One thing I've been trying to wrap my brain around, I'd Microsoft claim of 6tf. They claim to be using amd tech, but a stock rx 480 delivers 5.8tf. So I wonder if they're making a custom gpu to pull of that performance. Or are they over clocking a stock 480, or are they just fudging the numbers to include cpu calculations.
And to those talking about price. A stocked rx 480 can be found on the market for $230-300. If bought in bulk, the price would drop s...
While I get what you're saying about altering tank speeds and such for gameplay. I don't get why you would pick an Era of war, then use weapons that predominantly weren't used in the war, or used in very limited situations at the end of the war. Speed up the vehicles, and alter almost every other aspect of the war.
Why pick that war if you're going to change literally everything about it? Why not pick another war, or better yet... use your imagination and...
@garethvk
They likely realized there wasn't enough content to keep people interested until the slated dlc release. So in an effort to keep people playing until they can drop paid contents they're doing free updates. Just a guess though.
Looks quirky, stupid, impractical, and exactly the opposite of what everyone has asked for. Seems exactly like Nintendos m.o. to me.
I haven't paid much attention to quantum break. But it would seem on the surface how they are achieving the resolution, effects, and overall quality, would create a fairly perceivable amount of input lag. If they found a way around that I would be incredibly interested in hearing about that work around.
@ sniper. My 2 month old 120hz 4k tv does exactly what he's saying. I've put my 1080p and 4k tvs next to each other to compare everhthing. Framerate, resolution, color, sharpness, and everything else looks remarkably better on a newer 4k tv.
Your tv is 18 months old, that's ancient in the tech world. Tv tech has come a long way in the last year.
I went in expecting a grindy, loot based, third person cover shooter, in a real world setting. I've gotten exactly what I expected out of it. If you took more away from the trailers, or press confrerences, that's on you in my personal opinion.
In honesty, that's kind of what a forum is for. He's voicing his opinion. You're voicing yours. Working as intended.
It reads a lot like someone who was forced to play and review a game they had no interest in from the start. But that's what a review is, just a person's perspective.
I went in to the game knowing what it was, and haven't been disappointed.
If you purchase ps vr, you're buying in to new tech. Just like tvs and everything else, it will rapidly evolve, and become cheaper. $400 for this setup today is good. But in 2 years, it could come with more and better features, and not need use of move and the camera and cost $200.
Thinking this will be a set in stone thing because you bought the first iteration, of the first generation of tech, doesn't mean the company that made it won't improve and refine...
Destiny it's self wasn't a bad game. I believe bungie just handled everything very poorly. They went from out right lieing. To being dead silent. The game lacked content, and a story. The dlc that it's gotten has helped, but it's just not enough for 2 years of play. Add to that what I said about bungie, and it left a very sour taste in a lot of people's mouths.
Until battlefield 5 is released?
@phunky
I think we both bring good points to either side of our argument. But it's obvious we see things entirely different. Good debate, but I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
@silver
I played the beta, and like I said "I want to buy it." But I don't know how much pve there is. I don't know what kind of endgame there is. Most importantly, I don't know much outside of the price of the game, season pass, and what I learned playing the beta. Which was the DZ is fun, but the game will need more to sustain it's self.
I also didn't say I was looking for a reviewers opinion of the game. I was looking...
@phunky
Yes people should make informed decisions. But like you said it's 2016. Why are Sony and Ms allowing crap games on their consoles? They have to issue licenses before they go to market.
And while I believe you are fully right about a consumer making an informed decision. It can't always be done in this crazy software world. Look at ac:unity- review embargo. Destiny-review embargo, the division won't allow reviewers on until day 1....
Why would you like that idea? They've only mentioned the dark zone as end game content. We got to play 2 missions, and in the darkzone for the beta. We know what the darkzone is like, and you either like it or you dont.
But ubi could have limited, or full servers up for reviewers. Then people would know, how many missions there are. How coherent/great/bad the story is. What other end game activities there are.
Ubi deserves no trust. No company ...
Yes. How dare paying customers complain about a product they're unhappy with. They should only be able to post positive things, and be happy with what their corporate masters have fed them.
Pull your head out of your stink hole, and realize that it was a bad game in a lot of respects, and paying customers have a right to Complain about it. I do find it sad they went after someone who has little to nothing to do with a lot of the issues. But to shame people for voici...
Most people don't look back at the previous gen. The 360 was marketed as a gaming console, for gamers. The ps3 was a Blu-ray playing, media hub, with SD card slots, and gaming capabilities. Sony spent most of the gen trying to recover from a later launch, and a console that was seemingly less capable. While MS just raked in profits on the 360.
Yep. All things a pc gamer typically stays away from.
Yeah, what a pathetic group of losers all gamers must be for wanting what was promised over and over again. It's so pathetic to not want a company to lie to you about their product. We should just shut up and hand them money, and be happy with whatever they decide to give us.
Seriously, we're you born this stupid?