FAble 2 sucks...but have you guys ever heard about this?

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[lompocus]

Think Spore.

Now, think about doing every aspect of life procedurally, from the largest star-forming phenomenae to the culture of some obscure alien society to every blade of grass to the system which forms that blade of grass to the seeding of that first blade of grass to the smallest level imaginable. No, that's not spore, that's a shitload more complex than spore.

It's an idea I had and spurred me to start learning programming languages again (i barely have any time available and spend maybe 4 hours a week trying to learn BASIC right now though, lol...) and, like every other idea I come up with, I go do stuff relating to it for a week only to have my hopes utterly crushed to discovering someone's already doing something a lot bigger on that... Oh well -_-.

ANYWAYS...Fable 2 is awesome, but 'Dmitri' is a helluvalot more kick-ass and has been in development waaaay before Duke Nuken Forever was thought up.

Here's a video, do the rest of the research yourself, I'm bored. Keep in mind this is from early 2k5, by lionhead (fable's devs). It looks better than crysis, with faster physics stuff than crysis. It's Crysis...in 2k5. Granted its on a really small scale....ah, well, look into it yourself.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGiPUx9Zgi0

[Akranadas]

The problem lompocus is, what you see and what can realistically be done is two different things.

Sure, they made that in 2005, but do you think they were using hardware that you could by in 2005 to do that? No they weren't. Games and Graphical development companies have hardware capable of near photo realistic graphics, but the problem is we don't. There's no point in making a game with such realistic graphics when the only computer that can run it is the one it was developed on.

That is what nipped Crysis in the but in terms of sales. Why would people spend money on the game if there was a near 80% chance that it would run like a bathtub on their PC?

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

Hence I don't own Crysis and never will (unless it comes out on Xbox360).

[Tymathee]

heh boring

[lompocus]

omg u people are so stupid awesome

[stumpster]

Akr is my hero.

[lompocus]

omg u people are so stupid awesome

-_-

[Easy Computer]

The problem lompocus is, what you see and what can realistically be done is two different things.

Sure, they made that in 2005, but do you think they were using hardware that you could by in 2005 to do that? No they weren't. Games and Graphical development companies have hardware capable of near photo realistic graphics, but the problem is we don't. There's no point in making a game with such realistic graphics when the only computer that can run it is the one it was developed on.

That is what nipped Crysis in the but in terms of sales. Why would people spend money on the game if there was a near 80% chance that it would run like a bathtub on their PC?

why do peop0le claim it sold like crap? it sold 1 million+ copies

[Akranadas]

1 million + isn't enough to cover the development of the game.

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

you need at least 5 mil.

[TharulermeTLS]

Hence I don't own Crysis and never will (unless it comes out on Xbox360).

360 Can't even handle it properly, 360's already drop dead if you say MGS4 rofl. Apart from that, the directors of Crytek stated that if they ever release something like Crysis on the consoles the graphics will be as how Crysis runs on High on the PC. And since Ultra is the highest graphical setting in Crysis that means that it will be downgraded, you will never have the best on your consoles -> buy a good PC.

But further more, I agree with Akranadas explanation, although I disagree with combining Crysis and a bathtub. I don't know why people complain that it's a laggy game - there's nothing wrong with it, I have a modern PC yet very far from the best and I can play it lagless.