you are delusional if you think crt/tube-tv's are still being made today. in fact used one's cost more than hdtv's do today.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Wii U vs. Playstation 4 vs. Xbox One
- Thread starter Tory
- Start date
The tv I have isn't one of those. It's one that's right before an HDTV. And it cost around the price of a 32" HDTV. Heck it might have been less.
A lot of the ones that most folks get still cost more. And when I do move up, it wouldn't be to a 32". It would be to one that's of comparable size to the tv I have now. And those still cost more.
As for people in general, they probably get their's from garage sales and estate sales for decent prices, if they have to.
Right now the Wii U probably has the strongest library, and especially with Smash 4 and MK8 coming out early next year it probably will until the next holiday season when the PS4 and xbone pick up steam. Once they do it'll only be worthwhile for nintendo exclusives, but I'll stick with only having my Wii U for next gen consoles until there are big price drops for the PS4.
That's pretty much where I'm at too. Once the PS4 comes down in price and has some of the bugs worked out of it, I'll probably be getting one myself.
All of these consoles are amazing, but right now, I would say that the Wii U and PS4 are the best consoles. I honestly see no reason to buy an Xbox One right now because, while it is amazing, it is essentially a more expensive PS4 with a few changes added in.
In the future, however, I expect the PS4 being the best console, the Xbox one being the second best, and the Wii U falling out of existence if things continue going the way they are. Right now, Nintendo has a very limited number of 3rd party companies backing them up and the ones that are are supporting Sony and Microsoft more. That being said, I have faith in Nintendo to make excellent 1st party games that will increase sales and attract 3rd party companies to make games for them.
In the future, however, I expect the PS4 being the best console, the Xbox one being the second best, and the Wii U falling out of existence if things continue going the way they are. Right now, Nintendo has a very limited number of 3rd party companies backing them up and the ones that are are supporting Sony and Microsoft more. That being said, I have faith in Nintendo to make excellent 1st party games that will increase sales and attract 3rd party companies to make games for them.
I really enjoyed Infamous 2 so now PS4 can claim to have one game that I'm looking forward to. Actually, Second Son looks pretty fantastic from trailers so far, if it weren't for the fact that it comes out right after Dark Souls 2 I think I might have been seriously considering getting a PS4 for it right when the game comes out.
In this discussion, someone making games for a console that they don't manufacture. So for example, Infinity Ward aren't owned by Sony but developed Call of Duty: Ghosts for the PS3/PS4.
Don't know why anyone would give a shit about third party though, most third party titles come out on PC anyway so why the hell would people play it on console -- unless you, for some reason, like spending the same money on a version of the product with shittier resolution, less peripheral options, and having to pay for online multiplayer.
There are numerous advantages to PC gaming of course, and I for one can now only play shooters on the PC because I cannot stand console controls. However not everyone has the power or patience for PC gaming. Although Steam sales are certainly the greatest gift to mankind.
I recently got Wii-U version of Arkham Origins as a gift and oh man is this a bad port. Cutscenes that don't leave a small birght green border on gamepad, the awful physics. Complete lack of gamepad map, no menu on gamepad so you can't even go automatically into offscreen play, and it's a worse port than the previous game (which I only got because it came on my Wii-U. Worst part is when you leave a room a certain villain you KO'd apparently 'escapes' but I went back to the room I took them out and their body was still there. This is really shame.
I recently got Wii-U version of Arkham Origins as a gift and oh man is this a bad port. Cutscenes that don't leave a small birght green border on gamepad, the awful physics. Complete lack of gamepad map, no menu on gamepad so you can't even go automatically into offscreen play, and it's a worse port than the previous game (which I only got because it came on my Wii-U. Worst part is when you leave a room a certain villain you KO'd apparently 'escapes' but I went back to the room I took them out and their body was still there. This is really shame.
Last edited:
I'm not wanting to turn this into a PC vs Console war but I don't buy the patience thing one bit, mostly because I can't actually think of a PC game that has required patience to get started in recent years, and while a PC that can run everything might cost more than a console (because consoles are a loss lead) the combination of game library and various sales (Steam and GOG being at the top of the list) means you're saving big time on actual games and should break even pretty quickly -- I have multiple $10 or less games on PC that were fairly major releases, and here in Australia a major console title can still be 80 bucks at retail a year after release.
As for your Arkham Origins port, it's not just the port that's bad, it's a buggy as fuck game to begin with.
I think he means the patience in terms of hardware. Consoles you can just buy one, plug it in, and you're completely set for the next 5-7 years unless it breaks. PCs you have to buy all the parts individually (or grossly overpay for a pre-built gaming PC/buy a cheap one that'll be garbage next year), assemble them yourself (or pay out the ass for someone to do it for you), periodically replace the parts individually over the course of a few years (you can pay someone to do this, but generally it costs almost as much as the part itself), and keep repeating that last step infinitely because future-proofing is impossible. Even if the actual gaming aspect is convenient, the platform itself is definitely less convenient.
Given the gigantic PC back catalogue and the fact even most new games can run on an older machine this problem has actually tapered off a lot in the last 8-10 years, it was a much bigger problem in the early-mid 2000s. I haven't had a case of lacking hardware since Oblivion came out in 2006 without excessive upgrading. Costs weren't too bad either, I got my current one assembled for about fifty bucks -- so I suppose buying all the parts took a bit of extra time, but given I'm using this as my gaming platform for the next few years (had it almost 2 and it'll last another 3) I'd think some time researching the purchase didn't go astray.
Either you're lying, or you're playing everything from the past two years on minimum settings. My PC was built in 2010 and could run everything on at least default settings, but it can barely run anything from last year.
I upgraded in early 2008 (my first upgrade since around 2003) to a fairly good machine and again 2012, the 2012 upgrade wasn't really necessary but I was starting to have to run brand new big budget releases (such as The Witcher 2) on fairly low settings and the box I got in 2008 had some other reasons I wanted to ditch it -- didn't get anything that genuinely needed the upgrade until 2013.
Two important considerations though
1) Big studio releases chew far graphical grunt than most other titles -- this is especially true of studios that aren't very bright, but Blizzard games for instance run pretty well on old PCs.
2) You could play smaller studios titles on a 5 year old PC without issue unless said studio can't optimise for shit.
Okay, that makes more sense. I thought you were saying that you didn't upgrade at all since Oblivion.
Well, of course. Why else would you need a high-end PC?
My point was that a good PC should last 5 years, it might struggle with some of the big budget releases later in that lifespan (the Cryengine in particular is a bugger for this, fuck the Cryengine though, nothing good has come out on it in ages anyway) but it will be able to run close to everything that comes out. If you're a regular gamer, you'll get your money back on games and then some in 5 years -- especially if you're comparing with an early adopter of a console generation (because console games early in a generation are very pricey).
Last edited:
And like I said, I still disagree with most of this, unless we're seriously discussing the barely noticeable convenience of not sometimes needing to turn down graphical settings (which you don't even have to do with most new games from bigger studios seeing as they will generally default to a "recommended setting" that will work fine) -- should probably not go unsaid that even turned down graphically the game on PC should look as good as the console of the same vintage, given console graphics won't evolve much from release to end of life cycle (though I barely consider this relevant at this stage, for a game to look anything other than great at this point would require either intent or shitty design choices).
If you buy a PC or a console, it's a pretty major purchase, so some time spent on research of parts isn't really something to complain about (logic dictates you'd research a console before you buy it, what hardware options it has, what the online multiplayer costs, and what games you can play on it). Plus you can get them put together quite cheaply.
Also, you need to account for the fact that there's no running cost to online multiplayer on PC besides an internet connection, both Sony and Microsoft have a monthly charge that after 5 years would take $350 or $400 (respectively) off the price gap here in Australia.
For someone who doesn't want to start a PC vs Console argument, you're doing exactly that by dismissing literally any claim that there's some sort of downside to PC gaming. Deny it all you want, but it's a fact that assembling a gaming PC is much more of a hassle than buying a console and that it will initially cost significantly more. Not that either platform is objectively better, but when PC gamers start insisting that their platform is flawless, it makes any sort of rational discussion impossible.
IMO, Nintendo need to stop with all this gimmicky 3d and touch shit and make something similar to the N64 & GameCube. I bought a Wii (the old one) Years ago and played one game on it :/ (w/e the Zelda one was. It was pretty good.) It has been collecting dust in my closet with my PS2/GameCube/N64/PS1/NES/whatever is in there ever since :/.
If Nintendo made something similar in raw power to the PS4 and Xbox One with AN ACTUAL CONTROLLER, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
Untill then, PC allday.
If Nintendo made something similar in raw power to the PS4 and Xbox One with AN ACTUAL CONTROLLER, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
Untill then, PC allday.
I wouldn't exactly call the Wii U gimmicky. Its a big controller (which actually feels pretty similar to the xbox controller writ large) whose defining feature is that it enables you to use the console without a TV (which is honestly an amazing feature)
WRT power, insofar as I can understand (and most of this is going off of the tech guy who tried to convince me apple's about to die in a fire, so take this with a grain of salt) the biggest differences between the big three console makes is that Microsoft and Sony tend to overclock their processors (hence the technical failings of the original XBOX and the introduction of fans in consoles. Nintendo tends to take the opposite route, lowered their approach so that they could sell a product that was able to avoid these failings.
Not to say that I wouldn't want to see Nintendo push for bigger capabilities, but from where I'm standing most of the big games used to describe the sheer power of PS4 and Xbox One seem to all contain a very gritty/semi-realistic appearance. In contrast, the varying styles of Nintendo characters and designs don't really strike me as aesthetically unpleasing in this day and age. If Nintendo decides that they want to try and court the FPS market then maybe I could get behind the added price point required to "catch-up" to Microsoft and Sony, but for now I'm fine with the way they're offering hardware.
Super realistic games look like shit only a year later. Super Mario Galaxy is forever.
While I can't say how video games are going to look 5 or so years from now, in the present day the graphics upgrade from the Xbox 360 + PS3 to the Xbone + PS4 is a very subtle one. I'm sure graphics junkies who don't just play their games on PC for whatever reason would be very impressed, but I don't think anyone else would be drooling all over it for a really long time. It's pretty clear that the power difference between the Wii U and everyone else is considerably smaller than the one between the Wii and the HD consoles. It's not like its games are bad looking by any means. Aside from the games verbatim showed (both of which run at a smooth 60fps btw), Pikmin 3 has downright gorgeous environments and really good looking fruit models. In terms of future titles, Monolith Soft's next game has some really great graphics in a realistic art style. It may not be the most powerful console on the market, but it's "good enough" to satisfy me.
Whats your definition of real controller?
Wii U has Left trigger, Right trigger, ZL, ZR, a b y x buttons, left/right circle pad and dpad. Except you can play on the screen, or use it as a bonus such as a map. Only some games are mostly touchpad.
I see the WiiU pad being superior controller.
I'm trying here, but given you seem to be inventing an argument it's more difficult than it should be. I didn't actually insist the platform was perfect, however what I have said is this
- The convenience gap in purchasing is fairly minor to anyone who seriously considers what they're getting when making purchases of this size.
- The up front price gap is nowhere near what it used to be, largely because the need to replace a PC has decreased.
- The long term price gap hasn't done anything but get worse for consoles in about 10 years.
Depends on if it's realistic in a current, future, or historic setting really. Current settings look bad quickly, historical can take longer (think the original Assassins Creed), as can futuristic (Deus Ex: Human Revolution for example).