groowagon's forum posts

#1 Edited by groowagon (3272 posts) -

you forgot to mention the most important component in your specs, when it comes to gaming; GPU. i guess it's some Intel HD series GPU. (edit: seems like it's NVIDIA NVS 4200M. it's not meant for gaming, so you should stick with old games)

but if you can play those games, then you can say good bye to your life and install Dota 2. just don't come back blaming me after you have 3000 hours on it...

actually, you should try Civ5 (Civilization 5, just to be clear), like mentioned by @ribstaylor1. I'm not sure if your laptop can handle it, but it's a great game. It's a strategy game, but it can be surprisingly graphics-heavy when you ramp up the settings. There's a demo on Steam, so you can try if you could run it with lower settings.

Also try these;

Ori and the Blind Forest (phenomenally good 2D side-scroller adventure game, like Guacamelee and Valdis Story, but much better)

XCOM Enemy Unknown (really good turn-based strategy/action game. you might be able to run it on low settings)

LIMBO (also 2D side-scroller. short, but worth every penny)

Dishonored (really good 3D first-person action-adventure game. it has relatively light graphics, so you might be able to run it with lower settings)

#2 Edited by groowagon (3272 posts) -

No. Graphics improved gaming experience.

You fail to understand that the workload is being divided to multiple people. Like if a core team, let's say 3-10 people are focusing on the gameplay and all mechanics entirely, they can still have a massive army of artists and composers and what not to help make the other stuff. It doesn't happen with the cost of gameplay, unless the team fails to prioritize it's goals. I'd say that it's actually more common in indie games to see stuff where the artistic presentation seems to far overweight the importance of gameplay experience.

As mentioned above, Witcher 3 is a good example of combining both. Also Souls titles are a great example; Demon's Souls looked ugly as hell with focus entirely on gameplay, but after the success they were able to hire proper artists for the follow-ups, while the gameplay only improved (atleast in my opinion).

There ARE many cases too, where publisher just want's to release a flashy product, while they don't really give a shit about how it plays (don't hire a proper team or just give a redicilous timetable), as long as it barely works. That's bullshit.

#3 Edited by groowagon (3272 posts) -

I'm not sure if there's anything that can convince your parents to change their minds about it. Games are just entertainment. It's a typical story that agricultural parents (i'm not sure if that's the correct term. excuse my english) totally hate gaming, and don't understand that form of entertainment at all.

But the thing is, that it's better entertainment in general than watching TV or movies (unless they are educational, or culturally meaningful works), because games actually challenge you. They make you think. It's better to spend your time with challenging entertainment, than passively staring at stupid crap from TV. There's also a crap-load of money on gaming industry, so it's a really legit career choice too. It's a harsh and demanding road, though.

$15 from Skyrim is a really good deal, btw.

#4 Edited by groowagon (3272 posts) -

user reviews on PC games are often redicilous. people trying to play games with their crappy old PCs and then they get crashes etc. I wish their PCs would simply explode. Maybe that would teach the dummies.

and when it's not a hardware issue, many people rate games either 1 or 10, depending if they like it or not. i guess thinking is too challenging. i mean, if some Douche McBagger experiences 1 crash with some great game, it's insta-1 rating for it.

my personal rating is moving around 8-9 at the moment, when i'm only 20 hours in. the most disappointing thing is that it feels a lot like Fallout 3 when you start the game, but when you keep playing you'll find enough new things and mechanics, so that the game can keep it's grip on you.

#5 Edited by groowagon (3272 posts) -

Bit offtopic, but funny thing about Steam pre-loads... It actually takes MORE TIME for me to decrypt the pre-loaded game, than to re-download the whole chunk again as un-encrypted.


#6 Edited by groowagon (3272 posts) -

online shooter? then framerate.

singleplayer? then graphics.

preferably both.

#7 Edited by groowagon (3272 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:
@hrt_rulz01 said:

Hmmm tough one... Uncharted 4 will rate highly but not sure about 95. Maybe the next Zelda?

What about Fallout 4?

it's technically too much of a mess to reach score that high. great game still, no doubt.

the poor graphics and bugs will keep those 10/10 scores away. lot's of 9s incoming.

#8 Edited by groowagon (3272 posts) -

i really love the gameplay of Bloodborne, but content-wise it doesn't come even near Dark Souls, wich was really disappointing imo. it felt more straight-forward rather than open-RPG (yes, i know that even Souls' are not THAT open, but this is even less). while i treasure that game, i think Witcher 3 will grab the GotY this year.

#9 Posted by groowagon (3272 posts) -

@rektmuhface said:

looks too confusing. /willnotbuy

Don't know if serious, but I kind of agree. There comes a point when a game requires too much buy in and involvement to legitimately interest me. I'm sure some people will pour 1,000's of hours into this game, but I just cant see myself enjoying something like this.

yeah, if you find that being too confusing, this game is propably not your cup of tea to begin with. having complex features is sort of what the fans want from this. they want to be really involved with everything.

#10 Posted by groowagon (3272 posts) -

Man spends $30k on Star Citizen, because Man has money.