We Recommend By ZergNet


  • punkamisto - May 26, 2013 5:24 a.m.

    To be honest I´m not impressed with any of these new generation consoles. Wii U, Ps4 or Xbox one..I think the real winner here are PCs which keep boosting better specs and gaming experience, with one or two exceptions, but consoles are getting less and less exclusives. For ex. I can already play Dark Souls on PC when it was only a PS3 exclusive, or Alan Wake that only belonged to XBOX. Just plug in a controller and voila, it´s like a console but with better graphics and faster. Sure I know it can get expensive having a good pc and all, but its completely worth it for me, not to mention most indie games are on PC and Mods also. Skyrim and Fallout, for ex. are better on PC since there are tons of mods that makes great games into even greater games. To sum it up, I really think PCs are the best platform for gaming nowdays and consoles will have to dig deeper to keep up with it. Ok now everyone can come and say that consoles are better and blah blah blah :P
  • DeafAtheist - May 26, 2013 9:37 p.m.

    I don't get why PC gamers constantly claim that PC games have better graphics. PCs may very well be CAPABLE of having better graphics, but the fact is not every PC gamer has the top of the line PCs that are capable of rendering much better graphics than consoles and therefore in order to be compatible with most PC gaming computers developers make their games with system requirements that are compatible with the majority of PC gaming computers. Also most 3rd party games are made for consoles and t then ported to PCs so they don't generally improve the graphics and such beyond what consoles are capable of. The Xbox One and PS4 are both capable of BETTER graphics and such than the current gen system requirements for PC games. So for probably the next year or so games will likely actually look better on the next gen consoles than they will on PC.
  • Redeater - May 26, 2013 11:20 p.m.

    If this is what the average console gamer thinks of PC gaming it' know what? I can't even finish that. There is just so much wrong with this. No one games on PC with the bare minimum. If you think that then you seriously haven't touched a PC game within the last 15 years. I also had a PC that recognized microphone commands back in the mid 90's. It did it just as accurately as the Kinect which I mean it was a novelty and worked poorly. Did you ever ask yourself why Uncharted 1 had motion controls and Uncharted 3 had none? Or why they had to implement a patch so Lair could be played via sticks? I suggest you join us in the year 2013, go play a PC that can actually run modern graphics, then com back and bitch about how adding piss poor voice recognition and shitty motion controls would improve the experience.
  • DeafAtheist - May 27, 2013 9:29 p.m.

    This didn't come directly from me, well not all of it. I stand corrected on the voice controls. However I'm not wrong about the development process for games. Have you read the most recent issue of Game Informer? I tried to find the relevant article from the issue online but I'm a print subscriber and even if I switched to digital I wouldn't be able to share the article publicly. But there was on opinion piece in it written by a game developer with 16 years of experience in gaming. He's worked on every console and PCs since the original Playstation and Dreamcast through the current gen. I won't repost the entire article here, just a couple of relevant paragraphs... Dispelling the Myth: Today's High-End PC is NOT true Next Gen Gaming -Torbjorn Olsson When Sony revealed the PlayStation 4, I read some of the comments regarding the console online and noticed one persistent myth kept appearing - current PC games are already the next generation. That's simply not true. The reality is that high-end PC is a small market for developers and publishers, although it has seen some significant growth over the last few years. I played Crysis 3 and it's a beautiful game. However at it's core Crysisi 3 was designed to also run on current gen consoles and less powerful PCs. Every graphical enhancement you see on a high-end PC, no matter how pretty it is, is just eye candy. Crytek could not design levels and enemies that would impact gameplay unless those elements would also work on Xbox 360 and PS3. Core design has to work on all system, which limits developers working on today's consoles compared to those who are working on the next-generation consoles. ----------------------------------------------------------- So basically the current gen consoles set the bar for what games are designed to do, not PCs. So while PCs may very well be capable of outperforming even the next gen consoles, games are made to be compatible with them. If games were made to the specs of high-end PCs they would be too much software for consoles to handle and therefore could not be ported to them. So really, what's the point in spending hundreds more than a console for a PC that plays games at similar specs as a console anyway?
  • NeutralFan - May 31, 2013 2:09 p.m.

    Actually, since the vast majority of people already own a computer anyway, and since PC games are generally significantly cheaper, PC gaming is often the economical choice for serious gamers. And I'm talking about economical with a standard high-midrange gaming set - say, £700-£800. Coupled with the better graphics and sound (and they ARE significantly better; no need to invest in four GPUs and a £500 sound card) and the ever-customisable nature of a PC and you have a no-brainer for serious thinking gamers. Depending on your set-up, you may also be able to save money on a TV and home cinema set-up; why bother if you have a decent monitor and speakers? The XBox One and PS4 are not capable of better graphics, but rather more-or-less-on-par-with graphics - the PC with the equivalent hardware (easier to calculate now that the PS4 actually works like a PC) would be a decent enough midrange computer. That's it. The only real draw to console gaming is exclusives.
  • NeutralFan - May 31, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    Also, despite what you say, PC developers actually make games with scalable graphics settings so you can pick settings which suit your system. Thus, if you can run BF3 on low settings on a modest setup (I'd wager much less than the price of your console and the computer you wrote this on put together) - incidentally just as good as if not better than the 720p PS360 version - or, for your serious +£1000 watercooled gaming box, you can set everything to 11: 10000x AA, 10000p definition spread in 3D across your twelve-screen 19568430x016689076 pixel IMAX cinema screen, lighting effects down to individual photons and particle effects down to quarks, 26.1 surround sound and an on-tap champagne dispenser whenever you win a ribbon. Got a bit carried away but you get the point - there's settings to suit all budgets (and budgets to suit all settings...).
  • NeutralFan - June 1, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    Sorry, this comment was intended for someone else. I'm not even sure who now TBH. Gamesradar keeps messing up my posts...
  • Manguy17 - November 26, 2013 5:35 p.m.

    If you dont have a pc that runs better than consoles. I wouldn't really call it a gaming pc. "So for probably the next year or so games will likely actually look better on the next gen consoles than they will on PC." I would doubt that, considering how similar the new consoles are to a pc tech wise (particularly the ps4) porting them over will be easy. "The Xbox One and PS4 are both capable of BETTER graphics and such than the current gen system requirements for PC games." System requirements =/= System capability. Take planetside 2 for example. That will be one of the better looking ps4 games, PC has been able to play games that look that good for a year or two now. "developers make their games with system requirements that are compatible with the majority of PC gaming computers. " Generally not true, If anything it is current gen (or do we call it last gen?) consoles that hold PC gaming back visually. Devs need to make sure their games can run on them, This leaves plenty of room for improvement, which any gaming pc can make use of. When a game is PC exclusive there aren't too many examples where they are designed to run on lower spec systems, the most high profile example I can think of is LoL. Again I would refer to planetside 2, only top tier pc's can run that game and do it justice. tl;dr PC's have better graphics, 10 minutes of youtube will prove it. Admittedly there may be a short patch where new consoles can roughly match pc's but mods, and the potential for more powerful hardware kind of makes that a moot point.
  • DeafAtheist - May 26, 2013 9:38 p.m.

    Oh, and last time I checked PC games weren't capable of responding to voice and motion controls.
  • BladedFalcon - May 26, 2013 11:24 p.m.

    Yes, because voice commands and motion controls have proven to be invaluable, and a must have for good, non-gimmicky games. *rolls eyes* Both are implements that once the novelty wears off, so far do absolutely nothing that a control or a mouse and keyboard can't do better and faster.
  • Redeater - May 26, 2013 11:37 p.m.

    Ooh you are in for such a scolding when his Xbone lets him form another inaccurate and incoherent rant by translating his voice to text. mean computers were capable of that years ago? Fun fact: I had an Intel camera that tracked my movement and let me play mini games like bumping balloons (pretty much most Kinect games these days). You know how long ago that was? 2000. I play games on consoles 90% of the time and I'm not pro PC in the slightest but this guy.........his arguments scare the hell out of me because there is a marginal chance it reflects the filthy, ignorant opinions of the general public.
  • Redeater - May 26, 2013 11:39 p.m.

    Hmm, well that reply was aimed at BladedFalcon but my phone likes to throw them where ever. Seems like GR is the only site that does it though.
  • BladedFalcon - May 27, 2013 7:19 a.m.

    Yeah, this is a GR issue. I think I read Coop commenting in a recent post that they would be looking into it. But God knows how long will it take before they fix it XD
  • BladedFalcon - May 27, 2013 7:18 a.m.

    Yeeeep... Most likely they are -.- I mean, just take a look at that charming "charliedude" fellow above us, and despair :P
  • DeafAtheist - May 27, 2013 9:44 p.m.

    Oh? I'd like to see how one can play Dance Central or Your Shape with a mouse and keyboard. Fact is that consoles have expanded the possibilities for gaming.
  • BladedFalcon - May 27, 2013 10:36 p.m.

    ...So a single genre that basically boils down to something you could just as well does in real life equals expanding the possibilities of gaming? That's rich. Dancing games like dance central "expand" on gaming the same way Guitar Hero,, Rock Band, and Dance Dance Revolution did before. Which is to say, not at all. It's a novelty genre, and yes, the Kinect is actually pretty good for that kind of game, but if you seriously think that Your Shape and Dance Central will expand on anything beyond the genre they are already using, you're simply delusional.
  • DeafAtheist - May 27, 2013 11:33 p.m.

    You're kidding right? Sure I could spend hundreds of dollars in real life on dance classes rather than paying $50 for a Kinect game. Or I could spend hundreds of dollars on a personal trainer rather than $50 on a Kinect game to get in better shape. On top of hiring a babysitter or putting my kid in daycare while I took these dance classes or hired this personal trainer instead of using Kinect in my own home. Because as a single parent I've just got that kind of money to burn. Novelty, huh? I think it's YOU that's the delusional one. As for Guitar Hero and Rockband... that doesn't teach you shit. It has no practical value. It's a glorified QTE. It does not teach you how to actually play any music on those instruments the way Kinect can teach you dance moves or help you get in better shape. The only game that actually teaches you how to play a guitar is Ubisoft's Rocksmith.
  • BladedFalcon - May 28, 2013 5:50 a.m.

    That's nice if you think those games are equal to taking actual dancing or exercises, and I won't deny the convenience and the cost it saves you. That still doesn't make it any less of a novelty. What proof? here are the sales of each Dance Central so far: -Dance Central 1 = 2.98m -Dance Central 1 = 1.93m -Dance Central 1 = 0.60m A real, genre defining, industry pushing game or genre would sell increasingly more, or at least, retain a constant margin of popularity with each iteration. A fad, or novelty series sells less and less with each iteration. Just like it's shown here with the Dance Central Series. Which, btw, what I was comparing it with Rock Band or Dance Dance Central. I wasn't talking about the merits of each game, I was talking about the fact that games such as this are always isolated genres and phenomenons. And not nearly as much of a big deal or important to the industry as a whole, like you would like to delude yourself into thinking.
  • DeafAtheist - May 30, 2013 3:37 a.m.

    Wait, you equate importance with popularity and sales? Wow what a sad way of categorizing genres in an industry. So by your definition of "novelty" you means something that doesn't sell very well or isn't very popular, and therefore isn't important to the industry. That's not how I was looking at it. Novelty to me is something that is gimmicky, and has no real practical use. Like for example the way voice commands are set up in Defiance with Kinect. Unlike Mass Effect 3's voice commands in Defiance you have to push down on the D-Pad before making the command. What really is the point of pushing a button AND using your voice when you can just push a damn button alone to do the same task? To me THAT is a novelty. It's not a novelty in Mass Effect 3 though because there are disabled gamers that might find it easier to be able to use voice commands in lieu of pressing a button especially for gamers that are missing fingers or entire hands. Such things can greatly improve their accessibility and therefore their enjoyment of the game. Just because there is a small market for Kinect games like Dance Central doesn't mean they are just a novelty. It simply means there is a smaller market that is interested in that genre. Call of Duty is a crap game that is pretty much a repeat of the previous game before it just slapped with a new title, even COD fanboys recognize this fact but they keep buying them every year regardless. Call of Duty ads little to the gaming industry despite it's huge sales numbers. It adds no innovation or creativity. Despite those huge sales numbers it's a novelty game simply for the fact that it adds little value to the game industry beyond mindless, senseless casual entertainment. So I respectfully disagree with you dude. Sales numbers might be important to the companies that sell the games for profits, but it doesn't make a game better than one that sells fewer numbers. There are plenty of excellent and much better games than Call of Duty that only sell a fraction of COD's sales figures. What is important to the industry is innovation, progress, creativity, and new technology, not sales numbers.
  • BladedFalcon - May 30, 2013 5:57 a.m.

    "What is important to the industry is innovation, progress, creativity, and new technology, not sales numbers. " Tell that to Microsoft, Activision,Square Enix, EA, and pretty much any publisher nowadays. The entire reason why everyone is rallying against the Xbone right now, it's because it sounds like it's geared precisely to just consume money, more than anything else. I don't disagree with you in that what SHOULD matter is those things, but the reality is that whether we like it or not, sales numbers ARE important, because that's ultimately what dictates where the industry is going. And so far, that direction means the industry puts far less effort in making motion controlled games be actually original, functional and clever, and more into engineering them to make a quick buck for the most part.
  • DeafAtheist - May 30, 2013 3:45 a.m.

    Oh and I never said that games like Your Shape or Dance Central were equal to taking classes, just that they were cheaper and easier alternatives. I've seen some people who play Dance Central become really skilled at dance moves they never knew prior to playing the game. I've also seen people following the regiments of a game like Your Shape and losing tons of weight... they do the jobs they're designed to do quite effectively when the games themselves are well-designed. This makes them a practical and welcome addition to the video game industry despite the fact that there is a much smaller market for those games than for first person shooters.

Showing 201-220 of 343 comments

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


Connect with Facebook

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