Skyrim is a port for PC

[Halororor]

I am killing off gaming forums? lulwut? You posted a completly violent response than you basically said f*** you without any intention to hide it. The point I tried to make that you complelty missed is that most games even those who have a huge PC community on their side try to go and make money by making the game on a console for a 12 year old kid to be able to play and enjoy while most of the community suffers from the simplified/consolfied interface. Look at Crysis. Crysis 2 was a bloody disaster for PC compared to what it could have been as a direct sequel for PC only. Oblivion. If not for limitation of consoles there would have been a far more complex system of quests and topics that you hear about which was removed from the game. Why? Console wouldn't handle it.

 

And ArmA 2 is a simulation game that could never be handled by a console. Going to google images and typing the game doesn't give you full knowledge about it

 

Okay, firstly, I'm not itnerested in wasting any more time bickering over obvious rubbish. Crysis 2 was touted as a much better game than the first by a fairly large part of the gaming community, not just on this site, but all over. You know why you don't realise it? Because the majority of the people who enjoyed it might go so far as to make a single post on the forum, see the negativity levelled at the game by the aforementioned 'rotten elitist group' that's so prevalent, and move on without bothering to reply again. They have better things to do than moan about how they'll never be satisfied with any game ever released. I don't really get it, linearity aside (because yes, Crysis 1 was the poster child for non-linearity :rolleyes:), Crysis 2 was just a much better game overall. What was especially better was its interface. It wasn't clunky, like the one in Crysis one. It was seamlessly integrated into the game. How anyone can moan because they preferred the detached, and often hateable interface from Crysis 1.

 

As for games being made so even a 12 year old kid can play them. Are you perhaps not mentally well? Why should the 12 year old kid be excluded from being able to play the game. Back when games were too complex for a more casual market, they were designed that way, because for the most part, the casual market wasn't as interested in games. The so called 'hardcore' gamers made up the biggest part of the market. Then, gaming became cool. Suddenly the casual market started getting interested, so naturally games started catering for a larger audience. Why should developers design a game in a manner that pleases 500 thousand 'hardcore' gamers, but alienates 2 million 'casual' gamers?

 

As for the ArmA 2 comment. I'm terribly sorry for offending you by assuming it's an FPS. I'll bow before your glory as you play your simulation game on your PC made of glorious gold and imbah-ness. I now understand it was wrong of me to call it an FPS, when quite clearly, the fact that you can shoot and have a first person view of the game, has nothing to do with the genre it falls in.

 

I still don't see why it wouldn't work on console. Shrug. Not that I care.

 

Anyways, I've had this exact same conversation with many, many other PC elitists. It's not going to end up any different. You don't want to enjoy games, so you'll always find ways to blame the consoles for it, whether it be the UI or 'simplification' or whatever. So cheers (I was going to say enjoy your games here, but I realised that that would be ironic).

[IndorilTheGreat]

Just out of curiosity, since when did this thread become a debate about Console VS PC? :huh:

 

As I said before, we are getting the same game; not "Hello Kitty: Island Adventures."

Edited June 13, 2011 by IndorilTheGreat

[Vagrant0]

And ArmA 2 is a simulation game that could never be handled by a console. Going to google images and typing the game doesn't give you full knowledge about it

And how exactly does that make it 'better'?

 

The reality of PC is this... the graphics race is dead. It really is. Graphics technology has slowly been grinding to a halt in favor of stylized graphics...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3201-Graphics-vs-Aesthetics

 

I would rather have a game with good/smooth action and quality features/storyline than shiny graphics... And really, so would most gamers. It's strange how you mention some games 16 bit sprites as being a paramount in the same breath as touting how great a game is because it has good graphics. Those games are good because they weren't bogged down by selling points and marketing, they were games designed for a niche demographic, and were awesome because of it. But such demographics no longer exist, and if they do, they are no longer profitable for game designers who have to pump more and money into their games to compete in a market of hundreds of titles annually. Only indie developers can afford to go for niche gamers because they are often on a shoestring budget. Mainstreaming is just how the future looks for PC gaming, it simply cannot survive without it. Even in terms of marketing, it makes more sense to try and hook potential customers who are new to a franchise than it does to just play to your dwindling and aging base since newcomers will undoubtedly be tempted to take a look at earlier installments to see how they were.

 

Frankly, computer gaming can only survive the future by being either more accessible, or by adopting a pay for play subscription model. Having PC games which can have the versatility of PC games, but have the action and enjoyment of console games seems like a better way to go to me.

[hector530]

Just out of curiosity, since when did this thread become a debate about Console VS PC? :huh:

 

As I said before, we are getting the same game; not "Hello Kitty: Island Adventures."

 

because its like all other skyrim dumbed down threads here.

[JimboUK]

For all the people screaming at PC players to stop whining, I must say to you that consoles are running on 6 year old hardware which limits the capabilities greatly. Yes, Skyrim will be amazing. Yes, it will look decent. But no, it will not live up to its true potential for the simple fact that while developers have became more adept at maximizing the console's potential, it will never be on par with the current gen of PC hardware. Nobody is ripping on the console players. They are just ripping the fact that Bethesda is doing it backwards. Bad Company 3, for example, has been designed specifically for the PC hardware and scaled down to accompany the console's hardware. This is the way that all developers should produce games. Obviously there are free market principles at play here, and as the developers know, PC gamers will buy Skyrim whether or not it was designed for the PC and then scaled down to the consoles. Why would a developer spend the extra time and money to implement PC specific attributes when the PC arena will be its smallest market share?

 

My issue is Craig's word choice: "Not that bad". Okay, so does that mean it's slightly bad, just not as bad as bad can be? Honestly, that was an incredible moronic choice of words. It's fairly obvious that the PC has been their tertiary platform, but to say it's "Not that bad" in a way rubs salt in the open wounds of PC gamers that know full well that Skyrim will not be up to current gen's standards.

 

One can only hope for the day that next gen consoles are released. Then we will see some amazing advancement in the gaming industry. Right now, the industry is just treading water and squeezing as much as they can out of 6 year old hardware. Bad Company 3 has at least raised the bar.

 

But you have to admit, it is a LOT easier to optimize the game for those 6 year old hardware, because they are the same in every console.

And the PC has almost an unlimited number of hardware combinations.

But what you say is true, and still, I think that they use the console market to make money, and the PC market as their "main" customers, not in quantity, but in quality

Maybe we won't buy as much as the console guys, but hey, we already gave them some great ideas through mods that they used in Skyrim.

Basically I see myself, and the whole PC community, as co-game developers.

If consoles didn't exist PC gaming would have been FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR better games.

 

I don't know, it's not the consoles that are the problem, it's developers pandering to the brain dead.

[runforitkyle]

I don't think they're dumping it down for idiots but making it simpler and funner. Grinding for +5 got on my nevres and I'm sure many others too, they didn't dumb down not really. If bethesda had made elder scrolls Pc exclusive they just might have gone bust.... I would prefer a slightly worse Skyrim than no Skyrim at all.

[Ghogiel]

Dunno man.. It's a bit of give and take atm.

 

They are both fixing bad design/broken leveling, they are also streamlining game features as well as adding them, ie perks, smithing, yet they still remove a lot of features, ie attributes, spell making. They make more content, ie more voice actors, they also take away, pauldrons and possibly even greaves this time.

 

It is on the whole looking much better than Ob that's for sure, and I don't doubt it is going to whoop it in everyway, I still think they are playing it a little safe and still continuing weak areas that started with either MW and OB, and perpetuating them like it's not even something to consider. For example, the Imperial city.. They sit there an blow their own trumpet about huge game worlds and how good they are at that, they still haven't manned up to actually making a city on any real scale.. I know it's hard, performance mashing, too time consuming to dev at the LOD they make their games at.. but it isn't really for one of the best developers in the biz, they are just playing it safe, and not literally expanding the scope.

 

Though they do have dragons this time :dance:

 

JimUK: Dice exec producer: Asked specifically whether he feels if consoles are holding PC gaming back, Bach replied “Yes, Absolutely”, and added “That’s the biggest problem we have today”

Edited June 13, 2011 by Ghogiel

[antonkr]

And ArmA 2 is a simulation game that could never be handled by a console. Going to google images and typing the game doesn't give you full knowledge about it

And how exactly does that make it 'better'?

 

The reality of PC is this... the graphics race is dead. It really is. Graphics technology has slowly been grinding to a halt in favor of stylized graphics...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3201-Graphics-vs-Aesthetics

 

I would rather have a game with good/smooth action and quality features/storyline than shiny graphics... And really, so would most gamers. It's strange how you mention some games 16 bit sprites as being a paramount in the same breath as touting how great a game is because it has good graphics. Those games are good because they weren't bogged down by selling points and marketing, they were games designed for a niche demographic, and were awesome because of it. But such demographics no longer exist, and if they do, they are no longer profitable for game designers who have to pump more and money into their games to compete in a market of hundreds of titles annually. Only indie developers can afford to go for niche gamers because they are often on a shoestring budget. Mainstreaming is just how the future looks for PC gaming, it simply cannot survive without it. Even in terms of marketing, it makes more sense to try and hook potential customers who are new to a franchise than it does to just play to your dwindling and aging base since newcomers will undoubtedly be tempted to take a look at earlier installments to see how they were.

 

Frankly, computer gaming can only survive the future by being either more accessible, or by adopting a pay for play subscription model. Having PC games which can have the versatility of PC games, but have the action and enjoyment of console games seems like a better way to go to me.

You know for once I am starting to see what you mean by that. Upgrading a computer is definatly not something a casual gamer might or may want to do. So until any advancement in hardware stops which will never completely happen http://farm1.static.flickr.com/240/518517326_8662ada85d.jpg see picture for example

PC just won't be too much of a casual gamer platform. I am just really hoping that it does not turn into a VERY not optimized game for PC. I have nothing myself against consoles. Hell I love to play Black Ops zombies with my mates all the time. It is just what originated as a standard for PC gaming is starting to die out. When I tried playing Bulletstorm demo quite recently on a PC the controls were a bit... no A LOT ludicrous. The best solution to satisfying both console and PC gamers is what Dice did with BF2. There was BF2 for pc and than Modern Combat for consoles. Both a little different both made sense and were and still are awesome games.

[Vagrant0]

You know for once I am starting to see what you mean by that. Upgrading a computer is definatly not something a casual gamer might or may want to do. So until any advancement in hardware stops which will never completely happen http://farm1.static.flickr.com/240/518517326_8662ada85d.jpg see picture for example

PC just won't be too much of a casual gamer platform.

Actually, it kinda technically is getting there, atleast with graphics cards. Not only have there been fewer and fewer truly demanding games, but that videocard manufacturers have been pretty much limited by what is practical with current materials and marketable cooling technologies. For both graphical and core processing, we're hitting the limit of what can be achieved with air cooling alone. Standard data storage access speeds have also been capping out (even as SSD). The only place to go from here is cloud computing, and that's just a mess.

[Vindekarr]

:excl: Anton, for your own sake please, step back, look at what you're saying, and then maybe apologise to the people you've needlessly offended. Seriously mate, you really, really need to think about what you're saying-cool your temper for starters, and then really have a serious think about what you're actualy saying.

 

Remember this: the first games were arcade games, from arcade came console, games simply migrated onto PC as a matter of course, the PC isn't the home of gaming mate, no matter how much you want to think it is, consoles have been the heart of gaming since the decline of arcades, and that's very very unlikely to change. Does that make them superior? no, because you can actualy play both pc and console without turning into a purple goat.

 

I for one am proudly a console gamer, my gaming career started on console back in '99 with an N-64. Console has a long and worthy history, with some of the greatest games of all time being console exclusive, or designed initialy for console then ported over to PC. I have a PC now and am a frequent enough user of it to be described as a PC gamer, but I am at heart a balanced gamer-PC, Xbox(Yes, I have a 360, and no, It's never RROD'ed on me, it's only ever needed repacing once, and that was after it was dropped down three flights of stairs by a clumsy removalist), and occasionaly PS2(yes, I have one and yes it still works after 7 years) Does that make me braindead in your eyes? probably, but I assure you, you're the one who's mistaken here. If you seriously think that console gamers are somehow inferior, then you need to grow up and learn that the world's full of all sorts, and that you won't get far in life with such an agressive, intolerant attitude.

 

Take this as an intervention Anton, you aren't impressing anyone here, and by trying to wear the PC gaming banner as a cape, you're dragging it through the mud. Learn tolerance or eventualy life and karma will see that you're made to regret your lack of it. Intolerance and inability to listen aren't virtues mate, the sooner you learn that, the better. Peace out. :excl:

Edited June 14, 2011 by Vindekarr