By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - On MCC and remasters.

Nicklesbe on 04 September 2014
Jazz2K said:
Nicklesbe said:
jlmurph2 said:

In what way do you lie or mean something else when explicitly saying "dedicated servers"? 

Same way developers lied about features that would be in games but later removed, or how they lied about what the resolution and frame rates would be but then changed them. Then there is always the possibility that they could have been talking about leader boards, or sharing/recorded videos that would be hosted on dedicated servers. Or perhaps there is only a single game mode that is on dedicated servers while the others are hosted. Or perhaps they were simply refering to AI/other enhancments to the game that were held in "the cloud". All I know for sure is that there are sources that say the multiplayer is P2P which aligns with the fact that they won CEDEC in that very field. http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/07/12/ps4-leads-the-charge-between-cedec-excellence-awards-2014-nominees-faces-off-against-xbox-one-and-wii-u/ So like I said, no way to know for sure until we actually play the game.

Yea that's true some devs lie about resolution a lot this gen and people eat it up just to realise they've been lied to. We shouldn't believe everything devs say, some are so angry that they sue devs because of this. I still don't understand though how you can "trust" IGN but not the other sites and the devs themselves... seems to me you chose to believe the worst case scenario. But in any case, don't go on spreading your p2p as if it was fact since you don't know either.

I'm not choosing to beleive anyone. You asked for my source before and I gave it to you. I've also said time and time again that I won't know for sure until I actualy play it. If anything I am distrusting both of them equally because history they both should be distrusted equally. I am simply looking at the facts for what they are and acknowledging that at this point either possibility is viable.



http://www.youtube.com/v/AoOOpLpcF28 http://www.youtube.com/v/CphFZGH5030

All Hail the Jester King. The King is back, and I am still a dirty girl prof ;)

Around the Network
Jazz2K on 04 September 2014
Nicklesbe said:
Jazz2K said:

Yea that's true some devs lie about resolution a lot this gen and people eat it up just to realise they've been lied to. We shouldn't believe everything devs say, some are so angry that they sue devs because of this. I still don't understand though how you can "trust" IGN but not the other sites and the devs themselves... seems to me you chose to believe the worst case scenario. But in any case, don't go on spreading your p2p as if it was fact since you don't know either.

I'm not choosing to beleive anyone. You asked for my source before and I gave it to you. I've also said time and time again that I won't know for sure until I actualy play it. If anything I am distrusting both of them equally because history they both should be distrusted equally. I am simply looking at the facts for what they are and acknowledging that at this point either possibility is viable.

"Most of the remasters has dedicated servers for their multiplayer while MCC keeps true to the old halo games and keeps p2p connections and needing to connect to a host to play multiplayer. That's really the only difference between them."

That is what is keeping this discussion going on. Even IGN's say is not really clear while every other site has dedicated servers for multiplayer. MS stated they had invested a lot to ensure every games get dedicated servers, no MS games uses p2p on X1 yet you find one source that says otherwise say it's the only difference between remasters lol. Dude, you could've search a little more but yes you chose to stick to that one for a reason. 



Nicklesbe on 04 September 2014
Brotherstotheend said:
Nicklesbe said:
 


No it's really not. Not in any meaning and certainly not in practice. That's why there is a distinction between servers...and dedicated servers. It's not that hard of a concept.

and where is the difference in practice for users?

this is the last time I'm acknowledging you because its literally like talking to a wall and as amusing as it is seeing you struggle with the basic definitions of what a server is and what a dedicated server is I have better things to do with my time.

I want you to pay attention and read closely so that you understand. When a game has a dedicated server its usually a chain of servers with absolutely no other data on them but data related to the game and or the games multiplayer and there are no other connections to those servers other than online access and a connection to the game consoles. This means there are fast connections, very little hiccups/problems/and short wait times as well as lots of space available for years and years worth new map DLC as well as tons of users being connected at once with no problem.

MS does not have dedicated servers with Azure. As stated before every MS service shares those servers. So if halo or any game stores their MP on those servers guess what its sharing room with Skype and outlook and every other service and game that uses those servers and those servers are daisy chained to other servers that do the same thing. So you can say goodbye to the possibility of years and years of map DLC, when a lot of people connect to those servers you will be feeling it. Will likely have long wait times or lag in general. Also if anyone decides to DDos skype or outlook or target any game thats hosted on the servers guess what that will be affecting all the games. So they don't need to attack XBL like they have a few times this year already they could attack any of those shared services and it would either bring down everything else or simply cause it lots of problems and lag. That is the difference to users, they have to share the servers with everyone else and if anyone else has problems it will affect them as well.



http://www.youtube.com/v/AoOOpLpcF28 http://www.youtube.com/v/CphFZGH5030

All Hail the Jester King. The King is back, and I am still a dirty girl prof ;)

Nicklesbe on 04 September 2014
Jazz2K said:
Nicklesbe said:
Jazz2K said:

Yea that's true some devs lie about resolution a lot this gen and people eat it up just to realise they've been lied to. We shouldn't believe everything devs say, some are so angry that they sue devs because of this. I still don't understand though how you can "trust" IGN but not the other sites and the devs themselves... seems to me you chose to believe the worst case scenario. But in any case, don't go on spreading your p2p as if it was fact since you don't know either.

I'm not choosing to beleive anyone. You asked for my source before and I gave it to you. I've also said time and time again that I won't know for sure until I actualy play it. If anything I am distrusting both of them equally because history they both should be distrusted equally. I am simply looking at the facts for what they are and acknowledging that at this point either possibility is viable.

"Most of the remasters has dedicated servers for their multiplayer while MCC keeps true to the old halo games and keeps p2p connections and needing to connect to a host to play multiplayer. That's really the only difference between them."

That is what is keeping this discussion going on. Even IGN's say is not really clear while every other site has dedicated servers for multiplayer. MS stated they had invested a lot to ensure every games get dedicated servers, no MS games uses p2p on X1 yet you find one source that says otherwise say it's the only difference between remasters lol. Dude, you could've search a little more but yes you chose to stick to that one for a reason. 

They said they use Azure servers and it's been known since before the release of Xb1 that the azure servers are shared between every MS service which means none of them are dedicated servers.

Also in my later posts I pointed out that there is no difference between the remasters because just like in halo I proved TLOU had their entire engine rewritten which removed the only argued difference between them. I did pleanty of research.



http://www.youtube.com/v/AoOOpLpcF28 http://www.youtube.com/v/CphFZGH5030

All Hail the Jester King. The King is back, and I am still a dirty girl prof ;)

alabtrosMyster on 04 September 2014

The only real difference I see is that the MCC collection has a better value (a couple full games!) that is un-deniable and everybody should hope all remakes come like this, at least for game series.

Other than this, you could argue that the resolution/texture, frame rate, etc. bumps are pretty much like "enabling widescreen" and making the graphics for one of the games in the bundle (Halo 2) Halo 1, 3 & 4 are only re-compiled in higher resolution and will naturally run better on newer hardware (hopefully a stable 60fps).

Games like Halo 1 have a PC version, so porting it over and changing the resolution and field of view (this is really what making it widescreen is) is only a matter of editing some config file... I can go and download the old Halo demo right now and do this on my PC, hopefully they will re-do the HUD for the new resolution.

I figure that Halo 3 & 4 are already pretty close to be portable as well, since the 360 already ran on direct X...

So the only portion of that port collection that is truly upgraded are some MP maps and the Halo 2 campaign, everything else just take advantage of the new hardware, now I am not saying this is bad, these games will greatly benefit from the higher resolution and frame rate, all I want is people to stop acting as if there was a fundamental difference, there is none, the only difference is the MS PR machine.



Around the Network
Brotherstotheend on 04 September 2014
Nicklesbe said:

this is the last time I'm acknowledging you because its literally like talking to a wall and as amusing as it is seeing you struggle with the basic definitions of what a server is and what a dedicated server is I have better things to do with my time.

I want you to pay attention and read closely so that you understand. When a game has a dedicated server its usually a chain of servers with absolutely no other data on them but data related to the game and or the games multiplayer and there are no other connections to those servers other than online access and a connection to the game consoles. This means there are fast connections, very little hiccups/problems/and short wait times as well as lots of space available for years and years worth new map DLC as well as tons of users being connected at once with no problem.

MS does not have dedicated servers with Azure. As stated before every MS service shares those servers. So if halo or any game stores their MP on those servers guess what its sharing room with Skype and outlook and every other service and game that uses those servers and those servers are daisy chained to other servers that do the same thing. So you can say goodbye to the possibility of years and years of map DLC, when a lot of people connect to those servers you will be feeling it. Will likely have long wait times or lag in general. Also if anyone decides to DDos skype or outlook or target any game thats hosted on the servers guess what that will be affecting all the games. So they don't need to attack XBL like they have a few times this year already they could attack any of those shared services and it would either bring down everything else or simply cause it lots of problems and lag. That is the difference to users, they have to share the servers with everyone else and if anyone else has problems it will affect them as well.

they act exactly like dedicated servers when you look at responding time, the good thing is that they are flexible, when there are 10.000 people playing the server uses enough power that they all can play without problems and when 1.000.000 people playing it gives the game more capacity,

this also means no more serverclosures, when a game get´s to old and the playercount is down

it´s also possible for the devs to make serverside updates easily without taking them down

and the number of map packs for a game will depent on the publisher and the succes of the game, not from dedicated servers,

halo 4 was p2p and had alot of map packs and forge maps



20happyballs on 05 September 2014
Nicklesbe said:
20happyballs said:


It's funny how you base an argument off of one desciption paragraph.

First of all, I specifically said "new graphics engines". The graphics engines (rendering engines) are built to run alongside the original game engines. So yes it is true that the games are running on the original engines (except for the Halo 2 annivsary pvp maps), but the graphics rendering is completely new. There's also a lot more that you obviously don't know about. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this argument.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/conferences/sdcc2014/11978-Halo-The-Master-Chief-Collection-Bringing-New-Life-to-Halo-CE-an 


What's really funny is how you assume there is a difference when there isn't and that you think the graphics engine wasn't redone for TLAOU:R. There is litterally no difference between the two remasters. in case ya didn't notice they completely rewrote the graphics engine for ps4. http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/29/5945427/how-naughty-dog-brought-the-last-of-us-to-the-PS4 "The big challenge was rewriting our engine to work on a multicore system like the PS4," notes lead programmer Sandeep Shekar, who worked heavily on CPU optimization and the game’s multiplayer features. "Our games have always been very heavily optimized towards the PS3 hardware — even though the PS4 is so much more powerful, it's a very different architecture. It was quite difficult."

So yeah..no difference between them after all.

How did you get "completely rewrote the graphics engine" from that excerpt? The engine itself was just tweaked and optimized to run on PS4 hardware because the previous code was tweaked and optimized for the PS3. The engine however, is still the same. Maybe some new graphical features were added, but it's still the same engine  with the same engine features and rendering technique/approach. TFor instance, the Unreal Engine runs on multiple platforms. That's because the engine designers wrote code that made those platforms compatible, much like what Naughty Dog had to do. You wouldn't say that each platform has it's own engine. The Halo anniversary games, however, are using completely different rendering code

So yeah...there is a difference to them after all.