I'm a hardened pc gamer and here is the low down!

Graphics don't make a game.

I can easily fire up cs 1.6 and not have a problem with the graphics. I can fire up bf1942 and find the controls clunky, but no problem with the graphics. Same story with Operation Flashpoint and even Warcraft 3 still fits the bill. Heck the graphics are still amazing in Red Alert 2!

It's not the graphics, it's the amount of power available, ie number of enemies on screen, number of interactions possible (what you can actually do, shutting down in Mechwarrior, good times), complicated landing (yes I want to bring my flaps to 15 degrees by myself thank you like in falcon)!

I call for a new boycott!

Simple games, boycott them!
xD

Sorry mate my view is if a game don't look good then i have little interest in playing it,don't get me wrong i agree with what you are saying regarding some game like counter strike and a few others.

But at the end of the day when you first fire up a new game and you have a well executed intro sequence followed by some amazing looking visuals and outstanding graphics it does help believe you me.

....it's the amount of power available, ie number of enemies on screen....

I agree there. One of the reasons I bought the PS3 was Resistance Fall of Man. I know it wasn't everybodies cup of tea, but there were 3 or four epic battles that had more players/explosions going on than any previous console game. Only problem was it didnt keep up the momentum and left some of the other levels feeling flat.

Great graphics are a pre-requisite for me too, but I love it when developers get the immersion into the battle right. And I don't mind that stealing some of the graphical processing power if they pull it off correctly.

I'm hoping Resistance 3 has some of the same.
.

The developers will follow the largest market share. It�s been an absolute massacre out there recently; firstly the purchasing of the small developing teams then recession and teams cast away in to abyss the remaining sticking to long tested franchises. While the ones in the abyss reinvent and choose platforms that are beginning to dwarf Console and traditional Pc markets, Apple products and alike, there are huge benefits. Even onlive much scoffed is getting more positive reviews I�m sure has the developers hoping for the best and come September it�s here. The cloud is getting bigger, any boycott will be natural progression.

I�m not saying this is the end for Console/PC, however the landscape is much different and larger, in the end they will all follow the largest market share by any means necessary.

Edited by NilSatisOptimum (Sat 27-Aug-11 13:57:04)

Hmmmm. Cloud gaming is the future, but I think it is still along way off. Until everybody has a good enough connection to enjoy the best streamed visuals at the right pace, it won't be a success. If you limit the amount of players you play with on that basis, than that is not really progress. Perhaps if angry birds or tetris is your thing, you might see it differently.

Next gen should be full HD and trying to leap towards the latest PC standards. Until cloud gaming can promise that to a mass audience the take up will be slow. Not that that is a bad thing. Getting it right with early adopters may shape the way it is delivered in the long term.

But for now I will stick to pondering whether I get the PS 4 or the Xbox 720910 or whatever they decide to call it!
.

If you want the best of both worlds because of the exclusive games then you have to buy both the next Playstation and the Xbox, especially if the Microsoft console gets the better game which has happened so often when there is a Multi platform releases.

I love gaming and on many occasions i have thought about getting a serious gaming rig,then i think of the downside to this like sitting in a office upstairs really close to a monitor.then after a few hours getting back ache and restlessness and i much prefer the cozy settee i lay stretched out on with my turtle beach PX5 on a massive LED television and PC gaming then becomes a distant memory..

I had no problems switching from PC gaming to consoles and although i admit that PC gaming on a graphical level is better that is the only reason and there are many more favourable things that for me favour the console.
.

Exactly. And PC's require a little more effort than flicking on a console.

The only thing I really get jealous of is their dedicated servers. My 9ms ping gets me smashed to bits on almost everything I play. I note MW3 get dedi's on the PC.

If I had the time I'd start a petition!
.

I'm not that technical when it comes to Adsl Related issues just enough to get me by,what confuses me regarding your super connection is why you suffer so bad when playing online games with a ping of 7ms.

Obviously there is something that i don't understand and i know on many occasions that you have tried to explain this on recent forum posts..

Basically i thought if you have that sort of connection then your online experience would be great.....................

As for MW3 i do hope they do what Battlefield is doing with the console versions at least ,and that is having a in game server browser to pick the map you want to play.

One thing i hate about MW2 is when you pick a game type and go into the lobby,before it loads you get a indication of what map you are going to play only for it to disappear to something else as soon as you connect...............Hate this as i have to keep coming out and trying half a dozen times until i get to a map i want to play.

You two do realise battlefield games, even on consoles, use dedi's right? Theyre just EA's dedis usually leased off multiplay - hence why BF3 gets a server browser. as did BF2:MC (BC games skipped it in the same of simplicity/obeying the "casual console route" (that being in the sense of what you were discussing of people playing stuff on a console and just flicking it on), its easier to just press a button and hop into a match.

All i can say though is at least BF3 gets an INGAME browser on console, EA and Origin [censored] it up with having to use a webbrowser of all things to get a game, blech, im sure BF3 will be a solid game, truly great to play... but what Origin is doing it is a horrible thing... If i had the person who thought Origin was a good idea to force on people i'd headbutt him i swear.

Edited by deleted (Sun 28-Aug-11 08:54:40)

On dedeicated servers where you pick the ping time closest to your own then yes it is great.

On peer to peer and client hosting it's not as simple. If lag compensation code is applied it changes everything. The industry belief is that it isfairer all around to reduce the advantage of the faster connection. But it is done so badly it doesn't work like that 99 times out of 100. Even when PC modders incorporate it into servers so they can play people with dissimilar connections it causes heated debate. But as long as it works for the majority then it is seen as the greater good.

Many players play in parties which is where the problem begins with the unequal connections. But the matchmaking is so poor on Cod that even mercenary TDM is poor (though much better than party play). Of course if you have huge bandwith and a average ping you will then pull host advantage instead.

Many players out there say the code is fine because they can score 33-4 etc etc. They will never admit they are getting the advantage. Get them on a LAN and watch what happens!
.