• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gabe Says Something

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
1217987587911.jpg


/pissed about Black Mesa and Episode 3
//yeah, I know they're not both Valve's fault
///still
 
Modular said:
Not to mention the fact that out of nowhere Valve is pawning all of these "Indie" games on us. From what I can see, they seem like nothing more than dumbed down versions of good games that require little to no hardware power (for the most part). Sure, they're fun for many people to play, but they aren't the direction I want to see PC gaming going towards.
Click to expand...

Some of the indie games I've played are better than any big PC titles that came out in 2010.
 
Last edited:
a crowbar is a stupid melee weapon anyway. a pick axe works much better. what moron doesnt play a game unless it has a crowbar?
 
Golgatha said:
Actually, I'd say the "drop in and play" experience on the PC is better than consoles. Most games support automatic updates and all Steam games update themselves in the background. Background updating of games costs extra money on the 360 and PS3.

Also, all PC games install the majority of the files to a HDD by default, which is an order of magnitude faster than an optical drive, and you don't need the disc to play the game once it's installed.
Click to expand...

Are you high?

When I said console games have a drop in and play experience, I meant literally that. Put the disc in the console, and you play. That is IT. Occasionally there is a patch to download... when that happens, it will automatically download and apply the patch and all you have to do is wait. It does not cost anything extra. You don't need to pay for Xbox Live Gold to get game patches.

SOME PC games allow you to play without having the disc in the drive. But that's a minor advantage compared with the extra steps you have to go through to install a game. If the game has a CD key, you will have to enter that yourself. If you need a patch, the game might notify you automatically or it might not. And in almost all cases, you will have to download the patch from one of those horrible websites that nag you to buy a premium account.

The biggest issue here isn't even the extra steps, it's the inconsistency. Some games need the disc in the drive, some need a key, some have online activation, some have a limited number of installs (don't forget to uninstall before formatting your hard drive!). Every console game has exactly one method of playing - put the disc in the drive and play.

There are a lot of reasons why PC gaming is desirable but I think this is the most undesirable aspect. And there is no way you could possibly argue that PC gaming is easier or simpler than console gaming. Steam is the closest you can get to the simplicity of console gaming. Buy, download, play. Patching is done automatically.
 
Last edited:
Golgatha said:
Actually, I'd say the "drop in and play" experience on the PC is better than consoles. Most games support automatic updates and all Steam games update themselves in the background. Background updating of games costs extra money on the 360 and PS3.

Also, all PC games install the majority of the files to a HDD by default, which is an order of magnitude faster than an optical drive, and you don't need the disc to play the game once it's installed.
Click to expand...

My biggest pet peeve is people who spout off "facts" they drag out of their ass. If you don't know something, don't mention it.

The ONLY THING you EVER have to pay extra on the consoles is to play against other people online, and that's only on the 360. Go ahead and keep making things up though, it's not like there's thousands of console gamers around here that will call your lying ass out or anything.
 
magomago said:
lol how funny. you see SB barely keeping pace at 1024x768 at complete low details. I don't think they are aiming for console land yet.
Click to expand...

Don't forget games like COD and Halo render at a considerably lower resolution on console.
1024x768 at low details in a typical PC game is already equal or better to console graphics.
 
Pia said:
Don't forget games like COD and Halo render at a considerably lower resolution on console.
1024x768 at low details in a typical PC game is already equal or better to console graphics.
Click to expand...

athough its hard to tell, i reccomend you look at what the games looks like at those resolution.....the ps3 games i've played looks waaay better than the blocky and hazy textured 'benchmarks' that were run.

Sure they are at the same level of resolution ~720p, but that is about it....
 
magomago said:
athough its hard to tell, i reccomend you look at what the games looks like at those resolution.....the ps3 games i've played looks waaay better than the blocky and hazy textured 'benchmarks' that were run.

Sure they are at the same level of resolution ~720p, but that is about it....
Click to expand...
The game series I mentioned run at 600p and 640p on consoles, so it's a lopsided comparison if you expect the PC to push 768p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top