m76
-
Posts
1,581 -
Points
3,395 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by m76
-
-
What do you mean? Vector graphics are based on geometry and mathematics instead of regular bitmaps. There are vector graphics editors like corel draw, but I've never heard about games made up purely of vector graphics. The peculiarity of vector graphics is that it can be resized arbitrarily without loss of quality, which makes them great for printing. Commercial print shops usually only accept vector graphics formats.
For example windows fonts are vector graphics too. As well as CAD drawings.
-
3 hours ago, Reality vs Adventure said:
What I don't get is that you have to play 600 hours in Ghost Recon Breakpoint to unlock NFT's in that game. That is ridiculous. This is a case of CEO's thinking they know what's best for the people.
They actually know what's best for the people, and they are doing the exact opposite of that for profit.
With NFTs things are no joking matter. It's not just games that are on the line. It's entire future of humanity, as people and companies continue to embrace the worst invention of the century: blockchain. At least with the hydrogen bomb we were wise enough to not use it. That does not seem to be the case this time.
-
You know that things aren't going well when even your own employees question what's going on. But that didn't stop Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot from flying down to the Studio in Paris to personally intimidate personnel about the fact that NFTs are not going anywhere, whether they or the gamers like it or not.
Unfortunately the legitimate questions by the developers were brushed aside by the CEO, who apparently has the worst tunnel vision.
QuoteDevelopers at the Paris studio pressed Guillemot for more information but he declined any, instead describing future use of NFTs in broad strokes
This is made even more terrible to the devs, who has just managed to repair the reputation of Ghost Recon after the game's disastrous 2019 launch. Only for their leadership to eradicate any good will they managed to win with the fans, in a single announcement.
If I was a part of that studio I'd feel terrible at this point.
But what does ubisoft hope? That slowly boiling the frog will work, and if they keep pushing bad practices those would become accepted. Like all previous bad practices have, such as pre-order bonuses, early access, multi tiered releases, microtransactions, lootboxes, etc.
QuoteGuillemot assured the developers that NFTs would simply become accepted over time much like how other controversial moves in the video game industry have taken root
-
It's not about the topic, but the intent.
I apply the same standards as to comedy. If we can't laugh (make a videogame) about something, then we are not dealing with it, we are sweeping it under the rug and that's bad.
Unfortunately some people nowadays think that some topics shouldn't even be talked about.
-
1 minute ago, Shagger said:
That's not on rails, that's liner level design. The Last of Us, Uncharted, Tomb Raider and the first two Witcher games follow a similar philosophy. On rails is when you are not in control of the speed, pace and direction your character follows and are only able to change direction of focus. Kind of like riding on a train, that is literally what the term refers too. Examples of on rails video games or video game sections would include turret sections, on rails shooters like Time Crisis and House of the Dead, the driving in FFXV and so on.
Hellblade is not on rails anymore than The Last of Us. What you've tried to do there is falsely and deliberately apply a gaming term that tends to be regarded as a pool mechanic to a game where is doesn't apply because you don't like that game and want to make it look worse. That's the truth, wether you know it or not. The alternative is that you don't really know what you're talking about.
You can't help attacking me can you? I specifically said not to be confused with linear games, but you still went there. Is this how you get your kick, trying to vilify me all time?
I did not even try to demean the game. I think an on rails game can still be fun. In fact I even loved some old school classic on rails shooters like the ones you are describing. I used on rails in broader terms, not literally saying hellblade is an on rails shooter, which is its separate genre in video games. "on rails" in of itself is not a gaming term.
Being on rails means you can't control where you are going or what you are doing. You can only go where the game designer wants you to go and do what they want you to do at that point. Any attempt to do something else will lead to frustration, or be completely impossible.
-
-
- Going in a straight line to your destination disregarding the beaten path cutting through mountains, private property and everything without much difficulty.
- Mastering new skills takes years IRL, in a game it takes one second
- Not worrying about basic life necessities like sleeping eating
- Healing wounds is instantenaous
There are many things why it would be better to live in a videogame
-
Geez, I really hope not. Free to play games rely on other types of monetization, all of which are detrimental to the experience.
Any monetization beyond the initial sale price is a problem, because it means buying access to features that should already be part of the game.
Imagine a free to play movie theatre. You don't have to pay for the ticket but you have to pay for the seat inside the cinema hall, but you can't choose your seat you can only buy lootboxes that might or might not contain a seat. And then they ask do you want sound too? Then pay up! Shall we dim the lights? Then pay up! Nobody would tolerate that. IDK why gamers put up with such predatory monetization.
-
4 hours ago, Kane99 said:
I have no issues with games being cinematic, it's just when games only focus is to be cinematic. Maybe the rest of the game is mediocre and paint by numbers, but the cutscenes and other aspects are presented better.
With Hellblade 2, even though you are mostly moving around, to me, it feels more like you're on a track, and have to follow it. That's how I view it more as cinematic compared to being in control. Because sure, I could stop moving, and get killed, but you're essentially moving into a direction that is predetermined. Does that make sense? Anyway, I know the game will have combat, which I'm psyched for. So it's not 100% just cinematic.
QTE events are worse for sure. I absolutely hated them in Indigo Prophecy and any other game to come after.
I get what you mean but I would not describe that as being cinematic, the right phrase for that is on rails. And hellblade 1 was definitely on rails, you have no choice you move in a singular direction and every action and reaction is predetermined. It's not to be confused with being linear. In a linear game you still have multiple options on how to deal with enemies, how to solve puzzles, what items / weapons you use, but in an on rail game everything is decided for you, you either follow the prescribed path or quit.
-
4 hours ago, Kane99 said:
Oh for sure. it wasn't until they started doing 3D worlds that they blew up. The first top down games were popular, but not on the level of GTA 3 and the sequels to follow.
I think GTA would have survived on Xbox, if anything it would have pushed Xbox ahead. But, it's very likely that Rockstar still would have dropped Microsoft and go multi-platform later. These days studios are leaving exclusivity deals and doing multiplatform or are outright getting bought up by studios. So Rockstar probably would have done just fine.
I think they'd either ended up subservient to MS, or pingponging between who they actually sell their actual project to. Either way both the GTA franchise and rockstar would have less significance in the industry.
-
Do you need to play them? No. But you should, they are all great games, in fact I Enjoyed most of them more than GTAV, the only exception being GTA2 and the London one.
Vice city, San Andreas and GTAIV are especially not to be missed. They are all far better games than GTAV.
-
I hold out faith that people will reject this garbage wholeheartedly. There is definite pushback on it, so that's good. Whether it is enough to make them reconsider is another thing.
One thing is for sure. I refuse to touch any game that has NFTs attached in any way.
Not surprisingly it is the epic store that had embraced NFTs with open arms, while Steam is banning them so far. Further reinforcing me in the choice to boycott the EGS.
-
I had thought the topic would be about what is your preferred way to play games. Tank, ranged, mage etc.
I don't think any real world fighting disciplines are faithfully implemented in games, so there is no way to answer this question.
-
I have no problem with a cinematic experience in games, in fact I prefer to have long and deep cutscenes.
What you describe however is when the game randomly takes control out of the player's hands for a minute then suddenly releases it. I hate when they do that too. The line between gameplay and cinematic should be clear and defined. The worst offenders are games where the cinematic starts to play and during these I usually relax and release the controls, then BAM suddenly a QTE is on the screen.
-
I don't really care if they do. I never needed them. It actually caused me trouble a few times when it has overwritten my newer local save with an older one from the cloud.
Or worse caused me to loose all progress in one game, because I started playing it on another launcher when it was free but the saves were not on my computer, so I could not transfer them to the steam version of the game, costing me about 15 hours of progress.
-
I don't think so, it was a bellow average year.
The best new game I played this year was Far Cry 6, and that says something, since it's not a particularly great game either.
I might not even write a retrospective article for this year on my site, or it will be a very short one.
-
1 hour ago, Kane99 said:
Idk, I think they'd still be regarded as one of the best in the industry, and it would also help sell the consoles. But, if it happened, than I could see PlayStation making their own open world game similar to it, and who knows we may have had another sandbox competitor to GTA on top of all the others already out there.
GTA1 and GTA2 were obscure little games with a bit of controversy attached to them. But it was GTA3 that made rockstar and vice city that cemented their position as one of the biggest names. I believe they'd be a shadow of what they are now had they done that, so if the story is true they owe a debt of gratitude to mictosoft for rejecting their offer.
I think going for any exclusivity as an independent developer hurts your long term chances of making it big, but helps them in the short term. No developer should sign any kind of exclusivity unless it is life or death for the company.
If you make a game that becomes big on one platform, remember that it could've been three times as big had you put it on all three major platforms.
-
I think if that were the case Rockstar would be still an obscure little company today, like say Remedy, who did make their game an XBOX exclusive
-
12 hours ago, The Blackangel said:
They weren't on my list because I honestly had to do a google search to find the titles, which caused me to end up at wikipedia and they weren't even on the list. I just took the games that were listed there. I don't know anything about how many games have been released in the series or what their names are. I did think it weird that there wasn't a GTA II, but just assumed that one of them with a special title like Vise City or San Andreas came out between GTA and GTA3 and it was counted as GTA2.
Seems like you took the list of controversies from the wiki page, you have to scroll down a bit for the list of actual games and expansion packs.
-
I view these kinds of articles as attention seeking.
Either say something concrete or stfu. This coy "oh, you'll be disappointed" is asinine.
What it really means is "I pretend to know something big, to boost my ego", lowest form of tabloid journalism.
-
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I wish AC just forgot the present completely and just be period pieces set in various times through history. I never liked the original AC games, the first one I liked was Odyssey which was the third I played after AC 1 and 2.
-
I feel like I'm supposed to guess what the level designer was thinking. And I absolutely hate that. Either all logical solutions to a problem should work, or the one they want from you should be obvious.
-
If a game has no direction I'm not interested in playing it. Except for simulation type game.
The story / direction / intrigue is why I put up with the gameplay mechanics.
-
13 hours ago, Kane99 said:
Back in the day when character creators rocked, you could be really creative with your designs. Why can't games make a character creator like that of a pro wrestling game? Just look at the amount of wrestling games, they allowed you to make a character anyway you wanted to, and I don't get why other studios can't jump onto that idea. Like, make it so we can make ourselves as we see ourselves. I just want to make a fat, playable character of myself. That's why I wished RDR2 had a character creator that allowed for me to be chunkier, or have so many more options.
And that brings up another point, you have to pay for customization options in some online games. Not real money necessarily, but you have to work hard in the game just to make enough to buy a few clothing items and such.
But, lets just talk about single player games that have character creators. Most of them are very limited with what you do. Madden for example, is a game that has some of the weakest character creators. There's no depth to it. But NBA 2K has one of the best character creators around, at least in terms of sports games. At least here you can make your guy fat, skinny, tall, etc. But Madden limits you so much, at least when it comes to franchise. I don't want to touch the story mode as I hear those games have awful story modes lol.
But yeah, I think you get my point. I just want more customization for characters, mostly in single player games, but I too would love to make myself in an online game, without any limitations of having to buy it with points. Just give us enough to customize our "looks" and you can charge us for the clothing and all that nonsense.
I expressed similar opinions many times, and surprisingly there are always some people who push back on it. IDK why. The availability of a character creator would not affect them if they choose to use the default character.
I also hate it when I can't make my character in single player games personalized. And it baffles me that I Have to complete the game to unlock certain outfits. I mean what's the point of an outfit if it is unlocked an hour before the end of the game?
I admit that I bought one of the WWE games just to play around with the character creator in it, I had no intentions to play the actual game.
Why don't more celebs take jobs in video games?
in Gaming Forum
Posted · Edited by m76
Celebs should stay away from videogames, we don't need them, their presence in my opinion is detrimental to games.
For example Cyberpunk 2077 was extensively re-written to give an earlier entrance and more significant role to Keanu Reeves. Which I think has made the game much worse than it could've been had they stuck to the original pacing of the story.
Celebs are bad for gaming because:
While the advantage of having them is singular:
That's it.