Shagger

Honestly, you're being ambitious there. I know of no new Laptop with a dedicated GPU for less that $600 (I assume US dollars is the currency you mean). Trust me, I was shopping for a laptop not even three months ago, so I have a good idea what the market is like right now. You really have three options; 1) Find one with an APU that could handle some games, but expect to only run very low end stuff (your post implies you have a laptop already, and will probably have integrated graphics) 2) Working to increase your budget (Save, work extra hours, sell some internal organs ect) 3) Look at second hand models (A risky area, but you can get good deals there with a bit of luck). Even for lowest level gaming, in 2020 I would not wish to see anybody settle for less than a GTX 950 or equivalent at the very least.

Sorry, but that's not entirely accurate. Going back to the 80's, 90's and into the 2000's, PC 's (Personal Computers) were all designed as a utility for what you described as the "routine work" with some capacity for playing games on them. However, and very recently, PC's changed. And they changed because they had to. The utilities these large, impractical and expensive devices became more accessible on newer devices like cheap laptops, tablet computers and phones. Even offices began using more efficient servers with connected workstations rathen than individual computers. The Utility PC, us pretty much dead. Gaming PC'S, or at least as we know, are also comparatively new. Obviously, PC gaming itself is not new, but the technology that defines them today exsist because gaming is why and how PC's stayed relevant in this modern age. The utility capacity for PC's is not lost, so technically @skyfireisn't wrong, but it's not really an advantage anymore. The point is you don't need a gaming PC when a simple notebook or even tablet can do the utility work just as well, so that doesn't sell PC's anymore. The only thing traditional desktop computers still exist for in 2020 (and most of the previous decade) is gaming. The expensive, arbitrary luxury that is the Gaming PC. It's also perfectly possible to stream from a console as well, so I really don't know you said that. And combine a simple laptop with a game's console and you would have the bases covered and it still cost less than a gaming rig, making PC gaming still more expensive. @Crazycrabtouched on how PC game deals don't make the platform much more affordable these days either. It's just not as good as it used to be with digital console games having more competitive sales and the advantages of physical media, but there's another factor. People have lost the difference between cost and value. Value us defined buy the individual as to how much said product or service is worth to them, so each to their own to define it. Cost is simply what one parts with for that service, it's a simple fact that cannot be debated, and that's whare the PC has a problem. Yes, it's very possible to draw better value out if the fact PC's do still have better game deals and the fact you don't pay to play online. However, you only get that extra value back a little bit each time you buy a game, so to offset the significantly higher cost of the hardware, that means buying a lot of games. That COSTS more money, even it it may offer more VALUE, see the difference? For someone who would buy a few AAA titles and exclusives a year, that would just not be worth it. In conclusion, the PC is more expensive. By miles.

Neither. I'll bring whatever is easy to sneak in because cinema food prices are beyond bullshit.

I've been playing Magic Carpet 2 on PC for over 20 years, and it's still about as stable as skyscraper on loose marbles during an earthquake. Yes, it's an old game you have to emulate these days, but it's a great game and wish it just, well, worked. I would post about more recent games, but the "half backed bullshit" title has become such a common tale I don't really know where to begin. Ever since post launch patching became possible, this has become all to common. Don't get me wrong, post launch patching is a good thing, but it's opened some bad doors.

Well, on PC, better deals on games, better performance (if the hardware is suitable), no pay to play online, more control input options, customised hardware, and better mod support. On consoles, better exclusive games, easier to use, much lower initial hardware cost, more reliable, a more fair platform for competitive play and more buyer's rights through physical media.

I'm sorry @StaceyPowers, but even this very question grinds my gears. There's swings and roundabouts, but just asking said question implies console and PC gamers have to agree that there's an overall advantage to one or the other and I hate that. I'm a multiplat gamer, and could do into detail about the differences between the platforms and make clear how I feel about them, but why? Nobody would learn anything. The only thing I'm willing to dedicate myself to is that PC fanboys are the worst, but I still dread the social media garbage we're inevitably due from console fanboys with the next generation over the next few months. Like I said, there's ups and downs to both consoles an PC's, but what really matters to me as a multiplat gamer is games. So, just play fucking games!

TLOU 2 is certainty but I'm not sure otherwise. I'll probably pick up the new "Tales" game and Cyberpunk 2077 are likely as well.

It's hard to say now I have a powerful laptop, so no third party titles would tantalize me. However, I'd actually like to see how Star Fox Zero would turn out with a control set up that, well, you know, worked.

As a teen, socks and underwear, but oddly enough I love getting them as gifts now.

I have posted about the possibly of having a VGR discord before here and @DC explained how that wouldn't really work. All fair enough. Still, if members want to live chat or group up to play together we could organize such efforts on the forum them use Discord to make it work.

I'm Scottish, so maybe it's not my place to say, but I saw Donald Trump as a predicable disaster from the moment I couldn't believe America elected him, and I think most of the rest of the world felt the same. @The Blackangel put it in more detail, and she's right in the end, but put it simply he hasn't made America great again, he's made America hate again. And now's he's decided to engage in military action that could start a new world war because he thinks it'll help his re-election. Sorry to Americans reading, but I hope my government does not answer your beck and call to fight this time. We're four days into 2020, and we're already on the brink of WW3 and the part of Australia that's isn't made of dust and sand is on fire. This is gonna be hard year.

I hated the Duke (Original Xbox), that controller was too large. I have not got small hands, but even I found myself stretching my claws all over it to reach the buttons. Future Xbox controllers kept the layout, but were much easier to wrap your hands around, thank god. Obviously more modern controllers are better, but even with that in mind, I think the DS4 is the best controller I've ever used. It's width, it's refined, it's comfortable, the huge rand of control options it offers, and they're built like APC's. The one problem is the perema-battery. I'm sorry, but XBox have the right idea by giving to option to use rechargeable or regular batteries, and that stupid Micro USB charge port only make it worse. The controller can only live as long as the battery. The DS3 was like that to, but this problem only existed in theory because that controller WOULD break long before that became an issue. Something to consider though is that innovation can be risky. For example, there is a controller that was the first to feature a pause button, a fully analogue control stick, shoulder buttons, a partner console with four control ports instead of two and it is widely regarded to be one of the worst controllers in gaming history. It was so bad, it pretty much killed the console itself. That is the infamous Atari 5200. Atari were always willing to experiment. They made popular interchangeable cartridges, removable controllers, they were the first company to develop a wireless controller as well as the aforementioned attempts to innovate with the 5200, the first company make a handheld in colour and also really moved forward home computers. There experiments didn't always work, but they deserve props foo trying. Great post. Amongst the systems you mentioned that I've used, I have to agree. The SNES controller was very well-designed, although it's innovations like the wide shoulder buttons and it's compact, curved profile seem more like common sense today, back then it was radical. The N64 controller divides opinion even to this day, but I liked it. It suited the console and it suited the games. Starfox 64 (Or as it was known in the great U-of-K "Lylat Wars", for some stupid reason) and Zelda: OOT, felt amazing to play on that controller.

I'd say the line of Nvidea GPU's are easier to wrap your head around, they keep things simple. AMD to me seems like a more adventurous tech company more willing to experiment, but can offer more bang for your buck. The last PC I built had an AND Radeon Pro Duo, essentially a graphics card with 2 GPU's inside it. It's power was comparable to the very best GTX had to offer, but significantly less expensive.

Let me start with by saying this practice is wrong, utterly wrong, but I have encountered it only once. I found it with Child of Light for PS4, and that's it (Awesome game, BTW). The gaming world will go digital, sooner or later, but consoles have held on to the principle that the buyers rights accosted physical media don't have to disappear. Yes, games are already getting over 100GB on PC, far bigger than a Blue Ray or an affordable Cartridge, so big downloads and online connectivity are a part of this now. However, buying games on physical media, even with the massive download installs you get these days, still grants you rights that game publishers just don't want you to have. That's why physical game media will die, not because digital is the future, but because it's the future ass-hole publishers want. This of course only applies to console users because PC users were willing to sacrifice the rights that physical media offered years ago, so no PC gamer holds any right to sympathy over this. Seduced by their oh so precious Steam, they have been willing to accept basic buyers rights on a drip feed because "Praise Gaben". Yes, I'm a PC Gamer, but I'm no PCMR fanboy hypocrite as I consider the lack of physical media and the buyers rights that go with it a huge disadvantage with the platform. I own no game on Steam, just paid retail price for the right to play it. Digital media is paying for access to games, not actually buying them, and that's what publishers want.

A character creator that sticks out in my mind is Dragon's Dogma. You couldn't just alter the gender, face, race, class and so on like other western RPG's (Yes, I know the game was made by Capcom, but it is western style RPG, just made by a Japanese company. JRPGS are different and have their own defined traits and style, but save that debate for another topic.). You could also customize the body in terms of height, shape and weight in a way I've not seen in any other game. This even had gameplay effects as well, something else that very rare in these types of games. Obviously, getting down to the more precise details it's got its limits, but's it's no worse than any Bethesda RPG I've played. I just wish the rest of that game held up.

That's re-defined what goes through my mine when I hear "X Gon' Give it Ya". Back on topic though, another good example of great sound design immersing you in a game is Helblade: Senua's Sacrifice. For those who don't you, in that game, you're playing a Senua, a Celtic Warrior suffering from severe mental heath issues. The programmed the sound to, if you're wearing a suitable headset or headphones, to make it feel like the voices in her heard are really in YOUR head. I played the game like that it really is very uncomfortable and makes what is already a very daunting game that much more frightening. An amazing job Ninja Theory did on that.

Never underestimate the importance of sound design in a video game. Sound can alert you mind and provoke responses is a way visuals, no matter how detailed they are, can't. Poor sound design can also take you out of a games world very easily, I'd say more so than lower quality visuals.

Hi and welcome to the forums.

First thing I want to say is, that's a great article. Whether one agrees with your opinion on the game or not, that was well written. Fun and easy to read. Very good job. I'm always very dubious about mobile games and mobile game ports, I just don't trust the monetization practices, but your article got me interested and it's dirt cheep on stem right now, so I might just bite on this lure and give it a go.

https://www.vgr.com/never-been-easier-to-make-games-on-playstation-than-it-is-on-ps5/ I more or less agree with the article, but I want to expand onto something. I've seen this coming, not just for the PS5, but the Series X as well. The hardware and software architecture has been growing more similar to PC's in recent years, and not just any PC's, a single PC, with all the same parts in it, and that's important for game development on consoles. Developing games to operate on the same hardware is much easier than developing a game to work on thousands of different adequate hardware and software configurations. The article references the difficulties surrounding game development for the PS3. The PS3 was a beast, in fact even now there is no APU you can buy that can match its capabilities, but's complex architecture meant few game developers could easily tap into it's full potential. I bring this up for a reason. It may sound like I'm saying consoles should be even more like PC's, but in fact that couldn't be further from the truth. Consoles, their exclusives, they way the influence game development and the gaming industry as a whole are essential. All modern games are PC games really, that's how they're developed, but the last couple of generations consoles have become more like PC's. PC ports are only harder to develop because they have to work for thousands of different of adequate hardware and software configurations, whereas on consoles it's only as may versions of that console the is (Usually 2 or 3 tops). This close association to PC hardware architecture for consoles is good overall, but I really want consoles to remain consoles. Great quality exclusives, physical media (and the buyers rights that come with it) and the ease of use are great features a PC just lacks. Some say consoles hold PC game development back. I agree, but I see it as a good thing because if the fast paced world of PC gaming tech was left to set the bar for game development it would be disastrous. PC fanboys often delude themselves and others into thinking consoles don't need to exist, but like them or not, consoles need to exist. Now seriously, think about it. What would happen if the next generation of console just didn't happen? We'd be left with PC's, right? Doesn't sound so bad until you think it through. Gamers would constantly demand better graphics (as we do, admit it, we're vain little shits), so hardware manufactures would have to develop more powerful and expensive hardware to make that possible more frequently, making gaming more expensive. Without exclusive hardware platforms to promote, games would have to make money on their own, as would hardware manufactures who don't get a cut of software sales on PC like console manufactures do, again making gaming more expensive. It wouldn't do to sell hardware that will still be useful in a few years, like how no washing machine manufacturer makes a washing machine to last more than a couple of years, making gaming more expensive again. This higher hardware cost (that's already much higher or PC's than consoles anyway) would shrink the market for gaming hardware, thus shrink the market for games themselves as fewer people would have enough money to buy the hardware to play them on, meaning each game would, yet again, have to draw more money out of each customer, making gaming more expensive yet again. Game development itself would become more expensive to keep with the hardware advancements, yet again most likely increasing cost to gamers through higher prices and more shady business practices like microtransactions. Putting it bluntly, the cost of gaming for both developers/publishers and customers would spiral out of control to the point it was to expensive for everyone. Console exclusives also play their part. These games are made to sell not just themselves and make money, but to sell the console and give people a reason to buy them. That's why console exclusives tend to be best games, there's a purpose and focus to them to actually be good games that multiplat's just lack. Exclusive games are about making their own money, but also promoting the hardware you play them on, so less easily surrender to shady money making bullshit you see on major multiplatform games. So what I'm curious about guys and gals is, how close should consoles get to PC'S? Or should PC's even be more like consoles? What, for you, is the happy medium? Do you think I'm right or do believe that, based on this, my brain is smaller the boils on my rear end.

From a Scotsman to the rest of the forum as it is past midnight local time, it's Hogmanay! Happy New Year!

Data Processing Simulator. You already have some inexplicably popular simulation games based on incredibly tedious professions and tasks out there. So no concept, no matter how high the suicide rate is for people actually employed in it (Looking at YOU Farming Simulator), is too tedious for a video game for reasons I will never understand.

Not because of the crabs, it's because Crazycrab is boob face

Him...

Is Jerry Springer still a thing?