Crysis 2 is another console port, no DX11!!!!

Ravenger said:
Truth
Click to expand...

Completely agree, it is a real problem. I apologise that I over simplified my argument. Just a certain (few) others that seem convinced that anything touched by consoles would magically be better in every way with them removed. Rather sick of hearing it :)

Player count is a good example. Is a game with 64 players twice as good with 128? I doubt it, and certainly not if the whole experience is not built around that number ...
 
The bf series still uses dedicated servers for console, bc2 does and I would expect bf3 will as well. The fact you can't rent them doesn't make them not dedicated though. It's not p2p.
 
Strife212 said:
Glad someone else shares my view on this... CoD 4 is a perfect example, it's god awful on 64 player servers.
Click to expand...

Entirely dependant on map size. CoD maps aren't made for 64 players, hence it playing poorly with so many. Were BF3 maps to be made in mind for 64, then it would likely make for a better experience.
 
Deific said:
Funny how everyone on these forums seems to work in the games industry eh...
Click to expand...

Yup, always funny when someone gets a "preview" copy of a game as well and expects everyone to swallow it. :D

I remember one guy on here back before the original gears was released got called out on his "preview copy", and produced a half assed photoshopped cover that a 2 year old with no arms could have done a better job of.
 
Strife212 said:
Glad someone else shares my view on this... CoD 4 is a perfect example, it's god awful on 64 player servers.
Click to expand...

Some maps on cod4 are god awful with even 16 players, that utter piece of **** "shipment" comes to mind. That was just spam grenade die spam grenade die.
 
Deific said:
Funny how everyone on these forums seems to work in the games industry eh...
Click to expand...

I play games approximately 9-5..does that count? :o

Anyway i'm not really too bothered at this point. DX11 support is not uniquely equivalent to graphical fidelity in modern games. Will make my own judgement once i get to buy the release game.
 
Gerard said:
Some maps on cod4 are god awful with even 16 players, that utter piece of **** "shipment" comes to mind. That was just spam grenade die spam grenade die.
Click to expand...

You left out bog, overgrown, creek, downpour, wet work and of course my personal most-hated, Vacant :)


terrible maps for wars.
 
LOAM said:
The bf series still uses dedicated servers for console, bc2 does and I would expect bf3 will as well. The fact you can't rent them doesn't make them not dedicated though. It's not p2p.
Click to expand...

I know BC2 did, I've only seen confirmation for the PC version of BF3 so far though. Fair enough if it does, I'm aware that you don't have to have player rented servers, just a lot of developers can be too cheap to offer any themselves. :p

jonneymendoza said:
EXACTLY. well said. To say that consoles dont have ANY impact on the pc version is clutching on straws. of course it does. thats why MANY are moaning about crysis 2. its why this thread was made!
Click to expand...

:confused:

He's agreeing with somebody that called you out for talking complete nonsense concerning console hardware limiting games development. The points he raises surround development, and in my opinion could be over come if developers were willing to spend more time on PC versions. They're entirely valid points, I don't think one person has said that developing for multiple platforms doesn't result in differing end quality to a single platform focus. Generally any exclusive title regardless of platform ends up better in my opinion.

Do you just go blind to anything that contradicts your argument?

Deific said:
Funny how everyone on these forums seems to work in the games industry eh...
Click to expand...

Funny how everyone on these forums is a cynic. Out of 76,000 members with an interest in computers you find it unlikely that any have connections to the games industry?
 
Last edited:
Ive just been playing the MP demo and i like it, its a fun knock about.

Im looking forward to the game aswell have just replayed the first one and im currently playing warhead.

I don't play games on the PC because they look the best or have the most features, i play because i don't want a console under my TV.

I also hope they don't release a game that brings systems to there knees like crysis did when it was released, internet willy waving on who can play a game because they have such a great spec does nothing but damage PC gaming.
 
NZXT30 said:
maybe because the cod4 maps are not designed to hold 64 players?
Click to expand...

That's exactly it. I've never understood the fixation with higher player counts in every game.

If the game is designed for them like BF1942 or BF2, or (hopefully) BF3 then yes, more players is good.

If the maps are designed for smaller player counts then the games just turn into spamfests where you spawn, get killed, repeat ad-infinitum.

For games designed around smaller number of players I tend to go for the servers where the max playercount is closer to the numbers the level was designed for.

The player count for multiplayer Crysis 2 seems to me to be spot-on because the maps are so obviously designed for 12 players or less.

Of course it's a complete rip-off of the COD games - it's obvious they're going for that market, so you could argue it's not the multiplayer we've come to expect from the Crysis games. Still it shows how bad COD has become when Crisis 2 looks a million times better and performs much better whilst having similar gameplay.

I just hope the PC single player stands up to the originals sandboxy gameplay, rather than being shrunk down to a linear standard FPS. It's not as if consoles can't do big open sandboxy games - they can, but it requires different techniques with an emphasis on streaming technology.
 
LOAM said:
The bf series still uses dedicated servers for console, bc2 does and I would expect bf3 will as well. The fact you can't rent them doesn't make them not dedicated though. It's not p2p.
Click to expand...

Yup it does. i completely forgot about this so that person who said how having less player count then the pc version is completely wrong.

BC2 does have dedi servers and i expect BF3 to have dedi servers too. wich leads me to one question. why only 24 players IF consoles can handle high player count on the frostbite engine?

Can only mean one thing IMO. lack of hardware power under the consoles.

Yes MAG and resistance cater for 40+ players but the games dont look as good as BC2 nevermind BF3 plus no dynamic destructible enviornments either.

in a nutshell the frostbite 2 engine is MORE demanding then resistance and MAG engines from what i can see. i dont think many would disagree with me in that respect and if what i am saying is true then my points on how TECHNOLOGY CAN enchance and play a significant role on developing a game is correct.

Not everyone develops like DICE i.e develope to the strengths of each different platform for a multiplatform game.

You will RARELY find a multiplatform game that is developed properly for each platform. it is usually developed for one platform and ported to others. Its cheaper to do so.
 
Ravenger said:
That's exactly it. I've never understood the fixation with higher player counts in every game.

If the game is designed for them like BF1942 or BF2, or (hopefully) BF3 then yes, more players is good.

If the maps are designed for smaller player counts then the games just turn into spamfests where you spawn, get killed, repeat ad-infinitum.

For games designed around smaller number of players I tend to go for the servers where the max playercount is closer to the numbers the level was designed for.

The player count for multiplayer Crysis 2 seems to me to be spot-on because the maps are so obviously designed for 12 players or less.

Of course it's a complete rip-off of the COD games - it's obvious they're going for that market, so you could argue it's not the multiplayer we've come to expect from the Crysis games. Still it shows how bad COD has become when Crisis 2 looks a million times better and performs much better whilst having similar gameplay.

I just hope the PC single player stands up to the originals sandboxy gameplay, rather than being shrunk down to a linear standard FPS. It's not as if consoles can't do big open sandboxy games - they can, but it requires different techniques with an emphasis on streaming technology.
Click to expand...

Yes consoles can do sandbox games but many console sanbox games look really awful IMO. look at gta4 and fallout games and compare them to the pc version. Almost night and day difference.

Maybe thats why crysis 2 diddnt go with a sandbox style of game because the cryengine is really demanding. i would prefer a sandbox game as i dont like being told where i can and cant go and what i can and cant do.
 
jonneymendoza said:
You will RARELY find a multiplatform game that is developed properly for each platform. it is usually developed for one platform and ported to others. Its cheaper to do so.
Click to expand...

Again, I hate to ask... Where do you base this information from? You talk like you have extensive knowledge of the ins and outs of professional development and that what you speak is certainty, but with what seems to be made up/guessed information... If you've got experience that shows that developers work otherwise, I'll happily retract my argument of this fact.

It's certainly cheaper after release to port an existing game to another platform than to develop from scratch... That's whole ethos behind porting any kind of software.

Before release working from the ground up most developers work on developing for different platforms side by side. They may favour one platform over another, but they're not finishing the game for one platform then starting work to convert it to another. Working the way you suggest would be an idiotic waste of time and money. I accept there are circumstances where it may be of benefit to work that way, but you're stating that apart from "RARELY" this is how games developers are working?

If a games been out on consoles for months, and then gets a PC version. I'd agree, that's likely a port.

Edit: Ah naff it don't bother actually. I cba with replying to fanboy rage anymore tbh. :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom