Counterstrike!
Team fortress 2
MAG for at least a short time. For as old as it is and as bad graphics as it has, it has survived a long time. (Perhaps I just love it, but whatever.)
Hmmm…
Age of Empires.
Age of Mythology.
Total war series.
Command and Conquer.
[QUOTE=Exedore;364778]I actually agree with a lot of points that the OP makes, but it’s not as simple as calling it poor design… it’s a encompassing production issue. If overall visual fidelity of the maps was reduced, more memory can be dedicated for unique assets per area, differentiating them better… memory is the key constraint with what you’re asking for. Overall both of the DLC levels push the technical limits of the game a lot harder than the shipping ones, because we had more experience polishing and optimizing them.
And… Terminal has a hangar? 
[/QUOTE]
ITT we talk about how W:ET only had two good maps on release
l o l
[QUOTE=Frankie Godskin;364931]I’ll reply to Wolf in one shot:
If 5 or 6 paragraphs is considered a book report where you’re from, then I apologize for the public education system failing you so completely. 
That’s a real interesting example that actually proves exactly what I’m saying. I wouldn’t have used such “elementary” examples as color, but you actually prove my point. If you told me someone was camping the entrance to the blue room, or that you saw someone planting a mine in the red hallway, I’d know EXACTLY where you were describing.
I understand it’s unreasonable to expect maps to be color-coded (and it would be fugly), but something giving similar visual cues would accomplish the same purpose.
Nah, I think we’ve moved beyond the point where we blame skill–especially if a dev posts and understands these concerns/ The “you’re not good enough” argument doesn’t hold water here.
And since you jumped in–please describe 5 locations in the first section of Shipyard that the attackers are coming from without describing interactive objects. Then tell me 5 places the defenders could be.[/QUOTE]
After limited playtime you came to this conclusion for the new maps? That’s part of the thing that rubs me. Many games I play take a bit to learn the intricacies of the maps or levels. Part of the charm. But lets just agree to disagree for now. Or until I play a bit more on the maps. If I start getting lost all the time despite some solid playtime, or can’t find visual cues, I’ll second your analysis. Fair enough? 
Mate, I don’t want to argue with you but that’s not how it works. The reason graphics got better around the time CoD4 released wasn’t because the X360/PS3 came out, CoD4 came out 1-2 years after those systems debuted.
The reason is because it took a while for developers to figure out how to best use the X360/PS3’s hardware. Those systems were more lucrative businesses at the time. As such instead of focusing on the constantly increasing graphics potential of PCs, developers started focusing on making games for the fixed X360/PS3 hardware and it took a while for them to understand how to get the most out of those platforms.
Infinity Ward was the first with CoD4. As it was both popular and had good, stable graphics; it became the standard for graphics quality. As such every FPS developer in the business tried to emulate that level of quality so as to increase their sales. (Why make something visibly inferior to your competitors?)
The reason “PCs are starting show up a lot more” now is because it has once again gotten to that point where PCs are beginning to emulate what the next generation of consoles might look like. As such, companies like 4A Games (Metro 2033) and DICE (Battlefield 3) are starting to take advantage of the hardware to deliver a noticably superior product.
If the new generation of consoles come out and if they become more widespread than PCs, it’ll once again take a couple years before graphics jump forward. Not because they were released at that time, but because developers will be trying to make the most out of a fixed system simply because it’s the most profitable at the time.
All of those games had good graphics at the time they were produced. The reason they’re still incredibly popular today, even with their outdated graphics, is because they were outstandingly good games.
MAG is the exception because they were once again pushing the boundries of the system but not in a graphical way. MAG tried to have the largest possible conflicts on the PS3’s hardware, as such they sacrificed some graphical quality to reach that limit. It wasn’t because they wanted to make a game that was purely sold on its excellent gameplay.
Regards,
Nexo
Well I don’t know then how a computer that has 3 times as much graphical power can run fewer games than a console of much less power. For instance, a PS3 has 256 MB of Vram, but the PC recommends 1 GB of VRam to run Brink. Why? The consoles use the VRam by far more efficiently, because it is easier to optimize it. Or maybe less is used by background operations. I don’t know. But either way, that’s what makes consoles a little better initially. They don’t take nearly as much VRam, which makes it cheaper for production. (PS3 costs $300) And yet, it kept up with the PC no issue for a long time. (AKA Last year.)
I agree with you that next gen consoles may only be a little bit ahead of what is coming out for PC right now, but what they really should do is give the consoles at least 1 gb of VRAM (Or whatever it is). At the current efficiency rate of Brink, that would be 4 gb VRAM on a PC. (Because 256 = about a fourth of a gigabyte) I’m sort of surprised the current systems DIDN’T come out with at least 512 mb of VRam (Would have been 2 GB Vram I guess) Oh well. Big Slip on the maker’s part. Would have totally paid an extra 100 bucks for the PS3 to be up to date and ahead of the PC still. Probably a marketing tactic.
Also, I’m not sure of the source, but the PS3 can interchange it’s Vram and it’s Ram (?). But I’m not going to post cause I’m not sure of my source.
MAG wasn’t perfect, I will admit that. 256 players made the game very immersing though XD
Oh. And here is a game that DIDN’T have good graphics at the time of making.
Stronghold 2!
What exactly do you mean when you say “PCs can run fewer games”? Unless the games in question are poorly optimised for PC, then they should run just as well as (if not better than) on consoles.
The reason PC games have a higher minimum RAM requirement is indeed because they have more running in the background. Consoles utilise a lightweight dashboard interface which can be displayed over games. PCs use a base Operating System which games are run on top of. PC OSes provide far more features and applications than a console dashboard and as such utilise more RAM.
Again, the reason the PS3 “kept up” with PC is simply because it’s cheaper. Most people don’t have the understanding or the money to invest in a gaming-grade PC. They usually go with the cheaper, more user-friendly console options. As such more consoles get sold and therefore more games are made around those hardware platforms to maximise profits.
Also you are once again misunderstanding that consoles can never “be ahead” of PCs. Consoles are built around PC hardware. If it can be put cheaply into a console, then it can easily be put into a PC.
Regards,
Nexo
Okay. I think I get what you are saying now.
Thank you for allowing me to see what I was saying was wrong.
By the way, what gaming PC would you reccomend to me? I was looking into battlefield 3. Console version isn’t looking good…
[QUOTE=RabidAnubis;365144]Okay. I think I get what you are saying now.
Thank you for allowing me to see what I was saying was wrong.
By the way, what gaming PC would you reccomend to me? I was looking into battlefield 3. Console version isn’t looking good…[/QUOTE]
I would build it yourself if you have the know how; it doesn’t take much. Easy to get started at: Newegg. Other people/PC builders may have other recommendations, but I’ve been using them a long time and find their prices to be reasonable and competitive and have had no issues with returning stuff, receiving broken merchandise, etc.
This. Buying a pre-built PC is an easy way to waste money as they’re usually a hassle to maintain and upgrade.
I’ve heard this site reccomended a lot and it seems like a very reasonable choice from my understanding. If you’re a UK resident, then there’s also Scan.co.uk. I’ve never had any issues with them and their prices were quite good the last time I checked.
Regards,
Nexo
The issue is I’m on an Imac right now. And I love my mac and all but if I had instead gotten the MAC pro, i could be upgrading from 256 mb of vram. -.-
I really would like to have a gaming PC, what do you think the lowest cost range I should start looking at is?
Also, how do I know it is a trusted source? Is it a company or a ebay type deal?
But personally, I feel that consoles are better for the FPS genre. Mouses are way too accurate to be considered to be aiming the gun. It’s more like aiming a bullet. Now for strategy there is no comparison at all.
[QUOTE=RabidAnubis;365168]I really would like to have a gaming PC, what do you think the lowest cost range I should start looking at is?
Also, how do I know it is a trusted source? Is it a company or a ebay type deal?[/QUOTE]
The cost is variable, it depends how much you’re willing to spend in comparison to how much performance you want. As for how do you know they’re trusted sources, well, you could look up reviews. Both sites have a known history for being reliable, well-priced PC parts distributors. Also the parts are sold by the company, not auctioned by users.
Tbh I consider aiming on consoles to be a rather detached experience. I’d describe it as though the gun were contained in a ball fixed to a large, stiff gyroscope. With mouse you just aim where you want and pull the trigger; just like you would in real life.
Regards,
Nexo
I guess that is an opinion part.
Overall I feel like the controller is aiming the gun, but the mouse is aiming the bullet.
But we’ll have to agree to disagree there.
There’s tons of builds around the internet that range from budget to what normal people can afford (yay for those builds, lol) to high end; search around sites like MaximumPC, Tested, etc., and see what kind of stuff they recommend. You’ll also find forums dedicated to building rigs and lots of people there will post benchmarks of their rig to let you get a feeling for what kind of frames you’ll be getting.
I built my PC for $600 a couple years ago (e8400, XFX 4870, 4gb of ram, and a gigabyte ep-45 ud3l mobo if I recall right) and it’s ran well with only one major-ish problem (64 bit Windows 7 caused a major sound stutter on games for some reason, but dropping down to 32 bit fixed it and it didn’t really hurt my performance).
NewEgg is probably the best site when it comes to buying parts. I’ve used TigerDirect and Xoxide for stuff, but I just prefer NewEgg. Everything comes quickly, they have good deals, and most people have had good interactions if something does go wrong.
By the way, PS3’s aren’t cheaper when you factor in the games. Think about it. I paid $600 for my PC, you paid $300 for your console. You have to buy new games at 60$, while I can wait just a couple days/weeks and buy mine for $30 or less on Steam. I could also wait half a year and get it during a major Steam sale and pay like $5 or buy a pack of like 10 games for $20, while your game would still be at $60. See how easy it would be for you to pay way, way more than that extra $300 it costs me to build my rig? We’d be on even ground then, and I’d still be saving money every time a game came out.
Consoles aren’t better for the FPS genre at all. A good analogy for this would be having to drive a nail into a piece of wood. A mouse is like a hammer, while a controller is more like a brick. Both can pound things, but the hammer is made for the job, while the brick isn’t. Controllers have their place for sure (fighting, racing, etc), but FPS is really a job for a mouse. It appears easier because you think “oh I can just move it to where I want it,” but when you’re actually playing you’ll realize it isn’t just point and click.
My father-law works for HP for a long time. He uses NewEgg. Builds his own computer. His specs are usually ridiculous. Like 50x what any sane person needs for a home computer, lol.
[QUOTE=RabidAnubis;365211]Three years later:
OUTDATED! NEXT![/QUOTE]
Nah. I was exaggerating.
[QUOTE=RabidAnubis;364946]Okay. About the conversation about the PC v.s. console,
Consoles were ahead for maybe 4 years, from the release of the Xbox 360. But now we’ve fallen behind, and we are going to be slowing down the community for a few years until the PS4 comes out, and then we will be ahead again.
Look up battlefield 3 pc vs console. There should be a youtube video.[/QUOTE]
No they weren’t. Consoles were behind current PC already when they were released. The only difference is that a lot of people don’t have current PCs but instead sit with old rigs.