Where are my Satellite Guy's gamers at?

I know you guys don't really get into Minecraft but I have been enjoying the game a lot. I downloaded it onto my computer and have found there are tons of mods for it which can make for endless possibilities. The one I was most excited for a Walking Dead mod called Crafting Dead. With my limited computer knowledge I was actually able to download the mod and get it to work. I played it over the weekend for the fist time and it was pretty fun. I'm still getting the hang of it so it's been very challenging. You can play single player which can be fun and then there is multiple player on public servers. This can be both fun and extremely frustrating. Not only do you have to contest with the zombies you also have deal with other players and they are the biggest pain in the ass.

The game has characteristics of the Walking Dead but is also very similar to DayZ. Don't forget that the game play and visuals are old school and is the same Minecraft system. So far I really like it but I can get burnt out playing after a few hours.
 
I'm waiting in dire anticipation for South Park: The Stick of Truth (just got the shipping confirmation from Gamefly.) I'm a MASSIVE South Park fan. I remember watching the very first episode at my cousin's house back in August of 1997 when it premiered, and while I'm REALLY trying to not get my hopes up and get disappointed, it's hard not to given how it looks.

Haven't had too much time to game. I've been playing Telltale's Back to the Future series. I do like the Telltale games because they have dumbed down the adventure game genre enough to where I can enjoy it and not get frustrated and give up.
 
I know you guys don't really get into Minecraft but I have been enjoying the game a lot. I downloaded it onto my computer and have found there are tons of mods for it which can make for endless possibilities. The one I was most excited for a Walking Dead mod called Crafting Dead. With my limited computer knowledge I was actually able to download the mod and get it to work. I played it over the weekend for the fist time and it was pretty fun. I'm still getting the hang of it so it's been very challenging. You can play single player which can be fun and then there is multiple player on public servers. This can be both fun and extremely frustrating. Not only do you have to contest with the zombies you also have deal with other players and they are the biggest pain in the ass.

The game has characteristics of the Walking Dead but is also very similar to DayZ. Don't forget that the game play and visuals are old school and is the same Minecraft system. So far I really like it but I can get burnt out playing after a few hours.

Since you are on this survival kick right now you really should try Don't Starve. It's $15 on Steam right now but if you wait for a sale you can probably pick it up for about $4.
 
Since you are on this survival kick right now you really should try Don't Starve. It's $15 on Steam right now but if you wait for a sale you can probably pick it up for about $4.

I've heard of that and I'm interested in it. I'll have to remember that when I get home.
 
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/03/mass-effect-trilogy-may-be-remastered-for-ps4-and-xbox-one

Bioware is thinking about releasing a remastered version of the Mass Effect Trilogy for PS4 and Xbox One. I probably would have bought this so I can keep my favorite video game series after my PS3 gets put away if I didn't just buy the Trilogy for $11 on PC last week. Either way, I'm glad they are still committed to the franchise and I'm excited to see what they do next.

In other news, I put Thief back in the mail this morning. I had posted earlier that I didn't think it was as bad as the reviews said even though it was pretty rough around the edges. This is still true. I still say the stealth gameplay isn't that bad if you can shut out the story and the terrible cut scenes. That part of the game is as unpolished as any game I have ever played. The framerate drops, the lip syncing isn't even close, and the character models look terrible. It's strange that the pre-rendered cut scenes perform so much worse than the actual gameplay. Still, when I was younger and only had access to a limited amount of games per year I would have finished this game and probably been reasonably happy with it. These days I have too many outstanding games in my backlog to waste time slogging through a mediocre, unpolished mess.

I usually like to pick one game at a time and stick to that until I can finish it. Right now, I find myself jumping back and forth between several games though. Saturday night I finished The Wolf Among Us Episode 2. It runs and looks great on PC. It doesn't have any of the slowdown I am seeing on TWD Season 1 and 2 on my PS3. I think I actually like TWAU better than TWD even though I am a fan of the TWD TV show and have read some of the comics and I have never see any of TWAU's source material.

I also jumped back into Don't Starve over the weekend. Something about this game is addicting to me even though I'm not doing very well at it. My record so far is 8 days and most of my attempts are ending at about 5 or 6 days. It's still progress though. When I first started playing I was struggling to make it 2 or 3 days. Don't Starve just drops you into a crazy world with no instructions at all and tells you to survive. I have died in many different ways from starving, to eating poisonous food, to being killed in the dark by who knows what, from trying to hunt an animal that was too big for me, to being smashed by a walking tree, etc. In addition to keeping your stomach full, you also have to keep your health and sanity meters full. The lower your sanity goes the more weird monster type things you will see. I still haven't grasped exactly how to keep the sanity meter up so these types of things will stop attacking me. I'm sure I could look everything up on the internet and breeze through this game but the part that makes it fun is learning for yourself how to survive. You have to learn which things to build and how they interact with the world with no help from the game. It's all trial and error. Some things might kill you right away, while others might give you a combination that makes surviving the next day or two a breeze.

I put some time into inFamous 2 over the weekend too. It's amazing how much they improved over the original. They used a different voice actor for Cole who doesn't have such a ridiculous, gravely voice. The whole world looks much better with a huge jump in quality for the character models. The writing is better too. I thought the first game was fun but I didn't really see where all the praise this franchise gets was coming from. A lot of that is probably because I was playing a game from 2009 in 2014 and there have been some big leaps forward since then. inFamous 2 is starting to make me see why people love it so much though.

Lastly, I have been playing The Witcher. I have heard so many great things about this franchise but I didn't have a gaming PC when the first two came out. The Witcher 2 made it's way to consoles but I didn't want to jump into a sequel without playing the original. I got both of those games for very little money and I wanted to get caught up before the Witcher 3 comes out later this year. I don't think I have OCD but with game franchises I seem to have some OCD tendencies. I have a really hard time playing a game in a story based franchise if I haven't played all of the games leading up to it. Even for something like Borderlands, where the story wasn't all that important I had to play the original first when Borderlands 2 was getting hyped up everywhere. That's the same reason I had to play inFamous 1 and 2 before Second Son comes out even though it's a completely different main character. This is why I probably won't play Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeros or Phantom Pain no matter what kind of review scores it gets. There are just too many games in that franchise for me to go back and try to figure out it's convoluted story.

Hmm. Sounds like Thief might be one of those I wait to be offered in the IGC at some point. I've gotten very selective over which games I pay money for these days.

Speaking of which, I started season 2 of TWD last night. And so far it's a bit meh. Don't get me wrong. I'm enjoying the story, and it's great playing as Clementine, but it seems concomitant with that, the "puzzles" (if you can even call them that) have been designed for a 10-year-old. On the plus side, there is a noticeable improvement in the graphics on the PS3 and less lag over TWD1. I also grabbed Wolf Among Us this weekend, so looking forward to starting that as well. It's nice that I'll have 2 episodes in each to start out with.

I totally can relate to what you are saying about being OCD with franchises, especially in regards to MGS. I've always heard the story was pretty incomprehensible in MGS4 if you didn't know the series already, and it will only get worse I imagine. Like you, due to backlog, I feel it's pretty unrealistic to go back to the start of the series at this point as much as I've started enjoying stealth games this past year and a half.
 
Hmm. Sounds like Thief might be one of those I wait to be offered in the IGC at some point. I've gotten very selective over which games I pay money for these days.

Speaking of which, I started season 2 of TWD last night. And so far it's a bit meh. Don't get me wrong. I'm enjoying the story, and it's great playing as Clementine, but it seems concomitant with that, the "puzzles" (if you can even call them that) have been designed for a 10-year-old. On the plus side, there is a noticeable improvement in the graphics on the PS3 and less lag over TWD1. I also grabbed Wolf Among Us this weekend, so looking forward to starting that as well. It's nice that I'll have 2 episodes in each to start out with.

I totally can relate to what you are saying about being OCD with franchises, especially in regards to MGS. I've always heard the story was pretty incomprehensible in MGS4 if you didn't know the series already, and it will only get worse I imagine. Like you, due to backlog, I feel it's pretty unrealistic to go back to the start of the series at this point as much as I've started enjoying stealth games this past year and a half.
TWD is barely an adventure game. It's really more of an interactive narrative. Telltale's other games like Tales from Monkey Island, Sam & Max, BTTF, etc are closer to real adventure games, although some would argue that even those are too easy. Lord knows they're a hell of a lot better than the old 80's Sierra games where you died constantly and had no idea what to do. I really don't know how people beat those games before the advent of the internet unless you spent money on strategy guides, which sort of defeats the purpose. Al Lowe (creator of Leisure Suit Larry) mentioned once that they realized that LSL was heavily pirated because the strategy guide sold better than the actual game did.
 
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/03/mass-effect-trilogy-may-be-remastered-for-ps4-and-xbox-one

Bioware is thinking about releasing a remastered version of the Mass Effect Trilogy for PS4 and Xbox One. I probably would have bought this so I can keep my favorite video game series after my PS3 gets put away if I didn't just buy the Trilogy for $11 on PC last week. Either way, I'm glad they are still committed to the franchise and I'm excited to see what they do next.
I'd prefer they put their time and resources into making a brand new game as opposed to remaking for systems that few people have, and that anyone who wanted to play them already did on another console. Between this and Tomb Raider, I feel like this is becoming the generation of the unnecessary remake.
 
I'd prefer they put their time and resources into making a brand new game as opposed to remaking for systems that few people have, and that anyone who wanted to play them already did on another console. Between this and Tomb Raider, I feel like this is becoming the generation of the unnecessary remake.

It might be as simple as porting the PC version over. It looks like that's pretty much what they did with Tomb Raider. If that's all they are doing the main team at Bioware probably won't even be involved. They can outsource porting work over to smaller developers like they did when they brought ME1 over to PS3 a couple years ago. I agree in that I don't want them to do anything that would take away production from the next Mass Effect game. Bioware has already started that so I don't think we have to worry about a remastered version taking up their time. They only said they were considering it so this may never see the light of day.
 
I just logged into gamefly to see that they are now renting Blu-ray movies too. I guess it's great to have that option if there are no games you want at any given time. I could probably rent a few movies right now since I just sent Thief back and there is nothing else in my queue until inFamous on the 21st. I don't see many people using this as a movie service though. The 1 disk at a time plan I'm on is $6 more than a Blu-ray plan with Netflix and the turnaround time is much slower.

Edit: I just took a look at the movie section since I won't have a new game coming for a few weeks. It looks like this service hasn't officially started yet because every movie has 4/4/14 listed as the release date.
 
I just logged into gamefly to see that they are now renting Blu-ray movies too. I guess it's great to have that option if there are no games you want at any given time. I could probably rent a few movies right now since I just sent Thief back and there is nothing else in my queue until inFamous on the 21st. I don't see many people using this as a movie service though. The 1 disk at a time plan I'm on is $6 more than a Blu-ray plan with Netflix and the turnaround time is much slower.

Edit: I just took a look at the movie section since I won't have a new game coming for a few weeks. It looks like this service hasn't officially started yet because every movie has 4/4/14 listed as the release date.
Not to mention that this is only available to 2+ game renters, so I'm SOL for this as well.
 
Not to mention that this is only available to 2+ game renters, so I'm SOL for this as well.

Me too. I didn't even see that listed until I tried to add a movie to my queue. Then it pops up and says movie blocked. That seems like a weird restriction to me. Games obviously cost a lot more than movies do so it seems like their profit margins would increase if they could get us to rent movies instead of games at the same monthly price. There is a reason Netflix blu-ray plan is $10 vs. Gamefly's $16.
 
TWD is barely an adventure game. It's really more of an interactive narrative. Telltale's other games like Tales from Monkey Island, Sam & Max, BTTF, etc are closer to real adventure games, although some would argue that even those are too easy. Lord knows they're a hell of a lot better than the old 80's Sierra games where you died constantly and had no idea what to do. I really don't know how people beat those games before the advent of the internet unless you spent money on strategy guides, which sort of defeats the purpose. Al Lowe (creator of Leisure Suit Larry) mentioned once that they realized that LSL was heavily pirated because the strategy guide sold better than the actual game did.

Very true. It's just TWD1 felt more like BTTF at certain moments (for example, getting the keys to the pharmacy in episode 1); whereas TWD2 (so far) is more like BEYOND Two Souls in terms of how simple the objectives are. I will say however I'm a bit more interested in replaying TWD2 (partly because I won't have all the episodes for a while) just to do the opposite (bratty) reactions for Clementine, without feeling like I'll need to repeat a bunch PiTA puzzle-solving steps to get through the episode.
 
Well I'm done with "Rambo: The Video Game"...

I suppose the theme for Rambo: The Video Game is “retro,” because literally every aspect of this game seems like it’s from a few years to decades ago. Let’s start with the most obvious candidate, which is the graphics. When trailers were released for this game, the first thing people noticed was that it looked like a bad PS2 game, and it’s painfully obvious that the time it took between trailer and release was not to improve the graphics. The game looks like sh*t. That’s really the only way to describe it. Textures are low res, animation is quite jerky, and it just comes across as something you’d expect to see on a budget title, from 10 years ago. You know it’s not a good sign when the PC version, which in theory should be the best looking version, has NO graphical settings other than low to high.

The character models don’t fare much better. They generally range from mediocre to God-Awful. The worst offender is that of Teasle. I can’t help but wonder if the developers actually SAW First Blood, because the character model looks NOTHING like his real life counter-part. And Co was so sparsely modeled that she looked like a joke caricature from “Team America: World Police.” Finally, on the last subject of retro, the Vietnamese soldiers also looked retro, in that in Hollywood’s infamous tradition of “white washing,” they look like 1950s movie actors portraying Far Eastern characters. Hell some of them looked like they belonged in “Passion of the Christ” more than they did a Rambo movie.

I guess I should touch upon that the basic plot of Rambo is that of the movies. You’re basically playing through the first 3 movies, as apparently the developers either A: Forgot there was 4 movies, or B: Out of mercy decided to not bother with the fourth movie as the game was repetitive enough to begin with. You’ll reenact famous scenes from the movies, such as hiding in the forest from the cops, breaking out of the Vietnamese prison, and breaking Col Trautman out of captivity.

Which nicely connects to my next point of “retro,” which is in gameplay. Rambo is basically a rail shooter mixed in with QTEs. Now although rail shooters with console controls are basically a dead genre, they do work in certain scenarios, such as with games like Panzer Dragoon or Killer 7. In this case though, it’s basically playing a light gun game without the light gun. Remember how much fun that was? Remember when your friend had Virtua Cop or Terminator 2: The Arcade Game on their home console but only had 1 gun and left you with the controller? Well, that experience is faithfully recreated here in 2014. Apparently the PS3 version is Move compatible which allows you to actually point and shoot, so if you have the PC or 360 version you get to move the target around and shoot like that. If that sounds monotonous, it is.

Luckily for your eyes, they will be happy to know that misery loves company and they won’t be the only sensory area of your body suffering through this game, as the audio sucks a big one as well. As I said, the game is a retread of the “3” Rambo movies, and this is done through recreated cut scenes from the movie, which includes dialog taken directly from the movie. Perplexingly though, it seems as though the developers did not understand how to properly pull audio from the movies. All the dialog audio has a weird hiss to it, like it was pulled from a VHS copy of the movie that was recorded from HBO back in 1989. And the recorded sound effects and guns don’t fare much better, and any new voices don’t fit in well either.

Finally, the last way that Rambo is “retro” is that in the tradition of older games and their difficulty, rather than have a real difficulty curve, it just tries to make the game harder via Bullsh!t techniques. For the record I did not beat Rambo, because the part I got stuck on was just too annoying and the whole novelty of “enjoying for the lulz” had diminished because I just got tired of the game’s crap. I got tired of the increasing number of enemies I had to deal with on screen and the short time in between them to allow me for reloading. Speaking of reloading, I now come to my biggest pet peeve of this game. Rambo uses an “active reload” system similar to that of Gears of War, where you hit the reload button and then if you hit that button again at the right time, you get an active reload where you reload faster and get double the ammo of a standard clip. However, if you mess up and jam the gun, which you will end up doing a number of times because the timing is VERY unfriendly, not only does it take twice as long to reload, but you also get HALF of the clip reloaded. On the mission I got stuck in that can mean the difference between having 60 rounds of ammo versus 15 rounds. Oh, and on this and other late missions, the gun they equip you with is the M-249. Anyone who’s played a modern military shooter can tell you that you could recite Rambo’s entire “Nothing is over!” speech in the time it takes to reload that thing, and in a game like this where cover is VERY hard to come by, it’s not hard to be turned into Swiss Cheese before you can say, “A good supply of body bags!”

You know, if this game had come out 20 years ago in the arcades as a rail shooter game in the style of Operation: Wolf, it’d probably end up being a retro classic like Virtua Cop, Time Crisis, or House of the Dead. However, since this game came out on modern consoles and neither looks nor plays like a modern game, it’s just a waste. Don’t feel the need to play this game for a cheap laugh. If you really want to see this train wreck you’re best off just viewing a Let’s Play of the whole mess. To put it simply, “It’s over Johnny. It’s OVER!!”
 

Those parts would work fine but I would make a few modifications. Their price list on page 2 adds up to $1675. You can build a good machine for quite a bit less than that. The first thing I would do is skip the i7 CPU at $305. That's probably overkill for most gaming purposes. You can get this i5 for $235 if you want to stick to Intel.

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-i5-4670K-Quad-Core-Desktop-Processor/dp/B00CO8TBOW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394059813&sr=8-1keywords=i5

I went with an AMD CPU to give up a little more performance and save even more money. My FX 6300 has been able to handle everything I have thrown at it so far but it's a year old at this point. If I was buying today I would either go with the 8 core FX 8350 for $185 listed here.

http://www.amazon.com/AMD-FD8350FRHKBOX-FX-8350-FX-Series-Edition/dp/B009O7YUF6/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1394060081&sr=8-3keywords=amd+fx+cpu

Or take one more step down and get the 6 core FX6350 for $135 that is still faster than my CPU listed here.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CLBZAHY/?tag=satell01-20

I would probably go with a different choice for the GPU too. The 660 TI is a good GPU but you can get a 700 series GPU for less money than that $300 now. The GeForce 760 can be had for $260 here.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DHW4HXY/?tag=satell01-20

Again I have the AMD alternative at GPU too. Mine is last years Radeon HD 7850. If you wanted one of this years models you could get the R9 270 for $199. They are still pretty new and having stocking issues so you may want to stick to an Nvidia GPU in this case.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00I0D81OG/?tag=satell01-20

I would skip the SSD too. If you do want one get a smaller one to install Windows on and put in a standard drive to store all your games and stuff. That 512GB SSD they listed is $389. You can get something like this 1TB Western Digital HDD for $60 instead.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0088PUEPK/?tag=satell01-20

The rest of the parts should be okay but keep in mind that you have to buy a motherboard that is compatible with whichever CPU you choose. I personally prefer a standard, full size tower instead of the home theater case they picked too. The case they picked will look nicer next to your TV but a full size case is easier to instal parts in and there will be more airflow. If you go with a different CPU than the one they listed you won't necessarily be able to throw it in the MB they chose. If you use one of the AMD CPUs I listed and a bigger computer case you would save quite a bit of money on the motherboard too. You could get this ASUS AM3+ compatible motherboard for $90 instead of the $225 intel motherboard they listed.

http://www.amazon.com/ASUS-M5A97-R2-0-SATA-Motherboard/dp/B008V9959O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394062046&sr=8-1keywords=am3%2B+motherboard

I have this Corsair 600W power supply for $58 instead of the fanless power supply they listed for $150. The power supply I have might not be compatible with that mini computer case they are using either. That's another reason to go with a full size tower instead.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0092ML0OC/?tag=satell01-20

This is the case I use but it comes in at the same $50 as the one they chose. There is no price difference there but it would allow you to use the power supply and motherboard I picked. If the smaller case size is important to you some of these parts would have to be replaced with smaller ones.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005869A7K/?tag=satell01-20

One thing I would add that they skipped is a DVD drive. Most software is available online these days but having one makes installing Windows and disk based software easier. I have this one for $21 but any of them would do because you won't be using it much.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002YIG9AQ/?tag=satell01-20

The total with the AMD 8350 replacing the i7 CPU, the compatible socket motherboard replacing their intel one, the 760 replacing the 660 TI, replacing their fanless power supply with the Corsair, the case I picked, the 1TB HDD replacing the 512GB SSD, and the DVD drive I added would be $906 vs. the $1675 they listed. That $906 is including the keyboard and mouse, ram, 360 controller, and Windows 8 that they picked. You may already have some of those things so the price might be slightly lower.
 
Holy crap you really know your stuff.

There are others here who know a lot more than me. I did a lot of research when I built my gaming PC last February though. The parts I picked for you are basically just the newer versions of the parts I put in mine. The big exception is using a Nvidia GPU instead of AMD. I didn't use the same ram they chose but I used the same amount and speed from a different brand so that should be fine.

You could spend more money and upgrade to a 770 GPU and an i5 or i7 CPU if you want even more of a powerhouse and high resolution gaming. The parts I picked are more powerful than the new consoles so you should be set for a while if you build that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Last edited:
There are others here who know a lot more than me. I did a lot of research when I built my gaming PC last February though. The parts I picked for you are basically just the newer versions of the parts I put in mine. The big exception is using a Nvidia GPU instead of AMD. I didn't use the same ram they chose but I used the same amount and speed from a different brand so that should be fine.

You could spend more money and upgrade to a 770 GPU and an i5 or i7 CPU if you want even more of a powerhouse and high resolution gaming. The parts I picked are more powerful than the new consoles so you should be set for a while if you build that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
And keep in mind that there is still a good room for toning down the price. You can get a decent video card for ~$150 and a nice i5 for the mid $200's as well, but when you're going that high in specs as he described it does come to nit picking and personal preference (Nvidia vs AMD, etc.) King built his PC for pure power. I built mine for best bang for the buck, so while it is undoubtedly less powerful than his and the new generation of consoles (it was built before the specs were announced) there hasn't been a moment that I've played a modern game with it where I thought, "Wow, this game looks/plays like crap!" At this point in the gaming scene, we're basically just upping the graphics abilities. As far a computational power and storage goes we're at a pretty good level, especially now that we basically have no data storage limits.
 
And keep in mind that there is still a good room for toning down the price. You can get a decent video card for ~$150 and a nice i5 for the mid $200's as well, but when you're going that high in specs as he described it does come to nit picking and personal preference (Nvidia vs AMD, etc.) King built his PC for pure power. I built mine for best bang for the buck, so while it is undoubtedly less powerful than his and the new generation of consoles (it was built before the specs were announced) there hasn't been a moment that I've played a modern game with it where I thought, "Wow, this game looks/plays like crap!" At this point in the gaming scene, we're basically just upping the graphics abilities. As far a computational power and storage goes we're at a pretty good level, especially now that we basically have no data storage limits.

Sure, we could probably come up with a good bang for the buck system in the $500-$600 range. It would still be able to play everything but more graphically intense games like Battlefield 4 would probably have to have some of the settings turned down a bit. It would still be a lot better than a PS3/360 though.

He linked to a machine totaling $1675. I gave him a list of parts that would be similar in power for $906 including Windows 8, keyboard/mouse, and 360 controller. That's still a pretty good bang for your buck, just at a different power level. It would handle just about everything on high settings at 1080p for the next several years.

One thing I wanted to add. I looked at the article again and see that they are using low voltage ram. If you decide to build a PC Scherman I would go with normal DDR3 1600MHz RAM. I used this 8GB Corsair RAM for $78 in my build.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004CRSM4I/?tag=satell01-20
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Top