[QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="CaseyWegner"][QUOTE="mikasa"] We discussed this in the past, no need to rehash it. We have to agree to disagree which kind of proves my point.
mikasa
the pc thing?
Among others. I just re-read your thread and did notice how you setup your argument so that they can't be refuted. but then assume they are facts. Many are facts as structured the way you did, but the overal statement is still debateable.
Just to illustrate a point "a new gaming pc will break your bank and you still have to spend hundreds of dollars on upgrades each year just to be able to play the newest games" Well the problem there is the way you couch that and say you can play MOST new games just fine. But you fail to mention you won't play it looking like the video shows. So if I wanted to play supreme commander on a mid-range computer...how would the game score? The PC that should be considered in System Wars is the same one used to review teh games. How ever much that PC costs is how much should be expected to be spent to get the same experience the reviewer had. Otherwise a PC game reviewed as 8.5 may be a 7.5 on my rig.
maybe there's some wiggle room but the myth is still indeed refuted with a fact.
No it wasn't. The so-called Myth is that PC gaming costs a lot to get the SAME quality experience that the reviewer gets. or to run the game like the video shows. No one is interested in a game with medium settings. Sure they may be decent, but this is system wars and we are gragging about the great graphcis then we need to say the PC/video card required to run it is defnitely high-end. All games on consoles are ran at the best experience posible for the user (well depends on monitor attached, but that applies to both PCs and consoles). The PC game often needs to be ran on lowest settings or medium settings for many/most PC gamers.
When the review score reflects what the lowest common denominator on the PC is to play the game then we can call it even. In other words...Hermits don't brag about PC graphics on max...brag about them on the minimum requirements for the machine. Now if we want to just say PCs are more flexible than consoles, then obviously I agre and that's my point...comparing PCs to consoles is like comparing apples and oranges. It can be done, but they are both very very different experiences.
well this argument totally fails seeing that NO consoles can run games with the equivalent of PC high settings.
also fails because your point just isn't true. most if not all PC games are reviewed based on recommended system settings, which is what the game is designed for. it's not like they use a dual 8800 SLI with quad CPUs to test it out.
also fails because most PC gamers aren't pure visual whores - they don't mind taking some concessions in terms of visuals to get an extra few fps to get an edge in multi. at least they have the option - unlike some PS3 games and 360 games that are set above their capacity and chug like fat men in a race for the Last Burrito.
also fails because PC games get score reductions for poor performance on recommended settings.
there are numerous other reasons why this fails.
PC will always be a competitor in system wars - that's the biggest reason it fails, you can all spout it out until you're blue in the face, but the fact is PC's are GAMING PLATFORMS. deal with it - m'kay?
Log in to comment