over them, as seen by that group finishing) is a totally separate thing, and the answer is probably a bit of both. The first run through a raid is never going to be perfect, and I would bet that they'd get through much, much faster if they went again.
edit: spoilered some relevant sections just in case
I ran VoG last night in about 2 hours, and that included several people having connection issues, bathroom breaks, and getting stuck on the stealth section for 15 minutes
The fact that they'll always use whatever headroom they get to just squeeze out better images for the back of the box instead of actual performance gains.
im glad you know better than all of the people who made it
It's actually fairly well optimized on the PC. But that's not an option because reasons.
Yes I have reasons. I like using a Mac. I need a new one, I am waiting for the refresh which is taking forever because of Intel delaying their chips. There easy reason.
You PC player are becoming more annoying as the years go on. It's probably extra bad because I criticized a game you like.
The game isn't perfect, but that was not a representative display of people fully grasping the mechanics of the fights. Whether that's because the group never really stopped and scrutinized what was going on or because the game doesn't always do a great job of visualizing the mechanics (or demanding absolute mastery over them, as seen by that group finishing) is a totally separate thing, and the answer is probably a bit of both. The first run through a raid is never going to be perfect, and I would bet that they'd get through much, much faster if they went again.
If raiding and more interesting boss mechanics become the norm in that game, it could really use the "Dungeon Journal" that WoW has. It doesn't just straight up tell you how to fight a boss, but it at least outlines the mechanics of the fight, what debuffs do, and the general idea of how to fight/avoid/deal with boss mechanics. While figuring out a new boss' mechanics can be fun, it really sucks when you're going into the same boss for the 3rd time and no one has figured out what certain boss moves do, which is a guaranteed wipe. At least getting back to bosses and staring fights is really fast in Destiny. I certainly don't have any fond memories of 30 minute wipes in Temple of Ahn'Qiraj in WoW, having to run all the way back to the Twin Emperors/C'Thun and then re-buff the raid.
Yes I have reasons. I like using a Mac. I need a new one, I am waiting for the refresh which is taking forever because of Intel delaying their chips. There easy reason.
You PC player are becoming more annoying as the years go on. It's probably extra bad because I criticized a game you like.
the one team member that picks up a shield that gives him the ability to de-shield the boss, the adds that spawn called "Oracles" that must be dealt with immediately or cause a raid wipe, and the imprisoning shield placed on one raid member that needs to be DPSed down
. And yes, the boss is a still a bullet sponge, but at least it not just "shoot the bullet sponge". I understand if MMO style bosses aren't your thing, but it's not bad by any means, just another way of achieving something. However, if it really isn't your thing, you're probably better off not playing it. (Or waiting for the eventual price drop!)
I like Bungie's past games, I like sci-fi, I like shooting, I like the graphics, I am honestly interested in playing the game... but even with all that going in favour of it, the overall structure of the game, the MMO trappings, the mission structure, the repetition, the lacking story and lore, and now the encounter design I'm seeing on the stream... I might just watch this video through to the end (currently at the stealth section and their nth try) and skip playing it myself.
Microsoft seems committed even in the face of a fairly irrelevant second place.
So if anyone, Nintendo might have to be the one leading the charge for next generation, but I'm not sure they're even interested in making another console with the way Japan has been going.
I like Bungie's past games, I like sci-fi, I like shooting, I like the graphics, I am honestly interested in playing the game... but even with all that going in favour of it, the overall structure of the game, the mission structure, the repetition, the lacking story and lore, and now the encounter design I'm seeing on the stream... I might just watch this video through to the end (currently at the stealth section) and skip playing it myself.
Also, keep in mind (from what I've heard) this is the most varied encounter design in the game, which is kind of disheartening. I absolutely eventually am going to play this game, but I'm going in knowing everything you've just said. I have a feeling that will make it significantly less disappointing. I'm really looking forward to 1) what the game will look like a year from now when all the DLC is out / patches have altered the game (for instance, the loot engram purple/blue thing that just happened) and 2) if Borderlands be a better co-op shooty game.
Microsoft seems committed even in the face of a fairly irrelevant second place.
So if anyone, Nintendo might have to be the one leading the charge for next generation, but I'm not sure they're even interested in making another console with the way Japan has been going.
I'd really love for Nintendo to just latch on to Sony's remote play and make a true home console / handheld hybrid. It's probably not going to happen thanks to the shift to mobile, but a man can dream.
I love Brad espousing the PC in the Evil Within's case when it's one of the clearer recent examples of how not to do a PC port of a game. There are some nice things in that package but really the game is unoptimized on every platform.
I like Bungie's past games, I like sci-fi, I like shooting, I like the graphics, I am honestly interested in playing the game... but even with all that going in favour of it, the overall structure of the game, the MMO trappings, the mission structure, the repetition, the lacking story and lore, and now the encounter design I'm seeing on the stream... I might just watch this video through to the end (currently at the stealth section and their nth try) and skip playing it myself.
Hey I'm not the one who started talking about the PC version or thought it's great to belittle someone because PC is not an option.
As for encounter design in Destiny some people give the Halo games too much credit. The encounter designs in those games was usually just a corridor or an arena with different enemies in them. What made these encounters interesting was that you could tackle them in different ways because of how open the arena were and on top if that you had AI that used cover and grenades and stuff. Destiny still does the same. The usual design is corridors that lead to arenas in which you then fight enemies that act more interesting than the ones in most first person shooters. I enjoy the Halo combat loop and that is also what kept me interested in Destiny together with the loot system.
I love Brad espousing the PC in the Evil Within's case when it's one of the clearer recent examples of how not to do a PC port of a game. There are some nice things in that package but really the game is unoptimized on every platform.
It's not how you do a pc port because they left out tons of super basic stuff (console commands for frame locks, those black bars and fov changes, a lacking advanced settings).
It's fairly well optimized (relatively to recent releases) in that it runs pretty smoothly. Their minimum specs were crazy (just like mordor) because no one is sure how to handle this increased vram yet where the hardware is lacking.
Evil Within is, by many accounts, buggy as fuck. So it isn't too hard to believe that a little longer in the dev oven could have got it running decently - even on under powered new consoles.
Look at how much space is on the side when he's crouching for example.
I mean it's just not even a bother. When you're playing it's just something that you forget about. If you are on the PC like I am you can adjust it but that looks pretty bad.
I don't even notice the letterboxing in the quicklook until they brought it up, then when they brought it up again a bit later I realized I had already stopped noticing it again.
That's something that never bothers me though.
Having just replayed RE4 seeing the way Brad way playing was kinda frustrating though, the game seems like it rewards decisiveness like RE4 does.
I don't even notice the letterboxing in the quicklook until they brought it up, then when they brought it up again a bit later I realized I had already stopped noticing it again.
That's something that never bothers me though.
Having just replayed RE4 seeing the way Brad way playing was kinda frustrating though, the game seems like it rewards decisiveness like RE4 does.
It doesn't bother me with films because there is a good reason for it, it bothers me a lot in games. Games are not films and the reason for letterboxing really doesn't exist in video games. Mostly they tout it as an aesthetic choice in games to say it's more cinematic, but that argument falls immediately flat because games are not films. Rarely can you even consider framing since the player is in control of the camera. FOV is also not a good reason since that is also easily adjustable in video games no matter what the picture format is.
After a while you don't notice letterboxing, so it doesn't have to be a huge issue, but it almost seems like they didn't play the game that way internally. The image looks cropped, they need to increase the FoV or pull the camera back.
Mmhmm. That doesn't detract from my original point of Brad espousing something when he doesn't even know how it runs, but cool man. I'm glad the game is a pleasant surprise for you.
Sure, but even bad PC ports are pretty much always still better than the console versions, so I don't think there's anything wrong with Brad recommending the PC version.
So just so I get this straight, there's nothing wrong with making an assumption based on no experience with the game in question on the platform we're talking about whatsoever?
Sure, but even bad PC ports are pretty much always still better than the console versions, so I don't think there's anything wrong with Brad recommending the PC version.
Unlocking the framerate and trying to get it running at a stable 60 can be a challenge, but it seems to be fine with the presets. It can be better, yet it still appears to be the best version available.
It's a linear game, framing absolutely can serve the same purpose as in film. Everyone is going to approach the town in the same way, experience the same dream sequence, etc and in the Evil Within it suits the claustrophobic atmosphere quite well. The game deliberately pulls the camera in closer when you go indoors. Some areas have a tighter camera, while others show the entirety of your player model.
So just so I get this straight, there's nothing wrong with making an assumption based on no experience with the game in question on the platform we're talking about whatsoever?
I have a 780Ti so I can push absurd resolutions, but even people with midrange cards are going to get much better performance than the consoles and easily hit 1440P. There really are very few PC ports that actually run worse than the console versions. Honestly, they don't really exist at all!
It's a linear game, framing absolutely can serve the same purpose as in film. Everyone is going to approach the town in the same way, experience the same dream sequence, etc and in the Evil Within it suits the claustrophobic atmosphere quite well. The game deliberately pulls the camera in closer when you go indoors. Some areas have a tighter camera, while others show the entirety of your player model.
You can have the same effect by adjusting the FOV in a normal 16:9 ratio. That the beauty of games being an entirely different medium. During gameplay it's just a smaller screen. Nothing about it makes it film like when I am in control. Hell even films seem to use the 2:35.1 aspect ratio less and less.
It doesn't bother me with films because there is a good reason for it, it bothers me a lot in games. Games are not films and the reason for letterboxing really doesn't exist in video games. Mostly they tout it as an aesthetic choice in games to say it's more cinematic, but that argument falls immediately flat because games are not films. Rarely can you even consider framing since the player is in control of the camera. FOV is also not a good reason since that is also easily adjustable in video games no matter what the picture format is.
I don't agree with that at all, sure you can look around (mostly) freely in games, but 90% of the time they'll still know what and how you'll be looking at things.
It's a linear game, framing absolutely can serve the same purpose as in film. Everyone is going to approach the town in the same way, experience the same dream sequence, etc and in the Evil Within it suits the claustrophobic atmosphere quite well. The game deliberately pulls the camera in closer when you go indoors. Some areas have a tighter camera, while others show the entirety of your player model.
I don't agree with that at all, sure you can look around (mostly) freely in games, but 90% of the time they'll still know what and how you'll be looking at things.
They really don't, that's why control is so often taken away from you in games these days. And then again by using a specific FOV which fits the framing you want to achieve you don't have to use an aspect ratio like this.
Fine that some of you enjoy an aspect ratio like this. I will never see it as a thing you can legitimately use in a video game.
I wonder how Dan finds writing reviews for GB compared to writing reviews for Game Informer. Big outlets seem to take scores way too seriously.
from Danny's tumblr
every single review on GameSpot goes through a peer review process. Bayonetta 2’s review went through around three rounds which took about three days of email and face-to-face conversations. Mark justified his reasoning well in the text-and the 10/10 was given.
"What does anything mean if nothing is real" is a really good way to explain why I normally don't like the "what's real?! What's in my head?!" kind of stories in fiction. Good going, Brad.
Watching more of the quick look i just realized that the Evil within letterbox takes up half the screen and it still has performance issues, this is 2014 and it's on a PS4 come on man. Besides that this game looks pretty cool. Oh and Brad actually said that clock tower 3 scared the shit out of him? Did i heard that right? Wasn't that game kinda bad and had some magical girl transformations? The only thing i have seen of that game is a funny LP some dude made.
I remember really loving it as a kid but I tried watching it with my 6 year old niece a few years ago. David Bowie's wardrobe choice made things a bit awkward and made 1000 times more awkward when my niece pointed it out.
Watching more of the quick look i just realized that the Evil within letterbox takes up half the screen and it still has performance issues, this is 2014 and it's on a PS4 come on man. Besides that this game looks pretty cool. Oh and Brad actually said that clock tower 3 scared the shit out of him? Did i heard that right? Wasn't that game kinda bad and had some magical girl transformations? The only thing i have seen of that game is a funny LP some dude made.
Interesting, why would they do that? Seems so nice.
I don't think GBs process is that much different from GS Jeff talked on some Jar Times that they read each others review and will say things like you are giving this 4 but the review reads like a 3 so maybe you should adjust the score or the text.
I could see Nintendo rushing a WiiU successor out by 2017 that slightly beats the PS4 & ONE in hardware. That'd give them at least two years of parity with other consoles, then two years as an out-of-date system. Which would actually be a much better setup for Nintendo's "we're your second gaming machine" strategy of exclusives.
