Jump to content

J4MES OX4D

FGers
  • Posts

    10,347
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    412

Posts posted by J4MES OX4D

  1. Would never have expected this. £36 for the trilogy though is quite heavy especially when you could pick up the collection for £5 back in 2014 on PC. Then there's the extensive modding scene which has proven to be essential and so beneficial over the years. I think £6.99 each would've been a far better pricepoint and you can run these games literally on a toaster.

  2. 5 hours ago, TurboR56Mini said:

    Also heard these devs like leaving things unfinished and just abandon stuff. Not unheard of but it put some folks off. I do this in real life!!

    They certainly enjoy milking DLC - Snowrunner has 4 season passes at £22 each whereas the original Mudrunner had 3 free map DLC's and an expansion that cost £9. Snowrunner is basically a shell and if you wanted the entire experience it would've cost about £105 and even then large parts of the game remain neglected or unfinished.  

     

    Expeditions seems really watered-down especially coming off the back of Snowrunner and even the OG Mudrunner so it'll probably cost another £90 on top to get all the upcoming DLC's if not even more. 

  3. This game looks a bit downgraded and simplified even compared to Snowrunner. I do like how they’ve done something new with the theme but it all looks a bit unspectacular when compared to lugging some serious cargo in the likes of Spintires and the original Mudrunner. Expeditions looks a bit straightforward and arcadey which is great for newcomers but veterans may be a little put-off. Since Snowrunner, the realism has taken a bit of a knock too and this one looks even more basic so I’m really on the fence but I do like the alternative theme.

  4. Every so often I stumble upon, or revisit a game which is just the equivalent of crack in terms of highly enjoyable and pulsating combat. These games just have that extra something which really stands out and where the combat shines mechanically and even visually. Off the top of my head, I'd say 3 games which really stand out are:-

     

    Metal Gear Rising - fast paced, responsive, smooth and incredibly satisfying melee-based combat. 

    ?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

     

    F.E.A.R - inspired by Max Payne's bullet time feature but with additional immersion thanks to the first person perspective.

    ?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

     

    Max Payne 3 - bullet time never gets old plus the attention to detail and environmental effects look spectacular.

    ?imw=5000&imh=5000&ima=fit&impolicy=Lett

     

    There's probably loads more that I've forgotten about but what are your standout games that just have that little bit more in terms of the combat? 

     

  5. I was never really interested in the story of Borderlands and missed out on the Tales From Borderlands game so I'm not really sure how this will pan out but I'm sure they will find a solid story even with such limited source material. Kinda wished something like this happened sooner because the series has kind of fizzled out for many years and the third title had some of the most notoriously bad writing ever seen in a piece of media. I think it will do pretty well and could refresh the brand but it should've probably been done around 2015-16. 

  6. 14 hours ago, Diddums said:

    No they don't, this isn't a Sony problem.

    Sony providing the online infrastructure in return for publication rights is the deal so it's on them and I'm not going to blame developers for this issue after they have created a game that has exceeded what Sony were likely expecting. Unlike Microsoft, they don't have the immediately idle-server infrastructure in place and with most of their exclusives being single player or local only, they don't have much of a track record supporting a big live service game like this. So it totally is their problem but at least it's a good starting point with a game like this and not one of their AAA exclusive range. 

  7. 5 hours ago, GazzaGarratt said:

    I don't think its ridiculous because no game offers 10 million slots for concurrent gameplay, thats insane and probably costs an absolute fortune. 

    I could buy a server that hosts up to 1,000 players for the same price that hosts one. 10m slots is absolutely nothing these days especially on games where a player may use up 4 slots from the central server on data, world generation and save states. Palworld sold over 12m copies in the first 3 weeks so they were probably running at least 40m slots in early access in month one. Helldivers 2's growth and popularity will be harmed with such an embarrassingly low cap where either they underestimated the market or they have failed the paying customers. I'm sure it'll be rectified but this is a really disappointing situation that will only harm the game and frustrate players. 

  8. 2 hours ago, TigerBurge said:

    Arrowhead games has said several times now it’s not about server size. If it was that it would be an easy fix. It’s something in the code. That’s coming from the developer. 

    I don’t buy that whatsoever and it sounds more like they are gatekeeping Sony in the most unintelligent way possible. I get they don’t want to throw their publishers under the bus that excuse seems incredibly weak. 
     

    4 hours ago, Luseth said:

    Echoing this Lee, it's an absurd idea to expect servers to be capable of millions of players, even if you look at Counter Strike on PC which has a sizeable following it doesn't hit 1 million players. 

    Palword had 2,000,000 players two weeks ago on Steam alone and that isn’t taking to account data servers, asset servers and seed servers. One player may use 4 slots so that’s 8m servers in operation to facilitate one session per player outside of co-op. Counter-Strike also houses 10+ players per server so it’s non comparable although Valve operate in excess of 1m servers alone which just hold streams and match replays. The FIFA games usually have several million games played each day too plus EA have several other games also live. Fortnite also had 45m players in one day last year. 
     

    450,000 is ridiculous. The game shouldn’t have been published until the cap was increased and if they didn’t foresee more of this issue then that’s a gross underestimation of the industry today. If you have a successful game with endless growth potential then you plan ahead and Palworld is a prime example of how this should be done. It’s managing demand 101 and keeping the game flowing.

  9. Sony simply have to invest in their online architecture to cope with the demand. They’ve ripped off gamers for a generation with their shambolic PS+ offering so it’s about time they gave something back with the huge revenues they make for this very purpose. 
     

    Capping severs at 450,000 for a newly released AA multiplayer title is ridiculous especially considering how many are accessing through Steam alone. If you aren’t rolling with 10m slots for a live service then either you grossly underestimate the market or have no confidence in the game. Feel sorry for the devs. 

  10. Rather than increasing capacity, it seems they are more focused on reducing AFK players instead, so the lousy player cap will remain. 

     

    Players are getting ripped off right left and centre with PS+ and the one time Sony's extended online services are required, they bottle it. 

     

    Seriously have to question what gamers are paying for because Playstation Online is built off of 95% of other companies services. 

  11.  

    4 hours ago, Luseth said:

    I still haven't properly played Elden Ring I won't lie. It looks like a game I would enjoy the gameplay of however is it like the Souls games in that the story isn't really there? I.e. you can read the lore but that's about it?

    It's told similarly to how Souls is done where the story is minimalistic and mysterious and its up to the player to uncover elements around the world to try and form the wider narrative. The stories in these games is pretty astonishing but very complex to unravel and put together.  

  12. Server situation is completely unacceptable right now. Was really hoping to pick it up but there were apparently hundreds of thousands of users who couldn't get in all weekend and the servers were also overwhelmed with AFKers clogging up the joint. Server capacity was also capped at 450,000 yet Steam had a peak of 330.000 accessing the services. If they are going to go down the live service route so they can attach their shitty microtransaction plague of a store then they really need to cope with the demand or keep the game local only with P2P and basic online service access. Servers in this day and age for a game of this nature should be expecting between 2-5m active players so capping at less than half a million is a joke and it's not like it's release weekend either. Very poor showing. 

  13. 6 hours ago, phil bottle said:

     

    How are you finding it? I didn't like the Beta so hope its better now it's live. I still can't get over the fact you can't move around your ship or even swim in the sea, blows my mind 🤪

    Apparently ship boarding is also a cutscene which bloody tragic! You can do this in every game of this nature including Assassin's Creed Black Flag. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy