CD Projekt Red: PC is most powerful platform "but that might change"

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="nextgenjoke"] it had no single player no cooperative it's a lazy game. quake 2 had arena multiplayer only maps and single player maps you could deathmatch on.nextgenjoke

Q3 focused on the multi-player and it's also the best MP Quake game, imo.

Q1 & QII had a average SP mode thrown in there but it's not worth bragging about.

Games like Unreal and Half-Life had far better single-player than the Quake games, imo.

That's a matter of opinion.

I find the single-player in the old Quake games is in there just for the sake if it while the whole focus of the series was the multi-player.

As far as single-player in Quake is concerned, I consider Quake IV to have the best SP of all Quake games. (despite it receiving mixed repection)

[QUOTE="nextgenjoke"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

Q3 focused on the multi-player and it's also the best MP Quake game, imo.

Q1 & QII had a average SP mode thrown in there but it's not worth bragging about.

Games like Unreal and Half-Life had far better single-player than the Quake games, imo.

nameless12345

That's a matter of opinion.

I find the single-player in the old Quake games is in there just for the sake if it while the whole focus of the series was the multi-player.

As far as single-player in Quake is concerned, I consider Quake IV to have the best SP of all Quake games. (despite it receiving mixed repection)

idsoftware overthought quake 3 arena's multiplayer that's why it seriously blows.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="nextgenjoke"] The edge on quake 2 is a better multiplayer map than any quake 3 arena map. quake 2 has better multiplayer and it has a real single player.

nextgenjoke

That's a matter of opinion.

I find the single-player in the old Quake games is in there just for the sake if it while the whole focus of the series was the multi-player.

As far as single-player in Quake is concerned, I consider Quake IV to have the best SP of all Quake games. (despite it receiving mixed repection)

I'm not sure who those "real fans" are (maybe you're talking about those who actively played the games back in their prime times?) but I rather play something that still has an active community opposed to a small base of players.

[QUOTE="nextgenjoke"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

That's a matter of opinion.

I find the single-player in the old Quake games is in there just for the sake if it while the whole focus of the series was the multi-player.

As far as single-player in Quake is concerned, I consider Quake IV to have the best SP of all Quake games. (despite it receiving mixed repection)

nameless12345

I'm not sure who those "real fans" are (maybe you're talking about those who actively played the games back in their prime times?) but I rather play something that still has an active community opposed to a small base of players.

the guns just have a better feel in quake 1/2.

quake 2's railgun is alot better just has better punch to it.

deathmatch on the quake 2 map the edge q2dm1 everyone was always trying to show off their platforming skills.

You didnt see any of that in quake 3 arena because the maps werent designed for real platforming.

nextgenjoke

[QUOTE="nextgenjoke"]

deathmatch on the quake 2 map the edge q2dm1 everyone was always trying to show off their platforming skills.

You didnt see any of that in quake 3 arena because the maps werent designed for real platforming.

MonsieurX

all the pick up items in quake 3 are accessible to any skilless newbie.

quake 2 required you to learn platforming jumps on certain levels to get a pick up.

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"][QUOTE="nextgenjoke"]

deathmatch on the quake 2 map the edge q2dm1 everyone was always trying to show off their platforming skills.

You didnt see any of that in quake 3 arena because the maps werent designed for real platforming.

nextgenjoke

PC will have better gfx and performance for 90% of the gen, like every other gen.

This isn't debatable. 

quake 2 weapons are better for multiplayer than quake 3.

shotguns better,machine guns better,railguns better.

railgun spiral is cooler than stupid laser beam.

Also, PS4 is pretty much a year away, and already beaten by high-end pc's. How'd it be if they wanted $1000AUD like on the ps3's launch.

You know what, I'm looking forward to the next gen. It happens all the time, consoles come out, have great looking games then a year or two later the tech of the PC jumps ahead but I can still play great games. clyde46

Are you for real?

Do you really think the PS4 can dominate what the GTX Titan can offer?

(Hell, my GTX 670 will dominate anyway)

[QUOTE="clyde46"]You know what, I'm looking forward to the next gen. It happens all the time, consoles come out, have great looking games then a year or two later the tech of the PC jumps ahead but I can still play great games. crippledmachine

Are you for real?

Do you really think the PS4 can dominate what the GTX Titan can offer?

(Hell, my GTX 670 will dominate anyway)

[QUOTE="clyde46"]You know what, I'm looking forward to the next gen. It happens all the time, consoles come out, have great looking games then a year or two later the tech of the PC jumps ahead but I can still play great games. crippledmachine

Are you for real?

Do you really think the PS4 can dominate what the GTX Titan can offer?

(Hell, my GTX 670 will dominate anyway)

[QUOTE="crippledmachine"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"]You know what, I'm looking forward to the next gen. It happens all the time, consoles come out, have great looking games then a year or two later the tech of the PC jumps ahead but I can still play great games. rjdofu

Are you for real?

Do you really think the PS4 can dominate what the GTX Titan can offer?

(Hell, my GTX 670 will dominate anyway)

Pricey, about £900.

But there is no way in hell that next generation consoles will go beyond the GTX 670. It would take 2 more console generations to reach the brutal power of the GTX 690 and Titan.

[QUOTE="rjdofu"][QUOTE="crippledmachine"]

Are you for real?

Do you really think the PS4 can dominate what the GTX Titan can offer?

(Hell, my GTX 670 will dominate anyway)

crippledmachine

Pricey, about £900.

But there is no way in hell that next generation consoles will go beyond the GTX 670. It would take 2 more console generations to reach the brutal power of the GTX 690 and Titan.

Yeah, no. Techs move fast, and price will drop rapidly. By the time the following gen's coming, both of those cards will be dethroned and totally affordable. New console at that point can certainly achieve that power. Another line of super expensive graphics card will come out.

I seriously feel bad for anyone who's never played quake 2 multiplayer on the computer,ive's played just about every fps out there on the market since the mid 90s and it's still the best multiplayer game i ever played.

Anyones old ass pc can run it so try out the multiplayer before bashing my opinion on these forums.

Then you will know where my view of games come from.

You dont feel like you have control over your character in halo at all after playing quake 2 on xbox360 muchless the pc version.

Someones gotta do a test feels like you dont respond to your analog direction untill like 2 second after you pressed it in halo.

nextgenjoke, this isn't your personal blog, bro.

it's not just 60 vs 30 fps difference.

Because i've played tons of 30 fps console games that dont feel as sluggish as halo, halo is sluggish like killzone 2 controls.

it's got a lag.

I think they mean, the "average" of the platform.

If the PS4 sticks to the current specs, I do think it'll be on par, if not slightly more powerful than the avrage gmaing PC out there.  That doesn't mean it will be as powerful as high end rigs, but high end rigs aren't representative of the whole PC gaming gamut of hardware.

Of course, he seems to have had a stroke or something because he also seems to ocmpletley forget that console hardware is fixed, while PC hardware continues to evolve.  So in the NEAR future, he's right, but in the actual future, he becomes very wrong, again.

Kinthalis

You think it will be more powerful then the average gaming pc?  LOL have you not seen the average kids specs on steam?  LMAO it will blow the average kids pc out of the water. 

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

I think they mean, the "average" of the platform.

If the PS4 sticks to the current specs, I do think it'll be on par, if not slightly more powerful than the avrage gmaing PC out there.  That doesn't mean it will be as powerful as high end rigs, but high end rigs aren't representative of the whole PC gaming gamut of hardware.

Of course, he seems to have had a stroke or something because he also seems to ocmpletley forget that console hardware is fixed, while PC hardware continues to evolve.  So in the NEAR future, he's right, but in the actual future, he becomes very wrong, again.

AM-Gamer

You think it will be more powerful then the average gaming pc?  LOL have you not seen the average kids specs on steam?  LMAO it will blow the average kids pc out of the water. 

[QUOTE="EvanTheGamer"]

PC gets no games, when it does it gets turds like Simcity and Diablo 3.

No one cares about the pc platform anymore.

Tessellation

LOL yet its coming out a year later, let the butthurt continue. 

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

I think they mean, the "average" of the platform.

If the PS4 sticks to the current specs, I do think it'll be on par, if not slightly more powerful than the avrage gmaing PC out there.  That doesn't mean it will be as powerful as high end rigs, but high end rigs aren't representative of the whole PC gaming gamut of hardware.

Of course, he seems to have had a stroke or something because he also seems to ocmpletley forget that console hardware is fixed, while PC hardware continues to evolve.  So in the NEAR future, he's right, but in the actual future, he becomes very wrong, again.

clyde46

You think it will be more powerful then the average gaming pc?  LOL have you not seen the average kids specs on steam?  LMAO it will blow the average kids pc out of the water. 

You should, if you have a high end rig.  Because it means less games will take advantage of the hardware.  The fact DX11 cards have been out this long and so few games acutally use higher levles of geometry is baffling to me. 

if you havent played quake 2 multiplayer.

I cant take your opinion serious when it comes to your opinion on any multiplayer fps.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

You think it will be more powerful then the average gaming pc?  LOL have you not seen the average kids specs on steam?  LMAO it will blow the average kids pc out of the water. 

AM-Gamer

You should, if you have a high end rig.  Because it means less games will take advantage of the hardware.  The fact DX11 cards have been out this long and so few games acutally use higher levles of geometry is baffling to me. 

quake 3 isnt designed for multiplayer lol it's not 64 players online like quake 2.

epic failure.

quake 2=crysis

quake 3=crysis 2

quake 3 arena was consoled the same.

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] >Implying people who game on PC will care. clyde46

You should, if you have a high end rig.  Because it means less games will take advantage of the hardware.  The fact DX11 cards have been out this long and so few games acutally use higher levles of geometry is baffling to me. 

When I read over the word "GTX 260" something came up in my mind. It's an old card, right? I owned it before the 670 and it plays Crysis really well at High at 720p with AA at 2x (if I remember correctly), and yet PS3 and Xbox 360 struggles to run the game with Vaseline smeared all over the screen.

Bloody hell. Isn't it amazing? This is why I often chuckle when consolites still believe that console gaming is cheaper when you can play current generation games with an old card and that there's little difference between consoles and PC. I know that the GTX 260 came out at the time of Crysis, but still, I was playing on High settings with some at Medium. If I turned it down to Low, it would run at 60fps and this is where consoles struggle to run! If you just sit down and think about it, it's mindblowing how consoles are little wallet-looting buggers.

Now, that's the beauty of PC gaming. :)

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

You should, if you have a high end rig.  Because it means less games will take advantage of the hardware.  The fact DX11 cards have been out this long and so few games acutally use higher levles of geometry is baffling to me. 

crippledmachine

When I read over the word "GTX 260" something came up in my mind. It's an old card, right? I owned it before the 670 and it plays Crysis really well at High at 720p with AA at 2x (if I remember correctly), and yet PS3 and Xbox 360 struggles to run the game with Vaseline smeared all over the screen.

Bloody hell. Isn't it amazing? This is why I often chuckle when consolites still believe that console gaming is cheaper when you can play current generation games with an old card and that there's little difference between consoles and PC. I know that the GTX 260 came out at the time of Crysis, but still, I was playing on High settings with some at Medium. If I turned it down to Low, it would run at 60fps and this is where consoles struggle to run! If you just sit down and think about it, it's mindblowing how consoles are little wallet-looting buggers.

Now, that's the beauty of PC gaming. :)

quake 3 arena was consoled the same.

nextgenjoke

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about...

Q3:A wasn't even developed for consoles, it was ported over to them.

And playing Quake on consoles was never the best idea unless you had no other option...

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="nextgenjoke"] any real quake fan will tell you quake 1 and 2 multiplayer kicks the sh1t out of quake 3.nextgenjoke

I'm not sure who those "real fans" are (maybe you're talking about those who actively played the games back in their prime times?) but I rather play something that still has an active community opposed to a small base of players.

A lot of the people who hated on Q3 moved on to Unreal Tournament and Counter-Strike later on.

And I dislike both, UT and C-S.

[QUOTE="nextgenjoke"]

quake 3 arena was consoled the same.

nameless12345

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about...

Q3:A wasn't even developed for consoles, it was ported over to them.

And playing Quake on consoles was never the best idea unless you had no other option...

quake 2 had much more trouble running on consoles than quake 3.

Because it's more of a true pc game.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="nextgenjoke"]

quake 3 arena was consoled the same.

nextgenjoke

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about...

Q3:A wasn't even developed for consoles, it was ported over to them.

And playing Quake on consoles was never the best idea unless you had no other option...

No, it was ported over by other teams, not id themselves.