PC gaming in general. Getting out of hand? Warning:Rant

[Lazzer408]

I know it's not just me. Who else is sick of the games/graphics bloat-war that's been happening for the last 5+ years? Videocard designers vs. Game designers. It'll never end. It's one big cock fight for the biggest "awe" in graphics. What happened to game content being the important issue? Example: If Halflife ran on the Quake3 engine it would still have been a great game right? Alot more people would be able to run it also. Hell the i845G onboard would run it. Think about what it costs for a system capable of running 'modern' games. Over $1000 easy. Over $2000 if you want to play the "latest titles" and even then it's going to lag if you crank it up. Granted the ability to browse the internet has it's entertainment values but I could just as well get a xbox360 and have all sorts of fun. (dont shoot me) What's always set aside console gaming from pc gaming, for me, was the ability to use a mouse and keyboard. Quite frankly the eye candy is a distraction. Any hardcore fps'r will tell you that. I think the PC gaming industry is totally out of hand... or I'm getting old. ...or there are to many people getting consumed with fps envy. How many of you are saving/saved up $500 just to play Crysis? I was just about to dump my 1950s for 3870s when reality slapped me in the face.

 

[ex_reven]

Its not getting out of hand.
You always have the option to live without the eye candy.
Its not forced on you or anything.

As for the consoles, new consoles are coming out just as often as youd buy a new computer anyway. As far as im concerned, gaming has always been this way.

 

[Namslas90]

How many of you are saving/saved up $500 just to play Crysis? I was just about to dump my 1950s for 3870s when reality slapped me in the face.

I agree that games are boring right now...nothing realy NEW or Inovative!
Yeah, but now what are you gonna do? Give it up? Or just cool off for a bit and spend more to get back into it later?

 

[Triprift]

I personally think overall that gaming from a storyline point of view is not what it was from years ago. The go these days is for prettier graphics which is why i love Sam and Max great fun. The fact dosbox is becoming popular is futher evidence that ppl love playing the old games.

 

[Basard]

Yeah, I say Team Fortress 2... thats a pretty fun game... it runs fine on a pretty decent amount of systems. Other than TF2, there isn't really a good amount of actual FUN games. I remember running the origional Half-Life 2 demo on my AthlonXP 2500+ with a Geforce 2 MX 64Mb video card, almost 25 FPS on Low settings, so a lot of the games WILL run, but it depends how nice you want them to look, I guess.

Normally, if you want console graphics on your PC, you have to pay like 3x for a PC that can run them, maybe 2x. I remember when PS1 came out, back in 1996 or 1997 something like that. What computer could even run console graphics, maybe a $2000 computer.

Oblivion is fun, but not as fun as Morrowind. They are getting a little caught up in graphics, but not too bad. You can always get an Athlon X2 4000+ system, with a 3850 graphics, thats pretty cheap.

I think a lot more artwork goes into games today, so it takes longer to make one thats ACTUALLY good (ie, nice graphics + good gameplay) It takes way to long to make all them graphics sometimes. Seriously, unless you're some kinda genius, good luck. Games were easier to make, back when it was just code, with simple 2D sprites and junk, anybody with any kinda literacy can make a nintendo game these days--and they do.

Titan Quest--that could be such a GREAT game, if only the online play was a LITTLE more user-friendly, there isn't even a friend's list in that game, you have to use x-fire. LAME. Oblivion, yeah it's pretty, but add some voices and update graphics to Morrowind you'd have a way better game than Oblivion.

Crysis was a big let-down to a lot of people. I mean, who really plays it because its FUN (for more than a month?)

Starcraft 2, maybe that will be pretty cool, who knows?

Diablo 3, where is it--wtf that would be the coolest game ever! Blizzard is the only one that can make diablo 3 with an updated storyline/graphics, AND copy the original gameplay controls and "feel of the game." What other RPG could compare? Ultima Online was cool and all, but you still had to pay monthly.

Everybody wants 10-15 bucks a month from MILLIONS of people to use some servers. What a rip off, come on, HONESTLY. You only really need like TEN CENTS a month from all of these people to keep the servers running properly.

And come on, whats with the cigarette taxes?

 

[Lazzer408]

And come on, whats with the cigarette taxes?

TF2 is alot of fun even the look is very simple and not that demanding of gfx. I was thinking about it and to me the more "real" it looks the less I like it. It's not a game anymore if it's real right? Am I really on an island shooting Koreans? -joy- Anyone play Padman? It's a Q3 mod. My 6yo daughter fell in love with that game and I made the mistake of showing her both the computers could play together and she could shoot at me with paintballs. :shadedshu oh what HAVE I done.

 

[flashstar]

I've played Quake 3, but frankly it's pretty boring. I would say that while newer pc games are not really revolutionary, the fun level has definitely not been decreasing. Some people talk about the "good old days" often, but in reality there has never been a better time than the present. Some people just can't handle keeping up with the future. You can play Crysis with Quake 3 graphics, but then how would new graphics cards ever get more advanced? If graphics cards didn't get more advanced, then what would drive people to buy new computers? Why do they come out with new cars every year? Why build better houses? All I can say is that it is human nature to make things better and to produce better things. If you don't like it, you can move to communist china.

 

[ex_reven]

Keeping everything on the improve also decreases the cost involved in manufacturing hardware in the future.

 

[bretts31344]

I was just about to dump my 1950s for 3870s when reality slapped me in the face.

I was about to do the same. Then I realized I already put about $1000 in this:
<------------------
system. I quit. This is my last computer for gaming. I bought Xbox 360 (which sucks because the RROD, but computer skills helped me fix mine with the X-Clamp mod...) and I have been playing great looking games ever since. Since my system can't even keep up with Call of Duty 4 (at native resolution 1680*1050), I realized I am screwed for future releases. I know that is a high resolution, but something has to give. I know PC games will always look better than console game. A keyboard and mouse controls much better than any gamepad. Period. But the expense is too much for me. I still have a great time jumping on BF2 and many other "older" games though. The Orange Box is probably going to be my last PC game purchases and then maybe some MMORPGs. I might pick up Spore, but no PC games has me excited anymore.

/end rant

 

[a111087]

HL was on Quake 2 engine not 3
and there always been games that sucked, now we just expect more from the games, yet one game can only please a certain gamers

 

[wazzledoozle]

I've been considering a video card upgrade, but when I do the math, it's just not worth it. I'm basically paying ~$250 so I can decently play 3-4 new games, but in 6 months I'll be running on low settings on new games again. It's bullshit how during the entire duration of a console, the graphics stay on par with the newest PC games with much older hardware. Look at the Xbox 1, near the end it got HL2, Doom 3, and other good looking games like Forza and Halo 2. All running on a 733 MHz P3, 64mb DDR1, and a Geforce 3.

It's harder to optimize for a wide set of hardware that exists on PC's, but obviously it's possible as some devs such as Valve have shown with the Orange Box. You could blast through episode 2, portal, and TF2 with a Geforce TI 4400 and they would still look decent.

The 360 and PS3 are going to have long lifes. The hardware jump from last generation to now was quite significant in comparison to others.

 

[ex_reven]

I've been considering a video card upgrade, but when I do the math, it's just not worth it. I'm basically paying ~$250 so I can decently play 3-4 new games, but in 6 months I'll be running on low settings on new games again. It's bullshit how during the entire duration of a console, the graphics stay on par with the newest PC games with much older hardware. Look at the Xbox 1, near the end it got HL2, Doom 3, and other good looking games like Forza and Halo 2. All running on a 733 MHz P3, 64mb DDR1, and a Geforce 3.

It's harder to optimize for a wide set of hardware that exists on PC's, but obviously it's possible as some devs such as Valve have shown with the Orange Box. You could blast through episode 2, portal, and TF2 with a Geforce TI 4400 and they would still look decent.

The 360 and PS3 are going to have long lifes. The hardware jump from last generation to now was quite significant in comparison to others.

Consoles can get away with alot more than a PC can.
Tv's run at lower resolutions and at a much larger distance to the viewer. You cant compare the gaming experience between the two.

The bottom line is, you get what you pay for.

 

[wazzledoozle]

Consoles can get away with alot more than a PC can.
Tv's run at lower resolutions and at a much larger distance to the viewer. You cant compare the gaming experience between the two.

The bottom line is, you get what you pay for.

What? All 360 games support at least 720p, as does the PS3. Which is higher or almost equal to what most pc gamers run at, 1024x768 and 1280x960. (72% of all steam users use one of the two!)

The gap between PC's and console hardware has closed. Now it's just do you prefer the KB+M, or gamepad.

 

[ex_reven]

What? The 360 Does 720p and 1080p, as does the PS3. Which is higher than what most pc gamers run at, 1024x768 (Check the valve hardware survey).

The gap between PC's and console hardware has closed. Now it's just do you prefer the KB+M, or gamepad.

I thought they were interlaced

But then again you need to buy a tv that supports it right?

 

[Triprift]

Tv's run at lower resolutions and at a much larger distance to the viewer. You cant compare the gaming experience between the two.

The ps3 can run at truehd with a truehd lsd or plasma cant it? I think only 27 or 30inch monitors with kickarse 8800's can run better res than that

 

[wazzledoozle]

I thought they were interlaced

But then again you need to buy a tv that supports it right?

Only regular TV's are interlaced, 480i. Which is what most console gamers use, and sucks. But the point is, Microsoft requires every game support at least 720p, with a lot supporting 1080p.

The cost of a 360 + Decent 32" HDTV is about the same as a mid-range gaming PC with a 19" widescreen.

 

[ex_reven]

Only regular TV's are interlaced, 480i. Which is what most console gamers use, and sucks. But the point is, Microsoft requires every game support at least 720p, with a lot supporting 1080p.

The cost of a 360 + Decent 32" HDTV is about the same as a mid-range gaming PC with a 19" widescreen.

A HDTV of that size is rather expensive over here.
I recon you could do a very nice pc for the cost of the tv alone.

How much do they retail at over there?

 

[wazzledoozle]

A HDTV of that size is rather expensive over here.
I recon you could do a very nice pc for the cost of the tv alone.

How much do they retail at over there?

You can get a good 32-37" LCD for $500. 360 being $350.

With a PC you have to buy the hardware, lets say $600, XP $100, monitor $200, and keyboard/mouse at $50.

 

[Graogrim]

Know how long my previous video card lasted me? Three and a half years, and although it's not cutting edge by any stretch of the imagination it's still a respectable board today.

You don't need to spend $250 for a good video card upgrade. Take the Radeon HD3850 for example. I've seen it available for $143. Singly it's a damned good card as long as you're not overly ambitious with the resolution and AA settings. Crossfire a pair of those puppies and you'll have monster graphical capabilities that will have the potential to last for years.

The REAL advantage consoles have is that they're played on television, and as long as the framerates are consistent it doesn't really matter how much power they have to spare. Whereas PCs are constantly subjected to benchmarking and every aspect of their performance is scrutinized. Every piece of slightly superior hardware gives people a complex, even if their own gaming experience is just fine. Who cares if someone else's ubersystem can pump out 180 fps to your meager 60 fps. You're STILL getting 60 fps! Even just 40 fps is fine for most purposes as long as it can hold consistently. Heck it's visibly on the low side but 30 fps is playable. More than a few console games play at this rate.

All it takes to be happy with that is a sense of perspective.

 

[ex_reven]

How do the costs of the games compare?

PC games can be found for pretty cheap, is it the same for consoles?
The ones I was looking at the other day (call of duty 4 etc) were all around $20 to $25 more expensive on console than PC.

Can anyone back that up?

 

[Graogrim]

That's a fair characterization. Console games are now commonly $10-$20 more expensive than their PC counterparts. This is simply a product of the way console makers make their money. They sell the hardware at a loss and take a cut of all the game sales.

 

[Triprift]

yeah they are more expensive ex raven here in oz we get ripped

 

[farlex85]

I personally do not see u guys can complain about the price of a top of the line gaming rig compared with a counsel. I mean, a top of the line comp has an incredibly larger array of diversity in its functions than a gaming counsel. If all u wanna do is play games, then of course don't get a top of the line comp unless u have the cash, just get a counsel, they offer plenty of great gaming. However, if u got $$ to burn or want a machine that can satisfy all your media needs, invest in a nice comp.

As for the quality of games going down, I can see a little of that. I think this is largely due to the fact that the ever-increasing realism of games has lead to the ever-increasing cinimatic nature of them. This is especially true in the category of fps. Think about the quality of movies lately, mostly recycled, but a few gems pop up. The main complaint for me comes from, "yea, seen that before, killed that alien, saved that chick" in countless ways with ever increasing graphics and gameplay mechanics. This doesn't neccessarily lower the fun for me, but it somehow is just not the same as the first time you embark on a mission totally foreign to you. Games r not really getting worse, they r just better versions of what came before, and not as fresh. Me personally, i think oblivion is far superior to morrowind, but not in creativeness, but rather it is simply a better game.

Enough of my 2 cents though, how shall I say
/end rant

 

[Lazzer408]

gpu's are so fast now I wish I could run windows on it instead of my cpu. I bet it could do it. If optimised correctly I bet they could eliminate the cpu all together and have graphics cards that look more like motherboards with ram slots using video memory instead and replacable gpus so you can upgrade later. It's all about marketing value. Advancement wise technology is held back by marketability.

 

[Darknova]

I'm sure you've all read GPU reviews recently, but have any of you noticed how much they try to make the GPU look like it's worthless?

Take the resolutions they use. Who actually plays at 1900x1200 with 8x AA and 16X AF All the time 24/7? A very small minority. According to Valve's Hardware Survey the most commonly used 4:3 resolution is 1280x1024 and widescreen is 1440x900 so why do the reviews insist on using resolutions far beyond those that the majority use and then say the GPU fails because it can't play at those resolutions with, frankly, ridiculous amounts of AA and AF. Surely the higher the resolution the LESS AA and AF you would need?

Maybe I'm just misguided with my meager 1680x1050 and 3870. Weird then that Crysis at that resolution at high looks so damn good then.

That is what I believe the problem to be. The rate at which technology development has sped up is phenominal and every company wants to show off the latest and greatest technology. The problem, of course, is that the industry is moving MUCH faster than it takes to develop a well thought game with a great storyline and the best graphics. There doesn't seem to be a compromise.

My favourite computer game series is STILL Baldur's Gate. 2D isometric, with over 60 hours of story (not including side-quests not related to the story) in the first game alone which features 1 sequel, and 1 expansion for each game in the series.

Imagine getting a game like that now a days.