Ever wondered the difference?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epx3JBvErfk
What do you prefer?
If you are too lazy to watch the whole video, check the description box and go to the last 3-4 mins of the videos for drastic differences in screenshots between PS3/Xbox360/PC
In my opinion: PC Anyday, you will see why.
Will always go for pc but thing is these days alot of games are getting optimized for consoles and when they import it to pc we lose alot of extra's including detail the could of added. Epic games are going to focus on consoles more nowdays due to the fact they were complaining of piracy on PC going to suck :(
Who cares about this graphics whore shit when there's important stuff like dedicated servers/modding/mouse support? That's what matters, not that modern PCs can render things better than consoles that are like half a decade old.
In almost every way a high-end PC (like mine :D) will be more powerful then any console. It's a simple matter of logic.
However, fanboys and all their variations piss me off like nothing other, therefore, out of principle I am 100% unbiased.
I like to play FPS, RTS on the PC, 3rd Person Action/Adventure on console. But often double up, or get the better version for whatever platform it is better on - a bad port is a bad port.
Example: Double Agent for PC is horrid, yet on Xbox360 it looks rather good, and mine has never crashed.
Yet Dragon Age is excellent on PC but completely pathetic on Xbox360.
Also, controllers vs Mice and Keyboards.
I prefer one over the other for different games, and often play on my PC with my wireless controller. Like, I find Resi5 to be really awesome on PC, but I prefer to play in with a controller. But the console version has the DLC and splitscreen.
Or Assassins Creed, I would only ever play that on PC, with mouse/keyboard, for accuracy sake.
But would only ever play Dead Space on Xbox360 with controller.
A small piece of trivia: I have Gears of War 1 for PC and the 2nd one for Xbox360 (presently the only available format) The differences between platforms (and games) allows me to still play both of them and get something different from each. As appose to having both for console, I would most probably only play the 2nd one.
Simply put, I'm not a PC gamer, or a console gamer, I'm a real gamer. ;)
I have my Ps3 and Xbox 360 playing only with friends thats one good thing about them. but if the game can go on PC I will also buy it on PC..But its a dissapiontment when you have beefy machine and only getting 30 frames cuase its ported from a console.
I loved Crysis1/Warhead simply because of the freedom to go about the objectives in different ways. It allowed you to use many strats kind of in the realm of something like Deus ex. And now, it seems they are adding more suit strategy but less of an open world for no reason other than that they are making it for consoles and are restricted. I've also noticed from the videos that you may not be able to pick up any object? I only saw a "kick" option on some objects.
Kind of sucks, but it seems I'll be getting it on xbox anyway because it won't be such a pain to get it to run on my system (that is of course unless I hear it's really well optimized). Probably a rent.
Xbox:
Some FPS
Some RPG
3rd person shooters
Hack/slash
Sports Games
Racing Games
Platformers ---- kinda rare these days :(
Arcade games/indie games
PC:
Some FPS
Some RPG
RTS
I'm lucky enough to have a good PC, an xbox, a wii, and a PSP. Each have their strengths/weaknesses.
@ Farley:
Seems we share a similar philosophy. :)
________
I also don't like it when games change platform mid series.
Crysis2 is just one example, look at F.E.A.R.2 and Far Cry2.
They would have been so much better had they remained PC exclusivesââ,¬Â¦ ah well.
Well sometimes I can't even imagine how can people play FPS on consoles, I find playing FPS on PC gives you major advantage due to the aiming sensitivity and speed can matter. Don't know how it actually works on Xbox360/PS3. But ATI5000+ Graphic cards are 5 times more expensive than one of the consoles, and the result it gives are phenomenal, so PC Anyday ;D ;D ;D
F.E.A.R.2 is the only FPS that I've ever finished on console. While I did rather enjoy the experience, it was very awkward a lot of the time, and the lack of leaning around corners was pretty annoying too.
EDIT: The super smooth and variable speed for walking/strafing was pretty cool though.
_______
While talking about specs, I got an Nvidia GTX 285.
I play everything at 1920x1080 and never notice a drop in fps - not even in Crysis.
Actually, I think the only game I can't run on all highest settings is METRO, the fps just get to choppy in some parts. :'(
Most games now that are ran with windows live you can enable your Xbox 360 PC controller and it will change the UI to the xbox's UI asif you was playing it on the console. I find that awsum when I play racing games on my pc Ive played F.E.A.R 2 on my xbox aswell its good but yea you dont get the perfect aiming with out a mouse. Thats what annoys me the most is the sticks I aim up it goes to high aim down goes to low :P...And for Crysis they badly programed that game I have 2 5870's and it finerly runs smooth at 60 fps ultra on everything.
Concerning Crysis:
I still use win XP, thus no DX10, hence no Ultra High settings to enable. Thatââ,¬â,,¢d be why I can get such good fps with only a single graphics card. :P
Quote from: Jazz_117 on November 02, 2010, 05:37:17 AM
Concerning Crysis:
I still use win XP, thus no DX10, hence no Ultra High settings to enable. Thatââ,¬â,,¢d be why I can get such good fps with only a single graphics card. :P
DX10 + biggest fail of microsoft is that they disabled hardware sound :)
Everything is processed by fkkking CPU.
And I don't think so games looks much better in DX10 than in DX9.
QuoteAnd I don't think so games looks much better in DX10 than in DX9.
When your talking about DX10 games only DX10 in some parts of games like for instance the *Water* in Dirt 2 Crysis does native DX!0. Metro using alot more of DX10 lighting and water even DX11 ect. Bioshock only uses DX10 for the water effects. There are more games that use DX10 but are proberly not native. Anyway I say there is a big difference if your looking at a full native DX10 game.
I prefer consoles because I got tired of spending $400 after 2 years for a new video card, $700 after 4 years for a new vid card, processor, and maybe a better PSU by now, and $1500 after 6 years to redo my entire computer to support new socket types just to keep up the hardware capability to play the games. With a console I spend about $600 (including peripherals) one time, then I don't have to worry about it until the next console comes out at least 5 years later.
Yea, FPS will always be better on the PC because of keyboard + mouse, but they also have been and continue to be the most hardware-intensive games on the market.
Well you either sacrifice quality for less money, or you save up and you get the best quality + more upcomming games will have the same quality and gameplay.
PS:(My 500th post)
Quote from: Spekkio on November 12, 2010, 03:02:33 AM
I prefer consoles because I got tired of spending $400 after 2 years for a new video card, $700 after 4 years for a new vid card, processor, and maybe a better PSU by now, and $1500 after 6 years to redo my entire computer to support new socket types just to keep up the hardware capability to play the games. With a console I spend about $600 (including peripherals) one time, then I don't have to worry about it until the next console comes out at least 5 years later.
Yea, FPS will always be better on the PC because of keyboard + mouse, but they also have been and continue to be the most hardware-intensive games on the market.
About new sockets, intel just S.U.C.K.S. They change 1 pin in socket and make new CPUs.
For better performance I overclock, but I don't need to play all games on highest details :P
Single Players are always best on the highest graphics, but multi-player as you stated is always best for lowest settings, of course descluding SCCT, where you can EMF ghost like a total biotch, and not giving a damn explaining that to the newcomers.
In singleplayer I don't need that much FPS like in Multi. So I don't care that i have 25 or 120 FPS
games are smooth enought with 25-30 fps.
Quote from: DreadStunLock on November 12, 2010, 11:06:39 AM
Well you either sacrifice quality for less money, or you save up and you get the best quality + more upcomming games will have the same quality and gameplay.
PS:(My 500th post)
Define quality. I am still playing games at 60 fps on my 4 (5?) year old PS3. I don't have to spend hours installing an expensive heat sink and experimenting with OC my processor and vid card to find the 'sweet spot' that gets me an extra 3 fps without frying my motherboard. When my PC turned 5 years old it couldn't even
run some current games, and the ones it could got like 20 fps on the lowest settings, which made no sense because that often looked worse than cranked up settings of older games that ran better (for the record, I can't stand playing current gen games at less than 50 fps, since they are designed to run optimally at 60+).
Also, consider the cost vs. gain. To maintain a PC capable of playing modern games at 60 fps with moderate or better graphics settings would require approximately $2500 every six years. To do the same on a console requires about 1/5 of that. Once I realized this, I decided that the 500% cost premium wasn't worth it to play video games, even though I prefer FPS's on mouse+keyboard and enjoy some RTS games. Besides, the majority of PC games nowadays are made for consoles and then ported to the PC with a small graphics upgrade.
Quote from: Spekkio on November 13, 2010, 12:23:32 AM
Quote from: DreadStunLock on November 12, 2010, 11:06:39 AM
Well you either sacrifice quality for less money, or you save up and you get the best quality + more upcomming games will have the same quality and gameplay.
PS:(My 500th post)
Define quality. I am still playing games at 60 fps on my 4 (5?) year old PS3. I don't have to spend hours installing an expensive heat sink and experimenting with OC my processor and vid card to find the 'sweet spot' that gets me an extra 3 fps without frying my motherboard. When my PC turned 5 years old it couldn't even run some current games, and the ones it could got like 20 fps on the lowest settings, which made no sense because that often looked worse than cranked up settings of older games that ran better (for the record, I can't stand playing current gen games at less than 50 fps, since they are designed to run optimally at 60+).
Also, consider the cost vs. gain. To maintain a PC capable of playing modern games at 60 fps with moderate or better graphics settings would require approximately $2500 every six years. To do the same on a console requires about 1/5 of that. Once I realized this, I decided that the 500% cost premium wasn't worth it to play video games, even though I prefer FPS's on mouse+keyboard and enjoy some RTS games. Besides, the majority of PC games nowadays are made for consoles and then ported to the PC with a small graphics upgrade.
Sir spekkio it seems you have been right in the past but your logic is flawed because the factors of
a console over a pc is never a viable option nor does it cost as much as You say it does.
When You pay from dell or alienware ur bound to pay hand over fist for the brand , I built this comp for at least 500 dollars and have had it for 4 years now , so in retrospect of things you fail terribly.
Amd 6000 + dualcore : 169.99 . Harddrive: given to me ,4 gigs of ram : 60 dollars an ati 5770 : 179.99. , which most games require a dual core but more and more depending on the game is going to 6 core but im being smart and waiting it out and get as much life out of this comp as possible.
NOTHING can outmatch a PC , ya can do still gaming on a couch with a controller from a pc.. Um Hello ?
Xpadder . Pinnacle game profiler 4. enough said. IF you even dare go there about the controller scheme not being the same , your absolutely wrong because Pinnacle profiler didnt used to have support for the having one button serve as a dual function, but news flash ; IT DOes now.. :/ .thats my three cents of the evening.
Quotea console over a pc is never a viable option nor does it cost as much as You say it does.
lol not even viable? This is why I say "don't crucify me" when I say I bought a console version of a game over the PC version - because a lot of people are just too proud of preferring PC's.
Quote from: AgentX_003 on November 13, 2010, 01:20:37 AM
NOTHING can outmatch a PC , ya can do still gaming on a couch with a controller from a pc.. Um Hello ?
ketsui on pc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YqtLgfQxSU)
ketsui on console (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaWYeX0IetM)
i know what i'd take dude
Quote from: AgentX_003 on November 13, 2010, 01:20:37 AM
Quote from: Spekkio on November 13, 2010, 12:23:32 AM
Quote from: DreadStunLock on November 12, 2010, 11:06:39 AM
Well you either sacrifice quality for less money, or you save up and you get the best quality + more upcomming games will have the same quality and gameplay.
PS:(My 500th post)
Define quality. I am still playing games at 60 fps on my 4 (5?) year old PS3. I don't have to spend hours installing an expensive heat sink and experimenting with OC my processor and vid card to find the 'sweet spot' that gets me an extra 3 fps without frying my motherboard. When my PC turned 5 years old it couldn't even run some current games, and the ones it could got like 20 fps on the lowest settings, which made no sense because that often looked worse than cranked up settings of older games that ran better (for the record, I can't stand playing current gen games at less than 50 fps, since they are designed to run optimally at 60+).
Also, consider the cost vs. gain. To maintain a PC capable of playing modern games at 60 fps with moderate or better graphics settings would require approximately $2500 every six years. To do the same on a console requires about 1/5 of that. Once I realized this, I decided that the 500% cost premium wasn't worth it to play video games, even though I prefer FPS's on mouse+keyboard and enjoy some RTS games. Besides, the majority of PC games nowadays are made for consoles and then ported to the PC with a small graphics upgrade.
Sir spekkio it seems you have been right in the past but your logic is flawed because the factors of
a console over a pc is never a viable option nor does it cost as much as You say it does.
When You pay from dell or alienware ur bound to pay hand over fist for the brand , I built this comp for at least 500 dollars and have had it for 4 years now , so in retrospect of things you fail terribly.
Amd 6000 + dualcore : 169.99 . Harddrive: given to me ,4 gigs of ram : 60 dollars an ati 5770 : 179.99. , which most games require a dual core but more and more depending on the game is going to 6 core but im being smart and waiting it out and get as much life out of this comp as possible.
NOTHING can outmatch a PC , ya can do still gaming on a couch with a controller from a pc.. Um Hello ?
Xpadder . Pinnacle game profiler 4. enough said. IF you even dare go there about the controller scheme not being the same , your absolutely wrong because Pinnacle profiler didnt used to have support for the having one button serve as a dual function, but news flash ; IT DOes now.. :/ .thats my three cents of the evening.
Only idiots buy PCs from alienware or dell... it's better to pick any PC forum and let ppl make your PC build for price you want.
Cheaper, better, cooler.
Quote from: AgentX_003 on November 13, 2010, 01:20:37 AMSir spekkio it seems you have been right in the past but your logic is flawed because the factors of a console over a pc is never a viable option nor does it cost as much as You say it does.
When You pay from dell or alienware ur bound to pay hand over fist for the brand , I built this comp for at least 500 dollars and have had it for 4 years now , so in retrospect of things you fail terribly.
Amd 6000 + dualcore : 169.99 . Harddrive: given to me ,4 gigs of ram : 60 dollars an ati 5770 : 179.99. , which most games require a dual core but more and more depending on the game is going to 6 core but im being smart and waiting it out and get as much life out of this comp as possible.
NOTHING can outmatch a PC , ya can do still gaming on a couch with a controller from a pc.. Um Hello ?
Xpadder . Pinnacle game profiler 4. enough said. IF you even dare go there about the controller scheme not being the same , your absolutely wrong because Pinnacle profiler didnt used to have support for the having one button serve as a dual function, but news flash ; IT DOes now.. :/ .thats my three cents of the evening.
Agent, talking to you is like talking to a 3 year old with down syndrome, but for the sake of continuing discussion in this thread, I'll bite...
Firstly, I'm glad that you are satisfied with your current budget PC. As I'm sure you're aware, though, there are a lot of other components in a PC for which you didn't factor in the cost -- namely, the monitor, keyboard, mouse, sound card, speakers/headphones, motherboard, and case.
I'll throw you a bone that many of these components are 1-time purchases that last longer than the lifetime of the components you mentioned in your post. But people have to buy them at some point, and they will break or become obsolete at some point, too.
I got my figures from assuming someone builds the most cost-effective PC from scratch, then upgrades the GPU, then the GPU + Processor, then complete system rebuild. That typically costs what I quoted, and that also assumes the user will find some sales on the 'net. By cost effective, I mean purchasing components that are in the 'sweet spot' of maximizing performance gain for price increase before you start spending hundreds of dollars extra for small gains. It also assumes that you search the 'net for deals and sales, which are often easy to find.
You don't
have to do this, but if you don't then you start putting up with lower framerates and reduced graphics capability. If you choose not to upgrade your PC frequently, you are defeating the purpose of PC gaming in the first place, since you are upgrading your hardware's capabilities no more often than the life of a console (and still spending about 2x as much for gaming platform). However, unlike console software companies, many PC gaming companies cater to the highest common denominator. So while companies continue to optimize performance for Xbox 360/PS3 games to maintain 60 fps and look as good as possible, companies making PC games will leave your 'old' PC in the dust. After all, PC software companies are trying to market to those new shadowing techniques and advanced physics engines running in 1080p.
To address the budget system: Your main argument is that consoles cannot match the processing and graphics power of a PC. That is true, so long as you buy the appropriate components. A budget PC won't accomplish this until well into a console's life. Additionally, you will have to upgrade these components more often to keep up, or you'll have to sacrifice frame rate and may not be able to play games after a couple of years altogether. Making either of these sacrifices is defeating the purpose of PC gaming, according to your own argument, and continuously upgrading budget components ends up costing more in the long run.
There is also the issue that PC gaming isn't user-friendly. Unlike console games where you put in a DVD and press start, PC games require an install. After that, you have to go through a relatively extensive setup in order to optimize the game's settings for your PC. While many games have a 'set optimum' feature in the options, my experience with them is that they don't work very well. For example, DOW II maxes out the settings when I hit set optimum because its algorithm merely looks at the GPU memory, RAM, and processing power. It ignores the fact that I have a two-year-old mobile GPU, which is not capable of running the game in double-digit FPS maxed out. That translates into a time-intensive trial-and-error process of changing settings and loading the game to find the balance between graphics and frame rate that I desire.
This all adds up to the fact that PC gaming isn't nearly as popular as console gaming. While I don't care about popularity on the surface, what I do care about is that software companies will put less effort into a medium that has a lower potential for sales. It's a simple case of economics. With FPS's now popular on consoles, it is now the norm and not the exception that games are designed for consoles first and then ported to the PC. Because of this, PC versions of games are less stable and more buggy out of the box. Some companies are good at patching their games, some are not. But the fact that PC gamers have grown to accept the fact that their game will require extensive patching in order to reach a level of quality that they expect is amazing to me. What's more amazing to me is that PC gamers still cling to their medium in the face of becoming the bastard step-child of gaming.
I have nothing against PC gaming, mind you. I am not a console fan-boy. I have spent more hours than I like to admit playing SCCT on the PC. I still prefer a mouse+keyboard to play FPS any day over a joystick, and RTS are simply unplayable with a controller. I agree with B-3A that the modding and networking capability of PC gaming is unmatched. However, there came a time where I realized that PC gaming is not cost-effective for me. It was probably around the time where I realized that I wanted to move out of my parents' house and wanted more possessions than just a fancy PC, and sometimes liked playing a game with someone else in the same room. If you like to spend the extra money for the better graphics power and playing on a keyboard + mouse, then great. Personally, all I want to do is be able to sit on my couch and enjoy my entertainment without spending hours on upgrading my system, 'tweaking' all the games default.ini's to get an extra 2 fps, and working through the myriad of compatibility issues that exist because programmers have the impossible task of making a game work perfectly for thousands of possible PC hardware setups. And I certainly don't want to spend 3-5x as much money on a gaming platform to put up with all this.
The 'better graphics' argument is the main
disadvantage of PC gaming. It's the constant money pit to keep up with the next software designer's art project because he designed his game to work optimally on the $400 GPU that came out 8 months after the previous $400 GPU that makes PC gaming so costly, and it's what ultimately turned me off to it. You can make a lot of arguments why PC gaming is better, but graphics isn't why.
PS: I realize that some PC games can be played with a controller, but that assumes the game was designed to make proper use of it. Many PC games aren't.
Quote from: Spekkio on November 14, 2010, 09:26:49 PM
Quote from: AgentX_003 on November 13, 2010, 01:20:37 AMSir spekkio it seems you have been right in the past but your logic is flawed because the factors of a console over a pc is never a viable option nor does it cost as much as You say it does.
When You pay from dell or alienware ur bound to pay hand over fist for the brand , I built this comp for at least 500 dollars and have had it for 4 years now , so in retrospect of things you fail terribly.
Amd 6000 + dualcore : 169.99 . Harddrive: given to me ,4 gigs of ram : 60 dollars an ati 5770 : 179.99. , which most games require a dual core but more and more depending on the game is going to 6 core but im being smart and waiting it out and get as much life out of this comp as possible.
NOTHING can outmatch a PC , ya can do still gaming on a couch with a controller from a pc.. Um Hello ?
Xpadder . Pinnacle game profiler 4. enough said. IF you even dare go there about the controller scheme not being the same , your absolutely wrong because Pinnacle profiler didnt used to have support for the having one button serve as a dual function, but news flash ; IT DOes now.. :/ .thats my three cents of the evening.
Agent, talking to you is like talking to a 3 year old with down syndrome, but for the sake of continuing discussion in this thread, I'll bite...
Firstly, I'm glad that you are satisfied with your current budget PC. As I'm sure you're aware, though, there are a lot of other components in a PC for which you didn't factor in the cost -- namely, the monitor, keyboard, mouse, sound card, speakers/headphones, motherboard, and case.
I'll throw you a bone that many of these components are 1-time purchases that last longer than the lifetime of the components you mentioned in your post. But people have to buy them at some point, and they will break or become obsolete at some point, too.
I got my figures from assuming someone builds the most cost-effective PC from scratch, then upgrades the GPU, then the GPU + Processor, then complete system rebuild. That typically costs what I quoted, and that also assumes the user will find some sales on the 'net. By cost effective, I mean purchasing components that are in the 'sweet spot' of maximizing performance gain for price increase before you start spending hundreds of dollars extra for small gains. It also assumes that you search the 'net for deals and sales, which are often easy to find.
You don't have to do this, but if you don't then you start putting up with lower framerates and reduced graphics capability. If you choose not to upgrade your PC frequently, you are defeating the purpose of PC gaming in the first place, since you are upgrading your hardware's capabilities no more often than the life of a console (and still spending about 2x as much for gaming platform). However, unlike console software companies, many PC gaming companies cater to the highest common denominator. So while companies continue to optimize performance for Xbox 360/PS3 games to maintain 60 fps and look as good as possible, companies making PC games will leave your 'old' PC in the dust. After all, PC software companies are trying to market to those new shadowing techniques and advanced physics engines running in 1080p.
To address the budget system: Your main argument is that consoles cannot match the processing and graphics power of a PC. That is true, so long as you buy the appropriate components. A budget PC won't accomplish this until well into a console's life. Additionally, you will have to upgrade these components more often to keep up, or you'll have to sacrifice frame rate and may not be able to play games after a couple of years altogether. Making either of these sacrifices is defeating the purpose of PC gaming, according to your own argument, and continuously upgrading budget components ends up costing more in the long run.
There is also the issue that PC gaming isn't user-friendly. Unlike console games where you put in a DVD and press start, PC games require an install. After that, you have to go through a relatively extensive setup in order to optimize the game's settings for your PC. While many games have a 'set optimum' feature in the options, my experience with them is that they don't work very well. For example, DOW II maxes out the settings when I hit set optimum because its algorithm merely looks at the GPU memory, RAM, and processing power. It ignores the fact that I have a two-year-old mobile GPU, which is not capable of running the game in double-digit FPS maxed out. That translates into a time-intensive trial-and-error process of changing settings and loading the game to find the balance between graphics and frame rate that I desire.
This all adds up to the fact that PC gaming isn't nearly as popular as console gaming. While I don't care about popularity on the surface, what I do care about is that software companies will put less effort into a medium that has a lower potential for sales. It's a simple case of economics. With FPS's now popular on consoles, it is now the norm and not the exception that games are designed for consoles first and then ported to the PC. Because of this, PC versions of games are less stable and more buggy out of the box. Some companies are good at patching their games, some are not. But the fact that PC gamers have grown to accept the fact that their game will require extensive patching in order to reach a level of quality that they expect is amazing to me. What's more amazing to me is that PC gamers still cling to their medium in the face of becoming the bastard step-child of gaming.
I have nothing against PC gaming, mind you. I am not a console fan-boy. I have spent more hours than I like to admit playing SCCT on the PC. I still prefer a mouse+keyboard to play FPS any day over a joystick, and RTS are simply unplayable with a controller. However, there came a time where I realized that PC gaming is not cost-effective. It was probably around the time where I realized that I wanted to move out of my parents' house and wanted more possessions than just a fancy PC. If you are okay with that and like to spend the extra money for the better graphics power and playing on a keyboard + mouse, then great. Personally, all I want to do is be able to sit on my couch and enjoy my entertainment without spending hours on upgrading my system, 'tweaking' all the games default.ini's to get an extra 2 fps, and working through the myriad of compatibility issues that exist because programmers have the impossible task of making a game work perfectly for thousands of possible PC hardware setups. And I certainly don't want to spend 3-5x the amount of money I would on a console to deal with all that.
PS: I realize that some PC games can be played with a controller, but that assumes the game was designed to make proper use of it. Many PC games aren't.
WOW I managed to get to the end of this post! Man you are so productive! Maybe you would like to write some compositions for my english lessons. I have already written so many of them that I got bored of it.
Pls answer as fast as possible!!!
Yours Faithfully
Pusiek
Well, after working over 100 hours this week, I decided to indulge myself in a conversation about a hobby I enjoy... if that's okay with you, of course.
Wow that was fast... Just kidding ofc. Well according to your post you didn't mention the price of the PC games which are twice cheaper then console ones. (or maybe i missed it somewhere?)
Quote from: puuusianka on November 14, 2010, 10:07:19 PM
Wow that was fast... Just kidding ofc. Well according to your post you didn't mention the price of the PC games which are twice cheaper then console ones. (or maybe i missed it somewhere?)
Depends on the game. Most of the blockbusters are only $10 cheaper. Also, Amazon.com pwns for buying DVD's, Blu-Rays, and games on sale.
Puuu, I just spent 60 bucks on the regular edition of SC2. And most other games are only 10 dollars cheaper.
Ell that's USA farley. Here in poland we have usual price for PC game 99 zÃ...‚ and for PS it's usually 199 zÃ...‚. I guess we're not the only one with such prices
Quote from: puuusianka on November 15, 2010, 12:23:22 AMHere in poland ...
No one cares about your country whose only accomplishment is losing a war in under two weeks. [edit: dude, wtf?]
I would respond puuu but I have no idea what your prices are in dollars. I'm lazy too. Typically prices are standardized in the US because it's the main market of the world. Other places cost more/less because of shipping, taxes, etc - but the US is considered the center.
Quote from: Farley4Fan on November 14, 2010, 11:44:12 PM
Puuu, I just spent 60 bucks on the regular edition of SC2. And most other games are only 10 dollars cheaper.
I bought it for 30, but in any case it was my best 30 bucks because the game never let me down, Blizzard I think is the only game corps that doesn't fail at making games for PCs.
Quote from: Spekkio on November 15, 2010, 03:52:09 AM
Quote from: puuusianka on November 15, 2010, 12:23:22 AMHere in poland ...
No one cares about your country whose only accomplishment is losing a war in under two weeks. [edit: dude, wtf?]
This made me laugh... far more than it should have.
Quote from: Cronky on November 15, 2010, 11:30:33 AM
Quote from: Spekkio on November 15, 2010, 03:52:09 AM
Quote from: puuusianka on November 15, 2010, 12:23:22 AMHere in poland ...
No one cares about your country whose only accomplishment is losing a war in under two weeks. [edit: dude, wtf?]
This made me laugh... far more than it should have.
The post above should be edited, it's very insulting to the polish people, as well as very aggresive...Spekkio you sir are a moron.
Quote from: Spekkio on November 15, 2010, 03:52:09 AM
Quote from: puuusianka on November 15, 2010, 12:23:22 AMHere in poland ...
No one cares about your country whose only accomplishment is losing a war in under two weeks. [edit: dude, wtf?]
Pusianka you are wrong... console games price was a lot higher years ago when consoles wasn't that popular. Now it's similiar and remember 1$ =/= 1PLN and it works for cash in every land.
About you Spekkio, GTFO of Poland dumb nigger!
About Poles and WW II, you have seen and been in shit so, really
S.T.F.U. Have you visited KZ Auschwitz-Birkenau or another concentration camp? I don't think so. USA's fucking nation of hamburgers, where you don't see after-effects of World Wars. Your dumb govenement need attack on another lands because of black gold ( I can write so bad about your land too :)). Next time think before you write post motherfucker because, I bet no one Pole hurt you or your family so you shouldn't have problems to us.
And Pusianka was speaking friendly about that topic so your flame was unnecesary and you should keep it for yourself.
But now that's* going from me to you mofo:
(https://community.projectstealthgame.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.moblo.pl%2F0%2F2%2F78%2F27853_pierdol_sie.jpg&hash=f276e3c38093496af0e00cfa721641396570642d)
*
Ask anyone to translate if you don't understand this sentence or eat my shit.
Lol this topic turned into a nationalist flame war hahaha. When that happens, you know that hamburgers and polish jokes are going to be injected into the topic. Gooood times.
I just imagine that the people who started this flame war are like those old barbaric politicians. War is started over some little stupid thing and instantly millions of people die (or in this case millions of feelings are hurt I guess)...
I have only met a few Poles in my life who have realized that admitting their country is not really something to brag about makes them look a lot more clever than if they try to defend it and eventually insult other countries. Sometimes you just have to face the truth, really.
That doesn't mean you should attack a nationality. Every country has good and bad things. The perceived ratio of good vs bad is just that... perceived and biased.
Quote from: YaYz0r on November 15, 2010, 09:32:10 PM
I have only met a few Poles in my life who have realized that admitting their country is not really something to brag about makes them look a lot more clever than if they try to defend it and eventually insult other countries. Sometimes you just have to face the truth, really.
On every country past/now times you will find bad things/people.
I live there and I in every documents I am Citizen of Poland...
Spekkio just gone way to far. I know how to laught from me and my land, but that jokes should be nice not shallow.
True. Some countries, though, have more bad sides than others. In other words, citizens of some countries should think twice before they start throwing stones or start throwing them back.
I do not think Spekkio went too far. All these years after the war, it is hard not to laugh or at least smile when you think of how the Poles only had their cavalry to defend themselves against the German tanks.
This is going way too off-topic actually. Go back to the original subject, or start a new thread.
(PS: we fell in 3 days)
First of all I want to say thank you to people who realized that spekkio did go too far with his post. (DziÃ,,â,,¢ki Knooger za wyraÃ...¼enie tego czego ja bym nie wyraziÃ...‚ swoim stumilowym postem na temat wad ameryki)
I have one wish now since you probably don't even realize how much you offended me and my nation. Frvge I don't want this person to be allowed to talk on this forum. Ban for Spekkio - easy and simple. You spekkio seemed to me a normal guy and I didn't expect reaction from you like this. I wouldn't expect such reaction from anyone! I mean what was the reason to say such things?! StanisÃ...‚aw Lem was right: "Before I used Internet I didn't realise that world is so full of idiots".
When it comes to Poland and our achievements you don't even realize how wrong you are. We were the country that destroyed comunism in east Europe. We were sustaining our nation for 123 years even though we didn't have our country. You are right that we bearly survived month of blitzkrieg but our country was rebuilding after over 100 years of non existance on maps. Not to mention that our "cavalary" was suppose to lose after one week of blitzkrieg.
Your knowledge about Poland is very poor. Most of you don't know much about Poland. But funny thing is that I know a few good books about polish history and they were written by Americans! Can find the English titles if anyone interested.
Last thing spekkio if I ever managed to meet you... Ever... be sure your fist order is ready and hot and it just waits to be served.
Frvge, why did you edit my post? Who else would have gotten such a diverse type of remarks, ranging from laughing at the obviously OTT statement to the intellectual analysis to the irate rant?
You should thank me for making this thread interesting again!
I'm not going to repeat what you said, but I thought it was crossing my fuzzy line. Together with a couple of complaints, I decided to edit. As you know, a lot is allowed in OT, but some things are just too much.
Isn't this the same group of people who were upset that the Taliban isn't playable in MoH because it might hurt someone's feelings?
I'll never understand why people get angry at things that are blatantly false (well, Poland did lose a war in about 2 weeks, but you get my drift anyway). But it sure is funny to sit back and watch the flames!
Anyway,
QuoteWe were the country that destroyed comunism [sic] in east Europe.
Nah, Ronald Reagan did that.
I suppose that you can count bad sausage among your country's chief contributions, but even that's a stretch. But bad sausage didn't kill communism...I'm pretty sure the Ruskies wouldn't have been so discontent if they were all well-fed.
Quote from: YaYz0r on November 15, 2010, 10:32:23 PM
True. Some countries, though, have more bad sides than others. In other words, citizens of some countries should think twice before they start throwing stones or start throwing them back.
I do not think Spekkio went too far. All these years after the war, it is hard not to laugh or at least smile when you think of how the Poles only had their cavalry to defend themselves against the German tanks.
Nazi German tanks... not German tanks. In past many lands wanted erase us from map and informations about past. Many people don't know or don't want to know Poles was fighting around Europe too, I must say after WW II you ( I mean europe ) fucked us so deep in ass. Poles added in that war many blood and spirits.
You think our rights and will of existence is badder side than holocaust?
People who don't fight for their rights are nobody, just a grain of sand on the beach, if it will happen again in our life time... go and cry in corner, don't do anything that will be better.
For me there are no lands what I hate because past, I hate units not whole nations.
PS. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wizna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wizna)
and read about Enigma but that's just a little part of Polish help in WW II.
Remember we was not waiting till you all help us, we did it to you and get sold.
So if you still think we shouldn't exist or we should be slaves then you are an idiot and I will show middle finger to you.
Goodnight.
PSS. We lose war in 2 weeks... our land lose... not Polish people, as you can see on map we still exist, we didn't give up.
I am not angry because you said that, I am angry from tone in what you told that. You are not 12 years old child so I think you could write it in a different style.
Oh no, not the middle finger! What's next, the comfy chair?! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnS49c9KZw8) The horror!
Quote from: Spekkio on November 16, 2010, 12:09:36 AM
Frvge, why did you edit my post? Who else would have gotten such a diverse type of remarks, ranging from laughing at the obviously OTT statement to the intellectual analysis to the irate rant?
You should thank me for making this thread interesting again!
Frvge you might not be from Poland but you do realise what's racism. The post above is just another reason to ban this person. He don't feel that he did anything wrong what's more he is proud of himself. This went far too much over the joke border. This is not ok to ignore such racism acts... At all!
Quote from: Spekkio on November 16, 2010, 12:37:21 AM
Oh no, not the middle finger! What's next, the comfy chair?! The horror!
Nie podoba siÃ,,â,,¢?
Pierdol siÃ,,â,,¢! ;)
Americans live in a bubble of their own ignorance.
It's pointless to argue with them over the Internet because Wikipedia makes them look like they have a grasp of what they are saying. But they don't.
Just ignore Spekkio's post he's just gonna have a wank in the toilet knowing he won an internet argument with a 16-year-old polish kid.
Quote from: ved. on November 16, 2010, 01:10:51 AM
Americans live in a bubble of their own ignorance.
It's pointless to argue with them over the Internet because Wikipedia makes them look like they have a grasp of what they are saying. But they don't.
Just ignore Spekkio's post he's just gonna have a wank in the toilet knowing he won an internet argument with a 16-year-old polish kid.
Amen.
Quote from: ved. on November 16, 2010, 01:10:51 AM
Americans live in a bubble of their own ignorance.
It's pointless to argue with them over the Internet because Wikipedia makes them look like they have a grasp of what they are saying. But they don't.
Just ignore Spekkio's post he's just gonna have a wank in the toilet knowing he won an internet argument with a 16-year-old polish kid.
harro ved , good to see your alive and well :)
spekkio, talk shit about poland in other threads. this is fucking gold.
B-3A, stop stimulating questionable behaviour.
for someone who's making a game you sure do seem to hate fun
Maybe he's secretly polish!
I like how I openly confessed to making exaggerated claims in order to get a rise out of people, and the Polacks are still dumb enough to be upset over them.
Quote from: puuusianka on November 16, 2010, 12:38:08 AMFrvge you might not be from Poland but you do realise what's racism. The post above is just another reason to ban this person. He don't feel that he did anything wrong what's more he is proud of himself. This went far too much over the joke border. This is not ok to ignore such racism acts... At all!
Polish isn't a race...it's an inferior species!
What's the difference between Poles and Jews? Poles don't scream in the oven! har har har.
QuoteThe post above is just another reason to ban this person. He don't feel that he did anything wrong what's more he is proud of himself. This went far too much over the joke border. This is not ok to ignore such racism acts... At all!
So what you're saying is that you have to stifle people's opinions who are different for your own because they offend you. So you're basically a Hitler wannabe, but without the same gifted public speaking skills and charismatic aura.
You know, when Hitler got mad at someone with a different opinion, he raised an army and took over most of Europe. I'm pretty sure you're still at best a part-time employed fat kid. You've got a long ways to go, kiddo.
Spekkio is trying to get attention. Just ignore him.
He got my attention but spek it's starting to get old. Save it for a couple weeks and come back strong when we least expect it. I believe in you.
I guess I missed the original post by Spekkio? Shame, perhaps if I had not it would have been easier to understand these flames.
Anyway, PL will always be slaves to rus. D:
Lolol? Since when they were ever slaves to rus? That's the biggest bullshit I ever heard, Rus,LT,Pol, had a good connection between them, that is why we have each of those in Lithuania and Russia and Poland.
All Eastern Europe's base are belong to rus.
Quote from: YaYz0r on November 16, 2010, 01:33:17 PM
All Eastern Europe's base are belong to rus.
Since 1989 Russian govenement don't have control in Poland :)
Last Russian soldiers left in 16 September 1993.
Russians, Ukrainians...people have good communication and accept together.
Quote from: KnoogeR on November 16, 2010, 03:02:48 PM
Quote from: YaYz0r on November 16, 2010, 01:33:17 PM
All Eastern Europe's base are belong to rus.
Since 1989 Russian govenement don't have control in Poland :)
Last Russian soldiers left in 16 September 1993.
Russians, Ukrainians...people have good communication and accept together.
Enjoy your life in ignorance.
Why don't you buy a Xbox360 controller for PC? Then your PC can be an "Xbox "
The controller has worked well for me on games like Crysis. Especially when played on a TV. The problem is you normally can't configure your own controls because the game doesn't allow you to unless you use some sort of other program. But another problem that can make that solution useless is that some PC games like Crysis have so many actions and they don't all fit to the amount of buttons on a controller. Luckily some programs now let you bind an action to holding down a button, so pretty much twice the amount of buttons can be used.
You might think problem solved? Well not totally. Some PC games just aren't designed for a controller period.
Quote from: YaYz0r on November 16, 2010, 04:24:02 PM
Quote from: KnoogeR on November 16, 2010, 03:02:48 PM
Quote from: YaYz0r on November 16, 2010, 01:33:17 PM
All Eastern Europe's base are belong to rus.
Since 1989 Russian govenement don't have control in Poland :)
Last Russian soldiers left in 16 September 1993.
Russians, Ukrainians...people have good communication and accept together.
Enjoy your life in ignorance.
Enjoy your life in stupidity.
He was making a joke by saying all your eastern europe base are belong to us. I think he called knooger ignorant cuz he didn't get the joke.
He is just another US-kiss up who thinks America is a 1 big country and there is only america, and only american and america america :P
D:
???
There IS only 1 America.
Yeah, and some people are so into america they think the whole world is just america, meaning there is no other countries BUT america. Read on google about America's crazed fanatics.
Aha, interesting conclusion you draw about me from reading my posts then.
Just heard on radio that new generation of americans is so fat that they will live shorter then their parents...
What a sad story...
Quote from: DreadStunLock on November 16, 2010, 09:05:40 PM
Yeah, and some people are so into america they think the whole world is just america, meaning there is no other countries BUT america. Read on google about America's crazed fanatics.
I'm into America because I realize how shitty the whole world is.
Quote from: Farley4Fan on November 17, 2010, 07:35:20 AM
Quote from: DreadStunLock on November 16, 2010, 09:05:40 PM
Yeah, and some people are so into america they think the whole world is just america, meaning there is no other countries BUT america. Read on google about America's crazed fanatics.
I'm into America because I realize how shitty the whole world is.
Yes but I doubt you count america as every country.
What does that even mean?
Quote from: LoChang on November 17, 2010, 09:10:57 PM
What does that even mean?
Literally what it is, an American goes to for example UK, and doesn't consider it as UK, and thinks of it as USA, that how paranoid the fanatics can be.
Meh.
Lol
Quote from: DreadStunLock on November 17, 2010, 09:14:07 PM
Quote from: LoChang on November 17, 2010, 09:10:57 PM
What does that even mean?
Literally what it is, an American goes to for example UK, and doesn't consider it as UK, and thinks of it as USA, that how paranoid the fanatics can be.
The UK, or as I call it.... America #2.
Alternate name is East America.
;D
UK?... ummm... The University of Kentucky? Of course I consider that America.
Quote from: DreadStunLock on November 17, 2010, 09:14:07 PM
Literally what it is, an American goes to for example UK, and doesn't consider it as UK, and thinks of it as USA, that how paranoid the fanatics can be.
I don't think this actually happens.
Quote from: Cronky on November 17, 2010, 10:49:02 PM
Quote from: DreadStunLock on November 17, 2010, 09:14:07 PM
Quote from: LoChang on November 17, 2010, 09:10:57 PM
What does that even mean?
Literally what it is, an American goes to for example UK, and doesn't consider it as UK, and thinks of it as USA, that how paranoid the fanatics can be.
The UK, or as I call it.... America #2.
Alternate name is NotInvitedTo America.
;D
You made a common typo. Went ahead and fixed it.
I don't know any Americans that do that or think that way. And I'd say that I know a great many more than you.
I'd love to go to foreign countries all over the world and see everything I could and learn everything I could about different cultures and societies. Unfortunately, I don't have the money required for such trips.
Quote from: puuusianka on November 17, 2010, 07:10:23 AM
Just heard on radio that new generation of americans is so fat that they will live shorter then their parents...
What a sad story...
You need some new material, but I guess I'm expecting too much from a Polish person. After all, Poland is the source of all cheats for SCCT since you all are too dumb to play the game normally.
Sigh. Spekkio, remember what we talked about. I don't mind if you want to get a laugh out of it at some times, but doing that constantly means you're breaking rule #1. Aka, thread locked.