Christ Centered Gamer

ccgr,
Once it was completely expelled from my system, and some Tumms/Rolaids were used I got better. Did not try eating for 15-16 hours though. Then slowly started with light stuff like crackers.
The EMT at the Convention Center told us we probably got some mild food poisoning. And people ask why I want E3 moved out of LA.

JOJ650s,
They have had a witch princess character in there for some time now. Harvest Moon Grand Bazaar is the only game in recent years without the two controversial characters.

I am with you on the cave. Which reminds me. Nothing from Sega on The Cave 2. Which we were expecting to hear about at E3.

The animals need to be taken care of in Story of Seasons too.

You make a good point - Nintendo was focused on the Wii U. The rumors I heard relate to hardware, and chips. I can't recall where, but there was something about it being used by Nintendo and it was related to hand held development. Nintendo has gone on record that they start thinking about their next system when they launch one. So they are always looking ahead. It could be something as simple as Nintendo 2DS XL. They do have a habit of taking baby steps forward within a brand of a system. Maybe a 3DS that will connect to the Wii U, or a 3DS that will use amiibo easier. There are plenty of possibilities. I take a wait and see attitude. At the same time I look at trends and compare them to the past. Maybe the next Nintendo Direct will be all about upcoming 3DS games. It can be hard to read Nintendo.

No there was no video game related food that I saw at Sony's event.

One of the funniest things to me was 3DS Streetpassing at the Microsoft press conference, and the Sony press conference.

Chozon1 wrote: 3. True again. But only with a $700+ PC. Not including a game pad, or at least a nice mouse. That will have current gen graphics for...a year. Maybe.

Actually, I got my computer back in 2007 with only a dual core processor and only upgraded the video card and ram (it came with integrated graphics). And up until the next gen games coming out, I have been able to play PS3 \ 360 games just fine.

Why is that? Because game developers don't want to have to develop three different games for three different systems. So the old idea of having to upgrade your computer to play the latest games every 6 months is pretty much a thing of the past, since the 360 and PS3 basically hold back the PC ports (and in 6 months time, so will the PS4 and XB1).

Not only that, the few exceptions to this rule, like Crysis didn't get the desired sales, so developers know that making people upgrade all of the time isn't very economically efficient for profit.

I'm planning to get a big PC upgrade around Christmas to play Arkham Knight, since the hardware is going to last as long as M$ and Sony want to keep the XB1 and PS4 around.

LAVA89 wrote:Actually, I got my computer back in 2007 with only a dual core processor and only upgraded the video card and ram (it came with integrated graphics). And up until the next gen games coming out, I have been able to play PS3 \ 360 games just fine.

Why is that? Because game developers don't want to have to develop three different games for three different systems. So the old idea of having to upgrade your computer to play the latest games every 6 months is pretty much a thing of the past, since the 360 and PS3 basically hold back the PC ports (and in 6 months time, so will the PS4 and XB1).

Not only that, the few exceptions to this rule, like Crysis didn't get the desired sales, so developers know that making people upgrade all of the time isn't very economically efficient for profit.

I'm planning to get a big PC upgrade around Christmas to play Arkham Knight, since the hardware is going to last as long as M$ and Sony want to keep the XB1 and PS4 around.

Fair enough. I have two questions though, since I will never concede this point out of principle.

A) Are you playing said games at the highest possible graphics level and resolution? The native console settings?

B) If you don't mind my asking, how much did you pay for the computer, graphics, and RAM, total, to achieve current gen graphics?

Because I have to say, I've never had an experience like that. The only time I bought a graphics card for my computer (2004 compy, I believe, with a low end GFX card), it worked for a month, after a month of trying to get it to work, then melted to slag. I could also play modern games, but only at a medium/low settings. Compared to my 360, which cost a few hundred less than the computer that was a few years older, and played games in super graphics with no effort or added expense on my part.

Chozon1 wrote:A) Are you playing said games at the highest possible graphics level and resolution? The native console settings?

Not highest settings, but for a game like Arkham City, one of the best looking games that I own, I usually have the settings on "high", and there's only two grades above that (I can show screens of what my game looks like and maybe even video, if you'd like). And I am not convinced that the consoles natively run everything at max PC settings.

B) If you don't mind my asking, how much did you pay for the computer, graphics, and RAM, total, to achieve current gen graphics?

My computer was $900 originally. But I did buy it out of the box from HP. My dad gave me his video card so I don't know the exact cost. So I would say altogether it probably cost $1200 after those upgrades. Though If I was build my own computer it might've even been cheaper than $900 or at 900 with those upgrades. And I know that I've made alot of that money back just by the steam sales alone.

Chozon1 wrote:Because I have to say, I've never had an experience like that. The only time I bought a graphics card for my computer (2004 compy, I believe, with a low end GFX card), it worked for a month, after a month of trying to get it to work, then melted to slag. I could also play modern games, but only at a medium/low settings. Compared to my 360, which cost a few hundred less than the computer that was a few years older, and played games in super graphics with no effort or added expense on my part.

Its hard to say exactly what was going on with your computer. But a few things I can say; you mentioned that you got a low GFX card for it, and the computer was released a year before those next systems were coming out (like 306 and PS3). When a computer is released matters a great deal, because at just about every 6 months they're always releasing new PC tech while console prices are sluggish, so even if you wait a little bit you could get the same hardware for a better price. And being that Sony and Microsoft both lose money with each console made, its in their best interest to keep their latest systems in for the long haul. Which gives people time to upgrade their PC's.

Also, you might've saved money on hardware, but the price of console games can get expensive (if you buy console games new, they will sometimes take forever just to come down to the $20 region). Plus, if you get a new system out of the box, you'll have a limited library of games to play. For instance, if I was to get an Xbox One or PS4 to get Batman Arkham Knight, it would play the game just fine. However, if I wanted to play the previous Batman games, I'd have to dig out another system. Whereas with PC I will be able to seamlessly play both games from this generation and the previous one (360 / PS3).

Another way of looking at it is this: let's say I wanted to jump into modern gaming right now and be able to play all of the games the previous and current generation. I would have to buy a previous gen system (360 or PS3) AND buy a PS4 or XB1...OR I could just get 1 beefed up PC which can run games from this coming generation and last one.

Of course, that's with the exception of Nintendo games, which is why I think going with a Wii U and beefed up PC is the best way to survive this current console generation.

LAVA89 wrote:Not highest settings, but for a game like Arkham City, one of the best looking games that I own, I usually have the settings on "high", and there's only two grades above that (I can show screens of what my game looks like and maybe even video, if you'd like). And I am not convinced that the consoles natively run everything at max PC settings.

But if they hold the tech in the games at the same level for both PC and console (as you said earlier), there should be no difference in the highest graphical settings possible on PC (sans the resolution differences, perhaps) and the native console settings. I actually Googled it, and had trouble finding an answer that wasn't obviously skewed one way or the other. I 'spose it's a valid question. But I've never personally seen a ported game that looked noticeably better. The possible exception is Crysis, and I'm giving that the benefit of the doubt, since I haven't compared them side by side. Different, sure. But not better.

But then, that's not the point. A console game runs at 100% of it's possible settings. PC's can only do that if you have really good hardware. Otherwise, you have less than what you could.

LAVA89 wrote:My computer was $900 originally. But I did buy it out of the box from HP. My dad gave me his video card so I don't know the exact cost. So I would say altogether it probably cost $1200 after those upgrades. Though If I was build my own computer it might've even been cheaper than $900 or at 900 with those upgrades. And I know that I've made alot of that money back just by the steam sales alone.

Let's say you build a nice gaming rig for $900 flat (it can be done for as little as $500, according to some stuff I've read, and Krytae, a now-gone member, has actually done it. But you're not able to run the latest games on high without at least turning off stuff, or accepting lower FPS. So that's not helpful). You're able to play at the best settings on the latest games.

For $900, I can buy a Wii U, and a PS4, and have $200 or so leftover for a small library of games, if I shop right. If I picked one or the other, that's an instant library that would take me a few months (or weeks, depending on how much I slept) to play through. Add in the fact you're going to have to buy a gamepad and games for that PC, and I have even more money for games.

LAVA89 wrote:Its hard to say exactly what was going on with your computer. But a few things I can say; you mentioned that you got a low GFX card for it, and the computer was released a year before those next systems were coming out (like 306 and PS3). When a computer is released matters a great deal, because at just about every 6 months they're always releasing new PC tech while console prices are sluggish, so even if you wait a little bit you could get the same hardware for a better price. And being that Sony and Microsoft both lose money with each console made, its in their best interest to keep their latest systems in for the long haul. Which gives people time to upgrade their PC's.

Current gen for that compy was the OG Xbox. XD It was probably even older than 2004. That was just a comparison. Though now that I think about it, I did get vastly superior tech in that Xbox, so perhaps it is not a fair one.

And see, the money you spend upgrading your PC, I spend on games. Even if you upgrade once a year, or less than that, it's still tacking on money that I, as a console gamer, will never have to spend. That too, decreases the bang for your buck you get from Steam sales, and though I will not be doing mathematics at this hour, sort of equalizes the fact I have to spend more on games over the lifetime of my console.

LAVA89 wrote:Also, you might've saved money on hardware, but the price of console games can get expensive (if you buy console games new, they will sometimes take forever just to come down to the $20 region). Plus, if you get a new system out of the box, you'll have a limited library of games to play. For instance, if I was to get an Xbox One or PS4 to get Batman Arkham Knight, it would play the game just fine. However, if I wanted to play the previous Batman games, I'd have to dig out another system. Whereas with PC I will be able to seamlessly play both games from this generation and the previous one (360 / PS3).

Another way of looking at it is this: let's say I wanted to jump into modern gaming right now and be able to play all of the games the previous and current generation. I would have to buy a previous gen system (360 or PS3) AND buy a PS4 or XB1...OR I could just get 1 beefed up PC which can run games from this coming generation and last one

All true. But I buy used, and rarely buy games when they're fresh. And even then, if you shop around, you can find them pretty cheap.

The problem is, that's an argument of convenience, and really only applies to this generation (which, with the exception of the Wii U, is the first in awhile to not be backwards compatible). For myself, I see no inherent effort in switching cables to play another game system that I've got anyway. I 'spose if you put yours on a shelf, then you may have a small effort. I've also heard rumors on the web that Sony will become even more awesome, and make the PS4 play PS3/2/1 games. But it's not confirmed.

That's also not entirely true for the PC. There are boatlourds of compatibility issues between modern and past games if you go back more than 3-5 years. The tech changes too much. Especially with Windows 8. I tried to play Starcraft on my relatively new Laptop, and the color is off so much it's funny. And I don't think anyone, except the most hardcore, die-hard PC gamer is going to claim that a newb to modern gaming is going to find it easier to build themselves a gaming machine than to buy a console (or two. At the $900 mark, you can grab a Ps3 and 4, and build up your gaming library), which is essentially plug and play.

Keep in mind, the digital libraries of modern consoles are getting bigger and bigger, and they're starting to offer sales too. I see the PC/console game price difference decreasing as time goes on.

Chozon1 wrote: But if they hold the tech in the games at the same level for both PC and console (as you said earlier), there should be no difference in the highest graphical settings possible on PC (sans the resolution differences, perhaps) and the native console settings. I actually Googled it, and had trouble finding an answer that wasn't obviously skewed one way or the other. I 'spose it's a valid question. But I've never personally seen a ported game that looked noticeably better. The possible exception is Crysis, and I'm giving that the benefit of the doubt, since I haven't compared them side by side. Different, sure. But not better.

Maybe I should've been a little clearer. What I was saying is that most developers aren't going to pull a Crysis-- where you have to buy a new computer just to play the thing. Developers are going to keep the games pretty consistent. But a game might be "optimized" for the PC since they can handle it. And we know several games are optimized for specific brand of video cards, such as ATI or NVidia. So my point was that even though I don't play my game at "max" settings, I still play it at pretty high settings which are probably good enough for what the consoles can handle. Especially since my computer's hardware is comparable to what the 360 and PS3 have.

Chozon1 wrote:And see, the money you spend upgrading your PC, I spend on games. Even if you upgrade once a year, or less than that, it's still tacking on money that I, as a console gamer, will never have to spend. That too, decreases the bang for your buck you get from Steam sales, and though I will not be doing mathematics at this hour, sort of equalizes the fact I have to spend more on games over the lifetime of my console.

Except the whole point of my argument that this idea of always having to upgrade your computer every year is a thing of the past (by the simple rule of developers only making one game for three systems). And my computer is living proof of that. I bought my computer in 2007 and the video card I got was released that same year (NVidia 8800 GT). So in practicality I have not had to get new hardware since I bought my computer at the start of this previous console generation (360/PS3).

LAVA89 wrote:Maybe I should've been a little clearer. What I was saying is that most developers aren't going to pull a Crysis-- where you have to buy a new computer just to play the thing. Developers are going to keep the games pretty consistent. But a game might be "optimized" for the PC since they can handle it. And we know several games are optimized for specific brand of video cards, such as ATI or NVidia. So my point was that even though I don't play my game at "max" settings, I still play it at pretty high settings which are probably good enough for what the consoles can handle. Especially since my computer's hardware is comparable to what the 360 and PS3 have.

Actually, when a PC and game console have the exact same specs, the console will always look better. The PC has background tasks and a different architecture, whereas the game console is basically a graphics card glued to some RAM and a chip. I'm reasonably certain about this, since I questioned once how a PC with double the specs still couldn't handle a game the OG box played flawlessly, and received that answer. You need better specs than a console. I mean, when you actually look at a 360's specs, they;re sorta puny.

Still, we're hitting the wall where you're paying more for "probably good enough" as to what a cheaper console can handle. Optimized or not, and I've yet to see a console game that looked better ported to PC, a PC gamer is still not guaranteed max settings unless they have super "I'm Sorry I can't do that Dave" hardware. I am.

Is it fair to say that my max settings are equal to your less than max? Maybe. But that's not my point.

LAVA89 wrote:Except the whole point of my argument that this idea of always having to upgrade your computer every year is a thing of the past (by the simple rule of developers only making one game for three systems). And my computer is living proof of that. I bought my computer in 2007 and the video card I got was released that same year (NVidia 8800 GT). So in practicality I have not had to get new hardware since I bought my computer at the start of this previous console generation (360/PS3).

But now your $900-$1200 computer has another $100-$300 tacked onto it, depending on what card you're buying. Not including if you need to upgrade RAM, or your CPU. That's still 2-3 times as much as a console. Even with Steam savings (and the generally cheaper price of PC games), consoles are still cheaper. Because that money doesn't include games.

I would also not call that idea a thing of the past. Not even sorta. Especially considering you've already admitted you don't play games at their max. Some people won't accept that. XD

Chozon1 wrote:But now your $900-$1200 computer has another $100-$300 tacked onto it, depending on what card you're buying. Not including if you need to upgrade RAM, or your CPU. That's still 2-3 times as much as a console. Even with Steam savings (and the generally cheaper price of PC games), consoles are still cheaper. Because that money doesn't include games.

I would also not call that idea a thing of the past. Not even sorta. Especially considering you've already admitted you don't play games at their max. Some people won't accept that. XD

Not even sorta? Well to be playing current, graphically enhanced games at near max settings with tech that was released 7 years ago is still a testament to how much the tech climate has changed.

For sake of argument, I'll accept that PC's are going to be more expensive than consoles to boil things down to my original point, which was to dispute this notion of "continuous upgrades". So in a nutshell if you buy plan and buy smart when you get a new computer, you won't need to upgrade your computer until the consoles do.

I'm not sure I see the connection as to how the climate has changed. PC games have (almost. There's always a Crysis. ) always been designed with a wide spectrum of possible settings so as to make more money. That's why games have custom settings, so people like me who don't buy computers frequently can still purchase and play them, albeit at a lower setting.

Also consider that, at the point where I'm spending perhaps $200 more than you (comparatively) to buy an upgraded console, I will still have spent quite a bit less on those two consoles than a single PC, sans games. And I'll be playing them at their max level, with plug and play reliability, with a controller. Which is why I cannot ever accede that PC gaming is better or cheaper than console gaming (with the obvious exceptions of strategy games, because I mean, come on, there's no playing those on consoles). Plus, my computer melted. I haven't had that happen to a console or a handheld yet. Even my 360 ran flawlessly.

Finally, here is a series of random percentages:

67%

62%

99909n%

12%

As you can clearly see, they support my point entirely. >_>

Chozon1 wrote:I'm not sure I see the connection as to how the climate has changed

You mentioned having to upgrade a PC all of the time, which was a valid complaint pre-2005. But as I have illustrated in the entirety of this conversation, I have not had to upgrade to newer technology once with this previous generation, which tells me that if I shelled out a little more bit more money back in 2007 (since for sake of argument, I had agreed that PC's have more expensive hardware), I could be playing those same games at max settings, without any additional hardware purchases.

Chozon1 wrote: I haven't had that happen to a console or a handheld yet. Even my 360 ran flawlessly.

Well if you agree that we should avoid the can of worms of comparing PC vs console as a whole, then I will avoid bringing up red ring of death and yellow light

I see consoles and PC having their strengths and weaknesses. So I'm just questioning a commonly held stereotype of modern PC gaming.

LAVA89 wrote:You mentioned having to upgrade a PC all of the time, which was a valid complaint pre-2005. But as I have illustrated in the entirety of this conversation, I have not had to upgrade to newer technology once with this previous generation, which tells me that if I shelled out a little more bit more money back in 2007 (since for sake of argument, I had agreed that PC's have more expensive hardware), I could be playing those same games at max settings, without any additional hardware purchases.

Yes. But as I've pointed out and you've said, because you're not playing those games on max, you'd have to upgrade more often if you wanted to. If you want to play games, and accept that as time goes by you'll have to lower your graphical standards, point halfway conceded. You don't have to upgrade your PC every year. Just every 5-7 years with the next generation of consoles.

But then, that's pretty much what I said. "Your gaming PC will be current for maybe a year". Which is true. Unless you're willing to drop your graphics level. New tech comes out every year or so.

But, I'll remind you, as a console gamer, I'd never have to do that. I play games at max settings no matter when they're released.

LAVA89 wrote:Well if you agree that we should avoid the can of worms of comparing PC vs console as a whole, then I will avoid bringing up red ring of death and yellow light

Go ahead, bring it up. We'll get down to the nitty gritty, as Nacho Libre says. I'll counter with M$ stellar warranty, the fact that they fixed the issue with the second generation, and that the yellow light was people not plugging their power supply in all the way. Try finding a company that'll replace your custom built PC with a single phone call (and then tell me about them, so I might shop there).

That said, I hope you don't mind my bringing up the fact that you can (literally, no exaggeration) fry your $300 GFx card by touching it (not to mention every other PC component), the fact that PC games don't always run natively, and the fact they crash frequently, and the fact you pay twice as much for 360 level graphics than you do for a 360.

Incidentally, the only reason I'm online at the moment is because my PC version of KotOR II crashed. XD Irony, perhaps. There goes 30 minutes of quest time.

Chozon1 wrote: But then, that's pretty much what I said. "Your gaming PC will be current for maybe a year". Which is true. Unless you're willing to drop your graphics level. New tech comes out every year or so.

No my point was that, I don't play games at max because I never bought a "max" computer to begin with. Your point would be valid if I had a bought a top of the line computer back in 2007 and I STILL couldn't match what the later games were putting out. My computer is more beefed up than what a soccer mom would need to play Farmville, but its no gaming PC, even by 2007's standards. I didn't even get a standard CPU (by then quad cores were the new thing) at the time nor video card (Geforce 8800 GTX is already a step up). A few extra hundred bucks back in 2007 would've allowed me go to the full level with today's games.

So this is how the climate has changed, because before this console generation, not buying a max computer would be technological suicide since even if you could think you got the best computer something better would come out 6 months later and the game developers expected people to keep up. Crysis is a good example of this. Crysis came out the same year I got my computer and my computer can barely do medium settings. If most PC games were like Crysis I would've gotten a new computer by now.

Yet I can play Batman Arkham City, which only came out 3 years ago, on two settings down from max. Which by then its probably just more bump mapping effects and extra anti-aliasing. And mind you that's for better performance; my computer can handle the max settings, it just doesn't run as fast. If I put max setting on Crysis, it would probably crash....or I'd get a blue screen of death or something XD

Chozon1 wrote:Go ahead, bring it up. We'll get down to the nitty gritty, as Nacho Libre says. I'll counter with M$ stellar warranty, the fact that they fixed the issue with the second generation, and that the yellow light was people not plugging their power supply in all the way. Try finding a company that'll replace your custom built PC with a single phone call (and then tell me about them, so I might shop there).

haha, fair enough. Its just that when you talked about your computer melting, the red ring came to mind.

I'm with LAva on this. PC's don't go outdated so quickly. My gaming PC cost me around $1000 around 4 years ago, and with an upgrade to a new graphics card a year ago, I can still run games better than these next gens. I'm still maxing out new games. And I've never bought top of the line.

As for compatibility, I haven't had problems. Between Steam and GOG.com, everything is a breeze. Not only can I play more games, I can play a greater variety. Gaming has never been simpler than it is today. Do any of you guys remember having to spend the first hour or so of a LAN party getting the computers talking to each other?

But yes, it's a bigger financial investment than a console and requires a higher level of technical knowledge, but after a gaming platform, consoles can't even compare. I know I'm sounding like an fanatic of the PC Mustard Race, but I found it to be, in most cases, to be the superior gaming device, even before my gaming PC, when I was using a netbook.

I'll give consoles this, too. Party gaming is better, and it's fun to do some couch multiplayer. You know what my 360 was mainly used for, though? Netflix.

Yeah PCs don't get outdated very quickly anymore. I got my cheap $250 HP laptop about 9 months ago, and it was already outdated when I got it because it's a cheap laptop. BUT it runs everything I've ever thrown at it. (Except BF4 Beta, which wouldn't launch for some weird reason.)

I guess the problem is that I've never thrown enough money at it for it to be worth it.

That, and my experiences with PC gaming have always been terrible. PC gaming never let's me down, in the fact that it always let's me down. XD I had great fun when I had a graphics card (after I got it working, which was not a simple procedure. Granted, I didn't know a lot about computers then...), and I was ready to put more money into a PC and less into consoles, and then the computer blew up. Twice. And I realized my SNES and Genesis from a decade earlier worked the same they did as when I bought them. And my PS1...and my Xbox...heck, even the N64 I bought second hand works fine even now.

Add in the constant problems I have with the games (Steam has helped, granted. But even then, if I don't like a game I purchase, that money is never going to be recouped), and I'd rather update a console every 6 years.

And still spend less than you guys. /partingshot