State of Play...

Peteee

BloodBath wrote:

Companies won't develop games that can make use of the capabilities because only a tiny percentage of people will have 2 high end cards in sli.

The difference with the consoles is the standard spec that everyone has so they will push it as far as they can.

Right time for my 2 cents

OP if you dont like the extra features, dot use them. I for one will use the DVD/Blu-Ray player capabilities in hte PS3, just like the ps2 will be the dvd player in my gaf next year.

Also bloodbath, take a look at the MINIMUM specs for F.E.A.R. (admitidly beta)

Windows ® 2000/XP with latest service pack installed
DirectX(tm) 9.0c
Pentium ® 4 1.7 Ghz or equivalent
1GB RAM
128 MB DirectX ® 9.0 Compliant Video Card with hardware T&L and pixel shader support*
3.0 GB free Hard Drive Space for installation

ehh 1GB of RAM MINIMUM, thats insane.

I think this is the reason less people are playing PC games.

Sure it looks amazing, but then so does GT4 running (at 50/60fps) on a 300mhz, 32mb ram and 4 mb video ram (ps2 specs)

DrNuyenVanFaulk

Steven wrote:

All of those extra features that you seem so adverse to are software or are tiny alterations to the hardware production (like the exchangeable face plate).

I'm not talking about cost - I'm talking about their lack of dedication to games. Its their methodology I dislike. Look at Nintendo, everything they do for their consoles is purely for the benefit of the games. I have the strong feeling the Capcom brought two of their biggest, baddest games (Viewtiful Jow and Resident Evil 4) to thhe GC, not just because they could risk experimenting a a machine with a small user-base, but because they, and I'm semi-quoting them on this, believe that Nintendo still have the largest amount of innovation when it games to games and they enjoy developing for Nintendo.

So when Sony and Microsoft are developing their consoles, while adding changeable fronts/MP3 players etc might be small changes, it shows that their minds are somewhere else. As I said last post, Sony ARE trying to make a home super computer, like a PC, something that can do everything for a household. They are not focusing purely on games - and that's my problem - because the end result is going to be 1000's more **** games that flood the market. AND It'll cost a fortune.

Steven wrote:

They're the largest software company in the world. I doubt too many development hours were lost in creating changeable fonts.

As I said above, it shows that their hearts and minds are not on making games, rather, they are not as fully comittted as Nintendo.


[/QUOTE=Steven]If you want standardisation of platforms then you're going to get less innovation in hardware development. Who knows, the cell could change the way console processors are built forever?* That aside, what are the chances that you could get 3 industry giants to agree to one machine :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

I believe the Cell processor WILL change the way consoles are made and games are played. But I have to argue - the PS3 tech demo of the dude witht the gloves, pouring the water from one cup to another.... is it going to be fun? In a game? As much as I loved Half Life 2, I mean, I really loved it, playing it again doesn't do much for me. The ragdoll physics is nice to look at, I guess. But other parts, like throwing bricks onto the see-saw.... is that fun? We can say, "Wow, just like real life!"... but it's not fun second time around.

Now take Res 4 - someone in EDGE magazine was arguing about the unrealistic aspects of the game. I don't care!! I have played the games three times over without stopping, and played all the extras - it IS the most FUN game I have played since Goldeneye.

So, the Cell processor - yes, it WILL give developers a lot more freedom to do things, but methinks developers (most of them) will spend a lot of time programming complex physics routines, and forget to focus on the fun-elements. Likewise, they may rely on the gimmicky extras provided by the hardware.
And to further my arguement about standardisation of platforms - I believe that three consoles is pushing the market too fast, with too much competition, and not enough fun.

Ciaran500

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

So when Sony and Microsoft are developing their consoles, while adding changeable fronts/MP3 players etc might be small changes, it shows that their minds are somewhere else. As I said last post, Sony ARE trying to make a home super computer, like a PC, something that can do everything for a household. They are not focusing purely on games - and that's my problem - because the end result is going to be 1000's more **** games that flood the market. AND It'll cost a fortune.

Sony don't make most of the games for their console, you can't blame Sony and the extra features they put into their consoles for the ****e software that flooded this gen and will flood next gen.

EDIT: The cell will not revolutionise the way games are played, just like the PS2 didn't. Its just the next progression with more power and more features.

Citizen_Erased

But , on the previous point , how do you exactly define a gimmick?
The touch screen on the DS seems like a gimmick but on inspection is incredibly fun and useful.
The analog stick on the n64 was origionally consudered "Just a gimmick" . Look now... You may be able to look ahead say that but really you can't accurately tell wether it will be useful. Even if it is , it may still be a gimmick...

steviec

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

So when Sony and Microsoft are developing their consoles, while adding changeable fronts/MP3 players etc might be small changes, it shows that their minds are somewhere else. As I said last post, Sony ARE trying to make a home super computer, like a PC, something that can do everything for a household. They are not focusing purely on games - and that's my problem - because the end result is going to be 1000's more **** games that flood the market. AND It'll cost a fortune.

Neither Sony or Microsoft are games companies first and foremost. They're playing to their strengths, Sony have always made cutting edge gadgets and Microsoft are focussing on their online strengths. I see this as a good thing. They're leaving the games to the people that make great games. They build a great machine and then 3rd party developers are let loose on it. I don't see anything wrong with that. It gives each console something unique and if you can do things other than gaming on it then surely that's a bonus. About your earlier PSP comments, how does playing mp3s hurt the games? In fact it helps some games because there are plans for some titles to allow for customisable sound tracks using your memory stick just like the X-Box does. And it also means that when I want to listen to music, I can listen to music. If that feature wasn't there I don't see how that would be an improvement.

Nintendo need to focus on the games because its all they're good at. And by creating consoles that are designed for Nintendo games they've done a lot to alienate 3rd parties over the last two generations and they really need to ensure Nintendo are making good games because they've little else to fall back on. There's enough demand and different tastes out there to support all three consoles though, especially as they all target different things, so I wouldn't worry too much.

DrNuyenVanFaulk

steviec wrote:

Neither Sony or Microsoft are games companies first and foremost. They're playing to their strengths...

Very good point.... I think that's my problem with them!


Woah woah woah!! Analogue stick on N64 being a gimmick!?!? That stick made 3D games properly playable on consoles. It was a revolution, and Miyamoto new it when he invented it. NOT a gimmick.

We might not have a solid definition of a gimmick, but I could safely say that changeable fronts would be. I may even go so far as to say built-in physics routines could be.

DrNuyenVanFaulk

Yeah, I've been thinking about the whole thing. I guess, if I were to get my own pad, hopefully in the next three years, it would be an alright games machine and perfect for home cinema (blue ray and 1080p res). I think I have to admit that the idea of a pure games machine only is in the past.

I'm still going to have to buy a Revolution to play Zelda. Maybe I should be griping about Nintendo not going software only on Sony and Microsoft... =/

Citizen_Erased

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

Woah woah woah!! Analogue stick on N64 being a gimmick!?!?

I didnt say it was a gimmick ,I was trying to make the point that it was thought to be just a gimmick before they released the console and before people actually got to use it.

ps probably buy a revolution for Zelda too.

DrNuyenVanFaulk

Citizen_Erased wrote:

I didnt say it was a gimmick ,I was trying to make the point that it was thought to be just a gimmick before they released the console and before people actually got to use it.

Yeah, sorry, good point.

But for me, the PSP is just a slightly less powerful PS2... very unattractive. At least the DS, with its paltry PS1 graphics, has the touch screen, and you're right, it is a lot of fun.

Gizzard

Citizen_Erased wrote:

I know we are drifting terribly far from topic and we should stop soon but , the ps2 imo reached its peak a few years ago and all games have just come along on a level plateau and thge occasional game has dropped below it. Seriously though , I have not bought a ps2 game in ages because it is now just a sea of mediocre deja vous .

I would not call God of War mediocre, Lego starwars is fun too, GTA SA?, Psychonauts, there are some great new PS2 games, I think your being a bit hard on the old PS2

Citizen_Erased

GTA SA is exactly my point. It is in the opinions of quite a large number of people , myself included , to be one of the worst games in the series. It was less advanced in every way than vice city and is just the perfect example for my point.

steviec

Citizen_Erased wrote:

GTA SA is exactly my point. It is in the opinions of quite a large number of people , myself included , to be one of the worst games in the series. It was less advanced in every way than vice city and is just the perfect example for my point.

I thought it was brilliant. So did most of my friends.

Because they couldn't just go and give it better graphics because the console was old, they went and expanded the game in so many other ways, did great things with the story and mission designs and added lots of new types of gameplay and new features and expanded the game in every other way possible.

Now of course the PC is the definitive version, with all those features AND quality graphics(so I hear anyway haven't got it yet but I plan to). But if it was just a PC game to begin with I don't think they'd have gone to all the trouble they did to get it to where it is.

That's my opinion anyway. Loved GTA3. Thought Vice City was great but didn't add all that much, never actually completed it. SA was by far the best for me though.

Citizen_Erased

Yes they may have expanded it but they rushed it and made a complete hash of most of it.
The biggest thing of all is the size of the map. Sure its huge but it nothing but huge open landscapes with very little in between. What I mean was in previous games , you'd arrive at a cool destination that was hard to get too and you knew you'd be rewarded with something cool eg car or gun. In SA there are so many times I have gotten to cool places and just found blank nothingness. The maps are about as interestingb as those in driver.
Pimping cars - what a diaster , the focus on roughly 12 cars and said sod it to the 120 odd other ones. It's pathetic.
Two player , terrible ,l why cant you get into garages or tune shops , give one good reason why. Can't use a camera to take cool pics of each other and stuff. The learjet only hold one person??? THe cargo plane only holds one person???
Two cars at once , sure there could be problems because its not splitt screen. I know thats because the computer couldnt handle rendering the game twice but at leats the bloodring circuit or something.
Graphics , same console but somehow not as nice as Vice City???Wtf , no reason for that at all apart from no room or laziness.
Sound quality was slashed too..
The mission were dreadful. Not a single one of the was challenging provuded you know the difference between a challenge and just through 20 enemies at once. Most of them are unnecessarily drawn out.
Stiry line , come back to town for you mothers funeral , end up killimg two of your brothers.
Huge map , bigger than ever , but strangely , fewer assets ans fewer sub missions involved in them.Now that dosent make sense. Sure there are lots of houses but all you are really buying is the garage and the front door (and even most of them are the same) because apart from that the interiors are nearly all the same.
And spraying tags , you spray 100 you get 4 weapons at one of your hideouts. Same goes for the other thing s to which is utterly useless.

DrNuyenVanFaulk

Personnaly I found GTA SA to be a week-long-wonder. Now, I know a lot of you love it to bits, and I know people who think it has brought gaming to a whole new level - but falling off a cliff and having to swim for twenty minutes just isn't fun.

Yeah, it's an incredible idea for a game, and much of it is pulled off very well. But I got bored kinda quickly with it.

And what's with all the jazz-talk about Halo!?!? Man, I bought it a while ago and it was so boring!! I'm a Marathon fan from bungie's ealy days,a nd Halo didn't do anything cool that Marathon didn't do. Man, I still reckon Goldeneye is the best console FPS, and serious contendor for best FPS ever.

On gamespy, some reviewer actually says "...So the later levels get very repetetive, but who cares!" Jesus... he should be fired.

steviec

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

falling off a cliff and having to swim for twenty minutes just isn't fun.

I agree with that totally but it's the only flaw I'd really agree with. The others mentioned didn't make sense. VC is better because SA's 2-player mode isn't great? Compared to what, VC's 2 player mode? I never noticed the sound being worse, I thought the radio stations, acting and storylines were the best of the series by far. Again, pimping is a tiny little bonus feature and you can't say the game isn't as good as VC because you can only do it on a few cars, while VC lets you do it on no cars! Graphically the games not great yea, but so what? The variety of missions, locations, vehicles and gameplay is far greater than VC and I'll take that over slightly better graphics any day.

Actually seems the anti-SA points have a lot in common with the anti-convergence vibe in general. I don't want my games to have extra features. Even if the core game is fantastic it will suddenly become crap by allowing you to pimp some cars as a completely optional bonus!

Citizen_Erased

As I said before the storyline has lost it foot in reality. A gang mobster - defeats the army single handedly and robs area 51, flys fighter jets etc All the other story lines were realistic nd thats what made them fun.
I wasn't saying that Vc's 2 player was better than SA's (unless you happen have a pc in which case it is) but it was just part of the huge point of how the game was complataly rushed and very little thought was put into any aspect of it.
The radio is not funny fr a start , neither is anything else eg what the helicopter dudes say.

"Hey , If I shot him do I get a medal?" - "You get two"

Yeah that was really funny , my side was splittin :rolleyes:
It just sounds as though it trying to be funny every second of the way. Comparing Vc radio to Sa's is like comparing Fawlty towers to most newer comedy show. Newer comedy show just have a string mediocre jokes throughout the show , but fawlty towers took it's time and set each one up perfectly and blew you away each time, it was brilliant.
Do you like it because of the songs , oh its Rage against machine oooo, it must be the best radio ever ooo...

Missions - Which is better , and endless dribble of meaningless , repetative , unchalleging missions (SA) or less mission that are well thought out , challenging and have a proper goal(VC) I dont think its any competition.

steviec

I'd rather sacrifice a little realism in one or two of the missions for the completely new gameplay mechanics the jetpack and fighter jets offered to be honest. GTA has always been completely over the top anyway so I don't see how they don't fit in. And in mentioning the jetpack and jet fighter you've pointed out 2(of many) missions in SA that aren't meaningless and repetitive.

Citizen_Erased

You found the jet pack useful? It takes about 5 min to get it to civiliasation to start with and then what - there another thing why cant you use handguns out the windows of cars or AK's? and why in 2 player cant player 2 use whatever weapon he wants?
Back to the jatpack , you've spent 5 min getting it to civilisation (unless you cheated , in which case stop arguing , your not a real gamer) what do you do? Oh that looks like a cool building, up I go. Oh this is a nice blank roof top. Lets go down again , whoooo. :rolleyes:

steviec

Its not particularly far from civilization, and its located at the airstrip you often come back to. I found it fun to play around with and go killing things with, the mission involving it and the train was also a lot of fun. Its all about freedom. IF you want to use it you can play with it and have fun with it, and IF you dont then it doesn't magically make the rest of the game worse. Just like many many many other features in SA. If you got rid of them all it'd still be as good as Vice City but with the freedom of choice in there it adds an extra dimension.

Citizen_Erased

Didn't you (or was it someone else) just describe them as opptional extras that arent there to enhance gameplay?

Yeah but if they took out the jetpack engine , the could use the space freed up to make a decebt two player engine.

Ciaran500

The jet pack is useful and removing it from the game would not make multiplayer any better. Multiplayer was tacked on and does not affect the single player game at all. Stop complaining about it, GTA has always been a single player game.



And Faulty Towers was crap BTW

steviec

They're optional extras but that doesn't mean they don't enhance gameplay when you want to play around with them!

The two player was an optional extra too, and one that wasn't really expected either so it was a nice little surprise. Certainly could have been better but a full featured co-op mode in GTA is a much bigger task than putting in a Jetpack. Maybe if they'd also cut out half the missions, one of the cities and 50 or so vehicles aswell they could have given it a proper go

'If they left out this they could have put in this' is always a hard call to make. At the end of the day the game is a great overall package and while it could have been improved there's not a game in the world that couldn't, you just have to judge it on what is there.


Anyway I think this counts as going just a tad off topic...

Citizen_Erased

You dont understand how games are made / work . It would take quite a large amount of work to put in a Jetpack. It is far from just the case of making the model of it and sticking it in the game. It has its own personnal engine.
THe point is the tried to push to far, and scattered everything about and hence not everything got the atention it needed , and that isnt just these optional extras , it affect the entire game too. They stretch themselves too far and could only put minimal effort into each. What I was saying before would be that if the took the time and effort and disk space that was going to be used for the jetpack and used it to make a proper job of 2 player it would be much better.Or vis versa , however your preference maybe. Imo , the game would be much better if they had only half the new features but with twice the work into each.

PS you ever been stinger racked in the game apart from driving school?
pps we have been told by monument that the topic is apparently open so we may continue.

Ciaran500

Citizen_Erased wrote:

You dont understand how games are made / work . It would take quite a large amount of work to put in a Jetpack. It is far from just the case of making the model of it and sticking it in the game. It has its own personnal engine.

IMO I think the jetpack would be quite simple to put in. All it does is move you around. Nothing complicated about it.

Citizen_Erased

Then your opinion is wrong , thats not my opinion , thats fact. Name one other thing in the game that moves / acts like it? It has to have completely its own code to make it go. It has its own engine and an they take time and effort and on a lesser note disk space.

Ciaran500

I never said it didn't have its own code (everything has its own code), I said it wouldn't be complicated.

steviec

The physics of the Jetpack are relatively basic, I don't think it would have been too difficult to implement. I'm a programmer(not in games) so I have some idea how they're made!

Half the features/twice the effort put into each? I don't know. Other games do that. It's the freedom that makes GTA what it is for me. If I want to focus in on just one area there's other games that do it better. But nothing gets the balance just right where you can do pretty much anything but its all done well. I like being able to go on a killing spree and shoot it out with police then entering a mortorbike race then trying some insane stunts in a golf cart then flying across country in an aeroplane then skydiving out of it then cycling off a mountain without ever having to see a load screen or change game. If I want to do just one of the above I'll buy an FPS/Racing game or whatever.

Citizen_Erased

All cars run of a common code/engine , all aeroplanes do aswell , and so does a jetpack, it is time and effort and please stop arguing against that.

Can you please answer the , question , have you ever been stinger racked outside of the school?

With regards to what you mentioned what you do , there was so much you didnt mention? What about it , do you every feature of the game on a regular basis? There is lots of these optional features which absolutely no one uses?
Also by what your saying is you dont care about the storyline? You didnt mention you've killed both your brothers or rose to the top of the gang land and single handedly teared down the crack business in your town. Is the storyline for the game an optional extra too?
And who wants complete freedom in such as sparse landscape. That another thing , reduce the size of the map and spend more time adding in hidden locations and rewards ect...

Anyways , I'm off , the LEDs for my playstation have arrived , gonna light it up green , sweet...

steviec

Haha 'lets put more effort into the core things that count'... 'now to fit some shiny LEDs to my playstation!'


Sorry I found that funny...

I didn't mention the story because I completed the story a long time ago. It's the jetpack, the aeroplanes, the insane stunts, the killing sprees that I still come back to now and then. The characters and dialogue remain great, the overall story arc isn't up there with RPGs but so what. It's there to facilitate entertaining missions and entertaining dialogue and it does so very well.

I don't recall coming across stingers at all, can't say I've particularly missed them, or noticed until you just mentioned it. I've frequently ended up un flat tyres from bullets though which is the same effect.

Citizen_Erased

Yeah , I'm pretty twisted on most of my morals.