Originally Posted by __Pat__
Sigh... just keep ignoring all my arguments and just call me a fanboy.
Here is my reply. Although you should not to be dignified with one.
1) I prefer playing most games on PC because of better graphics and quality. Why don't I have the right to want to play games on PC but you have the right to want to play games on PS3?
2)You ignored my post yet again. I specifically said earlier on that PC exclusives aren't justifiable any more than console exclusives are. The only exception being games that are too strong for consoles to handle such as the first Crysis.
3)I already admitted I was wrong about that in the previous post. Can't you give me some credit? (Also how does that make me a fan boy?)
4)A true PC game will be optimized for a wide array of hardware. Just look at Half-life 2. And even if they weren't, if all developers worried about backward compatibility the way you want it to be, we would still be playing games with Doom 1 graphics because some hardware can't handle it.
5)When did I say that? That even isn't needed. Just look at Battlefield 3.
6)Don't forget that for consoles to be affordable, M$ and Sony didn't put the latest generation of cards in the consoles when they made them. Add the years to 2008. That means the graphic cards were better than the ones in the consoles. Look at Crysis.
7)That is pure opinion. Also a PC can handle a controller if that's your style.
8)I never said that. I said that the 'cell' processor is not faster than a regular CPU when it comes to general purpose computing. That includes running games. Games require a processor that works as a 'general purpose', other wise we should just use GPUs in our consoles, and disregard the whole concept of CPU seeing how a regular GPU has 10x GFLOPS than any CPU or of the cell processor. But again, that wouldn't work. Clusters and the like are where the cell truly shines.
9)No just you.
10)Again you ignored my post. I played it's predecessor on PC. It may not be exactly the same thing, but by your description it does sound quite similar.
1) No, you clearly said that you boycott all exclusives and "hate" them because you dont like the concept of exclusives. There is no denying it, it is written here for the world to see.
2) "PC exclusives arent justifiable any more than console exclusives". What are on earth are you talking about, you are contradicting yourself now. Maybe you like sub par console ports.cough....Crysis 2.....cough.
Then you say "The only exception being games that are too strong for consoles to handle such as the first Crysis."
Then you say:
"A true PC game will be optimized for a wide array of hardware"
What makes a console different from an average PC? A console could've easily have played crysis on medium @ 720p with no AA........
Of course a console could play starcraft 2, turn down the visual @ 720p easy peasy, makes it no different to a weaker PC
3) Ok fair enough
4) As explained in 2.
5) Dice is not your average developer. You are comparing a independent tiny french studio which made their choice in 2007/8 to Dice/EA with pc hardware of 2011? Please dont make me laugh. Dice almost does have infinite resources after Bc2.
6)Are you talking jiberish now? Back in 2005/2006, MS and sony did put the latest generation cards in their consoles. 360 had a Tri core, who had a tri core in 2005? Yes the Hardware has aged now, high end PC hardware is immensely superior now, but who has it? Maybe 5-20% of the PC gamer market.
Steam hardware survey for most used cards as of february 2011:
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 5.45%
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 5.30
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 4.33%
ATI Radeon HD 5770 3.87%
NVIDIA GeForce 9600 3.65%
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 150 3.06%
Steam hardware for most used CPUs:
2 cpus 52.56%
2.3 Ghz to 2.69 Ghz 29.63%
Go back to 2008 and would you imagine what average PC hardware is like?
Did they make the best choice of making it on PS3? of course they did, not many PC owners couldve matched the PS3 visuals. Mainly due to the lack of CPU power, which heavy rain devs admitted would not have been possible on 360 because it couldn't number crunch like the ps3 cpu for physics, AA, AF, lighting etc . You could argue that some PCs have physics cards or strong nvidia cards and super strong 980x but what % of PC have that?...like 10%
7) Agian what % of PC gamers have a Pad, rather than 100% of ps3 users using the motion sensing controller (which is vastly superior for QTE).
8) No PS3 cpu is better at its job and that is gaming. It almost does the job of a dedicated physics(calculations) card. It number crunches, frees up the weak PS3 GPU allowing for better visuals as the only job the GPU does is Polygons, the cpu does Physics AA etc.
Try and run Heavy rain on a 7800GTX and an i7.
At games it is vastly superior but photoshop, video encoding etc it is totally rubbish. The cell is like a CPU/GPU hybrid, it is a wonderful peice of tech. You have to remember that the PS3 was never intended to even have a GPU, the Cell was supposed to do everything.
9) "What the developers are saying is that they picked the PS3 because it has the best hardware, and if you agree with that you shouldn't be on this forum."
Back in 2007/8, when they made this choice was the PS3 not stronger than 95% of PCs? But hey I dont deserve to be on these forums becuase I am not a PC fanboy and enjoy any game.
10) My point still stands You havent even played the game which you claim will be better on the PC.