Hell Kitty
-
Posts
2270 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Hell Kitty
-
-
If I can't heal myself after having my legs blown off by a cube of TNT by eating a dozen packets of soy chips I found lying on the streets it's Deus Ex in name only.
-
So your biggest complaint is that you can't water the plants?
What? I'm not complaining about anything.
-
They are doing it wrong, it shouldn't be one item that is interactable among a whole level of clutter. It should be the other way around, dammit.
No.
I like the idea of being able to interact with everything, but in reality it's pretty pointless.
In Deus Ex 1, you pretty much could. It was the point of the gameplay, a completely reactive envirment.
You misunderstand. I'm talking about junk items that serve no real purpose. Things that once picked up you either drop them or throw them, liked potted plants and trophies, or things like phones which make a noise when used but have no purpose at all. In DX you walk into a room, there are 5 objects, and all of them can be interacted with in some manner though only 2 or 3 have any real use. In DXHR you walk into a room, there are 50 objects, but only 2 or 3 can be interacted with.
Take this shot for instance, ignoring the man who is about to get stabbed by mean old Jensen, you can probably only interact with the gun and the computer, and the rest of the clutter is non-interactive scenery. If this was DX1, you could probably also interact with the potted plant, the recycling bin, and the phone, but together those 5 things would be the only items in the room.
DX was never about being able to pick up anything that isn't nailed down. It's not a Bethesda RPG.
-
Well they put that in Vegas, so I guess it's just a designer's use of sense.
You mean Rainbow Six: Vegas? There isn't a "need" for it so yeah, it's just a choice a designer made.
-
but eh, is a modern game so it needs it.
Yeah, like all the other modern FPS that use third person... wait, what?
-
They are doing it wrong, it shouldn't be one item that is interactable among a whole level of clutter. It should be the other way around, dammit.
No.
I like the idea of being able to interact with everything, but in reality it's pretty pointless.
-
I'm just here for hurlie, the rest of you can go to hell.
-
This is what a guy from the DXHR forums who saw that game at PAX East had to say about highlighting:
Frankly, I don't think it's that big a deal. Based on the gameplay I saw, the brightness and opacity of the highlighting is heavily dependent on both the player's proximity to the object, as well as the directness with which the player looks at the object, meaning that if you are across the room, objects in your crosshair have a very faint orange outline, while anything on the peripherals is not highlighted at all. Get a bit closer to the objects, and eventually the items in your crosshair are, as you have all noticed, quite bright and noticeable. Despite what it looks like on the cam video, I found that the orange glow was not as intrusive as I originally thought that it might be, and in fact it blends rather well with the gold side of the black and gold color palette.
Another guy who actually got to play the game claims it's less noticable when playing than when watching.
I think the reasoning behind it is because the levels are full of a lot of non-interactive clutter and they want the player to be able to immediately differentiate between stuff you can pick up and use without hovering the crosshair over everything.
For example in this still from the video you've got boxes, paint cans, traffic cones and stuff, but the only item you can pick up is the ammo box on the ground.
Same thing with this screen shot, you got a whole room of stuff you could potentially pick up and hurl around for no reason, but only 3 items you can actually interact with.
While I'd prefer it highlight only what I'm looking at like in the original, I'll not too fussed at this point. I'll wait and see how I feel after I've had a chance to play the thing.
Deus Ex 3 looks a little flat.I guess that billion dollar trailer that no game could ever duplicate visually has its downside.
Eh? Obviously the real-time stuff isn't going to have the same polygons, high res textures, and other fancy effects that a pre-rendered trailer gets, but the visual style of the game is the same as the trailer.
Personally I think it all looks great.
-
-
I was assuming, for the sake of this discussion however, that the money being spent was well utilized regardless of whether it went toward graphics or mechanics.
Money well utilized should result in a good game that also looks good. Money that results in poor graphics and/or poor gameplay is not money well spent.
Ok. Perhaps a definition of what qualifies as "good" is in order since that was never originally defined.As previously mentioned art direction is more important than tech. I think Thief 1 & 2 look a hell of a lot better than Thief 3, even though 3 probably has more technical tricks up it's sleeves.
I don't consider myself particularly unique or special, so if I sincerely believe that graphics are not terribly important, then there are probably others who believe the same. Probably a sizeable number as well.Lots of people like to say that they think looks aren't important. Like Hines, I believe that more often than not they aren't being honest. I don't think they are willfully lying, I think that like you people jump to the conclusion that "looks are important" means "looks are the only thing that is important" and don't consider themselves as having such as shallow view, but as I said before it's all too common to see people claim that graphics don't matter and then turn around and complain about low res textures and jaggies in the latest screenshots. Hines never claims everyone is lying, and the existence of people like you doesn't make him wrong.
Cutscenes. It's the equivalent of splicing in segments of Atari 2800 games in the middle of Crysis.Using cutscenes don't equal neglecting interactive elements. MGS4 has more cutscenes than all other games combined, but the gameplay itself is fab and they improved on previous games. Also, I'm pretty sure you're on drugs and I'm going to have to talk to your mother about this.
-
Resources spent on graphics = resources not spent on other things. The more money one spends on making their game pretty, the less money they have to spend on making it good.
Spending more money on x doesn't make x better.
But basically pretty = pretty, nothing else.Well that's rather shallow of you. Good graphics aren't simply about being pretty. I've always loved the graphics in the PS1/2 Silent Hill games, but they certainly aren't pretty games.
They are an extremely minor thing for me. Which ultimately was my original point. Pete Hines is wrong.If Pete Hines had said slowtrain is lying when he says graphics don't matter then yeah, he'd be wrong. You not the kind of person to appreciate a game's graphics, but he wasn't just referring to you.
Yet some developers prosper while neglecting that element.How so?
-
And art-style is alot more important than the technical quality of it all.
Yes, absolutely. It doesn't matter how technologically advanced your engine is if you don't have the artists and direction to do it justice.
-
A good game with good graphics is better than a good game with poor graphics.
That's simply not true.
Possibly it is true that all other things being absolutely equal, better graphics would make the same game better, but in the real world, with a limit on resources, all things are never equall.
What? You seem to be implying that good graphics and good gameplay are mutually exclusive, which is nonsense. Maybe you've thought every game you've ever enjoyed had crappy graphics, but I've played loads of great games that also looked great.
He is saying that better graphics = better immersion. That implies that better immersion is desireable, ie good.So a game with better graphics has better immersion and is therefore a better game.
Yes, but what he is NOT saying is that graphics are the only thing that effects immersion.
It's common for people to claim that graphics aren't important.
Pete Hines is saying that isn't true, graphics ARE important.
You're choosing to interpret that as graphics are the ONLY thing that is important.
Your interpretation is WRONG.
Graphics are such a minor part of creating a quality game experience.Games are a visual medium, it's ridiculous to claim that the visuals are a minor part of the experience.
-
Not directly. But that's always the implication in statements like that, right?
No.
Better graphics=more immersion=better game. WHich is a total bunch of crap.No it's not. A good game with good graphics is better than a good game with poor graphics. NO ONE is saying that good graphics make up for a poor game. That's entirely in your head. Sometimes you've just got to listen to what people are saying, not what you have decided they are saying.
-
There are some people, such as myself, who have been around long enough and played enough games to understand that no amount of awesome graphics ever made a bad game good.
Where are you getting this? Did you even click the link? No one is claiming that good graphics make a bad game good.
-
Would I be nitpicking if I emphasized the "dropping 2d in favour of 3d" part
That assumes 2d is the default choice, when I'd say the opposite is true.
-
One of the original arguments I remember for dropping 2d in favour of 3d (like 10-15 years ago) was that it was cheaper just to create a 3d model that the engine could render in real time rather than having a horde of "painters" providing the art assets.
When 3D graphics looked like this:
perhaps, but today? No way.
Ironically the result wasn't cheaper graphics, just more sparsely populated (streamlined?) environments.Streamlined definitely isn't the right word here. The environments were sparsely populated because the 3D technology of the time was so limited. Sure, there was a time where things like 3D and FMV were often used because they were an exciting new fad, but those days are long gone, and I'm surprised that people still think it's the case. It'd be like thinking that the use of colour in film is a pointless fad. Games like Midwinter 2 (pictured), Thief, and Deus Ex use 3D because they offer an experience that can't be replicated in 2D.
-
butcher, baker, candlestick maker, ninja.
For some reason your post made me think of Wizardry.
-
Is he talking about art direction or the amount of bloom/pixels they can throw at people?
He talks about "good" graphics, so both.
I think plenty of people are lying, it's all too common to see people claim that graphics don't matter and then turn around and complain about low res textures and jaggies in the latest screenshots, but I also think there are plenty of people who just aren't able to appreciate visuals.
Infinity Engine games still looks better than most 3d engine crpgsHand drawn 2D art beats the pre-rendered 3D of the Infinity Engine any day of the week.
yet that doesn't stop publishers from churning out one low detail 3D game after another, trying to save on assetsYou're sounding an awful lot like one of those folks who just isn't able to appreciate visuals...
You make it sound as if 2D is the default option in game development, but outside of casual/mobile stuff I would imagine the opposite is true. Who is choosing 3D over 2D in an attempt to "save on assets"? -
After a bit less than 10 hours in, I just want to say that the friendship/rivalry system is as bad as I imagined it was : just a bit more better than in DAO, but not enough.
It's not that hard to have two scales :
- positive/negative opinion
- respect/disrespect or confidence/no confidence or interest/no interest
I've never seen any friendship that has been built with a complete adhesion of the other ones thoughts. On the other end, I can't see a rivalry relation based on complete disagreements. It's too caricatural.
But with the relation mechanism in DA2, you can't see a real friendship being built like that : if you have a complex relation based on part of agreements and part of disagreements, that's the same thing as if you just are complete strangers.
I like the system in DA2 so far a hell of a lot more than the original. I'm currently in act 2, and after the sex scene with Isabela I questioned her regarding her previous relationships and eventually got the option to tell her something she wasn't happy to hear. She left looking rather sad, but the exchange scored me some friendship points, which made total sense. She brushed off the observation, but my "getting" her made her happy, even if at the time she wasn't willing to admit I was right. In DAO you tell people what they want to hear or you lose points.
One moment I quite liked was when trying to help Aveline on her quest for love she mentioned me and Isabela, and Hawke just stared at the ground for about 10 seconds before deciding "Perhaps we aren't the best example".
-
Yeah, it doesn't really matter whether that was his genuine opinion - an employee has no business writing product reviews as a 'customer', period.
Considering the amount of people who offer up reviews without actually being customers, instead just throwing out mindless praise or hate for a product, holding an employee who may or may not have worked on the product to a higher standard is pretty much meaningless. It's like expecting people not to **** on the street while ignoring the fact that the street is covered and paved in ****.
Internet user reviews are worthless, and I'm not just talking about the fools trying to alter scores, the legions of honest opinions that are nothing more that it's awesome or it's crap are just as bad. Anyone who uses them to make purchasing decisions is a moron, or quite possibly a moran.
-
It's pretty embarrassing that he has been caught out, but like Ice9 I don't think this is some Bio/EA conspiracy.
"Yeah, anyone complaining about internet whiners abusing metacritic user scores needs to keep in mind that there will be just as many DA2 fans inflating user scores with duplicate reviews"
Yeah, in an effort to balance out the whiners. Anti Bio whiners are just as bad as drooling Bio fanboys isn't much of an argument. DA2 has received more user reviews in the past week than ME2 has received in over a year. As of right now the PC version of DA2 has twice as many reviews as the PC ME2.
-
-
"I live. I love. I slay." Doesn't exactly have the same ring as:
- Conan, what is best in life?
- To crush your enemies, see them driven before you... and to hear the lamentation of their women!
And somehow I also feel the movie won't be having any screw-a-witch-and-then-throw-her-in-the-fireplace -moments.
From one of the youtube comments:
"I care not. I live, I love, I slay, and I am content" is a abbreviated quote from Queen of the Black Coast (1936), one of the original Conan stories by Robert E. Howard.
You make it sound as if 2D is the default option in game development, but outside of casual/mobile stuff I would imagine the opposite is true. Who is choosing 3D over 2D in an attempt to "save on assets"?
What are you playing now?
in Computer and Console
Posted
Yeah, no one had ever done generic FPS on PC before.
God damn kids today don't know nothin' 'bout gaming.