[amphibian]

Illuyankas, on 20 January 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

After playing Torchlight 2 for about eleven straight hours with some friends, I can safely say the embermage's wand passive Chaotic Partybuggery is entertaining except for randomly teleporting bosses next to players when the effect triggers, and also Elite armour scaling is complete unfun bullshit which almost but not quite ruined how fun this game is to multiplayer.

i dont multiplayer but i leveled up that exact skill because its fun as hell to watch the random effects. I think i have three characters right now all in the high twenties and so far its been fun. Havent played in a couple weeks though.

[Illuyankas]

I got an engineer through to the end of Normal (would have gone Veteran if I'd known just how easy the game was) and some of the extra content after to level 59, just wish I'd known you could have retrained the one skill you start with at the very beginning of the game. Got a berserker to 14, started the other two to check them out. When on your own and doing 400 damage to an enemy and watching that drop to 40 when your three friends catch up to you is the most depressing thing in the world. Being two-shot by goblin archers or having an attack so small you can't even see it take 1000 of your 1200 health off is also pretty fucking terrible. Veteran mode or nothing next time!

[tiam]

http://www.pcworld.c...Ih4AuQ#longDesc

That's the one I think so I hope this helps. Thanks again for the help.

[Silencer]

"Graphics card Integrated"

That...could be a problem. :S

You've got plenty of RAM and a decent enough CPU, but without a dedicated video card you could be stuck on the gaming front. I dunno about games like Empire: Total War or whatnot, you may be able to get by with those on low settings, but anything more demanding than that graphics-wise is out of the question, if you ask me. And even those might be too tough for it.

[Lucifer's Heaven]

Silencer, on 21 January 2013 - 01:07 AM, said:

"Graphics card Integrated"

That...could be a problem. :S

You've got plenty of RAM and a decent enough CPU, but without a dedicated video card you could be stuck on the gaming front. I dunno about games like Empire: Total War or whatnot, you may be able to get by with those on low settings, but anything more demanding than that graphics-wise is out of the question, if you ask me. And even those might be too tough for it.

I was going to say if you had the latest gen of Intel iCore processor it may not be too bad, as they're designed to do a pretty good job with integrated graphics, but it's only got a dual core CPU, let alone newest iCore.
You should still be able to play a range of games, but it won't be with particularly fancy graphics/physics.

[Mentalist]

To echo what others have said, integrated graphics are a pain. In theory, they are supposed to use your spare RAM (operating memory) to provide you with the memory necessary for a rendering the game. So, in theory, your video memory is limited only by how much RAM you have to spare.

In reality this means you'll have access to most multi-platform titles (which are designed for console limitations), running stably at lowest resolutions, and capping at 15-20 frames per second (which means it plays slower than on a console).

To put it in super-layman-speak, I palyed Batman: Arkham City on my laptop with integrated graphics. you know how when Batman knocks out the last guy in a fight you see a slo-mo close-up of the hit?
My entire game ran roughly like that (at that speed). It's kinda cool, but also super-annoying after a while.

At the same time I was also able to launch the Witcher 2--a PC-only (at the time) title that was supposed to push computer game graphics to the current limits. I was able to launch it. It was not very playable, however.

For a game like Total War, you will probably run the global map fairly decently, but once you get into RTS combat phases, the game will grind close to a halt. This will also depend on how many units will be on the field at the same time.

Even if you are comfortable with playing your games at reduced frames/speed, keep in mind that you'll probably be unable to play any serious multiplayer, unless the game is really un-demanding in resources.

[Lucifer's Heaven]

It's not just the RAM limitation though.
Instead of having a separate GPU (Graphics Processing Unit, basically a separate specialised CPU) to calculate the stuff stored in your RAM is used to store it uses your CPU for those calculations. So a better CPU also helps.
This is where the latest gen iCore laptop processors would have helped. They are actually designed with this in mind and apparently do quite a good job of integrated graphics. Intel is helping push Ultrabooks, and one of the easiest ways to make a laptop smaller, lighter, more power efficient and cooler is to not use a graphics card. So Intel built a range of chips designed to do a good job of integrated graphics. Their eventual goal is that only specialised high end gaming laptops would have graphics cards, everything else, including low-mid end gaming to be handled by integrated graphics.

[Silencer]

Lucifer, on 21 January 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

It's not just the RAM limitation though.
Instead of having a separate GPU (Graphics Processing Unit, basically a separate specialised CPU) to calculate the stuff stored in your RAM is used to store it uses your CPU for those calculations. So a better CPU also helps.
This is where the latest gen iCore laptop processors would have helped. They are actually designed with this in mind and apparently do quite a good job of integrated graphics. Intel is helping push Ultrabooks, and one of the easiest ways to make a laptop smaller, lighter, more power efficient and cooler is to not use a graphics card. So Intel built a range of chips designed to do a good job of integrated graphics. Their eventual goal is that only specialised high end gaming laptops would have graphics cards, everything else, including low-mid end gaming to be handled by integrated graphics.

Which would mean the only laptops worth buying if you intended to do any gaming would be specialized high-end gaming laptops! XD

(I'm mostly joking - as someone who owns a pretty decent laptop for gaming purposes, it will never be viable to play recent-gen games at reasonable rez/FPS on something without a dedicated GPU. Intel's idea of "low-mid end gaming" is probably quite different to mine, tho...)

I remember my (first-gen) Alienware M11x though - it had a crap CPU. Literally 1.3GHz dual-core. I swear that thing basically didn't use its CPU for ANY part of the gaming process - it just threw it all at the (quite decent) graphics card to handle. Kinda like the inverse situation to what you're talking about, oddly enough.

[tiam]

So to sum up i might be fucked and even if im not once i get onto the more visual side of say a total war game, or atleast one of the newer ones, ill probably lag like hell. This is similar to and old pc i had that played the medieval 2 map well enough but battles were a no go. I think ill buy medieval 2 to test it then try empire.

Thanks for the help ill let you know how it runs. It was bought as a general laptop and i was told it was ok for that purpose. Gaming is another kettle of fish ofcourse. Still maybe low end specs on empire might be a possibility.

[Lucifer's Heaven]

Tiam, this is a good time for illegitimate copies if you know how to do that.
If you can find a simple illegitimate version, you can check how the game runs. If it runs fine, go buy it, if not, you know not to waste your money.

Silencer; Pretty much what I took away from the thing about better integrated graphics is that while it'll never be great, it should end up being a damn site better than it is And to be fair, they should be able to make some pretty solid improvements. If they get a decent bit of ram and some decent drivers for using the CPU for graphics calcs then they can pretty much dedicate two cores to it, as most games still only utilise two and all the iCore series are quads.
They'll lack all the fancy GPU specific stuff that helps make GPUs so good at the fancy graphics/physics of course, so they won't do high end and some options won't be handled too well (all the advanced shaders, etc). Things like Total War games where it's more about amount of things rendered than the complexity of things rendered they should do be able to do significantly better at, soon if not yet.
I think anyway, that's all working on my limited knowledge of the inner workings of this stuff.

[Mentalist]

Lucifer, on 22 January 2013 - 02:06 AM, said:

Tiam, this is a good time for illegitimate copies if you know how to do that.
If you can find a simple illegitimate version, you can check how the game runs. If it runs fine, go buy it, if not, you know not to waste your money.

Silencer; Pretty much what I took away from the thing about better integrated graphics is that while it'll never be great, it should end up being a damn site better than it is And to be fair, they should be able to make some pretty solid improvements. If they get a decent bit of ram and some decent drivers for using the CPU for graphics calcs then they can pretty much dedicate two cores to it, as most games still only utilise two and all the iCore series are quads.
They'll lack all the fancy GPU specific stuff that helps make GPUs so good at the fancy graphics/physics of course, so they won't do high end and some options won't be handled too well (all the advanced shaders, etc). Things like Total War games where it's more about amount of things rendered than the complexity of things rendered they should do be able to do significantly better at, soon if not yet.
I think anyway, that's all working on my limited knowledge of the inner workings of this stuff.

I agree. Given how the bulk of games we have are multi-platform titles, they should be able to get integrated cards to run on par with current-gen consoles without it being much of a challenge. Only time will tell how widespread DirectX 11 gimmicks like tesselation will get in games, ofc, but barring those uber-pretties, i'd like a regualr laptop to be capable of handling mainstream gaming at a decent level.

[tiam]

Thanks for all the help again guys. Ill look into it.

[worry]

Is anyone getting Ni No Kuni?

[Defiance]

http://www.youtube.c...d&v=6GxUMMGyZcM


Yesssssssssssss.

Fucking loved Xenoblade Chronicles, and this looks very similar. I hope the updated graphics don't limit any other aspect of the game, but given the quality of Xenoblade I really don't think it will be an issue.

And now I have to buy a Wii U before this comes out. Assuming this gets a US release. It fucking better, having to do another Project Rainfall to get it in the US would suck.

On the other hand, though, I really hope they go with UK voice actors. Xenoblade's characters were enhanced greatly by the fact that they didn't all sound like whiny thirteen-year-old American emo boys.

[Traveller]

worrywort, on 23 January 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

Is anyone getting Ni No Kuni?

As soon as it comes out.

I love a lot of Studio Ghibli films, and to have that beautiful artwork and music in a game will just be awesome, even if it's just walking around exploring. As it is, the game itself looks pretty good.

Can't wait, it looks like a sort of Pokemon/FF/Zelda blend, but designed by Ghibli.



Also, I read that the voices were all done with regional accents, so in translation they did the same - so you get a mix of Welsh, Scottish etc throughout.

This post has been edited by Traveller: 23 January 2013 - 09:04 PM

[Defiance]

Wish I had the money for this. I blew $40 on The Last Story about a month ago. Only played about two hours of it because it was about the most stereotypical JRPG crap possible.

[Aptorian]

I want to try out Ni no Kuni but I am a bit weary of the prospect. I haven't really been playing JRPGs since the 90s because I didn't own a console for a long time. Last JRPG I tried getting into was Final Fantasy 13 and that game was horrible to try and get into.

The question is, was it just FF13 or have I grown to dislike the genre? I guess Ni no Kuni will answer that question but I wont pay full price to get the answer.

[Defiance]

The only noteworthy new JRPG I've played in the last several years is Xenoblade Chronicles. I've tried to get into a few others, but they've all suffered from the same flaws by falling into the same narrative tropes that have plagued the genre for so long. Also, I've noticed that as I've grown older I've grown to dislike the ATB/turn-based system that many JRPGs employ.

Final Fantasy XIII was the epitome of everything that is wrong with the genre. Boring (and annoying) characters who are all reluctant heroes with the most stereotypical traits possible, some god-awful voice acting, boring villains, awful hairstyles, a snooze-fest of a plot that was way too melodramatic, the list goes on and on. The developers tried to say that current technology was limiting them and that they couldn't make the game beautiful and still have it be somewhat open world with cities and all, but I've always thought that was a load of bullshit. I'm hoping this new Monolith Soft game shoves Square Enix's bullshit up their own asses, as visual-wise it looks prettier than FFXIII and if it's anything like Xenoblade Chronicles it'll have cities and gigantic open areas. Plus it's on the Wii U, which is more or less current generation hardware; if the Wii U can pull something like that off, so could Square Enix.

[Garak]

Got a new graphics card and I'm finally able to enjoy The Witcher 2. I even managed to get the Enhanced Edition from Steam for 4 euros.

[worry]

From what I've read, Ni No Kuni isn't quite as long as a lot of recent JRPGs, like it's about half as long as Dragon Quest VIII, which sounds ideal to me. DQ8 didn't quite wear out its welcome completely for me, but it was over-long. And Okami, while not JRPG, was almost as long as that without ever coming close to being tedious (minus some repetitive boss battles), and I'm betting the Ghibli folks are at least as creative as the Okami folks. I think I'll pick this one up next paycheck for sure, even at new release price.