This thread is just another version of "The Reviewer Is Said/Wrote Something I Did Not Like So I'm Going To Run To A Message Board And Protest!" style stuff we constantly see. They can have their opinions because they are their opinions. Why do people get bent out of shape due to someone stating their opinion they that makes them uncomfortable?
They say weird (perhaps off) stuff about graphics sometimes?
If you have an emotional reaction to Brad disliking the framerate of the console version of a miltiplatform videogame title you have too much fucking free time and are way too fucking invested in your platform of choice.
Go outside and play tag football or do something productive for the love of Pete.
@EXTomar said:
This thread is just another version of "The Reviewer Is Said/Wrote Something I Did Not Like So I'm Going To Run To A Message Board And Protest!" style stuff we constantly see. They can have their opinions because they are their opinions. Why do people get bent out of shape due to someone stating their opinion they that makes them uncomfortable?
So you're saying " They can have their opinions because they are their opinions", but the OP shouldn't express his opinion about disagreeing? Well, that makes sense. If this was a thread with someone needlessly bitching or being childish then I would agree, but the OP plainly stated why he disagrees in a normal/mature way. If people don't like the topic being brought up then maybe they should just ignore the thread rather than telling someone what they should/shouldn't post. Agreeing or disagreeing about the stuff they say on the podcast is perfectly fine IMO.
The OP starts off fine but then suggests "Is it because PC elitism?" Their final sentence is a fallacy suggesting there is ulterior motive for GiantBomb to complain about performance because they have nothing else to complain about.
I've seen this pattern before. Many times before. It all reduces down "I didn't like what Soandso said". Pointing this out doesn't mean I hate the OP but I believe these topics are always dubious and offer little mature discussion.
So you're mad that He doesn't like his first person shooters dipping to 15 FPS on a console that is expected to run the game at a minimum of 30. if you think there isn't a difference between 15 and 30 fps, you're mistaken. Brad has played through FC3 on a PC at ultra settings at 60+ FPS. To go from the exact same game at such quality, to a console running it at barely the speed of snail, it would most definately make it unplayable in his opinion. Don't like it? Dont listen to him. Agree with him, but are angry about it? Buy a PC.
@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.
Assassins Creed 3 on PS3 is unplayable. I should know, I bought it and played an hour until i couldnt fucking stand running around at 2 fps.
@adam1808 said:
@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
It can't possibly be worse than the first game on 360, jesus fucking christ that was shocking.
@Bobby_The_Great said:
I still don't like the "look" of games at 60fps, I much prefer 30fps. Yes, I know; I'm weird.
Don't you like fighting games? Then yes that's weird, because fighting games run like shit at 30 FPS. I tried playing Tekken Tag 2 in 3D...I don't know why they bothered, the game runs at like 20 FPS and is unplayable.
No. I just think you've played enough console games at this point that you've conditioned yourself to putting up with bad framerate. Everything Brad said was empirically correct, the game has bad framerate even bad screen tearing issues on the console versions. When Patrick gets his PC he will sound exactly like Brad does and how all gamers should. They shouldn't get a pass on releasing a game in that state, it's bad. Just because you're conditioned to bad things does not mean that the world should go on ignoring it.
It's Brad job to tell you how the game looks on all the platforms, so stop telling him how to do his job please.
I've been playing PC games @2560x1600 for awhile now. Console games usually render native at 720p and look like shit. I'm not a total graphics whore, I just like to play things that look nice and run fast. 30FPS is unacceptable for me, I need 60+ FPS as a buffer for when shit gets intense so I never see a drop below 60hz.
Haven't used my 360 or ps3 much in the past few years, I just get a better experience on PC.
Yeah I spent more money than I did with consoles but I get far more than just a device that plays games.
9 dead 360's 1 working Jasper Dev Kit, launch ps3 still working and in use as Netlix box.
I really hate playing certain games with a controller, but I do use my 360 controller for certain pc games and love the feel of it.
Also, its been said but-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HAMXHJ-kw Thats pretty damn unplayable
@Hizang said:
It's one of the reasons I don't play PC games, because if I started then why would I go back to playing games on a console?
Perfectly reasonable. Don't even LOOK at a PC game if you enjoy console games. It ruined them for me.
@Sooty said:
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.
It wasn't bad that often, but when it was bad it was terrible. At the least the issues were limited mostly to the Citadel, so it didn't really affect action. The only time I noticed frame rate issue during action was the Cerberus Scientists mission, and is sure was rough.
Not to excuse ME3, AC3, or Far Cry 3, but at this point in the life cycle of the consoles, these types of things are to be expected.
@Sooty said:
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.
This. The same thing has happened to me, actually. There are very few games that I'd rather play at the 30FPS a lot of graphically intensive games aim for on the consoles, and it's only gotten worse as time has progressed. Seeing the same games at the graphical level they were designed for with a constantly smooth framerate has ruined my perceptions of even older 360 titles I enjoyed just fine years ago.
Don't chock it up to PC elitism, just the necessity for new console hardware.
@EXTomar said:
The OP starts off fine but then suggests "Is it because PC elitism?" Their final sentence is a fallacy suggesting there is ulterior motive for GiantBomb to complain about performance because they have nothing else to complain about.
I've seen this pattern before. Many times before. It all reduces down "I didn't like what Soandso said". Pointing this out doesn't mean I hate the OP but I believe these topics are always dubious and offer little mature discussion.
I can see why someone might think that could've been elitist. I think it was just a poor choice of words, since unplayable means it doesn't work, not that there's a version out there that's better. The PC version is always going to run better unless it's a half-assed port, so that's stating the obvious. I have to agree with all the posters saying Brad can be very hyperbolic sometimes.
@KevinK: Why do you feel the need to make the distinction between PC gamers and console gamers. Someone's platform of choice shouldn't define them. Anyone who is really a fan of games plays good games no matter platform they are released on. I'm not going to turn my nose up at Halo or Uncharted simply because they are only available on consoles, and those that do are simply depriving themselves of great experiences. Now, obviously the PC versions of multiplat games will always be the best, but only having or being able to afford a console doesn't make someone a lesser gamer.
@ll_Exile_ll said:
@Sooty said:
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.It wasn't bad that often, but when it was bad it was terrible. At the least the issues were limited mostly to the Citadel, so it didn't really affect action. The only time I noticed frame rate issue during action was the Cerberus Scientists mission, and is sure was rough.
Not to excuse ME3, AC3, or Far Cry 3, but at this point in the life cycle of the consoles, these types of things are to be expected.
I had some major problems with ME1, but ME3 looked and ran great. I think people blame the console's age too fast. Halo 4 is probably the best looking 360 game and that's new, so it really depends on the developer; Ubisoft half-assing is nothing new.
@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.
It's impossible to describe framerate issues, especially when you're used to low framerates. 60FPS has to be experienced to be understood. There are some videos online (including the one linked earlier in this thread, I think) which show the difference, but unless the controller (or mouse) is in your hand, you really can't explain it. There is also a huge difference between a locked, sustained 30FPS without tearing, and a constant 20-25FPS with tearing.
It's not necessarily about being a snob, it's just knowing what the differences really are. Some people will look at static screenshots and be like, "Well, it's not that much better." At some level, they're not completely wrong. Console games look fine. They're good enough. When they're not moving. And given the age of the hardware, these consoles are pulling off some pretty amazing shit. So I'm not slagging consoles. It's just that PCs are running hardware that's an order of magnitude (maybe several orders of magnitude) better than what is in our consoles. It's important to remind people of that, partly because I think console-only people don't always understand what the PC people are getting at, and partly because having that experience of current PC gaming will put pressure on Microsoft and Sony to get the hardware right in the next get. It's all about expectations.
@Deathstriker said:
@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.
I don't see this as a console vs. pc thread. It's about how the distance between PC and console performance has crippled some games. I don't see anyone arguing over the technical aspects. Obviously the PC games perform better. The question here, I think, is whether developers can continue to make cross-platform games where the distance between PC and console is so vast that the games on the console appear broken. Compared to the PC version, Far Cry 3 does run horribly. For some, it might not run well enough. Clearly it didn't for Brad, who had both versions to play. That's the key here--most of us don't have a choice. We'll settle for the console version. But it doesn't change the fact that if you sit down and play both (as I did the other day) it's hard to be very happy with the console version. I wish they could have had two modes--a "nice looking" mode, for those who don't mind a lower framerate, and a "smooth looking" mode for those who do.
The real issues is what we expect from developers who are making cross-platform games on PC and consoles, given the tech gulf between them.
@Fearbeard said:
@Casey25What makes him an elitist is his pure disdain for the console version, which according to people who only play on consoles is still decent. Obviously inferior, but still functional. It was rather funny listening to him on the Bombcast. I get the feeling when new Xbox and Playstation consoles launch he's going to be a slow adapter and still be playing his PC.I think it's funny how some people think that brad pointing out the superiority of the pc version of FC3 makes him a "PC Elitist".
I get it. As funny as it sounds, i will say this: I used to be that guy. I got by playing games with my shitty laptop i got for college for a while and scoffed at my friends complaining about anything non-perfect hd, etc. I trudged through playing games i could barely run, while playing on the xbox and lovign the graphics of that thing. Then i actually recently got a decent pc, about 600 bucks worth with some smart spending, and now even on hardware a few years out of date for pcs I realize how much beyond the consoles they can achieve. Ive had enough framerate drops and graphical hiccups, PC is the one true religion. All other religions are simply corrupt bastard sons of the one holy power, the personal computer. *chants fanatically*
AND THE MODS! OH THE FUCKING MODS! HOW CAN YOU PLAY GAMES WITHOUT MODS!
But seriously, pc is THE SHIT. Where is your tribes:ascend, xbox? (actually, i wonder how that would play on a pad, it probably wouldnt work, left trigger for skii? Hmm...)
It plays very well with a pad, would play even better if it was against other pad-users and the weapon balance wasn't something straight outta Treyarch's book.But seriously, pc is THE SHIT. Where is your tribes:ascend, xbox? (actually, i wonder how that would play on a pad, it probably wouldnt work, left trigger for skii? Hmm...)
@KevinK said:
@TheSouthernDandy said:Don't care. PC gaming is better. But, I understand people play on consoles because they can't afford $2,000 gaming PCs and to buy a $500 graphics card every 2 years, and they just want to put a game in and have it work.@KevinK: The problem is when you call people who play consoles "kids" and you say stupid crap like "Xbros" people just stop paying attention. You might make some valid points but nobody cares cause you come across completely antagonistic. About video games.
lol, that's not why people, at least most people, play on console. Also, spending 2k on a computer is crazy. What are they doing, going to Dell.com or something? I could go to Newegg and buy the parts to build a VERY good PC for $650 to $800 or buy a gaming desktop for under 1k easy. Only someone who's not tech savvy or an uber nerd who wants 4 monitors & 12 processors would spend that much money on a gaming rig.
The most important part is the software. Many of the best games this gen that have come out already or about to come out are console exclusive. If I only played on PC I'd miss out on God of War, Uncharted, Halo, (most) Gears games, Forza, Last of Us, DMC, GTA, most of Rockstar's games since I hear their PC ports are crap, MK9, most sports & driving games, and dozens of other games. Exclusively PC gaming means you're going to miss out on some of the gen's biggest and best games. Also, I love the option to rent games, because MANY games are worth playing but not worth buying for $60 (i.e. Darkness 2). So the "people only play consoles because they can't afford gaming PCs" defense is incorrect, snobbish, and idiotic.
@Sooty said:
@Bobby_The_Great said:
I still don't like the "look" of games at 60fps, I much prefer 30fps. Yes, I know; I'm weird.
Don't you like fighting games? Then yes that's weird, because fighting games run like shit at 30 FPS. I tried playing Tekken Tag 2 in 3D...I don't know why they bothered, the game runs at like 20 FPS and is unplayable.
That's my one exception, but man alive, something about 60FPS makes my eyes hurt with other games.
@Wampa1 said:
@Little_Socrates: Why is it that telltale have such massive issues keeping a good clean framerate, and why do they always seem to get a pass on it?
Is this a regular problem with them? The only other titles I've played by them are their remake of Monkey Island (which I played with the retro graphics on, actually) and the Puzzle Agent games. I played both on PC, though, so I haven't noticed anything. Looking at the credits of the first episode, they've mostly got a team of asset designers (including sound, art, animation, etc.) and writers, and their coding and QA staff is (at best) equivalent in size. Unlike most indie studios, they're attempting to make a game and a movie at the same time, meaning they have to divide their resources between the two. It's amazing what an unshackled indie can do with the more filmic elements of their game; TWD is largely beyond the scope of most triple-A development, notable exceptions withstanding. But with those resources so dedicated to art and sound, it's easy to see how a twenty-to-thirty-something programming and QA staff can fall short in terms of the technical aspects, even if it's being ignored by a few too many people.
Specifically in the case of The Walking Dead, I'd argue they're largely getting a pass because they made a really compelling game, as was true with Dark Souls and Skyrim last year. Before that, I don't know if you can call "selling to a niche market and not getting thrashed by press" the same as "getting a pass" when they were selling such a comparatively low number of seasons to people. Most people (and press, really) effectively ignored almost everything they put out before Jurassic Park, which was slammed. Well, actually, the Puzzle Agent games sold pretty darn well, but they were also technically clean.
But The Walking Dead is getting a pass, despite a lot of technical issues that are exacerbated on the consoles. I don't think it's a TellTale issue, akin to the years of BioWare love or Double Fine exceptionalism we might have seen over the last ten or so years. I just think The Walking Dead captured something a lot of people needed at the right time and for the right price, and technical issues be damned, I still think it's pretty great. I also think it's even better on the PC.
Also, while I'm in this thread again...
@KevinK said:
Ok, let's play a little thought experiment. What if somebody's only console was the orignial Wii? And they got mad that the bombcast was constantly shitting on the Wii. It's their only console. They can't afford anything else. And they want everybody to stop picking on the Wii. We all know what you Xbros would say about that. The Wii is the laughing stock of the "core" gamers and you guys would eat that person alive. That's how us PC gamers think of the consoles. The Xbox 360 is the Nintendo Wii of the PC gaming world.
There's one MASSIVE difference we're ignoring here; the majority of multiplatform releases for the Wii and 360/PS3 were completely different games. In the case of Far Cry 3, the Xbox 360 version of Far Cry 3 is still the same exact game it is on PC, except with worse graphics. The Wii version of Far Cry 3 would probably have had multiple significant features removed (I would wager that random animals, world-persistence, and hanggliders would probably all have to go) and would also probably have different features altogether, if The Force Unleashed for the Wii is any example. Original Rock Band without DLC was an actual thing that happened on the Wii. That's why people were so hard on the Wii; it was getting content-inferior versions of games, not just technically-inferior versions. And, yeah, there's arguments to be made about modding and stuff, but let's just stick to the content inside the game for the discussion here. We'll all agree that Scribblenauts Unlimited, Team Fortress 2, and the like are bigger and better games on PC.
I play games on PC now because it's simply more convenient for my lifestyle; I don't have a TV in my dorm room, and when I want to play my 360 games, I do so on a pretty screwed-up set-up on my monitor with the right channel of audio missing. So I don't play a lot of 360 games. I actually play far more on the PS3 in my friend's dorm. And I can understand why someone who really cares about technical stuff would be so down on consoles; PC games can look astounding, and giving up on that experience would be pretty sad. But it doesn't change the fact that my favorite gaming experiences were almost all on consoles this year, and so I can happily say that the imagined disparity is quite a bit smaller than some people make it out to be, as snobbish as the cineplex-vs-home media argument. Yes, it's not quite as jaw-dropping to see The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly on a DVD as it is on 35mm, but that's the kind of difference we're talking about, not the difference between having really seen the movie at all or not.
@Little_Socrates said:
There's one MASSIVE difference we're ignoring here; the majority of multiplatform releases for the Wii and 360/PS3 were completely different games. In the case of Far Cry 3, the Xbox 360 version of Far Cry 3 is still the same exact game it is on PC, except with worse graphics. The Wii version of Far Cry 3 would probably have had multiple significant features removed (I would wager that random animals, world-persistence, and hanggliders would probably all have to go) and would also probably have different features altogether, if The Force Unleashed for the Wii is any example. Original Rock Band without DLC was an actual thing that happened on the Wii. That's why people were so hard on the Wii; it was getting content-inferior versions of games, not just technically-inferior versions.
One poster made the argument that Mass Effect 2 would have been a lot different if the Xbox could have handled a larger disc capacity. That's the same kind of limitation. Now games might be limited because thry have to work around disc limitation and lower amount of ram. That impacts the way games are made significantly if you ask me.
@Jams said:
@Little_Socrates said:
There's one MASSIVE difference we're ignoring here; the majority of multiplatform releases for the Wii and 360/PS3 were completely different games. In the case of Far Cry 3, the Xbox 360 version of Far Cry 3 is still the same exact game it is on PC, except with worse graphics. The Wii version of Far Cry 3 would probably have had multiple significant features removed (I would wager that random animals, world-persistence, and hanggliders would probably all have to go) and would also probably have different features altogether, if The Force Unleashed for the Wii is any example. Original Rock Band without DLC was an actual thing that happened on the Wii. That's why people were so hard on the Wii; it was getting content-inferior versions of games, not just technically-inferior versions.
One poster made the argument that Mass Effect 2 would have been a lot different if the Xbox could have handled a larger disc capacity. That's the same kind of limitation. Now games might be limited because thry have to work around disc limitation and lower amount of ram. That impacts the way games are made significantly if you ask me.
That's a wider argument about the state of console-focused development rather than a statement about the actual games themselves. Conjecture, and perhaps logical (or even true) conjecture, but not really the conversation at hand. It's also a matter of two years ago; we've largely shifted back to PC-focused development as of last year.
@Little_Socrates said:
@Jams said:
@Little_Socrates said:
There's one MASSIVE difference we're ignoring here; the majority of multiplatform releases for the Wii and 360/PS3 were completely different games. In the case of Far Cry 3, the Xbox 360 version of Far Cry 3 is still the same exact game it is on PC, except with worse graphics. The Wii version of Far Cry 3 would probably have had multiple significant features removed (I would wager that random animals, world-persistence, and hanggliders would probably all have to go) and would also probably have different features altogether, if The Force Unleashed for the Wii is any example. Original Rock Band without DLC was an actual thing that happened on the Wii. That's why people were so hard on the Wii; it was getting content-inferior versions of games, not just technically-inferior versions.
One poster made the argument that Mass Effect 2 would have been a lot different if the Xbox could have handled a larger disc capacity. That's the same kind of limitation. Now games might be limited because thry have to work around disc limitation and lower amount of ram. That impacts the way games are made significantly if you ask me.
That's a wider argument about the state of console-focused development rather than a statement about the actual games themselves. Conjecture, and perhaps logical (or even true) conjecture, but not really the conversation at hand. It's also a matter of two years ago; we've largely shifted back to PC-focused development as of last year.
I'd argue though that we haven't shifted back to PC focused development (not quite yet). But that a lot of people have gotten bored with the long console cycle and have ended up building PC's for something different. I also think indie developed games have exploded and their platform of choice is PC (but is kind of irrelevant to his topic). Developers still develop first for the consoles and particularly the most popular one, the 360. Then they port upwards to higher end systems leaving the significant limitations in place. This is fine for people that play console games exclusively But people who've been playing on PC's have always noticed.
So now you have people (like the Bomb crew) finally getting PC's because they're bored with the aging consoles. They start playing more and more games on said PC's. Sequentially enjoying more variety of games. Finally, they start setting a bar to what they find acceptable. That bar has risen since they bought a PC. Therefor the games that were once acceptable have become hard on the eyes. Developers have since taken more care to port those 360 games with the options that they once left out. Some developers even adding in extra texture packs and mod-ability. Though none yet have gone so far as to add back in any features they would have had to scrap for the consoles.
That's why I think it's not fair to be angry at someone like Brad who had set a bar for himself as to what is graphically and functionally acceptable. I think that a lot of console gamers that have stuck with consoles without going over to PC might be stuck in some kind of limbo between how games normally are and whispers of what can be. That, I can imagine to be quite frustrating to hear often. But the fact of the matter is that a lot of people have taken it upon themselves to push into what feels like a new generational console.
None of what they say comes off as weird to me. Heck I started saying that type of stuff back when I built my PC a few years ago. I can't play the modern consoles now, the framerate bothers me too much. The only console I play now is my SNES because framerate drops aren't so crippling since it is 2D for the most part, though they are obviously present (Super Mario World has tons of them. Same with Yoshi's Island. I haven't noticed much in Super Mario RPG but that game is rather simple graphically. Haven't dug into A Link to the Past or Donkey Kong Country yet to see). Once you get used to a solid 60 FPS, you just can't go back to anything else. I guess that is why the only thing I can stand to play is Forza, since they are huge on having a solid framerate, though it looks not so nice.
@Jams: Rather than letting this quote tree get even taller, I'll say I generally agree that it's not worth getting upset about. It's an accurate statement, and you provide the logic that makes sense for it. However, it is still wicked snobby. I'd rather a tastemaker be snobby than too open in the end. (though in all respects but graphical and technical capabilities, Brad is easily the most open to 4 and 5 star reviews of the Bomb Crew, and I'd generally say he leans towards giving games a bit too much credit.
Again, I've totally made the jump to PC myself. It's way more convenient for me, and the games do look amazing (including the subject game here, Far Cry 3.) But I'm simply saying that the jump isn't as huge as some people say it is.
Being okay with bad framerates doesn't make bad framerates okay.
@SomeJerk said:
@Casey25 said:It plays very well with a pad, would play even better if it was against other pad-users and the weapon balance wasn't something straight outta Treyarch's book.But seriously, pc is THE SHIT. Where is your tribes:ascend, xbox? (actually, i wonder how that would play on a pad, it probably wouldnt work, left trigger for skii? Hmm...)
Well that's cool to hear that it plays alright. Tribes is such an insane game so that surprises me, but i havent tried it out on controller myself.
I generally have stuck with Kb + M for fps and controller for any third person stuff like Dark Souls, Saints Row, etc. (Dark Souls definitely demands a controller, lol).
I can understand some of what Brad was saying. I know I have a hard time watching DVDs these days now that I've gotten used to Blu-rays. The backwards adjustment can be startling.
@Bobby_The_Great said:
@Sooty said:
@Bobby_The_Great said:
I still don't like the "look" of games at 60fps, I much prefer 30fps. Yes, I know; I'm weird.
Don't you like fighting games? Then yes that's weird, because fighting games run like shit at 30 FPS. I tried playing Tekken Tag 2 in 3D...I don't know why they bothered, the game runs at like 20 FPS and is unplayable.
That's my one exception, but man alive, something about 60FPS makes my eyes hurt with other games.
I call bullshit, why the fuck would a higher framerate possibly hurt your eyes? Especially if it doesn't do so in fighting games.
Also if someone likes the "look" of 30fps games then that may be true, but just because that person hasn't played something with 60fps for a longer period. Because it's just better, it's more fluid in both visuals and gameplay. There's no "but...".
If you're used to 30fps all your life then yeah, it's gonna feel weird (probably weirdly speed up) at first. That's just because it's different, different feels weird/bad. But that goes away quickly.
Also I think it's totally reasonable of Brad to call a game that often dips down to the 20fps range or even below unplayable. I mean unplayable rarely ever means it's literally not playable, as in you can't get it running or there's a part you cannot pass in the game. Unplayable usually refers to the amount of annoyance you're willing to put up with. And framerate problems like this surely fall under unplayable for a lot of people. Even if you're not one of them it should be possible to see where Brad's coming from with that concern.
And the game looking pretty good for a console title does not make this okay. The idea that you sacrifice so much framerate in favor of better graphics (in terms of one frame) that the game will often dip far below 30fps and not just in some rare instances is ridiculous. Decrease the graphics quality so far that you get at least mostly steady 30fps.
Sure, you can look at a screenshot of the game and go "oh, that looks great!"
Unfortunately you neither see a static frame, no, you see a constant stream of frames, nor do you "play" a static moment in a game, you have a constant control/feedback stream that suffers from low framerate too.
@Little_Socrates: Jurrassic Park, Back to the Future and Sam and Max have all hitched up really badly on consoles for me. Pauses between scenes, massive frame drops and really bad audio bugs for all of them on consoles. With TWD it get's a pass from me because i'm so engrossed in what's happening, but with the others it's just confusing and frustrating. I can understand they aren't the biggest team in the world but it's really frustrating when it happens on an almost per game basis.
I don't see the big deal in recommending the pc version of games that have good pc versions and flawed console versions and even suggesting to avoid the console versions if you can.
If you break it down the pc versions are usually 10-30 bucks cheaper and any 2-3 year old middleclass pc will play them better than the console version. there is also the fact that pc versions of games have dramatically improved over the lackluster pc ports that came out a few years ago while most new blockbuster games seem to stress the consoles a bit to much to deliver at least smooth framerate. Add the fact that a cheap ssd improves loadtimes that much and i just turn on my consoles for exclusives.
This is also no "omg mouse and keyboard is so superior" thing since part of good pc ports is controller support for all recent games (mass effect 3 aside) which just makes you able to have the same leanback experience
Again he is not saying if you have a console don't play farcry, he is saying if you have any pc able to run farcry at 720p medium, get the pc version and hook up a gamepad is you want or if you played console games for the fact that they simple are put in and run ok ... reconsider.
@NaDannMaGoGo said:
@Bobby_The_Great said:
@Sooty said:
@Bobby_The_Great said:
I still don't like the "look" of games at 60fps, I much prefer 30fps. Yes, I know; I'm weird.
Don't you like fighting games? Then yes that's weird, because fighting games run like shit at 30 FPS. I tried playing Tekken Tag 2 in 3D...I don't know why they bothered, the game runs at like 20 FPS and is unplayable.
That's my one exception, but man alive, something about 60FPS makes my eyes hurt with other games.
I call bullshit, why the fuck would a higher framerate possibly hurt your eyes? Especially if it doesn't do so in fighting games.
Also if someone likes the "look" of 30fps games then that may be true, but just because that person hasn't played something with 60fps for a longer period. Because it's just better, it's more fluid in both visuals and gameplay. There's no "but...".
If you're used to 30fps all your life then yeah, it's gonna feel weird (probably weirdly speed up) at first. That's just because it's different, different feels weird/bad. But that goes away quickly.
Also I think it's totally reasonable of Brad to call a game that often dips down to the 20fps range or even below unplayable. I mean unplayable rarely ever means it's literally not playable, as in you can't get it running or there's a part you cannot pass in the game. Unplayable usually refers to the amount of annoyance you're willing to put up with. And framerate problems like this surely fall under unplayable for a lot of people. Even if you're not one of them it should be possible to see where Brad's coming from with that concern.
And the game looking pretty good for a console title does not make this okay. The idea that you sacrifice so much framerate in favor of better graphics (in terms of one frame) that the game will often dip far below 30fps and not just in some rare instances is ridiculous. Decrease the graphics quality so far that you get at least mostly steady 30fps.
Sure, you can look at a screenshot of the game and go "oh, that looks great!"
Unfortunately you neither see a static frame, no, you see a constant stream of frames, nor do you "play" a static moment in a game, you have a constant control/feedback stream that suffers from low framerate too.
How can you call bullshit on the way I feel and see things? When I see things in 60fps, I get a headache. Take Call of Duty for example. I cannot play the game without feeling like I'm going to throw up, but I can play Halo 4 (which runs at 30fps) just fine.
So, as apt as your long description is of how you see things, I do not see them that way, and prefer lower frames.
I think the problem is the terminology that Brad used was a bit irresponsible. FC3 on consoles doesn't look anywhere near as good as the PC, sure, but it isn't "barely playable" by any stretch of the imagination. That phrase brings to mind game-breaking bugs and the like.
I'd love it if all games ran at 60 fps or were locked down at 30. FC3 on consoles should be called out for its framerate issues. But for someone used to playing games on consoles, it's not "barely playable," it's fine.
I agree with the notion that if Brad really thinks that the game is "barely playable" then it should have a different score than the version that is far superior. This is not without precedent. Jeff once gave Bayonetta a different score for being far less technically proficient, and unless Brad is simply being hyperbolic in the moment (which he shouldn't be, seeing as how effectively communicating this stuff is his job) he should offer a score that reflects the experience.
Giantbomb's line has been that a review is purchasing advice. If one version is far less capable in the reviewer's opinion but the review claims to be for all versions of the game, then the review is not as useful to the person who is looking for advice before purchasing the game.
I own both a 360 and a somewhat dated gaming PC (It's actually mostly a Debian box with one windows drive in it). There really needs to be new console releases next year, because multi-platform games are universally performing better on PC. I'm not really into FPS's, but I will say that I get motion sickness much more easily when the frame-rate is low and/or fluctuating.
I've seen Far Cry on console, and, while I'd agree it is functional, from the perspective of a multi-platform player, that's not the version I'd buy by a long shot.
EDIT:Spelling correction
@DrIntrovert said:
I own both a 360 and a somewhat dated gaming PC (It's actually mostly a Debian box with one windows drive in it). There really needs to be new console releases next year, because multi-platform games are universally performing better on PC. I'm not really into FPS's, but I will say that I get motion sickness much more easily when the frame-rate is low and/or fluctuating.
I've seen Far Cry on console, and, while I'd agree it is functional, from the perspective of a multi-platform player, that's not the version I'd buy by a long shot.
EDIT:Spelling correction
I disagree, the fault is on the developers, not the hardware. Console games look better each year (i.e. Halo 4 and Last of Us) multiplatform games can look good too, it just depends on how much time/money the developers are willing to spend. Huge companies like Ubisoft, Rockstar, EA, etc can afford to put the time in their ports but sometimes don't out of laziness. Blaming the age of the consoles is the easy way and inaccurate IMO... PC games (unless they're a bad version) have always looked and ran better than console games this gen depending on the computer.
@Assumedkilla I agree that the ultimate quality of a port is the responsibility of the developer, but I think that developers are getting tired of being restrained by the hardware limitations of the consoles, and are starting to build games that skirt the edges of those limitations out of creative boredom. It's unfair to compare a game designed from the ground up to run on a specific set of hardware to one designed to work on something else. It's my belief, and I don't think I'm alone in thinking this, that multiplatform game devs have started designing games with the PC version in mind first. I don't necessarily think that's a good thing, personally I'd prefer game devs work with the weakest platform the game is being made for in mind, but I at least understand the motivation behind it.
I've played PC games my entire life and yes, games like Far Cry 3 that spend a lot of time well below 30 FPS feel barely playable when there is a perfectly fine PC game available. That was his point, imo, if the PC option is open there is no reason to play it on consoles. They are very old.
@DrIntrovert said:
@Assumedkilla I agree that the ultimate quality of a port is the responsibility of the developer, but I think that developers are getting tired of being restrained by the hardware limitations of the consoles, and are starting to build games that skirt the edges of those limitations out of creative boredom. It's unfair to compare a game designed from the ground up to run on a specific set of hardware to one designed to work on something else. It's my belief, and I don't think I'm alone in thinking this, that multiplatform game devs have started designing games with the PC version in mind first. I don't necessarily think that's a good thing, personally I'd prefer game devs work with the weakest platform the game is being made for in mind, but I at least understand the motivation behind it.
I doubt that many, even more so "most", devs are doing that. The most popular system will be the lead platform at least 85% of the time. Last gen that was PS2 and now it's 360. All any big company cares about is money, so the most popular choice is going to get priority.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment