Batman is exactly why I don't PC game

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Charcharo said:
Witcher's world is believable by its own rules. Society does not bend the knee just cause elves. Nor does human nature. Nor does its internal logic colapse.

Geralt only attempts Axii on people that are kinda... within its effect :p . He never even attempts using it on truly smart/willful/magical people.
It would be funny if CDPR let the player attempt use it on Keira only to be humiliated when he calls out his magic :p

That is the thing. Mages CAN do what Witchers do. There is a logical reason why they dont. Last Wish -> Times of contempt gives insight to it.
But Witchers are not really needed all that much. Not many monsters remain. The ones that do eventually get hammered by soldiers or mages (after payment... hefty at that). Their profession is dying. Wars stimulate it for a bit. But ... for a bit. Nothing more.
If mages choose not to do what witchers do, then witchers could charge a lot of money for their services. What's the point of witchers if they are obsolete now? Why would Geralt train Ciri to basically be a witcher when that professional is obsolete?
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Charcharo said:
Because as I said, mages WOULD do the job if given enough money. A lot more than what Geralt would take.
Either them or soldiers and mercenaries. They too can and do kill monsters.

He is teaching Ciri the ONLY thing he knows. Better than nothing. And at least would help her defend herself.
Yennefer was teaching her the basics of magics. Would have made her a mage (something Geralt wanted) was it not for certain events.
Then Geralt should charge more. If he's talking say $10 while a mage would want $100, Geralt could obviously charge more if as you say mages would do it for a lot more. I'm just saying a person of Geralt's skills should not be broke unless he so chooses. He could be a king's bodyguard for example or something along the lines of a sheriff of a town.
 

lapan

New member
Jan 23, 2009
1,456
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
I know the game will work when I buy it, I've never had an instance of a game not working.
My copy of Witch and the hundred Knight says otherwise, that game has frequent crashes and NISA has outright stated it will never get fixed
 

Joccaren

New member
Mar 29, 2011
2,600
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
I played Dark Souls and the framerate chugged a bit in Blighttown but it was very playable, it's not like any basic enemies are actually difficult in the Souls' games to where a few less frames would make you die.
Funnily enough, AFAIK, performance issues are the main complaint of Arkham Knight as well, and an issue you yourself bought up previously as a fault in the PC version.
Funnily enough, chugging a bit on a console is a pretty big deal.
Chug a bit on a PC... You're done 60 FPS to 30. Noticeable. My partner, who doesn't game, thinks Witcher 3 runs shit on my PC 'cause its at a steady 27-30FPS thanks to Hairworks, whilst she's used to the games I let her play which run at ~200FPS on my machine [If I weren't to Vsync them anyway].
Chug on a console and you are noticably less than 30. It reaches so called unplayable levels. Framerate in Blighttown was considered a problem by many who played DS, whether you personally considered it one or not.

PS3 users could still play the game, Skyrim PS3 wasn't taken off store shelves either.
PS3 players could play it... To a point. And then it was utterly unplayable.
PC players can play Arkham Knight. It just... chugs a bit through the game, and has a few texture and performance issues that are unacceptable for a PC release - such as the 30FPS hardcode lock.
Honestly, from what I'm hearing, Skyrim was in a worse state at release.

As for Arkham Knight coming off Store Shelves, that's not Steam saying "We won't sell this" and retailers universally deciding the game is in too poor shape to sell - its actually the publisher saying they'll take it off store shelves and doing so, in order to save some face from the negative publicity.
Skyrim didn't do this as Bethesda started working on fixes right away and over the next few months released several patches, each one which extended the amount of time before crash a little.
Arkham Knight, however, reportedly was delayed for so long because these same issues appeared on consoles, and it took that long to fix them, without touching the PC issues that were well known before launch. Fixing the PC issues would likely take as long, and possibly longer considering things like the 30FPS cap they have implemented are using methods that are... kinda shit. As its not something they can even start fixing quickly, its a good idea for them to pull it off store shelves as its not going to see any progress any time soon.
Whilst its probably not so benevolent a reason they took it off shelves - it was taken off because PC gamers just found it unacceptable. And its not because its so horrifically bad that its the worst thing to come out in history, or even recent history. Its got some pretty bad issues, and is the epitome of a rushed console port. Its not unplayable, its just shit. And unlike Bethesda they don't have a huge PC following, and the game isn't easy to make mods for, so they're just not at all forgiven for it - as WB has a kind of reputation for this sort of shit, what with Games for Windows Live being used in Arkham City, and Arkham Origins being a functional but still obviously ported game. Where Bethesda gets let off because they make games that people love and they're always buggy, WB and Rocksteady have a reputation of putting the minimum effort into the PC version - and that gets them fairly big backlash from the PC community when they lower that effort to new lows.

All hardware has failure rates. None of my consoles ever broke besides my PS3. With PS2, all you had to do was clean the lens. I had a launch PS2 that still worked a year into PS360 gen. I'm talking about buying a game and it working. PCs have hardware issues too.
All hardware has failure rates... Its just some consoles have had particularly high failure rates, or known issues. Many haven't, and ironically whilst you're brushing this off as just my experiences and everything having failure rates - that is exactly what it was supposed to prove:
Everything has failure rates. Even on consoles there are games that work for some and just fucking don't for other people. Bugs that only appear for some players. Consoles that die whilst others work.
Software has issues on everything. Hardware has issues everywhere. Whilst you focus down on PC and tout consoles as being basically infallible, that is far from the truth. The two are far closer than you might realise, though personal experiences do, by their very nature, vary from person to person.

The online problems with Sim City and Diablo caused people to not be able to play the game that are basically offline games. Online lag even happened in Daiblo when playing by yourself. Were console gamers unable to play Dark Souls if the online was down? Having matchmaking/mic/etc. issues in MP is different because you can still play the campaign just fine. All online games have very similar issues at launch.
To take a quote out of your book, again, I played D3 and Sim City launch week, and it wasn't that bad. The games themselves were mediocre, but server connection lag and all that wasn't that bad for me. I ended up dropping Diablo after I finished it and felt that the game was just one long grind, and Sim City after I realised how just utterly shallow it was.
Again, demonstrating how little personal experiences matter in these issues.

Online is a pretty big component of many games... MKX for example. Yes, they have a campaign. Like games like CoD, most buy for the online.

That didn't stop people from playing MKX.
Actually, it kind of did.

And, amusingly, the Arkham Knight problems aren't stopping people from playing Arkham Knight. They're just making it unpleasant to do so.

For every rare console instance you bring up, I can bring up at least 10 more PC instances. Are you seriously trying to argue that PC has less issues than consoles?
Outside of your own personal experience, I'm not going to say PC has less issues. These days, they have about the same, and they have for about 5 years or so now. Both PC and consoles suffer from developers rushing games and not checking them, and then errors appearing. Thing is, consoles have a reputation for being more reliable from a time when they were, when there were 7 brands of PC sound card and if you didn't have the right one you couldn't run the game.
Those days are LONG gone. To some extent, consoles these days can have more problems than the PC. Hell, article on RRoDs. Something like a 30% failure rate. I don't think a PC has had that sort of failure rate in the last 2 decades at least.
Consoles are no longer the reliable bullwork of plug and play, will always work. They're just corporate shill PCs, that are consumed by the masses on reputation alone. I speak to a lot of people who game on consoles, and who want to game on PC. They keep gaming on consoles, however, as they always have, and they know their friends will keep doing so. Nothing about reliability, or plug and play, as anyone who's been keeping up with consoles knows that that is becoming more and more of a joke these days as games get bigger and bigger, and disk streaming is no longer fast enough to get all the data the game needs in a reasonable timeframe. Architecture isn't a ton easier to develop for, as its the same as PC architecture - just weaker, so you have more limitations. Variation isn't as big a deal as many make it out to be, because libraries like DirectX and OpenGL are supposed to take care of that, and do a pretty good job most of the time.

I ain't going to argue your personal experience. My personal experience is that AMD cards are pieces of shite and they have not once worked for me to a respectable level, though I know many who claim the opposite.
By and large these days however, a game comes out, its either crappy on both systems, or working fine on both systems. PC gets ports that aren't as good as they should be, but those are normally from predictable developers like Rocksteady, and usually don't present any real issue outside being unacceptable for a PC game release.
Hardware on both fails, and both have driver/firmware issues and patches that break things. Both cost around the same for similar performance too.
Sure, you might find more examples of bad games on the PC... There's also a lot more games on the PC to choose from. Even in the AAA space games like Diablo III and Sim City were PC exclusive at launch [Not sure if they still are or not].

Point of this whole thing is, the whole point you're trying to make, that consoles are these brilliant stable platforms that just work, and PCs are broken and often buggy, is a farce. Its incorrect. Your experience might be that, mine is the opposite. In the grand scheme of things, both are around equivalent these days, and you really had no reason to start this thread beyond wanting to go out PC bashing because you dislike gaming on the PC. Which is cool, your choice. But the premise of this thread? Disingenuous at best. Things haven't been the way you suggest they are for a long time.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Charcharo said:
Geralt is also from a hated and distrusted group...
"Monstrum"

Mages are not. Before Radovid and the Thaned coup, they were revered.

Being a King's bodyguards is not what he would choose. He hates that shit with a burning passion. Politics of all kind, and being just all around hated in most of the words (some exceptions exist, true) would mean that that aint a good job for him.

He was going head to head with Calanthe for that for Christ's sake...
So then, he chooses to be poor. He makes friends/allies with several important people. It most likely wouldn't be that hard for Geralt to earn the trust of a small town.

Joccaren said:
Funnily enough, AFAIK, performance issues are the main complaint of Arkham Knight as well, and an issue you yourself bought up previously as a fault in the PC version.
Funnily enough, chugging a bit on a console is a pretty big deal.
Chug a bit on a PC... You're done 60 FPS to 30. Noticeable. My partner, who doesn't game, thinks Witcher 3 runs shit on my PC 'cause its at a steady 27-30FPS thanks to Hairworks, whilst she's used to the games I let her play which run at ~200FPS on my machine [If I weren't to Vsync them anyway].
Chug on a console and you are noticably less than 30. It reaches so called unplayable levels. Framerate in Blighttown was considered a problem by many who played DS, whether you personally considered it one or not.
I don't think Blighttown ever dropped lower than 20fps for me whereas Batman drops to 10fps and less everywhere. It's not like Batman is dropping from 60fps to 40fps. Plus, inconsistent framerates are worse than lower constant framerates. I also HATE stuttering, which does happen far more often on PC.

All hardware has failure rates... Its just some consoles have had particularly high failure rates, or known issues. Many haven't, and ironically whilst you're brushing this off as just my experiences and everything having failure rates - that is exactly what it was supposed to prove:
Everything has failure rates. Even on consoles there are games that work for some and just fucking don't for other people. Bugs that only appear for some players. Consoles that die whilst others work.
Software has issues on everything. Hardware has issues everywhere. Whilst you focus down on PC and tout consoles as being basically infallible, that is far from the truth. The two are far closer than you might realise, though personal experiences do, by their very nature, vary from person to person...

To some extent, consoles these days can have more problems than the PC. Hell, article on RRoDs. Something like a 30% failure rate. I don't think a PC has had that sort of failure rate in the last 2 decades at least.
The retarded switch to lead-free solder caused PS360 gen to have much higher hardware failure rates than ever before. Outside of that gen, consoles have been very solid hardware-wise. I really don't blame Sony for 2 my PS3s getting YLODs but the stupid law as they wouldn't have broke with lead solder. Sony actually properly tested the PS3 really as much as they could IMO as the YLOD is something happens over the long run. I feel MS knew about the RROD and wanted to release to get that year head start as the RROD could happen rather fast (it had to have been happening to game testers testing launch titles).

To take a quote out of your book, again, I played D3 and Sim City launch week, and it wasn't that bad. The games themselves were mediocre, but server connection lag and all that wasn't that bad for me. I ended up dropping Diablo after I finished it and felt that the game was just one long grind, and Sim City after I realised how just utterly shallow it was.
Again, demonstrating how little personal experiences matter in these issues.

Online is a pretty big component of many games... MKX for example. Yes, they have a campaign. Like games like CoD, most buy for the online.
The fact is that having server connection lag playing by yourself is unacceptable, there's no console game to my knowledge that has ever had that issue (due to consoles being much harder to pirate games on).

I don't think I even know of a game that hasn't had online problems at launch. Online issues is a wash IMO as consoles aren't better or worse vs PC.

Point of this whole thing is, the whole point you're trying to make, that consoles are these brilliant stable platforms that just work, and PCs are broken and often buggy, is a farce. Its incorrect. Your experience might be that, mine is the opposite. In the grand scheme of things, both are around equivalent these days, and you really had no reason to start this thread beyond wanting to go out PC bashing because you dislike gaming on the PC. Which is cool, your choice. But the premise of this thread? Disingenuous at best. Things haven't been the way you suggest they are for a long time.
I said in the opening post that I know Batman is not the norm for PC games. I realize the vast majority of PC games work. My point was that the console version will work (outside of the very occasional anomaly) and the console inherently has less issues just due to hardware being the same vs the PC version having to run on millions of different configurations. Even as someone that rarely PC games, I come across gamers having major issues with a PC game from time-to-time (like Batman or Splinter Cell Blacklist) and I don't even try to look for this stuff (which means there's lots I don't know about). I was on the official Splinter Cell forum just talking about the game to see half the threads the first week were people who literally couldn't play the game. Basically I spend more time gaming in my game time on a console vs if I PC gamed. I've been playing Batman just fine on PS4 and I don't have to look over forums or search Google to see if there's a fix for the issue I'm having.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Charcharo said:
Partially true. Except that ends badly. See Leo Bonhart.

And is sure as hell not in the Witcher's path.

His best possible life is with either Triss or Yen (and probably best with Yen).
Witchers don't really have a path anymore, they aren't needed. They can make their own path.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Charcharo said:
Yes... they do mate...

The monsters arent dead yet. The job aint dead yet. The code aint going to die just cause...

Please... 8 books and 3 games separate us here :p ... I mean no disrespect, but on this topic you ARE out of your own league. By a lot. Questions though? I will answer gladly.
If there was something I was trained to do and only a few could do it and then it became something that could be done by many others, I would easily do something else if I felt like it.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Charcharo said:
What "something else" do you envision?

In the case of Geralt, the only possible thing is to become a mage (his mother was one and he might have the talent for it)... which again leads to the 2 sorceresses.
I'm just saying if there's something you are obligated to do (and you're one of a few that do it) and that obligation is no longer there (as many others can now do it), you're free to do other things. There's plenty of more lucrative things Geralt can do. He can do them for a rather short time (if he doesn't much care for them) and basically "retire" and be able to do whatever he wants the rest of his life without worrying about money. The whatever can be him still hunting monsters but on his own time or just living with Triss/Yen or anything he wants.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Charcharo said:
Not many others actually do it or do it as WELL.
Often soldiers take losses whilst killing monsters. Due to lack of experience. So a Witcher would still do the job better (overall) than them.
Geralt's very idea is to retire with Yen. That has been in the books and that is one of the possible endings. The most canon one.
I'm not saying others can do it better, but they can do it and usually prefer to do it vs hiring a witcher.
 

BoogieManFL

New member
Apr 14, 2008
1,284
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
If I buy a game for a console, it's going to fucking work. I don't have to search forums looking for a fix for an issue instead of actually playing the game. I put in the disc and in a couple minutes (at most), I'm playing the game. Time is very important to me as I try to spend as much time enjoying myself as I can as time is limited regardless if it's gaming or anything else I enjoy doing. I'm sure after the game is officially or unofficially patched to fix the issues, Batman would be a better experience on PC but by then, I will have already played and beat Batman. I realize that Batman is not the norm but several games (and big releases) do have such issues that cause many gamers to not be able to use a product they purchased. The pro to having set hardware is shit will work whereas having any hardware configuration imaginable means there's potential for a better experience, but that's not guaranteed either because shit may not work.
I've been PC and console gaming since the 80s and that scale of screw up is not that common. The problems that are genuine are often over exaggerated by angry people.

Where one game messed it up, there are thousands of more that are just fine and I can still play the games of old, endless backwards compatibility. Your premise and logic is narrow and flawed because it's just not that common and ignores all other other benefits of PC gaming.

Not to mention one reason for console systems getting better over the years is because each generation brings them closer to PCs.


Something I wish all these people making pointless Console vs. PC threads would think about is:

The two forms of entertainment are not mutually exclusive.