This thought has been a long time coming. And it still bugs me to this day. Personally, I think Halo is a great contributor to this problem (no offense), but there are other causes. But there is a high downfall on the look at games today.
Many people around here know what makes a good game. But this kid I've been talking to about Far Cry on the PC and the Far Cry console games, and the differences between them. I know he's a huge Far Cry (console) fan, and I told him there was going to be a Far Cry 2. He said, "there already is a Far Cry 2, it's called Far Cry Evolution." I spent a lengthy time writing out an e-mail saying how Evolution was the sequel to Instincts, not the actual Far Cry. Here is exactly what I wrote,
" Far Cry Evolution is a technical sequel for Far Cry Instincts, which was a practical "re-created" port of Far Cry for the PC. Crytek made Far Cry on the PC, and since the engine was so hard to run (back in '04 that is), when they announced they were going to port the game to Xbox, people were skeptic on how they would run such a heavy game on the Xbox. So, they started from scratch, and created a completely different engine for the Xbox and Instincts, which is a somewhat ported version of Far Cry to the Xbox. There are technical differences, and the whole feral power thing. But really, Instincts is obviously not a sequel. Crytek stopped the creation of other Far Cry games after Instincts though so they can work on Crysis, which came out yesterday. So Ubisoft Montreal took over and decided to keep the Far Cry series going for a while longer. They made what you have called the sequel to Far Cry, but it's the sequel to the Instincts experience, which is why the box says "Far Cry Instincts Evolution" or "Far Cry Instincts Predator", if you have the 360 Far Cry game. And on a true level, it's the first game people can actually call a sequel for Far Cry, but only for Instincts. Instincts and the original Far Cry have much different creation structures, gameplay elements, multiplayer modes (Xbox came out much better I do have to say), and even storylines at times. And from what it looks like, what Ubisoft is creating now dubbed "Far Cry 2" seems to have the same elements that fit closer to how the original Far Cry played out, making it a much closer sequel to "Far Cry" instead of "Instincts". IGN has a whole page set up for Far Cry 2 if you want to take a look. Not much video has been released, but quite a few pictures, and written previews of the game. Ubi is keeping it under wraps quite a bit, so we probably won't see much of this grow until later. Far Cry (Instincts or original) had nice draw distance scale, reaching out to 1.2 kilometers, I think it's been increased now, to like 50 square kilometers."
I'm not sure he would allow me to put up his exact words, but he said something similar to this. "I know a lot about Far Cry Instincts and Evolution. But the storyline between Far Cry and Instincts are the same, right? I never played Far Cry for the PC, but I know it sucked from poor graphics, sometimes, and it was laggy."
This really ticks me off! I just can't stand it when people try to tell me about how much a game stinks when a) they have not played the game, and more importantly b) they completely judge it wrong, and for the wrong reasons! He says the game sucked because the graphics were poor, and performance was laggy. He did not judge it wrong by the wrong reasons, except he hasn't played it, but where does he get this information?! And he also later discussed how well Predator looked. Predator came out like two years after Far Cry on PC did. And Far Cry PC definitely looks better than he mentions. An IGN review said that when he played this game, he thought he would run well on some hardware mentioned. But he wound up having to go to an Alienware machine. Now I'm sure most of us can actually run this game properly nowadays. And the only things I found wrong with the graphics, not comparing to more recent-generation games, are some draw-distance problems, and foliage popping. Maybe a few ragdoll problems, but what game with ragdolls doesn't get a glitch like that?
What I'm trying to bring out is that people are getting the wrong impressions on games today, and are giving out their opinions with horrible opposition. Now I know he's a console gamer, and it is a bit off when comparing a tactically-tough game like Far Cry on PC with console games. But I'm sick of this, I want an intelectual discussion with a gamer, not just on these forums, but people I more personally know (not like that), whose opinion I can respect. I have only met one kid whose opinion in games I can respect, and I don't see him often. It's just not right.
I'm so sick of it. Anyone else have incidences like this?
luckily no, but when playing CS it can be horrible you got a lot of flaming noobs, calling the good players hackers, just cause they kill them it is really annoying
I know what you mean.I can never find anyone with a single bit of intelligence to talk to about games , either. In "real life" that is. It is actually quite frustrating.I don't know how many conversations I have gotten into where someone has said that consoles are more powerful than PC's. What a load of rubbish. As a person who plays both 360 and PC it really ticks me off when people make a clearly wrong statements about the platform/games on a platform.The worst one is " I've heard Halo 3 is the best game ever made."I gave up trying to describe Bioshock to someone when they said " oh thats the kinda game where you just shoot things right?" sigh. I have basically given up talking to anyone about games since they are always so mis-informed and...well...stupid.
I know exactly what you mean. Ever since I moved away from California, I don't know anyone who has a clue about PC gaming, which seems a little odd since I live 30 miles away from Microsoft headquarters and ya'd think all the PC knuckleheads at the big M would rub off on the populace a bit.
And as far as the annoyance, the same goes for talking to people about PC hardware...
Every person I talk to around here would think an 8500GT 512mb is a superior card to a 7900GT 256MB both because it's a higher number and it has twice the ram. (uh-huh, whoopty-friggin-do oh wise one) It drives me nuts that I don't know anyone in-person who has a clue. Same goes for most of the so called "techs" in the brick stores. Thankfully there's some on this forum and most on the tech forum I visit to converse with about it.
In fact, that reviewer who "needed to go to an Alienware machine" to run FarCry must be surrounded by idiots who have no clue and would buy or allow another to buy that over-hyped, over-priced machine. So many cheaper ways to get the same or better rig that it's not even debatable.
I thought alienware was a goodPC for running games based on what I heard but I have never used one so I can't be one to judge PC Chimpmunk is right, that guy was a complete moron
Jeff is a missing boss
28th July 2002
There is an easy way to get around this problem. AVOID console 'gamers' at all costs. Stick to the PC where the real gamers are.
Oh lulz. There is like 2 kids I know that know a lot about PC hardware. One is a some cool asian kid ... then the other kid is some quiet kid that everyone thinks is gonna shoot up the school one day xD .. Even I think he's a tad bit strange.
Then there is those kids who are just outright morons. They'll attempt to talk about PC's and I just have to agree with what they're saying. "Oh that motherboard is good right? I have 256megabytes in my harddrive." I CAN'T STAND IT AHHHHHHH. ((And Alienware steals your money kk.))
Yeah, console gamers do tend to annoy me a bit. Especially when they go on about how great their games are.
I enjoy RTS games, and they don't even make RTS's for consoles because the controls are so awful. They tried with C&C on the N64 but that was a failure, especially as you couldn't play multi on it. (and you could on the PC... I remember playing C&C vs my dad with a serial cable back in the day :) )
I still play classic PC games occasionally such as Strike commander (1993) and Master of Orion 2 (1996) because I enjoy the gameplay. Now, how many console gamers that you know still play games of that age? They moan the graphics aren't good. Who plays a ten year old game for the graphics??? Its the gameplay! Console games don't have a huge replay value. PC games DO. And how many mods do you see coming out for consoles? =p
Yeah... I couldn't be caught playing Oblivion on my PS3. Slight graphical difference, but what makes it better are the mods. Can't get mods on consoles as stated by Freyr.
And yeah, console gamers are REALLY annoying. Brag about Halo 3, which frankly I couldn't care about. Then everytime I get into a conversation with one, I mention I own a PS3 and they just go "OH DAT SUX URRRR".