[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47159000]Every gun in Wolfenstein The New Order is a generic gun past their design and they're still fun, limb shredding and satisfying.[/QUOTE]
By limb shredding you mean leaves a small cloud of blood with huge recoil and they fall over right?
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47158787]Gaf is one of the better gaming sites, with many members who are actually part of the industry, and does a great job of dealing quickly with shitposting, fanboy war shit and trolling.
And don't start with the open world thing. Not every game needs to be open world. So tired of that, and not to mention the whole "gameplay isn't next gen" complaints thrown at every other game (mostly system exclusives because those are what piss people off the most) when nobody can even define what it is (because it's bullshit)[/QUOTE]
NeoGaf is fucking horrid, its one of the most circlejerky and shit communities for gaming. You get banned for slight disagreements, its got shit mods, a pretentious waiting time to get an account, and it likes to tout itself as a beacon of light. It deals with fanboy war shit by having it be nothing but sony dicksucking. Its bad how much cocksucking NeoGaf does with Sony.
/r/gaming and /r/games are less of a circlejerk than NeoGaf.
I'm talking about shooting enemies grenades in midair, blowing off their limbs/head/chunk of torso, exploding their heads with the lighting gun, pushing them away with the air blast, or leaving them with bony stump where an arm/s or leg/s once were. The game has very satisfying combat.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47159013]By limb shredding you mean leaves a small cloud of blood with huge recoil and they fall over right?[/QUOTE]
See pics:
[t]http://i.imgur.com/g5XcGZe.jpg[/t]
[t]http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e185/perineumlick/The%20Order_%201886_20150215184745_zpsmnombpcc.jpg[/t]
[t]http://a.pomf.se/akebwx.gif[/t]
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;47159014]NeoGaf is fucking horrid, its one of the most circlejerky and shit communities for gaming. You get banned for slight disagreements, its got shit mods, a pretentious waiting time to get an account, and it likes to tout itself as a beacon of light. It deals with fanboy war shit by having it be nothing but sony dicksucking. Its bad how much cocksucking NeoGaf does with Sony.
/r/gaming and /r/games are less of a circlejerk than NeoGaf.[/QUOTE]
To put it in perspective even /v/ and /vg/ is less of a circlejerk than gaf is.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47159019]I'm talking about shooting enemies grenades in midair, blowing off their arm, exploding their head with the lighting gun, pushing them away with the air blast, or leaving them with a bony stump of a leg with the ( either 3 or 4 barrel shotgun, I forgot)
The game has very satisfying combat.[/QUOTE]
A third person cover shooter with no dodge mechanic outside context commands is unique in a bad way.
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;47152908]Black bars and 30 fps? Glad I didn't pre-order this one.
I'm already playing on a wide screen TV, I don't need you to make it "more cinematic" by making it harder for me to see anything and removing my view. And as for 30fps? I thought we've been through this already. 30 FPS is unacceptable.[/QUOTE]
expecting developers (especially in this day and age) to standardize 60fps is very very unrealistic. on my PC I like to run things at least 60fps since it handles it most of the time but when it comes to consoles I can understand developers compromising FPS to make their games look better, with the hardware being static and all.
I know it's an old game, but LoZ: Majora's Mask runs at 20 fps for christ's sake, and people still play it.
[sp]also there exists people that would rather play 30 than 60 fps[/sp]
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47159019]I'm talking about shooting enemies grenades in midair, blowing off their limbs/head/chunk of torso, exploding their heads with the lighting gun, pushing them away with the air blast, or leaving them with bony stump where an arm/s or leg/s once were. The game has very satisfying combat.
See pics:
[url]http://i.imgur.com/g5XcGZe.jpg[/url]
[url]http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e185/perineumlick/The[/url] Order_ 1886_20150215184745_zpsmnombpcc.jpg
[url]http://a.pomf.se/akebwx.gif[/url][/QUOTE]
You do know that none of that occurs in the playthrough formerly on youtube, right? That is from prerelease stuff that is designed to look nice.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47159064]You do know that none of that occurs in the playthrough formerly on youtube, right? That is from prerelease stuff that is designed to look nice.[/QUOTE]
Now you're just talking bullshit. Both of those screenshots are taken by users who got the game early. Only the gif is from a trailer.
[url]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152449958&postcount=2797[/url]
And if you are implying the game was downgraded, then that's just not true.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47159089]Now you're just talking bullshit. Both of those screenshots are taken by users who got the game early. Only the gif is from a trailer.
And if you are implying the game was downgraded, then that's just not true.[/QUOTE]
I was watching the series up until part 5 which it got taken down by dmca complaints.
Then again in those parts there were no shotguns nor the lightning gun so those effects may simply be weapon respective.
Or are those pics from the dev demo rather than the full version?
[QUOTE=RichyZ;47159067]see metal gear rising, 60 fps, looks decent enough, fun as fuck[/QUOTE]
metal gear rising is pretty fun as fuck but that's a section of games that i would say absolutely requires 60 fps, since you need that ounce of reaction time.
the original super smash bros. was also at 60 fps.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47159096]I was watching the series up until part 5 which it got taken down by dmca complaints.
Then again in those parts there were no shotguns nor the lightning gun so those effects may simply be weapon respective.
Or are those pics from the dev demo rather than the full version?[/QUOTE]
Just because the person playing never managed to dismember an enemy, or they did and you missed it (because they weren't exactly taking the time to oogle corpses), doesn't make the dismemberment fake or photoshopped or whatever.
Anyways, yes of course a revolver isn't going to tear the flesh off an arm. Did the player ever used slo-mo to shoot a grenade mid-air? That also blows away flesh and clothing.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47158727]
And most of them are saying it took them 8-12 hours to beat it. This youtube person obviously went through it quick (and he played it on easy, which apparently is extremely easy in this game)
[/QUOTE]
He played normally and died several times. He also said he played on normal. Do you have reason to call him a liar?
Frankly at this point I'd take a random Youtube letsplayer over a couple NeoGAF posts. Might as well go to the subreddit and pull up all the posts who think it's a great game.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47159116]So because the person playing never managed to dismember an enemy, or they did and you missed it because they weren't exactly taking the time to oogle corpses, therefore those are bullshots or lies by the devs?[/QUOTE]
Never said they were exactly lies, but rather that they are so uncommon that you have to specifically attempt to get them it seems.
Also putting a prerelease gif like that which looks completely out of place in relation to the others is kind of misleading.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;47159140]mgr doesn't require 60 fps, the counterattack window is pretty generous, they just did it because 60fps is straight up more fun to play in[/QUOTE]
i dunno, i can imagine myself dying a lot more at a lower fps because my eyes suck and wouldn't be able to track movement
[QUOTE=deadoon;47159159]Never said they were exactly lies, but rather that they are so uncommon that you have to specifically attempt to get them it seems.
Also putting a prerelease gif like that which looks completely out of place in relation to the others is kind of misleading.[/QUOTE]
When the final game looks better than the prerelease media, I see no problem.
Now I haven't played it yet, or watched much footage (I want to go in relatively fresh) but apparently the shotgun with all barrels at once does dismember enemies easily.
If you want, I will take some screens or clips on Friday to show the dismemberment.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47158936]Okay seriously if a game is story oriented how exactly is it a bad thing that cutscenes are unskippable at least on your first run
Why do you insist on wanting to play story heavy games if you're going to skip every cutscene and rush to gameplay when the game's not designed for heavy gameplay ?
Also, some of those games [I]do[/I] have unskippable cutscenes, you're simply allowed to fuck around during them.
Dead Space 1 has a pretty damn long intro scene, and a lot of the game has long cutscenes with no interaction. Dead Space 2 has even longer cutscenes - and you can't skip them.
Half Life does the same except you're allowed to move around, which doesn't mean much when you're restricted to such a tiny space. In 2, these scenes are again even longer - because you're able to fuck around in Kleiner's lab and knock over some stuff doesn't change the fact you're sitting in a ten minutes long cutscene of people talking about teleportation and hideouts.
[/QUOTE]
See, you've mentioned most of those games' unskippable cutscenes already. It'd take you a list to nail down The Order 1886 ones. Dead Space is mostly gameplay. So is Half-Life. It's an established fact. Once you get past the "oh no we're stuck!" chapter in DS1 the gameplay doesn't stop.
Story-heavy games don't necessarily need to be qte-fest garbage. From what I've seen, despite a cool setting and an entertaining premise, The Order is cliched as fuck. If you consider that story-heavy, then games like Alpha Protocol, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, Deadly Premonition, Alan Wake can be said to be story-heavy too. You know, games that don't rely on long as fuck cutscenes and still manage to have good, but trope-full stories.
[QUOTE=Demeschik;47159222]See, you've mentioned most of those games' unskippable cutscenes already. It'd take you a list to nail down The Order 1886 ones. Dead Space is mostly gameplay. So is Half-Life. It's an established fact. Once you get past the "oh no we're stuck!" chapter in DS1 the gameplay doesn't stop.
Story-heavy games don't necessarily need to be qte-fest garbage. From what I've seen, despite a cool setting and an entertaining premise, The Order is cliched as fuck. If you consider that story-heavy, then games like Alpha Protocol, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory, Deadly Premonition, Alan Wake can be said to be story-heavy too. You know, games that don't rely on long as fuck cutscenes and still manage to have good, but trope-full stories.[/QUOTE]
Alan Wake is what i think a good story-driven game is. It doesn't remove your control during narrator bits even though all you do is run around on a boat or walk down a path or jump off a cliff or some shit. There was only a handful of actual cutscenes.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47159193]When the final game looks better than the prerelease media, I see no problem.
Now I haven't played it yet, or watched much footage (I want to go in relatively fresh) but apparently the shotgun with all barrels at once does dismember enemies easily.
If you want, I can track down an exploding head screenshot taken by an actual owner for you?[/QUOTE]
I am trying to see where you are sourcing your claims that the game has good gunplay, when the launch something and shoot it out of the air is a 16 year old trick. Also dismemberment and gibs from the same game. The enemies stand still and shoot in a manner which is embarrassing even to gears of war.
Also, that gif has to either be prerelease or developer demo, as the blood effect in the final is a red mist covering the entire screen that slowly fades. It is literally irrelevant to the final game.
And looking into it, the gore effects are in game, but you cannot encounter them very early on due to no weapon causes the effects.
I honestly don't know of any games that let you shoot grenades out of enemy hands, I mean I'm sure some exist but it's not very common. Even so, how does being common or not have a say in whether it is fun or not? Something doesn't need to be innovative and life changing to be fun.
Anyways, I'm sourcing my claims that it has good gunplay by observing the clips and impressions which show the aiming to be responsive, the guns to have satisfying sound effects, and having good visual feedback when hitting enemies. Those are the three most important aspects of having good gunplay in a game. Of course as mentioned previously, there are some clever or simply fun weapons; the lighting gun, the 4 barrel shotgun that rips off limbs, the rifle with air blast, and the thermite&flare rifle which you can use to make enemies cough or burst into flame.
Also the blacksight ability, which let's you enter slow motion and quick-draw your pistol wild west style and shoot grenades in midair or get some headshot. That looks like it's fun to use based on the videos I've seen.
Clearly, I won't know for sure until I play it (just like you or anybody else here doesn't know for sure until they play it) but I believe I'll have fun with it.
Having played what I'm assuming was a press demo and the final build, the gunplay is fine and the whole blowing off limbs and such only happens with powerful weapons.
And I highly doubt the YouTube guy actually played on normal. The demo and the actual game at the events I was at were set to medium and the AI was not as dumb as they were in his playthough.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47159361]I honestly don't know of any games that let you shoot grenades out of enemy hands, I mean I'm sure some exist but it's not very common.
I'm sourcing my claims that it has good gunplay by observing the clips and impressions which show the aiming to be responsive, the guns to have satisfying sound effects, and having good visual feedback when hitting enemies. Those are the three most important aspects of having good gunplay in a game. Of course as mentioned previously, there are some clever or simply fun weapons; the lighting gun, the 4 barrel shotgun that rips off limbs, the rifle with air blast, and the thermite&flare rifle which you can use to make enemies cough or burst into flame.
Also the blacksight ability, which let's you enter slow motion and quick-draw your pistol wild west style and shoot grenades in midair or get some headshot. That looks like it's fun to use based on the videos I've seen.
Clearly, I won't know for sure until I play it (just like you or anybody else here doesn't know for sure until they play it) but I believe I'll have fun with it.[/QUOTE]
Shooting something out of the air is common as hell both halo and cod have that feature. Ut(from 99, with limb dismembering and gibbing), has the shock combo where you shoot a shock ball out of the air for a huge explosion.
Lightning gun is average at best,it is a glorified sniper rifle, heck I linked one myself. Air blast rifle is unique in the rechargeable stun launcher. 4 barrel shotgun that dismembers? Bullet storm had the exact same weapon you just described. Also from gameplay that thermite rifle is unreliable as all hell, The playthrough I am watching now has him firing a dozen shots at a guy which are causing flame bursts all around before he catches fire.
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;47158397]The guy didnt rush the game god damn. He dies a bunch, and fucks around in some areas for a while and stays in cover a lot.
Is it really so hard to believe a Triple A dev once again fucked people in the ass with a flawed game that isnt worth $60?[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, it may not be worth 60 dollars, but I won't make too much of a loss on it when I sell it after completion so I don't see the problem myself. It's why I prefer buying a physical copy, over the extortionate digital versions.
I might well enjoy it anyway, which'll be for me to decide.
[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;47152908]Black bars and 30 fps? Glad I didn't pre-order this one.
I'm already playing on a wide screen TV, I don't need you to make it "more cinematic" by making it harder for me to see anything and removing my view. And as for 30fps? I thought we've been through this already. 30 FPS is unacceptable.[/QUOTE]
Didn't the devs say they couldn't get the game to run in the double digits without the black bar?
[QUOTE=Zet;47161354]Didn't the devs say they couldn't get the game to run in the double digits without the black bar?[/QUOTE]
No.. where on earth did you hear this? The game was always 30fps. If you're talking about 24fps thing, that was in response to the sarcastic comments saying "lolz it shud b 24fps if they want it 2 be cinematic." and they said simply that 24fps would be a terrible experience. They had the opportunity to run it in 16x9, with 2xMSAA, which would still look pretty clean, but they kept this aspect ratio with 4xMSAA.
The aspect ratio has always a stylistic choice from the very beginning, which is clear when you look at the early concept art, which was in this aspect ratio. The studio went to great lengths to simulate the appearance of real anamorphic lenses. The FOV, level designs, and battle scenarios were designed to take advantage of the wider aspect ratio (similar to framing in films)
To IceWarrior, this aspect ratio shouldn't be making it hard for you to see anything, it's not removing your view; this isn't cropped 16:9 like The Evil Within.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47161536]No.. where on earth did you hear this? The game was always 30fps. They had the opportunity to run it in 16x9, with 2xMSAA, but they kept this aspect ratio with 4xMSAA.
The aspect ratio has always a stylistic choice from the very beginning, which is clear when you look at the early concept art, which was in this aspect ratio. The studio went to great lengths to simulate the appearance of real anamorphic lenses. The FOV, level designs, and battle scenarios were designed to take advantage of the wider aspect ratio (similar to framing in films)
To IceWarrior, this aspect ratio shouldn't be making it hard for you to see anything, it's not removing your view; this isn't cropped 16:9 like The Evil Within.[/QUOTE]
Actually it is cropped view, if they maintained the same horizontal fov, and increased the vertical you would have an increased overall fov with nothing hidden.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47161569]Actually it is cropped view, if they maintained the same horizontal fov, and increased the vertical you would have an increased overall fov with nothing hidden.[/QUOTE]
That same FOV you bring up would be even wider in this aspect ratio, and further still if you increased it more to compensate. Wider will always be wider, simply put.
Anyways it's pretty clear that this isn't using some trash narrow FOV like The Evil Within, it's clear in videos and screens that it has a pleasantly wider FOV. They said it themselves, they paid respect to the aspect ratio by utilizing it for a wide FOV. The claims that they cropped it to improve framerate are simply false. You don't have to like their design choice, but that doesn't mean you have to make accusations either.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47161609]That same FOV you bring up would be even wider in this aspect ratio, and further still if you increased it more to compensate. Wider will always be wider, simply put.
Anyways it's pretty clear that this isn't using some trash narrow FOV like The Evil Within. They said it themselves, they paid respect to the aspect ratio by utilizing it for a wide FOV. The claims that they cropped it to improve framerate are simply false. You don't have to like their design choice, but that doesn't mean you have to make accusations either.[/QUOTE]
You didn't read what I said did you?
I was saying that if you are not using the entire screen you are cropping it artificially.
If you lock your H Fov and leave the V to be determined by the size of the screen in in relation to the H you will have it scale without ugly black boxes on the screen.
Basically you are relying on the scapegoat cinematic experience argument again.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47161670]You didn't read what I said did you?
I was saying that if you are not using the entire screen you are cropping it artificially.
If you lock your H Fov and leave the V to be determined by the size of the screen in in relation to the H you will have it scale without ugly black boxes on the screen.
Basically you are relying on the scapegoat cinematic experience argument again.[/QUOTE]
Your argument is falling flat, in the 2:40:1 aspect ratio, you'll have all the vertical image of your 16:9 image + more on both sides. 2:40:1 will always have more horizontal image information.
A two by two inch square will never be wider than a two by four inch rectangle, same height though.
And there is no scapegoat, it's the simple fact that the aspect ratio was an artistic choice, not a technical choice, and has been since this game was nothing more than concept art, hence all concept art being drawn this way.
With this post I'm going to end my part in this discussion. If you want to believe the aspect ratio was not an artistic choice, that's fine. But that doesn't make it true, because it's not.
Cya.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47161701]Your argument is falling flat, in the 2:40:1 aspect ratio, you'll have all the vertical image of your 16:9 image + more on both sides. 2:40:1 will always have more horizontal image information.
A two by two inch square will never be wider than a two by four inch rectangle, same height though.
And there is no scapegoat, it's the simple fact that the aspect ratio was an artistic choice, not a technical choice, and has been since this game was nothing more than concept art, hence all concept art being drawn this way.
With this post I'm going to end my part in this discussion. If you want to believe the aspect ratio was not an artistic choice, that's fine. But that doesn't make it true, because it's not.
Cya.[/QUOTE]
You have no clue what I just said.
Vertical fov is independant of Horizontal fov.
If you lock the Horizontal FOV to say 90, the horizantal fov will never be greater or less than 90. The vertical however should be determined by the sized of the screen in relation to the Horizantal.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view_in_video_games[/URL]
Read about it rather than be ignorant and claim superiority. I am saying they should be using vert- as stated rather than simply letter boxing the game with ugly black bars.
I know I said I was withdrawing but I have to respond.
I don't know why you keep repeating something that is simply wrong.
What you're suggesting here is that if we put black bars on the side of our theoretical 2:40:1 display, then the 16:9 image will be the same. "If we simply disregard all the extra "horizantal" space that 2:40:1 offers, then 16:9 will be able to fit the same image without major image distortion."
I hope you understand how that sounds.
[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;47161863]I know I said I was withdrawing but I have to respond.
I don't know why you keep repeating something that is simply wrong.
What you're suggesting here is that if we put black bars on the side of our theoretical 2:40:1 display, then the 16:9 image will be the same. "If we simply disregard all the extra horizontal space that 2:40:1 offers, then 16:9 will be able to fit the same image without major image distortion."
I hope you understand how that sounds.[/QUOTE]
No it isn't and that is why I called you ignorant.
It is literally being keep horizontal information distribution the same and adjust the vertical to the display. You would get more if it were not letterboxed.
An article which brought this up was being stupid about it as well
[URL]http://gearnuke.com/order-1886-169-vs-2401-aspect-ratio-one-better/[/URL]
Their graphic is literally wrong. That is a locked Vertical Fov, not horizontal. With a locked horizantal, dynamic vert you would get more information froma 16:9
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.