It's a work in progress and you'd need a few grand's worth of kit just to get it vaguely playable right now, but it's bloody impressive work. I didn't think we'd see PS3 emulation for a long time, if at all.
>>22072 Crysis was ported to PS3, so at some point, I guess it actually will.
>>22074 Bickering aside, x64 is as correct as x86_64 and it's also generally called x86-64. Alternatively AMD64 or Intel 64, depending on who you're listening to (it was mildly entertaining to watch Intel get all grumpy and embarrassed about having to implement AMD's 64-bit ISA after Itanium tanked.).
I recently played through Dark Souls for the first time (I haven't played Demon's Souls). For the first 10-20 hours I found it frustrating and revelling in its own difficulty rather than actually being a challenge. Once I got used to it I quite enjoyed it, but I couldn't shake the feeling that I'd simply levelled up a lot faster than I should've done and it didn't scale properly, thus making it overly easy. My evidence for that is how easy I found some of the bosses. I defeated Gwyn on my second attempt (Thingy and Smough took considerably longer and with Solaire's help...)
Acquired Dark Souls II the other day. I got to Majula, spent a few hours trying to get past the first big bastard in the Forest of Wotsitsface and then got annoyed and put it down again. Haven't picked it up again since.
I'm not the lad above, but everyone I know casually refers to it as 'x64' because it's so much easier to type out than 'amd64' or 'ia64' or whatever other poncery you want to trot out.
I generally dislike internet dick waving contests but in this case I'd be willing to bet my left nut that I've spent far more time looking at x64 asm in IDA pro than you ever have. Those who can, do. Those who can't get all upset on the internet if people don't use their preferred nomenclature.
>>22076 It was indeed, I feel like it might be more draining to run technically challenging games that were presumably well-optimised for the Cell, versus many games designed to run portably on PS3/Xbox360/PC with minimal optimisations.
>>22078 It's not hard to type out 3 extra characters though is it mate? It's not like we're going around calling it xEightySix-SixtyFour-InTheYearOfOurLord2017.
I mostly just use x86_64 because that's what I need to search for most RPMs that work on my PC.
Explains everything. You're probably the sort of cunt who demands people call everything by the correct name but couldn't explain why inc and dec are so wildly disparate in overall average cost despite near-identical theoretical cycle counts. Just go throw yourself off a bridge you fucking mong.
>>22082 > 'ia64' refers to the Intel Itanic, not amd64...
Good catch, but are you aware how many people much more familiar than you with CPU architecture routinely refer to x86 as ia32 and "x86_64" as 'ia64' or preferably x64? It's doubtful, honestly. While we're being cunts, it's Itanium; Itanic was a bad in-joke.
> I mostly just use x86_64 because that's what I need to search for most RPMs that work on my PC.
Look lads, we've found King Pleb right here. If you even bothered to use Debian or even cunting Ubuntu then all the rpms you'd need would have amd64 right there in the fucking name.
>>22088 > It's not hard to type out 3 extra characters though is it mate?
It is if you're typing a lot and you have to break to shift-key an underscore. Of course you'd know that if you weren't a complete posing cunt.
As the poster of 22082, I would like you to know that actually Itanic was a good in-joke. Well, not sure about in-joke, to be honest.
Additionally as someone who has spent more than 5 mins reading assembly (very very amateur OSdev) but avoids it like the plague, why are inc and dec disparate in overall average cost? Is it just an implementation choice? Even if inc was encoded in a short number of bytes and dec in a long number, surely that doesn't matter that much these days. (Which is faster, even? I remember something about some C runtime on Linux changing memcpy to start counting backwards instead, and broke Flash Player...)
>>22077 >I couldn't shake the feeling that I'd simply levelled up a lot faster than I should've done
You can't really over-level too much in the Souls games, beyond a certain point they'll just beat you down if you start getting sloppy no matter what level you've got to. If you found it easier as you went on that's probably a sign that you were grasping the mechanics, which are not particularly well-explained and are not intuitive (i-frames during rolling, etc). Gwyn is notoriously easy - the developers admitted that leaving his attack parryable was an oversight, so if you've got any skill with shield parrying the fight is utterly trivial, and even if you don't, if you've got past the previous bosses he shouldn't give you much trouble. There's a lot of apologia in the fanbase about it, people coming up with all sorts of head-canon "lore" nonsense to explain why he's such a pushover, but honestly I reckon that (along with the last few levels of the game) he was basically just a rush job.
Ornstein and Smough are hard if you've got help, and are an absolute cunt if you're on your own and trying to fight them with weapons rather than magic (my first time through I ran out of humanities on a light, close-range melee build... that took a few goes). In general I think the Souls games are at their weakest (design-wise) when they throw multiple powerful enemies at you; the elegance of the combat system is chucked right the fuck out of the window and it descends into a messy free for all. If I wanted that I'd play DMC or Bayonetta or something where the combat system has obviously been designed for it.
DS2 is the black sheep of the Souls games, being largely designed and developed by a different team at Fromsoft. Fans of DS1 used to give it a hard time but the hate seems to have died down now and most people recognise it's a decent game. It doesn't have the intricate, interwoven level design of the first game, more like a few branches, but that suits me fine as I've got no sense of direction and spent half my time with DS1 getting hopelessly lost. DS2 is still less linear than DS3, which really is A->B->C etc. I think 2 might be my favourite of the trilogy, the combat is a happy middle ground between DS1's cumbersome, highly methodical mechanics and DS3's (Bloodborne-esque) endless stamina for rolling and rapid attacks. Stick with it, it's rewarding.
>>22089 Do you have the first clue about anything you are talking about? No I haven't bothered to use Debian or Ubuntu because RPMs are used by Centos. And maybe if you're a manager who spends more time writing fspecs than actual code finding the shift key might be a challenge but for a developer it's a well-learned action.
>>22103 I agree with you, I think DS2 is definitely the best of the Souls series. I enjoyed the wide variety of locations, even if the geography made very little sense compared to 1 and 3. The DLC was great too, and the enhanced version's changes to enemy placements did a good job of keeping the game feeling fresh.
>>22109 Before I played it I'd heard a lot of shit talking about the scenery not making sense, but with one exception (that elevator) it seems fine to me, if a bit uninspired at times. Again, though, my spatial awareness is terrible, so maybe for people who aren't so useless it's really annoying.
SotFS is a pretty good addition, there was plenty of cynicism about it being a cheap cash-in, re-releasing a game a year after it came out, but these days you can pick it up for next to nothing and it's got a ridiculous amount of content with the DLCs included. I'm in two minds about the DLCs - they're a lot tighter in design, but they're also irritatingly hard in places. I'm also not a huge fan of the increased mob sizes for the reasons previously mentioned, but overall it's got enough improvements that I can't complain. I do love fighting the Pursuer and he pops up all over the shop in SotFS. Fuck fighting the Ancient Dragon, though; nothing makes me feel like a heroic adventurer more than battering a dragon's big toe for ten minutes until it falls over. Honestly don't know what they were thinking with that one. The last boss encounter is kind of so-so as well, especially if you're a melee build.
That all sounds a bit negative, but again, for the moment to moment feel of the game I think DS2 takes it. The combat is great.
>>22110 Bloody hell, forgot why I came here. Anyone got the new DLC for DS3? I've avoided all spoilers but the only character I've got is on NG+++ so I'm getting killed in one or two hits and it's starting to grate on my nerves. Not sure if it's worth starting a new character for right now, might leave it for a year or so when I'm feeling in the mood to return.
>>22111 I was thinking about playing the DLC for DS1 and DS3. Haven't played it though. Honestly, I felt a bit underwhelmed with the game. A lot of repeated stuff from the first one and the end boss felt extremely similar to Gwyn. 3 also felt a lot, easier, I guess. Or maybe I'm jusy used to first one. Everything just flinched all the time, the enemies in DS1 seemed a lot more stoic and rhythm based, DS3 the felt a bit more flimsy.
I've only played through DS1 and DS3, might actually just buy DS2 on PC instead going of some of the comments here. Managed to dodge that one somehow.
