Koki on 24/11/2008 at 07:22
Quote Posted by "PCGA goon"
Your audience, for example, generally knows how to get most games running, knows where to go for drivers, or to buy games. They know how to make what they like work. Our focus is on the mainstream consumer.
As dethtoll would put it: ggnextmap
june gloom on 24/11/2008 at 10:22
Oh for God's sakes. gg nextmap indeed, with a kicked by console to boot.
Matthew on 24/11/2008 at 11:42
What's controversial about that statement?
gunsmoke on 24/11/2008 at 14:06
Pandering to the lowest common denominator?
Koki on 24/11/2008 at 14:37
It's not interesting or helpful for PC gaming in any way and we already have Games for Windows which does the same?
Matthew on 24/11/2008 at 15:07
Quote Posted by gunsmoke
Pandering to the lowest common denominator?
Oh, please. I can edit my autoexec.bat with the best of them but I never had to like it.
gunsmoke on 24/11/2008 at 15:49
Didn't mean to anger you, I was just suggesting that they were treating the casual gamers as retards.
Matthew on 24/11/2008 at 19:14
Sorry if I came off as harsh, gunsmoke, it's just that that argument seems a bit strange given that we're not talking about gaming content in this situation. All this seems to be is quantifying a computer's capabilities in a more palatable fashion for those people who don't have the same level of experience as, say, the average TTLGer. And if it gets those people thinking that the PC can be a viable platform for gaming after all, then I think it's a good idea.
Edit: and Games for Windows is not the same, I don't think - that is a standard to ensure that a certain set of issues are dealt with by a game, e.g. full Windows integration, compatibility etc. This initiative appears to be as much about the hardware as the software.
WingedKagouti on 24/11/2008 at 20:24
Quote Posted by Matthew
Edit: and Games for Windows is not the same, I don't think - that is a standard to ensure that a certain set of issues are dealt with by a game, e.g. full Windows integration, compatibility etc. This initiative appears to be as much about the hardware as the software.
Indeed, PCGA seems to be going for easier to understand labels on game and hardware boxes. Putting in "Needs a level 2 graphics card" and a corresponding label on graphics cards, instead of "100% DirectX 9 compatible 64MB Direct3D card with Pixel Shader 1.1 Support" (LEGO Star Wars: The Video Game).
Average consumers don't need to know how many levels of AA a card supports or a game requires. They just need an easy to see comparison of their home computer and the game they are holding. Currently there are only two really important pieces of hardware that can be hard to gauge, the CPU and GPU. Getting simpler, industry standardized labels on these (in addition to the usual spec list) can only help push the PC as a viable gaming platform.
The_Raven on 24/11/2008 at 20:30
Microsoft has already done that, and it hasn't really gotten widespread adoption. Hell, I remember reading about Microsoft's plans for the system 6-7 years ago. The thing that always bothered me about the system, even then, was that the level of performance a computer has is very much a floating target: a "green-level" computer 3 years ago is merely a "red-level" one now. I can just see things getting worse with people not understanding the degradation rate of the color coding system and getting upset that their three-year-old "green-level" computer won't play a "green-level" rated game. That's hardly an improvement over the current system.
