- Status
I want PC and Console game market to rebound so that my favorite game can be released constantly.
[citation][nom]bv90andy[/nom]That is REALLY far fetched... unless some battery revolution finally decides to come about, they won't implement anything on that scale. And then there's the part where it's getting harder and harder to build smaller transistors...[/citation]
have it docked, and battery life is no longer an issue.
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]I prefer Uber high end PC gaming it owns every outdated console there is. Nintendo really, lol. If your 10 thats great news, for us adults that take gaming online and in general seriously hands down PC is where its at! 2560 x 1600 res, 2 x gtx 590s in sli, 16gb ddr3, i7 2600 @ 4.6 ghz 8 cores. Please next story..[/citation]
1000
1500
200
300
those are raw numbers of what you just described, without going into other details like the psu and so on. i honestly dont believe games should be built with sli or crossfire in mind, compatible yes, but not thinking that you need it to play the game. and should be built with a 1920x1080 resolution, and the highest end single gpu (not dual in 1 slot) as the high end with no aa filtering at all.
after than, if you want a higher res and blow that much money on more gpu, you get a smoother game play at a higher resolution with more bells and whistles, like higher framerates, more aa, and such. but it should never be "you need this to run the game at max"
the idea of building for the future of gameing needs to die, because you cant always bruteforce a game into better performance, look how long it took crysis to be playable. devs should be forced to make games for single gpus, and if they want to push the envelope, code the game better, want an example, look at consoles. the first generation of 360, or ps3 games, compared to even the worst of what we have now. just imagine, if it wasnt for consoles, how many games would be developed like crysis, where graphics over what a normal pc can do.
here is what i want a gaming pc to be considered as. a quad core cpu, intel/amd, doesn't really matter in gaming, 10% more frame rate isnt enough to say you need an intel system.
the core computer, as in everything but the gpu, should cost about 500$ and the gpu is the gaming premium, and that is about 300-400$
anything more than that should be considered an overkill gaming rig, just so people don't get confused, like so many are now.
have it docked, and battery life is no longer an issue.
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]I prefer Uber high end PC gaming it owns every outdated console there is. Nintendo really, lol. If your 10 thats great news, for us adults that take gaming online and in general seriously hands down PC is where its at! 2560 x 1600 res, 2 x gtx 590s in sli, 16gb ddr3, i7 2600 @ 4.6 ghz 8 cores. Please next story..[/citation]
1000
1500
200
300
those are raw numbers of what you just described, without going into other details like the psu and so on. i honestly dont believe games should be built with sli or crossfire in mind, compatible yes, but not thinking that you need it to play the game. and should be built with a 1920x1080 resolution, and the highest end single gpu (not dual in 1 slot) as the high end with no aa filtering at all.
after than, if you want a higher res and blow that much money on more gpu, you get a smoother game play at a higher resolution with more bells and whistles, like higher framerates, more aa, and such. but it should never be "you need this to run the game at max"
the idea of building for the future of gameing needs to die, because you cant always bruteforce a game into better performance, look how long it took crysis to be playable. devs should be forced to make games for single gpus, and if they want to push the envelope, code the game better, want an example, look at consoles. the first generation of 360, or ps3 games, compared to even the worst of what we have now. just imagine, if it wasnt for consoles, how many games would be developed like crysis, where graphics over what a normal pc can do.
here is what i want a gaming pc to be considered as. a quad core cpu, intel/amd, doesn't really matter in gaming, 10% more frame rate isnt enough to say you need an intel system.
the core computer, as in everything but the gpu, should cost about 500$ and the gpu is the gaming premium, and that is about 300-400$
anything more than that should be considered an overkill gaming rig, just so people don't get confused, like so many are now.
[citation][nom]Azimuth01[/nom]"and you are nuts if anyone is going to take a smartphone seriously as a game system. all smartphones are good for are time waster games like paper toss"Really? Between Android and iOS market market penetration is more then Xbox and PS3 could ever hope for in their wiliest wet dreams. Processor power and graphics on the highest end tabs and phones are just barely behind the current consoles. It's just a matter of time.10 years ago no one would admit that an MP3 player could ever replace the 300 disc CD carousel....today you can't find one, but Ipod docks are everywhere.[/citation]
people dont care about quality of the sound, which is sad. if you look just at sound quality, the cd should have never died.
[citation][nom]carlhenry[/nom]sorry but wow, a lot of pc fanatics here cheering for consoles to die to get a thumbs up.dude, get a life.i'm a pc gamer myself but consoles give us the opportunity to play straight on.[/citation]
its like they forgot how often pc games required you to upgrade, and even than, not be able to play at the max setting because the developers designed the game for the future and it would be brute force rendered, instead of writing the code better. im hoping crysis is the last game like that.
the pc needs consoles, because they force developers to code games better. and for every game the console screws (oblivion) they make so many more better because of the restrictions.
people dont care about quality of the sound, which is sad. if you look just at sound quality, the cd should have never died.
[citation][nom]carlhenry[/nom]sorry but wow, a lot of pc fanatics here cheering for consoles to die to get a thumbs up.dude, get a life.i'm a pc gamer myself but consoles give us the opportunity to play straight on.[/citation]
its like they forgot how often pc games required you to upgrade, and even than, not be able to play at the max setting because the developers designed the game for the future and it would be brute force rendered, instead of writing the code better. im hoping crysis is the last game like that.
the pc needs consoles, because they force developers to code games better. and for every game the console screws (oblivion) they make so many more better because of the restrictions.
robertito
Distinguished
- Dec 23, 2007
- 29
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]people dont care about quality of the sound, which is sad. if you look just at sound quality, the cd should have never died.[/citation]
Not true, even an audiophile can't tell the difference between a VBR0 cd rip and the actual thing. Even V2 or 3 is more than acceptable for the common listener as the resulting compression is minimal and, for the most part, limited to the extreme high and low end.
Not true, even an audiophile can't tell the difference between a VBR0 cd rip and the actual thing. Even V2 or 3 is more than acceptable for the common listener as the resulting compression is minimal and, for the most part, limited to the extreme high and low end.
[citation][nom]robertito[/nom]Not true, even an audiophile can't tell the difference between a VBR0 cd rip and the actual thing. Even V2 or 3 is more than acceptable for the common listener as the resulting compression is minimal and, for the most part, limited to the extreme high and low end.[/citation]
except when the extreme high and low are in there, even if you cant hear them, you can still preceve them
but the point is that most people are ok with a 128bit mp3, because they never had good headphones to hear what a flac or the cd itself sounds like.
after i learned the basics of sound encoding and such, i stopped reading more, this was a long time ago, so im not sure if i ever heard a VBR0 encoding.
except when the extreme high and low are in there, even if you cant hear them, you can still preceve them
but the point is that most people are ok with a 128bit mp3, because they never had good headphones to hear what a flac or the cd itself sounds like.
after i learned the basics of sound encoding and such, i stopped reading more, this was a long time ago, so im not sure if i ever heard a VBR0 encoding.
zak_mckraken
Distinguished
- Jan 16, 2004
- 868
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]people dont care about quality of the sound, which is sad. if you look just at sound quality, the cd should have never died.[/citation]
The vinyl should have bever died.
The vinyl should have bever died.
The problem with consoles is that MS/Sony is trying to get more years out of them instead of going to the five year cycle. People want new shiny toys, even though they might bitch and moan about purchasing it. Get the new consoles out and have compelling software behind it and it will sell.
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]fand you are nuts if anyone is going to take a smartphone seriously as a game system. all smartphones are good for are time waster games like paper toss[/citation]
Console lifetime 38 years
Smartphone lifetime 18 years
Consoles have a full 20 years of development over smartphones, yet the smartphone has all of the functionality of the console. Graphics wise the console is well beyond dominate and will hold an advantage as long as game developers develop for PC/Console hardware. This will not always be the case as NVidia has dedicated resources just to smartphone development. As phone become more and more powerful they will replace handheld game consoles and are a easy sync to your TV away from competing with your game console. Consoles are also at a disadvantage because they currently rely on PC development to get the latest greatest components down to the size and heat requirements the console makers demand. Like PC developers smartphone developers start with a form factor and build from the ground up, not having to adapt relevant technology so much as create relevant technology. The smartphones biggest disadvantage is the battery, crossing the barrier of lets say 10 hours of full use (ie gaming) will push the versatility of the smartphone beyond that of a console.
Console lifetime 38 years
Smartphone lifetime 18 years
Consoles have a full 20 years of development over smartphones, yet the smartphone has all of the functionality of the console. Graphics wise the console is well beyond dominate and will hold an advantage as long as game developers develop for PC/Console hardware. This will not always be the case as NVidia has dedicated resources just to smartphone development. As phone become more and more powerful they will replace handheld game consoles and are a easy sync to your TV away from competing with your game console. Consoles are also at a disadvantage because they currently rely on PC development to get the latest greatest components down to the size and heat requirements the console makers demand. Like PC developers smartphone developers start with a form factor and build from the ground up, not having to adapt relevant technology so much as create relevant technology. The smartphones biggest disadvantage is the battery, crossing the barrier of lets say 10 hours of full use (ie gaming) will push the versatility of the smartphone beyond that of a console.
- Sep 6, 2008
- 3,485
- 0
- 20,730
- Status
Facebook
Twitter