What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
150 Comments
- xXGeechXx, on 11/29/2007, -11/+81After buying and playing Orange Box on 360 I determined in my head that it would be far better and should really only be played on PC.
- cruppel, on 11/29/2007, -17/+83If you're a "hardcore" gamer and want the best experience you need to forget about both 360 and PS3. The PC still delivers the best control style and graphics without even trying. It's funny that people even debate this.
Before you mash the reply button may I remind you that the PC has been the home of Valve games for 10 years. - scabbers, on 11/29/2007, -7/+38"Unless you require your games to never dip below 30fps"
*raises hand* and looks around - wastedlife, on 11/29/2007, -3/+28I dugg just to spite your comment.
- chronichyjinx, on 11/29/2007, -2/+22Wost powers ever.
- jsauter, on 11/29/2007, -1/+17I used to think FPS would suck with the two thumbsticks as all gaming I had ever done was on a PC, but I eventually got used to it (after quite a bit of practice) and now I really enjoy the fact I don't have to upgrade my 5 year old PC for around $1000 to play the games I want to play. Then again, I am not that hard core of a gamer and everyones needs are different when it comes to video games.
As well, I can see how playing against a PC configuration while on a console would put you at a disadvantage, but since everyone on XboxLive is on the same platform, it doesn't matter that much for multiplayer. - FredFredrickson, on 11/29/2007, -2/+17The PS3's architecture is very different from a normal PC though, so you have to expect problems with game engines designed primarily (and almost specifically) to run on standard PC hardware.
- AntBing, on 11/29/2007, -2/+16I don't think the superiority of graphics are debated as much as the control style (some people DO like controllers better, even though they are not near as quick or accurate in a FPS) and the price points.
- coheedcollapse, on 11/29/2007, -4/+16I bought Orange Box on the PC when it came out. I don't know if I'd feel right playing a Half-Life on anything but that, even if I own a PS3.
- YojimboJango, on 11/29/2007, -1/+12Good greif, I'm playing this on my PC that I built in 2003 for $600 bucks and I can get well over 60fps. EA sucks.
- quentinp, on 11/29/2007, -10/+21It's very odd that there would be any Source engine frame-rate issues on the PS3...we're not talking cutting edge here. (And AFAIK, COD4 etc run just fine right?)
- bahamutxd, on 11/29/2007, -4/+14most hardcore gamers would realize that this is a first person shooter -- and history has shown that FPSs tend to do better on the PC. Development on the console always seems to be done by a 3rd party.
- jsauter, on 11/29/2007, -0/+10And next year when a new game comes out that would lay that PC to waste, I would have to upgrade it again, and again and again. Trust me, I have been down that road before and nothing is more dissapointed then realizing the game you wanted to play sucks because your PC is out of date by one or two gens of graphics cards.
I am done playing that game with the software and hardware companies.
And the biggest benefit, I can convince the wife to let me buy a new console or whatever because she can play Katamari or something on it. Try doing that with a PC gaming rig. - mywhitenoise, on 11/29/2007, -1/+11That's the first time I've ever heard someone call a PS3 a 'welfare' product.
- FredFredrickson, on 11/29/2007, -0/+10Using web videos to judge game performance is pretty obtuse.
- FredFredrickson, on 11/29/2007, -0/+10Perhaps the fact that it wouldn't be a particularly lucrative venture?
- Christbait, on 11/29/2007, -2/+12Assassin's Creed IS boring though.
- asdfrewq, on 11/29/2007, -1/+10I'm with you. In fact, anything below 60fps for extended periods of time feels choppy to me. I'm more then happy to turn graphical prettiness down for the sake of a few extra FPS. Sadly, it seems that more and more developers are sacrificing framerates in order to make games pretty. In turn gamers standards for framerates are slowly declining, which will probably save developers quite a few quid in optimizing time.
- mkrete, on 11/29/2007, -6/+15Hear that?
It's the sound of money exchanging hands.
This report is somewhat reminiscent to the negative campaign to slander Super Mario Galaxy (which is truly an amazing game), and the bolstering of Ratchet & Clank. I'm starting to become far more skeptical to game reviews, simply because I've heard so many conflicting reviews of various , and there is nothing to keep them honest with site advertising at stake.
Take Assassin's Creed for example - I was thinking I would avoid it, but then I read the comments on penny-arcade. Turns out this is a great game!
Take on-line reviews with a grain of salt. - vbrtrmn, on 11/29/2007, -2/+10I'm enjoying it on the PC, especially since you can add the portal gun into the previous episodes.
http://www.primotechnology.com/2007/10/17/half-lif ... - spudnic, on 11/29/2007, -0/+7Just wouldn't be cost effective, not enough gamers on Linux.
Yes, it's a chicken and egg situation, but *shrug* - Spelvin, on 11/29/2007, -2/+9Man, you people must hate watching an entire movie in a theater, 24FPS for an hour or two must kill you.
- childprey, on 11/29/2007, -2/+9For free. In the one game of five that supports online multiplayer.
- Hase0, on 11/29/2007, -0/+7http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
in short we can see much higher frame rates then that - jkoski, on 11/29/2007, -2/+9Don't buy American branded game devices until they quit killing innocent Iraqis.
If you're going to say something stupid at least get your priorities straight... - FredFredrickson, on 11/29/2007, -4/+11Personally, I don't see how games like Team Fortress 2 or Counter-Strike Source can even be remotely enjoyed using two two thumbsticks (as opposed to WASD + mouse).
- sirbeta, on 11/29/2007, -2/+8I'm willing to bet a lot of people did, and that's what the poster wanted.
- Thornhilll, on 11/29/2007, -2/+8And don't buy Chinese products until they stop ***** with Tibet. Quick, get rid of the Chinese-manufactured parts of your PC!
- BreathofCepheus, on 11/29/2007, -7/+13C'mon now, why would anyone be worried, when has the Ps3 ever let us down?
- Thornhilll, on 11/29/2007, -1/+7I don't think he meant that EA games suck, just that the company does. They're pretty well known for pressuring developers into rushing a game and releasing it incomplete.
- smoger, on 11/29/2007, -0/+5did anyone notice the caveats that the article provides? each source lists one thing that should stick out like a sore thumb..
IGN says "Unless you require your games to never dip below 30fps, you should not strike The Orange Box off your PS3 holiday wish list." My answer to that is that a 3 year old game engine running on a next-gen console at relatively low resolutions shouldn't even be *close* to 30fps, let alone BELOW it.
Gamespy says "On the other hand, we're not sure if it's something that's going to matter to gamers who aren't fairly hardcore." Gamers who aren't fairly hardcore? So , casual gamers then. You know,.. all the casual gamers who are playing the Orange Box. I guess they're all buying it for the Peggle demo that's included, right? - inactive, on 11/29/2007, -1/+6BioShock seemed to do a good job of making the controls platform independent. Console players had to toggle through the plasmids (or pause gameplay to select), while the PC allowed players to map each plasmid to an individual button.
- cplex, on 11/29/2007, -0/+5The difference is definitely noticeable. I played Halo 3 incessantly until COD4 came out; and after several lengthy COD4 sessions, Halo 3 seemed REALLY choppy.
- roxya, on 11/29/2007, -3/+8Yes, Sony are now responsible for whaling!
- noumuon, on 11/29/2007, -1/+6and EA doesn't suck? there's a good reason a lot of people share this opinion, and it's not because they're zombies.
- SeBBBe, on 11/29/2007, -0/+5Yes, there's also the actual 360 controller compatible with PCs. I think you missed my point though ;) I said that mouse and keyboard are better, indeed. My own personal reasons for not playing on PC are 1) sit in sofa 2) smoother than on my PC 3) achievements (yes, I'm addicted)
- SeBBBe, on 11/29/2007, -7/+11That's really debatable. I prefer mouse and keyboard as well, but the 360 controller is completely fine. It works great. So it's not that far behind. That's really the only thing the PC version does better than the 360, so I don't see why it "should only be played on PC"... The 360 graphics are pretty much on par; I can't notice any difference.
- Zettabyte, on 11/29/2007, -0/+4It has a 7800gt of some kind in it. Which is better then any video card made in 2003.
- PStheOne, on 11/29/2007, -1/+5When you've got losers out there manually counting pixes, devs are driven to this nonsense.
- imdwalrus, on 11/29/2007, -0/+4One element that's important to remember and which could make this a non-story is that 1UP's early article used what they called a "near-final" version of the game. It's entirely possible that the version that the sites linked to in the article received a different, more complete version of the code. I'm not sure how much optimization could be done in that short time period, but that could explain the discrepancies.
- Christbait, on 11/29/2007, -1/+5The textures on the console versions are utterly attrocious, even on the 360, it looks good overall but they've converted over to the consoles rather badly.
PC version = Better visuals, better controls, better multiplayer and Source SDK - xXGeechXx, on 11/29/2007, -0/+4Honestly I felt the gameplay itself would be better suited for the PC... Controlling vehicles was dam near impossible and the kind of things they were trying to do were much easier with mouse and keyboard... Also TFC would be much better online in a PC environment you can just tell it was geared toward that and I dont think XBL does it justice... Portal on the other hand probably played better on Xbox but maybe I just thought that because its just a really really awesome game...
Im the kind of person that will buy everything for Xbox despite having a servicable computer simply because I have a huge TV with great sound System and I am a huge achivement whore.... But in the case of Orange box I felt it would be better on PC. - SeBBBe, on 11/29/2007, -2/+6I dunno, I played Orange Box both on my PC and my 360, and I enjoyed it more on my 360 because it ran smoother (my PC's a year old), achievements that count towards your gamerscore and also that I can sit in my couch in front of my TV and play. Yeah, I could hook up my PC to my TV, but I wouldn't want that setup for things like surfing.
- VenTatsu, on 11/29/2007, -0/+3I totally agree, because it's impossible to connect any style of game pad to my PC. Microsoft even markets a special 360 style controllers that have a Windows Incompatible logo on the box so you know you can't use it with your PC.
/bizarro - hornfinger, on 11/29/2007, -7/+10The videos on IGN look fine to me.
- a5tr0cr3ep, on 11/29/2007, -2/+5certain games new "wsad" and the mouse... but i think for every game that is better played there is a game for the console that is better played with a controller and console. its all a matter of game type and preference. making gross generalizations is irresponsible of us.
- novask, on 11/29/2007, -0/+3This fact stands true for everything besides Crysis. I'll glady play at 20 FPS and have it look like next gen then play it at 60 fps and have it look like Far Cry.
- Cerebral, on 11/29/2007, -0/+3Well he's getting dugg down because of the generalization of his statement. First of all you cannot garantee a "good FPS" just because you play a game on a PC; you need good enough hardware/setup.
One thing that I have grown to actually dislike about the PC market and begin to love about the Console market is equality. When you play games online with others using PCs you have no idea what you are up against. From the processor(s), amount of RAM, RAID arrays, a mouse with a 2600 dpi, Video Card and even the driver versions on all hardware you can easily be out machined. It would be like trying to race Nascar with a Honda Civic. Then you get to the 2nd tier of inequalities: settings and configurations. How about you installing your new game and taking it online leaving all the defaults on and going and playing online and wondering why some guy was able to snipe you through your smoke grenade only to find out later that he went into the console and turned off effects so he no longer get's any smoke effects on the screen or changes his FOV to 180 degrees etc. It's not a level playing ground.
When I play my 360 however, I know that we all have the same hardware, experience the same issues with controls, all have the same VERSION of drivers and software all with the same patches applied. I know then that there are only 2 to 3 factors that then determines who wins a showdown: 1) Internet connection (obvious here) 2)Host issues (the host on most all 360 games has a huge advantage) and 3) Skill.
So I will agree that if you have the $$ to spend on a system that can get you good framrates on a PC then by all means play FPSs, RTSs, MMORPGs and flight sims on your PC. For pretty much everything else.... I'll stick with my console. - krische, on 11/29/2007, -2/+5Can the human eye even detect a difference between 60fps and 30fps?
- DemonWasp, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2Agreed, but with some caveats. Dipping below 30fps = you lose track of your targets, miss more frequently, and die more often. The problem, however, is only really critical in FPS and other reaction-based games; in RTS and RPG games, as long as you can click in the right area, you're fine, so averaging 30fps isn't entirely unreasonable in terms of gameplay. Of course, I'd prefer to run at a higher framerate, but it's not a matter of whether the game is fun or not for an RTS/RPG.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 150 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is