Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

About EldritchMoose

  • Title
  • Birthday 1983-09-29

Contact Methods

  • Steam
  • Reddit

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    the Netherworl...I mean lands
  • Interests
    Consumer of Coffee, Connaisseur of Cats, Biased towards Bunnies, Fanatic of Films, Hound of Horror, Afictionado of Art, Devotee of DIY, Purveyor of Puns, Admirer of Alliteration
  • Biography
    I'm Dutch. I've always had an affinity for technology and media, which resulted in my obtaining a degree in communication. I've only recently gotten into the hardware side of things and have to actively restrain myself from just going and trying to build every case mod I've come up with in the past couple of months...
  • Occupation
    Service and tech support


  • CPU
    AMD Ryzen 5 2600
  • Motherboard
  • RAM
    Team Group Vulcan 16GB 3000 MHz
  • GPU
    Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 580 8GB
  • Case
    Corsair Crystal 280X RGB
  • Storage
    Crucial MX500 1TB SATA SSD
  • PSU
    Corsair RM550x
  • Display(s)
    Iiyama Prolite B2783QSU-B1
  • Cooling
    Wraith plus 4 Corsair LL 120 RGB fans
  • Keyboard
    Random Dell one
  • Mouse
    Random Trust one
  • Operating System
    Windows 10 Home 64-bit

Recent Profile Visitors

422 profile views
  1. TBH the first Max Payne game was the shit back in the day, I also quite liked Prey. That said, I like this trend of games being delayed so they could be made better.
  2. Duke Nukem Forever was never going to be good. The main reason it got stuck in development hell for as long as it did, was that they didn't know what they wanted to do with it. With this announcement CDPR have at least shown that they learned from the mistakes made by their competitors over the past few years, too many high-profile games should have been delayed, but were pushed out the door in an unfinished state to meet a deadline.
  3. Starcraft was a complete game experience, as was Warcraft 3, as was Diablo 2. They wrapped up their storylines within the content shipped on day one of the game's release and after they proved successful, expansion packs were released with additional story content based on the games' success. I am comparing this to titles like Assassins' Creed Odyssey, which stated before release that the story content would be gated off if you were to only purchase the game by itself: I would have to put down more money than the price of the game for a product that has already been carved up. I'm also comparing it to games like Anthem, which came with a nice little "roadmap" of promised content which will likely never see the light of day now that the game is no longer being hailed as the next greatest thing since sliced bread. If it followed the same model as the Frozen Throne and Lord of Destruction, the expansion cost half the price of the original game. That said, it misses the point I was trying to make. I managed to find a review which lists it as having an MSRP of $29,99 in May of 1999 alongside a Battle Chest that also includes the original game at $69,99. And of course it has to do with me being an adult now. It's just that I was reacting to a post about my "suddenly having standards" when compared to the time I bought Pokemon Blue back in 1998. My standards have radically shifted with regards to video games in the past year since I finally had the opportunity and means to play some newer games than an Assassins' Creed game that had Ezio in it and when compared to games I played previously in the series, the 8 year-interim had seen little in improvement to the game experience outside of a graphical upgrade and the use of actors I would normally see in a non-interactive medium. I just don't think a lot of AAA modern-day games are worth $60, let alone however much more they expect for the "full game"
  4. Pretty much. My standards have shifted due to my frustrations with how much games have been devalued in recent years. Back in 1998 I wasn't expected to pay full price for a game with an additional fee to unlock other content after the fact. I paid one price and got a full game for that price. Additionally, I have bills to pay now that I didn't have back in 1998, it's more difficult to justify buying a new game to begin with, let alone one that I'm expected to buy on the promise of "the full experience" in the future. Yes, companies want to make money, but it's not my job to balance Gamefreak's or any other game company's books. If they want to play the game this way, I'll vote with my wallet.
  5. Because my inner cynic doesn't allow me to see the good in mainstream game developers. Unfortunately, I have seen too many games made to be deliberately worse just so they could "encourage" a bit of additional spending. Besides, the fact that they announced this DLC so close to the release date suggests that this was the plan all along. When the news dropped that not all Pokemon would be included, they could have said that they couldn't make that happen due to time constraints, and that they were working on additional content which would include more Pokemon down the line. Hell, the headline writes itself: "You WILL be able to catch 'em all in Sword and Shield, but we'll need more time so we can do your favourite pokemon justice." I have many reasons for my hatred of EA, but that's beside the point. You're not wrong, it used to be the case that we bought our additional content on a disc, but at least the base game back then felt like a complete experience, and the expansion often came after the fact the customer wanted it. The way this was announced makes it feel more like they carved up the content beforehand, making the base game less of a complete experience. This kind of development also doesn't exist in a vacuum. Back in the day I happily bought Lord of Destruction because I wanted to add to the experience that I got with Diablo 2, but that was before games like Battlefront 2 which saw desirable content being gated off behind the excuse of a "sense of accomplishment" or games like Evolve, which saw it's gated pre-order bonus DLC get announced before the game itself was announced. It was before games like Dungeon Keeper mobile and Hogwarts Mysteries which were deliberately made to include time sink mechanics in order to sell the solution (Which Hogwarts Mysteries in particular does while showing the player a fellow student being strangled to engender just that little extra bit of urgency. It was before the current plague of "live service" games that are promised to be "supported for years to come" like Anthem, which had a roadmap that has been quietly swept under the rug less than a year after its release. It's entirely possible that you're right, and this is not just another case of a game developer or publisher making a game worse just so they could charge their players more for the experience and level of quality that used to be included with a full-priced game. But unfortunately companies like EA have left me unable to trust that that is the case sight unseen. I want to be excited for this Pokemon game, but every other announcement feels like a missed opportunity. I hate that my first reaction to this news wasn't "Yay! more content!" but rather one of anger at the state of the game industry, but unfortunately that's where we are.
  6. It looks to me more like Gamefreak made an unpopular decision to exclude content at release just so they could sell said content for an additional fee down the road. It's just like Battlefront 2 deliberately being made to be grindy as fuck just to provide an incentive to buy the XP boosters in the store. Create a problem just so you can sell the solution!
  7. Same reason I don't speed on motorways: the risk far outweighs the couple of minutes I might save from manhandling it versus taking a bit more care. I have better shit to do with my time and money than to replace something I broke because I felt the need to prove to the universe how much of a man I am.
  8. I have a couple, and from the replies in this thread, I'm not alone in my reasons: Apple: I like a lot about them, I really do. I prefer OSX to any other OS I have used to date. I like their general design aesthetic and when it comes to linking multiple devices to one another, I have not seen anyone pull that functionality off as well as Apple did. I received a free upgrade to my 2GB iPod Nano due to a series of malfunctions that they decided to replace rather than repair. However, it seems that after Steve Jobs died, their build quality went to shit. I can no longer justify the "Apple tax" on new devices because my trust that their products will stand the test of time is just gone. Ubisoft: I haven't bought a full-priced game of theirs since Assassins' Creed 2 because their draconian DRM solution prevented me from playing the game I had bought for full price in the store. Their official response on the matter blamed loss of revenue due to piracy and subsequently made me want to pirate the game just so I could play it. Since then, they've just come to embody the industry's worst aspects, never making any decision that couldn't be accurately summed up as "someone told us we'd make more money this way." and generally lowering the quality of their games. EA: Does it really need to be explained? I grew up playing games made by great studios like Maxis and Westwood with names like Command & Conquer, Theme Park and Dungeon Keeper. EA bought them, killed them and added insult to injury by releasing "Free to wait" mobile games full of microtransactions. It's so blatant that Dungeon Keeper mobile literally had a demon on screen telling your to spend more money. Activision Blizzard: You know which games I spent a lot of time playing when I was younger? Diablo and Diablo 2. Fun fact: I own a Collector's edition of Diablo 3 because I was convinced it would be everything I loved from the previous games and more. I hoped it would add to the lore (I also have 7 tie-in books) and provide me with a sufficient amount of enjoyment come release day. Then release day came, and with it the same fucking problem that AC 2 had years prior: the "always on" requirement for the game apparently didn't extend to the verification servers. I played through the game once and never again. Diablo 3 was the first indication that the Blizzard I had grown up with, was being supplanted. In the years to follow, Blizzard games saw their quality decline and it became more and more apparent that the company had left its traditional values behind to make way for profit margins. The final straw for me was last year's debacle where they "justified" firing nearly 800 people right after bragging about having had their most profitable year to date by saying they "could do even better." I have not spent a single cent on an Activision or Blizzard game since. Epic Games: Another one of the companies I grew up with. Hell, I have the soundtrack for One Must Fall 2097 on a playlist on my phone. Look, I'll be the first to admit that it would be good to have a suitable competitor to Valve in the PC gaming sphere, but what Epic is doing is akin to taking hostages just so they can be let into the exclusive club. And doing it under the guise of "being better for developers" while working their own development staff to the bone is just fucked up. Aside from all this, the industry itself sucks more and more these days and truly good games are few and far between. Games have skyrocketing budgets due to A-list celebrities being hired without anyone having asked for them, and all the while every bit of potential revenue has to be squeezed for maximum profit. What used to be an unlockable costume in a full-priced game has now become paid DLC. What used to be a complete game is now a broken unfinished mess even after the day one patch and you'd better hope the game meets the unreasonable expectations because that promised roadmap is more like "guidelines". It used to be that if a game was successful, it would receive an expansion or some other additional content. Nowadays if a game isn't successful enough, it may never even receive all the content that was promised before launch, even though the industry will still happily charge you the full price on the promise that they'll deliver a passable product later.
  9. I barely played any games between 2010 and 2012. Well, I played one game. And then I played a few old games for a month or two before going back to playing that one game some more to the exclusion all else. When looking at release years, I've gone back and played many of these games much later on: 2010: World of Warcraft: Cataclysm (I basically played WoW until halfway through 2014) 2011: Skyrim 2012: XCOM: Enemy Unknown 2013: Assassins' Creed: Black Flag 2014: Shadow of Mordor 2015: Witcher 3 2016: Hitman 2017: Hellblade 2018: God of War (Honourable mention to Marvel's Spider Man) 2019: Disco Elysium
  10. I got a call last year from a roadside assistance company I had been forced to join back in 2017 (car broke down as I travelled to my wedding, priorities kinda shift when that happens). Apparently my membership fee "had not been processed." The company must have had a data breach because the caller not only called from the country where the roadside assistance company has its main office (for reference, I'm Dutch and the car broke down in England. The call came from France) and they knew down to the month when my car had broken down. It seemed just legit enough until I noticed that they kept asking me leading questions. The icing on the cake was that they offered to "help me settle the matter right away if I just gave them my credit card info." I "looked around for my credit card" for a good 20 minutes before telling them that they had my credit card info on file. It used to be that their voice and bad English was a dead giveaway but in this case it was a lady working for a French company that sounded like a French person speaking English. She knew enough to be a plausible employee of a company with which I had had actual dealings and she knew a few details about these dealings. It's a far cry from the call I received a few years ago where "Microsoft" informed me of "the virus that was affecting my computer" where the dude legit sounded like Apu Nahasapeemapetilon and it was interesting that Microsoft had contacted me since I did not own a Windows machine at the time.
  11. And what I meant was that reviews are inherently biased by their very nature. Any person's experiences with a device is going to be coloured through the lens of their biases which may or may not be inextricably linked to a company's preferred method of doing things. I stopped using iPhones (and made a conscious choice to replace my iMac with a PC) because of a number of reasons, including but not limited to: - reliance on iTunes. - the fact that save pictures on my phone are all renamed to "IMG_****". - near complete lack of support for Bluray. - the proprietary nature of many of their products or connectors. - great if you want to use a tool that's in the walled garden, unnecessarily difficult when the tool is not in the walled garden. - I wanted to build and be able to tweak my devices to a greater degree than Apple allows. All of these are tied to the way Apple does things and key reasons for me to move away from them as a customer. I may not hate Apple, but an argument could be made that I am certainly biased against the way they do business. My experiences with an iPhone will be influenced by the fact that I don't like the way Apple does things, but does that mean I wouldn't be able to review an iPhone? Does this invalidate my opinion on the camera or sound quality of the device? Too often, "biased" gets thrown around when "critical" would be more accurate. I think it's a stupid business decision to force me to link all my mobile devices with my iTunes account while only allowing five devices at any given time. It doesn't make me hate Apple as a company, but it's certainly a thing that will impact my experience with a new mobile device from Apple and would be something I bring up if I were to review a new iPhone.
  12. I hate to have to tell you this, but you can't build a Youtube review channel without having personal bias play a role. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that no one wants to watch a tech review that does not add any bias. You know why? Because that would just be a person reading the spec sheet. I will say that a good review will include the reasoning behind a biased statement, but having no bias at all would lead to reviews like "Apple iPhone 11 is a smartphone. It has three cameras. It runs iOS. It has no headphone jack. etc." Tbh, my customer service experiences with Apple have all been stellar. I've had the "good fortune" to buy an iPod Nano that had a battery charge issue which led to me receiving the best error report I have ever seen (just the word "Dead.") and they replaced it free of charge even though I had bought the thing on another continent. Five years later, it was discovered that the model I had received had another type of battery issue, leading to yet another free replacement, which upgraded my then-unused 2GB iPod to the then-cheapest 8GB model. Three years later, an HDD recall on my iMac led to me getting that replaced for free. I like the fact that they do it this way because it reduced the impact to me as a customer.
  13. For MSI, it may also just be tied to the fact that their logo is red and white on a black background. I mean, it's literally their house style.
  14. If you feel like you've found a niche that is currently underserved in the laptop gaming space, feel free to capitalize on it by making your own "black rectangle but also powerful enough to just play games real good like while not as expensive as Razer" style line of laptops. No one is stopping you. Alternatively, seek out a job in the marketing or R&D department for your favourite laptop manufacturer and lobby hard for the basic design. As to why no one else is doing it: They don't want to or perhaps they don't need to. Large companies are many things, but risk-takers is usually not among those things. Unless someone comes along to tell them that the general public is more likely to notice and buy a featureless black rectangle as opposed to a more custom design that they can actually copyright, and backs that statement up with actual data, it's unlikely to change anytime soon.