Not only that, but they're equal nearly always to the lowest common denominator (the 360...it's not odd PS3 users are also in war against them. They at least have Blu-Ray and 50 gb's of space). There are few devs to dare to do the right thing: the BF3-style (first create the game with PC in mind, THEN dumb it down for consoles...and everybody's happy)

Yeah, but that require the developer to care about PCs and to have the money to put down extra work on the PC.
Do Bethesda care? Not sure, but we do know that Todd personally favour the Xbox 360...
Do Bethesda have the money? Not sure. We don't know their budget :rolleyes:

Question remains unanswered. I asked a similar question in the fan interview thread. Hope it will be answered.

PC gamers, truly, need to get over themselves. Just because PC gaming is somewhat on the rise doesn't mean you're not still completely dwarfed by consoles.

I remember when I was a PC gamer about six or seven years ago. As soon as I upgraded my rig, it would be obsolete. And yet there would still be someone complaining that the next game "should have been optimised for NVIDIA 987 cards instead of these crappy old 986s!"

The fact is, games are getting bigger and better. Your machines may be ahead of the game now, but they won't be forever. So stop complaining.

At first I was like "is that costly and difficult to dumb down textures and other content in order for consoles to move them?", then I realized that it also implies creating state-of-the-art content for PC. So maybe it'd certainly cost a bit more.

On the other hand, true game designers (like Todd claims to be) should always aim to state-of-the-art quality. If games are being considered more "art" with each passing day, I find it....very dissapointing to dumb them down. Or at least not creating a "Master" version of it.



1) Technically yes, but Crytek also "technically" cared...

2) Have you seen their HQ? Those guys swim in dollars (and I'm glad about it).



I've been a PC gamer since my first Pentium 120 (and before that with my Commodore 64). So believe me when I say that if you upgrade your system and it becomes obsolete shortly after that, you choose your upgrade stuff horribly.

Right now I could run Skyrim and Crysis at 1680x1050 at excellent FPS spending only 150 €. And I'm talking about a 3-year old rig.

Actually, if you look at the numbers, PC is only the minority if you compare PC vs Console. If you compare PC vs 360, PC vs PS3, or PC vs Wii, the PC wins every time.

I said consoles IN GENERAL. (PC vs Console) What this topic is practically about. You're completely dwarfed, sorry.

So the right thing is that you MUST have DX11 and WIndows Vista or 7?

Again, if you look at the numbers, the PC is something like 40% of the market. That hardly qualifies as "dwarfed."

Did I said anything about DX in that statement?

And anyway, engines can be scalable, you know. They can support different DX versions, and select them in the Graphics options menu in a similar way you can select texture quality or draw distance.

:facepalm: Why are people so "flamy" about this, almost attack other people? I'm not a mod, but seriously, behave? Is it that hard to have a non-flamy discussion about graphics or technical features on these forums?

yeah i see that floated around all the time. the irony is that if you were going to clunk two groups together it would be PC and 360 vs PS3 vs Wii. 360 is basically a low-low end pc with a minimal OS. everytime im on STEAM there are between 1.5 million and 2.5 million people on. and thats just people who are playing steam games at the time.

just like at the end of the PS2 era, we are getting to the point of people migrating from consoles to PCs again. after seeing how my games look and play especially with mods available ive gotten a few of my friends to switch over to PC for some types of games and one of them is getting a new PC next month in anticipation of BF3 when he found out it was going to be developed to take advantage of high end PC power. hes a bit obsessed with anything battlefield.

alot of PC exclusives are coming out soon as well. someone posted a long list but the one im most looking forward to is red orchestra 2. im also hoping that taleworlds is secretly working on MB3.

The sad part of the Wiling to make it equal for all console, is the fact that the weakest link is the one comandingthe chain.
So the weakest platform is the chief.
This also mean the Bethesda has choosen to leverage all by the worst and not the best.

In the end, as the new platforms won t be here...
It will mean that for PC Skyrim grafics will be released outdated (has someone said in another thread old) And this ain t Benjamin Buttler it won t get better, it ll get worse as time pass.

As those who are worried, usually (the only exeption being witcher 2) whitch is merely a crappy Console port, PC games let you configure the game in accordance to your PC, so, you won t have the ultimate quality but you ll have performance.

[censored] witcher 2 is the ultimate mothr[censored]ing crap Console are dunging on the PC market. Screw the game and the imbecile company.

What do I want?

Hmmm.

Utilization of more than the 512 megs of ram most consoles natively boast. And that is just not -using it-, but using it efficiently.
Utilization of the 64 bit address bus. Think in terms of dungeons, cities, and environments that are double, triple, or more the size. Or with more robust systems, being able to load the whole game in system memory, thereby avoiding most of the slowdowns from hard drive access times and disc player tracking delay.
Utilization of multithreading for faster, more capable AI, physics, collision detection, etc.
If multitheaded, one thread dedicated to background cel loading and management. No pauses. Open cities.
Using advanced processing to switch render engines between outdoor optimized and indoor optimized. Tim Sweeney did it in Unreal 2. No loading at doorways; just go in. It can be done....at least as long as you have enough system to do it with, and a two tiered render engine.
Utilization of the lighting effects available in Shader model 4 and 5 hardware (godrays, ambient occlusion, global illumination acceleration, realtime dynamic shadows, etc).
Using the processing power available for little things like dynamic weather systems (wind, rain, snow, dust, etc. Maybe they have it....but so far, all we know about is the dynamic snow). Dynamic cloth effects; even if you couldn't get character clothes to work without killing your framerate, things like flags. Windmill vanes. Curtains. And if you -could- do it realtime at a sufficient speed...
Higher resolution normal maps for better details. Displacement maps.

....and most of that just relates to the eyecandy part of it all. The possibilities for pathing, AI, NPC multi-threaded scripting, sound management (an area that tends to get overlooked or underappreciated), and so on.

Not in BF3.

The PC version of BF3 won't run on systems that doesn't support DX11. Great scalability indeed...

i copy pasted that to a text file next time someone says having a PC doesnt make that much of a difference for games besides textures.

All of this could be said in two words, the only thing PC systems would add:

More horsepower.

hogwash. it will run on DX10 cards with the DX11 stuff disabled. unless your using a card that is 3 years old its going to have DX10 on it. as for not working on XP that is how its going to be for most new games that are graphics intensive. if your a pc gamer, unless you only play oldschool games then by now they should have windows vista.....BARF!!! or better yet windows 7.

this is a silly statement because CD Projekt is a Polish developer and PC gaming is much, much bigger in Northern and Eastern Europe than anywhere else in the world. TW2 plays much better with a gamepad than with a mouse and keyboard but calling it "console crap" is just ignorant because it wouldn't mesh with the general console gamer demographic at all.

as both a pro-Microsoft troll and as a proud, lifelong member of the PC gaming master race, i'm generally disappointed in how much PC gamers hawk on and on about graphics and worthless [censored]. the only meaningful ways in which consoles are holding back PC gaming are a) in limited controls (which for the most part is mitigated by good developers who realize that a keyboard has like ten times the number of keys as a gamepad has buttons (Bethesda has proven several times that they are one of these developers)), b)in memory constraints (which for the most part is mitigated by good developers who know how to optimize their games well (Bethesda has proven several times that they are not one of these developers)), and c)in storage capacity.

PC gamers have absolutely no issue with games spanning multiple discs, but you can't have a game that requires mandatory installation on the 360, and since a 360 disc can only hold around 7GB, games that could and should span several discs are forced to cut content. Oblivion is a confirmed example of this. how in the hell Rockstar managed to fit everything they did into GTA4 on one disc is something i'll never understand.

poor optimization is not a new concept at all, nor is it something explicitly fueled by console limitations. i generally feel like most games are getting more and more optimized as time goes by - Fallout 3 runs much better than Oblivion at the same settings on the same hardware, despite having more going on in a single scene on a technical level. the sole fact that a game like Skyrim has full dynamic lighting on consoles makes me feel confident that it will run beautifully. sure people will have problems with it, and they'll complain loudly and yell BETHESDA IS A [censored] DEVELOPER, but welcome to PC gaming - hardware conflicts are part and parcel, and PC exclusives like ARMA and STALKER arguably suffer more from poor optimization than multi-platform games.

(i'm totally a wall of text factory today [censored])

did you even bother to read the post. :facepalm:

I thought of it as not having Oblivion syndrome

Console user !!!Don t fall into Oblivion !!!! Build a PC and be happy!!!! And more than that: STOP LAGING PC GAMES!!! Please.

I know it won t happens as most consoles are given by parents that don t want to have their childs doing funny stuff on their pc, or just people that are casual gamers, or inapt with technology as my wife is, or maybe haven t the money.

So it will remain the same always:
PC leading tech, and console dragging behind but putting all console toghether being more numerous than PC in gaming.
Now give me a single platform that is more numerous than PC gamers ?
Have a nice try.

And with kinekt (not that i find it interesting but for kid application) going PC.....why have a console anyway, if you can emulate any console on PC ? you ll be able to have all the games on a unique platform.

Even Microsoft is falling back...(well thats not hard, ain t it)

And console market, tell me, will you able to see Skyrim in 3 monitors for awesome imerssiveness ? Imagine playing Skyrin on 3 32" led TV or maybe 3 40" ?

I'm not too worried. I think it sounds like things will be a lot better than in the past with "bleeding edge" tech requirements. Those of us with DX11 and decent systems should still get far superior results to consoles. However, it means my <6 month old mid-range laptop purchase (still pretty pricy here in Europe - even for Core i5, Radeon HD4950) should manage most graphics options at reasonable settings despite a 1920x1080 output resolution requirement.

Incidentally, my viewpoint has changed a lot since Oblivion. Now I am using my PC on a large screen LCD TV with remote keyboard/mouse and actually the Oblivion interface works rather well, whereas some "genuine" PC games are more awkward (even needing a resolution drop - thankfully the TV has pretty awesome upscaling).

My brother has a PS3 hooked to the same TV and I had the experience of testing Oblivion on it. Hah! Any PC gamers complaining are I think not considering the vast benefits the PC has (the main drawback even with a longer upgrade cycle remains cost). Although a bit of sense on the consoles/games ability to use a mouse on the console would take some of this edge off.

I did consider buying another desktop, but I wanted a gaming-capable laptop so as I could play games in the living room, another room, or at a friends house. In theory a console could acheive that but I wanted a modern PC for other reasons too so my laptop seemed a good compromise. I'm well aware though that I risk being caught out if PC games start on the crazy requirements thing again. So I'm happy that it looks like Skyrim will be reasonable and that PC games are not going to be as crazy for the time being. In fairness they look awesome now, so like a recent Slashdot article suggested, I hope we see effort going into other perhaps neglected areas of game design.

All of them comes to the same conclusion: More processing power.

People misuse the word "dumbed-down." How can something be dumbed-down when it wasn't meant to be "smart" in the first place? The PC version is just aiming towards lower specs. It's not being dumbed-down in any way.