FOOD said:
sieanr said:
| FOOD said:You still don't get it do you? I never said it was good to be too ambitious, I said some ambition can pay off (Grand Theft Auto, etc.) But you didn't say that there were any real problems because of it, so how the hell do you think people would take what you said? I said there were hardware limitations--nothing more. I'm not blaming the hardware's limitations for technical issues. In fact, I never said anything about technical issues in my original post. Again, you're trying to read what you want to read, which is stuff that I never wrote.. So what do you attribute the games technical issues to? Thats all I'd really like to know. Reviewers are essentially critics. They write their opinions, not universal mandates for the gaming industry. My opinion, and I am a consumer, is that the game ran smooth for the most part.) And my point is reviewers are far more qualified than most consumers, and that the general consensus is the games technical problems are something many people took issue with. Just because you didn't have a problem with it means others didn't, after all you can always find someone who thinks shit doesn't stink. (Based on your logic, I'm guessing Mass Effect was developed by incompetent developers because of the game's minor frame rate issues too--regardless of the critically acclaimed aspects of the game.) It was sure as hell rushed to market like no other. And Bioware has a history of producing buggy products even when given all the time in the world, and mass effect has plenty. The game is good, but bogged down by some serious technical issues so their developers definitely aren't the most capable., which you haven't picked up on. Keep in mind that plenty of other developers had no problems making fine games on the PS2 hardware(Kudos to them).)But this doesn't matter since you would have been amazed by KZ in 2000, right? (So they had a vision that couldn't be made on the PS2... yet they didn't exceed what the PS2 was capable of?(Is that not possible? Is it not possible for a vision to not be created on the PS2 and instead come out with something different?) Certainly. But you stated that the "technical limitations" held the game back form "AAA" status, despite the fact reviewers panned its substandard gameplay, meaning that they did try something beyond the hardware - or that what they come up for the PS2 was poorly realized. Like it or not, when you state that they ran into technical problems (I never stated that. Again, words & mouth.) Sorry, techincal limitations - more or less the same thing when you take into account the preceding "ran into" meaning that the hardware gave them trouble. you imply that they hadn't foreseen those issues or just tried to do too much(I never implied anything beyond what I've written.) Maybe not intentionally, but you have to understand that just about every statement implies things not mentioned in it - and this is definitly the case when you aren't very clear or explicit, as you were in the original post. This is in no way a theological conversation, so Poe's Law is completely irrelivant. Poes law in the internet sense. In this instance it means its impossibly to tell when you're being serious and when you're being facetious. In the context of this argument, Killzone was primarily designed to be a cover and fire game. Halo was designed to be a run and gun game. Nonetheless, anyone can play it the way they want--I'm not denying that. Just as a car can be designed for paved roads, it can still be used to drive on some dirt roads in mountains, but that doesn't mean it's considered an off-road vehicle all of the sudden. I could run and gun on Killzone all I want, but it will never change it from being what it was primarily designed to be.No it wasn't. The cover elements are not a major part of the game, and the developers themselves have stated that KZ was primarily a run and gun game, as KZ2 will be. (I wasn't planning on refuting anything in my original post. The only person who should be worrying about ignoring things to refute is you, for you are the one who is trying to argue for the sake of argument. And so far you've been doing a terrible job.)Yet you keep replying to this? Seems to me like you're just as much of a part as I am at keeping this thing going. Funny how you haven't addressed any points where you have been proven wrong, yet you try to refute other things.. all while not arguing. (No, this is terribly wrong. Using this logic, you're implying that all hardware with any limits whatsoever are failing hardware. I also never implied that the PS2 was weak. I simply said it had its limitations, just as any supercomputer in the known universe does.) Not quite. You said that the software was not at fault for the framerate and due to technical limitations. So ii the software is fine, it must mean that the hardware wasn't powerful enough to handle the game. Its not putting word in you're mouth, its taking what you stated and extending. on the hardware end, meaning its weak. Its not putting words in you're mouth, its twisting you're argument against you[Lol! You're doing a great job!(Sarcasm)].I thought you weren't arguing or addressing things not relevant to your original statement. Doesn't this fall under that? You said that it wasn't due to inadequate hardware, so I extended you're argument to encompass a solution; bad developers. Sorry that you missed how that wasn't meant to be taken literally. I thought it was fairly clear what I was doing, but I guess I'll have to spell things out. (I'm taking things literally in this argument because I'm not planning to fall for your bad argument. You lost, deal with it.) I have coping issues (You can consider "hindered" and "plethora of bugs" to be relative to the gamer. I consider being hindered due to technical issues to be a situation in which the game cannot be passed due to said technical issues. I consider a plethora of bugs to be as many bugs as the ones found in the Warhawk beta.) So AI thats dumb as a rock is OK by you? That sort of thing doesn't get in your way when it comes to enjoying a game? Having a building five feet away have severe texture pop in is alright, since it doesn't stop you from finishing? I remember far more bugs in KZ than in the Warhawk beta. I guess nothing since you disproved your self. I didn't disprove anything but your seriously flawed argument. You may want to work on your consistency for future arguments. And I suggest that you should work on the reading comprehension and understand what people are getting at. You can start with realizing that not everything is meant lterally. (But by taking things litterally I'm beating you at this argument.) Except you miss the point entirely... |
"If GG overextended themselves with KZ1, then what is to say they wont do the same with KZ2?" - Maybe you can answer this now since what I wrote should make my argument clear to you. This is completely out of context. Don't extend the argument beyond what it was originally. Hardly. You said that GG will make KZ2 everything that KZ1 was not(Never said that. Fallacy.). Sorry. If they overextended themselves before, then what is to stop them from doing the same again? Again you just ignore an argument you don't have a good answer to (I'm ignoring arguments about things that don't pertain to what I've stated. If you want to argue, go to a philosophical forum. I'm pretty sure there's plenty of people there who'd love to argue about issues.). This pertains to what you've said entirely. You stated that GG has the potential to make KZ2 great, and has the resources to accomplish it. I'm only asking you why the developer will not fall into many of the same pitfalls they did last time, because most of this hype is unwarranted. |
Actually it started off as a PC project and GG did release their other, concurrent PC game on that platform. The fact of the matter is the game does not run smoothly, as you mention framerates, and there are technical issues galore. And again you contradict yourself by stating that the game runs smoothly here, but mentioning framerates earlier. Since you don't like the doom argument, heres a better one; Using you're logic Trespasser is a brilliant game.Still ignoring this... Oh please You said that poor framerate was due to hardware limitation, yet you expect people to understand that the games technical problems weren't due to hardware? Then you make things even more baffling by claiming that the developer wasn't at fault... meaning that you haven't come up with any reason for why the game ran poorly. To make matters worse you contend that the "technical limitation" wasn't due to weak hardware and just turn it into some ill defined generality that allows you to marginalize the games problems and appoint the blame to what is essentially nothing. Talk about brilliant reasoning. But I digress. Once again you miss the point entirely. What I've been saying all along is that these technical problems are rampant in the game because GG just didn't have the talent to pull off what they were going for, such as finding a way around those "technical limitations" that cause the framerate troubles. For some reason you haven't addressed this.... Sill ignoring this whole line of reasoning. 3) Expressed my opinion that Killzone 1 was a good game. Didn't think it got AAA status because of hardware limitations (never stated there were technical issues because of the PS2). So what the hell caused those technical issues? Gremlins? When you say there where technical limitations you imply that its the hardware unless you specify otherwise (No when I say there were technical limitations, I'm implying not everything can be done with the hardware. That is in no way implying anything about technical issues.). You're skirting around the issue yet again. My point is the developer was an idiot to try things that the hardware couldn't handle - you've never replied to this. You were criticising my argument based on too much ambition. That's why i had to point out I never said anything about too much ambition whatsoever.) I didn't even use the word ambition in any tense. Read all of my posts and point out where I blamed anything for KZ's technical issues. No. You said that the game missed AAA due to the technical limitations of the PS2. I criticized that point, making note that a developer who tries something beyond the hardware is a bad one, aka one who is "too ambitious". I was never quoting you. Thats the root of the problem, you never specify where those problems come from because they sure as hell didn't appear out of thin air (My job isn't to specify any technical issues. My original post had nothing to do with pointing out specific technical issues. Talk to the developers for that). All I stated was that the console had limitations. That's all, nothing more, nothing less, and no insinuations. And my point has been that GG is a bad developer for trying something that the hardware couldn't handle. Saying thats its "technical limitations" is ignoring the developers part in things. Get it? Your argument is just completely hostile, inconsistent, and seriously fallacious when you put words in my mouth. You're just punching air now, and there's no need for you to continue. FOOD + 1 sieanr -2 Hahaha I guess you don't count the things you were wrong about or just ignore against you. Wrong again. If you say so, kid. Remember the part where you said KZ was developed for the PS2 from the start? Or how GG said they released the game before they were ready?
FOOD +2 (avoid working with scoreboards) sieanr -3 (Don't be a lawyer.) |
