Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Why do you spend most of your time in town? You picking up all the cups and plates you find? Just as a general hint- really no need for that. Also no need to grab every piece of raider armor off every guy you kill, really. I guess I just don't know people that suck as bad at inventory management as you are implying you do.
The game's carry limit is about 250lbs. The armor you wear is 45lbs. Assault rifle + RPG = 30 more pounds. Almost every enemy drops a chinese assault rifle and chest armor which is about 20 pounds per monster. That means after killing maybe 5-10 enemies, you need to warp back to town. To put that into perspective, my character in the PC version is carrying over 10,000lbs of items.
Maybe you and your console gamer friends would also be interested in buying a first person shooter where you spend 90% of the time playing tetris.
I play on all systems, I don't care what a game comes out for- if it's good, I can play it. I understand- you must hold on to your platform bigotry, it is important to you, I am far more interested in the games.
I own an Xbox too, but I can't play it because it's bricked right now. If you want to know why PC gamers rage on consoles, shit like this is why. I can get a Wii with 10 year old graphics and absolutely piss poor online, I can get a PS3 and accept paying $70 for a game, or I can get an Xbox that has a 100% chance of breaking down (I don't know a single person with their original 360). Either that or I could play games on the PC that I would own anyway and have backward compatibility with all games made in the last 20 years, including console games. I'm using a platform that's superior in every conceivable way, and yet developers will put all their work into making the game optimized for my bricked Xbox. I didn't even buy that thing to play games; I just wanted to use it as a cheap $200 media center, and it still broke.
DoF was brought to you by PC devs, and a lot of people use that as is simulates proper image distortion based on atmospheric issues when viewing objects at a great distance when the water content in the air reaches a certain point. With that said, GT doesn't use DoF. "Field of view"- btw- is in every 3D game ever made- it has to be- it's how you see and has nothing to do with blurring
I mixed up two different ideas in that last post. The "field of view" problem in console games is where the person you control has tunnel vision. It's fairly reasonable in most games, but it was very poorly done in Fallout 3. In Fallout, the FOV is set to 70 or 75 degrees. If course since you don't have tunnel vision while your character does, the game becomes very nauseating when rotating and moving around. The developers didn't do that just to be assholes. They did that because lowering the FOV means you need to render only 75 degrees of the world instead of 90 degrees.
Depth of field option in Fallout 3 and Dead Space
supposedly represent the way your eye focuses on one distance at a time. If you're looking at me, the wall behind me will appear blurry. It has nothing to do with the atmosphere or refracting light or anything. Developers add that to the game and say "it makes it realistic" but really it's just to hide the fact that they don't want to pixel shade anything farther than 20 feet away, most likely because they can't. The more "realistic" approach would be if I could clearly see things that are at a distance. I can go outside in real life and see things a football field away without it appearing blurry (unless I'm not wearing glasses), so using the blur and saying it's realistic is just bullshit. They also use that argument with motion blur, and that too is a lame excuse not to draw the image properly.
It will very likely last until that time. Dead Space and Fallout 3 are only half a year old and neither of them even come close to maxing out the CPU. That E6600 has already lasted 3 years without a problem, and it'll be another 2+ before it comes a major issue. The budget still has another $300 to be spent over the next 2 years and I'm nowhere near requiring a video card upgrade.
Processor, RAM, mobo, vid card and OS- you didn't list off what you built with.
It's an E6600 at 3ghz, 4gb ram, 320gb OS drive and games are installed on a ~700gb "span" across 4 old hard drives. It was first built with Windows XP Pro but it was later upgraded to Vista Business when I switched the house over to Vista. The motherboard is an Asus P5LD2. Video card is a GeForce 7950GT. There was a time that it had a better video card, but my friend asked for it back because he was building an SLI setup.
My games computer is actually the second oldest computer in my house. My file server is newer and has a lot more CPU power, but it uses integrated video and has less ram.
There were lots of good console FPS games before that. Zero Tolerance on Genesis was good, Doom on SNES was good, Goldeneye for N64 was amazing, PS1 had the Medal of Honor series and I thought they played well.
You are kidding, right? I can only assume you weren't playing PC games during that timeframe. Fire up Goldeneye(the only game on your list that could possibly be confused with good) today and see how it plays. That game came out at the same time as Half-Life. Everything else on your list was absolute garbage. I've always played all the systems, it isn't something new for me
[/quote]
Wait you're saying Goldeneye is bad but Halo is good? Are you trolling?
Facebook
Twitter