175 réponses à ce sujet

[wizardryforever]

ZombieGambit wrote...

Am I the only one who has no trouble steering around obstacles and changing direction without using the "claw" grip on consoles?

Nope.  I don't either.

But that's mainly because I know the maps like the back of my hand at this point, and thus know where all of the counters are.  So I can steer blind without running into stuff too much, though running into a group of enemies can still be a problem.

[Untonic]

I really hate the Console Wars, each and every main gaming platform has its advantages.

If I could, I wouldn't mind playing on my PC again, graphics are intense and there's alot more you can do. However it's just weird, for me, to play a shooter all the time with the mouse. You get alot more aiming potential and powers can be used faster but I just don't have the money at the moment to buy a real nice rig to last me a couple years or two.

As with Xbox, I love it. I'm hardcore but I have a life (not saying you guys don't have a life) and so I like to just unload some. It's great for shooters and controller more operated games, I've had Playstations and Xboxs and they never cease to amaze me with how much fun they are. But then again, you are more limited such as the ability to mod games like Skyrim, and even Mass Effect 3 yourself.

So if I could, I'd play both. I love them both, and they need each other -- PC for the technological feats, Xbox + PS3 for income generation. I've also had a PS3, uber fun too.

[bclagge]

Kazztore wrote...

Can any of the pc gamers give me averages on how much your gaming systems cost? I've been looking at them, but i don't know if it's really worth the money. I don't know much about stats, but i saw a system that was around $1300 dollars and supposedly provided over 100 fps for most of the games tested and that sounds good. Is it? how much did yours cost and what's your average fps? I've always stuck with consoles because they're cheaper and seem to have longer lives. Computers seem to grow old in a couple of years where as consoles last at least twice that.

Well, the expense of building a PC can be mitigated by just upgrading the one you have currently.  In the case of pre-mades (HP, Compaq, or whatever is around these days) it's not ideal but it sure can get the job done cheaply.  I just helped a friend upgrade his computer to modern gaming standards and the most expensive upgrade was the power supply.  Total upgrade cost was $250.  Why don't you post the manufacturer and model number of your PC and I'll tell you if you have worthwhile upgrade options?

Even if you have to do a major overhaul, you can usually shave a lot of money by re-using key components, such as monitor, keyboard, mouse, case, speakers/head phones, hard drives and the CD drive.  I could help you put together a machine that would smoke ME3 for ~$400, estimated.

Quick tip though, you don't need 100 fps because that exceeds the refresh rate of standard monitors.  Most flat screen PC monitors have a built in max frame rate of 60 fps.  So typically as long as your average stays above 60, you're golden.

Just because you asked though, I built my machine from the ground up over the holidays for $1500, but that included Windoze 7 64 bit and a 30 pound steel case, enough power to cover my needs for a few years with room to upgrade, and fancy lights and what-not to make to look cool to no one in particular.  It was my once a decade total rebuild.
CPU: AMD Phenom II x4 925, 2.8ghz quad core
GPU: ATI Radeon 6870 1 GB
RAM: 8 GB

Modifié par bclagge, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:02 .

[neteng101]

Kazztore wrote...

Can any of the pc gamers give me averages on how much your gaming systems cost?

The range is really crazy - you can put together a reasonable system for $600 or go spend a crazy amount too.  Some idea of mid-range systems...

http://www.anandtech...-buyers-guide/2

I don't think anyone really needs the SSD drive for gaming, only recently got one myself and honestly your money is always better spent on the graphics card first.  But a decent CPU is needed for some games, and Intel's far ahead of AMD these days.

If you look for component deals you can drive the build price down further too.  Microcenter has the best CPU/motherboard combo prices if you have a retail store near enough to you.

[Yajuu Omoi]

wizardryforever wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

Am I the only one who has no trouble steering around obstacles and changing direction without using the "claw" grip on consoles?

Nope.  I don't either.

But that's mainly because I know the maps like the back of my hand at this point, and thus know where all of the counters are.  So I can steer blind without running into stuff too much, though running into a group of enemies can still be a problem.

The only reason I ever use it is if I have a charged up shot ready and want to use a power first, I just switch fingers.

[Eriseley]

re: WASD

Okay, but an advantage is easy skill access and/or weapon switching, plus various other functions, via 1-5, space, shift and other keys. I would take an analog stick over WASD specifically, but I wouldn't want to give up that stuff, and definitely not mouselook.

[AsheraII]

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

Eriseley wrote...

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

Ah, Xaijin, I should have known you'd show up here eventually...
You ARE correct to say that a 7 year old PC COULD play some of the newer games...if you DOWNGRADE THE GAME FIRST.

If the newer game is identical to the console version, it stands to reason that the PC would run it similarly to the console. It seems to me that many of the newer PC games would perform so poorly on an old PC because the games are designed for newer PCs, where as newer console games are designed for the same hardware. That is, turn off some features on the newer PC titles, and you'll be fine.

Perhaps there is some efficiency gain from a slimmer OS and maybe a more streamlined hardware setup, and I'm not sure what kind of screen resolutions consoles are called upon to display these days, but I imagine the above is a larger factor.

You're thinking along the right lines...but you have to realize.
A high end PC 7 years ago would not have the capabilities to run a newer game of today, as it was not built to. The 360 was BUILT to handle all the games made till the next gen console would be released, and even then after.

Like I said, the 360 and a 7 year old PC stand equal on most hardware, but the console takes the advantage when it comes to the software needed to play the game.

So basically, you're underestimating high end PC's. Those come with slightly better hardware than your avarage office-console. The various components of your dear XBox were all several years in production already. The only thing going for it was the dedicated OS reducing the need to handle other tasks simultaniously, allowing the system to draw more out of its components. But those components were widely available on PC already, and better components as well, to the point of being capable of compensating for the additional tasks a PC has running. Those components required a big bag of money at that time, but they got cheaper and better quickly as well.

So again.. Consoles have been an obsolete concept eversince the Atari 2600's got replaced with the C64. Marketing for them is still going strong though, and people fall for marketing by the dozens.

[bclagge]

AsheraII wrote...

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

Eriseley wrote...

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

Ah, Xaijin, I should have known you'd show up here eventually...
You ARE correct to say that a 7 year old PC COULD play some of the newer games...if you DOWNGRADE THE GAME FIRST.

If the newer game is identical to the console version, it stands to reason that the PC would run it similarly to the console. It seems to me that many of the newer PC games would perform so poorly on an old PC because the games are designed for newer PCs, where as newer console games are designed for the same hardware. That is, turn off some features on the newer PC titles, and you'll be fine.

Perhaps there is some efficiency gain from a slimmer OS and maybe a more streamlined hardware setup, and I'm not sure what kind of screen resolutions consoles are called upon to display these days, but I imagine the above is a larger factor.

You're thinking along the right lines...but you have to realize.
A high end PC 7 years ago would not have the capabilities to run a newer game of today, as it was not built to. The 360 was BUILT to handle all the games made till the next gen console would be released, and even then after.

Like I said, the 360 and a 7 year old PC stand equal on most hardware, but the console takes the advantage when it comes to the software needed to play the game.

So basically, you're underestimating high end PC's. Those come with slightly better hardware than your avarage office-console. The various components of your dear XBox were all several years in production already. The only thing going for it was the dedicated OS reducing the need to handle other tasks simultaniously, allowing the system to draw more out of its components. But those components were widely available on PC already, and better components as well, to the point of being capable of compensating for the additional tasks a PC has running. Those components required a big bag of money at that time, but they got cheaper and better quickly as well.

So again.. Consoles have been an obsolete concept eversince the Atari 2600's got replaced with the C64. Marketing for them is still going strong though, and people fall for marketing by the dozens.

Disclaimer: I'm a PC player and don't own a console.

But, you're wrong.  Consoles are not an obsolete concept.  They are an easy access, no fuss - no muss, play in the same room with your friends gaming option.  You don't have to know anything about technology to run an Xbawks, whereas at bare minimum a basic level of knowledge is required to play games on a PC.

Consoles fill a different niche than PCs do.  That gap may be bridged more easily in the future, but not anytime soon.

Modifié par bclagge, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:26 .

[Eriseley]

bclagge wrote...

But, you're wrong.  Consoles are not an obsolete concept.  They are an easy access, no fuss - no muss, play in the same room with your friends gaming option.  You don't have to know anything about technology to run an Xbawks, whereas a basic level of knowledge is required to play games on a PC.

Consoles fill a different niche than PCs do.  That gap may be bridged more easily in the future, but not anytime soon.

They also provide a more static platform for games to be developed on, which does have benefits from a getting your product to the consumer standpoint.

[PaperAlien]

Next thing you know they'll be crying about how mouse and keyboard can aim better than joysticks.

[EVILFLUFFMONSTER]

I have the mass effect 3 branded razor onza controller for the xbox, and I can just map the run button to the top and then my thumbs never have to leave the sticks. It s a good controller.

[Kazztore]

bclagge wrote...

Kazztore wrote...

Can any of the pc gamers give me averages on how much your gaming systems cost? I've been looking at them, but i don't know if it's really worth the money. I don't know much about stats, but i saw a system that was around $1300 dollars and supposedly provided over 100 fps for most of the games tested and that sounds good. Is it? how much did yours cost and what's your average fps? I've always stuck with consoles because they're cheaper and seem to have longer lives. Computers seem to grow old in a couple of years where as consoles last at least twice that.

Well, the expense of building a PC can be mitigated by just upgrading the one you have currently.  In the case of pre-mades (HP, Compaq, or whatever is around these days) it's not ideal but it sure can get the job done cheaply.  I just helped a friend upgrade his computer to modern gaming standards and the most expensive upgrade was the power supply.  Total upgrade cost was $250.  Why don't you post the manufacturer and model number of your PC and I'll tell you if you have worthwhile upgrade options?

Even if you have to do a major overhaul, you can usually shave a lot of money by re-using key components, such as monitor, keyboard, mouse, case, speakers/head phones, hard drives and the CD drive.  I could help you put together a machine that would smoke ME3 for ~$400, estimated.

Quick tip though, you don't need 100 fps because that exceeds the refresh rate of standard monitors.  Most flat screen PC monitors have a built in max frame rate of 60 fps.  So typically as long as your average stays above 60, you're golden.

Just because you asked though, I built my machine from the ground up over the holidays for $1500, but that included Windoze 7 64 bit and a 30 pound steel case, enough power to cover my needs for a few years with room to upgrade, and fancy lights and what-not to make to look cool to no one in particular.  It was my once a decade total rebuild.
CPU: AMD Phenom II x4 925, 2.8ghz quad core
GPU: ATI Radeon 6870 1 GB
RAM: 8 GB

Well my only computer is an hp laptop with a busted display, so i use an old monitor plugged in. It was suppose to be able to play games, but it over heats really quick with anything beyond flash games. I'm planning on saving up for a desktop as I don't have much use for laptops anymore, my smartphone does all my mobile needs, so I want to move to the stationary desktop. I was advised to check out sites like cypberpowerpc.com, I'm not much for building my own PC so I don't know about putting one together myself, and I don't have a base model to upgrade so I'm looking for a whole system. Any advice on decent websites to buy from or guides for building would be appreciated. 

[neteng101]

Eriseley wrote...

They also provide a more static platform for games to be developed on, which does have benefits from a getting your product to the consumer standpoint.

But the static platform can be pretty crippling and result in a far sub-par product.  Dragon Age 2 is the perfect case to illustrate how consoles can affect game development in a very negative fashion.  And that is proof plenty that game developers do not always favor the master race these days.  The game is an absolute travesty of a sequel.

Luckily the PC version of Skyrim was done right and not dumbed down for consoles.  There's also Witcher 2 which is PC only and another brilliant RPG title.

[Yajuu Omoi]

AsheraII wrote...
you're underestimating high end PC's.

Apparently you don't even know what is in an XBox 360

Lets see:
Ram: 1G 2x512
Processor: Xenon Custom Triple Core, 1MB L2
Video: Xenos, 256-MB

For PCs:
Ram: 1G 2x512
Processor: Pentium 4 660, 512KB L2
Video: GForce, 256-MB

Hmm...well, look at THAT. THe XBox actually beats out one of the highest end PCs available at the time...barely though, but it doubles the processing power of one of the most powerful PCs available...

Underestimating high ends PCs am I?

[Eriseley]

neteng101 wrote...

But the static platform can be pretty crippling and result in a far sub-par product.  Dragon Age 2 is the perfect case to illustrate how consoles can affect game development in a very negative fashion.  And that is proof plenty that game developers do not always favor the master race these days.  The game is an absolute travesty of a sequel.

Luckily the PC version of Skyrim was done right and not dumbed down for consoles.  There's also Witcher 2 which is PC only and another brilliant RPG title.

Yup, it's a tradeoff for sure.

[Yajuu Omoi]

Kazztore wrote...

bclagge wrote...

Kazztore wrote...

Can any of the pc gamers give me averages on how much your gaming systems cost? I've been looking at them, but i don't know if it's really worth the money. I don't know much about stats, but i saw a system that was around $1300 dollars and supposedly provided over 100 fps for most of the games tested and that sounds good. Is it? how much did yours cost and what's your average fps? I've always stuck with consoles because they're cheaper and seem to have longer lives. Computers seem to grow old in a couple of years where as consoles last at least twice that.

Well, the expense of building a PC can be mitigated by just upgrading the one you have currently.  In the case of pre-mades (HP, Compaq, or whatever is around these days) it's not ideal but it sure can get the job done cheaply.  I just helped a friend upgrade his computer to modern gaming standards and the most expensive upgrade was the power supply.  Total upgrade cost was $250.  Why don't you post the manufacturer and model number of your PC and I'll tell you if you have worthwhile upgrade options?

Even if you have to do a major overhaul, you can usually shave a lot of money by re-using key components, such as monitor, keyboard, mouse, case, speakers/head phones, hard drives and the CD drive.  I could help you put together a machine that would smoke ME3 for ~$400, estimated.

Quick tip though, you don't need 100 fps because that exceeds the refresh rate of standard monitors.  Most flat screen PC monitors have a built in max frame rate of 60 fps.  So typically as long as your average stays above 60, you're golden.

Just because you asked though, I built my machine from the ground up over the holidays for $1500, but that included Windoze 7 64 bit and a 30 pound steel case, enough power to cover my needs for a few years with room to upgrade, and fancy lights and what-not to make to look cool to no one in particular.  It was my once a decade total rebuild.
CPU: AMD Phenom II x4 925, 2.8ghz quad core
GPU: ATI Radeon 6870 1 GB
RAM: 8 GB

Well my only computer is an hp laptop with a busted display, so i use an old monitor plugged in. It was suppose to be able to play games, but it over heats really quick with anything beyond flash games. I'm planning on saving up for a desktop as I don't have much use for laptops anymore, my smartphone does all my mobile needs, so I want to move to the stationary desktop. I was advised to check out sites like cypberpowerpc.com, I'm not much for building my own PC so I don't know about putting one together myself, and I don't have a base model to upgrade so I'm looking for a whole system. Any advice on decent websites to buy from or guides for building would be appreciated. 

DO NOT BUY A PC OFF A SHELF.
Seriously, don't.

Save up some money, do a little research.
Putting a computer together is not hard. You could probably find someone local or a site on your phone that can help give you pointers on what to do.

You'll need; A case, Motherboard, Sound Card if there isn't a Built-In one, Video the same, Hard Drive, Power Unit and Fan if not pre-installed
Disk Drive, and obvioulsy a Mouse, Keyboard and Monitor.

Do a bit of research before you buy things, make sure they are compatible with eachother.

[Vanguard Charge]

I don't get why they couldn't just use the Battlefield/CallofDuty sprint layout. The left analog click doesn't have a function in multiplayer anyway. (although people would probably get upset just because it is even vaguely reminiscent of Cod's control scheme )

[DullahansXMark]

I wish the lock was taken off.

I have an Onza controller, so I could map the sprint button to one of the bumpers. Which means I could very easily turn the camera while sprinting.

Fun fact, it's still impossible. But at least Vorcha dodge-turning is made easier. (Too bad I don't play the Vorcha, though)

[someone else]

been rolling my own since the mid 90's - outside of the fact that its fun and thing itself to tweak and overclock, it produces by far the most versatile and powerful platform - current build is a q6600 on p35 mobo old tech but completely workable - the key component is the video subsystem - for ME games a very modest card will do - gtx 400 series or ATI 5000

but like I said, a hobby in itself - mobo soon to be replaced by a i5 ivy & z77 chipset -and  6850s replaced with a gtx 670 - if you want to see your games in true HD 1920x1080 or higher - you need real graphics power (eg skyrim) - but none of this make anyone (me especially) a better player...

PS two things WILL - a real gaming mouse and (for me) a mechanical kb

Modifié par someone else, 15 septembre 2012 - 04:44 .

[cdzander]

I only game on PC. The last console I spent any significant time playing was the Sega Genesis. But I'm probably older than a lot of you. Been PC gaming since the early 90's, so I'm pretty used to it by now. I mostly play RPGs and strategy/war games.

Built my current machine 4 years ago and it's still going strong. Cost was under $500, but some of the parts were donated by friends who had extra stuff lying around. I know a fair amount of computer people...

[Droma]

use the claw grip. middle finger for rt, thumb for right analog stick and you have your index finger free to use a,b,x,y,rb any time without "loosing" control over rt and the right stick. I use this grib nowadays fore very game. started using it in assassins creed mp, where sprinting while looking and potentielly "rt"-ing was far more important.

but i guess it's a matter of handsize. with too big or too small hands this grip could be quite uncomfortable. so try it out 2-3 times. maybe you get used to it =D for me this grip is pretty comfortable now.

edit: ha I see I'm not the only one here. Even Bioware Stuff does that! and also it's assassins creed's fault. interesting.

Modifié par Droma, 15 septembre 2012 - 06:01 .

[Ser Reevo Von Bartlesby]

Yajuu Omoi wrote...

AsheraII wrote...
you're underestimating high end PC's.

Apparently you don't even know what is in an XBox 360

Lets see:
Ram: 1G 2x512
Processor: Xenon Custom Triple Core, 1MB L2
Video: Xenos, 256-MB

For PCs:
Ram: 1G 2x512
Processor: Pentium 4 660, 512KB L2
Video: GForce, 256-MB

Hmm...well, look at THAT. THe XBox actually beats out one of the highest end PCs available at the time...barely though, but it doubles the processing power of one of the most powerful PCs available...

Underestimating high ends PCs am I?

To Yajuu Omoi:
I've just read all of your posts on this thread and noticed that you claimed to 'work on PCs' in some manner in an attempt to declare yourself as some sort of authority to the less technically inclined folks looking for legitimate answers to this issue.  If you truly do 'work on PCs' doing anything more advanced than standard Data Entry, then you should look for a new line of work.

I don't understand the seemingly intentional misleading you've done throughout this thread to go out of your way to put-down PCs and the gamers that choose them, maybe an ex-girlfriend of yours cheated on you with a PC user, but I just need to reiterate to those reading this thread that you are deliberately arguing invalid (or completely incorrect) points masquerading as 'facts' in the hopes that you can convince just one more person to choose a console over a PC.  End of argument.

To everybody else:
I'm a passionate tech-nerd who is easily aggravated by people who try to fake knowledge of the areas I am most proficient in (anybody with knowledge of the astounding YOY salary rate decreases in anything Tech since the dot-com crash understands why).  If you'd like any evidence to back up my claims made in this post, and you don't know how to find the information on your own, feel free to ask me.  Apologies for this rant, but I don't think I've ever seen somebody work so hard at talking down on a non-sentient thing before, while also taking advantage of the fact that if you pepper your supposed 'facts' with some techy words then most folks will believe you with no questions asked.

Also, for the record - My entire career, spanning 15 years, has been in IT/Network Administration/Programming/Development - my gaming platform of choice is the Playstation 3 (you can verify via my manifest).  I have no bias towards one or the other.

As you were.

[Screenbetween]

It's old and a very weary machine I'm afraid. But come on, how can anybody pretend to not notice the wrinkles?

The 360's release was announced in 2005 on MTV! Back then the superhero's Blade, and Wesley Snipes 
is the dude from "New Jack City!"

So In other words.. 

PC!

Modifié par Screenbetween, 15 septembre 2012 - 07:05 .