As long as it doesn't feel like it's tailormade for controllers. PC game = pc controls
UK, US, New Zealand and Canada. Well... Belgium is like the Canada of Europe?
On the other hand, moving to New Zealand doesn't sound half bad.
edit: wrong post, dammit.
That said, the series could really use a graphical update. Supporters may no longer be cardboard boxes, but now they look like characters from the very first tomb raider. And 99% of the players look nothing (at all) like their real life counterparts.
I mean even with a decent player reator and the help of the community a lot could be done.
ow brother, that's just stupid. Buying a 2000$ gaming pc and then upgrading it for 1000$ every two to three years will see you maxing out everything. With greater longevity. + resell value on everything you take out. Never mind the lack of optimization for multiple cards. Why not just burn money while you're at it?
- Who pays for virus programs in this day and age?
- computer desk? Because the price of your couch counts for consoles as well?
- windows? steam os
- Monitor? so a console doesn't need a television?
CPU, Ram, Hdd, mobo, psu, fans and case, very true. <-> usual counterargument is that most gamers upgrade and therefore only need to upgrade some parts.
The idea for the article isn't that a single gpu is better then console...
It's an RPG, that's one of those genre's where graphics are fun, but not essential. Most party based rpg's still don't match up to BG2 and I'm pretty sure the hardware in previous gen would be able to run it.
If the combat is tactical, the writing personal and the choices meaningful, it could be in 2d for all I care.
You're probably going to hear about it for another couple of months. I hate it when they hype me up too early.
Kickstarters usually get the game on the cheap, so in a way, yeah.
Intentionally uglifying?
Really?
Every penny they spent on optimizing graphics, is a penny not spent on something else. Like content.
They didn't have a superbeautiful version and then spent money to dumb it down for XBox One. They just used their money on something else than better graphics.
All that money that a developer should apparently (according to most of these 'holding back' comments) have spent on optimizing graphics. Let's hope they are smarter and have spent it on art direction, gameplay and content. I still quite regularly play games over ten years old, and it's not because of lightning effects or textures.
I read more books than I complete games! And the newspaper everyday!
I have no idea whatsoever where this stereotype suddenly came from.
Why? Fallout 3 was a good game. And at the time I was disappointed at them for Oblivion's blandness, so I was rather sceptical.
And that's the difference between nvidians and amd'ers. Since I don't use 50$ bills to wipe myself, I'm more of an AMD man usually.
I need a response from Bioware denying even a whisper of MP in this game. Next thing you know they'll ask you to connect your game through facebook.
Make a great single-player game and leave all the MP, online or MMo features to other IP's. They better not waste a dime or delay the game a second for something like that.
Yea, because when the only thing we know about an rpg's gameplay is that it's topdown, it must be bad! (Baldur's gate series, Diablo series, Dragon Age: Origins, ...)
That said, ambitious concepts rarely make for the best games. Maybe they should've started with scanning one region, or one city, because no one developer can make a world the size of 'the world' full enough with creative quests and characters.
"Man, these games are exactly the same" apart from the fact that one is a sci-fi shooter and the other a party based fantasy rpg. That's like saying EA sports shouldn't have both a FIFA and NBA Live series, cause they're basically the same anyway.
I wonder what "concept" they are supposed to be milking... Is a focus on character-relation it? Milk away then. Is it perhaps the whole RPG-part that they are milking? Perhaps it is this whole 'co...
Most wanted feature: for the next TES not to be an mmorpg. This genre has been taking IP's I like and turning them into things I don't want to play.
You can spend more on voice-acting when the technical development of a game doesn't cost enormous amounts of money, as it does today.
Amazing story and great voice acting doesn't show as much in short preview-sessions, plus it's easier to tease the fans with a few jaw-dropping screens. -> what you see sells more than what you hear.
I think it matters to what you're comparing it. If you're way more into rpgs than arpgs it'll be way better.