And why would I, the consumer, WANT an alternative to Google? Least of all, one that is owned and operated by the dangerously predatorial and monopolistic Microsoft?
I'm really looking forward to this. The atmosphere and creepiness factor looks really intense.
Yep, they're impressed by the PS3.
The article started off disconcerting enough, like it was another case of a dev having problems with the PS3, but thankfully it looks like Ubisoft is finally getting a hold of PS3 development and is actually "impressed" by the potential power of the platform. Seems to bold well for the PS3 port of Far Cry 2.
Some of the features of FC2, such as universal vegetation/tree physics and animation, seem to be a good fit for the parallel processing power of the Cell.
Game looks really good. I'm definitely gonna get it.
I like this idea. People are too stupid to recognize what the numbers actually mean in a numerical scoring system, and subsequently dumb fanboys will complain about scores being too low when in truth every other score is overinflated.
How about "Free," period?
"In-game assets" usually means pre-rendered CG, or target render.
God, I was so naive. I've been expecting eventual free multiplayer maps for download all this time. Having never played online console shooters before, it never even occurred to me that they'd charge me.
Actually, I remember games like DOOM 3, RTCW, Rainbow Six 3, and Unreal Championship 2 on the Xbox 1 had free downloadable maps, which was a great gesture to fans. Who's to say that these won't be free as well?
That's just it, in the past I don't mind paying $20 bucks or so for entire expansion packs with brand new single player campaigns, new maps, weapons, and all sorts of good stuff. But paying the same price for a couple lousy multiplayer maps that I don't even know if I'll like? Just ridiculous.
Wait, why is everyone talking about "price" with regards to the new maps? They're not gonna actually make us pay for a couple damn multiplayer levels, are they?
I've mostly played shooters on the PC in the past, where maps are downloadable for free all the time. The idea of paying for extra maps is foreign and repulsive to me, especially when the game already costs $60. They'd better be free.
The hardware may or may not be cutting edge, but the same can't be said for the games (hint: Innovation and variety).
Being a seasoned FPS gamer on consoles, I've long experimented with different controllers and thumbstick models to see what would work best to help one's aim in FPS. This clip-on device seems to reflect my own thoughts. The increase in height/tallness of the sticks are better because they increase the sticks' range of motion (in turn, increasing the precision). Additionally, I've found that precision aiming is better with less resistance, and these clip-ons are said to lessen the resistance o...
I'd rather have 720p at 30 fps (with a solid framerate).
60 fps is such an overrated specification. For one thing, it doesn't even LOOK good, which is the most important thing. Aesthetically, 30 fps not only allows for greater detail and more effects in-game, but it LOOKS better than 60 fps (in the same way 24p movies look better than 30p video footage). Higher fps is not better, period.
I would NEVER sacrifice resolution for an unecessary increase in framerate. Would you rather watch 1080p Blu-Ray at 24 fps, or regular 480p DVDs at 60...
All I have to say is, lol to all the dumb fanboys who are begging for 60 fps minimum in this and other games, because this is what you get as a result. When people force developers to run at 60 fps, you get worser, downgraded graphics/effects, and lower resolutions, as they try to unnaturally shoe-horn the game into running at a totally unnecessary framerate limitation.
Why? Because they can then potentially sell ANOTHER 10 million on consoles? Lol, why the hell do you think? It's called "making more money."
You know, for someone who likes RTS games and Starcraft so much, you would think it's a better idea to just bite the bullet and get a PC. That's the platform where you'll find the best variety of the genre on, anyway; and it doesn't seem likely that this, WC, or other RTS/Blizzard games will be ported anytime soon.
Myself, I couldn't care less about RTS (or PC gaming in general). That's why I stick to consoles.
I can't wait for this.
How do you know Ubisoft couldn't deliver a quality multiplatform title, as well as Infinity Ward? I'd let them prove themselves first.