Misunderstanding PC gaming

[LetalisK]

Okay, slightly off topic question, but the OP mentioned resolution and it got me thinking. I've never really monkeyed around with resolution and pretty much always used the same one. How taxing is resolution when playing games on PC?

Higher resolution requires more power from the equipment playing it.

I have some games that did not work well at full 1080P so I intentionally put them to 720P increasing the frame rate, the smoothness that the games play at.

If your system is powerful enough, this difference would likely never make a difference for you, so, no reason to mess with top settings.

Erm, what's the translation for those? For example, I run at 1600x900. I'm not sure which resolutions would be 1080p or 720p. Basically any resolution where the second number is around said HD resolutions? Derp, nm, figured it out.

Was that way too technical?

A little, but I think I got it. Thankfully, it doesn't seem like my card has that underhanded marketing problem, it's at 256 at 1GB.

Assuming I always use a resolution below 1920 x 1200 or 1920 x 1080, should the resolution itself ever give me a problem? IE dropping from 1600x900 to 1280x720 wouldn't see a significant performance increase?

Edit: Actually, I just went and tested those two resolution out on Tomb Raider with fairly high graphics, including TressFX[footnote]Which, btw, while it looks cooler than normal, it actually looks less realistic than the normal hair. Ponytails do not do what TressFX has them do.[/footnote], and it gave me an additional 10 fps. I might drop down to 1280x720 since I can't see the difference between those two resolutions. Edit2: Just did a benchmark test in TR with 1920x1080 and I couldn't tell the difference between that and 1280x720. Is that odd and I must be graphically blind or something? I mean, I don't think I have a small monitor either. It's 23" and actually has 1920x1080 as its recommended setting.

 

[Frostbite3789]

you'd miss out on the console exclusive games of which there are quite a few

but what about pc exclusives?
hawken, path of exile, lone survivor, amnesia, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Hard Reset, Team fortress 2(because the console version blows), and (insert indie title here).
the list practically never ends, plus virtually endless backwards compatibility. If you can't play it on pc, you can be sure somebody out there is making it possible.

Not to mention the most popular game in the world currently is a PC exclusive. And free. League of Legends.

 

[C14N]

I do agree there are a lot of misconceptions about PC gaming, the biggest one being the price. It's not nearly as expensive as people expect. The fact that so many gamers just like to indulge and spend insane amounts of money as a hobby might be the reason for this perception. Generally though, if you have a fairly standard (?/$500-600) desktop PC, all you need is a mid-range graphics card (add another 100-150) and you will play ALL THE GAMES.

They don't go out of date that fast either. You'll might have to start turning settings down a bit over time but even then you usually end up with a prettier game than on a console.

In addition, you save a load of money just due to how frickin' cheap PC games are. I've bought plenty of special edition PC games and none of them have cost as much as the RRP of a standard console game. Regular editions are obviously even cheaper.

There are some problems though
- you're still going to have to learn some basic stuff about computer hardware to play, which will put a lot of people off for life no matter how simple it is
- consoles gamers are worrying about the second hand game market next gen but this has been missing on PC for years now and it's never coming back. I think we tend not to mind though since the games are usually cheaper than second hand console games.
- no local multiplayer, despite Valve pushing for a living room gaming PC to become common. You can always play on LAN but now you're getting a bit to complex for most people and you need your friend to bring their PC
- almost no big-budget exclusive games beyond RTSs and MMORPGs that can't really work elsewhere, unlike the consoles
- generally more DRM on games driven by rampant PC piracy
- every possibility that PC piracy will make game devs just not release their games on PC which happened with the Gears of War and Halo franchises and Rockstar have become reluctant to release their games on PC too*


*Please don't pirate PC games. The devs can see how much their game has been torrented and it's usually many times the number of time it's been bought. The games are so cheap that you won't have time to play them all anyway (something many gamers will attest to). Just buy the damn things.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

This is actually very informative - I just figured that if everything was good under the hood, that all the games would work...silly me.
What about emulators for old school arcade games and such...would steam actually be considered an emulator?
Way back in the day I used to rock M.A.M.E....

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Edit: Actually, I just went and tested those two resolution out on Tomb Raider with fairly high graphics, including TressFX[footnote]Which, btw, while it looks cooler than normal, it actually looks less realistic than the normal hair. Ponytails do not do what TressFX has them do.[/footnote], and it gave me an additional 10 fps. I might drop down to 1280x720 since I can't see the difference between those two resolutions. Edit2: Just did a benchmark test in TR with 1920x1080 and I couldn't tell the difference between that and 1280x720. Is that odd and I must be graphically blind or something? I mean, I don't think I have a small monitor either. It's 23" and actually has 1920x1080 as its recommended setting.

Nah, its because you have a bigger monitor and its full 1080p that it makes a difference (I don't know if I dun goofed and you didn't see my quote of your original post). I have heard some people have problems playing at lower resolutions because their tv's try to upscale the resolution and fail. My laptop monitor fails when I try to play anything lower than its native resolution of 1600x900. 1080p is a little overrated in my opinion. I can never see the difference between 1080p and 720p on my tv other than the difference in frame rate so I just go lower res so I can get higher quality visuals

Edit: why do pc threads always get derailed into computer talk threads?

 

[Rob Robson]

Assuming I always use a resolution below 1920 x 1200 or 1920 x 1080, should the resolution itself ever give me a problem? IE dropping from 1600x900 to 1280x720 wouldn't see a significant performance increase?

Edit: Actually, I just went and tested those two resolution out on Tomb Raider with fairly high graphics, including TressFX and it gave me an additional 10 fps. I might drop down to 1280x720 since I can't see the difference between those two resolutions. Edit2: Just did a benchmark test in TR with 1920x1080 and I couldn't tell the difference between that and 1280x720. Is that odd and I must be graphically blind or something? I mean, I don't think I have a small monitor either. It's 23" and actually has 1920x1080 as its recommended setting.

The lower the resolution, the jaggier outlines become and the 'need' for antialiasing becomes more pronounced. Look at high contrast edges, for example at leaves on trees against the sky to observe the 'staircase effect'.

Also, at lower-than-native resolution settings your monitor doesn't produce a 'clean' downsampling of the image and it will appear soft and blurry. For a clean downsample you would have to go down to half your monitor's resolution.

As for the lack of difference between 1600x900 and 1280x720, it's because neither of those are your monitor's native setting (which is 1920x1080) and thus both are equally 'bad', or soft.

Your graphics card has a wide enough bus for 2GB of memory but only has 1GB, this would be bare minimum for 1920x1080 at mostly high settings, just remember that shadows are textures too, but also have to be calculated, I think shadows is the area where you can gain back a lot of FPS by simply switching them specifically to medium and the rest to high.

 

[LetalisK]

Nah, its because you have a bigger monitor and its full 1080p that it makes a difference (I don't know if I dun goofed and you didn't see my quote of your original post). I have heard some people have problems playing at lower resolutions because their tv's try to upscale the resolution and fail. My laptop monitor fails when I try to play anything lower than its native resolution of 1600x900. 1080p is a little overrated in my opinion. I can never see the difference between 1080p and 720p on my tv other than the difference in frame rate so I just go lower res so I can get higher quality visuals

Edit: why do pc threads always get derailed into computer talk threads?

Nah, I saw your previous posts, but I was thinking we had different experiences when I think maybe you were just related to what I said via the TV? You mentioned how 720p looks like poo on your laptop, therefore I assumed you also meant any time you play on a normal monitor you need 1080p.

Your graphics card has a wide enough bus for 2GB of memory but only has 1GB, this would be bare minimum for 1920x1080 at mostly high settings, just remember that shadows are textures too, but also have to be calculated, I think shadows is the area where you can gain back a lot of FPS by simply switching them specifically to medium and the rest to high.

Yeah, I generally don't care about shadows so if I have to turn down anything those are the first to go. Lighting and character detail are what I generally care about most. Also, when doing 1920x1080, I did notice the edges of the loading screen text were slightly crisper. I think next time I play Tomb Raider I'll change settings while playing rather than using the benchmarker to see if I notice a difference that way.

Edit: Also, from the sounds of it, I'm going to start scaling down my resolution to 1280x720 if I stay in the 720p zone if there isn't an actual difference between that and higher 720p resolutions but I get some extra fps out of it.

Edit2: Oh, another monitor question. I decided to tinker with the resolution in Warcraft and noticed that I had been playing at 1280x800 resolution the entire time. Started tinkering with the resolutions and x720 looks like shit while 1920x1080 started to actually give me a headache. Tried 1600x900 and it was okay but something felt a little off, so I went to 1440x900 and it was perfect. Is there just a matter of preference here or is there something that would cause a 1440x900 to seem just a bit crisper than a 1600x900?

 

[Adon Cabre]

[HEADING=1]Blah, Blah, PC purists[/HEADING]
E3 will blow you all away with the assortment of console exclusives that none of you will ever own.

[http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/03/tomb-raider-vs-uncharted-the-comparison-we-had-to-make/]
No Uncharted Series (PS3),
No Tomb Raider (2013) for PC.

Bow your heads,

"Thank you, Console Exclusives".​

​

[li]No One Builds their PC[/li] I hope you all reaize just how small a % of PC gamers actually do this -- 5%?

[li]PC Market Growth[/li] It's growing because of Social Gaming (Facebook) and the average MMO, not because of Crysis 3 or Witcher 3, so don't count on a PC exclusive to rock the gaming world like Playstation 3's Uncharted 2 or Wii's Super Mario Galaxy 2 did.

[li]Game Sales[/li] Like any sale, you've got to hunt for them, and then create accounts in Amazon, Steam, Origin, Windows Live etc...

[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/10241-SimCity-Is-Broken-And-Its-Not-Just-the-Servers]​

[HEADING=3]And When Publishers Answer to No One?[/HEADING]

You would think that freeing a company of the big bad Console market would make triple-A titles more intuitive to a wider audience. Not so, because now they don't have to meet the standards of Microsoft and SONY's quality management. They can put out whatever they want.

For example, Final Fantasy XIV got ripped for being the junk that it was; but consider these problems fixed as SONY will now be incorporating that title into their console library.

No Tomb Raider (2013) for PC? But it is on PC?

Also I see a lot of people saying £450 is expensive however most of you would have a computer. A basic computer that cannot play games starts at like £300, so you're only paying an extra £150 to play games on your computer at high settings.

I got my computer earlier this year and I can play Crysis 3 on high settings. Case in point, it's not very expensive if you want a computer also.

Tomb Raider owes a lot to Uncharted
There is no Tomb Raider if their
hadn't been a leap in cinematic style
of gaming that came from Uncharted.
Most 3rd Party Developers tend to
lean on the tactics of 1st Party Exclusives.

[h4]PC = Cheaper[/h4]
Console gaming is more expensive; but there's always a trade off with PC. While everyone gets to enjoy the brilliant Bioshock Infinite, PC users can't play the more experimental Beyond: Two Souls, or the just as exhilarating Last of Us. So many Journalist sites awarded the Playstation 3 exclusive Journey with "Game of the Year" for a reason.

I don't have time to buy up
every game and find every sale;
I just want the best quality
on the market.

[h4]Exclusives = Experimental[/h4]
Exclusive Developers, like Team TRICO, and Quantum Dream, get to produce such diverse genres because SONY lauds experimental games with $ -- games that 3rd Party Developers would be too nervous to make. This is why PC gaming has never made sense to me -- that is, unless you play MMO; because exclusive titles for SONY offer the most diverse and quality selection in the market.

I guess it comes down to why people play games.

 

[hutchy27]

snip

That tomb raider thing makes sense now.

 

[endtherapture]

[h4]PC = Cheaper[/h4]
Console gaming is more expensive; but there's always a trade off with PC. While everyone gets to enjoy the brilliant Bioshock Infinite, PC users can't play the more experimental Beyond: Two Souls, or the just as exhilarating Last of Us. So many Journalist sites awarded the Playstation 3 exclusive Journey with "Game of the Year" for a reason.

Your point is moot. Console gamers don't get to play FTL. They don't get to play Crusader Kings or Total War. They get no strategy games. They get no MMO games. They get no management games. They don't get Dota or LoL. They don't get old school RPGs.

Also...no modding on consoles.

 

[Calcium]

the 'fix' is to open the command prompt and enter a line of code every-single-time you want to play a game?

That is a thing? Wow, I don't think I've seen that. Not since one of my friends had his first PC and that didn't have Windows, that is, but that's not a "fix" it's just how you do stuff normally under DOS. Which was...more than 15 years ago. Not even under Linux did I really needed to fix games using the command line, now that I think of it.

Unfortunately so, though thankfully some other patch fixed it. Not sure for how long the bug was present, as the hassle of it lead me to stop playing for a while. Was really frustrating as it was a game I played more than anything else.

Anyway, you may be unsurprised to hear the client was Games for Windows Live (I had no choice!)

Unrelated to the reply, but in my initial post I forgot to mention my previous computer. Custom built and would spontaneously break down completely every 6 months or so. It's golden moment was when ScanDisk deleted a file it needed to start up.

 

[DoPo]

Anyway, you may be unsurprised to hear the client was Games for Windows Live (I had no choice!)

Why am I not surpri...wait

Unrelated to the reply, but in my initial post I forgot to mention my previous computer. Custom built and would spontaneously break down completely every 6 months or so. It's golden moment was when ScanDisk deleted a file it needed to start up.

Hah, last week Windows decided to wipe my whole partition (not the windows one). And I do blame Windows - it detected a problem with the Master File Table for the NTFS on my E: partition (corrupted $UpCase file, if you're curious), then ran chkdsk and wiped the MFT and thus the whole partition. And the only thing I did before any corruption is restart the computer. Somehow Windows managed to power down without properly writing everything back to the disk and thus corrupted it. It's the first time ever I've seen or heard of that happening. Luckily, while I did store important stuff on E: it doesn't get much usage unlike my other two partitions (one being windows and the other one which has my pagefile), so I recovered nearly everything (sans some stuff I didn't really need) thanks to EaseUS Data Recovery - that software is boss, it even managed to restore the directory structure. I don't know how but it managed.

 

[Signa]

Okay, slightly off topic question, but the OP mentioned resolution and it got me thinking. I've never really monkeyed around with resolution and pretty much always used the same one. How taxing is resolution when playing games on PC?

Ideally, you want to use the resolution that is your monitor. However, depending on your hardware, that may be a bad idea. High resolutions are one of the most taxing things you can do to your system. If you don't have the specs for it, it's going to run really slow.

Depending on the game and scenario, stepping down just one notch of your resolution options could bring you an extra 20FPS easily, even if both have the same fidelity settings. Personally, I've got the hardware, so I'm always running 1920x1080. When you're that high, you don't need to impact your FPS with other bells and whistles like 16x Anti-aliasing. AA is good for removing jaggies, but there really aren't any at 1080p.

 

[likalaruku]

New computer + graphics card = Same price as a Wii U (about $350-$430). Some come with cards.

Replace card in 3 years. Replace computer in 6. Less if you're tech savy or only use your compy as a console.

Never buy a PC game new. Wait half a year for a reduce-priced boxed set with included DLC, expansion, & all the bug fixes.

Emulators = PC plays every consoles games.

I play consoles AND PC, but I don't associate consoles with MMOs or user-made mods. To be honest, I have very tiny hands & find gamepads unpleasant & uncomfortable to use for more than an hour. Why can't they make them smaller & make the buttons out of soft rubber?

I guess game library wise, my favorite consoles where the Playstation & the Nintendo DS.

 

[Adon Cabre]

[h4]PC = Cheaper[/h4]
Console gaming is more expensive; but there's always a trade off with PC. While everyone gets to enjoy the brilliant Bioshock Infinite, PC users can't play the more experimental Beyond: Two Souls, or the just as exhilarating Last of Us. So many Journalist sites awarded the Playstation 3 exclusive Journey with "Game of the Year" for a reason.

Your point is moot. Console gamers don't get to play FTL. They don't get to play Crusader Kings or Total War. They get no strategy games. They get no MMO games. They get no management games. They don't get Dota or LoL. They don't get old school RPGs.

Also...no modding on consoles.

[http://gamemuse.net/destiny-bungies-new-fps-unveiled/]​

Current Gen Consoles serve hundreds of classics, go shopping on the PSN, its where I downloaded Final Fantasy VII. Also, most classic purchases that I've made are old console exclusives anyhow.

And as for Console MMO's.

[li]Destiny[/li]
[li]Dust[/li]
[li]Final Fantasy XIV[/li]
[li]Diablo 3[/li]

Those are just the big ones.​

[http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-05-23-final-fantasy-14-a-realm-reborn-out-on-pc-and-ps3-this-august]​

Final Fantasy XIV will be an incredible game now that SE has to meet SONY's standards, unlike EA who just dumped off their sham of a product (SimCity) because they didn't have the oversight of SONY or Microsoft to check their greed.

Not only that, but it was SONY's Shadow of the Colossus and Final Fantasy X that really opened me up to the contrast of narrative styles that gaming could not only perform, but actually nail down to near perfection. There's something about exclusives, a consistent crispness, that really pushed me over the edge.

[HEADING=3]I'm Not a Fanboy of Any Console, or PC[/HEADING]

I'm a fan of the best titles, and the most diverse and quality-type happen to be on the Playstation. You can't help but admire the Last of Us and envy that experience, or even the more experimental Beyond Two Souls -- these titles just look too damn good to pass up!

Crysis 3 "Amazing Graphics,
Boring Execution"​

[h4]What Are We Looking For?[/h4]
I want more than just a beautiful shooter, and awesome indies; I want expensive titles with crisp mechanics, amazing creativity and solid characterization; I want titles where publishers are asked to push the envelope. There's always going to be a Bioshock Infinite, but most 3rd party titles, like the recent Fusion are tossed around the market and ruined by the need to pander to every genre. Team TRICO, Quantum Dream and NaughtyDog do not have that ball-and-chain. SONY wants their exclusives to all be different, and that's what I reward with my $.

I Guess I Am
Missing Out​

Not only that, but most average PC's can handle basic indie titles should the impulse ever hit me, so I really get the best of both worlds. But to go all out PC, and like I said, the trade-off is just too great.

[HEADING=3]Modding[/HEADING]
It's a nice advantage, that is, for people with time on their hands. This is something that I'm jealous of, because I can't add stuff to Fallout 3, but the trade-off of never playing Uncharted, or the upcoming Last of Us just does not suffice.

There's a whole library of awesome games that PC Purists will never experience! Not in this current generation, or in the next one.

all pics have links​

 

[RaikuFA]

Plus if problems do arise online forums and IT assistance from the companies will help you.

Uh, nope, I couldn't play Amnesia and when I contacted Support for both Steam and the devs they both ignored me.

 

[Do4600]

$700 is too high.

I don't know where you get your money but around these parts we work very hard for it. And $700 is just WAY out of my price range.

An Xbox 360 at launch was $300, if you have xbox live and you've had it since launch the total price tag is $790. The costs are comparable one just requires more financial planning.

 

[KungFuJazzHands]

[h4]PC = Cheaper[/h4]
Console gaming is more expensive; but there's always a trade off with PC. While everyone gets to enjoy the brilliant Bioshock Infinite, PC users can't play the more experimental Beyond: Two Souls, or the just as exhilarating Last of Us. So many Journalist sites awarded the Playstation 3 exclusive Journey with "Game of the Year" for a reason.

Your point is moot. Console gamers don't get to play FTL. They don't get to play Crusader Kings or Total War. They get no strategy games. They get no MMO games. They get no management games. They don't get Dota or LoL. They don't get old school RPGs.

Also...no modding on consoles.

[http://gamemuse.net/destiny-bungies-new-fps-unveiled/]​

Current Gen Consoles serve hundreds of classics, go shopping on the PSN, its where I downloaded Final Fantasy VII. Also, most classic purchases that I've made are old console exclusives anyhow.

And as for Console MMO's.

[li]Destiny[/li]
[li]Dust[/li]
[li]Final Fantasy XIV[/li]
[li]Diablo 3[/li]

Those are just the big ones.​

[http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-05-23-final-fantasy-14-a-realm-reborn-out-on-pc-and-ps3-this-august]​

Final Fantasy XIV will be an incredible game now that SE has to meet SONY's standards, unlike EA who just dumped off their sham of a product (SimCity) because they didn't have the oversight of SONY or Microsoft to check their greed.

Not only that, but it was SONY's Shadow of the Colossus and Final Fantasy X that really opened me up to the contrast of narrative styles that gaming could not only perform, but actually nail down to near perfection. There's something about exclusives, a consistent crispness, that really pushed me over the edge.

[HEADING=3]I'm Not a Fanboy of Any Console, or PC[/HEADING]

I'm a fan of the best titles, and the most diverse and quality-type happen to be on the Playstation. You can't help but admire the Last of Us and envy that experience, or even the more experimental Beyond Two Souls -- these titles just look too damn good to pass up!

Crysis 3 "Amazing Graphics,
Boring Execution"​

[h4]What Are We Looking For?[/h4]
I want more than just a beautiful shooter, and awesome indies; I want expensive titles with crisp mechanics, amazing creativity and solid characterization; I want titles where publishers are asked to push the envelope. There's always going to be a Bioshock Infinite, but most 3rd party titles, like the recent Fusion are tossed around the market and ruined by the need to pander to every genre. Team TRICO, Quantum Dream and NaughtyDog do not have that ball-and-chain. SONY wants their exclusives to all be different, and that's what I reward with my $.

I Guess I Am
Missing Out​

Not only that, but most average PC's can handle basic indie titles should the impulse ever hit me, so I really get the best of both worlds. But to go all out PC, and like I said, the trade-off is just too great.

[HEADING=3]Modding[/HEADING]
It's a nice advantage, that is, for people with time on their hands. This is something that I'm jealous of, because I can't add stuff to Fallout 3, but the trade-off of never playing Uncharted, or the upcoming Last of Us just does not suffice.

There's a whole library of awesome games that PC Purists will never experience! Not in this current generation, or in the next one.

all pics have links​

Meh, your point about exclusiveness is still kinda moot. One reason that a lot of us PC Purists are PC Purists is because we have absolutely no interest in all those "awesome" console-exclusive games. I don't care about JRPGs. I don't care about Naughty Dog games. I don't want to play Shadow of the Colossus. I never get the urge to sit down for a round of Tekken Vs. Whatever. My gaming needs are perfectly fulfilled by what the PC can offer.

The same can be said for Console Purists. They've got no interest in strategy games or MMOs. They don't care about FTL. Whatever they're partial to is satisfied by the console market.

My predilection for PC gaming comes down to three personal factors: cost, ease of access, and genre availability. Console gaming offers me none of those, which is why I haven't played a console game in almost ten years, and it's why I will never spend money on consoles and console games.

 

[romxxii]

I recently watched the new zero punctuation about Next gen consoles, and in the comments below the video it seemed like a lot of people didn't understand how PC gaming actually works.
Zero punctuation:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/7417-Next-Gen-Buyers-Guide?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

These are the two that i find the most annoying.

1. the cost of a pc is too high and you have to constantly buy new hardware.
- you can buy a pc for $700 and be able to play almost every modern game at highest settings(excluding crysis 3 and games similar to it) with decent resolution plus any retro game, including console games from gamecube, ps1, gba, genesis, snes, nes, n64, etc.
- My computer is only slightly more expensive(add $100) is nearly 2 years old and i can still play farcry 3 at high settings with good framerate.

Ok, this is what I find disingenuous about most of the "cheap PC" apologists: you keep mentioning max settings, without truly qualifying it. Answer me this, if you will:

1) When you say "Max" Settings, what "settings" are included?
a)Do you include Anti-aliasing/Anisotropic Filtering?
b)What about ambient occlusion and tesselation?
2) When you say "good" framerate, do you mean 30fps? Because for a lot of enthusiasts, that's laughable. I myself can't game in anything under 50, and that's pushing it. I'd prefer a consistent 60, but because of my 144Hz monitor, I aim for the hundreds.
3) Speaking of monitor, what's your take on "decent" resolution? Because I game at 1080p, and that's not even the worst: some have 1800x1440 monitors, others have triple-display setups. Are we talking about a dinky 17" monitor that does 1440x900?

 

[Adon Cabre]

[h4]PC = Cheaper[/h4]
Console gaming is more expensive; but there's always a trade off with PC. While everyone gets to enjoy the brilliant Bioshock Infinite, PC users can't play the more experimental Beyond: Two Souls, or the just as exhilarating Last of Us. So many Journalist sites awarded the Playstation 3 exclusive Journey with "Game of the Year" for a reason.

Your point is moot. Console gamers don't get to play FTL. They don't get to play Crusader Kings or Total War. They get no strategy games. They get no MMO games. They get no management games. They don't get Dota or LoL. They don't get old school RPGs.

Also...no modding on consoles.

[http://gamemuse.net/destiny-bungies-new-fps-unveiled/]​

Current Gen Consoles serve hundreds of classics, go shopping on the PSN, its where I downloaded Final Fantasy VII. Also, most classic purchases that I've made are old console exclusives anyhow.

And as for Console MMO's.

[li]Destiny[/li]
[li]Dust[/li]
[li]Final Fantasy XIV[/li]
[li]Diablo 3[/li]

Those are just the big ones.​

[http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-05-23-final-fantasy-14-a-realm-reborn-out-on-pc-and-ps3-this-august]​

Final Fantasy XIV will be an incredible game now that SE has to meet SONY's standards, unlike EA who just dumped off their sham of a product (SimCity) because they didn't have the oversight of SONY or Microsoft to check their greed.

Not only that, but it was SONY's Shadow of the Colossus and Final Fantasy X that really opened me up to the contrast of narrative styles that gaming could not only perform, but actually nail down to near perfection. There's something about exclusives, a consistent crispness, that really pushed me over the edge.

[HEADING=3]I'm Not a Fanboy of Any Console, or PC[/HEADING]

I'm a fan of the best titles, and the most diverse and quality-type happen to be on the Playstation. You can't help but admire the Last of Us and envy that experience, or even the more experimental Beyond Two Souls -- these titles just look too damn good to pass up!

Crysis 3 "Amazing Graphics,
Boring Execution"​

[h4]What Are We Looking For?[/h4]
I want more than just a beautiful shooter, and awesome indies; I want expensive titles with crisp mechanics, amazing creativity and solid characterization; I want titles where publishers are asked to push the envelope. There's always going to be a Bioshock Infinite, but most 3rd party titles, like the recent Fusion are tossed around the market and ruined by the need to pander to every genre. Team TRICO, Quantum Dream and NaughtyDog do not have that ball-and-chain. SONY wants their exclusives to all be different, and that's what I reward with my $.

I Guess I Am
Missing Out​

Not only that, but most average PC's can handle basic indie titles should the impulse ever hit me, so I really get the best of both worlds. But to go all out PC, and like I said, the trade-off is just too great.

[HEADING=3]Modding[/HEADING]
It's a nice advantage, that is, for people with time on their hands. This is something that I'm jealous of, because I can't add stuff to Fallout 3, but the trade-off of never playing Uncharted, or the upcoming Last of Us just does not suffice.

There's a whole library of awesome games that PC Purists will never experience! Not in this current generation, or in the next one.

all pics have links​

Meh, your point about exclusiveness is still kinda moot. One reason that a lot of us PC Purists are PC Purists is because we have absolutely no interest in all those "awesome" console-exclusive games. I don't care about JRPGs. I don't care about Naughty Dog games. I don't want to play Shadow of the Colossus. I never get the urge to sit down for a round of Tekken Vs. Whatever. My gaming needs are perfectly fulfilled by what the PC can offer.

The same can be said for Console Purists. They've got no interest in strategy games or MMOs. They don't care about FTL. Whatever they're partial to is satisfied by the console market.

My predilection for PC gaming comes down to three personal factors: cost, ease of access, and genre availability. Console gaming offers me none of those, which is why I haven't played a console game in almost ten years, and it's why I will never spend money on consoles and console games.

Rev3Games's "Game of
the Year" Video​

[HEADING=1]You're absolutely right[/HEADING]

My own interests verge toward the cinematic Beyond Two Souls and emotional Last of Us titles that are yet to come out. Those are the reason why I chose SONY's Playstation 3 platform. Whether it's Heavy Rain, Final Fantasy XII or Uncharted 2, I like a well-rounded, crisp story, and so I'll follow that road with whomever it lies.

"Final Fantasy X Gave Me Control,
After Spinal Surgery Took It Away"
by Tina Amini
​

I want titles that are not only fun, but that convey a human experience in such a way that only this medium can divulge [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEs33aWkX2Q]. Those games, and with the exception of Miyamoto's legacy (Mario), transcend time and teach the next generation the potential for such a craft.

I'm not particularly drawn toward indie, unless it's giving a much more meaningful experience, like Journey. (Speaking of which, I love listening to people who love to speak about their craft [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S684RQHzmGA], it's inspirational, I guess.)

I have never had an interest in strategy games, because those aren't what will sell video games to a generally skeptical public; and MMO's have never peaked my interest; but I guess that revamped Final Fantasy XIV just might have me dip my feet into that genre again.

[HEADING=1]Back to the Forum Thread[/HEADING]

PC gaming is possible, but it wouldn't come close to conveying the breadth of this industry. The diversity in Console gaming -- Fighters, Racing, 3rd POV shooters, FPS shooters and everything else and in between -- shows that this industry would be offering a pretty shallow experience and a predictable volume of titles if it weren't for consoles.