Skyrim is surely first and foremost ment to be played on a pc, Not a game id ever buy for a console if i had the choice between platforms.
Skyrim (like Oblivion and the Fallout series) play well on the consoles actually. They look better graphically on the PC though. However, my consoles are connected to a projector and although graphically my PC version of Skyrim is better there is a sense of 'epic-ness' on the projector that is distinctly pleasing when I play the PS3 version. The same goes for Fallout 3 and NV which is great on my 360.
The Skyrim reference was to the remark about "running happily with 256MB RAM" on PS3, versus Bethesda issues to actually bring the DLC to PS3 due memory constraints.
Why would you play more money for an inferior (fixed thx) version of the game? But good point anyways. but still, 95% of the time, it does fine.
Inferior*? I don't even need to answer that. It did not run well for me on ps3 until they patched it which took quite a long time.
See this thread: http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=252764 And tell me how the pc version is inferior. Or are we misunderstanding you?
I was talking about the PS3 version, i see no reason at all why you would want to get the PS3 version over the PC is what i was saying. particularly an open world RPG.. why on earth would you not want that on PC? :S
Would you describe Red Dead Redemption as an openworld role playing game? Because there is a situation that makes me sad
Open world games do work well on a console if they get the control system right. RDR (along with Fallout 3/NV and Skyrim) is a great example of this. Other examples are the Assassins Creed series which although are not exactly RPGs, they show that you can get a console to play 'epic' scale games. Consoles are sometimes unfairly lambasted as 'toys' which are unable to play 'proper' games. This is more down to the game publishers who choose not to make 'proper' games rather than the actual consoles themselves. There are of course a lot of games which can only really be played on a PC (such as Arma) but this is mainly due to the complex control systems required which could not be replicated on a controller. Arma is maybe more of an exception as that game also requires massive system resources only available on a PC. I would have no problem playing Arma on a console, if the console had the grunt and I could plug a proper control system into it (keyboard, mouse, pedals. throttle, flightstick etc). The problem for console manufacturers is that the number of people wanting to play such games diminishes as the complexity increases and it probably is not financially viable to produce what is essential a high-end PC in a small box! Their biggest market is probably the 'Modern Military Shooter' and you just don't need the high end technology to churn these out.
You've been provocative, rude and argumentative from the off in this thread, and it's derailing a good discussion. When whoever it was asked for your citations, you could've just provided them, or humbly admitted that you were speculating. Instead you started flaming (despite their questions being reasonable ones), and it's been tedious to read. Just sayin'. /tangent
Terrible tangent. You don't seem to know what a reductio is either. Better luck next time. You seem to think you're entitled in some grand way to a "citation"? What is this Wikipedia? Last time I checked, if people *leak* information, the last thing they do is turn around and reveal their sources or their own identity. Because that's how you keep a job right? As for being provocative/rude/argumentative, I'm sorry I have transgressed and dared to hold an opinion different than yours. Tell me, oh great elephant, how should I think, because apparently independent thinking is a bad thing. I also congratulate you on contributing absolutely nothing to this thread in your post. P.S. May I also suggest you look up the definition of flaming.
Ooookkkeyy.. so while dolphie enjoy a song which he doesn't understand its purpose or lyrics. PS4 is rumored to have dynamic GPU switching... why would it have that, is beyond my understanding. Like if a game would not use the low end GPU. I guess, it is to compete with the WiiU low power usage, and power consumption, as well as, to avoid the over the top cooling requirement of the original PS3, and be quiet.. at least on the menu or when playing a movie or something. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/sony-ps4-patent-playstation-gpu,20049.html
Thanks for the link Goodbytes. Could be they plan on using a low power gpu for non-gaming or simplistic gaming purposes. Sent from Bittech Android app
While we are all in the rumor mode. Sony new patent could block used games, and lock games to its console NeoGAF report. Their server is busy right now, so here is Kotaku reporting them: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=506560 http://kotaku.com/5972787/sony-pate...g-used-games-possibly-on-the-next-playstation It seams to be using a system that has a RFID tag, which registers on the console and once registered, internet or not, the disk can be locked down to your console. Sony has been proactive is trying to lock games to the console. So this doesn't surprise me. If this rumor is true: -> If its not used for this purpose, what do you think it could be used for? -> If it used for this purpose, what do you think about it? Do you care? Will it make you look into a WiiU or XBox 3? -> Do you think it will not b e put on the PS4, and its just Sony patent stuff for the sake of collecting patents?
I highly doubt it'll go through - most things patented don't! Sony are actually relatively open with their games - the PlayStation 3 is multiregion for the vast majority, and you can download any PSN purchased game on to a new (or multiple) PS3s with ease. Nintendo on the other hand...not so much.
