@viking_funeral: Yeah, that's kinda the feeling I'm getting. And yeah, you make good points. Thanks for the advice! :)
And thanks to everybody else too!
That's a question you can only answer for yourself. Look at both platforms' release schedules and decide on which games you'd want to play most on and where. PC is as such a platform you can only get the most out of if you really drop some sizable amount of bucks on it. I wouldn't kid myself if I were you, what is now considered an average computer today, if you want to have a stable experience, is one and a half or two grands at least, but like I said make your decision based on the games you want to play, you already said you have some amount of coming in, in the future so put your money where you think you'll spend your time the most.
As a side note: 30 fps on a console and on a PC is from what I've seen, definitely doesn't feel the same. Games just don't run on 30 fps on computers as stable as they do on consoles.
Yeah, that's kinda what I was afraid of. I don't think I'll be able to spend two thousand bucks on a PC. That's a lot of money for me. I can get a console for a quarter of that, and even if the games cost a bit more, that extra money will buy a lot of games. I guess most of the games I'm interested in will be available on all platforms, so that's not really a deciding factor.
Right now I'm reading through all the "pc gaming problems" threads on this forum, and I'm reminded of just how little I care for all the tweaks and headaches that come with that. Maybe I'm just a dirty console peasant.
I'm very surprised to hear that you built a PC for €1200 (I'm in europe too) and it didn't surpass the power of a 360. That does not sound right at all. I bought mine about that time too, three years ago and it cost about the same if not a little less and the only game I've had trouble running better than a console is Watchdogs, because it's a bad PC port.
If you don't mind the whole fps/p things and you're happy to play on a console, the next question is will you be happy paying more for your games and dlc on console than on PC?
It was €900 (or about $1200) and those €300 probably make a big difference. I guess? I just didn't have the cash back then to put that extra money on the gpu/cpu.
Hey guys, maybe you can help me out!
I'm at a point where in a couple of months I'll have enough cash to buy either a new console or a new PC (or upgrade it, if it's viable anymore). I've pretty much given up on the Xbox One unless something radical changes, so I'm looking at either PS4 or PC.
Last gen, I had an Xbox 360, which I was very happy with, and three years ago I bought a new PC for about €900 (about $1200, but since everything is cheaper in the U.S., it's probably more like $900 or less). I've been much less satisfied with the PC. I built if from scratch, it wasn't a shitty build, but it nevertheless struggled to give me performance better or even equal to that of the Xbox. Which I was pretty disappointed with. Some games ran better than others, but a lot of the time I had to settle for 720p and medium settings (or less) to run a game smoothly. I don't know if this is common or not these days.
I didn't really have more money to spend on it at the time. I might have a bit more to spend in the fall, but I'd rather buy a PS4 if it plays games smoothly (30fps is fine with me, as long as it's stable) than spend twice the money on a PC which is not all that much better. How much would a new rig cost me at this point? I haven't really kept up with the hardware news since I bought. Or should I just settle for a PS4?
I don't play dozens of games a year. I really only have time and interest to play about ten games a year or less (although I may buy more, especially with Steam sales). I guess I could still run the indie games on my current PC if I bought a PS4.
The Witcher confuses me. I love RPGs, but I can't get into any Witcher games. I think a big problem for me is I can't create my own character. Dragon Age on the other hand... I loved the first one and I didn't find the second one as offensively bad as others did. The only real problem with two was the repeated environments (which was a big problem, to be sure), but that didn't bring the whole game down for me. So I am looking forward to DAI more.
The characters, Geralt in particular, are a big part of what's great about the Witcher universe. The games, while great, don't quite do the books justice in that regard. Even though there are some choices you can make in the Witcher games, it's really about having the opportunity to play as Geralt and interact with that world and those characters, as opposed to creating your own unique character and adventure. I think that the story, world and characters in the Witcher games are just much better than in Dragon Age, although this is obviously a matter of taste. They're still not up there with the quality of the books.
I love Dragon Age too, though, and I'm psyched about both games.
I still can't fucking believe this thing got made in the first place. Who the hell thought playing shitty phone games on a TV was appealing?
The impression I got from the reddit polls where the devs were asking people which games they would like to see on the system was that people genuinely thought that the ouya would support the likes of Skyrim/Dragon Age etc, and the devs deliberately didn't do anything to refute them.
Interesting! That would explain a lot, actually. I can understand that people would get hyped for a new, "indie", crowd-sourced/funded AAA-gaming console to rival Microsoft and Sony.
Dragon Age II is £3.99 on the PSN January Sale at the moment and I've always wanted to check it out. I loved Dragon Age: Origins for the main reasons I liked the Mass Effect series, it's dialogue and character interactions. I wasn't really a fan off the combat in the first game and I kind've put up with it just to further the story and progress really. I remember playing the demo for II when it came out and at the time I felt the combat actually felt a bit more actiony, kind've a ME1 to ME2 transition. But then were the dialogue choices more dialled down to an ME style of things, Top Right = Good, Bottom Right = Bad, and then some sarcastic/jokey answer in between. Am I remembering this correctly? That I may not like.
So my question, Dragon Age II, is it all bad? I remember people being really disappointed with it at the time for the cut and paste dungeon design and the monotony that involved but now that the wave of disappointment is long over is it actually worth checking out if I already know to expect that going in? That's the main thing I remember from peoples complaints really, are there any other reasons I shouldn't play it? I'm also wondering if it's going to tie into Dragon Age: Inquisition this year, if the saves will carry over etc but I suspect by then I'll have a next gen console and/or PC to run it so I guess that won't matter in the long run.
Look, I'm not gonna lie, it's not game of the year material or shit like that, but I did enjoy it on my first run, when it came out.
I've since replayed Origins a couple of time (ultimately a superior game) but I've just recently started replaying II and it's a better game than I remember. Or, well, just about as good as I remember, just a lot better than people make it out to be. It's not the sequel a lot of people were hoping for, and it got a bad reputation. It does have some pretty big problems, and a lot of that criticism is justified. I would compare it to ME3. It has some problems with the final act of the story, some of the changes were maybe a bit too streamlined, but underneath there's a pretty enjoyable romp if you're willing to give its charm a chance. Unlike ME3, however, it was however pretty rushed, and that shows in parts.
What I liked (with caveats):
- I liked the characters. Most of them anyway. Varric was great fun, Isabela is ridiculous but I like big tits and girls with a dirty mouth, I felt there was a genuine brotherly love for Hawke's sister (whether you get the cool sister or the less cool brother depends on your choice of character class, I think). Merril managed to be more than a pixie dream girl with her dark side, although if you're into that whole innocent wide-eyed look, you'll probably be all up that shit. Almost all the characters have something going on for them. Except Anders. I fucking hated Anders. Maybe that was intentional on the part of the developers, but god I hated that whiny bitch. Especially after how cool he was in Awakenings. But again, I guess that wass the point - it's even alluded to in the story.
- Better, more action-y animation and the combat in general was more to my taste. On lower difficulties it can become a bit of a mindless mash-fest, it's not as enjoyable or action-y as a proper third person character action game. On harder difficulties, however, it still requires a somewhat tactical approach to combat. The combat is pretty satisfying, altough on my second run I've discovered that sometimes the enemy difficulty seems to vary a bit too much from encounter to encounter, meaning that you get used to a couple of easy encounters and then the game throws something more difficult at you without any warning. Ultimately, however, I don't play these games for the combat, and I guess you don't either, so I don't think it's going to be a problem either way.
- I liked the cinematic feel of the storytelling. It's a lot like Mass Effect 2. If you don't like that at all, you'll probably dislike the system here as well. However, where Mass Effect mostly had a choice of Paragon/Renegade and neutral/investigate, here there's also a consistently available an additional "funny/charming" choice. While I played my first run as a mostly "paragon" mage and enjoyed the mage shit, I'm now playing a warrior who's a regular comedian (though not always landing the joke as well as he thinks... which is kind of funny as well).
- It's a pretty game. Well, relatively. Looked a lot better on the 360 than Origins did. Most of the environments look pretty, with nice lighting etc. Character models are also a lot nicer than in Origins. Animation in both combat and cutscenes looks a lot better.
- The story has a pretty good atmosphere. Especially in the beginning, it really feels like the start of a grand adventure when you arrive in the city. Actually, the story promises a lot and feels pretty good up until the final act.. which...
Things I didn't like:
- ...kinda ruined the story for me, as well as for a lot of people. After the finale, there's a epilogue that again promises a lot of cool stuff. You wish the game continued from there. Not because the game is short or anything, but because of how much of a let-down the moments prior to it are. I guess they're gonna scrap most of the stuff from that epilogue for DAIII, but I kinda wish they didn't. It would be cool to get to play through that game as either Hawke or the Warden or at least get to see those characters in significants roles in the third game.
- While the game in general looks pretty, and you don't really understand what the problem with the overuse of the environments is as first, it does start to get a bit old by the last third of the game. At least there's the deep roads expedition earlier in the game to provide some variety.I wish there had been another thing like that.
- There's a lot of combat. I mean a lot. I wish there was more variety to it and they would've experimented with other kinds of "scenes" like they did in ME2 and 3. Maybe 1 as well, don't remember anymore.
So, take from that what you will. I feel like with a bit more time in development it could've been a really good game, though it still probably wouldn't have been what some people were waiting for. I would recommend it, but I can look past a lot of stuff in games if they have the right kind of character stuff, storytelling and charm.
Use your keyboard!
Log in to comment