Video Games

[Hoss]

Due to licensing issues Jack Eichel won't be in NHL 16 at launch. Have to assume he'll be added later but boy what a stupid rule.

[GoPre]

Due to licensing issues Jack Eichel won't be in NHL 16 at launch. Have to assume he'll be added later but boy what a stupid rule.

 

Didn't that happen w/ Reinhart last year? Eventually he was put in. Can't remember if it was NHL 14 or even NHL 15, too lazy to check it out, but Armia or some other played signed by the Sabres was never put in the game. Even as roster updates were made. 

 

But yeah, it's a dumb rule. Quite sure a decent amount of NHL fans into gaming will be buying NHL 16 just to have McDavid and Eichel in the game. McDavid was in NHL 15, but it'd be sweet to see both in NHL 16. EA, NHLPA and whoever else know what the fans want. 

Edited June 30, 2015 by Thanes16

[sabills]

Ugh, 360 red ringed last night. Was working fine. Guess I'm looking at upgrading...

[GoPre]

Ugh, 360 red ringed last night. Was working fine. Guess I'm looking at upgrading...

 

Had PS1 and PS2, but decided to go w/ the 360 when it came out. Got the red ring of death 3 times. Gave up on the system and returned to Playstation. Haven't looked back. Now, let me add Microsoft did fix a number of problems the original 360 had. Failure rate, to my understanding, eventually fell to the norm for gaming systems. Now, Xbox has a few incredible exclusives. I'm not bashing the franchise. Depends on what type of gamer you are. I like what Playstation has to offer. Only disappointment is the low amount of turn based rpg's for current consoles. Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White kicked butt. That was a Playstation only game. 

 

Also a big Nintendo fan. Love the the 1st party games. Zelda, Mario, etc.... Tremendously enjoy playing Nintendo w/ my kids. 

Edited June 30, 2015 by Thanes16

[Hoss]

Didn't that happen w/ Reinhart last year? Eventually he was put in. Can't remember if it was NHL 14 or even NHL 15, too lazy to check it out, but Armia or some other played signed by the Sabres was never put in the game. Even as roster updates were made. 

 

But yeah, it's a dumb rule. Quite sure a decent amount of NHL fans into gaming will be buying NHL 16 just to have McDavid and Eichel in the game. McDavid was in NHL 15, but it'd be sweet to see both in NHL 16. EA, NHLPA and whoever else know what the fans want. 

Reinhart and Armia were both on the game from the start... They were just stuck in other leagues and you would have to go ppull them out yourself. Eichel is different because he's an NCAA athlete.

But I still think it's stupid. If he signs a contract then he's no longer an NCAA athlete, and he should thus be in the game from that second.

[GoPre]

Reinhart and Armia were both on the game from the start... They were just stuck in other leagues and you would have to go ppull them out yourself. Eichel is different because he's an NCAA athlete.

But I still think it's stupid. If he signs a contract then he's no longer an NCAA athlete, and he should thus be in the game from that second.

 

Agreed. What NCAA athletes signed last year made or did not make it into NHL 15? Definitely a question that probably needs a little research. Stupid NCAA. Ended the NCAA Football series by EA. Enjoyed playing that more than Madden....

 

NCAA may be not the reason for players not being in an NHL game after signing a contract. It just doesn't make sense. 

Edited June 30, 2015 by Thanes16

[Hoss]

Agreed. What NCAA athletes signed last year made or did not make it into NHL 15? Definitely a question that probably needs a little research. Stupid NCAA. Ended the NCAA Football series by EA. Enjoyed playing that more than Madden....

 

NCAA may be not the reason for players not being in an NHL game after signing a contract. It just doesn't make sense. 

It's exactly that. Players that play in leagues not licensed by these video game companies can't be in the game until they've officially played in the licensed league... NCAA video games died because the NCAA refuses to pay their athletes for their likeness and the games were based entirely on using player likenesses.

 

I know the MLB game took a lot of heat because they didn't have Bryce Harper until after his debut since they needed to wait until he appeared in a real game.

[GoPre]

It's exactly that. Players that play in leagues not licensed by these video game companies can't be in the game until they've officially played in the licensed league... NCAA video games died because the NCAA refuses to pay their athletes for their likeness and the games were based entirely on using player likenesses.

 

I know the MLB game took a lot of heat because they didn't have Bryce Harper until after his debut since they needed to wait until he appeared in a real game.

 

That is true. You could edit the players and their names, not numbers, would be announced while playing the game. Plus, an elite qb in the game would strongly resemble an actual elite qb on the very same team. 

[Hoss]

That is true. You could edit the players and their names, not numbers, would be announced while playing the game. Plus, an elite qb in the game would strongly resemble an actual elite qb on the very same team. 

The rosters had the exact numbers and size of every player. It wasn't just the QBs. It was everything but the name... And they allowed custom rosters that you could download and get every name on every team.

[GoPre]

The rosters had the exact numbers and size of every player. It wasn't just the QBs. It was everything but the name... And they allowed custom rosters that you could download and get every name on every team.

That's what I meant. Used QB as an example. When I mentioned the numbers, I was meaning the announcer would say their name you put in. If you didn't, their number would be said.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Thanes16

[shrader]

It's exactly that. Players that play in leagues not licensed by these video game companies can't be in the game until they've officially played in the licensed league... NCAA video games died because the NCAA refuses to pay their athletes for their likeness and the games were based entirely on using player likenesses.

 

I know the MLB game took a lot of heat because they didn't have Bryce Harper until after his debut since they needed to wait until he appeared in a real game.

 

It sounds like your issue is more with the players' unions than the NCAA.

[Hoss]

It sounds like your issue is more with the players' unions than the NCAA.

I don't have too much of an issue with it either way. The only "issue" is that I think these players should be in the game the second they sign a contract and not after they play a shift in a professional game.

 

I have TONS of issues with the NCAA... But that's not what this discussion is about so we don't need to get into that.

[GoPre]

I don't have too much of an issue with it either way. The only "issue" is that I think these players should be in the game the second they sign a contract and not after they play a shift in a professional game.t.

I agree w/ you. It's a simple annoyance for those that play online. We'll have Eichel after a roster update. For those that don't play online, they're stuck w/ creating Eichel. Once a player turns pro, they should be in the game.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Thanes16

[sabills]

Had PS1 and PS2, but decided to go w/ the 360 when it came out. Got the red ring of death 3 times. Gave up on the system and returned to Playstation. Haven't looked back. Now, let me add Microsoft did fix a number of problems the original 360 had. Failure rate, to my understanding, eventually fell to the norm for gaming systems. Now, Xbox has a few incredible exclusives. I'm not bashing the franchise. Depends on what type of gamer you are. I like what Playstation has to offer. Only disappointment is the low amount of turn based rpg's for current consoles. Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White kicked butt. That was a Playstation only game. 

 

Also a big Nintendo fan. Love the the 1st party games. Zelda, Mario, etc.... Tremendously enjoy playing Nintendo w/ my kids. 

 

 

Similar story, had PS1 and PS2, which I love. I didn't even buy a 360 til late in the game, and by then it was because you could get them so cheap compared to the PS3. In addition to that, my now wife had one, and some of my roommates around that time had one, so I was used to it, and had even bought a few games for the house to play, so it made sense. Wife's died about a year ago, now this one, that I split with my brother, just went :(.

 

I'm considering going to PC gaming again; I have a bunch of games I bought on deals on Steam that I can't run on my laptop (well, couldn't, that is also dead...its been a rough year for me electronically). I live in the tech world, so I feel fairly confident I can put together a solid system. I don't need it to be amazing, I just need it to be able to run 99% of games, and be able to do that for like 5 years. I'm ok with dropping the graphics down in the future, I just want to be able to actually PLAY the games.

 

I'll probably buy another 360 and split it with my brother again to tide me over, but hopefully by winter time I'll have a system that can do decent stuff again.

[GoPre]

Similar story, had PS1 and PS2, which I love. I didn't even buy a 360 til late in the game, and by then it was because you could get them so cheap compared to the PS3. In addition to that, my now wife had one, and some of my roommates around that time had one, so I was used to it, and had even bought a few games for the house to play, so it made sense. Wife's died about a year ago, now this one, that I split with my brother, just went :(.

 

I'm considering going to PC gaming again; I have a bunch of games I bought on deals on Steam that I can't run on my laptop (well, couldn't, that is also dead...its been a rough year for me electronically). I live in the tech world, so I feel fairly confident I can put together a solid system. I don't need it to be amazing, I just need it to be able to run 99% of games, and be able to do that for like 5 years. I'm ok with dropping the graphics down in the future, I just want to be able to actually PLAY the games.

 

I'll probably buy another 360 and split it with my brother again to tide me over, but hopefully by winter time I'll have a system that can do decent stuff again.

 

I'm unfamiliar w/ PC gaming, but isn't it rather expensive w/ the upgrades you have to make to play new games? Too bad you've had some serious bad luck w/ consoles. W/ the new consoles out, I'm sure there are a few great deals/bundles for the 360 and/or PS3. 

 

And speaking of scary moments w/ consoles, my PS4 froze when I put in NHL 15 after I responded to your post. What are the odds of that?! NHL 15 never loaded. I let it sit for a few minutes in hopes it'd get started, but I ended up restarting it. A message was sent saying some type of problem occurred and asked for me to describe what happened. Rolled my eyes and declined it. Put in NHL 15 and it ran smoothly. W/ the experience I had, similar to yours, w/ the 360 I've become very paranoid w/ video games. Man, in the NES days if the screen went gray I didn't think anything of it. Simply blew air into the cartridge, shoved it back and it worked. NES never crashed while I had it. 

[Johnny DangerFace]

I'm unfamiliar w/ PC gaming, but isn't it rather expensive w/ the upgrades you have to make to play new games? Too bad you've had some serious bad luck w/ consoles. W/ the new consoles out, I'm sure there are a few great deals/bundles for the 360 and/or PS3.

 

And speaking of scary moments w/ consoles, my PS4 froze when I put in NHL 15 after I responded to your post. What are the odds of that?! NHL 15 never loaded. I let it sit for a few minutes in hopes it'd get started, but I ended up restarting it. A message was sent saying some type of problem occurred and asked for me to describe what happened. Rolled my eyes and declined it. Put in NHL 15 and it ran smoothly. W/ the experience I had, similar to yours, w/ the 360 I've become very paranoid w/ video games. Man, in the NES days if the screen went gray I didn't think anything of it. Simply blew air into the cartridge, shoved it back and it worked. NES never crashed while I had it.

NES games never worked and still don't!

 

SNES always worked tho

[thesportsbuff]

I'm unfamiliar w/ PC gaming, but isn't it rather expensive w/ the upgrades you have to make to play new games? 

 

That's my problem with PC gaming. You pay two to three times more for a high-end computer than you do for a console. Overall it is a better experience -- better graphics, more customization with mods (although this is coming to consoles), etc -- but is it worth it? For me, no. Especially since most sports games no longer release PC versions.

 

Console is great. I get that people like to be able to upgrade their PC, but that is not for me. I like an even playing field. On console everyone is using the same tools. On PC, people with a $1500 computer have a huge advantage. 

[shrader]

NES games never worked and still don't!

 

SNES always worked tho

 

I miss the methodical approach you had to go through to get an NES game to work.  And then once you finally thought you had it right, it would reset again and go back to that blinking screen.

[TrueBlueGED]

That's my problem with PC gaming. You pay two to three times more for a high-end computer than you do for a console. Overall it is a better experience -- better graphics, more customization with mods (although this is coming to consoles), etc -- but is it worth it? For me, no. Especially since most sports games no longer release PC versions.

 

Console is great. I get that people like to be able to upgrade their PC, but that is not for me. I like an even playing field. On console everyone is using the same tools. On PC, people with a $1500 computer have a huge advantage.

FWIW on that last bit, most competitive gamers turn down their graphics settings. It's actually much harder to see enemy players with a zillion shadows and particle effects than without them.

 

PC gaming is certainly more expensive, but I use my PC for so much that the only real added expense is the video card. All of the other money I put into a new PC I benefit from outside of gaming. Consequently, work PCs and those of friends drive me nuts with how slow they are for everyday tasks. Also, I don't know how any of you play FPSs with a controller. Awful.

[Johnny DangerFace]

I miss the methodical approach you had to go through to get an NES game to work. And then once you finally thought you had it right, it would reset again and go back to that blinking screen.

I still have an NES and it's only gotten worse with time.

 

I just want to play maniac mansion geez

[thesportsbuff]

FWIW on that last bit, most competitive gamers turn down their graphics settings. It's actually much harder to see enemy players with a zillion shadows and particle effects than without them.

 

PC gaming is certainly more expensive, but I use my PC for so much that the only real added expense is the video card. All of the other money I put into a new PC I benefit from outside of gaming. Consequently, work PCs and those of friends drive me nuts with how slow they are for everyday tasks. Also, I don't know how any of you play FPSs with a controller. Awful.

 

I had heard that before (about the graphic settings). Makes sense, but wouldn't a higher end PC also have a higher render distance? As in, someone could potentially see me across the map from a position that is "fogged out" on my screen? Either way, I agree that PC is the best option if you have the funds. I play a few games, but my laptop is pretty limited by a slow i7 and a mediocre mobile graphics cad (GeForce 840m). Civ 5, Sim City, and some Source engine shooters all seem to run pretty well. Other games not so much.

 

As far as online gaming goes, I started out on console playing SOCOM: US NAVY SEALs on the ps2. I guess that's why I prefer the controller for shooter games haha. 

Edited June 30, 2015 by thesportsbuff

[darksabre]

Similar story, had PS1 and PS2, which I love. I didn't even buy a 360 til late in the game, and by then it was because you could get them so cheap compared to the PS3. In addition to that, my now wife had one, and some of my roommates around that time had one, so I was used to it, and had even bought a few games for the house to play, so it made sense. Wife's died about a year ago, now this one, that I split with my brother, just went :(.

 

I'm considering going to PC gaming again; I have a bunch of games I bought on deals on Steam that I can't run on my laptop (well, couldn't, that is also dead...its been a rough year for me electronically). I live in the tech world, so I feel fairly confident I can put together a solid system. I don't need it to be amazing, I just need it to be able to run 99% of games, and be able to do that for like 5 years. I'm ok with dropping the graphics down in the future, I just want to be able to actually PLAY the games.

 

I'll probably buy another 360 and split it with my brother again to tide me over, but hopefully by winter time I'll have a system that can do decent stuff again.

 

Man, 360 prices have come down a lot. 

 

I might have to take a look at the Xbox One vs PS4 soon. I've been very happy with the last two X Box versions since my days as a loyal Playstation owner. But I have debated looking at Playstation again. 

 

To be fair, I don't really spend much time gaming these days. But I like to grab the controller and play around once in a while. Outside of Forza/Gran Turismo, and the NHL series I don't do much though. How does anyone find the time?

 

The deciding factor on my next system will have less to do with the gaming experience and more to do with all the extra stuff. We use our 360 mostly for Netflix and NHL Center Ice. Plus I like how easily the X Box sync's with my computer so I can torrent movies and tv shows and watch them across our home network. I don't know what the Playstation can do with respect to that kind of thing. 

[sabills]

I'm unfamiliar w/ PC gaming, but isn't it rather expensive w/ the upgrades you have to make to play new games? Too bad you've had some serious bad luck w/ consoles. W/ the new consoles out, I'm sure there are a few great deals/bundles for the 360 and/or PS3. 

 

Certainly can be, especially if you want top of the line, but if I throw 700 bucks at it it'll do what I want for quite a while, then I can upgrade ad hoc instead of the whole shebang at once. I don't need crazy graphics, even if I want them. Like I said, if I can future proof it enough to run the games on basic graphics for like 3-5 years, it'll be worth it.

 

If I get real nutty with it, I've thought about buying a really cheap tablet/laptop hybrid, which I'd like anyways, PLUS a gaming desktop, and then remoting into the desktop from the laptop. That way I can play from my couch and not abandon my wife for hours at a time, but still be able to play  the games I want. Not really sure this will work, but Steam came out with an OS a while ago, and if I'm reading correctly they say you can do it fairly easily with that system. Probably wouldn't work well with multiplayer on-line stuff, but I play almost none of that anyways.

 

I'll probably just buy another 360 and live with that for another year, but its on my radar, anyways.

[TrueBlueGED]

I had heard that before (about the graphic settings). Makes sense, but wouldn't a higher end PC also have a higher render distance? As in, someone could potentially see me across the map from a position that is "fogged out" on my screen? Either way, I agree that PC is the best option if you have the funds. I play a few games, but my laptop is pretty limited by a slow i7 and a mediocre mobile graphics cad (GeForce 840m). Civ 5, Sim City, and some Source engine shooters all seem to run pretty well. Other games not so much.

 

As far as online gaming goes, I started out on console playing SOCOM: US NAVY SEALs on the ps2. I guess that's why I prefer the controller for shooter games haha.

Draw distance is limited by the game engine, and any PC that meets requirements for a game can max that as long as the other settings are low. You can probably put together a PC for the same price as a new console and not be at any real competitive disadvantage.

 

My first FPS was Goldeneye for N64, and back then, I couldn't understand using a keyboard and mouse. I've done a total 180 after years of keyboard and mouse controls.

Certainly can be, especially if you want top of the line, but if I throw 700 bucks at it it'll do what I want for quite a while, then I can upgrade ad hoc instead of the whole shebang at once. I don't need crazy graphics, even if I want them. Like I said, if I can future proof it enough to run the games on basic graphics for like 3-5 years, it'll be worth it.

That's exactly it. Once you have the base system, it really not expensive to maintain unless you want to run 4k resolution or triple gaming monitor setup. I spent $500 on a video card like 4-5 years ago and only now am just considering an upgrade, and even then the only reason is because I bought a 1440p monitor for work, which has zapped my gaming speeds. If I were still at 1080p I'd be fine.

[JujuFish]

PC gaming can be expensive.  If you're the type that has to have the latest and greatest, you're going to pay for it.  However, if you're just looking for a solid gaming PC and not the best of the best, you'll still get a better visual experience than anything consoles can offer.  There are some common misconceptions of the cost of PC gaming.

 

First, you don't need to constantly make upgrades to your computer to play the latest games.  I built my desktop over 6 years ago, and have made a single upgrade (the video card, for under $200) in that time.  My PC today is still more powerful than consoles.  Add to that, I've been running at true 1080p since I built the thing.  Most console games today are still upscaled to 1080p.

 

Second, PC doesn't have a $50/year charge to play online.  Granted, there are other bonuses with getting Xbox Live Gold and Playstation Plus, but making money off of people wanting multiplayer is the main reason they exist.  On PCs, that's completely free.

 

Third, actually buying the games for PC is cheaper all around.  For example, PC gamers were able to preorder Arkham Knight from GreenManGaming for $36.  Even if you're a member of Best Buy's Gamer's Club Unlocked, their discount didn't come close in comparison.  PC games also tend to go in big sales more quickly and more often.  This one depends a lot on the publisher (Activision games, especially COD, rarely get good discounts early in their life), but I've gotten games that are a year old at 75% off.

 

Due to the above factors, it is quite conceivable that PC gaming is actually cheaper in the long run, depending on the situation.  Someone who plays lightly, sticking to a game for months on end, will be better off, financially, playing on a console unless they already have a solid PC for other reasons and just need a video card upgrade.  Someone who buys and plays lots of games, including online?  They might very well spend less money on PC.

 

I'd like to note that I'm only talking about the cost of PC gaming; I'm not saying PC gaming is better than console gaming.  There are many reasons to play on consoles, and I'm not disparaging that choice at all.  I've been playing on consoles myself since the NES, and there will always be a place in my living room for a console or two.