There's always 100% destructible environments. And I'm talking realistic destructible. Not this Battlefield: Bad Company crap. That was false advertising right there.
Have they outdone themselves?
- Thread starter Vanguard_Ex
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It would be impossible to have 100% destructible environments. That would mean that EVERY destructible state of EVERY SINGLE asset in the game would have to be modeled at least 3 times to account for each level of destruction. It would take 10 years to do that, and coding and design on a level that's nearly unachievable with today's tech.Cinder Block of Oppression post=9.74439.834264 said:
Wait... what?tiamat5 post=9.74439.834155 said:
The rest of your points can be reasonably argued for, but how can you say graphics right now are bad? They're better than they've ever been! I don't see how they can take a step backwards when we've got better hardware than ever before in our consoles and computers.
The same goes for AI. I mean right now I've gone back to playing Age of Empires 2 for nostalgia's sake, and I immediately noticed something. Some people complained that the AI pathing in Dawn of War wasn't very good, but compared to Age Of Empires it's perfect. Units get lost, wander through enemies, muck everything up unless you give perfect orders. This is much, much worse than anything we have now.
You, Sir, are my new God. I definitely agree with your point about Halo, and how in general people aren't thankful for what they get. Especially when people consider every game from the last six console generations and are suprised that there are more good games from all of them put together than there is right now.implodingMan post=9.74439.834223 said:
That's why the bar is not too high. I think this would be possible in a decade or two. It would just take a while, like you said.Jimmyjames post=9.74439.834711 said:
You mentioned Fable 2. Lionhead have been very open with the game, everything they have talked about is shown in video, they have allowed reviwers to join in testing the game.
It just depends how you react to hype, I enjoyed the first fable, but I know people who took the hype to heart and hated the game as a result, I didn't think it was a bad game.
The bar is set high because of the massive amount of media converage, we see interviews, gameplay tests, videos, reviews. When we play the game we expect them to be absolutly amazing, and if one little detail isn't right people get annoyed.
As someone already mentioned, the new COD game is a fantastic example of how stupid people are, they moaning for AGES about how bad COD 5 was going to be, how the series was ruined because it wasn't going to be like COD 4, now it IS like COD 4...and they moan because its unoriginal...
It just depends how you react to hype, I enjoyed the first fable, but I know people who took the hype to heart and hated the game as a result, I didn't think it was a bad game.
The bar is set high because of the massive amount of media converage, we see interviews, gameplay tests, videos, reviews. When we play the game we expect them to be absolutly amazing, and if one little detail isn't right people get annoyed.
As someone already mentioned, the new COD game is a fantastic example of how stupid people are, they moaning for AGES about how bad COD 5 was going to be, how the series was ruined because it wasn't going to be like COD 4, now it IS like COD 4...and they moan because its unoriginal...
It's true the expectation for new titles is always high but there is always that niggle at the back of your mind that the game you're looking forward to will be pants. A good example of this was last month. After a summer of nothing of real interest it turned out that three games I had been waiting for for an age were all to be released on the same day
Merc 2
Spore
Stalker Clear Sky
Bought Merc 2 first; interesting yet somehow not as good as the first. The setting for it just seemed so dull. The deck of cards structure in the first one and a genuine war zone made for some great gameplay. The new version being an atypical quest for revenge just felt tired and uninteresting. I got about a third of the way in before getting tired of it and it's waiting for me to pick it up again.
I then bought Spore; to put simple this game was a hat full of total ass. It was installed played and uninstalled from my computer inside a week.
So what of Stalker; well it got delayed, then I found out that it is a bug ridden mess, not just simple bugs but game possibly computer breaking buggy. I am waiting till next year, a good few patches and a price reduction before I buy this game now.
So I went back and decided to buy a classic I got myself the HL2 Orange Box. Portal is a work of genius first game in a while that I've played from start to finish and found nothing wrong with it. HL2 though whilst a great story is a woeful playing experience. Since playing the original HL which I though was a work of genius on all levels things have moved on in the world of FPS. HL2 has updated rgaphically but in terms of actual gameplay well... uh not much has moved on. A good example is the horrendous enemy AI which is pretty poor by todays standards and I am almost sure that it isn't even as good as that of the AI in HL1. Then you have some of the most cliched set pieces I've ever seen. Stuck in a zombie infested town, uh huh. Using the gun turrets in Nova Prospect was fun the first time but you then had to do the same thing another two or three times within the space of about half an hour. The Stalkers as you're trying to break in to the Citadel are tiresome. You VS a huge difficult to kill enemy and then having to run around the map to get ammo to take them down. Yawn interesting for the first one but you have to kill four of these things. I also got quite sick of games using the non stop on mass enemy spawn events rather than simply making the enemies intelligent enough to put up a decent fight. The number of times in the game you were stuck in area x having to fight off a mass of bad guys while character x was having to unlock/decode/deactivate/hack something was stupid. I am near the end of HL2 and will at some point move on to Ep1 and Ep2.
So what am I playing now, well I am back in Paradise city (Burnout Paradise), at first I thought this was a great game but got bored of it really quickly but having gone back I see just how good this game really is. Pick up and play is instant, it looks great, online play is idiotically easy to get in to, two button pushes and that's you and it provides you with a huge amount of info about the game world in an easy intuitive manner not only that the update with the bikes in it added a whole host of additional stuff and it cost nowt. Looking on it it's one of the few games of the last few years that has exceeded expectations, I am just shocked it took me so long to see that.
Merc 2
Spore
Stalker Clear Sky
Bought Merc 2 first; interesting yet somehow not as good as the first. The setting for it just seemed so dull. The deck of cards structure in the first one and a genuine war zone made for some great gameplay. The new version being an atypical quest for revenge just felt tired and uninteresting. I got about a third of the way in before getting tired of it and it's waiting for me to pick it up again.
I then bought Spore; to put simple this game was a hat full of total ass. It was installed played and uninstalled from my computer inside a week.
So what of Stalker; well it got delayed, then I found out that it is a bug ridden mess, not just simple bugs but game possibly computer breaking buggy. I am waiting till next year, a good few patches and a price reduction before I buy this game now.
So I went back and decided to buy a classic I got myself the HL2 Orange Box. Portal is a work of genius first game in a while that I've played from start to finish and found nothing wrong with it. HL2 though whilst a great story is a woeful playing experience. Since playing the original HL which I though was a work of genius on all levels things have moved on in the world of FPS. HL2 has updated rgaphically but in terms of actual gameplay well... uh not much has moved on. A good example is the horrendous enemy AI which is pretty poor by todays standards and I am almost sure that it isn't even as good as that of the AI in HL1. Then you have some of the most cliched set pieces I've ever seen. Stuck in a zombie infested town, uh huh. Using the gun turrets in Nova Prospect was fun the first time but you then had to do the same thing another two or three times within the space of about half an hour. The Stalkers as you're trying to break in to the Citadel are tiresome. You VS a huge difficult to kill enemy and then having to run around the map to get ammo to take them down. Yawn interesting for the first one but you have to kill four of these things. I also got quite sick of games using the non stop on mass enemy spawn events rather than simply making the enemies intelligent enough to put up a decent fight. The number of times in the game you were stuck in area x having to fight off a mass of bad guys while character x was having to unlock/decode/deactivate/hack something was stupid. I am near the end of HL2 and will at some point move on to Ep1 and Ep2.
So what am I playing now, well I am back in Paradise city (Burnout Paradise), at first I thought this was a great game but got bored of it really quickly but having gone back I see just how good this game really is. Pick up and play is instant, it looks great, online play is idiotically easy to get in to, two button pushes and that's you and it provides you with a huge amount of info about the game world in an easy intuitive manner not only that the update with the bikes in it added a whole host of additional stuff and it cost nowt. Looking on it it's one of the few games of the last few years that has exceeded expectations, I am just shocked it took me so long to see that.
Going with the 'expectations too high' crowd here.
I love computer games - not every game of course, but in general I think it's amazing how far they've come. Once upon a time my favourite game was Last Ninja - twenty years go by, and that genre has morphed into Tomb Raider / Prince of Persion / Assassin's Creed etc. From Ikari Warriors and Airborne Ranger to CoD 4, Half Life 2, Bioshock, Stalker.
A lot of people I know just never seem to be happy - apparently the brand new uber-shooter isn't actually gold plated, and won't give you a blow job in return for head shots. What do people actually expect? If you're looking for an epiphany, then computer games may not be the right place. If you're looking for high quality interactive entertainment - welcome aboard.
Also, Stalker Clear Sky is an awesome game.
I love computer games - not every game of course, but in general I think it's amazing how far they've come. Once upon a time my favourite game was Last Ninja - twenty years go by, and that genre has morphed into Tomb Raider / Prince of Persion / Assassin's Creed etc. From Ikari Warriors and Airborne Ranger to CoD 4, Half Life 2, Bioshock, Stalker.
A lot of people I know just never seem to be happy - apparently the brand new uber-shooter isn't actually gold plated, and won't give you a blow job in return for head shots. What do people actually expect? If you're looking for an epiphany, then computer games may not be the right place. If you're looking for high quality interactive entertainment - welcome aboard.
Also, Stalker Clear Sky is an awesome game.
I don't feel that the bar has been set to high, so much as it's been ignored. It seems more and more like game developers are ignoring their very consumers. Almost like they aren't trying to make great games anymore. They're just trying to make money. A perfect example would be the Wii. Think back to when the Wii was coming out. Just remember the hype you felt when you heard and read all about the little white box. Back then, even the Playstation and Xbox fanboys were like, "...Cool." But when you come back to the present, it has almost nothing going for it except Zelda and Wii Fit. It's like the developers were just trying to create something to earn a quick buck, like they weren't thinking long-term. It just seems to me like games are becoming more for money and less for entertainment.
Its a difficult question ... on the one hand I do sometimes feel like gamers are being a little harsh. A lot of people don't seem to be able to enjoy a game unless its dubbed "gaming breakthrough of the century" ... even then they will only enjoy it up untill the release date.
Thats usually what I think until someone hits me with a game like spore. The demo was fun, I was genuinely interested at that point. Once I bought the game and subsequently finished it an hour later I simply threw it out.
Thats usually what I think until someone hits me with a game like spore. The demo was fun, I was genuinely interested at that point. Once I bought the game and subsequently finished it an hour later I simply threw it out.
So my question for you is this:Cinder Block of Oppression post=9.74439.835311 said:
If you are talking forward-thinking game design (which Crysis did and was lambasted for) on a DECADE-long level, exactly how do you think game companies will make money during that development time? Not top mention- how do they develop for technology and an architecture that doesn't exist yet?
No, sorry. Expectations have gotten way too high.
I think it's because game quality stayed about the same or has been lowered while expectations have been raised.
It aren't even gamers that raise the expectations, but reviewers and publishers, reviewers because they're paid to do it and publishers because they want their game to stand out in the sea or other mediocre games.
As I've said in other threads, this is why I don't follow any gaming media, heck, I don't even know which games are going to be released in the next 3 months(except Fable2, Gears of War2 and Far Cry2, because 2 of those games were sold in a package with an xbox360). I can't be disappointed if I only know the basics
It aren't even gamers that raise the expectations, but reviewers and publishers, reviewers because they're paid to do it and publishers because they want their game to stand out in the sea or other mediocre games.
As I've said in other threads, this is why I don't follow any gaming media, heck, I don't even know which games are going to be released in the next 3 months(except Fable2, Gears of War2 and Far Cry2, because 2 of those games were sold in a package with an xbox360). I can't be disappointed if I only know the basics
I only really watch games that I'm interested in.
Fable 2 for instance, I'm really stoked about, even though it's a Peter Molyneux game, and they're disappointment centrals, mainly due to the fact that he can't keep his mouth shut half the time about things that are only 10% working in some internal testing phase.
Fable 2 for instance, I'm really stoked about, even though it's a Peter Molyneux game, and they're disappointment centrals, mainly due to the fact that he can't keep his mouth shut half the time about things that are only 10% working in some internal testing phase.
i love a good fantasy epic (morrowind) or some awesome tightly balanced gameplay (starcraft) or a great shiny pretty picture (any of the graphicswhore games out recently, i say we abolish all democracies and make a new religion with a global polytheistic theocracy, im thinking name me the avatar of the deity of video games and high end computer hardware.) but i still play super mario brothers 3. i bought it like 10 times. hell i still play 1. hardly revolutionary these days. make something FUN. whether its through storytelling or atmosphere or gameplay or graphics and sound that put everybody else to shame(but preferably a combination). developers have forgotten this. and people have forgotten that "innovative" does not mean fun and a 2 player co-op bullet time and space marines are NOT innovative(and havent been since the 1800's).
I wonder if said issue of standards has more to do with the Publishers.
I have been in close proximity to a few game developers and the ridiculous deadlines imposed by publishers simply means quality control goes out of the window.
Food for thought perhaps?
On a general level I refrain from shooting at the devs untill I know for sure they are deliberately shipping us crap without care.
I have been in close proximity to a few game developers and the ridiculous deadlines imposed by publishers simply means quality control goes out of the window.
Food for thought perhaps?
On a general level I refrain from shooting at the devs untill I know for sure they are deliberately shipping us crap without care.
Yes. How is this even a question?
We demand constant new things. which of course, there is nothing new under the sun and never has been. Every piece of information comes from a previous bit, and even if they were to make something completely new everyone would hate it because it's new. Humans loathe nothing as much as different.
We demand games with better and better graphics. Which the console developers keep giving us, but every dollar spent on graphics is a dollar not spent on gameplay or some other thing.
We also demand games to be better than the best games, throughout all of gaming history, but we can't do that because programming and game design can't advance that fast.(and honestly, programming has gotten worse as hardware becomes better.)
We demand constant new things. which of course, there is nothing new under the sun and never has been. Every piece of information comes from a previous bit, and even if they were to make something completely new everyone would hate it because it's new. Humans loathe nothing as much as different.
We demand games with better and better graphics. Which the console developers keep giving us, but every dollar spent on graphics is a dollar not spent on gameplay or some other thing.
We also demand games to be better than the best games, throughout all of gaming history, but we can't do that because programming and game design can't advance that fast.(and honestly, programming has gotten worse as hardware becomes better.)
Not if the game is like fallout 3 where every fan has dismissed it as worse than the originals before it comes out.