Dreakon13

I'm most likely going to pick up a UHD 4K Blu-Ray player tomorrow to go along with my 4K HDTV and try to do this up right for movies and stuff. I'm just not sure if my smattering of unlabeled HDMI cables are up to the task of playing UHD 4K video with HDR. I could probably just buy some cable up to the latest HDMI standards, 18 gbps transfer rate, etc... to be safe. But I kinda want to see if I can make do with what I have. Especially since anything I order online will probably take a week or two to get here anyways and I'd like to roll with it tomorrow if I can. I'm just wondering if you all have any tips of what to look for as far as whether a cable I have is good or bad? What happens if you use an HDMI cable that can't fully handle 4K and HDR? Is it really obvious, like there's no signal to the TV? Bad pixelation? Or does it look great except the colors aren't quite as perfect as they could be (ie. really hard to tell if there's a problem)?

I think legacy is a big part of it, basically built in backwards compatibility... outside of the possibility of operating system and hardware incompatibility over time which services like GOG.com are helping to address. If you don't mind playing older games, you've hit the jackpot. Otherwise I've found the platform really mostly useful for three "genres" ... strategy games, MMO's and indie games. Strategy games for sure, for obvious keyboard and mouse reasons. MMO's have started finding their way onto console but PC is still typically the ideal way to play them (because they often end up being too complex to fit onto a gamepad) and the biggies like World of Warcraft will probably never be on console. Indies will always be a commodity on PC since it's the platform the games are built on and it's the easiest to distribute on... that being said, prepare to wade through A LOT of crap to find the gems if you go too deep down that rabbit hole. If anyone thinks PSN is bad as far as shovelware goes, they look like diamonds in the rough compared to the murky depths of Steam.

Just curious, if it seems like most of the games you're interested in are on PS4 and you prefer playing with a controller... why did you build a gaming PC? I'm sure there are plenty of interesting PC exclusive games out there (especially if you don't mind going back 10-20 years), but I've been away from the platform a little too long. Most of the gems over there end up on console sooner or later.

I dunno the first companies, but I remember trying OnLive. It didn't work back then and it won't work now. That being said, watched a little of that presentation yesterday evening and Google does have some awesome ideas. In particular I like the idea of save states or share states or whatever its called, where you can jump into a game at any point just from clicking a link (like jumping to a spot in a YouTube video via timestamp). I'm starting to think its less merging casual mobile games and traditional games... and more about taking the interactivity of YouTube/Twitch streamers to the next level. Which is honestly a smart bet for Google to make, with the way streaming has taken off the last 5 years or so. Using those save state links and the ability for the audience to join the streamer by hopping into the games in a matter of seconds, streamers and their audience can take things to a whole 'nother level... as long as they're all subscribers to the Stadia platform I guess. It's a shame (or not lol), as cool as all that is, that the core of it just won't work as far as a mass audience goes. IMO. It feels like it's less competition for Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo and more trying to catapult Google/YouTube above other live streaming platforms with this unparalleled level of interactivity. I mean, streamers and their audience are already chugging data and HD video streams by the truckload and really "playing" the games is kind of an afterthought anyways... it makes sense that's the demographic they're targeting with the means to handle/tolerate Stadia. Not average Joe Gamer just trying to eek out a few hours of some 100 hour RPG uninterrupted and latency free between work shifts.

I thought this was pretty obvious. It's a streaming box, a glorified video player with controller support. The hardware to run games isn't in the box, it's in their server farm. The innovation here isn't the box or the controller... it's the fact that this service is going to be available in a browser, in smartphone apps, usable on Chromebooks, Chromecast, etc. All the box and the controller are for is a somewhat vain attempt at buying some legitimacy among the real gaming consoles, and for the handful of diehard fans that want to pretend it is. Google is trying to blur the line between the quick pick-up smartphone games people play waiting for an oil change, and traditional games... and IMO they'll likely end up missing the mark on both. Traditional gamers aren't going to care about streaming Dark Souls on their phone at the cost of image quality, input lag and latency issues. And casual mobile gamers aren't going to put in the investment into games that are designed to be longer, immersive experiences that require more than 5 minutes at a time of minimal focus. EDIT: Don't get me wrong... it's actually a pretty cool idea and will probably be downright impressive technology (the whole thing, not the box). And if any company could give it their best shot, it's probably Google. But as a physical collector that values "owning" my games and less oppressive ecosystems, the idea of it also disgusts me and I don't think there will ever be a "right time" for an entirely streaming game service. Even if internet standards across the globe were up for it (which they aren't)... who is their demographic exactly?

Never thought I'd see the day. Love all three of these games and I'm glad my PC friends can enjoy them too now (as long as they don't mind the Epic Store).

Yeah, Morrowind was on another level in terms of open ended-ness. That's probably the harshest open world single player title I've ever played, as evidenced by the fact I never really made it past the first town getting off the boat. At least not progressing through the story/world in any meaningful way. Of course, that was also 17 years ago. BotW is a little more mindless than that... but still on it's own level compared to other more recent open world titles. You aren't completely hung out to dry, but the four initial map markers for the Divine Beasts are almost literally in the four corners of the game world. The other main quest marker that you get at the beginning of the game is pointing you literally to the final area. It's more helpful than nothing, sure... but pretty intimidating all the same. Especially when the game basically shows you how to run, jump, fight and glide, shows you a few tricks with the runes, and leaves you to your own devices with the rest. It's not a terribly complicated game by any means, but for better or worse it's rare these days to see an open world title content to let you learn anything the hard way. I mean most games nowadays have a great big world... but send you on a fairly linear path through it following a story, or only opening up chunks of it as you reach a certain chokepoints. With functionality and exhaustive tutorial sections that open up as the world does. There's no denying BotW is different, even if it isn't Morrowind.

I FINALLY finished Zelda Breath of the Wild. As in, the main story, to the credits. Which is my goal for most games. I started it up again a few weeks ago and, in particularly "unlike me" fashion... stuck with it pretty consistently. An hour or two after work here, another hour or two on a weekend there, etc. No big several week/month gaps inbetween sessions. There's a lot of things I really don't like about this game at all. But I won't get into that. They're abundant but minor in the grand scheme of things. It's definitely one of the most creative, interesting takes I've seen on the open world genre (a genre that I think is beyond stale these days). The world is as large and colorful as it is fascinating. I have a love/hate relationship with the open ended-ness of the whole thing. It's oppressively open ended. That's the best way I can describe it... but that's also part of its charm and what makes it different. You get a few map markers (if that) pointing to 4-5 inconspicuous points on the giant world map and that's about it. The world is yours to approach from any angle. Bosses are yours to approach at any angle. The final rush into Hyrule Castle is yours to approach at any angle. You could run head first into the final boss area right after the tutorial plateau if you knew what you were doing. That's basically the story of this game... do what you want, when you want, however you want to do it. It's refreshing and frustrating at the same time. There's still A TON that I haven't done in the game yet. Big continents of the map not unlocked. Probably 70-80 or so shrines to do. I've only upgraded my armor once, and that was this morning prior to the final boss. I was planning on spending the next week or so just putzing around unlocking things before wrapping up the story but figured I'd see how difficult the final story stuff was... and ended up finishing it. I did all of the Divine Beasts... which is probably the only reason I could stomach that final boss battle. In my defense, I did a bit more side stuff in my last attempt at a playthrough of the game... so this time I stayed more focused on the main quests. I'm happy to set the game aside for now though and just let it be that game I jump back to when the random mood strikes for some mindless exploring. That is when the game is at its strongest afterall IMO. 'Til then, it's going back into its case and onto my 2019 game completion list.

The lacking cohesiveness between the platforms in regards to tracking stats/progress is one of the big reasons I stopped trophy/achievement hunting. In my time with it, I was much more interested in the bigger picture than any individual game... so the bigger picture being all scattered and broken, untracked, etc was enough to encourage me to call it a day. Now I do two things... 1 - As I mentioned, stopped trophy/achievement hunting. Just play games to their natural ending points (whenever the credits roll) or doing whatever extra stuff feels right if I really enjoyed the game. No need to obsess over tracking or concern myself with whether or not the games I play or the platforms I play them on support trophies/achievements. And considerably less frustration in the sense of not being forced to play through glitchy games on broken difficulty settings. 😡 2 - Do everything in my power to only buy physical copies of games. Now instead of relying on lists sitting on a server somewhere to tell me what I have or what I've done... my shelf is my comprehensive, ever expanding list regardless of platform.

First off, FINALLY! Never bought something so fast in my life. Secondly, I went with the standard Switch edition and the Wanderer's Journal. That CE looks rad but I don't think I need much more than the normal case for my shelf.

Damn, that's a lot of Pokemon. Thanks for the info, I'm thinking I'll definitely pick this one up then.

I'll admit, I'm intrigued. I haven't legit played a Pokemon game since the Red & Blue Gameboy days, and I just haven't really had a Nintendo handheld since... so a proper Pokemon game for my Switch has my attention. I'm entirely unfamiliar with the generations of Pokemon though. Are the original 151 there at all in these newer games... or is it all new Pokemon all the time?

I'm looking to pick up another set of joy cons somewhere... but it seems like it'll be hard to do for less than $70-80 or so. Which is pretty steep. Any ideas where I could go or sales I could wait for to maybe get them a little cheaper? eBay is just a mess of listings since everyone wants to sell the left and right joy cons separately but price them like you're buying both. The few I can find that aren't obviously trying to exploit people are pretty expensive still. Starting to think just walking into Gamestop or surfing Amazon and buying a new pair for whatever it costs may be my best/easiest/least confusing option.

I like the little changes like this. Kinda spices things up a different points throughout the year. A little darker on my drive into work, a little lighter on my drive home, and visa versa in the fall. Would be a little boring at this point, if it were locked in and nothing ever really changed. Having daylight later when its nice out in the summer is always nice, and having the dark sooner when the weather is crappy in the winter has never really been a problem for me. The hour change back or forward never really bothers me (then again I'm a shitty sleeper regardless so why would it).