Frag Maniac

What you're talking about is nothing compared to the toxicity found on Gears of War and Hitman forums. There they don't bother debunking reviews, they go straight to the throats of anyone whom makes negative comments about their beloved games. Even if you just casually mention you like Gears of War 4 and Gears 5, and don't like the overly dark default processing used on the original game, they'll write an entirely unsolicited essay on how the original fanbase of the franchise generally hate the new games, and harp about how the dark processing is intended to make it look more gritty. There is nothing worse than the fanboyism that happens on official forums of games. They're like a bunch of spoiled brats that can't stand hearing contrasting opinions.

Actually I wasn't defending IGN there if that's what you're thinking, only showing how they waffle, which any competitive journalist team does. You know what sickens me most lately regarding any kind of journalism? It's when I constantly see TV commercials our local network news stations do blabbering on and on about "Telling the truth, it's all we do,...I'm so and so, I stand for the truth." We all know full well though that journalism is nothing but a very competitive business, and that all too often lines get crossed to compete for viewership. This is why one of my fave Jake Gyllenhaal movies is Nightcrawler. Sure, it's an over the top thriller that takes liberties, but makes a good point none the less.

Well, I never said they don't unfairly bash other games at times, it's just that more often than not, their reviews are too generous. Even with your example though, IGN allowed this to be posted on their site https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/05/08/in-defense-of-god-hand, albeit too late to account for any damage to sales they may have caused.

I feel IGN has a tendency to too often give glowing reviews to games. That said, I DO use such sites not so much for their review opinion, but to see the gameplay itself being demonstrated from an average gamer's perspective. You really can't do that on Steam, unless you wade through a TON of reviews to find the few that might have links to a personal video review contained within (not sure they even allow that). Plus with Steam, you have only Like or Dislike options, which, like YouTube, makes it too simplified to even toss out highs and lows to get a more realistic aggregate of opinions. At the end of the day, the only real way to see if you like a game is to play it, and at least Steam has that 2 hrs or less for a full refund policy, so you can sample them. For many games though, 2 hrs is not nearly enough to sample a game, performance wise or content wise, so it could also be very misleading. It also makes it easy for some less responsible developers to only make sure the first 2 hr segment of their games are near flawless, and put less attention in cleaning up the rest. Even WITH responsible devs, many games start out in smaller communities than those you progress to, so you may never see what performance or content the game has in just 2 hrs.

I really feel what kills most teams under EA, is EA themselves. They take it upon themselves to make too many decisions, often ones they're not really qualified to. I mean common sense dictates if you want an engine to be used by lots of devs, you make it user and genre friendly. I still can't forgive them for canning the Dead Space series, and then disbanding Visceral Games. Sorry, for some reason I saw the Cyberpunk comments only as meaning genre competition, vs just being a huge title. Don't know why that didn't click. The funny thing is though, if you take away the diehard cyber and CDPR fans, many were put off by the Cyberpunk 2077 launch, for obvious reasons, myself included. I've already probably had far more fun playing Ghostrunner, despite tons of deaths, and ended up shelving Cyberpunk well before the 1.2 patch was released.

Well that's still on DICE for 1), making an engine that's biased toward certain genres, then 2) going ahead and using it on a genre of game it doesn't work so well on. Like I said, I expect more common sense and intelligence from devs of their talent. Yeah I know, and already acknowledged that UE is more user friendly, and I'm well aware it's more versatile genre wise, but there's still the fact that plenty of devs have failed to set up UE games with asset loading points that don't cause noticeable hitching. I also fail to see how Ghostrunner is some kind of Cyberpunk 2077 clone, far from it. Seems we're kinda talking in circles here, yet I feel you've overlapped and verified some of my main points, so I also feel we're sorta on the same page overall.

LOL, Frostbite was developed by DICE themselves, so that only validates my point. You would think the creators of the engine would know best how to use it. Also, while I do agree with your point that Frostbite is harder to learn/use than Unreal Engine, you have the difference between the authors of the engine using it, vs some random dev team that took no part in creating Unreal Engine. There's also been plenty of Unreal Engine games, including those made by pretty competent dev teams (Bioshock Infinite for example), that were notorious for hitching problems. There was a marathon thread on Irrational Games' Bioshock Infinite forum specifically about that. Jedi Fallen Order also had hitching problems. It's been said that UE doesn't load assets as efficiently as some engines, and the fact that this hitching generally happens in the same exact spots, tends to indicate that it may be due to poor asset loading. Even Epic Games has released games made with their own engine that have stutter problems, especially Unreal II. There ARE of course UE games that do not have these problems, which tends to indicate it matters a lot how it's used. So I really don't think UE is a piece of cake to use either, easier than Frostbite for sure, but no gimme. Not sure what you mean by Ghostrunner "taking more risks", can you clarify please? The only risks I see are unrelated to performance issues, being - 1) targeting a more niche hardcore gamer audience, and 2) the genre being a relatively small one. Graphics wise, it looks every bit as good as any other UE made game, even better than many, but it runs butter smooth.

I like that there are places where you have to kill everyone in a room to get access to a door, but there's also places where you can find routes that take you straight to a console that activates a way past a group or two of enemies. Yeah the bland looking levels is one of the main things that made Superhot look uninteresting to me. It kinda seemed like a game that put all it's stock into a sort of physics demo. All I recall on Catalyst was every time I looked for crash fixes, I found more people experiencing the same problem I was, and no solutions mentioned. I do however recall some saying they had no such problems. I don't recall if I ever tried replaying it on my 8700k, 1080 SC spec, but it wasn't interesting enough for me to even bother anyway. Ghostrunner by comparison never crashes, lags, or stutters, and if I enable instant restarts, I can spam them as much as I want with zero issues. Considering it's made by a dev team I've never heard of, it really is a well polished, well thought out game. It's doing far better in reviews than Catalyst did. I expect better from a big team like DICE.

Actually, I find regarding the platforming and other similarities I mentioned, despite not actually playing a lot like Doom Eternal, it has much of the same feel none the less. And yes, I've read the ending is hard, but I'm avoiding spoilers. At age 63, I'll be glad if I can just get through it. BTW, never played Superhot, didn't look interesting to me. I DID play both Mirror's Edge games though, and neither really have the feel of this game. Catalyst was also a bug fest, and kept crashing constantly. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on similarities and dissimilarities.

Last night when I was playing it, I had to wonder how many Doom Eternal players play this game? It's not at all a shooter, you're basically a cyborg ninja of sorts, but it definitely has similarities to Doom Eternal. For one, you absolutely have to keep moving, as so much as one projectile from an enemy will kill you. Second, it has some pretty intense platforming, in fact it's often categorized as an FPP (First Person Platformer). Third, Ghostrunner, much like Doom Eternal, is made for hardcore players, and you definitely have to know how to use your skills to survive. Fourth, a bit like Master Levels, it has a Hardcore mode, where they throw more enemies and tougher scenarios at you. Lastly, it's tailor made for speedrunners, but also incredibly difficult to do with no or even minimal deaths.

I would have to agree with the majority here and say NO! I haven't been surfing the Doom forums much lately, as since my final play through of the main campaign, I've been waiting until both DLCs are available and fully patched. I gotta say too, I really got tired of seeing all the Marauder/Gladiator hate threads on the official DE Bethesda forums. TONS of overblown reactions that were filled with misconceptions and naivety. Regarding the DLC, as I said, haven't played either yet, but my main problem with them is both combined are only a mere half the length of a full installment. Many of us were anticipating a full 3rd installment instead to cap off what could have been a great trilogy. I myself was willing to wait another 4 years like we did between 2016 and DE to get such a title, very disappointed.

Just wanted to apologize for the comment I made, and understand why it was removed. I often harken back to humor I've heard when reading posts, and don't realize something meant as humor is often taken as criticism. I meant no harm but fully accept and understand why it was seen as ridicule. The ironic thing is, I had intended the post to be helpful instead, following the jest with words of advice, and my DE Nightmare video guide, which is aimed at showing how the game can be beat on harder modes without elite skills. So, to try to make up for my offense, I will repost said advice and guide, in hopes that it helps. I know gameplay advice and a guide video won't make up for the comment, or a distaste for the lore, but maybe it will make the game more bearable. Myself, and many others, have dealt with the struggle to reach the many keys required while playing on keyboard by binding the most useful weapons to keys closer to the navigation keys (typically called WASD keys), and two mouse thumb buttons. It is imperative to use devices like gaming mice with extra buttons to play such games. I only switch weapons at a moderate pace due to my age, but have found using the mouse scroll wheel to do the switching feels more intuitive. I also typically just switch back and forth between two powerful weapons (Ballista and Super Shotgun). Having a 3rd powerful weapon like the rocket launcher bound to a key near WASD helps finish heavies off quickly. On basic strategy, I found what helped most is setting aside checkpoint saves at the start of hard battles and reloading them until you remember what enemies spawn where, what weapons to use against them, and where to relocate to after clearing a small area, typically an area where enemies haven't spawned in yet. In this way, you can strategize how to do the battle in chunks, and stay on the move. It also helps immensely to use portals, monkey bars, and jump pads when available to relocate, and take note where the portals spawn you. In many battles there are also various structures be it walls, pillars, etc, you can momentarily hide behind while switching/reloading weapons to prepare for enemies approaching. It makes particularly good sense to use this tactic when a tough heavy that demands full attention has just spawned in. Lastly, here's that guide. Many whom were struggling with the game have said it helped them. It's the full playlist. Here's the thread on the official forum I originally posted it in. It offers detailed descriptions of each mission, and answers questions others had. It may help fill in the blanks. https://bethesda.net/community/topic/410316/how-to-beat-doom-eternal-on-nightmare-without-really-trying?language[]=en

And the delivery guy wore a mask and tried his best to practice no contact, social distancing, but he found the demons to be uncompliant. Somewhere, there remains nothing but a blood smear of this poor chap. You wouldn't want me to be Doom writer, I'd just turn it into a dark comedy.

I don't really feel that particular pickup needs any more story than others that have no story explanation. For me though, it's perfectly placed because on Nightmare it's fairly common I run out of shotgun ammo by the time I get past the last Arachnotron in that battle just before you jump across the big gap to the other side of the ravine. There's a Cacodemon that comes just before that jump and the grenade launcher suffices fine when you have no sticky bomb ammo. Why can't pickups be placed purely for gameplay reasons? Does there really have to be a story behind all their placements, especially in a Doom game? I mean just the fact that it's found on a subway after a mass invasion could easily mean the subway was used as a means of transport for some troops, much like the NY PA cops used a city bus to get to the towers during 911. Extraordinary circumstances call for unorthodox methods.

I've seen a few of his videos. He makes some good points about fans overreacting and even bashing a bit too much before they get to know a game well, but I also think he's a bit too much of a fanboy in that regard sometimes. My main dislike about him though is his style. He tends to talk like the dime a dozen hipster YTers that go too far in trying to sound cool to boost their channel rep.