The Official "What Are You Playing?" Thread (Post Screens)

[-GD-X★ 7,729]

In 35 min, I will be playing TLOU 2.

[Twinblade★ 3,891]

14 minutes ago, -GD- BLM said:

In 35 min, I will be playing TLOU 2.

Me too 

[Twinblade★ 3,891]

Played through the first 2 hours of TLOU2. Really digging it so far, the attention to detail in the environments and characters is pretty amazing. If they can keep that up for 25+ hours then the game will earn its scores on that aspect alone.

[kaz 2,439]

On 2020-06-17 at 6:47 PM, Twinblade said:

So i've been playing a lot of valorant lately, which is surprising because I wasn't expecting it to keep me interested for this long.

 

It made me realize that theres actually kind of a noticeable design flaw with both this game and CSS. And thats the whole idea behind earning money to buy the best guns every round.

 

If one team manages to win a couple of rounds in a row, then they're able to afford the better weapons while the other team can't. So the team that is already winning is rewarded with the ability to dominate the other team even further, which IMO is a very noticeable balance issue. One team has all ARs while the other team can only afford submachine guns that suck at medium range (which is the distance that most firefights take place at).

 

So the moment one team pulls ahead, it becomes incredibly difficult for the other team to come back, not because they suck but because they get into a hole where they're being outmatched in most of the firefights.

 

So yeah, just had to rant about this for a bit. Its obviously a core part of these games' designs so I don't expect it to change, just kind of silly that I haven't seen anyone complain about this before.

 

First, you keep saying CSS, but it's CS. Counter-Strike. CSS was a version of Counter-Strike. Counter-Strike: Source. (cuz source engine). The new one is CSGO for example, Global Offensive. Just say CS ffs.  

 

And you are wrong, it's not a design flaw in CS, even if you can't afford "better" weapons (and equipment and extra like armor and all kinds of nades) you still have the chance to win rounds.

 

The economy is there for a reason and a big part of the game otherwise there would be less tactical gameplay choices. 

[-GD-X★ 7,729]

6 hours ago, Twinblade said:

Played through the first 2 hours of TLOU2. Really digging it so far, the attention to detail in the environments and characters is pretty amazing. If they can keep that up for 25+ hours then the game will earn its scores on that aspect alone.

Yeah, I’m really enjoying it too. Let’s hope they can keep the momentum.

[Twinblade★ 3,891]

Damn that escalated pretty quickly...

[-GD-X★ 7,729]

2 hours ago, Twinblade said:

Damn that escalated pretty quickly...

Ha yeah, shiii got craaaa

[kokujin 558]

add gaming. is it good? 

[Mr. House 3,371]

I was playing Yakuza 6 and I got pretty addicted to the PuyoPuyo arcade machine, so I bought PuyoPuyo Tetris. This shit is pretty addictive. 

 

I was never a big fan of puzzle games before but I learned to appreciate those with time, Tetris, Puyo Puyo, Puzzle Fighter (Capcom) are my favorites. 

[Hot Sauce 2,727]

On 2020-06-17 at 12:47 PM, Twinblade said:

If one team manages to win a couple of rounds in a row, then they're able to afford the better weapons while the other team can't. So the team that is already winning is rewarded with the ability to dominate the other team even further, which IMO is a very noticeable balance issue. One team has all ARs while the other team can only afford submachine guns that suck at medium range (which is the distance that most firefights take place at).

I don't think that's a balance issue. It's a layer of meta strategy. It would be a balance issue if it got out of hand and comebacks were unlikely to the point of games being decided the moment an advantage occurred.

 

Valve has made changes to the economy in CS frequently enough that I'm sure at some point that was the case in CSGO, but having played a lot of 1.6 and CSS I don't recall that ever being the case back then. If you're the better team you can take the hit and have an economy round to get back on even footing or, if the map permits, build a strategy around the disadvantages of SMGs vs rifles and focus on areas of the map that don't give rifles the range advantage.

 

I haven't played any Valorant so I can't speak to that game, but the snowball effect in CS has historically been forgiving.

[Twinblade★ 3,891]

40 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

I don't think that's a balance issue. It's a layer of meta strategy. It would be a balance issue if it got out of hand and comebacks were unlikely to the point of games being decided the moment an advantage occurred.

 

Valve has made changes to the economy in CS frequently enough that I'm sure at some point that was the case in CSGO, but having played a lot of 1.6 and CSS I don't recall that ever being the case back then. If you're the better team you can take the hit and have an economy round to get back on even footing or, if the map permits, build a strategy around the disadvantages of SMGs vs rifles and focus on areas of the map that don't give rifles the range advantage.

 

I haven't played any Valorant so I can't speak to that game, but the snowball effect in CS has historically been forgiving.

I dunno, comebacks are pretty rare in Valorant. Most of the time when a team is up by 3 or 4 rounds then they pretty much have the match in the bag. That also seems to match up with my SMG usage now that I think about it. If I have no choice but to buy one for 3 or 4 rounds in a row then chances are im doing poorly and so is the rest of my time.

 

I haven't played CSS in ages, but maybe Valorant is just not that well balanced.

[Hot Sauce 2,727]

1 hour ago, Twinblade said:

I dunno, comebacks are pretty rare in Valorant. Most of the time when a team is up by 3 or 4 rounds then they pretty much have the match in the bag. That also seems to match up with my SMG usage now that I think about it. If I have no choice but to buy one for 3 or 4 rounds in a row then chances are im doing poorly and so is the rest of my time.

 

I haven't played CSS in ages, but maybe Valorant is just not that well balanced.

Snowballing getting out of control was a big problem in League of Legends for much of the time that I played it, so it wouldn't surprise me if Riot made the same mistakes with Valorant or that's just a design decision they prefer. 3 or 4 rounds is definitely ridiculous, an economy round or two gets you back into a having a full kit in CS and even if you lose that then the bonus money from a loss streak should be enough that you can afford most of a full kit each round until you reset the bonus with a win.

[Twinblade★ 3,891]

23 minutes ago, Hot Sauce said:

Snowballing getting out of control was a big problem in League of Legends for much of the time that I played it, so it wouldn't surprise me if Riot made the same mistakes with Valorant or that's just a design decision they prefer. 3 or 4 rounds is definitely ridiculous, an economy round or two gets you back into a having a full kit in CS and even if you lose that then the bonus money from a loss streak should be enough that you can afford most of a full kit each round until you reset the bonus with a win.

You should give it a try, i'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on it. The gunplay is practically identical to CSS' so you'd feel right at home with it in that regard.

 

The characters and their unique abilities do change things up a bit though.

 

edit: Also, one big problem thats worth mentioning is that a part of the imbalance is a result of people quitting during matches. The matches in general are long (30-40 minutes) so if someone quits at the beginning then that team is a lot more likely to end up getting slaughtered.

[kaz 2,439]

ffs it's CS not CSS. the gunplay in CSS was very, very different compared to 1.6 and CSGO for example. fucking twinkie making me so mad calling it CSS cause its the only version he has ever played. 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by kaz BLackMage

[kokujin 558]

Imma get my PS4 back today. So maybe (force) try and play some post-game FF7 R   this game really is a one and done experience. I remember being a little too linearr too.

 

lots of corridors and boss fights, and a fighting system that doesn't match the linear gameplay or never takes off.

I really hope P2 or P3 opens the world up and opens up the balance of the fighting system and takes advantage of it.

I don't think they need to change the combat mechanics much at all actually,

 

but how enemies respond to what you do, and the neccessity to attack or defend a certain way,

really didn't shine much imo. After learning brave-mode/counter in the first 5 minutes,

literally nothing changes until 40 hours later where you learn parry lol.

 

NO MORE CORRIDERSX.  This game sucsk post-op but judge eyes sucks more. Maybe I'll put Judge eyes on easy, just fuckig SKIP cutscenes till

i get to *parts* of the yakuza world I like.    :angry:   actually now, I wanna buy a new game. 

[Hot Sauce 2,727]

10 hours ago, Twinblade said:

You should give it a try, i'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on it. The gunplay is practically identical to CSS' so you'd feel right at home with it in that regard.

 

The characters and their unique abilities do change things up a bit though.

I'll give it a try eventually, but my friend group got into the beta and got bored of it before I could even start playing so that's taken the wind completely out of my sails on it.

 

10 hours ago, Twinblade said:

edit: Also, one big problem thats worth mentioning is that a part of the imbalance is a result of people quitting during matches. The matches in general are long (30-40 minutes) so if someone quits at the beginning then that team is a lot more likely to end up getting slaughtered.

CS didn't have the competitive matchmaking when I played it seriously so I've never actually had to deal with that. League of Legends games were roughly that long and having somebody leave made a win almost impossible. Ranking was also done purely on the back of wins/losses. Shit was ass.

 

I'd hope Valorant has more individual based metrics being calculated behind the scenes for ranking and some forgiveness factored in for leavers, but I definitely would hate being pitted 4v5 for the next 30 minutes from a fun perspective regardless.

[Delita 698]

I picked up Days Gone for $14 and Murder Soul suspect for $2 on PSN. I played a bit of Days Gone and cutscenes are top notch like any Sony first party game and the gameplay is decent so far although pretty standard. It also seems a bit janky. I’m noticing ridiculous pop in like I’ve never seen before. One scene tells me to push a car out of the way and I try but there’s no input to do so, then all of a sudden a car appears right next to it and that was the one I was suppose to push.

 

Haven’t tried Soul suspect yet but I’ll get back to these 2 after TLOU2.

[-GD-X★ 7,729]

I remembered murder. It was fun, but dated feeling.

Edited June 21, 2020 by -GD- BLM

[kaz 2,439]

4 hours ago, -GD- BLM said:

I remembered murder. It was fun, but dated feeling.

lol is that supposed to be a joke or something? I thought it is one of your favourite hobbies.

[-GD-X★ 7,729]

Spoiler

I beat TLOU 2. The game had a lot of incredible moments, and I was truly blown away by the gameplay, level design, AI, about 90% of the visuals and most of the story. But the imperfections are definitely glaring, even jarring. Is it the “10” many sites gave it? God no lol. I almost stopped playing around the 12 hour mark because of a tonal shift that killed a lot of momentum. Fortunately, it redeemed itself in an incredible way. The last quarter of the game is absolutely mind-blowing! Regarding the story, I liked it. However, it could have been executed better, and the overall length of the campaign didn’t need to clock in at 25 hours. It would have been much more effective had it ran 15-17 hours. On a narrative level, I felt very satisfied, despite one lingering question I wanted answered. Overall, it’s a flawed masterpiece that’s an evolution in third person, action-adventure combat. It also has better survival horror moments than the RE titles. However, there wasn’t any groundbreaking storytelling. The VO work and animations were typical, top tier ND stuff. However, patchy pacing, and unnecessary bloat, disrupt the cohesiveness. My score: 9, mainly because the gameplay and level design, for this genre, felt like a true next generation leap. 

My TLOU 2 review. No spoilers 

Edited June 21, 2020 by -GD- BLM