Crytek's hotly anticipated tech-heavy shooter, Crysis 2, has been confirmed for release on PlayStation 3, via the latest cover of the US Official PlayStation Magazine.
The magazine's editor excitingly Tweeted, "World Exclusive: Crysis 2 set in NYC!!" No further details were released other than word that the sequel will be set in New York City and there'll be a Nanosuit 2.0.
Last week EA boss John Riccitiello (sort-of) narrowed down a Crysis 2 release date for the title, saying that the firm's next financial year will see "a great new version of Medal of Honor, a revitalized Need for Speed, Sims on console, FIFA in a World Cup year, an innovative and new take on Madden, Dead Space 2, Crysis... an MMA game, and many others."
With the game now confirmed for PS3 (and obviousloy PC), chances are that word of an Xbox 360 version can only be days behind. Last summer EA landed a deal with Crytek to publish Crysis 2, which revealed that Crytek was building Crysis 2 on the dev's multiplatform CryEngine 3.
Are you excited that you'll have a machine capable of running a Crysis game at last?
Are you excited that you'll have a machine capable of running a Crysis game at last?
Well yes, yet then again my current PC - now a year and a half old - ran the first "Crysis" at high to very high settings without problems. If "Crysis 2" will be better optimised I shan't complain however.
Can we stop with these ridiculous "I can't run Crysis on my PC?" posts? I have an old Athlon X2 4000+ with a Geforce 9800 gt and I run it at 1680x1050 with everything (except shadows and textures) on Very High/Enthusiast and I get 30 fps most of the time. And it's the best looking game yet.
Hopefully it will be better than the original.
I'm on my 15th playthrough haha, and I still discover new things every time I play. Don't see what you didn't like in the original.
Can we stop with these ridiculous "I can't run Crysis on my PC?" posts? I have an old Athlon X2 4000+ with a Geforce 9800 gt and I run it at 1680x1050 with everything (except shadows and textures) on Very High/Enthusiast and I get 30 fps most of the time. And it's the best looking game yet.
Hopefully it will be better than the original.
I'm on my 15th playthrough haha, and I still discover new things every time I play. Don't see what you didn't like in the original.
ya but playing it at higher resolutions with everything on max in dx10 was a pain sometimes but any sort of AA totally killed the performance so I could never apply AA and I have a pretty sweet PC. If it's optimized then many more people will be able to play it at max which is always good. Personally though I dont care how demanding it is because by release I will have my new machine which will just smoke anything.
Can we stop with these ridiculous "I can't run Crysis on my PC?" posts? I have an old Athlon X2 4000+ with a Geforce 9800 gt and I run it at 1680x1050 with everything (except shadows and textures) on Very High/Enthusiast and I get 30 fps most of the time. And it's the best looking game yet.
Hopefully it will be better than the original.
I'm on my 15th playthrough haha, and I still discover new things every time I play. Don't see what you didn't like in the original.
well then you cant run it if you cant run the shadows and textures on high!
You guys have highlighted the reason why I don't game on a PC any more. I hated having to scale back the visuals to try and find a happy medium. I spent more time twiddling with the options, than playing the games themselves.
At least with Crysis 2 now being released on the PS3 and 360, I don't have to worry about optimising the visuals myself.
You guys have highlighted the reason why I don't game on a PC any more. I hated having to scale back the visuals to try and find a happy medium. I spent more time twiddling with the options, than playing the games themselves.
At least with Crysis 2 now being released on the PS3 and 360, I don't have to worry about optimising the visuals myself.
No, I can actually just enjoy the game.
If it's good that is...
Quite!
It'll face pretty stiff competition on the PS3 though against games like the glorious Killzone 2 and the upcoming MAG - surprisingly, even some pc gamers seem to be geting excited about this!
Is is being released on 360 too or would that be too likely to initiate a crysis in the heatsink...
PC games use a lot more space because they put stuff like textures on the hard drive to speed up load times. Consoles simply read it off the disc instead.
I'm interested in the NYC angle though. And how much destructibility are we talking about? Could you totally level the city or will you be limited to the odd section of wall and a few set pieces? I liked carving through big chunks of forest in the original.
True. Is it really worth it to keep expensive rig these days if you want to play games only?
In my opinion, most definitely. For various genres (ex. FPS, RTS, RPG etc.) you get an almost infinitely superior accuracy and control system in the form of a keyboard and mouse. Furthermore, the visual quality you can get with just a medium GPU on today's market puts the GPUs in the consoles to shame, especially in terms of AA and shadow details. The same goes for types of memory and their size, as well as CPUs.
Just as some games seem to play better on a console (I haven't tried "Batman: Arkham Asylum" on the PC but I quite like the controls for it on the Xbox 360 and suspect it plays better on the console), so too do some games play better on the PC (ex. all FPS games by default due to the turning rates of the Titanic on a gamepad controller). Also, loading times, HUD and UI are often greatly improved in a properly ported PC version or if the game in question started out on the PC.
Also, PC games are usually at least 10 quid cheaper than their console counter-parts - sometimes more. That means that over a realistic 5 year lifespan of a good gaming PC (i.e. you don't actually have to update the hardware to be able to play new games although you do steadily notice a decrease in which settings will run on that PC), presuming you buy more than one or two games a year, the costs for a high-end PC setup at the onset of those 5 years vs. buying a console, controllers, a TV, other paraphernalia, etc. may quite well even out or even favour the PC. You certainly get more bang-for-buck with a PC with the added benefit that it can be used for so many other tasks than just gaming or as a multi-media center.
Still, a functioning console does have the advantage of ease of use for those whom aren't interested, or perhaps are intimidated, by the thought of delving into the world of PC hardware. To recap the answer to your question: Yes, there are sound reasons to keep a PC system though this does depend on your day-to-day habits, needs and requirements as is the case with so many other mass produced items that one can purchase.
Regardless of which platform is better i think we should all be concerned that the best bits of the original were fighting in the jungle and not fighting aliens in said jungle, now we appear to be fighting aliens in new york....
Agreed, although you can get a half-decent Core Duo laptop pretty cheap nowdays...
The fall of the pc in gaming terms does have it's good points for me if I'm honest.
For instance, I've already half-succeeded in my personal justification to buy another beasting powermac...
Care to provide sources that empirically prove "the fall of PC gaming"? There is nothing any of the consoles can do that an adequate PC setup can't do, and it will likely do it better.
The PC platform still has the largest gaming library around by miles. New games are released almost daily (although the quality and appeal of some of them are suspect in view of my personal tastes at any rate - then again the same goes for consoles). Ultimately, if you genuinely care about your console gaming habit and what the future will bring, you would be foolish to wish for the demise of PC gaming. All console games are developed on PCs. PCs drive new tech advancements of which some eventually filter down to the consoles. Remove that and there's a good chance that development costs for consoles will sky rocket even further as they will then have to develop everything themselves from scratch as opposed to borrowing existing architecture and hardware components.
Damm, what a huge dissapointment. I was looking forward to more lush Jungles where I can use my stealth tactics to hide in the undergrowth and pick off unsuspecting guards one by one(especially as I will be able to play it properly this time on my 360 instead of my ageing old P4 rig!). Nyc has been done a dosen times before. Damm, damm.
Agreed, although you can get a half-decent Core Duo laptop pretty cheap nowdays...
The fall of the pc in gaming terms does have it's good points for me if I'm honest.
For instance, I've already half-succeeded in my personal justification to buy another beasting powermac...
Care to provide sources that empirically prove "the fall of PC gaming"? There is nothing any of the consoles can do that an adequate PC setup can't do, and it will likely do it better.
The PC platform still has the largest gaming library around by miles. New games are released almost daily (although the quality and appeal of some of them are suspect in view of my personal tastes at any rate - then again the same goes for consoles). Ultimately, if you genuinely care about your console gaming habit and what the future will bring, you would be foolish to wish for the demise of PC gaming. All console games are developed on PCs. PCs drive new tech advancements of which some eventually filter down to the consoles. Remove that and there's a good chance that development costs for consoles will sky rocket even further as they will then have to develop everything themselves from scratch as opposed to borrowing existing architecture and hardware components.
Of course I’m not wishing for the demise of pc gaming – well maybe just a tiny bit!
I was just saying that I now have more justification to buy a mac. The last one I bought was for music production but every time I sat down with my console I had this niggling thought of “you could’ve spent that £3000 on a badass gaming pc!”
Now I can buy myself another lurverly mac and still feel assured that the PS3 is the best overall option for gaming – for me, that is!
As regards “the demise of pc gaming!” I’m just commenting on how devs are increasingly focusing their efforts on the console market and showing scant regard for the wishes of pc gamers – MW2 being the perfect example.
OK, so perhaps I over-exaggerate but I’m not the only one who has noticed this. I personally think it is due to the general move of gaming into the mainstream with things like the wii – I think even the 360/PS3 suffer a little from this as they now seem to be trying to pioneer all this rubbish family-orientated motion-control stuff...
True. Is it really worth it to keep expensive rig these days if you want to play games only?
In my opinion yes. KFD pretty much covered it all but I will add that it is very unlikely that a built PC will be used just for games. I do quite a bit of video encoding and a good PC really eats through stuff like this but everything from browsing to watching vids and listening to music is enhanced greatly and you just forget about the price tag.
I am definitely in the minority here but I love tinkering with my system and spend at least a grand each year upgrading coz I'm a hardware whore. Now if you want to play at console quality gfx and sound throughout the consoles life cycle then you can get a sweet system for about 600, spend a bit more and you can get a beast that eats babies for breakfast. I understand if people dont believe in buying a GPU that cost more than either console but the reality is you never really have to.
i got a new pc for £500 odd quid. fairly high spec.
but it wasnt worth it for games. so i cant see how ridiculous amounts like £2000 would be worth it. after a while i just bought a new ps3 instead and gaming became enjoyable again.
few pc games will take advantage of really high end spec these days. often it will just add a little extra polish.
i even prefer the extra challenge of FPS's via a joypad nowadays. KB/M is a little too easy.
this myth of spendin loadsa money every year on a PC is rubbish..
I brough a fairly average spec pc (coming back to it after a lengthly spell out)
I've spent 90 quid on a nvidia 9800 GT and can run any game beautifully, i dont HAVE to spend loads every year i may do now as i love tinkering with my machine, besides my pc will have a longer shelf life then a console.
Cant agree more with KFD and lot of consoles owe the pc as he rightly said. As for MW2 so what they didnt listen but nearly everyone i now who has a PC are going to buy BC2 as it supports dedi servers and will not be a buggy piece of sh*t like COD, hopefully IW will see how well BC2 will sell and man up to the PC
Agreed, although you can get a half-decent Core Duo laptop pretty cheap nowdays...
The fall of the pc in gaming terms does have it's good points for me if I'm honest.
For instance, I've already half-succeeded in my personal justification to buy another beasting powermac...
Care to provide sources that empirically prove "the fall of PC gaming"? There is nothing any of the consoles can do that an adequate PC setup can't do, and it will likely do it better.
The PC platform still has the largest gaming library around by miles. New games are released almost daily (although the quality and appeal of some of them are suspect in view of my personal tastes at any rate - then again the same goes for consoles). Ultimately, if you genuinely care about your console gaming habit and what the future will bring, you would be foolish to wish for the demise of PC gaming. All console games are developed on PCs. PCs drive new tech advancements of which some eventually filter down to the consoles. Remove that and there's a good chance that development costs for consoles will sky rocket even further as they will then have to develop everything themselves from scratch as opposed to borrowing existing architecture and hardware components.
Of course I’m not wishing for the demise of pc gaming – well maybe just a tiny bit!
I was just saying that I now have more justification to buy a mac. The last one I bought was for music production but every time I sat down with my console I had this niggling thought of “you could’ve spent that £3000 on a badass gaming pc!”
Now I can buy myself another lurverly mac and still feel assured that the PS3 is the best overall option for gaming – for me, that is!
As regards “the demise of pc gaming!” I’m just commenting on how devs are increasingly focusing their efforts on the console market and showing scant regard for the wishes of pc gamers – MW2 being the perfect example.
OK, so perhaps I over-exaggerate but I’m not the only one who has noticed this. I personally think it is due to the general move of gaming into the mainstream with things like the wii – I think even the 360/PS3 suffer a little from this as they now seem to be trying to pioneer all this rubbish family-orientated motion-control stuff...
look at MW2, only about 5% of sales for it were on PC, yet 90%+ of pirated copies were PC? Publishers are pushing titles on console rather than PC, with PC only devs now putting most of their efforts into console releases.
As for the old "console games are made on PCs" excuse? There were computers long before there were PCs, and I'm sure Dev's aren't in the habit of programing on domestic PCs(they must be using some form of super-workstations).
PC gaming has stagnated for the past few years. Ever since Crysis Publishers have shied away from pushing the PC beyond it's limits. They've learned that there is no longer a large enough base of PC gamers willing to spend a fortune on having the latest and most powerful hardware to run such games to their full potential, and those that do seem to have no moral problem in pirating their games.
Give it a couple of years, and when Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft announce their next generation of consoles, with much higher spec hardware to boot, you may see publishers/developers reinvesting time and money in pushing the PC forward again.
I've got three words for your claim that no one bothers to develop games with the PC foremost in mind. "Dragon Age: Origins". Do not make the mistake of thinking that because many of the games that you are personally interested in are frequently tailored to the consoles (and sometimes the PC separately), that there are no other worthy games being released for the PC and not all of them are "My Pony 2", etc. How to determine what's "worthy"? Why that comes down to personal taste in large part and the actual technical aspects of the game design as well.
No one has to buy a PC. No one has to love a PC. The same goes for the consoles. All four of the major platforms (PC, Wii, Xbox 360, PS3) are doing very well indeed. In fact, I'm willing to wager that PCs have easily outsold all of the current gen consoles combined on a global scale. How you go about defining "a gaming PC" is another matter entirely.
As for generating huge sums of money, please name me one title on any of the consoles that has a steady subscription of 11+ million users who paid for various installation packages and a monthly subscription on top to boot? Yes, I am indeed referring to "WoW" and although I personally steer well clear of it because I disapprove of subscription based games, there is little point in denying it's a massive financial success and serves to underscore the point that the PC platform is not a lost cause - not by a long shot. The PC gaming market is however perhaps a lot more picky because it is used to higher standards in terms of graphics, settings, multi-player, etc. and is accustomed to having much more personal freedom compared to the console gaming markets where the users essentially have to take whatever the companies deign to give them, or leave it.
This game needed to be exclusive to PLAYSTATION 3 so it could had been made better like all Sony exclusive. I can't wait to buy it for PS3 when it launches.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Elite-Team-PlayStation/259060802822?ref=mf Join this new Facebook PS3 group.
I've got three words for your claim that no one bothers to develop games with the PC foremost in mind. "Dragon Age: Origins". Do not make the mistake of thinking that because many of the games that you are personally interested in are frequently tailored to the consoles (and sometimes the PC separately), that there are no other worthy games being released for the PC and not all of them are "My Pony 2", etc. How to determine what's "worthy"? Why that comes down to personal taste in large part and the actual technical aspects of the game design as well.
No one has to buy a PC. No one has to love a PC. The same goes for the consoles. All four of the major platforms (PC, Wii, Xbox 360, PS3) are doing very well indeed. In fact, I'm willing to wager that PCs have easily outsold all of the current gen consoles combined on a global scale. How you go about defining "a gaming PC" is another matter entirely.
As for generating huge sums of money, please name me one title on any of the consoles that has a steady subscription of 11+ million users who paid for various installation packages and a monthly subscription on top to boot? Yes, I am indeed referring to "WoW" and although I personally steer well clear of it because I disapprove of subscription based games, there is little point in denying it's a massive financial success and serves to underscore the point that the PC platform is not a lost cause - not by a long shot. The PC gaming market is however perhaps a lot more picky because it is used to higher standards in terms of graphics, settings, multi-player, etc. and is accustomed to having much more personal freedom compared to the console gaming markets where the users essentially have to take whatever the companies deign to give them, or leave it.
Valve, Crytek and DICE are examples of dev's that used to work on PC only, but are having so much more success on consoles that it's just not worth their time to produce anything exclusively on PC these days, and in fact, if it wasn't for the console versions making so much money you wouldn't see anything from them on PC.
As for WoW, well that's great, for one company at least, but it's not doing the PC as a platform any favors by soaking up a huge amount of cash from gamers budgets. How many of those millions of WoW subscribers spend any time or money on other games?
I hope they use the Uncharted 2 engine to power its graphics (just a little poke at high powered PC owners lol)
I do think in all seriousness that the sequels release on consoles show how capable consoles are as gaming devices over PC's. Sure the original game ran lovely on a high end PC over a year ago but the current gen consoles havent been changed since their launch years ago and are going to be able to run the games sequel, probably something that PC's over a year ago couldnt do.
I still think Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 are the only games to hold a candle to the origianl Crysis in the graphics department but things should get really interesting when Killzone 3, Uncharted 3 and Crysis 2 are released (lets hope the gameplay keeps up).
I hope they use the Uncharted 2 engine to power its graphics (just a little poke at high powered PC owners lol)
I do think in all seriousness that the sequels release on consoles show how capable consoles are as gaming devices over PC's. Sure the original game ran lovely on a high end PC over a year ago but the current gen consoles havent been changed since their launch years ago and are going to be able to run the games sequel, probably something that PC's over a year ago couldnt do.
I still think Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 are the only games to hold a candle to the origianl Crysis in the graphics department but things should get really interesting when Killzone 3, Uncharted 3 and Crysis 2 are released (lets hope the gameplay keeps up).
That is all due to the game being programmed and optimized to run on the consoles hardware. There has to be some leeway with PC development due to the sheer amount of available hardware. uncharted 2 however pretty will always be running at lower resolutions, pretty much no AA or AF and most likely less detailed textures and shadows due to the weak GPU. Crysis is still the best looking game out there by a mile man.
I've got three words for your claim that no one bothers to develop games with the PC foremost in mind. "Dragon Age: Origins". Do not make the mistake of thinking that because many of the games that you are personally interested in are frequently tailored to the consoles (and sometimes the PC separately), that there are no other worthy games being released for the PC and not all of them are "My Pony 2", etc. How to determine what's "worthy"? Why that comes down to personal taste in large part and the actual technical aspects of the game design as well.
No one has to buy a PC. No one has to love a PC. The same goes for the consoles. All four of the major platforms (PC, Wii, Xbox 360, PS3) are doing very well indeed. In fact, I'm willing to wager that PCs have easily outsold all of the current gen consoles combined on a global scale. How you go about defining "a gaming PC" is another matter entirely.
As for generating huge sums of money, please name me one title on any of the consoles that has a steady subscription of 11+ million users who paid for various installation packages and a monthly subscription on top to boot? Yes, I am indeed referring to "WoW" and although I personally steer well clear of it because I disapprove of subscription based games, there is little point in denying it's a massive financial success and serves to underscore the point that the PC platform is not a lost cause - not by a long shot. The PC gaming market is however perhaps a lot more picky because it is used to higher standards in terms of graphics, settings, multi-player, etc. and is accustomed to having much more personal freedom compared to the console gaming markets where the users essentially have to take whatever the companies deign to give them, or leave it.
Valve, Crytek and DICE are examples of dev's that used to work on PC only, but are having so much more success on consoles that it's just not worth their time to produce anything exclusively on PC these days, and in fact, if it wasn't for the console versions making so much money you wouldn't see anything from them on PC.
As for WoW, well that's great, for one company at least, but it's not doing the PC as a platform any favors by soaking up a huge amount of cash from gamers budgets. How many of those millions of WoW subscribers spend any time or money on other games?
And those developers are still making games for the PC as well. Imagine that.
I'll take it from your response that you can't think of one gaming title on the consoles that has had the success of "WoW". Next.
Ask anyone who owns a gaming PC, 360, PS3 and Wii what their primary gaming system is.
Then ask them why.
End of argument.
dont have a wii but tht doesnt count I primarily game on my PC because its better. End of argument? It would be if more people gave PC gaming a chance.
I've got three words for your claim that no one bothers to develop games with the PC foremost in mind. "Dragon Age: Origins". Do not make the mistake of thinking that because many of the games that you are personally interested in are frequently tailored to the consoles (and sometimes the PC separately), that there are no other worthy games being released for the PC and not all of them are "My Pony 2", etc. How to determine what's "worthy"? Why that comes down to personal taste in large part and the actual technical aspects of the game design as well.
No one has to buy a PC. No one has to love a PC. The same goes for the consoles. All four of the major platforms (PC, Wii, Xbox 360, PS3) are doing very well indeed. In fact, I'm willing to wager that PCs have easily outsold all of the current gen consoles combined on a global scale. How you go about defining "a gaming PC" is another matter entirely.
As for generating huge sums of money, please name me one title on any of the consoles that has a steady subscription of 11+ million users who paid for various installation packages and a monthly subscription on top to boot? Yes, I am indeed referring to "WoW" and although I personally steer well clear of it because I disapprove of subscription based games, there is little point in denying it's a massive financial success and serves to underscore the point that the PC platform is not a lost cause - not by a long shot. The PC gaming market is however perhaps a lot more picky because it is used to higher standards in terms of graphics, settings, multi-player, etc. and is accustomed to having much more personal freedom compared to the console gaming markets where the users essentially have to take whatever the companies deign to give them, or leave it.
Valve, Crytek and DICE are examples of dev's that used to work on PC only, but are having so much more success on consoles that it's just not worth their time to produce anything exclusively on PC these days, and in fact, if it wasn't for the console versions making so much money you wouldn't see anything from them on PC.
As for WoW, well that's great, for one company at least, but it's not doing the PC as a platform any favors by soaking up a huge amount of cash from gamers budgets. How many of those millions of WoW subscribers spend any time or money on other games?
And those developers are still making games for the PC as well. Imagine that.
I'll take it from your response that you can't think of one gaming title on the consoles that has had the success of "WoW". Next.
Wii Play? Tetris? That's two, so technically your right.
WoW has been a great success for Blizzard, and there are plenty of other MMOs out there(mostly in Asian countries) that are making plenty of money for their makers, but their success doesn't mean anything to those companies I mentioned when they come to release their latest high profile triple A titles.
And while Crytek, Valve and Dice are still producing titles on PC(I never said they weren't), they're just not their priority any more.
Ask anyone who owns a gaming PC, 360, PS3 and Wii what their primary gaming system is.
Then ask them why.
End of argument.
While I don't own a Wii(anymore), I do own all the others, and my most used(for games) would have to be the Xbox 360.
Why?
Much easier to use, way more reliable(one RROD vs dozens of BSOD's+worse), games work first time(everytime) and if anything happens to it I can replace it completely for less than £200.
Every system has it's exclusives, so there is the requirement to own consoles, but there are more PC games to choose from, more genres and quite frankly a multiplat title is guaranteed to be better on PC for a myriad of reasons.
Resolution Graphics Horsepower giving the ability to add AA & AF Smoother gaming (frames per second) Control Modifications System Control - no limited gaming portals Flexibility 3rd party Apps for VoIP, matchmaking etc Audio Multiplayer Patching (done when the gamer wants not when Sony/M$ deem it necessary) Technology eg 3D and Headtrackers established long ago Digital Distribution Backwards compatibility Choice and quality of peripherals Clans and Team Control/communication
There's loads more, and these aren't opinions, it's fact. I'm sure console fans will argue about lying down on a settee and playing games but that's a moot point as it's easily done on a PC too.
Consoles have their place, but when you have a good spec gaming PC, it's only a little place.
In reply to Ted's reply above....here are my replies to those comments:
Much easier to use That depends how experienced you are
Way more reliable(one RROD vs dozens of BSOD's+worse) I've been lucky with my 360 but are you really trying to claim that a 360 is generally reliable? If you have Vista, Win7 or probably XP then it's unlikely you're getting many BSODS - and I can't remember a single problem in Windows 7 in over 18 months. The big difference is also that a RRoD is mostly fatal, a BSoD can be fixed in 5 minutes
Games work first time(everytime) and if anything happens to it I can replace it completely for less than £200. Games work first time every time on my gaming PC too, if a PC breaks down it's not like you need a full system replacement. I can guarantee that any single component other than the graphics card is a hell of a lot cheaper to replace than £200 too, plus I can get it delivered/replaced and working next day too.
Resolution (1920x1080, do you need higher?) Graphics (are they really that much better) Horsepower giving the ability to add AA & AF (?) Smoother gaming (frames per second) (now that's funny) Control (joypads are more comfortable) Modifications (?) System Control - no limited gaming portals (?) Flexibility ( ooo-er) 3rd party Apps for VoIP, matchmaking etc (?) Audio (how's that any better) Multiplayer (consoles do have that now ) Patching (done when the gamer wants not when Sony/M$ deem it necessary) (much faster and effortless on console) Technology eg 3D and Headtrackers established long ago (you have these yourself?) Digital Distribution (dito) Backwards compatibility (even vista?) Choice and quality of peripherals (there's even more dodgy stuff for PC out there) Clans and Team Control/communication (can do the same on console)
In reply to Ted's reply above....here are my replies to those comments:
Much easier to use That depends how experienced you are
Way more reliable(one RROD vs dozens of BSOD's+worse) I've been lucky with my 360 but are you really trying to claim that a 360 is generally reliable? If you have Vista, Win7 or probably XP then it's unlikely you're getting many BSODS - and I can't remember a single problem in Windows 7 in over 18 months. The big difference is also that a RRoD is mostly fatal, a BSoD can be fixed in 5 minutes
Games work first time(everytime) and if anything happens to it I can replace it completely for less than £200. Games work first time every time on my gaming PC too, if a PC breaks down it's not like you need a full system replacement. I can guarantee that any single component other than the graphics card is a hell of a lot cheaper to replace than £200 too, plus I can get it delivered/replaced and working next day too.
Good for you, you have more luck/experience/skill than 95% of computer owners, give yourself a pat on the back.
Resolution (1920x1080, do you need higher?) For starters, there are very few games on console that even support 1080 regardless of what your HD TV is capable of. At the end of the day, the higher the resolution, the better quality graphics you have. Would you rather have 720p or 1080p as a minimum? The bigger the better
Graphics (are they really that much better) Yes, see below.....even the best graphical games on PS3/360....namely GT5, KZ2, Uncharted, GoW2 etc suffer from horrific jaggies, blurring and especially the lack of anisotropic filtering causing flickering on distant diagonal lines. The difference is significant.
Horsepower giving the ability to add AA & AF (?) as above, the PC's CPU's combined with GPU's that multiple times more powerful than current consoles mean there is plenty of headroom to add AA and AF. For example, my MW2 is running 1080p at the hightest settings at well over 130fps, this means I can also force the drivers into 16 X AA and 32 x AF, not a single jaggie in sight, distant textures are still crisp and the action is always smooth....and all that only brings the average frame count down to 105-110 average.
Smoother gaming (frames per second) (now that's funny) Funny why? It obviously depends on your graphics card but like I mentioned earlier, there is plenty of headroom with gaming PC's. You might think it is 'normal' for a gamed displayed at 720p to be locked or struggle to hit 30fps....I'd be devastated, because as soon as the action increases, the frame-rate can only go down.
Control (joypads are more comfortable) For some games such as PES/FIFA, yes I agree, but that's exactly why I also have a 360 and PS3 controller connected to my PC too. For FPS games nothing comes close to the precision of keyboard/mouse and very few console games are supporting them.
Modifications (?) As you are probably aware, first and 3rd party modifications are in abundance in almost every PC game ever released. Great games such as BF2 have literally 100's of mods which can make subtle changes to the game or completely change it (a la Project Reality) and community mods in EECH for example meaning that longevity is increased and games are kept fresh.
System Control - no limited gaming portals (?) You are limited to what you can do, see, download on a console...with regards to gaming you are kept on a leash by whatever Sony/M$ wants you to have..not the case on PC. Dedicated servers, private hosting and LAN gaming on massive scales are readily available.
Flexibility ( ooo-er) Obvious
3rd party Apps for VoIP, matchmaking etc (?) Again, you are stuck with whatever the, console/gaming portal gives you, PC gamers have a choice of portal or can combine them and control the functionality....LIVE is great and p1sses all over PSN due to the whole package but it's still limited. For example, Teamspeak on PC can let you form Teams, command elements, who is muted etc outside of the game. Create a fireteam in Arma for example, make sure only the section commander can hear you and only the Platoon commander can hear the section commanders etc...just like in real-life....it's not just a gang-fvck of screaming yanks calling each other gayboys.
Audio (how's that any better) Again, PC gamers have control, with 2 clicks I can have 2.1, 5.1, 7.1 Headphone mode, Surround Headphone mode etc etc. What happens if you have a 5.1 surround sound setup but it doesn't have an optical connection....plug an amp in?
Multiplayer (consoles do have that now ) Yes it does, but not anywhere near the same scale. OK so MAG (which is a very poor game) has 256 players in little skirmishes everywhere and R2 has 60 players..what about the rest? It pales into comparison
Patching (done when the gamer wants not when Sony/M$ deem it necessary) (much faster and effortless on console) That's laughable, why is it then on the same connection, I can download a 200Mb file on PC in about 30 seconds, in about 34 minutes on PS3 and 15 minutes via LIVE. The PS3 insists I have to download a patch (or multiple patches) that I don't want just to play a single player game that worked fine yesterday!
Technology eg 3D and Headtrackers established long ago (you have these yourself?) I have a headtracker (TrackIR), haven't felt the need to go 3D yet although many games are supposed to very good.
Digital Distribution (dito) Again, you are limited by what Sony or M$ want you to see via your portal. I can download any game from the last 20 years on PC and I can pay by VISA, Switch, PayPal..it's my choice, I don't need to use points, or convert credits. You'll probably find a tenth of the 360/PS3 library available and games from other territories can be a hurdle to get hold of.
Backwards compatibility (even vista?) Choice and quality of peripherals (there's even more dodgy stuff for PC out there) Clans and Team Control/communication (can do the same on console) The PC has great compatibility modes, if they don't work natively, they'll be other options out there. As for clans and team control, the consoles pale into insignificance, it's really not worth wasting my time and effort in explaining if you can't see that.
So there you have it, I'm not slagging the consoles - I play them myself, and wouldn't be without them, but in 9/10 cases the PC is either better or does it better imo, and I think that the large majority of gamers that own all systems probably think in a very similar vein to me.
I want the best performance in games, and for me, the PC delivers that much better than any other system.
Resolution (1920x1080, do you need higher?) Graphics (are they really that much better) Horsepower giving the ability to add AA & AF (?) Smoother gaming (frames per second) (now that's funny) Control (joypads are more comfortable) Modifications (?) System Control - no limited gaming portals (?) Flexibility ( ooo-er) 3rd party Apps for VoIP, matchmaking etc (?) Audio (how's that any better) Multiplayer (consoles do have that now ) Patching (done when the gamer wants not when Sony/M$ deem it necessary) (much faster and effortless on console) Technology eg 3D and Headtrackers established long ago (you have these yourself?) Digital Distribution (dito) Backwards compatibility (even vista?) Choice and quality of peripherals (there's even more dodgy stuff for PC out there) Clans and Team Control/communication (can do the same on console)
most of these questions show you dont really know much abt PC gaming and you should probably give it a go. Console resolutions are painful and lack of AA and AF is arguably the biggest console letdown when it comes to visuals. paradaz pretty much said everything else but I really feel compelled to say that the sound can be vastly improved. Sure not everyone will want to buy a 150pound sound card but the improvements in videos, music as well as games is monumental.
I've got three words for your claim that no one bothers to develop games with the PC foremost in mind. "Dragon Age: Origins". Do not make the mistake of thinking that because many of the games that you are personally interested in are frequently tailored to the consoles (and sometimes the PC separately), that there are no other worthy games being released for the PC and not all of them are "My Pony 2", etc. How to determine what's "worthy"? Why that comes down to personal taste in large part and the actual technical aspects of the game design as well.
No one has to buy a PC. No one has to love a PC. The same goes for the consoles. All four of the major platforms (PC, Wii, Xbox 360, PS3) are doing very well indeed. In fact, I'm willing to wager that PCs have easily outsold all of the current gen consoles combined on a global scale. How you go about defining "a gaming PC" is another matter entirely.
As for generating huge sums of money, please name me one title on any of the consoles that has a steady subscription of 11+ million users who paid for various installation packages and a monthly subscription on top to boot? Yes, I am indeed referring to "WoW" and although I personally steer well clear of it because I disapprove of subscription based games, there is little point in denying it's a massive financial success and serves to underscore the point that the PC platform is not a lost cause - not by a long shot. The PC gaming market is however perhaps a lot more picky because it is used to higher standards in terms of graphics, settings, multi-player, etc. and is accustomed to having much more personal freedom compared to the console gaming markets where the users essentially have to take whatever the companies deign to give them, or leave it.
Valve, Crytek and DICE are examples of dev's that used to work on PC only, but are having so much more success on consoles that it's just not worth their time to produce anything exclusively on PC these days, and in fact, if it wasn't for the console versions making so much money you wouldn't see anything from them on PC.
As for WoW, well that's great, for one company at least, but it's not doing the PC as a platform any favors by soaking up a huge amount of cash from gamers budgets. How many of those millions of WoW subscribers spend any time or money on other games?
And those developers are still making games for the PC as well. Imagine that.
I'll take it from your response that you can't think of one gaming title on the consoles that has had the success of "WoW". Next.
Wii Play? Tetris? That's two, so technically your right.
WoW has been a great success for Blizzard, and there are plenty of other MMOs out there(mostly in Asian countries) that are making plenty of money for their makers, but their success doesn't mean anything to those companies I mentioned when they come to release their latest high profile triple A titles.
And while Crytek, Valve and Dice are still producing titles on PC(I never said they weren't), they're just not their priority any more.
Still grasping at straws, I see. Keep trying though, perhaps you will succeed where so many others have failed over the years in their attempts to prove that "the PC is dead". Good luck - you'll need it.
Ask anyone who owns a gaming PC, 360, PS3 and Wii what their primary gaming system is.
Then ask them why.
End of argument.
While I don't own a Wii(anymore), I do own all the others, and my most used(for games) would have to be the Xbox 360.
Why?
Much easier to use, way more reliable(one RROD vs dozens of BSOD's+worse), games work first time(everytime) and if anything happens to it I can replace it completely for less than £200.
1) Try Windows 7. It's probably the most stable OS I have used in recent memory. I'm loving the 64-bit version. No BSODs yet.
2) That you prefer your Xbox 360 is your business. However, short of some sort of spectacular system wide meltdown, or user created electric discharge, inside the PC odds are you won't need to replace all the hardware components. What that translates in to is that there are good odds it won't have to cost over 200 quid to repair or replace a part. Nice try at using scare tactics and white washing the whole affair though.
3) Games work every time the first time? So there is absolutely no way a shipped game could have a physical error in the disc? Does the dreaded RRoD not count? Yeah, that's what I thought. Next.
Resolution (1920x1080, do you need higher?) Graphics (are they really that much better) Horsepower giving the ability to add AA & AF (?) Smoother gaming (frames per second) (now that's funny) Control (joypads are more comfortable) Modifications (?) System Control - no limited gaming portals (?) Flexibility ( ooo-er) 3rd party Apps for VoIP, matchmaking etc (?) Audio (how's that any better) Multiplayer (consoles do have that now ) Patching (done when the gamer wants not when Sony/M$ deem it necessary) (much faster and effortless on console) Technology eg 3D and Headtrackers established long ago (you have these yourself?) Digital Distribution (dito) Backwards compatibility (even vista?) Choice and quality of peripherals (there's even more dodgy stuff for PC out there) Clans and Team Control/communication (can do the same on console)
Since Paradaz did a sterling job of comprehensively countering your retorts, I'll simply add that it seems you suffer either from a case of sour grapes or an inferiority complex regarding PC capabilities and power vs. consoles. Why the apparent hostility towards PC gaming? Do you feel snubbed by it or do you genuinely believe that the current consoles are actually better empirically speaking (as opposed to personal opinion)?
Thanks Daz(+KFD) for all the extra info, I guess I'm not as discerning as yourself when it comes to getting the most, technically, from my games. Still, I'm looking forward to getting BF:BC2 on PC in a couple of months(well you have to after playing BF2 for years).
PS, * note to self, "must stop shaking the nerd tree"
Thanks Daz(+KFD) for all the extra info, I guess I'm not as discerning as yourself when it comes to getting the most, technically, from my games. Still, I'm looking forward to getting BF:BC2 on PC in a couple of months(well you have to after playing BF2 for years).
You've just pretty much negated your own argument there.....you state that the majority of your gaming is done on 360, so when a multiplat game comes out you opt for the PC version?
I have to ask why?.....does your reason/reasons fall into one of the issues I've previously mentioned?
PS, * note to self, "must stop shaking the nerd tree"
Thanks Daz(+KFD) for all the extra info, I guess I'm not as discerning as yourself when it comes to getting the most, technically, from my games. Still, I'm looking forward to getting BF:BC2 on PC in a couple of months(well you have to after playing BF2 for years).
You've just pretty much negated your own argument there.....you state that the majority of your gaming is done on 360, so when a multiplat game comes out you opt for the PC version?
I have to ask why?.....does your reason/reasons fall into one or more of the areas I've previously mentioned?
As a long time player of BF2 myself, you must appreciate the longevity of the game due to the realism mods and various 3rd party add-ons? It's a 2005 game that still has loads of people playing it.
Thanks Daz(+KFD) for all the extra info, I guess I'm not as discerning as yourself when it comes to getting the most, technically, from my games. Still, I'm looking forward to getting BF:BC2 on PC in a couple of months(well you have to after playing BF2 for years).
You've just pretty much negated your own argument there.....you state that the majority of your gaming is done on 360, so when a multiplat game comes out you opt for the PC version?
I have to ask why?.....does your reason/reasons fall into one or more of the areas I've previously mentioned?
As a long time player of BF2 myself, you must appreciate the longevity of the game due to the realism mods and various 3rd party add-ons? It's a 2005 game that still has loads of people playing it.
Couldn't get BF2 to work properly when I upgraded to my new Vista PC a couple of years ago, and then haven't tried since upgrading to Win7 last year(plus COD4/MW2 have kept me busy). I tend to buy sequels on the same platform as the original(it's funny, but on some games I'm just used to KB&M and others a J'pad), and I've already pre-ordered AVP(ps3) and the new MOH(360). Haven't tried any of the mods for BF2, I had enough trouble getting the official add-ons and patches to work.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
ooo-er)
boy!! I sure did rattle someones cage! 
*
