Are consoles holding back PC gaming?

Well I wouldn't call Serious Sam a joke game, but eh.

Dont you have some recent shitposting pics to post? Like one with a Xbone or PS4 game instead of a PS3 game?

It wasn't meant to be a major title though, just a remake of one of their older games.

>Are consoles holding back PC gaming?
No. At this point they're different ecosystems. Consoles have a more consistent but expected level of quality, with mass appeal gameplay instead of anything that can drive away even 1% of a player base, while PC gaming is the wild west for graphics, ideas, gameplay, etc.
At the end of the day, it's the console sales that keep the lights on for these devs.

obviously, there's not even a debate

>made by a few croatian guys in spare time
>no exaggeration

That's simply untrue. They were working full time on the game with a full dev team. They may have started as a 'garage game' company with 6 people but by the time they were making the Serious Sam games they were a legitimate company. Also, for the record, the Serious Sams games are awful. It's just wave after wave of bullet hell arcade shooting with no plot and cringe voice acting and one-liners. When they came out they were sort of popular because there wasn't much in the way of 'arcady' bullet hell shooters quite like that, but they've aged horribly.

Attached: 23425365.png (1156x691, 525K)

My theory is that their dev studio is built on the ancient burial ground of a wizard and he's power seep through the wires to the computers.

for one thing the AI is more braindead than a Musou, all the enemies just march towards a designated target and shoot methodically if they have a projectile attack. for the model quality they push out, the environments are repeated assets galore, just done very cleverly compared to most games making every hallway look the same, and all the animation work is honestly really, REALLY simple. like, look at any Serious Sam 3 cutscene, and you can see just how jank ass all the animation is, and the enemies are really simple motions and everything.

It looks great on the surface and can still throw in hundreds of enemies at once, which is what the player will really care about, but honestly is fairly simplistic under the curtains.

Yes, but that was because consoles use AMD's GPU.

Yes, but graphics is the least important part of that. Games have to be simple to work with controllers and the weak cpus. You get annoying shit like context-sensitive controls and general lack of accuracy.

After the cancellation of T.E.O.R. and them not findying any publisher for it, HD was a "make or break" situation for them that could've meant the end for the studio if it wasn't for Devolver picking it up.

still lower processing, lower memory, and inability to do advance data computation. nothing but precompiled static sources

Console gaming is keeping good games alive

Attached: 1515353734913.jpg (1677x2981, 1.14M)

PC gamers are holding back PC gaming.
Remember CDPR's article about how W3 wouldn't happen at all if it was PC only game?
Go read that, there's plenty explained why the Master Race is it's own worst enemy.

pic unrelated

I don't get it. That picture of Serious Sam looks like shit. It's a bunch of repeated grass models with shitty looking art design, soulless landscapes, and awful textures.

The best games have always been Pc-exclusive though. They just aren't AAA anymore.

sorry for your shit taste faggot

>Serious Sams games are awful
Absolutely shit opinion
>It's just wave after wave of bullet hell arcade shooting with no plot
Exactly, it actually has fun gameplay instead of wasting resources on a shitty plot no one cares about

You make this thread everyday and still get (You)’s somehow. Guys quit being so insecure about your purchases of children’s toys and just enjoy your hobby and let others enjoy theirs

no, consoles (primarily sony and nintendo's) are the only thing keeping the industry from mass flooding with loot boxes and live service trash flooding PCs

nice film collection

Bad practices and the decline of art and SOUL are. New games have no soul, or have to. It's not even about hardware or graphics, they're good enough, now they need peopel with vision and love to do ANYTHING they can dream of, but selling NBA2K lootboxes is a profit.

Look at Gears 5. It doesn't even look better than even Gears 3, even 2. Even the first gears. And if it could, it does nothing with it. Gears 5 and 4 just rodeo'd the love the franchise had when the original trilogy, and these copycats added nothing on their own worth notice Everything you like about GoW was done in the original 3. These are yearly releases only.

>Also, for the record, the Serious Sams games are awful. It's just wave after wave of bullet hell arcade shooting with no plot and cringe voice acting and one-liners. When they came out they were sort of popular because there wasn't much in the way of 'arcady' bullet hell shooters quite like that, but they've aged horribly.

Even though the Croteam engine has always seem really pretty to me, I agree, and never liked any Serious Sam games. They're just bland and backwalking stupid. It's a S+MB1 gameplay

without people playing on low end PCs and consoles there would be not enough money to be made for developers to make anything good looking anyway
it's literally impossible for economic reasons to make well written, polished and complex games that will only run on high end PCs

"consoles are holding back PC gaming" is basically a way to say you're retarded

most of the worst gambling sims are on consoles, and some of the most egregious examples were console exclusive in the beginning, you retard.

They basically became PCs nowadays, almost to the point of upgradability, so console "gamers" are mostly either laughing stock or Nintendofags by now. The reasons to get a console over PC are getting fewer yearly.

I tell everyone to ignore pc and buy a ps5 :)

Attached: 37463782161187.jpg (1440x1080, 557K)

Valve and Blizzard are making billions from PC gaming alone.
They have the money and the resources to make big budget, cutting edge, PC only games.
But they don't, because such games makes no economical sense regardless of console gaming existing or not.

The fact that people actually do exist who believe this scares me a little.

If you are rich and only care about graphics and have an utterly blinkered idea of gaming and you're retarded, the sure

No. People playing with a shitty five year old laptop then review bombing a modern game for not being optimized because it doesn't run at max settings are.

Console """games""" are interactive movies.

Wouldn't matter since people wouldn't have updated their hardware regularly anyway.

Only complete fucking idiots think that consoles are "holding gaming" back when they're doing the exact opposite.

Attached: 1457629256999.gif (320x240, 2.87M)

Loot boxes started in the east on phone games and came to the west first in TF2. The biggest loot box pimp was Valve. COD and Battlefield did it after CS:GO.

>is shit selling in general holding back PC gaming?

So stop pirating everything that gets released on your invested shit box?

The other way round.

Fuck off already, nigger.
You're not funny.

Alright, now post the steam data that says something like 95% of pc players are playing on hardware worse than consoles

Cope harder.

Attached: I claim this point for unicorns.png (1000x1000, 1.05M)

Why shouldn't games be optimised for 1080p 60fps on consoles? That just means PC chads can reap the benefits and go even higher.

yes

>Dark Rose Valkyrie
basado

No.

PC developers still have to optimize for low and mid-end PCs. Games that push the envelope in terms of graphics, physics, et. take time, resources and money to develop. Devs that want to innovate (For lack of a better word) on PC usually ignore consoles; just look at Minecraft, Crysis 1, Serious Sam, Star Citizen, virtual reality and the recent push for RTX. And that stuff usually ends up on consoles one or two generations down the line.

Games have shitty graphics to save costs and reduce development time. Even if Sony and Microsoft disappeared off the face of the earth, the situation wouldn't change much.