On June 24 2014 20:31 maartendq wrote: It's really amazing how PC gamers are so easily 'butthurt' (for lack of a better word) about graphics being not the same as those shown in promotional material. Promotional material does not constitute a promise; on the contrary, as any marketing trick it is often a lie. Besides, aren't people supposed to play games for the gameplay of it all? Graphics are fun, but I know very few people who keep playing a bad game just because the graphics are really good.
Look at Crysis 3. Best video game graphics since Crysis 1 but very subpar gameplay. The game was in bargain bins barely two months after launch.
It's more annoying that there is all this potential to have a graphically amazing game and fun gameplay, but they will gimp the graphics a lot due to gameplay.
You obviously wouldn't understand it,but for people who invest in a good computer it can be disappointing when they can easily have the better graphics on PC but lower it due to fear of console people being butthurt about it.
On June 24 2014 20:31 maartendq wrote: It's really amazing how PC gamers are so easily 'butthurt' (for lack of a better word) about graphics being not the same as those shown in promotional material. Promotional material does not constitute a promise; on the contrary, as any marketing trick it is often a lie. Besides, aren't people supposed to play games for the gameplay of it all? Graphics are fun, but I know very few people who keep playing a bad game just because the graphics are really good.
Look at Crysis 3. Best video game graphics since Crysis 1 but very subpar gameplay. The game was in bargain bins barely two months after launch.
It's more annoying that there is all this potential to have a graphically amazing game and fun gameplay, but they will gimp the graphics a lot due to gameplay.
You obviously wouldn't understand it,but for people who invest in a good computer it can be disappointing when they can easily have the better graphics on PC but lower it due to fear of console people being butthurt about it.
butthurt is the ultimate troll word. You could just as easily say upset or annoyed lol
On the matter at hand, i agree with Blade. Its so annoying spending 2 grand on an amazing machine just for devs to waste all of that potential by deliberately downgrading a game to make consoles look on par. I'm not trying to wind up console users, but everyone knows how much better PCs are, so really what's the point of it in the first place?
On June 24 2014 20:31 maartendq wrote: It's really amazing how PC gamers are so easily 'butthurt' (for lack of a better word) about graphics being not the same as those shown in promotional material. Promotional material does not constitute a promise; on the contrary, as any marketing trick it is often a lie. Besides, aren't people supposed to play games for the gameplay of it all? Graphics are fun, but I know very few people who keep playing a bad game just because the graphics are really good.
Look at Crysis 3. Best video game graphics since Crysis 1 but very subpar gameplay. The game was in bargain bins barely two months after launch.
People play games for different reasons. I think you're marginalizing a lot just to excuse what you think is only a minor problem.
On June 24 2014 20:31 maartendq wrote: It's really amazing how PC gamers are so easily 'butthurt' (for lack of a better word) about graphics being not the same as those shown in promotional material. Promotional material does not constitute a promise; on the contrary, as any marketing trick it is often a lie. Besides, aren't people supposed to play games for the gameplay of it all? Graphics are fun, but I know very few people who keep playing a bad game just because the graphics are really good.
Look at Crysis 3. Best video game graphics since Crysis 1 but very subpar gameplay. The game was in bargain bins barely two months after launch.
Well it's not so much being "butthurt" about worse graphics than feeling duped. In the case of Watch Dogs for example, which overall still is a good game from what I can tell, not only did you not get what was shown live on a friggin stage and called actual gameplay footage. Performance was also terrible on absolute high-end systems where you would not think it possible. That's just unacceptable.
I just hope with The Division they won't make the same mistakes twice. Give console gamers a good experience and for PC gamers with the right equipment a little extra.
On June 24 2014 20:31 maartendq wrote: It's really amazing how PC gamers are so easily 'butthurt' (for lack of a better word) about graphics being not the same as those shown in promotional material. Promotional material does not constitute a promise; on the contrary, as any marketing trick it is often a lie. Besides, aren't people supposed to play games for the gameplay of it all? Graphics are fun, but I know very few people who keep playing a bad game just because the graphics are really good.
Look at Crysis 3. Best video game graphics since Crysis 1 but very subpar gameplay. The game was in bargain bins barely two months after launch.
It's more annoying that there is all this potential to have a graphically amazing game and fun gameplay, but they will gimp the graphics a lot due to gameplay.
You obviously wouldn't understand it,but for people who invest in a good computer it can be disappointing when they can easily have the better graphics on PC but lower it due to fear of console people being butthurt about it.
[...] I'm not trying to wind up console users, but everyone knows how much better PCs are, so really what's the point of it in the first place?
You could turn that argument on its head: everyone knows developers have to maximize efficiency and still target the biggest user base they can, making the same game for PC and consoles, so really what's the point of buying a 2k$ rig in the first place?
Not that I'm not as disappointed as you guys, mind you, but still, it seems understandable to me that they always end up doing that. And even for games that are prettier on PC, by devs that seemingly put some effort into graphics quality scaling with hardware (like The Witcher?), oftentimes the extra work amounts to adding fancy Nvidia effects and some extra lighting or shadows here and there.
I'm really interested about The Division. But I'll wait for beta reviews or even release before jumping the gun. For now it seems like there is not quite enough variety in environments and things to do for me to pay full price. Also, it seems like coop is a big aspect, and my friends aren't really into games like that so I would end up having to look for Division pals or play alone :D.
Yeah you just have to "commit" to pre ordering, i haven't paid for my pre order and i won't until its dispatched in March 8th (due date for release) but it gets u into beta. I will like to play it as game looks fun, will see though.
Well.. After playing for around 4 hours (not that much to do) in the beta, i have to say it's enjoyable. It reminded me a bit of Hellgate London, somehow.
That's the good news. The bad news is, half the game will be completely unplayable. As in, i won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Dark Zone. In theory amazing, but ubisoft pulled yet again a ubisoft on that one. In beta, it's peppered with cheaters. Actual cheaters, not like "oh how did he hit me from over there", but invisible and invincible, speedhacking cheaters with unlimited ammo. With video proof, from someone who did it.
How? Easy. Apparently, things like ammo, health, position etc are done client side, then sent to the server which doesn't check those values. You literally can cheat millions of credits in via a hexeditor.
Looking at how plagued rainbow six siege is by cheaters, and how useless "fairfight" is.. Sadly, gonna pass. Even though the PvE part was actually really fun with friends.
On February 01 2016 07:25 m4ini wrote: How? Easy. Apparently, things like ammo, health, position etc are done client side, then sent to the server which doesn't check those values. You literally can cheat millions of credits in via a hexeditor.
On February 01 2016 07:25 m4ini wrote: How? Easy. Apparently, things like ammo, health, position etc are done client side, then sent to the server which doesn't check those values. You literally can cheat millions of credits in via a hexeditor.
Ubisoft still lives on the 90's.
I don't think hacking will be an issue, most of them should get banned pretty quick
On February 01 2016 07:25 m4ini wrote: How? Easy. Apparently, things like ammo, health, position etc are done client side, then sent to the server which doesn't check those values. You literally can cheat millions of credits in via a hexeditor.
Ubisoft still lives on the 90's.
I don't think hacking will be an issue, most of them should get banned pretty quick
It's pretty clear that you own neither rainbow six siege or the crew. You might want to check the forums, or reddit. These games are out for a while (the crew is anyway) - both of which are peppered with cheaters. And ubi doesn't do anything, because they can't. On what base are they gonna ban? Their anti-cheat/cheat detection is pretty much a joke, detecting nothing. Read opinions of hackers regarding "Fairfight" (their "VAC").
Hacking isn't an issue, if you accept ubisofts answer that there is no hacks. In fact, that's what they're already saying in regards to Division (they call it "glitches", even though there's bulletproof video evidence of someone editing his ammo, so he has a LMG clip of around 11000 bullets).
All you get is this answer:
We are well aware of the importance of having a proper anti-cheat solution in place, but do not have details to reveal about the system at the moment.
That's literally a copy/paste of the answer concerned people got before R6 Siege was released, and look how that ended. Above gold, there's cheaters in every single match.
The only way to get the game remotely cheatproof is rewriting the entire netcode (that was converted from console btw, hence everything client-side - on consoles you can't just fiddle with it due to restrictive OS), so stuff gets done server side, not client side.
On June 24 2014 20:31 maartendq wrote: It's really amazing how PC gamers are so easily 'butthurt' (for lack of a better word) about graphics being not the same as those shown in promotional material. Promotional material does not constitute a promise; on the contrary, as any marketing trick it is often a lie. Besides, aren't people supposed to play games for the gameplay of it all? Graphics are fun, but I know very few people who keep playing a bad game just because the graphics are really good.
Look at Crysis 3. Best video game graphics since Crysis 1 but very subpar gameplay. The game was in bargain bins barely two months after launch.
It's more annoying that there is all this potential to have a graphically amazing game and fun gameplay, but they will gimp the graphics a lot due to gameplay.
You obviously wouldn't understand it,but for people who invest in a good computer it can be disappointing when they can easily have the better graphics on PC but lower it due to fear of console people being butthurt about it.
[...] I'm not trying to wind up console users, but everyone knows how much better PCs are, so really what's the point of it in the first place?
You could turn that argument on its head: everyone knows developers have to maximize efficiency and still target the biggest user base they can, making the same game for PC and consoles, so really what's the point of buying a 2k$ rig in the first place?
Not that I'm not as disappointed as you guys, mind you, but still, it seems understandable to me that they always end up doing that. And even for games that are prettier on PC, by devs that seemingly put some effort into graphics quality scaling with hardware (like The Witcher?), oftentimes the extra work amounts to adding fancy Nvidia effects and some extra lighting or shadows here and there.
I'm really interested about The Division. But I'll wait for beta reviews or even release before jumping the gun. For now it seems like there is not quite enough variety in environments and things to do for me to pay full price. Also, it seems like coop is a big aspect, and my friends aren't really into games like that so I would end up having to look for Division pals or play alone :D.
Or perhaps other developers could do what CDPR does and release separate versions for the console and PC? Console version with downgraded graphics and console-friendly UI (ensuring good performance and ease-of-use) while PC version with full graphics and PC-friendly UI. The thing I hate the most in all multi-platform games is not actually the graphics but console UI on a PC. It's atrocious.
WCS
