I didn't knew Intel makes "good" graphic crads :O
[Sry for off topic stuff :$]
But Why!? (stay on topic y'all)
- Thread starter AsharottPrime
- Start date
[Sry for off topic stuff :$]
They don't, none of Intel's graphics meet the min spec of any game. Also, most Intel graphics are CPU based (built into the CPU), not an actual dedicated display card.
I know but he is able to play Saints Row IV with that.
![[GoSP] Jon](/forum/data/avatars/m/0/77.jpg?1378580205){kind=avatar}
[GoSP] Jon
Screw you all
Actually, newer chips can run Skyrim with ease so it's time to put the stereotype that all intel gpus are bad behind us. You should be able to play this game with certain intel gpus. It was that way with SRIV, it will be that way now.
Something that is true is not a stereotype. Please show us where in any games min spec it shows Intel chips.
I understand there are some games that will run on Intel GPUs, but lets face it, they (IGPUs) are not the powerhouses that even the cheaper Nvidia or AMD cards are. And for the record, I never said that these games wouldn't run on Intel GPUs, merely that they don't meet min spec, and pointed out that they are usually CPU embedded. Read above ftw!
Some Intel GPUs may be able to run Skyrim, but I'm betting it will be at lower quality settings.
This and SR4 look like dolled up installments for a series they weren't intended to be part of. I mean, I just might like the game if they called it something else and kicked over development of an actual Saints Row game to another team. It's getting kind of insulting how Volition is milking the cash out of a franchise they're obviously bored with.
Corrodias
Generally Awesome
I don't think it's justifiable to be insulted by Jaros et al. not wanting to publish Saints Row 2 over and over.
People have been crawling out of the woodwork lately to complain about various games not being a "real <franchise> entry!". People who don't like God of War bemoaned Lords of Shadow not being like other Castlevania games, though they don't typically say which ones. They didn't complain about Symphony of the Night being different from the NES games.
They didn't complain about Super Mario RPG being different from Super Mario World. Hell, they didn't complain about Super Mario World being different from Super Mario Bros. I don't recall anyone bitching about Grand Theft Auto 3 being in third person 3D, versus its predecessors which were all top-down games. It felt very different thematically, too. Maybe the bitching happened, and I just didn't notice. I didn't really go looking for complaints.
For crying out loud, how can you say SR4 doesn't fit but not mention SR3? That game stuck out like a thing that sticks out a lot.
Kids these days. Argh.
People have been crawling out of the woodwork lately to complain about various games not being a "real <franchise> entry!". People who don't like God of War bemoaned Lords of Shadow not being like other Castlevania games, though they don't typically say which ones. They didn't complain about Symphony of the Night being different from the NES games.
They didn't complain about Super Mario RPG being different from Super Mario World. Hell, they didn't complain about Super Mario World being different from Super Mario Bros. I don't recall anyone bitching about Grand Theft Auto 3 being in third person 3D, versus its predecessors which were all top-down games. It felt very different thematically, too. Maybe the bitching happened, and I just didn't notice. I didn't really go looking for complaints.
For crying out loud, how can you say SR4 doesn't fit but not mention SR3? That game stuck out like a thing that sticks out a lot.
Kids these days. Argh.
It's as simple as product labeling. If people like your product enough to ask for it by name, then they feel offended and betrayed if you sold a different product under the same label. That's why there are consumer protections against that. SR3 still had the same gameplay and goals, same story progression -- you're saying it stuck out, but you'd really have to explain to me what the major variation from the previous games were. A change of maps really doesn't constitute one. Introducing gameplay mechanics and player abilities that completely obviate the old so much that you wonder why they were included, that would be a major deviation. This isn't to say that the product is bad, only that the label is misleading.
EDIT: You know, there's a new Carmageddon in alpha that plays exactly like Carmageddon. It's everything I liked about the original games, but improved. Now that's an honest continuation of a franchise.
Then I guess you didn't hear my complaints about it. The GTAIII threw out pretty much everything that defined the series up to that point. The game quality was good enough (after sufficient patches -- because of this game I no longer buy games at release date) that they could've kicked off a new franchise with it and still been able to produce improved versions of the mechanics and feel of GTA 1 and 2, which there is still a demand for.
EDIT: You know, there's a new Carmageddon in alpha that plays exactly like Carmageddon. It's everything I liked about the original games, but improved. Now that's an honest continuation of a franchise.
Corrodias
Generally Awesome
Well, I can't argue with your points about GTA 3. 
Saints Row 3 has similar mechanics, but it's really quite goofy compared to 2. And 2 was already pretty silly compared to 1. I don't mean that getting goofier is better or worse, just different. Saints Row as a franchise has never really had a consistent, thematic approach. But what you're talking about, I suppose, is mechanics.
What this all comes down to is asking, "just what is a game franchise?". What does it mean for a game (or a movie (or a breakfast cereal)) to be labelled "Mario", "Zelda", or "Saints Row"? At its barest, it means the company making it has the right to use the name, which is probably trademarked. Beyond that, there's usually either a thematic approach (a style), a set of characters, and/or game mechanics that are being re-used. And they often build on a story. Super Mario RPG shared characters and vague themes with other Mario games, but not mechanics at all. Majora's Mask and Wind Waker are nothing alike in style, but have very similar mechanics. Lords of Shadow uses completely different mechanics (yet similar to other games outside the franchise, and vaguely reminiscent of the 3D PS2 and N64 games), reuses yet overhauls the characters, and continues both the general thematic approach and the overall structure of the NES games (not so much the SotN era games). The only thing GTA3 has in common with previous games are some broad mechanics (driving cars) and the general structure of progression. I know you didn't like that, but a lot of folks enjoyed the new perspective.
What I'm saying is that there are several ways to make a game that's part of a franchise in more than just name, and they can be enjoyable if you take them for what they are rather than a betrayal of expectations that, really, you never should have had. What you're looking for is a game that "plays like Saints Row 2 and 3", which is fine, but that doesn't make the Saints Row Facebook strategy game (whatever it was) any less of a "Saints Row" game just because it is mechanically different. Read reviews. Know what you're getting into. You'll be better off for it.
The nice thing about mechanics is that they aren't copyrighted (except in the very strictest sense of making a nearly exact clone of an entire game). Any other game studio is free to create a game like Saints Row 2 and 3 without any sort of repercussion, aside from other gamers accusing them of "ripping off" another game (see Lords of Shadow and God of War, again). I almost wish someone would; I like there to be a wide variety of games out there to suit all tastes. It's just the limited nature of our capitalist market and finite population that we can't make all games at all times.
Saints Row 3 has similar mechanics, but it's really quite goofy compared to 2. And 2 was already pretty silly compared to 1. I don't mean that getting goofier is better or worse, just different. Saints Row as a franchise has never really had a consistent, thematic approach. But what you're talking about, I suppose, is mechanics.
What this all comes down to is asking, "just what is a game franchise?". What does it mean for a game (or a movie (or a breakfast cereal)) to be labelled "Mario", "Zelda", or "Saints Row"? At its barest, it means the company making it has the right to use the name, which is probably trademarked. Beyond that, there's usually either a thematic approach (a style), a set of characters, and/or game mechanics that are being re-used. And they often build on a story. Super Mario RPG shared characters and vague themes with other Mario games, but not mechanics at all. Majora's Mask and Wind Waker are nothing alike in style, but have very similar mechanics. Lords of Shadow uses completely different mechanics (yet similar to other games outside the franchise, and vaguely reminiscent of the 3D PS2 and N64 games), reuses yet overhauls the characters, and continues both the general thematic approach and the overall structure of the NES games (not so much the SotN era games). The only thing GTA3 has in common with previous games are some broad mechanics (driving cars) and the general structure of progression. I know you didn't like that, but a lot of folks enjoyed the new perspective.
What I'm saying is that there are several ways to make a game that's part of a franchise in more than just name, and they can be enjoyable if you take them for what they are rather than a betrayal of expectations that, really, you never should have had. What you're looking for is a game that "plays like Saints Row 2 and 3", which is fine, but that doesn't make the Saints Row Facebook strategy game (whatever it was) any less of a "Saints Row" game just because it is mechanically different. Read reviews. Know what you're getting into. You'll be better off for it.
The nice thing about mechanics is that they aren't copyrighted (except in the very strictest sense of making a nearly exact clone of an entire game). Any other game studio is free to create a game like Saints Row 2 and 3 without any sort of repercussion, aside from other gamers accusing them of "ripping off" another game (see Lords of Shadow and God of War, again). I almost wish someone would; I like there to be a wide variety of games out there to suit all tastes. It's just the limited nature of our capitalist market and finite population that we can't make all games at all times.
I tend to agree. If they were at fault of anything, it's underestimating how many memory slots would be needed for various customizations with the Havok engine, so they could do something more comparable to SR2 on that end. I think Jaros and Volition tried to do the damn near impossible with SR4, they tried to make everyone happy who liked other games in the series. With the financial situation THQ was in when SR4 was first being developed, I think they did a great job in that attempt. SR4 isn't my favorite of the series, but I applaud the effort on Volition's part and I can see how they really tried to make SR4 a game that moves the "story" forward while paying tribute to previous games.
When the first SR4 trailer came out, I was irritated with people who said it was a DLC with a $30 price tag. Due to the memory slots issue, they couldn't make SR4 into a DLC and they likely needed to get a game out before the next gen consoles came out. Volition may have had to make concessions, but they still gave it their all and I feel their effort and intentions should be considered and kudos to them for that, and the modding SDK.