The big give away should have been the chart with the data on the x axis being listed in date, time and number format
[QUOTE=Kondor58;28873842]The big give away should have been the chart with the data on the x axis being listed in date, time and number format[/QUOTE]
Or the image, or the completely unrelated units he uses, or the the mention of DX12 in the original Crysis.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;28871913]Haha, look at all the people getting fooled by this article.[/QUOTE]
Guess I should have read it past the first sentence
[editline]29th March 2011[/editline]
Or just read the last sentence.
I think there was a sonic boom as that went over my head.
the whole article gave it away, if you know how computer graphics work
I lost it when they started comparing how they look different from similar distances into the game.
[QUOTE=Lazore;28874164]the whole article gave it away, if you know how computer graphics work[/QUOTE]
Yeah, although I don't know how computer graphics work, I'd probably realize it was satire if I actually read what he was saying. I thought it was just another various article criticizing random points of the games industry.
Also I don't know how computer graphics work.
[QUOTE=rivalin;28874303]Despite missing the joke, he’s right that Crysis 2 is a bad console port, and frankly RPS’ whole, “aren’t we cool because we’re not like the nerds who actually care about the complete lack of respect that major publishers and developers show for the pc as a platform” attitude is getting a little tiring.
I don’t care about Crysis 2 looking slightly worse (and it does, it just has better artists to cover up deficiencies in the tech) what I do care about is that it runs worse on my computer than Crysis 1, it is not well optimised and it is clear that despite Crytek’s dishonesty about still having any focus on the pc, it received no more attention than any other very basic port.
What I do care about is the staggering lazyness displayed by Crytek, the “adjust the brightness on your tv” and “press start to begin” statements, which any pc gamer would have picked upon on immediately.
What I do care about is the requirement to manually edit your config file to give yourself a decent field of view, or fix mouse acceleration so that it’s possible to actually aim straight without a 2 second lag, because Crytek couldn’t be bothered to spend the ten minutes it would have taken themselves.
What I do care about are the compromises made to gameplay to accommodate consoles, which in effect turns the game into a call of duty clone dressed up as Crysis.
What I do care about are the ridiculous compromises made for the lack of intelligence of the new player base; the fact that EVERY time for the entire game, that you perform a common action you need a prompt “press V to melee” “press space to vault” blah blah blah. Or a visor that needs to actually tell you your “tactical options” because you are too stupid to perceive them yourself; when there’s a tank parked next to me, I don’t need to be told that “driving it” is one of my “tactical options”.
What I do care about is that a four years later sequel uses an older API than its predecessor, how silly of me, should I applaud the paucity of ambition and mercenary attitudes that mean technological development has not simply halted, but moved backwards? Oh what a terribly uncool little nerd I must be.
This article mocks a lot of people who have reasonable and valid concerns about the state in which the game was released. The failure to highlight and question these deficiencies amongst much of the pc gaming press demonstrates a craven disregard for holding developers to account, still I suppose games “journalists” might not get flown out to the US for junkets every couple of months or so if they pissed of the wrong people.
[/QUOTE]
He has a great point. Also the reason RPS can't say anything bad about Crysis 2 is because of all of EA's ads on their website. :v:
I knew it was satire when they mentioned the 12 joule range.
Joule is for work/energy, silly silly RPS.
[QUOTE=BloodYScar;28873480]haha so funneh and edgy haha sooo funneh.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.cubeupload.com/UoVOy6.png[/img]
[QUOTE=DrBreen;28872008]Crysis 2's looks is Crysis with more detailed levels, that is all. although the lightning is actually superior.
Crysis 3 will have that groundbreaking tech we all crave for.[/QUOTE]
the joke
your head
I sure hope my 20 meg pipe, 900kb/s processor and 5010p graphics board can take Crysis 3.
As someone who doesn't understand the technical aspects of developing a game at all, I thought the guy was serious, and I actually started to wonder if this is really what PC gamers care about. Then I started reading the comments and all was clear.
[QUOTE=Doc Diddles;28875992]I sure hope my 20 meg pipe, 900kb/s processor and 5010p graphics board can take Crysis 3.[/QUOTE]
I think I'll have to upload my fan to 5.01 gigawats.
I didn't even have to read the article. The picture at the top was a dead giveaway that it was satire.
I read it anyway. V:v:V
The satire falls flat when you also take into consideration the fact that Crysis can keep track of a huge number of npc's at once, while crysis 2 apparently can only manage a spare handful.
It is a painfully obvious mechanic when I have a visor that lets me detect enemies through a wall.
Crysis had an entire armored echelon fighting against an army. Crysis 2 has nothing of the sort.
Don't feed me this bullshit about power not mattering. RAM and CPU speed matter. They matter a huge amount.
oh, how i love satire
Normally I'd find this kind of thing pretty funny, but it's kind of a bad satire. Unless they're satirizing people that like Crysis 2 by using such a terrible strawman, they've completely missed the point. I mean yeah, there are a lot of people complaining about dx11 being patched in later, but that's not the only reason the game feels consolized. I mean, this would be a far better satire if dx11 was the only reason people were complaining, but it's not, it's just one of many.
you people would say it was console-ized no matter what as long as it came out on a console
it's static, it doesn't mean anything anymore
[editline]29th March 2011[/editline]
pretty amusing article too
[QUOTE=thisispain;28880586]you people would say it was console-ized no matter what as long as it came out on a console
it's static, it doesn't mean anything anymore
[/QUOTE]
So removal of advanced graphics settings, gameplay elements that wouldn't work on a console, and mod support doesn't mean anything?
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;28880747]So removal of advanced graphics settings, gameplay elements that wouldn't work on a console, and mod support doesn't mean anything?[/QUOTE]
no not really considering crysis 2 was more fun than crysis 1 in my humble opinion
[QUOTE=thisispain;28880806]no not really considering crysis 2 was more fun than crysis 1 in my humble opinion[/QUOTE]
That's beside the point.
You said that the game's detractors will say a game is consolized no matter what as long as it was released on a console, and that's not the case. Though there's likely a remote minority that fit that description, there are perfectly valid reasons to think the game was designed for consoles with pc support thrown in for good measure.
Is facepunch's new word this month Satire.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;28880957]That's beside the point. [/QUOTE]
exactly, and that's the problem
i really don't give a shit whether a game was made for consoles or and you shouldn't either
[QUOTE=thisispain;28881387]exactly, and that's the problem
i really don't give a shit whether a game was made for consoles or and you shouldn't either[/QUOTE]
I don't care that it was made for consoles.
I care that they changed a lot of the things I liked about Crysis so that it would work on consoles. I care that they lied to PC gamers and told them that console support wouldn't affect the game's development when it has in a big way. I care that what could have been an even better game has turned out to be merely ok so that Crytek could make a couple more bucks.
If you enjoy the game, fine, have fun with it, but don't sit there and tell me that my issues with the game are unfounded.
crytek is basically
[img]http://i.imgur.com/It00u.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;28881737]I don't care that it was made for consoles.
I care that they changed a lot of the things I liked about Crysis so that it would work on consoles. I care that they lied to PC gamers and told them that console support wouldn't affect the game's development when it has in a big way. I care that what could have been an even better game has turned out to be merely ok so that Crytek could make a couple more bucks.
If you enjoy the game, fine, have fun with it, but don't sit there and tell me that my issues with the game are unfounded.[/QUOTE]
You seem like you are PC IS MAI LAIFE H4RDC0R3 G4M3R.
Why do people say crysis 2 runs worse on their computer than crysis 1. No fucking shit sherlock, I didn't realise it was supposed to be worse than it. And I don't trust these peoples ability to tell whether the game is unoptimized or just whether their computer can't handle it.
[QUOTE=zombojoe;28874412]He has a great point. Also the reason RPS can't say anything bad about Crysis 2 is because of all of EA's ads on their website. :v:[/QUOTE]
No he doesn't.
[QUOTE=rivalin;28874412]Despite missing the joke, he’s right that Crysis 2 is a bad console port, and frankly RPS’ whole, “aren’t we cool because we’re not like the nerds who actually care about the complete lack of respect that major publishers and developers show for the pc as a platform” attitude is getting a little tiring.
I don’t care about Crysis 2 looking slightly worse (and it does, it just has better artists to cover up deficiencies in the tech) what I do care about is that it runs worse on my computer than Crysis 1, it is not well optimised and it is clear that despite Crytek’s dishonesty about still having any focus on the pc, it received no more attention than any other very basic port. [b] Crysis 1 Struggled at "High" on my Computer, Warhead Ran better than Crysis 1 on Very-High, and Crysis 2 ran like butter at 60+ FPS on Maximum/Very High on my Computer. [/b]
What I do care about is the staggering lazyness displayed by Crytek, the “adjust the brightness on your tv” and “press start to begin” statements, which any pc gamer would have picked upon on immediately.
[b] I think the reality is? Crytek knows most normal people don't care, and technically your monitor is a type of TV. They have most of the same tech. Start is also a very general term. If you're judging a game by two lines of text? Than we have bigger problems.[/b]
What I do care about is the requirement to manually edit your config file to give yourself a decent field of view, or fix mouse acceleration so that it’s possible to actually aim straight without a 2 second lag, because Crytek couldn’t be bothered to spend the ten minutes it would have taken themselves.
[b] No, the game has a 55 (65?) FOV for a reason. It is designed for that. As is almost every other game on the PC. They are designed on a small FOV. Using a higher FOV makes the game fish-eyed, and lets you see through your arms and the walls. This isn't even a PC problem, it should not be in your rant. Moues acceleration? Who even uses that. No really, who uses that? [/b]
What I do care about are the compromises made to gameplay to accommodate consoles, which in effect turns the game into a call of duty clone dressed up as Crysis.
[b] What ones? You just say sweeping statements[/b]
What I do care about are the ridiculous compromises made for the lack of intelligence of the new player base; the fact that EVERY time for the entire game, that you perform a common action you need a prompt “press V to melee” “press space to vault” blah blah blah. Or a visor that needs to actually tell you your “tactical options” because you are too stupid to perceive them yourself; when there’s a tank parked next to me, I don’t need to be told that “driving it” is one of my “tactical options”. [b] Is your intelligence somehow hurt, or your ego? What does it matter if the game gives a little helping hand? Maybe players who have less intellect (Slower people play games too you know) or people who can't be bothered to study everything in a game. Want to have fun too. I'm so sorry the game tries to cater to everyone. It's not like a fucking text hint is going to ruin your experience. [/b]
What I do care about is that a four years later sequel uses an older API than its predecessor, how silly of me, should I applaud the paucity of ambition and mercenary attitudes that mean technological development has not simply halted, but moved backwards? Oh what a terribly uncool little nerd I must be.
[b] What the fuck are you going on about. I don't even know what this is?[/b]
This article mocks a lot of people who have reasonable and valid concerns about the state in which the game was released. The failure to highlight and question these deficiencies amongst much of the pc gaming press demonstrates a craven disregard for holding developers to account, still I suppose games “journalists” might not get flown out to the US for junkets every couple of months or so if they pissed of the wrong people.
[b] You know the problem with you and PC gamers? You're spoiled and have way too high expecations. You are your own cancer and are the reason PC gaming is dying. Why don't you shut the fuck up and enjoy the good games that are released instead of fucking bitching about graphics that are not to your anal perfection or the stupid fucking text that means absolutely nothing. Most Developers do not want your shit and are intimidated by a hard (if not impossible) to please market and the threat of being pirated and hated. But even than. I'm sure Publishers too are more than aware that it is harder to please PC than Console. I don't really know why you all have some kind of Chip on your Shoulder. "PC Gaming" "PC Master Race" "PC Gamers Deserve This and That". No, you deserve nothing more. You paid the same price as a console gamer. You get the same game. Nothing More, Nothing Less.[/b]
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I went on a rant on a news-article, deal with it.
As for the article and ontopic? It's a funny post, too many people won't realize the satire though.
Ahahaha
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;28881911]You seem like you are PC IS MAI LAIFE H4RDC0R3 G4M3R.[/QUOTE]
In what way? I've stated time and time again that my problem isn't with consoles. I've reiterated multiple times my respect for the opinions of those that like the game. Why is it wrong for me to ask that respect be mutual?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
