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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Anyone else starting to feel they won't need a HD console after all?

Squilliam said:
FJ-Warez said:
Griffin said:
 

 You are not getting Crysis to look like that on any computer that does not cost you out the ass.  I have seen Crysis run on Quadcores, with dual 8800 GTX's or ultra's with atleast 4gb of fast gaming ram and it looks a lot worse then that. 


 That statement reminds me something, it makes me wonder what mades people think that the PS3 or the 360 can run this game on high, 720p @ 30 fps??


They couldn't because - Not enough ram, not enough graphics power, and the CPU doesn't have the X86 out of order execution and other advantages like that. A decent PC nowadays spanks the PS3 in floating point and Integer performance.


 I know, this topic was discused like five times before, still some people belives the opposite and da power of da cell, oh well...



By me:

Made with Blender + LuxRender
"Since you can´t understand ... there is no point to taking you seriously."
Around the Network

cant say i agree with not wanting my HD console. im loving every game that comes out on the ps3 because each looks just heeps better then the last one. at this point, almost any game i buy i enjoy the game play. i mean their not going to release it unless it is fun to play but the graphics is a huge deal for me. along with the graphics, great sound can make a game too. the only time i would get a wii is if i was running a day care or i had kids. i have a few friends that like them but im sure if i had a group of friends together, they would much rather play COD4 and blow some shit up over burning calories! just my 2 cents.



greenmedic88 said:
The PC/console debate is about as pointless as it is endless. They are two different demographics, with a degree of overlap that has been vastly increasing since the PS3 and 360 were released. Most of the big mainstream PC releases are published for consoles, and in the case of the 360, all of its big exclusives are eventually ported to PC.

This is probably true, most of the big games are released multiplatform on PC, PS3 and 360. But I don't agree with the demographics being different. Sure, PC has a humongous casual group, but a great deal of the "core gamer" is the same as the consoles.

greenmedic88 said:
In this respect, ithe 360 is the least "necessary" console of the three current, if the gamer has a decent PC capable of outperforming the 360. But... one of the main reasons for playing on the 360 is the online community specific to the platform. I'm referring to RL friends who game rather than random match ups. But this is enough for many to use the 360 before the PC.

The reason you are stating is not entirely accurate. One thing is if a guy wants to play the 360 because his RL friends are playing. But saying it's because of Xbox Live community?! Really?! Xbox Live is plagued with immature people and idiots.

Steam is not only a better online service, but also has a much more mature community. And Steam is completely free. 

greenmedic88 said:
The PS3 will always have its big exclusives that will never see PC ports. Wii or 360 exclusive players or PC players can say what they want about not caring about these titles, but the louder the protests, the more likely it's an issue of pride and envy rather than simple personal tastes. 

Every platform will have their big exclusives, no one is disputing that. 

 

greenmedic88 said:
The Wii will always have games that rely upon the motion control scheme and simple won't port well or at all to traditional controls. Imagine Wii Sports with a mouse and keyboard. No point at all. All those first party Mario releases will never be seen on any other platform, and even if they did, without the controllers, it's the difference between RE4 or MP on a pad vs. RE4 Wii or MP3. 

 I agree, because the point of Wii Sports is to actually mimic the movements. But there are still exceptions, like FPS, where Kb+M is the best scheme since it offers the precision, freedom of movement and input necessary to make more frenetic and for better online competition.

 

greenmedic88 said:
The Crysis argument is getting old, and largely an issue of hardware envy. I played the demo (that plays fine on a PC at 1280x720, high visuals, 8xAA that cost about the same as a PS3, 360 and Wii combined) and honestly, as groundbreaking as the visuals are, the game itself is not compelling enough for me to want to play through the rest of it. I haven't paid $40 (which is ridiculously cheap for a game of this quality) to play it, because beyond the visuals (no point in even arguing that it doesn't look better than any game before it on console or PC), it just didn't pull me in.

PS3 port for Crysis? Even if it looked like Uncharted, it still wouldn't play as well, and the story wouldn't be as compelling, partly because the characters of Crysis are completely wooden. The vast majority of the Crysis experience lies in the graphics. If you're not playing on a rig that can optimize them, what's the point? The underlying game itself really isn't that great.

 So Crysis is not your thing, but Crysis is not just graphics. Crysis has AMAZING gameplay, you really have to play it on Delta (It would make Solid Snake cry of shame). It is easily the best sandbox shooter ever.



Crysis is just one game. It's not an example of the pinnacle of PC gaming when you take the real world performance of the soft in terms of sales. Was it the game itself, or the hardware requirements, or the hardware requirements to actually make the game run at high res on very high settings?

If it's the latter, it may be more of an indicator of why the PC gaming market just isn't doing as well as the console market.

But, I just played through the demo again and now I have to give Crytek their due and buy a copy, even if I don't finish it. As for building a new rig specifically to play Crysis the way Crytek intended, it won't happen.



Parokki said:
As many of you may, or may not remember, I was mainly a PC gamer for around a decade before I got a Gamecube in 2006. Then I received a Wii a few weeks after it was released, and soon an Xbox and a PS2.

After this I started looking at the HD consoles in a different light, and realised they have extremely few exclusives that I actually care about.

The 360 has Halo 3 and Dead Rising. The former is great at events with at least 2 consoles hooked up, and all such events I will ever end up going to have plenty of Halo-owners already attending. Offering almost PC-level online on a console is impressive, but I have a PC. The latter is unique and very entertaining, but definitely something I can live without.

The PS3 has MGS4 and Little Big Planet. I loved the previous three MGS games, and can't wait to see how the series ends, but I can just borrow a friend's PS3 for it. LBP looks great, but again nothing I can't live without, or play at a friend's place. Then there's semi-want stuff like Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, and Ratchet, but none of them make me terribly excited. Will probably have to borrow someone's PS3 for the next ICO game, though. =/

The more I look at things from this perspective, the better the Wii is looking. By having so many top notch first party games, and using such a unique controller, it's actually the only console to offer a completely different experience to the PC. With third parties finally starting to figure out the Wii, and virtually no new PS3 and 360 games that won't be on the PC being announced for the last several months, I'm starting to think it might be possible to skip the HD consoles entirely, or at least wait until they've dropped below 200€ and there are slim models available.

Anyone else arrive at the same conclusion?

tl;dr: Wii+PC FTW!

Awesome post. There are millions of PC-gamers that are juggling around with the same dilemma. Myself included, because I'm first and foremost a PC-gamer. And I arrived at the decision to complement my gaming experience with the X360.

IMO you need at least 5 games to justify a purchase of a current-gen console, unless they are uber-games like Oblivion or Zelda (I bought the N64 just for Zelda, and never got another game). Looking at the PS3, all those big IPs came up in my mind, but I hate Final Fantasy (and dislike JRPGs) and although MGS are well-made big games, I hate sneak games... and what else, Grand Turismo could be fun, but good car games are found elsewhere. The only game that interested me on the PS3 was Resistance, but with so many shooters on the PC i could live without it. And to this day, Resistance and it's sequel are the only exclusive games that appeal to me on the PS3.

Then we have the X360. I wanted Halo 3 for the same reason you mention MGS4. And I wanted Fable 2. And I want the best Zombie games, Dead Rising was already out for the X360, and RE5 would be released this year (zombie games play best on consoles). The 5th game on my list was GTA4, but I'm having second thoughts about it now. Then I thought, a couple or more exclusive games I would find interest in once I owned the console (in this case, Kameo, such a lovely, beatiful game). So the X360 won vs PS3 5-2.

The Wii is different, but I'm too old for Mario and the modern Donkey Kongs are too far away from the originals. I'm not a big fan of sports games, but tennis might be fun with a Wii-mote, but I'm thinking that tennis is already fun with just the regular controller. So what remains is Zelda, but because Zelda: OoT was very frustrating (I never finished it, cuz of those damned dungeons) so I have no current plans to get a Wii.

 



Around the Network
greenmedic88 said:
Crysis is just one game. It's not an example of the pinnacle of PC gaming when you take the real world performance of the soft in terms of sales. Was it the game itself, or the hardware requirements, or the hardware requirements to actually make the game run at high res on very high settings?

If it's the latter, it may be more of an indicator of why the PC gaming market just isn't doing as well as the console market.

But, I just played through the demo again and now I have to give Crytek their due and buy a copy, even if I don't finish it. As for building a new rig specifically to play Crysis the way Crytek intended, it won't happen.

 My response is this





 
 

"The reason you are stating is not entirely accurate. One thing is if a guy wants to play the 360 because his RL friends are playing. But saying it's because of Xbox Live community?! Really?! Xbox Live is plagued with immature people and idiots."

I'm not talking about the XBL community at large. I agree, the worst part of playing on the service is the general level of mentality. Playing in random match ups can be ridiculously aggravating. I won't even bother. But if I want to specifically play with friends on my list, for a regular scheduled session of whatever, it doesn't matter if Steam is a better service if they aren't PC gamers (with comparable rigs).

"I agree, because the point of Wii Sports is to actually mimic the movements. But there are still exceptions, like FPS, where Kb+M is the best scheme since it offers the precision, freedom of movement and input necessary to make more frenetic and for better online competition."

I love using the Wii remote as a shooter pointer, as I've always liked playing light gun based shooters, and I waited to see some good FPS ports on the Wii after the horrendous experience of Far Cry Vengeance, but it didn't happen.

And as a relative non-PC gamer who can't stand using a mouse and keyboard for action platform, fighting games, etc. I still agree that the mouse remains the best pointing device for FPS games. It's more accurate than an IR based pointer/tracker remote, and it's the most stable platform since it's always resting on a flat surface. The only thing that trumps a mouse for precise movement is a pen and tablet. 

So Crysis is not your thing, but Crysis is not just graphics. Crysis has AMAZING gameplay, you really have to play it on Delta (It would make Solid Snake cry of shame). It is easily the best sandbox shooter ever.

"Best ever" is highly open to debate. I think if it was ported to the Wii, I would probably like the game about as much as I liked Far Cry Vengeance, which admittedly was a quick and dirty (and awful) Ubisoft port.

As far as the gameplay goes, I have to disagree, based on what I've played, but I'm still going to give the game its fair due (or rather Crytek) and buy a copy so I can come up with a better assessment.

As for MGS, I really wanted to progress through the story (in MGS3) but the controls absolutely killed the game for me. I'll probably play a large chunk of MGS4 in FPS mode for the shooter oriented parts. 

sc94597 said:
greenmedic88 said:
Crysis is just one game. It's not an example of the pinnacle of PC gaming when you take the real world performance of the soft in terms of sales. Was it the game itself, or the hardware requirements, or the hardware requirements to actually make the game run at high res on very high settings?

If it's the latter, it may be more of an indicator of why the PC gaming market just isn't doing as well as the console market.

But, I just played through the demo again and now I have to give Crytek their due and buy a copy, even if I don't finish it. As for building a new rig specifically to play Crysis the way Crytek intended, it won't happen.

My response is this


I have no idea what game that's supposed to be although it looks like Crysis. I've already gone on record as saying it has the best visuals of any video game to date for PC and any console, so this would just be more of the same. We've all seen the same screen shots.

And I like that Crysis is closer to "photo realistic" than any previous game to use that phrase. Unfortunately it only looks that good on an optimized rig using a pair of good SLI video cards. Quite a difference between "high" and "very high" and even more so at max resolution. 

I wouldn't personally pay $2-3k to build a suitable rig just to play one game like Crysis. Now if more DX10 games in the future continue to push the boundaries (games that match my tastes) then sure; I'll build one. No big deal.

But the fact that Crysis sales have been far less impressive than the technical aspects calls into question the commercial viability of such games. If they don't make money, they'll either stop making them, scale them back to play on a wider range of PCs, or release them on more platforms (ie. console ports).  



well you obviously wouldn't NEEEEEEED HD consoles, but GT5 would basically be GT1 + new cars/tracks without HD.

So basically HD is what sets GT5 apart from the competition. Wii couldn't handle GT5 by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe it could just handle GT4.



Hey green medic, I have to second that Crysis is the best sandbox shooter. The number of ways you can play is just amazing. (try playing Delta without saving, that'll put some cold sweat on your brow) The gameplay is top tier for me, the action is pretty awesome but the AI is kinda dumb and repetitive like all sand box games lol. Too bad about the last third, if they cut that from the game and left it to a sequel it would have been a better game.

it also has some wicked mods coming or have come to it, I have to try those out. (Like mech warrior! Woot!)

The hardware to play it is getting cheaper and cheaper, so theres less and less reason not to play it. 8800gts can be had for $160 on newegg after rebate. Dual slot cooler and slightly faster is excellent.



Tease.