RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS

[sorophx]

 

I thought the transition to first person shooter-ish perspective was handled pretty well

No iron sights, no deal. I tried a few mods to fix this but they were terrible.

 

I agree 100%, I can't stand Fallout 3's FP perspective for this reason. and that's another proof of how much better New Vegas is.

[Orogun01]

I hate iron sights, when you shoot in reality your vision, eye movement, ability to move your head means you're not tunnelled down a scope or barrel like you're using a remote turret with a camera, the best representation is to not have iron sights. Of course on console FPS your FOV is so narrow in the first place your vision is already tunnelled quite a bit so people don't mind. Scopes are for zoom.

Maybe that will change with the Occulus Rift but I'm fairly certain that implementing real FOV, Depth of View and Head tracking on current systems would be a pain in the ass. 

[Humanoid]

I had to look up what iron sights were... yeah. In NV I never really could tell for most weapons what part of the mechanism I had to put over the enemy, what with all the bizarre shapes and sizes they came in - something that's not an issue with an old-fashioned crosshair.

[Lexx]

But in FNV you can decide if you want crosshair visible or not. As far as I know, it doesn't even matter if you use the iron sight function or not- it doesn't make you aim better, it's just for the feeling.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Lexx

[Tale]

Iron sights in FNV make you precisely accurate regardless of skill investment.

[Hurlshort]

Space Rangers HD is out and none of you said anything!?!  You have all failed me!

 

Downloading it now.

[Guest Slinky]

Space Rangers HD is out and none of you said anything!?!  You have all failed me!

 

Downloading it now.

Once you have played around a bit with it, give your opinion is it worth to get if you already own the original will you? Doesn't look that HD to me from the pictures, like they just have allowed the engine to render higher resolutions without any improvements to the graphics themselves.

[pmp10]

 

Space Rangers HD is out and none of you said anything!?!  You have all failed me!

 

Downloading it now.

Once you have played around a bit with it, give your opinion is it worth to get if you already own the original will you? Doesn't look that HD to me from the pictures, like they just have allowed the engine to render higher resolutions without any improvements to the graphics themselves.

 

It's essentially a renamed expansion.

Graphics look no better but the pirate expansion is bundled in.

[Hurlshort]

I'm just loading it up now, but $20 for some new content is worth it to me.  Graphically I thought the reboot version looked fine, the only graphics I notice being much better are the ground RTS part, and I typically skipped those parts.  

[Keyrock]

Yeah, my reason for not going bananas over this is that I already own Space Rangers 2.  There's barely any difference between 1 & 2, and this HD version of the first game doesn't really look any better than what I already have.  I fail to see the purpose of getting this.  Now, if I didn't own a Space Rangers game already, I'd be all over this like a Catholic priest on an altar boy.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Keyrock

[Hurlshort]

Yeah, my reason for not going bananas over this is that I already own Space Rangers 2.  There's barely any difference between 1 & 2, and this HD version of the first game doesn't really look any better than what I already have.  I fail to see the purpose of getting this.  Now, if I didn't own a Space Rangers game already, I'd be all over this like a Catholic priest on an altar boy.

 

I'd probably compare this to upgrade a VHS to a DVD in terms of quality.  The graphics are crisp and look more polished that SR2.  I haven't got into the storyline much yet, but word is there are a lot of new quests.  I was itching to play SR2 anyways, so it was worth the money for me.  It might be a better upgrade on sale sometime.

[ShadySands]

ugh Steam only

 

but it did remind me that I have an unfinished game of Space Rangers 2 on my laptop

[Katphood]

Iron sights in FNV make you precisely accurate regardless of skill investment.

That's a little exaggerated, because skills do determine how effective those bullets are when they're about to find a nice comfy hole in a deathclaw's head for instance.

[Tale]

I think skills have some effect on gun sway, but not accuracy when using iron sights.

[Azdeus]

I hate iron sights, when you shoot in reality your vision, eye movement, ability to move your head means you're not tunnelled down a scope or barrel like you're using a remote turret with a camera, the best representation is to not have iron sights. Of course on console FPS your FOV is so narrow in the first place your vision is already tunnelled quite a bit so people don't mind. Scopes are for zoom.

 

Same here, what I also really hate about it is the zoom the majority of games apply to iron sights. There are far too few games that deal with scope the right way aswell, with just the lens of the scope as the zoom point. I can think of Outlaws and Red Orchestra 2 that got it right;

[rjshae]

Blackguards release date pushed back to 2014... but only to January 14.

 

Definitely looking forward to this.

[Humanoid]

I think skills have some effect on gun sway, but not accuracy when using iron sights.

Hmm, looked into it: It looks like that's true. Crouching, zooming, weapon skill and limb injury only affect sway of the crosshairs, but the only thing that affects accuracy relative to the crosshairs themselves is the inherent accuracy of the given weapon itself. That said, it also looks like no "normal" weapon is 100% accurate, only Alien Blaster and one of the unique Tesla Cannons have an inherent weapon spread of zero, though it's not hard to find something accurate to within 0.1° (most non-automatic rifles). Edited October 20, 2013 by Humanoid

[sorophx]

Same here, what I also really hate about it is the zoom the majority of games apply to iron sights. There are far too few games that deal with scope the right way aswell, with just the lens of the scope as the zoom point. I can think of Outlaws and Red Orchestra 2 that got it right;

 

AFAIK it's FPS costly to do, and bigger games avoid it for this reason. Picture-in-Picture is usually used for that, which means rendering something twice. 

 

I do want to try and make this kind of scope in Arma 3 with RenderToTexture and see how it affects performance online

[Azdeus]

AFAIK it's FPS costly to do, and bigger games avoid it for this reason. Picture-in-Picture is usually used for that, which means rendering something twice. 

 

I do want to try and make this kind of scope in Arma 3 with RenderToTexture and see how it affects performance online

 

 

I could easily imagine that it would be, but when modders do it successfully I tend to look at the bigger publishers and shake my head. They can use a simpler version for consoles instead.

I've never noticed any drops when using the scopes though, so it ought to be able to compensate somehow. Would the computer really care what is behind the scope? It still has to render the same amount of pixels and textures, does'nt it?

 

I think that Delta Force had separate zoom for its scopes, and thinking about it some more Battlezone did it aswell.

 

I'm quite interested in knowing if you actually succeed with doing scopes like this for ARMA 3.

[sorophx]

well, in games like Red Orchestra 2 there's no significant FPS drop because maps tend to be small, with small amounts of objects to calculate at any given time etc. games like BF3 and Arma 3 (even more so), that have huge maps, are already taxing your system quite heavily. with Picture-in-Picture the computer draws the picture two times, so AFAIK it doesn't render the same amount of textures and whatnot. 

 

at least that's the explanation I got when I asked about it. here's a thread about it on the Arma 3 forum http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?145585-ARMA-3-still-unrealistic-optics

 

Delta Force did that, but it had a voxel-based engine, so their solution probably doesn't apply to modern games

 

as for Arma 3, making the engine draw a new picture inside the scope every time a player looks through it shouldn't be too hard. the hard part is making it zoom in properly and allow to rotate the reticle without rotating the picture

Edited October 20, 2013 by sorophx

[Monte Carlo]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-08-16-fan-harassed-writer-jennifer-hepler-leaves-bioware

 

I don't know if this came up before... but I just stumbled across it.

 

Nobody should put up with the type of abuse Jennifer Hepler describes.

 

But that doesn't stop her being wrong, or Bio making crap games.

[NOK222]

You don't want your fans to hate you? Don't make crap games. 

[AwesomeOcelot]

I don't know why you'd abuse someone, messaging them, just don't buy their games. Also it's not exactly her fault, she clearly doesn't want to be in the games industry, she just needs a living and there are developers stupid enough to hire her, blame BioWares management if anything. One of the biggest problems with the games industry, and it was even a problem in the 90's, is people entering it that don't like games and would rather be writing books or making movies, the movie and book industries don't have this trouble.

 

As for Phil Fish, he says the most stupid and offensive things to get people angry with him, they shouldn't take the bait but they do, then he cries about the response, he seems to want as much attention as he can get.

[ManifestedISO]

And ... we fall off a cliff overlooking Dead Horse Point. 

[Tagaziel]

Not random, but just noticed this article:

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-12-gog-com-steam-sales-send-wrong-message-to-gamers

 

"Selling games at too high a discount - one often sees discounts above 80 per cent off here and there - sends a message to gamers: this game, simply put, isn't worth very much," the pair said. "Of course you make thousands and thousands of sales of a game when it's that cheap, but you're damaging the long-term value of your brand because people will just wait for the next insane sale. Slashing the price of your game is easy. Improving the content of your offer when you release your game, that's more ambitious."

I'm not sure what the point is. If a game is good enough you'll see people buying at normal price and not waiting for a discount. Plus, is the argument about long term monetary or creative value? The guys seem to confuse the two.