That game is close to unplayable to me but a typical PC gamer would be unable to understand.

So i need to provide a few background first, or even a lot of background because i know just a few people would understand why i even ask for a gamepad:
I come from the console scene and one of my first games i ever played was Super Mario World on SNES near 20 years ago. Most of the time i was playing on consoles, with the exception a few PC only games, for example RTS genre and space sim and other PC unique games (Freespace 2, Anno series, WoW, EVE Online and much more).

GOG kinda changed the way i think about PC games and they got ride of one of the biggest nuisance which made PC games virtually without value to me, im not just a gamer im a collector too. Being a collector means that i do value games that are in a very good shape, not a DRM hog nor a "incomplete junk piece" and anything like that. Most of the true collectors consider any of the PC games close to "trash" when it comes to the collector value, thats opposite of many console games (i know, most people lack to understand because they was never a collector).

Anyway, i am very much used to gamepad as my primary input device. There is just a few games and/or genre a KB + Mouse is easyer to use for me for example: Shooter and RTS (CIV series, Anno series and much more), so it truly depends on genre. Some game works better with KB/mouse and some with gamepad, there is no "general rule". There is no "bad input device" but the "wrong input device", dependable on situation.

However, the genre i really have hard time using that KB/mouse crap is the RPG genre in general (with the exception of WoW or other online games). Risen is a RPG a game pad is supreme and simply better than a KB/mouse setup, but unfortunately the devs had in mind not to put any support for gameplad at all, So PC gamers apparently have never seen a gamepad, even if there has been good PC gamepads on the market for close to 10 years.

WHY?! There is a XBOX360 version out there with perfect gamepad support, but the PC version is just without any support at all? How comes? For countless years there is a XBox360 pad for Windows available to the PC gamers and it would be very easy to implement a controller-mode already in existance, the one used for Xbox360!

Well, im not interested into making a war, but fact is that minoritys just wont be supported for whatever reason, but i find minoritys just as important than majoritys... everyone is equal with equal rights and needs. Thats why we have GOG for example, so the DRM haters can have DRM free and the others can go and kiss Steam theyr whole lifetime or up to the time theyr account has been canceled (sorry for knocking at someones door, but minoritys are important too).

So, is there any workaround or probably a patch able to make it playable to me? II know that (almost...) all the PC gamers have zero issue using it (so they dont even think about) because they are USED to it but i know the advantage of gamepad and that game is one of them in need of gamepad. Sad to see that the "dev teams" from Xbox360 and PC do not work with each others and not trying to share ressources and support. Apparently they just execute theyr own work and in term a dev from one of the teams is saying" hello, i have a pad support" the dev from the other "political party" may say "who are you, never seen and dont know you, we have our own politics so just be gone". I think thats the main issue of everything that is odd today, we dont work with each others.

Anyway, i got it from GOG for just 2$. no need to be sad, i like to support GOG. But somehow i feel like i could have fun playing that game... if i only could use gameplad. ;) Else i simply have to be stick to the Xbox360 version, seems to be much better deal to me (as a person not a hardcore PC gamer and not a PC gamer-freak, not a "sit on a table/desk lover" too). Besides i use a HDTV... yes im a minorty and i enjoy the way i play it.

Hope RISEN 2 (TWO) will have gamepad support, im downloading now, in term another lack of PC gamepad support... i may cry).


Besides:
Just to keep in mind: What it is that makes PC gaming better than console? Supreme graphics? Honestly, half of the "well looking" games got weak gameplay and wont stand for the "best games of all time", it doesnt matter how much graphics they can provide when gameplay is lacking. The thing PC gaming is truly superior at: They can offer the highest versatility, it can simply be "tuned up" for every single setting and every single need, including input device, thats the strongest spot of PC gaming, not the "supreme graphics".

True, but: you call KB / Mouse crap? I thought there isnt a bad input device, just the wrong input device and to add this: people that just cant ore arent willing to handle some input devices...

First KB / mouse isnt crap, both together are the best developed input devices that exist yet, they are together in general superior to all other input devices that exist (because of the high functionality, speed and precision) yet and with a big distance superior to every gamepad, that means you can use both for everything without great problems (in some categories they are even the best choice), but there isnt any input device else that can be used for everything, like those 2 input devices and only a few are in a few categories better than those two devices.

Second you said that there is a wrong input device, ever thought about that the gamepad is just the wrong device for this game? Yes, there exist an xbox version, but most xbox gamers I have seen disliked this game because it just (luckily) wasnt made for the inferior gamepad nor for the inferior consoles!

Third, maybe the problem isnt the input device the game was build for, but it is just you who cant or isnt willing to use other input devices which are in this case superior. The team that ported the game to consoles was another to the team which developed the game. So they had to port the console stuff back to the pc version which would be maybe a big effort with very less use, because PC gamers usually use the, in most cases (like in this one), superior Mouse and Keyboard combo. Also I heard that the gamepad / console support is everything than perfect in this game! Good luck, but I dont think that this version is really a better deal... I dont know, but the developers have promised that the support for consoles will be better than for the first game and that the console team will be part of the process from the very beginning of development, so the chances are greater that the gamepad support will exist. But all in all, I dont know how good it works, because I havent really cared about it. I like to stick with the superior PC, Keyboard and Mouse combo for most games, despite of the fact that I also have a xbox compatible gamepad connected to my PC.

If you want a RPG that was originally made for PC that also has a good gamepad support, then have a look at Two Worlds 2 (not the first one, that also had some flaws in many other ways). After all this . (that has less to do with facts) you wrote to tell us how better you think that a gamepad is compared to the keyboard and mouse combo I even wasnt sure if I should help. But I think that was just your opinion.

Yes there exist ways to make this and many other games, that werent build for gamepads, playable with gamepads. The easiest way is to use Mouse and Keyboard emulation for your gamepad. In case your gamepad comes without software that can achieve something like this, you could have a look at software like XPadder. The official website is: http://xpadder.com/ but there you will just find the version that have to be payed. But there exist also an older version that was free but as far as I remember this old version had to be run in compatibility mode in new windows versions and I am not sure how well it will work at all for new games and new windows version. But this software comes in any case without prebuilt profiles, such can maybe found in the forum of the official website, if you really need such. But the area is also restricted to customers.

I already own Two World 2, works like a charm.

Dont get me wrong, KB/mouse isnt crap in general, but its crap for some situations such as when i play "RISEN", just as i said its very dependable on situation.

For example EVE or WoW and of course any shooter and strategy genre, a KB/mouse is truly supreme and i love to use it. But it just doesnt count for every game or every setting/genre, its situational.

Although i dont play on a table/desk, i have a custom made mouse-pedestal (a small socket as a surface) with a mouse pad on the surface, so i can use the mouse even without a tablet/desk, for example when i sit on the couch. And my KB i simply can put in front of me... no issue (so its always usable, even when i use pad).

Please refresh and read the whole comment again. I had to split it in many parts and add each part, part for part, because I had problems with posting and editing the comment (maybe a word filter? But the funny thing is that it worked afterwars without changes).

And my opinion is that Mouse + Keyboard is especially for Risen the best choice.

Well im sure you are telling me that Oblivion is much worse using gamepad too, but for my needs its the opposite. The only reason i was unable to play on PC is because there isnt a single tool i found able to be comparable to the Xbox360 version in term of gamepad utility, all the "PC options" are worse, and no secret that the willpower to add a real support is magically low because... most people share your view.

And i had absolutly zero problems even to play Morrowind using a gamepad on the very old Xbox, but most PC gamers are telling me "unplayable"; prehaps there is more than just "one truth".

Besides: I was spelling out "perfect Risen support", however, i never fully played that game on Xbox360, because i was to busy with games more important to me. In general ANY game coming from the PC "faction", is worse gamepad support, even RISEN in comparison to a real console game with its root in the console market. However, taken into account that the PC version offers zero support., the XBox support seems tobe close to perfect and perfectly playable to me, its good enough but at the same time it could be much better.

Ultimately, thats not even the question, the question is why we cant just offer several options in term a pad could be useful (obviously, on a shooter it wouldnt make sense, but most RPGs it does). Although it doesnt mean that a shooter cant be played with another input device: Take a look at Metroid on the Wii for example... very innovative design... innovation is something the PC market is very rarely facing (thats why it took so long even to relase a GOG plattform).

I guess PC just isnt a innovative market, its a mainstream market for standart users who got standart equipment and are asking for DLCs, preorders, fake trailers. Although that has been started with the implementation of STEAM and console "PSN/XBL" access (a virtual market, wiping out real market or linking real market with virtual market by nailing it together), so both plattforms was giving aid to the new "world order". But im actually glad that consoles has becoming stronger so there is more gamepad support.

When i ask PC gamers why they play on PC they answer me: 1. Supreme Graphics, 2. "phew im happy there is no gamepad", 3. MODS

Most of those factors isnt very important to me, and mods is just as i said sometimes a hassle to add, especially on Skyrim with a stability of close to none. PC gamer says: Your Skyrim on console is so crap. no mods. Then i try out PC version: OK lets mod it... and crash crash crash (newest PC with a powerful 64 bit system, cant be better than that)... oh they forgot to tell me i believe? I cant make use of any mod that is causing crashes and the best graphics on the world is no use when it is causing endless nightmare of CTD... fact. OK, its a mean example, we all know that Besthesda is a crash-company with a DRM-syndrome. ;)

Of course its in no way PC bashing, i just want to tell that there is no "supreme plattform" everything got its uses and a gamepad too.

Answering stuff that was edited into your first post after I wrote mine: As far as I know, the problem was that from the very beginning there wasnt even planned a port for consoles and a support for gamepads at all. Also it was as far as I remember that the porting was made by a completely different company, because the origin team had no knowledge about consoles and gamepads, after the PC version was almost finished. Also you just cant easily port back stuff when the code is almost finished especially if this would maybe include big changes to the old code. Just the usually problems in software developing. You dont have an idea about how this works, do you? They are many reasons:
1. For sure the better graphics, of course graphics arent everything, but it is still better to have a better looking game than a worse looking game. Also it is easier to build a game with mid level graphics and a good gameplay for the PC than it is to build the same game for consoles with low level graphics, because you have always to look at the limitations. Also the effort to build good looking games for the PC is less than to build mid level looking games for consoles, because the tricks necessary to make console games look at least good are time consuming and expensive, while you can rely on the rough performance for PCs and use the time to build games with better gameplay AND better graphics!

2. The games cost less, because you dont have to pay licenses to Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo that are maybe 30% of the price (not sure about the number)! Also the market for PC is greater than for any console for its own! Yes I know that in media often is told something else, but they always count all consoles together and forget the online purchases and payments (like steam, gog and WoW) for PCs, thats how media can make PC gaming look dead while it is every than dead.

3. You dont need 10000 devices for every little thing, just one to rule everyting and I am not talking about the ring but about the PC, which you usually still need for E-Mailing, writing stuff, surfing in the Internet and so on. So why not paying a little more (sometimes less then for an extra console would be necessary) to use the same machine to be also able to play games with also better graphics for example and many other advantages.

4. You arent vendor locked (except of Windows in most cases or DRM which isnt a problem for gog games), so you can freely choose which hardware or software you want to use, how you want to use it and when you want to use it. This also allows you to play good games even 10 years later when your old machine died. Try to do this in a legal way with a console game after the console died and vanished from market.

5. Mouse and Keyboard by default! Yes, this is one of the biggest advantages in PC gaming and allows the PC gamer to play almost any game, despite of genre with a good interface (except for bad console ports).

6. The opportunity to choose. This is the point you mentioned and I think I dont have to explain it further.

7. Edit: Mods :P Look for example at Counter Strike and DOTA, both began as mods and look what happens with them. Also there are many other positive examples.

Well, the price for new PC games on a retailer isnt 30% less vs. console, else it may become more popular...

Yes, Steam is a "trash" market, it means, many games are "trashed" at prices beyond good and bad and Steam was probably the inventor of those "walmart, black friday sells"; GOG had to follow the trend whether its good or bad for industry in the long term. Problem is, Steam gamers are fighting a "collection war", vs. each others (look i have 900 cars... ehrr games, cool eh?) but prehaps they lack to understand that all they get is a account with "game links"; that is able to be banned/canceled, its never truly "yours". The license is not lifetime. Steam is allowed to finish the lincense any time they feel like, guess they dont even need to tell a good reason, its free will (in that term the owner of the 900 cars, ehrr games, can go crying and tell a friend that those stuff has been wiped). But the human greed is probably endless, they dont care whatever they put theyr hands on, thats why all the DLC/preorder bonus and "black friday sells" works so well.. Ok. i mean i dont care the "trash sells":; so i can test out all games and throw away the ones not suitable to me but a demo would work just as well. But there is rarely any demo available.

Thats not a PC/console war but ultimatey PC are responsible for lack of gamepad support so i have to look into that matter.

Please dont bring up Counter Strike... Majority is loving it, but not me, just because a game is a major success doesnt mean that everyone is loving it nor is it a sucess to the individual. Although have to agree that the concept of "Defense of the Ancients" is a true achievement considering the creativity of PC gaming and a good reason for having a "open plattform". In general there is a lot of very innovative and powerful modders that are doing better work than many of the "well paid mainstream devs", and without any fund! So, fund isnt the only thing driving our creativity, we need the required tools at first and a open plattform. But as long as the economy is "stealing time" from each others by many useless tasks just in order to supply a partially illusionary economy just in order to provide growth, the true creativity of the individuals is slowed or prevented big times and what we get is only the peak of the mountain.

Of course, but it is just worse, not much worse, because it was originally made for gamepad but the Mouse / Keyboard Integration is good enough to be still better than gamepad. Also I think it is well played with gamepad but well != better. The opposite is also true, that games with original gamepad support are wors with Keyboard and Mouse than games made for Keyboard and Mouse. But sometimes even such games like Oblivion are better with Keyboard and Mouse. But I also have an example that was made for Keyboard and Mouse and seems to be very good with gamepad (with configuration by XPadder). It is the game Teeworlds. You are kidding, arent you? The opposite is the truth. Ok, Nintendo and Microsoft had a new innovative input device, but besides this? Where are the innovations? They still use Gamepads like the old NES and almost everything that is new to consoles is very old for the PC Platform.

Here is a very short, unsorted and incomplete list:

3D Gaming (Shooter for example), without things like Doom or later 3DFX we had maybe today the 10000 Super Mario clone. Really no innovation?

3D Glasses like Oculus Rift and no Oculus Rift is nothing completely new, it is just an improvement of stuff that is possible on PC since years or centuries.

Stereoscopy.

Network Playing and Internet Playing. You could even play Doom (released 1993, and it was by far not the first) over the Internet. How long did it take until you could do this with consoles?

MMOs like WoW. The next level could be stuff like Star Citizens where a whole virtual Universe is created.

Real Time Strategies (despite of Dune 2 on the Amiga, but this system was closer to a PC than to a usual console).

Voice Input and Output (even procedural).

Even stuff like Kinect, Move and the Wii thing were possible on the PC since years or centuries, there was just no market and as far as I see there is, after a little Hype, still no big market for it (Microsoft started to sell XBoxes without Kinect).

Input by thinking (this brain controller, dont know the company or the name of this thing, but you could buy and use it already).

Recording and Streaming of Games.

Games like Minecraft.

Simulation Games.

Voxel based engines (ok nothing new, but I thing, that the PC will be the first platform where such stuff is really used, maybe even as gameplay element => for example building a sandcastle in shooter on a beach side out of grains of sand laying around there). Of course everything gets its uses, thats not the question, but in my opinion the PC, Keyboard and Mouse are still supreme (in general) even if there are places where other devices are better.

Back to topic (this list can be almost endless): Have you tried XPadder?

Edit:
I was not saying that Steam or Counter Strike are good, but they are still things that have be mentioned. I dont like both, too.

Edit2:
I think, I know why most think, that PC isnt innovative or has nothing innovative. The reason is, that stuff isnt vendor locked in, so that everything made for PC can used on every other platform but often not in the other way, because Nintendo or Sony for example have no intentions to support the PC or even try to stop such stuff on other platforms (with patents or other legal stuff). But in my opinion vendor lock ins arent innovative or good at all...

One thing to add considering "innovation": Most stuff on your list was barely used or implemented and people has been stick to the same old "system" and "DX" for endless years (even the fact that DX is almost the only supported API, there has been countless APIs that have been killed from the market), Nowadays the support for alternate systems is still critically low, can i truly play on Linux? No... it would be very problematic. Do you call it innovation only to support one single OS and one single API. OK MAC slowly catching up because devs have become greedy and Apple is nowadays gold plated (in the past they had to much rust and in the old days they had the image of a "niche-system, nowadays it changed from niche to cliche).

We have had so many new technology that was barely or never used at all, it simply was either to "pricy", "to innovative" or "against mainstream". So, indeed, as an open plattform the PC is able to provide technically near endless innovations but it doesnt mean that it have been regulary used or that it will be able to be commercially successful. As long as a innovation cant be successful its close to useless because simply no real benefit. And lets say in term a "Kinect" device is able to be a success on the console market but barely used on the PC market, then it doesnt matter what plattform is the "first to be able to offer such a technology"; as long as the innovation is not able to be effectively implemented its close to useless.

Its kinda like you gonna tell me: !wow! now a entire nation is using solar cells on every single house, and they are able to supply 50% of power doing so. But MY nation was the inventor of those solar cells even if they barely used any solar cell at all considering theyr own territory. It doesnt matter, as long as the innovation is unable to be successful its just no use. The implementation is even more difficult than the invention itself... solar cells as a good example. Powerful technology but very hard to implement. Most people call it "dreaming" in term anyone dare to speak about "large scale implementations", however, it just works the same for every single innovation, either its a dream... or a dream that will come true!

Regarding MMO games like WoW: WoW would be a bad example of innovation and WoW was not even the first true MMORPG. Final Fantasy 11 is older than that and no one truly is regonizing them because it was japanese only for countless years. I was playing Final Fantasy 11 on a PS2, a console for years already and at that time WoW was not even released! Then in the year 2004 WoW was showing up and it was a big mainstream success, but even at release WoW was already "dated" on many technical spots. Nowadays WoW is a game running on a very old aged engine that has been updated in order to catch up with newer standarts but its in no way perfect and in no way cutting edge (WoWs engine was never cutting edge, but mainstream friendly). The stuff WoW truly exceeds at is the "way how its implemented", its mainstream compatible and simply a big hype, but its far from being perfect. Nowadays there is countless MMORPGs and even on consoles too, they dont lack the ressources, they never lacked the ressources at all... the first MMORPG was already available on a console but you probably didnt notice it. WoW was not the first of its spec, it was simply a huge mainstream success because of its very good shape, but thats all. WoWs isnt a innovation but a perfect implementation of something that was already available, equal to Kinect.

Besides, nope, PCs arnt owning all "first time innovations". And 3DFX as one of the first real 3D graphics cards, well i cant exactly remember the exact release day but i had a PC using a Voodoo graphic card so i know what i talk about. However, there was 3D consoles on the market sooner than that i do believe (i wasnt doing research) and one of the first 3D consoles was the Sega Saturn, it even got TWO CPUs implemented, at a time no mainstream PC ever had more than a single core, thats a innovation and it was way sooner than any multicore-PC. The XBOX360 at the time of release and PS3 had more CPU power than any PC ever released, and many PC gamers was still bashing the consoles because of theyr "weak hardware" and whatelse.

So i mean, its difficult to have a neutral/objective view but its still not true that PC holds all the innovations. My strong spot simply is, that i truly used almost any device from the very beginning and almost every single system, even PC.... so i have a pretty wide angled view, while most people lack that view and are narrow minded.

Considering your "its easy to develop on PC" because of theyr sheer amount of ressources: That mentality is the main reason why so many games on PC are such incredible resource hogs and the graphics wouldnt even matter, they still leech so much PC hardware that not even a supercomputer could be satisfying. Why? Because fact is that the software is a very important part of how "friendly" it will behave on any computer, and unfortunately many devs have become very lazy trying to work on a proper "fine tuning" in order not to have a stressful hardware hog. Most of the performance issues arnt related to graphics but simply because either the devs was lazy or incompetent in order to properly polish theyr hardware ehrr software. A PCs "high resources" cant be considered an excuse in order to make bad work... i hope all devs having such a mentality will soon leave the market because thats straight mean to the customers and no one needs such a mentality.

Someone could crack down a supercomputer by making a very small stress-code (a code that is just doing endless unnecessary calculations), paired with all the DRMs (so lets protect that stress-code with all the DRMs too) and i swear the supercomputer will start to burn in a few hours.... So, the saying simply is: The software is very powerful and especially PC users are paying to much attention to the hardware and they forget how important it is to have a stable software with lot of fine tuning. And when enough of stress, even the most stable system can become unstable... thats why software with lot of bugs, bad code and no fine tuning is a mess.

And why dont we have a single true 64 bit game (i mean truly 32 bit from the scratch)? Its causing unnecessary instability because many games simply run out of memory as soon as some mods added to them. The 32 bit system is legacy.. it should be wiped from the market, but the mainstream is preventing it from happening, sad stuff. Do you call it innovation? The implementation is lacking big time... for over 5 years already and nowadays the memory is becoming a serious issue.

If you tell me PC market and PC in general is innovation, i say NO, thats not what i consider "innovation". Innovation and Implementation works hand in hand. Of course "good innovations", no one need "bad innovations".

Besides, you should probably check that out and you may understand what it is all about:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/reddit-user-reimagines-xbox-controller-a-treasure-map/1100-6419253/

The PC has DX with the best support (for games) on Windows, further it has OpenGL (used much more for professional and web applications than DX, but also for games) with good support that is in some cases even more powerful than DX but isnt used very often at Windows for native games especially as primary API (but often as secondary). Despite of those, you could still use Glide (also if not recommend) and with Mantle you have the 4th API. Also everyone could implement its own API if there would be really a need for (like AMD did with Mantle). This makes 3 APIs (I dont count Glide, because it isnt really used anymore). One of them is even a very new API and all are steady developed and bring new even innovative features that are just back ported to consoles years afterwards.

Now lets look at consoles. The playstation has its own API and OpenGL that isnt really used by anyone and that isnt supported well (in contrast to OpenGL on Windows). XBox has its own DX like API and I dont know about Nintendo. In my opinion is the number 3 a bigger number than 1 or 2, but maybe I am just wrong? Also the features of this APIs are usually behind those of the PC. Innovation sounds different than what I can see from consoles. It is just false what you are talking, PC has more than one API and more than one OS! Also you forget that the consoles have really only ONE (or even NONE) OS and only ONE or TWO (in case of Playstation) APIs. If you are asking if you can play on linux, then the answer is clearly: Yes you can (some even native)! If you are asking if you can play all PC games on linux, then the answer is clearly no, you cant!

But let us see what happens in 1 to 3 years. Maybe valve will achieve to bring linux gaming to mainstream. They have even ported some games and other publishers have also said that they bring more linux games. Also the porting to linux is a much less effort then the porting to a console, especially if a Mac port exist.

But are you able to play a PS3 game on the XBox 360? A PS2 game on all PS3 consoles? No, but why do you mention that games built for different systems dont work while you have to mention the same on the PC? You say that innovations are only innovations if they reach a big market, then you post a game as example that has no importance for a big part of the worlds market? Arent you contradicting yourself? Also WoW was just an example that is well known by nearly everyone. There existed many MMOs long before WoW or Final Fantasy 11, just have a look at here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game#History
=> Almost all or all (havent looked up each) are PC Games...
MMOs came to consoles after the PC has already built a market and the necessary infrastructure for such games. Even nowadays consoles have less importance for this genre compared to the PC platform. The primary platform for such games was the PC, is the PC and will the PC maybe be in future (at least for a descent time). Not all, but most. I took 3DFX as an example because they could bring 3D to mainstream. Matrox had maybe the first 3D card but it wasnt made for the mainstream. And no, the console you mentioned had no importance at all, it was a big failure and maybe the reason why Sega vanished in console gaming. Also multicore systems werent anything new to this time, even if not mainstream like the console you mentioned... That is again just false! They had just more CPU power than the mainstream PC that maybe was bought at times when the old generation of consoles appeared. New PCs had usually a comparable CPU power, also a gaming systems need GPU power not CPU power and a lot of RAM, that was a big problem for the PS3 (worse graphics card and a stupid RAM management) why it had in most games even worse graphics than the XBox with an inferior CPU!

Also I hope that you dont compare the CPU clock of a RISC CPU with the clock of a CISC CPU, do you? I think you even dont know the difference between both! Just as an exaggerated hint, a 1GHZ CISC CPU can be much more powerful than a 10GHZ RISC CPU with 2 cores... Especially when it comes to technical questions, you seem to lack almost any understanding of it and just believe false or manipulative advertising messages. Of course this can happen. But the origin point was that you said games with good graphics are bad in gameplay because the developers do concentrate more on graphics than on gameplay. This is true for some games. But on consoles you have to concentrate much more on graphics and technical stuff to be at least able to build a well working game. In contradiction you havent to do so on the PC, but you still can if you want too and have the resources to do so! In other words: you are free to choose and can have even both (good gameplay and good graphics) even MUCH easier than on consoles, while the result can be still well playable on PC while it wouldnt be on consoles. I know that it was just rhetorical but if a computer really starts to burn then the calculations it did werent the reason (because a computer should handle ANY calculation without starting to burn). The reason would be an insufficient cooling or a defect in the hardware, just remember the red ring of death on the XBox :P. Which fine tuning? Performance fine tuning? This has nothing to do with stability! The opposite is the case, that software with much performance fine tuning (especially low level fine tuning) tend to be much more instable, because the code gets more complex. Also such performance fine tuning even creates often bad messy code that contains many bugs! GTA 4 is a very good example for such bad coding because of to much fine tuning. It was almost unplayable at the beginning.

Also a bugfree software doesnt care about how stressed a system is, it will run without any problems. A buggy software with to much fine tunning in the other hand can tend to run amok when the system gets to stressed, especially if to much low level things that are unsafe are used (because of fine tuning), but the same software will also run amok somewhen when the system isnt stressed! This is true. But this has more with financial decisions to do than with the platform. Also consoles are part of the problem, because the XBox360 had just 512MB and the PS3 has even just only 2x 256 (that cant be freely used). A 32 bit system can handle up to 2GB without problems or even up to 4GB with some little tricks or even more with more tricks. This is much more than for games is necessary that have to be run well with 512 or even 256 MB of RAM,

so that there exist a gap until this gets really a problem is just to big to care about it (from a financial view), because multi platform games usually wont use enough RAM at all.

A game also havent to be build from scratch only for 64 Bit to take advantage of the 64 Bit features (there are more than just a bigger address space), most of the magic is also done by the compiler (if the code is written well and wasnt fine tuned to much to achieve sometimes the same effect with a code that aftwards tend to be instable more...). You say that innovations are innovations if they are made available to the mass market. This is done by salesmen (when the time came to be able to do so) not by the guys that develop the innovations, so would you say that salesmen are innovative? My opinion is completely contrary! In my opinion a salesmen has nothing to do with innovations also the market has nothing to do with innovations at all, thats why I dont think that apple is innovative, because they usually dont build the innovations, they just sell them!

Edit: In case that this is a hint to get on topic again. I am on topic of your post. In other words, you choose the topic yourself with your posts.

Regarding the comparison between RISC and CISC CPU, indeed im not very experienced when it comes to such matters and im not even sure if you are different from me when it comes to many of those knowledge.

Ultimately i dont even care if i know the exact difference and such because its knowledge not very suitable to me, because the only thing i truly need to now is the basics and im pretty sure i do know the "critical basics".A RISC CPU is having a reduced instruction set and very few of the CPUs used for gamer systems (when we take out the consoles) are actually using RISC CPUs. That doesnt mean a RISC CPU is bad, not at all. Many of the ARM CPUs (guess ARM is nowadays the most commonly used distributor for ARM CPUs or RISC designs) nowadays used inside "NAS-solutions" or embedded solutions for any kind of PCBs, are using RISC processors such as ARM. RISC processors got the advantage that they can have very high clocks because the architecture can be "simplified" in order to reduce many of the factors able to decrease stability.

RISC processors are in no way "weaker" than CISC processors of same clock, it totaly depends on the software and its requirement. In term a software is optimized for a simplified RISC instruction set, a CISC CPU of same clock is barely more powerful than a RISC CPU, so i dont agree when you tell me "a RISC CPU need to be 10 times faster than a CISC CPU in order to be able to perform the same". The software simply need to support the way how a RISC CPU is working but most PC CPUs are designed in order to have max. compatibility, not to have max. performance. So the PC CPUs are exchanging "max performance" with "max instruction sets, so it will be compatible with every single software". A RISC CPU however.... it may have high potential but its in need of a special software, it cant just communicate with evey single software, because it simply lacks the required instructions. But you simply cant simplify such a matter and tell me "the CISC owns the RISC", thats just a empty comment out of the blue without solid background.

The PS3 RISC CPU (CELL processor) can totaly own any of the Intel CISC CPUs even today... its in no way "weak" not even today, but its very difficult in order to create a proper software able to "enable" that potential. Most devs are either to lazy or incompetent... take it or leave it, just my own harsh view. But just as i said, it will need a special software, and thats the reason why its almost impossible to have the old PS3/Xbox360 games compatible with PS4/XboxOne, its just to much work making it compatible. The PS4/XboxOne processor is a CISC jaguar core, so i guess thats the one you enjoy the most! Not me... i enjoy special stuff but there was simply no better option because consoles nowadays got big heat issues... the GPUs simply are causing to much heat and in term a powerful RISC CPU would create even more heat, it would become messy. On the other hand, the cost factor is another problem... nowadays people arnt willing to pay a lot in order to get a console and they may not even pay for games... (so thats why we have so many pirates... works easyer on PC).

But the fact is, a optimized software paired with a RISC CPU can totaly wipe out a CISC CPU system.. believe it or not, im not trying to convice you, you can have your own believe but just because you have your believe its not necessarely reality, it works for both of us. However, just as i said, PC devs are generally lazy and it will reduce theyr work in term they have a allround-CISC CPU available, PC devs had always been lazy and i dunno why i should support such a lazyness, the truth is seeking for potential not "easy money.

However, nowadays the GPU is becoming such a critical spot that a CPU simply got almost no meaning anymore. In the past the CPU power was very critical for gamer systems but nowadays every crappy standart CPU (a 150 $ CPU is totaly sufficient, just OC a bit and it will easely eat any game at 60 FPS) is able to be suitable because almost any calculation is now done by the GPU and the GPU power is just never sufficient because of way to many factors. One of the factors is the insane resolution, at a level beyond good and bad. I think anything above 4K2k is foolish (because other factors will become more important for the graphic quality), a unnecessary resource hog but many gamers are using eyefinity with even more resolution. It may become the new trend for PC gamers soon and thats one of many reasons why GPU performance was never in such a critical demand.

So the meaning of RISC and CISC may be useful for server/supercomputer or general science use, but for mainstream or gamer use there is no meaning... the age of "CPU demand" simply is over. As a gamer nowadays, the only thing i need to know is the power of my GPU, sad but true. So the consoles nowadays are running on low power "Jaguar" cores because its the correct fit for a gamer machine...

To some extend a RISC CPU can be compared to a GPU in some term, a GPU is bad at "compatibility" but it got a insane performance potential. A RISC CPU isnt different at all... but its a CPU, so its still able to offer some higher versatility compared to a GPU. But with the correct software, there is almost no limit what the processors are able to handle, its just insane programming work in term a processor is a "stubborn piece of racing hardware who doesnt accept 100 languages but only geek-latin from a old roman empire". And yes, a GPU is a "stubborn piece of racing hardware", just as i said, in that term not different from a RISC CPU, but we are loving it! The haters simply gonna hate RISC because its not used on any mainstream PC ever... but it doesnt mean there is no valid reason for using RISC. Ultimately i love the RISC design and bashing it just is a hint that there is some narrow minded view, a thing pretty typical for many PC gamers.

ts not done by salesmen, its done by YOU, those salesmen cant do junk in term the customer isnt accepting it. Its the main reason why we have so many bad offers and bad marketing economics today because the customers are allowing them to use a abusive behavior against them. In other words, the customers are supporting it. A salesman dont have to be innovative, a salesman have to be able to convince you, in term you say "NO": in that term they have to become innovative, so it totaly is up to you. The customers are the one in charge in order to enable or disable innovations. A salesmen is a slave but unfortunately most customers nowadays was becoming a slave and they have no clue about. Why do you think the PC market is narrow mined? ......... *guess guess", because of a salesman?

Of course, a company or salesman is trying to fool customers, lack of transparency, hidding the visibility so the customers are unable to make proper judgement, lack of declarations and so on, but thats only because the customers are allowing them to execute such actions because they forgot that they arnt slaves. In term all the customers would stop buying stuff from Walmart or Steam one month in a row, the company will stop to exist, including all the salesman... yeah.. consumers are incredibly powerful if they use theyr brain.

Yet, they arnt doing it for majority of all the games because there is no coin able to turn theyr mind... so they lack implementation big time.

So, you say Skyrim is a crash hog because they made to much fine tuning? Or whats the saying of this? So they should simply make no fine tuning and just make a raw performance hog and it will be stable? Correct?!

In other words, the more performance a game is using the higher the stability? Is that correct?!?

Just weird that the PC version needs several times the console ressources and is not any more stable at all but you may probably know a good answer.

A CISC CPU is usually not slower so it is at least as powerful as a RISC CPU. But most software (especially computer games) are more than add 1 to an integer over and over and over again. So there will be almost always parts where CISC CPUs will be faster because they have more instruction which could be used for parts of this instructions. So it is still not wrong to say, that CISC CPUs are faster in general, than RISC CPUs with the same clock. The question is just how faster they are, this strongly depends on many factors, but an actual x86 CPU is MUCH faster than an ARM CPU with the same clock in almost any scenario and maybe in none slower, of course with optimized (automatic by the compiler or manual) code for both. I didnt say need to be faster, I said can be faster, also I said that this example was exaggerated. The whole part is just confused and shows again that you lack even basic knowledge. The CPU havent to communicate with the software, it just runs the software! So every single software that can be run by a CPU IS already made for the CPU and its instruction set. The only true part is that not every software is using the whole instruction sets on PC CPUs and even if they do so that dont use it in the best way, but for RISC CPUs this isnt true, because they have a simplified instruction set that is almost always used in an optimal way (except of software design flaws), automatically generated by a compiler. There is no further optimization, the optimization most are talking about at console are made somewhere else... Not if both run at the same clock with the same amount of cores, then the cell processor is just a bad joke if you talk about performance! Maybe even ARM cores are faster (not sure)... You just repeat marketing bullshit, without enough knowledge to see that this is bullshit! The advantages of such CPUs are of a completely different kind... I doubt that you have even basic understanding of developing software, so why do you know that they are just lazy?

The problem with the PS3 was that the whole platform was completely bad designed (for a gaming console). The reason why it was so hard to develop for the PS3 was first that the PS3 had a slow GPU (compared to the one of the XBox), because they thought that a big CPU (compared to the XBox) is everything, but this is complete nonsense for a gaming platform. It is nonsense because the biggest part a gaming plattform have to do (consoles and PCs) is nowadays the graphical calculation (true for almost all games) and this one should be done completely by one processing unit, the GPU. You cant just say, let us split the calculation work, so that the CPU and the GPU can do each a part if you want to use the result in realtime (like you have to in games).

Another big problem was the RAM of the PS3, the XBox on the one had 512 MB as one big part. This big part could be simultaneously use by the CPU and the GPU. The PS3 on the other hand had 256 MB for the CPU and 256 MB for the GPU, the result was that you had to copy all the data from one RAM to the other and back again if you want to use more than 256MB RAM for one of the processing units, also if you had to use parts for both (especially if both were calculating) you had to store everything twice or do even more data copy from one to the other and back. All in all you had an effective RAM of 256MB or even less.

The conclusion is that the whole architecture of the PS3 was just big crap and you cant blame the devs that they didnt waste much time to build workarounds tho fix all the problems that came out of this, because some of the problems are even just impossible to fix! It was even great achievement that most game still did run as well as they did on this bad designed console.

The good thing about this is, that Sony has maybe learned their lesson, so that the PS 4 is much better designed than the PS 3 was and this time the Playstation easily beats the XBox while the last time the Xbox was easily beating the Playstation (even with a weaker CPU). Yes it can, but not if both CPUs have the same amount of cores and run at the same clock, then the CISC CPU will always win, this is just a fact that is true since centuaries. The RISC CPU need a clock that is much higher or much more cores to be able to be even as fast as the CISC CPU! Optimization of software doesnt change much, especially because you cant optimize much on a RISC CPU (except if the code did nonsense, but this can be also optimized at a CISC CPU). I dont need believe because I have at least a descent insight (even if I simplified many things because I am not well enough in English and because it would lead to even more text). Again, you dont even know a little bit about the work of devs. Also it is just bullshit that the devs were to lazy to optimize for the PS3, the problem was the bad architecture of the console itself! Further the most (and often even best) optimizations are done by compilers not the devs them self. Would you wait 20 years for a game and pay 1000€ for it just that every low level command is made manual to find out that it wont run on the CPU that comes 20 years later? Do even have an imagination of about how much work a game takes? It is easier to plan a whole city like new york with each building than to build a AAA game... This was also true years ago, when PS3 and XBox 360 came out. Microsoft recognized it, Sony didnt... If the resolution is high enough you dont need Anti Aliasing. Anti Aliasing is just a way to let stuff look like it would be in a higher resolution. Also 4k2k is by far not enough for this if you sit close enough. Another point is that some people just want the feeling of a completely surrounded world and not just a window they look through all the time.

Also resolution doesnt affect the performance that much as you might think, especially on ATI GPUs, the performance does scale very good with high resolutions (and Anti Aliasing which has similar effects). It has a meaning if someone really says that console CPUs are faster than those of PCs. This is the same nonsense that smartphone owners often says with their 2 core 2 Ghz ARMs (or the like), where the CPUs maybe are even slower than the old Pentium 4... Yes it does have it, but this comes because of the many cores of about 1000 cores at the moment which also run at high clock. But if you would run an actual Intel CPU with so many cores and such a clock the little GPU would be a flee compared to an elephant and you maybe had to build your own reactor :P. Just bullshit that again proves your missing knowledge about the whole stuff. Ultimately I even doubt that you understand the stuff you are talking about. Also I never said that I hate it, I just know the weakens and strength of both, thats all.

True, but this all has still nothing to do with how innovative something is.

Also it is true that they try to fool you and that the lack of transparency is a problem, this can perfectly be seen by yourself, who is just copy pasting marketing bullshit and even is comparing the rough core clock of RISC and CISC CPUs without understand that those cant be just compared.

Also if all people would choose consoles we had no innovations at all, because the vendors (Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo at the moment) would control the whole market so that people couldnt just as easily decline as they can with open platforms like the PC.

Just look at the very beginning of computers where we had Atari, Amiga, Apple and others. Then came the PC platform, which was one of the worst of all but became the ruler of all, because it was open compared to the other, so that more and more innovative stuff could be invented, not by IBM (the developer of the PC platform) but by everyone else. Even consoles are nowadays just simplified PCs. Valve has maybe the power to change this, especially because of Microsoft is doing bad. No, because the most performance aspects are a matter of architecture, algorithms, data models and so on. All this has at the first moment nothing to do with the concrete hardware and especially with no fine tunings. But bad fine tunings (and they are very common when fine tuning at a low level) can or usually do lead into a instable software. But a software with bad performance isnt automatically instable, because the performance has nothing to do with stability at all. What has to do with stability is the way how software is developed and low level developing (which is used while fine tuning) is an big impact to stability.

Du kannst es mir auch in Deutsch erklären aber es ist ein englishes board, es ist daher möglich dass es nicht gerne gesehen wird.

I dont say that you are wrong, surely many very good spots but there is flaws and some questionable content too. But indeed, there is many valid content and surely lot of knowledge, else i may not even continue writting all those stuff. Surely interesting to read all your stuff and lot of wise content, so no problem for me even if i am wrong or flawed, i never said my content is without any flaw.

The new version regarding "fine tuning, or in that term performance fine tuning" seems to look much better than the old one, finally you was able to get my agreement, because now your content is "flawless": Fact is: Yes, performance tuning can decrease stability, but it dont have to be, and performance tuning isnt equal to "stability improvement", but it can be done without sacrificing stability.

Now you are making a comparison between a low power and a high power CPU, you are simply going beyond the line of "common sense" (or lets say a hit below the belt). Indeed many stupid smartphone owners are trying to compare smartphone CPUs with Intel CPUs, but im not one of them and the difference between RISC and CISC is another category. Its not comparable to the comparison between low and high power CPUs. Indeed, smartphone ARM CPUs may be RISC design, but its still a low power CPU, it cant be compared to a high power CPU, we dont even need to talk about. Its a totaly different design for different use.

One moment! Now you are mixing some stuff here. Because a game works different than a movie. A movie isnt having jagged edges in term of same content but a game got that issue! So you are asking about a "internal improvement" of the way a game is calculating the pixels and that it will need higher "Internal resolution". But the screen resolution isnt the true issue, a 4K2K monitor can show pictures without any edges, especially on a HDTV even at a size of above 50 inch. Heck, even 1080P is able to be smooth and almost without any edges (in term AA enabled). So its not a problem of the screen resolution but the way how the game is handling a pixel.

Once again, the TV got a fixed amount of pixels, he isnt responsible for the way how a computer is handling the internal pixels.Its true that a higher resolution would render the need of AA unnecessary but even a AMD RADEON GPU is in need of much more power at higher resolutions, it doesnt come for free. However, the main reason a RADEON is that powerful at high resolution is made ON PURPOSE, they was increasing the PIX and the memory bandwidth to crazy levels, so Nvidias "TEX focuses" architecture is barely able to keep pace. Thats architecture related thing but ultimately both need lot of GPU power, high resolution or high AA, up to you what to chose.

But internal resolution and TV/monitor resolution simply isnt the same and thats the reason for the edge issues any game will have in term resolution below 1080P and/or without any AA.

Besides its not true that "the bigger the better" is always valid in term of gaming. In my experience a 50 inch TV at a range of 2m is close to perfect for gaming purpose. Smaller than that and there is some lack of "immersion."; bigger than that and the viewability may become a issue because simply cant have the entire screen inside same viewing angle anymore. Most beamers are already to big for competitive gaming, it cant allow max performance because they exceed the active viewing angle of human view. A 50 inch HDTV is close to perfect, thats my opinion but you can have your own.

A eyefinity at a range of less than 1m and probably even several "30+ inch monitors" will have lot of content outside active viewing angle. Immersion could be good but it makes no sense at hardcore gaming, to much of content is outside "active viewing angle", but just as i said, to everyone theyr own "stuff", we are free when it comes to such terms (as long as the coins are available).

My own experience: 1080P at 50 inch is perfect for classic games, best quality possible. A 4K2K will be close to perfect for the newest games and future game content, although both formats are compatible with each others because simply twice the pixels (so its easy to switch without format issues).

Its not healthy to sit way to close to a screen for extended period, but just as i said, its not my eyes and everyone can hurt theyr own eyes. ;) So, the term "when sitting to close" is invalid to me.