Suppressive fire generally isn't a feature in FPS/TPS titles.
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 07:22 PM PST
There are two kinds of suppressive fire. One is when the player fires at enemies and the enemies seek cover. Which isn't uncommon, although implementations vary. It also attracts an unfortunate amount of "bad AI" whining because players kill the AI seeking cover and bash the AI for not focusing all its attention on killing them.
The other is when enemies fire at the player's location. Often in their general location. Like, if the AI heard the player moving down the hallway, they can fire at the player's approximate location, even though they can't see the player.
Far Cry had AI that would blindly fire at your general location. So if you were in a hut and the AI spotted you through a window, the AI would fire at the hut, and the bullets would penetrate the walls. The game also featured different AI classes. Some would flank, some would lay down suppressive fire, and others would scout ahead. Unsurprisingly, Far Cry was accused of having AI with "X-Ray Vision". (Albeit, the 2006 1.4 patch introduced a bug where the AI could see through surfaces it wasn't meant to.)
Things like the AI tracking the player's footsteps to fire in their direction and using cues to guess the player's location are "good" AI, but I suspect that developers don't implement them because they make players angry. If the AI demonstrates any sort of "If player isn't here, they must be there, so let's lay down fire there", logic, the players will accuse the game of "cheating".
submitted by /u/ContributorX_PJ64 The other is when enemies fire at the player's location. Often in their general location. Like, if the AI heard the player moving down the hallway, they can fire at the player's approximate location, even though they can't see the player.
Far Cry had AI that would blindly fire at your general location. So if you were in a hut and the AI spotted you through a window, the AI would fire at the hut, and the bullets would penetrate the walls. The game also featured different AI classes. Some would flank, some would lay down suppressive fire, and others would scout ahead. Unsurprisingly, Far Cry was accused of having AI with "X-Ray Vision". (Albeit, the 2006 1.4 patch introduced a bug where the AI could see through surfaces it wasn't meant to.)
Things like the AI tracking the player's footsteps to fire in their direction and using cues to guess the player's location are "good" AI, but I suspect that developers don't implement them because they make players angry. If the AI demonstrates any sort of "If player isn't here, they must be there, so let's lay down fire there", logic, the players will accuse the game of "cheating".
[link] [comments]
Has a game ever changed core mechanics for the final boss fight and had it be a good idea?
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 09:21 AM PST
There are plenty of games out there that spend the whole game training you to be an expert in some core mechanic, only to pull the rug out from under you at the end and either deny you access to the mechanic you've been using the whole game, or force you to use some new mechanic that you've never used prior to that point.
I'm sure we could all come up with examples of games that pull this stunt and tarnish an otherwise fine game, but has there every been a game that made a mechanics switch at the very end and had it improve the game?
submitted by /u/caltomin I'm sure we could all come up with examples of games that pull this stunt and tarnish an otherwise fine game, but has there every been a game that made a mechanics switch at the very end and had it improve the game?
[link] [comments]
"Performance enhancing drugs" and competitive gaming
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 06:35 PM PST
Anyone who follows professional sports, whether it be baseball or olympic cycling or whatever, has probably at least heard of some scandal or another in which an athlete is accused of using steroids or some other performance enhancing drug to give themselves an edge. Most sports have banned this and people who use while competing suffer all sorts of consequences.
In competitive gaming, drugs like aderall or ritalin could potentially offer the sort of "edge" to players that steroids offer to athletes. These drugs are often very common prescriptions and can be filled at almost any pharmacy, at least in my country.
What kinds of policies do you think e-sports organizations should have regarding the use of drugs that could potentially increase somebody's performance?
Discuss.
submitted by /u/brainwarts In competitive gaming, drugs like aderall or ritalin could potentially offer the sort of "edge" to players that steroids offer to athletes. These drugs are often very common prescriptions and can be filled at almost any pharmacy, at least in my country.
What kinds of policies do you think e-sports organizations should have regarding the use of drugs that could potentially increase somebody's performance?
Discuss.
[link] [comments]
Risk-Reward, Game Feel and Melee Attacks in Shooter Games
Posted: 20 Dec 2016 07:53 AM PST
I had this whole huge rant mostly written up the other day, but I decided to scrap it since it was rather disjointed and it didn't really go anywhere. Since then though, I've consolidated some of my thoughts and I think this will be more coherent.
Virtually every shooter game has some kind of "backup" attack, be it Quake 2's blaster with a weak attack but unlimited ammo, or Goldeneye 007's karate chops. Bash attacks with guns in FPS games have filled a similar role, generally being meant as a backup for if you're caught with your pants down or you're out of ammo for your guns.
In games like Halo: Combat Evolved, the melee attack was strong enough to be viable if you had to use it, but it wouldn't hold up under fire if you just charged straight at your enemies. The exception to this was that you could kill any enemy with a single melee attack if you managed to hit them from behind. As far as I can remember, this is one of the earliest examples of a melee attack in an FPS game being a viable offensive option rather than just a defensive countermeasure.
Assassination attacks added a new layer of risk and reward to games. You could set up shop as a sniper and pick off enemies from a distance, but there was a risk that an enemy could sneak up behind you while you were looking down your scope and kill you instantly without any warning. Similarly you could take your time sneaking up on a target to kill them quickly, but if you get caught you'll have to fight on equal footing.
Where I believe things changed for the worse was Call of Duty 4. To be honest I thought this was a really good game, though it did give rise to a plethora of questionable multiplayer policies. Some of them are fading away, but others have remained for quite a while. The main mechanic I have a problem with is the introduction of the knife for melee attacks. In previous Call of Duty games, melee attacks were viable at close range, but you'd have to smack your enemy multiple times in order to actually kill them. In Call of Duty 4, however, your melee attack became an instant kill under any circumstances.
Personally I believe the universal instakill melee attack is the ultimate extreme of risk-reward. If you manage to actually charge head first into a hail of gunfire, shouldn't you deserve to score a kill? This could certainly be argued, and probably fairly easily at that, but I can't help but feel that this was accidental. Future Call of Duty games noted that this was a viable playstyle, and they even introduced perks to make running around the map using only your knife to lay waste to the enemy team even more effective. Unfortunately, I personally think this just leads to shallower gameplay for the attacker and bad game feel for the victim.
After playing Overwatch for a while, I got used to melee attacks being a backup once again. You could tap an enemy to finish them off at close range, but unless your character had specific melee abilities, you weren't going to win any fights by running straight into enemy fire. More recently, however, I've been playing a lot of Titanfall 2. I honestly love this game and I wish it hadn't gotten neutered by Battlefield 1, but it again features the instakill melee attack. You can run straight up to any enemy and kill them in a single punch, and while it certainly makes sense for a giant robot to be able to smash humans with a single blow, I don't get the same feeling with pilot vs pilot gameplay.
Titanfall 2 is the only game I can think of where losing a multiplayer match doesn't put me in a bad mood. I attribute this to the fact that you can always do something to contribute, no matter how badly you're losing. If you're bad at killing other players, kill the AI enemies to steadily rack up points for your team and get progress toward your titan. You never feel helpless. Except, that is, for when you watch an enemy walk through a stream of your bullets and then instantly kill you with one punch. I'm not kidding when I say this is the only mechanic in the entire game I don't like. Nothing feels worse, not even calling your titan and then getting it destroyed mere seconds after you board it.
With every other type of death in the game, I can tell where I made a mistake. I was too stationary, I wasn't paying attention, I called my titan in a bad location, etc. Hell, if an enemy kills me with a melee attack after sneaking up on me, then that's fine too. In all the above cases, I can see that the enemy earned the kill. Instakill melee attacks, however, lead to situations where you can do everything you were supposed to do, and not only do you still get killed, you get humiliated.
I do think it's entirely possible to properly balance melee attacks against guns without making a bash kill anything in a single blow. I know an argument against this could be that fewer people will use melee attacks if they aren't instant kills, but I really don't think they're supposed to be.
submitted by /u/pickelsurprise Virtually every shooter game has some kind of "backup" attack, be it Quake 2's blaster with a weak attack but unlimited ammo, or Goldeneye 007's karate chops. Bash attacks with guns in FPS games have filled a similar role, generally being meant as a backup for if you're caught with your pants down or you're out of ammo for your guns.
In games like Halo: Combat Evolved, the melee attack was strong enough to be viable if you had to use it, but it wouldn't hold up under fire if you just charged straight at your enemies. The exception to this was that you could kill any enemy with a single melee attack if you managed to hit them from behind. As far as I can remember, this is one of the earliest examples of a melee attack in an FPS game being a viable offensive option rather than just a defensive countermeasure.
Assassination attacks added a new layer of risk and reward to games. You could set up shop as a sniper and pick off enemies from a distance, but there was a risk that an enemy could sneak up behind you while you were looking down your scope and kill you instantly without any warning. Similarly you could take your time sneaking up on a target to kill them quickly, but if you get caught you'll have to fight on equal footing.
Where I believe things changed for the worse was Call of Duty 4. To be honest I thought this was a really good game, though it did give rise to a plethora of questionable multiplayer policies. Some of them are fading away, but others have remained for quite a while. The main mechanic I have a problem with is the introduction of the knife for melee attacks. In previous Call of Duty games, melee attacks were viable at close range, but you'd have to smack your enemy multiple times in order to actually kill them. In Call of Duty 4, however, your melee attack became an instant kill under any circumstances.
Personally I believe the universal instakill melee attack is the ultimate extreme of risk-reward. If you manage to actually charge head first into a hail of gunfire, shouldn't you deserve to score a kill? This could certainly be argued, and probably fairly easily at that, but I can't help but feel that this was accidental. Future Call of Duty games noted that this was a viable playstyle, and they even introduced perks to make running around the map using only your knife to lay waste to the enemy team even more effective. Unfortunately, I personally think this just leads to shallower gameplay for the attacker and bad game feel for the victim.
After playing Overwatch for a while, I got used to melee attacks being a backup once again. You could tap an enemy to finish them off at close range, but unless your character had specific melee abilities, you weren't going to win any fights by running straight into enemy fire. More recently, however, I've been playing a lot of Titanfall 2. I honestly love this game and I wish it hadn't gotten neutered by Battlefield 1, but it again features the instakill melee attack. You can run straight up to any enemy and kill them in a single punch, and while it certainly makes sense for a giant robot to be able to smash humans with a single blow, I don't get the same feeling with pilot vs pilot gameplay.
Titanfall 2 is the only game I can think of where losing a multiplayer match doesn't put me in a bad mood. I attribute this to the fact that you can always do something to contribute, no matter how badly you're losing. If you're bad at killing other players, kill the AI enemies to steadily rack up points for your team and get progress toward your titan. You never feel helpless. Except, that is, for when you watch an enemy walk through a stream of your bullets and then instantly kill you with one punch. I'm not kidding when I say this is the only mechanic in the entire game I don't like. Nothing feels worse, not even calling your titan and then getting it destroyed mere seconds after you board it.
With every other type of death in the game, I can tell where I made a mistake. I was too stationary, I wasn't paying attention, I called my titan in a bad location, etc. Hell, if an enemy kills me with a melee attack after sneaking up on me, then that's fine too. In all the above cases, I can see that the enemy earned the kill. Instakill melee attacks, however, lead to situations where you can do everything you were supposed to do, and not only do you still get killed, you get humiliated.
I do think it's entirely possible to properly balance melee attacks against guns without making a bash kill anything in a single blow. I know an argument against this could be that fewer people will use melee attacks if they aren't instant kills, but I really don't think they're supposed to be.
[link] [comments]
What games have you build a relationship/companionship/friendship with another character via gameplay?
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 07:16 PM PST
I recently played and reviewed the Last Guardian and whilst yes the controls and camera weren't the best. The relationship I built with Trico throughout my 10-12 hour experience was wonderful. The relationship is purely build from gameplay. Cutscenes are very scarce. You are in danger, Trico jumps in, saves the day. Trico is really worked up and distressed so you have to jump onto him and pat him to calm him down. Building the relationship. Trico is worried and mesmerised by these giant stainless glass eyes, you have to move them out of the way. But as soon as they are gone, Trico is willing to help you out. You and Trico constantly building upon this relationship.
I made a comment in my review about how The Last of Us has you build a relationship between Joel and Ellie... but you don't really do a whole lot via gameplay. The relationship is generally built via walking and talking, and cutscenes after gunfights and finding a room to talk in.
But that got me thinking to ask this question. What other games exist that have you build a relationship via gameplay?
No I am not going to accept the Sims or Japanese Dating Sims as an answer.
I also don't consider games that robotically do what you tell them to do a proper answer either. Within the world that the character is scripted in, it has to have its own AI and act on it's own (even if some people may call Trico dumb).
submitted by /u/Unicornsandwich I made a comment in my review about how The Last of Us has you build a relationship between Joel and Ellie... but you don't really do a whole lot via gameplay. The relationship is generally built via walking and talking, and cutscenes after gunfights and finding a room to talk in.
But that got me thinking to ask this question. What other games exist that have you build a relationship via gameplay?
No I am not going to accept the Sims or Japanese Dating Sims as an answer.
I also don't consider games that robotically do what you tell them to do a proper answer either. Within the world that the character is scripted in, it has to have its own AI and act on it's own (even if some people may call Trico dumb).
[link] [comments]
Games should have optional multiplayer modes with headshot kills disabled.
Posted: 20 Dec 2016 06:23 AM PST
I don't think I'm the only one who is not a great shot. I die far more than I kill and I don't have a lot of time to practice.
This often makes multiplayer frustrating especially when there are a certain number of people who excel at the one shot kill charging around the map and showboating. It often occurs that I have a good shot on someone and I put the or four shots into them and then I'm the one who is dead. It's frustrating.
I'm not saying that one shot kill should be gotten rid of, I'm just suggesting that there be an optional game in which it is turned off.
submitted by /u/Brian_Braddock This often makes multiplayer frustrating especially when there are a certain number of people who excel at the one shot kill charging around the map and showboating. It often occurs that I have a good shot on someone and I put the or four shots into them and then I'm the one who is dead. It's frustrating.
I'm not saying that one shot kill should be gotten rid of, I'm just suggesting that there be an optional game in which it is turned off.
[link] [comments]
Do you know of any games where one player plays as another player's pet?
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 08:11 PM PST
Or anything noteworthy that's similar?
For example, 8 Eyes for NES. One player plays as the guy going through a platformer, the 2nd can control the pet bird that has totally different mechanics. (I think the first controller can do something to control the falcon when you need him for certain parts, but I never knew how. Cousin always stole my time to shine. :( )
Example of noteworthy: In Kirby Superstar, Kirby makes a "helper" who can die as much as he wants and can be remade by sacrificing your current ability. Once dead they're gone till you make a new one, but that's usually no problem. Kirby can turn him back into an ability anytime, and the helper can zip back to Kirby at any time, along with maybe a couple other differences between them.
This seems pretty rare, and I've been having just the WORST time trying to google it. Virtual pets, flash dressup pet games, throwaway mobile stuff, and more, it's just a spamfest like no other. I looked through a list of asymmetrical games, but didn't find anything, or even the examples I already mentioned.
(I'm really surprised you can't do this in some obscure MMO or something. Or maybe it's just that obscure.)
submitted by /u/Metagenki For example, 8 Eyes for NES. One player plays as the guy going through a platformer, the 2nd can control the pet bird that has totally different mechanics. (I think the first controller can do something to control the falcon when you need him for certain parts, but I never knew how. Cousin always stole my time to shine. :( )
Example of noteworthy: In Kirby Superstar, Kirby makes a "helper" who can die as much as he wants and can be remade by sacrificing your current ability. Once dead they're gone till you make a new one, but that's usually no problem. Kirby can turn him back into an ability anytime, and the helper can zip back to Kirby at any time, along with maybe a couple other differences between them.
This seems pretty rare, and I've been having just the WORST time trying to google it. Virtual pets, flash dressup pet games, throwaway mobile stuff, and more, it's just a spamfest like no other. I looked through a list of asymmetrical games, but didn't find anything, or even the examples I already mentioned.
(I'm really surprised you can't do this in some obscure MMO or something. Or maybe it's just that obscure.)
[link] [comments]
Help me out. I'm a PC and PS4 gamer who loves PvP and 'hard' (furi, souls etc) games. Is there any moblie games I should be playing?
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 07:09 PM PST
I've always considered moblie games to be casual, like Facebook games. But recently I glanced over a kids shoulder and their iPad game looked awesome!
Is there any moblie games I should try? And if so, why would that game be better with a touch screen vs a controller?
submitted by /u/ouronlyplanb Is there any moblie games I should try? And if so, why would that game be better with a touch screen vs a controller?
[link] [comments]
The Problem With Modern Reviewers
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 01:44 PM PST
Years ago when I was just starting out in regards to gaming I used to watch a lot of Modern reviewers and now that I'm looking back on it I've come to recognize some problems I have with them.
Firstly they usually review every game that comes out. This is problematic because there will always some margin for playing a game you find mediocre or bad. I know this was done for consumers in mind as their tastes are constantly changing.
But I've always found that reviewers are at their most usefulness when they review a game they enjoy. A passionate reviewer will make points regarding what makes the game they enjoy playing great and engage their audience that much more because the audience can feel the energy beaming from the reviewer.
For this reason I find reviewers that review all current games they find to be bad/mediocre to be utterly unengaging, uncaring, jaded and not useful.
As a consumer if I've come to the same conclusion as the reviewer regarding a bad/mediocre title what was the point of me watching/reading the reviewer's said review? I've already reached the same conclusion they did.
You make the audience feel the weight of your job as a reviewer if you treat it like one. You aren't going to engage me by appearing worn down and beaten by a bad/mediocre game. So as far as I'm concerned you've wasted both your time and my time. So now I don't care about what you have to say regarding the game.
Now I'm not saying you shouldn't make negative reviews. You should be as honest as you physically can regarding a game.
But what I'm asking is wouldn't you rather reserve your passion, energy and time for something worth your time? What makes making negative reviews worthwhile to you? Honestly I don't see much point in it. I would much rather play and critique games that I find to be worth my time than. games I find to be mediocre/bad most definitely do not fall into that category.
submitted by /u/kenaochreous Firstly they usually review every game that comes out. This is problematic because there will always some margin for playing a game you find mediocre or bad. I know this was done for consumers in mind as their tastes are constantly changing.
But I've always found that reviewers are at their most usefulness when they review a game they enjoy. A passionate reviewer will make points regarding what makes the game they enjoy playing great and engage their audience that much more because the audience can feel the energy beaming from the reviewer.
For this reason I find reviewers that review all current games they find to be bad/mediocre to be utterly unengaging, uncaring, jaded and not useful.
As a consumer if I've come to the same conclusion as the reviewer regarding a bad/mediocre title what was the point of me watching/reading the reviewer's said review? I've already reached the same conclusion they did.
You make the audience feel the weight of your job as a reviewer if you treat it like one. You aren't going to engage me by appearing worn down and beaten by a bad/mediocre game. So as far as I'm concerned you've wasted both your time and my time. So now I don't care about what you have to say regarding the game.
Now I'm not saying you shouldn't make negative reviews. You should be as honest as you physically can regarding a game.
But what I'm asking is wouldn't you rather reserve your passion, energy and time for something worth your time? What makes making negative reviews worthwhile to you? Honestly I don't see much point in it. I would much rather play and critique games that I find to be worth my time than. games I find to be mediocre/bad most definitely do not fall into that category.
[link] [comments]
Have there ever been any games where the players build and fortify a base or a community together?
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 02:17 PM PST
Hello everyone,
I had in mind a game set in something like a zombie apocalypse, maybe a survival game, where instead of just punching zombies together while on the run, the players actually work together in fortifying and making their base safe.
What if, instead of being in a top down 2D perspective on a game like This War of Mine [Steam] and managing each survivor's tasks, you actually were one of those survivors and had to communicate with everyone else?
Another example would be Rimworld. What if instead of being a top down manager, controlling the colonists, you were put in such a position with 3-4 or even 10 other people, and you have to work it out.
I realise that there must be some difficulty to portray this kind of situation in a video game, and make it appealing, perhaps it just doesn't have the potential to be a video game, since you rely on team players, and I've seen what the little team involvement in MOBAs does to people, but I'd like to hear your own thoughts about this. Either on ways of doing it, perhaps even in another medium, or maybe it has already been attempted by some developer out there.
submitted by /u/DPPaccount18 I had in mind a game set in something like a zombie apocalypse, maybe a survival game, where instead of just punching zombies together while on the run, the players actually work together in fortifying and making their base safe.
What if, instead of being in a top down 2D perspective on a game like This War of Mine [Steam] and managing each survivor's tasks, you actually were one of those survivors and had to communicate with everyone else?
Another example would be Rimworld. What if instead of being a top down manager, controlling the colonists, you were put in such a position with 3-4 or even 10 other people, and you have to work it out.
I realise that there must be some difficulty to portray this kind of situation in a video game, and make it appealing, perhaps it just doesn't have the potential to be a video game, since you rely on team players, and I've seen what the little team involvement in MOBAs does to people, but I'd like to hear your own thoughts about this. Either on ways of doing it, perhaps even in another medium, or maybe it has already been attempted by some developer out there.
[link] [comments]
Roguelikes?
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 02:40 PM PST
I've really been enjoying Enter the Gungeon and Binding of Issac recently- how is the roguelike scene right now? Anything in development, worth trying out, or just noteworthy in general?
submitted by /u/aragog45 [link] [comments]
What YouTube channels are similar to Extra Credits?
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 01:27 PM PST
I really enjoy watching Extra Credits and have kept up with them for years. Even though I don't get to actually play games very often, but I really like learning about the design process, and the 'behind the scenes' of games and the industry. Especially that they can explain the topic in just a few minutes, and in an entertaining way.
What do you guys recommend?
submitted by /u/OleGravyPacket What do you guys recommend?
[link] [comments]
So new switch specifications came out, and uh, does any one think it will do well in a universe where the Nvidia Shield already exists?
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 12:28 PM PST
So here are the specifications (taken from top post in /r/gaming
Undocked
And here is the Nvidia Shield specifications, a device that is already a year and a half old, and consider the Nvidia stated the Switch is based on Tegra line (presumably X1, but who knows), and the Nvidia shield has a battery life of between 10 -> 5 hours long.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHIELD_Android_TV
Here are the pasted specs from wiki
I just don't see this thing being powerful enough to compete with current mobile devices, people claim that software will make it faster than current better hardware products but I just don't see that happening (Nintendo has been bad with that kind of kernel level software in the past) and maybe this is some sort of custom product? The only thing I could potentially see with this device that keeps it from being a total failure is a long battery life if it is similar to current hardware, not just 3ds levels, but really, really long battery life, like 12+ hours straight gaming, not the occasional 7ish hours the 3ds can push out.
The switch already seems like it's inferior to the shield in every single way, we know its based on similar hardware if not the same, Nvidia came right out and said it. I don't see why people are being optimistic about this device in terms of performance.
There are four things that could stop it from being a technological failure in my eyes.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintendo-switch-spec-analysis
its a nice article, I would recommend reading it.
submitted by /u/Plazmatic Undocked
- Available CPU Speeds 1020MHz
- Available GPU Speeds 307.2MHz
- Available Memory Controller Speeds 1331/1600MHz
- Available CPU Speeds 1020MHz
- Available GPU Speeds 307.2/768MHz
- Available Memory Controller Speeds 1331/1600MHz
And here is the Nvidia Shield specifications, a device that is already a year and a half old, and consider the Nvidia stated the Switch is based on Tegra line (presumably X1, but who knows), and the Nvidia shield has a battery life of between 10 -> 5 hours long.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHIELD_Android_TV
Here are the pasted specs from wiki
- SoC: Tegra X1
- CPU: 2.0 GHz[3] 4 ARM Cortex-A57 and 4 ARM Cortex-A53 64-bit cores
- GPU: 1000 MHz Maxwell (core configuration: 256:16:16)
- RAM: 3 GB RAM
- Internal Storage: 16 GB SSD, or 500 GB HDD(pro version)[4]
- External Storage: micro SDXC slot
- Gigabit Ethernet
- HDMI 2.0 port
- micro USB 2.0 port
- USB 3.0 ports x2: for mouse, keyboard and external hard drives
- IR Receiver: for TV remote
- 802.11ac 2x2 MIMO 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz Wi-Fi, compatible with 802.11g/n WiFi
- Bluetooth 4.1/BLE: for headsets, other game controllers, etc.
I just don't see this thing being powerful enough to compete with current mobile devices, people claim that software will make it faster than current better hardware products but I just don't see that happening (Nintendo has been bad with that kind of kernel level software in the past) and maybe this is some sort of custom product? The only thing I could potentially see with this device that keeps it from being a total failure is a long battery life if it is similar to current hardware, not just 3ds levels, but really, really long battery life, like 12+ hours straight gaming, not the occasional 7ish hours the 3ds can push out.
The switch already seems like it's inferior to the shield in every single way, we know its based on similar hardware if not the same, Nvidia came right out and said it. I don't see why people are being optimistic about this device in terms of performance.
There are four things that could stop it from being a technological failure in my eyes.
- efficient kernel level software making up for the lack of hardware in comparison to extremely comparable mobile devices (like smartphones, tablets, and especially the shield)
- The hardware is actually custom enough to where the hardware performance is better than the shield (if it isn't better, then they are just charging more for the hell of it)
- The battery life of the console is so long that it makes up for the poor performance otherwise, (even better if hardware is on par with shield and battery life for gaming is much longer)
- software lineup is so good, none of the other points matter, because games sell consoles, not hardware.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-nintendo-switch-spec-analysis
its a nice article, I would recommend reading it.
[link] [comments]
Why no optional mouse control on consoles?
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 09:21 AM PST
I am personally primarily a console player. If I ever get a decent PC gaming rig, I'd want to spend at least $800 and I don't have that kind of scratch right now. That said, consoles are more than able to handle mouse input. Why isn't this standardized as a control option particularly for FPS? Given the choice between a controller and a keyboard and mouse, I'd quickly end up preferring a mouse for a lot of games.
submitted by /u/tearlock [link] [comments]
Could anyone give this game a go and try it for me ?
Posted: 19 Dec 2016 02:56 PM PST
Post a Comment