TheExecutive
Member
TheHeretic said:
Uhh... what? Sorry but I fail to see your analogy.
Modern Warfare 2 Will Render at 600p
- Thread starter lionelhutz
- Start date
Uhh... what? Sorry but I fail to see your analogy.
Zeliard said:Man, we're everywhere.
Honestly, there are snarky comments that come from some PC gamers, but the vast majority I've seen around here try to be helpful and tend to be given some pretty ill treatment in response. You had brain_stew a short while back take what had to be quite a bit of his own personal time to create a thread helping people put together a good $400 rig, only to be attacked by some console gamers in that same thread for trying to "force PC gaming on people."
I forget who it was (sorry), but whoever made that HTPC thread recently also did it for the sole purpose of helping console (and otherwise) gamers be able to play PC games from their couch and all sorts of other cool stuff, and he got a similar sort of treatment from console gamers who were puzzingly in paranoia-defense mode. A lot of the times it'll be something much smaller and simpler than those two examples, but a similar sort of end result (often involving the word "elitist").
exactly, they were dicks too.
as i said earlier i really appreciate those threads. it was one of those a while back that made me entertain the thought of PC gaming to the point that i often read up on the PC scene so i wont be a total dunce when i jump. i'm not saying all PC gamers are dicks or that console gamers aren't. just that when you take a small group with better things and set them loose on a message board, a lot of them can't contain themselves. i just hope that it doesn't turn some people off to PC gaming because for a long time i had the worst luck meeting PC gamers and decided that as i game a lot in a social aspect i didn't want to game on a PC because honestly, i didn't want to play with people like that. it's a bad stigma that unfairly get thrust on good people but man, when they get their pitchforks it's all over. mainly because they know they have an answer for any argument that may arise. the feeling of being invincible (so to speak) makes people do wild shit.
Dreams-Visions
Member
but.Fio said:
the 600p.
RockmanWhore
Member
TheHeretic said:
Well, you still have to aim, you don't have as much accuracy as you get with a mouse, but you still have to aim, and there's definitely a learning curve. Some people aim better than other.
And it's not like a competitive FPS is all about aiming, you have to know the map, play in team, outsmart your opponent, none of this have anything to do with the input method.
TheExodu5 said:
To a degree, but preference is just that there is little that fits with his style about aspects of pc gaming. To boot I'd hate to be in multiplayer gaming and not have a clique or two to roll with it just isn't fun if you're always with pubbers.
RockmanWhore said:
It's about all you mentioned. Sorry if you can't and you compete you're nothing but a drag on your team. You don't need super reflexes and aim but if you can't make your shots consistent or put people down in large groups by yourself you're useless. You can't compete in 1v1 without aim and win a lot only in team situations of support could someone like that actually be productive. You lose a ton of accuracy BTW in comparison to a mouse controllers can't even track up to old dpi standards and compete with mice let alone the new stuff.
TheHeretic said:
I completely understand preferring a mouse and keyboard. Hell, I used to prefer it myself up until Fall 2007.
As for paying monthly for XBL, yeah, back when I played Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2 and other server based online focused games for free on the PC, I couldn't comprehend why people would pay for online games. Online games are supposed to be free, that's just the way things are.
But, again, when COD4 came out and plenty of my friends were playing it on 360 (as opposed to none on PC), the choice was simple, and 5 bucks a month to play with friends is nothing. It's small enough that I don't care about it, but I can empathize with those who don't feel its worth it. After all, it is basically just Microsoft taking advantage of the fact that they can force you to pay to use their console. If there was a way that I could play with my friends as easily as I do on 360 without paying 5 bucks a month, you better believe I would do it.
As for paying for maps, I've been paying for expansion packs since the original Red Alert came out. I don't know what PC games you play that paid expansion packs don't exist in. And yeah, 10 bucks for 3 maps is a huge profit margin for them, but the 10 bucks is easily justified to me if I want to play with my friends in the new Nazi Zombie map, so I really don't care.
That said, trying to tell people what their preferences are is hilariously retarded. It's like me telling you what your favorite beer is, and when you try to dispute that, telling you that you're being irrational. Heineken is the best beer, and it is irrational to prefer anything else. (note, Heineken is not actually the best beer, that was just an example)
So yeah, I understand why you prefer PC gaming. A few years ago I did too. But despite all the reasons you've mentioned, I've had far more fun playing my 360 in the last few years than I have playing my PC in the years before that.
I play PC games like Rome Total War on my PC because they come from an era generally before games were ridiculously bug ridden on PCs, and because they can't be done well on consoles in my opinion.
NullPointer
Member
TheHeretic said:
And that's why I'm glad PC gaming is still alive, kicking, and going strong pushing the envelope. I can love my console gaming without wishing any ill will on the PC gaming scene.
Its not a zero sum game, although the economy and piracy are making it almost so.
TheHeretic said:
I remember when I first heard that Microsoft was charging $50 a year for what amounted to an online front-end, I literally didn't believe it. I thought it was a typical sarcastic jab at Microsoft, hardly uncommon back then (or ever). Charging for peer-to-peer gaming? What? Not even Microsoft would... turns out, oh yes, they would.
Xbox Live is more than popular enough now that it's set a precedent. At the very least, Microsoft will never be supporting a free online gaming service on consoles. Why would they? By that same token, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Sony and/or Nintendo charge for their online services next gen, and still without universal dedicated servers.
vandalvideo
Banned
Guled said:
Well yeah, but they're almost 20 years behind here.
HDR+ragdoll
Banned
I will look better than many games and run smoother. Whats the problem?
MightyHedgehog
Member
I don't see where you're getting this. No, it's not ideal. But it's not some game-breaker, either. That's my viewpoint on it and all I have to say on this overblown topic which has been effectively hijacked and transformed into a vehicle for more PC-on-console faction action. NullPointer, in the last few posts, made all the points I would make with regard to the PC/console thing. Seriously, it's not a difficult concept to grasp nor is it difficult to just accept that not everyone values the same things equally in all situations.Haunted said:
Zeliard said:
You will never see dedicated servers in console land like you do pc, but if it does happen by some miracle I welcome it. Console audiences are bigger so the cost is far more, they aren't cheap to run or maintain. I wish consoles devs would allow users to throw up their own if they have an extra console, but that is just wishful thinking.
NullPointer said:
That's impossible, you've got to choose one camp and root for the bloody demise of the other! :lol
I'd be pissed off if PC gaming did become much less popular,because then I couldn't play Starcraft II and the inevitable Rome 2 Total War. And I am going to play Rome 2 Total War.
LCGeek said:
Um..I'm sorry man, but I understood almost none of that post. All I got is that you seem incredibly pissed off about something I said, and then went on to talk about "TF" "pugs" "scrims" "dpi" "DA" and "pub", all of which I don't have a clue about. It was pretty hard to resist quoting your tag and leaving it that :lol
But that would be mean. So I'm trying to reply to it.
For general meaning, you seem to me to be saying that if I played in some uber hardcore professional Korean counterstrike league, I wouldn't be able to headshot people easily. I agree. I don't see how that is relevant, either. Whenever one is going to talk about the "l33t skillz" necessary in online games, the conversation is pointless to me.
Blindfutur3
Member
Asmodai said:
It is undeniable that PCs greatly surpassed consoles a long time ago in terms of - for lack of a better word - 'Graphics'. But if all consoles can currently handle is 600p at 60fps with those level of visuals, how can console owners ask for more? And if the game is as fun as MW1, why should they? It was a fun game and it looked great.
People really shouldn't let a few pixels bother them this much
Tideas said:
Battlefield games on the PC have always had dedicated servers, for free. Many other PC online games have them as well.
vandalvideo said:
Do you not remember about the N64 being able to display visuals as good as a movie? Or the PS2's Emotion Engine being able to display Toy Story style visuals?:lol
I love it when people act as if this is the first console generation ever that people have ever been deceived or misled in the slightest. People have such short, nostalgia clouded memories.
vandalvideo
Banned
Asmodai said:
I'm talking stricly about resolutions here, which do have quite a significant impact on the visual quality of something. PC gaming has had HD gaming since the very early 1990s. We're almost in 2010 and consoles rarely can get 720p for crying out loud, while your average PC game supports 1200p.
TheHeretic
Banned
Asmodai said:
If your friends are playing on it there's nothing you can do, i'm in a similar situation a lot of the time.
With your beer analogy you are alluding to the fact that flavour is a preference. Beer can be measured by an empirical standard: the quality of the ingredients, the consistency of the brew, even the consensus on how much head there should be.
We aren't dealing with ice-cream flavours. These are consumer electronics products with capabilities. Those capabilities can be measured, tested, and it can be claimed that one is superior to the other. You could like a crappy beer because it tastes good, but thats a much harder argument to make in the electronics space. There just isn't that much wiggle room.
Fun is a subjective standard, but I don't see how consoles are more "fun" than PC's. Both are frustrating in their own ways.
Zeliard said:
Its under the guise of convenience and ease of use. The same arguments used to justify all console shortcomings.
Yoshichan
And they made him a Lord of Cinder. Not for virtue, but for might. Such is a lord, I suppose. But here I ask. Do we have a sodding chance?
Fine if you don't like the word crisp (even though I always felt that the game, especially the cutscenes were crisp as hell), but the overall look of the game was, wether you agree or not, better than most (all?) 1080p games. Which pretty much shows how much resolution does for the overall video quality.stuburns said:
Teknopathetic
Member
"Sony has dedicated servers for some of its game.
Wait, when did PC games have dedicated servers?"
I'm not sure what you're thinking, but *no*. Just in case. NO. Before you embarrass yourself.
Wait, when did PC games have dedicated servers?"
I'm not sure what you're thinking, but *no*. Just in case. NO. Before you embarrass yourself.
LordPhoque
Banned
Seiken said:
So, how did they manage to render this game at 600p, with five installs, tons of loadings and graphics on par with COD4 "only" ? Plus the bad framerate.
PjotrStroganov
Member
Teknopathetic said:
I bet there have been alot of people like me hitting the quote button and then say to themselves.....no, not worth it.
Asmodai said:
Pugs = Pick up game sort of like what people in halo parties online do
Scrim = Scrimmage pretty self explanatory
DA = Dual Analog you know the control style you were pimping as intuitive
DPI = Dots per inch you know the thing that makes all that mouse aiming great besides response speed.
Pub = Public server play aka pubbing and the player becomes a pubber
I'm not upset I was calling your crock of an argument that PC FPS games turn in to reflex speed challenge which in public or competitive just isn't true. Speed will not help you become a great or good player in the pc realm it just a component if you lack intuition for map control, players habits, and item control you will always lose period same for not using sound to your advantage. It's not about l33t skillz it's about skillz period and from the sound it seems like you have none for public play in pc land.
BTW I'm fully aware of my tag and surprised you haven't noticed I enjoy the fact I'm a bit nutty and loopy around here.
TheHeretic said:
This is where we disagree.
Games are not objective, or else I would prefer playing PC games if they are superior in all respects, as would everyone else. Even if I was the only person on the entire planet who didn't prefer playing PC games, my existence alone proves that it is subjective and not an objective quantity.
As for ease of use, PC gaming in my experience, across over 15 years and at least five separate PCs, has been anything but easy to use. Of course, it has become much worse in recent years, which is why I play with PCs less and less.
PCs and consoles have their respective advantages and disadvantages, both of which will influence us based on our personal preferences. One person likes the precision of a mouse and keyboard, the other finds it unintuitive and prefers something else.
What is a disadvantage to one person might mean nothing to another.
But one thing is certain: no input method can be objectively deemed to be superior.
LCGeek said:
Ok....
When did I ever say that I thought "speed" was all that mattered in PC games? Of course it isn't, there are many other factors. I said that I didn't like the control method personally, which is nothing like what you said.
Secondly, you just seem to be implying that I have no "skillz" in even the peasant filled public arena of PC games. I might have cared about that if somebody told me that I sucked at a game when I was 12 years old, but I'm far past that point now. (my retort would have been "No way! You suck!")
Honestly, are you actually wasting your time trying to tell me that I would probably suck at these super competitive PC games, if I played them, which I don't? That's pretty sad in itself, I almost feel sorry for you.
vandalvideo
Banned
Asmodai said:
What part of automatic installations, updates, patches, and nonrequired drivers makes PC gaming harder? If anything, PC gaming is getting astronomically simpler, while at the same time consoles are getting more complicated.
Tideas said:
The costs of keeping dedicated servers up are there, but the benefits of people being able to connect to servers they are close in proximity to and being ran by a dedicated machine vastly outweighs them. The day that console gaming becomes blessed with dedicated servers for all of its games will be huge in the growth of online gaming on consoles. The difference is significant for everyone involved when you aren't relying on another player's connection and processing power to transmit chunks of data.
Consoles also need server lists for every game rather than shitty, non-specific matchmaking.
Tideas said:
For PC shooters, at least since 1996, when Quake came out. For other genres, probably even earlier. PC games have had dedicated servers pretty much since they've been able to be played online through the Internet.
LordPhoque
Banned
Seiken said:
MGS4 is a technical mess. Just like Bungie, Kojima Pro guys shouldn't be excused of the sub HD resolution because of some technical performance because there is no such thing in this game.
I wouldn't say that the same goes for COD. 60fps, no loadings/installs, beautiful graphics... but that's still a kind of shame. PC version day 1 anyway.
LQX
Member
Guled said:
Are you for real? People are defending or basically don't care because the first Modern Warfare still looked and played better than 90% of the games out there at that resolution. Moreover the game most likely would not even look discernibly better at full 720p.
Whats uncontrollably laughable is that you would rag current gen gaming and use a game like Modern Warfare 2 as an example of graphics not being a shortfall for the Wii in many cases compared to PS3 and 360 games. Ridiculous.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I'll play on PC for the graphics and on 360 for the Live experience.
Yoshichan
And they made him a Lord of Cinder. Not for virtue, but for might. Such is a lord, I suppose. But here I ask. Do we have a sodding chance?
Right, MGS4 is a technical mess, yet it looks absolutely amazing in every act (except probably 3, which I was never really fond of). How does that work? It must be the art direction, right?LordPhoque said:
SonOfABeep
Banned
I don't give a shit.
Framerate is more important, but they probably could have sacrificed some detail to get that number up to 720p.
I dunno, can't have it both ways, unless you're on PC.
Framerate is more important, but they probably could have sacrificed some detail to get that number up to 720p.
I dunno, can't have it both ways, unless you're on PC.
MickeyKnox
Member
This thread is fucking sad.
Kaltagesta
Banned
Part of me wonders, if the Beyond3D guys had come out and said "It's 720p", how many people would have even noticed. It looks how it looks. We've all seen trailers. It doesn't really matter if that's 320x240 or 1920x1080 - that's how it looks. Either you're happy with how it looks, or you aren't, but I don't see how the specific numbers even come into it.
This is what people don't understand. PC is all graphics (yawn), but the 360 version will be an experience. You can play a game (with inferior controls and a small screen) or you can experience an adventure. Your choice. And the graphics on PC aren't even noticeable. FPS and pixel counting? Who's gonna be doing that? I guess bored PC "gamers." I'll be too busy being immersed in the battlefield.MiDNiGHTS said:
TheHeretic
Banned
LQX said:
Most HD TV's run at 1080P, which means 720p is simply an excuse to claim any sort of HD functionality at all. 1080P is just over 2 million pixels, 720P is less than half that. This isn't just pointless number crunching, blowing up an image does horrendous things to its quality. 720P is just a sliding goal post.
vandalvideo
Banned
TheHeretic said:
There is a significant difference between scaling up an image using blowing up and actually re rendering the image at a higher resolution.