Caslon wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 00:04:o·pin·ion  - [uh-pin-yuhn]ItBurn wrote on Mar 12, 2012, 17:28:Caslon wrote on Mar 12, 2012, 17:20:Tumbler wrote on Mar 12, 2012, 16:49:
Crysis was spectacular when it was announced and when it shipped. (graphically) Since then you have not been spectacular.
Ummm, Crysis wasn't that spectacular. I can't remember much about it because it was that forgettable. Countless North Koreans taking a pee behind a tree and then suddenly popping out from behind it when you were near them is not my idea of great. The online play was a complete joke. The destructible terrain aspect was highly promoted but turned out to be nothing much at all. Some of the interiors of the huts were no better looking than the original Far Cry. All this while the game code taxed everyones new rigs they built just for this game. Crysis will be forgotten.
The online mode was far from a joke. It's pretty complex and interesting. It just couldn't compete with COD and Halo, like every other game.
The enemies can actually hear sounds, so it's absolutely normal for them to go towards it, even if a tree is in the way.
#1, I acknowledge the online play was never meant to be the games strong suit, but still...it was frustratingly rudimentary in hit detection and the lagged out play was horrible, on the lowest ping server.
#2. Yes the North Koreans could hear you approaching, but it got old playing among a forest of tall standing trees with a guy coming out from behind each tree, like they were all taking a leak. That got old.
InBlack wrote on Mar 7, 2012, 09:21:Yea, EA marketing is a bunch of geniuses. They said to themselves "We used to talk trash about Activision charging people for map packs back when we were promoting Bad Company 2, so how are we going to get people to pay for map packs now?" Then one of the guys over by the fountain screamed "I got it, add some weapons and vehicles and call it an expansion!" Meanwhile the old man cleaning the floors walked by shaking his remembering a time when companies would routinely release new maps, vehicles, weapons and even game modes for free. Not out of the goodness of their hearts, but knowing that by continually supporting their game, it would keep their game sales up through word of mouth like so many of the MP giants of the past did. Not to mention the fact that paid-for MP content splits the community between haves and have nots.
Wow no less than 3 expansions?? Not DLC? Expansions...Its been a while since Ive actually seen an expansion for a recent game, let alone three in the same year.
Well now, doesnt this seem a bit of a rippoff for those of you who bought the game? (I never bought BF3 I dont want to support EA and the Origin craptastic machine...)
Brataccas wrote on Mar 6, 2012, 13:32:
Meh, I'll wait for the bargain sales if I play it at all. The ending to ME2 was so awful that I just can't bring myself to get excited over this one.
Beamer wrote on Feb 29, 2012, 13:13:Verno wrote on Feb 29, 2012, 12:41:Tanto Edge wrote on Feb 29, 2012, 11:07:
'The PC gaming isn't dead' argument is all well and good but realistically, there aren't that many folks using UE3 to develop PC titles as opposed to folks using it to develop on consoles.
The incredible capabilities of software are being held back by the current console generation..
It's a shame.
AAA titles you mean? PC gaming has moved well beyond being limited to that market as a revenue stream. I agree that the former is being held up by consoles but the latter is thriving in a way not seen since the shareware days, much of that due to Steam and UE.
It'll be nice to see those titles mature, too.
Right now we're getting a certain kind of indie title. I won't call them simple or uncomplex, but they all fit a certain type, or maybe I should say two certain types. Most of them go for "retro" as well.
I still contend we won't be able to get cutting edge 3D FPS games coming from the indie crowd (no, Unity engine games don't count), but I really want to see a strategy revival. Right now it seems we're getting a good amount of half-finished space themed 4x games that aren't setting the world on fire. I want ones that maybe have their ambition pulled back a bit but do what they do insanely well (and preferably not in space.) And I want someone to do something interesting with turn based tactics without feeling like everything needs to move at the same time.
Quboid wrote on Mar 2, 2012, 09:52:Exactly, it will be the same story all over again, no doubt about it. Not to mention, id has yet to prove they can offer innovative gameplay.SirKnight wrote on Mar 2, 2012, 09:47:ItBurn wrote on Mar 2, 2012, 09:39:
It better not be fuckin' mega textures. Rage's textures look so bad even on max details, it's ridiculous.
Don't blame the tech since you obviously have no idea how it works and why it's needed. Doom 4 WILL use MegaTextures since this is idTech 5 they're using. The problem is not MegaTextures (virtual texturing) but the extreme amount of compression used for the consoles. Virtual texturing is the only and best way to have unique texutring everywhere and higher resolution/texture detail than would otherwise be possible due to hardware constraints. But the consoles screwed that up due to the disk media.
Isn't this problem that MegaTextures need to be compressed heavily on consoles? In that case, and I think this was ItBurn's point, isn't this going to happen again (and again and again until consoles ship with AAG 4GB+ VRAM)?
Fion wrote on Feb 27, 2012, 23:35:That's not the fault of the engine, it's a fault of the developers who design their games so similarly. Character design is not a product of the engine a game is developed on, it is a product of the artists who designed them.
I am so sick of this engine. Every game looks the same, all the characters are identical in every game. It is really getting boring.
Bhruic wrote on Jan 19, 2012, 00:45:There's a big difference between playing through an entire game with friends versus playing a little tacked on multiplayer mode that is seperate from the main storyline. It would be like if Borderlands was an entirely single-player game, and the only multiplayer were the arenas where you could fight waves of enemies ad nauseum.
I actually had some fun playing BGII multiplayer, so the thought of multiplayer in an RPG doesn't automatically turn me off. My only issue will be whether they make multiplayer necessary in any fashion. As long as it's an optional thing, then I don't really have a problem with it.