Jump to content

elevators_rule

Members
  • Content Count

    224
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by elevators_rule

  1. So awesome to see more PS games coming to PC. Seems like it's becoming their new norm. Now we just need the FF7 remake and Bloodborne.
  2. It's actually a really hard game to run for some strange reason right now. Although, that could just be due to it being an optimized beta version.
  3. Series S is only digital. Series X allows for discs. More importantly: Series X has much more powerful hardware the graphics will be better and games will run smoother. Here's a brief table: Parameters Xbox Series X Xbox Series S Price The Series X is priced higher than the Series S. The Series S is cheaper than the Series X. Performance 12 Teraflops of processing power. 4 Teraflops of processing power. Storage Up to 1TB. Up to 512GB. Accesso
  4. Yeah, that's hardly conclusive. Mature "tone" just means it'll be more serious and less goofy. Could easily still be rated T with some basic blood effects and language. Hope I'm wrong though and it's more gritty.
  5. Ehh, I think they could get realistically get any super hero game as an exclusive, it just comes down to licensing from the 3rd party entity. For example, Sony owns Spiderman, so it's pretty easy for them to license their own game in-house. Wolverine, on the other hand, I believe is owned by Disney? So they must have signed to some licensing agreement to use the Wolverine IP in this upcoming game. They could do the same for any super hero as long as the right contract was signed. Either way, I'm super hopeful for this game and think it could be waaaay better than Spiderman (which I thought was
  6. I mean, or you could just hold us accountable for the 4 points left on the board for chip-shot FGs and PATs...
  7. I don't mind exclusives because I always ask myself, would some of these games even exist if they weren't being financed/pushed by a big company like Sony/Microsoft? If they did exist, would they have nearly the same budget/quality? Insomniac Games, for example, are now owned by Sony. Sony could give them the budget and insurance to go out and make a huge, AAA game while being properly financed. Sony could even take a small loss on the game if it flops, as it helps to push their console which is the ultimate goal. So it's not nearly as risky as a studio developing a game with a traditional pub
  8. Always good to see consumer backlash actually affecting a company to make good decisions. Worked with MS and increasing the price of Live/Game Pass, and we see it again working here.
  9. Welp... the chip shortage was being speculated to continue until late fall or even early spring... but now high level execs are saying it'll go until at least September of next year. Kinda insane that it'll remain hard to get either console or any GPU until that time.
  10. It's a 970, which is one of the flagship Nvidia GPUs from 2014. Really good for it's time... but it's well past that now lol. A 3070 is significantly better than a 970. It's like comparing the PS4/X1 to the newer consoles. A night and day difference in performance. Here's the GPU benchmark if you were interested: https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-RTX-3070-vs-Nvidia-GTX-970/4083vs2577 That just shows some of the stats. But the big ones: 3070 - 12th best GPU 970 - 91st best GPU 3070 is considered 200% faster is nearly all metrics. Probably overall, even without com
  11. Yee, sadly it's pretty common for companies like that to skimp on cases/fans (and sometimes power supplies) as those are things that don't really spec on paper too well, so it's easy to cheap out without consumers knowing. As far as cases, anything highly rated is probably fine, but mesh cases are where it's at if you want better ventilation (https://amazon.com/s?k=mesh+case&ref=nb_sb_noss_2) The top three here are some of the best on the market (Cooler Master, Phanteks, and the first Lian Li Mesh case). Honestly, though, it sounds like from reading the reviews the bigger issue
  12. Ahhh, yeah you're definitely good then. Even with normal use, the card will be completely fine more or less indefinitely. Like, you could really do whatever normal task (or even work/gaming) on it for as long as you want and it should be fine (assuming it's a well made PC by the manufacturer of course, which it looks to be). The people that have them break after a few years are typically doing like crypto mining or as you mentioned overclocking, which is literally just making the graphics card run faster than it's designed to resulting in them getting insanely hot for long periods of time (hot
  13. Well, 4 years is the sweet spot right for upgrading your graphics card, but mostly because it's a great time for always having the best GPU performance/price ratio. It has nothing to do with the graphics card breaking after 4 years or anything like that. It's in no way an obligation if you're okay with not being at the tippity top for graphics (again, not really different than buying a console and sticking with it for a whole generation). I'd expect the graphics card to last an easy 6+ years without breaking, ~10 is likely. That price you mentioned isn't really accurate, though. The actua
  14. It's a bit of a myth. If you buy a graphics card today that's better than a PS5/Xbox, in 5 years it'll still be better than a PS5/Xbox. So it really only applies as logic if you consider having to upgrade to the 'pro' console in 5 years as well.
  15. Sadly just like the consoles are overpriced at like $800+, PCs are in a similar boat. The chip shortage has lowered the supply of most important PC parts driving the price up pretty high. Honestly, the PC that rob posted is actually pretty great all things considered. It'll easily outperform the consoles while also being really good at the entire Adobe Suite- like top tier. Another really good deal is this one: https://www.cyberpowerpc.com/saved/1PK8HT Using code 'SUMMIT', it should be $1249. It's a little bit worse than the one posted above, but like $600 cheaper. Honestly one
  16. The cheaper one is waaaaay better of a deal. The $1600 is crazy overpriced; the GPU is maybe 10-15% better at best. The CPU/RAM aren't great on the second one, but for like half the cost, it's a much better value. Your gaming experience would be pretty similar on either, especially if you're playing in 1080p. With that being said, I haven't heard great things about Dell prebuilts. They routinely score pretty low compared to pretty much every other brand.
  17. Mouse/Keyboard are definitely superior for aiming, but most FPS games implement really strong aim assist that allows controllers to compete. There are numerous games where controller is even better, and cross platform tournaments have seen many controller players win. No reason preferring a controller should steer someone away from getting into PC gaming IMO.
  18. True, it'll also add a huge spark of relevance to the game whenever it's released. It's almost like they'll benefit from the marketing of two separate releases. If they added it at launch, though, that effect would be mitigated. Way smarter to add it later, especially if it gives them even more time to refine it.
  19. It's actually not even just free with Game Pass, it's free overall. So even on other platforms like Steam it's completely free. A really smart move on Microsoft IMO. I think the campaign is the part that's $60(?) without Game Pass, but I doubt anyone who's not already a huge Halo fan cares much about that.
  20. The enticing part to new fans is that it's F2P. Everyone could give it a shot and then decide whether or not they like it. Plus, forge mode should keep groups coming back to it for some time, even if it's only every now and then. With that being said, I agree overall. I think the age of 'arena' shooters seems to be behind us. Most people nowadays seem to prefer either battle royale or tactical shooters. Everything else ends up dying within a few months time. I think Halo will have it's own community that sticks to it as always, but outside of that the game will become quiet within 1-2 mon
  21. Yeah, it's definitely more fun-based than anything. Although, in the trailer I watched, they attempted to balance it by having a smaller squad of 2042 soldiers, vs a larger, defending group of WW1 soldiers. So you could counter-balance the imbalance in weapons with an imbalance in teams. Should be really fun, especially if you have people to play with.
  22. As far as I know, it's 100% online only, no campaign at all.
  23. Yeah, it was really fun and cool for the novelty it was at the time (and looked amazing), but the game play does not hold up at all (hell, even back then it felt taxing some times). Extremely repetitive game-play wise.
×
×
  • Create New...