I actually avoid PC gaming mostly because I've been burned in the past by the BS minimum/recommended requirements on the boxes. I don't have the most updated machine in the world, so I have to read the requirements, try to guesstimate if I meet them, and then pray that they are accurate since you can't return PC software. I've had games that shouldn't run well according to the box run flawlessly, games that should run beautifully that run like crap, and everything in between. Until they find a way to let me accurately determine if the game will run acceptibly or start to accept returns based on "the box lies" I won't be buying many more PC games.
That list is a little weird. Some of those games were released in 2006 (Rayman Raving Rabbids for instance). Others, are strangely absent (Resident Evil 4).
It's because everyone knows that RE4 is going to be shit. And Rayman was probably really close to the end of the year.
Honestly, I'll never understand the OMG PC GAMING IS DYING!!!!! posts around here. If you don't like PC games, don't buy fecking PC Games, it's as simple as that. There's an amazingly large market for gamers out there whether it's traditional console, wii, cell phone games, or the PC. All of them have a glut of amazing titles coming to them, and I don't think anyone is going to be disappointed that doesn't want to be.
I actually avoid PC gaming mostly because I've been burned in the past by the BS minimum/recommended requirements on the boxes. I don't have the most updated machine in the world, so I have to read the requirements, try to guesstimate if I meet them, and then pray that they are accurate since you can't return PC software. I've had games that shouldn't run well according to the box run flawlessly, games that should run beautifully that run like crap, and everything in between. Until they find a way to let me accurately determine if the game will run acceptibly or start to accept returns based on "the box lies" I won't be buying many more PC games.
My current system is nearing 3 years old, and while I did opt to check the system requirements for SupCom, it worked for me just fine. I haven't had a single instance of a game that was unplayable yet. I will soon, but for a platform thats regarded as having substantial growth in system requirements, 3 years is a pretty nice lifespan. And the only hardware I ever needed to swap was a $10 fan that broke, my CPU and video card are the same.
I actually avoid PC gaming mostly because I've been burned in the past by the BS minimum/recommended requirements on the boxes. I don't have the most updated machine in the world, so I have to read the requirements, try to guesstimate if I meet them, and then pray that they are accurate since you can't return PC software. I've had games that shouldn't run well according to the box run flawlessly, games that should run beautifully that run like crap, and everything in between. Until they find a way to let me accurately determine if the game will run acceptibly or start to accept returns based on "the box lies" I won't be buying many more PC games.
You know, it's probably easier to just post on PA and go "will my PC run this game". Within an hour, you will have your answer.
Azio on
0
Options
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
edited February 2007
Or, you know, download a demo for said game and see it for yourself.
Unless, of course, you're on dial-up, then my sympathies.
If PC gaming is dying, its only because consoles are becoming more PC-like.
if console games became mod-able. I would have pretty much zero problem with the death of PC gaming...but then again, it wouldn't really be dying would it? just shifting venues
If the console world could get off its action/FPS fetish and start making a wider variety of games that appeal to those of us that want a deeper gaming experience. Again, I would have no problem with consoles being the definitive source of gaming. Bring back our beloved Space sims, our turn based games and non-fantasy RPGs and I will gladly sell my soul to the console gods.
I actually avoid PC gaming mostly because I've been burned in the past by the BS minimum/recommended requirements on the boxes. I don't have the most updated machine in the world, so I have to read the requirements, try to guesstimate if I meet them, and then pray that they are accurate since you can't return PC software. I've had games that shouldn't run well according to the box run flawlessly, games that should run beautifully that run like crap, and everything in between. Until they find a way to let me accurately determine if the game will run acceptibly or start to accept returns based on "the box lies" I won't be buying many more PC games.
My current system is nearing 3 years old, and while I did opt to check the system requirements for SupCom, it worked for me just fine. I haven't had a single instance of a game that was unplayable yet. I will soon, but for a platform thats regarded as having substantial growth in system requirements, 3 years is a pretty nice lifespan. And the only hardware I ever needed to swap was a $10 fan that broke, my CPU and video card are the same.
Concerning the MMO discussion - I believe some of WoW's success comes also from the fact that it doesn't require the latest and greatest to run well.
Personally I am tired of the ratrace in order to run the latest games. Often, turning down details will result in an image quality which is worse than the medium setting of the previous entry of the same series.
I know its difficult to optimize for a platform which has that many variables and spots many different HW combinations. But to me it seems to me that the majority developers aren't even trying anymore. "Runs like ass on your system? - Well wait until the new batch of graphic cards/ processors is out - this will fix it." Personally I believe we shouldn't need Quad Core Processors and 4 GB of RAM in order to run games on a decent resolution (ok I am exaggerating)
On a positive side: I like that lots of adventures and other genres are coming back for the PC platform. 2006 was a good year for the adventure genre in general.
Nintendo should produce a plugin keyboard for the remote so then we could have KBAM style RTS/FPS/RPG and MMO functioning on the Wii between the pointer and this hypothetical keyboard.
For all the other companies touting of "PC style functionality!" in their console it's the Wii which has the oppurtunity to get a whole lot of awesome PC games on there.
As for whether that would be bad for the PC gaming industry, I'm not sure. Companies would either ditch the PC entirely or take more awesome risks because they were selling to a larger userbase and could afford to.
And how, you ask, can I say that about Supreme Commander? Its Total Annihilation with a new coat of paint.
Total Annihilation came out ten years ago. To say the capabilities of computer gaming was a little different a decade ago is an understatement. Additionally a "new paint job" for what is widely regarded as one of the best RTSes ever has been highly anticipated since its announcement.
By the way, I forgot that a new paint job consists of collateral damage, the building adjacency system and dual monitor support.
And an automatic ferry system, a fully zoomable camera system, the ability to view and modify every order you currently have queued and their arrival times, coordinated attacks, nukes, experimental units, a fully customizable UI, unit formations, shields, a new 3D engine, a new proprietary physics engine, missile cam, brutal system requirements and some emergent gameplay features. So, basically TA. 2.
I hate to sound like a shill for SupCom but the game, like TA, is way ahead of its time.
Nintendo should produce a plugin keyboard for the remote so then we could have KBAM style RTS/FPS/RPG and MMO functioning on the Wii between the pointer and this hypothetical keyboard.
For all the other companies touting of "PC style functionality!" in their console it's the Wii which has the oppurtunity to get a whole lot of awesome PC games on there.
As for whether that would be bad for the PC gaming industry, I'm not sure. Companies would either ditch the PC entirely or take more awesome risks because they were selling to a larger userbase and could afford to.
There's vastly more PCs out there capable of running wii spec games than there are Wiis or even xbox360s and PS3s combined. And the wii is notoriously bad in the one area that the PC really does dominate in. Try playing a few RTS or MMOs on 640x480 and then come back and say the same thing with a straight face.
I actually avoid PC gaming mostly because I've been burned in the past by the BS minimum/recommended requirements on the boxes. I don't have the most updated machine in the world, so I have to read the requirements, try to guesstimate if I meet them, and then pray that they are accurate since you can't return PC software. I've had games that shouldn't run well according to the box run flawlessly, games that should run beautifully that run like crap, and everything in between. Until they find a way to let me accurately determine if the game will run acceptibly or start to accept returns based on "the box lies" I won't be buying many more PC games.
If you were stupid enough to think that Oblivion would have the requisite drivers available by the time it was released then you greatly miscalculate the evils of The PC Gaming Soap-Opera Conspiracy Consortium™*
Or you don't read RPGCodex™.
On the topic of Conspiracy/RPGCodex™:Apparently "Fallout" is to obvious for a Fallout fan to use as a password....
One thing to point out about PC gaming hardware is that the rate of advancement has slowed down the past few years. The multi-core processors that are all the rage right now were possible years ago, but pointless since by the time you created one, there was a single core architecture that had more power available. It's only when that wasn't the case that sticking more than one gizmo together was viable.
I actually avoid PC gaming mostly because I've been burned in the past by the BS minimum/recommended requirements on the boxes. I don't have the most updated machine in the world, so I have to read the requirements, try to guesstimate if I meet them, and then pray that they are accurate since you can't return PC software. I've had games that shouldn't run well according to the box run flawlessly, games that should run beautifully that run like crap, and everything in between. Until they find a way to let me accurately determine if the game will run acceptibly or start to accept returns based on "the box lies" I won't be buying many more PC games.
My current system is nearing 3 years old, and while I did opt to check the system requirements for SupCom, it worked for me just fine. I haven't had a single instance of a game that was unplayable yet. I will soon, but for a platform thats regarded as having substantial growth in system requirements, 3 years is a pretty nice lifespan. And the only hardware I ever needed to swap was a $10 fan that broke, my CPU and video card are the same.
I hear you. My specs - Radeon 9600Pro, AMD 2000+XP, 1.5gb RAM (An extra 1gb of RAM was the most recent upgrade I got a couple months ago) - run every game at the moment at usually about medium settings. NWN2, Oblivion and SupCom are the only games I've ever needed to get near to bottoming-out on the detail options to ensure smooth performance. I am upgrading within a couple of days though ($AU250 for another year's worth of mobo, cpu and video card).
PC gaming isn't really that expensive in terms of hardware.
The trick is with PC upgrades is sell what parts you can to go towards the upgrade. If you can sell your used graphics card for $70 online or otherwise, more power to you. Got incompatible RAM? Sell it and reinvest in more modern memory. PC Gaming isn't expensive if you can cannibalize hardware and monitors to go towards new stuff.
is it cheaper for companies to produce games for the pc?
i see a whole lot more crap-ware being put out on store shelves for pc than i remember. just no-name generic racing games and puzzles. with the exception of that uk phoenix games company, i dont see a lot of crap-tastic console-based production companies.
There isn't any license required to make a game for a PC. Because of that, smaller companies can take chances easier. Infact, this is one of the reasons PC gaming will never completely die. Even if every big developer went to consoles, it would leave an opening for smaller developers to take risks on the PC platform that they couldn't afford anywhere else. PC gaming is full of people taking risks or modders becoming real developers.
Actually, the absence of licenses is more than offset by the compatibility debug costs, if you want your product to be at the level of what you see in stores. PCs are considerably more complex and less stable than consoles for an equivalent result. It's the price to pay for an ever-evolving platform.
Furthermore, before the arrival of online game distribution, the PC market was in the hands of a few big publishers. Sure, small companies can take risks, but they have to rely on online distribution or sell their souls to the big companies. That's what shaped the PC offering into a bunch of technologically advanced "I can be Quake/C&C/WoW too" titles on one hand and small casual flash-like games on the other.
Posts
It's because everyone knows that RE4 is going to be shit. And Rayman was probably really close to the end of the year.
Honestly, I'll never understand the OMG PC GAMING IS DYING!!!!! posts around here. If you don't like PC games, don't buy fecking PC Games, it's as simple as that. There's an amazingly large market for gamers out there whether it's traditional console, wii, cell phone games, or the PC. All of them have a glut of amazing titles coming to them, and I don't think anyone is going to be disappointed that doesn't want to be.
My current system is nearing 3 years old, and while I did opt to check the system requirements for SupCom, it worked for me just fine. I haven't had a single instance of a game that was unplayable yet. I will soon, but for a platform thats regarded as having substantial growth in system requirements, 3 years is a pretty nice lifespan. And the only hardware I ever needed to swap was a $10 fan that broke, my CPU and video card are the same.
Unless, of course, you're on dial-up, then my sympathies.
if console games became mod-able. I would have pretty much zero problem with the death of PC gaming...but then again, it wouldn't really be dying would it? just shifting venues
If the console world could get off its action/FPS fetish and start making a wider variety of games that appeal to those of us that want a deeper gaming experience. Again, I would have no problem with consoles being the definitive source of gaming. Bring back our beloved Space sims, our turn based games and non-fantasy RPGs and I will gladly sell my soul to the console gods.
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
Concerning the MMO discussion - I believe some of WoW's success comes also from the fact that it doesn't require the latest and greatest to run well.
Personally I am tired of the ratrace in order to run the latest games. Often, turning down details will result in an image quality which is worse than the medium setting of the previous entry of the same series.
I know its difficult to optimize for a platform which has that many variables and spots many different HW combinations. But to me it seems to me that the majority developers aren't even trying anymore. "Runs like ass on your system? - Well wait until the new batch of graphic cards/ processors is out - this will fix it." Personally I believe we shouldn't need Quad Core Processors and 4 GB of RAM in order to run games on a decent resolution (ok I am exaggerating)
On a positive side: I like that lots of adventures and other genres are coming back for the PC platform. 2006 was a good year for the adventure genre in general.
For all the other companies touting of "PC style functionality!" in their console it's the Wii which has the oppurtunity to get a whole lot of awesome PC games on there.
As for whether that would be bad for the PC gaming industry, I'm not sure. Companies would either ditch the PC entirely or take more awesome risks because they were selling to a larger userbase and could afford to.
Okami is Zelda with a new coat of paint. Pretty much every game out there is another game with a new coat of paint.
I hate to sound like a shill for SupCom but the game, like TA, is way ahead of its time.
There's vastly more PCs out there capable of running wii spec games than there are Wiis or even xbox360s and PS3s combined. And the wii is notoriously bad in the one area that the PC really does dominate in. Try playing a few RTS or MMOs on 640x480 and then come back and say the same thing with a straight face.
If you were stupid enough to think that Oblivion would have the requisite drivers available by the time it was released then you greatly miscalculate the evils of The PC Gaming Soap-Opera Conspiracy Consortium™*
Or you don't read RPGCodex™.
On the topic of Conspiracy/RPGCodex™:Apparently "Fallout" is to obvious for a Fallout fan to use as a password....
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
PC gaming isn't really that expensive in terms of hardware.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
I don't. Not EVERY shooter is the same. But... then again, look at Halo 2.
Actually, the absence of licenses is more than offset by the compatibility debug costs, if you want your product to be at the level of what you see in stores. PCs are considerably more complex and less stable than consoles for an equivalent result. It's the price to pay for an ever-evolving platform.
Furthermore, before the arrival of online game distribution, the PC market was in the hands of a few big publishers. Sure, small companies can take risks, but they have to rely on online distribution or sell their souls to the big companies. That's what shaped the PC offering into a bunch of technologically advanced "I can be Quake/C&C/WoW too" titles on one hand and small casual flash-like games on the other.