Thread: PC version identical to console versions

PC version identical to console versions

  1. #101
    Right, going to skip out on most of this conversation because it's all been said 10 times before, but I had to pick up on this:

    Originally Posted by Romeo
    I'm with Pinky, ME2 was one of the best looking games of yesteryear.
    Since when did ME2 become a game of yesteryear? It came out in January!

    *doesn't let the door hit him on the way out.*

  2. #102

    BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW console

    The article didn't say much of anything...
    So does this mean the PC version will be dragged down with consoletardation, or just that the experience will be the same for all platforms (as in no chopping up HR into fail for the console).
    "It would appear to be severe head trauma." ... "From what?"
    "Multiple Face-Palming..."

  3. #103
    Originally Posted by Angel-A
    The article didn't say much of anything...
    So does this mean the PC version will be dragged down with consoletardation, or just that the experience will be the same for all platforms (as in no chopping up HR into fail for the console).
    Think of it this way. You know how lean got cut out of MW2 because there weren't enough buttons on the console? If something gameplay related doesn't work on the console it will get cut. There will be no difference gameplay wise between the versions. Hopefully the UI will be made specifically for the PC, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
    Rule 30: A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    136
    Originally Posted by ThePrecursor
    Seeing how they have the cyber-renaissance stylistic design in many areas in the game, gold is definitely the way to go. Blue would just be awkward and could be disconnecting from the overal layout of the game and wouldn't achieve the same effect. While blue set the tone just right for the original, which was set after the collapse, gold fits perfectly with the idea of a golden age of technology in DX:HR.

    As for color in general, blue is a rather "cold" color - as opposed to gold which is a "warm" color. The way they handled color schemes here makes perfect sense.
    Oh, I definitely agree. Wholeheartedly.

  5. #105
    Originally Posted by pringlepower
    Red Dead was big enough.
    But then again, they seem to have cut back some on, for instance, animation on that one. The "moonwalk to cover" animation is, frankly, laughable.

    Originally Posted by pringlepower
    As much fun as it would be to ride from Texas to Canada, it might also be really boring.
    Well, that depends on how much there would be to see, and how much there was to experience. And of course the music.

    Edit: It's just that this is a discussion you can't "win". A PC game always has more potential for larger levels, better graphics, better animations and so on, than a console. It's the nature of the beast. A console is static; a PC is not.
    "Isn't the universe an amazing place? I wouldn't live anywhere else." G'Kar, Babylon 5.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    7,374
    Originally Posted by beastrn
    ^ Looks like a ps2 game.



    So sad that nobody has even attempted to beat it. A lot of things UT99 did still haven't been surpassed, actually. Thanks for that one, consolers!



    This is the difference though. We're NOT getting worked up about tiny details before knowing the facts. WE (I mean, people that have played games for a while, people who are observant, people that aren't gullible) have seen this over and over and over and over again. There comes a point (you will reach it one day, if you stick around) where you realize that all those tiny little things you think aren't worth getting worked up over are actually indicators of much larger problems.

    I can tell you right now that DXHR will be a hand holding, follow the dot, gamey, unimpressive unimmersive experience similar to the let-down of Bioshock, Conviction, Vegas, etc. Go here, go there. Watch this watch that. Dumb dumb dumb.

    And I can deduce this from the little details we know.

    Oh and that bloody GAMEPLAY VIDEO.

    Lots of people like tutorials, er, games like that, obviously - it's just disappointing that the most respected name in PC gaming has become a stupid console game.

    You can argue that we're wrong all you like, but you're not offering anything to the table - the proof will be the game and the only thing I'm looking forward to from DXHR's release is being able to bask in the back-pedaling and "it's not dumbed down it's just saving time - who wanted to listen to people talk or have an inventory anyway?!" comments on these very forums.
    Let me start by explaining that Right Now, I'm speaking for me. Not for Square, Not For E-M, not even for the other Moderators or Keir. Me.

    I don't care what you think, or how you view the game. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I do however think it's idiotic to simply equate solid multi-platform support with developer and project stupidity, simply because many existing 'AAA' titles aren't ambitious enough. This is an unfinished game made by a new team at an unpublished studio. No precedent for expecting poor production here. Food for Thought.

    I never evaluate anything this unimportant (it's a video game! It entertains and engages us!) until I experience it myself. I know enough about game design to realize that there's a good reason for everything in a title as considered as this one. In this case while the choice is probably profit driven to ensure that the console versions (the moneymakers) don't suck, It's also apparent to me that the Computer is not being left out in the cold, as has been done so many times before by so many different dev teams. Far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.

  7. #107
    ah i see.

    cancelling pre-order in 3...2...1...

  8. #108
    Originally Posted by Fluffis
    But then again, they seem to have cut back some on, for instance, animation on that one. The "moonwalk to cover" animation is, frankly, laughable.
    That's called a glitch, and they happen in every game.
    Speed up the accelerating returns, 'cause carbon doesn’t work, I want to evolve and operate at terahertz.

  9. #109
    Originally Posted by Shralla
    That's called a glitch, and they happen in every game.
    + red dead had a horrible draw distance, horrible framerate, and medicore textures... that also happens on many console games.

  10. #110
    Originally Posted by Shralla
    That's called a glitch, and they happen in every game.
    You call it a "glitch". I call it "lack of attention to animation". Basically, they're the same thing, but your word doesn't point out what the problem is. It all boils down to cutting down on animation, in the interest of having a large sandbox.
    "Isn't the universe an amazing place? I wouldn't live anywhere else." G'Kar, Babylon 5.

  11. #111
    Originally Posted by bukkit
    + red dead had a horrible draw distance
    Okay, what the are you talking about? Now you're just making up bull, because the draw distance in Red Dead is FAR from "horrible," and is more approaching the "amazing" side of the technological spectrum. I can't even BELIEVE how much bull you're trying to feed me right now.

    horrible framerate
    So running at a steady 30 FPS which dips occasionally in periods of high action is also considered "horrible," now?

    and medicore textures
    Which it still would have had on PC, because you either go for quality or quantity, and the game was based on quantity.

    Originally Posted by Fluffis
    You call it a "glitch". I call it "lack of attention to animation". Basically, they're the same thing, but your word doesn't point out what the problem is. It all boils down to cutting down on animation, in the interest of having a large sandbox.
    No, it's just a glitch. I'VE never had it happen to me, and that right there pretty much proves it. Unless it repeats every time, it's not a "lack of attention to animation."
    Speed up the accelerating returns, 'cause carbon doesn’t work, I want to evolve and operate at terahertz.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    7,374
    Originally Posted by Shralla
    So running at a steady 30 FPS which dips occasionally in periods of high action is also considered "horrible," now?
    I'm with you here, I consider 30 FPS to be good, anything above to be fantastic. Many "enthusiast" PC gamers freak out if their frame-rate dips below 60 though.

  13. #113
    Originally Posted by Mr. K
    I'm with you here, I consider 30 FPS to be good, anything above to be fantastic. Many "enthusiast" PC gamers freak out if their frame-rate dips below 60 though.
    It all depends on the game, and the nature of the dip. I would vastly prefer a framerate locked at 30 to one that constantly fluctuates between 30 and 60. Honestly, Red Dead's framerate was fine, ESPECIALLY considering how massive the game was and how gorgeous everything looked. It really only dropped below 30 when a bunch of stuff was blowing up in your face, or if you got knocked off your horse and trampled by ALL the bad guys at once.

    And you know what? The game itself was *** awesome.
    Speed up the accelerating returns, 'cause carbon doesn’t work, I want to evolve and operate at terahertz.

  14. #114
    Originally Posted by Shralla
    So running at a steady 30 FPS which dips occasionally in periods of high action is also considered "horrible," now?
    No, but it's not "good". It's "okay", or "adequate", but nothing more.

    Originally Posted by Shralla
    Which it still would have had on PC
    Now, you're just speculating.

    Originally Posted by Shralla
    No, it's just a glitch. I'VE never had it happen to me, and that right there pretty much proves it. Unless it repeats every time, it's not a "lack of attention to animation."
    There are very few times where a glitch is something else than a software problem. And if it is a software problem, they haven't spent enough time with it. A glitch in animation like that one, where the character is actually seen moving, is most certainly a problem on the software side. If it was a jump from one spot to another, it could be something different. Glitches are, of course, notoriously hard to pin down, so they have a tendency to be "overlooked" (i.e. ignored).
    "Isn't the universe an amazing place? I wouldn't live anywhere else." G'Kar, Babylon 5.

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    136
    Originally Posted by Fluffis
    No, but it's not "good". It's "okay", or "adequate", but nothing more.
    I forgot. An "adequate" frame rate limits the potential of the game.

  16. #116
    Originally Posted by Marses
    I forgot. An "adequate" frame rate limits the potential of the game.
    No, but if you try a game at a steady 30 fps, with dips, and then compare it with the same game at 60 fps, with the same dips, you are going to notice one hell of a difference. Higher fps is more pleasing to the eye, and to the experience of the game. More fluid character movement, better-looking physical effects and so on.

    I used to think ~30 fps was good. I was adamant about it. I was stuck on the whole "movies are 24 fps, and they're fluid" thing. I couldn't believe the difference would be as big as people said. That was until I got a computer that could run those same games at 60-70 or sometimes even 100 fps. The difference was staggering.
    "Isn't the universe an amazing place? I wouldn't live anywhere else." G'Kar, Babylon 5.

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    136
    Originally Posted by Fluffis
    No, but if you try a game at a steady 30 fps, with dips, and then compare it with the same game at 60 fps, with the same dips, you are going to notice one hell of a difference. Higher fps is more pleasing to the eye, and to the experience of the game. More fluid character movement, better-looking physical effects and so on.

    I used to think ~30 fps was good. I was adamant about it. I was stuck on the whole "movies are 24 fps, and they're fluid" thing. That was until I got a computer that could run those same games at 60-70 or sometimes even 100 fps. The difference was staggering.
    I thought when talking about 30 fps that it was a given the frame rate was locked.

  18. #118
    Originally Posted by Marses
    I thought when talking about 30 fps that it was a given the frame rate was locked.
    They were talking about dips, when talking about Red Dead Redemption, so I just built on that.

    But still... it doesn't matter if it's "locked" or not. A locked fps of 50 or 60 is still far better than a locked fps of 30. Even 40 is noticeably better. Edit: Hell, even an fps that swings between 60 and 30 (kind of hypothetical, unless it is extremely intense in places) is better most of the time. The rest of the time it's exactly the same. 30 fps just isn't more than "okay".
    "Isn't the universe an amazing place? I wouldn't live anywhere else." G'Kar, Babylon 5.

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    136
    Originally Posted by Fluffis
    But still... it doesn't matter if it's "locked" or not. A locked fps of 50 or 60 is still far better than a locked fps of 30. Even 40 is noticeably better. Edit: Hell, even an fps that swings between 60 and 30 (kind of hypothetical, unless it is extremely intense in places) is better most of the time. The rest of the time it's exactly the same. 30 fps just isn't more than "okay".
    I'm not saying it's more than okay. It's perfectly adequate.

  20. #120
    Originally Posted by Marses
    I'm not saying it's more than okay. It's perfectly adequate.
    But "adequate" and "okay" are both limiting in the experience of a game. 30 fps is good enough to play a game without getting an migraine from the stuttering, but you're not experiencing the game in the same way that you would at 40-100 fps. There's no motion blur in the average game, so fluidity of motion is lost at 30 FPS, compared to higher fps. It's a fact.

    I see that as limiting; if not the potential of the game itself (in terms of gameplay) then at least the experience.
    "Isn't the universe an amazing place? I wouldn't live anywhere else." G'Kar, Babylon 5.

  21. #121
    Originally Posted by Fluffis
    Hell, even an fps that swings between 60 and 30 (kind of hypothetical, unless it is extremely intense in places) is better most of the time.
    No. Not ever. ANY kind of swing between 30 and 60 is HUGE and looks like a pile of crap. I've never dropped below the mid 20s, and if they even tried to run it at 60, it would just run at 30 most of the time anyway, only there would be way more fluctuations, which would be far more jarring than the solution now.

    And I'm laughing that you think you need motion blur to capture "fluidity of motion." Motion blur is another stupid layer of paint that devs slap on their game to make it look very slightly prettier, and devour massive amounts of system resources.
    Speed up the accelerating returns, 'cause carbon doesn’t work, I want to evolve and operate at terahertz.

  22. #122
    Originally Posted by Shralla
    No. Not ever. ANY kind of swing between 30 and 60 is HUGE and looks like a pile of crap.
    Yes, it's huge. But even at its lowest point, the game would still run smoother than a game that starts out at 30 fps and then dips.

    Originally Posted by Shralla
    if they even tried to run it at 60, it would just run at 30 most of the time anyway, only there would be way more fluctuations, which would be far more jarring than the solution now.
    And that would be the point... A console can't handle that size game (RDR, that is), even at those relatively low-level graphics, with an fps rate over 30. With the graphics we have seen on DX:HR, a level would have to be fairly small to even have 30 fps, or it would have to be broken up by loading areas. If the latter is the case, it's not a problem. They can have large levels, but let the console version have loading areas, while the PC version just kept going. Since they want to have the experience as close to each other as possible for both platforms, we'll probably see smaller levels than what's possible for the PC.

    Originally Posted by Shralla
    And I'm laughing that you think you need motion blur to capture "fluidity of motion." Motion blur is another stupid layer of paint that devs slap on their game to make it look very slightly prettier, and devour massive amounts of system resources.
    Motion blur, in the sense I mentioned it (the original sense), is what makes movies - that usually run at 24 fps - look fluid (actually, the original sense would be blurring in photos, but we're talking about animation so...). If they had that fps without motion blur, the audience would experience stuttering, and flickering. Just like in a game running at that kind of rate.
    "Isn't the universe an amazing place? I wouldn't live anywhere else." G'Kar, Babylon 5.

  23. #123
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1

    Post

    First of all, I'm not going to judge anything until I see a playable demo (not any gameplay videos, but an actual piece of software I can test drive). This is a new development crew (like previously said), and that's both good and bad:
    1. They weren't the guys specifically behind DX1 (DX: The Conspiracy), so you can't expect it to be as awesome as the original, but many sequels are hardly as good.
    2. They are new, so they look at where the market's at (XBOX360 and PS3). Like previously said, PC gamers like myself are becoming more and more scarce. Many reasons for this include DRM issues to decrease piracy. Extremely irritating when I can't play a game unless I'm connected to the Internet to "verify" I'm a legitimate owner of the game.
    3. Because they are new... They weren't the geniuses <sarcasm> behind DW:IW or other retarded PC ports, so it may turn out alright. Yes, I understand they have to develop for the weakest platform and go from there, but hopefully interface and menu navigation won't suck to high heaven.

    Like it was said before, the only thing we've seen demonstrated was on a console. There haven't been any demonstrations for a PC, so we can't alleviate any worries. But I also think it's still too early to panic over anything.


    But I can't really blame them for focusing on consoles when that's where all the money is and when console gamers don't view stealing as their 'right' the same way hippy dippy linux weirdos and pimply aspies do.
    Now this statement infuriates me. I am what you would call a "hippy dippy linux weirdo" and there's a big difference between open source/GPL licensing and "stealing", or what I like to call pirating (which is theft no matter how you want to put it). Linux users believe in GPL/open source not piracy. Not to mention most games only work in Windows. Game developers have been implementing DRM since DX1 (CD check, so maybe secure disc or SecurROM), and it just keeps getting more restrictive as stated in #2 which is running off many PC Gamers, but it doesn't discourage the pirates, they just find new ways around their DRM. But my point is just because some thieves use Linux, doesn't mean most do (most use IRC); and it certainly doesn't mean that Linux users should be branded in this way.

  24. #124
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    7,374
    I'd rather have a game stay at 30 than jump between 30 and 60.

    'Course, 30 fps at 720p is much easier than 30 fps at 1080p or 1440p.

    Originally Posted by Fluffis
    And that would be the point... A console can't handle that size game (RDR, that is), even at those relatively low-level graphics, with an fps rate over 30. With the graphics we have seen on DX:HR, a level would have to be fairly small to even have 30 fps, or it would have to be broken up by loading areas. If the latter is the case, it's not a problem. They can have large levels, but let the console version have loading areas, while the PC version just kept going. Since they want to have the experience as close to each other as possible for both platforms, we'll probably see smaller levels than what's possible for the PC.
    Not exactly true. They don't need to do loading screens everywhere like DX. The engine DX:HR is built on is pretty good about streaming large areas smoothly, as I understand it. They do seem to be throwing in a couple of save-load transitions in the larger hub levels for moving to and from the outdoorsy area and separate indoor sections. What this means is that it won't be confined to smaller levels simply because of the console support. That L.C.D. aspect of development means that the 360 will (most likely) determine level sizes across all three platforms, true, but the levels themselves won't be terribly restricted. Huge levels can be streamed smoothly on the 360. That's been the case for a couple years now.

  25. #125
    Personally, i'm not that concerned with the map sizes, small maps with loading screens can work if done well, nor with graphics (original had bad graphics even for its time, and i still love the game).
    I'm not even worried about the lack of skills (i'm 99% certain that game would be better with skills in addition to augs, but fine, i can live without them).
    What worries me is that i'll end up playing with a crappy controls, bad user interface and miserable excuse of an inventory.
    well, that and that they might dumb down the plot (not because players are stupid, but because execs think we are), that they'll sacrifice stealth and immersion for "cool" takedowns and fast cinematic combat, that the 3rd person cover will make stealth too easy or breaks immersion, that they might stuff in a totally superfluous and/or stupid, yet mandatory, romantic sideplot (i like romance in games, when done well, but most of the times it ends up with me wanting to strangle my romantic interest for being a moron, or commit suicide for being a total wimp/doormat, or both), and, ofcourse, that Adam Jensen might end up being complete * and a whiner instead of a stoic badass.
    but that's just me being grumpy antisocial pessimistic misanthrope with atitude issues.

Page 5 of 10 First First 123456789 ... Last