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

RabbidMickeyMouse 16 years, 5 months ago

"…how come consoles are never accused of being made obsolete too fast?"

What about the Wii?

"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."

I don't understand where DOS or P4 came into all this, but its not as if I don't play PC games as much because the game comapnies don't cater to my lower specs, and if anything, I wouldn't suggest they support lower specs unless that's the only way they can strike a better profit.

The problem with PC gaming (and selling a 360 w/o HD) is that there's little control on what people will have in their PCs, and the only thing companies can do is understand what's the most populous OS, graphics card, and so on. With consoles, you're guarenteed what's in everyone's machine.

If the PS2 originally came with an ethernet connection by default, Sony would have a stronger online community than it does, and if Microsoft didn't sell a Core system, or had the 360 come with HD-DVD support by default, the market would have been a better place because they didn't have what are better features as pricey optionals.

When you loose control over what everyone has at a minimum, you're loosing sales of better games, and slowing innovation as a whole. It doesn't matter if there are a few games for the PC which really innovate, overall, the PC gaming industry is hurting.

OBELISK 16 years, 5 months ago

Ugh, Halo looks god-awful with my graphics card. I fucking swear, it's made of wood. It doesn't even support OpenGL. No joke.

Ah well, at least it can run Teleka at a full 60 FPS. You heard me.

Josea 16 years, 5 months ago

PC are great. You can play games, write a document, surf the internet, even face the challenge of the occasional virus!

That's whole lot better than what a console can do!

DesertFox 16 years, 5 months ago

HL2 is win.

Flea1991 16 years, 5 months ago

96 MB of RAM? Try 24, then you'll know hell.

Balding Chimp 16 years, 5 months ago

Well the "idea" of online gameing has been around forever. (even consoles from the stone age). I just remembered this thing and looked it up. It was never released I guess, but it was a cartridge that you pluged into your Atari 2600 that you could hook up to a phone line to play others (and download other games I think the idea was…like renting over the phone…probably untill you cut the power off). Wonder how long it would take back then to load up those games…ussualy 2 to 4K in size in many cases.

Behold!…The Gameline!

http://www.steverd.com/what26/what12.jpg

LoserHands 16 years, 5 months ago

It might be worth it.

Evilish 16 years, 5 months ago

Look at games like Katamari Damacy, they created the game with a colourful style and nature because of insufficient hardware and to speed up the ball drawing.

One of the best things about having a slow computer for indie programmers is it's a good standard to have when your testing the game. If you went and made a game on some mega overclocked PC, it's going to be a lot harder to detect memory leaks, or scripts that are lagging the game. And then what happens when you release it and other people can't play because of you don't know the minimum system requirements?

Moo

Evilish 16 years, 5 months ago

Having said that, I'm off to a friends house to play Crysis.

PY 16 years, 5 months ago

My current PC gets 20FPS on Varia, yet 60FPS on tTEP, and that's an unoptimised ciribothole at the moment.