GoodKingMog's forum posts

Avatar image for goodkingmog
GoodKingMog

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 GoodKingMog
Member since 2015 • 167 Posts

@Cloud_imperium said:
@goodkingmog said:
@Cloud_imperium said:
@Toxic-Seahorse said:
@Cloud_imperium said:
@FelipeInside said:
@04dcarraher said:
Anyone remember Crysis what they showed us before the game released and after? No one threw a fit.....

Actually, the whole internet threw a fit at that Crysis footage vs final engine.

I think the complaints are just because people are getting tired of shown one thing, and then delivered another.

Crysis still looked impressive. Witcher 3 doesn't even look like a same game anymore. Even its art style is changed and it's a lot more colorful like a painting. It's like they scraped the old art style that was faithful to first two games because it was "too depressing" for younger audiences. Not to mention number of NPCs.

Have you even played TW3? It's just as colorful as TW2. I don't know why people seem to think TW2 was a dark game, it wasn't, especially Flotsam. Also, the subject matter of the quests is a hell of a lot darker content wise than anything in TW1 or TW2. As a matter of fact, the entire atmosphere of TW3 is a hell of a lot more "depressing" than the first two games. They clearly didn't do it for younger audiences. Maybe play the game before bashing it.

TW 2 is darker. TW 3 is more colorful.

no, it isnt. once again, you are wrong.

Are you stupid or what? That Witcher 2 screenshot is from Alpha version. Get a clue kid... BTW that screenshot still has dark tone. At this point I'm 100% sure that you are just a troll.

even more proof. again. you are wrong. get used to being proven wrong cloud, because you are wrong a lot. witcher 2 was equally or more colorful than witcher 3.

Avatar image for goodkingmog
GoodKingMog

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By GoodKingMog
Member since 2015 • 167 Posts

@Cloud_imperium said:
@Toxic-Seahorse said:
@Cloud_imperium said:
@FelipeInside said:
@04dcarraher said:
@Cloud_imperium said:

No shit. Only fanboys were unable to not see that. Now that they have money from Pre orders and people weren't ignoring the downgrade even after the game's release, they've finally decided address this issue. He's still dodging some questions though. "PC devs", yeah right,,, not anymore. Just like most other multiplats, Witcher 3 is targeted for lowest common denominator. It's Xbox One game primarily.

Anyone remember Crysis what they showed us before the game released and after? No one threw a fit.....

Actually, the whole internet threw a fit at that Crysis footage vs final engine.

I think the complaints are just because people are getting tired of shown one thing, and then delivered another.

Crysis still looked impressive. Witcher 3 doesn't even look like a same game anymore. Even its art style is changed and it's a lot more colorful like a painting. It's like they scraped the old art style that was faithful to first two games because it was "too depressing" for younger audiences. Not to mention number of NPCs.

Have you even played TW3? It's just as colorful as TW2. I don't know why people seem to think TW2 was a dark game, it wasn't, especially Flotsam. Also, the subject matter of the quests is a hell of a lot darker content wise than anything in TW1 or TW2. As a matter of fact, the entire atmosphere of TW3 is a hell of a lot more "depressing" than the first two games. They clearly didn't do it for younger audiences. Maybe play the game before bashing it.

TW 2 is darker. TW 3 is more colorful.

no, it isnt. once again, you are wrong.

Avatar image for goodkingmog
GoodKingMog

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 GoodKingMog
Member since 2015 • 167 Posts

RIP Nintendo

after the WiiU, and then to pull this? i will never purchase another nintendo product again.

Avatar image for goodkingmog
GoodKingMog

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 GoodKingMog
Member since 2015 • 167 Posts

@FelipeInside said:
@goodkingmog said:

anyone know of any decent desks designed specifically for gaming? like something that has hooks to hang your headset on, speaker stands, and a wide desk area to make using a large mousepad and such easy? also, enough area to support multiple monitors and cable management would be great.

all i can find really is this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0058O8EN8/ref=ox_sc_act_title_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

but, it doesnt look that great IMO. any suggestions?

Hey TC

I went with a desk similar to this one.

Mine is 1.8m by 1.8m (sides)

They are great because they give you lots of room for speakers, peripherals, case etc.

If you have a 5.1 surround system they are perfect because you put the rear speakers on the end of each side and it gives you that surround sound without having cables around the room.

I'm at work right now but if you want I can take a photo of my home setup to show you how everything has it's place. (just PM me).

that desk looks pretty nice. worried that i would have issues attaching my dual display mounts though

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00VHN8DPI/ref=crt_ewc_title_dp_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A1JV95TU0041V3

i have 2 27" monitors and have found that pretty much no desk is large enough if i dont use that mount. plus the flexibility of it is just great.

Avatar image for goodkingmog
GoodKingMog

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By GoodKingMog
Member since 2015 • 167 Posts

@AlexKidd5000 said:
@FelipeInside said:
@AlexKidd5000 said:
@JigglyWiggly_ said:

This isn't a blog. I'm just letting anyone else who reads this know the downsides.

And thanks for pointing them out, Linux does have weaknesses too, I don't want to mislead lol.

What do you get from using Linux though Alex? Is it just an anti-Microsoft attitude or does Linux really have something that neither Windows or MacOS can give you?

Right now, not much. Lack of software support like jiggly pointed out, is the biggest issue. The aspect of linux I like the most is that it's free and open, and gives the user choice, and full control over it. Basically ever since I ditched consoles, and came to PC for gaming, I have developed a love for openness, and freedom. Yeah, Windows is "open", and gives users a good amount of freedom, but it's not free, and it is closed source. Linux is a whole nother level of freedom.

free and open is great.... but not being able to run like.... *anything* on it pretty much makes it worthless, no?

Avatar image for goodkingmog
GoodKingMog

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By GoodKingMog
Member since 2015 • 167 Posts

anyone know of any decent desks designed specifically for gaming? like something that has hooks to hang your headset on, speaker stands, and a wide desk area to make using a large mousepad and such easy? also, enough area to support multiple monitors and cable management would be great.

all i can find really is this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0058O8EN8/ref=ox_sc_act_title_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

but, it doesnt look that great IMO. any suggestions?

Avatar image for goodkingmog
GoodKingMog

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 GoodKingMog
Member since 2015 • 167 Posts

only audio issues i have noticed is that if a character starts walking during a cutscene, the footstep sound will continue to play even after they stop. it is annoying.

Avatar image for goodkingmog
GoodKingMog

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By GoodKingMog
Member since 2015 • 167 Posts

date is the only thing noteworthy here. 90% of the market is on vista for later, and will be getting a free upgrade to win10 so meeeeh.

Avatar image for goodkingmog
GoodKingMog

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 GoodKingMog
Member since 2015 • 167 Posts

@Cloud_imperium said:
@goodkingmog said:
@Cloud_imperium said:
@goodkingmog said:
@Cloud_imperium said:

It makes sense but you just don't want to accept the reality... "Big difference" makes no difference. 99% ports look better on PC... Devs themselves said they achieved parity between two versions. PC games are not known to achieve parity.

For reference, go see Witcher 2, Crysis or Battlefield 3. Witcher 3 was made for lowest common denominator... Same assets are being used on all platforms.

The only difference is texture resolution, better shadows, more draw distance etc,,, just like 99% ports out there. I know it hurts but that's the truth. Does that make the game bad? Absolutely not.

are you retarded? ofcourse the same assets are being used... except the ones on PC are much higher resolution. you really think they would completely remake assets for use on different platforms? that is absurd. your argument is idiotic and unfounded. also, you did not address that you claimed that the witcher 3 was an "xbox one game primarily"

I am sure you can have a discussion without acting like an E-thug. So, please try harder and next time you'll finally be able to talk without personal insults... And yeah it is using same assets because those assets were created for lowest common denominator, aka Xbox One game primarily. If your brain is not overheating then think harder and you'll understand... It's not that hard.

if you knew anything about game development.... which you dont... clearly... you would know that you dont create assets for the lowest spec, and then upscale them. you do the complete opposite. textures and models are created at a MUCH higher fidelity, and then scaled back to meet hardware demands.

so no, the assets werent created for the xbox one and PS4, and then "scaled up" for PC.... exactly the opposite happened. they were scaled down for the xbox one and PS4.

LMAO. Is this guy serious or what? You create assets that can run on all platforms. That's the reason why cross gen games don't look as good as current gen only games. Get a clue... If devs go too far to create assets that older hardware can't handle, they are forced to re-create them or in some cases rewrite the entire engine for them specifically. For reference, see Witcher 2 and Crysis 1.

Assets are not just higher res textures or lower res textures but high poly models, more AI calculations, Exclusive graphical features and so on. Assets made for High End PCs don't work on Consoles, so basically you are forced to make 2 separate versions in that case. That's why devs target lowest common denominator, so they don't have to make 2 separate versions. Instead they make one version that works on all platforms.

are YOU serious? you clearly have no idea how games are actually made. you do NOT create assets at the level that they are going to be used on all platforms... what you said is not even remotely true and completely moronic.

you scale assets back to match the hardware... you do not create assets below or at the standard for the hardware. textures are created at MANY times the resolution that you see them in a final build for a game..... same with models, they are created at much higher poly counts than actually end up in the game.

you dont have to make 2 separate versions of anything. you simply lower texture resolution and poly counts until they meet performance standards.... for **** sake man, do a little reading before sounding like a blathering idiot.

Avatar image for goodkingmog
GoodKingMog

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 GoodKingMog
Member since 2015 • 167 Posts

@Cloud_imperium said:
@goodkingmog said:
@Cloud_imperium said:
@goodkingmog said:
@Cloud_imperium said:
@goodkingmog said:

thats funny, because it runs and looks better on PS4....

That is to be expected, just like how PC version looks better than PS4. Xbox One version looks worse than PS4 because it is weaker. Duh. But assets are made for lowest common denominator, slightly enhanced for other versions.

your comment literally makes no sense... and you have no proof at all that it is a "xbox one game primarily".

if you think the PC version is just "slightly enhanced" then *snort*.....you clearly havent seen it next to the console versions. there is a pretty big difference in visual fidelity.

It makes sense but you just don't want to accept the reality... "Big difference" makes no difference. 99% ports look better on PC... Devs themselves said they achieved parity between two versions. PC games are not known to achieve parity.

For reference, go see Witcher 2, Crysis or Battlefield 3. Witcher 3 was made for lowest common denominator... Same assets are being used on all platforms.

The only difference is texture resolution, better shadows, more draw distance etc,,, just like 99% ports out there. I know it hurts but that's the truth. Does that make the game bad? Absolutely not.

are you retarded? ofcourse the same assets are being used... except the ones on PC are much higher resolution. you really think they would completely remake assets for use on different platforms? that is absurd. your argument is idiotic and unfounded. also, you did not address that you claimed that the witcher 3 was an "xbox one game primarily"

I am sure you can have a discussion without acting like an E-thug. So, please try harder and next time you'll finally be able to talk without personal insults... And yeah it is using same assets because those assets were created for lowest common denominator, aka Xbox One game primarily. If your brain is not overheating then think harder and you'll understand... It's not that hard.

if you knew anything about game development.... which you dont... clearly... you would know that you dont create assets for the lowest spec, and then upscale them. you do the complete opposite. textures and models are created at a MUCH higher fidelity, and then scaled back to meet hardware demands.

so no, the assets werent created for the xbox one and PS4, and then "scaled up" for PC.... exactly the opposite happened. they were scaled down for the xbox one and PS4.