The Nvidia Shield is really tempting. Having just one PC at home capable of gaming, and having it situated in my bedroom means that sometimes, I just can't play if my wife and child are sleeping. When Steam Home Streaming was announced, I was thrilled. The problem was, the only other laptops I have are a netbook, and a notebook more than 10 years old. Would it actually work on these devices?
The amazing thing (or perhaps not if you understand how streaming works...) is that it does work. While I've yet to try it on the netbook, I can play games on the old machine. Frame rate does become an issue on certain games, and I've yet to properly troubleshoot so I can't say if it can be improved, but, it does work quite well. Ideally, you want to stream Steam games, but you can actually add other 'non-Steam' games to Steam to make it work.
Simply clicking 'Add a Non-Steam Game to my Library' does not work with Blizzard games though, likely because of the laucher app. Here are some troubleshooting tips I got from forums:
1) Select 'browse' at the 'Add a Non-Steam Game to my Library' window and navigate to the folder with your game and select the .exe file.
2) If you can't find the .exe file, or it doesn't work with Steam, try the folder 'Support'. Sometimes, the file will come with a 'Switcher' in the file name. For example: "E:\Program Files\Heroes of the Storm\Support\HeroesSwitcher.exe"
3) Add a -launch after the file name. For example: "C:\Program Files\Diablo III\Diablo III.exe" -launch
Hope these tips help if you want to stream through Steam. I haven't been able to get Hearthstone to work though, but when Android tablets and smart phone support comes, we won't need to. For now, Splashtop streaming to tablet works for me if I don't manage to steal my wife's iPad 2 to play.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Saturday, October 11, 2014
FPS and Resolution
Next gen has become current gen, and gamers are expecting better graphics on their games. 1080p is the talk of the town, and the debate between 60 and 30 frames per second (fps) continue to rage on. Developers tout 30fps as the way to go for the 'cinematic' feel and that 1080p is not important if the game looks good.
Frankly, I don't really care how 'amazing' a game looks if it plays well and controls are responsive. And that's why 1080p or not, it doesn't really matter to me. And that is also the reason why 30 fps doesn't cut it for me. You see, 30 fps makes the game feel laggy - control input just doesn't reflect on screen fast enough. I never understand why people can't tell the difference, but I'll try to guess.
Perhaps these people just aren't experienced gamers. For example, fighting game experts can get the timing of combos down to the frame, while noobs like me struggle to even understand recovery frames. Perhaps the majority of people simply are not good enough at gaming yet to sense the lag in the control on a 30 fps game. Perhaps all they've been exposed to are console 30 fps games and thus are unable to realize how much smoother 60 and above is.
It is best then, that game developers keep these gamers ignorant, and can continue to get away with a lower frame rate. Then, they can continue to push intense graphics at the expense of game play. For people like me who have been exposed to higher frame rates though, it is too bad. It's a shame, but the games we get to enjoy will be much less.
Frankly, I don't really care how 'amazing' a game looks if it plays well and controls are responsive. And that's why 1080p or not, it doesn't really matter to me. And that is also the reason why 30 fps doesn't cut it for me. You see, 30 fps makes the game feel laggy - control input just doesn't reflect on screen fast enough. I never understand why people can't tell the difference, but I'll try to guess.
Perhaps these people just aren't experienced gamers. For example, fighting game experts can get the timing of combos down to the frame, while noobs like me struggle to even understand recovery frames. Perhaps the majority of people simply are not good enough at gaming yet to sense the lag in the control on a 30 fps game. Perhaps all they've been exposed to are console 30 fps games and thus are unable to realize how much smoother 60 and above is.
It is best then, that game developers keep these gamers ignorant, and can continue to get away with a lower frame rate. Then, they can continue to push intense graphics at the expense of game play. For people like me who have been exposed to higher frame rates though, it is too bad. It's a shame, but the games we get to enjoy will be much less.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Why Cater to Casuals and 'Free' Players?
Nothing upsets a hardcore player more than to hear of his favorite series becoming more 'accessible' or 'casual friendly'. Certain games like the Souls series can be punishingly hard, and yet have a huge following. Yet in general, games are getting easier and easier, so much so that normal mode has become easy and easy is basically faceroll.
What we gamers sometimes fail to realize, is that it might not be the devs that make the call, but it is the publishers' attempt to get more sales. Hard and deep games might attract gamers looking for a challenge but a majority of gamers will not be able to get into it. It is no wonder then, that catering to casual gamers becomes very attractive.
That's not to say that devs don't have a reason to simplify their games too. No matter what, much effort have been put into making these games and it is natural that we want others to see the fruit of our labor. Blizzard's choice to include Raid Finder in World of Warcraft has allowed less hardcore players to experience their raids. Yes, it's more effort to create different difficulties, but the art assets, the encounter designs and the lore are not wasted. It also gives casual gamers something to do in the end game and keep them subscribed.
And when it comes to multiplayer games, having more players make for a vibrant community. Be it hardcore or casual, having a larger number of players is crucial at the very least, for the matchmaking to work. Even if they are non-paying players in a free-to-play game, devs have to keep them playing. Imagine having to queue for hours to get into a game. 'Casuals' do get better too, and with proper matchmaking, hard core players shouldn't run into the not so skilled (provided there are enough players playing; see where this is going?)
Ultimately, it boils down to good game design. A good casual and hard core friendly game should be easy to pick up, hard to master. And even then, the balancing between the hard core and casual will remain a delicate art.
What we gamers sometimes fail to realize, is that it might not be the devs that make the call, but it is the publishers' attempt to get more sales. Hard and deep games might attract gamers looking for a challenge but a majority of gamers will not be able to get into it. It is no wonder then, that catering to casual gamers becomes very attractive.
That's not to say that devs don't have a reason to simplify their games too. No matter what, much effort have been put into making these games and it is natural that we want others to see the fruit of our labor. Blizzard's choice to include Raid Finder in World of Warcraft has allowed less hardcore players to experience their raids. Yes, it's more effort to create different difficulties, but the art assets, the encounter designs and the lore are not wasted. It also gives casual gamers something to do in the end game and keep them subscribed.
And when it comes to multiplayer games, having more players make for a vibrant community. Be it hardcore or casual, having a larger number of players is crucial at the very least, for the matchmaking to work. Even if they are non-paying players in a free-to-play game, devs have to keep them playing. Imagine having to queue for hours to get into a game. 'Casuals' do get better too, and with proper matchmaking, hard core players shouldn't run into the not so skilled (provided there are enough players playing; see where this is going?)
Ultimately, it boils down to good game design. A good casual and hard core friendly game should be easy to pick up, hard to master. And even then, the balancing between the hard core and casual will remain a delicate art.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Streaming at Home - Gadget Lust, Pointless Feature or Potential Multiplayer Experience
Nvidia Shield, Steam, PS Vita, Wii U and so on all gives gamers the option of playing games in a different location from their main gaming system. Is this a pointless feature or is there any other uses for this feature?
I suppose you've read the title and know what I intend to talk about. PC multiplayer games tend to be an impersonal experience, primarily being done over the internet. One thing that's so appealing about console gaming is couch multiplayer. Even though monitors are getting larger and larger, it is still difficult for multiple people to gather in front of a PC. Streaming gives players the option of playing PC games on a TV, though multiple controllers are needed (not so much an issue if you own an Xbox) and a game that supports it (much more an issue).
The Wii U though, has a unique feature not often seen in other streaming systems - that is, having the TV screen and controller screen display different scenes. PCs should make good use of this feature. Most people now have another device besides their gaming PCs, like a laptop or a tablet. Imagine if streaming can do what the Wii U is doing. An old laptop can be used for a LAN party, tablets can be used as well when a controller is plugged in. Instead of lugging gaming laptops or towers that weigh a ton around for LAN parties, even ultrabooks and tablet PCs like the Surface Pro will do as long as the host has a powerful PC capable of streaming
Of course, there are limits to what can be done, but there is potential in this. I've tried Steam Home Streaming and it works even on my old 10+ year old laptop, even though it is a little laggy and the screen leaves much to be desired. Hopefully the tech continues to improve and 'couch multiplayer' on PC will take off, bringing back the days of 'split screen' to PC players as well.
I suppose you've read the title and know what I intend to talk about. PC multiplayer games tend to be an impersonal experience, primarily being done over the internet. One thing that's so appealing about console gaming is couch multiplayer. Even though monitors are getting larger and larger, it is still difficult for multiple people to gather in front of a PC. Streaming gives players the option of playing PC games on a TV, though multiple controllers are needed (not so much an issue if you own an Xbox) and a game that supports it (much more an issue).
The Wii U though, has a unique feature not often seen in other streaming systems - that is, having the TV screen and controller screen display different scenes. PCs should make good use of this feature. Most people now have another device besides their gaming PCs, like a laptop or a tablet. Imagine if streaming can do what the Wii U is doing. An old laptop can be used for a LAN party, tablets can be used as well when a controller is plugged in. Instead of lugging gaming laptops or towers that weigh a ton around for LAN parties, even ultrabooks and tablet PCs like the Surface Pro will do as long as the host has a powerful PC capable of streaming
Of course, there are limits to what can be done, but there is potential in this. I've tried Steam Home Streaming and it works even on my old 10+ year old laptop, even though it is a little laggy and the screen leaves much to be desired. Hopefully the tech continues to improve and 'couch multiplayer' on PC will take off, bringing back the days of 'split screen' to PC players as well.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Blizzard Supports Their Games, Unless It's On Older Consoles
It is ironic that just when I write a post about Blizzard supporting their games that they come out and say they won't be supporting Diablo 3 for the PS3 and Xbox 360 with patches. This means that features like seasons and their associated items, greater rifts and probably skills and items balances might not come to these older consoles, even though I'd guess that more people will be playing on these than the new consoles
I understand it when they say that it takes more to code for older consoles, especially the PS3 which uses a totally different architecture. That, and the fact that patching on consoles is pretty costly and time consuming thanks to having go through a testing process set by Sony and Microsoft, means that it really isn't worth the effort for a game that will not continue to make money, unlike an MMO with sub fees.
Granted, Blizzard is primarily a PC developer, but this is still a slap in the face for console gamers itching to support a game company whose games they rarely get a chance to enjoy and a taint in Blizzard's stellar record of game support. If Blizzard would support Diablo 3, even if it's just for another year or 2, it would be likely that these gamers will still buy the new version when they eventually move on to the new consoles and they would made a bunch of new fans.
Gamers should be treated equally, whether console or PC gamers, and all developers should give their customers value for their purchase. I hope Blizzard can rethink their choice, even if the patches can only be deployed later than the other systems, building up brand loyalty, especially on a platform that's relatively new to their products, is a plus for them.
I understand it when they say that it takes more to code for older consoles, especially the PS3 which uses a totally different architecture. That, and the fact that patching on consoles is pretty costly and time consuming thanks to having go through a testing process set by Sony and Microsoft, means that it really isn't worth the effort for a game that will not continue to make money, unlike an MMO with sub fees.
Granted, Blizzard is primarily a PC developer, but this is still a slap in the face for console gamers itching to support a game company whose games they rarely get a chance to enjoy and a taint in Blizzard's stellar record of game support. If Blizzard would support Diablo 3, even if it's just for another year or 2, it would be likely that these gamers will still buy the new version when they eventually move on to the new consoles and they would made a bunch of new fans.
Gamers should be treated equally, whether console or PC gamers, and all developers should give their customers value for their purchase. I hope Blizzard can rethink their choice, even if the patches can only be deployed later than the other systems, building up brand loyalty, especially on a platform that's relatively new to their products, is a plus for them.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Gamers Pre-order Win
Well, there you go. Someone has come out to say that pre-orders are dropping. With the large numbers of crap games coming out and the anti consumer pre-order bonuses, it's no wonder that even the fan-boy-iest of fan boys have started to rethink pre-ordering.
Something that has been happening more and more is that developers are removing parts of the game and using them as pre-order incentives. Alien: Isolation is one example where they are clearly working on the dlc before the game is out but those who don't pre-order will be paying full price for part of the game.
Pre-orders have their place like for limited stocks of collector's editions or niche games which retailers do not want to stock up too many copies of. But if you continue to exploit people like these, especially when the games are sold digitally, you're going to lose your customers.
I am still not buying games with pre-order bonuses where you get an incomplete game if you don't. Sorry, but I'm not going to pay full price for part of the game. I may get it when the price drops out when a game of the year edition with all the dlcs is released. Or I may just play the newest game that is released then and skip yours altogether.
Something that has been happening more and more is that developers are removing parts of the game and using them as pre-order incentives. Alien: Isolation is one example where they are clearly working on the dlc before the game is out but those who don't pre-order will be paying full price for part of the game.
Pre-orders have their place like for limited stocks of collector's editions or niche games which retailers do not want to stock up too many copies of. But if you continue to exploit people like these, especially when the games are sold digitally, you're going to lose your customers.
I am still not buying games with pre-order bonuses where you get an incomplete game if you don't. Sorry, but I'm not going to pay full price for part of the game. I may get it when the price drops out when a game of the year edition with all the dlcs is released. Or I may just play the newest game that is released then and skip yours altogether.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
How to Win Fans and Influence Gamers
Which games get an established fan base? Recently I delved into the iTunes podcast section and for the first time, discovered the magic of podcasts outside of YouTube. Owning an iPod Classic means downloading and listening to podcasts on the go through iTunes is the most convenient option. iTunes updates and downloads the latest podcasts immediately, and it automatically deletes those you've listened to and transfers the new ones to your iPod when you connect it to the computer.
There are podcasts from popular gaming sites like IGN and YouTube networks like Polaris, but what is more surprising are those dedicated to a single game. One particular company with many podcasts dedicated to its games is Blizzard. While it might not be surprising to find podcasts for popular e-Sports titles like StarCraft 2 and even Hearthstone that's been slowly gaining popularity, you can even find some dedicated to World of Warcraft, Diablo 3 and the still in alpha Heroes of the Storm.
Why does Blizzard attract fans so much so that they not only get fan sites but even talk shows dedicated to their games? Is it because their games are of really good quality? There have been no lack of high quality games throughout the years, but what sets Blizzard apart is their commitment to quality and their support for their games. Diablo 2 still games updated when bugs are found and even now, ladder seasons still go on. Outside of free-to-play and subscription based games, it is hard to find games supported to this level. Most publishers shut down servers to their games after a few years but to this day, you can still play Diablo 1 over Battle.net. The StarCraft and Warcraft RTSes also have an amazing map editor that enthusiasts can make mods out of, and it is from these editors that we've first seen DotA and tower defense games. Diablo 2 also allowed modding, but it is sad that more recent Blizzard games no longer allow modding outside of built in editors. And of course, the competitive games continue to receive balance changes and bug fixes.
Publishers think that DLC will prevent gamers from reselling their games, but a good quality game with long term support should be able to achieve that. It's too bad though, that such support actually costs money in salary for the support staff and does not earn them any money and therefore many publishers do not see the need for it. Modding options is another possibility, especially for single player games, but that's also only limited to PC games.
Hopefully we'll see more devs willing to support their games and not come out and say they will no longer patch their games in favor of developing more DLC (and who's dumb enough to buy DLC for a broken game) and sequels. They should be prouder of their work and in this age of the internet, there is no excuse for broken games. And perhaps EA, if you take better care of your games and customers, people won't complain when you put in micro transactions and always online DRM like Diablo 3 and Capcom, when you re-release a new Street Fighter 4 without DLC upgrade option like Diablo 3 Ultimate Evil Edition on the consoles.
There are podcasts from popular gaming sites like IGN and YouTube networks like Polaris, but what is more surprising are those dedicated to a single game. One particular company with many podcasts dedicated to its games is Blizzard. While it might not be surprising to find podcasts for popular e-Sports titles like StarCraft 2 and even Hearthstone that's been slowly gaining popularity, you can even find some dedicated to World of Warcraft, Diablo 3 and the still in alpha Heroes of the Storm.
Why does Blizzard attract fans so much so that they not only get fan sites but even talk shows dedicated to their games? Is it because their games are of really good quality? There have been no lack of high quality games throughout the years, but what sets Blizzard apart is their commitment to quality and their support for their games. Diablo 2 still games updated when bugs are found and even now, ladder seasons still go on. Outside of free-to-play and subscription based games, it is hard to find games supported to this level. Most publishers shut down servers to their games after a few years but to this day, you can still play Diablo 1 over Battle.net. The StarCraft and Warcraft RTSes also have an amazing map editor that enthusiasts can make mods out of, and it is from these editors that we've first seen DotA and tower defense games. Diablo 2 also allowed modding, but it is sad that more recent Blizzard games no longer allow modding outside of built in editors. And of course, the competitive games continue to receive balance changes and bug fixes.
Publishers think that DLC will prevent gamers from reselling their games, but a good quality game with long term support should be able to achieve that. It's too bad though, that such support actually costs money in salary for the support staff and does not earn them any money and therefore many publishers do not see the need for it. Modding options is another possibility, especially for single player games, but that's also only limited to PC games.
Hopefully we'll see more devs willing to support their games and not come out and say they will no longer patch their games in favor of developing more DLC (and who's dumb enough to buy DLC for a broken game) and sequels. They should be prouder of their work and in this age of the internet, there is no excuse for broken games. And perhaps EA, if you take better care of your games and customers, people won't complain when you put in micro transactions and always online DRM like Diablo 3 and Capcom, when you re-release a new Street Fighter 4 without DLC upgrade option like Diablo 3 Ultimate Evil Edition on the consoles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)