No, because PC will still always have more power
How I laughed
- Thread starter Castiel
- Start date
No, because PC will still always have more power
Sorry, I have nothing more to add to that.
you can grin
if you enjoy playing cross platform ports on your beloved powerfull PCs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
Yeah but when is it ever used.
I mean obviously a PC has more capability at making the big games with the pretty graphics.
But it doesnt happen, Crysis, hardware crippling and unoptimized, It made for a very pretty game, and an amazing benchmarking tool. Game wise, Mediocre.
Halo 3 with its lack of aa, control pad and dumbed down physics was a better game.
Killzone 2 with its lack of aa, control pad and dumbed down physics was a better game.
Resistance 2 with its lack of aa, control pad and dumbed down physics was a better game.
Subjective I guess.
but the PC doesnt seem to be bringing anything to the table considering the available power.
As I pointed out, I said I have a better gaming experience using something that may not have the best graphics, but that doesn't make it any less a good gaming experience for me or many others. Let's not forget that just a few years ago, we were playing games with terrible graphics, but that didn't make them any less fun did it?
GTA4, how did your beloved PC's run that game when it first came out?
Yes that gave a much better gaming experience in general on the PC than it did on the 360.
But that wasn't down to the performance of the PC, it was badly written.
Could you imagine the scorn that would've been heaped on R* if the PC version would have been delayed until it was optimised for the PC?
They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Always makes for an interesting topic when comparing consoles against PC's.
They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Always makes for an interesting topic when comparing consoles against PC's.
They could have built it around the PC first, and then ported it to the console later .... or wait, no they couldn't because while the PC can just about handle badly written ports due to being more powerful than the console, the consoles can't.
With good specs ( quad core, gtx260), far better than on 360... Especially at 1280x720, where the framerate was mostly double of the console counterpart.GTA4, how did your beloved PC's run that game when it first came out?
Yes that gave a much better gaming experience in general on the PC than it did on the 360.
I still think playing with a pad is not fun and a chore for most games, it's one of the main reasons I don't buy a console, really hate it when I'm playing with a pad @ mates...
Yes I wonder why they did the consoles first?
Size of market?
That's just because you aren't used to it. I was exactly the same when I played MW at my mates house on his 360. I was not used to it at all, but I bought a 360 and adapted to it.
Last edited:
It's nothing to do with whether or not something can handle it. It's simply down to the fact that you create a game for the market which is going to give you the most profit, in this case it's the Console market which has the biggest share.
To make a game for the PC and then attempt to port it to Consoles these days doesn't make financial sense, as the PC Gaming market is not what it once was.
I was trawling to find this very comment. It's all profit related, not technology.
Consoles are far cheaper and more accessable (to kids etc). This gives you more market share.
It's the same with films these days - they dumb them down so they can slap on a 12 cert and open the film to a bigger market.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 5,317
- Location
- Ipswich
The average person can only really buy a ps3/Xbox as there within your average persons means.
A gaming computer is not really.
So for making the most profit making the game for the console market would be much more profitable off the bat due to the bigger market of customers.
Then for the PC.
The thing is when they do it for the pc they always make shoddy ports instead of investing and making it worth bringing to the pc these days.
That sucks as a lot of potentially good games that would be amazing on the pc due the power it can offer are terrible due to terrible compatability with when they port it
A gaming computer is not really.
So for making the most profit making the game for the console market would be much more profitable off the bat due to the bigger market of customers.
Then for the PC.
The thing is when they do it for the pc they always make shoddy ports instead of investing and making it worth bringing to the pc these days.
That sucks as a lot of potentially good games that would be amazing on the pc due the power it can offer are terrible due to terrible compatability with when they port it
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 26,303
Meh, gimme a Dualshock 3 and I'll take on any of you Keyboard Warriors.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 2,730
- Location
- Kent
I'm better at using a controller rather than mouse and keyboard. Haven't done proper PC gaming for a few years, bar replaying Half Life 2 every now and again.
right tool for the job and all that. FPSs seem to work much better with a mouse, but driving feels much better with a controller.
it is well known that mice are better for aiming, else there would be no need for auto-aim on consoles. It's not the world's easiest thing switching from one to the other though - I used to play exclusively on consoles, and use laptops for all my work, so it took me a while to get decent coordination going.
it is well known that mice are better for aiming, else there would be no need for auto-aim on consoles. It's not the world's easiest thing switching from one to the other though - I used to play exclusively on consoles, and use laptops for all my work, so it took me a while to get decent coordination going.