Should see the rest of these Predictive Text quotes. Check my signature for the link.
Well, that was a short list.
The Console Is Not Your Enemy
- Thread starter Old Duck
- Start date
Well, that was a short list.
This notion that console owners need to be able to do productivity work on their console is silliness. Email on a console? LOL, this isn't 1995. Most folks use their smartphones for email, along with video recording and editing and everything else listed. The reason a console is good at gaming is because it focuses on being good at gaming.
My PC is an older Macbook Pro (I had to go Mac for business reasons). It's terrific for all these productivity examples given. It's terrible for gaming. Hence, I own a PS4 for that. I would personally never mix productivity and gaming on the same machine, primarily because I don't trust all the DRM mechanisms used by game developers (Ubisoft, I'm looking at you). Then again, I don't trust Windows in general with my personal data.
Email on a console.. HAHAHAHA!
Hey now, I was just trying to be nice while refuting the original comment about using email on a console. I would never do it because it's tedious and phones/desktops just work better for said things.
Wrong... depends on the game...
Elite Dangerous, suffers from being dumbed down and made too simplistic. At its core, it's a simulator and requires the depth to enhance its gameplay.
FD, have continually made things easier and easier, to panda to generation instant gratification....
And that is the games problem, the game needs and craves depth, and its simply not getting what it deserves.
I presume it was primarily PC players.
I tried to get by with just consoles for years, but got tired of waiting for the PS4 release of ED to be even announced, and got another gaming PC. Then of course they do announce the PS4 release, and introduce telepresence to add insult to injury.
I see some validity in your claim, considering Arena /CQC seems to be a blatant attempt to provide a version of Elite for toddlers. This approach was an obvious flop, so hopefully FDev has learned its lesson and will return to their core beliefs that they had during the Kickstarter.
If not, then my message to Frontier is that we console gamers, and I know many across the age spectrum, are not looking for instant gratification or some 1980s arcade version of the game. I do love Overwatch, I'll admit that. However, I do not want Elite to emulate Overwatch. I want Elite to be the game promised during the Kickstarter. If you attempt turn Elite into Overwatch or some shallow shooter*, then Elite will become Delete on my console.
* I don't think Overwatch is shallow, if it was I wouldn't play it. It actually offers some very complex tactical and strategical gameplay to those who understand it.
Last edited:
Deleted member 110222
D
Overwatch, TF2, the recently released Paladins... People dismiss them as simple shooters that are pick up and play.
Sure, the game is easy to pick up. But to master? Oh, now that's a huge challenge.
That's why Overwatch and its ilk do well as competitive titles. By competitive I mean E-sports.
Last edited by a moderator:
They might be challenging, but challenge does not equal depth. They are simply combat centered around some basic objectives, while a space sim is about a lone freelancer wandering around in a simulated galaxy with all of the choices, calculations, tradeoffs and planning required to run a successful one man enterprise out of a cockpit - a rather different premise which is arguably more comparable to Civilisation (in fact, considering how we interact with major entities to influence them rather than being major entities ourselves, I guess it has more in common with The Last Federation than Civ) than to a FPS.
choices, calculations, tradeoffs and planning
WHERE?! JESUS WHERE I can do CHOICES in this game :O
Calculations... meh maybe third party...
TRADE OFFS? WHERE :O
Planing... Really?
looks like youre talking about FTL , but not Elite by any means...
Last edited:
Yeah, the actual depth of Elite is still lacking somewhat, which is part of the whole reason for this thread (other line of thought being the worry about technical limitations) - some people are afraid of the game getting dumbed down to grab sales rather than being built up into the greatest space sim that could possibly be envisaged. Not to mention the many, many other threads complaining about how we need more improvements to the core game mechanics rather than more shiny gimmicks to hang on our barebones.
As far as space sims go, somehow Space Rangers 2 still has more depth than Elite, despite being even more of an eclectic mash of minigames than what most additional content in Elite is.
Yeah I agree. But it doesn't actually matter whether the example used is true or not, people have the perception that the console is holding back the pc version which really makes no sense at all.
What PC users tend to forget is it was CONSOLES FIRST.
The first home game console machine the Magnavox Odyssey was introduced to the world in the 1970's while the legendary ZX81 didn't hit the shelves until 1980.
Console drove demand for in-home game entertaiment which helped revolutionize home computing which helped drive console development which helped drive PC development....rinse and repeat. The usual salient argument PC users drag up is that PC's are easily modified through end user hardware updates while consoles are not and therefore, by virtue, are always out of date and therefor hamper game development. Nice theory - but its usually the game development process thats doing the hampering - a modern title takes years to go from concept to delivery and it is more likely the development structure that is out of date by the time the game hits the shelf because the consoles have advanced in the intervening time period.
One could argue that it is the console developers who hamper console development because they need to recoup costs so every console has a life span during which they will not be releasing an udpated model - but then the same goes for PC's and PC hardware.
The first home game console machine the Magnavox Odyssey was introduced to the world in the 1970's while the legendary ZX81 didn't hit the shelves until 1980.
Console drove demand for in-home game entertaiment which helped revolutionize home computing which helped drive console development which helped drive PC development....rinse and repeat. The usual salient argument PC users drag up is that PC's are easily modified through end user hardware updates while consoles are not and therefore, by virtue, are always out of date and therefor hamper game development. Nice theory - but its usually the game development process thats doing the hampering - a modern title takes years to go from concept to delivery and it is more likely the development structure that is out of date by the time the game hits the shelf because the consoles have advanced in the intervening time period.
One could argue that it is the console developers who hamper console development because they need to recoup costs so every console has a life span during which they will not be releasing an udpated model - but then the same goes for PC's and PC hardware.
Last edited:
verminstar
Banned
Actually as a father meself, literally everything I do in life is to improve her chances of doing exactly that...different tangeant I know, but perhaps a little truth in that.
True fact...it wasnt the newly hungry online UT and quake players who pushed hard fer widespread adsl back in the day, it was the adult entertainment industry that more or less revolutionalized the internet...
Without the intervention of the oldest profession in human history, the new profession of a world that relies on it has seen it outgrow its roots...
Anyways...Im off to watch the matrix...
Or developers could return to the older model of graphical development, where games are designed to run at low detail settings on average hardware upon release, with the higher detail settings sometimes only becoming playable after a few years of extra hardware development. I still remember how Quake brought even high-spec machines to their knees upon release at higher resolutions, UT2K3 was released with some detail settings only accessible through hand modification because at release it would crash every single graphics card due to a lack of video RAM (detail settings that were instated in the in-game options in 2K4) while the infamous Crysis (pretty much the only modern game to use this methodology) remained out of reach at the highest detail settings for several years.
Eh? nVidia release a new chipset about twice a year. In the last few years we've seen colossal advances in GPU technology to the point now where 4K Ultra Settings @ 60FPS is a reality for PC owners, even in the most demanding games of the current generation. It will be a long long time before consoles achieve the same level of performance at the same level of visual fidelity. Thing with PC enthusiasts is they generally have a fair bit of disposable income and don't mind splashing out large sums of cash for the latest hardware. Consoles have to be reasonably affordable in order to appeal to the masses. This imposes limits on the specification of their components because, while most console manufacturers take a loss on each unit, that loss has to be kept to a minimum in order to recoup it through game sales and licensing fees and turn a decent profit.
You're not going to see a GTX1080Ti equivalent GPU in a £400 console any time soon and by the time you do PC enthusiasts will probably be rocking 1280's or 1380's or whatever the hell comes next.
Speaking of disposable, is it really in our best interest as a species to be upgrading to the "latest hardware" every year? We're not going to make it to 3303 at this rate. I kinda like to think that by sticking with one console for many years, I'm at least lessen my contribution to this:
Unfortunately, making decent consoles and then subsidising them enough so that enough people are actually willing to buy them is an incredibly risky business decision, and one that generally doesn't make that much money. I remember reading that it took the 360 several years to actually turn a profit because of the massive subsidies offered early on in it's life, if they had brought out the XBone a few years earlier they would have overall made a loss on the 360. Originally, the 360 was designed for a 5 year lifespan, which was extended because they didn't want it to fail as a business venture. Ultimately, it is cheaper to develop multiple weaker consoles and keep up a continual rate of new releases rather than to release a high-spec machine that has to be subsidised that people use for years.
