I love how you still think you need to pay top dollar to play most games. You can easily max Crysis in 720P with a computer that costs about $1000. And other games too, look at the success that is BFBC2.. Also, have you ever played World of Goo? Or a Lucasarts adventure game? I don't think you understand that 1000000 configurations in terms of QC is something PC developers have to face, it's not a matter of a lack of QC, rather that Consoles are usually easier to make it less bug free from the get go. As to expandability though, pffft. Also, there have been TONS of buggy console games that could never really be patched...(Oblivion..) Once again it's not a matter of QC, QC means that the game is internally buggy, if it doesn't run on a specific hardware setup that isn't necessarily a QC issue. Ever realize that you fail to mention that the 360 also has pirates? As for Ubisoft, they tried a totally terrible DRM approach, tying someone's saves to an online server? Bananans. If they didn't guarantee that it would work so well there might have been less backlash. We lost our developers because the money's at consoles, it's easier to provide for the masses. As for games not being there because of consoles, I say that's a load of bollocks, many games that were console ports aren't even necessarily great games to start with. Although I will admit some were.
What I believe is not the point. The statement was made that the console impedes technological progress...it does not. All of the latest PC hardware was released and will continue to be released. We are quickly moving into the age of 3D, and the console will move with it. It also has brought motion into the mainstream. What does BFBC2 have to do with anything? It's a multi-platform game that is better than Crysis. Nope! I totally understand it, and that is one of the inherent weaknesses for developing on the PC, and why they love developing on the console. But that still is an excuse. They know full well whether the game is complete when it leaves the studio. The difference is that they can get away with it on the PC, and they can't on the console. Tons of buggy console games? Where? I haven't played any, all of the games I've played worked! It says right on the back of the box what machine the game is designed to run on, and what specs are required, so it is a QC issue. It's just that PC gamers are so used to it that they often just deal with it, and even start justifying it, "we have more patience"! It's ridiculous. Hey everybody, the 360 has pirates!! There ya go. Look, if you don't like what Ubisoft did, then don't buy the game. Why destroy it for everybody else that wants to enjoy it. The consoles are well over 30 million install base for each one! Thats ALOT of money. But security is money as well. Nobody will take the chance and risk the investment on the PC. There is nothing stopping the devs from putting a little extra something in the PC version of the game, they just won't do it. This has nothing to do with the console, it's just that the developers have turned their back on the PC.
The only times I really had troubles getting a game to work was when the game was really old, like Deus Ex or Arx Fatalis. Of course you don't have this problem with consoles. You can't play your old games, end of story. But who wants to play old games anyway, right?
Why can't you play old games on a console? I can play them on mine. I can also play the "new" games as well.
You can't. Sure you can buy say Final Fantasy VII via PSN, but you can't put in your old disc you purchased some years ago for the PS1. If you happen t have one of the first PS3s you might be able to, but the majority isn't.
Consoles do technically impede progress, think about it, they don't advance, and games are made to cater to them. Logically speaking all games must run on a console with dated hardware, hence the games should easily run on PC hardware, hardly pushing the hardware and stagnating it's development since there doesn't need to be a need to more powerful hardware. That's not an excuse, how wold it qualify as one anyways? It's a legitimate reason for more problems, there's a higher likelihood of incompatabilities, it's not about who can get away with what, it's about how much consoles and PCs have to cover, PCs have to cover far more bases. That's a gross simplification of the problem, the problem isn't about people not reading a box, but rather that one cannot possibly test all configurations on a single platform, although hardware incompatabilites are starting to decline much more, saying that it's ridiculous that we are more patient to deal with it is a bit odd as well. No ones destroying it, it's the minority messing it up for the majority, many of us just simply like you said didn't buy Ubisoft games after discovering the trainwreck that is Ubi's brainchild. It's not about investment risk it's more of the fact that there's more easy money, which is what developers want, or at least publishers. Developers don't mind putting extra stuff in for free, blame the publishers for charging you guys tons of money for 3 maps.
This is further proof that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The 360 is five years old. The only reason games still look good is because developers know how to trick the hardware (and your eyes). Why do you think the maps on MW2 are half the size of those on the first MW, or even W@W? More effects etc eat up all the available hardware, so to keep those in they reduce things elsewhere. Consoles yes, are easier to develop for, and yes bring in a lot more money. But games used to push technical boundaries at every opportunity, now all (most) developers care about is getting the sequel out quick enough that no-ones realised how derivative the last one was.
I have one of those PS3's. Although my PS3 is from America, as I got it before it was even released over here.
On topic, I didn't really like Crysis that much but it was, without a doubt, a better game than Halo even though you don't take the "shinyness" in consideration (I am not talking MP) Oh and when you say that PC gamers only like the game becasue it's "shiny" I must tell you wrong.. The thing that most people was stunned about in the game (at least among the people I've met) was the physics, your ability to destroy more things than you were ever allow to in a game before, your ability to hide behind leaves and stuff like that and etc. i It pushed the boundaries and added to the game play experience.. excactly like BF:BC2 does today..
Consoles don't impede anything, and they're advancing quite nicely! Current gen games look, play and are more ambitious then 1st gen games, Natal and Sony's PlayStation Move will bring more motion to the consoles, and they regularly receive firmware updates to keep them current, and will move into 3D as well. Games "should" be made to cater to the platform that they're on, too bad this doesn't happen for the PC! Your right, your starting to sound like me, all that expensive hardware is not needed, is overrated and-IS-A-WASTE-OF-MONEY! What gamer "needs" a $1000 6 core chip...exactly! So, as for the "console" stagnating the "PC'S" growth...bull$!t! Thats like getting bad service from a restaurant and blaming the patrons instead of the servers and management! The console is it's own market. M$, Sony, and Nintendo don't owe the PC a damn thing, nothing, nada! They have they're own hardware to market and sell, so they could care less about the PC. It's and afterthought or no thought at all. Developers make the games, so blame them. This is not a "console" problem but a "PC" problem. The PC as a platform has issues, it has a serious image problem. Is it the gamers who are viewed as rampant thieves and malocontents, or that the PC is difficult to program for because of all the likely incompatibilities, no money to be made, ect?!! This is the PC platform's fault, not the console's. Look, the developer sets the parameters for which he wants to develop. So the game should work within those. The game shouldn't crash for no reason, have unfinished levels, certain elements of the game just not working properly, not booting up ect. Sorry, not buying it. You can defend it, and except it as the cost of gaming on the PC all you want. I'm not, I expect higher standards, and so do the console makers AND GAMERS. That alone made devs like Crytek take notice. Good that it's declining. But why is it odd? If you purchased a music CD you would "expect" it to work the moment you put it in your CD player and wouldn't think twice about it. How would you feel if it skipped or had missing tracks? What about a DVD movie that had missing scenes or no sound? Using your logic the 360's RRD is perfectly exceptable to you, just be patient, they'll send you another one! Well, a few bad apples spoil the bunch. Really? Rampant piracy and attacks makes it an investment risk. Where are the Epic, Crytek and Infinty Ward PC exlusives then? It's not viable. They could easily put in extras for the PC versions of the games for free just like the consoles. The PS3 version of the UFC 2010 game has exclusive fighter and fights. It couls be done, they just don't do it.
I think the game is overrated...waaay overrated. Some people like it and it was innovative, great! I like Guild Wars, people laugh at it and say it's not a "real" MMO. I say it is fun, free and has the best PVP out there. But after all that hype (like now) and after all of the a$$ kicking this game was suppose to do, Crysis was totally owned by it's competition. Crytek dropped support for the game within a year after launching it didn't they?!! I could be wrong. So holding this game up as "the" poster child of PC gaming, three years after its humiliation is laughable, gimme a break! Nobody ever talks about the "innovative" destructable gameplay, they point to the "graphics", the "shiny graphics". Thats all this game is known for, if it's known at all.
I said in terms of hardware, consoles still use 5 year old hardware, no matter the firmware improvement, they're still limited. Eh? Very few games have unfinished things or things that don't work properly, Crysis didn't have this, in fact almost no games made by any reputable(and even unreputable) publishers have these issues. Unless it was extremely old hardware, most games run perfectly fine. Your examples don't tally well the only games that don't work on the PC are really really really old ones. The only recent heavily bugged, then de-bugged game was the STALKER series, and the modding community took it up to patch it anywho. Once again, publishers set the price for extras, not the developers, the original COD4:MW had free maps for PC, Epic bit the dust a long time ago, and Crytek developed almost exclusively for PC until Crysis 2. We don't, a run of the mill $75 dual core cuts it pretty nicely. You're right we don't really need to buy the top end, you're just assuming we all do, I didn't, I spent $750 on a very necessary computer upgrade...I had an old Celeron.. Delicious statement, ironically both the 360 and the PS3 is based off PC hardware(GPU chips look at em), Consoles are basically cheap, well single purpose computers. As for piracy, you still don't understand, no all PC users pirate, if we did, there'd be no such thing as computer games at this rate. Blanket statements are always genius. What competition? What was it competing against? Crap I got carried away.
Your head must screw on and off or something. The 360 is a 5yr old "machine". You can't "trick" it into doing something it's incapable of. Next you're gonna say that they put magic spinkles on the discs! It can do it. Games GOW 3 and Crysis 2 on the consoles, exist!! Believe your eyes, they're not lying to you.
maybe you cant trick the console, but you can become better at programming for it - all computers have quirks which you can use to your advantage. games released at launch 5 years ago dont look as good as games just released.
Once again, you've completely missed the point. I meant that certain artistic and technical techniques are used to give the impression of a higher graphical quality than is necessarily being processed. How on earth can you possibly think that forcing developers to work on 5 year old hardware isn't holding technological advances in gaming back? Never mind that half the supposedly "HD" games available for the 360 don't even render in 720...
Nope, 540 or 600p. Can't seem to find the list where I read this originally but it was looooong. There were less than 20 games available at the time (fair enough, about half a year ago) that actually rendered in HD. Before anyone starts, they all have to output in 720 minimum but a lot of games upscale from a smaller resolution. The entire CoD series does it, for one. And Halo 3...
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 = 1024x600 (2xAA) Halo 3 = 1152x640 (no AA) Halo 3: ODST = 1152x640 (no AA) and in Dx9 without any Dx11 features. Aliens Vs Predator = 1120x630 (custom AA) source not entering the discussion again. just providing source.
