It doesn't have cross-play, but it does have cross-save. It can be easy at times, which is part of the nice thing about it. I can play just to chill out, then try some of the harder content when I'm willing to put focus in to it. I love the swords. Right now, during the current seasonal events, I've been using a sidearm as primary, a shotgun as my secondary, and a sword as my power weapon.
Do any of you guys have any recommendations for any 2 player PS4 games, ideally targeted towards younger kids? My daughter and I have been playing a bunch of Brawlhalla lately, but she's looking for something else that we can try and play together.
I hadn't played any COD game for years and played a couple of games of Warzone the other day. Holy snapping duckshit batman I suck hard. Anyone playing Elder Scrolls Online at all. That's just sucked me into a wormhole I'm not getting out of soon.
How much younger? Overcooked 2 is a really fun two player game, but might be too difficult for a little kid.
Yeah, ask @malisbad about that... he's asked me to play it a few times but I haven't yet... he'd be able to pipe up as he's got a young kid too.
Overcooked 2 is really good! I think a 9 year old could do it. Talking and strategizing can be a lot of fun! You can also play things like Guacamelee (awesome art style, metroidvania game), don't starve together (co-op survival), Stardew Valley multiplayer is seriously involving, a few of the Lego games are multiplayer IIRC, Terraria is way awesome. Not sure how many are PS4 though, but a few might be!
So, I played through the main story campaigns, then I played through basically all of Shadowkeep except the last dude because I tend to be a solo player. I can't tell if I'm startlingly bad, super-underequipped, or if there are just some really good players I've ended up in rooms with. But a couple of the harder public events and Fireteam groups that I've joined, I'm just... not contributing. One Fireteam exercise I got paired up with 2 other players: I'm light level 954, I've found most of the PvE stuff to be easy, and the final stats were like player 1: 183 kills, player 2: 214 kills, me: 29 kills. Absolutely ridiculous. But the ease with which they're slaughtering enemies makes me wonder about my gear, too. Is there any kind of reasonable primer on D2 gear? Everything I find is so complex that I just don't give enough of a shit. Or is that pretty much it? If you aren't grinding your ass off and seeking out max combos/tweaks, you hit a gear max that just doesn't come close to what the super high end loadouts do? I've settled on a pulse rifle, SMG and grenade launcher as my favorite weapons.
Everything is pretty viable, but there is a meta. 954 is pretty low because people are at ~1010 - 1030. You're probably looking at ~40% less damage in a 1000 light dungeon. I'd swap out the SMG if you prefer long range for something that uses special ammo. That's gonna be there for taking out the yellow bars. If you prefer short range, pop that pulse in for something else. The only reason to do double primary at the moment is if you're clearing out bunkers or doing high level nightfall strikes. https://www.youtube.com/user/KackisHD ^ this guy has what you need for tutorials and stuff. You can add me on steam under Malisbad and I'm happy to FT up.
Holy crap, I thought 960 was the cap for some reason. I'm psyched when I even see a piece of gear at or higher than my current level. That definitely explains some of the power difference I was noticing; I was assuming I was just a few points away from the cap. I'm in the middle of a move so it'll probably be a while before I get back to it but I'll find you on steam one of these days.
Anyone check out the ps5 stuff? It’s a foregone conclusion I am getting it. I just need to splurge on a higher def tv. I haven’t played a Gran Turismo since the PlayStation 2 days. I’m excited about that.
Yes, it looks fucking amazing and I'm 100% getting it as well. We'll see if it really looks that good all the time when it actually comes out, but whatever -- sold.
So I know I'm not the only one playing Warzone - what do other people think of it? After playing a good bit I think it's the most fun, terribly designed game I've ever played. The weapon mix is fine, I like the map (mostly), and I enjoy the gunfights, but I don't know how I can take this game seriously. There are some glitches and blah blah, but they're not the problem. The problem is it's like they've made this game to favor players that want to stick their thumb up their ass and camp a rooftop, or the second floor of a building all fucking match long. Everything seems geared towards this kind of player, which is not how I play at all because it's fucking boring. I mean, I'm decent. I have plenty of wins, regularly get 6-10 kill games and whatnot, but I don't know how to really "get gud" at this fucking game. The thing is I'm a pretty aggressive player and I'm used to being rewarded for that. If I have 8 kills and you hid in the corner of a room the last 20 minutes I should have better gear. I mean, I think I should... but it's not the case here. Load outs are better than anything you can find around the map and not only cheap relative to how easy the money is to find, you get a free one early in the match. That's way, way too fucking easy for the best possible gear you can get and perks to boot. Then you have a stupidly fast time to kill on most weapons. Something like 0.4 seconds on ARs and SMGs, one shot snipers to the head that are practically hit scan, insta blow up vehicles, etc with characters that are slow as fuck, and get stunned by bullets on top of it. Air strikes and cluster strikes don't do shit to clear roof tops. Go down the stairwell for a few seconds, pop back out and you're fine. Get ghost to camp extra hard, and avoid heart scans. Put on a ghillie suit so people can barely even see you. Throw out a trophy system to render completely worthless what little effect counter-measures available to attacking players would even do. It's fucking ridiculous. On top of that you have a map filled with wide open spaces that have no cover juxtaposed with 5-15 story buildings clustered together. It's a total mine field. If you don't want to hide like a little bitch all match you're constantly vulnerable. Dead before you can shoot back at all. I feel like a game needs to give you an option to attack a player's position assuming more or less equal skill. This game waives that option completely. All that said it's fun as hell and I am enjoying it. It's just that as someone who takes their gaming more seriously and more competitively than an adult really should this isn't one I can fully dive into unless they make some major adjustments that change the meta. Considering Activision has already done stupid shit like allow PC players to widen their field of view and told console players "Nope, not letting you because go fuck yourself." I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.
Not to hog the thread, but a big takeaway from that video I posted and others I've seen is it looks like the ultra high end graphics games are going to be way cheaper to make than a lot of people might intuitively think. I had just kind of assumed gaming graphics was going to hit a sort of wall, where it wouldn't be financially feasible to improve much on graphics after a certain point. It seems like that will very much not be the case, actually the opposite if anything. The new gaming engines seem to really merit a next gen. It's not (purely) just a money grab.
Eh they've been saying this for years. Many people thought when the first Max Payne game came out, there would not be any more appreciable increase in realism for a while. Now it looks like a cartoon. Its tough to compare the PS5 to existing available PC hardware, at least that would be reasonable for a consumer, because the RDNA microarchitecture wont be included in PC GPUs until the end of this year. When those come out, they will almost definitely be better than whats in the PS5 and the next-gen XBox. The 5700 XT comes close, but I think the PS5 edges it out. The Nvidia 2080 Super and 2080 Ti both already crush the PS5 card, but those cards cost a shitload more than the entire PS5 unit. Unless you're @Nettdata, most people will never own one of those cards.
One. How quaint. I can tell you right now that the hardware is not the major limiting factor for the realism in games. So much of it is in the fluidity and naturalism of movement, for example... the closer you get to being real looking, the easier it is to pick up on the tiniest of flaws. The work being done in AI and simulation to overcome that is just crazy. it's more about the software simulating the environment or actors rather than the hardware rendering it. I've recently become a Principal Engineer at Unity, and I've been spending the last couple of months getting up to speed with what we're doing from a tech perspective... especially with the R&D teams. It's pretty interesting, to say the least.
Sure, I was just comparing the hardware, not necessarily in terms of realism. But based on what you said, do you think progress in AI is fundamentally important to bridging the uncanny valley or just one of the ways to get there?
I think it’s required. AI I’m referring to isn’t typical NPC type AI, but things like how rain falls, or waves in a pool work, or hair moves on a head. A lot of that stuff is more AI driven than you’d think... it’s not just pure physics simulation.
In hyping myself for the next gen I've watched a few videos that touched on the things you're talking about. To be perfectly honest I don't entirely understand it, but it is quite interesting. If the AI is getting good enough to competently react in real time with in game stimuli it really makes the possibilities in the coming years seem limitless. The only downside to all of this is it seems like games are having more and more errors at the time of release, but it's a price I'm happy to pay.