Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gaming News' started by Fireblade, Mar 14, 2008.
Read the full story here.
Well, guess that means slow paced, low detail ports of the games at best
Consoles are killing gaming TBH
PC gaming is a very niche market, what 90% of games are played on consoles? Not too surprised tbh.
90% of games are consoles? Where did you get your stats from?
I agree, PC gaming is a far smaller market and it's an obvious choice for Epic to concentrate on consoles.
I still maintain that a good game is not about graphics. Hell I played HL1 through to the ending on 640 x 480 because I was so engrossed I wasn't interested in pausing the game to change the settings!
Didn't GoW come out on the 360 using UT3 engine months before anything came out on the PC using it?
Unreal engine 3 was used for many console games before hitting the pc.
Its sad that the pc gaming market is shrinking so much
Obviously PC gaming would be more of a hit if people didn't need to shell out a lot of money for a system to run the game at a good setting. An Xbox is about £200, a PS3 is about £260 now, and how much for a decent gaming PC?
Whats even more stupid is when people spend a thousand pounds on graphics cards to run a game which sucks. IE Crysis. They spent ages on graphics, and we ended up with a boring game that nobody could play (well). And COD4, how long does that take to complete? A week?
And people wonder why the wii, a console with very low spec parts sells so well.
Subject: The bleeding obvious
In your opinion, but there is no way in hell a console will ever play this game at the same resolution as a PC. To use COD4 as an example, despite the fact that my Xbox 360 would display it at 1080p, in reality it is rendering at about half that resolution (600p) and scaling it up.
The Cry engine has been written with the future in mind. The Quake 3 engine, which has been powering games for years now, was equally demanding when it came out. Crysis are simply producing an engine that they hope will be licensed by game makers for years to come, by which point the hardware will have long since caught up.
And in my opinion, Crysis was a good game, one which has entertained me for hours and I've still to complete it!
Crysis, just like Far Cry, is effectively a game-sized tech demo. I disagree that it's boring, however if you were expecting the best game ever then you weren't paying attention. The hype was never about the gameplay, it was about the graphics, physics and the size of the environment compared to convential FPS games.
And while I understand your £200 console vs gaming PC, someone with a brain can build a gaming PC for £600. That may be 3 times what the console costs, however in reality it's a £400 home PC with a £200 graphics card - which is the actual bit that costs the money in regards to gaming. A £200 add-on for a PC that lets it play games in addition to everything else, or a £200 console that only plays games? Ok, a £200 graphics card isn't enough to run Crysis on maximum settings - a mix of medium and high is more realistic. But it still looks better than anything the 360 has to offer. Is the PC really as bad value as you're suggesting?
PS - You do know that the Wii is now more expensive than the 360, right? And if you want to use it for 4 players you're looking at nearly double what it costs to kit out a 360 or PS3 with 4 controllers?
Which is the exact opposite of what a game should be about (imo).
Yes I know the 360 is now cheaper than the wii, but I would still choose the wii. I've used all 3 of the major consoles and I would pick the wii because of the great fun I've had playing on it. (And the fact that 20% or so- can't remember exact statistic of 360's fail )
...within their warranty period.
(not saying it's a good thing, but at least MS extended it)
UE3 was powering stuff before gears of war...
rainbow 6 vegas for one. and many many others..?
personally considering just how long its taken for the bigger titles to arrive, UT3 GoW etc.
the engine hasn't impressed me anywhere near as much as they were hyping it. its been one big let down for me
the fact the audio engine is a complete pile of crap also annoys me, on vista its a damn joke. GoW pc can't do surround sound without hacking it, and even then its glitchy and cuts out and pops alot.
UT3 is the same absolutely abismal surround sound support.
the engine had SO much going for it and its turned out to me to be pretty rubbish. the textures are terrible, gears of war was 'pretty' but just.. so rough and ugly in other places. cut scenes are ugly, and on the whole i'm disapointed. from the tech videos and other stuff they've let me down
GoW was released a month before R6:V
And I have no problems at all with surround sound in UT3... plays perfectly all the time, and I have the same sound card as you :/
vista 64 also?
if so.. HRM...
i have a physx card in there and am thinking it might have something to do with it... but i'm unsure
What are you connecting the speakers on? I'm using the digital (not optical) out.
Creative Audigys used to be a bit funny about which PCI slot you put them in - could be the same with the X-fi - maybe try moving it to a different slot?
it's stupid PC fans have always been one of Epic's main's supporters, i have been playing UT for years after getting bored of quake.. this is ridiculous...