Jump to content

Eckerson

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Eckerson

    The Elder Scrolls: Online

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I've felt Oblivion and Skyrim could have been nice with some 2-4 player multiplayer going on. MMO seems like too many people for an Elder Scrolls type game. Unless they're making it more like the standard MMORPG-fare, which IMO makes the whole thing feel unnecessary.

    I don't know, I guess I'll have to see what it's like when there is more information available.

    Windows 8

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I realize I could very well be wrong, but I believe that they realize the tile interface is not useful to anyone above a casual user. It really does seem geared towards the tablet or netbook market (people who mainly use a computer to check email and news). I kind of see the tile interface as Microsoft's version of what Google is doing with the ChromeOS (in a way). And even if they don't give an option to disable it, at least it appears to be easy to switch away from.

    I hope that as they are closer to releasing it (or after it's released), they start advertising those features more towards the casual user. The videos going out now seem more like a "Hey guys, check out this cool thing we're going to do" and less like a "Hey superuser, this is what you're going to be stuck with in Windows 8". I'm kind of glad to see this kind of passion in what they're doing that they want to share it as it is worked on.

    Overall, it doesn't seem like it's enough to make me want to jump from Windows 7 to it. However, if I were building or buying a new computer in the future, I wouldn't mind having it. I supposed I'll wait and see based on future news though.

    Do you prefer a controller, or a mouse for FPS games?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I've never understood why so many console FPS players don't play inverted... in fact I remember back in the day when inverted meant up=up and down=down. It just seems logical... IRL you tilt your head back to look up and forward to look down.

    And it's also the compatible method if you also play flight/space sims where pulling back on the stick means changing your pitch up. I used to play those before I started using the mouse on FPS games, so I was already used to down to look up.

    Halo is made even more complicated by the fact that I have to play with an inverted Y-axis, which hardly anyone does, so I always have to make a new character and do that, then when it's time to switch out to let someone else play, they're like wtf my controls are .sdrawkcab.

    I had the same problem here for that game. I think over the course of the main three (never played Wars or ODST), I managed to convert a player to inverted simply because they got used to it when they took over my controller.

    I still have a similar problem with keyboard/mouse games. But not because of the inverted mouse. I don't use WASD to move which throws other people off.

    Terminator Salvation

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    And that brings us back to the lousy script. It would actually have been pretty cool to have a scene between John and Kate wherein John confides that he has no idea what's going on, no idea what will happen if he lets Reese die, and expresses worry that he's allowing his father-son love for Reese to distract him from the hard choices of military leadership -- it could easily have been worked into the scene(s) about his uncertainty regarding Marcus. This would have helped to clarify Reese's role, to humanize John, and to actually portray a relationship between John and Kate.

    I completely agree with that. If their intent was to have the characters not know, it would have been nice to have known. I actually prefer that over them knowing what will happen to the timeline.

    My problem is that I don't know where Skynet got the idea that Kyle Reese was going to time travel. I could see it being aware of John Connor by way of him constantly warring with them. Is that a function of the 3rd movie's terminator essentially creating Skynet?

    On that note, why was Kyle Reese a priority target at all? It could be that the TX of the third movie gave Skynet what the future Skynet had known (Kyle Reese was sent back after the T-800, a reprogrammed T-800 was sent back after the T-1000, etc). That would have given Skynet a HUGE tactical advantage because Connor is running under advice from his mom about the original war. For all we know, this version of Skynet could decide that it won't create time travel, or that it will try to send a larger force back. That could even be the basis of a movie. The resistance has to stop Skynet from sending a large force back to kill Sarah Connor and manage to stop all but a single T-800, so they shove Kyle in after it before destroying the installation.

    A lot of this stuff would have been nice have mentioned. It could be that they wanted to leave themselves room for future movies and explain it then, but I'm sure that was not the case.

    Despite these issues, I still liked the movie, I'll still buy the DVD, and I will most likely see the next one they make.

    Terminator Salvation

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Yeah, but it's not even the paradoxes that I really have a problem with. It's the fact that, at this point in the story, we're supposed to be horrified by the prospect of Reese being killed, but we don't even know what his death would signify. If they would just tell us how time traveling or not time traveling would actually affect the present story (no effect? Connor disappears? everyone disappears? giant purple bunnies? what?), I'd be okay with it, paradoxes and all, because it would explain why Reese is an important character.

    I guess it bugs me so much because I'd been viewing the Terminator movies with an alternate universes theory, and under this theory, Reese's death would screw up someone else's reality, but not the reality that the story deals with, so it would seem completely inconsequential.

    I was under the impression that Connor was running under a "worse case scenario" mindset when it came to keeping Reese alive. I don't think any of the characters really know what would happen if Reese was killed. I believe that extended to Skynet, which would explain why Skynet wanted to kill both of Reese and Connor.

    So Connor was concerned that it would undo everything for the humans, including his existance, and Skynet was concerned that it would not impact their current timeline at all, only an alternate one.

    I don't think that they could have explained outright what the impact would be, because if it was known in the movie, then how one side acted would not make as much sense (although I doubt that much thought went into it). Connor would still probably want to protect Reese even if it would only affect a different timeline to protect that one as well, but if it was known that killing Reese would undo everything I would think Skynet would have just killed Reese and been done with it.

    OverClocked ReMix Design ?'s and Issues

    in Site Issues & Feedback

    Posted

    Looking fine in Firefox on mac. Doesn't look as good in Safari. Dunno how many Safari users there are that visit OCR so I don't know if it'd be worth it to fix it unless it can be done easily.

    Here's how it looks to me.

    Forgive me if it was mentioned already, I checked back a few pages to see if this was mentioned, but the safari pic was the only one I could find. This is actually how it looks for me in Firefox 3 RC1 (I know it's not a final version, but if a final version of a browser is doing it too, it may still happen in Firefox 3 post-release).

    Super Smash Bros. Brawl

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    The thing is, it was much more of a concerted effort to pull off moves even if they were pretty simple 'press buttons again and again' types. It helped add the fanaticism to the action a bit, button mashing in panic and whatnot.

    Now people will just sit there and hold buttons.. I bet pro players will opt for button presses for speed or optimal accuracy or any of that 'pro level' BS.

    True, which makes me wonder if there will be some other side effect to just holding down the button. Like, the combo of button mashing will do slightly more damage.

    Another thing I wonder is how this will affect doing smash attacks. Since you could charge the smash attack previously, if you're off on your timing, you'll go into the continuous punch.

    Super Smash Bros. Brawl

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Is it just me or does the new control scheme sound like a dumbing down of the original controls? Now you don't have to press buttons anymore. Just hold them. eh..

    One instance doesn't actually qualify as a dumbing-down, methinks. Not that there's terribly much to Smash controls in the first place...

    And it's not that holding down the button will do anything special. In the example, it says hold to do continuous jabs, press repeatedly to initiate a combo. So they didn't get rid of the "Press the button a bunch of times to do rapid attacks," but they diversified it a little.

×
×
  • Create New...