102 réponses à ce sujet

[Calara]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Anyone that thinks consoles are to blame in my opinion is seriously living in the previous decade and I'm talking of the early part of that decade too.

The 360 and the PS3 have the specs that some peoples computers don't have (Granted I am not referring to the hardcore PC gamers with their Gamer rigs).

Now if you think they should solely cater for those with the high end PC rigs, then thank the maker you ain't in charge any game developing company because not everyone that plays PC games can afford such.

Ah right, so how many console gamers use mouse and keyboard then? When developers have to make concessions for the gamepad users, then things like inventory systems suffer.
 
The xbox 360 also only has 512MB of memory. This is obviously a significant hardware limiter on performance and what the developers are able to include. I have a modern gaming rig, but even a gaming pc from 4 years ago (when the xbox 360 was released)  would blow the performance of that console out of the water.

[dirtywick]

Imrahil_ wrote...

I ag
Ever
[

- Party Size - 4 person party < fun than 6 person party.  It just is.  And the restriction is felt more the lower the restriction goes (Wizardry had 8-person parties & that worked).  It limits my choice, it limits my interactions, it limits how much I can trade "utility" for "fun".  In DA, I can't really see how Sten-Dog-Alistair interact without sacrificing party utility.  I can't see how Oghren-(Spoiler)-Shale interact.  I can't set up complex tactics with 4 people.  And it limits the challenges I can face because it's always, always me & <=3 other people.  This one is especially noticeable in DA since all the NPC's are (almost) always available.  Why did Sten not accompany me into the Deep Roads?  Because of party size.  He wasn't doing anything.  He roasted marshmallows at camp the whole time because of party size, not story.

I think they hit the challenge balance pretty well and I don't like the micro.  Obviously there's no logical reason for this other than game balance, but that's preferable to me.

- Auto-Resurrection - This is an obvious console crutch.  Why do my characters auto-res after combat?  There is no death for the party as long as one of us survives?  Makes no sense.  Reduces any suspense to near nothing. 

- Wounds Poorly Used - If you're going to have Wounds, have more ways to inflict them.  Have them matter.  Have them occur *during* combat.  As it is, they are only a very mild penalty for "dying".  Meaning no penalty at all as long as you have an Injury Kit of some sort.

- We Are All Half-Troll - First off, I understand that resting to regain spells is a bad system as well, in that it is annoying, but at least it has an explanation.  I can *believe* it, if I must.  But We Are All @100% 15 seconds after combat is equally bad, just on the other extreme.  What kind of superhuman Wolverines am I running with?  Arl Howe should have been back at 100% health just during his dying speech!

All of this was done well.  Combat is balanced enough that even against trash your whole party can wipe and a res potion or spell,  which are never lacking in rpgs anyway, essentially allows the PC to be the lone survivor anyway.  Not having to go through the motions allows the game to move along without wasting time resting and using items to recover.  

And right away some people might say that's console-y to want to keep the action moving, short attention span, whatever, but that's a dumb thing to say so don't say that.

- Awesome Items Cost 100+ Gold - I'm gonna fold DLC items into this point as well.  There are soooo many items that should be drops from bosses, but are, instead, either given for free or cost 120 Gold from a merchant.  I can't even imagine a reason why this is better than a boss drop (or, rather, a boss's hoard drop if it makes no sense they'd be carrying it when they fight you - see above).  The Edge?  Best dagger ever for free?  Except maybe for that 120 gp dagger?  Just bad all around.

Actually can I go ahead and add there should be more items between 20-70 gold?  It's either buy the 100+ items or nothing at all.

Stat Restricions On Gear - How much does Dragonbone weigh?!?  42 Strength?!?  Better materials should sometimes mean *lighter* weight, not heavier, although there should be some ridulously heavy armors, I guess.  The system in DA is flat out gameplay > realism.  There are Heavy Plates that provide more protection & less fatigue for less Strength than some Heavy Chain Mails with less protection & greater fatigue.  Because of what they are made of?  Just. Plain. Poorly. Designed.  Minor gripe, I guess, but if I don't put it in now, well... it's not like I'm gonna make another of these lists, right?

The only solution to this is to level cap items, which honestly makes even less sense.  If items are stat restricted, having the best items have the easiest stats doesn't allow for item progression.

Agreed more or less with everything else.

Modifié par Torias, 19 décembre 2009 - 11:15 .

[dirtywick]

Calara wrote...

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Anyone that thinks consoles are to blame in my opinion is seriously living in the previous decade and I'm talking of the early part of that decade too.

The 360 and the PS3 have the specs that some peoples computers don't have (Granted I am not referring to the hardcore PC gamers with their Gamer rigs).

Now if you think they should solely cater for those with the high end PC rigs, then thank the maker you ain't in charge any game developing company because not everyone that plays PC games can afford such.

Ah right, so how many console gamers use mouse and keyboard then? When developers have to make concessions for the gamepad users, then things like inventory systems suffer.
 
The xbox 360 also only has 512MB of memory. This is obviously a significant hardware limiter on performance and what the developers are able to include. I have a modern gaming rig, but even a gaming pc from 4 years ago (when the xbox 360 was released)  would blow the performance of that console out of the water.

It's not as significant as you think.  There's no background tasks running on a console, for instance.

[Skellimancer]

Calara wrote...
The xbox 360 also only has 512MB of memory. This is obviously a significant hardware limiter on performance and what the developers are able to include. I have a modern gaming rig, but even a gaming pc from 4 years ago (when the xbox 360 was released)  would blow the performance of that console out of the water.

Consoles have the advantage of using the same parts for each machine, so games can be better optimized faster without taking into account different graphics cards, etc and so the developers can push more out of the hardware than they normally could.

In a way the PC version gimped thiers, seeing how it was developed for PC first.

[Calara]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
As per previous post, that is all fine and dandy for people whom are constantly upgrading their PC to be the best on the gaming side of things, but I imagine there is a lot of PC owners whom play DAO that DON'T have the same kind of rig you do.

You would have to have a pretty sad PC if it was older that 4 years old. I had an old PC that ran Mass effect like a dog and I had to play it the first time through on minimum settings. I upgraded to a new computer and was able top play with all settings at max, and it was like playing a different game. You cant expect to play modern pc games without using at least a reasonably up to date computer.

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
Also not sure about 360, but one could argue that it is a dev fault for not thinking that the consoles can utilise keyboards just as well which they can. So that argument is mute too.

So the PC game doesn't have to suffer.

Case in point Mass Effect, it was originally out on the X-Box and then came to the PC, far as I recall it was a hit in BOTH markets.

Console users dont buy keyboards and mice for their consoles. Why waste development time on a feature they never use?

Mass effect proves my point completely. The game was improved on the PC and is considered the 'best' version of the game released. However, the inventory system is still cumbersome, and that was because it wasnt changed from the initial one that the consoles used.  The game was still a hit (and I enjoyed it a lot), but it would have been better if it was designed purely for the PC market.

[Skellimancer]

Calara wrote...

Console users dont buy keyboards and mice for their consoles. Why waste development time on a feature they never use?

Mass effect proves my point completely. The game was improved on the PC and is considered the 'best' version of the game released. However, the inventory system is still cumbersome, and that was because it wasnt changed from the initial one that the consoles used.  The game was still a hit (and I enjoyed it a lot), but it would have been better if it was designed purely for the PC market.

I had a keyboard for my Dreamcast and a mouse for my SNES.

Modifié par Skellimancer, 19 décembre 2009 - 05:16 .

[Calara]

Skellimancer wrote..
Consoles have the advantage of using the same parts for each machine, so games can be better optimized faster without taking into account different graphics cards, etc and so the developers can push more out of the hardware than they normally could.

In a way the PC version gimped thiers, seeing how it was developed for PC first.

Consoles also 'cheat' in that they are designed to be used on a television screen at a further distance away, so they use lower resolutions at lower frames per second. They can make do with an acceptable performance, but in a side-by side comparison however, there is absolutely no argument that a PC will absolutely crush the very best a console can do.

[Calara]

Skellimancer wrote...
I had a keyboard for my Dreamcast and a mouse for my SNES.

I bought a mouse for my playstation to play X-Com. It doesnt mean that the vast majority of console games are not designed with the gamepad as the input device in mind. When pc games are developed, mouse and keyboard is the intended input device. This greatly affects the kind of UI the developers are going to come up with.

I have an xbox 360 and its fine for playing guitar hero or whatever. If there is a cross-platform game I want to play like mass-effect or dragon age then I use my gaming rig PC. Why drive a ford escort when you can drive a ferrari?

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

I imagine at least on the PS3 that there are quite a few people (myself included) that if need to use a keyboard for a game or for... oooh I don't know, a PS3 online network community such as 'Home' because it makes it easier to either play the game or chat to people online.

You know what is really amusing. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people that visit this social network from their PS3 as they maybe... just maybe don't have a high powered PC gaming rig. So yes some console users DO use a keyboard. As for the mouse functions, that can easily be accomplised with the controller, it even has more buttons than a standard mouse with just 2 buttons and the trackball.

Edit: And I rest my case, you bring X-Com into this? A game... how old? '93 was it?

As I said earlier, your living in the past, get over it and do some research before posting rubbish.

Modifié par Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien, 19 décembre 2009 - 05:34 .

[Calara]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
You know what is really amusing. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people that visit this social network from their PS3 as they maybe... just maybe don't have a high powered PC gaming rig. So yes some console users DO use a keyboard. As for the mouse functions, that can easily be accomplised with the controller, it even has more buttons than a standard mouse with just 2 buttons and the trackball.

While its possible that a console gamer is only going to be able to use a gamepad to play a game, then a console developer has to develop a game with the gamepad as the primary input device. Unless consoles start being boxed with mouse and keyboards, this wont change.

[bluehaze013]

OP Plays through the game 4 times, is planning on playing through it more times and yet he makes a thread saying the game only deserves an 8? LOLWUT?

[Rukkis4458]

I have to give it a 9.  It’s the first single player and/or console game I have been able to put more than a couple of hours into for at least a year.  The plot and your interaction within it is fantastic, each play through has a unique feel even when accomplishing the same goals.  Minus a few tweaks I love the combat system.  The level scaling is also very well done, if you didn’t know about it before hand you could play through without even noticing it.

The few things I have disliked are:

Customer Service:  I'm on the PS3 and there seems to be no support or communication of issues at all as compared to the PC version.  A few PSN downloads with some of the highest rated mods would be a good start.

Tactics/Combat Control:

• Controls: Playing mostly PC mmo's for the past few years I can imagine that this isn't as much of an issue for the PC either, but the console system needs some serious tweaking.  Having to hold down a button for an entire cycle though your group is horrible design.  You can switch to a click, but you lose the ability to direct multiple characters.  Also find a way to add more hotkeys.  Or at least let us manually rearrange stuff in the different action menus.  I shouldn't have to go through 3 or 4 windows to cast my favorite spell every fight.
• Advanced Tactics Menu: Why only 2 options on the radial menu?  There needs to be a bunch more; a complete hold with no movement or actions, individual character holds, someway to queue both group and individual character movement, and tactics swap similar to the weapon option would be great.
• Tactic Presets: There needs to be multiple save slots.  Characters can perform different roles depending on group make up and specific fight conditions.  Nothing is worse than developing a set up over many hours of trial and error, only to have to change everything for one fight.  Then take god knows how long to switch everything back if you can even remember what you had.
• Tactics triggers: More, and more specific; trap:nearest>disarm, party member:if dead>revive, self:combat finished>deactive xxx.
• Very minor but its pretty silly to design a game around micro management and preparation, then have the characters whine when were standing around too long. 

Mechanics:  There needs to be a diminishing returns system in place.  A maxed defense build shouldn’t be basically unhittable.  Percentage based mitigation is for the birds, you should never be 100% immune to anything (besides temporary buffs).  The descriptions for abilities also need work.  At least add an option to display the numbers/math for those that like that stuff. 

class balance.  Mages wouldn’t be so overpowered if they didn’t have access to there entire spell tree at once.  Imagine a warrior could keep momentum, powerful swings, and shield wall up at the same time.  Mages should be forced to specialize in some form or an other.  There are a bunch of ways it could have been done.  Primary/secondary school selection at creation or in their origin quest.  Primary spells function normally, secondary recieve some penalty, and the others either cant be learned, or have a very severe penalty.  They could even add different weapon types which are required for each school.  2h staff, 1h staff, tome, wand, dagger, etc.

Specializations:  Unlocks carrying over from another play through is dumb.  Plus there should be a way to unlock each one besides buying a tomb.  You should have to make decisions which lead your character in a direction and have the world react as such.  First time through I was so excited to unlock Arcane warrior and get my first specialization.  It’s supposed to be some long lost controversial Mage secret, but not even Alistair, the mage police, notices that I'm suddenly wearing bigger armor than he is. Lost a lot of its luster.

Sounds like allot when I write it all out but I really do love the game.  I could write up a much longer list of the things that are great, but it would be redundant since I'm pretty sure the majority of people here like the game and already know them.

Edit: Sory to distract from the consol vs. pc nonsence.  Its a rediculous argument.  Each side has its ups and downs.  Everyone who is a serious gamer has both anyways different games shine on different platforms.  (Although it appears I made the wrong decision here )

Modifié par Rukkis4458, 19 décembre 2009 - 05:51 .

[Calara]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
Edit: And I rest my case, you bring X-Com into this? A game... how old? '93 was it?

As I said earlier, your living in the past, get over it and do some research before posting rubbish.

You rest your case? How have you countered this exactly:
 
"While its possible that a console gamer is only going to be able to use a gamepad to play a game, then a console developer has to develop a game with the gamepad as the primary input device. Unless consoles start being boxed with mouse and keyboards, this wont change."

If you want a modern example of how cross platform development wrecks games for the pc, a fine example are modern warfare 2 limitations: 18 player limits, no console commands and no dedicated servers. All of those things had been standard PC fps fare for years.

I was also replying to a guy who was talking about buying a mouse for a SNES, a system out in 1992. I didnt see you poking any criticisms at him. The point was about purchasing mice and keyboards for consoles, try to keep up.

Modifié par Calara, 19 décembre 2009 - 05:56 .

[MOTpoetryION]

and i agree about the katana .and would of rather romanced a hot little asian instead of liliana : ) just keeping it real .Also eating thng for me did come up a few times  .besidea water its what we need to exist.  An 100 + hour
playthrough and never ate once .or much repesentation  of of food besides a nug or two  .here squggles  i have a new game round and round the roticery  pit  you noisy little  beep beep beep . sorry about that i know  what i wont be getting next game : )

Modifié par MOTpoetryION, 19 décembre 2009 - 06:20 .

[MOTpoetryION]

also imo maybe a litttle breaking up the norm as it was and i dont know how about stored in a barrel wow cool 5 elfroot instead of always just one. very ungreen people in fareldin. and about the mouse and keyboard for a console some games are just better/ worse for both pc or console assasins creed 1 i just could not manage it with a keyboard and mouse i had to use a game pad with my pc

Modifié par MOTpoetryION, 19 décembre 2009 - 06:41 .

[Imrahil_]

fantasypisces wrote...

I'll only touch on a few things. The baddy you killed with the plate mail and maul just got gang rushed by your party. You don't think there is a chance that the plate mail and maul were completely damaged? Most games do this nowadays.

I agree there should be a chance that their gear got damaged, just not a 100% chance it got disintegrated.

CloudOfShadows wrote...

Character customizability:

- Everyone Can Use Every Weapon

Personally, I'm glad there's no silly 'warrior' only weapons. Everyone can pick up a maul and swing it. If they can use it effectively, in Dragon Age, is thankfully determined off their strength. So, if you build a mage with lots and lots of strength, they can make good use out of a Maul.

I didn't mean that I wanted class-restricted weapons, just some sort of skill differentiation.  Someone who has studied sword-fighting all his life should be better at fighting with swords than some newbie who just picked up his first blade.  But in DA, if they have the same attributes, they're equally as good.  Plus, the swordmaster can pick up a mace & be just as awesome with that as he was with a sword.

If the only warhammer in the entire game was dropped  from, say, the Broodmother, Alistair could immediately start using it even though he'd never seen one before & had been fighting with a sword all his life.  And he'd be just as good with it as he is with a sword.

Modifié par Imrahil_, 19 décembre 2009 - 06:53 .

[tetracycloide]

dirtywick wrote...

It's not as significant as you think.  There's no background tasks running on a console, for instance.

My rig, with only 2 gigs of RAM, has almost as much RAM free with dragon age running on windows 7 (not even XP!) as the xbox has in it total.  Background tasks matter less than you might think.  Apples to apples my GPU has twice as much DDR3 RAM as the xbox has in total.  There is no comparison.

The OP is pedantic and obtuse almost in the extreme.  For example, you don't understand how high cost vendor items could be better than having the items drop from an enemy?  Really?  You don't see how it's liberating to practically guarantee that, no matter what order the game is done in, a rogue can have the Rose's Thorn be the first major upgrade the acquire instead of shoehorning every Rogue into fighting the exact same boss as soon as possible every time?

Modifié par tetracycloide, 19 décembre 2009 - 07:02 .

[ctcc42]

The OP seems to have hit every nail on the head, at least for me. Now the developer/publisher excuse for these issues always seems to be time money. But this game had a huge amount of time, and it doesn’t look like it was hurting for money to me.



How many of its assets were re-used from previous games? I know I recognized more then a few sound effects from previous Bioware games. How many of the animations could have been or were re-used too? And now that EA owns Bioware how many more assets were available for re-use?



Ok so we can’t have proper pole arms because the time and money is better spent on animating swords, but why do we need to spend that money re-making those animations for every game in creation? If they were already made can’t we spend the time and money on animating pole arms this time? No because instead we can spend it on DLC that we can charge even more money for apparently.



Ok that was a little bellow the belt, sorry about that. The DLC debate is another issue entirely.



I just want to support the OP’s criticisms and sentiment that this is still a good game, even if it is short of perfect.

[dirtywick]

tetracycloide wrote...

dirtywick wrote...

It's not as significant as you think.  There's no background tasks running on a console, for instance.

My rig, with only 2 gigs of RAM, has almost as much RAM free with dragon age running on windows 7 (not even XP!) as the xbox has in it total.  Background tasks matter less than you might think.  Apples to apples my GPU has twice as much DDR3 RAM as the xbox has in total.  There is no comparison.

That's great but I'm not debating on whether or not a PC is capable of having better hardware than an Xbox.  Of course it is and the gap will continue to grow.  Point is that side by side comparisons of numbers doesn't take everything into account.  Dragon Age on a computer with 512MB of RAM wouldn't run nearly as well as on an Xbox.  It's misleading to say look at the RAM because an Xbox doesn't need as much RAM to do the same thing.

[Calara]

dirtywick wrote...
That's great but I'm not debating on whether or not a PC is capable of having better hardware than an Xbox.  Of course it is and the gap will continue to grow.  Point is that side by side comparisons of numbers doesn't take everything into account.  Dragon Age on a computer with 512MB of RAM wouldn't run nearly as well as on an Xbox.  It's misleading to say look at the RAM because an Xbox doesn't need as much RAM to do the same thing.

The ram was merely an example. As I said earlier, consoles cheat, by running games at lower fps and lower screen resolutions because they are designed to be run on larger screen size televisions several feet from the gamer. At that distance its harder to see the differences. If you do a side by side comparison, the differences are glaringly obvious. When the Xbox 360 originally came out 4 years ago, a dedicated PC gaming rig was already better. A recently purchased i7 monster running Windows 7 makes modern consoles look like pocket calculators.

Obviously everyone playing on the PC version doesnt have this kind of system, but the recommended specs for this game on the PC are a standard pc gamers rig from 2 years ago. A system that old is still capable of *far* more than the xbox 360 which came out 4 years ago. When a game is designed for the lowest common denominator (consoles), then of course its going to impact what they will do in the PC version.

I understand it makes financial sense, because they can milk the lucrative console market. I just find it sad that PC games that are released cross-platform are now artificially limited due to the capabilities of the consoles.

[Ratnix]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

You know what is really amusing. I wouldn't be surprised if there are people that visit this social network from their PS3 as they maybe... just maybe don't have a high powered PC gaming rig.

Only going to quote this part as it is a repeating theme in your posts.

You don't need a powerful gaming rig to play PC games. You might not be able to play on the highest video settings on every game, but most games you will. Only a few games require High framerates. Most notably would be the FPS games, and there it is only for the very competetive players. Stock settings on most FPS games locks the framerate at 60fps.

Any PC built after the PS3 and Crapbox 360 came out will be better than those consoles, unless of course you use outdated parts to build it. I can build and PC today for less than $600(minus the cost of a new OS), that will out perform any of the consoles, and it will continue to be better than them until the next generation comes out. And that will only be the case if there is some type of major inovation added to the new consoles.

Right now, I have a 4 year old computer that I have only made 1 upgrade for, and that would be and upgrade in Video Card($100), and it was better than the consoles when it was new and still plays any game out there.

It is a very popular MISCONCEPTION that you have to have a top of the line gaming rig to play video games on the PC. You don't.

The popularity of consoles are due to a few factors.

For parents. They are much better to have your children play on because they are limited to playing games. At least before the PS3 came along with it's web browsing capabilities. They don't have to worry about what their kids are doing when they are having their console babysit them. Letting immature people mess around with PC's is just going to cause problem for the people who have to spend their time fixing the problems that are caused by them.

For developers, consoles are much easier to code for. You have a set hardware profile that will never change on that system. Everything that is created for the console is going to be made to be compatable with that console from the day they start creating for it until they give them the spec's for the next "generation" of consoles.
For the same developers, they must create games that will work on countless different hardware/software profiles. Even with two people buying computers with the exact same hardware, the programs they run on them will be different. Those differences will possible  end up causing conflicts with the game program, so they must spend more time making the game compatable for everyone.

Games on consoles are much easier to control. While there are people who will pirate console games, it isn't the same as it is for PC games.

There are many more factors, but listing them really is pointless and way beyond the point of this.

The point of this, again, is to state that there is NO NEED FOR A HIGH END GAMING RIG to play PC games.
Thinking that it is necessary is just ignorance.

[PsychoMunkys]

i agree whit most of your complaints but first of al NO GAME SOULD EVER EVER GET A 10 for thet simple reason there is no perfect game and it can always be beter

and for the landsmeet think, it make sense to me,you need political force to get nobles on you side  because if ou take it by force the poeple wil rebel,
 the only reason you fight logain, sweet sweet revenge but i like the hole deul idea man to man

[bas273]

I would definitely give Dragon Age a 10/10 :innocent:.

I agree with most things pointed out by you, especially the missing items (scimitars, spears) and the maximum party size of 4. However, when I look at all the things that Dragon Age does include, I would award it with a 10. The setting, storyline... this is one of the best videogame experiences I've ever had.

Modifié par bas273, 19 décembre 2009 - 07:52 .

[dirtywick]

Calara wrote...

dirtywick wrote...
That's great but I'm not debating on whether or not a PC is capable of having better hardware than an Xbox.  Of course it is and the gap will continue to grow.  Point is that side by side comparisons of numbers doesn't take everything into account.  Dragon Age on a computer with 512MB of RAM wouldn't run nearly as well as on an Xbox.  It's misleading to say look at the RAM because an Xbox doesn't need as much RAM to do the same thing.

The ram was merely an example. As I said earlier, consoles cheat, by running games at lower fps and lower screen resolutions because they are designed to be run on larger screen size televisions several feet from the gamer. At that distance its harder to see the differences. If you do a side by side comparison, the differences are glaringly obvious. When the Xbox 360 originally came out 4 years ago, a dedicated PC gaming rig was already better. A recently purchased i7 monster running Windows 7 makes modern consoles look like pocket calculators.

Obviously everyone playing on the PC version doesnt have this kind of system, but the recommended specs for this game on the PC are a standard pc gamers rig from 2 years ago. A system that old is still capable of *far* more than the xbox 360 which came out 4 years ago. When a game is designed for the lowest common denominator (consoles), then of course its going to impact what they will do in the PC version.

I understand it makes financial sense, because they can milk the lucrative console market. I just find it sad that PC games that are released cross-platform are now artificially limited due to the capabilities of the consoles.

Again not disputing any of that (except the use of the word "cheat" which seems bizarre), only saying that lesser hardware goes further on the Xbox.  I don't see you disputing that either though so I guess we're in agreement.

[Calara]

dirtywick wrote...
Again not disputing any of that (except the use of the word "cheat" which seems bizarre), only saying that lesser hardware goes further on the Xbox.  I don't see you disputing that either though so I guess we're in agreement.

Well my original point was that the pc version of the game is limited because of the cross platform release on consoles as well as the PC. As the xbox 360 uses gimped hardware from 4 years ago and the recommended spec for the pc is a standard gaming rig from 2 years ago, I guess you agree that the PC version suffers because of the consoles.
 
So thats fine then. ;-)

Modifié par Calara, 19 décembre 2009 - 07:55 .