@croxus: So you're going to whine because you're not getting games that you want for a month or two here and there? I mean, really, you pay $60 per year. If you download even 4 of the $15 indie games that go free, your entire membership is paid for. Anything else is a bonus. And I know you damn well cannot tell me that you didn't download at least $60 worth of games, on top of playing games online, which is the actual intent of the membership in the first place. People that whine about this sort of stuff are a toxic part of the community, I swear. Enjoy the good games when they come, and enjoy your extremely good deal of a membership otherwise. Also, every month isn't supposed to please everyone, and they need to distribute an even number of varied genres to please the masses; not just one group.
I wont waste my time replying to everyone, but seriously dude, open your eyes and realize the value of these memberships. If you play through any of these games, your membership increases in value all on it's own without having to pay any extra money.
@jayjay444 False. $250 GTX 760 and a core i5-3450 processor runs this on Ultra with as stable 30FPS. This includes HBAO+, 4xTSAA and Ultra textures. Not a hitch.
@natalieyan My video card costs $250. I use an i4-3450 processor, and 16GB of standard RAM with a cheap motherboard, a cheap case and a 750W Corsair power supply. My computer did not cost as much as people are exaggerating.
This game runs on ultra, just fine, at 30+FPS. It runs smoother than the PS4 and looks *WAY* better. This video does not do it justice, at all.
@jonaadams @vadertherad That would be 1440p. I never understood calling "Ultra HD" 4k, either, considering it's 2160p. They switch the number to the first set in the resolution just to make it sound that much better.
Truthfully, resolution doesn't matter much beyond 720p, although it makes a difference based on how far you sit from your screen and how large it is.
But yes, I agree; PC looks far superior. GameSpot isn't running it on Ultra with an effective PC. That, and video doesn't do it justice.
@Liongooder Actually, the extra $10 price hike for console games, even assuming it only applies 1/4 of the time (it's more than that), the subscription fees and other such things add up. Over the course of a console's life span, you spend as much as, if not more than the price it would cost you to build a far superior gaming PC. And this isn't even counting DLC, which is sometimes outright free for PC gamers (look at Left 4 Dead 2 for a general example). And then the community addons/extra maps/etc., which is a MASSIVE thing for most bigger games. Skyrim is a great example of that, as well as the previously mentioned Left 4 Dead 2.
I still love console gaming, but the price is a big misconception. You pay a LOT more money over a console's life span by comparison to the larger amount up front. It's a very worthwhile investment, too, if you can afford it.
It's no contest, really, and it's impossible to refute. It's fact. I've written articles on this very subject to help people out. :)2
@parkurtommo Oh, and, one more thing: The clutter is a huge deal. Even full structures are different on the PS4, such as cranes, lifts and other such things. They have a lower polygon count and actually lose entire parts! It's crazy!
Ground clutter is a big thing, too, with less physics, lighting, and other things applying all around. I just.. can't even list it all; would take forever. :p
I do not agree with this, at all. I've been playing the game all day and I'm quite disappointed with this review, as is standard with Kevin's articles from my perspective, I suppose.
"Bound by Flame then proceeds to ruin its promising combat with a series of mind-boggling choices that suck out all the fun and turn battles into an aggravation. Small areas are populated with archers, ultra-hardened duelists, and frost spirits with all manner of icy spells they like to bombard you with. Throw into the mix an ineffective companion, an unreliable target lock that abides by no comprehensible rules, and a camera that can't always frame the close-quarters action, and you rarely have the proper tools to form a strategy. To make matters worse, every successful attack serves as an interruption, at best disrupting you mid-swing, and at worse knocking you on your derriere."
Honestly, it sounds like this guy just really sucks at video games. The entire point of this combat system is the emphasis on awareness and genuine strategy. You cannot just play this like it's Dragon Age and pile on tough armor and strong weapons, hacking away without consequence. You absolutely must put your head into this game, and really develop your skills as a player; not just the character.
As for not having the "proper tools to form a strategy", the game hands you every single core skill right off the bat. How you spend your skill points only alters those base skills, which greatly alters each ability by the time you've hit the Master tier. As such, it's quite easy to become powerful within' the means of your chosen spec, but you can't just stand still and hack everything to bits, which clearly Kevin prefers to do; he always do. It's how he always plays his RPGs, and he doesn't like any RPG that doesn't allow him to do that, and Bound By Flames clearly isn't that sort of game.
And, for the record, companions are just fine. If you set them to defensive in particular, they almost never die, and they play their part. They'll heal you regularly, dish out plenty of damage to opponents or even hold aggro from a few mobs so you can pick them off.
If you're interested in a genuine challenge that requires real thought and actual strategy, this game is likely for you. This one's not about the story, unfortunately, despite being an RPG at it's core.
I think it's important to point this out: A console with 16* the RAM, more than 4* the graphical processing power and a ridiculous CPU setup when compared to the current generation is going to wipe the floor with current high-end PCs.
Consoles are generally far more capable of putting out better quality visuals/gaming experiences with much weaker hardware when put up against PCs of similar specs.
Do you think any PC with the specs of the Xbox 360 or the PlayStation 3 would even come close to the same level of power? NO way. Not even a little.
So, whether or not you want to believe something one way or the other, don't do it blindly. You are wrong if you think differently, as these are facts; not opinions.
If you want an opinion, here: I don't care whether it's Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo, so long as I'm getting the console games I want to play. I will own all of the consoles, as well as new upgrades for my PC. Games are games, regardless of where they are played. ;)
Oh, and yes, I am a hardcore PC gamer, as well as a hardcore console gamer and a serious tech/hardware junkie.
I personally don't feel that GameSpot has ramped up any expectations. If you read most of their reviews, it honestly seems as though they're nitpicking for stupid reasons. And honestly, in some cases, it really seems like they played the game for 30 minutes before writing the review. It really seems like they're giving games to the wrong critics, as if there's some weird disturbance in the balance of the staff community. I don't know what's going on, and I guess I don't care to know, but there are many reasons why I merely read many different reviews from many different critics, and simply don't factor them in to my personal choices. If I want a game, I will play it regardless of what others are saying. In most cases, I'm not disappointed. In others, it's a waste of time. But does it matter? Nope. Because it's all about having fun. ;)
I would actually score that game lower than the previous game if it was indeed practically the same for a lack of innovation. This is Halo, not Madden. Also, Halo 4 is vastly different from previous games for many reasons, including the new loadout system, among many other things. You cannot assume the game is practically the same just because it's called Halo. ;)
xXSkyrazorXx's comments