PC.
Although it made not support mods, any PC game will ALWAYS support mods.
Take ME3 for example. An awesome team fixed the ending and made it flow with the Citadel DLC.
Must be a blow to morale where people (on their free time) have to work (for free) to fix an ending 
Console I hate playing games on my PC.
Will play on PC, like I've done for every Bioware game. Even though Frostbite isn't mod-friendly, basic mods are better than no mods at all.
PC for me. I started out playing 1-3 on xbox but since I'm not planning to buy a new console I recently started playing them on PC instead.
Here's hoping my rig can handle Andromeda. It's got three years on it already.
PC for me. I started out playing 1-3 on xbox but since I'm not planning to buy a new console I recently started playing them on PC instead.
Here's hoping my rig can handle Andromeda. It's got three years on it already.
So what's in it?
Consoles can't even run current games properly. An semi open world game with those graphics? I don't think so. I mean they weren't even able to run BF4 in 1080p at 60 fps. But really with hardware like that I didn't expect them to.
This why I despise the so-called "PC Master Race" and "Hardcore Gamers" they are nothing more than a group of tech fetchists, who think a game that doesn't run 60 fps or has hi-def realistic graphics that it is a piece of crap and that every worthless and stupid POS 2-bit mod makes them better than people who just want to play games for fun.
Let this old hardcore console player break this down for you: take you specs and stuff them where the sun don't shine.
I didn't give a damn about the specs when I was a PC gamer in the past which FTR was the worst experience I've had as a player,
I don't give a damn about your stupid specs, NOW.
And most likely I won't give a damn ever.
If the game works the way it's supposed to and I have fun playing it, That is all that matters to me and if doesn't I will re-sell or delete it.
This why I despise the so-called "PC Master Race" and "Hardcore Gamers" they are nothing more than a group of tech fetchists, who think a game that doesn't run 60 fps or has hi-def realistic graphics that it is a piece of crap and that every worthless and stupid POS 2-bit mod makes them better than people who just want to play games for fun.
Let this old hardcore console player break this down for you: take you specs and stuff them where the sun don't shine.
I didn't give a damn about the specs when I was a PC gamer in the past which FTR was the worst experience I've had as a player,
I don't give a damn about your stupid specs, NOW.
And most likely I won't give a damn ever.
If the game works the way it's supposed to and I have fun playing it, That is all that matters to me and if doesn't I will re-sell or delete it.
That's a very eloquent, reasonable and logical argument. I'm sure you'll have no trouble at all convincing others of your viewpoint.
PC, definitely. It's got a couple of advantages for me and I don't even own a current gen console.
That said, I'd agree that it's difficult to break it down to specs as Novak tried to do. The issue is not so much the hardware that is probably inferior on consoles. After all, most games are designed for consoles specifically, which means that their hardware is used to an optimal extent. This can be done because the hardware is static and equal for each player. It doesn't work on PC because of the uncountable combinations of hardware (from manufacturers to models to customization) and software (from OS to drivers to utility programs that may run in the background) that people might have.
The xbox 360 and ps3 had massively outdated hardware even at the time of their initial release already (the 360 had 512 MB RAM). Still, because the hardware could be optimally used, developers could build games that would never run on an equal PC setup properly. More than that, since those games were most often designed for the consoles first and then ported to PC, everything from framerate optimization to controls to GUI may actually be much worse on PC, while there are basically no projects that are specifically designed to take advantage of the superior hardware of the PC (the only examples that come to mind in the last few years are Crysis and Star Citizen). Usually PC games will always adapt to the much bigger console market, not the other way round.
It's basically the exact same situation for this generation of consoles. So don't kid yourselves PC players, all that fancy hardware will never make as much difference as the pure numbers would suggest.
PC, definitely. It's got a couple of advantages for me and I don't even own a current gen console.
That said, I'd agree that it's difficult to break it down to specs as Novak tried to do. The issue is not so much the hardware that is probably inferior on consoles. After all, most games are designed for consoles specifically, which means that their hardware is used to an optimal extent. This can be done because the hardware is static and equal for each player. It doesn't work on PC because of the uncountable combinations of hardware (from manufacturers to models to customization) and software (from OS to drivers to utility programs that may run in the background) that people might have.
The xbox 360 and ps3 had massively outdated hardware even at the time of their initial release already (the 360 had 512 MB RAM). Still, because the hardware could be optimally used, developers could build games that would never run on an equal PC setup properly. More than that, since those games were most often designed for the consoles first and then ported to PC, everything from framerate optimization to controls to GUI may actually be much worse on PC, while there are basically no projects that are specifically designed to take advantage of the superior hardware of the PC (the only examples that come to mind in the last few years are Crysis and Star Citizen). Usually PC games will always adapt to the much bigger console market, not the other way round.
It's basically the exact same situation for this generation of consoles. So don't kid yourselves PC players, all that fancy hardware will never make as much difference as the pure numbers would suggest.
Except that developers haven't had to code based on the hardware used in ages. Sure, you still have to take x86 into account but for the most part you code for interfaces like DirectX, OpenGL and .NET Framework. You have the AMD/ATI and the NVIDIA drivers and that's it. No dev needs to bother with the countless combinations of CPU + GPU, that's all taken care of already.
Consoles limit what devs can do because they need to enable the underpowered boxes to run their games. If they developed for PC (while completely disregarding the consoles), we'd get larger games with less loading screens, displaying worlds that are alive with hundreds of NPCs and all that with almost realistic graphics. Typically a dev will create a game on PC and then cut out features so consoles can run it.
I've been playing my new Xbox One more as of late but I had All 3 ME3 games and all 3 DA games on PC and I plan on continuing that.
This why I despise the so-called "PC Master Race" and "Hardcore Gamers" they are nothing more than a group of tech fetchists, who think a game that doesn't run 60 fps or has hi-def realistic graphics that it is a piece of crap and that every worthless and stupid POS 2-bit mod makes them better than people who just want to play games for fun.
Let this old hardcore console player break this down for you: take you specs and stuff them where the sun don't shine.
I didn't give a damn about the specs when I was a PC gamer in the past which FTR was the worst experience I've had as a player,
I don't give a damn about your stupid specs, NOW.
And most likely I won't give a damn ever.
If the game works the way it's supposed to and I have fun playing it, That is all that matters to me and if doesn't I will re-sell or delete it.
Not really what I was getting at. I really only have a problem with the current generation of consoles because they weren't future proof. I can also tell you the only reason why I would even care to discuss the consoles in the first place. It's quite simple really, and it's the same reason many people only want consoles which is perfectly fine to be honest. Lead platform of development is the console, which in itself would be also perfectly fine but that means that devs are setting graphics benchmarks at console level. Not what is currently possible, which means graphics advancements slow down. I mean look at Crysis which was a PC exclusive, some of the stuff they implemented is still top notch and that game came out in 2007. And that's just what happens when you develop for PC.
In reality I used to own a xbox 360 until the thing died on me due to heat death. But all in all, I liked the console, I liked playing on it, I liked the exclusive and I can totally understand why people would buy them or why it is the better choice for many many gamers. I'm not even arguing that, I mean I've been trying for quite a while to get some sort of unified store front to work properly, but that's pretty much impossible. Consoles are way better when it comes to unified experience, even though you have to cut some corners. I really just hoped that the consoles would have beefed up hardware which would allow devs to set up a higher base line so gaming as a whole can evolve further.
That being said PC is not exactly at a golden age either. 4k still doesn't work as well as I'd want it to, fragmantation in hardware is a real problem when it comes to optimization time required and most of all the fragmentation on the software bases is totally horrible. I mean steam, uplay, orign, blizzard and more are basically all needed clients to keep games up to date. And then there's the whole piracy issue which doesn't really help when a publisher decides on a main platform.
Except that developers haven't had to code based on the hardware used in ages. Sure, you still have to take x86 into account but for the most part you code for interfaces like DirectX, OpenGL and .NET Framework. You have the AMD/ATI and the NVIDIA drivers and that's it. No dev needs to bother with the countless combinations of CPU + GPU, that's all taken care of already.
True but because the devs know exactly the specs they can work with on the consoles, they can use these to their full potential and optimize based on these constraints. A luxury you don't have on PCs.
Consoles limit what devs can do because they need to enable the underpowered boxes to run their games. If they developed for PC (while completely disregarding the consoles), we'd get larger games with less loading screens, displaying worlds that are alive with hundreds of NPCs and all that with almost realistic graphics. Typically a dev will create a game on PC and then cut out features so consoles can run it.
Yea, that was part of my point. Consoles are the bigger, more profitable market. Since this marked is the one most devs/publishers will primarily cater to, this limits the advantage of PC hardware over console hardware. No one ever said this was great for PC enthusiasts (like me) but it is a reality.
Typically a dev will create a game on PC and then cut out features so consoles can run it.
That used to be the case, but not anymore. Now you get only beefed up settings but nothing new that a PC could handle but consoles can't.
I'm just a peasant.
I shall be playing on an XBone in my mud hut among the other lowly serfs.
True but because the devs know exactly the specs they can work with on the consoles, they can use these to their full potential and optimize based on these constraints. A luxury you don't have on PCs.
But it would be better if they could see what they can get out of the PC (even if high end gpu's can't run it buttery smooth yet but the next cycle can) and then look what can not be realized on the console. Cutting stuff out is easier than initial implementation.
That used to be the case, but not anymore. Now you get only beefed up settings but nothing new that a PC could handle but consoles can't.
It's what BioWare allegedly did with DA:I. They showed their alpha, demonstrating gameplay features (like big keep defense battles) they eventually had to cut out because the consoles couldn't handle them.
ME3 MP has a similiar problem, the PS3 can't handle the Collectors as enemy, the console freezes often.
It depends on budget, interface preference and your own personal standards regarding performance. Personally I barely notice framerate issues unless it dips into the low teens but other people get motion sickness at sub 60. Texture pop in and native resolution, even low texture quality is not a big deal to me. Lighting/shading, texture filtering recent DirectX/OpenGL advances are not something most really people care about unless you have a PC that costs about as much as as a small family car and you want to put that baby to work. Does hairworks make TW3 a better game. Not to me personally.
I used to play ME3 on the console and I thought the same as you did, but as I played it on the PC and then went back to the console I saw all the issues. But I still don't think PC is for everyone, and consoles enabled gaming to become truly mainstream.
PC, definitely. It's got a couple of advantages for me and I don't even own a current gen console.
That said, I'd agree that it's difficult to break it down to specs as Novak tried to do. The issue is not so much the hardware that is probably inferior on consoles. After all, most games are designed for consoles specifically, which means that their hardware is used to an optimal extent. This can be done because the hardware is static and equal for each player. It doesn't work on PC because of the uncountable combinations of hardware (from manufacturers to models to customization) and software (from OS to drivers to utility programs that may run in the background) that people might have.
The xbox 360 and ps3 had massively outdated hardware even at the time of their initial release already (the 360 had 512 MB RAM). Still, because the hardware could be optimally used, developers could build games that would never run on an equal PC setup properly. More than that, since those games were most often designed for the consoles first and then ported to PC, everything from framerate optimization to controls to GUI may actually be much worse on PC, while there are basically no projects that are specifically designed to take advantage of the superior hardware of the PC (the only examples that come to mind in the last few years are Crysis and Star Citizen). Usually PC games will always adapt to the much bigger console market, not the other way round.
It's basically the exact same situation for this generation of consoles. So don't kid yourselves PC players, all that fancy hardware will never make as much difference as the pure numbers would suggest.
I agree to some extend and PC has it's own problems right now. It just saddens me when I know even with the variety and all the hardware mixing they could be further along if they designed some of the games with the PC specifically in mind.
Lasse Pulkinnen explains this really well, and why PC currently is on the same level as consoles are. (Well effectively as the situation is)
PS4 or Xbox One.
If ME:A gets a PS4 theme then that will tip the scale for me.
It's what BioWare allegedly did with DA:I. They showed their alpha, demonstrating gameplay features (like big keep defense battles) they eventually had to cut out because the consoles couldn't handle them.
ME3 MP has a similiar problem, the PS3 can't handle the Collectors as enemy, the console freezes often.
Not only that, but then there's ubisoft who shows the graphically superior alpha build of their games but then dumps the downgraded versions because they realized that consoles can't handle it. Which would be fine if they simply sat down and did that for the console while retaining the graphics possible on a PC. But they don't simply because publishers don't want a way better looking game on the PC and don't want the console players to feel left out.
if a game comes out for PC I'll play it on the PC. My XBox One is kinda collecting dust.
PC. For some games I like the focus of the monitor in my face and this is one of them. More casual action games like the uncharted series are perfect for consoles.
I'm thinking of getting the steam device that sends the data over wifi to your monitor/tv but I'm not sure if it works good enough, or of a non branded version works better.(need to research still)
If it does my PC which is in a seperate room with a couch and tv for my ps4 will have most games on PC. I'll have the direct setup to my monitor for games that I prefer like that and the tv for more casual games still using my PC.
I prefer the pc more for steam/gog/origin than its specs. I love having a massive digital library. Consoles while capable of digital purchases don't seem to do it as well.
Steam in home streaming works pretty well. I tried it. But you probably need a gigabit ethernet connection wifi ain't cuttin it.
I used to play ME3 on the console and I thought the same as you did, but as I played it on the PC and then went back to the console I saw all the issues. But I still don't think PC is for everyone, and consoles enabled gaming to become truly mainstream.
Retour en haut