Building up a new PC
- Thread starter Divvens
- Start date
I just cant agree, pc gamers buy the games for the fancy fluff. If you wanted a system to play any game to be released... you would buy a console instead.
Carlos
Well-known member
Um. I disagree. I'm a console gamer, and I want a gaming PC. Some games aren't going to consoles. And I don't think we're going to get a top-notch version of Diablo 3 unless the developers wish it to be.
Luke F
Well-known member
Price/performance ratio is crazy once you get into that kind of money. To the stage where it would be better to save up for a later upgrade.
Forsaken
Well-known member
Right... You do realize this thread was about a budget system? Expecting to play games on highest settings on a budget system is ridiculous, as you'll sacrifice quality for performance.
Also, whats the point of dazzling special effects if your gameplay isn't slightly enjoyable? Games are for playing, not for watching pretty effects. If I wanted pretty effects, I'd go to the movies~
The gameplay between most modern games is nearly identical.
Tell me the difference in gameplay between Modern Warfare 1 and 2? Next to 0 difference. You still point and shoot with a mouse. The graphics add realism and immerse you in the game, that is why I am a Pc gamer.
The topic asked for opinions on a build to last 2/3 years with an suggestion of waiting. My opinion was, and still is it would have been better to wait, get a bigger budget and build a better system that will hold up better over time.
That opinion is coming from the fact my PC is nearly 4 years old, cost £1600 and still plays every game I buy at maximum settings.
Forsaken
Well-known member
Your examples are ridiculous. You're using a game and its sequel to compare gameplay, but sequels rarely change gameplay. They're also a genre has a fairly straightforward gameplay.
Compare something like Guild Wars to World of Warcraft, where gameplay is of more importance than graphics at least.
And when he builds his system next year, people will say the same thing you just did. It is unlikely for requirements for gaming to change within the next year or two (At least drastically), because most games will support older machines.£1600 is a mid-high range system, not a budget system. I've made systems for $800, and done minor upgrades and have had it last 5-6 years, and it still plays the majority of games (Even MW2, going with your example).
Your examples are ridiculous. You're using a game and its sequel to compare gameplay, but sequels rarely change gameplay. They're also a genre has a fairly straightforward gameplay.
Compare something like Guild Wars to World of Warcraft, where gameplay is of more importance than graphics at least.
£1600 is a mid-high range system, not a budget system. I've made systems for $800, and done minor upgrades and have had it last 5-6 years, and it still plays the majority of games (Even MW2, going with your example).
I don't know how you define gameplay, but having played WoW on the highest level (world first bosskills) for 5 years I can tell you, the basic salt and pepper of all mmo games is pretty much identical... imo...
The only game this year which made me think differently about the genre was Space Marine, a game rewarding getting stuck in and butcher the enemy opposed to... save my HP, sit back and be cautious.
You take any FPS... point and shoot.
Any RTS... build and conquer.
Any racing game... win the track.
You see where im going with this.
I could pick up any FPS for a xbox 360 if I just wanted to play games, hell I could even buy a mouse and keyboard for the extra PC feel. However I buy PC because I want to enjoy the amazing new graphics.
Just look at the offset engine.... that was due to be revolutionary... but canceled. A right shame, because it would have been a truely amazing experience...
Luke F
Well-known member
It's still all about gameplay, graphics have only got worse recently with the addition of stupid postprocessing effects that supposedly increase 'realism' while in actual fact they take the game straight into the uncanny valley (at least for me). Good graphics to me are what the Source engine produces - flawless textures (where the originals are very high resolution e.g. TF2, sadly L4D2 and Portal 2 target consoles so no nice textures), no jagged edges and no out of place lighting, and without the silly effects it is able to produce framerates far above other games. Basically my preference is a game that looks perfect, not a game that looks real.
The only truly game changing thing for me is stereoscopic 3D, which is amazing when it works (rarely). Vastly better experience compared to a 3D movie. Just a huge pity about its necessity for vsync, which pretty much rules out multiplayer FPS gaming.
The only truly game changing thing for me is stereoscopic 3D, which is amazing when it works (rarely). Vastly better experience compared to a 3D movie. Just a huge pity about its necessity for vsync, which pretty much rules out multiplayer FPS gaming.
Marcus
Well-known member
$1,250
Carlos
Well-known member
Here's what you're arguing with Forsaken about: Does it cost more just to get the same gameplay experience as the console counterparts?
My answer is: Depends on how you want it.
If you wanted to play a PC game at max setting; as you've plainfully pointed out over and over again.... Sure, it may cost 1 grand. Or 800 euros. To get the settings that YOU want.
Forsaken's point: You don't need to have an overly expensive budget to get PC gaming. Especially if you're upgrading.
For example, I built my computer 10 years ago. At the time of Half Life 2's release, I didn't have a really powerful computer, but thankfully, Half Life 2 ran well on my machine.
Right now, Battlefield 3 is a cap for some people. For others, they can run the game without even upgrading. Why? Because they have sufficient requirements to run the game as it was.
Sod a PC, get me one of these
http://xenforo.com/community/threads/the-ultimate-first-person-shooter-experience.21664/
Similar threads
