🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2016-12-01, Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> * ADR1FT (new)
> It didn't really occur to me that ADR1FT (Adrift henceforth, because I
> refuse to speak type like that any more) was a VR game; it really
> wasn't advertised as such. Rather, I purchased it understanding it was
> a narrative simulator (a.k.a., a "walking game", in the vein of "Gone
> Home" or "The Stanley Parable"). But I guess it has to be judged
> solely on its VR capabilities, because it is so lacking in everything
> else.
>[...]
> Possibly if I owned a VR headset (a waste of money, I've decided) the
> experience might have been different... but I don't think so.
> Certainly the 6-degrees of freedom would make for a nauseating
> experience that some might find enjoyable, but even so I think the
> lack of any real progression or any interesting goal would make even
> the most dedicated VR-head get much enjoyment from the software. It's
> a shallow and empty adventure no matter how you experience it. 

In VR the game wrenches control from you every time you pass an O2
cannister, causing disorientation and nausea. It's the only game I've
ever left a negative Steam review for.

> * Doom 4 (new)
> If Doom 3 was a reboot of the original Doom, then Doom 4 (or Doom
> 2016, or DOOM, or whatever I am supposed to call it) feels like a
> reboot to Doom 2. For all its gory and fast-paced action, the first
> Doom game was equally drenched in atmosphere; with its (at the time
> very sophisticated) lighting effects, it was at times a genuinely
> creepy game, with moments of quiet suspense that inevitably lead to
> balls-to-the-wall gunfights as soon as you crossed some invisible
> trigger. Doom 2, on the other hand, forsake much of this flavor in
> favor of gimmicky levels and a focus on the gameplay. Personally, I
> consider the former the better game, but I can understand the appeal
> of the second.
> [...]
> I was not particularly impressed by the graphics. Don't get me wrong;
> Doom 4 is a pretty game, but Id's tech has been the benchmark against
> which other engines and games are measured. Doom 4, on the other hand,
> was only average in appearance; there are far prettier games on the
> market. Having said that, Id does deserve kudos for how well it
> OPTIMIZED that engine; even running on a three year old GPU (and a
> five year old CPU), the game ran at a constant 60FPS with almost all
> the settings on Ultra. 

I think they are to be commended for paying attention to optimisation.
I'm tired of AAA games that think it's OK to dip the framerate during
intenses scenes. The Doom engine is incredible and consistent.


-- 
-Toby
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.