AC3:L True Console Experience on the go and more!

#81CrepitantPosted 11/5/2012 7:37:15 PM
KirbyIsAwesome posted...
I triple post.

Stay posty my friends!


Well there's a lot to cover. If there was a way around the word limits and quote block limits I wouldn't have done it.
#82L0L_FAQPosted 11/5/2012 9:26:53 PM
I'm going to ignore the rest of your post because you seem to be taking the "stuff your fingers and say LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU" approach to this. I've already refuted everything you've said above this. In fact, even the following points have already been refuted, but I'm doing it because it's the only relevant part of this post.

Why does AC provide the console experience?

1. Graphics. They will never be up to par with AC3 but that's irrelevant. However, the graphics are amazing for a portable title and it manages to construct a massive open world to match the AC games (though probably not AC3 because the maps in that game are huge to the point that it's a huge pain to travel through it). I don't know where you got the idea that vita graphics are "pathetic". Honestly it looks like you're trolling when you say that. The towns and wilderness in AC3:L are brilliant, at times surpassing the aesthetics of AC3.


A) Not console level and you keep ignoring that so far, matching gameplay hasn't been a difficult issue for handheld games, whereas matching graphics has been. Whatever, I keep having to explain this to you, I wager that you'll continue to ignore this fact.

B) Already stated, "massive open world" has been done several times before and without the FPS issues that apparently plague ACL.

C) Vita's graphics are pretty pathetic, yeah. At least iOS and Android games don't have horrible resolution and framerate issues.

2. Gameplay - Combat and climbing identical to AC3 and surpassing that of AC 1/2/2.1/2.2


*sigh* Not repeating myself for this one.

3. Story and characters? Well it doesn't have the Desmond side of things and I'm only half a dozen hours into it but it's already more compelling than AC3 (given the same input of time played) so it does have that on its side. The voice actors chosen are a little poor at times but the 'console experience' doesn't require flawless mimickry.

Probably the perfect example of the console experience is NFS MW actually. Minus graphics.


Not sure why having a nice story is a benchmark reserved for console games. Plenty of games have had nice stories, comparable to their console counterparts. This is exactly as irrelevant a point as the above point about gameplay.
---
http://i.imgur.com/vpXc3.png http://i.imgur.com/lljy5.jpg
"L0L_FAQ is one of the reasons I even read the forums any more" - CJayC
#83L0L_FAQPosted 11/5/2012 9:27:02 PM
From: Jon Talbain | #072
L0L_FAQ, have you played any other handheld version of Assassin's Creed?


Yes.

From: RD_21 | #073
I'm not butthurt one bit, I just told him to stop wasting his time arguing with you since it was leading no where and you just want to argue for the sake of arguing (Is it console like or almost console like), but see it as a precious victory if you must lol.


Yeah, whenever people on this board get butthurt about the truth, they immediately seize any opportunity to stop the argument. Don't worry, I didn't expect any different.

From: RD_21 | #074
And I think he has a point. It's not console graphic it's almost console graphic. You and I can look at the handheld and understand what console like mean for an handheld, but for him you need to add the word almost and we could have done without the 30 back and forth reply. They are arguing the same thing, they just have a different definition of the word or way to classify things.


It's no even "almost console graphics" is my point and even if it was, almost is not quite. Vita games run at pathetic resolutions, pathetic framerates anad the difference between the Vita installment of games and the PS3 ones aren't even small.

From: Crepitant | #076
I'll say it again. In bold this time so you don't ignore it.

What the Vita is demonstrating with AC is that handheld titles are closing the gap as far as matching the scale of the blockbuster PS3 titles.


I'll say it again. In bold this time so you don't ignore it.

This is a fact that needed no proving, as weaker systems have handled bigger games than AC. The feat would be to actually handle an AC game at AC graphics. ACL does not perform this feat.

From: Crepitant | #077
Are you seriously just going to shut me down like that with no no no?

Your arguments so far have been pathetic. How is AC3:L not similar to AC1?


Your ignorance pleases me. It's adorable. Did AC1 run at a sub-SD resolution? The AC1 have massive framerate issues?
---
http://i.imgur.com/vpXc3.png http://i.imgur.com/lljy5.jpg
"L0L_FAQ is one of the reasons I even read the forums any more" - CJayC
#84zeplin1180Posted 11/5/2012 10:02:48 PM
" Already stated, "massive open world" has been done several times before and without the FPS issues that apparently plague ACL."

actually, if you've played both GTA's on the PSP, for example, while they are open world games, there are numerous occasions where the fr slows down considerably! just like any other game with a lot going on on screen, GTA LCS on the PSP slows down to the point where it can you to loose control of what you're doing.

but when we're talking about ACL for the Vita, the slow-downs i've experienced haven't once been so dramatic that they ruin my ability to control the game and thus the experience overall.

so yeah, "massive open world" games have been done before on handhelds, but none have done it on this scale and with as much quality as seen this handheld version of AC. simply put, you would be a fool to say otherwise and to diminish the accomplishments of this AC game on the Vita simply because you personally do not care for it.
#85mike_411Posted 11/5/2012 10:39:26 PM
Lol faqs whole argument:
It's running below native resolution! It suxxxxxx!

Oh and my butt is awful sore. I really care what you say. ;)
---
"Peace is trolling!" Mentality of Gamefaqs mods
-Blazblue Chrono Phantasma! :D
#86CrepitantPosted 11/5/2012 10:48:06 PM
L0L_FAQ posted...
I'm going to ignore the rest of your post because you seem to be taking the "stuff your fingers and say LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU" approach to this. I've already refuted everything you've said above this. In fact, even the following points have already been refuted, but I'm doing it because it's the only relevant part of this post.

Why does AC provide the console experience?

1. Graphics. They will never be up to par with AC3 but that's irrelevant. However, the graphics are amazing for a portable title and it manages to construct a massive open world to match the AC games (though probably not AC3 because the maps in that game are huge to the point that it's a huge pain to travel through it). I don't know where you got the idea that vita graphics are "pathetic". Honestly it looks like you're trolling when you say that. The towns and wilderness in AC3:L are brilliant, at times surpassing the aesthetics of AC3.


A) Not console level and you keep ignoring that so far, matching gameplay hasn't been a difficult issue for handheld games, whereas matching graphics has been. Whatever, I keep having to explain this to you, I wager that you'll continue to ignore this fact.

B) Already stated, "massive open world" has been done several times before and without the FPS issues that apparently plague ACL.

C) Vita's graphics are pretty pathetic, yeah. At least iOS and Android games don't have horrible resolution and framerate issues.


a) I haven't ignored it. I've said that the graphics will never match modern consoles. You say the resolution and framerate is horrible. That's not true in this case. The framerate issues have been exaggerated and the graphics are fine.

b) Already stated, not on this scale, not with these graphics, not with this gameplay.

c) no.

a again) graphics do not particularly matter. So while it's inferior to the PS3 it pulls all the other elements together to create the console experience. Regardless of whether certain things have been done before or not.

a again again) The vita does not have PS3 graphics. THIS DOES NOT MATTER
#87CrepitantPosted 11/5/2012 10:51:30 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#88CrepitantPosted 11/5/2012 10:52:25 PM
Crepitant posted...
L0L_FAQ posted...

Your ignorance pleases me. It's adorable. Did AC1 run at a sub-SD resolution? The AC1 have massive framerate issues?


Yes the graphics are inferior. No, AC3:L doesn't have major framerate issues.

So again, how is AC3:L not similar to AC1?


mike_411 posted...
Lol faqs whole argument:
It's running below native resolution! It suxxxxxx!


Apparently.
#89L0L_FAQPosted 11/5/2012 10:58:10 PM
From: zeplin1180 | #084
actually, if you've played both GTA's on the PSP, for example, while they are open world games, there are numerous occasions where the fr slows down considerably! just like any other game with a lot going on on screen, GTA LCS on the PSP slows down to the point where it can you to loose control of what you're doing.

but when we're talking about ACL for the Vita, the slow-downs i've experienced haven't once been so dramatic that they ruin my ability to control the game and thus the experience overall.

so yeah, "massive open world" games have been done before on handhelds, but none have done it on this scale and with as much quality as seen this handheld version of AC. simply put, you would be a fool to say otherwise and to diminish the accomplishments of this AC game on the Vita simply because you personally do not care for it.

From: mike_411 | #085
Lol faqs whole argument:
It's running below native resolution! It suxxxxxx!

Oh and my butt is awful sore. I really care what you say. ;)

From: Crepitant | #086
a) I haven't ignored it. I've said that the graphics will never match modern consoles. You say the resolution and framerate is horrible. That's not true in this case. The framerate issues have been exaggerated and the graphics are fine.

b) Already stated, not on this scale, not with these graphics, not with this gameplay.

c) no.

a again) graphics do not particularly matter. So while it's inferior to the PS3 it pulls all the other elements together to create the console experience. Regardless of whether certain things have been done before or not.

a again again) The vita does not have PS3 graphics. THIS DOES NOT MATTER

From: Crepitant | #087
Yes the graphics are inferior. No, AC3:L doesn't have major framerate issues.

So again, how is AC3:L not similar to AC1?


Lol, massive butt frustration from the fanboys.
---
http://i.imgur.com/vpXc3.png http://i.imgur.com/lljy5.jpg
"L0L_FAQ is one of the reasons I even read the forums any more" - CJayC
#90CrepitantPosted 11/5/2012 11:00:15 PM
L0L_FAQ posted...
Lol, massive butt frustration from the fanboys.


Well there is now :9

Hate it when people resort to 'u mad?'