It's vague marketing tactics.
Salesman: "Yes you'll be playing at 4K 60FPS!"
Reality: However 90% of games won't have that, so don't expect much in terms of graphics for those that do achieve that.
Salesman: "Yes! You'll have 8K capability!"
Reality: For video, which only really matters if you're one of the very very very very few in the 8K TV owning percentile that can utilize it.
It can be played alone and it supports up to eight player coop.
I hope most of you know Steam's hardware and software survey is voluntary and asked randomly of certain users every month. It's not gonna be completely accurate much less reflective of the overall userbase.
@NotoriousWhiz Then I hope for everyone's sake you're underpaid.
They already are, the only prerequisite to owning and using one is not being a half-wit.
I'd rather pass a kidney stone than play The Outer Worlds again. Gave it a fair shot and it had nothing redeeming after the first few hours. Such a bland and boring step down from New Vegas in just about every way.
I can tolerate how it looks, but that name is absolutely terrible.
Or you're easily emotionally triggered by cheap melodrama. Get some writing perspective, then talk to me.
No, I genuinely found the game directors intentions fall flat at delivery with that particular sequence. That's what I felt. No mystery to it. As it for being impactful for Joel, that much is obvious, but as a viewer I felt nothing without substance. It will of course be different for each and every person, hence my response is regarding my personal experience, and not in general of others. Some people are easily predisposed to this type of stuff, while others who aren't are gonna exp...
Yea I have experienced loss, but with that loss came prior development. The same applies here. There is no real development with Sarah, therefore I didn't feel anything for her death. That desired reaction from the directors was to create an impacting scene, and for me that fell flat because it involved a character that only existed to die for some cheap melodrama, she's barely even a character and more like a plot device as a result. And yes it would have helped, greatly. There's...
I found Sarah's death pretty humorous to be honest, not in the context of a child dying, but rather in the context of a character that's there for less than ten minutes of the game with practically no character development, that I'm expected to so easily react emotionally to being killed off. That assumption on the directors part had me laughing once the screen went black after. They really could have done that part better, with at least some lead up that explored her character th...
I remember it being almost universally despised by studios outside Sony's own. That's it's legacy.
Seriously. I bought the 'Only on Playstation' black friday bundle with Days Gone and Spider-Man and it's sometimes just painful, Days Gone in particular with it's dipping. I've been spoiled by 165hz and uncapped frame rates for so long now it'd be difficult to settle for less
@Obscure_Observer PC has no stringent "userbase", it's not a unified platform.
Forcing anything that doesn't occur naturally typically has very natural consequences, be it inward or outward. Anyone that has studied psychology knows this well.
@TK-66
"having a boss who has the ability to end world hunger but doesnt"
And that's somehow his obligation to, how? No amount of money will end hunger, it's a perpetual state of being, especially with populations increasing. It's childish to think it's as easily solvable as writing a check.
What is that even supposed to mean?
It's not a matter of grasping it, dumbass. No one is saying it's not excessive, it already goes without saying. But what business is it of yours, and why act so personally invested in something you financially aren't? It's not your money.
You seem obsessed if not severely insecure with what other people do with their money, do you get this pissy when some rich guy drives by you in a jaguar? Again who is forcing you to buy this. Nobody. So move on and live with the fact people with more money than you spend it as they like.
You mean the "not technologically impaired"?