905 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

 You should check this out Seival, make sure to post in the thread too

http://social.biowar...ndex/17698155/1

[Seival]

Ravensword wrote...

It's obvious that the main idea being conveyed by the people of the thread is that great graphics aren't as important as great gameplay and a great story. Anyone who says otherwise should just pack up their console or PC and look to films for their recreation rather than gaming.

It's obvious that the main failure conveyed by the people of the thread is that feature creeping is what makes a game great, not great graphics great story and acceptible gameplay. Anyone who see that failure as something trustworthy, should pack their PCs and go playing some Pillars of Eternity in a local museum.

Modifié par Seival, 19 décembre 2013 - 09:04 .

[ruggly]

Then what was the point of upgrading the hardware of consoles if it's not an advantage?

[Dominus]

Upgradeablity of a console is not an advantage, it's a failure to create some final stable product.

You might have a better argument for that with console-nightmares i.e. The Sega Genesis Attached to a Sega CD while also connected to the 32x. Historically, Non-PC consoles haven't been particularly successful with upgrading themselves(outside of smaller bits like the N64's expansion pack).

As far as PC upgrades... it depends on the stats of the original desktop/laptop/whatever and boils down to Whether or not it's worth the time and effort. I'm considering the prospect myself.

It's obvious that the main idea being conveyed by the people of the thread is that great graphics aren't as important as great gameplay and a great story.

People's preferences for/against one or the other are going to vary. There is no golden answer for everyone, though I'd be blind to say graphics didn't make a very significant difference to my playthrough of a title.

Modifié par DominusVita, 19 décembre 2013 - 09:08 .

[Ravensword]

Seival wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Seival wrote...

Let's wait and see what will happen, shall we?

OnLive was also an "OMG revolution!", a "killer of consoles!", and were is it now? In the same trash can where the pseudo-PC-Steam-Machine-console will probably be soon after release.

Upgradeablity of a console is not an advantage, it's a failure to create some final stable product. And upgradeability of the Steam Machine doesn't change the fact that it's a console, and Steam is just trying to make it to the console market before it's too late.

You keep saying let's wait but you already know the truth and refuse to accept it 

Yea, I know the truth
That's why I became a console player and left PC inside my house only as a powerful workstation.

Seriously, let's wait 5 years and re-discuss the topic.

And when five years comes and PC gaming hasn't died or started dying, you'll say, "Let's wait another five years and see what happens."

[Ravensword]

Seival wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

It's obvious that the main idea being conveyed by the people of the thread is that great graphics aren't as important as great gameplay and a great story. Anyone who says otherwise should just pack up their console or PC and look to films for their recreation rather than gaming.

It's obvious that the main failure conveyed by the people of the thread is that feature creeping is what makes a game great, not great graphics great story and acceptible gameplay. Anyone who see that failure as something trustworthy, should pack their PCs and go playing some Pillars of Eternity in a local museum.

No, you're the one that presents the idea that shiny graphics are the most important aspect of video games. But, please, continue to consume the products of Quantic Dream. God knows that David Cage could use the business once the novelty of Quantic Dream games wears off, and those who aren't in if for the shiny graphics gravitate away from them.

[Seival]

wolfhowwl wrote...

Seival wrote...
Upgradeablity of a console is not an advantage, it's a failure to create some final stable product.

How is upgradeability not an advantage?

Do you really want to be stuck with whatever parts Sony stuck in there to minimize their costs for an entire console lifecycle of 8 years?

I have nothing against consoles life cycle, because my PS4 will be as good as any top-end PC (which will be 10 times more expensive, by the way) for these 8 years. More importantly, I will have actual next-gen games in my disposal.

[ruggly]

DominusVita wrote...

People's preferences for/against one or the other are going to vary. There is no golden answer for everyone, though I'd be blind to say graphics didn't make a very significant difference to my playthrough of a title.

I do enjoy good graphics, but what a lot of people are also arguing against is that they also all have to be completely realistic.  Somehow a game like The Walking Dead can't be a good game because they used cell-shading tactics.

I don't think all games need to be uncanny valley.  I like the look of cell shading in games like TWD or BL, or the WoW look in Kingdoms of Amalur. Not everything needs to have mocapped famous actors like Beyond: Tw Souls.

[The Night Mammoth]

Seival wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

Seival wrote...
Upgradeablity of a console is not an advantage, it's a failure to create some final stable product.

How is upgradeability not an advantage?

Do you really want to be stuck with whatever parts Sony stuck in there to minimize their costs for an entire console lifecycle of 8 years?

I have nothing against consoles life cycle, because my PS4 will be as good as any top-end PC (which will be 10 times more expensive, by the way) for these 8 years. More importantly, I will have actual next-gen games in my disposal.

You don't need a top-end PC to beat the PS4. Mid-range PC's that exist now can do that, and no, they aren't more expensive, gaming requires more than just the machine itself. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 19 décembre 2013 - 09:19 .

[Seival]

ruggly wrote...

Then what was the point of upgrading the hardware of consoles if it's not an advantage?

Compensating devs' inability to create powerful and stable product themselves?
Paying extra money for someone's failure?

...Choose the point you like the most.

[Ravensword]

Seival wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

Seival wrote...
Upgradeablity of a console is not an advantage, it's a failure to create some final stable product.

How is upgradeability not an advantage?

Do you really want to be stuck with whatever parts Sony stuck in there to minimize their costs for an entire console lifecycle of 8 years?

I have nothing against consoles life cycle, because my PS4 will be as good as any top-end PC (which will be 10 times more expensive, by the way) for these 8 years. More importantly, I will have actual next-gen games in my disposal.

Where does this belief that the hardware in your PS4 will remain on the cutting edge for the next eight years come from? 

Modifié par Ravensword, 19 décembre 2013 - 09:40 .

[wolfhowwl]

Holy ****.

Seival thinks you need a $4000 PC to beat the PS4!

With that you could have two ****ing GTX 780 Ti's in your rig!!

HAHAHAHA

[Liamv2]

PC gaming is one of those things that simply cannot die. If developers stop making games for PC they will just use emulators and the like. There is also kickstarter/indie games. PC's cost is made up for by fluidity.

[Seival]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

Seival wrote...
Upgradeablity of a console is not an advantage, it's a failure to create some final stable product.

How is upgradeability not an advantage?

Do you really want to be stuck with whatever parts Sony stuck in there to minimize their costs for an entire console lifecycle of 8 years?

I have nothing against consoles life cycle, because my PS4 will be as good as any top-end PC (which will be 10 times more expensive, by the way) for these 8 years. More importantly, I will have actual next-gen games in my disposal.

You don't need a top-end PC to beat the PS4. Mid-range PC's that exist now can do that, and no, they aren't more expensive, gaming requires more than just the machine itself. 

I'm afraid they cannot. Mid-range PCs can't sustain even Witcher 2 with acceptible FPS on the highest settings.

PC games are not optimized for hardware they are designed for, and noone bothers to fix that trend.
Good PC hardware is too expensive, consumes too much power, and stop fuctioning ideally too fast.

[AresKeith]

AresKeith wrote...

 You should check this out Seival, make sure to post in the thread too

http://social.biowar...ndex/17698155/1

[ruggly]

Read up

[The Night Mammoth]

Seival wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

Seival wrote...
Upgradeablity of a console is not an advantage, it's a failure to create some final stable product.

How is upgradeability not an advantage?

Do you really want to be stuck with whatever parts Sony stuck in there to minimize their costs for an entire console lifecycle of 8 years?

I have nothing against consoles life cycle, because my PS4 will be as good as any top-end PC (which will be 10 times more expensive, by the way) for these 8 years. More importantly, I will have actual next-gen games in my disposal.

You don't need a top-end PC to beat the PS4. Mid-range PC's that exist now can do that, and no, they aren't more expensive, gaming requires more than just the machine itself. 

I'm afraid they cannot. Mid-range PCs can't sustain even Witcher 2 with acceptible FPS on the highest settings.

That's completely wrong. Mid-range PCs to you are probably what everyone else thinks of as cheap work notebooks for kids and old people. 

PC games are not optimized for hardware they are designed for, and noone bothers to fix that trend.

Two things here. 

One, it depends on the game. 

Two, the PS4 uses a PC architecture. Last gen, with the PS3, you might have had an argument. Not anymore though.

Good PC hardware is too expensive,

Define expensive.

consumes too much power,

No one trying to decide between a PC and a console should care about power consumption. It's not a concern, not something accurately measurable, and there isn't that much of a difference.

and stop fuctioning ideally too fast.

Stop functioning? Do mean fail, or break? Because that's false. 

[Cyonan]

Seival wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

Seival wrote...
Upgradeablity of a console is not an advantage, it's a failure to create some final stable product.

How is upgradeability not an advantage?

Do you really want to be stuck with whatever parts Sony stuck in there to minimize their costs for an entire console lifecycle of 8 years?

I have nothing against consoles life cycle, because my PS4 will be as good as any top-end PC (which will be 10 times more expensive, by the way) for these 8 years. More importantly, I will have actual next-gen games in my disposal.

You don't need a top-end PC to beat the PS4. Mid-range PC's that exist now can do that, and no, they aren't more expensive, gaming requires more than just the machine itself. 

I'm afraid they cannot. Mid-range PCs can't sustain even Witcher 2 with acceptible FPS on the highest settings.

PC games are not optimized for hardware they are designed for, and noone bothers to fix that trend.
Good PC hardware is too expensive, consumes too much power, and stop fuctioning ideally too fast.

My top end PC that cost me nowhere near $4000 USD already beats out your PS4, however.

With $4000, I could probably build a PC that will beat the PS5.

[Seival]

Cyonan wrote...

Seival wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Seival wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...

Seival wrote...
Upgradeablity of a console is not an advantage, it's a failure to create some final stable product.

How is upgradeability not an advantage?

Do you really want to be stuck with whatever parts Sony stuck in there to minimize their costs for an entire console lifecycle of 8 years?

I have nothing against consoles life cycle, because my PS4 will be as good as any top-end PC (which will be 10 times more expensive, by the way) for these 8 years. More importantly, I will have actual next-gen games in my disposal.

You don't need a top-end PC to beat the PS4. Mid-range PC's that exist now can do that, and no, they aren't more expensive, gaming requires more than just the machine itself. 

I'm afraid they cannot. Mid-range PCs can't sustain even Witcher 2 with acceptible FPS on the highest settings.

PC games are not optimized for hardware they are designed for, and noone bothers to fix that trend.
Good PC hardware is too expensive, consumes too much power, and stop fuctioning ideally too fast.

My top end PC that cost me nowhere near $4000 USD already beats out your PS4, however.

With $4000, I could probably build a PC that will beat the PS5.

Really? An example of a game with better graphics than in K:SF please?

Keep in mind, that the game should also show 60 FPS at any moment.

EDIT: And maybe your PC can record your gameplay in real time without even little FPS drop?

Modifié par Seival, 19 décembre 2013 - 09:45 .

[Ravensword]

Liamv2 wrote...

PC gaming is one of those things that simply cannot die. If developers stop making games for PC they will just use emulators and the like. There is also kickstarter/indie games. PC's cost is made up for by fluidity.

Kickstarter or indie games? Pfft. Those are for museums... that is if we're to take Seival at his word.

[AresKeith]

Seival you were asked to do one thing