The midrange gaming computer I built last year beats the minimum requirements and actually comes pretty close to the recommended ones. There's no way that you could build a PC to play this game with the same dollar budget as a console, but for less than double the budget you could build a PC that smashes those requirements. I love gaming on PC, you get experiences that you just can't have on console and you actually save money over the long term because games are cheaper if you wait a few months for a Steam sale.
Abso-fucking-lutely.
Steam sales save so much money oh my god
I can't believe believe the system requirements for Witcher 3 are that high on PC - or I can, it's going to look beautiful, but it's not going to translate to console. If stuff like COD:AW and Battlefield 4 can't run at 60fps at 1080p on console, Witcher 3 is going to run like absolute shit from a butt.
"Gamers don't want 60fps anyways, movies only play in 27fps and look how smooth they are"
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
When Dragon Age Inquisiotn was on the horizon, my wife and I looked at the minimums and recommends for the PC version
we looked at the specs on our current PCs
looked at the costs of upgrades
...and just turned in our 360s and bought two Xbox Ones instead and it was a fuck ton less money.
I just got the 360 version. I just bought a WiiU, no way I'm going to get another console.
I have to admit, the "turned in our 360s" hurt me in the brainparts. I thought the Xbone isn't backwards compatible? So you can't play any of your 360 games again? No one last spin around a favorite RPG? No getting some DLC for a game during the slow months? No hopping in multiplayer with some friends, no picking up a few missed 360 classics you never got around to? eeee.....
Not judging you here, but I never had the capacity to do that. Hell, the only reason I don't still have an NES and SNES is my brother claimed them. Well, and they were barely working. I still have my PS2 up on my backup TV, and it gets semi-regular use.
Turned em in, with all the games since there's no reason to have the games as the system isn't backwards compatible.
I am neither nostalgic nor materialistic, nor do I have a large amount of disposable income. Things that have a resale value that I'm not using that are just taking up space? I've no room in my life for.
Many years ago I realized for some reason, I had moved residences four times as a grown man while taking my comic book collection with me each time. Several longboxes just... taking up space, that I never read, never display, never really think about until I move and have to account for "oh yeah, my comics..."
So I sold them, and not on eBay or something for anywhere near their actual worth as collector's items. I found the closest used book store that would buy the bulk of them for anything and I got less than a hundred bucks for about twenty years worth of comics.
And I didn't care because they were just pointless totems of my past that I had no use for, and I had neither the time nor inclination for getting what they'd be worth to comic book nerds.
If I couldn't have gotten anything from them or found somewhere to donate them, I would've thrown them out.
I have such a deep, deep backlog of PC games and now I'm getting games for my One, the idea of going "Yeah, I should totally just start playing Saints Row 2!" on a 360 is just something that'll never happen.
I just went through this with Dragon Age: Inquisition, where I found after the lengthy download that my computer had no shot at even launching the game. That was a kick in the teeth.
My computer barely runs Civilization V.
*Barely*
To give you an idea, I need to set aside 45 minutes to start the game. Then 30 minutes to load my save or get a new game started or whatever. Based on this, and other examples, as much as I would like to play Dragon Age Inquisition or The Witcher, it's just not happening on my computer ever.
What the heck are you trying to run it on? It should not be taking that long to load Civ V. Even the stock HP Compaq DC 7900 my dad has hooked up to his TV doesn't take that long to load Civ V.
The system requirements are odd. On one hand you have the ~ 2008 Phenom II in minimum system requirements and then you have the 2011 Intel i5 in the same bracket. The i5 3570 is performance wise about the same as the Sandy bridge predecessor i5 2500 only more power efficient. The 3770 is a wee more powerful and has additionally 4 logic cores due to HT - But unless The Witcher 3 is juggling serious multithreaded processes around I don't see a benefit. Most games are hardly using 4 cores, many are stuck with using 2 at most.
Never understood the idea behind "I'm an [x] gamer."
It's the same as saying "I don't play certain games."
That's... nice? Not sure why people limit what they play.
The midrange gaming computer I built last year beats the minimum requirements and actually comes pretty close to the recommended ones. There's no way that you could build a PC to play this game with the same dollar budget as a console, but for less than double the budget you could build a PC that smashes those requirements. I love gaming on PC, you get experiences that you just can't have on console and you actually save money over the long term because games are cheaper if you wait a few months for a Steam sale.
I love how PC gamers think publishers will continue to invest millions in new PC games, when even those who are willing to pay(instead of pirating) will only do so months after a games release, and only if it's been reduced...
The midrange gaming computer I built last year beats the minimum requirements and actually comes pretty close to the recommended ones. There's no way that you could build a PC to play this game with the same dollar budget as a console, but for less than double the budget you could build a PC that smashes those requirements. I love gaming on PC, you get experiences that you just can't have on console and you actually save money over the long term because games are cheaper if you wait a few months for a Steam sale.
I love how PC gamers think publishers will continue to invest millions in new PC games, when even those who are willing to pay(instead of pirating) will only do so months after a games release, and only if it's been reduced...
The midrange gaming computer I built last year beats the minimum requirements and actually comes pretty close to the recommended ones. There's no way that you could build a PC to play this game with the same dollar budget as a console, but for less than double the budget you could build a PC that smashes those requirements. I love gaming on PC, you get experiences that you just can't have on console and you actually save money over the long term because games are cheaper if you wait a few months for a Steam sale.
I love how PC gamers think publishers will continue to invest millions in new PC games, when even those who are willing to pay(instead of pirating) will only do so months after a games release, and only if it's been reduced...
And yet, they still make enough money to continue to make them. With Steam I don't have any reason to pirate anything. If I absolutely must have a game at release, well then I'll pay the money. But I have a huge backlog of games I have yet to play, let alone finish. So when those fancy games get discounted to a point where I think to myself "wow, at that price I can't afford not to buy it..." then I buy it. And promptly put it in the back of my Steam library and forget about it. So they end up getting money that they would never otherwise have gotten because I would never have paid full price for it since I always have more games than I can play.
Frankly I don't much care for those games with $100+ million budgets anyway. I've been having way more fun with indie titles for the past 5 years or so. There are a few big budget titles that I'm excited for (most of them come from Firaxis or CD Projekt Red) but mostly I've been having a blast with indie sandbox games and old school RPGs.
As (apparently) a console gamer, I am sure that you think that the only thing that is worth pursuing with better hardware is more graphical fidelity. But, what is really best pursued by better hardware is more fully realized worlds and more player control over the world. I paid $15 (full price) for Space Engineers, and I've already sunk more than 100 hours into it. It taxes my gaming rig something fierce because I have been building fully functioning mobile space boundaries and carriers and battleships that rival the size of the real ones roaming the liquid seas of our Earth instead of the vast inky sea of space.
Yeah, and it's doing really well these days. Publishers are falling over each other to invest in PC only exclusive triple-A games like Half-life 3!
But then they would, if it wasn't for 'consoles holding back PC games', because we all know what Publishers really want is to invest in new games that can only be played on the smallest number of machines, owned by the largest number of game pirates. Now there's a working business model for you! (this message was brought to you by the letters s,a,r,c,a,s and m)
I never understand these conversations; all platforms have pros and cons. Just play on what you want. I understand that people want to justify their choices to themselves but they don't need to belittle others to do it.(This is just a general statement and not directed at anyone) I own a decent gaming PC and all consoles except a WiiU and X-Box One(Which I will get when they release games I want and can't get elsewhere i.e. Zelda) I mostly prefer playing on console and I recognize that the games won't always run as smoothly or look as nice. But, for the most part they will run and I don't have to buy a new GPU. Basically, "Can't we all get along?"
Also, I don't believe consoles are holding back PC games from reaching their maximum potential.(that probably 1% of PC owners could utilize) That honor belongs to low-end PCs, publishers want to reach the largest audience possible, so they will never make games that just run on uber machines.
Also I like that the industry seems to be drifting away from graphics as the benchmark of "Next-Gen" gaming. They are instead doing new things with A.I. and procedural generation and such. I want to see what all that new power can do without focusing so much of it on shiny textures.(Even if the textures do look really nice)
Yeah, and it's doing really well these days. Publishers are falling over each other to invest in PC only exclusive triple-A games like Half-life 3!
But then they would, if it wasn't for 'consoles holding back PC games', because we all know what Publishers really want is to invest in new games that can only be played on the smallest number of machines, owned by the largest number of game pirates. Now there's a working business model for you! (this message was brought to you by the letters s,a,r,c,a,s and m)
Now at last we know why Half-life 3 hasn't come out after all this time - Poor, desperate, struggling, cash-strapped Valve can't attract interest from a publisher! It was so obvious, why didn't we think of it before?
Also, I don't believe consoles are holding back PC games from reaching their maximum potential.(that probably 1% of PC owners could utilize) That honor belongs to low-end PCs, publishers want to reach the largest audience possible, so they will never make games that just run on uber machines.
The argument there is that while the low end PC market is a factor it's no where near as monolithic as the console market. So while 'can it run on low end PC's' is a factor in designing stuff 'can it run on a console and with a controller for inputs' is a much bigger one.
I honestly don't care either way because some of the best stuff on PC is indy stuff where it's not hardware that's the freedom but the lack of publishers and need to make texas$ to break even.
"Now at last we know why Half-life 3 hasn't come out after all this time - Poor, desperate, struggling, cash-strapped Valve can't attract interest from a publisher! It was so obvious, why didn't we think of it before?"
Valve have more than enough money to finance development on Half Life 3 themselves(where on earth do you get the idea they need a publisher? Maybe you're new to PC gaming?), they're just not stupid enough to throw all that money away on a game that wont sell enough to make that money back...
The minimum requirements look fairly doable. I mean, my new computer cost me less than 800 bucks, and that with spending a good 120 on a fancy case (R4 Fractal Design may be expensive and huge, but boy does it make it a pleasure to build something inside it), and the only reason it doesn't hit the Recommendeds cleanly is processor, and that by a hair (i5 4690 vs i7 3770).
On the other hand, I lasted less than 20 minutes playing Witcher 2 before going back to Dark Souls, so, *shrug*.
I played the Witcher 2 for 20 minutes better giving up on it. This button uses your steel sword. This one uses your silver sword. This one your bomb. This one your smoke bomb. This one your throwing knife. This one your shuriken. This one.... .... ..... ..... Then 30 buttons later, this one is for blowing your nose, and this one for folding the napkin after. Now here is a fight 10 minutes into the game where you are expected to remember all of this instantly and beat a fight you cannot if you do not.
It's like being dropped into say WoW at max level never having played it and being told to do some high rep brawler guild thing before you can really even start the game.
Posts
Abso-fucking-lutely.
Steam sales save so much money oh my god
I can't believe believe the system requirements for Witcher 3 are that high on PC - or I can, it's going to look beautiful, but it's not going to translate to console. If stuff like COD:AW and Battlefield 4 can't run at 60fps at 1080p on console, Witcher 3 is going to run like absolute shit from a butt.
"Gamers don't want 60fps anyways, movies only play in 27fps and look how smooth they are"
Turned em in, with all the games since there's no reason to have the games as the system isn't backwards compatible.
I am neither nostalgic nor materialistic, nor do I have a large amount of disposable income. Things that have a resale value that I'm not using that are just taking up space? I've no room in my life for.
Many years ago I realized for some reason, I had moved residences four times as a grown man while taking my comic book collection with me each time. Several longboxes just... taking up space, that I never read, never display, never really think about until I move and have to account for "oh yeah, my comics..."
So I sold them, and not on eBay or something for anywhere near their actual worth as collector's items. I found the closest used book store that would buy the bulk of them for anything and I got less than a hundred bucks for about twenty years worth of comics.
And I didn't care because they were just pointless totems of my past that I had no use for, and I had neither the time nor inclination for getting what they'd be worth to comic book nerds.
If I couldn't have gotten anything from them or found somewhere to donate them, I would've thrown them out.
I have such a deep, deep backlog of PC games and now I'm getting games for my One, the idea of going "Yeah, I should totally just start playing Saints Row 2!" on a 360 is just something that'll never happen.
I love the comic shown above. It basically exists solely for the wordplay.
-Tycho Brahe
What the heck are you trying to run it on? It should not be taking that long to load Civ V. Even the stock HP Compaq DC 7900 my dad has hooked up to his TV doesn't take that long to load Civ V.
It's the same as saying "I don't play certain games."
That's... nice? Not sure why people limit what they play.
I love how PC gamers think publishers will continue to invest millions in new PC games, when even those who are willing to pay(instead of pirating) will only do so months after a games release, and only if it's been reduced...
PC gaming doomed! ...Details at 11!
And at 11 tomorrow.
And the day after that. And the day after that.
And yet, they still make enough money to continue to make them. With Steam I don't have any reason to pirate anything. If I absolutely must have a game at release, well then I'll pay the money. But I have a huge backlog of games I have yet to play, let alone finish. So when those fancy games get discounted to a point where I think to myself "wow, at that price I can't afford not to buy it..." then I buy it. And promptly put it in the back of my Steam library and forget about it. So they end up getting money that they would never otherwise have gotten because I would never have paid full price for it since I always have more games than I can play.
Frankly I don't much care for those games with $100+ million budgets anyway. I've been having way more fun with indie titles for the past 5 years or so. There are a few big budget titles that I'm excited for (most of them come from Firaxis or CD Projekt Red) but mostly I've been having a blast with indie sandbox games and old school RPGs.
As (apparently) a console gamer, I am sure that you think that the only thing that is worth pursuing with better hardware is more graphical fidelity. But, what is really best pursued by better hardware is more fully realized worlds and more player control over the world. I paid $15 (full price) for Space Engineers, and I've already sunk more than 100 hours into it. It taxes my gaming rig something fierce because I have been building fully functioning mobile space boundaries and carriers and battleships that rival the size of the real ones roaming the liquid seas of our Earth instead of the vast inky sea of space.
Yeah, and it's doing really well these days. Publishers are falling over each other to invest in PC only exclusive triple-A games like Half-life 3!
But then they would, if it wasn't for 'consoles holding back PC games', because we all know what Publishers really want is to invest in new games that can only be played on the smallest number of machines, owned by the largest number of game pirates. Now there's a working business model for you! (this message was brought to you by the letters s,a,r,c,a,s and m)
Also, I don't believe consoles are holding back PC games from reaching their maximum potential.(that probably 1% of PC owners could utilize) That honor belongs to low-end PCs, publishers want to reach the largest audience possible, so they will never make games that just run on uber machines.
Also I like that the industry seems to be drifting away from graphics as the benchmark of "Next-Gen" gaming. They are instead doing new things with A.I. and procedural generation and such. I want to see what all that new power can do without focusing so much of it on shiny textures.(Even if the textures do look really nice)
Now at last we know why Half-life 3 hasn't come out after all this time - Poor, desperate, struggling, cash-strapped Valve can't attract interest from a publisher! It was so obvious, why didn't we think of it before?
The argument there is that while the low end PC market is a factor it's no where near as monolithic as the console market. So while 'can it run on low end PC's' is a factor in designing stuff 'can it run on a console and with a controller for inputs' is a much bigger one.
I honestly don't care either way because some of the best stuff on PC is indy stuff where it's not hardware that's the freedom but the lack of publishers and need to make texas$ to break even.
Valve have more than enough money to finance development on Half Life 3 themselves(where on earth do you get the idea they need a publisher? Maybe you're new to PC gaming?), they're just not stupid enough to throw all that money away on a game that wont sell enough to make that money back...
On the other hand, I lasted less than 20 minutes playing Witcher 2 before going back to Dark Souls, so, *shrug*.
It's like being dropped into say WoW at max level never having played it and being told to do some high rep brawler guild thing before you can really even start the game.