By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Intrinsic on 21 February 2015
Edit Thread
Chazore said:


1. That's not really objectively true though, there's plenty of indie games and regular ones that don't always focus on trying to be like Crysis and aren't always about pushing the pixels, when there are games that try to be crysis why can't we marvel at the power they can churn out with PC's and the games they make using newer hardware?, why is it only acceptable when PS4 tries to do it with one game but we can't marvel and praise a PC one?.

"At the end of the day, what is most important is what we are playing and what we can see. Here and now. lets give credit where credit is due, the order is one of the flat out best looking games on the planet across any platform."

2 So what happens when Star Citizen comes out?, what's going to happen when a PC game that's exclusive pushes the pixels and does 60fps and more?, will that be flat out one of the ebst looking games on the planet on any platform?, or are we just playing favourites?, because objectively and subjectively I believe SC should get just as much praise as TO when that comes out, the funding from gamers alone has put in at 70 million dollars, that's not compnay funded money like Sony or MS, that's actual users showing they want the game to be what it should be with their own money and that's a hell of a lot of money just for one game, so in that respect I expect that game to be "setting trends" as the guy describes TO apparently doing for this generation even though this gen hasn't even come close to beginning.

3. I want to ask you though, what are your views on PS/XB/N gamers in your eyes, what's wrong with them in general since you decided to cite out PC gamers for what their hardware can do.

  1. you're picking a fight and no ones fighting. who said anything is only acceptable when the PS4 tries to do something and PCs shouldn't be praised for the same? All I am saying is that there are tangible things when it comes to a games performance that don't require a microscope to see. You show a PC gamer the order/drive club..etc and the first thing they would say is, not 4k or not 60fps as if every single PC gamer out there can even match those specs. What I'm saying is that whenever a conversation is being and about how well the PS4/XB1 is running a game or how good it looks, it shouldn't always devolve into a spec war against an opponent that's simply impossible to beat. I'm saying that the PC enthusiasts set the bar impossibly high based in what the most powerful setups out there can achieve when in truth a majority of PC gamers don't have or can't even afford rigs capable of running games at those settings. 
  2. sheesh... don't even know where you are getting this... but it's good you mention star citizen. Power and performance does not equal the best looking game out there. If you are being honest with yourself you would understand exactly what I mean. if a dev makes a game that's pushing the most pologons possible while running at 8k and 120fps, that doesn't automatically make it the best looking game. Yes, it may be the most technically demanding game but power and how its used are two completely different things. As I said, "some" PC gamers tend to mix the two up.
  3. I decided to "cite" out PC gamers in relation to this topic not in general as an attack. Cause just like every single time a topic is made talking about how good any game looks on a console, the PC peeps will jump in talking about rez and frame rate as if those were the only things that make a game look good. 
Tell you what, when star citezen comes out, or the next bastion for PC gaming eye candy, let me know, but till that happens, TO and whatever game comes out and betters it is currently the best looking game on any platform. Not most technically demanding or power hungry... just the best looking period. So is it wrong to say that simply cause in a year or two another game will come and take that crown??