This looks bad. You can’t just slap new tech on a game and expect it to be great. Half Life 2 is stylized a certain way, based on the tech available at the time. This makes the game look… Off… Not a fan of RTX remakes, they always look like this. Bland, flat, no soul.
Some parts look fine, but those Ravenholm scenes look terrible compared to Vanilla HL2. Completely kills the dim, gloomy vibe that defined it when every light source is basically a floodlight.
Surely if the items hold no real-world value, putting it on hiatus for an indefinite amount of time would be the answer. The casinos which depend on Valve can’t really sue the loss of the feature, as it’s always in Valve’s purview to remove it at any point from the game & platform.
If they made it a limited time feature in CSGO in a year, they would still achieve the “stickiness”.
I’ve seen so many terrible takes already. I made the mistake of looking at a Reddit thread on the announcement. They’re not even trying to be subtle. “Female characters are supposed to be pretty! Nobody wants to play as an ugly bald bitch who looks like a man!”. I’d consider myself a seasoned internet veteran and even still it’s shocking to me.
The most painful thing will be if the game turns out to be bad, and we have to painstakingly explain “Yes, it was bad, but it’s not somehow specifically because it features a bald female lead.”
What misogynists, I don’t see them anywhere ??<br> Ohhhhhhh; you mean people who hate games being ruined by bad writing<br> This is a rather old gaslighting technique mind you
It still baffles my brain that arguably the best puzzle game ever is by the Serious Sam devs.
Seriously. Even if you aren’t huge on puzzle games, The Talos Principle is a great experience. They do a spectacular job of introducing new mechanics so nothing ever feels unfair and you naturally realize how to find the secrets in past rooms. And there are enough “endings” that you don’t need to 100% it.
I will have to wait and see, but if it competes with high-end hardware on PC in terms of 4K support and high framerates I think €800 is pretty reasonable. I see people online claiming that it should’ve been like €600 or maybe €650. But a RTX4080 GPU alone is more expensive than that already, and it’s not even top of the line. But if you want advanced raytracing, maxed out settings and 4K you’ll definitely need something in that price range of GPUs at minimum.
People don’t NEED to upgrade to the PS5 Pro, it seems more like an alternative for people who already own 4K TVs and want to make better use of it. I’d be more annoyed about the lack of a disc drive.
That said, I think the real issue is if developers start abandoning the original PS5 hardware in favor of the new ones and start getting lazy and stop optimising their games for the older PS5. Which would in fact make the upgrade to a Pro almost mandatory if you want to keep playing at reasonable framerates.
It won’t come close to a 4080 so that isn’t a sensible comparison. I think it’s estimated to be slower than the regular 4070.
IDK why you mention 4k and max settings and high frame rates, PS5 Pro won’t do these things. It’s not even twice as fast as the regular PS5 which in many games drops below 1080p 60fps medium settings.
The PS5 already does 4K and higher framerates, for at least most of their optimised first-party games, I’d just expect a Pro version to handle it better on top of more traytracing, otherwise what even would be the point of upgrading for such a high price.
A 4070 is still like €600+, if you want more advanced raytracing stuff you’ll have to go for 4080 and up, which means easily exceeding €1000 for a GPU.
This is why I compared the PS5 Pro to the 4080, because they claim to do advanced raytracing on the Pro. Which is why I think a price of €800, which sits between that of a 4070 and 4080, is quite reasonable. People want high visual fidelity on 4K and high framerates, but still expect to pay far less than high-end PC hardware, I don’t think that’s a realistic expectation.
Watch Digital Foundry, very very few AAA PS5 games can do 4k AND 60fps (which is what I assume you mean by “high framerates”, although 60 isn’t really that high it’s just mid). Probably none of those are doing ray tracing at the same time. Most PS5 games have upscaling enabled at all times because they’re rendering at much lower internal resolutions. PS5 Pro is not even twice as powerful, it’s not going to be capable of pushing 4x as many pixels per second. There’s a reason why they’re still talking about their upscaling algorithms.
“Advanced ray tracing” is not a technical term that exists it’s just marketing speak. And obviously they couldn’t say path tracing because they won’t be doing much of that like a 4070 or 4080 can do.
Here Digital Foundry is comparing the PS5Pro to the RTX 3070 Ti, which is much weaker than the 4070 youtu.be/W2wOn8zS8dU?t=3577 (the 4070 has more VRAM than the 3070 Ti that they mention there)
The 4070 is similar to the 3080, which is a pretty decent lead over the 3070 Ti. The 4080 is leagues above them all.
I know they cheat their way through abusing terms and doing stuff like checkerboard 4K and frame generation and what not.
The point is that speaking to the casual masses it will still be a tremendous visual upgrade up from what the original PS5 is capable of. Or at least I assume so, because again, otherwise there would be very little reason to even upgrade. Visually games like God of War Ragnarok and Horizon Forbidden West are fine on the PS5, even on performance modes (which does run at 60 FPS, frame gen or not). And frankly to me it competes on the same level as visually high-end games on PC (I have a PS5 and a high-end PC). We’ll see if the quality difference will be worth it on the Pro, I frankly doubt it but maybe for more casual players that don’t have a high-end PC to compare to it will.
I mean developers still haven’t really abandoned the PS4 have they? I’ve pretty much stopped playing games on my PS4, but last I checked any new release I would have wanted was coming out on both PS4 and PS5.
PS4 Pro was still obscenely underpowered. Jaguar was terrible at PS4’s original launch, and the boost on the Pro was marginal because it was still the same terrible underlying design.
Going into the PS5 pro, everyone projected this pricing, because it’s actually modern hardware and their costs have went up instead of down.
I imagine they’ll make money from the kinds of people who absolutely must have the latest and greatest available tech for everything. Personally, I wouldn’t bother even if money weren’t an issue.
Computing hardware when the PS4 and PS4 pro came out was still in the before times when new hardware meant doing more for the same money. It’s been a minute since those times and that isn’t really something Sony has any control over.
Meanwhile you also have a weird phenomenon that didn’t exist during the PS4 generation where you have a huge spike in inflation between your base console and pro launch. When the PS5 launched at cost $500, but $500 then is more than $600 now. The PS5 pro is really only $100 more in 2024 money than the PS5 was at launch.
Maybe Sony is making the wrong move here but understanding the market and economy as it is today, I’m not sure what else they could have done besides not launch a pro console at all.
There’s always a market for people who want the latest and greatest thing, so they’ll make money off of it, but since most people will have the base model (even more than those who stuck with a base PS4, I imagine), all games will be designed with that in mind.
I don’t agree with that really. I think PS5 games are already designed with the PS5 Pro in mind. We already have difference performance profiles where you can have 60FPS OR 4k OR Ray tracing.
If all the Pro means is being able to play 60FPS at 4k with Raytracing, the $700 price point would be very attractive. You won’t get that with a $700 PC that’s for sure.
I feel like I’m the only one who prefers the original, gamecube controls. Playing through the switch remake, I played with the new controls for, like, 10 minutes before switching to the original control scheme and playing the rest of the game with it.
I’m with you on the Gamecube controls, tank controls are awkward but Wii pointing is more awkward. Although the best control scheme I used was a Steam controller on Dolphin (for the Wii version).
I forgot what the setting was, but the mode with the littlest deadzone/bounding box was the way to go for me. Had the butt of the wiimote rested on my leg for stability and played the game like a joystick aimed at the TV.
The Wiimote worked with a pair of IR blasters to locate your screen. Joycons have no idea where your screen is. In that light, that they work as pointing devices at all is actually rather impressive.
With Primehack you can play the OG prime series (I think the Wii U version?) on PC with a controller for dual joystick control like a modern FPS, or even m+k. It also runs well on steam deck, I have it on mine. It’s very excellent, highly recommend.
Oh man, Wiimote and nunchuck on Metroid Prime was incredible. So goddamn intuitive. You just… point at everything. I’ve actually been holding off on the remake because my one and only playthrough of MP1 was with the wiimote. It ruled.
This combat system looks objectively worse. No control over companions, no overhead view and issuing commands via a tactical view. Graphics look fine but for a 4th game in a series I’m not impressed.
Based on this trailer. If you’re right then yes I’d be upset too, but it not making it into the trailer doesn’t mean it’s not there. This is obviously the first mission, some of those mechanics may not be explained yet.
I won’t pass any final judgements for myself until full release but based off track record since DA:O and the rocky development cycle for this game, I’ll be very hesitant. One of the biggest tragedies for me is this doesn’t get me excited. I don’t think I’ve been excited for a BioWare game since DA2.
Oh for sure, I’m going in with - minimal expectations. But I’ve seen enough trailers in my time to not trust them at all, positive or negative. I’ll wait it comes out
The days when Dragon Age was a whitebox version of Baldur’s Gate are long behind us, my friend. First came prioritizing consoles over PCs, then an awkward halfway house between action and tactical combat, now approaching Dragon’s Dogma action combat. The one thing I’ll say about DA: it’s consistently inconsistent.
The last time the tactical view was relevant was in Origins. Inquisition combat was a joke, and I say this as a fan of the game. The tactical view was useless ninety percent of the time with team members ignoring your commands more often than not. The actual combat itself was a mess too, to the point it was better to stay back and lob spells or arrow rather then risk missing all your attacks because your enemy is slightly higher up a hill. At least this looks more dynamic and skill based with all the projectile & AoE telegraphing.
I love doom 3, but I also have a vivid memory of a sleepover at a buddy’s house in high school where we made a friend play it then we scared the bejesus out of him during one of the early locker scares that we saw coming and he didn’t.
I liked it (well, after the Duct Tape mod, anyway) and enjoyed having more lore and info. It definitely doesn't feel like a normal doom game, though, so I'll give it that.
Play the OG games if you want. There are a lot of mods that make it more tolerable by modern standards. If you haven’t played Eternal yet, though, you definitely should if you enjoyed 2016.
The examples of games that made a comeback were No Man’s Sky, a sandbox game missing features where, development-wise, it’s very feasible to add in missing promised features; and Cyberpunk, a game with good bones that didn’t function a lot of the time. Starfield’s problems are deeper than that, at least from my perspective.
The tech tree and leveling system is “improve by doing”, which runs into the same problems those systems always run into, which is why no one else does them anymore. It incentivizes me to get shot in combat on purpose so that I can improve my healing, and other stupid behaviors like that. So many of the quests are thoughtless fetch quests with nothing interesting along the way, and the game would actually be better with their omission than their inclusion. The endgame mechanic is an interesting one on paper, but seeing as the major quest lines only really play out one or two slightly different ways, there’s not much that’s interesting about going back to them, and you can also do all of them in a single playthrough, so there’s no need to engage in the endgame mechanic to see it. These are some of the problems that can be fixed but will likely be so costly and time consuming when there are Elder Scrolls and Fallout games to be made that I doubt it’ll ever happen.
The more fundamental flaws are that you can’t spec your character to interact with the world in wildly different ways and get clever with its systems; the universe doesn’t flow together the way that one of their terrestrial open worlds from before do, and fast travel is now mandatory; and the story walks right up to an interesting sci-fi story and stops just short of being good. To change these things sounds a lot like making an entirely different game.
I absolutely agree. Even with skyrim, I could mod every aspect of the game, I could make combat and the graphics good add lots of new mechanics and quests. But I still couldn’t make it good. The story, the copypasted dungeons and lifeless NPCs the game is rotten to the core and even if I can fix some of it I can’t just replace the core that would be a different game like Enderal.
You’re not wrong, but I feel that level of support for one of their releases would be a bit out of character for Bethesda (Without the long-term monetization present in games like Fallout 76). Especially so with the trend of Bethesda’s comments indicating that the consumers are the ones who are wrong for not liking some of the more problematic game design decisions.
I think they mean more about reworking core mechanics of the game such as the planet generation and the fact that space flight is basically pointless outside of ship combat. I don’t foresee them being able to allow ships to fly down to planet surfaces in Creation Engine.
cyberpunk was buggy but fundamentally sound. starfield is flawed in its core, no amount of bug fixing or system tweaking is going to fix it. they’d have to cut out space and planets entirely.
Aside from the gameplay of the recent Doom games being top tier I really enjoyed how they tied the original story into things. Was really cool to come to learn the tie in as I progressed through the game. This looks great I’m ready to rip and tear
Stoked that a studio with major credit switched from Unity to Gadot. This will be the biggest release the game engine has seen and is sure to break every record. Hopefully it will make other studios seriously consider the engine and in 5 or 6 years Gadot will be the equivalent to Blender.
Yes! So glad to see developers sticking to their principles and switching for good. Every time I’m working with Blender or Godot I feel like I’m living in the future I’ve always dreamed of.
I’m surprised MegaCrit decided to make a straight sequel, even keeping some of the same characters and cards, considering the original game is already so good. I hope this means they’ve got enough new ideas to redefine the game and the genre it created, and not just be an expansion or shallow remix of StS’s content.
youtube.com
Ważne