I have far better things to be doing on a Sunday, but here goes:
viewtopic.php?p=746474#p746474AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Zio wrote:
There's no way you can really compare it to using a console, which is designed right from the get-go to be a set-top box for use with a telly.
Of course I can compare it to using a console, and Windows 7 on a small, quiet, media centre PC with a wireless keyboard and mouse delivers a far better media experience than a console.
viewtopic.php?p=744814#p744814AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Also note that it could be like Duke Nukem Forever in that whilst it'll never be a brilliant game, the console versions run so incredibly horribly that any enjoyment that can be had out of them is destroyed.
viewtopic.php?p=739570#p739570AtrocityExhibition wrote:
I can well imagine going down the mini-ITX PC route instead of buying a next-gen console. With a wireless keyboard and mouse, along with a wireless gamepad - it'll tick all the boxes.
viewtopic.php?p=738352#p738352AtrocityExhibition wrote:
You'd arguably be better off with a cheap PC based around an AMD APU chip...
viewtopic.php?p=736114#p736114AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Custom PC ran a decent feature on gaming laptops this month. Now admittedly these aren't at console prices by a long stretch, but £1000 gets you a genuine gaming laptop (will chuck BF3 around at 1080p completely ULTRAed out with 4xAA) that can indeed just be plugged into a telly and used as a games machine with a wireless 360 controller.
Plus it's a PC, and a laptop.
viewtopic.php?p=734785#p734785AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Can't come soon enough for me, the 360 is absolutely clapped out and just not up to the job any more.
Bring it on, proper 1080p@60FPS console gaming, now that really would be nice.
viewtopic.php?p=731442#p731442AtrocityExhibition wrote:
throughsilver wrote:
AtrocityExhibition wrote:
'Not coming to a console near you'
(worst)potw
I'm just saying that they may as well show renders from a pre-rendered FMV cutscene in terms of how much of the actual game it shows.
viewtopic.php?p=728830#p728830AtrocityExhibition wrote:
FC3 is basically a console interface ported badly to the PC (the Rock Paper Shotgun 'stuff I loathe' list picked up on this), whereas with BL2, Gearbox have actually exploited the K+M interface.
viewtopic.php?p=727929#p727929AtrocityExhibition wrote:
GTAIV (PC) had a traffic density slider, and you could indeed set it to what might be considered 'authentic levels', to give you an idea, the 360/PS3 versions ran at about 30 (on a scale of 0-100), on the PC you could set it all the way up to 100.
viewtopic.php?p=720298#p720298AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Ian Fairies wrote:
Oh, for fucks sake, this is what happens when you tone down difficult games for cry babies.
No, this is what happens when you aim games at the console gaming demographic.
Too many hyperactive teenagers with the attention span of a gnat.
viewtopic.php?p=720147#p720147AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Ian Fairies wrote:
You just couldn't help yourself, could you?
I'm just pointing out, factually, why the game operates in fairly small areas and as such may not 'feel' like the original Deus Ex.
The phenomenon was first seen in Deus Ex 2 on the original XBox, the developers went out of their way ahead of the release to explain that the big open levels had gone in the bin due to the console's memory constraints, the same applies to Deux Ex HR on 360/PS3, it's why the levels are relatively small and it's also why there's so much loading.
viewtopic.php?p=718375#p718375AtrocityExhibition wrote:
The consoles couldn't run GTAIV properly, they just couldn't.
It's only when you've experienced it running on a capable PC that you start to appreciate how much Rockstar had to cripple it to get it running on the consoles.
viewtopic.php?p=717374#p717374AtrocityExhibition wrote:
BikNorton wrote:
They'd just refuse to play at all. Didn't we do this in another thread?
I hope so, otherwise that means I read the comments at Kotaku or somewhere.
I'd never entrust my TV/films to an always-internet-connected console with a totally locked down proprietary OS anyway (or to any device I didn't have complete control over, basically), they're just moving relentlessly towards the model whereby we rent everything and own nothing, and have to pay them every time we want to watch or play something.
viewtopic.php?p=710326#p710326AtrocityExhibition wrote:
As markg has already said, I honestly can't remember the last time a PC game gave me any hassle, or at the very least, no more than my 360 does with the console wanting to update itself and then the game wanting to update itself and then the entire fucking dashboard having changed since I last used it so I can't fucking find anything.
viewtopic.php?p=709955#p709955AtrocityExhibition wrote:
By all accounts if you chuck even a mid-spec PC at it you'll get an overall experience somewhat better than either the 360 or PS3 delivers.
viewtopic.php?p=705367#p705367AtrocityExhibition wrote:
The future is bright, the future is PC.
Or perhaps the next-gen consoles.
WHICH IS WHAT THE PC IS DOING NOW
viewtopic.php?p=701538#p701538AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Interesting to note that Eurogamer's £300 super-budget gaming PC can lump the game around far better than either the 360 or PS3 can manage.
viewtopic.php?p=696680#p696680AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Do note there is some negative stuff in there about the console versions in terms of lag, controller response, controller usability, and framerate. However, with no cross-platform play at least no other players will have a 'platform advantage'.
viewtopic.php?p=696061#p696061AtrocityExhibition wrote:
OnLive delivered 60FPS which was better than the consoles, but at the expense of visual fidelity, was my understanding of it.
viewtopic.php?p=685369#p685369AtrocityExhibition wrote:
If it's a case of TL:DR then the answer is motion blur can help to an extent in some gaming situations (which is why it's used quite extensively in 30FPS capped console titles) but it has pretty serious limitations.
viewtopic.php?p=675742#p675742AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Very 'console-esque', shitty small maps with crappy 'shooting gallery' corridors. Not good.
Music is cool though.
viewtopic.php?p=669639#p669639AtrocityExhibition wrote:
Historically Battlefield games didn't even have a single player for god's sake, they only put one in there for the console generation.
viewtopic.php?p=668866#p668866AtrocityExhibition wrote:
This ain't no shoddy port man, the main reason the install is 35GB is down to them using artwork assets that are up to 400% more detailed than on the console versions.
Although given the disaster area that the PC port of GTAIV was*, I suppose seeing will be believing, more than taking their word for it.....
(*It was an amazing game and definitely the version of choice, once PC technology had evolved for two years and as such the PC existed that could actually fucking run it properly.)
viewtopic.php?p=646634#p646634AtrocityExhibition wrote:
I see the console versions run at 60FPS, which is unusual but very welcome. (Burnout Paradise for example I got on with fine on the 360, as that's a 60FPS game too.)
This is going back just one year, with a search for "console" in your previous posts. I've left a few out because they take a bit of context to fully understand. I can do more with different keywords. I'm thinking "FPS" next.