![]() There's an air of mystery surrounding this port, however. Years later, Okami received a port on PlayStation 3 courtesy of HexaDrive - a very talented studio known for its expertise in converting games to new platforms. It did, at least, add the option to control the celestial brush using the Wiimote, which is one of its key selling points. Lacking some of the source art and forced to reverse engineer the original code, the Wii version of Okami is lacking some of the visual flourishes found in the original PS2 release. At this point, Clover Studio was no more, and the job was outsourced to Ready at Dawn with assistance from Tose - the go-to studio in Japan, known for co-developing many a game. Capcom decided to bring the game to Nintendo's very successful motion-controlled console but faced some challenges along the way. There are basically three unique conversion efforts to discuss here. This latest offering is no ordinary port, however. Since release, Capcom has released Okami on multiple platforms including Wii, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Xbox One and now Switch. It's a mini DF Retro episode! John Linneman takes us through a guided tour of all of the Okami ports.Īnd that's where the ports come in. In its original form, Okami runs at a 512x448 resolution, which looks great on a nice CRT, but blown up on a large flat panel, it does start to show its age. It's hauntingly beautiful on original hardware with a look quite unlike any other game on the market - even now. This is combined with a soft glow applied across the game world. Objects such as trees and grass consist of beautiful, flat paintings carefully placed into each scene. A textured paper effect is applied to the scene lending the game a sense of texture as if it were being drawn before the player. Inky black lines envelop geometric edges across the world bleeding out across the image. Clover Studio pushed its cel-shading techniques to the next level but rather than mimicking the look of a modern anime or manga as was common at the time, the team focused instead on replicating the style of Japanese sumi-e paintings. ![]() It's still a great game today but what stands out most is its visual style. It may not have ignited sales charts, but it's widely considered a classic of its era. ![]() With an enormous pool of talent and money behind the game, Okami was released to critical acclaim back in 2006. While the studio no longer exists today, the spirit of Clover lives on through Platinum Games - but Okami remains a superb example of this remarkable team's early work. With the talents of Shinji Mikami, Hideki Kamiya, Atsushi Inaba and others behind it, Clover produced some true classics during its short lifespan. Back in the day, Capcom's Clover Studio was a development group formed by Capcom to develop new IPs and explore new genres. Okami is one of those titles with timeless charm, created by genuine gaming artisans. The visual aesthetic is timeless - it's one of those games that manages to hold up even when viewed through the lens of a modern 4K TV. It's a beautiful adventure and one the firm has seen fit to re-release across three generations of consoles - and it now arrives on Nintendo Switch, boasting new features including touchscreen input and motion control, along with HD visuals in line with the other current-gen ports.Īnd honestly, it works. It's a sprawling open-ended action RPG fusing The Legend of Zelda with ancient Japanese history and at the time of its initial release, it was also one of the most ambitious and expensive games undertaken by publisher Capcom. ![]() Released more than 12 years ago, the original Okami arrived during the PlayStation 2's twilight years.
0 Comments
And 2-3h charging time is needed, standby time 15-30 days after full charging. It ensure hours of comfortable funny game playing. The ps3 wireless controller can be continuously used for about 8-10 hours after fully charged. ![]()
![]() ![]() The option to fold is still available to you, even if doing so would be foolhardy given how that would leave you even less likely to recover. In other words, mathematically speaking, you’re “priced in” to call no matter what two cards your opponent has. That means you are facing calling 100 to win a pot of 2,200 - that’s pot odds of 22-to-1.Įven if your opponent holds and has an 88.3% chance of beating you (according to the PokerNews Odds Calculator), that’s still just over a 7-to-1 advantage. The blinds and antes total 2,100, and after your opponent raises you have but 100 left to call, making the effective stacks between the two of you just 100. Here is an obvious example of being pot committed. A player in middle position then raises and all fold around. Making matters worse, on the following hand you are in the big blind, meaning you only have 100 left after posting the ante and big blind. ![]() To describe an extreme example, say you lose a big hand early in a full ring (nine-handed) no-limit hold’em tournament that knocks you back to just 1,000 chips at a time when the blinds are 400/800 with a 100 ante. A Math Problem in Which All Options Have Been Subtracted Away But One One shouldn’t, then, actively look to become pot committed unless the situation is favorable for doing so - e.g., when holding a strong hand that rates to be better than an opponent’s, or when facing pot odds that make committing the rest of one’s stack correct. The same goes for cash games, in which those with bigger stacks can be more creative than those with less. Players in tournaments prefer amassing big stacks precisely because of the flexibility it gives them when playing hands, whereas those with short stacks find their options reduced. even if their opponent has assembled a much stronger “army” against them.īut just as in military strategy, it is generally not desirable in poker to seek situations in which you lessen your available options. Thus any bet or raise or call they make becomes justification for committing to battle for a pot to the very end. Betting chips early in a hand sometimes makes it more difficult for some players to fold later on and concede losing those chips they’ve bet. In poker, players sometimes mistakenly describe themselves as having been “pot committed” as a justification for going all the way with a hand when they didn’t actually have to do so. A possible consequence of such thinking can be false rationalizations to support the decision after the fact - that is, after crossing the “Rubicon” (or some other “point of no return”) to avoid considering alternatives thereafter that might still exist but have been ruled out by the earlier-declared commitment. Military strategists have long discussed the “Rubicon” example and the mindset it represents, in particular the way committing to such an action necessarily reduces options going forward, including the one to avoid conflict altogether. For example, when Julius Caesar led a legion southward toward Rome and crossed the Rubicon river, that action signaled an inexorable commitment to war, with the phrase “crossing the Rubicon” later coming to represent just such a commitment. Take the situation of opposing factions building toward conflict who make declarations suggesting a particular action or advancement necessarily removes peaceful alternatives. It isn’t exactly the same, but being pot committed is sometimes likened to reaching a kind of “point of no return” such as might arise other contexts. Such a situation is determined by pot odds and how those odds compare to your chances of winning a hand. Generally speaking, being pot committed means having arrived at a point in a poker hand at which folding to any bet or raise has become an incorrect play. But it’s one well worth learning, particularly when playing “big bet” games like no-limit hold’em and pot-limit Omaha in which bets on successive streets can quickly transform a small skirmish into major melee. It’s a concept many think they understand, but sometimes they misapply it or are mistaken. ![]() One of the more commonly uttered justifications for suspect decisions in poker is for players to claim they were “pot committed” in a hand when in they really weren’t. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |