Giantbomb is kind of bumming me out with this game

#1 Posted by pyrodactyl (2364 posts) -

I know guys, FarCry 3 and many others are way better on PC, the framerate is smooth, the resolution is high and the textures are tessellated out the wazoo, but man, can you please tone down the discuss when you demo the console versions? Hearing people half puking in their mouths while demoing the only version I can buy isn't really encouraging me to pick it up. Even if you say it's a great game all I hear is ``look at this frame rate... urgh`` or ``these textures... man, so glad I picked up the PC version``.

#2 Posted by Animasta (14731 posts) -

what do you want them to say, exactly? it's not like what they're saying is inaccurate.

#3 Posted by BeachThunder (12450 posts) -

If it really bums you out, then, um, maybe it's time to invest in a gaming PC?

#4 Posted by Kerned (1169 posts) -

As the film said in the 90s, reality bites.

#5 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19388 posts) -

If there are superior versions of a game out there, it'd be kind of weird to not compare the inferior ones to the best versions. It's like the complaints they've had with the inferior Wii U ports.

These things can't be taken in a vacuum.

#6 Posted by casper_ (908 posts) -

i'm sure you'll be alright

#7 Posted by jsnyder82 (765 posts) -

After watching the Quick Look, hot damn am I glad I have a good gaming PC. It looks like sweaty ass on consoles. Which wouldn't be terrible as long as it ran smoothly, but it seems choppy as hell, too.

#8 Posted by ViciousReiven (824 posts) -

If it makes you feel better I have a pretty good graphics card and it runs like shit, seriously thinking about just picking up the 360 version.

#9 Posted by envane (1164 posts) -

@FluxWaveZ: i agree but its not liek theyve been avoiding the much better pc version of some multi platform titles for a while now , the only recognition we get is "this apparently looks and runs much better on pc" , granted its easier to do quicklooks and live streams with console games. But yeah , its the end of the current console cycle , while pc is still stron , it makes no sense not to ql the pc version for most upcoming multiplatform titles.

#10 Posted by Sidoran (71 posts) -

I don't think he minds that they compare the two, just that they don't need to act as if their eyes are melting in their sockets. It's not THAT bad.

#11 Posted by Leptok (942 posts) -

I'm surprised they don't call out bad frame more. Bad frame rate means someone did a bad job on the game. After what like 5-7 years it's no surprise what the hardware is. That is discounting things like open world games where the player can cause crazy shit, but if a game chugs for no reason other than poor design it should be called on it.

#12 Posted by bigsmoke77 (791 posts) -

@pyrodactyl: I don't remember them every saying that the textures were bad on the console, can you give a timestamp for them saying that in the quicklook. If they said it defiantly wasn't more than once or twice. If the frame rate drops when they are playing a game they are going to point it out by saying "Man this framerate is bad", doesn't matter if its a PC a xbox, a Sega Saturn they are going to say it. The game is not unplayable on fry cry 3 but its not perfect, so don't fucking worry about it.

#13 Posted by coakroach (2492 posts) -

@pyrodactyl said:

Hearing people half puking in their mouths while demoing the only version I can buy isn't really encouraging me to pick it up.

They stopped you from putting down money on a product that will disappoint you.

I'm pretty sure that's mission accomplished.

#14 Posted by Iron_Tool (228 posts) -

@BeachThunder said:

If it really bums you out, then, um, maybe it's time to invest in a gaming PC?

This ^

#15 Posted by Landon (4164 posts) -

I can see where you're coming from. Far Cry 3 looks fine on the consoles. The thing is, just don't let that stuff get to you. Or buy a PC and become one of them. Either or.

#16 Posted by dungbootle (2428 posts) -

You're taking it too seriously, they were just pointing it out for the audience, not saying the game was absolute poop

It certainly didn't deter me from being interested in getting it for console (which is the only viable option for my setup)

#17 Posted by Krakn3Dfx (2502 posts) -

If you've only been playing games on the 360 for the last 2-3 years, then you've probably dealt with the same issues FC3 has on the system several times before. Newer games have been pushing the hardware in the 360 and PS3 a little too far in some situations for awhile, it's still going to be a perfectly playable game.

Plus Jeff and the team tend to be overly sensitive to stuff like this. They said the same thing about Assassin's Creed 3 on the 360, I played it there, and it was fine. I played it on the PC, too, and yeah, it was smoother in some areas and better looking, but no more or less playable than the 360 version.

At the end of the day, you'll have just as much fun playing this on the 360 as people playing it on the PC. Don't sweat it.

#18 Posted by Iron_Tool (228 posts) -

@pyrodactyl said:

I know guys, FarCry 3 and many others are way better on PC, the framerate is smooth, the resolution is high and the textures are tessellated out the wazoo, but man, can you please tone down the discuss when you demo the console versions?

Funny thing is that we wouldn't hear a beep from you if it was the other way around.

#19 Posted by SeanFoster (889 posts) -

Now you know how it felt to be a PC gamer 5 years ago.

#20 Posted by Andorski (5374 posts) -
#21 Posted by byterunner (319 posts) -

The game isn't in a vacuum, what do you expect them to say, etc etc, blah blah.

I do find post that are saying to just go and buy a gaming pc a bit insensitive/not even bothering to read the entire post, the guy said he can't get a PC. For whatever reason, so lay off the casual, just go and get a PC. Remember, while they are not SUPER expensive like they used to be, $800 dollars is still a lot of money for about 99% of the population.

#22 Posted by Kerned (1169 posts) -

Dude, I just picked up the GameCube version and it looks like shit.

#23 Posted by Robot_Sneakers (417 posts) -

It's understandable that it annoys you but I would just try to shrug it off. I'm almost exclusively a console gamer and I plan on getting far cry, it may not look as good as PC but if I wanted that to always be the case I'd spend money keeping a PC up to date.

But thats not for me, just look forward to even smoother and prettier games when new consoles are out.

#24 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

@Kerned said:

Dude, I just picked up the GameCube version and it looks like shit.

Must be a problem with your GC, mine looks fine.

#25 Posted by blueinferno (458 posts) -

Not all of us have $1200 to invest on a gaming PC. PC versions are unarguably better looking and run smoother, but I don't want to be made like I'm an idiot for only owning consoles, which work perfectly fine for me. Any]one who says games look like shit on PS3 and 360 right now are taking it a bit too far, they may not look as good as the PC versions of games but they certainly don't look like shit.

#26 Posted by blueinferno (458 posts) -

@Robot_Sneakers said:

It's understandable that it annoys you but I would just try to shrug it off. I'm almost exclusively a console gamer and I plan on getting far cry, it may not look as good as PC but if I wanted that to always be the case I'd spend money keeping a PC up to date.

But thats not for me, just look forward to even smoother and prettier games when new consoles are out.

This.

#27 Posted by impartialgecko (1689 posts) -

@BeachThunder said:

If it really bums you out, then, um, maybe it's time to invest in a gaming PC?

That's an investment that a lot of people can't afford to make, so I get the OP's point that console owners would appreciate it if the console versions were evaluated on their own merits.

#28 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2462 posts) -

Yes, they should tell us that the frame rate on the console isn't very stable. The comparison to the PC version is valid and is something they should do when they have the games side by side like that. But they don't have to act like they are seeing their parents 69ing every time the frame rate drops below 30, or jack off to 60fps while saying the console versions aren't "the real version". I dislike a bad frame rate as much as the next guy, but I also dislike when grown men (mostly Brad, some Jeff) FUCKING MOAN about frame rate in a video game. And why didn't they show any multiplayer or coop? Is any of that stuff any good?

#29 Posted by DeathByWaffle (655 posts) -

I do feel like they exaggerate the frame rate dips, but it is just something you have to deal with. Just enjoy whatever version you have, you don't need Jeff's or Brad's blessing or validation to enjoy a game.

#30 Posted by blueinferno (458 posts) -

@jsnyder82 said:

After watching the Quick Look, hot damn am I glad I have a good gaming PC. It looks like sweaty ass on consoles. Which wouldn't be terrible as long as it ran smoothly, but it seems choppy as hell, too.

Sweaty ass? That's a little ridiculous isn't it?

#31 Posted by nohthink (1223 posts) -

@Animasta: He's not saying "be less accurate." He's saying "please tone it down a bit."

#32 Posted by blueinferno (458 posts) -

@MAN_FLANNEL said:

Yes, they should tell us that the frame rate on the console isn't very stable. The comparison to the PC version is valid and is something they should do when they have the games side by side like that. But they don't have to act like they are seeing their parents 69ing every time the frame rate drops below 30, or jack off to 60fps while saying the console versions aren't "the real version". I dislike a bad frame rate as much as the next guy, but I also dislike when grown men (mostly Brad, some Jeff) FUCKING MOAN about frame rate in a video game. And why didn't they show any multiplayer or coop? Is any of that stuff any good?

I agree. It's perfectly valid to compare a PC version of a game to a console version and say it looks and runs better. But to bitch and moan like Brad [and Jeff to a certain extent] about frame rate dips is a little over the top.

#33 Posted by Toxeia (725 posts) -

Hey guys - Far Cry 3 looks bad on the consoles. You better start cutting your wrists now. Except that it being said that a game looks bad on a console doesn't make the game any less of a value to you if you're going to buy it on a console.

What you SHOULD be out raged about is that it's $10 cheaper on Steam/PC than it is for the consoles and it still looks better for us.

#34 Posted by Kerned (1169 posts) -

@PeasantAbuse said:

@Kerned said:

Dude, I just picked up the GameCube version and it looks like shit.

Must be a problem with your GC, mine looks fine.

Damn, I must need more blocks.

#35 Posted by believer258 (12216 posts) -

@Sidoran said:

I don't think he minds that they compare the two, just that they don't need to act as if their eyes are melting in their sockets. It's not THAT bad.

As someone who's only owned a gaming PC for a few months?

It's THAT bad. And I beat Quake IV on 360, so my tolerance for shit framerates is - or was - high. The actual gameplay was playable, I will give it that - if I was still on a console then I could put up with it if it remained consistent. But, man, those cutscenes. Damn.

It's a huge negative point for the console versions of a game. I'm sorry, but when a game runs as badly as Assassin's Creed 3 and this both do on consoles, it's an issue that needs to be raised. If you don't mind it, then more power to you, but I definitely have a big problem with it. It's not "elitism" or "PC gaming master race" or any of that bullshit, it's just fact that the whole package is much worse-looking on consoles. They can't really pull this off, they're too long in the tooth.

#36 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@blueinferno said:

they may not look as good as the PC versions of games but they certainly don't look like shit.

When the framerate dips as much as it seems to on Far Cry 3 and other titles (Assassins Creed III) it deserves to be called out, it's getting too common. I'm so sick of having shitty framerates on console, it's annoying and detrimental to the gameplay experience if you can't maintain a steady framerate throughout your game. I don't mind if it dips at a few specific points but not every time you go to a main city or something.

I don't think Mass Effect on the 360 should have been allowed a release. It ran like shit. My game actually turned to a slideshow at a few points, GTA IV was a travesty too, especially on PS3 which is the version I foolishly bought.

#37 Edited by Milkman (17353 posts) -

So you want them to not talk about the flaws of a console version because it makes you feel bad that you only have a console? No, that's absolutely ridiculous.

For the record, I don't have a gaming PC either and will be playing the 360 version.

Online
#38 Posted by NegativeCero (3041 posts) -

New consoles are around the corner if you don't want to go the PC route.

#39 Edited by Chaser324 (6750 posts) -

I don't have a problem with them mentioning that the PC version looks better and has a smoother frame rate, but I kinda agree that at times it's a little annoying how often they mention the reduced frame rate with an exaggerated tone of disgust. In some cases, the reaction is justified, such as with the Wii U release of Epic Mickey 2, but in most cases I feel like it isn't anywhere near as big a deal as they make it sound.

AC3 was when it first started getting to me a bit. It seemed like a major portion of every conversation about that game ended up being about how awful the frame rate was. I agree that the frame rate isn't all that great, but I don't feel like it was terrible enough to have a huge impact on enjoyment of that game, definitely not the extent where it should merit so much prominence in the conversation of the game.

Moderator
#40 Posted by Trilogy (2692 posts) -

No matter where you stand on the issue, you have to admit that the recent trend of games running like shit on the console version is unacceptable. I feel like were at a point where developers are trying to push the current hardware further than it's built to go. That, or its just end of the cycle laziness. Either way, new hardware can't get get here fast enough as far as I'm concerned.

#41 Posted by mellotronrules (1257 posts) -

@pyrodactyl:

i really don't mean to sound insensitive- but if you're asking this bunch to tone it down, you're probably spending time at the wrong website. i'd rather them overemphasize their platform preference than feel like they have to be 'respectful' to each platform.

#42 Edited by Chaser324 (6750 posts) -

@Trilogy: I'm not sure if "end of cycle laziness" is actually a thing. They're trying to push these consoles as hard as they can go, and most developers seem fine with sacrificing frame rate for higher poly counts and better textures. Maybe it's a poor decision, but that's just the trend and nobody wants to put out a game that doesn't look as good or better in screenshots next to other games in the same genre.

Moderator
#43 Posted by TheHT (11839 posts) -

I give this thread a B-

#44 Posted by DeShawn2ks (1058 posts) -

@pyrodactyl: You should do what I do and just not give a shit. Been console gaming my whole life and really only try to play a game or think about upgrading the pc when something I can't get anywhere else comes out. I'm not a wanna be game journalist so a frame rate hiccup or textures don't stand out to me to much. They have to be real bad for me to even notice and the last game I remembered doing that to me is Skyrim on 360. Yeah it can get annoying when every video or podcast says how the game is so much better on the pc but it is like no shit. The news would be if a game ran like shit on pc and not on consoles. So don't worry about it and get a good gaming pc when Simcity comes out so the crooks in my town can rob your banks.

#45 Posted by jsnyder82 (765 posts) -

@blueinferno said:

@jsnyder82 said:

After watching the Quick Look, hot damn am I glad I have a good gaming PC. It looks like sweaty ass on consoles. Which wouldn't be terrible as long as it ran smoothly, but it seems choppy as hell, too.

Sweaty ass? That's a little ridiculous isn't it?

Normally it would be. But not for this game.

#46 Posted by Marz (5672 posts) -

so you want them to lie about it?

#47 Posted by RockyRaccoon37 (468 posts) -

@MAN_FLANNEL said:

Yes, they should tell us that the frame rate on the console isn't very stable. The comparison to the PC version is valid and is something they should do when they have the games side by side like that. But they don't have to act like they are seeing their parents 69ing every time the frame rate drops below 30, or jack off to 60fps while saying the console versions aren't "the real version". I dislike a bad frame rate as much as the next guy, but I also dislike when grown men (mostly Brad, some Jeff) FUCKING MOAN about frame rate in a video game. And why didn't they show any multiplayer or coop? Is any of that stuff any good?

If the frame rate isn't a concern for you then what do you care if Brad complains about it?

#48 Posted by laserbolts (5372 posts) -

I don't give a fuck how good a shark looks as long as I'm punching it. Have fun dude.

#49 Posted by Draugen (702 posts) -

@TheHumanDove said:

I'm so glad Im pc master race...oh, sorry brah. Didnt see you there...

I raise my champagne glass to you, sir. I say, I nearly dropped my monocle when I saw that xbox version.

#50 Posted by VisariLoyalist (3000 posts) -

@SeanFoster said:

Now you know how it felt to be a PC gamer 5 years ago.

and how it will feel again in about 2 years when the ps4 or whatever is out. At least if all past trends hold.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.