TR Forums

whm1974 wrote:

NTMBK wrote:

Some of my best gaming memories are on console. :\ A game is a game. If people have fun playing a game, then that's all that matters.

You know what? Yeah, sometimes PC gaming is a hassle. Oh look I need to update my graphics driver again, oh look this game has DirectInput support but not XInput support, oh look this game has XInput support but not DirectInput support, oh look this game runs like ass if you have less than 4GB VRAM (and runs smoothly on console), oh look this game hasn't implemented controller support despite it being available on console (looking at you Mass Effect).

I love PC gaming, but a console has plenty of value too. I just wish that they were less PC-like these days; too many updates to install, too many games that ship broken and need patching, too many games with mandatory installs. Not like the old days when you would just slap in a cartridge and play.

Well I didn't say that PC gaming is perfect, as there is room for improvement. And yes I think that more PC games should implement controller support.

You are forgetting exclusives or semi-exclusives.

Exclusives aren't a Big Deal. Really, all games eventually come to the PC. Rockstar is an example of a developer that always makes sure to take care of its PC fan base.

Just look at classics like Grand Theft Auto 5 or Red Dead Redemption, they always get ported, although sometimes it can take a while....

EDIT: Warning! This post is /s! I'm taking the time to point out that, no, PC ports frequently don't happen because Developers hate money. Although this does prop up Bethesda sales, so it's not all bad.

nico1982 wrote:

whm1974 wrote:

Beg your pardon, but since most console games are limited to 720p@30fps, that is being [i]crippled[./i] And there is no good reason why Destiny(and other console exclusives) is not on the PC.

Such comments make me miss the the PSX 240p era - and earlier - when games were either fun or not fun.

Eh, nothing wrong per se with higher standards as long as they don't get unreasonable. I try to play games at higher than 30 FPS because they improve the controls as much if not more as they improve the graphics. For games that can't run that high? Depends on the game. Some I point blank avoid if precision is needed. I can't run nu-DOOM higher than 40 FPS most of the time, and usually it's between 20 and 30. But, precision isn't as needed in a game where you bounce around more than friggin' Mario and Sonic. Something like Sniper Elite, which while arcadey, still relies on precision more than many games where you shoot peoples(Not a typo) and animals... I want 40 FPS for that minimum. My eyes have trouble registering the difference between 50 and 60, FWIW. I can tell from 45 to 50.

That said, many PS1 games were filled with slowdown, and the N64 had it even worse. Hell, some N64 games hurt my eyes because of the slowdown. Others the slow FPS interfere with the gameplay enough to turn me off. One of the(Many) reasons I dislike OoT is because it is so slow it's hard to move with precision. That was a problem I had as a kid, let alone now. The 3DS port ups the framerate by 50% to 30 FPS, and that is a massive improvement and enough to make it workable for someone like me, considering it's a slow paced game.

As for resolution? That can be a big problem with games that are darker colored, rely on fine details or both, depending on the quality of the scaler you have access to. I have to play Evolve at my monitor's native res, 1920x1080, despite it running fairly bad on all low aside from the res. It has the problem of both. Fine detail in that game being weakpoints on monsters plus catching them out of the corner of your eyes, plus almost all levels take place at night. I have a GTX 660 and let me tell you, the scaler is crap. It brightens the image in a way that washes it out massively as well as blurring it the hell out. This is if I step down to 1600x900. No lower. Not nearly as much of a jump as if I had lowered it to 1280x720.

What I am saying is there's a gray area. Sometimes it's not about spoiled PC gamers(And yes, y'all exist. Nothing wrong with compromise, people). Sometimes? The visuals can interfere.

Vhalidictes wrote:

Exclusives aren't a Big Deal. Really, all games eventually come to the PC. Rockstar is an example of a developer that always makes sure to take care of its PC fan base.

Just look at classics like Grand Theft Auto 5 or Red Dead Redemption, they always get ported, although sometimes it can take a while....

I can think of plenty that never have and never will. For example, every Ratchet and Clank game, many comic book based games(Turns out many of them aren't bad once you hit the PS2 era!), Destiny 1. If you want I can go to GameFAQs and compile a list in about a half-hour.

You could not be more objectively wrong if you tried as hard as you could possibly try.

Edit: turns out the person I was quoting was being sarcastic.

Voldenuit wrote:

Metal Gear Revengeance, Transformers: Devastation

Okay, okay no. I own and have played both. They have a few issues, but are mostly fine. Nothing in life is perfect, and calling those shoddy is the exact type of spoiled nonsense I mentioned in one of my posts above this one.

I.S.T. wrote:

Vhalidictes wrote:

Exclusives aren't a Big Deal. Really, all games eventually come to the PC. Rockstar is an example of a developer that always makes sure to take care of its PC fan base.

Just look at classics like Grand Theft Auto 5 or Red Dead Redemption, they always get ported, although sometimes it can take a while....

I can think of plenty that never have and never will. For example, every Ratchet and Clank game, many comic book based games(Turns out many of them aren't bad once you hit the PS2 era!), Destiny 1. If you want I can go to GameFAQs and compile a list in about a half-hour.

You could not be more objectively wrong if you tried as hard as you could possibly try.

I was being wrong/sarc on purpose.

The lack of a RDR port is simply a slap to the face of a large chunk of Rockstar's fan-base.

They can go ****, and no, I'm not going to buy a console. That's my new-video-card budget in any case, so I don't have the money to get a new-ish console any time soon even if I wanted to.

Vhalidictes wrote:

I.S.T. wrote:

Vhalidictes wrote:

Exclusives aren't a Big Deal. Really, all games eventually come to the PC. Rockstar is an example of a developer that always makes sure to take care of its PC fan base.

Just look at classics like Grand Theft Auto 5 or Red Dead Redemption, they always get ported, although sometimes it can take a while....

I can think of plenty that never have and never will. For example, every Ratchet and Clank game, many comic book based games(Turns out many of them aren't bad once you hit the PS2 era!), Destiny 1. If you want I can go to GameFAQs and compile a list in about a half-hour.

You could not be more objectively wrong if you tried as hard as you could possibly try.

I was being wrong/sarc on purpose.

The lack of a RDR port is simply a slap to the face of a large chunk of Rockstar's fan-base.

They can go ****, and no, I'm not going to buy a console. That's my new-video-card budget in any case, so I don't have the money to get a new-ish console any time soon even if I wanted to.

Alright, I apologize. I'd go mark your post with a /s to indicate sarcasm. It's impossible to read in that possible.

I.S.T. wrote:

Voldenuit wrote:

Metal Gear Revengeance, Transformers: Devastation

Okay, okay no. I own and have played both. They have a few issues, but are mostly fine. Nothing in life is perfect, and calling those shoddy is the exact type of spoiled nonsense I mentioned in one of my posts above this one.

They are shoddy ports by PC standards; framerate lock and no 1440p support (or 1600x900, 0r 1920x1200, or 2560x1600, or 3440x1440...). That doesn't mean the base game was bad (although I personally thought Devastation was a mediocre game riding on a wave of nostalgia). Revengeance got a fan-made patch for 1440p, but if you want 1440p (or any of the less mainstream resolutions) in Transformers, you either have to hexedit the process in memory, or use an injection dll like GeDoSaTo.

Voldenuit wrote:

I.S.T. wrote:

Voldenuit wrote:

Metal Gear Revengeance, Transformers: Devastation

Okay, okay no. I own and have played both. They have a few issues, but are mostly fine. Nothing in life is perfect, and calling those shoddy is the exact type of spoiled nonsense I mentioned in one of my posts above this one.

They are shoddy ports by PC standards; framerate lock and no 1440p support (or 1600x900, 0r 1920x1200, or 2560x1600, or 3440x1440...). That doesn't mean the base game was bad (although I personally thought Devastation was a mediocre game riding on a wave of nostalgia). Revengeance got a fan-made patch for 1440p, but if you want 1440p (or any of the less mainstream resolutions) in Transformers, you either have to hexedit the process in memory, or use an injection dll like GeDoSaTo.

Vhalidictes wrote:

The lack of a RDR port is simply a slap to the face of a large chunk of Rockstar's fan-base.

They can go ****, and no, I'm not going to buy a console. That's my new-video-card budget in any case, so I don't have the money to get a new-ish console any time soon even if I wanted to.

QFT. Even though I played the original RDR on its corresponding console I haven't bought a new console since. I'd rather focus on my PC which is much more flexible. And the fact that they are probably not going to port RDR2 as well to PC is well stupid. They will be missing out on a larger fanbase.

tanker27 wrote:

Vhalidictes wrote:

The lack of a RDR port is simply a slap to the face of a large chunk of Rockstar's fan-base.

They can go ****, and no, I'm not going to buy a console. That's my new-video-card budget in any case, so I don't have the money to get a new-ish console any time soon even if I wanted to.

QFT. Even though I played the original RDR on its corresponding console I haven't bought a new console since. I'd rather focus on my PC which is much more flexible. And the fact that they are probably not going to port RDR2 as well to PC is well stupid. They will be missing out on a larger fanbase.

Which is rather strange since Rockstar started out as a PC gaming company. If I wanted to get into the gaming business then the PC platform is easiest, the one with the lowest cost of entry, And with the fewest restrictions. Hell, there are even free tools available I could use to get started.

2. And yes I do hate it when PC versions have arbitrary restrictions like frame caps and save points.

Save points are a valid way of adding challenge to the game and curating the experience. Doom is better off for having save point, for example.

I.S.T., are you saying that supporting multiple resolutions on the PC is being greedy? Would a console game that supported 720P rendering but not 1080P (or vice-versa) not be shoddy?

Chuckaluphagus wrote:

Captain Ned wrote:

whm1974 wrote:

Beg your pardon, but since most console games are limited to 720p@30fps, that is being crippled.

Crippled, eh? You must be old enough to remember when Doom v1 fanatics ran at 512x384 just to get to 30FPS for that edge in deathmatches.

Hah! When Doom came out, my family had a 386 SX/16. Doom only ran smoothly if you reduced the render window down to the smallest possible setting, at which point it was unplayable anyway because you couldn't make out a thing. I had to play Doom on other peoples' computers for a few years.

HA! My 486 ran Doom just fine... I think anyway. Spent much more time with Tie Fighter regardless.

486SX 25MHz could run Doom fine at whatever passed for high-resolution for me.

Kretschmer wrote:

2. And yes I do hate it when PC versions have arbitrary restrictions like frame caps and save points.

Save points are a valid way of adding challenge to the game and curating the experience. Doom is better off for having save point, for example.

I.S.T., are you saying that supporting multiple resolutions on the PC is being greedy? Would a console game that supported 720P rendering but not 1080P (or vice-versa) not be shoddy?

No. I'm saying supporting 800 dollar displays is often expecting a bit much. It's nice if it happens, but demanding it happens is just... Ugh.

For the record, given how cheapish the 2560xEtc monitors have become, those should be supported. Though, I have a question... How expensive were they at the time of Revengence? At the time of Transformers Devastation they were cheap enough, so that game has no excuse. Revengence is years old at this point, though. Might predate the cheapish 2560xEtc monitors.

I.S.T. wrote:

No. I'm saying supporting 800 dollar displays is often expecting a bit much. It's nice if it happens, but demanding it happens is just... Ugh.

For the record, given how cheapish the 2560xEtc monitors have become, those should be supported. Though, I have a question... How expensive were they at the time of Revengence? At the time of Transformers Devastation they were cheap enough, so that game has no excuse. Revengence is years old at this point, though. Might predate the cheapish 2560xEtc monitors.

My personal irritation with 1440p isn't really a developer supporting it or not supporting it, because it is a luxury, but when developers support 4K and not 1440p it's like...ugh.

LostCat wrote:

I.S.T. wrote:

No. I'm saying supporting 800 dollar displays is often expecting a bit much. It's nice if it happens, but demanding it happens is just... Ugh.

For the record, given how cheapish the 2560xEtc monitors have become, those should be supported. Though, I have a question... How expensive were they at the time of Revengence? At the time of Transformers Devastation they were cheap enough, so that game has no excuse. Revengence is years old at this point, though. Might predate the cheapish 2560xEtc monitors.

My personal irritation with 1440p isn't really a developer supporting it or not supporting it, because it is a luxury, but when developers support 4K and not 1440p it's like...ugh.

That is ****ing stupid of them. I guess because there are 4K TVs out there and sometimes they're used as displays as well as 4K being a buzzword, but damn if that ain't dumb.

Also, I wish more newer games would support 2560x1600 in addition to 2560x1440. It was done fairly commonly several years ago and 2560x1440 was ignored. Now the reverse is true and that's just as bullcrap as it was back in the day.

I.S.T. wrote:

Kretschmer wrote:

2. And yes I do hate it when PC versions have arbitrary restrictions like frame caps and save points.

Save points are a valid way of adding challenge to the game and curating the experience. Doom is better off for having save point, for example.

I.S.T., are you saying that supporting multiple resolutions on the PC is being greedy? Would a console game that supported 720P rendering but not 1080P (or vice-versa) not be shoddy?

No. I'm saying supporting 800 dollar displays is often expecting a bit much. It's nice if it happens, but demanding it happens is just... Ugh.

For the record, given how cheapish the 2560xEtc monitors have become, those should be supported. Though, I have a question... How expensive were they at the time of Revengence? At the time of Transformers Devastation they were cheap enough, so that game has no excuse. Revengence is years old at this point, though. Might predate the cheapish 2560xEtc monitors.

I bought my acer khul27bmiidp 27" 1440p for about $230 over 3 years ago, so they were certainly not exotically priced. That would be around the timeframe that Revengeance was released on PC, although I agree asking for 1440p support back then from a console port might be a bit much. It's still not an especially common resolution for most users, but I would consider a dev that fails to support it in this day and age to have failed badly, since in many cases, all that's needed was a table entry or text entry in their ini file. And both Legend of Korra and Devastation supported 4K but not 1440p.

EDIT: Good news is that according to steam users, Niea:Automata has native 1440p and 4K support. /So/ glad I don't have to use CheatEngine to hack memory variables for this game. 60 fps cap, I'm perfectly fine with that in this game.

Someone posted this cap of the options:

4K not shown, presumably b/c OP doesn't have a 4K display, but is supported afaik.

One of the nice things about playing PC games is that in most cases you can play at whatever resolution you like, and if you can't, there's most likely a way to add your preferred res.

Vhalidictes wrote:

One of the nice things about playing PC games is that in most cases you can play at whatever resolution you like, and if you can't, there's most likely a way to add your preferred res.

Xbox 360 allowed many resolutions. I don't know why they backtracked on that. Meh.

Voldenuit wrote:

I.S.T. wrote:

Kretschmer wrote:

Save points are a valid way of adding challenge to the game and curating the experience. Doom is better off for having save point, for example.

I.S.T., are you saying that supporting multiple resolutions on the PC is being greedy? Would a console game that supported 720P rendering but not 1080P (or vice-versa) not be shoddy?

No. I'm saying supporting 800 dollar displays is often expecting a bit much. It's nice if it happens, but demanding it happens is just... Ugh.

For the record, given how cheapish the 2560xEtc monitors have become, those should be supported. Though, I have a question... How expensive were they at the time of Revengence? At the time of Transformers Devastation they were cheap enough, so that game has no excuse. Revengence is years old at this point, though. Might predate the cheapish 2560xEtc monitors.

I bought my acer khul27bmiidp 27" 1440p for about $230 over 3 years ago, so they were certainly not exotically priced. That would be around the timeframe that Revengeance was released on PC, although I agree asking for 1440p support back then from a console port might be a bit much. It's still not an especially common resolution for most users, but I would consider a dev that fails to support it in this day and age to have failed badly, since in many cases, all that's needed was a table entry or text entry in their ini file. And both Legend of Korra and Devastation supported 4K but not 1440p.

EDIT: Good news is that according to steam users, Niea:Automata has native 1440p and 4K support. /So/ glad I don't have to use CheatEngine to hack memory variables for this game. 60 fps cap, I'm perfectly fine with that in this game.

Someone posted this cap of the options:

4K not shown, presumably b/c OP doesn't have a 4K display, but is supported afaik.

I would consider rendering at arbitrary resolutions a baseline 3D PC game feature (even if UI scaling is a bit odd at some resolutions or some errata slip through testing). Sprites/art are obviously a different story.

This is why I'm part of the 1080p monitor crowd. It's always supported.

NTMBK wrote:

This is why I'm part of the 1080p monitor crowd. It's always supported.

I'm considering getting a 4K monitor for gaming at 1080p with 4->1 interpolation, but from what I hear that's not a common feature, even though the pixel mapping would work perfectly.

Vhalidictes wrote:

NTMBK wrote:

This is why I'm part of the 1080p monitor crowd. It's always supported.

I'm considering getting a 4K monitor for gaming at 1080p with 4->1 interpolation, but from what I hear that's not a common feature, even though the pixel mapping would work perfectly.

I am doing it (4K G-Sync with GTX 970) and it works real well. Some games I can play at 4K (Elite:Dangerous, Blizzard games), and if not, I play happily at 1080p. What is important is to set it up in driver that the monitor scaler does the upscaling from 1080p to 4K, because if you let GPU do it, it will blur the image. And forbid any "smart" scaling on the monitor as well, if you have it.

First place I noticed 4K being better than 1080p was web browser. No kidding. The letters just look that much better.

That being said, 1080 Ti is really taunting me, but I never paid so much for a GPU ...

This discussion of resolutions is baffling to me. Isn't it relatively easy to probe the OS/driver and figure out what resolutions are supported by the display? Why not just support all of them instead of arbitrarily picking and choosing? The one excuse I can think of would be if the UI didn't scale, so at 4K it was unreadable and tiny or something.

Vanilla Ice had it right: "anything less than the best is a felony."

derFunkenstein wrote:

This discussion of resolutions is baffling to me. Isn't it relatively easy to probe the OS/driver and figure out what resolutions are supported by the display? Why not just support all of them instead of arbitrarily picking and choosing? The one excuse I can think of would be if the UI didn't scale, so at 4K it was unreadable and tiny or something.

Vanilla Ice had it right: "anything less than the best is a felony."

That would require developers to spend about 30 seconds building a UI that scales properly to arbitrary (standard aspect ratio) resolutions.

Instead, they halfass it. It's amazing how many games have a useless UI at 4K, letterboxing on non-16:9 screens, stretched FOV on 4:3 screens, etc, etc, etc.

It's not hard, they just don't do it.

Waco wrote:

derFunkenstein wrote:

This discussion of resolutions is baffling to me. Isn't it relatively easy to probe the OS/driver and figure out what resolutions are supported by the display? Why not just support all of them instead of arbitrarily picking and choosing? The one excuse I can think of would be if the UI didn't scale, so at 4K it was unreadable and tiny or something.

Vanilla Ice had it right: "anything less than the best is a felony."

That would require developers to spend about 30 seconds building a UI that scales properly to arbitrary (standard aspect ratio) resolutions.

Instead, they halfass it. It's amazing how many games have a useless UI at 4K, letterboxing on non-16:9 screens, stretched FOV on 4:3 screens, etc, etc, etc.

It's not hard, they just don't do it.

At the least, I can attest that Nier:Automata is running flawlessly for me at 1440p. Some users have complained that the game is defaulting to 1080p for them in fullscreen, and have suggested forcing the game to run in borderless windowed with a third party tool, but I have not had to use this workaround. Getting a solid 59-60 fps at 1440p (the game has a 60 fps cap on PC) with all the bells and whistles turned on with a GTX 1070, working fine with my G-Sync Display. Strangely, there is some screen tearing with V-sync on, but turning V-sync off kept the same framerate and got rid of the tearing (I'm surprised that there was tearing w V-Sync on, weird).

Controls tutorial maps properly to the buttons on my Xbone Elite controller, this is a small touch that not all console ports do (One Piece Pirate Warriors 3 keeps flashing playstation controller buttons at me, for instance). Cinematics are 30 fps, but it would be niggardly of me to complain about that, so I will say I find that perfectly acceptable.

I've heard that 4K support is a bit wonky, people reporting extremely low fps, so not everything is perfect yet, but I personally am greatly enjoying this game. Thank you Yoko-san!

whm1974 wrote:

OK I've been watching this guy on YouTube for a few days, and boy is he funny.

I fart in his general direction.

Consoles don't really do it for me, but I don't mind the console peasants. They didn't force lazy publishers to treat PC as a dumping ground for trashy, half-broken console ports with oppressive DRM nor did they force PC gamers to whine about that crap but buy it anyway. That all happened on its own. Contrast CDPR's Witcher 3, whose big budget was enabled by consoles. But the developer actually cares, so not only was the PC version not an epic trainwreck but it's widely considered to be one of the best PC games of the 21st century. Or Unity games, which were designed with consoles and mobile in mind but the engine is very popular with startup developers driving the PC-centric crowdfund RPG revival. It all comes down to the developer/publisher.

PSA: In addition to CPU prices that beat the Internet, Micro Center also stocks Glorious PC Master Race mousepads complete with dirty console peasant in the corner.

So i havent had a console gaming system since super nintendo...yes, 16-bit in all its glory. and the only reason i had that was to buy Street Fighter II.

Anyways, im in the market for one now...pros/cons to either/both of xbox or ps3? just from my personal experience, i like the controls of the ps3 more and like that its a bluray player.

thoughts?