PedanticGamer

Youtube is not a good way to compare the amount of crappy compression just makes it near on useless. Just look at crysis 2 maxed out on pc vs console in person then on youtube. Difference is huge in person, small in youtube.

Its on ign... Take it with a grain of salt.

 

I think you mean at least a mountain of salt.    With that being said I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft went in such a direction.

Did you put your PS Vita in the Flour Tin again?

 

You sure that is flour?

What most people don't realise is EA don't actually make very many games at all they just publish them.

 

Err, they own many devs though.

Interesting.

I seem to remember him saying a game was running in cryengine 3 on wii u looking great back before e3 2012. Abd that game had to have started on some pretty early hardware.

As far as crysis 3 on wii u at 1080p. No problem.

Heck even last years rumors had Wii u running one level in crysis 3 at with features at ultra settings. Lol.

But they aren't sure they can justify development costs for wii u yet.

 

Sure believe what you want, the director has said a $500 console with current hardware running games like Crysis 3 can be on a powerfull pc is simply not possible. Yes CryEngine 3 will run on wiiU, but that doesn't mean you can run it all maxed out. Just the gpu you need to max out crysis 3 on pc will cost you over twice the total cost of a wiiU.

I think more then anything mention here, if consoles can support where crytek are heading. FTP (eg: warface) with integrated social features like gface. Will Nintendo let that be on the console (you load up gface then the game you want to play). If it was just licensing they wouldn't really be in talks, they would just agree on the licensing fees and condition's then use cryengine 3. I and anyone who can download around 1gb  can download and use the engine legally for free for example, its only costs you if you want to make sell what you make.

 

 

 

I agree. I find the storyline very amazing as well!

An easy 10/10 for me.

 

and the use of colors... man, it blew my mind.

Yes, the Vita has about as many games as the Wii U.

 

WiiU: ZombiU, Nintendo Land and New Super Mario Bros U and some poorly done ports and shovelware.

Vita: Gravity Rush, Ragnarock Oddeysey, Person 4 Golden, Uncharted Golden Abyss, LittleBig Planet Vita, Unit 13, and a fairly large number of ps3/vita games of high quality like wipeout, playstation all stars battle royale, rayman origins, sly cooper etc.

 

Sorry, whilst the vita has the advantage of having been out for a considerable larger period of time then the wiiU, it does have more quality games no matter how you look at it.

When something seems to be to good to be true it generally is. I can't see any reason to pay any particular attention to this as I can't see it going anywhere.

Yes, i do. Your complaint makes no sense if you actually play or 'like' monster hunter. For you to feel that way, youd have to think the entire FRANCHISE was lazy. because 99% of the games are 'worse' than the 'lazy ports' of monster hunter utimate by your definition.

My expectations for this release does not = my expectations for all the prior games. I'm not going to bother responding to any more of your nonsense regarding this, it's a waste of time.

It has nothing to do with opinions, it has to do with common sense and pattern recognition.

There has NEVER been a monster hunter that has met what you expected out of this game.

and... I am allowed to increase my expectations, this is bieng released on the wiiU and falls below in several areas what I would expect.

People who like the series, DONT HAVE THOSE EXPECTATIONS, those have those expectations, dont stick with the series.

Once again I like the series (like many) and have the expectations your saying I can't have. I'm not the only one who is annoyed by an obvious cheap port with little effort present (whether I am in the minority is irrelevant, there are others). Ignoring anyone who fells displeased with some of what they have seen and writing them of clearly as not fans means of course in your eyes now fan is disappointed (as anyone who is is by your definition not a fan).

You might like screens of monster hunter, you might think you like the concept of monster hunter, or the idea of monster hunter. But its just very very apparant you dont like monster hunter from actually PLAYING monster hunter. Which is why you think it should be something its simply not.

As above, I am a fan have played several of the games and fell let down by what we have been shown. That is fact and nothing you can say can change that.

I simply think the port should be done properly, the fact that it is a lazy port is what I am not happy about. I am not disappointed gameplay wise with what we have seen. Stop assuming you know what other people do and do not like. As you simply do not.

Pikin 3 and Windwaker (my god I want windwaker HD now, I have already played through the gamecube version again ).

Considering how the 3DS is destroying the Vita should they really being talking smack about anyone? That is like a person in 3rd place bashing the 1st place winner. I loved my PS2 but considering how badly the Vita is doing and even PS3 tbh for me at least I think they need to stop trying to talk big and actual deliver. Hopefully they can but i'l wait and see

Well the ps3 probably generated more revenue for Sony then the wii did for Ninetendo. Look at the sales of Nintendo games vs Playstation 3 games and remember sony and Nintendo get around 30% of the money from sales of games on there console. Also Sony introduced how many excellent new ip's this gen (Resistance Trillogy, Demon's Souls, The Last of Us, Beyond Two Souls, Uncharted Trillogy, LittleBig Planet Series etc) whilst continuing some of the old ips (Killzone, Sly Copper, Gran Turismo, Ratchet and Clank etc). As opposed to Nintendo throwing out a rather lackluster number of admittedly good titles from ip's that have been milked to death (namely Mario, Zelda and Metroid) along with some casual dance and fitness games.

Nintendo may have sold more consoles last gen, but it is doubtful if they where as successful as Sony or Microsoft last gen, and they undeniably did not create as many new ip's or quality exclusives as Sony did with the ps3. Of course you can prefer what Nintendo offered, but don't delude yourself saying that Sony has not been delivering (as they so clearly have been in recent years).

Nintendo fire back. "Oh yay, another God of War game" that ACTUALLY NEVER FREAKING CHANGES AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cough, Zelda, cough, mario, cough donkey king country, cough, cough, cough, cough, cough, cough, cough, cough, cough, cough.

I personally think pc games are notably better then most console games. In fact the appeasing of console fans has severely hurt the quality of numerous games due to there button limitations and attempts to appease a more casual crowd. Look at Witcher 2 (made first and foremost for pc) and then compare it to Skyrim (made for consoles). No matter which one you prefer, which one is more casual and dumbed down? The answer is really inarguable Skyrim. Now with saying that I am a fan of Skyrim, but compared to Morrowind it has made the game so much less of an rpg and more of a follow the arrow.

Consoles are just pc's with hardware that gets really crap before they are replaced by the next gen. I can't see how one can argue against that. Afterall they are just computers with a custom os and nothing more.


I actually can't think of a single area where pc gaming has not been notably better then console gaming. Ease of use goes to pc, stability goes to pc, exclsuives goes to pc, quality of graphics goes to pc, modability goes to pc, number of games released and games playable goes to pc, other features (social etc) goes to pc, cost of games goes to pc (they are cheaper), control options goes to pc etc.

In fact the only are where pc's can lag behind is they have a higher initial investment cost. That's really it though. One question for anyone who disagrees, what can a console do that a pc can't do better?