Originally Posted by NarcissistZero
A. I go back and forth on which I preffer. Mainly it's better experience versus better games, PC being the former and consoles being the latter.
B. I think they would argue tears and jaggies and such don't impact the "gaming experience" as much as playing a great game in general. I think they would also argue the drop in graphics is worth the ease of use.
C. Also, while I agree PC graphics look much better, console games are designed to be played from a certain distance... if you play Infamous on a couch across the room, it looks pretty amazing. It's only when you sit right in front of the TV and play it like a PC game that it looks like a jaggy mess. One could argue PC gaming graphics enhancements are mostly just to make up for how close to the monitor you sit, as they only offer AA and resolutions now, really. The days of PC games having better base assets and such are long gone.
D. Yes, a place where graphics matter more than gameplay or ease of use.
E. Console titles are already heavily pirated. The reason it's not as big an issue there is because they sell so many copies it has less of an impact. On PC you have dwindling sales and interest on top of massive pirating.
F. I'm not sure about the cartidge piracy numbers, but the main reason cartridges failed was because they were expensive to make and took too long to produce, as well as CDs having more storage space for FMV video and the like. Sony promised shorter production times, lower costs and the ability to have FMV and such in your game, which was a compelling case, and why so many games were PSX exclusives, which made the PSX win the war by massive amounts that generation.
G. And I don't see what any of this has to do with the topic or even my comments. I was simply saying that if Doom 4 is 3 years or more off, which it likely is, I would hope they are developing it for the next generation of consoles, rather than current ones. It could be an amazing looking launch title instead of an afterthought at the end of the 360/PS3 cycle.
I really wonder if they have reason to believe 3 years from now there will be no new consoles, as in comments from MS and Sony.
A. Interesting point of view. I disagree though as PC imo has way better selection/performance/and capabilities more than anything. (ahhh, I see you go 'back and forth' fair enough : )
B. I'm not sure how one can put forth the argument that "tears and jaggies don't impact the gaming experience" when Visuals are a pinnacle aspect of Gaming in general. They do a number of negative things for me, Tearing 'way' more so than Jaggies. Tears drive me up a wall because they not only mess with my eyes, they detract from the immersion and gameplay. I can live with Jaggies on games that I can't do anything about as long as I've got V-Sync running and the game rocks, so 'in that sense' yes... the "experience" is worth more than being able to smooth some jagged edges. But 9/10, with a PC I can have my cake and eat it too. Consolers are dictated to where as PC Gamers set their own tone.
Pardon the analogy, but I much prefer Capitalistic Gaming vs. Tyrannical/Socialistic Gaming.
C. There's no argument there and can't be, lol. I'm sorry but how does viewing Tears up close differ 'at all' from viewing them afar? Also, lol... considering most Consolers play on HUGE screens, having a Tear 'that' big (on a 30-40" screen for example) sounds like a complete joke to me. The only instance where your example slightly wins is on a Console game that has working V-Sync (no AA), but is viewed on a HUGE 30-40" screen from far enough away at 1080 resolution. I'll agree with anyone on that, the jaggies become mostly a 'nothing' at that point because the resolution is soooo high that the jaggies are 'truly' only visible when one gets close enough to the screen to see them.
Considering my gaming machine is viewed through a 17" CRT up close and personal though, this would/can never work for me.
As far as Tearing goes: there are 'zero' excuses for any game post '00 to not have working V-Sync whether it's via in engine or forced through Hardware.
D. Lol, I'll respectfully disagree with your opinion. I see it the other way 100%. PC not only looks better, but the gameplay is superior because of the options and ability to configure ones gaming experience endlessly (whether it's graphics/or controller wise/button setup, you name it) "Ease of Use" I would agree with you to some extent, yeah, most Console titles are plug and play (well, lol... except that now most of them need to be patched just like PC so your point is pretty moot imo) while PC Gaming, one needs to know things about Graphics settings, what their hardware can do, yada.
But when knowing such simple things (just about every PC Gamer learns these things over the course of their playing years) doesn't take a whole lot to figure out, it's really not much of a stab at PC Gaming imo.
I come from the blessed stance that I had a close Gamer friend who helped me understand the basics of Gaming and Computing early on. I was lucky enough that this same friend knows how to build a proper machine and his builds have never done me wrong... and I've learned a lot from how he set my machines up so that in the future I can continue enjoying, "ease of use when Gaming via PC" to which you view is not the case for PC Gaming. My Mom taught me the basics as well, so overall my PC experience has always been a pleasant one 9/10.
E. Lol, that was my exact point sir... just give it time.... when enough people are Pirating Console games... the "sales" will reflect it. I give it a couple more years before the whole, "Console is the only profitable platform for games anymore" theory vaporizes. I hope sooner than later because Consoles have and will always be about dictating to the Consumer while PC has always been about freedom.
F. True enough, they were very expensive to make. Combine that with the huge Black Market for pirated copies, prices of CDs finally becoming affordable and it was a no brainer why the Console Companies when that route.
G. "I would hope they are developing it for the next generation of consoles, rather than current ones. It could be an amazing looking launch title instead of an afterthought at the end of the 360/PS3 cycle."
I hear you now.
I spoke about the proposed "30FPS cap"... it's just that I covered some other ground while I was at it. Pardon me if that rubbed you the wrong way. : )
"I really wonder if they have reason to believe 3 years from now there will be no new consoles, as in comments from MS and Sony."
Considering the 360/PS3 are running what... something equivalent to an Nvidia 7900ish, I see no reason why the next gen (will probably be out by '10 my guess) won't run dual or quad Vid Card configs with updated Memory/HardDrives.
I'm going to laugh when the next Gen costs a K+ and still doesn't get close to performing as well as a computer that costs the same.
Thanks for replying.