Pjams said:
CGI-Quality said:
Yes, but how often will this type of issue crop up? There's a trade off I feel, consoles sometimes break and you have to replace it - hassle. They don't always run games as smoothly as their PC cousins - another hassle. Console titles are also MUCH more expensive a lot of the time, yep, hassle #3.
Goes both ways, but I agree having both as an option is the way to go. P.S. - I look forward to technical tweaking of my PC titles!
|
Well, what I most commonly run into, is that games run pretty flawlessly at 1600x900. But I want them to run at 1080p and still push 60fps, therefore I tend to spend a lot of time tweaking settings, and not all games have the settings available that you need to tweak. But in most cases, with some help from others and some trial and error, I can generally get a game to run and look the way I want. Most of this is due to the i5 I have. If you have a decent quad core CPU and a good Nvidia or AMD GPU, you'll be able to run most games on the highest settings without much effort on your part. But if you want to run all the fancy Dx11 options, then you definitely want to do some research to make sure you can power that stuff.
In general games are cheaper on PC, but you have publishers like EA and Activision who charge $60 for their titles. Max Payne 3 was $60 too. There are more opportunities to get the games you want at cheaper prices on PC, but if you want a title day 1, it may cost the same whether for console or PC.
And as far as games running smoothly, it really took some time playing on PC to make me realize just how well console games do perform. They are incredibly well optimized and it took some time away from the consoles for me to see that.
It sounds like I'm arguing in favor of one, but I'm not. PC gaming is an incredibly deep and varied experience, it's amazing. But the consoles still hold their own.
|
