- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
My Xbox One is irritating me. I should just call it "Install Box" because half of my time is spent watching progress bars.
Things that make you angry in video games.
- Thread starter spaps
- Start date
Carlson
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
Reminds me of when the PS3 first launched and the running gag was the need to install all of your games instead of just popping them in and playing. Now we don't even care any more.
I'm really not that interested in the new generation of consoles quite yet. For one, there's only a handful of exclusives and I don't much feel like getting a brand new console right after its release so I can have two or three new games and HD HD versions of existing ones. Second, they're unproven and God knows when the next "Red Ring of Death" is going to crop up in this generation. And finally, it's just not a big enough improvement to justify it. The 360 and PS3 are worlds ahead of the original Xbox and PS2 (especially going from PS2 to PS3), which made it easy to justify buying them relatively early on (I got my 360 a year after release and the PS3 3 years after). The Xbox One and PS4 just seem like the past consoles, but shinier. There's no "Metal Gear Solid 3 vs. Uncharted 2" going on here.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
Forced Defeats. Example you fight a boss only to get it to a certain level of heath and get your ass kicked...
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2013
Not to mention a big problem with current next generation consoles is how not all of the games run at 1080p
Like every week I seem to hear a problem with an upcoming xbone release being at like 960p or 1000p or some odd ratio of pixles while the PS4 version is at 1080. Meanwhile 1080p in games has been available since the original Xbox (mind you not all games were compatable). Current next gen consoles are built on (x86) technology and it's already becoming outdated in the PC space. It's very likely in 2 years anything on a PC will look worlds ahead of games on a console.
Carlson
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
I know Ryse has been touted for its graphics, but I'm pretty sure the top gaming PCs are capable of matching or exceeding it. I remember when the 360 first came out, Perfect Dark Zero was a launch title. For someone who hadn't seen anything more graphically complex than Halo 2 and never really looking at what the next gen provided, Zero seemed almost unreal in how good the graphics were. But as pretty and "obviously next-gen" as it looked, it had enough flaws in the voice acting and storyline to make it less appealing. I still play it occasionally, and I've beat it twice. But it's nothing but a fun romp for a few hours. The PS2, Gamecube, and Xbox had the same jump from the days of the N64 and Playstation (probably an even bigger jump).
The new consoles just aren't providing that same "wow factor" for me. I view the Xbox One as a slightly prettier Xbox 360. And that's probably going to be a big problem for trying to make the full transition to the next generation and retiring the 360 and PS3: people are going to want to hold onto their current consoles as much as they can, because the next gen just isn't "next gen" enough.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2013
Ryse son of Rome is pretty linear. I mean it isn't an open world title or anything, it's just an action game. It has very little reason to pick it up other than it's graphics and it's going to be one of those early launch titles we all picked up and sold as soon as a killer app came out.
And yes if they made a proper PC port it could be easily run on a PC. It's graphics are on par with the Witcher 2 and that came out in 2011. (Still a gorgeous game by all respects but it's going to be greatly outclassed very soon).
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
The industry loves to tout superior graphics as their big selling point, probably because the masses that only give a shit about shiny graphics are numerous and easy to please. But that's gonna be a double edged sword when Sony and Microsoft are unable to answer the obvious question - what makes the PS4 and xbone a step above their predecessors? Why should we drop $500 plus the price of games on this shit?
And while it'll change at some point, right now their response seems to be to give consumers even less reason to upgrade, because most of the big titles coming out this year are still available on 7th gen systems. Hell, Ground Zeroes is optimized for PS3 and 360, not for next-gen.
And while it'll change at some point, right now their response seems to be to give consumers even less reason to upgrade, because most of the big titles coming out this year are still available on 7th gen systems. Hell, Ground Zeroes is optimized for PS3 and 360, not for next-gen.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
Honestly, that whole 'ooh shiny grafix' thing is rapidly hitting a point of diminishing returns. I really don't see how much better looking games are going to get. Dark Souls II is currently my best example; it is amazingly beautiful, and it's on a 360. And I'm sure they squeezed the 360 like a melon to get it this good looking, but still, what is a hardware upgrade going to improve upon?
Of course, if this generation is any indication, they're just going to start bolting on useless gimmicks like crazy.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2013
I have heard this argument
so many times
Since I was a kid
I used to actually say this argument when Half Life 2 came out and it had facial animations and humans that sort of resembled people a little.
Half Life 2 looked like this
and in 5 years I guarantee people are going to say "Dark souls 2? That ugly looking game?" I would put money on it.
Graphic technology will keep going until games look to the point where they are indistinguishable from an actual photograph of a place. It's just that we haven't seen what the future looks like so we're quick to judge that it'll never happen.
The argument toward pixels isn't so much about the resolution as how the Xbone is weaker than the PS4 at launch. And that it cannot run a game at a PC standard resolution at launch. People expect that the games are going to look better but the xbone already has a large performance bottleneck at launch that devs cannot get around.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
That's exactly it. I wonder how much focus they're going to put into 2K/4K hd shit, and 3D as well.
Carlson
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
They'll strive for it, but I've been reading some editorials on the ever increasing pixel count (usually from places focusing on cameras) and it's looking like the pixel race isn't going to last much longer. There's simply a point very close to where we are now where the human eye will no longer be capable of distinguishing the difference; adding more pixels just won't be noticeable. I can't remember all of the details right now, but we're actually trying to move toward a new system for color that doesn't rely on individual pixels for the gradient.
It's always possible for graphics to get better, of course. We're still not at the point where we can get, say, something that looks like Avatar. And after "photorealistic" graphics would come true realism, where the graphics are indistinguishable from reality. The graphics wars won't end until we finally become capable of that.
Also, I don't think 3D is going to be big just yet. Right now 3D in the home requires a special TV and wearing glasses, which casual users just don't care about and even hardcore gamers won't get too excited for. The Oculus Rift and similar VR tech that provides the illusion of 3D is getting more attention because it's compatible with existing technology instead of needing you to go out and buy a new monitor or tower, but it still requires more money and the willingness to wear the damn thing on your head. Plus current 3D tech is notorious for causing eye strain and illness, which is the real killer.
The problem with gimmicks is that they tend to remain gimmicks. The only one to succeed so far was the Wii's motion controls, which I think appealed to non-gamers because the control scheme was more intuitive than memorizing a controller and you could take advantage of it for things like fitness "games" so people who ordinarily avoid consoles like the plague would be encouraged to get one. The Kinect and Playstation Move probably could have gotten in on it more if they were priced and marketed toward the casual and non-gamer market as well (and in the case of the Kinect, worked easily).
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2013
You just blew my mind. I want to know more.
I honestly don't see VR going anywhere so long as it requires the user to wear any kind of clunky apparatus on their head. My own impression is that consumers have come to expect that as time goes on, tech will allow them greater and greater awareness and multitasking capabilities... but wearing a VR helmet necessarily commits you to whatever one application you're currently running, and shuts out whatever else to which you expect your senses to have access - whether that's a TV show, or another game, or even just being able to concurrently game and converse with people in the same room. I think there is a reflexive compunction toward committing oneself to one application while ignoring all others.
This was a pretty successful selling point for the Wii, but not overwhelmingly so, and currently the Wii U's numbers are not good. (I've been seeing rumors that Nintendo is considering moving to doing just portable games and abandoning consoles altogether.) To the naive eye, the casual market may seem like a vast untapped wealth, but I think the other edge of that sword is that their devotion, even once won, remains casual as well - a lot of people were won over by Wii Sports, but that didn't inspire them to make the Wii profitable by diving into Zelda and Mario.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
I like how my gaming PC blows all of the current consoles out of the water. It always amuses me when I see a hardcore Sony fanboy toting the line about how the PS4 has the best graphics, and when someone brings up how much more powerful a PC is, they do an about face and start screaming about how graphics don't actually matter.
Carlson
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
I went and looked it up again. It's vector graphics, Vector graphics are based around geometrical primitives like lines and shapes, and don't lose clarity as you zoom in unlike polygons. At the end of 2012, some Brits estimated that within five years, vector graphics would overtake pixel-based bitmaps.
Well, Nintendo actually did something smart with the Wii: they sold it for a profit. The PS3 was sold for a loss on each console sold, as is the Wii U right now. This kind of marketing relies on the console being popular enough that people will not only buy it in droves, but also buy peripherals, games, and paid services to make up the difference. The Wii was optimized for cheap production so it could be sold for an actual profit per console, and marketed in such a way that millions of consoles could be sold. It's not a big chunk, but it meant that they weren't just operating at a loss and hoping to be popular enough to counter it.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
1: Hard does not have to mean cheap
Believe it or not, games where selecting Hard mode, only makes you take more damage or makes the enemies' attacks more cheaper. When I play hard mode, I want the enemies to be smarter, stronger numerous, or armed with better weapons, and more likely to use their cooler attacks. Fireballs become lasers, bullets become missiles, The Contra series actually got this right. So do beat-em up games. Sure the enemies shoot faster or hit harder, but killing enemies in Hard mode, as well as completing stages nets you a higher bonus.
2. Catch me if you can!
Your enemy had decided to pussy out... So what. No fight right? whether you're trying to catch a rabbit who has a star you need, Super Mario 64 or say chasing someone you need to assassinate on a motorcycle in the GTA series, You have to be fast and stick to a path, or your mission is bust.
Frustrating when your target can easily go around you or leads you into a high traffic area.
3. Escort/precious cargo/Protect this person or start over
Something somewhere has to be kept mint condition. You could be carrying a dino egg through an area full of enemies. Or protecting a hacker as well as yourself as she disables and redirects an EMP satellite to crash to earth. Or simply stealing a car.. one of three you have to deliver within 3 minutes...... in mint condition with time and traffic as your enemy. One collision, one drop, or a few stray bullets, and the mission fails.
4. Oh shit!Where's the floor?/I dont like high places....
Certain death awaits below you in the form molten rock/metal, corrsive liquids spikes that will impale you, a long drop, sharks, or twirling blades. Whatever it is, it will mean death. And you get very little ground to walk on! One step could mean life or death. You could be trying to board and airship from the outside, jumping from missile to missile while trying to shoot down a fleeing mothership that your ally's helicopter can't catch... or you have to take it slow walking across super thin ice, while a shark waits there for you to make one wrong step. You're walking on terra infirma. One wrong step could cost you everything. But say it doesn't mean your end.... Oh, you're in a vertical level where you have to climb? With no shortcuts back up? Sucks to be you. Hope the level isn't an ice level as well!
But these don't ruin the game... Every game has at least one frustrating level.
But oddly enough.... I saved the worst for last!
5: "What exactly did I need all these lives for?"
You expected a good game, and so far it's all right. But the enemies aren't all that intimidating, The bosses only pose a moderate challenge at best and good lord.... lives galore. They're not even in secret places. Now having lots of lives is good. But what purpose does it serve when there's a checkpoint around the corner. Oh... No need to life grind. The final boss isn't all that tricky! Oh wait.. You died? No sweat you have 9000+ resurrections and hey you you might have lost a few, but you've beaten the final guy... You've saved your woman who will get abducted in the sequel.
When there's a secret trick involved towards getting lives , it's okay. When you EARN the lives by playing through an entire level or play a level where you get two lives, lose one and repeat, or win them through games of chance or skill, Then you've earned those lives. but when the game hands them out to you... What fun is it?
But that's just my two cents.
Believe it or not, games where selecting Hard mode, only makes you take more damage or makes the enemies' attacks more cheaper. When I play hard mode, I want the enemies to be smarter, stronger numerous, or armed with better weapons, and more likely to use their cooler attacks. Fireballs become lasers, bullets become missiles, The Contra series actually got this right. So do beat-em up games. Sure the enemies shoot faster or hit harder, but killing enemies in Hard mode, as well as completing stages nets you a higher bonus.
2. Catch me if you can!
Your enemy had decided to pussy out... So what. No fight right? whether you're trying to catch a rabbit who has a star you need, Super Mario 64 or say chasing someone you need to assassinate on a motorcycle in the GTA series, You have to be fast and stick to a path, or your mission is bust.
Frustrating when your target can easily go around you or leads you into a high traffic area.
3. Escort/precious cargo/Protect this person or start over
Something somewhere has to be kept mint condition. You could be carrying a dino egg through an area full of enemies. Or protecting a hacker as well as yourself as she disables and redirects an EMP satellite to crash to earth. Or simply stealing a car.. one of three you have to deliver within 3 minutes...... in mint condition with time and traffic as your enemy. One collision, one drop, or a few stray bullets, and the mission fails.
4. Oh shit!Where's the floor?/I dont like high places....
Certain death awaits below you in the form molten rock/metal, corrsive liquids spikes that will impale you, a long drop, sharks, or twirling blades. Whatever it is, it will mean death. And you get very little ground to walk on! One step could mean life or death. You could be trying to board and airship from the outside, jumping from missile to missile while trying to shoot down a fleeing mothership that your ally's helicopter can't catch... or you have to take it slow walking across super thin ice, while a shark waits there for you to make one wrong step. You're walking on terra infirma. One wrong step could cost you everything. But say it doesn't mean your end.... Oh, you're in a vertical level where you have to climb? With no shortcuts back up? Sucks to be you. Hope the level isn't an ice level as well!
But these don't ruin the game... Every game has at least one frustrating level.
But oddly enough.... I saved the worst for last!
5: "What exactly did I need all these lives for?"
You expected a good game, and so far it's all right. But the enemies aren't all that intimidating, The bosses only pose a moderate challenge at best and good lord.... lives galore. They're not even in secret places. Now having lots of lives is good. But what purpose does it serve when there's a checkpoint around the corner. Oh... No need to life grind. The final boss isn't all that tricky! Oh wait.. You died? No sweat you have 9000+ resurrections and hey you you might have lost a few, but you've beaten the final guy... You've saved your woman who will get abducted in the sequel.
When there's a secret trick involved towards getting lives , it's okay. When you EARN the lives by playing through an entire level or play a level where you get two lives, lose one and repeat, or win them through games of chance or skill, Then you've earned those lives. but when the game hands them out to you... What fun is it?
But that's just my two cents.
Carlson
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
Nobody ever told the Call of Duty creators about that. Put one of the newer (Modern Warfare and beyond) games on Veteran and you're not even playing a video game as much as you are completing a challenge of hand-eye coordination and memorization.
Not only do you take 4 shots or fewer from the weakest weapons in the game to die, but enemies have very fast reflexes, laser-like accuracy, and specifically home in on you and ignore literally everyone else no matter what in order to shoot you in the face. This becomes a bit odd when you realize that most of the time you're a regular grunt or otherwise indistinguishable from the rest of the team while the prominently marked officers or specialty units like flamethrowers and machine gunners are ignored. The only way to complete a level is to hide, pop out and shoot the first enemy you see as fast as possible, duck back until your health regenerates, and repeat.
And then Treyarch decided while making World at War that this tactic was just too easy, so they began making the game literally spawn grenades at your position if you hid for too long.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
Game overs that take a while to finish. Yes game, I know I suck just let me play already!
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Ever played Mount & Blade where during a skirmish, one of your troops is killed? That angers me since I have to deal with fighting the Nords and one of them manages to kill my huscarl or my sword sister. Seriously, I wish any slash to the head from my sword of war would one hit such annoying enemies before they manage to kill my precious soldiers. Seriously, this made me rage-quit more than the Four Kings from Dark Souls.
Carlson
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
I'm trying a few mods for it, like 1860s America and Anno Domini 1237. 1860s is very easy because of how you can ride around with a carbine shooting everyone, but 1237 is hard as shit and throws lots of guys at you. And it bumps up the AI; imagine starting the game with two dozen horsemen all riding straight toward you....with their shields up.
I lost all but one lancer, and the mod lets you play as other troops in your unit after you get knocked out. I defeated them by repeatedly circling around and making full speed lance hits straight into their horse's heads, then circling around and whacking any of the now dismounted infantry when they lowered their shields for an attack.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
I tried playing Call of Duty: World at War again, and I discovered my absolute hatred for turret sections and QTEs.