Thread for Gamers 2: The Three Is A Lie

[Czechanada]

Sigh




has anyone played Combat Mission?

What's that?

[Bezombia]

I just got kicked for having too high of a ping in BF4.

My ping was 38.

[Czechanada]

I just got kicked for having too high of a ping in BF4.

My ping was 38.

Hardcore gamers have negative ping.

[Bezombia]

I just got kicked for having too high of a ping in BF4.

My ping was 38.

Hardcore gamers have negative ping.

With negative ping, the server receives your actions before you send them.
Because that's impossible, the server must predict your actions and apply them to the other players before you actually submit them.

Throw in some spotty server lags and you get this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ5rLvDhXhw

[Registug]

Sigh




has anyone played Combat Mission?

What's that?

Google is a pretty useful thing, I hear =_O

it's a turn based computer wargame based on grid maps and simulating real combat. Most of it is based in WW2, and the game plays like Frozen Synapse. You give your squads orders like "move here, slow", "take cover here", "fire at this building". Your units will carry out those orders until they come under fire.

the game pauses for orders, and then plays in real time as your units carry out those orders. The enemy does the same.

[Corrian]

>Crysis 3

Not really.

Um, that has nothing to do with anything I said.

Sorry, I'm kind of out of it today.

Anything that can be done on a console even if it is pushed to its limits can be done on a PC.

Well duh. I meant for console specs it gets pushed to even more limits. I haven't seen many PC games pulling off what The Last of Us did with the limited abilities of the PS3.

Besides, the reasons why most games on PC don't push the hardware is because consoles are holding the system requirements back.

Still haven't seen good evidence to make me believe this is true.

The most recent game to truly push the limits of what a PC can do is the original Crysis,

And it still manages to work on a old, shitty computer fairly well at the same time. The Cryengine seems to be really well made.

and the next will be Star Citizen.

Not sure I believe that pushes the limits, either.

Note that Crysis didn't push the limits just because of graphics; The levels were quite large and the enemy had good AI, and such.

The destructible environments were quite impressive for the time, as well. I need to play it again.

Can't remember what I thought of the AI, but pretty sure I've seen better these days. Which isn't surprising.

There's a reason why Crysis 2 was far more linear in design.

Because of consoles, right? Maybe, I guess.

Pushing a system to its limits only does so much, and does not necessarily serve a purpose. Limits will only limit ambition; The only thing limits do is add some arbitrary sense of accomplishment for the developer in having slightly superior graphics at the cost of holding back game design.

Agreed with this, and have thought that for a while. I'd rather a good game with a unique art style then some generic first person shooter with the fanciest graphics just because they're the best graphics.

And I'm thinking of Battlefield 4 with this.

Call of Duty doesn't count because, yes, it is generic now, but it hasn't had the best graphics in forever. The graphics are generally pretty lackluster.

[Czechanada]

>Crysis 3

Not really.

Um, that has nothing to do with anything I said.

Sorry, I'm kind of out of it today.

Well duh. I meant for console specs it gets pushed to even more limits. I haven't seen many PC games pulling off what The Last of Us did with the limited abilities of the PS3.

How is that beneficial? How does pushing a specific set of hardware to its limits a good thing? Explain what you mean. Why do PC games need to be pushed to their limits?

Still haven't seen good evidence to make me believe this is true.

Skyrim.

And it still manages to work on a old, shitty computer fairly well at the same time. The Cryengine seems to be really well made.

Can you crank it up to max settings?

Not sure I believe that pushes the limits, either.

Note that Crysis didn't push the limits just because of graphics; The levels were quite large and the enemy had good AI, and such.

The destructible environments were quite impressive for the time, as well. I need to play it again.

Can't remember what I thought of the AI, but pretty sure I've seen better these days. Which isn't surprising.

[quote]Because of consoles, right? Maybe, I guess.]/quote]

Right.

[Person012345]

It's not actually a matter of which exclusives are "better", the entire concept of console exclusives are cancer. Maybe there are PS3 exclusives that PC gamers want to play but there shouldn't be because if there's a substantial audience for a game on the PC then it should be released there anyway.

[The Rich Port]

It's not actually a matter of which exclusives are "better", the entire concept of console exclusives are cancer. Maybe there are PS3 exclusives that PC gamers want to play but there shouldn't be because if there's a substantial audience for a game on the PC then it should be released there anyway.

Not to mention it pisses fans off and it's not that good of an idea in the long run.

[Corrian]

How is that beneficial? How does pushing a specific set of hardware to its limits a good thing? Explain what you mean. Why do PC games need to be pushed to their limits?

They don't. I'm just saying there are games that really do push the limits of the PS3's graphical abilities, and they look pretty impressive for the crappy hardware of the consoles. Don't really care if games actually push any of the limits.

:palm:

Skyrim.

One game is not a good example for it as a whole.

And besides: Skyrim looks way better on PC than consoles. Also, there are many, many other open world games that look way better, and have obviously NOT been pushed back by consoles at all. That one example doesn't prove anything to me.

Hell, doesn't Star Citizen prove that consoles DON'T push back PC progress? It proves that it doesn't get affected by consoles about as much as using Skyrim as an example that it does get affected by consoles. Some games do, and some games don't. Big deal.

Just so you know, even though I'm defending consoles, if consoles like, dwindled away and became more and more non-existent, I wouldn't really care, either. I just don't vigorously root for the death of consoles. But just like with many things, I do have somewhere in me where I have extremes, and consoles disappearing is one of them.

Others would probably make people go flipping crazy on NationStates.

Can you crank it up to max settings?

I don't think my dads computer can, no. Mine certainly can't.

Based off of the highest end of the top of PC capability, NOTHING can push that to the limits yet. So no, Star Citizen does not push PC's to the max of their capabilities. Nothing can yet, because the game hardware itself doesn't go as high as the PC hardware.

It may push GAME hardware to the limits, but not the highest end of PC's. No game uses 12+ ram yet, or the highest end graphics cards out there that aren't even worth owning right now.

Right.

I guess

It's not actually a matter of which exclusives are "better", the entire concept of console exclusives are cancer. Maybe there are PS3 exclusives that PC gamers want to play but there shouldn't be because if there's a substantial audience for a game on the PC then it should be released there anyway.

PC obviously has more exclusives and better exclusives overall, since PC is still the biggest gaming market out there. I know that much.

And I guess.

Obviously there are people who want to play PS3 games since they're working on a PS3 emulator. They can't resist The Last of Us, Journey, and Heavy Rain!

[The Corparation]

and the next will be Star Citizen.

Not sure I believe that pushes the limits, either.

It's being developed in the 4th generation of Cryengine, I think that should say enough about it being able to push the limits. And of course since its Cryengine it'll still run fine on older and less powerful machines.

[Registug]

Can you people not just enjoy video games regardless of what they are? I don't refuse to read a book if it's only available as an e-copy, even if I infinitely prefer paper.

[The Rich Port]

Can you people not just enjoy video games regardless of what they are? I don't refuse to read a book if it's only available as an e-copy, even if I infinitely prefer paper.

The problem with that is the ease of availability.

And yes, sometimes a hard copy is more available than an electronic one.

[Registug]

The problem with that is the ease of availability.

Won't disagree with you there.

And yes, sometimes a hard copy is more available than an electronic one.

wat

[The Rich Port]

The problem with that is the ease of availability.

Won't disagree with you there.

And yes, sometimes a hard copy is more available than an electronic one.

wat

Hard copies become used.

I recently picked up 10 PC games at a discount store for ~$20.

One electronic copy of one of the games, a collection of Rome: Total War, would probably go for about $3 less than $20.

[Registug]

The point I was trying to make, was that if there is a good book that for whatever reason is ONLY available online, that wouldn't stop me from reading it, even though I consider having a physical copy to be the better experience.

[Corrian]

The point I was trying to make, was that if there is a good book that for whatever reason is ONLY available online, that wouldn't stop me from reading it, even though I consider having a physical copy to be the better experience.

It's weird how when it comes to books, movies, shows, and albums, I want to own physical copies. But when it comes to video games, I don't really give a shit.

Though I have mixed opinions on the slowly decreasing existence of books.

It's being developed in the 4th generation of Cryengine, I think that should say enough about it being able to push the limits. And of course since its Cryengine it'll still run fine on older and less powerful machines.

Pushing the limits of current gaming hardware, yeah. But not the highest end of PC technology out there.

If that makes sense.

[The Rich Port]

The point I was trying to make, was that if there is a good book that for whatever reason is ONLY available online, that wouldn't stop me from reading it, even though I consider having a physical copy to be the better experience.

Well, I was making another point that was better than your point.

[Registug]

no point can be better than my point :<

:P

[Altito Asmoro]

Can you people not just enjoy video games regardless of what they are? I don't refuse to read a book if it's only available as an e-copy, even if I infinitely prefer paper.

It's not a problem.

[Old Vester]

Been playing the Burial at Sea DLC for Bioshock Infinite since episode 2 comes out soon.
I've also been playing it on 1999 mode, which is even harder than survivor mode in Bioshock 1.
I love it because I'm literally surviving room to room.
I hate it because my guns shoot marshmallows and all the splicers took a mixture of tiger blood, steroids, and whatever Charlie Sheen is smoking nowadays, with Mel Gibson's tears of joy after reading Mein Kampf.
It's that damn hard.

[Licana]

Pushing the limits of current gaming hardware, yeah. But not the highest end of PC technology out there.

If that makes sense.

It doesn't, because building a game that can't be run well on current, top-end hardware ala the original crysis is, at best, moronic.

They can't resist The Last of Us, Journey, and Heavy Rain!

It's funny how you think Heavy Rain is a game.

[Old Vester]

Pushing the limits of current gaming hardware, yeah. But not the highest end of PC technology out there.

If that makes sense.

It doesn't, because building a game that can't be run well on current, top-end hardware ala the original crysis is, at best, moronic.

They can't resist The Last of Us, Journey, and Heavy Rain!

It's funny how you think Heavy Rain Movie: The Game is a game.

Fixed.

[Corrian]

Been playing the Burial at Sea DLC for Bioshock Infinite since episode 2 comes out soon.
I've also been playing it on 1999 mode, which is even harder than survivor mode in Bioshock 1.
I love it because I'm literally surviving room to room.
I hate it because my guns shoot marshmallows and all the splicers took a mixture of tiger blood, steroids, and whatever Charlie Sheen is smoking nowadays, with Mel Gibson's tears of joy after reading Mein Kampf.
It's that damn hard.

I need to play it on 1999 mode...I like playing games on their hardest difficulties

It's funny how you think Heavy Rain is a game.

I still haven't figured out how it isn't

[Old Vester]

Been playing the Burial at Sea DLC for Bioshock Infinite since episode 2 comes out soon.
I've also been playing it on 1999 mode, which is even harder than survivor mode in Bioshock 1.
I love it because I'm literally surviving room to room.
I hate it because my guns shoot marshmallows and all the splicers took a mixture of tiger blood, steroids, and whatever Charlie Sheen is smoking nowadays, with Mel Gibson's tears of joy after reading Mein Kampf.
It's that damn hard.

I need to play it on 1999 mode...I like playing games on their hardest difficulties

It's funny how you think Heavy Rain is a game.

I still haven't figured out how it isn't

You will literally survive off of everything you find. Head shots are the only thing that do enough damage to enemies, yet every hit from an enemy will take away about half of your health. It takes about 2 or 3 hits to die. And that's from anything. Plasmids cost more, which means you'll be stuck using the cheapest one, and whatever you do, never have less than a hundred bucks on you, or else when you die, it blows up your PS3 and gives you cancer. (You go back to the main menu)

Also, for Heavy Rain, some argue that because all you do is make decisions in the game, it's more like one of those old school interactive stories, and not really a game because you can't go off from what the developers wanted you to do, only in whatever order you want.