Star Citizen Creator: You Can't Do That On Consoles

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

RicoADF:
snip

I mentioned Freelancer and X3 because they are both highly nonlinear, they can allow you to go to other systems as you like and explore fight discover trade ect, whatever you want.

The ones you mentioned (as far as the Colony wars games, I wasn't familiar with them before googling them) after looking through them seem to have branching storyline but fairly firm control over where the player goes and what they do, but doesn't allow you to become a trader, or go to another system and hunt pirates if you so choose. Please correct me if I am wrong though.

Also I wouldn't call you a fanboy (if anything I prefer console gaming peasant :3) because publishers have uniformly seemed to write off most genres that dont have you shooting people with modern guns, which is nice to see things like Star Citizen, Wasteland 2, Eternity, XCOM, and Skyrim slap them in the face.

EDIT: And I wasnt degrading to others, I said I was interested in if there were any console games like I said as I honestly didnt know. Trying to educate myself does not mean I am talking down to someone xD

FelixG:

RicoADF:
snip

I mentioned Freelancer and X3 because they are both highly nonlinear, they can allow you to go to other systems as you like and explore fight discover trade ect, whatever you want.

The ones you mentioned (as far as the Colony wars games, I wasn't familiar with them before googling them) after looking through them seem to have branching storyline but fairly firm control over where the player goes and what they do, but doesn't allow you to become a trader, or go to another system and hunt pirates if you so choose. Please correct me if I am wrong though.

Also I wouldn't call you a fanboy (if anything I prefer console gaming peasant :3) because publishers have uniformly seemed to write off most genres that dont have you shooting people with modern guns, which is nice to see things like Star Citizen, Wasteland 2, Eternity, XCOM, and Skyrim slap them in the face.

EDIT: And I wasnt degrading to others, I said I was interested in if there were any console games like I said as I honestly didnt know. Trying to educate myself does not mean I am talking down to someone xD

My mistake then.

Yes colony wars is like freespace and wing commander, abiet with a branching storyline. Unfortuently by the time freelancer and x3 (both of which doesn't use joystick unlike other pc space Sims) the genre was already on life support, and dead on consoles thanks to the stupid assumptions of publishers about cod games as stated previously

RicoADF:

My mistake then.

Yes colony wars is like freespace and wing commander, abiet with a branching storyline. Unfortuently by the time freelancer and x3 (both of which doesn't use joystick unlike other pc space Sims) the genre was already on life support, and dead on consoles thanks to the stupid assumptions of publishers about cod games as stated previously

No worries, but to be fair X3 uses joystick as well as mouse and keyboard, though sadly freelancer was missing joystick support.

Hopefully we will see a resurgence of these types of games now.

TheKasp:
*sigh* How does it make him evil if he states that the consoles have shit hardware by now? It is not news guys.

How is here any pretentious PC gaming crowd when all I see is console elitists whining about so-called PC elitists.

And how is it that people think they are smart if they throw in hardware into the same boat as graphics. They aren't smart because hardware = everything in a game, graphics is just a small part of it.

Threads like this are the reason why I have zero sympathy for the console crowd. Regardless of what and how you say it, you can only do wrong when you don't lick the balls of Sony and MS.

Elitist...

Elitist is saying that you are too good for everyone else. Like what he is doing with the PC.

When exactly in this thread did someone say "Console gaming is the only correct way to play" or anything close to it?

When we talk about elitism, your posts get put at the top in bold text.

FelixG:

RicoADF:

My mistake then.

Yes colony wars is like freespace and wing commander, abiet with a branching storyline. Unfortuently by the time freelancer and x3 (both of which doesn't use joystick unlike other pc space Sims) the genre was already on life support, and dead on consoles thanks to the stupid assumptions of publishers about cod games as stated previously

No worries, but to be fair X3 uses joystick as well as mouse and keyboard, though sadly freelancer was missing joystick support.

Hopefully we will see a resurgence of these types of games now.

Agreed, I've still got my PS games and have been thinking about making colony wars as a mod in Freespace 2, would be great to see these sorts of games coming back as I'm over 'realistic shooters'.

FelixG:

Valok:

FelixG:

Please, name a few for me? I am generally interested in these quality space games that stack up against Freelancer, X3, and the like.

Ever heard of Evochron Mercenary? This game will keep me busy on the months to come :D (Available on Steam)

And before you ask, yes, you can go down on planets to take a look, lol. The game is pretty sick IMO.

That game does look rather nifty! Question though, it shows a cycle through a couple of capital ships near the beginning of the vid, do you pilot those or own them in some way?

If you can use the capitals I will jump straight to steam and buy this, I luuuv capital ship combat!

Unfortunatly no, it's pretty much like X3 (The world is open for you to do whatever you want - and it's a really, really big one mind you) however you can't control capital ships (There are ofc combat missions with CS shooting each other ^^). The game is more about you and a squad of fighters (if you choose to buy and command one) on the universe.

The multiplayer part is also very interesting, I would recommend to check it out.

Also, I just heard that there is a expansion that's about to be release. Upgraded graphics, terrestrial combat and other stuff o.o.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Elitist...

Elitist is saying that you are too good for everyone else. Like what he is doing with the PC.

When exactly in this thread did someone say "Console gaming is the only correct way to play" or anything close to it?

When we talk about elitism, your posts get put at the top in bold text.

Oh, ain't you clever with the usage of a youtube video. Now you really dropped the mic...

First: Show me where he implies that he is too good for everyone else? He is just talking about hardware limitations. I even see the line that next gen consoles are going to improve on that turf.

Second: I could copy the definition of elitist and twist it easily into fitting this scenario. I won't copy it though because it's too friggin long.

Third: Yes, actually we do see here an elitist attitude. People take the stance that their take on this matter - as in the defamation of him as an elitist and dismissing of any argument in that subject - as one more worthy without any rational basis. They imply that their stance is more worth than anyone who even dares to mention that consoles are old hardware that should be replaced sooner than later.

Fourth: Take that youtube link and shove it somewhere where people don't want to discuss things. Stupid ass memes and links don't add anything - they just put people who use that shit on my mental ignore list because they seem to be incable of wording an argument without reliance on pop culture.

Fifth: If I am eltist: So what? I am considered elitist by most people on this thread because I prefer to game on PC because of better hardware and better performance. I in no way did imply that my opinion / stance was superiour, I just pointed out that dismissing ones argument because they go against your favorite toy is a stupid attitude.

PC elitist and graphics whore developer makes comment about superiority of PCs and how great his game will be. Here's me not caring...

You know if ya go to a PC gaming forum and politely point out that someone else's HP/Acer/Dell/Gateway/etc setup is too outdated to play bleeding edge games, the second person rarely gets defensive at all...it's just an accepted fact and both parties move on unoffended by one another.

Politey point out that the Xbox 360 & PS3 are becoming outdated hardware setups and you will be called out as some sort of elitist prick. Microsoft and Sony have some serious brand loyalty going on. The innards of a console are largely the same as a PC, slapping MS or Sony on the exterior doesn't transform it into anything special that should be kept around for decades. Console gamers who oppose progress simply because they do not want to pay for a new console have a legit argument, but they shouldn't get all huffy when a small handful(!) of devs stop catering to machines that restrict their their creative vision.

Anyways, from what I've seen so far Star Citizen looks f-ing awesome!!!!!!

A lot of people seem to forget that most of the dev time in fancy pants graphics for consoles is tied up in optimisation. If Crysis and Metro have taught us nothing else it is relying on brute power on the part of the end user helps small dev teams get stuff done cheaply. Anyway my phone has more RAM than a current console, RAM starvation is holding back game development.

Higgs303:
You know if ya go to a PC gaming forum and politely point out that someone else's HP/Acer/Dell/Gateway/etc setup is too outdated to play bleeding edge games, the second person rarely gets defensive at all...it's just an accepted fact and both parties move on unoffended by one another.

Politey point out that the Xbox 360 & PS3 are becoming outdated hardware setups and you will be called out as some sort of elitist prick. Microsoft and Sony have some serious brand loyalty going on. The innards of a console are largely the same as a PC, slapping MS or Sony on the exterior doesn't transform it into anything special that should be kept around for decades. Console gamers who oppose progress simply because they do not want to pay for a new console have a legit argument, but they shouldn't get all huffy when a small handful(!) of devs stop catering to machines that restrict their their creative vision.

Anyways, from what I've seen so far Star Citizen looks f-ing awesome!!!!!!

Problem is, most people don't ask politely. They TELL you that PC is how gaming is supposed to be played, and that consoles are for "Corporate schills that couldn't make a decent rig".

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Higgs303:
You know if ya go to a PC gaming forum and politely point out that someone else's HP/Acer/Dell/Gateway/etc setup is too outdated to play bleeding edge games, the second person rarely gets defensive at all...it's just an accepted fact and both parties move on unoffended by one another.

Politey point out that the Xbox 360 & PS3 are becoming outdated hardware setups and you will be called out as some sort of elitist prick. Microsoft and Sony have some serious brand loyalty going on. The innards of a console are largely the same as a PC, slapping MS or Sony on the exterior doesn't transform it into anything special that should be kept around for decades. Console gamers who oppose progress simply because they do not want to pay for a new console have a legit argument, but they shouldn't get all huffy when a small handful(!) of devs stop catering to machines that restrict their their creative vision.

Anyways, from what I've seen so far Star Citizen looks f-ing awesome!!!!!!

Problem is, most people don't ask politely. They TELL you that PC is how gaming is supposed to be played, and that consoles are for "Corporate schills that couldn't make a decent rig".

If a PC gamer refers to console gamers as "corporate schills that couldn't make a decent rig", sure lay into them...I'll help!

I was more referring to the language that Chris Roberts used and some of the reaction here. I don't really see how anyone could be offended by his comments.

I love watching all the butthurt some console gamers feel whenever someone says something mean about their beloved consoles.

Higgs303:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Higgs303:
You know if ya go to a PC gaming forum and politely point out that someone else's HP/Acer/Dell/Gateway/etc setup is too outdated to play bleeding edge games, the second person rarely gets defensive at all...it's just an accepted fact and both parties move on unoffended by one another.

Politey point out that the Xbox 360 & PS3 are becoming outdated hardware setups and you will be called out as some sort of elitist prick. Microsoft and Sony have some serious brand loyalty going on. The innards of a console are largely the same as a PC, slapping MS or Sony on the exterior doesn't transform it into anything special that should be kept around for decades. Console gamers who oppose progress simply because they do not want to pay for a new console have a legit argument, but they shouldn't get all huffy when a small handful(!) of devs stop catering to machines that restrict their their creative vision.

Anyways, from what I've seen so far Star Citizen looks f-ing awesome!!!!!!

Problem is, most people don't ask politely. They TELL you that PC is how gaming is supposed to be played, and that consoles are for "Corporate schills that couldn't make a decent rig".

If a PC gamer refers to console gamers as "corporate schills that couldn't make a decent rig", sure lay into them...I'll help!

I was more referring to the language that Chris Roberts used and some of the reaction here. I don't really see how anyone could be offended by his comments.

Yeah I don't know, maybe it's different on other gaming sites but whenever something like this comes up there always seems to be a lot of straw man'ing coming from the aggrieved console gamer. Seems like all it takes is maybe 1 PC gamer in 10 to trash on console gaming and that sets the stage for the entire console vs PC argument.

Skeleon:
Durr PC gaming is deaduuuh...
Regardless, I'm the kind of gamer who doesn't care too much for graphics. System Shock 2 is still one of my all time favorites and that game was ugly as sin when it was released.
Now, the physics-aspects of this are more interesting if they actually affect gameplay in novel and important ways. But if it's primarily about graphics, then I don't really give a toss, despite how great this indeed looks (assuming that's ingame graphics).

In a more extensive video where he goes up on stage for an hour to talk about and demo the game you get to see some more novel uses for physics. In particular with the marquee single man space fighter he shows off the thruster system, which controls the ships maneuverability in realtime coordination with player control input using 100% real physics. This consumes energy, so in game it opens up for tactical decisions to increase power between weapons/shields/thrusters/etc, with realistic consequences on your ships performance. Additional taking damage to the ship that drops the output will have a real time effect on things like your maneuverability. If you switch to a 3rd person view you'll see the thrusters sputtering along if there damaged, and back in the cockpit will experience the consequences with reduced maneuverability.

Now I don't think anything was said about pin point damage to your ship. For example if a shot slips throw your shields and hits a thruster mechanism will you no longer be able to move in that direction? That remains to be seen.

I can't wait for star citizen... but I do not at all appreciate the MMO qualities of what he wants to do. I don't know why people think this is the only way games can be. I know there is a SP campaign (Squad 42), but maybe I want to fly around as a trader and not worry about other actual people. But the cheapest AI there is, is the guy who is bored and just wants to blow shit up for the hell of it.

Don't care what the article about.... video... so... pretty.

Daddy wants.

Baresark:
I can't wait for star citizen... but I do not at all appreciate the MMO qualities of what he wants to do. I don't know why people think this is the only way games can be. I know there is a SP campaign (Squad 42), but maybe I want to fly around as a trader and not worry about other actual people.

They're planning of releasing the server hosting software so people can run private servers Freelancer style... So if you or a mate have a beefy enough rig or a 2nd rig networked in or are willing to shell out for server hosting, you can host a private Star Citizen server and don't invite anyone.

It's what I plan to do if the official server(s) are too full of rampant fuckwittery or I start wanting to experiment with extensive modding. Might even pool resources with other like minded people.

RandV80:
*snip*

Well, that does sound very relevant to the gameplay. Impressive. I'll wait for more info on this.

Twilight_guy:
PC elitist and graphics whore developer makes comment about superiority of PCs and how great his game will be. Here's me not caring...

gotta love the straw men console folk throw up in this thread...

"Oh noes he is pointing out the hardware limitations of these boxes, he must be an elitist! Gasp hes talking about RAM and even though thats not graphix he must be a graphix whore!1one!"

Hell he plays the alpha of the game using a 360 controller in the first video he did, so apparently he is a PC gaming elitist...except when it comes to controls?

FelixG:
"Oh noes he is pointing out the hardware limitations of these boxes, he must be an elitist! Gasp hes talking about RAM and even though thats not graphix he must be a graphix whore!1one!"

Everyone knows RAMs are SHEEPs with pen0rz.

FelixG:

Twilight_guy:
PC elitist and graphics whore developer makes comment about superiority of PCs and how great his game will be. Here's me not caring...

gotta love the straw men console folk throw up in this thread...

"Oh noes he is pointing out the hardware limitations of these boxes, he must be an elitist! Gasp hes talking about RAM and even though thats not graphix he must be a graphix whore!1one!"

Hell he plays the alpha of the game using a 360 controller in the first video he did, so apparently he is a PC gaming elitist...except when it comes to controls?

You're right, his using the idea that graphics are the only important aspect of a system as a primary reason for not considering them for his game is a straw man. He's intentionally only addressing the weakest aspect of consoles and beating them down based on that argument.

What's that you say? That's not what you meant. Well you're going to ignore connotation, so I'm going to do it to!

Twilight_guy:

FelixG:

Twilight_guy:
PC elitist and graphics whore developer makes comment about superiority of PCs and how great his game will be. Here's me not caring...

gotta love the straw men console folk throw up in this thread...

"Oh noes he is pointing out the hardware limitations of these boxes, he must be an elitist! Gasp hes talking about RAM and even though thats not graphix he must be a graphix whore!1one!"

Hell he plays the alpha of the game using a 360 controller in the first video he did, so apparently he is a PC gaming elitist...except when it comes to controls?

You're right, his using the idea that graphics are the only important aspect of a system as a primary reason for not considering them for his game is a straw man. He's intentionally only addressing the weakest aspect of consoles and beating them down based on that argument.

What's that you say? That's not what you meant. Well you're going to ignore connotation, so I'm going to do it to!

Well, you dont seem to quite understand what you are going on about, so I will break it down for you.

Powered by the CryEngine 3, he claimed Star Citizen will offer realistic physics and graphics with "ten times the details of current AAA games."

Right here, this is both talking about the physics, Which is mostly effected by your CPU, but also a bit by RAM which are both fairly small on Consoles, and one part about graphics which is the one thing you wanted to harp on.

"You can't do that much with 512MB [of RAM on a console], so that constrains a lot of your game design. If I'm building a PC game, I'm going 'Yeah, you need 4GB on your machine'," he told Ars Technica. "Of course you're not going to get all 4GB because Windows is a hungry beast, but you're getting a lot more than 512MB so it kinds of open up what you can do, what you can fit in memory at the same time, and it changes your level of ambition."

This part has nothing to do with graphics, and mostly to do with part of the physics engine as well as the amount of resources you can have in a general area of the game world and what those resources are doing.

"I have an iPhone and I can watch The Dark Knight Rises on it, but I don't want to watch The Dark Knight Rises on my iPhone - I want to see it in IMAX on a big screen, and I'm willing to spend $18 to see it on the big screen in IMAX versus downloading it for a couple of dollars on my iPhone," he said. "I definitely think there's a PC gaming audience like that."

And this is the one leg you really have to stand on, yes its about graphics, but that is hardly the center of his argument, which is why you trying to build him up as a "graphics whore" and "elitist" makes it a strawman.

EDIT: strange quote bug

FelixG:
Sniped for size

You're right, let me adjust that for you.

He's a graphics and physics whore that seems to have an affinity for PC gaming since he has negative things to say about consoles and positive ones for PC.

He's still an idiot since graphics and physics mean nothing compared to the larger problem of good game design. I don't give flying fuck if the graphics and physics are a little better if the game sucks and I think that other issues are more central to game experience that the different between console and PC graphics, physics simulation, CPU speed, and memory.

Also, my first post technically only contains my opinions of the guy stated as statements and no arguments so I couldn't be making a strawman argument since I wasn't presenting any argument.

I can't find the post of whoever said it, but having graphics 10 times[1] better than other AAA games is not actually hard from a developer standpoint.

The reason fort that is simple. Like textures that don't start with being a blurry mess, models start off with really high poly counts and then they get cut down to the 10,000 or whatever they end up as.

gardian06:
Who really wants to watch movies on their iPhone?

to paraphrase "Gaming Consoles have limited capabilities..." (starts stroking self) "...to the pinical of perfection that is PC..." (begins to moan) "...gaming in all its glory. that should be revered as a..." (spurts across the desk) "...god of gaming"

and now Chris Roberts is done. I think that I might go play my Wii game console.

Don't let the door hit your ass on your way out.

SacremPyrobolum:
Is it me, or does this guy come off as a bit of a wanker?

Anyways, I prefer the PC myself and am looking forward to this game but it will all be for naught if those shiny graphics make it unplayable for those lacking the most elite gaming computers.

And again I must ask, is your only role as a fighter pilot or do you get to command the mothership as well? And in this mothership can you walk all around it?

If pointing out how absolutely shit the current consoles are is being a wanker, then facts are jizz.

*cough* Scalability. The original Crysis, contrary to the misinformation spread by people I wanna fucking strangle, was perfectly playable (and still looked better than anything else) on mid-level PCs the day it released. Considering how much progress has happened since 2007, and will inevitably happen in two more years, I see no reason for that not to be the case again.

Yes and yes. You'll get to land in the big ships, walk around them, there will be shit to do inside them like manning the turrets, repairing stuff and calibrating the weapons. I think you'll even get to do boarding parties. Don't expect a sim of the type the X series or Eve are, but if this game follows through on its promises, it's going to be glorious.

Twilight_guy:
PC elitist and graphics whore developer makes comment about superiority of PCs and how great his game will be. Here's me not caring...

Until you point out exactly why either of those things are bad for the game, here's me not caring about your opinion.

Because all I see now is two buzzwords strung together in an attempt to have, I don't know, some sort of high horse to ride around on.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Higgs303:
You know if ya go to a PC gaming forum and politely point out that someone else's HP/Acer/Dell/Gateway/etc setup is too outdated to play bleeding edge games, the second person rarely gets defensive at all...it's just an accepted fact and both parties move on unoffended by one another.

Politey point out that the Xbox 360 & PS3 are becoming outdated hardware setups and you will be called out as some sort of elitist prick. Microsoft and Sony have some serious brand loyalty going on. The innards of a console are largely the same as a PC, slapping MS or Sony on the exterior doesn't transform it into anything special that should be kept around for decades. Console gamers who oppose progress simply because they do not want to pay for a new console have a legit argument, but they shouldn't get all huffy when a small handful(!) of devs stop catering to machines that restrict their their creative vision.

Anyways, from what I've seen so far Star Citizen looks f-ing awesome!!!!!!

Problem is, most people don't ask politely. They TELL you that PC is how gaming is supposed to be played, and that consoles are for "Corporate schills that couldn't make a decent rig".

If most people act the way you say they act, then how about you pull out the elitist card when people are actually saying this, instead of fighting windmills? Has there been anyone in this thread who actually said something to that extent? And how many people have been whining about them?

Here's what most people say. The hardware of the current gen of consoles sucks balls and its limited as hell. The only reason you, and people like you, think most PC gamers are attacking you is because you have attached yourself emotionally to the hardware you own.

[1] By which the developer meant the literal polygon count. The human characters in Star Citizen have something like a 100,000 polygons, as opposed to 10,000 in standard AAA games.

Hammeroj:

Twilight_guy:
PC elitist and graphics whore developer makes comment about superiority of PCs and how great his game will be. Here's me not caring...

Until you point out exactly why either of those things are bad for the game, here's me not caring about your opinion.

Because all I see now is two buzzwords strung together in an attempt to have, I don't know, some sort of high horse to ride around on.

Okay... if a developer puts too many resources into graphics he'll neglect the other parts of the game and as a result you will get a very pretty game that plays like E.T. combined with Superman 64. There you go, why too much focus on graphics is bad.

Why being a PC elitist is bad is because its a self imposed limitation on the functionality of your game. Different platforms are better options for different games. Cut the Rope would suck on a non-touchscreen platform. Being an elitist means the person has such an affinity for the thing that he'll/she'll likely pound a round peg into a square hole, as it were, when it comes to issues.

Of course I have no idea why I'm bother as you don't care. Maybe I just want to feel superior by posting a reply and trying to win. I should work on that.

I'm glad that Star Citizen won't be watered down to mediocrity just to shoehorn it onto irrelevant hardware.

Hammeroj:
snip...

gardian06:
Who really wants to watch movies on their iPhone?

to paraphrase "Gaming Consoles have limited capabilities..." (starts stroking self) "...to the pinical of perfection that is PC..." (begins to moan) "...gaming in all its glory. that should be revered as a..." (spurts across the desk) "...god of gaming"

and now Chris Roberts is done. I think that I might go play my Wii game console.

Don't let the door hit your ass on your way out.

a perfectly good first post dig at how the person is literally just masturbating about the PC as he is saying these words, and that is the best you can come up with. besides the majority of his argument/statement was that "PC is the best, ans will always be the best" if you take something different from his statement then really. I'll tell you something else PC has that consoles don't exponential QA time-frames because of the requirement to test potential builds of the given game even if you are using an established engine you still might need to modify it to make it fully functional to the given game.

Hammeroj:

SacremPyrobolum:
Is it me, or does this guy come off as a bit of a wanker?

Anyways, I prefer the PC myself and am looking forward to this game but it will all be for naught if those shiny graphics make it unplayable for those lacking the most elite gaming computers.

And again I must ask, is your only role as a fighter pilot or do you get to command the mothership as well? And in this mothership can you walk all around it?

If pointing out how absolutely shit the current consoles are is being a wanker, then facts are jizz.

*cough* Scalability. The original Crysis, contrary to the misinformation spread by people I wanna fucking strangle, was perfectly playable (and still looked better than anything else) on mid-level PCs the day it released. Considering how much progress has happened since 2007, and will inevitably happen in two more years, I see no reason for that not to be the case again.

Yes and yes. You'll get to land in the big ships, walk around them, there will be shit to do inside them like manning the turrets, repairing stuff and calibrating the weapons. I think you'll even get to do boarding parties. Don't expect a sim of the type the X series or Eve are, but if this game follows through on its promises, it's going to be glorious.

no what makes him a wanker is that he not only was talking about current consoles, but even future consoles, and your statement about Crysis yes it was a very pretty, and playable game to play on most mid-range PCs... until you purposely/accidentally destroy a building, and then it made all but high end systems cry.

Hammeroj:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Higgs303:
You know if ya go to a PC gaming forum and politely point out that someone else's HP/Acer/Dell/Gateway/etc setup is too outdated to play bleeding edge games, the second person rarely gets defensive at all...it's just an accepted fact and both parties move on unoffended by one another.

Politey point out that the Xbox 360 & PS3 are becoming outdated hardware setups and you will be called out as some sort of elitist prick. Microsoft and Sony have some serious brand loyalty going on. The innards of a console are largely the same as a PC, slapping MS or Sony on the exterior doesn't transform it into anything special that should be kept around for decades. Console gamers who oppose progress simply because they do not want to pay for a new console have a legit argument, but they shouldn't get all huffy when a small handful(!) of devs stop catering to machines that restrict their their creative vision.

Anyways, from what I've seen so far Star Citizen looks f-ing awesome!!!!!!

Problem is, most people don't ask politely. They TELL you that PC is how gaming is supposed to be played, and that consoles are for "Corporate schills that couldn't make a decent rig".

If most people act the way you say they act, then how about you pull out the elitist card when people are actually saying this, instead of fighting windmills? Has there been anyone in this thread who actually said something to that extent? And how many people have been whining about them?

Here's what most people say. The hardware of the current gen of consoles sucks balls and its limited as hell. The only reason you, and people like you, think most PC gamers are attacking you is because you have attached yourself emotionally to the hardware you own.

Nope. More along the lines that there is this constant stigma within the PC gaming world that "I play games on the PC therefore I am better then those that play on consoles" simply because they can change out a component when a "better" version comes out. yes there is something to be said in flexibility, but at the same time there is also something to be said for standardization, and having single benchmarks to target. then you have to consider when developing for the PC having not only multiple graphics, and processor capabilities for the end user, but also having to be able to implement additional settings (level of detail count, particle generator intensity, and even audio steaming) to allow the user to optimize for their setup; while on a console there is a single target to develop for, and little need to tinker past that unless you want to give the user preference options.

I have played games on the PC, and consoles, and your whole argument of "money they have invested into their consoles" I have actually invested about the same if not more on my gaming PC to keep up with "required" components for games then I have on buying a brand new console (pre price drop). So I would actually say that the reverse argument holds more water then yours.

then if you realize the funny part: when he is playing the game to test/demonstrate it on the videos he is not using a joystick and/or keyboard he is using a fucking 360 controller.

Oh FFS, this might be the most pathetic thing I've ever seen.

"WAAAAH, the big, mean man said something bad about my console, mommy! Make him go away!"

Pointing out that consoles have terrible hardware is like pointing out that the Earth is round. Everyone with a brain that's even remotely connected with reality knows it's a fact.

The whining in this thread sounds like the Flat Earthers trying to convince themselves that the Earth is actually flat and all the evidence to the contrary is a conspiracy to fool them.

Console hardware sucks. It's a fact, get over it. It doesn't mean that good games can't be made for the consoles, it just means the dev teams have to spend an inordinate amount of time optimizing the code and making concessions, like streaming textures. Chris Roberts doesn't want to do that. That doesn't make him an elitist. Space sims have pretty much been a PC thing ever since the genre was first introduced.

Twilight_guy:

Hammeroj:

Twilight_guy:
PC elitist and graphics whore developer makes comment about superiority of PCs and how great his game will be. Here's me not caring...

Until you point out exactly why either of those things are bad for the game, here's me not caring about your opinion.

Because all I see now is two buzzwords strung together in an attempt to have, I don't know, some sort of high horse to ride around on.

Okay... if a developer puts too many resources into graphics he'll neglect the other parts of the game and as a result you will get a very pretty game that plays like E.T. combined with Superman 64. There you go, why too much focus on graphics is bad.

Why being a PC elitist is bad is because its a self imposed limitation on the functionality of your game. Different platforms are better options for different games. Cut the Rope would suck on a non-touchscreen platform. Being an elitist means the person has such an affinity for the thing that he'll/she'll likely pound a round peg into a square hole, as it were, when it comes to issues.

Of course I have no idea why I'm bother as you don't care. Maybe I just want to feel superior by posting a reply and trying to win. I should work on that.

Define "too many resources". Then explain why you ignored the fact that in space there are vastly less models to worry about or what I outlined in the beginning of my post, namely kicking the need to go through insane amounts of downscaling and optimization out the window.

There is some validity to what you're saying, but it has nothing to do with the game playing like ass, and it's not even remotely absolute. The gameplay that was showcased seemed like it played tightly enough for a completely bare-bones proof of concept. What actually can come at the expense of graphics is the amount of content you can dress up with those graphics. And again, it's not absolute. For example, the dev may have an efficient approach to modelling, they may be in a better position or have a better plan than some other developers resulting in far less of what they create getting cut in the process, or the graphics may, like I said earlier, indeed be easier to create than you assume.

They promise us a universe as big as Freelancer's - a space sim of a similar kind, which by the way looks like complete ass - but as evidenced by everything that was shown, featuring vastly increased visual fidelity, physics-based movement, ship interiors and so on. Even if they didn't, let's say they said it was going to be half as big as the aforementioned game from 2003, this game is going to be getting content updates for a long, long time, eventually resulting in something far better and far bigger.

Do I sound like a PC elitist to you, from what you've read so far? If not, I want you to walk me through how you arrive to the conclusion that someone is elitist (namely Chris Roberts, in this case) without them actually describing themselves the way you describe them, i.e. as people who can't see the flaws of their preferred platform or things to that extent.

If I do sound elitist, what does it say to you about my elitism if I tell you that, indeed, consoles are clearly better fit for some types of games, like brawlers, God of War types, Heavy Rain types, platformers and racing games? That's on the consumer side.

On the development side, looking at the bolded statement, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying you want this game to be multiplatform? Or is this a general principle? In the case of the former, the statement literally makes no sense. When making a game for any few platforms simultaneously, unless those platforms are identical, the weakest link forces compromises for all the versions of the game, and any meaningful functionality in a specific platform as opposed to the others ultimately gets either not exploited at all, or just barely.

If you're talking about it as a general principle, why do you assume that this is Roberts blindly (key word here) pigeonholing himself into a single platform? Do you have reasons for it not to be PC-exclusive that would indicate that, indeed, there are flaws that are not being looked at? Can you name some of the functionality that is being lost by this game being PC only?

I don't care when all a person's point consists of are buzzwords. When you're actually trying to string coherent arguments together, it's hard to make me not care enough to stop replying.

Go ahead and mark this down. I will be back in 2 years to check up on this game. I am totally prepared to drink in tears of sorrow. I must remember to bring my straw.

Baresark:
I can't wait for star citizen... but I do not at all appreciate the MMO qualities of what he wants to do. I don't know why people think this is the only way games can be. I know there is a SP campaign (Squad 42), but maybe I want to fly around as a trader and not worry about other actual people. But the cheapest AI there is, is the guy who is bored and just wants to blow shit up for the hell of it.

From memory there were also private servers you personally could host, which you could use for just solo-play in the non-campaign sort of thing. You wouldn't get the persistent universe updates I wouldn't think, but you would be able to mod your server with whatever tools they provide.

Hammeroj:

Twilight_guy:

Hammeroj:
Until you point out exactly why either of those things are bad for the game, here's me not caring about your opinion.

Because all I see now is two buzzwords strung together in an attempt to have, I don't know, some sort of high horse to ride around on.

Okay... if a developer puts too many resources into graphics he'll neglect the other parts of the game and as a result you will get a very pretty game that plays like E.T. combined with Superman 64. There you go, why too much focus on graphics is bad.

Why being a PC elitist is bad is because its a self imposed limitation on the functionality of your game. Different platforms are better options for different games. Cut the Rope would suck on a non-touchscreen platform. Being an elitist means the person has such an affinity for the thing that he'll/she'll likely pound a round peg into a square hole, as it were, when it comes to issues.

Of course I have no idea why I'm bother as you don't care. Maybe I just want to feel superior by posting a reply and trying to win. I should work on that.

Define "too many resources". Then explain why you ignored the fact that in space there are vastly less models to worry about or what I outlined in the beginning of my post, namely kicking the need to go through insane amounts of downscaling and optimization out the window.

There is some validity to what you're saying, but it has nothing to do with the game playing like ass, and it's not even remotely absolute. The gameplay that was showcased seemed like it played tightly enough for a completely bare-bones proof of concept. What actually can come at the expense of graphics is the amount of content you can dress up with those graphics. And again, it's not absolute. For example, the dev may have an efficient approach to modelling, they may be in a better position or have a better plan than some other developers resulting in far less of what they create getting cut in the process, or the graphics may, like I said earlier, indeed be easier to create than you assume.

They promise us a universe as big as Freelancer's - a space sim of a similar kind, which by the way looks like complete ass - but as evidenced by everything that was shown, featuring vastly increased visual fidelity, physics-based movement, ship interiors and so on. Even if they didn't, let's say they said it was going to be half as big as the aforementioned game from 2003, this game is going to be getting content updates for a long, long time, eventually resulting in something far better and far bigger.

Do I sound like a PC elitist to you, from what you've read so far? If not, I want you to walk me through how you arrive to the conclusion that someone is elitist (namely Chris Roberts, in this case) without them actually describing themselves the way you describe them, i.e. as people who can't see the flaws of their preferred platform or things to that extent.

If I do sound elitist, what does it say to you about my elitism if I tell you that, indeed, consoles are clearly better fit for some types of games, like brawlers, God of War types, Heavy Rain types, platformers and racing games? That's on the consumer side.

On the development side, looking at the bolded statement, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying you want this game to be multiplatform? Or is this a general principle? In the case of the former, the statement literally makes no sense. When making a game for any few platforms simultaneously, unless those platforms are identical, the weakest link forces compromises for all the versions of the game, and any meaningful functionality in a specific platform as opposed to the others ultimately gets either not exploited at all, or just barely.

If you're talking about it as a general principle, why do you assume that this is Roberts blindly (key word here) pigeonholing himself into a single platform? Do you have reasons for it not to be PC-exclusive that would indicate that, indeed, there are flaws that are not being looked at? Can you name some of the functionality that is being lost by this game being PC only?

I don't care when all a person's point consists of are buzzwords. When you're actually trying to string coherent arguments together, it's hard to make me not care enough to stop replying.

You asked for a reason why those things could be bad, I gave you an explanation. I didn't say that they applied to this game. I didn't say this game would be bad. I made a comment about a dude and then explained why certain things could be bad for game development.

Resources generally mean time and money. If a developer spends 90% of his time making his shader better and neglects, say making models or levels, the game will suck. I don't care about how few models you need or issues of optimization. This isn't about specific numbers its the fact that an over-focus on one ares can consume a disproportionate number of resources and cause other area to suffer. It doesn't matter how little work needs to go into each area, not managing your resources effectively kills games. Being too focused on one area, as a graphics whore would be, leads to too much focus on one area.

You sound less like an elitist and more like an angry forum goer who has to try and fix the internet by yelling at people and spends hours of his life correcting other he'll never meet. I'm probably the same way though. How I arrive at the conclusion of elitist is generally if a person shows a strong affinity for one particular thing among other similar things and claims it is superior without real evidence of such or does so in an obstinate, obnoxious or mean way. I found his description of the situation to be obnoxious, and I found his lack of addressing other issues involved with PC vs. Consoles, aside from raw hardware, to be very willfully ignorant. There are lots of other issues that are not address yet he seems fairly certain that this issue is the only thing that matters and that seems to be a lack of good evidence. I also find his over-focus one aspect of game development top be annoying and ignorant. That's why I call him dumb.

The bolded statement indicated that being a PC elitist means that a person will tend to want to make games for PCs and only PC, regardless of what the game is and if it might be better to put it on a different platform. A PC elitist will always answer the question 'what platform is best for this' with 'PC' regardless of all factors, or at least will have an affinity for that, since they believe it to be clearly superior. Thus, this is a self imposed restriction, assuming that people chose to be PC elitists, that could hinder a game if it really would be better for a different platform but the developer was blinded to that fact by his own PC elitism.

Funny, I can easily be driven to not care for arguing. Usually it happens when someone makes an argument so incredibly stupid or offensive that I have to let it go and move on or when someone appears to be so angry that I won't even bother trying. (Also, you bother to quote my post int eh first place, clearly you cared enough to be offended/make a response).

gardian06:

Hammeroj:
snip...

gardian06:
Who really wants to watch movies on their iPhone?

to paraphrase "Gaming Consoles have limited capabilities..." (starts stroking self) "...to the pinical of perfection that is PC..." (begins to moan) "...gaming in all its glory. that should be revered as a..." (spurts across the desk) "...god of gaming"

and now Chris Roberts is done. I think that I might go play my Wii game console.

Don't let the door hit your ass on your way out.

a perfectly good first post dig at how the person is literally just masturbating about the PC as he is saying these words, and that is the best you can come up with. besides the majority of his argument/statement was that "PC is the best, ans will always be the best" if you take something different from his statement then really. I'll tell you something else PC has that consoles don't exponential QA time-frames because of the requirement to test potential builds of the given game even if you are using an established engine you still might need to modify it to make it fully functional to the given game.

Literally masturbating?

What the guy said was pure, cold, hard fact. If he's literally masturbating, then you're literally drowning in your own tears.

You do realise that there is neither a need to test every single possible set up, nor is it actually done? It's not like every different graphics card uses a different approach to rendering graphics and therefore has to be specifically accommodated by the developer. If the QA nonsense you're talking about were even remotely true, indie developers either wouldn't exist or their games would run on a very limited set of hardware, neither of which are the case.

Hammeroj:

SacremPyrobolum:
Is it me, or does this guy come off as a bit of a wanker?

Anyways, I prefer the PC myself and am looking forward to this game but it will all be for naught if those shiny graphics make it unplayable for those lacking the most elite gaming computers.

And again I must ask, is your only role as a fighter pilot or do you get to command the mothership as well? And in this mothership can you walk all around it?

If pointing out how absolutely shit the current consoles are is being a wanker, then facts are jizz.

*cough* Scalability. The original Crysis, contrary to the misinformation spread by people I wanna fucking strangle, was perfectly playable (and still looked better than anything else) on mid-level PCs the day it released. Considering how much progress has happened since 2007, and will inevitably happen in two more years, I see no reason for that not to be the case again.

Yes and yes. You'll get to land in the big ships, walk around them, there will be shit to do inside them like manning the turrets, repairing stuff and calibrating the weapons. I think you'll even get to do boarding parties. Don't expect a sim of the type the X series or Eve are, but if this game follows through on its promises, it's going to be glorious.

no what makes him a wanker is that he not only was talking about current consoles, but even future consoles, and your statement about Crysis yes it was a very pretty, and playable game to play on most mid-range PCs... until you purposely/accidentally destroy a building, and then it made all but high end systems cry.

Yeah, and future consoles (specifically the next gen) are already outdone by high-end PCs. They won't be able to outdo 2 overclocked GTX680s, I'm sorry son. Stop getting offended by the reality.

You're right, you could destroy the huts in Crysis which made the FPS dip. It didn't make systems cry unless they already struggled to run the game. And hey, even if it were true, we're still going to see 7 years of progress since Crysis by the time Star Citizen released.

Hammeroj:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Problem is, most people don't ask politely. They TELL you that PC is how gaming is supposed to be played, and that consoles are for "Corporate schills that couldn't make a decent rig".

If most people act the way you say they act, then how about you pull out the elitist card when people are actually saying this, instead of fighting windmills? Has there been anyone in this thread who actually said something to that extent? And how many people have been whining about them?

Here's what most people say. The hardware of the current gen of consoles sucks balls and its limited as hell. The only reason you, and people like you, think most PC gamers are attacking you is because you have attached yourself emotionally to the hardware you own.

Nope. More along the lines that there is this constant stigma within the PC gaming world that "I play games on the PC therefore I am better then those that play on consoles" simply because they can change out a component when a "better" version comes out. yes there is something to be said in flexibility, but at the same time there is also something to be said for standardization, and having single benchmarks to target. then you have to consider when developing for the PC having not only multiple graphics, and processor capabilities for the end user, but also having to be able to implement additional settings (level of detail count, particle generator intensity, and even audio steaming) to allow the user to optimize for their setup; while on a console there is a single target to develop for, and little need to tinker past that unless you want to give the user preference options.

"Nope" is not an answer to what I was saying. You can talk stigmas, general vibes and attitudes all you like, but the reality is that no console player was actually insulted by anyone in this thread, and, by the way, the vast majority of threads where whining like this takes place.

Sorry, creating layers of lower quality options is a piss easy task in comparison to all the optimization and downscaling that goes on when trying to get a game to run on consoles. And yet again, even if it did, it doesn't actually result in a watered down game, as opposed to the alternative.

I have played games on the PC, and consoles, and your whole argument of "money they have invested into their consoles" I have actually invested about the same if not more on my gaming PC to keep up with "required" components for games then I have on buying a brand new console (pre price drop). So I would actually say that the reverse argument holds more water then yours.

I said nothing about money. I was talking about emotional attachment, and you can indeed even get emotionally attached to stuff you got for free. Money is irrelevant.

then if you realize the funny part: when he is playing the game to test/demonstrate it on the videos he is not using a joystick and/or keyboard he is using a fucking 360 controller.

Victory for you, I suppose? Or maybe, hey, if he has the brains to realise that an analog controller is better for controlling aircraft than a mouse and keyboard, he used the same brain to realise that the console hardware is extremely restrictive?

gardian06:
no what makes him a wanker is that he not only was talking about current consoles, but even future consoles

He's actually making a pretty accurate statement. Next gen consoles won't be as powerful as the gaming rigs of today. There are a few easy reasons for this:
-Size. Consoles have to be small, a full tower can be big. For this reason my mid-high end PC that has 16Gb RAM, 2 graphics cards, liquid cooling, 3 SSDs and plenty more won't be able to be compressed into a console. Well, maybe you could, but that would lead to massive problems with...
-Heat. RROD Original Xbox 360 models. Heat problems. Modern day components produce a lot of heat, especially if they're high end. This heat will cause constant crashes and hardware failure, meaning its not viable for a console that can't have good cooling thanks to its size.
-Price. Microsoft and Sony originally lost a lot of money this gen, and that's thanks to them trying to be powerhouses. High end tech is expensive. If you sell it for a high price, people aren't going to buy it. Sell it for a low price, you're losing a lot of money each sale.

Now, come the generation after next, consoles might be able to get to where PCs are now, if not a little further. However next gen, which is what he was talking about, which is only a year or two off, they won't be able to. Even when they do reach this stage though, a PC will still have better hardware thanks to its size, cost and heat management abilities, plus the fact that its getting new hardware updates each year.

That is the way things are. If knowing this makes me a wanker, W.E, its not me with the problem then.

Nope. More along the lines that there is this constant stigma within the PC gaming world that "I play games on the PC therefore I am better then those that play on consoles" simply because they can change out a component when a "better" version comes out.

Honestly, this is simply BS. The majority of PC players, especially on this site, think nothing along those lines, and its simply you coming up with that.
The stigma is "I play on PC therefore my games look and run better than the versions released on a console, and I generally have a more enjoyable time because of it". There is nothing that anybody says outside of jokes that actually attacks console players like you seem to think PC players do. Some people will attack the hardware for limiting what games are able to do, which is a legitimate criticism - low RAM especially cuts out a lot of what is possible in games, and forces companies to spend lots of time and money making sure the game can actually run on a console.

yes there is something to be said in flexibility, but at the same time there is also something to be said for standardization, and having single benchmarks to target. then you have to consider when developing for the PC having not only multiple graphics, and processor capabilities for the end user, but also having to be able to implement additional settings (level of detail count, particle generator intensity, and even audio steaming) to allow the user to optimize for their setup; while on a console there is a single target to develop for, and little need to tinker past that unless you want to give the user preference options.

Each of those settings will exist in the game anyway as part of the engine. All that needs to be programmed in is a GUI to access these settings, and even then only a few options are added with many being simply left in a config file that the player can access and edit if they want.
With consoles, you probably have to tinker more TBH. You have to impose FPS caps, and toy put time and effort into memory management, figuring out a suitable FoV, making things not render when they're hidden by another object, then implementing tricks like having massive weapons to hide assets so that not as many need to be rendered. You need to work hard simply to have a game display on a console with modern graphics.

I have played games on the PC, and consoles, and your whole argument of "money they have invested into their consoles" I have actually invested about the same if not more on my gaming PC to keep up with "required" components for games then I have on buying a brand new console (pre price drop). So I would actually say that the reverse argument holds more water then yours.

This all depends on how intelligently you upgrade, where you live, the time that you do things, and an ungodly number of other factors. Neither argument truly holds water, as it all depends on the person's circumstances far too much.

then if you realize the funny part: when he is playing the game to test/demonstrate it on the videos he is not using a joystick and/or keyboard he is using a fucking 360 controller.

And your point?
So this person likes 360 controllers. Good for him. Know what though? This is where the PC hits one of its fortes. You can easily use a 360 controller, Joystick, M&KB, touchpad, touchscreen, handheld clicker or any other number of peripherals to control it, so long as the program supports it. Anything you want to use on a PC, you often can. There is nothing remotely hypocritical or ironic about using a controller for a PC - its just a control scheme you prefer.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here