EVE General Discussion

Could we move this to the children's section? Thanks!

MAG is an awesome game honestly its the only PS3 exclusive i played and thought "damn i wish similar was on 360"
BF 2142 was a good game as well game play is what matters. the titan battles were awesome.

look at minecraft, graphics suck awesome gameplay = great
game.


and lol at buthurt pc fanboys that still haven't grown up enough to realize console owns the shooter, RPG, sports, flight, and racing genres of games.

It's not the graphics that make a game great. It's the gameplay.

Take Amnesia: Dark Descent as an example. It doesn't have stellar graphics, but the gameplay and the storyline is riveting and to the point. It draws you in so much, that you don't care about the graphics. You only care about staying alive. People still play that game for the thrill of being scared.

Then there are the Mario games. Graphics are childish, but adults still play it. There are plenty of others, but you should get my point. Graphics mean nothing if the gameplay is pathetic.

Graphics are pretty important for FPS as are physics in almost equal measure. That video actually doesn't look too bad for a pre-beta though it's not strictly representative of the whole game but rather of ground troops and tanks only.

Texture side of it is a bit lacking and it certainly lacks destructable environments; hopefully that comes in later though. Destructible environments doesn't have to be all encompassing either; though it would certainly be nice, I'm not sure PS3 or even the average high-end PC could handle it.

Still, shredding and burning trees and foilage, blowing holes in doors and windows, and knocking down and destroying simple structures goes a long way. Obviously any future bunkers should be expected to be well constructed and rssist all but very heavy weaponry though.

A forge gun might for example only chip away at the exterior of a bunker while lesser weapons do no appreciable damage whatsoever. Tanks however are intended to take down structures and defenses, and that is their primary role on the battlefield aside from countering other heavy weapons and vehicles.

It's all a matter of perspective though. We're not talking about stick and tin shacks in some jungle here, but heavily fortified bunkers and habitats on habitable and inhospitable planets. Essentially, all of these places are expected to be warzones at some time or another, and you can expect they would be built for such

Point being destructible is important on some levels and not so important on others. Being able to knock down a wall the defenders are hiding behind with a tank could help greatly in overcoming an objective

Graphics side of it looks pretty good on the level of animations and models which all seem to be pretty high quality and well constructed. Obviously, also very typical of most high-end shooters; at least with regard to the animations. The Textures on the guns seem to be better than the dropsuits which look to need some serious work, being very drab and poorly defined at this stage. The environment itsaelf looks like it could use some work in some places as well

The drop in scene was kind of weird and I'm not at all sure what the intent is there. Looks like you're at the edge of a balcony on a tower or something, and not at all anywhere near the battlefield. Also, the ground looks particularly poor in this and other scenes, though you notice it much more here where it appears to be feet away despite being some 200 meters down if the structure is any indication. Structure looks bad too, but hopefully things like that will change

Arena environment mostly looked good, but I suppose they've put some work into it to. Tank wasn't bad either and you could see it moved with some purpose and had pretty smooth animations.

A previous video I saw had LAVs that jounced and bounced around like rubber balls and bands while players standing erect exited them in midair some 20 feet off the ground and all crashed down into one big jumble on both sides. That was representative of what I'm not looking for here. It disappointed me and temporarily put me off the whole thing

Physics are important. If someone jumps out of a vehicle 20-40 feet off the ground it should be an aircraft or hover vehicle and unless it is hovering, they should be flung ragdoll with little chance of escaping unscathed. There is no reason a vehicle on wheels weighing two tons and traveling 42 km per hour should get that high off the ground unless it drives off a clif

If you are going to have the ability to make daring jumps from high velocity vehicles, then at least animate the jump so they actually look like they're trying to survive rather than dropping verticle from a helicopter hovering 20 feet off the water or in the middle of a walking step from one rock to another with a smile on their silly face

Granted, it's funny and we all have a laugh when we're doing some sill stunt in a game like that, but it's not very realistic and we can do that in a browser game like Battlefield Heroes. Part of the reason this is important is because it makes the battlefield too unpredictable when someone can just toss a jeep 85 feet through the air and pop out of it somewhere shooting without really needed to compensate for falling, velocity or anything else really because they'll land unharmed unless someone shoots them.

For those who do not own PS3, and not familiar with PS3 capability. You really shouldn't expect miracles out of 2005-2006 graphic hardware. While cell processor (CPU) with 256MB ram is still competent, nvidia rsx @550Mhz (GPU) with 256MB vram is outdated (based on Nvidia GeForce 7800 Architecture). Without tricks of using CPU to help GPU, graphics would be subpar for 2012 mindset.

In reality 95% games run on 720p or lower, only small number of games run at 1080p.
Many games don't have proper Anti-alias routines, and are not comparable with those running on modern PC gaming rigs.

PS3 is reaching the end of its natural lifetime. less than 4 years, not verified.

This. I could not care less about the graphics when I'm considering games, graphics are dead last on the list of considerations. I want compelling gameplay first, second, and third. And DUST looks like it's going to give me that, with a system somewhat reminiscent of Command and Conquer : Renegade. I LOVED that game, it's one of the only FPSes that have really pulled me in. Played CoD, yawn, eye candy and nothing else in my book, and most of the other top FPSes nowadays are similarly snooze inducing for me. Give me fresh gameplay and the game can look like it's 15 years old for all I care.

But But Sony said that the play station 3 was a supa computa and it needed export controls and it was uber powaful and that iran was going to build nuclear missiles with it and that it was going to usher in a new age in gaming with realism thats unlike anything we have never seen before and that it was able to process all these graphics and polygons on a supa cell engine that trumped every thing on the market and and it was just you know uber affen geil, man, i mean really thats what we expected .

Just so you know, that cell processor is super powerful and can render both graphics and crack encryptions faster than most other types of processors. However the biggest problem with it is that it takes a different type of programing from almost every other type of processor and as such its difficult to both learn and use effectively. If people could learn the processor to use it potential then it might even dwarf current computer however I have no way of knowing this.

I don't believe that it's a bad review of Dust. If you bothered to read it.

Very special eh? I don't see a problem with that.
I'll wait for it to be released before I say the graphics are bad.

Although I cannot deny that graphics is very important, its Achilles heel is still the gameplay. How often have you run into games where the graphics were awesome, at least at the time of their release, but the gameplay was not complimenting it or was not working with it?

There was this video game critic that my brother showed me on YouTube that took the time to make a critique on video games and gameplay using MegaMan as an example of great gameplay and Dr Jackal and Mr. Hyde as an example of terrible gameplay. Mind you, the graphics that existed at the time were considered some of the best when they were first released. He also made a critique on the use of "grinding" to progress through the games and how it has affected the overall gameplay of later titles. I forgot the guy's name, but I will get you the link whenever I can.

EDIT:

Found the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM