imperialreign
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 7,043 (1.15/day)
- Location
- Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha
System Name | УльтраФиолет |
---|---|
Processor | Intel Kentsfield Q9650 @ 3.8GHz (4.2GHz highest achieved) |
Motherboard | ASUS P5E3 Deluxe/WiFi; X38 NSB, ICH9R SSB |
Cooling | Delta V3 block, XPSC res, 120x3 rad, ST 1/2" pump - 10 fans, SYSTRIN HDD cooler, Antec HDD cooler |
Memory | Dual channel 8GB OCZ Platinum DDR3 @ 1800MHz @ 7-7-7-20 1T |
Video Card(s) | Quadfire: (2) Sapphire HD5970 |
Storage | (2) WD VelociRaptor 300GB SATA-300; WD 320GB SATA-300; WD 200GB UATA + WD 160GB UATA |
Display(s) | Samsung Syncmaster T240 24" (16:10) |
Case | Cooler Master Stacker 830 |
Audio Device(s) | Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Pro PCI-E x1 |
Power Supply | Kingwin Mach1 1200W modular |
Software | Windows XP Home SP3; Vista Ultimate x64 SP2 |
Benchmark Scores | 3m06: 20270 here: http://hwbot.org/user.do?userId=12313 |
I'm sure you've all read GPU reviews recently, but have any of you noticed how much they try to make the GPU look like it's worthless?
Take the resolutions they use. Who actually plays at 1900x1200 with 8x AA and 16X AF All the time 24/7? A very small minority. According to Valve's Hardware Survey the most commonly used 4:3 resolution is 1280x1024 and widescreen is 1440x900 so why do the reviews insist on using resolutions far beyond those that the majority use and then say the GPU fails because it can't play at those resolutions with, frankly, ridiculous amounts of AA and AF. Surely the higher the resolution the LESS AA and AF you would need?
Maybe I'm just misguided with my meager 1680x1050 and 3870. Weird then that Crysis at that resolution at high looks so damn good then.
That is what I believe the problem to be. The rate at which technology development has sped up is phenominal and every company wants to show off the latest and greatest technology. The problem, of course, is that the industry is moving MUCH faster than it takes to develop a well thought game with a great storyline and the best graphics. There doesn't seem to be a compromise.
My favourite computer game series is STILL Baldur's Gate. 2D isometric, with over 60 hours of story (not including side-quests not related to the story) in the first game alone which features 1 sequel, and 1 expansion for each game in the series.
Imagine getting a game like that now a days.
__________________
I completely agree with you, dnova - On top of that, what does one do if you want to go back and play an older console game? Hope that you didn't throw that SNES or N64 out, and go through the effort to hook it up? If you've set up your rig right, it take little to no effort to whip out a PC game from ages ago and get it playing.
Another point for me against consoles - I don't see game prices drop like they do for PC. A PC game will fall from $50 from initial release, to about $30-$20 6 months later. Console games hold on to their $50+ initial price for well over a year, sometimes they never drop at all. Sorry, I have yet to see a game nowadays (PC or console) that I'm willing to chalk up $50 or better for as soon as it's released.
The one thing I noticed years ago, though - is I find it a little odd how when the N64 and PS1 came out . . . we saw a lot of game devs drop the PC market entirelly and start supporting consoles. On top of that, from what was still coming out for the PC, we saw a massive drop in gameplay quality - it was like there was some force behind the scenes trying to force people away from the PC.
And, TBH, graphics on a PC are equal to that on a console at the basic level. But, the graphic abilities of a PC can far surpass that of a console, with very little extra effort. But, what I've noticed with a lot of console games - they only render your immediate area. How often do you see missing tiles, backgrounds or other visual "anomalies" around the edges of the screen, or in things that are supposed to be at a 'distance'?
also . . . whne it comes to porting . . . you mean to tell me that things aren't cut from the PC version for use on a console? It's taken years for consoles to catch up to the same quality that a PC is capable of. What about game patches if the dev releases a new game half-baked? Oh, and expansion packs too - which keeps interest in a PC game for a while longer while the dev is cooking up something new . . . not to mention the fans out there that have the means and abilities (and tools sometimes) to mod the crap out of a PC game to continue interest in it.
IMO, the lack of decent gameplay for PC has more to do with the devs wanting to support consoles - because that is where the vast majority of consumers are. They've fallen prey to the console market's propaganda that it's quicker to play a console game when you only want to game for a few minutes; and the propaganda that it's cheaper than having to keep up with current, modern hardware in a PC (sorry, but IMO it's cheaper to keep up with a PC - unless you're specifically going after the uber 1337 hardware).
. . . I'm cutting my rant off here, so as to not bore everyone or piss anyone off . . .