Random Gaming Thoughts (Read OP Before Posting)

[Sonikku]

DA:I doesn't require an internet connection to play. It will just prompt that it can't reach the servers. It came out last year when I was moving (late Nov I think) so I def played without internet at some point. If a game gets stuck on a loop trying to connect to a server, just uncheck the "connect to the internet" option under network settings and restart it.

The vanilla version doesn't require an internet connection. The complete and patched "Game of the year edition" does.

[ShenGCH]

I really couldn't get along with the combat in The Witcher 2 - I found it way much too stiff, boring, and almost turn-based (in terms of feeling and timing) for my liking - is it more accessible, flowing, and action-oriented this time around?
)

I'm playing it right now and it's a very good game although I wouldn't call it the most exciting combat system. Id suggest Bloodborne or Dragon Age Inquisition instead if combat is what you care about most. But not to say Witcher 3 doesnt have good combat, it's great, very fluid. Just keep your options open.

I adore Bloodborne, but I don't have any interest in Dragon Age Inquisition, I'm afraid. I'll have to think a little more about The Witcher 3.

Thanks, man

[Cave Johnson]

Recently I got a crave for the good ol 90's 2-d fighters non kawaii. Played a bit of Samurai Showdown Anthology and now it's making me want to get in the expensive world of Neo Geo collecting. Thought of investing in the MVS rather than the AES but even those have certain expensive games and the risk of bootlegs makes me think twice.

So I thought of setting a pc to the hdtv and run some emulation or wait for the trickle down releases of steam but its not the same. Theres always VC but that doesn't offer everything. I want the scanlines, the ease of use, and the originality.

This also got me thinking... why are most 2-D fighters other than SF and KOF nowadays "kawaii?" Arc system works made a cool Fist of the North Star fighter but that was a while ago.

[Giorgio]

phpBB [video]

[AnimeGamer183]

When I tell people im a huge gamer and they are like add me on X network and we'll play online some time, then I tell them im not that kind of gamer lol

I swear this has happened so much, like gaming now a days consists of manditory online play, by default. I'm just really not an online play kind of guy. Do the majority of people consider online play the main part of gaming now a days? I guess thats what most people do? Play online matches? Its so foreign to me still, gaming means something COMPLETELY different to me that most of the people I encounter. To me there is a strong emotional attachment to many of the stories and characters I have encountered in gaming, but it seems like now most people find the connections with other people from online play is what makes it special for them.

[shredingskin]

Yup, feel the same, only I don't tell people I'm a "huge gamer". I tell them I like them and I'm developing one.

[MiTT3NZ]

There's a few things to consider...

Most people of our generation (disclaimer: in developed countries) grew up with video games as an option for entertainment. Even more have a console in their household now because someone within it - be it spouse, housemate, offspring, etc. - like playing video games.

Nowadays though, most from our generation don't have much time for it, and haven't for many years due to work, education, family life, or socialising. Y'know, the important shit. Because of all this, "quick fire" games are the go-to because they don't require much investment in terms of time.

Now... I'm sure you know this, and that most of these people play online because not only does it double as socialising, but people react less rigid than AI (naturally) and it's even more "quick fire" than single player story/campaign modes. The majority of these however do not consider themselves gamers. Gamers are assumed to be all about video games. And by "all about", it usually means "all about".

So imagine you're a normal guy (blatantly not talkin to AG at this point btw), and you play some games online. FIFA, CoD, GTA, whatever. You're decent at it when you play your mates, but ain't the best when it comes to facing the no-life crew. Then all of a sudden you meet someone who identifies as a "gamer". Not only would you assume that an online game would be the best way to get to know them, it may also cross your mind at some point that knowing a gamer could be fun in a way, as they could join your team online so you can turn the tables n start winning for a change. I mean, gamers would naturally be better at games by default, right?

Also, in this day n age, not only are we taught not to prejudge anyone we meet, we are - as a society - doing it less and less anyway. So say you do meet a gamer, you wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they're a loner sat in their mother's basement playing some videogame variant of Dungeons and Dragons as the acne on their face spontaneously explodes at varying intervals.

No, the assumptions made are much more logical. It's assumed that anyone you meet under the age of 60 has the internet. It's assumed that if you call yourself a gamer then you have a console. It's assumed that console has been released within the last decade and is therefore connected to the internet. It's assumed that - if you really are a gamer - then you actually have video games for said console. There aren't many major mainstream releases within the last five years that haven't had an online multiplayer component - compared to those that have, at least - so tell me this...

If all these are taken into consideration (which usually only takes a split second) then why would you assume that someone who calls themselves a gamer doesn't play a part of a video game that they most probably already have and have the capability of playing?

It's rather simple with a little perspective, but I thought that - instead of insulting your idiocy - I'd try my hand at educating you instead. I'm just that nice a guy.

[shredingskin]

You wasted so many lines to say that playing online is the standard ?

That's a useful skill to have.

[MiTT3NZ]

I enjoy writing.

[Riku Rose]

I was just going to say AG was about 10 years late with his observation as this became a common thing at the start of last generation.

I don't really think that 'gamers' have moved over to just playing online though. I think the people who just play online these days are the people who 15-20 years ago only played games with friends but it was actually in person. Growing up most of my friends would play Pro Evo, Smash Bros or Mario Kart with a group of friends but never went home and put in a Final Fantasy to play alone. It's like how people some people only smoke when they're out on a night out with friends but at home don't touch it at all.

[Amir]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/17 ... -world-rpg

He only added the "Like" in the title afterwards.

[Monkei]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/17 ... -world-rpg

Did you read the description? Sometimes it's hard to tell if someone is simply trying to troll people or actually dumb on a mental handicap level. Same goes for the 72 backers. Must be a combination of utter stupidity and Kickstarter addiction or something. Unless they're troll pledging and just want to see where this goes and how long it takes till it gets closed down or something.

Edit: I guess at "Obi Juan Kenobi" or what it says the trolling becomes kinda obvious. I hope. For the sake of that guy and his poor mother. Might be an experiment to test how many people would actually be retarded enough to pledge. As if the internet had anything left to prove when it comes to stupidity.

[Riku Rose]

If it wasn't for Obi Jim part I would believe it wasn't trolling. Doesn't take much digging on the internet to find people who think making games is as simple as that guy. Just look at the comments for any game that sold poorly and won't get a sequel and you'll see a ton of people who have no idea that making video games is a business first and foremost.

[Sonikku]

Newegg has the Sony Gold wireless headset plus uncharted collection for $75. Seems like a good deal, but for all the good things I hear about the headsets sound I hear bad things about its apparently poor plastic hinges that tend to break in under a year. I'm surprised Sony would cheap out on build quality like that.

[Axm]

I have it. Ya its plasticy, but that also lends to its light weight. I can wear it for hours without discomfort. As for durability..yet to be seen but im careful with my stuff. People say Beats break easily too but ive had mine for 4 years and havent been as kind to them.

The Golds dont have great bass though tbh. The functionality is great, plug and play, sound profiles, good mic, nice cusions..worth the money imo. Theirs better out there but for the price it cant be beat.

I have some Tritton AX Pro's also when I really want better sound, but most of the time I just grab the Gold's cause of the zero setup time and functionality.