|
Member
(06-20-2012, 07:07 AM)
|
Nice games with the guys I was with. Especially this one.
|
|
Member
(06-20-2012, 07:12 AM)
|
|
|
Member
(06-20-2012, 07:24 AM)
|
Failing to link in the 21st century, come on 343.
Certainly gives MS their must have title for launch (which the 360 lacked). Although it will be availably on the 360 as well, so I don't know if it has that much of an impact. |
|
Member
(06-20-2012, 08:17 AM)
|
I don't have a wolf phone. Where do I get one? Is that something Verizon sells?
Of course, if you want it early you can watch Machinima.com slather their logo over poor sound balanced vidcam captures |
|
Member
(06-20-2012, 08:20 AM)
|
|
|
Member
(06-20-2012, 09:49 AM)
|
~230,000 posts so far... - we still have ~ four and a half months before Halo 4. Crazy. |
|
THE WORDS! They'll drift away without the _!
(06-20-2012, 09:52 AM)
|
Had a random thought earlier that I can't test currently, so figured I would ask here..
If you install the ODST multiplayer disc, can you then use the regular Halo 3 disc to boot it? Since the ODST multi disc shows up as being Halo 3. Could be useful. |
|
Member
(06-20-2012, 09:53 AM)
|
Still there is a difference between properties and "The game is a MMO". Activision and Bungie are not dumb. They both know hopefully that a MMO is not the perfect introduction game to a new Universe. Especially the case of TOR shows that even a strong licensed game with solid gameplay does not deliver profit to the publishers. Let us face it: The Old Republic was a big failure, financially, for EA, LucasArts and BioWare. A MMO a) is expensive in a long-term; b) needs consistent user base which is not guaranteed. Do not forget that Blizzard is working on their new "rumored Sci-fi" MMO "Titan". Why should Activision release a MMO when their partner is going to release one too? The thought that Bungie's new game is a MMO is dumb. The game will focus on Singleplayer but with "massively-multiplayer style" elements. This could mean a world map like Hybrid, Chromhounds or a trading system like EVE.
Last edited by Hypertrooper; 06-20-2012 at 09:56 AM.
|
|
Member
(06-20-2012, 10:06 AM)
|
Of course, his argument is that innovations like motion control are what drive sales, which I can get behind. That said, though, I do think next-gen consoles will be able to get quite a bit out of consumers just by offering graphically superior products. Star Wars 1313 made quite a splash at E3 because it looked unprecedented, visually, and Watch_Dogs impressive graphics helped it to really blow people away. |
|
Member
(06-20-2012, 10:06 AM)
|
The first comment was lol. Xbox 360 is at its limit. Still he says that games are going to get better graphics. Nope. It is at its limit. He is right with story etc. |
|
Member
(06-20-2012, 10:24 AM)
|
It's pretty true though.
Number of pixels rendered to make a final Halo image on 360 @ 720p (HDR, so 3 views per render): 2,764,800 per frame(82,944,000 pixels per second) 1080p native with HDR @ 60FPS: 6,220,800 per frame (373,248,000 pixels per second) So now you need to push around 3x the pixels AND bump it up to twice the update rate? Yeah, sure. 1080p isn't going to be a standard next gen. Actual 720p native as a baseline with some 1080p games? Okay.
Last edited by FyreWulff; 06-20-2012 at 10:27 AM.
|
|
Member
(06-20-2012, 10:50 AM)
|
I think Carmack is probably looking at the specs from a PC developer's perspective. It would be unwise to think that the console is going to offer similar performance to a PC with the same specs. In reality the console will be able to do much more.
If you tried to run Rage on a PC from 2005 with the same specs as the 360 it would probably melt, whereas the game runs fine on an Xbox. So where the paper the specs of the Nextbox might suggest it's underpowered, in terms of the games we'll actually see running on it, I'm sure it will be fine. |