By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Blizzard has fallen

Cobretti2 on 23 October 2010

lol blizzard hasnt fallen.

 

There are people out there paying $1 per virtual item for rare their games.



 

 

Around the Network
Soleron on 23 October 2010
Killiana1a said:

 For $300 you can play Modern Warfare 2 with less hardware worries than someone playing it on a $1500 PC gaming rig.

Hardware is really really cheap now. Excluding monitor and peripherals because the console doesn't have them, I could put together a PC that gives 360/PS3 like graphics for $300:

CPU $50 (X2 240)
Motherboard $40 (690G)
RAM $30 (2GB DDR2)
Graphics $50 (HD 4650)
Case PSU $40 (or use your current)
Optical Drive $20 (or use your current)
HDD $40 (or use your current)

Total: $270, or $170 if you use whatever computer parts you have now

Because you do own a computer right now, so just reuse it and add capable CPU/graphics/RAM.

Not $1500 at all.

 

 



ZenfoldorVGI on 23 October 2010

Blizzard is better than they ever have been, and they are the only significant PC exclusive developer left so you better start liking them again. I think it is your tastes that have fallen.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

ZenfoldorVGI on 23 October 2010
Soleron said:
Killiana1a said:

 For $300 you can play Modern Warfare 2 with less hardware worries than someone playing it on a $1500 PC gaming rig.

Hardware is really really cheap now. Excluding monitor and peripherals because the console doesn't have them, I could put together a PC that gives 360/PS3 like graphics for $300:

CPU $50 (X2 240)
Motherboard $40 (690G)
RAM $30 (2GB DDR2)
Graphics $50 (HD 4650)
Case PSU $40 (or use your current)
Optical Drive $20 (or use your current)
HDD $40 (or use your current)

Total: $270, or $170 if you use whatever computer parts you have now

Because you do own a computer right now, so just reuse it and add capable CPU/graphics/RAM.

Not $1500 at all.

 

 


That PC will NOT do graphics like the PS3. It might benchmark as high, but due to current PC game optimization and selection, the games won't come close to some top tier PS3 exclusives. That's my opinion. :P Matter of fact, most HD games, including The Witcher, would barely play at sub HD resolutions with that setup. Everything is a huge bottleneck. 2gb of DDR2, wtf, lol? That's barely gonna run Windows. Specs are not interchangable between consoles and PC. Due to game and OS and code optimization, I'd guess games run about 3x better on a console with similar specs.

I just built what I feel is a current gen gaming PC and I spend about 2000 dollars. Better gaming that console? Oh hell yeah. But I used quality components. Why would you want to buy shit just to scrap by. That PC you just built has been obsolete for years and won't play current games worth a shit.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Soleron on 23 October 2010
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Soleron said:
Killiana1a said:

 For $300 you can play Modern Warfare 2 with less hardware worries than someone playing it on a $1500 PC gaming rig.

Hardware is really really cheap now. Excluding monitor and peripherals because the console doesn't have them, I could put together a PC that gives 360/PS3 like graphics for $300:

CPU $50 (X2 240)
Motherboard $40 (690G)
RAM $30 (2GB DDR2)
Graphics $50 (HD 4650)
Case PSU $40 (or use your current)
Optical Drive $20 (or use your current)
HDD $40 (or use your current)

Total: $270, or $170 if you use whatever computer parts you have now

Because you do own a computer right now, so just reuse it and add capable CPU/graphics/RAM.

Not $1500 at all.

 

 


That PC will NOT do graphics like the PS3. It might benchmark as high, but due to current PC game optimization and selection, the games won't come close to some top tier PS3 exclusives.

Name some. Plus screenshots and IQ comparisons.

That's my opinion. :P Matter of fact, most HD games, including The Witcher, would barely play at sub HD resolutions with that setup.

I'm talking about playing games at 1280x720 30fps here. Which is what most 360/PS3 games do, especially the ones that look amazing.

Everything is a huge bottleneck. 2gb of DDR2, wtf, lol? That's barely gonna run Windows.

2GB is perfectly fine. I've never seen a review bottlenecked by that amount of RAM. I have that amount and my usage has never gone into pagefile when playing Supreme Commander, Half-life 2 or SC2 at 1280x1024 High settings.

Specs are not interchangable between consoles and PC. Due to game and OS and code optimization, I'd guess games run about 3x better on a console with similar specs.

What settings on a PC look as good, IQ wise, as a 360 for some cross-platform game of your choice? I'd like to compare but I don't own any such games. I'd say that PC is about 3x as fast graphics-wise as a PS3 GPU to make up for the optimisation defecit.

I just built what I feel is a current gen gaming PC and I spend about 2000 dollars. Better gaming that console? Oh hell yeah. But I used quality components. Why would you want to buy shit just to scrap by. That PC you just built has been obsolete for years and won't play current games worth a shit.

But it does equal a PS3/360 IMO. That's what I was aiming for. Obviously I used rubbish and cheap components to do it, but so did MS for the 360 until recently. It can't play current games, but that wasn't the objective.

If I was to build a gaming PC kit would be more like $600 (X4 945/HD6870/4GB RAM). How on earth did you spend $2000?





Around the Network
ZenfoldorVGI on 23 October 2010
Soleron said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Soleron said:
Killiana1a said:

 For $300 you can play Modern Warfare 2 with less hardware worries than someone playing it on a $1500 PC gaming rig.

Hardware is really really cheap now. Excluding monitor and peripherals because the console doesn't have them, I could put together a PC that gives 360/PS3 like graphics for $300:

CPU $50 (X2 240)
Motherboard $40 (690G)
RAM $30 (2GB DDR2)
Graphics $50 (HD 4650)
Case PSU $40 (or use your current)
Optical Drive $20 (or use your current)
HDD $40 (or use your current)

Total: $270, or $170 if you use whatever computer parts you have now

Because you do own a computer right now, so just reuse it and add capable CPU/graphics/RAM.

Not $1500 at all.

 

 


That PC will NOT do graphics like the PS3. It might benchmark as high, but due to current PC game optimization and selection, the games won't come close to some top tier PS3 exclusives.

Name some. Plus screenshots and IQ comparisons.

That's my opinion. :P Matter of fact, most HD games, including The Witcher, would barely play at sub HD resolutions with that setup.

I'm talking about playing games at 1280x720 30fps here. Which is what most 360/PS3 games do, especially the ones that look amazing.

Everything is a huge bottleneck. 2gb of DDR2, wtf, lol? That's barely gonna run Windows.

2GB is perfectly fine. I've never seen a review bottlenecked by that amount of RAM. I have that amount and my usage has never gone into pagefile when playing Supreme Commander, Half-life 2 or SC2 at 1280x1024 High settings.

Specs are not interchangable between consoles and PC. Due to game and OS and code optimization, I'd guess games run about 3x better on a console with similar specs.

What settings on a PC look as good, IQ wise, as a 360 for some cross-platform game of your choice? I'd like to compare but I don't own any such games. I'd say that PC is about 3x as fast graphics-wise as a PS3 GPU to make up for the optimisation defecit.

I just built what I feel is a current gen gaming PC and I spend about 2000 dollars. Better gaming that console? Oh hell yeah. But I used quality components. Why would you want to buy shit just to scrap by. That PC you just built has been obsolete for years and won't play current games worth a shit.

But it does equal a PS3/360 IMO. That's what I was aiming for. Obviously I used rubbish and cheap components to do it, but so did MS for the 360 until recently. It can't play current games, but that wasn't the objective.

If I was to build a gaming PC kit would be more like $600 (X4 945/HD6870/4GB RAM). How on earth did you spend $2000?




http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=117661&page=1&str=67265348#

Estimates: 160 CPU, 140 case, 230 monitor, 140 OS, 170 DDR3 8gb, $40 CPU fan, $30 alternate fans, 150 64gb Sata3 SSD, 60 1 TB HDD, 30 DVD RW, 170 Mobo, 20 fan controller, 160 1000w PSU, 500 GPU, 20 bucks Arctic silver 5 thermal compound kit, 10 hours labor/10 hours research tweaks optimization for windows 7 SDD. I'm doing some regedit as we speak, and then I'm gonna oc to 3.8 adjust my ram timings, torture test, and get ready for some new games.

Should be futureproof with the AM3 socket, will upgrade CPU with the next gen AMD unit.

How could you not, lol?

i could have spent a LOT more than that if I would have gotten the i7 mobo and CPU, but I'm against Intel atm.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

sethnintendo on 23 October 2010

Yea, after reading some responses it is apparent that I have changed my tastes.  I was a little hyped for SC2 but after fooling around with the beta I didn't see it warrant my purchase.  Perhaps I will give it a try when it goes on sale / discount.  Didn't they take the chat feature out of SC2 on battle net?  Sure it isn't needed but it was fun to go into chat channels and bs around with people. So I guess my taste have changed but they have done a few things in recent years that haven't helped me love them as much as I used to.

Some recent Blizzard blunders that had me starting to have negative feelings towards them include splitting SC2 into 3 parts (sure I'll take some of your word that they needed more missions but they could have just included more in the original release 20 per race then had 10-20 missions per race in the expansion), scrapping Starcraft Ghost (the game looked nice and seemed like it was going to be a very good game for the consoles), trying to implement real id on their forums (whoever thought of that should have been fired, was nice to see Blizzard community take arms against such a stupid idea), and threatening to ban people that backstab on SC2 (if they didn't want you to do it make the alliances locked permanently, sure I might have been an asshole during SC1 backstabbing people on vs comp games but it was hilarious).



zgamer5 on 23 October 2010
KungKras said:

It seems that Blizzard are doing their best to destroy the E-sports that was built up becasue of SC:BW.

Signs of them falling emerged when they announced no LAN for SC2.

They still make the best games ever, mostly because allmost all game makers suck nowadays, so their games look good when compared to the usual crap the game industry shovels out. But the magic is not there anymore.

I hope the next Blizzard game bombs hard. That would teach them a lesson about not changing what made them good.


they removed lan to possibly stop piracy, they arent trieng to destroy e sports. their already has been a major competition of starcraft 2 in korea, blizzard would have won thousands from it. if theirs money involved they will deliver, and e sports bring money.



Being in 3rd place never felt so good

CDiablo on 23 October 2010

To be honest I would say that Valve or Relic are better PC devs, but Bliz is still PC exclusive which is nice. TBH I just cant support the 3 games thing, and its laughable that it will be 18 months till the Zerg campaign. To make 30 odd missions and add (most likely) 3 new units balance should not take that long. In the course of a year I expect a new race all together(not that I think SC needs one, this is for time reference) campaign.



Getting an XBOX One for me is like being in a bad relationship but staying together because we have kids. XBone we have 20000+ achievement points, 2+ years of XBL Gold and 20000+ MS points. I think its best we stay together if only for the MS points.

Nintendo Treehouse is what happens when a publisher is confident and proud of its games and doesn't need to show CGI lies for five minutes.

-Jim Sterling

TruckOSaurus on 23 October 2010

Blizzard has not fallen it's only normal to not like everything they do.

For example, I never got into WC3 because I didn't like the hero mechanic but I don't think WC3 is a bad game, it's just not suited to my tastes.

SC2: WoL is pretty much all I wanted from a new SC game, great campaign, awesome multiplayer, matchmaking, enough change in the units but that same SC feeling.



Signature goes here!