cusideabelincoln

If Disney is going to continue to fill in the gaps between the OT and ST, they should absolutely recast a young Luke and Leia instead of continuing on the CGI-AI path. Luke's performances were too limited in Mando and there's no way the technology is going recreate lifelike actors anytime soon.

23 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

While I agree with your overall criticisms, I think you're being unduly harsh on the show. Loki season 2 is different than Loki season 1, which was a very intimate mystery of the TVA kind of show. Season 2 has widened the scope of the genres the TV show Loki can be given unlike season 1 which was more of a mystery show, season 2 is more of a time travelling show so by its very nature its going to feel different than season 1. 

 

Also while you raise some good questions, others have been answered. 1) Loki time slipping is a good example of the show just doing things, as you said. There was no real reason for it and it seems to have been resolved. They obviously wanted to show a future where Sylvie attacks the TVA and that was their way of getting to it. 2) The reason Loki believes a million bad Kangs are coming is because He Who Remains was very convinced that's what would happen with his death given he said he fought the Kang Wars and won, so he's seen this play out - clearly Loki believes him. 3) Loki and B-15 don't have a plan for the TVA and the Kangs, that's true, but that's mostly because they've been having to deal with immediate incident after immediate incident from time slipping to X-5 to Dox to Sylvie to the temporal loom, they haven't had a chance to create a plan, which I think is understandable, they are clearly playing defense so far. 4) While I agree the jump between episodes 1 and 2 was very inelegant, the reason X-5 held back the information was because he'd gone AWOL - he was afraid of the TVA, Dox and Sylvie all at the same time and just wanted to escape, which I think is understandable. Why he was so secretive is weird though, I agree. 

 

I do agree that Renslayer's motivations and the love triangle with Timely was lame as fuck though. Renslayer is the character the show has done the least work with in terms of establishing what it is she wants, etc. I never got the sense in season 1 that she was capable of behaving like this in season 2 so I'm definitely confused on that one. But Renslayer and Ms. Minutes do not have the same goal as Loki and Mobius though. Renslayer and Ms. Minutes obviously do want to save the temporal loom (and thus time itself) but they want to restore things to the way they were when He Who Remains was running things - perfect order, one sacred timeline and that's it, prune the rest. That's not exactly what Loki and Mobius want, as they want to expand the loom to handle the branching timelines and more importantly the lives in those timelines.

 

One thing I find super weird at this point is why Loki hasn't visited his brother Thor via Tem-Pad and let him know he's alive and perhaps what's going on as well. Obviously the Avengers are gonna find out about Kang via Ant-Man because of Quantumania but it's strange for Loki at this point not to visit his brother. Obviously there are contractual and financial reasons to not being able to bring Chris Hemsworth on the show but it is weird.

I meant to say Rennslayer and Loki both have the same shorter term goal of just getting Kang to the TVA; the way each party fought it was weird because both parties can travel there at will. So what happens after he gets there is the only thing that matters, not how he gets there.

I'll still give the show a chance as there is potential to do interesting things with Ms. Minutes being the lynchpin of knowledge. I'm just not impressed by the execution so far, despite how charismatic individual scenes are.

4 hours ago, Reputator said:

 

I will say it's not as good so far as S1, but I already expected that. S1 was fresh, less complicated, and the characters had more room to grow. You can't replicate the impact of a new idea, which I think the show creators know, so they're taking the Pirates of the Caribbean approach of making the sequel interesting by throwing a lot of plot at it. But that isn't necessarily bad, and there can still be fun to be had with it. 

The kindest perspective I can have on storytelling is the fact that just about any time travel narrative falls apart when you think about it too much, so they're not bothering to have believable world building for the sake of doing fun and interesting bits. But as is, the plot holes are too distracting for me. They didn't bother to explain why Loki was time slipping; they just wanted to do a bit. They haven't demonstrated why Loki now believes a million bad Kangs are coming; he hasn't seen any proof of malevolence yet. Loki and B-15 have no plan for what the TVA should be doing about these bad Kangs and branched timelines, while Sylvie has a half-baked one. There was no actual reason for X-5 to hold back information, they just wanted to do an interrogation bit. Rennslayer, Ms. Minutes, Loki, Mobius all had the same end goal for 1800's Kang, but the show just faked a reason to fight. The "love triangle" was cringe. In season 1 any oddity that was happening built towards a cohesive story or at least consistency - for example Loki time slipping should mean something to the upcoming story, and why did Loki time slip but Sylvie isn't . It was just an excuse to introduce Ouroboros "The Plot Explainer".

I almost want to believe there's something wrong with me because I find S2 irritating like most other recent D+ shows. However I rewatched S1, which I originally was neutral about and had a blast. My only big critique in S1 was the shortcut they took to evolve Avenger's bad guy Loki into redeemed Endgame Loki by looking at some tik tok footage, but otherwise the writing was quite good and cohesive.  This season they are taking a lot of shortcuts, especially with characters, and the plot is all over the place. Sylvie is making absolutely no sense in any regard, but I find her contempt of Loki to be most head scratching. Also feels like a lot has been edited out.

The tonal shift is also very jarring. This season feels like an imitation of Legends of Tomorrow. 

Is the online friends only, or can you see random people in your game?

Just now, best3444 said:

 

How did you get it early?

It's on PC 

Into the second world now, and the game continues to be fresh. It's like SMW and Odyssey had a baby - tight controls of classic 2D Mario games along with the variety in gameplay of modern 3D Mario games. If you thought there were only so few ways to jump around a 2D level, think again because the game finds new ways for you to do it.

The SMW sequel comparisons also probably come from the fact the running/jumping physics and animations are much closer to SMW style than NSMB style.

10 minutes ago, Brick said:

The fact that a lot of reviewers have been saying this feels like a proper follow up to Super Mario World is getting me more hyped. I hope that's not hyperbole. 

After about 5 levels, I'd say it combines aspects of every Mario game since SMW.  You can play it fast. You can play it slow. You can play it risky. You can play it safe. Levels have layers and secrets to them. The variety and imagination remind me of playing Galaxy for the first time.

14th gen is a complete waste of time. These are just re-badged chips. Should have just named the 14700k the 13800k and called it a day.

4 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

How do we know that's really Biden?

It was posted from Hunter's laptop.

14 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

thing is you only get so much progression and then you’re off to using a new car in a new cup. When I just left after the 3 practice laps I felt like I wasn’t able to upgrade my car as much as I wanted by the end of the cup. 
 

kind of a failure of both the upgrade system and career mode. This upgrade system was made for a bigger game than FM actually is. 

So far the only upgrade I aim for is tires, because some of the stock cars have terrible grip.

I dislike the locking upgrades behind both points and a level threshold. Just let us spend car points on whatever we want for that car, maybe they can lock some of the bigger changes (drivetrain swap, engine swap, etc) behind a level, but tires? Come on now.

26 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

 

Am I missing a joke here cuz I didn't think it was out until Friday. 

Argh, aye matey. Ye can twiddle yar thumbs on this pirate ship.

The game is out....

20 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

Forza has serious serious issues right now on pc with cpu performance. I’d just wait a few weeks and the game will probably patch in that performance. I get 80fps on a 7950x3D set as a 7800x3D and my gpu usage is under utilized…but if I adjust my native resolution to something ridiculous like 540p then it jumps up. But adjusting dlss or render resolution doesn’t do that. It’s all bonked in a way that doesn’t make sense. I wouldn’t base any purchasing decisions on it. 

Oh I'm not buying anything too soon, and the game is obviously borked. It doesn't remember graphic settings when I change them, sometimes the DLSS option will disappear completely and be replaced by FSR2, and there are weird stutters.

12 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

It goes in and out of stock multiple times a day: https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/171mw9i/bundle_i912900k_asus_tuf_gaming_z690plus_wifi_arx/

Keep checking that reddit page to try and catch it. Otherwise, Microcenter has a similar bundle if you have one near you (they also have a 13700k + mobo + ram bundle for $500)

 

I would've grabbed one of those bundles awhile ago if it came with Corsair Vengeance RGB RAM, or if I could opt-out of the RAM it comes with and save $50 or something  

Yeah those are good deals, but I also have to tell myself that the next time I upgrade I want the latest PCIE, USB, and whatever specs that I can get. On my current build, I bought a cheap bundle of older parts right when PCIE 4.0 had come out, so now I'm stuck with 3.0 speeds that's costing me a little bit of performance as well.

14 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

I dunno, you can get that 12900k newegg mobo/cpu/ram combo for $400, so waiting for a $200 5800x3D seems wrong to me

Dang that's cheap, and would also help heat my house through winter 

3 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

 

 

I don't think a 5800x3D is worth it, even for $200. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/20.html you're looking at about a 8-12% gaming boost at 1440p unless it's super optimized for 3D cache. For us 5900x users, it's 13600k+ or 7700x+ for a minimum of a 20%+ boost otherwise it's kind of a waste, even considering needing a new mobo + RAM. I think it's often forgotten how well the 5900x performs  

 

A complete overhaul would be the way to go, but the simplicity of just dropping in an upgrade with doing an entire build is also compelling. I just need that little boost to stay above 60 minimum.

A full upgrade would be nasty. Under some scenarios I could double my performance and that is extremely tempting. With a 240 Hz monitor I lower settings for any online multiplayer game, and getting better performance in emulation would be nice too.

3 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

The aesthetics of two sticks is gross  . Most Zx90 motherboards currently have no issue with 4xDDR5 at 6000-6400mhz with the latest BIOS, some even seem to be able to run 4 at 7000mhz+ but that varies user to user.

 

 

What do you currently have?

 

There seems to be more silicon lottery jackpot potential with Intel CPUs and fast RAM. Or you can just get a motherboard with just 2 RAM slots

I've got a 5900X and 3090. Game definitely needs some patches to smooth out performance and bugs, but right now I'm hovering around that 60 fps mark with any RT turned on with the benchmark telling me I'm only using 75% of my GPU. Turning down the render resolution barely made a difference, as there were still small stutters. With RT off performance was fine and I was getting higher GPU utilization.

13 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

The 7800x3D has dropped all the way down to $350. After being on a 5900x I really wanted to go back to Intel for my next upgrade, but that's a ridiculous price. The 13700k really needs to drop to $300 or lower. If X670/B650E mobos could run 4 sticks of DDR5 without issues I'd probably have a new CPU/Mobo/RAM in the mail right now  

Go for it. Is there a special need for 4 sticks of memory? Just buy 2 huge sticks. DDR5, compared to DDR4, has inherently twice the rank per stick which is why both Intel and AMD have to run much lower speeds when 4 slots are populated - albeit Intel is still able to run a bit faster. AMD has also recently been focusing on improving memory performance, and have broken above the 6000 MHz barrier with the latest BIOS. Good chance they'll keep improving.

I'd be happy to see the 5800x3D drop to $200. I'm partially CPU limited when playing Forza at 1440p and that's quite annoying.

Got a good chunk through the rankings and it's actually impossible to compare all these games to each other, and I had to delete over half the list.

33 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

 

That I understand, but OK so I have that 4 + 4 spilt, and the opposite end of that that's going in the power supply does not split. I realize it is probably a silly question, but I want to be sure. That other end will only go in 8 pins into the power supply, and that is OK? (even tho the other side then has the 4 pins only).

It's totally fine.

Just think of it like having an outlet of your house unplugged. Nothing bad will happen if just left empty.

11 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Logistical question: 

 

I'm connecting my CPU to my power supply. The mother boardend calls for an 8 pin and a 4 pin. Have a normal 8 pin goin there and then a split 4 pin (4 + 4) but the power supply end doesn't split. I assume I just connect the split end to the motherboard and then it's OK to plug the 8 pin into the power supply? Doesn't make sense to me otherwise? 

 

@cusideabelincoln @Keyser_Soze @Spork3245

If you mean to just leave half of the 4+4 unplugged, yes that's fine. Just tuck the +4 away from anything that could potentially touch the pins inside.

10 hours ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

I’m sure nobody is going to be surprised by my take, but Forza is an awful game. The driving is sublime. I’ve always loved the driving in Forza games. I wish the rumble wasn’t so muted. It’s both maxed in game and on my controller in the Xbox Accessories app and it feels like it’s barely there. As a driving experience though it feels great. It looks great. 
 

BUT there’s almost no game here. Turn 10 throws you into a 1 lap event with all the assists dialed up. Not the first time. But STOP. The number of race events is a joke. It’s like they got near the end and went “oh shit, a career mode too. Uhh…”. If you’re trying to level up a certain car, the career mode is not gonna be that place to do it. If there’s even more than 1 event you can use that car in. It feels like the least effort they’ve put in to a career mode yet. The car list is lacking as is the track list. 
 

Im only just getting into the grove of sim style racing games for the first time in many years, but the AI difficulty doesn’t seem well balanced. For me the difference between AI on level 3 and AI on lvl 4 is about 2 seconds a lap. In free play can get first by the end of lap 2 against level 3 AI, but in a 5 lap race I’m matching lap times with the top 9 or so cars. It feels like there should be something in between. I also think there’s something weird at the start of races. I’ll get a good jump off the line, but then find cars behind me passing me going into the first corner. Within another corner or two and the cars around me just drop off, never to see that kind of performance again. Even though I can’t come close to winning most races against tier 4, the AI is overall more fun to drive against than on tier 3. For better or worse they are more dynamic.

 

The penalty system feels so very hit and miss. I pass a car, but dip my tyres off the track and catch a +0.20 time penalty. I straight cut a corner in a fight for the lead and take first and the game decides no penalty. ?? To get a penalty for collision you have to really hit a car. Like not just a tap that causes them to miss their breaking point or even go off track. You basically need to hit them so hard they get turned around. This is with the “full” penalty system enabled. I don’t know if the system makes any more sense in online games as I don’t like online racing. I don’t feel it hurts the final product, but it feels odd they went for it and it’s now where close to real life. It’s only going to hit the most egregious, but not so much you can’t still drive like a cheap asshole without punishment.  
 

Im not sure who this game is for. It’s not going to be sim enough for anyone that really loves racing sims. They’re either already playing GT7 or more than likely playing on the PC. There’s so little actual game here that people who love the Horizon games for their career modes won’t find a new home in Forza Motorsport. I’d say it feels like I was made for the FM faithful that only ever own Xbox consoles and play online all the time, but they hate the new car progression and upgrade system as it slows them them down. 
 

which slowing down player progression for engagement really sounds like this game is gonna end up going full blown live service sooner than later, complete with “seasons” and premium passes.

I like how simple and quick it is to tune your car and jump into a race. That's all I need. I haven't played a GT game since the PS2 era so I'm not sure what they've changed since then, but Forza scratches the itch. While I enjoyed Horizon, they didn't make it simple to just warp to the events.

What I did expect a little more from Motorsport was in the car upgrades. It's exactly the same as Horizon.

You can download and use Windows for free, but after so many days a watermark will appear on your screen until you register with an official license key. The OS is still useable, save for a few features being turned off.

OS on the NVME is the way to do it.