1401 réponses à ce sujet

[frank_is_crank]

... bump to page 40. Yay.

[frank_is_crank]

Reserved for future use.

[Marksmad is waving goodbye]

Krolord.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Krolord.

 

Commonly known as Worlard.

[Deerber]

So, page 40 and no one has adopted Claymoar master race yet? Tsk... Bsn, I am disappointed.

[DaemionMoadrin]

So, page 40 and no one has adopted Claymoar master race yet? Tsk... Bsn, I am disappointed.

 

What would that look like? "Hello, my name is Deerber and I'm a Claymore."? Doesn't really work.

[capn233]

OP stole my credit chit.  Because OP is clanless like that, and that is what they do.

 

[Dunmer of Redoran]

So, page 40 and no one has adopted Claymoar master race yet? Tsk... Bsn, I am disappointed.

 

Derbeer pls

 

My people of choice only use Goldbrand, the Ebony Blade, Keening, Sunder, Hopesfire, Trueflame and associated armament. Claymores are for Nord Barbarians and Dremoras.

[Deerber]

Derbeer pls

 

My people of choice only use Goldbrand, the Ebony Blade, Keening, Sunder, Hopesfire, Trueflame and associated armament. Claymores are for Nord Barbarians and Dremoras.

 

Well. Chrysamere wasn't half bad either! And I've always thought Keening should have been at least a long sword, too...

[Learn To Love Yourself]

Wow, this thread is still alive, eh?

 

 

I guess my post doesn't really change that.

[TheN7Penguin]

I'm sorry, but Turrets are superior to Claymores.

[TheN7Penguin]

On a random note, today I bought the N7 Collector's Edition from CEX (a second hand game shop), because it was £10 and the steel case was beautiful and I wanted it.

Little did I know - the edition came with everything working, all the codes, the art book, the comic, the lithograph, the N7 patch, the robot dog, etc.

I'm quite happy.

[Marksmad is waving goodbye]

 

I'm quite happy.

Reported.

[TheN7Penguin]

[Dunmer of Redoran]

Well. Chrysamere wasn't half bad either! And I've always thought Keening should have been at least a long sword, too...

Dual wielding a longsword and a giant hammer feels like overkill, but they're Dwemer weapons. Merely by existing, they're overkill. Approved!

[TheN7Penguin]

Dual wielding anything is OP.

[Best of the Best]

There is only one true master race, and that is PC

[TheN7Penguin]

I would disagree.

[Marksmad is waving goodbye]

There is only one true master race, and that is PC

There's a term that very few people can spell, but I'll help you:

 

Use case.

[Geth Master Race]

OP stole my credit chit.  Because OP is clanless like that, and that is what they do.

 

[Best of the Best]

There's a term that very few people can spell, but I'll help you:

Use case.

I would disagree.

Dont be mad at the truth. Be mad that console gaming holds back gaming.

[TheN7Penguin]

Although PCs have the potential for better quality, that does not mean EVERY PC does. In fact, to get better quality you're probably looking at £600+. And in my experience (I do game on the PC a little as well as on the PS3), the PC is more likely to have errors. I have NEVER had any problems with my PS3, but on the PC on GTA IV and Skyrim, I have had quite a lot of problems whilst using them. So you're paying like £300 more for marginally better graphics and a higher frame rate - and then you have to pay extra for something which allows you to use some form of controller rather than a mouse and keyboard (because a mouse and keyboard is a hideously inefficient method of playing). So then you're looking at £340 more than a console for a PC even CAPABLE of running some of the newer games. For a high-end PC, you're looking at about £1000, which is ridiculous. But if you buy a lower-end one, there is no guarantee your PC will run the game - Yes, you could use "can you run it", but there are several things which come up with unknowns - again, so there is no guarantee. Whereas at least if you buy a console, you know for a FACT that the game you are buying was designed to work with your console. And controllers are the more efficient way to play games. Yes, you do not get the quality that a PC does, or the frame rate, but they are better for your money, and run games more reliably. I am not necessarily arguing that consoles are better than PCs, as the highest quality PC would s**t on all of the current consoles, but as I said - in terms of money, consoles are better, and there is no question of whether your console is up to playing a game designed for that console.

[Marksmad is waving goodbye]

Be mad that console gaming holds back gaming.

To answer your statement in precise detail:

 

No.

 

BTW, I own 4 consoles and more PCs than I care to count. Check my signature for the platforms I play on.

 

It's still a question of USE CASE. I put it in caps cos you didn't get it the first time.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Although PCs have the potential for better quality, that does not mean EVERY PC does. In fact, to get better quality you're probably looking at £600+. And in my experience (I do game on the PC a little as well as on the PS3), the PC is more likely to have errors. I have NEVER had any problems with my PS3, but on the PC on GTA IV and Skyrim, I have had quite a lot of problems whilst using them. So you're paying like £300 more for marginally better graphics and a higher frame rate - and then you have to pay extra for something which allows you to use some form of controller rather than a mouse and keyboard (because a mouse and keyboard is a hideously inefficient method of playing). So then you're looking at £340 more than a console for a PC even CAPABLE of running some of the newer games. For a high-end PC, you're looking at about £1000, which is ridiculous. But if you buy a lower-end one, there is no guarantee your PC will run the game - Yes, you could use "can you run it", but there are several things which come up with unknowns - again, so there is no guarantee. Whereas at least if you buy a console, you know for a FACT that the game you are buying was designed to work with your console. And controllers are the more efficient way to play games. Yes, you do not get the quality that a PC does, or the frame rate, but they are better for your money, and run games more reliably. I am not necessarily arguing that consoles are better than PCs, as the highest quality PC would s**t on all of the current consoles, but as I said - in terms of money, consoles are better, and there is no question of whether your console is up to playing a game designed for that console.

 

I'm always amazed that people calculate this incorrectly.

 

The console costs 300, the game costs 60, the TV/Monitor costs at least 300, too.

A good computer with monitor, periphery etc will cost about 1200. The game costs 60.

 

For one (new) game, the console wins.

 

But, are you here posting from your PS3? I don't think so. You either use your smartphone (which isn't free) or you use a computer.

 

A PC costs a lot at first but it more than makes up for it over time. Not only can you buy PC games cheaply, you get more out of them (mods, better graphics) and you aren't totally helpless if something needs to be fixed.

 

No matter from which perspective you look at it, the computer always wins longterm. Energy consumption (because you only need the one device, not 2+), versatility (it plays all games and more), comfort (you can choose any input device you want), longevity (you can upgrade it and a good gaming PC lasts for ~4 years easily) and so on.

 

Yes, consoles are easy, you don't have to concern yourself with anything, it's really just plug and play. But you don't get games as cheap as on PC, they don't looks as great and you can't mod/fix them. In terms of money, PC wins if you look at your expenses over the years. I spend maybe 200 bucks on games each year and I get at least 20 games for that. That's without counting the free games I get from Origin.

 

There are tons of games that are PC only. And you can run a lot of console games through emulators, if necessary.

 

Btw, I vehemently disagree that controllers are better input devices than keyboard/mouse. For certain games that may be true but as a general statement you are absolutely, completely and utterly wrong.

 

If the industry developed games primarily for PC, we'd be all better off. You simply have more options here, you can design different UIs, control schemes and scenarios. Ever wondered why you never really see a large army in a console game? Because their hardware couldn't render it at a sufficient framerate. PC doesn't have those problems. Most gaming PCs are hilariously overpowered for current games.

 

Please don't think your consoles are somehow magically different inside (like the Apple users believe of their machines). The new gen consoles are small PCs with AMD/ATI hardware and a custom OS. And if you compare their stats with the average computer, then the average computer wins.

[TheN7Penguin]

I have never ONCE paid £60 for a game, even when brand new.

 

It would be cheaper to buy a games console for 300, spend let's say 100 on games, and then get a 300 laptop, rather than spending £1200 on a PC, and then £100 on games. And it is better paying for things in small amounts, but relatively often (e.g. buy a console and a few games, buy a laptop later on, continue to spend £30 on games every now and again) rather than paying one huge sum out instantly, which is what buying a £1200 PC would be. Yes, I have more than £1200 pounds in my bank. But would I spend that amount of money on a PC? Nope. I could, and will at some point, however, buy a newer console with little impact on my bank, and more money would be coming in so I could still buy games for it, without £1200 being withdrawn immediately before I've even BOUGHT a game. Regardless of whether the PC is cheaper in the long term or not, buying a console is MUCH EASIER on your bank, in the same respect that paying monthly is easier than paying yearly.

 

You have to remember that I play both on the PC and console - and from what I can tell, playing with a controller is a MUCH nicer experience.