George-Roper Comments

Page 1 of 115

  • Watch: Why I'm not sticking with No Man's Sky

  • George-Roper 27/08/2016


    The burger at Mc Donalds doesn't look like the picture, my wash really doesn't get pure white with this super new soap, suicide squad trailers may have looked fun, it always works like that.
    But there's a massive difference.

    A Big Mac may come in at half the height of the advert but as long as it contains the same ingredients and make up, there's no problem. If said Big Mac arrived and it was missing cheese and gherkins, you'd have cause to be upset, and rightly so.

    NMS was missing cheese and gherkins. And several dozen other ingredients on top.

    Steam gave PC gamers a very easy out of this mess via the 2 hour refund window. But PS4 gamers, who paid through the fucking nose for this game, aren't quite so fortunate.
    Reply +1
  • George-Roper 27/08/2016


    Look, only point Im trying to make here is that even if they lied about stuff, that doesnt mean its fair game on our side as well.
    Yes but splitting hairs on terminology isn't helping your case.

    They haven't lied about or in the post in question but closing it without comment or reason is the next best thing...and that's stifling the sharing of information about the topic. Which was how much NMS has crashed within a paltry 2 weeks.

    Why not instead comment that it's 'normal' (debatable)? Then let the discussion continue to its natural end, which will see less people comment and it will then just fall down the list.

    The only logical thing is to assume they no longer want that post hanging around at the top of the forums, for everyone to see. Wonder why that might be?

    An 88% drop in active users for a game, 2 weeks post release, is IMO massively indicative of the problems NMS has. I would freaking LOVE to know what the drop off is on PS4 because by all accounts, second hand shops are rapidly filling up with NMS already.
    Reply -2
  • George-Roper 26/08/2016


    look up lie in the dictionary

    As if that's relevant.

    However you want to term or coin it, Hello Games have followed up their pre-release lies, yes they were lying about the content in NMS, with post-release stifling of information. All in the name of sales.

    Cover up.




    It's all the same to those guys. Say and do whatever the fuck you want to get the sales in.
    Reply -1
  • George-Roper 26/08/2016


    There's something intrinsically boring about procedural generated content.
    Not sure about that.

    The biggest problem NMS has is that the two procedurally generated things don't interact with each other.

    I've mentioned it before, but what if that creature with a giant horn for a head could smash its way into a building that you're hiding in?

    What if that building could then come down around your ears, if the foundations are taken out?

    What if you could then jetpack through the hole it the ceiling that you just made with your mining laser, to escape?

    And what if that cliff reaching over a drop down to an ocean started to give way when that brontosaurus with several heads got too close, causing a landslide that travels across the cliff, causing that building nearby to also start collapsing?

    NMS is far too static. The variance of details across creatures and geometry, at an interactive and functional level, is non-existent.
    Reply +2
  • George-Roper 25/08/2016


    It sounds terrible based on this list of issues put together by user 'rationalcomment' over on Reddit:

    It doesn't actually feel like a real universe, there are no planetary physics and gravity is the same on all planets. There are no actual solar systems. The planets don't rotate around a sun but are stationary, sitting together in a blob. The moons don't even go around the planets.

    All of the various wonders of the universe (neutron stars, supernovas, pulsars...etc) are entirely absent. There are no systems with a dozen planets, or gas giants, or even ringed planets.

    There are no stars, they're just part of the skybox but you can't fly to them.

    The 18 quintillion planets that was so heavily marketed isn't impressive when you realize what that actually means: if you took 11 things and come up with 50 variations for each, that is close to 18 quintillion combinations. Most planets are entirely the same but with different bumps and colors, they have the same objects on them and largely the same resources. Once you've seen the first dozen planets, you've seen them all.

    There is no actual differences between the ships, except the number of inventory slots. There are no ships specializing for say speed or combat.

    You can't actually fly between these systems or go into say the dark space or outer asteroid belt. The only way to travel between them is to open up the map and click warp, which initiates a loading screen animation and loads up the new planets. There is no deep space. You feel like you're in an instance with 3 or 4 planets that are mostly the same, then you load up a new skybox with a new set of similar planets. It's nothing like say Space Engine, where you actually do get a true sense that you're in a real universe.

    You can't even fly your ship. You can't fly low across a planet as there is an invisible boundary and you can't crash your ship. The controls are terrible, it has none of the complexity of other space flight sims.

    You can't manually land your ship, you simply press a button for it to autoland. Tons of other maneuvers (like entering a space station) are entirely autopilot.

    The asteroids which are everywhere have insane pop-in issues, they only show up like 50 meters in front of you. Same while you're on land, the pop-in can get absurd at times.

    The freight ships don't move, they just sit there passively forever. They add zero gameplay depth.

    The space stations are all basically the same.

    The planets are littered with outposts, all identical and with a single NPC alien standing still and staring into the wall.

    The NPCs are entirely shallow, there is literally no point to even talking to them since they never say anything interesting and simply give you something random you likely don't need. Even the automated quest giving NPCs in Bethesda games that hand out those Radiant AI quests would be a massive improvement.

    All of the monoliths are the same, it's nothing but a chore to chase them down. The words you learn don't add any depth to your interactions with the aliens, since they never have anything interesting to say anyway.

    There are no actual biomes on each planet. Each planet is the same no matter where you land.

    The animals are build on 14 different skeleton designs, with a bunch of random animal parts scrapped on top of each section to maximize the number of permutations and there is no attempt to make the animal make any sense in it's environment or have anything unique in it's behavior. The animals have no evolutionary history and animal AI is practically non-existent.

    There are no tall trees like were shows in E3, they're all saplings. There are no large forests, no large creatures. There are no large valleys, huge mountain peaks, no giant volcanos, all terrain is uniformly similar across planets.

    The grinding which makes up most of the game is not only boring, but frustrating due to the completely messed up inventory management.

    You don't have a sense of scope / scale to your journey. In the galactic map you can see other stars but there's no sense of where you are in relation to the center of the universe. Likewise you don't have a way to track where you were. No mapping or history, waypoints or other ways of tracking your progress. There needs to be a way to see how you're progressing and also give some meaning to how far you've gone.

    The interface is absolutely atrocious. It's amazing that it can be messed up this bad, the fact that we need a mod just to remove the requirement that you have to hold each click for a second speaks volumes. You need to load up a menu to do anything, and the menus are terribly designed and completely unintuitative.

    The game is a technical mess. It looks like ass yet runs with all sorts of framerate issues.

    The traveling on foot is insanely slow and tedious. There should have been a buggy or car, or at least some sort of fast jet pack like in Tribes.

    It fails as a survival game since nothing in the game leaves you threatened. Each planet is seeded with abundant resources, and the few things that do attack you are easily defeated. Compare to minecraft where there's a very definite risk / reward system to exploring a deep cave system. Nothing really threatens you in a meaningful way.

    It fails as a chillout game as the interface and warnings are constantly annoying you. Every 3 minutes you get a "Life Support Systems Low" warning when its at 75%. You are constantly pushed to mine more in order to fill out your life support system, it's nothing like Journey or Abzu where you chill out. And the "Milestones" interrupt you almost non-stop, taking away control to play a pointless milestone cutscene.

    The different minerals and resources don't really matter. Since most of the upgrades to explore the universe are yours within the first hour / two hours all the rest are kind of nice add ons.

    There's no challenge to exploring. There's very little combat and what combat there is is very boring.

    You never actually feel you are discovering any planet, every single planet and moon has been colonized. They all have outposts everywhere. Every system has a space station. You never truly go where no one hasn't already settled.

    Inside a solar system there's no way to decide if a planet is interesting or not without actually visiting it. There should be some 'classification' of the planets e.g. class M, class X, etc that allows you to say a certain type of planet might be safe vs unsafe.

    All planets are accessible right from the start of the game. I was excited about the idea of acid planets, radioactive planets, cold planets ... I was thinking that in order to explore a radioactive planet you'd need to craft some special gear. There was a pretty obviously gameplay loop where the dangerous planets had better minerals / ruins / whatever but were very hard to explore. Instead every planet is basically just a copy of the others.

    The constant need to recharge things, which don't really serve a purpose. It makes the game very grindy without any positive feedback. Instead of feeling free to explore the world around me I feel annoyed that if I see something cool it means 30 seconds of tedium while I mine the abundant plutonium. I end up not landing and exploring because of how annoying it is that to take off again I have to enter a menu and recharge my ship.

    None of the aliens interact with each other or have any sort of AI other than 'walk around a bit'. There's nothing to sit and watch. An occasional ship will fly overhead but they don't do anything. You never really see a battle take place or the ships acting in any sort of interesting manner.

    The ending is straight up insulting. It's the worst ending in any game I have ever played.

    This is a textbook case of why hype culture is cancerous to gaming, it leads to companies looking to hype as many people into preordering then sitting back and releasing a shallow, broken game. This game is completely empty and lifeless, with nothing to do but go around looking at things you've already seen copy pasted for the millionth time.
    Shut the front door!

    I'm being told by people in these comments that NMS does procedural better than any other game, ever!!
    Reply -1
  • George-Roper 25/08/2016


    with more features planned
    Dat planned feature list tho!

    Worked so well on the run up to release....
    Reply -2
  • George-Roper 25/08/2016


    But maybe you should tell Oli he might have Recommended a 50 dud to a lot of people without actually playing it fully.
    Took a week for the review to come out. There's no way you wouldn't see the problems with NMS within a week, especially when you're also able to compare to the hype vids.
    Reply +12
  • George-Roper 25/08/2016

    It feels strange to say it so soon after launch, but I think I'm about done with No Man's Sky.

    Maybe he's just playing it wrong?
    Reply 0
  • Humble Bundle now offers amazing PlayStation deals via Capcom (Americas only)

  • George-Roper 26/08/2016


    Jeez, EUROgamer....
    Reply +60
  • Battlefield 4 just got a huge makeover on console

  • George-Roper 26/08/2016


    Exemplary support from the dev (and publisher), BF4 is a fabulous online shooter, I think one of the best ever.
    Could not agree more.

    Reply +2
  • Dead Rising 4 is a good zombie game, but maybe not a good Dead Rising

  • George-Roper 26/08/2016

    LOL, no, its not a good zombie game.

    State of Decay. Now there's a good zombie game.

    Dead Island/Dying Light. Now there's some great zombie games.

    Dead Rising is not a good zombie game. Not ever. It's a ridiculous slice and dice beat-em-up. It's why Dead Island 2 was shit-canned, because they went "Dead Rising" with it.

    No. It doesn't work. It's not engaging. It's boring.
    Reply -7
  • Here's the first trailer for the new Toejam & Earl game

  • George-Roper 25/08/2016

    Wow, blast from the past.

    The originals had a Spy V Spy vibe to them, which to me felt like the first, real, interactive multiplayer games.
    Reply +3
  • After a wave of fan outcry, Respawn is making big changes to Titanfall 2

  • George-Roper 25/08/2016


    Hey you!!! I see you!! I SEE YOU!!

    Reply -4
  • George-Roper 25/08/2016

    "I think it's pretty certain that Titanfail just "shit the bed" as a franchise."
    Did that after the first Titanfail.
    Reply -12
  • The Skyrim mod to Enderal

  • George-Roper 24/08/2016


    Just think of the games EG could be informing us about instead of trumpeting another pointless mod for a years old game.

    I'm teetering on the edge of thinking this site is irrelevant these days.
    Skyrim on PC, modded, can look and play absolutely stunningly in 2016.

    Total ignorance.
    Reply +8
  • Deus Ex: Mankind Divided's annoying microtransactions in the spotlight

  • George-Roper 24/08/2016

    Come on guys, who didn't see this coming from the moment the game was announced?

    Bad form. Do they think this won't damage the IP? Because its now on my Steam wishlist for a 50-75% off sale.
    Reply +6
  • PlayStation Now is coming to PC tomorrow in the UK

  • George-Roper 23/08/2016


    It's just the worst 'service' I've ever seen on a games console.

    I mean, really. WTF are Sony playing at? Who the fuck is going to pay 150 a year to stream PS3 games?

    Reply +1
  • George-Roper 23/08/2016

    PlayStation Now, the streaming service that lets folks play select PS3 games for 12.99 a month, is coming to PC tomorrow in the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands
    Sign me up!!!!

    Reply +2
  • A new PC mod fixes one of No Man's Sky's most frustrating traits

  • George-Roper 23/08/2016



    "Interactive screensaver!"

    Exactly what I said just a couple of days ago!
    Reply +1
  • George-Roper 23/08/2016


    Or like in every thing else in games, you mean
    Yeah. Except there's this gap that exists between very well done and NMS.
    Reply +3
  • George-Roper 23/08/2016


    To be fair to the review, I think it was a quite in-depth article that makes it quite clear that it isn't without issues and might not be what everyone wanted out of it.
    Did it go through the laundry list of missing features to make things crystal clear?

    I don't think it did. So pardoning the review for omitting this crucial information doesn't wash.

    Lets not forget, it took them the best part of a week to get the review together. So what part of that week didn't include comparisons against the pre-release vids alone? Let alone all the other statements made by Murray since?
    Reply +2
  • George-Roper 23/08/2016


    And now you can see why they didn't have low level flight. The pop in is absolutely terrible.
    Exactly. Like everything else in NMS, its intentional obfuscation and limitation.

    But hang on, I'm safely informed by various people on EG that NMS does 'procedural' better than any other game out there. So maybe we're just imagining all that horrific phase in/phase out of geometry?

    Especially as it also happens when just walking around.
    Reply -5
  • Here's what No Man's Sky's PC patches have fixed

  • George-Roper 23/08/2016


    Draw distance is still absolute cack though as is the ugly fade in/dithering effect which sees trees and buildings magically moving about as the scenery is created while flying at speed. Also, I see far too many floating buildings, crates and trees, which are clearly not positioned correctly, to ever believe that any of the planets I go to are real places.
    You're mistaken, sir.

    I'm informed by various people in these here parts that NMS does 'procedural' better than any other game out there.
    Reply -3
  • George-Roper 23/08/2016

    No Man's Sky got off to a bumpy launch on PC, but developer Hello Games is confident that it's solved "around 70 per cent" of current support requests with the remaining 30 per cent being dealt with as we speak.

    As for the current fixes, they should help anyone whose game failed to save until they died, spawned on a space station without the means to fix their ship, or had their save data corrupted.

    Common crashes have been fixed as well, so the game should no longer freeze when warping, scanning, receiving a blueprint, or setting too many waypoints in the galactic map.

    Furthermore, Hello Games stated that "a better waypoint system is coming". Thank god!
    There's a new PS4 patch as well, though it's unclear if it fixes the same issues as its PC counterpart.
    Reply -2
  • No Man's Sky's first post-launch patch is out now

  • George-Roper 22/08/2016


    I think this conversation is over, don't you?
    From the moment you started touting the "You're just playing it wrong" line. Edit: Oh and..

    Yeah. That's definitely the very best, the pinnacle you might say, of a procedural generated map that I've ever seen.

    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 22/08/2016


    No. It's the least best bit, but you still can't find something that does it better. Keep up.
    Creature gen is the least best bit? What's the best bit then? Is that the bit where the map is 0% interactive? Or is it the bit where all caves, on all maps, are identical? Or is the bit where massive spacestations have two rooms? Or maybe its the bit where NPCs are anchored to the ground? Or perhaps its the bit where geometry phases into view when you're on top of it?

    This is where you tell me creatures look great!

    Again, no, I didn't say it's the best procedurally generated game. I said it has a very ambitious procedurally generated world that sets new standards for scale, diversity and aesthetics.
    LOL, what ambition?

    What ambition is there in a procedural generated map that has 0% interactivity?

    What diversity is there in creatures that are absurdly generated, in a non-existent ecology and which have 0% functional difference?

    What scale do you actually have when both of the above points are combined?

    It's all illusion. There's no substance to any of it. A mile wide, an inch deep.

    And it's not a screensaver, and therein lies the flaw in whatever the fuck it is you think you're presenting - basically that you have a very narrow perception of what a game can be and don't understand why people like things like NMS.
    Running translation...please wait...

    You're just playing it wrong!
    Thanks for clarifying.
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 21/08/2016


    'Fun' as in everyone is taking the piss out of them in hilarious youtube videos. And yet no-one can point to something that does it better.
    So the only bit of NMS that does 'procedural' better than any other game (even though your original comments stated that NMS as a single entity was the best procedurally generated game, not just the creatures bit) is a creature generator that creates animals that are 100% purely only visually distinct and have 0% feature/function to reflect that distinction, in the actual game. Y'know, the bit that's supposed to be in video game.

    As I said previously, does the creature with a giant horn attack with that giant horn and inflict damage/state based on a giant horn?

    No. No it doesn't. And that's the fundamental problem with your argument that NMS does procedural, as a game, better than any other game.

    It's not supposed to be a screen saver and therein lays the flaw in your case.
    Reply -1
  • George-Roper 20/08/2016


    The creatures are the obvious figure of fun, the easiest target I could present to you, and so I challenged you to point out a game that procedurally generates creatures better. You won't, because you can't. You know this. I know this. Why bother?
    Fun how?

    I'd really like to understand how you equate what is effectively window dressing into a functional aspect of the game, which has meaning and consequence and impact.

    If I fire up an MMO and on character creation, hit randomize, how is that any different to how the creatures are built in NMS? Aside from volume of body parts, its exactly the same thing, yet you seem to believe that fluff visuals elevate NMS above other procedural games that do, y'know, the game much, much better than this does.

    NMS is 90% visual, 5% functional, 5% interaction. How the hell does that stand up to to the feature list I just posted for a single other procedural game?

    It's fucking nonsense. Its the deification of hype and mass denial on what the reality of the release actually provided.

    Fluff. Meaningless fluff.
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 20/08/2016


    Or move the goalposts again onto some other aspect of the game other than the one we we talking about, which was procedurally generated worlds.
    I've already given you my answer. There are other games out there that do procedural maps better (and that's all this is, a map, not a 'world').

    So I'll put this to you again. What are the bullet point features that this game does better than any other game?

    Name them.

    I'll get you started on why I think other games do procedural better.

    7 Days to Die.

    1) Procedural world generation where scenery does not pop into view when you're meters away from it.

    2) 100% interactive world geometry and physics. See that mountain? Take down the base and it will collapse. See that building? Stick some dynamite inside and watch it come down, all based on physics.

    3) Enemies that interact and destroy said world geometry. Think you've blocked that door up? Watch as they come through the wall. Or ceiling. Or floor.

    4) Uniquely generated POIs. No two mines or cave systems are the same and all have uniquely placed scenery such as stalagmites, stalactites, cobwebs, flora, minerals and so on.

    5) Dozens upon dozens of unique buildings to interact with.

    6) Maps that contain several biome types.

    7) No training wheels. Player is 100% responsible for their own actions. No autopilot.

    So that's a start. Now, what does NMS do better? Lets work through.

    1) Procedurally generated maps that contain horrific phase/pop in, completely destroying immersion.

    2) 0% interactive world geometry. No physics.

    3) Enemies that are superficially, visually unique but provide nothing else to gameplay.

    4) POIs are identical across all maps. Same cave, same layout, same scenery placements.

    5) Meagre amount of structures with barebones content (how many rooms do space stations have?)

    6) Maps that are in of themselves biomes. No variety on each planet.

    7) Hand-held gaming. Basically training-wheels all of the time.

    This is where you tell me about how great the unique creatures are.
    Reply -1
  • George-Roper 19/08/2016


    I mean, take the biggest point of fun: the animal life. We all know how terrible that is, right? Hilariously, embarrassingly awful. Roll the comedy accordion music.

    Who does it better?
    Wait. Just so I'm clear. What other game randomly generates creatures, that have no tangible imapact?

    What other game creates ridiculously useless, ecology-less, creatures better than NMS?

    Umm, none? Because its a useless feature. Thats why Spore was the last game we saw that used something similiar.

    Oh yeah, it sounds great though, right? No two creatures are the same! And then you see right through the illusion that actually they're all the same except for the way they look and bounce around.

    Or to put it another way, that rhino creature with several horns doesn't impale you after attacking, does it? That thing with several arms doesn't run up and try to bear hug you to death, does it?

    No, of course not, because there's no mechanics behind the illusion. It's all front.
    Reply -1
  • George-Roper 19/08/2016


    But multiplayer WAS touted as being possible. It was IN the game. Straight from the horses mouth.

    The problem is, that's one aspect out of many (I assume you've seen the Reddit post, correct?) that outs the massive amount of deceit and lies in the time leading up to the release.
    Reply -1
  • George-Roper 19/08/2016


    Why did people who were interested in the multiplayer stuff still buy the game after that statement, especially as the multiplayer thing was vague and unlikely in the extreme anyway. Who on earth does that absence ruin your enjoyment of the game. It's utterly ridiculous
    Fucking hell, really?

    So someone pre-orders NMS based on interviews and articles where the guy clearly said you could meet other players but because they then didnt keep up with every PR release since, they're at fault?

    Since when did blame-shifting to the customer, when NMS has been SO blatantly misrepresented by HG, become acceptable?
    Reply +1
  • George-Roper 19/08/2016


    I guess my biggest gripe with claims that nothing else does procedural generation like NMS is that there's barely any meat on its bones.

    Oh look, it procedurally created that mountain. But you can't dig into it. You can't create a collapse. There's no weight to any of the game, its all fluff.

    What's the point of a random generated terrain that you can barely interact with? Wheres the survival element?

    Take 7DTD. Procedurally created map. Massive. With lakes and caves and buildings and creatures, with physics for absolutely everything in the game. That's one game I'd stick up as an example of procedural done better. Far, FAR better than NMS.

    The creature generation in NMS is laughably bad. Why? Because there's no result of said creature in the environment. If you had a creature with mass, stomping into an unstable area and causing a physical reaction (collapse of a cliff edge, for example), then it starts to make some sense. But when every creature generated has ZERO impact on the environment, then again its just fluff.
    Reply +3
  • George-Roper 19/08/2016


    Firstly, stop talking total crap. There are not 'loads' of games that do procedurally generated worlds like this. You know that's a lie, I know that's a lie, why bother?
    How so?

    What makes NMS better than any other procedural generated map game?
    Reply -3
  • George-Roper 19/08/2016

    Murray noted that more help is on the way. "Even though less than one per cent of players have raised support issues, we're going to resolve roughly 70 per cent of them this week," he said.

    "It's pretty crazy for us how many people are playing. And how large a number even one per cent of that user base is."
    Nobody gives a fuck about your statistics.

    When's a fucking game going to be patched in?
    Reply -4
  • You can talk to the Titans in Titanfall 2's campaign

  • George-Roper 22/08/2016


    My only concern with the single player is the AI. If the enemies act like the grunts in multiplayer they won't be much fun to engage with.
    Wait a minute, is that the grunt AI powered by teh cloud?! Azure cloud?!

    It was amazing. If only its as good as that AI.

    Truly astounding.
    Reply +1
  • Landing on a planet in Star Citizen looks spectacular

  • George-Roper 20/08/2016

    That planet landing.

    Reply +65
  • No Man's Sky is a fine example of one type of game (but many people were expecting another)

  • George-Roper 20/08/2016

    No Man's Sky is a fine example of one type of game (but many people were expecting another)
    Running translation...please wait....

    No Man's Sky is a fine example of one type of game and if you don't like it, well, you're just playing it wrong.
    Recommended gotta be backed up, right?
    Reply -9
  • Disgruntled No Man's Sky players thrust Sony's PS4 refund policy back into the spotlight

  • George-Roper 19/08/2016


    Oh fuck off! So sick of "anti-consumer" being used as an excuse by idiots who are apparently incapable of taking responsibility for their purchasing decisons.
    Yeah, how dare Sony advertise NMS misleadingly and then be expected to refund?

    If only there was a digital service out there that gave its customers a 2 hour gametime window of no-questions-asked refunds.

    Oh, wait. I guess Sony are just 'doing it right' though, correct?
    Reply +2
  • Classic Spectrum game Skool Daze gets official remake

  • George-Roper 17/08/2016


    That new graphical style is an abomination.
    Isn't it just.

    They should have just done a pixel-art remake. It would have retained way more charm from the original than this awful style does.
    Reply +5
  • Oculus Rift comes out in UK shops this September priced 549

  • George-Roper 16/08/2016


    Utterly irrelevant. You would have to buy games for anything, be it a PC, console, or peripheral of this nature. What I was talking about was the price of hardware admission. For me, 500+ is too much for a niche peripheral when it's more than most consoles at launch
    Again though, its not just about the initial outlay. Whenever the console vs PC cost comparison comes up, its always the off-the-shelf 'cost' of buying a PS4 from GAME but never any mention of the annual online paywall, which is hundreds of pounds over the life of the console, plus the outrageously pumped up prices of console games, especially via PSN/XBL

    Let me clarify for this specific example.

    PSVR 400
    3 games well over 100.

    = PSVR + 3 games, well over 500

    Rift 500
    3 games 60

    Rift + 3 games, 560

    So already you're only at barely 60 difference, a few games in.

    Every time you buy a Rift game on PC, you're spending considerably less than you would for a PSVR game. Fact. Irrefutable. PSN/XBL game costs speak for themselves. Nothing to prove.

    3 more games and you're at least even on cost between PSVR and Rift.

    Factor in online fees for just that year and in fact, you're now ahead on cost with PSVR.

    Again, to be clear, on the back of already owning a capable PC so that Rift comes off the shelf.

    So yeah. Complaining that PSVR is a hundred quid less, whilst ignoring that Rift is technically superior (and thus warrants the cost differential) and also ignoring that PSVR games will cost a lot more than comparable Rift PC games, means that actually that seemingly perceived 'saving' by going PSVR is just an illusion brought on by focusing only on the hardware shelf price.
    Reply +1
  • George-Roper 16/08/2016


    Comparing the headset prices PSVR is still a bit cheaper.

    550 compared to 350 (400 if a camera is required).
    I get that but then you're buying the games and if anyone thinks they're looking at less than premium PSN prices for games, 2-3 games later you've tipped the cost of the Rift, which is better spec, is on a platform that doesn't necessitate online fees and which has games that cost circa 50% less than their console digital service equivalents.

    So all being equal on the environment side (you have a capable PC and a PS4) then you're already ahead on overall cost with a Rift, several games later.
    Reply -1
  • George-Roper 16/08/2016


    I agree, in terms of the overall cost, but the context of the post I commented on didn't mention having to buy the PC to run it, only the cost of the hardware. So Rift vs PSVR.
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 16/08/2016


    For me the novelty will never be worth in excess of 500. PSVR on the other hand is much more competitive, albeit, not as high end.

    So how many PSVR games do you think it will take before you breach 500, all in? Or are you expecting cutting-edge, brand new tech, games to be a tenner each on PSN?

    It truly amazes me, to this day, how narrow-minded and blinkered console-only gamers are about cost. They really do look at the shelf price and ignore everything else, including online fees.
    Reply -6
  • Titanfall 2's open beta won't be on PC

  • George-Roper 15/08/2016

    "We're still making a lot of tweaks and changes to the renderer, the game, and effects so we haven't run the game through the hardware compatibility lab yet to detect and handle a large variety of hardware - video cards, CPUs etc.," Zampella explained. "Quite frankly, we aren't ready to deal with that yet, we are still making the game better. We also haven't done enough work to fully support our 'Min Spec' on PC yet. "
    You can get to fuck, quite frankly, after the piss-poor hardware support on Titanfail. What with its inability to render above 60fps and lack of SLI support. A joke of a developer.

    As if this game is even going to be relevant with BFOne out shortly, anyway. Ghost town within 6 months, just like the first.

    Titanfail 2: Fail Harder.
    Reply -31
  • No Man's Sky Sony's 2nd biggest ever PS4 launch in UK

  • George-Roper 15/08/2016


    When you mine rock or material there is no physics in play, it just floats
    How is that a small complaint?

    Isn't NMS supposed to be an environmental survival game? So where's the survival element if stuff you mine into just floats around and presents no risk in how you go about it?
    Reply -1
  • George-Roper 15/08/2016


    I can't wait for the hype to die down so the people that love the game can chat about it without the constant hate from people that don't get it.

    "You're not playing it right"
    Reply -3
  • No Man's Sky review

  • George-Roper 13/08/2016


    What? Selectively quoting the negative parts of the review and ignoring the positive doesn't make the latter disappear
    You're quite right, they don't but said selections make up the whole, correct?

    Lets summarise the review.

    It looks great but man does it get repetitive, and the mechanics of procedural generation get laid out, very quickly.

    So its superficially, visually good (debatable) but the actual meat of the thing is repetitive and without any kind of narration or objective.

    So what am I missing, exactly? What are the 'good' bits?
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 12/08/2016


    Why don't you put it directly to Oli to respond?
    Yes of course. I can just see it now.

    "That's right, we didn't put our 'reads like a 5 but scores a recommended' review out sooner than now because that would have been at odds with out advertisement strategy and partnerships. Sorry about that."
    Reply -9
  • George-Roper 12/08/2016

    Some disappointment is inevitable once you've visited a handful of planets and started to see the limits of the algorithm. The parameters of weirdness in No Man's Sky have been quite strictly defined, and it gets repetitive. Look, here's another world of dog-things and dinosaur-things and little lumpy green groundhogs, of rock arches and caves of glowing minerals
    While its structure is meandering and obscure, and its gameplay is unconventionally weighted
    If you're not, then it may frustrate or bore, especially since it also comes with some of the severe restrictions of survival games like DayZ.
    when it comes to long-term goals, it is elusive to the point of aimlessness.
    No Man's Sky struggles to resolve one central contradiction. The game was built to be infinite, and in practical terms it is. It's an endless, edgeless field possibilities. And yet it needs an endpoint, or at least a set of waypoints, to give purpose to your journey - to give you somewhere to be headed

    Gee, wonder if the massively delayed review (yet perfectly timed to practically coincide with the point the PC version unlocks) and the overabundance of NMS adverts and articles had something to do with things.

    No way is this game hitting Recommended with all he above points in the review. It's ridiculous to believe that because its an arty-indie game dressed up as a full-price release it somehow gets a pass for all these fundamental problems with it.
    Reply -3