Man! I forgot how great wing commander was!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Frosty

a full fledged GF
ChanceKell said:
Actually, Wing Commander (and it's add-on campaigns) were ported very well to the Super Nintendo, and then there was the 3DO port with it's improved graphics and sound (Super WC, also for Apples). The PSX ports of WC 3 and 4 were decent, though they did cut out the land missions, but it did have some features the PC versions DIDN'T have.
The 3DO recieved Wing Commander 3 as well. In fact that was pretty much my whole justification for purchasing the system.
Ironically, looking back on it, it seems that console ports were more accurately copied from their PC versions.
Than what?
Older DOS games with simple graphics were a lot easier to port over, compared to the modern 3D games.
Hehe, the difficulty of porting a game from the PC to a console in those days was not really affected by the graphics so much as it was by the fact what console games were written in assembly.
The "third-gen" consoles (PSX, N64, Saturn) were technologically backwards compared to the PCs that were coming out at the time.
I want you to think back to 1994 and tell me if the computer you owned was significantly superior to a Playstation or Saturn. And then think a little harder and tell me if the majority of the games you played on that computer look, sound, or play any better. Or even as well.

Just because the Playstation only sported a 33MHz CPU, and the Saturn a couple 20MHz chips does not mean that they were technologically backward or that their games were inferior. It's remarkable how efficient they were.

PC games are always written for the lowest common denominator. I can have the latest and greatest toys stuffed in my case, but nobody is going to be tailoring their software for me. They're going to be gunning for the 800 million people still using P3-700s. I might run those games at a billion frames per second, but it's not very fulfulling, since they still feel like I'm on a far more primitive machine.

Console games are developed for a wonderfully standardized market. Every system is identica, and since the performance characteristics of *every* one of their target market's machines are identical, the devs can tailor the game specifically to the hardware to get the most out of it.

My Gamecube has some shitty PowerPC CPU and a piece of junk ArtX budget video chip from 2001, and my X-Box is a Pentium 3 armed with a moderately better-than-average (for the time it was released) GeForce. They also both have practically no RAM compared to the machine I'm typing this on. But I have yet to see a PC game which can come close to matching the the level of detail and polish that the overwhelming majority of my console games do.

But at the end of the day, I own all my toys for different reasons, and they're not in competition with each other, and shouldn't be compared.
 

webe123

Rear Admiral
Well the only reason I brought up the console issue, is that I was stating if another WC game is ever created, I don't want it "dumbed down" to accomidate the console crowd! Yes, it does cost a little more to have two SEPERATE versions, but I think that games that take this route can offer the best for each system. Because the game can be optomized to play on that particular system without giving up any important gameplay issues, weather it is a console or PC version.

"But I have yet to see a PC game which can come close to matching the the level of detail and polish that the overwhelming majority of my console games do."

@Bandit Loaf.....you mean to tell me that you think a console could blow away something like a Pentium 4 system (3.4 gig processor) with a Radeon 9800xt and the newest sound card? I mean, I know gaming has come a long way in the console arena, but it will never match the speed of a PC in graphics and sound. What about the quake series of games? There are others, but I cannot recall them right now. Even though consoles of today are very fast and dedicated systems, you cannot change out the processor, video card, sound card or RAM like a computer can....ALL of these things affect the speed and graphics of a game. Now if they made a console where you COULD change out the processor,etc. and put faster ones in, THAT would rock!
 

Col.Dom

Spaceman
Frosty said:
The 3DO recieved Wing Commander 3 as well. In fact that was pretty much my whole justification for purchasing the system.

Same story, here. Those were good days. I loved the 3DO; I was disappointed when the WC4 port was scrapped.
 
I'd say a console can match a PC for a short time, till the next development comes out for PC, which usually doesn't take long.
The biggest advantage is probably the price. The biggest drawback is picture quality.. not because of the graphic chip but because it's limited by the TV it uses as a screen. A PC monitor simply has a much higher resolution and better quality.
But well.. the PC vs. Console discussion is as old as both systems ;)
 

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
webe123 said:
@Bandit Loaf.....you mean to tell me that you think a console could blow away something like a Pentium 4 system (3.4 gig processor) with a Radeon 9800xt and the newest sound card? I mean, I know gaming has come a long way in the console arena, but it will never match the speed of a PC in graphics and sound. What about the quake series of games? There are others, but I cannot recall them right now. Even though consoles of today are very fast and dedicated systems, you cannot change out the processor, video card, sound card or RAM like a computer can....ALL of these things affect the speed and graphics of a game. Now if they made a console where you COULD change out the processor,etc. and put faster ones in, THAT would rock!

Okay, for starters. LOAF HASN'T POSTED IN THIS THREAD. Up next, there are consoles that have swappable upgradeable parts. Even the Nintendo 64 had a 4 megabyte ram expansion back in the day. Thirdly, console comparisons are stupid. You can't compare stats to stats, because they work differently in a console versus a PC. High end PC stats are irrelevant, because games are made to work on a wide variety of PC and only rarely utilize the top machines. Near the end of a console life cycle you'll find that minimum requirements for PC games exceed the stats of consoles, but in the first half of a console's life cycle its stats will exceed the reqs on games. This means programmers can program to the full extent of a system's power rather than catering to a weaker computer installed base.

PrinceThrakhath said:
The biggest drawback is picture quality.. not because of the graphic chip but because it's limited by the TV it uses as a screen. A PC monitor simply has a much higher resolution and better quality.

Of course computer monitors are typically high resolution, but that is becoming increasingly less of an issue as high definition tvs are becoming cheaper and cheaper. Sitting back five feat and playing a game in 1280x720 resolution in progressive scan mode on your 50+ inch television is much better than sitting eighteen inches from your computer monitor and playing in 1600x1200 on your 21 inch monitor for most games. The XBox can actually reach 1920x1080 resolution for certain games.

There are other more practical reasons why Wing Commander games on consoles make more sense. In no way do games on consoles need to be dumbed down. Certain types of games fare better on a console or computer, for obvious reasons.. but I'd much much rather play a sports, driving or racing simulation on a console compared to a PC. Likewise I'd much rather do all manner of strategy games on a computer. There are huge swaths of action and adventure games that would be great on both consoles and computers.

I play a lot of video games. I've been playing a lot of video games on both consoles and PCs for more than fifteen years. Console games get an inherent bonus because they're so much easier to get into and play. There are many games that are out for both console and computers that are much more enjoyable experiences on the consoles because you just pop in a game and play. Installations, patches, hassle, etc, are all seamlessly conducted behind the scenes are you just sit there and have fun. While the video game industry grows at a rapid pace, the computer games industry is stagnating. One of my favorite games of the last year is Command & Conquer generals and I'd only be interested in playing that one on the PC, but another one of my favorite games is Rainbow Six 3. That is a multiplatform title and I'd only consider playing it online via the XBox. A Wing Commander game could easily be more enjoyable on a console. Console games sell a lot better than their PC counterparts, and developers are more likely to make a game if they're also doing a console version because of lucrative returns. EA is known for their multiplatform titles. If they were to begin work on a new WC game now, it would certainly not be limited to the PC.
 

Frosty

a full fledged GF
webe123 said:
Well the only reason I brought up the console issue, is that I was stating if another WC game is ever created, I don't want it "dumbed down" to accomidate the console crowd!
You're really asking for it, there. Protip: Calling people dumb does not endear you to them. Take it from a master of calling people dumb.
Yes, it does cost a little more to have two SEPERATE versions,
What the hell do you think ports are, but separate versions?
but I think that games that take this route can offer the best for each system. Because the game can be optomized to play on that particular system without giving up any important gameplay issues, weather it is a console or PC version.
You, apparently, lack any sort of knowledge on what is entailed in developing a game for the PC. There is no "optimizing." The range of performance characteristics and component combinations in brand-new computers is staggering all by its lonesome. Lump in all essentially current machines (those less than two years old) and you have quite a wide variety of totally different systems that share nothing accross them, not even the company that made their operating system, let alone DirectX versions.
@Bandit Loaf.....
You mean @me.
you mean to tell me that you think a console could blow away something like a Pentium 4 system (3.4 gig processor) with a Radeon 9800xt and the newest sound card?
I mean they do it every day.
I mean, I know gaming has come a long way in the console arena, but it will never match the speed of a PC in graphics and sound.
You are exceedingly skilled in missing the point. I shall spell it out for you: I do not care how fast the latest PC is, nobody writes tailor-made software for it. A modern PC game is designed to work on a range of systems so broad it would boggle your mind, which probably isn't saying much, but I think everyone will understand what I'm trying to say anyhow.

With a console like the X-Box or the Gamecube, and to a lesser extend the Playstation 2, developers can maximize the system's capabilities when designing their game, to get the absolute best from their product.

The issue is not the hardware. I believe I made it abundantly clear in my previous post that I know full well that console hardware is primitive by comparison, especially so far as we are now into the current generation's lifespan. The issue is the software written for the various systems. Because PCs are not exactly a standardization poster child, it is impossible to get the most out of any single machine without disregarded essentially every other machine. Bad decision.
What about the quake series of games?
What about them?
There are others, but I cannot recall them right now.
I cannot convey my astonishment at that statement using the tools provided me.
Even though consoles of today are very fast and dedicated systems, you cannot change out the processor, video card, sound card or RAM like a computer can....
No, and thank god. Not only does that help reduce the cost - Both of my systems cost less than a new video card - but it also forces the standardization which is a console's greatest advantage.
ALL of these things affect the speed and graphics of a game.
Not nearly as much as you think. What affects the speed and quality of a game's graphics and sound are the decisions made by the developers with respect to their target market, and how narrow it is.
Now if they made a console where you COULD change out the processor,etc. and put faster ones in, THAT would rock!
No it wouldn't, it'd just be a PC. I already own one of those. A very fast, expensive one. The trouble is none of the games I own take advantage of it fully or efficiently because a lot of software is written for poor people who can't afford a modern computer but still want to play all the cool new games, or people like cff who have unreasonable expectations about their software, and want each successive edition of Windows to run each previous version's software perfectly.

I know your kind, and I really can't stand them. You're a snob, and one of the most idiotic, pointless kind. There is no reason not to like game consoles. My Gamecube has provided me with hours of enjoyment from games you've probably not even heard of, because they're not available for your PC, and it was only 150 dollars brand new, and still current. I paid 12 dollars more than that for my now horribly outdated video card which can do nothing on its own.

Have you ever used X-Box Live? That's another textbook example of a standardized environment delivering superior results. It is the most fully-featured and easily accessed multiplayer gaming community in existence, and it costs next to nothing. I have more fun playing Live games with the #Wingnut crew than I ever had playing CS on public servers with a bunch of random idiots.

When it comes to games, consoles do it best. They're purpose-built for that very reason. I love my PC, and when I build new PCs, I spare no expense, but I hold no illusions about their supposed superiority over consoles. A game console is a track-ready Ferrari, a new PC is a really fast Camaro. I like them both, but when it's time to get the job done, I know which I'd pick.
PrinceThrakhath said:
The biggest drawback is picture quality.. not because of the graphic chip but because it's limited by the TV it uses as a screen.
I don't know, I'm pretty satisfied with the picture quality of my 47" HDTV. Sure it might not look so great on a 13" bubblevision special, but this is 2004. Get a job and get with it.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I want you to think back to 1994 and tell me if the computer you owned was significantly superior to a Playstation or Saturn. And then think a little harder and tell me if the majority of the games you played on that computer look, sound, or play any better. Or even as well.

Within the context of this thread it certainly was - Wing Commander III on a 486/100 was a far superior game to Wing Commander III on the PSX (I haven't played Wing Commander 3 Saturn... yet!).

I loved the 3DO; I was disappointed when the WC4 port was scrapped.

Scrapped... or finished and not released, waiting for someone to find it? Maybe.

@Bandit Loaf.....you mean to tell me that you think a console could blow away something like a Pentium 4 system (3.4 gig processor) with a Radeon 9800xt and the newest sound card? I

Well... no... I'm pretty sure I haven't posted to this thread until this very post. :)
 

webe123

Rear Admiral
Frosty said:
You're really asking for it, there. Protip: Calling people dumb does not endear you to them. Take it from a master of calling people dumb.

Well I don't know if it has gotten through your thick head, but I said "dumbed down" ...as in simplified...where do you get me calling anybody dumb??

Frosty said:
What the hell do you think ports are, but separate versions?You, apparently, lack any sort of knowledge on what is entailed in developing a game for the PC..


Gee, and I guess that makes YOU a know it all??


Frosty said:
There is no "optimizing." The range of performance characteristics and component combinations in brand-new computers is staggering all by its lonesome. Lump in all essentially current machines (those less than two years old) and you have quite a wide variety of totally different systems that share nothing accross them, not even the company that made their operating system, let alone DirectX versions.

Yes, there are staggering combinations in computers....what the hell does THAT have to doi with anything?? I was talking about a top of the line system, you were the one that came up with all of these other combiunations! I was just simply stating my opinion (which that is all it is) that I think PCs are faster than consoles. So what is your problem??

Frosty said:
You mean @me.I mean they do it every day.You are exceedingly skilled in missing the point. .


And YOU sound liker an asshole, look, I rerally don't CARE how much you know OR think you do! If you are trying to flame ME then you are gonna get flamed back...understand??

Frosty said:
I shall spell it out for you: I do not care how fast the latest PC is, nobody writes tailor-made software for it. A modern PC game is designed to work on a range of systems so broad it would boggle your mind, which probably isn't saying much, but I think everyone will understand what I'm trying to say anyhow..

I really don't need you to spell out anything for me! If all you want to do is type cut downs, then go somewhere else! All I was trying to do was talk about how great wing commander was and your acting like a six year old! GET OVER IT! I DO understand that the PC has a much broader range than a console....so what?? If you have a high end system that can run games like quake 3 and such they are probably gonna be a little clearer on the screen! Not something to get into a flame war about!

Frosty said:
With a console like the X-Box or the Gamecube, and to a lesser extend the Playstation 2, developers can maximize the system's capabilities when designing their game, to get the absolute best from their product.


So can developers for PC games. Sheesh! What is your problem?? You act like I am attacking consoles! I am NOT! All I said was that you can probably get clearer graphics on a PC than with a console....if you don't agree then that is fine too, but to HELL with YOU trying to make small of my opinion!

Frosty said:
The issue is not the hardware. I believe I made it abundantly clear in my previous post that I know full well that console hardware is primitive by comparison, especially so far as we are now into the current generation's lifespan. The issue is the software written for the various systems. Because PCs are not exactly a standardization poster child, it is impossible to get the most out of any single machine without disregarded essentially every other machine. Bad decision..


So??? Is that supposed to mean I am going to stop buying PC games or console games for that matter?? I agree that an optimized system like a console is great for games, but it does have limits! That was all I was saying!

Frosty said:
What about them?

I was just pointing out a computer game that has decent graphics!


Frosty said:
I cannot convey my astonishment at that statement using the tools provided me.


I really can't convey how much of an asshole you are acting like! You come onto MY post and act like I just slapped your face or something....well if you want a fight, just keep it up! All I was saying was to my earlier statement that I could not think of another computer game that used as much graphics as the Quake series!

Frosty said:
No, and thank god. Not only does that help reduce the cost - Both of my systems cost less than a new video card - but it also forces the standardization which is a console's greatest advantage..


Again that is YOUR opinion and you are entitled to it, but mine is different. SO WHAT??? I still think that it would rock to be able to replace the components of a console...and if you have a standard console system already, it would be up to you to change out the parts.

Frosty said:
Not nearly as much as you think. What affects the speed and quality of a game's graphics and sound are the decisions made by the developers with respect to their target market, and how narrow it is.


Yes the developers of the game have a lot to do with the way the game plays, but a faster system never hurts.



Frosty said:
No it wouldn't, it'd just be a PC. I already own one of those. A very fast, expensive one. The trouble is none of the games I own take advantage of it fully or efficiently because a lot of software is written for poor people who can't afford a modern computer but still want to play all the cool new games, or people like cff who have unreasonable expectations about their software, and want each successive edition of Windows to run each previous version's software perfectly.



Let me spell out something for YOU, Replacing parts on a console does NOT make it a pc! Pc's have more functions than just running game programs, they can do data processing, word processing, etc. The only thing I was suggesting, was being able to replace parts in a console, so that it could keep up with the latest technology! Now just because you are against it, does NOT make it a bad thing! It's time you learned that there are other points of view besides your own! Just because I disageree with you does not make you my enemy, but that is exactly how you are treating me! Now you have flamed me, acted like I was a fool, and I am quite frankly TIRED OF YOUR BULLSHIT!



Frosty said:
I know your kind, and I really can't stand them. You're a snob, and one of the most idiotic, pointless kind. There is no reason not to like game consoles. My Gamecube has provided me with hours of enjoyment from games you've probably not even heard of, because they're not available for your PC, and it was only 150 dollars brand new, and still current. I paid 12 dollars more than that for my now horribly outdated video card which can do nothing on its own..


SO.....you think I hate game consoles??? Is THIS what all of your spewing garbage is about????? You stupid, pompus ASS..... you don't know a thing about me and yet you reach that conclusion?? Let me fill you in Einstien, I like consoles! Yeah, thats right! I used to have a PS2, until I had to sell it to pay some bills! Now WHY would I have a console, if I hated them! I played the latest games on them and enjoyed them. The only thing I stated was that I believed that PCs could be made to get better graphics and you act like I have a war on people who play on consoles! Well I was ONE of them! Don't jump to conclusions so fast next time idiot!

Frosty said:
Have you ever used X-Box Live? That's another textbook example of a standardized environment delivering superior results. It is the most fully-featured and easily accessed multiplayer gaming community in existence, and it costs next to nothing. I have more fun playing Live games with the #Wingnut crew than I ever had playing CS on public servers with a bunch of random idiots...


No, but I have seen the xbox graphics and they are great! So again, what is your PROBLEM????? GET OFF THE PC vs. console kick you are on! It is getting REAL OLD!

Frosty said:
When it comes to games, consoles do it best. They're purpose-built for that very reason. I love my PC, and when I build new PCs, I spare no expense, but I hold no illusions about their supposed superiority over consoles. A game console is a track-ready Ferrari, a new PC is a really fast Camaro. I like them both, but when it's time to get the job done, I know which I'd pick.I don't know, I'm pretty satisfied with the picture quality of my 47" HDTV. Sure it might not look so great on a 13" bubblevision special, but this is 2004. Get a job and get with it.



Look Frosty, I don't know if you believe what I said about consoles and don't care! I think that there is room in this world for BOTH, so WHY are you attacking ME?????
This thread originally was about how great wing commander was as a series so HOW did we get on THIS???? If all you want to do is flame me and throw insults my way because I have a different opinion that yours, GO SOMEPLACE ELSE! If you are mad because my opinion is different than yours....GET OVER IT! Either way, this thread needs to get back to the subject...WHICH IS NOT consoles vs PC, but wing commander!
 

Frosty

a full fledged GF
Gotta love the line-by-lines...

webe123 said:
Well I don't know if it has gotten through your thick head, but I said "dumbed down" ...as in simplified...where do you get me calling anybody dumb??
Clearly, the implication made when claiming that something must be "dumbed down" is that the intended audience is dumb. I don't know about you, but where I come from, words mean things.
Gee, and I guess that makes YOU a know it all??
What? No, it makes you a know-nothing.
Yes, there are staggering combinations in computers....what the hell does THAT have to doi with anything?? I was talking about a top of the line system, you were the one that came up with all of these other combiunations! I was just simply stating my opinion (which that is all it is) that I think PCs are faster than consoles. So what is your problem??
It has everything to do with everything. It does not matter if you are talking about a state-of-the-art machine, because all it can do is run the same low-resolution textures and the same low-detail meshes at a faster framerate, woohoo. Meanwhile, console games are chugging along from day 1 maximizing all the features of the hardware, because all the hardware is the same.
If you have a high end system that can run games like quake 3 and such they are probably gonna be a little clearer on the screen! Not something to get into a flame war about!
Well my television can do 1080i, which has, I believe, 1036800 usable pixels. I run my PC games at 1024x768 which sports 786432 total pixels. So juding by those numbers alone, I'd bet that the clarity of games in 1080i on my television is superior to that of games on my PC. By a lot.

Even at the lowest resolution of 480p I think we're still dealing with 409600 pixels, which is still pretty good.
if you don't agree then that is fine too, but to HELL with YOU trying to make small of my opinion!
This is not a matter of opinion. There's the truth, supported by fact, and then there's your wacky assumptions, supported by petty prejudices.
Is that supposed to mean I am going to stop buying PC games or console games for that matter?? I agree that an optimized system like a console is great for games, but it does have limits! That was all I was saying!
Of course it has limites. All I am saying is that those limits are far in excess of those imposed on mainstream PC software as a result of the performance spectrum they're forced to work with.
I was just pointing out a computer game that has decent graphics!
Well good for you, but that's not really necessary. I know that PC games have excellent graphics. I also know that almost every one of my console games sports a much more polished presentation than my PC games.

I do not love one or the other more because of such things, but I am able to recognize the truth: Any PC game can be ported to a modern console without damaging it.
well if you want a fight, just keep it up!
Uhoh, I'd better head for the hills, wouldn't want a 3-day-old forum newbie to get mad at me!
Again that is YOUR opinion and you are entitled to it, but mine is different. SO WHAT???
Yours is wrong and is offensive to me.
I still think that it would rock to be able to replace the components of a console...
Chris has already illustrated certain examples of this already in practice...
and if you have a standard console system already, it would be up to you to change out the parts.
Bad idea, because it forces the gamer into one of two undesirable scenarios:
  1. The gamer is forced to upgrade their system in order to play new games that require the upgrade, thereby making it a necessity, and not up to them, as you suggested, or...
  2. The gamer upgrades their system but it's largely for nothing, because any games which do not support the upgrade (and many will not, in order to appeal to the largest number of customers,) will not benefit noticeably from the upgrade, and so it offers no discernable advantage.
Now before you go and call me crazy and say it wouldn't be like that, I want you to know that it already has happened.

The example Chris mentioned, the N64 RAM upgrade, was nothing but an irritation no matter what side of it you were on. If you did not purchase it, games which required it would not run, and some very popular games required it (granted, certain games also included it - at an increase in cost.) If you did purchase it, you quickly found you bought an upgrade that existed for the sole purpose of letting you run about three games, and offered no benefits at all to any games that ran without it.
Yes the developers of the game have a lot to do with the way the game plays, but a faster system never hurts.
It will never hurt, but it won't make the graphics better. You can get a higher frame-rate or run it at a higher resolution or both, but it's still the same old textures and models . Buying the latest and greatest sound card does nothing for you if the game still only supports EAX1.
Let me spell out something for YOU, Replacing parts on a console does NOT make it a pc!
On the contrary, I think in the context of videogames it makes them exactly the same. The end result is that the console hardware environment, which was one pristine, becomes as confused and optional as the PC's, forcing the developers to avoid pushing the limits, in order to appeal to the largest number of customers for the purposes of increasing profits.
The only thing I was suggesting, was being able to replace parts in a console, so that it could keep up with the latest technology!
I do keep up with the latest technology. I spend 200 dollars every four years to buy a new console, and that serves me just fine. It's also a huge bargain compared to PC upgrades, and probably cheaper than your kind of console upgrades would be as well. Plus, upgrading consoles in any significant want opens up a whole slew of problems with respect to warranties and services.

Here's an example: Retail PCs have warranties which are voided if you upgrade them, or even just open the case, and I would expect the same from console manufacturers. Purchasing a console upgrade which voided your warranty would become extremely expensive if the optical drive began to fail (which is a known issue with modern consoles,) because you would not be able to get it replaced by the manufacturer. You'd have to buy another.

Here's another: Microsoft will not allow modded X-Boxes onto X-Box Live because they cannot guarantee that the modifications don't give certain players an unfair advantage. They certainly couldn't make that guarantee for legitimate upgrades, either - it's a fact that a faster machine is a usable advantage in a multiplayer game. They would be forced to either ban upgraded machines from Live, or to allow them to walk all over the non-upgraded users, thereby ruining their experience.
Now just because you are against it, does NOT make it a bad thing!
No, what makes it a bad thing is the fact that it's a bad thing.
It's time you learned that there are other points of view besides your own!
I learned that a long time ago. What you need to learn is that your point of view is not necessarily always as valid or as valued as everyone else's.
Now you have flamed me, acted like I was a fool, and I am quite frankly TIRED OF YOUR BULLSHIT!
How Derek Smart of you.
you don't know a thing about me and yet you reach that conclusion??
I reached that conclusion, logically, through analasys of the things you said. What amuses me, though, is that you allow yourself to become so worked up over the fact that I assumed you didn't like game consoles.
No, but I have seen the xbox graphics and they are great! So again, what is your PROBLEM????? GET OFF THE PC vs. console kick you are on! It is getting REAL OLD!
Last time I checked, sister, you were the one who initiated the PC vs console debate with your "dumbed down" comment.
This thread originally was about how great wing commander was as a series so HOW did we get on THIS????
Topic drift. Shit happens.
If all you want to do is flame me and throw insults my way because I have a different opinion that yours, GO SOMEPLACE ELSE!
A little tidbit of forum etiquette for you: Don't yell "GO SOMEPLACE ELSE!" at people who have logged more years in the community than you have days.
If you are mad because my opinion is different than yours....GET OVER IT!
Actually, it seems like you're mad because I challenged your (flawed) opinion, not the other way around.
Either way, this thread needs to get back to the subject...WHICH IS NOT consoles vs PC, but wing commander!
Well, be my guest and attempt to steer it that way. All threads go OT eventually, especially around here.
 

webe123

Rear Admiral
Frosty said:
Clearly, the implication made when claiming that something must be "dumbed down" is that the intended audience is dumb. I don't know about you, but where I come from, words mean things.What? No, it makes you a know-nothing.It has everything to do with everything. It does not matter if you are talking about a state-of-the-art machine, because all it can do is run the same low-resolution textures and the same low-detail meshes at a faster framerate, woohoo. Meanwhile, console games are chugging along from day 1 maximizing all the features of the hardware, because all the hardware is the same.Well my television can do 1080i, which has, I believe, 1036800 usable pixels. I run my PC games at 1024x768 which sports 786432 total pixels. So juding by those numbers alone, I'd bet that the clarity of games in 1080i on my television is superior to that of games on my PC. By a lot.

Even at the lowest resolution of 480p I think we're still dealing with 409600 pixels, which is still pretty good.This is not a matter of opinion. There's the truth, supported by fact, and then there's your wacky assumptions, supported by petty prejudices.Of course it has limites. All I am saying is that those limits are far in excess of those imposed on mainstream PC software as a result of the performance spectrum they're forced to work with.Well good for you, but that's not really necessary. I know that PC games have excellent graphics. I also know that almost every one of my console games sports a much more polished presentation than my PC games.

I do not love one or the other more because of such things, but I am able to recognize the truth: Any PC game can be ported to a modern console without damaging it.Uhoh, I'd better head for the hills, wouldn't want a 3-day-old forum newbie to get mad at me!Yours is wrong and is offensive to me.Chris has already illustrated certain examples of this already in practice...Bad idea, because it forces the gamer into one of two undesirable scenarios:
  1. The gamer is forced to upgrade their system in order to play new games that require the upgrade, thereby making it a necessity, and not up to them, as you suggested, or...
  2. The gamer upgrades their system but it's largely for nothing, because any games which do not support the upgrade (and many will not, in order to appeal to the largest number of customers,) will not benefit noticeably from the upgrade, and so it offers no discernable advantage.
Now before you go and call me crazy and say it wouldn't be like that, I want you to know that it already has happened.

The example Chris mentioned, the N64 RAM upgrade, was nothing but an irritation no matter what side of it you were on. If you did not purchase it, games which required it would not run, and some very popular games required it (granted, certain games also included it - at an increase in cost.) If you did purchase it, you quickly found you bought an upgrade that existed for the sole purpose of letting you run about three games, and offered no benefits at all to any games that ran without it.It will never hurt, but it won't make the graphics better. You can get a higher frame-rate or run it at a higher resolution or both, but it's still the same old textures and models . Buying the latest and greatest sound card does nothing for you if the game still only supports EAX1.On the contrary, I think in the context of videogames it makes them exactly the same. The end result is that the console hardware environment, which was one pristine, becomes as confused and optional as the PC's, forcing the developers to avoid pushing the limits, in order to appeal to the largest number of customers for the purposes of increasing profits.I do keep up with the latest technology. I spend 200 dollars every four years to buy a new console, and that serves me just fine. It's also a huge bargain compared to PC upgrades, and probably cheaper than your kind of console upgrades would be as well. Plus, upgrading consoles in any significant want opens up a whole slew of problems with respect to warranties and services.

Here's an example: Retail PCs have warranties which are voided if you upgrade them, or even just open the case, and I would expect the same from console manufacturers. Purchasing a console upgrade which voided your warranty would become extremely expensive if the optical drive began to fail (which is a known issue with modern consoles,) because you would not be able to get it replaced by the manufacturer. You'd have to buy another.

Here's another: Microsoft will not allow modded X-Boxes onto X-Box Live because they cannot guarantee that the modifications don't give certain players an unfair advantage. They certainly couldn't make that guarantee for legitimate upgrades, either - it's a fact that a faster machine is a usable advantage in a multiplayer game. They would be forced to either ban upgraded machines from Live, or to allow them to walk all over the non-upgraded users, thereby ruining their experience.No, what makes it a bad thing is the fact that it's a bad thing.I learned that a long time ago. What you need to learn is that your point of view is not necessarily always as valid or as valued as everyone else's.How Derek Smart of you.I reached that conclusion, logically, through analasys of the things you said. What amuses me, though, is that you allow yourself to become so worked up over the fact that I assumed you didn't like game consoles.Last time I checked, sister, you were the one who initiated the PC vs console debate with your "dumbed down" comment. Topic drift. Shit happens.A little tidbit of forum etiquette for you: Don't yell "GO SOMEPLACE ELSE!" at people who have logged more years in the community than you have days.Actually, it seems like you're mad because I challenged your (flawed) opinion, not the other way around.Well, be my guest and attempt to steer it that way. All threads go OT eventually, especially around here.


@ frosty....listen you arrogant son of a bitch! It sounds like all you want is a fight! Fuck you! If you don't like my opinions then too bad! I am what I am and if that isn't good enough for you read above statement! I made a post about how great wing commander was and you turn out to be a son of a bitch that hijacks peoples threads! I don't really care WHAT you think of me or my opinion of consoles! Go shove your opinion up yopur ass....that is where it belongs anyway!
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
If you have an issue with another poster, please contact an administrator privately. Do not flame people on the board.

Thread closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top