61 réponses à ce sujet

[Fexelea]

[quote]Maviarab wrote...

I would agree Fera primarily because:
*get your flames ready people*

The 'modern' gamer does not really have the time to spend playing games, the modern gamer does not generally have the attention span for huge cpomplex games....the modern gamer is becoming lazy....

need facts? Look at the PS3's latest and greatest offering....8 hours to complete? I mean come on seriously...its an insult to anyone... [/quote]

If you are talking about GOW3, you are missing the vital fact that the game is aimed at people who replay on higher difficulties, that is the core of the "action" game, and the 8 hours that you describe will hardly be apt for the "lazy", since you can get your arse kicked if you are not paying attention. The first God of War could be completed in 5 hours. This one has a minimum of 8, I don't see how that is less than before, or becoming lazy. But then you add another 8-12 hours for each 4 extra difficulty modes, plus the challenges. I will be entertained with this game for much more than 50 hours. I find it funny how people defend the price of Awakening that can be beaten in 15 hours advocating hours are not the right measure for value, yet are ready to trash a very different game because of the "hours".

[quote]Maviarab wrote...
Historically, pc games have been sit down and concentrate games (this is now changing) and console games have been ailed more towards the 'younger' gaming market and those who want a 'pick up and play' game, something to do for an hour before you go out. [/quote]

I dispute that generalization. Do you think Devil May Cry can be picked up for an hour before you go out? How about Demon's Souls? Heavy Rain? Do you honestly think that PC gamers are more "mature" or older than console gamers? PSN average age in USA is 28. The same survey in asia showed median age 35. And 40% of users are over 40. Really, not precisely immature lazy teens.

[quote]Maviarab wrote...
Most console games are geared and playing with friends, or for kids. [/quote]

You are demonstrating outstanding ignorance of the console market.

[quote]Maviarab wrote...
People can argue this fact all day long, but out of the last 500 games to come out for consoles (all of them)...how many of them would you actually classify as 'adult' games? Not so many, I already know, Im just getting you to think about it. [/quote]

Merin did a good job with this. You seriously need to inform yourself before you say console games are for kids or multiplayer only. Actually, you should inform yourself before you say anything.

[quote]Maviarab wrote...
And unfortunatly for the pc market, that section of the gameing market (for consoles) is very large, so its natural publishers will want to crack that market. are they actually better games? well thats another debatable point. [/quote]


I have already posted on this subject.

[quote]Maviarab wrote...
I find it amazingly funny (there is a current thread at the moment here in the forums) that people on consoles are getting all excited at the possibility of modding their save games lmao....really? Just get a decent PC and be done with it.... [/quote]

I have a very high end pc. I have Dragon Age Origins for it. I want mods to work in my console of choice because I prefer the PS3. You have no place telling me what I should like better.

[quote]Maviarab wrote...


what you want from your game cannot be achieved on a console, [/quote]

And how exactly do you know what I want from my game? How presumptious of you.

[quote]Maviarab wrote...
yet people still think its a better platform, yet moan when the PC users get a better deal from a game....hey, it was your chice to spend (almost) as much on a small box as what a good pc would have cost you. [/quote]


My PS3 cost me 200 USD. It comes with a Blu Ray Player, a warranty, the approppriate controller, HDMI output and I can play current-gen games today and 2 years from now. Care to point me towards a PC that will do the same for the same or "almost" as much? You can't, because the high-end gaming PC costs much more than that, does not come with a warranty if you put it together, and you then need to buy a gaming KB and a precision mouse. 

Now that is aside... I like the PS3 better! I like the controls better, and I don't like sitting in front of the PC on my free time. I spend all day working on the PC, I rather kick back in my bed/sofa to relax. Computer needs a mouse. Mouse + bed don't go well together. PS3 wins! : But that is just me. I don't feel the need to tell others their choices are wrong and their choice in inferior, like you seem to. How sad.

[quote]Maviarab wrote...
Also, we hve to lok at lifestyles, again people in general are getting lazier, they do not want the (supposed) hassle that comes witha pc, they want to buy a disc, put in their little shiny box and play the game. [/quote]



And now you presume to know what the lifestyles of console gamers are about. You know what, I really enjoy the "insert disc and play" aspect. That does not mean I'm a lazy person. It means I prefer not to have to wiggle with DRM on my free time. My choice. You are in no position to go around saying that makes anyone lazy, since you have absolutely no idea of what sort of person I am.

[quote]Maviarab wrote...
The PC market will never die, it just continually changes and evolves. [/quote]

I absolutely agree

[quote]Maviarab wrote...
In my opinion, the only time the PC market will die (for games) is when people like myself (and of a similar age) can no longer understand how to play a damn game because we are too addled in the head....but thats not going to happ[en for another 40 years or so... [/quote]

Sigh the age thing again. You do realize that over 30% of PC gamers are between 18-20 right? You really think they won't continue to support the platform? The PC is not the dear darling of good ol mature gamers only as you seem to imply. It is a platform that many, of varied ages, enjoy, and it will continue to thrive as long as the market remains profitable, which has nothing to do with 40 somethings turning into 70 somethings and giving up gaming, because you are assuming there is no new generation to take over.

[quote]Maviarab wrote...
Also, lets take a look at the future of gaming for a moment shall we? Full immersive VR.... [/quote]

Oh... The future of gaming. I will take a moment to quote one of the pioneers of VR for games, right after a demonstration to the press some 15 years ago: "What we realized at the conference, is that when VR is happening, Reality isn't happening". This means: you can't sell this experience. Project was closed. Other methods of making gaming more interactive were looked into... the Wii popped up! (ugh)

[quote]Maviarab wrote...
you really think...honestly, thata console will give you that? No it won't (and anyone who thinks it will is kidding themselves), a PC once again will be the forefront of that technology (we already have it if you can afford it btw)....[/quote]

Regardless of how possible or not it is, VR is not the future of gaming, at least for the foreseeable future that any of us care about. Who knows how consoles will look like in 10 years from now.

[valkyrie0]

I think that the fundamental issue is that consoles offer most of what people who play video games want for the money. An arguably better interface (mouse/keyboard), higher visual quality and modding capabilities cannot make up for the advantages of the console: resell of games (publisher's alternative to piracy), cheap up-front costs, wide publisher support.



The problem with my gaming pc (of which I enjoy Dragon's Age on) is that it costs just as much (not including games) as an XBox 360, PS3 and Wii put together, and even a cheap 32'' TV. Purely based on cost/benefit, I personally can't justify buying another gaming pc.

[xDarkicex]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

No, I don't think they are.
PC games have to cater to a variety of specifications whereas console games have to cater to a small set of hardware revisions. The 360 and PS3 would likely be in the mid to mid-high quality of a PC game, and the PC game would have to cater from low to high, if that makes sense. If they didn't do this, they'd cut out a lot of buyers.
What I think is holding back PC development is the small uptake of blu-ray drives (blu-ray = more space = more content), the rareness of solid state drives (they read/write faster than a conventional HDD) and the fact a lot of developers aren't willing to cut out single-core just yet.
Console games tend to... affect PC development in a few ways, not necessarily bad. Some games are clearly designed to use a controller (GTA, IMHO, is best with a controller) and others are best with a keyboard and mouse (FPS games are better with keyboard and mouse; the level of accuracy a mouse gives you can be insane. Shadowrun for the 360/PC is a good example of what I mean. RTS and RPGs tend to be better on the PC too).
What I wish developers would also do is cut down on cross-platform. Make PC games for PCs, make console games for consoles. Don't give us each other's games. Except Fable 2. We want that

No you are with out a doubt 100% dead wrong a xbox and a ps3 don't equal anywhere close to a even a dell computer for 400$ now days look 400$ dell you get a least 3GB of ram dual core CPU right there whoops on any console out as for GPU's can you say extremely out dated

[Balerion84]

Yes and no.

Consoles aren't holding back "development", but they are holding back graphics. For example DX11 and tesselation. That's good and bad. It's good because my 3 years old PC can handle all current games (though I'm building a new one) and you know it's bad when CryEngine 3 is worse than CryEngine 2.

[Loerwyn]

xDarkicex wrote...
No you are with out a doubt 100% dead wrong a xbox and a ps3 don't equal anywhere close to a even a dell computer for 400$ now days look 400$ dell you get a least 3GB of ram dual core CPU right there whoops on any console out as for GPU's can you say extremely out dated

... I'm not wrong.
The Xbox 360 has a 3.2GHz tri-core CPU, for a start. Very few consumer CPUs sell at that speed, if any. Dual core has been the "base CPU" for most PCs for a few years now, but the 360 certainly beats, I would assume, most PCs in the CPU department.
The PS3's Cell CPU is also at 3.2GHz, although it isn't split into cores in the same way.
Consoles are purpose built for gaming - A PC, even if built just to play games, is not specialized to just run games. PC hardware (and software) would generally have to support a lot more features.
The gap has pretty much closed between the 360 and PCs in terms of hardware, but it's ridiculous to compare them like you have. The 360/PS3 are specialized tools, the PC is a jack-of-all-trades.

[Faz432]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

... I'm not wrong.
The Xbox 360 has a 3.2GHz tri-core CPU, for a start. Very few consumer CPUs sell at that speed, if any. Dual core has been the "base CPU" for most PCs for a few years now, but the 360 certainly beats, I would assume, most PCs in the CPU department.
The PS3's Cell CPU is also at 3.2GHz, although it isn't split into cores in the same way.
Consoles are purpose built for gaming - A PC, even if built just to play games, is not specialized to just run games. PC hardware (and software) would generally have to support a lot more features.
The gap has pretty much closed between the 360 and PCs in terms of hardware, but it's ridiculous to compare them like you have. The 360/PS3 are specialized tools, the PC is a jack-of-all-trades.

You must be joking??

Considering what real high-end gaming PC's are now, I would put a Xbox 360 at Low range gaming in term of graphic processing power.

It's not just the direct cosequences of graphic power but also (as someone has already said) the amount of space needed for the game infomation for example -

Mass effect 1 had large enviroments to explore but poor graphic textures and was able to fit on 1 dvd, where as Mass effect 2 didn't have the large enviroments but had improved textures and yet took the space of 2 dvds.

This is basically down to higher resolution images obviously being larger files and because you have to tailor it to a console you might have to sacrifice the other aspects of the game to incorperate better graphics. If the game is made just for PC you don't really have the same issues, as PC gamers will be happy with 4, 5, 6, nth number of disks if needed, as the game information is install on the PC and space on a PC is not at a premium, so you don't have to compromise anything.

At the end of the day, MS and Sony need to release new systems because if they don't, games released on both consoles and PCs will just reach a limit (if they haven't already) and they will start to impact on the potential of the games we all really want to see be great. (DA:2 & ME3)

Modifié par Faz432, 29 mars 2010 - 11:52 .

[Surango]

Faz432 wrote...

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

... I'm not wrong.
The Xbox 360 has a 3.2GHz tri-core CPU, for a start. Very few consumer CPUs sell at that speed, if any. Dual core has been the "base CPU" for most PCs for a few years now, but the 360 certainly beats, I would assume, most PCs in the CPU department.
The PS3's Cell CPU is also at 3.2GHz, although it isn't split into cores in the same way.
Consoles are purpose built for gaming - A PC, even if built just to play games, is not specialized to just run games. PC hardware (and software) would generally have to support a lot more features.
The gap has pretty much closed between the 360 and PCs in terms of hardware, but it's ridiculous to compare them like you have. The 360/PS3 are specialized tools, the PC is a jack-of-all-trades.

You must be joking??

Considering what real high-end gaming PC's are now, I would put a Xbox 360 at Low range gaming.

Computers geared towards gaming are still a fairly small market share. Yes, they're better equipped for handling graphics and making everything look absolutely amazing. BUT, most people (myself included) aren't going to spend over $2,000USD on a computer to play games on. That's not counting the high end video card, monitor(s), imput devices, ect. By the time you're finished, you've spent 3-4k to play video games.  I just bought a middle of the run computer, all in all, about $1,000. That's a good sized chunk to a lot of us. DA plays well on it too.

[Faz432]

Console gamers always over inflate the prices of PCs, you could get a PC now that would blitz DA:O for £300-£500.

Of course you could spend £1000, £2000 or even £4000+ but don't make out like it's necessary.

Modifié par Faz432, 29 mars 2010 - 10:18 .

[mattp420]

Faz432 wrote...

Console gamers always over inflate the prices of PCs, you could get a PC now that would blitz DA:O for £300-£500.

Of course you could spend £1000, £2000 or even £4000+ but don't make out like it's necessary.

Translation:

Console gamers always over inflate the prices of PCs, you could get a PC now that would blitz DA:O for $450-750.

Of course you could spend $1500, $3000, or even $6000+ but don't make out like it's necessary.

All values taken from xe.com around 1730hrs GMT-6.

[Surango]

Faz432 wrote...

Console gamers always over inflate the prices of PCs, you could get a PC now that would blitz DA:O for £300-£500.

Of course you could spend £1000, £2000 or even £4000+ but don't make out like it's necessary.

Not trying to make it out to be necessary. I happen to have a computer like that myself in the lower price range that plays DAO quite nicely. I thought I made that clear.

To be more clear, I'm one of those "my computer does everything" kind of people- I no longer own a television, much less a console.

[JHorwath]

Technically speaking, isn't a console a computer?  I mean it's not a personal computer or a mac but I kind of think it's a form of a computer.

Modifié par JHorwath, 29 mars 2010 - 11:50 .

[Faz432]

mattp420 wrote...

Faz432 wrote...

Console gamers always over inflate the prices of PCs, you could get a PC now that would blitz DA:O for £300-£500.

Of course you could spend £1000, £2000 or even £4000+ but don't make out like it's necessary.

Translation:

Console gamers always over inflate the prices of PCs, you could get a PC now that would blitz DA:O for $450-750.

Of course you could spend $1500, $3000, or even $6000+ but don't make out like it's necessary.

All values taken from xe.com around 1730hrs GMT-6.

Hmmm, I'm not sure if that's how it works tbh, I might be wrong but the prices might be adjusted in different countries to compensate for currency values.

anyone know for sure?