Anyone considering a switch to PC gaming?

[WCP]

First, a little backstory... I haven't been a PC gamer since mid 1999. I discovered 3dfx gaming sometime in 1996, and built my first PC. Prior to that, I was 100 percent a console gamer. After building my first gaming PC in 1996, I was big time into PC gaming during 96,97,98 and early 1999. With the announcement of the Sega Dreamcast, and me checking it out first hand at e3 that year, I decided to put PC gaming on the backburner and jump back to the world of console gaming. I played a few more PC games during 1999, and maybe one or two in 2000, but after that, I was 100-percent a console gamer.

10 years later, I'm starting to wonder if maybe I should give PC gaming another try. Why would I feel this way? Well, I must admit that I'm a chronic early adopter, and it seems weird to not have any new consoles coming this Xmas. Since I've been gaming (Atari 2600), it seems that every 5 years a new console gets released. If things followed the normal pattern, Microsoft would be introducing a new console this November. obviously, we all know that ain't happening.

The truth of the matter, is that we aren't likely to see a new console from Sony or Microsoft anytime before at least November 2013, which is a long time away from now. I was thinking that maybe if I built a gaming PC, I could get my "new console fix", even though it's actually a gaming PC instead of my normal console. Of course, a major issue, is the fact that the console side of gaming is basically running the whole show right now. In previous years, a company like id or Epic would release their next major game on PC, and then maybe it might trickle down to the consoles. Nowadays, it's the other way around. Even if I did jump on the PC bandwagon, would I really experience anything next gen? I'm not sure I will, because most of the big PC games are console ports. The games are designed more with the 360 and PS3 in mind, and ported over to the PC. Sure, you get a nice resolution bump, and some special effects, but the console dominance is kinda screwing the pooch for PC gaming. PC gamers are getting the sloppy seconds. If Epic or id or Infinity Ward or any of those guys made a game specifically taylored to take full advantage of the latest PC technology, I'm sure the results would be spectacular, but they are more interested in selling to the masses on consoles.....

Just wondering if anybody else might of been thinking a similar thing...

[Icarus Moonsight]

I would think, you are not going to be as fulfilled with PC gaming now as you were in the late 90s. I hopped into PC gaming full-swing at around the same time and got out around the same too. I'd warn against what you are considering, but that is just an opinion. I don't see anything on the PC platform I am interested in that; isn't also being offered on consoles, requires a dedicated gaming rig, or justifies the expense, research, tweaking and tinkering etc of a gaming rig, and the PC games I am interested in do not demand the pricey hardware (mostly freeware shmups... So, take as you will).

Of course, if there are ample things that you want to do that requires a high-end system built for gaming on the platform, I say go for it! :D

[j_factor]

I spent well over a grand building a "decent" PC, and ended up buying a bunch of adventure games. I think the most demanding game I have is S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky. It's not just console ports, they just don't have much incentive to be cutting-edge.

[erehwon]

I like having the option to game on my PC. Some games are just better on that platform, in terms of controls and mods. The one thing I don't like is the DRM that is common on PC games. SecuROM is bad and the stuff Ubisoft is including is worse. I'm not getting a game that requires a constant internet connection that kicks you out if you lose the connection.

[Flippy8490]

I can definitely see where you are coming from, however, I am thankful that nothing is being released anytime soon...no urge to go out and spend ridiculous amounts of money! haha.

But honestly, stick to consoles. In today's gaming world, the entirety of it revolves around the console world. There are a drastically smaller number of quality PC games in comparison with whats available on the three majors right now.

[rxd]

I would think, you are not going to be as fulfilled with PC gaming now as you were in the late 90s. I hopped into PC gaming full-swing at around the same time and got out around the same too. I'd warn against what you are considering, but that is just an opinion. I don't see anything on the PC platform I am interested in that; isn't also being offered on consoles, requires a dedicated gaming rig, or justifies the expense, research, tweaking and tinkering etc of a gaming rig, and the PC games I am interested in do not demand the pricey hardware (mostly freeware shmups... So, take as you will).

Of course, if there are ample things that you want to do that requires a high-end system built for gaming on the platform, I say go for it! :D

Any recommendations on some good freeware shmups?

And I agree, I'll never get into high end pc gaming again, way to much hassle for me. Give me a console game where I just plop in a disk and go at it any day.

[Jorpho]

Any recommendations on some good freeware shmups?ABA Games (http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~cs8k-cyu/index_e.html). 'Nuff said.

Oh, and Tyrian 2000 is freeware too. Everyone seems to like that one.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Check out Vector (http://www.vector.co.jp) too. Lot's of goodies, some weeding required. Eden's Aegis (http://www.vector.co.jp/soft/winnt/game/se442605.html)full was released recently. I dl'ed it last night. Been playing the demo off/on though for about a month.

[chrisbid]

the decline of PC gaming and the rise of DRM are not mutually exclusive trends

[Nophix]

I was a hardcore PC gamer, aside from Nintendo. Most anything I could get for the consoles felt better on my custom built PC's. That was until I got my 360, and really spent some time with it. Now, I've realized how much easier it is to run with the consoles.

PC's go out of date so often, and you are constantly messing with them and tweaking them. I have limited time, and would rather throw the game in and play.

I still do some mild gaming on PC. We always have 1 or 2 gaming PCs around. Right now, the bad boy in the house is my wife's new Asus G60. That thing is a powerhouse!

[BetaWolf47]

I'm not really a fan of PC games. Nowadays, I'm just playing crap on Kongregate (http://www.kongregate.com) and sticking with freeware games. Quake Live and the freeware C&C games are really great for the budget gamer. That, and classic game compilations.

I highly suggest seeking a copy of Taito Legends 2 for PC. It's the best version that came out stateside.

[b0ub0u]

I've always been a "hybrid" gamer... playing both consoles and PC games.

Some genre or just better on one or the other. FPSs and RTSs are only playable on PC where you can optimize your framerate at your own will.

All the rest I prefer on consoles.

[Zthun]

The only reason to go with PC gaming is for the very few exclusives that it offers. In otherwords, Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3...when the come out......if ever.

[Ed Oscuro]

I am busy enough that I get by just fine with PC games. The lack of third person jumpfests and collectathons hurts and makes me want a console, but whatever.

Valve and the good stuff on their Steam service really have been the sole saving grace of PC gaming in the last few years. Keep in mind that there may be lots of games from the 90s and 00s that you haven't played but would enjoy though - I'm still finding lots of classics that I never tried out.

[Ze_ro]

You're asking this question on a forum that is centered around console gaming, so I think it's safe to say you won't get a lot of recommendations for PC gaming.

Both have their pros and cons. Naturally, PC gaming is far ahead of the curve on hardware, and that advantage is only going to increase with time... of course, that advantage comes with a large price tag and frequent upgrades if you want to keep up. With PC's, you're also stuck with all the DRM and copy protection hurdles to jump through... not to mention things like video driver conflicts, non-standard controllers, and operating system issues (virii, malware, etc). That kind of stuff doesn't really happen on consoles, where you can just pop the game in and know that you're getting exactly the experience the developers intended.

I suppose the real question here is what exactly are you looking for? You say you want a "new console fix", but what does that mean? You'll get the flashy graphics on PC, but the games aren't going to be a whole lot deeper than what's showing up on Xbox 360 and PS3.

--Zero

[Smashed Brother]

I've just starting using my PC for emulation purposes (sure beats the chunky, limited MAME emu on my DC), but since I managed to find the Diablo Battle Chest at a thriftstore for $5, I've decided to look into some older games that I missed out on back in the day while I was huddled over my precious consoles.

I agree with most of the posters on here in that I wouldn't even try to set it up for modern gaming (too expensive+too much hassle), but since I personally love the older arcade games and the older strategy games, I've discovered a whole different side of gaming with my PC and it complements my console habits pretty nicely.

[NayusDante]

Honestly, I don't know why I still bother with a desktop PC. In the past two years, I've played Fallout 3, Bioshock, Spore, The Last Remnant, Borderlands, UT3, and The Orange Box. I'm not into RTS, and all of those European RPGs don't seem to grab my attention, so I hardly even bother with the PC-exclusives that are on the market. Dealing with DRM and crap isn't fun anymore, and I find myself spending more time tweaking the games for performance than playing them. I still love a good shooter now and then, but I simply CANNOT wrap my head around aiming with an analog stick. If developers would quit being retarded and include USB mouse and keyboard support, I'd switch to console entirely. Instead, I'm stuck in the upgrade cycle, unable to break free.

If you're into RTS and MMOs, then by all means, build a killer rig. I'm getting tired of it. I enjoyed Fallout 3 and the continuing saga of Half-Life, but there's simply not enough for me on PC.

[Poofta!]

I have been a hardcore PC gamer since my first 286 IBM compatible =D so here is what i have to say about PC gaming:

it no longer outleaps console gaming. throughout the 90s and up until the current 360/ps3 generation, the pc was simply the most advanced and comprehensive gaming platform. no matter what you were into, the pc did it best (i am taking emulation into consideration, apologies).

these days, gaming on the console and PC have seperated. certain things the PC does best, certain things the consoles. and with the standardization of the 360 gamepad (they all work for PC), even multiplatform games are often better off on the pc, if you have the juice to run it (more on that later).

certain games, as always, will be better on either consoles or PC, and certain are totally agnostic (multiplatform racers/platformers/action). if youre into JRPGs, you have little choice past consoles, if youre into FPSs/RTSs/WRPGs/SIM, the PC is absolute king when it comes to skill and control. it you are into a certain franchise, you may be pigeonholed into a platform, unfortunately (forza, GoW, GT, Halo etc)

while i admit i dont quite remember the price of top of the line pc gaming in the 90s, these days, dont even bother unless you are ready to spend $300+ on a video card, having an overall PC build costing you between 800 and 1500 bucks depending on your budget and sanity. once you have a great rig set up though, all your games will blow their console counterparts away (please dont bring up bad ports as an example, capcom, in particular, up untill SFIV has been awful at making pc games).

so while i cannot recommend the PC for gaming enough, i am also hesitant to recommend it above and beyond everything. i think it is a must have but not a replacement. if youre into what the PC does best, then you have no excuse.

check out Steam and see what they have to offer (its a pretty good showcase of the best pc stuff, and on holidays the deals are just absurd, i typically spend 70$ and end up with about 35+ games during that period). the indie scene is much more evolved on the pc, of course. plus, games are a LOT cheaper!!!

[Jorpho]

these days, dont even bother unless you are ready to spend $300+ on a video card, having an overall PC build costing you between 800 and 1500 bucks depending on your budget and sanity.You do not need to spend that much money on a PC to enjoy a lot of the games currently available. You certainly can, and it might make the games look extra pretty when you turn on absolutely all of the details, but the games are perfectly enjoyable without ridiculous amounts of bling.

And I've never had any kind of problems with DRM.


the indie scene is much more evolved on the pc, of course. plus, games are a LOT cheaper!!!Really, that's what's keeping me out of consoles. $50-$60 for a quality recent release!? I could hardly dream of spending that much.

[Poofta!]

You do not need to spend that much money on a PC to enjoy a lot of the games currently available. You certainly can, and it might make the games look extra pretty when you turn on absolutely all of the details, but the games are perfectly enjoyable without ridiculous amounts of bling.


well since there are like hundreds of thousands of games available for the pc, of course you dont need the latest and greatest hardware to enjoy a lot of them =P

but lets face it. if you want to play the newest games at equal or greater quality than the ps3/360 counterparts, you'll need to drop 250+ on a video card. with a cpu and enough ram to match.

i am currently gaming on a far from top of the line pc, and while i can [almost] max out current games (as long as i keep shadows off), some new stuff like just cause 2, i barely meet the MIN specs for.

of course you can get games to *run*, but we're talking about a comparable experience to consoles, and to achieve that 30+fps with amazing graphics (at times even superior to consoles), you'll pay through the nose. keep in mind im not bitching. somehow i find it much easier to justify a 350$ video card every 3-4 years than i do a new console (actually its because the games make up for it, theyre cheaper and the upgrade makes your old games run better!).

for the record, ive been running this for the last 2-4 years:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+
8GB RAM
Nvidia GeForce 8800 GT
(lots of HD space. lots.)

hardly impressive these days.... but i can max out dragon age and Mass effect 1, as well as almost max out Modern Warfare. im gaming on a 1080p monitor, btw.

[CDiablo]

I like the controls of the M/KB for my FPS's and RTS's. I also like how the cost of PC games is cheaper due to quicker price drops. I spent about $280 on a 2.2 dual core, 3 gigs of ram and a 512 video card(I already had a PSU, Hard Drive, case, keyboard and mouse from a rig from 04' that I used) about a year and 1/2 ago that runs every game out there.

[Poofta!]

I like the controls of the M/KB for my FPS's and RTS's. I also like how the cost of PC games is cheaper due to quicker price drops.

yes! i could never play FPS and RTS w/ a gamepad.

also, game prices are even cheaper if you take into account eBay European import prices for games, as well as epic Steam sales.



also, games on the PC are soooo much more moddable, whether it is using cheats like a trainer or no-disk hacks or additional user-created content, you definitely go farther and get more when you get a popular game for pc vs console.

i have to say i have had no experience with the 'evil' DRM games like spore and the newly released Assassin's Creed II (which i heard you have to be connected to the web while you play, disconnection causes boot form game!!!!!). however since all DRM for PC is outdated a week before it comes out, it isnt hard to 'get around it' (i dont support piracy, my shelves upon shelves of games prove this! but im just saying that once you bought your game, you are soooo much free-er to do what you wish with it!)

[NayusDante]

You do NOT need a $250 video card to match console performance! I paid $150 for my Radeon HD 4850 more than a year ago, and it's more than enough. If you want to run everything at 1080p, then you can go crazy with expensive cards, but my 1440x900 monitor looks perfectly fine. When I put PC games on my TV over an HDMI cable, I rarely go to 1080p, because the visual difference isn't noticeably better than the lower HD resolutions. I can play the same games that are on consoles at the same resolution, but with mods and better performance.

You only need $250 video cards if you're benchmarking Crysis at 1080p. Otherwise, buy some darn games!

I've also yet to see a game consume more than 1gb of ram on its own. I get by with 4.

[WCP]

Wow, cool to see so many replies in this thread :)

I kinda messed up with the title of this thread, in terms of "switching". I own a PS3 and 360, and my kids own a Wii, so I have all 3 current consoles, and I wouldn't be selling away any of them. I would probably end up gaming more on the PC, at least during the initial honeymoon phase. Basically, I think the key issue is that I'm a little disappointed with the fact that Microsoft and Sony are actually serious about this longer life cycle thing. November 2013 is a long time away from now. It isn't that 360 and PS3 games are lackluster graphically, it's just I'm pretty sure of what the 360 and PS3 are capable of at this point, and as great as games like Mass Effect 2 and Uncharted 2 are, I would love nothing more than for there to be a totally brand new console coming this Xmas with all the latest wiz-bang technology. We all know that isn't happening anytime soon, so my wait could be as long as 3 1/2 years from now.

I was thinking that if I built a modern gaming rig, I could get more of that "next-level" feeling that I haven't really felt since the launch of the 360 and PS3. (November 2005 and 2006 respectively) . It isn't so much a pure graphics whore issue, as I play retrogames games all the time and the old school graphics don't bother me in the least, it's just that I'm thinking some developer is eventually going to make a PC game that blows current console games out the water. Maybe the PC version of "Rage" by id, or Doom 4, or the next game from the makers of Crysis.... who knows...

It would probably be a good idea to just wait for a such a game to actually appear I guess, before dropping big $$$ on a PC gaming rig. I'm sure if I got the new Battlefield - Bad Company 2 game on PC, and could run it at max settings on everything, in 1080p, that would be pretty freaking impressive, but probably not worth all the drama I guess...

[Jorpho]

but lets face it. if you want to play the newest games at equal or greater quality than the ps3/360 counterparts, you'll need to drop 250+ on a video card.And why would you want to, exactly?

Hasn't it been demonstrated time and time and time again that graphics aren't everything?

[NayusDante]

Exactly, wait for a game to come out that actually needs a good system, then build a PC around it. No sense building one before, since you'll need to upgrade by then.

It doesn't help that RAM is expensive at the moment. It's like stock, goes up and down based on production shortages.

[Kitsune Sniper]

And why would you want to, exactly?

Hasn't it been demonstrated time and time and time again that graphics aren't everything?

Because the newest games won't run very well on video cards from a generation or two ago. Because programmers are lazy.

[Poofta!]

You do NOT need a $250 video card to match console performance! I paid $150 for my Radeon HD 4850 more than a year ago, and it's more than enough. If you want to run everything at 1080p, then you can go crazy with expensive cards, but my 1440x900 monitor looks perfectly fine. When I put PC games on my TV over an HDMI cable, I rarely go to 1080p, because the visual difference isn't noticeably better than the lower HD resolutions. I can play the same games that are on consoles at the same resolution, but with mods and better performance.

You only need $250 video cards if you're benchmarking Crysis at 1080p. Otherwise, buy some darn games!

I've also yet to see a game consume more than 1gb of ram on its own. I get by with 4.

holy shit either youre lying to yourself, completely confused or just trying to make youself feel better about having a low spec/entry level pc.


let me clarify. if you are gaming on a cheapo/budget 19" LCD w/ 1440x900 res (wow), then fine you can get away with a budget video card. if you are trying to match the ps3/360 and play it on anything larger than 25" and/or in 1080p (dont kid yourself, there is a difference. hell, i can show you via pictures!) then you will need a decent video card.

plus lets keep in mind that running anything off of a PC on your tv/monitor that isnt its native resolution, will look like ass and have refresh lag. [also, running your pc to a TV not equipped w/ a PC-IN special port, will skew the colors and phasing, since regular tvs always post process their input, which isnt meant to happen w/ a pc signal. it will never look the way it should, anyone who tells you otherwise doesnt know wtf theyre talking about]


as for crysis, when it came out you needed a 500$ to benchmark it at 1080p, lol.

if youre not trying to get your pc games look better than their console counterparts, wtf are you doing gaming on a pc anyway? and to up your resolution, AA, AAF, textures etc in a newly released game, you will need a beefy setup. simple as that.

in fact, my setup still cant run GTAIV as well as the consoles.

as for the ram, i agree, theres little reason to go over 4gb. i have 8 because my pc isnt JUST for gaming, i do much multitasking and have a dedicated monitor for other tasks while i game. there are however some games that definitely benefit form 8gb of ram. mostly RTS (supreme commander) and simulators (simcity, flightsims).

[Icarus Moonsight]

I never said stay away from PC gaming... I can run quite a bit on my 5 year old laptop that was $700 then. I just don't see the need for mid to high level gaming rigs anymore. You'll only be locked out of a few games compared to the rest that you can run. But, when your aim is adopt early for the now... I guess you're locked into the hardware wallet-drop shuffle.

[Ed Oscuro]

Man, I thought PC gaming was all about the high resolution and smooth framerates. Why hobble that with crappy 1440x900 (yikes) and inconsistent framerates?

Gotta get a good monitor though. What kills me are the widescreen monitors, though, which are advertised in the usual diagonals but are surely just shorter versions of 4:3 ones - i.e. less screen real estate, oh poor eyes :(

And as Unreal Engine 3 type games and better continue to hit the market, you'll want better hardware to match. I'm playing a game from 2007 on a 2006 rig with a GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB, and while it's smooth it could be considerably better. Nasty shadows on stuff at times too, and the whole setup freezes for a few seconds at a time now and then (not sure what's doing that, could be OS instability I suppose; I got that in UT3 as well).

[NayusDante]

You call my 4850 a budget card, while it's on par with or better in benchmarks compared to the 9800GT, a remarketed 8800GT.

I paid $250 for my 19" monitor three years ago, and it's still working fine, aside from the fact that it doesn't support fixed aspect ratio without my card driver applying it (and it gets worse with each driver release). I'm considering getting something 23" or so, but that's an expense I can't really justify at the moment. Maybe if I sell some stuff, I'll upgrade. When I bought my LCD, 1080p on a desktop PC wasn't financially accessible.

You say that I should use the PC input on my TV instead of HDMI? Ok then, crappy analog VGA over crystal clear HDMI it is.

The average person has a $500 Dell/HP/Acer with 2Gb RAM and an Intel GMA 4500. I would consider THAT to be unplayable. My rig maxes out everything I throw at it, and it ran the Crysis demo well enough to show me that graphics are emphasized over gameplay.

My PC, with current prices:
Radeon HD 4850 512mb - $110-130
AMD Phenom II 710 X3 - $110
Asus M3N72D - $130 (you could get a better, cheaper one by now)
4Gb DDR2 800 - $70
DVDRW - $30

My computer alone could be built for under $600, including case, PSU, and OS. You could get by with a $50 motherboard, I just wanted something with more room for expansion. Add a $99 monitor and a decent mouse and keyboard, and you're at about $750. Still under your $800 entry point, and it's plenty powerful for current gaming.

[Jorpho]

as for crysis, when it came out you needed a 500$ to benchmark it at 1080p, lol. Crysis hardly exemplifies the typical PC game.

if youre not trying to get your pc games look better than their console counterparts, wtf are you doing gaming on a pc anyway?Saving money!

[calthaer]

I, like BetaWolf, also play a lot of games on Kongregate these days. Steam also has a lot of Indie games for $10 or less; I picked up some of the usuals like Braid and Darwinia, and enjoyed Aquaria. If you're looking for games that have stunning, amazing production values and a lot of polish, the PC probably isn't the place to be - for the most part. As has been said, Activision/Blizzard does a good job of this, but there are few others devoting time and energy to rich and in-depth PC games. Seems they've all been bought out and toned down so that they take less design risks and provide a generally pleasing, but somewhat bland and samey, game experience (EA, here's looking at you).

Some might say that PC games have been in decline for the last decade. In part, I think they're right. Maybe a small part of this is due to piracy, but a lot of it also has to do with the fact that PC games got the rep of being released full of bugs that got patched 3-6 months down the road (if at all). Who wants to bother with that? Furthermore, who wants to buy newly-released PC games when there's a decent chance they won't be "done" for another 6 months? So developers don't sell the games at release, and they have to get discounted, and sold at a lesser profit months later. Harder to make money on the game, so fewer games get developed.

Of course, the fact that you had to upgrade your rig every six months also didn't help the PC business. Places like Blizzard would make games that would run on the vast majority of rigs out there, but a lot of other devs would make you own a high-end PC from the last 2 years to play the newest releases. No thanks.

Fortunately, I think the dummies driving that "business model" have left for greener pastures, aka the consoles - probably why they're full of shovelware these days, with a few well-known blockbusters using big-name licenses or established game franchises. The big, epic PC games like Deus Ex and System Shock 2 no longer exist, although sometimes an epic console game like Bioshock will get simultaneous release on PC.

What the PC is good at is delivering the niche, interesting, experimental games. Space Rangers 2 is a good example of it. The localization effort was not so great, so the dialogue and text is a bit choppy at times - although it doesn't interfere with the gameplay. Game is a little uneven, but it is overall a successful mishmash of RTS, turn-based strategy, arcade, text adventure, even a bit of 3rd person shooter mixed in with the RTS bits. Really an epic game and is well worth playing, but good luck finding it.

There are several gems out there, and a lot of it is a matter of taste. Most of them are not covered in the mainstream press, which is only interested in mainstream games with high polish and a broad appeal.

It's kind of like being a foodie, I guess. Most of the sheeple like McDonald's and TGI Friday's and Olive Garden and all these other big fat chains where there are lines around the block and maybe at the high-end ones they have to give you a little buzzer so that when you are done with your 30-60 minute wait for a seat you can eat their food, which is consistent across all restaurants in the chain. Odds are that, barring one of the crazy stories that occasionally pop up about a bug in someone's salad, you will have no surprises with your meal. At the higher-end chains like Red Lobster, you will have A Nice Evening Out (TM); at fast food restaurants, it's A Quick, Delicious Meal for You & The Kids (TM). You will probably also have leftovers for tomorrow, because they always serve you more food than one person can reasonably eat, with way too much fat and salt to fool you into thinking you've eaten a delicious meal.

The alternative is to hit up something like the Thai restaurant around the corner. It will not be as easy to find, because it will not have a huge, neon-lit, landscape-littering sign by the side of the road that towers over the countryside and can be seen for six miles. You may find some dishes that are a bit odd to the palate, using ingredients to which you're not accustomed, that you are not sure that you quite like. It may not necessarily be that much cheaper. But you will probably wait in no line, and you may find something really unique, that you'd never get at a chain, that becomes your new favorite dish. It will probably not taste like high-fructose corn syrup and packaged, pre-processed sauces, because it's been hand-made. It might even be a bit different every time you get it. Maybe it's not for everyone, but you really like it. Todd Wilbur will never cover this dish in the next "Top Secret Recipes" book and you may not be able to convince your friends that it's all that awesome. You will not be able to sit around the water cooler with all your yuppie coworkers and jack-jaw about the restaurant's experience with that sense of common, shared knowledge that comes through a place you've both been. But you love the food and you will come back again and eat and enjoy.

That's what PC gaming is like today. Sort of. At least, that's my take on it. Consoles are the McDonald's of gaming, the Olive Gardens. You will get a Nice Game that is of a Quality You Can Depend On, but it will be a bit stale and tried-and-true and will be a derivative of something you've seen before. PCs are those neat little mom & pop restaurants tucked away in a strip mall at the edge of town that can dish up great, unique little meals - if you can find them, and do a little of the legwork to find what you like.

Consider this, though: it's often cheaper to buy 5 or so cheap little PC indie games and try them out than to get one blockbuster release for a console. Odds are better with the cheap grab bag that you'll pull something out you like.

[Poofta!]

That radeon 4850 hobbles your pc. Not that it matters since youre on a 19" x900 res anyway. If you cant afford to be competative in the pc gaming arena, thats fine, many people cant. (Btw, your tv wasnt meant to be used as a modern pc monitor replacement. Those cost way more. It works sure, but will fail every adobe caliberation test. And youre not getting what you should/can be visually) To get the most out of pc gaming, as i said before, youll pay a pretty penny. You wont get the best on a third tier card (i also miss your point comparing it to 9800 benchmarks, not 8800gt...).

Sure you can build a po'boy 600 entry gaming rig. But all youre accomplishing is saving money, and consequently playing games that look like ass. If you want to play brand new graphic heavy games on your pc, it take video horsepower, all im saying. Its not for everyone. Id rather play my 360 than on a 4850 on a 19" w/ gimped res.

[ambriglia]

whenever any blizzard game comes out, excluding WoW, i immediately switch to pc gaming. next on my list, starcraft 2. "Hell, it's about time!"

[Poofta!]

I also want to add that pc gaming has never been about saving money. Sure you save on the games, but you pay a lot more (and a lot more often) for the hardware. Its a hobby thing for many, though. The pc gives you certain games and experiences that a console simply cant. Not replacement, though. In my opinion

Im not bragging or think im better, my pc is as outdated as many others. As much as i want a new one, i dont have the $900 or so id need for what i want (since at this point id have to replace almost everything inside if im replacing the cpu). But i still feel its worth it.

[Jorpho]

If you cant afford to be competative in the pc gaming arena, thats fine, many people cant.I didn't know there was a competation. Are there prizes?
Sure you can build a po'boy 600 entry gaming rig. But all youre accomplishing is saving money, and consequently playing games that look like ass.I for one don't really care if it "looks like ass" , especially since a 22" monitor is all I have room for or can justify spending money on. It's all about the gameplay!


the 9800GT, a remarketed 8800GT.Gosh, I never knew that. At times I have actually mused about paying $50-70 to upgrade my 8800GT to a 9800GT!

I thought the craziness ended with the whole GeForce 4 MX debacle. Is there some site that keeps all this nonsense straight? (Yes, it's in the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_9_Series), but it's a bit disguised.)

[Poofta!]

I didn't know there was a competation.
Are there prizes?

yep. its you versus the industry. they make new pretty games, and you try to play what the creators intended you to.



I for one don't really care if it "looks like ass" , especially since a 22" monitor is all I have room for or can justify spending money on. It's all about the gameplay!


22" is pretty nice. i was mostly pointing out the guy w/ a limp video card. im just saying it makes no sense to try to game on a pc if youre games will look worse than the consoles...

[Zthun]

I also want to add that pc gaming has never been about saving money. Sure you save on the games, but you pay a lot more (and a lot more often) for the hardware. Its a hobby thing for many, though. The pc gives you certain games and experiences that a console simply cant. Not replacement, though. In my opinion.

Bolded for emphasis. I like building PCs as much as the next guy, but it's like a car collector. If you don't have the money for it, it's just not going to be available to you.

I've always agreed that game prices this generation are too high. Sixty bucks for a PS3/360 game is outrageous, and the $50 price tag on PC games is nicer (still a tad bit pricey). I originally started with PC games before I got my 360 and 90% of the games I played ran fine on a completely outdated system (Hell, I ran Assassin's Creed on a single core AMD and it still looked pretty good to me). Given this though, I have not played a PC game without obvious bugs and problems. Crashing, graphical glitches, incorrectly threaded sound; this is so common in PC gaming. Pop the same games in the 360 and you rarely have need for any patches. It's nice not having to worry about your rig.

The other problem that a lot of people have missed is the selling factor. I've listed and sold a few PC games on craigslist and eBay, but I've always come up with the 1 common question from computer retarded users (most people fall under this category. The average person is not computer savvy). That is: "here's my specs, can I run this game...(insert list of specs that have almost nothing to do with the specs of the game)." It doesn't work very well.

I'm still say the only reason to go with any PC gaming is for PC exclusive (starcraft, warcraft, MMORPGs, etc).

[Trebuken]

Just switch already. nVidia's new cards should start to ship this month, if you pay the exorbitant price for one of them in a desktop you will get at least 18 months out of it, not the six months that a couple people suggested; you get six months when you buy the entry level hardware. Spending more upfront will grant you longevity, though it may ultimately cost the same.

Monitors. If your not connecting to a big screen consider a 22" monitor entry level. I'd suggest 27"+ and 1920x1080 as a minimum for gaming today, if you want to surpass the consoles.

Now this leads to the graphics vs. gameplay debacle. Gameplay is a priority certainly, but let's not get dismissive about graphics. Immersion is a big deal and the advanced features on many graphics cards versus consoles, combined with the better implemented graphics engines (even PhysX if you are so bold) and higher resolutions makes PC Gaming much more immersive. Add an MMO and you'll have everything you need.

I game on every system, but always choose the PC version over the others (I am having a tough time awaiting Assassin's Creed II though). It's worth it -- there is no way Bioshock 2 on a console can compare to a high end PC running it for atmosphere. On a console it's a game, on the PC it's and experience.

PC Gaming is different, and even with the lower price tag on games the cost of the hardware makes it less affordable, but the multitude of uses that a PC has other than gaming makes it worthwhile for me.

[WCP]

You know.... I'm starting to think that buying a gaming PC would be a bad idea until I have a 1080p display. I do have a 22 inch 1080p display in my kids room, but it's just because it was a good deal, and I wanted them to have a little hdtv they could use for their xbox and stuff.

In my living room, I have a plasma that is 1360 x 768, and I also have a special room where I have a front projector with a huge arse 120 inch screen. Problem is, the projector is a 720p projector. I was thinking that PC games would look cool on that projector, but the resolution would have to be set at 1280 x 720, so I don't think games like Bad Company 2 would look that much better than the PS3 or Xbox 360 versions. Sure, because I would be running the games at 1280 x 720, it would be easy to max out all the other effects, and I'm guessing there would be more particle effects and stuff like that, but I'm not sure it would be that huge of a difference over what I currently have. I probably need to get a 1080p projector before I can build a gaming PC, cause otherwise I won't really notice that much of a difference. Of course, a good 1080p projector costs like 3 times what a killer PC gaming rig would cost. If I start saving my pennies for a 1080p projector, it will be a long time before I'll have any cash left for a gaming rig. I'm in kinda a catch-22 situation I guess.

[WCP]

I game on every system, but always choose the PC version over the others (I am having a tough time awaiting Assassin's Creed II though). It's worth it -- there is no way Bioshock 2 on a console can compare to a high end PC running it for atmosphere. On a console it's a game, on the PC it's an experience.




See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. That next-level experience that you only get when you get some brand new hardware. I'm primarily a console guy, and I've always been an early adopter. People have thought I was out of my mind to buy the latest gaming console on the day it's released, instead of waiting a year or so for the price to drop, but I always craved that next-level feeling, that you only really get when something is so brand new and almost unattainable. I remember getting the Sega CD the day it came out, and my best friend thought I was out of my mind to pay $299 for it. But, I was there on day 1 playing stuff like Sewer Shark and Night Trap. Sure, in hindsight those games sucked big time, but while I was playing them, they were so freaking next-level. It was definitely a totally new experience, and was far beyond anything I was playing before. (Maybe the Sega CD isn't a very good example because the FMV games were pretty horrible gameplay wise, but oh well....)

I remember when a buddy of mine got a Panasonic 3DO right at launch. As much of an early adopter as I was, I still had my limits and couldn't afford one. But I remember going over to his house and playing Crash-N-Burn (the pack in racing game from Crystal Dynamics). Let me tell you, playing a game like Crash-N-Burn in October of 1993, was so far beyond anything up to that point. It was mind blowing. Coming from playing SNES and Genesis games, Crash-N-Burn just seemed so amazing. It was like we were literally playing a game that actually looked better than alot of Arcade games, and we were playing it in a regular house. I miss those next-level feelings. I haven't had that feeling since the launch of the 360 and PS3. I was thinking that if I build a PC gaming rig, I could get that feeling back for a wee bit (before I get accustomed to it and it slowly wears off :( )

[NayusDante]

22" is pretty nice. i was mostly pointing out the guy w/ a limp video card. im just saying it makes no sense to try to game on a pc if youre games will look worse than the consoles...

I have a better video card than you do, and you're insulting my rig.

...what is your argument?

[j_factor]

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. That next-level experience that you only get when you get some brand new hardware. I'm primarily a console guy, and I've always been an early adopter. People have thought I was out of my mind to buy the latest gaming console on the day it's released, instead of waiting a year or so for the price to drop, but I always craved that next-level feeling, that you only really get when something is so brand new and almost unattainable. I remember getting the Sega CD the day it came out, and my best friend thought I was out of my mind to pay $299 for it. But, I was there on day 1 playing stuff like Sewer Shark and Night Trap. Sure, in hindsight those games sucked big time, but while I was playing them, they were so freaking next-level. It was definitely a totally new experience, and was far beyond anything I was playing before. (Maybe the Sega CD isn't a very good example because the FMV games were pretty horrible gameplay wise, but oh well....)

http://i50.tinypic.com/23rwk1l.jpg

[Kitsune Sniper]

I switched to PC gaming years ago, only because I couldn't afford to keep up with modern console systems (at the time).

I now play 50/50 PC / Consoles.

It's not the platform, it's the games for me.

[Nophix]

Just switch already. nVidia's new cards should start to ship this month, if you pay the exorbitant price for one of them in a desktop you will get at least 18 months out of it, not the six months that a couple people suggested; you get six months when you buy the entry level hardware. Spending more upfront will grant you longevity, though it may ultimately cost the same.

Monitors. If your not connecting to a big screen consider a 22" monitor entry level. I'd suggest 27"+ and 1920x1080 as a minimum for gaming today, if you want to surpass the consoles.

Now this leads to the graphics vs. gameplay debacle. Gameplay is a priority certainly, but let's not get dismissive about graphics. Immersion is a big deal and the advanced features on many graphics cards versus consoles, combined with the better implemented graphics engines (even PhysX if you are so bold) and higher resolutions makes PC Gaming much more immersive. Add an MMO and you'll have everything you need.

I game on every system, but always choose the PC version over the others (I am having a tough time awaiting Assassin's Creed II though). It's worth it -- there is no way Bioshock 2 on a console can compare to a high end PC running it for atmosphere. On a console it's a game, on the PC it's and experience.

PC Gaming is different, and even with the lower price tag on games the cost of the hardware makes it less affordable, but the multitude of uses that a PC has other than gaming makes it worthwhile for me.


This is coming from someone who has been, up until this year, heavily involved in computers, from programming and networking to building $5000+ custom gaming pc's...

That Radeon is nothing more than a glorified HD-Video card, meant for doing things like Blu-Ray playback. The refresh rate and frame rates recorded from it when I was testing them didn't touch the 8800GT I was benchmarking against, let alone the 9800GT. Lets not talk about the new GTX series, such as the 280. You aren't even in the same LEAGUE.


Do you want to know WHY I moved to consoles, and do almost no PC gaming anymore? I got tired of fighting with the systems, changing hardware and screwing with drivers all the time, to get performance levels I could get on a CONSOLE for nearly 1/4 of the cost. Yes, there are some genres I do believe still work better on PC. RTS is a very PC-centric gaming experience.

Once the PS3 and 360 were released, the advantages to PC were gone. The consoles have so much power, and in order to match that performance in the PC realm, you have to spend some dough.

I mean, seriously, all I have to do to play a PS3 or 360 game on my 62" screen is put the disc in and turn on the system. I STILL can't find drivers that will allow me to plug the 260GT in to that thing, even via HDMI, and come out on a good res. IT keeps wanting to go 1440x900, which looks HORRIBLE.

[YoshiM]

Gotta give calthaer the thumbs up for one helluva post. I love the restaurant analogy and it's pretty much true. There are great games out there-you just have to look. And this thread reminds me that I should really look at my PC as another viable entertainment outlet.

[izarate]

I've been finding myself buying more and more multiplatform games for the PC lately. Part of my reasoning for buying them for the PC is due to the 360 RROD issues and the other part is because of the day 1 patches that have been needed by some games (GoW2 for example).

I'm usually a generation behind so that really is an issue for me. What if I buy a PS3 6 years from now and Sony isn't hosting the day-1 patch that I need to launch an specific game?

With the PC is different since files and patches tend to live on within file vaults like Filefront et al, even if the original developer/distributor goes under. I've got some old PC games lately and so far I've been able to find every patch needed to run them.

Also, as some of you have mentioned, the PC versions are (usually) cheaper. And yes, you might make the case that you'll need 1000s of dollars each year to keep your PC updated...if you like the pretty pictures but since I don't really mind that a lot that isn't a problem for me. My current PC was built in 2003 and the last upgrade was an X800XT added in 2005 plus a few HDs to replace the dying ones. In fact my sole reason to built a new one this year is because the latest games require SM3.0.

[j_factor]

I'm usually a generation behind so that really is an issue for me. What if I buy a PS3 6 years from now and Sony isn't hosting the day-1 patch that I need to launch an specific game?

With the PC is different since files and patches tend to live on within file vaults like Filefront et al, even if the original developer/distributor goes under. I've got some old PC games lately and so far I've been able to find every patch needed to run them.

I'm sure you'll still be able to find them in the same manner. When they remove original Xbox support from Live, they're also taking down all DLC for Xbox games. Fortunately, I have a site bookmarked that has a bunch of Xbox DLC. I don't think any Xbox games got patches, but it's the same concept.

As an aside, I'm really surprised you've found the patch for every old PC game you've tried and can run them all. Let me know if you find a patch for the PC version of Comix Zone. :p

[Poofta!]

You know.... I'm starting to think that buying a gaming PC would be a bad idea until I have a 1080p display. I do have a 22 inch 1080p display in my kids room, but it's just because it was a good deal, and I wanted them to have a little hdtv they could use for their xbox and stuff.

In my living room, I have a plasma that is 1360 x 768, and I also have a special room where I have a front projector with a huge arse 120 inch screen. Problem is, the projector is a 720p projector. I was thinking that PC games would look cool on that projector, but the resolution would have to be set at 1280 x 720, so I don't think games like Bad Company 2 would look that much better than the PS3 or Xbox 360 versions. Sure, because I would be running the games at 1280 x 720, it would be easy to max out all the other effects, and I'm guessing there would be more particle effects and stuff like that, but I'm not sure it would be that huge of a difference over what I currently have. I probably need to get a 1080p projector before I can build a gaming PC, cause otherwise I won't really notice that much of a difference. Of course, a good 1080p projector costs like 3 times what a killer PC gaming rig would cost. If I start saving my pennies for a 1080p projector, it will be a long time before I'll have any cash left for a gaming rig. I'm in kinda a catch-22 situation I guess.

dont bother connecting your PC to a 720p display (and avoid tvs even more, unless youre building a HTPC, naturally). however you dont really NEED a 27" 1080p like someone said. i mean, its NICE, but anything over 20" for a 4:3 1600x1200 display is good. similarly anything over 22" for a 16:9 1080p (1920x1080) is great. dont forget that 1080p is new to the pc gaming platform, we never had 16:9 up until very recently. the pc standard is 16:10 and is actually a lot better (you get more vertical space). the resolution for those is 1920x1200, if you can, get those, makes it easier to use the pc part of your pc lol.


I have a better video card than you do, and you're insulting my rig.

...what is your argument?

*groan* i wasnt comparing our rigs... i didnt want to get into an epenis measuring contest. my vid card is like 3 years old (i got it the week it came out), wtf am i gonna brag about dude? i was just saying yours is crap for pc gaming if youre planning on churning AAA titles all the way up.

but since you brought it up, i didnt even need to respond, this fine fella did it for me (although he misquoted a dif post, i think):


This is coming from someone who has been, up until this year, heavily involved in computers, from programming and networking to building $5000+ custom gaming pc's...

That Radeon is nothing more than a glorified HD-Video card, meant for doing things like Blu-Ray playback. The refresh rate and frame rates recorded from it when I was testing them didn't touch the 8800GT I was benchmarking against, let alone the 9800GT. Lets not talk about the new GTX series, such as the 280. You aren't even in the same LEAGUE.

ati vs nvidia is an age old battle. it was just irrelevant to this conversation for me to get into it. this is a console/pc gaming thread, not a your/mine decrepit video card thread (although to everyone else, it should be pointed out that some new games can be maxed out on 2-3 year old mid range cards. but you'll never come even close to maxing out the latest AAA fps or RTS).

[NayusDante]

*groan* i wasnt comparing our rigs... i didnt want to get into an epenis measuring contest. my vid card is like 3 years old (i got it the week it came out), wtf am i gonna brag about dude? i was just saying yours is crap for pc gaming if youre planning on churning AAA titles all the way up...

...it should be pointed out that some new games can be maxed out on 2-3 year old mid range cards. but you'll never come even close to maxing out the latest AAA fps or RTS).

"I can max out everything, but your card sucks even though you can too. It doesn't matter, but I'm still going to argue about it."

And like I mentioned before, the AAA titles just aren't worth playing anymore. I've never even TOUCHED Call of Duty. There's nothing out there that won't run acceptably on 8800s and above, because there hasn't been a huge video card revamp in three years. The Radeon HD 58XX series and the nVidia Fermi cards are finally changing that, but there's nothing that NEEDS those right now, and won't be for another three years.

[WCP]

Since we're discussing the whole PC thing, I thought there was another thing I'd like to know about:


Used game sales on PC ? - Is it possible to buy used PC games? I'm one of those Cheap Ass Gamer types, and typically never want to buy anything for more than 20 bucks. With console games, it's pretty easy to get all my games for $20 or under. Basically, I have to buy my games off Craigslist or, from Blockbuster video when they are having one of those B1G1 sales, or from maybe even GameStop when they are doing the B2G1 deal. Not too bad a deal if you're buying three games that all cost $17.99 (you basically get them for $11.75 each after tax and using the Edge card).

So, as you can see, being a cheap bastard, I'm not the type to run out and pay $59.99 or $49.99 plus tax on my games. About the most I'll pay for a used game is $25, if I want it really bad. (Currently looking to find Infamous for PS3 for $25 on Craigslist).

Now, from a PC standpoint..... Can you even buy them used? GameStop and places like that don't sell them used do they? I don't really understand how the registering and licenses thing works. Don't bring up Steam either, cause I'm not interested in supporting some monopolistic system. I don't like how powerful Valve is getting via Steam. I'm not a big fan of the whole digital download future thing. I'd prefer to have physical media whenever possible. I know that I would just end up installing it to the PC's hard drive, and I'd probably try to find a crack so that I could run it from the hard drive sans disk in the tray....

But I still like the fact that I would have the physical disk. Maybe it's kinda dumb for me to think like that, but I guess I'm old fashioned from that standpoint.

[BetaWolf47]

Some game stores allow PC trade-ins. I know Gamestop used to, but then stopped when it ceased to be profitable. Your local Play N Trade might have some. I myself am looking to trade a couple games in, since I found out one of my stores allows it. Unless, of course, you'd be interested in Battlefield 2, Unreal Tournament 2004, or Guild Wars. The whole thing is difficult with CD keys and the like, so make sure your more recent finds come CIB.

[izarate]

I've been getting used PC games at flea markets mostly.

[WCP]

Some game stores allow PC trade-ins. I know Gamestop used to, but then stopped when it ceased to be profitable. Your local Play N Trade might have some. I myself am looking to trade a couple games in, since I found out one of my stores allows it. Unless, of course, you'd be interested in Battlefield 2, Unreal Tournament 2004, or Guild Wars. The whole thing is difficult with CD keys and the like, so make sure your more recent finds come CIB.

But how does it actually work from a CD key standpoint? When you buy the typical game, how many PC's are you allowed to play it on? It's it a matter of how many PC's it's registered to? I have no idea how that whole part works, because I haven't played any PC games since 1999.

[izarate]

As far as I know, the CD key only matters with online gaming which most of those older games aren't likely to support today. Most older games allow multiple installs.

In the case of Guild Wars I think that you can buy new CD keys. Or was it Starcraft?

With more recent releases I would tell you to make the deal directly with the previous owner so as to make sure that he unregisters his PC(s) before selling the game to you.

[NayusDante]

Anything by Valve, or with a Steam logo on it, don't buy used. Those are one-time keys that bind to your Steam account. The Last Remnant uses this.

Anything that says "Games for Windows" is still free to use its own DRM. Bioshock was like this, but they've supposedly lifted the activation limit. Fallout 3 only needs the key to sign into Games for Windows Live and get achievements. Gears of War requires the key at install, but I don't think it authenticates it online.

Also, watch out on anything OLD from Valve, because you can register the keys to your Steam profile. The only way to know if it's been used or not is to try adding it. You can still install the game from disk with the key, but it's something odd to keep in mind.

[izarate]

By the way, is there any wayto unregister a game from an Steam account? I have HL2 but I got The Orange Box and want to sell HL2. I have't registered TOB so I guess that in the worst case I could sell HL2 along with the Steam account data, isn't it? I can always make a new account for TOB, right?

[NayusDante]

When you register The Orange Box, you get a Gift credit for any games you already have. You can then gift that license to any Steam user on your friends list.

[Jorpho]

yep. its you versus the industry. they make new pretty games, and you try to play what the creators intended you to.Here's a thought: if I'm having fun, why should I care what else the creators intended?

With console games, it's pretty easy to get all my games for $20 or under. Basically, I have to buy my games off Craigslist or, from Blockbuster video when they are having one of those B1G1 sales, or from maybe even GameStop when they are doing the B2G1 deal.I am certainly not so lucky. And besides, isn't there a big risk with used console games that they will be scratched up and unusable?


GameStop and places like that don't sell them used do they?I see used PC games at EB all the time. They're never ones I'm particularly interested in, or necessarily priced very well, but they're definitely there.

[WCP]

I am certainly not so lucky. And besides, isn't there a big risk with used console games that they will be scratched up and unusable?



Well, if you're buying from a guy on Craigslist, then with Xbox 360 games, you need to check the disk and make sure it isn't scratched to hell. If you're buying from Gamestop or Blockbuster, they will usually check the disk before giving it to you, but you can also bring it back and complain about it, if they didn't check the disk before hand. Ebay is the most riskiest, unless the guy has a closeup photo of the back of the Xbox 360 disk.

With PS3 games, it's a non-issue for the most part, because Blu Ray has a protective coating on it that prevents most scratches.

Really, thinking about the whole PC thing, buying my games cheap is probably going to be my biggest issue. It's so easy to buy console games super cheap because you have millions and millions of people playing these games, and then getting tired of them and trading them in or selling them on craigslist or whatever. With PC games, you don't normally have millions and millions of them floating out in the wild, and then the whole CD key thing, and licenses thing makes it kinda a headache. I guess if I could just get over myself and be willing to deal with Steam, then I could get my old games pretty cheap when they are doing those special sales, but I'd really love to avoid ever using Steam if at all possible.

[Trebuken]

Since we're discussing the whole PC thing, I thought there was another thing I'd like to know about:


Used game sales on PC ? - Is it possible to buy used PC games? I'm one of those Cheap Ass Gamer types, and typically never want to buy anything for more than 20 bucks. With console games, it's pretty easy to get all my games for $20 or under. Basically, I have to buy my games off Craigslist or, from Blockbuster video when they are having one of those B1G1 sales, or from maybe even GameStop when they are doing the B2G1 deal. Not too bad a deal if you're buying three games that all cost $17.99 (you basically get them for $11.75 each after tax and using the Edge card).

So, as you can see, being a cheap bastard, I'm not the type to run out and pay $59.99 or $49.99 plus tax on my games. About the most I'll pay for a used game is $25, if I want it really bad. (Currently looking to find Infamous for PS3 for $25 on Craigslist).



Now, from a PC standpoint..... Can you even buy them used? GameStop and places like that don't sell them used do they? I don't really understand how the registering and licenses thing works. Don't bring up Steam either, cause I'm not interested in supporting some monopolistic system. I don't like how powerful Valve is getting via Steam. I'm not a big fan of the whole digital download future thing. I'd prefer to have physical media whenever possible. I know that I would just end up installing it to the PC's hard drive, and I'd probably try to find a crack so that I could run it from the hard drive sans disk in the tray....

But I still like the fact that I would have the physical disk. Maybe it's kinda dumb for me to think like that, but I guess I'm old fashioned from that standpoint.


Half Price Books and ebay are the onlyplaces I find used PC Games regularly. I do find them elsewhere randomly, like flea markets, or independent computer stores...

[Nophix]

ati vs nvidia is an age old battle. it was just irrelevant to this conversation for me to get into it. this is a console/pc gaming thread, not a your/mine decrepit video card thread (although to everyone else, it should be pointed out that some new games can be maxed out on 2-3 year old mid range cards. but you'll never come even close to maxing out the latest AAA fps or RTS).


The ATi vs Nvidia thing is very relevant. ATi doesn't even market to gamers, they market to the HTPC crowd. There is a very large difference in the chipset. Yes, Ati can do games, and Nvidia can do HD video. But the comment came in regarding someone's post about their rig.

Would you buy a Mac for gaming? Same idea. You can dump a bunch of money in hardware, and wind up with the wrong hardware. Not so with console gaming. Its pretty cut and dry there.

[NayusDante]

The ATi vs Nvidia thing is very relevant. ATi doesn't even market to gamers, they market to the HTPC crowd. There is a very large difference in the chipset. Yes, Ati can do games, and Nvidia can do HD video. But the comment came in regarding someone's post about their rig.

Would you buy a Mac for gaming? Same idea. You can dump a bunch of money in hardware, and wind up with the wrong hardware. Not so with console gaming. Its pretty cut and dry there.

That's funny... I use an ATI card for gaming and I just bought an nVidia mobo for my HTPC. Then again, I had an Intel chip sitting around that I wanted to use, so I couldn't very well go AMD in that case. That 9300 chipset handles HD video perfectly well, and even does Flash acceleration for internet video. The NEW chipsets from AMD, however, look even better.

I am looking at going with nVidia next time I upgrade, though. Once the Fermi cards get to $150 range, I should be ready to part with my 4850, and I've got an SLI board anyway.

[Poofta!]

That's funny... I use an ATI card for gaming and I just bought an nVidia mobo for my HTPC. Then again, I blah blah blah

dear god stop posting.



on topic:
used pc games are not commonly found in retail. gamestop/eb doesnt carry them (at least, not around here, nor do they officially). plus its hard to trust a used pc game since you need the cd key, which may or may not come w/ the game. and some keys only work for 1 account creation and a handful of installations to begin with

[NayusDante]

dear god stop posting.

Gladly. It's clear that whatever I post, you counter whether it's a good argument or not.

[WCP]

One other thing that has always mystified me about the PC is the keyboard/mouse control configuration. PC gamers have always looked down upon console gamers when it comes to First Person Shooters, because they feel that using a controller with FPS is a very inferior experience. The thing is, I know that looking around the environment with the mouse, is much easier than using the right thumbstick, but I don't understand how using WASD to move around the environment is better than using the left thumbstick. Seems like the ideal way to play FPS games would be with some type of nunchuk thing (just using one thumbstick), to control your movement instead of WASD.

Can anybody comment on this?

[PC-ENGINE HELL]

If you don't like the wads config, you can typically just assign keys to the arrow ones. Its what I do. I don't like having anything right beside my movement keys, so that keeps it comfortable for me. Allows me easy faster access to the calculator keys on the right too, along with the Pg up and down keys, ect.

[Nophix]

One other thing that has always mystified me about the PC is the keyboard/mouse control configuration. PC gamers have always looked down upon console gamers when it comes to First Person Shooters, because they feel that using a controller with FPS is a very inferior experience. The thing is, I know that looking around the environment with the mouse, is much easier than using the right thumbstick, but I don't understand how using WASD to move around the environment is better than using the left thumbstick. Seems like the ideal way to play FPS games would be with some type of nunchuk thing (just using one thumbstick), to control your movement instead of WASD.

Can anybody comment on this?

Its no different than using arrow keys. You don't look at the keys anyhow.

[PC-ENGINE HELL]

The ATi vs Nvidia thing is very relevant. ATi doesn't even market to gamers, they market to the HTPC crowd.


Thats not correct. ATI has been marketing to gamers more and more heavily since the Radeon 7500/8500 line of gpus hit. The Radeon 9500-9800 line was the first major blow to Nvidia though, as that crushed the FX line. ATI been even more serious about gaming since being acquired by AMD. AMD has been trying to appease the gaming crowd since the K6-2 days when they started using 3D Now. ATI just happens to also cover the HTPC area too with their low profile cool running cards, ect. Check the ATI/AMD site, and typically you will see a ad cross promoting their gpu technology and a game. Currently the HD 5830 and Modern Warfare 2 on the "at play" option highlight. Want to go even deeper down the rabbit hole, head over to this part of their site:
http://game.amd.com/us-en/drivers_catalyst.aspx

There you will find the drivers, utilities for tweaking your gaming performance, a section for marketing the current games out on the market, ect. Due to this more aggressive nature of marketing towards gamers over the years I have stuck with them since the 8500 release. I still use Nvidia cards now and then in secondary computers and stuff, but the last major one by Nvida I bothered to use was for gaming was the GF 6800. Since then I have not been impressed with their newer cards. 6800 line was a tad better then the X800 line, but I still have a X800XL anyway, which is in my daughters gaming computer right now. My sons using a X1950GT in his gaming computer, and I'm using a set of 3850 cards in mine in Crossfire.

I have a Ageia Physx card, and there are still driver fixes being made by a guy to keep the Ageia PPU working with newer Nvidia Physx drivers. Nvidia is trying hard to make Physx unavailable to ATI users. Same guy that did the PPU fix I do believe has also got the drivers fixed so you can use a Nvidia card in conjunction still with a ATI one for Physx. Physx isnt a major deal to me anyway, but still being able to use my Ageia PPU when I need to is just one more reason for me to stay away from Nvidia's GF line still.

[j_factor]

One other thing that has always mystified me about the PC is the keyboard/mouse control configuration. PC gamers have always looked down upon console gamers when it comes to First Person Shooters, because they feel that using a controller with FPS is a very inferior experience. The thing is, I know that looking around the environment with the mouse, is much easier than using the right thumbstick, but I don't understand how using WASD to move around the environment is better than using the left thumbstick. Seems like the ideal way to play FPS games would be with some type of nunchuk thing (just using one thumbstick), to control your movement instead of WASD.

Can anybody comment on this?

I totally agree. I find the arrow keys more comfortable, but using them can make it difficult to get to other things if the game uses a lot of buttons. And even then, I still wouldn't say they're actually better than an analog stick. I mean, no keyboard key allows for variable input.

This is why I love the Wii controller for FPS. And at the same time, lament the Wii's lack of good FPS games (it has a couple, but not enough).

There are also special FPS controllers that have a nunchuk type thing on them. But the FPS crowd seems to look down on them for some reason.

[Berserker]

One other thing that has always mystified me about the PC is the keyboard/mouse control configuration. PC gamers have always looked down upon console gamers when it comes to First Person Shooters, because they feel that using a controller with FPS is a very inferior experience. The thing is, I know that looking around the environment with the mouse, is much easier than using the right thumbstick, but I don't understand how using WASD to move around the environment is better than using the left thumbstick. Seems like the ideal way to play FPS games would be with some type of nunchuk thing (just using one thumbstick), to control your movement instead of WASD.

Can anybody comment on this?

I think there are several reasons it's preferred. Particularly for first person shooters, analog movement isn't really necessary because generally you want to be moving as fast as possible to avoid enemy fire, in which case the simple ON/OFF switching mechanism that the keyboard provides is sufficient. In the rare case you do want to move more slowly, for precarious platform-jumping or the like, usually you just push the left shift key with your pinky to slow walking speed.

The thing about WASD you seem to be forgetting is that you're not limited to using only those keys - typically you'll also make ample use of the surrounding keys for various other tasks. Q, E, R, T, F, G, Z, X, C, V, Tab, Shift, Space - all are within easy reach. I have a hard time imagining a nunchuk controller that could match that kind of capability, although I'm sure it's possible.

This isn't just limited to FPS by the way - on the PC I prefer this setup on just about any 3d game with a first-person viewport, or even a third-person "chase cam" style viewport. It's very versatile and effective for games of this type, and no extra hardware is needed. I'm sure that some better "ideal" controller could probably be invented for this purpose, but it hasn't been yet, and there's no real need for it anyway IMO, at least on the PC.

[NayusDante]

If you don't like the wads config, you can typically just assign keys to the arrow ones. Its what I do. I don't like having anything right beside my movement keys, so that keeps it comfortable for me. Allows me easy faster access to the calculator keys on the right too, along with the Pg up and down keys, ect.

I, too, am an arrow-key user. I have tried and tried and tried, but I am physically unable to play successfully with WASD.

Arrow keys are by far the more logical keys to use, and there's enough spacing between the nearby keys that you'll never get them mixed up like you can with WASD. I use the numpad for crouch, flashlight, spray, and anything extra like that. Shift is right there for running, and CTRL is a very logical jump key. I've never understood how spacebar works as the jump key, for me it always felt akin to pressing the start button for jump.


On the subject of PhysX... Can anyone with an nVidia card say how much of a difference you've noticed with it? I've actually never tried it with hardware acceleration, is it noticeable?

[Poofta!]

arrow keys are for newbs, you will get rocked in every multiplayer match you play because you are missing instant access to key in game commands such as jump, crouch, quick weapon switch, sprint etc. using WASD will get you used to it pretty quickly, you will never look at them. however using WASD is the only way you can use those other commands without ever lifting some fingers off your movement keys, enabling you to still move and not die.

i used arrow keys only, at one point... before mouse look became a staple of pc FPSs (i believe duke nukem 3d was the first fps w/ a viable mouse look, so people began to switch their configs to use WASD).

[PC-ENGINE HELL]

arrow keys are for newbs, you will get rocked in every multiplayer match you play because you are missing instant access to key in game commands such as jump, crouch, quick weapon switch, sprint etc. using WASD will get you used to it pretty quickly, you will never look at them. however using WASD is the only way you can use those other commands without ever lifting some fingers off your movement keys, enabling you to still move and not die.

i used arrow keys only, at one point... before mouse look became a staple of pc FPSs (i believe duke nukem 3d was the first fps w/ a viable mouse look, so people began to switch their configs to use WASD).

I think that has more to do with the users keyboard layout in general then just the arrow keys,how many buttons your mouse has, and a bit of matter of personal opinion tossed in. Whats great for one guy can be useless for another, so to each their own. My arrow keys are laid out close by the calculator and page up/down area, so I can reach them just as easily as anything while still running, strafing, ect. I always assign crouch to 0/ins,and jump to right mouse button. It never causes me any issues on anything I play, online or off. Scroll wheel swaps weapons back and forth.

Speaking of multiplayer, Im still a regular on Wolfenstien ET under the ID Firefly. I play that one the most. If you want to jump on the server I play on often, its 8.9.4.227:27960. Send me a pm if you want with your ID and what time you plan to jump on if you want, and I can try to be on for a match or two. I have not been on this server too long, so my XP is only around 6000 or so I think, but most all my player classes are maxed out. The only other games I play online anymore are Shogo and Quake Wars every now and then. I did play Bionic Commando for a small bit.

Used to save pics now and then of the score boards and what not, but don't bother anymore. Heres some though from prior matches on ET and BC:
Wolf ET
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a66/Amakusa666/wolfetlatestscorepic.jpg
Bionic Commando
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a66/Amakusa666/bioniccommandodeathmatch2july3009.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a66/Amakusa666/bioniccommandodeathmatch1score.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a66/Amakusa666/bioniccommandodeathmatch2.jpg