PC Gaming and I

Posted by RabbidMickeyMouse on Dec. 10, 2007, 9:56 a.m.

I’ve always had a lazy, uninspired PC gaming history.

My family had bought our first computer during the Christmas of 1997 or 1998. 350 Mhz, 96 MB RAM, 12 GB HD. Those were your average specs of the day.

For the most part, the kind of games I would buy came from a retailer’s discount PC gaming selection, where everything is typically $10. The kind of games that were either older games, and repackaged in jewel cases at lower prices, or collections of arcade games. For the most part I would buy RTSs. Starcraft, Warcraft 2, Anno 1502, Civ 2 and 3 and the like.

My family has never had a lot of money, or rather not enough where I felt comfortable getting a game every month or two. I’ll assume this explains my interest in long, drawn out game experiences, since without the money to buy games frequently enough, I would have to make do with what I got.

Playing RTSs worked well enough for a while. Occasionally I would buy something else. The only FPSs I own for the PC would be the original Rainbow Six (seeing as I could compile a map of where my guys go and so on, which fit right in with the RTSs) and System Shock 2 (which apparently has joined the ranks of underrated games over time, as it seems I‘ve never met a person who has something bad to say about it, but I myself have only ever maintained a mild interest for the game).

I never played online games for the most part. Starcraft a couple of times, but I never saw the use if I always got beat to a ridiculous degree against those who know enough about the game like those who’ve read much more Shakespeare (you simply can‘t compete, and you‘re only going to make yourself look foolish). And its only been recently that I’ve been playing an online game (Halo 3).

It was only until recently that I had the ability to play online for the 360 as my family upgraded to broadband (or DSL, I don’t know anymore. All I know is that we use a cable wire instead of the phone line). At the same time we finally got a new computer. Keep in mind that this would make the only other computer we own up until now nearly a decade old. My new computer is roughly 10x better all around (HD space, processing, RAM etc). But, the changes have left me more in contempt of PC gaming than it has left me awestruck.

10 years ago, the issue of updating your computer for newer games was still an issue, but nothing like it is today in my opinion. I keep the Crysis specs in my bookmarks for an occasional laugh.

http://www.crysisdemo.com/crysis-system-requirements.htm

I wonder what’s the point anymore of PC gaming if its all at such a premium? Granted, Crysis is the extreme example to use. However console gaming means that developers need to stick to certain limits, which is why towards the end of a generation, the game looks so great. At that point, they development companies have to pull as many tricks as they can to get their ideas out. I believe that its limits that drive the evolution of gaming. It’s on things to show how great a game looks on modern hardware, but another to show how great a game looks on outdated hardware. But then again, that’s a programmer’s perspective. The average gamer wouldn’t know, or care necessarily.

So, my point. I’m getting The Orange Box. For the PC or 360? 360. Why you may ask? It rounds down to money.

I’ve explained I play Halo 3 online, but I do so freely. Not that I hacked/cracked something or anything illegal like that either. I bought my 360 from a friend of my brother’s, and he had left his gold membership on the system (but then again, I doubt you can get refunds or redeem the remaining amount into Ms points anyhow). I completely loathe the account’s name (Jonni5xxholla), but what can I do? It costs 800 points to change its name (MONEY! DID YOU EVER HEAR OF SUCH A SCAM!? TO CHANGE AN ACCOUNT‘S NAME!?). I have until April before I have to consider paying for more online time.

It took some time, but I finally found that it costs money to play online for The Orange Box for the PC. Not the 360 is any different, but since I’m already playing online for free, I figured ‘why not’? I researched a bit on the differences between the two games, and overall, they’re superficial. The 360 port may not be as vibrant, but in the end, I could care less, because I‘m more interested in finally playing Half-Life 2, and seeing what all the damned hoopla is about (I would never be a part of the group who complained to Bungie that Halo 3 was technically missing roughly 80 pixels on the screen. 80 PIXELS!?).

I’ve always had the belief that online gaming should be free. It must have started with battle.net being free to play on I imagine, but the idea simply seems right to me. Paying for my internet connection should be enough. But then again, I’m aware people need to make money to run the servers. But then again, subscription money isn’t the only way they can make money. I’d rather watch 3 minutes of television styled commercials while the game is loading than pay for online subscription plans. That way, everyone is equal. No free players vs. paying members, or reminders to pay up again sooner or later, nothing.

Its not that I believe gaming should be free, as I’m quite against software piracy (I could care less what you’re reasoning is, because the sooner you simply admit you‘re stealing the game, and you don’t care if you do, the sooner we don’t have to argue anything pointlessly). I’d rather not have to pay as much to simply play some games online or on my PC. The problem with the PC gaming is that the machine’s only purpose is not to play games. With a console, you bought it to play games, so the game either better be good, cheap, or ready to play the second I put it in.

I still play my old PC games, and even though I have a better computer, I can’t think of any up-to-date games other than The Orange Box, that I’ve considered playing for quite some time. The PC will always remain my favorite machine in the house, but not my favorite gaming device. There’s too much preparation, expense and time needed to get into PC gaming as compared to console gaming (for one, I can rent console games). I’ll simply continue playing my RTSs from time to time. PC gaming for me will simply remain, as it has been, more of a time waster than anything.

Comments

stampede 16 years, 4 months ago

Quote:
I keep the Crysis specs in my bookmarks for an occasional laugh.
Hahaha. And agreed with your text.

Trogdor 16 years, 4 months ago

Quote: Crysis Specs
OS - Windows XP or Windows Vista

Processor - 2.8 GHz or faster (XP) or 3.2 GHz or faster* (Vista)

Memory - 1.0 GB RAM (XP) or 1.5 GB RAM (Vista)

Video Card -256 MB**

Hard Drive - 12GB

Sound Card - DirectX 9.0c compatible

Only 10% of all the people who own pcs, will have anywhere close to those specs.

Also, I agree with watching the ad, instead of paying a subscription. My internet bill is already $80 USD, and it's not the best connection. I don't want to have to pay to play too.

Firebird 16 years, 4 months ago

Dude, Crysis is the technologically best looking game ever made. EVEN in DX9 - We're coming to an end of that generation and Crytek has pushed so many barriers with it.

Why should we be stuck with static hardware like a console when we can continue to push the barriers with newer hardware? Newer versions of DirectX and OpenGL?

It's great that finally the specifications on the back of a box no longer have 'Pentium 4' on them but 'Core 2 Duo' or 'Phenom'. Or do you want it to stay at one level forever? Don't try to innovate?

RabbidMickeyMouse 16 years, 4 months ago

"Dude, Crysis is the technologically best looking game ever made. EVEN in DX9 - We're coming to an end of that generation and Crytek has pushed so many barriers with it.

Why should we be stuck with static hardware like a console when we can continue to push the barriers with newer hardware? Newer versions of DirectX and OpenGL?"

But what's being pushed if the hardware changes with it?

Firebird 16 years, 4 months ago

The framework itself - DX9 is what limits the hardware. In order to cater to people who don't have the latest whatever, you have to push the limits.

PY 16 years, 4 months ago

The YMachine can take Crysis.

That makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. :-)))

stampede 16 years, 4 months ago

Programmer: "I don't need to improve codes efficiency, just raise minimum system requirements!"

Gamer: "Hey that game looks great! And it costs only $30! Now I just have to buy new $500 graphics card."

RabbidMickeyMouse 16 years, 4 months ago

Maybe so, but with PCs, accommodating for older hardware is a financial issue of reaching a larger install base than it is showing off the amount of work put into the game I believe.

Firebird 16 years, 4 months ago

@stampede: Just how efficient are you get with a P4? The Pentium 4s were horrible chips - do you know that the Core2s are based off an earlier chip design because NetBurst (P4's architecture) was so horrible?

Keep in mind that system requirements can't stay at a P4 forever, but the P4 has lasted a lot longer then that generation of consoles, how come consoles are never accused of being made obsolete too fast?

But whatever, fine by me if you guys wanna stay with DOS and get the most out of it, whatever. I'll be moving on.

OL 16 years, 4 months ago

Quote:
Only 10% of all the people who own pcs, will have anywhere close to those specs.

Okay, if we were to suppose that you didn't pull that statistic out of your ass, you also have to consider the percentage of 'all the people who own pcs' who would want to play Crysis. Then it doesn't look quite so bad as what I assume you were trying to infer with that statement.