The shift back to PC gaming begins

This is what I said would happen. How long are XBox gamers going to stay happy with Unreal Engine 3-level graphics? Crysis and STALKER were just the first games that featured such good lighting. With the new Tomb Raider and other games that will come out, console players are going to feel more and more left behind:
http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?s=2fd69df6e9ce60cc90abbf803f9d1a80&t=591782&page=1

I'd tell you that I don't really consider a handful of gaming snobs on a forum to be worth much in evidenciary terms, but I get the impression that you're more interested in convincing yourself than convincing others.

Ha ha ha, $4,000 for a PC!!!!

Whoohoo, real time lighting. Who cares if the game is fun, I got real time lighting...

Thanks... Playing Guitar Hero 4 and Fable 2 on my 360 and loving it.

The PC is always going to be worth the extra buck, since they aren't just gaming rigs.

The point I am making is it's now common knowledge that the PC has better graphics, and we'll see more and more console users complaining about it.

One year ago this was not the case, and everyone thought UE3 would last forever.

I'm still waiting to see what Carmack has to offer with Tech 5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_5


This to me feels right,taking in consideration the capabilities of the HD 4850 or a 8800GTS as opposed to the PS3 or XBOX360.

..regarding tech, within 1 year, PC will show that all consoles are quite obsolete, and therefore game looking wise much superior..but again, i hope they will pay attention on to gameplay rather than number of lights floating around..regarding tech, yes I do believe Leadwerks has 100% right..

PC ports of console games usually look better on a midrange system than the console versions, even if it often only comes down to longer draw distances without popup, and higher res more detailed textures. Some have better shaders, faster loading times, or even larger locales to play in. A system that plays modern games well doesn't have to cost all that much. About the same price as the consoles when they were first released will play anything you throw at it well at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 maxed out.

$4000 will buy you a power mac, but you can buy a very nice PC at 1/3 the price with a better video card.

Even my gaming system I could probably pick up used for $200 - $350 on craigslist will play stuff like Far Cry 2 mostly maxed out but without AA and only very high textures at low res 1024x768.

When it comes to ports, if you plug in an Xbox controller the game will often emulate the 360 version with exactly the same UI with XYAB button prompts ingame. The only problem I see is that there is often a 6-12 month wait after the console release, the benefit being that in that time the bugs are often fixed, and the game enhances one way or another.

Plus you can do a whole lot more with a PC, including photoshop, 3dsmax, fruity loops, game dev with Bmax etc, etc

Don't pick out an extreme case like that. My current PC (3 GHz dual core, 4 GB RAM, GeForce GTX 260) exceeds Far Cry 2's recommended system requirements by far and it cost me $800 including shipping and tax.

Anyway I agree with Leadwerks that PC gaming will inevitably return as PC hardware leaves the PS3 and XBox360 in the dust, and the whole cycle will repeat again when new console systems come out.

You can make all the anti-technology arguments you want, but the fact is there are just so many things you can't do with old technology, and that includes innovative gameplay techniques.

I remember this happened when I had my PS1, for a while it rocked, then the Voodoo came out and the PS1 looked pretty crappy.

For gaming a console is the only way to go (read explanation before quoting).

Lets say you buy the latest and greatest gaming rig available. Excellent, all the games out now run great, full frame rate, the works. Then....

1) You fancy some older games, STOP, they don't work on Vista.

2) Eight months later you buy the latest uber game, it's choppy on your computer and really you could do with a newer video card, but you put it off as the game runs "ok".

3) Six months later you buy the latest must have game. It runs like a dog, but lowering the features to low and it's bearable.

4) A year later and you have to buy a new video card (perhaps a CPU too) to guarantee the latest high end games run at their best. However the latest CPU doesn't work on your motherboard so you end up replacing half of your kit.

5) Rinse and repeat from point 2. The cash mounts up....

Meanwhile, your friend who purchased a £150 Nintendo Wii can still walk into the shops, pick up any Wii game and not have to worry about the specs, they all run 100% perfect. He fancies playing some old classic gamecube titles. They work 100% too.

PC gaming is better? in graphics yes, but at a 10 fold cost and ongoing funding to keep up.

Buy a console and get 4 to 6 years of gaming without having to worry about upgrades and specs.

I've been down the PC route and it's crazy to keep up. Five years ago I bought a PS2 and recently I bought a Wii (I also bought an XBox for £9.97 from Game to mod for emulators and spooling movies).

Moral of the waffle : If you must have the latest and greatest graphics then keep spending your cash on PC gaming. If you want around 4-6 years of gaming without having to worry about system specs and save a fortune over PC gaming costs, get a console :)


That is the reason consoles are and always will be the main choice of gamers!

"The point I am making is it's now common knowledge that the PC has better graphics, and we'll see more and more console users complaining about it."

nah.. only a few hardcore gamers will. The masses won't mind. It's not just about "graphics" on consoles.

Hmm. Let's just make a few changes to that sentence;

Ah. That's better.

I love hearing how PC Gaming is dead and alive every other month. Its like an epic saga.

"eventually id Tech 5 is going to be opensource also. This is still the law of the land at id, that the policy is that we’re not going to integrate stuff that’s going to make it impossible for us to do an eventual open source release."

*Gasps for air* - SWEET!

Not really convinced at all.

I just bought a new laptop a few weeks ago,... now I can finally play some games I missed out on a few years ago, but I still won't be playing new releases because:

1. The ever hungry system demands are too high.
2. DRM

I'm only going to buy games that don't have DRM - like Fallout 3 - and nothing from EA.

Oh, are puzzle games better on a PC? :)

Casual games are much more efficient when built for the PC, as you don't have to produce dvd's/cases etc.. But nowadays consoles are getting online markets, so there isn't much of a difference - except for quantity :P

I often wonder what games you guys need that require such expensive computers and frequent upgrades?

I played Crysis, witcher, Far Cry 2, COD 4, Assasins Creed, Bioshock, Grid, and gears of war. Of all those the only two I had to watch the graphics on were assasins creed and to some extent Crysis.

I guess people are spoilt and expect 60fps at 2560x1600 with AA on. If you can get by on 1024x768 no AA and can get by with 20 - 30 fps which in most games is quite playable, so you can play the latest games just fine on 3-5 year old hardware.

Funny that I'm still using Leadwerks old AGP video card he sold me well over a year ago now and it still plays everything I throw at it pretty well :).

The biggest hurdle that the PC has is that publishers want games on consoles where the money is and don't give a monkeys about the PC. Which is why we now have so many ports of dumbed down generic console games and very few traditional thinking gamers AAA titles for the PC.

True; if Flameducks view is anything to go by (which is quite likely) then it simply doesn't matter how much consumers want to play PC games because the big companies will be dropping it for the more lucrative console market regardless of capability.

My LCD runs in 1680x1050 as its standard resolution. If you run a game in the widescreen equivalent of 1024 things start to look real ugly (especially when writing is involved).

I've just upgraded after four years, from a single core, 2 gig system and 7600GS, to a quad core and GTX260, with four gigs of ram. Not only are things rocking for games, but the extra cores make a huge difference to applications. The key for me is, and has always been, to buy cutting edge- not bleeding edge (such as spending $4k on a computer which will devalue at warp speed).

my onboard is naff, i wont even throw doom3 at it (well last time i tried my pc spazzed and rebooted whilst installing) im pretty sure that even thought i got the pc over a year after it came out it would just about be entry level specs

as cube said
an xbox game will work on an xbox no matter how old the system is
my next purchace will be a 360 and although dated its still better than this for gfx
i like, no LOVE the fact that the system is fixed, i dont have to worry bout upgrading ANYTHING to get the next game working, i dont want to be forking out left right and centre on my rig or run a game at stupidly low configs
as will all things the console will over shadow the pc for a while, then the pc will get better gfx and games that max out the system then another console will come out.
i cant remember the last time i upgraded my system
when it came to it i needed to yank out damn near everything that i just bought a whole new box, which is what i'll probably do with this one (although i might custom build)

PC Graphics may get better - but consoles should always be a better experience. (I say should since I read a review of a PS3 game where the console and game had to be patched - taking hours - before the game could be played, and this does not bode very well for consoles...)

Wouldn't it be better to introduce virtual platforms on PC? Like: a PC "model 2009" would be a PC with CPU xyz, Videocard abc, Memory pqr, HD-space uvw and screen-resolution klm. Then all that gameproducers need to do is create games for "model 2009" and all these games are then expected to run perfectly on these systems. Perhaps a third-party could rate these games in order to let games deserve a "model 2009" seal of approval. The next 'stage' would be a "model 2011" or something, with increased specs. Meanwhile everyone may decide to add a more beefy videocard, that would make the game run a bit better of course, but as long as someone has a "model 2009"-PC he should expect any "model 2009"-game to run smoothly anyway.
I'd say this combines the best aspects of both PC and console: PC for modularity and office tasks, platform for guaranteed performance and content.

> Wouldn't it be better to introduce virtual platforms on PC? Like

Yes it would, but it's not going to happen. PC components are trade secrets, copyrighted (whatever, I'm not exactly sure which legal term covers it). The ability of PC's to use the same BIOS (more or less) is a fluke to begin with.

In order to have the virtual platform the only thing left for parts makers to compete on is price - and no company likes being forced to compete solely on price.

they tried that during the 'multi media days'
it makes more sense to have key points that you know you have than looking at the fine print system requirements

but it would need ALL big players onboard to work (game and hardware) but with some games expecting high end rigs 2009 games will be listed as 2011 ok ;)

i think i posted something like this months ago
you would need 2009 A-D or more to know whats what
and would A be low end or high end
and when systems get faster what was D becomes C or B down the scale come 2010

TBH $4000 for a PC is ludicrous, next I will be buying a 360 or PS3 and having the PC just for letters and coding. Hell its easier to outlay £250-300 for a console every two-three years than £2000 every couple of years.

What about server side graphics? I think thats the future.

My computer cost about $600 and it's about three years old. I can play Crysis on max settings, but I usually lower them just a little bit for better speed. The trick is, you build or buy a barebones system, then order a nice GPU and install it.

My PC was only 500 Euro's and has no troubles running any game on high settings. When I look at the cheap PC's they sell nowadays, mostly only a bit of extra ram and a good gfx card are needed to change it into a game monster.

When I compare this to a console, yes consoles are a bit cheaper when buying them, but I don't believe that someone that has a Xbox, PS3 or Wii doesn't use a pc at all at home in the first place, so you end up buying both in the end anyway. Also the new PC versions of the same game are mostly a lot cheaper on PC.

I see the PC as 1 machine that I can use for gaming, play music, watch movies, send mails, typing, programming, etc... just fill in the rest.

my pc cost me £50, parts from upgrades done for family and friends but im not buying a new mobo etc just to play a bloatware game

you can soon make up the difference in cost if your one of those people that actually buys games. Often I can go and buy games I want $10 off the retail price the first week of release. Usually means I save $20 - $30 a game compared to the console version.

The biggest advantage a console has over a PC is that you can rent the games. Here I can rent games from $3 a title if I go to the local independant library. Or there's blockbusters if you want mainstream or joined their mail order rental which includes one free game a month, and you can pick up and drop off in your local store.

Games like Assasins Creed ended up being pretty uninspired once you got over the graphics, probably why they didn't release a demo for it. But most games do have a downloadable demo so you can try before you buy.

My PC cost me £27.99. Plus the cost of all the bits to go inside it. :)

I have a PC and game consoles. And like you guys are saying, PCs can be used for more than just gaming. That is why my PC is on my desk with a 19" LCD screen connected to it. So i can sit at my desk and work.

But, my 360 is in my Theater attached to my HD Projector and 8 foot wide screen. I sit comfortably and play my games. Because the games are designed to be played from the couch. No desk, no keyboard, no mouse.

Sure, I could put my PC in my theater, but then I would have to sit in there and pay my bills, work, etc...

OK, that was devils advocate talking. The truth is a have a high end HTPC in my Theater 3GHz Duo Core with 8800GT video card and a Blu-Ray drive. I watch movies on it, browse the Net, etc. And, even with this there, I still play my games on my 360.

Why, because you have to tinker with a PC to get your games to play nice. Mess with the settings, change gamma settings, etc... With my 360, I put the disc in and play.

It isn't about the best lighting, best graphics, etc. It is about enjoying the game. I find sitting back in the recliner with the controller in my hand so much nice than sitting up with a mouse and keyboard.

There are games that do not play well on the Console though, and those will always be best played on a PC with a mouse. Mostly, that is RTS games.

PC .. moste gaming on it.. Wow wow wow ..

Me i use the PS3 to watch movies on it.
No good ps3 games out yet thoe..

Do you really have to tinker with the PC. I hadn't noticed having to do anything in particular except choose between one or another graphics quality scheme.

So long as you have mainstream components you rarely have to play with the OS or drivers. And most games have a quick direct way to ramp up the graphics settings. It's about as easy as the 360, especially if you want to use a 360 gamepad as a controler in your average made for windows action game.

A console is still better if all you want to do is play games.

PCs are crap for games, even more so with Vista.
They're best for emulators or basically stuff you can't do easily (or at all) on a console.

A quick example why pc is not as good for gamers is Fifa 09, the game on the pc is an updated version of 07/08 and evn with all the graphics options at full still looks like an updated version of fifa 07. The x360 version and ps3 no doubt looks amazing the detail and filtering are spot on and it plays alot better with updates to problems that have been left in on the pc version. because most companies want there games to be scalable to work on a low spec machine games quite often are non eve close to xbox titles. Konami are the worst for ports IMO, metal gear 2, Pes and silent hill were all ported badly from the Ps2 with the only extra being screen resolution.

> PCs are crap for games, even more so with Vista.

I have had no trouble running games with vista.

I think that there will always be consoles and PCs for gaming. The truth is, some games you just can't play on a console. Look at one of my favorite games, Supreme Commander. It plays great on even midend systems, yet demands the precision of the keyboard and mouse. Try playing the 360 port and you'll know what I mean. Plus, FPSs are much easier to control with a mouse.
With PC games, you can typically mod them. With consoles, you generally can't. If Half-Life had been a console-only release, you wouldn't have had Counter Strike or Team Fortress.

PC graphics would be much better if developers spent more time optimizing their games for current gen hardware. Look at the consoles - the PS3 has something equivelent to a 6600GT card in it, and look at the amazing graphics. With a console, you have to work within those limits, but unfortunately pc developers often don't spend time doing that, and assume everyone has a 9800GTX.

With PC games, you can use a lot more peripherals with games. You have a nearly endless array of keyboard, mice, joysticks, gamepads, etc., etc. to choose from. Keyboards, joysticks, or any other likely USB peripheral don't work with consoles. I would have loved to use my Logitech Extreme3D Pro joystick with Ace Combat 6, but I was stuck with either the controller or shelling out $100 for their specialty Ace Edge joystick, which only works with that game. My X3D Pro will work with almost any game, from MS Flight Simulator to SimCoptor.

Both platforms could use some work, but I think they can coexist.

ubergeek much said what I was thinking. PC gaming wont die. It will just settle down to a gaming platform among the others.

What is actually happening now, is part of the gamers moving to consoles. Roughly 10 years ago, it was common for non-techie people getting their first table-top computers. What it meant was that playing games was available for a greater audience. Now that non-techie part of population are buying laptops which are not very good for gaming. If someone in such a household still wants to play actively, a console is an easy choice. There's still that nerdie portion of gamers, hardcore gamers if you will, who want the modularity and want to play using a mouse. Like me.

PC rules over consoles when great leaps in gaming technology take place, because they can evolve faster. Anyone remember Doom? Such a leap may not come any time soon, but it will. PC will always be the cutting edge of gaming technology and that's where all the new things will come from.

If Photonic Computing takes off, it will have a bigger impact then that of the GPU. Imagine having the power of a mainframe in your laptop....

> PC graphics would be much better if developers spent more time optimizing their games for current gen hardware.

To be fair, optimizing over the mix of hardware out in the world is often a nightmare at best and impossible at worst. What is an optimization for one machine often ends up a show stopping bug on another. Closed architecture consoles don't have that problem - which is why they can get the most out of the hardware they have.

I completely understand that, but there is arguably a lot developers could do to optomize their games. Even just providing a way to lower the texture size, polygon count, or particle amount would go a long way. That takes time and is difficult (I speak from experiance here), yet would allow most games to run on lower-end systems.

I think a lot of the problem is that some PC gamers want to play Crysis at 100fps on their 5 year old pentium 4/GeForce 5600GT/ 512mb RAM computer. If they would spend a few bucks every couple years to at least get enough RAM and a half-decent video card, they could get almost anything running decently on their computer.

And don't get me started on users that have integrated graphics and want to play games... Or the users that have 10,000 files on their desktop, 50 programs in the taskbar, and antivirus sweeps going every day and want to play games.....

Two points I like to debate :)

1. Yes, you tinker with a game to make it run well on your PC. Even just in the game. I find myself lowering this setting, raising this setting, etc. Just to see if I can get a better FPS. Sure, it may not be necessary, but in some of the latest games it is. They talk about how great the graphics are, so your are going to want them as good as possible without adversely affecting your gameplay.

2. There are game that are better on the PC, and this basically includes any game that is better played with a mouse. RTS games are the biggest one. But, I disagree that FPS games are better with a mouse. They are EASIER with a mouse. With a controller, FPS games require a bit of skill. There is skill involved in using the controller that is not needed when using a mouse.

Personally I'm still not convinced realism is the right direction for games. Everything seems to bank on what platform has the most powerful hardware which in turn can provide the most realistic looking realtime images.
Good looking graphics don't make a game good, everybody knows that, yet we still can't help comparing on this one factor alone.
I've noticed that the closer to realism we get, there's definitely more of a "wow" factor involved, but this only lasts for a short time. Simultaneously something is lost, maybe I could call it the "imagination" factor. Realistic graphics prevent a certain part of a player's brain from being activated, like the part that is in full force when you read a book. I think this factor is important in making a game enjoyable to play, its important in appreciation of art.
Its like comparing a great painting of a person to a photograph of a person. The painting always says so much more.
Of course this is all quite subjective and could be debated endlessly, but I personally would love to see developers quit worrying so much about making realistic games and worry more about creating a unique visual style and good storylines.

> If they would spend a few bucks every couple years to at least get enough RAM and a half-decent video card, they could get almost anything running decently on their computer

One of the BIGGEST problems with PC's - The sheer amount of information you need to know when buying a component for your PC ..


Joe Gamer: "I need more RAM for my new game"

PC Shop:
Vista/XP?
Mobo?
How old is PC?
DIMM/SIMM/DRAM slot?
Timing?
Voltage?
512MB, 1GB?

You get the picture

> There is skill involved in using the controller that is not needed when using a mouse.

A skill that distracts me from suspension in the game - a very very bad. If it required more skill for something that helps immersion into the game then that would be great.

Ram is about $10 per GB at the mo. And an 8800GT can be gotten for about $130. CPU doesn't seem to play as big factor these days. If your willing to spend $150 every 2-3 years you can keep up with the games and keep the visuals ramped up.

I'm on a 3 year of video card, and it's only now that it's starting to show its age.

Consoles these days arent what they used to be and often have slowdown when the game gets busy, Before this gen most games were expected to run at 60fps or people would complain. These days some console games have timing set to 30 and still get slowdown and being console games, often you can't adjust the settings to sacrifice something like AA in favour of a few extra FPS.

I won't even look at a game if the graphics aren't close to Crysis. I am still not sure if I want to get Far Cry 2, because I have heard the graphics aren't very good and the system requirements are lower.

I think that says alot about you as a gamer then ie you would prefer an average game with good/great graphics over a good/excellent game without the eye candy you crave.

I need both good graphics and gameplay. But good graphics doesn't have to be realistic. I do appreciate good lighting, and decent local surface materials on objects. But the art style can be almost anything.

I have a hard time playing games older than a couple of years unless its something like tetris lol. And rarely play a game again once I finished it. The linear nature of most games, even open ended ones leaves me not really having much interest in following the same paths that knit a games story or theme together.

Have to say, I find it much harder to like a game today, mostly because the game mechanics are too dumbed down and rarely require much skill at all. I also don't enjoy being forced to play the same sequence over and over once completed, just don't have the time or incentive these days. And console games frequently go both extremes either don't have a quick save but some kind of checkpoint system that requires some time investment if you make a mistake, or are so easy that you simply can't die, taking away the challenge.

Actually Far Cry 2 also performs worse than Crysis Warhead, in addition to the visual quality being not as good (although it is close).

But like it's been mentioned many times before, if graphics is all you're looking for, go watch a movie. Personally I value interactivity, physics, good gameplay mechanics, etc. above graphics (although good graphics is always nice).

Although it might be true that eye candy does not make the gameplay, but the lack of eye candy made me abort playing FarCry2, and play Crysis to satisfy my needs.
Now that I've played Crysis once again, I might continue FarCry2 a bit.
FarCry2 is just a horrible repetition, each time you kill camp of enemies, they are back, and 90% of the game is just useless driving with the car.
But I still want to see it all, as only masochists would do.

Wow. Totally sucks to be you.

Graphics shouldn't matter (and don't - to me); I prefer creativity and genuine fun - like Fantastic Contraption, nothing is special about its graphics.

Okay, so I am somehow morally lacking because I want to feel like I am really in the game. I can live with that.

I wasn't knocking you for it, i too would prefer all games to look great but it doesn't stop me getting a game that looks average if the gameplay is good.

My feeling is that when the next gen of xbox and ps come out costs will go through the roof to make games that look next gen with amazing looking human characters and real looking scenery along with animation and physics tech.

This most likely will impact gameplay with many games just being eye candy and only the powerhouses like EA managing to pump out a million half decent games with the great graphics over substance.

I think it will take a few further years till PC gaming is were it was again.

Part of the reason is that the gfx card vendors were offering way too expensive products and focusing too much on the high end sector whilst offering unsatisfying solutions on the low to mid range area. Actually they were digging they own graves with this strategy.

Both nVIDIA and AMD have corrected this already but it will take some time till this will show up on the market as well. Intel, well, i'm not sure when we'll see this move from Intel but they have to come from the other side. :O)

When you have a widely supported and satisfying base level it will be much easier and fun developing for the PC again. Until then i don't see a remarkable shift coming (not talking about casual games) as consoles are a lot cheaper for what they offer.

Also an enhancement is that more and more developer tools support crossplatform releases.

But where will be consoles then?

Except they're not actually games.

Sure. But for $4000 USD you could get every current generation console, an Eee PC for every single member of your family, and still have cash to spare for a ton of games, or even a HDTV!

There is a limit to how good it's feasible to make games look, and we've pretty much hit it. to make games look better at this point in time is already using enough artists to overthrow a small country.

Where the hell are you people buying your PC's? My new graphics card (ATi Radeon 4870x2) and a PSU big enough to handle it (Thermal Take Toughpower 850) cost $800. Thank god I already had all the other bits I needed for the PC.

No you can't. Not unless you buy games out of principle (that is regardless of whether you're going to play them or not). I've had to upgrade my graphics card 3 times for the last 8 games I've bought, over the course of maybe 2 years. There is no way I'm ever going to make up just the price of my latest card, even if I stole the games.

That's not even wrong! There are no genres that you can't play on a console. The "you need a mouse and keyboard to play game X" argument is a logical fallacy (like you can't use Photoshop on a Mac, because it only has one mouse button) because you can get a keyboard and mouse for the console! "But FlameDuck", I hear you say, "how many console games support mouse and keyboard as input devices, LOL!". I don't know, nor do I particularly care, but it's probably a whole lot more than the number of PC games that support a joypad, I'll tell you that for nothing.

Hi. There's this console game, I don't know if you've heard about it, called "Little Big Planet", which is pretty much going to revolutionize the way you think of video games. The idea that just because Valve aren't clever enough to do it on consoles, it must be impossible is frighteningly ignorant.

Here's one thing I don't get about this type of argument. Why are Crysis-esque graphics necessary for you to get in the game? I'm not trying to be clever or anything, I'm genuinely interested in why. Because I don't get it. For me it's the exact opposite. If a game is trying to be realistic, it takes a lot more to achieve suspension of disbelief, than if a game is simply stylish.

I will except "glitches", if it fits into the concept of the game world. For instance the laughably poor rag-doll physics in DOOM 3 worked well because on occasion corpses would rise from the dead, so it seemed a lot more "spooky" (for lack of a better term), when the physics engine went nuts. In Farcry, although it happened less often, it was also less forgivable, because the game was trying too hard to be realistic.

Maybe a game requires 'internal consistency' in the interactions between the player and its world/environment more than 'photorealistic visuals' for immersion?

i dont think photo realistic bejeweled would be as good
or solitair with high res bycicle deck scanned cards with levels of dogend edges depending on how many games youve played

edit:
A> the time on this thread is borked

B>



using the chatboards? ... nah too tiny

well seeing as both the 360 and ps3 have usb ports and usb keyboards and mice are almost as cheap as ps2 type, if not the same (ages since i looked) you could port games over.
but getting players to buy another keyboard and mouse is going to be something else, its totally different to selling a steering wheel controller as you just dont feel like your driving on a controller.

i saw a gamecube (i think) asciiware (?) keyboard/joypad hybrid for sale in a local import shop, im not sure how good it is for gaming as you had a full sized qwerty in your hands, so for supermonkeyball i think youd use the standard controllers

i got an xbox-usb dongle and keyboard years ago to type album info into the songs id ripped as i didnt have a pc at the time so it was also my mp3 player and 'typeing' with the virtual keyboard was an utter pain, pitty the keyboard lagged like no tomorrow

In my experiance, most games do not support keyboards or mice.
A keyboard is practically a necessity if you're entering account information, or doing any typing whatsoever. I don't have a ChatPad yet, so I'm not sure if it'd be any faster than the virtual keyboard.



If you bought a system from Dell (I'm not sure if other vendors are doing this), you can go to their website, look at the front of your PC, and enter in the model. It then tells you what upgrades are available, and how they would impact performance. I think I saw something that scans your computer, to find out your specs and what you can upgrade.

You could always bring your PC to Best Buy or something and have thier people look at it. *falls off chair laughing* :-)

I think people just need to learn a little more about how computers work. Then they'd be immune to bad computer advice from retailers, and be able to find the best deals.

The ratings systems some retailers are using (this computer is a genius! this one is Brilliant! this one is Advanced!) are just compounding the problem with the misguided attempt at making it simpler. It might actually work if it were consistent, but it's not. :-(

If I was looking for games at a store and I saw one with graphics similar to Crysis, which is about 90% of the new stuff coming out now, or something that had the visual style of Grim Fandango, that came out in 1998, I'd be looking hard at the latter.
One is trying to be as realistic and possible while the other is trying to be as creative and stylish as possible. I'll choose style and creativity over realism any day.

You had my attention till you said Dell, TBH the last pc I bought from them was a pile of crap, I had it for three months then ripped the bits out I wanted and got rid of it. It couldnt even run 'The movies' and the PC was bought a year ago hell even my generic laptop can do that.

Grim fandango with really cool lighting and shadows would be nice. Would still be Crysis type technology. realtime reflected light, atmospheric lighting and shadows.

Lighting is what really creates the most atmosphere in a scene no matter what style the models and artwork have. Take the lighting away from a movie set and it's amazing how bad things look. Even I'm surprised when I watch DVD extras where they show footage pre post effects, or a cheap digital video camera on set during filming. Some of this is camera direction of course, but the biggest thing that the latest graphics technology offers is the lighting and atmospheric effects they can offer.

I don't understand it either. By that logic, the time you spent with games you purchased/played last year is completely wasted, and there was no worth to it because there are a ton of graphically superior games out now.

So.. by that logic you should never buy any games because there will always be something that looks better on the horizon.

A game with excellent graphics and no game play is usually called a "movie".

I recently read a quote from Gabe Newell about game design that seems predominant specifically because of the buying habits of those pre-occupied with the graphics:

"Most game projects are not started with an understanding of what's fun. They start off with a set of graphics requirements, and then maybe someone goes off and creates a system for stat grinding."

And while fun is subjective, and some probably don't care much for the kinds of games his company produces, he's got a pretty good point.

Everyone wants a game to look great, including the developers. But in terms of budgetary constraints, thats why most games are heavy in one area more than another. Games heavy in content and great graphics are not terribly innovative in game play. As a manager of that product, you have to decide how you're going to balance the distribution of funds during development.

People vote with their purchases. Indications say that those that are pre-occupied with the graphics are the ones making the purchases.

Which really surprises me when I see someone here in the indie community embrace this point of view. It just raises the bar for everyone in that department, and you run into a situation where only those that make the most graphically sophisticated engine can succeed. The demonstrated outcome of that sort of thing is that the engine developer gets this attitude that PC games are dead because they won't produce their technology for that system and will concentrate on where the sales are (consoles). The reason why they're doing that? It's the only way they can justify the high cost of their bleeding edge graphics technology. They can work on closed architecture, and be guaranteed a larger volume of sales because the client base is huge, and the competition pond is much smaller.

Wait... didn't you say something of this order in a previous thread, Leadwerks?

So.. What's with this weird form of idealogical suicide? You really can't have it both ways.


To be fair, the magnitude of LBP is a lot smaller than a full-blown FPS. If you want to draw parallels, LBP is probably closer in concept to Torque Game Builder than Torque Engine. Two different levels of complexity, and therefore a different level of toolsets. Plus, the audience of LBP is a far more casual point and click audience. I'd wager there's very little demand for mod-able games on the consoles.. (at least to the magnitude of PC FPS type games valve produces... LBP is a different type of game).

Certainly not enough to plug that entire functionality into a game and be cost effective.

In my experience with commercial developers on consoles, it's not the developers that ruin the games and the ideas and gameplay behind them. More often than not it's the publisher and their marketing department that want the gameplay dumbed down to give the game the broadest appeal. The Graphics get to look good because they can be as good as you can make them, they rarely effect the gameplay mechanics or controls.

Typicaly a publisher has the game dumbed down so kids from the age of 5 through 60 can pick up the controls within a few minutes of starting the game.

It's no different than casual games, where to succeed the controls need to be dumbed down to the point that there is barely a game there for normal gamers.

Actually while IMO FarCry 2 doesn't quite have as good graphics as Crysis, they're very close. They're both good, but in different ways - Crysis has better softer shadows, ground detail, etc., but Far Cry 2 has a more "crisp" look which probably fits the African theme better anyway.

Once you get into it, FarCry 2 is actually pretty good. It's a very well polished "sandbox" FPS, and is much less of a story based shooter than even Crysis.


What's that supposed to mean? Crysis and STALKER are games.


You'd have to be crazy to buy a $4000 gaming PC, unless you've got lots of money to throw around. Like I said my $800 PC plays Crysis, Far Cry 2, etc. very well.


I built mine from parts all ordered from newegg.com. Here's an example of what you could get now (similar to my setup):

Cooler Master Centurion 5 Case - $50
OCZ 600W PSU - $55
Asus P5Q Pro Motherboard - $120
Intel E8400 3.0GHz - $170
4 GB DDR2-800 RAM - $50
GeForce GTX 260 - $210
500GB HD - $60
DVD Burner - $20

Total: $735
Total + tax + shipping: ~$800


I agree 100%. Obviously, our eyeys perceive light, so it makes sense that lighting makes a big differences in how a scene is perceived.

[quote]
In my experience with commercial developers on consoles, it's not the developers that ruin the games and the ideas and gameplay behind them. More often than not it's the publisher and their marketing department that want the gameplay dumbed down to give the game the broadest appeal. The Graphics get to look good because they can be as good as you can make them, they rarely effect the gameplay mechanics or controls./
[quote]
Fair enough. The developers are little more than outsourced labor at that point.

But from my understanding, studios such as id and Epic are largely independent and give the publisher very little input on what the final product will be. Those are the guys I was referring to in my post.

Console gaming sucks. I've never understood why someone would go and buy a hardwired non-upgradeable console unit when you can just buy a modular PC and upgrade as needed. Yes, I bought a Wii but it was for the kids and I would not buy one soley for myself. And yes, graphics are better on the PC and always will be.

> I built mine from parts all ordered from newegg.com. Here's an example of what you could get now (similar to my setup):


I'd guess that nearly everyone on this forum has put together there own PC's at one point or another. The real question is if the vast majority of people would do so - and the answer to that is no. For them, it is not even an option to add their own graphics card, leaving them no option but to buy the overpriced gaming machines that exist (why adding a decent $200 graphics card raises the price of an equivalent PC by $1000 leaves me scratching my head)

There are some pretty good pre-built deals too, maybe not quite as good price as building it yourself, but it's not a massive difference. Still nothing at all like a "$4000 gaming PC" somebody here mentioned.

Chroma this is EXACTLY why I was a PC gamer, for years, since it started in fact. However there are a number of reasons why this logic is no longer sound.

1) The PC's days of resolution superiority are over. HDTV's + Increasing power of consoles means that PC games are now running at either the same or lower resolution than consoles. It is true that you can go even high than 1080P on the PC, but the law of diminshing returns comes in and you have to ask, why you need to go much higher, (and where the heck are you going to get the 60+" inch screen needed to view these higher resolutions anyway?).

2) The Xbox 360, (made in 2005) can deliver realy amazing visuals at 1080P resolution and graphically there is not much to choose between the visual quality of these games and those of PC games. It is certain that the next generation of consoles in 2009-2010 will completely eclipse PC graphics cards. Again diminishing returns starts to come in here. Graphics on the 360 are not noticeably worse than the PC despite the Xbox 360's age, and the few extra bells and whistles available on high end cards just don't add much and when the next gen of consoles are out the PC may simply never be able to catch up again.

3) PC parts are expensive and getting ever more so, Nvidia seems to be pursuing a death-wish, trying to sell dual and quad cards to as many people as possible. When a SINGLE graphics card upgrade costs AS MUCH as a console then the economics have to come into it somewhere. The modularity of the PC is only an advantage IF the parts are cheap in comparison to buying a new console. With the current console life span of 4-5 years the odds are all stacked in the console's favour. As it is currently, the NEED to upgrade a PC every 1-2 years is a disadvantage.

4) Upgrading a PC requires some level of technical knowledge which many people do not have. There is a HUGE benefit in NOT having to upgrade/change or tweak your console. Your console comes pre-optimised to do everything already and any software updates are completely hands off, this is a GOOD thing.

Darkheart

That was true a year ago when a GeForce 8800GTX cost $800. Today, you can get a GeForce 260 for about 1/4 the price, and it is about 2x faster. nVidia has moved away from the uber-high-end cards and is now focusing on mainstream-priced cards. Keep in mind that the PS3 is running on something equivelent to a GeForce 6600GT, and the 360, something from AMD (lower powered).
As long as you get something 'leading-edge' not 'bleeding-edge', then PC upgrades every couple years are a pretty good deal, especially if you bought your console when it first came out, when it was most expensive.
It's not a "NEED", unless you *have* to have every setting maxed out. With consoles it's differeny, because you can't see the settings the developers internally had to cut back on to get the game running. With PC games, you're always thinking "I wonder how much better this game would look if I could just have the 8xAA instead of 4xAA..." :-)
Also, that card/memory/misc. upgrade can be used in so many more ways than a consoles'. How many people really have a PC that they *only* use for gaming? There's email, photoshop, Word, Blitz, internet, and a million other non-gaming uses for a computer. With a console, most people only play games on it, so the hardware is only used for that purpose. Yes, there's Folding@Home, video/music/photo streaming, web surfing, and tons of other neat features coming to consoles, but not that many people use their consoles for that.



I was referring to how easy it's becomming to upgrade your PC. And I have a year old Dell Precision 390 which I modified using parts bought only from Dell's website. It runs nearly everything I throw at it, at high specs. BTW, do you know that Dell is the parent company of everyone's favorite high-end builder, Alienware? Besides their XPS line, Dells aren't traditionally gaming machines. Especially low-end ones. :-(



A 30" monitor can handle 2560x1800. Dell makes one, and Samsung makes one. While it's costly at ~$1400, you could get a 25" Samsung 1920x1080 (1080p) for a third of that. That's still some pretty high-res action! The law of diminishing returns is coming into effect, because soon we'll have monitors that have more resolution then the eye can percieve, at which point it really won't matter if your card can go to 6000x4000 or 8000x6000.



Yes it is, however, if you're the kind of person that wants to play Crysis at 100fps with the setting maxed, then you're probably nerdy enough to know how to swap a GPU card. It's become much easier (and safer) to upgrade parts in your computer. I read in some computer book that "if you can use a screwdriver, you can build a computer from scratch!". I believe that, because I have. :-)



I totally agree. I'm still looking forward to the game, though!
And try editing scripts on the stupid Virtual Keyboard. :-P
I think that there should be a technology like MS' XNA for console games. You could link your computer to your console, and edit content and stuff with your pc! Although, if you'd go to the trouble to do that, then it would be easier to play/mod it on the computer in the first place... That's why there will always be consoles and PCs: they cater to two different markets, even though they sometimes overlap.

As long as games have to be constructed on a PC, PC gaming will never be dead.

At this moment if you look good at the real differences between PC and Console there is only 1 difference wich is freedom.

Consoles are like PC's, only limited. The creator of the console and the ones who write software for it decide what you can do with it. The advantage of limitation, is that it's easier to learn how to use it.

The only Console that I had without the limitations was My Amiga CD32 with a SX-1 attached to it with a buildin HD and extra memmory and a keyboard and mouse attached to it, but after the modifications it wasn't a Console anymore.

They don't ship to my country, and if they did, I'd have to pay import taxes. For the record, practically everything there is at least twice as expensive in countries whose economy hasn't been undermined the last 8 years.

Like I said, my new Radeon HD4870x2 cost as much as your entire computer. I didn't say that to brag, I said that so you could go to newegg.com and see that a card which only costs about $550 in your country, costs $800 in mine, probably in large part because the US dollar isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Because you need to upgrade the whole thing at once anyway. Want a faster CPU? Oh I'm sorry, your northbridge doesn't support the kind of CPU you want to put into it, you'll need to buy this motherboard. Oh, your new motherboard doesn't work with the old RAM you've got, you'll need these new ones. Also AGP is so yesterdays news, here's a new PCIe card for you. Oh and by the way, that 300 Watt PSU that used to be enough to power your computer? Not so much anymore. The idea that you can upgrade a PC "as needed" is great in theory, but unless "as needed" is "every 3 months", you're not going to be able to keep up with advances in technology.

And for most normal people, upgrading a PC so that it can play Fallout 3 well is much more expensive than buying an XBox 360, and chances are pretty good, that their HDTV has a better resolution than your monitor anyway, so it's win-win.

> As long as games have to be constructed on a PC, PC gaming will never be dead.

Only if there is a need to test on the PC, Constucting is immaterial.

> there is only 1 difference wich is freedom.

For the vast majority of gamers this is a non-issue, they are never going to create any game - only play them. (not a bad thing, I'm never going to make a car - only drive one)

As long as there are bored workers using PCs, games will be developed for them to waste time with. Another game of solitaire/minesweeper/doom/counterstrike, anyone? :-)

All PC games should have a 'panic button' built in. This will be a key combination that you press when you hear your boss/boss-like person coming. BAM! You're not playing Counter Strike, you're hard at work on your spreadsheet/word document that you specify! :-D

The reason I want my PC open and customiseable is because I want to use it for many different tasks, one of which might be gaming. My games console I don't want that kind of functionality because it only has very few tasks so the fact that it is optimised purely for this task is fine for me.

Always: The more generalised the machine is for many tasks, the less good it will be at any individual task.

Darkheart

You know when this topic was first posted, I knew I had heard it somewhere before. I remembered today. It was Alex St.John, CEO of WildTangent. He had an article around not so long ago forecasting the death of the consoles and the rebirth of PC gaming.

I was reminded of this when I read the news article today that Wild Tangent has had to lay off 20% of their internal development workforce, and Alex St.John is no longer CEO.

They have different target markets that sometimes overlap. However, you can always build a PC strictly for games, and it will work like that.

It'd be better if the OS didn't hog so much resources, though. MS needs to develop a 'gaming OS', which basically has DirectX, a simple interface for installing/launching games, and that's it.

They did all that, and created custom hardware to run it, and called it the "Xbox", then they made another one using the lessons they learned from that and called the "Xbox 360".

Darkheart

> and called it the "Xbox",

Now if they would only give the darn thing a mouse.

That's not quite what I meant - you could still use it for other things, just not with all the bloatedness of Vista, which we'll all be forced to go to one way or another. :-( Start stockpiling your copies of XP before it's too late!! :-)

And why have custom hardware? Users could pick what they want for their price range. Plus, all mice would work with it!

I will say that all the recent changes in hardware have caused a problem. I can't upgrade my existing computer because I guess they aren't using IDE cables anymore.

This "every three months" figure is nonsense. I have a 2-year old GPU that runs Crysis on max settings just fine.

Leadwerks: its all SATA cables now.

On the XBox front M$ are working on the XBox 720 :)

Ill never feel left behind with my console, because I dont waste my money upgrading my PC every three months.

Dynaman: (You might want to check this out.). They have been selling mouse kits for about 2 years now...

Darkheart

http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2007/03/13/next-xbox-720-to-launch-in-2011-2012-according-to-microsoft.htm
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/ps4-and-xbox-720-to-arrive-in-2011-2-estimates-crytek

> They have been selling mouse kits for about 2 years now...

I don't trust 3rd party add-on mice, the last one I tried didn't work well, and I'm not willing to shell out any money to find out about new ones...

I beg to differ CCL is pretty much one of the cheapest places to buy PC hardware in the UK and, call me crazy, but £203-£276 doesn't seem very cheap to me. In fact I could buy a PS3 or two Xbox 360's for that, with money left over for games.

Also bear in mind that the UK is NOT one of the most expensive places to buy hardware, in Europe it's even more expensive (pity the poor Belgian gamer) and those poor Ozzy's or New Zealander's pay through the nose for their hardware, stumping up even more (I suppose adding the extra, extra cooling , swear filter, and sheep powered modules adds a bit).

Particularly in an economic downturn I think most people will give it a miss.

And that's Nvidia's CHEAP range, the expensive stuff is here (who the hell wants to spend £450 on a GFX card I don't know).

Darkheart

You can get a GX2, which is faster than you need to play Crysis on max settings, for $220. This card will be great for three or four years:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130402

I had my 8800 for two years, and I am thinking about upgrading in 3-6 months, only because I want to experiment with the latest hardware and see what it can handle.

Exactly. Spend $200 every two to four years, and you can play the new games. If you plan ahead when buying/building a new rig, you can ensure it can handle hardware upgrades without needing to upgrade everything. It's really not that expensive, especially if you're into game development, CGI, or any other hardware-intensive applications that will also benifit from the upgrade.


Okay, so I was off by $39. And I only spent two minutes searching.

So, a couple hundred every few years, and you can play the latest, great looking games on high settings. Or, three times that every four-six years, to play games that initially look good, and then the hardware becomes underpowered, and PC leaps ahead.
Overall, it's pretty even. Both are good options for the gamer; it just depends on

a) what games you're into
b) what control scheme you like better
c) where you want to play games (living room or office?)

Also, keep in mind that you'll need to upgrade your home theater every 5-10 years if you want to use your expensive consoles to the maximum. And a good HDTV + 5.1 speakers, a reciever to handle it all, and cables can get fairly expensive (if you like quality). PC speakers don't have to be as powerful to get the same sound quality (since they're closer to you), and they need no reciever (unless you count sound cards). A gaming-grade monitor costs 1/4-1/8 the price of a gaming-grade HDTV (depending on what you want), and they have similar res. ( Gaming Monitor, Gaming HDTV)

So, consoles are more expensive with fewer capabilites, but you only need to upgrade ever five years. PCs are less expensive, because you only spend a couple hundred every two years or so. You can do much more with PCs, but consoles are rapidly catching up in that regard.

I think it's kind of an 'apples to oranges' thing to try to say one is better than the other. They're just different.

I didn't read this whole thread, but excuse me if this has been mentioned.

I am currently in the process of moving all of my home entertainment to PC. Music, Video, Games. It just doesn't make sense to have entertainment distributed across all kinds of proprietary hardware. I have two machines, one dedicated as work station, and one dedicated to home entertainment.

Proprietary hardware needs to go away. It is my opinion that having a universal platform for all digital needs is a huge value, not to mention UBER convenient. Plus the range of PC software available for entertainment purposes is astounding.

(thread resuscitation ftw)

Consoles offer far better value for money. Nuff said. Nowaday, that's what it's all about. No DRM on consoles either. I'm not sad enough to want my game to run an extra 10-20fps with extra fancy lighting stuff. It's pretty much the same GAMEPLAY<<< which is what really counts when you've been sitting playing a game for hours on end.

No need to worry about different driver version for your graphics card, or whether your new game will run on the old XP you have or the new Vista your planning to get. With a console, everyone's in the same boat. It either works, or doesn't, and it's the same for all console owners of that platform.

Well, you do know that since its such a common sense approach that it'll never happen.

Dabz

Consoles could be the solution but i can't play the games i want to on most consoles yet and i miss a mouse and keyboard there. In 2008 i enjoyed playing:

Sam&Max S2 (pc), Eschalon 1 (mac), Bioshock(pc), Doom 3(pc), A Vampyre Story (pc), emulated games with MAME and UAE (pc) and a couple of games for the iPodTouch (console ;O).

Due to the Multitouchdisplay the iPodTouch comes the closest to a mouse like feeling. I loved playing games like Decathlon with the Atari Joysticks or Chaos Engine with the Competition Pro but if you don't have a game which really fits to such binary steering like in Jumpman i don't like all the controllers really.

The biggest hurdle for gaming on computers are the copyprotection nowadays and patching the originals but beside of this i never had problems with drivers. A couple of the smaller studios got this already and beside of a cd check Sam&Max or AVS for instance come without any of the evil drm systems like Securom or the others.

Hey taumel, do you know if Bioshock works well with Vista? I really want it and didn't realize it was for PC until your post.

On Amazon.com it claims that its Windows XP, but will it work in Vista?

I've played it under XP. I would expect it to run maybe a lttle bit slower on Vista but also looking better (if you have the gfx horsepower). I would google after a review as this should be covered on quite some sites. It's a great game.

I play Bioshock on Vista64... it's pretty awesome. (bought from steam during their holiday sale for 9 bucks)

They're selling Bioshock here since i dunno over half a year for €10. What i find interesting is that they rather quickly lowered it to this price. Normally they wait a much longer time or make some in between steps before they reach the 10€. The benefit is that, at least in the store i'm buying my games, it's still one of their best selling games. I really wonder who had the guts going this direction or what different reasons/thoughts were behind.

well if i compare a 486 dx 60 hz with a ps1 the ps1 wins big time also with cd movie :)

Well now I'm scared to buy it. I'm not sure if my sound card is compatible (it doesn't work for anything) and the Digital Rights Management seems like bad news... everyone is griping about it on Amazon. Plus, with my computer luck, it will probably take more than 5 installs.

Anyone here had issues?

The reasons why PC gaming won't come back:

#1 Copy protection. Which very often renders your computer useless or leaves it with some corporate spyware.

#2 Costs. Of course your fancy 2000 Euro Alienware game rig has better graphics than my Xbox 360. At almost ten times the cost. Or, in other words, for the additional money I could have bought thirty to fourty games for my Xbox. That beats the crap out of your gaming PC market.

There are only two game niches back for which you need a PC: Point and click adventures and Civilization-style strategy games. Neither genre requires the high end PC games like Crysis require. Even a netbook is almost good enough for that type of game.

No, PC gaming is not coming back. And in all honesty, an entire software industry doesn't want it to come back either.

The only reason that PC gaming isn't coming back is money and publishers. Consoles are convenient, closed and cost more and harder to pirate without compromising some features of your system.

You definitely DONT need a killer gaming rig. Any computer that was middle of the road 3 years ago can play modern games just fine at reasonable resolutions. And a killer gaming puter here doesn' have to cost much more than a PS3 so long as your upgrading a few parts and keeping the monitor, case, keyboard, mouse etc. Video cards that cost about $100 are faster and have better shader tech than the PS3 and 360. A good mobo and CPU combo can be bought for about $200 plus most PC games are a good $20 cheaper than the same game on a console.

Ok what im about to write is probably total rubbish...

80's - arcade rules...arcade quality is much better than typical
micro quality - sinclair/acorn/commodore/amstrad.. ... ...

90's - micros start eating away at arcade revenue..quality improves..
Atari/Amiga..micros become quite powerful.

late 90's - arcade fights back - sega/nintendo... megadrive/nes/snes..
basically home arcades...cheaper than micros for basic kit.
bad a management kills atari + commodore.. leaving a gap
quickly grabbed my microsoft/windows/pc's..

now..well, developers blame piracy for poor pc sales + compounded with
the complexities of widely varying setups + driver/os bugs.. profit
margins decrease to a point were the reward rarely outweighs risk..
it would appear that the big developers consider popular consoles a less
risky source of revenue..developers/publishers..

If the pc dies as a mainstream gaming machine...it may well be that is
because consoles are heading towards micro status..slap a keyboard and
mouse on your ps3 + allow apps to run + bedroom coders to code..you
got yerself some modern 80's 90's looking kit :p

ok..um..what was the original post again?
- oh yes..nothing but speculation ;)

byebye! :p

@Sauer
I had no problems with the sound but i also don't have sound probelms with other games.

Although you'll have to do an online registrattion (Securom if i remember correctly) i also had no problems with that beside of that it's annoying having this crap on your system. I remember they once promised if the game isn't hot anymore providing a patch so that the online registration won't be needed anymore.

I seem to recall it had similar protection to Spore (or maybe that was Mass Effect or something). If that's the case, just download a crack before running it and it's harmless.

@Defoc8, I agree until your blah about coding on the PS3... is that possible? or is only for uber geeks to accomplish? I've heard C xna flavour ain't too hard - can't see me doing that though - took me long enough to cut my current teeth in B3D &BMax.

As for the thread topic - PC's will always have a bit of the market - but the current generation consoles (speaking from the XBox360) has seen my PC collecting dust. Then again I've always been against shelling out a couple of hundred quid just for a graphics card - for that money you can get a whole gaming console. I recommend the XBox360. And yes, I'm old enough to have done the zx81, spectrum, original Atari Console, Amiga, Amiga1200 - still a good PC, fits and starts of consoles - and XBox360 has the crown the now. Cheers.

I don't know, arcade games focus on something completely different than home computer games: How to attract people with eye candy and collect as many coins as possible. Furthermore they have a much stronger physical aspect, except the Wii. This mostly leads to a different game design. Both can be enjoyed whilst offering a different experience.

I decided to get BioShock... if it doesn't work I'm blaming you guys here :p

Good decision, get yourself some plasmids and be happy!

This comes up every console cycle "PCs will return as their power overtakes consoles". Every console cycle, PCs start off behind and then overtake them. Then a new console comes out and the cycle starts again. PC cheerleaders don't seem to be taking into account the trend from generation to generation, which seems to have consoles generally on the rise.

PC gamers also say "hey, but there are games you just can't play on a console". Same goes for a PC unless you get your hands on a gamepad, and even then it often becomes a button-mapping nightmare.

As Gabriel said right at the beginning: the OP sounds like he's trying to convince himself. I couldn't give a toss about graphics, I'm having a whale of a time with games on my Xbox 360 these days, to the point where my PC is almost abandoned for games beyond RTS's. I don't have to arse around with Teamspeak, graphics settings or disk space, and I couldn't be happer about it. My PC does all the work stuff I want it to. If it's good enough for high-end web development and graphics rendering, but not good enough for PC games, then frankly those games can jog on, I'm not paying hundreds of pounds for a new graphics card, and in the middle of a global recession, neither will most people. Especially when a single console costs less and will never need upgrading.

Actually, one great argument for how console gamers don't really care that PCs always end the cycle with better graphics: PSX was manufactured for TWELVE YEARS. By the end of its lifecycle, PC graphics quality had surpassed it many times over, but apparently people were still buying it.

(EDIT: got the lifecycle figure wrong... doh)

One thing i would like to add is that good gfx cards don't cost hundreds of dollars anymore, you get good performing cards for less than €100 and if you already own a PC, upgrading the gfx card might even be the smaller investment compared to buying a new console.

Speaking of gamepads, does BioShock require one? If so I'm in big trouble... unless I want to play with a joy.

Just ordered it last night along with an Elton John CD and now I'm a nervous wreck :6

If it's so stressful for you buying an Elton John CD then just don't do it.

Pshh... I know that half of the deal is going to be awesome. :D

When I'm whining here sometime in the near future it'll be for BioShock... things just don't work well for me if they were made past 1999.

I have a Geforce 7 and it still plays 360 games as well or better than the 360 version. The graphics are a little better thanks to higher res textures and drawing popup isn't as noticeable. Other than that the game is exactly the same. Only difference being that I had to wait 6 months after the 360, and paid $35 on launch day.

360 ports to PC are often better, larger enhanced levels, improved textures even if often its only textures. Fewer bugs in the case of games like Assasins creed. Often if you want you can even use a 360 gamepad and get the whole xbox UI and menu system automaticly with color button prompts and everything.

The PC overtook the consoles in the graphics departments within months, not only that but even budget gaming cards costing $70 are far superior.

Most games these days don't require the fancy CPU, so much sits on graphics that my 4/5 year old 3000+ with 700GS plays games like FarCry 2 quite happily at 1280x1024.

If your going to buy a PC with a reasonable GPU so you can make games with modern graphics, you really don't need a console. Why waste $400 for something that has less general purpose use and doesn't even play the same games as well. Just buy the cheaper PC versions and a console gamepad and it's the exact same experience, only you also get the benefit of being able to use your 3D apps, level editors, and have nicer graphics for your customers with better hardware. Especially during a recession :)

@Sauer
Well, there are plenty of reviews and benchmarks available on the net to get an idea of what you need for running Bioshock. If your system has some fundamental issues then you probably will encounter them with other games as well. Maybe it would make sense replacing those components in your system.

Minimium requirements from the package are P4 2.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, DirectX9.0c gfx card with at least 128MB (>=nVidia 6600, >=ATIX1300, no ATI X1550 (do you have one? :O), a standard soundcard and 8GB free hard drive space.

But i would say you won't be able enjoying the game on such a system. Personally i played it under my old P4 system (P4 2.8Ghz, 1GB RAM, ATI 3850 512MB). Worked without any problems at steady framerates in 1280x1024 and looked very nice.

But you also don't need this much power. There are some moments when you're thinking, wow this is looking great, shaderwise, but the main fun comes from the story, the atmosphere, the fantastic audio design, the beautiful artwork & architecture. If you enjoyed SytemShock or SystemShock 2 you'll probably like this one as well. You also can see this as a complain, that it's maybe too much like the predecessors, just more advanced and a bit too much smoothed.

Anyway i enjoyed it a lot.

Well.. the netbooks sure make a good case for an xbox or ps2,3...or even a dreamcast or saturn. :) :) :)

Yeah, well I bought BoiShock for my brother on Xbox, and I just thought it was incredible. I wanted a copy of my own, and had $25 free to Amazon.com and it happened to be very cheap for PC.

I have an nVidia 8400, 3GB ram, so I should be fine there, but its the sound card that worries me and the sound is what builds the atmosphere...

Its one of the few new games I actually like.

Well, i wouldn't expect too much then, you know that the 8400 only has a 64bit memory interface? It should help reducing everything which costs bandwidth, maybe best played in 800x600 as well.

Bioshock played very well on the 6600GT 1204x768 and even ok at 1280x1024 mostly maxed out but no AA, it's not a very GPU hungry game really. Only in DX10 with the geometry displaced water.

Actually come to think of it most unreal 3 engine games run well on older hardware without having to turn the graphics down, same thing with Gears of War. Ran well on old hardware too.

Hey thats good news, I guess my shift back to PC gaming begins... but I don't want to get my hopes too far up.

Modern people have the choice between a cheap pc + a console or a fast pc.

Bah...

I have a high end PC and a Console and I game on my Console.

This same debate has been going for years. But there is an ease of use that comes with console games. XBox Live makes multiplayer gaming so easy. If you play multi-player, you owe it to yourself to use XBox Live.

I do play games on my PC. Games that require a mouse (like RTS), but given a choice between playing a game on my PC or my 360, I choose my 360.

I don't like multiplayer gaming. So in my case it's not an important feature. I remember being impressed with the original xbox live when I beta tested that.

The PC doesn't really seem any more trouble than a console to me, only step thats often different is installing it on your HD. After that it just works. If you have a 360 gamepad a lot of 360 games play just like the 360. The one game I did have problems with was Assasins Creed. Has the same UI as the 360 version, but to this day I haven't figured out how to exit the game gracefully. I assume your supposed to turn your PC off.

Sometimes ports are too faithful to the original console version :)

I'm actually at the point where I don't really have much interest in video or computer games anymore. Started playing a D&D campaign with some people I met at the local meet up group. Much better than any of the computer games I've played in years. Nice to have total freedom and actual intelligent conversations with NPC's :)

Actually I have a medium-to-low end machine (GeForce 9600GT) and prefer playing games on the PC for some reason. Mouse and keyboard suits neary everything better than a controller.

I do get off on the purdy gfx my PS3 has to offer when there's a game I actually enjoy, though.


Hahaha, you're ghey, you like BoiShock. Lolroxrbbq


That never happens in our campaigns. I can't imagine why.

Even without multiplayer gaming, XBox Live is still awesome. I chat with my family and friends while playing. Great thing is, you can chat with other poeple even if they aren't playing the sam egame as you. Then you can just send a quick invite to someone and they can jump right into your game. It is so convenient.

Anyway... My PC is also not in my theater connected to my 8 foot wide screen on my HD projector. It is at my desk. Playing a game while sitting up at my desk sucks. Laying back in a theater chair with the controller in hand is the way gaming was meant to be done.

I find it better at the desk myself, don't get the aches and pains from sitting in one place for too long. I always find my posture compromised somehow anywhere except at the desk. Besides you can always plug into the TV with your PC if you want to.

I played a game for the first time in a couple of months today. the Fear 2 demo, quite liked it though it was a bit easy.

Oh and just in case you've missed the Bioshock 2 teaser from the PS3:

-> http://www.golem.de/0810/63080.html

The PS3 trailer for Bioshock 1 is quite good as well:

-> http://video.golem.de/games/1595/bioshock-fuer-die-ps3-trailer-gc-2008.html

There was a shift away from PC gaming????

I preferred it when PC and consoles were very distinct systems that offered very distinct gaming.

For an immersive FPS or an RTS or some such, I'll fire up the PC. For chilling out on the couch with some slashy Chaos Legion/God of War type stuff, I'll fire up the console.

To hell with the idea that every game released now simply must be ported to every single goddamn thing with a CPU in it.

I think the PC is probably lucky that it's typically used to make games and MS has a console out there. Porting between the two is pretty straightforward really. Otherwise the PC might be in a much worse situation.

I remember that shaders only really took off when the Xbox came out and everyone started making shader based engines for that. Or modifying their fixed function engine to support the xbox to make a quick buck.

I expect as more people get HDTV and the consoles become more PC like things might get worse for the PC. Either way I'm quite pleased, The project leader of Ogre recently announced that there was easily enough commercial interest in Ogre on the 360 from licensed developers that they are porting the engine.

I remember shaders evolved independent of the consoles and that more and more used it after each generation.

So nice for Ogre but does BlitzMax run on the XBox360?

Flow is basicly a 1:1 ogre port to bmax with helper functions. So going the other way and migrating the helper functions would be pretty easy according to our C++ coder.

Forgot I said all that ogre stuff before, bit off topic sorry.

But still you can't use BlitzMax with it then.

Just out of curiosity what's the best for an indie affordable, if there is something like the best at all, solution for Xbox360 development at the moment/in the near future?

Torque, XNA, Ogre/Flow+X, i suspect Shiva will at some time announce Xbox360 support as well as Unity, Virtool does already, ...?

I wouldn't use torque if you paid me, it also costs big $. Flow for Xbox isn't going to be any time soon. Unity sounds like it might be the easiest (not that I ever used it). Not sure how much Ogre would be, it's currently about $1500 for an unrestricted license. Neoaxis is going to go 360 which is an existing Ogre engine. I'd go with that or Unity most likely.

It'll be interesting to see what Shiva 1.7 will offer in terms of included and announced features, which is said to be released next week.

I don't care about any of this anymore. PC gaming isn't going anywhere; console gaming isn't going anywhere.

The tome of PC gaming is looking quite similar to the epic of the Year of the Linux Desktop :P

I think that's pretty much personal opinion. If you grew up with PC gaming, then the keyboard was all you had, so you'd think it's a better control device. If you grew up with consoles or early PC's (C64, Amiga, etc.) a joystick or joypad would be the more natural choice.

I bought an XBox controller to play Fallout 3, because the mouse/keyboard controls where just horrible.

If Pixar had used consoles for their renderfarms, they would have been invented on the console. As it were they were invented on SGI workstations. The fact that shaders evolved because Pixar, ILM and Dreamworks, use off-the-shelf PC's for their renderfarms to produce movies like Toy Story and Shrek, is not an indicator that PC gaming is doing well. Quite to the contrary, if PC gaming was doing well, it would be games like FarCry and DOOM 4 that was pushing shader technology ahead. As it is, they're simply standing on the shoulders of giants, and in that regard are no different from consoles.

Or indeed Amiga gaming. Everyone would be all "Amiga gaming is dead, let it go". Then Team 17 would release another batch of wonderful Alien Breed 3D II screenshots, and people would be all like "Can your PC do that? Amiga gaming is not dead". Of course when Alien Breed 3D II was released, while it definately looked better than Hexen, it struggled to perform well on even the mightiest of Amigas. Kind of like GTA IV. While it supposedly looks better on the PC than on the XBox 360, (personally I can't tell the difference), actually playing it on a PC, costing an order of magnitude more than an XBox 360, is still an exercise in frustration.

Hmm i grew up with all this but still i prefer a keyboard and a mouse instead of a joypad for the games i'm playing these days. And people don't release games like JumpMan anymore, so...

Actually beside of arcades i can remember there were only two good joysticks, the Atari standard controller once you detached the rubber hull and of course the Competition Pro, both digital. Resting/pressing them onto your lap is unbeaten by any other controller i've experienced so far, this was more accurate and secured.

im probably repeating myself from this thread as in the words of j r heartly "it is rather old", that or im thread merging some old comments but ...

id rather use one of the analogue sticks to navigate windows than a track pad if no mouse was available, but thats just me

360 usb pad for unreal pc too thank you very much (it felt so natural on the classic xbox)
but thats mostly due to my set up
pc and monitor are 5 feet away and im sat on my bed, nothing short of moving my tip around is going to change that so atm keyboard is on my lap and mouse resting on a clipboard balanced precariously on a stack of DVD's
trying to wsad+mouse like that (and with my currently bad back)?
yet dual sticks are fine with me

sure for mouse controls it needs tweaking, the sims on xbox was god awful to move around yet a mouse would zip, but that was probably due to not optimising the sticks, you dont have to move every pixel, you could jump every 4 or 8
bloodwych on the st proved that to me when playing two player with joysticks, everything could have been snapped to a grid but no, they had to go the tortoise way

Well, as the thread seems to have 'evolved' a little...

Platformers - Joypad
Tomb Raider type games - Joypad with shoulder buttons
FPS - Mouse & Keyboard
Strategy type Wargames etc. - Mouse & Keyboard

Bloodwych on the spectrum - keyboard (QAOP and SPACE - uch better than this wasd rubbish :P )

nothing beats qaop ;)
i gave up trying to play a c64 game recently cos it used aslp ... oh the heracy

Well BioShock came in the mail today, and installed with no problems.

On the first load screen it froze, and I nearly chucked the computer out the window, but after using the task manager and restarting the game, it ran perfectly... so far.

It is a tad bit more choppy than the Xbox version, but I expected that. Plus, I find the game terrifying so that eases the fear :)

I have to get used to using the keyboard and mouse, I'm new to this whole PC FPS deal.

BioShock reminds me of reading a novel, with all of the ways that they attempt to develop the atmosphere through characters, using techniques like flashback, monologue, and plot development. Really engrossing... goes to show that if you just try to put these things into games as opposed to new gimmicks and online features, you can really make a great product.

Well, this was to be expected as your gfx card isn't a killer at all.

I also found the story interesting and the snippets fit together pretty well. What i really was suprised of was the level design as it has so many detail and without the mapping function i sometimes got lost in it, which in other games normally doesn't happen to me.

The game, especially for a FPS, has a quality which makes you really think how stupid others waste their budgets.

The greatest thing about that statement is that even though it is entirely true, I'm still running a Game of the Year game at a considerable quality on a laptop computer.



Couldn't agree more. It is no mystery what they are doing... they're creating an atmosphere, building a plot, and developing characters. Just like everything you never cared about in English class. You just don't see it anymore, because so much emphasis is placed on eye candy and multi-player. This is horrible: COD4 is still $60.00 I believe... BioShock was $20.00.

I love how the cut scenes are implemented... they're 'real time' in the game... your character watches screens, and looks around, so you never 'leave' the game and then come back.

And the whole idea is just cool in general... it's unique, creepy, and deep (pun definitely intended :D)

I actually prefer the mouse and keyboard for RPG type games. WASD and mouselook are far more intuitive than a gamepad and give you a lot more accuracy and precision. Gamepads are great for 2d games of the snes and sega megadrive, but for 3d games they only really seem better for vehicle sims and simple games.

WASD for direction
Mouse look to turn and look up down, wheel to zoom in and out, misc keys for other functions.

I much prefer that for both FPS and TPS game mechanics.

ive had to adapt myself (as stated above) and found it more comfortable, even when i had a desk infrot of me i think i would have game pad'd if one was available at the time

what is heracy are wireless keyboards, the girl in the attic was using one with a flat battery to do some occasional in game stuff and it was nigh on flat
i was talking to her bf in the hallway for bout an hour or so and he invited me up and i swear i was all set for going down and bringing my spare usb keyboard up just to keep her from cursing every 3rd keystroke

I just think that it more depends on the game wich controller is best. I still prefer WSAD and Mouse myself in most FPS, but that maybe also depends on the game, like for example Unreal Tournament. If you play that game online against others you need all the speed and precision you can get when you want to do headshots while running.

Looking at other FPS's like for example Rainbow Six Vegas I think they are very playable with both keyboard mouse and 360 controller.

Other examples are games like GuitarHero, it would suck if you didn't have a Guitar as controller, and games like Mortal Kombat are best played on the Arcades (or Mame cabinet).

The Wii also only sells because of the Wii mote. without the controller the Wii would just be a console with outdated graphics.

oh a propper stick for sf2 etc ... a dpad just isnt enough
and it has to be one that can be screwed down onto the table cos you know its going to move when you get into a fight ;)
guitar hero on a keyboard ??? i know there is a wetriffs pic but it just doesnt compare
kinda like my now upstairs usb drum kit, it came up as a joystick so all it was was joy button 1-10, if the program was any cop i could have played with any game pad and still drummed along to the s**tty bundeled software, but a joy pad or a 'drum kit' no contest
next they'll be bringing out a piano overlay for the keyboard ;)

I suck at the keyboard mouse combo for BioShock. Every big daddy I had to fight meant like 17 deaths on my part because I couldn't move or aim well. Also, switching weapons was a massive pain, and since you never have ammo, I essentially just shaking the barrel at them while he beat me to a pulp.

I had to turn the difficulty down :)

Dawn of War II just arrived in the mail. For me the shift towards PC gaming just ended. Permanently. In the last few months, the three most recent games I've bought have included 6 different DRM schemes.

From Spore, I have SecuROM and the EA download manager.
From GTA IV, I have a different SecuROM, Games For Windows Live and Rockstar Social Club.
From Dawn Of War II, I have Games For Windows Live and Steam.

And that's about as much of crap involuntarilly installed on my computer, as I'm prepared to put up with, to prove I'm not a thief.

I mean 6 single points of failure for 3 games?

That was what I was most scared about with BioShock, but it was actually really easy to install/register and I've had no problems.

I accredit it to luck mostly though.

guy in attic has farcry 2 and it installed fine without internet then it decided on a whim to refuse to play till it called home, so i loaned him my usb modem so he could enter in his product code and other gumph, then it still wont play and at one point started downloading a 500mb patch, erm not on my money it aint
at no point did it say "this product needs online activation" on the box or installation, why arnt they just happy that a keygen has been installed and worry bout its autenticity if played online?
his girlfriend has slapped hm a few times for usage of one word too many times in such a short time frame ...
pc's make you swear
pc's make you swear alot

What? That's absurd. It's it's not a matter of opinion either. Beat-'em-ups, 3rd person action games like Devil May Cry, etc. Heck, even Splinter Cell had oddly borked walk controls to simulate the variable walk speeds that are second nature to perform with an analogue stick.

Plenty of games work better with a keyboard and mouse, but it's just blinkered to suggest that it trumps "nearly everything".

I think it does trump almost anything if it involves any kind of direct control of sighting and targeting. Consoles typically compensate with autolock and dumbing down the precision required to make games easier, for me gamepad controls are pretty boring.

Variable speed in Splintercell wasn't needed, you never really had to go that slow. Just walk run, with a crouch toggle to slow those down further. Sure you can move 2 inches per second with the controller but it doesn't effect gameplay.

Not to mention just plugging in a 360 controller in most ubi games makes the game emulate the 360 by default anyway, same UI with colour 360 buttons and everything.

They forgot to put in a full quit in assasins creed, so you had to hard reset your computer just like as if it were a console. Or force it to quit with ALT F4

While it's obviously a personal thing, I don't think precision necessarily makes for an optimal experience. Gillen once compared playing the average PC FPS to a floating head gallery, thanks to mouse and keyboard, which rings monotonously true.

You can quit to the dashboard at any time on the 360 but, since the 32-bit era, most disc-based consoles have effected a soft reset on eject anyway. So, when you say your PC is behaving like a console, you mean a console from the early 1990s... which isn't so bad for 1970s technology. ;P

I can't help but feel that the original post is wishful thinking...Ignoring the latest Tomb Raider having poorer art direction than Legend and therefore looking worse, how shall console gamers come to feel left behind? I can't remember the last time I saw a high-end PC running a game anywhere. Hell, I can't remember the last time I saw a high-end PC! Regardless, there's a point where increased graphical fidelity delivers diminishing financial returns and the shrinking shelf space dedicated to the PC in game stores is evidence enough that other factors -- being able to sit comfortably while playing; not having to suffer DRM nonsense; not having to manually patch the game; not having to suffer incompatibilities between hardware -- weigh more heavily on people's buying decisions.

For the vast, vast majority, I suspect, the PC is a £400 box that does email and word-processing. Slapping another grand on that to play the same-old-but-shinier games is unconscionable to everyone except one small group... the l33Ts who tend to torrent games rather than buying them. Whoops!

Hence the qualifying use of the word 'nearly', which despite quoting twice you apparently don't understand.

Sledge, you had to hack the old Xbox to enable the tray to open without resetting the machine. Wonder where you were most of the 2000's on another planet by the sounds of things.

I typically don't play games anymore, so the xbox is my last reliable point of reference. I had one of those and liked it a lot spent about $600 on games, just don't think consoles and console games are good value for money. All the good ones were finished in a long weekend and have no replay value. Not if like me you like story based RPG's like I do.



That just depends on where you live and what stores you go to. The fry's electronics store nearby has a PC games section larger then the 3-4 local EB stores total store space combined. Granted they have a ton of the same game taking up a lot of space ;)

Yes, exactly. So you could normally soft/warm reset it by opening the tray. What did you mean by 'hard' reset? I think we might be using different definitions of these things :D

What part of the States do you live in? Because it's totally possible you live in an area that's particularly tech-oriented, where PC games are overrepresented against the (admittedly assumed) general trend. Obviously I can't be everywhere in the UK at once, but I think it's fair to say we, by contrast, don't have an equivalent case to Fry's and that the space dedicated to PC gaming at retail is in general decline.

That strikes me as a really odd thing to say given that the Xbox was, pretty much, a PC shoved into a console's casing -- being able to play a steady stream of PC ports was one of the nice things about it.

I mean, especially with the current generation, we're talking about the same games. The only question is whether you want to stick your gaming hardware in your PC or under your telly. And the answer for most people is, rather understandably, under the telly.

I mean that the games are expensive, on release most AA titles for PC are available for $35 as opposed to $60ish on consoles and are almost identical, sometimes enhanced on the PC graphicaly, or more content. Consoles are expensive if you only have limited use for them. In a way the hardware is a given and might as well be free, I need it for my work and would have bought the pc whether there were games or not.

Consoles are a luxury item that I don't need, same with TV. I do have a TV which is slightly larger than my monitor, I don't have an antenna just an old piece of wire and pick up almost 3 channels, and those only because digital got delayed till June.

I spend about $1000 spread over 2-3 years which seems like a lot but the initial outlay is about the same as a base console package with $100 - $200 a year spent on upgrade and keeps me in business, does all my office and graphics work, takes care of my gaming needs and can watch all by favourite brit TV shows etc. Seems like much better value all around.

@FlameDuck
DRM really is an argument against PC gaming.

The only positive thing i have to say is that from the last four games i bought, only one came with SecuROM, the rest was happy with an ordinary serial/CD check, which still forces you to visit GCW.

I don't like DRM but have never had a problem installing or running anything that had it.

Same here, although I'm always sure to find a crack before I purchase, run and validate anything.

I am rediscovering Gaming on my PC, treated myself to a 24" monitor - running Never Winter Nights 2 in glorious 1920 x 1200 doesn't half make the game more appealing.......Oh yeah my computer has an extra gig of memory in it since the last time I tried NWN2. Nice eye candy.