What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Video games...what ya playing? And what are you looking forward to? (3 Viewers)

Borden said:
I haven't seen a home projector in 10+ years. In my remembrance of them it was a really large and grainy/fuzzy screen. I've never even considered this before. 
Click to expand...
1080p, baby.

Now there are some projectors that are pseudo 4k for about $2-4k.

True 4k projectors are in short supply and about $10k.

 
I use an Epson 8350. You can pick up a perfectly good refurbished one for about $625 from Epson directly.

Looking to upgrade for movie purposes but it's more than adequate for my gaming.

Some gamers don't like certain projectors because of lag but I've never noticed it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy Dufresne said:
All kidding aside, when I play a game like Battlefront on my 106" screen, I wonder how people can play on sets that are "only" 50-60".

And I have Lasik improved eyesight.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I can play BF better on my 21" computer monitor than I can a 60" TV.  And I'm not referring to PC controls here.  I'm talking in terms of seeing and identifying enemy threats.  Perhaps it's how the console resolution is down-scaled in comparison to the PC.  

 
Awesome. You guys have open my eyes. 

I'm house hunting at the moment but I'm planning on building a PC and it seems that the projector is a better option than the TV. Thanks y'all. I will come back for projector recommendations once I've moved. 

 
SlaX said:
Honestly, I can play BF better on my 21" computer monitor than I can a 60" TV.  And I'm not referring to PC controls here.  I'm talking in terms of seeing and identifying enemy threats.  Perhaps it's how the console resolution is down-scaled in comparison to the PC.  
Click to expand...


Yea.  I can't imagine how far back you'd have to sit to be able to  properly see a 100" screen.  There isn't a room in my house long enough for it.

 
cstu said:
Just got started on XCOM2 and it seems much better but harder than 1.  Was shocked how easy it was to get killed right off the bat.
Click to expand...
I can't figure out how to get this quote out of my reply box.  Also, XCOM2 is a fantastic game and the DLC really adds very difficult aliens to the mix.  I can see myself picking this game up over and over.  Assuming, of course, that Civ6 doesn't monopolize my gaming time and/or break my brain.

 
I've been playing a crapload of Ultima Online. I have several houses now. :bag:

Ive also been playing Super Mega baseball. It's a lot of fun and free right now for XB1.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
STEADYMOBBIN 22 said:
Ive also been playing Super Mega baseball. It's a lot of fun and free right now for XB1.
Click to expand...
Not a big baseball fan (Baseball Stars 1 & 2 were my last baseball games I enjoyed), but I was surprised by how fun this was.  

 
Scoresman said:
Are there still official servers or are you playing on one of the player run ones?
Click to expand...
http://www.uorenaissance.com/

I play here. It's a UO Renaissance era correct shard (2nd expansion /May 2000).

I prefer the older ruleset but if you want to play with neon colored weapons and animals try UOhybrid which is one of the most popular servers. 

As I said before I prefer the older rule set because it's a whole lot harder and closer to the UO I remember when it first came out. UO Renaissance allows me to play on an older ruleset and has the stability so all my hard work just won't disappear with a server wipe in the middle of the night like UORebirth :hot:

Give it a whirl, if you are anything like me, you have never played a game quite like UO since and you need to scratch the itch from time to time this is perfect.  Login, hear that music, walk around town for a bit and kill a few trolls. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheAristocrat said:
PC guys,

Anyone buying Tyranny?  I just checked it out on Steam and it seems like something in my wheelhouse of gaming.
Click to expand...
I was just reading about this. I'm piqued by the concept, but the screenshots are little weak.

I'll wait for user reviews before taking the plunge.

 
Really digging BF1. 

Im getting the same level of enjoyment from it as I did Bad Company 2, and much more than 3/4 together. It's really good. 

I am am straying away from conquest and playing Domination and Rush right now. No one has quite figured out how to take out tanks yet so I'll stick to smaller maps with less vehicles used.  I'm sure a quick google search could help me blow up a tank, but until squads of people work together for it, it's not worth going after them. 

 
Civ 5 Question -

Have any of you ever won via Domination (all other civ capitals destroyed/captured)?

I find it impossible to do with more than 4 Civs in the game. It's just too tough to maintain the constant military campaign needed to pull it off. People get unhappy. Gold goes into the negatives. It's impossible.

 
bigmarc27 said:
Really digging BF1. 

Im getting the same level of enjoyment from it as I did Bad Company 2, and much more than 3/4 together. It's really good. 

I am am straying away from conquest and playing Domination and Rush right now. No one has quite figured out how to take out tanks yet so I'll stick to smaller maps with less vehicles used.  I'm sure a quick google search could help me blow up a tank, but until squads of people work together for it, it's not worth going after them. 
Click to expand...
Huh.  I was probably going to skip this one, but the comparison to BC2 is making me reconsider.

 
I guess bad company 2 was OK for the most part.  But from a balance and design perspective it was a mess. Medic revive trains were the worst and everyone played medic because, for some reason, they gave medics the light machine guns. Just bizarre. Also, the Carl Gustav was an unbalanced POS.

The one thing  I will say was that I liked the map design.  They botched RUSH map design in both bf3 and bf4.

 
TLEF316 said:
I guess bad company 2 was OK for the most part.  But from a balance and design perspective it was a mess. Medic revive trains were the worst and everyone played medic because, for some reason, they gave medics the light machine guns. Just bizarre. Also, the Carl Gustav was an unbalanced POS.

The one thing  I will say was that I liked the map design.  They botched RUSH map design in both bf3 and bf4.
Click to expand...
Rush is my favorite. The maps seem to be setup well for rush so far. If you stop them on the first two stops, you're likely dominating. The last stop is the easiest to defend and hardest to attack, but I've won them on both sides. 

 
shadyridr said:
No excitement over RDR2 announcement?
Click to expand...
Excited to see the trailer as long as it has gameplay. I read they registered RedDeadOnline.com or something like that, I kinda hope the multiplayer doesn't overtake the single player. I actually enjoy GTA Online, but that's mainly due to the cars and the planes and such. I'm not sure a western version would have enough variety. 

 
Waiting to see the trailer on RDR2, there was a leaked possible game map a few months ago so its not surprising the official announcement came out. Am very curious what they mean by multiplayer. By the time heists and other stuff finally came out for GTA5 my friends and I had moved on, so wondering how they will adapt that multiplayer style to Red Dead to make it more engaging. I could see something like robbing wagons, trains, banks, or having more base defense like the Spanish fort in the 1st Red Dead (which was a lot of fun with the canons.) Not sure what else you can put together there without "vehicles" to steal like planes, etc. But the multiplayer "zones" (where you started death matches, races, etc.) could easily be integrated, it kind of was already there in the first Red Dead. Hoping they fix some of the issues with multiplayer though, in the first Red Dead the respawns were terrible: you generated with very basic weapons and usually spawned very close to the guy that just killed you. It was the perfect setup for griefers.

 
bigmarc27 said:
Rush is my favorite. The maps seem to be setup well for rush so far. If you stop them on the first two stops, you're likely dominating. The last stop is the easiest to defend and hardest to attack, but I've won them on both sides. 
Click to expand...
I remember Rush on Arica Harbor.  What a great game.  The invincible choppers that spin around forever and disintegrate the whole map were more of a balance issue than the medics.  Generally if it was just foot soldiers you could spot them and your team would start dumping on them whether or not you had a squad with you.  

I've always felt like BF3 and 4 were pitiful by comparison.  BF1 being more inline with BC2 is a nice departure from the campy garbage in the last two releases.  Good riddance.  

 
bigmarc27 said:
Rush is my favorite. The maps seem to be setup well for rush so far. If you stop them on the first two stops, you're likely dominating. The last stop is the easiest to defend and hardest to attack, but I've won them on both sides. 
Click to expand...
Question for you on BF1: 

I'm not a big multiplayer gamer because they all seem to turn pretty hardcore - I don't use my mic, and while I'll pay attention to an objective (like running towards it / defending a point / etc), I'm not hardcore about it at all. I did enjoy some Titanfall in the beginning because it was pretty casual - would I enjoy the MP here, or are casual mic-less players unwelcome?  

 
Never been much for point and click games, but I've been playing Samorost 3.  It's a really odd game with cool art style, music and some nice puzzles.  It's a great game when you want to take a break from killing mans and just relax a bit.  

http://samorost3.net/

 
flysack said:
Civ 5 Question -

Have any of you ever won via Domination (all other civ capitals destroyed/captured)?

I find it impossible to do with more than 4 Civs in the game. It's just too tough to maintain the constant military campaign needed to pull it off. People get unhappy. Gold goes into the negatives. It's impossible.
Click to expand...
I've done it a few times.  Once you get some semblance of an army, you march against the world and raze nearly all cities that aren't capitals (keep a non-capital city as a blocker, a healing city, or a road to destroying another civ - everything else gets razed).  Basically, once you start warring, you don't stop until the world is yours.

So, how?  Prioritize science early while you are at peace.  Get science moving as quickly as possible.  Don't go for faith/culture at all.  Once you have your war tech(s), build the units and advance.  I would only create one or two additional cities (a production city + a lux city maybe - prioritize production heavily) at this time since you will be mowing down cities soon.

One great way to get a domination is to play on archipelago as Korea.  The turtle ship is a naval melee unit so it can capture cities.  Hit all the coastal capitals and raid any inland capitals with your enormous empire.

 
jwb said:
Question for you on BF1: 

I'm not a big multiplayer gamer because they all seem to turn pretty hardcore - I don't use my mic, and while I'll pay attention to an objective (like running towards it / defending a point / etc), I'm not hardcore about it at all. I did enjoy some Titanfall in the beginning because it was pretty casual - would I enjoy the MP here, or are casual mic-less players unwelcome?  
Click to expand...
So I would say it's much less hardcore than most multiplayer games. Like you can not kill someone the entire match and still score a lot of points if you play the objective and do support stuff for your class like healing if you're a medic, give ammo if you're support, etc.... also spotting people. 

So by that metric, it's not as hardcore. Also each team is split into a squad and you only chat within that squad. Honestly, there's not much chatter at all. The only time I hear anyone is if I join a squad with some people already in there who are friends. 

I would say as long as you play the objective, nobody will have a problem with you at all.  Honestly, the only people that truly frustrate me are the snipers who hang back 9 miles from the action trying to pick someone off so they can record it and show their buddies.  They're not helping anything at all. Guys running headfirst into the objective are always welcome. 

 
Ren Ho3k said:
I remember Rush on Arica Harbor.  What a great game.  The invincible choppers that spin around forever and disintegrate the whole map were more of a balance issue than the medics.  Generally if it was just foot soldiers you could spot them and your team would start dumping on them whether or not you had a squad with you.  

I've always felt like BF3 and 4 were pitiful by comparison.  BF1 being more inline with BC2 is a nice departure from the campy garbage in the last two releases.  Good riddance.  
Click to expand...
Man I loved like all of the maps in BC2. My favorite rush map was the one where you work down hill through the forest for hate first set, then turn hard left along the coast. It had the huge lighthouse that to the right side of the map. Loved that one.

 
bigmarc27 said:
I would say as long as you play the objective, nobody will have a problem with you at all.  Honestly, the only people that truly frustrate me are the snipers who hang back 9 miles from the action trying to pick someone off so they can record it and show their buddies.  They're not helping anything at all. Guys running headfirst into the objective are always welcome. 
Click to expand...
Ok, that's me. Thanks!! 

 
flysack said:
Civ 5 Question -

Have any of you ever won via Domination (all other civ capitals destroyed/captured)?

I find it impossible to do with more than 4 Civs in the game. It's just too tough to maintain the constant military campaign needed to pull it off. People get unhappy. Gold goes into the negatives. It's impossible.
Click to expand...
I do it all the time. The key is to focus on social policies that give happiness per city or happiness per building. Meritocracy, military caste, professional army, naval tradition. You eventually reach a point where adding cities is a net gain to happiness, if they've got a full slate of buildings. And you don't really need a large standing army, since the AI is so bad at tactics, so you can focus most of your production on these buildings.

 
bigmarc27 said:
Man I loved like all of the maps in BC2. My favorite rush map was the one where you work down hill through the forest for hate first set, then turn hard left along the coast. It had the huge lighthouse that to the right side of the map. Loved that one.
Click to expand...
I know the one you're talking about.

My favorite is still Port Valdez -- the one from the demo.  I played the hell out of that.  

 
bigmarc27 said:
Man I loved like all of the maps in BC2. My favorite rush map was the one where you work down hill through the forest for hate first set, then turn hard left along the coast. It had the huge lighthouse that to the right side of the map. Loved that one.
Click to expand...
I believe that one was Valparaiso?

 
After watching bits and pieces of a few video clips I'm actually more interested in battlefield 1's single player campaign then the MP. 

Thats very unlike me. those graphics and the tank sounds won me over.

 
Kind of a hijack here. Fairly certain it's been discussed, but I can't find a thread for it. So if someone has a link, just give me that instead of answers if it's easier. We have an Xbox 360 for a few years. Up til now my kids have been satisfied and hadn't been asking for the Xbox 1. But I think Santa is ponying up this year. My wonder is do I skip the projected fire sale deals on the XB1 and go for the XB1S? I did some poking around and don't see a whole lot of difference between the two. Neither kid does any hardcore gaming.

Thanks

 
flysack said:
Civ 5 Question -

Have any of you ever won via Domination (all other civ capitals destroyed/captured)?

I find it impossible to do with more than 4 Civs in the game. It's just too tough to maintain the constant military campaign needed to pull it off. People get unhappy. Gold goes into the negatives. It's impossible.
Click to expand...
I have. 3 "continents" several civs. I was pretty much just trying to dominate my continent and did. On the second one the civs attacked each others caps and on the third there was one dominant civ that comlpetely took over his continent. I was going for science victory but once I noticed only one other civ had his capitol I went over and made a beeline for his capitol and barely captured it.

I have a very hard time going for a cultural victory and also having fun. I've resigned myself to science victories (the usual) or attempting domination again.

I picked up Civ V about a month ago (vanilla) for $7 and it's my current addiction. 

 
Cultural is the easiest way to win, imo.

After that it's diplomacy. Just take the Greeks and get all the city-states on your side, rush science to the U.N. and you've won. The only danger is if one of the Civs is rushing to science victory and somehow finishes the space ship before you get the U.N. vote.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
flysack said:
Cultural is the easiest way to win, imo.
Click to expand...
Are you playing defensive most of the game? Still conquering?

Every time I try to go "cultural" about halfway through I'm like "WTF!? Japan is in Industrial Age?! I'm not even in Renaissance yet!"

As far as Diplomatic Victory, I have zero interest in that. I actually wish there were more types of Domination victories than just being last one with their orig capitol.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top