5 Reasons PC Gaming Is Better Than Consoles

[r3tr0gam3r1337]

fordy said:

r3tr0gam3r1337 said:

fordy said:

r3tr0gam3r1337 said:

are you a last word warrior!

Are you one who cannot find a valid argument to the above points mentioned, and has to resort to name calling?

I've already stated WHY emulation will never fully replace consoles, and it seems videogame record keepers agree with me. The only defense to that is calling me a 'last word warrior'? Let me give you the definition of that. A last word warrior is one who replies even IF they don't have relevant points to say. I put it to you that your own post, being as irrelevant as it is, makes you what you accuse me of being...

seams you cant read or that you did not understand the question 'are you' is not the same as 'you are', you assumed i name called which i did not and ill answer you rather stupid argument with this, why would i emulate any console to its actual spec resolution hz fps ect when using a HD display and a PC costing £1000 is completly pointless, the point we are trying to get across is that with a PC you can not only emulate but improve the games being emulates substantually with the latest PC hardware.

playing old games is great fun but improving to look and feel can some times make the experience better, for example GT1 on the ps1 back in 98 was a stunning looking game but by todays standards on even running it on the ps3 it still looks messy and pixilated, boosting the ps1 graphics by upping the res makes the game playable again with the added bonus of higher resolutions  and all the bonuses modern graphics cards can provide, if you want to play games at the origonal settings then just play them on the original console as that defeats the point of emulation on the PC.

now last word warrior is not how you discribed it, it is some one who no matter what has to have the last word hence last word warrior and i know you will replay hence you having the last word lol.

r3tr0gam3r1337 said:

right ill reply with some other logic, this has nothing to do with emulation but to do with more closely current generation console hardware vs current gen PC hardware, are you going to imply that Dirt 3 running on my PC @ 150 fps is beyond what codemaster's intended or has it got more to do with the console being limited by hardware restrictions @ 30fps, now ill go back to emulation, you say learn about game design yet fail to mention anything about hardware limitations when the game was designed, if the same game was designed today there is no doubt in my mind the developer would have used every available resorce to make the game run as good as it can possibly be ran, this is exactly what im doing when running games in emulation, its not ignorence it's using what i have available.

the argument isnt about replacing the real thing more about improving over the real thing.

such things are happening all the time for example Halo 1 being remasterd is much like what someone would be doing if emulating an old game, or like running xbox original games on the 360 with upscaled graphics using the 360's power, even the ps3 with the early released console being backwads compatable made existing ps2 games run at 1080i when the default res was 576i.

i dont see what the problem is with emulating games and making improvments on them, it seams to be a difference of opinion, mine being  a personal opinion rather than the general opinon.

If that was meant to be a question, then why in the hell didn't you use a question mark? How else is a question supposed to be interpreted otherwise. Nevertheless, I'll let you go with that one.

I find this point rather humorous. For starters, you refuse to take my advice and read up on game console mechanics, so you're only displaying your idiocy to the rest of the thread and let me tell you why. Unlike many PC games, console games use a technique where the mechanics are updated in exact sync with the framerate of the screen. So a sprite or polygon velocity is measured by displacement per cycle, as opposed to displacement per second. This is where you're making your fundamental mistake here. An engine displaying an object with a fixed displacement will be affected if the cycle time (ie the screen refresh. Keep this in mind. It's 1:1 with game consoles) changes from it's intended frequency of 29.97Hz. You see how stupid you point is now? Go ahead and run your game at 150fps. It's rather wasteful, considering you get 5 frames exactly the same before the refresh timer is invoked (which as we've discussed before, runs slightly faster than the original hardware intended. You get an actual increase in speed (NOT refresh rate, so don't go there) of the game. This is why game record companies refuse to acknowledge records set on emulators, because it provides an advantage of an extra cycle in the game every 33.3 seconds.

I don't know what you plan to achieve with this "last word warrior" bullshit. Are you too afraid of replies and try to instil some kind of fear back in an attempt to not receive one? It's not working. As long as you keep spewing ridiculous statements, you're going to get those statements chopped down.

just a word in your ear Dirt 3 is not being run on an emulator so you can come out with as much jargon as you like but the fact is there is a huge performance difference between 30 fps and 150 fps, the PC is not hardware restricted as much as consoles and for your information this debate is 5 reasons why pc gaming is better than consoles not have a hissy fit with pc gamers who use emulation to run old games with better graphics, im not accepting your advice cause you are trying to force me to accept what you say as fact and change my opinion as to what i consider to be emulation.

so according to you you are accusing codemasters own benchmark of lying! lol and apparently i make ridiculous statements, i suggest you get in contact with codemansters and call them out aswell.