Zero Punctuation: Killzone: Shadow Fall
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Coming up next: A tell Tales games about the strained relationships in a small community at the border between the Vectan and Helgan side.
i've got that exact one, 1080p gives a snowy feed back, had to drop my PS3 and Wii U down to 1080i, which I wasnt impressed abouthermes200 said:Maybe you should consider one of these:Mcoffey said:
Here's a better idea (for the xbone at least). Put in backwards compatibility, remove the kinect, and the price would even out and then Microsoft could just sit back and watch the machine basically print money. Instead they force people to have to choose which device they want to have out, the 360 or the xbone and since the 360 has a larger library with more great games it's not a hard choice.Griffolion said:
So you're assuming equivalency of cost between backwards compatibility and the Kinect?Xan Krieger said:
Glad to hear that. I see so many people posting that the Helghast are the victims that I was starting to think I had missed something major in the games I played.mjc0961 said:
And the move I was talking about was back when the ISA and Earth literally kicked the Helghast out of their home because they weren't sharing enough of their profits with Earth, over a hundred years before the first Killzone game. That was a pretty low blow, sentencing them to exile on a hostile world because they lost a war no matter how you look at it.
It's not so much that BC is some kind of obligation, as that without it, both consoles have really anemic libraries which don't justify etc. etc. etc.Bittersteel said:
I mean, it always takes new consoles a while to build up decent libraries, but at this point the smart thing for a consumer to do is wait a while and buy a console after it's been out long enough that you're spoiled for choice of what to play on it. Which I'm not sure is a smart strategy for the manufacturers.
pffft You guys are still banging on about backwards compatibility? IT WOULDN'T HAVE WORKED. Emulating the last gen would be impossible simply because we don't have the power to do so and to put old hardware into the machines along with the new hardware would make the consoles about twice as large and a lot more expensive than they are now.
As to the "clunky new console" bit, I don't see a problem at all personally. So no, Yahtzee. I'm not going to put that asterisk after every positive thing you say. 'Cause it's wrong.
As to the "clunky new console" bit, I don't see a problem at all personally. So no, Yahtzee. I'm not going to put that asterisk after every positive thing you say. 'Cause it's wrong.
I am shocked that Yahtzee liked KZ:SF....or at least didn't not like it. Blown away, really....I've been playing it and liked it a lot (so as a rule of thumb if I like it I expect the game to get trashed by either the critics or the fans) and honestly thought the FPS part of the equation would have been too much for Yahtzee to get past. Wow.....
EDIT:
On the whole backwards compatibility issue. It's very simple really: if the consoles were backwards compatible then the following problems would arise for Sony and Microsoft:
1. a vast and seemingly endless array of existing titles, a great many of which are very cheap, would now be in direct competition with the costlier new stuff.
2. Neither of them would be able to re-sell the older games they choose to port over as new console special editions when the originals are out there (i.e. Tomb Raider for ex). If you can buy the older version for cheap then the port will make less money.
3. It is very likely that they have two console generations' prior data to determine that the short term (1-2 year) return on offering backwards compatibility is far costlier than the actual potential earnings. Doing backwards compatibility is, judging by the way it was handled last gen, a game by game affair that requires updating every game to work properly on the new console. Even with the last gen we had limited Xbox to 360 compatibility and as for PS3...well we all saw that they dropped that as part of "project make our console affordable."
EDIT:
On the whole backwards compatibility issue. It's very simple really: if the consoles were backwards compatible then the following problems would arise for Sony and Microsoft:
1. a vast and seemingly endless array of existing titles, a great many of which are very cheap, would now be in direct competition with the costlier new stuff.
2. Neither of them would be able to re-sell the older games they choose to port over as new console special editions when the originals are out there (i.e. Tomb Raider for ex). If you can buy the older version for cheap then the port will make less money.
3. It is very likely that they have two console generations' prior data to determine that the short term (1-2 year) return on offering backwards compatibility is far costlier than the actual potential earnings. Doing backwards compatibility is, judging by the way it was handled last gen, a game by game affair that requires updating every game to work properly on the new console. Even with the last gen we had limited Xbox to 360 compatibility and as for PS3...well we all saw that they dropped that as part of "project make our console affordable."
Agreed that while a decent shooter it doesn't justify buying a PS4 just for it. While I appreciated making the morality of both sides in a gray area rather than the usual stark black and white in most games, it also meant that there was really no one for me to root for or identify with. Everyone is either a raging asshole or just bland and uninteresting, including the two main characters. The Helgast are understandably pissed about having their home destroyed but then they were planning do the same thing to the humans in the first place, not to mention invading Vekta and mercilessly slaughtering civilians in the first place. Not that the ISA are any better, developing biological weapons "just in case" and leaving their own people to get killed while evacuating their homes.
The shooting is solid but could have used more weapon variety, I really missed the amazing weapons from the second game. The owl drone is nice but like most gimmicks it falls to the wayside the longer you play and mostly you'll just use the attack function. The only really standout thing is the beautiful visuals, though even then you'll get stuck looking at the usual dull brown and gray ruins and such at parts too.
The shooting is solid but could have used more weapon variety, I really missed the amazing weapons from the second game. The owl drone is nice but like most gimmicks it falls to the wayside the longer you play and mostly you'll just use the attack function. The only really standout thing is the beautiful visuals, though even then you'll get stuck looking at the usual dull brown and gray ruins and such at parts too.
The problem is less about first world problems and more about us not having to pay twice for games we already own or having them only available via the whims of a server that could break down or be taken offline at any time. Sure you could say "well then just don't sell your PS3." Ok? Well what happens when that PS3 breaks? Eventually support and production of the console will cease. Then in order to play your games you either have to pay for a monthly streaming service that could go down at any time or buy another of that console for a hugely inflated price. People seem to think the whole argument for backwards compatibility is laziness, when it is in fact a consumer rights issue.hermes200 said:Maybe you should consider one of these:Mcoffey said:
Not only that, but it is an issue of preserving our history. Like Extra Credits said, there are so many games that are just... gone. Disappeared due to companies not doing backwards compatibility and consumers just accepting it. You would expect your new computer to utilize software that at LEAST ran on the last OS, why can't we expect the same from games?
I'm not sure why we are holding the console maker up to a higher standard than so many other manufactured products out there. There are tech and gear in the world that went out of production over time and were never replaced, or backwards compatible, and we don't miss that stuff, due to obsolescence. It becomes history as a matter of recourse. If you tell a manufacturer that they need to make a product that is backwards compatible indefinitely, or must be maintained into perpetuity, what you are telling them is that they no longer can equate their profits to the actual life cycle of the product in the here and now, but must look at it as a burden of maintenance into both the past and the future.Azaraxzealot said:The problem is less about first world problems and more about us not having to pay twice for games we already own or having them only available via the whims of a server that could break down or be taken offline at any time. Sure you could say "well then just don't sell your PS3." Ok? Well what happens when that PS3 breaks? Eventually support and production of the console will cease. Then in order to play your games you either have to pay for a monthly streaming service that could go down at any time or buy another of that console for a hugely inflated price. People seem to think the whole argument for backwards compatibility is laziness, when it is in fact a consumer rights issue.hermes200 said:Maybe you should consider one of these:Mcoffey said:
Not only that, but it is an issue of preserving our history. Like Extra Credits said, there are so many games that are just... gone. Disappeared due to companies not doing backwards compatibility and consumers just accepting it. You would expect your new computer to utilize software that at LEAST ran on the last OS, why can't we expect the same from games?
Sure, old consoles aren't supported anymore by the original makers.....but they do have a support network. You can find enthusiasts for old consoles who work to keep them running, repair, trade, sell and continue with their hobby in a more historical way.
A bigger question relates to the nature of a game sale: if you can no longer play a certain game on the PS3 (say it breaks in 2019, the day after the PS5 is released) are you going to be incensed that the only way to then play The Last of Us is to pay for a $5 download from PSN? Because that's what we currently have for a variety of PS1 titles right now, and my hope is that we'll see more PS2 titles show up in the future. I think for my purposes being able to access these games in the future is more important to me than being able to play them on my old console. And yes, I will pay a bit for a new port of a game on a newer machine, especially if it means the game will now exist in a medium (digital) that transcends the physical media it started on.
Ah okay, so you know a bit about hardware emulation. How easy would it be to emulate a cell broadband processor on x86 and 256MB of xDR RAM?Zontar said:
Yeah, your analogy isn't really that good.
Germany and the Allied Forces didn't bid for Europe, with Germany winning the bid, expanding and making a profit and then taxing the bejeebes out everybody until the butthurt Allied Forces thought, fuck it, let's just go and take something that doesn't belong to us by force.
Vekta belonged to the Helghan Corporation fair and square, they bought the planets (vekta + helghast) and during the First Extra Solar War, UCN basically invades Vekta.
Germany and the Allied Forces didn't bid for Europe, with Germany winning the bid, expanding and making a profit and then taxing the bejeebes out everybody until the butthurt Allied Forces thought, fuck it, let's just go and take something that doesn't belong to us by force.
Vekta belonged to the Helghan Corporation fair and square, they bought the planets (vekta + helghast) and during the First Extra Solar War, UCN basically invades Vekta.
Well that's short-term thinking, which is what killed many a great companies and has caused entire species to go extinct. The fact of the matter is, Microsoft Word 1995 still works on Windows 7, and you can still save documents in that format (and even older ones) even today. Why are game companies held to a much lower standard? I do agree we should go digital, but not that the games should exist in some nebulous "cloud" that could go down due to unforeseen circumstances or because the company just decides it's not worth it to keep the servers running.camazotz said:I'm not sure why we are holding the console maker up to a higher standard than so many other manufactured products out there. There are tech and gear in the world that went out of production over time and were never replaced, or backwards compatible, and we don't miss that stuff, due to obsolescence. It becomes history as a matter of recourse. If you tell a manufacturer that they need to make a product that is backwards compatible indefinitely, or must be maintained into perpetuity, what you are telling them is that they no longer can equate their profits to the actual life cycle of the product in the here and now, but must look at it as a burden of maintenance into both the past and the future.Azaraxzealot said:The problem is less about first world problems and more about us not having to pay twice for games we already own or having them only available via the whims of a server that could break down or be taken offline at any time. Sure you could say "well then just don't sell your PS3." Ok? Well what happens when that PS3 breaks? Eventually support and production of the console will cease. Then in order to play your games you either have to pay for a monthly streaming service that could go down at any time or buy another of that console for a hugely inflated price. People seem to think the whole argument for backwards compatibility is laziness, when it is in fact a consumer rights issue.hermes200 said:Maybe you should consider one of these:Mcoffey said:
Not only that, but it is an issue of preserving our history. Like Extra Credits said, there are so many games that are just... gone. Disappeared due to companies not doing backwards compatibility and consumers just accepting it. You would expect your new computer to utilize software that at LEAST ran on the last OS, why can't we expect the same from games?
Sure, old consoles aren't supported anymore by the original makers.....but they do have a support network. You can find enthusiasts for old consoles who work to keep them running, repair, trade, sell and continue with their hobby in a more historical way.
A bigger question relates to the nature of a game sale: if you can no longer play a certain game on the PS3 (say it breaks in 2019, the day after the PS5 is released) are you going to be incensed that the only way to then play The Last of Us is to pay for a $5 download from PSN? Because that's what we currently have for a variety of PS1 titles right now, and my hope is that we'll see more PS2 titles show up in the future. I think for my purposes being able to access these games in the future is more important to me than being able to play them on my old console. And yes, I will pay a bit for a new port of a game on a newer machine, especially if it means the game will now exist in a medium (digital) that transcends the physical media it started on.
These "networks" you speak of have not saved games and hardware from simply disappearing from history. You could argue obsolescence, that they deserved to be forgotten if the companies decided not to support them, however, how many games existed out there that people once played and had fond memories of that they just can't play because they can't find it (think Gubble 2 for PC) even through illicit channels. You can jury rig consoles for decades as has been shown by retro console enthusiasts, but remember that this last generation was built largely on proprietary hardware, so how many people do you think will be well-versed in the ins and outs of the PS3 cell architecture? Even many top developers don't know exactly how it works or how to get the most out of it (including Naughty Dog).
And yes, I AM advocating "...that they need to make a product that is backwards compatible indefinitely, or must be maintained into perpetuity, what you are telling them is that they no longer can equate their profits to the actual life cycle of the product in the here and now, but must look at it as a burden of maintenance into both the past and the future;" because, again, short-term thinking has never worked out. It's cost companies uncountable amounts of money, wreaked havoc on the environment, and has caused the entire world to plummet into economic toil. I will once again use Microsoft and its OS's as an example, they work very hard to keep their products as backwards compatible as possible, and it has translated into success. In any programming class, one of the most basic principles you will learn is making your program as widely compatible as possible. I am not holding game manufacturers to a HIGHER standard, I am holding them to the tech industry standard (of which they are a part of, and that is irrefutable).
At the very least, Sony and Microsoft could have made your purchases on their DIGITAL products translate forward. As it stands, all your purchases on the PSN and Xbox Live are null and void once they decide to discontinue their product and your PS3/Xbox 360 breaks. There really is no excuse for that. You now have to buy all the PS1 and PS2 and Xbox and all digital classics/games all over again for no good reason.
There's a precedent set in the tech industry, which games are part of. You would be upset if no software you currently ran on your computer just didn't work in the next OS (especially when the current OS stops being supported and your computer eventually breaks), so why are game companies held to a lower standard?SirBryghtside said:Just so you know, here's a complete list of consoles that have full backwards compatibility with a previous system:Azaraxzealot said:The problem is less about first world problems and more about us not having to pay twice for games we already own or having them only available via the whims of a server that could break down or be taken offline at any time. Sure you could say "well then just don't sell your PS3." Ok? Well what happens when that PS3 breaks? Eventually support and production of the console will cease. Then in order to play your games you either have to pay for a monthly streaming service that could go down at any time or buy another of that console for a hugely inflated price. People seem to think the whole argument for backwards compatibility is laziness, when it is in fact a consumer rights issue.hermes200 said:Maybe you should consider one of these:Mcoffey said:
Not only that, but it is an issue of preserving our history. Like Extra Credits said, there are so many games that are just... gone. Disappeared due to companies not doing backwards compatibility and consumers just accepting it. You would expect your new computer to utilize software that at LEAST ran on the last OS, why can't we expect the same from games?
PS2
Wii
Wii U
Three. In the history of gaming consoles, there have been three. I'm not arguing that backwards compatibility wouldn't be cool, but it's ridiculous to think that there's some precedent that means gaming companies have to do this. Putting it in a modern console, especially the PS4, would either drive prices up massively or reduce functionality in other places - it's just impractical.
And yes, games will disappear, just like everything else in the world that is around for a significant length of time. Committing it to a streaming system helps that - probably a hell of a lot better than just putting it on the next console in a row. And how is this a consumer rights violation?! They sold you a game for that console, there wasn't any small print on the side of Metal Gear Solid 2 that said 'by the way, you'll be able to play this on all of Sony's consoles until the end of time!'. Backwards compatibility is a feature, not a bloody human right. Just... no.
Committing to streaming system would NOT help in the current state of the world with the way internet infrastructure is. Most of the world is NOT connected to the internet, and you are immediately cutting out a huge potential audience for the sake of.... what? I don't understand how not having backwards compatibility helps me as a consumer other than giving me a cheaper console that does nothing I want it to do. At any time a company can just shut down the servers when they feel like it (see: EA), and then when the streaming service is discontinued and all your money is gone and wasted, THEN will you still be on their side?
It may be impractical, but the games companies dug this grave themselves by choosing to make proprietary hardware. The rest of the tech industry and the lowest levels of programming education ALL stress compatibility and fail students who do not make their programs flexible and compatible on a huge range of systems while firing employees who do the same. The games industry should be held to the same standard, since they are part of that tech industry.
Didn't they say the kinect was about half the cost of the system? How much could backwards compatibility cost compared to that?Griffolion said: