PC gaming is held back by PCs

A lesson from history:

Once upon a time PCs were quite sucky for gaming.

They had strong CPUs but the graphics and sound cards sucked.

So when VGA standard and SoundBlaster finaly came out, things started to change.

PCs could do playlable 3D graphics and colorful 2D graphics and nice sound.

But then the 3D revolution started and PCs fell behind consoles again because no 3D accelerators.

But when the 3D accelerators came out, they surpassed the consoles by a wide margin.

But not all PCs had a 3D accelerator, hence consoles were still better than many PCs.

Then came out more powerful hardware and better graphics cards.

But many people were still gaming on older PCs, hence the next-gen consoles were better than many PCs.

PCs surpassed consoles by a wide margin again but there was no games showing it.

There was no games because many were still gaming on older PCs.

And then came the "HD" consoles and things changed.

They were like "gaming-oriented PCs" when they came out so developers focused on them more.

It took a while for PC to surpass them but not all did.

The amount of PCs in the world far surpasses all consoles combined but most come with crappy integrated graphics.

The enthusiast gaming PCs are relatively niche, in coparison with the large majority of PCs.

Finally, companies like AMD are pushing "console-quality" PC gaming to the mainsteam users with the APU tech.

The most popular PC games tend to be undemanding (both, hardware and gameplay-wise) games.

That's also why Diablo 3 sold so well - it's relatively undemanding and accessible.

CGI-quality graphics would be already possible on high-end PCs but there's not a big enough market for it or atleast that's what the developers/publishers think, hence we're waiting for next-gen consoles to do the push forward.

So when you point fingers, ask yourself who you should be pointing it at in the first place...

Im just going to be blame consoles.... You know to be on the safe side..

Could you write a summary? To much to read.

Nope consoles are holding them back with seriously outdated hardware.

Yeah I think the tens of millions of people playing WOW, Farmville, and The Sims are doing a lot more to "hold back" PC gaming then any consoles.locopatho

Hmm, interesting but lemme just say.. PCalites :o and be done here. :twisted:

[QUOTE="locopatho"]Yeah I think the tens of millions of people playing WOW, Farmville, and The Sims are doing a lot more to "hold back" PC gaming then any consoles.blue_hazy_basic

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="locopatho"]Yeah I think the tens of millions of people playing WOW, Farmville, and The Sims are doing a lot more to "hold back" PC gaming then any consoles.locopatho

So when you point fingers, ask yourself who you should be pointing it at in the first place...

nameless12345

Huh? You blame PCs themselves, but by your logic it is the fault of the PC gamers who don't upgrade to the latest and best hardware.

But really, blame the 2005 console hardware...

According to steam hardware survey:

Over 80% of the PCs have 4GB or more ram

40% are quad core

Most common resolution is 1080p

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

I think there are plenty of decent PCs around

that is the biggest mmount of bs i've seen for a while, hats of to you

yeah all those low end spec old PCs are to blame :D

Could you write a summary? To much to read.

tenaka2

A bit of reading is too difficult for the "Master Race"? Say it ain't so :P

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Could you write a summary? To much to read.

AdobeArtist

A bit of reading is too difficult for the "Master Race"? Say it ain't so :P

Why waste time reading the rat claw scratchings of dirty peasants? :P

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="locopatho"] Yeah but there's still games like Sim City Social on there, where "hardcore" devs like Maxis have targeted that market. I don't have any problem with facebook games but for those dumbasses who want to blame consoles for PC's failings, I think they should take a look closer to home first!locopatho

Nope consoles are holding them back with seriously outdated hardware.

ultimate-k

And why can't you discuss this in the other thread ?

Why did you have to make a new thread for this ? Scratch that TWO threads ?

.

PCgameruk

That's what I'm doing for every nameless thread now. His last 4-5 threads have been complete jokes.

Even loosingENDS creates better threads then you now TC.

Budgets are holding graphics of pcgames back.

Console gamers tastes are holding gameplay of multiplats back.

Definitely correct for the most part. Something that's always bothered me about PC gaming, and a primary reason why I never really played PC games much, is that youc an spend $1500 on a hardcore rig and no matter what you do, you'll always have to upgrade. Whether it be for one game that you really wanna play that just has steep requirements or a game is (like alot of PC games) just severely under optimized. Not to mention the random problems you just have with PC games. They'll work for no reason here, have hitches there, need an update to fix something here, just crash on startup on the game over and over for no reason, etc. Simple fact is Consoles are just a better source of pure gaming. That's my opinion.

if you look at the last 6-7 years, it's pretty clear what platforms are doing the holding back.

Budgets are holding graphics of pcgames back.

Console gamers tastes are holding gameplay of multiplats back.

AdrianWerner

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

Budgets are holding graphics of pcgames back.

Console gamers tastes are holding gameplay of multiplats back.

lowe0

I would say it's that mine and other hermits tastes are too refined ...

Definitely correct for the most part. Something that's always bothered me about PC gaming, and a primary reason why I never really played PC games much, is that youc an spend $1500 on a hardcore rig and no matter what you do, you'll always have to upgrade. Whether it be for one game that you really wanna play that just has steep requirements or a game is (like alot of PC games) just severely under optimized. Not to mention the random problems you just have with PC games. They'll work for no reason here, have hitches there, need an update to fix something here, just crash on startup on the game over and over for no reason, etc. Simple fact is Consoles are just a better source of pure gaming. That's my opinion.

Puckhog04

I agree. PC games aren't as well optimized as console games and they don't have the strong dev support found on consoles. You can have a PC x20 more powerful than PS3 but you will never get x20 better graphics. I just dont see next gen any PC games that can compete with what ever devs like Naughty Dog or Guerrilla Games can make for PS4. This gen the gfx gap wasn't as big as the PS2 days when PC games really did look a lot better.

I agree. PC games aren't as well optimized as console games and they don't have the strong dev support found on consoles. You can have a PC x20 more powerful than PS3 but you will never get x20 better graphics. I just dont see next gen any PC games that can compete with what ever devs like Naughty Dog or Guerrilla Games can make for PS4. This gen the gfx gap wasn't as big as the PS2 days when PC games really did look a lot better.

KillzoneSnake

Actually the differences between consoles and PC today is greater than it was last gen.

And your argument on optimization is false.

If you had a PS4 that was 20x more powerful than the PS3 you wouldn't see games looking 20x better.

Although there is no exact way to prove something "looks" 20x better anyway.

But then the 3D revolution started and PCs fell behind consoles again because no 3D accelerators.

But when the 3D accelerators came out, they surpassed the consoles by a wide margin.

But not all PCs had a 3D accelerator, hence consoles were still better than many PCs.

Then came out more powerful hardware and better graphics cards.

But many people were still gaming on older PCs, hence the next-gen consoles were better than many PCs.

PCs surpassed consoles by a wide margin again but there was no games showing it.

There was no games because many were still gaming on older PCs.

And then came the "HD" consoles and things changed.

nameless12345

So you say pc surpassed consoles by a wide margin but no games showing it? Lol. Pc gaming had a "Crysis" almost every year until all the devs went multiplatform. Quake was like the Crysis for its time, then Quake 2 in 1997, Unreal, Quake 3, there was a 3 year period from 1999-2002 where graphics did improve but not a lot, then came UT2k3 then 1 1/2 years later Far cry blew everone away, then a few months later Doom 3 came out. Fear came out in 2005, most console games today look worse than the pc version of Fear from 2005.

I just dont see next gen any PC games that can compete with what ever devs like Naughty Dog or Guerrilla Games can make for PS4.

KillzoneSnake

PC's are the only thing allowing games to push the limits. Devs definitely don't pick consoles to "take it to the next level", so basically what you said is pretty far from the reality of the situation. Sure there are plenty of devs that design for weak hardware and they may get more sales because of it but they were never trying to break new ground in the first place.

PC's are ALWAYS at the forefront of design advancement.

[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]

Nope consoles are holding them back with seriously outdated hardware.

Jamex1987

Just because some PC games that arnt demanding are popular doesnt make it any less true. Take a look at Crysis, Crysis 1 was developed for PC massive open levels, impressive AI, Pyscis and more, now look at Crysis 2, which was also made for outdated consoles, restcitve level design and alot more liner, more scripted, not as good ai and so on.

His last 4-5 threads have been complete jokes.R4gn4r0k

Ya blame the super nintendo because it happens to be far supperier to any game you have on pc

blame the n64 because your pc couldnt run goldeneye007 -at the time- if legal at all

ya blame the ps1 because your pc was so darn full of viruses and slow no acceloraters@ 2nd poster you clearly didnt read the post

it all makes sense

but heres where it all stops

the minute microsoft stepped into console gaming,

----they ruined it - now we gott be forced to do what pc gamers did --go online to play our multiplayer games

and now pcs are worthless with xbox360 now having a browser its only a matter of time before everyone else gets full fledged browsers complete with flash support

Ya blame the super nintendo because it happens to be far supperier to any game you have on pc

blame the n64 because your pc couldnt run goldeneye007 -at the time- if legal at all

ya blame the ps1 because your pc was so darn full of viruses and slow no acceloraters@ 2nd poster you clearly didnt read the post

it all makes sense

but heres where it all stops

the minute microsoft stepped into console gaming,

----they ruined it - now we gott be forced to do what pc gamers did --go online to play our multiplayer games

and now pcs are worthlesswith xbox360 now having a browser its only a matter of time before everyone else gets full fledged browsers complete with flash support

mariokart64fan

Slight exaggeration there.

[QUOTE="KillzoneSnake"] I just dont see next gen any PC games that can compete with what ever devs like Naughty Dog or Guerrilla Games can make for PS4.

Cranler

Like i said the gap was closer this gen. Last gen when i played PC games like HL2 and you compare them to PS2 games the difference was insane... physics, graphics, resolution, it was another level. Today... lol MW3 :lol: games on PS3 look good. It may not have the best AA or res but they look good, not the difference of playing HL2 on PC then a random PS2 game.PS3 games look amazing, way better than MW3 on PC lol

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vxNO3w8c8g

^Killzone destroys your MW3... ;)

A lesson from history:

Once upon a time PCs were quite sucky for gaming.

They had strong CPUs but the graphics and sound cards sucked.

So when VGA standard and SoundBlaster finaly came out, things started to change.

PCs could do playlable 3D graphics and colorful 2D graphics and nice sound.

But then the 3D revolution started and PCs fell behind consoles again because no 3D accelerators.

But when the 3D accelerators came out, they surpassed the consoles by a wide margin.

But not all PCs had a 3D accelerator, hence consoles were still better than many PCs.

Then came out more powerful hardware and better graphics cards.

But many people were still gaming on older PCs, hence the next-gen consoles were better than many PCs.

PCs surpassed consoles by a wide margin again but there was no games showing it.

There was no games because many were still gaming on older PCs.

And then came the "HD" consoles and things changed.

They were like "gaming-oriented PCs" when they came out so developers focused on them more.

It took a while for PC to surpass them but not all did.

The amount of PCs in the world far surpasses all consoles combined but most come with crappy integrated graphics.

The enthusiast gaming PCs are relatively niche, in coparison with the large majority of PCs.

Finally, companies like AMD are pushing "console-quality" PC gaming to the mainsteam users with the APU tech.

The most popular PC games tend to be undemanding (both, hardware and gameplay-wise) games.

That's also why Diablo 3 sold so well - it's relatively undemanding and accessible.

CGI-quality graphics would be already possible on high-end PCs but there's not a big enough market for it or atleast that's what the developers/publishers think, hence we're waiting for next-gen consoles to do the push forward.

So when you point fingers, ask yourself who you should be pointing it at in the first place...

nameless12345

When was this time you're thinking of, when consoles had 3D graphics accelerators and PCs didn't?

But then the 3D revolution started and PCs fell behind consoles again because no 3D accelerators.

nameless12345

LOL. Even with just software rendering (no graphics accelerator) Quake beats the crap out of any 5th generation 3D game.

A lesson from history:

Once upon a time PCs were quite sucky for gaming.

They had strong CPUs but the graphics and sound cards sucked.

So when VGA standard and SoundBlaster finaly came out, things started to change.

PCs could do playlable 3D graphics and colorful 2D graphics and nice sound.

But then the 3D revolution started and PCs fell behind consoles again because no 3D accelerators.

But when the 3D accelerators came out, they surpassed the consoles by a wide margin.

But not all PCs had a 3D accelerator, hence consoles were still better than many PCs.

Then came out more powerful hardware and better graphics cards.

But many people were still gaming on older PCs, hence the next-gen consoles were better than many PCs.

PCs surpassed consoles by a wide margin again but there was no games showing it.

There was no games because many were still gaming on older PCs.

And then came the "HD" consoles and things changed.

They were like "gaming-oriented PCs" when they came out so developers focused on them more.

It took a while for PC to surpass them but not all did.

The amount of PCs in the world far surpasses all consoles combined but most come with crappy integrated graphics.

The enthusiast gaming PCs are relatively niche, in coparison with the large majority of PCs.

Finally, companies like AMD are pushing "console-quality" PC gaming to the mainsteam users with the APU tech.

The most popular PC games tend to be undemanding (both, hardware and gameplay-wise) games.

That's also why Diablo 3 sold so well - it's relatively undemanding and accessible.

CGI-quality graphics would be already possible on high-end PCs but there's not a big enough market for it or atleast that's what the developers/publishers think, hence we're waiting for next-gen consoles to do the push forward.

So when you point fingers, ask yourself who you should be pointing it at in the first place...

nameless12345

When was this time you're thinking of, when consoles had 3D graphics accelerators and PCs didn't?

the_bi99man

There was a short spell from the summer of 1996 when the N64 was released and January 1997 when 3dfx came out with the Voodoo. I actually got my Voodoo in December 1996. But, that was for preferred customers only. The Voodoo didn't go into widespread sale until January 1997. When I showed a friend the 3dfx-accelerated version of Tomb Raider at Christmas 1996, he wanted to buy a Voodoo too. But, there was none in any storeshelves anywhere....not until around say, February 1997. There was the Rendition Verite. That was even more rare than the Voodoo at the time.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

But then the 3D revolution started and PCs fell behind consoles again because no 3D accelerators.

KiZZo1

LOL. Even with just software rendering (no graphics accelerator) Quake beats the crap out of any 5th generation 3D game.

Actually, I have to disagree. Quake in software mode was pretty ugly even in SVGA. That plus you'd be lucky to get 24 fps with the fastest PCs at the time. Quake ran fine in VGA (320x240) But, that was a pixelated mess. 3rd week of January 1997 was when heaven opened up and the GLQuake patch came out. We got anywhere from 40-50 fps with GLQuake at 640x480 and which also looked much better to boot.

Remember, there's Quake and there's GLQuake. Quake = YUK! GLQuake = YUMMY!<---Heaven on Earth

Edit: Actually, I was getting 40-50 fps at 1024x768. By 1996, I was using a 17" monitor.