A lot of disappointing answers in Bungie's AMA...

From the IGN AMA, there's a number of confirmations that are really upsetting, especially given how much the community requested a number of features. A couple of examples:

Will our characters remain mute throughout the sequel?
Luke Smith: Yep.

Well, that seals it. Awkward immersion-breaking staring and silence in the name of "immersion" it is. Makes sense, especially since it's been established that our character aren't mute. Bungie has literally pulled a Michael Bay by inexplicably taking away our speech for the sequel.

Will [Theater Mode] be included in Destiny 2? And will we at least still be able to do the sword glitch to make fan films?
Mark Noseworthy: D2 doesn’t feature a Theater Mode. I don’t know for certain if the sword glitch still functions. We’ve changed a lot of the code and content under the hood for how things work, including swords (of which there are now many types).

The fact that they have no Theater support in D2 is baffling. The fact that they don't even work to give players a tool to at least work around this lack of support is equally mind-boggling. And worst of all, it could be so simple to do. Give us an exotic weapon that lowers our hands (a free exotic that lets us equip other exotic weapons). L2 zooms in 2x, L2+R2 zooms in 4x. Zoom locks in until you pull R2 again. Bam, no more trying to do sword glitches, and players have a bit more control.
If other players have the same exotic equipped, you see their guardians standing with their arms at their side like in a Social Space.
If they have a Machinima Artifact equipped, they simply lower their equipped weapons.

So much stuff that they could do, why do they put zero effort towards it?
I don't even want to talk about what other devs have done for their games in this regard; I'll just get way more bummed out about it.

locked

5229 views

From the IGN AMA, there's a number of confirmations that are really upsetting, especially given how much the community requested a number of features. A couple of examples:

IGN user Theguy05 asks: Was their anything that the community missed in Destiny 1 that bungie snuck into the game?

Luke Smith: On one hand probably. On the other hand probably not. It just depends on if you’re left or right-handed.

locked

5096 views

Will our characters remain mute throughout the sequel?
Luke Smith: Yep.

[image]

locked

5067 views

Other developers had prepared their games for 4K, HDR and Wide Colour Gamut. Bungie it seems, not so much.

Bungie is still throwing out that bilge that they don't know what they can do with D2 on XB1X when other game developers have already announced their game upgrades. The development kits have been out for months. Even PUBG is running on it (looking forward to it too).

Many of you have said 1080p is good enough and you're not upgrading now, so it doesn't affect you. Reality check. TVs are already highly available as 4K, HDR and WCG. Only the low end TVs are 1080p now. So we're looking at perhaps three years of our favorite game (D2) being the dog in the 4K pony show. It's going to burn a bit and as the months go by, it going to get a little burny-er.

locked

5057 views

Other developers had prepared their games for 4K, HDR and Wide Colour Gamut. Bungie it seems, not so much.

Bungie is still throwing out that bilge that they don't know what they can do with D2 on XB1X when other game developers have already announced their game upgrades. The development kits have been out for months. Even PUBG is running on it (looking forward to it too).

It's clearly not a priority, given their general development replies (remember that Private Matches haven't even been worked into D2 for launch).

Many of you have said 1080p is good enough and you're not upgrading now, so it doesn't affect you. Reality check. TVs are already highly available as 4K, HDR and WCG. Only the low end TVs are 1080p now. So we're looking at perhaps three years of our favorite game (D2) being the dog in the 4K pony show. It's going to burn a bit and as the months go by, it going to get a little burny-er.

I think you're vastly overestimating the 4k market and the standards that people will have in a few years. Just last year, there were many people playing Destiny at 720p on last-gen consoles. And not only that, but the xXboneXx crowd is going to be a very niche market. 4k will likely not be a priority for Bungie until 2020 at the earliest, and that's mostly because the "4K" consoles will have a decent install base.

Let's look at the numbers:
PS4 has well over a 2:1 sales ratio over the Xbone. Of those, it has a 4:1 sale ratio to the PS4 Pro. And of those purchases, how many do you imagine have a 4ktv? TV sales in general seem to be declining more or less steadily over the past five years, as more people finally have 1080p TVs (Heck, just this past week, my brother got himself a 720p TV, and he's happy with it. Go figure). I dunno. Despite Microsoft spamming the term "4K" over and over at E3, I really don't hear a whole lot of people actually falling for it. What will be the Xbone to XOXO sales ratio (even Phil Spencer has a bit of a bleak outlook)? How long do you think it will take for even a third of console players to have a 4K-supporting console?
Given how small the userbase will be (it's practically non-existent at this point compared to the existing playerbase), do you think that 4k/HDR/WCG are high demand features from the consumer base? No. Then why would a developer put the extra manpower into them now rather than later?

If anything, HDR is likely to be their earliest focus, since even Launch day PS4s support it, even if the majority of TVs in the world currently don't.

locked

5017 views

So, we should just stop the clocks and all go 720p now?

There's only one way forward to this story. Sony had a head start last year with PS4 Pro. Do you think they went 4K without good reason? It was preparation for the inevitable. If Sony had fielded the same specs as XB1X last year, I'm sure your point of view would be quite different today and not waiting for 2.5 years to pass.

locked

4957 views

So, we should just stop the clocks and all go 720p now?

No. But you can't demand that devs immediately cater to every new tech that springs up. Remember when 343 added 3D support to Halo: Anniversary? Yeah, that investment sure paid off, huh?

There's only one way forward to this story. Sony had a head start last year with PS4 Pro. Do you think they went 4K without good reason? It was preparation for the inevitable. If Sony had fielded the same specs as XB1X last year, I'm sure your point of view would be quite different today and not waiting for 2.5 years to pass.

Nope. Remember that I'm one of the people who champions 30fps against the neckbeards who claim that games are unplayable at that old speed. My phone is from 2012, and I prefer my cheap 32 inch screen to Sammy's Smart tv. I can adapt and move forward with technology, sure (I have a Launch Day PS4 Pro, after all), but I also know that some things need further refinement in quality or price (PSVR is neat, but not something I'll be buying anytime soon), and they always will be better and cheaper down the road.

HDR is neat, but they are making 1080p TVs with HDR now for those who actually care, but don't want to dump $800+ for a 4KTV that has it (Remember, if your 4k TV is under $800, it likely doesn't have HDR... yet).

And historically, the market seems to absolve my point of view.

locked

4938 views

And historically, the market seems to absolve my point of view.

Cool, I find that markets tend to agree with my point of view. ;)

Bungie is always an outlier for me. I love their games but they can still disappoint me.

locked

4947 views

Korny: And historically, the market seems to absolve my point of view.

DEEP_NNN: Cool, I find that markets tend to agree with my point of view. ;)
...

You're both wrong! It's not GIF, it's not G-IF, it's GI-F! :P

...oh? What were we talking about?

locked

4972 views

On a screen so small, 4K is not beneficial, and is in fact harmful due to the extra processing. There is a reason a huge number of feature films are still finished and projected in 2K, and here we are talking about a movie theatre sized screen!

1080p also scales fantastically to 4K TVs.

Go for HDR, but leave 4K behind and give us better looking 1080p for now.

locked

4969 views

Headline:
A Cody Miller was dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, the 20th before that and the 19th before that.

Life's lessons.
Your parents may be old enough to know a true story like this. My father was one of the first TV repairmen in Nova Scotia in the first years of 1950's. As such, it was deemed to be a good idea that he own a TV. No TV signal of any strength was available at the time. Many people, visited our tiny house to see their very first snowy TV images from CBC. Try before you buy was probably invented in my house.

I'm sure at that time there were many Cody Millers who said audio was good enough and it was amply available via radio. They no doubt expounded upon the use of one's own imaginative visualization to fill their minds using the context of the spoken word.

Here we are today, in the 21st century. Nobody listened to the Cody Millers of the 1950's. We all have a TV. Soon we'll all have 4K and what ever comes after that.

Sometimes the cart really does come before the cart.

A bit of pain for a bit of gain for a bit of pain for a bit of gain and etc.

You should not try to hold back the clock.

locked

4951 views

You should not try to hold back the clock.

There is a difference between a snowy awful SD TV signal, and a 1080p signal. There are limits to human perception. You could record and playback 192khz 32bit audio, and it would sound just like 44.1khz 16 bit (and actually possibly worse due to the inaudible signals causing distortion). Because 44.1khz 16 bit is enough to perfectly record the entire range of human hearing.

There is a minuscule, if any difference between 1080p and 4K on a 40-50 inch screen. You need to sit 10 feet from a 150 inch screen to fully resolve 4K over 1080p. This is optics and human biology. Meanwhile you are using horsepower to render 4x the pixels. You will improve the image in much more demonstrable ways by using that GPU power for more shaders and graphical effects. There is a huge sacrifice to 4K, and very little if any gain.

Believe me. I am a stickler for quality. I purposely saw Dunkirk on a real IMAX screen with real IMAX film rolling through the projector. Wasting that on the dinky screen of your local multiplex was unthinkable.

locked

4955 views

There is a minuscule, if any difference between 1080p and 4K on a 40-50 inch screen. You need to sit 10 feet from a 150 inch screen to fully resolve 4K over 1080p. This is optics and human biology. Meanwhile you are using horsepower to render 4x the pixels. You will improve the image in much more demonstrable ways by using that GPU power for more shaders and graphical effects. There is a huge sacrifice to 4K, and very little if any gain.>

On the other hand, for those of us without a lot of space, we can get a bigger TV, sit closer and have a true home theater experience without needing as much dedicated space.

Believe me. I am a stickler for quality. I purposely saw Dunkirk on a real IMAX screen with real IMAX film rolling through the projector. Wasting that on the dinky screen of your local multiplex was unthinkable.

Man, I wish there was a 70mm IMAX less than 3 hours away.

locked

4840 views

Believe me. I am a stickler for quality. I purposely saw Dunkirk on a real IMAX screen with real IMAX film rolling through the projector. Wasting that on the dinky screen of your local multiplex was unthinkable.

Man, I wish there was a 70mm IMAX less than 3 hours away.

Not that it makes it better, but just as a PSA, a bunch of theaters are advertising 70mm IMAX, but they mean 5/70 instead of 15/70.

locked

4761 views

Believe me. I am a stickler for quality. I purposely saw Dunkirk on a real IMAX screen with real IMAX film rolling through the projector. Wasting that on the dinky screen of your local multiplex was unthinkable.

Man, I wish there was a 70mm IMAX less than 3 hours away.

Not that it makes it better, but just as a PSA, a bunch of theaters are advertising 70mm IMAX, but they mean 5/70 instead of 15/70.

There are many more films shot on 65mm (5/70) than 15/70. So yeah, if you are going to see Lawrence of Arabia, see it in 5/70 because that's the way it was shot. Just do your homework on a film by film basis.

locked

4733 views

Meh.

The truth is that the technology isnt there yet for 4K on any console. Yes, a few games can get there natively like Forza. But right now it seems like most console games are either straining to hit true 4K or are resorting to things like checkerboard rendering to pretend they are 4K. Now certainly 4K is here to stay unlike the 3D idiocy the tv industry tried to push on everyone a few years ago, but I’m pretty content to wait until the next full console generation before thinking of getting a 4K tv.

And #codywasright, supporting HDR, which allows for game developers to do things like reduce color banding and give us better darks and brights, even at 1080p, is a far better use of their time and our money than throwing more pixels at an image resolution problem that is already largely solved.

But don’t take our word for it. Here’s a couple great articles on the benefits of HDR:

CNET - What is HDR for TVs, and why should you care?
Ars Technica - High Dynamic Range, explained: There’s a reason to finally get a new TV.

And a choice quote that sums things up pretty well:

The problem with restricting maximum brightness to 100 nits (as in TV and Blu-ray) is that the brighter the color, the closer it becomes to white, so bright colors become less saturated. For example, the brightest saturated blue on an ordinary display is a mere 7 nits, so a blue sky will never be as bright and saturated as it should be.

All your bluster about pushing technology forward is correct, DEEP_NNN, you’ve just unfortunately latched onto resolution, the thing that needs to be pushed forward the least at this point, when things like HDR can provide a much better image at any resolution.

locked

4898 views

when things like HDR can provide a much better image at any resolution.

Part of my original point was just that.

Bungie is late to the starting gate on this. I'm cranky about it because two consoles will be capable of utilizing it come November. 10 bit display panels (reduce colour banding), HDR and WCG (wide colour gamut) are the very things that can make Bungie's great looking games look even better. Yet somehow they dropped the ball on HDR and WCG.

FYI. HDR without WCG is not as good as having both. Ratings.com has info on this too. I've read your other links at earlier dates. The best sources of 4K, 10bit panels, HDR and WCG are OLED an a dimly lit room. I'd have one today if not for the price.

locked

4920 views

Headline:
A Cody Miller was dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, the 20th before that and the 19th before that.

Life's lessons.
Your parents may be old enough to know a true story like this. My father was one of the first TV repairmen in Nova Scotia in the first years of 1950's. As such, it was deemed to be a good idea that he own a TV. No TV signal of any strength was available at the time. Many people, visited our tiny house to see their very first snowy TV images from CBC. Try before you buy was probably invented in my house.

I'm sure at that time there were many Cody Millers who said audio was good enough and it was amply available via radio. They no doubt expounded upon the use of one's own imaginative visualization to fill their minds using the context of the spoken word.

Here we are today, in the 21st century. Nobody listened to the Cody Millers of the 1950's. We all have a TV. Soon we'll all have 4K and what ever comes after that.

Sometimes the cart really does come before the cart.

A bit of pain for a bit of gain for a bit of pain for a bit of gain and etc.

You should not try to hold back the clock.

I understand, and largely agree with, the spirit of your point here. But in this specific circumstance, Cody really is right (at least partially).

When you take into account the average screen size as well as the average viewing distance of people's TVs at home, the human eye can barely detect the difference between 1080 and 4K, or in some cases, can't detect it at all. Console makers are dedicating huge amounts of processor power to an improvement that is barely perceptible for the average gamer. It's not an efficient use of hardware. However, it fits nicely into marketing trends and buzz words.

I'd much rather see the extra horsepower spent in ways that have more meaningful impacts on games, even if the impacts are purely visual. HDR, faster and more consistent frame rates, HD textures (just because a game runs at 1080 doesn't mean every texture being displayed is a 1080 texture).

locked

4791 views

I understand, and largely agree with, the spirit of your point here. But in this specific circumstance, Cody really is right (at least partially).

When you take into account the average screen size as well as the average viewing distance of people's TVs at home, the human eye can barely detect the difference between 1080 and 4K, or in some cases, can't detect it at all. Console makers are dedicating huge amounts of processor power to an improvement that is barely perceptible for the average gamer. It's not an efficient use of hardware. However, it fits nicely into marketing trends and buzz words.

I'd much rather see the extra horsepower spent in ways that have more meaningful impacts on games, even if the impacts are purely visual. HDR, faster and more consistent frame rates, HD textures (just because a game runs at 1080 doesn't mean every texture being displayed is a 1080 texture).

Steve Yedlin, cinematographer on Looper, Brick, and now The Last Jedi, took a bunch of high end cameras and discusses the impact of resolution on quality and I think the arguments he makes translate pretty well to games as both involve pipelines that process those pixels, in albeit different ways.

Resolution Demo

locked

4748 views

Steve Yedlin, cinematographer on Looper, Brick, and now The Last Jedi, took a bunch of high end cameras and discusses the impact of resolution on quality and I think the arguments he makes translate pretty well to games as both involve pipelines that process those pixels, in albeit different ways.

Resolution Demo

I get what he's doing, but trying to match the images with color correction as close as possible defeats the purpose of shooting on film anyway. You can make film look like a digital camera, but there is still a lot film can do that a digital camera can't match. So yeah, you can bring film down to that level, but you can't bring digital up. At least not yet.

I'm not even a DP, and I can tell immediately whether something is film or digital, and can even tell the difference between the Alexa and RED quite easily. These digital cameras have limitations film does not, but it's getting better all the time.

Kodak created the Cineon file format when 35mm film needed to be digitized. They obviously wanted the best image possible, so they chose 2K for resolution, and a 10 bit logarithmic color format. They prioritized color and dynamic range over resolution. Huh. Isn't that something?

Screen size matters. 35mm and 65mm of the same film stock will both look basically the same on a TV. But when you go watch Dunkirk on a screen literally 100 feet high, the extra resolution of IMAX film really matters. 35mm starts to get fuzzy. So yeah. In that instance anyone can see the difference.

But when we are talking about screen sizes in your living room, you are not going to gain a benefit why rendering your game at 4K. Other things make the images look 'better'.

If we are talking VR, that is a different story entirely. We are looking at 8K per eye before the resolution is acceptable.

locked

4759 views

Screen size matters. 35mm and 65mm of the same film stock will both look basically the same on a TV. But when you go watch Dunkirk on a screen literally 100 feet high, the extra resolution of IMAX film really matters. 35mm starts to get fuzzy. So yeah. In that instance anyone can see the difference.

seeing it at the IMAX here in SF wednesday, pretty pumped

locked

4746 views

Consensus on Dunkirk? Top movie? Should I go see it in IMAX?

locked

4632 views

Consensus on Dunkirk? Top movie? Should I go see it in IMAX?

Real IMAX is the best way to see it. I enjoyed the experience but wouldn't see t again if that makes sense.

Tom Hardy is so good though. As one critic put it, he does more with a couple glances at his instruments than most actors do in their whole career. Maybe he should facecap our Guardians! LOL!

locked

4779 views

Consensus on Dunkirk? Top movie? Should I go see it in IMAX?

Real IMAX is the best way to see it. I enjoyed the experience but wouldn't see t again if that makes sense.

you really should stop saying "real IMAX" not only is it an inaccurate term, it's not much help to those trying to pick a theater.

locked

4735 views

Consensus on Dunkirk? Top movie? Should I go see it in IMAX?

Real IMAX is the best way to see it. I enjoyed the experience but wouldn't see t again if that makes sense.

you really should stop saying "real IMAX" not only is it an inaccurate term, it's not much help to those trying to pick a theater.

When I say real IMAX I mean:

Film Stock
70mm
15 perforations per frame.
Large Screen.

locked

4765 views

Consensus on Dunkirk? Top movie? Should I go see it in IMAX?

Real IMAX is the best way to see it. I enjoyed the experience but wouldn't see t again if that makes sense.

you really should stop saying "real IMAX" not only is it an inaccurate term, it's not much help to those trying to pick a theater.

When I say real IMAX I mean:

Film Stock
70mm
15 perforations per frame.
Large Screen.

Could you point to good source that tells which is which? I know some that were film have converted to digital.

locked

4569 views

Could you point to good source that tells which is which? I know some that were film have converted to digital.

http://tickets.dunkirkmovie.com

On the theatre dropdown, 70mm means 5/70. IMAX 70mm means 15/70. Looks like you have a 2.5 hour drive to see IMAX 70mm (The Charlotte Observer IMAX Dome, Discovery Place).

locked

4607 views

- No text -

locked

4747 views

IMAX, U.S. Space & Rocket Center – Huntsville
IMAX Dome, McWane Center – Birmingham
Regal Mall of Georgia Stadium 20 & IMAX - Buford

locked

4422 views

IMAX, U.S. Space & Rocket Center – Huntsville
IMAX Dome, McWane Center – Birmingham
Regal Mall of Georgia Stadium 20 & IMAX - Buford

Like I said in the other thread, I don't recommend OmnIMAX (dome) theaters, but MOSI Tampa often will show stuff after the more mainstream theaters have something else they want to show, so there is that. Have they finished the Dolby Theater conversion at Disney Springs AMC yet?

locked

4384 views

They ran an exhibit a few years ago that was vaguely anti vaccination. I left a complaint and decided to not visit again.

But then again, I'm quick to boycott. Maybe I'll go back before/after a Tigers game if the movie's there before September.

Either way, I should probably go at Disney Marketplace to see what that Dolby Cinema thing is all about. Vibrating chairs. Yum.

Are you in Florida, Vortech? Want to meet up? Send me an email. If not, that's some weirdly specialized info you have there if you don't spend a significant amount of your time in central Florida.

locked

4220 views

I grew up in Tampa, worked at MOSI, care about theater tech, and am a huge Disney Parks nerd, so this just happened to hit a sweet spot of information I have at my disposal. But no, I live in Atlanta (so, the other area that keeps coming up in this conversation)

Part of being a Disney Parks Nerd is that I go to WDW 4-5 times a year, though, so meeting up is still fairly possible if you're willing to go somewhere the Disney buses would take me. Sometime in October is most likely my next trip.

locked

4190 views

I'm just so poor I can't afford to go more than once a year, if that. But I follow all the blogs and stuff.

I'll be driving through Atlanta on August 30th or September 1st. I'm only going to be in Florida for a month; then I have to go back home to Michigan. We should hook up somehow. Make a day trip down here! I'll see what I can scrounge together for dough and we can do a DBO Disney field trip.

locked

4183 views

Aug 30 could work, but after that it's DragonCon 24/7 all weekend.

locked

4165 views

This is definitely theoretically possible. Send me an email with the forum form for sure and we'll see what can happen. I might be driving north for the eclipse anyway, so I could still pull off a Georgia Omnimax thing.

locked

4144 views

Regal Mall of Georgia Stadium 20 & IMAX - Buford

Red Robber and I watched a NASCAR documentary there many years ago. Turns out we were in some of the crowd shots from one of the Daytona races in the documentary, and the next day after we watched it we ran into some people who we recognized from the crowd shots. We ended up tailgating with them at Atlanta Motor Speedway.

locked

4353 views

- No text -

locked

4202 views

- No text -

locked

4222 views

If you came that far, you might as well come all the way to Nashville and I'll watch it with you.
https://www.regmovies.com/theaters/regal-opry-mills-stadium-20-imax-rpx/7205

locked

4236 views

Could you point to good source that tells which is which? I know some that were film have converted to digital.

http://tickets.dunkirkmovie.com

On the theatre dropdown, 70mm means 5/70. IMAX 70mm means 15/70. Looks like you have a 2.5 hour drive to see IMAX 70mm (The Charlotte Observer IMAX Dome, Discovery Place).

So you have to look this up on a per-movie basis?

I don't know what 5/70 or 15/70 means. I just want a web site that explains it and has current information. I'm afraid an old article I used to refer to is outdated. I've heard they've "updated" at least one of the IMAX screens in D.C. to digital.

locked

4374 views

Could you point to good source that tells which is which? I know some that were film have converted to digital.

http://tickets.dunkirkmovie.com

On the theatre dropdown, 70mm means 5/70. IMAX 70mm means 15/70. Looks like you have a 2.5 hour drive to see IMAX 70mm (The Charlotte Observer IMAX Dome, Discovery Place).

So you have to look this up on a per-movie basis?

I don't know what 5/70 or 15/70 means. I just want a web site that explains it and has current information. I'm afraid an old article I used to refer to is outdated. I've heard they've "updated" at least one of the IMAX screens in D.C. to digital.

I don't even know how you found Charlotte using that site. It didn't let me select IMAX only and didn't show theaters that far away from Raleigh. I had to expand the other cities list five times to show Charlotte, and then with no indication until I selected it that it offered IMAX 70Mmm.

locked

4395 views

I'm gunna forge ahead with using the terminology. here's a few links that explain (for that last link, you can read the middle image as 70mm, it will be more detailed, but still a different aspect ratio). If they have a 15/70 projector, you'll probably know it. It's enormous and very expensive so they usually make a big deal about it. The Weather itself should be a tip off too. The angle of setting is MUCH more steep than you would be used to elsewhere, if you are in a 15/70 IMAX theater.

As for digital, I don't think any place has replaced a 15/70 with digital (see again size and expense). Seriously, think a size ranging from van to tractor-trailer truck. Usually the digital projectors were added in so they could slide into position if they wanted to use the there for a non-IMAX film, or if they wanted to save shipping cost on a hybrid film. In other words, you shouldn't need to worry about a 15/70 "switching to digital". OTOH, you DO need to worry about a standard theater being converted to IMAX digital theater. that will be disappointing if the film was built for 15/70. OTOH (wait, how many hands do I have?) The IMAX Digital Laser projectors are pretty sweet (dual 4K and bright as hell) so I'm not saying to avoid them for anything not shot in 15/70.

Finally, as someone who used to work in an OmnIMAX, my subject line was being facetious; I don't recommend seeing it there. Sometimes it is worthwhile for feature films, but the spherical screen usually makes it feel too distorted. If you do, though, be there when the door opens to get a seat RIGHT NEXT to the projector box in the middle. Any other seat will be garbage for a feature film.

locked

4389 views

I'm gunna forge ahead with using the terminology. here's a few links that explain (for that last link, you can read the middle image as 70mm, it will be more detailed, but still a different aspect ratio). If they have a 15/70 projector, you'll probably know it. It's enormous and very expensive so they usually make a big deal about it. The Weather itself should be a tip off too. The angle of setting is MUCH more steep than you would be used to elsewhere, if you are in a 15/70 IMAX theater.

As for digital, I don't think any place has replaced a 15/70 with digital (see again size and expense). Seriously, think a size ranging from van to tractor-trailer truck. Usually the digital projectors were added in so they could slide into position if they wanted to use the there for a non-IMAX film, or if they wanted to save shipping cost on a hybrid film. In other words, you shouldn't need to worry about a 15/70 "switching to digital". OTOH, you DO need to worry about a standard theater being converted to IMAX digital theater. that will be disappointing if the film was built for 15/70. OTOH (wait, how many hands do I have?) The IMAX Digital Laser projectors are pretty sweet (dual 4K and bright as hell) so I'm not saying to avoid them for anything not shot in 15/70.

Finally, as someone who used to work in an OmnIMAX, my subject line was being facetious; I don't recommend seeing it there. Sometimes it is worthwhile for feature films, but the spherical screen usually makes it feel too distorted. If you do, though, be there when the door opens to get a seat RIGHT NEXT to the projector box in the middle. Any other seat will be garbage for a feature film.

Thanks.

Still don't have a link that points to theaters. Honestly, it's getting close to the more trouble than it's worth mark. Twenty years ago I saw some amazing stuff in IMAX, was excited at the proliferation of IMAX theaters, then I saw these new "IMAX theaters". <--deliberate scare quotes.

It all just makes me want to stay home.

locked

4364 views

Yeah. I get that, and I don't think you are alone. That's why I was poking at Cody to stop saying "real IMAX" because it just winds up being FUD that further confuses consumers.

At this point it's best to think of "IMAX" the way people think of "THX". (I know, its more complicated than that…) IMAX will certify theaters and make sure they meed certain minimum specs and quality levels (and then it is up to the theater to keep it maintained at that level). The so called "fake" IMAX theaters are not a bad thing. In fact some are fantastic (like the Laser IMAX I mentioned) and even if it's' the worst IMAX theater in the world it is still likely to be the best theater in that complex, or really even that town. It's just not anything like 15/70mm so it's not the best choice for something shot on IMAX film.

Clearly, I have a lot of interest in IMAX and I want it to spread and be used more, but people are too confused to create demand. It's sad.

Unfortunately, that link you are looking for is what Cody provided. If you want a different tool, or are looking for non-dunkirk movies, the IMAX corp web site has a "find a theater" link at the top of their page. Look for "IMAX" not "IMAX 2D" in the listings.

locked

4348 views

Unfortunately, that link you are looking for is what Cody provided. If you want a different tool, or are looking for non-dunkirk movies, the IMAX corp web site has a "find a theater" link at the top of their page. Look for "IMAX" not "IMAX 2D" in the listings.

The Dunkirk site is crap for finding IMAX. The filters don't even work.

locked

4350 views

I don't know what 5/70 or 15/70 means. I just want a web site that explains it and has current information. I'm afraid an old article I used to refer to is outdated. I've heard they've "updated" at least one of the IMAX screens in D.C. to digital.

5/70 Refers to 70mm film run vertically through the projector, and there are 5 perforations per frame. You can see the aspect ratio is much wider, but the frame is smaller. It is an older common format. 15/70 is 70mm film run horizontally through the projector, with 15 perforations per frame. The aspect ratio is more square, but the image is much larger and clearer. This is IMAX.

If you see Dunkirk in 70mm, you can see you will lose a good portion of the top and bottom of the image. If you see it in IMAX 70mm, you get the full frame.

If you see "IMAX 70mm", you are getting the full image. If you see "70mm", you are seeing a crop if the film was shot in IMAX 70mm. The IMAX website is helpful in finding locations, but you can always call your theatre.

Also note that few films are shot in IMAX 70mm. Most movies have a few scenes here or there. Dunkirk was over 80%. But if you look at Rogue One, even though it was shot with a 65mm Digital sensor, the sensor size is similar to a regular 65mm film frame. This means you are wasting your money seeing Rogue One in IMAX.

locked

4385 views

I don't know what 5/70 or 15/70 means. I just want a web site that explains it and has current information. I'm afraid an old article I used to refer to is outdated. I've heard they've "updated" at least one of the IMAX screens in D.C. to digital.

5/70 Refers to 70mm film run vertically through the projector, and there are 5 perforations per frame. You can see the aspect ratio is much wider, but the frame is smaller. It is an older common format. 15/70 is 70mm film run horizontally through the projector, with 15 perforations per frame. The aspect ratio is more square, but the image is much larger and clearer. This is IMAX.

If you see Dunkirk in 70mm, you can see you will lose a good portion of the top and bottom of the image. If you see it in IMAX 70mm, you get the full frame.

If you see "IMAX 70mm", you are getting the full image. If you see "70mm", you are seeing a crop if the film was shot in IMAX 70mm. The IMAX website is helpful in finding locations, but you can always call your theatre.

Also note that few films are shot in IMAX 70mm. Most movies have a few scenes here or there. Dunkirk was over 80%. But if you look at Rogue One, even though it was shot with a 65mm Digital sensor, the sensor size is similar to a regular 65mm film frame. This means you are wasting your money seeing Rogue One in IMAX.

Okay, please share sources. I know you're in the business so you probably know stuff just because, but surely there are websites that make it easy to find out things like how different films should be viewed ideally.

locked

4377 views

Okay, please share sources. I know you're in the business so you probably know stuff just because, but surely there are websites that make it easy to find out things like how different films should be viewed ideally.

In general you don't have to worry too much about it. The only one that's not in the 35mm aspect ratios that the vast majority of theaters support is the 15/70mm movies and those are pretty darn rare. IMAX.com is a decent way to find out what movies that are coming up that were filmed with those cameras. For the rest of it, you can just decide based on theater technology preference. Cody put his list, and I mostly agree (I'm assuming his list was specifically for the movie Dunkirk), but I'll make a general list of my preferences that incorporates the branding and such that you are more likely to see advertised:

1. IMAX Laser
2. Dolby Cinema / AMC Prime with Dolby Cinema /
3. IMAX Digital / IMAX 2D or 3D / The IMAX Experience / (annoyingly, the theater chains don't make a good effort to specify so you will see things like) IMAX at AMC or IMAX at Regal even though it's not using 15/70
4. AMC Prime (but not Dolby cinema) or RPX (these are the upgraded theater brands for theater chains, and the only mean whatever the theaters feel like they should mean at any given time)
5. If you can find a "THX Certified" theater anymore that's a good thing, but very rare, and at thins point might actually suggest that the tech is fairly old. Since almost lighting is distributed on film I'm putting this last.
6. ok, I guess last is actually everything else. Make decisions based on non-movie attributes like location, concessions, seating plan and such.

locked

4221 views

Could you point to good source that tells which is which? I know some that were film have converted to digital.

http://tickets.dunkirkmovie.com

On the theatre dropdown, 70mm means 5/70. IMAX 70mm means 15/70. Looks like you have a 2.5 hour drive to see IMAX 70mm (The Charlotte Observer IMAX Dome, Discovery Place).

So I visited that site, and it showed Seattle and surrounding area. However, the only IMAX 70mm theater (I think) in the area is NOT on the list. (It shows the theater - at the Pacific Science Center - on the map, but it's greyed out, and cannot be selected.)

[image]

PSC is the icon on the left of that image. Non-selectable.

I'm not POSITIVE it's the right kind of IMAX theater, because I don't know how to check - but I just wanted people to be aware that this tool is limited. :(

locked

4368 views

I'm not POSITIVE it's the right kind of IMAX theater, because I don't know how to check - but I just wanted people to be aware that this tool is limited. :(

It's not. It's IMAX laser. It is 4K digital projection. Seattle has been without a 70mm IMAX venue since the Boeing IMAX theatre went digital and removed their film projectors in 2015.

You probably could not select that theatre, because by default the link I sent searches for film showings only.

Yes it is confusing.

From Best to worst (in my opinion:)

70mm IMAX - Best Quality. Full Frame.
IMAX Laser - 4K Digital Projection. Full Frame. Very good color and contrast.
Normal 70mm - Film Quality, but matted losing the top and bottom of the frame
35mm - Film Quality, but matted losing the top and bottom of the frame
IMAX Digital - Digital projection. Not full frame
Regular Digital - What you get at your local theatre

locked

4380 views

I'm not POSITIVE it's the right kind of IMAX theater, because I don't know how to check - but I just wanted people to be aware that this tool is limited. :(

It's not. It's IMAX laser. It is 4K digital projection. Seattle has been without a 70mm IMAX venue since the Boeing IMAX theatre went digital and removed their film projectors in 2015.

Dude, will you please tell us where you get this info instead of spouting it off. We don't want to have to ask you every time we want to see a movie.

And Vortech said film IMAX theaters weren't replacing film with digital.

I'm confused and frustrated.

locked

4310 views

Dude, will you please tell us where you get this info instead of spouting it off. We don't want to have to ask you every time we want to see a movie.

You can google all of this!

IMAX has a website with a theatre finder.
Notable movies have websites with theatre finders.
I provided the link to the theatre finder for Dunkirk.
You can even go to the wikipedia list, which tells you what each theatre supports.
And if you still aren't sure, just phone the theatre up and ask.

I don't know what else to tell you. What I told Claude… I googled. Seattle Times.

Of these, 70mm IMAX is the gold standard — but unfortunately, Seattle no longer has a venue for that format since the Boeing IMAX Theater, in 2015, upgraded its system and removed its film projectors. A list of North American theaters showing the film in that format is here; the only one in the Northwest is across the border in Langley, just outside Vancouver, B.C. (Within the U.S., you’d have to go to San Francisco.)

locked

4339 views

Dude, will you please tell us where you get this info instead of spouting it off. We don't want to have to ask you every time we want to see a movie.

You can google all of this!

IMAX has a website with a theatre finder.
Notable movies have websites with theatre finders.
I provided the link to the theatre finder for Dunkirk.
You can even go to the wikipedia list, which tells you what each theatre supports.
And if you still aren't sure, just phone the theatre up and ask.

I don't know what else to tell you. What I told Claude… I googled. Seattle Times.

Of these, 70mm IMAX is the gold standard — but unfortunately, Seattle no longer has a venue for that format since the Boeing IMAX Theater, in 2015, upgraded its system and removed its film projectors. A list of North American theaters showing the film in that format is here; the only one in the Northwest is across the border in Langley, just outside Vancouver, B.C. (Within the U.S., you’d have to go to San Francisco.)

I'll say again. I don't know how you could find any theater based on type on the Dunkirk site. I couldn't.

I'm sure there are websites that have this information presented in an accessible manner without you having to go all over the place. I'll find them myself.

locked

4359 views

I'm sure there are websites that have this information presented in an accessible manner without you having to go all over the place. I'll find them myself.

Try Fandango.

Enter your location.

Click Dunkirk, then movie times and tickets. A list comes up sorted by theatre distance. Right next to where you can click a showtime, it tells you the format. If it says nothing, it is standard 2K DCP projection. You can even click the format and a popup will come up and tell you what it is.

Near me I see a mix: "IMAX 2D"," IMAX Laser", "70mm", and "IMAX 70mm film". Again, clicking each explains them pretty well.

IMAX 70mm > Laser > 70mm > Regular. Don't waste money on IMAX 2D. This is 'fake' IMAX.

I am not sure it will get clearer than this.

You may find this useful too.

https://johncanfield.me/blog/brand-confused-world-imax-liemax/

locked

4345 views

I'm sure there are websites that have this information presented in an accessible manner without you having to go all over the place. I'll find them myself.

Try Fandango.

Enter your location.

Click Dunkirk, then movie times and tickets. A list comes up sorted by theatre distance. Right next to where you can click a showtime, it tells you the format. If it says nothing, it is standard 2K DCP projection. You can even click the format and a popup will come up and tell you what it is.

Near me I see a mix: "IMAX 2D"," IMAX Laser", "70mm", and "IMAX 70mm film".

I am not sure it will get clearer than this.

You still haven't told me how you found Charlotte as the closest near me.

I go to the fandango site, find Dunkirk the IMAX experience in 70mm and get "CURRENTLY, THERE ARE NO SHOWTIMES IN <my zip code>."

There is no way to expand the geographical area.

I'm confident there's an IMAX fan site somewhere that has everything, including how films were shot and where to see them, and it'll give the closest theater regardless of how far away. I'll find it.

locked

4314 views

You still haven't told me how you found Charlotte as the closest near me.

https://www.imax.com/news/experience-dunkirk-imax-70mm-film-and-imax-laser

Scroll down to IMAX 70mm locations. Only one is listed in NC. Cross reference on Fandango and it confirms.

locked

4320 views

You still haven't told me how you found Charlotte as the closest near me.

https://www.imax.com/news/experience-dunkirk-imax-70mm-film-and-imax-laser

Scroll down to IMAX 70mm locations. Only one is listed in NC. Cross reference on Fandango and it confirms.

Finally. Thanks!

locked

4331 views

You still haven't told me how you found Charlotte as the closest near me.

https://www.imax.com/news/experience-dunkirk-imax-70mm-film-and-imax-laser

Scroll down to IMAX 70mm locations. Only one is listed in NC. Cross reference on Fandango and it confirms.

Finally. Thanks!

Now we can get back to talking about Bungie and the 4K train!

locked

4304 views

You still haven't told me how you found Charlotte as the closest near me.

https://www.imax.com/news/experience-dunkirk-imax-70mm-film-and-imax-laser

Scroll down to IMAX 70mm locations. Only one is listed in NC. Cross reference on Fandango and it confirms.

Finally. Thanks!

Now we can get back to talking about Bungie and the 4K train!

My take is simple: In the next year I may buy a TV big enough and sit close enough to it to make a difference. Otherwise, I'm maninly interested in HDR.

locked

4283 views

HDR is magical. I love it.

locked

4265 views

You still haven't told me how you found Charlotte as the closest near me.

https://www.imax.com/news/experience-dunkirk-imax-70mm-film-and-imax-laser

Scroll down to IMAX 70mm locations. Only one is listed in NC. Cross reference on Fandango and it confirms.

Finally. Thanks!

Now we can get back to talking about Bungie and the 4K train!

My take is simple: In the next year I may buy a TV big enough and sit close enough to it to make a difference. Otherwise, I'm maninly interested in HDR.

Will Weird Al be singing about Kermit's 2000 inch TV?

locked

4142 views

And Vortech said film IMAX theaters weren't replacing film with digital.

FWIW, I said I didn't think any theater had done that. I hadn't heard of it happening, and it's a costly downgrade. If I mislead you, I apologize.

locked

4206 views

I'd just like to point out, the 4K tracks have been laid and the 4K Express is running a steady schedule. One only has to look at the new TV offerings for 2017. Most of the quality products (big and small) and in general, most of the products are 4K. Everything going forward will be 4K. Cody's points are as pointless as someone happy with 720p. Bungie hasn't even offered HDR at 1080p.

My original point was about why is Bungie so late with respect to the HDR and WCG features inherent to most quality TV (monitors too) products? I'm 100% certain D2 will be rendered at 4K on XB1X. It's all the other enhanced features the 1X brings to the table I'm concerned about.

Then there's my conspiracy side that wonders how much are Sony and Activision involved in Bungie's poor preparation for something clearly on the board well before their game releases.

Look at Respawn and T2 and what they're planning for XB1X. They aren't saying everything waits until Nov. before they can talk about their enhancement plans. It's all underway. Dev kits are in studios now.

locked

4741 views

- No text -

locked

4671 views

- No text -

locked

4430 views

I'd just like to point out, the 4K tracks have been laid and the 4K Express is running a steady schedule. One only has to look at the new TV offerings for 2017. Most of the quality products (big and small) and in general, most of the products are 4K.

1080p scales wonderfully to 4K UHD. It is exactly 4x the pixels. A 1080p output, with all the extra GPU power being used for additional effects / shaders / etc, would look better on a 4K TV than the console spending GPU resources to output in 4K.

locked

4756 views

I'd just like to point out, the 4K tracks have been laid and the 4K Express is running a steady schedule. One only has to look at the new TV offerings for 2017. Most of the quality products (big and small) and in general, most of the products are 4K.

1080p scales wonderfully to 4K UHD. It is exactly 4x the pixels. A 1080p output, with all the extra GPU power being used for additional effects / shaders / etc, would look better on a 4K TV than the console spending GPU resources to output in 4K.

Cody, you already know game devs have been rendering at resolutions higher than 1080p and then down sampling to the final res. It's not common sense to plan a future based on the reverse process. This is not a point I need to argue. I read today XB1X was rendering at 6K and 8K and down sampling to 4K. Was the info true? I'll let you find out on your own.

Bungie employee Mark Noseworthy wants HDR in D2 but doesn't know when. I'm saying I'm disappointed D2 is being released without it.

locked

4726 views

The downsampling is to make edges smoother (mainly by smoothing out aliasing). If you use the raw render without downsampling it, you'll definitely be off-put by the graphics.

locked

4759 views

The downsampling is to make edges smoother (mainly by smoothing out aliasing). If you use the raw render without downsampling it, you'll definitely be off-put by the graphics.

Correct. Supersampling the whole image is not really used due to the huge overhead. Usually only edges of polygons are super sampled. There are also other techniques that work almost as well without supersampling.

locked

4721 views

Correct. Supersampling the whole image is not really used due to the huge overhead.

When they talk about higher resolutions and downsampling, yes it is. But, supersampling usually only happens on console when a developer is targeting multiple platforms, and the more capable platforms have an excess of processing power.

Usually only edges of polygons are super sampled.

As far as the terms are used in gaming, I think you're confusing supersampling with multisampling. And even multisampling technically adds extra samples everywhere in the image; it just doesn't functionally do anything on non-edges, because only geometry rasterization (not texturing, lighting, etc) is at a higher sample rate.

Supersampling has benefits besides geometric aliasing, notably:
1-It implicitly boosts the quality of texture filtering.
2-It can combat aliasing introduced in lighting/reflections.

When it comes to aliasing, "what screen size you need" arguments based on the resolution of human vision aren't entirely relevant. An incorrect shimmer in an image can be visible even if the source of it is spatially very tiny. Consider thin lines on normal maps; you can see shimmer in lighting highlights in, say, Halo 3, even if you're standing fifty feet from a 40" screen and the distance is making it hard to play the game.
As such, it's wrong to argue that rendering at 4K has no benefits for home viewing, even without sitting right up against the screen. Rendering at 4K has benefits even on a 1080p screen; the reconstruction at the output is only 1080p, but it's spatially and temporally cleaner.
The question is whether the benefits of higher resolution outweigh what else you could be doing with the power.

locked

4630 views

As such, it's wrong to argue that rendering at 4K has no benefits for home viewing, even without sitting right up against the screen. Rendering at 4K has benefits even on a 1080p screen; the reconstruction at the output is only 1080p, but it's spatially and temporally cleaner.

You can render at 1080p and use various texture filtering and MSAA / EQAA / FXAA to get these same benefits at much less processing cost. That is the whole reason these techniques were developed.

The question is whether the benefits of higher resolution outweigh what else you could be doing with the power.

I don't think rendering your image at 4x resolution in order to downscale is a good use of power for a gaming machine. If you are Pixar and rendering a film, then sure.

Interestingly, I recall a trick I learned a long time ago in photoshop which is now incorporated as one of the scaling modes. Blurring your image slightly before downscaling resulted in a sharper image. As such, a straight up downscale is not always the best result.

locked

4685 views

Interestingly, I recall a trick I learned a long time ago in photoshop which is now incorporated as one of the scaling modes. Blurring your image slightly before downscaling resulted in a sharper image. As such, a straight up downscale is not always the best result.

On a theoretical level that's not really a "trick", but intertwined with the concept of scaling, or really resampling in general.

The same thing is done in antialiasing. If you're carrying out some form of supersampling, perhaps you have four samples per pixel in the final image; but nothing says that each final pixel need only be constructed from the four samples closest to the pixel center, nor what the weighs should be on each sample. Wider kernels, incorporating colors from neighboring pixels, are quite common. A well-known example would be a quincunx resolve, although that's crude and was unfortunaterly tarnished by very poor marketing/explanation.

Wide kernels can be leveraged to minimize reconstruction aliasing, i.e. assigning color in a geometrically-inaccurate way (such as pretending that pixels are "square regions" of a solid color). This can also be relevant at the final output; that CRTs naturally reconstruct pixels as fuzzy blobs is part of why they produce such a smooth image, albeit sometimes a little soft.
(And similarly, I disagree about 1080p images "scaling perfectly" to 4K via nearest neighbor. You can certainly do worse, but there's nothing theoretically "correct" about taking the color at a sample point - i.e. a pixel - and solidly filling a rectangular region with it.)

locked

4627 views

(And similarly, I disagree about 1080p images "scaling perfectly" to 4K via nearest neighbor. You can certainly do worse, but there's nothing theoretically "correct" about taking the color at a sample point - i.e. a pixel - and solidly filling a rectangular region with it.)

I never said nearest neighbor, but weird scaling ratios can produce quality loss. This is why if you are aiming for TV, you shoot 1080p or 4K UHD and not 2K or 4K DCI. It might not seem like a lot, but downsampling from 2K to 1080p actually makes it look worse than just shooting in 1080p to begin with. Your best bet is a straight up integer multiple.

This is also why (good) cameras crop their sensors when shooting at a different resolution, rather than scaling from a full sensor image.

locked

4654 views

I'd just like to point out, the 4K tracks have been laid and the 4K Express is running a steady schedule. One only has to look at the new TV offerings for 2017. Most of the quality products (big and small) and in general, most of the products are 4K. Everything going forward will be 4K. Cody's points are as pointless as someone happy with 720p. Bungie hasn't even offered HDR at 1080p.

My original point was about why is Bungie so late with respect to the HDR and WCG features inherent to most quality TV (monitors too) products? I'm 100% certain D2 will be rendered at 4K on XB1X. It's all the other enhanced features the 1X brings to the table I'm concerned about.

Then there's my conspiracy side that wonders how much are Sony and Activision involved in Bungie's poor preparation for something clearly on the board well before their game releases.

Look at Respawn and T2 and what they're planning for XB1X. They aren't saying everything waits until Nov. before they can talk about their enhancement plans. It's all underway. Dev kits are in studios now.

I agree with you that the 4K train is already established and in motion. My point (and I believe Cody's point) is that when it comes to video games, the push to 4K is at best inefficient use of resources, and at worst actually harming the end products of games that are making that push, at least right now. So far, I have yet to hear of a single game that runs at 4K on the PS4 Pro without suffering other performance issues (usually frame-rate related). The problem I have with the whole push towards 4K is that it is purely marketing driven. It offers little-to-no benefit to gamers, and is actually often a detriment so far, but Sony and Microsoft are basically forcing it as a priority despite this.

locked

4683 views

I agree with you that the 4K train is already established and in motion. My point (and I believe Cody's point) is that when it comes to video games, the push to 4K is at best inefficient use of resources, and at worst actually harming the end products of games that are making that push, at least right now. So far, I have yet to hear of a single game that runs at 4K on the PS4 Pro without suffering other performance issues (usually frame-rate related). The problem I have with the whole push towards 4K is that it is purely marketing driven. It offers little-to-no benefit to gamers, and is actually often a detriment so far, but Sony and Microsoft are basically forcing it as a priority despite this.

It's not just performance issues. There's plenty of PS4 Pro games that run fine. It's that they could be using all that GPU power to really crank up the effects / shaders / etc and make the game look better! Remember, 4K is literally 4x as hard to render as 1080p. So why not render at 1080p, then use the remaining 75% to make the 1080p look even better? All the PS4 Pro graphical enhancements thus far have been basically not noticeable. By the time you get up to 4K, you don't have anything left to spare for improvements.

It takes 4x the power to render a 4K image without any enhancements over a 1080p one. You are sacrificing 3/4 of your GPU for literally no benefit. And yes I know parallel processing / different compute units blah blah blah and it's not really 3/4, but you get the idea.

locked

4709 views

I agree with you that the 4K train is already established and in motion. My point (and I believe Cody's point) is that when it comes to video games, the push to 4K is at best inefficient use of resources, and at worst actually harming the end products of games that are making that push, at least right now. So far, I have yet to hear of a single game that runs at 4K on the PS4 Pro without suffering other performance issues (usually frame-rate related). The problem I have with the whole push towards 4K is that it is purely marketing driven. It offers little-to-no benefit to gamers, and is actually often a detriment so far, but Sony and Microsoft are basically forcing it as a priority despite this.

It's not just performance issues. There's plenty of PS4 Pro games that run fine. It's that they could be using all that GPU power to really crank up the effects / shaders / etc and make the game look better! Remember, 4K is literally 4x as hard to render as 1080p. So why not render at 1080p, then use the remaining 75% to make the 1080p look even better? All the PS4 Pro graphical enhancements thus far have been basically not noticeable. By the time you get up to 4K, you don't have anything left to spare for improvements.

It takes 4x the power to render a 4K image without any enhancements over a 1080p one. You are sacrificing 3/4 of your GPU for literally no benefit. And yes I know parallel processing / different compute units blah blah blah and it's not really 3/4, but you get the idea.

4K, like it or not is here. There will be pain and there will be gain. It's not even a discussion worth having. It won't be long before even the most reluctant to upgrade will simply not be able to avoid it.

It's those extras Cody is talking about that I'm talking about and a few more. XB1X has a known and substantial technological edge over all other consoles and many moderate PC. It can provide many of the PC's enhanced features. All Bungie has to do is use their own quality sliders to find out what D2 can do on XB1X and then lock it down. Yet it's like they've never heard of XB1X until recently. Other Devs don't seem to be in the dark and Bungie's comments leave me perplexed. They also seem to have not prepared for HDR and WCG which are not big GPU/CPU sinks but can create better image quality gamers can benefit from and Cody can gush over.

locked

4667 views

So far, I have yet to hear of a single game that runs at 4K on the PS4 Pro without suffering other performance issues (usually frame-rate related).

I agree with your point completely. I think 4K is currently a dumb waste of time pandering to customers that just want the new hotness, whether it's actually better or not.

But as for the specific point above, I have to mention Horizon: Zero Dawn yet again. I have not heard of any performance related issues for the game, either on the Pro or standard PS4. I guess I could be wrong, but I haven't heard anything, and I remember watching the Digital Foundry video that showed it's basically almost a flawless 30fps on either version of the console.

locked

4669 views

Seeing lots of chatter about resolution, eye can see it, effect on games and what not. All fun and dandy. I would like to interject in this kerfuffle that right now there are competing standards for HDR, with the main two right now being HDR10/10+ or Dolby Vision. How does that effect games and what not? I have NO idea. Yet I wanted to throw that into the mix all the same.

Carry on lads and ladys!

locked

4894 views

Seeing lots of chatter about resolution, eye can see it, effect on games and what not. All fun and dandy. I would like to interject in this kerfuffle that right now there are competing standards for HDR, with the main two right now being HDR10/10+ or Dolby Vision. How does that effect games and what not? I have NO idea. Yet I wanted to throw that into the mix all the same.

Carry on lads and ladys!

Not really competing standards. HDR 10 is a subset (lesser standard of Dolby Vision) If a device can process Dolby Vision, it can process HDR10. The reverse may not be true.

The problem lies in panel technology. LCD of any type can't meet the full standard of Dolby Vision. OLED is more capable but must be in a dimly lit room. LCD has problems displaying the maximum range of brightness and darkness. OLED does better because pixels are truly not emitting any light when turned off.

The Dolby Vision standard is a better spec than current consumer TV tech can produce.

locked

4894 views

Though I did find that "left hand / right hand" answer rather dumb.

No, all in all I'm not really disappointed or surprised. While not unique to the industry, good game development is about time management. So unless it's something that the studio at large wants as they start planning what they want to do -three or four years ago- it's an optional thing. Also there is a tendency that once you include a major feature, it gets carried over to the next game in part because you now have something to play with.

Be honest. Is a Theater mode a crucial feature for the game to be a game? Or is is simply a nice thing to have?

It's a nice thing to have; -> Pushed to the side. Get to it later (if at all).

Then we get to HDR. Alright so first, we have this newfangled 4k thing. Games have been playing with resolution for a long time, so provided the games assets are efficient (as now in 4k we are now pushing more data), not a problem. HDR? That's essentially wide color gamut. As far as I know, that's a new thing for games to think about. New things take time, as we need to figure out "How will this effect the function of our gameplay". It's also not crucial, but a nice thing to have; -> Pushed to the side. Get to it later (if at all).

As for our players being mute, well - you got me there. That's the choice Bungie made. It's doesn't really bother me, but I understand why it may bother others.

Then there is this:

IGN user WBDawg asks: What are some the changes you're making to the game as a result of feedback from the beta?

Luke Smith: By the time beta was live, the team had already been playing a pretty different version of the PvE tuning from our couches (grenades are more powerful, kinetic/energy weapon damage improvements, power ammo economy refactor). We’ve also made tons and tons (and tons) of changes of varying sizes that is a function of closing down a video game (we’re almost done!). In the wake of the beta, we’ve made a few changes that will increase Super Regeneration across the game.

Halle-FREEK'N-lujah!

IGN user Corgi8 asks: Will pvp and pve been balanced separately or as one?

Luke Smith: PVP and PVE are balanced separately in many ways (things like: outgoing damage across weapon archetypes, ability and melee damage are all different). So I think what you’re actually asking is “Will the combat rhythm for Destiny 2 diverge across PVE and PVP?” The answer to that is “No.” In Destiny you build a character with a bunch of powers, abilities, and we hope, a combat rhythm that is consistent across the game.

Good grief.

Edit: In thinking over Lukes response, I'm finding myself very mixed. Regardless, the proof will be in eating the pudding.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit 2: Oh! There was one more thing I wanted to mention. So right now as Bungie is putting the finishing touches on Destiny 2, there are two other (known) studios working on Destiny 2. Vicarious Visions and High Moon. They are working on the expansions. So once Destiny 2 goes Gold (and everyone goes home and gets some rest), Bungie in-my-speculative-un-inside-theory will be able to breath and figure out what to do next. What that may be? Who knows! ;)

locked

5004 views

Good grief.

Um... if “PVP and PVE are balanced separately in many ways” wasn’t the good / correct answer that you wanted to hear, what do you want, exactly? Should it play like Halo in PvE but Counter-Strike in the Crucible or something??

I’m of the opinion that many people who talk about Bungie needing to separate PvE and PvP balance willfully ignore the many times we’ve seen that they are adjusted separately. And they are already getting a head start making their same erroneous complaints for Destiny 2.

locked

5102 views

Good grief.

Edit: In thinking over Lukes response, I'm finding myself very mixed. Regardless, the proof will be in eating the pudding.

Um... if “PVP and PVE are balanced separately in many ways” wasn’t the good / correct answer that you wanted to hear, what do you want, exactly? Should it play like Halo in PvE but Counter-Strike in the Crucible or something??

I’m of the opinion that many people who talk about Bungie needing to separate PvE and PvP balance willfully ignore the many times we’ve seen that they are adjusted separately. And they are already getting a head start making their same erroneous complaints for Destiny 2.

I fixed the quote for you.

Confidence. What I saw during Destiny & Destiny 2 Beta, even if as I have mentioned, to do so with the Beta is flawed.

I cling to Halo, because that was the last time I being a Bungie fan meant I didn't have to worry - It's Bungie. The game will be good. No different then when you see a game made by Naughty Dog, Blizzard, or Insomniac Games from the top of my head.

I know this is a Bungie fan site, and overall there is a part of me who is still a Bungie fan, but I'm not giving Bungie the confidence of the doubt because they say so. That died the first year when WE were marketed a game that did not exist. I don't care whose fault it was, I expected better from Bungie. I emotionally invested and I lost it all. While they did make efforts to undo the damage done; the damage was done.

If you Ragashingo can give me EXACT details, of what "PVP and PVE are balanced separately in many ways" means, then in all honesty I would love to find out. For now through I don't know what that means. In the past, I would have gladly given such a vague quote the benefit of the doubt, because it's Bungie - JUST as you have said you are doing. To each their own.

I know I am very much a dissenting voice at this point, but please understand it is not done simply out to be in dissent. I have no idea, I can't see it, if my posts here make a difference, but what you are witnessing is my expression to my last shred of hope.

Perhaps in my new disenfranchised take I am being too harsh, but that's my work in progress. A brave new world indeed. Bungie doesn't owe me or any of us here a darned thing. They can do as they darn well please. It's their game, filled with hard work and long nights.

All I want as a fan, is one thing; THEY EARN IT! If that is too much, then I might be in the wrong forum with my current attitude on things.

locked

4915 views

I think it’s fine to be wary about Destiny 2 lives up to what it should be. But there is a difference between waiting to see how the next game turns out vs being overtly negative about what is almost certainly a true statement.

Things like weapon and power damage are handled differently in PvE vs PvP. Even in Destiny 1. There’s no lying there. No concealment. No false promise. Yet you make a show out of sighing and being negative.

Now sure, I doubt you are arguing against that. What you are likely unhappy with is the second part:

So I think what you’re actually asking is “Will the combat rhythm for Destiny 2 diverge across PVE and PVP?” The answer to that is “No.” In Destiny you build a character with a bunch of powers, abilities, and we hope, a combat rhythm that is consistent across the game.

“Ok,” I say. “So what do you, INSANEdrive, want instead?”

For my question bolded above, I don’t care one bit about how disenfranchised you feel as a past Bungie fan. That’s a whole different discussion.

locked

4891 views

“Ok,” I say. “So what do you, INSANEdrive, want instead?”

I think it's pretty obvious. I think most everybody wants it so that a change to PvP balance or meta has no negative effect on the PvE balance or meta, and vice versa.

locked

5070 views

“Ok,” I say. “So what do you, INSANEdrive, want instead?”

I think it's pretty obvious. I think most everybody wants it so that a change to PvP balance or meta has no negative effect on the PvE balance or meta, and vice versa.

Yes, you are firmly in that “already getting a head start making their same erroneous complaints for Destiny 2” camp I mentioned a couple of posts ago.

Remember things like this:

Increased damage against all non-Guardian combatants by 2x (100% increase)

At least some things were changeable separately from PvP vs PvE. What things do you think weren’t? And what things were separately changeable between the two but were often or always changed together because one of Bungie’s main goals was and is to keep a consistent experience between PvE and PvP?

locked

4785 views

Increased damage against all non-Guardian combatants by 2x (100% increase)

At least some things were changeable separately from PvP vs PvE. What things do you think weren’t?

i am sure everything is changeable separately, but quite a bit simply wasn't.

And what things were separately changeable between the two but were often or always changed together because one of Bungie’s main goals was and is to keep a consistent experience between PvE and PvP?

More than a lot of people think is a good idea.

locked

4813 views

Increased damage against all non-Guardian combatants by 2x (100% increase)

At least some things were changeable separately from PvP vs PvE. What things do you think weren’t?

i am sure everything is changeable separately, but quite a bit simply wasn't.

Right. So, same question to you. What, specifically, did you wish Bungie had done differently? What did they break in PvE with a PvP change? Or what did they break in PvP with a PvE change?

locked

4906 views

“Ok,” I say. “So what do you, INSANEdrive, want instead?”

I think it's pretty obvious. I think most everybody wants it so that a change to PvP balance or meta has no negative effect on the PvE balance or meta, and vice versa.

Oh boy. This would be disastrous. You think vault space was an issue in D1? If what you're asking for happened you could end up with one set of PvP only gear and another totally different set of PvE only gear. You would have to change every equipped item when you changed game modes.

Furthermore, having a different feel to pve from pvp would mean one of them didn't feel as good and - frankly - feel is just about all d1 had going for it.

locked

4757 views

“Ok,” I say. “So what do you, INSANEdrive, want instead?”

I think it's pretty obvious. I think most everybody wants it so that a change to PvP balance or meta has no negative effect on the PvE balance or meta, and vice versa.

Oh boy. This would be disastrous. You think vault space was an issue in D1? If what you're asking for happened you could end up with one set of PvP only gear and another totally different set of PvE only gear. You would have to change every equipped item when you changed game modes. ...

Yet AGAIN you post something I have not considered! Fantastic! That said, I think it would be rather easy to attach two data sets into one gun, yes? That vault space problem would I think be easily remedied.

locked

4757 views

That vault space problem would I think be easily remedied.

This made me laugh out loud. :)

locked

4856 views

- No text -

locked

4792 views

“Ok,” I say. “So what do you, INSANEdrive, want instead?”

I think it's pretty obvious. I think most everybody wants it so that a change to PvP balance or meta has no negative effect on the PvE balance or meta, and vice versa.

Oh boy. This would be disastrous. You think vault space was an issue in D1? If what you're asking for happened you could end up with one set of PvP only gear and another totally different set of PvE only gear. You would have to change every equipped item when you changed game modes. ...

Yet AGAIN you post something I have not considered! Fantastic! That said, I think it would be rather easy to attach two data sets into one gun, yes? That vault space problem would I think be easily remedied.

Happy to contribute.

I mean, I am assuming that any weapon or armor is usable in either pvp or pve, but that the stats are grossly unhinged due to balance changes, the result of which is that a weapon which is a pve monster is a pvp mouse, and weapons which are pvp monsters are pve mice. Having the ability to use something in either arena doesn't make it so people *will* use them.

Taking this to the logical extreme: A scout rifle the OHKs everything in PvE but deals only 1 damage per shot in PvP... You'd just never use it in pvp except to troll your teammates. And another scout that OHKs in PvP but deals only 1 damage in PvE... again, this is a gun that would get you kicked out of raids if you tried to use it, right? So both guns have two data sets, but - because of "balance changes" we landed in a place where they're just not viable in both modes, and you'd need twice as much vault space to accommodate them, plus the hassle of swapping gear left and right.

A less extreme, but equally frustrating example: Let's say there's a scout that is in a good place for pve. It deals OHK damage to the general grunt type enemies, but takes a few shots to pop shields etc. 30 rounds in a mag, 2.4x magnification when ADSed, doesn't kick too much. It's a great gun. But in PvP it's just too reliable and everyone is using it, so bungie balances the weapon for pvp. Now it has only 16 rounds in a mag and it kicks like a mule. it also deals a bit less damage at long range. You need to learn how to use this gun twice. That change in kick means your firing tempo is different. The damage drop off at range means you have to learn to gauge the distance at which you deal damage two times. The smaller mag means your "feel" of when to reload is different. It's a lot. What if they tweak the auto-aim a bit? A pve player will start missing shots in pvp that they *know* would have landed in pve. and so forth.

It's very, very risky to balance a weapon for one arena and not the other. It's is super critical that weapons have identical feel in both places so that the weapons themselves feel "real" to the players. Remember the very first thorn nerf? That gun used to feel good, and suddenly it felt like crap. It was like "is this thing on?" And then they buffed it so hard it felt like cheating. Now take any two of those sensibilities about the gun and imagine - one is pve, and one is pvp, and you have to hold that concept of the gun in your head at the same time when deciding what gun to take with you. It would be a nightmare.

locked

4777 views

makes sense to me

locked

4696 views

It would be a nightmare.

Then segregate guns. PvP only and PvE only. Maybe you can use PvE guns in Mayhem or something.

locked

4788 views

It would be a nightmare.

Then segregate guns. PvP only and PvE only. Maybe you can use PvE guns in Mayhem or something.

Go back to a limited set of predefined weapons with on-map pick-ups. I understand what they're shooting for with making everything carry over between modes, but I honestly hate it. I can't keep up with the sheer variety of guns and perks for one mode, let alone two, so I end up just ignoring PvP.

Simpler is better.

locked

4670 views

Go back to a limited set of predefined weapons with on-map pick-ups. I understand what they're shooting for with making everything carry over between modes, but I honestly hate it. I can't keep up with the sheer variety of guns and perks for one mode, let alone two, so I end up just ignoring PvP.

Simpler is better.

I have real hopes that the removal of "rolls" on guns will alleviate much of the complexity confusion (at least I expect it will for me). A Devil You Know will simply be a Devil You Know, not A Devil You Know with Sureshot, Rangefinder, Rifled Barrel & Hidden Hand.

locked

4266 views

It would be a nightmare.

Then segregate guns. PvP only and PvE only. Maybe you can use PvE guns in Mayhem or something.

You... WHAT? Again - you'd need twice as much vault space since you'd have twice as many guns and armor sets, and you'd have to change gear every time you switched game modes. Did you not read my posts above at all?

locked

4712 views

It would be a nightmare.

Then segregate guns. PvP only and PvE only. Maybe you can use PvE guns in Mayhem or something.

You... WHAT? Again - you'd need twice as much vault space since you'd have twice as many guns and armor sets, and you'd have to change gear every time you switched game modes. Did you not read my posts above at all?

No… there are many solutions to that. You assume that the PvP guns would be as numerous as PvE. It could be as simple as the crucible quartermaster's / Iron Lord / Osiris weapons being PvP only. Those are in your vault now.

locked

4677 views

- No text -

locked

4636 views

It would be a nightmare.

Then segregate guns. PvP only and PvE only. Maybe you can use PvE guns in Mayhem or something.

You... WHAT? Again - you'd need twice as much vault space since you'd have twice as many guns and armor sets, and you'd have to change gear every time you switched game modes. Did you not read my posts above at all?

No… there are many solutions to that. You assume that the PvP guns would be as numerous as PvE. It could be as simple as the crucible quartermaster's / Iron Lord / Osiris weapons being PvP only. Those are in your vault now.

Okay, let's say there's only ONE gun for PvE and ONE for PvP, which is absurd, but let's assume it. Same for armor. You still need to full change out your equipped weapons and armor every time you switch modes, and that's poor design imo.

locked

4596 views

It would be a nightmare.

Then segregate guns. PvP only and PvE only. Maybe you can use PvE guns in Mayhem or something.

You... WHAT? Again - you'd need twice as much vault space since you'd have twice as many guns and armor sets, and you'd have to change gear every time you switched game modes. Did you not read my posts above at all?

No… there are many solutions to that. You assume that the PvP guns would be as numerous as PvE. It could be as simple as the crucible quartermaster's / Iron Lord / Osiris weapons being PvP only. Those are in your vault now.

Okay, let's say there's only ONE gun for PvE and ONE for PvP, which is absurd, but let's assume it. Same for armor. You still need to full change out your equipped weapons and armor every time you switch modes, and that's poor design imo.

Again there are solutions… like saving your guardian's gear for PvP and PvE separately… when you enter PvP it can switch, and when you enter PvE switch back automatically…

In Diablo 2 this switching was done manually either with clicking a tab, or hitting 'w'. You can now change your second set of gear. So hard.

if you are in a lobby or activity, it could display the appropriate set automatically. If you're in orbit with nothing selected, then you can manually switch between both.

locked

4594 views

It would be a nightmare.

Then segregate guns. PvP only and PvE only. Maybe you can use PvE guns in Mayhem or something.

You... WHAT? Again - you'd need twice as much vault space since you'd have twice as many guns and armor sets, and you'd have to change gear every time you switched game modes. Did you not read my posts above at all?

No… there are many solutions to that. You assume that the PvP guns would be as numerous as PvE. It could be as simple as the crucible quartermaster's / Iron Lord / Osiris weapons being PvP only. Those are in your vault now.

Okay, let's say there's only ONE gun for PvE and ONE for PvP, which is absurd, but let's assume it. Same for armor. You still need to full change out your equipped weapons and armor every time you switch modes, and that's poor design imo.

Again there are solutions… like saving your guardian's gear for PvP and PvE separately… when you enter PvP it can switch, and when you enter PvE switch back automatically…

In Diablo 2 this switching was done manually either with clicking a tab, or hitting 'w'. You can now change your second set of gear. So hard.

if you are in a lobby or activity, it could display the appropriate set automatically. If you're in orbit with nothing selected, then you can manually switch between both.

Of course you can always code a solution to the problem you've just manufactured, but now you're falling into "design bloat." You're an editor. Think about that time you got network notes asking you to add a scene back in, but that scene had a bunch of stuff in it that wasn't explained there, but was explained in another scene, so you have to add that one back in, and then there's a new character who seems important but just disappears, so you add another scene to explain what's up with that guy... At some point you need to choose to streamline the systems and make things easier for your players instead of more complex. Complex interaction in gameplay? YES. Complex controls? Probably not. Complex menu system and UI? Hell no. You do not want your players to spend more time in their menus than in the actual game.

locked

4181 views

You're an editor. Think about that time you got network notes asking you to add a scene back in, but that scene had a bunch of stuff in it that wasn't explained there, but was explained in another scene, so you have to add that one back in, and then there's a new character who seems important but just disappears, so you add another scene to explain what's up with that guy...

I understand what you mean, but I have not had that happen. For one… I don't deal with networks working in film. Directors and Producers are generally smart people who would understand the undertaking of what you say.

Except when it comes to Comic Book Movies.

Of course you can always code a solution to the problem you've just manufactured, but now you're falling into "design bloat." At some point you need to choose to streamline the systems and make things easier for your players instead of more complex. Complex interaction in gameplay? YES. Complex controls? Probably not. Complex menu system and UI? Hell no. You do not want your players to spend more time in their menus than in the actual game.

There is a huge problem as it is. PvP balance changes impact PvE. This is bad. The solution is to let you have PvP and PvE loadouts, with the flick of a tab. You wouldn't actually spend any more time in your menu than you already do now. Especially if the tab was auto selected depending on your current activity and lobby. Explain to me why you'd spend more time in your menu. In fact you would spend LESS time, since you wouldn't have to swap weapons when you enter PvP as you do now.

Now:
1. Exit PvE
2. Switch your gear. Equip the guns you want to use in crucible.
3. Enter PvP

My idea:
1. Exit PvE
2. There is no step 2 since all your PvP guns are already equipped in your PvP load out from last time.
3. Enter PvP

locked

4196 views

You're an editor. Think about that time you got network notes asking you to add a scene back in, but that scene had a bunch of stuff in it that wasn't explained there, but was explained in another scene, so you have to add that one back in, and then there's a new character who seems important but just disappears, so you add another scene to explain what's up with that guy...

I understand what you mean, but I have not had that happen. For one… I don't deal with networks working in film. Directors and Producers are generally smart people who would understand the undertaking of what you say.

Except when it comes to Comic Book Movies.

Oh man. The show I'm on right now (for which my original contract has been extended 8 times) has had soooo many revisions just to change the style of the graphics. We're dealing with notes from:

- IP holder
- Parent company of IP holder
- Network
- Our EPs
- Parent company of our company

And most of the notes contradict one another. The final cuts of some episodes are virtually shot for shot identical to cuts five note sessions ago. And this is for a game show. TV is just a series of people who want to make a mundane note to "put their stamp on it" without actually risking the enterprise along the way. God forbid you ever work on a Bravo show; their producers have quotas for the number of notes they have to give. You know, because more is better, right? Creative decisions shouldn't be made by non-creative people, imo, but apparently if you were the CEO of any other company, and then got made CEO of a TV studio, that means you know what makes for good TV.

I have a google doc to track the notes because 30+ pages per 38 minutes of show was the norm.

I shouldn't complain - their bad decisions keep me employed since my primary function is as a fixer of messes.

Of course you can always code a solution to the problem you've just manufactured, but now you're falling into "design bloat." At some point you need to choose to streamline the systems and make things easier for your players instead of more complex. Complex interaction in gameplay? YES. Complex controls? Probably not. Complex menu system and UI? Hell no. You do not want your players to spend more time in their menus than in the actual game.

There is a huge problem as it is. PvP balance changes impact PvE. This is bad. The solution is to let you have PvP and PvE loadouts, with the flick of a tab. You wouldn't actually spend any more time in your menu than you already do now. Especially if the tab was auto selected depending on your current activity and lobby. Explain to me why you'd spend more time in your menu. In fact you would spend LESS time, since you wouldn't have to swap weapons when you enter PvP as you do now.

Now:
1. Exit PvE
2. Switch your gear. Equip the guns you want to use in crucible.
3. Enter PvP

My idea:
1. Exit PvE
2. There is no step 2 since all your PvP guns are already equipped in your PvP load out from last time.
3. Enter PvP

I see. Automatically use your assigned gear for each mode when you switch (saves time in menus) but now you have two pages of equipped gear. Does each page get its own 9 slots of backup items? Or 4.5 slots per page? Shared 9 slots which would let you equip Pve weapons on your pvp tab, etc.? Again, design bloat. All of this takes time away from deciding how to make the actual game good, and spends time coding and designing the UI. It's not a bad system, and many games (Diablo, Dragon age) use weapon tabbing to allow for alternate loadouts, so there are examples to draw from (which makes designing easier). This is better than simply having the same existing UI and two sets of gear, which is what you seemed to be initially proposing.

I have to ask though, is this where you want the team to spend their time? They've already got a single loadout system in place where the weapons work in both game modes with minor tweaks.

I know, I know, you don't think "minor tweaks" cuts it because changing the weapon for PvP (necessary to foster competition) nerfs the gun for PvE, effectively breaking it. Understood. That being said... I've long held that D1 was balanced incorrectly as a result of being designed as PvE first with PvP added later (saw that in an interview I believe, no Raga, I don't have a link). D2 benefits from the first generation here: They can balance for both at once (which means you use guardian health as your baseline for weapon damage balance, and adjust pve health and stats accordingly - the weapons do the same damage in both modes, and if a gun is too effective in pvp, it will similarly be too effective in pve, and vice versa).

And... I'd rather have the team working on unified balance rather than additional UI elements. Personal preference. I think your system as you've described it here, works as well.

locked

4103 views

They can balance for both at once (which means you use guardian health as your baseline for weapon damage balance, and adjust pve health and stats accordingly - the weapons do the same damage in both modes, and if a gun is too effective in pvp, it will similarly be too effective in pve, and vice versa).

Yes, because the Last Word would be soooo effective in PvE… PvP and PvE are fundamentally different, even if you normalize the health.

locked

4114 views

They can balance for both at once (which means you use guardian health as your baseline for weapon damage balance, and adjust pve health and stats accordingly - the weapons do the same damage in both modes, and if a gun is too effective in pvp, it will similarly be too effective in pve, and vice versa).

Yes, because the Last Word would be soooo effective in PvE… PvP and PvE are fundamentally different, even if you normalize the health.

Scoff if you must, but I greatly enjoyed TLW in PvE

locked

4041 views

- No text -

locked

4699 views

A less extreme, but equally frustrating example: Let's say there's a scout that is in a good place ... so bungie balances the weapon for pvp ... What if they tweak the auto-aim a bit? A pve player will start missing shots in pvp that they *know* would have landed in pve. and so forth.

It's very, very risky to balance a weapon for one arena and not the other. It's is super critical that weapons have identical feel in both places so that the weapons themselves feel "real" to the players ... Now take any two of those sensibilities about the gun and imagine - one is pve, and one is pvp, and you have to hold that concept of the gun in your head at the same time when deciding what gun to take with you. It would be a nightmare.

So we have this nebulous "feel" aspect of weapons that is being addressed here. And from a divided balance standpoint, it is not necessarily required to break that feel while still substantially differentiating the capabilities of the weapon in two spaces. Obviously, it is not rational to change the baseline (fire rate, innate recoil impulse) but I don't think you give players enough credit to understand that they are in two separate spheres of gameplay.

So, depending on what sort of auto-aim you are referring to (bullet magnetism v. reticle magnetism v. ADS snap) how that will interplay with a NPC v. a PC in a game are likely not going to function identically already. How these functions of aim-assist are programmed can vary greatly, but at a root they're going to function in some regard related to some aspect of the entity that is targeted. COD4, for example, had major ADS snap in the campaign, but relied more heavily on bullet/reticle magnetism in multiplayer. I'm not suggesting some extreme tuning, but all aspects of aim-assist can be tuned separately based on PvE or PvP content without ruining the "feel" of a weapon.

To that same extent, and underscoring the PvP shift to team shooting and Kintetic/Energy play, you can tweak damage values of a weapon separately. Period. No question. Don't make your change obtuse, but in balancing a weapon that does 66 per precision hit against something that does 67 per precision hit is the difference between a 4SK or a 3SK against 200 points of health - but the difference between 50 and 66 in a 1v1 is null, but that 66 is much more useful in a team fight if someone is plinking at them with you. Additionally, changing the precision multiplier (which is crazy huge in PvE, I did not make any major note if it was different in PvP) can be done either separately or concurrently, just bring up the baseline damage for non-precision with the one that needs to keep the higher damage. Bungie has already said that numerical values, such as damage, can be tweaked independently.

Alternate suggestions on things that would allow for additional independent tuning: Perks which function differently (as required) within PvE and PvP, mode-oriented perks (as the previously identified additional super generation perk, Raid Specific Perks, the PvP respawn/control point capture perks), separate gear pools. I don't personally like separate gear pools, though I'm at this point not super worried about Vault Space as that is something that has probably been already thought about at Bungie enough times.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that while I would agree there are things in weapons you shouldn't change for the sake of feel across modes (RoF, Magazine size, role and power relative to comparable weapons, ready/aim/reload speeds) there are a lot that you can change within reason that will maintain feel (Per shot damage, precision multipliers, bullet/reticle magnetism and ADS snap, reserve ammunition, flinch) so long as you don't go to some off-base extreme with your changes.

Also, personally, remembering the function of a weapon in PvE v. PvP is no more of a nightmare than having to remember which of the other 40 weapons in my regular rotation work best in which mode. Or against what type of enemy. Or in which crucible mode. Or which map. Whether its good with the current strike modifiers. Or if it is trash in this Raid encounter but amazing in the next one. How many shots from this auto rifle do I need to land on an average Titan v. an average Hunter compared to this hand cannon. Definitely give players more benefit of the doubt on their ability to remember what weapons they like. Because in most cases they are intimately familiar and that shift while mildly irritating would likely not be something hard to remember, let alone a challenge to fix. Unless it is a PvP mode with locked loadouts.

locked

4773 views

I hear what you're saying, and you're right - we already remember 100s of weapons across a dozen or so games... what's the big deal? The big deal is that it's a pain in the ass to find a gun that feels great in one game mode and doesn't feel great in the other. You're left hunting for something that feels the same as a gun you already have, just in a different mode. And then you've got two guns again, except oh it's patch time and now everything is different and instead of hunting for one good feeling replacement, you need two, again.

It's doubling your gear grind, and doing so in a particularly frustrating fashion. Like Tantalus, the thing you desire is right there in front of you, yet frustratingly out of reach. If we'd done this on any of the games I worked on, I'd have felt like a huge asshole to the players (and keep in mind that I was once nothing but a professional griefer for three straight months).

So yes, you're right - the players can adapt. Instead of saying "I need a gun that feels like Thorn" you'll be saying "I need a gun that feels like PvE Thorn from the 1.2 patch. God I miss that gun." Everyone will know what you mean. But, really, you'll need two guns that feel that way, and you'll have to be lucky enough for one of them to feel that way in pvp while the other feels that way in pve. And that, my friend, is a shit sandwich I hope we never have to eat.

locked

4728 views

Pretty sure that even with maximum separation of mode balance we'll never see it that obtuse.

But, honestly, all that finding a gun that feels like X in Y still occurs even if you have relative uniformity, because what works in PvE is not identical to PvP. Sure, things don't have the same names while functioning crazily different. That would be irritating, but would also be opposed to what bungie has said their aim is for balancing.

So, I suppose this is just maintaining a degree of optimism.

locked

4697 views

- No text -

locked

4670 views

I think it’s fine to be wary about Destiny 2 lives up to what it should be. But there is a difference between waiting to see how the next game turns out vs being overtly negative about what is almost certainly a true statement.

Things like weapon and power damage are handled differently in PvE vs PvP. Even in Destiny 1. There’s no lying there. No concealment. No false promise. Yet you make a show out of sighing and being negative.

Now sure, I doubt you are arguing against that. What you are likely unhappy with is the second part:

So I think what you’re actually asking is “Will the combat rhythm for Destiny 2 diverge across PVE and PVP?” The answer to that is “No.” In Destiny you build a character with a bunch of powers, abilities, and we hope, a combat rhythm that is consistent across the game.

“Ok,” I say. “So what do you, INSANEdrive, want instead?”

For my question bolded above, I don’t care one bit about how disenfranchised you feel as a past Bungie fan. That’s a whole different discussion.

Shit. I bitched but I didn't back it up within my original post. I relied too much in the moment on past posts being known. I know better then that! >_< Dumb INSANEdrive! Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

Alright. Oh boy, how do I words this...*(I am having wicked Déjà vu right now. Have we discussed this before?)*

...so first of all, while I concur that while disenfranchisement is it's own discussion, it can't be pushed way completely as it is the fuel for my critical - not negative! - critical view. I'm not simply speaking ill for the sake of it. That is neither my want nor intent to do.

I shall now speak to my curiosity, which shall lead to my want. I'm going to try the simple approach here. PvE & PvP are one, yet I am to be told that PvE is different, and PvP is different. (How damage is calculated... ect.) Then... why do they have PvE & PvP together at all? What advantages does this have!? We have seen first hand the sort of issues that can occur with this system. I don't PvP, but I know loud and clear what is happening in PvP. Oh! Thorn! Oh! Snipers/Shotgun Meta!

What I want is to play in PvE, and not have to know what is happening in PvP because they had to balance something and I have to pay for in a game style I DON'T EVEN PLAY! Right now I read that whole original pve pvp quote with what I am aware of, and I think ..."Half Pregnant". This is also in fairness those those of you who DO primarily play PvP, who enjoy playing in a far more tactical fashion on a level playing field. What I enjoy shouldn't have to bother you either! Let's shut up and shoot some things, be they AI or meat puppet!

Yes, things like weapon and power damage may indeed be handled differently in PvE vs PvP, which was something implemented into Destiny. Yet I'm still hearing things from PvP. PvE and PvP are apparently separate but equal in combat rhythm, because that works! The two modes are EXACTLY alike! But not! Obviously!

Bungie! Prove me wrong! Please! I'll baste my foot right now if I must*!

TL;DR: When I play PvE, I should only have to think about PvE, not the function of cross-gamestyle-play.

*I'm not actually going to do this, it's simply a play on a saying. Has Funkmon eaten that sock yet?

locked

4892 views

We have seen first hand the sort of issues that can occur with this system.

We have? Care to list some of these issues? How about just one? Because what I’m reading is you have no specific complaint, but there must be something wrong SOMEWHERE!!!

Honestly, it appears the answer to the question “So what do you, INSANEdrive, want instead?” is for people to not talk to you about PvP, which is pretty pathetic.

The correct solution here is not for Bungie to separate PvP and PvE... in some way you haven’t even come close to defining... it’s for you to get a grip and play the things you enjoy without spinning into a tizzy over others’ complaints that have zero effect on you.

locked

4848 views

We have seen first hand the sort of issues that can occur with this system.

We have? Care to list some of these issues? How about just one? Because what I’m reading is you have no specific complaint, but there must be something wrong SOMEWHERE!!!

Honestly, it appears the answer to the question “So what do you, INSANEdrive, want instead?” is for people to not talk to you about PvP, which is pretty pathetic.

The correct solution here is not for Bungie to separate PvP and PvE... in some way you haven’t even come close to defining... it’s for you to get a grip and play the things you enjoy without spinning into a tizzy over others’ complaints that have zero effect on you.

With all due respect, Ragashingo, you're being a touch dense here. It seems to me that either you haven't considered walking in anothers shoes, or that even through you asked, you don't want to understand. I'm more then happy to help, but right here is where I draw the line. I may be mad, but I don't tend well with ridiculous. Silly? Sure. Goofy? Oh yes. Ridiculous... much less so.

Should a cooler head prevail, and you wish to continue this discussion, I would be up for it. :)

-Or- (and I'm giggling like a schoolgirl right now doing this)

Just admit Cody was right.

Laters 'shingo! <3 XD

locked

4846 views

Even though raga is getting a bit unnecessarily frustrated, i believe he is asking if you have specific examples where it is annoying that Bungie has decided to keep things the same between PVE and PvP. A great example where i would love to see them handled separately is sniper flinch. Its super unfun in pve to have harsh sniper flinch, but it makes sense in pvp. In pve you are always getting hit by AI it doesn't make sense to punish you for wanting to snipe in this scenario by making the scope shake all over the screen upon hit.

Range nerfs for pvp have also made pve unfun. They have made whole archetypes less fun in pve to make them balanced in pvp. Suddenly weapons no longer felt as good. Having something fun in pve suddenly lose power, especially if its your favorite thing, feels bad. Except for where a weapon is breaking the game as the only one to use (gjallerhorn) you shouldn't make weapons in pve less fun to use by losing their effectiveness just to balamce pve.

Another excellent example is with perks. Remeber the nerfs to field scout? It made sense for pvp, but in pve it kinda sucked. Great HMGS suddenly became less desirable because of low ammo counts.

They have even done cases where they lowered the damage across both modes too strictly. An example of this could be vex mythoclast i think. It was too strong in pvp but it got reduced everywhere.

locked

4901 views

I also wanted to add that if bungie allowed themselves more freedom to separate they could experiment with a lot of fun pve only perks. I mean we already had pve focused perks on armor in destiny one such as: generates more super when killing minions of the darkness. If they ran with that you could have fun ai combatant only perk options like damage over time effects that stack, or the like. These wpuld be irritating in pvp but if it was only pve enemies, then no problem!

locked

4848 views

Even though raga is getting a bit unnecessarily frustrated, i believe he is asking if you have specific examples where it is annoying that Bungie has decided to keep things the same between PVE and PvP. A great example where i would love to see them handled separately is sniper flinch. Its super unfun in pve to have harsh sniper flinch, but it makes sense in pvp. In pve you are always getting hit by AI it doesn't make sense to punish you for wanting to snipe in this scenario by making the scope shake all over the screen upon hit.

Range nerfs for pvp have also made pve unfun. They have made whole archetypes less fun in pve to make them balanced in pvp. Suddenly weapons no longer felt as good. Having something fun in pve suddenly lose power, especially if its your favorite thing, feels bad. Except for where a weapon is breaking the game as the only one to use (gjallerhorn) you shouldn't make weapons in pve less fun to use by losing their effectiveness just to balamce pve.

Another excellent example is with perks. Remeber the nerfs to field scout? It made sense for pvp, but in pve it kinda sucked. Great HMGS suddenly became less desirable because of low ammo counts.

They have even done cases where they lowered the damage across both modes too strictly. An example of this could be vex mythoclast i think. It was too strong in pvp but it got reduced everywhere.

There we go. This is exactly the kind of thing I was asking for. Having PvE and PvP play similarly in itself is not a bad thing and in itself cannot be the reason the two should be separated. Anyone pushing for more PvP / PvE separation needs to be able to actual list issues like the ones above. I saw a great tweet from someone working for 343i the other day:

@Jessabirdy: You want something changed? Clear, concise,constructive feedback gets attention. Random,unfocused, hyperbolic negativity is ignored.

Everyone demanding changes to the core principles of Destiny (like where our Guardians are shared across PvP and PvE modes) needs to take that tweet to heart. Because you will be and should be ignored if you for can’t articulate the actual problems you have experienced.

locked

4874 views

That tweet is rich considering they ignored constructive and non-constructive feedback for years and killed the franchise they were put in charge of.

But I digress. Someone saying separate PvP from PvE is pretty concise, and it has been hashed out and explained in detail numerous times on other forums, and I'm pretty sure occasionally here. It's not our job to do your homework. I could very easily expand on Yapok's post with many examples, but I don't want to feed you when you're being difficult just for the fun of it. And I'm sure Bungie is well aware of the issues, too. It's up to Bungie to decide they want to do anything about them regardless of presentation.

locked

4756 views

In cases like this, I wish they had just banned the cool gun from crucible. Instead they made it so worthless that they never brought it back.

locked

4775 views

Thats definitely another example. Its stuff like this that just feels really bad for a pve player. And its always this way. Its never the reverse, minus probably sunsinger resurrection? What i mean is, things get worse in pve because of pvp balance. Its never the other way around, with pve balance making pvp worse. And thats frustrating for PVE focused players, and a lot of bitterness builds up over it.

locked

4780 views

Thats definitely another example. Its stuff like this that just feels really bad for a pve player. And its always this way. Its never the reverse, minus probably sunsinger resurrection? What i mean is, things get worse in pve because of pvp balance. Its never the other way around, with pve balance making pvp worse. And thats frustrating for PVE focused players, and a lot of bitterness builds up over it.

I just want to point out that it could easily have been the reverse, but bungie clearly decided they wanted to go the way of nerfing overperforming weapons rather than buffing underperforming ones in pvp. What they did was release a new set of guns with slightly faster overall TTK than the last set with each expansion, so you'd want to use the new guns, and then they'd nerf any of them that outperformed the others. So even though the overall weapon experience was getting stronger and stronger, the community feeling was actually that there was nothing but an endless stream of nerfs.

Also, bungie very, very rarely buffed underperforming weapons.

As I understand it, a big part of this was that all weapons within a class shared a few stats, so if any one weapon did well (Suros Regime, for example) buffing any other AR would make the suros even more absurdly good. Destiny 2 is allegedly designed differently, so that you can adjust the stats of individual weapons without affecting every other weapon in the class (FPS design 101 imo, but I'm glad we got there eventually - I know this is bungie's first time making a game with this may guns and they seem to have made quite a few rookie mistakes in that regard that they have hopefully learned from for their sophomore outing).

locked

4745 views

It’s funny, after all these years, I still don’t actually understand what Pocket Infinity did vs a normal Fusion Rifle.

locked

4791 views

I never had one, but I saw it in action at its prime. It effectively acted like a huge magazine size, giving you tons of shots in one trigger pull. I believe I am correct in that. It was very unique and incredibly scary in PVP.

locked

4789 views

It had auto fire but was crazy unstable and would burn through ammo. Great in PvE for jumping in and melting large groups of enemies. Totally broke in PvP bc you could spam it at midrange and control a lane.

locked

4811 views

It was basically a Y1 Super Good Advice, but in Fusion Rifle form. Once it charged up, you could keep the trigger down and it would fire like crazy until you actually hit something. The very first un-nerfed incarnation even felt like a un-nerfed Mythoclast, with pretty much zero spread and recoil.

locked

4786 views

Additionally, sometimes you would get additional ammunition to fire if you had a partial miss. And with enhanced battery you got 8 shots. Albeit, the longer the burst fired the harder it was to use and the less damage it did.

So much fun to use on bosses though.

locked

4714 views

Another excellent example is with perks. Remeber the nerfs to field scout? It made sense for pvp, but in pve it kinda sucked. Great HMGS suddenly became less desirable because of low ammo counts.

Yep. This is the one I probably felt the most. I think the change was more or less good for the Crucible since it limited people from just mowing everyone down with Brice bursts of HMG fire for the rest of the match. But, yeah, several HMGs got less fun to use in PvE. Even HMGs like Thunderlord that got a counterpart buff to their ammo counts never felt quite the same.

locked

4773 views

HMGs were probably my favorite PVE weapon aesthetically, but most of them were not optimal in comparison to others so I never used them except for fun. Which kinda sucks.

locked

4760 views

Yes. I know everyone can see this.

Perhaps I'm wrong on this here at DBO, as I don't play with lively debates on the internet much anymore. When a post reads like a sort of political facebook post - well, the conversation may have run it's course.

I read his post, and apparently I found the PvE ring of power. The precious! It's mine! No other can has precious! Ridiculous.

He asked me what I wanted, and I did so. He scolded me for it. Ridiculous.

He's willing to give Bungie all the benefit of the doubt in the world apparently, but not give an ounce to a fellow fairly regular DBO Member. Ridiculous.

I don't know if it's the same way for you lot, but I have a fairly decent awareness of who the regulars are here, what each are about, and often enjoy each of your inputs and incites. I enjoy your company as we play this Bungie game through it's highs and lows together, just as we may have done in the past at other *BOs.

If I am wrong about this point, and I am alone in this purview, then Ragas reaction isn't so surprising after all. I'm just a random on the internet then, and I wasn't writing for that context.

locked

4777 views

I don't know if it's the same way for you lot, but I have a fairly decent awareness of who the regulars are here, what each are about, and often enjoy each of your inputs and incites.

I want to know how I come across!

locked

4778 views

Sure! Am I correct in thinking you are one of the few other people who frequent a *BO who also was a regular at Halomods when it existed? I know there was Hawaiian Pig, and Veegie, ... but I seem to recall a name that, if it wasn't you - was very similar.

Anyway, foregoing ancient history, my interpretation is that you are a fairly direct, and no-nonense individual. I as recall, whenever I read a number of your posts there always seems to be an underling tendency of aggressive tone, not mean spirited mind you, but always seems to go for the jugular. Straight into the fray.

Having said that, any one else here who wants Vortech just requested, try again later. We're drifting a bit off course in the topic now, I really don't feel like reading the tea leaves all day. ;P

locked

4748 views

Bungie has said that they've redesigned weapon attributes so that they can tweak individual guns without having to shift an entire archetype.

I take this to mean that in D1, guns were programmed to all be children of a singular model from which they inherited most of their stats, and that in D2 they simply inherit base stats from an archetype but those can be adjusted on an individual basis. Now, I don't know the exact code techniques being used, so that's just a guess to help me picture it better, but the gist of what they said is the same.

So bungie can now Make Felwinter's Lie have a shorter range without making all other shotguns have a shorter range.

locked

4747 views

Examples:

Ammo reduction for hand cannons. Ammo reduction for snipers. Sniper flinch. Reduced range on certain weapons. Reducing AR crit multiplier. Nerfs to solar titan supers. The big health regeneration change. Pocket Infinity. Perks like field scout. Arcbolt and fire bolt grenades.

The list goes on and on where PvP balance made PvE worse.

locked

4820 views

Examples:

Ammo reduction for hand cannons. Ammo reduction for snipers. Sniper flinch. Reduced range on certain weapons. Reducing AR crit multiplier. Nerfs to solar titan supers. The big health regeneration change. Pocket Infinity. Perks like field scout. Arcbolt and fire bolt grenades.

The list goes on and on where PvP balance made PvE worse.

Interestingly, if I was seeing things correctly, the Arc bolt and Fire bolt grenades already got a decent buff in Destiny 2. I believe they will chain to (arc) or strike out at (fire) an additional target now.

locked

4805 views

Interestingly, if I was seeing things correctly, the Arc bolt and Fire bolt grenades already got a decent buff in Destiny 2. I believe they will chain to (arc) or strike out at (fire) an additional target now.

Praise be, but won't that work for both PvE and PvP?

locked

4694 views

- No text -

locked

4766 views

Will our characters remain mute throughout the sequel?
Luke Smith: Yep.

Well, that seals it. Awkward immersion-breaking staring and silence in the name of "immersion" it is. Makes sense, especially since it's been established that our character aren't mute. Bungie has literally pulled a Michael Bay by inexplicably taking away our speech for the sequel.

But it doesn't increase immersion. All it does is kind of make your character a non character. Even in games where you are supposed to be your character, they let you therefore select the dialogue choices. Your guardian would have lots of questions, concerns, and idea no? Like a real person in that situation. Well, not anymore.

This is objectively inept. Not in my opinion.

locked

4948 views

- No text -

locked

4666 views

- No text -

locked

4665 views

That is seriously the least funny, but supposed-to-be funny things I've ever heard. I don't know who thought that was clever, but they were very wrong.

locked

4804 views

That is seriously the least funny, but supposed-to-be funny things I've ever heard. I don't know who thought that was clever, but they were very wrong.

Funny thing. When Sammy and I played that strike, I walked out onto the white pool, only to shout out "OUCH MILK!" when I took damage... which was my way of warning Sammy not to step on it. She replied "Ouch milk? Did those words really just come out of your mouth?"

When Ghost called it Vex Milk two minutes later, Her reaction was great. I'm surprised she didn't immediately delete the Beta. Me winned again!

locked

4704 views

- No text -

locked

4628 views

It may be simultaneous spontaneous creation, but I know they came up with the Vex Milk thing on Guardian Radio and used it pretty frequently for a while. I assumed it was coming from there.

locked

4676 views

The term originated with the Hobgoblin Grimoire Card:

Specialized for sniping, this lean, tough Vex model is fitted with improved optics and acute sensors in its horns. Like the Goblin, the Hobgoblin contains a milky radiolarian fluid.

Attacking a Hobgoblin often triggers a defensive reflex - the Hobgoblin seals itself in stasis and waits for help.

locked

4609 views

The term originated with the Hobgoblin Grimoire Card:

Specialized for sniping, this lean, tough Vex model is fitted with improved optics and acute sensors in its horns. Like the Goblin, the Hobgoblin contains a milky radiolarian fluid.

Attacking a Hobgoblin often triggers a defensive reflex - the Hobgoblin seals itself in stasis and waits for help.

Milky radiolarian fluid =/= milk

I miss the technobabble...

locked

4711 views

- No text -

locked

4622 views

The term originated with the Hobgoblin Grimoire Card:

Specialized for sniping, this lean, tough Vex model is fitted with improved optics and acute sensors in its horns. Like the Goblin, the Hobgoblin contains a milky radiolarian fluid.

Attacking a Hobgoblin often triggers a defensive reflex - the Hobgoblin seals itself in stasis and waits for help.

Milky radiolarian fluid =/= milk

I miss the technobabble...

MILKY RADIOLARIAN FLUID

More like MIRF to me.

locked

4632 views

MILKY RADIOLARIAN FLUID

More like MIRF to me.

I just hear this in my head:

locked

4376 views

That is seriously the least funny, but supposed-to-be funny things I've ever heard. I don't know who thought that was clever, but they were very wrong.

Did you not play vanilla destiny? It was full of likely contenders for that title (cue Raga asking for specific examples because he can't be bothered to remember them :P)

locked

4602 views

That is seriously the least funny, but supposed-to-be funny things I've ever heard. I don't know who thought that was clever, but they were very wrong.

[Source]

locked

4198 views

That is seriously the least funny, but supposed-to-be funny things I've ever heard. I don't know who thought that was clever, but they were very wrong.

[Source]

So that's why my kid has a huge fan-like head and only one eye… !

locked

4242 views

- No text -

locked

4205 views

Now that I've seen milkman vex with a shirt, all I can see is that he isn't wearing pants.

locked

4168 views

Now that I've seen milkman vex with a shirt, all I can see is that he isn't wearing pants.

Is there a name for a worse version of that term?

The surprisingly-not-terrible Trolls movie strongly implies that Trolls have genitals (one gets disrobed within the first ten minutes, and careful camera angles obscure what viewers see). Partway through the film, we meet a male character who is established to be completely naked, but is missing some crucial elements:

That was a real headscratcher that kept me awake for a while. Glad to finally get that one off my chest...

locked

4130 views

- No text -

locked

4089 views

- No text -

locked

4058 views

...when you're playing poorly, Chatty Shaxxy had negative lines of dialogue like:

(use your inner Shaxx voice as you read these)

"You couldn't hit the broad side of a barn...I know...I've been to the farm too."
"You need to dial your iron, guardian."
"Mahahahan. You are one, pathetic, loser."
"...WORTHLESS."
"You couldn't iron a silk sheet if you had a hot date with...I've lost my train of thought."
"Really?...Really?"
"Everyone at the farm is laughing at your effort."
"You're sleeping in your ship tonight."
"Remember that time you contributed? I don't"
"Some people are masters of battle...and some people are you."
"I loaded your weapons with blanks. Sucker!"
"Your teammates are tired of you dying, Todd." (just to freak out Todds.)
"Hahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA."
"Why do I bother giving you gear?"
"Why are you still trying?"
"Maybe you should just stand in a corner for a while."
"Have you tried aiming?"
"See, they damaged you more than you damaged them. That's why you lost."

locked

4732 views

- No text -

locked

4679 views

[image]

locked

4692 views

- No text -

locked

4659 views

I was going to mention this is my Not-A-Review, but as mentioned I forgot!

With all the so called character building that seems to be implied to occur in in Destiny 2, I'm worried our ghosts are going to become a sort of glowing fly in the ear shall we say. Nothing more but to exist to give us life and exposition.

Instead of Nolan-Bot it will be Exposition-Bot.

In cutscenes this isn't as big a deal as it may be during missions and patrols that we play over and over. I've already have felt this way slightly in Destiny in some parts at this stage of the game, but since there is so few sudden speaking parts, I furrow my brow and move along. No big deal. Poison is in the dosage.

What I'm hoping it doesn't get to be is much like Early Ubisoft levels of... SHUT UP! I have the phrase "Please sir! I'm poor, and sick, and hungry." burned into my skull from the first Assassins Creed. I don't expect it, even a little bit, to get that bad through. An extreme example.

All said, this is just a long winded way of me saying - I agree ProbablyLast! Even if our indication is a stress-test like environment were we are forced to endure the same level over a weeks span should we choose to play the one strike multiple times through.

Which I might have done. A few times. Do Vex dream of electric cows?

locked

4643 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

A lot of disappointing answers in Bungie's AMA... (Destiny)

Wait a fiddly-diddly second, you missed one

A lot of disappointing answers in Bungie's AMA...

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

A good resolution demo

A good resolution demo

re: dunkirk

re: dunkirk

re: dunkirk

Enjoy the OmnIMAX experience!

Enjoy the OmnIMAX experience!

Enjoy the OmnIMAX experience!

Enjoy the OmnIMAX experience!

Find me one close to Disney World plz.

You're gonna have to drive to Alabama / Georgia dude.

You're gonna have to drive to Alabama / Georgia dude.

Yep. Haven't visited yet. I also am boycotting Tampa MOSI

Yep. Haven't visited yet. I also am boycotting Tampa MOSI

I'm also a Disney parks nerd!

I'm also a Disney parks nerd!

I'm also a Disney parks nerd!

You're gonna have to drive to Alabama / Georgia dude.

That's amazing! I'm going to tell this story about you.

Those are basically Tennessee. Lol! Oh well! Thanks!

Those are basically Tennessee. Lol! Oh well! Thanks!

Enjoy the OmnIMAX experience!

Enjoy the OmnIMAX experience!

Enjoy the OmnIMAX experience!

Enjoy the OmnIMAX experience!

Enjoy the OmnIMAX experience!

Enjoy the OmnIMAX experience!

Enjoy the OmnIMAX experience!

Enjoy the OmnIMAX experience!

Enjoy the OmnIMAX experience!

Hmm...

Hmm...

Hmm...

Hmm...

Hmm...

Hmm...

Hmm...

Hmm...

Hmm...

Hmm...

Hmm...

Hmm...

Hmm...

Hmm...

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

When did D2 work begin? When did HDR/WCG(4K) hit the tracks?

D2 - March 2014? HDR10 - August 2015?

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

The downsampling isn't for fun

The downsampling isn't for fun

The downsampling isn't for fun

The downsampling isn't for fun

The downsampling isn't for fun

The downsampling isn't for fun

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

HDR, perhaps not a big deal now but it will be.

Just to note, there is an "HDR Format" war happening.

Just to note, there is an "HDR Format" war happening.