2Chalupas' forum posts

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#1 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

@doomnukem3d said:

@2Chalupas: Sounds like you're trying to find console bias where there is none. I'm not interested in your petty System Wars squabble.

Check which forum you are posting in here.

In either case, many Nintendo games fall into that exception I'm talking about. Where they are lo-fi and low budget but still good because they are polished and well designed. But if the OP is going to blanket generalize "games with advanced graphics are going to age badly" that sounds like an argument a Ninty fan would make, because they know they have no chance of "advanced graphics" appearing on their system.

I'd say driving games and sports games and such generally age badly, because 99% of the time you want the latest and greatest version. Whereas a platformer is going to hold up. I tend to think FPS reached a threshold where they will age better as well, that wasn't the case for the 1st few gens of FPS.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#2 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

@BassMan said:

@doomnukem3d: Honestly, graphics should not even be much of a talking point. It should be about the art that is created with the technology. Is the world immersive? Are the characters likeable, relatable, etc.? Is the gameplay, objectives, actions in the world engaging? Stuff like that is what matters. The graphics and other technical details should stay behind the scenes. The technology and tools are what enable the artists to create compelling experiences. So, while important for developers, they should not be a focus for the consumer. We will get to that point eventually.

Just hook me up to The Matrix already. hehe :)

"Graphics" are part of making a game though, a smooth game engine helps get that artistic vision across.

Not really even sure what this thread is about. There are very few games that are pretty to look at but technically bad to play. In my view, they sort of go hand in hand. A game that is rough graphically is quite often not really well designed in other areas. A smooth game engine gives developers more to work with, and technically sound games already have a leg up on being more fun vs. games that run like crap.

Sure there are some exceptions. There are also certain low budget games or games played on a 2D plane where you can almost take the technical graphics out the window, because their style is not taxing to a game engine at all (unless the developers truly screw it up). This thread sounds like trying to excuse Nintendo's being cheap on their development costs and their tendency to be stuck a gen behind (or 2 vs. PC) their max graphics.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#3 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

@Archangel3371 said:

Umm, you do realize that it’s because they have so many games running on various engines in the Master Chief Collection that is the issue here don’t you?

But just one game runs at a time, right? That excuse doesn't really make sense, unless they are just essentially admitting they suck at optimizing games for Unreal Engine 4 (which is what they apparently are trying to use for this Halo Reach port). Is this the 1st one they've tried to convert to UE4?

I mean nothing about this really makes sense. They got Halo 4 running, they got Halo 3 and ODST running. What is so special and difficult about getting Reach remaster up and running properly? I guess this is a bit of a current gen "engine remake" like Halo 2 - not just a remaster - so the demands are a little higher?

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#4 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

Depends on the game really. On rare, select occasions, I don't mind grinding out post-game content. But pretty much anything past 100 hours seems gratuitous, even for psycho-level completionists.

Once you're at a certain point, it can't help but feel like repetitive tasks, or yes... even work. Not fun.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#5 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

LOLNO.

Nintendo has had a couple of botched consoles, or at least ones that didn't sell (N64, Gamecube, Wii-U), but the original Wii was a huge hit that filled them to the brim with cash.... and the 3DS and Switch both sell pretty strongly - so this has to be a troll thread with the Switch doing well. Even with the Wii-U disaster, they were probably 2 or 3 more failures from being a Sega - and for whatever reason their IP has much more staying power even if their consoles faulter. Mario > Sonic x1000.

That being said, they have sort of abandoned the "home console" space. So I'm not sure where they go next gen to get back into that, or are they just going to keep making portable or "switchable" consoles into the future.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#6 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

That dev is dead, other than the 256 players there was really nothing "ahead of it's time" about that game. Don't get me wrong, I actually played it thought it was OK, and I'd like to see Sony dip their toes back into a serious military shooter, but that seems highly unlikely considering the original game probably contributed to that devs failure - and if Sony were to revive any IP it would probably be SOCOM, but seems they have no interest in even that.

I think MAG had some pretty good ideas that were ahead of its time and now can be fully exploited.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#7 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

@Telekill said:

@nintendoboy16: Is Gamecube considered a failed system? Also, what do you mean by the fans of the Gamecube are revisionist?

It was last place and sold far less than N64, so I'd say yes. Obviously it wasn't Virtual Boy or Wii-U levels of failed - but it was last place so it was at least a borderline level of fail.

I picked up mine at the tail end of that gen when they were discounting it to $99, and I really liked the design of the Gamecube. It was definitely an interesting piece of hardware. Probably the best design of that gen, mini-DVD worked for games for the most part but if I had to guess the marketing disadvantage of lacking DVD probably cost them from at least having N64 or better level sales (also keeping them behind OG Xbox)

For me personally, I hardly ever owned any of the "failed" systems. I guess that's why they were considered failed LOL. I usually wait a year or two to see how things are shaking out before buying hardware. I guess the closest for me was Vita, and then the aforementioned Gamecube was the next closest.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

Probably like 20 unique games minimum to justify a "secondary" console.

Which is why I never bought a Wii-U last gen, and not an Xbox One this gen. Been a PS4 only gamer all this gen.

I've never been a huge believer in owning all the hardwares, seems like a waste if I"m not going to be playing a system a substantial amount of time - just having 3 or 4 games isn't enough. However, I didn't mind scooping up Gamecube as a "secondary" system to my PS2 a couple gens back - and I had all the systems last gen (360, Wii, PS3, 3DS Vita) - though I of course staggered the purchases a few years apart. I probably hit at least 20 games even on the least played of those systems.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

What the frack is 560 x 1440 resolution. That obviously can't be right, unless the article is missing a digit (i.e. 2560 x 1440).

I might be on board. Been thinking about getting the current VR even as it stands. I actually kind of regret not getting this past Christmas when it was <$200 as a bundle, because what the heck. Hopefully this new one keeps 3D support as well. As I'd actually probably use it for 3D movie playback, esp if i could get full HD resolution in each eye. One of the issues that turned me off of the current PSVR is it's not full HD.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#10 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

Probably SNES or Gamecube, as far as being best designed in it's time. The Gamecube is still a marvel of efficiency IMO.

I agree with the above sentiment though, consoles do get better every gen and PS4 was a very smart design at launch (no cell nonsense to hold it back, good balance of price vs. performance which was made even better with PS4 Pro revision). So I have to say PS4 is right up there with SNES and Gamecube for me. The only real hardware flaw is the annoyingly short battery life of the DS4.