XD admit it, it was 'ye olde royal voice' that got yer attention. buy yeah :/ its stupid a argument, but I'm done with it, if he wants to keep rambling he can, but I'm a go stab something, or beat something to death with a pillar, or something .. else -.-Raiyan 1.0 said:
Sorry, but unless I can be provided with a technical analysis that proves the Xbox 360 cannot run appreciable assets from the disc, I can't accept this assertion. We don't have a game quite as demanding as this yet to compare with, so perhaps it would be unfair to dismiss it with an answer affirming that other PC developers were capable of providing ports with better standards than this. That said, it appears to me the problem would be solved if they had chosen to provide a third disc (two for the campaign, one for multiplayer) as the best explanation seems to be that one disc could not provide the capacity necessary for par visuals. And truly, the non-"HD" visuals are in such a sorry state I would have to say they just didn't create a separate set of art to fit the size budget they gave themselves (they appear compressed and artifacted rather than simply lower-res). Given the pedigree and likely sales, frankly, that's inexcusable.Frostbite3789 said:
Maybe I exaggerated just a tad, but think of the possibilities if we had more powerful hardware across the board! At the moment the PC is the vanguard, but as the markets are bigger for consoles most companies aren't willing to tap that potential. We're already pushing the limits of graphical improvements so the extra hardware would give us room to expand into more interesting, capable and powerful engines without sacrificing graphical quality. Every game could run an engine as capable, if not more capable than Frostbite 2.Tin Man said:
Kitsuna10060 said:
Dude, this IS a hardware issue. You simply cannot fit the entire game onto one DVD. The HD pack adds in texture which are not necessary to play the game. The engine and essential content are all on the main disc with the HD textures on a second disk. This is because the textures take up massive amounts of memory. Your argument about Nintendo is completely irrelevant to the current situation.Kitsuna10060 said:
that's nice, don't care, after that last post i had this kinda revelation, i just wasted 5ish posts, on graphics, for a game i generally look down on, and for a system i dislike -.- and for the life of me i can not figure out WHY -.-Techno Squidgy said:
On the 360 Battlefield 3 is already on two disks without the texture pack, which is about 1.5 gigs to download. Despite what others say, the 360 has definitely started to reach its limits. While the PS3 could still go on for a couple more years, the 360 cannot. Microsoft needs to come up with a new console or it will start getting its ass handed to it. The kinect is a decent idea but it just doesn't have the power to accomplish what it needs to in order to be successful.EverythingIncredible said:
Indeed. The real story should be about how the single player campaign was COMPLETELY half-assed and terrible. What a waste. The characters were completely undeveloped and the constant flashbacks to all over the place was just confusing and served to make the story rather incoherent. One could still follow the plot, but all the events seemed disconnected and random. It introduced characters who were completely irrelevant in order to kill them (gee I wonder where I've seen that before?) But it didn't provide any memorable death sequences like CoD did. And don't even get me started on the quick time events, they were some of the most arbitrary and annoying QTEs I've ever experienced and they seemed to serve no real purpose whatsoever.Baneat said:
