Squeezing? I got a 4:3 Display, those are fit for splitscreen.
Im agreeing with Ostepop, Burnout without Splitscreen.... pfff
Burnout: Paradise City
- Thread starter sevanig
- Start date
Im agreeing with Ostepop, Burnout without Splitscreen.... pfff
Burnout uses the vertical, too, so you lose out. It also seriously tunnel-visions you, and said tunnel would get even smaller. The world also moves fast as the dickens, so you'd be getting constant extra distraction from the other player's screen. (Also, the city is so damn pretty. It's a shame to lose half your vision.) Mainly, though, they just didn't want to take the framerate down. They refer to it as "that other framerate" a lot, or "the framerate that dare not speak its name." 
They're solid-60 or bust.
Meanwhile, the game's online multiplayer is handled in a more interesting, seamless, and customizable manner than ANY other game I've seen (certainly than other racing games), with matchups that are contoured for 2-player, 3-player, etc., all the way up to 8-player, so while they lose local multiplayer, they
seriously enhance online multiplayer. I think they easily made the right choice.
They're solid-60 or bust.Meanwhile, the game's online multiplayer is handled in a more interesting, seamless, and customizable manner than ANY other game I've seen (certainly than other racing games), with matchups that are contoured for 2-player, 3-player, etc., all the way up to 8-player, so while they lose local multiplayer, they
seriously enhance online multiplayer. I think they easily made the right choice.
You mean even worse than 16:9 already does?
Right choice for you maybe, Burnout is a game where split-seconds matter, and I prefer to play it local as its great fun that way. Burnout without splitscreen is loosing everything that made it worthwhile for me. Even so much that Im gonna say they should aim for 60FPS splitscreen and then think about singleplayer/online. Also you can scale down detail in splitscreen if you care enough to make both looking as good as possible.
well I only played the demo for a few minutes and while intrigued, picked this one up mostly due to the open nature of the design and huge map and very nice graphics... what I found was... exciting destruction derby type racing both offline and on. Mindless fun and the cars react exactly as you would expect them to in all situations (arcade)
it may just be me and how I feel this week
Got the game today:
I didn`t like the demo much, and I kind of feared to get lost in the open world. I thought that would make the game more "NFSish".
What makes it a better experience is the rewards that you get (which keep you going) and the sheer amount of challenges you can do at each and every corner (which compensates the downsides of the open design - no race restarting etc.).
I didn`t try the online races, just did some of the showtime stuff - got some records and so on.
I liked the old crash modes better though. Crashes are always kind of random but the old design had more strategy and planing imo.
Anyways I had fun and when I watched the time I`ve spent over 2 hours already....
How does aspect ratio matter one whit when you're cutting the screen in half? I'm pretty sure the major "worse" comes from that whole "cutting the screen in half" bit. Unless you're suggesting splitting it the other way...?You mean even worse than 16:9 already does?
That'd be crazy. What I was saying is that while other racing games don't really need the vertical, Burnout Paradise has plenty of ramps and jumps and building hops and altitude to pursue, so losing half your vertical has a much greater impact on it. Aspect ratio is pretty much unnoticeable in comparison. Burnout doesn't even PLAY the same way anymore. You don't load up a track, toss two people in and go. You're constantly driving around an open city, so you'd not only be breaking up the visibility, but you'd be breaking up the gameplay.
As well, one player would always be in charge and driving out, and the second driver would hop in when a race is started. Or else they'd both play split, and have to drive around near each other to try to synch up at the same light? Conceptually, it's just a lot harder to manage, and introduces a lot of what they were striving to do away with this time: menus, loading, etc. The seamlessness, online and off, multiplayer or not, records and ranking included... it's one of the real treats of the game.
Plus, if they're aiming for a split-screen target at 60FPS, they'd be taking away from the rest of the game, that would likely be 90% of the time for 90% of people. Actually, I'm probably underestimating. The industry has been moving away from split-screen multiplayer for a while, games like Guitar Hero have been pushing aside the more "conventional" console games like racing, fighting, etc., and both gamers and reviewers complain a lot MORE if the online multiplayer is given shorter shrift.
Old crash mode was more of a puzzle game. Showtime is more like an action/strategy minigame, which is certainly a refreshing change. I'll miss some of the old crash modes, sure (more blowing-up of stuff), but I certainly WON'T miss the continual reloading of the board to try again--which always seemed to be the exact same loading time whether I was completely restarting, or even just doing a "Oops, I missed that initial bonus" and not wanting to waste time with the rest of the round. I can always toss in Pain if I want the same sort of thing.
Or, of course, any of the old Burnouts. There's only a limited amount of changing they could have done to the old Crash mode to make it fresh--and none of it would have made it the mode as exciting as it first was.Now, I guess, we get to see if we can extend a Showtime crash around the perimeter of the city.
Burnout has made a nice no 1 debut in the UK top 40:
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=91556
And sales are evenly (53-47) split between the 360 and PS3 versions.
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=91556
And sales are evenly (53-47) split between the 360 and PS3 versions.
Considering there is roughly 500,000~700,000 more 360 owners at present that is actually a remarkable performance on PS3 sales.
Or a poor performance on 360
For knowing the performance we have to know reals numbers and not %…
Last edited by a moderator:
I have very little pity for people without the Xbox hard drive; it's also pretty much required for "not being dumb."
That's tough. If you aren't intrigued by the concept, than nothing in the retail game is going to grab you. If it was just the execution of the concept in the demo that turned you off than the retail game is the fully realized vision and is better in every way. I wasn't sold on the game after playing the demo, but bought it anyway because I liked the concept and was impressed by the reviews and impressions I had read from people who played the full game. I'm glad I did.
I bought it last night and was instantly hooked just by the offline stuff. There's even elements of Crackdown in there in terms of verticality (looking for ways to get to certain billboards is similar to trying to find lines to get to the agility orbs). It is a much larger world and that world is much more fully populated with gameplay opportunities than the demo. The open design was a stroke of pure genius on Criterion's part, IMHO.
Ditto that. My friend just got his PS3 a couple weeks ago & he loves the demo. He only has 1 PS3 game so he is determined to get this game. I watched the IGN video review & it seems that the full version offers a substantial amount more then the demo version. Not a complete shock but if I end up liking the full version then this will be at least 2 demo's from the PS-S that I got, hated, rolled the dice & bought the full game & liked it. The other game was RFoM. Only tried 1 demo that I liked & then bought the game which was Uncharted. Of course when GT is released I'll get that.
Anyone else getting the opinion that some of the PS3 demo's are not good representations of the full games at all? Case in point here for me was RFoM & now maybe BoPC.
IGN Video review on this page. http://ps3.ign.com/articles/846/846020p1.html
Betanumerical
Veteran
I could not care if this game had absolutely not races at all.
I want it just for the crashes.
Ordered it for $75 AU. Which is damn cheap should be here by latest end of this week.
I want it just for the crashes.
Ordered it for $75 AU. Which is damn cheap should be here by latest end of this week.
chroniceyestrain
Newcomer
I sometimes wish I could skip the crashes, as you can't do anything except watch a cut-scene your car flip around for a few seconds. It takes me out of the action. Why did they remove aftertouch?
Sure, it looks very impressive, but after playing for a couple hours I just don't care.
Sure, it looks very impressive, but after playing for a couple hours I just don't care.
Similar threads
