129 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Travie wrote...
Even the announced next XBOX looks as if it will be less than the cutting edge of PC graphics right out of the box, which will AGAIN hold back all the great things developers can do with more graphical power.

Which, happily, takes the cost of running a PC behind a shed and puts it out of it misery. I can enjoy gaming on a PC while upgrading every half decade and run everything on max, thanks to the consoles stagnating hardware. It's a great system all around.

[Sylvius the Mad]

tch2296 wrote...

It certainly doesn't bother me that if I had spent $600 on a gaming computer, the graphics would look better.

I fixed that for you.

The days of the $2000 gaming PC are well behind us.  I've spent over $2000 on a gaming PC once ever, and that was in 1999.

tch2296 wrote...

Ever since I switched to consoles it seems downright silly to be playing videogames with a keyboard and mouse. I can hardly imagine gaming without joysticks and a comfortabel controller that fits into your hand perfectly. It seems bizarre to me now that you jsut point and click on your enemies, like I point and click on my e-mail. And you have a huge keyboard designed for word processing that you use for game commands. It all just seems weird.

I know that's all just my opinion, but people should know that many people think along these same lines. For many people, myself included, a controller with "only" 16 buttons is perfect, and certainly preferable to a keyboard and mouse - I use those things to do my homework!

Why would you want the same button to do multiple things?  Doesn't that just introduce error into your inputs?  If the in-game context changes between you choosing to hit a button and you actually hitting it, then that button will do somethng different from what you'd wanted.  How is that better?  Having more buttons allows immediate access to more different functions.  With a controller, you can't have one-button triggers more more than a handful of abilities at a time.

I often point to NWN as an example of how controllers should be used.  NWN was a PC game, but it wanted to offer direct access to more abilities than a keyboard would allow, so it had alternate hotbars which could be triggered with the SHIFT, CTRL, and ALT keys.  Imagine how clumsy it would be to play a console game that wanted to let you trigger, in the heat of combat, as many as 48 different abilities as you saw fit.

[Dezerte]

I may not suffer from headaches or dizziness when playing games with small FOV, but I still think the FOV in ME3 could be a bit higher.

The FOV isn't a problem on consoles because you play it on your TV and you sit far away enough that it won't bother you.

[Dezerte]

No delete post button <_<

Modifié par Dezman8, 20 février 2012 - 08:12 .

[Deviija]

SyyRaaaN wrote...

It's as simple as that. After playing Multiplayer where enemies can come from different directions i was about to puke cause of dizzyness.

The FoV is simply disgusting, is it put on 50?  Give us options to increase it to 50-70-90. 

I did get really motion sick on the PC version in multiplayer.  Enemies are coming from too many directions that swinging the camera wildly just to look at your surroundings all the time is 1) annoying and 2) mentally exhausting.  The FOV really needs to be zoomed out to ME1 standards, imo.  At least. 

[Adanu]

The only reason to pay 2000$ for a Gaming PC Is if you have no knowledge whatsoever of building PCs and are too lazy to learn how. They aren't like cars where it's a bunch of complicated crap. It's just a bunch of slots and wires.

[Fraevar]

Have to join in on this. The rapid enemy spawns combined with the resulting rapid camera movement really makes you dizzy when sitting close to the screen. Please issue a patch to allow adjustable FOV.

[Oron345]

This is needed.

[phimseto]

Agreed. Definitely had POV issues. It's one of the reasons I'm so adamant about changing this whole holstering bit. I liked (and needed) the change of perspective in and out of combat.

[Draconis6666]

The only reason you can buy a gaming computer for $600 is because of consoles, if games were still designed only for PCs you would still need $2000 computers and constant upgrades to keep up with games. So yes consoles are holding games back, holding them back so that more than 20% of the population can afford to play them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Draconis6666 wrote...

The only reason you can buy a gaming computer for $600 is because of consoles, if games were still designed only for PCs you would still need $2000 computers and constant upgrades to keep up with games.

A PC that can blow consoles away doesn't come close to $2000.  Computers are cheaper than they were.

So yes consoles are holding games back, holding them back so that more than 20% of the population can afford to play them.

No hobby is for everyone.

[AtreiyaN7]

Dionkey wrote...

Oilking72 wrote...

Mettyx wrote...

+1

you can thank consoles peasants for that...

Bite my *** and I'm glad you're unhappy with douchbag comments like that. 

Hardly a douchebag comment, consoles do slow down the progression of the gaming industry tenfold.

Actually, it is a d-bag comment.

[Jozape]

Draconis6666 wrote...

The only reason you can buy a gaming computer for $600 is because of consoles, if games were still designed only for PCs you would still need $2000 computers and constant upgrades to keep up with games.

Most PC exclusives run on 5 year old hardware or even older. Starcraft 2, Civilization 5, and The Old Republic ran on 6+ year old hardware at release. You can run The Old Republic with a graphics card that came out 8 years ago!

[Lee T]

Dezman8 wrote...
The FOV isn't a problem on consoles because you play it on your TV and you sit far away enough that it won't bother you.

It's so sad to see, on nearly each issue discussed on a game existing on both platform to see the playerbase separate each other that way rather than presenting a united front.

Hi, I'm Lee, I play on console, on my TV, sitting in my couch, and yes having the camera stuck to Shep's back does bother me.

That's why I holstered every time I could in ME2.

Modifié par Lee T, 20 février 2012 - 10:49 .

[AxholeRose]

Is it too much to ask for developers to fulfill a PC game's potential when they're making it?

Case in point: Look at Skyrim, then look at it again once you've downloaded the abundance of graphics and lighting mods available. Why couldn't the original game look like that?

[Fredvdp]

Jozape wrote...

Draconis6666 wrote...

The only reason you can buy a gaming computer for $600 is because of consoles, if games were still designed only for PCs you would still need $2000 computers and constant upgrades to keep up with games.

Most PC exclusives run on 5 year old hardware or even older. Starcraft 2, Civilization 5, and The Old Republic ran on 6+ year old hardware at release. You can run The Old Republic with a graphics card that came out 8 years ago!

Actyally The Old Republic is surprisingly demanding. I have an AMD Radeon HD 6870 and my framerate drops to 20 in a specific crowded area (the Imperial/Republic fleet). This is on the highest setting at 1920x1080.

The Witcher 2, now that's a good example. Soon it will be a multiplatform game but it's still an example of what a developer can achieve by making a game specifically for PC. I think the Xbox port will be better because of it.

Modifié par Fredvdp, 20 février 2012 - 10:58 .

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

I would like to turn the brightness up a bit more also

[Mx_CN3]

AxholeRose wrote...

Is it too much to ask for developers to fulfill a PC game's potential when they're making it?

Case in point: Look at Skyrim, then look at it again once you've downloaded the abundance of graphics and lighting mods available. Why couldn't the original game look like that?

To be fair, creating the graphical technology to take full advantage of what PCs have to offer is incredibly expensive.  And there are also plenty of people that would gladly trade amazing graphics for amazing gameplay.

On topic: it's kind of a shame that at least the PC version doesn't have a zoom option, considering that it would probably take them an entire 5 minutes (if they typed very slowly) of work with UnrealScript to add the functionality (and a bit more time to add the zooming keybinds to the interface).

[Elios]

Fredvdp wrote...

Travie wrote...

Luckily you can create your own FOV fix with the 'widescreen fixer', the same way they did with Kingdoms of Amalur and ME2.

The only problem with it is that you need to turn it off for the cutscenes, or they look screwy.

http://www.widescreenfixer.org/

Can't this get you banned from Origin? They could see it as a cheat.

and THAT is a big issue using some thing like that or moding the files COULD get you banned and then you lose all of your games on Origin

[PSUHammer]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

I would like to turn the brightness up a bit more also

Is this a joke?  If not, have you looked at the menu options under "graphics"???

That being said, calibrate your monitor and you won't have to worry about brightness.  If you have Windows Vista or 7, type in "calibration" in Windows Search after clicking the globe in the lower left.

[Elios]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

tch2296 wrote...

It certainly doesn't bother me that if I had spent $600 on a gaming computer, the graphics would look better.

I fixed that for you.

The days of the $2000 gaming PC are well behind us.  I've spent over $2000 on a gaming PC once ever, and that was in 1999.

tch2296 wrote...

Ever since I switched to consoles it seems downright silly to be playing videogames with a keyboard and mouse. I can hardly imagine gaming without joysticks and a comfortabel controller that fits into your hand perfectly. It seems bizarre to me now that you jsut point and click on your enemies, like I point and click on my e-mail. And you have a huge keyboard designed for word processing that you use for game commands. It all just seems weird.

I know that's all just my opinion, but people should know that many people think along these same lines. For many people, myself included, a controller with "only" 16 buttons is perfect, and certainly preferable to a keyboard and mouse - I use those things to do my homework!

Why would you want the same button to do multiple things?  Doesn't that just introduce error into your inputs?  If the in-game context changes between you choosing to hit a button and you actually hitting it, then that button will do somethng different from what you'd wanted.  How is that better?  Having more buttons allows immediate access to more different functions.  With a controller, you can't have one-button triggers more more than a handful of abilities at a time.

I often point to NWN as an example of how controllers should be used.  NWN was a PC game, but it wanted to offer direct access to more abilities than a keyboard would allow, so it had alternate hotbars which could be triggered with the SHIFT, CTRL, and ALT keys.  Imagine how clumsy it would be to play a console game that wanted to let you trigger, in the heat of combat, as many as 48 different abilities as you saw fit.

um what?
lots of people still spend that kind of money
i have whole web site full of them
www.hardocp.com
peope that spend 2k JUST on video cards and monitors alone
think 3 way SLi and 3 24" monitors

[Sylvius the Mad]

Elios wrote...

um what?
lots of people still spend that kind of money
i have whole web site full of them
www.hardocp.com
peope that spend 2k JUST on video cards and monitors alone
think 3 way SLi and 3 24" monitors

That you can spend that kind of money doesn't make it necessary.  I bought a new video card a couple of months ago, and I spent $200 on it.  And it's terrific.

The argument here is that there's some sort of financial advantage to playing console games, and there simply isn't. 

[Elios]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Elios wrote...

um what?
lots of people still spend that kind of money
i have whole web site full of them
www.hardocp.com
peope that spend 2k JUST on video cards and monitors alone
think 3 way SLi and 3 24" monitors

That you can spend that kind of money doesn't make it necessary.  I bought a new video card a couple of months ago, and I spent $200 on it.  And it's terrific.

The argument here is that there's some sort of financial advantage to playing console games, and there simply isn't. 

wasnt saying just that the person i quoated tsaid high end PC days are gone and hes wrong there here more then ever with multi monitor gaming and games like Skyrim that can easlly use over 3GB or textuers

[Luigitornado]

Phaedon wrote...

Nexis7 wrote...

bsn needs to grow some balls.

Poké balls?

If that were true, then I got 6.

Any Krogan want any?

[Massefeckt]

Draconis6666 wrote...

The only reason you can buy a gaming computer for $600 is because of consoles, if games were still designed only for PCs you would still need $2000 computers and constant upgrades to keep up with games. So yes consoles are holding games back, holding them back so that more than 20% of the population can afford to play them.

I've been pc gaming for close to 16 years I've never spent that much on a PC and that's with UK prices(with all the extra tax). It's a myth that you need to spend that type of money to play the latest games now or in the past. Costs are also down as tech has become cheaper to manufacture(bar some of the latest floods causing price rises).

Elios wrote...

um what?
lots of people still spend that kind of money
i have whole web site full of them
www.hardocp.com
peope that spend 2k JUST on video cards and monitors alone
think 3 way SLi and 3 24" monitors

There are people who buy a Ferrari to drive in a congested city center when they could get away with buying a Mini Cooper that fufils their needs that doesn't mean buying a car costs hundreds of thousands.

People who buy that tech do so as a hobby or a passion, it isn't a necessity to play the latest games. These are people who fuss over that extra 1fps.

Modifié par Massefeckt, 21 février 2012 - 01:30 .