PDA

View Full Version : So this is only for consoles?



Bmer2020
05-27-2007, 11:59 AM
Is this game only coming out for consoles and not for the PC, or is it coming out for all three?

PrinceCaspian5
05-27-2007, 12:10 PM
I think it is only for consoles, some places say that it is for all three, but I think it is only coming out for the 360 and PS3

jetejector77
05-27-2007, 12:33 PM
Its console only.

SkyRaptorRUS
05-27-2007, 12:37 PM
PC version is also in development!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sotoro-
05-27-2007, 01:35 PM
Who said that? I thought Ubi announced that Endwar is only for consoles?

SkyRaptorRUS
05-27-2007, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Sotoro-:
Who said that? I thought Ubi announced that Endwar is only for consoles?
In IGN official interview they confirm that the game is developed for PC, Xbox360 and PS3

Frogger626
05-27-2007, 07:38 PM
I think that RTS's are best left to PCs. I once played the N64 version of StarCraft *shudder*. The controls are impossible. W/out a mouse attachment, the games would be extremely hard.

PrinceCaspian5
05-27-2007, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Frogger626:
I think that RTS's are best left to PCs. I once played the N64 version of StarCraft *shudder*. The controls are impossible. W/out a mouse attachment, the games would be extremely hard.
They say that this game is made specifically for consoles, and I there is voice control to try to help with the problems of controls

SkyRaptorRUS
05-28-2007, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by PrinceCaspian5:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frogger626:
I think that RTS's are best left to PCs. I once played the N64 version of StarCraft *shudder*. The controls are impossible. W/out a mouse attachment, the games would be extremely hard.
They say that this game is made specifically for consoles, and I there is voice control to try to help with the problems of controls </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes...the game is designed with for consoles in mind BUT IT WILL COME ON PC TOO!

CaptainHarlock
05-28-2007, 09:23 AM
I hate to disappoint you guys but according to several websites and EGM's preview there will be no PC version at this time. Not saying there won't ever be, but they are devoting development time to the console versions primarily at the moment.

You can read about it here;

1up EndWar preview (http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3159303)

And in this interview on IGN Michael De Plater says that this game is built from the ground up to be played on consoles.

IGN EndWar Interview w/ Michael De Plater (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/790/790983p1.html)

atacms2020
05-28-2007, 11:21 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CaptainHarlock:
I hate to disappoint you guys but according to several websites and EGM's preview there will be no PC version at this time. Not saying there won't ever be, but they are devoting development time to the console versions primarily at the moment.

You can read about it here;
http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/tomclancysendwar/new...g=newlyadded;title;1 (http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/tomclancysendwar/news.html?sid=6171351&om_act=convert&om_clk=newlyadded&tag=newlyadded;title;1)

and in this link if you go to the right there are 2 videos, look at the video interview and you'll hear it from the lead game designer, De Plater say at the very very end of the interview that the game will also be coming out on the PC.
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/tomclancysendwar...d=6171384&id=6171384 (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/tomclancysendwar/download_ini.html?sid=6171384&id=6171384)
1up EndWar preview (http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3159303)

And in this interview on IGN Michael De Plater says that this game is built from the ground up to be played on consoles.

SkyRaptorRUS
05-28-2007, 11:55 AM
THAT DOES IT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Watch this interview and listen carefully to the last phrases in it.

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/902/902335/vids_1.html

Any more question?

CaptainHarlock
05-28-2007, 01:14 PM
Okay then, it appears that my information was a bit out of date. I humbly stand corrected.

pettyofficerj
05-28-2007, 03:33 PM
think...rainbow six vegas....


built from the ground up with the next gen consoles in mind..

lazy ported over to the pc with tons of glitches and show-stopping multiplayer bugs...

rinse and repeat...

at least with GRAW/GRAW2, it wasn't lazy ported and the pc gamers had a ghost recon game custom-tailored with the uber-intellectual pc conniseur in mind..

slow-methodical pace, one hit kills, tactics over brawn...

whether endwar is going to be a lazy port, which it sounds like, has yet to be seen

Bmer2020
05-28-2007, 04:46 PM
Oh yay! At least it's coming out for PC!

Bmer2020
05-28-2007, 04:49 PM
Oh yeah...I forgot to add...

All games, whether you are designing for the console or not, HAVE to be designed on a computer.

So all console games in reality are PC ports, although some are console customized than others, and some never have their PC versions realeased (i.e. when some company like Microsoft or Sony basically bribes the game company into only releasing for the consoles to improve their sales).

Also, this game is NOT, repeat, NOT a RTS. It's a 3D Wargame. Huge difference between an RTS and a Wargame, those who have played real Wargames (like the Steel Panther series, or the Airborne Assault series will know the difference). But EndWar is not a hardcore wargame.

CaptainHarlock
05-28-2007, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
think...rainbow six vegas....


built from the ground up with the next gen consoles in mind..

lazy ported over to the pc with tons of glitches and show-stopping multiplayer bugs...

rinse and repeat...

at least with GRAW/GRAW2, it wasn't lazy ported and the pc gamers had a ghost recon game custom-tailored with the uber-intellectual pc conniseur in mind..

slow-methodical pace, one hit kills, tactics over brawn...

whether endwar is going to be a lazy port, which it sounds like, has yet to be seen

Not to get too far off topic but I really don't understand the whole PC users have higher I.Q.s mindset. I've been hearing it for years and I think it just doesn't hold water anymore. Especially not now when console gaming has progressed as far as it has. One of the things I've noticed is the lack of variety on the PC. I saw a preview on G4 of the "big" titles for the PC in 2007; Command and Conquer, FEAR I believe, and another shooter. They were all bascially the same games I've seen before. Why is there only one way to make PC games?

The reality is ladies and gentlemen that PC gaming isn't what it once was. And part of it is due to the cost of hardware. You buy a top of the line gaming PC for $2,500 to $3,000 and there's still a chance that a new game won't work. Worse, in six months you may have to buy ANOTHER video card or some other upgrade. And for what? To see an extra blade of grass on World of Warcraft? Many PC gamers look down their noses at console gamers and claim they aren't as "smart" as PC gamers. But what's more practical? Paying $600 for a PS3 once and playing games for 5-8 years? Or paying $2,000+ on gaming PC and then having to pay for additional upgrades down the road that may push the cost eventually well over $4,000 with no guaruntee that a game will even work right out of the box? And if anyone has played Battlefield 2 you'll know what I mean.

I know it's apples and oranges, however you can't deny the convenience of console gaming. Every game will work, just drop it in the drive, sit back on the couch in front of the widescreen and rock out.

I think EndWar might break the mold for this type of game. Rather than scorning it for it's beginings on consoles maybe it should be welcomed with open arms as the harbinger of a new era.

Okay that's my two cents.

pettyofficerj
05-29-2007, 11:08 AM
There is a saying that just because you have a high I.Q., does not mean that you will be rich.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

You can't deny that it took some brains to play the original rainbow six and ghost recon games on the hardest settings, with the goal of keeping most of your mates alive. Then they started going the way of the console, and some of the "thinking" (due to the fact that one shot would generally kill you) was taken out and replaced with "fun."

That was just the point I was trying to make. Nothing to do with knowing how to spend money. That takes another form of intelligence, which is why the argument of I.Q. is one that would take up an entire forum board itself.

CaptainHarlock
06-10-2007, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
There is a saying that just because you have a high I.Q., does not mean that you will be rich.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

You can't deny that it took some brains to play the original rainbow six and ghost recon games on the hardest settings, with the goal of keeping most of your mates alive. Then they started going the way of the console, and some of the "thinking" (due to the fact that one shot would generally kill you) was taken out and replaced with "fun."

That was just the point I was trying to make. Nothing to do with knowing how to spend money. That takes another form of intelligence, which is why the argument of I.Q. is one that would take up an entire forum board itself.

There's nothing wrong with having a "fun" game. I mean why play a game if it's not fun? I personally found the early Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon games extremely frustrating. I know people say "they're so realistic" but come on. One shot in the big toe and you have a man down for the count? How realistic is that? Maybe you'd bleed to death over the course of eight hours but you usually don't die from a shot to the big toe. It's that kind of "realism" that sucked the fun right out of those games for me.

pettyofficerj
06-10-2007, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by CaptainHarlock:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
There is a saying that just because you have a high I.Q., does not mean that you will be rich.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

You can't deny that it took some brains to play the original rainbow six and ghost recon games on the hardest settings, with the goal of keeping most of your mates alive. Then they started going the way of the console, and some of the "thinking" (due to the fact that one shot would generally kill you) was taken out and replaced with "fun."

That was just the point I was trying to make. Nothing to do with knowing how to spend money. That takes another form of intelligence, which is why the argument of I.Q. is one that would take up an entire forum board itself.

There's nothing wrong with having a "fun" game. I mean why play a game if it's not fun? I personally found the early Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon games extremely frustrating. I know people say "they're so realistic" but come on. One shot in the big toe and you have a man down for the count? How realistic is that? Maybe you'd bleed to death over the course of eight hours but you usually don't die from a shot to the big toe. It's that kind of "realism" that sucked the fun right out of those games for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


To each his own...

I know people who like the current gen of games, because they're more fun and forgiving. They like being able to chainsaw slice big brutes to death after being shot themselves 10 times..

and I know people who like the planning and tactical comms aspect of playing a one-hitter quitter like Rainbow Six original. The planning and coordination was very important because you were usually outnumbered and a dumb move could cost the lives of you and your men in 5 seconds flat..

I have to admit I have lots of fun being able to take hits in Vegas, take cover, and keep on trucking..

but I also like it when i'm playing a game where teamwork is enforced by the sheer lethality of combat.

Skita1
06-10-2007, 09:04 PM
I just kind of wish that they had Medal of Honor games on the scale of realism that Ghost Recon has. Instead of going around by yourself to take out an entire enemy airfield, being able to take 5 clips to the chest, they should put you in an acual battle that actually happened. Put you in a trench where you've actually got to fight smart. And, instead of being by yourself, you'd actually be in an army, with a lot of your buddys in the trench next to you.

Come to think of it, that'd make a nice MMO. And yes, I already know that we've got battlefield, but
1. I don't like EA
&
2. I'm thinking on a much bigger scale, and remember, realistic.

CaptainHarlock
06-10-2007, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CaptainHarlock:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
There is a saying that just because you have a high I.Q., does not mean that you will be rich.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

You can't deny that it took some brains to play the original rainbow six and ghost recon games on the hardest settings, with the goal of keeping most of your mates alive. Then they started going the way of the console, and some of the "thinking" (due to the fact that one shot would generally kill you) was taken out and replaced with "fun."

That was just the point I was trying to make. Nothing to do with knowing how to spend money. That takes another form of intelligence, which is why the argument of I.Q. is one that would take up an entire forum board itself.

There's nothing wrong with having a "fun" game. I mean why play a game if it's not fun? I personally found the early Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon games extremely frustrating. I know people say "they're so realistic" but come on. One shot in the big toe and you have a man down for the count? How realistic is that? Maybe you'd bleed to death over the course of eight hours but you usually don't die from a shot to the big toe. It's that kind of "realism" that sucked the fun right out of those games for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


To each his own...

I know people who like the current gen of games, because they're more fun and forgiving. They like being able to chainsaw slice big brutes to death after being shot themselves 10 times..

and I know people who like the planning and tactical comms aspect of playing a one-hitter quitter like Rainbow Six original. The planning and coordination was very important because you were usually outnumbered and a dumb move could cost the lives of you and your men in 5 seconds flat..

I have to admit I have lots of fun being able to take hits in Vegas, take cover, and keep on trucking..

but I also like it when i'm playing a game where teamwork is enforced by the sheer lethality of combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that was one of the problems I had with the first Rainbow Six. I'd spend maybe 30 minutes planning a mission that my teams were wiped out on in under 20 seconds. The planning stage is important, but I didn't spend a whole lot of time actually PLAYING the game.

I agree with you that realistic elements "enhance" a game. However it really shouldn't be an ultimate end. Sometimes you have to sacrifice some realism for playability. I know in some games if there were one shot kills the game would get too frustrating and you'd probably quit playing very quickly. Balancing realism with playability. I think that's the key.

pettyofficerj
06-11-2007, 04:03 AM
^^^and this is what's selling...

I mean, vegas and gears of war aren't exactly sticklers in the realism department, and they're selling buttloads.

calanorn
06-11-2007, 01:11 PM
operation flash point sold loads and that is pretty realistic as games go

SEADEMON
06-12-2007, 12:19 AM
oh man they have to release this for PC

pettyofficerj
06-15-2007, 09:26 AM
the pc market is swimming neck deep in these types of games..

i guess that was another reason to push this game for the console with the possibility of a pc version.

I really seen no information about a pc version, even tho gamespot said it was due to be released for it also..

all I read is console friendly controls and the opportunity to give console gamers the proper RTS they deserve.

calanorn
06-15-2007, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by pettyofficerj:
the pc market is swimming neck deep in these types of games..

i guess that was another reason to push this game for the console with the possibility of a pc version.

I really seen no information about a pc version, even tho gamespot said it was due to be released for it also..

all I read is console friendly controls and the opportunity to give console gamers the proper RTS they deserve.

I would agree that gamespot isnt the best site for accurate info but the video has a dev saying it so id bet its a realistic option on there table about now.

As for a RTS that consoles deservwe this is a treat not so much what is deserved imo platforms, fighting, sports and unrealistic shooters belong on the 360 tactical shooters, rts belong on a pc imo that said i see no reason for it to be menopolized one way or the other as long as they cater to both markets in some form.

that said i preffer ubi on the 360 there not so good on pc :P