Times of Plenty

[Nutter]

I just wanted fallout 3, and now I have it. L4D and LBP looks fun, but I don't have that much time to play games and I got a thing for nuclear wastelands so Fallout 3 makes me all kinds of warm inside.

[thegsusfreek]

with all graphics options switched to full

I'd have to take issue with that statement. Example:

http://www.zonapixel.es/2008/11/03/fall ... station-3/

[bert_the_turtle]

Because you take it out of context. Graphics options on full on that console (do console games even have graphics options? Never seen anything like that, apart from minor stuff like how I want my crosshair to look.). Or rather, think of it as automatic adaption of graphics level to hardware performance that actually works.

[Cooper42]

Left 4 Dead release tomorrow...

I have a long list of games I still want to play:
Bioshock (I decided to wait until I had a new rig to play it. Now that I do, I'm still working through other games first...)
FarCry 2
Mass Effect
Spore

Fallout 3 and Stalker: Clear Skies I'm waiting for a year to see what the mod community does. Neither seem appealing in their off-the-shelf state from what I've heard.

Red Alert 2 once my mate gets his new rig and we can work through it co-op

So, for now, L4D and Multiwinia are taking up most of my time (along with my second playthrough of Darwinia and, as always, the occasional run about in the 'Zone' of Stalker)

[RabidZombie]

Because you take it out of context. Graphics options on full on that console.

Saying the graphics are not as good as they could be is perfectly within context. If you've seen the game looking better elsewhere, it's resonable to say the graphics aren't at their highest. Sure, you don't have the options to turn them down or up, but with many cross platform console games, the game will cut back on the graphics options on the consoles. LOD may kick in at shorter distances, the quality of textures may be lower, etc. It's not "full".

Or rather, think of it as automatic adaption of graphics level to hardware performance that actually works.

This is basically admitting the graphics options aren't full.

You could equally argue that what ever settings you have on the PC version of the game, they're the "full" graphics options for your hardware and your preferences.

Also, I'd like to point out that the whole "runs at 100% performance" is a load of bollocks in its self. The fact that I've played several games that have strained my consoles such that it's frame rate has reduced goes to show it isn't 100% performance anyway.

[bert_the_turtle]

No, "PC has better graphics (provided you either pump in lots of cash or wait for the consoles to age, or both)" is a completely different argument The one pro consoles is "you don't have to fiddle with graphics options to make it run as well as it ever will on your hardware", which was the one Chris was making (I think).

[tllotpfkamvpe]

.

[Phelanpt]

(...)if you like football.

[RabidZombie]

No, "PC has better graphics (provided you either pump in lots of cash or wait for the consoles to age, or both)" is a completely different argument

Which is why I wasn't making that arguement?

I'm still on the whole "all graphics options switched to full" thing. Considering I was contradicting your argument against the belief that that statement was wrong, I thought that was clear. I also took on the "runs at 100% performance" bit as well.

This, though, is a completely pointless disagreement, since neither I nor you care that the graphics aren't technically "full". To be honest, a shit game is a shit game, no matter what platform or high high the graphics settings are set to.

[bert_the_turtle]

Err, what? The summary of the conversation, as I read it:
Chris: On consoles, you don't have to fiddle with graphics options.
Thegsusfreek, specifically quoting chris: Nowai, *points to site showing, as far as I bothered to read, that Fallout 3 looks better on PCs *
me: umm, * points out misunderstanding *
RabidZombie: Nope, that guy is right, graphics on consoles could be better.
me: * points out difference of that to what he thinks Chris was saying again *
RabidZombie: I wasn't saying what I was saying.

I completely lost track about who said what and what is relevant, to be honest, and I don't care one bit I've got a Wii, admitting graphics would be something I care about would be admitting I bought the wrong machine

This, though, is a completely pointless disagreement, since neither I nor you care that the graphics aren't technically "full". To be honest, a shit game is a shit game, no matter what platform or high high the graphics settings are set to.

Amen to that.

* retreats from thread before there are more misunderstandings *

[Phevnil]

Any one else waiting for Starcraft2? I don't really like how they are going to make it one game with two-three (actual game has Teran then you have to by an expansion for Zerg and one for Protoss not to mention each one gives you more units for the other races and the possible third expansion is the commonly hinted at fourth Zerg-Protoss hybrid race) expansions to play the whole campaign; not to mention the rumors of pay-to-play-multiplayer. I hope it's better than it sounds like it will be now, but no matter the possible short comings it will still be awesome no matter how many bad choices Blizzard makes (unless it is pay-to-play that would completely ruin it).

[Phelanpt]

I think the expansions make sense in the current game market, which is doing more episodic games lately.
That way, they can get each part of the game to the consumers faster.
Or maybe they're just trying to get more money out of the franchise than just one game would get them.

[Phevnil]

There doing it because they claim they will go bankrupt with out it *wonders how makeing the bigest pay to play MMO that is still used by millions of people who pay each month sudenly puts you in the poor house*.

[TheRileyDuo]

From what I've seen, starcraft 2 will be less than perfect: which will make it dissapointing to a lot of fans. Blizzard needs to start a new franchise, and try to reach out to an untapped player base in their marketing strategy.

[Pinky]

There doing it because they claim they will go bankrupt with out it *wonders how makeing the bigest pay to play MMO that is still used by millions of people who pay each month sudenly puts you in the poor house*.

It's possible that they've over-expanded. Their profit margins slowed, and they've been left in the lurch, with more maintenance than profit.

Or it may come to that when Starcraft 2 comes out.