- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 33,036
Oh really? I don't see how you can think that... look at this 1080p youtube comparison of PC vs. 360 black ops graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6z4dFM6Viw
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Sad Days for PC Gaming
- Thread starter Fire488
- Start date
- Status
Oh really? I don't see how you can think that... look at this 1080p youtube comparison of PC vs. 360 black ops graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6z4dFM6Viw
Nickbaldwin86
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,135
This thread is fail and full of more fail
Then explain to me why black ops was released with no dual core support? They had to re-write the game code to get it to work on dual core. Consoles are tri-core and up so the game ran fine for quad core users and up. I know that more work goes into the PC version, but are you aware that Activision/ treyarch used a team of 250 people dedicated to the console game development alone? There were only 6 assigned to the PC development. What a joke. I hate to keep picking on them, but they are the latest release for the style of game i play.
I did better. I used the same monitor. I placed my monitor on my son's hi-def XBox 360 and watched him play the game. Then i played the game on my PC maxed out. It looked much better on the Xbox. I am just being honest here.
That video shows a standard XBox 360 without HDMI hooked up. The game looked much better on my son's XBox and my PC than anything on that video.
Surprised me too. i lost a ton of respect for him today...
Its just a simple matter of poor coding or the team not having the time or money to do it right. It has nothing to do with it being an absolute situation.
PS: Consoles are not tri-core and up. The 360 has a tri-core CPU. The PS3 has a single core CPU with special processing units and not cores. The SPUs are incredibly dumb (in terms of computational power) and can only do the one thing they're coded to do. The SPUs are one of the major reasons the PS3 is hard to develop for.
Get a grip and listen to yourself man. You are really starting to sound like a troll here.
HDMI will not upgrade the texture resolution of the game, it is merely a conveyor of a signal, that does indeed lend your display increased clarity over component or VGA. Not changes to the game engine....geez
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
You're full of shit and trolling then. Even the majority of PC ports will have textures that are about 2x larger than their console counterparts. If you think upscaled graphics look better, PC hardware isn't what you should be investing in...glasses are.
Did you really leave out Duke Nukem? REALLY!?!?!?!?!!?!??
Anyway, OP go play console and leave the gaming to the pro's. Or just follow this chart:
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 4,967
if this forum were a democracy i would vote to have this thread closed and threads like it closed to. it only serves to feed trolls and incite arguments.
Did you really leave out Duke Nukem? REALLY!?!?!?!?!!?!??
Anyway, OP go play console and leave the gaming to the pro's. Or just follow this chart:
Hahaha...
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
i haven't read the whole thread and probably won't until i get home, but i'll say this for now.
i'm very happy with the pc games i own (and i own alot). i'm happy with the graphics, gameplay and overall presentation. the last week i've been causing chaos in just cause 2 and loving every minute of it. maybe i'm just easy to please?
i'm very happy with the pc games i own (and i own alot). i'm happy with the graphics, gameplay and overall presentation. the last week i've been causing chaos in just cause 2 and loving every minute of it. maybe i'm just easy to please?
Graphics are a concern with every style of game. Believe it or not, in the 1980's and 1990's, it was adventure games who were the pushers of high quality PC technology.
And in terms of 3D graphics, it was an RPG which pushed the field. While not the first game to use the 2.5D effect, Wolfenstein 3D was a response to Ultima Underworld to allow PC games to run first person points of view slightly faster, but it sacrificed many of the innovations that existed in Ultima Underworld.
The licensing fees have already been addressed in another post by another person, although his figures of cost are inaccurate. the PS3 and XBox kit are significantly cheaper than 20k, even for newer developers, but still more expensive than most of us can afford.
For PC versus XBox comparison? I tend to own games on the PC platform, and not the XBox platform if multi platform, but what games do you want compared? I'll do a true HDMI comparison, even though they already exist throughout the internet.
As for PC gamers repairing the game? BS! Daggerfall (the precursor to Morrowind and Oblivion) had more patches than most games coming out today. It had at minimum 20 patches. This was a game which came out in 1996. Also, there's a huge difference between a person configuring their autoexec.bat and config.sys and modifying the actual executable, which requires more knowledge than even most game developers have.
Please read the original post.
Sad Days for PC Gaming
I have been in the market of building a new gaming rig and have been getting excited about the new processor architecture that is about to come out such as SandyBridge. I would only be doing this to have the best PC gaming experience possible. The sad part when I think about it though is that I really dont need that kind of hardware to play the current console ports. The best the game can render is what the best console can render.
I have been a PC Gamer since the 90s. I mostly play first person shooters. They are what I enjoy. I have really enjoyed some of the great military style sims that have come out in the 2000s. Mainly mid 2000s to clarify. I miss those games and those days of gaming. Last night I played Battlefield 2 for the first time in years. I had forgotten how much fun that game was. It is a true PC game and yes it has its faults, but it blows away recent console ports like Bad Company 2. The graphics from that 6 year old game still look pretty good amazingly. Todays releases like CoD; black Ops, BC2, have grown old quickly and are boring. To me, all the games feel the same now just on different battlefields. I miss the days of being able to mod or even in some cases repair a game like BF2. This practice keeps a game alive for many years and offers a game developer the opportunity to sell DLC to us. I know the developers look at this differently, but I miss it. Look back at the true PC games and how many PC gamer community mods have been created. PC Gamers may never see those days again.
What do we have today as PC gamers? How has PC gaming evolved over the years for us? The answers to both those questions are directly related to profits maximized by the current game developers. I understand that its just business. But since when does that give them the right to release games that are basically betas and patched mid stream to allow them to work on a PC? Let me clarify. Most of the PC games that we play today are what is called console ports; Games that were designed to run optimally on a console and then ported over for use on a PC. The problems that arise from this money saving practice are that PC gamers get a version of a given game that is not really optimized to run on a PC. Case in point was the recent release of Black Ops. That game would not run on dual core processor PCs. Why? The answer is because no console uses a dual core processor. The PS3 uses multicore and the Xbox 360 uses a tri-core processor. A patch had to be created and basically the game code had to be re-written to run on dual cores. How could a game developer not know of this prior to the release of this game? After all, according to hardware surveys based on Blizzards WOW, almost 70% of all PC Gamers are still using dual core! Was anybody at Activision or Treyarch watching? Did they care? The answer is painful to PC gamers, but obvious. Yes! But they do NOT care. According to their own surveys and sales numbers the console games outsell PC games almost 10 to 1. These numbers are based on retail sales. DLC, D2D are NOT counted in these stats so the accuracy of these numbers is skewed a bit. In the end, these game developers have forgotten the PC gamer. The PC gamer put them where they are today and in the position to make 1 billion dollars in sales.
It is much easier and cheaper for a game developer to design and engineer a game to work on a fixed hardware platform as a console offers compared to the multi-hardware configurations offered by the PC gaming world. This trend is not limited to Activision/ Treyarch either because EA/ DICE and many other developers have gone this route. That is why I have been supporting many games from Valve and games like ArmA. I know that some of the Valve games are console ports, but they have grown tremendously popular on the PC and Valve updates them constantly for us. ArmA is the epitome of a true PC game and should be supported by all of us. What an immersive experience this game offers and the game looks amazing if you have good PC hardware. Remember the days when you upgraded your hardware to meet a games requirements? All you need today is equal hardware to a console and you can play any ported game; which brings me to my next question Why upgrade expensive hardware for a console port?
Obviously, the hardware companies have a lot to lose if the future games being released are just console ported games. We PC gamers upgraded our hardware on average of 2 years. The average console uses the same hardware that was installed in it throughout its lifetime. I think that the hardware companies know that. Why dont the hardware companies both pay the developers to create a true PC game or hire their own PC game developers and create games that will benefit from upgraded PC hardware? I have been writing all of the major hardware companies with that very question and to date have received 1 reply and that was just a form letter.
I would like to see more PC gamers voice their collective opinions on this issue. In the end it comes down to money and it should be interesting to see who has more; the game developers or the hardware companies
I am not trying to troll I am just very disappointed thats all.
Note- This post is based on many of my opinions. The statistical data is from various sites that acquire such data.
Sad Days for PC Gaming
I have been in the market of building a new gaming rig and have been getting excited about the new processor architecture that is about to come out such as SandyBridge. I would only be doing this to have the best PC gaming experience possible. The sad part when I think about it though is that I really dont need that kind of hardware to play the current console ports. The best the game can render is what the best console can render.
I have been a PC Gamer since the 90s. I mostly play first person shooters. They are what I enjoy. I have really enjoyed some of the great military style sims that have come out in the 2000s. Mainly mid 2000s to clarify. I miss those games and those days of gaming. Last night I played Battlefield 2 for the first time in years. I had forgotten how much fun that game was. It is a true PC game and yes it has its faults, but it blows away recent console ports like Bad Company 2. The graphics from that 6 year old game still look pretty good amazingly. Todays releases like CoD; black Ops, BC2, have grown old quickly and are boring. To me, all the games feel the same now just on different battlefields. I miss the days of being able to mod or even in some cases repair a game like BF2. This practice keeps a game alive for many years and offers a game developer the opportunity to sell DLC to us. I know the developers look at this differently, but I miss it. Look back at the true PC games and how many PC gamer community mods have been created. PC Gamers may never see those days again.
What do we have today as PC gamers? How has PC gaming evolved over the years for us? The answers to both those questions are directly related to profits maximized by the current game developers. I understand that its just business. But since when does that give them the right to release games that are basically betas and patched mid stream to allow them to work on a PC? Let me clarify. Most of the PC games that we play today are what is called console ports; Games that were designed to run optimally on a console and then ported over for use on a PC. The problems that arise from this money saving practice are that PC gamers get a version of a given game that is not really optimized to run on a PC. Case in point was the recent release of Black Ops. That game would not run on dual core processor PCs. Why? The answer is because no console uses a dual core processor. The PS3 uses multicore and the Xbox 360 uses a tri-core processor. A patch had to be created and basically the game code had to be re-written to run on dual cores. How could a game developer not know of this prior to the release of this game? After all, according to hardware surveys based on Blizzards WOW, almost 70% of all PC Gamers are still using dual core! Was anybody at Activision or Treyarch watching? Did they care? The answer is painful to PC gamers, but obvious. Yes! But they do NOT care. According to their own surveys and sales numbers the console games outsell PC games almost 10 to 1. These numbers are based on retail sales. DLC, D2D are NOT counted in these stats so the accuracy of these numbers is skewed a bit. In the end, these game developers have forgotten the PC gamer. The PC gamer put them where they are today and in the position to make 1 billion dollars in sales.
It is much easier and cheaper for a game developer to design and engineer a game to work on a fixed hardware platform as a console offers compared to the multi-hardware configurations offered by the PC gaming world. This trend is not limited to Activision/ Treyarch either because EA/ DICE and many other developers have gone this route. That is why I have been supporting many games from Valve and games like ArmA. I know that some of the Valve games are console ports, but they have grown tremendously popular on the PC and Valve updates them constantly for us. ArmA is the epitome of a true PC game and should be supported by all of us. What an immersive experience this game offers and the game looks amazing if you have good PC hardware. Remember the days when you upgraded your hardware to meet a games requirements? All you need today is equal hardware to a console and you can play any ported game; which brings me to my next question Why upgrade expensive hardware for a console port?
Obviously, the hardware companies have a lot to lose if the future games being released are just console ported games. We PC gamers upgraded our hardware on average of 2 years. The average console uses the same hardware that was installed in it throughout its lifetime. I think that the hardware companies know that. Why dont the hardware companies both pay the developers to create a true PC game or hire their own PC game developers and create games that will benefit from upgraded PC hardware? I have been writing all of the major hardware companies with that very question and to date have received 1 reply and that was just a form letter.
I would like to see more PC gamers voice their collective opinions on this issue. In the end it comes down to money and it should be interesting to see who has more; the game developers or the hardware companies
I am not trying to troll I am just very disappointed thats all.
Note- This post is based on many of my opinions. The statistical data is from various sites that acquire such data.
Thanks for the clarification on that. Its been quite a few years since I've read about development costs and couldn't remember. 20k was the number that popped into my head for some reason.
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
As much as console players are to blame, so are all the ancient machines that form the majority of the PC games market. You can't make games just for the i7, fermi/6000 series AMD crowd because 5 people would buy it. So they are stuck making games for the majority of users using 5 year old hardware (like consoles).
High end gamers are a minority group, so can't expect to dictate terms, or be catered for over a majority group.
High end gamers are a minority group, so can't expect to dictate terms, or be catered for over a majority group.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Scalable engines are the answer to that. Hopefully CryEngine 3 will be a successful implementation.
This is blatantly false.
...
It's a great thing that a high end gaming machine can be built for such little money these days. Hell I bought a $120 gpu for my brother this Christmas and he can play anything. Just because we don't have to spend $500 on a single card to make a game playable anymore doesn't mean there isn't progression. As consoles continue to show their age more people will come around to how good things look on a pc that is very affordable now.
Sales numbers are not just slightly skewed due to the lack of online sales being included. I don't know anyone who has bought a game in a retail store for the PC in 5-years, everything is digital now.
The mod community is strong right now, you just have to know where to look.
I for one have had a hell of a time playing pc games this year and am very excited about the prospects of affordable 4.5Ghz+ cpu's.
... *Looks at the thread with people bitching about BF3 dropping Windows XP support*
Last edited:
I have always been a pc gamer only, dating back to the early/mid 80s. I too grew increasingly peaved about this nonsense a few years back. Then I decided to do something radical, I bought a 360.
Since then I've learned to love both platforms and buy games where they shine the best. My happy days of gaming bliss have returned and I'm mainly carefree because I am not depended on 1 single platform to please me. I am a strong advocate of pc gamers buying a console, its good for your health.
Yes I am fully aware you are going to quote me and try to convince me otherwise, again.. I don't care, I don't worry. I play games and have fun and not get up in arms or try to validate my platform, I highly recommend you.. pc gamer reading this, go buy a console and get back to the days when gaming was having fun and not getting upset on forums.
Since then I've learned to love both platforms and buy games where they shine the best. My happy days of gaming bliss have returned and I'm mainly carefree because I am not depended on 1 single platform to please me. I am a strong advocate of pc gamers buying a console, its good for your health.
Yes I am fully aware you are going to quote me and try to convince me otherwise, again.. I don't care, I don't worry. I play games and have fun and not get up in arms or try to validate my platform, I highly recommend you.. pc gamer reading this, go buy a console and get back to the days when gaming was having fun and not getting upset on forums.
I grew up with consoles and PCs around me so I've always done both. I don't play console games a lot, but I'm working my way through Enslaved now and games like that make me glad I'm not stuck to just one platform.
*Looks at his huge steam library after recovering from the steam holiday sale*
Yeah sad day for PC gaming
Was gonna post the same thing. They have been saying PC gaming is dying for like 30 years yet every year there are true AAA titles for the PC and life goes on.
Browsing the forum you can read about many folks who still have a backlog from the 2009 xmas sale they were playing through. If one has too much time on their hands and runs out of good games, yeah in part that's because there aren't hundreds of good games, but in part it is because one's priorities are skewed toward entertainment rather than being productive and furthering one's RL.
There are plenty of shared and exclusive titles that 2 x360's working together couldn't render. The STALKER complete series (this title alone reveals the depth of the modding community and demonstrates technologies such as DX11, tessellation and SSAO) and these games are run on single core. Metro 2033 (maxed out on a PC makes the console version look like a gameboy).
As far as games that utilize quad core you have every RTS title made in the last 2-3 years, which most all never made it to the console because of it's limitations (to my knowledge). Crysis and Far Cry 2 utilized quad-core, as does Lost Planet 2, Two Worlds 2, the Witcher 2 is said to also take advantage of quads. Honestly these games look shockingly better on PC, for that matter so does Black Ops, I recently saw a friend playing on his X360 and the textures (bad as they were on PC) were horrific on X360. Once you've experienced the difference there's no going back. Exact same thing with BF2 Bad Company which also makes use of the latest technology. Most all of these games will run great on dual-core, but obviously not as well, for good reason.
On the one hand you complained about the lack of need for Sandy Bridge and on the other you complained about not being able to play Black Ops on a dual until a patch was released. These almost seem like conflicting arguments but in any event Black Ops was a strange exception and the honestly the rate at which CPU's are being advanced these days it's hard for the software to keep up IMO. Do you remember how long P4's were out? For like...ever and there was little diversity in the line-up.
I'll admit that consoles hold back PC, you'll get no argument from me there, but to what extent? Most people, as per info provided in this thread, are still on Dual Core's, the X360 is a tri-core processor and the PS3 is a cell processor. Most people don't run out and drop 2K every 2 years on the latest hardware (save for this forum LoL). Games aren't developed in a year, I'd venture to say most development cycles are 2-3 years which means by the time the game is ready for release, it's most likely not going to use the latest tech and if it does, it may or may not tax the hell out of your system depending on what techniques are used and how effective the programmers and the engine are at their respective jobs.
That said, there are plenty of PC titles that utilize the latest hardware, and plenty more that don't. There are also games such as Black Ops which don't use all the latest software technology but make effective use of the latest hardware if it's available. I get like 1 million fps in that game (on an i7) and it looks much sharper on the PC, though not anywhere at the level of Crysis or Metro 2033.
Honestly I don't how to be anything but a PC gamer, I couldn't live with the modding community, the graphics and the personalization and satisfaction that comes with building or even choosing a PC. I've owned consoles in the past and as I get older, I'm find it more and more difficult to relate to consoles anymore. Seems like they are designed with a younger generation in mind. All that said, with respect to both the console and PC community, everything actually seems to be right about where it should be IMO. I would like to see a little bit more for the PC, but I practically have my hands full with both the exclusive and shared titles combined. Factor in RTS and MMORPG's like WOW and Guild Wars and the PC still seems like a juggernaut.
As far as games that utilize quad core you have every RTS title made in the last 2-3 years, which most all never made it to the console because of it's limitations (to my knowledge). Crysis and Far Cry 2 utilized quad-core, as does Lost Planet 2, Two Worlds 2, the Witcher 2 is said to also take advantage of quads. Honestly these games look shockingly better on PC, for that matter so does Black Ops, I recently saw a friend playing on his X360 and the textures (bad as they were on PC) were horrific on X360. Once you've experienced the difference there's no going back. Exact same thing with BF2 Bad Company which also makes use of the latest technology. Most all of these games will run great on dual-core, but obviously not as well, for good reason.
On the one hand you complained about the lack of need for Sandy Bridge and on the other you complained about not being able to play Black Ops on a dual until a patch was released. These almost seem like conflicting arguments but in any event Black Ops was a strange exception and the honestly the rate at which CPU's are being advanced these days it's hard for the software to keep up IMO. Do you remember how long P4's were out? For like...ever and there was little diversity in the line-up.
I'll admit that consoles hold back PC, you'll get no argument from me there, but to what extent? Most people, as per info provided in this thread, are still on Dual Core's, the X360 is a tri-core processor and the PS3 is a cell processor. Most people don't run out and drop 2K every 2 years on the latest hardware (save for this forum LoL). Games aren't developed in a year, I'd venture to say most development cycles are 2-3 years which means by the time the game is ready for release, it's most likely not going to use the latest tech and if it does, it may or may not tax the hell out of your system depending on what techniques are used and how effective the programmers and the engine are at their respective jobs.
That said, there are plenty of PC titles that utilize the latest hardware, and plenty more that don't. There are also games such as Black Ops which don't use all the latest software technology but make effective use of the latest hardware if it's available. I get like 1 million fps in that game (on an i7) and it looks much sharper on the PC, though not anywhere at the level of Crysis or Metro 2033.
Honestly I don't how to be anything but a PC gamer, I couldn't live with the modding community, the graphics and the personalization and satisfaction that comes with building or even choosing a PC. I've owned consoles in the past and as I get older, I'm find it more and more difficult to relate to consoles anymore. Seems like they are designed with a younger generation in mind. All that said, with respect to both the console and PC community, everything actually seems to be right about where it should be IMO. I would like to see a little bit more for the PC, but I practically have my hands full with both the exclusive and shared titles combined. Factor in RTS and MMORPG's like WOW and Guild Wars and the PC still seems like a juggernaut.
Last edited:
Spare-Flair
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,471
I don't care. I just want Westwood Studios back.
And give me a good Blade Runner game.
And give me a good Blade Runner game.
fattypants
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 3,284
I am not disappointed with PC gaming in the slightest. I am disappointed with "gamers" as a whole, seeing games like Gears of Duty 6: Halo Ops selling trillions of copies, but I don't need a single new game to get me excited about the platform.
While there are recent gems (Two Worlds II, Divinity II: Dragon Knight Saga, Starcraft II) and modding wonders (Bethesda games, STALKER series), I would be happy with my high-end PC even if there wasn't a single new game released ever again. I have enough games in my backlog to last me ten years, and there are enough decent games released in the last two years to extend that backlog another two years.
Graphically, we're at a lull, but gaming-wise, we're in a golden era. The only people I can see who might be disappointed are those whose bleeding-edge hardware runs all games at 200 FPS...maybe they have buyers remorse and/or are mad that there are few games that cater to their segment at the moment.
There is an utter feast of gaming to be had just with what is already out there.
While there are recent gems (Two Worlds II, Divinity II: Dragon Knight Saga, Starcraft II) and modding wonders (Bethesda games, STALKER series), I would be happy with my high-end PC even if there wasn't a single new game released ever again. I have enough games in my backlog to last me ten years, and there are enough decent games released in the last two years to extend that backlog another two years.
Graphically, we're at a lull, but gaming-wise, we're in a golden era. The only people I can see who might be disappointed are those whose bleeding-edge hardware runs all games at 200 FPS...maybe they have buyers remorse and/or are mad that there are few games that cater to their segment at the moment.
There is an utter feast of gaming to be had just with what is already out there.
Petroglyph is made up of a bunch of former Westwood people. They're as close as you're gonna get.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
My thoughts on consolization and lowest common denominator development.
Another day, another "PC gaming is dying" thread. Sigh.
OP, have fun crying in your little corner. I'll just continue spending my time playing PC games. My Steam account has over 200 games and I add to it often. I have around 50 hours of playtime in PC games within the last two weeks. From where I'm standing, things are looking pretty good.
OP, have fun crying in your little corner. I'll just continue spending my time playing PC games. My Steam account has over 200 games and I add to it often. I have around 50 hours of playtime in PC games within the last two weeks. From where I'm standing, things are looking pretty good.
HardUp4HardWare
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 4,274
I dont see the point in some of the issues in the OP.
Are there any console FPS games that are community modded? Any?
Also can you upgrade a console? How many console games run at resolutions better than 720P ?
Seems to me the death of PC gaming has been greatly exaggerated.
I am just really getting back into PC gaming, other than wow  and loving it.
STEAM is so awesome and cheap, I can play so many more games that perform better than consoles. Lets face it, it is impossible to play a FPS on a console. Period. It sucks.
Hard to add to what Kyle posted, except that this sounds an aweful lot like whining.
Are there any console FPS games that are community modded? Any?
Also can you upgrade a console? How many console games run at resolutions better than 720P ?
Seems to me the death of PC gaming has been greatly exaggerated.
I am just really getting back into PC gaming, other than wow  and loving it.
STEAM is so awesome and cheap, I can play so many more games that perform better than consoles. Lets face it, it is impossible to play a FPS on a console. Period. It sucks.
Hard to add to what Kyle posted, except that this sounds an aweful lot like whining.
HardUp4HardWare
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 4,274
NOX was one of the best games. I agree a Bladerunner game would rock.
Hell, i'd settle for 5th element!
Shalafi
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 22,973
the death of PC has been predicted since the first days of PC gaming eons ago, when man first discovered the computer and fire
now we have nanoprocessors and PC gaming is a colossus, a titan, an unstoppable force of nature.
It will never die.
Legends never do.
now we have nanoprocessors and PC gaming is a colossus, a titan, an unstoppable force of nature.
It will never die.
Legends never do.
your expectations are set to high..
When Crysis came out, it easily out did the "look" of source when source first came out.
Its funny to read a thread like this and look back at the reaction to Crysis.
Crysis was the last true PC pushing technology that came out. And how did the PC players handle it? Complaint after complaint after complaint (game isn't optimized, i can't run it at ultra high settings etc.. etc..).. yet today Crysis is still the defacto graphics king on the PC.
For some reason the PC community has become a self destructive community.
Although I did pre-order crysis and played it so much. I never really bitched about how it ran, I thought it looked amazing. What im trying to say is a lot of games in general are just meh, they look the same with a different setting. Nothing really jumps out at me and makes me want to play it.
piscian18
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 11,020
Actually when I saw gameplay for BFBC2 which is pretty standard for GPU tests at H I was blown away.
As a longtime content CSS'er after about 20min of BFBC2 I was "mmm ok that era of my life is over."
I mean really do a side by side of (original)Source and BFBC2. It's like going from 2D to 3D
destructible environments /thread
fattypants
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 3,284
Hmm...I think I'll make this my standard response to these threads instead of typing out some thoughtful piece that will be ultimately ignored by the OP.
- Status