nightsurge said:
Rpruett said:
Squilliam said:
I wouldn't call it much of a stipulation... someone on the low end of the low in terms of hardware is unlikely to know much about tweaking the settings unless they are a masochist or stuck with an extremely poor computer for gaming due to circumstance. |
Almost every computer game available now will automatically adjust the best settings for your computer. That's pretty pointless. Simply but dropping the resolution to the 800x600 or 640x480 results will dramatically improve.
|
Your whole entire premise for arguing in this thread has been the claim that, "I can play that on PC so why buy the 360?"
You then make even more ridiculus assumptions that gamers accept integrated graphics and games at their lowest resolutions and settings.
Did you ever once stop and think your argument through? The people who buy PC's with integrated graphics, the ones that don't care about high details and high resolutions, the ones that you are arguing for so profusely, are NOT the ones that would even consider an HD console or its games in the first place!
Is this fact? So just to double check your logic here. If you purchase cheap PC, you = not willing to consider an HD console. Correct? Superb point.
You seriously don't understand english, do you. Or logic for that matter. This whole time you are talking about how people with integrated chipsets don't care about good graphics and the enjoyment of the game at lowest resolution and settings is the same for these individuals. That is what you said countless times, which is exactly what I said. If you want to generalize it that way, go ahead... it's what you were saying after all.
Average people don't go out and specifically buy PC's with/for integrated graphics. They go out and purchase a new PC and just want something that is solid and on the cheap side. Your assertion was that people couldn't play games with integrated graphics (Which you were proven wrong). The point that was being made was that someone who has a newer PC, will be able to not be very concerned with their ability to run many of the newer games on the market and almost every good PC/360 game.
My assertion was that people could not play games at high detail and resolution comparable to an HD console (which I was right every time and never once proven wrong on this respect, since you always ignored the point or tried to spin it off into a different argument)
The whole reason people try to say "Well I can just play that on my PC," is because they own a gaming PC that is meant for playing games very well and do not see a point in a console.
Really? My brother doesn't own a gaming PC. His PC is probably 3 - 4 years old. Yet he plays Mass Effect, Gears of War, Oblivion, etc.
What's his specs? Oblivion and Gears of War are not friendly on the hardware. But if it still plays decent games today, he either upgraded it, or the original specs were rather high for 3-4 years ago. And again, you are comparing people who don't care about HD graphics with people who do (seriously... don't you GET IT?).
However, the people that do not care about HD gaming, the ones you are constantly arguing on their behalf, would never even care for this comparison in the first place. Gaming to those users is a casual afterthought. If they really meant to do a lot gaming on (or equivalent to a console's gaming use), they would have purchased or built a PC capable of doing that at great performance levels.
Since when am I arguing on the behalf of people who do not care about HD gaming? I'm arguing on the behalf of people who have a relatively newer PC (For whatever purpose they desire) regardless of quality who are objectively looking at what games they want to play.
And what system would they go out and purchase.
Really? All your points seem to revolve around the sole fact that integrated graphics can run games (even if it is at the lowest settings). All I am saying is that all those arguments don't even apply to this situation at all.... only a small amount of people would prefer to "game" on integrated graphics playing the same games that are available at much better resolution and detail on consoles or better PCs. You honestly think that the majority of individuals everywhere don't want or care for better graphics? So we should stick with VHS, record tapes, and tube TVs? I'm making an unbased, rampant, highly exaggerated generalization here. Sound familiar? *cough* Rpruett *cough*
Basically, if I have to sum this whole thing up in one sentence for you to get the point, "You are arguing for the wrong crowd, in the wrong context, and with the wrong claims."
You haven't summed anything up. You have been proven categorically wrong on various areas. You seem to believe that being 20 years old and 'building' computers makes you a wizard of some sort. Delusion is the term we would use to reference yourself.
Bolded in red. That's called a summary. You should have learned about it in elementary. Although, given your flawed concepts and your inability to read thoroughly or think logicly, you probably haven't reached that level of maturity yet. Also, I have not been proven wrong even once. We (Squilliam, myself, other various users) keep showing you how badly integrated graphics perform, and how people who are even comparing it to HD consoles in the first place would prefer the better graphics and detail available on consoles, and you just keep making exceptions and trying to jump onto different topics/arguments that still do not apply to this situation.
|
