[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

You remind me of a creationist.

By that I mean, a creationist argued they will believe in evolution when they see enough transitional fossils. So you show them transitional fossils, but they say that isn't enough; and they will believe when you find enough. The creationist has a interest in maintaining their ideology, so no matter how many transitional fossils you provide, it will never be enough. Never.

It's not enough for you that a game is profitable, it has to reach 'your' standards of profitable. It doesn't matter if it sold well, it has to sell well by 'your' standards. Crysis sold 3 million copies on PC. It made enough money that Crytek could expand their company, buy up other developers, overhaul their engine; and produce another big budget game. By every measure, it was very successful.

But if it's not Uncharted 2 level successful, it's a failure, isn't it? Never mind Uncharted 2 was a sequel to a established franchise, on a mainstream gaming platform, with a 1st party backed budget and marketing campaign. A new IP that demolished the best hardware available at the time. If it doesn't sell the same, it did badly, apparently.

Cryteck set sales expectations for Crysis that were so ridiculous, that it is unlikely that Crysis 2 selling on three platforms have even reached that expectation. But that doesn't concern you, because it's another excuse to impose an unreasonable expectation, that enables you to bash PC.

As long as you elect yourself responsible for determining what is good enough from PC, it will never be good enough.

Xtasy26

So the PS3 is a more mainsteam gaming platform now then the PC? But the pc is the most popular platform in the world is it not? It is according to the hermits . You have 10x the install base yet you cant match it in sales? Your calling me a hypocrit? You are like a politician changing the argument when it benefits you. We have thread after thread saying pc gaming is romping console gaming in terms of profits and sales yet games dont sell as well because its not as mainstream?

And the way Crysis was marketed and talked about it should have been the Halo for pc . But it wasnt? Why was that? FPS is a genre that was born on pc it was one of the best fps at the time and it gave hermits what they wanted( exclusvie features and visuals) and it still barely breaks 3 mill?

Why didn't UC2 match WOW's 11+ million copies sold?

There you go again right to blizzard the only 3rd party that can sell. Why didnt WOW match COD BOPS on the 360 alone???

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

Graphics here are rated as how great they are compared to other games on the platformm. Thats why MGS4 won 2008 over Warhead, Uncharted 2 in 2009 over Cryostasis, and God of War 3 over Metro 2033 in 2011 (Which was complete BS.)

LOL at you trying to sound smart.

Xtasy26

Cryrostatis looks horrid even got the bad graphic demarit here on gamespot and outside of SW nobody even mentions it , Metro2033 was horribly inconsistent and Kevin V said himself it didnt deserve it.

Even with it's inconsistencies it still TRASHES GOW3 when comparing the DX 11 + TESSELATION + DOF effect of Metro 2033. GOW3 is not even in the same league.

No it doesnt I dont see it having 50++ characters on screen at a time and GOW 3 won best visuals EVERYWHERE not just here on gamespot . Metro2033 is garbage you can blabber about tesselation and dof all you want if its not done well who cares. Once again only here on SW does metro 2033 get any praise . Yet I guess the entire gaming media has never played metro 2033 there all just sheltered consoleites. :roll:

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

1. There not as common as the PS2 had 75% marketshare last gen but they still get them . You can pretty much name 1 genre in pc that gets exclusvies and thats RTS. I can name 3 that getthem on consoles. Are you telling me pc gamers dont like Fighting, Action Adventure and sports?

2. Uncharted 2 outsold Crysis and we all know PS3 doesnt have the install base of PC get my point? You have a 100 mill+++ install base the pc should be romping the ps3 in game sales yet it doesnt.

AnnoyedDragon

You remind me of a creationist.

By that I mean, a creationist argued they will believe in evolution when they see enough transitional fossils. So you show them transitional fossils, but they say that isn't enough; and they will believe when you find enough. The creationist has a interest in maintaining their ideology, so no matter how many transitional fossils you provide, it will never be enough. Never.

It's not enough for you that a game is profitable, it has to reach 'your' standards of profitable. It doesn't matter if it sold well, it has to sell well by 'your' standards. Crysis sold 3 million copies on PC. It made enough money that Crytek could expand their company, buy up other developers, overhaul their engine; and produce another big budget game. By every measure, it was very successful.

But if it's not Uncharted 2 level successful, it's a failure, isn't it? Never mind Uncharted 2 was a sequel to a established franchise, on a mainstream gaming platform, with a 1st party backed budget and marketing campaign. A new IP that demolished the best hardware available at the time. If it doesn't sell the same, it did badly, apparently.

Cryteck set sales expectations for Crysis that were so ridiculous, that it is unlikely that Crysis 2 selling on three platforms have even reached that expectation. But that doesn't concern you, because it's another excuse to impose an unreasonable expectation, that enables you to bash PC.

As long as you elect yourself responsible for determining what is good enough from PC, it will never be good enough.

So the PS3 is a more mainsteam gaming platform now then the PC? But the pc is the most popular platform in the world is it not? It is according to the hermits . You have 10x the install base yet you cant match it in sales? Your calling me a hypocrit? You are like a politician changing the argument when it benefits you. We have thread after thread saying pc gaming is romping console gaming in terms of profits and sales yet games dont sell as well because its not as mainstream?

And the way Crysis was marketed and talked about it should have been the Halo for pc . But it wasnt? Why was that? FPS is a genre that was born on pc it was one of the best fps at the time and it gave hermits what they wanted( exclusvie features and visuals) and it still barely breaks 3 mill?

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

According to who? You? Crysis Warhead couldnt even win best graphics. I own the game it looks great and i bought it a year after it was released and as great as it looked it was nothing amazing. Hermits in the back halls of SW want to act like tis the second coming of christ but we all know its not. And consoles are not limited to 256mb of video ram dont talk technical jargon when you have 0 clue what your talking about they can use closer to 512 as the OS take virtually nothing not to mention most high end console games invove heavy data streaming.

ChubbyGuy40

Graphics here are rated as how great they are compared to other games on the platformm. Thats why MGS4 won 2008 over Warhead, Uncharted 2 in 2009 over Cryostasis, and God of War 3 over Metro 2033 in 2011 (Which was complete BS.)

LOL at you trying to sound smart.

Cryrostatis looks horrid even got the bad graphic demarit here on gamespot and outside of SW nobody even mentions it , Metro2033 was horribly inconsistent and Kevin V said himself it didnt deserve it.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

And no console game can't even COME EVEN CLOSE to matching Crysis 1 graphically. It's like comparing a Ferrari to a Ford Pinto.

And your comment that PC community can't support 3rd party dev is truly nonsense. If that was the case then games like Starcraft 2, WOW, Crysis, Crysis Warhead wouldn't have succeeded on the PC. Nuff said.

Xtasy26

Sorry but your wrong Crysis 1 as good as it looks is nothing spectacular its geometry and texture level have been matched by current console games and it gets romped in areas such as animations. It does well looking great on a large scale but it is nothing spectacular anymore. ANd you named 2 blizzard games like they are the average pc game. Sorry but thats not the case we all know Blizzard can sell games and no "Crysis and Crysis warhead did not do near enough for Crytek the devs said it themselves . Was it profitable? Yes but barely . Outside of Blizzard 3rd party is pretty much non existant at this point.

If Crysis 1 is "nothing spectacular" then I would like to know which console game is. No console game comes within a breath of touching Crysis graphically, that's how far ahead it is. And I am not even talking about modded Crysis which will mow down any other game on the market. And it's texture level has been matched by consoles game? Yeah right. No way any console game would match Crysis' textures because they are bound by consoles lame 256MB video memory. You would need 512MB video memory to max out Crysis and Crysis Warhead. And Crysis and Crysis Warhead did very well. If 4.5 million copies sold is considered bad then I don't what is considered bad. And your statement "3rd party is pretty much non exitant" shows you are clueless about PC gaming. I could list a host of exclusives that will come to the PC for 2011 that will not be on the consoles.

According to who? You? Crysis Warhead couldnt even win best graphics. I own the game it looks great and i bought it a year after it was released and as great as it looked it was nothing amazing. Hermits in the back halls of SW want to act like tis the second coming of christ but we all know its not. And consoles are not limited to 256mb of video ram dont talk technical jargon when you have 0 clue what your talking about they can use closer to 512 as the OS take virtually nothing not to mention most high end console games invove heavy data streaming.

Second I didnt say Crysis sold bad and the sales figure you gave me or Cryis and Crysis:Warhead combined . Yet you cant outsell Halo on the xbox? Or UC2 on the PS3? I thought everyone had a pc capable of running graphics better then consoles ( thats what hermits lead you to beleive) So why with a 200 mill+++ install base if not more can most pc games not outsell consoles?

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

(1)You had them last generation , you lost them because they can no longer support themselves on the pc.(1)(2)Hell sony can spend millions on UC2 and still make profitwhy cant a third party company do the same?(2)(3)You see other big budget games only going ps3/360 and completley leaving out the pc and why is that?(3)

AnnoyedDragon

Why are you demonstrating the same hypocricy twice? There wouldn't be a need to answer any of these if you bothered to look at both PC and console, instead of just criticising PC.

1) Consoles had them last generation. They lost them because they can no longer support themselves on consoles. Basicly, any single platform this generation struggles to support the sort of budgets that current generation games demand. So developers for the most part went cross platform, on both console and PC. Anyone can clearly see that, if they aren't trying to spin it as only occuring on PC.

2) Who said these companies are not making a profit on PC? They went cross platform because they can make more money that way. Crysis made considerable returns for Crytek, but they wanted even more sales. The only reason titles like Uncharted remain PS3 exclusive, is because Sony directly owns the company that produces them. Even if they weren't profitable, they would still remain Playstation exclusive, because those sort of games attract people to those platforms. It's why they exist.

3) You see big budget 3rd party games going to PC, and leaving PS3/360 out. Or going PC/360, and leaving PS3 out. Where is Shogun for consoles? Where is Starcraft consoles? RTS's wouldn't work well on consoles you say? Well maybe those PS3/360 cross platform games were just genres that aren't very popular on PC? Why focus only on PC, when there are examples of the reverse of what you are saying?

Stop being a hypocrite. Though I imagine this mentality is only going to get worse, as selectively blind people see more PC games go cross platform; and declare it a sign of PC dying. Even as more previously console exclusive titles become available on PC...

Welcome to the homogenization of the games industry. Believe it or not, it's affecting all platforms.

1. There not as common as the PS2 had 75% marketshare last gen but they still get them . You can pretty much name 1 genre in pc that gets exclusvies and thats RTS. I can name 3 that getthem on consoles. Are you telling me pc gamers dont like Fighting, Action Adventure and sports?

2. Uncharted 2 outsold Crysis and we all know PS3 doesnt have the install base of PC get my point? You have a 100 mill+++ install base the pc should be romping the ps3 in game sales yet it doesnt.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]I'm sorry, but the game looks slightly worse than Crysis 1 and has smaller scale...a 4 years old game. So no it's not impressive. As a PC gamer you should be well aware of that. iD software got stuck in 2007 and never movede beyond that point even an inch. While what they achieved with that is pretty nice, they deserve no praise for doing anything impressive, because they simply did not.

Xtasy26

And most current pc games look far worse then Crysis 1, There is a reason why Rage gets much graphical praise at the shows and this is done by journalist many of which who have access to high end pc's. People are under the impression that they live in some box and can only play games on consoles and the fact people think that is hillarious to me. These are the same guys that play Crysis on high end rigs they have seen Wticher 2 and they have played Metro 2033 on DX11 and guess what? At the end of the day they still mention how amazing Rage looks on 5 year old hardware?

Why is this? Because the pc community cant support your average 3rd party dev enough for them to shell out the cost it would take to make a big budget exclusive. Dont blame ID blame pc gamers .. End of story.

And no console game can't even COME EVEN CLOSE to matching Crysis 1 graphically. It's like comparing a Ferrari to a Ford Pinto.

And your comment that PC community can't support 3rd party dev is truly nonsense. If that was the case then games like Starcraft 2, WOW, Crysis, Crysis Warhead wouldn't have succeeded on the PC. Nuff said.

Sorry but your wrong Crysis 1 as good as it looks is nothing spectacular its geometry and texture level have been matched by current console games and it gets romped in areas such as animations. It does well looking great on a large scale but it is nothing spectacular anymore. ANd you named 2 blizzard games like they are the average pc game. Sorry but thats not the case we all know Blizzard can sell games and no "Crysis and Crysis warhead did not do near enough for Crytek the devs said it themselves . Was it profitable? Yes but barely . Outside of Blizzard 3rd party is pretty much non existant at this point.

[QUOTE="blabbyboy"]Yeah and what were the release dates of each consoles again?SuperFlakeman

Yeah and who made the most profit this gen again?

Wait Sony lost everything they earned from PS1+PS2 gens combined. Ouch?

LOL no they didnt thats on money made on the hardware alone not the games they sold . As a whole there game division is profitable or they wouldnt have a game division.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="pelvist"]

Upgrade your PC then and stop trying to play recent games on your 15 yea old Hewlet Packard.

pelvist

A GTX285 isnt anywhere near 15 years stop posting on topics you are clueless about , thanks.

Post your DXDiag then.

Im been a fully qualified system technician for the past 12 years, i LOLed when you said im clueless about system specifications.

Generally people who say they "play on a pc" dont refer to themselves as "but hurt Hermits." Oh yeah, thanks to you too!

Im at work on garbage right now( lol hp as a matter a fact) but i can send you a screenshot via mesage if you like at some other time. But yes I game on pc I dont consider myself as ( primary pc gamer) I game on both but Ilike consolesbetter mainly because you usually just dont get the action adventure and fighting games that I love. But it offends me when you act as if the only reason that is the case is because I NEVER played on pc. Really? You think gamers who post on a fourm are so sheltered we only play on consoles?

And when I hear alot of the comments about the diffrences in games I find myself rolling out of my chair in laughter. Are pc's more powreful then consoles? Absolutley mine is easily probably 4x more powerful but does it look 4x better? Um no it doesnt not even close. The framerates are smoother the resolution is higher and the image is crisper but overall the assets are identical in "MOST CASES" . Lots of the same textures all of the same geometry most of the same lighting and you want to tell me pc's look light years ahead? Could they ? Yes Do they? NO.

Sorry im calling it out how i see it.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]And what game looks better on consoles at 60fps-720p? Inconsistancy

They weren't forced to make it this way, they spent too much time on it and they chose to lead on consoles 'cause they were shortsighted, 'least that's what Carmack's been saying. Let's wait for Doom4 to see how 'outdated' id is, and there haven't been many 60fps console games, only DMC4(basically a corridor) and CoD off the top of my head.

And we can't confirm that we've seen the maxed out pc version, only that it was recorded on a pc.

The majority of fighting, racing and action adventure games are 60fps even on consoles. Bayonetta, DMC4, MVC3, SF4 , Tekken 6 those were a few I could think of off the top of my head.

Although there is nothing on the scale of Rage that runs at 60fps.