but CoD4 is actually better than BF2, right?specialistx2324 wrote:
pc is better than console, console is better than pc, apple is better than pc, pc is better than console, bf2 is better than cod4 , cod4 is better than bf2...... blah b;ah blah, its all relative folks.
Miggle wrote:
buy a pc now any you won't have to upgrade for several years.
Last edited by tazz. (2009-10-29 17:41:14)
it's true, anyways, if you want to play good games you could do it on a computer from a dump.tazz. wrote:
Miggle wrote:
buy a pc now any you won't have to upgrade for several years. Anyways, blatant troll was blatant.
Isn't that the main argument from the PC group, "play on max setting and go for all out super game"?Miggle wrote:
The concept that you have to upgrade is complete bollocks, sure you won't be playing at maxed out settings, but why do you need to?
That's the thing, I always try to keep these debates on the subject, and I always get called a troll. From there on out it tends to just end up being a flame party and then I win some sort of award for best argument.mtb0minime wrote:
This is where a point that the "troll" brought up comes in.
To get the fancy graphics and any peripherals (controllers, wheels, sticks, etc.), it's gonna cost a lot more than it would to just pick up a console and pop in a disc and play without worry.
I suppose it's more of a casual vs. enthusiast thing, and since gaming is becoming more prevalent, it's no surprise that developers are aiming at consoles instead. Which, like everyone here believes, as well as myself, is sad.
Is there any way we can change their minds? Or get them to start keeping the games separate? It could mean more development costs, which means higher priced games. Perhaps "premium" versions of PC games? However, that would only mean paying more for better graphics, since the core gameplay could not be changed (e.g. addition of going prone, and other examples previously mentioned).
Btw, I'm very happy at how civil this debate/argument (if you could call it that) is. Just having a nice, fun, friendly discussion is a rarity on these forums
It really isn't, at least, it shouldn't be.Macbeth wrote:
Isn't that the main argument from the PC group, "play on max setting and go for all out super game"?Miggle wrote:
The concept that you have to upgrade is complete bollocks, sure you won't be playing at maxed out settings, but why do you need to?
Ah, that's exactly it! I consider myself a big console gamer (at least until recently), yet I don't really enjoy the console community. I've figured out that it's because I rarely buy any games, and instead play the same few over and over and over again, and I still have fun and enjoy them. For me, gameplay trumps new-ness any day.Miggle wrote:
The problem is that as "gaming" has become more popular, people are getting into gaming and playing the new stuff. There's a concept in the gaming industry that once a game hits its first birthday, it's time to get something new. This pretty much means that as consumers come into the industry they haven't got much experience, and tend to set the bar with the first game they find fun. It's like if your first movie was Transformers 2, you'd think it was fucking incredible for its special effects and stuff, but soon you would hopefully figure out that better movies had been made before. This realization hasn't been made by the console community, because the only games they can play came out 3 years or less ago.
In other words the devs are making more money than ever, off of a less intelligent consumer than ever. And as such can make a game as poor as they want, advertise it to death, and make shitloads of money.
It isn't for them though. Gaming won't change because the devs like it as is.mtb0minime wrote:
Ah, that's exactly it! I consider myself a big console gamer (at least until recently), yet I don't really enjoy the console community. I've figured out that it's because I rarely buy any games, and instead play the same few over and over and over again, and I still have fun and enjoy them. For me, gameplay trumps new-ness any day.Miggle wrote:
The problem is that as "gaming" has become more popular, people are getting into gaming and playing the new stuff. There's a concept in the gaming industry that once a game hits its first birthday, it's time to get something new. This pretty much means that as consumers come into the industry they haven't got much experience, and tend to set the bar with the first game they find fun. It's like if your first movie was Transformers 2, you'd think it was fucking incredible for its special effects and stuff, but soon you would hopefully figure out that better movies had been made before. This realization hasn't been made by the console community, because the only games they can play came out 3 years or less ago.
In other words the devs are making more money than ever, off of a less intelligent consumer than ever. And as such can make a game as poor as they want, advertise it to death, and make shitloads of money.
This brings up something else to mind. This attitude is not only destroying PC gaming, but console gaming as well. I've got a wishlist of PS3 games that I want to get when I eventually get a PS3, and there are a few that are big on multiplayer (Resistance 2 for example). I'm just worried that by the time I get these games, the online community will be dead because everyone else moved on to the next thing.
I just hope that companies start to realize that a great game every 3 or 4 years is much better than a shitty game that's the same as everything else put out every 8 to 12 months.
Miggle wrote:
It really isn't, at least, it shouldn't be.Macbeth wrote:
Isn't that the main argument from the PC group, "play on max setting and go for all out super game"?Miggle wrote:
The concept that you have to upgrade is complete bollocks, sure you won't be playing at maxed out settings, but why do you need to?
PCs have better online, for less money. That depends on the community and the person, all relative
PCs have a much bigger library, spanning every genre, ever.Fair Enough
PCs Have M/KB support Ps3 and Xbox have keyboard and mice sets that work with them
PCs can play games from older consolesMost of the famous and great stuff is re released over, but I'll give you that one
PCs have a huge selection of controllers, steering wheels, etc availableThere are plenty of companies that have aftermarket stuff available for consoles[/h[
PC Games are cheaper [h]Very debatable, new games are the same price, older games are of course cheaper as are older PS and Xbox games
PC Piracy is easierNot something video game makers are happy about
PCs support virtually any resolution monitorAs long as the video card does.
You probably already own at least one PCOn a gaming laptop right now
Just to name a few.
As far as online goes, PCs don't have to pay any extra fees, have much more freedom in game selection, and have 3rd party programs to do everything XBL does and more.Macbeth wrote:
Miggle wrote:
It really isn't, at least, it shouldn't be.Macbeth wrote:
Isn't that the main argument from the PC group, "play on max setting and go for all out super game"?
PCs have better online, for less money. That depends on the community and the person, all relative
PCs have a much bigger library, spanning every genre, ever.Fair Enough
PCs Have M/KB support Ps3 and Xbox have keyboard and mice sets that work with them
PCs can play games from older consolesMost of the famous and great stuff is re released over, but I'll give you that one
PCs have a huge selection of controllers, steering wheels, etc availableThere are plenty of companies that have aftermarket stuff available for consoles[/h[
PC Games are cheaper [h]Very debatable, new games are the same price, older games are of course cheaper as are older PS and Xbox games
PC Piracy is easierNot something video game makers are happy about
PCs support virtually any resolution monitorAs long as the video card does.
You probably already own at least one PCOn a gaming laptop right now
Just to name a few.
I have had so much fun in CoD4 with friends. The social aspect can make anything more enjoyable.mtb0minime wrote:
It must be a generational thing. My friends and I grew up playing NES and SNES. Games were a lot less serious back then, and were much more casual. I remember a bunch of us gathering around a tiny tv set to take turns on Mario. The same attitude carried on throughout the generations: 4-player matches on Goldeneye, one person playing Metal Gear Solid while a few others were content with just watching, same for Shadow of the Colossus.
It comes down to the multiplayer (which I know is a big issue with you, Mig, and I'm sure we share the same beliefs with this). Console multiplayer was fun because it was just you and a few friends goofing off and looking at each other's screens, etc. The anonymity associated with online gaming has brought a more serious attitude to gaming (which is why PC gaming online is taken more seriously, and console gaming is getting there). It's not so much about fun anymore as it is about winning and proving yourself to people you don't know and trying to beat everyone you can find.
With offline multiplayer, we all had games we were good at and games we were terrible at. It was fun to stay up all night playing a rotation of the games, getting practice, trying to figure out the strongest person's weakness and eventually ganging up on them and having a laugh.
Nowadays it's more like, "Fuck you, fucking cock sucker you just blew the round for us OMFG!!! RAAAAAAAGE!"
This is another reason why LAN parties (no matter how small) can be so much fun. You're not playing online against a bunch of strangers, you're going up against your friends who are in the same room. For example, I had quit playing CoD4 for a while because it was boring and uninteresting. Brought my computer over to a friend's house one night and us and a few of his roommates had an absolute blast playing it over LAN.
Last edited by Miggle (2009-11-29 14:01:26)
It's not so much that more is better, it's that it's a lot easier to advertise a quantifiable "benefit".mtb0minime wrote:
Most people these days are of the belief that 'more is better'. Especially when it comes to handling amount of players in a game. Companies are bragging at how they can fit 64, 128, etc. people into a server and have them all play against each other. I've had ridiculous amounts of fun playing 2v2's, 4v4's online; much more than I have with a full 32v32 BF2 server.
One of the best online experiences I've had with a game came on the PS2 console: Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal. While it wasn't extraordinary, it managed to get a lot of things right. I still have fond memories from 5 or 6 years ago of playing with a tight-knit 6-person clan who just happened to stumble into each other and enjoy playing together. Just having a simple 4 on 4 match put more emphasis on fun and teamwork and made you feel less like a number.
I would love it if current games could return to that smaller scale. Both PC and console.
Last edited by Miggle (2009-11-29 14:03:37)
That's just the thing, they can't play with more people due to hardware restrictions. For example, in CoD4 on XBox I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the player limit is 16?Miggle wrote:
One of the things that the CoD4 (note: not PC) community is upset over is lowered server sizes due to matchmaking and P2P and shit. While it doesn't matter much to me, I still think other players should have the freedom to play with as many people as they want, as long as it doesn't make my game any worse.
This is really the biggest lie about computers though.Macbeth wrote:
He has a point. Buy a console and be guaranteed it'll run everything that comes out for it for a few years or have to do constant updating on a PCFinray wrote:
Disclaimer: This is a joke. I'm not seriously flaming console users as a whole. Just the complete and utter fanboys who always think they're right, and think they deserve to be wrapped in silk even more than they already are.
I read this on the BC2 forum..So what effect does this have on you, facepalm, laugh, rage?for your little rant about fos only suited for the pc, YOUR AN IDIOT! i used to be an advid pc gamer but i always hated the fn mouse and key board. IT BLOWS! the console was always way more fun. ex. i buy the same system that everyone else has. no need to deal with frustrating lag because of different rigs and i dont have to spend a bagillion dollars every fn time a new game comes out. by the way fps have always done better on the consoles anyways, which is why so many developers make so many for them. besides you morons are just going to steal the games anyways.
It's a bit of all three for me.
Back in the day, I played Bf2 on a nearly 5 year old computer. Still had loads of fun, having low lighting was actually an advantage, cause you had no dark corners in houses for people to hide in.lol.VicktorVauhn wrote:
This is really the biggest lie about computers though.Macbeth wrote:
He has a point. Buy a console and be guaranteed it'll run everything that comes out for it for a few years or have to do constant updating on a PCFinray wrote:
Disclaimer: This is a joke. I'm not seriously flaming console users as a whole. Just the complete and utter fanboys who always think they're right, and think they deserve to be wrapped in silk even more than they already are.
I read this on the BC2 forum..
So what effect does this have on you, facepalm, laugh, rage?
It's a bit of all three for me.
The first issue is the claim that computers cost so much more then consoles....
It is true, and it isn't.
If you are only buying one you WILL buy the computer, because computers have more or less become a "necessity".
Playing games will not make you decide to buy a computer or not, you will be buying one anyways.
The cost difference between a decent gaming computer, and going down to Best Buy and picking up a computer is about the same as a console... So basic home computer + console is just about as expensive as gaming computer... and your needs are met either way. (not to mention that computer games are on average $10 less a piece)
But what is really flat out wrong is that you will need to constantly spend money and upgrade. You can go at least two years and still play most games on all high, I have been... but thats not really my argument here.
You don't have to upgrade your console...but the graphics don't really get that much better either.
So you are choosing to forgo the cost of upgrades in favor of just playing games at the same old level of graphics...
You can do this on a computer too. That is what the video settings menu is for. It only takes so much hardware to draw a model with X number of polygons, and Y level of shading and textures... You can go on with the same hardware playing newer and newer games on lower and lower graphics settings, with it looking about the same and it will be MANY years before you can't go any lower.
To say that you HAVE TO continually upgrade is stupid... most do, but not because they HAVE TO, its simply a hobby or they think that money is WORTH constantly having your graphics improve by leaps and bounds.
Over here PC games are $80, console games are $100, DS games are $120.Macbeth wrote:
PC Games are cheaper Very debatable
well tbh you really cant go buy used PC games like you can console games. i like buying used.Cheez wrote:
Over here PC games are $80, console games are $100, DS games are $120.Macbeth wrote:
PC Games are cheaper Very debatable
Steam is $40.
wat
DS games are more than console games?Cheez wrote:
Over here PC games are $80, console games are $100, DS games are $120.Macbeth wrote:
PC Games are cheaper Very debatable
Steam is $40.
wat
