EvaUnit02 on 3/1/2010 at 10:48
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,' 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.
It's no longer 1998-2004, the eras of constant PC game graphics engine arms races are pretty much over. Publishers know that consoles are the big earners, so these days most blockbuster games are multi-platform and the lowest common denominator hardware is usually the base platform.
The next "Go to game" will be a console port with some tacked on PC exclusive effects like how the like Dirt 2 and AvP3 have optional DX11 tessellation. Stuff like DX10/11 graphical enhancements and exclusive PhysX hardware accelerated effects you can easily live without.
Sure, there maybe some Ukrainian/Russian/East European/whatever PC exclusive that's genuinely worth playing once in a blue moon, but they're few and far in-between. As Dethtoll said it's more likely to be mediorce derivative shit that brings nothing new to the table.
Also PC games are usually SCALABLE, you don't have to run them maxed out.
Do your research properly and you can easily have a build that will last you at least 2.5 years. Computer parts are cheaper than they've ever been and it's easy to build a PC with a high performance to cost ratio on a budget. RAM is really cheap (the speed doesn't really matter much either) and CPUs generally have long life spans.
gunsmoke on 3/1/2010 at 11:50
Quote Posted by dethtoll
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.
1000 times this
Quote Posted by dethtoll
. I was playing HL2 with a goddamned FX5200 for 6 months, Worked just fine.
Hah, me too. That little sucker surprised the hell out of me.
Kuuso on 3/1/2010 at 12:11
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I never see what the big deal is anyway. If you decide the console isn't for you, sell it and save up for another. They aren't
that expensive, especially now.
How rich are you? Investing 200-250€ into a console is quite a big investment on my part, because it is
such a luxury item. Then again, I'm arsefucked right now due to the mandatory civil service here.
Anyways, Don't know what you're running Fett, but 3-4 year old computers are fairly ok. I have a rig with AMD 2ghz processor with Radeon X1650 gfx card (originally 9800XT, but it went bust after a year or two) and I haven't upgraded literally anything on it (good thing getting 4gigs of RAM right from the start). I could play pretty much any game up to 2008, only 2009 games have been completely out of my range.
Sure, they roll out on 20FPS with low settings, but it's ok.
thefonz on 3/1/2010 at 13:09
I view my xbox as an investment, since it gives alot of awesomeness and cheers me up and is the prime source of my relaxing in between work and studying.
In that respect, I have no qualms sinking my hard-earned cash into it since I know its worthwhile and yes; it is a totally luxury item. However thats why I earn my money - to spend on luxury items which I feel improve my quality of life.
I've gone from being a die hard PC gamer at the start of the 21st century to someone who does 98% of his gaming with an xbox. And you know what? I wouldn't trade it back to the PC. Sure, when Half Life Episode 3 comes out, or the new C+C, I'll probably rue the day I sold my desktop computer but thats a small price to pay.
In conclusion, buy an XBOX 360 and women will want to sleep with you.
SubJeff on 3/1/2010 at 13:19
fett - sounds like you have other issues with your PC than its power. I've never had an issue with online activation and I've got Tales of Valour which seems to be problem free on Steam atm (I have CDs of vanilla CoH and Opposing Fronts but since I only play MP anyway I thought that for £3, or whatever it was, ToV would be fine and I get access to the new MP modes and units).
Fafhrd - what are your game machines full specs and how does the LCD TV hold up as a regular monitor? I take it from some of your other comments you work in the games industry. How do you find the LCD TV for work? I do a lot of work in word, excel and I program and I'd like a nice big monitor/TV for the PC if it'll work out well.
gunsmoke on 3/1/2010 at 13:47
I have an Xbox with 130 games, and a competent PC. I love them both. I will always game on PC and will probably always have consoles. Best way to go is to get a mid range PC (hell my graphics card was $80 and came with over $30 worth of games)that is expandable (i.e. room for more RAM and an upgradeable socket for a possible CPU upgrade). If you recycled some parts (case, psu, disc drives) you could get a smoking PC for $400.
fett on 3/1/2010 at 17:57
Good points, all. I guess I'm still feeling the burn from shelling out $800 back in 2005 to play TDP, only to turn around and not be able to run most games two years later. Oblivion and the new CoH expansions are pushing the limits of my specs. I could have built it more smartly, but it was the first time I'd built my own, and I also couldn't afford to pre-load it to keep up the great graphics race that hit soon after. It's good to know I can get something reasonable that will run new games - as it is, I'm sick of running tests on Can You Run It and looking at red meters.
I think my point still stands though, unless it's possible to walk into a store, buy a good gaming rig off the shelf, plug it in and go. If I have to research parts, build it myself, find bargains, etc. to get it at that price, it's still far more hassle than a console. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy doing exactly those things, I'm just saying I can see where the normal person wouldn't, and with my life getting busier and more complicated (kids, school, travel, etc.), I can see where I wouldn't have the time to deal with it either.
Muzman on 3/1/2010 at 20:12
This is a bit by the by, but Crysis gets a bad rap, and it's largely their (Crytek's) own fault.
The game ran great for me at decent res on my previous system (which had the same graphics card and was about to be superseded when I bought it). The visuals were appropriately spectacular as well. The problem is we (gamers) too often see that the sliders are are only three quarters full! There's an 'EXTREEM' quality setting above 'High'! And we must have it!
The default graphics would be great for nearly everyone and the thing scaled beautifully so would probably be a pretty good time for even those with systems a bit above Steam-average. Bioshock's harder to run. Hell Stalker's probably harder to run. But everyone's heard about how the liquid cooled, triple Quad-cored twin SLI systems can't run Crysis at the highest settings so they stay away. One for the hardcore, etc.
The wank factor overrode the game's finest acheivement, which was its optimisaton.
(can you run it though. Well there I don't know. It just was nowhere near as bad as reported)
Fafhrd on 3/1/2010 at 21:45
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Fafhrd - what are your game machines full specs and how does the LCD TV hold up as a regular monitor? I take it from some of your other comments you work in the games industry. How do you find the LCD TV for work? I do a lot of work in word, excel and I program and I'd like a nice big monitor/TV for the PC if it'll work out well.
My home rig isn't for work (other than checking my e-mails if I'm out sick or something. Work PC is on a dual 1024x768 monitor set-up, and honestly I like it less than the one big monitor at home, even if the effective desktop resolution is higher at work), but I haven't had any problems with using the TV for web browsing (bar the occasional site with a bad text vs. background colour), the occasional bit of word processing, and sometimes firing up Lightwave or UEd for random fucking about.
As far as specs: Athlon 64 X2 6000+, Radeon HD 3870 (a lot of people seem to consider the 3xxx series a bit of a misstep on ATI/AMD's part, but it's not really showing its age for me) 4 gigs RAM, and an aged Audigy 2 ZS for sound. Dual-booting 32-bit XP and Vista Ultimate 64-bit. Mobo is a Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-DS5, so I'm a bit future-proofed when it comes to processor upgrades at least until AMD abandons the AM2/AM2+ socket. HDDs are 120 GB IDE, a 40GB IDE, and the TB SATA drive. The 120 and the 40 are given over almost entirely to an OS, some applications and documents each. The TB is for games, music, and some TV shows.
thefonz on 3/1/2010 at 21:53
The reason Crysis failed is because its not a very good game and solely relies on its graphics.
Saying that though, after playing xbox games for 10 months, I do miss the higher spec graphics on the PC and being able to tweak and modify settings.
What I really want to buy this year, is a laptop that is capable of playing high spec games...that would bring my gaming life around in a nice complete circle.
However, its worth pointing out that these days you don't need a totally pimped out ninja pc to get amazing graphics...
