Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just going to throw in two more votes for people who bought CoD Blops for the single player and not the multiplayer. Myself and my bestest bestest friend in the whole wide world did so.

Does this make us bad with our money? I thought that if a game was sold with a single-player campaign as its main selling point in advertising then it should stand up on single-player alone. Now I know better.

Brink seems to look like it will have a rather cool campaign.

Check it out: http://brinkthegame.com/

illuknisaa wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

illuknisaa wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Once again, false. The limitation was that PC gamers tended to be the hosts and there was no way to regulate that.

Well that's load of . Have you heard things called dedicated servers?

So what would the dedicated servers be for? 360 or PC?

The requirements for the two, at that point in time, were a smidge different. There were very few games that experimented with the 'cross-platform' that I can think of(Shadowrun being the biggest), and it was generally regarded as a very 'meh' thing.

The latency issues were one part, but the others were regulating cheat/exploits, etc.

Latency? PC and 360 don't require two different kinds of servers. Cheating is an issue with both platforms.

Only reason why they ditched cross-platform was that consoles were getting owned without handicap.

There are also a lot of development considerations. The patching systems for the three are vastly different, storage amounts are different, the QC systems are different, allowable downtimes are different. The environments have a lot more then just mouseVanalog stick that keep them from working well together. The xbox 360 for instance doesn't have the innate storage to run cross platform games due to the consoles arcade and original versions. It has to have games built to it using different patching considerations then one on the PC or ps3. TF2 for instance couldn't be cross platform for this exact reason.

Melissia wrote:

Lord Scythican wrote:Developer's say consoles are holding them back? Then why are they developing for consoles?

Because they like to eat.

Then why are the complaining?

If PC is so much better then they need to show that it is and go ahead and make it the Elite gaming it is said to be. I wouldn't care if the PC games look 100 times better than a console, I would still buy the console games out of a personal preference. Every time I see a developer say something like this, I feel like he is saying "You are an idiot for investing your money in a low preforming console. You should be investing four times that amount in PC gaming which is superior and worth every penny, but you will never realize that because you are an idiot. Oh and we need to eat". Sure I am probably looking too much into it, but I always feel like someone is calling me an idiot for not playing the Elite gaming through PCs.

Just because something pays doesn't mean it furthers gaming as an art form *shrug*

I think PC's and consoles are equally good at conveying art if they have to.

asimo77 wrote:I think PC's and consoles are equally good at conveying art if they have to.

If I want art I go to a non-modern-art museum.

illuknisaa wrote:

asimo77 wrote:I think PC's and consoles are equally good at conveying art if they have to.

If I want art I go to a non-modern-art museum.

I would agree with you. I wasn't suggesting video games are art. In fact I don't think they are. I was responding to Melissia's statement which seemed to imply that only the PC could convey a video game as art. I think a console could do that just as well. Of course it's all just hypotheticals and possibilities since it hasn't really happened yet.

Oh, I've seen plenty of games that are more engaging as art than many of the so-called great paintings of art history.

Oh man the memories of this thread are flooding back

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/327540.page

Melissia wrote:Just because something pays doesn't mean it furthers gaming as an art form *shrug*

And the opposite is somehow true? This thread has gotten stupidly hyperbolic. Few of you have the grounding or knowledge to really discuss or understand this issue in the first place and posts like the last few are not helpful.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:Just because something pays doesn't mean it furthers gaming as an art form *shrug*

And the opposite is somehow true? This thread has gotten stupidly hyperbolic. Few of you have the grounding or knowledge to really discuss or understand this issue in the first place and posts like the last few are not helpful.

Maybe take it easy a bit? There are plenty of ways of saying what you're trying to say without sounding like a complete jerk. Also funny that you mention hyperbole and then claim nearly no one has knowledge of the issue.

asimo77 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:Just because something pays doesn't mean it furthers gaming as an art form *shrug*

And the opposite is somehow true? This thread has gotten stupidly hyperbolic. Few of you have the grounding or knowledge to really discuss or understand this issue in the first place and posts like the last few are not helpful.

Maybe take it easy a bit? There are plenty of ways of saying what you're trying to say without sounding like a complete jerk. Also funny that you mention hyperbole and then claim nearly no one has knowledge of the issue.

Exceptionally little has been demonstrated in this thread. Theres been tonnes of fanboism and faux (and wrong) business and tech analysis, but very little real interface with the OPs article.

See that's (somewhat) nicer way of saying things. You don't need an insult to get your point across.

asimo77 wrote:See that's (somewhat) nicer way of saying things. You don't need an insult to get your point across.

No, but the "games as art lol" needs to stop. Art is a subjective term and anyone working in the artistic side of games would probably tell you to go to hell about it. As may a modern artist to illuknisaa. I mean, I have no problem telling people they don't know much about game design or hardware, and as someone that works in the graphics industry I don't have much of a problem speaking on that either.

In general though, thats a troll conversation in the first place and I'd rather avoid it.

I have gained a lot of respect for DICE, and this fellow in particular, that they have the balls to come out and say this.

Its completely true, and I am hoping BF3 really holds up to the hype, and with this announcement, I don't have many doubts.

ShumaGorath wrote:

asimo77 wrote:See that's (somewhat) nicer way of saying things. You don't need an insult to get your point across.

No, but the "games as art lol" needs to stop. Art is a subjective term and anyone working in the artistic side of games would probably tell you to go to hell about it. As may a modern artist to illuknisaa. I mean, I have no problem telling people they don't know much about game design or hardware, and as someone that works in the graphics industry I don't have much of a problem speaking on that either.

In general though, thats a troll conversation in the first place and I'd rather avoid it.

That's all wonderful, but again, you don't need so much vitriol in your posts, it makes having internetz chats that much nicer. In fact if you want to have a menaingful discussion you should probably start by acting a little more pleasant.

ShumaGorath wrote:And the opposite is somehow true?

Did I say that? No? Okay then, I'm glad you're dropping that argument

That's all wonderful, but again, you don't need so much vitriol in your posts, it makes having internetz chats that much nicer.

I don't want you to have a nice chat about how:
"games aren't art". Or how
"modern art isn't art". Or how
"game development will be spurred by technological stagnation". Or how
"PC gamers beat up console gamers, thats why nothings cross platform". Or how
"Valve thinks the PS3 is crap". Or how
"Technological stagnation will teach developers how to optimize code, making the next generation faster" Or how
"The PC is a better platform for indie development" Or how
"Current consoles use six year old technology that was weak back then"

In fact if you want to have a menaingful discussion you should probably start by acting a little more pleasant.

I'm not sure theres a meaningful discussion to be had here in the first place. OPs article was about video game design (something seemingly few of you have much interface with) and console/PC hardware (again, something few of you seem to know much about). Yet everyone is commenting anyway. The conversations are very worth having, but not when those involved are speaking from a basis of nothing. It shows. It misleads. It makes the conversation difficult to have and mutates it into something else. Like a discussion on the merits of art!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:And the opposite is somehow true?

Did I say that? No? Okay then, I'm glad you're dropping that argument

Then why did you say it at all? Trolling non sequitor statement?

I am genuinely shocked that people are discussing things and having opinions despite being ill-informed about them!

The Dreadnote wrote:I am genuinely shocked that people are discussing things and having opinions despite being ill-informed about them!

What a strange world we live in.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:And the opposite is somehow true?

Did I say that? No? Okay then, I'm glad you're dropping that argument

Then why did you say it at all? Trolling non sequitor statement?

A poor attempt to trap me with a very trollish question...

I never said it to begin with, you just refuse to read anything else out of my post.

FM Ninja 048 wrote:
Story>Gameplay>Graphics>Popularity

I really doubt you would give a gak about the story if the game-play was gak, it's interaction with the game environment that separates video games from other media. Otherwise you're better off watching/reading a

movie or book because the lousy game-play would just be too torturous to even bother to get to the storyline.

I give up, the art of conversation is indeed lost. It's as if you trying your hardest to be unpleasant.

asimo77 wrote:I give up, the art of conversation is indeed lost. It's as if you trying your hardest to be unpleasant.

+1 to this.

asimo77 wrote:I give up, the art of conversation is indeed lost. It's as if you trying your hardest to be unpleasant.

He's right though, barely any of us (myself included) are on topic.

Cheesecat wrote:He's right though, barely any of us (myself included) are on topic.

Then perhaps he could benefit us all by sharing his immense wisdom on the subjects at hand. Indeed, he did not reply to my last post regards optimising software to suit the hardware you are using and that being only a benefit when you then improve the hardware.

In fact I remember some time ago reading an article about how game development could not keep pace with technology, with sometimes several years going past before games were fully able to take advantage of all the new processing technology, all the extra RAM, etc. Indeed, I would suggest that most people are still chasing the graphics dragon rather than concentrating on actually making a good game.

SilverMK2 wrote:Indeed, I would suggest that most people are still chasing the graphics dragon rather than concentrating on actually making a good game.

Amen to that. But it's a difficult situation when advertising a game. Advertising is primarily a visual medium and your trailers and screenshots will have a greater impact if the graphics have that wow factor.

EDITED SEVERAL TIMES: To compensate for posting failureness, and to actually quote the right person.

htj wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Indeed, I would suggest that most people are still chasing the graphics dragon rather than concentrating on actually making a good game.

Amen to that. But it's a difficult situation when advertising a game. Advertising is primarily a visual medium and your trailers and screenshots will have a greater impact if the graphics have that wow factor.

Fixed your quote

Cheesecat wrote:

asimo77 wrote:I give up, the art of conversation is indeed lost. It's as if you trying your hardest to be unpleasant.

He's right though, barely any of us (myself included) are on topic.

I like to think I am on topic about it. This is more of the PC is better than console debate. I have seen thousands of posts like this on the net. I find it hard to sum it up but it always goes the same way.

When reviewing the discussion I always feel like there is this wall of sorts if you try and defend a console as a choice. People act like you are dense because the PC is obviously superior.

I mention that the console is more in my price range and easier to obtain, they say no you can get a high end PC to play games for the same price. I always say "Can I get it at Wal-Mart?" The then conversation goes that no, you need to research and build it yourself. When I confess that the idea of getting a PC like this is a little out of my abilities, a few more comments that make me feel dense.

Seriously making me feel like my choice of a console over a PC is bad, really makes me not want to play PC games.

Yeah PCs look better and the consoles are holding gaming back, but not everyone drives Cadillacs either. You get what you pay for.