David on 12/5/2009 at 15:41
Threads merged.
Dia on 12/5/2009 at 15:46
Thanks Dave.
EvaUnit02 on 12/5/2009 at 16:03
Quote Posted by Queue
Wouldn't it be a nice little slap in the junk if the PC version required a dual-core processor to run.
...and your point is? Dual core CPU's are the bare minimum standard these days. Core 2 Duo's are as cheap as chips too. The Athlon64 X2 and Pentium D were rolled out when, 2005? That's about four CPU generations ago, counting die shrinkages.
I can't believe that there are people who still whine about modern games requiring Shader Model 3.0 support. The tech was introduced in 2005, which is about five GPU generations ago (counting die shrinkages).
Pentium 4 3.0GHz + 1GB RAM haven't cut the mustard for a long time now, wake up to reality people.
Master Taffer 512 on 12/5/2009 at 16:42
Quote Posted by David
You note that it says
based upon reviews, not
based upon fan-boy opinion.
I love you...
Quote Posted by Yahtzee
Fans are clinging, complaining dipshits who will never ever be grateful for any concession you make. The moment you shut out their shrill voices, the happier you'll be for it. Incidently, why not buy a Zero Punctuation t-shirt...
Queue on 12/5/2009 at 16:59
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
...and your point is?
...and yet another good joke falls on deaf ears.
Where's dethtoll when one needs a good airplane.
The Magpie on 12/5/2009 at 17:04
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Pentium 4 3.0GHz + 1GB RAM haven't cut the mustard for a long time now, wake up to reality people.
You are quite right, gaming standards and minimum requirements have advanced a lot since then. But OTOH it seems to me that the non-gaming PC lifespan has been expanded a lot. Let me attempt to explain my hypothesis.
I'm writing now from a machine I bought from a store a fortnight ago. It runs on XP, an OS only slightly younger than Thief II. And yeah, it's a netbook, but my point is that the PC turnover rate might be diminishing outside of the core PC gaming audience (an audience which also might be shrinking due to consoles steadily becoming more popular).
People just might hold on to their PCs longer these days, because they don't get the feel that it's outdated as quickly as they used to anymore. This means that "the PC audience" actually is getting stretched out, thinly, from the spanking new bleeding edge money-dripping graphics monsters to, say, the machines which were good enough to play WoW on in 2005, and has just gone on playing WoW these last four years. This would have been unthinkable in the 90s.
And so I think the balance has become much more delicate for PC publishers. Targeting the right segment of hardware requirements is harder now than ever. If aiming too high, one risks selling a lot fewer copies of the game during what has been considered the all-important initial launch and marketing phase. Too low, and it won't seem worth picking up. And the spectrum to choose from has never been wider.
Still, I can't recall any games which actually have erred on the side of ambition. Think id and Crytek. There has been plenty of examples of the opposite, though, new games feeling dated.
So I feel that EM should kick ass, aim for the stars and design an outrageously demanding engine for totally futuristic hardware specs. (In any Thief engine, AI processing should occupy 90% of the cycles IMO.)
Disclaimer: I don't have any corroborating data whatsoever to support my hunches, but I'd really like to know what you industry-savy people think.
--
L.
Edit: Oh.
Airplane. Haha. That was funny, Queue.
Ostriig on 12/5/2009 at 17:28
Quote Posted by The Magpie
Or Thief 4 might be trying to take another step ahead - the game development cycle is also continuously stretching out, and we could possibly see the launch of yet another console before Thief 4 is published.
Eidos Montreal have previously stated that they intend to work with 24 month development cycles. I don't think a new generation of consoles will be pushed out before Thief 4 is released. At least Sony seem to want to keep the PS3 on the market for a good while still.
Quote:
Originally Posted by (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/52568) Kazuo "Kaz" Hirai, president Sony Computer Entertainment [Shacknews]"I am very confident that after the 10-year life cycle we will have the install base that we are looking for."
jtr7 on 12/5/2009 at 18:14
Is there a commercial product that would allow me to interface a console with my laptop, to play it through my laptop? If not, I will never be able to play a console game, 'cause if I spend any money it will be on the more versatile machine that gives me a very wide range of uses to do a hundred different tasks on the go, than on an extremely specialised machine and mini television.:erg:
gunsmoke on 12/5/2009 at 18:21
Quote Posted by Dia
Awwwcrap. Sorry; I just despised TDS so much that I wanted everyone else to despise it as well. :(
Um WTF. If it is that important to you, get a life.
Quote Posted by Br4thr4n
Deadly Shadows was a good game. It was fun, and probably better than most of the stuff released these days.
The problem with that is, Thief 1 and 2 were
great games. And anytime you compare good to great, the game that's only good is going to take a beating. I think about a 82% describes TDS perfectly. Just above average.
^^this is a sane and logical assessment. Aim for this, Dia.
Arkhanari on 12/5/2009 at 20:16
Quote Posted by TTK12G3
No thank you. ;)
Developing games for consoles and making them unintelligent and for a teenage crowd is often supported by the argument that PC games are pirated. Sure, STEAM games can also be cracked - but are so much less than games with different DRM protections.
Release the game through STEAM and you'll get more money and you won't have to develop it for XBOX.
