- 0 Posts
- 96 Comments
I am mostly joking, but I do remember reading somewhere that the punishing corpse run aspect combined with the lack of checkpoints was a response to how toothless death was in Bioshock and games of that era. Compare a death in Demon’s Souls to Bioshock, where you pop instantly out of the nearest vitachamber(?) with no loss, for example.
As with intel, I would recommend not really paying attention to the 3, 5, 7, 9 numbers. Those are just marketing vague indicators; ideally of performance, but realistically just of cost.
Instead, look at the actual model numbers and seek out benchmarks performed by groups you trust with workloads similar to what you might actually do with them. E.g. If you are a gamer, look for comparisons between CPUs as to how they perform in various games. Linus Tech Tips do videos about recent CPU releases and compare how they do vs the competition in a bunch of games, and it shouldn’t be hard to find websites with the same kind of comparisons.
But also, yes, they are due to release a 9900x3D and 9950x3D early next year, supposedly. I am keen to see if the 9950x3D is symmetrical this time around; the 7950x3D was asymmetrical so I avoided it.
Streaming the game is never gonna be viable for me because of where I live, even if I wanted it, and I very much don’t. But then I don’t care for the kind of competitive games where what hardware you run on makes that much difference, anyway.
I don’t think we need “the best”. Just to be able to detect and ban the egregious offenders would be enough.
I will say we agree on one thing; competitive games should not be taken as seriously as they are. But then I’m of the controversial opinion that esports made gaming worse.
Client-side anti-cheat is effectively pointless in the long run. The software is running on a machine the devs do not control, and ultimately that means it cannot be trusted. They should be working harder on server-side detection, but that requires work not just buying a product and dusting your hands off…
The only real difference is being fairly certain that anything you buy on GOG will be DRM-free, since that is their stated policy and they offer the standalone installers for download. Granted they also offer a launcher like Steam, and if you’re only using that then you’re no better off; if a game gets delisted and you don’t have the installers archived you may be out of luck, depending on the details.
That said you are right, the problem is the laws and the publishers. But getting access to those offline installers certainly doesn’t hurt, in the meantime.
Hm, fair point. I personally hate external accounts because it makes your ownership of your purchase that little bit more tenuous. Your continued access is now contingent on Valve remaining extant and good, Epic remaining extant and… tolerable, and the game’s servers, assuming EFD has those and offers no local / P2P option. Admittedly if that last is the case, you would hope if things fell through with Epic that the publishers would come up with some other solution, but I know it took a LONG time for most games that straddled the Steam+GFWL boundary to become playable again after GFLW died. And I’m not sure if they all did.
I am tempted to agree with you. I could see some theoretical scenario where some influencer with a large following convinces them to all review something poorly just because they say so. If that happened, I think it would be legitimate to call it review bombing. I don’t think it’s likely, mind you, that someone could convince a large enough group of people to do that without a valid reason. But it could theoretically happen.
Game Pass has been an awful money hole for MS since its inception. There’s no way it can make money without a dramatic increase in price for way less. It’s been so clear from day one that the hope was for gamers to just… stop buying games and for their service to become the only thing so they could later jack up the price when other options are gone, like streaming services did.
That is, according to the post on their forums, exactly what they did. The people who were clearly just doing it to grind money as fast as possible without regard for the effects it had on the servers and without attempting to report the results of this “testing” (because they weren’t testing, or even playing arguably) got a suspension, not a perma ban.
I didn’t play much Elden Ring as it strayed too far from what I liked about the earlier Souls games, personally. Demon’s would only give you a checkpoint after killing a boss, though you could open up shortcuts instead. Dark Souls 1 had a few more checkpoints but there was none of this respawning right outside the boss door that you get in ER and some of the later series games (to make up for the overtuned boss challenge in those games).
This meant, at least on your first playthrough, you tended to be doing this slow, tense exploration of hostile areas. Because dying would not only cost you progress, but potentially your next level if you failed to retrieve your souls.