I think he is referring to the days of classic RPGs like Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, etc.,
Will call BS on that statement. Going back to the Commodore 64, 286, 386 era I had controllers for all types of games. Not sure what you mean by "back in the day" unless you are truly referring to text based games.
Back in the day, you had this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_port
So you could connect this:
Will call BS on that statement. Going back to the Commodore 64, 286, 386 era I had controllers for all types of games. Not sure what you mean by "back in the day" unless you are truly referring to text based games.
Back in the day, you had this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_port
So you could connect this:
59730400-1389384530.jpg
I think he is referring to the days of classic RPGs like Baldurs Gate, Icewind Dale, etc.,
Only the highest of high end could run Witcher 2 on Ultra when it launched. And even then it was sub 60 fps.
A lot of overreacting here.
You wonder why devs don't give the PC love? It's pretty obvious.
Ah, this thread makes me happy. It just confirms my bias against "PC gamers". If a game only needs a 4 year old graphics card to run at ultra, everyone screams "OMG consoles are holding us back!" If a game can't even hit 60FPS on the best graphics cards available when it is released, everyone screams "OMG consoles are holding us back!".
So, how does a game created to tell a story unable to perform that task at 30 frames per second, but able to do that at 60 frames per second?
What a total and utter f'in mess. I'm not going anywhere near this game.
First of all there's just lie after lie in the PR here, first they talk of parity between versions and then upon investigation there's actual differences in AA/object distance/shaders etc. Then they talk about locking at 30fps for PC players and disabling ultra features for basically no reason.
I think you're overreacting. A lot of what was said has been erroneously interpreted due to bad translation.
There was another interview at The GameStar, a german magazine which is much more informative. A German American moderator on CDPR forums translated the article, which you can read here.
According to the article, ultra settings will not be the highest settings. I'm betting that you will be able to customize your settings to achieve a higher IQ than the default ultra.
Also, a GTX 980 will be able to easily handle ultra settings at 1080p. Going above ultra though may require a second GPU however, especially if you will be gaming at higher resolutions.
As for frame rates, the German article claimed the GTX 980 was handling high settings at 1080p "fluently" with consistency, which I'm assuming is well above 30 FPS.
The YouTube video they uploaded was at 60 FPS, so I'm not anticipating any frame rate issues..
And as you said, the PC game has better shaders, AA, draw distance etcetera than the console versions, even on standard high settings. Looks like the consoles will be using a combination of medium and high settings, and will of course be locked at 30 FPS..
If they were smart then they would likely be on PC in the first place.
Yeah initially it seemed like there was 30fps locks and no visual difference etc. That apparently was incorrect.
A
That isn't saying I haven't met some great people through games, I have. But look at this thread. Everyone's going ballistic off some cherry-picked lines posted to reddit. None of those people throwing fits have bothered to read the interview for themselves. No one has talked about trying to reach out for clarification. It was just pitchforks and moaning.
Thank god!
Just the 30fps lock on cut-scenes in DA:I (for whatever reason they did this!!??) was enough to drive me crazy! 30fps lock on gameplay? forget it!
There is definitely a place for both controllers and mouse/kb controls on the PC. I dont think anyone is arguing about that. Some games just play better on a controller, but some games also can play much better with a kb/mouse *if the controls are properly designed*.
It is not really about spending 45 dollars for a controller. It is more about having functionality taken away from kb/mouse controls because they are poorly ported from a controller layout. The availability of only 8 spell slots in DA:I that I mentioned before is one example of this. Maybe it seems minor, but it really is not when basically every time you level up you are gimped in your choices by the lack of usage slots.
Back in the day, PC gamers played with a mouse and keyboard for all but flight simulators and racing games. And mostly they still do. PC gamers have every right to expect mouse and keyboard support for all games but those special cases which a mouse doesn't work (simulators; flight and racing).
Unfortunately, what I said isn't defended by me, but my the industry in general. Feel free not to believe me, I couldn't care less.2 Things...
If console games are made for people with no attention span how do you explain the JRPGs that have some of the worst grinding in any game out there and take hundreds of hours to finish one time? There are games that are only on console that I have hundreds of hours into. Others on my friend list as well.
That's totally fine: you're that kind of gamer. You probably don't enjoy games like Europa Universalis or NEO Scavenger, because it's too much clicking and not enough action.Second, I don't correlate clicks to fun. If I have to click,click,click like mad I'll get tired of it and won't bother with the game.
Well, it may be, but it's not any less true. Simplified could be used instead.Stop saying dumbed down. There has to be another word to use instead of dumb. It's insulting and a lot of people who play games on consoles aren't dumb.
Actually, I think simple is an even better definition. If someone is dumb, well, maybe they'll get off their asses and do something about it, but if their... well, simple... then it a bit of a different story.simplified is the most accurate. A controller's interface is much more simple than a keyboard and mouse.
They didn't destroy them after The Witcher 2, why would they do it now?There seems to be a lot of overreaction to poorly translated 'sayings' in here. First of all Poland has a pretty hardcore PC gaming community, which in and of itself would destroy cdpr if this game was a strict 'console' port.
It's not about the ton of console exclusives, it's about the crapton of PC exclusives. Then compare them, and you come up with a number. Or something...Why? There's a ton of games you never see on PC. For many that is more important than turning on AA.
Unfortunately, what I said isn't defended by me, but my the industry in general. Feel free not to believe me, I couldn't care less.
That's totally fine: you're that kind of gamer. You probably don't enjoy games like Europa Universalis or NEO Scavenger, because it's too much clicking and not enough action.
Well, it may be, but it's not any less true. Simplified could be used instead.
Actually, I think simple is an even better definition. If someone is dumb, well, maybe they'll get off their asses and do something about it, but if their... well, simple... then it a bit of a different story.
Console games: simple games, for simple people. Get yours now for 79,99!
They didn't destroy them after The Witcher 2, why would they do it now?
Seems to me Poland's PC gamers letting go of the fight and stopped caring about the games they play. Like the rest of the world...
It's not about the ton of console exclusives, it's about the crapton of PC exclusives. Then compare them, and you come up with a number. Or something...
CDPR has been frucking the PC gamers in the butt since the team of the first game was all but destroyed during The Witcher 2's development and they dumbed the second game to a point where it's as forgettable all the other consolified crap out there. The combat is junk and uninteresting and not challenging, the plot is not nearly as well presented and the missions nowhere near as fun.
And I'm not speaking out of nostalgia. Admitedly, The Witcher 1 is by far and a way not the be-all-end-all hardcore PC RPG of the century, but it's head and shoulders above its successor. I've played it a few times already, the last time right after I finished The Witcher 2 (which I have since sold) and it's just a more charismatic and cohesive game.
They sold out, basically.
Can't blame them, but I'm not buying their new game either. You know why? Cause I don't want non of that shaft up me rump, no thank you.
Let me make this clear, this is not my attitude. What I mean by consolification is something much easier to understand: PC gaming, in terms of gameplay, is all about the click action. Doesn't matter if it's on a keyboard, mouse, or gamepad, it's about the clicks. General rule: you click more = more fun. That's why Diablo 3 is nowhere near as fun as Diablo 2. So that alone makes The Witcher 2 more of a console game than The Witcher was.
But there's another very important aspect to it all, one anyone remotely knowledgeable about the industry will KNOW: console games are made with a shorter attention span in mind, for gamers who are not as willing to sink hours into a game as PC gamers. This is fact. If you're a console developer and you don't KNOW this, you're not a successful console developer. And The Witcher 2, like 90% of the American television series, is shaped with that in mind: lots of people don't care much about much, and they just want to have a good time. I'm not blaming them, and I'm not blaming anyone who caters to the public. But I do blame CDPR for selling out, because they weren't aiming at that crowd when the first game came up. It's pretty much the same deal that went on with BioWare in the early 2000's, only BioWare never did manage to deliver anything particularly brilliant (even if their games are massively famous and loved).
Interplay went down for this exact crap, although they went down because they did it a bit too much.
*Let me clarify my more clicks = more fun theory. What I mean is that if to walk 10 feed I need to click three times, as a rule, that's gonna be more fun than if I need to click once, or don't even need to click. Console design goes against this, prioritizing content (for the ADD crowd) over action. In other words, dumbing things down. Of course the PC crowd is gonna look like idiots when a game sequel makes menial gameplay tasks easier or removes them entirely: inventory tetris, manual cancelation of turns, skill point assignment, calculations, exploration, all that is part of PC gaming, and something that detracts from that is tendentiously consolified.
Also, a GTX 980 will be able to easily handle ultra settings at 1080p. Going above ultra though may require a second GPU however, especially if you will be gaming at higher resolutions.
As for frame rates, the German article claimed the GTX 980 was handling high settings at 1080p "fluently" with consistency, which I'm assuming is well above 30 FPS.
The YouTube video they uploaded was at 60 FPS, so I'm not anticipating any frame rate issues..
And as you said, the PC game has better shaders, AA, draw distance etcetera than the console versions, even on standard high settings. Looks like the consoles will be using a combination of medium and high settings, and will of course be locked at 30 FPS..
I'm going to get some hate for saying this.
Look at a keyboard. It's pretty great for typing a paper. It was never conceived or developed as a game controller.
Look at a mouse. It was conceived as a pointing device for a GUI. Sure games have a GUI. But it too was never conceived as a game controller.
There was a time when Gamepads (and computer peripherals in general) were expensive and there was no standard for those so devs made the controls work for the peripherals that everybody already had. That doesn't mean that those peripherals were best for gaming in any sense. It was just a way to lower the cost of entry for PC games.
When the Xbox 360 controller became the defacto standard for PC gamepads now the PC had a standard gaming controller and devs made their games compatible with that controller. It just made it easier for gamers and devs alike.
If keyboard and mouse is so great then arcade machines and consoles like the NES or Sega Genesis should have come with those instead of a joystick or gamepad. All gaming machines should just come with that control setup. But they don't. Why?
I'm not saying that all games are better with a controller because certain genres like simulation or real time strategy are best played with a keyboard and mouse. Those really need a pointer and the extra buttons offered by a keyboard and mouse. But it's really just a few genres that benefit. When you play an FPS with a mouse it's like playing duck hunt with the gun a few inches from the TV it's just too precise. They did that back in the day because they didn't have much of a choice. But now peripherals designed for gaming are a dime a dozen. It's easy to use a controller designed for gaming with games.
The keyboard and mouse love, to me, just sounds like nostalgia. A longing for a past when PC game pads were expensive or more trouble than they were worth. Most recent consoles have offered a keyboard and mouse. All the way back to Dreamcast and possibly before. But those were niche items. And even for the Xbox 360 the keyboard was mostly a convenience for all the signing in you had to do with it and/or using messaging services.
Please keep your responses civil and cogent. I know what I wrote is upsetting to many, but just consider that it was just the best for the market at that time. A PC dev didn't want to limit sales to only those who had a $50-120 PC gamepad nor did they want to deal with supporting the plethora of PC gamepads of those days.