PDA

View Full Version : DX 2 To Be Another Victim of the "Console Dub-Down" plauge?



Immunity
25th Jul 2003, 08:13
Well, Im starting to eagerly anticipate the release of DX 2, (I've played the original through around 15 times), but some of the information I am starting to come across is scaring me.

Now, when a game is made for PC, and then adapted for release onto consoles, there is no problem. Common sense and hard fact evidences that the PC can support more data in general then a console currently can (sheerly talking the size of MBs.) Textures are reduced, sounds quality is reduced, and the finished product is ported onto consoles.

What really irks the he** out of me though, however, is when a SIMULTANEOUS release is planned. This is of course the result of 90% corporate greed and 10% laziness and in no way whatsoever makes sense, as the CONSOLE version should be ADAPTED from the PC version (the latter having more power). Basically, its saying, lets just make one version, screw the people that caused the success of our previous title, so we can make the people with Xbox happy. Forget those who gave this title its lifeblood, we want money. Way to go Ion on the fan support.

This is now all too common a practice and is marring every PC game this applies to in terms of what it COULD have been had the devs focused on the PC release first, then later ported to consoles.

*side note* Morrowind did this, and in turn, both the XBox and PC gamers got their money's worth. *end side note*

Now, switching topics for a sec, what the he** is this I hear about the SKILL system being REMOVED? What the he** are you guys thinking? Please, for the love of great gaming, do not turn this sequel into a POS title trimmed to fit the "ease of use" category so demanded into todays console games.
I think this poster on the neocron forums made a good point about this topic, stating

In Deus Ex, the replay value was in finding different ways of completing your mission, based on what skill choices you have made. Skills altered the way you came at a problem, and most of them opened up a different avenue for completing the objective. Kill the skills, and kill the replay value.

I guess my point after all of this rambling is that I am scared that DX 1, a title that DESERVES a worthy sequel, will end up not having one. Instead, it will be a dumbed down FPS with little to no replay value, all as a result of corporate greed and conformity.

Come on ION, open your eyes, give DX a sequel that it will be proud of.
Don't forget who made DX the success that it became, it was the PC Gamers who did so. I'm not saying ignore the consoles, simply put the PC release as your first priority.

Trollslayer
25th Jul 2003, 10:17
Originally posted by Immunity
Now, when a game is made for PC, and then adapted for release onto consoles, there is no problem. Common sense and hard fact evidences that the PC can support more data in general then a console currently can (sheerly talking the size of MBs.) Textures are reduced, sounds quality is reduced, and the finished product is ported onto consoles.

Abd the other way around is also possible if the company in charge of said translation does a good conversion job (ie, improving textures, sound and whatnots from console to PC).


What really irks the he** out of me though, however, is when a SIMULTANEOUS release is planned.

Which isn't a problem, because it obviously means both versions were worked on and are ready to work.


This is of course the result of 90% corporate greed and 10% laziness and in no way whatsoever makes sense,

Must make mental note... "making money to support my company is a greedy act and does not make sense"... must remember that "branching the franchise to other platforms is ridiculous"


as the CONSOLE version should be ADAPTED from the PC version (the latter having more power).

It goes both ways, and no version is being "adapted". Their development cycles are separate. Its not like the console version will be a port of the PC one, and neither is the reverse. The same happened with Splinter Cell - both versions were made at the same time, though the XBox version launch was prioritized over the PC.


Basically, its saying, lets just make one version, screw the people that caused the success of our previous title, so we can make the people with Xbox happy. Forget those who gave this title its lifeblood, we want money. Way to go Ion on the fan support.

Yes screw them, its not like they're making the sequel to one of their best-selling games for BOTH the PC and Xbox... :rolleyes: Please, if anything, they're one of the companies out there that still give a damn to their fans.


This is now all too common a practice and is marring every PC game this applies to in terms of what it COULD have been had the devs focused on the PC release first, then later ported to consoles.

And when the versions are nicely done, its the gamers who win.


Now, switching topics for a sec, what the he** is this I hear about the SKILL system being REMOVED? What the he** are you guys thinking? Please, for the love of great gaming, do not turn this sequel into a POS title trimmed to fit the "ease of use" category so demanded into todays console games.

For the love of god... the skills being removed is not a byproduct of it going for consoles, its a design decision regardless of platform. The Biomod system will work much like the skill system.


I think this poster on the neocron forums made a good point about this topic, stating


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Deus Ex, the replay value was in finding different ways of completing your mission, based on what skill choices you have made. Skills altered the way you came at a problem, and most of them opened up a different avenue for completing the objective. Kill the skills, and kill the replay value.

And i'm sure that person made a great post to himself. However, given he hasn't played DX2, i think i'll wait to see and not trust every biased and uninformed person who claims DX2 will be a "dumbed down console port", among other crappy statements. Not forgetting that the skills were not the main factor of replayability in DX1.


I guess my point after all of this rambling is that I am scared that DX 1, a title that DESERVES a worthy sequel, will end up not having one.

But it will, more than likely.


Instead, it will be a dumbed down FPS with little to no replay value, all as a result of corporate greed and conformity.

I'm sorry i have to intervene again... do you even know who Ion Storm are? By implying "Corporate greed" and "conformity" are things by which IoSt works by shows you have no knowledge of the company whatsoever. They're one of the few that don't follow trends and the easy money.


Come on ION, open your eyes, give DX a sequel that it will be proud of.

They're working on it. And fan support will help that, not useless criticism.


Don't forget who made DX the success that it became, it was the PC Gamers who did so. I'm not saying ignore the consoles, simply put the PC release as your first priority.

Thats why you're getting a PC sequel, remember?

[Note:Edited for typo correction and to add another line]

cball05
25th Jul 2003, 18:08
Whoa, people really need to chill about this. We know next to nothing concrete about the game, and attacking each other on assumptions is not the point of this forum.
However, personally I think that DX2 will not be a "port" from console to PC - on the contrary, from the screenshots it looks like PC has a totally different interface and probably its own textures as well. (but since the site hasn't been changed for months, again we face the problem of inadequate info)
An example of modified game versions is the Bond game Nightfire - it was released onto PC and console BUT the games had been changed to emphasize the advantages of the system. For example, the console version had more drive-shoot levels while the PC version was 1st person. While not an amazing game, it proves a point.

Trollslayer
25th Jul 2003, 19:48
... who's attacking who? :confused:

Big Ragu
25th Jul 2003, 20:55
Originally posted by Trollslayer
... who's attacking who? :confused:

I don't know, but I agreed with everything you said.

Trollslayer
25th Jul 2003, 21:47
;)

cball05
25th Jul 2003, 21:59
Originally posted by Trollslayer
... who's attacking who? :confused:

Not just this thread in particular....
But it does seem like everyone has to always go to extremes:


Originally posted by Immunity
...it will be a dumbed down FPS with little to no replay value, all as a result of corporate greed and conformity.



Originally posted by Trollslayer
i think i'll wait to see and not trust every biased and uninformed person who claims DX2 will be a "dumbed down console port", among other crappy statements....And fan support will help that, not useless criticism.

I totally hope that everything you mentioned is true, Trollslayer, as I said in my earlier post. But again, we really know too little to have valid arguments about the game. Also, just because Immunity makes comments that are out of line doesn't mean that you need to argue with him.

But hey, I'm not Catman, don't act like I'm giving orders - it's just my opinion that fighting never gets anywhere, especially when we're all working on assumptions...

goatmilk
25th Jul 2003, 23:19
trollslayer i just wanna put out there that you made an excellent point about the game still being great despite the fact that it is also being made for the xbox. and as an xbox and pc gamer, i gotta say, id like to see how it is done on both systems. just because of past experiences, and the fact that the xbox is a console, doesnt mean that the textures, sound, and overall graphics will suffer, just give the game a chance right?

Trollslayer
26th Jul 2003, 00:36
@ cball05:

I wasn't arguing with the original poster. That comment you quoted was aimed at whoever the original poster was quoting. Furthermore, i'm not being agressive by stating that that criticism was useless to IoSt. Do you think they'd listen to those comments? They were majorly unfounded and biased. Not the kind of constructive criticism they need, and certainly not the kind the fans should be giving.

I'm conflictant by nature so my posts might seem aggressive, but i rarely lose my temper or am aggressive without a reason.

@goatmilk:

I think i should thank you for the comment, though i'd like to say that my point wasn't that the game is great despite being made by Xbox. I'm not sure i even said that... :confused: regardless i also didn't implied i wasn't going to give the game a chance :confused again: Its a bit obvious the game will take a slight hit on consoles, but given the Xbox is unquestionably the best next-gen console, i don't see that many problems.

cball05
26th Jul 2003, 03:09
Originally posted by Trollslayer
@ cball05:
Do you think they'd listen to those comments? They were majorly unfounded and biased.

I completely agree. Sorry to misinterpret aggressiveness with "attacking" - and Immunity was asking for it, I guess. Hope no offence was taken - expressing opinions IS the point of this forum.

Anyway, hopefully DX2 will not be "dumbed-down" and our worries will be (finally) put to rest...

Immunity
26th Jul 2003, 03:13
Well damn, I seem to have started quite a skirmish on this topic heh. Gee, the fanboys don't give up without a fight it seems. Thats totally understandable though as I've been there myself.

All I'm saying is...no good can come from an originally designed for PC game sequel being ported onto consoles, thats all. It may not HARM it, but its definatley going to hinder the potential it may have had.

True, I may not be as informed as some of you on the development status/features list/company history, but shouldn't I still be able to express my opinion without getting shot to bits in mere seconds? Heh.

The PC market should stay seperate from that of the console market, at least until the consoles are able to come even moderatley close to what the PCs of today can handle. As it stands however, that may take a while. Until that time, the PC gamers are being screwed over.

Big Ragu
26th Jul 2003, 03:54
Tell me if I'm wrong (I'll regret that), but wasn't Morrowind also made for consoles while also for the PC?

Morrowind is one of the best games I've ever played, and yes I played it also on the Xbox. The Xbox version didn't look bad at all, actually it looked better than on my computer. I didn't really find any problems with it being streamlined, but that is also because the two systems had two different interfaces, each made to work best for the system. Both reached their own potential.

I know for a fact that Ion Strom is a smart company, smart enough to do what is right. You just have to put your faith in them, and when you do that, you will be much better off.

Catman
26th Jul 2003, 05:31
There's an old saying which is apropos here:

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!

In other words, when you see a message which seems calculated to irritate or annoy while staying just this side of the line, simply ignore it. Trolls like attention, and if you ignore them, they'll generally either self-destruct, go away, or find themselves banned.

That said, there's nothing wrong with expressing legitmate concern over what has been reported regarding the design of DX:IW, and there's nothing wrong with argument over opinions so long as everyone treats each other with respect. Even then, it's not unusually for some folks to get a bit heated in their exchanges, and unless things get too nasty, I'll hold back on taking action.

But I do keep watch. Believe that.

http://www1.iastate.edu/~wsthune/cps/mrchimps/mib.gif

Immunity
26th Jul 2003, 08:02
Well, thats the first time I've been classified in the troll category in my 10 or so years online (although I don't frequent message boards too much). I don't know whether to be honored or insulted at this :D

Anyhow, I figured I would make a list of all the PC game titles that were not made in conjuction with console ports, and those which were. Classifying each in the Good or Bad category based on the MAJORITY of ratings from respected online reviwers such as PCG, IGN, Gamespot etc etc.

PC Games made seperatley from console ports or no console ports at all:
Half Life (good)
Deus Ex (good)
Warcraft Series (good)
Command and Conquer Series (good)
Thief Series (good)
Max Payne (good)
Medal of Honor (good)

PC Games developed side by side with console port:
Enter the Matrix (bad)
Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2 (bad)
Pirates of the Carribean (bad)
Morrowind (good)

Console Games Reworked and ported to PC:
Splinter Cell (good)
GTA 3 and GTA VC (good)

The morale of the story?
9 times out of 10, it is in the best interest of both parties, PC and Console gamers, for the devs to concentrate on the release of either one or the other, and not both!

Big Ragu
26th Jul 2003, 08:04
http://www1.iastate.edu/~wsthune/cps/mrchimps/mib.gif

Can't help but wonder, does he have a tatoo of an eye on the back of his neck?

Trollslayer
26th Jul 2003, 10:14
This is what i fail to understand. If both the PC and console markets are different, why would a game with versions for both platform hinder the game? Because i honestly fail to see it.

Since PCs are for people who use them for a various number of things (gaming included), releasing a game for PC, specially releasing a sequel of one of the best-loved games of recent years to the PC (the platform where it started), is always a smart move.

And since consoles are for people who usually just buy a console to have fun with it, and its games, and since the console is in fact, the most powerful one to run games like DX2 without stutering in the slightest, i don't see the problem there as well.

The console version is just that, a fun game for people who own the console. And for PC users its a fun game for people who own PCs. So yet again i fail to see how the game would suffer from having itself placed on two of the most played gaming platforms of the moment, the PC and the Xbox.


Originally posted by Immunity
The morale of the story?
9 times out of 10, it is in the best interest of both parties, PC and Console gamers, for the devs to concentrate on the release of either one or the other, and not both!

Well if the developers are inept at their jobs it would be. The examples you gave weren't the best.


PC Games developed side by side with console port:
Enter the Matrix (bad)

Enter the Matrix in itself is a bad game. Even if more time had been spent on either version, the game would still not be any good. More design time would've helped the game. 4 Gigs of installation size? :eek: I've seen games more graphicaly impressive, or with more content, occupy a 5th of the size of EtM.


Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2 (bad)

NFS has already been failing on a commercial level for years. The game was bad regardless. Many PS2 gamers didn't liked. In fact, considering the PS2 is the console with the more problems in the graphical department i'm amazed at how the game ran. It only sold because it was a racing game (and we know how much they sell).


Pirates of the Carribean (bad)

Pirates of the Caring Bean didn't falter because of dual development time, but because it fell prey to the "Its got a good license, so they'll buy it" line of thought. It lacks in many areas, but it also has some fairly good ones. What failed there was idea implementation or a better execution of such.


Morrowind (good)

Morrowind was in development for years, and came out first for PC - and yet, the PC version was still very unstable. The problem (again) was not the fact that the game got later versions for platforms; Bethesda's programmers are not very good programmers. And this one is fact, unfortunately.

It just boils down to who works on it. In fact, most of the time, companies now employ smaller/third-party companies to make ports of their games, so that the main company does not have to waste time and resources on it. So worrying about a company losing time working on both versions is many times unfounded. For short, here's how a game is made for other plaforms:

1) Game X is good, so company Y decided to make the game for PC, then later to Console Z.

2) Game X is good, so company Y decided to make the game for both the PC and the Console Z.


>if 1), then: Company Y can do the conversion themselves; else; they hire a smaller company whose job is to do conversions.

>if 2), then: Company spends dev time working on the game itself first, then has a team divided in two (or removes elements from other teams working on other projects as is also common), and handles it itself.

Also, if a company decided to do both versions themselves, that only shows the company is confident in its own expertise to do the job. It might come out bad, or it might just come out nicely.

But then again, this is Ion Storm. The game will come out nicely for both platforms.

Have a nice day.

Random
26th Jul 2003, 13:30
Originally posted by Immunity
Now, switching topics for a sec, what the he** is this I hear about the SKILL system being REMOVED? What the he** are you guys thinking? Please, for the love of great gaming, do not turn this sequel into a POS title trimmed to fit the "ease of use" category so demanded into todays console games.
I think this poster on the neocron forums made a good point about this topic, stating ...


And I think Chris Carollo responded to this fear quite well when he said, not for the first time, that the skill point functionality has been incorporated into the biomods, not removed. The biomods are doing the exact same thing that augmentations and skills did in DX1, and they're doing it in the single system, not two overlapping ones.

cball05
26th Jul 2003, 17:36
Originally posted by Catman
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!


Thank you - that's all I wanted to say :D

NoNicknameForMe
28th Jul 2003, 04:16
This man has convinced me not to buy DX:IW... his unrelenting logical assault on the falicys of IonStorm have shown me the light, thank you Prohpet of the New Age of Aquarias.

El Padrino
28th Jul 2003, 04:17
Originally posted by Immunity
[B] blah, blah, blah...

Quite a bit of the design decisions made regarding DX2 aren't a result of corporate greed and/or conformity, or to cater to the console audience, but because of lessons learned while working on the PS2 port of Deus Ex. Basically, they realized that the interface was a cluttered mess. Hard to accept until you really think about it.

There's an interview floating around, either at IGN or Gamespy, confirming what I've just said, but at the moment I can't find it. I'd spend a bit more time looking, but since you didn't extend the same courtesy with your (baseless) assumptions, I'm not going to bother putting in the extra effort. It was a good interview.


So anyway, even if they didn't work on both versions on the same time, the basics would still be pretty much the same, meaning a streamlined interface and no skill system (it's being taken care of by the biomod system, so I don't know what all the fuss is about).



Harvey Smith

We only want to do things for a reason. We don't do it dogmatically. I guess that sounds like I just said Warren was dogmatic but that's not what I meant. Warren wanted to make sure that we were making a roleplaying game so he pointed to several features and said "These are sacrosanct." We're not in to that.

We looked at them and said we're cutting the skill system. We're gonna merge it with the bio-mods because the bio-mods work better in a videogame. And we're gonna give you the same powers; you're gonna be able to do the same things strategically in the game. In some ways it's better. We're just not going to be presenting you with a big screen of numbers and stats just because every other RPG in the history of man has done that. Of course, the fans flame the hell out of you for that. "You're not an RPG! You took away my stats!"

Whatever.

We don't give you a little sheet that says "strength, dexterity, charisma, wisdom." That's ridiculous.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/386/386515p1.html?fromint=1


And there's absolutely no reason to automatically equate reaching a larger audience and knowing it will make your company money (the lifeblood of all these evil corporations) with "greed," especially since this simultaneous release doesn't really hurt the PC version, screwing us all over in the process. Getting richer was, I'm sure, on their minds when they decided on a version for the X-Box, but so what. How does that hurt the game, or do anything but help the company to make more games and spread happiness to more people?


Of course, if you don't think reaching out to a wider audience so more people can see and enjoy your work is a good thing, Spector recommends you put on a beret and move back to Greenwich.



Warren Spector

Y'know, I never... God, I will never dumb down a game, I will use the word "never." No, I mean, the word we use around here, and I hope no one in our audience hears this in a bad way -- accessibility is the word here, and a lot of people hear "accessibility" and get scared. "Ooh, they're simplifying. Ooh, they're dumbing down." No. What we want is, as many people as humanly possible to experience the kind of gameplay we provide. I mean, anyone who says "Yeah, I want a smaller audience. I don't want a lot of people to see my work." Go back to Greenwich Village and put on a beret and whatever.
http://www.gamespy.com/interviews/february03/spectordx2/index4.shtml



Oh, and about Pirates of the Carribian. If I'm not mistaken, some Disney executive made a deal where they'd rename Sea Dogs 2 to "Pirates of the Carribian," add in some elements to tie in with the movie, and have it ready to ship along with the movie. That hurt the game quite a bit.

El Padrino
28th Jul 2003, 04:26
Originally posted by cball05

However, personally I think that DX2 will not be a "port" from console to PC - on the contrary, from the screenshots it looks like PC has a totally different interface and probably its own textures as well. (but since the site hasn't been changed for months, again we face the problem of inadequate info)

If I'm not mistaken, the only difference between the textures will be the resolution -- the PC's will be higher (resolution) and the X-Box's will be lower (because there's only so much a TV will do). The interface (if I'm not mistaken) is going to be about the same as well; but it's not to cater to the console audience or anything like that.



Originally posted by Immunity

The morale of the story?
9 times out of 10, it is in the best interest of both parties, PC and Console gamers, for the devs to concentrate on the release of either one or the other, and not both!

Your logic is flawed becasue it lacks any reasoning or facts deducing the simultaneous release on a console and PC as the reason the product turned out bad.

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
28th Jul 2003, 08:01
wow, I'm not here for 2/3 days and you manage to begin another PC/Console/dumbing-down flamewar without me!! (baaad people)

well, I can't see why this post attracted 20 answers, since we all had this discussion at least 4 times in the last 2 months.

so I send you back for example to the thread "my fear" (if it's still there).

Catman
28th Jul 2003, 13:08
With the release date still uncertain, I'm sure this won't be the last time this comes up. Sigh.

Even so, thanks to El Padrino for those well-researched and well-written remarks.

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
28th Jul 2003, 13:54
(I think that even AFTER the release, there will still be people to complain DX:IW is not exactly like DX1)

cball05
28th Jul 2003, 17:15
Originally posted by El Padrino
The interface (if I'm not mistaken) is going to be about the same as well; but it's not to cater to the console audience or anything like that.

Looking at the screenshots on the website, it looks like the XBOX shots have no HUD at all, versus the circular HUD of the PC shots. Of course, this may just be because the PC shots are more recent and the same HUD has been implemented in the console version as well. *sigh* if only the website would be updated...

Hannibal
28th Jul 2003, 19:30
Without overly trolling, I am going to explain why I feel many of Deus Ex's huge fans are nervous about IW.

I have almost no doubt that it will at least be very good, but when I read developer interviews, they make me nervous for a few reasons. The biggest reason is that it seems like Ion Storm has misunderstood what made the first game such a huge smash hit. It seems like they are trying to address faults from Deus Ex to perfect the next game, but they have been addressing faults that didn't exist. Game length? I have never seen anyone complain about DX1's game length. Why the need to shorten it? If anything, way way too many games are being shortened nowadays. The video game industry is banging out an endless series of weekend shooters nowadays. The skill system? It has been beaten to death here, I'm sure, but let me ask this: did the fans of the first game complain about it? Did it take away from the experience? I can see the merit in replacing the skill system with an improved bio mod system, but nothing that I have read has indicated that will really happen. You would need a lot more implant locations to replicate the functionality of the DX skill system. And graphics? I love pretty games as much as the next guy, but the first game's strength was not graphics. If DX: IW is shorter or has watered-down levels in order to accomodate fancy graphics, then the tradeoff isn't worth it.

The DX: IW interviews that I have been reading remind me ominously of interviews I have read with George Lucas about the Star Wars series. Now there's a guy who honestly didn't understand what the fans loved. What I loved about DX is that I could play one time as a homicidal maniac who specializes in bazookas, and then play the next time as a wussy pacifist who doesn't kill anyone, and it would actually take me more than a week to get through it. I don't get the feeling it will be that way this time.

I don't think that the people who work on the game are stupid, careless, greedy, or reckless. However, I think that they lack the fan's perspective, which is natural if a game is a job for you. I haven't found a game that I love as much as Deus Ex since that game was released. I think that this is, in large part, due to some not-so-wonderful trends in the first-person shooter genre (mainly, shortening games down to 10 hours so that you can make then look pretty and cross-release them on a console). Both System Shock 2 and Deus Ex were great games, and I just don't understand why we haven't seen anything like them since then.

El Padrino
28th Jul 2003, 23:06
Originally posted by Hannibal
[B]The biggest reason is that it seems like Ion Storm has misunderstood what made the first game such a huge smash hit. It seems like they are trying to address faults from Deus Ex to perfect the next game, but they have been addressing faults that didn't exist. Game length? I have never seen anyone complain about DX1's game length. Why the need to shorten it? If anything, way way too many games are being shortened nowadays. The video game industry is banging out an endless series of weekend shooters nowadays. The skill system? It has been beaten to death here, I'm sure, but let me ask this: did the fans of the first game complain about it? Did it take away from the experience? I can see the merit in replacing the skill system with an improved bio mod system, but nothing that I have read has indicated that will really happen. You would need a lot more implant locations to replicate the functionality of the DX skill system. And graphics? I love pretty games as much as the next guy, but the first game's strength was not graphics. If DX: IW is shorter or has watered-down levels in order to accomodate fancy graphics, then the tradeoff isn't worth it.

Ah, but was it the length and skill system what made the first one a "huge smash hit?" I admit that when they first said the skill system was going away, I was like "what the hell?" Mr. Spector had a similar reaction if I recall correctly. But anyway, what really made the game as great as it was was its letting you approach certain situations in the way of your choosing. Yeah, the skill system contributed a lot to that aspect of the game, but seeing as how it's just being streamlined into another part of DX2, there's not much to worry about.

Besides, in Deus Ex, you have to admit that there were a bunch of skills that didn't change the gaming experience all that much (to me, anyway), like the one that made you swim faster, or the one that gave you a bigger payoff with medkits. At the same time, there were a bunch of augs I didn't really use because the effort in activating them wasn't worth their benefit. Not a lot, but a few. Maybe two or three. And considering you can "overwrite" the biomods in DX2, I'm sure the streamlining won't do anything but make for a better gaming experience, with less menus to go trudge through, and more relevant ways to enhance yourself.

Arkyle
29th Jul 2003, 12:25
Look.

I Found Deus Ex just because i passed by and It happened to come to my sight, so i took a look to the box.

Then, I tried it, without much Interest.

But as always happens with those lucky findings, it rapidly captured me.

A first person shooter game, with role elements but without being too much complicated, AND an intelligent way of playing??

WOW! i said. i must say too, that about 30 people are now fans of this game, because i showed it to them, and really sell it to them with that argument i said just up.

Why they are going to change the best things of this game? don´t they realize that the success of this game, came just because it´s not a Shoot-shoot-shoot game?? and it can be customized!?.

I´been waiting for the second part since i finished the first game, and about the lenght.... a 10 over 10. If they shorten the game, they will do another big mistake.

But a long game takes more money.... ;)

I understand. life is expensive. ;)

Hannibal
29th Jul 2003, 16:13
Originally posted by El Padrino
Ah, but was it the length and skill system what made the first one a "huge smash hit?" I admit that when they first said the skill system was going away, I was like "what the hell?" Mr. Spector had a similar reaction if I recall correctly. But anyway, what really made the game as great as it was was its letting you approach certain situations in the way of your choosing. Yeah, the skill system contributed a lot to that aspect of the game, but seeing as how it's just being streamlined into another part of DX2, there's not much to worry about.

Besides, in Deus Ex, you have to admit that there were a bunch of skills that didn't change the gaming experience all that much (to me, anyway), like the one that made you swim faster, or the one that gave you a bigger payoff with medkits. At the same time, there were a bunch of augs I didn't really use because the effort in activating them wasn't worth their benefit. Not a lot, but a few. Maybe two or three. And considering you can "overwrite" the biomods in DX2, I'm sure the streamlining won't do anything but make for a better gaming experience, with less menus to go trudge through, and more relevant ways to enhance yourself.

1. I'm all for streamlining the weaker skills, like medicine and swimming, but there weren't that many of them. Streamlining lockpicks and multitools, on the other hand, doesnt' make a lot of sense to me. There is a decidedly different function between the two.

2. Less menus? Less than what? DX hardly had menus, period. You could do anything in the entire game by pressing F1 and making one or two mouse clicks TOPS. The only time that I ever had to click on a menu was when I was using a rare item in my inventory, like a Hazmat suit, or a MedBot. This is an example of what I said earlier about fixing stuff that ain't broken.

3. Overwriting biomods isn't a really good solution if it means that you are going to lose the ability that you just had. That would be like downgrading your rifle skill so that you can pick locks better.

jungernaut
29th Jul 2003, 17:58
In all fairness, I would not want DX2 to have the same skill system as DX1. Innovation and newness are some ways sequels out do their predecessors. Many of Disney's sequels (Aladdin, The Lion King, eg) don't work because nothing new is introduced. On the other hand, Pixar was able to make two great Toy Stories; the second one many consider better. There were new characters and a totally different plot.
Similar is the Final Fantasy series. I loved FF VII, because it was so much better than FFIII, and even though FF VIII and IX were different combat systems, better graphics and FMV's, they were not as 'new' as FFVII was, with similar enough stories, good guys, bad guys, etc.

JC Denton is an obvious bad choice for the main character for DX2. He should start the game fully upgraded from his previous experience, so there would be no growth available, except as technology progressed in 20 years. However, to incorporate him into the storyline makes perfect sense, since fans like him so much.

That said, I have to go to class now.

Trollslayer
29th Jul 2003, 23:10
Originally posted by Hannibal
1. I'm all for streamlining the weaker skills, like medicine and swimming, but there weren't that many of them. Streamlining lockpicks and multitools, on the other hand, doesnt' make a lot of sense to me. There is a decidedly different function between the two.

Merging lockpicks and multitools makes sense, as they're both intertwined with a Security skill. Same-level skills should be merged. Its not like they're merging Swimming with Explosives (Weapons: Demolition), or Weapon: Rifle with Computer.

If you look at Electronics and Lockpicking, for example, while for two different security uses (one for locks and the other for keypads), they were both-security related. Yes, i also sort of dislike the idea of being able to bypass a lock and a keypad with the same tool (and skills), but then again, just because i'll be able to bypass two different security sources with the same skill or tool, that doesn't mean i will not be able to still look around for (and use) the correct key combination, or sneak around and look for a key to the door. When the skills were said to be streamlined, i also was to have a heart attack. But honestly, if the job is well pulled off, as it appears to be, then that only means the skills will be more focused and less scattered and abstract - and this i totally agree with.


2. Less menus? Less than what? DX hardly had menus, period. You could do anything in the entire game by pressing F1 and making one or two mouse clicks TOPS. The only time that I ever had to click on a menu was when I was using a rare item in my inventory, like a Hazmat suit, or a MedBot. This is an example of what I said earlier about fixing stuff that ain't broken.

Actually, it had quite a lot:

1) Inventory
2) Health
3) Augs
4) Skills
5) Goals/Notes
6) Conversations
7) Images
8) Images
9) Logs

And yes, all of them filled with info that most of us didn't even checked. Not many players would check the conversations, neither the notes or specially not the logs. So 9 menus when the same job could probably be done with 4 or 5 is too much.

And i honestly think that you needed more than 2 mouse clicks to do things. To activate an aug via menu, you'd have to press F1, then click on Augs, then on the Aug itself and then on Activate. 3 clicks to equip items. 2 clicks to drag and drop. The only times when something was easy to use was to use the Aug hotkeys (the F keys).

Hannibal
30th Jul 2003, 03:37
Originally posted by Trollslayer

And i honestly think that you needed more than 2 mouse clicks to do things. To activate an aug via menu, you'd have to press F1, then click on Augs, then on the Aug itself and then on Activate. 3 clicks to equip items. 2 clicks to drag and drop. The only times when something was easy to use was to use the Aug hotkeys (the F keys).

This is only true for actions for which there was no hot key. You had a total of at 22 hot keys, between the "F" keys and the number keys. You rarely used more than 10 different items, and it was pretty easy to remember which augmentations you used the most. Plus, you usually could plan ahead and turn your augmentations on before battle. There was a "turn all augs on" key just in case.

The ability to fully customize your 10 inventory hot keys and see them on the HUD was a huge plus. The 10 keys gave you enough room for your nanokeys, lockpicks, multitools, health packs, biocells, and five weapons, which is probably more than you used regulary anyways.

I have never played a 3D action or RPG whose interface had as much functionality and economy as Deus Ex, except maybe "Neverwinter Nights", but that's a different game. There is no way that the interface could have been streamlined without reducing its functionality. And reducing its functionality is what everyone in this forum (almost everyone) is complaining about.

Random
30th Jul 2003, 04:41
Originally posted by Hannibal
Game length? I have never seen anyone complain about DX1's game length. Why the need to shorten it?

I have no idea whether the game will be longer or shorter and I don't think anyone else does either. There were reports early on that the game would be shorter; but there was also a forum post by a developer saying the game would only be shorter if you ran through the game doing only the main missions. If you explore, do side quests, etc, the game may be longer. So I think we'd better wait and see on the length topic. I once finished Deus Ex 1 in 8 hours, by the way. ;)

Also, in my opinion, the story in Deus Ex 1 was dragged out too much. It really slowed down after Hong Kong and, while there were some great moments, the second half of the game lost something. The OceanLab and Silo levels, for example, weren't nearly as good as earlier missions. Many people also complained about Paris being dull and boring (but I disagree on that one).


The skill system? It has been beaten to death here, I'm sure, but let me ask this: did the fans of the first game complain about it? Did it take away from the experience? I can see the merit in replacing the skill system with an improved bio mod system, but nothing that I have read has indicated that will really happen. You would need a lot more implant locations to replicate the functionality of the DX skill system.

There was a lot of overlap in the skills and augs (a swimming skill and a swimming biomod, for example). Some skills were basically useless, like demolitions. Combining abilities, eliminating overlap and making everything useful this time around will still mean there's great functionality. Don't forget the weapon mods are more important this time around too, adding many new features to weapons instead of just laser sights and accuracy boosts.


And graphics? I love pretty games as much as the next guy, but the first game's strength was not graphics.

True, but it certainly doesn't hurt. It's not like resources are being taken away from game design to programming or something: there are more people working on DX2 than DX1; importantly, there are quite a few more programmers.


What I loved about DX is that I could play one time as a homicidal maniac who specializes in bazookas, and then play the next time as a wussy pacifist who doesn't kill anyone, and it would actually take me more than a week to get through it. I don't get the feeling it will be that way this time.

That's a bit weird. I get the feeling that the choice between being a stealth expert or a human tank will be much more obvious and important in DX2 than it was in the original game. One of the design goals for DX2 was for the player to be able to finish the game never picking up a weapon; but at the same time, Ion seems to be improving the combat system as well. It certainly sounds to me like player choice will be a very important aspect of DX2.

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
30th Jul 2003, 11:19
like Alexandre Dumas wrote (in Le Comte de Monte-Cristo))

"until the time when God find it wise to give mankind knowledge of the future, all wisdom in the world can be summed up in these words : to hope and to wait"

anything else here is useless, and has already been said

"We go round, and round, and round, and over again,..." (again)

Trollslayer
30th Jul 2003, 11:48
Also lets not forget the graphics are not being improved in themselves, as the graphical engine is a new one. Warren wanted to work with a fast and efficient engine for DX1 (hence he chose Unreal Tournament), and he's now working again with a fast and efficient engine, UT2003 - which also happens to allow for more polygon-intensive models, better textures, shading, physics, etc.

Hannibal
30th Jul 2003, 12:33
I'm not worried about the developers focusing too much on eye candy as much as I am concerned about the tradeoff that might be needed between system requirements and graphics. Video cards have been growing by leaps and bounds every single year for about the past 5 years, but processors haven't been doing the same. So, games have been getting incredibly gorgeous to look at, but at a cost of smaller levels and/or longer loading times -- or at least it seems that way. This is a trend that is taking place not only in shooters, but in RPG's (Neverwinter Nights) and strategy games (Warcraft 3) as well.

Let's say you have to infiltrate the enemy base. You can climb up to the roof, or go in through the front door. But being able to climb up to the roof dictates that the level be big enough to have a fully-sized building. This might make the level an order of magnitude bigger. Can this be accomplished with the new Unreal engine? Postal 2 was able to do it, but the cost was hideous loading times.

Random
31st Jul 2003, 02:16
DrLoomis made a post on the PDX forums a while back saying the levels are not smaller (than they were in DX1, I assume). Yeah, I guess loading times are the only question.

Also, on the graphics issue, it's not just eye candy. Having fully dynamic shadows adds a lot to the gameplay if you're going in a stealthy direction.

Trollslayer
31st Jul 2003, 10:55
Originally posted by Hannibal
I'm not worried about the developers focusing too much on eye candy as much as I am concerned about the tradeoff that might be needed between system requirements and graphics. Video cards have been growing by leaps and bounds every single year for about the past 5 years, but processors haven't been doing the same. So, games have been getting incredibly gorgeous to look at, but at a cost of smaller levels and/or longer loading times -- or at least it seems that way. This is a trend that is taking place not only in shooters, but in RPG's (Neverwinter Nights) and strategy games (Warcraft 3) as well.

Let's say you have to infiltrate the enemy base. You can climb up to the roof, or go in through the front door. But being able to climb up to the roof dictates that the level be big enough to have a fully-sized building. This might make the level an order of magnitude bigger. Can this be accomplished with the new Unreal engine? Postal 2 was able to do it, but the cost was hideous loading times.

Actually i believe the new UT2003 engine is able to do just that. The outdoor renderization is quite good. Furthermore i believe it'd be slightly off to climb to the roof of a 100th floor building without finding some breakable window or emergency exit :eek:

But regardless of that, if the scaling was completely made on said 100 floors, there propably wouldn't be a map change/load. The engine is stable enough (and good enough) so it doesn't need those loads. The map size in itself could be longer, or heavier, but it wouldn't affect gameplay. The engine can support large outdoors.


And Postal 2... *shiver* Mommy make the mediocre games go away, they scare little Trollslayer :eek:

faldore
2nd Aug 2003, 02:40
It is true that we have not yet seen whether Deus Ex 2 will break the mold and be true to the spirit of the original PC game. However, what we do have is example after example after example of new games that are coming out that are truly dumbed down. It's true in the interface. It's true in the amount of intelligent thought required by the user. It's true in the plots. Look at Pirates of the Caribbean, perfect example. It used to be Sea Dogs 2, which looked to have the makings of an excellent action/rpg. Made by the same people who crafted the masterpiece Morrowind, a game which *assumed* that the player was smart enough to figure out how to get around in their universe. And they were rewarded for that asumption. However, with Pirates of the Carribbean they sold out. They decided that to make a buck they'd change the name to PotC and completely dumb down the game to appeal to console gamers and disney movie watchers. And you know what? They probably made a lot more money than if they'd gone ahead with Sea Dogs 2. I can name so many games that have truly dumbed down in order to be accepted in the console market. I have put my money down on Deus Ex 2 because I worshipped the first one, hailed it as the best FPS I'd ever seen or imagined. But with all the disappointments I have been through in the past few years, it would not suprise me one bit if after playing it for five minutes I have to return it because it has fallen prey to the idea that its users are idiots. If there's one thing I won't do it is to pay for someone to insult me.

El Padrino
2nd Aug 2003, 22:08
How is Pirates of the Carribian's sucktastic gameplay attributed it it being released on consoles, and not their deal with Disney, which included the game being shipped along with the movie?

Skylink
4th Aug 2003, 00:05
you guys are way too nervous here :) think about your health and relax :)

Hannibal
4th Aug 2003, 11:19
It's not necessarily a problem with "dumbing down" the game as much as having to simplify it so that console users can play it with a more basic control setup. The interface for Deus Ex was excellent for what it needed to accomplish. Considering how complicated the game was, it was remarkably easy to use. It should be pointed out here that basically every functional RPG on the market has a complicated interface. You can't continuously squeeze out menus and displays without losing some functionality.

It is obvious from reading developer interviews that there are changes being made for DX: IW not because they will make the PC version better, but because it will make the port easier. If you think that there is absolutely nothing sacrificed in this process, then you are just kidding yourself. A game that only has to fit onto one platform is much easier to design than a game that has to fit onto four platforms.

Ask yourself this question, if there was no such thing as an X-Box, PS2, or Gamecube, do you honestly think that DX:IW would end up the same?

Trollslayer
4th Aug 2003, 11:22
Originally posted by Hannibal
Ask yourself this question, if there was no such thing as an X-Box, PS2, or Gamecube, do you honestly think that DX:IW would end up the same?

Would gaming as we know it be the same on PC if consoles did not existed?

faldore
4th Aug 2003, 18:45
Consoles have done nothing but harm computer games. Computer games have been around much longer, and have a tradition. Consoles are trampling it.

Here's the way it happened: The beginning when computer gaming really became significant was with the Commodore 64 and Amiga. The people who were into it were mostly techie geeks and their children. They graduated to early PC games like Starflight, Star Command, Space Quest, etc. What did these games have in common? Written by tech geeks for tech geeks. In order to beat them, you had to have problem solving skills and some measure of intellect.

Over the years, computer gaming has been becoming more mainstream. Rather than computer games being made by many small companies nowadays, they are made by a few huge companies. These companies have people whose entire job is to figure out how to make the most money with a computer game. They have realized that Joe Blow doesn't want to think about his computer game, he just wants to play for an hour and then put it down and get back to work. They're not by tech geeks for tech geeks anymore.. they're by corporate execs for Joe Blow.

The merging of the console and PC markets is simply the next phase. Consoles are the ultimate revolution of the "dumbing down" process - boxes with very simple interfaces, hooked up to TV's that every family has, simple enough for a four-year-old to use. If they publish for the Consoles and PC, they hit the largest audience possible so they make the most money, and that's what it's all about.

So consoles do hurt computer games by further degrading the differences that have always made computer games unique. It is sad, and I feel we have lost some of our culture because of it. But the unfortunate truth is that in a capitalist society, money talks, so we'd better get used to it.

Trollslayer
5th Aug 2003, 01:22
Originally posted by faldore
Consoles have done nothing but harm computer games. Computer games have been around much longer, and have a tradition. Consoles are trampling it.

Here's the way it happened: The beginning when computer gaming really became significant was with the Commodore 64 and Amiga. The people who were into it were mostly techie geeks and their children. They graduated to early PC games like Starflight, Star Command, Space Quest, etc. What did these games have in common? Written by tech geeks for tech geeks. In order to beat them, you had to have problem solving skills and some measure of intellect.

Over the years, computer gaming has been becoming more mainstream. Rather than computer games being made by many small companies nowadays, they are made by a few huge companies. These companies have people whose entire job is to figure out how to make the most money with a computer game. They have realized that Joe Blow doesn't want to think about his computer game, he just wants to play for an hour and then put it down and get back to work. They're not by tech geeks for tech geeks anymore.. they're by corporate execs for Joe Blow.

The merging of the console and PC markets is simply the next phase. Consoles are the ultimate revolution of the "dumbing down" process - boxes with very simple interfaces, hooked up to TV's that every family has, simple enough for a four-year-old to use. If they publish for the Consoles and PC, they hit the largest audience possible so they make the most money, and that's what it's all about.

So consoles do hurt computer games by further degrading the differences that have always made computer games unique. It is sad, and I feel we have lost some of our culture because of it. But the unfortunate truth is that in a capitalist society, money talks, so we'd better get used to it.

I'm virtually stuned.

Consoles have nothing to do with the so called "dumbing down" (god i hate this term) factor, or the decline of the industry.

1) Computer gaming has become more mainstream as pretty much everything else. From music (Britney Spears), to literature (Anne Rice's increasingly mediocre stories and the "discovery" of Lord of the Rings years after its been made), to movies (Terminators, Rambos, and whatnots), these things aren't changed magically. People are the reason of change, not consoles. The quick increase in technology (and what it provides), plus greed, is to blame. Look at ATI and nVidia trying to surpass each other with cards that only present about 10% of improvement over themselves, every month. Look at the level of detail companies put into videogames (such as realistic flow of hair, crumpling of cloth, movement of fingers, facial muscles, etc) and forget abotu gameplay. Look at how gamers were already losing interest in PC titles before consoles arrived.

This is all because of consoles? Sorry to say this, but no. The only thing consoles are to blame are for revitalizing the entire gaming scene when the PC gaming era was, at a point, stagnating and rehashing old games. How many D&D licensed RPGs failed? How many adventure games failed to be noticeable? How many strategy games bunked? The PC gaming era was already declining before consoles appeared. If anything the innovation they brought gave gaming companies the push they needed, in the form of design, to produce better games, and to try harder. While the PCs only gave off repetitive games, consoles had games which were different, more dynamic, more fun, period, than what the usual PC games brought.

If there are any mistakes, they are from PC-oriented gaming companies which have not learned the lessons from the past. While they kept (and still keep) rehashing clone after clone after clone of last month's greatest hit in the form of some FPS or Action-RPG, few of them actually try something new. Lazyness and goig with the flow are not the fault of consoles.

2) Dumbing down, as so many people call it, is a necessity of the medium. If i want to play Splinter Cell on the GBA, do i have to plug in a keyboard to play it? Or the reverse, if i wanted to play a game like Soul Reaver on PC, would i automatically demand the programmers to program 45 functions so i could take the most out of my keyboard and 3-finger combinations and hotkeys? No, on both counts. "Dumbing down" is just an ignorant gamer lingo that's been going on for too long, and that doesn't mean anything at all, save for those gamer's lack of understanding of gaming beyond themselves (note: this isn't about you, i'm refering to the general use of this annoying and meaningless term). "Dumbing down" is a ridiculous concept, mainly used to refer to a consoles' lack of more buttons. But let me tell you this, consoles deliver as much (or more) electronic gaming goodness as a PC does. What a PC does with a keyboard, a console does with a gamepad - they provide means of control for games. Both excel in their own fields. Saying one fails in the other field, while true, is ridiculous, because both fail at fields they weren't made for. A keyboard would not give you any more control over GTA3 than that which a controller does. A keyboard would not help a game if the game doesn't take advantage of a keyboard, and the same goes for the gamepad. Why should every game be made to accomodate a keyboard or/and a gamepad? I'm not saying games arent designed without the platform they're going to be released in being considered, but claiming it to be inferior simply because one platform doesn't have as many buttons as the other is... wrong, to say the very, very least.

By that reasoning, old PC adventure games were even more dumbed down than the Gameboy, because they only needed the left and right mouse buttons :eek:

3) Wanting to make money is not wrong. If i was in the same position, i'd do the same. Criticizing a company that specializes in making games because they try to earn money by doing what they know, and then launch their products for various market layers, is a very uninformed statement. It's the same as criticizing a dentist (who tries to live comfortably by doing what he knows best), that decides to branch his office into several others across the country.

4) *breathes in* *breathes out*

5) Given consoles are totally different from PCs as a platform, i'd say each has their own tradition, and neither is "trampling" the other. They're both learning with each others as they go. Much like with people, culture outside our own can also help to our growth as individuals. The same hapens with PCs and consoles.

6) Money's been talking for a long time, mate. PC gaming companies have been bought, sold, dismantled and glued by clueless conglomerates which are only interested in money - this is not because of consoles, but because of greed. Pure and simple. Blaming it on consoles does not denote a keen grasp of the state of gaming. In a time where companies should put out tremendous effort to present gaming quality by whatever means to all types of gamers, and gamers should ask them for it, it saddens me that some people still consider consoles to be the great "eeeeeebil". *sigh* Go figure.

It also saddens me how in the last years, the entire gaming scene has took advantage of quality games on all platforms, of ideas finally having good implementations, of game designers on the PC side thanking console designers for influence and inspiration, of how the industry itself, so young, already has proven it can work; that there are people against this kind of thing, and that insist on needless barriers and divisions between PC and consoles. Games are games, they're only here to be fun. How can there be people against both sides learning with each other and producing things that we only dreamt of in the '80s? Should we continue with mindless elitist propaganda and kick to the ground anything that doesn't meet our personal standards because we cannot look at the whole picture? Well i won't do it. I like gaming to much to stab it so in the back.

El Padrino
5th Aug 2003, 07:10
Originally posted by faldore
Consoles have done nothing but harm computer games. Computer games have been around much longer, and have a tradition. Consoles are trampling it.

Here's the way it happened: The beginning when computer gaming really became significant was with the Commodore 64 and Amiga. The people who were into it were mostly techie geeks and their children. They graduated to early PC games like Starflight, Star Command, Space Quest, etc. What did these games have in common? Written by tech geeks for tech geeks. In order to beat them, you had to have problem solving skills and some measure of intellect.

Over the years, computer gaming has been becoming more mainstream. Rather than computer games being made by many small companies nowadays, they are made by a few huge companies. These companies have people whose entire job is to figure out how to make the most money with a computer game. They have realized that Joe Blow doesn't want to think about his computer game, he just wants to play for an hour and then put it down and get back to work. They're not by tech geeks for tech geeks anymore.. they're by corporate execs for Joe Blow.

The merging of the console and PC markets is simply the next phase. Consoles are the ultimate revolution of the "dumbing down" process - boxes with very simple interfaces, hooked up to TV's that every family has, simple enough for a four-year-old to use. If they publish for the Consoles and PC, they hit the largest audience possible so they make the most money, and that's what it's all about.

So consoles do hurt computer games by further degrading the differences that have always made computer games unique. It is sad, and I feel we have lost some of our culture because of it. But the unfortunate truth is that in a capitalist society, money talks, so we'd better get used to it.

Well hello to you, you elitist geek-snob. Let me guess, you're one of those people that only plays adventure games (or those RPGs where all you do is type and read) and thinks every average Joe that likes racing games, first person shooters, or any other genre with "twitch" gameplay is an idiot for not wanting to spend hours on some puzzle or other, non-openended problem that takes away more of his time from the real world. Well I'm sorry that your days of games made by "tech geeks for tech geeks" is gone, and that capitalism has tapped into a new consumer base of casual gamers that give companies all that money that lets them pay the salaries of a lot of working people who have a hand in creating and distributing all those games. Those jobs, and that larger consumer base full of happy customers, which includes females and makes up a larger chunk of the population than game-playing geeks, is just something capitalism does when it destroys that little bit of culture that only catered to people that thought they were intelligent (and other people weren't) simply because they figured out some puzzles back in the day, when their lack of women skills drove them to interact with other things instead.

I wish I had a next-gen console I could say I was going back to. Oh well, yay for Fallout 2.

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
5th Aug 2003, 10:35
what has politic to do with this?

and I liked the argument :you prefer a PC because you can't make it with a girl... that was fun

El Padrino
5th Aug 2003, 11:09
Originally posted by Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
what has politic to do with this?

and I liked the argument :you prefer a PC because you can't make it with a girl... that was fun

He brought up capitalism; and I didn't use that girl remark as an argument, just a casual insult. And it wasn't even dealing with why he preferred a PC, but why those kinds of people generally think they're intelligent, or at least smarter (or better) than console gamers.

Hannibal
5th Aug 2003, 12:11
Originally posted by Trollslayer
I'm virtually stuned.

This is all because of consoles? Sorry to say this, but no. The only thing consoles are to blame are for revitalizing the entire gaming scene when the PC gaming era was, at a point, stagnating and rehashing old games. How many D&D licensed RPGs failed? How many adventure games failed to be noticeable? How many strategy games bunked? The PC gaming era was already declining before consoles appeared.

You're imagining things. The only time that there hasn't been a dominant console on the market in the past 25 years was in the early to mid '80's between Atari's crash and Nintendo's rise. Computer gaming was alive and well at that time. Some of the genre's greatest games of all time, like "Karateka" came out then. All of my friends were playing "Zork" and "Lode Runner" before anyone had a Nintendo.

During the past 25 years, computer gaming has continuously revitalized itself, and it hasn't done so by borrowing from consoles. Sid Meier and John Romero didn't develop their brilliant games based upon some console game. When the RPG world needed a boost, Baldurs Gate gave it to us, and that game didn't take its inspiration from Japanese console RPG's. The PC gave us the steath-action genre (i.e. "Thief") too.

Consoles have borrowed tons of advancements from the PC. The complex football simulation (i.e. Madden Football, and "TV Sports Footbal" on the Amiga) was born on the computer and ended up on the console. So was the first-person shooter genre, not to mention every iteration of the simulation, adventure, strategy, and RPG genres in the past 20 years. Consoles have borrowed far, far more from computers than computers have borrowed from consoles.

Consoles can't take any credit for lending any quality to the computer gaming world, unless you want to count the small handful of successful ports that are made every year. If anything, the need to squeeze PC games into platforms that have inferior horsepower and control systems has been doing damage to the PC market. Just look at how disapointing lots of 2003's games have been. Simultaneous platform release has reached new levels, and maybe that's why 2003 has been the worst computer game year in recent memory. Pirates of the Caribbean -- what a perfect example of a potentially great game that was squandered up because it was force-fed onto four platforms at once.

Why do you so stubbornly refuse to accept that there are differences between the PC and consoles? Have you not seen the studies that show the average age of a console gamer vs. the average age of a PC gamer? Console games can be rented for a weekend, whereas PC games tend to be games that you install and play continuously (at least they used to be). The keyboard allows for very complex control systems, which can be utilized for 3D action games, RPG, and strategy games. The computer has a more mature market, it is infinitely more versatile, and it is more powerful than a console. This has been true for as long as the two media have existed alongside. The PC is more powerful than the GameCube and the PS2, just like the Amiga was 5 years ahead of the NES. The PC is the Lexus, the console is the Toyota. When you remove features to sell the Lexus in the Toyota market, you don't have a Lexus anymore. There is no snobbery or arrogance in pointing this out.

The PC market is not being helped by the trend to force PC games into console markets. This is especially true since you now have promising PC games like Halo and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic being moved off of the PC to support the fledgeling X-Box. As I hinted at above, 2003 has been a poor year for the PC. Even if Half-Life 2 and DX: IW are as good as advertised, it will still be one of the worst years for the PC in a long, long time. It's a problem of economies of scale now. Production costs have gotten so high that developers have to make it up with volume. I can't blame them for doing that, but it doesn't mean that I have to like it.

Random
5th Aug 2003, 15:56
Originally posted by Hannibal
It's not necessarily a problem with "dumbing down" the game as much as having to simplify it so that console users can play it with a more basic control setup.

Why is this automatically a bad thing for PC gamers? Streamlining the controls should make it easier for everyone to play, and that's a good thing.


It should be pointed out here that basically every functional RPG on the market has a complicated interface. You can't continuously squeeze out menus and displays without losing some functionality.

DX2 still has multiple info screens, just not as many. A skills screen won't be needed, images could easily be incorporated onto the goals/notes screen, and maybe conversations too. Of course, that's just altering DX1's system. Given that none of us know how much and which information needs to be stored, it's a bit ridiculous to bemoan the loss of some info screens when you don't know how it will affect the gameplay. It's like you want complexity just for the sake of it. Clumsy interfaces should not be a design goal.


A game that only has to fit onto one platform is much easier to design than a game that has to fit onto four platforms.


DX2 is being released on two platforms.


Ask yourself this question, if there was no such thing as an X-Box, PS2, or Gamecube, do you honestly think that DX:IW would end up the same?

Undoubtedly it would not be the same for various reasons. But I honestly see nothing to suggest it would be better. Well maybe that infolink wouldn't be quite so big, but I don't see how the gameplay would be different. :p

Trollslayer
5th Aug 2003, 17:20
Originally posted by Hannibal
During the past 25 years, computer gaming has continuously revitalized itself, and it hasn't done so by borrowing from consoles. Sid Meier and John Romero didn't develop their brilliant games based upon some console game. When the RPG world needed a boost, Baldurs Gate gave it to us, and that game didn't take its inspiration from Japanese console RPG's. The PC gave us the steath-action genre (i.e. "Thief") too.

Baldurs Gate didn't revitalized the PC RPG genre. Fallout and Diablo did. Everything BG1 did, Diablo already did, except for the party-based gameplay and D&D license. And Fallout managed to bring the PC genre forward by giving us an RPG system that didn't based itself off old archaic formulas such as classes - hell, BG didn't even had a new license or a lack of one, it had to go again with D&D, so there goes innovation. PC gaming in itself is an horrendous bug. We had that mid-90's crash, and developpers still haven't learned. Did you noticed how, for every supposed revitalization it suffers, PC gaming remains pretty much recycles itself? We constantly get generic FPS's out there when the genre already showed FPS's can be much more. We constantly get isometric 2D/3D RPGs which don't bring anything new - they sell by the ton, and yet, only a scant few RPG titles out there actually bring something new. One look at Diablo's competition in the form of Darkstone, Throne of Darkness and Revenant (all of them better than Diablo), and another look at their sales charts, shows exactly how well PC gaming "revitalizes" itself - by keeping on releasing clones and only betting on a handful of titles that actually do something original. The so-called PC revitalization (or should i say, stagnation), is what, among other things, made the Adventure genre die, and made PC gamers become interested in the consoles that present more interesting ideas.

On an aside i didnt' said PC gaming "borrowed" from consoles. Both take inspiration from each other, theres a difference. When you have the creators of Planescape thanking Squaresoft for inspiration, and when you have Hideo Kojima and Shigeru Myamoto mentioned alongside Peter Molyneux and Warren Spector as excelent game designers, you know the two mediums aren't as apart as some people think - they're both aware of each other. And presenting us with influences they pick up here and there on both sides.


Consoles have borrowed tons of advancements from the PC. The complex football simulation (i.e. Madden Football, and "TV Sports Footbal" on the Amiga) was born on the computer and ended up on the console. So was the first-person shooter genre, not to mention every iteration of the simulation, adventure, strategy, and RPG genres in the past 20 years. Consoles have borrowed far, far more from computers than computers have borrowed from consoles.

"Copying" one or two games is not synonimous with inovation. PC games for all their credit, only brought the pillars of each genre, and the only improvement they brought, save rare exceptions, was a technological one. Even in RPGs. While the vast majority of PC RPGs still bog down the gamer with archaic conventions like Class, and Armor Class, or with needless character creation that in about 90% of cases doesn't help games, console RPGs focus on much better and much more effective storytelling than PC RPGs do. They give off hundreds of combinations on how to develop your characters, while the PC RPGs are all still about gaining XP over and over, and finding the next uber-item. Wow, "real" innovation.

Games like Quake, Thief, System Shock, Fallout, Deus Ex, Alone in the Dark, Ultima, Planescape: Torment, and Daggerfall (just to name a few) cannot be separated from Goldeneye, Zelda, Metroid, Eternal Darkness, Resident Evil, and Final Fantasy (also to name a few) when it comes to inovation.


Consoles can't take any credit for lending any quality to the computer gaming world, unless you want to count the small handful of successful ports that are made every year. If anything, the need to squeeze PC games into platforms that have inferior horsepower and control systems has been doing damage to the PC market.

How exactly? By not being sold on the PC market?


Just look at how disapointing lots of 2003's games have been. Simultaneous platform release has reached new levels, and maybe that's why 2003 has been the worst computer game year in recent memory. Pirates of the Caribbean -- what a perfect example of a potentially great game that was squandered up because it was force-fed onto four platforms at once.

Pirates of the Caring Bean's problem was the license's bad use and trying to make something out of the game but giving up trough several of its aspects. The multi-platform launch was the least of its troubles.


Why do you so stubbornly refuse to accept that there are differences between the PC and consoles?

"Why am i stubborn and refuse to accept that there are differences between consoles and PCs"? Son, you even read what i wrote? Where have i said that? Please point it out, otherwise stop with the false assumptions as they won't lead to anything. Why the hell would i even say there aren't differences when there clearly are? I suggest you re-read what i wrote because you seem to have missed the point. Or you can keep with the misinformed assumptions and make yourself look bad, its not my problem.


Have you not seen the studies that show the average age of a console gamer vs. the average age of a PC gamer?

How does age bear any importance to this? You're not one of those that believe that, since most console users are teenagers and most PC users are in their 20-30s, that console users are immature, are you? Because i can personally tell you i've seen more immaturity coming off of PC users than console ones.


Console games can be rented for a weekend, whereas PC games tend to be games that you install and play continuously (at least they used to be).

Sorry to let you in on reality, but games for those 2 platforms can be rented. The playtime of each depends on the gamer's input, not on the platforms themselves. You could very much get a console Strategy or RPG that needs to be bought to have its lenght fully enjoyed, and you could get a PC shooter that can be finished in 3 hours, or a driving game which only needs 5 play-troughs to get its feel.


The keyboard allows for very complex control systems, which can be utilized for 3D action games, RPG, and strategy games.

Again, was the reverse ever said here? Hmm, no.


The computer has a more mature market, it is infinitely more versatile, and it is more powerful than a console.

More powerful? Definetely (even if one has to upgrade from time to time). More versatile? Depends on what you're considering as the market. More mature? That's biased, to say the least. This isn't some urban legend on how consoles are all about the Mushroom Kingdom and the fluffy, jumping, pink bunnies, is it? I've seen console games deal in violence, blood, gratuituous violence, drugs, sexual references, preferences and abuse and all sorts of mature themes. So where are you getting this info that PC market is more mature - from games, or gamers? Because both can be as mature as the PC market.


There is no snobbery or arrogance in pointing this out.

Depends on how someone says it, doesn't it? Considering anything that doesn't have a keyobard to be evil or inferior, or saying others are stubborn and refuse to accept something they never said the opposite of tends to give off such an impression.

So, the point to all this should be...? Ah yes, that i believe we're all intelligent enough to realise PCs and consoles are different, and that should never be a cause of discussion, because its futile. Both excel in their own fields. Claiming they suck at other fields goes both ways. And more buttons on a keyboard doesn't equate to a better gaming experience. In fact one has to be able, when designing a game, to simplify the interface and controls as best as he can. Whats the point of being able to press 30 buttons if that doesn't make the game interesinting? Some people may like doing a manual breakdance on their keyboards, others may not.

faldore
5th Aug 2003, 19:35
Baldurs Gate didn't revitalized the PC RPG genre.

If you believe this, you know nothing about PC gaming and have no place making commentary on it.


Did you noticed how, for every supposed revitalization it suffers, PC gaming remains pretty much recycles itself?

And console gaming is any different? Just look at how "recycled" Final Fantasy and the whole Japanese RPG genre is.


While the vast majority of PC RPGs still bog down the gamer with archaic conventions like Class, and Armor Class, or with needless character creation that in about 90% of cases doesn't help games, console RPGs focus on much better and much more effective storytelling than PC RPGs do.

needless?? BETTER!!??? *chokes on his tongue* Console RPG's have all PLOT and no GAMEPLAY!! These "archaic conventions" allow for actual character development, as opposed to console games that give you absolutely no choice in the development of your character. Have you ever played Fallout? or Morrowind? or Wizardry 8? or Deus Ex? These games have dimensions of entertainment FAR beyond any of those linear, mindless japanese RPG's like Final Fantasy etc. Why? Because they let the player choose what kind of person the character is.


Games like Quake, Thief, System Shock, Fallout, Deus Ex, Alone in the Dark, Ultima, Planescape: Torment, and Daggerfall (just to name a few) cannot be separated from Goldeneye, Zelda, Metroid, Eternal Darkness, Resident Evil, and Final Fantasy (also to name a few) when it comes to inovation.

Not true. Most of these console games borrowed concepts from computer games.

My point is not that "Consoles Suck and PCs Rule" My point is "Consoles are a different world from PCs, with different fan bases who are each very loyal to their ideals." I think the problem is that the two worlds are merging into one and I think the people who are getting the short end of the stick are PC gamers, simply because of the sheer numbers of console gamers.

Hannibal
5th Aug 2003, 21:03
Originally posted by Trollslayer
Everything BG1 did, Diablo already did, except for the party-based gameplay and D&D license.

That statement is insanely ridiculous. You either didn't play Baldurs Gate, Diablo, or both.


Originally posted by Trollslayer Pirates of the Caring Bean's problem was the license's bad use and trying to make something out of the game but giving up trough several of its aspects. The multi-platform launch was the least of its troubles.

Wrong. The game was also hindered by crappy controls, which is true for basically any game that is a multi-platform release, regardless of whether it uses a movie license. Enter The Matrix also had a horrible case of multi-platform syndrome, which is a shame, because the game might have been great if it had been released to a smaller market.


Originally posted by Trollslayer On an aside i didnt' said PC gaming "borrowed" from consoles. Both take inspiration from each other, theres a difference. .

But you did imply that the PC market owes a debt of gratitude to the console market for helping it get through the rough times. That's just hogwash. The industry got into a rut with mediocre adventure games and Myst clones for a while, but it pulled itself out with its own advances, like the 1st-person shooter and reat-time strategy. Also, consoles borrow a lot more from PC's than PC's borrow from consoles, and this has been going on for a long time.


Originally posted by Trollslayer
console RPGs focus on much better and much more effective storytelling than PC RPGs do. They give off hundreds of combinations on how to develop your characters, while the PC RPGs are all still about gaining XP over and over, and finding the next uber-item.

Have you actually played any PC RPG's lately? There's a very wide mixture out there, and there has been for a long time. You are just talking about the "Red for health, blue for mana" leveling treadmill games. And I agree with the poster above me about "innovation". It has been non-existent for console RPG's, which are either mostly the turn-based Japanese ones, or button-mashing fest that make Diablo look like The Bar Exam. And then there's Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, which was lifted from the PC to help sell more X-boxes. The PC has a big genre-buster almost every year.


Originally posted by Trollslayer
How does age bear any importance to this? You're not one of those that believe that, since most console users are teenagers and most PC users are in their 20-30s, that console users are immature, are you? Because i can personally tell you i've seen more immaturity coming off of PC users than console ones.

Yes. Teenage boys are less mature than 26 year-old men. That's not an earth-shattering statement. It's not intended to be derogatory.



Originally posted by Trollslayer
"Why am i stubborn and refuse to accept that there are differences between consoles and PCs"? Son, you even read what i wrote? Where have i said that?

Because you won't accept that a PC game has to make sacrifices in order to be port-friendly. Ion Storm supposedly found out that the interface for Deus Ex was "cluttered mess" when they were porting it over to the PS2. (Newflash: it wasn't on the PC. If you think it was, then try playing Arcanum or Arx Fatalis, and you will find out what a "cluttered mess" is.) So, it's being simplified this time, and functionality is being reduced.


Originally posted by Trollslayer
So, the point to all this should be...? Ah yes, that i believe we're all intelligent enough to realise PCs and consoles are different, and that should never be a cause of discussion, because its futile. Both excel in their own fields.

True, and that's why great games on the PC shouldn't be watered down or modified so that they can fit nicely onto a console. I want PC games designed without consoles in mind, period. If it ports well later, good. If not, tough *****. Deus Ex: Invisible War is very, very obviously not being designed in this way. Warren Spector basically said as much with his comments about "mass marketing" and "accessibility".


Originally posted by Faldore
My point is not that "Consoles Suck and PCs Rule" My point is "Consoles are a different world from PCs, with different fan bases who are each very loyal to their ideals." I think the problem is that the two worlds are merging into one and I think the people who are getting the short end of the stick are PC gamers, simply because of the sheer numbers of console gamers.

Very well said. For the most part, that is exactly my point, and it is the reason why so many Deus Ex fans are nervous.

Trollslayer
5th Aug 2003, 23:19
Originally posted by faldore
If you believe this, you know nothing about PC gaming and have no place making commentary on it.

And if you believe that BG took PC RPGs to any place meaningful then im sorry to say you don't know anything about PC RPGs, period. You're entitled to liking the game, but that doesn't excuse Bioware from taking the D&D license and doing something bad with it. Roleplay was practically invisble; the rules were contrived at some places; even the combat system, instead of staying faitful to PnP turn-based, was completely remade as to be realtime (and would it have been realtime if Diablo had not been released before? doubt it). If there's one thing that Bioware was being paid for, was to make a faitful version of PnP. If they start out by destroying the combat system and having to change the rules implementations in some points, they already start out wrong. The other wrong aspects were that the amount of combat surpasses roleplay in a way that it even isn't funny. Hell Fallout 2 took about 6 to 10 months and presents more roleplay than BG2 could ever offer. Hell, Fallout and Arcanum present a better, more credible gameworld when it comes to NPC interaction and reactivity to the main character than what BG2 presents. Did they sell more? Oh wait, they didn't had "classes", or "elves", or "magic", or "drow". Because we all know that those certainly advance the RPG genre :rolleyes:

Lets see... where did BG moved the PC genre forward? 2D isometric engine? Been there. Pre-rendered graphics? *yawns* Realtime combat? Done that? D&D ruleset? Got the t-shirt. Party-based gameplay? Not new. Even importing/exporting character files wasn't new, hell, Eye of the Beholder already did this.

Had it actually been released before Diablo i'd agree it might have had more of a bigger impact in the industry. But Diablo and Fallout were what primarily got PC gamer's attention turned to RPGs again. BG was merely a byproduct of their popularity.

And how did Fallout had more impact on the PC RPG genre? Simple, it proved a tremendously hardcore-styled game like itself, which was in itself different from the usual generic fantays settings, could succeed. Diablo had an impact on the PC RPG genre because it proved that simple gameplay can equate with gaming fun, something contrived RPGs sometimes don't present.

Don't kid yourself, BG sold a lot more because of it being a pretty fantasy RPG, not because it was an excellent game. It didn't moved the PC RPG genre forward, and license-wise, all it did was bring back a license that had another 15 minutes of fame, then started dying out again. D&D rose from the ashes again when it comes to electronic implementations, only to fall and burn.


And console gaming is any different? Just look at how "recycled" Final Fantasy and the whole Japanese RPG genre is.

Paraphrasing yourself to an extent, if you believe this, you know nothing about console gaming and have no place making commentary on it.


needless?? BETTER!!??? *chokes on his tongue* Console RPG's have all PLOT and no GAMEPLAY!!

Oh? They don't have gameplay? Proof, please. Otherwise dispense with the self-serving relativism. You'd do well to actually play the games before making comments like those, or in case of having played them, then to let your personal disappointments with the games not to get the better of your rational thoughts.


These "archaic conventions" allow for actual character development, as opposed to console games that give you absolutely no choice in the development of your character.

These "archaic conventions" of the majority of PC RPGs don't allow for better character development in the aspect that it needs, roleplay. Rules are all fine and dandy, but these so called "great" PC RPGs like Baldurs Gate only use the rules for combat and character development in statistical form. Tell me, does choosing an Elf allow for better roleplay? Does it bear an impact on storyline? Does it make others treat you differently? Or does choosing to be Lawful Good have any bearing to the game's ending? Hell i can be Lawful Good, be a Paladin, kill every innocent i can, and then get to chessily *choose* either a good or bad ending!! Do you call that roleplaying? You see the problem with "Biohyped" games is that you look at BG, and because its a D&D licensed game, and has rules and classes and races, you all think it automatically makes it an excellent game. Well let me tell you this - it isn't. Thats the cold reality. For all its hype, the goddamn BG gameworld isn't reactive to what you do; regardless of gender, race or class, or even if you're good or bad, you'll always have the same goddamn dialogue lines to choose from - whats the point of being evil if you'll always get the good-goody dialogues? Thats laziness right there. In fact, being evil is ridiculous, as all you have to do to avoid law enforcement is to just pay some copper at the local temple to get your reputation back. Hell, even the main programmer/designer, David Gaider, stated he did not programmed too many evil quests because it wasn't worth the effort! That alone shows how naive so called "PC RPGers" are, by stating BG is an excellent RPG when it doesn't even cater to several types of play. Hell, i even fight hordes of monsters and get to choose an ending, not fight for it. Whats the point in supposedly rolelaying someone good or evil if i get to choose the ending? If i kill hundreds of innocents, i shouldn't be given a good choice. There's no direct action/consequence in BG, except in combat (duh). Why would an evil character be given the chance to behave in a good fashion - doesn't that completely destroy the fact you chose a fixed, pre-determined alignment to begin with, an alignment that dictates how you see yourself? Makes "sense", to have my evil necromancer see herself as a walking can of whoopass and foul mood, and to have her consider herself evil, but then by her own initiative, to act good, and in others' best interest!! It makes perfect sense being evil and greedy and then allowing oneself to act good!! :rolleyes: If one acts like an evil bastard, then don't give the players options to act good! If a player acts in evil ways, that good path should immediatelly be cut off, because the decision to become evil has already been made. I kill peasants, tell people i only work for money, and commit several evil acts - why the hell am i being asked if i can help for free, if i can rescue the cat on the tree, if i want to be a good god? Why? Oh lord have mercy, why? I'll tell you why - IT FAILS AS AN RPG. Its nothing but an over-glorified dungeon crawler.

Yet another example - my Fighter has 3 points into Intelligence and my Wizard has 18 ir 19 - why the hell do they talk the same way? Int 3 is usually for base inteligence creatures such as Goblins. Why the hell is my Fighter as eloquent as my Wizard? Shouldn't the point system actually differentiate my characters in dialogue? Isn't dialogue a part of RPGs? Isnt' the point system taken into account for dialogue? Obviously not, as combat is all that matters.

At least it could've had the same dialogue and alignment system of Planescape, but not even that was made.

Yet another example - the loot you find. D&D makes it so you feel you acheieved something cool by finding that magic Scimitar +1 in the dead hands of a nearby mummy whose wraith guards had been terrorizing the local halfling village. Meanwhile you start playing BG2... what's this? EVERYONE has magic items!! :eek: They sell it, they pack it, they have it in their homes, on bookshelves, on drawers, goddamn, even on the wilderness on some unnamed graves!! So much for the excitement of fidning a magical weapon or suit of armour, they're everywhere and are easy to find.

Yet another example, this time, reactivity and gameworld. You'd think the genie tent in Athkatla's promenade would be dealt with either the local guard or Cowled Enforcers, but no. You can go aaaaal the way to chapter 6, and the tent is still there. Do the dangerous illusions spread out of the tent? Does the gnome send out his illusions to take over? No. Does he kill Quayle after i go about on almost a month adventuring? No. Another example, the Trademeet druids. If i save the town, why aren't there signs of commerce picking up - where are the caravans? Why is that if i poison the druids, only the Mayor cajoles me? I arrive in town and solve the crisis of the Genies taking over the trade routes, and the minute i step out of the tent, everyone knows about this and a woman whom i cannot avoid begs me to help her because of my reputation of saving the town. In fact, why aren't regular, non-Shadow Druids apologizing to the townsfolk for the incorrect use of nature against them? I didn't need an entire Druid encampment, but given i had jaheira and Cernd in my party, im stunned at how they (specially Cernd, who went there in the first place) didn't thanked Logan, or gathered the townsfolk to apologize and reassure them?

Meanwhile, all this happening, and Cernd who is a bonafied Druid, cannot be an Arch-Druid, because the game only lets the PC be one. Great thinking - the best way to make me believe the game reacts to what i do is by making it have rules that don't apply to others but apply only to me! Really, if they went with the Stronghold idea, why not make Cernd to possible of joining the Grove? Or of Edwin joining the Cowled Enforcers and work his own agenda inside the Planar Sphere? My good god, Minsc, hearty Ranger fellow, what hast thou done to have thy Rangerish integrity be shunned, thus making it impossible for thee to settle with Boo and Aerie in that small caban and protect Imnsvalle? Guess interesting NPC reactions and credibility are too hard to put into a game. Better just stick to repetitive rock-paper-scissors combat and doing unimaginative quests left and right, i guess. This just makes the NPCs be mundane recruits with the occasional dialogue or monologue between themselves.

Even Edwin, who promises me a year of service stays in the party and doesn't complain after 2 years have gone by. Great "reactivity", yes siree.

Also if a game is the same no matter what my player character is, it fails a lot at being an RPG. Who cares if i can be of several races and classes in BG if i can't do anything remarkable with them?


Have you ever played Fallout? or Morrowind? or Wizardry 8? or Deus Ex? These games have dimensions of entertainment FAR beyond any of those linear, mindless japanese RPG's like Final Fantasy etc. Why? Because they let the player choose what kind of person the character is.

1) If you'd actually read what i post, you'd see that Fallout, Daggerfal (prequel to Morrowind), Deus Ex and Wiz8 are some of my favourite PC RPGs. So yes, i've played them, thank you very much.

Incidentally, why isn't BG in that list? Wonder why... *rimshot* Regardless Wiz8 isn't *that* freeform...

2) If you don't find any kind of entertainment by playing console RPGs, then by all means don't play them. However, equating your personal dislike of the games to their quaility is too biased to even be accepted as opinion. You're acting like no one can find entertainment in console RPGs. Well guess what? I do, and so do others. And if you're not happy with that, hey, its your decision, which i respect - you're entitled to have your opinion about whatever games. You start losing my respect however, the minute you claim things which aren't true about them. Like i said, if you don't like them, or some of their aspects, thats fine with me. Stating they're mindless, again, just leads me to believe this is more prejudice than actual knowledge of them.

[quote]Not true. Most of these console games borrowed concepts from computer games.

My point is not that "Consoles Suck and PCs Rule"

Really? I could've sworn the wording you gave it made it seem otherwise... :eek:


My point is "Consoles are a different world from PCs, with different fan bases who are each very loyal to their ideals." I think the problem is that the two worlds are merging into one and I think the people who are getting the short end of the stick are PC gamers, simply because of the sheer numbers of console gamers.

This type of merging happens pretty much anywhere wheter we like it or not. From gaming companies to the movie industry where smaller companies are also bought and merged, leading to bigger, multi-layered companies which start to rival each other.

The problems in the gaming industry began when companies started noticing games were lucrative. So companies like Sir-Tech, that made games for fun, get trounced by other money-grubbing companies. For better or worse, the problem in consoles and PCs is that i belive the 2 industries should join, but not like its going on now. It should be more well-thought out, better analyzed, and focus primarily on gaming needs, not money. But that isn't going to happen anytime soon. I fear that, given the gaming industry is fairly new, these kinds of attitudes will only make it completely mainstream. But still, i am in favour of a combining of both indeustries.

Trollslayer
5th Aug 2003, 23:38
Originally posted by Hannibal
That statement is insanely ridiculous. You either didn't play Baldurs Gate, Diablo, or both.

Actually i did played both. BG and BG2 stand together as some of my all-time favourite PC games, so yes, i can safely assume i played them. And i also played Diablo and D2, thank you very much.

So i guess you just have to ask yourself, would BG be as much of a hit if Diablo and Fallout hadn't been released before?

Wrong. The game was also hindered by crappy controls, which is true for basically any game that is a multi-platform release, regardless of whether it uses a movie license. Enter The Matrix also had a horrible case of multi-platform syndrome, which is a shame, because the game might have been great if it had been released to a smaller market.[/quote]

Keyword here is "also", not primarily. Caring Bean failed because the game itself was badly designed. It plays much more like an action game. Combat on land is quite bad and unsatisfactory when compared to maritime combat - its actually reminescent of phase-based combat, as quick reflexes seem to be worthless. Also, had it stuck to being Sea Dogs 2 and not take advantage of a license it might've been better. I also wonder how much of the game was playtested. Did you see the control scheme? God.awful.schemes.are.bad.very.bad. When you fight more than one enemy its reload time. When you're fighting enemy ships, pray it works. When you're boarded, dance around your computer and hope it suceeds - and to all this there's few commands, which could have been improved, regardless of being ported. What failed here primarily was design and testing. A KoTOR-schemed combat or even a realtime with pause like Neverwinter Nights, could've worked.

Like i said, porting it was the least of its problems.

Enter the Matrix i always had a suspicion it'd blow. The main problems aren't because of ports, but because of primary gameplay elements. 1) 4.1 gigs of installation. 2) No Neo. 3) The game plays like Diablo when you get an uber item, one click and voila. Streamlined, yes, and its good, but in itself, its too easy to even need to be streamlined.


But you did imply that the PC market owes a debt of gratitude to the console market for helping it get through the rough times. That's just hogwash. The industry got into a rut with mediocre adventure games and Myst clones for a while, but it pulled itself out with its own advances, like the 1st-person shooter and reat-time strategy. Also, consoles borrow a lot more from PC's than PC's borrow from consoles, and this has been going on for a long time.

One, i didn't claimed consoles had PC gaming survive trough rough times. Two, they both owe to each other. Consoles, given their shorter lifespan, obviously owe a lot more, that's pretty much visible. However, what PC gaming presented in terms of genre breaking, console gaming took many of said pointers and interpreted them, giving it right back at gamers. From platformers to RPGs to action titles, you name it.


Have you actually played any PC RPG's lately?

Yes i have.


There's a very wide mixture out there, and there has been for a long time. You are just talking about the "Red for health, blue for mana" leveling treadmill games. And I agree with the poster above me about "innovation". It has been non-existent for console RPG's, which are either mostly the turn-based Japanese ones, or button-mashing fest that make Diablo look like The Bar Exam. And then there's Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, which was lifted from the PC to help sell more X-boxes. The PC has a big genre-buster almost every year.

1) The fact remains that many PC RPGs still dwelve in the class-based ideology that systems that depend on unique classes somehow make games better. Only a scant few don't work this way.

2) And where exactly has innovation not been present in console RPGs when most RPGs for consoles have different customizing systems? FFs alone have switchable and/or fixed Classes, Jobs, personal skills, Enemy Rages, Blue Magic, Limit Breaks, the Grid system, the Trance system, Materia, Junctioning, item forging, etc, etc. Seiken Densetsu's allow you to customize your stats each level up, making it strategically interesting for combat. Front Mission has customizable Mechs, and the games themselves have various subsystems like internet emulation, and different storylines. You see, instead of having all console RPGs be as similar as PC RPGs between themselves, console RPGs compensate the lack of more developped forms of control by simplifying games but in turn keeping them as engaging in terms of gameplay as other RPGs, acheieved by implementing minigames or gimmicks. And they work.

Of course if you think that they haven't evolved since the days of Dargon Warrior for the NES, its your misconception. However when i look at Planescape, Fallout, and Arcanum, and see they're pretty much the best RPGs in recent years that actually present meaningful roleplay, in a market filled with non-descript, boring and repetitive RPGs, i think i know where innovation is. Or isn't.


Yes. Teenage boys are less mature than 26 year-old men. That's not an earth-shattering statement. It's not intended to be derogatory.

That depends. The problems with these kinds of tests is that they make a correlation between what is common, and uphold it as if it were a truth we all must abide. Merely because many teenagers are immature that doesn't mean they're all such. The same goes with 26 year olds who sometimes are more immature than expected.


Because you won't accept that a PC game has to make sacrifices in order to be port-friendly.

And again i ask, where have i said otherwise? Wasnt it me who said something similar to this on the other post? Wasn't it me that stated a port can be succesful if enough time on it was spent, namely in control issues?


Ion Storm supposedly found out that the interface for Deus Ex was "cluttered mess" when they were porting it over to the PS2. (Newflash: it wasn't on the PC. If you think it was, then try playing Arcanum or Arx Fatalis, and you will find out what a "cluttered mess" is.) So, it's being simplified this time, and functionality is being reduced.

To you, functionality is being reduced. To me, its being more user-friendly. And really, this is something i don't understand - if it was just me stating that DX1's interface was a cluttered mess, no one would believe me. But even the game designers realized it was. Why contest this when 1) its obvious it was a cluttered mess for the type of game it was, and 2) even the designers admit it? Don't fool yourself, DX1 was a shooter. For a shooter, it had too many control options, and an intrusive interface. We've already been trough the 9 menu pages which were cumbersome and not used by many gamers, on another topic. The fact it used a menu system, in itself, is already cumbersome, because it was a pain to access in intensive firefights. The game was functional regardless, im not stating otherwise. But if the same kind of gameplay and control can be achieved by reducing the amount of usable key bindings, i'm all out for it.


True, and that's why great games on the PC shouldn't be watered down or modified so that they can fit nicely onto a console. I want PC games designed without consoles in mind, period. If it ports well later, good. If not, tough *****. Deus Ex: Invisible War is very, very obviously not being designed in this way. Warren Spector basically said as much with his comments about "mass marketing" and "accessibility".

But they *have* to be watered down because of the mediums' controlling issues. Let me ask you this, should the reverse also be true? Should i moan and kick things around because a port of Soul Reaver doesn't use all of my keyboard's buttons? Or half of it? I mean, i played X-Com: Terror from the Deep first on my Playstation, later on PC (i now have the Collector's Edition :D ) and the control was watered down, but the gameplay was all there, i guarantee it. Sure, playing it on PC gives you a whole lot more control - but if i had not played the PC version, i wouldn't be bothered, as the gameplay was all i needed to evaluate the game. The controls, no matter how complicated or simplified, in TFtD's example, were of little no consequence, as it didn't ruined the game.

I'll be honest here, i think you may just dislike consoles and/or dislike ports in themselves. I'm not stating all ports are succesful. In fact, DX1 sucked for consoles. Ports on both sides are not always good. Hell, one look at FF7 and FF8 for PC shows Square was more interested in releasing the game than actually properly converting it - no better resolutions, no extra options, nothing that made use of the PC as a gaming platform (though Chocobo's World for PC was a nice touch :D ). Now just because i've had contact with bad examples of ports, that doesn't mean they're all bad, ot that they will never work.

The thing which "upsets" many DX fans is that they think the game will suffer a lot with control. But people seem to forget that its still an FPS. Not only do FPS's need more dynamic controls, but they also forget how the control scheme will be dealt with. Its going to be released on XBox. An XBox controller, if i remember correctly, has about 18 to 20 buttons. 18 to 20!!! You're telling me you're afraid that DX:IW will need 18 to 20 buttons to be played? More that 20 and its already a space-trading game, man, not an FPS! :eek: In fact did you used 18 to 20 buttons on DX1 for PC? I really doubt that.

Also did anyone noticed that the PC periphal thats most used for gaming, can have up to 5 functions? Left button, right button, center button, wheel up and wheel down. Thats 5 keys already. The directional buttons are the other 4. The Return key is usually used for Use/Interaction functions. Thats 10 already. Now, Right Shift and Right Control are generally used for Jumping and crouching, respectively. Thats 12. Which leaves about 6 to 8 buttons for unknow controls, given we still don't know how ammo will be treated, and how biomods will be handled. In terms of streamlining, IoSt can very well be conjuring a system that tabs between items, weapons and mods, like one button to cycle between said groups, and an item to activate/use/conceal them. Its not hard to implement, and certainly is more dyanmic.

So c'mon people enough with the "dumbing down" ideology which gets people nowhere.

El Padrino
6th Aug 2003, 00:52
Uh...

Can't we all just agree to the fact that while consoles and PCs are two very different monsters, none is inherently better than the other in terms of games? Neither has an edge potential over the other in the area of innovation or "intelligent" games. The PC's keyboard doesn't mean it can be more innovative than a console. After all, how innovative is a game with a more complex control scheme?

Does anyone remember what happened when people first got their hands on Mario 64? And does anyone recall what platform Fable is going to hit first? If no one here wants to say those games were innovative, I'm sure quite a few developers would.

I've played a lot of RPGs on both the console and the PC, and while you can generally customize your character a lot more on the PC RPGs, that doesn't equate to a degree of complexity that consoles can't handle or accomidate. Really, how hard would it be to come up with a control scheme that lets you play Baldur's Gate or Fallout on any console's controller. Not at all hard. They got Knights of the Old Republic to work on an X-Box, didn't they. If it's development on the console affected the PC version in terms of a streamlined control scheme and less menus, then where's the problem with that. It worked well. Nothing was broken. Nothing was lost. And after the X-Box version, any more menus would be too much unless they really added something crucial to the gameplay. And chances are, they wouldn't. The differences between the X-Box and PC versions of the game will be attributed to the limitations of television screens and increased amount of time spent on the PC version to add in a bit more things that don't have a crucially significant impact on the gameplay.

I never did like the PS2, but there is one good thing it did: It showed Ion Storm see the shortcomings in Deus Ex's interface. And I will trust the makers of such a great game when they say they've learned a thing or two that will make the sequel better. Claiming that it's being dumbed down is just calling a rose by another name.

And if accessibilty to you means nothing, I suggest watching Un Chien Andalu, and then telling me how many people can know how good (on a non-technical, critical level) of a film that was, and how many people would benefit from it.

Random
6th Aug 2003, 03:05
Originally posted by Hannibal
Ion Storm supposedly found out that the interface for Deus Ex was "cluttered mess" when they were porting it over to the PS2. (Newflash: it wasn't on the PC. If you think it was, then try playing Arcanum or Arx Fatalis, and you will find out what a "cluttered mess" is.)

Yes, Arx Fatalis had a clumsy interface. It's now being released on Xbox and the developers have spent a lot of time revamping that interface to make it easier to use. Perfect example of how consoles can aid PC gameplay. It's a shame they didn't spend more time working on the PC interface, isn't it?


So, it's being simplified this time, and functionality is being reduced.


Please provide evidence of how functionality is being reduced, because I have seen nothing to indicate that.

operative x
6th Aug 2003, 07:01
How are they going to merge skills and bio-mods? Like say if i wanna hack i gotta get a bio-mod to learn to hack?!

Random
6th Aug 2003, 15:14
Originally posted by operative x
How are they going to merge skills and bio-mods? Like say if i wanna hack i gotta get a bio-mod to learn to hack?!

Yes, the neural interface biomod, which I assume also has other functions depending on what level you upgrade to.

Lawnboy360
8th Aug 2003, 19:53
Hell i can be Lawful Good, be a Paladin, kill every innocent i can, and then get to chessily *choose* either a good or bad ending!! Do you call that roleplaying?

When you kill innocents, your reputation drops, and at some point you will become a fallen paladin and lose your paladin abilities. Good-aligned characters will also leave the party if you are totally evil, and vice-versa.

Trollslayer
8th Aug 2003, 20:52
Originally posted by Lawnboy360
When you kill innocents, your reputation drops, and at some point you will become a fallen paladin and lose your paladin abilities. Good-aligned characters will also leave the party if you are totally evil, and vice-versa.

Yes i know my reputation drops, im not talking about that. I'm speaking of being able to kill tons of innocents, and still being asked if i want to become a good Deity in TOB. Thankfully, that wasn't screwed in the transition from PnP to PC.

Example. Look at the ending system of DX1. You reach the final area, regardless of whatever happened in the story. You'll reach there no matter if Paul died, or if you didn't warned Jock of the bomb on his heli, etc.. Now, when you are in Area 51, you are told of what my come (the Illuminati, the Dark Ages or the Helios endings). When confronted with the main players (Everett, Tracer Tong and Helios), each warns of what might happen, and what you can do to make so happen. Then, depending on what you do, you'll get a different ending - your actions will define what will happen, given the possibilities.

Now, look at BG2, specifically at TOB. You are in your Pocket Plane, and are hinted at what might happen in the end game (the culmination of the prophecy, and as to how what was prophecized had a meaning different than the one everyone thought). Regardless, what you do along the game, its of no consequence towards achieving the end. Wheter you kill innocents or save them, wheter you smite evil or join with it, you will still get to choose - no matter what action, as long as you kill Amelyssan the Blackhearted, you will have the prompt. All 3 options still open to you. So tell me, whats the point to it? Better just make a 215kb file with a new area (Pocket Plane), which tansfers your character from BG2:SoA, and prompts you to 3 choices. I mean, the result is the same.

Now honestly, you cannot call that good roleplay. What kind of a role am i playing in BG2 if my actions don't affect consequences in about 90% of the game, in terms of roleplay? Like mentioned above, play Fallout, play Arcanum, play Planescape: Torment. Thats as close as to roleplay as you can get. BG2 fails at it.

Knecht
8th Aug 2003, 22:55
Well, not that i have much to say... nor a leg to stand on..

But, the problem with the arguments that I have read, in the last 3 pages of madness... is that most seem to want to find absolutes.

Example, PC games ported to console ruined the industry. or Console games have only helped the industry.....

This game sucks.. that game sucks.. your an idiot.. bah..

The only thing, i can think to say about the whole console and PC argument is that MOST console and MOST PC games, really do suck. I am hard pressed to work into a gaming store and find a game that i have not played. I am also hard pressed to find a game on the shelf in said store that I even liked playing.. even if I did play it for 48 hours or whatever. All of us can name a few games that we enjoyed a lot and that were good. Some of my favorites are from the damn, 8 bit nintendo and even the sega genesis. Most are from the PC... and even most of the ones I like for the PC I was able to play on my 386.

Oh and on the whole length of the game thing... Freelancer was a redone Privateer/Privateer 2.. Same dude thought it up... Freelancer played great.. had a great story line.. open ended game play, all sorts of extras.. but the only dissappointment I had with it, was that the 'main' story line ended way to fast.. IMO that would be a crucial shortfall.. but its just my opinion

I dunno, besides that El Padrino, man, you are the only one here, that can actually write an argument that is worth reading. (and that includes my own rubbish)

Lawnboy360
9th Aug 2003, 01:16
FYI I'm currently playing through Throne of Bhaal and Planescape: Torment for the first time. :) (Still not too impressed by Planescape, let's hope this will change)

Well you said yourself that your actions in DX don't matter at the end. You can, say, piss-off "that" guy from the Illuminati by killing the old man on life-support (Lucius DeBeers) but you will still be able to join him at the end of the game. It's not as bad as that good/evil BG2 thing you mentioned but still...Players would be pissed if choices they made at the beginning of the game prevented them from seeing ending X without them knowing it, yet you can't tell them "this action will lock the ending in which you join the Illuminati"...

Arkyle
9th Aug 2003, 01:50
Well,

After all this reading about what might be a success or a complete disaster, with DX2, i´ve come to an stop in my line of thought.

1. The programmers don´t seem to agree or disagree with all of us, so it seems unuseful to say whatever. The game will come out as it is.


2. Everyone has his reason. everyone has his wrongs. But personally, DX2 has become a very highly expected game for a bunch of reasons. So, i think I will wait to test it ( by paying a small fee in a video store aka: blockbuster and check what mess or what success has become), to say finally if I´ll buy it or just forgive it as another bad second part.


3. Someone said that, what is not broke, does not need to be fixed. But, there might be people that think that one thing is definitely broken when others might think that is thay way how it works best.... again, is the programmers income what is at stake, not ourselves. at least, not my income.


4. Test and decide. when for the first time i got deceived with a second part ( Batman 2 for gameboy, a lot of time ago), i realized that i needed a way to not harm myself with those bad decisions wich the programmers take every time they do a second part. And i seen that way Testing first, deciding after.

The Hire bussiness might be not legal AND not illegal, but it´s a finest way to test a game first, and buy it if it fits with you.

Another way is to have a friend lending it.... but well. piracy is another word. personally, i like to Buy with my hard earned money those games that DO really like, because i endorse that gaming creation, and i do not buy those wich are not good for my opinion.

Test and decide. that´s my motto.

Good Day everyone!

gareis
9th Aug 2003, 01:58
Originally posted by Hannibal
1. I'm all for streamlining the weaker skills, like medicine and swimming, but there weren't that many of them. Streamlining lockpicks and multitools, on the other hand, doesnt' make a lot of sense to me. There is a decidedly different function between the two.


Futuristic society that's prospering --> more technology that's more accessible to more people --> electronic locks replacing mechanical ones. In DX1, the locks all operated using 2d nano-created patterns. If you use multitools rather than lockpicks, you're just going up a level.

I must admit, I was never able to reconcile tiny, complex nanopictures as keys with lockpicks that looked like they'd work on mechanical locks.



2. Less menus? Less than what? DX hardly had menus, period. You could do anything in the entire game by pressing F1 and making one or two mouse clicks TOPS. The only time that I ever had to click on a menu was when I was using a rare item in my inventory, like a Hazmat suit, or a MedBot. This is an example of what I said earlier about fixing stuff that ain't broken.


I agree.



3. Overwriting biomods isn't a really good solution if it means that you are going to lose the ability that you just had. That would be like downgrading your rifle skill so that you can pick locks better.

What I would rather is a limitation rather than a ban on other biomods--say, only one aug can get past level 2. Also, biomod canisters for mods you already have can be useless if you don't want to replace the biomod; I suggest that they can also be used for biomod-specific upgrades. The nanites would naturally reinforce and improve the already-installed biomod.

~gareis

Trollslayer
9th Aug 2003, 12:15
Originally posted by Lawnboy360
FYI I'm currently playing through Throne of Bhaal and Planescape: Torment for the first time. :) (Still not too impressed by Planescape, let's hope this will change)

Well you said yourself that your actions in DX don't matter at the end. You can, say, piss-off "that" guy from the Illuminati by killing the old man on life-support (Lucius DeBeers) but you will still be able to join him at the end of the game. It's not as bad as that good/evil BG2 thing you mentioned but still...Players would be pissed if choices they made at the beginning of the game prevented them from seeing ending X without them knowing it, yet you can't tell them "this action will lock the ending in which you join the Illuminati"...

My actions don't matter how i reach the end, just like BG. In Deus Ex this is understandable to a point, given its a mission-based, level-based FPS. But notice that reaching the last area isn't the same as dealing with it. Like i said, our actions in DX are only for the moment, they have sparse effects (like letting Paul die or not saving Jock) - but whatever you do in those situations, you'll still reach the last area, Area 51. This is also true of BG2 - wheter you side with Bodhi or the Shadow Thieves, or wheter you take Saemon Havarian's help or decide to go straight trough the Underdark, that will never matter because you will always end up in Hell.

Now you could say "But that does matter, it helps replay because of branching paths", to which i say you're right, but they, by themselves, don't matter when it comes to the conclusion of a storyline (which was the discussion at hand).

Now, letting Paul die has an effect - you won't be able to see him, and you won't see his hologram in Area 51. In a similar fashion, if you join Bodhi in BG2, you won't be able to ask for the help of the Shadow Thieves. In both games, branching paths or outcomes in certain key situations do not affect the game in itself - your decisions are only their for area progression. However, whatever branching it has, it'll always end up by converging to the same path - last area.

Regardless of that, your actions as a player will only determine *how* your PC in BG2 reaches Hell, and *how* JC Denton reach Area 51, not *if*. The point is, your actions, whatever minor effect they have, will not change the overall outcome of the story. You'll always reach Hell, or Area 51.

It wouldn't be the same reaching Area 51 and having, say, a hologram ask you: "Well, its the end of the game. Which slideshow do you want to see?", would it?

Now the difference i already pointed out is, regardless of small choices or personal interpretations on solving each game's obstacles/quests, is that:

-DX warns you of possible outcomes, and you're told what you can do to achieve said outcomes (and the ultimate decision of the ending is a combination of [your actions] + [your decisions]). Whatever you did in the past is irrelevant to the reaching of the final area, but what you do and decide in the final area is what determines the conclusion of the story. Again, Action->Consequence. Action here, equating to working for a result.

-BG2/TOB warns of the propechy's ending, and you're slightly hinted at what may happen (but the ultimate decision of the ending is only based on [your decisions] in dialogues), as your actions won't matter to its end. Whatever you did in the past is irrelevant to the reaching of the final area, but what you decide in the final area is what determines the conclusion of the story. Unfortunately, Action=/=Consequence. Action here, equating to do whatever you wish, we'll still let you choose what you want. So no, no working for a result.

For instance, you say you're playing Planescape: Torment? The game does start interesting, then drags a bit, then picks itself up and really blasts you away. Some people don't like it, though, so just play it and see :) But i'm going to take advantage of something now - you're playing it, right? Did you noticed you begin the game without choosing an Alignment? You begin True Neutral. Your decisions of how you deal with NPCs and situations completely *mold* the character's psyche, making his actions deliver consequence in form of a change of Alignment. Thats a very well done Action->Consequence. It still won't affect the ending, but it works in gameplay. You'll also notice how your Stats actually affect the outcome of some things - dialogue trees, actions (such as Pickpocketing or quickly disarming the occasional trap) and even helping TNO recovering memories (even realizing when some people are lying).

So in DX1, disabling all blue fusion reactors will amount to something; disengaging the two antimatter reactors will also provide something; merging with the two AI's would also amount to something. In BG2/TOB, however, whatever you may do won't matter. The warm and fuzzy feeling you might get by seeing your actions having a meaning, are wasted. I mean, really how hard is it to make your actions affect how things turn out? It wasn't in DX1; it wasn't in Fallout, Arcanum or PS:T - why should it be hard in BG2/TOB? 3 wrods: sheer bad design. Or another 3 words: sheer programming laziness. Im not in the industry, but even i can see that including a way to have (amount of evil actions) to (destroy chances of becoming a good Deity) (or the reverse, the more good-like you act, the less the ultimate Evil path is open to you) isn't hard, and would've helped. And trust me, inserting something like that in the game is much easier than destroying the *entire* Turn-Based system in which AD&D 2nd Edition worked under, and having to re-insert, reprogramm and convert rules because the entire system was then turned into Real Time with Pause. Trust me on this - that one is much harder to do than inserting meager action->consequence checks. Example? Fallout 2, from 6 to 10 months in development (with much lesser production values than BG2), is for the most part like that, action->consequence. BG2, however, took 2 years in development, had much bigger production values, and fails.

loric
10th Aug 2003, 22:30
:mad: I cant beleive people.Thinking that the xbox version of INVIABLE WAR will ruin the pc version.Face it the time of the pc is and will be coming to an end.The potential of the xbox has even been tapped yet halo,and splinter cell made a mark.And with xbox live people are having gaming experiances that isnt possible on pc.AND people who talk about MB and memory and console dosent THE ALMIGHTY XBOX DOES!YOU CAN TAKE EVERY XBOX GAME TO DATE AND SAVE SAVE SAVE AND STILL NOT TOUCH ITS MEMORY!You can try with pc and you will be so bogged down you can take a napp between the most simplest of actions like talking and walking.So before you start whining do homework, think and dont be jealous because tou havent jumped on the wagon.Face it pc done in 5-10 years what has it done for gameing lately nothing the same thing it always has just slightly improved graphics year to year.The market isnt competative enough.This was inspired by the one and only immunity and to him or her there is comfort in knowing nothing.IGNORANCE IS TRUELY BLISS.

Knecht
10th Aug 2003, 22:36
Loric, man you must be smokin some good ****...

my computer is never bogged down.. i never run out of memory... i dunno what you are talking about.. Maybe you just need an upgrade.. turn in that Dell or HP for a real computer. If you want i could build it for you. LMAO


-----------------
/hugs loric

see we can all get along. hahahaha :eek:

Lawnboy360
10th Aug 2003, 22:38
I don't know about other people, but I find it hard myself to take seriously a post filled with typos like the previous one (loric). Oh and I'm really jealous of Splinter Cell, I heard it was on PC too but I guess I was wrong.

====
To those who played Planescape Torment... I'm still in Sigil, I have the items I need to continue (past Sigil, using a portal), but I'm finishing up some side-quests. How far am I into the game?

loric
10th Aug 2003, 22:58
:o I just felt that the xbox community including myself was getting slaughtered.Sorry if I offended!As for typos I work graveyard and havent been to bed yet.I see your points and understand. I done the same thing to PC owners I didnt want done to me.So with that sorry immunity and to all others I may have upset>

Trollslayer
10th Aug 2003, 23:28
Originally posted by loric
Face it the time of the pc is and will be coming to an end.

Y'know that kind of talk has been around ever since the PSX appeared. The PSX is gone, the PC is still here. The same talk appeared with the PS2 and XBox. The PS2 is already trailing off as the worst next-gen console, and Xbox won't be around much longer. When the PC dies, rest assured the Xbox will be dead some hundreds of years before.

This is like the end of the world premonitions - they're all fine and dandy, but over 97% of people that predicted the end of the world have already died, and we're still here. Go them!

And also, "The time of the PC is and will be coming to an end"? Which is it, now or still to come? You can't conjugate both.

And also lets not forget, the console market is fickle - while you hail your Xbox's lifespan, you'd do well to remember the PC market is the more stable market there is. With a PC you only need to upgrade, and it lets you do multiple things - with a console you have to buy the "next big thing", and it only lets you do about a handful (and i'm being generous). Everyone played and hailed the NES - where is it now? Everyone hailed the PSX - where is it now? That's right, dead. As long as graphical capabilities continue to increase at a mind-blowing velocity, consoles will be like graphics cards - a one year hit wonder until the better version comes along.


The potential of the xbox has even been tapped yet halo,and splinter cell made a mark.

The potential of Xbox, whatever it is, will probably be done in 1 year, one year and a half, maximum. After that timespan, we'll see which one still exists, the PC or the Xbox...


And with xbox live people are having gaming experiances that isnt possible on pc.

You clueless victim of society. You probably don't even play PC games, given that coment, as you've just shown how ignorant you are regarding the state of PC gaming, specially its online multiplayer capabilities.


AND people who talk about MB and memory and console dosent THE ALMIGHTY XBOX DOES!YOU CAN TAKE EVERY XBOX GAME TO DATE AND SAVE SAVE SAVE AND STILL NOT TOUCH ITS MEMORY!

YES! BOW DOWN TO THE MAITY POWAH OF TEH MAITY XBOX0RZ DAT ROXORZ YUR BOX0RZ!!!1!1!!!11! FETCH MY COCONUT, SLAVE - RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!!!!


You can try with pc and you will be so bogged down you can take a napp between the most simplest of actions like talking and walking.

Only if its on your PC, i don't have those problems on mine.


So before you start whining do homework, think and dont be jealous because tou havent jumped on the wagon.

Actually you should've done your homework, son. The Xbox CPU is just an Intel 733MHz CPU with 128KB L2 cache and a 133MHz system bus. Thats what, a P3/Celeron? We've already dumped that piece of junk some time ago. Oh, and lets not forget that the Xbox is *not* a computer, so you can't make upgrades - meaning you'll be stuck with a 733Mhz CPU machine while i can go out and upgrade my PC to a 3.4 Gigahertz CPU, with "only" about 2 gigs of memory. Furthermore a current state of the art graphics card (like the NVIDIA GeForceFX 5900 Ultra), can basically run things your petty Xbox would choke at, leaving it broken and bleeding on the side of a desert highway, with birds of prey vulching around it.


Face it pc done in 5-10 years

Whoa, in the first part of your mahvelous essay it was about now - now its 5 to 10 years? Good show.


what has it done for gameing lately nothing the same thing it always has just slightly improved graphics year to year.

This is where sane people will stop listening to those ridiculous statements and proceed to uncontrolably roll on the floor, laughing.

What has Xbox presented? Online multiplayer gaming already existed before the Xbox appeared. Every game genre on Xbox already existed before Xbox was even a concept. The hardware its running on has been outdated for about 2 to 3 years.

Really go play more PC games before making tirades such as these, devoid of logic.


The market isnt competative enough.

That line alone shows you don't know what you're talking about. I mean, the other lines before this one already do, but this is the prime example.


This was inspired by the one and only immunity and to him or her there is comfort in knowing nothing.IGNORANCE IS TRUELY BLISS.

I truly hope this is trolling, and not a "real" view of someone. I mean, people like you don't exist, do you? :eek:

loric
11th Aug 2003, 00:19
You are all correct. I have not a single clue.Where have all of you been?Such genius such inspiration such alien like intelligence in the likes this world or the human species has never seen!We all need to stop dreaming having thoughts ideas and opinions.Opinions thats a sading thought where would we be if no one no matter how stupid the question or the idea never had the oppurtunity to write it down or or the oppurtunity for another human being to hear it.Thought would never again be provoked.Such hatefull and terriable things can be said to another of the same.But for some it could be notions that he dosent belong.So when that person does leave at least he left something and that something was his opinion,idea and never once did he say this is fact for I had a vision.I posted a thought an opinion no matter how little you might have thought of it or how well or little thought out it was.I gave my regrets and for that I will say goodbye for the world is cold and my home warm.And I must complete my research for the MK 2 PROJECT. SINCERLY:LORD LORIC BREEDER OF TROLLS SOME TWO HEADED SOME NOT.AND IF IT MEANS ANYTHING IT WASNT THOUGHT OUT. IT WAS IGNORANT AND NO HOMEWORK WAS DONE I DID NOT KNOW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT AND DID NOT KNOW WHAT HELLISH BURNING FIRES I WOULD IGNITE. NO DEMOCRACY LAST FOREVER FOR THE DEFIANT MEETS DEFEAT OVER THE SMALLEST HILLS!:mad:

Trollslayer
11th Aug 2003, 00:29
Ok, now you're scaring me.

Also, when your muscles revert to their normal proportions and you return to your Bruce Banner state, remeber this. The problem is not people having opinions - the problem is people having ignorant, uninformed and/or biased opinions. I'm sure you're a nice chap, and everyone is free to have their opinions, and all that jazz - however, when you claim the right to have an opinion, you're also accepting that opinions can be contested - yours included.

Yours had "some" points which i disagreed with, and i commented on them. Not only that, some were ignorant assessments of reality. So i felt a "slight" correction was in order. If our roles were reversed you'd do the same. So please, no "I am the victim!!!" posts and accept you were wrong, and move on.

Knecht
11th Aug 2003, 00:34
Viva La Revolution!

---

I have no idea what Revolution I was actually talking about. But if there is one... Then well, i am for it.

and I have not played on Battle.net in many moons. In fact I boycoted blizzard when i found out they were making an expansion for Warcraft 3.. perhaps IMO, the worst game ever created. Not to mention there inability to make a true 3D environment for Diablo II even though other RPG's already had them...

loric
11th Aug 2003, 00:42
Originally posted by Knecht
Viva La Revolution! THANX KNECHT! DO YOU PLAY ON BATTLE NET?

Trollslayer
11th Aug 2003, 00:45
And what better way to thank our "saviours" than to PK them on an online game?

I agree, Viva la Revolution!! Woohoo!

loric
11th Aug 2003, 00:50
Originally posted by Trollslayer
And what better way to thank our "saviours" than to PK them on an online game?

I agree, Viva la Revolution!! Woohoo! TROLLSLAYER YOU PLAY ROLPLAYING GAMES PEN AND PAPER OR BATTLE NET ANYTHING LIKE THAT

Knecht
11th Aug 2003, 00:53
I play role playing / fantasy games with the ladies. Who needs pen and paper. LMAO

Trollslayer
11th Aug 2003, 10:18
Originally posted by loric
TROLLSLAYER YOU PLAY ROLPLAYING GAMES PEN AND PAPER OR BATTLE NET ANYTHING LIKE THAT

YES I PLAY ROLEPLAYING GAMES, USED TO PLAY PEN AND PAPER AND STOPPED PLAYING ONLINE GAMES FOR THE MOST PART.

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
11th Aug 2003, 10:43
could you try not to shout, some people are sleeping, here

Trollslayer
11th Aug 2003, 11:23
Sorry sir

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
11th Aug 2003, 11:40
ah, that's better

/me gives Trollslayer a candy bar. or would he prefer a Soy food?

ok, I give you a GEP-gun (it's always a success)

Hannibal
11th Aug 2003, 12:06
The PC market will never be dead, but it has deteriorated quite a bit in quality lately. Let's hope that is something that will change late this year and is only temporary.

Trollslayer
11th Aug 2003, 12:22
Oh goody, a GEP gun just for me!

*prances about happily destroying security bots*

And on the market thingy... well the only titles i think have a chance to do more good than harm will be the port of KoTOR (even if its made by Biohype, i'll play it given its set in the Star Wars realm) and Temple of Elemental Evil, DX:IW (otherwise i wouldn't be here, duhh), Lock On: Modern Air Combat, XIII, Republic, Syberia 2, and not much else on the PC front. Then we have those titles that are going to spawn off more interest in 2004 - Doom 3, Halo 2, and Half life 2 on the shooter front, and Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines in the shooter/RPG front. Im also looking forward to Hitman 3.

Lawnboy360
11th Aug 2003, 14:19
Republic

Just went gold.
PCGamer UK : 80%
Computer & Video Games :88%
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/reviews/reviews_story.php?id=94881


Other games not mentioned :

Max Payne 2
Thief 3
Evil Genius
Rome : Total War
STALKER

sonoorn
11th Aug 2003, 23:01
xenus also looks like its going to kick ass, but nobody has ever heard of it...

El Padrino
12th Aug 2003, 06:03
Originally posted by Trollslayer


Y'know that kind of talk has been around ever since the PSX appeared. The PSX is gone, the PC is still here. The same talk appeared with the PS2 and XBox. The PS2 is already trailing off as the worst next-gen console, and Xbox won't be around much longer. When the PC dies, rest assured the Xbox will be dead some hundreds of years before.

This is like the end of the world premonitions - they're all fine and dandy, but over 97% of people that predicted the end of the world have already died, and we're still here. Go them!

And also, "The time of the PC is and will be coming to an end"? Which is it, now or still to come? You can't conjugate both.

And also lets not forget, the console market is fickle - while you hail your Xbox's lifespan, you'd do well to remember the PC market is the more stable market there is. With a PC you only need to upgrade, and it lets you do multiple things - with a console you have to buy the "next big thing", and it only lets you do about a handful (and i'm being generous). Everyone played and hailed the NES - where is it now? Everyone hailed the PSX - where is it now? That's right, dead. As long as graphical capabilities continue to increase at a mind-blowing velocity, consoles will be like graphics cards - a one year hit wonder until the better version comes along.



The potential of Xbox, whatever it is, will probably be done in 1 year, one year and a half, maximum. After that timespan, we'll see which one still exists, the PC or the Xbox...



That's kind of an invalid argument to make. After all, who has kept the same computer they've had since the days of the NES, only with a few upgrades whenever the next generation of consoles came along? Upgrades, by the way, that would have cost about the same or more than a next gen console, and would've made it a different machine than it was before.

You can't really compare one specific console with PCs in general in this regard. It just doesn't make sense, as they both operate under a different set of rules. Consoles in general aren't dead. The NES and PSX are dead, but then so is my old Packard Bell, I forget which model, and my Compaq Presario 4090US. A few upgrades would not help either of them keep up with today's consoles in the area of gaming.

But I guess you've got it a bit right when you said consoles are like video cards. Sorta. But if you believe that, then what's with all that other stuff you've said.




Originally posted by Trollslayer

Actually you should've done your homework, son. The Xbox CPU is just an Intel 733MHz CPU with 128KB L2 cache and a 133MHz system bus. Thats what, a P3/Celeron? We've already dumped that piece of junk some time ago. Oh, and lets not forget that the Xbox is *not* a computer, so you can't make upgrades - meaning you'll be stuck with a 733Mhz CPU machine while i can go out and upgrade my PC to a 3.4 Gigahertz CPU, with "only" about 2 gigs of memory. Furthermore a current state of the art graphics card (like the NVIDIA GeForceFX 5900 Ultra), can basically run things your petty Xbox would choke at, leaving it broken and bleeding on the side of a desert highway, with birds of prey vulching around it.


Arguing over specs like this is kind of pointless. After all, with the price to power ratio (the best way I can think of describing it), it costs kind of a lot for a PC to get results that don't really equal the price you paid for them when compared to the $179 X-Box. (Kind of like the law of diminishing returns in effect but not really.) Put a game like Fable next to a game like Morrowind on a high end PC, and graphics wise, can you really tell the $1200 difference between them?


I'm not saying that loric is right or anything. I'd comment on him, but I don't know what the hell he's talking about.

Trollslayer
12th Aug 2003, 12:06
Originally posted by El Padrino
That's kind of an invalid argument to make. After all, who has kept the same computer they've had since the days of the NES, only with a few upgrades whenever the next generation of consoles came along? Upgrades, by the way, that would have cost about the same or more than a next gen console, and would've made it a different machine than it was before.

You can't really compare one specific console with PCs in general in this regard. It just doesn't make sense, as they both operate under a different set of rules. Consoles in general aren't dead. The NES and PSX are dead, but then so is my old Packard Bell, I forget which model, and my Compaq Presario 4090US. A few upgrades would not help either of them keep up with today's consoles in the area of gaming.

But I guess you've got it a bit right when you said consoles are like video cards. Sorta. But if you believe that, then what's with all that other stuff you've said.

And thats why i used that same logic for loric there. He was comparing a console to a PC, claiming it to be superior. As much as i know both have differences and that some are hardware-specific, he appeared to not know them. Thats why he kept on making claims which really weren't accurate, and i decided to counter them (in "reverse mode").

And yes i believe consoles behave pretty much like graphics card in terms of market, simply because one they're dependant of increasing graphic technologies, and two, because thats mostly what supports them. When a graphics card fails on some features it'll get a bad reputation. Incidentally a similar example happened with the PS2, where one could see for a period of time debates on wheter the PS2 could run 2D games well or not. On the same note, when a card succeeds in doing better than the competition, its a reference - in this case, comparable to the Xbox's success.


Arguing over specs like this is kind of pointless. After all, with the price to power ratio (the best way I can think of describing it), it costs kind of a lot for a PC to get results that don't really equal the price you paid for them when compared to the $179 X-Box. (Kind of like the law of diminishing returns in effect but not really.) Put a game like Fable next to a game like Morrowind on a high end PC, and graphics wise, can you really tell the $1200 difference between them?


I'm not saying that loric is right or anything. I'd comment on him, but I don't know what the hell he's talking about.

Thats right the PC needs more money invested in it to provide the same results in gaming. Now the question is, which will last longer, the upgrades i did or this year's "hot console"? An upgrade can last me what, 7 to 8 years? A console won't have that much of a lifespan in terms of game playing - my upgrade can allow me to play a large amount of games in a good amount of years - even when it won't be able to play more advanced games it will still function as a multimedia and work station; however if i want increased gaming quality with consoles i have to forget the console i had and move on to others when the next big thing comes :( This makes it so that the expensive upgrade i do now will probably amount to the same a console gamer will spend in 3 consoles and their respective games over the same period of time.

You do present a good example though, about your Packard Bell. Even then buying a new computer so it can play the latest games, while expensive, isn't that expensive as it was some years ago. A custom-built machine ranging from sufficient to good hardware will last you a very long time, and won't burn such a big hole in your pocket. In fact, the quintessential item to have so one can play games, a graphic card, isn't that expensive. We've already got 256 Meg cards in the market, yet, a 32 to 64 Meg card will still do just fine.

Of course if we were discussing buying a console strictly for a game and upgrading a PC strictly for a game then obviously the upgrade would be pretty much the same at higher prices (when there wasn't a need to, thus making the decision of buying a console to be better). Regardless discussing specs isn't exactly ridiculous, as loric said we shouldn't be jealous of not entering the bandwagon of the Xbox. In this case, the bandwagon is a piece of hardware which cannot compare to mine in gaming purposes. So thats why i mentioned it. In fact i think he was merely trying to make it sound as if the Xbox was superior to PCs in every way, which, even if i look at it from a gaming stand point only, is wrong. From a technical standpoint we could rig a PC to the same specs of the Xbox, and it would probably still be better in gaming terms - increased resolution, more multiplayer capabilities, better online accessibility, multi-controller support (keyboard, mice, gamepads, joysticks, etc), and better sound effects and handling.

El Padrino
12th Aug 2003, 15:33
Originally posted by loric
You are all correct. I have not a single clue.Where have all of you been?Such genius such inspiration such alien like intelligence in the likes this world or the human species has never seen!We all need to stop dreaming having thoughts ideas and opinions.Opinions thats a sading thought where would we be if no one no matter how stupid the question or the idea never had the oppurtunity to write it down or or the oppurtunity for another human being to hear it.Thought would never again be provoked.Such hatefull and terriable things can be said to another of the same.But for some it could be notions that he dosent belong.So when that person does leave at least he left something and that something was his opinion,idea and never once did he say this is fact for I had a vision.I posted a thought an opinion no matter how little you might have thought of it or how well or little thought out it was.I gave my regrets and for that I will say goodbye for the world is cold and my home warm.And I must complete my research for the MK 2 PROJECT.

Loric, you are why Eidos should make people take a class on debating before being allowed to post here.

It's all fine and good to have an opinion, but to make an argument or the kind of bold statements you've made based on just your opinion is idiotic. And, in my not so humble opinion, anyone that tries to mask their opinion as an argument or bold statement, instead of simply their opinion or a clever insult, is deserving of as much "hatefull and terriable things" everyone else can dish out.

Lawnboy360
12th Aug 2003, 17:07
An upgrade can last me what, 7 to 8 years? A console won't have that much of a lifespan in terms of game playing

What?!
Let's say we're talking in terms of being able to play recent 3d games... the fastest processor available 7 years ago was a 200mhz Pentium (launch : June 10, 1996) !!! Even if you bring that back to the average console lifetime, let's say five years, the best processor is a 450mhz PII!

Let's assume you want to play DX:IW, I seriously doubt you'll be able to play with even a 1ghz processor...the 1ghz P3 came out 3 years ago. And then for the graphic card, you need DX8 compatibility; the first DX8 card was the GeForce3, which came out 2 years ago. And let's not forget that both the CPU and GeForce3 , taken individually, where much more expensive than a console at launch.

Not trying to "protect" consoles, as I never even owned one, but this didn't make sense at all.

Trollslayer
12th Aug 2003, 18:59
Originally posted by Lawnboy360
What?!
Let's say we're talking in terms of being able to play recent 3d games... the fastest processor available 7 years ago was a 200mhz Pentium (launch : June 10, 1996) !!! Even if you bring that back to the average console lifetime, let's say five years, the best processor is a 450mhz PII!

Let's assume you want to play DX:IW, I seriously doubt you'll be able to play with even a 1ghz processor...the 1ghz P3 came out 3 years ago. And then for the graphic card, you need DX8 compatibility; the first DX8 card was the GeForce3, which came out 2 years ago. And let's not forget that both the CPU and GeForce3 , taken individually, where much more expensive than a console at launch.

Not trying to "protect" consoles, as I never even owned one, but this didn't make sense at all.

Actually given i can play Unreal 2 and Unreal Tournament 2003 witth a 1.35 Gig processor, i doubt very much i won't be able to play DX:IW with the same hardware. Not only that, i can currently play old titles with my Radeon 9700 Pro, which i believe supports only Direct X 8 to 9. And save for some troubles in Deus Ex due to textures, i don't see problems in other games.

Also,
Let's say we're talking in terms of being able to play recent 3d games... wasn't this the subject all along?

Also it obviously depends on upgrade (hence why it was stated somewhere above that there's no going around upgrading totally outdated computers; you upgrade while you can, from processors to cards). The P4 processor came about the near end of 2000. It was a what - 1.6 Gigs? Nowadays you have a P.4 at 3.2 - how many people are using it? You see i could go out now and but a processor in the 3 Gigs range. Financial hole aside, will it help my gaming? Would it help yours? Truth be told, tests is a variety of thigns have showed most gamers can't even see the difference. In some years from now, when 3 Gigs are history and a 6 Gig processor is advertised, do you think the majority of gamers will flock over to a 6 Gig? No, they'll be using something more affordable which still allows them enough gaming goodness to think of their purchase as a good investment - the 3 Gigs processor (or a 4 gig, when it comes). Same with graphics cards - who's going to shell off $499 for a Radeon 9800 Pro, when the lower version, a 9700 Pro, provides good quality in graphics, shaders, T&L, etc., and can be found at a $240-260? Thats half the price, at best. Meanwhile 64 Meg cards can still run many games, and they're cheaper. Not only that, but 256 Meg cards won't be fully used as they're new to the market. A game that will fully utilize a 256 Meg card will only do so after a while (in fact, i don't remeber any game still pushing 128 meg cards to their limit, much less 256). All i see is too much innovation being too costly, and gamers increasingly jsut wanting something affordable, deciding to upgrade more times than doing drastic overhauls. An extra stick of RAM is an upgrade - going from a 32 to a 256 card is drastic overhaul (and overkill).

Though truth be told, i may have exagerated on the upgrading. 5 to 6 years is more like it. :o There, the embarassment smiley to prove my repent to strangers over a net-based forum :p Don't beat on this old man anymore. In fact, i bought a Voodoo 3 3000 PCI in '98/'99 - i used it until this year. It pretty much served me for all i used it in terms of gaming (incidentally i also bought a new PC this year :D). Sure there came a time where it wasn't already up to par with the rest. Thats when i changed it (it and the entire system). But the system lasted me for little more than 5. Consoles have a tendency of starting to die out in 2 to 3 years time, systematically releasing "Best Of"-titles and compilations (and the occasional imported oddball title) at that point, until they've outlived their usefulness. Not saying this will always happen with all consoles, but in the long run, a PC can remain largely the same longer than a console can in face of innovation.

[EDIT: Fixed a typo]

operative x
12th Aug 2003, 19:07
I prefer the pc because of the games. The pc has more games than the xbox, ps2, game cube put together. Pc gamers may have to upgrade to more RAM or a different video card and then we are set for about 3/4 years and we can play any game. But console people have to buy a next gen console and after that they still can't play any game because some consoles have different games. For example like Xbox, xbox gamers can't play GTA. ps2 gamers can't play halo. So don't forget to mention that to, that in order to play all console games you have to buy 3 different consoles. LOTS of people I know are suckered into that crap. One of my friends is a hardcore gamer who plays nothing but games, he has a ps2, xbox, playstation, game cube, and gameboy. That’s about 3-4 generations of different consoles and costs a hell of a lot more than a stick of ram and a old video card like a geforce3 that would last you longer than that. Plus lets not forget to mention memory cards. The ps2, and G-cube require them so thats what an extra $20 for a memory card.

Knecht
12th Aug 2003, 20:40
Actually given i can play Unreal 2 and Unreal Tournament 2003 witth a 1.35 Gig processor, i doubt very much i won't be able to play DX:IW with the same hardware.


Given.. you may be able to "play" DX:IW but you may not be able to "play" it well. I have a AMD 1600+ with the 1.4mhz core and sure I can "play" every game out on the market that I have found. But the playability sure sucks compared to my brothers 2600+ that sits next to mine. In fact after playing most new games on his machine, I deleted them off of mine because of how extreme the performance and enjoyment difference was.

And I laugh when you say processors can last that long for games. I have gone through 3 processors in the last 5 years. Sure only the first was on the top of the market at its time.. but still...

Lawnboy360
12th Aug 2003, 21:33
Not to get deep into arguing, Trollslayer, but ...

I said you probably couldn't play with a 1ghz, and you say that you think you'll be ok with 1.35ghz. AFAIK 1<1.35, so I don't see the contradiction. (I understand they are pretty close but still).


wasn't this the subject all along?

Just to make sure, because considering you're talking about playing with 7 years old hardware one could think you're talking about playing The Sims, Counter-Strike or some other "low tech" games.


Not only that, i can currently play old titles with my Radeon 9700 Pro, which i believe supports only Direct X 8 to 9.

When a card "supports" or is "compatible" with DX8 or 9, it only means it supports its features. Theorically you should be able to play games made using DX7 or DX6 without any problem, though eventually some problems show up with some games like what you mentioned about DX. It happens with recent games too however, but nVidia/ATi quickly fix those problems. Likewise, you can install DirectX9 even if you have a DX6 card, you simply won't be able to see its more advanced features.

There's also all the stuff about having the lastest hardware. I would understand if we were arguing about the cost of PCs vs consoles, but I was arguing about your claim of 7-8 years upgrade lifetime, so I don't see the point. I said the best CPU 7 years ago was a 200mhz; I could have easily said the "average gaming CPU" at the time was something like 133mhz; it only makes your "7-8 years" look even more unrealistic.


5 to 6 years is more like it.

Better, but still... mainstream CPUs 5 years ago were PIIs 350-400mhz. Maybe for you it was fine until this year, but as I said, I am talking about playing recent 3d games. With a +-400mhz CPU and a Voodoo card, were you able to play Warcraft3? GTA3? NOLF2? Morrowind? Splinter Cell? I doubt it.


Consoles have a tendency of starting to die out in 2 to 3 years time

No doubt it gets a little less interesting a few years after their release, but as I said above, you won't be able to play most games coming out 5/6 years after you bought your PC either. Besides, consoles users will have to keep using them for 5 years because the next-gen one won't be out anyway. Of course, that's assuming you buy it at launch.

Here's my personal experience : I bought a PIII 450mhz with 64mb of memory in 1999. No video card, as I wasn't a gamer yet. I bought an extra 256mb of memory and a GeForce2MX 32mb in 2001 and got into gaming. I've been able to play recent games until 2002, playing (amongst others) AvP2, Warcraft3 and GTA3
, at low-detail level and with some serious slowdowns which did affect my enjoyment. Which makes for a 4 years lifetime with an upgrade after 2 years. The reason I'm still using this machine is that I buy games that came out before I got into gaming at bargain-bin price (for example, DX came out in 2000 and I bought it at the end of 2002). I'm a relatively hardcore gamer though, so I enjoy playing those games; I doubt most people would want to be playing Planescape Torment when all their friends are playing Star Wars : KOTOR.


Don't beat on this old man anymore.

It's nothing personal. :)

Trollslayer
12th Aug 2003, 21:33
Actually i just finished downloading Star Trek Elite Force 2, and my settings are as thus:

1024x768 at 32-bit colour
Open GL Extensions On
Anisotropic Filtering
Lighting: Simple Lighting Distance: Far
Shadows: Stencil
Flares: Precise
Dynamic Lights and Dynamic Lightmaps On
Entity Fade Distance: Near
Special Effects Detail: Medium
Subdivisions: Medium
Curve Error: Medium
Level of Detail Distance: Near

And i have no problems relating to speed. I can also increase the Entity Fade Distance, Curve Error and Level of Detail Distance one level up, and still i won't get any noticeable problems (2 frames, at best). Granted, it runs on Quake technology, not on Unreal technology, but U2, when it was installed, didn't give me any troubles whatsoever. I wouldn't claim it to be running at 60 fps (that'd be lying), but i can gurantee its running in the 48/52 range.

And you can pretty much laugh at all you want. I only needed a new computer after 5 years, and thats pretty much all i need to know.

Lawnboy360
12th Aug 2003, 21:38
In case you don't notice, I posted at the same time you did, Trollslayer. Just to make sure you don't miss it :) .

I'd also like to add that if I had been a gamer when I bought a PIII in 1999, I would have bought a videocard, but in that case it would not have been as fast as the GeForce2 I bought in 2001, so I probably wouldn't have been able to play GTA3, etc. in 2002.

And I made a little mistake, I bought the PC in 1999 and played recent games up to 2002 so that makes for a lifetime of 3 years, not 4.

Trollslayer
12th Aug 2003, 21:50
Originally posted by Lawnboy360
Not to get deep into arguing, Trollslayer, but ...

I said you probably couldn't play with a 1ghz, and you say that you think you'll be ok with 1.35ghz. AFAIK 1<1.35, so I don't see the contradiction. (I understand they are pretty close but still).

Yes technically, to be fair, 1Ghz is different than 1.35Ghz. However to be fair as well, its barely noticeable.


When a card "supports" or is "compatible" with DX8 or 9, it only means it supports its features. Theorically you should be able to play games made using DX7 or DX6 without any problem, though eventually some problems show up with some games like what you mentioned about DX. It happens with recent games too however, but nVidia/ATi quickly fix those problems. Likewise, you can install DirectX9 even if you have a DX6 card, you simply won't be able to see its more advanced features.

The funny thing is i could run DX1 near flawalessly with most details on with the older card... not so with the Radeon.


Better, but still... mainstream CPUs 5 years ago were PIIs 350-400mhz. Maybe for you it was fine until this year, but as I said, I am talking about playing recent 3d games. With a +-400mhz CPU and a Voodoo card, were you able to play Warcraft3? GTA3? NOLF2? Morrowind? Splinter Cell? I doubt it.

As it incredible as it may seem i managed to play Warcraft 3 and GTA 3 with the Voodoo. I never got too far in Warcraft 3 because it bored me. But i did played and finished GTA3 with that card. I also actually managed to play Soul Reaver 2 with the card, believe it or not. It did presented its fair share of problems, but only on more graphical-intensive scenes (remember the undulating wave in the room with the 2 Reavers, and Moebius creeping up on Raziel? Good, now imagine it in slowmo :p). I also managed to fully play Blood Omen 2 with no problems i remeber. Also MGS1 for PC ran fine. Morrowind however did not (incidentally it still has problems with the Radeon, but i figure what the hell, eh? A slight tweak in View Distance should solve it ;)) AvP1 also ran well. Quake 3 also presented very little problems - if i remember correctly it was probably the game the Voodoo could run the smoothest.

In fact the only problems i seem to have had with the card was with Baldurs Gate 2's 3D spell effects. Of course, they're still there with the Radeon :\ I have consistent problems with the Infinity Engine games when using the Radeon. Oh well at least i already finished them.


No doubt it gets a little less interesting a few years after their release, but as I said above, you won't be able to play most games coming out 5/6 years after you bought your PC either. Besides, consoles users will have to keep using them for 5 years because the next-gen one won't be out anyway. Of course, that's assuming you buy it at launch.

That, on one hand is true. On the other, if you only play games which share fairly similar technology, there won't be many problems, if at all. I didn't had any trouble with my Voodoo playing Quake 2, Kingpin, Half-Life, Soldier of Fortune or even Quake 3, as mentioned before. The blighted bugger also ran the initial MP demo of SoF2 very acceptably. So i figure either my card was a special version, or blessed :)

Thats why the Radeon will more than likely run DX:IW. It suceeded in running U2, UT2K3, and since its based on the same technology, i doubt it'll be heavilly different to that point. Considering im running an Athlon Thoroughbred XP 2,200+ (which ammounts to the 1.35~Ghz), coupled with 512 RAM (and still with a free slot), i can't complain on my gaming, no matter how hard i try.


Here's my personal experience : I bought a PIII 450mhz with 64mb of memory in 1999. No video card, as I wasn't a gamer yet. I bought an extra 256mb of memory and a GeForce2MX 32mb in 2001 and got into gaming. I've been able to play recent games until 2002, playing (amongst others) AvP2, Warcraft3 and GTA3, at low-detail level and with some serious slowdowns which did affect my enjoyment. Which makes for a 4 years lifetime with an upgrade after 2 years. The reason I'm still using this machine is that I buy games that came out before I got into gaming at bargain-bin price (for example, DX came out in 2000 and I bought it at the end of 2002). I'm a relatively hardcore gamer though, so I enjoy playing those games; I doubt most people would want to be playing Planescape Torment when all their friends are playing Star Wars : KOTOR.

Actually i would :) Also, correct me if i'm wrong, but aren' the MX variants the ones on the low-budget side, "complete" without shaders and whatnots? If they are (forgot to add this), then its no surprise they gave that kind of troubles.


It's nothing personal. :)

Yeah i know, i was kidding :) And i exagerated on the years and admitted it, no problem for me :)

[EDIT: Fixed typos, added some info]

Trollslayer
12th Aug 2003, 22:04
Strangely enough, i also managed to play Return to Castle Wolfenstein with the Voodoo 3, with some minor tweaking :eek:. But needed the Radeon to play Allied Assault. :confused:

Go Fox Mulder, GO!

Lawnboy360
12th Aug 2003, 22:14
Thats why the Radeon will more than likely run DX:IW. It suceeded in running U2, UT2K3, and since its based on the same technology, i doubt it'll be heavilly different to that point. Considering im running an Athlon Thoroughbred XP 2,200+ (which ammounts to the 1.35~Ghz)

:eek:
As far as your ability to run DX:IW is concerned (strange way to say that it seems...oh well) , you previously mentioned only the 1.35ghz part, so I assumed you had a P4 (though obviously there is no such thing as a 1.35ghz P4), when in fact it's a Athlon XP. As far as performance is concerned, there's a big difference between a P4 1.35ghz and an Athlon 1.35ghz/2200+. You certainly won't have any problem running DX:IW.

Trollslayer
12th Aug 2003, 22:30
well sorry for not mentioning that. It didn't occured me. It should have, given the conversation, as Weird Al Yankowic would say, was all about the Pentiums ;)

El Padrino
13th Aug 2003, 01:05
Originally posted by operative x
Pc gamers may have to upgrade to more RAM or a different video card and then we are set for about 3/4 years and we can play any game. But console people have to buy a next gen console and after that they still can't play any game because some consoles have different games. For example like Xbox, xbox gamers can't play GTA. ps2 gamers can't play halo.

PC gamers can only "play any game" on the PC, just like an X-Box can only play any game on the X-Box. You can't make a valid argument against consoles in support of the PC by pointing out a vice PCs and consoles share. Can you play Zelda on a PC? No.



Originally posted by operative x

So don't forget to mention that to, that in order to play all console games you have to buy 3 different consoles. LOTS of people I know are suckered into that crap. One of my friends is a hardcore gamer who plays nothing but games, he has a ps2, xbox, playstation, game cube, and gameboy. That’s about 3-4 generations of different consoles and costs a hell of a lot more than a stick of ram and a old video card like a geforce3 that would last you longer than that. Plus lets not forget to mention memory cards. The ps2, and G-cube require them so thats what an extra $20 for a memory card.

You can expect to pay up to, most likely less than $750 for three next gen consoles and a Gameboy. $790 with the memory cards... For two generations of all three major consoles (and the newest Gameboy), you can buy one decent computer. I very much doubt that a $1500 computer, PLUS upgrades ($250 for a decent RAM upgrade and a mid-range video card) is going to be able to keep up with around 8 to 10 years worth of new consoles on just a new stick of RAM and a video card. I got my computer back in the fall of 2001, and have upgraded its RAM and video card. Less than 2 years later, it will never be able to run a game like Fable at an acceptable framerate.

That friend of yours can play Metroid Prime and, when it's released, Fable. He hardly got "suckered into that crap."

operative x
13th Aug 2003, 02:34
Originally posted by El Padrino
PC gamers can only "play any game" on the PC, just like an X-Box can only play any game on the X-Box. You can't make a valid argument against consoles in support of the PC by pointing out a vice PCs and consoles share. Can you play Zelda on a PC? No.
Ahh... actually you can. It is called an emulater buddy. Mostly every "good" game from a console is exported to the pc like halo, GTA, and Splinter cell. On a pc I can play GTA, halo, Tomb Raider, Splinter cell, and about hundreds of others. Can you say the same about your ps2 or xbox? I think NOT.
You can expect to pay up to, most likely less than $750 for three next gen consoles and a Gameboy. $790 with the memory cards... For two generations of all three major consoles (and the newest Gameboy), you can buy one decent computer. I very much doubt that a $1500 computer, PLUS upgrades ($250 for a decent RAM upgrade and a mid-range video card) is going to be able to keep up with around 8 to 10 years worth of new consoles on just a new stick of RAM and a video card.
You can by a dell P4 2.20GHz for $500. Then pop in a Geforce FX 5900 ultra for $500. That brings our total at $1000 plus tax (wich I doubt you bothered to) at about $1080. Now not only will you have a SUPERIOR gaming rig compared to any console and WIDE selection of games that will last you about 5/6 yrs. Then after 5/6 years I am sure that a stick of 512 DRR will be about $50 (right now at $100/$150). And not to mention you can check your email, browse the internet, burn cd's ect ect.Dell (http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/products/model_dimen_dimen_2400.htm) 512 DDR (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=1051384637802&skuId=4980603&type=product&cmp=%20%20)

El Padrino
13th Aug 2003, 06:49
What the hell? Ok, can you LEGALLY play Zelda on the PC. No. And in case you haven't noticed, that whole "export the 'good' games" thing works for the X-Box as well, which is kinda why this thread exists in the first place.

operative x
13th Aug 2003, 07:05
Originally posted by El Padrino
What the hell? Ok, can you LEGALLY play Zelda on the PC. No. And in case you haven't noticed, that whole "export the 'good' games" thing works for the X-Box as well, which is kinda why this thread exists in the first place. Ohhh! so you can play GTA on xbox then? Huh? NO you can't! For you to play GTA and Halo you have to waste hundreds of dollars on two consoles to play them. Whereas I can play both on my pc. And also when xbox gets the importated pc games the graphics are tuned WAAAAY down and plus that horrible controller for playing fps's, I don't know how you guys do it. Xbox I think is ok, it's the danm ps2 I don't really like, but the pc is still the dominate gaming machine.

Lawnboy360
13th Aug 2003, 14:51
This is really pointless. It's simply obvious that a PC is more expensive than a console and doesn't last longer, even considering some cheap upgrades along the way.

I guess it's time for....

[removed, I apologise...]

Le`Sauveur`De`Ces`Dames
13th Aug 2003, 15:10
this discussion is again going in tights circles.

[Ok, apologies accepted :-)]

El Padrino
13th Aug 2003, 16:05
Originally posted by operative x
Ohhh! so you can play GTA on xbox then? Huh? NO you can't!

Big fricking deal. Even though IGN has a few pieces on how in 2004, chances are, it's going to the X-Box (and Gamecube), I never said you could play GTA on an X-Box.



Originally posted by operative x
For you to play GTA and Halo you have to waste hundreds of dollars on two consoles to play them. Whereas I can play both on my pc.

This has to be one of the dumber arguments against consoles and for PCs that I have ever seen. And more than once from you (the line of "reasoning," anyway).

What's your significant point, anyway? Wow, two games you can play on your PC that are out on separate consoles. So what. Can you play Fable and Time Splitters 2 on the PC? No. Someone could play them on their one X-Box, just like someone could play Deus Ex 2 and Time Splitters 2 on their one X-Box, but would need a PC as well as either a Gamecube or PS2 if they didn't have one (X-Box).

Did you miss the part about shared vices not amounting to much of an argument, or did you just fail to understand it? Are you found lacking with your perception, or is it your comprehension? If you want I can make my posts easier to read to accomidate either shortcoming. Really, it's no problem.

operative x
13th Aug 2003, 20:31
:rolleyes: Oh! Forget IT! It's like trying to talk to a wall.

Catman
13th Aug 2003, 20:41
Reminds me of a song:

I talk to the trees
But they don't listen to me
I talk to the stars
But they never hear me
The breeze hasn't time
To stop and hear what I say
I talk to them all in vain

Refrain:
But suddenly my words
Reach someone else's ears
Touch someone else's heartstrings, too
I tell you my dreams
And while you're listening to me
I suddenly see them come true

I can see us on an April night
Sipping brandy underneath the stars
Reading poems in the candlelight
To the strumming of guitars

I will tell you all the books I've read
And the way I met the King of France
Then I'll send the servants off to bed
And I'll ask you for a dance

Refrain:
But suddenly my words
Reach someone else's ears
Touch someone else's heartstrings, too
I tell you my dreams
And while you're listening to me
I suddenly see them come true


from Lerner & Loewe's Paint Your Wagon

El Padrino
14th Aug 2003, 00:27
Concession accepted, fanboy. Have a nice day.

operative x
14th Aug 2003, 01:00
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Merces Letifer
16th Aug 2003, 04:34
It would be nice if ION released a demo of just one early level, so we can get a taste of the gameplay and the sweet, sweet physics engine. I'm pretty confident DX:IW will turn out alright.

Loreleye
18th Aug 2003, 09:20
I red the first posts, and then the last ones. Ok, some games can be played on just a PC, and some on Just X-Box ps2 1, and gamcube, etc.
Some game can be played on 2 or more of this!
So?
It is a fact that a game on PC, has the capacity to be much better then a game on a console. There is no console that can match the newiest PCs.
There is actually good for the consoles that the game is made for PC, and then dumbed down to console, cuz. I think it is much easier to dumb a game down, then make the game better.
I must say that how can you argu against someone, and saying they are wrong, and then again say that no one knows?? Thats the most ignorant and stupid, horrid argu I ever heard my boy, thats like saying the gravity is gone.

The ONLY good thin about consoles is that when bought a game, it will run, no waht so ever, and you can sit in the sofa and play whit friends.
But. there is only one thing of those that a PC cant assure. And that is that a game will run smoothly on your computer.
You can sit in the sofa and play on a PC.
Just cuz the most of us dont, dosnt mean that it should not be like that?


So fellows, why buy a console, and not a PC? if you buy the lates computer now, you can have it many many years ahead. the gamedevelopers are struggling to keep up whit the hardware, and as the hardware is getting better, there is just more detaild programming to do, and it takes longer time to create games.
Think about that nest time you upgrade you computer?
If you do, you wil not get games so quick???

Loreleye
18th Aug 2003, 11:50
Ion Storm, I think you will make the best game ever, wel, actually, thats wrong, I just said that over at the black & white forum, wel I think that Deus ex Invisible war, and Black & white 2 probably is the only games this days I even thinkin about buying.