|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Maken Tosch
Dust University
Ivy League
12
   |
Posted - 2016.02.10 02:02:00 -
[1] - Quote
Oh my god, not this PC Master Race vs Console Peasant bullspit again. Let it die already.
Eve Online Invite
https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
|
Maken Tosch
Dust University
Ivy League
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 02:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Scotty AI MatchMaker wrote:Maken Tosch wrote:Oh my god, not this PC Master Race vs Console Peasant bullspit again. Let it die already. real gamers play games on whatever, even ball in a cup,
Uh oh, the ball fell off the cup. But that's OK because there is a string tying the ball to the cup.
Eve Online Invite
https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
|
Maken Tosch
Dust University
Ivy League
12
|
Posted - 2016.02.10 04:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
xxwhitedevilxx M wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Aidualc wrote:4lbert Wesker wrote:60 fps
1080p at 60 fps
superior graphics on 1080p at 60 fps
Anything else console peasant? The human eye only perceive 24-30 FPS... Yea, you have no idea what you're talking about. This is untrue afaik: human eyes can perceive a much wider range of "fps". Last time I've read something about it it was at like 150 - 200 fps to clearly perceive an image. Might be higher for some people, lower for others. The problem here is much more complicated than a simple "there's no need to go beyond x fps because I wouldn't perceive the difference anyway". It's actually really complicated, but the simple thing to test it is: Watch this gif. Can you see any difference between 30 fps and 60 fps? if so, great! You just answered yourself!
You know, I hate it when I look up Google for articles or journals posted by experienced medical professionals to see what they found to be the fasted that the human eye can perceive in terms of frame rates. BUT NOOOOOOOO I keep running into nothing but video game websites with people posting seemingly conflicting information on what are the estimates. Isn't there a single professional article or medical journal describing in detail what's going on?
Eve Online Invite
https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
|
Maken Tosch
Dust University
Ivy League
13
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
ANON Cerberus wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Whilst most of the points noted by the PCMR crowd in this thread are true, in a 'competitive' game with a 'persistent' universe it is also immensely more vulnerable to hackers. EVE online has the least hackers and cheats I have ever seen in any online game ever. I would hope that their PC New Eden FPS (Aka DUST 2.0) would be the same. (Hope - Being the operative word)
You can thank Tranquility Server (aka Big brother) for that.
Eve Online Invite
https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
|
Maken Tosch
Dust University
Ivy League
13
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 00:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
Scalesdini wrote:Shamarskii Simon wrote:It's funny that gamers reached to the level of GRAPHICS to determine a good game.
A game is based on the MECHANICS, the STORY (if it has one), it's GAMEPLAY. Forget about who got 4k res or 480i res... That means nothing. This is the stupidest thing I've seen today. If graphics mean nothing to you, why do you have a PS3? Why aren't you still on NES? Or Atari? Mechanics, story, and gameplay are great, but you forgot about IMMERSION. Which is accomplished with... wait for it... GRAPHICS. And sound. Quote:One day modular consoles will be a thing...... Almost able to be a PC. No, they won't be, because people who buy consoles don't want to upgrade their consoles and deal with varying system requirements, etc, which is one of two reasons to buy a console in 2016, the other being exclusives. If Sony/MS do decide to start making modular consoles, it will be RIP consoles. PS4 and Xbone have already driven plenty of people to invest in gaming PC's because they're garbage-tier PC components stuck in a tiny box that can never be upgraded. It's not coincidence PC gaming picked up at the same time this lackluster generation of consoles came out.
In regards to graphics, I have something to say about that.
But before I continue I want to remind everyone here that I am a cross-platform gamer. I have a decent gaming rig and several consoles from Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo including a Nintendo 3Ds XL. I have also once owned a gaming laptop before I switched over to a gaming deskptop for obvious reasons. I have played all kind of games and simulators on the PC while playing only a select few console games in my lifetime and I have invested a lot of money on both sides.
Anyways, back to what I was about to say.
Good graphics don't make a good game. Period. I don't care what anyone says and there is undeniable proof that even games with awesome visual qualities can still be terrible in ways that can hurt the sale of the game.
I don't have to remind anyone here on what happened with Assassin's Creed Unity. That game was just messed up internally despite the visuals that can impress most Hollywood critics. I didn't even have to play the game to find out.
Here is a review that covered gameplay alone:
http://kotaku.com/assassins-creed-unity-the-kotaku-review-1657368877
Then there is this review that referred to technical problem with the game:
http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/24/7445427/assassins-creed-unity-glitches-broken-free-dlc-problems
Everyone no doubt agrees that Assassin's Creed Unity looked like it was painted by Leonardo Da Vinci, but it was virtually impossible to cover up the problems the game had. Because of the reviews, I chose not to buy that game. If you think CCP Games is bad at making games, just take a look at how Ubi Soft handled its own and don't get me started on EA.
Sure, the better the graphics the better the immersion. There is no denying that. But you know what else can't be denied? How extremely easy it is to break that immersion with a glitch or bug or terrible mechanics.
Here is another example. IL-2 Sturmovik 1946. It's a PC-based Combat Flight Simulator developed by 1C Maddox and it's available in Steam. It's graphics are not all that impressive (although Cliffs of Dover looks impressive) but it's accuracy with aircraft handling, engine management, and the fact that you had to build up a lot of experience in how to shoot down a plane with just your guns made it the prime choice for combat flight simulator enthusiasts. Non-combat simulators like Microsoft's Flight Simulator X (the IP of which was later bought by Lockheed Martin), Lockheed Martin's Prepar3D (it's practically Flight Simulator X but better), and Laminar Research's X-Plane 10 are often used by real-world pilots to practice many flights in the comfort of their own homes thanks to the high accuracy of the "flight models" which is a term used to describe how close to the real-world the simulated aircraft handles in flight.
Then you have simulators that accomplish both great visual realism and pretty accurate handling such as WarThunder.
Examples:
https://youtu.be/S0-UR3FVH1E
https://youtu.be/30pSJ0wOB6U
https://youtu.be/fI9lN9pCJr4
https://youtu.be/EYPvzmOV580
https://youtu.be/yCSHmf3Y2zA
https://youtu.be/NGYLubr4Dn4
That last link was for comparison.
I could have used Minecraft as an example, but that's been done to death by other reviewers.
Overall, my point will always stand. Visual quality might be great, but gameplay will always be a primary factor. If visuals always made a great game no matter what, then the reviewers at Kotaku and Polygon would have sung a different tune about it for Unity.
Eve Online Invite
https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
|
|
|
| |
|