I completed all of the shrines before I beat the game, and found it enjoyable. I also really enjoyed running around the depths collecting all the lightroots. I enjoy exploring caves and wells too, so that’s next on my list to complete. Grinding for armor sets is tedious to me so I’m skipping it…
Not a huge deal. Microsoft has every incentive to keep Call of Duty on the market leading console. Considering we’re about halfway through this cycle based on history, that means Microsoft would have left CoD on PlayStation 5 for another 3-4 years. This deal is very obviously only happening due to the anti-trust case, and because of the aforementioned 3-4 years it basically just says “we agree to put CoD on PS6 regardless of how well it does.”
Of course, when the companies merge, no regulatory body is going to actually keep Microsoft to their word with penalties high enough to care about.
This merger is bad for the industry without a doubt in my mind.
I’d argue this deal is happening now because the anti trust cases are going in Microsoft’s favor. Microsoft and Sony have been in talks for a while to settle the Call of Duty on PlayStation deal but Sony probably thought it would be beneficial to hold off on this deal until the last possible moment in case it gave ammo to the FTC/CMA to stop the merger from happening.
I would argue that MS had every incentive to put Starfield out on PS5, but ultimately decided against it along with all new Zenimax games. They even estimated they would have sold 10 million copies on Playstation. I think that shows they are willing to forego money from some multiplatform games in the short term if they think they will make more money from Game Pass and Xbox hardware in the long run.
If you go by that logic then there would be no second place console in the market, because every game would exclusively be on the number one console.
Walled garden captivity for any platform has always been anti consumer profiteering and was perfected in the mid 90s after the atari clones all passed into history.
Your starter will not be appreciably stronger than other tems. Most are balanced out to be somewhat usable I’m the endgame, whether it be by stats, moveset, or ability. I would argue that some starters are just better than other due to their type being hard to find until mid game and useful early on. Also, tems that don’t evolve will be way stronger in the early game, since they are somewhat balanced with tems that do evolve later on.
Don’t be scared to experiment with different tems and see if some fit your playstyle better, because of that.
There are also occasionally hidden or hard to find areas that have a very small chance to find a tem that’s only available there. These tem are usually pretty good, so you may want to spoil yourself if you want to catch them all.
Also, much like Pokemon’s IVs, tem have stats that vary. However, these numbers are visible to you. If you know you want a tem on your team, it might be worth catching a few for better stats.
Finally, unlike in pokemon where creatures evolve at a set level, tems evolve after gaining a certain number of levels after capture.
I’m not sure what interests you most (or if you’ve already done this), but one thing I’ve always enjoyed is trying to tackle all of the shrines. Each of them has their own puzzles that’s different enough to keep me entertained, and the access to skip travel points is great for whatever else you might be doing.
You can also try to get korok seeds but those are sometimes even more annoying than the regular side quests
Edit: Sorry for the double comment, my app was glitching
2003 or 2007 for me. The early Halo and CoD years were the formative years of online gaming while also having a single player experience that was as replayable as any of the 80’s and 90’s hit games.
2007 for sure. Mass Effect, Bioshock, Crysis, STALKER, The Witcher, Assassins Creed, and a bunch more I’m forgetting. I also played a ton on PSP back then that probably released that year that I’m forgetting.
Let’s say you don’t tie game mechanics to frame rate. How often should you update the state of the game? 50 times / second? 100 times / second? You need to pick a fixed rate if you want to keep the physics engine consistent. If you make the rate too high the game will not run on low-end machines, so you need to find the right balance.
But let’s say you make it 100 times / second. Now between those updates, nothing changes. You can render at 500 FPS, but you’ll be rendering the same thing five times before anything changes, so the extra frames are useless. There are ways around this. You could perform interpolation of object positions between the previous state and the new state (but this introduces input lag). You can keep things that don’t affect gameplay (e.g. eye-candy animations) running at the full FPS. But none of these things are trivially obvious. So it becomes a question of ambition, competence, and the will to put time (i.e. investor’s money) into it. Hence many projects simply prioritize other things.
Holy fuck, didn’t realize eve was that old. Somehow I got into a beta or alpha test for it and there was barely any people. I remember it being a hot cup of garbage in terms of net code but the concept and gameplay was addicting. Never played retail and would never have expected it turn out so well and loved.
A big problem with an unlocked framerate is the physics system, which you can generally solve in two ways:
You tie the physics to the framerate. Problem is that this introduces all sorts of weird behavior, caused by rounding errors and frequency of collision checks. For example, objects could start glitching through thin walls if their framerate is low because collisions are checked less often.
You run the physics at a fixed internal interval. This solves a lot of problem with the first approach, but also means that you have to put in effort to mask the fixed framerate through interpolation/extrapolation if you still want to keep the actual framerate unlocked.
So Wolfenstein New Order probably went with the first approach, made sure their physics system stays stable within a certain FPS range (30-60), and then locked the FPS beyond that.
Because it’s easier to programm a single thread that executes a sequence of commands like [ update-gamelogic, update-graphics, etc. ] instead of at least 2 threads (for gamelogic and graphics) that you have to synchronize somehow. Synchronization can be pretty difficult!
Tying game logic to the framerate doesn’t really have anything to do with single- vs multi-threading. You can properly calculate the time since the last update in a single-threaded engine.
If the game loop doesn’t run at the same speed as the render loop you’ll get ‘tearing’ - some game objects are at the latest state, some are not. That can cause some funky bugs.
From my understanding, tearing can occur even if the game logic and render command submission happen on a single thread, since it’s a consequence of the OS compositor sending buffers to the monitor in the middle of rendering.
correct, but now you’ve just identified two separate types of tearing, both happening at different times. put them together and the perceived frequency will be significantly worse than it was prior.
being able to zero one of those out and only worry about the other means you can hopefully optimize a better solution - as much as one can when you can’t realistically atomically update the entire display from top to bottom.
gaming
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.