This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

About Crytek going first-party with Microsoft.

#31dj___rollPosted 7/5/2011 11:27:49 AM
ROFLd posted...
ponderingcow posted...
SixStringHero posted...
"Crytek will never go with MS, MS kills innovation unlike Nintendo or Sony where they create new ideas everyday with their first party developers"

^
Examples would be nice.

Also, notice how Halo, one of the biggest FPS revolutions in the last ten years influenced virtually every top tier shooter from Half Life 2 to Uncharted 2...

Lol you must be the biggest fanboy I have ever seen

I don't like calling people fanboys but that has to be the only way anyone can think this

It's always funny when you see an uneducated person quote someone when they have NO idea what they're talking about.

What he said isn't opinion, but fact. Halo is the game that made the fps not only possible on consoles but the most popular genre. Before then FPS was synonymous with PCs only. Everybody knows this...it must feel sad for you to be out of the loop. I even saw a Destructoid article a few days ago mentioning games that should have gotten an HD remake instead of Halo 1 but even still it mentioned everything I just said and much more.

Also notice Sony tried to imitate the alien/human shooter with multiplayer by releasing Resistance and then later KZ2 (which fanboys swore up and down would kill Halo and it backfired immensely), both which failed miserably compared to Halo. Even throwing out flops like MAG, Haze and Socom 4 in a feeble attempt to take advantage of the most popular console genre, all in vain.

And I know the real one is a known rabid ps3 fanboy but lol @ his comment. Halo, XBL and Kinect innovated a lot more than Sony has, who mostly copy the competition ( straight copies of the wiimote, achievements, console online infrastructure, made fun of xbox controller rumble saying it's a last gen feature but then copyed it, even look at their boxart: changed from spiderman font to completely match an xbox 360 boxart). And ROFL @ innovating every day.


So in your world GoldenEye 007 for the N64 doesn't exist? That's the game that brought FPS into console popularity.

Also, funny seeing an MS fanboy complain about PS fanboys for being just as ignorant and biased as himself. Your name suits you dude. I rofld every time I read your posts.
---
Out of Context Quotes Are Fun! RollingCradle - Motsu, I was just about to offer to pay you to touch it, too.
#32ORANGE666Posted 7/5/2011 11:41:54 AM
Mutant1988 posted...
I want them to stay multiplatform. Why? So that people can play the games on the platform they prefer. PC players get higher settings and mod support, while console player get the convenience of playing on their favorite console without any hassle.

PC and Xbox360 are the same thing. Both owned by Microsoft.
#33ChiliPupPosted 7/5/2011 11:45:19 AM
ORANGE666 posted...
PC and Xbox360 are the same thing. Both owned by Microsoft.



^ Well... except for the fact that games are vastly superior on the PC. But other than that, sure, they're the same thing.



---
---
[This moderator or administrator was deleted at the request of this message.]
#34Kerr AvonPosted 7/5/2011 3:07:28 PM
>Also, notice how Halo, one of the biggest FPS revolutions in the last ten years influenced virtually every top tier shooter from Half Life 2 to Uncharted 2

Halo had zero influence on Half-Life 2. Go on, point out the similarities between Halo and Half-Life 2.

I love Halo 1 and 2 (not so much 3 or Reach, and ODST is massively disappointing) and prefer them to the Half-Life games, but I can't say that Half-Life 2 was in any way influenced by Halo.



>... infact Half Life 1 and 2 are what revolutioned FPS games.

Lots of FPS revolutionised FPSs. Both HL 1 and 2 did, and so did Halo 1. Also Goldeneye, Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament (whichever one was released first), Quake 1, Deus Ex etc. All made sgnificant changes to the FPS formulae, to greater or less degrees of industry imitation.

I'd say that Doom 1 was arguably the most revolutionary FPS ever, though I wouldn't insist on it, as I'd have to really think about it first (then probably still be wrong!). It's an interesting question though - which is the most revolutionary FPS?



>>I noticed how it [Halo] helped ruin shooters

>In what way? By making SP far less linear, or by launching a whole new generation of online gaming which is far more accessible to everyone than it has ever been before?

The Halo games are linear. And much as I like the Halo games, I am *sick* of the way every new non-Halo FPS ever now comes with the two weapon limit and the recharging shield/health as standard.




>What he said isn't opinion, but fact. Halo is the game that made the fps not only possible on consoles

No, that was Goldeneye on the N64. Released four years before Halo, and a better game in most respects.



>but the most popular genre.

Is that actualy true? I'm not saying it's not, as I don't know, but it seems unlikely.



>Before then FPS was synonymous with PCs only.

No. Goldeneye was massively popular, was arguably the game that popularised four player splitscreen gaming, and was certainly the game that popularized the FPS on consoles.


>Everybody knows this...

No, because it's wrong.
---
"PCs don't catch viruses or malware. Stupid users do." - The Cranky Hermit.
For all things N64: http://z9.invisionfree.com/Nintendo_64_Forever/
#35Kerr AvonPosted 7/5/2011 3:08:08 PM
>it must feel sad for you to be out of the loop. I even saw a Destructoid article a few days ago mentioning games that should have gotten an HD remake instead of Halo 1 but even still it mentioned everything I just said and much more.

Then the article was wrong. Please post a link so we can see for ourselves.



>>PC and Xbox360 are the same thing. Both owned by Microsoft.

>^ Well... except for the fact that games are vastly superior on the PC. But other than that, sure, they're the same thing.

They are far from the same thing. The XBox is a fixed (all versions are essentially the same) system, based on the PowerPC Xenon CPU*, and is a closed platform, meaning only Microsoft approved programs can be run on it.

A PC is made from hugely varied components, has an x86/x64 CPU, and is open platform, which means that anyone can write and sell programs for it if they like. IBM put together the first PCs, and everyone copied them (almost every PC in the world is not really a 'PC', but in fact a 'PC compatible' computer, as only IBM PCs are strictly speaking genuine PCs, though they are all intercompatible, so they run the same software. Microsoft just make the (by far) most common operating system and office suite (word processor, spreadsheet, etc) that runs on PCs, they don't own any copyright on the PC or have any right to tell you what you can and can't run on your PC

And games are not all "vastly superior" on the PC. Some are better than on a console, some are worse. If all games were better on a PC, then we'd all be PC gamers, and no one would buy consoles. I have three PCs (two desktops, one laptop, it's a work thing ), and although I do play PC games, I prefer console gaming. That's just my personal preference.
.

* Confusingly, despite the 360's CPU being called a 'PowerPC' Xenon, the PC in the name does not have anything to do with PCs, it stands for Power Computing, as a reference to the power of the chip (it sounds good for marketing purposes).
---
"PCs don't catch viruses or malware. Stupid users do." - The Cranky Hermit.
For all things N64: http://z9.invisionfree.com/Nintendo_64_Forever/
#36MW2_Main_MenuPosted 7/5/2011 3:21:04 PM
I'll never forgive MS for what they did with Rare.


Where is my ****ing Conker sequel!
---
GT: MW2 Main Menu and Movie Premiere
Zombie Kill of the Week?
#37ChiliPupPosted 7/5/2011 6:41:43 PM
Kerr Avon posted...
And games are not all "vastly superior" on the PC. Some are better than on a console, some are worse. If all games were better on a PC, then we'd all be PC gamers, and no one would buy consoles. I have three PCs (two desktops, one laptop, it's a work thing ), and although I do play PC games, I prefer console gaming. That's just my personal preference.



^ There are several reasons why console gaming could be considered "better" than pc gaming, such as:

1. Cost of a proper pc
2. Lack of computer knowledge, to find patches & get games running properly.
3. Simplicity of "insert disc, grab controller".
4. Standardization of specs, so no wondering "can I run it?"

However... "quality" is NOT a reason. In fact, it's quite the opposite. PC games are always of a higher quality than their console counterparts. They are programmed without the typical limits of a console. The majority of games are originally coded on pc architecture anyway, meaning all other versions are essentially "ports". They are the first to get patches and updates. Higher resolutions, higher framerates, better textures. Keyboard & mouse control is superior to the limited buttons of a controller, but the PC will still work with standard controllers if you prefer. And most importantly: MODS. Mods absolutely make pc gaming the most entertaining choice, with the most replay value.



---
---
[This moderator or administrator was deleted at the request of this message.]
#38Kerr AvonPosted 7/7/2011 7:17:56 AM
>^ There are several reasons why console gaming could be considered "better" than pc gaming, such as:

>1. Cost of a proper pc

Yes, but the cost of a gaming PC isn't nearly as much now as it was, so it's much less of a barrier.

>2. Lack of computer knowledge, to find patches & get games running properly.

Yes, but with Steam and similar services it's much less of a problem than it was.

>3. Simplicity of "insert disc, grab controller".
>4. Standardization of specs, so no wondering "can I run it?"

Both true.



>However... "quality" is NOT a reason. In fact, it's quite the opposite. PC games are always of a higher quality than their console counterparts.

No they're not. The PC frequently has poor ports of console games, such as Resident Evil 4, Deus Ex: Invisible War, Project Snowblind, Halo 1 and 2, Metal Gear Solid 2, etc.
Rockstar's PC ports of their console games tend to be bed too, which is all the more unacceptable since they take to long to release the PC versions.

There's no justifiable reason for bad ports (whether to PC or console) but sometimes a game is ported cheaply and with no effort made to either improve the game for the new host hardware, or even to fix any glitches that arise in the new port. And this is made all the worse on the PC since the PC has so many (almost countless) hardware configurations and driver combinations potentially available.

http://www.gameguru.in/pc/2010/25/8-absolutely-horrid-pc-ports/


>They are programmed without the typical limits of a console.

Yes, in most cases. But not all.


>The majority of games are originally coded on pc architecture anyway, meaning all other versions are essentially "ports".

Not for a few years. The majority of commercial games are now coded first for consoles, as they are the prime targets (console games sell more than PC games), plus it's easier to code for a console than the PC as a console is fixed hardware, so it's quicker to get the game out and to have the game on the shelves earning you money.


>They are the first to get patches and updates.

I don't know if that's always true, as XBox Live! gives updates very soon, usually.

> Higher resolutions, higher framerates, better textures.

True.
---
"PCs don't catch viruses or malware. Stupid users do." - The Cranky Hermit.
For all things N64: http://z9.invisionfree.com/Nintendo_64_Forever/
#39Kerr AvonPosted 7/7/2011 7:20:45 AM
>Keyboard & mouse control is superior to the limited buttons of a controller,

Nope. Or rather yes and no, depending on the indiviidual's preference. K+M is faster and more accurate than a joypad, true, but I prefer a joypad for all gaming, and you can play a FPS well with a joypad, even with auto-aim turned off (I always turn it off in the games that allow you to), although yes, a good K+M user will always beat a joypad user of equal skill in a FPS game. And for some games, such as racing or platformers, a joypad is undeniably better than the K+M, I'd have thought?

Some consoles, such as the Dreamcast and the PS2 do support keyboard and mouse, at least for some (few) games, but not many console owners bothered to buy them, and so they never caught on. Most console gamers are more than happy with joypads. And no doubt most console gamers have played PC games on either their own (or their family's) or their friend's PCs, and so have tried K+M, but just prefer the ease and convenience of a joypad.


>but the PC will still work with standard controllers if you prefer. And most importantly: MODS. Mods absolutely make pc gaming the most entertaining choice, with the most replay value.

Totally, utterly, and completely agree about mods. Mods are by far my favourite thing about PC gaming, and the main reason why I still play PC games. Starting from Doom (Doomed 2 Die, a Doom 2 mod, is to me better than the original Doom 2 levels), through Half-Life (They Hunger Trilogy, USS Darkstar, Azure Sheep (best HL1 mod ever, I think), and the brilliant commercial mod (well, addon) Opposing Force), through Carmageddon, Unreal Tournament 1999/2003/2004/3), Doom 3, etc, I *love* good mods. Whether it's a simple little thing (such as Soul Harvest on UT1999) which changes one thing, or a complete alteration of almost everything (The Nameless Mod on Deus Ex) the best mods are incredible and really alter games for the better.

I was really disappointed that Bioshock never came with the SDK, and I'm not at all happy that modding tools are becoming rarer as software houses want to encourage sales of their own downloadable content instead of allowing amateur fans to make their own mods.

Even so, I don't think that mods make PC gaming preferable to console gaming. If I had to choose either PC or console, and could only game on the one option for the rest of my life (and I would NOT like to have to make that choice), then I would choose console. Console exclusives are usually better than PC exclusives, plus I prefer the ease of use and reliablity of consoles (I fix/maintain/upgrade PCs all day, so when I get home I don't want to face any difficulties in getting a game to play, I just want to start the game and play). But mainly, most of my favourite games are on console only, so I'd have to say console.

Although having said that, as time rolls on, more and more systems become emulate-able on the PC, so more and more 'exclusives' are playable on a PC. Sadly, emulation creation and perfection seems to have slowed down in the past few years, which I think is mainly due to the fact that newer systems are more complicated to write emulators for and so need a lot more time, effort and research to get right. But sooner or later, presumably even the 360 and PS3 will be emulatable on PC!
---
"PCs don't catch viruses or malware. Stupid users do." - The Cranky Hermit.
For all things N64: http://z9.invisionfree.com/Nintendo_64_Forever/