Discussion in 'Gaming' started by HellRipper, Mar 19, 2011.

  1. You keep repeating, quit that.
    BC2 was made with consoles in mind, if the consoles werent so important to dice, we might have seen already another BF game, just like in the past with vietnam, 2142, etc
    Btw, bf3 isnt out yet, doubt if it will be like 1942/bf2
  2. Yes, you keep avoiding debate. Why don't you enter into debate instead of repeating yourself? You seem to be doing the same thing with AKS too. Why are you avoiding discussing things?
  3. Maybe you should consider what Phisix said. And perhaps read, cause ive explained the BC2 part to AKS.
  4. I agree with hellripper that in some small way the developing of games primarily for consoles can have an adverse effect on the final quality of the pc port. But I also agree with monsly that it's only a tiny tiny part of the reason why consoles are"single handedly destroying pc gaming".

    Is it not true that pc gaming now is better than it has ever been? Is THAT because of consoles too?
  5. It is not better then it have ever been, if you look back in time, lets say games like BF1942, BF2 (and all their mods), the CoD series, SSH2, UT99, Quake, HL, i mean, those kind of games are pretty much vanished, server browsers are gone, LAN support is rare, and there arent many games that push high-end hardware, unlike backthen.

    Add to that, the straight porting is becoming a more fashing these days, just look at Crysis 2, 'press start to begin'. I mean, comon...
    And then the FOV these days translating its way to PC games (BC2, Bulletstorm, Crysis 2), its just unbeareble, we have to alter the FOV levels via .ini files to get the game 'pc' again.

    Btw, i assume you made a typo there (consoles getting destroyed by pc?:p), but its not just me screaming around that consoles affect the state of pc gaming, its certain developers too, and alot of people. Now you can say their all unright, but this thought is being seen more and more these days.
  6. This thread will scoop many awards at this years first PVCF3 thread awards. It's in front for

    1) Most Amusing Thread
    2) Most Annoying Thread
    3) Most Retarded Thread
    4) Best Made Up Word Thread

    Never before has a thread ever managed to be all those things at once.

    And when I come back from work later I will utterly destroy this theory of "consolisation"..or whatever it is that's being touted as undeniable fact.
  7. *
    5) Most Rare Thread

    Since i had the balls to create this topic in a console filled forum.
  8. No..it's a stupid thread based on a stupid hypothesis which in turn is based on the blinkered, uninformed opinion of a fanboy of the absolute worst kind.

    What you're actually trying to say is that games today aren't as good as the games you remember in the 90's and somehow trying to pin this on the fact that consoles are far more popular than PC's. You've been asked to prove it but you've not done this. I would suggest that if you're going to create threads like this then you should at least have the decency to engage people who call you on your claims in a reasonable debate. So far you have not and the reason for this is simple; you have absolutely no credible excuse for it other than this, (frightening), hatred of consoles.

    But, fuck it, I can be an hour late so let's go through your hilarious posts thus far to get your points:

    First off, what the FUCK is "console style"? Seriously, that's retarded statement number 1 right there. How are those games in any way shape or form ruined by being put onto console? First person shooters are, from a gameplay perspective, incredibly simple to implement so I'm unsure how putting an FPS on a console can somehow undermine the game.

    You mean games like Half Life 2? Which was ported perfectly over to the 360 and had an exceptional port on the old Xbox. Come to think of it..i Think Quake, Deus Ex and Unreal Tournament all got console ports too...hmmm

    Flight Sims? For real? I'm fairly sure there are like a gajillion flight sims out there because for some reason there is an insane market of people who want to buy shit like that and train sims. They never appear on console so how have they been spoiled by consoles? I really want an answer to that one...

    Care to link me to the exact quote. I'm talking the exact quote; not something you or some other raging nerd has paraphrased into an entirely different meaning.

    Wow. You mean to tell me that people in business actually try to make money? Well, I'm glad you've cleared that up for me.

    I played Crysis 2 at a show on an NVIDIA card that, at the time, hadn't been released. Even in its debug/early alpha/beta stages it not only wiped the floor with the PS3 and 360 versions, (which looked close in fairness), but it was an absolutely stunning game. I'd like you to show me some clips of a PC version of Crysis 2 and show me what exactly about it doesn't look as good as Crysis...go do it.

    You'll find that most games are developed on PC and ported over. Capcoms MT Framework is a PC based game engine that ports nicely to consoles. Probably every game on the 360 is built on the PC first and then ported across for optimization; it's actually a "recommendation" by Microsoft. The company I work for have their own bespoke engine, built on and around the PC and then ported over to work on the consoles. It's actually MUCH cheaper to make a game on PC first, (your prototype), and then move over. Your statement that developers build on 360 and PS3 devkits and then move over is just sheer ignorance of an inexcusable magnitude.

    Technically speaking the fact that consoles have trimmed down multiplayers stems from the fact that publishers don't want to run servers for players. The only reason a game Battlefield 2 supports 64 players online is because people can run their own servers on a dedicated host. You'd never in a MILLION YEARS run a game with 64 players on a system that was running on an ADSL line and playing the game at the same time. Just to put your idea to bed once and for all, MAG on PS3 might not be my favourite game but it supports 256 players in a match precisely because it is ran on dedicated server hardware; incase you can't count that's 4x as may players as BF2 yet I don't see you praising that game even though it outperforms what you see as being PC's trump card.

    Then you've also got QOS issues. MS don't want servers full of people. 16 People in a room on xbox live is pretty nasty; I've been in rooms on TF2 on PC where everyone has a headset and they're just unbearable assholes so probably having a room of 64 screaming fuckwits isn't what MS or Sony want to promote.

    Your accusations that games are dumbed down because they're being made for consoles are completely and utterly baseless.
  9. Are you really (trying) to be serious there?
    DICE even said that its thanks to the consoles CPU's and memory, read it up on the topic i created for BF3 here, same applys for the scans about DICE saying that they are one of the few developers that use the pc as their lead platform.

    Comparing MAG to BC2 or even BF3 :lol:
    That my friend, says enough about your knowledge.

    PlanetSide, a game from 2003, supported 300 players in one match/server.
    Dunno if youve ever played MAG, but i have, and it looks crap, and lacks the destruction BC2 has. And who you think i believe, you or DICE? First off, your a console fanboy, and second off, your not a developer.
  10. Oh right..so you totally fail to give me the quote from DICE. Right. Nice one.

    Nobody questions that a modern gaming PC has a better CPU and GPU than a console but that in no way effects the playability of the game; it just makes it look better. Show me the exact quote where DICE say that consoles ruin games or limit the possibilities of what you can do. I want it..now.

    Exactly. On one SERVER. You fucking dumbass.
  11. Then il reply to the rest of your little story.

    Console style, thats the FOV, the lack of server browsers, framerate caps, and limited graphics.

    Half Life 2 exceptional on Xbox? Just like Doom 3 was on that platfrom?

    Regarding flight sims:

    And dont dare to edit my posts!

    Crysis 1 and 2 are complete different games, in graphics, but aswel the gameplay, and MP. Wheres power struggle and the ability to drive vehicles? And why are the maps so small this time around? And why are ppl complaining about those facts?
    Perhaps, they were expecting a nice follow up, but its completly dumbed down.
  12. Wow. Way to prove how ignorant you are of how these things works. Limited graphics? AKS has already showed you Metro 2033 is in no way limited by being on consoles as well as PC. The PC version is better. You claim holds absolutely no water whatsoever.

    Here's a link for you:


    Here's another one:

    Not one suggestion that Consoles suck or ruin the game.

    Wow. They removed a feature from the game that probably nobody used in the first place. Oh noes..it mst be teh consolez... Lame excuses..that's all I'm hearing.
  13. Like ive said before, that leaves Metro as the only game being technically very far ahead from the console versions.

    Regarding BF3, DICE says the pc version will be way better, but the game's not out yet, it are promises, we will have to see what comes true, i strongly doubt it will surpass BF2.

    Lol, in Crysis 2, they made the maps smaller, removed vehicles, and vanhished Power Struggle, most played game mode in the old Crysis, and nobody used it or liked it, lol
  14. Oh right. So when you want to make baseless claims, DICE's imaginary statements are the "go to" place to back up your claims. But when shown to be complete nonsense in the face of REAL claims from DICE, words like "promises" are used and DICE's word no longer has any value? Oh dear...

    You know what that's called? It's called "Losing an Argument"
  15. Heres your quote from DICE, saying that the consoles are limited in their hardware.

    Source: http://www.examiner.com/console-gaming-in-national/battlefield-3-console-multiplayer-limited-by-hardware-and-networks

    PC version aswel gets full 3D support, and DX11 features, lacking in the console versions due to their hardware.


    Offcourse, these are promises, we dont have the actual game yet, so its hard to say if BF3 is affected by the consoles (consolized).

    Btw, you have said you were gonna destroy the 'consolized' thing, well, in my view, youvent done that.

    Losing an argument, and what is that by saying that Crysis 1 and 2 are equal in graphics?
    The reason i quote them cause they are the truth (regarding the consoles limited hardware, etc) otherwise why would BC2 be allready limited? DICE allready noted that BC2 was maxing the PS3, and that is history, the game is allready bin out for over a year. But if dice WILL make BF3 stand high above the console versions, that remains to be seen in the near future.
  16. LOL - It doesn't anywhere say the game is ruined though does it? Way to selectively choose a sentence out of context by the way. Following on from your copy and paste job it says:

    Again, the console version of the game WON'T have any form of dedicating hosting. It's just not worth their while doing. But they could do and the changes being implemented on PSN and XBL to allow apps from outside the system to run could drastically change that.

    Again, nobody denies that the PC is a more powerful platform. What people are mocking is your absurd claim that games are somehow ruined by being put onto consoles. It's complete bullshit...

    Well that'd be a stretch since Crysis 2 running on a high end PC looks better than Crysis.
  17. So DICE saying that the player limit is thanks to cpu/gpu power and memory for the consoles is just BS and you are the only one thats right saying its thanks to network only? :lol:

    Crysis 1 and 2, when both ran on high-end pc, Crysis 2 is not even a match, just youtube it, its all over the place. Crysis 2 doesnt even have destruction, the maps are smaller, and MP is limited. Hell, Crytek even said themselfs they were going the console route 'thx to piracy'

    Why BF3 will play different on pc? well, firstoff, it supports 3D, that must be a difference in gameplay, as you are able to see more dept, the maps are bigger, theres 64 players opposed to 24. If that alone doesnt change any gameplay, somethings terribily wrong.
  18. MAG is ran on dedicated servers aswel. Btw, the forum rules state that personal attacks are not allowed.
    Anyway, your above that rule, since you have more mod powers? You change my status aswel to Consolisation kill the gaming, but am i not saying its killing PC gaming?

    Way to go dude.
  19. Nobody had disputed the fact that MAG runs on dedicated servers. It's merely been stated that if a console game's multiplayer is hosted on dedicated servers, like PC games, the number of players are comparable.

    Another example, Resistance 2, was run on a dedicated server and that had 60 player games.
  20. Its not really a good thing to compare two very different games to eachother.
    Resistance 2 and BC2 are completely different games.

    DICE have stated that the player limit on both consoles is thanks to their CPU/GPU and memory systems, and not the network performance alone.

    PlanetSide on dedicated server could run up to 300 players, on a P4 system. This doesnt mean that it can run BC2 with the same amount of players aswel.

    And no-one indeed said that MAG isnt run on dedicated servers, but planetside runs on dedicated servers too, and it supports more players then MAG, while it came out in 2003 and ran fine on a P4 system. If were gonna compare different games anyway... then this one's valid too.

    Aside from this, Resistance 3 is going to support no more then 24 players, if am right.