What Video Games Have You Been Playing #15: Computer not on fire yet? Better add more mods!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was reading a thread on Reddit and apparently in the last ~year, Bethesda pushed an update to FO4 which tanked performance across the board. In my current playthrough anytime I'm near Boston my game turns into a slideshow. That area has always had a low FPS but I didn't remember it being that bad in the past. I just chalked up the terrible performance to all the mods I am running but it turns out that no, it's actually something almost everyone on every platform is dealing with now. That sucks. They have memes about it and everything.
That was an issue back when I was playing. I remember the arena where you meet Cait was so bad - a slideshow, as you say - that I never actually got her as a companion. That whole room was just unplayable. There was a workaround to the issue, back then, not sure if the same fix would work now. There was some adjustment to make in the graphics settings, I don't remember exactly what it was. I think it had to do with shadows, and the myriad light sources downtown.
 
Fallout 4 in VR seems like a fun idea, but then I read the positive reviews and the first guy mentions he's running it with an even stronger GPU than mine and he's locked to 40fps with the Rift S (because of course it can't reach 80). Meanwhile most other reviews are trashing it for being so badly optimized, I'm assuming some of them are not even hitting that stable 40 or 45. No way am I gonna pay serious cash for that :lol:

I did get most areas to get good fps on the 2D game though, it was rare for me to have any frame rate trouble when I was playing that except one or two spots downtown.
 
I tried VR in store and almost puked. :(
 
I’m out of town at the moment so I don’t have latest screenshots. But my character Valerya is traversing the lands in the Wrath of the Litch King.
 
I found my first Watchstone tonight. Watchstone battles coupled with the memory leak make those fights really scary. A crash will toss all the effort and loot into the abyss.
 
Everyone is different and it's way better to give people the tools to make necessary adjustments than to force them to sink hours into a game and then have to start over. I do not understand why this is considered problematic.

matter of taste. some consider this kind of design more inclusive (it is, especially for handicapped people), others like the casualness of it, then others think it's great when a game caters to them and their individual needs. for me it absolutely ruins the experience. paradoxically even when I'm not using it (the difficulty sliders), because psychologically I am always aware that any challenge is absolutely trivial. I can't turn that off. which is why I "hacked" the game in order to disable the sliders entirely.

I mean, there are any number of reasons to want to do that. Perhaps you built your character poorly and don't want to sink another 30+ hours into the game to 'do it right'

making mistakes is part of every learning experience. being punished for bad decisionmaking is, imo, essential to make any game feel challenging. if I built my character really poorly, why should I succeed? seems really counterintuitive to me, in that case why would any of my decisions matter at all?

also, if difficulty is set at the beginning of the game and you've never played.. why not just pick the lowest one? in that case having a suboptimal character build shouldn't be detrimental, no?

(a); you got blindsided by an attack vector you weren't really aware of and don't have on hand items to fix it .

totally fair point, thought this has imo nothing to do with difficulty sliders and everything to do with bad game design. me being the sadomasochist that I am, I gotta admit I would probably enjoy that. a game that doesn't throw me off completely every now and then barely keeps my attention. but I realize these are my personal preferences.

the combat system in the game is very finicky

this is clearly the case in skyrim, and I fundamentally disagree that the logical conclusion is to include difficulty sliders. if anything skyrim shows very clearly that diff sliders only exacerbate the problem. having finnicky combat is simply bad game design, stuff like that cannot be fixed by making all enemies hit like a wet noodle. it's not even a bandaid solution, it makes matters worse.

or the game isn't particularly well balanced and throws the hardest parts at you early on

that's just a bad difficulty curve, easily solved by making the player character very slightly stronger from the very beginning, but scale slightly worse into the late game. something I could solve with ~5 minutes in the ck.

basically, I believe there is almost always a more intuitive, more elegant, easier, more practical solution than readily available difficulty sliders. I don't think adjustable difficulty itself is a problem, adjusting it at the beginning or having the possibility for the player to cheat via console (or savescumming..) is enough imo.

Being able to switch the difficulty in-game lets me make it a bit harder when I become too powerful. *shrugs*

if you enjoy it that's great, no? all the power to you (literally).
 
. if I built my character really poorly, why should I succeed? seems really counterintuitive to me, in that case why would any of my decisions matter at all?

Well I'm against the idea of RPGs even having the possibility of a "poorly designed character". By having certain builds be better than others, it doesn't allow the player to play the game the way they want to play. It pigeonholes them into the playstyles the developer thinks they should be using. And if you don't have control over your playstyle, can the game truly be called an RPG?

I am of the opinion that any character build should be viable in any game. While I don't have a problem with certain builds being more challenging than others, a player should never be completely screwed because they made a character choice the developer decided shouldn't be a good one.

Remember: the main point of a game is to have fun, not to be challenged. Dying over and over isn't fun. Neither is having to start a game over that is already too long (as most RPGs are) just to redesign your character to the specifications the developer wants you to.

The idea that the main focus of a game should be the challenge instead of having fun is a ridiculous one. If you get your fun from the challenge and spending hours working on spreadsheets and min/maxing your character, great. That's why adjustable difficulty exists. Don't knock people though for enjoying games the way they want to enjoy them. It's that kind of elitist thinking that keeps negative stereotypes of gamers from going away.
 
Well I'm against the idea of RPGs even having the possibility of a "poorly designed character". By having certain builds be better than others, it doesn't allow the player to play the game the way they want to play. It pigeonholes them into the playstyles the developer thinks they should be using. And if you don't have control over your playstyle, can the game truly be called an RPG?

I am of the opinion that any character build should be viable in any game. While I don't have a problem with certain builds being more challenging than others, a player should never be completely screwed because they made a character choice the developer decided shouldn't be a good one.

Remember: the main point of a game is to have fun, not to be challenged. Dying over and over isn't fun. Neither is having to start a game over that is already too long (as most RPGs are) just to redesign your character to the specifications the developer wants you to.

The idea that the main focus of a game should be the challenge instead of having fun is a ridiculous one. If you get your fun from the challenge and spending hours working on spreadsheets and min/maxing your character, great. That's why adjustable difficulty exists. Don't knock people though for enjoying games the way they want to enjoy them. It's that kind of elitist thinking that keeps negative stereotypes of gamers from going away.

This is good to a point, but only to a point. Choosing character abilities is part of the game, and you shouldn't be totally protected against consequences of doing it poorly. I used to play a modded version of Oblivion that had enhanced racial and birthsign modifiers, and there was a certain combination that basically meant the first time someone hit you with a trivial flare spell you were going to be incinerated. In terms of RPG reality I just accepted that there would be no adventurers of that race with that birthsign because they would all have died in childhood and went about my business.
 
Remember: the main point of a game is to have fun, not to be challenged. Dying over and over isn't fun. Neither is having to start a game over that is already too long (as most RPGs are) just to redesign your character to the specifications the developer wants you to.
It is secondary and one tool of the company whose goal is to make money. Fun is very subjective and hard to apply in some universal way. It may not even be effectively measurable. :p
 
It is secondary and one tool of the company whose goal is to make money. Fun is very subjective and hard to apply in some universal way. It may not even be effectively measurable. :p

You're right, fun is subjective. Game companies have realized that and now design their games accordingly. What the "challenge junkies" call the dumbing down of games is really just game companies making the games more adaptable to what any given player may be looking to get out of it.
 
making mistakes is part of every learning experience. being punished for bad decisionmaking is, imo, essential to make any game feel challenging. if I built my character really poorly, why should I succeed? seems really counterintuitive to me, in that case why would any of my decisions matter at all?

also, if difficulty is set at the beginning of the game and you've never played.. why not just pick the lowest one? in that case having a suboptimal character build shouldn't be detrimental, no?
Because many games can be very long (my completionist Witcher 3 run clocks at 270+ hours, my last Kingmaker run was 115 hours), and having to restart because of a decision you took 50 hours ago is just absolutely terrible design.

It's especially bad when it's about decision which is by definition uninformed (as it usually happens the first time you play) and there is no way to really guess what the adequate answer ("normal" in some games is pretty easy, while in others it's pretty hard). There is also the problem with difficulty spikes (Kingmaker is a pretty good example, having to give up on a very long run because you hit one of the weird roadblock would be pretty horrible), getting used to the game so what was an adequate difficulty becomes boring, making a bad decision during the character creation that comes to haunt you a lot later, etc.
 
This is good to a point, but only to a point. Choosing character abilities is part of the game, and you shouldn't be totally protected against consequences of doing it poorly. I used to play a modded version of Oblivion that had enhanced racial and birthsign modifiers, and there was a certain combination that basically meant the first time someone hit you with a trivial flare spell you were going to be incinerated. In terms of RPG reality I just accepted that there would be no adventurers of that race with that birthsign because they would all have died in childhood and went about my business.
Yeah. What I meant with poorly built character was along the lines of "Oh, I guess 2 handed specialists can't get enough protection to serve as tanks, and a classic sword and board is necessary", not "I'm building a stealthy ranger, so I decided to put all my points into heavy armor and long weapons".

Because many games can be very long (my completionist Witcher 3 run clocks at 270+ hours, my last Kingmaker run was 115 hours), and having to restart because of a decision you took 50 hours ago is just absolutely terrible design.

It's especially bad when it's about decision which is by definition uninformed (as it usually happens the first time you play) and there is no way to really guess what the adequate answer ("normal" in some games is pretty easy, while in others it's pretty hard). There is also the problem with difficulty spikes (Kingmaker is a pretty good example, having to give up on a very long run because you hit one of the weird roadblock would be pretty horrible), getting used to the game so what was an adequate difficulty becomes boring, making a bad decision during the character creation that comes to haunt you a lot later, etc.
Weird, Akka and I agree on a game design concept......
 
And the speed's coming on real strong,
It's goin' and goin' and goin' and gone...


I like to record all my Audiosurf runs in case I get a really good one. I got a really good one that I wanted to share.


Uh, I also got a high score. Sort of. :twitch: And I beat my own personal best. :yup:
 
Freeman: Guerilla Warfare is kind of trash, but it's also fun? There's too much promise in the concept, which is very similar to Mount & Blade but with modern guns and such, but the execution is just so, so terrible. And yet... just sunk at least 6 hours in it today.
 
trying to like RDR2, but the lack of NPC communication (greet and the other two option) really put me off. I feel like playing among mannequin. Now trying to play tales of Beseria, seems like a cool game about revenge, but I just can't feel hooked yet.
 
I'm not a lawyer, but I love My Cousin Vinny as well and it was his video on it that also drew me to his channel.

I love it because I'm learning more about the law while also being entertained. One of my favorites being when he said Batman could potentially get a sentence of 60 million years for his little phone hacking stunt in Dark Knight.

There's a scene in the Annie remake with Jamie Fox (and the girl who's name is impossibly long and unpronounceable) like that. Jamie Fox is a telecoms mogul and Annie asks one of his workers if they can spy on people via their phones and find her parents and the guy basically admits then can and does it lol.
 
Spoiler :
e1soy4wfje941.jpg


^That's a true story
 
Last edited:
Spoiler :
e1soy4wfje941.jpg


^That's a true story
This reminded me of the first Metal Gear Solid when you could alert enemies and they would get a red exclamation point over their heads and it played the orchestra hit sound effect... then the enemy would say "Huh! What was that noise!?" come looking for you, but then when he couldn't find you, he'd shug his shoulders and give up, saying "Hmmph" then return to his post.

That honestly never got old... what a blast that game was :D
 
This reminded me of the first Metal Gear Solid when you could alert enemies and they would get a red exclamation point over their heads and it played the orchestra hit sound effect... then the enemy would say "Huh! What was that noise!?" come looking for you, but then when he couldn't find you, he'd shug his shoulders and give up, saying "Hmmph" then return to his post.

That honestly never got old... what a blast that game was :D

My favorite is when they would do that after getting shot or seeing another guard get shot.

"Hmm someone just shot me in the shoulder so we clearly have an armed infiltrator on the base, but I can't find him so I guess I'll just go back to my rounds and not report this to anyone".

Elite mercenaries my butt.
 
This reminded me of the first Metal Gear Solid when you could alert enemies and they would get a red exclamation point over their heads and it played the orchestra hit sound effect... then the enemy would say "Huh! What was that noise!?" come looking for you, but then when he couldn't find you, he'd shug his shoulders and give up, saying "Hmmph" then return to his post.

That honestly never got old... what a blast that game was :D

(watches person next to you suddenly drop dead with an arrow in his head) "Huh. Must have been the wind."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom