@pyrodactyl said:

As I said in the first post, it's not about ignoring the differences between the versions, it's about toning down the hate unless the game deserves it.

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

Watch that first video. They have all the rights to fuss about framerate issues if it is so choppy as in that video.

im only disappointed they didn't show footage of ps3. my xbox is dying and i think an open world, kinda buggy game with hours of exploration could be its death sentence. it probably looks indistinguishable from the xbox version but it would've been nice to see. im looking for footage of it running on ps3 but it looks like im going to have to wait until release date.

and yeah, i know it's out of their hands as long as the publisher doesnt send them a ps3 copy im just saying.

@connerthekewlkid: I'm not upset, I'm stating an opinion that doesn't match with his. The crew has done no wrong in stating which version is superior. Take for example the Bayonetta review they wrote, where the PS3 and 360 versions had to have two different reviews written and different scores attached to them because the PS3 version was so far below the level of the 360 one. It's pretty much the same situation that this guy is talking about. The fact of the matter is that the 360 and PS3 are old, incredibly old, and it shows. So why wouldn't the people who review games for a living point out which version is superior on every level?

@Azteck said:

@connerthekewlkid: I'm not upset, I'm stating an opinion that doesn't match with his. The crew has done no wrong in stating which version is superior. Take for example the Bayonetta review they wrote, where the PS3 and 360 versions had to have two different reviews written and different scores attached to them because the PS3 version was so far below the level of the 360 one. It's pretty much the same situation that this guy is talking about. The fact of the matter is that the 360 and PS3 are old, incredibly old, and it shows. So why wouldn't the people who review games for a living point out which version is superior on every level?

im just saying im pretty sure pc gamers will know they are getting the better version so why do they have to reinstate it in every quicklook

i mean i can understand if its worse but why do they have to say its better when that would be obvious to most people?

Well there's a day one patch for the pc version(fixes co-op problems...blah,blah,blah.), so can we expect the same for 360 to help improve the FR issues? Maybe some of our Euro friends know, as we don't have it yet in the US.

@Bourbon_Warrior: BTW, did you try using tripple buffering? When you use V-sync without it, it just jumps you from 60 to 30 everytime you get under 60 fps, but with tripple buffering, it just skips some frames to maintain the lower framerate. if you only get in the low 50s as minimum, then the framerate skipping is barely noticeable and way better than seeing tearing. Only if it goes in the 40s and 30s is when frame skipping makes the game jittery.

I use 3DOverride from riva tuner to force it on all games since some of them dont accept it from the control panel. It should work both on ATI and Nvidia.

Oh, if you have Nvidia there is an option called Adaptive V-sync that will keep the screen v-synced when you get 60 fps, but drop it when you get under so there wont be any noticeable performance loss. I personally prefer the tripple buffering solution, but some people like this instead. I don't know if ATI has something like this (never owned one).

@connerthekewlkid said:

@Azteck said:

@connerthekewlkid: I'm not upset, I'm stating an opinion that doesn't match with his. The crew has done no wrong in stating which version is superior. Take for example the Bayonetta review they wrote, where the PS3 and 360 versions had to have two different reviews written and different scores attached to them because the PS3 version was so far below the level of the 360 one. It's pretty much the same situation that this guy is talking about. The fact of the matter is that the 360 and PS3 are old, incredibly old, and it shows. So why wouldn't the people who review games for a living point out which version is superior on every level?

im just saying im pretty sure pc gamers will know they are getting the better version so why do they have to reinstate it in every quicklook

i mean i can understand if its worse but why do they have to say its better when that would be obvious to most people?

There is literally no difference from comparing the 360 and PS3 version, and no one ever took offense to that. Why would anyone take offense to the staff saying that, hey, you probably shouldn't buy the inferior version. Look at that Micky game that was chugging along at like 10fps on the Wii U. Should they not have told people about that? This idea that they need to censor themselves because everyone knows that PCs are stronger is ridiculous.

From what I saw in the Quick Look the 360 version was hard to watch because of the frame rate. Why wouldn't you want them to tell you if it's better on the pc? If it was shit on pc and great on 360 I'd still want to know.

@Azteck said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@Azteck said:

@connerthekewlkid: I'm not upset, I'm stating an opinion that doesn't match with his. The crew has done no wrong in stating which version is superior. Take for example the Bayonetta review they wrote, where the PS3 and 360 versions had to have two different reviews written and different scores attached to them because the PS3 version was so far below the level of the 360 one. It's pretty much the same situation that this guy is talking about. The fact of the matter is that the 360 and PS3 are old, incredibly old, and it shows. So why wouldn't the people who review games for a living point out which version is superior on every level?

im just saying im pretty sure pc gamers will know they are getting the better version so why do they have to reinstate it in every quicklook

i mean i can understand if its worse but why do they have to say its better when that would be obvious to most people?

There is literally no difference from comparing the 360 and PS3 version, and no one ever took offense to that. Why would anyone take offense to the staff saying that, hey, you probably shouldn't buy the inferior version. Look at that Micky game that was chugging along at like 10fps on the Wii U. Should they not have told people about that? This idea that they need to censor themselves because everyone knows that PCs are stronger is ridiculous.

@pyrodactyl said:

The real problem with the crew speaking in hyperboles is that you can't tell if the console versions are just not as good as the PC one (AC3) or if they're dog shit (batman and mickey on Wii U).

@DarthOrange said:

@jsnyder82 said:

@blueinferno said:

@jsnyder82 said:

After watching the Quick Look, hot damn am I glad I have a good gaming PC. It looks like sweaty ass on consoles. Which wouldn't be terrible as long as it ran smoothly, but it seems choppy as hell, too.

Sweaty ass? That's a little ridiculous isn't it?

Normally it would be. But not for this game.

Sounds kinda hot. Whose sweaty ass are we talking about? Is it someone like Shania Twain or Scarlett Johansson or are we talking about Jeff's gnarly sweaty ass?

Shania Twain? How old are you?

They definitely go a little overboard sometimes with the comparisons.  The games usually don't warrant much more than a, "yeah, the PC version looks a lot nicer," which should go without saying anyway.  Sometimes it feels like the Giant Bomb guys have an axe to grind with the console manufacturers, due to the prolonged generation.  We all want new consoles, but I don't think we need to act like current console games aren't worth playing.  I think they're a little over-sensitive about framerates in general though.

@Azteck said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@Azteck said:

@connerthekewlkid: I'm not upset, I'm stating an opinion that doesn't match with his. The crew has done no wrong in stating which version is superior. Take for example the Bayonetta review they wrote, where the PS3 and 360 versions had to have two different reviews written and different scores attached to them because the PS3 version was so far below the level of the 360 one. It's pretty much the same situation that this guy is talking about. The fact of the matter is that the 360 and PS3 are old, incredibly old, and it shows. So why wouldn't the people who review games for a living point out which version is superior on every level?

im just saying im pretty sure pc gamers will know they are getting the better version so why do they have to reinstate it in every quicklook

i mean i can understand if its worse but why do they have to say its better when that would be obvious to most people?

There is literally no difference from comparing the 360 and PS3 version, and no one ever took offense to that. Why would anyone take offense to the staff saying that, hey, you probably shouldn't buy the inferior version. Look at that Micky game that was chugging along at like 10fps on the Wii U. Should they not have told people about that? This idea that they need to censor themselves because everyone knows that PCs are stronger is ridiculous.

its not a matter of censoring its that they didnt just say it once in that quicklook which would be fine

its that they constantly had to shove it in your face

@pyrodactyl: They haven't been using hyperboles. They have said that the PC is the version to play because the 360 version is choppy as all hell, which is evident from both their QL and the eurogamer link posted earlier. I don't see where the issue here is.

@connerthekewlkid: I watched the Quick Look, and I have no idea where you are getting this idea that they constantly shove it in your face. When the game starts dropping below 20, they react just as anyone would. I'm sorry if you're somehow offended that they point out what version is the better one, but they are going to react to sub-par performance, and they have every right to.

@Spoonman671 said:

They definitely go a little overboard sometimes with the comparisons. The games usually don't warrant much more than a, "yeah, the PC version looks a lot nicer," which should go without saying anyway. Sometimes it feels like the Giant Bomb guys have an axe to grind with the console manufacturers, due to the prolonged generation. We all want new consoles, but I don't think we need to act like current console games aren't worth playing. I think they're a little over-sensitive about framerates in general though.

exactly, same thing happened with assassin's creed 3. Only time I've seen those comments justified recently was with mickey and batman on Wii U.

Not a big deal to me and I will be getting it for 360. If I had a good gaming PC I'd get it there too.

@Azteck said:

@pyrodactyl: They haven't been using hyperboles. They have said that the PC is the version to play because the 360 version is choppy as all hell, which is evident from both their QL and the eurogamer link posted earlier. I don't see where the issue here is.

@connerthekewlkid: I watched the Quick Look, and I have no idea where you are getting this idea that they constantly shove it in your face. When the game starts dropping below 20, they react just as anyone would. I'm sorry if you're somehow offended that they point out what version is the better one, but they are going to react to sub-par performance, and they have every right to.

but then why not just judge the game by its own merits on its own console instead of trying to compare if to a machine that is 7 yaers ahaed of it?

its not the fact that they are mad that it drops to 20fps, its that they always have to somehow bring the pc into it when thats something its not even about

@connerthekewlkid said:

@Azteck said:

@pyrodactyl: They haven't been using hyperboles. They have said that the PC is the version to play because the 360 version is choppy as all hell, which is evident from both their QL and the eurogamer link posted earlier. I don't see where the issue here is.

@connerthekewlkid: I watched the Quick Look, and I have no idea where you are getting this idea that they constantly shove it in your face. When the game starts dropping below 20, they react just as anyone would. I'm sorry if you're somehow offended that they point out what version is the better one, but they are going to react to sub-par performance, and they have every right to.

but then why not just judge the game by its own merits on its own console instead of trying to compare if to a machine that is 7 yaers ahaed of it?

its not the fact that they are mad that it drops to 20fps it that they always have to somehow bring the pc into it

They always have to bring the PC into it because it's a multi-platform game and the console version is the lesser version. Would you get as upset if they were saying that the 360 version was better than the PS3?

@Chaser324

It's semantics. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a bit of both to be honest. You have to imagine most major studios are working on at least one next gen title which may suck some of the talent away from the current gen stuff. That combined with what you and I are saying as pushing the console too far, it's not too surprising it's happening at all. I just wish we were past the "screenshot" days. You would think that would be the case in this day and age where internet dominates print magazines and most people who are serious about playing video games have a broadband connection to watch video. Studios can get away with the video stuff at big events like E3 because everything is running on high end PC hardware anyway. Point is, I don't appreciate the smoke and mirrors...regardless of what platform I play on. It's something we'll just have to deal with until next year.

Anyone can argue something is better on the PC or this system or that but the end of the day its the same great game. I intend to play it on my PS3.

@connerthekewlkid said:

its that they always have to somehow bring the pc into it when thats something its not even about

Of course they compare this game to the pc version because it is also released on pc. If they were comparing an xbox 360 exclusive game to a different game released on pc and saying that the console game runs like shit compared to the pc game, then it would be justified to be mad at GB crews comments. Not when they are comparing a game between all the platforms it was released on (although they didn't say anything about PS3 version, but you get my point).

@Azteck said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@Azteck said:

@pyrodactyl: They haven't been using hyperboles. They have said that the PC is the version to play because the 360 version is choppy as all hell, which is evident from both their QL and the eurogamer link posted earlier. I don't see where the issue here is.

@connerthekewlkid: I watched the Quick Look, and I have no idea where you are getting this idea that they constantly shove it in your face. When the game starts dropping below 20, they react just as anyone would. I'm sorry if you're somehow offended that they point out what version is the better one, but they are going to react to sub-par performance, and they have every right to.

but then why not just judge the game by its own merits on its own console instead of trying to compare if to a machine that is 7 yaers ahaed of it?

its not the fact that they are mad that it drops to 20fps it that they always have to somehow bring the pc into it

They always have to bring the PC into it because it's a multi-platform game and the console version is the lesser version. Would you get as upset if they were saying that the 360 version was better than the PS3?

no because they are almost on the same level

but there trying to act like this 7 year old console should be able to match a new pc

To be fair its in they're job description to point it out. Its nice on the other side, now the pc ports are awesome sauce praised most the time now.

I wish they had played a bit more of the 360 version so that I could see how much gameplay was affected by the framerate issues.

Too bad they didn't.

As someone who doesn't have the option of playing on a PC (in the immediate future, I REALLY want to build a new gaming PC, mine is way too old) I want to know to which extent the console version is fucked, and they didn't expose enough of the game before dumping it for the better version, all I can tell is that the intro has a few issues and the graphics aren't as impressive.

I just wanted to know how playable the console version is, and if it's a good waste of 60 bucks.

@connerthekewlkid said:

@Azteck said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@Azteck said:

@pyrodactyl: They haven't been using hyperboles. They have said that the PC is the version to play because the 360 version is choppy as all hell, which is evident from both their QL and the eurogamer link posted earlier. I don't see where the issue here is.

@connerthekewlkid: I watched the Quick Look, and I have no idea where you are getting this idea that they constantly shove it in your face. When the game starts dropping below 20, they react just as anyone would. I'm sorry if you're somehow offended that they point out what version is the better one, but they are going to react to sub-par performance, and they have every right to.

but then why not just judge the game by its own merits on its own console instead of trying to compare if to a machine that is 7 yaers ahaed of it?

its not the fact that they are mad that it drops to 20fps it that they always have to somehow bring the pc into it

They always have to bring the PC into it because it's a multi-platform game and the console version is the lesser version. Would you get as upset if they were saying that the 360 version was better than the PS3?

no because they are almost on the same level

but there trying to act like this 7 year old console should be able to match a new pc

They are very clearly not on the same level. Where have you been looking where the PC and 360 version were even close to being on par.

The stuff they got on the 360 was not demanding on terms of what you have to do later on in the game, so the framerate will most likely be even worse at those points.

I want them to tell the audience if a game has a superior version. Don't be dumb.

@Azteck said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@Azteck said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@Azteck said:

@pyrodactyl: They haven't been using hyperboles. They have said that the PC is the version to play because the 360 version is choppy as all hell, which is evident from both their QL and the eurogamer link posted earlier. I don't see where the issue here is.

@connerthekewlkid: I watched the Quick Look, and I have no idea where you are getting this idea that they constantly shove it in your face. When the game starts dropping below 20, they react just as anyone would. I'm sorry if you're somehow offended that they point out what version is the better one, but they are going to react to sub-par performance, and they have every right to.

but then why not just judge the game by its own merits on its own console instead of trying to compare if to a machine that is 7 yaers ahaed of it?

its not the fact that they are mad that it drops to 20fps it that they always have to somehow bring the pc into it

They always have to bring the PC into it because it's a multi-platform game and the console version is the lesser version. Would you get as upset if they were saying that the 360 version was better than the PS3?

no because they are almost on the same level

but there trying to act like this 7 year old console should be able to match a new pc

They are very clearly not on the same level. Where have you been looking where the PC and 360 version were even close to being on par.

i never said they were on the same level im just saying why are people so surprised that it doesn't look as good on 7 year old hardware

@connerthekewlkid: Again, no one was surprised about it looking better on PC. The surprise was that it was bad on console.

@Alexandru said:

@Bourbon_Warrior: BTW, did you try using tripple buffering? When you use V-sync without it, it just jumps you from 60 to 30 everytime you get under 60 fps, but with tripple buffering, it just skips some frames to maintain the lower framerate. if you only get in the low 50s as minimum, then the framerate skipping is barely noticeable and way better than seeing tearing. Only if it goes in the 40s and 30s is when frame skipping makes the game jittery.

I use 3DOverride from riva tuner to force it on all games since some of them dont accept it from the control panel. It should work both on ATI and Nvidia.

Oh, if you have Nvidia there is an option called Adaptive V-sync that will keep the screen v-synced when you get 60 fps, but drop it when you get under so there wont be any noticeable performance loss. I personally prefer the tripple buffering solution, but some people like this instead. I don't know if ATI has something like this (never owned one).

Thanks for that will try that tonight. First time i messed with the settings in Control Centre apart from when auto over clocking, but really not noticing much tearing, considering how much frames it costs for v sync

Yeah, they over exaggerate how bad games look on consoles. Games have always looked better on PCs, it is nothing new. But now they act like the console versions look like complete trash. Best just to ignore it.

I feel the same way. I have a PC (mac in bootcamp mode) to play games on that runs everything terribly. I'd rather play games with a controller and achievements anyway. Also, every time they say that the frame rate is terrible, I don't see it. There has been numerous quick looks and podcasts where they say that "x" game has a bad frame rate and I just can't see it. So, anyway, I will be picking up the xbox version and I will be happy with the crappy frame rate and all.

@darkjohnny47: far cry 3 on PC works with a controller, and I think Uplay added achievements to ubisoft games too (although I may be wrong). But yeah, I get what you are saying.

@pyrodactyl said:

Hearing people half puking in their mouths while demoing the only version I can buy isn't really encouraging me to pick it up.

They're not obligated to encourage you to pick it up. If something about a game is messed up, they point it out and give their opinion. That's kind of what they do.

I thought it looked great on the Xbox. PC games are overrated if you ask me, it's all about having fun. I'm not going to criticize the freaking grass or something when I play.

@Alexandru said:

@darkjohnny47: far cry 3 on PC works with a controller, and I think Uplay added achievements to ubisoft games too (although I may be wrong). But yeah, I get what you are saying.

Yeah, theres controller support and Uplay achievements, same ones work on Steam and you can also use Steam Big Picture to play on your big ass tv with a controller while sitting on a comfy sofa.

@zenmastah @alexandru I know that Steam has achievements and controller support, but there's no way that Far Cry 3 is going to run on my computer. I can't even get Scribblenauts Unlimited to run decently.

God forbid they talk about how they feel about a game

You sure can tell who has never played on a proper PC before.

1080p at a solid 60+ fps. It's night and day compared to the sub-720p, sub-30 fps of most console games.

I can't really agree at all, here -- I want them to be brutally honest, because I want to know which version of a game is the best to buy. Some games I play on 360 due to multiplayer (or, rarely, PS3), but some are just superior on PC. If there's a drastic difference in quality between versions, I want to know.

They shit all over AC3 as well, but I played it on the 360 and it never dropped low enough for me to care about it. You'll be fine op, I'll be playing it on 360 also.

my issue with the way they did the quick look is they briefly showed the 360 version, then jumped right away into the PC version.

we all know the PC version is going to look and run better. i was more curious about the performance on the 360 than i was to see how pretty it looked on the PC cus duh.

From what I've seen of the console gameplay, it's unplayable.

@Clonedzero said:

my issue with the way they did the quick look is they briefly showed the 360 version, then jumped right away into the PC version.

we all know the PC version is going to look and run better. i was more curious about the performance on the 360 than i was to see how pretty it looked on the PC cus duh.

There is absolutely no way for them to make everyone happy. When they demo the 360 version of a game (most of the time), people complain that it's not the PS3 version. For a change, they use the PC version and some people are grumpy because it's the PC version and runs well cus duh. What about people who want to see how the game runs on PC? There are enough QLs on 360 already.

There's no need to get so offended by this as some people in this thread have gotten.

It bums me out when I don't hear shit about the PC version....

@Clonedzero said:

my issue with the way they did the quick look is they briefly showed the 360 version, then jumped right away into the PC version.

we all know the PC version is going to look and run better. i was more curious about the performance on the 360 than i was to see how pretty it looked on the PC cus duh.

I think you could get a good idea of console performance from what they showed. If it was being framey in the smaller, more linear areas then you can't expect it to be any better out in the open world where it's going to be rendering more.

@Animasta said:

what do you want them to say, exactly? it's not like what they're saying is inaccurate.

The thread should've ended here really. I get what the TS is saying, but facts are facts.

It's true though, console games tend to look like garbage, especially in comparison to PC. Doesn't mean it plays differently necessarily though.

@kishinfoulux: not if the implication is that the console version is essentially broken and they fail to expound on the details. as journalists, if there's a serious problem with the 360/ps3 versions, i would hope they would feel somewhat compelled to go into a little more detail about it and make a conclusive statement. it's dishonest to release a game using the pc version as front, while charging full price for a botched version of the game. they should have made it clear, instead, i think brad (the most boring man alive) made some catty, flippant remark, which can potentially be misleading for people, especially if they're planning on purchasing the console version.

i understand that most of you may be somewhat marble mouthed about the whole thing, but this is their job, and they really do need to articulate their points better, and this is the real issue here people. otherwise, they might as well join the rest of the tmz-ified media.

@Clonedzero said:

my issue with the way they did the quick look is they briefly showed the 360 version, then jumped right away into the PC version.

we all know the PC version is going to look and run better. i was more curious about the performance on the 360 than i was to see how pretty it looked on the PC cus duh.

Briefly? It was around 30 minutes of the console version. It was enough to show that it ran like junk, although why people are surprised by this in 2012 I am not sure.

@Jumbs said:

@Clonedzero said:

my issue with the way they did the quick look is they briefly showed the 360 version, then jumped right away into the PC version.

we all know the PC version is going to look and run better. i was more curious about the performance on the 360 than i was to see how pretty it looked on the PC cus duh.

Briefly? It was around 30 minutes of the console version. It was enough to show that it ran like junk, although why people are surprised by this in 2012 I am not sure.

it was the tutorial area. they didnt really show any open world stuff with it.

and dont use the "it was a linear tutorial and it had issues so of course it'd run bad open world". well in linear areas such as that, its more detailed and densely populated with assets. in open world areas its more spread out. so performance could have actually been better in the open world, in theory at least.