{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Ttasmmv:
11/10/2013 2:48:28 PM
24
I'm disappointed in 'gamers' too, because they're ignorant and complacent. They play first-person shooters with thumbsticks, at 30/60 frames per second, on high-latency television sets designed for [u]viewing[/u] images, not interacting with them, and they attempt to network with people at vast distances expecting good results! Out of all the possible ways to play a first-person shooter, this is the worst, but it's the most common, and the most popular! I guess they don't realise how bad it is, because they've never experienced anything better. I suppose I'm disappointed with developers the most for abusing and propagating this ignorance.
Whichever console you buy, you'll still be playing at inadequate frame-rates, on an unnecessary high-latency setup, and trying (and failing) to network America with Australia in real-time scenarios. The worst part is, you won't even notice. Video-games could've been something great, but they've turned into trash entertainment for the ignorant. Some developers are still interested in making great [u]games[/u], but not enough to make a noticeable splash in this acrid sea.
English
-
Edited by Hunter: 11/10/2013 3:05:19 PMWhatever, just go back to playing your PC, bro.
-
Why are you so complacent? Video-games could be so much better than what they are currently, but when faced with such a proposal—out of pride, surely—you neglect, even attack it! Why don't you want the industry to adopt higher standards that would be beneficial to all?
-
[quote]Why are you so complacent? Video-games could be so much better than what they are currently, but when faced with such a proposal—out of pride, surely—you neglect, even attack it! Why don't you want the industry to adopt higher standards that would be beneficial to all?[/quote] Lol.
-
The immaturity of the industry, and its consumers is showing.
-
No, it's just the way you seem to preach this, it's so funny.
-
Shut the hell up, please just do us all that favor
-
I ask the same of you: why are you so complacent? Video-games could be so much better than what they are currently, but when faced with such a proposal—out of pride, surely—you neglect, even attack it! Why don't you want the industry to adopt higher standards that would be beneficial to all?
-
Why do you go around preaching that PC's are so amazing, are you a salesman or something?
-
Not once did I mention the personal computer. It seems you have an illogical hate towards this device.
-
So you think I'm an idiot, of course I knew you were referring to a PC being better
-
I was pointing out the industries lethargy in particular areas, and the consumers complacency with it. When things are suggested to benefit those areas, which in turn benefits the product as a whole, it's always attacked by the consumers because they're ignorant. I wasn't referring to the PC as a better platform, though obviously you and I know it is.
-
Dat PC elitist superiority complex. Go back to playing Quake, you fuckwit.
-
Edited by Ttasmmv: 11/10/2013 3:28:36 PMThe PC is a platform that isn't as restricted as others, which gives users the power to manipulate things to their own needs and desires within limits. Due to this I favour it, but this fact has nothing to do with my proposal for higher standards of software and hardware, for PC developers are far too complacent themselves. The PC as a device for gaming could be greatly improved, but it just so happens it isn't as lacking as the consoles are currently!
-
So you expect everyone to buy a PC and upgrade it when needed? The average gamer hasn't got a clue about any of that, and the people who only play occasionally wouldn't want to invest money into a gaming rig. Consoles are here to stay for the foreseeable future.
-
Edited by Ttasmmv: 11/10/2013 3:48:23 PMWhat I expect is progress from the developers. 30 frames per second was the standard last console-generation, and thanks to [i]Call of Duty[/i]'s popularity, it looks like 60 frames per second might be this generation's standard. This isn't good enough by any means though, and there's such lethargy in this particular area due to the consumers' ignorance. There's no reason why console games can't promote higher standards than these minimums, and there's no reason why developers can't inform customers how terrible using your television set for gaming is, or how using wireless controllers adds unnecessary latency to the whole setup. And why do developers restrict the use of mice and keyboards? I'm not trying to persuade console 'gamers' to switch to the PC, I'm advocating for the console industry to mature, and improve. Playing a video-game in the year 2013 at a blurry, 30 frames per second on a television set with 120ms latency, plus that of a wireless controller, whilst the game tries to match me up with players living continents away shouldn't be acceptable.
-
60fps isn't good enough? EL OH EL! Please, 60fps being the standard is [i]perfectly[/i] acceptable. [quote]There's no reason why console games can't promote higher standards than these minimums[/quote]Yes there is. Time constraints, hardware, software etc... [quote]and there's no reason why developers can't inform customers how terrible using your television set for gaming is[/quote]Is that why it works perfectly fine? [quote]or how using wireless controllers adds unnecessary latency to the whole setup.[/quote]That I can agree with. [quote] And why do developers restrict the use of mice and keyboards?[/quote]How are we supposed to know? It's their choice. [quote] Playing a video-game in the year 2013 at a blurry, 30 frames per second[/quote]>30fps >Blurry I think you need your eyes checking. [quote]whilst the game tries to match me up with players living continents away[/quote]And PC does that too for a lot of games.
-
Again with consumers ignorantly putting down ideas! The industry won't change with this mentality! You don't know what a good setup feels like because you've never played on one (:- (
-
Edited by BritLemon: 11/10/2013 4:24:57 PM[quote]Again with consumers ignorantly putting down ideas! [/quote]I didn't "put down" any ideas, actually. [quote]ou don't know what a good setup feels like because you've never played on one [/quote]That assumption.
-
If you had you'd know 60 frames per second isn't adequate for a smooth game experience, and that televisions are terrible devices for gaming. Am I wrong, or are you just going to type "that assumption"? What good setup have you played on?
-
[quote]If you had you'd know 60 frames per second isn't adequate for a smooth game experience[/quote]Yes it is, actually. [quote]and that televisions are terrible devices for gaming[/quote]They're not the best, but they work fine. What do you expect people to do? Buy a monitor with a high enough refresh rate, and then have to sit at a desk to play their games? You're clearly missing the point of a console.
-
Have you seen 160 frames per second on a 160hz monitor? Until you have seen a frame rate higher than 60 on a capable monitor you won't realise how choppy 60 is. Many players think 30 frames per second is "smooth" because they've only played games at 30 frames per second. They don't work fine. There's so much latency on modern televisions that they have incorporated a special "gaming mode", which only decreases that latency by a small margin. Television sets are designed for displaying passive images, not for interactivity. Monitors are designed for interaction! Similar to the frame rate issue, unless players have played on a low latency viewing device they won't realise how incapable their television set is.
-
[quote]Have you seen 160 frames per second on a 160hz monitor? Until you have seen a frame rate higher than 60 on a capable monitor you won't realise how choppy 60 is. Many players think 30 frames per second is "smooth" because they've only played games at 30 frames per second. [/quote]No, I haven't. Frames that high aren't necessary, and consoles won't be able to reach that anyway. And good job avoiding my questions. You clearly don't understand the point in a console.
-
Edited by Ttasmmv: 11/11/2013 7:16:48 AMConsole's could run games at such frame-rates, but not if developers keep pushing for maximum graphical fidelity whilst meeting the minimum acceptable frame-rate. Frame-rate was a key factor in [i]Call of Duty[/i]'s success. Other developers were complacent with the norm of 30 frames per second, but they went for 60, and now [i]Call of Duty[/i] is known for its smooth visuals, and responsive controls. It's become so popular that consumers are actively disliking 30, forcing develops to adopt 60 if they want to compete. It's only a matter of time before someone else raises the bar. People buy a console to play video-games, and if console games were outputting simulations at 120 or higher frame-rates—and the media was actively expressing how this makes the game much more enjoyable—don't you think 'gamers' would buy an adequate monitor to see the difference for themselves? It would be a shift akin to the phasing out of CRT televisions. It's an improvement, and players haven't looked back. Even now console gamers use monitors for the decrease in latency alone. Why are you opposed to improvements? You reel from the idea, because you've only ever known 20-30-60 frames per second, and the suggestion that these aren't adequate somehow hurts your pride in console gaming? Really, I don't see a reason to fight a beneficial change like this. Everyone should agree this is a good move.
-
[quote]Console's could run games at such frame-rates, but not if developers keep pushing for maximum graphical fidelity whilst meeting the minimum acceptable frame-rate.[/quote]The stupidity coming from your mouth is hurting me. So you expect games to look like ass just so they can have your "hurr 120fps"? No. Games are expected to look better as time goes on. You only play that shitty Quake Live, so that's why you expect games to look like ass. [quote]People buy a console to play video-games,[/quote]People buy consoles to sit back and relax on a sofa whilst playing on a TV. [i]You[/i] don't understand the point in a console. [quote]Why are you opposed to improvements?[/quote]I'm not. [quote] You reel from the idea, because you've only ever known 20-30-60 frames per second, and the suggestion that these aren't adequate somehow hurts your pride in console gaming?[/quote]No, you just saying 60fps is choppy is flat out wrong and retarded. 60fps[i] is[/i] smooth, and denying it is wrong. Yes, 120fps is even smoother, but me and a huge majority of us who play new games would prefer 60fps and actual good looking games than for all games to look like shit just so we can have your "supr mega awshum 120fps". [quote]Really, I don't see a reason to fight a beneficial change like this. Everyone should agree this is a good move.[/quote]It'll only be beneficial once games will be able to have a great graphical fidelity as well as having 120fps. You're not getting it into your head that having both a good looking game and 120fps isn't possible on a console.
