Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Decer304]

I dont mind the xbox one, sometimes i prefer consoles solely for the purpose of when i play a game, i know its stable, has a community that is centered in one area (xbox live), unlike pc where game communites can be really fragmented into different areas (steam, desura, etc), wont lag in single player and that everyone is on an even playing field interms of system specs, but what is really bugging me about it is that the xbox has no pre-owned game sharing, game are now linked to accounts like steam not just on disk, almost always online (it need to connect to the internet atleast once a day), and a kinect that cant be disabled, as the console needs the kinect to run.

With the kinect, they said the mic cant be turned off, which means voice commands can happen by accident easily. When the announcement event was on, there were people who watched it on their xboxs through the live event player, and during that event, there was a part which a guy showed the capabilites of the new kinect by yelling voice commands, and what happened was that people who had kinects had their console turned off and on and weird things started happening because of the commands not from the users, but from the TV. This means the new kinect, which, assumed would have a better mic, which means that even a conversation off side could potentially control the console. Just imagine when you are playing a game, and then some conversation offside mentioned "turn off" and that turned off your console. How annoying and infuriating would that be?

[Sproginator]

Sounds like a major flaw on their part, silly Microsoft.

[TJJ]

With the kinect, they said the mic cant be turned off, which means voice commands can happen by accident easily. When the announcement event was on, there were people who watched it on their xboxs through the live event player, and during that event, there was a part which a guy showed the capabilites of the new kinect by yelling voice commands, and what happened was that people who had kinects had their console turned off and on and weird things started happening because of the commands not from the users, but from the TV. This means the new kinect, which, assumed would have a better mic, which means that even a conversation off side could potentially control the console. Just imagine when you are playing a game, and then some conversation offside mentioned "turn off" and that turned off your console. How annoying and infuriating would that be?

Just like regular speech! If you say something without addressing it to a specific person, multiple people are likely to respond.
Obviously the only solution is for M$ to give a unique name to every xbox

[K-64]

<snip>

I'm sorry, but whatever way you look at it, consoles ARE slowing down the development of games. Every big company, and most of the mid-size names go with multi-platform, which means they have to keep making stuff for hardware that's going on 10 years or so by now. That's a decade's worth of tech advancement made invalid just because of consoles

[FloW]

I'm sorry, but whatever way you look at it, consoles ARE slowing down the development of games. Every big company, and most of the mid-size names go with multi-platform, which means they have to keep making stuff for hardware that's going on 10 years or so by now. That's a decade's worth of tech advancement made invalid just because of consoles

Similar to your reply, this will not add nothing new: I already said that it will hit multi-platform devs.

To add something new: No, it will not make a decade of tech advancement invalid. If you read my posts you would know that it's about optimization. If I have to put up one game that specializes on optimization it would probably World in Conflict. A game that looks great, gets my PC going and if minimized (to look at it with the task manager) needs less than half a GB memory. Take a look at modern internet browsers (especially stuff like Java and Flash) and their memory management, I hope you get my point then.

But let's take a look at 10 years ago and the great games of then. Especially of what made them great. I'm not too sure what you played, so I'm going from my personal experience and this page [1].
I'll start of with "TLoZ: Wind Waker". Is it a game that would be better with 10 years advancement? Eh, maybe. Probably not by much, pretty sure that it wouldn't be worth it. Even if I had a Wii U, I wouldn't buy the HD remake.
Next up: "WC3: Frozen Throne". What made the game great? Tower defense maps, DotA and some other stuff. TDs and DotA are nowadays genres.
"F-Zero GX": That game is the reason why I can't play racing games anymore. Nothing beats 1000 km/h while listening to an awesome soundtrack. Also it had a great learning curve (Easy: Beatable if you're new; up to Master: Memorize every track and how to drive it with your machine).
"Beyond Good & Evil": Guess what I recently bought on GoG.com? I guarantee it wasn't because of the graphics.

Do these games need the advancement to be better games? Simply put: No. I don't play games because they are "something that was impossible 10 years ago". I started gaming with an Amiga A500, so I might be biased. Still, I'm not impressed with the point that "Spec Ops: The Line" brought across, when a game like "Cannonfodder" already started with the intro song "War has never been so much fun".

Good god, that now sounds like a pretty bad, nostalgic rant. Still, there are great games and they are not great because of the underlying hardware, but because the games are good. Heck, the Amiga had a resolution that didn't really go above 640x480 and I still think that the first two Monkey Islands was great. Also games like Elite, Lemmings,...... Let's just say that great games don't need technological advancements.

[K-64]

I never said they did. However what I am saying is that if technology was being refined more often and more cutting edge on release with consoles, then in theory some companies would actually put more content and better functionality in games. It's all well and good saying that "X game was awesome and it was released 20-30 years ago", but there's also the fact that we DO have the technology for getting more and more in games that's just being wasted because of antique hardware of the "Current gen" of consoles.

Consider how many games properly support multiple screens. There's not many out there, only one I can think of off the top of my head is Supreme Commander. Game AI, that could very easily have a thread dedicated to it these days. And consider what Galciv managed on the strategic level on single-core in 2002... the possibilities are rather enticing when you think of what could be done now if the tech was utilised properly.

Now, to your examples here.
Wind Waker was a pretty awesome game, I'll admit, but it wasn't anything close to OoT which will always hold a special place in my heart. Though on Wind Waker itself, I think the fact it followed the tried and true formula for the series with the cel-shaded art style helps with keeping it from ageing like other games.

Warcraft has never been a series I got into. And tower defence is one of the genres that I absolutely abhor. So I wouldn't consider it a "great".

F-Zero GX? Wasn't an overly memorable game, really. Was just more of the same from F-Zero X on the N64, with the soundtrack less awesome.

Beyond Good & Evil I've never played or heard much about, so I can't say anything about it.

[dogboy123]

Sadly enough, I think if we did have better tech today , we wouldn't see better games. Just games with better graphics, as is the current trend. I guess I have a different view on this since my computer's graphics capabilities can't handle anything that was released less than 4 years ago, because to me the next-gen consoles seem like dream-machines.

[K-64]

There's a lot more that can be done with games than the graphics, you know? There's the activity that can be going on at once that can be increased, the amount of stuff in one area, etc. But also, like I said improvements to the AI so that we can finally get away from the classic "Hard mod is the same but with the computer cheating with resources/health/ammo/whatever" and more "Actually more intelligent"

[dogboy123]

There's a lot more that can be done with games than the graphics, you know? There's the activity that can be going on at once that can be increased, the amount of stuff in one area, etc. But also, like I said improvements to the AI so that we can finally get away from the classic "Hard mod is the same but with the computer cheating with resources/health/ammo/whatever" and more "Actually more intelligent"

Yes, that's exactly my point, AAA game devs know that more people will buy the game if the graphics look better.I agree with you there's far more that can be done, but based on where AAA games have been going recently. With thing like Crysis with boring short story and gameplay, but amazing graphics. I don't think big-name game devs would care about gameplay when people can look it and say "oooh looks pretty, I want it". But then go to play and get bored of it very soon, but the publisher and devs have been payed already and they don't care if people are getting overhyped games, (EA) lol.

[FloW]

I never said they did. However what I am saying is that if technology was being refined more often and more cutting edge on release with consoles, then in theory some companies would actually put more content and better functionality in games. It's all well and good saying that "X game was awesome and it was released 20-30 years ago", but there's also the fact that we DO have the technology for getting more and more in games that's just being wasted because of antique hardware of the "Current gen" of consoles.

That's the theory, but companies will go for whatever gets the most money for the least effort. It's a problem the Wii U currently faces. Without games that make the console worth it, nobody buys it. Without buyers, the additional market is too small to be of any significance. So nobody optimizes for it, or tries to get anything working on it.
And why should anybody try to make a good game? What counts is that is sells good.

Consider how many games properly support multiple screens. There's not many out there, only one I can think of off the top of my head is Supreme Commander. Game AI, that could very easily have a thread dedicated to it these days. And consider what Galciv managed on the strategic level on single-core in 2002... the possibilities are rather enticing when you think of what could be done now if the tech was utilised properly.

See above, there are not that many gamers that actively use two screens for gaming (or wish to). So nobody optimizes for it, so nobody gets two screens..... You get the point, I hope.

Warcraft has never been a series I got into. And tower defence is one of the genres that I absolutely abhor. So I wouldn't consider it a "great".

F-Zero GX? Wasn't an overly memorable game, really. Was just more of the same from F-Zero X on the N64, with the soundtrack less awesome.

"Great" as in: It created two new genres.
GX benefited from the better graphics, imo (And I'm no graphics ***). And the OST is still something that I like to listen. Whatever I'm doing, that OST just makes it epic. Mixing Jazz, Heavy Rock/Metal and Drum 'n' Bass? .

There's a lot more that can be done with games than the graphics, you know? There's the activity that can be going on at once that can be increased, the amount of stuff in one area, etc. But also, like I said improvements to the AI so that we can finally get away from the classic "Hard mod is the same but with the computer cheating with resources/health/ammo/whatever" and more "Actually more intelligent"

There are still some games that do that, but there are already changes in that field. Starsector would be the best example. Though, I point to the top of my post and the "More sales = More money --> better" thing.

[PerturbedPug]

Huh, looks like Decer304 was right. The CoD engine is not completely new, but modified (once again).

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/05/23/call-of-duty-engine-isnt-brand-new-but-upgraded/

EDIT: The level of brown in that screenshot is too damn high.

[Decer304]

Huh, looks like Decer304 was right. The CoD engine is not completely new, but modified (once again).http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/05/23/call-of-duty-engine-isnt-brand-new-but-upgraded/?mtc=comment-434399#comment-434399

LoL, i didnt even know that, it was just an educated guess. I thought that from the COD reputation for being the same old and that its only been 2 years since MW3, which isnt enough time alone to develop a brand new AAA engine.