• 149 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by Deathstriker (308 posts) -

I was just listening to the latest podcast and they (well, really just Brad) made it sound like Far Cry 3 was crap on 360, since it was just "barely playable". I've spent over 4 hours with the game so far, a lot of that was setting stuff on fire, gliding, causing explosions, etc, all of which is technically demanding, and I haven't run into any frame-rate issues at all and the graphics look good. Halo 4 looks better on a technical level, but Far Cry 3 looks better or on the same level as most big 2012 console games, so I'm curious why it's so horrible to play... maybe someone here can shed some light or is it just PC elitism? It definitely looks and runs way better than Red Dead while doing more complicated things, and I don't remember anyone saying Red Dead was "barely playable". I was also surprised at some of their graphic complaints towards AC3, other than a few things like the textures on certain trees and stuff looking plain/bad sometimes, that was a good looking game, especially the faces. Anyone else think they sometimes complain about graphics and/or frame-rate quality when there's nothing bad going on?

#2 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

They are quite used to playing on PC these days, so of course console will stick out as just plain bad in comparison. This isn't really a new thing but two big releases this year have been noticably shaky in the framerate department. (AC3, Far Cry 3)

and I think AC3 actually looks pretty shitty myself, that quick look made it look terrible...

edit: I don't think any game beats out Mass Effect on 360 for framerate issues, that game shouldn't have been released in that state. Slideshow galore.

#3 Posted by adam1808 (1459 posts) -

I can see where you're coming from but even though I play most of my games on console I have no delusions about the fact that the framerates are often unacceptable and the graphics poor. Yes, there is something bad going on. As a console player I expect 30 frames per second, no more no less and if it's routinely less than 20 frames per second that results in a shitty experience. Console games look good in a vacuum but compared to what even a modest PC can do they look like they're stuck in the dark ages.

Don't worry about what they say on the Bombcast, Brad is technical nut and likes those high-res textures and will express himself with a view to that. He's also right, but don't let that diminish your experience of a game you enjoy.

#4 Posted by adam1808 (1459 posts) -

@Sooty said:

edit: I don't think any game beats out Mass Effect on 360 for framerate issues, that game shouldn't have been released in that state. Slideshow galore.

You should try Mass Effect 3 on PS3 sometime

#5 Posted by Tyashki (213 posts) -

I don't really expect smooth framerates on 7+ year old hardware anymore. That's what the PC is for.

#6 Posted by Ramboknife (114 posts) -

@Deathstriker said:

I was just listening to the latest podcast and they (well, really just Brad) made it sound like Far Cry 3 was crap on 360, since it was just "barely playable". I've spent over 4 hours with the game so far, a lot of that was setting stuff on fire, gliding, causing explosions, etc, all of which is technically demanding, and I haven't run into any frame-rate issues at all and the graphics look good. Halo 4 looks better on a technical level, but Far Cry 3 looks better or on the same level as most big 2012 console games, so I'm curious why it's so horrible to play... maybe someone here can shed some light or is it just PC elitism? It definitely looks and runs way better than Red Dead while doing more complicated things, and I don't remember anyone saying Red Dead was "barely playable". I was also surprised at some of their graphic complaints towards AC3, other than a few things like the textures on certain trees and stuff looking plain/bad sometimes, that was a good looking game, especially the faces. Anyone else think they sometimes complain about graphics and/or frame-rate quality when there's nothing bad going on?

If you think sub 25 frames per second isn't barely playable for a first person shooter and shouldn't be considered "an issue", then I feel incredibly sorry for you. Check this out for more information:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-far-cry-3-face-off

#7 Edited by Deathstriker (308 posts) -

@adam1808 said:

I can see where you're coming from but even though I play most of my games on console I have no delusions about the fact that the framerates are often unacceptable and the graphics poor. Yes, there is something bad going on. As a console player I expect 30 frames per second, no more no less and if it's routinely less than 20 frames per second that results in a shitty experience. Console games look good in a vacuum but compared to what even a modest PC can do they look like they're stuck in the dark ages.

Don't worry about what they say on the Bombcast, Brad is technical nut and likes those high-res textures and will express himself with a view to that. He's also right, but don't let that diminish your experience of a game you enjoy.

Yeah, I wouldn't let someone's opinion affect my experience, I simply thought saying it's "barely playable" was a huge exaggeration, especially since he gave it 5 stars and the review says it's for PC, PS3, and 360. If it's THAT bad then maybe do multiple reviews per platform or don't include them all together. So far, I haven't had any framerate issues, maybe something happens later, but everything has been good up until now. Bullet Witch is barely playable, not Far Cry 3 lol.

#8 Posted by Deathstriker (308 posts) -

@Ramboknife said:

@Deathstriker said:

I was just listening to the latest podcast and they (well, really just Brad) made it sound like Far Cry 3 was crap on 360, since it was just "barely playable". I've spent over 4 hours with the game so far, a lot of that was setting stuff on fire, gliding, causing explosions, etc, all of which is technically demanding, and I haven't run into any frame-rate issues at all and the graphics look good. Halo 4 looks better on a technical level, but Far Cry 3 looks better or on the same level as most big 2012 console games, so I'm curious why it's so horrible to play... maybe someone here can shed some light or is it just PC elitism? It definitely looks and runs way better than Red Dead while doing more complicated things, and I don't remember anyone saying Red Dead was "barely playable". I was also surprised at some of their graphic complaints towards AC3, other than a few things like the textures on certain trees and stuff looking plain/bad sometimes, that was a good looking game, especially the faces. Anyone else think they sometimes complain about graphics and/or frame-rate quality when there's nothing bad going on?

If you think sub 25 frames per second isn't barely playable for a first person shooter and shouldn't be considered "an issue", then I feel incredibly sorry for you. Check this out for more information:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-far-cry-3-face-off

I saw a difference but not a day & night difference. Really, why are we even comparing the PC and console versions? Just because the PC version is better on a technical level does not mean the console version is crap... that's silly logic. That would be like someone thinking "I like my girlfriend, she's cool and very hot. Oh wait, a chick that looks like Halle Berry just walked in... I now think my girlfriend looks like a piece of shit". The 360 version of FC3, compared to nothing but itself and peers on console, is good.

#9 Posted by Nightriff (5033 posts) -

Brad is a PC elitist, about explains it.

Online
#10 Posted by haggis (1677 posts) -

The "barely playable" thing really is a matter of opinion. If you're used to playing on a console, where we get sub-25fps and screen tearing all the time, Far Cry 3's problems might not bother you much. Assassin's Creed 3 has all sorts of framerate issues, but it hasn't stopped me from playing. It's all what you're used to and what you're used to putting up with.

#11 Posted by punkxblaze (2974 posts) -

I find it really interesting how, two or three years ago, the complaint often was that the duders didn't pay enough attention to the PC, which is why Dave was such a godsend to some people. Now, with the advent of good PC versions, steam big picture, and living room setups, it's become something of the opposite issue. I'm relatively sure it'll hit a switchback when new console hardware comes out and we start the cycle all over again.

#12 Edited by MB (12286 posts) -

@haggis said:

The "barely playable" thing really is a matter of opinion. If you're used to playing on a console, where we get sub-25fps and screen tearing all the time, Far Cry 3's problems might not bother you much. Assassin's Creed 3 has all sorts of framerate issues, but it hasn't stopped me from playing. It's all what you're used to and what you're used to putting up with.

I suppose it is. I guess I didn't know what I was missing when I only had consoles...then I invested in building a PC that could handle pretty much anything I threw at it and most console games immediately became unplayable. It's too hard for me to go from constant 60FPS with every possible detail maxed out at 1920x1080 down to 720p textures (at best) at sometimes less than half the framerate.

I do still play some multiplatform games on Xbox 360 when the PC version isn't obviously superior, but I don't think it's elitism to say that Far Cry 3 on PC is light years ahead of the console versions in virtually every conceivable way. The difference is dramatic.

@Deathstriker: I have to agree with Brad when he considers the console versions of Far Cry 3 barely playable...but it's all relative. An analogy would be taking someone out of their brand new Mercedes and putting them in a 1984 Honda Civic...sure it'll get you from A to B, but I'm sure it would feel barely drivable to those used to something better.

Moderator Online
#13 Edited by CptBedlam (4449 posts) -

I'm under the impression as well that since most of the crew upgraded their gaming PCs, they seem to be quite a bit harsher on console versions. For example, Brad strongly recommending against playing the 360 version of Walking Dead was a bit laughable in my opinion.

If Brad considers games that run in 30 fps with occasional framedrops "unplayable", then he shouldn't have been able to play Red Dead Redemption (and enjoy it as much as he did), for example. Nah, I think there is indeed some amount of snobbery going on here when only multiplatform games get called out for their technical shortcomings but some console exclusive games with the same shortcomings are still considered masterpieces. Hence, I'm pretty sure if the console version of Far Cry 3 would be the only way to play the game, he wouldn't call it "unplayable".

Online
#14 Posted by Christoffer (1801 posts) -

Personally I can't handle a low framerate at all. 30 FPS on a shooter will take away some enjoyment for me. I'd rather have the option to lower the resolution, turn down the AA and the texture quality. Maybe some people prefer it the other way around, I don't know.

It's not PC elitism, it's people having different preferences. And PC allows you to choose a bit more. Brad seems to hate a low FPS and the fact that it's old hardware doesn't change that (but maybe "unplayable" is a bit harsh).

#15 Posted by Bollard (5450 posts) -

It's not PC elitism, consoles are so old.

If you've seen what can now be done at 60fps, it makes the console experience harder to just put up with. If consoles are all you've seen then you won't know.

#16 Posted by hollitz (1507 posts) -

@Deathstriker: People misspeak or get hyperbolic on podcasts. It happens all the time. It' just a part of conversations. The main point that Brad was making was that they should have tweaked the 360 version to make it PLAY better instead of being so concerned with the visuals that were going to slow down the FPS.

#17 Posted by AlisterCat (5538 posts) -

It isn't elitism, it's just the visual shock when you play a superior version. When you can get 1080p vs 720p, 60fps vs sub 30fps it's really hard to go back. I play PC and 360 on the same TV and having such a clear difference means it's hard to play anything on the 360.

It's not objectively unplayable, but to eyes that know what can and is possible, it might just be.

Online
#18 Posted by pandorasbox (303 posts) -

Here is the thing; if you're a console gamer, you probably don't even notice the frame rate issues in video games. Why? Because low fps on a console game has always been the norm outside of call of duty. It's something you've adapted to. I was the same way before I became a PC gamer.

#19 Posted by ViciousReiven (821 posts) -

To me framerates themselves don't seem to matter as much as how much of an average you can maintain, if you can keep a near perfect framerate with no.few drops it will be a magnitude smoother than a constantly fluctuating framerate, even if the former is lesser than the latter. (at least from experience)
 
I really just wish developers wouldn't have tried to push the limits if they knew it was going to affect performance, either that or optimize their games better.

#20 Posted by pandorasbox (303 posts) -

@ViciousReiven: This is only true to an extent. You can have a game thats locked at 15 FPS with zero drops, but that game will still play like shit. Go play any source game and set fps_max to 15 and see what i'm talking about.

#21 Posted by Fattony12000 (7323 posts) -

It's barely playable when you compare it to what you are able to see in the PC version.

Far Cry 3 Screenshot Thread

It's obviously okay, just not that okay.

#22 Posted by ViciousReiven (821 posts) -
@pandorasbox said:

@ViciousReiven: This is only true to an extent. You can have a game thats locked at 15 FPS with zero drops, but that game will still play like shit. Go play any source game and set fps_max to 15 and see what i'm talking about.

I disagree, I'd rather play Portal 2 at 15 fps (yes I just tried this) than I would Far Cry 3 flickering back and forth between 40-70 with constant micro-stutters.
#23 Edited by BigDaddy81 (320 posts) -

@MB said:

@haggis said:

The "barely playable" thing really is a matter of opinion. If you're used to playing on a console, where we get sub-25fps and screen tearing all the time, Far Cry 3's problems might not bother you much. Assassin's Creed 3 has all sorts of framerate issues, but it hasn't stopped me from playing. It's all what you're used to and what you're used to putting up with.

I suppose it is. I guess I didn't know what I was missing when I only had consoles...then I invested in building a PC that could handle pretty much anything I threw at it and most console games immediately became unplayable. It's too hard for me to go from constant 60FPS with every possible detail maxed out at 1920x1080 down to 720p textures (at best) at sometimes less than half the framerate.

I do still play some multiplatform games on Xbox 360 when the PC version isn't obviously superior, but I don't think it's elitism to say that Far Cry 3 on PC is light years ahead of the console versions in virtually every conceivable way. The difference is dramatic.

@Deathstriker: I have to agree with Brad when he considers the console versions of Far Cry 3 barely playable...but it's all relative. An analogy would be taking someone out of their brand new Mercedes and putting them in a 1984 Honda Civic...sure it'll get you from A to B, but I'm sure it would feel barely drivable to those used to something better.

The problem is that the guy who just bought that brand new Mercedes has become a snob now that only wants to talk about things related to his Mercedes, whereas his friends who drive Honda Civics and the like are just dudes who enjoy talking about cars in general.

There are ways to point out the obvious superiority of the PC versions of games without the someone in the crew sounding like an overbearing prick about it. I think Giant Bomb has failed to do so and it gets really irritating sometimes. All of us are here to have a good time. Why do they need to go out of their way to antagonize part of their audience?

#24 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3804 posts) -

Yeah barely playable was major hyperbole. I laughed at that.

@AlisterCat said:

It isn't elitism, it's just the visual shock when you play a superior version. When you can get 1080p vs 720p, 60fps vs sub 30fps it's really hard to go back. I play PC and 360 on the same TV and having such a clear difference means it's hard to play anything on the 360.

It's not objectively unplayable, but to eyes that know what can and is possible, it might just be.

No it's really not unplayable in any way.

@BigDaddy81 said:


The problem is that the guy who just bought that brand new Mercedes has become a snob now that only wants to talk about things related to his Mercedes, whereas his friends who drive Honda Civics and the like are just dudes who enjoy talking about cars in general.

There are ways to point out the obvious superiority of the PC versions of games without the someone in the crew sounding like an overbearing prick about it. I think Giant Bomb has failed to do so and it gets really irritating sometimes. All of us are here to have a good time. Why do they need to go out of their way to antagonize part of their audience?

I agree though the "antagonize" part goes a bit far. Like you said it's a bit of snobbery over that, and who cares that much? Really it's just silly over anything else. We all know we can play the game. It's just a very silly thing for someone to say.

Online
#25 Posted by KevinK (198 posts) -

The consoles suck and the PC rules. You console gamers will always be behind the 8-ball on technical prowess Get over it. If you care that much, I'd suggest buying a gming PC or growing thick skin.

It bugs me that the crap Xbox 360 and the fact that it can only run DVDs have crippled game design in the latter end of this generation (Mass Effect 2, others), but you don't see me complaining about it.

#26 Posted by Alexandru (301 posts) -

@MB: I was gonna ask you, does 30 fps on consoles feels better than 60 fps on PC? I know 30 fps can't match 60 fps regardless, but it always seems to me that games like uncharted and killzone feel pretty smooth. And I don't mean only the controls, but when I move the camera slowly it feels less jittery. Am I the only one noticing that?

#27 Posted by ArtisanBreads (3804 posts) -

@KevinK said:

It bugs me that the crap Xbox 360 and the fact that it can only run DVDs have crippled game design in the latter end of this generation (Mass Effect 2, others), but you don't see me complaining about it.

LOL

Online
#28 Posted by Gamer_152 (14072 posts) -

I think perhaps their comments go a bit far on occasion, but I don't think this is "PC elitism", that implies that they would think they were above other people because they play on a certain platform, something which they haven't said at all. I believe the staff are probably just used to playing on PC and it makes current console graphics seem like a step down for them.

Moderator
#29 Edited by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -

@CptBedlam said:

For example, Brad strongly recommending against playing the 360 version of Walking Dead was a bit laughable in my opinion.

The problem with the framerate in TWD on consoles is PRETTY BAD from those used to the production quality of a game like Mass Effect, though. It's still got a good story and all, but sometimes it takes up to two seconds of dead air while it tries to load the next camera angle. Seeing it on PC, PS3, and 360, it's absolutely mindblowing how much higher quality the PC version is when said game should not exactly be that technically demanding. Obviously, those who care enough about games to be hearing Brad's voice should be playing The Walking Dead no matter where they can get it, but the programming on just about every version of the game (except maybe the iOS version) is really shoddy and could use a lot of work. What with massive progress-breaking bugs, saves deleting, and really bad console load problems, it's frustrating as all hell to have such a great story be so marred by technical issues.

Hopefully, the same is not true of Far Cry 3. I've been playing the PC version, and I can get how someone might say that the console version is a great game, but the PC version is amazing. It's some of the most beautiful graphics I've ever seen on a PC, and it's efficiently written enough to actually let my tower run it! (The Witcher 2 on high, for example, has a sub-30 framerate, while Far Cry has all but lighting effects on high and is maintaining a steady 30 or 60 fps. I actually can't tell the difference between the two without thinking about it, but I'm gonna guess it's just holding to 30.)

#30 Posted by BigDaddy81 (320 posts) -

@ArtisanBreads said:

I agree though the "antagonize" part goes a bit far. Like you said it's a bit of snobbery over that, and who cares that much? Really it's just silly over anything else. We all know we can play the game. It's just a very silly thing for someone to say.

It may not be intentional, but I feel it does greatly contribute to this "us versus them" mentality that seems to be permeating this site more and more.

#31 Posted by Dagbiker (6974 posts) -

If you dont know already, Brad often makes bold, braud statements. That's cool, its his opinion. I think Super Mario World sucks ass. Just opinions.

#32 Posted by Sisyphean (73 posts) -

@BigDaddy81 said:

@MB said:

@haggis said:

The "barely playable" thing really is a matter of opinion. If you're used to playing on a console, where we get sub-25fps and screen tearing all the time, Far Cry 3's problems might not bother you much. Assassin's Creed 3 has all sorts of framerate issues, but it hasn't stopped me from playing. It's all what you're used to and what you're used to putting up with.

I suppose it is. I guess I didn't know what I was missing when I only had consoles...then I invested in building a PC that could handle pretty much anything I threw at it and most console games immediately became unplayable. It's too hard for me to go from constant 60FPS with every possible detail maxed out at 1920x1080 down to 720p textures (at best) at sometimes less than half the framerate.

I do still play some multiplatform games on Xbox 360 when the PC version isn't obviously superior, but I don't think it's elitism to say that Far Cry 3 on PC is light years ahead of the console versions in virtually every conceivable way. The difference is dramatic.

@Deathstriker: I have to agree with Brad when he considers the console versions of Far Cry 3 barely playable...but it's all relative. An analogy would be taking someone out of their brand new Mercedes and putting them in a 1984 Honda Civic...sure it'll get you from A to B, but I'm sure it would feel barely drivable to those used to something better.

The problem is that the guy who just bought that brand new Mercedes has become a snob now that only wants to talk about things related to his Mercedes, whereas his friends who drive Honda Civics and the like are just dudes who enjoy talking about cars in general.

There are ways to point out the obvious superiority of the PC versions of games without the someone in the crew sounding like an overbearing prick about it. I think Giant Bomb has failed to do so and it gets really irritating sometimes. All of us are here to have a good time. Why do they need to go out of their way to antagonize part of their audience?

I don't think they're trying to antagonize the audience. I've always taken it as them expressing their disappointment in the often completely sub-par experience developers are trying to pass off on an audience who doesn't really know or expect any better (as this thread seems to reflect).

#33 Posted by FritzDude (2262 posts) -

That's how partially the human mind works, for better or worse. You will denounce, or put an argument over the other because you have gotten used to something that's technically better. Talking about it excessively is a form of might & power, just like anyone would like to be recognised as the superior person.

#34 Posted by AngelN7 (2970 posts) -

@pandorasbox said:

Here is the thing; if you're a console gamer, you probably don't even notice the frame rate issues in video games. Why? Because low fps on a console game has always been the norm outside of call of duty. It's something you've adapted to. I was the same way before I became a PC gamer.

Yup I'm gonna say that's right I do notice when the framerate skips really bad or when a game has good framerate but "now the game is running at 26FPS Ugh! can't play this" I'll never notice something like that until I play the same game on a gaming pc.

#35 Posted by Christoffer (1801 posts) -

@BigDaddy81 said:

The problem is that the guy who just bought that brand new Mercedes has become a snob now that only wants to talk about things related to his Mercedes, whereas his friends who drive Honda Civics and the like are just dudes who enjoy talking about cars in general.

There are ways to point out the obvious superiority of the PC versions of games without the someone in the crew sounding like an overbearing prick about it. I think Giant Bomb has failed to do so and it gets really irritating sometimes. All of us are here to have a good time. Why do they need to go out of their way to antagonize part of their audience?

Why does everything always come down to a car analogy?

The PC platform is drenched in shitty, cheap, half-baked, soft-launched, f2p crap. Happy now? For every visually gorgeous game we get, we also get a throng of unsorted garbage. The control support and the distribution channels are unstandardized, the technical errors can be dumbfounding. It's loud, expensive and you have to put some work into it.

Sounds like a Mercedez?

#36 Posted by SomeJerk (3219 posts) -

There's been a lot of "stop picking on consoles" threads lately, with this one I came to remember that Microsoft ran a small deployment of shill-squads all over the internet to blabber on about Win8 and WinRT (while also astroturfing), could this be a sign that they've also gone for gaming forums?

#37 Posted by KevinK (198 posts) -

@ArtisanBreads said:

@KevinK said:

It bugs me that the crap Xbox 360 and the fact that it can only run DVDs have crippled game design in the latter end of this generation (Mass Effect 2, others), but you don't see me complaining about it.

LOL

It's true. In Mass Effect 2, you were supposed to be able to recruit everybody right from the start of the game, not broken up before and after the Horizon mission. But, the tiny DVDs on the shit Xbox 360 forced BioWare to split up the content into two sections (pre and post Horizon).

People on the PC have hacked saves to put second-half characters in their party in the first half (Tali, Thane, Samara, etc.) and they have voice acting and will comment on the stuff going on in the first half. The game was originally suposed to be one way and it was changed for the Xbox 360 and because that stupid console is very popular, us PC gamers and the PS3 guys were forced to live with the changes. Even Mass Effect 3 is still fucked. You can't explore the entire galaxy from the start of the game. Systems/nebulas unlock as you do the main story missions, because the Xbox players need to swap their Xbox discs. Thanks Xbox.

And that's just one example we know of. I'm sure plenty of games have had design decisions made based on the Xbox 360 and their circa-2001 DVD format. So don't laugh at me for pointing out the obvious fact that the Xbox 360 is forcing (poor) design decisions across the entire industry.

#38 Posted by mordukai (7150 posts) -
@pandorasbox said:
Here is the thing; if you're a console gamer, you probably don't even notice the frame rate issues in video games. Why? Because low fps on a console game has always been the norm outside of call of duty. It's something you've adapted to. I was the same way before I became a PC gamer.
Pretty much this. 
#39 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

@pandorasbox said:

Go play any source game and set fps_max to 15 and see what i'm talking about.

That sounds like a hilarious challenge mode. I'm going to do that tonight with TF2 and Half-Life 2!

#40 Posted by Deathstriker (308 posts) -

@KevinK said:

The consoles suck and the PC rules. You console gamers will always be behind the 8-ball on technical prowess Get over it. If you care that much, I'd suggest buying a gming PC or growing thick skin.

It bugs me that the crap Xbox 360 and the fact that it can only run DVDs have crippled game design in the latter end of this generation (Mass Effect 2, others), but you don't see me complaining about it.

If you were doing an impersonation of a PC fanboy then congratulations, great job. There's nothing to "get over", they talked about something on the show, I wanted to talk about it too, so I made a thread... isn't that the point of forums? If you don't like the thread then don't post in it.

Many of the games I play are console exclusives or stuff I wouldn't want to play on PC (Halo 4, Gears 3, sports games, fighters, racers, hack & slash, etc) plus most of my gaming friends are on XBL and PSN, so having 30fps rather than 60 isn't that big of a deal to me over those factors. Just because you like PC gaming more than console doesn't make that a fact, it's subjective.

#41 Edited by Deathstriker (308 posts) -

@SomeJerk said:

There's been a lot of "stop picking on consoles" threads lately, with this one I came to remember that Microsoft ran a small deployment of shill-squads all over the internet to blabber on about Win8 and WinRT (while also astroturfing), could this be a sign that they've also gone for gaming forums?

You're definitely living up to your username. Yes, assuming I'm a MS employee who's paid to defend 3rd party games in forums against podcasts is great logic. Also, the point of the thread was, do the guys ever say things about graphics that seem weird to you, not stop picking on consoles.

#42 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4339 posts) -

@MB said:

@haggis said:

The "barely playable" thing really is a matter of opinion. If you're used to playing on a console, where we get sub-25fps and screen tearing all the time, Far Cry 3's problems might not bother you much. Assassin's Creed 3 has all sorts of framerate issues, but it hasn't stopped me from playing. It's all what you're used to and what you're used to putting up with.

I suppose it is. I guess I didn't know what I was missing when I only had consoles...then I invested in building a PC that could handle pretty much anything I threw at it and most console games immediately became unplayable. It's too hard for me to go from constant 60FPS with every possible detail maxed out at 1920x1080 down to 720p textures (at best) at sometimes less than half the framerate.

I do still play some multiplatform games on Xbox 360 when the PC version isn't obviously superior, but I don't think it's elitism to say that Far Cry 3 on PC is light years ahead of the console versions in virtually every conceivable way. The difference is dramatic.

@pandorasbox said:

Here is the thing; if you're a console gamer, you probably don't even notice the frame rate issues in video games. Why? Because low fps on a console game has always been the norm outside of call of duty. It's something you've adapted to. I was the same way before I became a PC gamer.

Basically these.

People who stick to consoles and rarely look at the PC versions and experience it for themselves tend to have no idea what they're missing. Once I made the switch to PC I now have a tough time looking at the console versions of games...it just all looks bad to me. One of my friends who I convinced to go PC used to be just fine with playing on consoles and he couldn't discern the difference between a low framerate and 60 frames. Once he went PC and was able to play a lot more games at 60 frames and higher resolutions he now understands just how gimped most of the console games are in the technical department.

#43 Posted by TheSouthernDandy (3859 posts) -

Ah that's just Brad talkin crazy. Probably compared to the PC version it's a big step down but if you don't have that to compare its totally fine. Same as when he said Walking Dead was terrible. No it's not. It's totally fine.

#44 Posted by Jams (2960 posts) -

@BigDaddy81 said:

@MB said:

@haggis said:

The "barely playable" thing really is a matter of opinion. If you're used to playing on a console, where we get sub-25fps and screen tearing all the time, Far Cry 3's problems might not bother you much. Assassin's Creed 3 has all sorts of framerate issues, but it hasn't stopped me from playing. It's all what you're used to and what you're used to putting up with.

I suppose it is. I guess I didn't know what I was missing when I only had consoles...then I invested in building a PC that could handle pretty much anything I threw at it and most console games immediately became unplayable. It's too hard for me to go from constant 60FPS with every possible detail maxed out at 1920x1080 down to 720p textures (at best) at sometimes less than half the framerate.

I do still play some multiplatform games on Xbox 360 when the PC version isn't obviously superior, but I don't think it's elitism to say that Far Cry 3 on PC is light years ahead of the console versions in virtually every conceivable way. The difference is dramatic.

@Deathstriker: I have to agree with Brad when he considers the console versions of Far Cry 3 barely playable...but it's all relative. An analogy would be taking someone out of their brand new Mercedes and putting them in a 1984 Honda Civic...sure it'll get you from A to B, but I'm sure it would feel barely drivable to those used to something better.

The problem is that the guy who just bought that brand new Mercedes has become a snob now that only wants to talk about things related to his Mercedes, whereas his friends who drive Honda Civics and the like are just dudes who enjoy talking about cars in general.

There are ways to point out the obvious superiority of the PC versions of games without the someone in the crew sounding like an overbearing prick about it. I think Giant Bomb has failed to do so and it gets really irritating sometimes. All of us are here to have a good time. Why do they need to go out of their way to antagonize part of their audience?

Wanting to talk about something you've just gained interest (or knowledge) in isn't being a snob. Being a snob is looking down on other people for not having the high standards you have. None of those guys do that. If you think they're being snobs in any way then you have an inferiority complex and that's a problem with you and your perception of people.

#45 Posted by Pie (7080 posts) -

I watched a few hours of it on the 360 and thought it still looked real good with the framerate only really getting funky during cutscenes. Eh

#46 Posted by JasonR86 (9659 posts) -

It's their opinion and they are allowed to say whether they think something looks bad. Though Brad was just a tad dramatic. But the reasoning was fine. It isn't as good as the PC version if you have a PC that can handle it. It is very choppy on the Xbox 360 and PS3. Pay attention to the rationale and not the hyperbole. Also just ignore Brad.

Online
#47 Posted by wewantsthering (1564 posts) -

The issue is that you get used to whatever your system can handle. If you're used to playing games in the 25-40 fps range, it will seem natural to you. There's no real benchmark because most new XB360 games just can't ran that smoothly and keep things looking nice. It's unplayable for someone coming off of games running locked at 60 fps at 1080p resolution with great textures. It's like how a lot of people are fine with standard definition video until they have nice TV and a Bluray collection. After you have something nicer, you "can't" go back. The game can obviously be played, but someone like Vinny would see it as unplayable because he knows what it can look like. Also, if the game is dropping below 25 fps, it IS technically in unplayable territory. That's lower than film's fps.

#48 Posted by Deathstriker (308 posts) -

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@MB said:

@haggis said:

The "barely playable" thing really is a matter of opinion. If you're used to playing on a console, where we get sub-25fps and screen tearing all the time, Far Cry 3's problems might not bother you much. Assassin's Creed 3 has all sorts of framerate issues, but it hasn't stopped me from playing. It's all what you're used to and what you're used to putting up with.

I suppose it is. I guess I didn't know what I was missing when I only had consoles...then I invested in building a PC that could handle pretty much anything I threw at it and most console games immediately became unplayable. It's too hard for me to go from constant 60FPS with every possible detail maxed out at 1920x1080 down to 720p textures (at best) at sometimes less than half the framerate.

I do still play some multiplatform games on Xbox 360 when the PC version isn't obviously superior, but I don't think it's elitism to say that Far Cry 3 on PC is light years ahead of the console versions in virtually every conceivable way. The difference is dramatic.

@pandorasbox said:

Here is the thing; if you're a console gamer, you probably don't even notice the frame rate issues in video games. Why? Because low fps on a console game has always been the norm outside of call of duty. It's something you've adapted to. I was the same way before I became a PC gamer.

Basically these.

People who stick to consoles and rarely look at the PC versions and experience it for themselves tend to have no idea what they're missing. Once I made the switch to PC I now have a tough time looking at the console versions of games...it just all looks bad to me. One of my friends who I convinced to go PC used to be just fine with playing on consoles and he couldn't discern the difference between a low framerate and 60 frames. Once he went PC and was able to play a lot more games at 60 frames and higher resolutions he now understands just how gimped most of the console games are in the technical department.

I have friends who are hardcore PC guys and I've seen them playing, so I know... but the software matters more than the hardware IMO, and many of the games I play are console exclusive. So unless there's some bootleg way to play Last of Us, Gears, God of War, DMC, etc next year on PC, I don't see myself becoming a PC gamer in 2013. Paying $700+ dollars just to play Battlefield 3 (the only game I'd care to play on PC) on high settings isn't worth it.Plus I probably rent 60% of the games I beat and there's no renting on PC.

It sucks that this became a console vs. PC thread, but oh well. Going back to Brad's statement, barely playable sounds like the game is broken when it plays just fine, so that's definitely a misnomer. Him thinking the PC version is way better is perfectly fine, but there's no reason to imply the console version hardly runs properly. If that's the case then Mass Effect 1 and Red Dead were horrible games.

#49 Posted by BigDaddy81 (320 posts) -

@Jams said:

@BigDaddy81 said:

@MB said:

@haggis said:

The "barely playable" thing really is a matter of opinion. If you're used to playing on a console, where we get sub-25fps and screen tearing all the time, Far Cry 3's problems might not bother you much. Assassin's Creed 3 has all sorts of framerate issues, but it hasn't stopped me from playing. It's all what you're used to and what you're used to putting up with.

I suppose it is. I guess I didn't know what I was missing when I only had consoles...then I invested in building a PC that could handle pretty much anything I threw at it and most console games immediately became unplayable. It's too hard for me to go from constant 60FPS with every possible detail maxed out at 1920x1080 down to 720p textures (at best) at sometimes less than half the framerate.

I do still play some multiplatform games on Xbox 360 when the PC version isn't obviously superior, but I don't think it's elitism to say that Far Cry 3 on PC is light years ahead of the console versions in virtually every conceivable way. The difference is dramatic.

@Deathstriker: I have to agree with Brad when he considers the console versions of Far Cry 3 barely playable...but it's all relative. An analogy would be taking someone out of their brand new Mercedes and putting them in a 1984 Honda Civic...sure it'll get you from A to B, but I'm sure it would feel barely drivable to those used to something better.

The problem is that the guy who just bought that brand new Mercedes has become a snob now that only wants to talk about things related to his Mercedes, whereas his friends who drive Honda Civics and the like are just dudes who enjoy talking about cars in general.

There are ways to point out the obvious superiority of the PC versions of games without the someone in the crew sounding like an overbearing prick about it. I think Giant Bomb has failed to do so and it gets really irritating sometimes. All of us are here to have a good time. Why do they need to go out of their way to antagonize part of their audience?

Wanting to talk about something you've just gained interest (or knowledge) in isn't being a snob. Being a snob is looking down on other people for not having the high standards you have. None of those guys do that. If you think they're being snobs in any way then you have an inferiority complex and that's a problem with you and your perception of people.

Definition of the word "snob": one who has an offensive air of superiority in matters of knowledge or taste. I actually do think some of the GB crew and a large part of the community are guilty of this.

And in case you haven't noticed, there have been many others besides myself drawing attention to this issue. The problem, it seems, is not isolated to just me.

#50 Posted by phantomzxro (1571 posts) -

All very good points on both sides but i do think you have to keep an unjaded opinion on consoles games or games as a whole. You just can't throw around barely playable even if your taste have spoiled you on high end performance. I would say it just have more to do with brad talking in a more open conversation and not on a professional level. I also would say it may feel a lot more jarring jumping between both version in such a short about of time.