- Mar 10, 2006
- 11,715
- 2,012
- 126
Has anyone noticed that while everyone complains about "console ports", the only fundamental difference between a "console port" and a "PC exclusive" game is that the min-spec target has, ironically enough, been raised compared to what a typical min spec PC target would be?
The consoles are a *good* thing for PC gaming! The minimum spec as a 360 or a PS3 is much better than what min spec would be otherwise. This ultimately leads to higher quality graphics (which is what I assume you all complain about) right out of the gate, and a solid target platform for many, many years.
Also, because the consoles are constrained so much, it forces clever algorithmic optimization and program structure, which DOES translate over to performing well on the PCs. Ever notice how "pure PC" games nowadays run like crap, don't use more than 2 cores, etc., but the "console ports" do?
PC gaming is better than ever but it won't stay that way -- with our improved visuals, better control scheme -- if all people ever do is find stuff to complain about.
The consoles are a *good* thing for PC gaming! The minimum spec as a 360 or a PS3 is much better than what min spec would be otherwise. This ultimately leads to higher quality graphics (which is what I assume you all complain about) right out of the gate, and a solid target platform for many, many years.
Also, because the consoles are constrained so much, it forces clever algorithmic optimization and program structure, which DOES translate over to performing well on the PCs. Ever notice how "pure PC" games nowadays run like crap, don't use more than 2 cores, etc., but the "console ports" do?
PC gaming is better than ever but it won't stay that way -- with our improved visuals, better control scheme -- if all people ever do is find stuff to complain about.