FOOD said:
sieanr said:
| 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 would expect people to read carefuly and not assume implications beyond what's being said. So what do you attribute the games technical issues to? Thats all I'd really like to know. I'm not attributing any technical issues to anyone or anything. That's not what the original post was about, so it's completely irrelivant. The fact that you've been picking an argument for something offtopic is what makes your argument completely stupid. If you wanted to know what I thought was responsible for any technical issues, you could have got a hold of me privately.
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. Reviewers are more qualified to be consumers than consumers? Or do you mean that their opinions are more valid than the consumer's? Never heard this before. I thought reviewers were more qualified to review games, but I never thought their opinions were more valid than others. I know some other people took issue with some minor technical issues, but the fact of the matter is I never said no one didn't take issues with them.
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. To the best of my knowledge, there's no proof that they did infact actually try to come up with anything beyond the hardware's limitations or realized what they had created was poorly realized. They may have just came up with an idea, but never actually tried it, thus coming up with a different game. Sorry, techincal limitations - more or less the same thing when you take into account the preceding "ran into"(I certainly never said anything about running into anything) meaning that the hardware gave them trouble. Technical limitations are different from technical issues, thus having different words being used to tell each other apart.
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. I didn't even imply anything unintentionally. If you did have a problem with me not being clear or explicit, you could have simply said something allong the lines of, "FOOD, you're not clear or explicit. Can you ellaborate more? That way, if it turns out to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard, then I could argue with you." You jumped the gun about things I wasn't implying, and that's what makes your argument completely pointless.
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. Give me a link that shows that there is an internet sense to Poe's Law. Maybe then I'd believe you.
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. We're both being partial on this one. Some characters are stealthy, like that one chick with the silenced weapon, and some characters are designed for the run and gun type of combat, as it's the case with Rico. So, the game was essentially designed for both. 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. Of course I keep replying, I'm a part of this argument because you keep arguing with me. Of course I'm arguing with you. Would you have expected me to hang my head and say you're right about something you're clearly not? Of course I'm not going to address the points in which I'm wrong, because so far I haven't been wrong in this argument. Maybe partially with the run and gun part, but nothing you weren't guilty of either. Besides, it would be pretty fallacious for you to shift the burden of proving myself wrong--you're the one who started this mess.
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. Taking something I didn't say and then extending it is basically putting words in my mouth. I can't believe you haven't realized it yet. I haven't blamed anything for the framerate. Do I have someone or something to blame? Yes, but I haven't sated who or what. So, youre putting words in my mouth, whether you realize it or not. I thought you weren't arguing or addressing things not relevant to your original statement. Doesn't this fall under that? Not quite. I have coping issues :'( 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. Maybe they were dumb as rock, but I clearly remember those dumbass rocks shooting me with futuristic weapons. lol I never saw a building with severe texture pop-in. What I didn't see didn't bother me.
Except you miss the point entirely... I understand your point, and it didn't have anything to do what I've said.
|
Sorry. I'ts okay. 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. I haven't played the PS3 version, so I wouldn't know what pitfalls they will or will not fall into. All I'm saying is that they have the potential to make a great game. |
Actually it started off as a PC project and GG did release their other, concurrent PC game on that platform. Source, and maybe then I'll believe you. The fact of the matter is the game does not run smoothly, as you mention framerates, and there are technical issues galore. I also stated that they didn't hinder me up to the point where I couldn't pass it, and I ended up enjoying the game. And again you contradict yourself by stating that the game runs smoothly here, but mentioning framerates earlier. No, I said it ran smooth for me for the most part, not completely. Since you don't like the doom argument, heres a better one; Using you're logic Trespasser is a brilliant game. Still ignoring this... You didn't paint it with a pretty color and I missed it. Anyway, I've never played Trespasser, so I don't know what to tell you there. You said that poor framerate was due to hardware limitation(Didn't say this), 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 (Didn't claim this) that the developer wasn't at fault... meaning that you haven't come up with any reason for why the game ran poorly (I simply haven't come up with any reason because the game didn't run "poorly" for me. Even if it did, I'm not in the position to point out what went wrong because I don't know. I do, however, have an idea as to who or what to blame, but I havent said who or what yet.). To make matters worse you contend that the "technical limitation" wasn't due to weak (Never called the hardware "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 (I didn't blame anything because my post wasn't about blaming things.). 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 (Maybe they just didn't have the budget to do it? Are you truly in a position to say that they didn't have talent? I mean, there could be numerous factors other than talent.), 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. Again, you didn't color it, so I missed it. You're skirting around the issue yet again.(Because I said nothing about your issues in my original post. That's whave I've been pointing for a long time.) My point is the developer was an idiot to try things that the hardware couldn't handle (Do you have proof that they did try something the hardware couldn't handle?) - you've never replied to this. No. You said that the game missed AAA due to the technical limitations of the PS2. I criticized that point (Using arguments that didn't pertain to anything that I said.), 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. 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? Wrong, I wasn't ignoring the developers, I simply didn't mention them. All I said is that there were hardware limitations. Just like I haven't mentioned my dog at any point, but that doesn't mean I've been ignoring him. I just didn't mention him. Get it?
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? (You still haven't proven either of those. I need sources.)
|
