PedanticGamer

crytek overated their own selfs... lol...

Next gen = better DOF

They are already doing this beyond what anyone currently is. Check out crysis 2 on pc with dx11 enabled. Crysis 3 looks to have improved even further. Cryengine 3 is a next gen engine, and everything points to Crysis 3 on PC being a next gen game. What areas specifically do you fell there DOF is not where next gen will be at.

better tessellation

How so? I think the tessellation is fine and a significant change in how it is implemented is how we shall get improvements.

better (i hope so) textures

Have you seen the textures being used in crysis 3? I have played the beta and they are reasonably good there, and that is in a beta release (as I just said) which likely does not have all the bells and whistles the full release will have.

better lighting effects

Once again, Cryengine 3 is already doing next gen lighting effects.

better animation system (for example unexpressed faces, hair tha looks like a shaving cream)

Crysis 3 is using motion capture, just look at the videos on the character Psycho. Now how widespread this will be on all characters is currently unknown, but we know that all the main characters (bar you of course) are of extremely high quality. I personally see the quality of motion capture being the basis of improvement, however I would be beyond shocked if most next gen games where in the next few years anywhere near as good as are in Crysis 3 simply as a result of the cost of doing so.

better facials and character expressions (due to 25 - 50 gig discs)

Why do you think it is size that is the issue? We already have 40+GB games. In fact Uncharted 3 was so large they cut parts out, which given some characters talked in game without moving there mouths when the camera was in a preset location somewhat contradicts what you are suggesting.

better video game depth and more content (something they always forget, because they make a game for 2-3-8-10 hours last and thats it)

I see more AA titles as apposed to AAA titles doing this next gen, however I don't want all 8 hour campaigns to vanish otherwise we would be without some truly great game series (afterall longer isn't always better). One thing I do see hopefully changing is more ways games are sold, be it via ftp options, or pay per chapter, or simply buying the game outright.

as for the better effects, more polygons and all the above... that is also in the hands of the creator... If they don't bother much, they all look the same (old and new)

Well this is debatable, people like Carmack have talked about how we may have seemingly reached a level where people can't tell the difference between polygon counts in character models. I don't actually agree with him there but we don't know what he was using as source material to test this. But in terms of what we know, the difference is clear between Killzone 2 and 3 (at least to me), though the difference given how many more polygons there where was rather minimal.

Answers in bold.

Game developers to Gamespot: "your overly aggressive selling of used games could cripple our ability to make games".


Really I actually blame companies like Gamespot/EB Games more then Microsoft for this, I can't try and buy a new game from one of there stores without them trying to sell me the second hand copy instead (though I have now stopped shopping at there stores). Gamespot/EB Games along with others have been pushing the game industry into a corner through there practices and expected no ramifications.

Well im sorry but im affraid i dont get into all this sales poop that happens EVERY TIME a console launches as i dont get into all the console war poop people do.

Is that so, then explain why you are in this thread to begin with.

Arent you guys glad Nintendo completely held off showing stuff like this:



From the launch of the system and e3 so third parties wouldnt be overshadowed and feel too threatened to release their sub calibur games on wii u?

Yeah, because Tomb raider, Bioshock Infinite, DmC, Crysis 3 etc look so much worse.... ohh wait.... they don't.

Using the move and kinect is a pretty lame comeback imo, considering the move and kinect were motion control and thus porting a game with full on controller controls would be a lot more difficult where as on the Wii U it would be a easier because it uses the same control scheme as the other consoles. Like Nollog said, they could have just made the game playable on the gamepad, emulating what is on the TV is probably the least labor extensive of all of the possible choices besides doing nothing. I'd rather just have the game, then having nothing at all.

They could have, but the dev doesn't want to support it in such a limited manner. If it is to be done he would do it in a way he considers to be proper (eg: not just tacked on).

ugh another pointless war

Near on every war is essentially pointless imho.

Oh no, why can't we all just get the f***k along eh?

Because humans like conflict and what bigger conflict can you have then wars.


I must also laugh at all the "US won't let Japan go to war", firstly America is not the world police and secondly (and more importantly) the US loves wars and rarely miss a chance to get involved in one (often claiming victory when they are anything but victorious as well).

I'm happy with the way graphics are looking right now, if they stay the same of get better I don't mind, just as long as they don't get worse.

Complacency is a terrible thing, we should always want strives to be made in game design so as games can continue to get better. More power doesn't just mean better graphics, it means more gameplay opportunities.

What are the chances this game is going to be on Wii U?

Very, very  low. If you can the best place to get it by far is on pc. Both the ps3 and 360 versions pale in comparison.

It's because you mentioned Hell, all mention of religion it's taken down. It's also a lot stronger word in the states than it is here in the UK

Bloody hell.  

Precisely this. This is evident in every successful Let's Player.

I don't know about that, i've seen lets plays where the player hates it and that what makes it so fun.

The Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess
The Walking Dead
coffee bang bang
Coffee beans from various local roasters
+ a present is still on the way apparently

Dont know much about this kind of stuff but if the game is good then whatever is fine. By the way i heard that the human eye cant even notice 60fps or something like that, can someone tell me if this is true?

Untrue, the vast majority of people can see above 60fps. For example simply moving the mouse around a desktop running at 120fps is noticeably smoother then if it is at 60fps, and going back to 30fps when you have just been running at 120 fps fells like a slide show.

I think the next one would benefit from a metroid like design. Mostly open, but you still need to get certain things to progress, the game just doesn't force you on them. It would've been pretty cool if you had no idea where you needed to go. I mean, isn't that what survival is all about?

I would say that is what discovery is all about. Survival is about not dying. I personally would prefer having multiple ways of progressing through the game.

That sounds like an awfully depressing life my friend... one with no hope.. or purpose..or meaning... and at the end of that purposeless life you just die and nothing else happens... we are all just a pile of $#!T that the universe decided to crap out one day only to be destroyed... And to believe all that without it even being proven...

Does it? It doesn't sound depressing or purposeless to me. In fact it makes me appreciate what we have even more then I otherwise would. Conversely if you are going to heaven or hell then what is the point of doing anything but making sure you go to heaven? Seems like a fairly empty life to me. This also suggest you only have faith as it makes you fell better about yourself.

If you are going to believe something that hasnt been "scientifically" proven... why not choose the one with hope and purpose and has a happy ending...

Because there is actual evidence for it, something religion has none of. Furthermore this suggests because something doesn't have all the answers you should just

In the grand scheme of things... if you are right then it doesnt really matter.... but if i am right then your're screwed... from your perspective wouldnt it be better to be safe rather than sorry?

There are how many hundreds of gods? and you by the sheerest of accidents believe in the one you do as a result of where you where borne ow where surrounded by (most likely). Yet you are saying others are screwed? Irony is apparently lost on you. Furthermore this whole notion of having faith "as it better being safe then sorry" is beyond silly (and fear mongering). It also brings up the point that it suggest you only have faith as it gives you solace, that is once again dependent on you having faith and how does one have faith? Well they are either indoctrinated or ignore all evidence in an attempt to make themselves fell better about themselves.

Here is a basic problem no religious person has been able to answer. Explain why you are of that religion without using the world belief or similar to justify yourself. If you can't do that you must accept the only reason you believe is because someone told you so, and why would they know anymore then you about this supposed god. Furthermore give me one good reasons why I should take your belief in something any more seriously then something that has an equal lack of evidence (such as the spaghetti monster), once again don't answer "you should take my belief more seriously as I believe" as that is not a real answer (rather it is an acknowledgment that you don't know why you have faith).

How so?

I genuinely am not sure, have you read Genesis? In fact how many so people who are religious here have actually read and studied what they say they believe in?

It's the same concept, whether it be false hope or fear these are not good reasons to believe in a god/be delusional to the extent of believing in that which has no evidence.

Tell me, why do you believe in god other than fear of death/hell and the hope of heaven? If I told you of a more powerful deity that offered an even better heaven and no chance of hell as well as making all your dreams come true, would you believe me? I assume you wouldn't but why not, considering you believe in your current god without evidence why would this one that I claim to be superior be less believable?

Don't expect an answer as no one can justify there faith on anything but "it's my faith". Precisely why I have asked the same question many times before. It is actually amusing watching such questions either ignored, or better yet answered with another question of no relevance in a vein attempt to justify not having an answer to the question.

I never said this was my reasoning for believing in God.....?

The only reason anyone believes in a god of any religion is because they where told it was true and blindly accepted it. Hence why they have faith.

I would never hurt anybody at all and I respect all people's opinions and I love living in a diverse world, if only everyone shared that mindset, the world would be better off, we will end up killing the human race before we have a chance to find what's out there waiting.

One thing I disagree about that last sentence is the assumption that there is something more out there, or that we need it. What we have in the natural world is inescapably breathtakingly beautiful and whilst i'm not against searching for more (in fact i'm for it) I don't assume that there is or isn't more.

Lots of religion posts lately...I thought this was a gaming site? Lol

I personally am a Roman Catholic, and while I don't follow all the rules, I try my hardest and try to make the best possible relationship with myself and God

I think its very refreshing to see a forum such as this allow such discussions.

I don't think it will happen what I mean is they can make make a video game that looks just like real life but that won't be simulating everything in the real word that will be going down to cellular and atomic levels of detail which just won't happen.

You can't see what happens at that level and thus can be seen as being irrelevant.