Playstation 4

I'll take rolling around in a tub of poopdick fartballs over reading Little House on the Prairie, which is what he thinks kids should be doing instead of playing video games. Those are the "true classics," you see.

I've played it, yeah, and it sucked a load of shitty dick jizz. So did Gameloft's DSi port, which also managed to muck up the animations.

You're too much of a purist. Probably one of those fagets who think d-pad is superior in fighting games.

I think most fighting game enthusiasts would consider an arcade stick to be superior for fighting games. I don't speak from personal experience though, as I'm not into the genre.

I don't like fighting games.

:O:O:O:O

But if I did, I'd probably be an arcade stick snob.

I think part of my dislike for fighting games is that I'm not generally into multiplayer games; especially not really competitive ones. I like Super Smash Bros., but that's about it. And part of that is that Super Smash Bros. feels more like an action platformer than a standard fighting game.

I love Smash Bros.

I used to be really competitive with games. It was all in good fun and it didn't matter if I lost, but "honing my skills" and getting stupidly good to the point where I was raping everyone in GoldenEye right where they spawn and whupping my brother and his friend so much in Diddy Kong Racing battle mode so bad that I handicapped myself by playing upside down and I still managed to smoke their asses... Yeah, that was fun, and I gleefully was really into that as a kid.

But Smash Bros. Melee was the last game I really played a lot with friends. It was kind of obsessive; every weekend for over a year we played that game for hours on end. It was a blast, but after that I no longer really played m-player games a whole lot. It's harder to get people together for that sorta thing and the PS3/360 kinda stuck to online play which never excited me a whole lot (save for Descent in '96/'97, ooooh baby), and the Wii really only offered party games which are fun, but only have so much mileage.

SO YEAH, I DUNNO, I just don't get terribly competitive with games anymore and as such I usually suck at them now when playing against people.

Unless we're playing a good old match of Super Mario Kart battle mode. The SNES one, 'cos fuck the N64 game.

X-pert74 wrote:

I think most fighting game enthusiasts would consider an arcade stick to be superior for fighting games. I don't speak from personal experience though, as I'm not into the genre.

Well every time I bring up the playstation controller and how they should get rid of the d pad or move it everyone says oh I use the dpad a lot and it's the best for fighting games and this and that.

I've always liked the placement of the DualShock D-pad just 'cos I play a lot of sidescrollers on PSN.

:O

I've played quite a few fighting games in my day. I've never been a fan of the arcade stick, though, and I know quite a few high level players that were never either. One of them won a major Virtua Fighter 4 competition that people from all over the US traveled to, and my other friend got 3rd place. It was in Texas and my friends traveled from New York, and there were a lot of guys from Florida and all over. I was at a similar level at that game as the guy that got 3rd, but I don't remember if I ever seriously beat the guy that got 1st. Anyways, we always used the d-pad for that game and all other fighting games. I still laugh at people that use the analog stick in fighting games.

Only fighting games I've ever owned are Virtua Fighter 4 Evolution (never played) and Street Fighter 2 Turbo. And only because it was $3

Sure, it's only an opinion, but VF4 Evolution is the best fighting game of all time. Unlike most fighting games, it's got a steeper learning curve than your standard button mashing fighter. And almost all of the characters are quite unique and totally different experiences to play as. So, this gives the game some more life, but in the end you can still only get so much out of it if you don't have a regular group of friends to play it with. I definitely suggest giving it a try, though.

I sold it while purging my PS2 games last year :\

I spent a great deal of time with it. Vanessa.

Hollow_Viscus wrote:

After_The_Barrel_Roll wrote:

Hollow_Viscus wrote:

The vita thing only works for up to 15 feet away.

Could potentially work as my room is above the room where my consoles are.

Well like you mentioned. It doesn't have the L and R 2 buttons. The Vita is not as powerful as a PS4 so I don't see how you will be able to play PS4 games on it. They make it sound like because it's on a cloud the specs of the system don't matter.

They made that bit pretty clear: the PS4 has integrated video compression. The PS4 renders the game, which is converted to video and streamed game to you at PSVita resolution (or potentially lower), your button inputs go back to your PS4 which reacts to it.

There's gonna be input-lag, but I'm sure many games will be playable. It'll definitely work on a home network. But the R2L2 thing is complicated. Maybe the touch pad gets to double as shoulder buttons.


For me the reveal was both underwhelming and reassuring. It didn't blow my socks off, but I doubt the Xbox Next will either. We've been watching Unreal 4 demos and CryEngine demos for years now, and the law of diminishing returns just makes it impossible for the graphics to wow us like they did in generations past. The presentation itself was pretty boring, but it was refreshing to see so much actual game content as compared to just tech demos (and that Quantic Dream old-dude and Deep Down were fucking amazing). Most importantly, I dug the fact that it actually seemed like they'd gotten the developers on board in a way they completely failed to do last time, so it makes me really hopeful about next gen. Most importantly, the fact that they seem to be really pushing the network angle (which is abysmal on PS3) makes me think they're pretty much doing everything right this time and the whole take on social gaming has some really cool things going for it. I'm worried about the "prediction" element, but smarter downloading, spectating, co-operative play, sharing etc. seems to actually be a step above this gen.


As someone who hated the fact that Microsoft split the market, I'm glad that as of what we know now, Sony seems to have an advantage, or at least leveled the playing field:
1. Hardware seems to be equal/better than Durango (no more shitty PS ports for multiplatform games).
2. They're revamping their network infrastructure.
3. They've gone with a developer friendly design.
4. Bungie has gone multiplatform.

I'm guessing you'll have to pay for PSN and all this network stuff though. No way they are going to give it away for free.

The trouble with game graphics these days is not a whole lot of devs are using the technology to do something interesting that you can't get in real life. Instead you have bullshit like L.A. Noire where people are creaming their pants over realistic facial movements, as if watching a person talk IRL is really all that interesting. Using great technology to recreate the mundane and/or the millionth uncreative FPS or space shooter is not a good way to use the tech.

I still hold the graphics in Conker's BFD on N64 in higher regard than most of the stuff that's come out since. Hell, I still hold the original Quake in higher regard because the architecture in that game is amazing, and unfortunately the 360/PS3 generation rubbed off multiple ones to everything I hate about gaming.

Shadows of the Damned was nothing particularly amazing tech-wise, but it's got some real damn pretty visuals and designs. I also love color. Fuck all these games that favor monochromatic browns/grays over color.

LA Noire is still a good game though.

It looked OK, I dunno. :o

Yes, the most beautiful games have never been the most technically impressive, they're the ones that have the best artistic design. Good developers can do amazing things with limited power, just check out some of the Panzer Dragoon games for good examples.

Here's the follow up to this guy's first video where he told Sony how not to screw up the press event.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Abnormal Freak wrote:

The trouble with game graphics these days is not a whole lot of devs are using the technology to do something interesting that you can't get in real life. Instead you have bullshit like L.A. Noire where people are creaming their pants over realistic facial movements, as if watching a person talk IRL is really all that interesting. Using great technology to recreate the mundane and/or the millionth uncreative FPS or space shooter is not a good way to use the tech.

I still hold the graphics in Conker's BFD on N64 in higher regard than most of the stuff that's come out since. Hell, I still hold the original Quake in higher regard because the architecture in that game is amazing, and unfortunately the 360/PS3 generation rubbed off multiple ones to everything I hate about gaming.

Shadows of the Damned was nothing particularly amazing tech-wise, but it's got some real damn pretty visuals and designs. I also love color. Fuck all these games that favor monochromatic browns/grays over color.

I think the problem is that those super awesome graphics are so expensive to make, you'll only see them in mass market AAA games that cater to the lowest common denominator. However, with this much juice, I'm sure the indie developer scene will kick out some amazing innovative graphics.

I hope so. I'm a bit tired of bloated multi-million dollar blockbusters that offer up nothing special. The game market needs to crash unless ingenuity finds its place in the public's heart again, not just in game mechanics but solid design and graphical presentation as well.

Thankfully there'll probably always be Nintendo, but even I get frustrated at their executive decisions. Nobody's runnin' that ish as good as Hiroshi Yamauchi did. I'd hoped that with Iwata being a previous game developer we'd see some really gamer- and developer-friendly decisions, but left and right he and Miyamoto are coming up with the most asinine ideas and stripping games of their content. It's like what Lasseter is doing with Disney, and it feels like a betrayal considering these guys were once the top artists, the creative people.

I don't think there's a chance that the market will crash. It's going to keep churning out your Call of Duty's, Battlefields and whatnot. However, I think that as has been seen at the tail end of this generation, graphics are mattering less and less. I'm sure that'll come back at the beginning of next gen, but with the amount of fidelity that goes into next gen games, I think performance will soon be more important than graphical quality. And once that's done, I think quality is going to start being a factor.

Just look at The Walking Dead. While distinctive in style, the graphics really are butt ugly by todays' standard. Shitty animations and all. Still, it's selling millions. And yet, it's not some tiny little one man indie project.

As the game market grows, there's gonna be room for both the blockbusters and the more creative titles.

The one thing I'm really hoping for next gen is a good Final Fantasy game/good JRPG game, because this generation I saw none (still haven't gotten around to playing Xenoblade though).

As for Nintendo, I never really got Nintendo. Ocarina of Time is cool, as are the two Super Mario Galaxies, the rest is pretty meh.

I grew up with Nintendo, and still love a bunch of their games going back to the pre-NES era. I'm not as huge a fan of them as I once was (I used to be a somewhat blind Nintendo fanboy as a kid, hating everything that competed with them), but I still generally like Nintendo games, despite some of the stupid decisions Nintendo themselves make.