Video Games - a general discussion thread — Page 285

Thanks! I'll give it a try and let you know how it turns out :)

I bought the cheapest used computer I could find--a 2001-era Dell--just so I could run Windows 95 games without problems. It just seemed easier to me. It's a Dell computer from 2001, cost me $20. I know it sounds a bit extreme to buy a whole computer to run vintage games--although no one bats an eye at dropping $70 on an NES--but honestly for $20 it's worth the money, and I'm sure you could find one for free as long as you were willing to go pick it up, I was just lazy and actually found a $20 bill on the sidewalk that week so it seemed fair. It's hooked up to my modern LED monitor and the tower itself is pretty small so it doesn't actually intrude on space. It also runs DOS games without problems. And of course the floppy disc drive if you have pre-CD-ROM games like Police Quest.

Is it possible to install a dual OS and actually run your modern computer in W95? I never tried that, but if you were really into vintage PC games but don't want to grab a second computer I would look into that. I've played some old games in W95 compatibility mode, but I've never been fully satisfied with the results, there was usually a glitch or two, so I just went on Craigslist last year and bought the second computer. Usually the seller will give the software they had too, since it would be useless to them. I got a copy of Redneck Rampage which I had forgot even existed!

TV's Frink said:

I'm enjoying Temple Run 2 these days.

I checked out the Temple Run games after a previous mention by you and now I'm addicted...

Also--surprising no one has mentioned this yet--what do people think of the PS4 announcement? Not a fan of the controller re-design from the looks of it, but otherwise pretty excited. Don't give a shit about the Vita connectivity and other gimmicks like uploading game footage but the internal specs seem pretty good. I think it will be very, very interesting how Microsoft responds to all this, since they will have the benefit of being last out of the gate. IMO it's always a mistake to buy on launch day--let alone launch year--but this is a system I am looking to watch and see for a purchase, hopefully picks up faster than PS3 (which I was going to buy last year but then held off knowing PS4 would be out so soon). I haven't bought a console when it was still current since 1996--I have the benefit of friends who are big into current-gen gaming--but I want to own this so I hope they don't drop the ball.

Johnny Ringo said:

TV's Frink said:

I'm enjoying Temple Run 2 these days.

 

I checked out the Temple Run games after a previous mention by you and now I'm addicted...

I'm finding phone games to be a nice alternative - especially when they're free, easy to play, and don't have to be time consuming.

Sounds like you need a Sega Dreamcast.

Not a bad idea.  May just have to do this myself.  Thanks for the ideas.  I haven't had the chance to try bkev's idea yet, but I'll get to it as soon as I can.  Either way, it may just be easiest to have the older system.

grr, Same controller layout that I hated 4 playstations ago. I guess Sony and I are just never going to be on the same page. 

Although the PS3 is a beast of a media device - I love it for that - to the point where I just can't see the PS4 offering enough to entice me to trade up. And Sony exclusive games that interest me are few and far between...

The current Gen are still pumping out quality titles, launch titles on the new Gen systems will probably wont be spectacular..

/rant.

Had a bit of a play of The Walking Dead from Telltale Games. Not too far in but good fun. Cartoon-y visual style but overall good mood / atmosphere.. 

I have mixed feeling on this next gen. Obviously the leap from the previous gen to the current one was a pretty big one in every way, from the Xbox to the 360, from the PS2 to the PS3, from the Gamecube to the... err, never mind... But the other two were big leaps.

We saw vast improvements in graphic, HD, 3D, downloadable content, streaming media, and we saw the blessed end of the controller cord and memory card. And later in the gen we saw motion controls come into play on all systems.

What new innovations do we have coming in the next gen? So far it seems tablet and social network integration are the two big things. Do we even really care about that? I don't. Fancier graphics and other pluses that are sure to come with the more advanced hardware will certainly be nice, but it is usually a little ways into a console's life before a worthwhile library of games are available, and early launch titles aren't likely to utilize the new tech enough to make them that much more impressive than the current gen. It has been a long time since a new game has come out that has wowed us, for the last couple of years it has pretty much been more of the same, so a change up there is sure to be refreshing.

Unlike the leap from PS2's DVD player to PS3's BD player, there is no brand new media format the new systems are going to be able to play that most people don't already have a decent player for. Streaming and media serving can already be done fantastically on the current consoles. It would be nice to be able to throw MKV files onto a flashdrive and play them, which the current console's can't do, but not sure the new ones will be able to either (it is a codec licensing thing, right?), and that is easily enough worked around by streaming the files from your computer, which is a better setup anyway once you take the time to do it.

Ultimately, I just don't see any reason to spend my money on an upgrade. I have a good sized backlog of "must play" current gen games that I've yet to get around to playing, and there are a small number of games yet to be released that I am still really looking forward to (Bioshock Infinite, The Last of Us, to name two).

I have a feeling I am going to be more than content with my PS3 and 360 for the next couple of years. The fact that games for those two consoles will start dropping to last gen prices will give me a good excuse to go back and play all those big titles I never got around to.

Shut up O'Five! You've forsaken video games and therefore no longer deserve a voice.

;)

I hope it is something left up to software companies and not a feature that gets forced via console. I have no problem not buying games from companies that pull that crap. I know, I know, I get the whole not making money on used games thing, it sucks, but it has been part of the industry since the beginning. A lot of us just simply wouldn't play games if we had to pay $60 dollars for each one. It is a habit I enjoy, but I could live without it if it came down to it.

I'd someday like to buy the new Xbox, but if that ends up being part of it, count me out. '

@bkev, you know you could just download your profile to your friend's Xbox and get the full functionality as long as your profile is logged in along side his. I used to do this all the time with COD map packs and downloaded games.

There is nothing wrong about not paying companies when you buy used shit. That's like giving Ikea a dollar everytime you turn on the lamp you bought at Fred's garage sale 6 years ago. Or giving Honda a dollar every time you bought that used Civic off your friend in 2004. Does any of that make sense? Of course not. If I go to Goodwill and get a Hungry Hungry Hippos board game I don't owe Parker Brothers anything. I think if Sony or MS actually tried to implement such a feature it would be halted by the supreme court.

Video game companies are rolling in money--more than Hollywood--and yet they pay their employees shitty wages and then price-gouge the people actually buying their product. It's the sole reason I never once recommended people to buy an Xbox 360 when you could be playing the same--and more often than not better--games online with the PS3 for free. The reason they get away with it is that video games are addictive and their audience is easily tricked into paying whatever and because two or three companies effectively control the entire industry so they can do whatever they want and no one has any choice. Personally, I don't have any problem with not buying their stuff, I'll have at least one friend eager enough to pony up for it (some of my friends work in game design), and the games I enjoy the most aren't even being made any more anyway.

Stuff from the Atari, Coleco, NES, GB, Genesis, SNES, PS1, PS2, XBOX, DC systems for starters. Heck, the best Resident Evil game ever made is a Gamecube exclusive. Ignoring retro games is like not watching any movies that were made more than 5 years ago, or not reading any books written after 2006...it just doesn't make any sense. There are literally hundreds of good games--and thousands of mediocre ones--in the history of gaming, just like most people's favourite movies on these sites were released in 1977 and 1980 respectively. Personally, my favourite game console is the Sega Dreamcast. There are 274 American releases and the proportional percentage of good games to bad is so high it would make Nintendo cry tears of blood.

zombie84 said:

I think if Sony or MS actually tried to implement such a feature it would be halted by the supreme court.

A lot of games already do this. I think everything published by EA is this way anymore. Battlefield 3, which was a very major release, came with a one use code that gave you access to the full online multiplayer, and this is a game people really only buy for the multiplayer. If you buy a used copy you have to purchase an online pass for $10, otherwise you only get to play what is essentially a limited demo version that caps your level. Assassin's Creed III requires an online pass too, but at least with that one the online play is more of a bonus feature than the main event.

It's the sole reason I never once recommended people to buy an Xbox 360 when you could be playing the same--and more often than not better--games online with the PS3 for free.

I used to begrudge the fact that Xbox users have to pay for Xbox Live while Sony was decent enough to provide their services for free, I always thought that if I ever got a Playstation 3 I'd completely drop Xbox Live and make that my primary online system. Then I finally bought one and have never thought twice about paying for Xbox Live again, it is SOOO far superior to what Sony has to offer. I'll gladly pay a premium for smooth, nearly flawless online multiplayer with virtually no outages. In this case, you honestly get what you pay for, Playstation Network is a joke.

As far as more often than not better games? Most games are identical cross platform games, with Playstation exclusives being far and few in between. Playstation exclusives do look gorgeous, but I can't even think of any really popular online PS3 exclusives.

The service has more to offer, I'll admit--it better, since I am paying them money--but for a free service I'll still always go with PSN. Yes, it's not perfect, but for no money it's a terrific bang for your buck. I suppose if I made a decent amount of money it wouldn't matter. It's the same reason I will pay for Netflix but never, ever even entertain the idea of paying for cable. In the end it is like a $5 a month difference, so who really cares. But to me, like many gamers, that $5 a month is the difference between justifying and not justifying a service. Although split between my roomates, Netflix is a pretty good deal.

Tobar said:

darth_ender said:

Not a bad idea.  May just have to do this myself.  Thanks for the ideas.  I haven't had the chance to try bkev's idea yet, but I'll get to it as soon as I can.  Either way, it may just be easiest to have the older system.

I just stumbled upon this guide that might be of some help.

Thanks Tobar!