Intrinsic said:
VanceIX said:
1. Trust me, the current consoles are already far outpaced by PCs and it's just going to get worse from here, so the Crisis comparison is very accurate.
2. Yes, there is a reason they list optimal specs. That's what I'm saying. You will always have the option of playing a lower-quality version of a game on PC if your hardware can't run it. Doesn't mean that the high-end option needs to be held back at all, so I don't see your point.
|
- You seem to have this all twisted, albeit very typical to most Pc types I see posting. Lets understand something here. Far outpaced by PCs. Do you realize that for that statement to be either true/accurate it would mean that the cheapest hardware you can find for PCs far outpaces that of the current gen consoles? Better yet, it means that the average hardware you will find in any and all PCs will be far more powerful that what you have in consoles. That is simply not the case.
Right now, you can buy a GPUs that are power identical (not performance) to what you have in consoles. Are you trying to tell us that that means that anyone in the PC world that buys GPUs like that are buying into completely outdated hardware? Unless I have PC gaming all outta whack, I though the strenght of PCs were that they were upgradeable, and there is basically a price point for everyone to get into.
I think its silly when PC gamers talk down console performance then when the console guys tell them that to get PC hardware that can flat run circles around consoles would require over $1000 worth of hardware the PC guys then coyly respond with "no, not all PC gaming is expensive, you can get a a decent PC for just a little more than a console's price". By that reasoning it seems to only be ok to have console grade hardware when its in a PC but when said hardware is in a console its deemed inferior. Or am I missing something? And PC guys seem to forget that the specs are just the tools used to build a game. A game that has 16x MSAA isn't automatically better looking than a game that uses 2x FXAA. Unfortunately I fear that fact is lost to some PC gamers now.
- The high end options are not held back. Its just wrong saying this or that a lot of you think that. A dev has the right to scale back their game if there are ceratin core assets that would make the game impossible to run on their minimum requirements. Using the watchdogs example, the PC guys are all over ubi for gimping their game. Thats just bullshit, a simple way to test this; play watchdogs on a PC that at "most" meets their minimum requirements. Take note of the settings you need to have enabled to get at least 30fps.
Then patch the game to run with the disabled assets and files that you guys claim ubi ommitted to gimp the game for parity. If the games performance doesn't drop to unplayable levels then you guys are right and it was gimped. If it drops, then that tells you exactly why they removed those features in the first place.
And thats the point of all this, devs develop so a majority of gamers will get the best possible experience their hardware can allow, not for the 5% of gamers that have extremely powerful hardware that can do wonders to an engine.
|
1. I should have just stopped reading at bold. The PS4 is equivalent to a 7870, a mid-tier GPU from almost two years ago. It also has AMD APU architecture, which is completely outpaced by Intel i5/i7. A 7970, a top-tier GPU from last generation, easily beats the PS4 in terms of graphical performance. If you used a 290x or 780 for comparison, you would get even more skewed results. If you don't know about PCs like the rest of us "Pc types", at least look up the facts before you post.
2. They don't have to completely get rid of those core assets for the high-end crowd. And have you seen Watch Dogs reccomended specs? Any PC with those specs should easily play with the high level of graphics that they decided to not include.
Also, did you miss where it was found that the game actually ran better with the old graphics installed? That means that the game would have been better, period, with the old graphics, no matter what graphics settings you used.
Yes, because most developers on mobile are very small and with very few assets, making it hard for them to make large games, resulting in the vast majority of games on the market being F2P garbage. The developers that actually do manage to make a nice game almost always sell it at a price, which is what I was demonstrating. Dragon Quest VIII, for example, goes for $19.99 on the Play Store and is doing awesome there.
You're Gonna Carry That Weight.
