115 réponses à ce sujet

[Gill Kaiser]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Vandrayke wrote... as long as the interface is functional

Oblivion was "functional". Bioshock was "functional". Operation Flashpoint 2 was "functional".
The all commonly, not very good, super streamlined, fun time.

Yes. These games should be held as the canon examples of things that Bioware should not do. Oblivion's menu system was horrific from a PC gamer's viewpoint. Absolutely horrific.

[Vandrayke]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Vandrayke wrote... as long as the interface is functional

Oblivion was "functional". Bioshock was "functional". Operation Flashpoint 2 was "functional".
The all commonly, not very good, super streamlined, fun time.

lol Oblivion was a little cumbersome but once you got used to it, it was fine
I don't remember having an issue with BioShock at all...

[Lord Gremlin]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Vandrayke wrote... as long as the interface is functional

Oblivion was "functional". Bioshock was "functional". Operation Flashpoint 2 was "functional".
The all commonly, not very good, super streamlined, fun time.

I have original Bioshock for both PC and PS3. Interface is different and generally better on PC (mostly because you can hotkey all weapons and plasmids). But overall both versions were almost identical. Well, I was frustrated about widescreen issue on PC. And PS3 loading times were twice longer than on my PC.
DAO on PC have ****load of issues. I've took my time to check PC support forums. Reminds me of Mass effect 1 on PC -  it causes BSOD if you use latest version of direct X with some modern videocards. I'm not dealing with such crap any more. For any game PS3 version please, fully playable out of the box.
I've played DAO on PS3 a lot, 300-400 hours total. Had 1 freeze and 1 glitch during this time. Problem is that it looks like ****, while best looking games of this decade all PS3 exclusives.

[Rubbish Hero]

Lord Gremlin wrote... .  both versions were almost identical.

Exactly, it's terrible.

Lord Gremlin wrote...while best looking games of this decade all
PS3 exclusives.

"best looking" is subjective. Technically best are on pc, for
winners.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 16 juillet 2010 - 04:40 .

[Lord Gremlin]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Lord Gremlin wrote... .  both versions were almost identical.

Exactly, it's terrible.

What exactly IS terrible? It's a nice looking game. And on PC you can select high screen resolutions and adequately increase textures resolutions.

[iTomes]

rubbish hero i simply assume youre a troll right now. everything else would lead to insulting facts...

[MerinTB]

I think there's a horrible disconnect of miscommunication going on.

Console hardware is old, dated, and weak when the consoles first hit the market as compared to PC hardware. That's just a fact - consoles are in development for awhile using the tech available at the start of development. And that tech is not upgraded (not in the terms or memory, processing power, etc.) for the life of the console.
Consoles are just now really getting into having internal HD storage, but it is largely being used for save games and DLC and not for making bigger, deeper games.
Consoles are limited by "only" having controllers, where PCs have keyboards, mice, AND game controllers of many different types to work with.
Consoles work off one screen - computer games (though they have barely touched their toes into the water of possibilities) can use multiple monitors.

Developing a game for the PC leaves far more options for much deeper games than developing for consoles.
Developing for consoles makes it easier to make sure the game works for all customers of said console as all the consoles of the same company and generation use exactly the same design specs (give or take a part here or there that is largely interchangeable, like optical drives.)

THIS is the issue.
Despite royalties, game companies have an easier time designer for the current gen of consoles (at least after that gen's been out for a year or so) because all the tricks and hiccups of the hardware are figured out. You are limited in what you can do, but you are reassured in knowing how many fewer hardware configurations you have to worry about being compatible with.
I get the attraction.

What PC gamers are (in general) worried about with not just ports but, YES, parallel development, is that in "making sure new features work on the consoles as well as the PC" means that the new features will be TAILORED TO WORK ON CONSOLES.

And that means features like dialog wheels, limited combat and magic options, etc - to fit on a console game's small screen space with more limited interfaces, no using hard drives for expanding software packages to allow for much more "game" than can fit on a DVD, and so on.

The fact of the matter is that games on PCs can be (not always are, but can be) more expansive, more experimental, and give the players more choices and options due to (virtually) unlimited game size.

Console game makers have to work within dead-set limits. That can often spark creativity, and please understand I AM NOT SAYING PC GAMING IS BETTER OBJECTIVELY AS COMPARED TO CONSOLE GAMING. I am subjectively explaining why people who have grown up on PC cRPGs find games like KotOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect "dumbed down" games - not that console gamers are stupid, it's that consoles are limited, constrained PCs and the games on them need to be equally limited.

Dragon Age: Origins (on the PC) gave gamers of cRPGs back a lot of what they missed, with overhead views and keyboard interfaces and the like. The game was designed for PCs and then, last minute, ported and that's why the console experience isn't as good. It's true, games ported from PC to consoles tend to be mediocre on consoles as well (*ahem* Wing Commander *cough*) due to an opposite issue of what I am talking about with console to PC ports.

This isn't really about PC's hardware allowing better graphics and sound - those are nitpicky and, IMO, unimportant issue.
It has to do with game design philosophy.

To try and make a very simple analogy, imagine a cell phone from 2000. No texting, no color screen, very limited in what it could do - but it could make and receive calls just fine. Now imagine having your current gen iPhone, but the apps makers wanted to "parallel design" apps for that 2000 cell phone and the iPhone at the same time, making sure the apps worked on the 2000 cell phone.
That's an exaggeration, a bit, but I think it points out the difference clearly.

Modifié par MerinTB, 16 juillet 2010 - 05:07 .

[Heimdall]

MerinTB wrote...

- not that console gamers are stupid.

Prolem is there seems to be a good number who do feel the need to demean console gamers.  Just today I saw a poster calling console gamers illiterate.

[bjdbwea]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Prolem is there seems to be a good number who do feel the need to demean console gamers.  Just today I saw a poster calling console gamers illiterate.

That is really uncalled for. But the question has to be asked, why are they allowing themselves to be limited and controlled by the console companies? A PC can do anything just as well, and often better. Including sitting on a couch and watching the game on a big TV screen. Yeah, you can do that with a PC, and your games would even look better.

Costs used to be a factor of course. But today, powerful PC hardware is thankfully available at moderate prices, and you save a lot of money with every game you buy for PC instead of consoles.

[Rubbish Hero]

iTomes wrote...  everything else would lead to insulting facts...

Look, I don't want to be right, but I am right, or least close to  right, which sounds like right.  The point is, it's more console  oriented and for the pc, this always, always, always means bad, not  good, very bad.  Bad.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 16 juillet 2010 - 05:41 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

iTomes wrote...  everything else would lead to insulting facts...

Look, I don't want to be right, but I am right, or least close to  right, which sounds like right.  

Except when you went off for two pages about something that you were wrong about.

[Rubbish Hero]

Bryy_Miller wrote...Except when you went off for two pages about something that you were wrong about.

Let's not get into semantics. The point was made, I was right.

Close thread please.

[Dkcode]

MerinTB wrote...

I think there's a horrible disconnect of miscommunication going on.

Console hardware is old, dated, and weak when the consoles first hit the market as compared to PC hardware. That's just a fact - consoles are in development for awhile using the tech available at the start of development. And that tech is not upgraded (not in the terms or memory, processing power, etc.) for the life of the console.
Consoles are just now really getting into having internal HD storage, but it is largely being used for save games and DLC and not for making bigger, deeper games.
Consoles are limited by "only" having controllers, where PCs have keyboards, mice, AND game controllers of many different types to work with.
Consoles work off one screen - computer games (though they have barely touched their toes into the water of possibilities) can use multiple monitors.

Developing a game for the PC leaves far more options for much deeper games than developing for consoles.
Developing for consoles makes it easier to make sure the game works for all customers of said console as all the consoles of the same company and generation use exactly the same design specs (give or take a part here or there that is largely interchangeable, like optical drives.)

THIS is the issue.
Despite royalties, game companies have an easier time designer for the current gen of consoles (at least after that gen's been out for a year or so) because all the tricks and hiccups of the hardware are figured out. You are limited in what you can do, but you are reassured in knowing how many fewer hardware configurations you have to worry about being compatible with.
I get the attraction.

What PC gamers are (in general) worried about with not just ports but, YES, parallel development, is that in "making sure new features work on the consoles as well as the PC" means that the new features will be TAILORED TO WORK ON CONSOLES.

And that means features like dialog wheels, limited combat and magic options, etc - to fit on a console game's small screen space with more limited interfaces, no using hard drives for expanding software packages to allow for much more "game" than can fit on a DVD, and so on.

The fact of the matter is that games on PCs can be (not always are, but can be) more expansive, more experimental, and give the players more choices and options due to (virtually) unlimited game size.

Console game makers have to work within dead-set limits. That can often spark creativity, and please understand I AM NOT SAYING PC GAMING IS BETTER OBJECTIVELY AS COMPARED TO CONSOLE GAMING. I am subjectively explaining why people who have grown up on PC cRPGs find games like KotOR, Jade Empire and Mass Effect "dumbed down" games - not that console gamers are stupid, it's that consoles are limited, constrained PCs and the games on them need to be equally limited.

Dragon Age: Origins (on the PC) gave gamers of cRPGs back a lot of what they missed, with overhead views and keyboard interfaces and the like. The game was designed for PCs and then, last minute, ported and that's why the console experience isn't as good. It's true, games ported from PC to consoles tend to be mediocre on consoles as well (*ahem* Wing Commander *cough*) due to an opposite issue of what I am talking about with console to PC ports.

This isn't really about PC's hardware allowing better graphics and sound - those are nitpicky and, IMO, unimportant issue.
It has to do with game design philosophy.

To try and make a very simple analogy, imagine a cell phone from 2000. No texting, no color screen, very limited in what it could do - but it could make and receive calls just fine. Now imagine having your current gen iPhone, but the apps makers wanted to "parallel design" apps for that 2000 cell phone and the iPhone at the same time, making sure the apps worked on the 2000 cell phone.
That's an exaggeration, a bit, but I think it points out the difference clearly.

Great post and dead on!

[Selene Moonsong]

I see no reason to revive a topic that has been dormant for 5 months...