AwesomeOcelot

So lets be clear, compare these screenshots, which looks better:

That's a lie, I only said that the screenshot posted was of a cutscene, it is an ingame rendered cutscene. I don't care about FMV CGI movies, they're not representative of a games graphics. All the Morrowind screenshots are of gameplay, I am deliberately posting gameplay screenshots of FFX.

Of course it's from a cutscene, just look at the screenshots I posted of FFX, the faces look no where near as detailed. Since when do you get a close up of two characters like that when it's not a cutscene? Obviously it's not a prerendered FMV, but that screenshot doesn't look at all like the gameplay screenshots. Confirmed, left is gameplay model, right is cutscene model: The screenshots I posted are from the PS2, that's the resolution the PS2 renders FFX in, the only way you get higher resolution from the PS2 is by scaling, which doesn't add detail. You are lying, your TV does not have better resolution, since it's a CRT it might blur it while it's scaling. As can clearly be seen, on the PS2, FFX graphics when you're actually playing the game look like ****, way worse than even Morrowind's. Just look at how FFX actually looks on the PS2:

Japan is the only one that makes FF, and the multitude of other media that contains the same ****.

Effeminate and garish, not just that the males are in these games, the females are hyper-effeminate, weak or prissy. Not that I think fascistic masculinism of games like Gears of War is any better, for both, I think "wow, I'm tired of this ****". They really show that America and Japan have issues.

Actually it's 15.9 bucks. Also, not I don't want them to show a finished game. Good game developers prototype gameplay above other things, sometimes they use board games if they're RPG developers, sometimes they create basic levels without proper animation or 3D models, sometimes they instance everything in an engine through the command line. From the little gameplay they showed, it looked bad. Other game developers on KickStarter showed good gameplay, others are from known developers who have made good games in the past. Bare Mettle Entertainment didn't show any potential in terms of gameplay, let alone great, if all your interested in is the graphics or the physics, well good for you, don't criticize me for wanting gameplay.

Also check out the quality water in FFX compared to Morrowind:

That's highly delusional and dishonest of you. Here's what Final Fantasy X looks like close to its native resolution, without an emulator adding filters, AF, AA: Also, holy ****, is that screenshot from an emulator a cut scene? That's even more dishonest.How is it that your FFX is double the resolution of what it would be on the PS2, but Morrowind is less than its max resolution? Yeah, if Bethesda decided to take control away from a player I'm sure they could dedicate all the polygons to the characters (while still managing to look really bad in the background) Morrowind could have looked as good. In the end you should care how much freedom of movement and control you are given, because a game completely on rails consisting of quick time events will look better than any other game, but it will be a ****ty game to play. Yeah, Morrowind looks way better. What is even happening in FFX?

I've heard good things about using a PS3 Move for FPS gaming.

Unfair comparison considering the difference in resolution and the camera limits. Tech demos have better graphics than games for the same reason, you don't have to use polygons on things that can't be seen. Native resolution for FFX was probably 512 x 416, Morrowind PC the max resolution was 1024 x 768, just on that basis Morrowind looks much much better than FFX.

Tool-kits take a lot of time to develop, they either need to be user-friendly, or have a lot of documentation. I think just using open standards as much as possible will allow modders to create their own tools. I'm seeing games using open standards like XML and python, 7zip for packaging. Animation, collision, and path finding are areas where sharing plugins and documentation might be required, depending on how they modify Unity.

I don't see much of value in this update apart from the charts and how projects scale. The job titles are self-explanatory, and the staff needed are pretty obvious. Yes, Unity doesn't have a lot of systems required for a RPG. Unity might need to be modified as well.

Yeah, a few games run at 1080p on PS3, if they are the type of games that are pre-rendered, very scripted, low fidelity, or not much happens in them. I heard recently that some Xbox games aren't even 720p, 640x480, the newest generation of Intel integrated graphics could pull that off for Xbox360 games. Another important point, these games run at 30fps, it's pretty easy to get a PC to do that at these low resolutions. Two big issues I have with consoles is HDD and RAM, not enough capacity, they really effected the performance of consoles. Loading games from discs is painfully slow, and with the amount of RAM these consoles require loading twice as often, and game maps were getting smaller and content less dense as graphic fidelity increased.

PS3 and Xbox play games at 1280x720, and there's difference in viewing distance and FOV that means they get away with shockingly bad texture work and other instances of low fidelity. Not sure about the same price, but you're going to have a PC for surfing and office anyway (so take away the price of a budget PC), and you get way better value for games on a PC (and more selection and variety), taking that into account PC gaming is cheaper. Also playing FPS on a console is stupid.

Because it came free with the PC it had no manual. Accidentally pressed one of the keys, brought up a map. "There was a map the entire time?"

You can have the best tech in the world, but that doesn't make a good game. It's higher fidelity and more realistic than Torchlight 2 or Grim Dawn, but then those two games didn't aim for realism. Terrain looks incredible, and content creation for it looks extremely easy, they went for realism and nailed it. The lighting, physics, rain, seasons, day/night, not unique technology but it's definitely on par with the best I've seen in isometric games. Animation because of the nature of the physics looks terrible, and the combat while modelling impact better than any isometric game I've seen, looks clunky and not fun. Basically what they've shown is impressive but they haven't shown anything that would make a game worth playing, gameplay systems are what make games worth my time.

Even though there's a bunch of great Interplay games I don't have the inclination to play any of them apart from the Fallout series, not many of them have aged well. Descent came with my first Windows PC in 1995, I played that game to death. Earthworm Jim 1 & 2 I played on the Sega Mega Drive and later on emulators, they're frustrating games. Played the original Battle Chess in DOS on an 80's Amstrad. I didn't even like MDK when it was new. I played the Kingpin demo when it was released, very buggy, kept crashing and clipping. Is Jagged Alliance 2 or any of the others worth playing? Descent and Earthworm Jim could do with remakes, there's a lot of room for improvement but there's lots of great gameplay and style there that is absent today. Rochard was actually pretty close to Earthworm Jim in a lot of ways, I've just realized that, thinking about Earthworm Jim right now. There was a Kickstarter for a 6 degrees of movement shooter, but it didn't feel, play, or look anything like Descent.

Have you ever used an analogue stick to control a cursor like a mouse? I have, on the Playstation in the 90's, it's terrible.

Bethesda and Valve do this well.

This looks like really promising tech, not sure if they can make a good game, but the demo in terms of physics, lighting, and content creation looks a step above everything else in terms of isometric games. Graphically, the game already looks great, the rain and sky are amazing, they've gone for realism and they've succeeded. Combat doesn't look good, animation looks like Octodad, it's probably a mistake to be a slave to the physics engine in terms of gameplay and animation. Wasn't impressed by the soundtrack at all, it was really tame and generic.

In practice compiling to ARM is trivial, it's not a problem even if it is harder than x86, that's a really small problem compared to the other issues of multi-platform. It doesn't matter for game developers making a game today that a game they made in the 80's wouldn't run on new hardware without being tweaked and recompiled. Compiling or ARM has nothing to do with the problems developing for Android, it's the differences in implementations, the differences in hardware, but if you look at x86, the same issues are there and developers manage. Developers moaned constantly that developing for the PC is harder than developing for a console. Obsidian don't have to target all Android devices, only the newer and higher performance ones that will likely be used in laptops and low power desktops, Project Eternity isn't like Plants Vs Zombies or Angry Birds where it has to be on every single device, Project Eternity is going to be made for keyboard and mouse, for longer play sessions.

Fallout 3 would have been fine if it hadn't been called Fallout 3, it's not a sequel, it's an insult to the previous games to call it that. It's on the level of Tactics or BoS, some developers that didn't understand the franchise failing hard with a spin-off. Should have been called Fallout: Oblivion. People really like shallow sandbox games with pretty graphics, Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Skyrim are really successful games, they do those types of games well if you like that sort of thing. The only good thing to come out of Fallout 3 was Fallout: New Vegas. They didn't even need to buy the Fallout franchise, they could have just gone with generic post-apocalyptic and most Fallout 3 fans would have been happy, because they're not Fallout fans, so they should STFU. Many companies could have just imported the visual elements into their game engine, most FPS developers could have done that, and fans of that developer would like those games. Bethesda can't write dialogue, they can't write plot, they can't create characters, they don't use voice actors well, they don't do choice, they don't do humour, they love ****ty mini-games, they use incredibly bad level scaling, and while technologically their graphics are great, artistically Oblivion and Fallout 3 are terrible. They could have hired people capable of doing those things, but they're not interested. That Bethesda are doing the main line sequels is ridiculous, the way they shoe horned elements from the previous games into Fallout 3 was a stretch, their main story lines have always been bollocks. It's probably for the best if no one does Fallout 4.

Games don't have to employ the same mechanisms of other media to tell a story. Fallout has plenty of story telling without forcing it on the player. It's better to have freedom, but it's harder to develop games with freedom. I don't mind as much that the PC has a set history, or even that you're playing one character, but while in the game there should be freedom, choice being taken away for the sake of story is bad game design, it's taking away one of games only attributes when it comes to story telling.

ARM is not going to be close to x86 any time soon. Obsidian would have to tweak the real-time rendered content so it works with OpenGL ES or DirectX Mobile. Input options are mouse and keyboard the same as any other computer. The newest ARM based hardware is impressive in what it can do even now, Unreal Engine 3 looks great on Tegra 3 based devices.

Frag FX is one way to do it. That's a great solution for OP, a mouse you can use on your couch.