Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. Los Santos Summer Special
      2. The Diamond Casino Heist
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Vice Beach

Kojima Productions' Death Stranding

Recommended Posts

Dryspace

Wow...I just caught this toward the beginning of an article:

 

 

In only the last few days we've learned...some seriously disturbing stuff we won't mention here because, wow...

 

Fast Facts

  • Death Stranding release date: November 8 2019
  • Developer: Kojima Productions
  • Publisher: Sony Interactive Entertainment
  • Platforms: PS4 and PC

 

PS4 AND PC!!!

 

This is the article I refer to: https://www.gamesradar.com/death-stranding-news/

Now I'm just waiting for someone to let me know that this information is entirely bunk. Please don't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard Power Colt
On 10/20/2019 at 11:09 PM, Dryspace said:

Wow...I just caught this toward the beginning of an article:

 

 

In only the last few days we've learned...some seriously disturbing stuff we won't mention here because, wow...

 

Fast Facts

  • Death Stranding release date: November 8 2019
  • Developer: Kojima Productions
  • Publisher: Sony Interactive Entertainment
  • Platforms: PS4 and PC

 

PS4 AND PC!!!

 

This is the article I refer to: https://www.gamesradar.com/death-stranding-news/

Now I'm just waiting for someone to let me know that this information is entirely bunk. Please don't do that.

Could just be a mistake on the article. Usually Sony doesn't publish their games on PC.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace
On 10/23/2019 at 6:38 AM, Richard Power Colt said:

Usually Sony doesn't publish their games on PC.

I understand that, but even though we still don't have actual AAA PC games anymore, developers have gotten more serious about PC ports/versions of their games over the last few years. That's why I don't consider the idea ridiculous, whereas five years ago I would have assumed it was an error from the start.

 

Also, this comes after the information discovered not long ago that seemed to suggest a PC version. Well...I'll have to look into this more now.

 

EDIT: Apparently it is a mistake. And my mistake as well for assuming that a website would not publish such blatantly erroneous information. Although it is apparently a fact that there will be no PC version at release, I still by no means consider the idea that it will eventually release on PC to be incredible.

 

EDIT: Not a mistake. Death Stranding is coming to PC. Also, Static--a very knowledgable and soft-spoken gentleman--took it upon himself to point out that my assumption that Death Stranding was coming to PC was "so blatantly and obviously wrong that anyone that has been in the even remotely somewhat in the gaming sphere would know it was utter bollocks". 😀

Edited by Dryspace
Update

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Static
2 hours ago, Dryspace said:

but even though we still don't have actual AAA PC games anymore,

I know it's trendy to sh*t on ActivisionBlizzard right now, but c'mon. Also I can't recall any game from EA in the last decade that wasnt released on PC. I mean I guess  you could potentially argue the quality of their games aren't necessarily AAA, but the devs/pubs themselves almost certainly fall into AAA from a industry standpoint.  Also you can toss Bethesda in there as well.

Edited by Static

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zello

I'll pass on this game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace
4 hours ago, Static said:

I know it's trendy to sh*t on ActivisionBlizzard right now, but c'mon. Also I can't recall any game from EA in the last decade that wasnt released on PC. I mean I guess  you could potentially argue the quality of their games aren't necessarily AAA, but the devs/pubs themselves almost certainly fall into AAA from a industry standpoint.  Also you can toss Bethesda in there as well.

You misunderstand. I wasn't making some comment about the quality of games. I was simply referring to the fact that the last AAA games conceived, designed, and coded for PC hardware, and the sensibilities of the PC market, were released in 2007. Since 2008, AAA games have been conceived and designed for console HW and the console market.

 

That's why I said "AAA PC games", because there are non-AAA games, Indie games, etc. that are conceived, designed, and coded for PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck
23 hours ago, Dryspace said:

Since 2008, AAA games have been conceived and designed for console HW and the console market.

That's... not actually accurate I believe. Specially since the hardware has become way more similar in recent years. At Capcom, we just design/build the games the way we want them to be, and then adjust according to performance. There's only a bit of platform-specific optimization being done, and that is all on the engine code; games are created for all platforms at once, to look their best, then get downscaled to whatever runs best on the target platform.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace
1 hour ago, Tchuck said:

That's... not actually accurate I believe.

No, it's very unfortunately accurate. It's something that I eventually came to realize after building my first gaming PC at the end of 2008. There were all of these games from ~2004 to 2007 that I discovered, and that induced me to build a gaming PC in the first place: Half-Life 2, F.E.A.R., Crysis, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, The Witcher: Enhanced Edition. But after I built my PC, I started to wonder why all of the new games that were coming out were so disappointing, and even retrograde compared to the games I fell in love with.

 

First came Far Cry 2, and then F.E.A.R. 2, Crysis 2, and on and on. As I said, I eventually realized that these new games were released for PC hardware, but were not conceived and designed for PC hardware, and just as importantly, were not conceived and designed for the PC market.

 

Prior to 2008, we had AAA PC games, and we had AAA console games, and we had AAA PC games that were ported to console, and we had AAA console games that were ported to PC. Since 2008, all we have are AAA console games, and AAA console games that are ported to, or also released on PC. We do not have AAA PC games. There are still AAA games exclusive to console, but there are no AAA games exclusive to PC because no AAA developer conceives and designs AAA games for PC anymore.

 

The last AAA PC games were The Witcher and Crysis in 2007. Like all other sequels since then, the sequels of The Witcher and Crysis had gameplay and UIs designed entirely around controllers, and visuals designed entirely for console hardware. Crysis 2 in particular was a massive step backward from the gameplay and visuals of Crysis.

 

The issue is that just because a game is released on "X" doesn't mean it's an "X game". I play The Legend of Zelda on my PC via an emulator, but that doesn't mean it's a PC game now. It was conceived, designed, and coded for NES hardware and the NES market, and will thus always be an NES game.

Edited by Dryspace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Nah, it's not accurate. I tell you this with the point of view of someone in AAA development. You're just looking at things with rose-tinted glasses. Ask older gamers, and they'll tell you PC generation of the 90s was the best, with Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem, Half Life et al. It was truly the best of times, gaming like we had never seen before. Ask newer gamers? They'll tell you the current PC crop is the greatest ever.

 

12 minutes ago, Dryspace said:

Since 2008, all we have are AAA console games, and AAA console games that are ported to, or also released on PC. We do not have AAA PC games. There are still AAA games exclusive to console, but there are no AAA games exclusive to PC because no AAA developer conceives and designs AAA games for PC anymore.

Pardon for the term, but this is absolute horsesh*t. Sure, some games were designed to fit gamepads better... Does that make them non-PC games? Cause tons of PC players use gamepads. This does not mean they were designed for consoles. Developers have a right to design for the controller they think fits their games best. RE7, RE2 weren't designed with consoles in mind. They were designed as games. Platform independent. DMC5 wasn't designed with consoles in mind; it was designed with gamepads in mind. Does that make it a console game? That's a pretty asinine definition.

 

And this is ignoring all the AAA PC games like Civilization, Europa Universalis, all the new tycoon games and whanot. To say there's no AAA PC games is to be completely ignorant.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace
20 hours ago, Tchuck said:

You're just looking at things with rose-tinted glasses.

You're mistaken. Many of the games I mentioned were several years old by the time I played them--at any rate, I compared the pre-2008 games to the post-2007 games contemporaneously.

 

In other words, I discovered PC gaming--as in games designed for PC--right when it ended, and AAA development had switched to consoles. I played Far Cry 2, F.E.A.R. 2, Dead Space, Assassin's Creed, and Fallout 3 within a year of building my gaming PC. Other games like Just Cause 2 I played within only 2 years. So I was comparing them side-by-side. And the difference in technology, gameplay, control, and player agency was blatantly obvious. I just didn't know why at first.

 

It wasn't the situation of me playing games, and then 10 years later saying, "Man, games were sooo much better when I had to walk uphill both ways...". Nostalgia or "rose-tinted glasses" do not have anything to do with it.

 

Quote

Ask older gamers, and they'll tell you...Ask newer gamers? They'll tell you...

And that's just what you'd expect. As I explained above, this is not relevant to my point.

 

Quote

Sure, some games were designed to fit gamepads better... Does that make them non-PC games?

Some??? Come on, man! ALL post-2007 AAA games are designed for controllers. Can you name a single post-2007 AAA game that is designed for KB & mouse, with controllers an afterthought? Of course not. Remember, this entire discussion is about AAA, not sub-AAA like Civilization, or Indie.

 

On the contrary, I can name a bucket-load of post-2007 AAA games for which KB & mouse support is abysmal, or not even usable. We're talking shooters, so there's no excuse of saying that controllers were the obvious choice, nor is there any excuse for releasing a game with outright broken controls on PC.

 

Imagine if console players had to plug in a KB & mouse in order to play a shooter, because the game just happened to be designed around KB & mouse, and the controller implementation was terrible. According to you, that's how games are designed, but you know that's ridiculous. It's PC players who have had to do that for years now.

 

Quote

Cause tons of PC players use gamepads.

I'm one of them. I have 3 or 4 different gamepads that I use for arcade, retro, racing, and occasionally flying if the PC version has really bad KB & Mouse support.

 

Quote

...some games were designed to fit gamepads...This does not mean they were designed for consoles.

Of course it doesn't--not per se. For example, I have an idea for a unique racing game for PC, and it would definitely be designed for controllers, because they are superior to a KB & mouse for controlling a vehicle. Of course, it would also have perfect KB & mouse support, because KB & mouse is the default control method for PC, just as a controller is the default (*ahem* only official) control method for console.

 

But if a shooter, in which a mouse is a demonstrably superior method of controlling a camera and aiming, is designed for controllers, it is patently obvious that the game was developed for the console market. Even more so when the entire UI is designed to accomodate controllers and positively stinks with a mouse, or doesn't even recognize a mouse at all. Even more so when there is hideous mouse acceleration and/or lag. Even more so when the opening screen says "Press START to Begin". Even more so when...

 

Quote

...it was designed with gamepads in mind. Does that make it a console game? That's a pretty asinine definition.

I don't know what you're talking about. I never defined a console game as a game designed for a controller.

 

Quote

And this is ignoring all the AAA PC games like Civilization, Europa Universalis, all the new tycoon games and whanot.

These games are not AAA. I stated very clearly that there are still sub-AAA and Indie games which are conceived and designed for PC.

 

Quote

To say there's no AAA PC games is to be completely ignorant.

To say that there have been no AAA PC games released since 2007 is a matter of fact, unless you count Crysis: Warhead and The Witcher: Enhanced Edition in 2008.

 

You are misunderstanding the essence of my point, and making assumptions about what I think. When did I say or imply that "games stink now", or "games were great when AAA PC games were made, and now they stink"? You can be disappointed with a certain reality, while still gaining enjoyment from it.

 

I really enjoy F.E.A.R. 2 and play it every couple of years--it's just not as good as it could have been. As for post-2007 AAA console games, there are many that I love, such as Just Cause 2, Dead Space, Arkham City, & Skyrim. However, many of these games took me multiple tries to get into, because of the consoley gameplay and poor controls, among other things. I kept coming back to them because I wanted to like them. And that's the thing--you apparently outright deny that there's such a thing as console gameplay and PC gameplay. I honestly don't know how you can believe that.

 

Here are some quotes that you may find interesting:

 

Christofer Sundberg is the creative director and co-founder of Avalanche Studio...Just Cause 2 came out this week on Xbox 360, PS3 and PC, even though Sundberg said that he doesn't prefer making games for all platforms. Ultimately, the decision is not up to him, but rather rests with publisher Square-Enix.

"The choice of developing a PC SKU is always up to the publisher. We can develop anything on any platform as it's just a question of time and money," Sundberg said. "If the game is primarily a console game, we always recommend the publisher to avoid a PC SKU as PC gamers are PC gamers and console gamers are console gamers."
 

Carmack conceded that id Software's focus during Rage development was on delivering a console shooter: "We do not see the PC as the leading platform for games." [You deny there's such a thing as a "console shooter" or "PC shooter"--that it's all the same--Dryspace]

 

Legendary first-person shooter developer id Software predicts two-thirds of the sales of upcoming game Rage will be for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. The developer made its name on the PC, but times have changed, and so has id. Now, games are made with the consoles front of mind to ensure those versions are up to speed. "In game development, you have to tailor your gameplay to where you expect people to play it on," Hollenshead revealed. "So, while we're developing Rage on the PC, we forbid anybody from playing it on a keyboard and mouse until we've played it first on a console controller. "We pull the keyboard and mouse out and put in a USB 360 controller, even on the development staff. That's not just the testers." Porting to console from PC is old-world thinking, according to id. "That was the way we did it in the past. Ultimately, we learnt that's not the way you should do it.

 

Cevat Yerli, CEO of Crysis studio Crytek, used to ask a basic question about the last big game his company made. "I would ask people, 'Did you play Crysis?'". "The answer often was, 'I don't have a PC that is powerful enough.' I was kind of hurt by it." Crysis had been touted as a game that you probably wanted to play on the most expensive home computer you could find. It wound up scaring a lot of people away. "I said to myself, 'This is a battle I cannot win,' Yerli told Kotaku. "So the only way to approach more gamers and deliver to more gamers was to go to the console market."

Edited by Dryspace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck
2 hours ago, Dryspace said:

not sub-AAA like Civilization, or Indie.

Lol, ok then. We have nothing further to argue if you're not gonna consider Civilization a AAA game. You've made up a mystical and narrow definition of what AAA is, and I strongly disagree with it.

 

And again, I'm a developer working in AAA and who knows how AAA games are developed. Your point is wrong. While some games are developed for consoles specifically, the vast majority of games are developed as games without a specific platform. You're not gonna get this, so I'm out.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Static

"You won’t see much margin upgrade at all," he said. "We build all of our games to the highest possible spec, which is typically a high-powered PC, and as the consoles come in, [which] may not be the highest spec, we may actually dummy down the console product to meet the spec of the console. In a world where the console looks more and more like a PC, that’s good for us." - Blake Jorgensen, EA CFO, 2016

 

Source

 

Anyone can cherry pick quotes to fit their viewpoint.  It's almost like different studios work differently...

 

20 hours ago, Dryspace said:

Cevat Yerli, CEO of Crysis studio Crytek, used to ask a basic question about the last big game his company made. "I would ask people, 'Did you play Crysis?'". "The answer often was, 'I don't have a PC that is powerful enough.' I was kind of hurt by it." Crysis had been touted as a game that you probably wanted to play on the most expensive home computer you could find. It wound up scaring a lot of people away. "I said to myself, 'This is a battle I cannot win,' Yerli told Kotaku. "So the only way to approach more gamers and deliver to more gamers was to go to the console market."

That's the biggest load of bs. Blaming the targeted audience because Crysis 1 was overly-optimized for single core cpu usage when duo and quad core cpus where already a thing and basing it on Intel's bullsh*t promise of 10ghz Pentium 4s screams immaturity and terrible forethought/planning. The fact that even after they TRIED patching to enable multi-core usage and still failed at that, says enough. Go figure, making your game (glorified tech demo) so demanding both in graphics and physics and then restricting it to 2 (more like 1 1/2) cores and hardly utilizing the gpu, isn't good game design nor does it make for an enjoyable gaming experience.

Edited by Static
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace
15 hours ago, Tchuck said:

Lol, ok then. We have nothing further to argue if you're not gonna consider Civilization a AAA game. You've made up a mystical and narrow definition of what AAA is, and I strongly disagree with it.

 

And again, I'm a developer working in AAA and who knows how AAA games are developed. Your point is wrong. While some games are developed for consoles specifically, the vast majority of games are developed as games without a specific platform. You're not gonna get this, so I'm out.

You say that I have made up a "mystical and narrow definition" of the classification 'AAA', yet you don't correct me by providing any definition at all. 'AAA' has been defined since the late 90s as the top level of technological achievement, and to a secondary degree, development cost. That's it.

 

The only point of mine that you bothered to address is whether Civilization VI is a AAA game. In fact, I don't have any problem assuming that Civilization VI is a AAA game. That is because it doesn't change the reality that I'm describing. You say that in AAA, for the "vast majority of games", there is no such thing as a "PC game" or a "console game"--that there are just "games". That's patently false. Games are designed for target hardware and target markets. The target market determines what type of game it will even be in the first place, and then what type of gameplay conventions it will feature, as well as possibly what gameplay limitations it will suffer from.

 

Civilization--one of the tiny amount of exceptions, if they are indeed AAA--is designed for the PC market. Since 2008, the overwhelming majority of AAA games are designed for the console market. In the AAA market, there is no such thing as a game developed for no specific platform. I provided actual evidence. All you have to do is provide evidence that AAA devs just make games without any regard for target markets. "I work in AAA" is not evidence, and it's not an argument.

 

You are claiming that the sensibilities and preferences of the PC gaming market are the same as those of the console market--that gameplay standards and conventions are the same. That is patently false. Do you also claim that the sensibilities and preferences of the mobile gaming market are the same as those of PC and console--that the gameplay standards and conventions are the same? If you are claiming that there is no such thing as a PC shooter and a console shooter, you're simply wrong. For example, if you're claiming that First-Person is not the standard for PC shooters, and Third-Person is not the standard for console shooters, you're simply wrong. Different markets, different standards.

 

Example: Crysis is a PC game. Crysis 2 is a console game. It's not just visuals--the entire design of Crysis 2 is fundamentally different than that of Crysis, because of the difference in the target market. Setting, pacing, movement mechanics, combat mechanics, control scheme, map size, linearity, AI, etc., etc, etc. They are two fundamentally different games. You can listen to Cevat Yerli himself explain these things in detail if you're willing to study the situation. This is only one of hundreds of examples. I can't do all the work for you.

 

There is of course overlap in these markets. That's why it's called "PC market" and "console market", and not "PC people" and "console people". Nevertheless, most people have a preference for the gameplay standards and default control scheme of one particular market.

 

I took the time to honestly address each of your points, in good faith, in a civil manner, without resorting to terms like "ignorant" and "asinine". You did not respond to my points. You did not demonstrate why any of my points are incorrect. Not even the one, single point that you focused on did you demonstrate my error by providing facts or logic. You simply said, "I'm in AAA. I know.". I just assumed for argument's sake that I was wrong, without you providing any evidence.

 

And then you walk away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Static

Since @Tchuck is smart enough to walk away and I'm really not, I'll have a stab at this.

 

 

What's funny about this whole back and forth is that, is that it all started with you making an assumption based of an article from a D-tier site that was so blatantly and obviously wrong that anyone that has been in the even remotely somewhat in the gaming sphere would know it was utter bollocks. And now for whatever reason, probably because it was pointed out that you were misinformed, you can't seem to admit that your logic is at the very least somewhat flawed. It's almost as if your gaming experience concluded circa 2010 and have since completely buried your head in the sand ever since.

 

 

1 hour ago, Dryspace said:

You say that I have made up a "mystical and narrow definition" of the classification 'AAA', yet you don't correct me by providing any definition at all. 'AAA' has been defined since the late 90s as the top level of technological achievement, and to a secondary degree, development cost. That's it.

 

On 10/23/2019 at 9:44 PM, Dryspace said:

You misunderstand. I wasn't making some comment about the quality of games.

So which is it?

 

 

Quote

 

The only point of mine that you bothered to address is whether Civilization VI is a AAA game. In fact, I don't have any problem assuming that Civilization VI is a AAA game. That is because it doesn't change the reality that I'm describing. You say that in AAA, for the "vast majority of games", there is no such thing as a "PC game" or a "console game"--that there are just "games". That's patently false. Games are designed for target hardware and target markets. The target market determines what type of game it will even be in the first place, and then what type of gameplay conventions it will feature, as well as possibly what gameplay limitations it will suffer from.

 

Civilization--one of the tiny amount of exceptions, if they are indeed AAA--is designed for the PC market. Since 2008, the overwhelming majority of AAA games are designed for the console market. In the AAA market, there is no such thing as a game developed for no specific platform. I provided actual evidence. All you have to do is provide evidence that AAA devs just make games without any regard for target markets. "I work in AAA" is not evidence, and it's not an argument.

Firaxis is owned by 2k, one of the biggest AAA publishers in the market, if not the biggest if you judge by the stock market. Civ VI is available on Microsoft Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4, Xbox One. Literally every current gen platform. 

 

 

Quote

 

You are claiming that the sensibilities and preferences of the PC gaming market are the same as those of the console market--that gameplay standards and conventions are the same. That is patently false. Do you also claim that the sensibilities and preferences of the mobile gaming market are the same as those of PC and console--that the gameplay standards and conventions are the same? If you are claiming that there is no such thing as a PC shooter and a console shooter, you're simply wrong. For example, if you're claiming that First-Person is not the standard for PC shooters, and Third-Person is not the standard for console shooters, you're simply wrong. Different markets, different standards.

 

No he really didn't claim that at all. You're pulling a complete strawman fallacy completely out of nowhere. As far as current gen FPS games go; Battlefield series, CoD Series, CSGO, Titatanfall Series/ Apex Legends, Team Fortress 2, etc, are all on both PC (with both controller and kb+m support) and console. As far as TPS games are concerned; PUBG, Fortnite (ya know the most popular game period, however unfortunate that may be), the new Tomb Raider series, Warframe, The Division series, MGSV, GTAV, Gears 4/5, etc are all, again, both on PC( and again, with both controller and kb+m support) and console. There's even games that support both first person and third person modes, like the fallout series or the newer Star Wars Battlefront series. Simply put your way of thinking, specifically in regards to this point, is beyond outdated. and just a side point, only 2 of though games can be considered less than AAA.  

 

 

Quote

 

There is of course overlap in these markets. That's why it's called "PC market" and "console market", and not "PC people" and "console people". Nevertheless, most people have a preference for the gameplay standards and default control scheme of one particular market.

 

What a cop out to a contradiction that only you made. You keep changing the proverbial goalpost and yet wondered why most people don't bother engaging your points.   

 

 

Quote

I took the time to honestly address each of your points, in good faith, in a civil manner, without resorting to terms like "ignorant" and "asinine". You did not respond to my points. You did not demonstrate why any of my points are incorrect. Not even the one, single point that you focused on did you demonstrate my error by providing facts or logic. You simply said, "I'm in AAA. I know.". I just assumed for argument's sake that I was wrong, without you providing any evidence.

 

And then you walk away.

 

You ever notice how you always seem to end up involved in these kinda arguments or debates or whatever you wanna call them, that often either have no relation to the topic or end up derailing the thread, all because you seem to have some kinda issue with admitting you might possibly, potentiality could be wrong about something? Also it really doesn't help that 98% of your post come across as patronizing and somewhat robotic.

 

Edited by Static
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace
9 minutes ago, Static said:

Anyone can cherry pick quotes to fit their viewpoint.  It's almost like different studios work differently...

I don't understand...are you actually arguing that EA--EA--designs its games for the PC market since 2008? Seriously?

 

You misunderstood the conversation you quoted. He is referring to performance. That's it. As I have stated repeatedly, a target market consists of both hardware and market preferences, which encompass the fundamental design and gameplay characteristics of a game. EA has for many years been one of the worst at just copy-pasting their games over to the PC and calling it a day.

 

9 minutes ago, Static said:

That's the biggest load of bs. Blaming the targeted audience because Crysis 1 was overly-optimized for single core cpu usage when duo and quad core cpus where already a thing and basing it on Intel's bullsh*t promise of 10ghz Pentium 4s screams immaturity and terrible forethought/planning. The fact that even after they TRIED patching to enable multi-core usage and still failed at that, says enough. Go figure, making your game (glorified tech demo) so demanding both in graphics and physics and then restricting it to 2 (more like 1 1/2) cores and hardly utilizing the gpu, isn't good game design nor does it make for an enjoyable gaming experience.

Before I address Crysis itself, I just provided a quote from Cevat Yerli who directly refers to the existence of a separate PC market and console market, which is exactly what @Tchuck is claiming doesn't exist, and what I'm attempting to explain. That was the entire point of my quote.

 

As for Crysis, if you think it only ran on high-end PCs, you're wrong. If you think Crysis only ran well on high-end PCs, you're wrong. Those are some of the most widely-disseminated misconceptions in gaming history. Crysis only ran on the highest settings on high-end PCs. Why? Because 'Ultra' was equivalent to 'Medium' on every other shooter.

 

1) Crysis has a humongous range of options--literally orders of magnitude more than modern AAA shooters when you include cvars--encompassing a very wide range of hardware. The first time I ever played Crysis was on my brother's dual-core with an 8500 GT, which was a low-end GPU, not even mid-range. I had no problems playing the game. Obviously I couldn't max it out, though. Obviously.

 

Let me make this clear: All of the misinformation re: Crysis originated from "Only a high-end PC can run Crysis at max settings" and "But can it run Crysis maxed?" turning into "Only a high-end PC can run Crysis period!" and "But can it run Crysis at all?". This is not a matter of opinion.

 

2) When I finally bought Crysis for myself, several months after release, I played it on a quad-core and GTX 260, maxed out, at either 1600x1000 or 1920x1200. Sure, I averaged under 30 fps, but the experience was amazing. The point is that I could have turned down the settings and got 60+ fps, but I chose not to. I decided I wanted the best visuals & physics, so I dealt with the lower framerate. Nowadays, I have to have a locked 60 fps, but things were different back then.

 

3) I agree that it was short-sighted of Crytek to design the engine as primarly single-threaded. It's very disappointing. But the good thing is that it doesn't prevent the game from running well at max settings. If you want to get more than 60 fps at max settings, that's where the problem rears its ugly head. Contrary to what you have heard, Crysis maxes out modern GPUs, as long as you increase resolution, AA, draw distance cvars, etc. It's CPUs that will never come close to being maxed out, which limits the max framerate. But as I said, since you can get 60 fps on Ultra, and much higher at lower settings, it's not what I would call a serious problem, just a big disappointment.

 

4) If you genuinely think that Crysis is nothing but a glorified tech demo, it shows that you have either never played Crysis on PC (the 360 version is a fundamentally different game), or you have very, very different tastes than I, which there's nothing wrong with. I do think there's something wrong with calling a game a "glorified tech demo" simply because you don't like it, or have never played it.

 

To many people, including myself, Crysis is the gold standard of FPS gameplay. Gameplay, not visuals. I have completed Crysis (and Crysis: Warhead) 5 times since 2008, and am overdue for my 6th play-through. Although there are flaws--the alien combat is very poorly designed, and the VTOL level is poorly conceived and not fun to play in my opinion--the core gameplay--the movement and weapon mechanics--are the most realistic and enjoyable I've ever experienced, and the huge levels, with nothing but an objective to achieve however you want, are extremely immersive. That's why I keep coming back.

 

5) Another fallacy is that Crysis was a failure. Crysis exceeded Crytek's expectations, and last time I checked (a few years ago) sold over 7 million copies on PC. It was both financially and critically successful. A success all the way around. The reason that Yerli abandoned the PC market was not because Crysis wasn't profitable, it was simply because he was convinced he could make MORE money designing for consoles. He was convinced that because of piracy, he didn't make as much money as he should have, even though no one had any way of knowing how much money he "should have" made. Greed, in other words.

 

And we know what happened. In switching to console, Crysis became a fundamentally different game that was no longer special in any aspect, gameplay or visuals, and both Crysis 2 and 3 were financially disappointing. Now Crytek is making mobile games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Static
1 hour ago, Dryspace said:

I don't understand...are you actually arguing that EA--EA--designs its games for the PC market since 2008? Seriously?

 

You misunderstood the conversation you quoted. He is referring to performance. That's it. As I have stated repeatedly, a target market consists of both hardware and market preferences, which encompass the fundamental design and gameplay characteristics of a game. EA has for many years been one of the worst at just copy-pasting their games over to the PC and calling it a day.

 

I'm not arguing, it came straight from the horse's mouth.If you can use quotes from executives to prove your point, its only fair that I can do the same. And again, you're changing the goal post to fit whatever point you're trying to make at the time. Are you arguing that any company should design a single multi-platform title that plays completely different on every platform? The quote literally says their games are design for PCs first due to the higher end hardware and then dumbed/stripped down to fit console requirements and that the margin difference is becoming less and less noticable as consoles progress to be more akin to PCs. You're really have to be trying to be this obtuse....

 

 

Quote

Before I address Crysis itself, I just provided a quote from Cevat Yerli who directly refers to the existence of a separate PC market and console market, which is exactly what @Tchuck is claiming doesn't exist, and what I'm attempting to explain. That was the entire point of my quote.

HE NEVER SAID THE SEPARATE MARKETS DON'T EXIST. What he did way was that from a design perspective that the specific company he works for designs THEIR games conceptually first and then adjust performance to suit whatever platforms they're releasing on. And again, your point was a complete strawman. 

 

Quote

As for Crysis, if you think it only ran on high-end PCs, you're wrong. If you think Crysis only ran well on high-end PCs, you're wrong. Those are some of the most widely-disseminated misconceptions in gaming history. Crysis only ran on the highest settings on high-end PCs. Why? Because 'Ultra' was equivalent to 'Medium' on every other shooter.

 

1) Crysis has a humongous range of options--literally orders of magnitude more than modern AAA shooters when you include cvars--encompassing a very wide range of hardware. The first time I ever played Crysis was on my brother's dual-core with an 8500 GT, which was a low-end GPU, not even mid-range. I had no problems playing the game. Obviously I couldn't max it out, though. Obviously.

I never said it only ran or ran well on high end PCs. What I alluded to was that it was badly optimized for single-core usage and didn't make use of ANY gpus as much as it should/could have. 

 

Quote

 

Let me make this clear: All of the misinformation re: Crysis originated from "Only a high-end PC can run Crysis at max settings" and "But can it run Crysis maxed?" turning into "Only a high-end PC can run Crysis period!" and "But can it run Crysis at all?". This is not a matter of opinion.

 

2) When I finally bought Crysis for myself, several months after release, I played it on a quad-core and GTX 260, maxed out, at either 1600x1000 or 1920x1200. Sure, I averaged under 30 fps, but the experience was amazing. The point is that I could have turned down the settings and got 60+ fps, but I chose not to. I decided I wanted the best visuals & physics, so I dealt with the lower framerate. Nowadays, I have to have a locked 60 fps, but things were different back then.

 

3) I agree that it was short-sighted of Crytek to design the engine as primarly single-threaded. It's very disappointing. But the good thing is that it doesn't prevent the game from running well at max settings. If you want to get more than 60 fps at max settings, that's where the problem rears its ugly head. Contrary to what you have heard, Crysis maxes out modern GPUs, as long as you increase resolution, AA, draw distance cvars, etc. It's CPUs that will never come close to being maxed out, which limits the max framerate. But as I said, since you can get 60 fps on Ultra, and much higher at lower settings, it's not what I would call a serious problem, just a big disappointment.

 

https://www.pcgamer.com/10-years-later-we-can-finally-run-crysis/

 

 

So if a high-end pc cant run it maxed out, either the pc isnt that high end or the game is just poorly optimized.

 

 

It doesn't even run well on a server grade cpu with an entire numanode dedicated to it. Even switching to non-cpu rendered version, it still ran like sh*t. 

 

Quote

4) If you genuinely think that Crysis is nothing but a glorified tech demo, it shows that you have either never played Crysis on PC (the 360 version is a fundamentally different game), or you have very, very different tastes than I, which there's nothing wrong with. I do think there's something wrong with calling a game a "glorified tech demo" simply because you don't like it, or have never played it.

 

To many people, including myself, Crysis is the gold standard of FPS gameplay. Gameplay, not visuals. I have completed Crysis (and Crysis: Warhead) 5 times since 2008, and am overdue for my 6th play-through. Although there are flaws--the alien combat is very poorly designed, and the VTOL level is poorly conceived and not fun to play in my opinion--the core gameplay--the movement and weapon mechanics--are the most realistic and enjoyable I've ever experienced, and the huge levels, with nothing but an objective to achieve however you want, are extremely immersive. That's why I keep coming back.

It's ok to have favorite game, but those rose-tinted glasses are really affecting your logic.  

 

Quote

5) Another fallacy is that Crysis was a failure. Crysis exceeded Crytek's expectations, and last time I checked (a few years ago) sold over 7 million copies on PC. It was both financially and critically successful. A success all the way around. The reason that Yerli abandoned the PC market was not because Crysis wasn't profitable, it was simply because he was convinced he could make MORE money designing for consoles. He was convinced that because of piracy, he didn't make as much money as he should have, even though no one had any way of knowing how much money he "should have" made. Greed, in other words.

 

And we know what happened. In switching to console, Crysis became a fundamentally different game that was no longer special in any aspect, gameplay or visuals, and both Crysis 2 and 3 were financially disappointing. Now Crytek is making mobile games.

You're own previous post contradicts this notion. As far as what Yeril thinks, there's a reason he had to step down from his position. And your information is so outdate, you're kinda arguing against yourself now. Out 8 games they've released in the last 7 years, only 2 were mobile games though. Only thing I'll agree with you on is the point about greed and thats only because they thought they could license out their horribly unoptimized engine for obscene amounts of money that no dev in their right mind would agree to.  

 

 

 

Endpoint: Crysis is a technical marvel, but what good is that when hardly anyone at the time could play it way it was meant to be. Hence "tech demo", just like another Crytek game, the justifiably forgotten, Ryse: Son of Rome, which was an albeit a pretty game, but one with mind numbingly boring hack-n-slash gameplay with a unnecessary focus on QTEs.

 

 

Kinda ridiculous that all of this was just so you distance yourself from the fact that you made ass out of yourself by assuming a sony game would be on pc lol 

Edited by Static
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheJesus1996

Ignoring all the debate above...

I'm actually gonna give this game a try. Right know I'm only enjoying slow, story driven games, so this is a go for me. Gotta confess that I only played the PS1-PS2 Metal Gear games, so this is gonna be something fresh for me...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace
2 hours ago, Static said:

You ever notice how you always seem to end up involved in these kinda arguments...all because you seem to have some kinda issue with admitting you might possibly, potentiality could be wrong about something?

 

Yes, I just cannot admit that I might possibly, potentially be wrong about something. I'm a big insufferable, pedantic know-it-all. Robotic, too! 😛

 

1 "Yes, I suppose your point about the poll is legitimate...EDIT: How would I even go about deleting this poll and making a corrected one?"

 

2 "I will edit my post...I was wrong to post something based on an assumption."

 

3 "Well, valid point. Because of his use of integrated graphics processing, I assumed that he was looking for ways to lower the draw distance beyond what is normally possible."

 

4 "Now that I consider again, I agree that a person could carry a deadly weapon... I appreciate the correction. You are right that my assertion "any time a person carries a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, that person has decided he will murder a person if necessary" is not a fact.

 

5 "Yes, I believe you have a point, though I honestly don't see how it weakens my argument, which was that a person who plans to kill another person has no respect for human life."

 

6 "Well, what definitions have you found? If I'm wrong I'll admit it, as much as it pains me."

 

7 "I admit that you make a valid point: The pushing away from the original Assassin's Creed concept began at ACII."

 

8 "Wait--forgive me, because I don't know anything about these issues. Is it the case that assets that are added to GTAO are automatically accessible in GTAV unless Rockstar takes deliberate steps to prevent access to them?"

 

9 "Welp.....I haven't been proven wrong quite yet, but.....I can admit that this took me completely by surprise. I feel a little silly after having just re-confirmed my original prediction."

 

10 "You also make a really good point about rain. I admit I didn't consider it before..."

 

11 "Actually--I may need to apologize, as I think I misunderstood your comments. I read you as saying that their claims were nothing but marketing, but I re-read your post, and it does look like you acknowledged that CD Projekt RED doesn't engage in the same practices. My apologies!"

 

12 "Well, I admit that I misspoke when I said 'indicated', as I didn't mean that was actually communicated by CDPR."

 

13 "Well, maybe it's not as many as I thought...But you have a point about the accursed "Games as a Service" paradigm. So yeah, it's not necessarily as clear as I thought."

 

14 "This is a part of your last post that I do not dispute, and I admit that I did not consider that when I posited my question."

 

15 "In fact, I don't have any problem assuming that Civilization VI is a AAA game."

 

EDIT: You are a dishonest debater, and since it's impossible to debate a person who's dishonest, I'm forced to bow out. I'll simply address the very last insult you made.

 

"Kinda ridiculous that all of this was just so you distance yourself from the fact that you made ass out of yourself by assuming a sony game would be on pc lol"

 

Detroit: Become Human, a Sony game, is releasing on PC. This fact, combined with info from Sony, indicates that this will probably become the norm, or at least more common. I won't insult you, I'll simply bid you good day!

Edited by Dryspace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck
13 hours ago, Static said:

HE NEVER SAID THE SEPARATE MARKETS DON'T EXIST. What he did way was that from a design perspective that the specific company he works for designs THEIR games conceptually first and then adjust performance to suit whatever platforms they're releasing on. And again, your point was a complete strawman. 

Ding ding ding ding.

 

I was addressed the very poorly made point that "NO AAA GAMES ARE DESIGNED FOR PC ANYMORE!" which is laughably wrong. And I did by providing an example of my own studio, who has been doing AAA since before the @Dryspace was born. And they design their games first, then adjust to whatever platform they desire. Obviously there's a PC and a Console market. Obviously there's different focus on each of them, as they try to play to their strengths. I never disputed this assumption, because it wasn't part of the point until I stopped responding since it was a futile to go on further.

 

But yes. On to this game. Saw the Conan bit on it! Wonder if they'll actually keep him in game, which is not out of the realm of possibility with Kojima. Gonna wait for the reviews to drop first, as I'm really enjoying The Outer Worlds at the moment, another AAA game that clearly wasn't designed for the pc. 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace
15 hours ago, Tchuck said:

Ding ding ding ding.

Is Civilization a AAA game? I agreed to assume it is. Okay, so one genre--Strategy--which is not a console genre, has a few AAA games. If I say that since 2008, 100% of AAA games are conceived and designed for the console market, and you say, "No! It's actually 99%!", how can you honestly say that the gist of my assertion is refuted?

 

When you made a point that I honestly thought could be valid, I acknowledged it. But when I say that before 2008, maybe 50% (or maybe 60% or 65%) of AAA games were created for the console market, and afterward, it's 100%, how does saying, "No! It didn't go from (50-65%) to 100%! It went from (50-65%) to 99%!" make my assertion laughable? If I was wrong to say or imply 100%, I freely admit it! But that doesn't invalidate my assertion.

 

Before 2008, there were FP & TP Shooters and RPGs--the staples which have comprised the overwhelming majority of AAA games for 15 or 20 years--that were conceived and designed for the PC market. Since then, all Shooters and RPGs have been developed for the console market.

 

Of course there can be exceptions to anything. E.g. I would say that DOOM 2016 is the first example since 2007 that I can think of in which a shooter appears to have truly been designed--not entirely, but to a significant degree--for the sensibilities of the PC market. But I certainly can't think of any other AAA shooters. Likewise, I can't think of any AAA RPGs (what few there are anymore!).

 

I never said anything about modern games being bad. We can have a discussion about the post-2007 AAA games that I think are good or great, like Dead Space, Just Cause 2, Skyrim, Arkham City, Far Cry 3, GTA V, & Assassin's Creed II. Each one of those is a console game, which was also released on PC. Each one has a plethora of internal evidence as to its being designed for the console market, in addition to the external evidence. I'm talking about reality, not my personal perceptions or desires. I can understand that a game is designed for the console market and still enjoy it. But reality is what it is.

 

15 hours ago, Tchuck said:

And I did by providing an example of my own studio...

 

With due respect, you didn't give any examples, you just said, "My company doesn't make console or PC games, they just make games". But that would be a wonderful idea that would go a long way toward helping me understand where you're coming from. All you have to do is list the games you are referring to: What AAA games since 2008 have your studio conceived and designed for the PC market? Or even "with the PC market in mind"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck
2 hours ago, Dryspace said:

If I say that since 2008, 100% of AAA games are conceived and designed for the console market, and you say, "No! It's actually 99%!", how can you honestly say that the gist of my assertion is refuted?

Yes. Your assertion is refuted. Because 100% of AAA games are not conceived and designed for the console market. Because if they were, gaming on the PC wouldn't exist. Your assertion was, literally:

 

On 10/24/2019 at 10:44 AM, Dryspace said:

Since 2008, AAA games have been conceived and designed for console HW and the console market.

Which would mean that no AAA game has been conceived or designed for the PC. Which is false, as I've shown you there are AAA games being designed for PC. Or for all platforms. Which turns your assumption into rubbish. 

And, as someone who is actually in the damn industry and has seen the production of half a dozen AAA titles, I guarantee you there are AAA games that were not conceived and designed for consoles. They were conceived as games. They were designed as games. From 2008, there's very few exclusive elements to console gaming that would necessitate designing exclusively for it; architecture-wise, they're all pretty much the same now. The only difference is that certain genres sell better than others on console than PC.

 

2 hours ago, Dryspace said:

make my assertion laughable?

Because you say stuff like this:

2 hours ago, Dryspace said:

Since then, all Shooters and RPGs have been developed for the console market.

Which is a completely wrong assertion. Wrong. You speak from outside the industry. You have no window into the process of designing and developing a game. You have zero clue about how things work in the industry. How do you even qualify developed for the console market?

 

Here, let me give you a list of shooters, tell me which ones you think have been developed for the console:

  • Metro 2033
  • Killing Floor
  • Wildlands
  • Spec Ops: The Line
  • Doom
  • Siege
  • Wolfenstein
  • Fallout New Vegas

If you tell me they were all developed for the console, well then, you clearly have a very weird definition of "developed for console".

 

2 hours ago, Dryspace said:

have truly been designed--not entirely, but to a significant degree--for the sensibilities of the PC market.

What does this even means? Sensibilities of PC market? You mean it works well with mouse and keyboard? Because that is literally the only fundamental difference between consoles and PCs.

 

2 hours ago, Dryspace said:

Each one has a plethora of internal evidence as to its being designed for the console market, in addition to the external evidence.

Citation needed.

 

2 hours ago, Dryspace said:

With due respect, you didn't give any examples, you just said, "My company doesn't make console or PC games, they just make games". But that would be a wonderful idea that would go a long way toward helping me understand where you're coming from. All you have to do is list the games you are referring to: What AAA games since 2008 have your studio conceived and designed for the PC market? Or even "with the PC market in mind"?

Did you not read my post? I mentioned RE2 and DMC 5. Two AAA games designed and developed for all platforms. I was involved in the production of both. And as part of the engine development team, I guarantee you the game teams have zero cares about specific platforms. They want to make the game the way they want it, and have it out on as much as possible. All the game development is done on PC, all the gameplay testings are first done on PC, and then moved to consoles to see how hard they can push.

 

sh*t, last I heard Star Wars: The Old Republic was also a massive AAA RPG designed exclusively for PC. But I guess you'll consider them console-games somehow.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason

Valve: Portal 2, CS:GO, Dota 2, Underlords

Blizzard: Diablo 3, Overwatch, Starcraft 2

Riot: League of Legends, Teamfight Tactics and their many upcoming games they announced recently (including a fighting game and an FPS)

Star Citizen is AAA, albeit who knows when it will actually release

MMO's such as Guild Wars 2 and FFXIV

EA: The Sims and SWTOR

Ubisoft's The Settlers and Anno titles

Civilisation series

 

There's also a whole bunch of games and GaaS style titles that may have started on budgets but have grew into something that could easily be argued as having AAA development behind them now such as PUBG, Warframe and Path of Exile. Given how high quality Original Sin 2 was and their next project being Baldurs Gate 3, I'd say there's a decent case for classifying Larian as "AAA" these days too. Also I'm pretty sure Fortnite was designed primarily as a PC title, one look at the controls will tell you that.

 

Those are just ones of the top of my head that I'd say are indisputably AAA, there's a whole heap of studios that you could argue are AAA depending on what your definition of AAA is.

 

This is also playing along with the idea that no multiplatform game is designed for PC first then adapted to consoles, or anything like that. Which is wrong, but ya'know. It's also ignoring the Asian game industry, which pumps out MMO's on the regular and given the cost and resources needed to develop a fully functioning MMO, they pretty much have to be considered AAA.

Edited by Jason
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Static
On 10/26/2019 at 7:59 PM, Dryspace said:

EDIT: You are a dishonest debater, and since it's impossible to debate a person who's dishonest, I'm forced to bow out. I'll simply address the very last insult you made.

The fact that you chose to ignore the entirety of both my post, make you seem a bit more of an "dishonest debater" than me,  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JOSEPH X

Just watched the launch trailer and all I can say is the next 9/11 is going to be nuclear - and this game knows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25

So as I predicted from the trailers, the gameplay sucks? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Candy_Licker

This looks so dull and pretentious at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason

Reviewing exactly how most expected it to do I think. Interestingly, a fair of the scathing reviews I've seen have been very critical of the writing and the story, which I didn't expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gooeyhole

The bad reviews are making me want to play it, strangely enough. Kojima is the master of the enjoyable clusterf*ck.

Edited by gooeyhole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.