Star Citizen Too Much Game for Consoles to "Handle"

[t00bz]

Of course it is. These next-gen consoles can barely handle games like Watch_Dogs, which looks like utter shit. How the fuck are they gonna be able to handle a game that asks for at LEAST 8GB of ram and a GTX 460(a video card that is probably much better than what these consoles have inside of them)?

 

[Rozalia1]

You continually dodge the facts and knee jerk every single time. It gets really tiring. Someone who just walked in the thread understood what I am saying without taking it completely the wrong way, why cant you?

The shrubbery adds to the gameplay. Shooters before Crysis had no concept of choice on the level the tech allowed. Not even Far Cry allowed the level of choice Crysis offered.

Crysis had no story. It was a bunch of back ground noise to link the cool bits together. Characters you almost never see as you work entirely along for the super majority of the game. This is because the majority of your team got picked off really quickly.

Its a sandbox. Of course the sandbox mechanics will take up the super majority of the game. Story, and characters have no place in a open world sandbox. Its entire purpose was to showcase the new breakthroughs in technology and what new applications it could have.

Are you seriously surprise a tech demo puts a groundbreaking breakthrough front and center? The things that crysis pioneered filtered out into a lot of modern games today. It laid the foundation for more complex games set in nature.

This isn't final fantasy, this isn't COD, this isn't Dragon Age. This is a showcase of a very specific set of mechanics. if those mechanics are missing, there is nothing to show.

Tech is greater because it makes more complex games possible. tech creates the gameplay you worship so much. tech allows it to exist.

Would you rather have the same bog standard gameplay that everyone else has done to death because of tech limits or would you want tech demos to unlock new and better possibilities for you? The answer becomes clear.

There were no actual talking 3D heads in gaming before then. I explained why the heads we used before 2004 weren't actually talking, just opening and closing their mouth because actual lip movements were impossible to do. The tech for realistic facial expressions and actual synced speech didn't exist yet. A lot of games used crappy cutscenes to get around it, but now having a cutscene to have people talking is seen as unacceptable. It has to be in the game itself.

Gameplay is more than shooting someone in the face. You refuse to see the environmental gameplay that has been pioneered for 10 years now. All you see is graphics. Environmental gameplay exists because we pushed the hardware enough to allow it to exist.

Don't blame me because you don't recognize that.

As for nintendo:

mobile devices use tablets for their controllers. Duh.
arcades, the eyetoy, and the activator were mainstream at the time.
Virtuaboy was 3D. Back when Nintendo tried new things that didn't have a precedent. It failed.
And touch screens were very mainstream. Have been for a while.

Twice, or is thrice now you've used another poster to add credence to yourself (in this thread).

Your statement on no talking heads before 2004 was wrong, while defining what you meant better you've yet to state your other statement was incorrect in what was written.

Err no which is something you keep mixing up even though I've already told you before so I'll say it for the last time as I'll not repeat myself again on that. I have nothing against Crysis or how it was presented, what I have an issue is with you saying graphics is 10 times more important than every other element combined.

So you're purposely moving the goalposts to another stadium to avoid admitting your errors in regards to Nintendo, whatever.

@Rozalia1
Those percent seem to be a figure of a speach .

"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"

Exactly mate. And graphics, AI, physics are part of the GAMEPLAY, part of the ENEMIES and even setting.
And atmosphere. Immersion.

That is exactly what we are saying.

I have seen Crysis 1 on consoles. It works, but its gameplay differs from the PC version. Its not exactly the same game.

I am more against your very idea here. A PS2 version of STALKER wont be STALKER. It just wont be. The same way the mobile version is not exactly a substitute for the PC version.

I am arguing that a game is not just storyline and characters and that gameplay is something that is influenced by AI, Physics, Graphics.

Another example:
The grass that moves realystically in Crysis 3 when there is movment through it. This is a direct gameplay element. It shows you the speed, shape, size and style of the enemy/ally that moves through the grass. Its extra information.
And this gameplay element require power. A lot of power even .

Its just what it is.
Sometimes differences between versions or power is not insurmountable.
If tomorrow you go out and buy the PS4 version of lets say for arguement CoD: The New One and I bui the PC version, well I will play it on higher resolutions, more PRECISE lightning (PS4 will still be dynamic as well though) and maybe better frames, textures and load times.
But there wont be an actual difference in the gameplay you and I get. Nor to the (dumb) AI or physics. I will get a slightly better looking and running game. That is all.
Thats because the difference in hardware and the game we are running is not that great.

Well you've not agreed with it so I'll not tar you with it, but I know who it'll stick to.

Graphics can add to a game, they don't make up the bedrock of a game unless we're talking of the actual physical makeup of the game (which we aren't). When people talk about X game, their first thoughts isn't to endlessly talk about the "10" times more important graphics.

All I see is people saying that a game is not a vehicle to get across a story, nor is it an engine to provide enjoyable gameplay...its purpose is to give you a damn good lucking piece of shrubbery...and that is not something I can agree with. Books aren't done to get across paper or ink, and you could say similar things for every other form of media.
You are someone who I know has talked of art previously (so have others, but I know their scores), yet you devalue what a game is completely.

 

[andago]

I am more against your very idea here. A PS2 version of STALKER wont be STALKER. It just wont be. The same way the mobile version is not exactly a substitute for the PC version.

I am arguing that a game is not just storyline and characters and that gameplay is something that is influenced by AI, Physics, Graphics.

Actually, maybe a little bit off topic, but something that really strikes me as interesting at the moment. Would you consider the Misery mod for Call of Pripyat to be a completely different game? Not fishing for answers or having a go, genuinely interested. Then by extension and somewhat more blurring the line; is Lost Alpha, which is still technically a mod for the original S.T.A.L.K.E.R. although boasting its own assets (resurrected from discarded code and production ideas) a different game to Shadow of Chernobyl?

With regards to Crysis and therefore more generally, can any port be regarded as the same game as the original? On one hand you have the splinter cell series, on the other you have, well Crysis. I would just call them different versions of the same game, which allows for one to have a degree of difference from the other, but to remain functionally and structurally similar enough. The console version of Crysis is just that, a console version of Crysis, for me there is no "Crysis '07" and "Crysis '11". Maybe a bit semantical ...

EDIT: Is semantical a word? I'll run with it for now

 

[Strazdas]

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.

Your answer focused on different thing than the question while yes you did told me to message you, that is not the same as anwering the question.

What makes Mario? the combination of gameplay mechanics, graphics, enemy AI, and so on (on many games physics would also enter as major point, however Mario pretty much had no physics).

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?

When i see you misunderstanding him i try to explain it so you may understand better. in other times i try to correct mistakes you done or provide alternative opinion. Whether it was a response to Ultra, to somone else or just a post on its own i would respond the same.

Same poster said that there was indeed different though.

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.

I would not say 90%. I would say that stealth mechanics in Crysis, of which shrubery is part of, plays a significant role in gameplay and story developement. I believe that those 90% was a figure of speech.

arcades, the eyetoy, and the activator were mainstream at the time.

well, Sega Activator was canceled quite early on and never got to mainstream.

Twice, or is thrice now you've used another poster to add credence to yourself (in this thread).

It is not a bad thing to point out that other people also have this opinion. stop using it like a bad thing.

All I see is people saying that a game is not a vehicle to get across a story,

Its not. these are called books, not games. Game is a vehicle to provide satisfactory gameplay. gameplay - the interactivity - is what differentiates games from other media to begin with. If story is the only thing you care about, you may as well stick to reading books.

 

[Rozalia1]

Okay, so i will say this one last time.

Just because its pretty doesn't mean its not useful. To see lighting as just lighting and shrubbery as just a shrubbery is to discount all progress gaming has ever had in the last 20 years. Many AAA games have used this technology to add new gameplay that has never existed before. Crysis was meant to show case their possibilities, but you lack the imagination to see how important these breakthroughs really are.

Before crysis, using a shrub to hide in was science fiction.
Before crysis, having water physics add to gameplay was science fiction.
Before crysis, having a building actually hold itself together like a house of cards and dynamically collapse based on damage was science fiction.
Before Crysis, having lighting effect anything was science fiction.

Technology isn't just graphics. Its only graphics to console gamers who get processed turds dumped on them every year because the consoles can't handle the mechanics. Technology means new things, more complex games, and less limits. Better hardware and pushing it to the limits will benefit everyone.

You praise gameplay but you fail to notice that you are praising modern gameplay. The gameplay we have access to is already archaic. The same way the way we tell stories is archaic and based on weak hardware. Its games like crysis that open up new possibilities and introduce us to future game mechanics that will benefit gaming.

AAA games I hardly care about as they are poor total packages, but I suppose that happens when you have a game consisting of 90% shrubbery.

Science fiction? This science fiction like your talking heads which weren't as science fiction as you said they were?

Petty insult that tars the user of it.

It seems you like to insult developers. I'll have you know I've enjoyed plenty of fun games with good gameplay that didn't require the shrubbery to move 90% more fluid.
Also you say that yet proudly state that Crysis wasn't even a game, it was worthless in that capacity, it was just a means to show all the shrubbery. Now I know your response will be that its tech allowed other games to show their stories in new ways but...what? Tell me how shrubbery made a single game tell its story better.
I know when I'm playing Yakuza 4, Phantasy Star 4, and Shin Megami Tensai 4 my first thoughts aren't "wow this game's story would be 90% better if it had better shrubbery".

Your answer focused on different thing than the question while yes you did told me to message you, that is not the same as anwering the question.

What makes Mario? the combination of gameplay mechanics, graphics, enemy AI, and so on (on many games physics would also enter as major point, however Mario pretty much had no physics).

Keeping things on one track would be nice, I've already told you through a post what I meant, and if you wanted further to message me. I'm not going to keep repeating myself on the meaning of that on here as that'll just lead me to ortonize it for you ultimately, and I'm not doing that.

Thats what? 3% of the game? You're forgetting that vital shrubbery which without nothing simply would work.

When i see you misunderstanding him i try to explain it so you may understand better. in other times i try to correct mistakes you done or provide alternative opinion. Whether it was a response to Ultra, to somone else or just a post on its own i would respond the same.

If there is a misunderstanding he merely needs to state it himself, you are in no position to dictate to me what he meant, its rude to me and to him also thought I don't think he minds as we play different ball games (Maggle!). I have to respond to huge walls from several people at once, so it'd be nice if you didn't keep inserting yourself into Twinks train all the time, and I say that in the nicest way possible.

I would not say 90%. I would say that stealth mechanics in Crysis, of which shrubery is part of, plays a significant role in gameplay and story developement. I believe that those 90% was a figure of speech.

Explain why you agreed with it in the first place. Others have agreed but first stated the 90% was wrong, you outright agreed, how did that happen?

It is not a bad thing to point out that other people also have this opinion. stop using it like a bad thing.

When it happens in every thread several times yeah its a bad thing. Its a dishonest line as its used with the implication that the person being referred to is usually on my "side", yet this time "even they" can see my "bullshit"...when the reality is I'm never on the same page as anyone that is brought up.

Its not. these are called books, not games. Game is a vehicle to provide satisfactory gameplay. gameplay - the interactivity - is what differentiates games from other media to begin with. If story is the only thing you care about, you may as well stick to reading books.

... ... ... "All I see is people saying that a game is not a vehicle to get across a story, nor is it an engine to provide enjoyable gameplay".

You quoted a post of mine, cut out all the text that came before (rightly so as it wasn't relevant), and than all the text after (which was) to present a falsity...there is simply no way that can be accidental, it has to be deliberate.
It speaks for itself, and is my cue to bid you a good day as debating is pointless when responses start consisting of fabrications based off words conveniently cut.

@Rozalia1
Does this mean that if I start writing down the storylines of games on a text paper that I get the same experience or same thing?
That is what you are saying.

Those things may not be the MOST (90% is figure of speach) of Crysis, but they are a GOOD part of it. Of its gameplay, of its ATMOPSHERE even. They make the game JUST AS much as its shit storyline.

And no, gameplay cant be boild down to boom boom. So what? Then RTS are Click click, RPGs are talk talk, JRPGs are whine whine etc? No mate . That DOES not work. Else all games can even be the same thing

If you have to start changing the gameplay AND REALLY change the atmosphere of a game to make it work... then it aint the same game anymore.

Misrepresenting. You used JRPG as an example as you think that can hit me harder, but it doesn't. Most JRPGs don't have fantastical systems that requires top of the line shrubbery. You could downgrade the graphics to 16 bit and most such games would play exactly the same, and have no problem gettings its story, and characters across. Additionally what did the shrubbery do for most JRPGs? I'll tell you, absolutely nothing that matters. Grandia 1 (1997) is better in virtually every regard (outside you know...the graphics) than what was supposed to be the best looking JRPG Final fantasy 13 (2009). Why didn't the much more advanced graphical capabilities make FF13 90% more game than Grandia 1?

Shit storyline? An art guy who finds little importance in a games story? I didn't think that kind existed honestly, people will put stock in different things I suppose.

Are you angry? That comment is very ugly and is showing malice, you could do without the insult for no reason to a genre you know I like.

You want to believe graphics are more important than everything else than go ahead, I can't convince you otherwise. Neither can you convince me that graphics trumps everything else 10 fold, or whatever figure you personally set it (8 fold perhaps?). So with that I think we need to get off that train because my clairvoyance has told me that the tracks lead nowhere.
You like graphics, I like story and gameplay and thats cool mang.

 

[prowll]

How many times does it need repeating? All the petitions and whining wont bring it to consoles if they can't handle it.

As it is, someone found that next gen consoles are well below the power of a GTX 480. That is ancient. The minimum requirement that is rumored is a 460 to run it on absolute minimum.

If next gen is half the power of a 480, they'd have to cut out large swaths of the games so consoles can handle it. The recommended specs are well above what the consoles can give. Hell, it asks for 12GB of RAM.

Not GDDR5 VRAM. Regular ram. So lets put another 1-3GBs for Vram. That comes out to a max of 15GBs of RAM. Next gen consoles will at most use 5Gbs due to xbox one's RAM eating OS.

So whats the point of porting if it will be headaches for the dev and a worse game? Just because the 7th gen was cutting edge doesn't mean this one is too.

I dunno, what was the point of making the game so high-end that most computers can't handle it? My system can run nearly everything that comes out, but with those standards, I'd have to make a hella large upgrade...

 

[Rozalia1]

@Rozalia1

No... you dont even try to get it.

I am not calling out the genre. The only JPRG I ever played I liked. Now I just want to remember its name so as to find it again (was a little lad then).
I do not make fun of other genres of games. I do use stereotypes though, the same way you called Crysis 1 simple Boom Boom Boom (it aint). Basically fire with fire.

I never SAID graphics are the most important thing. NEVER. Do not put things in my mouth please. I am saying THEY CAN be important, for ATMOSPHERE AND GAMEPLAY.

So what if some other games do not require or use Realystic Grass movements? Its a gameplay system, Crysis uses it. End of arguement.
So what if many games do not use lightning? STALKER uses it a lot, its a gameplay element, end of arguement.

And where did I say that story does not matter? I just said Crysis 1 has a shit story. Its not the game's strong point. If you personally like it, well then be my guest mate. I will give you that easily.

Games are not JUST storylines. They are MANY other things. When you change those other things, it is not the same, as simple as that.
I do not like storylines? Do not put words in my mouth please...

And why did you think I am angry :O ! And malice :O ??!?

I like Gameplay and Story and Atmosphere. Number 1 and Number 3 depend on graphics and AI and Physics. They DO. A fair amount they depend on it. So that is why I consider them important. And if you consider gameplay and atmosphere (and rarely for dynamic storylines too) you simply cant say that. You cant. Because it is not true. Not at all.

Do you shoot things in every shooter? Is whining the main gameplay in JRPGs? So yes I would say that was a deliberate attack.

They are in essence accessories, bells and whistles. Nice to have, but remove them and you still have a game. Remove everything else (you know the "10%") and what do you have? Some bushes that move really smoothly.

I didn't make the link between that line and Crysis so it sounded to me you just think all videogames have shit stories (and I've heard that said before so it's not a wild idea).

It seems all you do is knee jerk and take everything the wrong way. You repeat the same refuted crap over and over as if its convincing anyone.

Its not.

When new gameplay that isn't shooting comes up, you call it graphics because you can't see anything else.

When you learn that computers couldn't create actual expressive faces and have actual mouth movements, all you do is scream "OMG WHAT."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_%28game_engine%29

Glass houses.

So you want me to repeat shrubbery some more than instead? Alright I'll keep that in mind.

... My response was a question to your statement, a statement which how it was presented was simply incorrect. You later refined it to make it more legitimate, but without admitting your prior mistake it meant we never got past that. Someone than posted that such tech had occurred previously, I didn't go "oh look gosh even "they" are saying you're wrong" instead trusting you to read it and take it in...did you? I'm sure you did, not sarcasm by the way.
Your coverage of that chain of responses is incorrect, silly in how you portray me, and has a lot of heat.

So I will list every single game where "graphics" is gameplay:

This is why people playing support irritates me. Such a statement is horrendously wrong how its written (I've told you before about those absolute statements), yet someone (likely Strazdas) will jump in and say you meant this, or I'm not reading it right.

Why is all that wrong? 90% shrubbery. Two people have jumped to your defense while you have not given a single peep about the matter. I've invited you to admit the error but you stand by it making them look very silly indeed.
However I'm sure that is just you trying to draw heat, I'd say I'd hope that heat would burn you (and no this isn't me saying I hope you physically get burned, its the escapist so I have to make sure I state this) as it'd be worthy punishment for what is to me some poor mic work...but I know you're in no danger...well with that particular crowd anyway.

Just because you can't think of a way to use something doesn't mean someone else hasn't.

I've explained it several times now, and I'm not going to do so again.
What you're arguing against is a fabrication of your own design, the actual thing I take issue with renders that long series of lines of specific games completely irrelevant.

Now to be diplomatic I'll give you the opportunity to bring it back to the actual issue, admit your mistake or stand by it as fact whichever you want, and boom boom bang bang we'll be done.
If you don't than that is fine too, I'll get off the train and we'll move on.

 

[TallanKhan]

Star Citizen Too Much Game for Consoles to "Handle"
the game's fundraising efforts had accumulated more than $48 million or, if you want a more impressive sounding number, 4.8 trillion pennies.
Permalink

Um, no? If you have 48 million dollars then you have 100x as many pennies. 48 million x 100 is 4.8 billion. 4.8 trillion pennies would be $48 billion.

 

[josemlopes]

It all comes down to trust. yeah, they probably COULD find a way to hide the money, but I (and the majority of backers) believe they don't WANT to. I'm believe they genuinely want to make the game as good as possible and not fuck over their customers. If that's what they wanted to do, why wouldn't they just go with a major publisher?
The exclusivity isn't about alienating anyone, it's like they say: the game won't run on consoles. It's not that we don't want anyone without a top-end pc to be able to play it, it's that we want it to be incredibly good and a side effect of that is that consoles can't run it. Also, I think one of their problems was that consoles are too restrictive for what CIG wants to do.

You've said in two paragraphs what I've been trying to for multiple posts

I dont really agree that its much game to handle, tone down some stuff and make console specific HUDs and menus and there, its the console version.

Not saying that keeping it exclusive for PC is bad (I really prefer that they focus on making the game be as good as it can in on system instead of trying to make a PC game with stuff meant for consoles) but to say that a console version is impossible doesnt seem true to me as the thing that seems to keep them from reaching it is too much work or having to re-work specific things for each version (having a very specific control system for PC and then the other one for gamepads, something like Warthunder, and then the same with the HUD and menus).

In terms of visuals its just toning down a lot of stuff unless the engine is pure crap.

I think at that point it's an entirely different game.

Sorry about quoting you so fucking late but I saw you responding and wanted to say something had to leave, just now did I remember that I still had something to say about this.

The major downgrade of visuals dont mean they are a different game if the mechanics and gameplay remains all the same. Check this example of Stuntman Ignition on the PS2 and the PS3/Xbox 360.

PS2, menu right at the start and level select plus gameplay at 3:48:
PS3/Xbox 360, from 4:44 you have the menus with everything being the same with the exception of the 360 marketplace and from 7:47 you have the level select and the loading plus the actual level, also being the same:
For the best comparison to go 4:37 in the first video and 8:37 in the second.


For the typical PC user its like watching this

I certainly believe that how the game is supposed to look and even looks now certainly the consoles wont handle, I also believe that its best for them to not waste money making a visually downgraded version of it but it wouldnt be impossible and it wouldnt be a different game but simply a port.

 

[Rozalia1]

People jumping down your throat for thing you said isn't my problem. Its your problem. They understand what I am saying, and they are going on their own argument, so they leave my posts alone. This is between me and you.

And you are wrong.

You can keep reciting the same soundbyte over and over again but it won't change a single thing. Just like Republicans saying "obama is from kenya" doesn't make it true. Technology will only benefit us, and it will improve everything in gaming if we invest in it. Just like investing in lighting, physics, facial animations, and foliage gave us the games we have today along with their gameplay and their stories.

Tech demo is not a dirty word. Having new mechanics being the main component of your game is not a dirty word. Having good graphics is not a dirty word. Being centered around plants is not an insult.

Plenty of games are centered around plants, especially if they are set in a jungle like Crysis, Far Cry, and Rising Storm.

Games are not the only ones to push the technical envelope either, the movie industry does this too with Avatar, and Citizen kane. Its is a perfectly respectable investment, and no amount of nostalgia is going to change that.

No amount of refusing to believe it will change that.

For example, Just because the words "penis" and "vajayjay" are naughty words to you doesn't mean they are to anyone else. You keep talking about technology as if its a dirty thing.

Its not.

You can either get behind innovation, or don't. But don't come around here acting like hardware and our understand of it doesn't matter.

Because that's like a console gamer saying optimization doesn't matter. It does.

I never said 90% shrubbery, you invented that phrase. I said Crysis was a showcase of very specific breakthroughs. Without that, its a jewelry box without the jewelry. Its a chocolate wrapper without the chocolate bar. The game was dependent on the wow factor of the tech and the possibilities it had, just like Half Life 2 relied on the wow factor of the physics and faces.

Crysis wasn't so much a shooter but a sandbox to play with the tech. Its like a childless single woman going to the playground to play with her kids that don't exist.

Hell, there are plenty games on that list that rely on foliage to make the game play work. Yet that isn't an insult to those games because it was meant to rely on foliage.

Well I'm sure it makes them feel better that their posts are so irrelevant to you that you don't even read them, I'd hope that'd be an incentive to stop playing support on your behalf but we'll see. Maybe one say senpai will notice them.

Tech is a dirty word to me apparently, again a fabrication of your own design as I have no issue with such tech but with your 90%.

The optimization comment is hilariously backwards.

You want quotes of you saying that lighting, water effects, and foliage is 90% of a game? Because two other posts read what you said, and "even they" to borrow your term (though I'll not throw in bullshit) disagreed with you on that.
So the general term "graphics" is wrong and I shouldn't use it to describe the likes of lighting, and foliage...yet you don't know what I mean when I say shrubbery (which is obvious, more to the point than graphics is, and everyone else got)...so you want me to ortonize it for you, you actually do but I won't as I'm wise to it. So send me a message if you do want it ortonized, but I'll not do it here.

@Rozalia1
"Do you shoot things in every shooter?"
No.

" Is whining the main gameplay in JRPGs? "
No. Negative stereotype (which I used) against JRPGs.
All FPS are brainless shooting fests with xplosions for simpletons.
All JRPGs are just inferior WRPGs with whiny anime teens.

Is it correct? Of coarse not. Both are BS (did you not use the 1st one a few posts back?)

"So yes I would say that was a deliberate attack."
It aint. I thought you knew me enough by now.
So, No.

"They are in essence accessories, bells and whistles. Nice to have, but remove them and you still have a game. Remove everything else (you know the "10%") and what do you have? Some bushes that move really smoothly."

Here, I removed all bells and whistles for you:
http://www.wonder-tonic.com/wolf1d/

Stop with the percent thing. It was OBVIOUSLY a figure of speach.

Those bells and whistles as you call them are very imprtant. That is part of each games identity. Its part of its mechanics, part of the gameplay. You cant just say that removing them is no big deal. That means that you created another game entirely.

"I didn't make the link between that line and Crysis so it sounded to me you just think all videogames have shit stories (and I've heard that said before so it's not a wild idea)."

I thought the line was obvious. Sorry if it was not.
It was for Crysis.

I dont share that idea that video games have shit stories. Quite the contrary, the bloody average on games seems (sadly) to be much higher then what most books or movies can achieve.

How is it a shooter when you don't shoot things? Are you classing those first person horror indie games as shooters or something due to being first person? I assume its based on the choice of some (a drop in the ocean) giving you the option of doing a pacifist run where you don't kill anybody thereby cutting down on the shooting...however a lot of such games will still have a tranq gun of sorts which is still shooting.

Some of my favorite JRPGs are Shin Megami Tensai 2 and 3 so that comment is always absurd in relation to me. You sounded very flustered is all, I didn't say you were, merely asked.

Anti-virus is telling me its phishing.

What makes DMC3, is it the excellent gameplay? Or is it the effect of Dantes cape not being static? Is it the lighting? Is it perhaps the effect in the vergil fight where his hair starts spiked (which as a twin is what makes him look different to Dante), but in the fight the rain makes it go down which makes him just like Dante? Now that funnily enough is an actual effect that is part of the plot as it makes sense in regards to Vergil, which is hilarious as I asked for twink with examples, he provides none ultimately and than I provide one.
Anyway like I said such things are nice and regardless of the fabrication twink is running wild with, I do not hate such things. I just do not think such things make up 90% of what a game is.

I'm also sorry for the misunderstanding.

I think those people focus on the negatives too much, yes there is crap out there but that goes for everything. Deeming everything crap based on a selection is incorrect to do.

 

[Strazdas]

It seems you like to insult developers. I'll have you know I've enjoyed plenty of fun games with good gameplay that didn't require the shrubbery to move 90% more fluid.
Also you say that yet proudly state that Crysis wasn't even a game, it was worthless in that capacity, it was just a means to show all the shrubbery. Now I know your response will be that its tech allowed other games to show their stories in new ways but...what? Tell me how shrubbery made a single game tell its story better.
I know when I'm playing Yakuza 4, Phantasy Star 4, and Shin Megami Tensai 4 my first thoughts aren't "wow this game's story would be 90% better if it had better shrubbery".

Keeping things on one track would be nice, I've already told you through a post what I meant, and if you wanted further to message me. I'm not going to keep repeating myself on the meaning of that on here as that'll just lead me to ortonize it for you ultimately, and I'm not doing that.

Thats what? 3% of the game? You're forgetting that vital shrubbery which without nothing simply would work.

Clearly you are looking for ways to shit on the opponent rather than continue discussion here.
Also 3 JRPG sequels does not gaming market make.

Explain why you agreed with it in the first place. Others have agreed but first stated the 90% was wrong, you outright agreed, how did that happen?

I assumed you were intelligent enough to realize a figure of speech, yet it appears from this discussion that you are deliberately trying to argue by misinterpreting what people say.
Also ultrawinkie never said 90% was shrubbery, so theres also that.

You quoted a post of mine, cut out all the text that came before (rightly so as it wasn't relevant), and than all the text after (which was) to present a falsity...there is simply no way that can be accidental, it has to be deliberate.
It speaks for itself, and is my cue to bid you a good day as debating is pointless when responses start consisting of fabrications based off words conveniently cut.

I have pointed out a fact. the text after it was not relevant, as i did not challenge that part of the text.

 

[Rozalia1]

Breakthroughs in rendering and technology were 90% of Crysis. It was an achievement to be proud of. Just like Half Life was a showcase of the new facial animations and physics meant to showcase story regardless of its language.

The games rely on these breakthroughs because they are meant to show breakthroughs and show their potential. Without those breakthroughs, you have a sandbox without sand. Crysis is a sandbox game meant to interact with the new breakthroughs as much as you want.

You should understand that. Everything in Crysis was built around sandboxing the new breakthroughs. The console version is a circus without the animals, clowns, or performers.

Everything is planned in gaming, and Crysis was built around the idea that the rest of the technology will be there. if the tech ain't there, nothing else would work like it was meant to.

And they tell me it was a figure of speech, yeah we're done with that. Also where was your response to that link from 2001? Seems selective of you.

You've not described a game to me.

... A game from a company like that is ultimately made to make money by preying on people. Just because there are marks out there who believe the storyline that such companies actually do such things out of the kindness of their hearts is actual real life...doesn't mean its real.

Bunkum. I've played games like Far Cry 3, and on PC before you start presuming and found no groundbreaking benefit in any of it. It was better than Far Cry 2 I suppose which besides the fire was pretty terrible. Hide in bushes you say? Africans can apparently see for miles and have X-ray vision so much for that, and Far Cry 3 isn't much better.

@Rozalia1
"How is it a shooter when you don't shoot things? Are you classing those first person horror indie games as shooters or something due to being first person? I assume its based on the choice of some (a drop in the ocean) giving you the option of doing a pacifist run where you don't kill anybody thereby cutting down on the shooting...however a lot of such games will still have a tranq gun of sorts which is still shooting."

As long as its possible to not be seen or not shooting, then its a shooter without shooting . That includes STALKER, Last Light and RTCW by the way.

"Some of my favorite JRPGs are Shin Megami Tensai 2 and 3 so that comment is always absurd in relation to me. You sounded very flustered is all, I didn't say you were, merely asked."

No idea what that game is about, so I dont know how (remotely) accurate that comment is. Its just a stereotype.

Some of my favourite FPS are STALKER and Last Light. That FPSes are "shallow, stupid, cant tell a good story and are boom boom and explosions" does not cut it with me.

"Anti-virus is telling me its phishing."

I played it. My antivirus says it is fine.
If you are afraid to ue here is the video of a game with no bells and whistles :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGHHw_7zRfc

"What makes DMC3, is it the excellent gameplay? Or is it the effect of Dantes cape not being static? Is it the lighting? Is it perhaps the effect in the vergil fight where his hair starts spiked (which as a twin is what makes him look different to Dante), but in the fight the rain makes it go down which makes him just like Dante? Now that funnily enough is an actual effect that is part of the plot as it makes sense in regards to Vergil, which is hilarious as I asked for twink with examples, he provides none ultimately and than I provide one. "

What does it for STALKER then? Its the thunderstorm in the distance that lights the entire area for a second. A sniping shot in the storm. Its the lightning that lets you see who is on a ledge behind you, giving you the edge in certain situations. Its the bullet physics that allows for richochets at shallow angles and proper ammo, different armor groupes for every suit in the game, making eye shots on Exoskeletons or Heart shots on poor old jacket wearing people absolutely deadly.The physics that drop penetration with the distance.
Or maybe the excitement of wounding something and having to track its bloody trail on the grass in order to find its exact location.
Or the unpredictability of the AI, that frequently endangeres even "safe camps", seeing the dead bodies of battles you never saw because you were somewhere else entirely. Or seeing them being in places that they should not be, raiding even secret areas.

Yes, for this game, technology (Graphical, Physics, AI) are a part of the gameplay. And not a small part either. Dare I say they are a part of its storytelling. And certainly important for immersion - something you for some reason ignore .
For DMC, it seems that it aint. Different games. Different principles.

"Anyway like I said such things are nice and regardless of the fabrication twink is running wild with, I do not hate such things. I just do not think such things make up 90% of what a game is."

Except sometimes these things ARE part of gameplay . Not just twink .

"I'm also sorry for the misunderstanding."

No problem.

"I think those people focus on the negatives too much, yes there is crap out there but that goes for everything. Deeming everything crap based on a selection is incorrect to do. "

It really is incorrect to do. I dont get them, hell some gamers sometimes say "Of coarse games cant even compare to the average book" and I am like... "Have you ever read a book in your life? No, not those that school MAKES you read... Jeez..."

As long as its possible to not be seen or not shooting, then its a shooter without shooting... no that doesn't really work. Pacifist runs are more of a...niche playing style, such games aren't really billed as a walking around simulator where you can shoot things if you want.

You've misunderstood than. You're showing me a game that has no graphics (well not quite as they interface is still there)...that isn't in anyway related to anything in the discussion. I'm not saying you can take out all the graphics and it'd still be a game, though I have said you could downgrade the graphics and you'd still have the same game as long as the story, and the functional gameplay is still there.
What defines a game to me (to rattle off a few) is the story, the characters, the music (a series like Wild Arms has got a defining soundtrack that uses certain elements not often seen), the setting, and of course lets not forget the gameplay. Graphics can add to that, but they aren't number 1 in the line of what defines a game and they certainly aren't 90% of what defines a game.

http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/megaten/megaten2.htm
http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/megaten/megaten3.htm

If you don't get invested in the first place than what is graphical immersion? They could make the next Elder Scrolls the best looking game of all time tomorrow and it'd still be as dull as ditchwater to me.

You said it.