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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Twilight_guy:

Hammeroj:
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).

You didn't say it, but you can't say it's not heavily implied by the facts that we're on a thread devoted to news about the game, and you called the dev a graphics whore and a PC elitist. Next time, then, try and keep your explanations for insults applicable to the relevant game.

Okay. And you know he's focusing too much on graphics... How? Based on the fact that the game has good graphics? See, there's a reason I mentioned his original (meaning on-release) goal for the game. If it actually turns out as big as and deeper than something that was released ten years ago (meaning shitty graphics, no physics, etc.) - which is the goal and the promise - I don't know what you're wringing your hands about.

Maybe he mentioned the hardware primarily because... The vision he has for the game literally cannot be fulfilled for consoles, and that's the most relevant reason for him developing the game for PC?

You fail to mention any reasons to develop for consoles. I explicitly asked you for those, and your argument about self imposed restriction is completely vapid without them.

I made a response because I want to make people who make remarks like those either try to substantiate their position, or look foolish in refusing/being unable to. Every time someoe makes a buzzword comment, gets called out on it and doesn't respond I consider it an instant victory.

Hrm...

Seems to be a bit of a misconception in this thread that RAM is only used for graphics...

Sure, graphics take up a lot of memory. Especially since in most games the ratio of graphics to other data is huge.

On a Space Sim that ratio isn't quite as big though since there's relatively few graphics, most of space being kinda empty and all, and a huge amount of other data, simulating an entire universe and all.

If they're designing this game to be very light on loading screens then that means you can only swap a relatively small amount of data from hard disk to active memory at a time, meaning you'll have to have a lot of stuff ready in your active memory just in case the player needs it. You can't pop up a loading screen to get that data ready.

A PC with multiple gigs of RAM can easily do that without any problems. If this game is simulating a truly huge universe with a vast and complex economy and other systems then a console's RAM might actually fall short in smoothly running that simulation, even without any graphics. And they did say they wanted to be ambitious, so my guess is that it's not just the graphics that are going to need so much memory.

Hammeroj:
Sniped for space

You can infer all you want, I answered your question in general terms because I don't know the guy or the game enough to make any valid argument about them. I made my original statement based on the news story and what it indicated. I'm not going to be drawn into that argument.

I didn't say anything about console because it had nothing to do with my reasoning. You asked me to show why being a graphics whore or being a PC elitist is negative, not why developing for consoles is better. Making a positive statement about an alternative is not necessary to prove that a certain option is a bad one. PC elitism being bad can be argued regardless of whether or not developing on a console is good, bad, or indifferent.

Ah, so you admit you do care! Yes, I win! I win! I... wait what do I win? Nothing?! Ah, this internet is boring. Also, I find your comment about 'instant victory' kind of pathetic and sad. Anywho, I gotta go to bed and I don't want to get penalized for a mod coming in here and marking this as a flame war, so I'm signing off. If I respond again, it's not going to be for a while.

Twilight_guy:

Hammeroj:
Sniped for space

You can infer all you want, I answered your question in general terms because I don't know the guy or the game enough to make any valid argument about them. I made my original statement based on the news story and what it indicated. I'm not going to be drawn into that argument.

I didn't say anything about console because it had nothing to do with my reasoning. You asked me to show why being a graphics whore or being a PC elitist is negative, not why developing for consoles is better. Making a positive statement about an alternative is not necessary to prove that a certain option is a bad one. PC elitism being bad can be argued regardless of whether or not developing on a console is good, bad, or indifferent.

Ah, so you admit you do care! Yes, I win! I win! I... wait what do I win? Nothing?! Ah, this internet is boring. Also, I find your comment about 'instant victory' kind of pathetic and sad. Anywho, I gotta go to bed and I don't want to get penalized for a mod coming in here and marking this as a flame war, so I'm signing off. If I respond again, it's not going to be for a while.

If you don't have a valid argument to make, then what the fuck exactly are you doing here? You say graphics will hurt the gameplay, you don't have arguments to substantiate it. You say the guy's a PC elitist, that he's pigeonholing himself into developing for one platform, and you have nothing to substantiate it.

It has everything to do with your reasoning. "PC elitists", as the term is used in this forum at least, are people who prefer PC to consoles. Not being able to establish a reason to give consoles thought makes your accusations about PC elitism null and void, at least in any sense that you'd like the term to bear a negative connotation. Same with graphics whoring and the inability to establish actual damage to gameplay.

newwiseman:
If graphics were the only thing required to make a good game then Square-Enix would be doing a lot better than it currently is.

I do prefer gaming on my PC but clearly not as much as this guy.

newwiseman:
(Looks up to side) "daddy. When do we get to go into space?"
"soon son, soon. When the pretentious PC gaming crowd finally realizes that you can have good quality space flight on a console."
"when will that be"
"I wish I could tell you, but first it requires them getting their heads out of the own asses"

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.

RicoADF:
Wing Commander 3 & 4, Colony Wars 1, 2 & 3 all on PS1
Consoles are just portable cheap PCs, especially the current generation. there's no reason it can't be done technically. its more to do with lazyness and a bad perception that console gamers only want cod, thus they think there won't be enough sales to justify the time and cost. also being arrogant doesn't help.

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...

Twilight_guy:
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:
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.

Ugh, here comes the "It's all just Graphixx guyz, it don't matter!!!" crowd again...

Now I'm not sure if he can pull this game off to be what he wants it to be, but just go to 24 Minutes in on this GDC Presentation and watch for a bit:

Now what the "common console peasant" may say is "Oh, it's just better graphixxsszz! LOLZ", while the "discerning PC master race" recognizes that it isn't just graphics, but everything above that.
For instance, here we had Mass Effect 3 a little while ago, where a developer was complaining that they couldn't even include a holster animation for the weapons due to memory issues: http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/mass-effect-3-no-holster-weapon-mechanic.250051328/ (e.g. lack of memory) and console players still don't want to see how it hinders the entire gameplay experience to be tied down like that.

Going back to that video above around 24 minutes in, you have a huge spaceship people can walk through as a singular level (instead of the level loading required in other games), you can actually VIEW what is happening outside of it and as he showed off you can get in a ship, fly outside and can look through the window and see what NPCs and other PCs are doing inside of it.

This is all running on a current gen PC and no, if this was a console game you COULDN'T SEE inside a ship, because it simply doesn't have the capability, you would just have a matte painted window like in a lot of other games.

There wouldn't be a dozen moving pieces realistically animated and moving on your space ship and you COULDN'T have hundreds of turrets and lasers all acting on their own since it would simply not be possible. You WOULDN'T see everything moving in the cockpit and your player character being able to interact with it, you would largely just have a static "image" of something that looks like a cockpit or none at all. Add physics simulation to that, which is only possible in the simplest manner on "current gen" consoles, but was possible to a much larger extent on PCs years ago and you get *glimmers* of what gaming as a medium is missing out on by still targetting ~10 year old hardware as standard platform and having to mostly abide by those specifications.

There's a lot more things to consider like complex AI, physics components and computations, amount of objects and entities displayed at once on the screen, complex AI, decreased scope of level design because of 512MB RAM limitation, client/server infrastructure of PC including patching process and all that a lot harder to do on consoles if you aren't SONY or Microsoft and publishing a game on your own platform (the "certification" process alone boggles the mind...), complex AI, entirely different UI and control-paradigm that has to be within certain rules and has to be adjusted for a specific controller instead of Joystick/Mouse+Keyboard/Virtual Reality Headset/whatever, lots and lots of other platform limitations, and did I already mention complex AI?

For that matter, why do you think that a lot of MMOs haven't been pushed out to consoles, because publishers don't like money?
In regards to Project Eternity, Avellone was already bitching about some of this too in regards to Input devices, which are another matter entirely, but a huge issue too :P
http://kotaku.com/Chris-avellone/

"And it'll be PC only, because Avellone is "tired of designing content and interactions that caters to consoles and console controllers."
"Those limitations affect RPG mechanics and content more than players may realize (especially for players who've never played a PC RPG and realize what's been lost over the years), and often doesn't add to the RPG experience," he told me."

http://www.1up.com/features/interview-chris-avellone-project-eternity

"1UP: Does an isometric perspective open up opportunities to do things that would be impossible or less effective in a first person or over-the-shoulder RPG?
Party-based combat, for certain. 3rd person and 1st person don't tend to allow for a lot of companions (trying to govern 5 people plus your PC in a 3rd or 1st person game usually means letting their AI run as it will). Also, the controller scheme for a console game doesn't tend to allow for it, either.
In the Infinity Engine games, you were able to guide and select a party to attack creatures and threats, and having that level of up-high-in-the-sky control and sense of tactics created for much different RPG fights and reminds me more of a pen-and-paper gaming session with tabletop miniatures."

It just genuinely pisses me off when people come along with the "Graphixxsszz don't matter, we don't need bettah hardware!" argument, because they obviously are oblivious to what kind of things hardware limitations actually impacts in their games and don't have any idea what they are missing out on by still pushing 10 year old hardware like they do and blowing the trumpet of Microsoft and SONY, instead of innovation and technological improvement.

THIS IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS why console gamers mostly get "Modern Military Shooters" nowadays.

Twilight_guy:
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.

Your logic is entirely backwards, and demonstrates that you haven't worked on actual software development, or alternatively you're grossly misinterpreting Roberts' statement about hardware as to be about graphics specifically and only.

Development resources required are reduced when you have a platform that has oodles of RAM and heavy GPU availability and so on. The technical challenge today isn't making good games (and whilst your point about graphics not making a game is a valid one, there are terrible games for pretty much every environment, so it's something of a non-issue). It's making them run on a toaster so that no matter how low-end the hardware is (and that can also be a PC!), you the player still get a good experience. See above for a long list of compromises that low hardware budget forces on the developer.

That effort hits you more reliably when working with a console because you have a relatively poor hardware budget, but it's fixed & unchanging - nobody is going to have some wacky setup. You can reliably make sometimes bizarre optimisations that you know will carry over into launch & be safe regardless. The converse is also true - that because of that fixed hardware budget, your game cannot soar into wild unknown areas or take advantage of new features if they're present - new features that might well make the developer's life very easy & time to launch earlier (or more features). I've lost count of the number of times I've come across algorithms that go 'if X is available, do this, if not, do this very complex workaround that requires lots of extra testing'.

Consoles are different beasts to PCs. Roberts is making a perfectly valid point that you just can't do some stuff on them. That does not mean he is 'pound[ing] a round peg into a square hole' - quite the contrary - he's saying he's picking the platform that works for what he wants to achieve. That is not console hate. That is reality. It does not stop consoles having good games that do work on their hardware budget.

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

It's just you, if you ask me.

OT: I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. He's just stating how things are, and the fact is that gaming PCs are FAR ahead of consoles in terms of power, and it would limit what he wants to do with this game.
Please grow some thicker skin.

(I own all the current gen consoles, I've been a console- AND a PC user since the NES came out, so if you want to call me PC elitist, spare me. I love my consoles. I'm just not being silly.)

*reads through the comments*

Wow... it gets worse and worse.

So, is someone an elitist because he points out that you can't do complex design with the tiny amount of ram in a console? Oh no, he does not lick the balls of your favorite toy developer, burn him alive!!!

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

You are not alone, join the console elitist and fanboys in the row that can't take normal worded criticism. The thread has plenty of those.

Twilight_guy:

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.

Because the only thing hardware does is graphics, AMIRITE? *hits head against the desk*

Why do so many people keep harping about the graphics? It's not about them. Gameplay can be hampered by low RAM. Of course you would be able to do a bare-bones Space Sim on a console, but they aren't doing that. Realistic movement is one of their biggest selling points and it would be very hard to do with the limited resources of a console. Another important selling point is the ability to go from space combat to the inside of a ship seamlessly, the game being an MMO and all, pausing it for boarding is not an option. This means that a lot of assets that are invisible from outside the ships have to be pre-loaded in memory. You can't cram so much into half a gig of shared memory.
A similar example would be Crysis, it ran on cheap laptops at low settings, but it couldn't run on low RAM consoles, because two of its main features were being able to interact with enemies from huge distances and not walking through a corridor the whole game. And it rarely exceeded 2 GB of RAM usage between the processor and video card.

Holy dogshit. This thread devolved into a turdslinging fest, just cause this guy pointed out that consoles are old? Geez, what is wrong with you people?

OT: Seems like Space Sims are starting to become a 'thing' again. The more I hear about this game, the more I want it. (And the more I dread it's release since I know my current system won't be able to max it out... But I got plenty of time to upgrade.)

This looks like a game I won't want to miss out on. I hope he'll be able to deliver the experience he promises, because I'd love a badass Space Sim with equally badass graphics and physics.

I wonder if it'll be like Shores of Hazeron, in that you can go from standing on the surface of a planet, climb into your ship and manually ascend into space, fly across the galaxy, and descend into a different planet - Completely seamlessly with no cutscenes or loading points. That would be awesome.

You can't go off-road with an Mazda RX7. Don't sports cars suck ass?!

Guy states fact about PC hardware being better, everyone screams elitism and gets butthurt. Classy, Escapist!

Also the game looks awesome. I've been waiting for a space sim.

TheKasp:

Twilight_guy:

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.

Because the only thing hardware does is graphics, AMIRITE? *hits head against the desk*

That was a response to the question 'How is being a graphics whore bad for game development'. It is a valid response. Please don't try and take my comments out of context, thank you.

grammarye:

Twilight_guy:
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.

Your logic is entirely backwards, and demonstrates that you haven't worked on actual software development, or alternatively you're grossly misinterpreting Roberts' statement about hardware as to be about graphics specifically and only.

Development resources required are reduced when you have a platform that has oodles of RAM and heavy GPU availability and so on. The technical challenge today isn't making good games (and whilst your point about graphics not making a game is a valid one, there are terrible games for pretty much every environment, so it's something of a non-issue). It's making them run on a toaster so that no matter how low-end the hardware is (and that can also be a PC!), you the player still get a good experience. See above for a long list of compromises that low hardware budget forces on the developer.

That effort hits you more reliably when working with a console because you have a relatively poor hardware budget, but it's fixed & unchanging - nobody is going to have some wacky setup. You can reliably make sometimes bizarre optimisations that you know will carry over into launch & be safe regardless. The converse is also true - that because of that fixed hardware budget, your game cannot soar into wild unknown areas or take advantage of new features if they're present - new features that might well make the developer's life very easy & time to launch earlier (or more features). I've lost count of the number of times I've come across algorithms that go 'if X is available, do this, if not, do this very complex workaround that requires lots of extra testing'.

Consoles are different beasts to PCs. Roberts is making a perfectly valid point that you just can't do some stuff on them. That does not mean he is 'pound[ing] a round peg into a square hole' - quite the contrary - he's saying he's picking the platform that works for what he wants to achieve. That is not console hate. That is reality. It does not stop consoles having good games that do work on their hardware budget.

Yes, it requires less developer resources to develop for PC because you don't need to optimize. Of course he's not talking about all things being equal, he's talking about developing far more complex system and graphics to take advantage of the PC, thus putting more time into graphics systems. That means optimizing for the PC and developing entirely new algorithms for these new and better graphics.

On top of that, you don't have a leg to stand on since my response has nothing to do with this particular game, it is only a general answer to the question and applies more to time and money as resources then computer resources as too much focus in one area during development kills games.

My main issue with this blowhard is that equating 'game experience' with graphics and physics, or at least things that are done with raw processing power. The last time I checked, my 'experience' has more to do with other areas of game design then just these things. I think its a stupid statement and one he should have rephrased.

Twilight_guy:

Because the only thing hardware does is graphics, AMIRITE? *hits head against the desk*

That was a response to the question 'How is being a graphics whore bad for game development'. It is a valid response. Please don't try and take my comments out of context, thank you.[/quote]

Your whole strawman is based on the assumption that the only thing he focuses on are graphics when he talks about hardware limitations... I just was too lazy to scroll to your first post.

And so may I repeat: BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW, HARDWARE IS ALWAYS AND ONLY GOOD FOR GRAPHICS! *hurr durr*

Nobody can hear you upgrade your PC in SPAAAAAAACE!!!

Though I am indeed buying a new set of cards for this sweet sweet jewel of nostalgic space action. I want to play this game at a crystal clear minimal 60 FPS at ALL times.

DonTsetsi:
Small RAM size on consoles is a huge problem for gaming as a whole. It makes the developer choose between open environments and graphic fidelity. For example, wouldn't it have been cool if Bioshock had more diversity in room size? Or if Skyrim had a bigger texture palette? Since most games are ported between different systems, all platforms suffer for the constraints of the others.

baiscally this. our old and outdate consoles cant catch up with the times and thats why ported PC games suffer. And this is why i take a stand with this guy, make a game for pc, and if consoles cant keep up, thats thier own fault, suckers.

Dexter111:
size snip

image

Bravo sir, I love reading your posts.

Its too bad some of the strawman heavy posters wont respond as they couldnt try to pick it apart.

FelixG:

Dexter111:
size snip

image

Bravo sir, I love reading your posts.

Its too bad some of the strawman heavy posters wont respond as they couldnt try to pick it apart.

This needs to be a sticky about "Elitism".

PC elitism comes up, you have about 10000 butthurt console elitists coming out the woodwork, decrying "ALL TEH ELITISTS PC GAEMERZ!!!one!", and there are NONE in site.

None.

Oh mind you there ARE elitists, just ones who think decade old hardware are merely an "alternative" (BUT SOMEHOW BETTER TOO BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW PC'S COST $100000 AND BREAK AT THE SLIGHTEST TOUCH AMIRITE), as opposed to being objectively inferior (This is a fact, NOT ELITISM. You can do everything that is possible on a console and MORE, on a PC. Playing a racing game? Just plug that Xbox 360 controller in. Playing a flight sim? Grab a joystick and plug it in. Playing a shooter? You have a mouse and keyboard, which are far more precise than two imprecise rotatable thumbsticks. Want to write up a word document for work/school? You can do that too).

To Dexter, I love you man. Such profound wisdom is rare here on the Escapist.

Dexter111:
-snip-

Fantastic post, very well put.

I just have to say I saw this a while ago and I was sitting on the fence wondering whether I should buy this game, but that video footage you pointed out at 24 minutes into the Youtube video just blew me away utterly.
I've just been playing Skyrim, which was designed for consoles, but I'm running at ultra graphics settings, modded with HD textures and stuff to look as good as possible, and it still just blew it completely away. The detail in that character model flightsuit is astounding, and the spacecraft look awesome.
It brought back memories of the space missions in Battlefront 2, which were the best thing about a fantastic game.

Still 7 days left on the Kickstarter, time to get my wallet out...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

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