E3 anyone?

I've only skimmed the highlights, but it looks like a pretty anemic year.

Of course the year before the next gen console push is always thin.

Two Metroids though, that's good!

Also a satellite Dishonored game. I like satellite games. They're never overly long and they can take risks that the flagships can't.

And a Shadow of the Colossus remake, which I never get when they do this. Why not just make Shadow of the Colossus 2?

What do you all think of E3 this year?

 

"Coming in 2018" the show.

Salty about Anthem as a Bioware fan. Looking forward to NFS Payback, though too much Burnout crashing for me. Cautiously looking for more info about single-player Battlefront 2...

Origins looks interesting, though I hope they don't go too fantastical with it (like that big snake). BG&E2...really? That monkey is just too much. I kind of wish I had a switch for the Mario and Rabbids game (and for xenoblade). Was really hoping for a Splinter Cell announcement, after the rumors.

Really happy to see Forza 7 coming to PC. Good news about Age 1 being remastered, and apparently they hinted new stuff too which I want to see. Only other thing from Microsoft I care about is Halo (real Halo, not RTS-lite games) on PC, and that will probably be next year.

Don't care about a single thing from Bethesda.

The Spiderman game looks awesome, but I'm a PC gamer so no joy for me.

Moderately interested in Life is Strange Before the Storm, though I wasn't really a fan of Chloe at all. Far more interested in Vampyr, whose E3 demo looked extremely, extremely interesting. The devs say the game takes like 15 hours to play though, which seems way too short to me.

Never played a Monster Hunter game, so World might be interesting.

Really not a fan of everything turning into an always-online "shared world" business.

Probably a couple other things, but that's all that stuck out to me so far. Not really that notable at all.

Edit: Oh! VERY intrigued by Phil's claims that he wants to bring emulated Xbox to PC.

And really, REALLY doubt new consoles are coming in 2018. Sony only just released a slim and Pro, and Microsoft's XBO(ne)X of course is this year. It's too soon.

 

I haven't seen everything yet, but I did spot a few things of note.

New Wolfenstein! I doubt I'll play it near release 'cause those games were freaking MASSIVE to download. Still, I loved the last one and it's expansion.

Dishonored 2 expansion. Seems interesting.

Middle Earth: Shadow of War. The nemesis system carried the first game for me. I'm glad they seemed to have focused on that aspect. Will definitely keep an eye on it.

Far Cry 5, maybe? Loved 3, 4 felt more like an overpriced, drawn out expansion than a new game. Skipped Primal because it looked like it had the same issues as 4. Will keep an eye on it but unless they seriously updated it then to hell with it.

Not a lot that's caught my eye. Wolfenstein is the really only one I'd say I'm excited about, and even then it's not enough that I'm planning on picking it up at day one.

 

"Before?" You had best not hold your breath. There isn't going to be a next generation console push next year. There won't be a push the year after that either. They might start promoting the Xbox One X (still a terrible name) and the PS4 Pro a little more heavily, but anything approaching a next-gen console shift is five years off at the very least. If the 1X and Pro are able to make decent inroads, you can just shift that projection out by another five years, because you can be certain that Microsoft and Sony will try to pull this stunt again.

The five-year console cycle of the past is gone. It has been ever since the 360 and PS3 stuck around while the Wii U floundered in obscurity. These companies are wise to the fact that a longer cycle benefits them, and they will do what is necessary to see that it stretches for as far as they can push it.

 

4K has been an issue for next generation upgrade (4x the graphical load), if they do the cycle, console would only be 2 times more graphically powerful, when it use to be 8 times (ie having a significant visual jump). CPU would have the expected 10x jump which would be great for gameplay, and maybe memory can jump to the 32GB all people want and that would make all game CG. If TV would have stayed at 640p well game would be CG by now lol.

So they are waiting till we reach enough of a decisive visual upgrade to make a new generation, which mean later, but also mean that other point might have a bigger jump (cpu and ram) than usual. CPU had been skimp this generation, so new opportunity will be created.

 

The Elder Scrolls VI wasn't mentioned so I totally tuned out E3.

 

I was personally mildly entertained by all the fake gameplay vids!

 

Care to share? Give me title!

 

Seriously...

In this day and age, pointing out that most every gameplay video is pre-redered should not merit debate.

The only AAA companies that DON'T lie are Capcom and Nintendo.

Every other company I just assume is full of it.

ESPECIALLY Ubi.


Anyway, as far as the console generation goes I'll tell you EXACTLY how it will go.

Xbox will shift to an OS and offer hardware to run them, but ultimately this is a retreat from the console market and an attempt to shift their model to one like Steam.

They will offer a bunch of different models, which will confuse the market, and Sony will swoop in and reveal PS5 at the most inopportune time for MS. Most likely E3 2018.

They will show off incredible specs, but it will not arrive for about 1.5 years after it is announced.

Also, since when does having a new version of the same console push back the next gen???

 

What exactly are you referring to? The 5 games they announced and promptly showed extended non-scripted gameplay demos of--and made available to play at the show?

AC Origins

The Crew 2

Skull and Bones

Far Cry 5

Mario + Rabbids

I realize it's cool to crap on Ubi, but it's entirely unwarranted at this point. Pretty much any time after 2012.

I am 100% certain this isn't happening.

 

Yeah this year all the game I have followed are playable right after. Those who didn't where sequel of extension, I think naughty dog have nothing to prove.

EXCEPT Starlink: Battle for atlas, I want to know more about it, FRAK!

 

Also this 3d game kill 2d forever

 

Since the previous generation, where a modified version of the same strategy extended a five year cycle into an eight year cycle. Where we saw three hardware iterations of the long-tail consoles instead of the usual two. Where the size of the hard drive was used as a strategy for keeping the average prices of consoles higher for longer. The previous console generation was noticeably longer than the previous generations.

Did you not notice? Because Microsoft and Sony certainly did. And they noticed that their profits on both hardware and software were much higher on the back half of that extended console generation. The Xbox One X and the PS4 Pro aren't attempting to move tech forward. They are an effort to keep the existing software platform for the PS4 and Xbox One viable for longer, despite outside tech moving forward. The original models of those systems will remain a target that developers HAVE to take into account, no matter how much power the new models sport. So yes, a true "next-generation" of consoles will be significantly delayed thanks to the Xbox One X and the PS4 Pro.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Microsoft and Sony are going to like it. Consumers, on the whole, will like it. And developers will learn to like it. Indie developers in particular should have no problem with it. But it is important to recognize it for what it is.

 

LOL! I don't think anything will kill 2D forever. Although at some point (maybe already started) 2D games may fall out of favor simply due to so many Indies having made so many 2D games the past 5 years... it would only last until people start missing them again and demand builds the entire time they are MIA.

When there are only/mainly 3D games demand builds for 2D games (something different) when there are only/mainly 2D games demand builds for 3D games (something different). when games are mainly large complex experiences taking a long time to finish demand builds for simple short experiences. And vice-versa. Minimalist games were completely the opposite of AAA titles and were received well as a result. So on so forth.

This particular game immediately reminds me of Street Fighter and Neo Geo fighting games from long ago. It is basically what I see when looking at it. Yes there are more colors and motion is very fluid but look beyond the eye candy.

 

It was mostly a joke, the 3d emulation of 2d is so good in this you wouldn't be able to tell them apart from a cursory look. It was basically an hyperbole to praise the visual.

 

I'm referring to their track record.

Every single year leading up to this E3 Ubi has bold faced lied about every single flagship game they have ever made.

At this point is not up to detractors like me to argue our point, it's up to Ubi and their supporters to argue their's.

The burden of proof that the screen shots are genuine is on the company that has consistently lied year, after year, after year, after year.

They have exhausted every ounce of trust I have for them, plain and simple.

Watchdogs
Rainbow Six
The Division
Ghost Recon
Assassin's Creed

ALL of them have shown footage that was claimed to be "actual gameplay" and all of them turned out to be fake.

I honestly do not understand for the life of me how people keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

And what's worse is their gameplay demos include the most cringe worthy scripted interactions between people "playing" it. It's down right insulting to our intelligence.

 

Can you give a single example of a game demo that did not have real gameplay?

I'm not talking about a vertical slice that isn't actually in the game, like the original Watch Dogs unveiling. Because you said "fake gameplay," not "it isn't in the game."

And neither I, nor anyone who isn't merely a graphics wh*re (and I kind of qualify for that myself, buying a GPU every other year), cares about "downgrades" more than a few minutes after we find out that hey, game dev requires compromises. Complaining about downgrades is bush league, man. If ANYONE can see past that nonsense, it should be other developers, even indie devs.

And actually no, if you're going to claim that literally every year they're releasing fake gameplay, then the burden of proof is on YOU to provide documentation for all of that.

And I've never seen it. This isn't Square Enix with FF XV or Alien Colonial Marines. Everything they show, to my knowledge, is actual gameplay. Again, feel free to provide proof of what YOU are accusing them of. I don't have a dog in this fight, I have no problem with pointing out their flaws (I've done it plenty myself). But AAA company bashing is tired by now, and almost always wrong.

 

One word: Watchdogs.

I really don't care what is trendy or not, Ubi is jaw dropping dishonest.

 

It's funny, I was actually thinking about Watch Dogs a few days ago, and thinking about how everything in the E3 demo apart from the demo scenario itself was indeed in the game. We didn't get that specific scene going after DeMarco, but everything that was done in the demo could be done in the game. Furthermore, later demos WERE indeed in the game.

So I'm not sure where the dishonesty is that you're referring to.

 

Yep there is a hack to enable the e3 demo, seems like they had problem with scaling to a whole product. Which happen, beta 64 is documenting just that across all console generation and publisher.

 

I think many are annoyed because these companies advertise a game to make it seem as if it is a certain way- graphics, gameplay, but the final product often fails to truely reflect what the consumer has been lead to believe they're purchasing. Yes, consumers should be more vigilant, but the consumer also shouldn't have to be. Ubisoft walks on stage to promote their new game, and it looks a certain way, and plays a certain way, and they sell it on that premise. Then you buy it and find it doesn't look that way, or play the way the showed. It is honestly misleading.

They should be upfront about this. If they can't scale it well enough from the slice to the final thing- maybe htey should have thought about that before they put it on a massive screen and broadcasted it to the world, shouting "Buy this!".

 

I can understand that point of view in theory. But my experience with the game was pretty much identical to that E3 demo in spirit, if not exactly in scenario. And in fact I can't recall any time my experience with a game was drastically different than what was shown, outside of No Man's Sky perhaps (and I expected that, so I wasn't concerned).

I take that back. Dragon Age Inquisition is one example, with the combat being completely different both from previous games and from what they showed of the game (this isn't even touching the Crestwood 2013 demo). I was quite incensed by that. But I've never once gotten that sense from Ubi.

 

They're called "bullshots." And they've been around forever.



When you're going to a big conference, you show off your game in the best light that you possibly can. Frequently, this involves showing pre-rendered cinematics, even pre-rendered cinematics that are adjusted to look like gameplay.

It's understandable that companies do this. I won't excuse it, as it is disingenuous. (and I'm still a little burned by Aliens: Colonial Marines) But I haven't ever singled out Ubisoft for such behavior. I always tended to look at EA and Sony for such offenses. (and more recently, Gearbox, grrrrr...) Not all of their games manage to live up to their teasers, but most of us expect that. I'm not sure why there should be enmity leveled against them in particular.

 

I find them enjoyable, not being ironic or anything. But you gotta know there are going to be downgrades. Don't believe it's the final quality of the overall game.

 

You know, it is entirely possible that at the time when they were making the demo it was actual gameplay. And later it turned out that hardware it required was overly expensive, so they dialed it down. A lot.

 

Yeah game dev is complex, there is some abuse, and there is genuine complication, most of the time both are mixed because PR gonna PR. Open world destiny was worse.

 

I like Nintendo but i really don't like how the new Mario looks. I'm sure the gameplay is good but the realistic design and just the way the city demo level is built with just a big fog in the bottom doesn't look nice. Also it reminds me of Sonic 2006....


I would have prefer a 3d mario that look like the design they did with the rabbids inside the mushroom kingdom.

 

But you wouldn't have a featherless T rex though

 

I had a similar thought. But what I've seen so far does look optimistic.

The last open 3d Mario game was Galaxy, which looked amazing, but was largely unplayable to me because it gave me some serious vertigo. I'm really looking forward to playing something akin to 64 and Sunshine again.

 

Nintendo blew everyone else away. Not even a contest.

 

The number of view on that video in that range of time don't lie

 

Nintendo packs so much stuff into their games and make the games / worlds fill so alive.

 

Especially for the space they occupy.

 

That's what absence of cinematics and non realistic modular base level design does for you, I guess. Meanwhile knack 2 looks like a 20 years old game with a new coat of paints, basic platforming is basic ... Even sonic 1 feel more modern than knack 2.

 

Still feel they could have done better visually, but i that personal i understand that others like those graphics.

Anyway what a reason i could start to get angry with Nintendo is where is F-Zero!

 

Yes you would be in the minority I'd guess. That video now has very close to 9 million views, 182,000 likes and 6,000 dislikes. Seems like the vast majority like what they see.

Besides the graphics can always be improved. Where does it end? What I like about Nintendo is they seem to put that focus on the gameplay. The gameplay can always be improved and they try to do that even if it is just tightening things up here and there. They usually nail the feel very well. Although I haven't played one of their games in a long time that is how it used to be.

 

Can graphics always be improved though? Remember the primary purpose of fog is to hide the fact that the world doesn't simply go on forever. When developing for consoles it's important to remember that there is a budget the developers have to work within and you don't have the luxury of telling people they need to upgrade their hardware.

 

Yeah but at the same time, except for zelda game, their game emulate fantastically across many console emulated lol, ie they don't do anything esoterique. And they tend to get spot on on graphics most of the time. But yeah the new mario is like a downgrade from their own level. Mario galaxy is still top tier visually despite being on wii, it's below that. Mario kart 8 look stellar also.

 

On the contrary being emulated fantastically doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do anything esoteric. It simply means that the hardware the game was originally designed to run on was seriously that under-powered compared to the hardware it is being emulated on. Just look at the Wikipedia entry for estimated computing power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_gaming_platforms

The Nintendo 64 had about 1/120th the power of the Nintendo Wii which is at 1/83rd the power of the Switch. Additionally the emulation software isn't created in the same manner as third party emulators. Nintendo has the full specifications of the original console and the console that will be emulating it. Many of the games are theirs too which means they have source as well.

 

Well I mean mario 64 was easier to emulate than banjo kazooie, It's not about the hardware, but contemporary games and their emulation. Mario kart 8 on wii U, and 3d world was also perfectly emulated before other games i early build of cemu, wenoblade x was not, zelda is showing sign of them pushing under-commented feature other game didn't, and still suffer. And xbox original is still not emulated, it's not just about hrdware power, especially when modern emulation is susing a lot of trick (n64 was emulated as early as pentium 300 hardware because of they found a way to not run the actual code but making real time conversion to equivalent, side stepping teh issue).

 

Well sure they can... what I mean is you can grab video or screenshots from any game out there and post them here and people will point out things that can be improved. It's like @ShadowK recently mentioned...he was playing Witcher 3 and focusing on the visuals and started thinking these graphics are really not that good.

What I am getting is whatever you are focusing on / obsessing over you will find flaws sooner or later. Nintendo seems to place that focus more on the gameplay side and the AAA sector in general (and the bigger Indies) seem to place that focus more on the graphics / cinematic presentation side.

So yes... they can always be improved. Sometimes big changes. Sometimes just hundreds of very tiny spot / subtle improvements. It just depends on what the goal is. To release a great game or to make the best looking game possible. They are not the same thing.

You're definitely right about the tech being a limiting factor and this is where it is easy to see where the AAA priorities often lie. Look at something like Crysis which when released looked absolutely stunning and yet most people couldn't run it at a playable frame-rate. It was choppy sluggish as hell.

But beyond tech limits... I think people would see many art related improvements. Tons of focus on lighting & shadow improvements. Perhaps others would feel the art direction itself was flawed. Others would think the exact same objects using a different color scheme would make it so much better. So when I say better... keep in mind better is often just a very personal thing in the eyes of the person doing the critiquing. Improving the graphics for them. Not necessarily improving the graphics period in the opinion of everyone.

 

Yeah a big part of AAA is to be skilled enough to know what flaws to left and what to take out, the general impression is often the best target you can go for instead of focusing on details. That's why I always like to past some sonic color screenshot whenever I can, ps2 level of mastery. When the game was announced, a lot of people thought it was a game on a higher generation of console! They simply couldn't tell at a glance.

 

Considering that F-Zero (along with Pilot Wings) was made for the sole purpose of showcasing Mode 7, I would not hold my breath on them championing the game. Obviously there have been sequels since the SNES, but there's just so much they can do with the sled racer genre.

And honestly there's so many great games out there that fill that niche. The last Wipeout was particularly fun for me.

 

I guess it's because i spent countless hours on the N64 version with friends that i wish i had a new one coming, plus musics were great XD

 

To be frank Fzero play differently enough that's a big deal, no other game fill that void to me.