Support NeoGAF

[Seanspeed]

i never said that PC gamers were a "tiny" minority, but its a simple fact that the PC is irrelevant to the average gamer...

Its not a simple fact at all. Nor is it important that the 'average gamer' need to find it interesting for it to be included.

The 'average gamer' is not concerned with Digital Foundry articles, nor would the 'average gamer' even know what the fuck Digital Foundry is in the first place.

Its an enthusiast-focused column, of which there a lot of PC gamers.

even if that was true (its not)..one could easily flip that around and say the only reason a PC gamer would really want it included is to stroke their ego as the "superior gamer"

wouldnt a PC gamer rather see the game compared on different levels of PC hardware instead of against the lowly consoles?...a PC gamer is already going to purchase those multiplatform games on the PC no? i mean isnt that why they purchased the PC to begin with? why compare it to the consoles?

A PC gamer will be interested in seeing how the PC version compares to the console versions. Just like a PS4 owner will be interested in seeing how the PS4 version compares to the XB1 version.

If you think its just to stroke egos, I could equally say that PS4 owners use these to stroke their ego over their superiority to the XB1 version. Its not different, no matter how much you want it to be. There will always be some of that(perhaps a lot of that), but it doesn't necessitate not including the PC from the discussion.

or are they frustrated by the vigorus efforts of some people to constantly point out that the consoles have "tablet CPUs?"

Chicken and egg dilemma here. There's some of that and there's also some PC gamers reacting to console fans downplaying PC's completely on their own.

Its telling you think the problem is one-sided, though.

 

[pixlexic]

umm...then what is the point of the "Digital Foundry Verdict" section at the end of all the articles??



hint:

Spoiler

To tell you which one is the best

To cause controversy and drive in more traffic.

 

[Metfanant]

Again, the article is about the differences between the versions at their best. There are other sites for lower range benchmarks. Cost is not relevant, the game is the focus, not the platform. If you have all platforms and want to see comparisons, you don't need to hear about the cost of the platforms you already own.

and i feel strongly that it shouldnt be that way

Its not a simple fact at all. Nor is it important that the 'average gamer' need to find it interesting for it to be included.

The 'average gamer' is not concerned with Digital Foundry articles, nor would the 'average gamer' even know what the fuck Digital Foundry is in the first place.

Its an enthusiast-focused column, of which there a lot of PC gamers.

yet if we are being honest with ourselves..the vast majority of clicks come from those looking for their console wars fix...

A PC gamer will be interested in seeing how the PC version compares to the console versions. Just like a PS4 owner will be interested in seeing how the PS4 version compares to the XB1 version.

yet what DF shows does not represent what the overwhelming majority of PC gamers will see when they play that game, making it an irrelevent comparison

If you think its just to stroke egos, I could equally say that PS4 owners use these to stroke their ego over their superiority to the XB1 version. Its not different, no matter how much you want it to be.

you could certainly say that...however at least in the case of the PS4 and Xbone youre dealing with products that are intended to directly compete with each other...

Chicken and egg dilemma here. There's some of that and there's also some PC gamers reacting to console fans downplaying PC's completely on their own.

if im honest i RARELY see the PC brought up during discussions about games in the context of simply downplaying the benefits of the PC...more often then not the PC never enters the discussion until someone drive by posts about it being superior...

Its telling you think the problem is one-sided, though.

i dont find it one sided at all

 

[Marlenus]

Again, the article is about the differences between the versions at their best. There are other sites for lower range benchmarks. Cost is not relevant, the game is the focus, not the platform. If you have all platforms and want to see comparisons, you don't need to hear about the cost of the platforms you already own.

The article failed to deliver that then. The PC version at its best is using full Ultra presets with 4k resolution and as much AA as you can. Problem is for each game the price to achieve that varies, for some it might take a £1,000 PC for others it might take a £3,000 PC.

By normalising on price and gaming related features you can get a picture of what each achieves at its price point. Using 2 PCs to represent 'Console price PC' and 'Good gaming PC' it gives people more data points that they can use to make a decision regarding which gaming platform they choose or which version of the game they choose.

From a consumer perspective what is the point in having £350-£400 consoles compared to monster PC rigs, sure the PC will win the comparison but that kind of performance could be outside of their budget and it gives them no indication of how a more moderately priced PC will perform relative to the consoles.

 

[Seanspeed]

yet if we are being honest with ourselves..the vast majority of clicks come from those looking for their console wars fix...

So? I fail to see why that's relevant, unless you're arguing that Digital Foundry should tailor their articles purely for console warriors.

yet what DF shows does not represent what the overwhelming majority of PC gamers will see when they play that game, making it an irrelevent comparison

Its not irrelevant at all. Somebody might be able to get max quality but have to lock it at 30fps. Others can max everything at 120fps. Depends on the game, hardware, whatever. You may go 'well that's exactly why...' but no, what make it relevant is that's what the PC version can look like. Once again, PC gamers will know that they wont all be able to have that level of quality. Its not hurting anybody to realize that. This argument stems from you seeing this as a competition as you want things to be 'fair', but its inherently unfair and that's fine.

you could certainly say that...however at least in the case of the PS4 and Xbone youre dealing with products that are intended to directly compete with each other...

The point of the articles isn't to declare a competition between the consoles, but to compare different versions of the same game on different platforms.

if im honest i RARELY see the PC brought up during discussions about games in the context of simply downplaying the benefits of the PC...more often then not the PC never enters the discussion until someone drive by posts about it being superior...


i dont find it one sided at all

You just said right above that you do think its one-sided and that 'more often than not' the problem is PC gamers. Which again, tells me a lot.

 

[Marlenus]

The point of the articles isn't to declare a competition between the consoles, but to compare different versions of the same game on different platforms.

Just to jump in here. The PC is not a fixed platform, one could just as easily say that using an AMD APU based PC is just as valid as using a dual 295X2 system. In the former the conclusion would be that the PC is worse than the consoles and in the latter it would utterly dominate them.

The only way to make it even remotely apples to apples is to normalise on price, using 2 price points, one at console level and one at £800-1,000 is a perfectly valid and logical way to achieve it. The low end PC would give you a sold base line to see what gives you the best price/performance ratio and the higher end pc gives you a solid feel for what a good gaming PC can achieve.

 

[Metfanant]

So? I fail to see why that's relevant, unless you're arguing that Digital Foundry should tailor their articles purely for console warriors.

its relevant because youre trying to claim that its an "enthusiast" column and that there are all these "enthusiast" PC gamers that are so interested in it...yet we both know that the people reading DF articles are there for the console wars

Its not irrelevant at all. Somebody might be able to get max quality but have to lock it at 30fps. Others can max everything at 120fps. Depends on the game, hardware, whatever. You may go 'well that's exactly why...' but no, what make it relevant is that's what the PC version can look like. Once again, PC gamers will know that they wont all be able to have that level of quality. Its not hurting anybody to realize that. This argument stems from you seeing this as a competition as you want things to be 'fair', but its inherently unfair and that's fine.

the fact that youre comparing things that are on different levels makes the entire comparison pointless...

you wouldn't judge a high school football team negatively because they are not as good as an NFL team...you judge the high school team against its competition...which the PS4/Xbone and high and PC's are not

The point of the articles isn't to declare a competition between the consoles, but to compare different versions of the same game on different platforms.

funny you should say that...ill use this example just because i happened to have it open right now but...

But down to the crucial question: Xbox 360 or PS3? For the campaign playthrough there's a clear winner in Microsoft's platform,

that sure sounds like the entire purpose of the article was to declare a winner between two consoles...

You just said right above that you do think its one-sided and that 'more often than not' the problem is PC gamers. Which again, tells me a lot.

its not one sided...there are problems on both sides...but i stand by my comment that the PC is rarely brought up until someone chimes in from the sidelines...

 

[MaLDo]

I just bought the game to test the shadows. actually it seems that there is a problem with shadows on pc. Yesterday Rebellion fixed a bug: ultra shadows resets to high shadows after closing the game. On top of that, it seems the "Advanced Shadows" parameter from Sniper Elite v2 is missing in SE3. The parameter exists in the game, but Launcher and game menu don't show it. And adding it into the config file doesn't affect the game. Sniper Elite v2 shadows are a lot better in pc than SE3 shadows.

I posted these close ups from DF shots to Rebellion in steam

 

[Stallion Free]

Sounds like this is gonna be a rough generation of Digital Foundry if PC keeps invading their analyses and ruining them.

 

[Seanspeed]

Just to jump in here. The PC is not a fixed platform, one could just as easily say that using an AMD APU based PC is just as valid as using a dual 295X2 system. In the former the conclusion would be that the PC is worse than the consoles and in the latter it would utterly dominate them.

The only way to make it even remotely apples to apples is to normalise on price, using 2 price points, one at console level and one at £800-1,000 is a perfectly valid and logical way to achieve it. The low end PC would give you a sold base line to see what gives you the best price/performance ratio and the higher end pc gives you a solid feel for what a good gaming PC can achieve.

I wouldn't be against Digital Foundry going to extreme lengths to show off what varying PC configurations can do, but that's difficult as a lower end PC could be configured for performance or for image quality or anywhere in between. Which is why they likely just max the settings at 1080p to just generally show what the PC version can look like.

its relevant because youre trying to claim that its an "enthusiast" column and that there are all these "enthusiast" PC gamers that are so interested in it...yet we both know that the people reading DF articles are there for the console wars

Some are. Some aren't.

But I do see that you are indeed arguing that you'd prefer them to tailor the articles purely for console warriors.

the fact that youre comparing things that are on different levels makes the entire comparison pointless...

For one, consoles are not far separated from PC's these days. The gap is constantly closing in terms of their architecture and capability.

But most importantly, we are comparing different versions of the same game. There is nothing pointless about that.

you wouldn't judge a high school football team negatively because they are not as good as an NFL team...you judge the high school team against its competition...which the PS4/Xbone and high and PC's are not

This is not a hardware competition. We do not need constant Digital Foundry articles to figure out which is the more powerful platform.

funny you should say that...ill use this example just because i happened to have it open right now but...

that sure sounds like the entire purpose of the article was to declare a winner between two consoles...

Between the two version of the games, not the two consoles themselves.

its not one sided...there are problems on both sides...but i stand by my comment that the PC is rarely brought up until someone chimes in from the sidelines...

You're saying its mostly one-sided, then. Same deal. You're showing your bias.

 

[Metfanant]

I wouldn't be against Digital Foundry going to extreme lengths to show off what varying PC configurations can do, but that's difficult as a lower end PC could be configured for performance or for image quality or anywhere in between. Which is why they likely just max the settings at 1080p to just generally show what the PC version can look like.

its not that difficult...you just build a PC that is relatively comparable to the consoles on price and specs, and see how it holds up...not hard at all

Some are. Some aren't.

come onnnnn....be honest with yourself for half a second...we all know the reason DF articles are popular...and its not because the enthusiast PC gaming crowd wants to read the articles...

there are plenty of more PC centric sites they would visit for their technical information...

But I do see that you are indeed arguing that you'd prefer them to tailor the articles purely for console warriors.

absolutely...but like ive said NUMEROUS times...

- if they wanted to do a seperate article comparing the "console winner" to the "PC Version" thats fine...and id read it it
- if they want to do a seperate article comparing "budget" "midrange" and "enthusiast" PC's...that would be fine, and something i would be very interested in reading
- if they wanted to include "budget" and "midrange" PC's in their existing Face-Offs that would be fine
- even if they included a "console like" PC to the Face-Offs i would be ok with that

For one, consoles are not far separated from PC's these days. The gap is constantly closing in terms of their architecture and capability.

architecture wise? sure, but performance? idk...i would argue the PS3/360 compared much more favorably to PC's of the day than the PS4 and Xbone do now...

But most importantly, we are comparing different versions of the same game. There is nothing pointless about that.

it becomes pointless because a maxed out PC is above and beyond what either console is possibly capable of...frankly, it becomes wasted words...not only are the products not meant to compete with each other, the outcome is without doubt before even beginning the comparison...

This is not a hardware competition. We do not need constant Digital Foundry articles to figure out which is the more powerful platform.

no, its not a hardware competition, we know which console is more powerful, yet with multiple games this generation, regardless of that hardware difference there have been instances where the console with less power has had an advantage in a category here or there..

there is no need for in depth analysis when it comes to the PC version in these comparisons...at the risk of over simplfying things, the more hardware you throw at it, the better its going to look..but when comparing the consoles you get to see how the developers tried to tailor the game to each console...maybe lower res here...but a more stable framerate...etc...etc..etc...the consoles are meant to compete with each other

Between the two version of the games, not the two consoles themselves.

but they are still picking a winner...they even talk about the PC version of Blops 2 in the article...but when push comes to shove they consider the biggest question to answer is which console to buy the game on...

You're saying its mostly one-sided, then. Same deal. You're showing your bias.

bias towards what? that i think discussion of the "PC version" of games should generally be kept seperate from the console versions? im not exactly sure what kind of bias that is, i just dont feel the two products are direct competitors, and therefore shouldnt be treated as such...

regardless, stating something that is true, or that ive observed is not showing a bias...im presenting my observation that the PC is rarely part of the discussion until a PC gamer makes it part of the discussion...

i think if you polled the GAF user base that you would see most would agree that the real point of a DF Face off is to see which console version is the better of the 2...

 

[EvB]

I made this gif weeks ago to illustrate the inevitable and it looks like I've missed the boat