SubJeff on 2/1/2010 at 23:47
I actually found that bit irritating Renz. The sensitivity was a bit poor and it didn't help when you had time critical pulling to do. The Wii motion controller is a great idea, I just haven't seen it implemented well.
Roll on the new motion control stuff. I'll get the PS3 one if there are any games that I like the look of. Playing MarioKart Wii the past 2 days and meh to the steering tbh. It would be just as much fun with a normal control system, and much less tiring on the wrists. My brother and I quit playing because of it, not because we didn't want to race anymore. This is me going back on a lot I've said in the past; I was really excited about the motion controls when they were announced.
Its a shame really because mouse accuracy was something I hoped could be emulated on the couch without actually having to get a mouse out.
Renzatic on 2/1/2010 at 23:59
I think it's a setup/YMMV type situation. Cept for those occasional bits where you had to grab a lever, twist it, and pull it in or out, I found all the motion controls in Metroid to be spot on. By the time I had about 5 hours clocked in, I was jumping about and circle strafing monsters with dead on accuracy without even using the auto-targetting.
fett on 3/1/2010 at 00:11
Quote Posted by dethtoll
I really fail to understand why one can't be both.
Like others have said, it's the expense of it - and let me stress, the MAIN expense is the PC. I spent $500 getting the XBox set up and $200 getting my Wii set up - wireless everything, a few games, chargers, etc. It would take me at least $1000 to build a decent PC to play "Crysis" gen games. I can't do both. And there's nothing to guarantee that I won't need to upgrade a video or audio card or both within the year if minimum specs go up (and you know I'll have to upgrade if I'm only spending $1000 to begin with). I can't justify the continual expense of PC gaming when it costs so much less not only to establish a console habit, but due to gamefly, game xchange, and blockbuster, I can play a new game every week instead of every 4 months when I can come up with $60 (all the while praying that the DRM or online activation bullshit doesn't render the product useless for weeks at a time).
Honestly, the only reason I want to upgrade my PC right now is because I want to play The Witcher, and I wish the CoH games ran more smoothly. Steam is a crapshoot, as are any Win98 era games (I can't run Psychonauts, Freedom Force, and SS2 are almost a complete loss). Anything else I want to play, I can play it RIGHT NOW for less than $10. I'll continue to play on both, but financially, it's obvious which is the more attractive choice. I'd prefer to play on the PC but it's become a huge pain in the ass, mainly because of DRM. I prefer the intimacy of the PC as opposed to the open spaces of my living room, but to have more immediate access to more games without the painful install and activation process? I makes me very unmotivated to maintain the PC habit. :(
SubJeff on 3/1/2010 at 01:23
Anyone would think that online activation and DRM bork the majority of games the way people roll it out all the time. Seriously, what problems have you had?
And I dispute the PC cost as too much to maintain. If you future proof your PC to start with - that is buy a decent mobo with slots that allows for upgrades - you shouldn't be spending loads to get it powerful enough for newer games. This is especially true at the moment because those massive leaps in tech have turned into much smaller steps. I spent £1000 on this machine in 2006 and the only thing it has ever had issue with was the Crysis demo and I'm sure that was because I'm used to running everything at 1680x1050 on at least medium-high settings (and I mean everything) and didn't bother tweaking (game was meh imho, and it was fine until some alien thing arrived). Even if I wanted to upgrade it now I'd just get a new gfx card for about £150 and ta-da, whats the beefeo?
The PS3 is in no way a replacement for the PC, its a compliment.
Fafhrd on 3/1/2010 at 02:53
$1000 bucks today for a PC that'll barely play Crysis is crazy talk, fett. I spent $800 two years ago (almost exactly) and the only additional upgrades I've done since were a bit more RAM (which is literally dirt cheap now), a terabyte HDD, and a Blu-Ray drive, and I can still play everything that comes out without any real problems (CoH and DoW2 maxed in DX10 at 1920x1080, Red Faction: Guerrilla maxed (except ambient occlusion) at 1920x1080, Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, any Source engine game, UT3, STALKER, FEAR, all max detail settings at 1920x1080, all more than playable). I kind of want to pick up a a 5870, but I'm not feeling any particularly pressing need for it, since nothing's made my PC fall over crying yet. To be honest, I'm more tempted to switch my monitor from the 37" Samsung LCD TV that I'm using now to a 40" Samsung LED TV, 'cuz those things are fucking pretty.
Crysis has the occasional hiccup (I can max most of the detail settings, but I have to drop the resolution to 1360x768 to keep it mostly playable), but Crysis is still a pretty ridiculous outlier when it comes to system requirements. Seriously, you say 'Crysis gen games' as if everything that's come out since Crysis has the same system requirements or more, when in reality nothing's even approached CryEngine2 yet.
june gloom on 3/1/2010 at 02:56
That's been my big frustration with people who hate on PC gaming, they always cite Crysis. Sorry, you ignorant fucks, but Crysis isn't indicative of average system requirements and it's a shitty game anyway.
fett on 3/1/2010 at 06:59
Right, I know $1000 is a bit much, but for a guy on disability, my PC has to last 5-8 years, so I'm constantly behind, or at least that's how it feels. Maybe it's more fair to say that right now I was looking at $800 for a decent gaming rig, and only ended up paying $500 for the Xbox (the Wii was a gift). $200 goes a long way at my house.
@dethy & Faf - you're right about Crysis, but you and I both know that many, many game houses are looking at that game specifically and thinking "we need to incorporate ____ in OUR next game,' and it won't take long for minimum specs to jump again. That's the "go to" comparison game, and there's always one that pushes the specs about every two years, then nVidia, ATI, and everyone rushes to keep up. I'm sure I'll run into the same problem a few years from now when something better than the PS3 or XBox 360 comes along, but right now, I'm playing games on the cheap, something I wasn't going to be able to do in the foreseeable future.
@subjeff - what gave haven't I had a DRM problem with lately, is the better question. I've had to re-install Steam 3x just to finish HL2 again recently. The new CoH expansions won't patch properly, which afaik is a combo DRM/patch error (whothefuckknows because Relic sure as hell hasn't addressed the problem). Bioshock was borked, as was Spore. Every single Lego game we own has been a huge pain the ass to re-install (which I do fairly often due to limited HD space) due specifically to SecRom's draconian behavior in my registry. Psychonauts stalls mid-game, and Freedom Force won't run at all, even with the patch and various tweaks (admittedly, these are not DRM related problems). I'm listing several old and/or kids games here, but that's what we use the PC for. The only title in recent memory that didn't require some type of crazy work around, crack, or an e-mail to securom, is Oblivion. I've had such a terrible time with PC games lately, I'm afraid to buy them anymore.
And still, no one has addressed the cost comparison of the games. I buy PC games used when I can, but with this online activation shit that's going around lately, it's pointless. It's insane how cheap used copies of good xbox games are - just mind blowing for someone like me who's been pretty exclusively a PC gamer up until now. Buying a game is an EVENT for me because they cost so much on my budget. I could have been renting or even owning 3 used xbox games for what I pay for a single PC title this whole time? Fuck me.
Bottom line - I'm a PC gamer at heart. I love many PC exclusive titles, which I also believe to be slightly more intelligent than much console fare. A game like STALKER or Arx would be incomprehensible to the average wal-mart variety "gamer." I love that about the PC, and yes I'm a bit snobby about it. I won't stop trying to keep up with PC games. Truth be told, I even used to enjoy trying to get a game to work when it wouldn't. But it's getting really frustrating, my time is limited, and the console is so much easier. I can't help wondering how much longer I'll keep trying, when all I have to do is walk into the next room and push a button. :erg:
june gloom on 3/1/2010 at 07:59
There is seriously no fucking point in trying to keep up with the bleeding edge, fett. Aside from the fact that most of the games pushing the limit of what existing tech can do tend to be mediocre at best, there's a million and one games that make good use of the existing tech without pushing the specs too hard that you should be adding to your pile instead of complaining that PC gaming is too expensive. I was playing HL2 with a goddamned FX5200 for 6 months, then an FX5500 for 18. Worked just fine.
Renzatic on 3/1/2010 at 08:26
Quote Posted by Fett
Bottom line - I'm a PC gamer at heart. I love many PC exclusive titles, which I also believe to be slightly more intelligent than much console fare. A game like STALKER or Arx would be incomprehensible to the average wal-mart variety "gamer." I love that about the PC, and yes I'm a bit snobby about it. I won't stop trying to keep up with PC games. Truth be told, I even used to enjoy trying to get a game to work when it wouldn't. But it's getting really frustrating, my time is limited, and the console is so much easier. I can't help wondering how much longer I'll keep trying, when all I have to do is walk into the next room and push a button.
Fett, I have a computer that's almost 4 years old now. An old AMD Socket 939 DDR1 machine. Still, barring Crysis, I can run most new games at 1920x1080 high settings and easily maintain 30+ FPS. Now if you told 2004 era me I'd have a 4 year old computer that's still able to keep up with the big guns, I would've laughed. But now? Things are a little different now that the consoles have gotten to the point where they're sporting halfway decent hardware.
See, it isn't like the old days anymore. You don't have to get the latest and greatest to play the best games with all the bells and whistles on (once again, barring Crysis). Nowadays, a $600 computer with a nice upper end of the mid-line graphics card will run all those games you love so much with nary a hiccup. Oh, and get brand name parts. That always helps.
As for the DRM thing, depending on how old your computer is, a hardware refresh will probably do you good there. Or maybe even upgrading from XP to 7 will do it if it's feasible.
Fafhrd on 3/1/2010 at 10:42
Quote Posted by fett
@dethy & Faf - you're right about Crysis, but you and I both know that many, many game houses are looking at that game specifically and thinking "we need to incorporate ____ in OUR next game,'
None of the ones I've worked with are. And it's been over two years since Crysis came out, we'd be right in the middle of that sudden minspec jump now if that were the case. Instead we're getting prettier games that don't require heavier hardware to run them.
It's all about incorporating rendering tricks that can be pulled off easily on 360 and PS3 hardware. Deferred Lighting/Rendering is a big one, and even CryTek is going with that for CryEngine3 instead of the system CE2 used.
