Ihmishylje's forum posts

#1 Posted by Ihmishylje (410 posts) -
@deerokus said:

I love cultural differences like this. I live in the suburbs of the the biggest city in a small country, Scotland. It would be actively weird and creepy to drive someone you're going on a date with around. And you know, alcohol.

I guess that would be going off topic so I will drop it..

Yeah, I definitely get what you're saying. I live in a city that has probably the best public transport in the world (Helsinki -- bigger than Edinburgh but smaller than Glasgow), and the thought of needing a car for dating is AMAZING. It just blows my mind that someone would even have that thought floating in their head.

I get that, if you live in a rural area, whether it's the U.S., Scotland, or Finland, you'll need a car for everything. But at that point you wouldn't be asking whether you need a car for dating either, would you? If you didn't have a car in a place like that, dating would be the least of your worries. I know somebody already brought this point up, but still.

As for the OP asking people out, always go for it. I get that it can be terrifying in the beginning, but there is literally no downside to doing so. Later in life, you will only regret not trying. I cannot emphasize this point enough.

#2 Posted by Ihmishylje (410 posts) -

Helsinki, Finland

#3 Posted by Ihmishylje (410 posts) -

@rm082e: Yeah, I guess you're right. Thanks for the advice!

#4 Edited by Ihmishylje (410 posts) -

@rm082e: I get your point, and I was aware of the role parts play in PCs, it was the second rig I had built. The parts I chose were the (most expensive) ones I could afford. I was aware (or mistaken?) that they would be on the lower mid-range. They were definitely not the cheapest nor least powerfult parts. I might have been able to shave off a bit from that price tag by shopping around, but not anything significant. Hardware, like everything else, is very expensive here.

I'm definitely not comfortable upgrading a PC every couple of years. When I got my PC three years ago, my previous PC was from '04. That PC was of a similar power range (or perhaps slightly more powerful) and equally expensive (as far as I can remember). I hate almost everything about PC gaming, I guess, except the better graphics, exclusives, and potentially cheaper games. The trouble is, I guess I'm a "softcore" gamer, I don't play that many games. I buy a few games a year, mostly story-driven one, and I buy them when they come out because they're usually games I've been waiting for for years. If I were patient and smart enough to wait, I'm sure I'd save more money on games on the PC. On the other hand, I'd have to spend that money (or a lot more) on the PC itself. It would have to be upgraded, and it would hog a lot of power, which is expensive as well. I've bought some games on Steam sales, but I usually don't get around playing them.

But I'm nevertheless bummed out about getting into the new console generation anyway. If I buy a PS4, that'll mean lesser graphics, and sometimes poor optimization from PC-centric games, and lack of access to the games that only come out on PC, or the potential of a cheaper game. On the other hand, I probably can't afford a "proper" PC, and even if I could, I'd probably rather choose to spend that money on something else, and not have to deal with games that just won't work, and all the other shit that comes with a PC.

#5 Edited by Ihmishylje (410 posts) -

@robotdragon said:

you got ripped off on that PC rig.

could have built a cheap but decent one for cheaper than that.

amd's fx8350 are cheap but beasts in price-performance for cpus and have a high roof for OC as well, if you get lucky and can OC it to 5ghz, you just yourself a cpu worth twice than what you paid, and their mobos are cheap too, getting ram for them are cheap as well, only expensive part would normally be the GPU.

Maybe, but how much better would it have been and for how much cheaper? For the sake of comparison, where I live, a 500GB PS4, without any games, costs over $600.

I'm not trying to argue, if you can link me to a decent PC build, I could check what the individual parts cost over here. I'd much rather play games with better graphics, but at some point I have to decide whether I want games to run without any hassle or if I want to spend extra money on the PC experience.

I have other interests, I don't spend all my money (or time) on games. I'm still not sure if the average PC gamer is wealthy (I certainly am not) or if they just don't have to or want to spend money on anything else.

Edit: Also, I don't want to OC anything. It'll just use up more power -> increase in utility bill -> not worth it. Also, more fans, noise, etc. I'd rather give up some performance for a quieter machine that doesn't use up as much power.

#6 Edited by Ihmishylje (410 posts) -

I feel like part of the problem with PC games like the Witcher 2 is that they're designed to look really nice on the higher settings, but if your PC can't run that, and you have to use lower settings, the games start to look like garbage. At the same time, most console games can't reach graphical fidelity like that on a technical level, but they optimize the lower graphics well enough, and use an appropriate art style to cover up the rest.

I'm sure the Witcher 2 on medium settings is technically better looking than any console game from last gen, but that's not what it looks like to me. I'd probably rather have less stuff on screen, if it looked better and had a better draw distance. I've been recently playing Red Dead Redemption and that game looks gorgeous despite its age. It still looks much more impressive than GTA V, and I guess that's more due to how the environments etc. are designed than how much power they're able to get out of the console.

#7 Posted by Ihmishylje (410 posts) -

@oursin_360: You might be right, I don't know. My psu is a chieftec 500W 80+, I figured that would have been enough, given how much the individual components supposedly require.

The Witcher 2 ran kinda ok on medium settings @ 720p. I finished the game, it's a great game. But I couldn't really get it to run smoothly on any settings. Except like everything on low at 480p or something, but at that point I might as well just play it without a monitor.

#8 Posted by Ihmishylje (410 posts) -

@tyrrael: @mrpandaman: @pyrodactyl: Basically what all of you guys said. It's looking like PS4 for me. For now, anyway.

There's really only three AAA games I'm looking forward to right now: Batman, Dragon Age and the Witcher. Out of the three, it's only really the Witcher that would benefit from a (very powerful) PC, but I don't think it merits a massive investment by itself. I'm sure other games will come along, though.

But if I miss out on some great PC games that would have required a powerful PC, I guess can always invest in that later, if I have the money. The thing is, however, I'd much rather spend $1000 or $1500 on a decent pair of speakers, or travel, or something else, than a PC so that I can play five really nice looking games in a year.

#9 Posted by Ihmishylje (410 posts) -

@geirr: In my experience recording and mixing audio isn't that cpu intensive. I've got an ok external sound card for recording music.

#10 Posted by Ihmishylje (410 posts) -

@tyrrael: While I can definitely see the difference between 30/60, it isn't that big of a deal for me. Yes, 60fps feels more natural, but I don't know if that's always a good thing. Cut scenes almost never run in 60fps, so it feels weird. And I don't play competitive shit anyway. I'm so used to 30fps that 60 can feel a bit weird. I guess it's the same as those 48fps movies or whatever.

I already have a couple games that turned into digital coasters, because they simply refuse to work properly with my rig no matter what I tried and how much I scoured the forums. I've never had this problem with any console I've ever owned.

I hate this so god damn much.