Con 3 should't have such a strong emphasis on graphics, or the engine.

#11FaLc0niZWaSTeDPosted 7/12/2013 11:29:00 AM
Hawke0 posted...
You do realize that most people never beat campaigns and usually go straight to multiplayer, right? So by your own logic of "casual vs. hardcore", multiplayer is more casual than a campaign. What's inherently random and luck based about a campaign?

While your "You fail to explain how games based on randomness, chaos, and luck are superior to those based on skill, where chaotic variables are reduced to a minimum and players are on an even footing, leaving it up to pure ability." Is correct, it comes out of nowhere as it relates purely to multiplayer.


Just because something is a common behavior doesn't make it casual. A lot of people realize that the campaign doesn't matter because the MP is the meat and potatoes of the game, and actually has to do with skill (in some cases). Beating an AI means nothing.

Also, I prefer the term "competitive" player. Casual d***heads are usually the ones labeling themselves as hardcore. It has nothing to do with how much you play or how good you are. There are even many poor players that realize they shouldn't be getting superpowers and skilled players shouldn't get kneecapped. Many casuals talk of "leveling the playing field", but the best way for them to do that is to get better at the damn game.
#12Hawke0Posted 7/12/2013 1:17:08 PM
A well made campaign can be equal to or better than a good multiplayer, but it takes a lot more resources to and most campaigns are half assed anyway.

Yeah, most people who call themself hardcore are far from it, and when people talk about 'leveling the playing field' they almost always really mean handicapping good players. In a game where the battlefield is truly level, the best players dominate.
---
Occupation Bob and Endgame are probably the stupidest people on the FE:A board.
The One and Only True Mr.Ford
#13CHAINMAILLEKID(Topic Creator)Posted 7/12/2013 1:45:50 PM(edited)
Hawke0 posted...
when people talk about 'leveling the playing field' they almost always really mean handicapping good players.


No, good players just whine whenever something isn't massively in their favor.
AKA, Kill streaks.
---
NS_CHAIN 2666-2862-7656
#14Hawke0Posted 7/12/2013 3:41:15 PM
That's why I said usually. Killstreaks are the other end of it.
---
Occupation Bob and Endgame are probably the stupidest people on the FE:A board.
The One and Only True Mr.Ford
#15VintageRonJohnPosted 7/12/2013 3:43:17 PM
Text-based Conduit game is the greatest idea of today and if I had the time I would make it.
---
Conduit 2: RonJohn 3868-8419-8160 [D-S]Jolt 4986-1435-0700
The Conduit: RonJohn 3309-2472-4741
#16_SignalPosted 7/12/2013 6:03:43 PM
I voted tighten up the graphics, but I don't really think it needs much.

The important part is that muliplayer is virtually glitch free, and has some hacker protection, as well as a stable frame rate, or at least as stable as possible. Personally I don't think it needs to be 60 fps. Old school televisions were only about 30 fps, and that was just fine for Charlies Angels, The Brady Bunch and The Love Boat.
---
The Wii Shooter Unleashed! Wooof! Wooof!
Conduit2FC(36): 3354-2948-5226, (38): 4814-7986-3261
#17CHAINMAILLEKID(Topic Creator)Posted 7/12/2013 6:07:50 PM
_Signal posted...
I voted tighten up the graphics, but I don't really think it needs much.

The important part is that muliplayer is virtually glitch free, and has some hacker protection, as well as a stable frame rate, or at least as stable as possible. Personally I don't think it needs to be 60 fps. Old school televisions were only about 30 fps, and that was just fine for Charlies Angels, The Brady Bunch and The Love Boat.


Yeah, I think the poll was phrased badly. But I wanted to use that game quote, so its OK.

FPS isn't THAT important, I mean...
There isn't a ton of fast motion thats important to gameply, its not like its F-Zero or anything.
But still, I do think FPS are more important than making sure the resolution is full 1080.
---
NS_CHAIN 2666-2862-7656
#18CmoIsDaNam3Posted 7/12/2013 6:30:58 PM
If C3 was to have better graphics, it should be just 720p, HD, 60 FPS, however, that said, it would only be like a 10 - 25% difference in improvement tbhj, like P4G, weapon balance, better net code, and also some more Tcon styled maps, not a whole lot of C2 maps were good, at all. (Looking at you Precipice... >.>)
---
Conduit, More, Often.
Wanna learn about Conduit 2? The good and bad? Click here -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfmmTxWMgPU
#19Toho2Posted 7/12/2013 6:50:44 PM
I want more of a focus on graphics, but not to the point we get a rushed campaign like COD's. And not to the point were we get a rushed multiplayer. I personally want a longer, more in-depth campaign since the game's campaign really got my interest. And with the ending's cliff hanger, I want a really good, long campaign in C3. Multiplayer I though was pretty balanced in C2, after all the patches. But better graphics to the equivalent of C2' ending is what I want in graphics.
---
-Long live Nintendo and Conduit! -
#20CheslukPosted 7/12/2013 6:59:35 PM
From: _Signal | #016
Personally I don't think it needs to be 60 fps. Old school televisions were only about 30 fps, and that was just fine for Charlies Angels, The Brady Bunch and The Love Boat.

Watching a video and playing a game are completely different for FPS. The higher the FPS, the more fluid the gameplay, and the more frames you have, the faster you can make the game. Besides, the higher your FPS the safer you are if you started dropping frames. Compare 20 frame dips while running at 120 fps, 60 fps, and 30 fps.
---
"I like how people boast on the board, yet when they touch Hardcore, they're worst than the C2 AI" -Samu5
http://i.imgur.com/D401r.png