235 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

PaddlePop wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

I used to be a PC gamer but then I got better.

I used to be a PC gamer but then I got married!

(True story, also PC gamers have to be the worst kind of gamer. They're not glad to be part of a greater gamer fraternity, and would rather show off their latest hardware, which incidentally is out of date the second they bought it, and then it's back onto the upgrade hamster wheel. Where the focus should be on the games, gameplay and actually having fun, with PC gamers it's really a "how big is my ****" competition.)

Yeah it really got to the point where the games available did not make it worth forking out for the hardware needed to run them at top spec.

[Mettyx]

BobSmith101 wrote...

which incidentally is out of date the second they bought it

Why would you say such blatant lie?
If you buy a high-end PC it is outdated after 2-3 years. how is 2-3 YEARS a second??

[Mettyx]

xkg wrote...

What do you expect from ancient hardware ?
256 MB (PS3) or 512 (x360) ? My PC already had 1 GB six yers ago.

And you don't need to look far just look at this graph, here is your answer
As you can see consoles were "outdated" already on release.

Holy shi*t!
It's even worse than I thought!

[Dreadstruck]

PaddlePop wrote...
which incidentally is out of date the second they bought it, and then it's back onto the upgrade hamster wheel. .)

Wrong.

Common exaggeration people like you always make would be the "limited" usefulness (the "OMG, U HAV TO UPGRADE EVERY TWO MONTHS" argument) of a gaming PC, which can be in excess of five years without upgrades.
Not a PC elitist by the way, I own a PS3 and an old GameBoy Colour.

Modifié par Avalla'ch, 06 avril 2012 - 11:28 .

[shootist70]

Mettyx wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

which incidentally is out of date the second they bought it

Why would you say such blatant lie?
If you buy a high-end PC it is outdated after 2-3 years. how is 2-3 YEARS a second??

My PC is never outdated. I just bolt in a few new parts every few years that I buy cheap off ebay. Can't do that with a console.

It's a myth to think that you need brand new, top-of- the-range pc specs to run new games on Ultra, You don't. Last gen parts will do the job if you know what to buy, and you can get them for very little.

PC gaming offers the sort of flexibility you could never get on a console, and when you look at what the modding community can do with a game like Skyrim, you realise how much potential there is in PC gaming.

[nikki191]

im a pc player never been that into consoles, but yeah im not that fussed graphically about ME3 it was ok to my eyes and i accept the fact its a series that started on a console

[PaddlePop]

Mettyx wrote...

xkg wrote...

What do you expect from ancient hardware ?
256 MB (PS3) or 512 (x360) ? My PC already had 1 GB six yers ago.

And you don't need to look far just look at this graph, here is your answer
As you can see consoles were "outdated" already on release.

Holy shi*t!
It's even worse than I thought!

See what I mean about the  "C**ck size competition"?  If PC gamers were really serious about their gaming rather than being "mere graphic-fiends", the difference between consoles and PC wouldn't even be a feature.  Retro gamers and gaming enthusiasts will still enjoy Final Fantasy 4, Megaman, Baldur's Gate or even PacMan, yet with modern PC gamers,  it's all about how many FPS their eyes will never be able to see... 

If you're still surprised that consoles are outperformed by PCs then a short bus is needed to take you to school. If you base all your gaming decisions on this, then not only is the short bus required, but you also need to hand in your gamer card immediately. You can't call yourself a gamer. It's that simple.

Games are enhanced by graphics, but gameplay MUST > graphics (ALWAYS). Otherwise, our gaming will be as vacuous as a Michael Bay flick. Sure some retards love it, but they're the kind you don't want to associate with, rather then the curious kind who like to finger paint.  

[spacehamsterZH]

Never seen this thread before.

[PaddlePop]

Avalla'ch wrote...

PaddlePop wrote...
which incidentally is out of date the second they bought it, and then it's back onto the upgrade hamster wheel. .)

Wrong.

Common exaggeration people like you always make would be the "limited" usefulness (the "OMG, U HAV TO UPGRADE EVERY TWO MONTHS" argument) of a gaming PC, which can be in excess of five years without upgrades.
Not a PC elitist by the way, I own a PS3 and an old GameBoy Colour.

Incidentally, consoles have an average lifespan of 5 years, and we're in for a new batch in the next year or two.  Sure, PC gamers don't upgrade every second, I was exagerating my point. I thought that would be obvious, but there is an upgrade hamster wheel, which no PC gamer can deny. 

[Agent_Dark_]

Rejoice my fellow Glorious PC Master Race Comrades!

[mybudgee]

Pc = bad
Console = good

[Akka le Vil]

Random Geth wrote...

I wonder why it is that PC players *always* sound like the most whiny, nasally-voiced gamers there are. And frankly, while they look good, it doesn't seem like that big of a change.

Probably because they are the ones dragged down by consoles, and as such are the ones actually HAVING A REASON to complain ?

As a side point, one of the other complaint about consoles is that they are often considered to be a "for dummies" medium, and as such games are "dumbed down" to cater to this kind of public.
You didn't exactly proved this idea wrong with your post...

[Dreadstruck]

It took 2 pages to make the picture finally appear. I am dissapoint.

[abaris]

PaddlePop wrote...

See what I mean about the  "C**ck size competition"?  If PC gamers were really serious about their gaming rather than being "mere graphic-fiends", the difference between consoles and PC wouldn't even be a feature.  Retro gamers and gaming enthusiasts will still enjoy Final Fantasy 4, Megaman, Baldur's Gate or even PacMan, yet with modern PC gamers,  it's all about how many FPS their eyes will never be able to see...

For me FPS aren't the issue. Everything above 25 is OK with me. One real issue is blurryness. That's not that obvious for console players since they're using their tv screen, which is much more forgiving than a PC screen. Especially at high resolutions.

Another issue is the lack of animations due to catering to the lowest common denominator and their hardware not shouldering any more. And third, the least disturbing of them all, is the wave mechanic. As I said, I'm not overly bothered by that as long as it's made in a believable manner.

Akka le Vil wrote...

As a side point, one of the other
complaint about consoles is that they are often considered to be a "for
dummies" medium, and as such games are "dumbed down" to cater to this
kind of public.
You didn't exactly proved this idea wrong with your post...

But that's something the game developers introduced or at least insinuated by constantly dumbing down their games in the wake of the console hype. They were the first introducing the stereotype of the dribbling fool hammering the awsome button.

The players only went along with that kind of picture. So, blame the developers for also catering to the lowest common intelligence denominator.

Modifié par abaris, 06 avril 2012 - 11:45 .

[PaddlePop]

mybudgee wrote...

Pc = bad
Console = good

Nay!

Gaming = good
PC/console fanboism = bad

[shootist70]

PaddlePop wrote...

Mettyx wrote...

xkg wrote...

What do you expect from ancient hardware ?
256 MB (PS3) or 512 (x360) ? My PC already had 1 GB six yers ago.

And you don't need to look far just look at this graph, here is your answer
As you can see consoles were "outdated" already on release.

Holy shi*t!
It's even worse than I thought!

See what I mean about the  "C**ck size competition"?  If PC gamers were really serious about their gaming rather than being "mere graphic-fiends", the difference between consoles and PC wouldn't even be a feature.  Retro gamers and gaming enthusiasts will still enjoy Final Fantasy 4, Megaman, Baldur's Gate or even PacMan, yet with modern PC gamers,  it's all about how many FPS their eyes will never be able to see... 

If you're still surprised that consoles are outperformed by PCs then a short bus is needed to take you to school. If you base all your gaming decisions on this, then not only is the short bus required, but you also need to hand in your gamer card immediately. You can't call yourself a gamer. It's that simple.

Games are enhanced by graphics, but gameplay MUST > graphics (ALWAYS). Otherwise, our gaming will be as vacuous as a Michael Bay flick. Sure some retards love it, but they're the kind you don't want to associate with, rather then the curious kind who like to finger paint.  

To put it all down to graphics is a rampant oversimplification. I only have to load up Shogun 2: Total war and it's TWO expansions to see the difference in variety and choice of gameplay between console and PC.

But, apparently, console owners 'don't like that sort of thing', and that's what it's all about  - demographics, not graphics.

[jijeebo]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Random Geth wrote...

I wonder why it is that PC players *always* sound like the most whiny, nasally-voiced gamers there are. And frankly, while they look good, it doesn't seem like that big of a change.

Probably because they are the ones dragged down by consoles, and as such are the ones actually HAVING A REASON to complain ?

As a side point, one of the other complaint about consoles is that they are often considered to be a "for dummies" medium, and as such games are "dumbed down" to cater to this kind of public.
You didn't exactly proved this idea wrong with your post...

Um... No.

Consoles have been on the go for what, 25-30 years? They are nothing to do with games being dumbed down.

... I'm surprised PC gamers havent blamed consolers for the ME3 endings by now... Since everything is our fault. <_<

[Mettyx]

PaddlePop wrote...


See what I mean about the  "C**ck size competition"?  If PC gamers were really serious about their gaming rather than being "mere graphic-fiends", the difference between consoles and PC wouldn't even be a feature. 

Gameplay vs graphics is a false dichotomy. Visual fidelity adds a huge amount of immersion and enjoyment like nothing else can.
And curious how you didn't mention degradation of animations in ME3 and lack of physics and destructability.

I consider animations to be far more important than graphics because animations can never get outdated, a threshold for animations is quite clear yet even that is hugely degraded and stripped due to console decrepitude.

You also might have noticed that since console fetish took over each game has less and less physics so it can just keep up with basic stuff, of which, of course, it can't  a long time ago.

[PaddlePop]

shootist70 wrote...

PaddlePop wrote...

Mettyx wrote...

xkg wrote...

What do you expect from ancient hardware ?
256 MB (PS3) or 512 (x360) ? My PC already had 1 GB six yers ago.

And you don't need to look far just look at this graph, here is your answer
As you can see consoles were "outdated" already on release.

Holy shi*t!
It's even worse than I thought!

See what I mean about the  "C**ck size competition"?  If PC gamers were really serious about their gaming rather than being "mere graphic-fiends", the difference between consoles and PC wouldn't even be a feature.  Retro gamers and gaming enthusiasts will still enjoy Final Fantasy 4, Megaman, Baldur's Gate or even PacMan, yet with modern PC gamers,  it's all about how many FPS their eyes will never be able to see... 

If you're still surprised that consoles are outperformed by PCs then a short bus is needed to take you to school. If you base all your gaming decisions on this, then not only is the short bus required, but you also need to hand in your gamer card immediately. You can't call yourself a gamer. It's that simple.

Games are enhanced by graphics, but gameplay MUST > graphics (ALWAYS). Otherwise, our gaming will be as vacuous as a Michael Bay flick. Sure some retards love it, but they're the kind you don't want to associate with, rather then the curious kind who like to finger paint.  

To put it all down to graphics is a rampant oversimplification. I only have to load up Shogun 2: Total war and it's TWO expansions to see the difference in variety and choice of gameplay between console and PC.

But, apparently, console owners 'don't like that sort of thing', and that's what it's all about  - demographics, not graphics.

Different gameplay possibilities exist. No one is denying that, but you'd be crazy to want to play a full-fledged RTS on a console, similarly keyboards are dreadful for fighting games (and you could plug in a controller, but really now...).  The one isn't necesarily better than the other, just different. It's why I get so tired of the tablet vs Vita comparisons. Sure both can provide portable gaming, but the type of gaming will be different, but neither is "Better". I own both a vita and an ipad, and I play the relevant types of games on both.

The point that seems to be missed by most PC gamers is that "no, PC gaming is not the be all and end all of gaming", it's merely one way to game. Now stop your whining, and return to gaming.

[xkg]

PaddlePop wrote...

Mettyx wrote...

xkg wrote...

What do you expect from ancient hardware ?
256 MB (PS3) or 512 (x360) ? My PC already had 1 GB six yers ago.

And you don't need to look far just look at this graph, here is your answer
As you can see consoles were "outdated" already on release.

Holy shi*t!
It's even worse than I thought!

See what I mean about the  "C**ck size competition"?  If PC gamers were really serious about their gaming rather than being "mere graphic-fiends", the difference between consoles and PC wouldn't even be a feature.  Retro gamers and gaming enthusiasts will still enjoy Final Fantasy 4, Megaman, Baldur's Gate or even PacMan, yet with modern PC gamers,  it's all about how many FPS their eyes will never be able to see... 

If you're still surprised that consoles are outperformed by PCs then a short bus is needed to take you to school. If you base all your gaming decisions on this, then not only is the short bus required, but you also need to hand in your gamer card immediately. You can't call yourself a gamer. It's that simple.

Games are enhanced by graphics, but gameplay MUST > graphics (ALWAYS). Otherwise, our gaming will be as vacuous as a Michael Bay flick. Sure some retards love it, but they're the kind you don't want to associate with, rather then the curious kind who like to finger paint.  

Hehehe . What is important to you doesn't have to be for everyone. Don't try to make a new defintion of "gaming" and what is wrong or what is right to do.

Your post is full of your opinions and not even a single fact.
The only fact here is - consoles are ancient hardware and are holding back the game developement.
You don't care about that ? It's ok, but don't expect everyone to be like you.

And have fun with your 10~15 buttons controler, i'll stick to my programmable 100 keys keyboard, and to my mouse controller so I don't have to use some lame "serious gamers's" features like auto-aim / aiming-aid etc... in FPP/TPP games.

Yep I am an PC elitist.

[AkiKishi]

jijeebo wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Random Geth wrote...

I wonder why it is that PC players *always* sound like the most whiny, nasally-voiced gamers there are. And frankly, while they look good, it doesn't seem like that big of a change.

Probably because they are the ones dragged down by consoles, and as such are the ones actually HAVING A REASON to complain ?

As a side point, one of the other complaint about consoles is that they are often considered to be a "for dummies" medium, and as such games are "dumbed down" to cater to this kind of public.
You didn't exactly proved this idea wrong with your post...

Um... No.

Consoles have been on the go for what, 25-30 years? They are nothing to do with games being dumbed down.

... I'm surprised PC gamers havent blamed consolers for the ME3 endings by now... Since everything is our fault. <_<

If anything it's the westernisation of consoles that have lead to dumbing down.

[abaris]

PaddlePop wrote...

Incidentally, consoles have an average lifespan of 5 years, and we're in for a new batch in the next year or two.  Sure, PC gamers don't upgrade every second, I was exagerating my point. I thought that would be obvious, but there is an upgrade hamster wheel, which no PC gamer can deny. 

Yup, every five or six years or so if you aren't a nerd.

I built my rig back in 2006 and only upgraded my video card and memory last year. For about 200 bucks, since I didn't go for the latest high end stuff, but for last years high end stuff.

[PaddlePop]

Mettyx wrote...

PaddlePop wrote...


See what I mean about the  "C**ck size competition"?  If PC gamers were really serious about their gaming rather than being "mere graphic-fiends", the difference between consoles and PC wouldn't even be a feature. 

Gameplay vs graphics is a false dichotomy. Visual fidelity adds a huge amount of immersion and enjoyment like nothing else can.
And curious how you didn't mention degradation of animations in ME3 and lack of physics and destructability.

I consider animations to be far more important than graphics because animations can never get outdated, a threshold for animations is quite clear yet even that is hugely degraded and stripped due to console decrepitude.

You also might have noticed that since console fetish took over each game has less and less physics so it can just keep up with basic stuff, of which, of course, it can't  a long time ago.

I used to play western and japanese RPGs where my character was a badly animated piece of pixelated junk. So... No..., graphics are not as important as some claim.  One of my favourite games of all time is a PC RPG called Omega. The character in that game is a single dot.  I always imagined myself as this burly man-god with a flaming Angel's defender +7.  Perhaps, that's what's missing with gaming these days... Your own Imagination? We're so fixated on immersion through being shown everything, that the act of imagining (which incidentally allows for immersion) is neglected.