I don’t know if there’s any other freak sorting their Lemmy homepage to Top Monthly who just found this post, but I’d advise to edit it to let people know that even if the site lists more than 1M signatures the actually valid ones might be less, so signing even now is still a good idea, as the creator said.
I only finished it for the first time this year, after about 20 years of giving it a go, getting part way through, then forgetting about it. ADHD is evil. Still, it was fun, there were no long boring parts, nothing was grinding or luck based, and it felt really tight as an experience. Very well thought out, honestly I would consider it a masterpiece.
I have played a bunch of them, Twilight Princess was an absolute no for me for some reason, but I liked Ocarina and Majora when I was younger. I plan to play a decompilation of both of those soon, native resolution and performance etc. I enjoyed Link’s Awakening as well, finished that on my original Gameboy back in the 90s, and Windwaker looks fun though I have only recently gotten onto a computer able to render it nicely, so that is on my play list.
Let’s plays can be okay for new games, but I’d look into emulating something on your phone. If you crave the pc experience (which I totally get), you can probably get an old laptop for very cheap, slap linux on it and have fun.
Quality mode, as I can’t see the difference between 30 and 60 fps. I think it’s one of these things that only connaisseurs can tell the difference, like for 99% of people Pepsi taste the same as coca cola but for the 1% that drink it daily there is a difference.
I’m pretty sure that was the year I was mostly playing Populous, on the Amiga IIRC, or maybe spectrum. I think my little brother may have had a copy of this though. There were some good games back then, the late 80s were when they really started to branch out into genres that we still see today.
I think this question also applies to PC. Why? Because we are limited too. I try to reach 120 fps and consider it performance mode when dialing back quality settings, and enabling upscaling to reach that. If not, 90 fps is also pretty good. For certain games, 60 fps feels like what you describe of 30, but that does not apply to all games. There are single player rpgs played with a gamepad, that I would even consider playing at 30 fps if there is no other option. The problem is, games are not designed to be played with that low fps, as the input latency increases.
I’ll compare this to the Switch, playing Zelda (emulated with Yuzu). Breath of the Wild on original Switch is designed to be played at 30 fps. Playing it on my PC like that felt like a slideshow, but one can get used to it. If I didn’t had the 60 fps patch, it would still be fine at 30. The next game in the series, Tiers of the Kingdom, was not stable at 60, so I was “forced” to play at 30. And after some time playing it felt pretty good and not upsetting like in the first few minutes.
What I mean by that is, performance mode if possible, I would sacrifice quality. But not too much, because at some point the image looks really bad.
PC is harder to define since everyone has varying hardware and specific setting preferences. Most PC games let you change nearly everything and let you mix and match what is high, what is low, what is on or off, etc. And if you have the money, you can get both performance and quality if the game isn’t busted. :p
That’s not entirely true. Because even if you buy a strong PC, you have to make choices, depending on the game. It’s just the fps and settings we are talking about are higher floor. In example on PC people can enable RayTracing, which tanks the fps a lot. Do you go for 120 fps or 60 or maybe lower fps with higher fidelity and RayTracing in example.
So the question to answer is still the same, its just on PC we have a bit more individual choices to make.
Edit (added): Most people don’t have the strongest PC anyway. Look at the Steam hardware survery, most have common graphics cards like the 4060 in example. Or look at handheld PCs and laptops, with fixed hardware. And as said, even in high end with lots of money people need to make cuts in fidelity or performance; just on a higher level in that case. So your question applies to PC as well.
Personally, I use my PS5 for 3D games that look pretty and need the most power, so I play most games on Quality mode, like FFVII Remake and Rebirth, even if it drops the FPS to 30.
30fps feels cinematic to me, which I often prefer in story-driven RPGs.
I prefer performance mode if it is decently implemented. For slower games I go for quality mode if the difference is obvious enough. Recent examples that come to mind are Somerville and Forspoken. Forspoken is a strange one, as it is actually a really fast game, but it looked horrible on performance mode and actually worked quite well once I got used to the 30fps. I play on base PS5.
I’m sorry to hear that. Obviously we don’t know your situation but I just want to say that gaming doesn’t have to be expensive so hopefully you’re back to it sooner rather than later.
I'm telling you: they need to work on camera management—introduce some kind of fixed camera mode where it's zoomed out a bit, and movement directions/passing/shooting is relative to the player, not the camera.
You're probably not even bad at the game, it's just too awkward for no clear reason other than emulating Rocket League.
Other hobbies lke hiking, biking, etc. but if your only concern is cost, why not get an old computer for super cheap, put Linux on it, and play games thay don't need high end specs?
bin.pol.social
Aktywne