is it just me or does that thermite rifle gun seem overly boring
now thats what i call next gen graphics
too bad the gameplay is completely last gen
[QUOTE=miroki;44892306]I'm now wondering how good can graphic be on Playstation 5 and Xbone 2.[/QUOTE]
this post may be really dumb but I really hope microsoft calls their next console (if there is one) the xbox one 2
[QUOTE=mchapra;44899189]Is this 2006 again?[/QUOTE]
what does that even mean? are you arguing that the gameplay doesn't look 100% generic and tedious? you can be more useful in arguments by explaining your stance in your responses and questions.
[QUOTE=endorphinsam;44901113]what does that even mean? are you arguing that the gameplay doesn't look 100% generic and tedious? you can be more useful in arguments by explaining your stance in your responses and questions.[/QUOTE]
It means to each his own. But I forgot this is Facepunch and so the zerg who only care about quote "innovation" and "fun" really only want over used, rehashed gameplay from the 1990s and that's considered innovative.
This looks fun and as hell on my hand. I like third person cover shooters, so sorry that you don't like [B]this particular gameplay style.[/B]
[QUOTE=Swilly;44901455]It means to each his own. But I forgot this is Facepunch and so the zerg who only care about quote "innovation" and "fun" really only want over used, rehashed gameplay from the 1990s and that's considered innovative.
This looks fun and as hell on my hand. I like third person cover shooters, so sorry that you don't like [B]this particular gameplay style.[/B][/QUOTE]
[del]so you chose to insult my opinion instead of just saying that?[/del]
*nevermind you're not even the user i responded to
So you dismiss everyone else's opinions because [b]you[/b] think its fun and [b]you[/b] aren't completely tired of the generic third person gameplay? learn how to convey and understand opinions. People aren't stupid for having opinions that differ from yours. Sorry if I sound condescending, but I dont think I'm wrong here. People say it looks generic and you think that's dumb? even you, (yes, you! in this thread!) agreed the gameplay looked (paraphrasing) generic. You don't even disagree but if someone makes a fucking observation you think they are wrong even though [i]literally[/i] it is true and the third person game mechanics in this are almost as oversaturated as first person military shooters.
And if you don't care of other's opinions why are you responding to me even though i was asking someone(that isn't you) a question?
[editline]sd[/editline]
also what "the zerg who only care about quote "innovation" and "fun" really only want over used, rehashed gameplay from the 1990s" how did you even get that out of anything? is there even an example of that in this thread at all?? quite the deductive reasoning you deployed there. I don't even know what it means. I guess I can't argue with something I don't understand.
That transition from cutscene to actual gameplay is really nice, diggin' the heavily industrialized London as well.
Not a fan of the colour palette but I can get over that for the most part...
Looks nice, but doesn't look that fun. Hope they put in some super cool grenades though.
That game looks dreadful lol
an in-universe explanation for regenerating health? wow you dont see that very often anymore
The gameplay itself looked thoroughly uninteresting. Also made me realize that I dislike when enemies continuously take up the same positions while pouring out of an "enemy door" in waves until you kill enough of them.
[QUOTE=endorphinsam;44901463][del]so you chose to insult my opinion instead of just saying that?[/del]
*nevermind you're not even the user i responded to
So you dismiss everyone else's opinions because [b]you[/b] think its fun and [b]you[/b] aren't completely tired of the generic third person gameplay? learn how to convey and understand opinions. People aren't stupid for having opinions that differ from yours. Sorry if I sound condescending, but I dont think I'm wrong here. People say it looks generic and you think that's dumb? even you, (yes, you! in this thread!) agreed the gameplay looked (paraphrasing) generic. You don't even disagree but if someone makes a fucking observation you think they are wrong even though [i]literally[/i] it is true and the third person game mechanics in this are almost as oversaturated as first person military shooters.
And if you don't care of other's opinions why are you responding to me even though i was asking someone(that isn't you) a question?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and I'll say it again, is it 2006 again? What is this criticism of cinematically focused games as "movies" and this shunning of gameplay deemed "generic"
The new wolfenstein is prry generic but it's also really fun because it works really well. A game can be innovative and ahead of it's time all it wants but it doesn't mean shit if it isn't enjoyable. Same with stories. If the game has a good enough story to carry that gameplay then there is nothing wrong with the game at all. Alpha Centauri wasn't anything special gameplay-wise but it's story and lore was interesting and deep enough to keep people hooked.
Why is this a shooter?
i've read the premise and it sounds alot more intriguing to me if they rolled it with a genre that isnt a stock shooter. It's like they know they wont get as much money back if "The Order 1886" wasnt a shooter.
"Oh horse feathers this game has no 'exciting action' in it this will simply will not do"
[IMG]http://i2.wp.com/i.minus.com/iqmpITByGtSqA.gif?resize=797%2C324[/IMG]
I don't like the muddy fog look.
[QUOTE=Yourself;44904109]Why is this a shooter?
i've read the premise and it sounds alot more intriguing to me if they rolled it with a genre that isnt a stock shooter. It's like they know they wont get as much money back if "The Order 1886" wasnt a shooter.
"Oh horse feathers this game has no 'exciting action' in it this will simply will not do"[/QUOTE]
I dunno, a Victorian-era shooter with steampunk/tesla weaponry is pretty badass in my opinion. How often do we see that kind of thing?
I think the fog and darkness adds to the realism, in the sense of removing anything that seems unrealistic. It's a cheap trick.
[QUOTE=JackDestiny;44895542][MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDo0F9y16wU[/MEDIA]
It doesn't look that bad in this video[/QUOTE]
The stuttering is horrid. I am a bit surprised to see a bit of people complaining about the frame rate though. GTA 5 has a fucking horrid frame rate and you really dont see anyone mention it.
[QUOTE=endorphinsam;44897019]
Are you kidding me? It literally [i]was[/i] lies and bullshit. Everyone was upset that the game didn't resemble the trailer whatsoever. the fake cgi "gameplay" was bait into thinking it would be a truly next gen game, and on top of that everyone was upset that the graphics didn't look nearly as good. I have no idea where you're getting that people were actually impressed with KZ2's graphics compared to the CGI trailer.[/QUOTE]
Dude, Killzone 2 looked WAY batter than the original Trailer in almost everyway.
[editline]25th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=endorphinsam;44901463][del]so you chose to insult my opinion instead of just saying that?[/del]
*nevermind you're not even the user i responded to
So you dismiss everyone else's opinions because [b]you[/b] think its fun and [b]you[/b] aren't completely tired of the generic third person gameplay? learn how to convey and understand opinions. People aren't stupid for having opinions that differ from yours. Sorry if I sound condescending, but I dont think I'm wrong here. People say it looks generic and you think that's dumb? even you, (yes, you! in this thread!) agreed the gameplay looked (paraphrasing) generic. You don't even disagree but if someone makes a fucking observation you think they are wrong even though [i]literally[/i] it is true and the third person game mechanics in this are almost as oversaturated as first person military shooters.
And if you don't care of other's opinions why are you responding to me even though i was asking someone(that isn't you) a question?
[editline]sd[/editline]
also what "the zerg who only care about quote "innovation" and "fun" really only want over used, rehashed gameplay from the 1990s" how did you even get that out of anything? is there even an example of that in this thread at all?? quite the deductive reasoning you deployed there. I don't even know what it means. I guess I can't argue with something I don't understand.[/QUOTE]
No I mean, you're dismissing a game because you don't like the particular play style. Which is fine...[B]That doesn't make it a bad game. That makes it a game your not interested in.[/B]
Don't bitch about a game you don't find fun, period. To others they can find it fun. You yourself may not find it fun and that's your opinion. Don't treat it like fact.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44906541]The stuttering is horrid. I am a bit surprised to see a bit of people complaining about the frame rate though. GTA 5 has a fucking horrid frame rate and you really dont see anyone mention it.[/QUOTE]
its kind of expected on last gen consoles
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44906541]The stuttering is horrid. I am a bit surprised to see a bit of people complaining about the frame rate though. GTA 5 has a fucking horrid frame rate and you really dont see anyone mention it.[/QUOTE]
-snip, thought he was talking about the OP-
GTA V has an almost constant 30 FPS, which isn't [I]great[/I] but is not horrid in any sense.
[QUOTE=Swilly;44906591]Dude, Killzone 2 looked WAY batter than the original Trailer in almost everyway.
[editline]25th May 2014[/editline]
No I mean, you're dismissing a game because you don't like the particular play style. Which is fine...[B]That doesn't make it a bad game. That makes it a game your not interested in.[/B]
Don't bitch about a game you don't find fun, period. To others they can find it fun. You yourself may not find it fun and that's your opinion. Don't treat it like fact.[/QUOTE]
I think you may have mis interpreted every single one of my posts in this thread, or haven't even read any of it. I literally state that it's opinion and not fact in the post you're responding to. you couldn't be more wrong. and to make sure you even get to this part of the post, i'll bold it so you don't lose attention. [b]where do you even see me say this game was bad in any one of my posts?[/b] I don't think I can even count the amount of fallicies you are using on your side of the argument with both my hands.
[quote]Dude, Killzone 2 looked WAY batter than the original Trailer in almost everyway.[/quote]
ok i see it's no use arguing with you, you literally contradicted yourself by saying "lol dont treat opinion as fact" and literally treat opinion as fact 5ms earlier(and what's funny is from a graphical technologies standpoint you're not even [i]remotely[/i] right, the technology used in the cgi demo is never even fucking seen in the game whatsoever, and not even seen in NEXT GEN GAMES OR EVEN PC GAMES, why? BECAUSE IT'S CG)
[img_thumb]http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/entry_photo_images/10172741/TO1886_WCH_Square_01_2014_05_21.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/entry_photo_images/10172731/TO1886_WCH_Square_05_2014_05_21.jpg[/img_thumb]
Thumbed for size.
[img_thumb]http://www.gamerscomm.net/attachments/playstation-4-forum/892d1381520117-order-1886-game-screenshots-order-1866.jpg[/img_thumb]
The clothes in the first and second are the Infiltrator Costume while the third picture is the Ceremonial Costume.
High quality footage is coming out on Tuesday so it would be better to wait til then to judge it
[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;44907046]-snip, though he was talking about the OP-
GTA V has an almost constant 30 FPS, which isn't [I]great[/I] but is not horrid in any sense.[/QUOTE]
It has a constant sub 30 fps, most of the time between 24-28. Below 30 is pretty bad because it is defiantly noticeable. Really about the same as what this game appears to be.
[editline]25th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=endorphinsam;44907034]its kind of expected on last gen consoles[/QUOTE]
If sub 30 games where acceptable late last gen I don't see why it shouldn't be early next gen. The technology hasn't advanced all that much.
Looks exceptionally boring, IMO...
I remember this game having more color. In the video it was extremely grey. Just like in the previous video the gameplay looks pretty generic with very nice graphics and interesting setting. All in all though I don't feel excited about it.
[QUOTE=endorphinsam;44907048]
ok i see it's no use arguing with you, you literally contradicted yourself by saying "lol dont treat opinion as fact" and literally treat opinion as fact 5ms earlier(and what's funny is from a graphical technologies standpoint you're not even [i]remotely[/i] right, the technology used in the cgi demo is never even fucking seen in the game whatsoever, and not even seen in NEXT GEN GAMES OR EVEN PC GAMES, why? BECAUSE IT'S CG)[/QUOTE]
Dear God. One of the surprises about KZ2 by most commentators is that it was actually better looking than the trailer.
[QUOTE=Dr McNinja;44904532][IMG]http://i2.wp.com/i.minus.com/iqmpITByGtSqA.gif?resize=797%2C324[/IMG]
I don't like the muddy fog look.[/QUOTE]
This looks like such a lazy way how they did it, slap tons of post processing on, this actually kills the quality, well made models and textures and instead of reinforcing it they degrade it.
On side note, I think it's like an unsaid golden rule that if the game takes place in Victorian London, it has to look like shit.
[QUOTE=Grindigo;44909427]This looks like such a lazy way how they did it, slap tons of post processing on, this actually kills the quality, well made models and textures and instead of reinforcing it they degrade it.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't help the models are significantly less detailed now too.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.