The PC is the superior gaming platform - Definitive Edition

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#502 Posted by Mr_Huggles_dog (2712 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:
@Heil68 said:

being a legend has its burdens.

and mr huggles dog - ignorance breeds confidence more so than does knowledge. charles darwin / crownkingarthur.

I don't know if you're directin that at me saying I'm ignorant....but I've been PC gaming since 2001. That said I don't keep up with all the bells and whistles anymore b/c it's just too tiresome.

But as I've said twice now...this has happened before. So it's not like I haven't had this sort of thing go on before...and like I said I've heard differernt things from different ppl both times. So it's not too comforting.

@Cranler said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

yeah that's a good system Mr Dog. your system should be able to handle fc3 at 1080p. are you trying to run all the settings including the fps tanking ones?

i'm usually pretty selective with settings, but then again my display goes up to 144 Hz.

No...I never put on AA unless it's an older game which I know my system can run well. Acting like and assuming in front of everyone that I'm running everthing on with 8x AA just makes it look like you're trying to save face.

I have everything turned on or up.....except AA....and it runs at 1600x900 @ about 40-80fps.

40 in parts where it's dense or whatever....and 80 where theres nothing going on. If I turned it up to 1080p I would get like 20fps in parts which is shit.

What did you have post fx set to? Medium vs ultra looks barely different while the performance difference is gigantic.

I ran max settings except post fx med no aa and used sweet fx to reduce aliasing and got steady 60fps at 1080p. i have a 680 also.

I dunno about the post fx set to.

I will go back and turn it down or off and try again. If that works....I'll take what I said back....but only for current games....as far as I know there was nothing going on like that the other times this has happened.

#503 Edited by RyviusARC (4885 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@lostrib said:

...you have a GTX 680 and it can't run Far cry 3 at 1080p? Are you serious? I have a GTX 670 and I've played Far Cry 3 at 1080p

@RyviusARC said:

Something is wrong with your computer then.

My computer is weaker than yours and has no trouble running FarCry 3 at 1080p at ultra with SMAA.

I fucking knew it.

There is nothing wrong with my computer. I don't look at porn or do any crazy shit on it.

I KNEW this was going to be the reply. It's the same thing I've gotten every time I've had a good system for the time being and couldn't run a game. Just like HL2 and DOOM3.

The excuse is always..."Something is wrong with your computer." Thats bullshit. My PC runs like clockwork and it wasn't from Best Buy or something. It runs lots of games a really good settings, but does not have the power to do every game.

FACT: there is nothing wrong with my computer and FACT: PC in general cannot do every game in 1080p.....I'm proof of that.

You guys don't have some grand awesome expertise on PCs that I don't that makes your computers run oh so much better than mine.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.....thats the excuse....."something is wrong with your computer." Bullshit. I've been in this situation before.

Edit: just yesterday...someone in another thread said FC3 was power hungry and had no problem with me not being able to run it at 1080p when I brought this up.

He didn't seem to care what system wins an argument so I'm more inclined to believe his point of view.

Yah you are not wrong but everyone else is........herp derp!

2560x1600 and still gets above 40fps on average.

And here with 1920x1080 at Ultra settings with 4xMSAA and the 670 still gets a 36fps average.

And here is a 1920x1200 Ultra settings 4xmsaa benchmark where the 680 is getting 49 fps average

So there must be a huge conspiracy where all the review tech sites are lying.....

#504 Edited by ragnaris (12 posts) -

Developers give high end PC gamers the shaft. Instead of gorgeous 4k textures, some developers such as Ubisoft give uncompressed textures instead of DXT3-5 compressed 4k textures. With the lower lossy modern texture compression schemes you'd have to stop and stare at a DXT5 & Uncompressed texture side by side for 20 seconds side by side or under a magifying glass to notice some verytiny bit of artifacting. Uncompressed textures are generally 4x larger files than DXT3-5 textures, which means there could have been a jump from 2048x2048 to 4096x4096 texture sizes.

#505 Posted by Mr_Huggles_dog (2712 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@lostrib said:

...you have a GTX 680 and it can't run Far cry 3 at 1080p? Are you serious? I have a GTX 670 and I've played Far Cry 3 at 1080p

@RyviusARC said:

Something is wrong with your computer then.

My computer is weaker than yours and has no trouble running FarCry 3 at 1080p at ultra with SMAA.

I fucking knew it.

There is nothing wrong with my computer. I don't look at porn or do any crazy shit on it.

I KNEW this was going to be the reply. It's the same thing I've gotten every time I've had a good system for the time being and couldn't run a game. Just like HL2 and DOOM3.

The excuse is always..."Something is wrong with your computer." Thats bullshit. My PC runs like clockwork and it wasn't from Best Buy or something. It runs lots of games a really good settings, but does not have the power to do every game.

FACT: there is nothing wrong with my computer and FACT: PC in general cannot do every game in 1080p.....I'm proof of that.

You guys don't have some grand awesome expertise on PCs that I don't that makes your computers run oh so much better than mine.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.....thats the excuse....."something is wrong with your computer." Bullshit. I've been in this situation before.

Edit: just yesterday...someone in another thread said FC3 was power hungry and had no problem with me not being able to run it at 1080p when I brought this up.

He didn't seem to care what system wins an argument so I'm more inclined to believe his point of view.

Yah you are not wrong but everyone else is........herp derp!

2560x1600 and still gets above 40fps on average.

And here with 1920x1080 at Ultra settings with 4xMSAA and the 670 still gets a 36fps average.

And here is a 1920x1200 Ultra settings 4xmsaa benchmark where the 680 is getting 49 fps average

So there must be a huge conspiracy where all the review tech sites are lying.....

BAM!

Thank you for proving my point.

#506 Edited by lostrib (42709 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog: your point was that you don't know how to use a PC?

#507 Edited by PimpHand_Gamer (577 posts) -

@mikhail said:

The last topic was unfortunately locked due to a bunch of off-topic circular arguments happening, so the mods invited me to recreate the topic if I wished...and I wished. This time I'll give some insight into what led me to choose the PC as my sole gaming platform besides the 3DS, skipping the Xbox One, PS4, and Wii U entirely. I couldn't be happier that I did.

I grew up traditionally being a console gamer, starting first with the NES and then SNES, having almost all the major consoles up until the PS3 & Xbox 360 generation. I did have a gaming PC during the last gen, but it was never my main platform - I was more of a PS3 gamer. Then, I got involved in game development and digital art/vfx. I was going to be spending a lot of time on a PC and figured that if I was going to build one for myself, that I might as well be using it to play awesome games as well. I built my own PC, and my consoles started getting less and less use until eventually I wasn't using them at all.

There are a ton of reasons why I think the PC is the best gaming platform in existence today, but I'll try to stick with the biggest ones.

  • I can use any controller or multiple controllers at once, including mouse & keyboard, Xbox One controllers, DualShock 4's, or all of them at once. There is a lot more choice with PC, I'm not locked in to the few overpriced peripherals that the platform holders choose for me.
  • Many games, even PC exclusives, are designed with native Xbox controller support. You can still play games from your couch displayed on your big TV in the living room if you want to - the PC is no longer relegated to the office like it was 10 years ago.
  • The PC is capable of displaying higher fidelity visuals and effects at much higher resolutions and framerates than any console. PC games always look better and run better than their console counterparts. PC games can be played at 1440p and up to 144hz while even current generation console games still struggle with 1080p and 30hz, sometimes 60hz (but not usually). Even "remastered" games like The Last of Us still struggle to maintain 1080p/60 on the PS4, sometimes dipping down in the mid-40 fps range.
  • Online multiplayer on PC is always free and not locked behind a paywall like it is with PSN and Xbox Live.
  • The PC has far more exclusive titles released than any other console, in any generation, in addition to many of the same multiplatform titles that are released for the consoles as well. Only when they are on PC, they look & run better.
  • The PC can be used for far more than just entertainment - it's a device that I can use for content production, school work, editing photos, curating my music collection, and more.
  • The PC is a constantly evolving platform that is always growing in power, whereas the consoles are locked in without innovation or advancement for sometimes up to 9 years in the case of the 360 & PS3. My current PC is already much more powerful and capable than even the PS4 or Xbox One, and over time that gap is only going to widen further and further.
  • PC games are less expensive. Not only are even multiplatform games almost always less expensive when released on PC, but PC games go on sale through outlets such as Steam, GOG, GreenManGaming and others far more often and for much steeper discounts than console games ever do. Developers love Steam sale events like the Summer & Winter sales, sometimes making more profits in a single week than they did during the entire year leading up to that.
  • PC's are designed to use and take advantage of multiple monitors, allowing experiences that are simply not available on console. If you haven't gamed on 3+ monitors at once, you're seriously missing out and I recommend giving it a try, you'll never go back.
  • The PC is the king of backwards compatibility. I can play any game I wish released at virtually any point in the PC's history with little to no problem, most of them installing directly from Steam in minutes. The current consoles offer no backwards compatibility whatsoever - Sony, MS, and Nintendo are more than happy to sell you the same games over and over again, though. This does not happen on PC.
  • The PC has by far the largest and most diverse game library out of any platform, current or past.
  • Developers build mod support into their games so the thriving PC mod community can get much more life out of games. This does not exist on consoles. See current games like Divinity: Original Sin and ArmA 3 for examples on how devs encourage modding and make it easy through the Steam Workshop.
  • PC is the most friendly platform for developers. Anyone can create and release a game on PC that millions of gamers have access to without paying licensing fees to the likes of Sony or Microsoft, and at little to no overhead cost. It is the most friendly platform for the thriving independent game developer scene.
  • You can actually make money playing games and creating assets & mods for games on PC, and companies like Valve encourage this through the Steam Workshop and Market. Nothing like this exists on consoles.
  • There are far more Free To Play games on PC that are actually good games with business models that aren't horrible. Games like DotA 2 and Marvel Heroes are truly free to play. You can spend money for cosmetics or quality of life improvements but you don't need to at all. Again, nothing like this exists on consoles.
  • The PC is overall less expensive to own than a console, and this becomes more drastic the more games one buys. A gaming PC that equals the PS4 or Xbox One in performance can be built for $400-$500 and then upgraded in a couple of years to easily surpass the capabilities of those locked and closed platforms, and the price disparity only grows as console gamers buy more and more expensive games over the lifespan of their console while PC gamers enjoy more & less expensive games.
    • The competitive / professional eSports scene lives on PC. Games like Dota 2 have tournaments like the International that had over $11 million dollars in prize money to be won this year - nothing like this exists on consoles.

There are more reasons but I'll leave it at that. Try to keep the discussion on topic - if you don't think the PC is the objectively superior gaming platform, then which one is and why? "LOL hermits" is not a valid argument. Please try to keep the discussion civil and on-topic, I don't want to have to create this again in a few weeks...but I totally will.

Thanks for reading and have fun!

In keeping direct with the topic, I'll quote the OP. You favor a single choice, bravo on your preference. But you made a mistake,the same one which many here seem to keep making..over and over..etc. which is the fact that you think any particular one is superior to another in the first place. The fact is that this is completely based on each individual, their needs, wants, budget..etc. " A gamer favors not the hardware, nor the quantity of games but rather the games themselves" -pimphand 2014. You, and others here too, seem to be more of a hardware enthusiast than someone that just enjoys games for what they are.

So I also happen to like feeding the trolls in the spirit of fun even though I don't really hold anything against another, it's more of me stressing the cons against your pro's. Again I own several platforms and many old ones as well, so I could do the Pro vs Con thing all day for each side. Just as easily, all my points can be debated, put into boxes for analysis and torn apart pointing out specific variables that may or may not happen to most typical consumers. But that's not really the point of all this is it?

1. A $400 PC ( you must be using Linux btw) will not be much of a gaming machine over the course of 5 years. A decent rig 5 years ago won't be playing modern games as most PC gamers require...that is the entire point of powerful hardware right? I also challenge such a machine to go without so much as a single PSU or other failure in that time frame. Not to say that some won't or can't but the odds are against and that much has been stressed by many professional PC editors and tried true by many hardware enthusiasts....that's why most PC gamers buy real hardware, that and to actually make the graphics worth the point of owning a PC. The fact remains that integrated boards are cheaper, smaller and more efficient than individual parts no matter how you slice it. Now let's talk about size and aesthetics. The latter is subjective but a decent rig will be bigger and louder than a console cause everyone just loves large, noisy boxes in their living rooms.

2. Dota 2 is not Football. Competitive yes but a poor excuse at the sports argument. You might as well debate over apples and oranges. it lacks the same fan base, past times and rituals associated to american sports entertainment. It is also not no Gran Turismo or Forza either.

3. PC's are a non streamlined, convoluted platform. Boot into OS, navigate with mouse to game, pick up controller desired. You also won't be shutting down the PC with you're gamepad either. PC's also have multiple UI's that all rather clash in a non streamlined way, you will see Origin, Uplay and Steam UI's, on top of the OS UI...Windows 8 has 2 UI's of it's own between Metro and Desktop unless customized but it's still another UI at least. Then you often will have a username and password for each despite autologin's, still become part of the mess.

4. I don't really need to mention SimCity5. That type of crap is rarer nowadays but is still apart of the mess you occasionally run into with PC gaming when it's too late usually. Along with some of the more serious bugs, like the mess Stalker series is known for or the crazy setup that GTA 4 required, often people finding the games won't run period. I'll also note the need to maintain OS needs and drivers which some put so much crap in your registry, it's little wonder why the OS never runs like a day 1 install. Top it off with the needs for AV's and other such software and drivers to get up a rig running well...which also only serves to further bog down the entire chain with convoluted code that often enhances the likelihood of experiencing bugs in games. Let's talk game resale value, borrowing from friends and rentals...oh wait...we can't. My bad.

5. 1080p/60fps...well you won't see that too often from $400 china parts will you. That is a variable that will depend completely on hardware power, developer and whether or not your talking about minimum frame rates. Cause that is what matters most, having higher fps doesn't matter much if you get dips below 30.

6. I could go on for several more but this is making me a bit sleepy. It's also something that is over debated with no end possible. It's like playing chess without any Kings. It's also a subject that anyone can debate and knit pick out cherry's or individual experiences and circumstances. You made this thread so you can see the debate? see how long it will last? Cause you have no g/f? Doesn't matter I guess but I'm certain there are games on other platforms you find interesting or would enjoy?...don't you think that's more important than making a single hardware choice and label it superior? Yeah, screw the hardware man, I just want to play the games I like...even if it is Kirby triple deluxe

#508 Edited by Mr_Huggles_dog (2712 posts) -

@lostrib: Your point was to exacerbate and twist a situation so that it makes someone look stupid only to fit your personal agenda?

#509 Edited by RyviusARC (4885 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog said:

BAM!

Thank you for proving my point.

Your point that I was right all along?

#510 Posted by RyviusARC (4885 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@lostrib: Your point was to exacerbate and twist a situation so that it makes someone look stupid only to fit your personal agenda?

You were still wrong about a GTX 680 not being able to handle Far Cry 3 with ultra settings at 1080p.

#511 Posted by lostrib (42709 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@lostrib: Your point was to exacerbate and twist a situation so that it makes someone look stupid only to fit your personal agenda?

I think I gave a pretty fair assessment of the situation

#512 Edited by MonsieurX (31663 posts) -

@amazonangry said:

@MonsieurX: still waiting on your Steam library also.

Not sure why would I do that

#514 Edited by Mr_Huggles_dog (2712 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@lostrib: Your point was to exacerbate and twist a situation so that it makes someone look stupid only to fit your personal agenda?

You were still wrong about a GTX 680 not being able to handle Far Cry 3 with ultra settings at 1080p.

@lostrib said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@lostrib: Your point was to exacerbate and twist a situation so that it makes someone look stupid only to fit your personal agenda?

I think I gave a pretty fair assessment of the situation

I'm willing to bet that both (not all b/c the second benchamark doesn't even have a GTX 680 on the list) that they were using a faster CPU and faster RAM than mine....and it doesn't even reach 50fps. (AT PEAK FPS....not average)

dipping all the way to low 30s.

You PC guys claim all day that 30fps and whatnot sucks blah blah blah....yet when games dip on PC to that mark...it's ok. So with all that being said....with my system...stil being a PC....why would you think that mine would run it well at 1080p?

You proved my point.

#515 Posted by RyviusARC (4885 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@RyviusARC said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@lostrib: Your point was to exacerbate and twist a situation so that it makes someone look stupid only to fit your personal agenda?

You were still wrong about a GTX 680 not being able to handle Far Cry 3 with ultra settings at 1080p.

@lostrib said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@lostrib: Your point was to exacerbate and twist a situation so that it makes someone look stupid only to fit your personal agenda?

I think I gave a pretty fair assessment of the situation

I'm willing to bet that both (not all b/c the second benchamark doesn't even have a GTX 680 on the list) that they were using a faster CPU and faster RAM than mine....and it doesn't even reach 50fps. (AT PEAK FPS....not average)

dipping all the way to low 30s.

You PC guys claim all day that 30fps and whatnot sucks blah blah blah....yet when games dip on PC to that mark...it's ok. So with all that being said....with my system...stil being a PC....why would you think that mine would run it well at 1080p?

You proved my point.

I've never said 30fps is crap. I am usually fine with it depending on the game and if it's 40 fps then it's great.

I only really care about 60fps or higher in fighting, racing and competitive fps games.

Also the only time Far Cry 3 was dipping in the low 30s was when there was 4xMSAA added in those benchmarks.

Without MSAA it averaged 42 fps at 2560x1600 which is about twice the pixel count of 1920x1080.

So something is wrong with your PC if you have trouble running it at 1080p.

RAM speed is not an issue as that hardly affects frame rate if at all.

It could be your CPU but I ran the game on a weaker Phenom II x4 and it was able to hold above 30fps at 1080p Ultra.

#516 Posted by Bikouchu35 (7638 posts) -

I'm lost. Did this thread derail already? Quick someone start an argument with me!

#517 Posted by KittenNose (676 posts) -

@Cranler said:

I've been as nice as possible to Dasein 808 for as long as I could even though he constantly insulted me at every turn and stalked me on different threads but everyone has their limits.

Sounds to me like you aren't familiar with the discussion. I made the claim that you needed a $2000 pc to match the 360 in 2005. Since you brought up Bethesda, lets see how well the top gpu from 2005 handles Skyrim. We'll even give the pc a special advantage by pairing it with a core 2 duo which is more powerful than the $1,000 amd cpu's from 2005. He averages from 8-18 fps. Oh and it takes about 5 seconds to enter a house or dungeon in Skyrim on 360. Yeah it's a little longer that a pc with a hdd but nothing like what you describe.

Yeah, don't care, and you didn't address anything I said.

Skyrim runs on a 360 because a sufficient user base collected together and decided to stick with grossly obsolete hardware for far longer then it should have been viable. The user base was large enough to attract the attention of corporations who would offer up products that worked within the limits of the hardware in question. The PC doesn't have such collections of people who cling to such obsolescence. That is why Skyrim runs on a three sixty but not PC hardware as out of date as the three sixty. It has nothing to do with the hardware, and everything to do with the willingness of a corporation to trim products to suit sizable markets.

Your entire point delights in missing the obvious in favor of pretending the three sixty is better able to process software then a two thousand dollar computer. People might be more polite in how they talk to you if you didn't preform victory dances while going out of your way to avoid the obvious.

#518 Posted by Mr_Huggles_dog (2712 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

I'm willing to bet that both (not all b/c the second benchamark doesn't even have a GTX 680 on the list) that they were using a faster CPU and faster RAM than mine....and it doesn't even reach 50fps. (AT PEAK FPS....not average)

dipping all the way to low 30s.

You PC guys claim all day that 30fps and whatnot sucks blah blah blah....yet when games dip on PC to that mark...it's ok. So with all that being said....with my system...stil being a PC....why would you think that mine would run it well at 1080p?

You proved my point.

I've never said 30fps is crap. I am usually fine with it depending on the game and if it's 40 fps then it's great.

I only really care about 60fps or higher in fighting, racing and competitive fps games.

Also the only time Far Cry 3 was dipping in the low 30s was when there was 4xMSAA added in those benchmarks.

Without MSAA it averaged 42 fps at 2560x1600 which is about twice the pixel count of 1920x1080.

So something is wrong with your PC if you have trouble running it at 1080p.

RAM speed is not an issue as that hardly affects frame rate if at all.

It could be your CPU but I ran the game on a weaker Phenom II x4 and it was able to hold above 30fps at 1080p Ultra.

No...it's says in one of those benchmarks "NO AA" and it dipped to 38fps.

In the third there was 4x AA and it got 49...which could be average or peak....it doesn't say.

So not only does one prove me right....but according to these benchmarks....it's all fucked up. One says withOUT AA you get LESS fps and WITH AA you get more.

That makes no sense.

It's shit....those benchmarks didn't prove shit.

#519 Posted by RyviusARC (4885 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@RyviusARC said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

I'm willing to bet that both (not all b/c the second benchamark doesn't even have a GTX 680 on the list) that they were using a faster CPU and faster RAM than mine....and it doesn't even reach 50fps. (AT PEAK FPS....not average)

dipping all the way to low 30s.

You PC guys claim all day that 30fps and whatnot sucks blah blah blah....yet when games dip on PC to that mark...it's ok. So with all that being said....with my system...stil being a PC....why would you think that mine would run it well at 1080p?

You proved my point.

I've never said 30fps is crap. I am usually fine with it depending on the game and if it's 40 fps then it's great.

I only really care about 60fps or higher in fighting, racing and competitive fps games.

Also the only time Far Cry 3 was dipping in the low 30s was when there was 4xMSAA added in those benchmarks.

Without MSAA it averaged 42 fps at 2560x1600 which is about twice the pixel count of 1920x1080.

So something is wrong with your PC if you have trouble running it at 1080p.

RAM speed is not an issue as that hardly affects frame rate if at all.

It could be your CPU but I ran the game on a weaker Phenom II x4 and it was able to hold above 30fps at 1080p Ultra.

No...it's says in one of those benchmarks "NO AA" and it dipped to 38fps.

In the third there was 4x AA and it got 49...which could be average or peak....it doesn't say.

So not only does one prove me right....but according to these benchmarks....it's all fucked up. One says withOUT AA you get LESS fps and WITH AA you get more.

That makes no sense.

It's shit....those benchmarks didn't prove shit.

Or maybe those benchmarks have different setups with different drivers and different game patches.

You just don't want to admit that you were wrong......38 fps is not low 30s it is high 30s.

And the only one without aa was using 2560x1600 which is much more demanding than 1920x1080 (1080p).

Face it you have no clue what you are talking about and are just grasping at straws while every other person proves you wrong.

#520 Posted by Cobra_nVidia (1881 posts) -
@amazonangry said:

@walloftruth: how exactly was I owned? :-(

I never asked for you to show the time spent on half life 2. I asked for you to show your Steam library in its entirety so we can take a look at the time spent on all of your games. You still haven't done that.

1. A steam library does not contain all PC games.

2. Unless you are in "online mode" - downloading a new game or wanting an update, etc - your game time isn't being recorded.

#521 Edited by mikhail (2697 posts) -

@Cobra_nVidia said:
@amazonangry said:

@walloftruth: how exactly was I owned? :-(

I never asked for you to show the time spent on half life 2. I asked for you to show your Steam library in its entirety so we can take a look at the time spent on all of your games. You still haven't done that.

1. A steam library does not contain all PC games.

2. Unless you are in "online mode" - downloading a new game or wanting an update, etc - your game time isn't being recorded.

AmazonAngry demands to see Steam played times but will refuse to show his own PSN account. Even when asked by multiple people and GS moderators. Just thought I would point that out in case you see AmazonAngry bringing that up again.

It goes something like this:

AmazonAngry: Let me see your Steam account

PC Gamer: Ok, here it is.

AmazonAngry: NO not the library, the played time for each game

PC Gamer: Ok, here it is.

AmazonAngry: LMFAO U PLAYED EURO TRUCK SIM 2 FOR 100 HOURS LOLZ ANOTHER HERM BITES THE DUST REKT NOOB

PC Gamer: Let's see your PSN account

AmazonAngry: (Disappears from thread or changes the subject)

#522 Posted by mixedplanet (1214 posts) -

I feel that PC horsepower is wasted a lot in gaming. I was playing Mass Effect 3 recently and the level of low res texture+animation is kind of appalling. I look at Assassins Creed Unity looks really great, but Those graphics could have been pushed on PC number of years ago. Especially the facial features and animations.

I appreciate the Hi-Resolution but still lacking tbh

#523 Edited by Mr_Huggles_dog (2712 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@RyviusARC said:

I've never said 30fps is crap. I am usually fine with it depending on the game and if it's 40 fps then it's great.

I only really care about 60fps or higher in fighting, racing and competitive fps games.

Also the only time Far Cry 3 was dipping in the low 30s was when there was 4xMSAA added in those benchmarks.

Without MSAA it averaged 42 fps at 2560x1600 which is about twice the pixel count of 1920x1080.

So something is wrong with your PC if you have trouble running it at 1080p.

RAM speed is not an issue as that hardly affects frame rate if at all.

It could be your CPU but I ran the game on a weaker Phenom II x4 and it was able to hold above 30fps at 1080p Ultra.

No...it's says in one of those benchmarks "NO AA" and it dipped to 38fps.

In the third there was 4x AA and it got 49...which could be average or peak....it doesn't say.

So not only does one prove me right....but according to these benchmarks....it's all fucked up. One says withOUT AA you get LESS fps and WITH AA you get more.

That makes no sense.

It's shit....those benchmarks didn't prove shit.

Or maybe those benchmarks have different setups with different drivers and different game patches.

You just don't want to admit that you were wrong......38 fps is not low 30s it is high 30s.

And the only one without aa was using 2560x1600 which is much more demanding than 1920x1080 (1080p).

Face it you have no clue what you are talking about and are just grasping at straws while every other person proves you wrong.

No...I do know what I'm talking about....I'm just letting you do my fighting for me.

Thats exactly my point....these computers are different with different setups and different patches...all that...and different setups and whatnot get different results.

My setup....might get the result I get....but you don't want to hear that....PCs have all sorts of different setups......SO YOU CAN'T GENERALLY SAY PCs WILL DO ALL GAMES IN 1080P.

NOT ALL PCs ARE GOING TO BE THE BEST i7 AND 3X GPUs.

Face it...you have no argument to this case. Not everyone has the kind of setup that will play every game at 1080p.

/discussion

#524 Edited by RyviusARC (4885 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@RyviusARC said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@RyviusARC said:

I've never said 30fps is crap. I am usually fine with it depending on the game and if it's 40 fps then it's great.

I only really care about 60fps or higher in fighting, racing and competitive fps games.

Also the only time Far Cry 3 was dipping in the low 30s was when there was 4xMSAA added in those benchmarks.

Without MSAA it averaged 42 fps at 2560x1600 which is about twice the pixel count of 1920x1080.

So something is wrong with your PC if you have trouble running it at 1080p.

RAM speed is not an issue as that hardly affects frame rate if at all.

It could be your CPU but I ran the game on a weaker Phenom II x4 and it was able to hold above 30fps at 1080p Ultra.

No...it's says in one of those benchmarks "NO AA" and it dipped to 38fps.

In the third there was 4x AA and it got 49...which could be average or peak....it doesn't say.

So not only does one prove me right....but according to these benchmarks....it's all fucked up. One says withOUT AA you get LESS fps and WITH AA you get more.

That makes no sense.

It's shit....those benchmarks didn't prove shit.

Or maybe those benchmarks have different setups with different drivers and different game patches.

You just don't want to admit that you were wrong......38 fps is not low 30s it is high 30s.

And the only one without aa was using 2560x1600 which is much more demanding than 1920x1080 (1080p).

Face it you have no clue what you are talking about and are just grasping at straws while every other person proves you wrong.

No...I do know what I'm talking about....I'm just letting you do my fighting for me.

Thats exactly my point....these computers are different with different setups and different patches...all that...and different setups and whatnot get different results.

My setup....might get the result I get....but you don't want to hear that....PCs have all sorts of different setups......SO YOU CAN'T GENERALLY SAY PCs WILL DO ALL GAMES IN 1080P.

NOT ALL PCs ARE GOING TO BE THE BEST i7 AND 3X GPUs.

Face it...you have no argument to this case. Not everyone has the kind of setup that will play every game at 1080p.

/discussion

Well your setup sucks then.

My much weaker GTX 570 and and much weaker Phenom II x4 965 can play Far Cry 3 at 1080 Ultra without msaa just fine.

And everyone on gamespot who has played Far Cry 3 on PC will agree that a GTX 680 will run Far Cry 3 fine at those settings.

You are the only one in denial.

You keep trying to move the goal post.

Of course not every PC in the world can play current games at 1080p, no one is saying that.......

That would be like saying not every console can play games at 720p because my Atari 2600 can't.

But if you have a quad core from the past 5 years (with average clock speeds), 4GB of RAM and a current mid end GPU then you should be fine with 1080p gaming even on the newest games out.

#526 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@kittennose said:

@Cranler said:

I've been as nice as possible to Dasein 808 for as long as I could even though he constantly insulted me at every turn and stalked me on different threads but everyone has their limits.

Sounds to me like you aren't familiar with the discussion. I made the claim that you needed a $2000 pc to match the 360 in 2005. Since you brought up Bethesda, lets see how well the top gpu from 2005 handles Skyrim. We'll even give the pc a special advantage by pairing it with a core 2 duo which is more powerful than the $1,000 amd cpu's from 2005. He averages from 8-18 fps. Oh and it takes about 5 seconds to enter a house or dungeon in Skyrim on 360. Yeah it's a little longer that a pc with a hdd but nothing like what you describe.

Yeah, don't care, and you didn't address anything I said.

Skyrim runs on a 360 because a sufficient user base collected together and decided to stick with grossly obsolete hardware for far longer then it should have been viable. The user base was large enough to attract the attention of corporations who would offer up products that worked within the limits of the hardware in question. The PC doesn't have such collections of people who cling to such obsolescence. That is why Skyrim runs on a three sixty but not PC hardware as out of date as the three sixty. It has nothing to do with the hardware, and everything to do with the willingness of a corporation to trim products to suit sizable markets.

Your entire point delights in missing the obvious in favor of pretending the three sixty is better able to process software then a two thousand dollar computer. People might be more polite in how they talk to you if you didn't preform victory dances while going out of your way to avoid the obvious.

You speak as if Skyrim pc's lowest setting are above the 360's settings. Skyrim on 360 is a mix of low and medium pc settings.

CS Go happens to be the pc's most popular fps, it released after Skyrim and has lower reqs than most console ports that released around the same time.

Speaking of popular pc games. Dota 2's minimum gpu is comparable to the 360's gpu.

League of Legends has lower reqs than console ports that came out the same year like MW 2 and Arkham Asylum.

The min req pc for Divinity Original Sin was available when the PS 3 launched.

Don't make me out to be the bad guy. Dasein808 is possibly the biggest jerk on this forum, again I put up with a lof of crap from him and decided enoughs enough. You're the only one who seems to have a problem with my joke screens.

#527 Edited by KittenNose (676 posts) -

@Cranler said:

You speak as if Skyrim pc's lowest setting are above the 360's settings. Skyrim on 360 is a mix of low and medium pc settings.

CS Go happens to be the pc's most popular fps, it released after Skyrim and has lower reqs than most console ports that released around the same time.

Speaking of popular pc games. Dota 2's minimum gpu is comparable to the 360's gpu.

League of Legends has lower reqs than console ports that came out the same year like MW 2 and Arkham Asylum.

The min req pc for Divinity Original Sin was available when the PS 3 launched.

Don't make me out to be the bad guy. Dasein808 is possibly the biggest jerk on this forum, again I put up with a lof of crap from him and decided enoughs enough. You're the only one who seems to have a problem with my joke screens.

Fine, put windows on a xbox 360, install skyrim, a few choice mods, and launch the game. Having trouble? Yeah that is because you stopped catering to the console's extreme obsolescence. Consoles are nothing more then static collections of PC parts. Take any roughly equivalent collection of PC parts, sink as much time as Bethesda sunk into making Skyrim run on the 360, and you will get similar results. With that investment you can make skyrim run off of an eight gig flashdrive. Heck, might even be able to swing a much smaller storage device if you don't mind enduring the 360's loading times.

You compared a company's extreme effort to optimize code for obsolete hardware on one set up with it's complete lack on another while pretending the result said something about the efficiency of the two set ups. That would be merely myopic, but with the addition of the asinine gloating it is nothing more then trolling so poor as to be an insult to everyone's intelligence. Given how far you have doubled down on the concept, it is just tiring. The three sixty didn't accomplish this via merit, it managed it via an adoption rate that was only high because of just how hard Sony dropped the ball.

If you want people to stop "making you out to be the bad guy" then stop sticking your nose into every PC thread, spewing doofisms, then publicly basking in your own cleverness. Heck, if you actually wanted to present a realistic picture of a twenty gig launch 360 trying to run Rage, it would have been three flashing red lights encircling a power button.

#528 Edited by Mr_Huggles_dog (2712 posts) -

@RyviusARC said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

No...I do know what I'm talking about....I'm just letting you do my fighting for me.

Thats exactly my point....these computers are different with different setups and different patches...all that...and different setups and whatnot get different results.

My setup....might get the result I get....but you don't want to hear that....PCs have all sorts of different setups......SO YOU CAN'T GENERALLY SAY PCs WILL DO ALL GAMES IN 1080P.

NOT ALL PCs ARE GOING TO BE THE BEST i7 AND 3X GPUs.

Face it...you have no argument to this case. Not everyone has the kind of setup that will play every game at 1080p.

/discussion

Well your setup sucks then.

My much weaker GTX 570 and and much weaker Phenom II x4 965 can play Far Cry 3 at 1080 Ultra without msaa just fine.

And everyone on gamespot who has played Far Cry 3 on PC will agree that a GTX 680 will run Far Cry 3 fine at those settings.

You are the only one in denial.

You keep trying to move the goal post.

Of course not every PC in the world can play current games at 1080p, no one is saying that.......

That would be like saying not every console can play games at 720p because my Atari 2600 can't.

But if you have a quad core from the past 5 years (with average clock speeds), 4GB of RAM and a current mid end GPU then you should be fine with 1080p gaming even on the newest games out.

Right b/c I'm going to believe some random degenerate on a forum....named System Wars....where the PC lackies will do and say anything to get their PC to look good.

Just look at RobocopIsJesus....the dude can't help but belittle consoles in every thread he goes in.

I showed how even your benchmarks make it possible for my setup not to run FC3 in 1080p. Now you're basically calling me names just going "WELL YOUR SETUP SUCKS!!!"

Again...I expected this.

#529 Posted by Legend002 (7778 posts) -

PC is like the unwanted adopted child of Microsoft. You'll only get your step brother's toy if he doesn't want it anymore like Ryse. Father Microsoft really doesn't care about PC. They paid to get Rise of the Tomb Raider away from PC for crying out loud.
I think about this every time the temptation of PC gaming arises.

#530 Edited by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@kittennose said:

@Cranler said:

You speak as if Skyrim pc's lowest setting are above the 360's settings. Skyrim on 360 is a mix of low and medium pc settings.

CS Go happens to be the pc's most popular fps, it released after Skyrim and has lower reqs than most console ports that released around the same time.

Speaking of popular pc games. Dota 2's minimum gpu is comparable to the 360's gpu.

League of Legends has lower reqs than console ports that came out the same year like MW 2 and Arkham Asylum.

The min req pc for Divinity Original Sin was available when the PS 3 launched.

Don't make me out to be the bad guy. Dasein808 is possibly the biggest jerk on this forum, again I put up with a lof of crap from him and decided enoughs enough. You're the only one who seems to have a problem with my joke screens.

Fine, put windows on a xbox 360, install skyrim, a few choice mods, and launch the game. Having trouble? Yeah that is because you stopped catering to the console's extreme obsolescence. Consoles are nothing more then static collections of PC parts. Take any roughly equivalent collection of PC parts, sink as much time as Bethesda sunk into making Skyrim run on the 360, and you will get similar results. With that investment you can make skyrim run off of an eight gig flashdrive. Heck, might even be able to swing a much smaller storage device if you don't mind enduring the 360's loading times.

You compared a company's extreme effort to optimize code for obsolete hardware on one set up with it's complete lack on another while pretending the result said something about the efficiency of the two set ups. That would be merely myopic, but with the addition of the asinine gloating it is nothing more then trolling so poor as to be an insult to everyone's intelligence. Given how far you have doubled down on the concept, it is just tiring. The three sixty didn't accomplish this via merit, it managed it via an adoption rate that was only high because of just how hard Sony dropped the ball.

If you want people to stop "making you out to be the bad guy" then stop sticking your nose into every PC thread, spewing doofisms, then publicly basking in your own cleverness. Heck, if you actually wanted to present a realistic picture of a twenty gig launch 360 trying to run Rage, it would have been three flashing red lights encircling a power button.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that you needed a top of the line pc from 2005 and then some to keep up with the 360?

Skyrims performance between 360 and slightly more powerful pc hardware like the comparison I made is indicative of most pc versions of multiplats.

Your point only matters if Skyrim is behind the curve on pc optimization, so prove it.

You're the only one making me out to be the bad guy and obviously you haven't seen all of daseins hate filled replies to my civil posts. Nothing I said gave him the right to treat me the way he did but I sure as shit was in the right posting that comparison pic. You also speak as if no one posts pics to prove points in the same manner yet it's commonplace here.

Don't tell me how to use this forum. If I'm not following the rules then the mods can warn me.

My launch 360 was replaced for free as was my 2nd 360.

#531 Posted by naz99 (1811 posts) -

@Legend002 said:

PC is like the unwanted adopted child of Microsoft. You'll only get your step brother's toy if he doesn't want it anymore like Ryse. Father Microsoft really doesn't care about PC. They paid to get Rise of the Tomb Raider away from PC for crying out loud.

I think about this every time the temptation of PC gaming arises.

Derp, great comment there full of actual "facts" and sound opinions...............you get 5 derp points,and a dunce hat, now go stand in the corner facing away from us all.

#532 Posted by mikhail (2697 posts) -

@Legend002 said:

PC is like the unwanted adopted child of Microsoft. You'll only get your step brother's toy if he doesn't want it anymore like Ryse. Father Microsoft really doesn't care about PC. They paid to get Rise of the Tomb Raider away from PC for crying out loud.

I think about this every time the temptation of PC gaming arises.

Typical console peasant train of thought.

First, it's "LOL PC will never get Ryse! Xbox has the best exlusives!"

Then, Ryse is announced for PC and it will look and run better than on console.

Then we hear, "Whatever, thanks for taking out the trash herms. Who cares about that stupid game, LMFAO!"



#533 Posted by Legend002 (7778 posts) -

@mikhail: I never said any of that. On a side note, you excited for Ryse?

#534 Posted by mikhail (2697 posts) -

@Legend002: Not until it goes on sale!

#536 Edited by Legend002 (7778 posts) -

@naz99 @farrell2k: And yet not a single rebuttal. lol

#537 Edited by RyviusARC (4885 posts) -

@mr_huggles_dog said:

@RyviusARC said:

@mr_huggles_dog said:

No...I do know what I'm talking about....I'm just letting you do my fighting for me.

Thats exactly my point....these computers are different with different setups and different patches...all that...and different setups and whatnot get different results.

My setup....might get the result I get....but you don't want to hear that....PCs have all sorts of different setups......SO YOU CAN'T GENERALLY SAY PCs WILL DO ALL GAMES IN 1080P.

NOT ALL PCs ARE GOING TO BE THE BEST i7 AND 3X GPUs.

Face it...you have no argument to this case. Not everyone has the kind of setup that will play every game at 1080p.

/discussion

Well your setup sucks then.

My much weaker GTX 570 and and much weaker Phenom II x4 965 can play Far Cry 3 at 1080 Ultra without msaa just fine.

And everyone on gamespot who has played Far Cry 3 on PC will agree that a GTX 680 will run Far Cry 3 fine at those settings.

You are the only one in denial.

You keep trying to move the goal post.

Of course not every PC in the world can play current games at 1080p, no one is saying that.......

That would be like saying not every console can play games at 720p because my Atari 2600 can't.

But if you have a quad core from the past 5 years (with average clock speeds), 4GB of RAM and a current mid end GPU then you should be fine with 1080p gaming even on the newest games out.

Right b/c I'm going to believe some random degenerate on a forum....named System Wars....where the PC lackies will do and say anything to get their PC to look good.

Just look at RobocopIsJesus....the dude can't help but belittle consoles in every thread he goes in.

I showed how even your benchmarks make it possible for my setup not to run FC3 in 1080p. Now you're basically calling me names just going "WELL YOUR SETUP SUCKS!!!"

Again...I expected this.

Fine go ask Tomshardware or Hardforum or Overclockers you will get the same answers that a GTX 680 has no problem running Far Cry 3 on Ultra.

They may even help you figure out how to fix your computer.

#539 Posted by Legend002 (7778 posts) -

@farrell2k: Thought so.

#540 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -
@Legend002 said:

@farrell2k: Thought so.

it really was though. can see your bias in that troll post. you say MS paid to keep it off PC. well, it's a timed exclusive, innit? and also, why did you omit mentioning the other platforms MS kept tomb raider from?

that is a highlight of just one obvious mistake in that troll post.

i mean, you're talking about ryse as if MS had the rights to it, they didn't. that was up to crytek.

but anyway you don't like pc gaming, that's fine.

#541 Posted by Legend002 (7778 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur:

Yeah, timed exclusive but it's not launching on PC simultaneously with the Xbox 360 and Xbox One. Why would I mention other platforms? Those brands aren't tied to Microsoft at all. PC is, Playstation is not.

Microsoft does have the rights to Ryse since they are the publisher. They just decided to not put it on PC initially. It's only on PC now because it tanked. Same situations with Alan Waker, SC Conviction, Fable Anni and DR3. The Ryse IP is not theirs though which is why Crytek is able to hint Ryse 2 as being a multiplatform. To the Microsoft gaming division, PC is just a secondary source of raking in cash. The bread and butter is the Xbox brand. PC is just dessert... if necessary. Halo and Gears probably won't flop like Ryse so it's likely those franchises won't be back on PC anytime soon. Not sure how I am biased if I don't really game on Xbox.

#542 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -

why would you omit to mention other platforms?

#543 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -

"CryTek owns the Ryse IP" - http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/35466-ryse-2-is-still-possible

the publisher has no bearing on who owns the IP.

#544 Posted by Legend002 (7778 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur: Duh? I mentioned that.

#545 Edited by mikhail (2697 posts) -

@Legend002: Microsoft doesn't "have the rights" to anything except the publishing of the Xbox One version of Ryse. They published that version and that's it, Crytek is the sole owner of Ryse and is self-publishing on PC.

#546 Edited by Legend002 (7778 posts) -

@mikhail: If that was the case then Ryse would be on the PS4 right now. It's not. Microsoft simply allowed them to do a PC version. For a long time it was the same case with the first Mass Effect. You think Crytek would be stupid enough to ignore the 10 million gamers from playstation nation?

#549 Edited by RoboCopISJesus (1629 posts) -

Well I see most console fanboys argue about the same shit in SW:

  • Whose system has the most hardware/software sales
  • Whose system has the better version of a multiplat (as they make up most games)
  • Whose system has a higher high scoring game library count or more exclusives
  • Who has the best gfx

Then you show those fanboys that factual data PC actually has the top mark in all of those, and they say you're trolling because "their thread was only about consoles"....

So we make a new thread like this one, and then we're just "elitists"...even though you guys have dozens of these types of threads for each Console (in a less intelligent manner) as its the whole point of SW...

#550 Edited by mikhail (2697 posts) -

@Legend002 said:

@mikhail: If that was the case then Ryse would be on the PS4 right. It's not. Microsoft simply allowed them to do a PC version. For a long time it was the same case with the first Mass Effect. You think Crytek would be stupid enough to ignore the 10 million gamers from playstation nation?

Dude, your posts are just getting more and more facepalm worthy.

No one is free to just publish any game they want on every platform, they all have to be approved by the relevant product development team. Sony and Microsoft both have entire departments dedicated to deciding which games are allowed to be published for their consoles. It can be as simple as Sony not being interested in Ryse because they don't feel like it fits well into the PS4's portfolio. Let's face it, the game didn't sell or review that well.

You're making a lot of assumptions about things you have absolutely zero clue about. Microsoft doesn't own Ryse. At all. It was a timed exclusivity agreement with Microsoft Studios publishing the Xbox One version, and that's all. Next you're going to tell me that Microsoft owns the Dead Rising IP and is "allowing" Capcom to publish it on PC.