@Xenrathe Completely agree with you there. I don't see how "willingness to pick up a pen" = pro-social behavior. But, then again, I'm not a headline-hunting psychological researcher.
I don't understand this game. It was originally announced as a psychological thriller with fantastical elements, and now it's a war game starring Ellen Page? I don't understand this one bit. It doesn't seem cohesive, and I've yet to see actual gameplay mechanics. Just like Heavy Rain before it, my guess is this is going to be all style no substance.
Torchlight II > D3. And it's more than half the price, no less. And you can play offline. And there are pets. I really don't know why people play D3, but I was definitely one of their suckers in the beginning.
I don't typically get motion sickness while playing games, with a few exceptions, but Metro 2033 was really bad. I've never experienced motion sickness in a game quite that bad before. Adjusting the FOV and sitting further back (while using a controller no less, *gasp*) was really the only thing I could do. That, and taking frequent breaks.
Seeing as how they've decided to not implement FOV in the game is going to cause me to not play it. It's unfortunate, because I was really excited about this game, and assumed that FOV would at least be customizable in the config file...It's pretty disappointing. Lots of games are implementing FOV configuration, which is a good thing. Even Borderlands 2 has it, even though it doesn't really need it (the wide-open spaces and the colorful atmosphere don't really lend to motion sickness). And yet, the one game that has dark, cramped environments and jerky-realistic head movements (Metro, of course), they've decided to not let people who get motion sick enjoy it.
I hope this doesn't come off as bitching to 4A, I understand the cost-benefit analysis they did. I just wish they thought of how they're game is different than other FPSs. It's one of the few games I can think of that people that otherwise don't get motion sickness would, seeing as it's visuals and movements attempt to be very realistic, and it's environments are often very cramped and claustrophobic.
Bah, it's a Carolyn review. Who cares? I'm still buying this game. GS has been lowballing Nintendo games as of late. Like ZombiU 4.5? Was that really necessary?
And this, although I respect this opinion, I really don't see her score making sense considering her qualms with the game. "No checkpoints, too hard at times". Ok, so we're giving this an "slightly above mediocre" score? Just seems weird to me.
I hate cheaters as much as the next guy. But unlike most, I believe that if Blizzard bans a cheater, they should get a refund (albeit partial) for the $60 they put down on the game. It's only fair...
Realize that this isn't a console, it is using your computer to stream the content to it. The little box isn't the processor and doesn't play games. It connects to the OnLive service and requests game information that it sends back to your PC. I'm very dissapointed that they haven't released any technological specs, yet. As someone in the field of computer science I would be very curious how they can manage streaming so much data over a while producing negligible lag. That, and how they can account for input delay on the user end as all the processing will be handled by the server. Meaning, if you hit the A button, your computer must first send the A button signal to your little box, the box will then send it to the server x miles away. The server's processor will do its thing, complete the instruction, then send it back to your box, which will in turn send it back to your computer, which will spit out the current "state" of the game. Every time you do something in the game that is user-input, you must complete this send-receive loop. If they fixed this with a grouped input send-receieve scheme where it waits for multiple inputs, this would defeat the purpose of video gaming because you wouldn't be able to respond to every one of your actions (i.e. if you hit jump accidently, and didn't want to jump in that direction, you could quickly change directions). This wouldn't work in a batched send if your last input was grouped in the last part of an input batch. I just see so many problems concerning sending information and receiving responses that I truly cannot see this working smoothly. Think of your computer. Go on youtube and play a random video thats around 2 minutes long. If you have a normal internet connection, this video will have to load, then will buffer a little, then stream. The streaming process usually does not run smoothly, there are usually hiccups in the best of connections. Usually, you'll have to wait a couple seconds for a good portion of the video load and then play it to avoid any hiccups by letting it buffer the parts that are not being played. Apply this to videogames in which every input movement is critical and needs to be timed perfectly, and in the proper series, and this would cause much false input and horrible lag. Imagine playing a fighter, inputing a combo, and following it up with another move. Then realizing that only the first part of the combo was registered, and instead of the last commands necessary for the combo, it reads and processes the last actions. Basically, if you were doing a hadoken to someone online. You inpup down, down-right, right then punch, then follow up with a punch-punch-punch combo, the game only registers the down and down-right, and because of the delay, has to come back to retrieve the rest of the combo. At that point, you already have another punch-punch-punch combo on the "stack", to which the service retrieves and processes. No more combo. I can see a thousand things wrong with this service. In theory, it makes perfect sense. Stream a game from one supercomputer to a smaller computer. Let the small computer handle the input and the big computer handle the processes. But, how the heck can you guarantee no data corruption, missing inputs, lag, smoothness, etc when you RELY on the fact that your computer is only RETRIEVING information from another only when it SENDS information first. If you think about how many times you would need to send/receive from the server (which is, every time you input a button), and considering that you may hit three different buttons in a matter of half a second, then it needs to send the every button input to the server, process everything along with that input, and send it back in less 1/3 of a half a second in order to ensure that every button input is read and processed in PROPER ORDER and to ensure that on the server-side your three button presses are processes AS IF THEY WERE OCCURING EXACTLY IN THE TIME IT TOOK YOU TO PRESS THEM. I ask OnLive this: How is this possible? Unless they've invented some amazing buffering/streaming/data processing/information transfer/data compression/etc algorithms and solved some fundamental Computer Science problems that have stumped experts for decades, then I don't see how seemless console-worthy gameplay is possible. Notice, I'm not saying this is not possible. It definitely is. I just don't see how you can possibly play games without ANY LAG, regardless of how fast your connection speed is. And, with most games I know of, ANY form of lag, and the game is basically ruined. As a gamer, I'm sure you know.
Timeaisis' comments