Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on December 30, 2010, 11:49:57 pm
-
http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/12/30/233249/PC-Gamers-Crush-Console-Brethren
:ha:
-
Um...okay?
-
That's interesting, insofar as it suggests that BC2 has a more active player base on PC than either console. Which, y'know, that's not supposed to happen.
-
I think PC users tend to play games for longer.
-
I think PC users tend to play games for longer.
Ties in with the attention span thing.
-
thats the right shift operator you newb!
-
Wait... was there any doubt about this matter ever?
-
That's interesting, insofar as it suggests that BC2 has a more active player base on PC than either console. Which, y'know, that's not supposed to happen.
According to the official stats for BC2: Vietnam, PC players have 55 million or so total hours and PS3 and 360 are both over 90m total hours. PC players are far less active and yet accomplished the task that much sooner.
-
consoles are casuals
pc master race!
-
pc master race!
No
Glorious master race
(http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/4192/pcgamers.jpg) (http://img821.imageshack.us/i/pcgamers.jpg/)
-
I think PC users tend to play games for longer.
Ties in with the attention span thing.
/me slaps Nemesis around a bit with a rather large trout
-
That's interesting, insofar as it suggests that BC2 has a more active player base on PC than either console. Which, y'know, that's not supposed to happen.
According to the official stats for BC2: Vietnam, PC players have 55 million or so total hours and PS3 and 360 are both over 90m total hours. PC players are far less active and yet accomplished the task that much sooner.
As we all know, and what this definitively proves, is that your average PC gamer is significantly more intelligent than your average console gamer. :P
-
I think PC users tend to play games for longer.
Which is exactly what game makers don't want. No wonder why they are only releasing stuff on consoles.
-
Ugh...seriously, can we just stop with this bull**** already? I play games on multiple consoles. I play games on my PC. I like to think that I'm in the majority of people out there. All of this exclusivity dick-waving does nothing but make yourselves look like utter wankers...seriously, it's every bit as bad as a 360-vs-PS3 thread. For the umpteenth time, if you've never played a single game on a console, you have no right to call yourself a gamer.
-
Ugh...seriously, can we just stop with this bull**** already? I play games on multiple consoles. I play games on my PC. I like to think that I'm in the majority of people out there. All of this exclusivity dick-waving does nothing but make yourselves look like utter wankers...seriously, it's every bit as bad as a 360-vs-PS3 thread. For the umpteenth time, if you've never played a single game on a console, you have no right to call yourself a gamer.
I played Halo 2 and gears of war 1 on a 360. :ha:
-
So...you were basically insulting yourself, then? :p
-
No, because it isn't my main mode of gameplay. Fact is I don't even own a console, that 360 belonged to some guy I used to know.
-
Well I never said which one had to be "main," but when each particular console and the PC all have titles exclusive only to them, I think it's rather silly that a concept of "main" has to exist in the first place. I play the hell out of FS, Half-Life 2, Team Fortress 2, Descent 3, and any number of other titles on my PC. I go crazy on the Mario and Zelda series on my DS, N64, and Wii. I hit up the PS2 for the original Guitar Hero games and old-school fun like Twisted Metal 2. I think it makes much more sense to operate like that, to go by the games themselves and use the respective systems accordingly, than to absolutely limit yourself to a single platform and ignore anything not released on it.
-
I'm going to throw in my old standby. It depends what yo want to do! If you want to play RTS and anything that needs precision control you cant beat PC keyboard and mouse. Racing games and casual shooters work well on either. Karaoke, quiz games and any time you just want to quickly fire up and play with a bunch of mates consoles rule.
This is coming from a guy who spent the first 22 years of his life swearing by PC and only PC.
-
Players with superior input devices do better. More as this story develops.
First comment on that site says it all. :p
-
i do like classic console games from the 16 bit era and before. there were some good pc games at the time but your average computer cost about $3k back then and all i could afford was a super nintendo. during the space between early 32 bit machines and current generation consoles, computers had better graphics and there were a lot of good pc games at the time, and that is why i became a pc gamer. now we got some well designed console games that look top notch (at least when compared to your average pc), and not very many pure pc games to choose from these days.
so really the only thing that divides pc and console are the genres of games that work well on each. pick your genre, then pick the machine that does it best.
-
Because I'm primarily a console gamer, I strongly disagree. PC games have their advantages and certain genres work much better on the PC than in any console, but the handiness console games can ensure is unmatched.
No installations, no slowdowns, no memory issues, no possible incompatibilities with <insert name>, nothing. Consoles allow to enjoy games istantly. Not to mention that the TV as a screen is far better than a monitor. Oh, and how can we forget portable consoles? They're simply awesome.
-
Yeah, there's nothing in the PC realm that can really compare with crashing on the couch in front of a big TV to play some console goodness. I mean, I've spent many an hour perched in my computer chair too, but it's nowhere near as comfortable. :p
-
That statement of yours brings back memories. :)
-
its hard to turn playing video games into a social event on a pc, unless of course you have a few of them networked together. or you can haul your rig to megalithic lan parties. its not like being able to stick your game console in a backpack and go to your friends house like in the old days. ive been able to get enough people together to play classic starcraft. i keep a stack of old throwaway laptops in my room for this kinda thing. social gaming hasnt been confined to consoles for quite some time.
-
Yeah, there's nothing in the PC realm that can really compare with crashing on the couch in front of a big TV to play some console goodness.
yes there is, its called crashing on the couch in front of a big TV to play some PC Gaming Goodness
ps: Can you have "The Sacred Terabyte of Gaming Goodness" (slight pause to allow readers to kneel in reverence) on a console answer = no
-
ps: Can you have "The Sacred Terabyte of Gaming Goodness" (slight pause to allow readers to kneel in reverence) on a console answer = no
Considering its only advantage is for the lazy in this case, I'm not sure your argument is valid.
(And arguably, you could. You'd just have to do a hatchetjob's modification.)
-
Yeah, there's nothing in the PC realm that can really compare with crashing on the couch in front of a big TV to play some console goodness. I mean, I've spent many an hour perched in my computer chair too, but it's nowhere near as comfortable. :p
There are some big monitors out there, and ways to use the TV as your monitor...add a bit longer keyboard cable, and you can sit on the sofa with a keyboard...or not.
Yeah, consoles are simpler and easier to use, but the sheer difference in potential and offerings beat the living schnitzel out of consoles. Even if I ignored anything else expect gaming uses, I'd still prefer PC...keyboard + types of game for it pwwwn consoles.
-
I will be playing on my excellent gaming PC, sitting on the couch in front of my 58 inch plasma tv that serves as my computer monitor, listening to the 7.1 surround that I've hooked up to my dedicated sound card. No console experience will ever challenge my PC gaming setup. (I still need to set this up, waiting to move out first)
-
Yeah, consoles are simpler and easier to use, but the sheer difference in potential and offerings beat the living schnitzel out of consoles. Even if I ignored anything else expect gaming uses, I'd still prefer PC...keyboard + types of game for it pwwwn consoles.
so then why is it that consoles are now working with new control systems Wii remotes, Kinect, etc and PC development is showing no signs of evolution, yes keyboard and mouse is a good system but it does have its flaws and limits the ways you have to play a game.
tbh neither is superior its like comparing an Valkyrie to a Hercules, both are fighters, both are excellent at their jobs but their strengths and weaknesses mean they are better for different tasks.
-
Yeah, consoles are simpler and easier to use, but the sheer difference in potential and offerings beat the living schnitzel out of consoles. Even if I ignored anything else expect gaming uses, I'd still prefer PC...keyboard + types of game for it pwwwn consoles.
so then why is it that consoles are now working with new control systems Wii remotes, Kinect, etc and PC development is showing no signs of evolution, yes keyboard and mouse is a good system but it does have its flaws and limits the ways you have to play a game.
tbh neither is superior its like comparing an Valkyrie to a Hercules, both are fighters, both are excellent at their jobs but their strengths and weaknesses mean they are better for different tasks.
Because consoles needed to expand ind inovate something?
PC controls are solid and there's a wide array of controllers.
Regarding innovation - PC is the driver here when it comes to games... Even when the regular industry drops the ball, the indy industry picks up the slack. And the fact that I can download good and free games from the internets - that fact alone pwns consoles.
A better comparison might be a Spitfire and a F-22 Raptor. Sure, the spitfire is simpler, cheaper and flies good - but it can't really compete with the F-22 in terms of ability.
-
Yeah, consoles are simpler and easier to use, but the sheer difference in potential and offerings beat the living schnitzel out of consoles. Even if I ignored anything else expect gaming uses, I'd still prefer PC...keyboard + types of game for it pwwwn consoles.
so then why is it that consoles are now working with new control systems Wii remotes, Kinect, etc and PC development is showing no signs of evolution, yes keyboard and mouse is a good system but it does have its flaws and limits the ways you have to play a game.
tbh neither is superior its like comparing an Valkyrie to a Hercules, both are fighters, both are excellent at their jobs but their strengths and weaknesses mean they are better for different tasks.
except many of the uses of the motion are either gimmicky or emulating something you can do with a joystick/wheel, and still I'd rather use the physical joystick, mouse, whatever, over one relying on inertia doohicickies, cameras, and/or wichcraft.
also, things like track IR are motion control, and used to enhance the experience, but not from the whole thing, and I for one think that's better.
-
its not hard to get a wiimote to work on a pc. but i really dont much like the games that such a motion control is used for. i thought the wii was pretty cool when i first played it. the graphics were kinda lame but the gameplay was different. i kinda wish computers would pick up on motion control, if only to be competitive in that market. i mean we already have the trackir, which could be used beyond simple head tracking if a game designer was so inclined.
-
If I'm in the mood for some serious gaming, PC is definitely superior, but a lot of the gaming I do is just for relaxation. After I've fried my brain for three hours on calculus, I'm not in the mood for serious gaming. I'd rather blow **** up in Halo, and when it comes to stuff like that, I think consoles are better.
-
Yeah, there's nothing in the PC realm that can really compare with crashing on the couch in front of a big TV to play some console goodness.
yes there is, its called crashing on the couch in front of a big TV to play some PC Gaming Goodness
I dunno about you, but attempting to balance a keyboard on my lap while simultaneously trying to figure out how the hell I'm going to use a mouse properly doesn't seem like an ideal experience to me. :p
-
Need I point out that a good gaming PC is significantly more expensive than any console?
-
Need I point out that a good gaming PC is significantly more expensive than any console?
But can be used for more than just games, justifying the price.
-
I wouldn't pay an extra $1000 for an Xbox that could do word processing. Is the price really justified?
As Mobius pointed out, games can be optimized for the hardware on a console because you know EXACTLY what your end-user will be using. To get the same "peace of mind" with regards to all games running out of the box, you need to get hi-end PC hardware.
-
I wouldn't pay an extra $1000 for an Xbox that could do word processing. Is the price really justified?
As Mobius pointed out, games can be optimized for the hardware on a console because you know EXACTLY what your end-user will be using. To get the same "peace of mind" with regards to all games running out of the box, you need to get hi-end PC hardware.
How about for an xbox that you can do 3d modelling on that will run games better than an xbox ever will
-
I wouldn't pay an extra $1000 for an Xbox that could do word processing. Is the price really justified?
As Mobius pointed out, games can be optimized for the hardware on a console because you know EXACTLY what your end-user will be using. To get the same "peace of mind" with regards to all games running out of the box, you need to get hi-end PC hardware.
Yes, word processing, thats what we use our computers for.
-
I guess it's down to what you already use your computer for if it's better than a console.
For a lot of you, it seems like PCs are a much more cost effective option. Honestly, I use my computer for the normal web stuff as well as schoolwork. My schoolwork involves history/linguistics research, not complex modeling or anything. The point I'm really trying to make is that consoles DO have a large market for a reason: not everybody uses their computer for high-end stuff. On a board like this, it's 100% expected that most will say PCs are better. If you run through my dorm, for example, (ironically, mostly engineering majors) you'll see almost everybody playing games on consoles.
As much as I tried to play the devil's advocate, I don't own a console and do all my gaming on my computer. Can't get Freespace on an Xbox. ;) I agree that PCs are much more flexible, but there ARE valid reasons for wanting only a console.
-
Gaming PCs really aren't that expensive anymore anyway. You can build a damn good gaming pc for about $700, only $100 more than the PS3 at launch. But yeah, for 90% of the population a console is more practical.
-
To be fair, I wouldn't have paid $600 for a console if my life depended on it. :p
I remember buying my Nintendo 64 new for $100. Consoles today are just too damn expensive.
-
My argument has never really been based on what piece of hardware is capable of doing more, but rather what's available exclusively on each one. There are any number of really good games, including several of the greatest gaming franchises ever made, that have only come out on various console systems...therefore, if I want to play them, I need to own consoles, which I do. By the same token, there are a number of games I love playing on the PC that aren't available on a console. Some genres are at their very best only when played with a mouse and keyboard, while others beg to be run with a controller in-hand while sitting on the couch. The way I see it, having the whole spectrum of experiences available just lets me have more fun.
-
No installations, no slowdowns, no memory issues, no possible incompatibilities with <insert name>, nothing. Consoles allow to enjoy games istantly. Not to mention that the TV as a screen is far better than a monitor. Oh, and how can we forget portable consoles? They're simply awesome.
Welcome to 2010 where several games have framerate issues on current consoles outdated hardware and even crash and freeze... :coughs: just look at the support forums for some games sometime... kinda hilarious. Developers are not just "pushing consoles to the limits"... they quite regularly give them way more than they can handle nowadays.
And a TV screen "better" than a monitor? Please.... read a review and consider things like response time and input lag. TVs suck for gaming.... even the ones featuring a "gaming mode" are horribly outclassed by even the cheapest monitors.
Fact is ... as far as multiple platform games go.... if you want enjoy every recent game without any slowdowns ... then you need to build a proper gaming PC - and it will look much better in 1920x1200 with AA and AF too lol.
But frankly... the huge majority of current overhyped franchises that are being developped doesn t compare favorably - gameplaywise - to what we had on the PC 5-10 years ago already, not at all.
As an older gamer i sometimes wonder if the newer generation even knows what they have missed.... and how they can put up with the generic shooter crap that is being developped nowadays.
The most hilarious "development" in my eyes - as an oldtimer - is definitely that as soon as consoles had online functionality they also had buggy half finished releases that require several patches ... well, maybe not the most hilarious.... considering that they also charge extra for online multiplayer LOL
Objectively... there really isn't that much difference between the platforms anymore hardware wise. If you open an XBox360 up... what you find is PC components - just several year old PC components that you can find offered for 1$ each on ebay nowadays... except in an Xbox they are sold at hilarious prices bundled with an operating system that severely restricts what you can do with them. It's kinda sad really...
-
I wouldn't pay an extra $1000 for an Xbox that could do word processing. Is the price really justified?
As Mobius pointed out, games can be optimized for the hardware on a console because you know EXACTLY what your end-user will be using. To get the same "peace of mind" with regards to all games running out of the box, you need to get hi-end PC hardware.
all you really need is a semi-decent gpu. you can play most games with an $800 machine. high end fps games would need to run at lower detail settings but they would run. even a low end computer can run hordes of online flash games, console emulation, and low-fi indie games.
-
But frankly... the huge majority of current overhyped franchises that are being developped doesn t compare favorably - gameplaywise - to what we had on the PC 5-10 years ago already, not at all.
As an older gamer i sometimes wonder if the newer generation even knows what they have missed.... and how they can put up with the generic shooter crap that is being developped nowadays.
*twitch*
-
Yes, word processing, thats what we use our computers for.
Considering it's possible to webbrowse or IM in some fashion from most consoles, it'd better be. Because that's it. :P
-
MODDING
-
MODDING
Which encompasses, what, less than 1% of people who play games? :p
-
Yeah, there's nothing in the PC realm that can really compare with crashing on the couch in front of a big TV to play some console goodness.
yes there is, its called crashing on the couch in front of a big TV to play some PC Gaming Goodness
I dunno about you, but attempting to balance a keyboard on my lap while simultaneously trying to figure out how the hell I'm going to use a mouse properly doesn't seem like an ideal experience to me. :p
You wouldn't even need a mouse for many games on the PC ( I play FS2 with keyboard only or joystick). Again, it depends on what you want to play and your controller setup. Is there anything stopping you for using a gamepad on the PC? No.
A FPS is the last thing I'd want to play on a console..The controls of every single one I tried are AWFUL.
-
The best games of all time are almost all on the PC. The same is not true for consoles.
With the exception of... seven or so titles, every console game I've played in the last five years has been worthless. Though, to be fair, that margin holds true for modern PC titles, as well.
-
MODDING
Which encompasses, what, less than 1% of people who play games? :p
I don't know the statistics, but it doesn't matter. Modding prolongs the shell-life of a game. It gives a game new life and vibrancy. Heck, there are people who buy the game because of a mod. The players get free content.
Either way you put it, modding is very important.
-
The best games of all time are almost all on the PC. The same is not true for consoles.
Several (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_%28series%29) really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_fantasy) really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_Of_Zelda) really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear) really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_fighter) big (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metroid) franchises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Quest) would like to disagree with you. :p If anything, I'd argue that the "greatest of all time" listings tend to weigh more heavily on the console side of things. I know my own personal list most likely would.
With the exception of... seven or so titles, every console game I've played in the last five years has been worthless. Though, to be fair, that margin holds true for modern PC titles, as well.
I can think of at least thirty, and probably significantly more, grade-AAA console titles from the last five years off the top of my head. Hell, I can think of at least ten just for the Wii alone.
You wouldn't even need a mouse for many games on the PC ( I play FS2 with keyboard only or joystick). Again, it depends on what you want to play and your controller setup. Is there anything stopping you for using a gamepad on the PC? No.
A FPS is the last thing I'd want to play on a console..The controls of every single one I tried are AWFUL.
No, there's nothing preventing you from using a gamepad on the PC, but when the majority of the titles you'd use one for are released for consoles, it doesn't do you all that much good. For instance, try to name me one really big platformer and/or action-adventure franchise that's cross-platform, let alone PC-only...and then do the same for fighting games. And you'll get no argument from me about FPS titles on consoles (except for maybe the Wii, which works really well for them), as that's one of the genres I think truly belongs on the PC.
I don't know the statistics, but it doesn't matter. Modding prolongs the shell-life of a game. It gives a game new life and vibrancy. Heck, there are people who buy the game because of a mod. The players get free content.
Either way you put it, modding is very important.
I didn't say it wasn't important, but the vast majority of people are never going to create mod content themselves. Hell, I'd be willing to wager that the majority of gamers will never even play mod content of any sort. And modding isn't the only factor that can prolong the shelf-life of a game...otherwise, we wouldn't see Tetris still being released for every single platform under the sun. :p
-
The best games of all time are almost all on the PC. The same is not true for consoles.
Several (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_%28series%29) really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_fantasy) really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_Of_Zelda) really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear) really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_fighter) big (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metroid) franchises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Quest) would like to disagree with you. :p If anything, I'd argue that the "greatest of all time" listings tend to weigh more heavily on the console side of things. I know my own personal list most likely would.
"Popular franchise" did not equal "best" last time I checked.
If that above is the list of best games ever...then I shudder to think what you consider worst.
No, there's nothing preventing you from using a gamepad on the PC, but when the majority of the titles you'd use one for are released for consoles, it doesn't do you all that much good. For instance, try to name me one really big platformer and/or action-adventure franchise that's cross-platform, let alone PC-only...and then do the same for fighting games. And you'll get no argument from me about FPS titles on consoles (except for maybe the Wii, which works really well for them), as that's one of the genres I think truly belongs on the PC.
I tried lots of different games on both PC and console .. I even got several emulators on my PC. Suffice to say, anything that uses a gamepad can be played easily on the keyboard too. At least I never had any problem playing it, or found the keyboard superior.
There are plenty of platformers and action-adventure and fighting games for PC... Sure, a large number of them are multi-platfrom or indie games...but I never really had any trouble finding title of any type for PC.
I didn't say it wasn't important, but the vast majority of people are never going to create mod content themselves. Hell, I'd be willing to wager that the majority of gamers will never even play mod content of any sort.
If by majority you mean console gamers, then you'd be right. When you got no mod to use and no habit of using them or knowledge of their existance..it's kinda hard to use them.
I know that more than half of the PC owners I know used mods.
-
No, there's nothing preventing you from using a gamepad on the PC, but when the majority of the titles you'd use one for are released for consoles, it doesn't do you all that much good. For instance, try to name me one really big platformer and/or action-adventure franchise that's cross-platform, let alone PC-only...and then do the same for fighting games. And you'll get no argument from me about FPS titles on consoles (except for maybe the Wii, which works really well for them), as that's one of the genres I think truly belongs on the PC.
http://trine-thegame.com/site/
www.trine2.com (upcoming)
http://braid-game.com/
... just some examples that I'm quite fond of on the PC...
If you really want to play fighting games there s Streetfighter 4 on the PC too... although i never felt the desire for that or anything like it.
The real issue with consoles is - from my viewpoint - that it's pretty much the worst platform for my favorite genres, that is FPS, strategy (real time and turnbased: GalCiv2 and Civ5 anyone? Not to say HoMM6 is coming!) and flight/spacesims (what little there is left, is on the PC) and non japanese RPGs with good storylines (Witcher 2's coming too this year).
The genres i would consider "worth" getting a console for are the good old sidescrolling shoot em ups and old / exclusive jump and runs... sadly, they do not make them anymore. (Nothing that compares favorably to R-Type (series), Gleylancer or Thunderforce (series) anyways.) ...
The industry's obsession with "blockbuster console FPS" titles really is pretty much the most idiotic thing that could have happened in my eyes... wrong platform, wrong genre, awful gameplay by any objective comparison.
What i do play now however (on the couch/on the train)... is the old originals that i grew fond of ... on my cellphone. Which makes me wonder how much of a bite the console market is gonna lose to handhelds as they get more powerful. (After all.... *everyone* has a cellphone... and everyone and their brother tries to sell you a smartphone for *zip* with a new contract as well.)
(They are right on the threshhold really.... you can already very easily play Lucasarts adventures with ScummVM on most cellphones (Monkey Island is wonderful on a cellphone with 320x200 screen and an optical mouse/joystick!).... and you can even (with difficulty) get DosBox to run on symbian and some others... i certainly know what I'm gonna play on my cellphone the moment it becomes possible to play all the windowsXP classics one of the new smartphone generations LOL.)
Speaking of classics... i did load up and play through Planescape Torment from start to finish (It's on GOG) over the holidays... with all the fanmade mods/fixes and the 1920x1200 widescreen and UI mods... what glorious joy...
And there you have it... a 10 year old game that's putting every single socalled "triple A console blockbuster" that was released this year to shame - literally destroys them gameplay and storywise - and even still looks very pleasing to todays HD spoiled eyes...
What other game can say that of itself? :checks forums: uh yeah, ok assorted Freespace2 mods propably, alright ;)
-
No, there's nothing preventing you from using a gamepad on the PC, but when the majority of the titles you'd use one for are released for consoles, it doesn't do you all that much good. For instance, try to name me one really big platformer and/or action-adventure franchise that's cross-platform, let alone PC-only
The best games of all time are almost all on the PC. The same is not true for consoles.
Several (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_%28series%29) really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_fantasy) really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_Of_Zelda) really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear) really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_fighter) big (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metroid) franchises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Quest) would like to disagree with you. :p If anything, I'd argue that the "greatest of all time" listings tend to weigh more heavily on the console side of things. I know my own personal list most likely would.
It's amusing your own list has examples for you.
Final Fantasy has titles for the PC, which includes it's own most famous title, FFVII.
Street Fighter has titles for the PC. Street Fighter has most if not all of its titles for the PCs, and since the games are designed for arcades, which I guess may count as a console, every title you play outside of an arcade may count as a port.
Outside of your list, even Sonic the ****ing Hedgehog has titles for the PC.
-
Outside of your list, even Sonic the ****ing Hedgehog has titles for the PC.
not recently and they play better on consoles
-
everyone who has made a serious argument for one platform being superior in this thread, please go to GameFAQs
nobody's stopping you
-
MODDING
Which encompasses, what, less than 1% of people who play games? :p
I don't know the statistics, but it doesn't matter. Modding prolongs the shell-life of a game. It gives a game new life and vibrancy. Heck, there are people who buy the game because of a mod. The players get free content.
Either way you put it, modding is very important.
its also a cheap way to train hordes of future game developers and artists.
-
everyone who has made a serious argument for one platform being superior in this thread, please go to GameFAQs
nobody's stopping you
why does gamefaqs prove that no system is superior ?
-
It's a question of taste - as are most things people argue about.
-
Actually its not, nearly every metric you can use to measure what system is better the pc comes out on top, apart from price
cpu is superior
gpu is superior
sound is superior
imput is superior
more memory
more storage
faster storage
look at the comparison video's for cross platform released games (pc,360,ps3) and in nearly every case the pc version is better
-
Yup. But many people are lazy idiots (what doesn't mean that everybody owning a console is a lazy idiot) so they prefer the console - it's easier to handle.
EDIT:
I'm with the man below me.
-
everyone who has made a serious argument for one platform being superior in this thread, please go to GameFAQs
nobody's stopping you
why does gamefaqs prove that no system is superior ?
gamefaqs doesn't, gamefaqs is a hive of people who like to argue about stupid ****ing **** like whether a pc or a console is a better platform to play games as if it actually makes a difference
-
well it does make a differnce
the pc version will run at a much higher resolution with aa and af and at a higher frame rate and on many occasions it will have higher res textures and improved effects
-
here's a novel idea
why don't people play on the platforms they prefer instead of splitting up into teams and holding a special olympics about which one is better
personally i believe board games are superior to your primitive 'PC' because they have near infinite particle-based resolution systems, easy modding and excellent AI in the form of neural networked systems with natural language mounted on a mobile organic platform
-
personally i believe board games are superior to your primitive 'PC' because they have near infinite particle-based resolution systems, easy modding and excellent AI in the form of neural networked systems with natural language mounted on a mobile organic platform
But it has Planck length limitations regarding it's resolution and it's AI can sometimes be annoying, since it hangs around even after the game, not to mention difficulty is very variable. :p
-
personally i believe board games are superior to your primitive 'PC' because they have near infinite particle-based resolution systems, easy modding and excellent AI in the form of neural networked systems with natural language mounted on a mobile organic platform
But it has Planck length limitations regarding it's resolution and it's AI can sometimes be annoying, since it hangs around even after the game, not to mention difficulty is very variable. :p
that's true and it's really hard to customize their behaviors
-
personally i believe board games are superior to your primitive 'PC' because they have near infinite particle-based resolution systems, easy modding and excellent AI in the form of neural networked systems with natural language mounted on a mobile organic platform
This is so going in my sig :p
-
"Popular franchise" did not equal "best" last time I checked.
If that above is the list of best games ever...then I shudder to think what you consider worst.
No, but in this case, it pretty much does. Just about every entry in the Mario and Zelda series has been among the best titles in its generation, Super Metroid and Metroid Prime regularly make "greatest of all time" lists, and several of the Final Fantasies are all-time classics. As I've said in the past, if you've never played a single entry in at least one of those series, you're not a gamer. Period.
The bottom line here? Do what Battuta says. The only reason I'm even arguing my points is to combat the asinine PC-only wankery you guys are spewing out, and I'd rather not have to waste my time. :p
-
"Popular franchise" did not equal "best" last time I checked.
If that above is the list of best games ever...then I shudder to think what you consider worst.
No, but in this case, it pretty much does. Just about every entry in the Mario and Zelda series has been among the best titles in its generation, Super Metroid and Metroid Prime regularly make "greatest of all time" lists, and several of the Final Fantasies are all-time classics. As I've said in the past, if you've never played a single entry in at least one of those series, you're not a gamer. Period.
The layman knows nothing of quality. He sees something shiny, and like a child to the television, knows no more.
Nostalgia plays too much of a role in your grading system. The fact of the matter is, a number of the earliest titles (which receive praise) are not worthy of their glory. That being said, a few of them are truly great.
The bottom line here? Do what Battuta says. The only reason I'm even arguing my points is to combat the asinine PC-only wankery you guys are spewing out, and I'd rather not have to waste my time. :p
Durpa durpa durpa? (No one is going to get that reference)
-
The layman knows nothing of quality. He sees something shiny, and like a child to the television, knows no more.
Nostalgia plays too much of a role in your grading system. The fact of the matter is, a number of the earliest titles (which receive praise) are not worthy of their glory. That being said, a few of them are truly great.
I'm not talking about laymen, and this isn't my own grading system. The series that I listed are all massively critically-acclaimed as a whole, with several individual entries easily hitting the best-rated-ever lists. Hell, I think Super Mario Galaxy 2 was listed in the very high 90s on Metacritic.
-
holding a special olympics about which one is better
maybe because 1 system is better, its like some one is trying to argue a top spec pc from 2005 is better than a top spec pc from 2011 it just isnt
-
you are correct i can determine how much fun i will have by how many megahurtz there are on my frontside bus multiplied by the number of awesome fans in my case
this is coming from a person who builds his own gaming rigs: anyone who feels the need to argue which platform is best is either very poor or very deranged
-
Also, there's totally a point in getting high-quality graphics output in resolutions above 1080p for systems designed to be used solely on 1080p screens. Totally.
-
I can't justify the purchase of a console when I can game perfectly acceptably on my PC.
Hence the reason I choose PC, it's cheaper for me.
also, I enjoy being elitist
-
you are correct i can determine how much fun i will have by how many megahurtz there are on my frontside bus multiplied by the number of awesome fans in my case
Actually... building a new rig is a whole lot of fun... ;)
-
thus the second sentence of that post
-
The problem of referring to "fun" when comparing platforms however is that fun - for the most part - depends on gameplay...
Now if we look at a multiplatform title that has been properly developped for both platforms (i.e. not a cheap port) gameplay is the same ... is there really even any room left for a discussion on what platform is gonna run the game smoother and make it look prettier? (And this btw... is coming from someone who has his PC hooked up not just to a regular monitor but also to the home entertainment systems projektor behind the couch...)
You are right... it s pointless to discuss.
What is the "problem" with consoles however that should/could be discussed?
Well the real, actual problem with some - not all - consoles is that they are closed systems with subpar components protected with restrictive licenses.
What is an X-Box actually if you took all the restrictions, licensing issues and patents away? It s a box filled with outdated PC-Parts nothing else...
... and the actual "problem" that i perceive to be detrimental to the gaming community in general is a couple of huge companies corrupt lobbying and bribery for games to be exclusive on *their* respective platform only... while trying to keep the actual platforms hardware as cheap as possible,yet selling it for comparatively ridiculous prices.
See... if consoles were - for instance - open source i wouldn t really have any issues with them. We could all get the platform we prefer based on actual performance and more powerful platforms could easily emulate lower end ones.
On the other hand would an "open source" console be anything else than a standardized low-end computer?
If restrictive consoles in their current form were to "die" overnight and be replaced by an open standardized system ... no one would really notice. Except developpers wouldn t be torn by corporate interests between 3-4 *exclusive* platforms anymore and we ... could finally play all available games without having to buy all these platforms.
Consoles in their current form create no value for the consumer whatsoever. If not for the licensing restrictions a current gaming PC - with a fraction of its ressources - could easily emulate the 360 for instance. "Consoles" are simply an instrument for companies to distort competition and make an extra buck without providing any extra value.
-
oups - delete double post please
-
Thing is, I prefer PC for one simple reason. A lot of the games I play require scrolling over large maps, accessing menus, submenus etc, selecting single units on the battlefield or single buildings in a city, point and click is, to my mind, the ultimate tool for that kind of game, I've never found an interface on the, admittedly limited, number of consoles I have used that have been an equal to it.
If I played games that were more oriented towards the console control style, then possibly I'd have a different opinion, but, for the type of games I play, I find the PC superior.
-
If consoles were open source they would be computers
-
PC has Freespace, Half-Life, and Total Annihilation.
'Nough said.
-
If consoles were open source they would be computers
consoles are computers. they are just proprietary computers designed to play games. i actually think almost every console has been hacked to run some version of linux.
See... if consoles were - for instance - open source i wouldn t really have any issues with them. We could all get the platform we prefer based on actual performance and more powerful platforms could easily emulate lower end ones.
On the other hand would an "open source" console be anything else than a standardized low-end computer?
there is actually open source video game systems on the market. they mostly are built with retro gaming in mind. there are also open source mp3 players and and other handholds out there. its only a matter of time before there are more powerful opens source game systems out there.
-
PC has Freespace, Half-Life, and Total Annihilation.
'Nough said.
Half-life is also on console, PS2 at least, in fact I believe the Blue Shift expansion started out as a console only spin off (hence why it took me the grand total of 3h to finish it)
-
personally i believe board games are superior to your primitive 'PC' because they have near infinite particle-based resolution systems, easy modding and excellent AI in the form of neural networked systems with natural language mounted on a mobile organic platform
Personally I believe real warfare is superior to your primitive board games because they have, in addition to all board game features, realistic visuals, audio (complete with vision and hearing damage/loss), odours, tactile response, pain and death.
-
personally i believe board games are superior to your primitive 'PC' because they have near infinite particle-based resolution systems, easy modding and excellent AI in the form of neural networked systems with natural language mounted on a mobile organic platform
:lol: The strange thing is, due to lack of new good games on PC, I'm indeed playing more and more board games with friends.
I see the PC camp of platform wars being divided into two parts, there is a side who says there's more any sort of processing power / peripherals on PC and a side who says that it's the console that is taking away depth and fun from the game play. Otherwise I wouldn't care about the what platform is better, but because all games are pretty much released on multiple platforms, I'm forced to join the latter group. Though the push for multi-platform releases is coming from the market forces and there isn't much that could be done about it.
Going for the indie developers and modding communities seems to be the last bastion of hope for me.
-
"Man.. Call of Duty isn't flashing anymore... I'm gonna join the army!" :nod:
-
Also, there's totally a point in getting high-quality graphics output in resolutions above 1080p for systems designed to be used solely on 1080p screens. Totally.
there are no systems designed to be used solely on 1080p screens
afaik the 2 consoles have games that run at 720p (with 1 or 2 exceptions)
while the pc supports a maximum of 7680x3200
-
Don't forget that consoles are now bringing out new control techniques, good at getting you out of your seat. I haven't seen that for the PC yet? :nervous:
-
(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/Jesus_facepalm.jpg)
-
Don't forget that consoles are now bringing out new control techniques, good at getting you out of your seat. I haven't seen that for the PC yet? :nervous:
To answer this i am going to quote myself and TrashMan's rebuttal which has some valid points
Yeah, consoles are simpler and easier to use, but the sheer difference in potential and offerings beat the living schnitzel out of consoles. Even if I ignored anything else expect gaming uses, I'd still prefer PC...keyboard + types of game for it pwwwn consoles.
so then why is it that consoles are now working with new control systems Wii remotes, Kinect, etc and PC development is showing no signs of evolution, yes keyboard and mouse is a good system but it does have its flaws and limits the ways you have to play a game.
tbh neither is superior its like comparing an Valkyrie to a Hercules, both are fighters, both are excellent at their jobs but their strengths and weaknesses mean they are better for different tasks.
Because consoles needed to expand ind inovate something?
PC controls are solid and there's a wide array of controllers.
Regarding innovation - PC is the driver here when it comes to games... Even when the regular industry drops the ball, the indy industry picks up the slack. And the fact that I can download good and free games from the internets - that fact alone pwns consoles.
A better comparison might be a Spitfire and a F-22 Raptor. Sure, the spitfire is simpler, cheaper and flies good - but it can't really compete with the F-22 in terms of ability.
and now I will quote General Battuta
(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/54/Jesus_facepalm.jpg)
-
it is impossible for people to have fun on consoles because they did not have enough gigahurtz
we were not having fun ten years ago because there were not enough gigahurtz then either
-
Headdie/Trashman: Actually I like that Spitfire - Raptor analogy you've got going there. That's what I like about consoles, she's simple, cheaper, and does the job without having to operate the beast that is the F-22, even though I can utilize thrust vectoring and AMRAAMs with the latter.
-
Don't forget that consoles are now bringing out new control techniques, good at getting you out of your seat. I haven't seen that for the PC yet? :nervous:
could that be because you didnt look ?
those of us that follow the teachings of the pc gaming gods would look here:
http://www.actionxl.com/products.html
and we would also know that the pc has had similar controls for over a decade
"The Microsoft Freestyle Pro, released in 1998, was a rather novel gamepad, as the up-down-left-right directions in analogue mode were controlled by the movement of the controller, more precisely by the absolute pitch and roll position of the pad. This reaction on movement is quite similar to some of the features of the new Sony PlayStation 3 SIXAXIS. "
and of course there is the legendary Track-Ir supported by freespace 2 open no less
-
oh my god if this thread gets any more retarded i am going to mail saltpeter to everyone posting in it
-
/me doesn't see the point of these discussions anyway, as both PC and Console have their good and bad points, like any other system...
And sorry T-LoW, I didn't see your post earlier or I would've +1'd it.
-
for srs
-
Battuta I bet you also try and argue that there is no difference between a supercar and an average car
-
It's a question of taste - as are most things people argue about.
Why's nobody listening to me :o
Is it because of my low post-rating? It will increase - I swear! :(
-
Battuta I bet you also try and argue that there is no difference between a supercar and an average car
if you think i'm arguing in favor of consoles you have the IQ of my breakfast cereal, I build my own PCs
of course if you had the IQ of at least my latest bowel movement you would have noticed that our PCs ten years ago were ****tier than consoles today but we still loved them, so clearly raw performance is not what matters
It's a question of taste - as are most things people argue about.
Why's nobody listening to me :o
Is it because of my low post-rating? It will increase - I swear! :(
because people are raving loons on this topic
-
no I dont think your favoring consoles
but i dont agree with your all systems are equal argument
-
the platform the game is being played on matters far less than the quality of the game itself
-
the platform the game is being played on matters far less than the quality of the game itself
Super Mario Land 2!!!!!!!!!11111111(theoriginal)one
For the gameboy of course! :nod:
dumdumdumdumdumdumdumdumdum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbokMOxyEHg&feature=related)
-
agreed,
but if the game is available on all systems, it will in most cases be superior on the pc
-
:wtf:
I haven't seen any game like "Just Dance" for the PC, nor have I seen a controller like a Wii Fitness Board or Xbox Kinnect or PS3 Move.
Maybe there are but I just haven't seen them!
-
:wtf:
I haven't seen any game like "Just Dance" for the PC, nor have I seen a controller like a Wii Fitness Board or Xbox Kinnect or PS3 Move.
Maybe there are but I just haven't seen them!
There are systems like trackIR but they are so low key (HLP is the first and only place i have come across ppl using it) it will take a major break for them to see mainstream attention
-
It's a question of taste - as are most things people argue about.
Why's nobody listening to me :o
Is it because of my low post-rating? It will increase - I swear! :(
+1
-
A five minute search yielded:
TrackIR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrackIR)
MX Air (http://www.logitech.com/en-us/mice-pointers/mice/devices/3443)
Also, this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotiv).
-
PC has Freespace, Half-Life, and Total Annihilation.
'Nough said.
Consoles have Chrono Trigger, Ocarina of Time, and Metroid Prime. 'Nough said.
(o hay i can has pick three random good games and make a point too lulz)
agreed,
but if the game is available on all systems, it will in most cases be superior on the pc
But THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE AGHBLABHGHBL
/me breaks
-
PC has Freespace, Half-Life, and Total Annihilation.
'Nough said.
Consoles have Chrono Trigger, Ocarina of Time, and Metroid Prime. 'Nough said.
(o hay i can has pick three random good games and make a point too lulz)
I'll never understand why people think Half-Life is such a great game. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it was bad, but it didn't have a story (seriously, it didn't have one until HL2 (it had a very basic plot)), its combat was generic, the "puzzles" were atrocious, etc. The only thing it did that was truly innovative was the level-handling.
agreed,
but if the game is available on all systems, it will in most cases be superior on the pc
But THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE AGHBLABHGHBL
/me breaks
To be fair, none of us have been on topic for quite some time.
-----------------
OT:
I just found out that you can increase the view-size of the message box. Holy Hell. :yes:
-
Half-Life was the first game to really do a good job of telling its story through events in the gameplay (using heavy scripting) rather than delivering expositional lumps like Doom level screens or Marathon's (excellent) terminals.
-
Plus Force Recon Marines where scary mofo AI. :P
-
They seriously were, I don't know if it was smoke or mirrors or what but those guys were WAY better than the HL2 soldiers.
And the black ops assassins were awesome too, they'd run away and plant satchel charges at corners. So cool.
-
Oddly enough, I just finished playing the original Half-Life for the first time right now. :p (Yeah, those black ops ninjas were ridiculously annoying to kill.) It was a great game, and I can definitely see how revolutionary it was when it was first released, but the one thing that tempered my enjoyment somewhat were the overabundance of what I call "cheap moments." I can't even count how many times I poked my head out of a doorway and got wrecked by something I had no way of seeing beforehand, or had a Vortigaunt spawn behind me and zap me to death, or was 'sploded by a grenade I only saw after it was too late, or something along those lines. I think that sort of gameplay element is something that better games have largely grown out of; I know it wasn't nearly as prevalent in Half-Life 2.
-
You died a lot more in HL1, a looooot more, but I think that is in part because HL1 was more of this crazy action comedy adventure thing where scientists died in huge explosions and Gordon was some hapless nerd in a suit caught in the middle of the end of the world. If you had that kinda stuff happening in HL2 you'd get sad piano music on those dead scientists and someone would tell Gordon he was teleporter Jesus.
-
They seriously were, I don't know if it was smoke or mirrors or what but those guys were WAY better than the HL2 soldiers.
And the black ops assassins were awesome too, they'd run away and plant satchel charges at corners. So cool.
I hated the assassin women, took a couple of goes to figure out the best practice against them, at least you could have an old fashioned gun match with the grunts, which as you say could actually fight and first time often gave you a good pasting, HL2 even the white elite types often cowered before you
edit
HL1 was a hell of a lot longer than hl2 (not including add-ons which I count the episodes as)
-
so clearly raw performance is not what matters
performance doesnt matter eh,
so for example playing a game on a pc that can only run it at low res, low detail and low framerate
will be every bit as enjoyable as playing it on a system that can run it at high res, high detail and high fps
interesting theory...
have you got in touch with the people making the mediavp's
theyve been wasting their time making fs2 better looking
-
are you seriously going to argue that we were unable to enjoy games ten years ago (remember half life and alpha centauri and ****, those games?) because our computers couldn't run crysis
is that your contention
-
no, but if those games had been higher res, higher detail would you of enjoyed them more
i reckon yes you would
and higher res and higher detail require more horsepower
i enjoyed space invaders on my 8086 with a green screen monitor
but I would never try to use that to argue that colour in computer games is not important or doesnt matter
-
i don't think that's true at all, i doubt if you measured the quantity of fun those people were having then and compared it to games now that there's any difference
-
no, but if those games had been higher res, higher detail would you of enjoyed them more
i reckon yes you would
and higher res and higher detail require more horsepower
and the endless cycle of buying new hardware continues. Quite frankly I find the current state of graphics to be quite sufficient, it's diminishing marginal returns at this point. Unless they come up with something radically new and different I'd rather they spend more effort perfecting other parts of the development craft then squeezing out some higher rez crap that overall doesn't make much difference and making me have to replace major parts of a computer every couple years to keep up.
-
good animation and good AI are far more important than good graphics at this point
if half the resources spent on graphics went into those we would have better games
-
agreed, but does good a.i require more computation the answer is yes
(note that i didnt say that more computational power = better a.i)
-
Certainly in terms of PC gaming gameplay needs to be worked on more in general especially to play towards the Pc's strengths and as mentioned A.I. is always a tricky balance to maintain
-
ps: I decided to test your theory only with half life as i dont have alpha centuri
first i loaded weve got hostiles level in software at 640x480
then I played the same level in opengl at 1600x1200
and I enjoyed the latter more and i just cant imagine anyone who wouldnt
-
i very much doubt that anyone playing the game in 1999 had less fun than you did playing it in 2011
i just replayed alpha centauri recently and it was one of the most fun game experiences i've ever had
-
I would say those people who in 1999 had pc's that struggled playing half life did have less fun than those that had better pc's
in fact i know someone in that situation because i upgraded their pc for them so they could play half life and unreal
and when I installed a voodoo3 in his pc he enjoyed those games much more
-
shame, they could've gotten it on console and be guaranteed a good experience
-
or they could of gotten it on a pc that was up to the job and also guaranteed a good experience
-
and i think that settles the point.
-
yes in my favour your saying getting the game on a console guarantees a good experience because the console has the performance to do the game justice (as opposed to an underpowerd pc without a 3d card) unless your saying the console guarentees a good experience for a different reason ?
-
i'm saying that different people live in different circumstances with different tastes and different abilities and may then want to get the games on different platforms because they are different.
-
different platforms because they are different.
you previously maintained the difference between platforms didnt matter hence arguing which one was better was pointless
-
different platforms because they are different.
you previously maintained the difference between platforms didnt matter hence arguing which one was better was pointless
i argued they didn't matter to the enjoyment you could derive
i've had as much fun playing smash with four people on a ****ing Wii as i have playing crysis wars on my home-built uber-PC at lan parties
fun is not in the anti-aliased gigahurtzels
-
Video is relevant and has all the arguments required to end this discussion. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vELYwskLbXk)
-
and i disagree, if you do an apples to apples comparison ie: the same game then if its running at a higher resolution with better quality graphics then you will enjoy it more
ps: to quote that great sage Mr Jeremy Clarkson
behold the magnificence :D
(http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/724/terabyteaug2010games1.png) (http://img339.imageshack.us/i/terabyteaug2010games1.png/)
(http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/2307/terabyteaug2010games2.png) (http://img695.imageshack.us/i/terabyteaug2010games2.png/)
-
i'm sorry i don't recall being able to play smash on my pc with a bunch of people jumping around a loft in a big common room
-
i very much doubt that anyone playing the game in 1999 had less fun than you did playing it in 2011
i just replayed alpha centauri recently and it was one of the most fun game experiences i've ever had
And if had updated graphics and interface, you would have had even more fun! ;7
-
i very much doubt that anyone playing the game in 1999 had less fun than you did playing it in 2011
i just replayed alpha centauri recently and it was one of the most fun game experiences i've ever had
And if had updated graphics and interface, you would have had even more fun! ;7
no, i really doubt that
-
"i'm sorry i don't recall being able to play smash on my pc with a bunch of people jumping around a loft in a big common room"
and that disproves that higher resolution and better sound/graphics increases the enjoyment of a game how exactly ?
-
Its a simple case of sometimes PC's are best and sometimes Consoles are best, both have their advantages and disadvantages end of.
on performance what has been forgotten is that consoles are on a significantly longer development cycle than PCs and usually when a console is first released it will generally be on par with a high end PC (though admittedly not normally the bleeding edge though there have been exceptions) then 5 years later the next console is released, but because of the pace of PC development there will be a noticeable difference a year after a console's release
-
I guess I can't get drunk and play Rock Band with friends on PC.
If i could, i totally would though. Make that Asus Xonar D2X work!
-
i argued they didn't matter to the enjoyment you could derive
i've had as much fun playing smash with four people on a ****ing Wii as i have playing crysis wars on my home-built uber-PC at lan parties
fun is not in the anti-aliased gigahurtzels
OBJECTION.
1. "Enjoyment" is not a viable metric. Not to mention that enjoyment depends on many variables and personal tastes.
2. In good company almost anything is fun. You and your friends can fling poo at eachother and have a gay old time, but that doesn't make poo-fligning "tuh best thing evar". In order for a multiplayer game to suck, one must REALLY f*** it up (or it must be populated by morons who ruin your fun). Ergo, muliplayer games are harder to rate based on the "fun" factor alone.
3. We're discussing the merits of platforms themselves, not the games on them. Games can be considered accesories. The only reliable metric for such comparisons are mesaurable, undeniable ones. If car A has better gas consumption, is faster and has more space, it doesn't matter if you prefer car B due ot aesthetic reason. Car B is superior in all the metrics that matter.
-
"i'm sorry i don't recall being able to play smash on my pc with a bunch of people jumping around a loft in a big common room"
and that disproves that higher resolution and better sound/graphics increases the enjoyment of a game how exactly ?
it proves the point that the non-fanatics in this thread have been making the whole time, which is that they all have their strengths and weaknesses and it's up to individuals to decide what they want
anyone who has to settle for one is deprived (possibly also poor)
trashman
you are wrong
-
I guess I can't get drunk and play Rock Band with friends on PC.
you do realise if your going down the road of you cant play game x on a pc you are going to lose very badly :D
as far as I know the 360 only has 1293 games (including all the xbox arcade type games)
the ps3 has 736
and the wii has 978
while the pc has a magnitude more than the 3 systems combined
-
I guess I can't get drunk and play Rock Band with friends on PC.
you do realise if your going down the road of you cant play game x on a pc you are going to lose very badly :D
as far as I know the 360 only has 1293 games (including all the xbox arcade type games)
the ps3 has 736
and the wii has 978
while the pc has a magnitude more than the 3 systems combined
now divide those number by the length of time in years the systems have been released and do the same for the PC remembering the pc has been running since the 80s
-
To be honest, the only console right now that has considerable strong points compared to a PC is the Wii.
The other two tried so hard to be a media center/console/kitchen sink, that they are basically limited PCs, while the Wii just tried to be a console and its games don't usually intersect with the PC's main genres. Also helps that Nintendo's exclusive titles seem to me to be much better as a whole than the other consoles' exclusives.
I guess I can't get drunk and play Rock Band with friends on PC.
you do realise if your going down the road of you cant play game x on a pc you are going to lose very badly :D
as far as I know the 360 only has 1293 games (including all the xbox arcade type games)
the ps3 has 736
and the wii has 978
while the pc has a magnitude more than the 3 systems combined
now divide those number by the length of time in years the systems have been released and do the same for the PC remembering the pc has been running since the 80s
A PC has a much greater number of titles released for it, even using that metric. But to be honest, number of games is not really a good metric to judge a platform.
-
Batutta> "Take us into orbit, Mr. Malsteen, we've seen enough"
-
they all have their strengths and weaknesses and it's up to individuals to decide what they want
and when you add up all their strengths and weaknesses they all come out exactly the same
every advantage that one system has is exactly countered by a different advantage another system has. sorry I dont agree
-
. But to be honest, number of games is not really a good metric to judge a platform.
Hence the smiley ;)
-
they all have their strengths and weaknesses and it's up to individuals to decide what they want
and when you add up all their strengths and weaknesses they all come out exactly the same
every advantage that one system has is exactly countered by a different advantage another system has. sorry I dont agree
:wtf: How did you manage to agree with Battuta and then say
sorry I dont agree
-
Batutta> "Take us into orbit, Mr. Malsteen, we've seen enough"
that was such a good cutscene
-
I agree with battuta that they all have different strengths and weaknesses, but I disagree that that makes the equal
-
The thing is, the birth of MMO's like Warcraft have kind of blurred the gaming boundary between PC and console when it comes to the reasons people buy them.
-
This thread is expanding at a ridiculous rate. It will soon encompass the known Internetz. :shaking:
Half-Life was the first game to really do a good job of telling its story through events in the gameplay (using heavy scripting) rather than delivering expositional lumps like Doom level screens or Marathon's (excellent) terminals.
Which was part of what I consider to be the ('seemingly' seamless) level-handling. That being said, there was no real story. There were many insignificant events which had no impact on anything outside of being the red key-card.
Honestly, the only real parts of the 'story' (from what I remember) were: Explosion - > Generic Scientist No 4. tells you to get out - > Ant-Lion-Manticore-Thing - > Spec Ops Soldiers come to kill you - > Save some scientists - > Go to the fifth-dimension-thing and kill the boss - > Be the train. You were completely railroaded on a quest to reach the finish line, where nothing you did felt like it actually mattered.
And there was no character development. Hell, there were no main characters in the entire game. G-Man came the closest, but still failed.
The fact that you learn more about what happened in HL1 from HL2 should be telling enough.
-
Video is relevant and has all the arguments required to end this discussion. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vELYwskLbXk)
Okay, I lol'd.
trashman
you are wrong
I lol'd harder.
The thing I really love about the whole PC-fanboi argument is how Crysis is held up as some shining Holy Grail of game development, in a vain attempt to cover up the whole e-peen benchmark thing. I mean, yeah, I'm sure it's a fairly fun title, but it's Vaguely Sci-Fi Shooter #57. It's not exactly breaking some stunning new ground. I've been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, and sent a postcard.
(Also, I generally agree with BloodEagle. Half-Life had far more "oh hey this area is just here because it's a game" environments and situations than its sequel did.)
-
Video is relevant and has all the arguments required to end this discussion. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vELYwskLbXk)
Okay, I lol'd.
trashman
you are wrong
I lol'd harder.
The thing I really love about the whole PC-fanboi argument is how Crysis is held up as some shining Holy Grail of game development, in a vain attempt to cover up the whole e-peen benchmark thing. I mean, yeah, I'm sure it's a fairly fun title, but it's Vaguely Sci-Fi Shooter #57. It's not exactly breaking some stunning new ground. I've been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, and sent a postcard.
(Also, I generally agree with BloodEagle. Half-Life had far more "oh hey this area is just here because it's a game" environments and situations than its sequel did.)
biggest lol is that Crysis is very console friendly in it's setup
-
This thread is expanding at a ridiculous rate. It will soon encompass the known Internetz. :shaking:
Half-Life was the first game to really do a good job of telling its story through events in the gameplay (using heavy scripting) rather than delivering expositional lumps like Doom level screens or Marathon's (excellent) terminals.
Which was part of what I consider to be the ('seemingly' seamless) level-handling. That being said, there was no real story. There were many insignificant events which had no impact on anything outside of being the red key-card.
Honestly, the only real parts of the 'story' (from what I remember) were: Explosion - > Generic Scientist No 4. tells you to get out - > Ant-Lion-Manticore-Thing - > Spec Ops Soldiers come to kill you - > Save some scientists - > Go to the fifth-dimension-thing and kill the boss - > Be the train. You were completely railroaded on a quest to reach the finish line, where nothing you did felt like it actually mattered.
And there was no character development. Hell, there were no main characters in the entire game. G-Man came the closest, but still failed.
The fact that you learn more about what happened in HL1 from HL2 should be telling enough.
Right, but the point of Half Life 1 was that you were in a big dumb action movie, whereas Half Life 2 was about being in a really atmospheric Eastern Bloc post-Soviet action movie.
-
It's also to do with when it was released. 15 years ago, "Aliens invade, Save USofA!!!" was all the storyline that was felt to be required in a game, nowadays, we want more, and writers want to do more.
-
gamefaqs doesn't, gamefaqs is a hive of people who like to argue about stupid ****ing **** like whether a pc or a console is a better platform to play games as if it actually makes a difference
They also post in this exact style.
You're a plant, aren't you?
-
aw0xing
-
gamefaqs doesn't, gamefaqs is a hive of people who like to argue about stupid ****ing **** like whether a pc or a console is a better platform to play games as if it actually makes a difference
They also post in this exact style.
You're a plant, aren't you?
He seems to be a "plant" for a lot of nefarious initiatives. Due to the diversity, I'm starting to think he's an "independent contractor." What's your retainer fee, freelancer tutta? I may have use for your services in the future.
-
for you i work for free
(the antivan crows send their regards)
-
trashman
you are wrong
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome (and right) I am.
-
trashman
you are wrong
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome (and right) I am.
i actually find this a much more agreeable way to argue :D
-
It's also to do with when it was released. 15 years ago, "Aliens invade, Save USofA!!!" was all the storyline that was felt to be required in a game, nowadays, we want more, and writers want to do more.
I nodded in agreement, then burst out laughing upon recalling Crysis 2's premise.
-
:lol: true, but I'd put odds on it becoming some kind of soul-searching morality play before the series finishes ;)
-
Richard Morgan is writing Crysis 2, it's gonna have a good ****ing story. ****
-
Heh, to be honest, I just take stories as they come, partly because I have a terrible memory for authors names, and partly because I've known every author to have their bad days :)
That said, I enjoyed the first ep, except for the ending at least, and am quite interested in what 2 will have to offer.
-
It'll take place 3 years after Crysis 1, so we won't see all that stuff that happens inbetween unless they do a warhead-like affair.
Also, Peter Watts will be working with Morgan to write the story.
That being said, I can't wait for Crysis 2, I liked the first two games.
-
trashman
you are wrong
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome (and right) I am.
i actually find this a much more agreeable way to argue :D
Indeed, but can throwing jokes around and deliberate cheezenes even be considered arguing?
-
It'll take place 3 years after Crysis 1, so we won't see all that stuff that happens inbetween unless they do a warhead-like affair.
Also, Peter Watts will be working with Morgan to write the story.
That being said, I can't wait for Crysis 2, I liked the first two games.
Time for me to dump a big bucket of hate right down on that. As far as Crysis 2 goes, I feel that the gameplay is gonna suffer, as it's been designed with the consoles in mind. You know, consoles don't have enough memory to run the open environments, so it makes sense. We're not looking at limited freedom anymore. Rather, we're looking at a linear, streamlined shooter now. They'd have to make the storyline Mass Effect-good for this game to appeal to me. Remember, Crysis had awesome graphics, but a very mediocre storyline. When good gameplay was thrown into the mix, it balanced out.
To get an idea about the gameplay, check this video out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR3EH7j8kP0
-
Even the original Xbox had levels which were more open and free than a lot of Crysis 1 so I don't think that alone is reason to despair.
-
Nemsis, I think it's less an issue of consoles unable to run huge open worlds (Just Cause 2), but rather Crytek disliking the extensive LOD popping that would be necessary to make it work.
The trailer you posted bothers me for all the scripted/railroaded actions the player can do, such as kicking off cars or erecting barriers. They significantly detract from the game's sandbox feel.
-
Can't believe I forgot to post this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k
I'm not actually seeing much LOD popping. Rather, I'm seeing an extremely low draw-distance for objects. Of course the above video is old now, but I don't think it's a leap to assume that it's the same basic principle; cut down to be playable on consoles.
Yeah, the scripted stuff jumped at me as well. Not in my wildest PC-fanboyism would I dare troll them by talking about how after they'd dumbed the gameplay down, they'd top it off with quicktime events, but they actually did it adding quicktime events, ala "press X to kill enemy with this cool animation, brah!" It's a gimmick in the Killzone series and whatever other games use it, and it's a gimmick here as well. I don't understand what the appeal is in killing enemies with no effort.
Hey, at least the will have modding potential... right?
-
That video is almost two years old, of course it's extremely outdated. It's likely that, y'know, they might have changed some things since summer of 2009. Just maybe.
-
itt people don't know what a quicktime event is
*sigh*
-
Can't believe I forgot to post this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k
Wow, that really shows how much the current gen consoles has aged.
I sometimes forget, but the 360&ps3 are both already 5 years old
-
itt people don't know what a quicktime event is
*sigh*
I know full well what a quicktime event is. I see automatic kills as a watered down version of them.
-
itt people don't know what a quicktime event is
*sigh*
I know full well what a quicktime event is. I see automatic kills as a watered down version of them.
anyone who does not believe that Splinter Cell Chaos Theory was a good PC game should just stick to Angry Birds
-
I kinda meh'd at Splinter Cell, I was comparing it to Thief 2 and it was coming up way short.
-
first one was meh and second one was also meh but Chaos Theory was good and then
-
The Thief series is good, but I liked the SC games (the first three, and especially the third one) better overall.
-
The Thief series is good, but I like the SC games (especially the third one) better overall.
and then whaaat haaaappened
-
I liked the SC games (the first three, and especially the third one)
Agreed.
-
Can't believe I forgot to post this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k
Lol... so to have "console" graphics on the PC you basically, instead of setting everything to very high, you lower shaders to high, textures to low (ugh), everything else to medium and set the draw distance to spitting range -1.
And suddenly i feel a lot less confrontational as pity enters the stage ... especially considering that Crysis is pretty much all about the graphics and little else.
-
There still is a pc version, you know, which probably wouldn't have the exact same graphics as the console ports just because it's for consoles too. Besides, it still looks better than most of the games made recently.
It'll also likely be able to be modified like the origina could be (via config files) to be better looking.
-
Using Crysis for anything other than brute force power is stupid. PC will always win that, but that doesn't mean consoles can't produce graphics on par with PC's - it just proves that Crysis is a terribly programmed game engine.
-
Crtengine 2, perhaps (though it may be more because of the game assets due to how with warhead, you could go up a whle detail level over crysis 1 one practically little fps drop) but cryengine 3 is supposed to be really awesome.
Besides, source is a whole lot worse about having poor performance for how it looks. :<
Using Crysis for anything other than brute force power is stupid. PC will always win that, but that doesn't mean consoles can't produce graphics on par with PC's - it just proves that Crysis is a terribly programmed game engine.
And also, not really. Ever sine Crysis has been released, only a few games have come close or usurped Crysis as the best looking game, being Metro 2033 and Bad Company 2.
-
I loved Crysis. Story was nothing original, but it was good enough. Excellent gameplay, excellent atmosphere and purdy as hell.
-
I found a new and improved picture of reality:
(http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/6075/1217664-gloriouspcgamingrace_super.jpg)
-
And also, not really. Ever sine Crysis has been released, only a few games have come close or usurped Crysis as the best looking game, being Metro 2033 and Bad Company 2.
I can safely say that Bad Company 2 can run on all-high settings other than: HBAO turned off and shadows set to low on an Nvidia GeForce 8600GT with more than acceptable framerates, Metro 2033 on the other hand, no chance.
-
Except, HBAO and shadows are like half of what makes BC2 look good. Without them on or set to high, I daresay CODMW2 looks better. Even with everything maxed, its still a far cry (lolpun) away from Crysis on a technical level.
You could also consider that cryengine2 produced a stunningly smooth experience even at fpses as low as 25-27. Most other engines can't do that. Also, CryEngine2 runs pretty briskly if you stop and consider how much **** the thing needs to do. Depth of Field, per-object motion blur, SSAO, HDR+bloom, Color Grading, Detail Textures, normal mapping, POM, full scene realtime reflections, soft particles, physicalized everything with wind, 3D water waves, volumetric clouds, volumetric fog, volumetric lights, dynamic day/night cycles, etc.
Most games today will have some or most of the above, but won't be able to do all of that, since it'd be so insanely taxing. I don't think it's fair to call the engine "poorly programmed" just because it runs poorly.
-
I found a new and improved picture of reality:
(http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/6075/1217664-gloriouspcgamingrace_super.jpg)
You sir are a true prophet
-
God, really guys? -_-
-
You are not actual gamers.
GET OUT
-
You are not actual gamers.
GET OUT
No :P
-
Using Crysis for anything other than brute force power is stupid. PC will always win that, but that doesn't mean consoles can't produce graphics on par with PC's - it just proves that Crysis is a terribly programmed game engine.
It's not as easy as blaming everything on "shoddy programming".
Contrary to the huge majority of - if not all - other console titles that funnel the player through a mostly predetermined path and severely restrict viewing distance, Crysis displays large open outdoor areas with huge drawing distance that often allow you to explore with little restrictions and offer multiple routes to your goals.
With ~ 256mb RAM current gen consoles simply are not even remotely capable of handling such an environment and still maintain the high amount of detail and texture quality that we have become used to from the "on rails" titles with a strongly limited linear level design.
And seriously... no amount of optimization and programming skills can bridge THAT kinda gulf.
P.S. They did "optimize" Crysis: Warhead to run on lower spec machines (which was a big marketing point) ... the hilarious part is that Crysis: Warhead looked like crap - compared to the original Crysis - until you tweaked the config file and put most of the settings back where they belonged lol.
And it's also worth noting that besides a variety of mods that even further improve the visual quality to make use of even the latest hardware - if you so desire - you also get this: http://www.moddb.com/mods/mechwarrior-living-legends if you own the PC version - which really should settle any argument.
Which brings us back to the original point(s)... considering that consoles are little else than licence restricted low-spec computers sold at (comparatively) ridiculous prices and consequently used by companies to enfore notions like:
- paying extra for basic multiplayer functionality.
- restricing or disabling (in the case of a lot of developpers) the ability to mod... (free content = bad... instead pay extra our substandard DLC pretty plz, k bye thx.)
- often passing off comparably substandard games with substandard graphics as the "latest next gen" blockbuster.
... i still find no way around concluding that the gaming community would be better off, quality and cost wise, if the current heavily restricted implementation of consoles would die a quick and well deserved death in favor of a more open platform.
Course that's a broad statement... and while Nintendo with its Wii (which actually does provide very well implemented new functionality) propably doesn't deserve it in full..... Sony and Microsoft certanly do.
-
Look, coming from a huge Crysis fan, the large open outdoor areas with huge drawing distance that often allow you to explore with little restrictions and offer multiple routes to your goals were nothing particularly impressive given all the good open-world games on consoles. I'm sure Crysis had a lot more pixels in its large open areas but if you could have fun with Half Life pixels ten years ago you can have fun with merely a hundred times Half Life pixels today instead of a hundred thousand or whatever.
I have a powerful homebuild PC running all the latest titles with plenty of mods and I have a console and frankly I can't pick which is the better deal.
-
Yeah. I've got to say, Crysis was actually really unimpressive on a lot of the points it was offering. Were the graphics really, really pretty? Sure. But at the cost of crippling load times and other ugliness in trying to start a level. It's the only other game in recent times besides EVE that will flip out trying to load you into an area in my experience. Was it open? Yeah. But GTA3 and its close cousins did that too a long time ago, and did it better. Crysis was open-world, but it wasn't actually dynamic all that much. All the pretty and open is sort of wasted when your objectives, your enemies, and your resources are essentially fixed.
-
i for one thought crysis was masterful all around, except how short it was.
-
Look, coming from a huge Crysis fan, the large open outdoor areas with huge drawing distance that often allow you to explore with little restrictions and offer multiple routes to your goals were nothing particularly impressive given all the good open-world games on consoles. I'm sure Crysis had a lot more pixels in its large open areas but if you could have fun with Half Life pixels ten years ago you can have fun with merely a hundred times Half Life pixels today instead of a hundred thousand or whatever.
Crysis was awesome.
I remember playing he same level several times, finishing it in several different ways. yay for freedom.
That level where you have to sink a warship - once I sneaked around the coast..and another time I found a way to the sewers and sneaked below them. The third time I took a swim and came in from the harbor. the fourth I circled around on foot and came from the other side.
Then there was that level with the tanks. It was glorious.
Consoles simply can't give the same level of freedom and options and graphics.
-
I ran through Crysis and found it to be relatively stale - the "gimmick", besides the graphics, was the nanosuit, and for me the power for all the abilities didn't last long enough to actually do something fun with it, so most levels I was just pew pew. And while there was the "option" of going out and doing something else to do the mission, it often required you to do the less efficient thing - trudging halfway through the brush to kill three guys instead of just walking up and shooting them in the face was kind of lame.
It was basically Far Cry but prettier, and at least Far Cry's opening levels were more notable IMO.
-
Consoles simply can't give the same level of freedom and options and graphics.
They can easily do two out of three, and the third is pretty much just wankery at this point. I can't be alone in thinking that we've hit the point of diminishing returns as far as graphical improvements are concerned.
-
We totally have, Mongoose. It's something myself and my colleagues discuss regularly. Graphics have kind of leveled out and games are starting to have to get more creative visually to get attention.
The next wave, IMO, is going to be about pushing handheld graphics.
-
Consoles simply can't give the same level of freedom and options and graphics.
They can easily do two out of three, and the third is pretty much just wankery at this point. I can't be alone in thinking that we've hit the point of diminishing returns as far as graphical improvements are concerned.
If they can do 1 out of those 3 right I'll be impressed. But I've yet to see a console game that did that.
-
There's also the question of 'how much more do we need?'.
I remember watching a documentary about, I think, Rockstar at one point, and they were saying something like "This is Dave, he works on the walking animations, and this is Simon, he works on the seated animations...." etc, and I must admit thinking to myself "and at which point, exactly, do you get to the guy who writes the damn game?"
-
Rockstar has excellent writing. Some of the best in the business. (Though their pacing, hrrrrngh)
-
True, but I do find myself wondering how much of a games budget is used up in graphics design/development, and what impact it would have on the quality of the game itself if that were reduced.
-
I just want a few great games like master of orion and starcontrol to keep me busy for the next few years... :(
What happened game industry?
-
Good Lord who cares? Seriously if the idea that "My PC is the most dominant thing ever!" is so important to their sense of self worth just let em have it. Who cares? You think other folk's opinion affects my enjoyment of a platform one iota? Hardly. It should be obvious by now they're buried deep as ticks and no amount of convincing is going to dig them out. Keep this up it will be the Allegory of the Den, only you'll end up beating yourself to death in exasperation.
Enjoy the fact that you're a cross platform gamer and let it drop.
-
Good Lord who cares? Seriously if the idea that "My PC is the most dominant thing ever!" is so important to their sense of self worth just let em have it. Who cares? You think other folk's opinion affects my enjoyment of a platform one iota? Hardly. It should be obvious by now they're buried deep as ticks and no amount of convincing is going to dig them out. Keep this up it will be the Allegory of the Den, only you'll end up beating yourself to death in exasperation.
Enjoy the fact that you're a cross platform gamer and let it drop.
But Starslayer it is important that we be correct because otherwise there may come a day when
okay i got nothin
-
What happened game industry?
They try to make games for everyone - not only for gamers. Before the dark times. Before the EMPIRE... wait, that belongs somewhere else.
-
Good Lord who cares? Seriously if the idea that "My PC is the most dominant thing ever!" is so important to their sense of self worth just let em have it. Who cares? You think other folk's opinion affects my enjoyment of a platform one iota? Hardly. It should be obvious by now they're buried deep as ticks and no amount of convincing is going to dig them out. Keep this up it will be the Allegory of the Den, only you'll end up beating yourself to death in exasperation.
Enjoy the fact that you're a cross platform gamer and let it drop.
:yes:
-
Actually I think this debate is illuminating in the sense that it may eventually converge on some meaningful difference between PC and console games. Really I think the only one that bugs me is the reduced option space for control inputs on consoles. Maybe they should go to kb/m (in a manner that doesn't require third party adapters and ****).
The notion of a standardized platform is in and of itself a pretty good one.
-
Yeah, I reckon that you can still fit a few more buttons onto gamepads, but still, nowhere near as many as a keyboard, obviously. :P
-
most of the recent conoles have used fairly standard interfaces for input, usb or bluetooth. its cheaper to use something off the shelf than to design something from scratch. i kinda think consoles in general will go the way of the mac and just be x86 machines optimized for games instead of multitasking, and with a minimal os. this would make things better for the slew of cross-platform titles since the cpu architecture would essentially be the same.
as for mouse and keyboard interfaces for consoles, its already possible, you just need the device, and games that support it.
-
I just want a few great games like master of orion and starcontrol to keep me busy for the next few years... :(
What happened game industry?
Nothing.
You happened, though. You happened to lose the childlike sense of wonder. You happened to get bored more easily. You could still be out there playing Civ IV and Civ V and the TW games worth a damn and Sins and Space Empires and Galactic Civilizations and even SotS as lolrious as it is. And I'm only listing the ones in vaguely the same genre.
But you won't. You'll just stand around asking where the good games are.
-
It's also about knowing where to look, kind of like music, much of the contents of the charts is regurgitated 'formula' stuff for both media types, but if you look further than that, there's still a lot of good stuff being produced.
-
Consoles simply can't give the same level of freedom and options and graphics.
They can easily do two out of three, and the third is pretty much just wankery at this point. I can't be alone in thinking that we've hit the point of diminishing returns as far as graphical improvements are concerned.
If they can do 1 out of those 3 right I'll be impressed. But I've yet to see a console game that did that.
GTA Whichever. Red Dead Redemption. Hell, pretty much any Rockstar game. I'm not even particularly interested in most of their titles myself, but there's no denying that they practically invented the idea of "sandbox game." Hell, you can throw in :v:'s Saints Row and Just Cause 2 into the mix as well.
And as far as the "Where did these sorts of games go?" argument, keep in mind that there are those of us who never played those sorts of games in the first place. I primarily play games for relaxation and escapism, and as far as I'm concerned, playing a game with extremely complex fundamental mechanics and rulesets seems more like work than entertainment. Hell, if I wanted that, I'd go pick up an old physics textbook and review some material, since that'd actually do something for me. My personal strengths as a gamer lie in my hand-eye coordination and spatial awareness, not my grasp of battlefield strategy or empire-building, and so I tend to avoid games like those that NGTM-1R mentioned by default.
-
I've always felt there are three main kinds of gamers, you could probably tell them apart by giving them a pack of dominos and seeing what they do, there'd be one group that played Dominos with them, one group that started making Domino chains and be happy watching the chain reaction, and there'd be those who invented their own game using the pieces.
The first group are those who like a nice, straight line diversion, the second group like 'management' games where your actions have far reaching effects, and the third tend towards sandbox-type games, where they are free to explore and interact at their own pace.
Edit: And just to note, NO gamer sits absolutely in one group in my opinion, there's always blurring, it's more about trends than absolutes.
-
Yeah, I reckon that you can still fit a few more buttons onto gamepads, but still, nowhere near as many as a keyboard, obviously. :P
I just imagined a game controller that looks like a miniature accordion without the bellows.
I think there's also an aspect of selective memory with why people think that there were better games in the past. Nobody remembers the crap games of those times, but most people will remember and talk about the gems like Starcraft, Red Alert 2, Counterstrike, etc, etc.
When new games come out, I'm inclined to believe that quality games are produced at a higher proportion of all games compared to before. However, we also spend a lot more time looking at every title, even if it's just mediocre to just above average.
So, we remember a lot more gems from the past, and also a lot more not-so-gem games from the present.
-
Exactly. The (relatively) recent prevalence of Internets game reporting has meant that every single shovelware bargain-bin title gains at least some degree of notoriety, whereas they'd pretty much go unnoticed ten or so years ago.
-
Yeah, I reckon that you can still fit a few more buttons onto gamepads, but still, nowhere near as many as a keyboard, obviously. :P
I just imagined a game controller that looks like a miniature accordion without the bellows.
I think there's also an aspect of selective memory with why people think that there were better games in the past. Nobody remembers the crap games of those times, but most people will remember and talk about the gems like Starcraft, Red Alert 2, Counterstrike, etc, etc.
When new games come out, I'm inclined to believe that quality games are produced at a higher proportion of all games compared to before. However, we also spend a lot more time looking at every title, even if it's just mediocre to just above average.
So, we remember a lot more gems from the past, and also a lot more not-so-gem games from the present.
Yeah, on the note of the controller, if you think about an Xbox 360 controller, for instance, you've got your thumb and forefinger being used, and the rest of your hands free. You could probably fit in a few more buttons on the underside of the controller (would then have to make the controllers adjustable to accommodate for shorter and longer fingers, I suppose) and get away with it.
And now you've got me remembering all the ****tier games of my childhood. :P
-
actually I use my middle finger for the lower front buttons and my index for the upper forward buttons. What now? :p
-
there is always this monstrosity:
(http://www.geeksofunusualsize.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/76817-noscale-23214-steel-battalion-controller.jpg)
-
I just want a few great games like master of orion and starcontrol to keep me busy for the next few years... :(
What happened game industry?
Nothing.
You happened, though. You happened to lose the childlike sense of wonder. You happened to get bored more easily. You could still be out there playing Civ IV and Civ V and the TW games worth a damn and Sins and Space Empires and Galactic Civilizations and even SotS as lolrious as it is. And I'm only listing the ones in vaguely the same genre.
But you won't. You'll just stand around asking where the good games are.
I never quite got into Civ, not my game.
Sins of a solar empire just feels really shallow to me. I played one long skirmish game against the ai and one 1 on 1 game with a classmate. And after that I really felt like I've seen the whole game. (Poor a.i. does not help enjoyment)
SotS, I've played the original, I modded it. But after a while I discovered that the developers are retarded and after a while I just got bored with the game.
Galactic Civilizations, same story as Sins. I played one long game and after that felt I had seen it all. (again, poor a.i. does not help enjoyment)
So tell me, where are the good games that will keep me busy for more than a month? :p
I can only list Starcraft 2. A game with depth, an 'old school' rts with excellent multiplayer.
-
Dragon Age?
Mass Effect?
BFBC2?
Really now?
-
Exactly. The (relatively) recent prevalence of Internets game reporting has meant that every single shovelware bargain-bin title gains at least some degree of notoriety, whereas they'd pretty much go unnoticed ten or so years ago.
i think some of the best games in my inventory came from a bargain bin.
-
And I'm only listing the ones in vaguely the same genre.
And not even all of them.
I'm not sure there's anything that annoys me more than good-old-days nostalgia, and gamer nostalgia from people who are probably mid-twenties or maybe mid-thirties is the most irritating variation thereof. "Where did all the good games go" indeed.
-
I just want a few great games like master of orion and starcontrol to keep me busy for the next few years... :(
What happened game industry?
Nothing.
You happened, though. You happened to lose the childlike sense of wonder. You happened to get bored more easily. You could still be out there playing Civ IV and Civ V and the TW games worth a damn and Sins and Space Empires and Galactic Civilizations and even SotS as lolrious as it is. And I'm only listing the ones in vaguely the same genre.
But you won't. You'll just stand around asking where the good games are.
Played all the games you listed :P
SINS is a bit bland and I got bored very quickly.
SE and Gal Civ and ..ok SE gets too much micro and GC has completely uninteresting combat.
Good Lord who cares? Seriously if the idea that "My PC is the most dominant thing ever!" is so important to their sense of self worth just let em have it. Who cares? You think other folk's opinion affects my enjoyment of a platform one iota? Hardly. It should be obvious by now they're buried deep as ticks and no amount of convincing is going to dig them out.
whatchutalkingaboutman?
Self-worth? Opinnion? You think anyone cares about that s***? Well, ok, some do.
I say what I say because it's self-evident. Like moon not being made out of cheese.
SotS, I've played the original, I modded it. But after a while I discovered that the developers are retarded and after a while I just got bored with the game.
Wait...are you that obnoxious guy that eventually got banned for constantly trying to argue with the devs?
-
Just because what you say is self-evident to you does not mean it's self evident or even true otherwise.
-
Exactly. The (relatively) recent prevalence of Internets game reporting has meant that every single shovelware bargain-bin title gains at least some degree of notoriety, whereas they'd pretty much go unnoticed ten or so years ago.
i think some of the best games in my inventory came from a bargain bin.
I mean the sorts of games that start in a bargain bin, not those you find there several years after they were released. :p
-
Wait...are you that obnoxious guy that eventually got banned for constantly trying to argue with the devs?
I dont recall ever getting banned, I do recall that those sots devs couldn't take critism of any kind and even deleted negative threads on release day because they heavily applied censors. Kinda like putting their fingers into their ears and going "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
Not to mention like saying stupid **** like "Sots was totally ready for release in spring" even though they needed a patch like a day after release to address a wide array of bugs and to add features. And openly talking **** about Gal civ's tech tree "In sots you don't research pen and after that ball pen". Oh really? Even though your tech tree goes from red laser to green laser and after that violet laser? They also had this semi-hostile attitude toward mods, because some mods were 'going to improve on their perfect game', which was not possible and quite insulting apparantly.
Now I know its no real use talking to you about this, cause I already know you are a tremendous fanboy but hey :p
Dragon Age?
Mass Effect?
BFBC2?
Really now?
Dragon age was wonderful but I completed it in like 2 weeks and haven't touched it since then.
Mass effect I got bored half way with.
BFBC2 is a fps, I'm not really into those anymore.
But hey, I know reading comprehension is hard and its so darn easy to ignore everything a person says when you are trying to hate on him for:
I'm not sure there's anything that annoys me more than good-old-days nostalgia, and gamer nostalgia from people who are probably mid-twenties or maybe mid-thirties is the most irritating variation thereof. "Where did all the good games go" indeed.
Important part bolded.
So tell me, where are the good games that will keep me busy for more than a month? :p
There are quite a lot of good games these days, sure. But most of them are like Black ops: a 5-10 hour thrill ride.
After playing them once, I don't feel any desire to play them again. I have a large pile of 360 games here but I hardly ever boot up the 360 these days because none of these games offer me anything to continue playing them.
And its definitely a change in the game industry. A lot of games are being designed these days to be this really cinematic experience that everyone can pick up and enjoy. But that's not usually what I look for in a game.
-
Assassin's Creed 2 has a almost 25hour story-line. Really a great game.
But for games that last for months?
Well multiplayer like Diablo 2, Warcraft 3, League of Legends (especially this :) ), and so on.
(no World of Warcraft here)
-
I played and completed AC1, it was fun but it was also really repetetive. If you just do the main missions and fight all the templars you have the most fun parts of the game and aren't missing out on anything else. An other case of play once, never touch again, ever.
I haven't really heard anything about AC2 that tells me it will be an other experience :p
Well I guess games like those are great for people like mongoose though :p
there is always this monstrosity:
*steel battalion pic*
Ye gods, I've always wanted to try that thing :D
-
Just because what you say is self-evident to you does not mean it's self evident or even true otherwise.
Oh, it is the truth. Some people just don't want to accept it :p
-
Just because what you say is self-evident to you does not mean it's self evident or even true otherwise.
Oh, it is the truth. Some people just don't want to accept it :p
No, it's not and I counter that you're the one not accepting that consoles can actually do ****.
Avoided thread so far, but posting your opinion as undeniable truth, hell, the only truth on the matter irritated me enough to say something.
-
Wait...are you that obnoxious guy that eventually got banned for constantly trying to argue with the devs?
I dont recall ever getting banned, I do recall that those sots devs couldn't take critism of any kind and even deleted negative threads on release day because they heavily applied censors. Kinda like putting their fingers into their ears and going "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
Not to mention like saying stupid **** like "Sots was totally ready for release in spring" even though they needed a patch like a day after release to address a wide array of bugs and to add features. And openly talking **** about Gal civ's tech tree "In sots you don't research pen and after that ball pen". Oh really? Even though your tech tree goes from red laser to green laser and after that violet laser? They also had this semi-hostile attitude toward mods, because some mods were 'going to improve on their perfect game', which was not possible and quite insulting apparantly.
Now I know its no real use talking to you about this, cause I already know you are a tremendous fanboy but hey :p
Oh, smooth..Trying to de-value anything I say before I even say it (by throwing labels around). And lying trough your teeth while at it.
Hostile to mods? SOTS is very mod-friendly and the devs support mods. They even made a few changes to make the game more mod friendly after moddeers asked for it. Heck, my mod is one of the biggest one out there for SoTS, and no dev has ever been even remotely hostile about it. Or the ACM mod, which is even bigger than mine..again, no hostility there...something I can easily back up with the mod threads on their forums.
If you're virolitic and a douche (while posting critics or not), you will get smacked on that forum, they run a pretty tight ship. Mecron can be extra-snarky so it may come across more hostile than it is, but other than that, the devs are decent people. Douches that can't take criticism? Again..the very forums lack proof of that.
-
No, it's not and I counter that you're the one not accepting that consoles can actually do ****.
Avoided thread so far, but posting your opinion as undeniable truth, hell, the only truth on the matter irritated me enough to say something.
There is only one truth.
If you fell your is the one - more power to you.
But if you somehow expect me to deny mine, just because you don' like it?..Well, tough luck.
-
Spoon, you might want to check out Psychonauts, if you haven't already.
-
now now girls, lets be civil.
-
now now girls, lets be civil.
civil :confused: this is a GD on PC vs Consoles :lol:
-
There is only one truth.
This way of thinking is the reason the world sucks. Congrats.
-
tl;dr, does it really matter what platform people prefer?
-
tl;dr, does it really matter what platform people prefer?
Not even remotely in the long term, otherwise I'd still be playing an Atari 2600 and my ZX81...
-
Galactic Civilizations, same story as Sins. I played one long game and after that felt I had seen it all. (again, poor a.i. does not help enjoyment)
There's your problem. If you discount GalCiv's and GalCiv 2's AI as poor you have serious issues in grasping reality. I'm not joking. That's not qualitatively wrong, it's quantitatively wrong. GalCiv II's AI is the best 4x AI yet put out. There are documented cases (really, you can probably find it, think it's PCGamer) where professional human players discover after the end of the game that they were never even relevant in grand strategy.
Now I agree that SotS is crap, mainly because they couldn't art design a paper bag much less out of one (I would rather watch Homeworld being played than this. It's truly that noxious in terms of art design; everything is cartoony and ridiculous), the interface is about as unfriendly as possible, the advisor voices leave you with a pathological need to kill the actors, the scenarios are designed by somebody who has no clue how to build an interesting scenario, the manual is poorly edited and actually totally useless when it comes to basic gameplay mechanics (seriously, they have like twenty lines on the realtime combat section that don't actually appear to be relevant to it ingame; the refueling mechanics are mentioned once, in a way that you could easily miss and that doesn't give them remotely the level of attention you'll actually need to pay to having a tanker about), and did I mention whoever designed the interface was a sadist?
Say what you want about Sins, but at least you could find your fleets and planets and monitor/construct across a large empire without dropping four hours on a turn obsessively clicking every point of light in the universe (several times because you lose track). The decentralized fleet construction and inability to set rally points complicates the game immensely and was an awful choice. The "Whooo turn aroundsssss" tech interface is possibly the most annoying tech tree design I've ever seen.
EDIT: Also, the CnC mechanic. It's bollocks. It sounds great but people have been commiting to the field forces larger than they can actually control since Alexander of Macedon and before. Most modern military doctrine conspicuously and openly acknowledges the fact that they cannot properly control the forces arrayed below a general or admiral in detail, that to do so would be counterproductive, and that a battle will be in the hands of the individual captains or squadron commanders.
Instead, SotS thinks "we can solve all problems of warfare command and control by committing our forces in very small groups!" an approach that has never and will never be adopted.
-
Oh, smooth..Trying to de-value anything I say before I even say it (by throwing labels around). And lying trough your teeth while at it.
I am just stating what I have noticed in that other sots thread about the trailer. You have shown tremendous amounts of fanboism. I have no real reason to take your opinion about sots serious. Especially not when you are calling me a liar
That really kinda makes me angry and just makes me want to disregard everything you say forever.
Hostile to mods? SOTS is very mod-friendly and the devs support mods. They even made a few changes to make the game more mod friendly after moddeers asked for it. Heck, my mod is one of the biggest one out there for SoTS, and no dev has ever been even remotely hostile about it. Or the ACM mod, which is even bigger than mine..again, no hostility there...something I can easily back up with the mod threads on their forums.
The time I spend there (I was there when they made the modding section) showed me otherwise. This Mecron fellow especially had this pretty hostile attitude toward mods that improved on aspects of the game. Because surely, there was nothing to improve?
Again..the very forums lack proof of that.
OF COURSE IT DOES. THEY *DELETE* THREADS WITH CRITISM. Just outright censor them. I saw it happen, just after release several threads just vanished because they had a negative tone. It's easy to say "there's no proof of them not taking critism well" when they just destroy the damn evidence.
But hey, its been many years now. Perhaps the devs on the forum grew up a little.
There's your problem. If you discount GalCiv's and GalCiv 2's AI as poor you have serious issues in grasping reality. I'm not joking. That's not qualitatively wrong, it's quantitatively wrong. GalCiv II's AI is the best 4x AI yet put out. There are documented cases (really, you can probably find it, think it's PCGamer) where professional human players discover after the end of the game that they were never even relevant in grand strategy.
My problem is that I steamrolled the a.i. on my first game in Galciv II? aright.
Now I know I only played one game, but the a.i. did very little to oppose me, they didn't bond together to defeat my uprising empire, they didn't all massively declared war on me or anything. They just let me grow and grow and take over enemies one at the time. It's been a while and things may have changed in patches or something but I didn't see any of this brilliant a.i. that you speak of when I played :(
-
My problem is that I steamrolled the a.i. on my first game in Galciv II? aright.
Now I know I only played one game, but the a.i. did very little to oppose me, they didn't bond together to defeat my uprising empire, they didn't all massively declared war on me or anything. They just let me grow and grow and take over enemies one at the time. It's been a while and things may have changed in patches or something but I didn't see any of this brilliant a.i. that you speak of when I played :(
Did you at least try on higher difficulties? If you were up there on a high difficulty with tough opponents, I will bow to your superior opinions since I play on medium at most (and I've never seen the AI show that sort of true brilliance either, but it can be a real pain in the ass nonetheless and I'll believe it's possible).
-
There is only one truth.
This way of thinking is the reason the world sucks. Congrats.
lol, so you think that there can be more than one truth?
-
lol, so you think that there can be more than one truth?
2+2 and 1+3 both equal 4.
Scary ****, man, hide your children!
-
My problem is that I steamrolled the a.i. on my first game in Galciv II? aright.
Now I know I only played one game, but the a.i. did very little to oppose me, they didn't bond together to defeat my uprising empire, they didn't all massively declared war on me or anything. They just let me grow and grow and take over enemies one at the time. It's been a while and things may have changed in patches or something but I didn't see any of this brilliant a.i. that you speak of when I played :(
Did you at least try on higher difficulties? If you were up there on a high difficulty with tough opponents, I will bow to your superior opinions since I play on medium at most (and I've never seen the AI show that sort of true brilliance either, but it can be a real pain in the ass nonetheless and I'll believe it's possible).
Tbh I really can't recall. I really liked the ship design part of the game though, even if it was just for looks :)
-
lol, so you think that there can be more than one truth?
2+2 and 1+3 both equal 4.
Scary ****, man, hide your children!
y u no let me troll?
-
Probably because you're pretty terrible at it.
-
y u no let me troll?
Because A: you suck and B: I'm working on my professional countertroll technique.
-
Did you at least try on higher difficulties? If you were up there on a high difficulty with tough opponents, I will bow to your superior opinions since I play on medium at most (and I've never seen the AI show that sort of true brilliance either, but it can be a real pain in the ass nonetheless and I'll believe it's possible).
Can only second that opinion... if not playing on "intelligent" the AI is handicapped in the actions it can take.
(There s that hilarious screenshot floating around where the AI sends you a message complaining that "it can see what you are doing and it knows you are amassing a fleet to attack its empire and is outraged by it and if its admirals weren t complete morons it would do something about it. ;) )
Also... anyone calling GalCiv2s AI "bad" has to realize the following (and as highhanded as it sounds, this is really the only way to approach the matter, since it really is that obvious if you spent enough time with the game):
- GalCiv2s AI is - by far - the best that the genre has to offer.
- contrary to pretty much every other game... GalCiv2 AI's, on intelligent, does NOT cheat and is subject to the same rules as the player is.
- AI quality does not necessarily equal difficulty (an AI damage or ressource multiplier can do that as well) ... It does equal replay value however.
(This point is especially relevant when comparing GalCiv to games that feature moronic AI that can only put up a fight at all by cheating left and right.)
- the more you keep playing the more you will appreciate it.
As far as other (somewhat recent - for the genre anyways) games go...
Sins... Supreme Commander in Space: cool.... but, as already NGTM-1R already said, lacking in character - it's simply too bland.
SEIV... uhm... let's not mention that pile of *** again... worst AI in this list by far and zero replayability - in comparison anyways.
Sots... isn't as bland as Sins... and is worth playing... because it has multiplayer - other than that, not so much. Worth mentioning: Gimmicky and really badly thought out (balance wise) real time part allows for hilarious exploits against the very predictable and monotonous AI... /snooze.
Honorary Mention: Star Ruler... a gem in the making? Plays like a pre-alpha still.
What do 4x games have to add to a PC vs. consoles thread? Well. That is simple. Consoles suck because they don't have any 4x games worth mentioning - if they have any at all. :-) :-) :-)
-
Seeing as how 4X games seem about as fun as managing a government bureaucracy, I feel like consoles are better off without them. :p
-
Seeing as how 4X games seem about as fun as managing a government bureaucracy, I feel like consoles are better off without them. :p
I've come to realize that you are now offically very low on my ranking of cool people on hlp :p
-
Fair enough.
/me goes to blow some **** up
-
There is only one truth.
This way of thinking is the reason the world sucks. Congrats.
1+1 isn't 2??? Oh noes!
There's your problem. If you discount GalCiv's and GalCiv 2's AI as poor you have serious issues in grasping reality. I'm not joking. That's not qualitatively wrong, it's quantitatively wrong. GalCiv II's AI is the best 4x AI yet put out. There are documented cases (really, you can probably find it, think it's PCGamer) where professional human players discover after the end of the game that they were never even relevant in grand strategy.
I could say the same for SoTS.
Now I agree that SotS is crap, mainly because they couldn't art design a paper bag much less out of one (I would rather watch Homeworld being played than this. It's truly that noxious in terms of art design; everything is cartoony and ridiculous), the interface is about as unfriendly as possible, the advisor voices leave you with a pathological need to kill the actors, the scenarios are designed by somebody who has no clue how to build an interesting scenario, the manual is poorly edited and actually totally useless when it comes to basic gameplay mechanics (seriously, they have like twenty lines on the realtime combat section that don't actually appear to be relevant to it ingame; the refueling mechanics are mentioned once, in a way that you could easily miss and that doesn't give them remotely the level of attention you'll actually need to pay to having a tanker about), and did I mention whoever designed the interface was a sadist?
I detect a complete and total lack of any objectivity whatsoever, or even an attempt at it. The wording itself is a testament to this.
SoTs sucks because the art sucks? It's cartoony? Wow. now there is a subjective statement if I ever saw one. It would be lime me saying that WoW sucks because it's art style is cartoony. Now, I personally may dislike that style but saying it sucks because of that?
The correct way of phrasing that would be "I personally dislike cartoony design."..and that's it.
Voices...same thing. You hate it, other people love it. A minor element.
Not that Sots as a cartoony design. The scale and proportions are realistic, the models are detailed - the only part that's "cartoony" are the colorful textures. They were made that way to make it easier to tell ships and section at a glance (the human ships would be the biggest offender. Honestly I prefer to play with a texture mod, but it's not an issue really). So that would make it colorful, not cartoony.
The interface itself is more than OK, I never had any problem with it, nor did other people. Perhaps you're just not very good at it?
Say what you want about Sins, but at least you could find your fleets and planets and monitor/construct across a large empire without dropping four hours on a turn obsessively clicking every point of light in the universe (several times because you lose track). The decentralized fleet construction and inability to set rally points complicates the game immensely and was an awful choice. The "Whooo turn aroundsssss" tech interface is possibly the most annoying tech tree design I've ever seen.
:lol: :lol:
Someone has never used the tabs...
Everything you say cannot be done, can be done.
Also, the CnC mechanic. It's bollocks. It sounds great but people have been commiting to the field forces larger than they can actually control since Alexander of Macedon and before. Most modern military doctrine conspicuously and openly acknowledges the fact that they cannot properly control the forces arrayed below a general or admiral in detail, that to do so would be counterproductive, and that a battle will be in the hands of the individual captains or squadron commanders.
Instead, SotS thinks "we can solve all problems of warfare command and control by committing our forces in very small groups!" an approach that has never and will never be adopted.
Someone also never bothered to read how command points work.
A SoTS battle is an approximation of weeks (even months) of manouvering. You CNC represents your ability to coordinate and manouvre large fleets to effectively have the ships you want where you need them.
Realisticly, pushing deep into enemy territory in one massive cluster doesn't work, as your supply lines get cut.
And there's the whole thing of performance..you know, with detailed ship with physics calculations and all that jazz... IT's hte same reason we don't have BoE mission in FS.
-
Oh, smooth..Trying to de-value anything I say before I even say it (by throwing labels around). And lying trough your teeth while at it.
I am just stating what I have noticed in that other sots thread about the trailer. You have shown tremendous amounts of fanboism. I have no real reason to take your opinion about sots serious. Especially not when you are calling me a liar
That really kinda makes me angry and just makes me want to disregard everything you say forever.
And I am just stating what I have noticed.
You do not hesitate even one instant to call me a fanboy (in a negative context) and then act all insulted that I call you a liar?
So I'm a fanboy because I posted a trailer for a game I like on a sub-forums for discussing games? By that logic, everyone posting here is a deranged fanboy. Heck, we're all on HLP forums, doesn't that make us all FS fanboys?..Ergo, nothing we say about FS should ever be taken seriously?
Yeah, I like SotS. Yes, I like Kerberos (they have removed BioWare from the favorite developer list)
Does that mean I'm incapable of objectivity at all? That all fans are incapable? That if someone makes post like "FS sucks because you cannot double-fie missiles" that I shouldn't respond to that, because I'm a "fan"? And that responding to such a post makes me a crazed fan?
So I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you're not a liar. But why would you say things that are not true then? Either you only played SOTS when it came out (without patches or expansion), OR you tried it for 5 minutes without even bothering to do research, OR you really did play trough it.
So the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that you're either misinformed (out-of-date data), lazy and ignorant, or downright malicious. Take your pick.
Looking at your posts there I see you've been there for a while..and after doing some searching and reading some stuff you posted..yeah, I think I can see what's been going on. You have been gushing so much on GalCiv and bashing SoTs so much that you ended up pissing off half the forums (repeatedly calling it shallow, claining that 4X games have no multiplayer value, etc...) Somebody's got a grudge.
I must say reading that thread is funny...and brings back memories. Now I recall you. And I recall that I used that same thread where you stomped off in a fit to pimp Freespace SCP.
And looking at the dates and everything... it seems like you quie the forums before Bob or AMOC or ANY got out.
So yeah..it's not *my* opinion being tainted that people should be worried about.
I'll do you a favor and not post a link to that thread.
Again..the very forums lack proof of that.
OF COURSE IT DOES. THEY *DELETE* THREADS WITH CRITISM. Just outright censor them. I saw it happen, just after release several threads just vanished because they had a negative tone. It's easy to say "there's no proof of them not taking critism well" when they just destroy the damn evidence.
But hey, its been many years now. Perhaps the devs on the forum grew up a little.
Sounds to me like a conspiracy theory. Now you called me a fanboy, stating that I shouldn't be trusted. However, that it's a double-edged argument.
Given that I know more about SOTS and spent more time talking to devs and other players, doesn't that make me more informed on both? In fact, doesn't that make my arguments more credible?
As I said...a matter of perspective.
And I haven't seen what you mentioned. Some posts were deleted, but those where clean ups (old, closed topics) or trolling/spam/add-bots. I have yet to see any post with constructive criticism deleted.
My problem is that I steamrolled the a.i. on my first game in Galciv II? aright.
Now I know I only played one game, but the a.i. did very little to oppose me, they didn't bond together to defeat my uprising empire, they didn't all massively declared war on me or anything. They just let me grow and grow and take over enemies one at the time. It's been a while and things may have changed in patches or something but I didn't see any of this brilliant a.i. that you speak of when I played :(
I think a lot of it is situational. From what I remember the AI in GalCiv2 was decent enough. It tried to answer your techs by researching couter-techs..stuff like that. Of course, the player will always be better.
Heck, AI in SoTS is excellent (considering it does NOT cheat. At all...except on hard difficulty), but I can still beat it. There are simply tactics that are incredibly hard to beat, in any game...even when playing against real players. All it takes is a little bit of luck and a good start.
-
tl;dr
Trashman confirmed for retarded, will now be put on /ignore
No matter what I say will not get through your dense head anyway, so why bother.
-
tl;dr Serb getting angsty over his favorite game being ****
-
tl;dr Serb getting angsty over his favorite game being ****
Okay, that was both uncalled for and unwise. You've been warned to lay off the nationalist implications and warned not to be a jerk.
I can understand being angry but you weren't even involved in this discussion.
-
Synchro-lockage!
I think this thread has run it's course anyway, and there seems to be something about SotS that brings out the worst in both sides of the argument.
-
tl;dr Serb getting angsty over his favorite game being ****
Okay, that was both uncalled for and unwise. You've been warned to lay off the nationalist implications and warned not to be a jerk.
I can understand being angry but you weren't even involved in this discussion.
Isn't Trashman Croatian? :p
Anyway Hades, you're monkeyed. You weren't involved in the argument so you're obviously just posting to cause trouble.