Consoles just receive significantly more support from developers on regards to triple A titles. Also, most of my friends play on consoles than PC which makes it boring for me to play on the PC side.
Sigh....
Dear Diary.
Printable View
Consoles just receive significantly more support from developers on regards to triple A titles. Also, most of my friends play on consoles than PC which makes it boring for me to play on the PC side.
Sigh....
Dear Diary.
brb just going to mod the games myself on my PC instead of waiting for devs.
The only benefits I see with consoles is that you can run any game for the coming 4-5 years at least.
Downside is that at the end of that lifecycle, you're running games at about 2FPS.
The only benefit of consoles are console exclusive games.
Consoles are more common. Honestly out of everyone I know I have one friend that is in to pc gaming, everyone else is either team PlayStation or Microsoft.
Consoles get more updates sure.
Unfortunately, they call it DLC over there, and charge money for it.
can't say i really care about either of those things too much.
what does matter is that pc games are forever, and modding. also they're cheaper.
The only reason I would ever get a console (PS4) is for Destiny. That's equivalent to $500 just to play a single game because there is nothing on PS4 that interests me.
720p, 25 fps, notnxbai.
Wii U gets 60fps. :)
What's really sad is some developers, like Ubisoft and 2K, seem to be purposely gimping the PC versions of their games in order to promote new gen consoles.
The most recent is the leak of quality reduction of The Division.
http://whatifgaming.com/the-division...d-a-few-things
Ubisoft needs to work more on fixing uplay than worrying about making games look better on PC.
I think you misunderstood. :p
The games look great but are downgraded so they aren't better than the console version. Even when WatchDogs and the Division were supposedly developed as PC being the primary platform.
Not seeing a problem if everyone is getting the same game.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarmerM
They release promotional material and gameplay footage showing the original, better graphics. They then reduce said graphics way into the pre-order phase.
For Watch Dogs they didn't even say it had been done until players called them on it. Only then did they say it was due to "stability issues." Which was proven to be a load of crap after a player found and activated the improved settings still in the code.
So, the problem is they're showing and selling it as superior but pulling it out so that in the end consoles don't look weaker.
So in addition to pulling what some consider to be a major scam, they're shooting PC gaming in the knee by not allowing it to show it's strengths.
That's not a big deal. I'd rather them fix uplay. Day one people were having problems and couldn't even play the game because of it (not to mention just other crappy stuff about it like not being able to change your id). That's a lot more important than them "hiding" super graphics for PC users.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarmerM
No one's arguing that uplay doesn't suck. It's just not the topic were discussing.
Lol, we haven't even started to talk about anti-alising on consoles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kashis
See, there is the argument that some people just don't care. That's fine. There is no argument that consoles are in the PC world what a Fiat Punto is in the car world. They will get you there somehow. They do run games, somehow. Loads of people find them good enough.
There is only one benefit and that's the price. You pay what you get and that is a unrecognizable gimped PC.
Uhhhhh.... I feel like saying only a small portion care about graphics is a underestimate. Sure, the portion maybe be smaller than the casual gaming group but it is still rather large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kashis
Minecraft was the first of its kind so people were less choosy in that genre. (Not like they have much of a choice) Now if you have a thousand racing games to choose from, graphics would start to matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loric
and yet everyone and their mother downloads the texture packs and other graphic enhancing mods. I also mentioned casual plebs don't mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loric
i never download any of that stuff. in fact, i usually lower the settings on games
Sure, ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
Most people don't drive luxury/sports cars to work everyday. Most of the time, everyone is going to be following the speed limit. PC gamers are stuck in this traffic jam just like everyone else, they are just too busy yelling to notice they are also a part of it.
Cities are not designed with the limitations of speed demons in mind. A beautiful car is nice to look at, but it's sole function is still just a car. I'm a lot more concerned with having something that is reliable and cheap that will last years, that something that is pretty much just going to depreciate in value over and be outclassed by something next year.
It only seems large because of the amount of complaining PC gamers do. The visual improvements of MMO's have come a long way and yet their gameplay is still stuck in early 2000. As visually impressive as TERA, GW2, and even FFXIV are, they still pretty average when it comes to actual gameplay, which is why everyone is constantly criticizing them. And the last time (and almost every time for that matter) when people were asked, "What are some of the best MMORGPG's?" Ragnarok online is the top choice almost all the time. I'll tell you what is almost never nominated though: anything new.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanein
Graphics are the least important aspect of gaming, and the people who focus on that are missing out on the point of gaming in general. But hey, what do I know? I'm just sitting here like a peasant enjoying my games while everyone else is complaining about not being able to use their futuristic machines to stream and record every game in colors outside our visible spectrum. I guess I got it wrong.
I'm so sad over here, having all this fun. *o*;
@Kashis:
Aside from the jam analogy just not working:
Thanks to people who think consoles are innovative, we still have games with savepoints in 2014.
Innovation ought to be the last argument for consoles ever. Cover based shooting? Quick time events? That isn't innovation, that is just the result of controllers being inadequate for doing anything that requires the least amount of dexterity.
The only innovative thing that comes to my mind when I think about consoles is Guitar Hero. That only happened, because controller input is so limiting, that console devs permanently struggle to find a desperate way to fix it. Well, that worked; Exactly once.
Save points are intentional, designed to be checkpoints. Not every game has em and plenty of console games utilize auto/instant/menu saving or none at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
No innovation from console gaming other than Guitar Hero? Wow, okay.
PC master race 1, Console Peasants 0.
(...not really)
One factor that I think has a large impact on why people choose to game on consoles, is simplicity.
Consoles are cheap, and simple. Cheap computers don't usually allow you to play current-gen games optimally anyway, and computers come with heaps of technical issues due to the vast amount of variables that go into the functioning of said computer in relation to all the software that is running on it.
Case in point, not a single computer I have ever owned lasted even close to as long as the PS2 without technical issues of one kind or another - actually, I never had technical issues with that machine even once.
An oh-so-expensive gaming computer that optimally runs all the current-gen games can still get bogged down by whatever else you happen to have on it, get viruses, crash due to errors caused by the interplay between various components, and/or incompatible software/hardware components. And, that's likely to happen, because you're probably going to use it for more than just gaming.
Now, granted that you have "teh l33t" and thus aren't bothered by issues like these, chances are you're spending quite some time and effort making sure those things don't happen. Something which many people probably can't be bothered to do, if all they really want is just to play the latest FIFA.
With a console, all you have to do is plug it in, turn it on, and play your games. The rest is self-explanatory, and requires absolutely no maintenance except for not throwing it out the window, or stomping on it in anger once you lose a round of COD online.
As far as I am concerned that's a major plus right there.
All that being said, I prefer handhelds.
I have a computer, and a console that I could game on. I don't however. All my gaming is now confined to my PS Vita, or my Xperia Play, because they're 100% hassle-free, and can be used anywhere without any concern for anything except battery-life(which is still only an issue if I'm far away from an electrical outlet, or don't have my portable charger with me).
And before anyone goes "omg what abuut da graphics" - I don't give two shits about graphics and never have. I still think Metal Gear Solid 1 is the best game in the entire MGS saga, and get more willies from the art direction in games like FF7-9, Suikoden 2, Breath of Fire 3-4 then I could ever get from games like the Last of Us, or GTA5, because I'm not stupid and is therefore capable of seeing the visual merits of art beyond how many pixels they comprise of.
People who have an issue with that kind of thinking should be oblivious to why people still read books, or old cartoons. Usually they're not, which is why I'm forced to conclude that their capacity for making informed opinions on the nature of reality is severely dysfunctional.
my mac is pretty sick at gaming.
for games that are support mac, anyway
I agree, that if you're willing to take a PC with all it's potential issues, know how to maintenance properly, and know how to use emulators, hook up controllers etc. then PC is by far the best tool for general gaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by postrook
PC elitist tend to forget that there is a large portion of gamers(and PC users as well) who're not actually capable of doing all that. I mean, people are still clicking stupid banners and installing spyware, getting infected by viruses etc. to this day. I know plenty of people who're capable of turning the PC on, surfing the net, and watching movies, but don't know how torrent works, or how to patch a video-game.
I agree that technical issues have increases with newer consoles, but I suspect that is because producers are insisting on turning consoles more and more into dumbed down computers.
As for handhelds -
The only reason handhelds can't play Shogun 2 at this moment, is because of limited hardware, and lack of interest.
The fact of the matter though, is that Vita offers several console game ports from earlier generations, which clearly shows that there is nothing inherent about the handhelds as a format that limits them from offering console-type pacing and console-type narratives.
That kind of backwards thinking is what is bogging down handheld productions to this day.
I'm pretty sure the PS Vita hardware could support earlier titles of Total Ware, so this argument really just boils down to time constraints. A couple of more years, and a handheld capable of running Shogun 2 might very well exist - if not with the same graphical fidelity as a computer, at least with the same game-play.
The problem is that the PSP logic still reigns, and producers still seem to think that they need handheld games to be short, episodic and so forth.
This is flawed when you consider that the Vita can be paused at any time, put into standby mode, and because it's a handheld, you don't need to fret over interruptions of game-play, as you can essentially carry on at any time, or any place.
FF10/10-2 HD, and MGS2/3 suffer non of this logic, yet new titles are consistently dumbed down for the sake of a player demographic that only exists because of the limitations of the PSP, and the DS, to begin with.
Another argument I've seen against handheld-gaming is screen-size, but this is really messed up. Firstly, "screen size" essentially boils down to how much space a foreign object takes up on the field of vision of the human eye. Since you'll usually hold the handheld very close to your face, the screen will most likely cover just as much space of your field of vision as a TV would, if you were sitting on your couch 1-2 meters away. As long as the hardware is good enough(OLED screens, high resolution support), then there really is no difference.
In either case, this argument too, will become even more irrelevant when streamlined versions of the gaming goggles become mass-produced and the norm on the market, and can be hooked up to the handhelds.