Star Citizen Too Much Game for Consoles to "Handle"

[Rozalia1]

I think its NOT our problem. Its that you assume just because videogames A, in this case SMT 2 and 3, both great games, because they don't use graphical effects to improve gameplay, Videogames B cant.

I'm gonna just say what every other person has:

YOU ARE WRONG.

There is plenty of games which prove you wrong. If you removed the physics, the water effects, the destruction, reduced the AI and removed all the foliage from Crysis 1, is it a different game? Yes. Is any of its vast selections of gameplay mechanics compromised because you removed the graphics. Yes. Is it a bad game for focusing on graphical effects to incorporate into gameplay. No. Would its gameplay be 90% worse if you removed those effects, which is a term you created to mock them but I'll use anyway since it actually works. Yes, because you have gutted the possible options you have to solve missions in a game all about having that freedom, and turned it into a bog-standard shooter.

You have never had a single argument in this entire thread. You reference how other games work to state how unrelated games work, which is an incredibly pointless way to say anything. SMT II and III don't rely on graphical effects for gameplay, it doesn't fucking mean other games don't, you just think so because you apparently cant fathom that technology can create new types of gameplay. Which it can.


HELL, if you want me to really destroy your entire argument. One of the key things that makes SMT IV a worse game then SMT III is because its far less satisfying to get demons or fight because the graphics in combat were reverted back to static 2D sprites.

... ... ... What does the quote have to do with what you're saying? Its a different subject entirely to the one you're talking about.

I see no use of shrubbery there so by how that sentence reads you're saying I invented "90%", nope.

Referencing other games is needed to prove wrong that 90% of a game is not defined by those effects which was said many pages back (and has now been changed to simply Crysis). Is Crysis defined by 90% shrubbery? I'd say no again because it is whenever the people in this thread like it or not, a game. A game is not water effects, a game is not fluid bushes, a game is not a cape blowing in the wind (true power. For the reference no will get). A game is (to rattle off a few) a story, with characters, setting, and of course the gameplay which allows you to interact with the world. Now can shrubbery enhance the gameplay, yes, there is no need to be so darn aggressive when I've stated multiple times I have no issue with it all.

However if we were to take the story and the gameplay as 50% respectively (which can be argued to be different amounts) than those effects can only be a part of that gameplay percentage (though in some cases it may also factor in to story).
To me, saying that Crysis is 90% shrubbery is showing complete disrespect to not just the game, but to the developers also. That is me, that is my opinion that comes from my seeing gaming as something more that mere lighting and every wrinkle on a character...they are art and the pieces have many different elements which enhance them with graphical quality being merely one of them.

Your opinion somehow destroys me? Let me tell you something, do you want to know which SMT main game I enjoyed most? Well yes or no I'll tell you, SMT2. Do you know what SMT2 looks like? Now I'll not say my own opinion destroys yours because you know, absurd notion...but think about it.

No, there is one man you must kill.

Nice music . No comment on the music I sent you .

Well I dont own a DS. I can get a PSP though (a freind can lend it).

Persona 4... Do I need to play previous Persona games or is it like FF and all are different?

I assume ending related. That Metro game was actually handed out for free on + so I technically have it, but having bought two dungeon crawlers that'll set me back around 100 hours together at the minimum its not exactly anywhere near the next game to play. I currently have several brand new games (well I bought them all at like 50-60% discounts) that have yet to be played.

I thought we were just trading pieces in a friendly manner how it was going. Well without knowing the important detail of when the pieces play it kind of dulls the "feeling" of the pieces shall we say... properly a bad way to put it.
The first piece (Dirge for Planet) kind of reminded me of Nier (which by the way has a really good soundtrack, a piece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyakit-1050), such a tune with a women singing usually ends up very good...I don't know if Stalker would be the type of game to have a track like that in an in-game level...if it is than perhaps it'd play there, if not than perhaps the title screen or an opening.

"Call of Pripyat" is an outro track as its in the title. Didn't particularly like it, there is nothing wrong with it mind...but nothing really made me really enjoy it. It gets better after the 4 minute mark to me.

"Alone" is a track with distorted parts that really add to the track...by the kicking in of the drums it sounds like it could be a level track...but when it comes to shooters placing these sort of tracks can be difficult for me...it could be a credits piece for all I know. The brief interlude stops it getting too monotonous.
Best one of the lot to me.

Well if you can get a PSP than Valkyrie Profile would be good to get. You play as a Valkyrie who has to get warriors for Odin, but of course there is more to it than that. You'd have to find details on getting on the true end (oh play on hard as some sections aren't available otherwise) though as the normal ending (which is you defeating Surt) is non canon and quite disappointing as its like...good job the Lord of the Giants is dead...the end from what I remember.
Each of the many characters in the game get their own story piece shall we say which shows their story, and of course how they die. The characters you get are varied even getting two Samurai because...Odin is an equal opportunity employer? That or he really doesn't care who the Valkyrie gets as long as they can fight.
Its gameplay can be broken...not that its broken but there is ways to game it to make you really tough to take out. Its some nice looking gameplay though.

Small references in each one to something else but no you don't need to play the previous ones. Persona 4 is set in the same world as 3 but the plot of the two games have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Rozalia1]

So basically, you have reitterated your point, which I DID destroy, but you just ignored: "Just because game A doesn't, does not mean Game B doesn't". You CANNOT reference other games to counter my point because my point is that they don't matter. Just because some games don't use graphical advancements to improve the gameplay, doesn't mean all don't.

You are still wrong, because your ignoring everyone.

Crysis 1 is essentially a tech demo for showing how improvements in technology can improve a games gameplay. Its a really fucking good game too. LA Noire couldn't have been without the massive improvement in facial animation mo-caping. Recent Battlefield games couldn't have been wouldn't advancements in both destructible advancements and smoke effects. Red Faction series is nearly entire based on destructable environments no one else ever did on such a scale.

And yes, I know a guy already said this. The point is, YOU DIDN'T LISTEN THEN EITHER.

Oh and yes, without any of those improvements in technology, Crysis 1 would be a really broing, really generic shooter.

So basically, it'd be Crysis 2.

Stop being so argumentative, what does me referencing other games matter in the grand scheme of things. Okay so lets for the sake of it say you caught me out there, what next? What I told you after renders that supposed victory of yours moot anyway. A game is not shrubbery in my opinion because the a mere piece is not greater than the rest, and all the rest (refer to previous posts).

And what do I ignore? Actually little point asking that because I've tired of this and I'd rather not have to repeat myself to the same arguments that have been going for several pages. You not being fair on the matter also means I have little time for giving concessions to you.

Refer to my previous post.

I read your post, and I respond to every part. I'm not blind, or deaf, people disagreeing with you is not because they suffer from some affiliation.

Crysis 2 which is oddly enough to me (opinion because it needs to be said apparently) a better game. I hear the word Linear thrown about for why its worse, but what was Crysis 1? I went objective to objective all the same, so what if its "open". I have no time to faff about in the middle of nowhere killing idiots for no gain.
I also surprising had a lot of fun with Crysis 2's online and was actually shockingly (to me) good at it, which wasn't replicated as well in 3 but whatever its irrelevant.

 

[Rozalia1]

Ooooooooh, now I get it. Now I understand. You think we mean the presence of, for lack of a funnier word, shrubbery, is what made those games good.

No no no. What I'm saying, and what most of us here are saying, is that the graphical innovations is what made those games POSSIBLE.
LA Noire could not be made with worse facial animation technology without severing damaging the gameplay as the increase in obviousness in the tells or the decrease in obviousness would have been catastrophic to the gameplay.
Battlefield would be a severely worse game if the destruction didn't have such spectacle and smoke effects rendered to such detail as to obscure vision enough without feeling like a wall you can phase through has sprung up blocking all vision.
I wont mention Crysis again because apparently you really like linear over freedom.

This games graphical innovations, as well as many others, would have had to either change their gameplay for the worse, or hurt believability in a story, if they were to lower the graphics.

Oh and because I forget to mention it, I'm shocked you prefer SMT II over III. Not because its got worse game mechanics or anything, but because its got some really poor menus and navigation issues that really hurt play-ability of it.

You may not, others not quite.

LA Noire fine, Battlefield no. Crysis 1 was linear too, it just masked it and allowed you to faff about.

Not 90% of the game is all I've been saying.

Map button being a click away instead of in a menu makes it immediately superior to SMT1. Its a dungeon crawler which can get obnoxious in a couple of parts, but there are much worse out there in that regard even in the modern era.
Gaian + Messian fusion shenanigans dull the threat of the random encounters. The enemies are also better to me in SMT2 with the likes of fun demons like Chris the car and Beetlejuice thrown in and of course...

Spoiler

I also like the fact that unlike 3 you actually take on Yahweh instead of fighting just one of his many avatars. The game starts well and chugs along nicely for the most part.