Star Citizen Too Much Game for Consoles to "Handle"

[DiMono]

$48 million is not 4.8 trillion pennies. It's 4.8 billion pennies.

 

[Something Amyss]

So much for that "supercomputer" and that other "supercharged PC" eh?

Yes, but you're not taking into account the power of THE CLOOOOOOOOOUD!

<.<

 

[Rozalia1]

Crysis wasn't praised for its shooting. It was praised because it was a technical powerhouse that combined graphics and gameplay with brand new foliage, lighting, and physics tech.

Without that, the main advertised point of crysis is gone.

Its like buying a 4K TV and getting a 720p one instead. It doesn't matter if its still a TV, it doesn't do what it was advertised to do.

I put stock in engines and tech because it elevates everyone. Tech brings previously impossible thins to the average person.

before 2007, people said that Crysis would never happen. That water would kill any game, and foliage would too.

Now look at us, assassin's creed used that very same tech to create Black Flag. A game revolving around that tech.

Before 2004, people said that realistic talking faces were impossible. Then Half Life 2 came along. Now face tech is everywhere, and games like LA Noire exist thanks to that facial technology.

It doesn't matter if the gameplays is bad, once we master something previously impossible it seeps into other games with better gameplay.

with tech, even if we lose we still win in the long run.

Sounds to me like you're crapping all over Crysis, you going to say the same about Star Citizen in a couple of years too in defense of things you're saying now? And you rag on console tech demo games? Why? Sounds hypocritical to throw a slur their way, yet put PC ones up as being some grand boon to everyone.

So before 2004 there were no talking faces? I see you use the word realistic...I suppose perhaps you mean games using that absolutely dreadful "real" style perhaps which while bad enough today...was absolutely horrific in 2004.

I am sorry mate, but this time I cant even comprehend HOW you can say that. It boggles my mind...
I mean you are a gamer too :O ?!?

So, if now the JRPGs you like (is that what you like? Dont know) get turned into Modern Military Shooters but have the same storyline, you will still play them?
No... that can be a new game... but it is NOT the same game.

SOme people do not give a f*ck about storylines, characters or anything that you care about. They care about immersion and gameplay. Graphics / Power can mean gameplay and sometimes does.

I am sorry, but I still can not understand you. Not at all. This is confusing me ...

...

What is the fundamental of a game. Lets put it this way, if you ported a rhythm game where you pressed certain buttons at correct times to make music...and made into a platformer than yes it wouldn't be the same game. However taking a shoot shoot bang bang and porting over to a weaker system where its still a shoot shoot bang bang...its the same bloody game.
I've told you many times that lighting effects don't make a game, and I'll not change that opinion.

Irrelevant, you say you can't understand so I'm telling you my view on the matter. Its not an alien concept either so I don't see why you can't disagree, but accept it as valid.

I'm arguing that the vehicle to get the game across doesn't have to be a shiny car full of accessories, as long as its functional it'll get across the stuff in the boot of the car, you know the important stuff. You're arguing that the stickers on the car, the air freshener, the leather seats, the electronic windows, the roof window, and so on are more important than the stuff in the boot. Which of course you're free to do, but it shouldn't stop you from being able to understand where I'm coming from.

 

[Strazdas]

Still Crysis.

What is the fundamental of a game. Lets put it this way, if you ported a rhythm game where you pressed certain buttons at correct times to make music...and made into a platformer than yes it wouldn't be the same game. However taking a shoot shoot bang bang and porting over to a weaker system where its still a shoot shoot bang bang...its the same bloody game.
I've told you many times that lighting effects don't make a game, and I'll not change that opinion.

Okay.

No, not really. Its a game called crysis. but its not the same game as a game called crysis on PC.

Lighting does not make a game, but physics does. AI does. gameplay does. all three were nerfed/removed for the console "Version".

Well, I guess I'll have to content myself with replaying old Wing Commander games, then. A PC that could run this is too expensive, time-consuming and bulky for me to even consider right now. I understand them not wanting to port it, but some setting so that a mid-tier gaming PC could at least run the thing would be nice.

Erm what? a 5 year old GPU is said to be minimum requirements. a midtier gaming PC, which btw costs little more than a console, will run it fine.

People were just in tears and enthralled by the foliage tech, so much so that without such tech Crysis simply wouldn't be Crysis. Shooters are all about the shrubbery after all.
Anyway that 10% number is absurd unless you actually think lighting effects and graphical quality is actually 90% of the game...which would be very odd indeed.

Why are you incapable to understand that there is more to a game than lighting effects and weapon shooting?

That so? So PC gamers playing with a controller are playing an inferior game? Sorry I think I'm overlapping your posts with others, don't think you're trying to make that point.

Controller is inferior device in order to aim precisely and quickly. if a PC gamer is playing with a controller, then yes, his aiming will be inferior. this is not a discussion. this was a proven fact with multiple companies trying that (wantig to do crossplatform multiplayer).

 

[mrdude2010]

Good thing I've been looking into upgrading my graphics card recently. The 480's done great for me for the last couple of years, but once Nvidia's new line comes out, the 700 series will probably be really (relatively) affordable.


Nice to see a game that doesn't compromise on that stuff though, it takes a good bit of horsepower to run the physics accurately enough to make a space sim worth it. Plus, the UI can be designed around a keyboard, giving you a little more flexibility. I love the 360 controller, but for something like this I'd want a keyboard and mouse.

 

[Rozalia1]

No, not really. Its a game called crysis. but its not the same game as a game called crysis on PC.
Lighting does not make a game, but physics does. AI does. gameplay does. all three were nerfed/removed for the console "Version".

Why are you incapable to understand that there is more to a game than lighting effects and weapon shooting?

I question your knowledge on the matter of the console Crysis version considering you didn't know it existed till very recently.

... What can I say to that. I can't be rude of course, but that comment is so distorted and false in context I'm not even going to bother with it. I'm a nice guy, better to just not to say anything.

Again, you hold some vague "gameplay" in some high regard with no idea of what it is.

Crysis was a tech demo to prove that we did have the hardware for gameplay mixed with foliage, lighting, and water.

Foliage and water are gone from the console version. Like yanking out water and foliage from Assassin's Creed Black Flag. Its a core mechanic that you fail to grasp, just like all other gameplay mechanics past 1989.

First in the nicest way possible because I know how well you are at drawing heat, please don't talk of people having no ideas. Its rude apparently, and I'll not fall into your trap if you do this intentionally of getting me warned for mocking the fact you're making such ironic statement.

Foliage, lighting, and water is 90% of Crysis...you are really saying this? Well like I've said you can think that, but by doing so you're taking one very large crap over Crysis.

Even Charchao is calling you out on your bullshit. Anyone who has played Crysis knows that these are core mechanics.

I see this time and time again whenever he posts, no Twink he doesn't in anyway give credence to you by virtue of debating something with me. You've done this with other posters as well and it doesn't make them look good at all, not to me of course as I know the scores...but you should know that not everyone speaks, some just watch and make up their minds.

The console version is missing core mechanics and is missing the main attraction of the game. ALL advertisements relating to crysis is showcasing the technical achievements of the game. Shooting a gun isn't what made crysis the game it was. It was the technical side that no longer exists.

Its like yanking out platforms of the original Mario game. You can still see mario but that ain't the same game. It is dishonest to say they are the same game.

Taking a crap on Crysis again I see.

Nope doesn't work like that. Your example is changing Mario from a platformer to a game where you just walk left to right (thereby not a platformer), Crysis 1 on console as far as I'm aware still has the shoot shoot bang bangs.

tech demo is not an insult. Its an important part of the industry and its what drives the industry forward. Not like Nintendo would know anything about that. You'd probably be pissed if anyone played on a console more advanced than an Atari.

Console tech demos don't exist because of the limited hardware. Tech demos on consoles is an expensive thing to do in an age where no one but big publishers can afford to make them. That's why they get crapped on, because usually the tech that it uses was much older and has been standard fare for years.

Baseless slander.

So I am correct in you being hypocritical on the matter of tech demos, thanks for confirming it for any posters reading instead of possibly making me waste time dragging up old posts.
What is the function of a tech demo? You know this, and you know how a difference must be showcased between one generation to the next...and yet see no reason to have a console tech demo?

You can't show up with a commodore 64 in 2014 and say this is a huge breakthrough in modern computers and say its cutting edge. All the new stuff happens on PC because the hardware and costs allow for it.

??? What is your point?

People always whine about how "its the gameplay that matters" but its the technology that allows that gameplay to exist. Try running Black Flag or Oblivion on an Atari and you see what I mean.

Its clear you have fundamentally misunderstand what the stance is. The stance is not that you could play Crysis on the Atari Jaguar, you couldn't as the hardware simply isn't there. However could you get a version of Crysis on there that gets across the story involving Koreans, aliens, and the shoot shoot bang bangs...yes. Of course if you're going to discuss the Jaguar than a whole different version would need to definitely be created, however if you're talking PS3/4 than some downgrading of certain aspects would be all that is needed.

I don't understand how you can know my stance which isn't as I've said "alien", and keep slinging at me that I have no idea, or am just wrong. It just doesn't work like that, I value something you seem to not care much about, thats fine but to say I'm wrong for caring about those aspects you do not...how does that work?

Gaming has never been better. Its always improving, that's why sticking to the same tired ideas is a bad idea. That's why I rag on Nintendo so much because they rely on tradition.

And yes faces are still off, but its much better than putting a mask on the main character to hide his ugly face. Face technology has opened up a lot of gameplay and narrative devices.

Technology trumps gameplay, because that technology will open up new gameplay that makes old gameplay look like amateur hour.

Pray tell why you didn't respond to the parts of my post that dealt with Nintendo than? Looks to me that like many you're stating Nintendo has always been the same and putting your fingers in your ears to avoid being set straight. You talk of tech, yet ignore the fact that Nintendo is always looking for the next big tech, and have bought many (granted not all succeed, but that is business) to the fore.

You didn't answer the question. There were no talking faces before 2004?

Okay so you've thrown away the possibility of using gameplay to shield your arguments...so what makes a game good is technology. Story? Who needs it. Characters? Irrelevant. Enjoyable gameplay? Mugs game. Foliage and lighting effects? By god what a game.
I'm not mocking, I'm merely puzzled at such a stance. The gameplay vs Story argument is one that can be argued to the end of time, but tech > everything else...well...

 

[Strazdas]

I question your knowledge on the matter of the console Crysis version considering you didn't know it existed till very recently.

... What can I say to that. I can't be rude of course, but that comment is so distorted and false in context I'm not even going to bother with it. I'm a nice guy, better to just not to say anything.

As you have made me aware of it i read up on it. Thats how expanding knowledge works - you learn something new.

Since you failed to respond to my comments (and questions in another thread) i have to assume you dont have a civil answer to those.

Nope doesn't work like that. Your example is changing Mario from a platformer to a game where you just walk left to right (thereby not a platformer), Crysis 1 on console as far as I'm aware still has the shoot shoot bang bangs.

Crysis 1 on console has shooting. Mario game has mario. Just like Mario being Mario is not core gameplay mechanic shooting wasnt one for Crysis.

However could you get a version of Crysis on there that gets across the story involving Koreans, aliens, and the shoot shoot bang bangs...yes.

But that is not all that crysis is. Just like a mario brothers game featuring mario isnt all that mario brothers game is. Hence, you would NOT have mario. you would have a different game with same story called crysis.

 

[orangeapples]

At this point I just want to see the game raise more money than AAA budgets. They're at like a quarter Capcom, right?

 

[Rozalia1]

As you have made me aware of it i read up on it. Thats how expanding knowledge works - you learn something new.
Since you failed to respond to my comments (and questions in another thread) i have to assume you dont have a civil answer to those.

Crysis 1 on console has shooting. Mario game has mario. Just like Mario being Mario is not core gameplay mechanic shooting wasnt one for Crysis.

But that is not all that crysis is. Just like a mario brothers game featuring mario isnt all that mario brothers game is. Hence, you would NOT have mario. you would have a different game with same story called crysis.

Your knowledge on the subject is still dubious on the matter, but no matter its not important.
? What comments? I usually answer everything so what did I miss exactly?

Shooting is a mechanic, mario is a character, not comparable things.

We have different viewpoints on the matter, that is all.

I am asking you is to recognize that gameplay is more than shooting someone in the face with a gun.

We are beyond that. We have been beyond that for years. That was only true in 1989.

No Strazdas asked that which was very odd considering I've been arguing all this time that a game is far more than lighting effects, or how good a piece of shrubbery looks. You revoked your usage of gameplay in your arguments with your last post as I said there...and I'm still puzzled by how that post of yours went.

Crysis relies on foliage, lighting, and water for its gameplay. Its that freedom that gives it the true experience. It is not a mindless shooter because that's what you get on consoles.

Foliage and lighting plays a part in the guerrilla warfare you can wage, and the sneak system. The physics allow you to use objects as a weapon like shooting trees to block a road or to fall on a helicopter. Or using the ferns to hide, and setting up traps.

What you have is just another "M1 + W" shooter where you just walk forward and win. Just because Crysis gives you options, which is 90% of the game, doesn't mean its the same game.

Anyone who has played crysis would know this, and its obvious you haven't. In fact, you refuse to acknowledge any progress in gameplay over the last 20 years. You keep bringing all games and dragging them down to such a simplistic form that even Nintendo would call amateur and banal.

Crysis is a sandbox of the new mechanics. And the console version is a sandbox without sand and without toys.

Petty insult to proclaim superiority, okay.

Shoot shoot bang bang is really deep apparently, okay.

How can options be 90% of the game when lighting, water, and foliage effects are also 90%? Crysis must indeed be very advanced to go beyond 100%.

You shouldn't presume things.

Tech demos exist to provide a proof of concept, to show something new that hardware hasn't done before. tech Demos on consoles don't exist for reasons I already stated, and the fact that tech demos rely on higher end hardware to get the ball rolling. A console tech demo would just be a retread of old PC tech demos. Consoles don't adopt something until its been somewhat standardized.

Than you've failed to grasp why they are done. A little clue should be in the fact they are new consoles, consoles keyword.

You are wrong not because you care about gameplay, you are wrong because you oversimplify everything and assume technology and technical achievement is a dirty word.

Proving something can be done is not an insult. Showing that it can effect gameplay and can invent new gameplay is not an insult. Lighting, foliage, water, and physics all bring up new gameplay that wasn't in previous games. It wasn't shooting that made crysis the game it was, it was because the game did something entirely new. In your world, being original and doing new things other than shooting guns is somehow a cardinal sin. Games can be more than that.

If Crysis is about guns then sex and masturbation is suddenly the same exact thing. They aren't.

Baseless.

Baseless again, you've invented some hullabaloo to try to paint me as something I'm not. I never said Crysis was wrong, ever. I never said they shouldn't push technology, again never. I've merely stated that you could get Crysis on weaker hardware and it'd still be Crysis, all the vital parts to a game would be there which is the plot, story, and the functional gameplay (the bang bang part). So please no more of this "you hate tech" bunkum.

Odd metaphor, lets hear you explain it as I'm interested.

Before 2004, 3D faces couldn't actually talk. Their jaw moves up and down and was an unrealistic eyesore. Master Chief exists in the way he does because of that fact. Half Life 2 came around and had an engine that generated much more realistic mouth movements and facial expressions. This changed the game and now almost all games use this technology and LA Noire exists because of this technology.

3D faces couldn't actually talk? So what did the characters in FFX (2001) do? Mime?
I'm sure I can gather just what you're saying and what you're going by, but considering how you didn't explain further when I prompted you several posts ago, nor have you gave the exact specifics you're going by...I'll not presume, you're wrong.
Explain it again, this time without holes if you please so that line of thought can actually get off the ground please.

Just like Half Life, Crysis made lots of foliage, realistic water, lighting, and large scale physics doable. That filtered out onto the games that then came out on console. Ubisoft is the biggest user of Crysis mechanics, and Far Cry 3 showed how much they stuck to it.

That's why Tech > everything. tech allows everything to exist. Tech allows 3D games to exist. tech allowed parallax scrolling to exist. tech allowed Nintendo to make the games that it did.

Okay.

Contradicts the top of your post.

Skyrim exists because the gamebryo engine got refined. It was better than oblivion. The same with all other games. So you can't say technology doesn't help games.

If no pushed the technical envelope, then we would all be playing pong on a huge mainframe. Or playing a space invaders clone for the umpteenth billion time. Because our computers wouldn't handle anything else.

Nintendo only reinvents their image, but the technical side remains the same. They don't innovate anymore because that is an expensive investment for consoles. Not even Sony or Microsoft do that anymore.

You keep talking about gameplay as if its a separate entity or restricted to doing the same repetitive simplistic action over and over. Its not. If you knew the extent that technology has improved gaming over the years you wouldn't be saying that tech doesn't matter.

Hardware and our understanding of it matters. That's why our games are so good and polished compared to early 70s games. Try putting Bioshock on an Atari or The Last of Us on a Gameboy. Won't work, the hardware and our experience cannot tell those stories effectively at the time.

Technical achievement removes limits. The less limits we have the more we can do. Even if a tech demo fails and doesn't work properly someone will come around and make it work. So even if we lose, we still win because we are removing limits.

Yikes, Skyrim.

Okay, again nothing I've been "hating" on so its all quite irrelevant.

Nintendo don't innovate? Trying out 3D all those many years ago, making motion controls mainstream, making their new consoles controller a tablet, sticking two screens on their handheld, making their next handheld 3D by way of some trickery. Innovation goes beyond making a piece of shrubbery move better.

Baseless. You've presented a very puzzling view that I have to disagree with because its poppycock pure and simple (tech is the most important part of a game, screw story and gameplay). You than paint me as a tech hater for disagreeing, its nonsense and I'm not dwelling on it.

But can a PS2? Now that is a track that is in line with my own so don't spoil it now.

Your hate on console tech demos still baffles me, and there is no guarantee the tech will be used also.

 

[andago]

Baseless.

Baseless again, you've invented some hullabaloo to try to paint me as something I'm not. I never said Crysis was wrong, ever. I never said they shouldn't push technology, again never. I've merely stated that you could get Crysis on weaker hardware and it'd still be Crysis, all the vital parts to a game would be there which is the plot, story, and the functional gameplay (the bang bang part). So please no more of this "you hate tech" bunkum.

Odd metaphor, lets hear you explain it as I'm interested.

I think the important thing the other people are trying to convey, is that as you say the vital part of the game is the plot, story and functional gameplay. A large part of the original crysis is the use of foliage and water as a stealth mechanic, allowing a huge freedom of choice and reaction to the gunfights, and it is these parts that havn't escaped wholly unscathed into the console versions. The argument is, therefore, that the not all of the "functional gameplay" (a vital part of the game) is, in fact, there.

As an aside, having played the console version first and after playing crysis 2, I wouldn't have been able to tell you what was missing from the game (which I thoroughly enjoyed) and I did play it in a stealthy manner and not as a straight up shooter. Playing the PC version, I wouldn't call it a completely different game as while there are differences in the succes rate of what you do, you can still play them in the same fashion.

More on topic, it seems that "RSI" have been promising the world, but have so far not really delivered much. Frontier on the other hand have made seemingly a lot more progress on Elite: Dangerous, and more tellingly have said that they havn't ruled out a console port of the game that is far from restrictive in its own scope.

EDIT:

On the seperate issue of restriction of controls on consoles which is especially relevant for space sims, it may sound silly, but this would be an interesting time to try an integration of voice commands into gameplay!

 

[Strazdas]

? What comments? I usually answer everything so what did I miss exactly?

Shooting is a mechanic, mario is a character, not comparable things.

We have different viewpoints on the matter, that is all.

You usually do, but in this instance you either said that "you dont want to be rude" or sidetracked the whole question. You missed large parts of my last few posts in this topic and sidetracked my question about you calling people "marks".

Yes, i admit a better eqanple would be jumping in mario. shooting is a mechanic in Crysis. Jumping is a mechanic in Mario. yet, jumping is not what makes Mario - Mario.

You are correct that we have different viewpoints - your viewpoint is unrealistic.

No Strazdas asked that which was very odd considering I've been arguing all this time that a game is far more than lighting effects, or how good a piece of shrubbery looks.

Ultra asked first, my question came in respose to your response to Ultrawinkie, so he was right that he asked that. You have to understand that shrubbery effect is part of gameplay and removing it altered gameplay significantly (pretty much removed stealth path).

How can options be 90% of the game when lighting, water, and foliage effects are also 90%? Crysis must indeed be very advanced to go beyond 100%.

here is a good example of what you fail to understand. these effects allow for these options to happen. these two 90% is in fact one and the same dependant on eachother.

 

[Rozalia1]

I think the important thing the other people are trying to convey, is that as you say the vital part of the game is the plot, story and functional gameplay. A large part of the original crysis is the use of foliage and water as a stealth mechanic, allowing a huge freedom of choice and reaction to the gunfights, and it is these parts that havn't escaped wholly unscathed into the console versions. The argument is, therefore, that the not all of the "functional gameplay" (a vital part of the game) is, in fact, there.

As an aside, having played the console version first and after playing crysis 2, I wouldn't have been able to tell you what was missing from the game (which I thoroughly enjoyed) and I did play it in a stealthy manner and not as a straight up shooter. Playing the PC version, I wouldn't call it a completely different game as while there are differences in the succes rate of what you do, you can still play them in the same fashion.

I can understand that, but such things don't make up 90% of what a game is.

Okay look, just because you can't understand something that is clearly explained because you don't read my posts doesn't make me the bad guy.

Not even going to grace that with a response.

1. Lighting, foliage, water, and physics are 90% because they present new mechanics and sandbox options. They are one and the same.

You hide in a bush. You hide a shadow. You shoot a tree to make it fall on an enemy. You use the water physics to send a barrel over to the enemy and blow it up with a single shot. You shoot a pillar and make a whole shack collapse, killing people.

You keep looking at the shrubbery and have no imagination over how its used. Something can be pretty yet useful.

And why the arbitrary figure of 90% exactly? Is the shrubbery 35%, the water 25%, and lighting 30%...I suppose plot would be 1%, gameplay 9% or something to add up to 100%.
No I simply can't accept such an absurd figure, shrubbery doesn't make a game.

2. Crysis is meant to be dynamic. Its meant to give you choice using foliage, water, lighting, and physics. Without the new mechanics, you have no choice and therefore no game. Its a bog standard shooter, the opposite of what it was trying to be.

So without the shrubbery Crysis ceases to be a game...or it becomes a bog standard shooter...seems you can't make up your mind there, I'll take your second statement and ignore the first than as they contradict each other.

3. You talk about how Star Citizen can be on consoles but Star Citizen is a tech demo meant to show scale. Its entire purpose is to do something never done before. It needs 12Gbs of RAM to play, and consoles at most can only access 5Gbs thanks to the xbox. Cutting it down will destroy the very reason it exists and nullify what its trying to do.

How very noble of them, don't think reality is so nice however.

4.tablet - done before. Jumped on a bandwagon.
motion control - arcades had it, eyetoy, SEGA activator. not new.
touch screen - touch screens go back to the 1960s. not new at all.
3D - not new. Hell, the virtuaboy did that and its way older.

What other console manufacturer made a tablet their controller?
Hence why I said mainstream.
Mainstream.
This is very tiring, they did a double screened handheld with 3D (on one screen), who else did such a thing? Virtual Boy? Nintendo was the ones behind the Virtual Boy.

5. 3D faces either had a stone face or used a repetitive up and down motion. It was not realistic in any sense. Rendering faces that actually talk (mouth synced with the words and actually was expressive) didn't come until someone perfected it. Before that it was way too much work.

Doesn't answer the question directly. Were there simply no talking faces before 2004 when half life did it?

6. No it doesn't contradict anything. Us pushing hardware to its limit is what gives us new ideas, and better games. Tech trumps all because it allows gameplay and narrative to evolve.

If the tech isn't there, gaming stagnates. That's a simple fact you refuse or can't understand.

There is a reason I used the atari as an example. technology and us pushing it to its limit is what gives us evolution. This is true even in consoles, and people were drooling over GTA V and Naught Dog because of it.

Crysis pushed old hardware to its limit, and provided new ideas and introducing new technology that can then effect gameplay.

If you have the imagination to connect the dots. Us pushing tech doesn't mean we only push graphics, we allow ourselves to make bigger and more complex games.

At the talk of that post you told me you'd been trying to and I quote "that gameplay is more than shooting someone in the face with a gun". However you betray yourself with the 90%, and the constant proclaiming of tech in itself on its own being greater than both the gameplay and the story. How can you possibly state the first comment while making all the others that go against it, doesn't fit to me.

@Rozalia1

What I am trying to say is that there is a limit to what and how you can cut.

If you start nerfing/modifying AI, then its not the same gameplay.If it needs a complete overhaul (our old STALKER on PS2 arguement) then it is NOT the same games, especially if the AI is tied to its plot AND to its core gameplay.

Same with physics.
Same with level size and detail and quality. A direct impact on gameplay. And storylines.

Removing dynamic weather and lightning CAN LEAD TO GAMEPLAY changes.

Also immersion, it IS important, more important then storylines (even if it is directly linked to it) IMO.

Mate, if I take Final Fantasy (you like this game ?) , turn off sound (taxes CPU), make it into a single pixel game and put it on one of those early computers...
It is not the same game. Even if I write down the storyline on a piece of paper next toy you ...
Then again, storylines are not more important then gameplay or immersion...

AI tied to plot? You need to stretch quite far for that to be in anyway respectable.
So you take a turn based game, you downgrade it graphically...whereupon its still a turn based game...and it has the same plot? Sounds like a game I'd not mind playing, sprite work has its own charm and you'll be surprised what people can do even with those limited sound chips.

Than our opinions differ simple as that. That is why I don't like those type of games you do, the important part for me simply doesn't adequately exist in them, and honestly the gameplay isn't any good to me either.

You usually do, but in this instance you either said that "you dont want to be rude" or sidetracked the whole question. You missed large parts of my last few posts in this topic and sidetracked my question about you calling people "marks".

Yes, i admit a better eqanple would be jumping in mario. shooting is a mechanic in Crysis. Jumping is a mechanic in Mario. yet, jumping is not what makes Mario - Mario.

You are correct that we have different viewpoints - your viewpoint is unrealistic.

Didn't sidetrack I asked you to message me if you were really interested, and I actually did post that laid it all out quite clearly in the other thread. As for the question I told you wasn't going to bother with, the reason was that it was quite simply twisted. In context it made absolutely no sense to throw that my way.

We're going to keep dancing around if you're going to keep trying to redefine things to try to make the argument work. Alright I'll humour your train of thought, what makes Mario?

Unrealistic? Hey now I'm not the one throwing around/agreeing with arbitrary figures of how much shrubbery tech makes up of what a game is.

Ultra asked first, my question came in respose to your response to Ultrawinkie, so he was right that he asked that. You have to understand that shrubbery effect is part of gameplay and removing it altered gameplay significantly (pretty much removed stealth path).

It would be so much better if you and him didn't play support on each others posts. I respond to both of you, and I know what I see in the radical change he makes in certain trains of argument. If I was wrong in that statement all he needed to do was quote himself asking what he claimed he originally wanted to make me understand, you posting in support just muddles things up honestly.

A poster here didn't think it had such a large effect having played both versions...have you? What is your evidence based on?

here is a good example of what you fail to understand. these effects allow for these options to happen. these two 90% is in fact one and the same dependant on eachother.

You agree that Crysis is 90% shrubbery? Its gameplay, its story, its characters, its enemies, its weapons, its powers, its setting, everything else that makes up the game combined is only a tenth of the game, the rest is 90% shrubbery.

This is in practical terms is both of you saying that the graphics are 10 times more important than every single other aspect of a game combined, and its of a game not specifically Crysis because you are after all agreeing with twink's statements.
It sounds simply absurd to me, I've heard of the gameplay vs story debate on which is more important...but graphics 10 times more important than everything else, no... that is one I've heard here, and here alone.

And on that note I am done on all that talk of 90%s, if both of you believe that well its your choice to and its perfectly valid if that is truly what you value... but I'll not bother further.