|
On September 11 2015 02:22 TheYango wrote:
Level cap is 99, yes.
The game doesn't track individual class levels. You have your current character level, which is independent of individual classes. When you level up, you gain stats according to the class you are currently in, and when you level down, you lose stats according to the class you are currently in. So what this means is that a level 20 Ninja who switches to Bard, then de-levels to 1 will lose less stats than he gained leveling from 1-20 as Ninja, because a Bard would have gained less stats in 20 levels than a Ninja does. He can then re-level 20 levels as Ninja, and be higher stats than when he was a level 20 Ninja the first time. Repeat until stats are maxed.
Oh, 0K. Haven't played it in maybe 3 years (technically never finished it, emu save corrupted when changing computers, but I was at the last set of battles and have seen the ending, so... ).
Still nicer than the way Tactics Ogre goes about it, killing people, raising them as zombies then giving them a body back so they're at level 1 with their old stats  (they take a massive hit to their popularity rating toward the main character if you do that though).
|
So what does this 6G download of DotA change exactly?
Does stuff look different?
Run better?
What?
|
28104 Posts
It's a completely new client and the source engine was also overhauled so the game runs more smooth, etc (well it should run better when there are no bugs xD).
|
United Kingdom30775 Posts
On September 11 2015 02:56 Numy wrote:
Personally I hate anything removing me from the game. That's why I dislike that idea that Oculus is "the future of VR" as well I don't want to fucking move my body when I'm playing a game(it's not even VR, stop calling it that!). Wii U is the same thing where I don't want to remove my focus from the screen just to get to another piece of info I need.
Titles are Wii always suck for here at least. Only good ones we get are the first party ones and if you want any 3rd party you going to have to import from EU most likely which is expensive. Then you get the luck of the draw on if 3rd party even gets translated into language you can play ;(
I think this is just something that comes from someone who hasn't actually played a Wii U. When the Wii U was first advertised I thought it was a complete joke, a failure of epic proportions and anyone that spent their money on it was a fool who must have been dropped on their head at birth in an unfortunate series of events that also lead to the loss of their logical processing.
However, after actually playing and buying one I completely love it, the problems you mention are so beyond minimal that I can't really see how you can blow it out to that proportion. While, yes, it's not MEANT for a typical hardcore gamer that wants to shoot everyone in the latest iteration of Call of Duty: Modern Advanced Dog Ghost Warfare Extreme 12 it does its job well and that job is to let you have extreme amounts of fun. Every game I have played on it has been a complete blast, I love that it also can incorporate the social aspect of a console so much more and yes, while that's not for everyone, it's those personal touches that really bring it all together as a great console.
The screen thing is great if you live in a big family or one where you battle for the TV every night (such as what Nintendo is marketing for) and it's a BONUS, it shouldn't be a negative aspect just because it CAN do that, I think it's actually quite useful. It's affordable and comfy and has a tonne of replay value in it just by virtue of being so fun and social.
Yes, the titles are the biggest downfall for the Wii U completely but I think it's not really so bad at the moment, of course there are so many games that should be on the Wii U that aren't (Pokemon franchise, stadium, snap etc and zeldas, metroids etc etc etc) but I think the catalogue of games they have now is far from bad either. Could quite happily play my collection of games without buying any new ones and be perfectly happy.
|
28104 Posts
Did you just put call of duty in the same sentence as "typical hardcore gamer" smh.
|
On September 11 2015 02:58 onlywonderboy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 02:52 TheYango wrote:
The only problem with the Wii U is that there just aren't *enough* good titles for it, even though the good ones are really good. It's arguably worth it for Mario Maker alone haha. Also Bayonetta 2 and the eventual new Zelda game. Plus Nintendo's other first party stuff. It's a solid amount of games at this point.
Isn't the new Zelda going to pull a Twilight Princes and be on the next Nintendo console? If so it's not a buying point for me, which is what I've been holding out for.
|
United Kingdom30775 Posts
On September 11 2015 03:06 TheEmulator wrote:
Did you just put call of duty in the same sentence as "typical hardcore gamer" smh.
hardcore console gamer™ yes because I'm pretty sure you'll find that the people who spend the most time on the consoles are those people
|
United States47024 Posts
Nintendo's had almost a decade to refine two-screen UI design, since the release of the DS. And honestly, with 2nd and 3rd party developers having the experience properly utilizing a second screen, the games on the Wii U and 3DS are much better for it.
It's analogous to having 2 monitors on your PC except since its a standardized part of the console hardware, developers can properly design the UI around having two compartmentalized viewing areas. People talk about the gamepad being stand-alone a lot, but even using the console as normal, it's used well.
On September 11 2015 02:56 Numy wrote:
Personally I hate anything removing me from the game.
I fail to see how having menus placed unintrusively on a second screen takes you out of the game more than a fullscreen menu that stops the action of the game.
The biggest *advantage* of two-screen UI design is that menu navigation DOESN'T remove you from the game.
|
United States23745 Posts
On September 11 2015 03:06 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 02:58 onlywonderboy wrote:On September 11 2015 02:52 TheYango wrote:
The only problem with the Wii U is that there just aren't *enough* good titles for it, even though the good ones are really good. It's arguably worth it for Mario Maker alone haha. Also Bayonetta 2 and the eventual new Zelda game. Plus Nintendo's other first party stuff. It's a solid amount of games at this point. Isn't the new Zelda going to pull a Twilight Princes and be on the next Nintendo console? If so it's not a buying point for me, which is what I've been holding out for.
There's no proof of this, just wild speculation. Not even "insider sources" or anything like that.
|
On September 11 2015 02:56 Numy wrote:
Personally I hate anything removing me from the game. That's why I dislike that idea that Oculus is "the future of VR" as well I don't want to fucking move my body when I'm playing a game(it's not even VR, stop calling it that!). Wii U is the same thing where I don't want to remove my focus from the screen just to get to another piece of info I need.
Titles are Wii always suck for here at least. Only good ones we get are the first party ones and if you want any 3rd party you going to have to import from EU most likely which is expensive. Then you get the luck of the draw on if 3rd party even gets translated into language you can play ;(
How do you figure that the Oculus takes you out of the game? Is turning your head any more intrusive than moving your thumb?
|
On September 11 2015 03:20 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 02:56 Numy wrote:
Personally I hate anything removing me from the game. That's why I dislike that idea that Oculus is "the future of VR" as well I don't want to fucking move my body when I'm playing a game(it's not even VR, stop calling it that!). Wii U is the same thing where I don't want to remove my focus from the screen just to get to another piece of info I need.
Titles are Wii always suck for here at least. Only good ones we get are the first party ones and if you want any 3rd party you going to have to import from EU most likely which is expensive. Then you get the luck of the draw on if 3rd party even gets translated into language you can play ;( How do you figure that the Oculus takes you out of the game? Is turning your head any more intrusive than moving your thumb?
Yes. Yes it is.
|
United States47024 Posts
Well VR is a totally different can of worms that has nothing to do with two-screen interfaces vs. single-screen. Something about how the "uncanny valley" applies to movement controls.
|
On September 11 2015 03:21 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 03:20 Requizen wrote:On September 11 2015 02:56 Numy wrote:
Personally I hate anything removing me from the game. That's why I dislike that idea that Oculus is "the future of VR" as well I don't want to fucking move my body when I'm playing a game(it's not even VR, stop calling it that!). Wii U is the same thing where I don't want to remove my focus from the screen just to get to another piece of info I need.
Titles are Wii always suck for here at least. Only good ones we get are the first party ones and if you want any 3rd party you going to have to import from EU most likely which is expensive. Then you get the luck of the draw on if 3rd party even gets translated into language you can play ;( How do you figure that the Oculus takes you out of the game? Is turning your head any more intrusive than moving your thumb? Yes. Yes it is.
I don't entirely agree. I think as the tech evolves to be more responsive and you get used to it, it'll become a very fluid way to play games.
|
On September 11 2015 03:25 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 03:21 Numy wrote:On September 11 2015 03:20 Requizen wrote:On September 11 2015 02:56 Numy wrote:
Personally I hate anything removing me from the game. That's why I dislike that idea that Oculus is "the future of VR" as well I don't want to fucking move my body when I'm playing a game(it's not even VR, stop calling it that!). Wii U is the same thing where I don't want to remove my focus from the screen just to get to another piece of info I need.
Titles are Wii always suck for here at least. Only good ones we get are the first party ones and if you want any 3rd party you going to have to import from EU most likely which is expensive. Then you get the luck of the draw on if 3rd party even gets translated into language you can play ;( How do you figure that the Oculus takes you out of the game? Is turning your head any more intrusive than moving your thumb? Yes. Yes it is. I don't entirely agree. I think as the tech evolves to be more responsive and you get used to it, it'll become a very fluid way to play games.
It's a screen on your head that you have to move your head to move. Gaming is the worst application of it. There are so many cooler and more interesting uses for it. The fact that people think it's VR for gaming as it's primary use disgusts me. If I wanted to exercise my neck I'd go play a sport
|
On September 11 2015 03:27 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 03:25 Requizen wrote:On September 11 2015 03:21 Numy wrote:On September 11 2015 03:20 Requizen wrote:On September 11 2015 02:56 Numy wrote:
Personally I hate anything removing me from the game. That's why I dislike that idea that Oculus is "the future of VR" as well I don't want to fucking move my body when I'm playing a game(it's not even VR, stop calling it that!). Wii U is the same thing where I don't want to remove my focus from the screen just to get to another piece of info I need.
Titles are Wii always suck for here at least. Only good ones we get are the first party ones and if you want any 3rd party you going to have to import from EU most likely which is expensive. Then you get the luck of the draw on if 3rd party even gets translated into language you can play ;( How do you figure that the Oculus takes you out of the game? Is turning your head any more intrusive than moving your thumb? Yes. Yes it is. I don't entirely agree. I think as the tech evolves to be more responsive and you get used to it, it'll become a very fluid way to play games. It's a screen on your head that you have to move your head to move. Gaming is the worst application of it.
For "competitive" games where twitch reaction is necessary? Sure. I wouldn't use it for a shooter or anything like that. For adventure, horror, or exploration games? I think it has the potential to improve immersion by quite a bit.
On September 11 2015 03:27 Numy wrote: If I wanted to exercise my neck I'd go play a sport
If turning your head and looking up and down is exercise, then maybe you need something like this to help your twiggy neck.
|
seeing nothing but the game and having the game react more to your body is removing yourself from the game how? sounds like being more in the game to me.
yeah i can understand the preference of mouse/keyboard/monitor and ill never play starcraft on an oculous rift but i wouldnt fault it for removing me from the game...
|
On September 11 2015 03:30 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 03:27 Numy wrote:On September 11 2015 03:25 Requizen wrote:On September 11 2015 03:21 Numy wrote:On September 11 2015 03:20 Requizen wrote:On September 11 2015 02:56 Numy wrote:
Personally I hate anything removing me from the game. That's why I dislike that idea that Oculus is "the future of VR" as well I don't want to fucking move my body when I'm playing a game(it's not even VR, stop calling it that!). Wii U is the same thing where I don't want to remove my focus from the screen just to get to another piece of info I need.
Titles are Wii always suck for here at least. Only good ones we get are the first party ones and if you want any 3rd party you going to have to import from EU most likely which is expensive. Then you get the luck of the draw on if 3rd party even gets translated into language you can play ;( How do you figure that the Oculus takes you out of the game? Is turning your head any more intrusive than moving your thumb? Yes. Yes it is. I don't entirely agree. I think as the tech evolves to be more responsive and you get used to it, it'll become a very fluid way to play games. It's a screen on your head that you have to move your head to move. Gaming is the worst application of it. For "competitive" games where twitch reaction is necessary? Sure. I wouldn't use it for a shooter or anything like that. For adventure, horror, or exploration games? I think it has the potential to improve immersion by quite a bit. Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 03:27 Numy wrote: If I wanted to exercise my neck I'd go play a sport If turning your head and looking up and down is exercise, then maybe you need something like this to help your twiggy neck.
Nice. Req, real nice.
|
I don't think Oculus would work with any of the games I tend to play.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 11 2015 03:31 ComaDose wrote:
seeing nothing but the game and having the game react more to your body is removing yourself from the game how? sounds like being more in the game to me.
Again, the most likely explanation is an uncanny valley-like phenomenon when it comes to mapping movement controls to actions on screen. When the action we're performing is sufficiently different (i.e. moving a thumbstick or mouse to look around) our brains are good at overlooking the disconnect and can map action to action fairly well. However, the human brain is very good at noticing things that are close-but-not-quite-right (hence why the "uncanny valley" exists with regard to the visual arts), so a control scheme that mimicks real human movement, but with certain flaws as a product of the gameplay will be much more jarring than a control scheme that is wildly different.
This has *nothing* to do with two-screen UI design and the Wii U though.
|
VR is like SAO. Not a monitor on your head lol. Call me when I can actually be in the world
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
