BIG SHOCK! Xbox 360 has been out for 3+ years and only has 2 AAAE? Just terrible

[QUOTE="Cerussite"][QUOTE="tifaz"]

But in reality most poeple who play pc games are hardcore - therfore buy loads of software. Maybe your the exception but if someone owns a next gen console, the liklihood is they won't have a decent gaming pc aswell.

Let me put it this way...Xbox 360 at the moment poops on ps3's game library. The ps3 has missed the best and biggest games in the past couple years.

The PC, obviously gives the gamer the best experience but then again a 360 is a fraction of the price, it still has a graphics card equivalent to a 7900 which is still pretty decent, and gets some of the best PC games before theyre released on the PC.

tifaz

So their PCs wont be any better than playing on a 360 will they?

[QUOTE="evilross"][QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="GiveMeSomething"]

just remember pc ports dont count :( so 360 has like 10 AAAEs

Bebi_vegeta

what you talking about pc dont count its a gaming platform as much as any other platform. i own a gaming pc i play all the superior versions of games on their. its system wars for a reason not console wars. so no 360 does not have like 10 AAAE's. you obviously do not know the meaning of exclusivity

The only problem with treatingthe PC on an equal playing field as consoles is this: "When do you start counting games for a PC during any gaming cycle?"

Here is an example: Oblivion was released on 360 and PC at pretty much the same time, most people would say that the PC version on max settings is graphically better, and thats the way it was reviewed. Now, to run Oblivion at the time it was released and have it actually look and preform better then the 360 version, you had to have a top end CPU, and the top end card of the time, which was along the lines of a 7900 i believe.

Fast forward to today. You have games like Crysis available, and are graphically superior to the consoles, but, if you are playing Crysis on the exact same machine that you used to play Oblivion when it came out, the game is NOT graphically all that great, and wont even run well with the visual downgrades. To run Crysis at the levels that its been reviewed at and all the screens are taken from you'd have to upgrade, and not only upgrade your GPU, you'd most likely had to upgrade your RAM, maybe your CPU, and you'd have to even upgrade your OS to the DX10 enabled Vista.

So here's the point. Do you start when the first next gen console comes out, and just ignore the fact that the PC's are not the same? Do you start with the Wii and PS3 releases and say thats when all the next gen systems were out? Or do you wait until the PC actually upgraded to its next gen with DX10? If so then what about all the games that came before.

Its a big mess IMO, and i dont see how PC gaming and console gaming can really be put in the same catagory.

Mods don't exist???

What do mods have to do with anything being discussed?

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]If GRAW is exclusive, then why didn't the developers give the game a name that shows that? Why bother making everything but the name exclusive? Why let game websites list the game as a multiplat?MrGrimFandango

Um, becuase what else are you gonna call a Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter?

The 3 games are the same premise, just different games, that so hard to comprehend?

Why bother causing confusion? What caused the developers to make the other 3 versions of the game to not be as good?

[QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="GiveMeSomething"]

just remember pc ports dont count :( so 360 has like 10 AAAEs

evilross

what you talking about pc dont count its a gaming platform as much as any other platform. i own a gaming pc i play all the superior versions of games on their. its system wars for a reason not console wars. so no 360 does not have like 10 AAAE's. you obviously do not know the meaning of exclusivity

The only problem with treatingthe PC on an equal playing field as consoles is this: "When do you start counting games for a PC during any gaming cycle?"

Here is an example: Oblivion was released on 360 and PC at pretty much the same time, most people would say that the PC version on max settings is graphically better, and thats the way it was reviewed. Now, to run Oblivion at the time it was released and have it actually look and preform better then the 360 version, you had to have a top end CPU, and the top end card of the time, which was along the lines of a 7900 i believe.

Fast forward to today. You have games like Crysis available, and are graphically superior to the consoles, but, if you are playing Crysis on the exact same machine that you used to play Oblivion when it came out, the game is NOT graphically all that great, and wont even run well with the visual downgrades. To run Crysis at the levels that its been reviewed at and all the screens are taken from you'd have to upgrade, and not only upgrade your GPU, you'd most likely had to upgrade your RAM, maybe your CPU, and you'd have to even upgrade your OS to the DX10 enabled Vista.

So here's the point. Do you start when the first next gen console comes out, and just ignore the fact that the PC's are not the same? Do you start with the Wii and PS3 releases and say thats when all the next gen systems were out? Or do you wait until the PC actually upgraded to its next gen with DX10? If so then what about all the games that came before.

Its a big mess IMO, and i dont see how PC gaming and console gaming can really be put in the same catagory.

[QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="GiveMeSomething"]

just remember pc ports dont count :( so 360 has like 10 AAAEs

evilross

what you talking about pc dont count its a gaming platform as much as any other platform. i own a gaming pc i play all the superior versions of games on their. its system wars for a reason not console wars. so no 360 does not have like 10 AAAE's. you obviously do not know the meaning of exclusivity

The only problem with treatingthe PC on an equal playing field as consoles is this: "When do you start counting games for a PC during any gaming cycle?"

Here is an example: Oblivion was released on 360 and PC at pretty much the same time, most people would say that the PC version on max settings is graphically better, and thats the way it was reviewed. Now, to run Oblivion at the time it was released and have it actually look and preform better then the 360 version, you had to have a top end CPU, and the top end card of the time, which was along the lines of a 7900 i believe.

Fast forward to today. You have games like Crysis available, and are graphically superior to the consoles, but, if you are playing Crysis on the exact same machine that you used to play Oblivion when it came out, the game is NOT graphically all that great, and wont even run well with the visual downgrades. To run Crysis at the levels that its been reviewed at and all the screens are taken from you'd have to upgrade, and not only upgrade your GPU, you'd most likely had to upgrade your RAM, maybe your CPU, and you'd have to even upgrade your OS to the DX10 enabled Vista.

So here's the point. Do you start when the first next gen console comes out, and just ignore the fact that the PC's are not the same? Do you start with the Wii and PS3 releases and say thats when all the next gen systems were out? Or do you wait until the PC actually upgraded to its next gen with DX10? If so then what about all the games that came before.

Its a big mess IMO, and i dont see how PC gaming and console gaming can really be put in the same catagory.

i can see your point but the fact is a pc is a gaming medium regardless of what gpu or cpu u own. it doesnt matter its like me saying the ps3 comes with an inbuilt HDD where as the early xbox360's didnt so do you only count the people who have an inbuilt HDD also and compre games to them?? you see my point it doesnt make sense.

the fact is pc is a pc its is a gaming platform whether you have a crap gpu or a good one dont matter. if exclusives are jumping to pc's then it means the system that the game came from has lost an exclusive. its like ps3 losing dmc4 to xbox360, just like mass effect from xbox360 to pc.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="evilross"][QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="GiveMeSomething"]

just remember pc ports dont count :( so 360 has like 10 AAAEs

evilross

what you talking about pc dont count its a gaming platform as much as any other platform. i own a gaming pc i play all the superior versions of games on their. its system wars for a reason not console wars. so no 360 does not have like 10 AAAE's. you obviously do not know the meaning of exclusivity

The only problem with treatingthe PC on an equal playing field as consoles is this: "When do you start counting games for a PC during any gaming cycle?"

Here is an example: Oblivion was released on 360 and PC at pretty much the same time, most people would say that the PC version on max settings is graphically better, and thats the way it was reviewed. Now, to run Oblivion at the time it was released and have it actually look and preform better then the 360 version, you had to have a top end CPU, and the top end card of the time, which was along the lines of a 7900 i believe.

Fast forward to today. You have games like Crysis available, and are graphically superior to the consoles, but, if you are playing Crysis on the exact same machine that you used to play Oblivion when it came out, the game is NOT graphically all that great, and wont even run well with the visual downgrades. To run Crysis at the levels that its been reviewed at and all the screens are taken from you'd have to upgrade, and not only upgrade your GPU, you'd most likely had to upgrade your RAM, maybe your CPU, and you'd have to even upgrade your OS to the DX10 enabled Vista.

So here's the point. Do you start when the first next gen console comes out, and just ignore the fact that the PC's are not the same? Do you start with the Wii and PS3 releases and say thats when all the next gen systems were out? Or do you wait until the PC actually upgraded to its next gen with DX10? If so then what about all the games that came before.

Its a big mess IMO, and i dont see how PC gaming and console gaming can really be put in the same catagory.

Mods don't exist???

What do mods have to do with anything being discussed?

Are you telling me that the only attraction for PC games are graphics? You're telling me that the only difference between oblivion x360 and PC are graphics?

I'm a console owner, I don't play games on my laptop, so I don't really care if 'exclusives' on the Xbox go to the PC. PC is not a potential method to fullfil my gaming needs. The way I see it, Xbox 360 gets the best games first, period. (majority of my friends happen to own an Xbox 360 also, so we play online which is alot of fun). And as long as Ninja Gaiden 2 is going to be released on the Xbox 360 as an exclusive (that will never be ported to the PC) I will stay a happy console gamer. It's a pitty that PC owners can't enjoy Ninja Gaiden 2 assuming that this is going to be the Crysis of action/adventure game this year.

And the "good" games on the PS3 are not good enough to make someone choose the PS3 over the 360.BenGenio

[QUOTE="evilross"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="evilross"][QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="GiveMeSomething"]

just remember pc ports dont count :( so 360 has like 10 AAAEs

Bebi_vegeta

what you talking about pc dont count its a gaming platform as much as any other platform. i own a gaming pc i play all the superior versions of games on their. its system wars for a reason not console wars. so no 360 does not have like 10 AAAE's. you obviously do not know the meaning of exclusivity

The only problem with treatingthe PC on an equal playing field as consoles is this: "When do you start counting games for a PC during any gaming cycle?"

Here is an example: Oblivion was released on 360 and PC at pretty much the same time, most people would say that the PC version on max settings is graphically better, and thats the way it was reviewed. Now, to run Oblivion at the time it was released and have it actually look and preform better then the 360 version, you had to have a top end CPU, and the top end card of the time, which was along the lines of a 7900 i believe.

Fast forward to today. You have games like Crysis available, and are graphically superior to the consoles, but, if you are playing Crysis on the exact same machine that you used to play Oblivion when it came out, the game is NOT graphically all that great, and wont even run well with the visual downgrades. To run Crysis at the levels that its been reviewed at and all the screens are taken from you'd have to upgrade, and not only upgrade your GPU, you'd most likely had to upgrade your RAM, maybe your CPU, and you'd have to even upgrade your OS to the DX10 enabled Vista.

So here's the point. Do you start when the first next gen console comes out, and just ignore the fact that the PC's are not the same? Do you start with the Wii and PS3 releases and say thats when all the next gen systems were out? Or do you wait until the PC actually upgraded to its next gen with DX10? If so then what about all the games that came before.

Its a big mess IMO, and i dont see how PC gaming and console gaming can really be put in the same catagory.

Mods don't exist???

What do mods have to do with anything being discussed?

Are you telling me that the only attraction for PC games are graphics? You're telling me that the only difference between oblivion x360 and PC are graphics?

User created content has nothing to do with the topic.

i can see your point but the fact is a pc is a gaming medium regardless of what gpu or cpu u own. it doesnt matter its like me saying the ps3 comes with an inbuilt HDD where as the early xbox360's didnt so do you only count the people who have an inbuilt HDD also and compre games to them?? you see my point it doesnt make sense.

the fact is pc is a pc its is a gaming platform whether you have a crap gpu or a good one dont matter. if exclusives are jumping to pc's then it means the system that the game came from has lost an exclusive. its like ps3 losing dmc4 to xbox360, just like mass effect from xbox360 to pc.

Terrible. Just Terrible. "Goes back to playing 360"

Torbus.

[QUOTE="evilross"][QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="GiveMeSomething"]

just remember pc ports dont count :( so 360 has like 10 AAAEs

superjim42

what you talking about pc dont count its a gaming platform as much as any other platform. i own a gaming pc i play all the superior versions of games on their. its system wars for a reason not console wars. so no 360 does not have like 10 AAAE's. you obviously do not know the meaning of exclusivity

The only problem with treatingthe PC on an equal playing field as consoles is this: "When do you start counting games for a PC during any gaming cycle?"

Here is an example: Oblivion was released on 360 and PC at pretty much the same time, most people would say that the PC version on max settings is graphically better, and thats the way it was reviewed. Now, to run Oblivion at the time it was released and have it actually look and preform better then the 360 version, you had to have a top end CPU, and the top end card of the time, which was along the lines of a 7900 i believe.

Fast forward to today. You have games like Crysis available, and are graphically superior to the consoles, but, if you are playing Crysis on the exact same machine that you used to play Oblivion when it came out, the game is NOT graphically all that great, and wont even run well with the visual downgrades. To run Crysis at the levels that its been reviewed at and all the screens are taken from you'd have to upgrade, and not only upgrade your GPU, you'd most likely had to upgrade your RAM, maybe your CPU, and you'd have to even upgrade your OS to the DX10 enabled Vista.

So here's the point. Do you start when the first next gen console comes out, and just ignore the fact that the PC's are not the same? Do you start with the Wii and PS3 releases and say thats when all the next gen systems were out? Or do you wait until the PC actually upgraded to its next gen with DX10? If so then what about all the games that came before.

Its a big mess IMO, and i dont see how PC gaming and console gaming can really be put in the same catagory.

i can see your point but the fact is a pc is a gaming medium regardless of what gpu or cpu u own. it doesnt matter its like me saying the ps3 comes with an inbuilt HDD where as the early xbox360's didnt so do you only count the people who have an inbuilt HDD also and compre games to them?? you see my point it doesnt make sense.

the fact is pc is a pc its is a gaming platform whether you have a crap gpu or a good one dont matter. if exclusives are jumping to pc's then it means the system that the game came from has lost an exclusive. its like ps3 losing dmc4 to xbox360, just like mass effect from xbox360 to pc.

no, i disagree. losing exclusives to a rival console is a far greater loss than to the PC platform.

[QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="evilross"][QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="GiveMeSomething"]

just remember pc ports dont count :( so 360 has like 10 AAAEs

marklarmer

what you talking about pc dont count its a gaming platform as much as any other platform. i own a gaming pc i play all the superior versions of games on their. its system wars for a reason not console wars. so no 360 does not have like 10 AAAE's. you obviously do not know the meaning of exclusivity

The only problem with treatingthe PC on an equal playing field as consoles is this: "When do you start counting games for a PC during any gaming cycle?"

Here is an example: Oblivion was released on 360 and PC at pretty much the same time, most people would say that the PC version on max settings is graphically better, and thats the way it was reviewed. Now, to run Oblivion at the time it was released and have it actually look and preform better then the 360 version, you had to have a top end CPU, and the top end card of the time, which was along the lines of a 7900 i believe.

Fast forward to today. You have games like Crysis available, and are graphically superior to the consoles, but, if you are playing Crysis on the exact same machine that you used to play Oblivion when it came out, the game is NOT graphically all that great, and wont even run well with the visual downgrades. To run Crysis at the levels that its been reviewed at and all the screens are taken from you'd have to upgrade, and not only upgrade your GPU, you'd most likely had to upgrade your RAM, maybe your CPU, and you'd have to even upgrade your OS to the DX10 enabled Vista.

So here's the point. Do you start when the first next gen console comes out, and just ignore the fact that the PC's are not the same? Do you start with the Wii and PS3 releases and say thats when all the next gen systems were out? Or do you wait until the PC actually upgraded to its next gen with DX10? If so then what about all the games that came before.

Its a big mess IMO, and i dont see how PC gaming and console gaming can really be put in the same catagory.

i can see your point but the fact is a pc is a gaming medium regardless of what gpu or cpu u own. it doesnt matter its like me saying the ps3 comes with an inbuilt HDD where as the early xbox360's didnt so do you only count the people who have an inbuilt HDD also and compre games to them?? you see my point it doesnt make sense.

the fact is pc is a pc its is a gaming platform whether you have a crap gpu or a good one dont matter. if exclusives are jumping to pc's then it means the system that the game came from has lost an exclusive. its like ps3 losing dmc4 to xbox360, just like mass effect from xbox360 to pc.

no, i disagree. losing exclusives to a rival console is a far greater loss than to the PC platform.

no one cares if its a greater loss or not. fact is exclusive means staying on one platform. if it jumps platform exclusivity has been lost. accept it fanboy

Think you've got it spot on. PC's shouldn't be compared to consoles. If you kept a PC that was top notch when the 360 came out for four times the price it would be rendered useless in a year from now.. tifaz

Myths are really starting to get out of control.

Also, the statement that PC's shouldn't be compared to consoles is just ignorant. All are viable gaming platforms.

As for the 360 exclusives, they don't interest me personally. I'm not a huge shooter fan. I enjoy them but I would never buy a console for one. GRAW, Halo, Gears, Perfect Dark, and Bioshock (to some extent Mass Effect as well) are all shooters. When people say PS3, Wii, or PC owners are missing out on "the best games" this generation and can't call themselves gamers, it makes no sense. There is no basis at all for this statement. Every platform has high scoring games in their linups. I agree with some1 else in this thread who said something along the lines of "everyone is missing out unless they own all the platforms available."

User created content has nothing to do with the topic.

evilross

Well that's one of the big reasons why I buy a certain game for PC over console... the flexibility.

[QUOTE="evilross"][QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="GiveMeSomething"]

just remember pc ports dont count :( so 360 has like 10 AAAEs

superjim42

what you talking about pc dont count its a gaming platform as much as any other platform. i own a gaming pc i play all the superior versions of games on their. its system wars for a reason not console wars. so no 360 does not have like 10 AAAE's. you obviously do not know the meaning of exclusivity

The only problem with treatingthe PC on an equal playing field as consoles is this: "When do you start counting games for a PC during any gaming cycle?"

Here is an example: Oblivion was released on 360 and PC at pretty much the same time, most people would say that the PC version on max settings is graphically better, and thats the way it was reviewed. Now, to run Oblivion at the time it was released and have it actually look and preform better then the 360 version, you had to have a top end CPU, and the top end card of the time, which was along the lines of a 7900 i believe.

Fast forward to today. You have games like Crysis available, and are graphically superior to the consoles, but, if you are playing Crysis on the exact same machine that you used to play Oblivion when it came out, the game is NOT graphically all that great, and wont even run well with the visual downgrades. To run Crysis at the levels that its been reviewed at and all the screens are taken from you'd have to upgrade, and not only upgrade your GPU, you'd most likely had to upgrade your RAM, maybe your CPU, and you'd have to even upgrade your OS to the DX10 enabled Vista.

So here's the point. Do you start when the first next gen console comes out, and just ignore the fact that the PC's are not the same? Do you start with the Wii and PS3 releases and say thats when all the next gen systems were out? Or do you wait until the PC actually upgraded to its next gen with DX10? If so then what about all the games that came before.

Its a big mess IMO, and i dont see how PC gaming and console gaming can really be put in the same catagory.

i can see your point but the fact is a pc is a gaming medium regardless of what gpu or cpu u own. it doesnt matter its like me saying the ps3 comes with an inbuilt HDD where as the early xbox360's didnt so do you only count the people who have an inbuilt HDD also and compre games to them?? you see my point it doesnt make sense.

the fact is pc is a pc its is a gaming platform whether you have a crap gpu or a good one dont matter. if exclusives are jumping to pc's then it means the system that the game came from has lost an exclusive. its like ps3 losing dmc4 to xbox360, just like mass effect from xbox360 to pc.

You are correct, the PC can be used as a gaming platform, and is capable of producing better visuals, and is more versital than a console, but, the PC is a very inconsistent platform for gaming, being that unlike consoles, all games do not preform the same across the platform as a whole.

My example was showing that when PC games are compared to consoles, the PC games are compared using optimal hardware, for getting the best results possible. But, just in the small amount of time from the start of this generation of consoles, the PC has already undergone a major hardware and OS change, that renders the same machines that played multiplat games on par/greater then the current gen consoles at the time of their release, unable to even run current PC games.

I think a better choice of words on my part would have been: "Its a big mess IMO, and i dont see how PC gaming and console gaming can really be directly compared."

I count PDZ, GRAW, FORZA 2, AND HALO 3, thats 4, can you add?

[QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="GiveMeSomething"]

just remember pc ports dont count :( so 360 has like 10 AAAEs

evilross

what you talking about pc dont count its a gaming platform as much as any other platform. i own a gaming pc i play all the superior versions of games on their. its system wars for a reason not console wars. so no 360 does not have like 10 AAAE's. you obviously do not know the meaning of exclusivity

The only problem with treatingthe PC on an equal playing field as consoles is this: "When do you start counting games for a PC during any gaming cycle?"

Here is an example: Oblivion was released on 360 and PC at pretty much the same time, most people would say that the PC version on max settings is graphically better, and thats the way it was reviewed. Now, to run Oblivion at the time it was released and have it actually look and preform better then the 360 version, you had to have a top end CPU, and the top end card of the time, which was along the lines of a 7900 i believe.

Fast forward to today. You have games like Crysis available, and are graphically superior to the consoles, but, if you are playing Crysis on the exact same machine that you used to play Oblivion when it came out, the game is NOT graphically all that great, and wont even run well with the visual downgrades. To run Crysis at the levels that its been reviewed at and all the screens are taken from you'd have to upgrade, and not only upgrade your GPU, you'd most likely had to upgrade your RAM, maybe your CPU, and you'd have to even upgrade your OS to the DX10 enabled Vista.

So here's the point. Do you start when the first next gen console comes out, and just ignore the fact that the PC's are not the same? Do you start with the Wii and PS3 releases and say thats when all the next gen systems were out? Or do you wait until the PC actually upgraded to its next gen with DX10? If so then what about all the games that came before.

Its a big mess IMO, and i dont see how PC gaming and console gaming can really be put in the same catagory.

Crysis is just one game. Crysis does not represent PC gaming as a whole.

Starcraft II, Spore, WotLK etc all the big hits that come to the PC don't require expensive hardware. PC gamers don't care about graphics as much as consolites do. Those gamers who have bought Crysis is merely 1% of the userbase... just an estimate. Its probably much much lower then that btw.

[QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="evilross"][QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="GiveMeSomething"]

just remember pc ports dont count :( so 360 has like 10 AAAEs

evilross

what you talking about pc dont count its a gaming platform as much as any other platform. i own a gaming pc i play all the superior versions of games on their. its system wars for a reason not console wars. so no 360 does not have like 10 AAAE's. you obviously do not know the meaning of exclusivity

The only problem with treatingthe PC on an equal playing field as consoles is this: "When do you start counting games for a PC during any gaming cycle?"

Here is an example: Oblivion was released on 360 and PC at pretty much the same time, most people would say that the PC version on max settings is graphically better, and thats the way it was reviewed. Now, to run Oblivion at the time it was released and have it actually look and preform better then the 360 version, you had to have a top end CPU, and the top end card of the time, which was along the lines of a 7900 i believe.

Fast forward to today. You have games like Crysis available, and are graphically superior to the consoles, but, if you are playing Crysis on the exact same machine that you used to play Oblivion when it came out, the game is NOT graphically all that great, and wont even run well with the visual downgrades. To run Crysis at the levels that its been reviewed at and all the screens are taken from you'd have to upgrade, and not only upgrade your GPU, you'd most likely had to upgrade your RAM, maybe your CPU, and you'd have to even upgrade your OS to the DX10 enabled Vista.

So here's the point. Do you start when the first next gen console comes out, and just ignore the fact that the PC's are not the same? Do you start with the Wii and PS3 releases and say thats when all the next gen systems were out? Or do you wait until the PC actually upgraded to its next gen with DX10? If so then what about all the games that came before.

Its a big mess IMO, and i dont see how PC gaming and console gaming can really be put in the same catagory.

i can see your point but the fact is a pc is a gaming medium regardless of what gpu or cpu u own. it doesnt matter its like me saying the ps3 comes with an inbuilt HDD where as the early xbox360's didnt so do you only count the people who have an inbuilt HDD also and compre games to them?? you see my point it doesnt make sense.

the fact is pc is a pc its is a gaming platform whether you have a crap gpu or a good one dont matter. if exclusives are jumping to pc's then it means the system that the game came from has lost an exclusive. its like ps3 losing dmc4 to xbox360, just like mass effect from xbox360 to pc.

You are correct, the PC can be used as a gaming platform, and is capable of producing better visuals, and is more versital than a console, but, the PC is a very inconsistent platform for gaming, being that unlike consoles, all games do not preform the same across the platform as a whole.

My example was showing that when PC games are compared to consoles, the PC games are compared using optimal hardware, for getting the best results possible. But, just in the small amount of time from the start of this generation of consoles, the PC has already undergone a major hardware and OS change, that renders the same machines that played multiplat games on par/greater then the current gen consoles at the time of their release, unable to even run current PC games.

I think a better choice of words on my part would have been: "Its a big mess IMO, and i dont see how PC gaming and console gaming can really directly compared."

yes i see your point again it is more clear. but consoles come with gpus and cpus already running on their most optimal settings where as pc games do not because it allows you to choose render/video settings. you see what i mean its like a console running on max against a pc that isnt until you set it to max. so it can be directly compared. easily put xbox360 runs off an ati x1900 like card (correct me if im wrong) or something right, ps3 on a nvidia 7900. i have a 8800gt and that rips them apart no problem

When you look at exclusives and multi-plats, you have to keep in mind what gaming system the multi-plats are actually on.

If you compare the PS3 and the 360, and you leave out multi-plats, you should only leave out the games that the two systems actually share with each other to determine the overall quality. Leaving out Bioshock because its on the PC makes no since, being just because its on the PC does not mean that somehow the PS3 can play it, or it doesnt matter.

Sheep are the main offenders in the "Multi-plats dont count" bunk. The sad fact is that Nintendo's console, while it has its own games, gets NONE of the big AAA multi-plats, and never will. So Nintendo fans just pretend that games like Burnout, COD4, Oblivion, Orange Box, Assassins Creed, Ninja Gadien Sigma, and Rainbow 6 Vegas simply do not exist. All of those games are AAA on the PS3, and none of then are available on the Wii. Thats more AAA's right there then the Wii has in total.

If the system your trying to defend doesnt have the game, its counts. Sorry Wii, you miss out on far more good games then you actually get.

evilross

Absolutely, so true. Nintendo fans are getting cocky lately. I don't blame em though, look at the sales statistics. Its friggin insane. Both Sony and MS are just emberassing when compared to it. Hopefully it gets better when GTAIV hit the stores.

''But, Bioshock doesn't matter, its not exclusive!'' Ehm what the hell? Doesn't make any sense to me >_>

[QUOTE="evilross"][QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="GiveMeSomething"]

just remember pc ports dont count :( so 360 has like 10 AAAEs

PullTheTricker

what you talking about pc dont count its a gaming platform as much as any other platform. i own a gaming pc i play all the superior versions of games on their. its system wars for a reason not console wars. so no 360 does not have like 10 AAAE's. you obviously do not know the meaning of exclusivity

The only problem with treatingthe PC on an equal playing field as consoles is this: "When do you start counting games for a PC during any gaming cycle?"

Here is an example: Oblivion was released on 360 and PC at pretty much the same time, most people would say that the PC version on max settings is graphically better, and thats the way it was reviewed. Now, to run Oblivion at the time it was released and have it actually look and preform better then the 360 version, you had to have a top end CPU, and the top end card of the time, which was along the lines of a 7900 i believe.

Fast forward to today. You have games like Crysis available, and are graphically superior to the consoles, but, if you are playing Crysis on the exact same machine that you used to play Oblivion when it came out, the game is NOT graphically all that great, and wont even run well with the visual downgrades. To run Crysis at the levels that its been reviewed at and all the screens are taken from you'd have to upgrade, and not only upgrade your GPU, you'd most likely had to upgrade your RAM, maybe your CPU, and you'd have to even upgrade your OS to the DX10 enabled Vista.

So here's the point. Do you start when the first next gen console comes out, and just ignore the fact that the PC's are not the same? Do you start with the Wii and PS3 releases and say thats when all the next gen systems were out? Or do you wait until the PC actually upgraded to its next gen with DX10? If so then what about all the games that came before.

Its a big mess IMO, and i dont see how PC gaming and console gaming can really be put in the same catagory.

Crysis is just one game. Crysis does not represent PC gaming as a whole.

Starcraft II, Spore, WotLK etc all the big hits that come to the PC don't require expensive hardware. PC gamers don't care about graphics as much as consolites do. Those gamers who have bought Crysis is merely 1% of the userbase... just an estimate. Its probably much much lower then that btw.

I was using Crysis as an example, mostly because its the example most PC gamer's use when wanting to showcase the power of a PC.

However, the argument is the same, because the PC has upgraded to DX10 now, and PC games are being made using that technology. You'll still get some games like SC2 that have been in develpment for a while, or WotLK which is an expantion to an older game, but DX10 is the standard now.

So I get some great PC titles and get the choice to use a controller or a mouse and kb? Where's the
downside to that deal?Riverwolf007

[QUOTE="marklarmer"][QUOTE="superjim42"]

i can see your point but the fact is a pc is a gaming medium regardless of what gpu or cpu u own. it doesnt matter its like me saying the ps3 comes with an inbuilt HDD where as the early xbox360's didnt so do you only count the people who have an inbuilt HDD also and compre games to them?? you see my point it doesnt make sense.

the fact is pc is a pc its is a gaming platform whether you have a crap gpu or a good one dont matter. if exclusives are jumping to pc's then it means the system that the game came from has lost an exclusive. its like ps3 losing dmc4 to xbox360, just like mass effect from xbox360 to pc.

superjim42

no, i disagree. losing exclusives to a rival console is a far greater loss than to the PC platform.

no one cares if its a greater loss or not. fact is exclusive means staying on one platform. if it jumps platform exclusivity has been lost. accept it fanboy

So you think the 360 is in direct competition with the PC platform and equal to its rivalry with the ps3?

So if MGS4 went to the 360 that would only be an equal loss to when halo 3 goes to the PC? yeah i can see the logic behind that. :roll:

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]So I get some great PC titles and get the choice to use a controller or a mouse and kb? Where's the
downside to that deal?THE_Rob_Himself

yes because we all prefer split-screen over better precise controls of mouse and k/b :|

[QUOTE="PullTheTricker"][QUOTE="evilross"][QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="GiveMeSomething"]

just remember pc ports dont count :( so 360 has like 10 AAAEs

evilross

what you talking about pc dont count its a gaming platform as much as any other platform. i own a gaming pc i play all the superior versions of games on their. its system wars for a reason not console wars. so no 360 does not have like 10 AAAE's. you obviously do not know the meaning of exclusivity

The only problem with treatingthe PC on an equal playing field as consoles is this: "When do you start counting games for a PC during any gaming cycle?"

Here is an example: Oblivion was released on 360 and PC at pretty much the same time, most people would say that the PC version on max settings is graphically better, and thats the way it was reviewed. Now, to run Oblivion at the time it was released and have it actually look and preform better then the 360 version, you had to have a top end CPU, and the top end card of the time, which was along the lines of a 7900 i believe.

Fast forward to today. You have games like Crysis available, and are graphically superior to the consoles, but, if you are playing Crysis on the exact same machine that you used to play Oblivion when it came out, the game is NOT graphically all that great, and wont even run well with the visual downgrades. To run Crysis at the levels that its been reviewed at and all the screens are taken from you'd have to upgrade, and not only upgrade your GPU, you'd most likely had to upgrade your RAM, maybe your CPU, and you'd have to even upgrade your OS to the DX10 enabled Vista.

So here's the point. Do you start when the first next gen console comes out, and just ignore the fact that the PC's are not the same? Do you start with the Wii and PS3 releases and say thats when all the next gen systems were out? Or do you wait until the PC actually upgraded to its next gen with DX10? If so then what about all the games that came before.

Its a big mess IMO, and i dont see how PC gaming and console gaming can really be put in the same catagory.

Crysis is just one game. Crysis does not represent PC gaming as a whole.

Starcraft II, Spore, WotLK etc all the big hits that come to the PC don't require expensive hardware. PC gamers don't care about graphics as much as consolites do. Those gamers who have bought Crysis is merely 1% of the userbase... just an estimate. Its probably much much lower then that btw.

I was using Crysis as an example, mostly because its the example most PC gamer's use when wanting to showcase the power of a PC.

However, the argument is the same, because the PC has upgraded to DX10 now, and PC games are being made using that technology. You'll still get some games like SC2 that have been in develpment for a while, or WotLK which is an expantion to an older game, but DX10 is the standard now.

I believe the standard is still DX9. My example is Bioshock, it was built first on Dx9 and enhance with DX10... but when you look at the images, there is barelly any difference. DX10 is still pretty much new and changing faster into DX10.1 .

[QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="marklarmer"][QUOTE="superjim42"]

i can see your point but the fact is a pc is a gaming medium regardless of what gpu or cpu u own. it doesnt matter its like me saying the ps3 comes with an inbuilt HDD where as the early xbox360's didnt so do you only count the people who have an inbuilt HDD also and compre games to them?? you see my point it doesnt make sense.

the fact is pc is a pc its is a gaming platform whether you have a crap gpu or a good one dont matter. if exclusives are jumping to pc's then it means the system that the game came from has lost an exclusive. its like ps3 losing dmc4 to xbox360, just like mass effect from xbox360 to pc.

marklarmer

no, i disagree. losing exclusives to a rival console is a far greater loss than to the PC platform.

no one cares if its a greater loss or not. fact is exclusive means staying on one platform. if it jumps platform exclusivity has been lost. accept it fanboy

So you think the 360 is in direct competition with the PC platform and equal to its rivalry with the ps3?

So if MGS4 went to the 360 that would only be an equal loss to when halo 3 goes to the PC? yeah i can see the logic behind that. :roll:

no you miss the whole point. xbox360 loses exclusives to the pc where as ps3 does not. so the ps3 has a better advantage because its games stay on that paltform unless the developer decides to release on xbox360 aswell which is a loss. end of day it is more likely that the xbox360 will lose more exclusives to pc than ps3 will to xbox360.

[QUOTE="THE_Rob_Himself"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]So I get some great PC titles and get the choice to use a controller or a mouse and kb? Where's the
downside to that deal?superjim42

yes because we all prefer split-screen over better precise controls of mouse and k/b :|

[QUOTE="superjim42"]

[QUOTE="THE_Rob_Himself"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]So I get some great PC titles and get the choice to use a controller or a mouse and kb? Where's the
downside to that deal?THE_Rob_Himself

yes because we all prefer split-screen over better precise controls of mouse and k/b :|

i dont see what friends has to do with anything. congratulations on having lots of friends?? :|

Perfect Dark Zero, GRAW, Forza 2, Halo 3.club-sandwich

topic failed! and that's still more than the ps3 has in a year and a half.

Now that the big M$ handed out all their exclusive games like candy, now they only have Halo 3 and Forza (rather mediocre at best) AAAE games to show for the 3+ years they have been up and running? When Halo 3 hits PC soon, that just leaves Forza and Perfect Dark as the only exclusive? This is sad news my Lemms.

megaton3k

First of all its 2+ years and MS doesnt care about permanent exclusives. They port all their good games to PC. Its not a failure on MS part its just policy.

[QUOTE="Popadophalis"]Did those AAAEs stop being amazing games when they were ported to the pc or something?The_Dan_K

No, but I don't need a 360 to play them anymore. It has no effect on the game, but does effect the console.

I count PDZ, GRAW, FORZA 2, AND HALO 3, thats 4, can you add?

Cubs360

Apparently not, but let's not make this a personal argument, let's just allow this failure of a thread to die. :)