|
|
Post by siriq on Jan 16, 2009 12:29:35 GMT -6
HAHAHA YOUR RIGHT its not a fps, all arguments to this point is now null and void. pessimism be damned
|
|
|
|
Post by Pop goes the world on Jan 16, 2009 14:26:59 GMT -6
Not to mention, it appears that the voiceover person is actively playing the game while he voiceovers, hence a bit of standing around and getting his ass kicked as opposed to continuously engaging in gameplay.
I do think it's funny how many conclusions have been drawn from this tiny developer video, but that has been mentioned already.
THe biggest problem with doing ANYTHING within the 40K universe is fanboys. If Space marine managed to be an amazing game, most GW gamers would still bitch because it didn't have enough of (insert faction here) in it, or it broke with the fluff in some fashion or whatever.
As a post-graduate WWII historian, I can say with relative certainty that accuracy in media portrayal of a real or fictional event, whether in movies, videogames, or what have you, will not always translate to an entertaining experience. Realistically, any accurate depiction of a Space Marine's life should consist of hours and hours of prayer, training, and weapons maintenance, interspersed with the occasional combat situation.
Fanboys ruin shit. Hands down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leudast1215 on Jan 16, 2009 21:30:04 GMT -6
Wow you study WWII too? Awesome I've studying military history since i was 12 for fun ^_^.
|
|
|
|
Post by ddaypunk06 on Jan 16, 2009 22:39:51 GMT -6
Get a hobby.
|
|
|
|
Post by RARE CHOICE GAMES on Jan 16, 2009 22:40:06 GMT -6
I hope they make the boring game that adam speaks of cause it would be fun...yay for praying and weapons maintenance!
|
|
|
|
Post by ddaypunk06 on Jan 16, 2009 22:58:25 GMT -6
ha, i know of at least 5 other games that I would rather wait on and discuss over this one. Ones that are way closer to release than this game. Give this game a chance, but who knows if it will be picked up by any publisher.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leudast1215 on Jan 17, 2009 0:53:14 GMT -6
What are these other 5 games pray tell? Not DoW2, been established it rocks before it's released by... pretty trailers?
|
|
|
|
Post by siriq on Jan 17, 2009 12:32:29 GMT -6
i want to play adam's game because it sounds like it would be an mmorpg. But it would be a damn boring one, but you could make up for it and do a bunch of mini games, turn boring everyday things into thousands of mini games. like prayer it could be a word jumble and you had to come up with the right sequence of words
|
|
typo
Scout
Posts: 119
|
Post by typo on Jan 19, 2009 13:23:28 GMT -6
As a post-graduate WWII historian, I can say with relative certainty that accuracy in media portrayal of a real or fictional event, whether in movies, videogames, or what have you, will not always translate to an entertaining experience. Realistically, any accurate depiction of a Space Marine's life should consist of hours and hours of prayer, training, and weapons maintenance, interspersed with the occasional combat situation. There's a difference between "complete and representative" and "accurate." There's no need to show hours of prayer in order to be "accurate," since the game is ABOUT the combat. It's not a The Sims: 40k, it's an action game. "Accurate" just means that what IS portrayed is portrayed correctly. That said, I could care less about specific accuracy. I'm just sayin'. |
|
typo
Scout
Posts: 119
|
Post by typo on Jan 19, 2009 13:34:37 GMT -6
This happened in Assassins Creed too and it's a sign of lazy designers who won't even put in the time to show someone is actually being hacked with a (chain)sword. I hear this so much in videogame discussions. The omission of "x element you want to see" is very rarely due to "lazy developers." It's because videogames are expensive and produced on demanding time and monetary budgets. Creating art assets is a big time and cost sink and creating multiple versions of assets to render "battle damage" can be seriously prohibitive. Developers have to pick and choose what they want to include. Not every game has the budget of, say, GTA4 and the luxury of including every detail the developers want to include. I have a few friends working as game devs, and even on lousy shovelware the devs are usually working themselves half to death to include everything they want to. The only game that I REALLY think can be blamed on lazy devs is Duke Nukem Forever. I genuinely think they spent the first five or six years of dev time on that game sitting around playing POG. |
|
|
|
Post by Leudast1215 on Jan 19, 2009 16:27:20 GMT -6
Starcraft Ghost is also deserving of the lazy developer title because the website is still up and there's rumors it's being re-done for a next-gen platform, but c'mon that game was announced in my first years of high school if not before that. I so would've bought that game...
Is it really too much to ask that when you hack an opponent they at least get bloody or a wound opens up even if it's just a 2d mesh? Assassin's Creed in particular had enough of a budget to make pretty open level design so they could've gotten a little more creative with the combat system.
It also cannot realistically be argued that it costs a lot of $ and time because a game called "Viking" for the 360, a game with an obviously lower budget than Assassin's Creed, had limbs flying every which way all over the place. Admittedly the game itself was mediocre, but it was fun dicing up monsters when I could get past the shiny sheen coat layer thingy that made my eyes hurt (I think that's done on purpose to literally cover up bad graphics because if it's shiny it'll trick the eye into thinking it looks better than it really is).
|
|
|
|
Post by siriq on Jan 19, 2009 17:41:36 GMT -6
im going to have to agree with typo i dont think any of us has any right to call any developer lazy, unless you can prove you know them personally. They have to stick with in budget and specs. maybe assassins creed isnt about the blood and gore, its about a huge indepth environment. It takes alot to do battle damage, blood, gore because, if the entire game is well done and then you throw in some shitty graphics for blood and gore and damage then it brings the quality of the game down. All im saying is that you have no idea what mind frame any of the developers are in and you have no right to say so. For ghost i would have to say that i think its the company fucking up with that one, not the developers.
|
|
typo
Scout
Posts: 119
|
Post by typo on Jan 19, 2009 20:53:55 GMT -6
It also cannot realistically be argued that it costs a lot of $ and time because a game called "Viking" for the 360, a game with an obviously lower budget than Assassin's Creed, had limbs flying every which way all over the place. Admittedly the game itself was mediocre, but it was fun dicing up monsters when I could get past the shiny sheen coat layer thingy that made my eyes hurt (I think that's done on purpose to literally cover up bad graphics because if it's shiny it'll trick the eye into thinking it looks better than it really is). Ahh, you've hit the crux of it! Viking was crap -- perhaps they should have spent more time making it a good game rather than a lousy game with top-notch violence rendering. Also, it should be noted that "graphic" violence can still cause trouble for getting games rated and released. The ESRB is generally pretty lax, but in the UK and Euro regions (where I think the developers would hope a 40k game would find extra legs), ratings can be a serious hassle. Spending money on tech they might have to remove just to get the game on shelves is a hard sell. I have a feeling Assassin's Creed omitted "graphic" violence because a) they didn't WANT the game to be graphic since there was already heat on them for making a game about pseudo-Muslim terrorists, and b) it wouldn't have really been appropriate for the "light-R blockbuster" vibe they were going for. People got stabbed to death in "Braveheart," but you didn't see hearts and pancreases flopping about the whole time. That said, AC SHOULD have used better camera angles to minimize the lack of damage. Keep in mind, most of these decisions aren't being made by the guys who are writing the code or drawing the art -- the guys who would be getting "lazy." For the guys making the calls on AAA titles, it's all about cost-benefit. They don't get lazy, they get tightassed. And that's totally a real complaint...it's just a different one. The biggest problem in the videogames industry right now is simply that it's too expensive for guys to treat games as "art." It's like if Hollywood made NOTHING but big, franchised blockbusters. There's VERY few games in the pipeline actually treated as art, and so the vast majority of games have a distinct "built-by-committee" feel to them, and no "auteur" quality. Luckily, this is starting to change a little on both ends. It's getting more plausible for indie developers to make meaningful stuff that's actually commercially viable AND big developers are finally starting to take some risks. Heck, EA is publishing Brutal Legend, a game that's darn near guaranteed to flop commercially. |
|
|
|
Post by Leudast1215 on Jan 20, 2009 16:59:09 GMT -6
I've been noticing the trend too and I'm looking forward to some of the future titles. In my personal fav games of all time list (that I've played) there almost all made within the past 3-4 years and that shows a trend in the gaming community to treating their entertainment more like art which is a good thing. I probably threw around the term lazy developer too much, but tight assed executives who run the show is ok too ^_^. Though some games truly did have lazy developers. STALKER is an example (sadly) and Civilization IV. The latter uses programming so old and archaic it's baffling. Ultimately it leads to a big drop in FPS and game stability. Games like Bioshock, Half Life 2, etc... had competent programmers because they went the extra mile to ensure their code ran smoothly and thusly why a game like Bioshock could be run on a mediocre gaming PC at full graphics with 50 FPS. said machine had a nvidia 7900, AMD Athlon 4600 Dual Core processor and 1 gig of RAM. my new hard-ware, which I got cheap ^_^, is a nvidia 9800 GT with 2 gigs of RAM and the game runs just as fine before with Bioshock. STALKER, however, ran like crap on my old hard-ware and it looks no where as good as Bioshock, but now it runs smoothly. It just took twice the horsepower and that's a consequence of bad code writing and programming. That's what my brother says so I'll trust him given he's a computer guru and CS major. He also hates me for getting a nvidia 9800 GT on the cheap while he's stuck with a nvidia 8800  . He can keep his 3 gigs of RAM... Random thought: you really need specs like the new hard-wire I have to play modern PC games. It sucks for people lacking the hard-ware as I was till recently, but games like Red Alert 3 are so pretty and artistic I felt it was worth the investment. The problem is that now my eyes are jaded and I cannot go back to playing 360 games... GoW2 looked very good as far as textures and stuff, but it doesn't look as good as the PC version of the original game... I think the GoW franchise has raised the bar for consoles and I hope maybe 3-4 years from now there will be a game like the one featuring Kratos from the PS2 (forgot the title) which actually utilizes a console's full potential. Right now, most 360 and PS3 games use hardly a fraction of the hard-wares full potential. This can only be a consequence of the developers not spending the time and money to make a high budget game look good on a KNOWN hard-ware configuration, where as they still look better on a UNKNOWN hard-ware configuration like the PC? c'mon... |
|
|
|
Post by ddaypunk06 on Jan 20, 2009 18:21:00 GMT -6
Being a programmer myself at one point I can agree both ways. Once they get down to the actual "doing", they aren't lazy. However procrastination is the way of life for programmers!
I would have to agree with the point made about executives, its the same in the music industry. They are rushed to finish on deadline...if they don't the project can possibly get dropped and not picked up.
I wouldn't call CIV4's coding style archaic...more or less tried and true. Its just like any market, you find something that works and you milk it till it doesn't work anymore.
As for hardware, I can run Bioshock just fine on high...but i dont run vista so no DX10 cause I can't get it to run right in XP. Stalkers looked just fine on my PC and I have almost literaly the same system as you do with a bit more ram before you grabbed the 9800. There are many small things that can lead to better performance than the hardware you have. While that has a big effect on it, its not all that affects it. Shit, I ran Crysis on Low and it looked damn good for being on low.
The five games, in reply to Leudast, would be (in no particular order) Prototype, GTA4 expansion (basically a full game), The Old Republic, Ghostbusters, and Final Fantasy XIII...all are confirmed to be released and way farther into production than this game. (Note SW: The Old Republic MMO has been in production since 2005).
This post is going a bit off topic. Although its nice to see discussions going on for once, this is a lot of opinion being compared to a game that isn't even close to being released; using games that are just not that good anyways ('Cept the good ones mentioned as good examples lol).
|
|
|
|
Post by ddaypunk06 on Jan 20, 2009 18:37:42 GMT -6
Side note: the PC's hardware evolves so quickly that it is hard for programmers to predict what people can and can not use let alone afford.
They sell 1GB Videocards on Tiger-direct now. Not many games need that yet. There are barely enough games that use dual core technology let alone quad core or even 64bit architecture.
If you want to point fingers at them not using the current gen systems to their fullest extent, you need look no further; in fact you can go back in time. N64's weren't even used to their full potential and that thing had games being made for it for longer than the current gen systems. Developers don't know the in's and out's of the hardware potential...thats why some games are basically anomalies... The developer found something that works by accident.
In the end, a lot of things affect the games besides "Poor Programming...or Lazy Programmers". Also it is common to see games being developed so that they can run on older machines. Game Companies aren't stupid. The economy sucks right now and developing solely for the hardware elite is not cost effective.
|
|
. He can keep his 3 gigs of RAM...