PC Gamers are delusional (controversial opinion)

[Brutalyst]

mornelithe said:

Brutalyst said:

mornelithe said:

Not that I care who plays what, because what I do with my money is none of your concern, and vice versa...but here's a few points I'd like to make.

1) If graphics aren't everything, why have developers sacrificed map sizes, and other game functionality, in order to increase the graphical acuity on console? And why haven't gamer's rejected such tactics?

2) Why do console games with perceived poor graphics, perform poorly?

3) Looking through the posts here on VG, there aren't many 'We're the PC Master Race, tremble before our might" posts...but near the very top? A thread clearly designed to illicit a response from PC Gamers.

This is merely observation, of course. But, it occurs to me that folks who only game on console, or, prefer console as their platform of choice for gaming, have just as many folks who like flaming/baiting others who have a different choice, and then feign indignation when a person who enjoys another platform takes the bait.

For me personally? There's far more to a game than how shiny it looks. Take Stalker, as an example. The graphics at the time were quite good, but what I found so enjoyable and amazing was the X-Ray (AI) engine coupled with the vast open world - which to be frank, is unparalleled - the attention to detail for the area surrounding Chernobyl, and that they made a very serious stab at a physics system (with regards to bullet behavior). To have a map that size, that is continuously interacting with itself, on it's own, whether you're there or not, is quite a feat to achieve. The AI so robust, that initially it had to be scaled back because the NPC's themselves would conquer the game before you could...is uncanny. Roving bands of mutated animals, wiping out outposts, even quest givers...you'd be out in the middle of nowhere trying to do something and all of a sudden 'Quest failed', you go back to the area where you got the quest, and everyone's dead, and the area populated with irradiated organisms.  The randomness in Stalker added a level of thrill that I haven't seen many games achieve (and personally, I hope it eventually ends up on console, because it's a fantastic series)

You're right, graphics aren't everything, but, gamer's haven't exactly been voting with their wallets against such tactics either. Games are still rated, and bought based in large part on how they look. I'm GLAD the new consoles have, if nothing else, a fairly robust amount of RAM. That's what was severely lacking in the PS3/360. It will give developers many new avenues to pursue without having to sacrifice in areas where we currently have a standard.

Either way, I hope everyone enjoys the new gen, and the gens to come...but maybe we could ALL stand to be a tad more civilized with each other and remember that every platform has it's less than stellar examples of human beings.

1) who said they have? can you provide evidence towards this?

 

2) Again, do they, can you provide evidence towards this?

 

3) Im not saying all PC gamers are this stereo-typical, but there are a few I have noticed on these forums who seem to fall back on the argument of 'why bother with this gen of console, my PC does it all better'

1.) Call of Duty and to a lesser degree Battlefield 3, the best examples there are.  Call of Duty and BF3 had to sacrifice map size in order to increase how they looked.  Crysis 2 and 3 had things cut from the design phase specifically because they couldn't get them to work on console with the level of graphics they were requiring (Look up Cevat Yerli's interviews pre Crysis 2).  Some would argue that it was done to force people into tighter spaces to pick up the level of battle, however, others would argue that to scale back on the graphics a bit, would allow more players per server, thus increasing the pace of battle.  Of course, this entire debate could've been rendered moot had developers not decided to suck every penny they could from gamers by removing map making and server tools as an industry standard so that they could charge everyone for MP and bland maps, whereas, you used to be able to just band together with a group of friends, rent your own server (for a fraction of the cost we each pay for accessing XBL/PS+) and develop your own maps.  To say nothing of Mods.

2.) I would need to dig to provide numbers, but there are numerous times in the past 7 years I can recall, where gamer's chose not to get this game or that game because it didn't look good enough.  This isn't all console gamer's of course, but the argument was there.  I'll get back to you if you really want me to.

3.)  If that's their choice, that's their choice.  How does that statement differ in any way from what you've done here?  What does it matter to you if their PC can do it better?  If they decide to invest in the platform, that's up to them, just like it's up to you if you choose to invest in a console.  Nobody else is paying for it, so why should any of us care?  And how does their statement in any way interfere with the pleasure you glean from playing games on the platform of your choice?  

I think part of the problem is, people just don't know how to ignore things they don't agree with, based on preference.  It's the blatant false statements that always get me though heh.  I find it very difficult to ignore false information (not a statement about you, that's just one of my hang-ups).

1) first I've heard of it, and I wont argue with you on the subject. Though for Call of Duty, if the maps were smaller, its probably for the better, as playing that I couldnt help but find myself wandering and looking for someone for extended periods of time, and think to myself at the same time 'a few more players wouldnt hurt as 16 seems lacking for this level'.

2) Nope, I totally believe you, no need to prove this one, as im the same... to an extent, as in I expect the game im buying to be an improvement on the game I had previously, whether that be through graphics, gameplay, or content. As long as it surpasses the last it doesnt matter which on in most cases (as kind of my point) as the new consoles though they may not match up to the current PC generation graphically, they are certainly far superior to what we have had in the past. I'd certainly not disregard a game for poor graphics (curently playing Star Command which im loving!) but also is my point against the elitist PC gamers (granted not all are the same)  purely having better graphic and there rig being superiour isnt the end and be all, as long as what we get is an improvement on what we have.

3) my statement here doesnt differentiate, im just making the statement in defence of us who want to buy the next generation of console machines, and defend against those who say it isnt worth it because 'my PC can do better' yeah, no doubt it can. But they paid extra for it to do better, all they wanted was for it to do better, and us console gamers are no different in that respect. Its more about money to proportionate, and that 'my PC performs better' is a stupid argument, we all paid for the same end result, onl tose PC gamers who want to argue that paid more.