Forums - Gaming Discussion - For all the PC gamers out there......

pezus said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
pezus said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
pezus said:

Don't cut out the rest "...with PC in mind". That's what I meant. Trying to cater to the PC audience (BF3, Witcher 2, every Blizzard game since god knows when, Portal 2 etc.), not port a console game with no changes at all (Dead Space, Cod etc.)


Last I checked Witcher 2, portal 2 and BF3, are all multiplatform now. To tell you the truth I called Witcher 2 being sent to consoles after I saw its very action RPG stylized gameplay which I dont see very much on PC more native to games like Assassins Creed and Demon Souls with a Bioware inspired conversation tree . Blizzard is PC....and if exclusivity is broken with Blizzard theres not much one can say really. Anyway, games should be made for PC first to ensure the highest graphical potential, the place where it will run best, but a proper game has nothing to do with power. It has everything to do with how a game ( it's self) is made. I'll take a line from Nvidia......that is how a game is meant to be played.

Do you even read what I post? I answered everything you just said now in the post you just replied to...*head explodes*


I responded after reading what you wrote. Was what you wrote understandable? Check my response. You were obviously talking about game catering to a PC audience vs the console.

And how does that relate to your answer? I never said PC exclusives, I never said graphics only.


I stated what I did because in the PC realm...thats the only place where catering to PC applies (unless you're applying controls to a keyboard as well). A game is a game. Nvidia's slogan sums up the mentality, which is why I poked at it a little bit.



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. said:

I stated what I did because in the PC realm...thats the only place where catering to PC applies (unless you're applying controls to a keyboard as well). A game is a game. Nvidia's slogan sums up the mentality, which is why I poked at it a little bit.

 I don't think pezus has been all that great at really describing what he means by "focusing on the PC platform" and in turn you seem to think all he means is "prettier graphics, some settings for controls". What he means is decisions made in the development of the game - things such hosting your own servers, mod support, tuning the pace of the game to fit the more accurate and higher sustainable pace provided by m+kb for certain genres (things like FOV adjustment and character run speed).

The poor PC ports pezus is alluding to suffer from the same problem that early FPSs on consoles suffered - the core experience of the game simply wasn't designed with the platform's strengths and limitations in mind. Pretty much, a game designed for the PC's pace and accuracy of control was being shoehorned into the console control scheme. Later on devs realized "we should make the enemies bigger, the movement slower, add in some assistance control, and make accessing menu items and getting into a game super quick and easy" to actually accomodate the platform's state of existence and userbase. Now many games are being designed for the console platforms in terms of movement speed, enemy size, aim assist, menus, quick/optionless lobby system, etc. and being ported to PC without much attention to what the platform's userbase expects the PC gaming experience to feel like. It isn't the mentality that "we deserve more!", it's the mentality that "we should at least get a game that's adjusted to be played on the PC with these minor tweaks that are literally number values in a config file that the devs can easily change".

Some titles that did a good job at catering to both types of platforms are Just Cause 2, Battlefield 3, and the Colin McCrae Dirt games.

Some titles that did a crappy job are Unreal Championship 3, Crysis 2, and Brink.

Skyrim sits somewhere in the middle as it did great with mods and gameplay controls but horribly with menus and hotkey bindings.

You two really are going at it with unneeded tension so I hope this clears up both points of view.



trasharmdsister12 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

I stated what I did because in the PC realm...thats the only place where catering to PC applies (unless you're applying controls to a keyboard as well). A game is a game. Nvidia's slogan sums up the mentality, which is why I poked at it a little bit.

 I don't think pezus has been all that great at really describing what he means by "focusing on the PC platform" and in turn you seem to think all he means is "prettier graphics, some settings for controls". What he means is decisions made in the development of the game - things such hosting your own servers, mod support, tuning the pace of the game to fit the more accurate and higher sustainable pace provided by m+kb for certain genres (things like FOV adjustment and character run speed).

The poor PC ports pezus is alluding to suffer from the same problem that early FPSs on consoles suffered - the core experience of the game simply wasn't designed with the platform's strengths and limitations in mind. Pretty much, a game designed for the PC's pace and accuracy of control was being shoehorned into the console control scheme. Later on devs realized "we should make the enemies bigger, the movement slower, add in some assistance control, and make accessing menu items and getting into a game super quick and easy" to actually accomodate the platform's state of existence and userbase. Now many games are being designed for the console platforms in terms of movement speed, enemy size, aim assist, menus, quick/optionless lobby system, etc. and being ported to PC without much attention to what the platform's userbase expects the PC gaming experience to feel like. It isn't the mentality that "we deserve more!", it's the mentality that "we should at least get a game that's adjusted to be played on the PC with these minor tweaks that are literally number values in a config file that the devs can easily change".

Some titles that did a good job at catering to both types of platforms are Just Cause 2, Battlefield 3, and the Colin McCrae Dirt games.

Some titles that did a crappy job are Unreal Championship 3, Crysis 2, and Brink.

Skyrim sits somewhere in the middle as it did great with mods and gameplay controls but horribly with menus and hotkey bindings.

You two really are going at it with unneeded tension so I hope this clears up both points of view.


This makes sense and came out the way it should. I've agreed before that many former PC only titles that came to consoles deserve to be made PC first to preserve the bar for which they should be played early in talks with him and then ported to consoles if its going to be multiplatform. Skyrim is an example of that. The memory that game demands as you progress through the game is crazy. When you see the PC version and walk through it, its rather fluid and when you play it on consoles you can kind of see the world forming as you move forward.



trasharmdsister12 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

I stated what I did because in the PC realm...thats the only place where catering to PC applies (unless you're applying controls to a keyboard as well). A game is a game. Nvidia's slogan sums up the mentality, which is why I poked at it a little bit.

 I don't think pezus has been all that great at really describing what he means by "focusing on the PC platform" and in turn you seem to think all he means is "prettier graphics, some settings for controls". What he means is decisions made in the development of the game - things such hosting your own servers, mod support, tuning the pace of the game to fit the more accurate and higher sustainable pace provided by m+kb for certain genres (things like FOV adjustment and character run speed).

The poor PC ports pezus is alluding to suffer from the same problem that early FPSs on consoles suffered - the core experience of the game simply wasn't designed with the platform's strengths and limitations in mind. Pretty much, a game designed for the PC's pace and accuracy of control was being shoehorned into the console control scheme. Later on devs realized "we should make the enemies bigger, the movement slower, add in some assistance control, and make accessing menu items and getting into a game super quick and easy" to actually accomodate the platform's state of existence and userbase. Now many games are being designed for the console platforms in terms of movement speed, enemy size, aim assist, menus, quick/optionless lobby system, etc. and being ported to PC without much attention to what the platform's userbase expects the PC gaming experience to feel like. It isn't the mentality that "we deserve more!", it's the mentality that "we should at least get a game that's adjusted to be played on the PC with these minor tweaks that are literally number values in a config file that the devs can easily change".

Some titles that did a good job at catering to both types of platforms are Just Cause 2, Battlefield 3, and the Colin McCrae Dirt games.

Some titles that did a crappy job are Unreal Championship 3, Crysis 2, and Brink.

Skyrim sits somewhere in the middle as it did great with mods and gameplay controls but horribly with menus and hotkey bindings.

You two really are going at it with unneeded tension so I hope this clears up both points of view.

Thanks for this. The reason I didn't explain it as extensively as you did is that at first I thought he'd understand what I meant, especially when I said I wasn't talking about graphics only. But you put it better than I could have anyway so I thank you for that.



S.T.A.G.E. said:
trasharmdsister12 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

I stated what I did because in the PC realm...thats the only place where catering to PC applies (unless you're applying controls to a keyboard as well). A game is a game. Nvidia's slogan sums up the mentality, which is why I poked at it a little bit.

 I don't think pezus has been all that great at really describing what he means by "focusing on the PC platform" and in turn you seem to think all he means is "prettier graphics, some settings for controls". What he means is decisions made in the development of the game - things such hosting your own servers, mod support, tuning the pace of the game to fit the more accurate and higher sustainable pace provided by m+kb for certain genres (things like FOV adjustment and character run speed).

The poor PC ports pezus is alluding to suffer from the same problem that early FPSs on consoles suffered - the core experience of the game simply wasn't designed with the platform's strengths and limitations in mind. Pretty much, a game designed for the PC's pace and accuracy of control was being shoehorned into the console control scheme. Later on devs realized "we should make the enemies bigger, the movement slower, add in some assistance control, and make accessing menu items and getting into a game super quick and easy" to actually accomodate the platform's state of existence and userbase. Now many games are being designed for the console platforms in terms of movement speed, enemy size, aim assist, menus, quick/optionless lobby system, etc. and being ported to PC without much attention to what the platform's userbase expects the PC gaming experience to feel like. It isn't the mentality that "we deserve more!", it's the mentality that "we should at least get a game that's adjusted to be played on the PC with these minor tweaks that are literally number values in a config file that the devs can easily change".

Some titles that did a good job at catering to both types of platforms are Just Cause 2, Battlefield 3, and the Colin McCrae Dirt games.

Some titles that did a crappy job are Unreal Championship 3, Crysis 2, and Brink.

Skyrim sits somewhere in the middle as it did great with mods and gameplay controls but horribly with menus and hotkey bindings.

You two really are going at it with unneeded tension so I hope this clears up both points of view.


This makes sense and came out the way it should. I've agreed before that many former PC only titles that came to consoles deserve to be made PC first to preserve the bar for which they should be played early in talks with him and then ported to consoles if its going to be multiplatform. Skyrim is an example of that. The memory that game demands as you progress through the game is crazy. When you see the PC version and walk through it, its rather fluid and when you play it on consoles you can kind of see the world forming as you move forward.

Skyrim was developed on 360 first I think and then ported to PC and PS3. This is especially apparent when navigating menus and stuff like that, as tads12 said. The reason you see the world "forming as you move forward" on consoles is because they don't have enough memory to render more environment at once, so that's one dev trick to prevent the FPS from dropping.



Around the Network

You're both welcome. See? We can all co-exist and have the warm and fuzzies for one-another!

With that though, I have no idea what the original intent of this thread was. Was it a jab at PC gamers by way of mocking their feelings of superiority while being cheap? Was it simply a(n unfunny) joke? Or was this one of those "Let's see where the thread takes itself" kind of experiments? I'm confused, but I'll stay for the cookies.



trasharmdsister12 said:
You're both welcome. See? We can all co-exist and have the warm and fuzzies for one-another!

With that though, I have no idea what the original intent of this thread was. Was it a jab at PC gamers by way of mocking their feelings of superiority while being cheap? Was it simply a(n unfunny) joke? Or was this one of those "Let's see where the thread takes itself" kind of experiments? I'm confused, but I'll stay for the cookies.


I actually have no idea. But, biggest PC thread ever, anyone?



Slimebeast said:
Turkish said:
Killy_Vorkosigan said:
Damn, people really care for trophies and e-peen ??? Roflzor, I thought I was a nolife otaku to brag on with friends back in the days by playing FZero to death to make the best time ever !!!

Now you just getting trophies by progressing to the game, most of the time I play a game I have no clue why lame achievments are popping while just killing bosses. What a useless feature of this generation. Especially when it's tied to an account that might be cancelled in a few years when sony and crosoft will shut down the servers (cf atlus' news demon's souls server shutting down...).




You sound like someone who didn't achieve very much regarding trophies. Demon's Souls is a game from 2009, the servers will be closed like many other servers have been closed. But Sony's PSN servers? Never, not as long as PlayStation exists. Even if it does, your account is still there and you can view your trophies by going to sites like psnprofiles.com

I really hope all our Trophies will carry over when we get the PS4. That would be so sweet and make it all worth it. Please say they do.

EDIT: Kantor dammit why did you have to ban Turkish just right now. Can't you see I'm in the middle of a conversation here.

Lol they will, don't worry. :) Btw I see you playin 2 beast games: Demons and Dark Souls, I'm on my 2nd playtrough in Dark Souls now :)

I added you btw :p



I just checked how much money I've spent on Steam. Quite a bit.

I have 291 "Games" in my list. And my community page says 257. If I'd bother to actually count which ones are duplicates, tools and episodics, or bought at retail I'd probably come down to approximately 200 real games.

Looking at my store history I've bought games for 998,05 Euros and 90,96 Dollars.

That works out at around €5 per game.

Of course, they are not all big name games, quite a few are indie games, episodic games and some are just plain old. Like the Jedi Knight Collection and Doom collection. Games that noone would pay full price for under any circumstances. Then again, a lot of them are big, newish releases that sold for around €50 in stores at the time.

I don't see how you could build a console game library like that at a comparative price.



This is invisible text!

Steam gaming: Going broke by buying 100 games instead of going broke by buying 10 games