87 réponses à ce sujet

[The-Cyber-Dave]

lawsie100 wrote...

Chalhut wrote...

From my experience this game involves a lot of micro managing that is really easy on the PC. Think NWN or Baulders Gate. I feel like it would be difficult to do all of this on a controller but then again i am a PC kind of guy.

not on the xbox, its ez mode.

This statement is a flat out lie. Anyone who makes this statement has proven one thing, and one thing only: they have never played the x-box version.

Even easy and normal are hard on the xbox version. I had to play easy at first. I am only now getting the hang of the game to the point where easy has become too easy for me. I still don't think I would be able to play on hard. Generally speaking, I am forced to play every other game I have ever played on the x-box on the hardest setting in order to be challenged.

Dragon Age on the 360 is NOT on easy mode. There is less friendly fire damage... but its also harder to position your party.

[The-Cyber-Dave]

edit: Ugggh... double post.

Modifié par The-Cyber-Dave, 12 novembre 2009 - 09:14 .

[Landozelig]

The-Cyber-Dave wrote...

Landozelig wrote...

The-Cyber-Dave: the issue of this thread isn't about xbox vs pc and maintaining a game machine. It's simply which is the best platform to get DA:O on. The clear answer is the PC. It doesn't matter if you only use Word on your computer or if your PC can even run DA:O. All things being equal, PC is hands down the best system for this game.

That is not true. All things being equal, the computer doesn't get better graphics. Because, all things being equal, and you won't be able to play your DA:O on top graphical settings without running into problems. In order to get better graphics, for example, you need a computer that is better in its specifications than the x-box is. At that point in time, the question of the cost and effort of keeping a PC up to spec enters into the equation.

Keeping all factors in mind, me personally, I think Dragon Age 360 is a better call, at least in regards to my desired total experience.

If you have both a 360 and a top specced computer already, well, in that case it really depends on this: do you prefer playing games with a mouse and keyboard, or a controller? Is an overhead view very desirable to you? How bothered are you by the lack of pause and mouse click movement to position your party? Do you prefer slightly better graphics, or the comfort of playing on your couch?

The point I'm trying to make is very simple. If you set up a PC, 360 or PS3 and have this game running on all 3 of them, which is the best? To ask the question as the OP did - if he should get it on 360 or PC already assumes he has the hardware to run whichever one he chooses. So that's what I mean when I say all things being equal. And when you compare them next to each other, the PC is best.

[F4T41]

Have you tied updating your drivers? That might help.

To do that go here: www.nvidiadriversdownload.com/index.php

Edit: Missed the part where you said you went to the nvidia forums so I assume you probably tried updating your drivers already

Modifié par F4T41, 12 novembre 2009 - 09:33 .

[Zore Blake]

In the end if they make a game for PC its naturally going to be better due to the hardware people may have also i personally think they treat PC better with patchs as they can upgrade graphics etc because of the latest hardware coming out every month however, that just my opinion

[Zore Blake]

I have updated the drivers so many times its getting stupid now i do believe its the PSU however before i buy i need some advise to prove thats the source of the problem.

[Zore Blake]

Easy mistake F4T41 but thanks for help anyway =)

[danyvatt]

If you have a decent PC gaming rig and setup, then definitely PC. The only games I would choose console are action-adventure type games Prototype. PC wins all around on RPGs, strategy, and FPS.

[schnaucl]

I have the 360 version but I'd go PC. 1) overhead view would make tactical planning ever so much easier 2) the PC version already has a patch whereas the consoles...don't. 3) most of the help here on the forums works for a PC and does nothing for consoles 4) there probably won't be great user created campaigns right away, but there will be some 4b) Adam Miller (of the awesome NWN and NWNW 2 campaigns) has said he's doing one for DA:O. The balancing is also skewed. Easy is no challenge whereas normal can be very difficult.

[BiowareAZ]

XBOX is a pos toy that contains outdated hardware, my netbook is more powerful.

[The-Cyber-Dave]

Landozelig wrote...

The-Cyber-Dave wrote...

Landozelig wrote...

The-Cyber-Dave: the issue of this thread isn't about xbox vs pc and maintaining a game machine. It's simply which is the best platform to get DA:O on. The clear answer is the PC. It doesn't matter if you only use Word on your computer or if your PC can even run DA:O. All things being equal, PC is hands down the best system for this game.

That is not true. All things being equal, the computer doesn't get better graphics. Because, all things being equal, and you won't be able to play your DA:O on top graphical settings without running into problems. In order to get better graphics, for example, you need a computer that is better in its specifications than the x-box is. At that point in time, the question of the cost and effort of keeping a PC up to spec enters into the equation.

Keeping all factors in mind, me personally, I think Dragon Age 360 is a better call, at least in regards to my desired total experience.

If you have both a 360 and a top specced computer already, well, in that case it really depends on this: do you prefer playing games with a mouse and keyboard, or a controller? Is an overhead view very desirable to you? How bothered are you by the lack of pause and mouse click movement to position your party? Do you prefer slightly better graphics, or the comfort of playing on your couch?

The point I'm trying to make is very simple. If you set up a PC, 360 or PS3 and have this game running on all 3 of them, which is the best? To ask the question as the OP did - if he should get it on 360 or PC already assumes he has the hardware to run whichever one he chooses. So that's what I mean when I say all things being equal. And when you compare them next to each other, the PC is best.

That is also not quite true. If you set up a PC, 360, and PS3, and each has about the same hardware, and you have the game running on all 3, then none are really "the best."

On the other hand, if you have a top of the line computer, a 360, and a PS3, then absolutely, you should get the game for the PC. Unfortunately some of us don't have that option in front of us, though.

Modifié par The-Cyber-Dave, 12 novembre 2009 - 10:58 .

[sinohptik]

PC is the way to go as far as the whole controller thing... well, you can use a controller on your PC as well, so moot point! You can also connect the PC to most modern TV sets.  If you are concerned with taking up the families TV, well, that would also happen with a console.   I also have always found the "expense" side of it a bit off... The initial cost is a bit high, but upkeep is generally lower than a console. All i will personally have to do is update my video card every two years or so. Games are becoming GPU dependent, meaning they are optimized to run more on the GPU side of things.

Where it gets expensive is when the PC hobby becomes an obsession. Then it is a matter of having the latest greatest things. My only requirement is that i am able to play most modern games, with maxed out (or close to) graphics. I do this with a radeon 4850 that i was able to get for $80.00 shipped, and 2gb RAM. That should last me a couple of years, and then i will invest another $100.00 for a GPU. Its simply not as expensive as many make it out to be, and the cost is generally made up through cheaper games, and cheaper (or even free) mappacks, expansions, etc (which, to be honest, is definitely starting to go away).

For my buying style, and play preference, i did the math, and it is actually cheaper to game on a PC. It basically factored in no initial cost for the computer itself, but more on the "upkeep" side of things. I already have a computer anyways, so initial cost was not considered. Most semi-current CPUs will be much less of a concern than the GPU itself. Either way, i did build a decent system for ~$500.00, but it could be done for significantly less (even just upgrading the PSU/GPU in current computer). I used many parts from my old computer to be able to do this (optical drives, HDD, etc) I only buy about five games annually, and play ones i already have for the rest of the time. On the PC, this = ~$250.00 for consoles, = $300.00 I spend about $100.00 on my video card, this is done about every two years (less frequently now that hardware is exceeding software capability). So, that = $50.00 a year. Upkeep on a console, at best, is $300.00 every five years.
So, annual upkeep/games on console = $360.00
annual upkeep/games on PC = $300.00

for twelve games a year:
console: $780 annually
PC:          $650 annually

So, that is just my experience with it.  Your mileage may vary.

As i said, this obviously does not factor in initial cost on the PC, but it also needs to be considered that many parts being bought for a PC will last next to indefinitely, as long as you get the right spec (i.e. PSU). The reality is that most PCs people are currently using to browse the web could probably run games at very nice settings given the proper video card/PSU.

Modifié par sinohptik, 12 novembre 2009 - 11:06 .

[Landozelig]

BiowareAZ wrote...

XBOX is a pos toy that contains outdated hardware, my netbook is more powerful.

Is that an official BioWare quote? 

[The-Cyber-Dave]

sinohptik wrote...

PC is the way to go as far as the whole controller thing... well, you can use a controller on your PC as well, so moot point! You can also connect the PC to most modern TV sets.  If you are concerned with taking up the families TV, well, that would also happen with a console.   I also have always found the "expense" side of it a bit off... The initial cost is a bit high, but upkeep is generally lower than a console. All i will personally have to do is update my video card every two years or so. Games are becoming GPU dependent, meaning they are optimized to run more on the GPU side of things.

Where it gets expensive is when the PC hobby becomes an obsession. Then it is a matter of having the latest greatest things. My only requirement is that i am able to play most modern games, with maxed out (or close to) graphics. I do this with a radeon 4850 that i was able to get for $80.00 shipped, and 2gb RAM. That should last me a couple of years, and then i will invest another $100.00 for a GPU. Its simply not as expensive as many make it out to be, and the cost is generally made up through cheaper games, and cheaper (or even free) mappacks, expansions, etc (which, to be honest, is definitely starting to go away).

For my buying style, and play preference, i did the math, and it is actually cheaper to game on a PC. It basically factored in no initial cost for the computer itself, but more on the "upkeep" side of things. I already have a computer anyways, so initial cost was not considered. Most semi-current CPUs will be much less of a concern than the GPU itself. Either way, i did build a decent system for ~$500.00, but it could be done for significantly less (even just upgrading the PSU/GPU in current computer). I used many parts from my old computer to be able to do this (optical drives, HDD, etc) I only buy about five games annually, and play ones i already have for the rest of the time. On the PC, this = ~$250.00 for consoles, = $300.00 I spend about $100.00 on my video card, this is done about every two years (less frequently now that hardware is exceeding software capability). So, that = $50.00 a year. Upkeep on a console, at best, is $300.00 every five years.
So, annual upkeep/games on console = $360.00
annual upkeep/games on PC = $300.00

for twelve games a year:
console: $780 annually
PC:          $650 annually

So, that is just my experience with it.  Your mileage may vary.

As i said, this obviously does not factor in initial cost on the PC, but it also needs to be considered that many parts being bought for a PC will last next to indefinitely, as long as you get the right spec (i.e. PSU). The reality is that most PCs people are currently using to browse the web could probably run games at very nice settings given the proper video card/PSU.

Your math is unfairly skewed due to the fact that you did not factor in the initial cost of a PC, but did factor in the initial cost of a console. Factor in the initial cost of a PC, and the numbers on the PC side of things jump way up. That is why I ended up with a console. When the next generation of consoles starts being released, I will do the math (factoring a new computer vs. a new console) again. So long as it remains cheaper to go with the console, I will be sticking with the console.

[TJRlz86]

As someone who is 30+ hours into the game, I wish my PC was up to running DOA on it, but sadly that wasn't the case. The interface has taking some getting used to and having the ability to use a mouse and keyboard would be enviable. If you have the option and think this is a game you will want to play repeatedly, definitely go for the PC. The only way I would recommend the console version is if you want to play it once or twice from the comforts of your couch while eating *insert snack of choice*

[sinohptik]

I said, very clearly, that i did not factor in an initial cost of a PC.

But, as opposed to consoles, the initial cost, with todays hardware, is pretty much a one-time investment.  By the time todays CPUs are being bottlenecked by software, it will be a long time down the road.  Perhaps never, with the onset of GPU dependent software.  The console, however, once it becomes outdated, you have to reinvest the entire initial cost.  Its interesting, because i always felt as you do, but when i looked at it, i ended up building a PC.  My 360 has not been touched since.  Do remember, the price of $300.00 is if you were to buy a console recently, to give a full five year life cycle, you would likely have to purchase the console earlier in its life.  The cost is actually biased towards the console in this respect, which offsets the initial cost of a PSU (which will never have to be reinvested, if one with a lifetime warranty is purchased [BFG EX and ES series]).

Honestly, the only things most people will need to buy are going to be a GPU, and likely a PSU.  The PSU, if one is bought that is sufficient, will last a decade or more (and some come with a lifetime warranty).  At that point, the only thing necessary is the purchase of a GPU.  Using a six year old processor (Pentium D, currently using a Q9550), i was still able to run games at max settings.  This does not speak to games like the port of GTAIV, or some others, but most are GPU dependent, which means you can skimp rather greatly on the processor.  There are actually very capable processors out there now that cost <$75 anyway.  Ill do a quick build for you, if you already have computer.

Motherboard : $54.99
CPU: $76.00
PSU: $109.99
GPU: $109.99
RAM: From Current PC
HDD: From Current PC
DVD: From Current PC
Case: From Current PC
Monitor: From current PC

total= $350.97 initial cost.  about twenty five dollars more than a console after tax (free shipping on all those items, IIRC).  This cost is easily mediated by the cost of two PC games (twenty dollars savings over the console).  To boot, the only thing that would need to be upgraded in the coming years is the GPU.

You could skimp even more on these components.  Likely, all that would be needed is the GPU, and PSU (equalling $220.00, not that most people will need 750w of continuous power).  But, this is a worst case scenario, giving a build that will run all games at very nice graphic settings.

You could also go even cheaper on the processor and just overclock.  The only price that could not really be cut much is the motherboard.  These are also all at full price, so when they go on sale, they can be had for even cheaper (my radeon 4850 is normally $120.00 and i got it from newegg for $80.00, on sale)

edit:  also thought id mention i play my PC games from the comfort of my couch

Modifié par sinohptik, 13 novembre 2009 - 12:13 .

[The-Cyber-Dave]

TJRlz86 wrote...

As someone who is 30+ hours into the game, I wish my PC was up to running DOA on it, but sadly that wasn't the case. The interface has taking some getting used to and having the ability to use a mouse and keyboard would be enviable. If you have the option and think this is a game you will want to play repeatedly, definitely go for the PC. The only way I would recommend the console version is if you want to play it once or twice from the comforts of your couch while eating *insert snack of choice*

What if you are the sort of person who wants to play the game over and over from the comfort of their couch?

I think I am just about to beat the game for the first time. I plan on playing again right away. I LOVE dragon age. I can't say that I am not having a blast playing it on the 360.

[The-Cyber-Dave]

Well, like I said, when the next generation of consoles starts comming out I will give it a second look. If computer gaming has become a cheaper hobby by then, and the game lineup at that point in time favors the computer over the console for quality RPG and first person shooter games, then my next gaming purchase will be a computer. But until a new generation of consoles starts coming out I am not even going to think about it. The 360 has already been purchased. It has already lasted me since 2005. And I don't need to upgrade the hardware of my 360 ever...

[sinohptik]

The-Cyber-Dave wrote...
And I don't need to upgrade the hardware of my 360 ever...

until the next generation of consoles comes out, of course.   and out of curiosity, how much did you pay for it in 2005?

Modifié par sinohptik, 13 novembre 2009 - 12:22 .

[The-Cyber-Dave]

sinohptik wrote...

The-Cyber-Dave wrote...
And I don't need to upgrade the hardware of my 360 ever...

until the next generation of consoles comes out, of course.

Hence why I said I would take a second look at it then.

But, I honestly don't know how I would have dealt with not being able to play Fable 2, Halo 3, Halo 3 ODST, Gears of War, or Gears of War 2. Other than that, the only games I have really enjoyed in the last little while are Oblivion, Fallout 3, Assassins Creed, and the Force Unleashed. I am not even sure if the Force Unleashed got a PC release. Oblivion and Fallout 3 did, but the way that game plays I prefer playing it with a console controller (not that that is a big deal. It is possible to set up a PC so you can do that. But I sort of prefer being able to do that on the couch, and that seems sort of hard to manage with a PC). I would have had to wait forever for Assassins Creed to come out (as it was released on the 360 well in advance of the computer). I don't know. I am just not seeing a huge benefit to PC gaming... Dragon Age is the first game I have come across that would have benefited from me owning a great gaming PC. And the benefit is not so large that I feel like I have lost out on anything by owning it on 360. I would have felt like I lost out on quite a bit had I not been able to play all of the above listed titles though...

[chrismac72]

Definitely for PC!

[Reiella]

It's a PC Game first, alot more so than Knights and Knights 2 were.  Performance gets the best from the PC [if you have a pc that can play it anyway, but that's another discussion ].  Graphics are decidedly better on the PC than Console, and some of the content isn't as abridged [minor things that].

And since you mentioned achievements, the PC version actually has more achievements.

[sinohptik]

Everyone is different, and i definitely respect your opinion on it. For me, i dislike halo since combat evolved (which is a PC offering as well), and also dislike GoW, either of them.

The benefits, for me, are cheaper games, more functionality (internet, music, etc, etc), expandability (hard drives (640gb for $70), etc), less proprietary nature, better graphics, cheaper upkeep, and more! haha. im not trying to convert anyone, but the only real reason, for me personally, to have a console is for exclusive games (which usually come out for the PC/competing console, at a later date), and is also one of your stated reasons. My PC is connected to a monitor, my main TV, and my projector. My monitor is seperate, but the projector and the TV are both viewed from a couch in my living room. I use a Microsoft Wireless Controller for Windows (exact same thing as for Xbox) for fighting games, usually, but nothing else.

Its all up to the individual, but the truth is, when people look at the cost of upkeep, they tend to veer on the side of obsession. Always wanting that higher framerate, that only FRAPS can detect, and just wanting "new, new, new." If you are reasonable with your purchases, it is cheaper to game on the PC than on a console, as shown in my previous posts.

You dont see a huge benefit to PC gaming, but quite a few other people do. I thought i wouldnt really appreciate the fact i had a decent PC, but when it came down it, i have not touched my 360 since the PC was built. For my tastes, there is no comparison. Literally everything is better. I also am an extremely patient person, and can wait as long as it takes for games to hit whatever platform they were not released on. That is obviously personal preference though. I just play the plethora of other great games until i get access to a certain one. And, in the end, i have my 360 as well. But, im probably going to end up selling it, as it has not seen any use whatsoever in well over half a year.

Modifié par sinohptik, 13 novembre 2009 - 12:40 .

[dbmccart]

The-Cyber-Dave wrote...

sinohptik wrote...

The-Cyber-Dave wrote...
And I don't need to upgrade the hardware of my 360 ever...

until the next generation of consoles comes out, of course.

Hence why I said I would take a second look at it then.

But, I honestly don't know how I would have dealt with not being able to play Fable 2, Halo 3, Halo 3 ODST, Gears of War, or Gears of War 2. Other than that, the only games I have really enjoyed in the last little while are Oblivion, Fallout 3, Assassins Creed, and the Force Unleashed. I am not even sure if the Force Unleashed got a PC release. Oblivion and Fallout 3 did, but the way that game plays I prefer playing it with a console controller (not that that is a big deal. It is possible to set up a PC so you can do that. But I sort of prefer being able to do that on the couch, and that seems sort of hard to manage with a PC). I would have had to wait forever for Assassins Creed to come out (as it was released on the 360 well in advance of the computer). I don't know. I am just not seeing a huge benefit to PC gaming... Dragon Age is the first game I have come across that would have benefited from me owning a great gaming PC. And the benefit is not so large that I feel like I have lost out on anything by owning it on 360. I would have felt like I lost out on quite a bit had I not been able to play all of the above listed titles though...

Yes, The Force Unleashed got a PC when Ultimate Sith Edition was released. Gears of War has had a PC version for awhile. As far as living without Halo 3, just play Unreal Tournament 3 it's better anyways. the biggest benefits of PC Gaming are the mods and graphics. Also the console versions of games are ez mode because the difficulty mode has to be hindered due to limitations. Look at console FPS for instance. Most(likely all) console shooters have aim assist, because without it the game would be alot more difficult. Halo 3 and ODST have it for sure. The console version of Dragon Age has many short coming in comparison to the PC version. I usually dont listen to professional reviewers opinions, but I watch their reviews none the less. Which is what most people should do if they have a question like this, and in the both IGN and Gamespots reviews they recommend the PC version and describe the console versions short comings.

[lawsie100]

The-Cyber-Dave wrote...

lawsie100 wrote...

Chalhut wrote...

From my experience this game involves a lot of micro managing that is really easy on the PC. Think NWN or Baulders Gate. I feel like it would be difficult to do all of this on a controller but then again i am a PC kind of guy.

not on the xbox, its ez mode.

This statement is a flat out lie. Anyone who makes this statement has proven one thing, and one thing only: they have never played the x-box version.

Even easy and normal are hard on the xbox version. I had to play easy at first. I am only now getting the hang of the game to the point where easy has become too easy for me. I still don't think I would be able to play on hard. Generally speaking, I am forced to play every other game I have ever played on the x-box on the hardest setting in order to be challenged.

Dragon Age on the 360 is NOT on easy mode. There is less friendly fire damage... but its also harder to position your party.

have played the xbox version, have you played both?  On the pc the enemies are not only more numerous, they are harder to kill, played through quite a bit of both a bit less on xbox version though and the reason its easier is because of the restricted camera, its not the same difficulty as the pc in any shape or form, its a fact not a lie.  But it would have to be easier to compensate for the camera, so there you go.