/// This is an archived version of the official forums, which went offline in September 2017. Functionality is limited. Visit the Mirror's Edge Archive to learn more. ///
I don't understand how this is even debatable. If you're going to do something, you give it 100%. If a company is choosing to release a game on a platform, they should ensure the game is going to achieve and be a success on said platform. Otherwise there's no point in releasing it at all. I understand they released it on console in order to reach a wider variety of players, but in that case, all customers should receive the same treatment. Not putting in the same effort to every platform's version of the game results in criticism like this. The game gets a bad reputation, both critically and publicly, and doesn't sell enough to warrant it being on said platform in the first place. At the end of the day, they shouldn't have bothered releasing the game on console if it wasn't going to have positive results. It costs money, time, reviews, effort and often, it costs players who are disappointed and aren't going to stick around.
I think if anything, you're lacking a basic understanding of how this industry got to where it is today. Gen 7 is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. I think perhaps it went on so long, that people lost sight of that fact.
Software drives hardware. Hardware does not dictate how software should run. This is how the world works.
This is why you have the games you have today.
This E3, Microsoft unceremoniously dumped it's console division until Fall of 2017. It may then, presuming it's shareholders allow it, release something capable of continuing the original meaning of the xbox name. In the mean time, tho, it's removed any need to own a machine on the platform, and is actively driving customers to the PC instead.
At the same time, Sony admitted it was dumping the traditional generational model, and announced it was going iterative. This is unprecedented, given Sony's staggeringly large market share, and the absolute failure of all historical iterative models, but Sony knows it doesn't have a choice, and is conforming to ensure it's survival.
Why?
Because current game engines are already making their hardware look bad, in a way that took much, much longer during the previous generation. Not only are they making games look bad, but they're limiting what games developers can do, and publishers aren't prepared to tolerate with that again.
PC gaming is cheap. PC hardware is infinitely less expensive than it used to be, and the vendor sale events drive, (hi, Valve,) has made RRP irrelevant two months out from launch day. A PC isn't something that lives under your desk and requires hardwired peripherals anymore. They're increasingly found in the living room or the den, hooked up to 50+" televisions, with games played from the sofa on wireless controller, no different to how they are on consoles. And the days of having to build a PC by hand are long since gone.
Console developers know this. Sony themselves admitted the existence of Neo is an attempt to halt the migration from the current PlayStation generation to PC - it only exists, because they know the generation needs to be shorter, and they need a stopgap in the mean time.
This isn't PC elitism, or whatever other rubbish you want to attribute to it. I own a PS4. I own a PS3. I still have multiple PSPs, DSs, a PS2, and have had several 360's, (all of which red-ringed, frustratingly.) I was one of the first adopters of the original xbox, and even traded it in for a crystal because I loved it so much. I was there the day the original PlayStation launched.
But that's irrelevant. What is relevant, is that generation 8 will be much shorter than generation 7, and that publishers aren't prepared to let the hardware vendors dictate what they can do with their software. We're back to how things have always worked, and this winter, non-Neo console gamers are going to be very, very disappointed with the way the most recent releases play.
Ensuring a game runs optimally on an outdated console is no longer a prerogative. And I'd be very surprised if the entire Frostbite 3 catalogue can't be patched to perform better on a Neo.
You're right, I do have a lack of understanding of the gaming industry. I understand all your points and they are all certainly valid, but as a customer, I shouldn't have to know the gaming industry. The product should be performing and I shouldn't have to ask these questions; the fact is the game underperforms on console, and the gaming industry may exist due to all the things you mentioned, but it's also run on customer satisfaction. If the customer isn't satisfied, the game will eventually cease to exist, and that is Catalyst's problem.
I understand all your points and they are all certainly valid, but as a customer, I shouldn't have to know the gaming industry.
Yes, you should. And it's not something you get a choice about.
Edit: actually, let's spare you the condescending question and answer process. It's not fair of me to manipulate the discussion like that.
So why is it something you don't have a choice about? Simple. Come this winter, when everything you've been looking forward to runs horribly on your current platform, you'll have two choices: First, you can quit, and go find another hobby. Second, you can change platform.
Now, let's face it - you're here on a developer forum, complaining about your experience with their product. You care. You're invested. You're invested enough to get all upset and angry, vocalise your protests, and hope things will change. Because you want them to. So really, the first choice isn't an option for you, is it? This isn't a hobby you're going to give up, (ps. publishers know this.)
So that leads you to option two - changing platform. Now, realistically, do you want to experience this whole process of being let down again? No, of course you don't. So the only real option you have, is to clue up, do some proper research, and avoid being left with a halfway house experience.
I'm not trying to be difficult, honestly. But this is a conversation I've had so many times in the past. And as much as you may want to be disappointed with the way Catalyst performs for you, that's down to you and your choices. If you bought a PS4 for, say, Destiny or Bloodborne? That's cool. If you bought a bone for Halo 5? That's cool. Expecting anything multiplat to run well on either three years later? That's a big, big mistake.
Story quality is not subjective, It's short, generic and underdeveloped. Wether you like it or not is not the point. AI is not good in the game. Enemies don't adapt to the player, don't do anything other than trying to engage directly, they barely chase after the player and mostly attack one at a time. The OP does mention stuff that's present in the PC version like reflections and such, but stuff like NPCs are almost always standing still (except for a handful of runners training), drones with weird paths, bad detailing of street level and lack of pedestrians and lack of textures in background buildings, for example, are present in all versions. The same for pointless activities like taking down security antennas, hacking billboards and such that have no meaning or impact in the game, or side missions with completely **** and unrelated objectives like collecting red grid leaks. That is not something limited by the hardware, it's just outdated, average (and sometimes bad) design choices. Again, wether you like the game or not is not the point. If you like it just as it is, then good for you. I like it, but was expecting better, and kind of regret getting it at launch. Considering how they fought and marketed a new game that was to adress the mistakes the previous one did, it has the same flaws, and falls in the same category: nice game, but only recomended at a lower price.
But they made that choice and because of that, they should have built the game to achieve on every platform.
Why?
From the moment you commit to launch a game on various platforms, you need to make sure it's at the best possible in all of them, otherwise it hurts the sales and reputation of the game and team. If you can't understand that, then indeed the conversation is pointless. Also, considering other PS4 games graphically, exclusives or not, open world or not, Catalyst is way below for a 2016 title.
AI is a CPU process. It can, and often is, entirely scalable. The only people I've seen complaining about AI are playing on gen 8 consoles, (the weakest relative CPU performance for a console release for a long time,) or on stunted i3's and i5's.
The AI positions on the fly to block my path when running.
The AI spreads out to flank me.
The AI uses ranged attacks as soon as I'm clear of other AI members.
The AI uses different attacks to ensure I stay staggered.
The AI positions so that I am knocked back into obstacles or corners.
The AI punishes skill repeats where it can.
If you're not seeing that, I attribute it to CPU scaling.
People are expressing their general and biased opinion on what they experienced. Like I said, you may like the story or not, but it doesn't change the fact that it was short and underdeveloped.
Indead it is, and other games suffered from that before, especially when the gap between PC and console was way bigger than it is at this moment, and there was a completely different focus of games from one to the other. However I was talking about this particular game, and while AI does what you discribed, it's hardly good. The difficulty of the game is not high enough for them to be a threat to be feared, flanking means nothing when you can easily push them or kick them into each other or run way faster than everyone without being chased. They should have more armed enemies, chase you and kill you faster, low tier enemies should fight you at least as good as the sentinels and escalate from there, and there should be a runner class enemy type like in the first game. Also as important, enemies should focus on stuff other than hit you, like dodging, getting backup, and stuff like that. FEAR came out in 2007 and still has better AI than this (well, and better than almost every other game since)
What are you talking about? What has Doom got to do with it?
A game should always be launched with best performance possible on a given platform, not broken. Catalyst is not broken though, I haven't found any bugs or glitches that I remember, but it's far from a great performance. I would rather have the game play at 30fps but with a more stable texture and object rendering than how it is. It's not terrible, but it's not consistent and negatively affects the experience. Also I didn't meant the game should look the same technically on all platforms. It's to be expected that PC version can support higher resolutions and effects according to the hardware one has.
Considering console games sales are generally higher, and that the entire project wouldn't be approved if they wanted to make it PC only, then you bet they should make it run better. This isn't an issue with consoles not handling the engine well, as others use it and works fine, it's about development issues.
Let's see
A story being underdeveloped and short is not an opinion, it's a fact. Being content with it, that's an opinion, and I'm fine with that.
The industry doesn't work exactly like that. Software and hardware are mutually evolved, but the consumer dictates where it goes and how. Hence the complaints from devs a few years ago that the ps3/x360 gen was too long and it was holding back new IPs and tech. They could easily switch focus to PC but they didn't
PC gaming is anything BUT cheap. A top tier machine costs 2000+ euros while a console costs 400, and not counting stuff like a decent gamepad which is already included on consoles, or decent gaming keyboard and mouse. I could buy a decent PC instead of a top one, that would cost half of that but still more than double the amount of a console. Even if I wanted to upgrade my current one, it would still be more expensive. Obviously, I speak regarding the place I live.
PC elitism doesn't exclude one from having consoles, it's just when someone is being a jerk about it.
Coming winter, you're not wrong,but not right either. There's a serious chance that some multiplats will run poorly, but it doesn't mean it will happen. There's a difference between a poor port and one well done. The games that interest me for console are exclusives or have been shown running fine on console. Doesn't mean they'll be good, but it means they'll run as intended, unlike Catalyst.
Sure we are here to share our views and complains, in a attempt to see other points of view and maybe so it's taken into consideration when developing new games. We do care. However, when not listened, we can of course change platform to one that runs the games well, or do exactly what happens all the time, stop caring about a particular series or devs and stay away from those. Just because we care, doesn't mean everyone has the means to purchase more expensive equipment to run a couple of games better.
So, because Doom and Quake were PC games only, at a time where there was a completely different market and tech gap between console and PC, means that it still makes sense?
It doesn't prove your point at all, I was comparing FEAR level of AI with Catalyst one, I wasn't even bringing to the table the console port. And since it came out in the early days of both consoles and both had way better games later, it just means that the game had bad ports. Bad ports is not a problem of hardware. Also, my PC at the time wasn't powerful at all and I still played the game, with a lot of stuff at medium and low settings, and still the AI was top notch.
In short, bad ports have more tendency to steer consumers away from a studio/company than it has to make them move to new hardware. All customers want to support the game, but not all have the means to buy high end PCs, so it's the devs job to ensure multiplat games run the best possible in a given platform without being broken or poorly ported
In short, bad ports have more tendency to steer consumers away from a studio/company than it has to make them move to new hardware.
Oh I get it. You're one of those 'lazy devs' guys, aren't you?
This isn't a bad port. It's hungry. Unity was a bad port. Asylum was a bad port. This winter's games are all much akin to Catalyst - hungry.
There are four major publishers left. All of them are pushing past gen 8 specification. Who are you going to go to, for your games? The Indy scene? On a console?
You're so far off the mark on PC costs, I can only presume you're either a) in a country like Italy or Greece, where the Euro is destroying your buying power,) or b) you haven't seriously looked into buying a machine for a good half-decade.
The equivalent of 600 euros here will get you a machine that massively outstrips gen8 performance, and will happily run Catalyst with GPU memory limit on. Once the 490 is out, you'll be able to do the same with 500-550 euros, with GPU memory limit off.
Considering console games sales are generally higher, and that the entire project wouldn't be approved if they wanted to make it PC only, then you bet they should make it run better. This isn't an issue with consoles not handling the engine well, as others use it and works fine, it's about development issues.
I understand completely that the gaming industry calls for a gap between console and PC, but the fact is console game sales ARE generally higher as stated here, and the gaming industry (as almost every industry does) runs on customer service. If the game can't please the customers, the game can't survive. The fact is it should just... run better.
...but the fact is console game sales ARE generally higher as stated here.
Not in any significant way. 2015 actual on the left, 2016 to-date plus predictions following.
Home consoles only maintain a sizeable lead if you consider the US market in isolation. In 2015, they held ~45% market share there. Thing is, the US is only a priority market to the xbox division. The lion's share of money is being made in Asia, (37% estimated in 2016,) and Europe.
(Worth noting that these figures pre-date Microsoft sabotaging xbox performance at E3. The market will almost certainly miss the ~4.5% yoy growth prediction.)
Are we really still arguing over this? Delving into literal statistics from the last few years? Console games are just as important as PC games. It doesn't matter what happens in the gaming industry's system, console games should be just as supported as PC games if they're going to be released. The game isn't running as well as it should. You can say it's because consoles don't last, and PC games are just better. But if PC gear is so disposable, so is this game. To really build a reputation and succeed, the game needs to be on console, and again, it needs to achieve. Catalyst simply isn't doing that on console and the fact is this discussion is about the game, not the platform or industry statistics.
To really build a reputation and succeed, the game needs to be on console, and again, it needs to achieve.
No, it doesn't. Which is why Microsoft didn't think twice about killing it's console hardware sales until Fall 2017, in a bid to drive consumers onto PC and into the Windows Store environment.
If I'm EA, and I decide to sell a game on PS4 or xbox one, I gain access to an install base of approximately 55 million users. For that privilege, I have to pay Sony and Microsoft a sizeable percentage of my revenue.
Now, if I decide to sell on PC, I gain acess to an install base of approximately 600 million users. For that privilege, (particularly in the case of Catalyst, which is an Origin exclusive,) I have to pay no one. I get 100% of the profits. Not only that, but I also get to slap a massive 100% profit storefront across the customer's screen, to avoid having to pay other companies a percentage in the future.
This is why Microsoft just killed xbox. Had you been a 360 owner and known this was going to happen, would you still have bought a bone?
You see now, why you need to know how the industry works?
Edit: and yes, this is entirely relevant to Catalyst. You're complaining Catalyst is aimed at a specification higher than gen8 consoles and performs poorly on them as a result. This is why.
I can see we aren't going to come to a conclusion where either of us agree with the other, but this discussion was not supposed to be about the platform. No matter what, the game is performing badly. I've seen complaints about the PC game (far more than the PS4 edition, in fact) and I've seen complaints about the Xbox One game. The game isn't running well no matter what system you're using. It's true that the PC edition likely does play better- it's a sad fact, but to be expected- but there are still issues that need to be fixed on console. It doesn't matter what the overall idea is. The 55 million customers on console you quoted still need support. Profits obviously matter, as you've stated, which is exactly why those customers deserve a fix. The console edition is never going to run as well as the PC because of software etc. as we've already established, but it still needs to be somewhat equal. It's a more expensive game for console, and it still needs to be at an acceptable standard, because those customers are still completely valid.
Now can we please put this argument behind us, since we obviously aren't going to agree, and get back to the point of the discussion?
The game isn't running well no matter what system you're using.
More hyperbole.
The game runs perfectly fine for the vast majority of users. The most common PC problems raised here come from issues created by hardware vendors dropping support for cards, (AMD,) or from people incorrectly configuring the client.
It runs at a solid 60fps on four-five year old hardware, and is playable at 4k on the latest spec. That's a poor client, is it?
And no, we're not going to agree, because you refuse to look at the situation as anything other than a disgruntled consumer, who is apparently unaccountable for his choices.
The thread OP makes sweeping statements about the game experience. Those statements are irrelevant to the majority install base. Ergo, the OP either needs editing to reflect, or it's faults need pointing out. This is a fringe IP. Any sale lost because of misinformation is infinitely more costly than for a cash cow series like Battlefield or CoD.
The only real message here is: don't buy 2016 releases on an xbox one.
The game isn't running well no matter what system you're using.
More hyperbole.
Have you seen anything on this forum other than this discussion? I'd hardly call it hyperbole when critics, fans and even developers are saying the same thing.
[/quote]
And no, we're not going to agree, because you refuse to look at the situation as anything other than a disgruntled consumer, who is apparently unaccountable for his choices.
The only real message here is: don't buy 2016 releases on an xbox one.
[/quote]
His/her/their choices. Yes, I am a disgruntled customer, because the fact is gaming companies have got to cater for their customers. Although I really don't appreciate the condescending tone that you've been using this entire time, I do accept that a lot of your points are very valid and accurate from an industry standpoint. But the game still needs to run on console if they're going to release it there. In answer to your statement about not buying 2016 releases on console... yet again, why bother releasing it if that's going to be a problem? You already said it supposedly didn't bring in many customers or earn a lot of money, so from a CUSTOMER standpoint, I can't see why developers would bother releasing it on console if it was a) going to be so problematic for them and b) going to be troublesome and significantly worse than the PC version. From an industry perspective, I see where you're coming from. But I am the player. And as the player, I expect that when I spend money on something, it's going to work.
I really enjoyed Catalyst. There were bugs, yes, and glitches that have been reported on every platform. It certainly has its issues. But these problems are not invalidated by the platform they are being reported from. These issues are relevant no matter what the platform is, because this game was released for every platform. Therefore, every platform matters.
I'm sorry we couldn't agree on the matter. Please in the future, though, and I say this in the politest way possible as I again understand a lot of your points and reasoning: be more respectful in how you phrase things, less condescending. Maybe people will be able to come to terms and possibly even (dare I say it...) agree with you.
Have you seen anything on this forum other than this discussion? I'd hardly call it hyperbole when critics, fans and even developers are saying the same thing.
There's perhaps a hundred people on this forum. A lot of those aren't complaining about anything. Have you seen the sales figures for the game? The only title that outsold Catalyst on release week was Overwatch. Which is hardly a surprise.
Although I really don't appreciate the condescending tone that you've been using this entire time, I do accept that a lot of your points are very valid and accurate from an industry standpoint.
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't be intentionally uninformed, and still expect people to treat you as an equal in discussion. If you tried pushing some of the arguments you are here in, say, a better informed, more industry-centric place, like neogaf, you'd be completely ripped apart. Trust me, I'm biting my tongue before responding.
I can see we aren't going to come to a conclusion where either of us agree with the other, but this discussion was not supposed to be about the platform. No matter what, the game is performing badly. I've seen complaints about the PC game (far more than the PS4 edition, in fact) and I've seen complaints about the Xbox One game. The game isn't running well no matter what system you're using. It's true that the PC edition likely does play better- it's a sad fact, but to be expected- but there are still issues that need to be fixed on console. It doesn't matter what the overall idea is. The 55 million customers on console you quoted still need support. Profits obviously matter, as you've stated, which is exactly why those customers deserve a fix. The console edition is never going to run as well as the PC because of software etc. as we've already established, but it still needs to be somewhat equal.
I stop you here (and I second ninemil about you'd ripped off on places like neo-gaf, @Einon too). Personally I don't want that. I don't want to have a bad looking game with poor effects, AI and so on because of consoles. There were so many beautiful games made that there were hugely downgraded because of consoles (Watchdogs, anyone?)... I was so pleased to see that DICE allowed PC users to have "Hyper" quality, that is, I think, the quality of the game during development, and allows me to have the same quality that we can see in "dev diaries"...
Game has many flaws, but at least has a solid gameplay and beautiful graphics, far better the graphics on consoles, and I don't care about that.
You're right, I do have a lack of understanding of the gaming industry. I understand all your points and they are all certainly valid, but as a customer, I shouldn't have to know the gaming industry. The product should be performing and I shouldn't have to ask these questions; the fact is the game underperforms on console, and the gaming industry may exist due to all the things you mentioned, but it's also run on customer satisfaction. If the customer isn't satisfied, the game will eventually cease to exist, and that is Catalyst's problem.
I don't think this argument is achieving anything, so again, sorry we couldn't agree. Clearly, I don't understand the gaming industry, so you're a lot more informed than me and probably right. I simply want a good quality game; it doesn't have to be as fantastic as the PC edition, it just has to be up to standard. But from an industry standpoint I see where you're coming from and appreciate your views.
@tinypanmilk It's really ignorance on the level of ****. ninemil is faulting consumers for being consumers. He insults our consoles, the companies that makes them, blames our lack of awareness on the technical aspects of technology and it relevancy to gaming abilities, tells us we're wrong for our gaming experience... all with a condescending tone while completely dismissing the elephant in the room... Catalyst is an utterly disappointing game regardless.
@tinypanmilk It's really ignorance on the level of ****. ninemil is faulting consumers for being consumers. He insults our consoles, the companies that makes them, blames our lack of awareness on the technical aspects of technology and it relevancy to gaming abilities, tells us we're wrong for our gaming experience... all with a condescending tone while completely dismissing the elephant in the room... Catalyst is an utterly disappointing game regardless.
I'm glad somebody agrees with me. I like the game, but it's definitely disappointing, and a lot of the things brought up in this debate were rather irrelevant.
@tinypanmilk it's what happens when someone obsesses over being right all the time about everything. I've been playing games since colecovision, I come across people like ninemil all the time who know everything lol Just nod your head and let him feel like a winner. It works all the time;)
In short, bad ports have more tendency to steer consumers away from a studio/company than it has to make them move to new hardware.
Oh I get it. You're one of those 'lazy devs' guys, aren't you?
This isn't a bad port. It's hungry. Unity was a bad port. Asylum was a bad port. This winter's games are all much akin to Catalyst - hungry.
There are four major publishers left. All of them are pushing past gen 8 specification. Who are you going to go to, for your games? The Indy scene? On a console?
You're so far off the mark on PC costs, I can only presume you're either a) in a country like Italy or Greece, where the Euro is destroying your buying power,) or b) you haven't seriously looked into buying a machine for a good half-decade.
The equivalent of 600 euros here will get you a machine that massively outstrips gen8 performance, and will happily run Catalyst with GPU memory limit on. Once the 490 is out, you'll be able to do the same with 500-550 euros, with GPU memory limit off.
I'm not really a "lazy devs" guy, I'm more a "something seems to have gone wrong during development" kind of guy. There are games with rushed ports like they didn't cared at all, but Catalyst isn't one, the game works fine. Example of a bad port was Arkham Knight for PC. That kind of thing is embarassing and unacceptable. I have an issue with graphical fidelity on PS4, as I think somethings could be sacrificed to ensure a better, or at least more consistent LOD, but my main issues with the game are others I have previously stated.
As I said, PC costs are according to where I live. An average machine goes for around 700 euro. Less than that and it comes with some shortcomings, either in RAM, or in HDD size, or i3 processor, or whatever. Mine cost a almost 800 euro 2 years ago. I can play games without major issues but most don't run at top performance. With 1000 euros, it's possible to buy or put together a decent machine. It will run games fine, but it will have issues with the more demanding ones, and will not run at 4k resolution. Top tier gaming PCs range from 1500 to 3200 (the most expensive I've seen for sale). It's not the euro that's destroying our buying power, it's the horrible economic management and lack of sight, and high taxes, but that's a problem not fit to discuss in a game forum.
One thing has been brought up and usually is in discussions about PC vs console, which is the dumbing down of a game because it're release on consoles too. There's no reason for a dev to dumb down the PC version because of consoles. as a lot of multiplat games, even those that have consoles as main focus, have way better performance on PC and allow customization of settings, multiple screens, far higher resolution and so on.
A 600 million users for PC is not an accurate figure. It has been stated more than once that while there's a lot of consumers on PC, most don't have gaming machines, and most of the player base comes from MMOs. Exactly because of that devs like EA or Ubisoft go for the multiplat route. For example, CD Projekt said that, while PC was and will be their main focus, the Witcher 3 would not be possible to make if they didn't go multiplat, in financial terms of course. It's not like I'm trying to bring down the PC importance, or it's supporters. H. ell, I believe some games should be PC only, or developed mainly for PC and then ported to other platforms. Stuff like Arkham Knight should never happen.
A cheap car is a poor analogy. People who buy a cheap car can't afford better, but surely they would like to have better. When buying stuff like PCs, consoles, smartphones or whatever, it's a bit different. People buy a determined product because of price. PCs can be cheap where you live, or be considered cheap by you because you can afford it, and it's fine, but you have to understand that's not the case everywhere or for everyone. Some people can't afford a gaming PC, others can't justify the investment when they can buy a console that's cheaper. Then there's brand. I bought a PS4 because I expect excelence from their software based on past experience and showings for it's future. Same thing for others that chose to buy it, and for those that chose to buy an XOne.
Also, what Microsoft did was because they're not performing so well at the moment and they seek to expand their library to more people by basically ending their exclusives line. To be honest it was a d.ick move towards the consumers and especially to their fans, and they shot themselves in the foot, potentially killing their console at the middle of it's lifespan.
seems to me those complaining about AI or the enemies being too easy would be better served with a Hardcore or Nightmare mode... honestly in my experience i have seen the "Game Over " (or "loading" last checkpoint in MECs case) screen from having my butt handed to me from fights than on all the games i've ever played combined, and i've been gaming since Atari2600... first person just does not work for me due to lack of peripheral vision, so standard out of the box difficulty in this game is hard for me... i'm playing the PS4 version but i plan to support this game more and get the PC version later, analog sticks roll around way too much messing up what could be perfect lines, maybe i'll get better lines using Keyboard and Mouse...
@Elly_Dawn It would've been appropriate to have level difficulty options in Mirror's Edge. It's fairly standard in the video game industry. You can't even unlock a "legendary" type mode after beating the game... it sucks.
Comments
I think if anything, you're lacking a basic understanding of how this industry got to where it is today. Gen 7 is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. I think perhaps it went on so long, that people lost sight of that fact.
Software drives hardware. Hardware does not dictate how software should run. This is how the world works.
This is why you have the games you have today.
This E3, Microsoft unceremoniously dumped it's console division until Fall of 2017. It may then, presuming it's shareholders allow it, release something capable of continuing the original meaning of the xbox name. In the mean time, tho, it's removed any need to own a machine on the platform, and is actively driving customers to the PC instead.
At the same time, Sony admitted it was dumping the traditional generational model, and announced it was going iterative. This is unprecedented, given Sony's staggeringly large market share, and the absolute failure of all historical iterative models, but Sony knows it doesn't have a choice, and is conforming to ensure it's survival.
Why?
Because current game engines are already making their hardware look bad, in a way that took much, much longer during the previous generation. Not only are they making games look bad, but they're limiting what games developers can do, and publishers aren't prepared to tolerate with that again.
PC gaming is cheap. PC hardware is infinitely less expensive than it used to be, and the vendor sale events drive, (hi, Valve,) has made RRP irrelevant two months out from launch day. A PC isn't something that lives under your desk and requires hardwired peripherals anymore. They're increasingly found in the living room or the den, hooked up to 50+" televisions, with games played from the sofa on wireless controller, no different to how they are on consoles. And the days of having to build a PC by hand are long since gone.
Console developers know this. Sony themselves admitted the existence of Neo is an attempt to halt the migration from the current PlayStation generation to PC - it only exists, because they know the generation needs to be shorter, and they need a stopgap in the mean time.
This isn't PC elitism, or whatever other rubbish you want to attribute to it. I own a PS4. I own a PS3. I still have multiple PSPs, DSs, a PS2, and have had several 360's, (all of which red-ringed, frustratingly.) I was one of the first adopters of the original xbox, and even traded it in for a crystal because I loved it so much. I was there the day the original PlayStation launched.
But that's irrelevant. What is relevant, is that generation 8 will be much shorter than generation 7, and that publishers aren't prepared to let the hardware vendors dictate what they can do with their software. We're back to how things have always worked, and this winter, non-Neo console gamers are going to be very, very disappointed with the way the most recent releases play.
Ensuring a game runs optimally on an outdated console is no longer a prerogative. And I'd be very surprised if the entire Frostbite 3 catalogue can't be patched to perform better on a Neo.
Edit: actually, let's spare you the condescending question and answer process. It's not fair of me to manipulate the discussion like that.
So why is it something you don't have a choice about? Simple. Come this winter, when everything you've been looking forward to runs horribly on your current platform, you'll have two choices: First, you can quit, and go find another hobby. Second, you can change platform.
Now, let's face it - you're here on a developer forum, complaining about your experience with their product. You care. You're invested. You're invested enough to get all upset and angry, vocalise your protests, and hope things will change. Because you want them to. So really, the first choice isn't an option for you, is it? This isn't a hobby you're going to give up, (ps. publishers know this.)
So that leads you to option two - changing platform. Now, realistically, do you want to experience this whole process of being let down again? No, of course you don't. So the only real option you have, is to clue up, do some proper research, and avoid being left with a halfway house experience.
I'm not trying to be difficult, honestly. But this is a conversation I've had so many times in the past. And as much as you may want to be disappointed with the way Catalyst performs for you, that's down to you and your choices. If you bought a PS4 for, say, Destiny or Bloodborne? That's cool. If you bought a bone for Halo 5? That's cool. Expecting anything multiplat to run well on either three years later? That's a big, big mistake.
Don't make the same one in the future, ne?
AI is a CPU process. It can, and often is, entirely scalable. The only people I've seen complaining about AI are playing on gen 8 consoles, (the weakest relative CPU performance for a console release for a long time,) or on stunted i3's and i5's.
The AI positions on the fly to block my path when running.
The AI spreads out to flank me.
The AI uses ranged attacks as soon as I'm clear of other AI members.
The AI uses different attacks to ensure I stay staggered.
The AI positions so that I am knocked back into obstacles or corners.
The AI punishes skill repeats where it can.
If you're not seeing that, I attribute it to CPU scaling.
No, you don't. If that were the case, we'd all still be playing Doom'93 clones. Perhaps take the time to read everything you skipped?
Indead it is, and other games suffered from that before, especially when the gap between PC and console was way bigger than it is at this moment, and there was a completely different focus of games from one to the other. However I was talking about this particular game, and while AI does what you discribed, it's hardly good. The difficulty of the game is not high enough for them to be a threat to be feared, flanking means nothing when you can easily push them or kick them into each other or run way faster than everyone without being chased. They should have more armed enemies, chase you and kill you faster, low tier enemies should fight you at least as good as the sentinels and escalate from there, and there should be a runner class enemy type like in the first game. Also as important, enemies should focus on stuff other than hit you, like dodging, getting backup, and stuff like that. FEAR came out in 2007 and still has better AI than this (well, and better than almost every other game since)
What are you talking about? What has Doom got to do with it?
A game should always be launched with best performance possible on a given platform, not broken. Catalyst is not broken though, I haven't found any bugs or glitches that I remember, but it's far from a great performance. I would rather have the game play at 30fps but with a more stable texture and object rendering than how it is. It's not terrible, but it's not consistent and negatively affects the experience. Also I didn't meant the game should look the same technically on all platforms. It's to be expected that PC version can support higher resolutions and effects according to the hardware one has.
Considering console games sales are generally higher, and that the entire project wouldn't be approved if they wanted to make it PC only, then you bet they should make it run better. This isn't an issue with consoles not handling the engine well, as others use it and works fine, it's about development issues.
The story in Catalyst is respectful and stylistically similar to the story in ME'08. That's all that matters. This is a faithful reboot. Deal with it.
Didn't read the previous posts? Didn't read the previous posts.
Because Doom, and later Quake, did the exact opposite of everything you've just stated is a necessity.
And they're the reason games like this one exist.
I had to look it up to check, just to be sure - #1 criticism of PC FEAR when it was released? 'Excessive system requirements.'
#1 criticism of the console ports? Poor performance on 360, (read as: PS4,) abysmal performance on the PS3, (read as: bone.)
See what I did there? Your own example proves my point. The best game engines and features push hardware, they don't conform to it's limitations.
A story being underdeveloped and short is not an opinion, it's a fact. Being content with it, that's an opinion, and I'm fine with that.
The industry doesn't work exactly like that. Software and hardware are mutually evolved, but the consumer dictates where it goes and how. Hence the complaints from devs a few years ago that the ps3/x360 gen was too long and it was holding back new IPs and tech. They could easily switch focus to PC but they didn't
PC gaming is anything BUT cheap. A top tier machine costs 2000+ euros while a console costs 400, and not counting stuff like a decent gamepad which is already included on consoles, or decent gaming keyboard and mouse. I could buy a decent PC instead of a top one, that would cost half of that but still more than double the amount of a console. Even if I wanted to upgrade my current one, it would still be more expensive. Obviously, I speak regarding the place I live.
PC elitism doesn't exclude one from having consoles, it's just when someone is being a jerk about it.
Coming winter, you're not wrong,but not right either. There's a serious chance that some multiplats will run poorly, but it doesn't mean it will happen. There's a difference between a poor port and one well done. The games that interest me for console are exclusives or have been shown running fine on console. Doesn't mean they'll be good, but it means they'll run as intended, unlike Catalyst.
Sure we are here to share our views and complains, in a attempt to see other points of view and maybe so it's taken into consideration when developing new games. We do care. However, when not listened, we can of course change platform to one that runs the games well, or do exactly what happens all the time, stop caring about a particular series or devs and stay away from those. Just because we care, doesn't mean everyone has the means to purchase more expensive equipment to run a couple of games better.
So, because Doom and Quake were PC games only, at a time where there was a completely different market and tech gap between console and PC, means that it still makes sense?
It doesn't prove your point at all, I was comparing FEAR level of AI with Catalyst one, I wasn't even bringing to the table the console port. And since it came out in the early days of both consoles and both had way better games later, it just means that the game had bad ports. Bad ports is not a problem of hardware. Also, my PC at the time wasn't powerful at all and I still played the game, with a lot of stuff at medium and low settings, and still the AI was top notch.
In short, bad ports have more tendency to steer consumers away from a studio/company than it has to make them move to new hardware. All customers want to support the game, but not all have the means to buy high end PCs, so it's the devs job to ensure multiplat games run the best possible in a given platform without being broken or poorly ported
This isn't a bad port. It's hungry. Unity was a bad port. Asylum was a bad port. This winter's games are all much akin to Catalyst - hungry.
There are four major publishers left. All of them are pushing past gen 8 specification. Who are you going to go to, for your games? The Indy scene? On a console?
You're so far off the mark on PC costs, I can only presume you're either a) in a country like Italy or Greece, where the Euro is destroying your buying power,) or b) you haven't seriously looked into buying a machine for a good half-decade.
The equivalent of 600 euros here will get you a machine that massively outstrips gen8 performance, and will happily run Catalyst with GPU memory limit on. Once the 490 is out, you'll be able to do the same with 500-550 euros, with GPU memory limit off.
I understand completely that the gaming industry calls for a gap between console and PC, but the fact is console game sales ARE generally higher as stated here, and the gaming industry (as almost every industry does) runs on customer service. If the game can't please the customers, the game can't survive. The fact is it should just... run better.
Not in any significant way. 2015 actual on the left, 2016 to-date plus predictions following.
Home consoles only maintain a sizeable lead if you consider the US market in isolation. In 2015, they held ~45% market share there. Thing is, the US is only a priority market to the xbox division. The lion's share of money is being made in Asia, (37% estimated in 2016,) and Europe.
(Worth noting that these figures pre-date Microsoft sabotaging xbox performance at E3. The market will almost certainly miss the ~4.5% yoy growth prediction.)
If I'm EA, and I decide to sell a game on PS4 or xbox one, I gain access to an install base of approximately 55 million users. For that privilege, I have to pay Sony and Microsoft a sizeable percentage of my revenue.
Now, if I decide to sell on PC, I gain acess to an install base of approximately 600 million users. For that privilege, (particularly in the case of Catalyst, which is an Origin exclusive,) I have to pay no one. I get 100% of the profits. Not only that, but I also get to slap a massive 100% profit storefront across the customer's screen, to avoid having to pay other companies a percentage in the future.
This is why Microsoft just killed xbox. Had you been a 360 owner and known this was going to happen, would you still have bought a bone?
You see now, why you need to know how the industry works?
Edit: and yes, this is entirely relevant to Catalyst. You're complaining Catalyst is aimed at a specification higher than gen8 consoles and performs poorly on them as a result. This is why.
Now can we please put this argument behind us, since we obviously aren't going to agree, and get back to the point of the discussion?
The game runs perfectly fine for the vast majority of users. The most common PC problems raised here come from issues created by hardware vendors dropping support for cards, (AMD,) or from people incorrectly configuring the client.
It runs at a solid 60fps on four-five year old hardware, and is playable at 4k on the latest spec. That's a poor client, is it?
And no, we're not going to agree, because you refuse to look at the situation as anything other than a disgruntled consumer, who is apparently unaccountable for his choices.
The thread OP makes sweeping statements about the game experience. Those statements are irrelevant to the majority install base. Ergo, the OP either needs editing to reflect, or it's faults need pointing out. This is a fringe IP. Any sale lost because of misinformation is infinitely more costly than for a cash cow series like Battlefield or CoD.
The only real message here is: don't buy 2016 releases on an xbox one.
[/quote]
And no, we're not going to agree, because you refuse to look at the situation as anything other than a disgruntled consumer, who is apparently unaccountable for his choices.
The only real message here is: don't buy 2016 releases on an xbox one.
[/quote]
His/her/their choices. Yes, I am a disgruntled customer, because the fact is gaming companies have got to cater for their customers. Although I really don't appreciate the condescending tone that you've been using this entire time, I do accept that a lot of your points are very valid and accurate from an industry standpoint. But the game still needs to run on console if they're going to release it there. In answer to your statement about not buying 2016 releases on console... yet again, why bother releasing it if that's going to be a problem? You already said it supposedly didn't bring in many customers or earn a lot of money, so from a CUSTOMER standpoint, I can't see why developers would bother releasing it on console if it was a) going to be so problematic for them and b) going to be troublesome and significantly worse than the PC version. From an industry perspective, I see where you're coming from. But I am the player. And as the player, I expect that when I spend money on something, it's going to work.
I really enjoyed Catalyst. There were bugs, yes, and glitches that have been reported on every platform. It certainly has its issues. But these problems are not invalidated by the platform they are being reported from. These issues are relevant no matter what the platform is, because this game was released for every platform. Therefore, every platform matters.
I'm sorry we couldn't agree on the matter. Please in the future, though, and I say this in the politest way possible as I again understand a lot of your points and reasoning: be more respectful in how you phrase things, less condescending. Maybe people will be able to come to terms and possibly even (dare I say it...) agree with you.
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You can't be intentionally uninformed, and still expect people to treat you as an equal in discussion. If you tried pushing some of the arguments you are here in, say, a better informed, more industry-centric place, like neogaf, you'd be completely ripped apart. Trust me, I'm biting my tongue before responding.
When you buy a cheap car, it performs cheaply. The road might be smooth and perfectly maintained, but the journey can be horrible all the same.
You're still buying a car.
In technology, you get what you pay for. You can't require that the industry stands still, based on your preferences.
Game has many flaws, but at least has a solid gameplay and beautiful graphics, far better the graphics on consoles, and I don't care about that.
@tinypanmilk stop making sense.
I'm glad somebody agrees with me. I like the game, but it's definitely disappointing, and a lot of the things brought up in this debate were rather irrelevant.
I'm not really a "lazy devs" guy, I'm more a "something seems to have gone wrong during development" kind of guy. There are games with rushed ports like they didn't cared at all, but Catalyst isn't one, the game works fine. Example of a bad port was Arkham Knight for PC. That kind of thing is embarassing and unacceptable. I have an issue with graphical fidelity on PS4, as I think somethings could be sacrificed to ensure a better, or at least more consistent LOD, but my main issues with the game are others I have previously stated.
As I said, PC costs are according to where I live. An average machine goes for around 700 euro. Less than that and it comes with some shortcomings, either in RAM, or in HDD size, or i3 processor, or whatever. Mine cost a almost 800 euro 2 years ago. I can play games without major issues but most don't run at top performance. With 1000 euros, it's possible to buy or put together a decent machine. It will run games fine, but it will have issues with the more demanding ones, and will not run at 4k resolution. Top tier gaming PCs range from 1500 to 3200 (the most expensive I've seen for sale). It's not the euro that's destroying our buying power, it's the horrible economic management and lack of sight, and high taxes, but that's a problem not fit to discuss in a game forum.
One thing has been brought up and usually is in discussions about PC vs console, which is the dumbing down of a game because it're release on consoles too. There's no reason for a dev to dumb down the PC version because of consoles. as a lot of multiplat games, even those that have consoles as main focus, have way better performance on PC and allow customization of settings, multiple screens, far higher resolution and so on.
A 600 million users for PC is not an accurate figure. It has been stated more than once that while there's a lot of consumers on PC, most don't have gaming machines, and most of the player base comes from MMOs. Exactly because of that devs like EA or Ubisoft go for the multiplat route. For example, CD Projekt said that, while PC was and will be their main focus, the Witcher 3 would not be possible to make if they didn't go multiplat, in financial terms of course. It's not like I'm trying to bring down the PC importance, or it's supporters. H. ell, I believe some games should be PC only, or developed mainly for PC and then ported to other platforms. Stuff like Arkham Knight should never happen.
A cheap car is a poor analogy. People who buy a cheap car can't afford better, but surely they would like to have better. When buying stuff like PCs, consoles, smartphones or whatever, it's a bit different. People buy a determined product because of price. PCs can be cheap where you live, or be considered cheap by you because you can afford it, and it's fine, but you have to understand that's not the case everywhere or for everyone. Some people can't afford a gaming PC, others can't justify the investment when they can buy a console that's cheaper. Then there's brand. I bought a PS4 because I expect excelence from their software based on past experience and showings for it's future. Same thing for others that chose to buy it, and for those that chose to buy an XOne.
Also, what Microsoft did was because they're not performing so well at the moment and they seek to expand their library to more people by basically ending their exclusives line. To be honest it was a d.ick move towards the consumers and especially to their fans, and they shot themselves in the foot, potentially killing their console at the middle of it's lifespan.