Only been playing for 2 days. But, the game is fun as hell to me. I decided to record some video and found out that the game gets the same FPS at 1920x1080 as I do at 1280x720. Recording with this game is difficult. I spent an hour trying to smooth out the video to remove the jitters. Probably going to record lots of clips and make a montage of sorts.(Funny things?)
Only been playing for 2 days. But, the game is fun as hell to me. I decided to record some video and found out that the game gets the same FPS at 1920x1080 as I do at 1280x720. Recording with this game is difficult. I spent an hour trying to smooth out the video to remove the jitters. Probably going to record lots of clips and make a montage of sorts.(Funny things?)
smithing being overpowered means game = ez?
having a choice of difficulty = game is worthless (?!)
The game looks good. FYI on my HD6950 and i7 I still often struggle to get 60fps, and that's not because of bad optimization. it's a huge world, not small detailed scenes. but no, there are some unnecessarily bad textures. shit game, wouldn't buy.
lol at how everyone has started going back on their opinions once uzique started posting. good job
having a choice of difficulty = game is worthless (?!)
The game looks good. FYI on my HD6950 and i7 I still often struggle to get 60fps, and that's not because of bad optimization. it's a huge world, not small detailed scenes. but no, there are some unnecessarily bad textures. shit game, wouldn't buy.
lol at how everyone has started going back on their opinions once uzique started posting. good job
Last edited by Lucien (2011-11-26 03:52:23)
lol at how one of the most 'discerning' and supposedly 'elitist' gamers on bf2s is suckered into some fantasy geek blowjob.
my point about shit textures is that the visuals don't make up for the patchy storytelling and crappy, boring, repetitive gameplay.
i'm dividing the game into different aspects to try and see where the plus-points are. i can't find any. please do let me know, you apparently know a lot about computer games.
my point about shit textures is that the visuals don't make up for the patchy storytelling and crappy, boring, repetitive gameplay.
i'm dividing the game into different aspects to try and see where the plus-points are. i can't find any. please do let me know, you apparently know a lot about computer games.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
so one minute the game looks shit, the next it's just that it doesn't look good enough to make up for the gameplay? the gameplay that is so bad because of a few exploitable, grindable, boring ways to break it? Every elder scrolls game has had the same. Most RPGs have the same. they're single-player games, not an MMO with a dev team dedicated to perfectly balancing it. If you play Skyrim with that mindset, it's not going to work. Do you even enjoy games anymore, besides their social/online aspect? because what you've put forward hardly explains how badly you think of skyrim. It's why I said before you bought this game that you'd just get bored of it and start telling us how shit it is all day.
because you know it's a shit game? sorry i haven't jumped on board to spend 100 hours collecting books and left-mouse clicking enemies to death with you. i guess that constitutes an "awesome" gaming experience in 2011. and what's the difference between those two statements about visuals? they both qualitatively say the same thing. stop trying to argue back by being a pedantic grammarian. poor effort tbh.
anyway enjoy it, i'm out of this thread before i get banned for asking rpg geeks to do a very hard thing and explain to me why they enjoy their half-rate games.
anyway enjoy it, i'm out of this thread before i get banned for asking rpg geeks to do a very hard thing and explain to me why they enjoy their half-rate games.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-11-26 04:13:11)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I just take this guys comments with a pinch of salt. Last month he was dead set on how shit BF3 was, slating it here, there and everywhere. Now he's a self confessed 'pro' at the game. Hell, maybe he just likes doing stuff he hates, i don't know/care.
It's not hard to pick faults at games, if you look hard enough, or if you're just that way inclined (as he seems to be), you can fault anything and everything.
+ who would you rather listen to, a professional reviewer (granted SOME may have external pressures influencing their reviews), or some angry kid who posts on a forum?
It's not hard to pick faults at games, if you look hard enough, or if you're just that way inclined (as he seems to be), you can fault anything and everything.
+ who would you rather listen to, a professional reviewer (granted SOME may have external pressures influencing their reviews), or some angry kid who posts on a forum?
What is there to say? The story isn't magnificently focused because the breadth of the game is so large. The gameplay is repetitive if you let it (try switching out combat styles), but like any other game wears out in time.
The first few fights against dragons are cool. The landscape's pretty cool and mostly unrestricted. The game's fully voiced over (except your silent-ass self; Two Worlds II beats it there). It's scored well and has decent sound effects. Beyond that, if you're not a single player RPG fan and don't care for questing on one, you're probably not going to play for very long.
My biggest complaint is not being able to experiment with custom spells, but it doesn't hurt the game that much.
The first few fights against dragons are cool. The landscape's pretty cool and mostly unrestricted. The game's fully voiced over (except your silent-ass self; Two Worlds II beats it there). It's scored well and has decent sound effects. Beyond that, if you're not a single player RPG fan and don't care for questing on one, you're probably not going to play for very long.
My biggest complaint is not being able to experiment with custom spells, but it doesn't hurt the game that much.
angry kid? i'm 22. i've played games a lot. i have a far better experience and point of view than any 'professional' reviewer, who's only 'profession' is to suck off the corporate man that pays his monthly cheque. comparing a person that actually plays his games intensively to a game reviewer in the worst reviewing industry of them ALL (porn reviews are more reliable than game reviews ffs) is your first dumb move. secondly, where am i saying i am a "pro" at bf3? i am criticising the game everyday, still, only now with concrete and definite examples and experience behind my critique. the only thing i have ever said about bf3 and skill is to call out roc18 for thinking he is "great" at a game where it simply isn't possible to be "great", by design.Pure_Beef_68 wrote:
I just take this guys comments with a pinch of salt. Last month he was dead set on how shit BF3 was, slating it here, there and everywhere. Now he's a self confessed 'pro' at the game. Hell, maybe he just likes doing stuff he hates, i don't know/care.
It's not hard to pick faults at games, if you look hard enough, or if you're just that way inclined (as he seems to be), you can fault anything and everything.
+ who would you rather listen to, a professional reviewer (granted SOME may have external pressures influencing their reviews), or some angry kid who posts on a forum?
try harder.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
it's fun because of the character progression, fundamentally, and everything else in the game - the scale, the actually quite nice graphics, the storylines, the world - are what support that. that's the why. It's the familiar treadmill/power-up experience with a much more detailed, large, and interesting world than is normal for an RPG. There's nothing that's nearly as bad as you make it out to be
I'd also like to add that fighting in first person seems to work better than it did in Oblivion.
also you can electrocute crabs
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Sideways.
sorry but to me 'progression' doesn't involve 'playing the game on a setting so easy that it throws itself at your feet' nor is it 'progression' to have the best armour in the game within the first 10 hours of gameplay. progression is meant to scale. this game does not. you know those parts in half life 1? opposing forces, maybe? when huge squads of marines would come in the trainyard? and you'd keep dying? and the ai was really simple yet just advanced enough to give you a different challenge every time? and you had to keep on quick loading the episode to figure it out and eventually get it right? that's 'progression'. starting a new savefile and having the best gear in the game in 10 hours, and then waltzing around one-hitting everything... is not progression. it's a boring roleplay geek sandbox.Lucien wrote:
it's fun because of the character progression, fundamentally, and everything else in the game - the scale, the actually quite nice graphics, the storylines, the world - are what support that. that's the why. It's the familiar treadmill/power-up experience with a much more detailed, large, and interesting world than is normal for an RPG. There's nothing that's nearly as bad as you make it out to be
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Hell, let me change that: an arrogant, self inflated, 22-year-old. I'd like to see how your 'experience' compares to that of a professional reviewer. Whilst some of the bigger game sites may be influenced by big corporations, there are plenty of smaller independent sites that do not come under that sort of pressure, and, funnily enough have given positive reviews of this game. As for being the worst reviewing industry of them all, please elaborate? (For the love of god, don't say it's subjective.)Uzique wrote:
angry kid? i'm 22. i've played games a lot. i have a far better experience and point of view than any 'professional' reviewer, who's only 'profession' is to suck off the corporate man that pays his monthly cheque. comparing a person that actually plays his games intensively to a game reviewer in the worst reviewing industry of them ALL (porn reviews are more reliable than game reviews ffs) is your first dumb move. secondly, where am i saying i am a "pro" at bf3? i am criticising the game everyday, still, only now with concrete and definite examples and experience behind my critique. the only thing i have ever said about bf3 and skill is to call out roc18 for thinking he is "great" at a game where it simply isn't possible to be "great", by design.Pure_Beef_68 wrote:
I just take this guys comments with a pinch of salt. Last month he was dead set on how shit BF3 was, slating it here, there and everywhere. Now he's a self confessed 'pro' at the game. Hell, maybe he just likes doing stuff he hates, i don't know/care.
It's not hard to pick faults at games, if you look hard enough, or if you're just that way inclined (as he seems to be), you can fault anything and everything.
+ who would you rather listen to, a professional reviewer (granted SOME may have external pressures influencing their reviews), or some angry kid who posts on a forum?
try harder.
As for BF3, do you enjoy the game?
my experience is far greater than any professional reviewer. reviewers are good only at hyping upcoming games and presenting the opinion of a casual gamer in journalistic prose. the funny thing about video-game reviewing is that you don't require any skills, in the professional or gaming sense. you require modest journalistic ability and... well, that's it. 'a passion for games', i suppose. it's not the same as book reviews or film reviews, where someone asks the critic "what are your credentials?" because game reviewers don't have any. they're just mouthpieces for influential websites (and the publishing corporations behind them). show me a game reviewer that has played a game professionally. show me a game reviewer that has even sunk 100+ hours into a game before reviewing it. actually, fuck that, i'll make it far easier for you: show me a game reviewer that ever has the balls to actually say a bad, critical thing about a game. you'll struggle. i'd love to continue this debate with you via pm, but i'm afraid i'll get /slaped if i carry on soaking up valuable threadspace otherwise usefully dedicated to fawning over daedric armour.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-11-26 05:12:59)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Then dont change the difficulty? And this whole smithing thing is a misconception: you can craft good armour, but thats all. One, the best gear is earned through quests and dungeons. Two, you can only use an exploit to make brokenly good gear with smithing and several other skills. The character progression works fine.Uzique wrote:
sorry but to me 'progression' doesn't involve 'playing the game on a setting so easy that it throws itself at your feet' nor is it 'progression' to have the best armour in the game within the first 10 hours of gameplay. progression is meant to scale. this game does not. you know those parts in half life 1? opposing forces, maybe? when huge squads of marines would come in the trainyard? and you'd keep dying? and the ai was really simple yet just advanced enough to give you a different challenge every time? and you had to keep on quick loading the episode to figure it out and eventually get it right? that's 'progression'. starting a new savefile and having the best gear in the game in 10 hours, and then waltzing around one-hitting everything... is not progression. it's a boring roleplay geek sandbox.Lucien wrote:
it's fun because of the character progression, fundamentally, and everything else in the game - the scale, the actually quite nice graphics, the storylines, the world - are what support that. that's the why. It's the familiar treadmill/power-up experience with a much more detailed, large, and interesting world than is normal for an RPG. There's nothing that's nearly as bad as you make it out to be
it's the fact you can change the difficulty on the fly, literally per combat encounter, which makes the entire point of levelling and getting better gear wholly pointless. it's like "oh, this part is too difficult for me, instead of doing like in any other game where i have to go level up some more or get better gear, i'll just turn a slider down and walk through it, anyway". what's the point in having any statistical progression or levelling? what's the point in weapon and armor stats when you can just dumb down the AI to the point where it's retardedly easy, anyway? seems completely counter-productive.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
When I got to that part in Opposing Forces i just opened the options and set it to easy
Nah but ive had to do the same die/reload thing in skyrim too. Timing your blocks and attacks, using the right spells and abilities, managing aggro, etc, until i did finally win
Nah but ive had to do the same die/reload thing in skyrim too. Timing your blocks and attacks, using the right spells and abilities, managing aggro, etc, until i did finally win
Last edited by Lucien (2011-11-26 05:36:32)
Your argument assumes changing the difficulty when you come to a hard encounter and that is hardly required. Just because it is allowed doesn't mean it has to be done. There is way more to a game like this than difficulty of the combat anyway, even if I was one hitting every enemy (which I am not because I don't have it set on easy and enemies come in different strengths) I would still be playing to explore the world and learn more about its lore/factions/history. That is really the main draw for me.
Like I said last page, I would prefer traps to be fatal and dragons to be rarer and more involved in both difficulty and mechanics but nonetheless I like the game a lot. Have you ever read Rock, Paper, Shotgun Uzi? They are PC only and critical of bad things in games - but they gave Skyrim a good review so I guess they just won't do.
edit: Why do you care about the graphics anyway Uzi, isn't your whole thing that they are basically irrelevant because your main focus (as it should be) is on gameplay?
Like I said last page, I would prefer traps to be fatal and dragons to be rarer and more involved in both difficulty and mechanics but nonetheless I like the game a lot. Have you ever read Rock, Paper, Shotgun Uzi? They are PC only and critical of bad things in games - but they gave Skyrim a good review so I guess they just won't do.
edit: Why do you care about the graphics anyway Uzi, isn't your whole thing that they are basically irrelevant because your main focus (as it should be) is on gameplay?
Last edited by TimmmmaaaaH (2011-11-26 06:06:22)
i just bought a book by the guy that runs that blog. it's not very well written. i was hoping it would be some academic, serious criticism about gaming. it still comes across as a book you'd buy in an airport departure lounge, to be read by anybody. thoroughly unimpressed, tbh. same with your point about playing skyrim for the lore/factions/history. it makes me wince. i guess it's good if you're too busy to read a real fantasy book.
i'm mentioning graphics as a last-resort because the gameplay is so insipid to me: combat sucks, the rpg-stats elements are basic and dumbed down (e.g. your smithing power-levelling crap), the interface is balls, and the lore is a lazy pastiche of crappy fantasy fiction written by writing program dropouts. that's why i mention graphics.
i'm mentioning graphics as a last-resort because the gameplay is so insipid to me: combat sucks, the rpg-stats elements are basic and dumbed down (e.g. your smithing power-levelling crap), the interface is balls, and the lore is a lazy pastiche of crappy fantasy fiction written by writing program dropouts. that's why i mention graphics.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-11-26 06:09:08)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
The dragon AI is so poor, I've seen them fight mudcrabs, mammoths, etc
The look great, the visuals are good. But as many of said, they are too easy to defeat.
The look great, the visuals are good. But as many of said, they are too easy to defeat.
You just aren't going to find academic level gaming criticism/papers or whatever. The fact is that they are, in the end, video games. I would never read a book about video games. The blog posts easily cover "show me a game reviewer that ever has the balls to actually say a bad, critical thing about a game" though, they are heavily critical of many games and more in-depth than the usual "the gameplay was not fun" or "I didnt like the story". The "Sunday Papers" post each week possibly covers things you are looking for but I fully expect it not to be up to the standard of Oxford literary reviews or whatever you are looking for.
I don't disagree that the dialogue is terrible and that the world is heavily derivative of basically everything but it doesn't really bother me. I still find it very interesting to explore and like reading the books - I find reading a fantasy book a wholly different experience to interacting in a world and learning more about it. I actually like how the lore is a "crazy pastiche", most of the elements are familiar but how they relate to each other and how things unfold is often not normal. Things like the disappearance of the dwemer, Morrowinds whole Nerevarine story line, the daedric princes - I suppose it is all pretty standard fantasy tropes but all fantasy is basically the same if you look at it like that. Oblivion and Skyrim's main plots were both pretty garbage though, I won't disagree there.
I don't disagree that the dialogue is terrible and that the world is heavily derivative of basically everything but it doesn't really bother me. I still find it very interesting to explore and like reading the books - I find reading a fantasy book a wholly different experience to interacting in a world and learning more about it. I actually like how the lore is a "crazy pastiche", most of the elements are familiar but how they relate to each other and how things unfold is often not normal. Things like the disappearance of the dwemer, Morrowinds whole Nerevarine story line, the daedric princes - I suppose it is all pretty standard fantasy tropes but all fantasy is basically the same if you look at it like that. Oblivion and Skyrim's main plots were both pretty garbage though, I won't disagree there.
okay... so so far (by your own admission):
storyline is derivative, main propelling plot devices are garbage. pastiche and cliché abound.
graphics are pretty lazy, written on a 5 year old engine. some textures would look better redone by a 6 year old in crayon.
combat is... lets not go there. hit, block, hit, run away, potion, hit, run away, repeat.
sense of accomplishment is non-existent as a) you are playing in a solo, asocial universe and b) you are the literal master of that world, including the difficulty controls and console commands.
in a wider sense, the talent system, the crafting professions and the questing are pretty poor (or average, at best). smithing seems really easy, hardly posing any great task or effort at all. for every good and entertaining quest there is, there are 9 other generic 'go to this instanced dungeon, clear it out, come back to me' or 'run here, do this, come back' type quests that have been seen since text-based RPG's in the 1980's.
and yet you're all calling it the game of the year? i'm confused. this is total hype.
storyline is derivative, main propelling plot devices are garbage. pastiche and cliché abound.
graphics are pretty lazy, written on a 5 year old engine. some textures would look better redone by a 6 year old in crayon.
combat is... lets not go there. hit, block, hit, run away, potion, hit, run away, repeat.
sense of accomplishment is non-existent as a) you are playing in a solo, asocial universe and b) you are the literal master of that world, including the difficulty controls and console commands.
in a wider sense, the talent system, the crafting professions and the questing are pretty poor (or average, at best). smithing seems really easy, hardly posing any great task or effort at all. for every good and entertaining quest there is, there are 9 other generic 'go to this instanced dungeon, clear it out, come back to me' or 'run here, do this, come back' type quests that have been seen since text-based RPG's in the 1980's.
and yet you're all calling it the game of the year? i'm confused. this is total hype.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-11-26 06:41:59)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
difficulty controls and console commands is a person problem, not a game problem. sure you can turn it down if it gets hard (like err, every other single player game) but why would you?
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Didn't even know there was a difficulty modifier.