PC Gaming

• Invidious
• Youtube

Youtube

I wanted to play Just Cause on my TV with an Xbox controller. On the off chance someone else is trying to do the same, I’ve written up these instructions.

But first: why even bother when the game already exists on actual console?

First of all, my PC is my console. I hook it up to my TV and it outperforms current gen console hardware. I have an RTX 3090, so why not use it?

Also, the PC version of this game is generally cheaper than even used copies for console. The PS2 version generally goes for $6.22. However, on Steam and GOG, it’s usually on sale for C$1.09.

Best of all, the PC version isn’t stuck at 480i. With a few tweaks (no mods needed), you can play in crisp HD—or even higher—and make the game look shockingly good on a modern display.

Here’s how to get it working:

Step 1:

Download Just Cause to your PC.

Step 2:

Open Steam’s Controller Settings. Select the current button layout, browse Community Layouts, and choose the one called DeadMonkey with “A” button. Press “X” to apply it. This lets you use an Xbox controller instead of a keyboard.

Step 3:

Right-click the game in your Library, go to Properties > General > Launch Options, and paste this in:

/width=1920 /height=1080

This forces a 1080p widescreen resolution—something the game doesn’t support out of the box. (This trick might work with 4K too, but I haven’t tested it.)

Step 4:

Go back to the main Just Cause menu, and press “Launch”.

And that’s it. You’ve got a full console-style experience, running better and sharper than anything the original 2000s-era hardware could deliver.

Life can be difficult sometimes, that’s true for everyone, and oftentimes we might find ourselves needing a little help to get through some of the tougher days. Today, please join me as I take a bit more of a personal look at Stardew Valley, and explore how it helped keep me calm during a particularly difficult time in my life.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/30581890

• Invidious
• Youtube

video in question

They have detailed timetables of every show, converted to your local time. And they also keep track of every announcement that was made, including extra info like which platforms a game will be available on etc.

Sidenote, I am NOT affiliated with them in any way, I've simply been using this site for the past several years and always found it super useful.

How long should you play a game before you truly understand it?

There’s a certain contingent of PC gamers who believe you need to spend hundreds of hours with a title before you’re allowed to form an opinion. Especially in online spaces, it’s common to see someone discredited for “only” playing 10 hours—as if they just sniffed the box and walked away.

I get it… kind of. If we’re talking about something massive and layered like Skyrim, then sure. One playthrough can take weeks out of your life. But is that the standard?

Take a glance at GOG, which often lists average completion times. Here’s a small sample:



• Kingdom Come: Deliverance - 41.5 hours
• Deus Ex - 22.5 hours
• Frostpunk - 10.5 hours
• The Invincible - 6.5 hours
• Project Warlock - 4 hours

That’s a huge range. Why?

Mostly genre. The more RPG-like a game is, the longer it will take to finish. But the more arcade-y a game is, the tighter the runtime.

But there’s this myth—especially among purists—that a “real” PC game shouldn’t feel arcade-y. That PC games are meant to be vast, deep, and long.

I’ve been a PC gamer for decades. That idea’s nonsense.

When I had a physical Commodore 64, I could beat Uridium in under 20 minutes. Sure, the C64 is technically an 8-bit micro—not a “PC” in the strictest sense—but I also played Dangerous Dave on DOS. That took about 30 minutes.

What about much more modern games? A few months ago, I played Virginia (2016). I was done in one sitting. It took me an hour and a half.

Which brings us back to the real question: what does it mean to “understand” a game? Is it the same as completing it?

I don’t think so. Plenty of games aren’t even meant to be completed. Take puzzle games. Tetris, for instance, never ends—just speeds up until you die. That’s still a PC game, by the way. It launched on DOS before it ever hit arcades or home consoles.

And even for games that do have an ending, completion doesn’t necessarily equal comprehension. What’s the point of dragging yourself through 30 hours of crap just to say you finished it? I've done that with bad games—and trust me, the only thing I gained was regret. Pongo, for example. I played that mess to the bitter end. I don’t understand it any better than I did five minutes in. I just feel cheated out of my time.

Most games tell you what they’re about in the first five minutes. If it’s unresponsive, broken, or filled with jank right out of the gate, that’s usually your cue to uninstall. And I’m not just talking about asset flips.

Elder Scrolls: Arena stinks. It’s got one of the worst control schemes I’ve ever witnessed. And even by the standards of 1995, it is an ugly game. No, I haven’t finished Arena, nor do I intend to—I have suffered enough. I gave it a solid 30 minutes—everyone told me it was a great—but some games are not worth it.

Granted, sometimes there are games that massively improve after the first five minutes. Star Wars Jedi Knight: Mysteries of the Sith is a good example of this. Initially, trying to figure out what to do is such a chore. But afterwards, it’s pure bliss. And for this reason, I feel most negative reviews on Steam are wrong.

But Mysteries of the Sith is an exception—not the rule. Most of the time, if you like a game within five minutes of play, you’ll probably like it 50 hours afterwards.

If it’s bad at the start, it rarely gets better.

 So no—hundreds of hours aren’t necessary to “get” a game. You don’t owe your time to any title. Five minutes can be enough. And if that five minutes fills you with joy, then the game has already done its job.

After all, isn’t the point to have fun?