General Games Discussion

The way I see it, the argument for getting a computer is that it's simply more powerful. It can run most games on graphical settings that are higher than what the max quality settings on consoles are capped at, and often times you even have the option of higher FPS. I will always prefer a mouse and keyboard, but that's just my personal preference. It's just a better experience, in general. And of course, a computer can be used for other things than just gaming. It's also much easier to find cheap games on sale for PC compared to consoles. You can even pirate them, if you're willing to risk doing so. Oh, and mods. Mods add a huge amount of content to certain games.

Consoles are typically cheaper, have more of a plug and play appeal to them in the sense that you don't need to worry about keeping up with the ever evolving computer specs and requirements, or even having any knowledge about what those specs mean. One thing I like about playing on my console, is that I can lay down on my couch while doing so, as opposed to sitting in a chair. I think Harmonica argued that you can simply plug the PC up to your TV, but my girlfriend would absolutely not have accepted that.

I personally think that the best argument for consoles is that they have exclusive games that aren't available on PC. Also, this may be a subjective opinion, but I appreciate the fact that I can watch sports with friends on my TV, and then seamlessly switch over to my recently acquired PS5 to play FIFA. I should probably mention that consoles are much more convenient when it comes to playing with multiple people in the same room as well. Some of my most immersive gaming experiences are on PC, but my most memorable, social moments were in games like, Guitar Hero, FIFA and Call of Duty where we were playing in the same room on a console. Hell, I'd add games like wii bowling to that list. It's not necessarily better, but definitely a different experience compared to having a LAN party where everyone brings their own computers

That was a great post from Thimmy.

If you go the console route, would you just not get a new PC/laptop?

yes i would simply do that @elitedam

Thimmy wrote:you don't need to worry about keeping up with the ever evolving computer specs and requirements, or even having any knowledge about what those specs mean.

how much of a problem is this really? how fast do the standards change for pc games and how often would you have to update your specs?

PC specs evolve constantly, it never stops as there are always new generations of CPUs, GPUs, etc.

I've done that, can't be bothered anymore. Nothing beats the convenience of buying a console, plugging it to the TV and knowing that I won't have to care about specs, performance, or compatibility again. It's way cheaper as well.

In the end it depends on the kind of games you will want to play. Some genres are better played on console and some on PC. The big one that I miss not having a gaming PC at the moment are strategy games.

thanks rincon

tbh i am leaning towards the gaming PC mostly just because i have never had one before, and you know, you only live once... so at least i'd like to try out the experience once. Also, Steam looks like a treasure chest of games, bargains and gaming opportunity. So yea, just to at least try it out. If after a year or two, I get bored of it and can't be bothered to update my specs, at least I'll have a powerful computer to try out other stuff like video editing, Adobe illustration or whatever i'm interested in at the time.

My biggest worry is fast internet connection. Here in Namibia data deals are good and mostly stable, but the network speed not as fast as first world countries. How much will that limit me on platforms such as Steam? Can you download and install a game to your Steam library and not use as much data as you would playing online multiplayer?

Definitely gaming PC if you can spend little more. Unlimited amount of games from any era, and you'll only lose the PS exclusives as Xbox games are all on PC I think. Only PS exclusive I've ever wanted to play is Grand Tourismo, so for me console makes no sense, just for that.

Also you can't mod games on PS like on PC. I just finished nth Oblivion playthrough with 100 new mods, and it was again a completely different experience. With mods you can extend your favorite games life pretty much forever, or as long as mods are developed to it. I mean Daggerfall after realeasing on Unity Engine, is now exploding on modding scene, and has better experience than ever before. Now that modpacks are thing on Nexus, it's also easier than ever to mod games with few clicks.

On Steam you can pause your download, and resume when ever so slow speed shouldn't be that much of a problem. And when you've downloaded it, you only download updates.

I prefer consoles purely for gaming but if you really want to try out PC gaming then you should do it. Mods, more discounts and piracy are decent options and obviously you can do much more other stuff on a PC. You can also buy a pad and plug it into the PC to get the console experience as well if you feel like it

I've had consoles pretty much my whole life, PC only for low size games but always wanted a powerful PC. I guess you always want what you dont have as in the grass is always greener

yea i love the PlayStation controller, so i'll probably just get one too to play my games. Never tried mouse and keyboard on advanced games, i guess i could always try, but i don't know... think i'll just find it awkward

Starfield has already over 200k lines of dialogue, compared to Skyrim 60k and FO4 111k. With 1000 planets, space ship and base building, and modders it's going to be the best sandbox ever for rpg's.

Except its still running on Bethesda's same but slighly upgraded engine with its clunky face animations, bland combat and dubious design flaws.

I have a strong feeling this game won't hold up to today's standards, it'll probably get mid reviews (7ish)

What are todays standards? Bethesda "sandbox" rpg's don't really have any competition. KCD/Witcher/Cyberclunky are story based without real mod support, Elex is pretty sandboxy, but without mods. Pretty much every person that understands how game engines work, say that Bethesda shouldn't swap its engine, or they will lose the core of their games. Dynamism and modding. Now this wont stop surface reviewers complaing about it, but who cares about modern reviewers anyway?

Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord Coming To Consoles October 25

https://www.thegamer.com/mount-blade-2-bannerlord-consoles/

Can't wait this to leave EA

Kaladin wrote:Except its still running on Bethesda's same but slighly upgraded engine with its clunky face animations, bland combat and dubious design flaws.

I have a strong feeling this game won't hold up to today's standards, it'll probably get mid reviews (7ish)

Honestly that's perfectly okay because their games are really fun to play. FO4 was clunky too but i could spend hours on it as they really do well with world building.

Been reading about UE5 and all of its hype, it does seem that it doesn't support dynamic items in the world. At least without modifying them in, so again there still isn't anything truly better out there. And this brings me on the story of the rake. People will say W3 looks better than Skyrim (vanilla), and those same people will make a conclusion based on that its a better game partly because of it.

They are however missing a critical immersion component in the engine. While in Witcher 3 the world is completely static, like rakes you find in the closets are just virtual rakes. You can't do anything with them, you can't see them other than in your inventory. They're basically just an ingame currency. There's no immersion in that. While in Bethesda games every item can be a dynamic item in the world, you can pick the rake up, throw it away on the ground, kick it, build a wall from them and so on. That has been in the Creation Engine since Oblivion 2006. Looking Starfield and UE5 demos, I would never swap dynamic immersion to slightly better fidelity, not in rpg's. In rpg immersion is the most important thing.

So apparently bad animations, uncanny valley effect, glitches and just outdated graphics make it an engine for experts cause augmentations.

UE5 engine blows it out of the water. Bethesda games make interesting worlds but their engine is so behind is kills the immersion.

Harmonica wrote:Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord Coming To Consoles October 25

https://www.thegamer.com/mount-blade-2-bannerlord-consoles/

Can't wait this to leave EA

First one was very underrated.

Arquitecto wrote:So apparently bad animations, uncanny valley effect, glitches and just outdated graphics make it an engine for experts cause augmentations.

UE5 engine blows it out of the water. Bethesda games make interesting worlds but their engine is so behind is kills the immersion.

Gameplay fidelity in the UE5 Matrix demo actually looks worse than in Starfield. https://youtu.be/2KU8AWuAaHE?t=745

Please show me better ingame character animations in rpg's than what's in Starfield demo. And no cinematic animations, but ingame animation. Because unlike most, in Creation Engine you can actually walk to an npc and talk to it ingame.