1. I for one do not care about graphics and would still be happy if it had Halo 3 Graphics.
Reason:
Classical trolling of the worst degree. There's no need to cater this flaming bait. The design was presented and designed for PC.
Why this claim makes no sense_
2. Yes I believe compramise(sp_) should be taken to give everybody an experience with this awesome looking game.
Reason:
Classical trolling. The game will stop being awesome looking once you plug in on five years old architectures. Porting requires tons of money, adjustment and refinement.
Why this claim makes no sense_
3. Consoles aren't quick money. Adhesive wants to share the experience with more than just the PC.
Reason:
Classical trolling. The PC can bring the luxury of detail level to different architectures unlike the console. Everybody has internet and a good average PC capable of running the Unreal engine at the level of Unreal III.
The rest of your arguments are nonsensical trolling. Please troll harder next time.
Why this claim belongs to a crybaby_
8. Not everybody in the world has a hardcore gaming PC .
Reason:
Put that lazy ass of yours to work for a good machine.
I think you missed the point of that topic. As of writing, 76% people voted that they would prefer to play the game on a PC, and 24% said they would prefer to play it on a Xbox 360 or a PS3. The key word there is prefer. It wasn't asking "Which platform should the game come out on", it was asking "Which platform would you prefer to play it on". Just cause a person wants to play it on one system doesn't mean they think it should only come out on that system. So don't use that as an argument for backing that it should *only* come out on the PC. Also, while 24% is not the majority (obviously), it is still a very large about and very significant! That's a quarter of the market, assuming that poll was totally valid and unbiased (which forum polls are not known for being such).
MechMechanics1 said:
Ashfire908 said:
Dude, shut up already.
Being condemned of repeating history may be a foult. A mistake happens when you do nothing to remove the foult. The trade of development becomes compromised when your architecture is limited. I don't know of you are aware of the downgrade of many games due to the limited architecture. A constraint happens when you project a game destined to one medium.
If for economical reasons you change your schedule, your project becomes compromised to the architecture. You loose control of your design and loose control of your projected parameters. This is not my way of thinking. This is what happens when you work in architecture, engineering or game design.
The problem with that concept (besides the fact I had to read it 6 times just to make sense of it since you were talking out of your ass trying to sound smart) is that from the start, Hawken was not designed (nor "destined") for the PC only, but designed for the PC, Xbox 360, and PS3. There's no major design shift going on here to include the consoles in the game. All the aspects of the game design were made with both the PC and consoles in mind. If anything, what you are proposing would involve such a shift.
MechMechanics1 said:
Ashfire908 said:
Just cause you hate consoles (I suspect you hate consoles because you blame them for all the issues in gaming, in the same way all the issues in the United States is blamed on the president) doesn't mean you have to keep spreading your hate around.
You are free to give away quality. It's up to you. As a designer and student of architecture your expectations are inscribed to the best result. When you work with five year old hardware with a limited Ram you are forced to do compensations. In the early design process you compromise the expectations of the game adjusting your parameters to the lowest denominator, the 360. That compromise the quality on the PS3 and the PC. Up to now we have cards like the 6990 HD with 4 GB of ram memory.
It is not "giving" up quality to use hardware that doesn't have ridiculous amounts of resources. Just cause you aren't going to have access to the mentioned 4 GB of graphics memory, does not mean the game is "destined" to look like shit. You work on getting the absolute most out of the hardware that you have to work with. Yes, the hardware does put a end cap on the level as you can only optimize so much, but you can still make a beautiful game with limited resources.
MechMechanics1 said:
Once you enjoy this type of quality. It's hard to turn your back. The open world and the nature of the quality goes off on fixed SKUs. If good hardware is built, the intention of it is to use it.
Admittedly I wasn't able to watch all three of those videos at 1080p and whatnot (I have poor internet so it takes like an hour and a half to download and view just one). I was able to watch a bit of the start of the first video at full quality and whatnot, and yes it's all purty (nowhere near as much as you act is it though). I don't actually have any trouble "turning my back" on better graphics though. As an example, about 2-3 years ago, I had a friend over and he brought his GameCube over and a few games. I switched over from my Xbox 360 to the GameCube and started to play Metroid Prime. Now, obviously the GameCube has worse graphics than the 360. However I got to halfway through the game before I even thought about the graphics quality (which are horrible, but I only thought about it after a visor reflection effect was used). Up to that point I did not get hit in the face with "the graphics were bad". And after I thought about it, yeah, I thought the graphics were bad, but I still played it to the end and thought it was a totally awesome game and I got a lot of enjoyment out of playing it (more than I had with newer 360 games with better graphics). I'll get back to this in a bit though.
MechMechanics1 said:
You misunderstood my claims with the word of hate. Sorry but those are evident facts. Those can't be denied or insinuate any possible discussion on them. The technology is built with the intention to progress. You harness resources and harness the computational power of the I7 with the intention to extend the boundaries on what games are.
Hawken is a realistic looking game that demands details, reflection, refraction, speculation, photon bouncing, fracture, partial destruction, dynamic fog, complex motion blur, camera blur and many other things for the immersible factor.
Anything on console works perfectly like Red Dead Redemption but the design idea behind Hawken is to cause a sense of realism. That artistic intention and sense demands resources and graphical quality. Morover, you need a steade frame rate of 45 to 60 frames for it.
"Misunderstood my claims with the word of hate" "those are evident facts...can't be denied or insinuate any possible discussion on them" First off, no, you have been using hate speech, against person and consoles, and they are opinions, not facts. Second, can't discuss them_ Where the heck do you think you are_ This is a forum, the purpose of which is to discuss things. And I will discuss them, saying that you can't doesn't stop me from tearing apart these "facts". If you want to claim these as facts, cite your sources with more than subjective YouTube videos of gameplay.
As to the look and graphics, if that's what you care about so much, you would be much better suited to watching a movie, or better yet, go outside (reality contains the greatest realism also the best graphics you can find, PC or not).
MechMechanics1 said:
Ashfire908 said:
I thought you got it out of your system earlier in the Preferred Platform thread. At this point I've stopped actually reading your arguments as you just keep using the same couple over and over. The horse is dead, you can stop beating it.
Obviously you are clueless. While you try to get out of your naive point of view think on the following:
1. Do you want to trade quality at this stage of development cutting in half the capacity of the game_
2. Do you want to compromise the quality because other people want to play them in console, a caprice of commodity instead of convenience_
3. Do you think that developing for PC first, built up resources, reputation and a basic infrastructure should be compromised due to the need of quick money making on consoles_
This dead horse, as you call it, compromised Crytek sales. The same dead horse took BioWare by surprise with Dragon Age II and their next Star Wars. You see, this dead horse has the ability to cut off large companies from their standards. Do you want a small team follow the same road with their first game_
"Obviously you are clueless. While you try to get out of your naive point of view..." No hate, huh_ You shot your own argument in the foot. Also the "dead horse" I was referring to was the "PC ONLY" opinion you have been beating over people's heads this whole time, and that people tire of having the same rhetoric beat over their heads.
The core problem you have with looking at gaming is that you overlook everysingleaspectofgaming except for the graphics. Games are much, much, much more than just pretty things to look at. They are worlds to explore, adventures to have, places to go, things to think about, all of which is there for you to interact with, and more importantly, have fun playing. Graphics are such a small part of that. Yes, graphics add to the experience, and if done wrong detract from it. However, you can easily have a game that is epically beautiful but is totally boring to play and sucks, and you can have a game that is completely ugly but a total blast to play. There are so many different parts that make up a game. Graphics do not account for half of that, more like 1/8th of it, probably less. Games are an art, and if you say look at a painting and all you see is the paint on the canvas, you totally overlook the meaning behind it and miss the entire point, which was to convey a message.
MechMechanics1 said:
If you want that, then I honestly don't know why you even care to play games. You should drop it and do something else with your life.
This statement is one of the things that makes me depressed about society as a whole. Short-sightedness ignorance plowing through life without taking a look around, instead declaring what your views are should be what everyone else sees. What you are doing right now with games is saying that people should only focus on the graphics of games, ignoring all other aspects, and if you disagree then you shouldn't even partake in the adventure (either game on a very high-end PC playing the prettiest games, or not to game at all). It's one thing to have an opinion on something, but then to force that viewpoint on everyone else... Is this was you want to do with your life_ Limit games to those who only want good graphics_ Or let people enjoy it on whatever system they want regardless of if you can see the shimmer of a butterfly's wings flying past your mech as you launching missiles as someone else_
Developer of ScrimBot and the canceled Hawken leaderboards
Come join the Hawken IRC Channel and chat about Hawken: #hawkenscrim on irc.quakenet.net
Yes, I am a wizard - There is no cupcake conspiracy
[03:18:55 pm] <-- ^-^ (webchat@[ip removed]) has quit (Quit: Later All! Also pls ban Kindos7)
I think you missed the point of that topic. As of writing, 76% people voted that they would prefer to play the game on a PC, and 24% said they would prefer to play it on a Xbox 360 or a PS3. The key word there is prefer. It wasn't asking "Which platform should the game come out on", it was asking "Which platform would you prefer to play it on". Just cause a person wants to play it on one system doesn't mean they think it should only come out on that system. So don't use that as an argument for backing that it should *only* come out on the PC. Also, while 24% is not the majority (obviously), it is still a very large about and very significant! That's a quarter of the market, assuming that poll was totally valid and unbiased (which forum polls are not known for being such).
MechMechanics1 said:
Ashfire908 said:
Dude, shut up already.
Being condemned of repeating history may be a foult. A mistake happens when you do nothing to remove the foult. The trade of development becomes compromised when your architecture is limited. I don't know of you are aware of the downgrade of many games due to the limited architecture. A constraint happens when you project a game destined to one medium.
If for economical reasons you change your schedule, your project becomes compromised to the architecture. You loose control of your design and loose control of your projected parameters. This is not my way of thinking. This is what happens when you work in architecture, engineering or game design.
The problem with that concept (besides the fact I had to read it 6 times just to make sense of it since you were talking out of your ass trying to sound smart) is that from the start, Hawken was not designed (nor "destined") for the PC only, but designed for the PC, Xbox 360, and PS3. There's no major design shift going on here to include the consoles in the game. All the aspects of the game design were made with both the PC and consoles in mind. If anything, what you are proposing would involve such a shift.
MechMechanics1 said:
Ashfire908 said:
Just cause you hate consoles (I suspect you hate consoles because you blame them for all the issues in gaming, in the same way all the issues in the United States is blamed on the president) doesn't mean you have to keep spreading your hate around.
You are free to give away quality. It's up to you. As a designer and student of architecture your expectations are inscribed to the best result. When you work with five year old hardware with a limited Ram you are forced to do compensations. In the early design process you compromise the expectations of the game adjusting your parameters to the lowest denominator, the 360. That compromise the quality on the PS3 and the PC. Up to now we have cards like the 6990 HD with 4 GB of ram memory.
It is not "giving" up quality to use hardware that doesn't have ridiculous amounts of resources. Just cause you aren't going to have access to the mentioned 4 GB of graphics memory, does not mean the game is "destined" to look like shit. You work on getting the absolute most out of the hardware that you have to work with. Yes, the hardware does put a end cap on the level as you can only optimize so much, but you can still make a beautiful game with limited resources.
MechMechanics1 said:
Once you enjoy this type of quality. It's hard to turn your back. The open world and the nature of the quality goes off on fixed SKUs. If good hardware is built, the intention of it is to use it.
Admittedly I wasn't able to watch all three of those videos at 1080p and whatnot (I have poor internet so it takes like an hour and a half to download and view just one). I was able to watch a bit of the start of the first video at full quality and whatnot, and yes it's all purty (nowhere near as much as you act is it though). I don't actually have any trouble "turning my back" on better graphics though. As an example, about 2-3 years ago, I had a friend over and he brought his GameCube over and a few games. I switched over from my Xbox 360 to the GameCube and started to play Metroid Prime. Now, obviously the GameCube has worse graphics than the 360. However I got to halfway through the game before I even thought about the graphics quality (which are horrible, but I only thought about it after a visor reflection effect was used). Up to that point I did not get hit in the face with "the graphics were bad". And after I thought about it, yeah, I thought the graphics were bad, but I still played it to the end and thought it was a totally awesome game and I got a lot of enjoyment out of playing it (more than I had with newer 360 games with better graphics). I'll get back to this in a bit though.
MechMechanics1 said:
You misunderstood my claims with the word of hate. Sorry but those are evident facts. Those can't be denied or insinuate any possible discussion on them. The technology is built with the intention to progress. You harness resources and harness the computational power of the I7 with the intention to extend the boundaries on what games are.
Hawken is a realistic looking game that demands details, reflection, refraction, speculation, photon bouncing, fracture, partial destruction, dynamic fog, complex motion blur, camera blur and many other things for the immersible factor.
Anything on console works perfectly like Red Dead Redemption but the design idea behind Hawken is to cause a sense of realism. That artistic intention and sense demands resources and graphical quality. Morover, you need a steade frame rate of 45 to 60 frames for it.
"Misunderstood my claims with the word of hate" "those are evident facts...can't be denied or insinuate any possible discussion on them" First off, no, you have been using hate speech, against person and consoles, and they are opinions, not facts. Second, can't discuss them_ Where the heck do you think you are_ This is a forum, the purpose of which is to discuss things. And I will discuss them, saying that you can't doesn't stop me from tearing apart these "facts". If you want to claim these as facts, cite your sources with more than subjective YouTube videos of gameplay.
As to the look and graphics, if that's what you care about so much, you would be much better suited to watching a movie, or better yet, go outside (reality contains the greatest realism also the best graphics you can find, PC or not).
MechMechanics1 said:
Ashfire908 said:
I thought you got it out of your system earlier in the Preferred Platform thread. At this point I've stopped actually reading your arguments as you just keep using the same couple over and over. The horse is dead, you can stop beating it.
Obviously you are clueless. While you try to get out of your naive point of view think on the following:
1. Do you want to trade quality at this stage of development cutting in half the capacity of the game_
2. Do you want to compromise the quality because other people want to play them in console, a caprice of commodity instead of convenience_
3. Do you think that developing for PC first, built up resources, reputation and a basic infrastructure should be compromised due to the need of quick money making on consoles_
This dead horse, as you call it, compromised Crytek sales. The same dead horse took BioWare by surprise with Dragon Age II and their next Star Wars. You see, this dead horse has the ability to cut off large companies from their standards. Do you want a small team follow the same road with their first game_
"Obviously you are clueless. While you try to get out of your naive point of view..." No hate, huh_ You shot your own argument in the foot. Also the "dead horse" I was referring was this "PC ONLY" opinion you have been beating over people's heads this whole time, and that people tire of having the same rhetoric beat over their heads.
The core problem you have with looking at gaming is that you overlook everysingleaspectofgaming except for the graphics. Games are much, much, much more than just pretty things to look at. They are worlds to explore, adventures to have, places to go, things to think about, all of which is there for you to interact with, and more importantly, have fun playing. Graphics are such a small part of that. Yes, graphics add to the experience, and if done wrong detract from it. However, you can easily have a game that is epically beautiful but is totally boring to play and sucks, and you can have a game that is completely ugly but a total blast to play. There are so many different parts that make up a game. Graphics do not account for half of that, more like 1/8th of it, probably less. Games are an art, and if you say look at a painting and all you see is the paint on the canvas, you totally overlook the meaning behind it and miss the entire point, which was to convey a message.
MechMechanics1 said:
If you want that, then I honestly don't know why you even care to play games. You should drop it and do something else with your life.
This statement is one of the things that makes me depressed about society as a whole. Short-sightedness ignorance plowing through life without taking a look around, instead declaring what your views are should be what everyone else sees. What you are doing right now with games is saying that people should only focus on the graphics of games, ignoring all other aspects, and if you disagree then you shouldn't even partake in the adventure (either game on a very high-end PC playing the prettiest games, or not to game at all). It's one thing to have an opinion on something, but then to force that viewpoint on everyone else... Is this was you want to do with your life_ Limit games to those who only want good graphics_ Or let people enjoy it on whatever system they want regardless of if you can see the shimmer of a butterfly's wings flying past your mech as you launching missiles as someone else_
I feel completely the same. You sir are a hero to me, my friends, and other console gamers.
1. I for one do not care about graphics and would still be happy if it had Halo 3 Graphics.
Reason:
Classical trolling of the worst degree. There's no need to cater this flaming bait. The design was presented and designed for PC.
Why this claim makes no sense_
2. Yes I believe compramise(sp_) should be taken to give everybody an experience with this awesome looking game.
Reason:
Classical trolling. The game will stop being awesome looking once you plug in on five years old architectures. Porting requires tons of money, adjustment and refinement.
Why this claim makes no sense_
3. Consoles aren't quick money. Adhesive wants to share the experience with more than just the PC.
Reason:
Classical trolling. The PC can bring the luxury of detail level to different architectures unlike the console. Everybody has internet and a good average PC capable of running the Unreal engine at the level of Unreal III.
The rest of your arguments are nonsensical trolling. Please troll harder next time.
Why this claim belongs to a crybaby_
8. Not everybody in the world has a hardcore gaming PC .
Reason:
Put that lazy ass of yours to work for a good machine.
This post speaks for itself.
Developer of ScrimBot and the canceled Hawken leaderboards
Come join the Hawken IRC Channel and chat about Hawken: #hawkenscrim on irc.quakenet.net
Yes, I am a wizard - There is no cupcake conspiracy
[03:18:55 pm] <-- ^-^ (webchat@[ip removed]) has quit (Quit: Later All! Also pls ban Kindos7)
1. I for one do not care about graphics and would still be happy if it had Halo 3 Graphics.
Reason:
Classical trolling of the worst degree. There's no need to cater this flaming bait. The design was presented and designed for PC.
Why this claim makes no sense_
2. Yes I believe compramise(sp_) should be taken to give everybody an experience with this awesome looking game.
Reason:
Classical trolling. The game will stop being awesome looking once you plug in on five years old architectures. Porting requires tons of money, adjustment and refinement.
Why this claim makes no sense_
3. Consoles aren't quick money. Adhesive wants to share the experience with more than just the PC.
Reason:
Classical trolling. The PC can bring the luxury of detail level to different architectures unlike the console. Everybody has internet and a good average PC capable of running the Unreal engine at the level of Unreal III.
The rest of your arguments are nonsensical trolling. Please troll harder next time.
Why this claim belongs to a crybaby_
8. Not everybody in the world has a hardcore gaming PC .
Reason:
Put that lazy ass of yours to work for a good machine.
Hey, you don't know me I can only afford one console and games, I work hard enough for some entertainment and use a nice 2 year old laptop to use the internet.
I believe all consoles should get a game, more systems means more people get entertained by this and all other games.
Also how the hell is a game being designed for PC Xbox360 and PS3 , that the developers said was being designed with all those in mind, look to you like it was designed for PC and PC only.
Sorry but it's hard for me to recognize any form of intelligence inside you. You are not even taking yourself seriously.
[quote name="Ashfire908"] I think you missed the point of that topic. As of writing, 76% people voted that they would prefer to play the game on a PC, and 24% said they would prefer to play it on a Xbox 360 or a PS3. The key word there is prefer. It wasn't asking "Which platform should the game come out on", it was asking "Which platform would you prefer to play it on". Just cause a person wants to play it on one system doesn't mean they think it should only come out on that system. So don't use that as an argument for backing that it should *only* come out on the PC. Also, while 24% is not the majority (obviously), it is still a very large about and very significant! That's a quarter of the market, assuming that poll was totally valid and unbiased (which forum polls are not known for being such).[/quote]
At my experience even a dumb ass dares to comes off with such excuse. If you are going to discuss semantics please do so but please don't come off with pontifical excuses as trades. The argument states clearly the preference. Trying to flip the coin like this is worst than a brain dead moron trying to solve the Riemann hypothesis. The preference refers to the expected result. You obviously are not bright enough to understand how skewed is your argument. Even if you are mentally challenged I can't consider your point as an argument.
Instead of being a dull politician trying to come off with charlatan arguments try to give yourself some respect without those empty misleading rebuttals. You have to be numb to think on the possibility of a console release. Why_ You compromise graphics, soft shadowing, you compromise FSAA, SSAO, procedural tessellation. You compromise destructible environments, smog, Navier Stokes fume behavior. The capacity of a console is inscribed on old architecture of five years old. The consoles can't cope with the demands on the game.
For your miss conceived meaning of the word preference goes the following. People prefer to see it on PC because the preference is to see a game with PC quality. The consoles are not up to it. They harm the capacity of the game ambitions and the capacity of realism. The gimping will strike on fields like word animation, texture size, motion blur, dynamic motion blur, AA passes and frame per second fluidity.
Consoles can't bring fluidity greater than 30 frames per second. The game design should be developed for PC only and only then as time goes by, release the game for the 720 and PS4. You have wait patiently for a better hardware. When I work with computer graphics, my expectations is to bring up fluid frame rates. Consoles cant cope with 60 frames per second, moreover when games are for multi player.
[quote name="Ashfire908"]
(besides the fact I had to read it 6 times just to make sense of it since you were talking out of your ass trying to sound smart)[/quote]
Don't try to be dumbo. Your schizophrenic melodramatic tantrums doesn't help you at all. You have to think your arguments instead of being a crybaby taking the piss with that lame trolling and raging.
Please try harder.
[quote name="Ashfire908"]The problem with that concept is that from the start, Hawken was not designed (nor "destined") for the PC only, but designed for the PC, Xbox 360, and PS3. There's no major design shift going on here to include the consoles in the game. All the aspects of the game design were made with both the PC and consoles in mind. If anything, what you are proposing would involve such a shift.[/quote]
Find me one console game, just one, with that level of detail. Do you know why you can't even write a single title_ That's because no game at that level of detail exists on console. No single console game can reach that level of graphics for multi player. The stuttering on consoles can render the game useless. You have to be naive if you expect such performance on consoles.
[quote name="Ashfire908"]It is not "giving" up quality to use hardware that doesn't have ridiculous amounts of resources. Just cause you aren't going to have access to the mentioned 4 GB of graphics memory, does not mean the game is "destined" to look like shit.[/quote]
But it does. The hardware architecture is old. The game will never look like the video shown. You will compromise level of detail on the models. You will reduce the vertexes and the number of polygons in the models. You will reduce the the texture resolution and of course the particle effects. This game was designed to make a leap in gaming not to bring a gimped experience like Crysis.
Don't use your ignorance as an excuse. Doesn't work that way. The team needs to show off what they can do on PC and then built up their franchise from there. Developing for consoles is expensive. That requires two developments for two different architectures that different graphical libraries.
The philosophy of optimization should not be the head start. The game should be optimized after the release for PC not before. Then you downscale the game for the console peasants. Going off the bat for multiple platform is a big mistake. You will not reach the quality displayed in the videos.
[quote name="Ashfire908"]You work on getting the absolute most out of the hardware that you have to work with. Yes, the hardware does put a end cap on the level as you can only optimize so much, but you can still make a beautiful game with limited resources.[/quote]
It's dumb to optimize off the bat. The game can't be beautiful on consoles. Sorry, the proof of concept only works on high end PCs. If you don't have one, please purchase a good machine. Consoles will harm the quality of this game. However I don't oppose the idea to go on consoles. I would like to see it on the PS4 and the 720. In this generation the game will end up generic due to the limitations on consoles.
[quote name="Ashfire908"]First off, no, you have been using hate speech, against person and consoles, and they are opinions, not facts. [/quote]
Wrong, you are just a crybaby. I don't have to prove that. You obviously proved that for me. Second, it's odd for me to hate consoles when I have a PS3 and 360.
However, I do know what consoles can do and what to expect unlike you. Yes, consoles can bring interesting games like Red Dead Redemption, LA Noir, Gran Theft Auto IV among other games. But you can't put this game on a console without doing compensations. Consoles can be optimized to a limit, however no console game looks like the images shown.
[quote name="Ashfire908"]If you want to claim these as facts, cite your sources with more than subjective YouTube videos of gameplay.[/quote]
Youtube videos are not subjective. They show off the empiric result without wishful thinking. Your comments doesn't prove anything. They are just clumsy wishful thinking written for the sake of arguing. I only read red herring arguments with the intention to troll. If you want to discuss something, try to use your brain. Think before you post and of course bring up proof.
If not your trolling is nothing more than a waste of time.
[quote name="Ashfire908"]As to the look and graphics, if that's what you care about so much, you would be much better suited to watching a movie, or better yet, go outside (reality contains the greatest realism also the best graphics you can find, PC or not).[/quote]
Purchase a good PC. It's easy to work for a while and get a machine that worth this game.
[quote name="Ashfire908"]The core problem you have with looking at gaming is that you overlook [u]every[/u] [u]single[/u] [u]aspect[/u] [u]of[/u] [u]gaming[/u] except for the graphics. Games are much, much, much more than just pretty things to look at.[/quote]
From now on I can't take your trolling seriously. You obviously know nothing about this.
Graphics do have an impact on game play. An example is physics, smooth frame rate for aiming, effects like dust particles and smoke for temporary camo. Graphics are not only the picture quality, they are the animation, the modeling, the illumination, and the texturing. Game play depends on destructibility and depends on animation fluidity for quick reaction.
[quote name="Ashfire908"]Games are an art[/quote]
Really_ Really_....lol....
[quote name="Ashfire908"]This statement is one of the things that makes me depressed about society as a whole.[/quote]
Crysis II sales.
Dragon Age II sales.
Those are your facts. The trade for quality made an impact on sales and game performance.
[quote name="Ashfire908"]Short-sightedness ignorance plowing through life without taking a look around, instead declaring what your views are should be what everyone else sees.[/quote]
History plays a big role on the definition of policies. Your policy of game design should be based on precedents and examples from previous companies and franchises. Science, architecture and mathematics use history to outperform the past.
[quote name="Ashfire908"]What you are doing right now with games is saying that people should only focus on the graphics of games, ignoring all other aspects, and if you disagree then you shouldn't even partake in the adventure (either game on a very high-end PC playing the prettiest games, or not to game at all). [/quote]
Game play depends on graphics, game play, replay value and innovation. Consoles harm all those fields because their architecture is limited. This game demands more than 1 Gb on Ram.
[quote name="Ashfire908"]It's one thing to have an opinion on something, but then to force that viewpoint on everyone else...[/quote]
No one forces anything in the net. You are free to ignore my posts. You are the one who react to my views. I don't force you to think like me. I simply bring in the facts and the evidence. History and the facts are there. 75 percent says PC only. If you are poor enough to not get a PC, please get a good work, and purchase one. You will know once you play it. Up to know you are rambling on pure ignorance and lack of experience.
[quote name="Ashfire908"]Or let people enjoy it on whatever system they want regardless of if you can see the shimmer of a butterfly's wings flying past your mech as you launching missiles as someone else_[/quote]
Learn to read. It's easy. I never said anything to limit the game on consoles. I said release the game for PC and then for the 720 and PS4. This generation of consoles can't handle the game.
Hey, you don't know me I can only afford one console and games, I work hard enough for some entertainment and use a nice 2 year old laptop to use the internet.
I believe all consoles should get a game.
Yes, all consoles but not the consoles in this generation. The next generation consoles can do this and much more.
Hey guys, this discussion is veering a little off-course from the thread's intended purpose. If you'd like to continue this conversation, I only ask that you please take it to the PMs. Thanks for your understanding.
Hey guys, this discussion is veering a little off-course from the thread's intended purpose. If you'd like to continue this conversation, I only ask that you please take it to the PMs. Thanks for your understanding.
I was done anyway. Rather though I'd like to stop it altogether, as PMs would expectability and unavoidably lead to what would be the definition of harassment...
Developer of ScrimBot and the canceled Hawken leaderboards
Come join the Hawken IRC Channel and chat about Hawken: #hawkenscrim on irc.quakenet.net
Yes, I am a wizard - There is no cupcake conspiracy
[03:18:55 pm] <-- ^-^ (webchat@[ip removed]) has quit (Quit: Later All! Also pls ban Kindos7)
Well, now I just know you're trolling. I'm a PC gamer myself, but there's no need to spread useless hate around. Take that shit somewhere else.
I'm not trolling, I'm making fun of them.
Besides they brought that on themselves. Don't blame me for their narrow minds . Console gamers pretend to fit every game in their console without thinking on the sacrifice and the limitations.
In that gameplay vid they said some people were playing with controllers and still things look fine.
That video cuts in half the quality shown in their first two videos. If for whatever reasons they want to shoot themselves in the foot by throwing the game on consoles, they are free and entitled to do it. It's their game and their idea.
I think that putting the game in an old console is just dumb and stupid. They have to develop it for PC, optimize the game there and then port to the next generation of consoles. They will have better tools to bring up their dreams in a video game rather than axing the game due to limited performance of these weak consoles.
Besides I don't have any problem if their game flops. This will be another day, and another trivia in the industry. If they cut their rope, another will bring what we want. They did in their first two videos.
I don't expect a great game. I expect a good game for PC and later on built on that porting it to more powerful consoles.
In that gameplay vid they said some people were playing with controllers and still things look fine.
That video cuts in half the quality shown in their first two videos. If for whatever reasons they want to shoot themselves in the foot by throwing the game on consoles, they are free and entitled to do it. It's their game and their idea.
I think that putting the game in an old console is just dumb and stupid. They have to develop it for PC, optimize the game there and then port to the next generation of consoles. They will have better tools to bring up their dreams in a video game rather than axing the game due to limited performance of these weak consoles.
Besides I don't have any problem if their game flops. This will be another day, and another trivia in the industry. If they cut their rope, another will bring what we want. They did in their first two videos.
I don't expect a great game. I expect a good game for PC and later on built on that porting it to more powerful consoles.
How in the world is that videos gameplay half the quality.
I've given it a second look. The beginning looks like a PS2 game because there's like no reflections and no shadows that we saw in the PC version. But watching it further it looks like they actually didn't tone it down much - more like they changed the reflection and lighting settings for the desert map. I'm sure they'll tweak it more so I'm not worried.
7
