Koki on 10/5/2011 at 16:22
Quote Posted by sNeaksieGarrett
The PC version is being developed (or co-developed?) by Nixxes, so it is going to be different than the console versions.
Oh sure, they're just going to
stretch the pathetic ~500MB of RAM the consoles have to the PC entry-level standard of four times more.
sNeaksieGarrett on 11/5/2011 at 04:41
Do either of you work for EM or Nixxes?
No?
Then shut the hell up.
God damn guys. Can't anyone be at least a bit optimisitc around here?
Bitch bitch bitch oh noes the PC game is gonna be shit because it's a port bitch bitch bitch.:rolleyes:
heywood on 11/5/2011 at 08:39
Relax. Nobody said it's going to be shit, but there's a reason why we keep seeing gameplay footage from the XBox 360. EM is designing the game and their primary target platforms are XBox 360 and PS3. I think it's logical to conclude the game is being designed for the console and adapted for the PC. It won't be as compromised as DX:IW because the gap between console and PC hardware isn't as great as it was. But like most games these days, there will probably be decisions made in the game design which favor the console and reduce the depth of the PC experience somewhat. Inventory management for example. It could still be a great game, but a lot depends on how "dumb" it plays.
Koki on 11/5/2011 at 12:00
Quote Posted by sNeaksieGarrett
Do either of you work for EM or Nixxes?
Do you?
Quote:
Bitch bitch bitch oh noes the PC game is gonna be shit because it's a port bitch bitch bitch.:rolleyes:
So you don't care if it's going to be shit? Suit yourself.
negativeliberty on 13/5/2011 at 08:09
Quote Posted by sNeaksieGarrett
Do either of you work for EM or Nixxes?
No?
Then shut the hell up.
God damn guys. Can't anyone be at least a bit optimisitc around here?
Bitch bitch bitch oh noes the PC game is gonna be shit because it's a port bitch bitch bitch.:rolleyes:
That's a lousy caricature. I'd treat Eidos Montreal with the 'principle of charity' if there'd been one small iota of evidence during development that they have some vague inkling of what made DX a really good, entertaining and immersive game. For some reason they had to contract this (not the PC porting I mean, but the actual analysis) to a third party company, then came up with some crap story about every developer spending the first four months of development playing DX (yet next to nothing of this is evident in anything we've seen, whether it's art direction, writing, gameplay or those atrocious trailers etc. none of it points to a team who spent four months replaying DX over and over). If it were just a marketing misspeak issue I think we would've seen at least something remotely promising by now. Perhaps I should just speak for myself to avoid misunderstandings, but if you've been following development at all, I would ask you where you see any cause for optimism.
Basically the crux is this; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So; say you're developing a sequel to one of the best games of the 'golden age' and claiming it'll be just as good, I'd then be a fool not to ask for proof. To take that (imo) normal scepticism and turn it into "ohnoes DX had not hirez -textrueshaders this is consol port for Wii lulz!" is just pointless. Eidos wants me to pay the price of admission to six films? Then stop showing me Michael Bay's vision on gaming. And especially don't whine about fanboyism when there's a twelve volume tome full of valid criticism to be made.
sNeaksieGarrett on 15/5/2011 at 05:43
I still think people overreact or act too harshly about a damn game that isn't even released yet.
@koki:
I don't require every game I play to be the best and flawless. I understand wanting Deus Ex to be good because it's a sequel to a game that was highly regarded 10 years ago or whatever, but come on. I'm probably wrong about the game, but I'd rather feel positive about it and this just bugs me how negative the posts around here are, without having even played the damn game yet. Also, I totally get trying to strive for an experience that is like the original, but can't it just be a good game in it's own right?
I dunno, maybe everyone disagrees with me, but take Doom 3 for example. It may have deviated from the doom formula, but it was a good (decent?) game in it's own right. In fact I'd say it took the series in a better direction. These days people don't want arcadey gameplay (ok, as much, there's still a market for that out there), they want story-based experiences. Which is what Doom 3 provided, even if it was lame. (However, I still like the old doom games, it's just a different experience than what you expect nowadays. I could see a more acadey doom, but it'd have to be separate from the true sequels I think.)
Also, no, I don't work there either, but what's your point? I thought mine was clear, I dunno what you're trying to pull other than to try to pick fights.
Dresden on 16/5/2011 at 12:18
Give it up, you can't reason with angry fanboys.
Koki on 17/5/2011 at 06:11
Quote Posted by Dresden
Give it up, you can't reason with angry fanboys.
The irony is, it's you and him that are angry fanboys here.
Dresden on 17/5/2011 at 06:53
Quote Posted by Koki
The irony is, it's you and him that are angry fanboys here.
Me? Sure, okay. I haven't posted anything besides "I think it looks pretty good".
Go back to cutting yourself Koki.
Koki on 17/5/2011 at 07:39
Why would I cut myself when I can cut others?
