Dragonbums said:
Matthi205 said:
And this is where you are wrong.
You do still have to downsize models for the PC version.
It is absolutely foolish to assume that everyone who owns a PC can play any game at maximum capacity.
In fact with all the different varieties and components PC users have on their computer either by brand or preference it would be more time consuming to make games run on the PC, than on the console where you are garunteed that the specs of one console is the same for all the consoles.
You cannot make that same guarantee for the PC.
I'm going to bite and argue with you.
Downscaling of the models is still being done, of course. But the high resolution orginals are kept, giving you something much better to show. Also, a game never really gets to "see" the GPU or CPU. Giving commands to the hardware is all handled by the D3D or OpenGL APIs. The only thing a PC game needs to have is an options menu where most options default to the most common configuration. It's not *that* hard to write an options menu, too. I mean, even Capcom games have a decent options menu nowadays.
PC still has the gigantic advantage in terms of the amount of different buttons available. On PC, you don't have analog sticks, but you can bind much more actions. Let me give you an example:
In Mass Effect 1, taking cover, action and sprint are bound to separate buttons.
In Mass Effect 2, they aren't.
The ports were done by Demiurge and BW, respectively. The BW port completely copied the console control scheme and thus removed a lot of the perceived freedom the players had.
Also, while I don't hate consoles, I find the lack of buttons on the controllers slightly disturbing. How is it possible to make a game where the player has the freedom to do anything he pleases and only allow them to crouch when you say so? I don't get that.
I much prefer having kick, punch, uppercut and grapple to be separate actions that I can activate when I want instead of being bound to X presses of button Y (and only button Y). I much prefer being able to crouch around whereever I want, then jump from the nearest balcony and faceplant into a flower garden instead of the whole thing being some pre-made action I activate by pressing F and then maybe doing a QTE or two to see if I'm going to land on a rose or on a lily.
The PC just
is the most powerful platform, get over it. I can still play PS2 games, I can still play XBox games. As a dev, I can use this thing not only to playtest my creation, but also to completely make it, from the button mapping to the zebra that'll decide to be a roadblock. I can play games with a keyboard and mouse config, a joystick (flightstick), a gamepad, and with any combination of the above. When I play on a console, I'm mostly limited to the controller that came with it or the few controllers available for it. I don't need to worry about the newest iteration of the hardware breaking all of my games. I can easily install mods. And last, but not least: I can decide what I install on my OS myself, and am not limited to whatever the consoler manufacturer greenlights for use.
And still, consoles have a place, I find. But not when it comes to open world games... They're fine for FPS and TPS, for one thing. Controllers and slight aim assist work great when you're just shooting dudes. They also still have some games that offer split screen play, a feature I'm very much fond of having grown familiar with consoles in the PS(2) era. This is bound to be misunderstood, so I'll say the core argument again:
Consoles are very restrictive in what they allow you, as a player, to do. Because of this, I think they are not very suited to Open World and especially sandbox games.
