Like how can the GBA even run what we're seeing in this video and why haven't we seen anything close released by developers.
Had a lot of fun with 2, then I gotta play 1.
Fun/solid games none the less, at least the one I played was(2). Were the previous iterations released $40? Did the $10 current-gen price hike affect it, you think?
Pretty sure it's bat an eye, btw :P
There's a lot of blinking going on RN. People up in arms at this one guys tweet, when it hasn't been a problem before.
Servers needed time to adjust the initial week, for sure. It ran well after that, just grinded too much and haven't played for 2 months(plus my brother got bored of it). What other ways have they messed it up? This really doesn't count to me, literally non-issue, given that it's not meant to be a full solo game.
Pretty lame single player experience.
Pretty sure this needs rephrasing, they mean you can't PLAY OFFLINE if you haven't did the online check in 30 days. Do online check. Then play offline.. How the fuck hard is that. Just loaded it up and was able to play after 2 months on PS4.
Because it checks online every 30 days, a problem that will not arise unless you actually play it? When the hell are you not online for 30 days, and of those online days not Diablo II? You're right, don't buy it.. This game is a complete grind, and that grind is only worth it if you're playing online, with friends, or on leaderboards, or to experience the community and pvp, trading, etc. As a single-player experience ONLY, it's not great.
Exploits too. Could get insane modded weapons on Diablo 3 from save exploits.
Not even piracy, hacking in general. Mods, save editing, exploits.
There's safety measures for piracy on every game. Being Diablo II, a game where 90% of the users are online, it would make sense to protect the integrity of the game by incorporating SOME measures, this is HARDLY a major "nail in the coffin", it's just an online check after 30 days. BIG FUCKING DEAL.
An online check every 30 days does not sound unreasonable.. What the fuck year are we in?
A lot of developers tried hard to be as realistic as possible or use to best of their ability the cutting edge graphic technologies available to them for the hardware.. and especially in 3D worlds, it gets pretty obvious that these technologies and hardware are antiquated as time passes. The developers didn't try hard with Kingdoms of Amalur to be super realistic and cutting edge, I think right on release, I liked how similar the art style/gameplay was to Fable 3? . Any remaster will seem...
MSRP 1500 GPU, $300 CPU, Case $50, MOBO $120, RAM $70, PSU $80, SSD $85(adjusted for size and speed), Decent controller $60. $2265, $141 in additional US taxes over PS5 incl tax. Or you could just count GPU/CPU, or just GPU if you already have everything else. still 3-4 times PS5's price.
😳
1 year into the gen, GPU is closer to it's price at MSRP. Like $500 should get you a GPU that perform similarly. Except it's hard as shit right...
Digital foundry does a decent breakdown of the differences, though they were very specific on the PC rig they were testing on. It clearly shows how the BC mode is showing "PS5 version" in bad light.
@Magog, Why not just donate to them directly, since the game is already part of the subscription. Lol.
You have a rare mentality. Most people like to save money. I would definitely not buy it if it's part of a subscription I'm paying for, one that's already paying the developers.
70% of who. 30% is still HUGE.
Oh yeah. fking duhhh XD. Yes please
There are some games I play for the online, but stay for the single-player. Like recently, COD: Vanguard. The campaign was great, but the online trophies are easily 15-20 hours of online play when the campaign was a fraction of that, not to mention most of that has to be dedicated to ZOMBIES, which I never put much time into beyond just trying it out. (also got a glitch where only the first mission was logged as played on veteran and only got the base "beat the game" trophy, so I ...