Andrespetmonkey said:
If a PC game needs to be dumbed down to the point where gameplay changes to be playable on a console, it is an issue worth fixing. MAG has incredibly limited interactivity whereas BF3 has a powerful destruction engine, vehicles, much better animations and it looks and sounds a lot better. So sure, if you dumb a game down so much you can get many people online, this isn't a good thing. Interactivity largely depends on what the hardware is capable of as seen in BF3. If you want fully destructible environments, bigger and more detailed worlds, better physics, smarter NPCs and better looking games you need better hardware. There really isn't any other way around it. |
While I agree with the first part. Interactivity depends on game design about as much (or even more) as on hardware, interctivity is not only destructable enviroments, an example of interactivity may be you character going near rotten fish, than being spotted because you smell like fish in MGS, another example is in Monster Hunter being warned of a dangerous monster incoming because you see its prays running away. These kind of interactions are almost completely unrelated to the hardware.
Also I am a bit skeptical about IA since, while I've seen a lot of progress in graphics from the beginning of this generations to today, at the same time I have't seen a great progression in IA since NPCs in Assasin's Creed are about as much as dumb as in Brotherhood, Gears Of War 3, UC3, CODMW3 NPCs doesn't seem to me a really smarter than GeOW1, UC1, CODMW NPCs. This leads me to belive developers were not really willing to max out consoles on this front.
At the end, what you say is right, but if want more interactivity, bigger words, smarter NPCs what you need, more than the hardware, is the will of developers to create such things, rather than beautifully looking, shiny, corridor-like levels.







