From the IGN review: (which I did not read until after I wrote the above)
Aging console graphics hardware lets down Infinite, too. When the original BioShock debuted on Xbox 360 in 2007, it was an eye-gasmic wonder – a blissful marriage of Art Deco art direction with top-shelf graphics technology. Fast-forward almost six years, and Infinite is every bit as effective in the former area, but in the raw graphics department it fails to make anywhere near the same impact on either Microsoft or Sony’s box.
It’s far from an ugly game (quite the opposite, really), but the low-quality textures, wooden NPCs (aside from Elizabeth), and occasional minor but noticeable framerate hitches are all maladies the first BioShock avoided. It seems Infinite’s stratospheric ambition is a bit too much, at least in the technology department, for the creaky hardware of the aging consoles. The PC version, as run on mid-range hardware, makes no such visual compromises, with gorgeous high-resolution textures, detailed faces, and smooth performance.
My PC does not boot up that fast, nor get into games quite so quickly, but there are other recent (well, since the last time you played PC games) developments that I really couldn't live without: multicore processors. Being able to run a game (even an advanced one) with the ability to easily alt-tab and the like is just incredible. Hell, you can even listen to music while playing a game? What magic is this?! And I'm yet to experience a total freeze from a game yet; control-alt-delete or sticky keys has saved me every single time. That didn’t used to be the case.
The mid-range hardware comment from IGN is telling. I watched a fair bit of Tomb Raider PS3 videos, and it's medium-low settings on PC at best. Maybe I’m being too harsh. Still looks good, though, but even with my HD4870, the difference is simply night and day.
The only area where I don't really agree is Nintendo. I'm the opposite---Nintendo is the only console maker that holds any relevance when compared to PC simply for being completely unlike it.
Foolz said:...The only area where I don't really agree is Nintendo. I'm the opposite---Nintendo is the only console maker that holds any relevance when compared to PC simply for being completely unlike it.
Yep, if you like Nintendo franchises and dig their controller you could esily get through the next gen with a Wii U and a PC. As for me, I can;t live without my Sony and XB franchises, so I'm stuck (unless MS does any of the crazy things they are rumored to be considering).
On the fast boot, I wonder if that is a Windows 8 thing? Also having SSD as primary drive helps that I am sure.
Absolutely agree on having not to have bought several consoles. I'm reluctant to buy a new PS3 until I have to, I'll likely get one when they start to wind down the PS3 just so I have a reliable console for the future.
Right now though, with the way the fans kick in, I avoid playing it unless there is a game for it that is really compelling.
You know what else is great about PC gaming? Backwards compatibility. Obviously a lot of games require work to get running perfectly whether it's a problem with the OS, or simply that your hardware is too advanced and you need to run CPU killer so that the game plays at a reasonable speed. But you can relatively easily sample games from ANY era on PC. And of course the history of gaming is even more open to you if you're willing to bankrupt honest game developers by emulating a game they made 20 years ago and no longer receive royalties from.
My slim PS3 is almost completely silent. I can hear the disk read once in a while, and that's only when there's nothing coming out of my TV's speakers.
I'll be getting a PS4 eventually. Don't care about the other platforms. Sadly, a gaming PC just isn't possible for me.
gamingeek said:Yeah I read that about Infinite. They say the first game looks better on consoles. As for Nintendo, you have a better opinion if you buy a few decent 3DS games. For Wii U, try it out, the controller is much the same as a normal gamepad, more comfortable in most instances although heavier than I expected and the touch screen is very useful not just for gaming but for menus and apps etc.
Yeah hopefully Animal Crossing will make it worth it. As for the poor screen I'll just tell myself I am playing a DS.
I started out this generation enthusiastically buying a 360 and Wii at launch, and shunning Sony for all their arrogance, instead waiting for the price to drop. My allegiance to Microsoft, carried over from the prior generation, faltered early due to their suicidal hardware. Amazingly, four 360's later, I have found peace with them due to the latest 360 being almost silent and trouble-free. Compared to my launch PlayStation 3 the 360 is a much preferable system to use, no loud fans, automatic connection to the web and all the conveniences that come from Microsoft applying their decades of software engineering. I have been disappointed over the last few years about Microsoft's seeming ambivalence to gaming and particularly game developers. With their dominance in North America (at least amongst the gamerazzi) one would think they would be leaning into their role as a gaming company, instead they are following the breadcrumbs they dropped in the last generation, toward the sacred and almighty dominance that comes with being the set-top box.
While Microsoft lead strong with software then trailed off as their hardware solidified, Sony has done the opposite. Their Ferrari-like launch hardware has now been stripped of it's many ports, backward compatibility and Linux -- yes LINUX! Sony cooling fans however are amazing, if this whole gaming thing doesn't work out for Sony I suggest they going into jet engine manufacturing. With software however, they have become a genuine patron of the gaming arts releasing critical darlings at an astonishing rate while also seeding AAA titles from a variety of developers around the globe. Again, if this whole game thing doesn't work out for them, they could easily step into being the lead software developer and publisher effortlessly. When it comes to playing games these days though, if it is on a console I much prefer the 360, mostly because of my unstable PS3.
Nintendo. We've officially broken up. I don't care about them, they don't care about me. On the Wii, I loved the large stable of unique titles, but the controller and SD did not age well. With the Wii U and 3DS they seem like a spiteful partner who just doesn't know when to stop. They take things I liked and contort them into abominations. But it doesn't matter to me, I don't care. Thanks for the DS Nintendo, the times we had together were spectacular and meaningful.
Which leaves the PC, and the stimulus for this blog. In the BBS and Shareware era I was a PC gamer, so as a dog returns to its vomit so a fool repeats his folly. Except... well... it is working out really well. It's really comfortable to game with a 360 controller at my desk, it's easier to get into a gaming session, pause it, go to the internet, chat while playing or manage a library. My PC boots in about 5 seconds, I am gaming shortly thereafter. It's silent, the solid state drives are fast and the graphics are amazing. It is easy to hook it up to my 50 inch TV without any hassle using HDMI and there is a broad variety of games at all level of pricing. Yes, I've become that guy. So much so that when I play console games now on the 360 or PS3 even I notice the lower frame rates, lower textures, even flickering. I find the boot times on the consoles (including all the non-game menus you need to jump through to get to the game chafing).
I did not realize this switch in my mind until today, when I was considering getting Bioshock Infinite. To play it on a console, at this late stage of the generation just seems dumb (given the difference in hardware between a current PC and the old, old consoles). So I guess I'm where I predicted I would be, buying 360 and PS3 exclusives for consoles and everything else for PC. What a longish, somewhat odd trip it's been.