Tyrrael's forum posts

#1 Posted by Tyrrael (323 posts) -

I've always thought that it was universally understood that PCs have vastly more problems with games than any consoles do. As others have stated, the drastic differences in hardware, and even software, configurations make it so that there are always going to be problems with someone somewhere. With consoles, the developers know what they have to work with, and it's virtually the same for each of that particular console. There was actually a thread posted a while back about something similar. I had this to say:

The crashes/bugs/glitches are often so far out of control on PC that I am often reluctant to even buy a game that I'm really interested in. I already have a couple of digital coasters that neither I nor anyone on the internet can seem to fix. This has never been an issue on any console I've ever had. I've had less than 10 crashes on my two Xbox 360s and two PS3s combined. I know there are people out there that have had more problems, but from my experience, consoles allow me to more consistently play my games without hassle. I've never had to worry about a game simply not starting or immediately crashing to desktop or having texture problems to the point where it's unplayable or having arbitrary constant lag/framerate dips due to the game not liking my hardware/software setup or any other number of things that you WILL have to deal with if you play PC primarily. If you don't have a problem having to spend your time getting a product that you bought to work, that's fine for you, but when I buy a game, I don't want to have to worry about the potential that it simply isn't going to work and that I'm going to have to sift through forums for hours, or longer, to find a solution. I value my time, and while all the things I've mentioned may not bother some people, they are a huge nuisance to me, and thankfully, one that I don't have to deal with on consoles, or at least with any of the ones I've owned.

Don't take this as being too antagonistic. If you are a PC gamer, I have nothing against you, but playing on PC isn't all rainbows and sunshine like a lot of people insist. One of my closest friends is the exact opposite of me. He primarily plays on PC, and I primarily play on console. We have no problems with each other in that respect. It's just the way we prefer to play. We both have our reasons for preferring one over the other. It's just that I haven't been told or shown anything that is going to make me switch any time soon.

End Previous Post

If you don't have a problem dealing the numerous issues that WILL come up with a gaming rig, then by all means, get one. In my opinion, it's not really all that worth it to make the PC your primary gaming solution. Consoles may not be perfect, but in the end, there's far less of a chance your games are going to be unplayable from the start.

As an ending note, I would just like to say that there are some people that seem to be painting the issues you're talking about with a broad brush. There are only a handful of games out there that have had problems for a considerable majority of people across the board, regardless of hardware or software. I can admit this for sure. However, there are games that are going to give YOU trouble that a lot of people may not have ever had trouble with, and a simple driver update isn't going to fix it. This has happened to me, like I said earlier. There are console games that have had problems too, but the number and severity of those problems pales in comparison to the outrageous number of games that have had issues on PC. I have a little over 100 physical games on my Xbox 360, about 30 on my PS3, and only about 8 or so on my PS4, and every single one of them worked perfectly the day I bought it. This isn't the case with my PC games, where there are still a few to this day that I can't play even though I bought them years ago.

The unfortunate problem here is that citing specific examples, which people are doing a lot of, doesn't do much. Why? Well, because someone could rattle off a dozen games that someone else has never had a problem with. Then that person could rattle off a dozen games that the first person never had a problem with. This is the issue right here. You never know when you may get a game that is going to be a pain in the ass to get to work, and that's IF you ever get it to work.

Finally, don't let all this make you think that I hate PC gaming (or PC gamers, because I know there are some out there that are going to take this personally). I don't. I have a decent PC, and overall, it's worked fairly well, but no matter what the circumstances may be, having even a single digital coaster in your library is going to drive you crazy. If I could only choose either my consoles or my PC for gaming, I would go with my consoles without a second of hesitation. Just think about it before you regret spending the money.

To anyone reading this, please don't come in here hammering me with hatred just because you think your PC master race was insulted. There are problems with PC gaming. Deal with it. Just like I've dealt with any problems with console gaming. Everybody has a preference and reasons for liking one over the other.

#2 Posted by Tyrrael (323 posts) -

I already posted once, but I just have to post again after reading some comments. I can't believe how many people are defending the needless douchebaggery of intentionally spoiling something for someone. As imsh_pl said before, "It has no positives, only negatives." This is the message that needs to be burned into people's brains. The intentions of the person doing it are almost always malicious. Stop looking at this from the perspective of the person who's media is getting spoiled for just a minute, and look at it from the perspective of the spoiler. Their mindset is the intention to needlessly spoil something for the sole purpose of aggravating the other person, therefore, doing so makes them a dick. The whole point is that it's completely unnecessary. It only causes aggravation and anger, and the person spoiling it knows this. They're just doing it to be a dick, and defending douchebags makes you one as well.

My life has never been irrevocably altered by having something spoiled, but it still pisses me off that people that do so intentionally to aggravate others, and worse, are so proudly defended. If you don't care if something is spoiled, then good for you. However, not everyone wants things spoiled. Knowing this should immediately send up a red flag that says that doing so means you know this, and still spoiling something anyway makes you an asshole. There's no reason to spoil something, so stop doing it, unless the person asks what happens, in which case, it isn't a spoiler for that person anymore, at least not in the malicious sense that I was talking about before.

#3 Posted by Tyrrael (323 posts) -

I find it childish for someone to randomly spoil something and then make fun of the person that is getting mad by calling them childish. Someone getting aggravated because somebody deliberately spoils something they may be interested in (which is the case 99.999999% of the time) seems perfectly normal to me. The vast majority of the time, it is completely unnecessary to spoil something, and therefore, the vast majority of the time the person doing to spoiling is doing so deliberately to be a dick. I'm not sure how you're being childish when somebody does something solely to piss you off and succeeds.

#4 Posted by Tyrrael (323 posts) -

@zella: The thing about this is, it is just in the list of downloads like any other download. I don't have to go to any other menu to look at it. If I go to Notifications and then to downloads, it shows up there. It's about 3/4 of the way done downloading, and I don't want to have to delete it and redownload if I don't have to.

#5 Edited by Tyrrael (323 posts) -

@mb: It is on PS4.

#6 Posted by Tyrrael (323 posts) -

I bought The Old Blood, and it downloaded and installed fine. However, after that, there was another download that started after called Application Data which is 39GB. I don't remember how long it took The Old Blood (first download) to complete, so I don't know if this is normal, as I've heard that the game is quite large. Has this happened to anyone else? This is the first game that this has ever happened with on both physical games and downloadable games. Usually there's an update along with a lot of games, but this just says "Application Data".

#7 Posted by Tyrrael (323 posts) -

@mb: I might wait next year for a card. I'm not into the idea of spending another wad of cash so soon after blowing 800 bucks on a monitor. It's funny to think that as a PC gamer my video card is the weakest link.

At least I can run The Witcher 3 just fine with 40 Chrome tabs open.

I have to know what monitor you got that cost $800. My $100 monitor from around 3 years ago is still trucking along and looks great except for a couple off colored pixels around the edge. I can't even fathom spending that much on a monitor as opposed to upgrading something more substantial, like getting a couple 970s or something. Anyway, I'm still curious what it might be.

#8 Posted by Tyrrael (323 posts) -

@nateema said:

Right. Hold onto your butts.

The Winter Soldier. A series of average fight scenes linked by episodes of things blowing up. That's it. The awful conspiracy plot falls by the wayside as the main point of the film, to blow things up with maximum CGI intensity, ploughs headfirst into absurdity.

I don't know - there's a USB stick that could blow everything wide open, like Hitler's Diaries or something equally trite. Airships with guns that are hiding under Washington? Yeah, that'll do. Black Widow looks perpetually bored and confused and bored and seems to react to almost dying on numerous occasions by looking really cross - we know this because Johansson creases her forehead. Acting! Evans is Evans and makes a great Captain actually - boy scout charm and crazy shoulders the size of a Volkswagen. Can't fault him.

The titular Soldier, Captain America's supposed arch nemesis turns up because f**king Hydra and... jumps about a bit and shoots some guns. Instead of being a powerhouse of Soviet revenge and fury, he's nothing more than a bell boy and is outwitted by a mobile phone. Teutonic butts! The Sundance Kid walks around like he's had a stroke and is as menacing as a newsagent. There's some fighting, some cars flipping over, some fighting on cars. Some stuff explodes, including cars. Oh, and buses! Got to have a bus-load of people tip over and be shot to hell. Can't be a Marvel film on Earth without at least one bus being wrecked. I guess if Bendis was allowed anywhere near the GotG film he would have buses falling out the sky. Anyway. A grand plan is hatched to kill the baddies and save the entire planet, no-one really cares. More stuff explodes, things sloooooooowly fall from the sky in slow motion to pad out the running time. Johansson still looks bored and does stuff? The Winter Soldier and Captain fight and who knew that decades of punishing and aggressive mental conditioning could be overcome by being hit by some falling metal? They both escape the slowly falling airship - Bucky runs off into the woods to have some special alone time with some WD40 and a Clas Ohlson catalogue. No-one notices that a good portion of Washington has been wrecked and that actual flying warships came from out under the Potomac. Larry Sanders is arrested. The end.

I didn't mention the Falcon because I didn't really notice he was in the film. Substitute him for anyone else and it wouldn't have made a difference. He flies about a bit - end of. What could have been, from the outset, a good cat-and-mouse story between Capt. and The Winter Soldier descends into another CGI showreel. Crushing tedium from beginning to end.

While I don't think I hated it as much as you and that it isn't nearly as bad as some of the travesties on this forum (Catwoman, Ghost Rider 2, Batman and Robin, etc.), I do agree with a lot of what you said. The major part being about how the movie"...could have been...a good cat-and-mouse story between Capt. and The Winter Soldier". I was really hoping for this. It would have been great if it was a more meticulously crafted plot that was given to us in bits and pieces along with Cap, all leading to him finally realizing the winter soldier is his friend and a big climactic fight scene between the two. Instead, it's more like they just took the plot and started bashing us over the head with it. I really wanted to like this one as much as everyone else did, but in the end, I just couldn't understand where all the adulation came from when I finished it.

#9 Posted by Tyrrael (323 posts) -

@hestilllives19: @tyrrael:It's like you aren't actually reading what myself and some others in here are saying. The three people in this thread that have said they are against matchmaking for raids have all said we want Bungie to introduce a grouping system for raids. I want you and others like you to be able to raid. I want everyone that plays Destiny to be able to raid and I want Bungie to address the current system that prevents a large majority of people from raiding.

You need to stop getting caught up on the term matchmaking, because it's not the only way achieve the result you're looking for. Why does it distress you so much that I'm advocating for Bungie to come up with a better means of allowing solo players to join raids than just the standard matchmaking that's in the game? The personal attacks don't help either. Calling someone "as wrong as they could possibly be" just for disagreeing with you (about a subject you have admitted you have no experience with) is rude and counter to having a legitimate discussion.

The thing that is actually really starting to annoy me though is that we don't actually disagree with you as much as you believe, yet you act as if we are 100% against you on every single point. You've taken this hostile approach because we are against matchmaking, but I genuinely want Bungie to implement some means of allowing people to group up for raids. Just because I want them to do it right and I don't think matchmaking specifically is the best solution DOES NOT mean I don't want you and others like you to be able to raid.

First, those aren't personal attacks or insults. Those are directly referring to the logic you're using. I have said repeatedly that I have plenty of experience with nightfalls, which is my primary focus for having matchmaking. As I've said before, they are just the same strikes people have done dozens of times with a few modifiers thrown in. I've only done them with PUGs, and almost every time at least two us didn't have mics. There is no reason why matchmaking couldn't work for nightfalls as it is now. I'm proof that it absolutely would work, because the people that I find after hours of searching that may want to do a nightfall could just do the exact same thing I would do. That is, simply go and push the matchmaking button. Having specific classes is absolutely unnecessary in nightfalls. However, after saying all this, I will say that I'm not saying that bungie should take away the option for people to solo if they want. I felt the same way with the weekly heroic. They could have had one button for matchmaking and one button the old way which would start the game solo if you weren't with anybody else.

I can't stress this enough. I'm not attacking you personally. I'm attacking your logic and reasoning.

I actually posted a response to someone else right before this that you should read. I think it may clear things up a little, but the gist of it is this. We both want LFG systems implemented in the game. That we agree on for sure. I'm all for options, and I'm all for people wanting to group however they want. I have no problem with bungie just adding matchmaking as a quick and dirty option. I'm sure other people like myself would be fine with it, but I'm not saying that they should remove other people's ability to group the way they currently do. If bungie added matchmaking to the nightfalls tomorrow and took out the ability to solo it, that's not my fault. Having both isn't a problem at all, however, if given the choice, I would choose the matchmaking option any day.

#10 Posted by Tyrrael (323 posts) -

@hestilllives19: I'll try to keep this as brief as possible. First, that's not what I'm saying in that quote. What I'm saying is that bungie could add matchmaking without removing other features people may like. That's what I meant when I cited the weekly heroics not being able to be done solo anymore. They could have had a matchmaking button and a regular button. This could also be done for the other modes, primarily nightfalls, which I still will say, having played at least a couple dozen that the exact same matchmaking could be used just like in the weekly heroics and it would be just fine. That's all I'm really doing when I'm asking literally every single person in the tower that is the appropriate level anyway. It just way faster to hit that button and get people that want to play, rather than having to ask every single person if they want to play. The raids may be different for the reasons you stated. I use matchmaking as a, more or less, universal term for automatic player matching of all kinds. That is, there could be options that people could set, level restrictions or being able to check people's gear before starting, for example, but the automatic matching of people would still be there. I'm all for more options. The more the better, especially with this game, because it is sorely lacking in that department.

I absolutely disagree that nightfalls couldn't work with the same matchmaking as the weekly heroics. They absolutely could. I've done them where all three people haven't had mics and we did fine 90% of the time. That's essentially all I'm doing when I ask a bunch of people in the tower anyway. It's not like we're looking over each other's gear and then leaving if someone doesn't have a Ghorn, for example.

I haven't done a raid firsthand, but I do know a bit about them. I'm not going into this blind. The same matchmaking may be a quick and dirty for people like me that don't have a problem jumping in, but bungie shouldn't remove the other ways of team building just to add matchmaking. Both would be fine. It shouldn't be one or the other. I'm with you on that.

If there is one thing that I can say we do agree on, it's that there needs to be a LFG function within the game. I mean, there's not even scrolling text. Seriously, FFS bungie. That alone would be a great help. And in lieu of matchmaking, they could add something as simple as an option to put a symbol over your head in the tower. One for weekly heroic, one for nightfalls, and one for each raid. Then people that are also interested could just walk up and join your fireteam, which you could choose to have temporarily open for a certain amount of time. Something as simple as this would help tremendously, and the reason I often talk about this topic with such vitriol is that they're literally doing absolutely nothing about this problem.

I don't want either of us to leave angry, so I'll end with this. The game needs a LFG function badly. We both agree on that for sure. While I may be ok with matchmaking as it is, especially for nightfalls (I can't stress this enough), I'm not opposed to more options. I welcome them, and hopefully, someday, there will ways within the game to throw a team together in the tower with ease and be off raiding or doing whatever without wasting any time at all. I look forward to the day there are systems in place that everybody can be happy with, but as it stands, anything is asking a lot, which is a real shame, because I want to play this game more than I'm currently able.