Are there even true PC games being made anymore?

[])rStrangelove]

Originally Posted by WhiteLightning

yes, but the trees were most noticable. i love the trees in testdrive unlimited 1 aswell

Didnt notice them, too fast lol

[WhiteLightning]

Originally Posted by ])rStrangelove

Didnt notice them, too fast lol

i crash allot

[Corrupt^]

Originally Posted by eclap

You never said we were talking purely pc. And you only linked to stats from one day. Also, peak numbers don't necessarily mean the game is being played more.

Those numbers are quite consistent throughout the week with occasional dips or higher peaks on holidays or what not.

[gamerk2]

Originally Posted by eclap

Not this again. Console games outsell pc games tenfold. And then some.

And yet, the console makers lose money by the Billions. Funny how that works out, isn't it?

[eclap]

Yeah, funny. Does any of this mean console gaming is struggling? No.

[Alexraptor]

Originally Posted by ])rStrangelove

Whole thread is pointless IMHO. Games should be played for fun, not for the GB amount of highres textures or whatever one defines as 'true pc game'.

I decide which game i like on a game per game basis and not which story the developer told the press ('we made this game with the current pc tech specs in mind and then ported it to consoles'). Its all propaganda anyway.

Aaaand another one who did not properly read the original post.

I will re-iterate, level design has suffered horribly because developers are focusing on giving console games awesome graphics, which means they need to skimp elsewhere because of the extremely limited memory of consoles.

In addition, game consoles are not capable of advanced physics simulation.
And this is a key area where I feel games are being held back... not enough true physics.
Lets face it, dynamic physics while cool can also be an essential gameplay aspect when implemented to be more than just pretty effects.
Physics can completely alter gameplay in a very dynamic and in some cases unpredictable way.

[Redemption80]

Zero proof of that though, the reality is that COD4 changed things not the hardware inside the consoles, as I said previously when it comes to physics and game size, it doesn't get much better.

Why can't consoles do physics, both have respectable enough CPU's compared to a low end PC.

[eclap]

to be fair, there's only a handful of games I'll be getting this year and they're all very much pc titles. for me personally, 2012 is the best year in ages.

Diablo 3
GW2
pCARS
rFactor 2
Assetto Corsa
GTR3

these 6 games will see me through 2012 easily. Starting with D3 in may, which I will play pretty solid until GW2 comes out, then I'll be all over that as well. throw in some rFactor2 between RPG sessions. then we get the other sims, to me, this is by far the best year for pc gaming in ages.

[])rStrangelove]

Originally Posted by eclap

to be fair, there's only a handful of games I'll be getting this year and they're all very much pc titles. for me personally, 2012 is the best year in ages.

Diablo 3
GW2
pCARS
rFactor 2
Assetto Corsa
GTR3

these 6 games will see me through 2012 easily. Starting with D3 in may, which I will play pretty solid until GW2 comes out, then I'll be all over that as well. throw in some rFactor2 between RPG sessions. then we get the other sims, to me, this is by far the best year for pc gaming in ages.

Dont you dare missing out on AC3 mate, cmon!

[xg-ei8ht]

Not really into RPG's, haven't touched skyrim in ages. Although it's a decent game.

I do like racing games, both simish and arcade, so there's a few about, i would really love GRID2,lol. Enjoyed the first, was fun and hectic online.

Doom4 would be nice, i still enjoyed rage, and yes it was stunning in some places, awful in others, texture problems aside, wasn't a bad game. But story was meh and characters were bland.

I own the PS3, so i'll be playing the last of us, maybe uncharted 4, unless that's for ps4. God of war 4. They are impressive games imo, and have the graphics mostly to match.

atm on PC i'm playing.

Batman arkham city, assasins creed revelations, ridge racer unbounded.

Still have to play through crysis2 again(on pc for first time, other time was ps3, but same game, other then higher fps etc.


I'm not really into the modded scene, even though i like the look of some of them. only mod i played was for quake3 and bf2.

Graphics wise, BF3 still does it for me.

But there are many places where it could be much improved.

Sun is way to bright,lol. Yes i know it's the sun. But placement is bs.

Textures for the most part are excellent, just a few poor ones.

Needs bigger maps, and those tight ass maps look good as well.


As for COD.

60fps on consoles sells. Not sure how many games achieve this.

But 60fps, quick loading, many different modes people enjoy.


I'm more BF person.

[eclap]

Originally Posted by ])rStrangelove

Dont you dare missing out on AC3 mate, cmon!

Assassin's Creed 3? lol, Only ever played the first one, didn't like it. never touched the ones after that.

[TechnikL]

I feel your pain alexraptor,

I have often asked myself the same question after being disappointed by game after game that is consolized.

Some games I have thoroughly enjoyed recently though are,

BFBC2, BF3, Trine, Trine2, Witcher 2, Alan Wake, Skyrim, etc.

A new game coming soon that looks really good to me is Risen 2

[Alexraptor]

Originally Posted by Redemption80

Zero proof of that though, the reality is that COD4 changed things not the hardware inside the consoles, as I said previously when it comes to physics and game size, it doesn't get much better.

Why can't consoles do physics, both have respectable enough CPU's compared to a low end PC.

Are you serious?
Console games are improving in visual quality every year, and console specs remain the same.
Do you honestly believe that improvement comes without a cost?

Both the PS3 and XBOX 360 only have 512mb of memory TOTAL to work with.
Compare that to PC's that have had 2gb of system memory alone as a standard for nearly a decade, with most new systems having at least 4-6gb of memory.
And this is just the system memory, not even going to start talking about the VRAM.

[styka]

Originally Posted by Alexraptor

Are you serious?
Console games are improving in visual quality every year, and console specs remain the same.
Do you honestly believe that improvement comes without a cost?

Both the PS3 and XBOX 360 only have 512mb of memory TOTAL to work with.
Compare that to PC's that have had 2gb of system memory alone as a standard for nearly a decade, with most new systems having at least 4-6gb of memory.
And this is just the system memory, not even going to start talking about the VRAM.

optimizations is easier on the consoles. PC wasn't meant to be only for gaming.

[Raiga]

Originally Posted by styka

optimizations is easier on the consoles. PC wasn't meant to be only for gaming.

You are absolutely right.

PC is a jack of all trades machine; While Consoles, Music Players (MP3), Calculators, Phones etc aren't..they are just a derivative from the same computational platforms tailor made for specific applications.

So for running a similar game/application, the PC will have a bit more requirements.

If people have to fight mentioning that consoles have lower hardware and games run close to perfection..then you can also FIGHT that the latest iPod runs with 40 hours of audio playback just as a PC.

Side Note: Also people tend to forget that all games for all platforms are made on a PC*, so it basically runs on a PC on the developers machine when you are making up the game using a builder (game engine).

[Seref]

Video games are products made by an industry. That industry's job is to get its product to as large an audience as possible. PC gaming is not consumer-friendly. It's expensive, it requires at least rudimentary skills with hardware, and it's not typically done in a couch.

Consoles are cheap and easily mass produced. They require less technical knowledge to operate than a Macbook. They are easy to interface with, are social devices, and are touchstones of a modern living room. They run on standardized uniform hardware and developers don't need to worry about software incompatibilities or driver support.

Guess which one will get more developer attention?

[kanej2007]

Originally Posted by Seref

Video games are products made by an industry. That industry's job is to get its product to as large an audience as possible. PC gaming is not consumer-friendly. It's expensive, it requires at least rudimentary skills with hardware, and it's not typically done in a couch.

Consoles are cheap and easily mass produced. They require less technical knowledge to operate than a Macbook. They are easy to interface with, are social devices, and are touchstones of a modern living room. They run on standardized uniform hardware and developers don't need to worry about software incompatibilities or driver support.

Guess which one will get more developer attention?

This is true, unfortunately though...

Those days of true pc games such as C & C Red Alert/2, Duke Nukem, Doom, Quake series, Unreal Tournament, Half-Life, Hexen & Heretic are sadly over.......

[])rStrangelove]

Originally Posted by eclap

Assassin's Creed 3? lol, Only ever played the first one, didn't like it. never touched the ones after that.

Not suprised here, 1st one was boring as hell and it was only after i completed AC2 & Brotherhood that i actually went back and punished myself because of nostalgia.

Honestly, AC2 was the best title and is about 500% more fun and takes 5 times longer to play through. Combat is a bit easier, but the story features many different places and characters, really well done.

Brotherhood isnt bad either, but only takes place in Rome.

[Gromuhl'Djun]

Originally Posted by Redemption80

Why can't consoles do physics, both have respectable enough CPU's compared to a low end PC.

But consoles can calculate physics, but not PhysX.

[WhiteLightning]

i thought the consoles have got physx ? http://developer.nvidia.com/physx-games

even the wii is listed.

[Gromuhl'Djun]

Originally Posted by WhiteLightning

i thought the consoles have got physx ? http://developer.nvidia.com/physx-games

even the wii is listed.

Hm, seems like it. Probably uses the software part, but not the hardware accelerated part. But I stand corrected.

[Redemption80]

Originally Posted by Alexraptor

Are you serious?
Console games are improving in visual quality every year, and console specs remain the same.
Do you honestly believe that improvement comes without a cost?

Both the PS3 and XBOX 360 only have 512mb of memory TOTAL to work with.
Compare that to PC's that have had 2gb of system memory alone as a standard for nearly a decade, with most new systems having at least 4-6gb of memory.
And this is just the system memory, not even going to start talking about the VRAM.

Only the exclusives are improving, and even then there hasn’t been a huge jump for several years, there are only so many tricks and optimisations you can do.

Compromises are being made to resolution as more and more games are going under 720p, framerates are becoming more unstable and post processing AA is getting used nearly all the time.

FPS’s have turned into mostly linear corridor shooters as more and more people prefer linear/cinematic corridor shooters as something to compliment the MP part of the game.
I enjoyed COD4, but after that I started to really hate them as they are poor value for SP only gamers like me.

[Alexraptor]

PhysX is also a physics engine, like Havok.
That said, CPU's don't even have a fraction of the physics processing capability of GPU's.

[honkeykrakker]

Originally Posted by Alexraptor

Snip

90% of the new games feels like they are all console ports or are multi-platform and have gameplay and level design dumbed down for the benefit of consoles.

Snip

If you played Consoles growing up you would know that games are not being "dumbed down for the benefit of Consoles". Games are being dumbed down for the benefit of this new generation. There were no onscreen pop-ups on Atari, Sega, or Nintendo to press whatever button to whatever action. In the 70's and 80's and even early 90's kids knew how to read, and they read the books that came with games or they mashed the buttons until they figured it out and LEARNED how to do it.

TLDR; Games are not bad because of Consoles. Games are bad because of stupid and/or lazy people.

[gamerk2]

Originally Posted by Alexraptor

In addition, game consoles are not capable of advanced physics simulation.
And this is a key area where I feel games are being held back... not enough true physics.
Lets face it, dynamic physics while cool can also be an essential gameplay aspect when implemented to be more than just pretty effects.
Physics can completely alter gameplay in a very dynamic and in some cases unpredictable way.

The problem with dynamic physics is one of scale: Multiple-object interactions are VERY hard to compute. In addition, very simplistic physics models are used to simplify the equation [hence why you can't typically shoot a bullet through the space between a cup and its handle, as internally the object is totally solid]. Lack of a really good physics API is another problem. [Havok is little more then a really good physics scripting engine. Its one reason why progress in this area has totally stalled].

PhysX was the one API that was built with that type of scale in mind, and Ageia had the right idea of using a separate co-processor, but since NVIDIA took it over, support for the advanced features of the API is non-existent.