Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Batman: Arkham Asylum Patch

The version 1.1 patch for Batman: Arkham Asylum should now be available on Games for Windows LIVE, among other things adding PhysX support to the superhero game (there's a new video on the YouTube with comparisons with and without PhysX). A manual version of the patch is also available thanks to The Patches Scrolls, available on FanGaming, FileFront, Gamer's Hell, The Patches Scrolls, and Strategy Informer.

View
108 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >

108. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 29, 2009, 09:45 Verno
 
Thanks Caveman, want a hug?  
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Divinity Original Sin, Infamous Second Son, Madden
Watching: Spartan, Possible Worlds, The Changeling
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
107. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 28, 2009, 16:33 Caveman
 
* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Sep 29, 2009, 16:42.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
106. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 28, 2009, 12:54 dryden555
 
Far, far too many "A-list" games in the last 5 years use AA to cover up fuzzy texture maps and lazy level design.

I prefer well-executed real-time lighting effects over canned AA texture processing.

I typically turn off AA to get a better frame-rate at a higher res.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
105. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 28, 2009, 12:34 J
 
Is this thread dead yet?  
Avatar 45926
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
104. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 28, 2009, 10:01 Verno
 
Nonsense. A BluRay movie will always look better than the same movie on a worn-out VHS

Tell that to the people who can't tell the difference between 720p and DVD. Tell that to the people who buy HDTVs and hook up everything with composite cables then rave about how great everything looks. Tell that to the people who think 1080p on their 32" sets is a marked improvement over 720p. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not the technical specifications according to Jerykk.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Divinity Original Sin, Infamous Second Son, Madden
Watching: Spartan, Possible Worlds, The Changeling
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
103. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 26, 2009, 22:20 Jerykk
 
Visual quality is subjective, not objective.

Nonsense. A BluRay movie will always look better than the same movie on a worn-out VHS. You're mistaking taste for quality again. You may prefer one visual style over another and that's fine. It has nothing to do with quality though.

You guys make comments about other people needing eye glasses all you want but once you get to 30fps at an acceptable resolution with even a small amount of AA, the gameplay experience is what matters, not theoretical capabilities.

Have you ever played Quake? Are you telling me that the gameplay experience is exactly the same at 30 FPS as it is at 100 FPS? Whether or not you think 30 FPS is acceptable is completely and utterly irrelevant. 100 FPS is always better than 30 FPS, no matter your standards.

You are trying to equate gameplay with visuals because that's where the PC holds an advantage.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that visuals, performance and controls are fundamental parts of the game experience and that the PC holds the advantage in all these respects.

Visuals contribute to gameplay, they do not comprise it. Sound contributes to gameplay, it does not become it by itself.

Nobody has ever said otherwise. We've never claimed that presentation is the only thing that matters. However, if you take the exact same game with the same fundamental gameplay and introduce higher resolutions, AA, AF, framerate and quicker and more precise controls, that experience is obviously superior.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
102. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 26, 2009, 21:27 The PC Warrior
 
At this point the current topic and the other one are practically interchangeable and I'm tired of making huge replies to both, you can find my response in the other one, it covers both of your recent posts.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
101. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 26, 2009, 16:41 StingingVelvet
 
Too bad AA and resolutions have little to do with gameplay.

They most certainly have a large impact on gameplay to me. The more flaws in the image, the less immdersed I am in the game world. Going back to my Infamous example, the constant jaggies and texture fade took me out of the game, made me feel less like I was there. Crysis is an average shooter, but the amazing graphics make the game so immersive that I feel like I am really stalking through the woods, and the game is thus a better experience because of how "there" I feel.

Visual quality is subjective, not objective. So is sound quality.

And the point I am making is that just isn't possible. Again, I use MP3s because I don't care that CDs sound better... the quality is not objective, CDs sound better whether I listen to them or not. PC graphics are better even if only half of gamers would notice.

Quantifiable things like more AA versus less are not subjective.

Now if you want to argue Okami looks better than Crysis to someone with certain taste in visuals, that is fine, but another arguement altogether. My point has nothing to do with comparing one game to another, my point is Okami would look and play better on PC.

If you sat down 100 people beside two televisions, one hooked up to a PC hidden under a table and the other hooked up to a hidden console, I think you'd be really surprised at their determination of what is better or worse.

So if you sat 100 random people down and had them play Batman: Arkham Asylum on a PC and then an Xbox, hiding the machines so they don't know and using the Xbox controller on each one, and the PC version is maxed out, you really think people would choose the Xbox version? For what reason?

I could see some saying they look the same, because a lot of people are just completely uninterested in graphics, but I can't see anyone choosing the Xbox version in that scenario, which seems to be what you are implying. That scenario kind of backs up my point, when you take all factors but the actual gameplay away, what reason is there to choose the Xbox version?

Which is really what everyone has been saying to you all along, you can claim superiority until it's the only word you can type but it doesn't matter. I'm a PC gamer and I can recognize that, why you two can't seems to point more towards wanting to make consoles look bad rather than saying anything positive about the PC which is why this whole discussion bothers me so much. The PC doesn't need to look good, we know it's good and that's enough. The world at large will never care so who exactly are you trying to teach here?

Your never ending quest to prove to me this about something it isn't will never work, because I have no deep seeded agenda against console and I am not a fanboy. As I said, I have always owned both consoles and a gaming PC for my entire life... when I was a kid I would play Mario games on my NES and then play Space Quest on my PC. I would play Jedi Knight on my PC and then Goldeneye on my N64 with three friends on a couch and have a blast. I am somewhat of a rarity, I played both continously. Right now I have a PS3 and PC, and I had a Wii but I sold it when it was worth money because I did not enjoy it.

My entire point for this and the other thread has been agreeing with Jerykk that PC games are the best versions when it comes to gameplay. That is it, done, finito. If you can play Wanted on Xbox or PC, the PC version looks better, runs better and has more options for controls, including identical controls to console. If all other factors outside the actual gameplay experience from menu to exit were eliminated, there is no reason anyone would choose to play it on a console.

All those factors are not eliminated though, we have installs, we have configuration, we have tweaks and hacks on old games, we have compatability issues, etc. etc. So people choose console most of the time, because the added gameplay enhancements are not worth the hassle. I get that, completely. I am not belittling them, I have my countess comparisons to me doing the same thing in other mediums.

Stop trying to paint my comments as something they are not.

You are trying to equate gameplay with visuals because that's where the PC holds an advantage. Visuals contribute to gameplay, they do not comprise it. Sound contributes to gameplay, it does not become it by itself.

PCs hold more than visual advantages, they also have control advantages, either in superior mouse aiming or in the option to choose between more control methods. The absolute biggest reason I am a PC gamer is for tweak and mods, the ability to run and play a game more how I want to play it. Turning off the grain filter in FEAR 2, turning of Depth of Field in Riddick, making KotOR run in Widescreen, making Deus Ex 2 have better textures, turning off the compass arrows in Oblivion, etc. Most of those are visual I guess, but the point is I have options console gamers do not. That is mostly why I continue to buy mutliplatform games on PC.

This comment was edited on Sep 26, 2009, 16:47.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
100. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 26, 2009, 12:53 The PC Warrior
 
PC gamePLAY

Too bad AA and resolutions have little to do with gameplay. That's really the point everyone else other than you and Jerykk are trying to make here. Visual quality is subjective, not objective. So is sound quality. It's the entire reason a benchmarking section of the PC industry exists. You guys make comments about other people needing eye glasses all you want but once you get to 30fps at an acceptable resolution with even a small amount of AA, the gameplay experience is what matters, not theoretical capabilities. They might matter to you and me but that is based on subjective preference. If you sat down 100 people beside two televisions, one hooked up to a PC hidden under a table and the other hooked up to a hidden console, I think you'd be really surprised at their determination of what is better or worse. Which is really what everyone has been saying to you all along, you can claim superiority until it's the only word you can type but it doesn't matter. I'm a PC gamer and I can recognize that, why you two can't seems to point more towards wanting to make consoles look bad rather than saying anything positive about the PC which is why this whole discussion bothers me so much. The PC doesn't need to look good, we know it's good and that's enough. The world at large will never care so who exactly are you trying to teach here?

You keep saying people are using semantics but in reality you are doing that as well. You are trying to equate gameplay with visuals because that's where the PC holds an advantage. Visuals contribute to gameplay, they do not comprise it. Sound contributes to gameplay, it does not become it by itself.

This comment was edited on Sep 26, 2009, 12:53.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
99. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 26, 2009, 12:01 Beamer
 
Lastly, to those of you thikning "complacent" is a proper word, the OED defines it as content to a fault.

This is why I'm arguing it's priorities, not complacency. If it's complacency then console fans are doing something wrong, hence the "to a fault" part.


They are not doing something wrong.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
98. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 26, 2009, 05:21 Jerykk
 
I mean, are you complacent because you value being bells and whistles over comfort and socialability? You really cut back on those last two in order to have better anti-aliasing. Man, so complacent. Relaxing in a couch is more comfortable than sitting upright in a desk chair - fact. You're so complacent to give that up.

When it comes to comfort, convenience and sociability, yes, I am complacent. I don't really care about sitting on a couch or just popping in a game and playing it with a buddy. I'm fine with sitting in my chair, installing games, tweaking settings and generally putting more effort into playing my games. I'm not complacent about graphics, performance or controls. When I'm actually playing a game, I want the experience to be the best it can be.

"Ignorant" and "complacent" are relative words. You can't be ignorant and complacent about everything. Well, it's possible but pretty hard to do. Everybody is ignorant and complacent about something. Unless you know everything and have an intense interest in everything, ignorance and complacency are unavoidable. The two are usually intertwined. If I'm complacent about something, I have no motivation to learn more about it, resulting in ignorance. Most console gamers are complacent about the core gameplay experience. They are satisfied with the experience that consoles offer and have no interest in looking for anything better. This is not an insult, it is simply a fact. I am complacent about cars and as such, I am also ignorant about them. I'm content with the car I have and have no interest in finding something better.

You speak of priorities and you are correct; people do have different priorities. Typically, they are neither complacent nor ignorant about things they value highly. On the opposite end of the spectrum, they are complacent and ignorant about the things they don't. Playing a game with higher resolutions, AA, AF, framerate and better controls provides a higher quality experience than playing the same game without these things. Convenience, comfort, price, etc, are all extraneous considerations. You may value them highly but they are not part of the core gameplay experience.

This comment was edited on Sep 26, 2009, 05:40.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
97. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 26, 2009, 03:30 StingingVelvet
 
Christ. You use these weasel words to make yourself and your hobby feel superior. It's not. If it was then developers would be sticking with it.

How does developers moving to console have ANYTHING to do with quality of the gameplay? It is all about MONEY.

You really cannot grasp this debate's core ideas at all. It's kind of depressing.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
96. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 26, 2009, 03:28 StingingVelvet
 
Again, not really.
If they mean nothing to me then they are not "better." They are different. If I don't care about that difference then how does it matter? The lobster at a Ritz Carlton may be "better" than the lobster at Red Lobster but if I'm allergic why do I care? Neither one is "better" to me if I have no intention of eating it.

I know you are frustrated and think you are so right and it's so simple, different people care about different things! You're not though... it's very simple: more AA is better than less. There is no way in which that is not true. Even if I don't care about AA at all, more AA is still better than none.

A higher bitrate is better for music, there is no way getting around that. I download 256bps MP3s on iTunes because I don't give a shit. Still, CD quality audio is better... just because I don't care about the difference doesn't mean it isn't there. The audio listening experience is better on CD, but I don't care much about music so I don't give a shit.

In gaming, the PC offers a better gameplay experience because of all the factors listed. If you are not an enthusiast and don't care, fine, but that doesn't make PC and less better than CDs when I don't care.

I can't make it much more simple than that.

But that's not the actual game experience. That's part of the game experience. It's one factor into the game experience, or rather one set of factors. And, to many, after a certain point it's diminishing returns and other factors are more important.

So this issue all boils down to bullshit semantics? Is that it? Jerykk says gameplay experience and you spend 4 pages and multiple days arguing about it because your definition of that is different?

When I say gameplay experience I mean, well, fucking gameplay, not anything else. The actual gameplay is better on PC, this is a FACT. You can tell me all day long it isn't because of completely unrelated factors and how some people won't care, but you're wrong. It is a quantifiable FACT, just like CD audio being better is a FACT.

The pain it is to get CDs doesn't matter, the fact they can crack doesn't matter, they are a better listening experience. PC games offer better gameplay experience.

Why is it so hard for some of you to figure out that people have different preferences? I went to school forever to get a higher paying job. My buddy got one degree then got married and had a kid. Was he being complacent? Was his decision not to get about 40 more degrees like I did his ignorance and complacency, or did he simply have different priorities? Is my life experience "better" than his?

Why do you ignore portions of Jerykk and I's comments that address this comment and show it to be ludicrous? I will ask something again from before, are you purposely ignorant and can you not understand what we are saying?

We know people have different preferences. We have gone over this one hundred freaking times. All we are freaking saying is the PC gamePLAY expereince is better, but people CHOOSE to play on consoles for other reasons anyway.

That is all we are saying. It is nothing like you characterize.

Stop being pissy because Jerykk sometimes makes fun of consoles and open your eyes to what is actually being discussed.

This comment was edited on Sep 26, 2009, 03:32.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
95. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 26, 2009, 02:05 Beamer
 
No, it's not ignorance. It's complacency. I know your car is better than mine and offers a superior driving experience. I just don't care because I'm complacent about cars. As long as my car works and gets me where I need to go, I'm satisfied. That doesn't make your car any less superior to mine though. Again, there's a distinction between quantifiable qualities and personal taste.

It's not complacency!
It's different priorities!

In the car example mine would absolutely suck if you had kids to transport back and forth, or if you traveled in stop-and-go traffic, or if you needed something reliable. Your priorities are different. What is a "better" car to one person is an unreliable, overengineered piece of garbage to another.

Christ. You use these weasel words to make yourself and your hobby feel superior. It's not. If it was then developers would be sticking with it.

It has nothing to do with complacency and everything to do with priorities.


Hell, say you can run Crysis with 16xAA @45fps, 4xAA @ 60fps, or 16xAA@60fps on a lower resolution. Which do you pick? Is your decision based on complacency, or different priorities?

I mean, are you complacent because you value being bells and whistles over comfort and socialability? You really cut back on those last two in order to have better anti-aliasing. Man, so complacent. Relaxing in a couch is more comfortable than sitting upright in a desk chair - fact. You're so complacent to give that up.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
94. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 26, 2009, 02:00 Beamer
 
AA, AF, resolution and such are not subjective... they are not opinion reliant, they are quantifiably better on one platform compared to the other.

Again, not really.
If they mean nothing to me then they are not "better." They are different. If I don't care about that difference then how does it matter? The lobster at a Ritz Carlton may be "better" than the lobster at Red Lobster but if I'm allergic why do I care? Neither one is "better" to me if I have no intention of eating it.

the actual in-game experience.
But that's not the actual game experience. That's part of the game experience. It's one factor into the game experience, or rather one set of factors. And, to many, after a certain point it's diminishing returns and other factors are more important.

If I want to play Mass Effect, I can play it on 360 or PC... the PC version is a better game, a better experience, because it looks better, runs better and controls better, and I can turn off things I don't like such as depth of field, or tweak things, or download a save, or whatever else.

Note your use of "I," as all of these are dependent upon you.
If one doesn't think the graphical differences are noticeable, and many don't, then it doesn't matter.
If one doesn't want to be hunched over a mouse and keyboard and rather be relaxed in a couch then the controls are not better.
If one doesn't care about the options menu and has no clue what depth of field means then those don't matter, either.
And the experience isn't "better," it's actually worse in this case. It's not complacency, it's different priorities.

Why is it so hard for some of you to figure out that people have different preferences? I went to school forever to get a higher paying job. My buddy got one degree then got married and had a kid. Was he being complacent? Was his decision not to get about 40 more degrees like I did his ignorance and complacency, or did he simply have different priorities? Is my life experience "better" than his?
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
93. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 26, 2009, 01:29 StingingVelvet
 
But again, this is for you.

AA, AF, resolution and such are not subjective... they are not opinion reliant, they are quantifiably better on one platform compared to the other.

An experience is not a frame rate. An experience is not AA. An experience is not resolution. An experience is vastly more than that. An experience is what you need to do to get a game running. Do you need new drivers? Do you need an upgrade? Do you need to free HD space? Do you need to wait until your child finishes typing his homework? Or do you pop a disc in and run it?
Do you play against people you've never met, or do you play against your best friend on the couch next to you?

I am talking about how the game looks, runs, controls... the actual in-game experience. I'm not talking about setting the games up or buying the games or anything else, I would be an idiot to say the PC is less of a hassle or whatever else. I am talking about the GAME.. If I want to play Mass Effect, I can play it on 360 or PC... the PC version is a better game, a better experience, because it looks better, runs better and controls better, and I can turn off things I don't like such as depth of field, or tweak things, or download a save, or whatever else. It is a better experience on PC. This is true for damn near any game on PC and console both.

Then stop using the term "game experience" because it isn't at all correct. Say "game technical factors," which are part of the experience but, for the most part, completely unnecessary.

If frame rate, AA and resolution are so important than Planescape must be a flaming pile of crap. 600x480, 30fps, jaggies everywhere. Clearly it's garbage.

What fantasy world do you live in where how the game looks has nothing to do with how your experience playing the game is? Batman plays the same on Xbox and PC, but the PC version also has better graphics, tweaks, better frames and whatever else.

Those things are all relevant to the gameplay experience.

The shit you toss out there like the hassles associated with PC gaming and the delays in releases is not at all what I am talking about, and have nothing to do with GAMEPLAY. Gameplay is playing the game, the experience of it, the in-game feel and time spent there.

"Game technical factors" actually fits what you are talking about more, though I would use the term "gamer experience" or "gamer lifestyle." Yes, in the all around experience of being a gamer the PC is a pain in the ass and the console is simple and easy to use. Console wins that round.

I am talking about gamePLAY though.

Again, you're not stating facts. You're discussing "experience." Experience is NOT based in facts. It's unique for everyone. You base yours more around technical prowess. Fine. You're a rarity. Jerykk seems to think anyone that doesn't is an idiot. This makes his posts pointless wastes of time. You're more sensible about it, significantly so, but you're still trying to say game experiences are defined by things as simple as resolution.

The things I am talking about are very much based on facts. Assassin's Creed is on both consoles and PC, and is generally the same at the core, but the PC version offers enhanced graphics, more control options and tweaks and mods when possible. That makes the PC version a better gameplay experience. That is a fact.

The hassles you have to go through to be a PC gamer are an entirely seperate issue and much more subjective and opinion based.

This comment was edited on Sep 26, 2009, 01:32.
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
92. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 26, 2009, 00:48 Jerykk
 
Oh yeah, that's right, it's ignorance that makes you drive that more simple car. Pure ignorance. If you knew better you'd drive my car.

No, it's not ignorance. It's complacency. I know your car is better than mine and offers a superior driving experience. I just don't care because I'm complacent about cars. As long as my car works and gets me where I need to go, I'm satisfied. That doesn't make your car any less superior to mine though. Again, there's a distinction between quantifiable qualities and personal taste.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
91. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 26, 2009, 00:43 Jerykk
 
What you fail to understand is that the "gaming experience" is a matter of opinion, and not fact.

100 FPS is higher than 30 FPS. This is a fact.
2560x1600 is higher than 1280x720. This is a fact.
16xAA is higher than 2xAA. This is a fact.
16xAF is higher than 0xAF. This is a fact.
A mouse is faster and more precise than an analog stick. This is a fact.

Take Quake. One version uses the former settings and the other uses the latter settings. Which offers the better game experience?

Considering at least one of the current gen consoles can do 1080p, 60fps, has multiple control options (FragFX, Mouse & Keyboard for FPS games), is capable of AA, etc, etc...your argument becomes even weaker.

How many console games run at a native 1920x1080, 8xAA, 16xAF with a constant 60 FPS? How many console games officially support M/KB? The only things becoming weaker are your attempts at rebuttal.

Batman Arkham Asylum...aside from the PhysX enhancement and having the choice to use Mouse & Keyboard, what exactly makes the gameplay superior on the PC? And to make myself clear...I'm referring to the GAMEPLAY, not TECHNICAL ENHANCEMENTS.

You act like technical enhancements have nothing to do with the overall game experience. Batman on 360 has the same gameplay as Batman on PC. However, Batman on PC looks and runs much better. That makes it superior on the PC. If you can't understand this, I'm not sure what else I can say.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
90. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 26, 2009, 00:29 Jerykk
 
Opinions are not facts, they are opinions.

Agreed. However, if somebody doesn't know anything about PCs, they are ignorant of PCs. This is a fact. If someone doesn't really care and will settle for anything, they are complacent. This is a fact. Someone who only settles for the best graphics, performance and controls is not complacent. Someone who settles for whatever is most convenient is complacent. You may find these words insulting but they are simply the most accurate words to use in this situation.

My nephew does not know, care or understand technical terms. To him the Nintendo Wii is the best platform, that's a fact to him.

I'm sure it is. However, this isn't an argument about taste. It's a matter of facts. On a purely objective basis, the PC has more quantifiable advantages than any console. Your nephew may not care about these advantages but again, that doesn't change the fact that these advantages exist.

You could rant in his face about resolutions and aliasing all day but those things having little to do with gaming.

Presentation, performance and controls have very much to do with gaming. If they didn't, why would publishers spend so much money on them? Hell, just make ASCII games. Much cheaper.

The PC has had more than its fair share of terrible ports, I still cringe a bit when I hear the word port.

I do too, but not because of the quality of ports. Most ports are, at the very least, solid and still superior to their console counterparts. I cringe at the word because it reminds me that the game was not designed with PC gamers in mind and as such, won't be as good as it could be if designed for a superior platform.

If frame rate, AA and resolution are so important than Planescape must be a flaming pile of crap. 600x480, 30fps, jaggies everywhere.

Actually, there's a mod you can use to play the game at high resolutions. And the game has very nice art, much better than the tile-based stuff in Fallout, Baldur's Gate or Arcanum.

In any case, I think your statement reveals your misunderstanding of what we are actually arguing here. Nobody has said that consoles are a flaming pile of crap. We're saying that the PC is simply a superior gaming platform. That doesn't make consoles bad, it just makes the PC better.

This comment was edited on Sep 26, 2009, 00:33.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
89. Re: Arkham Asylum Patch Sep 25, 2009, 21:38 Beamer
 
The thing you and Verno keep passing by is that Jerykk is talking about the actual game experience, not the experience surrounding it. The game experience itself is pretty much ALWAYS better on PC, with extremely rare exceptions. It's not a "which band sounds better" situation at ALL, it is quantifiable objective facts that the higher the framerate the better, the higher the resolution the better, the more precision in aiming the better, the more AA the better, etc.

But again, this is for you.

An experience is not a frame rate. An experience is not AA. An experience is not resolution. An experience is vastly more than that. An experience is what you need to do to get a game running. Do you need new drivers? Do you need an upgrade? Do you need to free HD space? Do you need to wait until your child finishes typing his homework? Or do you pop a disc in and run it?
Do you play against people you've never met, or do you play against your best friend on the couch next to you?

You can say none of those things matter much to you compared to outside the game factors like community and convienence, and that is perfectly fine, but Jerykk and I are talking about the game itself.

Then stop using the term "game experience" because it isn't at all correct. Say "game technical factors," which are part of the experience but, for the most part, completely unnecessary.

If frame rate, AA and resolution are so important than Planescape must be a flaming pile of crap. 600x480, 30fps, jaggies everywhere. Clearly it's garbage.

For US, it is worth the outside the game hassles of PC gaming to get the games to look and play better. For others, it is not. That's fine... that is where people can disagree. That's where your opinions and choices come into play... you choose what to care about in gaming, but the facts are the facts.

Again, you're not stating facts. You're discussing "experience." Experience is NOT based in facts. It's unique for everyone. You base yours more around technical prowess. Fine. You're a rarity. Jerykk seems to think anyone that doesn't is an idiot. This makes his posts pointless wastes of time. You're more sensible about it, significantly so, but you're still trying to say game experiences are defined by things as simple as resolution.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
108 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo