40 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 15 previous comments
- forget consoles make more games for PC's. PC=Better graphicsFeb 5, 2012
- there's a very high probability that Mass Effect (and Halo) would not exist if it weren't for consoles
I say Halo because if it weren't for Microsoft's efforts with Xbox, it would still be a Mac-only game.
That, and consoles with similar specifications always outdo PC due to it being a closed system that 's much easier to specialize on and work with microcode.
Yes, GPU's are always newest on PC, but that isn't always the advantage that you're trying to paint. The truth is far different.Feb 6, 2012
- Why do people worry more about graphics than gameplay/story? Just like said, Mass Effect probably wouldn't exist if it wasn't for consoles. Just because PC provides better graphics, doesn't mean consoles should be abandoned. Consoles for me are a better choice because I don't have to endlessly spend money to play the newer games.Feb 6, 2012
- Dang straightFeb 6, 2012
- Let me clarify, I don't think consoles should be abandoned. A lot of recent games have been console games that are ported to PC, Meaning that the money I have invested into my computer is wasted as it could be run on the much lower spec of the console it was designed for. I agree implicitly that Mass Effect would be nothing with out its emmersive story line. In fact i just finished playing through both the first and second games and they are without a doubt my favorite games of all time. I just think that on top of story line good graphics add more to the experience.Feb 8, 2012
- Those are YOUR choices. There are thousands of PC-only games out there that cater specifically to certain GPU requirements if that's what you want.
I think the difference here is, the games that you WANT or the games that are actually GOOD are now more console-centric (because you can sell more units there), and purchasing them for PC usually only grants you more frames/sec.
Sounds to me that gameplay and a certain experience is more important than graphics even in your own preference if that's the case.
And if that's true, isn't your whole complaint moot by default? Clearly the graphics don't matter because you like certain games despite not pushing DX10 or 11.
Why am I saying this? Because if more people like you become the default fanbase of said games, the focus on the gameplay and environment that made them so keen in the first place will be lost just because they want to spend 4 years on a graphics engine instead of making it fun.
If given the choice, I'd play Mario 3 in 240 x 192 vs Duke Nukem Forever on a 2560 x 1900 display. Be more appreciative of content instead of more shiny effects.
You'd think we'd be beyond that phase since GPU's beyond DX11 are at diminishing returns. The only true advancement at this point is realtime ray-tracing, which is still a good 10 years away. The "experience" is the window to the game world, not amount of leaves on the ground in it. If games were any more realistic, you'd be paying your bills in them, and that is NOT the way to go.Feb 8, 2012