Is my video card #$%# obsolete already?!?
plasti...@yahoo.com
games at an acceptable detail level, at least for the rest of 2006.
I've been quite busy with work since then, and I'm only now finding
free time to start looking at new games.
Gothic 3. Neverwinter Nights 2. Company of Heroes. Am I to
understand that my 6-month old video card will no longer be able to
handle these games without turning the details down to below 50% of
most settings?
I have to say that my $350 video card is the biggest waste of money I
ever spent. I'm a life long PC gamer --- waaay back since playing the
original Wolfenstein and Karateka as a child on the gray scale monitors
of our old Apple IIe. But the extremely short shelf life of PC gaming
rigs is downright insane, especially when you consider the scarcity of
quality PC games nowadays!
The Playstation 2 didn't become obsolete until now, over six years
since its inception. I was still in finishing college when the PS2
came out. And relatively speaking, that console wasn't quite the
technological wonder in 2000 that the Playstation 3 is in 2007. I
wouldn't expect the PS3 to become obsolete until seven years down the
road, in 2014 --- I'll be pushing 40 by then. Sorry, no more PC
upgrades for me. After nearly 3 decades, I think my PC gaming days are
finally over.
Sorry for the rant.
Trimble Bracegirdle
I don't think we should expect to play the most recent games on all there
highest settings at high resolutions even with the best available Graphics
card..
thats allways there for 'next years systems'.
But its got really silly & I think more than aything it shows a lack of
interest & commitment
to PC as a games platform...its all about the consoles now..Pc players have
to look for
scraps thrown indifferently out.
Mouse
@@@
HockeyTownUSA
"Trimble Bracegirdle" <NOs...@spam.not> wrote in message
news:4564ea55$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
Agreed. Most games have a retail life of about six months. Most people move
on to the next biggest game except for the die hard fans. To make a game
that will require next years technology is just dumb. There are very very
few games that are more than a year old that I will play regularly, and I am
a pretty dedicated gamer.
I tend to upgrade my video card every 12-18 months, and my CPU/RAM/Mobo
every 24-30 months, and that barely keeps up with the curve. I am finding
console gaming to start to look much more appealing. Too bad that most of my
game time is spent with flight sims, RTS, and MMOG (namely BF2 & BF2142),
most of which don't translate well onto a console.
Hopefully with Microsoft's big "Games for Windows" initiative and DirectX 10
that will change in the next year or so. Not that I am an advocate for Vista
by any means, but it may be a necessary evil to push the PC gaming market.
Jeremy Reaban
<plasti...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164240616....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>A little over six months ago, I purchased a 7800GS to let me play PC
> games at an acceptable detail level, at least for the rest of 2006.
> I've been quite busy with work since then, and I'm only now finding
> free time to start looking at new games.
>
> Gothic 3. Neverwinter Nights 2. Company of Heroes. Am I to
> understand that my 6-month old video card will no longer be able to
> handle these games without turning the details down to below 50% of
> most settings?
I can run NWN2 with everything on High (except Shadows, set to low) on my
7600GS, which is basically a budget card.
chainbreaker
> Agreed. Most games have a retail life of about six months. Most
> people move on to the next biggest game except for the die hard fans.
> To make a game that will require next years technology is just dumb.
But it's been that way for years and years, and as a very long-time flight
sim enthusiast, you know it probably better than most. I'm sure you
remember Jane's US Navy Fighters that came out around 1993 or so--it was
fully four years at least after its release, maybe longer, that I finally
had a machine that was able to run it well at anything approaching full
detail.
I'm convinced to this day that the day that sim was released, the hardware
to properly run it couldn't even be had. Considering that this sort of
thing has been by no means uncommon, it's a wonder to me that anyone still
bothers with purchasing any PC games at all, what with the devs shooting
both themselves and us in the feet with ridiculous hardware requirements
since PC gaming's inception.
--
chainbreaker
Rand Al'Thor
for a Radeon X850XT 15 months ago. Just one part of a PC!! Now it's
struggling to play Dark Messiah and no chance for Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell
Double Agent. This game will have no compatabillity for any card less than
Shader 3.0. Obviously Ubisoft believe that most people are as rich as them,
or maybe they are gonna get their fingers burnt on poor judgement of the
market. Will there really be massive sales for a game for rich kids like
that?
Alan
Ken Rice
plasti...@yahoo.com says...
Now you know why it is called "bleeding edge technology." If you keep up with
it, it will bleed your wallet dry.
--
Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
http://users.erols.com/kennrice - Lego Compatible Flex Track,
Civil War Round Table of DC & Concentration Camp made of Lego bricks
http://members.tripod.com/~kennrice
Maps of Ultima 7 Parts 1 & 2, Prophecy of the Shadow, Savage Empire,
Crusaders of Dark Savant & Others.
Jesse
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
I dunno, I got a X800XT thats about 2 years old and it plays COH just fine
with the settings cranked on max.
Keep in mind theres other factors involved here besides a video card.
Defraged HD, increased ram, tinkering around with anti-alising settings,
shutting down resource hogging backround apps before playing, can all have
a great effect on how well a game plays.
That said, there does come a point when new releases surpass the
capabilities of what was last years hottest card.
When that time comes, you either bite the bullet and upgrade, or content
yourself with playing the games that it can handle.
I personally am in the habit of just upgrading whole computers when it gets
much past that point, never have bought a new video card - And since 1996
this is only my 3rd computer.
When you consider the march of technology of the computer as a whole, I
don't see that it makes much sense to stick a new video card in a machine 3
years or older, even 2.
You spend maybe 1/3rd to 1/4th on a video card of what it would cost to
just get the whole she-bang, including new OS'es, latest CPU, DVD/CD
burning technology, RAM speed increases, motherboard breakthroughs, sound
cards, upgraded transfer options USB 2/firewire, system warranty ect ...
And the video card.
Nope, if they had to rely on people like me they would have went bankrupt
long ago ,,, And my gaming experiences barely suffers at all.
James Gassaway
Yes. (I don't need to read any more than that to be able to answer. :P )
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own."
"Now, quack, damn you!"
JLC
"Rand Al'Thor" <randa...@wheeloftime.ie> wrote in message
news:ed89h.21958$bC3....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
after all the fuss over SF, Ubisoft has never released a patch to remove SF
from SC:CT. Now they turn around and release this new pile of crap SC:DA.
Not only can't you play in on an older card, but you can't turn AA on. And
it looks and feels like a console game. Now I have an ATI x1900XT so I don't
know if AA works with Nvidia cards, but this is just plain stupid. Can you
tell I'm a little pissed at Ubisoft?! JLC
Nostromo
As much as I like you HTU, I can't being to list on how many levels that
last paragraph is just wrong. :-/
I'm actually happy in some ways that PC gaming may go back to being
'niche' again. Then we won't have the mass-market drek that's being fed
to us, which is really meant for the console-crowd out there.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
It's a general purpose box, gaming being just one thing it does for me.
I doubt I'm ever going to fork out for console or other dedicated
'gaming rig', for the same reason one wife & one car are enough for me :)
--
Nostromo
chainbreaker
> It's a general purpose box, gaming being just one thing it does for
> me. I doubt I'm ever going to fork out for console or other dedicated
> 'gaming rig', for the same reason one wife & one car are enough for
> me :)
Well, it's always been pretty obvious that the gaming software devs and
hardware guys--especially the vid card guys--have been in bed with each
other, now blatantly. I keep getting the feeling that they may have finally
busted the slats in it, though, with some of the ridiculous requirements and
no support at all for cards not much more than a couple of years old, if
that, in several cases.
--
chainbreaker
pc games
> A little over six months ago, I purchased a 7800GS to let
> me play PC games at an acceptable detail level, at least
> for the rest of 2006. I've been quite busy with work
> since then, and I'm only now finding free time to start
> looking at new games.
>
> Gothic 3. Neverwinter Nights 2. Company of Heroes. Am
> I to understand that my 6-month old video card will no
> longer be able to handle these games without turning the
> details down to below 50% of most settings?
Who said so?
And using what resolutions?
And lowering detail to obtain what frame rates?
I really doubt you will have to lower in 50% detail to be able
to play any of those PC Games using a 7800GS
But one thing is true... the 7800GS is not top of the line.
The 7800GS is a AGP card.
Its well known the AGP has lost in performance for PCI-E for
the last year and a half.
Anyone still using a AGP system and still upgrading to AGP
graphic cards knows he will not get the top performance.
For top performance a PCI-E system has been for the last
year the way to go.
So if you wanted top performance you should have changed to
a PCI-E system.
Now as for your remark about having to lower 50% of detail
in recently released games... I'm sorry but I don't believe
that... you are either stating that using insanely high
resolutions or you are those that can't play any game bellow
60 fps.
Btw, I play most of my games in 800x600 and I'm very happy
when I get 20fps
I don't pity you, you have a great card that will be able
to play any PC Game released this year and the next.
Yes, a 7800GS will be able to play ANY GAME released in 2007
and I hope to be around to prove it to you.
But again if you like to play PC Games with insanely high
resolutions and insanely high fps you should have known the
way to go would not be AGP. Your mistake.
Six months ago you should have known this, if you didn't you
should have asked for example this group. Again your mistake.
You say you are a veteran PC Gamer but you really show being
naive cause the first rule of a PC Gamer is being informed
and you simply were not or instead didn't want to listen.
Btw if you are going to leave the PC at least let others
take advantage of your still great hardware to play games.
Trimble has a 9800, so a 7800GS would be heaven to him.
Millions of PC Gamers around the world would see your
system as HEAVEN but a guess you are spoiled and you need
more.
It would be a crime to simply throw away a 7800GS right now.
PS: Sorry if I was tough but sometimes PC Gamers need it,
cause PC Gamer is not easy and should never be easy.
Like they say, no PAIN no GAIN
Michael Vondung
> It's a general purpose box, gaming being just one thing it does for me.
> I doubt I'm ever going to fork out for console or other dedicated
> 'gaming rig', for the same reason one wife & one car are enough for me :)
That has always been my reasoning for not getting a console and to continue
playing on the PC. However, if I look closely at what I use my computer
for, the one I have now is more than sufficient for anything I do, and will
be sufficient in the next few years, *except* for gaming. In fact, I could
use my previous machine easily and be satisfisfied with it, *except* for
gaming.
Considering this, does it really make sense for me to shell out 1500 Euro
next spring for a new computer (plus the on-going upgrade costs over time)
if I really only need the additional performance and power for gaming? A
console will cost me less than a third of that. The games are a little more
expensive on average, but not by a lot, and the release quality seems to be
significantly better. Since I don't download "evaluation copies" of games,
that aspect is irrelevant to my decision.
M.
Andrew MacPherson
> Now it's struggling to play Dark Messiah
On an X800Pro flashed to XT (500/550) I ran DM very nicely with x2fsaa
at 1280x1024. The only time I had minor frame rate issues was in the
complicated city areas late in the game. It's run everything else really
well, even COD2... though I think, again, I was using x2fsaa.
It's the only vid card I've ever paid fairly bleeding edge prices for
and it's still serving me well. I'm tempted to buy a 1950Pro/XT so I can
have x4fsaa back in recent games, but to be honest I don't really need
it, I just want it. :-) That's usually not a good enough reason though.
I like to find a game which really demands an upgrade before I part with
my cash.
Andrew McP
Matti Kujala
>In article <1164240616....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>plasti...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>I have to say that my $350 video card is the biggest waste of money I
>>ever spent. I'm a life long PC gamer --- waaay back since playing the
>>original Wolfenstein and Karateka as a child on the gray scale monitors
>>of our old Apple IIe. But the extremely short shelf life of PC gaming
>>rigs is downright insane, especially when you consider the scarcity of
>>quality PC games nowadays!
>Now you know why it is called "bleeding edge technology." If you keep up with
>it, it will bleed your wallet dry.
Yes...
They at last made the english translation for Gothic 1 mod Diccuric 1.1e, now I only
have to find time to play it. I'll just stick in the TI4200-card which I got for
free, thought it would probably run just fine with my trusty old Geforce 2 card.
Am I cheap or what? Well, maybe I don't get to play newest games, but at least the
games are fully patched by the time I get (for free from recycling) the hardware to
run them :)
--
What sorcery, what spells, have brought thee here?
magnate
> "Trimble Bracegirdle" <NOs...@spam.not> wrote in message
> > I don't think we should expect to play the most recent games on all there
> > highest settings at high resolutions even with the best available Graphics
> > card..
> > thats allways there for 'next years systems'.
> > But its got really silly & I think more than aything it shows a lack of
> > interest & commitment to PC as a games platform...its all about the consoles
> > now..Pc players have to look for scraps thrown indifferently out.
>
> on to the next biggest game except for the die hard fans. To make a game
> that will require next years technology is just dumb. There are very very
> few games that are more than a year old that I will play regularly, and I am
> a pretty dedicated gamer.
Well, I think that speaks volumes about what you want from a game. I
spend about 70-80% of my gaming time on games five, ten or even fifteen
years old: I'm currently playing BG2 and VGA Planets mostly. I play a
lot of MoO1 and MoM too, and various flavours of Angband. I have tons
of stuff yet to try from Underdogs that I missed first time round:
Jagged Alliance is next on the list.
I do have modern games - the last one I spent significant time on was
Civ 4, and RTW before that. I've got both Gothic 3 and Oblivion, and
*neither* of them grabs me at all (though if you want to know, I prefer
Gothic 3). To be fair, I have all their predecessors and I just wasn't
grabbed by either series in the way that I was by, say, the Bioware D&D
games. (I have both KoToR games sitting on a shelf waiting for me to
get *time* to play them - those are probably the ones I'm most looking
forward to. Those and Kohan II, and Darkstar One, and Thief 3 ...)
I play new games because they look pretty, but only when I can be
bothered to learn new controls, rules etc. I play old games because
they give me a familiar, guaranteed gaming experience. Both are great
fun, but I can't imagine only wanting to play new games.
> I tend to upgrade my video card every 12-18 months, and my CPU/RAM/Mobo
> every 24-30 months, and that barely keeps up with the curve.
I'm a bit slower than that, but not much. I tend to upgrade my
CPU/RAM/mobo every 3-4 years, and my video card every 2-3 years - but I
don't buy the best available. I freely acknowledge that my current rig
(AthlonXP3200+ and RadeOn 9500Pro) is now significantly behind the
curve - but you know what, it really doesn't make any difference to my
gaming experience. When I installed Gothic 3 and Oblivion, both games
looked amazing, and ran fairly smoothly at average detail. No, I can't
play anything at highest detail, but I've always thought that nobody
could - see Chainbreaker's point about the hardware not even existing
when the game is released.
> I am finding console gaming to start to look much more appealing.
I'm not. I've nothing against console gaming, and I enjoy the
occasional console game at a friend's place, but I've nowhere near
enough time to play the PC games I have, so there's absolutely no need
to buy a console as well. My biggest fear is that somebody will give me
one for xmas, which will do no more than double the number of games I
feel compelled to collect but don't have time to play.
> Hopefully with Microsoft's big "Games for Windows" initiative and DirectX 10
> that will change in the next year or so. Not that I am an advocate for Vista
> by any means, but it may be a necessary evil to push the PC gaming market.
Nostromo let you get away with this, but I'm not going to! I pray every
day that some major breakthrough happens in the world of games
development which screws M$'s plan to lock non-M$ platforms out of
gaming. Something akin to OpenGL, which prevented DirectX becoming even
more of a ubiquitous monopoly than it did, only more successful.
Something which leaves developers no economic choice but to develop
using open, non-proprietary standards and APIs. The gaming equivalent
of OpenOffice.org, which means nobody has to rely on Microsoft any
more.
I feel much better.
CC
Paul Moloney
good idea if money is an object to buy a video card at what could be called
the "sweet spot", where performance and price are best balanced:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1883111,00.asp
After lots of research, my last 2 desktop cards have been the 9800 Pro and
the 6800 GS, which matched these criteria and which I've been happy with.
Having said that, the first two of the 3 games you mention are rather buggy
at the moment. Certainly, Neverwinter Nights 2, which I have, looks like
*%^$ at the moment as there's no anti-aliasing - this is about to be
introduced in the 1.03 patch next week, along with improved shadows (I'm
running it on a laptop with a 6800 Go Card at 1440x900, at medium settings.)
In the meantime, I'm playing the original!
> The Playstation 2 didn't become obsolete until now, over six years
> since its inception.
That's comparing apples with oranges, though. Sure, you could still play
games on the PS2, so it wasn't technically obsolete. But the graphics were
far behind anything on even an average PC by this year. Don't forget the
PS2's resolution is only 640x480 - it only looks good because you're playing
it on a TV. Even ancient video cards will play games for you at that rez.
> I wouldn't expect the PS3 to become obsolete until seven years down the
> road, in 2014 --- I'll be pushing 40 by then.
Again, it depends on your meaning of "obsolete". As far as I'm aware, PS3
graphics are comparable to a top of the range PC. Which means that in 7
years, they'll be way behind even an average PC. There's a difference
between "obsolete" and "best possible graphics available right now".
If keeping up with the absolute best graphics possible out there is
important to you, then yes, you're going to be spending a lot of money on
video cards. But conversely, getting a PS3 won't make you happy; you'll have
great graphics for the next year, and then a steady decline after that.
There's good reasons to get a console, but if good graphics are important to
you, that's a good reason _not_ to get one. Certainly, judging from your
choice of games, you don't sound like a console gamer. Seriously, if I was
in your position, I would do two things - try to achieve a zen-like
philosophy that you'll never ever see games in all their glory on
release(*), and (b) next time you get a graphics card, buy the best one you
can, having done a lot of research, at a price you're happy with.
(*) And it actually is fun a year or two later to see an old favourite with
your next card.
P.
--
-pm
"I don't have a photograph, but you can have my footprints.
They're upstairs in my socks."
Werner Spahl
> It's really got out of hand. I paid about £350 (that must be around
> 550$) for a Radeon X850XT 15 months ago. Just one part of a PC!! Now
> it's struggling to play Dark Messiah and no chance for Tom Clancy's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What I really don't get is, why they include such high res textures and
stuff that modern cards struggle, while at the same time they have 2D
hedges that are obsolete since FPS went to full 3D with Quake years ago?
Or just look down the mountain near the cathedral with the holy pool. The
beach and sea below looks absolutely bad on my Geforce 6600GT and I don't
think it's because I miss some features. Lost Coast did this much better!
--
Werner Spahl (sp...@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships
Rand Al'Thor
Maybe it's my eyes but for what benefit are these extra bits of graphic
sweetness. I struggle to play DM with my Radeon X850XT and it looks worse at
the graphic level I can play it with still some stuttering and yet Doom 3
looks gorgeous and plays super smooth on my system.
We are spending more and more for ever diminishing returns, and as someone
said before, by the time you have the rig to play them in their full glory,
you've finished it and moved on to the next, impossible to set up, game to
play, Arggghhhh!
Alan
chainbreaker
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:30:10 +1100, Nostromo wrote:
>
>> It's a general purpose box, gaming being just one thing it does for
>> me. I doubt I'm ever going to fork out for console or other dedicated
>> 'gaming rig', for the same reason one wife & one car are enough for
>> me :)
>
> That has always been my reasoning for not getting a console and to
> continue playing on the PC. However, if I look closely at what I use
> my computer for, the one I have now is more than sufficient for
> anything I do, and will be sufficient in the next few years, *except*
> for gaming. In fact, I could use my previous machine easily and be
> satisfisfied with it, *except* for gaming.
>
Ayup. Does any console yet have the equivalent of a kb/mouse input system?
With that, I could ditch PC gaming and (almost) never look back. After all,
it's not like a big part of what we're being fed on PCs isn't console-like
enough, already.
--
chainbreaker
chainbreaker
> What I really don't get is, why they include such high res textures
> and stuff that modern cards struggle, while at the same time they
> have 2D hedges that are obsolete since FPS went to full 3D with Quake
> years ago?
>
> Or just look down the mountain near the cathedral with the holy pool.
> The beach and sea below looks absolutely bad on my Geforce 6600GT and
> I don't think it's because I miss some features. Lost Coast did this
> much better!
Well, what it seems to me is that instead of getting the most out of any
particular rendering technology, devs are instead constantly attempting to
learn new ones (being urged in that direction by money they're being fed
from card/chip manufacturers most likely, but you're in a much better
position to know about that than me), which would also account for just
about every new game being in a completely horrid condition on
release--behold G3 and NWN2, which is as far as one need go to illustrate.
--
chainbreaker
John A. Mason
"Jeremy Reaban" <j...@connectria.com> wrote in message
news:12m9vlm...@news.supernews.com...
problems either.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
John
Kulgan
> Ayup. Does any console yet have the equivalent of a kb/mouse input system?
> With that, I could ditch PC gaming and (almost) never look back. After all,
> it's not like a big part of what we're being fed on PCs isn't console-like
> enough, already.
Dreamcast had mouse and keyboard support (for Quake etc). The XBox 360
also supports just about any USB keyboard (including my crappy wireless
one). Not sure about mouse as I haven't tried it!
Kulgan.
Kulgan
> Sorry for the rant.
At the risk of controversy, not enough people buy PC games for
publishers to be interested. A lot of PC games developed now are
console by-products. I have a friend who works at a developer in Derby
(UK). They only create PC games as a convenience for debugging etc
(esp. for unreleased consoles). They have a cross-platform software
library so they can (more or less) rebuild for any platform at the
click of a button. Since they have a PC product by default they
occasionally release them - but not always! Just because a product is
makeable does not mean it is marketable (I learned that on a course!!!)
Kulgan.
mma...@my-deja.com
>Just because a product is
> makeable does not mean it is marketable (I learned that on a course!!!)
Maybe if companies made more PC games rather than bad console ports,
they'd be more marketable... the majority of console-port PC games I've
tried keep my attention for about five minutes; the only exceptions I
can think of are the latest Tomb Raider and the GTA games (or was Tomb
Raider a PC to console port?).
Mark
varois83
I am turning 40 this coming Sunday, I have been playing on the PC off
and on since I was 16.
My system is now getting really old to play games, Dell Dimension 8300
P4 1.8ghz 256Ram and Geforce2 card (I know stone age card).
I have a bunch of older games and too often they won't run, error this,
error that. I don't have enough time to battle the PC with a 50 hour
work week and school on the side and the rest (Go to dentist, pay
bills...so on) so when I play a game to relax I want to load and play
and lately I am just going through headaches after headaches on the PC
running older games (Morrowind stopped running, Nosferatu won't run,
not enough RAM for Painkiller....)
My 13 YO daughter has a Gamecube system and today I went to look at her
game collection for the 1st time ever, and picked 2 that might
interest me somewhat just to try (Metroid and Resident evil zero).
Man was I surprised, load the game and play and on my flat screen TV it
actually looks great.
I can't buy a video card every year or 6 months,new CPU or more RAM
just to play games but I need the PC for work and it is plenty enough
for that (Will buy a new one Christmas 2007.)
Some gamers just love to study video cards, drivers and figure out
compatibily issues and all that stuff, I just don't.
I am even thinking of buying a PS2 now that PS3 is out, prices might
drop and PS2 is more geared towards game that I like "Shooters" than
GC.
I walked into EB last week they had a huge bin of PS2/Xbox games for
$9.99 or less.
Looks like the way to go for me.
Best regards
Patrick
chainbreaker
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:26:45 -0500, "chainbreaker" <no...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm convinced to this day that the day that sim was released, the
>> hardware to properly run it couldn't even be had. Considering that
>> this sort of thing has been by no means uncommon, it's a wonder to
>> me that anyone still bothers with purchasing any PC games at all,
>> what with the devs shooting both themselves and us in the feet with
>> ridiculous hardware requirements since PC gaming's inception.
>
> problem? The concept of not being able to run the game at 100%
> setting?
>
That particular sim didn't run well on any setting, and it was nowhere near
by itself, either. Falcon 4.0, anything by iMagic, and Jane's F/A-18 (the
one that pretty much was the straw that broke my flight-simming back) were
all pretty much in the same boat, and I'm sure I could think of many others.
That these didn't run well on any setting I can say pretty much
unequivocally, because in those days I kept a rig that was always pretty
much at the top of the food chain--so much so that I've often wondered just
what exactly that some of those sims were developed on.
--
chainbreaker
JLC
"varois83" <varo...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1164295593....@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> Hi
>
> I am turning 40 this coming Sunday, I have been playing on the PC off
> and on since I was 16.
And this is a "Great thread" why? You sound a lot like a troll, coming in
here at holiday time trying to get us PC guys all worked up. JLC
JLC
"Andrew MacPherson" <andre...@DELETETHISdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:memo.20061123072502.1152A@address_disguised.address_disguised...
I have the x1900XT (256) and let me tell you it's an ass kicker. But what so
many guys are not mentioning in this post is that we don't know what the
rest of his rig is like. He has a great card, but if he only has a low end
CPU,slow RAM, old tech HD, and less then 2GIG's of system RAM, then all that
adds up to how his PC performs when it comes to gaming. As a lot of guys
have pointed out the X800 is still a viable card.
This topic is one that has been going around since the PS1 came out. To me
PC gaming is a hobby. I don't play golf, or tennis and I'm not into cars, so
my money goes into my PC. I just upgrade after almost 5 years with the same
MB and CPU. I'd gone through 4 video cards in that time, but my last a
9800pro lasted me the longest, almost 2 years. It cost me $200, so that's
only a $100 a year for all the gaming goodness I had with it.
There's a lot of reasons why I prefer PC gaming, (I also own a old Xbox and
Gamecube) is that the games are so much cheaper then console games. Now with
the 360 and PS3 the games are all around $50-60, where the same game for the
PC is $35-40 and new games are almost always on sale for around $30 when
they first come out. And the prices drop way faster then console games. So
if you add up how much you save buying games, it pretty much balances out
the cost of upgrading. Of course if you only buy a couple of game a year
then this theory is BS. Just my 2 cents on the matter. JLC
BuckFush
Relax willya - he probably just meant great group and there's nothing about
his post that sounds like a troll at all to me.
But I'm butting in here because I'm baffled with the fact that I can see
this post in 40tude (which I have just installed) but not in Outlook
Express even after checking and double checking all settings and filters
and everything very carefully in OE. How can this be?!?
It makes me wonder if after all these years I've been missing posts all
along, bummer. I do have that outlook quotefix utility installed though,
could that have anything to do with it? Very strange..
JLC
"Paul Moloney" <paul_m...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ek3vos$t1a$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>I can sympathise that you feel a little done, which is why it's always a
>good idea if money is an object to buy a video card at what could be called
>the "sweet spot", where performance and price are best balanced:
>
> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1883111,00.asp
>
> After lots of research, my last 2 desktop cards have been the 9800 Pro and
> the 6800 GS, which matched these criteria and which I've been happy with.
>
Great post Paul! And your comment about revisiting older games with new
hardware is what really makes this hobble fun. I can't tell you how many
times I've upgraded then played a game that I'd had to lower the setting on,
and then after an upgrade,cranking everything to max. Sometimes it's just
plan mind blowing! And this applies to new games as well, even more so
because games that have come out in the last two years really look totally
different when their settings are set to high.
I was just going to post a message about FEAR. When this game came out my
old rig (P4 2GHz, 9800pro) could only play then game at 800x600 with setting
turned down. But now with my new rig the game is a total mind *uck, I've
never seen AI enemies that could move as fast as the ones in FEAR. If it
wasn't for the Slo-Mo key it would be almost impossible to hit them. And the
game looks just amazing in high resolution with 4xAA, 16xAF. Also Oblivion
is another game that looks like a totally new games if you have the enough
power to turn everything on. I just sat in my chair and started at the
scenery after loading it on my new PC. I'd played many hours on my old rig,
at 1024x768. But I had to turn a lot of stuff down or turned settings off.
And I thought it looked really good, in fact I was amazed on how good it did
look on my old rig. But now it's a whole new game. So any of you guys that
have recently upgraded and have FEAR you owe it to yourselves to load it up
and crank up the settings! JLC
JLC
"riku" <ri...@none.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:gddbm2l3hanok7la4...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 13:28:46 GMT, "Rand Al'Thor"
> <randa...@wheeloftime.ie> wrote:
>
>>We are spending more and more for ever diminishing returns, and as someone
>>said before, by the time you have the rig to play them in their full
>>glory,
>>you've finished it and moved on to the next, impossible to set up, game to
>>play, Arggghhhh!
>
> Prefer games that don't push your PC to the limit, but concentrate on
> gameplay instead.
That's BS IMHO. Just because I couldn't play the new games I didn't want the
rest of the gamers out there that could to have to suffer, just because I
was behind the curve. I want the game industry to keep pushing toward more
realistic graphics'.
If you know how to tune a game and your rig, all the games mentioned in this
thread can be played on an older rig (except the pile of crap that is SC:DA)
I played them all (some of them demos) on with my 9800pro and they all ran
fine at 1024x768 or 800x600. They didn't look as sweet, but that's the fun
for me, knowing that when I did upgrade I could go back and play the same
games again and it would be like a totally new game. At lest that one way of
looking at it.
JLC
JLC
"Kulgan" <nickam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164292429.7...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
It doesn't support a mouse. Even if it did, the game would have to be coded
to be able to use it, and that's probably not going to happen for a lot of
reasons. JLC
Andrew
wrote:
>But I'm butting in here because I'm baffled with the fact that I can see
>this post in 40tude (which I have just installed) but not in Outlook
>Express even after checking and double checking all settings and filters
>and everything very carefully in OE. How can this be?!?
OE is the worst Usenet client there is, just ignore it and all will be
fine.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
JLC
"BuckFush" <emaila...@yourmama.com> wrote in message
news:1k0u18a0nw69b$.pfx1wu5sqfeg$.dlg@40tude.net...
> It makes me wonder if after all these years I've been missing posts all
> along, bummer. I do have that outlook quotefix utility installed though,
> could that have anything to do with it? Very strange..
I never could get that quote fix program to work on my system. It totally
messed my Outlook 2000 up. I had to do a re-install to get it working again.
Maybe that's what's messing things up for you. JLC
JLC
"Andrew" <spam...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:nslbm2dpnd3lj9b0q...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:57:48 GMT, BuckFush <emaila...@yourmama.com>
> wrote:
>
>>But I'm butting in here because I'm baffled with the fact that I can see
>>this post in 40tude (which I have just installed) but not in Outlook
>>Express even after checking and double checking all settings and filters
>>and everything very carefully in OE. How can this be?!?
>
> OE is the worst Usenet client there is, just ignore it and all will be
> fine.
> --
problem. Sure it always wants to top post messages, but that's no biggie.
JLC.
Andrew
>Why is that? I've been using Outlook 2000/OE for years and never had a
>problem. Sure it always wants to top post messages, but that's no biggie.
Aside from being buggy, a security nightmare, hardly any features and
crap UI that wastes half your time, it's great :-)
BuckFush
> "JLC" <jc@nospam> wrote:
>
>>Why is that? I've been using Outlook 2000/OE for years and never had a
>>problem. Sure it always wants to top post messages, but that's no biggie.
>
> Aside from being buggy, a security nightmare, hardly any features and
> crap UI that wastes half your time, it's great :-)
Yea, well I used to have Agent Forte back in the days of Win3 for
Workgroups (remember that, you had to install the TCP/IP stack manually to
get on the net, good times) but over the years I just got lazier and
somewhere along the line just dropped it altogether and started using OE
mainly since it was already there and my usenet needs are really very
basic.
But I'm still puzzled as to why OE is skipping some threads in this group
(there's about 3 or 4 missing now completely) despite my best efforts at
finding the cause. I did notice it started doing a couple of odd things
right after I instaled QuoteFix but nothing that would want to make me stop
using it since I really liked its features and made the usenet experience
much better overall. I have to disagree with the crappy UI comment though,
I think it's very good (probably the only really good thing about it, come
to think of it).
Andrew
<emaila...@yourhouse.com> wrote:
>much better overall. I have to disagree with the crappy UI comment though,
>I think it's very good (probably the only really good thing about it, come
>to think of it).
It is fine if you want a Fisher Price "My first Usenet client" look,
but the lack of proper keyboard controls makes it so slow to navigate
compared to Agent. I mostly only use the basic features of Agent, but
its UI saves me hours each month.
Shawk
>
> My personal solution for not needing to upgrade that often is to
> mostly buy and play a bit older PC games. There hasn't been that big
> breakthroughs in gameplay itself with the newer games, just better
> graphics. Last evening, I was playing the original Age of Empires.
> Gasp!
Original AOE (and AOE2) are much better games than AOEIII will ever be
for all it's posh graphics. I still play AOEII with the conquerors
expansion at least a couple of times a month (and have since it came
out). Great game when you get jaded with blowing heads off.
Andrew
wrote:
>Great game when you get jaded with blowing heads off.
That can happen????
I have been enjoying virtual decapitations for 20 years (Barbarian
anyone?), it never stops being fun!
BuckFush
> I am turning 40 this coming Sunday, I have been playing on the PC off
> and on since I was 16.
Congratz on your birthday, it's a big one alright :)
And I also want to apologize for hijacking this thread with my outlook
woes, I went off on a tangent there and by the time I realized what had
happened it was too late already. Sorry about that.
> My system is now getting really old to play games, Dell Dimension 8300
> P4 1.8ghz 256Ram and Geforce2 card (I know stone age card).
> I have a bunch of older games and too often they won't run, error this,
> error that. I don't have enough time to battle the PC with a 50 hour
> work week and school on the side and the rest (Go to dentist, pay
> bills...so on) so when I play a game to relax I want to load and play
> and lately I am just going through headaches after headaches on the PC
> running older games (Morrowind stopped running, Nosferatu won't run,
> not enough RAM for Painkiller....)
If you got another 256MB of Ram (should be dirt cheap by now, so why not go
overboard and get 1G at once :) you would see an incredible improvement and
probably be able to play some games that are not running right now. That
seems to be your bottleneck right now given the overall picture.
> My 13 YO daughter has a Gamecube system and today I went to look at her
> game collection for the 1st time ever, and picked 2 that might
> interest me somewhat just to try (Metroid and Resident evil zero).
> Man was I surprised, load the game and play and on my flat screen TV it
> actually looks great.
I hear you, I have been tempted myself lately to go to the dark side of
consoles. I play console games a lot (mostly thru emulators) but do not
own one myself. But I'm not sure I'd let my 13 year old daughter (if I had
one) play a game like RE Zero though.
> Some gamers just love to study video cards, drivers and figure out
> compatibily issues and all that stuff, I just don't.
That's part of the game :)
> I am even thinking of buying a PS2 now that PS3 is out, prices might
> drop and PS2 is more geared towards game that I like "Shooters" than
> GC.
Thats one thing I can never do despite my best efforts: play FPS on a
console, it just doesnt feel right and I end up more frustrated than
anything else so why bother?
> I walked into EB last week they had a huge bin of PS2/Xbox games for
> $9.99 or less. Looks like the way to go for me.
I've seen decent PS2 games for 99 cents at gamestop.
> Best regards
> Patrick
Happy Thanksgiving Patrick.
Shawk
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:58:11 GMT, BuckFush
> <emaila...@yourhouse.com> wrote:
>
>> much better overall. I have to disagree with the crappy UI comment though,
>> I think it's very good (probably the only really good thing about it, come
>> to think of it).
>
> It is fine if you want a Fisher Price "My first Usenet client" look,
> but the lack of proper keyboard controls makes it so slow to navigate
> compared to Agent. I mostly only use the basic features of Agent, but
> its UI saves me hours each month.
As ever its just a personal preference. I could never get used to Agent
and prefer Mozilla's T-bird. Like anything else navigation becomes very
quick and painless when you're used to a piece of software - whatever it is.
Shawk
> On 23 Nov 2006 07:26:34 -0800, varois83 wrote:
>> I am turning 40 this coming Sunday, I have been playing on the PC off
>> and on since I was 16.
>
> Congratz on your birthday, it's a big one alright :)
As someone who did that a few years ago it's a hell of a lot more
painless than 30! Have a good one.
>
> And I also want to apologize for hijacking this thread with my outlook
> woes, I went off on a tangent there and by the time I realized what had
> happened it was too late already. Sorry about that.
>
>> My system is now getting really old to play games, Dell Dimension 8300
>> P4 1.8ghz 256Ram and Geforce2 card (I know stone age card).
>> I have a bunch of older games and too often they won't run, error this,
>> error that. I don't have enough time to battle the PC with a 50 hour
>> work week and school on the side and the rest (Go to dentist, pay
>> bills...so on) so when I play a game to relax I want to load and play
>> and lately I am just going through headaches after headaches on the PC
>> running older games (Morrowind stopped running, Nosferatu won't run,
>> not enough RAM for Painkiller....)
>
> If you got another 256MB of Ram (should be dirt cheap by now, so why not go
> overboard and get 1G at once :) you would see an incredible improvement and
> probably be able to play some games that are not running right now. That
> seems to be your bottleneck right now given the overall picture.
Agreed but I'd also say that by the sound of it your PC is probably
stuffed full of driver remnants, spyware etc? Apologies if not but you
don't come across as someone who'd spend a lot of time maintaining it.
A good spring clean and reloading of drivers and DX might do it a world
of good. What OS you using? 98?
>> My 13 YO daughter has a Gamecube system and today I went to look at her
>> game collection for the 1st time ever, and picked 2 that might
>> interest me somewhat just to try (Metroid and Resident evil zero).
>> Man was I surprised, load the game and play and on my flat screen TV it
>> actually looks great.
>
> I hear you, I have been tempted myself lately to go to the dark side of
> consoles. I play console games a lot (mostly thru emulators) but do not
> own one myself. But I'm not sure I'd let my 13 year old daughter (if I had
> one) play a game like RE Zero though.
13yr olds these days are bored if you can't shoot something... I've had
two of those myself.
I also considered a console recently - a couple of friends bought the
premium 360's and I was pretty impressed by the graphics and what looked
like good gameplay. Then I had a go and hated every second of it. How
the hell does anyone use those controllers and actually enjoy it?? I
guess I'd get used to it with time but then I start hating that I only
need to be close to someone to shoot them rather than need the accuracy
you do on a PC.
I plumped for a self-build upgrade instead. No regrets whatsoever.
>> Some gamers just love to study video cards, drivers and figure out
>> compatibily issues and all that stuff, I just don't.
>
> That's part of the game :)
It's also part of a modern system. Never had a crash or any major
problems with XP. If you have any gamer friends with a decent PC then
go and have a go - much more impressive than a gamecube
>> I am even thinking of buying a PS2 now that PS3 is out, prices might
>> drop and PS2 is more geared towards game that I like "Shooters" than
>> GC.
>
> Thats one thing I can never do despite my best efforts: play FPS on a
> console, it just doesnt feel right and I end up more frustrated than
> anything else so why bother?
Huhuh
>> I walked into EB last week they had a huge bin of PS2/Xbox games for
>> $9.99 or less. Looks like the way to go for me.
>
> I've seen decent PS2 games for 99 cents at gamestop.
Pity there are no Gamestops in the UK - my daughter (who has a PS2)
would have a damn good Xmas at those prices!!
Have a great thanksgiving.
johns
Saw the same thing with Gothic 3 on a 7900GS ... slow
blinky screens. Took the demo home to my game box
with GF 7900 GTO, and it cleaned right up. So, the
problem may be fixable. On the home box, I have 2 gigs
ram, and the CPU is an AMD 3800. Also, I have directx
fully updated .. THAT is one the Euroids never tell you
about. You have to keep directx dlls uptodate for their
stuff, and they don't like to bundle directx on their install
CDs. Actually, I'm ready for Microsoft updates to include
those dlls, and stop it with the weird verification schemes
all over the place. Just do it during the updates.
johns
Shawk
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 19:03:32 +0000, Shawk <sh...@clara.co.uk.3guesses>
> wrote:
>
>> Great game when you get jaded with blowing heads off.
>
> That can happen????
>
> I have been enjoying virtual decapitations for 20 years (Barbarian
> anyone?), it never stops being fun!
..it's a rare malaise but luckily I recover quickly ;-)
HockeyTownUSA
"chainbreaker" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:YOidnWx7oYQ6OfjY...@comcast.com...
> Michael Vondung wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:30:10 +1100, Nostromo wrote:
>>
>>> It's a general purpose box, gaming being just one thing it does for
>>> me. I doubt I'm ever going to fork out for console or other dedicated
>>> 'gaming rig', for the same reason one wife & one car are enough for
>>> me :)
>>
>> That has always been my reasoning for not getting a console and to
>> continue playing on the PC. However, if I look closely at what I use
>> my computer for, the one I have now is more than sufficient for
>> anything I do, and will be sufficient in the next few years, *except*
>> for gaming. In fact, I could use my previous machine easily and be
>> satisfisfied with it, *except* for gaming.
>>
>
> Ayup. Does any console yet have the equivalent of a kb/mouse input
> system? With that, I could ditch PC gaming and (almost) never look back.
> After all, it's not like a big part of what we're being fed on PCs isn't
> console-like enough, already.
>
> chainbreaker
>
Right. I would ditch PC gaming altogether if consoles offered keyboard /
mouse support or anything comparable as I have a dedicated gaming box.
Someone earlier stated that their box is more than sufficient for everything
except gaming and is a couple years old. Same here. I was using an Athlon XP
1800+ for nearly three years for my basic web surfing, financial management,
spreadsheets, and music/video downloads (and other misc tasks). I just
updated that box for an Athlon64 3800+ X2 (video processing uses X2),
GeForce 6600 256MB, 1GB RAM, which is more than adequate for what I do
day-to-day, and probably will be for the next few years.
BUT my gaming PC has to be cutting edge and it gets quite rididculous as I
swap out my video card every 12 months or so and have to update my CPU and
Mobo every 24 months or so. It gets mild normal PC task useage, but still
need the PC capability for basic web surfing, etc. I'm surprised some major
developer, namely MS or Sony, hasn't thought about this. They would convert
so many PC gamers, and open up the RTS and RPG market ( not to mention
combat flight sim goofs like me ). It would also help stabilize against the
incessent minor video technology advances but games requiring this
technology to operate with these "enhanced" features.
Anyhow, enough said.
HockeyTownUSA
Yeah, I always wondered that. I loved all the Janes stuff, and that's when I
started building a PC specifically for gaming, mainly for Jane's flight
sims. Now that that genre has all but dried up, unfortunately, most new
improvments in gaming are graphically. This is good, but I don't feel there
are any great advantages in overall gameplay. I don't care to play the same
damn game from 1998, at least in concept, with 2006 graphcs without any
improvement in game play.
HockeyTownUSA
"BuckFush" <emaila...@yourhouse.com> wrote in message
news:4x4az27f29j8$.jif4nd7wt0tq$.dlg@40tude.net...
Yep. I'm not 40 (nor want to admit I'm in my 30's even, but ok, I am), and
understand where you're coming from. I have never been against consoles by
any means, just could never get myself into them. Until a couple years ago.
I ended up getting an original XBOX about two and a half years ago. There
were three games that drew me in: Project Gotham Racing 2, Rallisport
Challenge 1/2, and Steel Battalion (yes I bought the added controllers ane
everything the geek I am). I found Top Spin Tennis in the process.
I then bought a PS2 about a year or so ago for $130, and what tempted me was
Resident Evil 4 and the game "24" after the TV show that I'm a huge fan of,
plus my nieces and nephews love DDR games.
I just bought an Xbox 360 about a week ago for Gears of War, Top Spin 2, and
PGR 3.
I spend 90% of my gaming time on the PC, but consoles definitely have their
place. Racing and sports games on the console are great, and I find them a
great social machine since you can usually play most games multiplayer on
the same screen. But alone, I prefer the PC, and until consoles can
replicate the experience of an FPS, RTS, or Flight Sim, and mainly using
keyboard mouse, I'll stick with the PC. It may cost a bit to "keep up" but
consoles just can't compare there.
My $0.02.
David Alex Lamb
chainbreaker <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>I'm convinced to this day that the day that sim was released, the hardware
>to properly run it couldn't even be had.
I'm puzzled -- how would developers test it if the proper hardware isn't
available? Use lesser hardware and hope stuff works equally well on higher
performance platforms?
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
David Alex Lamb
>or maybe they are gonna get their fingers burnt on poor judgement of the
>market.
Sometimes the market is driven by something you don't think about at first. I
was surprised to find, for example, that the cellphone market features are
driven by teenager preferences. Is it possible the game market is really
driven by the gotta-have-the-latest-stuff crowd? people who don't ever post
here?
HockeyTownUSA
"David Alex Lamb" <dal...@qucis.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:ek5lai$qhf$1...@knot.queensu.ca...
Scary isn't it? I consider myself an early adopter, well at least
a-little-later-than-early adopter. I set spending limits since I refuse to
spend $600 for a video card that will be obsolete in six months. But there
are lots of people who spend tons of money on their PC's who don't give a
rats ass to share their thoughts or even know how to share their comments on
any newsgroup or message board. And probably play only one or two games a
year.
Most people want the most bang for their buck, and the $250-$300 price point
seems to be common for a video card at any given time. Unfortunately that is
usually a video card 6-9 months after release and won't handle many of the
newest games at maximum detail. That being said, usually it is possible to
sacrifice only a couple of the graphics options that hit performance the
most, namely shadows and super high resolution and/or anti-aliasing options.
Of course if you run at higher resolutions AA is not needed. But I'm just
rambling now.
Master Baiter
>
> Ayup. Does any console yet have the equivalent of a kb/mouse input system?
> With that, I could ditch PC gaming and (almost) never look back. After all,
> it's not like a big part of what we're being fed on PCs isn't console-like
> enough, already.
>
Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerberus does support USB Mouse and Keyboard.
Andrew
wrote:
Not that I care about the game, but which platform?
Master Baiter
> In article <se6dnSx9P7h_m_jY...@comcast.com>,
> chainbreaker <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> I'm convinced to this day that the day that sim was released, the hardware
>> to properly run it couldn't even be had.
>
> I'm puzzled -- how would developers test it if the proper hardware isn't
> available? Use lesser hardware and hope stuff works equally well on higher
> performance platforms?
They don't. They just code the game blind folded and compile the codes.
As long as it compiles into .exe (while ALL warnings are turned off in
their compiler options), they ship it. They can create Oblivion with a
80386 that way.
On the other hand, in the infamous Pirhana Bite Studio, Gothic fans that
have been frentically spending their money on the previous episodes of
Gothic, has made them so rich that it enabled them to develope the
infamous G3 with a Quad SLI 1024 pipelines 4GB GDDR5 display system,
dual Quadcore (never mind that it isn't released to the public yet, it's
already released to the rich people), 32 Terra Byte memory, 32 Cluster
RAID 20KRPM Ultra SATA 64G/s (don't ask me what that is, I don't know
either) computer, that none of the goofs who bought it could run at 100%
detail. So Gothic fans, stop buying and start downloading. That way,
next time when G4 is released, it may be even playable on a P3 500MHz.
With a GeForce MX.
/SARCASTISM_OFF
Master Baiter
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:27:48 +0800, Master Baiter <m...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Ayup. Does any console yet have the equivalent of a kb/mouse input system?
>>> With that, I could ditch PC gaming and (almost) never look back. After all,
>>> it's not like a big part of what we're being fed on PCs isn't console-like
>>> enough, already.
>>>
>> Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerberus does support USB Mouse and Keyboard.
>
> Not that I care about the game, but which platform?
It's on PS2. It's not hard to guess anyway, since SquereSoft (they are
not Square-Enix yet back then) only release their FF series on PS/PS2
after they break up with Nintendo after FF6.
I went out and bought a USB Keyboard just for this game - a console game
that plays awkwardly with a game pad... 8-X
Michael Vondung
> At the risk of controversy, not enough people buy PC games for
> publishers to be interested. A lot of PC games developed now are
> console by-products.
And a lot of games are not. So, that point is rather moot. :) None of the
games I bought in the past few months were console-by-products.
M.
Xocyll
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
>In article <ed89h.21958$bC3....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>,
>Rand Al'Thor <randa...@wheeloftime.ie> wrote:
>>Obviously Ubisoft believe that most people are as rich as them,
>>or maybe they are gonna get their fingers burnt on poor judgement of the
>>market.
>
>Sometimes the market is driven by something you don't think about at first. I
>was surprised to find, for example, that the cellphone market features are
>driven by teenager preferences.
I'm a bit boggled that anyone could have though any differently.
Who but teenagers want a combination phone/text messager/camera/gameboy?
Me, I want a phone that's a really good phone not a half decent phone
with a bunch of other half decently implemented features.
>Is it possible the game market is really
>driven by the gotta-have-the-latest-stuff crowd? people who don't ever post
>here?
Well this group is a tiny portion of the gaming community.
There's always been a segment who have to have the latest, but the game
community hasn't yet figured out that the hardware has advanced so fast
there really isn't much point anymore and most people are just plain not
going to shell out for the latest hardware every 3 months.
On the other hand, game engines have advanced enough that it is quite
easy to make a game that can't be run on "100% settings" on current
hardware, and since it's so easy it doesn't make sense not to do it
(since it means the game doesn't look hopelessly dated a year later.)
Future proofing in a sense.
The problem is - people don't look at the graphic level they can run as
great if it's better than everything else - it's only "great" if they
can run at absolute maximum settings and they'll bitch like crazy if
they can only run at 50% - even if that 50% is still better than
anything else on the market.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Wolfing
plasti...@yahoo.com wrote:
> A little over six months ago, I purchased a 7800GS to let me play PC
> games at an acceptable detail level, at least for the rest of 2006.
> I've been quite busy with work since then, and I'm only now finding
> free time to start looking at new games.
>
> Gothic 3. Neverwinter Nights 2. Company of Heroes. Am I to
> understand that my 6-month old video card will no longer be able to
> handle these games without turning the details down to below 50% of
> most settings?
>
> I have to say that my $350 video card is the biggest waste of money I
> ever spent. I'm a life long PC gamer --- waaay back since playing the
> original Wolfenstein and Karateka as a child on the gray scale monitors
> of our old Apple IIe. But the extremely short shelf life of PC gaming
> rigs is downright insane, especially when you consider the scarcity of
> quality PC games nowadays!
>
> The Playstation 2 didn't become obsolete until now, over six years
> since its inception. I was still in finishing college when the PS2
> came out. And relatively speaking, that console wasn't quite the
> technological wonder in 2000 that the Playstation 3 is in 2007. I
> wouldn't expect the PS3 to become obsolete until seven years down the
> road, in 2014 --- I'll be pushing 40 by then. Sorry, no more PC
> upgrades for me. After nearly 3 decades, I think my PC gaming days are
> finally over.
>
> Sorry for the rant.
Nah you're exagerating. I have an even older NVidia 6600GT and I can
play fine all games I've tried (including NWN2).
KCB
"Wolfing" <wolf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164388730.5...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
I don't recall seeing anything about his other components. He may be
whining about his vid card when it's actually the rest of the computer
that needs replaced/upgraded.
JLC
Yeah I posted in this thread yesterday about this. I wish the OP would
let us know what the rest of his PC is like. JLC
chainbreaker
> That these didn't run well on any setting I can say pretty much
> unequivocally, because in those days I kept a rig that was always
> pretty much at the top of the food chain--so much so that I've often
> wondered just what exactly that some of those sims were developed on.
One thing I should have added is that it wasn't only graphics issues that
caused these sims not to run well--avionics, radar, etc. etc. etc emulations
sucked up tons and tons of processing power, and at that time not all the
video implementation was necessarily handled by the graphics cards, if my
memory serves, heh, and it probably doesn't.
But most of you here probably already knew that, anyway.
--
chainbreaker
chainbreaker
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:31:57 -0800, "JLC" <jc@nospam> wrote:
>
>> Why is that? I've been using Outlook 2000/OE for years and never had
>> a problem. Sure it always wants to top post messages, but that's no
>> biggie.
>
> Aside from being buggy, a security nightmare, hardly any features and
> crap UI that wastes half your time, it's great :-)
'Hardly any features' makes it well-suited for some of us lazy assholes out
here
Burp.
--
chainbreaker
chainbreaker
> BuckFush wrote:
>> On 23 Nov 2006 07:26:34 -0800, varois83 wrote:
>>> I am turning 40 this coming Sunday, I have been playing on the PC
>>> off and on since I was 16.
>>
>> Congratz on your birthday, it's a big one alright :)
>
> As someone who did that a few years ago it's a hell of a lot more
> painless than 30! Have a good one.
>
You'll be pleased to know that the ride gets even much more bumpy from here
on out.
Tickets please, and please fasten your seatbelts.
--
chainbreaker
John Lewis
>A little over six months ago, I purchased a 7800GS to let me play PC
>games at an acceptable detail level, at least for the rest of 2006.
>I've been quite busy with work since then, and I'm only now finding
>free time to start looking at new games.
>
>Gothic 3. Neverwinter Nights 2. Company of Heroes. Am I to
>understand that my 6-month old video card will no longer be able to
>handle these games without turning the details down to below 50% of
>most settings?
>
>I have to say that my $350 video card is the biggest waste of money I
>ever spent. I'm a life long PC gamer --- waaay back since playing the
>original Wolfenstein and Karateka as a child on the gray scale monitors
>of our old Apple IIe. But the extremely short shelf life of PC gaming
>rigs is downright insane, especially when you consider the scarcity of
>quality PC games nowadays!
>
>The Playstation 2 didn't become obsolete until now, over six years
>since its inception. I was still in finishing college when the PS2
>came out. And relatively speaking, that console wasn't quite the
>technological wonder in 2000 that the Playstation 3 is in 2007. I
>wouldn't expect the PS3 to become obsolete until seven years down the
>road, in 2014 --- I'll be pushing 40 by then. Sorry, no more PC
>upgrades for me. After nearly 3 decades, I think my PC gaming days are
>finally over.
>
>Sorry for the rant.
>
Got thst off your chest.... great
Pity that both the Xbox360 and PS3 are now technically already
obsolete, with the arrival of the quad-core processors and the
DX10/physics cards such as the 8800 for the PC. And with Microsoft's
recommittment to gaming with their "Games for Windows initiative and
the significant advances of DX10 in easing the burden of porting
advanced-graphics games, it may just be the wrong time to jump ship --
just time your PC upgrades far more cleverly. I have no idea why you
would spend $350 on a 7800GS, with the DX10 cards just around the
corner -- I have a 7800GTX purchased well over a year ago and will
not upgrade again until the middle of next year, with the second-gen
DX10 cards plus quad-cores available at reasonable prices from
both Intel and AMD.
John Lewis
chainbreaker
> In article <se6dnSx9P7h_m_jY...@comcast.com>,
> chainbreaker <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> I'm convinced to this day that the day that sim was released, the
>> hardware to properly run it couldn't even be had.
>
> I'm puzzled -- how would developers test it if the proper hardware
> isn't available? Use lesser hardware and hope stuff works equally
> well on higher performance platforms?
I have no idea, and my above statement isn't only based on my own
experiences, but also the reported experiences from many many folks from the
usenet flight sim group and various boards from back in the day.
I liken it to be somewhat the inverse of that currently prevalent MMO notion
I related earlier of devs continually trying to suck 50 pounds of shit from
a 5 pound turd.
"Just cram the damned thing full of features, never mind whether they work
or not. After all, it'll look good on the box."
--
chainbreaker
chainbreaker
> Me, I want a phone that's a really good phone not a half decent phone
> with a bunch of other half decently implemented features.
>
technology has reached Star Trek voice command capabilities, and there's a
pop open 20" viewscreen.
Input keys and vid screens a pissant would have hard time dealing with
aren't my idea of a good time, and I don't see how they're anybody else's
either, regardless of age.
--
chainbreaker
chainbreaker
No interest in the game, but at least it's a start. Maybe there'll be more
to come. I wasn't even sure that consoles had the capacity to support
mouse/kb.
--
chainbreaker
JLC
So after reading these anti-Outlook posts I decided to give Thunderbird a
try. I use Firefox for most of my browsing, so I figured what the heck. I've
always used Outlook to read Usenet.
So I get it all set up, and it's OK, but I can't for the life of me figure
out how to make it so when it opens up a group, it shows the threads
collapsed, not expanded. Outlook always shows grouped threads as collapsed.
There's suppose to be a KB shortcut by hitting the * or \ keys, but this
doesn't work. So every time I open up a group, it shows all the threads
opened up which makes it hard for me to read. Sure I could go to
View/Threads/ and then hit the collapse option, but that's a pain to do
every time I open a group. The only thing I like is that it starts me at the
bottom of a reply and not the top like Outlook does. But other then that I'm
not impressed. JLC
Shawk
Weird. Hitting the speech bubble next to the paper clip in the thread
header pane groups everything by thread and then view/threads collapses
them without ever opening them up again unless I ask it to. No matter
how many times I open and close T-bird (and I do that a fair number of
times a day)
I can never remember shortcuts but the shortcut keys (\ for collapsing
all threads and * for expanding them) work fine here. Have you clicked
on a post in the thread header pane first?
MP
> Pity that both the Xbox360 and PS3 are now technically already
> obsolete [snip]
LOL...but it's true. And the heck of it is: the inability for most console
gamers to even *buy* the dang thing (that is, a PS3 at this moment in time).
It's gotten so, one can't even *buy* an obsolete system nowadays - and
that's a cryin' shame, ain't it.
I am so thankful (at this time of Thanksgiving for those of us in the U.S.)
I have a nice PC. Yeah, sometimes it's an pricey hassle messin' with stuff
(upgrading video cards, more RAM, bigger power supply, faster CPU, better
cooling, etc., etc.) but in the long run, PC gaming is where it's at.
I am not buying *any* ports that are console --> PC. Forget it. I can't
think of nary a game that has been successfully ported from a console to a
PC (but I am open to being enlightened).
Mark (MP)
Shawk
Riddick was about the best...
MP
> MP wrote:
>> "John Lewis" wrote:
>>
>>> Pity that both the Xbox360 and PS3 are now technically already
>>> obsolete [snip]
>>
>> think of nary a game that has been successfully ported from a console to
>> a PC (but I am open to being enlightened).
>>
That's it? I have heard that, though, that Riddick was pretty good on the
PC. Wonder if it was, uh, "tweaked" for the PC.
Mark
David Alex Lamb
Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
>dal...@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) looked up from reading the
>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
>say:
Actually, I've stopped sacrificing porn spammers directly, and contracted it
out to Bun-Bun, whom I managed to convince that porn spammers were just as bad
as telemarketers. ka-clik!
David Alex Lamb
chainbreaker <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Shawk wrote:
>> BuckFush wrote:
>>> On 23 Nov 2006 07:26:34 -0800, varois83 wrote:
>>>> I am turning 40 this coming Sunday, I have been playing on the PC
>>>> off and on since I was 16.
>>>
>>> Congratz on your birthday, it's a big one alright :)
>>
>> As someone who did that a few years ago it's a hell of a lot more
>> painless than 30! Have a good one.
>>
>
>You'll be pleased to know that the ride gets even much more bumpy from here
>on out.
Yup. mid-40's farsightedness, first grey hairs, ever more intrusive tests on
the annual medical exam...
Shawk
That's it for FPS type games AFAIK. Others might come up with types of
games. It certainly was tweaked for the PC - the devs made an effort
with it unlike Ubisoft on the new splinter cell. Shows it could be done
if the will is there.
Briton
> "Andrew" <spam...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:nslbm2dpnd3lj9b0q...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:57:48 GMT, BuckFush
>> <emaila...@yourmama.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But I'm butting in here because I'm baffled with the fact that I
>>> can see this post in 40tude (which I have just installed) but not
>>> in Outlook Express even after checking and double checking all
>>> settings and filters and everything very carefully in OE. How can
>>> this be?!?
>>
>> OE is the worst Usenet client there is, just ignore it and all will
>> be fine.
>> --
> Why is that? I've been using Outlook 2000/OE for years and never had a
> problem. Sure it always wants to top post messages, but that's no
Do you use OE-Quotefix? This little utility improves OE as a newsreader no
end.
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
Briton
> "chainbreaker" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:Us6dnZP7GbYI7frY...@comcast.com...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:31:57 -0800, "JLC" <jc@nospam> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why is that? I've been using Outlook 2000/OE for years and never
>>>> had a problem. Sure it always wants to top post messages, but
>>>> that's no biggie.
>>>
>>> Aside from being buggy, a security nightmare, hardly any features
>>> and crap UI that wastes half your time, it's great :-)
>>
>> 'Hardly any features' makes it well-suited for some of us lazy
>> assholes out here
>>
>> Burp.
>>
>> --
>> chainbreaker
>
>the top
> like Outlook does. But other then that I'm not impressed. JLC
OE-Quotefix sorts that as well as a few other things.
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
chainbreaker
>> The only thing I like is that it starts me at the bottom of a reply
>> and not the top
>> like Outlook does. But other then that I'm not impressed. JLC
>
> OE-Quotefix sorts that as well as a few other things.
> http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
Some might be able to tell that although I use that simple-minded OE, I also
use Quotefix--been using it for ages now. Without it, I might've even found
it necessary to get off my lazy ass and learn to use one of those
feature-bloated apps.
Burp.
--
chainbreaker
John Lewis
wrote:
It not only was tweaked, but several levels and easter-eggs were
added. Standard mouse/keyboard controls. Plus a full range of graphics
options specifically for the PC. The best port of a console-game to a
PC bar none (so far).
John Lewis
>Mark
>
>
Borat Sagdyev
>A little over six months ago, I purchased a 7800GS to let me play PC
>games at an acceptable detail level, at least for the rest of 2006.
>I've been quite busy with work since then, and I'm only now finding
>free time to start looking at new games.
>
>Gothic 3. Neverwinter Nights 2. Company of Heroes. Am I to
>understand that my 6-month old video card will no longer be able to
>handle these games without turning the details down to below 50% of
>most settings?
>
>I have to say that my $350 video card is the biggest waste of money I
>ever spent. I'm a life long PC gamer --- waaay back since playing the
>original Wolfenstein and Karateka as a child on the gray scale monitors
>of our old Apple IIe. But the extremely short shelf life of PC gaming
>rigs is downright insane, especially when you consider the scarcity of
>quality PC games nowadays!
Then sign up for the infamous PS3 and stop whining here.
I've said it before, I will say it again. The cost of PC gaming
(hardware wise) is roughly $50-100 per month, depending on whether you
want to be on the bleeding edge or the bottom of the barrel at any
given point in time. You got your money's worth from your card, which
will still play a nice game of any available PC game out there as long
as you don't expect it to play perfectly on the native resolution of
your (stupid for PC gamers) LCD monitor.. Play on a CRT and you wont
have these issues.
You have plenty of console options. You have gameboy options. You
have free downloadable options. Quit bitching. The cost of gaming,
adjusted for inflation is CONSTANTLY GOING DOWN.
If you've really been involved in PC gaming as long as you say, you
will be aware of the fact that a half-decent PC cost $5500 in the
mid-80s. Nowdays, the monthly cost adjusted for inflation is less
than many people were paying for basic cable back then. Do you want
to play PC games? If not, then shut the fuck up and buy a console.
Each console that has come out since 1999 has had maybe 3-4 titles,
over the course of its lifetime, that made it remotely worthwhile. And
within a year of the console release, they were ported to and improved
on the PC platform for the most part, with the superior control of PC
and mouse.
So go buy yourself a nice warm cozy cup of shut the fuck up, because I
am getting tired of nancy boys whining about their small penises and
blaming their hardware.
Michael Vondung
> will be aware of the fact that a half-decent PC cost $5500 in
> the mid-80s.
If you had been around in the mid 80s, you'd recall that most people played
games on home computers such as the C64, CPC, etc. and (in the second half
of the decade) Amiga and Atari STx/TT. They were "half-decent", and not
only for gaming, and didn't "cost $5500". I recall buying a CPC 6128 in
1985, and I paid about 2000 German Marks for it, which was around $1000 at
the time (it came with a colour monitor even):
http://www.cpcwiki.com/images/b/b7/Cpc6128.jpg These machines often lasted
for years. The constant need to upgrade started with the popularity of IBM
compatible machines, and got extreme in the 90s. The 80s were a good time
for gamers, money-wise.
M.
Borat Sagdyev
<mvon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:38:55 -0500, Borat Sagdyev wrote:
>
>> will be aware of the fact that a half-decent PC cost $5500 in
>> the mid-80s.
>
>If you had been around in the mid 80s, you'd recall that most people played
>games on home computers such as the C64, CPC, etc. and (in the second half
>of the decade) Amiga and Atari STx/TT.
Having been a programmer since the late 70s, I was very much "around"
in the 80s, and had a couple of those machines ( 8bit Atari, then
later ST and Amigas) and yes they were great fun but we did not refer
to them as PCs back then. They were computers, largely considered
hobbyist computers in America, and they were not widely used for
serious business. If you wanted a HALF DECENT PC, with a hard drive,
1200 baud modem, color monitor, printer etc it could easily get up to
$5000-6000 US dollars.
chainbreaker
> serious business. If you wanted a HALF DECENT PC, with a hard drive,
> 1200 baud modem, color monitor, printer etc it could easily get up to
> $5000-6000 US dollars.
Ayup. I remember deciding that I wanted a "real" computer, and then nearly
choking when I walked into a shop and saw the prices. It was only when the
"guaranteed 99% IBM compatible" clones arrived on the scene circa 1984-85
that I was finally able to satisfy my wanting, at least to some degree.
It was for sure the clones' affordability that put MS-DOS and ultimately,
Windows, in the driver's seat, despite the Mac's being superior in probably
every way--except that biggie, affordability. It's a shame the guys running
Apple evidently didn't have Bill Gates' long-range vision. If they had, the
computer scene would be altogether different today, I think.
--
chainbreaker
MP
> If you had been around in the mid 80s, you'd recall that most people
> played
> games on home computers such as the C64, CPC, etc. and (in the second half
> of the decade) Amiga and Atari STx/TT. [snip]
In 1985, I played one game in my Mac+ (1 meg): Dark Castle. The Mac+ costs
me (and this was the "brother-in-law" rate) $1200 (USD) plus another $100 or
so for some odds and ends.
Mark
Michael Vondung
> and yes they were great fun but we did not refer
> to them as PCs back then. They were computers, largely considered
> hobbyist computers in America, and they were not widely used for
> serious business.
*nods* They were "home computers". I had kept an eye on the 286er machines
that started to emerge in the 80s, and the 386er near the end of the
decade, but these were "business computers" in my book, so I took the the
VC20, CPC 464, CPC 6128, Atari ST 520, ST 1024, TT route, until I
eventually gave in and picked up a 386er. That was relatively late, though,
'91 or '92. I had been writing for a bunch of German ST magazines for some
time and needed to find a new platform when the end of the Atari era became
forseeable. My options were Mac or IBM compatibles and even though a Mac
had more in common with the Atari (it took me a long time to get used to
Windows after years with GEM), I decided for the PC. There were more
magazines around (and thus more jobs) and I really couldn't afford the type
of Mac I would have liked. In retrospect it was the right decision, though
I'd still like a Mac one day.
Anyway, my point was that in the 80s the typical gaming computers were home
computers, not the expensive IBM compatibles, and they were relatively
cheap. PCs today cover the previous domains of the home computers; in fact,
a lot of people use PCs for the same kind of casual, pasttime and hobbyist
stuff they used home computers for in the 80s. That's why I disagreed with
your statement that in the 80s you had to pay $5500 for a machine whose
equivalent today costs only a third of that.
M.
Borat Sagdyev
Understood, but that's not exactly what I said. I said that there is
a monthly cost associated with modern PC gaming. That cost varies,
depending on whether you want to be on the high-end, the low-end, or
somewhere in between. We can think of that cost as buying a couple of
thousand dollars worth of hardware every couple of years, and
spreading that cost out to a monthly "price of admission", so to
speak.
I brought up the historical prices of PCs, because there was a time
when a few thousand dollars got you only the basics, and the amount of
hardware and computing power one gets for a $3,000 purchase is
staggering by comparison to what we could get back then. Furthermore,
salaries are on average much higher than they were in 1984 or so, so a
two or three thousand dollar purchase is much easier to swallow.
Now, on to the important part of my point, the one that should be
taken away from this thread if nothing else:
This inevitable monthly cost of PC gaming is not only variable, but
optional. You don't have to pay it at all. You can also opt to ride
on the low end of hardware, reducing your total monthly cost over a 3
or 4 year period to maybe $10 or $20 per month. You can also buy a
console such as Xbox or PS3 which by modern standards maps more
analogously to the gamer/hobbyist computers we had a couple of decades
ago like Atari and Commodore computers. These offer quite a powerful
machine for the money, and more importantly they completely erase the
justification for anyone to whine about obsolete video cards and so
forth.
PC gaming, as a hobby, has a cost. If one is turned off by constant
upgrades, something newer and faster and better coming out a month
after a purchase is made, etc., then I would say PC gaming as a hobby
is not a good choice for that person. There are console choices.
There are retro gaming choices. There are board game choices. There
are arcade choices.
All of these choices, and the facts stated above make it unfathomable
that there seems to be a never-ending stream of whining about video
card obsolesence and the like.
Xocyll
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>David Alex Lamb wrote:
Checkbox marketing in other words.
Whoever has the box with the most feature checkmarks wins - or so
believe the marketing department.
Pity they never seem to realize that a "feature" that no one wants, no
one ever will want and doesn't work anyway doesn't count for much.
More of a pity is that people will buy based on the sheer number of
features - figuring they're getting more for their money - even if the
lion's share of those features are things they'll never, ever use.
Every time I start to feel i'm overly cynical about stuff like this, I
have just to watch a few TV commercials.
The lowest common denominator of customer intelligence they seem to be
aiming for these days is lichen.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
PaulG
In response to the OP.........Yep, I feel the same way. I'm tired of
being "the one born every minute"...being manipulated to keep upgrading
for games that last all of 1 or maybe 2 months on my computer.
As for my flight simming love....They take a totally different approach
to making me upgrade.......MS developes its FS so it will run great 2
or 3 years down the road on hardware that isn't even out
yet...........But I buy it and run it at minimal levels because I have
this compulsion to be on the cutting edge of every game and sim
released.
It's ok for some, those whom money is no object...but I'm done with PC
carrot chasing.
My next big purchase will be a nice HDTV with one of the latest
consoles. And then thats it.
MS2004 is still a good sim....and for what I want will work for years.
I don't need the water to reflect just right.....they want to tell me I
do, but I don't......for nice reflective water and little pixelated
cars on the highway I'm going to spend $1000.00 in upgrades?
Not gonna happen again.!
Werner Spahl
> My next big purchase will be a nice HDTV with one of the latest
> consoles. And then thats it.
I'm missing an argument in this PC vs console thread, or maybe I overread
it ;): I play games on a PC because I can do much more on the PC than only
playing and I need one for that reason anyway! Also playing games at lower
resolutions like 800x600 with AA works well for new games on old hardware.
--
Werner Spahl (sp...@cup.uni-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy" Vorlonships
Borat Sagdyev
>On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:38:24 -0500, Borat Sagdyev <X...@X.com> wrote:
>
>>PC gaming, as a hobby, has a cost. If one is turned off by constant
>>upgrades, something newer and faster and better coming out a month
>>after a purchase is made, etc., then I would say PC gaming as a hobby
>>is not a good choice for that person. There are console choices.
>
>Good point. Then again, for someone who is miffed about his PC
>hardware becoming "obsolete" just because something newer and better
>is released, he probably couldn't live with himself seeing e.g.
>technically superior PS3 arriving to the market just after he has
>bought a XBox360. "Am I supposed to buy every new console?"
>
>Yesterday, I played the original Age of Empires + Rome expansion pack
>on my laptop. I also still play many older PSX games on my PS2,
>probably going to start Vagrant Story soon (one of the PS games I've
>owned for years but barely touched for some reason). Being on a
>bleeding edge is really only a concern if you are a graphics whore.
>
>Well, ok, I might have to upgrade my PC to play some newer online
>games, but then people still seem to play older online games like TFC
>a lot. In fact, it seems to me that online gamers care about the eye
>candy and the newness of the game much less than SP gamers.
I don't see it that way at all. Counterstrike is still extremely
popular, despite the fact that the graphics have only had one makeover
(conversion to the source engine) in 8 years, and despite that fact
some people still prefer to play the old 1.6 version that is
essentially the same game that came out in 1999. Eye-candy aside, 1.6
and CS:Source are mostly the same game, with the exact same feel, same
maps, etc.
I find that SP gamers seem to care much more about things like the
draw distance of the engine and so forth. I remember people going
ga-ga over FarCry. Graphically it was a pretty nice game but at the
end of the day it was an uninspired shooter with dismal multiplayer.