GTA V confirmed for PC

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Primordialous
#101 Posted by Primordialous (1313 posts) -

"could be a mistype" Keep begging herms :lol:RR360DD

......

No.

Avatar image for Nanomage
#102 Posted by Nanomage (2371 posts) -

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="Miketheman83"] A few games with high budgets (still no where near the budgets of top console games) doesn't really help you're argument. Most PC games have very low budgets and are very disjointed niche games.Miketheman83

A couple of points you're going to need to prove, after you first define what "low-budget" and "high-budget" are, explicitly. Now, to the points:

  1. Prove all PC games have "low-budgets".
  2. Prove that they have nowhere near the budget of top console games.

Now, in your last sentence, you change your argument to "most", rather than "all".

----

I have to say, your argument is tremendously lackluster.

I don't needed budget figures to tell a game has lite production values, all I have to do is play it. Look at a game like Witcher 2 compared to Skyrim. It's pretty obvious. I've played both games by the way.

Skyrim? That´s the worst possible comparison you could´ve made,especially when the PC version is by far the best one :lol:

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#103 Posted by lundy86_4 (48882 posts) -

I don't need budget figures to tell a game has low production values, all I have to do is play it. Look at a game like Witcher 2 compared to Skyrim. It's pretty obvious. I've played both games by the way.

Miketheman83

Ahhh, so you aren't willing to properly form your own argument, let alone provide evidence? Shocking.

You're an imbecile and your initial point was proven wrong by at least one person... You then change your argument, without being able to cite any actual evidence. Laughable.

Avatar image for blue_hazy_basic
#104 Posted by blue_hazy_basic (30830 posts) -
clyde46
:lol: thats awesome!
Avatar image for ZombieKiller7
#105 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6365 posts) -

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

[QUOTE="Jankarcop"]

Whats halarious is, even as a bad port, it ran and looked better than the 360/ps3 versions...and is now the 100% superior version.

wis3boi

Does it run properly on modest hardware?

Posts in the PC forum suggest otherwise.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29345168/grand-theft-auto-iv-gta-4-lags

*points out the fact his video card blows ass*

So it needs high-end hardware just to run properly.

Do you consider that a superior version of the game?

I don't.

Video games should be accessable to the average joe, not just to the %1 who devote their lives.

Avatar image for Miketheman83
#106 Posted by Miketheman83 (3156 posts) -
[QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

A couple of points you're going to need to prove, after you first define what "low-budget" and "high-budget" are, explicitly. Now, to the points:

  1. Prove all PC games have "low-budgets".
  2. Prove that they have nowhere near the budget of top console games.

Now, in your last sentence, you change your argument to "most", rather than "all".

----

I have to say, your argument is tremendously lackluster.

Nanomage
I don't needed budget figures to tell a game has lite production values, all I have to do is play it. Look at a game like Witcher 2 compared to Skyrim. It's pretty obvious. I've played both games by the way.

Skyrim? That´s the worst possible comparison you could´ve made. :lol:

No actually it's not. Skyrim has more depth in the first ten minutes then all of Witcher 2 combined. Constant QTE's really? Not a true open world game. Less magic, items, weapons etc. The cut scenes were laughable. Witcher 2 felt like a budget title in comparison.
Avatar image for clyde46
#107 Posted by clyde46 (49050 posts) -

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

Does it run properly on modest hardware?

Posts in the PC forum suggest otherwise.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29345168/grand-theft-auto-iv-gta-4-lags

ZombieKiller7

*points out the fact his video card blows ass*

So it needs high-end hardware just to run properly.

Do you consider that a superior version of the game?

I don't.

Video games should be accessable to the average joe, not just to the %1 who devote their lives.

No, it does not. My old rig used to run it at a better visual set than the consoles at teh same frame rate.
Avatar image for whiskeystrike
#108 Posted by whiskeystrike (12172 posts) -

Why even make a thread?

There is no confirmation to make.

It's coming to PC just like all the GTA games and be much better.

Funnily enough if it's true Rockstar is only using footage showing PS3 then it seems the 360 will be on the short end of the stick this time :shock:

Avatar image for clyde46
#109 Posted by clyde46 (49050 posts) -
[QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="Nanomage"][QUOTE="Miketheman83"] I don't needed budget figures to tell a game has lite production values, all I have to do is play it. Look at a game like Witcher 2 compared to Skyrim. It's pretty obvious. I've played both games by the way.

Skyrim? That´s the worst possible comparison you could´ve made. :lol:

No actually it's not. Skyrim has more depth in the first ten minutes then all of Witcher 2 combined. Constant QTE's really? Not a true open world game. Less magic, items, weapons etc. The cut scenes were laughable. Witcher 2 felt like a budget title in comparison.

 He's actually serious!
Avatar image for Nanomage
#110 Posted by Nanomage (2371 posts) -
[QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="Nanomage"][QUOTE="Miketheman83"] I don't needed budget figures to tell a game has lite production values, all I have to do is play it. Look at a game like Witcher 2 compared to Skyrim. It's pretty obvious. I've played both games by the way.

Skyrim? That´s the worst possible comparison you could´ve made. :lol:

No actually it's not. Skyrim has more depth in the first ten minutes then all of Witcher 2 combined. Constant QTE's really? Not a true open world game. Less magic, items, weapons etc. The cut scenes were laughable. Witcher 2 felt like a budget title in comparison.

Oh,so now we´re talking about gameplay design choices here? Nice way to back pedal the argument. :lol: Not to mention that Skyrim is a multiplatform game(wich was actually a PC only franchise to begin with) so it doesn´t fit your console argument,and to make matters even worse for you,by far the best version of the game is the PC version,in pretty much every respect lol.
Avatar image for ZombieKiller7
#111 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6365 posts) -

Skyrim was made primarily for the 360.

If we depend on PC market for games, all we will have is low budget stuff, free to play and MMO's.

Avatar image for Miketheman83
#112 Posted by Miketheman83 (3156 posts) -
[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="Nanomage"] Skyrim? That´s the worst possible comparison you could´ve made. :lol:

No actually it's not. Skyrim has more depth in the first ten minutes then all of Witcher 2 combined. Constant QTE's really? Not a true open world game. Less magic, items, weapons etc. The cut scenes were laughable. Witcher 2 felt like a budget title in comparison.

 He's actually serious!

Can you walk around pick pocketingeveryone you came across in Witcher 2? No. Can you enter all buildings in Witcher? No. Not too mention the menus and controls were designed by a twelve year old. The Witcher feels like a last gen game in comparison.
Avatar image for clyde46
#113 Posted by clyde46 (49050 posts) -

Skyrim was made primarily for the 360.

If we depend on PC market for games, all we will have is low budget stuff, free to play and MMO's.

ZombieKiller7
Thats why its a really bad RPG.
Avatar image for Nanomage
#114 Posted by Nanomage (2371 posts) -

Skyrim was made primarily for the 360.

If we depend on PC market for games, all we will have is low budget stuff, free to play and MMO's.

ZombieKiller7
Then it sure is sad that one game is made "primarly" for one system and ends up being miles better on another,that makes it even more embarassing lol.
Avatar image for MrYaotubo
#115 Posted by MrYaotubo (2880 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Miketheman83"] No actually it's not. Skyrim has more depth in the first ten minutes then all of Witcher 2 combined. Constant QTE's really? Not a true open world game. Less magic, items, weapons etc. The cut scenes were laughable. Witcher 2 felt like a budget title in comparison.Miketheman83
 He's actually serious!

Can you walk around pick pocketingeveryone you came across in Witcher 2? No. Can you enter all buildings in Witcher? No. Not too mention the menus and controls were designed by a twelve year old. The Witcher feels like a last gen game in comparison.

OMG this is hilarious! :lol:

Avatar image for clyde46
#116 Posted by clyde46 (49050 posts) -
[QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Miketheman83"] No actually it's not. Skyrim has more depth in the first ten minutes then all of Witcher 2 combined. Constant QTE's really? Not a true open world game. Less magic, items, weapons etc. The cut scenes were laughable. Witcher 2 felt like a budget title in comparison.

 He's actually serious!

Can you walk around pick pocketingeveryone you came across in Witcher 2? No. Can you enter all buildings in Witcher? No. Not too mention the menus and controls were designed by a twelve year old. The Witcher feels like a last gen game in comparison.

 If you ignore the fact that the Witcher is vastly superior to Skyrim. Skyrim is such a step back compared to Oblivion.
Avatar image for Miketheman83
#117 Posted by Miketheman83 (3156 posts) -
[QUOTE="Nanomage"][QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="Nanomage"] Skyrim? That´s the worst possible comparison you could´ve made. :lol:

No actually it's not. Skyrim has more depth in the first ten minutes then all of Witcher 2 combined. Constant QTE's really? Not a true open world game. Less magic, items, weapons etc. The cut scenes were laughable. Witcher 2 felt like a budget title in comparison.

Oh,so now we´re talking about gameplay design choices here? Nice way to back pedal the argument. :lol: Not to mention that Skyrim is a multiplatform game(wich was actually a PC only franchise to begin with) so it doesn´t fit your console argument,and to make matters even worse for you,by far the best version of the game is the PC version,in pretty much every respect lol.

Actually it proves my argument. Look at the elder scrolls games that were developed for the PC compared to Skyrim. Skyrim obviously has a waaay bigger budget. If you can't see that you are jaded.
Avatar image for clyde46
#119 Posted by clyde46 (49050 posts) -
[QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="Nanomage"][QUOTE="Miketheman83"] No actually it's not. Skyrim has more depth in the first ten minutes then all of Witcher 2 combined. Constant QTE's really? Not a true open world game. Less magic, items, weapons etc. The cut scenes were laughable. Witcher 2 felt like a budget title in comparison.

Oh,so now we´re talking about gameplay design choices here? Nice way to back pedal the argument. :lol: Not to mention that Skyrim is a multiplatform game(wich was actually a PC only franchise to begin with) so it doesn´t fit your console argument,and to make matters even worse for you,by far the best version of the game is the PC version,in pretty much every respect lol.

Actually it proves my argument. Look at the elder scrolls games that were developed for the PC compared to Skyrim. Skyrim obviously has a waaay bigger budget. If you can't see that you are jaded.

Massive budget and still is one of the buggiest games this gen.
Avatar image for lundy86_4
#120 Posted by lundy86_4 (48882 posts) -

Miketheman digging a bigger hole? Shocker :lol:

Avatar image for ZombieKiller7
#121 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6365 posts) -

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

Skyrim was made primarily for the 360.

If we depend on PC market for games, all we will have is low budget stuff, free to play and MMO's.

Nanomage

Then it sure is sad that one game is made "primarly" for one system and ends up being miles better on another,that makes it even more embarassing lol.

What you call "miles better" I call a mild boost at best, on hardware 10x stronger, this is not an accomplishment or anything to be proud of.

Simply stated, PC gaming = alot of time, money and effort for almost no benefit AND more importantly does not financially support the platforms that make these games possible.

If there is no Steam, Skyrim will still exist.

If there is no console, there is no Skyrim.

Avatar image for Martin_G_N
#122 Posted by Martin_G_N (1886 posts) -

I'm getting this for PC aswell, I assume it's going to be alot better optimized than GTA4. GTA V with mods will be awesome, especially having real cars :).

Avatar image for clyde46
#123 Posted by clyde46 (49050 posts) -

[QUOTE="Nanomage"][QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

Skyrim was made primarily for the 360.

If we depend on PC market for games, all we will have is low budget stuff, free to play and MMO's.

ZombieKiller7

Then it sure is sad that one game is made "primarly" for one system and ends up being miles better on another,that makes it even more embarassing lol.

What you call "miles better" I call a mild boost at best, on hardware 10x stronger, this is not an accomplishment or anything to be proud of.

Spoken like a true console fanboy. Go play on a PC then come back.

Simply stated, PC gaming = alot of time, money and effort for almost no benefit AND more importantly does not financially support the platforms that make these games possible.

Proof is needed for a claim that large.

If there is no Steam, Skyrim will still exist.


If there is no console, there is no Skyrim.

Nothing of value was lost.

Avatar image for Miketheman83
#124 Posted by Miketheman83 (3156 posts) -
[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="Nanomage"] Oh,so now we´re talking about gameplay design choices here? Nice way to back pedal the argument. :lol: Not to mention that Skyrim is a multiplatform game(wich was actually a PC only franchise to begin with) so it doesn´t fit your console argument,and to make matters even worse for you,by far the best version of the game is the PC version,in pretty much every respect lol.

Actually it proves my argument. Look at the elder scrolls games that were developed for the PC compared to Skyrim. Skyrim obviously has a waaay bigger budget. If you can't see that you are jaded.

Massive budget and still is one of the buggiest games this gen.

That's funny considering I had on side quest bug out on me in Skyrim, yet in the Witcher 2 my weapons kept disappearing from my inventory for no reason whatsoever. Not too mention the cut scenes in Witcher 2 are so horrible I would have guessed it was a ps2 game if I didn't know better. Even climbing a ladder is an awkward event in Witcher 2. Console games have bigger budgets, bigger dev teams and higher production values, minus games like WoW where you have to pay to play.
Avatar image for clyde46
#125 Posted by clyde46 (49050 posts) -
[QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Miketheman83"] Actually it proves my argument. Look at the elder scrolls games that were developed for the PC compared to Skyrim. Skyrim obviously has a waaay bigger budget. If you can't see that you are jaded.

Massive budget and still is one of the buggiest games this gen.

That's funny considering I had on side quest bug out on me in Skyrim, yet in the Witcher 2 my weapons kept disappearing from my inventory for no reason whatsoever. Not too mention the cut scenes in Witcher 2 are so horrible I would have guessed it was a ps2 game if I didn't know better. Even climbing a ladder is an awkward event in Witcher 2. Console games have bigger budgets, bigger dev teams and higher production values, minus games like WoW where you have to pay to play.

 This is golden.
Avatar image for ZombieKiller7
#126 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6365 posts) -

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

[QUOTE="Jankarcop"]

Whats halarious is, even as a bad port, it ran and looked better than the 360/ps3 versions...and is now the 100% superior version.

clyde46

Does it run properly on modest hardware?

Posts in the PC forum suggest otherwise.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29345168/grand-theft-auto-iv-gta-4-lags

I ran GTA4 on a dual core and a 4670 back in the day at 30FPS @1680x1050 and it looked a lot better than the console.

1. I think your idea of "modest hardware" is off.

2. The 360 version is upscaled to 1920x1080 and I'm sure the game assets were %99 the same

3. 30fps on PC is a herky jerky mess. 30fps on consoles is actually playable

4. GTA IV still have thousands of people playing it on XBL, how many ppl are playing it MP on Steam?

Bottom line, people who got GTA IV on 360 had alot more fun with the game and got more out of it than they did on PC.

Fact.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#127 Posted by lundy86_4 (48882 posts) -

Console games have bigger budgets, bigger dev teams and higher production values, minus games like WoW where you have to pay to play.Miketheman83

Have you provided any evidence for your argument so far? I noticed you stopped our conversation... Was it due to having a ridiculously insufficient rebuttal?

Avatar image for ZombieKiller7
#129 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6365 posts) -

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

If there is no Steam, Skyrim will still exist.

If there is no console, there is no Skyrim.

clyde46

Nothing of value was lost.

Then stop buying our games and piss off.

Or take your sloppy seconds like a man.

Having 10x powerful hardware to say "oh look, extra pixel on his left ear."

Ppl on 360 are enjoying their life, while hermits cry in their beer and try to recruit poor suckers to join the misery.

Avatar image for Miketheman83
#130 Posted by Miketheman83 (3156 posts) -
[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="clyde46"] Massive budget and still is one of the buggiest games this gen.

That's funny considering I had on side quest bug out on me in Skyrim, yet in the Witcher 2 my weapons kept disappearing from my inventory for no reason whatsoever. Not too mention the cut scenes in Witcher 2 are so horrible I would have guessed it was a ps2 game if I didn't know better. Even climbing a ladder is an awkward event in Witcher 2. Console games have bigger budgets, bigger dev teams and higher production values, minus games like WoW where you have to pay to play.

 This is golden.

If you think these pics are bothering me they aren't. I heard so many good things about the Witcher 2, when I finally bought it I couldn't believe herms would hype a game full of qte's that was so linear with such a horrible menu system.
Avatar image for faizan_faizan
#131 Posted by faizan_faizan (7869 posts) -

[QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="clyde46"] Massive budget and still is one of the buggiest games this gen. clyde46
That's funny considering I had on side quest bug out on me in Skyrim, yet in the Witcher 2 my weapons kept disappearing from my inventory for no reason whatsoever. Not too mention the cut scenes in Witcher 2 are so horrible I would have guessed it was a ps2 game if I didn't know better. Even climbing a ladder is an awkward event in Witcher 2. Console games have bigger budgets, bigger dev teams and higher production values, minus games like WoW where you have to pay to play.

 This is golden.


:lol:

Avatar image for clyde46
#132 Posted by clyde46 (49050 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

Does it run properly on modest hardware?

Posts in the PC forum suggest otherwise.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29345168/grand-theft-auto-iv-gta-4-lags

ZombieKiller7

I ran GTA4 on a dual core and a 4670 back in the day at 30FPS @1680x1050 and it looked a lot better than the console.

1. I think your idea of "modest hardware" is off.

My rig was considered mid range back in the day

2. The 360 version is upscaled to 1920x1080 and I'm sure the game assets were %99 the same

Actually the game is running at 720p and then upscaled to 1080

3. 30fps on PC is a herky jerky mess. 30fps on consoles is actually playable

That makes no sense. It runs fine at 30FPS on the PC.

4. GTA IV still have thousands of people playing it on XBL, how many ppl are playing it MP on Steam?

It uses GFWL and there are still people playing online.

Bottom line, people who got GTA IV on 360 had alot more fun with the game and got more out of it than they did on PC.

I bought the game on PC and had a lof of fun. That is an assumption and a very bad one at that.

Fact.

Avatar image for Miketheman83
#133 Posted by Miketheman83 (3156 posts) -

[QUOTE="Miketheman83"]Console games have bigger budgets, bigger dev teams and higher production values, minus games like WoW where you have to pay to play.lundy86_4

Have you provided any evidence for your argument so far? I noticed you stopped our conversation... Was it due to having a ridiculously insufficient rebuttal?

Can you find evidence that they are? The proof is in the pudding dude. If you really think no-name PC games that sell for less than $40 have the same budgets as big name games like GTA you are jaded by the industry and maybe you should take some time away.
Avatar image for clyde46
#134 Posted by clyde46 (49050 posts) -
[QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Miketheman83"] That's funny considering I had on side quest bug out on me in Skyrim, yet in the Witcher 2 my weapons kept disappearing from my inventory for no reason whatsoever. Not too mention the cut scenes in Witcher 2 are so horrible I would have guessed it was a ps2 game if I didn't know better. Even climbing a ladder is an awkward event in Witcher 2. Console games have bigger budgets, bigger dev teams and higher production values, minus games like WoW where you have to pay to play.

 This is golden.

If you think these pics are bothering me they aren't. I heard so many good things about the Witcher 2, when I finally bought it I couldn't believe herms would hype a game full of qte's that was so linear with such a horrible menu system.

Skyrim, the size of an ocean, with the depth of a puddle. Keep on playing that poor imitation for a RPG.
Avatar image for Krelian-co
#135 Posted by Krelian-co (13274 posts) -

[QUOTE="Nanomage"][QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

Skyrim was made primarily for the 360.

If we depend on PC market for games, all we will have is low budget stuff, free to play and MMO's.

ZombieKiller7

Then it sure is sad that one game is made "primarly" for one system and ends up being miles better on another,that makes it even more embarassing lol.

What you call "miles better" I call a mild boost at best, on hardware 10x stronger, this is not an accomplishment or anything to be proud of.

Simply stated, PC gaming = alot of time, money and effort for almost no benefit AND more importantly does not financially support the platforms that make these games possible.

If there is no Steam, Skyrim will still exist.

If there is no console, there is no Skyrim.

the denial is strong in you, i don't know if it's just ignorance for not having played it ever on pc or just plain fanboyism

it is not a "mild boost" and it is not "almost no benefit". No matter how many times you tell that to yourself, it won't become true, just words from an ignorant fanboy.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#136 Posted by lundy86_4 (48882 posts) -

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="Miketheman83"]Console games have bigger budgets, bigger dev teams and higher production values, minus games like WoW where you have to pay to play.Miketheman83

Have you provided any evidence for your argument so far? I noticed you stopped our conversation... Was it due to having a ridiculously insufficient rebuttal?

Can you find evidence that they are? The proof is in the pudding dude. If you really think no-name PC games that sell for less than $40 have the same budgets as big name games like GTA you are jaded by the industry and maybe you should take some time away.

I don't need the evidence. You do, as you made the initial claim. Are we debating with a child here? This is a False Burden of Proof.

You realize that The Old Republic was speculated at having one of the largest budgets, if not the largest budget, in history, right? Link. That's a budget of $200 million.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, meaning it's the results are what counts, and the results undermine your entire point, as just shown. Good God, this is hilarious :lol:

Avatar image for wis3boi
#137 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

Does it run properly on modest hardware?

Posts in the PC forum suggest otherwise.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29345168/grand-theft-auto-iv-gta-4-lags

ZombieKiller7

I ran GTA4 on a dual core and a 4670 back in the day at 30FPS @1680x1050 and it looked a lot better than the console.

1. I think your idea of "modest hardware" is off.

2. The 360 version is upscaled to 1920x1080 and I'm sure the game assets were %99 the same

3. 30fps on PC is a herky jerky mess. 30fps on consoles is actually playable

4. GTA IV still have thousands of people playing it on XBL, how many ppl are playing it MP on Steam?

Bottom line, people who got GTA IV on 360 had alot more fun with the game and got more out of it than they did on PC.

Fact.

J+Jameson+laughing+Meme+peter+parker+spi

Avatar image for Miketheman83
#138 Posted by Miketheman83 (3156 posts) -
[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="clyde46"]  This is golden.

If you think these pics are bothering me they aren't. I heard so many good things about the Witcher 2, when I finally bought it I couldn't believe herms would hype a game full of qte's that was so linear with such a horrible menu system.

Skyrim, the size of an ocean, with the depth of a puddle. Keep on playing that poor imitation for a RPG.

It has everything the Witcher 2 has and then some. Deeper stealth gameplay, more magic, more crashing, more alchemy, it isn't linear and there is more to do.
Avatar image for faizan_faizan
#139 Posted by faizan_faizan (7869 posts) -
Bottom line, people who got GTA IV on 360 had alot more fun with the game and got more out of it than they did on PC.

Fact.

ZombieKiller7
This line is just sooooooo wrong, Despite me buying the game for X360 before i even saw a glimpse of it on PC, I actually had more fun with PC, MODS made it sooo fun that i spent nearly 900 Hours on this game.
Avatar image for lundy86_4
#140 Posted by lundy86_4 (48882 posts) -

2. The 360 version is upscaled to 1920x1080 and I'm sure the game assets were %99 the same

ZombieKiller7

Similar assets does not mean that the game will look the same. This is a marked improvement over the 360 version -- which I am playing, at this very moment.

Direct feed, 1080p, PC screenshot:

gtaiv2010-12-2901-33-2spsp.jpg

Avatar image for Miketheman83
#141 Posted by Miketheman83 (3156 posts) -

[QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

Have you provided any evidence for your argument so far? I noticed you stopped our conversation... Was it due to having a ridiculously insufficient rebuttal?

lundy86_4

Can you find evidence that they are? The proof is in the pudding dude. If you really think no-name PC games that sell for less than $40 have the same budgets as big name games like GTA you are jaded by the industry and maybe you should take some time away.

I don't need the evidence. You do, as you made the initial claim. Are we debating with a child here? This is a False Burden of Proof.

You realize that The Old Republic was speculated at having one of the largest budgets, if not the largest budget, in history, right? Link. That's a budget of $200 million.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, meaning it's the results are what counts, and the results undermine your entire point, as just shown. Good God, this is hilarious :lol:

Lol that game was made over ten years ago bro and it has the star wars name attached to it :lol:
Avatar image for MrYaotubo
#142 Posted by MrYaotubo (2880 posts) -
[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="Miketheman83"]Console games have bigger budgets, bigger dev teams and higher production values, minus games like WoW where you have to pay to play.Miketheman83

Have you provided any evidence for your argument so far? I noticed you stopped our conversation... Was it due to having a ridiculously insufficient rebuttal?

Can you find evidence that they are? The proof is in the pudding dude. If you really think no-name PC games that sell for less than $40 have the same budgets as big name games like GTA you are jaded by the industry and maybe you should take some time away.

You were already shown that some of the biggest budgets for games this gen alone were PC only,including the top two,wich also includes the biggest budget in a videogame ever,and yet you continue to try the argument you clearly lost a long time ago. Stop digging the whole,this is getting way too sad to watch.
Avatar image for lundy86_4
#143 Posted by lundy86_4 (48882 posts) -

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="Miketheman83"] Can you find evidence that they are? The proof is in the pudding dude. If you really think no-name PC games that sell for less than $40 have the same budgets as big name games like GTA you are jaded by the industry and maybe you should take some time away.Miketheman83

I don't need the evidence. You do, as you made the initial claim. Are we debating with a child here? This is a False Burden of Proof.

You realize that The Old Republic was speculated at having one of the largest budgets, if not the largest budget, in history, right? Link. That's a budget of $200 million.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, meaning it's the results are what counts, and the results undermine your entire point, as just shown. Good God, this is hilarious :lol:

Lol that game was made over ten years ago bro and it has the star wars name attached to it :lol:

The Old Republic released in 2011. The brand is irrelevant. Electronic Arts pumped a ridiculous amount of money into the development of the game.

You're proving your idiocy when you gloss over massive portions of the post. Given up using a false burden of proof?

Provide your evidence.

Avatar image for MrYaotubo
#144 Posted by MrYaotubo (2880 posts) -
[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

[QUOTE="Miketheman83"] Can you find evidence that they are? The proof is in the pudding dude. If you really think no-name PC games that sell for less than $40 have the same budgets as big name games like GTA you are jaded by the industry and maybe you should take some time away.Miketheman83

I don't need the evidence. You do, as you made the initial claim. Are we debating with a child here? This is a False Burden of Proof.

You realize that The Old Republic was speculated at having one of the largest budgets, if not the largest budget, in history, right? Link. That's a budget of $200 million.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, meaning it's the results are what counts, and the results undermine your entire point, as just shown. Good God, this is hilarious :lol:

Lol that game was made over ten years ago bro and it has the star wars name attached to it :lol:

Over 10 years ago? It´s a 2011 game,my god now this really is bottom of the barrel stuff,it went from sad to pathetic. :lol:
Avatar image for clyde46
#145 Posted by clyde46 (49050 posts) -
[QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="Miketheman83"] If you think these pics are bothering me they aren't. I heard so many good things about the Witcher 2, when I finally bought it I couldn't believe herms would hype a game full of qte's that was so linear with such a horrible menu system.

Skyrim, the size of an ocean, with the depth of a puddle. Keep on playing that poor imitation for a RPG.

It has everything the Witcher 2 has and then some. Deeper stealth gameplay, more magic, more crashing, more alchemy, it isn't linear and there is more to do.

Again, keep on digging. Skyrim is a pale imitation of a Western RPG. Its got less features when compared to Morrowind and Oblivion.
Avatar image for Rocker6
#146 Posted by Rocker6 (13358 posts) -

It has everything the Witcher 2 has and then some. Deeper stealth gameplay, more magic, more crashing, more alchemy, it isn't linear and there is more to do.Miketheman83

Well, can't argue with this one, it crashes, and crashes a lot... it's a Bethesda game after all...

Also, the magic system is a joke, it's unbalanced, it's shallow, and it just plain sucks. After you hit Lvl.30, the spells stop scalling, they don't become any stronger, which is a huge issue. While I do like Skyrim, it's a heavily flawed game, some elements are simply a broken mess that can't be even fixed with mods...

And is there a single person in existance that uses the alchemy in Skyrim?

Leveling up your alchemy skill must be the dullest and most useless things you can do in life...

Avatar image for Rocker6
#148 Posted by Rocker6 (13358 posts) -

[QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

I don't need the evidence. You do, as you made the initial claim. Are we debating with a child here? This is a False Burden of Proof.

You realize that The Old Republic was speculated at having one of the largest budgets, if not the largest budget, in history, right? Link. That's a budget of $200 million.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, meaning it's the results are what counts, and the results undermine your entire point, as just shown. Good God, this is hilarious :lol:

MrYaotubo

Lol that game was made over ten years ago bro and it has the star wars name attached to it :lol:

Over 10 years ago? It´s a 2011 game,my god now this really is bottom of the barrel stuff,it went from sad to pathetic. :lol:

Yeah, even reading through his posts feels a bit... wrong! :|

Just... sad...

Avatar image for Miketheman83
#149 Posted by Miketheman83 (3156 posts) -

[QUOTE="Miketheman83"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

I don't need the evidence. You do, as you made the initial claim. Are we debating with a child here? This is a False Burden of Proof.

You realize that The Old Republic was speculated at having one of the largest budgets, if not the largest budget, in history, right? Link. That's a budget of $200 million.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, meaning it's the results are what counts, and the results undermine your entire point, as just shown. Good God, this is hilarious :lol:

lundy86_4

Lol that game was made over ten years ago bro and it has the star wars name attached to it :lol:

The Old Republic released in 2011. The brand is irrelevant. Electronic Arts pumped a ridiculous amount of money into the development of the game.

You're proving your idiocy when you gloss over massive portions of the post. Given up using a false burden of proof?

Provide your evidence.

You're asking for proof for something that cannot be proven, but it could also not be any more obvious. When is the last time you saw major advertisement for a PC game other than WoW? The games sell for cheaper than console games, they do not make as much money as console games. What makes you think they are going to spend more money to make less money than console games. Wake up youre a fanboy.
Avatar image for 15strong
#150 Posted by 15strong (2806 posts) -

So not confirmed? ok.