You know what the problem is that PC gaming is sort of going toward a downslope? Well I have the answer.
Graphics.
No, I don't mean exactly that, I mean that every developer looks at the game and says 'realism'. Now I know this is not the case with EVERY game. But most mainstream games end up having 90% of the budget and time spent on the graphics for making them realistic, and not 'well we should have it like this.'
I like games with a unique and aesthetic art style (Mass Effect has a certain feel to it.), and does everything correctly that it advertises it does, not SupCom saying 'Look! This is the next best RTS story EVEEEEEEEEEER!!!!!!!!111'
I agree.
Even the best graphic card cannot help the PC win over the PS3 in graphics?
Reason, the PS3 is packed with a much much better processor, and the PC will see it in the next 5-6 years to come, or maybe more.
Replayability or should i say the lack of in many games and value for money. If i'm having to upgrade my system to get the best out of a game then i want value for money which is both graphics and content. And more game demo's..let me try before i buy!
If the graphics and content aren't very advanced, you won't have to upgrade. As for demos, I'd like more, but a lot of the time they're nothing like the actual game.
[Edited by Paradox, 3/10/2010 2:05:39 PM]
You know what the problem is that PC gaming is sort of going toward a downslope? Well I have the answer.
Graphics.
No, I don't mean exactly that, I mean that every developer looks at the game and says 'realism'. Now I know this is not the case with EVERY game. But most mainstream games end up having 90% of the budget and time spent on the graphics for making them realistic, and not 'well we should have it like this.'
I like games with a unique and aesthetic art style (Mass Effect has a certain feel to it.), and does everything correctly that it advertises it does, not SupCom saying 'Look! This is the next best RTS story EVEEEEEEEEEER!!!!!!!!111'
I agree.
Even the best graphic card cannot help the PC win over the PS3 in graphics?
Reason, the PS3 is packed with a much much better processor, and the PC will see it in the next 5-6 years to come, or maybe more.
Yeah, because we all know that a single-core that goes zoom zoom is faster than the latest quad-core or I7 core CPUs...
/sarcasm.
The long and short of it is, consoles are well over 2 years behind again. The PC can EASILY beat the PS3 at this rate due to the PS3 being locked to DX9, while PC is already at DX11.
Also, some games on PC support a much farther draw distance and level of detail than the PS3 or 360 versions. Fallout 3 is a great example of this.
Yeah, but high memory graphic cards can be found!
its not about high-end graphic cards or graphics. its about substance. a low tech game can be more fun than a high-end mega release. i think that's what 'alimarin' is trying to say.
And this is the problem with the children who play consoles. All they are about is how the game looks. And this is why a ****ty game like MW2 can be so insanely popular--because it's pretty. Even though the gameplay is ****e and the story is horrendous and the general quality is shockingly poor.
very true. people seem to focus more on looks than actual content. for me substance always takes precedence over looks.
I think saurabhfzd said it best
Important Board Topics
Trending Topics