• 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.
  • 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.
  • DeafAtheist - May 30, 2013 4:05 a.m.

    Oh and another point. You equate sales with importance to the game industry right? Well the Wii has outsold both the 360 and PS3. The Wii is also built to use motion controls for the majority of it's games, which you say motion controls are "gimmicky" and bring no value to the industry. Wii sales -100 million (approximately) Xbox sales -80 million (approximately) PS3 sales -75 million (approximately) Xbox and PS3 are nearly neck to neck in sales but Wii has outsold them both by an additional 20 million units. But motion controls are gimmicky, right?
  • BladedFalcon - May 30, 2013 5:51 a.m.

    Of course they are gimmicky. Which is why the Wii sold like hot pancakes. It was a very well done advertised gimmick, and the gimmick itself sounded very innovative back then, and attracted a TON of usually non-gaming crowd that didn't know any better to buy it. But it's also a crowd that quickly got bored of the thing, and now you see that as a result with the Wii U, which is selling like crap.
  • Redeater - May 26, 2013 11:26 p.m.

    I will give you are the only person I have ever heard complaining about the lack of motion controls and voice recognition for PC gaming. That might have been an admirable trait had it not been so obvious that you clearly have little to no experience with actual PC gaming.
  • DeafAtheist - May 27, 2013 9:48 p.m.

    I didn't complain about them... I rarely use them myself. I do have a Kinect on my Xbox but I don't play motion controlled games much or use my voice much for gaming. I used them a bit in Mass Effect 3 which was kind of fun in combat but tedious for opening doors and picking conversational responses. I also like using voice controls when I watch Netflix. It's nice to be able to just say "Xbox Pause" instead of fumbling for a controller, especially since wireless controllers shut off after 10 mins of inactivity you gotta turn the damn thing on again before you can pause the show you're watching. But I was simply making a point that consoles bring more options to the table even if they aren't as powerful as PCs are.
  • Lordchrome375 - May 30, 2013 8:19 p.m.

    But hey if you can afford having a good pc why the hell not? Everyone bitching about how expensive PC gaming is, but what they don't think about is that everytime a new console comes out or if yours happens to break and you have no warranty, your going to buy a new. Thats two 300 to 400 dollar purchase. Then if your a gamer who buys games immediately or even preorder you pay about 60 bucks or more for one game. With PC you buy the computer once, you upgrade as you need to which doesn't cost over 300 bucks and the games from steam are always cheaper.

Showing 241-260 of 378 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.