PDA

View Full Version : I'm worried (re: consoles)


DemonKing
02-11-2004, 09:03 PM
I'm a PC gamer...I want a SW:BF that uses all the bells and whistles of my spanky DX9 graphics card.

I'm concerned that since BF will be released on X-Box and PS2 as well, we'll get a dumbed down version that looks only half as good as it should and with gameplay that suffers from the poor control system on consoles.

KOTOR was a good game on PC but if it hadn't been made with the graphic and design limtiations of the X-Box in mind then it would have been great...now the same thing is happened to SW:BF.

Arrrgh!!!

kc0neo
02-11-2004, 09:10 PM
from reading some of the interviews and previews they are planing on developing the pc version separtly to account for the diffrience in controls. It would not be to hard to add a few bells to the graphics. If you look at halo on x-box compaired to pc the PC version looks a lot better but there is not the huge leap because the x-box itself has good graphics. I would not worry too much because ether way it will be cool.
damm I need to learn how to spell some day:)

lukeiamyourdad
02-12-2004, 02:23 AM
I guess we should be more worried about transition from the PS2 to other consoles. Now, I don't know which version they're doing first but I hope they don"t mess everything up for the PC.

KotOR looks awesome on the PC, a lot better then on the X Box. KotOR PC is actually considered to be better then its X Box counterpart.

There hasn't been much design limitations for KotOR since the whole interface had been redone and it's obvious that KotOR is a PC RPG and not a console one.

Besides, who is getting SWBF for console anyway?

Halo: Although, a good game, perhaps the best console shooter, it certainly isn't the best PC shooter...

darthfergie
02-12-2004, 02:46 AM
I think the looks will be there...no worries about that...they won't be the most amazing thing you've ever seen, but that IS why they have so many people able to play...and also it seems the graphics are going to be a step up on BF1942 because it only allows 32 by internet connection and 64 by LAN, where as BF1942 allows 64 by internet...thus there is very likely a graphical improvement evident...also I think they are only allowing broadband connections on servers too. So this game will look nice, no doubt.

Gabrobot
02-12-2004, 04:52 AM
From the new interview at HomeLan Fed:

HomeLAN - What can you tell us about the graphics engine for Battlefront?


Greg Borrud - The graphics engine is on its third generation and has had quite a bit of improvements over the last year. Since we have shipped a number of products on all platforms we have been able to build upon what we have learned and it feels like we are starting to hit the sweet spot on what the various platforms can do. We’re trying to eek out ever last bit of performance from each machine and support as many graphical features as we can while still maintaining a high frame rate. In addition – we get a lot of support from our other internal games at Pandemic. We are able to share technology and ideas with games like Full Spectrum Warrior and the other two unannounced titles we have in development.

DemonKing
02-12-2004, 09:03 AM
There hasn't been much design limitations for KotOR since the whole interface had been redone and it's obvious that KotOR is a PC RPG and not a console one.


Actually it is clear that KOTOR was designed with the limitations of a console in mind:

1. We have a mouse and keyboard - why can't we have a drag and drop inventory system? Instead we get saddled with a scrolling inventory. Score one for the X-Box.

2. I can't free-look properly. If I want to look at the sky/admire the scenery like I have in every 3D PC game since Quake, I have to stand stock still. Normally in KOTOR I'm restricted to looking straight ahead with my eyes at a constant level. Score two for the X-Box.

3. Tiny interior levels, with all rooms/buildings of import on the same level. In most PC games I can run up stairs, down shafts, change levels etc without a loading transition, but thanks to playing a game designed primarily for the smaller memory X-Box, the only way I can change levels is through a loading screen. Mark three for the X-Box!

4. Higher resolutions on a PC does not mean that the game is graphically the best it could be. The latest PC graphic cards can do some pretty nifty stuff that the current generation X-Box will never be able to do, yet PC gamers are constantly being asked to accept that the only benefit they deserve for having such hardare is "higher resolutions". Whoop-de-doo! Mark four for the X-Box.

Well - at least KOTOR had quicksaves.

I don't mean to rant, but it is pretty damn clear that trying to cater for the console and PC markets inevitably means that the quality of the PC title is lower than it should be.

Just ask all those PC gamers that tried DX:IW!

Swoosh
02-12-2004, 02:08 PM
It's interesting to think about the PC vs. console debate in terms of the developer's actions. You'd think most devs loyalty would lie with the PC, the system that will stand the test of time. But, I'm sure the corporate execs want their bias to lie with the console version because that will rake the money in.

If this is true, I wonder how hard Pandemic is trying to maximize the PC's power.

swoosh

lukeiamyourdad
02-12-2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by DemonKing
Actually it is clear that KOTOR was designed with the limitations of a console in mind:

1. We have a mouse and keyboard - why can't we have a drag and drop inventory system? Instead we get saddled with a scrolling inventory. Score one for the X-Box.

2. I can't free-look properly. If I want to look at the sky/admire the scenery like I have in every 3D PC game since Quake, I have to stand stock still. Normally in KOTOR I'm restricted to looking straight ahead with my eyes at a constant level. Score two for the X-Box.

3. Tiny interior levels, with all rooms/buildings of import on the same level. In most PC games I can run up stairs, down shafts, change levels etc without a loading transition, but thanks to playing a game designed primarily for the smaller memory X-Box, the only way I can change levels is through a loading screen. Mark three for the X-Box!

4. Higher resolutions on a PC does not mean that the game is graphically the best it could be. The latest PC graphic cards can do some pretty nifty stuff that the current generation X-Box will never be able to do, yet PC gamers are constantly being asked to accept that the only benefit they deserve for having such hardare is "higher resolutions". Whoop-de-doo! Mark four for the X-Box.


1. Does it really matter? It's nothing big...

2. I know that an FPS you can look at the sky because then it's important. What's the point about looking up? I believe NWN didn't have free look neither.

3. wow loading screens...it's either that or a weird wait time. It's good for the ones who don't have awesome Computers.

4. Have you seen oth version? Texture quality and Resolution are way better on PC. Besides, it's the NWN engine, it can't be all that different from it.

You're expecting all of us to have top of the line computers...We don,t all make 300 000$ per year you know...

Sounds Risky
02-12-2004, 10:41 PM
I liked the xbox version.

kc0neo
02-13-2004, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by DemonKing
I'm a PC gamer...I want a SW:BF that uses all the bells and whistles of my spanky DX9 graphics card.

I'm concerned that since BF will be released on X-Box and PS2 as well, we'll get a dumbed down version that looks only half as good as it should and with gameplay that suffers from the poor control system on consoles.

KOTOR was a good game on PC but if it hadn't been made with the graphic and design limtiations of the X-Box in mind then it would have been great...now the same thing is happened to SW:BF.

Arrrgh!!!

This is a quote from a artical on ign
Visually, the game looked impressive on all sides, with the PC, Xbox and PS2 versions looking best in descending order. The models from all versions are spot on, from the Droids to the Spies to the killer ATSTs. The backgrounds are even more impressive with all sorts of details to discover. Players can walk around just seeking out the spot they've always wanted to explore in the movies, and there will be creatures, structures and special things where you would expect them to be. If you go to the desert of Tatooine, you can indeed find the Sarlac, which is, eh-hem, full operational. If you sneak toward it and an enemy unit is nearby, throw a grenade and watch him catapult into the air and land in the Sarlac. What a great mini-game!

All sorts of filters are used to give the game a softer image, and to distinguish closer objects from farther ones. These filters give the game a glow that works especially well in lighted areas. It also helps bolster the colors of each area, avoiding the obvious trap of black darkness so many games seem to offer.

There are all sorts of realtime, dynamic lighting techniques implemented. Players who choose to play on Endor will see God light, or distinct light rays piercing though the trees and that cast light upon your character if you walk in them. You'll be able to shoot into the trees and watch as leaves are blown off. If you aim well enough, you'll disturb the birds in the trees, and they'll go flying out in frightened flocks. If you walk into the water, it moves around you well enough, but by shooting into water fish will float sideways to the top.

Go to page three (http://pc.ign.com/articles/492/492187p1.html)

Sounds like they have the graphics thing coved and they are still in pre alpha.

Man I can not wait for the sarlac pit. This game is going to rock

DemonKing
02-13-2004, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
1. Does it really matter? It's nothing big...

Maybe not, but scrolling down this huge inventory list is a real waste of time - not forgetting the wonderful design decision to make several important different aretefacts have the same generic name "datacube", for example.


2. I know that an FPS you can look at the sky because then it's important. What's the point about looking up? I believe NWN didn't have free look neither.

It's all about the immersion factor. Also NWN is essentially an isometric game whereas KOTOR is 3D. In a true 3D world I would like to be able to look up and examine my surroundings from time to time.


4. Have you seen oth version? Texture quality and Resolution are way better on PC. Besides, it's the NWN engine, it can't be all that different from it.

As I said, we are being asked to accept chunkier textures and resolutions as the only graphical advantage on a PC. I would rather see a title give utilise more of the high-end graphical effects available on newer hardware than merely bump up the resolution, since I rarely play a game on higher than 1024*748 anyway.


You're expecting all of us to have top of the line computers...We don,t all make 300 000$ per year you know...

No I don't - but a lower end DX9 card doesn't exactly cost the earth these days. Well, of course if you are a twelve year old kid who depends on his parents for upgrades you have my sympathies, but for the rest of us there isn't much excuse for not having a relatively up to date graphics card these days.

Anyway, as someone has already posted, it seems so far the PC version is indeed looking better than the X-Box/PS2 versions, so let's keep our fingures crossed and hope its more than just a resolution bump that the PC engine gets.

lukeiamyourdad
02-14-2004, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by DemonKing

No I don't - but a lower end DX9 card doesn't exactly cost the earth these days. Well, of course if you are a twelve year old kid who depends on his parents for upgrades you have my sympathies, but for the rest of us there isn't much excuse for not having a relatively up to date graphics card these days.

Anyway, as someone has already posted, it seems so far the PC version is indeed looking better than the X-Box/PS2 versions, so let's keep our fingures crossed and hope its more than just a resolution bump that the PC engine gets.

Not at all I know. I got one for barely a hundred bucks. I suggest you keep your insults to yourself next time and your stupid asumption. Still in these days, a lot of people aren't rich enough to buy nice computer stuff.

You're not "asked" to accept anything, you're accepting it yourself when you bought the game(if you actually bought it). If you think it sucks so much, go find another game and stop the useless stupid ranting and bashing of a very good game.

DemonKing
02-15-2004, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Not at all I know. I got one for barely a hundred bucks. I suggest you keep your insults to yourself next time and your stupid asumption. Still in these days, a lot of people aren't rich enough to buy nice computer stuff.

You're not "asked" to accept anything, you're accepting it yourself when you bought the game(if you actually bought it). If you think it sucks so much, go find another game and stop the useless stupid ranting and bashing of a very good game.

Sorry "Lukeiamyourdad" - I didn't mean to imply that you were a 12 year-old kid - I was talking generally about my sympathies for people who's economic well-being is out of their own hands. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

As to KOTOR on console - yes I accepted its shortcomings when I purchased the game, and overall I really enjoyed it, but that doesn't mean I forfeit the right to be disappointed at some of the visual and design sacrifices made on the PC version to accomodate a console.

That's all I'm pointing out.