... maybe it's the headlines, but my interest in Bf3 seems to be diminishing with each announcement.
Oh well, guess it makes the wait easier. Demo should answer most of my doubts.
... I think Rage's current footage is from the console version.
Whereas the BF3 footage and the Unreal tech are running on PCs.
Kinda unfair, don'cha think?
From the viewpoint of consoles, the game looking that good and running at 60fps. That's a technical feat.
^ Usually you don't have to wait with dedicated servers.
You just look through the server list, pick one you like, and you're off to the races.
Whereas with P2P, you have to sit around to get a match made.
I don't think UC2 had dedicated servers though. So your issue might be related to something else?
So my hunch about Minnerva's creator having a hand in the ARG was correct?
Usually betas that require an application will look into your hardware.
Though betas can often be for different purposes. Asside from simply testing different hardware setups, they can also use it to stress test the servers or rout any exploits.
That's where the swarm of beta testers come in.
"there was ZERO lag"
Isn't that theoretically impossible? O.o
Maxing out a console isn't limited to visuals alone.
It's a gaming console. It is meant for games, not to produce pretty pictures.
It can be maxed out just as easily by an open-world game that looks like crap vs a corridor-shooter with fancy effects.
Why would they let a third-party cut into their cake?
Edit: They can get more customers by improving their own PSN. By relying on steam, they're basically handing a functionality of their console into valve's hand.
Maybe as far as multi-player is concerned ... and even then, there hasn't been any real footage on the MP portion.
DeusEx and Rage probably have a good chance of besting it out as far as SP goes.
Games flop even if the game itself is quite good.
The one who fear flopping are generally also the ones that try to play it safe and stick to the tried and true (and often times, generic).
@Cliffbo
A bad game is... usually an opinion.
Flops are generally meant as commercial flops that don't sell well or fail to earn any net profit.
"developers can’t possibly want their games to have such a quick turnaround time."
... developers? No.
... but publishers do.
Enjoyed my time in the beta.
Would probably buy it if it didn't use GFWL. =/
Still, $15 price tag is awesome.
"Yeah looks like kz3 wannabe mixed with team fortress 2"
Congratulations on having no clue what you're talking about.
Pro tip: Read up on who's developing this game.
They didn't say that.
The title of the article said that.
What was meant was that seeing the console version from afar (i.e. couch) would look similar to the PC version close up (i.e. front of a monitor).
Although the 'looks the same' argument isn't universal. I think most games look the same between their console versions... but there's always people saying one version is hands-down better looking than another. =/
"or else there will be hell to pay from us loyal PC fans that have supported Valve for the last 14 years."
O.o?
Valve isn't known for graphics.
They have their hardware surveys for a reason; they want to find which hardware to target.
Edit:
Aye, Portal2 and TeamFortress2 have a good thing going as far as the style goes.
I like the glass in the minimum version better for some reason.
I kinda like the cosmetic-only DLC like BadCompany2 and KillingFloor (among others)
To me, it's a way of rewarding/supporting devs who's game you enjoy.
Edit: @mandf below
If you buy the KZ3 DLC, does it download something? O.o
2gigs seems like plenty of room for maps.
ARG made people go argh.
@ABizzel1
If you have the PC version, then you have access to mods.
So if somewhere down the line, you feel like playing some portal, you can always go through community-created levels.
The first portal also had some amazing mods (with appropriate voice acting too)
... Clearly sarcasm is EazyC's intent.