funkateer Comments

Page 1 of 55

  • Video: Ellie's Gibson's best bits

  • funkateer 29/08/2014

    Good luck Ellie, your wit and humour gave me a few good laughs here so thanks for that :) Reply +2
  • Leading creators back latest Tropes vs Women video

  • funkateer 29/08/2014

    @MrTomFTW
    Hitman: Absolution does penalise the player (slightly) for killing the exotic dancers, just as it does other civilians, but the crucial point is not whether the player chooses to kill them or not. It's that the game presents it as an option at all.
    I'd like to think it's not necessarily about presenting it as an option, but more about the inequality about the options given.
    But perhaps that's tit for tat (I am allowed to say 'tit' am I? ;))
    Reply 0
  • funkateer 29/08/2014

    @StahlWurst
    Let's be as precise as possible when it comes to media influencing us.
    We consume media, interpret it, learn from it, are entertained by it, are appalled by it etc. etc.
    All different forms of influence.

    If media doesn't influence (consciously or subconsciously), then it fails being media.

    I don't think we can make clear distinctions here between different forms of media to decide what forms of media influence us in what way. That depends on the individuals.

    Games are completely unreal as they are completely made up including the visuals.
    I don't think that the level of realism is the deciding factor of whether or not it influences us good or bad.
    Subtext can be a powerful thing, and the sub-conscience a powerful motivator.

    Games can be incredibly unrealistic, but still have a profound impact.
    If Flower can make us appreciate the beauty of nature, then we can't safely assume it can't work the other way too.

    But like I said, what we do with media is completely up to us. As such, games (or any other media) can *never* be held responsible for violence or other evil.

    Media are just ways to communicate, just like air is the medium that supports speech, and if there's one thing that I stand for then it's unlimited freedom of speech.

    This video points out that games often portray women as sex objects. I don't think she goes much further than that, but it is a fair point.

    We can go all out and attack that assessment or the way it's presented, but we can also say "hey you know what, there is some truth to that" and leave it at that. It's not a wrong message imho, and it doesn't say gaming is wrong.
    Reply +2
  • funkateer 29/08/2014

    @Kendrene
    so you are implying- and I apologize in advance if I am misunderstanding, that for some people seeing some violent behaviour in a game will reinforce what they already want to do? Like if someone sees rape scenes in a game and they have contemplated raping someone they will feel more justified?

    Can you clarify?
    No I didn't want to imply that because that would be a gross oversimplification.
    I'm no expert on this, but I believe things like violence and rape are a culmination of much more complex issues in our society than someone shooting pixels or watching porn.

    But media does influence us, just like everything we experience in our lives influences us.
    I was just responding to the statement that media can't influence us, which I think in itself is not true.
    Reply +2
  • funkateer 28/08/2014

    @Kendrene
    I think they make our desire stronger for something we already subconsciously want- I also think some people use them as an excuse to justify spending habits.
    Exactly.
    And I do see a lot of excuses like that in this thread.
    Reply -1
  • funkateer 28/08/2014

    @Kendrene
    when is the last time you rushed out of your house to buy a product after seeing a commercial?
    Do you really think commercials don't work?
    Reply +2
  • funkateer 28/08/2014

    @StahlWurst
    While some commercials might be entertaining, commercials pretend to be real, don't they?
    Games never do that.
    They can't.
    Commercials are made to associate a product with something in your day-to-day life.
    As such they influence us, so to say media doesn't influence us isn't true (which was my point there).

    Games typically don't have such an agenda, but they do influence us.
    Just like all media and all that we experience in our lives.
    Reply 0
  • funkateer 28/08/2014

    @Kendrene
    I don't think media influences how we behave everyday.
    Then how do you explain commercials?

    EDIT:
    If a game can't influence our behaviour negatively, we can't then say it influences us in positive way. It's both or none.
    It's both, of course (imho).
    Reply +1
  • funkateer 28/08/2014

    Not many people would disagree that sexual objectification of women and violence against women happens a lot in gaming.
    Not many people would disagree that there are many opportunities in gaming for mature and thought provoking approaches to those matters (which I would really support).
    I have no problem with someone pointing out such matters and call for new directions there.

    What I do have a bit of a problem with is the way those points are made. It's a very single minded way to approach the subject. The video takes many out-of-context examples to illustrate what is wrong, and spends almost all its time there.
    For example Bioshock is very bad example. The whole point of the setting is imho that it's a depiction of a society that destroyed itself in its insane chase for selfish gratification, getting out of control. Yet she just shows the mutilated hookers, as if there were some misogynous goal for showing that (I think quite the opposite).

    To be fair, she does give an example for how it can be approached too (with the Papa an Yo example).
    I do support her goal for more of that. But instead of pointing out what she has problems with in such a hackneyed and polemic way, I feel it would be much more constructive to spend much more time to highlight and support games that support her point of view.
    Because most of all it's not about what people *shouldn't* see, it's about what people *should* see.
    Reply +2
  • funkateer 27/08/2014

    @GreyBeard
    Great point, and well argued.
    Reply +1
  • PlayStation Network returns online following DDOS attack

  • funkateer 26/08/2014

    @blarty
    the thing is it may be a security concern but they're really not something you can secure against happening as most DDoS attacks are all about hitting resource limits and gunging up your servers
    I do agree there, it's not something that can be fully prevented.
    In the end a DDoS is sort of comparable to drumming up a gazillion zombies to stand in line at your local bank shop to prevent it from doing business.

    Maybe Sony did everything they could do to prevent it (and to be fair the outage didn't really last all that long).

    But then again maybe their infrastructure can be improved there.

    What I was mainly just trying to say is that it never hurts to remain critical towards one's service provider. Especially with Sony, since they do have something to prove here.
    Reply 0
  • funkateer 25/08/2014

    @blarty
    What can I say... Security goes farther than accessing private information, like I said.

    DDoS isn't about that at all, but having developed on 2 major internet banking applications and still working on an equally security sensitive application, DDoS vulnerabilities *are* classed as security issues. For the companies I've worked for that has *always* been the case because real money is at stake for the services to be online at all times.

    That's not to say that DDoS can be completely prevented, but it *is* a security concern.
    Reply +2
  • funkateer 25/08/2014

    @OmegaNemesis28
    Maybe you're right, honestly I don't really know the scale of this case.

    Just whenever I see a service being brought down by a DDoS attack by people making silly claims to seek attention, I think 'script kiddies' but perhaps that's the wrong term.
    They might be really organised, and they might have some knowledge here, life is too short to pursue something like this for attention.

    Still, it never hurts to remain critical towards the service provider that has been brought down by this kind of thing.
    Reply +1
  • funkateer 25/08/2014

    @zzkj
    I agree to a lot of what you're saying, but for example if you write software that has a vulnerability for DoS, then that's typically classed as a security issue (in which case it isn't simply a matter of capacity).

    You're right that in theory anything can be brought down with a DDoS attack, but (while I don't know the scale of this particular case) I do think that if a network can service millions of users but is vulnerable to something like this, then something is wrong.

    Also, you can't really put all the blame on MS PC operating systems. A lot of badly managed Linux servers get hacked to act as zombies in this kind of thing too.
    As much as I don't like MS' OSs, they aren't really that unsafe anymore.
    Reply +3
  • funkateer 25/08/2014

    As an aside, I see a few quite sensible posts that critique Sony getting negged a lot.
    In my opinion, if you like PlayStation (as do I) you *should* remain critical.
    This outage was quite minor (for me it lasted less than 2 hours), but it *was* down for a while, and it provided publicity to a few attention whores.

    Believe it or not, companies like criticism. Let's not sweep some of our favourite gaming company's flaws under the rug, because that helps nothing.
    Reply +9
  • funkateer 25/08/2014

    @andrewsqual
    Its just that PSN is capable of so much more than Xbox Live. Its the drawback of being such an open network for devs.
    I'm sorry, but that's completely irrelevant.
    Reply +7
  • funkateer 25/08/2014

    @SHPanda
    Doing it to prove a point to faceless greedy global conglomerates? No, you're just a twat.
    Indeed, the irony is that their point is "we want to protect customers from, well, *us*".
    Reply +2
  • funkateer 25/08/2014

    @spectrumfox
    "Uhh actually it has a lot to do with security."

    You're right, it is.
    It's not 'security' in the sense of keeping private data safe, but it is 'security' in the sense of securing availability of their product (that customers pay for).

    If a bunch of script kiddies can take the whole thing down, then there does seem to be an issue there.
    Reply -16
  • The Crew has artificial 30fps lock on PC

  • funkateer 26/08/2014

    @Simatron3000
    Go play on your atari 2600 since resolution and frame rate are worth nothing.
    Hehe, but as an aside, funnily enough the 2600 has much better frame rates than current consoles.
    It couldn't really do anything other than 60fps locked and vsync'ed (even hsync'ed). But yeah, that was more a limitation than a blessing :)
    /nerdy-offtopic-remark-from-an-old-fart
    Reply +5
  • funkateer 26/08/2014

    @George-Roper
    Ubisoft do not want the PC versions of their games showing up the now-gen console versions. Nobody believes this limit has been put in for any other reason than that.
    Why would they want to do that, though?

    It seems to me that if they bother with PC versions anyway, why would they want to nerf these versions for the sake of parity?
    It's not like console parity is a bonus for potential buyers.
    Reply +1
  • funkateer 26/08/2014

    @George-Roper
    Either they do it, or they don't. If the former, well done! If the latter, goodbye customers.
    ...and welcome modders ;)
    Reply +1
  • funkateer 26/08/2014

    @Bruh
    It shouldn't have ANY frame rate lock, 30, 60 or otherwise.
    Ideally there would be a configurable (but *optional*) frame rate lock in every PC game, imho.
    Reply 0
  • inFamous: First Light review

  • funkateer 26/08/2014

    @frazzl
    it's 15 USD on PSN (so probably 15 EUR). Not too bad if you really liked Infamous, I'd say.
    It seems these sort of stand-alone 'DLC' type of games like this are usually more expensive on disc.
    Reply +3
  • Face-Off: Diablo 3: Ultimate Evil Edition

  • funkateer 23/08/2014

    @imt558
    While what you say is 'kinda' true (PS3 had more computational power), but you can't really say PS3 is more powerful 'in overall performance'.
    In the end the 360 proved to be more powerful overall for gaming in most cases. The 360 had the power where it mattered most *for games*.
    Just look at the previous gen's face-offs.
    PS3 had the power in pure numbers all-right, and in some rare cases it really shined (KZ2 and Uncharted come to mind, even FFXIII in its own way), but for gaming it was by and large not as performant as the 360.
    That's not a matter of lacking effort by developers to make the most of PS3, it's a matter of the PS3 not having the power where it needed to be.
    Reply +6
  • funkateer 23/08/2014

    As an aside, the EG website seems completely broken for me (except the mobile version, which is a bit awkward on a PC). Tried 3 different browsers, same thing (almost none of the buttons work, basically).
    Does anyone have the same thing?
    Reply +4
  • Bloodborne is a Souls successor with serious bite

  • funkateer 23/08/2014

    Looks like a fresh new take on the Souls formula.
    I adore the Souls games (especially Demon's Souls), but I'm glad From Software didn't fall for the trap of laying back and milking the same thing to death.
    Reply +2
  • Ascend: Hand of Kul removed from Xbox 360 without warning, dev says

  • funkateer 21/08/2014

    @ChromeMud
    Quoting Hitler in relation to a news post about a video game....
    I mean... WTF
    Reply +23
  • Game developers would most like to work for Valve, survey finds

  • funkateer 20/08/2014

    That's nice, I sort of like Valve.

    But what does this really mean?
    Do game developers want to work on Steam?
    Is Valve working on some cool new game?
    Are game developers just unhappy and is Valve just seen as this neighbor with that really green grass on their lawn?

    The most telling result is probably "my own company" on 2nd place.
    Reply 0
  • Performance Analysis: Diablo 3 at 1080p on Xbox One

  • funkateer 20/08/2014

    @cue
    No, the substance engine benchmark is strictly CPU.
    Ok, I didn't know that. Any link to back that up though?

    It just seemed to me that the substance engine would really benefit from the compression/decompression chips that the hardware has to offer, so I assumed they did.

    The javascript sunspider performance isn't coding to the metal but it has been a good CPU benchmark for some time for cases where you do not have direct access (Android too).
    You can use it like that if you're sure that the javascript implementation is the same.

    You can (sort of) compare CPU performance between Android phones since they usually come with the same javascript implementation and browser out of the box, but with PS4 vs X1 you can pretty much be sure that they aren't.

    PS4 is probably using some open source implementation (and there are some really good ones), while X1 is probably using IE (which generally sucks).

    The performance of javascript implementations vary wildly, so I can't really go on that here.

    Even if we were to throw these out we still would have the game developer quote which states you can get more performance from the PS4 CPU.
    Do you have a link there? (my google-fu failed me here).
    Was that a quote from a known developer, or just someone anonymous?
    Reply -4
  • funkateer 20/08/2014

    @cue
    Edit: ha who the hell keeps downvoting these posts the second I post them? Does that give you enough time to even read the source material?
    I +1'd you for providing links. I just don't agree :)
    Reply -2
  • funkateer 20/08/2014

    @cue
    What I've seen in your links is a comparison in javascript performance and substance engine performance.

    They may both perform better on PS4, but you can't conclude that PS4's CPU performs better based on those.

    The javascript performance difference is most likely just a difference in the different javascript implementations. Javascript in the browser is hardly 'coding to the metal' material, so you really can't compare CPU speed using 2 different javascript implementations on 2 different browsers.

    The same might be true with the substance engine comparison. Are they really the same on X1 and PS4? Are we sure the GPU is not used there?
    Are we sure we're not just seeing performance differences in dedicated texture compression/decompression chips?

    At the end of the day, the CPUs are the same; but in the X1 it's clocked a bit higher.
    Reply -3
  • funkateer 20/08/2014

    @Retro_
    That is my interpretation.
    Yes, that's how I understood it as well.
    Reply 0
  • Forza Horizon 2 proves the driving genre is back at its best

  • funkateer 20/08/2014

    @BonzoBanana
    Indeed the way the cars move doesn't exactly scream 'sim material'.
    The same can be said about Drive Club.

    But I don't think those games were meant to be very realistic to begin with.
    They both look good fun though. Drive Club looks really impressive visually, FH2 still looks quite solid given it's open world!
    Reply +1
  • funkateer 20/08/2014

    @MrTomFTW
    Sponsored... uhm...
    I got nothing :)
    Reply +2
  • funkateer 20/08/2014

    The first Forza Horizon came out of nowhere and was great fun, and perhaps a bit underrated. This new one seems very promising. Reply +4
  • funkateer 20/08/2014

    @DavoTheDiv_2010
    Sponsored Article.
    Sponsored comment
    Reply +8
  • Ninja Theory: Don't call Hellblade Heavenly Sword 2

  • funkateer 19/08/2014

    @cloudskipa
    Me neither, though I think DMC is a much better game than either.
    Heh, we agreed on something :)
    With DmC they finally seemed to have good gameplay figured out, although they had an established template to work with.

    HS was sort of OK, but a bit of style over substance. Enslaved was even more of that (and technically quite lacking to boot).
    I really wanted to like both of them (as I really liked the artistic qualities), but the game play just wasn't there for me.
    Reply 0
  • Tomb Raider, Vita's no-show and the mystery of 10m PS4 sales

  • funkateer 19/08/2014

    @man.the.king
    I suppose Sony just chose to go all out on PS4 to reaffirm their position against their biggest competitor in the west.
    I guess it's fair to say that Sony isn't putting their full weight towards Vita here.

    I expect a lot more Vita news at TGS though, where most Vitas are sold.
    Hopefully we'll see more Japanese games to be ported for the western market in due time; lots of interesting looking Japanese games are in the pipeline.
    Reply +3
  • funkateer 19/08/2014

    The perception, though, when you don't talk about it during the press conference is Sony doesn't care about Vita any more.
    But what about you, EG?
    You completely ignored some pretty big releases.
    Reply +12
  • Xbox boss Phil Spencer makes case for Tomb Raider exclusivity deal

  • funkateer 19/08/2014

    @Mr-Writer
    But the only one that can be compared like for like is ironically TR 2.
    It can be compared, but it's far from the same situation.

    The PS1 had taken off in a big way, and the Saturn was sort of dwindling. Furthermore, the Saturn was notoriously hard to develop for, and wasn't as good as PS1 with 3D graphics (something that the PS1 was built for, and PS1 was quite easy to code for).

    Even if Sony didn't sign an exclusive deal (which they very unfortunately did), it would've been an understandable (if unfortunate) choice if Eidos would switch to PS1 exclusively anyway.

    It would be more comparable if Sega put down a bag of money to make TR2 exclusive to Saturn.
    Reply +2
  • funkateer 19/08/2014

    @heisenberguk
    ...but Msoft started this disgusting trend of buying timed exclusives and exclusive content..
    Did they? I think exclusivity goes a lot further back than MS.
    Reply 0
  • funkateer 19/08/2014

    @CynicalMe3
    It'd bring the worry of AMD and Nvidia trying to out-do each other though, as well as (perish the thought) those companies working together to artificially fix prices....
    I think AMD vs nVidia is a bit different though. That competition is just about the GPUs (they don't lock in gamers with game exclusivity and subscriptions afaik), so that seems to be a healthier competition.
    Furthermore, they do work together in standards like OpenGL and D3D to a certain degree. It's much easier to switch between nVidia and AMD without losing access to your game purchases.

    Have I become ridiculously jaded, or are people really constantly trying to screw gamers over?
    Well, your name *is* CynicalMe3 ;)
    Reply +1
  • funkateer 18/08/2014

    I still strongly feel that the best thing that can happen to gaming is when exclusivity of the 'lock-in' kind will just die. Not only 3rd party exclusivity, but even 1st party exclusivity.
    It won't happen anytime soon of course; too many developers depend on those closed platform owners and there's a legacy there. But on the long run it *needs* to happen.

    Why? Multiple reasons.

    Games should be accessible to anyone in the easiest way possible. Having to buy multiple almost identical machines, and having to buy into multiple subscriptions to make optimal use of those machines hurts that.

    Furthermore, games development is expensive. Dealing with multiple platforms makes it more expensive. Companies buying exclusivity makes it even more expensive. We gamers ultimately pay for all of that; while for the companies it's an investment to lock us in.

    Last but not least, companies should never become too large to the point that there will be monopolies. It'll just jack up prices and lower quality, or worse.

    There are good reasons for most media to have become standardized.
    What if you had to buy a Sony Blu-Ray player to watch movie X, but a MS HD-DVD player to watch movie Y? What if you needed 3 radios in your car if you wanted to listen to all channels? What if you needed an iPhone to call your friend, but an Android to call your girlfriend? What if you needed multiple routers and internet subscriptions if you want to access all the internet has to offer?

    Nobody wants that. Sony, MS and Nintendo have to start working together to create gaming standards. It will benefit everyone; also those companies.
    If Sony and MS want to invest in games, they still can, and then the competition will be about games again.
    If they want to invest in tech innovation, they still can. Patent the innovation and license it (that's what they are for) but don't lock everyone out.

    We all have our preferences. There's nothing wrong with that.
    But every time someone says things like "our exclusives are better than yours" or "my console's company has more money than yours", or "if you don't have all platforms, you're not a real gamer", a little part of gaming dies.

    (sorry for the long post)
    Reply +1
  • Why Silent Hill 2 is still the most disturbing game ever made

  • funkateer 17/08/2014

    Silent Hill 2 is a good example of using surrealism to invoke terror. It's often used in the better horror films, but in games it's still quite rare.
    Another game that imho uses surrealism quite effectively (but in a very different way) is System Shock 2.

    This collaboration for a new Silent Hill game seems very promising in bringing that back in an intelligent way.
    Besides Del Toro, also Kojima has a knack for surrealism, hidden narrative and subtext; for example he went completely surreal in the last part of MGS2 (which I still think is a very underrated and brave exercise as a complete brainf*ck, rife with subtext and hidden narrative).
    Bringing Kojima and the author of Pan's Labyrinth together in a fresh new take on Silent Hill? I'm certainly keeping my eye on this!
    Reply +3
  • Microsoft confirms Rise of the Tomb Raider Xbox exclusivity deal "has a duration"

  • funkateer 16/08/2014

    Investing in new IP is fantastic. Investing in existing IP is also great. Investing in making games unavailable to lots of gamers is *always* bad.
    Can't we at least agree to that?
    Reply +3
  • funkateer 16/08/2014

    @man.the.king
    As far as Uncharted vs. TR goes, this is my order of favorites:

    Uncharted 2 > Uncharted 3 > Tomb Raider 2012/3 > Uncharted 1
    Personally I have Uncharted 1 much higher than that.
    Technically it was not as great as the Tomb Raider reboot, but it was just so much more enjoyable.
    I loved how the breezy 'Romancing the Stone' sort of vibe shifted to a really tense, almost survival horror vibe later in the game.
    Reply +2
  • funkateer 14/08/2014

    @man.the.king
    Or maybe because it was previously announced as a multiplatform game (to the point of being available for pre-orders on other platforms) before being snatched away?
    Good point, I didn't know about that.

    EDIT: I probably didn't know about it because I'm actually not that bothered about the Tomb Raider reboot to begin with.
    I played the 1st TR reboot about half-way because it was PS+ game, but the whole thing left me cold. It seemed like they wanted to make TR more like Uncharted in spectacle but more gritty.
    It certainly has some good spectacle and technically it's very well made, but to me it missed the classic TR charm and it was nowhere near as likable and focused as the Uncharted games.
    Reply +1
  • Performance Analysis: Metro Redux

  • funkateer 16/08/2014

    @Illusive_Man
    Actually CPU is still very important as it feeds the GPU data. Slow CPU equals to bottlenecks and delayed GPU time.
    A theoretical ~10% CPU performance difference is close to nothing.
    If you're talking about bottlenecks, well, those are *never* about something as insignificant as a 10% CPU clock speed differences in isolation.
    Reply +3
  • Snake moves with the times, Lara doesn't

  • funkateer 16/08/2014

    @SeesThroughAll
    Also some context for the FFVII controversy. The deal itself was indeed despicable, but back then (almost 20 years ago) Sony was trying to enter the market.
    SquareSoft also had ambitions with FFVII that weren't really viable with Nintendo's hardware (it not supporting CD). So for the sake of the game's ambitions, going for PS made perfect sense.
    It turned out to be very good for the quality of the game itself.

    That sort of exclusivity made sense in those days for gaming.

    The days that we could say "that game is only possible on that console" are gone.
    That should be a Good Thing, but unfortunately I think we need a bit more time for that Good Thing to become ubiquitous.

    MGS5 going to Steam is clearly a step in the right direction. Tomb Raider being bought by MS is a step back.
    Reply +5
  • funkateer 16/08/2014

    I know it's not really quite true, but to me it feels like Metal Gear is 'coming home'.

    I played MGS and MGS2 on PC (still the best versions imho) and MGS3 was basically my reason to buy a PS2. Before that I played Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2 on MSX2 (also an open platform where MS had a role).
    MGS being sort of a Sony exclusive for a while was bit unfortunate, but I'm glad that's behind us now.

    So the tag line "snake moves with the times" feels quite apt to me.
    Nobody really wants exclusives just for the sake of it. All good games need to be played by as many people as possible, and mega-corporation driven exclusivity doesn't help there.
    Reply +1