Author Topic: Why console gaming beats PC gaming (Read 7797 times)

Little Jimmy · « **Reply #50 on:** September 03, 2012, 09:20:43 PM »

Quote from: FreebirdSTF on August 29, 2012, 05:24:58 PM

Makes sense.

Also Little Jimmy did insinuate that pretty much anybody with an hour of training or so would be ready to put a machine together.

It wouldn't take much more than an hour honestly. Now nobody can teach desire. If someone just wants to turn on their game and play, there will never be anything but a console for that person, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, if someone wants the best bang for their buck, and is willing to put in the effort, then PC is the way to go.

I just hate the stereotype that it takes thousands of dollars and the knowledge of an M.I.T. grad to put together a gaming PC. It takes a couple of hours and not much more than the price of a console to do it.

A Very Smug Bear · « **Reply #51 on:** September 04, 2012, 06:20:23 PM »

Quote from: Chus-Kay on August 30, 2012, 01:44:06 PM

not if you're a real gamer. you either know how to fix that shit or you have a friend who can.

if you knew me you'd know how dumb that sounds

DocSavage · « **Reply #52 on:** October 04, 2012, 01:38:28 AM »

In this day and age, you should NEVER, EVER have to open up ports for PC games. If Team Fortress 2, Left for Dead 2, and many many other games manage to work through firewalls and such without making the user open a port, there's no real excuse to release a game that does.

Killing Floor is one example, but I kind of forgive that because the games just awesome, but my new game, Hawx 2, which I bought exclusively for co-op, actually needs both you as the server, AND the person joining your server, to have ports open, or to be in DMZ mode. That means if you want to co-op, and one of your friends isn't very tech savvy, good luck trying to talk him through accessing his router and making the changes..

tbh, Hawx 2 is kind of fun too, but that "everyone needs to open ports" thing has me pissed coming from a major developer like Ubi.. It's not like we're talking about an indy dev here. I hear even the console versions have problems creating coop games..

That, and the drm is bad, with a poor man's Steam thing called Uplay needing to be open and connected to the internet at all times. I may never buy another Tom Clancy, or Ubisoft game again.. ¬¬

RealMarchHare · « **Reply #53 on:** October 04, 2012, 01:51:27 AM »

Quote from: DocSavage on October 04, 2012, 01:38:28 AM

In this day and age, you should NEVER, EVER have to open up ports for PC games. If Team Fortress 2, Left for Dead 2, and many many other games manage to work through firewalls and such without making the user open a port, there's no real excuse to release a game that does.

Killing Floor is one example, but I kind of forgive that because the games just awesome, but my new game, Hawx 2, which I bought exclusively for co-op, actually needs both you as the server, AND the person joining your server, to have ports open, or to be in DMZ mode. That means if you want to co-op, and one of your friends isn't very tech savvy, good luck trying to talk him through accessing his router and making the changes..

tbh, Hawx 2 is kind of fun too, but that "everyone needs to open ports" thing has me pissed coming from a major developer like Ubi.. It's not like we're talking about an indy dev here. I hear even the console versions have problems creating coop games..

That, and the drm is bad, with a poor man's Steam thing called Uplay needing to be open and connected to the internet at all times. I may never buy another Tom Clancy, or Ubisoft game again.. ¬¬

You're also talking Ubisoft here who has done nothing but show they don't understand how to make PC Gaming work and that the only thing they can even do well is Assassin's Creed. That franchise alone is keeping them afloat

Little Jimmy · « **Reply #54 on:** October 05, 2012, 06:03:06 PM »

Quote from: RealMarchHare on October 04, 2012, 01:51:27 AM

You're also talking Ubisoft here who has done nothing but show they don't understand how to make PC Gaming work and that the only thing they can even do well is Assassin's Creed. That franchise alone is keeping them afloat

Far Cry, Just Dance, Splinter Cell, and Rayman would like to speak with you..

and oh yeah... Watch Dogs....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwm46hiFNBQ

RealMarchHare · « **Reply #55 on:** October 05, 2012, 06:12:41 PM »

Quote from: Little Jimmy on October 05, 2012, 06:03:06 PM

Far Cry, Just Dance, Splinter Cell, and Rayman would like to speak with you..

and oh yeah... Watch Dogs....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwm46hiFNBQ

Far Cry is a franchise that has so many bad installments as it has good installments.

Just Dance is a gimmick game for pre-teen girls

I can't remember anybody actually ever PLAYING Splinter Cell. I hear people talk about it but not play it. Seems like it's a game series they like and is good just because they feel they are supposed to. Also heard a lot of bad reviews on their last few outings.

Really, Rayman....

DocSavage · « **Reply #56 on:** October 05, 2012, 06:34:21 PM »

Quote from: Little Jimmy on October 05, 2012, 06:03:06 PM

Far Cry, Just Dance, Splinter Cell, and Rayman would like to speak with you..

and oh yeah... Watch Dogs....

Yeah, Watch Dogs is the one game that might make me put some money in Ubi's pocket.

I definitely won't buy an Ubi game for the co-op, though.

Little Jimmy · « **Reply #57 on:** October 05, 2012, 08:20:10 PM »

Quote from: RealMarchHare on October 05, 2012, 06:12:41 PM

Far Cry is a franchise that has so many bad installments as it has good installments.

Just Dance is a gimmick game for pre-teen girls

I can't remember anybody actually ever PLAYING Splinter Cell. I hear people talk about it but not play it. Seems like it's a game series they like and is good just because they feel they are supposed to. Also heard a lot of bad reviews on their last few outings.

Really, Rayman....

Your statement was " That franchise alone is keeping them afloat"

My point is all of the above games have made Ubisoft lots and lots of cash monies.

DocSavage · « **Reply #58 on:** October 05, 2012, 08:23:07 PM »

Quote from: RealMarchHare on October 05, 2012, 06:12:41 PM

Seems like it's a game series they like and is good just because they feel they are supposed to. Also heard a lot of bad reviews on their last few outings.

It's basically Thief, only more soldiery.

I only played some of Chaos Theory, and it's alright.. More of a stealh game then Metal Gear ever was.

It's also not half as much fun as MG.

RealMarchHare · « **Reply #59 on:** October 05, 2012, 08:30:15 PM »

Quote from: Little Jimmy on October 05, 2012, 08:20:10 PM

Your statement was " That franchise alone is keeping them afloat"

My point is all of the above games have made Ubisoft lots and lots of cash monies.

Point taken. Afloat was probably enough of a descriptor of what I meant. I was basically saying it's the only game they have that keeps them in favor and trusted within the gaming community.

DocSavage · « **Reply #60 on:** October 17, 2012, 10:39:21 PM »

Just installed The Old Republic. Had more then enough disk space, but after install it starts downloading a 1.6 gig video. I also have enough disk space for it, but there's been a lot of times when I have barely enough space for a single install, and patches can be pretty hefty sometimes, so that's kind of another point against PC gaming in general if you're the sort to fill up your hard drive quick..

RealMarchHare · « **Reply #61 on:** October 17, 2012, 10:57:01 PM »

Yea but with DLC and installing games onto Hard Drives to make them run faster for console they hit the same issue XD

DocSavage · « **Reply #62 on:** October 17, 2012, 11:06:21 PM »

General PC gaming question:

I just read a release from the Old Republic devs in reply to performance issues, with a claim that there's not really performance issues at all, but just gamers with low end rigs. Now, I have not yet started the game, but this got me to thinking: Most PC users have low end rigs, right? People that are into cutting edge, high end PC gaming are a niche market, aren't they? While people who have all purpose muiltimedia computers with crappy on board video or low end cards are more mainstream?

So, doesn't it make sense to try and expand a games system requirements as much as possible, to capture as wide a range of PC users as possible? I understand this requires effort on the programmers part, but that's really their job.. The attitude of "You shouldn't be using crap hardware to play our game" only excludes users, and doesn't make much sense if the goal is to capture as much of the market as possible.

RealMarchHare · « **Reply #63 on:** October 17, 2012, 11:49:12 PM »

By low end rigs they are more likely referring to people using old systems. Yes on board graphics cards aren't the greatest and will cause performance issues but normally with those as long as you run lowest settings your fine.

Little Jimmy · « **Reply #64 on:** October 18, 2012, 03:53:36 PM »

Quote from: DocSavage on October 17, 2012, 11:06:21 PM

General PC gaming question:

I just read a release from the Old Republic devs in reply to performance issues, with a claim that there's not really performance issues at all, but just gamers with low end rigs. Now, I have not yet started the game, but this got me to thinking: Most PC users have low end rigs, right? People that are into cutting edge, high end PC gaming are a niche market, aren't they? While people who have all purpose muiltimedia computers with crappy on board video or low end cards are more mainstream?

So, doesn't it make sense to try and expand a games system requirements as much as possible, to capture as wide a range of PC users as possible? I understand this requires effort on the programmers part, but that's really their job.. The attitude of "You shouldn't be using crap hardware to play our game" only excludes users, and doesn't make much sense if the goal is to capture as much of the market as possible.

If you put a $50 video card in any off the shelf PC built within the last 2 to 3 years you will be able to run TOR at 720p on medium across the board with no problems.

RealMarchHare · « **Reply #65 on:** October 18, 2012, 05:04:21 PM »

You also need to keep in mind that game was specifically developed to not be very graphics intensive so that a larger range of people will be able to play it without issues even with their years old system. That alone says to me that these performance issues are occurring because they are either using a Fossil of a computer or the computer being used is just fine to run the game but "ZOMG C4NT RUN TEH MAXXXORZ SETTINGS! P00R PERF0RM4NC3 GAME!11!!!11!1!11!1"

To further explain my point and put it in persepective we'll use Skyrim as an example. When it came out my PC at the time was 5 years old. Yet I was still able to run the game with all the graphics settings at least on Medium. Hell, half of them were still able to be run on High. None on Ultra of course lol. However, that game is easily WAY more graphically intensive than SWTOR but ran smoothly.

Chus-Kay · « **Reply #66 on:** October 18, 2012, 07:12:17 PM »

xbox 360 was released 7 years ago and plays the game just fine - no adjustment to graphic settings required.

your move realmarchhare

DocSavage · « **Reply #67 on:** October 18, 2012, 09:20:32 PM »

Quote from: Little Jimmy on October 18, 2012, 03:53:36 PM

If you put a $50 video card in any off the shelf PC built within the last 2 to 3 years you will be able to run TOR at 720p on medium across the board with no problems.

This is true, but I was thinking more along the lines of hedging your bets by making your sure game could at least handle what retail outlets put in their "mainstream" desktops, within a reasonable time frame..

Anyone trying to game with something like a gma 4500m should probably get an upgrade, but they also might just be non gamers who decide one day "hmm, lets try running a game on this". And they'lll find a ton of games that just don't run, because a lot of devs think "well, who with an intel card would even try playing games? PC gamers know better?"

As if there's an inner circle of "real" gamers, where tricking out a rig with the right gaming hardware is a right of passage....

Pretty much anybody who owned a computer, but wasn't a computer geek or a serious gamer that spends hours a day on a game, which is most people.. (RMH, I also realize there's games that run fine on your off the shelf, underpowered mainstream gpu's, but it's kind of a crap shoot if you're not using a dedicated gaming gpu..)

Little Jimmy · « **Reply #68 on:** October 19, 2012, 01:32:28 AM »

Quote from: DocSavage on October 18, 2012, 09:20:32 PM

This is true, but I was thinking more along the lines of hedging your bets by making your sure game could at least handle what retail outlets put in their "mainstream" desktops, within a reasonable time frame..

Anyone trying to game with something like a gma 4500m should probably get an upgrade, but they also might just be non gamers who decide one day "hmm, lets try running a game on this". And they'lll find a ton of games that just don't run, because a lot of devs think "well, who with an intel card would even try playing games? PC gamers know better?"

As if there's an inner circle of "real" gamers, where tricking out a rig with the right gaming hardware is a right of passage....

Pretty much anybody who owned a computer, but wasn't a computer geek or a serious gamer that spends hours a day on a game, which is most people.. (RMH, I also realize there's games that run fine on your off the shelf, underpowered mainstream gpu's, but it's kind of a crap shoot if you're not using a dedicated gaming gpu..)

I disagree. If you want to play a kinect game, you make sure you own a kinect.. If you want to play a game that uses ps3 motion controls only, you make sure you have the playstation move. If you want to play Skyward Sword, you make sure you have a wiimote with the wii motion plus... If you want to play battlefield 3 on your PC, you make sure you have a video card that can handle it.

As for the desktop itself... you wouldn't try and play a 360 game on a Playsation 2... you'd make sure you have the right hardware to run it.. Do the same thing for your desktop. Look at the box.. see what the requirements.. make sure what you have meets them. I don't see how all of that is "inner circle" stuff.

DocSavage · « **Reply #69 on:** October 19, 2012, 01:51:19 AM »

System requirements are dictated by developers. If they wanted to, they could design battlefield 3 to run on a range of systems from high end to low end, to even gpu's 5 years out of date. Yet, many don't..

For what reason? Money is money.. If a person with a netbook using a mobile integrated card can't play Battlefield 3, they lose out on 60 dollars, so why not design the game to support even a netbook with mobile cards?

Somewhat of an extreme example, but the point is system requirements are only what they choose to make them... You can strip something down to the point where it'd run on almost anything.

Little Jimmy · « **Reply #70 on:** October 19, 2012, 08:45:22 AM »

Quote from: DocSavage on October 19, 2012, 01:51:19 AM

System requirements are dictated by developers. If they wanted to, they could design battlefield 3 to run on a range of systems from high end to low end, to even gpu's 5 years out of date. Yet, many don't..

For what reason? Money is money.. If a person with a netbook using a mobile integrated card can't play Battlefield 3, they lose out on 60 dollars, so why not design the game to support even a netbook with mobile cards?

Somewhat of an extreme example, but the point is system requirements are only what they choose to make them... You can strip something down to the point where it'd run on almost anything.

Again... You are basically asking why didn't Bethesda make Skyrim able to run on the Playstation One. I don't know how to explain this to you. If someone wants to play Skyrim, they need to get the hardware the system was made for, IE a PC made within the past 5 years with a video card, or a pretty decent laptop. It comes to a point where the lower you make the requirements... you're not even making the same game.

Hopefully, the person with the netbook didn't buy the netbook thinking he could play battlefield 3. Hopefully that person looked at the requirements of Battlefield 3 and decided that playing it wasn't that big of a deal for him.. just like you'd hope that somebody who say purchased an Xbox over an Xbox 360 decided that playing Halo 4 wasn't that big of a deal for him.

You're basically saying that person should be able to put Halo 4 in his Xbox and have it run, and that by it not being compatible, the company is losing money.. and somehow it's the developers fault. I'm sure Halo 4 could be stripped down to the point that it could run on an Xbox... but then it's not Halo 4.

And as an example, here are the minimum requirements to run said Battllefield 3:

OS: Windows Vista or Windows 7Processor: Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz or Althon X2 2.7 GHzRAM: 2GBGraphic card: DirectX 10 or 11 compatible Nvidia or AMD ATI card, ATI Radeon 3870 or higher, Nvidia GeForce 8800 GT or higher.Graphics card memory: 512 MBSound card: DirectX compatibl sound cardHard drive: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version

The 8800GT came out in 2007.. five years ago..

DocSavage · « **Reply #71 on:** October 19, 2012, 09:27:57 AM »

No, I understand what you're saying.

What "you" don't seem to understand, is I'm arguing to gear games towards modern, mainstream computers along with cutting edge technology, while you keep bringing up obsolete PS1 game consoles. If 99.9% of all gamers still used PS1's, then by all means they should still be making software for those consoles as well, much like they did the PS2 well past its prime.

Prime · « **Reply #72 on:** October 19, 2012, 10:18:05 AM »

I agree on the technical specifications. Developers are NOT REQUIRED to make games run across a multitude of systems. In fact, it's just the opposite. The developers have envisioned an "experience", an environment, a certain way their game is meant to be played, enjoyed - experienced.

In order to get that envisioned experience, your system must meet the defined requirements. Sure, you can tweak some settings occasionally to make it work on systems that don't meet the requirements, but in that case you're not getting the intended experience and you've got nothing to bitch about.

It's like trying to run an OS on a system without adequate resources - it may install, and sure, you can cut stuff out and turn stuff off to make it go, but it's going to be slow as fuck and you have to expect things aren't going to work or even crash.

RealMarchHare · « **Reply #73 on:** October 19, 2012, 02:07:03 PM »

Quote from: DocSavage on October 19, 2012, 09:27:57 AM

No, I understand what you're saying.

What "you" don't seem to understand, is I'm arguing to gear games towards modern, mainstream computers along with cutting edge technology, while you keep bringing up obsolete PS1 game consoles. If 99.9% of all gamers still used PS1's, then by all means they should still be making software for those consoles as well, much like they did the PS2 well past its prime.

They are though. An off the rack modern PC will run BF3 at medium - high settings. You're acting like a PC bought off a store shelf right now is only equal to a PC off the store shelf 5 years ago. That's bullshit on so many levels lol. Then the cutting edge technology computers run the game at a slightly higher visual quality which does not "make or break" the game yet gamers act like it does now a days and that pisses me off SO much

Little Jimmy · « **Reply #74 on:** October 19, 2012, 02:23:38 PM »

Quote from: DocSavage on October 19, 2012, 09:27:57 AM

No, I understand what you're saying.

What "you" don't seem to understand, is I'm arguing to gear games towards modern, mainstream computers along with cutting edge technology, while you keep bringing up obsolete PS1 game consoles. If 99.9% of all gamers still used PS1's, then by all means they should still be making software for those consoles as well, much like they did the PS2 well past its prime.

And what YOU aren't underrstanding is that I am disagreeing with your take on "modern"... A FIVE YEAR OLD PC CAN RUN BATTLEFIELD 3.. Five years is the normal console lifespan up until this generation..

Are you trying to say that developers should be making their newest games compatible with people who haven't bought a new computer since the turn of the century, or with people who bought laptops or computers with specs that clearly aren't meant to play games?

There is a whole market for non intensive PC games... Sims..farmville.. angry birds.. If you want to play what is considered "mainstream" games.. you need a "mainstream" PC, and like I've said ad nauseum, you can put together a mainstream PC for the price of a console.. or for a little more money, you can buy an off the shelf PC and throw a low to mid range video card in it.