Poll: 60fps vs 30fps? opinions?

[Strazdas]

You're making the mistake of assuming the vocal majority on the internet is the actual majority buying the games. It doesn't work like that. Companies don't sell millions to whiny elitist bastards with awesome rigs, they sell millions of copies to people who buy their games in toy stores.

And even among the pro-60fps people is kinda obvious some don't even understand what framerates really are and do. That's when you get bullshit arguments like 'retro games all run at 60fps, look at how far we've fallen'. No, they didn't. They were shown at 50 or 60hz interlaced, which translates to 25-30 actual frames per second. At best. TVs were kinda shitty back then and other hardware limitations were also a thing. Not to mention that animations were often less than spectacular. So, yeah.

I never claimed a vocal majority on the internet though. The riots part may felt like it a bit, but the other two points would in fact be run by the silent majority for the most part. and before you go the "Steam is online" angle, steam is 97% of pc gaming. so yes, its a vast majority of people actually buying games. No, in fact companies, even console exclusive companies, sell most of their games online and the retail is dieing quickly. They dont sell millions of copies in toy stores, this is not the 00s anymore.

Well there are people who dont understand something in most groups. Especially since framerate is often more felt than seen due to its unique way of improving the game. so a person can easily feel a higher framerate being more pleasant to play without knowing why it happens. As far as retro games goes, depends on game and publisher. actual 60 fps was more common on nintendo consoles. though when it comes to PC gaming we were always high FPS. back in the 90s i played Starcraft and Doom in 85 fps on my 85hz CRT monitor. Actually pre-recorded animations is one of the easiers things to run in games nowadays, so that really isnt the excuse for lower framerate.

Yes, people should all have infinite amounts of money so they can keep up with the Crysises. I don't know about your situation, but most adults have to spend most of their income on rent, utilities, food and other basic neccesities. High-end gaming PCs are a big investment many people can't reasonably afford.

And honestly, that's not a terrible thing. Development costs of triple A titles have risen to absurd heights in the past decade. We've gotten to the point where selling 'only' 3-4 million copies may mean losing money. Many developers can't afford to really put the PS4 hardware to work, let alone push PC gaming to greater heights. Even if you, as a consumer, do spend big amounts of cash on hardware, your advantage over people with consoles or even low-end PCs isn't that great. Many recent awesome games have fairly low system requirements, so even with an outdated system, you're unlikely to run out of great games to play.

No need for infinite money (and there were no new crysis games since 2013). You do not need top of the line hardware to run games in 60 fps. you just shouldnt expect to run that on consoles that are 12 years old. No, high end gaming PC is not a big investment. in fact it will end up cheaper than console gaming if you take into account cheaper games. you can easily build a PC for 500 dollars that will run every game currently released. Thats how much PS4 costs isnt it?

Most developement cost bloat is the marketing budget, though. That has no effect on how well the actual game is made. there is nothing to really "put to work". PS4 has weak hardware that is using standard architecture, the same architecture that is used in Xbox One and PC. This architecture was in common use for two decades.

My outdated PC can still run games on 60 fps though. so your point is?

 

[NPC009]

I never claimed a vocal majority on the internet though. The riots part may felt like it a bit, but the other two points would in fact be run by the silent majority for the most part. and before you go the "Steam is online" angle, steam is 97% of pc gaming. so yes, its a vast majority of people actually buying games. No, in fact companies, even console exclusive companies, sell most of their games online and the retail is dieing quickly. They dont sell millions of copies in toy stores, this is not the 00s anymore.

Retail isn't doing so badly, actually. Console companies don't want to compete to hard with physical stores and webshops, because they rely on them to get their systems sold. Plus, many people just like the convenience and/or think buying online is a little scary. It's no coincidence stores carry cards for PSN, eShop, Steam and even individual digital games and DLC.

As for Steam, if it is truly 97% of PC gaming, it seems a little quiet. Many triple A games get like, what, 10,000-20,000 reviews? Out of several millions copies sold? Either Steam isn't as big as you say it is, or most people can't be bothered to take two minutes to leave a review (which is the prefered method of complaining about a game). Or maybe the biggest whiners weren't buying the games in the first place, which makes me wonder how big that group is - is it too small for developers/publishers to take notice of?

Well there are people who dont understand something in most groups. Especially since framerate is often more felt than seen due to its unique way of improving the game. so a person can easily feel a higher framerate being more pleasant to play without knowing why it happens. As far as retro games goes, depends on game and publisher. actual 60 fps was more common on nintendo consoles. though when it comes to PC gaming we were always high FPS. back in the 90s i played Starcraft and Doom in 85 fps on my 85hz CRT monitor. Actually pre-recorded animations is one of the easiers things to run in games nowadays, so that really isnt the excuse for lower framerate.

Again, unless you had an extremely expensive TV (like, a 100hz model, or something), you we playing SNES games at 25/30fps or less, just like everyone else. It wasn't until the days of the PS2 that higher framerates slowly began to happen, because it was at that point in time that TVs capable of showing more fps and higher resolutions started to make their way into consumers' lives. Some PS2-games offered 60fps, yes, but since most people were still playing on basic 60hz TVs, few could actually take advantage of it. In Europe there was something else going on: 60hz. Being able to play games like F-zero GX at its native 60hz was a big deal back then for the more dedicated European players (most players, however, didn't really care/notice).

Also, IIRC DOOM was capped at something like 35fps. Plus, I bet your CRT monitor offered an interlaced image, meaning the actual framerate was closer to 40. The main difference between CRT and modern flatscreens is that input lag is lower by default. This made games feel more responsive, but you weren't actually seeing high framerates. (This is, by the way, why some retro fans insist on playing old games on CRT screens, as it is as close to the original experience you can get.)

No need for infinite money (and there were no new crysis games since 2013).You do not need top of the line hardware to run games in 60 fps. you just shouldnt expect to run that on consoles that are 12 years old. No, high end gaming PC is not a big investment. in fact it will end up cheaper than console gaming if you take into account cheaper games. you can easily build a PC for 500 dollars that will run every game currently released. Thats how much PS4 costs isnt it?

Aside from Japanese developers (the PS3 still has a huge user base in Japan and it will be years before the PS4 catches up, if it ever does) and some developers with extremely mainstream franchises (Just Dance, FIFA), few are still developing for the PS3 generation. So, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. O, wait, are you being edgy by claiming the PS4 was outdated a decade ago? Cute. Especially if you insist a proper gaming PC will cost as little as 500 bucks. That may get you the main components (and maybe the most basic thing to put them in) and you'll be able to play even the most demanding games on low settings, but hardware such as the monitor needs to be upgraded once in a while as well. There's also the OS to consider. You'll kinda want Windows for obvious reasons. So even if you're building it yourself, you'll end up spending 700+ dollars, and that won't put you in early adopters territory, meaning you're still not contributing to the advance of PC gaming. In fact, you'll start to feel the age of the system within a few years.

Oh, and don't forget many people don't have the skills/knowledge/confidence to build their own system and keep it running properly. Be a dick about that all you want, but it won't change the fact most people don't find shopping for graphics card a fun pastime.

Most developement cost bloat is the marketing budget, though. That has no effect on how well the actual game is made. there is nothing to really "put to work". PS4 has weak hardware that is using standard architecture, the same architecture that is used in Xbox One and PC. This architecture was in common use for two decades.

My outdated PC can still run games on 60 fps though. so your point is?

My extremely shitty laptop can run games at 60 fps just fine. Sure, those games are most likely a decade old or faux retro stuff, but hey, 60 fps! That makes me a proud member of the PC master race, right? Right?

...

Look, I'm not going to delude myself into thinking the PC gaming experience I'm perfectly content with is making the pissing contest-obsessed members of the master race proud. Neither should you.

And there's a lot to put to work in consoles, by the way. Sure, they're not running on Cell chip or Emotion Engine-level arcane magic this generation, which means developers won't need half a decade to figure out what the hell they're doing, but what's in there is actually overkill for many developers. Aside from triple A games, games generally aren't pushing the PS4 or Xbox One. And speaking of triple A games, ever thought the marketing budgets may be so high because they can't risk relying on word-of-mouth to sell games with massive budgets? Sony's head of worldwide development, Shuhei Yoshida, estimated the development costs for top PS4 games at over 20 million dollars (and that's lowballing it, because he also mentioned numbers such as 50 million). And that's development costs, it doesn't take marketing into account.

 

[Strazdas]

Retail isn't doing so badly, actually. Console companies don't want to compete to hard with physical stores and webshops, because they rely on them to get their systems sold. Plus, many people just like the convenience and/or think buying online is a little scary. It's no coincidence stores carry cards for PSN, eShop, Steam and even individual digital games and DLC.

As for Steam, if it is truly 97% of PC gaming, it seems a little quiet. Many triple A games get like, what, 10,000-20,000 reviews? Out of several millions copies sold? Either Steam isn't as big as you say it is, or most people can't be bothered to take two minutes to leave a review (which is the prefered method of complaining about a game). Or maybe the biggest whiners weren't buying the games in the first place, which makes me wonder how big that group is - is it too small for developers/publishers to take notice of?

retail is doing horrible. closing down shops, downscaling, agressively pushing other services and generally having death throbs. left and right. People can pick up consoles in hardware stores or walmart. No, some small minority of people think buying online is scary. this is 2016, not 2006. Basically the only physical copy buyers are people with awful internet or physical copies collectors. The cards for eshops are mostly because most kids dont have bank accounts but still have disposable income to buy games. They also make good gifts to gamers. gifting "buying card/check" is popular. most shops thatn dont usually have them make them specifically for christmas because people use them as gifts. gaming is no exception here in that it is used for gifts.

Yes, most peopld do not leave reviews. hence the phrase "silent majority". I have played over 100 games on Steam. i have left a review for 4 of them. As far as i know, none of my friends left even a single review. So no, most people dont bother writing reviews.

Again, unless you had an extremely expensive TV (like, a 100hz model, or something), you we playing SNES games at 25/30fps or less, just like everyone else. It wasn't until the days of the PS2 that higher framerates slowly began to happen, because it was at that point in time that TVs capable of showing more fps and higher resolutions started to make their way into consumers' lives. Some PS2-games offered 60fps, yes, but since most people were still playing on basic 60hz TVs, few could actually take advantage of it. In Europe there was something else going on: 60hz. Being able to play games like F-zero GX at its native 60hz was a big deal back then for the more dedicated European players (most players, however, didn't really care/notice).

No. I had connected my console to a simple 50hz 13" CRT TV that i saved up for as a kid. Some games ran at 50fps, though most as you say were interlaced. This problem didnt exist when i bought a Pentium I, as PC ran just fine with the 85 hz CRT i mentioned earlier. 50 hz CRT TVs were a standard here in Europe, though most TV programs were indeed interlaced 25 fps programs.

Also, IIRC DOOM was capped at something like 35fps. Plus, I bet your CRT monitor offered an interlaced image, meaning the actual framerate was closer to 40. The main difference between CRT and modern flatscreens is that input lag is lower by default. This made games feel more responsive, but you weren't actually seeing high framerates. (This is, by the way, why some retro fans insist on playing old games on CRT screens, as it is as close to the original experience you can get.)

No, DOOM had no frequency cap, though when it released most machines could not run it at 60 fps well. And no, my CRT did not use interlacing, at all. The CRT i used for my computer didnt have interlacing as a function. CRTs have no input lag. as in, its at 0.001ms input lag. they were also for a very long time thanks to the TV manufacturing cartel the only monitors capable of above 60 hz visuals because 144/120 hz TN panels werent around, but good quality CRTs could go up to 125 hz progressive.

Actually the reason many retro gamers use old CRTs is because the games were designed for non-flat screens and look kinda weird on flat screens. Many old CRTs are non-flat screens.

Aside from Japanese developers (the PS3 still has a huge user base in Japan and it will be years before the PS4 catches up, if it ever does) and some developers with extremely mainstream franchises (Just Dance, FIFA), few are still developing for the PS3 generation. So, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. O, wait, are you being edgy by claiming the PS4 was outdated a decade ago? Cute. Especially if you insist a proper gaming PC will cost as little as 500 bucks. That may get you the main components (and maybe the most basic thing to put them in) and you'll be able to play even the most demanding games on low settings, but hardware such as the monitor needs to be upgraded once in a while as well. There's also the OS to consider. You'll kinda want Windows for obvious reasons. So even if you're building it yourself, you'll end up spending 700+ dollars, and that won't put you in early adopters territory, meaning you're still not contributing to the advance of PC gaming. In fact, you'll start to feel the age of the system within a few years.

No, by that remark i meant PS3, Xbox 360 and WiiU. A PC built for 500 will outperform PS4 or Xbox One though. Most likely youll end up playing on medium settings, but it will still be nicer than what console shows and thats the goal with that computer isnt it, to get more than the console for same costs.

Monitor should not be put into question here, as you do not have a monitor with a console either. and yes, you can plug your computer into your TV with exact same cables as you can plug your console in. And well yes, monitors eventually die, something like one per 10 years of daily use. but so do TVs and all other electronics.

I built a top end PC for 700 dollars two years ago. i wasnt an "Early adopter", but that isnt necessary to play your games at decent framerate. So far the only think that i actually upgraded was me putting in and SSD, something that i did specifically to make it easier to do other things in the background while im gaming (such as record footage) and something an average gamer can be without. Im not "Feeling the age" yet.

Oh, and don't forget many people don't have the skills/knowledge/confidence to build their own system and keep it running properly. Be a dick about that all you want, but it won't change the fact most people don't find shopping for graphics card a fun pastime.

can you build things out of lego? yes? congratulations, you have the skills to build a computer. you can get the knowledge on youtube in a few hours. confidence is something youll have to make on your own though. Once you build it correctly, there is nothing to "keep it running properly".

My extremely shitty laptop can run games at 60 fps just fine. Sure, those games are most likely a decade old or faux retro stuff, but hey, 60 fps! That makes me a proud member of the PC master race, right? Right?

No, i meant games released last year - 2015. my computer mentioned above handles them fine.

To be a member of PC Master Race you have to knowledge the superiority of PCs. You dont even have to own one.

And there's a lot to put to work in consoles, by the way. Sure, they're not running on Cell chip or Emotion Engine-level arcane magic this generation, which means developers won't need half a decade to figure out what the hell they're doing, but what's in there is actually overkill for many developers. Aside from triple A games, games generally aren't pushing the PS4 or Xbox One. And speaking of triple A games, ever thought the marketing budgets may be so high because they can't risk relying on word-of-mouth to sell games with massive budgets? Sony's head of worldwide development, Shuhei Yoshida, estimated the development costs for top PS4 games at over 20 million dollars (and that's lowballing it, because he also mentioned numbers such as 50 million). And that's development costs, it doesn't take marketing into account.

nonsense. What is there is already hitting the limits with black bars, low resolutinos and limited framerate. the tablet level APUs in consoles (and they are same APUs that actually came out in tablets last year, yay for cheaping out AMD) have already reached their limit. DirectX 12 and OpenGLNext may improve performance a bit, so we will see a boost there, but other than that, there wont be much of the developer optimization this time around.

Maybe AAA business should remmeber that its not advertisement or word of mouth that sells games, its actually making a good game (points at Undertale).

 

[Qizx]

IS there a "I don't care so long as it's fun" option? Cause honestly I picked 60 just because it is better... Duh, but I don't really care that much so long as the game works and is enjoyable.

 

[SquallTheBlade]

Yes, people should all have infinite amounts of money so they can keep up with the Crysises. I don't know about your situation, but most adults have to spend most of their income on rent, utilities, food and other basic neccesities. High-end gaming PCs are a big investment many people can't reasonably afford.

I spent about 400 euros on my rig over the years. I finished the build 2 years ago and I'm still running games 1080p/60fps on medium settings. Of course it depends on the game if I need to lower the settings more to achieve that. Some even run 60fps with graphics maxed out like Dark Souls 2:SotFS. At the moment I'm playing Final Fantasy 13 at 1080p/60fps most of the time, mostly in battles.

Building a decent gaming rig isn't as expensive as you think.

 

[joest01]

too add some actual peer reviewed level scientific facts to the discussion, I have it on good authority that the pc gamer in this picture has sub .3 ms reflexes and is actually training to be a cage fighter.

 

[Cycloptomese]

There should be and "I don't care either way" option. That said, I clicked on 60FPS because bigger number.

 

[AnthrSolidSnake]

The problem is (or lack of a problem in this case) is that your mind is very adaptable.
Let's say you've been playing a game on your PC at 60 FPS for a couple weeks (let's assume you were using a gamepad). You're entirely used to it.
Now your computer's CPU malfunctions and you're forced to play the same game on your console at 30FPS.

At first, you'll most likely notice the difference. It might feel slightly sluggish. If you pay attention, you'll notice this slight ghosting effect, and control inputs may feel like a fraction of a second delayed.
However, you play for a few hours anyway. At some point, you'll no longer notice. Your mind is used to the lower framerate and the timing for controls, and thus you no longer seem to care about the framerate.

This effect also carries over long term. If someone has been playing games at 30FPS for years without thinking about it, they may claim that they notice little to no difference between 30 and 60. This applies to the opposite as well, where someone playing at 60 FPS for years will notice a difference.


What is a fact about the difference?
60 FPS shows more frame of animation on screen than 30 FPS. There is no denying this.
In some games, this can be crucial. If you're objectively receiving more visual information from a game you're playing, your mind has more information to work with. This is why control inputs look and feel smoother to most people.
To many, 60 FPS is mandatory for certain games because of this. Unless you are so good at adjusting your control to such a degree that it makes up for the loss in animation at 30FPS, you'll likely be in a disadvantage going against a player using 60 FPS in the same game.
This is why genres such as fighting games, racing games, and first person shooters are considered games where 60 FPS (or higher) is required, at least in a competitive setting.

 

[NPC009]

retail is doing horrible. closing down shops, downscaling, agressively pushing other services and generally having death throbs. left and right. People can pick up consoles in hardware stores or walmart. No, some small minority of people think buying online is scary. this is 2016, not 2006. Basically the only physical copy buyers are people with awful internet or physical copies collectors. The cards for eshops are mostly because most kids dont have bank accounts but still have disposable income to buy games. They also make good gifts to gamers. gifting "buying card/check" is popular. most shops thatn dont usually have them make them specifically for christmas because people use them as gifts. gaming is no exception here in that it is used for gifts.

You're confusing specialised gameshops with retail as a whole. It's not the same thing. And do you have any idea how many people still have bad internet connections? I'm guessing you're from a European country were fiber is common, but a lot of consumers don't have great options. Heck, they may only have one shitty option. I heard that's pretty common in the US.

Yes, most peopld do not leave reviews. hence the phrase "silent majority". I have played over 100 games on Steam. i have left a review for 4 of them. As far as i know, none of my friends left even a single review. So no, most people dont bother writing reviews.

Okay, so these people are rioting, but so quietly we don't even notice them? I'm not sure how that works.

No. I had connected my console to a simple 50hz 13" CRT TV that i saved up for as a kid. Some games ran at 50fps, though most as you say were interlaced. This problem didnt exist when i bought a Pentium I, as PC ran just fine with the 85 hz CRT i mentioned earlier. 50 hz CRT TVs were a standard here in Europe, though most TV programs were indeed interlaced 25 fps programs.

When set at interlaced, a monitor only refreshes half the image. Instead of getting 50 new images a second, you're only really getting 25. I'm not entirely sure how many TVs actually supported 240p back then.

No, DOOM had no frequency cap, though when it released most machines could not run it at 60 fps well. And no, my CRT did not use interlacing, at all. The CRT i used for my computer didnt have interlacing as a function. CRTs have no input lag. as in, its at 0.001ms input lag. they were also for a very long time thanks to the TV manufacturing cartel the only monitors capable of above 60 hz visuals because 144/120 hz TN panels werent around, but good quality CRTs could go up to 125 hz progressive.

Actually the reason many retro gamers use old CRTs is because the games were designed for non-flat screens and look kinda weird on flat screens. Many old CRTs are non-flat screens.

That's the first time I heard about the curves being better. I don't know. Seems like a weak argument to me. Things like no input lag, native resolution (no scaling to mess things up) and such seem more important to me.

No, by that remark i meant PS3, Xbox 360 and WiiU. A PC built for 500 will outperform PS4 or Xbox One though. Most likely youll end up playing on medium settings, but it will still be nicer than what console shows and thats the goal with that computer isnt it, to get more than the console for same costs.

I looked up what ~500$ gets you at this point in time. I found this, along side other lists, this article [http://lifehacker.com/5840963/the-best-pcs-you-can-build-for-600-and-1200] (look the $600 PC). Looking at what you can do with it, it seems to be on par with modern consoles, at best. Consoles and PCs are hard to compare anyway, because unlike a dedicated system, a PC always has a OS taking up a room and power.

Monitor should not be put into question here, as you do not have a monitor with a console either. and yes, you can plug your computer into your TV with exact same cables as you can plug your console in. And well yes, monitors eventually die, something like one per 10 years of daily use. but so do TVs and all other electronics.

That wasn't exactly my point. I'm a laptop user (work-related reasons, plus I like how it saves space on my desk at home). If I were to upgrade to a gaming PC now, I would have to invest in a proper display. I wouldn't want to use my TV in the living as a monitor. Despite being fairly modest, it's still too big to use comfortably with a pc (unless that PC is purely used for watching series and playing games with a controller). Using a console with a PC display works a lot better, by the way.

I built a top end PC for 700 dollars two years ago. i wasnt an "Early adopter", but that isnt necessary to play your games at decent framerate. So far the only think that i actually upgraded was me putting in and SSD, something that i did specifically to make it easier to do other things in the background while im gaming (such as record footage) and something an average gamer can be without. Im not "Feeling the age" yet.

(700 dollars? I thought you're from Europe?)

I guess my estimate was almost spot-on, then. Look, decent framerate is relatively easy to obtain, as long as you're willing to sacrifice other things (lighting effects, draw distance, other fancy stuff). Well, and as long as the developer lets you - having a very minimal settings menu is a problem in some games. In any case, just saying you're getting a good number of fps isn't painting the whole picture. My example was extreme, but it is still the truth: my piece of low-tech shit can do 60fps. Just don't ask what games I'm playing and how I'm playing them.

can you build things out of lego? yes? congratulations, you have the skills to build a computer. you can get the knowledge on youtube in a few hours. confidence is something youll have to make on your own though. Once you build it correctly, there is nothing to "keep it running properly".

A set of legos costs a few dozen bucks, a hundred if you want something big. A PC has hundreds of dollars worth of components. One might find that intimidating. Sure, in reality they're pretty easy to put together, but picking components (that involves a lot of research) and learning to put them together still requires time and commitment. Few people have fun with it. It's no wonder a lot of people would rather pay extra for a pre-build than to take any risks. (Heck, I could have saved some money by building a PC for my parents, but it just wasn't worth the hassle. Ordering it online and having it send to their place was much less time-consuming.)

Keeping it running properly is kind of a big and important thing. If you're computer savvy, you'll probably avoid doing anything too stupid automatically, but a lot of people are not computer savvy. That's more or less the software side of things. The hardware side... Well, sometimes things go weird in the weirdest ways. My sister once had a laptop that would try to boot up, shut down midway, try to boot up again and so on. Took a while before I figured out it was trying to draw power from a near-dead battery instead of directly from the power supply. And then there's all the fun I've had with modems... Please, don't get me started on modems...

No, i meant games released last year - 2015. my computer mentioned above handles them fine.

Again, that doesn't mean much. I'm playing games released in 2015. Half of them look like 16-bit games, and the other half isn't much more impressive, but yeah, games from 2015... yay.

To be a member of PC Master Race you have to knowledge the superiority of PCs. You dont even have to own one.

Superiority is relative. I only became interested in PC Gaming again when it became much easier to use. GoG is nice. So is Steam (but I stay away from games that require UPlay and the like). I'm not interested in power. I'm interested in convenience. Easy access entertainment. As long as the PC offers that, it'll be part of my gaming diet together with the PS4, Wii U, 3DS, PSP and more. (I love my PSP - it's such a cute little system!)

It seems to me that PC gaming is most fun if you're interested in the tech involved. I kinda get that putting your own system together and figuring out how to get the most out of it gives a sense of accomplishment. But, it's not what interests me, personally. It just seems like an exhausting rat race to me.

nonsense. What is there is already hitting the limits with black bars, low resolutinos and limited framerate. the tablet level APUs in consoles (and they are same APUs that actually came out in tablets last year, yay for cheaping out AMD) have already reached their limit. DirectX 12 and OpenGLNext may improve performance a bit, so we will see a boost there, but other than that, there wont be much of the developer optimization this time around.

It seems to me that is more a result of many games being rushed out of the door - poorly optimised and filled with bugs (I heard the console versions of Just Cause 3 have some really fun memory leaks that end up adding whole minutes to loading times after just an hour of play). Nintendo has the least amount of power to work with, but they're releasing some of the best looking and most stable games this generation.

More raw power will not solve that most issues you see on consoles. Actually, I think it might make developers more complacent and that wouldn't be good for PC gamers either. Poorly programmed console games are not a good foundation for ports.

Maybe AAA business should remmeber that its not advertisement or word of mouth that sells games, its actually making a good game (points at Undertale).

It's be great if it were that simple. Of course you need a good game, but that alone is no guarantee for success. Undertale was one of many quirky retro style games released in 2015, but it was also one of the few fortunate enough to be noticed by the right people (and that didn't happen without atleast some marketing). It wouldn't have exploded the way it did if it hadn't.

If you ever have a a day to spare, go spelunking. Don't just stick to the depths of Steam, check sites such as rpgmaker.net as well. You'll be surprised by the gems hidden there. If you want a starting point: Off. If you liked Undertale, this RPG Maker game from 2008 may be to your liking.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

Certainly, some may genuinely prefer a lower frame rate for aesthetic reasons,

what? how is stuttering visuals preferable aesthetics? Or is that whole "cinematic" bullshit again? because that was never ever in any way shape or form true.

I was referring to film specifically. Cinematographers use all sorts of outdated filming methods and technology for artistic purposes, sometimes it is effective other times it is not. However, for 3D applications, I would agree that a lower framerate like 30 FPS has no conceivable aesthetic value compared to 60 FPS.

My bet is this issue will fall to the wayside once PS4 and XB1 titles start reaching 60FPS more frequently as developers make greater use of low level APIs like DX12 and Mantle, as well as the usual late-gen optimizations.

the issue is already on the "Wayside". the discussion has moved to 60 fps vs 120 fps.

I am not so sure about that. For the most recent games, only the most expensive GPUs like the GTX 980 Ti, Titan X and R9 Fury X can hope to even approach the refresh rate of a 120Hz monitor at 1080p (they max out at about 100 FPS on average). For higher resolutions like 4K, the high end dual GPU configurations that are required to attain even 60FPS are well beyond the budget of most PC gamers. I don't think there are 4k monitors with more than a 75Hz refresh rate on the market right now. IMO, most PC gamers will choose to move on to higher resolutions well before a framerate higher than 60 FPS becomes the new standard. Nvidia's Pascal architecture and AMD's Arctic Islands architecture may pack enough punch to allow for reasonably priced single GPU builds that are capable of 4K/60FPS, but I don't see the standard moving beyond that for some time.

You may be right, but look at the fairly dramatic increase in FPS that what seen in AMD GPUs for the Ashes of Singularity DX12 benchmark. At 1080p, the R9 290X went from 28FPS in DX11 mode to 48FPS in DX12 mode. Both consoles use AMD GPUs with similar GCN architecture. If this benchmark is representative of the performance gains to be made by GCN GPUs under DX12, then console users could possibly see a significant increase in FPS.

worth noting that Ashes of Singularity is being designed from the ground up specifically for DirectX 12 and is the type of game that will benefit the most from it (a lot of independent AI actors interacting constantly with literally thousands of particle effects on screen). The effect would be much smaller in, say, driving game.

Yea, I would have to agree. The benchmarks of the new DX12 Fable game might be more representative of typical performance gains. I guess we will know sometime later this year.

 

[Patathatapon]

Sniip!

I don't remember saying it didn't affect casual play. I would just rather play in the same room as someone while playing Halo than have a 60 fps if given the option. If we can have both I'm fine! I don't care! But apparently we can't, so 60fps can go suck a dick.

 

[DoPo]

Sniip!

I don't remember saying it didn't affect casual play.

Sure, you didn't literally say this word for word but you said exactly the equivalent when you said that it only affects competitive play. Casual is seen as "not competitive", thus, according to what you said, it would not be affected.

But apparently we can't, so 60fps can go suck a dick.

You've yet to prove that. As far as I can find, there is a single game that does have 60 FPS and no local coop and some link between the two, namely, that's Halo 5. And the "link" between 60FPS and lack of local co-op is somebody saying that's the reason. If the guy said it's because of aliens, would you be here saying "I'm fine with aliens, but since they are the reason we can't have co-op, the aliens can go suck a dick". Because it did sound like a rather lazy excuse.

Especially that after actually looking up, seems like Halo 5 co-op requires an Xbox Live Gold subscription. Which is, I am lead to believe, paid. I somehow see a bigger correlation between that and no local co-op than 60 FPS and no local co-op. Ah, but I must be imagining things. Sure, let's just blindly trust what anybody says online.

Speaking of, I happen to be a Nigerian prince and have some Rolexes and Viagra for sale. Very cheap.

 

[Patathatapon]

Sniip!

I don't remember saying it didn't affect casual play.

Sure, you didn't literally say this word for word but you said exactly the equivalent when you said that it only affects competitive play. Casual is seen as "not competitive", thus, according to what you said, it would not be affected.

If you want to get down to specifics then fine. I said that you can only argue it NECESSARY in competitive play. Now, it's a nice thing to have, sure, but is it required? No. It's not required. Our eyes stop seeing the difference at 24-30, our mind stops seeing the difference around 300. Maybe we should all ***** about why more games don't have 120-300 fps instead? We obviously NEED it for casual/competitive play, even if we only end up with still images in Atari graphics by the end of the day

But apparently we can't, so 60fps can go suck a dick.

You've yet to prove that. As far as I can find, there is a single game that does have 60 FPS and no local coop and some link between the two, namely, that's Halo 5. And the "link" between 60FPS and lack of local co-op is somebody saying that's the reason. If the guy said it's because of aliens, would you be here saying "I'm fine with aliens, but since they are the reason we can't have co-op, the aliens can go suck a dick". Because it did sound like a rather lazy excuse.

Especially that after actually looking up, seems like Halo 5 co-op requires an Xbox Live Gold subscription. Which is, I am lead to believe, paid. I somehow see a bigger correlation between that and no local co-op than 60 FPS and no local co-op. Ah, but I must be imagining things. Sure, let's just blindly trust what anybody says online.

True someone online said it, and multiplayer online has always needed Xbox Live. Allegedly, 343 said they couldn't put it in due to the graphics which makes sense. But all previous Halo games had local co-op (No clue on Halo 4, I think it did).

A processor can only handle so much, and rendering two different screens at once at 60FPS simultaneously sounds like a lot of work, wouldn't you say? The Xbox One would likely combust from the effort! (Not literally, I don't need you complaining about that now).

I invite you to prove me wrong then. Give me another Xbox One/PS4 game similar to Halo's split screen mode (Not Mortal Kombat or smash brothers, that uses the same screen for all players) and then I will state that I am wrong and you win the argument. You can enjoy whatever that is worth.



Edited because I suck at splitting posts.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Your link doesnt work, so thanks for taking up to quoting it. Gamasutra apperently has itself fallen for the misconception that responsiveness is about human response time, it is not. it is about games response time. yes, humans can and do both see and feel when after pressing a button the game responds faster or slower, even in those amounts. in fact the reason any monitor that has a response time above 5ms is considered "shit for gaming" is because the monitor introduced lag of even 6 ms makes game controls unconfortable, and this is 5 times higher numbers you are talking about. Of course purists will go fo 1 ms TN panels, but in general the 5ms ones are accetable.

Actually, the article was trying to dispel that notion. It was pointing out that the issues with responsiveness are often introduced by bad coding practices, such as taking too long on certain points of logic, improperly ordering how the logic carries out, and other factors. Other factors would be bad animations (which may be where your issue is coming in) and similar artistic decisions.

Overall, the frames should be able to be drawn fast enough for most people to never pick up. I know that those who do a lot of competitive gaming and/or play a lot of difficult twitch games may train themselves to be faster, but that's going beyond what a vast majority of the population would pick up on.

as far as your stack exchange link, it seems to support my statement above with "note that this and what you are talking about are not the same thing. The acceptable delay between making a motion with a mouse and seeing a result is almost certainly much smaller than the time it would take a human to react to something displayed on the screen with the mouse."

Are you talking about the response to the final comment?

 

[Ironbat92]

I prefer 60, but I'm down with 30.

 

[Zio_IV]

Well, 60fps is objectively better than 30fps in all subjects. There's not one way having less frames per second improves a game on its own when compared to higher. The reason I (and evidently many others in this thread) are still okay with less fps is due to its allowance for better performance in other areas, but that in itself is not a point in 30's favor. That just means you're allowing a straight-up downgrade in one area for the sake of gaining improvements in others, and that's fine. Despite knowing all the benefits of framerate and how it actually works, I personally am still okay with playing games at lower framerates if it means having a consistency in performance. As a number of people here have said themselves, "stable 30fps > inconsistent 60fps", and I for one am in agreement. The only thing that gets my goat is when people try arguing that there's an actual, tangible benefit to having less fps, because there isn't. You're just prioritizing other performance aspects over framerate, is all. Again, that's fine, and there's nothing wrong with having different priorities, but please don't say that it's "better".
(Please note I'm not necessarily addressing any one person in this thread, but just saying in general).

It's true that some game genres don't need the improvement in framerate, though higher will always be better even then. Having 60-120fps while I'm playing Civilization V doesn't have an impact on my ability to play the game, sure, but it will still be smoother than 30 regardless. For many games however, higher doesn't just look smoother, but genuinely benefits from the heightened response time inherent to higher fps.

Just as an example, but anyone who thinks a fraction of a second's time can't be consciously measured and accounted for has never played a fighting game on a competitive, arcade level. You're making multiple movements and decisions within the span of each second, so those games absolutely require that framerate. I will admit FGs are one of the more extreme examples, though. While a lot of game genres do require those fractional response times, FGs just happen to be a platform where that kind of response level is demanded of the player more constantly.

But anywho, yeah, more is better than less. Though there are reasons to allow for lower fps, one should never forget that you're sacrificing the better product for the sake of improving something else, rather than thinking lower fps provides any intrinsic benefits on its own.

 

[Strazdas]

You're confusing specialised gameshops with retail as a whole. It's not the same thing. And do you have any idea how many people still have bad internet connections? I'm guessing you're from a European country were fiber is common, but a lot of consumers don't have great options. Heck, they may only have one shitty option. I heard that's pretty common in the US.

no need for that. videogames retail is dieing all over. And yes, a small minority of people. Fiber is common in the entire world. US is actually one of the worst countries when it comes to internet. Currently only Africa is worse.

Okay, so these people are rioting, but so quietly we don't even notice them? I'm not sure how that works.

No, some people are rioting. most simply refuse to purchase inferior products.

When set at interlaced, a monitor only refreshes half the image. Instead of getting 50 new images a second, you're only really getting 25. I'm not entirely sure how many TVs actually supported 240p back then.

They were not set at interlaced, please read my post again. Also in the 90s only severely outdated TVs were still on 240p. 360p was standard TV broadcast resolution and thats what those tvs used. of course it was in 4:3 format back then.

That's the first time I heard about the curves being better. I don't know. Seems like a weak argument to me. Things like no input lag, native resolution (no scaling to mess things up) and such seem more important to me.

Then i suggest you look into it. its about viewing angles created by tube CRTs. But yes, other things you mention are also important, however they can also be achieved with flat screen CRT.

I looked up what ~500$ gets you at this point in time. I found this, along side other lists, this article (look the $600 PC). Looking at what you can do with it, it seems to be on par with modern consoles, at best. Consoles and PCs are hard to compare anyway, because unlike a dedicated system, a PC always has a OS taking up a room and power.

here is a PC that will perform better than a console: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/DYDLMp Total: $456.71
The amount Windows 8/10 takes while in background of a game is so miniscule that its not worth counting. This was a reasonable complaint around the turn of the century when OS did sigificantly slow down PCs or when Vista launched and had horrible resource hunger, but this is not so anymore and for a long time.

That wasn't exactly my point. I'm a laptop user (work-related reasons, plus I like how it saves space on my desk at home). If I were to upgrade to a gaming PC now, I would have to invest in a proper display. I wouldn't want to use my TV in the living as a monitor. Despite being fairly modest, it's still too big to use comfortably with a pc (unless that PC is purely used for watching series and playing games with a controller). Using a console with a PC display works a lot better, by the way.

The point is that you need a display for both PC and a console so comparing them it is unfair to include the price for one and not for another. what you preferences are is another thing that does not come into comparison. for example i dont own TVs at all. i connect all my media to a monitor. does that mean that i would need to add the cost of TV for a console but not for a PC? of course not.

(700 dollars? I thought you're from Europe?)

I guess my estimate was almost spot-on, then. Look, decent framerate is relatively easy to obtain, as long as you're willing to sacrifice other things (lighting effects, draw distance, other fancy stuff). Well, and as long as the developer lets you - having a very minimal settings menu is a problem in some games. In any case, just saying you're getting a good number of fps isn't painting the whole picture. My example was extreme, but it is still the truth: my piece of low-tech shit can do 60fps. Just don't ask what games I'm playing and how I'm playing them.

I converted for easier comparison. Yes im from europe. The amount of money i saved on game due to steam sales, humblebundles and other sales already cut half the price off that 700 though. when you constantly get to buy games with 85-80% off it adds up quickly. I never sacrifice draw distance. i do sacrifice antialiasing, but consoles have no antialising to begin with, so hardly a sacrifice for comparisons sake. i never claimed that i max out all games, that was never my intention anyway. I do play at better quality than on consoles, though.

A set of legos costs a few dozen bucks, a hundred if you want something big. A PC has hundreds of dollars worth of components. One might find that intimidating. Sure, in reality they're pretty easy to put together, but picking components (that involves a lot of research) and learning to put them together still requires time and commitment. Few people have fun with it. It's no wonder a lot of people would rather pay extra for a pre-build than to take any risks. (Heck, I could have saved some money by building a PC for my parents, but it just wasn't worth the hassle. Ordering it online and having it send to their place was much less time-consuming.)

there are many places on the internet, for example /r/buildmeapc on reddit, where you cna just give them a money target and what you will use it for and they will pick you the parts that work together if you are unable to watch a few youtube videos and use sites like PCpartpicker that check for compatibility automatically. I can understand the intimidation. i felt that as well when i built my first pc,especially since i saved that money for 2 years (i was 12 at the time) and if i fucked up i would probably be without a pc for 2 another years. i didnt fuck up though, turned out it was easier than expected. but yes, everyone is welcome to pay extra for others to do the job for them. thats the whole backbone of services industry.

Keeping it running properly is kind of a big and important thing. If you're computer savvy, you'll probably avoid doing anything too stupid automatically, but a lot of people are not computer savvy. That's more or less the software side of things. The hardware side... Well, sometimes things go weird in the weirdest ways. My sister once had a laptop that would try to boot up, shut down midway, try to boot up again and so on. Took a while before I figured out it was trying to draw power from a near-dead battery instead of directly from the power supply. And then there's all the fun I've had with modems... Please, don't get me started on modems...

We are assuming you are using windows here since you yourself suggested here. they are pretty much idiotproof by now. sadly, at the expense of power users like me. but its really hard to fuck things up now unless you specifically go out of your way to find malware that does it or are very very unlucky to be stupid enough to open every email attachment. yes, viruses exist, but modern antiviruses can be basically set to set it and forget it mode. Well your sister must have murdered that battery then. i got my 6 year old laptop sitting by my side as i type this and while the battery only last 1 hour now its enough to boot up. Also laptop troubleshooting 101 is first try removing the battery which forces laptop to go directly to power supply. most do that by default anyway if power is connected but that wasnt the case in the past.

Yes, modems are a pain in the ass sometimes. when i had only one PC i skipped modems entirely, direct line connection to PC. best thing ever. however sadly since now i have 4 devices (two mine two my cousins) connected i need to have a router that fucks up once in 3 months or so. simple restart fixes it though. but i remmeber back in 2003 the router i had was really annoying me.

Again, that doesn't mean much. I'm playing games released in 2015. Half of them look like 16-bit games, and the other half isn't much more impressive, but yeah, games from 2015... yay.

I guess i should have specified. i dont mean those small retro games. i enjoyed Cities: Skylines a lot for example.

It seems to me that PC gaming is most fun if you're interested in the tech involved. I kinda get that putting your own system together and figuring out how to get the most out of it gives a sense of accomplishment. But, it's not what interests me, personally. It just seems like an exhausting rat race to me.

I would argue that all hobbies are more fun if you are interested in how these hobbies are made.

It seems to me that is more a result of many games being rushed out of the door - poorly optimised and filled with bugs (I heard the console versions of Just Cause 3 have some really fun memory leaks that end up adding whole minutes to loading times after just an hour of play). Nintendo has the least amount of power to work with, but they're releasing some of the best looking and most stable games this generation.

More raw power will not solve that most issues you see on consoles. Actually, I think it might make developers more complacent and that wouldn't be good for PC gamers either. Poorly programmed console games are not a good foundation for ports.

Here we will agree, its the stupid choices by developers that is more at fault than the lack of power. I dont agree with Nintendo games being the best looking ones though. you will probably argue asthetics, and thats personal, so i wont go there. from a technical perspective though, they are lagging behind.

DirectX12 wont offer more raw power. it will offer better ways to utilize the power already there. developers will of course have to specifically code thier games to utilize these benefits. I think most will, though, because the limitations DirectX12 is removing is one developers of AAA studios were complaining about for a few years now.

It's be great if it were that simple. Of course you need a good game, but that alone is no guarantee for success. Undertale was one of many quirky retro style games released in 2015, but it was also one of the few fortunate enough to be noticed by the right people (and that didn't happen without atleast some marketing). It wouldn't have exploded the way it did if it hadn't.

If you ever have a a day to spare, go spelunking. Don't just stick to the depths of Steam, check sites such as rpgmaker.net as well. You'll be surprised by the gems hidden there. If you want a starting point: Off. If you liked Undertale, this RPG Maker game from 2008 may be to your liking.

gamers are very passionate and love to share good games. so yes, often it is that simple. note that being part of small niche does not make a game great on its own. Thanks for the offers, but i will not be taking them. I personally do not like that style of games, but i can recognize a good one when it comes around. Im glad there are people that enjoy them, but i personally dont.

I was referring to film specifically. Cinematographers use all sorts of outdated filming methods and technology for artistic purposes, sometimes it is effective other times it is not. However, for 3D applications, I would agree that a lower framerate like 30 FPS has no conceivable aesthetic value compared to 60 FPS.

Ah, i can see your point, although i have seen this done well extremely rarely.

I am not so sure about that. For the most recent games, only the most expensive GPUs like the GTX 980 Ti, Titan X and R9 Fury X can hope to even approach the refresh rate of a 120Hz monitor at 1080p (they max out at about 100 FPS on average). For higher resolutions like 4K, the high end dual GPU configurations that are required to attain even 60FPS are well beyond the budget of most PC gamers. I don't think there are 4k monitors with more than a 75Hz refresh rate on the market right now. IMO, most PC gamers will choose to move on to higher resolutions well before a framerate higher than 60 FPS becomes the new standard. Nvidia's Pascal architecture and AMD's Arctic Islands architecture may pack enough punch to allow for reasonably priced single GPU builds that are capable of 4K/60FPS, but I don't see the standard moving beyond that for some time.

This is true, which is why the discussion isnt as opened and closed as the 30 fps one. There is a 120hz 4k monitor on the market, released last year. Personally i think the most discussion is about 1080p@120hz vs 4k@60hz nowadays. Im in the camp of the first one, but i can understand the people who are in for the second one.

Actually, the article was trying to dispel that notion. It was pointing out that the issues with responsiveness are often introduced by bad coding practices, such as taking too long on certain points of logic, improperly ordering how the logic carries out, and other factors. Other factors would be bad animations (which may be where your issue is coming in) and similar artistic decisions.

Overall, the frames should be able to be drawn fast enough for most people to never pick up. I know that those who do a lot of competitive gaming and/or play a lot of difficult twitch games may train themselves to be faster, but that's going beyond what a vast majority of the population would pick up on.

as far as your stack exchange link, it seems to support my statement above with "note that this and what you are talking about are not the same thing. The acceptable delay between making a motion with a mouse and seeing a result is almost certainly much smaller than the time it would take a human to react to something displayed on the screen with the mouse."

Are you talking about the response to the final comment?

The article was trying to dispel the notion that gamers never had? interesting, exactly the thing id expect from gamasutra really. they seem to be detached from actual gamers all the time. Though like i said the link didnt work so i couldnt read the whole thing, only parts you quoted. Yes, the logic in the game is important and should be taken into account, for example see the tick rate problems in battlefield 4.

As was proven by the 60hz vs 120hz experiment, even 60 fps is too low to meet the criteria of most people not being able to pick it up. therefore this is clearly not the case with 30 fps.

Im talking about the most upvoted response in there if i remember correctly.

 

[Smooth Operator]

When set at interlaced, a monitor only refreshes half the image. Instead of getting 50 new images a second, you're only really getting 25. I'm not entirely sure how many TVs actually supported 240p back then.

No, you get half the image quality at the same FPS, if the FPS went to half that is a separate limiting process not tied to interlacing.

 

[DoPo]

Our eyes stop seeing the difference at 24-30

[citation needed]

Because our eyes do see the difference even beyond that. As a proof: otherwise we wouldn't have this thread. Among other things.

Maybe we should all ***** about why more games don't have 120-300 fps instead?

Not "*****", as that implies unjust complaint, however, we could certainly be asking this more often.

A processor can only handle so much, and rendering two different screens at once at 60FPS simultaneously sounds like a lot of work, wouldn't you say?

It depends on how they would go about it.

I invite you to prove me wrong then.

I invite you to first prove that it is literally impossible even if the developers actually try to do it. It's that thing called burden of proof.

 

[NPC009]

no need for that. videogames retail is dieing all over. And yes, a small minority of people. Fiber is common in the entire world. US is actually one of the worst countries when it comes to internet. Currently only Africa is worse.

Yeah, no [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds].

No, some people are rioting. most simply refuse to purchase inferior products.

So, where are these people rioting? Are they a big enough group to matter?

They were not set at interlaced, please read my post again. Also in the 90s only severely outdated TVs were still on 240p. 360p was standard TV broadcast resolution and thats what those tvs used. of course it was in 4:3 format back then.

Well, I admit I was playing an a old TV from the 70s for most of the 90s, so I might be remembering things wrong. Didn't really get up to date until ~1998, right in time to start reaping the benefits of 60hz. Even then I was never ahead of the curve. On the other hand, I wasn't really behind either.

BTW wasn't PAL, the broadcasting standard, 576i?

Then i suggest you look into it. its about viewing angles created by tube CRTs. But yes, other things you mention are also important, however they can also be achieved with flat screen CRT.

Wait, I think I get it, the reason flat CRTs never come up with the people I speak with is because they're kinda ignored. Most people I know just grab nice TVs from the 80s and 90s (because those are cheapest) and those are generally curved. Hm, now that I think about it, my boyfriend did have a very nice flat 100hz CRT. That one didn't cause any distortions. Wouldn't quality play a big role? There's shitty TVs in all shapes and sizes.

here is a PC that will perform better than a console: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/DYDLMp Total: $456.71
The amount Windows 8/10 takes while in background of a game is so miniscule that its not worth counting. This was a reasonable complaint around the turn of the century when OS did sigificantly slow down PCs or when Vista launched and had horrible resource hunger, but this is not so anymore and for a long time.

I'm not sure the i3 is the right way to go with a gaming PC. Sure, the hyper-treading somewhat makes up for it being a dual core and it's a good price, but wouldn't a i5 be a little more future proof? And isn't 7200RPM considered slow for a harddrive? It seems to me that this system is about getting as much for young as possible, but doesn't exactly provide the most comfortable experience.

And yep, I know the dark days of Vista have passed, but OSes do take up a relatively big amount of resourches. (Though I have to admit some modern consoles are a bit weird. IIRC the Wii U sets aside 1GB of its RAM for system use online.)

The point is that you need a display for both PC and a console so comparing them it is unfair to include the price for one and not for another. what you preferences are is another thing that does not come into comparison. for example i dont own TVs at all. i connect all my media to a monitor. does that mean that i would need to add the cost of TV for a console but not for a PC? of course not.

I think you only need to add the cost when you don't have a suitable screen. I don't have a monitor, so that's something I would have to buy if I decided to get a PC. If you're happy with your monitor, you don't need a TV, meaning a console is relatively cheap for you.

I converted for easier comparison. Yes im from europe. The amount of money i saved on game due to steam sales, humblebundles and other sales already cut half the price off that 700 though. when you constantly get to buy games with 85-80% off it adds up quickly. I never sacrifice draw distance. i do sacrifice antialiasing, but consoles have no antialising to begin with, so hardly a sacrifice for comparisons sake. i never claimed that i max out all games, that was never my intention anyway. I do play at better quality than on consoles, though.

Hey, consoles have sales, too. And they can be pretty good, actually. Just like on Steam and GoG, 70% isn't that unusual. Some games might even be cheaper on consoles than PC, depending on the sales. Since I've got a bit of everything, I like to compare

Consoles can do anti-aliasing, BTW. But just like with PC games, if it's used varies from game to game. The main differenc being, of course, that on consoles the developer decides, and on PC the consumer gets a say in it (which makes sense, because there's such a huge variety in hardware used).

there are many places on the internet, for example /r/buildmeapc on reddit, where you cna just give them a money target and what you will use it for and they will pick you the parts that work together if you are unable to watch a few youtube videos and use sites like PCpartpicker that check for compatibility automatically. I can understand the intimidation. i felt that as well when i built my first pc,especially since i saved that money for 2 years (i was 12 at the time) and if i fucked up i would probably be without a pc for 2 another years. i didnt fuck up though, turned out it was easier than expected. but yes, everyone is welcome to pay extra for others to do the job for them. thats the whole backbone of services industry.

That involves trusting random people on the internet, though. Not everyone is eager to do so. If you aren't very computer savvy, just finding trustworthy sources can be a challenge.

(I learnt my way around PCs with outdated systems and spare parts - I would have pissed my pants if I had to fiddle with anything less expendable! New parts are still a little scary. Last time I decided to plop in some more RAM - literally three minutes work - I had to take deep breath before I dared to even start. Which was kind of silly, because finding the right RAM was actually a greater challenge.)

We are assuming you are using windows here since you yourself suggested here. they are pretty much idiotproof by now. sadly, at the expense of power users like me. but its really hard to fuck things up now unless you specifically go out of your way to find malware that does it or are very very unlucky to be stupid enough to open every email attachment. yes, viruses exist, but modern antiviruses can be basically set to set it and forget it mode. Well your sister must have murdered that battery then. i got my 6 year old laptop sitting by my side as i type this and while the battery only last 1 hour now its enough to boot up. Also laptop troubleshooting 101 is first try removing the battery which forces laptop to go directly to power supply. most do that by default anyway if power is connected but that wasnt the case in the past.

For compatibility reasons, Windows seems like the most obvious choice to me. I do kinda get the appeal of Linux, though. Lots of freedom to make it run the way that's best for your set-up.

I think that battery died simply because it was shitty and couldn't handle being recharged so often. Of course, the real culprit is the laptop (and the people who designed it) - the battery wouldn't have died so soon if the laptop hadn't constantly drawn power from it. My own laptop was nearly five your older at the time, and while the battery life had certainly degraded (in the end, I got 15 minutes out of it - at max), it hadn't been abused to death. We're talking early-mid 00s by the way - things were a little worse back then.

Yes, modems are a pain in the ass sometimes. when i had only one PC i skipped modems entirely, direct line connection to PC. best thing ever. however sadly since now i have 4 devices (two mine two my cousins) connected i need to have a router that fucks up once in 3 months or so. simple restart fixes it though. but i remmeber back in 2003 the router i had was really annoying me.

For a while, I had one that fucking hated Vista. Sadly, there was no easy fix for that piece of shit. With lots of googling I found other people with the exact same problems and the solutions turned out to be switching to WEP security. My DS didn't complain, but sheesh...

I guess i should have specified. i dont mean those small retro games. i enjoyed Cities: Skylines a lot for example.

Looking at the recommended requirements and assuming you meet those, I'm assuming you're meeting the minimum system requirements for many triple A games. That's indeed not too bad.

I would argue that all hobbies are more fun if you are interested in how these hobbies are made.

That's true. But the way PC gaming and PC tech is intertwined seems a bit strange to me, as console gaming is pretty much all about the games. I mostly just really like games.

Here we will agree, its the stupid choices by developers that is more at fault than the lack of power. I dont agree with Nintendo games being the best looking ones though. you will probably argue asthetics, and thats personal, so i wont go there. from a technical perspective though, they are lagging behind.

It's no secret the Wii U is the weakest of the bunch (though it's actually not as bad as some people assume), but Nintendo does a great job of making you forget you're playing an relatively low tech hardware. Their own games run incredibly well, and even something like Xenoblade X, in which a lot of sacrifices were made to create a huge, seamless world, draws you right in once you start playing. Hardware limitations are a lot more noticible in the PS4 games I play, because half of them I just kinda poorly put together.

DirectX12 wont offer more raw power. it will offer better ways to utilize the power already there. developers will of course have to specifically code thier games to utilize these benefits. I think most will, though, because the limitations DirectX12 is removing is one developers of AAA studios were complaining about for a few years now.

I meant the problems seen in console gaming (and gaming in general, really) can't be solved by just releasing more powerful consoles. The extra power can cover up only so much of poor programming. The advantage PC gaming has here, is that users can improve their own hardware where needed, and the most savvy ones can even put out mods to make the game run better. Still, this is users trying to fix problems that shouldn't be there regardless of the hardware being developed for.

gamers are very passionate and love to share good games. so yes, often it is that simple. note that being part of small niche does not make a game great on its own. Thanks for the offers, but i will not be taking them. I personally do not like that style of games, but i can recognize a good one when it comes around. Im glad there are people that enjoy them, but i personally dont.

Finding good games can be tricky, though. Unless you're willing to sacrifice a lot of time and/or money, there are obvious limitations to the number of great games you can discover on your own. Most people have to rely on critics and Youtube personalities to find new games to play. And how do these people find games? Publishers often approach these people themselves (fortunately, this rarely goes beyond 'here's a download code, enjoy'). If a developer does not promote their game, it's unlikely it will be discovered by people who can properly introduce it to the world.

Look at something like Dark Souls. The series gained a small following with Demon's Souls, and the people who played that started getting hyped up for Dark Souls, with the journalists pushing for previews and reviews. That game gained a bigger cult following, which just kept growing because more and more knowns give it a shot and loved it. Now it's a big deal.

I got to contribute to a few small explosions myself (Virtue's Last Reward) and was caught up in a few blasts as well (Spec Ops: The Line).