Google+

56 comments

  • db1331 - January 20, 2012 7:30 a.m.

    They are quite light. Almost as if the game were DESIGNED to run on a system whose hardware hasn't changed in around 7 years. What a shame. We could have a ME3 that looks and sounds better than BF3 if certain people weren't holding back the industry.
  • BladedFalcon - January 20, 2012 9:01 a.m.

    Yes, boo hoo. Who cares if the game has great story, original characters, and well polished gameplay and varied quests. No, all it matters is that it looks as shiny and gorgeous as possible! and because it doesn't, it's being held back! BOO HOO!!! You're really are starting to sound like a broken record. An annoyingly shallow, whiny, selfish record.
  • db1331 - January 20, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    Yea, shame on me for wanting a game that has great story, original characters, well polished gameplay, varied quests, and looks like it was made this decade. I am such a horrible person.
  • BladedFalcon - January 20, 2012 10:39 a.m.

    Let's not kid ourselves. All you want is to rag repeatedly on console gamers and make a tantrum like a child because you think they are "holding you back". You're pretty much like a spoiled junior that has a custom ferrari, and is pissed because most other people can only afford something like a civic or whatever. The thing is, your ENTIRE argument against consoles "holding" gaming back hinges purely in graphics, nothing else. And frankly, consoles don't look THAT bad, yes, they look sub-par compared to a PC, but for anyone that's not a shallow graphics whore, they are more than good enough. And that's why most people have consoles, pretty much the main setback is lesser graphics, but in return we have a much cheaper, simple way of enjoying video-games. Consoles would really only hold TRUE gaming behind, if the PCs were able to do something GAMEPLAY-wise that the consoles just couldn't replicate. Except they just don't, there is not a single high end, PC exclusive game that has such a groundbreaking, innovative gameplay aspect that the consoles couldn't replicate. Thus, you're whole bitching is always revolving around graphics, and thus, you are a very fucking shallow person. And you can try to argue that any other way you want, but it's a fact, and I'm done being nice about it. So yeah, poor you that can't have shiny graphics that don't really affect the core aspect of a game at all. Sob and whine all you want while most of the world won't give a shit and will continue playing consoles without a care in the world.
  • Gilligan - January 20, 2012 10:56 a.m.

    Big ups. Gaming FTW, it's great to embrace all forms of gaming. Totally agree with everything you just said there. Isn't the point of gaming to have fun? Regardless of how powerful the system is? I'll happily game on all the systems (and I do) and appreciate the game for how much fun it is. Plenty of games tell epic stories and have below excellant graphics. Also, thanks for being the first to finally rip into db1331, most threads having anything to with PC gaming normally has a scything comment from him damning console gaming to hell.
  • db1331 - January 20, 2012 11:22 a.m.

    The first? You must be new here.
  • db1331 - January 20, 2012 11:17 a.m.

    I knew you were clueless, but I didn't know it was that bad. What can PCs do that consoles can't, GAMEPLAY-wise? How about 64 players, more vehicles, and bigger maps in BF3. Or just actual proper controls for any FPS ever made. What about removing loading screens in Skyrim, or getting more than double the frames per second of consoles. What about mods that let you put anything you can create into the game? What about customizable controls that let you access abilities faster without having to thumb through a wheel or menu? That's just off the top of my head. I could give it some more thought if you want. Let's do a little exercise. Let's pretend the Wii REALLY took off and took almost all the 3rd party developers away from the Xbox and PS3. So let's say for the last few years, 90% of all games released for your system (be it 360 or PS3) were actually designed with the Wii in mind, then ported to your system. They slapped some rudimentary gamepad controls on it, but the entire game was designed for the Wiimote, so it's still a little wonky. And you can't change your controls, because the devs didn't think you would want to. Also, all the menus were designed for the Wiimote, so getting around them with your thumb sticks takes twice as long as it should. And the Wii can't do a lot of the fancy lighting or texture tricks your 360/PS3 can, so the developers decided to make the game for the least common denominator, and leave all that stuff out of your version. Also, the Wii can't handle the map size and high player counts your system can, so they went ahead and just cut both those things in half across all platforms. On top of all that, the things that made all your favorite franchises great, like the depth and the challenge, are just too much for the Wii players. They just want to toss their disc in and cruise through the game, so the developers listened to them and "Streamlined" (pronounced: dumbed-down) all your favorite games. I could go on, put I assume you get the point by now. Then, when you post about how you wish developers would take the extra time to fully utilize the abilities of your 360/PS3, and not tie back your hands because the Wii can't keep up, some casual Wii player comes in and says, "I like my Wii games just fine. They look and play great. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for EVERYONE! You're just an elitist for thinking your 360/PS3 is better!" Now, imagine how little of a fuck you would give about this Wii player's opinion. I hope now you have at least a base understanding as to why you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
  • Gilligan - January 20, 2012 11:28 a.m.

    I'm gonna have some mates over and play Halo split-screen.
  • db1331 - January 20, 2012 11:33 a.m.

    I honestly laughed out loud.
  • Gilligan - January 20, 2012 12:06 p.m.

    Db1331, trolololo
  • Net_Bastard - January 20, 2012 9:14 p.m.

    I'm gonna have some mates over and play Serious Sam 3 16-player LAN co-op with 4-player splitscreen. And after that Imma play some Trine 2 co-op.
  • NubberzTheHedgehog - January 20, 2012 11:45 a.m.

    Resistance 2 had 64 players in multiplayer and decent sized maps. And now you are resorting to fucking multiplayer, which is one of the worst things as it degrades the quality of single player games, for your arguments. Then you argue about framerate and if you can really notice. You sir are a complete asshole and I hope your processor melts from computer-based gonorrhea or something. All you do is brag about your PC E-peen and think lesser of someone because they enjoy games a different way. You are holding the industry back, because if you can't have your precious graphics you whine and bitch about it. And I haven't found a single recent PC game that actually warrants a gaming PC, while I have found multiple console games that warrant the purchase of my PS3. Grow. The. Fuck. Up. Asshole.
  • db1331 - January 20, 2012 12:19 p.m.

    "Then you argue about framerate and if you can really notice." "And I haven't found a single recent PC game that actually warrants a gaming PC" I think that just about says it all, folks.
  • NubberzTheHedgehog - January 20, 2012 12:46 p.m.

    What I meant to say was "as if you can really notice", because you know, the human eye can only detect so much. GR needs edit button. And no, no game that has come out in the past 5 years that I have really felt awesome about buying on PC. Witcher 2 sucked balls, and played better with a gamepad. RTS games are on a decline, FPS games are overcrowded with no innovation. PC gaming is not like it was in the early 2000's buddy.
  • db1331 - January 20, 2012 12:50 p.m.

    If you can't tell the difference between 20 and 30fps, I don't know what to tell you. "Witcher 2 sucked balls" Again, says it all.
  • NubberzTheHedgehog - January 20, 2012 12:54 p.m.

    In what way was that game good? It had an okay story, and pretty nice graphics...Oh wait, that seems to be enough for you. But the combat sucked the choices were mediocre, and boobies. There is a noticeable difference between 20 and 30fps, but not 40-60fps. Again, you are just proving the PC stereotype.
  • db1331 - January 20, 2012 1 p.m.

    Skyrim on consoles is capped at 30fps. Probably averages in the 20s. On PC we get 60fps and up. So by your logic, there is a noticeable difference. But in your earlier post, you said there was no difference. Are you starting to see how stupid you are?
  • NubberzTheHedgehog - January 20, 2012 1:12 p.m.

    Actually, my logic is pretty sound, and your's is horribly to the point of being fallacious. The human eye can only perceive roughly 45-48 frames per second, pretty much making anything over that useless and you also have to take in variables, such as light conditions and the person's eye sight.
  • db1331 - January 20, 2012 1:22 p.m.

    Ok, but the consoles are only putting out 30 at the most. PCs are putting out much more than 45. But you're still claiming you can't tell the difference. You're an idiot. I can see the chugging in even the best Skyrim console gameplay vids, not to even mention the ones depicting the complete slideshow fuck fests that occur when your save file becomes to large for your 7 year old computer to comprehend.
  • UberNoob - January 20, 2012 4:16 p.m.

    I have to politely disagree with the 45 to 48 frames thing. I can surely notice the difference between 60FPS and 45FPS in all of my games, ME, ME2, and GTA IV being a few examples. Arguments like this are difficult to come to a conclusion to, but from my experience there is a difference between 45FPS and 60FPS.
  • Net_Bastard - January 20, 2012 9:20 p.m.

    I can easily tell the difference between 40 and 60FPS.
  • Net_Bastard - January 20, 2012 9:19 p.m.

    The eye can detect much more than 30FPS, that's for sure. Also, I would argue that PC gaming is on the rise. It was in a horrid state in 2007-2009, but it's recovering after AAA games like Battlefield 3 (sort of) and Saints Row: The Third were made with the PC in mind. And then there's Red Orchestra 2. And then there are the countless MMO's. And then there's Starcraft 2 which is coming out with an expansion pack. And then there are indie games like Minecraft, Q.U.B.E, Serious Sam 3, and Hard Reset.
  • ThisIsMyFuckingThirdAccount - January 20, 2012 1:12 p.m.

    So Battlefield 3's multiplayer ruined the single player campaign? Well, you sound pretty stupid there. I'm playing Skyrim on my PC, which is running butter smooth. I heard it chugs to a halt on PS3 pretty often. Yup, stupid there, too. I'm also a little confused about how db1331 is holding the industry back. I guess it makes sense if you think beautification mods for old games and graphics tweaks for current ones are bringing the industry to its knees. Oh wait, nope. Stupid there, too. And if you haven't found a PC game to justify PC gaming, I'll also bet it's safe to say that you don't know what a Steam is. So more stupidity there. Protip: This. Makes. You. Look. Even. More. Stupid.
  • NubberzTheHedgehog - January 20, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    And Battlefield 3 sucks the shit ring off of my toilet. Use a better example.

Showing 21-40 of 56 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.