291 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

I like it because I can pick and choose which ones I want to download as opposed to a nearly full price expansion pack, which includes stuff I don't want.

As far as the price goes, it's close to a movie ticket - which I'd have to buy again if I want to rewatch the movie. I understand that it's a better financial model for developers but that's what you get when you go a la carte. It's more individually expensive but you've got more choice.

If they packed all the DLC for ME2 or DA:O into one expansion for $40, I'd have spent - in either case - $20 more than I have to date.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 15 septembre 2010 - 04:44 .

[B3taMaxxx]

Revan312 wrote...
All the major games that come out use an established engine, it's better business. Why spend two years developing your own engine when you can buy the rights to an already existant and bug tested engine. And there's really not more information to input.  Game development is a lot easier than it used to be. Especially since they're developing games on consoles which are stationary systems that don't change.

 Ok, fine, 8 bit tech is definately far more complicated, with all that scrolling text and all. Tough stuff.

Revan312 wrote...
And no offense, but your the one that sounds angry.. not me.

 I didn't realize I was yelling. Sorry.

Revan312 wrote...
I'm just discussing why I think consoles have degraded the gaming environment as of late.  And creatively hindering devs?  I'm not entirely sure just how ridgid consoles are when it comes to development.  But just take an FPS game for example, instead of having 64 players on maps which could be made exclusivly for that type of play, consoles have forced those numbers into the 16 player range, which is sort of, well, limiting..  With the technology PC's and bandwith providers now have, a PC exclusive title could have far more players than ever before, but that's not cost effective, consoles are the money makers, I just wish they weren't.

 You haven't played many console FPS games eh? MAG and COD3 are a couple I've played that break your mold.

 The Battlefield numbers issue spawns from thier crap Frostbite engine. Most arcade and tactical shooters cater to smaller teams with tighter, more detailed maps.

 My point(s) being is that while there are some hurddles, they aren't many, and the lines between the two poles blur a bit more everyday. PCs will allow for innovation while consoles will eventually provide the backbone of western gaming. Regardless, as I've stated, I still don't see the connection between devs making games for consoles and the lack of creative design.

[ErichHartmann]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

The only game that I found 64 players actually fun was Tribes. Battlefield was extremely nonsensical. In fact back in the day as a hardcore Natural Selection player we would often cap the limit at 16 as anything more would degenerate into mindless chaos. Going back and forth in Battlefield games, it allows for a small amount more. But not much. Leave such mindless chaos to MMO's.

Return To Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory was awesome with up to 64 players.  It had objectives and heavily emphasized team play.  Don't play it anymore though, the Quake III engine is too oudated.

[mauss]

Companies are coming up with more and more ways to make as much money as possible. Releasing DLC's is just the latest. Let's say Bioware released DAO with all of the content from the DLC's included. Even if they charged $100 for the game, it would have been much more respectable compared to what they're doing now. I pay $100 and I get the full game. Except, no one would buy a game that costs $100. No one would buy a game that costs $100, and yet people are actually spending even more than $100 on this game, by purchasing DLC's. It doesn't matter whether $7 is cheap or not, or how many hours of content it offers. What matters is that you're being tricked into paying more money for a game that's split apart than you ever would for a whole game. Profiteering means you're making more money than you're supposed to by taking advantage of something. Here, Bioware is taking advantage of the fact that $7 per DLC doesn't seem very expensive, but $100 for the whole game does. I have never and will never spend money on DLC's.

[Shadowomega23]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

Shadowomega23 wrote...

@Revan312 Yea Consoles have driven down the quality of some games like RPGs, as consoles have limits they have to put in place for their limited hardware, and drive space. Infact DICE the makers of the Battlefield seires had some info out about why BC2 was limited on both PC and console version. Console version they have a limited ammount of bandwidth they are allowed to take up by each console, ie Xbox 360 and PS3 with everything they added in game Like Destruction 2.0 what could have been played with little lag in a lan set up with the 360 at 64 players, however cap cause it to be limited to around 16 to 32 players with Desuction 2.0 this was later just copied over to the PC version. Even Mass Effect 2 felt the nasty bite of the console market by haveing the missions rearranged to fit on multi disks. Thus the down grade on the PC to acomindate the console. If a game was made exlusive for the PC it would likely include far more content then most do now.

Also noticed I see that the Orginal poster of this thread is not showing that they OWN ME2 DA:O DA:A or even Warhammer.

 Other than graphics your comments in no way shape or form back up the previous claim(s) that consoles are the cause for games becoming less sophisticated.

So your saying that Microsoft and Sony don't have limits placed on their Old out of date hardware, and games are not limited on those system at all, boy your way off. PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of BFBC 2 are limited to 16 from what I understand, PC has 32. From comment made by DICE themselves they tested the game ant it is capable of 64 people on the xbox systems, however that was in office testing. Microsoft and Sony have limits enplace to ensure standarization across all platforms. This is why people get banned for moding their concoles. Where as on PC someone with a 56k connection can try and connect to a match where Broadband custerms are playing.

As for my comment of Mass Effect 2 Look at the mission set up they rearranged the missions so they could fit to reduce disk swaping.

Also look at the dated hardware on the consoles, then look at a PC that came out the same year. PC also is expanable drive storage, 360 and PS3 really doesn't have room to expand. Hell Machine has 3 Hard Drives, 2 Raptors and 1 Mass storage drive, the news 360 uses a 250 GB hard drive both my raptors beat that down, both being 300 GB each and run transfer data at 3 Gbs, your drive is likely pushing 1 Gbs if that. To top it off You can't even mod the game with custom made textures, meshes, skeleton etc.

[Onyx Jaguar]

ErichHartmann wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

The only game that I found 64 players actually fun was Tribes. Battlefield was extremely nonsensical. In fact back in the day as a hardcore Natural Selection player we would often cap the limit at 16 as anything more would degenerate into mindless chaos. Going back and forth in Battlefield games, it allows for a small amount more. But not much. Leave such mindless chaos to MMO's.

Return To Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory was awesome with up to 64 players.  It had objectives and heavily emphasized team play.  Don't play it anymore though, the Quake III engine is too oudated.

Yeah a couple of months back I put on RTCW and pinged its multiplayer and received zero servers.  Was curious about it because I had played Enemy Territory back when it was released, but alas wasn't meant to be.  Never went into a 64 player match on Enemy Territory, now I'm kind of curious. 

[Onyx Jaguar]

Microsoft and Sony have limits enplace to ensure standarization across all platforms. This is why people get banned for moding their concoles.

People mod their consoles to pirate games. Why would they allow them to use their online servers that cost them money when that consumer is leeching off of them more or less?



In fact, isn't that different from how Steam works in a way or other online based games.

[B3taMaxxx]

Shadowomega23 wrote...

 This makes games less sophisticated/creative/complex how? And I don't know who you're arguing, because I didn't promote any of the topics you're voicing.

 And to be honest, DICE made a terrible engine. The mechanics alone are a mess. The hit detection is poor, ridiculous spawning system and rewards not unlocking as they are intended to. I couldn't imagine those guys trying to make a RPG.

Modifié par B3taMaxxx, 15 septembre 2010 - 04:57 .

[Shadowomega23]

There is some modding doing to Consoles to give a tactical advantage in a Multiplayer enviroment. One of the things I can think of is control stick sensity beyond the normal range settings. This is why in championship matchs controllers that have turbo fire functions and the like are banned, as not everyone would have said controller.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Shadowomega23 wrote...

There is some modding doing to Consoles to give a tactical advantage in a Multiplayer enviroment. One of the things I can think of is control stick sensity beyond the normal range settings. This is why in championship matchs controllers that have turbo fire functions and the like are banned, as not everyone would have said controller.

Word?

[Chris Priestly]

You know what I hate? Liver. No matter how well it is cooked, no matter what t comes with, no matter is world famous chef made it, I just don't like it. Oh, I know some people like it. I know some people LOVE it. But for me, I just don't like liver.

Fortunately for me, no one forces me to eat liver. If I see it offered, I don't have it.



Make of this analogy what you will.

[FieryDove]

Chris Priestly wrote...

You know what I hate? Liver. No matter how well it is cooked, no matter what t comes with, no matter is world famous chef made it, I just don't like it. Oh, I know some people like it. I know some people LOVE it. But for me, I just don't like liver.

Fortunately for me, no one forces me to eat liver. If I see it offered, I don't have it.



Make of this analogy what you will.

But...but...

You must eat liver, its good for you!

[Maconbar]

Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. - Publius Syrus

[B3taMaxxx]

You've never had country fried chicken liver, have you? I hear they make a mean chocolate fried liver in Kansas.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Hell no, I'm not going to cut out my liver and eat it. That sounds counterproductive.

[Axekix]

I happen to like DLC and liver. I feel out of place here.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Axekix wrote...

I happen to like DLC and liver. I feel out of place here.

YOU WOULD SAY THAT WOULDN'T YOU

[B3taMaxxx]

Erm, never had jaguar liver before.................

[Chris Priestly]

Oh, I admit that every once in a while, I see some liver prepared in a new way, or cooked with interesting ingredients or just made to look delicious and I have occasionally tried this liver to again see if I like it.

So far, I haven't found liver that I enjoy. Again, it is up to me to keep trying new liver, or to stop and never try it again sure in my belief  that I will never find good liver. Again, no one forces me to get it. There's lots of delicious stuff to eat instead and it is totally up to me to eat it or not.

Analogy Part 2.

[Shadowomega23]

@B3taMaxxx For starters smaller game sizes to fit on the limited HD space of those systems and on the number of disk they can use, IE Disk swaping. Dunno if you remember but One of the Baulders Gate games took 8 disks less see that disk hot spawing there.



They also need to cut down on the amount of process as the tri core Xenon at least on the 360 can not handle all types of computations that a full fledged CPU can comit to. A Xenon does have function removed to make more cycle time for other functions/threads.



Physical effects like Destroying buildings in a multiplayer game requires an increase in bandwidth useage for the increase ammount of data but when you limit the bandwidth, you limit the ammount of data a second which means either you cut out the physics or you reduce the number of players. This reduces the sophistication of the games.



As for Frostbite engine hit detection isn't as bad as some people make it out to be, because there is lag issues but not as bad as what I heard from COD MW2. Spawn system is kind of crappy but it is some what random enough to reduce spawn camping at least on PC, and rewards unlocks is more tied to changes made post UI creation.

[upsettingshorts]

I think I figured out Chris Priestly's analogy. He's actually Andrew Zimmern.

[Fishy]

mauss wrote...

Companies are coming up with more and more ways to make as much money as possible. Releasing DLC's is just the latest. Let's say Bioware released DAO with all of the content from the DLC's included. Even if they charged $100 for the game, it would have been much more respectable compared to what they're doing now. I pay $100 and I get the full game. Except, no one would buy a game that costs $100. No one would buy a game that costs $100, and yet people are actually spending even more than $100 on this game, by purchasing DLC's. It doesn't matter whether $7 is cheap or not, or how many hours of content it offers. What matters is that you're being tricked into paying more money for a game that's split apart than you ever would for a whole game. Profiteering means you're making more money than you're supposed to by taking advantage of something. Here, Bioware is taking advantage of the fact that $7 per DLC doesn't seem very expensive, but $100 for the whole game does. I have never and will never spend money on DLC's.

ME2 : 50 $
LOTSB : 8.00 $
Cerberus network : 12 $
Skin for jack etc , 1.60$
Kasumi DLC ; 5.60 $
Overlord DLC : 5.60 $
Weaspons pack DLC : 1,60$


85 Tomatoes
Plus Quebec Taxe
Plus credit card interest(Mine at 25%)

That well over 100,00

[B3taMaxxx]

Shadowomega23 wrote...
Physical effects like Destroying buildings in a multiplayer game requires an increase in bandwidth useage for the increase ammount of data but when you limit the bandwidth, you limit the ammount of data a second which means either you cut out the physics or you reduce the number of players. This reduces the sophistication of the games.

 Graphical sophistication? Yea, I'll give you that one. But I dare say most devs can find many ways to create pretty explosions with limited process capabilities. Still, this is a very small piece of an argument with one claiming games are less complex/sophisticated/creative than their predecessors.

Shadowomega23 wrote...
As for Frostbite engine hit detection isn't as bad as some people make it out to be, because there is lag issues but not as bad as what I heard from COD MW2. Spawn system is kind of crappy but it is some what random enough to reduce spawn camping at least on PC, and rewards unlocks is more tied to changes made post UI creation.

 Yeah, the hit detection is  bad with the Frostbite Engine. Couple that with lag and it's.......................The game isn't without it's merits though.

 MW2's hit detection, even with lag is far superior in this aspect, though I still don't like the game.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Suprez30 wrote...

mauss wrote...

Companies are coming up with more and more ways to make as much money as possible. Releasing DLC's is just the latest. Let's say Bioware released DAO with all of the content from the DLC's included. Even if they charged $100 for the game, it would have been much more respectable compared to what they're doing now. I pay $100 and I get the full game. Except, no one would buy a game that costs $100. No one would buy a game that costs $100, and yet people are actually spending even more than $100 on this game, by purchasing DLC's. It doesn't matter whether $7 is cheap or not, or how many hours of content it offers. What matters is that you're being tricked into paying more money for a game that's split apart than you ever would for a whole game. Profiteering means you're making more money than you're supposed to by taking advantage of something. Here, Bioware is taking advantage of the fact that $7 per DLC doesn't seem very expensive, but $100 for the whole game does. I have never and will never spend money on DLC's.

ME2 : 50 $
LOTSB : 8.00 $
Cerberus network : 12 $
Skin for jack etc , 1.60$
Kasumi DLC ; 5.60 $
Overlord DLC : 5.60 $
Weaspons pack DLC : 1,60$


85 Tomatoes
Plus Quebec Taxe
Plus credit card interest(Mine at 25%)

That well over 100,00

If you are buying ME 2 used for 50 bucks, you are getting Ripped Off

[B3taMaxxx]

I see liver shaped santas in you mail box this Christmas, Chris.