454 réponses à ce sujet

[Cascadus]

Gabe Newell ate it.

[Busomjack]

Also whatever happened to Postal III? That is another game that uses the Source engine. I think footage of the game last appeared at E3 2008 but nobody has heard anything about the game ever since yet it hasn't been officially canned.

Modifié par Busomjack, 16 juin 2010 - 05:48 .

[Illusivestofmen]

Microsoft apparently bombed this time around surprisingly...no big announcements except for the new Xbox slim (which is long overdue). Natal was sunk as soon as the name was changed to kinect which just screams casual gamer on gaming's most hardcore based system.



Sony's was *meh* the portal announcement was big but due to personal preferences I'm unimpressed. Move better than expected. Then that abomination of a motion control system Nintendo Wii really stole the show with some real games for a change, 3DS looks like it will revolutionize handhelds. '



Overall E3 was topsy tirvy from usual, we have Microsoft at the bottom and Nintendo at the top. Weird.

[Busomjack]

I'd like to know when something as convenient and easy to use as a controller became obsolete?
This Kinect garbage reminds me of the Virtual Reality craze of the mid 90's.

Modifié par Busomjack, 16 juin 2010 - 05:50 .

[Cascadus]

I've always seen the PS3 as the 'most hardcore' system myself. It certainly sells itself that way, the high initial price point, loads of customizability (of course that's been stripped with newer models. We hardly knew ye OtherOS) and some very good exclusive titles and definitely the best main dashboard out of the three consoles. Although that might be fact I love the idea of me choosing my own wallpaper (which is the cast of Ghost in the Shell: SAC at the moment), not buying a JPEG off Microsoft.

And you know what I find very ironic? While Microsoft and Sony have been busy trying to suck down the casual crowd, Nintendo's back impressing a lot of the hardcore gaming community with it's revivals of stuff like Kid Icarus and Kirby and - of course - the 3DS

[Fexelea]

Archdemon Cthulhu wrote...
Wanting "nice graphics" rather than "great games" is rather silly in my personal opinion. 

And when did I say that I want nice graphics rather than great games? A great game, for me, has nice graphics. The Wii does not deliver the graphics I want, so I don't find those games to be great, even if they can be good

Archdemon Cthulhu wrote...
I put more hours into Super Smash Bros. Brawl than any game in my Xbox or PC library.  (Except maybe Civ 4, but that has average graphics as well).  Not to mention the hours I STILL get out of Super Mario Bros. 3 despite it's 8-bit graphics.

Good for you. I have different preferences. I am sure people playing farmville do as well.

Archdemon Cthulhu wrote...
And I will be honest and say that my opinion on the Portal bit at the conference is a gut feeling, but honestly, I don't see it being much of a difference.  The important thing here is that it's no longer an Xbox exclusive, which is as big a loss of MS as FFXIII was to Sony at the time.  The important thing is that more people will get to play what is sure to be an excellent game now. 

I don't know if this is a loss for MS and I don't think FF was a loss for Sony. All in all, gamers play in the console/platform they prefer, and are rather unlikely to change even for good exclusives.

[Archdemon Cthulhu]

Fexelea wrote...

Archdemon Cthulhu wrote...
Wanting "nice graphics" rather than "great games" is rather silly in my personal opinion. 

And when did I say that I want nice graphics rather than great games? A great game, for me, has nice graphics. The Wii does not deliver the graphics I want, so I don't find those games to be great, even if they can be good

So do all games that were great previously cease to be great once the graphics capabilities of consoles exceed what they were before?  If all great games must have the best graphics, this would logically be the case and it would make classic games like Zelda: OoT, Super Mario 64, Knights of the Old Republic, Twisted Metal, Civilization 1-3, Starcraft, Soul Calibur, Street Fighter 2, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Half-Life 2, and Sonic the Hedgehog all cease to be "great" games.  That would be a bunch of nonsense, now wouldn't it?

If your personal preference is that you lie elite graphics, that's fair i suppose, and perhaps I shouldn't have made my initial comment, as it was a bit snarky and I apologize, but coming back by saying a game can't be great without what you deem as "nice graphics" is a bit ludicrous.  

[Busomjack]

I feel sorry for gamers who can't enjoy a game unless it has mind blowingly amazing graphics.

Deus Ex came out in 2000 and even back then it's graphics were not great. Let me tell you though I would still much MUCH rather play that game than most of the mainstream, mindless crap that gets shoved down our throats.

When I'm playing a game that is so immersive that I can literally interact with almost everything in my environment and use creatively plan how I approach a game based on it's gameplay intricacies, that is what makes a game great and that is why classic treasures like Deus Ex are timeless. They will always be great no matter how dated the graphics are.

It's a double edged sword too. For example, Final Fantasy XIII's amazing graphics and production values can never hide what is a truly shallow, stale, limited experience.

[Fexelea]

Archdemon Cthulhu wrote...

Fexelea wrote...

Archdemon Cthulhu wrote...
Wanting "nice graphics" rather than "great games" is rather silly in my personal opinion. 

And when did I say that I want nice graphics rather than great games? A great game, for me, has nice graphics. The Wii does not deliver the graphics I want, so I don't find those games to be great, even if they can be good

So do all games that were great previously cease to be great once the graphics capabilities of consoles exceed what they were before? 

No. I did not say that and your miscontruction of my words isn't representative of my stance.

Archdemon Cthulhu wrote...
If all great games must have the best graphics, this would logically be the case and it would make classic games like Zelda: OoT, Super Mario 64, Knights of the Old Republic, Twisted Metal, Civilization 1-3, Starcraft, Soul Calibur, Street Fighter 2, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Half-Life 2, and Sonic the Hedgehog all cease to be "great" games.  That would be a bunch of nonsense, now wouldn't it?

Indeed it would since you are misrepresenting my words to fit the proposition that you want to present. Let's clarify: a great game for me has great graphics. Does this mean I don't think MK2 is a great game? YES. Does this mean I don't think that MK2 was a great game? NO. All this means is that I believe that paying modern console prices for playing aged graphics (or gameplay or whatever else) is not in my list of great. I have plenty of classic games that I play sporadically, just as I will probably play today's games sporadically in 7 years from now. The games I think are great today will look aged and obsolete one day, it is just a reality of creative destruction.

Archdemon Cthulhu wrote...
If your personal preference is that you lie elite graphics, that's fair i suppose, and perhaps I shouldn't have made my initial comment, as it was a bit snarky and I apologize, but coming back by saying a game can't be great without what you deem as "nice graphics" is a bit ludicrous.  

I never said i prefered "elite" graphics, this is yet again another assumption on your part. I said "nice" graphics. And again I did not say that a game can't be great without what I deem as nice graphics, I said that to me a great game has nice graphics. Just as it has a good interface, a driving story, a competitive environment and/or whatever else it is that makes for people's "great games have x" that I am sure is comprised of as many variances as there are people commenting on the subject.

In the case of the Wii, I don't want to waggle my arms about so the interface is not attractive to me, I don't want to pay as much for games with SD resolution as I do for games with HD resolution, and more. It is my opinion, disagree if you will and assess the value that you want: it just isn't interesting to me and that is all that I stated on the subject.

You don't need to apologize, I understand things get lost on the written word, however I did not "come back" with the statement you highlight above, that was just your interpretation and paraphrasing of my post.

[Busomjack]

Why do you always rely on strawmen arguments to make your case Fexelea? You're making it sound like people are accusing you of hating games just because of their graphics. Nobody is accusing you of thinking a game sucks because it's graphics aren't next-gen. Rather, I think the insinuation is that dismissing a console like the Wii and it's entire library of great games just because the console is not technically advanced is narrow minded and shallow. You remind me of PC gamers who refuse to play any great console exclusives because the graphics do not show off their PC horsepower.

You're entitled to your opinions but get off your high horse, you're not immune from criticism and criticizing you for putting such a heavy emphasis on graphics is legitimate, especially considering all the derivative crap we see that still sells like hot cakes due to naive gamers easily enamored by flashy graphics.

[Fexelea]

Busomjack wrote...

Why do you always rely on strawmen arguments to make your case Fexelea?

I do not rely on strawmen arguments, I have presented none. You on the other hand are always relying on lies and misrepresentations to present yours.

Busomjack wrote...
You're making it sound like people are accusing you of hating games just because of their graphics.

No I am not. Your inferrences are not of my creation

Busomjack wrote...
Nobody is accusing you of thinking a game sucks because it's graphics aren't next-gen. Rather, I think the insinuation is that dismissing a console like the Wii and it's entire library of great games just because the console is not technically advanced is narrow minded and shallow.

I did not insinuate that. Your inferrences are not of my creation

Busomjack wrote...
You remind me of PC gamers who refuse to play any great console exclusives because the graphics do not show off their PC horsepower.

It seems it takes very little for you to be reminded of anything that is not really related.

Busomjack wrote...
You're entitled to your opinions but get off your high horse, you're not immune from criticism and criticizing you for putting such a heavy emphasis on graphics is legitimate, especially considering all the derivative crap we see that still sells like hot cakes due to naive gamers easily enamored by flashy graphics.

I'm on no high horse, I made a comment and I was misrepresented I am clarifying.

[Busomjack]

Ok, why did you make this comment then?



"I never said i prefered "elite" graphics, this is yet again another assumption on your part. I said "nice" graphics. And again I did not say that a game can't be great without what I deem as nice graphics, I said that to me a great game has nice graphics. Just as it has a good interface, a driving story, a competitive environment and/or whatever else it is that makes for people's "great games have x" that I am sure is comprised of as many variances as there are people commenting on the subject."



Nobody accused you of believing otherwise. You read people's posts and then you add your own interpretations to bolster your retort. Just look at how long winded and painfully verbose your comments are considering the point that Cthhulu was insinuating was a very simple one, that forsaking an entire library of games just because of graphics is a shallow and narrow minded viewpoint and I agree with him. The underlying purpose of a game is to play it and thus how it plays should be any true gamer's priority when judging a game.

Personally I don't care if you want to be a graphics tart. Gaming is a leisure activity and I don't care how you choose to spend your personal time. If you want to argue with somebody though, stick with the original point, don't invent scenarios for the sake of causing a distraction from the original debate which is what you're doing with your whole "I NEVER SAID GAMES WITH BAD GRAPHICS SUCK."

Nobody ever accused you of such so stop trying to victimize yourself.

The underlying point is that you're shallow gamer for putting such heavy emphasis on visuals and if you want to argue that point then do so, don't insult our intelligence with your pathetic smokescreen.

[Fexelea]

Busomjack wrote...

Ok, why did you make this comment then?

"I never said i prefered "elite" graphics, this is yet again another assumption on your part. I said "nice" graphics. And again I did not say that a game can't be great without what I deem as nice graphics, I said that to me a great game has nice graphics. Just as it has a good interface, a driving story, a competitive environment and/or whatever else it is that makes for people's "great games have x" that I am sure is comprised of as many variances as there are people commenting on the subject."

Because he interchanged "nice" for "elite" and represented that such were the parameters to determine a great game by my standards, which is not accurate. Again, I was clarifying.

Busomjack wrote...
Nobody accused you of believing otherwise. You read people's posts and then you add your own interpretations to bolster your retort. Just look at how long winded and painfully verbose your comments are considering the point that Cthhulu was insinuating was a very simple one, that forsaking an entire library of games just because of graphics is a shallow and narrow minded viewpoint and I agree with him. 

He was the one who chose to narrow on 3 words of my original comment and apply his interpretation, after which I have continued to discuss with him to explain what my statement meant. You are just interrupting that conversation to criticize my writing style and apply your own interpretation of my posts as the only legitimate one it would seem.

Busomjack wrote...
The underlying purpose of a game is to play it and thus how it plays should be any true gamer's priority when judging a game.
Personally I don't care if you want to be a graphics tart. Gaming is a leisure activity and I don't care how you choose to spend your personal time. If you want to argue with somebody though, stick with the original point, don't invent scenarios for the sake of causing a distraction from the original debate which is what you're doing with your whole "I NEVER SAID GAMES WITH BAD GRAPHICS SUCK."

I didn't do this. You are the one with the fallacies here.

Busomjack wrote...
Nobody ever accused you of such so stop trying to victimize yourself.
The underlying point is that you're shallow gamer for putting such heavy emphasis on visuals and if you want to argue that point then do so, don't insult our intelligence with your pathetic smokescreen.

I am not a shallow gamer and I do not put a heavy emphasis on visuals, however your assumptions and inferrences are not important to me.

[Busomjack]

Nice, elite, x-treme, powerful. Does it really matter? Anymore semantical nonsense you care to share before you actually bother addressing the underlying point made which is that you're a gamer who apparently enjoys great games but won't play them unless they have nice graphics?



Does it really matter what words he was focusing on? None of that has anything to do with the original point which you are zig-zagging around with your semantics debate and still refuse to address?



"I am not a shallow gamer and I do not put a heavy emphasis on visuals, however your assumptions and inferrences are not important to me."



FINALLY! An argument which addresses the original point. It's a weak argument but at least it focuses on the actual substance of the post rather than semantics.



So you don't put much emphasis on graphics because you're not interested in the Wii. Your argument would have more credibility if you said something like "I don't like the Wii because I don't like motion controls" but no, you said "I don't like the Wii because I like nice graphics."



How is that not putting a heavy emphasis on graphics when it is the only justification you give for forsaking the Wii and it's entire library of games?



Nevermind, I feel like I'm watching the Merovingian scene from The Matrix Reloaded. A lot of philosophical BS without actually saying anything substantive.

Goodbye.

[Fexelea]

Busomjack wrote...

Nice, elite, x-treme, powerful. Does it really matter?

Yes it matters. We have different words with different meanings for a reason.

Busomjack wrote...
Anymore semantical nonsense you care to share before you actually bother addressing the underlying point made which is that you're a gamer who apparently enjoys great games but won't play them unless they have nice graphics?

When did I say that I won't play great games unless they have nice graphics?

Busomjack wrote...
Does it really matter what words he was focusing on? None of that has anything to do with the original point which you are zig-zagging around with your semantics debate and still refuse to address?

Yes it matters, and I have not zig-zagged around any points. You are seemengly incapable of understanding my posts and instead try to present that they are deviations when they are actually raising a point and a complete and coherent answer to the poster I was talking to.

Busomjack wrote...
"I am not a shallow gamer and I do not put a heavy emphasis on visuals, however your assumptions and inferrences are not important to me."

FINALLY! An argument which addresses the original point. It's a weak argument but at least it focuses on the actual substance of the post rather than semantics.

There is no argument in the above. It is a statment. Your lack of comprehension is always astonishing.

Busomjack wrote...
So you don't put much emphasis on graphics because you're not interested in the Wii. 

I did not say this. You continue to invent opinions and attribute them to me.

Busomjack wrote...
Your argument would have more credibility if you said something like "I don't like the Wii because I don't like motion controls" but no, you said "I don't like the Wii because I like nice graphics."  

I did not say this. You continue to invent opinions and attribute them to me

Busomjack wrote...
How is that not putting a heavy emphasis on graphics when it is the only justification you give for forsaking the Wii and it's entire library of games?

I made a comment, I said I don't have an interest in the Wii and then, between brakets, I added that I like nice graphics. The connection to saying that is the only reason why I hold no interest on the Wii is entirely yours and not of my creation.

Busomjack wrote...
Nevermind, I feel like I'm watching the Merovingian scene from The Matrix Reloaded. A lot of philosophical BS without actually saying anything substantive.
Goodbye.

You mean you are reading your own posts, realizing that you are posting nonsense and have yet again indulget in fallacies and misrepresentations, therefore you are bound to (yet again) be corrected so you are going to walk away in hopes the readers will think you strong for it. Unfortunately for you, I infer no such think and continue to think that you are a weak and non intelligent person who cannot hold a reasoned argument and cannot distinguish between a conversation, a debate, and a fight.

[Loerwyn]

40k MMO.

Looks good, but not sure how it'll play, really.

However, no points for guessing who the narrator is - it's rather obvious.

[xCirdanx]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

40k MMO.
Looks good, but not sure how it'll play, really.
However, no points for guessing who the narrator is - it's rather obvious.

I was looking forward to that announcement, too bad it´s just a trailer and no more real information. Though the trailer looks pretty good, art style and ingame graphics are nice. Now i´m even more curious about it. Hope there will be more info soon.

[Loerwyn]

There's more info at an upcoming convention (completely forgot which one, my apologies), but I think that's only a month or two away.

[xCirdanx]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

There's more info at an upcoming convention (completely forgot which one, my apologies), but I think that's only a month or two away.

Gamescon in August, i just read it. Definitely something i will follow with great interest. Being a fan of the W40k IP, i´m pretty sceptical, but as long as i can play Eldar

[Rubbish Hero]

Fexelea wrote...

What was he right about? He said there was no long-term benefit, that the platform was a "total disaster" and that they were not working on it... Yet there he was, saying the ps3 version would be superior to the xbox version. It is irrelevant if Sony gave way to allow steam options (not steam itself), the "lol" moment is there.

Compared to the PlayStation 2 it is, it was advertised as a messia of gaming but it''s sales have been the weakest and many multiplat games have been the weakest on the platform in comparison the Xbox360. Like some sort of epic  poetic justice, after years of the wii being classed as a gimmick, it  has run rings around the xbox360 and PlayStation 3 in terms sales and now both consoles are attempting to emulate it. [smilie]../../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

Will Wright was right.

www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php

He is specifically saying it will be the best version because of steam,
i.e. there product. Which Microsoft most likely wouldn't allow. It is
better because Valve are superior  human beings, not because Sony or
there hardware is.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 16 juin 2010 - 12:51 .

[Astranagant]

Illusivestofmen wrote...

Microsoft apparently bombed this time around surprisingly...no big announcements except for the new Xbox slim (which is long overdue). Natal was sunk as soon as the name was changed to kinect which just screams casual gamer on gaming's most hardcore based system.

Sony's was *meh* the portal announcement was big but due to personal preferences I'm unimpressed. Move better than expected. Then that abomination of a motion control system Nintendo Wii really stole the show with some real games for a change, 3DS looks like it will revolutionize handhelds. '

Overall E3 was topsy tirvy from usual, we have Microsoft at the bottom and Nintendo at the top. Weird.

>Xbox 360

>gaming's most hardcore based system

[Rubbish Hero]

Were is this Old Republic in game footage people have been talking about?

[Fexelea]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Fexelea wrote...

What was he right about? He said there was no long-term benefit, that the platform was a "total disaster" and that they were not working on it... Yet there he was, saying the ps3 version would be superior to the xbox version. It is irrelevant if Sony gave way to allow steam options (not steam itself), the "lol" moment is there.

Compared to the PlayStation 2 it is, it was advertised as a messia of gaming but it''s sales have been the weakest and many multiplat games have been the weakest on the platform in comparison the Xbox360. Like some sort of epic  poetic justice, after years of the wii being classed as a gimmick, it  has run rings around the xbox360 and PlayStation 3 in terms sales and now both consoles are attempting to emulate it. [smilie]../../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

Will Wright was right.

www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php

He is specifically saying it will be the best version because of steam,
i.e. there product. Which Microsoft most likely wouldn't allow. It is
better because Valve are superior  human beings, not because Sony or
there hardware is.

But that was not what he was talking about when he was trashing the ps3. He was complaining about the development tools and the infrastructure, going on record to say it was terrible to develop for. It wasn't about sales or the like.

Regardless, it is unimportant "why" he said that the ps3 version would be superior. I don't care if it is or is not. My original comment was that I find it very amusing how his "we will never develop for ps3" ended in a public "eat your hat" moment. It's funny. I do admire that he has the ballz to stand on that stage and say "well I was the ps3 hater, I have come around", and make his company some money.

Make no mistake, I would be finding this equally funny had this situation been the same with MS or Nintendo. The situation is funny.

[Rubbish Hero]

Fexelea wrote... But that was not what he was talking about when he was trashing the ps3

Exactly, he didn't address it as all.

[the_one_54321]

Astranagant wrote...

Illusivestofmen wrote...
Microsoft apparently bombed this time around surprisingly...no big announcements except for the new Xbox slim (which is long overdue). Natal was sunk as soon as the name was changed to kinect which just screams casual gamer on gaming's most hardcore based system.

Sony's was *meh* the portal announcement was big but due to personal preferences I'm unimpressed. Move better than expected. Then that abomination of a motion control system Nintendo Wii really stole the show with some real games for a change, 3DS looks like it will revolutionize handhelds. '

Overall E3 was topsy tirvy from usual, we have Microsoft at the bottom and Nintendo at the top. Weird.

>Xbox 360

>gaming's most hardcore based system

My thoughts exactly. Xbox360 = hardcore gamers... LOL. Where exactly do you think the "casual gamer" first took roots? The Xbox was the beginning of the end of depth in games. (not that it isn't a capable system with its own list of qualified games, but so is every other system, we're talking about gamers behavior not consoles)