Faux
-
Posts
7820 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Faux
-
-
There's lots that has been said, but I have to disagree with this.
It's not "real life" graphics that are intensive. I can make a psedu-2D cartoony game that takes advantaged of modern hardware, including things like deferred rendering (using OpenGL 4.0 "A-buffer" techniques), shadow mapping, volume lighting, so on and so on... and make it still look cartoony! Do you know what it even takes to develop a game? I'm doubting it.
Games are not as a result of "lazy" coding if they're in a cartoon style.
Crytek was the ideal developer. They pushed the envelope when they produced Crysis. It had the most realistic graphics at the time. Did that make Crytek successful? Nope. They just couldn't market it to most people. In fact, they went from producing realistic games like Crysis to focusing on F2P games with more cartoonish graphics. If I can use their words,
Look around, look at the younger generation! When I see my nephews, they have never bought a game in their lives; they don't play on the PC at all, they have iPads. In 10 years' time, none of these guys will be buying PC games, they won't be buying console games. Those are the guys who play games. Naturally, very visibly in the next generation, the consoles will have a problem, because unless they reflect the lifestyles of this generation, you can't get them on a console. That's why I'm very vocal about this. I don't think there will be another hardware generation beyond the next one. That's why I'm building Gface.http://www.guardian....w?newsfeed=true
At the end of the day, majority of the consumers don't care that much about graphics. It seems to have plateau'd for now that there's an "that's good enough" level. They're no longer pushing the envelope. Is it wrong I call that lazier?
World of Warcraft for example still uses a variation of the WC3 engine. That's more than a decade old, and yet it's still the most popular online game.
Diablo 3 is the fastest selling PC game. But it still looks like this
And their recommended specs are parts that came out in 2008/2009. So what exactly is the point of bragging about how PC gaming is superior when even developers don't take advantage of it?
being in reach of a piece of paper.I still can't believe I got trolled into saying that. But I'm trying to talk this out in layman as much as I can. But please don't think I pretend to be a video game designer. I did not study to make video games, lol. Talk about limiting your potential. I'm speaking from a player pov ;)
I think this is the best real life example I can use.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o921p4TIzH4&hd=1
Watching this in 1080p and all it shows is that there's no significant advantage to the PC version.
-
The fact that you're all still going at it after him basically saying "this is all a poorly executed troll" is kinda' funny
I have to admit that I'm finding it hard to stay on the console-defending side, since I'm not actually sure what we're arguing about anymore.
Why are people so hellbent of the console vs PC part?
I'm just clearing up misconceptions about pc gaming. I don't care about consoles, I just use it to frame my argument. I don't even play games that often.
-
I jumped into a convo, to get through the mind of a narrow-minded retard such as yourself, there are far too many variables for you to point the stick at PC and go "yeah, you suck, consoles rule"
Honestly, The way you argue is something I expect from freaking 4Chan of all things.
Lol. So you're obviously clueless that one of the people on your side of the argument had to correct you and yet, I'm the retard. K.
Well all things considered, even if he was of a certain intelligence level, it really should have no bearing on your own intelligence level. It would be cool if we held back on that sort of language though.
Can you talk again about how developers cannot take advantage of current hardware? My most favourite bit of information ever.
-
I jumped into a convo, to get through the mind of a narrow-minded retard such as yourself, there are far too many variables for you to point the stick at PC and go "yeah, you suck, consoles rule"
Honestly, The way you argue is something I expect from freaking 4Chan of all things.
Lol. So you're obviously clueless that one of the people on your side of the argument had to correct you and yet, I'm the retard. K.
-
The fact that you're all still going at it after him basically saying "this is all a poorly executed troll" is kinda' funny
Rofl.
I'm putting way too much effort into this just so this guy can keep insulting me.
-
Crysis 1 & 2, done max.
Battlefield 3 Ultra, done with a GTX 480. ALL 1920x1080. I'd gladly take a screenshot but I refuse to re-install Origin after I did a OS reinstall and Crysis were cracked.
Oh, and thats with 70FPS.
Did you seriously just jump into a convo you had nothing to do with and act like you zinged me?
-
...Have you SEEN the the insane amount of resources TF2 devours? sure it has its cartoon-ish style to the characters, but it is FAR from being outdated. Before you start ripping into games that are limited in graphics, performance and updatability on your Xbox, actually take a look and play and see the major difference in a PC game. They can still update; TF2 is now running on DX9 and it started off as a DX7 game in 2007, and even during its Quake Mod stages it still wasn't always old PC friendly and nor is it now.
I built my PC almost 2 years ago and Its capable of running anything on max still, only thing is I need to replace the GPU because the GTX 480 was a bad series and causes heat damage to itself, besides that, still built like a tank.
Oh SNAP. Dx9.
Too bad Dx11 is out.
-
Like I said, I can play Skyrim on maxed settings. Is there another game with superior graphics you'd like me to test?
Skyrim is also a console game. One of the biggest flaws it was criticized for was being too console centric.
Try Crysis. Came out 4 years ago. Max it out (with 1920x1080 resolution at the minimum) and then take a screen shot and post it here.
-
delete
-
...This doesn't even come close to making sense.
What doesn't make sense?
From the dev POV:
Cartoon graphics = easier to code, cheaper to produce
From the publisher's POV:
Cartoon graphics = less resource intensive, more people can play
-
Biggest example of this is Blizzard. They lean towards cartoonish graphics because more people can play it on their PC. Valve is also guilty of this. Just look at their most popular games (Tf2, Dota 2, Portal).
Playing TF2 and bragging about how PC has superior graphics is like a midget bragging about his height.
That seems to be more about the art style than making games accessible.
Nope. From now on every time you see a cartoon-ish game, just call it lazy coding. "Real life" graphics is more expensive to produce and too resource intensive for the average person's computer.
-
I have news for you: unless you bought your PC this year, it's already outdated.
Whether or not it is "outdated" is largely irrelevant. My friend is using an "outdated" ATI 4870, but that slugger can still run Skyrim on pretty much max settings. What matters is how good the hardware you buy is and how well the devs can code the game.
PC hardware may be vastly superior in every way, but developers cannot make the most of that. They have to basically design their program to work "reasonably well" on a few select configurations and then hope that everything else in between is alright. With a console, you have exact parameters and specifications for which to design and test your game on. These specifications will never deviate or vary.
Ugggggggggggggggggh. So wrong. Developers account for the fact that people have older PCs. The argument where "I can use my 3 yr old PC and play game on high settings" says more about the game than your stupid PC.
Biggest example of this is Blizzard. They lean towards cartoonish graphics because more people can play it on their PC. Valve is also guilty of this. Just look at their most popular games (Tf2, Dota 2, Portal).
Playing TF2 and bragging about how PC has superior graphics is like a midget bragging about his height.
-
Every "reason" has been posted directly at moron#88458573 (OP) in the last 63?
Seriously?
Not sure if you're capable of a real thought, but all your reasons amount to "better technology in PC lul makes it superior"
No one is saying PC gaming has worse tech. But that comes with a lot of disadvantages. Some guy just spouted BS about how a PC gaming is fine for "five years" but somehow that makes it better than outdated consoles? Lol.
I have news for you: unless you bought your PC this year, it's already outdated.
-
PC more expensive, even though console accessories are expensive (and you can ONLY use them to game) and require paid online?
Console has 1 use, PC has multiple?
EDIT: Oh, mods and grand strategy games! :lol:
Required paid online... sort of like MMO subscriptions? ;)
And fyi, only 360 requires paid online.
I agree with Alg. Modding isn't for everyone. Plus I like games where they come complete, not half assed expecting the customers (i.e. me) to fix it.
-
I disagree with the notion that pc gaming is inherently more expensive than console gaming. While a gaming PC certainly almost always costs more than a console, a console is often superfluous to your normal expenditure, whereas a pc is not. Pretty much everyone has a need for a computer, so much of the cost of a "gaming PC" is eaten up by the normal PC cost of ownership. I spent $1500 on a "gaming pc" more than two years ago, but I also use it as a main computer (splitting duties with my laptop, and it will eventually take over once my laptop dies), so I didn't really spend $1500 on gaming. Probably only $300 of that cost was gaming specific. Of course, consoles also function as DVD players, but in this day and age any computer will as well, and it's a minuscule portion of the cost.
Also, two years later, I still haven't found a game that my PC won't run (I can run Skyrim on maximum detail, for instance, with no lag), and I haven't upgraded anything on it (I did replace the PSU because it burnt out but that wasn't an upgrade).
You could've bought a regular PC for $500. That means the PC gaming premium you paid is close to $1000. That's a $700 disadvantage.
-
anyone else really happy Suter and Parise sign with the Wild? I did not want them signing with the Pens/Wings :lol:
-
If you need me, I'll be over there, playing Skyrim on my PC before playing Dark Souls on an Xbox... :razz:
I'll be playing Dota2 on my PC and then maybe play ME3 on the PS3 :shades:
-
Piracy-DRM
These two go hand in hand. Increasing piracy leads to worse and worse DRM. Look at Diablo 3, you need to have online connection 100% of the time to even play single player.
Lag. In. A. Single. Player. Game. Only in PC.
Expenses
PC gaming is more expensive. A console costs $300. A PC gaming should be $500 at the least. This doesn't include peripherals that usually comes with a console (keyboard and mouse = controller, etc.).
This also doesn't include the upgrades. If you have a $500 PC, you'll have to upgrade every year or every other year. Unless you're willing to play with outdated parts, and lower graphic settings. A console shelf life is 5 years on the low end. PS3 has been out for 6 years now. A $500 PC would've had to upgrade every other year at least spending $200 at that time. That's $600 for upgrades. But people who take gaming seriously replace their PCs every 3-5 years anyway.
Bugs / Glitches / etc.
The best part of games in consoles is that developers have an idea what every console user will be using. PC gamers have different set ups. What works with one video card, might not work with another. And with differing RAM. And with differing CPU. And with differing OS. And with differing drivers.
You have an entire community trying to deal with every stupid fix for every game http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Home
It's Less Comfortable
Playing on a console on the couch > Playing on a table with keyboard/mouse.
For people who think that hooking up a PC on an HDTV makes it better, look at this guide:
"Graphics" or at least the difference between current consoles and PC games are irrelevant if you're playing a game stretched across a 40" TV because they're both playing in the same resolution. HDTVs don't magically allow PCs to output higher resolution than consoles (1080p). To take a complete advantage of the "superior" PC graphics, you need a monitor because HDTVs don't allow higher resolutions. Let's say the average TV size today is 42" and people put their couch about 10 ft away from the TV, 720p is actually good enough. You spent more for the same graphics, congratulations.
It's Less Social
People can come over and play on a console. PC gaming requires you to have another PC or the other person to bring another laptop or computer.
Just my opinion, but LAN parties look depressing as hell.
"Please kill me"
Now this is a party
Crappy community
PC gamers delude themselves into thinking PC's gaming community is somehow superior. It's not. At least console gamers can be imaginative with what they call you. PC gamers insults is noob, and whatever deviations you can make from it e.g. n00b, [bleep]ing nub, etc.
Borrowing games / Instant play
You can't borrow games anymore. Game publishers are so hellbent on piracy that they'll just ban you for sharing games. This includes the PC gaming's paradise called Steam.
Consoles let you plug in and play games. PC games require you to go through a painful task of installing games.
////
I'm not saying console gaming is better. But to say PC gaming is vehemently "superior" is just an announcement of how ignorant you are. They're both different experiences. It's just up to your preferences.
-
-
-
Gustavsson is the type of goalie to make very impressive saves off the rush and then let in a softy that just ruins your team's confidence and then lose the game.
I tried hard to support the guy while he was here, I actually defended him because I thought the criticisms were unfounded. His parents died recently so that could have affected his mental game. But yeah, he just wasn't very good. Hopefully he gets better in Detroit's system. He still has a very good potential and goalies "peak" tend to be later than any other position. I wouldn't put it past the Wings to turn him to a Brian Elliott or Mike Smith.
Plus the number of Swedes in Detroit will make him feel at home.
Creepy moment for me: dreamt we traded Jesse Blacker last night. I woke up super upset thinking it happened. Lol.
-
Schultz to Edmonton. Hope that ends their streak of lottery drafts
-
Spend a little extra (keyword here being little) and get a completely 110% superior gaming experience, yeah doesn't sound worth it.
Also, my PC+game collection is half of the cost of a 360/ps3 with the same game library would be, just sayin'.
Edit: PC is far superior
PC is far superior in terms of expenses. I definitely agree :lol:
So far in this thread all PC gamers use for their argument is "PC gaming is superior" and repeating it over and over.
The fact is it's not. It's a different experience altogether.
-
They're no more terrible for PC gaming than they are for console gaming. There is nothing special about a console output that makes it look better on a TV. You can even hook your PC up to a monitor and a HDTV at the same time. You could even have them in different rooms if you wanted (Although I believe HDMI is limited to 25 feet).
PC gamers using HDTV are at a disadvantage against PC gamers using a monitor. How you can call yourself a "PC gamer", tout PC superiority and not know this is ridiculous.
The bolded quote also shows you don't really know anything. Console games are designed and developed with using a TV in mind. PC games don't. Let alone the actual console...
It's one of the reasons why PC gamers hate games that are ported from consoles.
I don't see how playing on my 120HZ tv puts me at a disadvantage against someone playing on a 60HZ monitor. Sure cheap ones might have a bit of input lag, but a good HDTV doesn't put you at a disadvantage.
And the reason PC gamers hate console ports is because they strip them of the extra features PC can handle, and don't properly optimize them. It has nothing to do with what display they're intended for.
Okay first of all, I'm not talking about hz. 120 hz is just marketing BS that you fell for.
What you need to look at is the response time (ms)
http://www.maximumpc...myths_shattered
Sony's published response time for this XBR model is 8ms. Since this corresponds to a double transition (from black to peak white, and then back to black again), the single transition time (from black to white, or from white to black) should therefore be about 4ms....
The upshot is that you're looking at a true response time of about 65ms. In fact, a response time of much less than the 8ms refresh rate would be needed for there to be no visible blur. Obviously, 65ms blur in the screen shots doesn't jibe with the manufacturer's single-transition response time spec of 4ms.
The DisplayMate tests clearly demonstrate that the Sony's real LCD response time is considerably longer than its published spec would indicate. And by no means are we picking on Sony, as it actually had the best performance of all of the LCDs in our tests.
Anyway this is beyond my initial point. This just shows how much more complicated PC gaming is vs the convenience of console gaming.Plug and play is superior. Everyone is on the same field.
Why is PC gaming better? It's not. But PC gamers need an excuse to make themselves feel better after investing more money than console users plus the cost of upgrading every year or every other year
The Obligatory Ice Hockey Thread
in Off-Topic
Posted
I don't think Semin will fit under Babcock. Wonder what's the chances of him bolting back to Russia.