GreyBeard Comments

Page 1 of 26

  • Metal Gear Online needs major work

  • GreyBeard 09/10/2015


    "Disappointed" is fine, its a reasonable response when something turns out not to be what you wanted or expected.

    "Betrayed" suggests an over-emotional attachment to those expectations, such as when the person feeling that particular emotion is so far down the rabbit-hole of rabid fandom they've forgotten what the light of day looks like.

    Ergo. Fanboy Fucktard.

    The rest of my post was just a proactive dismissal of the usual "but its my opinion, and I'm a special snowflake, nyah" rebuttal that is boiler-plate for the internet.

    It's not good enough. All opinions are not created equal -as demonstrated by my examples- and the fact that your only response is to try and turn it around on me (showing presumption of this "equality" without proof or justification) just shows how weak your position and argument is.

    As I suggested in my rather (definitively non-passive) aggressive "pipe-bomb" post, go back and consider your choice of words if you want to come across as more than butthurt fanboy.
    Reply -2
  • GreyBeard 09/10/2015

    Anyone who feels "betrayed" by MGS5 is clearly just an inflamed fanboy fucktard who's opinion isn't worth shit. :D

    I know, I know, opinions and everyone's entitled to them and all that. But there's no shortage of opinions in the world we can safely file away under delusional and moronic - flat earthers, racial supremacists, tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy wack-jobs, etc.

    Feeling betrayed by a piece of fiction, is on the "mostly harmless" side of that, especially when the work in question has been pretty much universally lauded as being the best playing game in its series.

    So yeah, your opinion -which you are entitled to hold- is worthless, and you really need to examine why you are talking such arrant nonsense.
    Reply -5
  • GreyBeard 08/10/2015


    No disrespect Aoife, but what online game/game component isn't flaky on its first day of service?

    Its pretty much a certainty that its not going to be representative of the experience a week, or a month in as the service beds in and players get more familiar with the system and its exploits.

    For better or worse, the redundancy of the day#1 experience is assured.

    And honestly, this is a free component of a game launched over a month ago, so rushing out an opinion is neither necessary nor helpful.
    Reply -3
  • GreyBeard 08/10/2015

    "Of course, it's worth bearing in mind that all this is all based on day-one impressions"

    So basically, its worthless.

    That the headline definitively states the game "needs work" is kinda ironic given how premature this article is!
    Reply -9
  • Metal Gear Solid 5 just got one of the craziest microtransactions yet

  • GreyBeard 07/10/2015


    Thanks. And you're absolutely right, the media mercenaries enabling this cretinous behaviour are even more despicable than the mewling, wailing, angry babies they've spawned.
    Reply -2
  • GreyBeard 07/10/2015

    Honestly, what's the worst possible outcome from not buying the insurance: You get to play the game you paid 50 for, for an hour or two extra to replace what you lost!

    The evil fuckers! ...

    Ummm, no no, its about them "not respecting the player's time"... Because games aren't meant to be enjoyable time wasters... or something.


    Complaining about this, and acting like its some kind of "extortion" or "consipracy" just makes you look like an idiot child.

    Its depressing that its now apparently the mode of the day for "gamers" to have the mindset of a stroppy 5 year old who MUST HAVE EVERYTHING OR THEY ARE GONNA' THROW A FIT.

    Newsflash: You don't need every bonus, every add-on, every microtransaction, in order to have a complete experience.

    Its actually fine to say: "I don't need that, but maybe if I had more money than I knew what to do with, it'd be nice to cut those corners or have those extra bells and whistles".

    But, oh no. The need to invent a retarded state of victimhood rules the day, and along comes the WAAAAAAHmbulance.
    Reply -12
  • New Consumer Rights Act puts gamers in the driving seat

  • GreyBeard 01/10/2015

    Its kind of a worrying thought, but what happens when a title's functionality gets broken due to the interference of a third party? DDOSing servers for example? Reply 0
  • Metal Gear Solid 5: The unfinished swan song

  • GreyBeard 23/09/2015


    I love that I've managed to attract a few committed haters that will downvote my posts regardless of their content.

    Every time I see it happen, I get a little tingle of satisfaction that my name alone spurs them into clicking a button. Feels like POWER (over numbskulls admittedly! But still)

    Reply -1
  • GreyBeard 22/09/2015

    Sorry, but I think #51 was scrapped because it involves killing off all the child soldiers, and either Kojima got cold feet or someone talked him out of it.

    The cs as we see it makes a big deal about Eli's (not-)death, but what of all the little African kids in this Lord Of The Flies homage? They can't be rescued because they are already infected by the Parasite, so what of their fate?

    Killed by the attacking XOF soldier? By the sanitization strike (note no mention of them being extracted in the cs), what?

    Bottom line; the material shown could easily have been finished up for additional DLC.
    Its clearly largely complete and could definitely be polished off without Kojima's involvement should the suits at Konami wish to make more $$$ from it.

    That they are basically junking all that work, and releasing it as a video on a bonus DVD tells me that they are abandoning it.

    Lets not forget Kojima does have a track record of screwing with his endings due to outside pressure: The Arsenal gear crash in MGS2 due to 9/11, Snake not heroically laying down his life at the end of MGS4... This, especially with his advance claim of taboo breaking, and it not being especially apparent in the rest of the game, suggests to me that the death of the Child Soldiers was supposed to be his big shockeroo that changes our perceptions of the heroic "venom".
    Reply 0
  • Video: Sony conference roundup - Tokyo Games Show 2015

  • GreyBeard 16/09/2015


    If you need to "follow a platform closely" in order to see why you should choose it, I'd say its got major problems.

    The 360 gen started well enough, but within a couple of years they just coasted on the same key franchises I mentioned and then later on the creative dead-end that was Kinect, which was where the rot really set in.

    The way this years latest helping of the same-old same-old is being hyped as being the bestest Xbox line-up ever just shows how shallow their IP line-up truly is, and has been for many years.

    Not that there's anything wrong with Halo, Gears and Forza (jury's out on Fable LOL), but why should this year's iterations pull people in when last years didn't? Or the year before that, and so on. They've been leaning on the same franchises for over a decade, its getting stale.
    Reply +2
  • GreyBeard 16/09/2015


    Oh please. Xbox is the same as its always been. Forza, Halo, Gears, Fable on an interminable conveyer belt.

    Side order of something from Remedy every 5 years or so, maybe the latest sad reminder that Rare simply hasn't been the same since splitting with Nintendo, and a smattering of indie titles.


    That what I just wrote is accurate for every year going back over a decade at Xbox speaks volumes.
    Reply +2
  • The making of Gears of War: Ultimate Edition

  • GreyBeard 12/09/2015

    Fucking hell! "Video analysis" or advert?

    Even for this site, that was brazen!
    Reply -3
  • Video: Hellblade has noble ambitions but it also has us worried

  • GreyBeard 10/09/2015

    Seems like people passing premature judgement based on limited information/footage to be honest.

    I'm sorry but to me its like tonally judging a movie based on its trailer. There are some things you can accurately "read", but some of the sweeping judgements made in this video just reek of pretentiousness. Dodgy combat, sure. Cliche art-direction maybe, but expecting some kind of insight into mental health issues from a video-game showreel/vslice... you've got to be joking.
    Reply 0
  • So, Mr Kojima, do we feel "ashamed" over Quiet?

  • GreyBeard 04/09/2015


    Actually in terms of explaining "harm" Aoife doesn't.

    She explains why a certain scene made her feel uncomfortable, which to me is fine in an 18 rated game.

    She relates an unpleasant real-life anecdote about a taxi-driver who frankly should be behind bars. Apropos of what though? I'm sure any former military service-person or victim of gun violence is just as likely to be "triggered" by one of the literally thousands of incidents of death and murder in the game. Does that make it inappropriate?

    My take-away from this passage was that its wholly subjective where the real "horror" lies. Aoife mentions that she was upset by the zoom into Quiet's "blue lips and deadened eyes", and yet passes over the "monumental dick-stabbing that follows" like that particular act has no particular impact or importance!

    This whole scenario is a work of fiction, and yet in terms of real-world relevance only one aspect is being singled out as being problematic.

    So, "forced exposure is the furthest thing from an empowering situation you can possibly get", but the threat of genital mutilation in revenge isn't at all aversive for would-be rapists/sexual aggressors?

    Which bring us to this:

    "But, in practice, making Quiet's strength in that context a weapon that is so often used against women just hurts."

    Which I guess, is the nub of the contended "harm". Yet I'm struggling to see how this relates. Is this a reference to the nauseous "she was asking for it" quasi-defence?

    I can't see it because in the context of the scene in question the attempted rape occurs while Quiet is at her least sexually provocatively attired - "prisoner garb - trousers and a shirt".

    Which is pretty much consistent with the actual psychology of sexual assault being often more about power, control and displaced revenge/aggression than sexual desire.

    Which kind of all leads back to the thorny issue of "objectification".

    In reality treating another as an object, without empathy or regard for their agency as a fellow human being is about far more than superficial appearance.

    Speech, demeanour, body language, how many competing signals is an (sexual) aggressor ignoring or responding to in a deliberately anti-social manner when they target someone?

    To me -and to wrap this up, as I've gone on far longer than I intended- its just another example of how psychologically ignorant most of these "pro-social" critiqes and programs are.

    Much like deliberately ignoring "triggering" situations is absolutely not how a person overcomes former traumas, true objectification comes not from simple observation of appearance

    Tits may draw a hetero-males attention like a kitten to ball of string, but it doesn't incite them to rape or treat a woman as a lesser being.

    Its far deeper than that, and in fact comes from deliberately ignoring everything else that makes their "object" an individual.

    Something that (ironically) is what a critic does by reducing Quiet as a fictional construct to just "a pair of tits".
    Reply +7
  • Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain review

  • GreyBeard 02/09/2015


    Congratulations on Godwinning the thread.

    Let's not forget this choice comment of yours:

    "and don't even allow you to have her covered up properly"

    Factually incorrect (see elsewhere), and as I pointed out earlier, not exactly "progressive"!

    Deploring sexism whilst coming out with male chauvinistic howlers like this - priceless!
    Reply +2
  • GreyBeard 02/09/2015


    Sorry, but when any movement or trend reaches the "end justifies the means" stage, it needs to stop and reexamine its goals, motives, and processes.

    Part of that is people stepping up and calling it out on its bullshit.

    I'm not stopping anything, just offering criticism of what I perceive to be a broken school of thought and methodology for change.

    I've said this before and yet I feel like I need to restate this once again: I don't doubt that people mean well, but idealism becomes zealotry when they stop listening to dissenting voices.

    What I see is people lobbying for agenda driven creative restraints, and I'm sorry but I don't give a toss whether its motivated by a moral or a political imerperative. Creative freedom within the bounds of the law is crucial.

    Trying to impose your tastes and political will on the rest of us is fucking out of order. Especially when its couched in such sanctimonious terms, its just causing friction and encouraging polar opposite factions into the fray.

    Sorry Anita, the games industry didn't create the monster that is GG, it arose as an oppositional faction to leftist attempts to politicize gaming along "progressive" lines.

    And no MrTomFTW, I am not in that batshit-insane camp. But I guess only a "true GG'r would deny his own GGness" AMIRITE?
    Reply -2
  • GreyBeard 02/09/2015


    But this whole thing is silly! In fact its bordering on parodically daft.

    If you've ever seen Monty Python's Life Of Brian, there's a great bit where Brian, pursued by a mob of idiot "believers", desperately tries and fails to tell them that he's not the messiah they think he is.

    The punch-line comes when after telling them straight up "I'm not the messiah.. honestly", someone pipes-up with "Only the true messiah denies his own divinity!"

    At which point, poor Brian exclaims "what sort of chance does that give me!"

    The point of this anecdote is that it illustrates that trying to talk rationally with zealots is futile, as they will always find a way to blindly justify their belief system.

    You see this happen, over and over again in discussion of "progressive" gender politics.

    There's a funny one in this thread:

    Quoth MrTomFTW:

    "@lone_wolf_uk That's not how objectification works. In fact you could say that if she has a major role, is characterised beyond a basic level and so on then that just makes how she is objectified through her visual design etc. that much worse."

    So characterization doesn't matter, story significance (i.e, agency within the context of the fiction) doesn't matter... We're right back to I know a messiah/objectified female when I see one!

    What sort of chance does that give any of us, you can't win against logic like that.
    Reply +1
  • GreyBeard 02/09/2015


    Who the hell jerks off over a videogame?


    Even disregarding the easy availability of porn, if you find cleavage that exciting wouldn't a clothing catalogue suit better LoL!

    This is just typical of the silly hyperbole around this issue. Its like the people frothing over it live in some parallel dimension where far more sexually stimulating material isn't constantly bombarding us from all sides!
    Reply +9
  • GreyBeard 01/09/2015


    I think I've made my position abundantly clear over the course of several posts in this thread.

    My view is entirely consistent and rational, and as I've pointed out I couldn't give a toss whether you're a creationist or a feminist. The razor here is whether the "fault" exists in fact or whether its just a projection of the ideological perspective its being examined from.

    Bottom line is that people need to lighten up and look at the bigger picture.

    That way it should become apparent that pulling Quiet's appearance out of context and blasting it for being a "male power fantasy" when every other aspect of the work is equally a "male power fantasy" is specious to the point of redundancy.

    And beyond that, I'd like people to more closely examine their own feelings about sexuality if they honestly believe that in these days of wall-to-wall hardcore porn on the internet, that bemoaning polygonal cleavage is such a terrible artistic infraction.
    Reply +16
  • GreyBeard 01/09/2015

    "Thing is. Quiet doesn't have a choice, she didn't have agency because she isn't real. She is the female form, hyper sexualized and objectified."

    You do realize that this attitude throws most of the history of art under the bus, right?

    Every painting, every sculpture, every charcoal sketch depicting the female form that happens to have been created by a man is, as you put it "here is how we view women in a world of men".

    Have you actually given any thought to what you're saying? I'm sorry, but it just sounds to me that you're parroting rhetoric in order to sound "enlightened".

    Of course, everything in the game is a prop to help sell the game to us, because its a piece of commercial art.

    Seriously, the idea of every element of every piece of commercial art or entertainment being subjected (however unofficially) to some kind of ideological purity test.. Its a Stalinist nightmare!
    Reply +7
  • GreyBeard 01/09/2015


    First of all Anita Sarkeesion is more than welcome to spread her viewpoint as far as I'm concerned.

    I disagree mightily with her, but she's not hiding her agenda and her politics. That's entirely cool with me, I'm not the one seeking to stifle and suppress other peoples viewpoints.

    What I will do though is point out the staggering stupidity of this present wave of politically justified puritanism.

    People need to understand that just because you take your cues from a political manifesto as opposed to the King James bible it doesn't entitle you to a monopoly on the "truth".

    Its just a different flavour of righteous self-justification.
    Reply +8
  • GreyBeard 01/09/2015


    Its funny really.

    It doesn't seem so long ago that people used to get up in arms about any sort of depiction of homosexuality, presumably in fear of enticing impressionable young men to vanish up their friends' trouser-legs! (to paraphrase Ben Elton or whichever 80's comic used that metaphor, back then).

    We all laughed because it was, and still is, an utterly ludicrous mentality.

    However, here we are 30 years on, being told that what sexuality we see, we're going to adopt. Not abhorring objectification in the media CLEARLY means we are sexist, most likely misogynist, perverts who are going to drool and lech our way through our lives like an ugly Benny Hill sketch.

    For the love of God people, please stop and think before you react.
    Reply +9
  • GreyBeard 01/09/2015


    Nope. I don't do pin-ups or cheesecake calendars. And again, YOU are the one projecting the hyper sexuality.

    You are even projecting behaviours onto me -in complete and utter ignorance of who I am - purely because I'm mocking the blatant stupidity of you being offended over something so trivial.

    Don't you realize how tragically repressed you are? Sexuality should be embraced, not be terrified of!

    And again, there is no sex going on here; these characters are eunuchs. There's not even any nudity!

    Stop for a second, and examine what you are reacting to. Its all based on your dark projections of how other people are going to react!
    Reply +10
  • GreyBeard 01/09/2015


    "and don't even allow you to have her covered up properly"

    Fuck me. Victorian dad much?

    Do you cover up your table legs to protect their modesty too?

    Quiet is just as inanimate as a doorknob btw.
    Reply +3
  • GreyBeard 01/09/2015


    Here's the thing: I don't think there's actually a "fault" to be admitted to.

    Sure, its going to be criticised on ideological grounds by certain people, but so what? That's not "truth", its judgement by followers of a certain strand of left-wing political rhetoric.

    As such I'm going to give exactly as much credence (zero) as I would criticism from the religious right; Mary Whitehouse et. al meant well too, trying to stop the evil tide of permissiveness.

    Censorious, controlling bullshit is ALWAYS for the "right" reasons, there's always somebody to be saved... at the expense of every fucker else's liberty.

    Lets just think about this rationally for one second. Quiet's "uniform" is beachwear. Is that really so inappropriate or sexually aggressive?

    Is every female sunbather asking to be raped or molested because *gasp* she's showing some skin... IN PUBLIC?

    People are projecting so much onto this, I'm actually starting to wonder if Konami shouldn't just say fuck it, and start selling extravagantly priced burqa's for her as DLC.
    Reply +9
  • GreyBeard 01/09/2015


    Its not a "military" game, its a METAL GEAR game, more anime-style fantasy/SF elements, more classic-era Bond movie machismo and sexism, it is what it is.

    If you don't like it, fine. But just don't pretend that its without precedent both in gaming and cinematic terms.
    Reply 0
  • What's the deal with Metal Gear Solid 5 microtransactions?

  • GreyBeard 25/08/2015


    "It's like complaining that the mere presence of a minibar has made your hotel room a rip off."

    Thank you for this wonderful metaphor. It really cuts to the core of how unbelievably stupid knee-jerk reactions to the mere presence of micro-transactions truly are.
    Reply -2
  • This is Pac-Man 256, a game based on a glitch

  • GreyBeard 14/08/2015

    Very nice. I approve. Reply 0
  • Phil Spencer on Xbox's big year

  • GreyBeard 14/08/2015


    LOL. Just because you can't see it, or the bias matches your own, doesn't mean it isn't there. :D

    It is there, and has been for a long, long, time.

    And no, there's nothing good in constantly soft-pedalling on criticising one commercial entity when the same kid-gloves aren't used on any of its competitors.
    Reply -2
  • GreyBeard 14/08/2015


    This site has been shilling for MS so hard for so long I actually failed to spot that ridiculous fawning "amazing" comment.

    Impartiality? What is that? Methinks someone is bucking for a PR position at MS.

    Mind you, when we see "articles" like this: , which seem like more of an advert (or at the very least a feeble excuse to parrot MS PR statements) than anything else... you know you're in an integrity-free zone!
    Reply -3
  • GreyBeard 13/08/2015


    I'm just trying to point out what is lacking in the line-up, not to trash the games on it.

    Its like me saying so what about Forza, its not that I think the title is lacking in merit just that its appeal is going to be no wider than the previous 2 iterations on Xbone, and on 360 before it.

    Giving the fans the same stuff for years on end is not how you grow your userbase. It's the old Nintendo problem: It doesnt matter how good the next Mario or Zelda is, because its still only going to appeal to the same audience its always done.

    They broke the mold with Wii, and scored big. Wii-U is GameCube all over again... how many times does this have to happen before the penny drops.

    This Xbox line-up is a classic case of a company trading way too hard on proven successes, and in so doing failing to grow its marketshare.
    Reply +2
  • GreyBeard 13/08/2015

    You want a clear, unbiased reading:

    First, subtract the staple franchises that anyone interested in Xbone would consider guaranteed to be available at some point. i.e. Stuff that is intrinsically associated with the platform.

    Next, subtract the titles where they haven't committed to a release window for - Beta's don't count btw.

    Judge what remains on:

    * Past performance of franchise or team output.

    * Poularity of genre.

    * Whether its exclusivity is timed.

    Do that, then tell me how impressive the list is.
    Reply 0
  • GreyBeard 13/08/2015


    Parroting the same titles back at me, plus adding in stuff that's out already doesnt really help your argument.

    The only thing I missed was Sea Of Thieves which is 2, most likely 3 years off at this point.

    Its a weak line-up, doubly so if you weren't sold on what 360 had to offer.

    PS. The only title I dismissed was Fable, because its a terrible franchise that's going nowhere but in ever-decreasing circles towards oblivion. The point I've been making is that if you weren't already sold on Halo, Gears, Fable, and Forza -you know the same brands that MS has been leaning on forever- there's not much to make you jump in.
    Reply -3
  • GreyBeard 13/08/2015


    I really don't see the hype for MS's slate, sorry.

    Halo: Sure, but its hardly a surprise thats going to draw people who weren't already into xbox.

    Forza: Again, probably a very good game but how many times will MS go to the same well?

    Tomb Raider: Timed exclusivity isn't going to do much to drive sales on a franchise thats been multi-platform for years.

    Scalebound: I love Platinum as much as the next guy, but its not gonna be a blockbuster.

    Quantum Break: MS first teased this in 2013, which should give some idea of how far off some of their other titles could turn out to be. Speaking of which:

    Crackdown: A flop franchise gets resurrected with the only promise being a multi-player beta in mid 2016. Hmmm, cant see full release before 2017.

    Halo Wars II: A RTS game not sufficiently advanced to be shown in actual gameplay a year out from release. Again best bet is beta late 2016, full release 2017. And yay, annualized Halo...

    What did I miss?

    Gears? Which is no doubt pencilled in for holiday 2016 and just as unexpected as another Halo.

    Fable. Like anyone cares. A classic example of what happens when you run a franchise into the ground.
    Reply -4
  • GreyBeard 13/08/2015


    Once again, GoW team, Polyphony, and Quantic Dream are all working on stuff.

    Hell, the next proper Uncharted isnt out til next year.

    Then there's plenty of interesting third party exclusives like Rime and Deep Down which although no new info has been released this year are still coming.

    To suggest there's a shortage of investment is laughable.

    As to "living off the past", MS are ploughing that furrow at least as hard as Sony are. The only difference is that they are grinding their franchises out faster with annualized releases.

    I mean seriously, three Forza's already...
    Reply +1
  • GreyBeard 13/08/2015


    I'd say the Nathan Drake Collection is going to shift a good few units. Uncharted is not a small franchise, and given that the TLOU remaster sold 1.5m on day #1. Its kind of a big deal, even if competing console warriors want to downplay the fact.

    Ironic, considering the all the tub-thumping over Halo: MCC this time last year.
    Reply -1
  • GreyBeard 13/08/2015


    There's no need for Sony to release anything for the 3rd quarter when it is inevitably going to be dominated by the usual annualized big-hitters. Their alliances with EA for Battlefront and Acti for CoD give them a big advantage there too.

    More to the point the timing of Paris Games Week in October gives them a perfect opportunity to undermine MS efforts in the 3rd quarter. Sony have a lot of stuff that is basically announced but unshown, so to suggest they couldnt mount an impressive presser in October isn't terribly convincing.

    Gamescom's biggest drawback has always been its timing, sandwiched awkwardly between E3 and TGS its never been good for developers and its too far adrift from the holiday season to actually drive sales.
    Reply +3
  • GreyBeard 13/08/2015

    Sorry Martin, but I really don't see Sony "struggling to compete" with MS over the next 12-18 months. They might fall behind in the US market for a month or two over the 3rd quarter, but they will continue to dominate everywhere else.

    As to line-up; its worth considering that several of Sony's highest profile first parties haven't revealed their current projects yet. No SSM, no Polyphony, no QD all of whom could no doubt muster an impressive enough teaser for a conference should they be required to.
    Reply +2
  • Pixels: the Eurogamer review

  • GreyBeard 10/08/2015

    Few things annoy me more than people too young to actually be there at the time telling the world "how it really was".

    Noone less than middle-aged has any fucking right to talk definitively about 80's gaming culture.
    Reply +1
  • We're all Palmer Luckey on the cover of Time magazine

  • GreyBeard 08/08/2015

    The funny part is that its nothing to do with VR.

    The same picture with a "hot" model and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

    Yes, its just the usual body image shenanigans, and we all play it because the overwhelming majority of us are insecure about our appearance or some aspect of it.

    Also, we need to get past this "nerds are cool" thing. Its just a full of shit as saying only "jocks" and the "popular kids" are cool. As soon as you start lumping people together into social groups and placing them in a hierarchy, individualism kinda disappears.

    The big laugh for me though is that nerds of today are not the marginal group they were in past generations. The media validates their tastes and panders relentlessly to them as a demographic - to the extent that they are basically today's mainstream youth consumer.
    Reply +2
  • Dark Souls 3 debuts gameplay in new trailer

  • GreyBeard 06/08/2015


    Yeah but the console version comes with the bonus of not having to play with elitist douchebags :D


    (as will no doubt be the inevitable "toys out the pram" moment when the self-same fucktards realize that FROM will always try to provide the same experience for its players regardless of platform.)
    Reply +2
  • An hour with Randy Pitchford

  • GreyBeard 24/07/2015


    Because he doesn't have to, and backing down to peanut gallery at this point wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

    The people who need to move on are the chimps that are still butthurt over a fucking game not living up to expectations years after release. Talk about arrested development...
    Reply -9
  • GreyBeard 24/07/2015


    You look at hundreds of builds over years and you see things a whole different way to an end-user.

    Its a fact.
    Reply +1
  • GreyBeard 24/07/2015


    Obviously, it would be nice if they did apologize. But the way its being demanded by people with the intellectual and emotional maturity of stroppy two-year olds is pretty much guaranteeing they won't.

    The sad part is that I see noone engaging with the very real and obvious logical fallacies with the claims of malfeasance that have been levied against him. If those claims had any traction then as he points out they would be legally actionable... But of course they aren't and the whole argument can be boiled down to a large case of butthurt on the part of some idiots who don't have a clue what they are talking about.
    Reply -4
  • GreyBeard 24/07/2015

    This whole sorry witch-hunt just underlines to me how pitifully juvenile this whole scene is.

    Its pathetic. He's not going to apologize to you just because you didn't like his game! Grow the fuck up.
    Reply -7
  • The Amiga is 30 years old today

  • GreyBeard 23/07/2015


    In the UK, I assure you, this was very much the case.

    I'll have to have a dig around and see if I have any magazines from that period just to see what prices were like, but considering the Amiga A1200 (launched 1992 at 399.99) was significantly cheaper than a 486 based PC - and at that price the Amiga was substantially more than the 16-bit consoles that were basically eating its marketshare...
    Reply 0
  • GreyBeard 23/07/2015


    PC only started becoming significant in Europe in the mid 90's.

    Hell, in 1993 the cost of a machine with sufficient horsepower to do Doom justice put it way out of reach of the average consumer.
    Reply 0
  • GreyBeard 23/07/2015

    Looking at those games really put into context how appalling the current trend of 60fps or bust really is. Despite the framerate of the video, some of those games ran at 60 (or usually 50, given its euro-centrism), but many -especially some of the more forwards looking titles- ran at half that, or worse and were still great. Reply -1
  • Batman: Arkham Knight PC will stay broken until this autumn - report

  • GreyBeard 17/07/2015


    Sorry, as a community PC gamers have overreacted tremendously to this game having a bad port. That it snowballed to the stage WBIE pulled a game that while it does indeed have performance issues, is in fact fully functional, is proof of the matter.

    It was a PR debacle for them, so they decided to cut and run so as not to tarnish the console launch. That's how valuable the precious PC market is to them.

    Think about it.

    Also, bear in mind that this is one of the first titles built from the ground up for the current gen of consoles with their UMA memory arrangement. So if its really going to take months of work to re-engineer the engine code so as the streaming/memory-management system isnt the point of critical stress on PC hardware, you can expect the same situation to reoccur in future.

    A lot of lay people have been very quick to judge why this situation has occurred, with absolutely zero real insight who's to say quite how "incompetent" the porting team were.
    Reply -3
  • GreyBeard 16/07/2015


    "based on our experiences, Arkham Knight performance and visual effects on PC can match or even exceed the console versions - depending on your hardware of course. The game is clearly in need of radical improvement, but it can hand in an acceptable experience on some mainstream PC gaming hardware."

    That's from the DF piece entitled "What does it take to run Arkham Knight smoothly on PC".

    That doesn't sound "broken" to me, it sounds like its poorly optimized and requires high base specs (2gb or higher VRAM) in order to function.

    It certainly doesn't sound like something so unpatchable that it requires a full suspension from sale.

    And once again, just because the PC version is the weakest it shouldn't matter. Stop acting like PC is the utopian centre of the universe, magically immune to having software on it of variable quality.

    Were people seriously talking about boycotting Sega and Platinum games because the PS3 version of Bayonetta was the weakest link?
    Reply -2