Has Bethesda SW. learned from other big FPS's mistakes? : Othor Games

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:19 pm

Brink is the first game SD has made for consoles, ET:QW console versions were made by Nerve and Z-Axis

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:49 pm

I heard that other games that SD made were to slow,bulky, and the PC versions of every game where etter than the console. also the ps3 (whioch i own) of course has the most problems. hell just changing oyur sig it can freeze up. this has happenesd do many times before to me...

You must REALLY have a messed up ps3.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:13 pm

thats how my ps3 was to i went and got it cleaned and it worked like itwas brand new

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:14 am

This Game looks so attracting. I am a Big Call Of Duty Fan and to be honest they have broken my heart and I know thousands of Black Ops fans know what I'm talking about. I have a PS3 and Treyarch made the Black Ops Game generally to fit the XBOX. I'm thinking because of Microsoft MONEY$$$$ Online gaming is such a big deal and all developers are taking big notice. I know it is a challenge to make a game fit all consoles but the GPU based XBOX is ran very different than the CPU ran PS3, thus is why they failed to make a pleasant "ONLINE" experience for many high experienced players like myself with PS3's. The framerate is so bad. So if any developers or staff is monitoring this please reply or blog about your take on this. I have a 48 member clan that will move to this game if you can master this issue.... Thanks!

I meant Spash Damage!

I'd like to point out that most (if not all) the articles I've seen of journalists commenting on the game, whenever they did mention which version of the game they were playing, mentioned the PS3.

Might just be me not noticing when it was another platform, mind you...

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:58 pm

I'd like to point out that most (if not all) the articles I've seen of journalists commenting on the game, whenever they did mention which version of the game they were playing, mentioned the PS3.

Might just be me not noticing when it was another platform, mind you...

Right, but this doesn't mean it's the lead platform.
Maybe, the PS3-Team did their work faster, so it looked better than the pc version.
Maybe, they found the ps3 easier to move(to the journalists).

We got no real information about this, so lets stop discussing things we can't change(+don't know)
and get back to Brink.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:06 pm

Right, but this doesn't mean it's the lead platform.
Maybe, the PS3-Team did their work faster, so it looked better than the pc version.
Maybe, they found the ps3 easier to move(to the journalists).

We got no real information about this, so lets stop discussing things we can't change(+don't know)
and get back to Brink.

I think Splash Damage tried to get everything in working order first in the PS3, because it seems out of the 3 platforms it is the most challenging to work with.
No platform was more important than the other, it was just simplest to work first on PS3 version.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:43 pm

It was also my impression that although being slightly more powerful than the Xbox, the PS3 is supposedly a pain to work with. It would make sense to spend more time trying to implement something on it, or we end up with the current state of Crysis 2, where the Xbox version looks graphically better, despite using DVDs and having less power.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:13 am

Right, but this doesn't mean it's the lead platform.
Maybe, the PS3-Team did their work faster, so it looked better than the pc version.
Maybe, they found the ps3 easier to move(to the journalists).

We got no real information about this, so lets stop discussing things we can't change(+don't know)
and get back to Brink.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply anything like that by my post... The only point I was making was in regards to the OPs question. No, I don't think brink's graphics will suffer on the PS3.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:40 am

What is peer to peer? Is it when the person with the best connection is host?

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:06 am

I'd like to point out that most (if not all) the articles I've seen of journalists commenting on the game, whenever they did mention which version of the game they were playing, mentioned the PS3.

Might just be me not noticing when it was another platform, mind you...

For the record: I played the game on a PC.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:22 pm

What is peer to peer? Is it when the person with the best connection is host?

Pretty sure that's how it works, yeah...

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:15 pm

the only problem is that certain people will show a good connection but once other people connect to it, it will fail. BO was almost unplayable with my friend gibbon due to the fact his connection was a total crap shoot. Brink would be smart to make sure that they allow players to create matches like TC'sR6 series which eliminated bad connections due to your choosing to connect to that game.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:05 pm

This Game looks so attracting. I am a Big Call Of Duty Fan and to be honest they have broken my heart and I know thousands of Black Ops fans know what I'm talking about. I have a PS3 and Treyarch made the Black Ops Game generally to fit the XBOX. I'm thinking because of Microsoft MONEY$$$$ Online gaming is such a big deal and all developers are taking big notice. I know it is a challenge to make a game fit all consoles but the GPU based XBOX is ran very different than the CPU ran PS3, thus is why they failed to make a pleasant "ONLINE" experience for many high experienced players like myself with PS3's. The framerate is so bad. So if any developers or staff is monitoring this please reply or blog about your take on this. I have a 48 member clan that will move to this game if you can master this issue.... Thanks!

I meant Spash Damage!

IMHO the last great Call Of Duty was COD4... after that the series was trash. MW2 IW decided to show that they didn't care about the community that got them to where they were.

While the PS3 version of Black Ops was bad, the PC version was (and still is for some) completely unplayable. Treyarch just did another "infinity Ward" to the PC community as a whole. I for one, and all 30 of my clan mates will never again buy another COD game. I couldn't care less if they were giving them away.

As far as S.D. goes... I have faith in them.

Everyone knows that there are extremely few Devs that are still good for their word... Valve, Bioware, Splash Damage, Bohemia Interactive, Volition and Bethesda.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:11 am

This isn't aimed at anyone, but it actually surprises me how some people genuinely think they're so entitled to be heard. In any other market, if you don't like it, you don't buy it. But in videogames, particularly PC gamers, people [censored] and whine like there's no tomorrow and expect Devs to actually bend over and do it.

I'm all for taking suggestions from the community, it's a great idea. However the hardcoe communities that are always voicing their views are, more often than not, the minority of people who purchase the game.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:55 pm

This isn't aimed at anyone, but it actually surprises me how some people genuinely think they're so entitled to be heard. In any other market, if you don't like it, you don't buy it. But in videogames, particularly PC gamers, people [censored] and whine like there's no tomorrow and expect Devs to actually bend over and do it.

If you buy a car with a broken engine, you will be able to get a new one without extra cost.
If you buy a game with a broken engine, you will are screwed while the developers either laugh at you or work on a fix.

Now PC gamers were used to fix issues on their own, if developers would not. See Vampire: The Masquerade, which is still being developed by the community.
But as consoles took over the market rarely any modding tools are released and the whole software is sealed against third-party development as much as possible.

Now -according to you- console-gamers seem to live with broken games and don't care if they spend 60 bucks on a piece of crap, unlike PC gamers who will complain and demand the issues fixed.

As a matter of note, GTA IV does still not work properly on the PC.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:02 pm

Now -according to you- console-gamers seem to live with broken games and don't care if they spend 60 bucks on a piece of crap, unlike PC gamers who will complain and demand the issues fixed.

Basically, it comes down to, "you can't miss what you don't have." If you don't have money, living a poor life is normal, but if you are a millionaire and then suddenly are forced to live in poverty, things are a little different.

Console gamers are generally more content with broken games, because they don't know any better. It's just something they have come to accept, whereas PC gamers (not all of them) know how things used to be, and aren't happy with how things are now.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:35 pm

If you buy a car with a broken engine, you will be able to get a new one without extra cost.
If you buy a game with a broken engine, you will are screwed while the developers either laugh at you or work on a fix.

Now PC gamers were used to fix issues on their own, if developers would not. See Vampire: The Masquerade, which is still being developed by the community.
But as consoles took over the market rarely any modding tools are released and the whole software is sealed against third-party development as much as possible.

Now -according to you- console-gamers seem to live with broken games and don't care if they spend 60 bucks on a piece of crap, unlike PC gamers who will complain and demand the issues fixed.

As a matter of note, GTA IV does still not work properly on the PC.

I'm not talking about blatant technical issues (ie. Fallout: New Vegas). Releasing games unfinished is unacceptable. I'm talking more about features/weapon damage/health. These are all things which, despite having no technical faults on many games, are constantly complained about.

And don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say console gamers don't complain, I just said that PC users appear to complain more. There is what I can only perceive as an elitist attitude amongst some PC gamers which contributes to this, although that is not strictly relevant.

I anticipate that you will somehow argue that if people don't like these features, they are broken; tbh I find that would simply prove my original post to be correct.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:59 am

I anticipate that you will somehow argue that if people don't like these features, they are broken; tbh I find that would simply prove my original post to be correct.

If (many) people don't like certain features, they must definately be flawed. Otherwise people wouldn't complain or instead actually like them.

PC-players were also used to adjust such features; that's how hardcoe-modes evolved. Just to throw some name around: Battlefield 2: Project Reality

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:16 pm

If (many) people don't like certain features, they must definately be flawed. Otherwise people wouldn't complain or instead actually like them.

PC-players were also used to adjust such features; that's how hardcoe-modes evolved. Just to throw some name around: Battlefield 2: Project Reality

That is a logical fallacy. You are not considering that something can work exactly as intended (ie.the commando perk) and yet still be disliked. This does not make the feature flawed, but the decision to include it. Something can work perfectly and not be liked. To continue your car anology, if the car works fine but you just don't like it, you are not entitled to reverse the sale.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:22 pm

I'm not talking about blatant technical issues (ie. Fallout: New Vegas). Releasing games unfinished is unacceptable. I'm talking more about features/weapon damage/health. These are all things which, despite having no technical faults on many games, are constantly complained about.

And don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say console gamers don't complain, I just said that PC users appear to complain more. There is what I can only perceive as an elitist attitude amongst some PC gamers which contributes to this, although that is not strictly relevant.

I anticipate that you will somehow argue that if people don't like these features, they are broken; tbh I find that would simply prove my original post to be correct.

We complain because we can't just take our games into Gamestop if we don't like them and get credit towards something else... instead we're stuck with a $50-$60 loss and a new beer coaster.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:28 am

This Game looks so attracting. I am a Big Call Of Duty Fan and to be honest they have broken my heart and I know thousands of Black Ops fans know what I'm talking about. I have a PS3 and Treyarch made the Black Ops Game generally to fit the XBOX. I'm thinking because of Microsoft MONEY$$$$ Online gaming is such a big deal and all developers are taking big notice. I know it is a challenge to make a game fit all consoles but the GPU based XBOX is ran very different than the CPU ran PS3, thus is why they failed to make a pleasant "ONLINE" experience for many high experienced players like myself with PS3's. The framerate is so bad. So if any developers or staff is monitoring this please reply or blog about your take on this. I have a 48 member clan that will move to this game if you can master this issue.... Thanks!

I meant Spash Damage!

Dont be too jealous i have xbox and trust me Black ops svcks just as much on there as on the ps3, treyarch is just a crap ass company in general and im suprised activision would let them still make cod games after every cod fan voted that the top cod games were made by infinityward, that being Cod4 and MW2.

» Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:50 pm

We complain because we can't just take our games into Gamestop if we don't like them and get credit towards something else... instead we're stuck with a $50-$60 loss and a new beer coaster.

But that is the case with MANY products across MANY markets. In fact, retailers aren't generally obliged to take goods back at all unless they're faulty (excluding distance selling regs). My point is, where is the personal responsibility? People blame the developers and complain like [censored], but at the end of the day, isn't it your own fault for being gullible enough to fall for ad campaigns? Is it not your fault that you pre-ordered for the sake of some ridiculous 'bonus' rather than renting before you purchase (allowing you to test the game BEFORE you commit your income)?

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:01 am

That is a logical fallacy. You are not considering that something can work exactly as intended (ie.the commando perk) and yet still be disliked. This does not make the feature flawed, but the decision to include it. Something can work perfectly and not be liked. To continue your car anology, if the car works fine but you just don't like it, you are not entitled to reverse the sale.

I wouldn't buy a car I don't like. But I can't have a "test-drive" on games anymore either, because apparently demos are nothing important.

Anyway, if a decision to include a feature is flawed, that means the feature itself is flawed. Of course, there is always the possiblity that developers are complete idiots.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:45 am

I wouldn't buy a car I don't like. But I can't have a "test-drive" on games anymore either, because apparently demos are nothing important.

Rent.

Anyway, if a decision to include a feature is flawed, that means the feature itself is flawed. Of course, there is always the possiblity that developers are complete idiots.

Nope, it just means you have either failed to target the correct audience, or that your game appeals to a target audience that you have not considered. The feature itself can work perfectly and thus not be flawed in any way.

» Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:45 am

Rent.

I presume you are a console gamer.