Filter     |   View Watchlist
[ Print Friendly ] [ Watch Thread ]

Why does the PC master race exist?I see people who game exclusively on PC telling others who play games primarily on consoles that they are inferior all the time. This is everywhere on reddit, and I see it here too, albeit significantly less. Why does it matter? The whole thing is about trade-offs. I don't have a very high end PC, so I have some trouble gaming on it with new games. My Xbox has none of those, so I play that too. I do play on my PC a lot, so it's not like I think consoles are some magic breed of video game perfection. I do enjoy the simplicity involved with my Xbox, but that's the only clear advantage that it has over my PC. Can someone explain to me why people think that they have the ultimate gaming experience? This goes for console users, too. It isn't solely PC gamers, but I see it the most from those who profess to belong to the club of exclusive PC gaming.
#1  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
67 REPLIES Watch  |  Sort by Likes · Date
It's because people are idiots. They are elitist over the thing they do. This happens everywhere. Not just gaming. I'm a PC gamer myself. Gave my 360 to my twin brother. I hate this "PC master race" thing as well. There's nothing positive about it.

Now I do agree with some of the arguments against consoles. PC always gets the inferior one when we get a multiplatform title. It's all about the publishers tho. They refuse to acknowledge PC as a gaming platform. Piracy is usually the reason given. Which is not a valid reason. Console games get pirated as well and that figure isn't that much lower than PC pirates. So my hate goes to publishers, not consoles or console gamers. We've seen so many bad ports lately.

I would like to see the new generation of consoles already. Would it make the PC ports better? Don't think so. But at least we can get games that don't look like they were made for 7 year old tech and is clearly showing those limitation. Overly large weapons, no FoV option, etc.
#2  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote  |  + 5 Ditto
In reply to Dorf_Midget, #2:

Yeah, I really do enjoy PC gaming. I've spent the last two days playing Diablo II and League of Legends without even glancing at my Xbox. In terms of graphics, PCs have the leg up. I think that's a fair trade. I used to pirate games, but I've changed. For me, it was about ease of acquisition. It wasn't always that I didn't have money (although that was sometimes the case). I just didn't have a way to buy it, so I would pirate it. Steam and my car have basically made that argument useless now because I do have the means to get a game.

It really does suck when PCs get the boot end of a deal in terms of ports. I've been told that Halo 2 was a bad port, but I really enjoyed it. It might be that I don't know anything about gaming, but I liked that I could just pop the game in and go. I think it comes down to margins in the end. A higher percentage of the players are on consoles, so more work goes into the interface for those. I don't know anything, again, but I don't know why it would be hard to use a similar matchmaking system, for instance, instead of forcing people to browse through servers if you don't much care about what you play. Trying to time your click with an empty slot in the server queue is a pain, and it would be nice if PCs got the same treatment as consoles.
#3  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
In reply to AdamColborn, #3:

Actually the thing that annoys PC gamers, is the fact that we are getting the exact same version as the consoles. PC and consoles are two completely different platforms with individual characteristics. Server browser for example is a huge deal for PC gamers. We want to have dedicated servers instead of matchmaking. We always had the freedom of dedicated servers, so we want to keep it. A lot of games with dedicated servers have "quick game" button that finds you a server with good ping and available slots.

The other big thing is FoV or Field of View. On consoles, you have a narrower FoV. This helps save processing time since you don't have to deal with too much stuff on the screen. However, when you're playing on a monitor that is way closer that TV, you have to have a higher FoV. A lot of people are reporting headaches because of narrow FoVs.

Lastly, PC specific options. PC games have to have more options. Graphics, Resolution, key-bindings, etc. On top of that, there's no reason to force a game to run at 30fps on PC. It makes a lot of games unplayable.
#4  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote  |  + 2 Cool
In reply to Dorf_Midget, #4:

Wow, I didn't know any of that. I mean, I knew there were people who preferred to surf through lists of servers, but I thought that was a small minority. Shows what I know. I noticed that the Mass Effect 3 PC port had zero graphics options, which frustrated me. I was trying to set it up for a friend, and I couldn't do anything to make it run more smoothly. Is 30 FPS a lot? I really kind of stick to LoL on my PC, which always runs around 30 for me. Sometimes I've had it up at 70 FPS.

#5  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
In reply to Dorf_Midget, #4:
In reply to AdamColborn, #3:

Actually the thing that annoys PC gamers, is the fact that we are getting the exact same version as the consoles. PC and consoles are two completely different platforms with individual characteristics. Server browser for example is a huge deal for PC gamers. We want to have dedicated servers instead of matchmaking. We always had the freedom of dedicated servers, so we want to keep it. A lot of games with dedicated servers have "quick game" button that finds you a server with good ping and available slots.

The other big thing is FoV or Field of View. On consoles, you have a narrower FoV. This helps save processing time since you don't have to deal with too much stuff on the screen. However, when you're playing on a monitor that is way closer that TV, you have to have a higher FoV. A lot of people are reporting headaches because of narrow FoVs.

Lastly, PC specific options. PC games have to have more options. Graphics, Resolution, key-bindings, etc. On top of that, there's no reason to force a game to run at 30fps on PC. It makes a lot of games unplayable.
He pretty much summed it all up. I was about to say something along the lines of this. Adding to this, I think the PC community is just tired of getting shit ports to the PC, so I think in some way we resent consoles because a lot of these games we feel would be better on PC, and we get them on PC, but developers don't take their time porting so again, PC gamers get disgusting ports.
#6  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote  |  + 3 Ditto
In reply to AdamColborn, #5:

You hit the nail in the head. PC has such a variety of different hardware and people can't always afford the high-end PC they want. If the game doesn't offer lower graphics options, you cut off a huge part of the potential player base.

30fps is what consoles use. It's enough for console games, but on PC you want to have at least 60fps. You can play at 30, but if you've spent a lot of money to get a good PC, you don't want to be limited by a hardcoded fps cap. When you play at 60 and then try 30, you'll notice the difference. It's a huge thing. It's the same with FoV. You can play with 60 degrees, but you'll notice the difference when you get to use the value you want to use. Usually around 90-100
#7  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote  |  + 1 Cool
In reply to Dorf_Midget, #7:

Oh, I notice the difference. When I play LoL on my friend's super high-end laptop, it runs at sixty all the time, but on my other friend's macbook, it runs around 15. I can tell the difference. I get a lot of framerate issues when I play STALKER CoP. It's super frustrating.
#8  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
In reply to AdamColborn, #8:

Yeah, it's really frustrating. I can understand if it's low because of low end PC. I had a crappy PC for years before I could afford my current one. It feels kind of stupid to limit your software because consoles can't handle it.

As a side note, I believe fighting games run at 30fps. It's because of frame cancels and stuff like that which are really important. You can't pull them off with a variable fps.
#9  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Dosent most console games runs at 30 fps couse of hardware limitations?, aswell as about not being able to get a top end pc, all pc games has setting so you could just set the graphics as you wanted(and still has beside some pure console ports). I guess the pc master race thingy came along couse whit a pc you need to know some things to play a game evrything from hardware to setting aswell as keyboard mouse is a more complex way to control stuff than a controller is. Not to mention you dont have as fine moment and control in a console controller, as the pc mouse has seeing fps games to console more less force most people to use aimassist or as it is called aimbot, on pc that is usally a cheat not a part of the game=p There are very few rts games that are as complex as the norm on pc rts is. I dont know that many consoel rts beside halo wars that i would call the easyest rts i played ever=P.
I think the term got around aswell couse the pc players are anyoid at the consoles using such old hardware and holding back game devolpment. Take a look on Quake and then look at half life, that was the devolpment speed in the "pc" era. now look on somehting popular like cod mw 2 and 3 about the some amount of time bettwen, but to be honest its more or less no diffrence same graphics and so on couse the games have to work on the consoles, and consoles hit the wall for graphics a couple years ago like 6=(. since a console is just an old pc when it gets realesed and usally no really awsome hardware eithere the truth is hard.
Second console game are usally 20 eur more expensive here than pc games.
And most likely alot more resons.

#10  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote  |  - 1 WTF
And not to mention people on the internet seems to have no respect from what outhere people think, since most things is just up to taste.
#11  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote  |  - 1 Lame
Take all of the following with the understanding that I'm not insulting anyone or putting down their thoughts and choices unless you are directly responsible for perpetuating the sort of things I point out. My beef with consoles is not with the units themselves, but with all the crazy shit wrapped around them.

Marketing that touts the units as if they are the holy grail of gaming, yet resorts to either doctoring images and footage or flat out fabricating it during presentations, press releases, and commercials. Fans and officials inventing and perpetuating myths to glorify the units. Technical details that are inconvenient being censored out of public media or flat out ignored by the masses they affect, often times details that are solvable without physical modification.

People just fail to realize that the facts about a console are more than enough to justify it to consumers and developers. Game consoles were never designed to be superior to their generation of PCs. They're designed to be affordable, have a simple learning curve, and require little maintenance. The currently generation is starting to fail at those points, and it's largely due to the glorification prohibiting admission of faults. I still hold out hope however that the developers of the consoles will recognize this while it's still solvable with software changes.

Conversely so, if another OS doesn't take over mainstream soon and Microsoft continues their current pattern, PCs are falling into the same boat. It's sad considering how flexible hardware is today, how much easier it is to write software, that we have to put up with stuff that would have sunk a big corporation a decade ago.
#12  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote  |  + 1 Ditto

In reply to Sille, #10:
couse whit a pc
#13  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
To point it out, I love pointing out the the elitest on the consoles that without PC's there is no games. The thing is.. W+PC are the reason they have games, however that doesnt make us better, just means consoles rely on us for their games.
#14  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
In reply to Sille, #10:

Most console games do run at 30 FPS. But that's not a big deal. Hollywood movies run at 24. Consoles do not limit game development. We don't care about aim assist. That's part of console gaming. It's not considered cheating on a console. Aimbots and aim assist are two separate things. An aimbot gives you perfect aim. Aim assist is usually restricted to single player or co-operative modes, not online competitive play.

The reason development has slowed is because there is less progress to be made. A game can only look so good, and there are companies out there that are still pushing it towards photorealism (Crytek has an awesome new physics engine that realistically models damage to a car. Not like GTAIV. I'm talking REALISTICALLY.).

You also seem to think that precision controls are a huge deal, but they aren't. The difference is negligible to casual gamers.

Also, all PC games do not have graphic options. I discussed this earlier when describing the Mass Effect 3 port. Zero options. Can't run it on an older computer.
#15  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
In reply to AdamColborn, #15:

Are you implying that companies programming for decades old hardware ISN'T holding back development and innovation when it comes to things like game mechanics?
#16  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote  |  + 1 Ditto
In reply to AdamColborn, #15:

There's a reason people say ME3 is a very crappy port. Biggest reason is the lack of PC specific options. Also, I don't think you've ever played a game on 60 FPS. Not if you say 30 FPS is not a big deal. If PS3 or 360 could run at 60 FPS, you would notice the different immediately
#17  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
In reply to Dorf_Midget, #17:
There's a reason people say ME3 is a very crappy port. Biggest reason is the lack of PC specific options. Also, I don't think you've ever played a game on 60 FPS. Not if you say 30 FPS is not a big deal. If PS3 or 360 could run at 60 FPS, you would notice the different immediately

Not necessarily. Framerate has very little to do with how smooth a game looks. It's the amount of time between each frame that matters. This is an important distinction because you can render 60 frames at 1ms a piece and then spin for 940ms, that would be 60FPS, but they would all be so close together that it'd look no different than 1FPS. What looks best is when the frames are evenly spaced over 1s, for 60FPS this means 16+2/3ms per frame, for 30FPS this means 33+1/3ms.

Also animations (both 2D and 3D) must have extra reference frames to interpolate between. Even if a game renders 60FPS as exactly 16+2/3ms per frame, the OS could be skewing it's time slot by a couple milliseconds every frame which after a couple seconds manifest as sluggish or jerky animation. NWN2 played on Win7 displays some of the symptoms when not enough extra reference frames are available in animations (even if you use the modified launcher that fixes the bulk of that game's timing issues).

The same things apply regardless of platform. It's just easier to design around on a console where the background processes are much more predictable.
#18  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
In reply to default_ex, #18:

The biggest thing FPS brings is smoothness. Especially in fast movement. Sure, interpolation has to happen, but that's given. Having studied the matter quite a bit (still need to implement into my own project), I do understand it.

I'm not saying anything about the downtime between frames. If a game runs at 60FPS, I expect they have handled the interpolation as well. Also, assuming the OS screws up the time is something you need to take into account when programming. When I'm talking about FPS, I'm talking about the whole package. It's what most people mean when talking about FPS
#19  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Nexagelion1 Sponsor
In reply to Dorf_Midget, #19:

So true. Ive completely ruined myself now. Just picked up a GTX670 and everything is so unbelievably smooth. I havent touched either my PS3 or 360 since installing it. No reason to. I know that it just wont be that smooth. No other way around it.

Also, lets not forget the introduction of DX11 into the PC market. Advance shaders, particle physics, water physics, and tessellation add so so much to the overall quality of what you see. Consoles are stuck with DX9.0c and OpenGL3 as far as I know. Thats not to say you cant do amazing things with those, but DX11 just blows them away.

One other MASSIVE thing that no one has mentioned is modding. I played about 120 hours on xbox Skyrim. I picked it up on sale on steam dirt cheap so I figured why not? So many mods. So much you can add to the game. Texture fixes, higher resolution textures, better HDR bloom effects, and so so much more. Skyrim on xbox is a damn good looking game. Running @60fps on Ultra on a gaming PC? Its unbelievable looking. I run 30 mods in mine ranging from what Ive just said previously to arrow flight physics mods, to changing some armor looks, to adding some more lamps and streetlights to cities, changing the visual filter to add a little more color saturation back into the game, and weather mods. Ever seen lighting during a thunder storm on the PS3/360 version? Doesnt exists. It exists for me. And all of this is just for Skyrim, not to mention all the other games out there.

With the amazing sales that Steam has and Origin now has on games, there is zero reason to pirate games. One company I will always support with a day 1 purchase is CDProjekt, makers of The Witcher 1 and 2. They dont use DRM. Have said they hate it and all future titles will be DRM free in an attempt to win back gamers.

But what about hackers console gamers will ask? Yeah, we have em. Hackers and exploiters exist on PSN and XBL as well, so whats your point I ask in return.

Will I still play my consoles? Of course. Some games are just better there imo. But if you have the money to invest in a gaming PC? Totally worth it.

Just my 2 cents.
#20  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
In reply to AdamColborn, #5:

I have a few main arguements i like to put on the table when it comes to pc over console.
I just want to throw it out their i dont hate console i used to play online ps2 for 3 soild years and even xbox live so used to both style of play.

Whilst the feild of view thing doesnt bother me from one side to another i just like to play the game and when they have higher detail and look cleaner to the eyes instead of bent and pixelated.

Now my biggest point for PC multiplayer comes down to a few thing and server browsing is a huge deal.
for one you get to see the games you want do you want to play with a clan or find a friend in a game.
but this is the deal breaker which set me to a pc exclusive person from the games release before then i didnt mind any platfom, Call of Duty: Modern Warefare 2 I loved that game but their was one fatel flaw, you couldnt search for a server and it was a golden tactic that kind of shot itself in the foot as a year on and black ops came out and i was like ok ill try this game i got it on release day couldnt play (so buggy from console port my brand new pc i built myself couldnt ruin multiplayer only single) so i wanted to go back to mw2 but i couldnt as no one in Australia was playing and they werent patient enough to wait around for a single game to start because it was an adhoc service so you know what i did.
I put in Battlefield 1942 made in the year 2002 and hopped on the last australian server and played, you know 9 years after the game released people could still play but mw2 was done in one year.

Finally the mouse and keyboard, i get a far better response from the mouse and keyboard than i ever could with a gamepad no matter how good i got with it and whilst i loved the gamepad i just found it took to long and if i uped the sensitivity i would overlook something. the pc controls can really be adjusted to ones real style of play.

Cost is the one thing people dont really see when it comes to PC gaming, Here in AUS on release date i could buy assasins creed 2 for $80 on steam but if i went to EB Games it would have set me back $110 and whats the difference in the games from pc to console, pc had better graphics and i can still use a gamepad if i really want to. But with the money i saved on buying over priced pc games i think im at the point where i've saved money after buying a triple monitor dual graphics card system.

Dont forget to mod your games as well if it werent for that chest DayZ, TF2, CSS, and many games just wouldnt exsist.

Their is alot more in their that i intended to write but its just the things which make me a pc gamer, i wish i could feel the same about console but i just dont find it as enjoyable to play once you immerse yourself find the communities the mods it all comes together.

thats my 2 cents.

Post edited 6/20/12 3:30PM
#21  Posted 3 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote  |  + 1 Ditto
In reply to TankedRig, #21:

I understand that, and it's totally valid. I actually just downloaded Arma II: CO (mostly for DayZ). My only problem is when people think that it really matters. On reddit, for instance, there's this huge disdain for modern consoles, and anyone who plays them is an inferior human being.
#22  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
In reply to WintersV2, #16:

That's basically what I'm saying. I'm not sure why you think game mechanics would be held back. Controllers aren't going to evolve much more from where there are now. Keyboards and mice are going to stay the same. On the technological side, why would they develop for decades old machines if it's a PC exclusive? If you design for an Xbox, you design for an Xbox. If you design for a PC, you design for a PC. Some companies manage to do both with a single game (BF3).
#23  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
In reply to AdamColborn, #23:

I think his point was that; while some games (like BF3) are made well for both consoles and PCs, the majority are poorly transferred to PC, which is technically the most powerful platform.
#24  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
In reply to Mogg, #24:

I can understand that. But is it honestly a problem? If I have a computer built this year, why would I want game technology to advance so fast so that my computer is no good next year? It's not necessarily bad that there are some limitations.
#25  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
In reply to AdamColborn, #25:

Those limitations are really bad. Multiplatform games are limited to 7-10 year old hardware. That's a lot of advancement in technology. PC games never advanced so fast your PC would be useless in 1 year. I'd say 5-7 years is the maximum age for a PC. Might be lower than that. But honestly, that's just something you have to agree to when you start to play on PC. That's the biggest advantage consoles have over PC. They are cheaper and you never need to upgrade them. But now consoles are really, really old.
#26  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote  |  + 1 Ditto
Nakatomi RodentMaster
There are a couple of misconceptions I need to clear up on this issue.

First, you can't say framerate doesn't matter, it's the time between frames that matters...because frankly...that's the definition of framerate!! Framerate is measured in FPS (frames per seoncd). You can't change the argument by saying you measure them in miliseconds. That's not how it works. Frames per second is framerate.

Second, there is this misconception that 30 fps is not a slow fps. The arguments often inlcude reference to movies running at 24 or 25fps. This isn't comparing apples to apples. Film is set at a certain ISO and shutter speed. This means significant "blur" on motion. This motion blur is slightly offset every frame so that when pieced together the frames mimick a smooth motion. However this is only because of the nature of the film itself. When they adopted television they used the FPS of the time, which was 30. This is from a time when they would record on analog media with interlaced frames to only change half of the image at a time (a poor man's motion blur). Further, the TV industry has been stagnating for a long time. Only in recent years have we been seeing improvements in key areas, such as HD TV and 60Hz and 120Hz refresh rates.

There's also the comment that the human eye can't see past 30 fps. This is not true. The human eye can see changes past 60fps.The reason that 30 fps was established was because of tweaks to the format (motion blur for film, interlaced frames for TV) that made it "acceptable" -- that is the key issue. That was the bare minimum where people could watch without being totally drawn out of their immersion. That doesn't mean they can't see more.

In the digital age, where consoles and computers reign, 30 FPS is only passable on TVs because that's the maximum limit of the hardware. Game developers know this limit and the limits of the console and they put ALL their efforts into tailoring the game to not exceed this limit. They go to such lengths as to redesign game levels to have less geometry, dumb down graphics textures to stay within memory limits, and significantly tone down special effects and audio effects from platform to platform (XBOX vs PS3 vs WII). So they may appear to run smoothly on a console running off a television, but overall that's because of many factors.

30 FPS on a digital-input display is rather low. You don't have to be maxed at 60 (which is often used as the benchmark because many/most LCDs max at 60fps, similar to the way 30 FPS is used by consoles), but anywhere above 45 is smooth. 60 is better. You also have an element tied to FPS: performance. FPS isn't just smoothness. It's often an element of the overall system performance. If you have good FPS the gameplay is smooth. You can have poor FPS and it may manifest itself in stutters, hitches, or other PC gaming terms.

It is undeniable that 30 FPS on a PC is a lower end of the spectrum. I've dipped lower at times, and it becomes truly annoying and aggravating.
#27  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote  |  + 2 Cool
I don't like the term "PC Master Race" because it's stupid, and pretentious.

But PC's are undeniably more powerful, more customizable, and arguably have a stronger community.

The Xbox 360 released in 2005 with the power of a decent to good computer then. But nowadays, computers have shot sooo far ahead of them in terms of power. It's not even comparable. Yet we are graphically held back by the consoles because the PC port usually comes second. (This has given developers practice optimizing performance though)

I could go on, but the main point is that PC Gamers feel held back by consoles, and the two communities tend to clash. (Think about the main stereotypes for each, PC players are pretentious, or maybe nerdy, and console players are frat boys and 12 year olds) And consoles are utterly inferior in terms of technology.
#28  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Nakatomi RodentMaster
You know what? I think it's more one sided than that. I think most of the animostiy is from console users towards PC users. Now don't get me wrong PC users think their systems are better than consoles -- and they have valid reasons to back this up -- but they don't necessarily go around creating stereotypes.

The only negative connotations I can think of off hand for console users that PC users repeat is that console users lack coordination, teamwork, and the ability to team up maturely (even if you're being silly, or fun, I mean not frak around and grief whatever it is you're trying to do). These generally hold true but not through the fault of the console users. This is the fault of the console developers.

For example I ran into a problem when I reinstalled BF3 recently. It's a throwback from the console code of BF3. During a co-op mission there is no talking between the 2 players co-operating! None! Whatsoever!!! If you have a friend ahead of time you can set up a vox server and voice comm with them during it, but you can't even get the text chat prompts!

This breeds a very instant-gratification-oriented, gimme-deathmatch-or-GTFO mentality that some PC users hate about consoles. But I honestly don't think we blame individuals (i.e. a lesser class of people) but rather acknowledge it as a shortcoming we have to deal with when playing console ports.
#29  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
Nakatomi RodentMaster
P.S. I was teamed up with a great guy at RANDOM today for about 4-5 co-op missions. We couldn't talk because it was a random pairing, and you have to set up voice comms ahead of time. Added him as a friend afterwards because he was worthy of friending and we had a (mostly) good time. I did screw the pooch on a couple of missions because I had no clue what I was doing adn could NOT communicate that to my co-player. Seriously, stuff like that is why PC games (historically) are better. Even the basic in-game vox from Counter-Strike classic is better than next-gen consoles for teamwork. That includes the hand gesture voice presets, the team and global chat, and the basic 1-team-only/dead-only vox HL:CS had in place.
#30  Posted 2 years ago  |  Reply  |  Quote
[ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ Next ]
Please sign in or sign up to post a comment.