Well, that's because you like arcade racing. I don't know how old you are, but you would have love OutRun, and stuff like Chase HQ - I loved Chase HQ, short but great fun.
Why is PC gaming considered better?
- Thread starter Randall Flagg
- Start date
Well, that's because you like arcade racing. I don't know how old you are, but you would have love OutRun, and stuff like Chase HQ - I loved Chase HQ, short but great fun.
I always thought that games were made using PCs and development kits so releasing a hit game that was made for a console was an easy port over. I'm probably wrong.
Of course the graphics will be better, the PS3 was lanuched four years ago, probably designed over 7 years ago. You keep updating you graphics cards, they will obviously quite easily outperform it, but then you'll be paying a similar price to the PS3 every 3 years.
I'm not getting into control, schemes, I'm simply pointing out that whatever voodoo that PD have done with GT5 it is at least one genre where the graphics are better on the console.
Not in the case of the XBox you are not, that is how it's done.
I did, chase HQ was great. As for the age, I can go all the way back to pong. I remember thinking 3d monster maze on the ZX81 was the scariest thing ever.
I had a ZX81 and that very game also.
I'm sure it is and I look forward to playing it in 2020.
Did you have the 16k ram pack and sore fingers from the unbelievably bad keyboard.
My only point here is that games with very high production values will never again be made for PC alone, as the money simply is not there. I'd expect that GT5 is probably the most expensive game ever made. That said, it will recoup its costs because it's a popular product. People like it. However, I also tried to make the point that in terms of graphics, it's superior to its PC counterparts, mainly due to the effort put in to the modelling of the cars and environments. Of course, if it was game targeted at the high end PC gaming market it could look even better, but it isn't.
I used to try to program the thing with that hanging out of the back. You could spend hours "typing" on that keyboard, and then with a slight nudge of the memory pack, it was all gone. Great times!
Well, you're a fecking weirdo, and I bet that you own FM3.
Was it the zx81 that had the game you could copy code from the instruction manual and it was just some crappy stick man running across the screen.
Well obviously I own Forza.
That didn't need that nasty memory pack did it?
I learnt my skills on a CBM 8296 mostly, because the ZX81 was a nightmare.
U r rite.
I think it is beautiful that for all this technological, PS3 vs High End PC talk, the conversation eventually gets round to the ZX81 and the CBM 8296.
I was more into the C64 and ZX Spectrum era myself - when games were games because the graphics were so crap, a game had to stand on its own playablility merits.
Consoles are great for low-maintenance, "Plug & Play" gaming but nothing can beat a fully pimped PC - imo.
The great thing is, if you have the money, you can have both! The best of both worlds! How cool is that?
I was more into the C64 and ZX Spectrum era myself - when games were games because the graphics were so crap, a game had to stand on its own playablility merits.
Consoles are great for low-maintenance, "Plug & Play" gaming but nothing can beat a fully pimped PC - imo.
The great thing is, if you have the money, you can have both! The best of both worlds! How cool is that?
Which is the reason, if you are interested in this type of game, to buy a PS3, and many will be bought for it, this is the PS3's Halo. Even people that don't even like racing game will buy this thing, and it looks better than any PC counterpart, which is what this thread is about. It doesn't look better necessarily because of technical details (as this is you Biscuit I'll shove you a little, a lot of it has to do with that Cell processor, prove me wrong), but rather the art and the detail, that no studio would ever attempt on the PC platform for the reasons I've already outlined.
From what I have seen from your posts Weaste (I'm a relative Newb around here), you are something of a gaming connoisseur with significant insight into the investment into development and technical accomplishments of a particular game. Because of this, you are likely to look at a game from a technical point of view.
How real the graphics look can certainly add to the experience because the more realistic it looks, the more the sense of "realism" for the gamer.
To most gamers, though, it is all about how it plays. It is unfortunate that most of the tiny technical details (which you will appreciate would have taken many man-hours to achieve) are taken largely for granted and missed completely by the average gamer.
It's like with a record - a musician or record producer might appreciate a track because of the clever use of chords and the way the strings subtly counter-balance the vocal.
The average Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime in the club will just like the 4/4 beat.
How real the graphics look can certainly add to the experience because the more realistic it looks, the more the sense of "realism" for the gamer.
To most gamers, though, it is all about how it plays. It is unfortunate that most of the tiny technical details (which you will appreciate would have taken many man-hours to achieve) are taken largely for granted and missed completely by the average gamer.
It's like with a record - a musician or record producer might appreciate a track because of the clever use of chords and the way the strings subtly counter-balance the vocal.
The average Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime in the club will just like the 4/4 beat.
I think it is beautiful that for all this technological, PS3 vs High End PC talk, the conversation eventually gets round to the ZX81 and the CBM 8296.
I was more into the C64 and ZX Spectrum era myself - when games were games because the graphics were so crap, a game had to stand on its own playablility merits.
Consoles are great for low-maintenance, "Plug & Play" gaming but nothing can beat a fully pimped PC - imo.
The great thing is, if you have the money, you can have both! The best of both worlds! How cool is that?
The bolded part I agree with.
However, the gameplay merits I do not. Take R-TYPE in the arcade for example. Once you knew those games, they were 1 hour 40 minute play throughs at best, and always the same. That's why games like Bubble Bobble were so great, it was like an expanded Pac-Man, you never had the same problems with the enemies twice, ever! Best game ever made is Bubble Bobble, total mad arse wickedry!
Those machines back then were wonderful things to play around with, and they brought a lot of people a serious amount of joy. Now many game players moan about things that are not really significant to anything, like a glitch here, or a glitch there, very silly, it's not like rotating trees is it? Do the rotating trees in Mafia II really destroy the game itself? No! Is it a technical mess? Yes!
These are different points to different people. I think that the game is a technical mess, others enjoy it for what it is, and that's where we get down to the question of the thread. That is - is the PC the superior gaming platform. Well, in the case of racing games, it clearly isn't in terms of the size of your 500 Watt graphics card. You could argue all day. Yes, in general a PC with a capable graphics card can do stuff at a higher resolution, with more AA, more AF, and god knows what else than a console can do. However, view GT5 in 1080p and no cnut knows the difference.
1080p is the limit of the human eye at reasonable distance. It's as simple a that. Increasing resolution in TVs is not the answer, there is little point, thus the move towards 3D.
Anyway, and the end of all of that crap, GT5 looks better than any PC racer simply because they have had the time and money to model the cars. Then you have those glorious programmers that provide the lighting, and in GT5 it's a lot to do with the lighting, it's glorious. I've studied it, but I don't quite understand how they do it.
And the reason PC developers don't is that they usually aren't too interested in making racing games for the PC. Not exclusively, anyway. I definitely prefer racing games (among others genres) on consoles. Though I think fondly back at the days of Need for Speed on the PC, I usually get them on the 360 at this point (or play them on my brothers PS3 when I'm home).
Actually, one of the relatively few games I own on the 360 is Need for Speed Carbon, which I actually really like, despite its silly appearance. It's not brilliant, but all the same I keep coming back to it to complete it once or twice every year.
I think that it's fair to say that a PC is better for certain types of games and consoles are better for certain types of games.
I would prefer to play a racing game on a console but I would prefer to play an RPG or Strategy type game on the PC.
(Going off on the tangent about playability vs graphics, the point I was making is that in those days ALL games had really crap graphics and so the only thing that would keep you playing is the game itself and how playable it was. If the controls were awkward, if the sprite detection was unforgiving and the difficulty level was turned up to 11 from screen one, you probably wouldn't persevere, no matter what it looked like (crap, mostly). One of the most addictive games of all time was another of the most simple both in terms of graphics and concept - Tetris.)
I would prefer to play a racing game on a console but I would prefer to play an RPG or Strategy type game on the PC.
(Going off on the tangent about playability vs graphics, the point I was making is that in those days ALL games had really crap graphics and so the only thing that would keep you playing is the game itself and how playable it was. If the controls were awkward, if the sprite detection was unforgiving and the difficulty level was turned up to 11 from screen one, you probably wouldn't persevere, no matter what it looked like (crap, mostly). One of the most addictive games of all time was another of the most simple both in terms of graphics and concept - Tetris.)
I agree, games should be fun, and the ease of control is part of that. They are at the end of the day all computers in different forms, SNES, Wii, PS2, PC, DS, etc. Some can output better graphics than others, some can output better sound than others, and both of those things are important in the immersion , but at the end of the day, it does come down to how playable the game is. If anyone ever played a game such as Driller, which ran at about 2fps on the C64, they will know that despite its technical problems (i the C64 couldn't run it at a decent frame rate), the game itself was still quite enjoyable.
PC Hardware gives better graphics than that of consoles, mouse pointing and clicking beats moving a stick up/down/left/right any day for me because of the accuracy and speed, this leads to much faster intensive gameplay online than that on a console, plus if you like console controls you can plug one in! Winner all round.
On top of the maturity points etc. There are much less 12 year old Americans swearing at you from their bedrooms.
On top of the maturity points etc. There are much less 12 year old Americans swearing at you from their bedrooms.
I like being sworn at by 12 year old Americans though.