Misconceptions about PC gaming.

[Jumpman]

Where else could you play Crysis, all of the Tomb Raider series, Monkey Island and Space Invaders without changing platform.

generally I'm a console fan, but there are definite exceptions. My computer is several years old and it still runs WOW fine. also, monkey Island was without a doubt, the most genuinely funny game i have ever played. And i played it on a pc, so that alone makes me grateful for them.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Wow, my baby isn't dead? Who dug him up!?

 

[jamesworkshop]

jamesworkshop:

Super Mario 64 had no loading screens its one of the benifits of game cartridges and PC games are installed fully on the harddrive now I never need the disc in the drive.

I never compared the loading times of mario 64 to the pc. I compared Super mario galaxys loading times to the pc. And thats a DVD game, and it loads at the same speed as super mario 64, a cartridge game. Meaning it has nearly none of it.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

so MG loads as fast as M64 (which does not load) and MG loads as fast as the PC but has no Pc release

Were do you get it from that I said that!? I brought up MG because people said that pc games loads faster than games on consoles Mario galaxy has close to no load times, just like Mario 64. Mario 64 did have some very minor load times after you selected a star when going into a level.

The games load faster on the PC is refering to games that cross the console/pc devide otherwise I could say Pc loading times are faster because I can load minesweeper in less than a second

 

[clarinetJWD]

That's because they implemented a streaming loading system where any given area was constantly being loaded in the background. Not a really new innovation in the gaming scene, but a good innovation none the less.

Yeah I know -_- (and have been saying). Just using that as an example for the pc boys who says that x amount of more ram, HD etc means that the game loads faster.

I never asked you to take my word for it, I knew better. To think reason and figures would work on the internet? Never!

Yes, SMG loads invisibly. Congrats, if it were on the PC, it would still have completely invisible loads. Let's talk cross platform. Fallout 3 loads much faster on PC, so does Mass Effect, so does Far Cry 2, so does every other cross platform title.

 

[smithy1234]

Hehe, his response to that post isn't forum friendly.

Hmmm, quite so.

 

[Gormers1]

I never asked you to take my word for it, I knew better. To think reason and figures would work on the internet? Never!

Yes, SMG loads invisibly. Congrats, if it were on the PC, it would still have completely invisible loads. Let's talk cross platform. Fallout 3 loads much faster on PC, so does Mass Effect, so does Far Cry 2, so does every other cross platform title.

Yeah but smg is not on the pc.
Halo 2 doesnt load faster on the pc. None of the games you are mentioning uses streaming as a way of loading. And my experience is still the other way around than what you are experiencing (because my rig is different obviously). You have a great pc I guess, and I have one I though was good enough to load game at a normal speed, and one I though was a good enough pc to use as an example of a regular gaming pc. The argument was about which platform had games that loaded faster, not which platform loads the multiplatform games fastest. You should have brought that up earlier.

And you dont pay attention to my argument at all about chaos theory, saying why I dont think that the minimum requirements written on the back of the pc game covers is really specs enough to run a game at 1024x768, and with 30fps. That is what my friend belived, as I told him that the school laptop probably would not be good enough to play L4D. He didnt listen (and was not able to run the game).

I was saying that just because pcs may have ten times the specs of a console, that does not mean that the developer cant toy with the console and get the same results as the pc. Simply put, nobody would believe years before god of war, that this was possible on a ps2 console.

And the reason I gut hung up with super mario galaxy is because people didnt understand what I was trying to say.

No you cant. Because on the pc you have to have some space for the operating system, drivers for each hardware part, etc.

What does that have anything to do with this? Sure the OS may consume some part of your Ram but that's about it.

In short, the ps2 have a 300MHz processor and 32(*2?) MBs of ram.

Exactly! How much does a mid end gaming PC has nowadays? 2 gigs of ram and a 3.2 dual at least! This means that the PC is way better in techincal terms than a PS2 and as such it can play whatever games the PS2 can.

The minimum system requirements for Resident evil 4 for the pc, a game that looks great and plays smoothly on the ps2, is 1 GHz for the processor and 256 mb ram. And remember that few games are really that playable unless you crank up to the recommended settings, which is 2Ghz and 512mbs of ram. And when I was talking about halo I meant on the Xbox, not the xbox 360.

I wouldn't know about those figures they seem a tad exaggerated, but I'll skip straight to the point. You need better hardware to run a game on a PC than on a console because the PC isn't specially designed for gaming. The PC is a multi purposed tool, gaming is a bonus, as such a PC has many tasks to do at the same time and needs better hardware than it's ugly sister the console which is fully dedicated to gaming.

What Im trying to say is that you cant just compare consoles to the pc that easily.

You can

You change your mind between every quote. First you say that pcs would be able to run everything the ps2 can if the pc had the same specs as the pc. Then you say that pcs are not only made for gaming IE require stronger hardware. Then you say that can indeed compare hard specs between the pc and consoles.

 

[clarinetJWD]

Of course none of the examples use stream loading (Mass Effect kind of does, but not that well). If my examples used stream loading, it would be invisible, and there would be nothing to compare! I didn't think that was such a hard concept. Here's the set up. Cross platform games, with loads. PC will be faster. (I can't speak for Halo 2, because after Halo PC, I don't know of a single PC gamer who would even look twice at the sequel. Oh, and I think most everyone knew what you were trying to say, but it just wasn't relevent)

Yes, the minimum requirements on the back of the box are usually wrong. Oh, well. Minimum requirements are usually what you need to get the game to run. Recommended are what you need to get it to run well.

I was saying that just because pcs may have ten times the specs of a console, that does not mean that the developer cant toy with the console and get the same results as the pc. Simply put, nobody would believe years before god of war, that this was possible on a ps2 console.

Yes it does! At the very beginning of a console generation, they are roughly on equal footing with high end PCs. 2 months later, they've been left behind again. Fine, before GoW, no one would believe the PS2 could do that, and great for the PS2, but the PC was already doing graphics of that level for quite some time.

That's it. I'm stepping away, and I give up, I will admit: you are the bigger fanboy, and I feel I must leave first.

 

[Gormers1]

That's it. I'm stepping away, and I give up, I will admit: you are the bigger fanboy, and I feel I must leave first.

I was going to say the same thing when you replied but you beat me first to it.

 

[Gormers1]

That's it. I'm stepping away, and I give up, I will admit: you are the bigger fanboy, and I feel I must leave first.

I was going to say the same thing when you replied but you beat me first to it. Ill admit that I was overexaggarating a bit here though. I meant more like "nearly the same as pc"

Btw: I remembered an the article about crytek developing a cryengine for the consoles. " We expect the final result to be a console game that looks like its running on the "high"- settings or almost high- settings on the pc"

The PC can run everything the PS2 can, but they need better hardware than what the one the PS2 has, albeit it doesn't have to be a gigantic step in hardware, just faster ram or a faster processor, it's a 30 bucks difference .

that was not what you said in hte first place.

Ive never said that something else than dumbed down pc, I said that it was still possible to make games load faster, get the same graphics etc.

 

[Gormers1]

I never heard of this but it can happen, the only problem is after that engine comes out a few weeks later PC gaming keeps on involving and getting better in technical terms while the console will stay stagnant for the next 3 years.
This is what consoles do differently than PC's, they're a closed hardware system while PC's are a open one.

Heres a link http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=no&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gamer.no%2Fartikler%2Finfo_om_cryengine_paa_konsoll%2F50508&sl=no&tl=en&history_state0=
I know its poorly translated, but just so you know Im making up stuff. And yeah consoles cant be upgraded, but drivers, technology to makes games etc can.

Heres a quote

Heh, of course you can play God of War with the same specs as the PS2. I'm not sure what is it is for the PS2 but in case of the Xbox 360 the PC equivalent is 1074x768 as resolution, 4 AA, 4AF, HDR on. That's it. The Xbox can't go over that, PC's can. Console games are optimized for consoles, pc games are optimized for PC.

 

[Gormers1]

Cant argue with that. I dont think 16 AA will ever happen on the ps3 or 360. I think AA will probably stay in the same state as it is on console ( 4AA?), but well get better effects etc.

 

[Gormers1]

That's it. I'm stepping away, and I give up, I will admit: you are the bigger fanboy, and I feel I must leave first.

I was going to say the same thing when you replied but you beat me first to it. Ill admit that I was overexaggarating a bit here though. I meant more like "nearly the same as pc"

Btw, I may have acted like a very big console fanboy in this thread, but I still think I wrote valid arguments. And, I think I have a good reason for being so, because of all the bad experiences Ive had with my pc over the years. Mind you I still play games on the pc, albeit games that dont require much from it, like many valve games.

edit: sorry double post

 

[McMo0^]

Wow, my baby isn't dead? Who dug him up!?

maybe not dead but certainly became a console vs pc war unfourtunatly...

Alas i'll jump in. I prefer my pc for fps and online play... i find it easier to aim with a mouse than a control pad. Then again i'm glad games like GTA and other such sandbox games appeared for the console first because i tryed playin san andreas on the pc, and it was just awful. Yes the graphics were somewhat better but it wasn't.

Regarding the power thing, Crysis is still the game for those with a super computer. I bought my pc for £700 a year and a half ago with the intention of it lasting a few years with some minor upgrades, substantially longer if i were to go and start upgrading processers and what not. Crysis struggles on medium settings...

Anyway long story short, every game i've played before and since crysis has played beautifully. Far cry 2 alas i haven't got round to, but expect crysis style results seeing as its on the same engine.

But gaming aside my pc is more than more than just my gaming tool. I use to keep in touch with peeps from the old days, for movie watching, information finding, cv writing... you get the idea. A pc wasn't designed for just games. If it were, we'd be in a different ball park. Essentially all the 360 is, is a pc built specifically for gaming. Difference is, once its run its course, you can't just slap a new £150 quid gfx card in it, you have to get a new one.

i've rambled, point being, i wouldn't do without my 360 cos i need it mow down pedestrians, to rock out with other people who are as instrumently retarded as i am, and play games with people sat next to me rather than in a different house. I also need my pc because i need to know stuff, because popping heads is fun, and keeping in touch with people who don't live near me anymore is a damn sight cheaper and easier.

Both things are good things, whats the point in arguing which is better when they were designed for two entirely different reasons.

 

[Baneat]

People are saying avoid prebuilt computers, but actually mine came out cheaper than if I were to buy the parts. And I get a warranty on it, and I don't actually have to build it.

The problem with pre-built PCs is that you have no control over the quality of the components. Manufacturers will generally choose cheaper, lower quality parts to keep costs down. And if you have a problem, you often have no choice but to send it back to them for repairs lest you void your warranty. This isn't always the case, but some are very draconian about it.
If your first reaction to opening a PC is "Wow, look at all the wires", then yes, it's probably best just to stick with having a pre-built or have your friend or nephew build it.

Thanks for the reply, and I agree with you on the most part. However, the PC I got has the same components I would have used to build it. Also, there is a much lesser chance of it breaking when I started, because a professional built it. That's still an advantage. Most importantly for me it provides a decent "floor" to upgrade and collect knowledge on. I thought most people buying a gaming PC bought it once and it was like a human body, replacing itself bit by bit so in 7 years none of it's the same. This provided me a more solid platform to build on.
EDIT: messed up on the quote.

 

[tendo82]

Misconceptions about PC Gaming:

You can build a great system on the cheap - lies.