I got into CS:S in 2004 and have played on and off since then. It is definitely my Go To shooter. I was involved with the Beta in CS:GO and it needed a lot of work even after it's release. I didn't get into the game at all. However I recently went back to CS:GO a few weeks ago and was very impressed with the new gun models and overall changes they made in the game. I do believe CS 1.6 CS:S and CS:GO to be the most competitive online shooters. It's the perfect balance of teamwork, twitch shooting and skill (map knowledge, gun knowledge, spray patterns etc).

The only knock I have on CS:GO is that CS and CS:S really were amazing graphically when they released because they were based on the engines running Half Life and Half Life 2. CS:GO is more of an evolution of CS and I wish they really put out a new Counter Strike on a strong engine. However CS:GO was not intended to be the next true successor to CS:S. I actually think the developers Hidden Path are surprised at how well the game has grown in popularity. I also am glad they are constantly updating the game.

Again, it's really the best online shooter but I don't spend anywhere near the time playing that then I did with CS:S. CS 1.6 and CS:S for most people I imagine will be the online shooter that they remember the most and have the most online memories of spending hours upon hours playing. To me, CS on the PC is kinda like the Halo franchise for Xbox in that many people played that game more than any other game in their library.

I caved and got a PS4 and for the record will enjoy the system for it's fighting games and some exclusives. This is the first generation where I intend only to have one console outside of the PC whereas I usually have all offerings.

I knew the technology in the PS4 was pretty midrange but with many PC gamers stating Killzone was a good representation of the power of the system, I decided to buy that as my launch game. It's actually a decent game and I find it to be rated low.

With that being said, the graphics are pretty terrible. Sure this is only the first generation of games but outside of the lighting, the textures are horrid. In no way does this game even approach the level of detail that PC games get. I'm surprised PC gamers really found this game to be visually impressive. The textures are flat, the character models are bland and I don't see much implementation of DX11.

Crysis 3 on max settings absolutely blows this game out of the water. I will even say 2007 Crysis with the Blackfire 1.3 mod puts this game to shame. BF4 is also leagues above Killzone visually (I only have the PC version to reference to).

I just really hope they get some good fighting games soon, and get the cloud service ready so I can play VF5:Final Showdown. So far, I am just playing through Killzone and watching my blu-rays. It amazes me how well this system is selling given how underwhelming it appears. It has a very weak launch library and I honestly think the graphics of the ps3/360 are very similar to what I am playing now. I guess I was spoiled by the PC. Good thing I have both.

I have a lot of memorable games throughout the generations. I don't go by a "score" but by how the game made me feel and or how much I played it.  Here are some of my best games and memories:

1. Super Mario Brothers-NES

2. Legend of Zelda- NES

3. Street Fighter 2-Arcade/SNES

4. Final Fight-Arcade/SNES

5. Mike Tysons Punchout-NES/Arcade

6. Super Mario 64- "Wow factor" for it's time

7. Legend of Zelda OoT- "Wow factor"

8. Halo Combat Evolved-Xbox

9. Soul Calibur-DC version. Unbelievable for it's time grahpically, gameplay..perfect.

10. Far Cry (PC) A true "Next Gen" experience in 2004

11. HL2 (PC Another "Wow factor" next gen experience in 2004 that STILL looks great today. (Played Loast Coast for fun last night and it's still beautiful)

12. Counter-Strike Source: Played this game more than probably any game I have ever had

13. FEAR PC 2005: Amazing engine and graphics for it's time and a scary game with perfect atmosphere.

14. Crysis 2007: Still a beautiful game and engine that really wasn't fully realized until years later when PCs could really play the game.  The world is so open and the environment was so destructible and could impact the way you attacked or approached a situation.  I recently downloaded and installed the 2013 release of BlackFire Mod and it only manipulates the lighting and let's you change the look on the fly with the press of a key.  It really brings out the brilliance of Crysis and makes it look damn near as good as Crysis 3 (PC version).

15. Fight Night Round 3: Sure not a great game score wise but a real showcase of  the PS3/360 when it came out with good online competition. 

16. Uncharted 2 (such an immersive game. Uncharted just was a bit boring and I wasn't wowed by the graphics as PC games were way ahead at that point.

17. Halo 3

18. L4D 1&2 (PC versions) for it's ridiculously addictive co-op and online multiplayer (survival)

19. Batman AA (PC)

20. Portal 2

21. Crysis 3- Mainly for the graphics. Just "wow." Almost didn't include this game.

22. Virtua Fighter 5: Final Showdown.  To me this is the perfect fighting game

23. Mortal Kombat 9 (PS3)

24. Killer Instinct (Arcade)

25. Killer Instinct Gold (N64)

26. Sonic the Hedgehog

27. Fight Night Champion (360 Version)

28. Elevator Action (NES) Such a great simple game for it's time

29. TMNT-SNES

30. Streets of Rage (Genesis)

31. Mortal Kombat 2 (Arcade and SNES)

32. Deus Ex: HR

I'm sure there are many more and these are in no particular order.  Just games that are memorable and or current with me that I play.  I am not big on "scores" as even if a game has many imperfections I might still be super fond of it for personal reasons.

[QUOTE="Lumpy311"]

[QUOTE="MoneySha"]

 

Lmao... Here you go again!:roll:

 

If Valve only released HL3 on Steam, they'd be assuring finacial failure... Just like they did with the first HL, HL2, The Orange Box, Left 4 Dead, and Portal 2, they'd have to release it for console, PERIOD!!! Steam is NO where near as profitable as the console and mobile market...  PC gaming is not as a profitable market as consoles, which is why damn-near ALL PC developers (including Valve) have moved to the console market to earn better profit... Developers won't make anything back only selling to "beggars" (hermits).

MoneySha

I love all your proof to back up those stupid statements.

What "proof"??? Are you stupid??? So you're telling me, Valve did not port the first Half-life to PS2; they did not port Half-Life 2 to the original Xbox; they did not release Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 for Xbox 360; they did not put out the Orange Box on both consoles; they did not make both console versions of Portal 2 along side PC version, with the PS3 version being the definitive version out of all three? Are you really this blind??? Or are you just pretending to be... 

Left 4 Dead 3 is coming and that's going to be on (the more profitable) consoles as well as Steam; And when (if ever) Half-Life 3 is made and ready for release, there will be console versions of that game as well... You know why, because PC gaming is a minority. 

Maybe it's YOU who just doesn't get it.  Steam is a huge success and so is Valve.  They are releasing PC made games to consoles (ports).  So YOU are getting the ports and it has NO impact on the PC side except it gives Valve more money to make QUALITY PC games that will also go to console. Anyone knows the PC version is supremely better of all those games you listed.  L4D sucks on consoles and a big reason is that it is made with the PC in mind; including the UI.  So they just port over the best they can to make more money to make PC games. It's not that they are abandoning PC by going to the consoles..it is actually the opposite.  And if you had a PC and actually used Steam and saw the user statistics you would not be speaking this ignorantly. 

All this talk an PR statements lately are really turning me off the xone now. 

in the last month we've been bombarded with reasons to buy the xbox one over the ps4 and is coming off as desperate at times, ie. trying to justify the additional 100 dollar price tag, stating their developers are better, the last minute overclocking.

It just seems like they are doing anything now to scrape back the numbers after seeing the preoders. Making way too many promises and rushing the console. Something just stinks a little bit here.

dvalo9

I agree with you TC.  It reminds me of Sony last generation as MS was doing better and put better gaming components in the system.  Your cited reasons are good ones as well.  The OC they did is just marketing that will have ZERO impact on gaming since it's from the CPU side of things which is already slow and not very important for the graphics.  The developer comments were lame too.  I agree MS is a software company but there is no "magic" they are going to produce to overcome the huge deficit in performance.  I'd say the multiplats will look similar but will favor Sony this go around.  I'd venture to say the performance gap between the ps4 vs xb1 is a bit bigger than the 360 vs ps3. 

[QUOTE="Jakandsigz"][QUOTE="Desmonic"]

I like how TC left this out from the article :

[quote="Polygon"] Sony is expected to unveil another new virtual reality headset to compliment the PlayStation 4 at the Tokyo Game Show later this month. According to reports, Sony had initially planned to reveal the headset at Gamescom last month, but pulled the announcement at the last minute. Desmonic

Selective reading much, TC?

While I agree with you on what you wrote, I disagree about "company wars."  People argue all the time about peripherals for each system (Kinect, Move, controllers, etc).

me too.

i always buy at launch but i'm sick of early adopting.

it's for suckers.

of course that is just the plan i fully expect to break down and buy them both at launch as an impulse buy.

:P

Riverwolf007

LOL.  Honestly, even as I typed my TLDR blog, I had the same thoughts.  I am known for impulse buys and I won't rule it out.  However I just don't see anything compelling right now.  I guess I always HOPE for the day like 9/9/99...when I got the Dreamcast and 6 games....went back to my dorm (yup I'm old) and played Soul Calibur for my first semester all day and night with my roommate as we were just in AWE of the graphics, gameplay and...well everything.  Same goes for N64 when I just loaded Mario64 and ran around the castle for hours without even doing a mission.  The only other time my jaw has hit the floor was when I bought my first gaming rig in 2004 and loaded up Far Cry at my business I owned at the time.  But now that I know much more about technology and whatnot.....it just isn't there....

While I am more of a PC gamer, I started on consoles and have ALWAYS purchased systems at their launch date; even camping out.  When the 360 was announced and I was reading about the hardware and how cool it was to see a 48 ALU pipeline GPU with embedded memory to further help AA I couldn't help but be excited.  Sure, the PC had hardware comparable, but I knew that the system was going to have exclusives I like, some genres I just plain prefer to use a controller and watch on a big screen and it was just plain.....exciting. 

For the first time, I can honestly say, I am not excited about either system.  It's not just hardware based, but it's the complete damage control MS and Sony are using for putting very meager hardware into their systems and trying to sell the consumer on why it's "powerful."  Both camps took a big page out of Ninty's book with trying to sell a system and make money both on the front end (the system) and the back end (software and decreasing prices of the technology the longer the systems are out thus cheaper manufacturing).  It's smart, but it's so stupid to anyone with a brain that they are catering to a more casual market by using gimmicks to discuss the power of each system for the more 'hardcore' gamer. 

Honestly, technology is at a point where very high end specs don't produce THAT much of a greater image.  This will be even more difficult as graphics advance.  For example, I play Metro Last Light on max with physics and max tessellation and struggle with 30FPS at 1080p.  It looks fantastic and it takes a very powerful rig to do so because tessellation is a huge performance killer.  Now if I lower the tessellation, I play at 60FPS and have almost the exact same image quality (IQ).  The reality is that you don't need killer specs to produce "next gen" games that will look fantastic on EITHER XB1 or PS4.  You just have to be creative with the game settings/programing. Only in the next few years will there be GPUs and technology that really show a sizable image quality difference (who cares about Laura Crofts Tessellated hair).

To make consumers feel like they are getting something special, they add all these features (Kinect, motion sensors, etc) that really don't appeal to the gamers going for the best FPS for their fighting, shooting, racing or RPG experiences.  The hardcore gamers are a niche market (just like PC gamers) and both MS and Sony are trying to make money.  I get it. I would too. 

However now there is nothing compelling for me to buy either system on launch because it's actually kind of depressing thinking that they are putting in technology that not only is relatively dated, but will be extremely dated as both Nvidia and AMD are moving to smaller fabrication processes in the next year. 

Will I get the PS4 AND XB1? Probably.  I like both system's exclusives.  I love fighting games and the new Killer Instinct is a game I would definitely buy and I would therefore need the XB1. Same goes for Halo. I love Uncharted and God of War and will obviously need a PS4.

However the allure of a real "next gen" system by MY standards just isn't going to happen this go around.  These systems really are going to be putting out image quality comparable to what i have been playing for a few years already.  Again, I am not dogging the systems as I stated I will likely buy both.  However I am bummed that they are selling the casuals by touting the "all in one home entertainment" factor and then trying to discuss raw power for the hardcore gamers: "The ps4 delivers 1.86 Teraflops of performance and supports 4k resolution."  Gimme a break.  Most DX11 cards can support that resolution but it doesn't mean demanding games can even come close to running at 4K.  Heck, PC gamers will NOT be running 4K very commonly for a few more years. 

Finally and (in b4 TLDR shoulda blogged it), it's also ironic that this is the FIRST generation where articles are not being published about the "death of PC gaming."  Half of my posts have probably been defending that when new systems launch.  If anything, more people are getting into PC gaming and are getting excited about Maxwell and Volta GPUs that will both be out during the XB1 and PS4 lifecycle.  This also might be the first time since 2004 where PC games actually look MUCH better than anything on consoles.  Many PC gamers will remember how Far Cry, Doom 3, FEAR and HL2 looked compared to the Xbox and PS2.  The consoles were a "Far Cry" from graphics remotely close to those games.  I have a feeling in 2015 through the end of the new console's lifecycle there will be PC games that just blow away people's minds.  Even exclusives won't be looked at closely for slight difference; they will be blatently apparent. 

For those that read this thread, thanks.  Maybe an actual decent discussion can be had.  Happy Friday People. 

Microsoft Microsoft Director of Product Planning Albert Penello explained why there's no way the company is willing to give the competition a huge performance advantage. "Im not dismissing raw performance. Im stating as I have stated from the beginning that the performance delta between the two platforms is not as great as the raw numbers lead the average consumer to believe," "There are things about our system architecture not fully understood, and there are things about theirs as well, that bring the two systems into balance." "People DO understand that Microsoft has some of the smartest graphics programmers IN THE WORLD. We CREATED DirectX, the standard APIs that everyone programs against. So while people laude Sony for their [hardware] skills, do you really think we dont know how to build a system optimized for maximizing graphics for programmers? Seriously? There is no way were giving up a 30%+ advantage to Sony. And ANYONE who has seen both systems running could say there are great looking games on both systems. If there was really huge performance difference it would be obvious." Penello then brought up similar instances where Sony and fans of the Playstation proclaimed superior performance with the PS2 and PS3 before concluding that, "in the end, games on our system looked the same or better."Jakandsigz

Microsoft is getting a bit sassy all of a sudden, and they usually don't say much to anyone. i find it funny now they are going up on people faces now all of a sudden. But anyway, interesting stealth stab at the PS2 and PS3. Also, they basically said that the PS2 and PS3 proved they are a fluke (in his eyes) and that Sony is mostly only good at physical hardware but not software output optimization because of much better programmers.

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?  When the 360 launched (much earlier), it really came with a better and MOST crucial component; the 48 ALU pipeline GPU.  Sony started to talk about the "unseen" power of "The Cell."  This just sounds like MS damage control.  While MS is definitely a software company, you can't just magically make games better looking as as whole.  The power difference is bigger than the 360 and PS3 this time around AND both systems are more easily programmable.  Sony has the edge and there is no "magic power" that makes it a better system.  MS may be able to make some graphically superior exclusives depending on how much money they put into them; much like how Sony did with some of their IP exclusives. 

I thought this was a troll thread.  It's sadly not.  I'd say that would surprise me but this is SW. Hey OP, enjoy bragging about those "specs" in 5 years when that midrange GPU from 2012 is outclassed by a factor of 10.  Oh yeah..then you will just say "how much value those specs have"..How tricky and unique.