• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

The E3 thread

I know I'm probably going to be excommunicated for this, but is anyone else cautiously optimistic about the new COD? Skipped BLOPS II and Ghost, and probably would have skipped MW3 in hindsight, but the trailer looked a bit impressive.

Definitely not going to pre-order like in years past though, unless the word-of-mouth is phenomenal.
 
TheToE! said:
New DOOM game with a playstation ad at the end..sad fucking times indeed.:(
Click to expand...

The 90s are never coming back, gaming is big(ger) business now and times have changed.

LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
I know I'm probably going to be excommunicated for this, but is anyone else cautiously optimistic about the new COD? Skipped BLOPS II and Ghost, and probably would have skipped MW3 in hindsight, but the trailer looked a bit impressive.

Definitely not going to pre-order like in years past though, unless the word-of-mouth is phenomenal.
Click to expand...

I saw some game play today on the show floor and it looks ... good. I personally am tired of CoD, and I think that franchise has reached saturation point. My advise to anyone would be to wait for reviews in the very least, but probably try to catch a sale a month or two later. There are so many military shooters out now or on the horizon. Don't buy for the sake of new iterations, buy for greatness.
 
BETA. said:
Welp... time to get a Wii U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZmxvig1dXE#t=212

Zelda!!!
Click to expand...
Nintendo is one of the few companies in this business that gets praised for rehashing the same franchises over and over.
Frankly, I don't understand it. They're worse than Ubisoft with AC, and Infinity Ward with CoD.

They appeal to a niche market as opposed to the Mountain Dew + Dorito eating adolescents and that makes them a good company?
Nintendo is the worst of the worst. Innovate a little, for god's sake.

When was the last time they released a new IP? Pokemon in the late 1990's? Sheesh.
 
So this was my first E3, and I had a blast. I went with one friend, so we were pretty good about wanting to see the same things and not having to split up much.

My friend is a big Nintendo fan, and we probably spent more time there than in the Sony and Microsoft areas.

The booth babes @ Nintendo's area were noticably cuter, and actually more engaging when assisting with games.
Bayonetta looks cool, and I would recommend it to any fans of the first one.
Hyrule warriors follows the tried and true Dynasty Warriors with a little bit of Zelda flavor (bombs as items)
SSMB is a solid game in the series, I love watching all the super smash abilites. I have no idea what to think of Wii Fitness Trainer. Plays great on both 3DS and WiiU
The new splatter game was ok, nothing to write home about.

But I still dont have high hopes for Nintendo to bounce back, especially after what I saw at E3. It wasnt the Sony or Microsoft booths that impressed me. It was the publisher booths.

-(Activision:Bungie) Destiny PvP was fun, but I didnt get to try PvE. The gameplay is solid for PvP, but the story, character building, quests, and events are what I want to see and be sold on.
-(Take 2:Turtle Rock Studios) Evolve was much more fun than I originally thought when I saw it. I saw Jessica Chobot and co 4 man vs a single player controlled krakken. It had epic raid level intensity, and classes had specialty roles (such as medic vs assault). It's definitely something to keep an eye on.
-(Ubisoft:Montreal Studios) Assassins Creed 4 looks great, and with current gen tech, holding so many civilian NPCs has brought quality to a brand new level.
-(EA: Bioware) Dragon Age 3 may be so amazing I'll forgive DA2. It's like monster hunter style combat, but a polish of story and character building of Bioware.
-(Ubisoft: Massive Entertainment) The division looks good, it transforms the HUD into augmented reality. I'm still not sold on the AR approach to work at all times, but what I saw of it was great.
-(Take 2: Talltale Games) The Bordelands Pre-sequel looks promising, but I didnt see anything that changed the formula. It will be great to start over at level 1 again with brand new content, because Gearbox really suffered with balancing and making new content + end game viable.
-(?:?) The new gauntlet was super buggy, but a lot of fun for the short time it worked.

These games make me heavily consider buying both PS4 and XBox one to have access to all of them (and of course PC when there are PC versions). The entire WiiU lineup have a hard time matching up against these exclusives. At this rate, I would rather have a PS4 and Xbox One than a combination of a WiiU + another console because of the exclusive line up. All the major publishers and high profiles games have really abandoned WiiU (still some good 3DS love from Capcom and SquareEnix). Nintendo really on their own to either change that shift, or find a way to survive on their own.

As much as I look forward to see a new Zelda, SSMB, Star Fox, and some other Nintendo first titles, without a new Metroid, there is no chance of me buying a WiiU for any other lineup.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Nintendo is one of the few companies in this business that gets praised for rehashing the same franchises over and over.
Frankly, I don't understand it. They're worse than Ubisoft with AC, and Infinity Ward with CoD.

They appeal to a niche market as opposed to the Mountain Dew + Dorito eating adolescents and that makes them a good company?
Nintendo is the worst of the worst. Innovate a little, for god's sake.

When was the last time they released a new IP? Pokemon in the late 1990's? Sheesh.
Click to expand...

Comparing AC and COD to Zelda :confused:

I'm sorry but name me a bad Zelda game outside of the CD-i ones that were not made by Nintendo?

I can name at least 2 bad AC games (one being just awful) and about 5 bad COD games (2 being absolutely scams for PC gamers). Say what you want about recycling franchises but at least Zelda games are GOOD games when they are released. Nintendo might be about 5 years behind everyone else at times but when I buy a Zelda game I know its going to be something I'll enjoy the fuck out of unlike AC and COD which are totally random between releases (the last AC was bad ass with pirating though) and COD has been the same fucking game since COD : Modern Warfare.


Nintendo managed , despite its poor stance in sales , to get almost EVERYONE excited about its platform again. Sony with the next From Software game was pretty much the only stand out in their presentation and 1 of two exclusive titles to the PS4 (Uncharted 4 was already announced and 5 seconds of Nathan Drake standing up is exactly what we expected) then Sony spent 30 fucking minutes talking about sales and its dumb TV shit. Microsoft improved vastly over last years shit show with focusing on games and none of the filler that doesn't belong at E3 but Microsoft also didn't announce anything ground breaking.

Not to mention the Super Smash Bro's Invitational which spiked at almost 200,000+ viewers on Twitch and it looks like FINALLY the real successor to a game that should have had a true sequel well over a decade ago. Nothing that I saw from Microsoft or Sony has me really pumped because all of it is pretty damn far off. I will admit I loved seeing the Halo remasters but I've already played those games , I wanted some new games not rehashes. Halo 5 is so far off that its likely we'll have the super computer singularity Ray Kurzweil loves to talk about actually happen before its release.

So for E3 Nintendo wins in my opinion. They also have more to announce later on today and there are rumors of something really special. I was really worried Nintendo would play softball this E3 and really give no one a reason to hold on to their Wii U outside of SSB but I'm so happy to be wrong. If Nintendo can expand its ownership adoption for the Wii U with this impressive new line up then they might just survive this generation after all and that's all I want.

And yea , say what you want , Nintendo is just redoing old franchises but honestly? I would rather have a high quality Nintendo release of a beloved franchise than some trashy modern day remix of ANOTHER FPS game. The more we are pushed towards shit brown FPS games and pump and dump half ass open world games (Hello Watch Dogs) the more Nintendo's classic franchises I want to play again.
 
Last edited:
Godmachine said:
I'm sorry but name me a bad Zelda game outside of the CD-i ones that were not made by Nintendo?
Click to expand...
Bad according to WHOM?!
Reviewers? Who consistently give Assasin's Creed games and CoD games 9/10 scores, as well as Zelda?
Or the gaming community who has a massive chub for Nintendo because they grew up playing Mario?

No no, it's a matter of perspective.
Nintendo's endless parade of Zelda and Mario is just as shameful as every other rehashed modern franchise, the difference being Nintendo has a better image.

Ubisoft is innovating the same amount with AC as Nintendo does with their IP's. Believe it.
 
Reviewers are not very good at anything =) They are lazy there is one guy for Maximum PC who writes Game Theory that guy is a big idiot McDonald Thomas he must of had one sour life. I can imagine a guy in his 40s won't feel the same about games as someone in there teens but most reviewers are Juveniles wearing t-shirts in there 20s-40s what do
they know about fun? Sessler looks like some guy from 12 Monkeys with Bruce Willis.

My favorite games get bad reviews it seems
 
Breath_of_the_Dying said:
bunch of PC games

These games make me heavily consider buying both PS4 and XBox one to have access to all of them (and of course PC when there are PC versions). .
Click to expand...

All of them are on PC except destiny which is on both ps4 and xbox one. They gotta do better than that to convince me to pass up on my own 4930k + 7950. PC + wii U is the master race
 
Xenoblade and Zelda impressed me. Made me wish I had a Wii U.
 
Godmachine said:
Comparing AC and COD to Zelda :confused:

I'm sorry but name me a bad Zelda game outside of the CD-i ones that were not made by Nintendo?

I can name at least 2 bad AC games (one being just awful) and about 5 bad COD games (2 being absolutely scams for PC gamers). Say what you want about recycling franchises but at least Zelda games are GOOD games when they are released. Nintendo might be about 5 years behind everyone else at times but when I buy a Zelda game I know its going to be something I'll enjoy the fuck out of unlike AC and COD which are totally random between releases (the last AC was bad ass with pirating though) and COD has been the same fucking game since COD : Modern Warfare.


Nintendo managed , despite its poor stance in sales , to get almost EVERYONE excited about its platform again. Sony with the next From Software game was pretty much the only stand out in their presentation and 1 of two exclusive titles to the PS4 (Uncharted 4 was already announced and 5 seconds of Nathan Drake standing up is exactly what we expected) then Sony spent 30 fucking minutes talking about sales and its dumb TV shit. Microsoft improved vastly over last years shit show with focusing on games and none of the filler that doesn't belong at E3 but Microsoft also didn't announce anything ground breaking.

Not to mention the Super Smash Bro's Invitational which spiked at almost 200,000+ viewers on Twitch and it looks like FINALLY the real successor to a game that should have had a true sequel well over a decade ago. Nothing that I saw from Microsoft or Sony has me really pumped because all of it is pretty damn far off. I will admit I loved seeing the Halo remasters but I've already played those games , I wanted some new games not rehashes. Halo 5 is so far off that its likely we'll have the super computer singularity Ray Kurzweil loves to talk about actually happen before its release.

So for E3 Nintendo wins in my opinion. They also have more to announce later on today and there are rumors of something really special. I was really worried Nintendo would play softball this E3 and really give no one a reason to hold on to their Wii U outside of SSB but I'm so happy to be wrong. If Nintendo can expand its ownership adoption for the Wii U with this impressive new line up then they might just survive this generation after all and that's all I want.

And yea , say what you want , Nintendo is just redoing old franchises but honestly? I would rather have a high quality Nintendo release of a beloved franchise than some trashy modern day remix of ANOTHER FPS game. The more we are pushed towards shit brown FPS games and pump and dump half ass open world games (Hello Watch Dogs) the more Nintendo's classic franchises I want to play again.
Click to expand...

Hear Hear!!
 
Whats the most visually impressive game at E3 this year? Is it still The Division? Uncharted 4 also looks very good if that footage was realtime in-engine.
 
MrCrispy said:
Whats the most visually impressive game at E3 this year? Is it still The Division? Uncharted 4 also looks very good if that footage was realtime in-engine.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "visually impressive." I think No Man's Sky and Sunset Overdrive are the two most visually striking. If you mean in terms of visual fidelity, Nothing looked completely insane (like WatchDogs did at E3) imho.
 
MrCrispy said:
Whats the most visually impressive game at E3 this year? Is it still The Division? Uncharted 4 also looks very good if that footage was realtime in-engine.
Click to expand...

I'd go with Zelda and Bloodborne. Neither is likely going to be the most technically amazing game around, but the universes they presented looked amazing.

Uncharted 4 looks good, but I think I've had enough Nathan Drake.
 
MrCrispy said:
Whats the most visually impressive game at E3 this year? Is it still The Division? Uncharted 4 also looks very good if that footage was realtime in-engine.
Click to expand...
I'll get back to you on that when we get to see real gameplay and not canned footage or CGI trailers.
 
MrCrispy said:
Whats the most visually impressive game at E3 this year? Is it still The Division? Uncharted 4 also looks very good if that footage was realtime in-engine.
Click to expand...
Modred189 said:
Depends on what you mean by "visually impressive." I think No Man's Sky and Sunset Overdrive are the two most visually striking. If you mean in terms of visual fidelity, Nothing looked completely insane (like WatchDogs did at E3) imho.
Click to expand...
_PixelNinja said:
I'll get back to you on that when we get to see real gameplay and not canned footage or CGI trailers.
Click to expand...

The Witcher 3.

By far. Nothing even comes close.
 
Last edited:
Tech-wise, I agree that The Witcher is the most impressive.

Overall, I ll say Zelda U takes the best visuals price. I am very biased as I love Zelda, and it looked fantastic.
 
LeviathanZERO said:
The Witcher 3.

By far. Nothing even comes close.
Click to expand...
As I posted in the Witcher 3 trailer thread, some foreign gaming press are saying that while the game is very good looking, what they have been shown of the actual game in this point in time is not as impressive nor as fluid as the what is being shown to the public.
 
_PixelNinja said:
As I posted in the Witcher 3 trailer thread, some foreign outlets are saying that while the game is very good looking, what they have been shown of the actual game in this point in time is not as impressive nor as fluid as the what is being shown to the public.
Click to expand...

Which means what exactly?
The gameplay trailer, which was real time, was public, and THAT looks better than anything I've seen at the show. The trailer, which is not real time, looks a little better, is supposed to be FMV.

What is the public seeing that we are not, since we are the public? That doesn't make sense.
 
Brownstone said:
Overall, I ll say Zelda U takes the best visuals price. I am very biased as I love Zelda, and it looked fantastic.
Click to expand...

A lot of people are biased in the same way haha. Someone on my facebook feed commented on how everybody says the Wii-U was weakest of the current gen systems, yet it can make Zelda look amazing. People forget the Wii-U is basically at least as if not a little more powerful than the PS3/360. I like the visual style of Zelda in general, and the new one looks great but it's not really outside the boundaries of what the ps3 and 360 were capable of.
 
LeviathanZERO said:
Which means what exactly?
The gameplay trailer, which was real time, was public, and THAT looks better than anything I've seen at the show. The trailer, which is not real time, looks a little better, is supposed to be FMV.

What is the public seeing that we are not, since we are the public? That doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
It means the real time (non playable) demo that was showcased privately to the press was different from the videos that are circulating on the Net.

Gamekult.com assisted to a demonstration of the game and in they claim that the graphic fidelity and fluidity of the demo was inferior to what was shown on stage.
 
Last edited:
_PixelNinja said:
It means the real time (non playable) demo that was showcased privately to the press was different from the videos that are circulating on the Net.

Gamekult.com assisted to a demonstration of the game and in they claim that the graphic fidelity and fluidity of the demo was inferior to what was shown on stage.
Click to expand...

And the IGN realtime demo?
Cause that is what I'm going off. Didn't see any dishonesty with what was shown.
 
Let's just say that while I would tend to trust CD Projekt RED in that they seem to be one of the more honest developers out there, after Aliens Colonial Marines and Watch_Dogs I have become very suspicious of what is being shown to me, so when I read news like this I tend to raise a brow and keep said information at the back of my head.
 
Last edited:
I just watched the IGN Witcher 3 video and honestly I saw a lot of stutter/tearing...didn't look like it was running all that smooth to me. I also noticed a lot of pop-in...*shrug*

Game still looks amazing, though.
 
LeviathanZERO said:
And the IGN realtime demo?
Cause that is what I'm going off. Didn't see any dishonesty with what was shown.
Click to expand...
I just got around to watching that.

While I would not go as far as using the word 'dishonesty' I do find it inferior to the other videos I've seen; it is indeed less fluid and full of pop ins. I don't how to describe this, and yes I acknowledge it is an unfinished game, but just like the Witcher 2 it has this 'unpolished' look/feel to it.
 
I wouldn't call anything so far as true 'next-gen' in the sense that it totally wows you. I saw some screens of Drive Club with supposedly real time weather effects, rain, puddles on road etc, and that looked really impressive.
 
MavericK96 said:
I just watched the IGN Witcher 3 video and honestly I saw a lot of stutter/tearing...didn't look like it was running all that smooth to me. I also noticed a lot of pop-in...*shrug*

Game still looks amazing, though.
Click to expand...

I too noticed both in the same video, but that doesn't take away from the overall look they are going for. Honestly though, they gotta cut back somewhere. It has to be playable for the show right? They still have 8 months to go and it looks this good now? Even with the technical issues, it's still my best looking game of this show.

Driveclub looks great, but ever since they decided that game is going to be strictly 30fps, I stopped caring.
 
_PixelNinja said:
That's disappointing for a racing game, especially considering the (supposed) visual fidelity Drive Club is going for.
Click to expand...

Indeed! I can accept various frame rates for different types of games. I prefer them to be at 60 or 120 (synced) but an RPG say could run at 30 and still be *acceptable* (though obviously not as good as 60.) A driving game though? Anything under 60 is completely unacceptable to me, and I wouldn't buy it no matter how amazing it was otherwise.
 
Unacceptable for a racing game going for "realism".
It's 2014. Get with the program. Racers must be 60hz.
Even Nintendo doesn't fuck around with this. MarioKart 8 is wonderful for it and that's not going for "realism", but will always feel more real than that 30hz crap.

They delayed the game a full year and settled for 30hz. Weak, just weak.
 
LeviathanZERO said:
Unacceptable for a racing game going for "realism".
It's 2014. Get with the program. Racers must be 60hz.
Even Nintendo doesn't fuck around with this. MarioKart 8 is wonderful for it and that's not going for "realism", but will always feel more real than that 30hz crap.

They delayed the game a full year and settled for 30hz. Weak, just weak.
Click to expand...
This has been repeated to death, but I find it unbearably frustrating that after the XBox and PS3 we are back to square one with the resolution and frame rate limitations. It is one of the main reasons people were desperate for new generation of consoles in the first place...
 
LeviathanZERO said:
I too noticed both in the same video, but that doesn't take away from the overall look they are going for. Honestly though, they gotta cut back somewhere. It has to be playable for the show right?
Click to expand...
Yes, and it's somewhat too early to have done a final optimization path through everything. They're on reasonably solid ground, though, so I wouldn't expect a miraculously faster build at release.
 
Choopyplz said:
A lot of people are biased in the same way haha. Someone on my facebook feed commented on how everybody says the Wii-U was weakest of the current gen systems, yet it can make Zelda look amazing. People forget the Wii-U is basically at least as if not a little more powerful than the PS3/360. I like the visual style of Zelda in general, and the new one looks great but it's not really outside the boundaries of what the ps3 and 360 were capable of.
Click to expand...
Wii-U is about 3 times more powerful than the PS360. The new consoles are closer to 10-15x, so there is a bit of lopsided competition, but honestly I could care less now about console graphics. Nintendo do ART really well: their games look interesting and colourful. Meanwhile the The PSBone 4 can have super-high detail hairy soldier arms covered in mud...

Running at 30hz 900p.

The same super hairy soldier arm simulators can be had on PC.

So the wii-U seems like the only console worth owning if you already have a badass PC.

Edit: on the subject of console power, a lot of people get these sort of things wrong, including the executives who make decisions that determine product power and performance.

If you have a console like the Xbox 360 which renders most of its games at 24-30hz 720p, and you want to make a more powerful console that will be a big step-up you think to yourself "I'll give it twice the power! Then it will look twice as good!"

Actually, no.

In order to take that 30hz 720p game and make it 1080p, you need to not only double the processing power of the core, but you need to double the amount of VRAM or URAM you intend to use.

In order to make that 30hz 1080p game and make it 60hz, you need to double the processing power again, and double the RAM's throughput (either in frequency or bandwidth).

Now you have the same game running at 60hz 1080p with 4 times the processing power with twice the amount of doubly fast ram. But you want to increase the graphical fidelity or what's on-screen? Well, say you want the textures to be twice as detailed? Well that means you need 4x the amount of RAM, as well as increase the speed of the RAM in order to deliver those huge textures faster. You also need to greatly increase the GPU processing power in order to draw these texels onto a surface in the same speed as the smaller textures.

Cool, now we have a console that can basically run HD remakes of older games with 8x the amount of ram that runs four-times faster and a GPU with 8 times the original's power.

What if you want to increase polycounts? Say, one subdivision? Well, now you need twice the amount or RAM, and FOUR times as much GPU power.

Now you're running a GPU that is 16 times faster and you are running 16x the amount of more advanced RAM. Just to run old games with twice the polygonal, texture, resolution and refresh detail.

What happens if you want to increase the shader detail?

Increase the animation fidelity?

Increase the maximum number of interactive lights?

Increase the number of on-screen objects?

Physically simulate more on-screen?



My point is this: the modern consoles are really underpowered for what they need to do, and a ton of people think that 15x the power is going to mean everything on-screen looks 15x better, when really, it's barely enough to get old games running with a decent framerate, resolution and detail level.
 
Last edited:
KazeoHin said:
So the wii-U seems like the only console worth owning if you already have a badass PC.
Click to expand...
I can only agree that — unless one desires to play the SONY or Microsoft exclusives — the Wii U appears to be the best complimentary device to purchase if one already owns a gaming PC.
 
Amidst the whole Rainbow Six: Siege trailer released, the kids over at the csgo subsection within steampowered forums have been giddy about this new R6. A few are hoping and envisioning a competitive R6 series ala CS. As much as I love CS, to make R6 more CS or more COD is a fucking travesty.

Here is the forsaken thread: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3243340
 
I'm not particularly excited about the new R6, I don't see anything tactical about it. It looks more like a CS game than a tactical shooter.

But I guess that is to be expected as they are trying to make a competitive multiplayer FPS title. Competitive multiplayer and tactical shooter just don't mix.
 
MrCrispy said:
I wouldn't call anything so far as true 'next-gen' in the sense that it totally wows you. I saw some screens of Drive Club with supposedly real time weather effects, rain, puddles on road etc, and that looked really impressive.
Click to expand...
If that impresses you, have you seen Project CARS?
 
KazeoHin said:
The same super hairy soldier arm simulators can be had on PC.

So the wii-U seems like the only console worth owning if you already have a badass PC.
Click to expand...


Destiny is console only.
MGS5: Phantom pain is console only.
Sunset Overdrive is XBox One.
Fable Legends is Xbox One.
Crackdown is Xbox One.
Uncharted 4 is PS4.
Bloodborne is PS4
The Order is PS4.
No Man's Sky is PS4 (for now)


It's really easy to cover your ears and say there's no reason for a next-gen console and Nintendo is the only way to go. But when you start looking at some of the things that are coming out on next gen, and how amazing they look and (more importantly) play.

Generally I would rather play PC versions if its cross platform, but looking at and personally playing some of these next-gen exclusives games on the show floor, I'm now reconsidering my schedule of when I'll own both next-gen systems.


Destiny plays great. The PvP experience was decent, but nothing to write home about. What excites me is that with the game controls I experienced put into a PvE setting seems to have a lot of potential. Devs can spew crap about "reimagining" and "going back to the roots" all they want, but if I dont see gameplay, I dont get hyped anymore.

I really enjoyed Zelda: A Link between Worlds a lot. It was amazing. I just think it's crazy how people are hyped over a pre-rended cinematic for the next Zelda. It's not game play. Even if its rendered real time, it's not gameplay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top