The Order: 1886 Reveals Actual Gameplay Footage
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Dudebro culture? You mean people who like FPS titles that are multiplayer intensive? Is this significant portion of the gaming community somehow inferior in your eyes? Are their opinions and tastes less valid than yours and somehow considered apt for ridicule and disdain? Is it ok now to use an entire culture like it's insulting or is it ok because it isn't a race, religious group, or gender?Ultratwinkie said:
I've been playing games my whole life. RPGs, action RPGs, MMOs, classic platformers, adventure games, RTS, everything and I like FPS titles too. It's insulting to dismiss an entire genre of games because "dudebros", especially when the actual group of people aren't any less a valid class of people than whatever category you place yourself in. And, in actuallity, considering they represent a larger segment of the video game consumer market than any other single group, the argument could be made that they are even more valid of a group.
Ok, now you're making a Sony fan defend Microsoft IPs.
GOW 3 came out in 2011. It was the tenth best seller of the year and came in above any version of Skyrim (just under MW3 at 70k units fewer). It sold over 6.6 million units.
Halo 4 sold more units in its launch than any previous main game in the series and came in at the second fastest selling game of the year (3 overall behind both versions of black ops 2).
It sounds like you're not up to date on your facts. These games are still quite popular. I'd say GOW Judgment taught them that they have to deliver a legitimate game to make the same sales though. I didn't even know it existed.
I am concerned that this will be Sony's equivalent of Ryse. That would be terrible. But it already appears to have more player interaction than the Ryse of QTEs.
I think you're imagining it or perhaps you had a spot of poor internet connection while viewing the video.
Sure, the ps4 isn't the equivalent of a machine with the latest CPU, crossfired Titans and 32GBs of RAM. But it is well above the average gaming machine currently on the market.
You really shouldn't expect a console to be the absolute bleeding edge of gaming. Not without breaching $1,000. However, keep in mind that the PS3 had 512MB of ram divided into two 256MB sections with a 7 year old CPU/GPU. It even had purposefully made obstacles that prevented developers from easily developing for it (the current CEO's on words back when he was on that project, he said the purpose was to prevent developers from unlocking the full potential of the machine in year one and leave nowhere to go after then... they should have been so lucky). And yet, somehow it plays Bioshock Infinite on the equivalent of Medium settings when the recommended settings for the game are 4GBs with a modern quad core and newer GPU. It plays Skyrim and the Last of Us with extremely pretty graphics (though the obstacles forced onto the PS3 is asset categorization that really hurt it with Bethesda games and asset bloating). The reason it can play those games now despite the pc requirements being 4 times or more the ps3 specs is hardware optimization. That's the thing about consoles, you can do more with less.
With all this in mind, remember that the ps4 is 10x the power of the ps3. 10x. Look at the prettiest games the system currently offers and imagine that the new console is able to add 10 times the processing that was required to play that game and that game may not have even been pushing the ps3 to its full capability. Also, the archetecture is now x86 and not the proprietary obstacle crap which means it's actually even more powerful than the ps3 would appear to be on paper because developers don't have to deal with trying to get all their assets to fit into individual categories that have a maximum size.
10x means better graphics, yes. But more to the point, it means better physics which will make a world of difference in making things look more real. The truth is, we aren't going to see any more leaps and bounds in graphics, not when the last generation started looking so much more realistic before we even hit the 8th gen.
Understand, you're not talking to a console elitest. I own a gaming pc with a new i7, a new Radeon, and 16GBs of 1866 mhz RAM (can upgrade to 32GB when necessary). I just understand that the ps4 is a great deal for $400 and optimisation will have it playing games long after my pc has to be upgraded. It's simply the way things are. A budget $1,500 pc in 2005 had 2GB of Ram, dual core processor and an ancient gpu. Something that could play Skyrim on its lowest settings and not much more. Consider that consoles actually have an advantage because you can optimise the hell of hardware when all the hardware is fixed and enough people own the set of hardware to make optimizing for it worthwhile.
The days of getting clothing physics to work correctly are close at hand. That is what I'm looking forward to the most about this game.
Dishonored has all the Dirty England I'll ever need.
Dishonored has all the Dirty England I'll ever need.
Hey, it is only a few minutes of gameplay, there could be more to it. I mostly think this simply looking at the past games they've worked on, so it just feels like it'd be unlikely for this to turn out to be nothing more than a brown shooter with nothing else to offer.
This is actually a big reason why I'm staying out of console gaming for the moment. Aside from my Wii U of course, but ever since I've fully completed the Wind Waker remake it's become just a dedicated Netflix machine. All the "style over substance" of the AAA console scene is really starting to grow stale. For every standout, there are a dozen games that have squandered good premises in the name of making something broad and generic to justify their production cost. Maybe the next two years or so will end up changing my mind, but I'm going to hold off on buying an Xbox One or PS4 until I have to port a game to them.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be a setup for some Dramatic Twist - The Order discovers it's on the wrong side of the fight midway through the game and switches sides to help the underclass fight the half-breeds, who are in fact being used as a tool by the elite to keep the rest of the world under their thumbs. Not like we haven't seen that before.Fynik said:
That "gamers love to hate"? You mean "other gamers" and you didn't mean to exclude "dudebros" from the gamer category, right? Or do you have a cogent argument to rob these individuals of the title of gamer because they enjoy games you or the general gaming populace don't believe are worthy? Do you see how this is sounding?Ultratwinkie said:
Is this (that people dislike other people who express a difference of preference) a valid complaint to levy against the games relevancy? People frequently hate on popular things. That doesn't make them bad or worth less somehow. Heck, we've already determined that many of the "haters" are also the players.
I would posit that people really mean that they aren't real "nerds" or they aren't part of the commonly associated nerd culture that generally appreciates games. This is the same kind of mindset that screams that women aren't realy gamers or nerds or whatever. It is an offensive assumption and it belittles people like me who have been gaming their entire lives and enjoy FPS titles as well. It is dismissive of what is clearly the one of largest gaming demographics of all if not THE largest demographic.
No, a large disparity in sales doesn't mean crap when the other games still sell several millions of copies. Like it or not, Halo and GOW still sell tremendously well with huge profits and ergo are still quite relevant and well liked. Unless you know of a ton of other games with 6+ million units sold. Halo 3 is the 360's 7th best seller of all time and Halo 4 is its 11th. How does this translate into irrelevant to you? Even Halo: Reach is their 9th best seller and Halo: ODST is their 17th. Even Halo Wars sold 2.4 million units and that was a strategy game...
GOW 2 is the 360's 16th best seller. GOW 3 is its 19th. All of these are more than 6 million units sold (if you grant me the .01 that GOW3's 5.99 million is shy of and has likely already reached this week).
So, let me be clear, by NO parameters are these games irrelevant. The big ticket items for producers to sell ARE these FPS dudebro games by a fair margin unless you're a publisher with the GTA trademark.
http://www.vgchartz.com/platform/7/xbox-360/
Of the top 20 games. 7 are either Halo or GOW. COD is another 7 itself. Only 5 games are non-shooters (Red Dead Redemption, 2 GTAs, One kinect game that I think was bundled, and Skyrim) with 1 Battlefield 3 being in the midst.
This makes 75% of the best performing games also FPS titles. Halo and GOW is essentially the equivalent of Modern Warfare and Black Ops alternating development lines (since those are two studios as well). Yes, COD has performed stronger by being higher up on the list, but irrelevant? Gross missuse of the term.
I am somewhat sick of defending these MS titles since, as I said, I'm more of a Sony fan, but let's get our facts straight. They have recent games that continue to perform excellently.
I would kind of agree with this. It's actually why I'm a Sony fan. I can get my FPS fix from COD and Sony had some AMAZING story driven IPs that dragged me in. Honestly, this 1886 gameplay can be crappy 3rd person shooter cover-based gameplay and if the story is anywhere near as good as things like The Last of Us then it'll be instantly forgiven and rightly so. The gameplay just has to work properly as long as the writing is there in spades.
When I think of Microsoft's major exclusives, I think GOW, Halo, and...? And I have both systems. When I think of Sony's I've got a great list of Heavy Rain, inFamous, Journey, God of War, Uncharted, Last of Us, Little Big Planet, etc.
But this isn't because of COD. This is because Microsoft basically just has one major genre that they are accomodating. COD provides a legitimate FPS title to play on any system so that does drastically weaken the draw of GOW and Halo as system sellers but Microsoft's real mistake is not having other genre's represented moreso than anything else.
You are wrong. Every GOW game is performing better than the first one. GOW sold 6.03 million copies and came out in 2006. GOW 2 came out in 2008 and sold 6.67 million copies. GOW 3 came out in 2011 and is already at 5.99 million (almost equal with GOW in less than half the time). This is lightning three times.
I disagree. I think they have good FPS games. GOW4 was crap but they're fine on the FPS front. The only thing Microsoft has to do is find major exclusives in other genres. I think capturing Dead Rising was a good start if it sticks.
I'm unsure what you're disagreeing with.
First off, whatever is in the console will be supported by developers because they like money like any business does. So you're "more supported" bit is a non-argument. It'd be like being in space and making the argument that before you were in space you didn't need a tank to breath and then subsequently suffocate because now things have changed.
Secondly, your argument is that the consoles could have been more powerful. I don't disagree with that. Hell, why didn't they slap 4 Titans and call it a day? The problem is that they had to come in at a reasonable price for the market at hand. This is a hell of a lot of bang for the buck.
Lastly, hair physics is physics. Do you mean it doesn't support particle physics or something like that? We're a fair bit off from rendering particle physics in real time. All this is, is a significant step in the right direction. I don't even know where you get the claim that the GPU can't support particle physics or any other kind. It may take longer to render it but video games aren't going to demand particle-level physics to be rendered in real time regardless. Not this generation and perhaps not in the next.
What I am saying is that this is more powerful than the average gaming pc at the moment and is 10x more powerful than the ps3 which was already capable of some pretty nice looking physics rendering. It will also be more powerful than the average pc with identical specs to the ps4 because of the huge advantages of fine tuning that optimisation provides to make 512mb systems magically work like they have 2gb and newer hardware.
That'd be pretty impressive since only 52.38% of Steam PCs are NVidia at all according to Steam's latest data. I strongly doubt that all 52.4% are also using an Nvidia 660 but it's impossible for 52.4% of the market to reach 70% of the market unless we're working on the Anchorman logic of something that 70% of the time works all the time. Maybe you just worded your claim incorrectly or I misunderstood you somehow?
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
Perhaps your stats come from a different month? But if the months vary that much, what's the point?
Anyways, the current stats are:
52.38% of Steam users use Nvidia
Over half use Win7 64bit OS
The average CPU is a dual core (47.5% with quad core catching up at 44%)
Average RAM is 5+ with 4GB machines at 45% of the market
Keep in mind, developers aren't going to forget half of their target market, so it only has to be close to hold back the rest of the market from getting more demanding games. As long as a significant portion of the market is the lower stat, games will continue to be made with them in mind. You could have the latest CPU, 4 crossfired latest GPUs, and 32GBs of RAM and you're still likely to do no better than someone with a mediocre CPU, a single new card or 2 crossfied decent ones, and 8-16GBs of RAM because the games are only made for the minimum req machines with higher specs just polishing up the graphics to the point of diminishing return without really making any changes under the hood for the game engine.
One thing you're going to have to realise about CPUs is that they're mostly glorified switch board operators now. Yes, they still do some processing but most of the work is offloaded processes to the cheaper processing that GPUs and RAM provide. So I couldn't care less what the average CPU is and you shouldn't either unless you use a lot of software that doesn't offload the processing properly. Heck, take a look at your task manager right now. Odds are that your RAM is doing most of the work and your CPU should be under 10% unless something is wrong.
No, again, let's use Skyrim.
The PS3 had 512 MBs of RAM that was stupidly divided into two compartments of 246 MBs. The GPU was the equivalent of the NVidia 7800. It would flunk the minimum requirements test for the game if you made a PC that was identical to the ps3. Yet the ps3 and 360 can both play Skyrim on the medium settings equivalent. Not even low.
My response is the cookie cutter response because it's true. The optimization advantages of consoles is significant at the moment. You can't say, "You're just saying what most people say" as a way to dismiss my argument. If anything, that's merely giving more credence to my statement and making your claim the odd man out.
What's more, a PC in 2005 that roughly met those minimum requirements cost around $1,500. There is no reason to believe that things have drastically changed since the previous generation. The only difference is that we'll be able to directly determine the advantage of optimisation this generation thanks to the move to x86 environments.
Last year the average GPU was some crappy laptop gpu.
So then, why did you use the term "dudebros" to dismiss the validity of a gaming genre? It's as ridiculous as saying that horror game/movies don't count because horror fans like them.Ultratwinkie said:
Did you catch where I said that GOW 3 has sold almost as much as GOW in less than half the time? Games don't stop selling after the first year. GOW 1's 6.03 million copies was obtained over 8 years. Last year GOW 1 sold another 56.5 thousand units and that's its 8th year. GOW 2 sold over 100k units last year and that's its 6th year. GOW 3 is already reaching GOW 1's total sales in its 3rd year.
In GOW's third year, it had sold 500k less (total) than GOW 3 did. GOW 3 is even 100k units above where GOW 2 was this time.
And how is it an achievement? The 360 had less than 20 titles on its system at all that reached 6 million. How can you claim it isn't an achievement even without accounting for the next few years of sales? Even if all their sales were magically cut short, these three games are all in the top 20 sellers of all time on the 360. I don't like defending Microsoft's titles but you're dead wrong here. I'm not sure why it's all that important to you but calling the top 20 biggest performers in a console generation failures is silly.
Do you have any kind of backing for this statment that the most common card is a 660? That card is within the top 30 cards on the high-end card market according to Passmark. Saying that this is the average card sitting in most gamer's pc is laughable at best. Not quite like saying that all car owners own a ferrari but like saying the average car owner owns a sports car.
What's more is that the 660 is actually slightly less powerful than the PS4's GPU. Not better. Originally the PS4's GPU was estimated to be somewhere between a Radeon 7850 and a Radeon 7870. Guess what else is literally benchmarked between those cards too? Your 660.
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
But after the ps4 was released and was actually tested, it turned out to be a modified 7870.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/171375-reverse-engineered-ps4-apu-reveals-the-consoles-real-cpu-and-gpu-specs
So even if your statement was true, your conclusion is still wrong. With the modifications the modified 7870 should be more powerful than the 660 Ti or comparable at the very least. I actually had no idea it was that powerful until just now when I researched to respond with actual data.
Additionally, do you know why I participated in the Steam Hardware survey? Because my pc is awesome. You do realise that this is an opt-in survey and not an actual cross section of all steam users. This is just a cross section of Steam Users who were willing and able to fill out the survey. If I'd had a crappy computer I wouldn't have done it. Can you see how any results could be biased that way?
Likewise, considering that there are hundreds of video cards on the market, doesn't it mean that a card could be the most common card with only 5% or less of the market? Again, one thing steam does report on is how many cores its users have. Two cores is still the most common so why do you think the 660 would be the one gamers go for if they aren't springing for a quad core?
I know I said this above, but I'm going to say it again for emphasis. The PS4 uses a modified 7870. A regular 7870 is already above (minor improvement) the 660.
When the standard hardware uses something else, developers WILL use something else. No one has to be forced to do anything. If the console uses AMD GPUs the developers are sure as hell going to develop with them in mind.
Now, do you have any guesses as to what the modififications to the PS4 7870 video card does as far as performance? Because I have no idea. But one thing I know is that this has 10x the physics capabilities that the ps3 had and the ps3 was already capable of displaying some nice stuff.
That's nonsensical. "Physics" have been present in gaming forever. Even pong had physics in its most basic form. The physics in games gets better as long as the hardware improves because developers make and use their own engines that include their own physics coding. There were more expensive and better graphics cards that could have done more stuff, but the hardware is already 10x that of the last generation and whatever card you think they should have gone with wouldn't have been another 100% increase or necessarily worth whatever the price increase would have been. Physics most
Steam and dust isn't "physics" anymore than a table in a game is. The physics is how it interacts with variables in the environment. The steam is usually just an asset that you can't interact with at all. Real particle physics is stuff like the wind generated from you walking past causes some of the steam to follow you or where some of the steam particles cool and drop due to the pressure differential it generates with the hotter steam. Shooting a wooden plank and seeing realistic splintering that correspond with the type of wood and dryness of the material.
You've really got to watch some of the physics simulations. They're extremely impressive. Just note that the rendering of many of these takes powerful machines hours or days to render and you're just watching the end result:
<youtube=FIPu9_OGFgc>
So I'm not talking about cute little atmospheric dust particles following a preordained path.
Not really. They were just better than average. People still had pcs with 1GB of RAM in 2005. Do you expect the consoles to have a Titan in them or something?
First off, a 750 Ti isn't an "entry level card". As of today, it's the 37th highest performing card on the market. I specify 37th because it's around the mid-upper side of that list. Secondly, that is lower than the lowest estimate of the PS4's GPU ever which started being estimated at above a 7850.
Now, if by "entry level card" you just mean that this is the kind of card a gamer would buy as their first card now given decent funds, sure. But not entry level as in bottom of the barrel and we CERTAINLY aren't talking about the average card currently in gaming pcs.
I'm going to explain this again. CPUs are no longer the processing go-to's they once were. Anymore they just push processes to RAM and GPU for rendering while handing much smaller background processing. They are the pc equivalent of switch board operators. Look at your processor right now, even if you're in a game. It isn't going to be working anywhere near as hard as your video card and RAM is. Not unless you've tapped them out. Most processes are now offloaded to RAM and GPU so the CPU simply doesn't need to be that powerful. I'm sorry but that CPU will more than accomplish the job it needs to do. If you're a PC gamer you should know the answer to this question, "What makes a bigger difference, upgrading my CPU or my Video Card?" Unless your CPU is old as hell the answer is almost always going to be video card.
Here's a decent article on the subject:
http://lifehacker.com/5891007/do-i-even-need-to-care-about-processors-anymore
My statement is regarding vanilla Skyrim. It's what they say it is comparable to.
Those links are terrible. Why in the world would most of the first video have mostly night scenes? And what was the point? A different texture set with shinier rocks and better lighting? Yes, we know that the PC Ultra HD is better than the console version. Skyrim is practically the reason I bought a PC.
Here's a comparison of the 360, ps3 and PC all together.
It simply looks pretty on any console. I mean, I installed a ton of mods and I do laugh a little when I see that comparison. But I also played Skyrim on the PS3 (especially at the start when it was buggy to the point of being broken) and I know it still looked pretty. It is somewhat telling that you did not compare a ps3 game with pc medium settings and instead slapped ps3 next to ultra settings with a detached version beneath it with no comparable scenes.
The most boggling part that you keep failing to address is that the minimum requirements for the PC hardware for low settings on this game are double the ps3 and yet the ps3's hardware was capable of playing the game.
Not really, those allow for some standardization in protocol but they don't change the fact that every GPU and CPU combination has it's on unique compatibility issues and it's own limits. With just one hardware configuration the developer is able to test and push the hardware to the limit while still ensuring not going over. It does this in a way that would destroy some computers configured in one way or would under utilize the components of a computer configured in a slightly different way.
The benefits of optimization are hardware based. Even the individual components are optimized and fully tested to work perfectly with eachother right out of the gate (hopefully, anyways). The only way hardware is going to get standardized is if we stop having competition. But as long as your pc can have an AMD or Intel cpu combined with one of two different video cards then you've already got a significant possibility of combinations that prevent real optimization because there's no standard. Start throwing in different types of each brand of CPU and GPU and the increase in permutations is exponential.
PS4 ransomware doesn't really interest me, though you have to admire the character models. But that's about it. The rest seems very uninspired. I predict its campaign is no longer than 4-6 hours of gameplay and runs at like 900p.
You are telling me that the average PC on Steam uses what is currently a $200 video card and that everyone is switching to a $250 video card? Just the video card? Tell me again how putting together a PC is cheaper than consoles? Let's face it, a low end computer with Win7 OS, 2 GB RAM and a 1 TB hard drive is going to cost at least $600, which is more than any console on the market. Making anything more powerful than that ups the price considerably, getting closer to the $1000 range, especially if you go for a high end video card, even worse if you get more than one for Crossfire or SLI.Ultratwinkie said:
Sorry but once you start talking about the performance of an "average" PC over a console and I start looking at prices, I think your definition of "average" is crap.
I would say it's disappointing to see this be yet another slow-paced, linear, cover-based shooter, but from the E3 trailer, it was entirely expected. It's a shame really. It seems like a neat setting.
I never DO buy pre-built, but when I factor in all the prices for motherboard/processor, RAM, HDD (more if SSD), video card, power supply, case, and OS, you get at least $600, and that is low to mid end. Anything better and you are looking at a higher cost.Ultratwinkie said:
Sure, you can upgrade your existing equipment, I'm not contesting that, but how often are you upgrading your RAM and or video card(s)? If it's more than once in a 5-8 year period, which is the approximate length of a console generation, you are probably paying more than you do for a console. Also, it seems every 5-8 years, you need to upgrade your motherboard, as new tech comes out that the old one does not support. I'm looking at how PCI was the norm, then AGP came along for video, now that's been replaced by PCIe. Or PATA changed to SATA. How long before something else comes along to replace either of them? Or has it already happened since I haven't built a computer in 4 years or so?
I'm not going to argue that a computer is more adaptable and ultimately puts out higher end graphics than a console, but I will always contest the opinion that it is cheaper to do so, and nothing you have said suggests otherwise to me. I will also contest that there is no reason to have a console, which is what your arguments pretty much always come down to. That is purely a matter of opinion, and you are never going to be able to convince some people otherwise, nor apparently will we convince you of our side of things.
Also, you continually miss the point Lightknight is making regarding Skyrim. According to the minimum requirements, Skyrim should NOT be able to run on a console. The fact that it does, even with "low" graphics, essentially proves that optimization based upon the console hardware DOES work and DOES matter.