@seanmcloughlin said:
@Kinthalis said:
@seanmcloughlin said:
Hardware wise? Yep
Games wise? Nope.
You don't think Crysis 3 on PC was a "next gen" title when it came out? BF3? Those were absolutley different from their console coutnerparts in terms of technical merits, and in the case of BF3, in many other ways as well.
Do you think a game liek Rome II, with 10,000 troops on the screen at the same time runnign AI and pathfinding is somehting even an Xbone could do?
No Crysis 3 wasn't. Look at how restrictive it all is, sure it looks good but the gameplay is aimed towards a console and a controller. Compare it to Crysis 1
Rome and Star Citizen are a few exceptions but by and large consoles are where devs go to with their games first because of the money there and PC gets a lot of ports
I'm not arguing that Crysis 3 was a step forward is game design. It clealry wasn't, almost certainly BECAUSE it was a console game.
But Crysis 3 on PC when, it came out, looked better than 99.9999% of available and upcoming "next gen" console games. Killzone is the only game that comes close in general right now.
Also, I'm not sure that what you last said is always the case, in fact EA has said that PC and PS4 are their lead development platforms for the foreseeable future. Ubisoft said the PC will be as well... but, Ubi tends to lie a lot. Regardless, PC is goign to be lead dev platform for a number of games in the future.
Not that that's what we are discussing here. The original question was: is the PC a "next gen platform".
I think it's clear it has been exactly that for many years now. My evidence is the fact that "next gen" consoles are touting "features" that are simply copy and paste from the PC ecosystem. And the fact tha tI can run "next gen" games at 1440p 60 FPS with better graphics thana PS4, which struggles at 1080p.
Log in to comment