The "PC Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
is something I hear FAR too often. The PC gaming industry is worth billions of dollars, yet people think with the release of two new consoles, it's suddenly going to crash (no pun intended). They are wrong, as long as the PC has quality, exclusive titles such as Neverwinter Nights.
Page:
personally i dont give a damn @ graphics..... look at some of the old classics!
I have trouble believing that The Gamer has played much of PC games to know how PC games, and PC's work. Seems like more of a console gamer than a Pc one.
And to finally sort this myth out that constant upgrades will kill PC gaming, you should have a look at the hardcore PC game players. These people spend hundreds on upgrades every so often, because after all it saves them spending hundreds on console gaming.
Yes that's right the only thing cheap about consoles are the hardware, the rest is far more expensive than anything on the PC. Things like memory cards which cost around £25, the same with official GC controllers which also cost £25, which means you end up spending £50 to buy two extra control pads.
Then there are the games, which can cost from a reasonable £25 to a high £35. The x-box games cost around £40, which is allot of money, not to mention the fact that the PSone games where around £45 and the N64 games used to be around a massive £60 when it was first released.
So really PC gaming is no more expensive than console gaming, PC's have expensive hardware and cheap games, while consoles have cheap hardware and expensive games.
And I haven't even mentioned the fact PC upgrades allow gamers to create their own PC to whatever specific needs and traits they want. That kind of freedom to choose isn't available on any console, which is why my two games machines, the PS2 and GC (which I like playing on as much as my PC), feel limited to what they do, and what I want them to do.
And to finally sort this myth out that constant upgrades will kill PC gaming, you should have a look at the hardcore PC game players. These people spend hundreds on upgrades every so often, because after all it saves them spending hundreds on console gaming.
Yes that's right the only thing cheap about consoles are the hardware, the rest is far more expensive than anything on the PC. Things like memory cards which cost around £25, the same with official GC controllers which also cost £25, which means you end up spending £50 to buy two extra control pads.
Then there are the games, which can cost from a reasonable £25 to a high £35. The x-box games cost around £40, which is allot of money, not to mention the fact that the PSone games where around £45 and the N64 games used to be around a massive £60 when it was first released.
So really PC gaming is no more expensive than console gaming, PC's have expensive hardware and cheap games, while consoles have cheap hardware and expensive games.
And I haven't even mentioned the fact PC upgrades allow gamers to create their own PC to whatever specific needs and traits they want. That kind of freedom to choose isn't available on any console, which is why my two games machines, the PS2 and GC (which I like playing on as much as my PC), feel limited to what they do, and what I want them to do.
The Gamer wrote:
> no matter
> how much detail goes into a PC game, or its resolution it still has
> pastel looking graphics,
I think there must be something wrong with you graphics card and/or monitor man... You may have just thrown your setttings off?
> no matter
> how much detail goes into a PC game, or its resolution it still has
> pastel looking graphics,
I think there must be something wrong with you graphics card and/or monitor man... You may have just thrown your setttings off?
The Gamer wrote:
> I have to wonder the same of you, you find me one game that looks as
> realistic as GT3, especially on the tokyo street track,
GT3 doesn't look realistic at all. It looks pretty, sure. It looks nice. Realistic? don't make me laugh!
> PC games are
> still years behind the lighting and texture of that game, no matter
> how much detail goes into a PC game, or its resolution it still has
> pastel looking graphics, which DO NOT look lifelike, you stand back a
> bit from GT3 or Burnout, F1 2002 or suchlike and you'd swear you were
> watching television.
You must be off your t1ts. PS2 technology is about 4 years old. And any PC of the time could quite easilly surpass anything the PS2 could come up with. Any PC NOW will quite simply laugh at it. You play an F1 game on PC, with a decent resolution monitor. You won't feel like you're watching television, you'll feel like your sat in the damn car.
> console games also seem to have a more 3 dimensional quality about
> them
??? I'm assuming you were just bored and decided to write some non-sensical babble. PCs lead the way in 3d graphics, they're years ahead. Don't forget that by the time console technology hits the shelves, it's already been available to PC users for over a year, perhaps two. Sure it costs money, but if we want to get our wallets out, we can easilly outpower any console on the market.
Think about it, the XBOX is pretty muc a PC, and in terms of spec, it's only a mid range one at that. Get a PIV 2ghz PC with all the trimmings, and watch as everything you've just said falls to ash.
> I have to wonder the same of you, you find me one game that looks as
> realistic as GT3, especially on the tokyo street track,
GT3 doesn't look realistic at all. It looks pretty, sure. It looks nice. Realistic? don't make me laugh!
> PC games are
> still years behind the lighting and texture of that game, no matter
> how much detail goes into a PC game, or its resolution it still has
> pastel looking graphics, which DO NOT look lifelike, you stand back a
> bit from GT3 or Burnout, F1 2002 or suchlike and you'd swear you were
> watching television.
You must be off your t1ts. PS2 technology is about 4 years old. And any PC of the time could quite easilly surpass anything the PS2 could come up with. Any PC NOW will quite simply laugh at it. You play an F1 game on PC, with a decent resolution monitor. You won't feel like you're watching television, you'll feel like your sat in the damn car.
> console games also seem to have a more 3 dimensional quality about
> them
??? I'm assuming you were just bored and decided to write some non-sensical babble. PCs lead the way in 3d graphics, they're years ahead. Don't forget that by the time console technology hits the shelves, it's already been available to PC users for over a year, perhaps two. Sure it costs money, but if we want to get our wallets out, we can easilly outpower any console on the market.
Think about it, the XBOX is pretty muc a PC, and in terms of spec, it's only a mid range one at that. Get a PIV 2ghz PC with all the trimmings, and watch as everything you've just said falls to ash.
The Gamer wrote:
> I have to wonder the same of you, you find me one game that looks as
> realistic as GT3, especially on the tokyo street track, PC games are
> still years behind the lighting and texture of that game, no matter
> how much detail goes into a PC game, or its resolution it still has
> pastel looking graphics, which DO NOT look lifelike, you stand back a
> bit from GT3 or Burnout, F1 2002 or suchlike and you'd swear you were
> watching television.
Graphics eh, you think PC gamers give a flying feck about graphics? I certainly don't, and while it would be nice to have all of my games pushed to the absolute limits of their graphical capabilities, they always come second to gameplay.
Console gamers however are far more pleased and dazzled with some nice looking wall textures or lighting effects, most of the arguments I've heard for machines such as the x-box is it's graphical capabilities rather than the games that go on it.
If you want to see lifelike PC graphics, take a look at this link and try telling me that those graphics aren't impressive. Who knows, maybe it will play as good as it looks. http://www.unreal2.com/gallery.html
> I have to wonder the same of you, you find me one game that looks as
> realistic as GT3, especially on the tokyo street track, PC games are
> still years behind the lighting and texture of that game, no matter
> how much detail goes into a PC game, or its resolution it still has
> pastel looking graphics, which DO NOT look lifelike, you stand back a
> bit from GT3 or Burnout, F1 2002 or suchlike and you'd swear you were
> watching television.
Graphics eh, you think PC gamers give a flying feck about graphics? I certainly don't, and while it would be nice to have all of my games pushed to the absolute limits of their graphical capabilities, they always come second to gameplay.
Console gamers however are far more pleased and dazzled with some nice looking wall textures or lighting effects, most of the arguments I've heard for machines such as the x-box is it's graphical capabilities rather than the games that go on it.
If you want to see lifelike PC graphics, take a look at this link and try telling me that those graphics aren't impressive. Who knows, maybe it will play as good as it looks. http://www.unreal2.com/gallery.html
Snipe® wrote:
> lol no i heard a load of problems already....
lol... from where?... the voices in your head again??
Stuck it in, been playing it without problems from the word go...
Are these problems from the same people who think they need a 2Gig machine to run the latest PC titles?
> lol no i heard a load of problems already....
lol... from where?... the voices in your head again??
Stuck it in, been playing it without problems from the word go...
Are these problems from the same people who think they need a 2Gig machine to run the latest PC titles?
"Right now the consoles have better graphics
?? Are you blind ??
> in fact I can see more progress in
> a year on the PS2 graphically than I have in 2 yrs of PC gaming
PS2 looks today as average as it always has, never mind the fact that even on launch, the average PC on the shelf was far faster, more powerful, and more flexible than the PS2. You obviously haven't been looking very hard if you haven't seen much progress in the last 2 years. "
I have to wonder the same of you, you find me one game that looks as realistic as GT3, especially on the tokyo street track, PC games are still years behind the lighting and texture of that game, no matter how much detail goes into a PC game, or its resolution it still has pastel looking graphics, which DO NOT look lifelike, you stand back a bit from GT3 or Burnout, F1 2002 or suchlike and you'd swear you were watching television.
console games also seem to have a more 3 dimensional quality about them, anyway whatever happens, gaming is gaming so it doesn't matter too much :)
?? Are you blind ??
> in fact I can see more progress in
> a year on the PS2 graphically than I have in 2 yrs of PC gaming
PS2 looks today as average as it always has, never mind the fact that even on launch, the average PC on the shelf was far faster, more powerful, and more flexible than the PS2. You obviously haven't been looking very hard if you haven't seen much progress in the last 2 years. "
I have to wonder the same of you, you find me one game that looks as realistic as GT3, especially on the tokyo street track, PC games are still years behind the lighting and texture of that game, no matter how much detail goes into a PC game, or its resolution it still has pastel looking graphics, which DO NOT look lifelike, you stand back a bit from GT3 or Burnout, F1 2002 or suchlike and you'd swear you were watching television.
console games also seem to have a more 3 dimensional quality about them, anyway whatever happens, gaming is gaming so it doesn't matter too much :)
lol no i heard a load of problems already....
Snipe® wrote:
> What you mean 3 years before it was released...... and again and again
> who cares with the graphics, GTA 3 was rushed out for the PC leaving
> glitches and bugs which the PS2 version did not have.
lol... your just making up stuff again???... GTA3 on the PC is generally considered to be superior to its PS2 counterpart???
> What you mean 3 years before it was released...... and again and again
> who cares with the graphics, GTA 3 was rushed out for the PC leaving
> glitches and bugs which the PS2 version did not have.
lol... your just making up stuff again???... GTA3 on the PC is generally considered to be superior to its PS2 counterpart???
What you mean 3 years before it was released...... and again and again who cares with the graphics, GTA 3 was rushed out for the PC leaving glitches and bugs which the PS2 version did not have.
Page: