So it's the 'biggest letdown this generation'?
for me personally yeah....its not the worse game its just the one i was let down most by
So it's the 'biggest letdown this generation'?
DirectX versions are not generations.Actually isn't crysis more last generation since it sneakily runs on DX9?
DirectX versions are not generations.
Because PCs don't have generations.Nobody else has gave a good definition of PC generations![]()
The engines have generations yes, but all engines update independently.They do have generations though. You can see it in the engines. You may not be able to define it as something hard and fast, but with the bigger engines being built, you can see the same techniques getting used and it is as close to generations as you will get with PC's.
The engines have generations yes, but all engines update independently.
Don't forget that console games have generations too and they don't just wait on the console.
Not at all. If you want to defend a game on its merits, fair enough, doesn't matter what format.Someone like Nokkon will probably accuse me of defending Crysis purely because it's a PC game, but they'd be totally wrong. I am honestly wondering how it's relevent to this thread.
Yes they do update independently, but they all start adding the same features and same increases in textures, lighting etc around the same time.
You can't say a quake 3 engine game and a source engine are not different generations, because they are. Source engine and Doom 3 are the same generation.
it's is as close as you will get, and you only get it because, the hardware moves along in stages, like the consoles, just there is more fluidity between PC hardware generations than their console counterparts.
it is like PC's are analogue and consoles are digital.
God i am answering a question that was asked to someone else and they ducked out it lo.
Army of Two
Kane and Lynch
Burnout Paradise
It simply doesn't work that way though. Most PC games that have recently come out will happily play on a graphics card such as a Radeon 9800 Pro but would look and play nothing like they would on the latest cards.s even in a pc as every so often new graphics cards are show on magazine covers with the title 'next gen graphics cards'. but it seemed to me the guys asking questions were doing it for the sake of an argument which could have went on ...for more time than i cared to talk to them
I'm still disagreeing with this. Not all games switch to the new version of DirectX when a new version comes out, we're still seeing tons of DirectX 9 games being released and DirectX 10 has been around for two years now which, in a generational sense, means the "DX9 generation" is not over.PC's do have graphical generations, DX7, 8, 9 and 10 for example.
I'd definitely say the latter 2 deserve to be there, mainly as Kane and Lynch was coming off the back of Hitman and Burnout is Burnout, but Army of Two was an original IP (though I hope they make a sequel just to see what they call it), so that's a little unfair.
It simply doesn't work that way though. Most PC games that have recently come out will happily play on a graphics card such as a Radeon 9800 Pro but would look and play nothing like they would on the latest cards.
Then you have to take other things into account like CPU power, etc. Games like Supreme Commander would graphically run fine on GPUs from the 6800 era but would suffer immensely on CPUs of the time.
There are simply far too many factors to even begin to define a generation for a PC or a PC game.
I'm still disagreeing with this. Not all games switch to the new version of DirectX when a new version comes out, we're still seeing tons of DirectX 9 games being released and DirectX 10 has been around for two years now.
I'm of the opinion that if all PC hardware updated at the same time, as opposed to just the components updating, then PC gaming would be generational. As it is though PCs are more dynamic, the back catalogue for PC gaming is almost totally backwards-compatible depending on your OS and which software you use, and as such there's really only one PC gaming generation.
But the games don't depend on what "generation" each individual bit of hardware is. We're talking about PCs, PC gaming specifically, having generations but you cannot pin one point in time as a specific generation due to the overlapping/customisable nature of the hardware and APIs.my post says "different generations in a pc"...could be graphics cards...could be cpu's...could be game engines...could be DX.
I didn't want to start some fanboy argument about which platform has the better back catalogue, but I can play DOS games from the late eighties and early nineties, and most Windows games, on the machine in my sig. So I think it's safe to say it has a slightly larger back catalogue than the PS3 does. Don't you?also as far as playable back catalogue goes...go take a look at the ps3.