WoC is set in 1988 when the USSR invade America..
Grim... wrote:
:DD
If you haven't played Homeworld, play Homeworld. Then Homeworld 2. Then Homeworld 2 2.
No, it had another name, didn't it?
If you haven't played Homeworld, play Homeworld. Then Homeworld 2. Then Homeworld 2 2.
No, it had another name, didn't it?
Cataclysm.
I was actually pretty rubbish at the Homeworld games too but the beauty of them just kept me coming back for more.
this pc is dying shit is going for years. Almost every blockbuster game comes out on PC anyway. The ones that don't are usually crap japanese stuff. The only game so far that i regret not having a console is Brutal Legend and i even don't know if it's going to be any good or not.
If anything the PC is going back to its roots and that can only be a good thing. Lots of graphic adventures and some Turn-Based strategy games coming out. Also, many indie RPG's have been announced. And Bethesda and the likes stuff is still better on PC anyway. The best FPS are also on PC.
As for consoles, i only have a Wii, and it's going to stay that way.
If anything the PC is going back to its roots and that can only be a good thing. Lots of graphic adventures and some Turn-Based strategy games coming out. Also, many indie RPG's have been announced. And Bethesda and the likes stuff is still better on PC anyway. The best FPS are also on PC.
As for consoles, i only have a Wii, and it's going to stay that way.
RuySan wrote:
If anything the PC is going back to its roots and that can only be a good thing. Lots of graphic adventures and some Turn-Based strategy games coming out. Also, many indie RPG's have been announced. And Bethesda and the likes stuff is still better on PC anyway.
You started a thread last week saying RPGs were all shit and there hadn't been a good one since Vampire:Bloodlines.
Craster wrote:
RuySan wrote:
If anything the PC is going back to its roots and that can only be a good thing. Lots of graphic adventures and some Turn-Based strategy games coming out. Also, many indie RPG's have been announced. And Bethesda and the likes stuff is still better on PC anyway.
You started a thread last week saying RPGs were all shit and there hadn't been a good one since Vampire:Bloodlines.
i know, that's why i said some indie RPG's are announced for this year (Eschalon: Book 2, The Broken Hourglass, Age of Decadence). Learn to read.
Btw,
http://adrianwerner.wordpress.com/games-of-2009/
RuySan wrote:
this pc is dying shit is going for years.
Yes. Which doesn't mean it's not right. Weren't you moaning about some game being a sloppy console port that didn't offer the ability to remap the mouse buttons? And I seem to recall Oblivion and Fallout players being incredibly angry that they felt the inventory systems had been hobbled by the limited control options of the consoles they were designed for.RuySan wrote:
i played the FEAR 2 demo ...
- what's with the console resolutions? i don't want these black bars. Please fuck off.
- Cannot map the extra mouse buttons?? This trend has to stop. The same happens with Bethesda games.
Regarding Bioshock:- what's with the console resolutions? i don't want these black bars. Please fuck off.
- Cannot map the extra mouse buttons?? This trend has to stop. The same happens with Bethesda games.
RuySan wrote:
Excellent graphics and setting. Also lots of wonderful and unique moments, BUT! the game, like most FPS nowadays is cursed with console-like floaty controls, and that's usually a deal-breaker for me (i could tolerate in this case because the rest is wonderful). If you're playing it on a PC and are used to more accurate FPS keep that in mind
So, "most" FPSs are console orientated, by your own admission?
Quote:
Almost every blockbuster game comes out on PC anyway. The ones that don't are usually crap japanese stuff.
Gears of War 2? Fable II? Uncharted? Halo 3? Consider Wikipedia's lists of the top selling games on PS3 and 360. I see numerous console exclusives there. 
Grim... wrote:
:DD
If you haven't played Homeworld, play Homeworld. Then Homeworld 2. Then Homeworld 2 2.
No, it had another name, didn't it?
If you haven't played Homeworld, play Homeworld. Then Homeworld 2. Then Homeworld 2 2.
No, it had another name, didn't it?
There was Homeworld 1.2, which was Cataclysm and which I preferred to Homeworld. It had an awesomely scary cut-scene, fully in the RTS engine yet by simply using superb voice acting managed to be scarier than finding when shopping that the Borg had done a corporate takeover of Tescos and were overzealously pitching loyalty cards by trying to insert them into your forehead.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
RuySan wrote:
this pc is dying shit is going for years.
Yes. Which doesn't mean it's not right. Weren't you moaning about some game being a sloppy console port that didn't offer the ability to remap the mouse buttons? And I seem to recall Oblivion and Fallout players being incredibly angry that they felt the inventory systems had been hobbled by the limited control options of the consoles they were designed for.RuySan wrote:
i played the FEAR 2 demo ...
- what's with the console resolutions? i don't want these black bars. Please fuck off.
- Cannot map the extra mouse buttons?? This trend has to stop. The same happens with Bethesda games.
Regarding Bioshock:- what's with the console resolutions? i don't want these black bars. Please fuck off.
- Cannot map the extra mouse buttons?? This trend has to stop. The same happens with Bethesda games.
RuySan wrote:
Excellent graphics and setting. Also lots of wonderful and unique moments, BUT! the game, like most FPS nowadays is cursed with console-like floaty controls, and that's usually a deal-breaker for me (i could tolerate in this case because the rest is wonderful). If you're playing it on a PC and are used to more accurate FPS keep that in mind
So, "most" FPSs are console orientated, by your own admission?
Quote:
Almost every blockbuster game comes out on PC anyway. The ones that don't are usually crap japanese stuff.
Gears of War 2? Fable II? Uncharted? Halo 3? Consider Wikipedia's lists of the top selling games on PS3 and 360. I see numerous console exclusives there.Yes, games in general are shittier because of the console influence, but still is no reason to have a console because they're still shit there. It's not like FEAR 2 and Bioshock control better because or have better interfaces because i'm playing on the xbox.
Gears of War 1 was actually a very good "port" on the PC. Good controls, Nice graphics and ran like a dream. Too bad the gameplay was non-existant. I'm really not interested in the 2nd
Fable 1 was atrocious and completely retarded. It doesn't seem like the 2nd is any different.
Halo 1 is one of the most overrated games of all time. When i played on the pc i played right after Max Payne 2 which was much better in every possible sense. Still, it had good AI which made the combat fun. But also one of the worst level designs i've seen on a FPS
You have to come up with better examples.
The point is that they're being designed for the consoles, then ported to PC, rather than the other way round which is what used to happen.
RuySan wrote:
Halo 1 is one of the most overrated games of all time. When i played on the pc i played right after Max Payne 2 which was much better in every possible sense.
/spits drink all over work laptop.
You fucking what now?
Craster wrote:
The point is that they're being designed for the consoles, then ported to PC, rather than the other way round which is what used to happen.
yes, they are. But they're still on the pc anyway. Although they're designed with the console in mind, they're still released on the pc. What is dying is "pc gaming how we used to know". There are hardly any pc exclusives from big companies, yes, but the best games i played in the last few years were exclusives. From smaller companies, of course.
Zio wrote:
RuySan wrote:
Halo 1 is one of the most overrated games of all time. When i played on the pc i played right after Max Payne 2 which was much better in every possible sense.
/spits drink all over work laptop.
You fucking what now?
I dunno, I reckon it's a close call.
RuySan wrote:
What is dying is "pc gaming how we used to know". There are hardly any pc exclusives from big companies, yes, but the best games i played in the last few years were exclusives. From smaller companies, of course.
I'd agree with that, and I think it'll be interesting to see what comes out of it.
The PC Halo port is an abortion. I gave up halfway through as it was just terrible. I played it on the Xbox a couple of years later and loved it.
Max Payne 2 is excellent.
Max Payne 2 is excellent.
OK, let's consider Metacritic's top 20 360 games.
1 Grand Theft Auto IV 2008 98 - PC version crippled by awful spyware, says JC
2 BioShock 2007 96 - controls are too "console like" says RuySan
3 Orange Box, The 2007 96 - PC as good
4 Gears of War 2006 94 - PC port as good, but a year later
5 Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The 2006 94 - PC gamers complain it is nerfed for console controls
6 Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 2007 94 - PC as good
7 Halo 3 2007 94 - console exclusive
8 Braid 2008 93 - PC as good, but released nine months later
9 Street Fighter IV 2009 93 - PC as good, but released six months later
10 Fallout 3 2008 93 - PC gamers complain it is nerfed for console controls
11 Gears of War 2 2008 93 - console exclusive
12 Guitar Hero II 2007 92 - console exclusive
13 Rock Band 2007 92 - console exclusive
14 Rock Band 2 2008 92 - console exclusive
15 Mass Effect 2007 91 - PC as good, but nine months later
16 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2006 90 - PC as good
17 Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned 2009 90 - console exclusve
18 Portal: Still Alive 2008 90 - PC as good
19 Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2 2008 90 - console exclusive
20 Forza Motorsport 2 2007 90 - console exclusive
So, many of the PC ports are either clearly just that -- ports of the console version, with restricted controls (I am particularly thinking of the inventory systems in Oblivion and Fallout 3 there), or arrive up to a year after the console versions, or don't exist at all. Or is everyone one of these games shit?
1 Grand Theft Auto IV 2008 98 - PC version crippled by awful spyware, says JC
2 BioShock 2007 96 - controls are too "console like" says RuySan
3 Orange Box, The 2007 96 - PC as good
4 Gears of War 2006 94 - PC port as good, but a year later
5 Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The 2006 94 - PC gamers complain it is nerfed for console controls
6 Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 2007 94 - PC as good
7 Halo 3 2007 94 - console exclusive
8 Braid 2008 93 - PC as good, but released nine months later
9 Street Fighter IV 2009 93 - PC as good, but released six months later
10 Fallout 3 2008 93 - PC gamers complain it is nerfed for console controls
11 Gears of War 2 2008 93 - console exclusive
12 Guitar Hero II 2007 92 - console exclusive
13 Rock Band 2007 92 - console exclusive
14 Rock Band 2 2008 92 - console exclusive
15 Mass Effect 2007 91 - PC as good, but nine months later
16 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2006 90 - PC as good
17 Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned 2009 90 - console exclusve
18 Portal: Still Alive 2008 90 - PC as good
19 Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2 2008 90 - console exclusive
20 Forza Motorsport 2 2007 90 - console exclusive
So, many of the PC ports are either clearly just that -- ports of the console version, with restricted controls (I am particularly thinking of the inventory systems in Oblivion and Fallout 3 there), or arrive up to a year after the console versions, or don't exist at all. Or is everyone one of these games shit?
myp wrote:
The PC Halo port is an abortion. I gave up halfway through as it was just terrible. I played it on the Xbox a couple of years later and loved it.
Max Payne 2 is excellent.
Max Payne 2 is excellent.
Even if the port was an abortion, the level design was still bad.
Craster wrote:
RuySan wrote:
What is dying is "pc gaming how we used to know". There are hardly any pc exclusives from big companies, yes, but the best games i played in the last few years were exclusives. From smaller companies, of course.
I'd agree with that, and I think it'll be interesting to see what comes out of it.
yes. I preferred how it was in the late 80s early 90s where console and computer games were completely differentiated. And i liked both. We had deep and mature games on the pc (betrayal at krondor, ultima and most graphic adventures) and had simple arcade fun on the consoles. I just don't like this "dumbing down/bastardization" (i like many dumb games mind, as long they're challenging and completely Dependant on player skill). It seems like it will return to that again. I hope so
Only idiots looking for an axe to grind had an issue with the inventory systems in Fallout and Oblivion (Mass Effect, that's a different matter). And any problems they had were easily solved with mods.
Also, saying that the PC version of the Orange Box was "as good" as the console version is stretching the truth somewhat. The PC version was better in pretty much every respect.
Also, saying that the PC version of the Orange Box was "as good" as the console version is stretching the truth somewhat. The PC version was better in pretty much every respect.
But most games are made (or at least published) by companies who couldn't give a rat's arse about 'good games', as long as the kids keep forking over the notes. Sure the developers start with a good idea and some passion, but the publishers and the money men quickly grind that out of them.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
OK, let's consider Metacritic's top 20 360 games.
1 Grand Theft Auto IV 2008 98 - PC version crippled by awful spyware, says JC
2 BioShock 2007 96 - controls are too "console like" says RuySan
3 Orange Box, The 2007 96 - PC as good
4 Gears of War 2006 94 - PC port as good, but a year later
5 Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The 2006 94 - PC gamers complain it is nerfed for console controls
6 Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 2007 94 - PC as good
7 Halo 3 2007 94 - console exclusive
8 Braid 2008 93 - PC as good, but released nine months later
9 Street Fighter IV 2009 93 - PC as good, but released six months later
10 Fallout 3 2008 93 - PC gamers complain it is nerfed for console controls
11 Gears of War 2 2008 93 - console exclusive
12 Guitar Hero II 2007 92 - console exclusive
13 Rock Band 2007 92 - console exclusive
14 Rock Band 2 2008 92 - console exclusive
15 Mass Effect 2007 91 - PC as good, but nine months later
16 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2006 90 - PC as good
17 Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned 2009 90 - console exclusve
18 Portal: Still Alive 2008 90 - PC as good
19 Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2 2008 90 - console exclusive
20 Forza Motorsport 2 2007 90 - console exclusive
So, many of the PC ports are either clearly just that -- ports of the console version, with restricted controls (I am particularly thinking of the inventory systems in Oblivion and Fallout 3 there), or arrive up to a year after the console versions, or don't exist at all. Or is everyone one of these games shit?
1 Grand Theft Auto IV 2008 98 - PC version crippled by awful spyware, says JC
2 BioShock 2007 96 - controls are too "console like" says RuySan
3 Orange Box, The 2007 96 - PC as good
4 Gears of War 2006 94 - PC port as good, but a year later
5 Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, The 2006 94 - PC gamers complain it is nerfed for console controls
6 Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 2007 94 - PC as good
7 Halo 3 2007 94 - console exclusive
8 Braid 2008 93 - PC as good, but released nine months later
9 Street Fighter IV 2009 93 - PC as good, but released six months later
10 Fallout 3 2008 93 - PC gamers complain it is nerfed for console controls
11 Gears of War 2 2008 93 - console exclusive
12 Guitar Hero II 2007 92 - console exclusive
13 Rock Band 2007 92 - console exclusive
14 Rock Band 2 2008 92 - console exclusive
15 Mass Effect 2007 91 - PC as good, but nine months later
16 Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2006 90 - PC as good
17 Grand Theft Auto IV: The Lost and Damned 2009 90 - console exclusve
18 Portal: Still Alive 2008 90 - PC as good
19 Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2 2008 90 - console exclusive
20 Forza Motorsport 2 2007 90 - console exclusive
So, many of the PC ports are either clearly just that -- ports of the console version, with restricted controls (I am particularly thinking of the inventory systems in Oblivion and Fallout 3 there), or arrive up to a year after the console versions, or don't exist at all. Or is everyone one of these games shit?
Oblivion was a worthless game unmodded, so that list is also worthless. But well, that's the standards of the console reviewers. And that argument for Bioshock just doesn't work, as i said before.
Rodafowa wrote:
Also, saying that the PC version of the Orange Box was "as good" as the console version is stretching the truth somewhat. The PC version was better in pretty much every respect.
Team Fortress 2, you mean. So 1/5th of it.
RuySan wrote:
Oblivion was a worthless game unmodded, so that list is also worthless.
Oh noes! I wasted 150 hours of my life on a worthless game!
Quote:
But well, that's the standards of the console reviewers.
And gamers too! Simpletons the lot of them!
MetalAngel wrote:
RuySan wrote:
Oblivion was a worthless game unmodded, so that list is also worthless.
Oh noes! I wasted 150 hours of my life on a worthless game!
Yes you did. There's no other way to put it.
Anyway, my favorite games of the last few years were PC exclusives:
STALKER
Space Rangers 2 (this is the direction i want pc games to go, it's just crazy)
Fantasy Wars
Total War games
CIV IV
Still playing Crysis. I am on the Onslaught level and I had to cheat a bit at the mine part (spawned some missile launchers).
In the end I realised that had I waited about 20 mins some Koreans would have brought me some (well, I'd have to waste them to hand them over but that's no biggy) and now I'm entering the mine with it's incredible shadows.
Ran a dev test on it last night, I bottom out at 29 FPS. Which is nice for everything on ultra high with 8xfsaa (not something the mags really encourage).
I might take the FSAA down to 4 though for a few extra frames, though in the inside levels I bottom at 40.
It's definitely much harder and larger than Warhead. But I think Psycho kicks all ass.
Just waiting for Zeta, Wolfy, Dirt 2 and think I'm going to try Mass Effect.
Doc. Yes, Bioshock is gorgeous. Sadly however I just couldn't really get into it and found my attention toward it fading really quickly. After playing Fallout and Crysis I found it horribly linear. I knew I should have played it last year when I brought it. Harumph.
I just know Crytek are up to something aswell. What I don't know, but there's no way they'll not release another cash in on Crysis.
In the end I realised that had I waited about 20 mins some Koreans would have brought me some (well, I'd have to waste them to hand them over but that's no biggy) and now I'm entering the mine with it's incredible shadows.
Ran a dev test on it last night, I bottom out at 29 FPS. Which is nice for everything on ultra high with 8xfsaa (not something the mags really encourage).
I might take the FSAA down to 4 though for a few extra frames, though in the inside levels I bottom at 40.
It's definitely much harder and larger than Warhead. But I think Psycho kicks all ass.
Just waiting for Zeta, Wolfy, Dirt 2 and think I'm going to try Mass Effect.
Doc. Yes, Bioshock is gorgeous. Sadly however I just couldn't really get into it and found my attention toward it fading really quickly. After playing Fallout and Crysis I found it horribly linear. I knew I should have played it last year when I brought it. Harumph.
I just know Crytek are up to something aswell. What I don't know, but there's no way they'll not release another cash in on Crysis.
Who said that PC strategy games such as Sim City aren't graphics intensive?
I re-acquired Simcity 4 at the weekend, having first bought it on week of release and having to upgrade my then new desktop RAM to make it work even in low-res mode. My new laptop (admittedly, not top end) still can't cope with this game (first released sometime in the fifties) on anything more than medium res.
I re-acquired Simcity 4 at the weekend, having first bought it on week of release and having to upgrade my then new desktop RAM to make it work even in low-res mode. My new laptop (admittedly, not top end) still can't cope with this game (first released sometime in the fifties) on anything more than medium res.
Oh and for those of you who go back far enough to have drooled profusely over the boomslang please consider getting a Razer. They're incredibly affordable now and absolutely lovely.
I got me a Salmosa on Egay for £14. Best mouse I have ever used. Not it's not wireless and only has 2 buttons and a scroll wheel but it weighs literally nothing (obscenely light) and is as accurate as a mofo. 3000 DPI IIRC.
So not only are the gaming PCs getting cheap now (and I think that will give PC games a shot in the arm) but the peripherals are too.
I got me a Salmosa on Egay for £14. Best mouse I have ever used. Not it's not wireless and only has 2 buttons and a scroll wheel but it weighs literally nothing (obscenely light) and is as accurate as a mofo. 3000 DPI IIRC.
So not only are the gaming PCs getting cheap now (and I think that will give PC games a shot in the arm) but the peripherals are too.
Johncoffey: You can have a pretty complete Bioshock experience with the demo... there's a few interesting bits further in but the demo really does show you pretty much all there is.
Riles: Everything up to SimCity 3000 was fine. I have SimCity 4 Rush Hour running on my iBook G4 and it JUST ABOUT manages it - just about. The U-Drive missions are far too choppy to be playable.
The thing is, though, there's no good reason for it all being 3D - the subtle changes in angle and alteration aren't really worth the performance hit, certainly not when more of it could have been sprites and we could have had smooth performance or less idiotic pathfinding AI.
Riles: Everything up to SimCity 3000 was fine. I have SimCity 4 Rush Hour running on my iBook G4 and it JUST ABOUT manages it - just about. The U-Drive missions are far too choppy to be playable.
The thing is, though, there's no good reason for it all being 3D - the subtle changes in angle and alteration aren't really worth the performance hit, certainly not when more of it could have been sprites and we could have had smooth performance or less idiotic pathfinding AI.
MetalAngel wrote:
Johncoffey: You can have a pretty complete Bioshock experience with the demo... there's a few interesting bits further in but the demo really does show you pretty much all there is.
Shame, because I loved the hammer horror theme to it (well the fact it was just balls out weird). But it just went on, and on, and on, and on. I gave up on the level where you collect roses or something from a large rose bush that reminded me of margery the trash heap from whatever kids show margery the trash heap was in (Fraggle Rock?).
I also ran horridly short of ammo and couldn't find any anywhere. I suppose I'm just one of the "wasn't all it was cracked up to be" crowd.
Mind you, no offense to console owners (and I sincerely mean this) but other than Halo and a couple of others they're not exactly spoilt for choice in FPS really. If I had never played all the FPS I have then no doubt I would have found it truly amazing. Sadly Half Life 2 kicks it's ass and that's 5 years in now.
MetalAngel wrote:
Riles: Everything up to SimCity 3000 was fine. I have SimCity 4 Rush Hour running on my iBook G4 and it JUST ABOUT manages it - just about. The U-Drive missions are far too choppy to be playable.
The thing is, though, there's no good reason for it all being 3D - the subtle changes in angle and alteration aren't really worth the performance hit, certainly not when more of it could have been sprites and we could have had smooth performance or less idiotic pathfinding AI.
The thing is, though, there's no good reason for it all being 3D - the subtle changes in angle and alteration aren't really worth the performance hit, certainly not when more of it could have been sprites and we could have had smooth performance or less idiotic pathfinding AI.
I seem to recall something about it not actually being proper 3D anyway - this is from years ago so I could be wrong. I do remember it being absolutely unplayable before Rush Hour came out with the performance enhancements, there was a patch after that but it appears to be unavailable now (I acquired the original and installed Rush Hour (as I still have the disk for that) over the top so that I could use a legit license key for the update but its gone).
Anyway, although my laptop isnt top-end, I somewhat foolishly assumed that if it could handle Vista Home Premium swooshyness then it could deal with a game that is getting quite old now. However the first city I started on a medium tile set, I had to downgrade graphics to medium once I'd filled half the screen, which is shite.
The U Drive stuff is shit anyway.
Craster wrote:
RuySan wrote:
What is dying is "pc gaming how we used to know". There are hardly any pc exclusives from big companies, yes, but the best games i played in the last few years were exclusives. From smaller companies, of course.
I'd agree with that, and I think it'll be interesting to see what comes out of it.
TBH? I think the game creators would love to dump the PC into oblivion (fnarr) and never release any games on it again. However, they're not stupid and they know it's money. See, the battle over high priced games has clearly been won on the PC. They wriggled and fought it hard (with their stupid DRM and Securom) but they have clearly lost the fight to keep screwing PC owners in the rectum and make them pay stupid money for games.
So yes, whilst some game makers are sulking and shunning us PC gamers for being thieving pikey cunts, others are finally beginning to realise that if they fuck us off completely they lose a crust. Not an enormous one, and certainly not one that alone would keep them in their riches, but enough to make them think twice about fucking us off completely.
Case in point.
Can anyone tell me what's wrong with that picture? Or the fact that it was announced yesterday that the RRP on 360 games was going to be £54.99?
So basically with a Markg and Kovacs computer (bald headed hitler shithead aside) you can play all of these games for £350. Yes yes, I know you need a monitor, but everyone who has a computer at all has one of those. It only needs to do 1024 or so to be viable, so that's anything made since about 1999 then. Or you could even run it into your telly. But the point I'm making is PC games cost less than half of their console counterparts on release, and, one third when they get a bit old and smelly (see pic).
So all the time there are paying customers waiting there will be PC games. I mean let's be honest, there never really were that many PC games any way. I think people tend to forget sometimes that the PC only really gets a killer app every couple of years or so.
PCs are cheap now. They are, that's an undeniable fact. And with more and more of those cheap PCs able to run games more and more people will want to buy them. And now that the PC game makers have had some sense kicked into them it's also a great value way to play the games without having to mortgage your house every time you want to buy one.
It's PS3 owners I feel sorry for. Simply as there is no way of pinching games to stick it to 'da man' so they're bent firmly over the proverbial barrel.
Roll on Dirt 2 for £17.99, same price I paid for SF4.
JohnCoffey wrote:
Oh and for those of you who go back far enough to have drooled profusely over the boomslang please consider getting a Razer. They're incredibly affordable now and absolutely lovely.
I got me a Salmosa on Egay for £14. Best mouse I have ever used. Not it's not wireless and only has 2 buttons and a scroll wheel but it weighs literally nothing (obscenely light) and is as accurate as a mofo. 3000 DPI IIRC.
So not only are the gaming PCs getting cheap now (and I think that will give PC games a shot in the arm) but the peripherals are too.
I got me a Salmosa on Egay for £14. Best mouse I have ever used. Not it's not wireless and only has 2 buttons and a scroll wheel but it weighs literally nothing (obscenely light) and is as accurate as a mofo. 3000 DPI IIRC.
So not only are the gaming PCs getting cheap now (and I think that will give PC games a shot in the arm) but the peripherals are too.
I am tempted to get a Razor Mouse...
Craster wrote:
Civ4 needs a decent 3D card. Civ4 Colonisation needs a fairly beefy 3D card.
Just a shame Civ4Col is utterly broken then.
Zio wrote:
Am I wrong in massively preferring the new Colonization over Civ IV? Even if it is BASTARD FUCKING HARD?
But there's the thing: It's not hard, it's broken. It's possible to win it on the hardest difficulty in something like 30 turns. The AI is weak, and the only difficuly comes from the revolution. Which scales according to liberty bell production, so in order to win, just don't produce them.
Civ4:BtS, on the other hand, is excellent.
myp wrote:
markg wrote:
I don't even prefer playing FPSs with a keyboard and mouse any more. I had thought of the console pad as an acceptable compromise but I after going back I actually prefer it.
Yep, same here.
Anyway, recent experiences with PC gaming. I recently noticed Dawn of War was a rather nice looking LIVE enabled game, so I downloaded the demo, and asked one reliable forumite if it was any good. He said yes, and the demo ran fine on my laptop (Which was bought for programming games, so has a fairly good spec for a laptop), so I ordered it from Play (10 english sponds.)
While waiting for that, I got bored, and so tried the Company of heroes demo. Which ran well, and seemed fun - despite having more units and base stuff - so I bought it from steam. 4 hours later, it downloaded. The game would barely run at 1fps, even on lowest settings (despite the demo running comfortably on the exact same mission) Every time I tried to run it,it bitched that SP1 wasn't installed - despite the fact that I had installed it - and this meant various texture bandwidth problems. Checked DX, and I wasn't using the debug version, which is a common oops.
So I ended up reinstalling windows. And then spending something like 8 hours updating windows sp1 installed, sp2 installed.
Then steam, and finally CoH. And it still doesn't run anywhere near as smoothly as it did on the demo. Reducing all the settings works well enough.
Anyway, having gone through all that, Dawn of war 2 arrives yesterday. Install... load.... hang. rinse, repeat, repeat. 3 hours of playing around later, and it finally works. But not up to the standards of the demo again. Sigh. Indeed, it completely drops out of playable frame rates upon reaching the first jump pack guy.
Looks like I'm going to have to use my desktop for that. Despite the laptop having easily good enough specifications.
Man, I can see why people prefer PC gaming when a year old gaming laptop performs so well...
The games are good, but the infrastructure leaves an awful lot to be desired when you're used to "Insert game, play game"
Quote:
Anyway, my favorite games of the last few years were PC exclusives:
STALKER
Space Rangers 2 (this is the direction i want pc games to go, it's just crazy)
Fantasy Wars
Total War games
CIV IV
STALKER
Space Rangers 2 (this is the direction i want pc games to go, it's just crazy)
Fantasy Wars
Total War games
CIV IV
Surprise: a man who owns a PC and a Wii has PC games as his favourite games.
Meanwhile, a man who owns a PC, XBox360, PS3 and Wii has PC XBox360 games and PS3 games as his favourite recent games.
And a man who only owns an Xbox360 has XBox360 games as his recent favourite games.
And Chinny has GX4000 games as his favourite games.
myp wrote:
Rodafowa wrote:
Also, saying that the PC version of the Orange Box was "as good" as the console version is stretching the truth somewhat. The PC version was better in pretty much every respect.
Team Fortress 2, you mean. So 1/5th of it.
The bit that I've spent twice as much time playing as the rest of the package put together. So a lot more than 20% by volume. Also, HL and EP1 were considerably prettier on the PC, and there were bits of Portal that I found practically unplayable on the pad. I accept that's my personal cack-handedness, mind.
JohnCoffey wrote:
As long as games are developed on PCs, there'll always be a PC port. Why wouldn't there be? But I think it's hard to deny, when you consider the last five years, that the PC is a declining priority for most publishers. Even Valve, id, and Crytek are targetting consoles now, with both L4D games and Rage being simultaneous releases on PC and 360, and Crysis 2 confirmed for PS3 and 360.
Kovacs Caprios wrote:
JohnCoffey wrote:
Oh and for those of you who go back far enough to have drooled profusely over the boomslang please consider getting a Razer. They're incredibly affordable now and absolutely lovely.
I got me a Salmosa on Egay for £14. Best mouse I have ever used. Not it's not wireless and only has 2 buttons and a scroll wheel but it weighs literally nothing (obscenely light) and is as accurate as a mofo. 3000 DPI IIRC.
So not only are the gaming PCs getting cheap now (and I think that will give PC games a shot in the arm) but the peripherals are too.
I got me a Salmosa on Egay for £14. Best mouse I have ever used. Not it's not wireless and only has 2 buttons and a scroll wheel but it weighs literally nothing (obscenely light) and is as accurate as a mofo. 3000 DPI IIRC.
So not only are the gaming PCs getting cheap now (and I think that will give PC games a shot in the arm) but the peripherals are too.
I am tempted to get a Razor Mouse...
£14? I remember paying that for a non branded pile of cack. They did used to be for the elite, and they were a very snobby company. But I think like others they have now realised that not everyone playing PC games is a rich prick and thus have catered for everyone. I mean you can still spend £90 on a Razer mouse, but the Salmosa is more than adequate. I had to turn mine down to 1600 DPI because one flick of the wrist sent the cursor flying.
`so I have added to my want list
Crysis
Dawn of War
Any more?
Crysis
Dawn of War
Any more?
@Mr Dave.. Company of heroes worked well on my Dell D610 and on my D630 laptops with out a problem.. They are not gaming laptops at all..
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
That's a price cut to stimulate demand.
Indeed. Simply because noone demanded paying £35+ for a game on the PC so they would just nick it.
That's also why Microsoft have done what they did with W7 (the £45 thing). Because if they charge too much people will just nick it.
With all retail people charge the highest price they can, as much as they can get away with without turning people away or making them think "hey, I will have to wait for that" and then going off the boil.
For £17.99 for a brand spanking title I wouldn't even embarass myself by typing 'thepiratebay' into my browser. £35+? I'd be very tempted to.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
As long as games are developed on PCs, there'll always be a PC port. Why wouldn't there be? But I think it's hard to deny, when you consider the last five years, that the PC is a declining priority for most publishers. Even Valve, id, and Crytek are targetting consoles now, with both L4D games and Rage being simultaneous releases on PC and 360, and Crysis 2 confirmed for PS3 and 360.
Yeah my initial point really is that this time around there isn't very much for me to get excited about playing. Obviously I kind of knew this before getting a new PC and gaming was never the main reason. However what I wasn't prepared for was just how dismal things had got, most new games are confined to genres I find incredibly dull. As for it becoming a hotbed of innovation for indie developers, I don't see it somehow. I think their efforts are more likely to go increasingly towards the emerging platforms such as the iPhone and XBLA rather than the PC. Mr Dave wrote:
Zio wrote:
Am I wrong in massively preferring the new Colonization over Civ IV? Even if it is BASTARD FUCKING HARD?
But there's the thing: It's not hard, it's broken. It's possible to win it on the hardest difficulty in something like 30 turns. The AI is weak, and the only difficuly comes from the revolution. Which scales according to liberty bell production, so in order to win, just don't produce them.
Not that I wish to derail the thread, but I must be playing the game wrong. Liberty Bell production seems to take so long for me that I struggle to have enough to start a revolution before the time runs out if I don't produce it till around the half-way point.
Kovacs Caprios wrote:
`so I have added to my want list
Crysis
Dawn of War
Any more?
Crysis
Dawn of War
Any more?
For 3 quid or less Dirt is unrivalled. Even with it's flaws you can't beat it (at least 9 hours of solid play) for that much.
Stalker is about a fiver now. Love or hate? for that much it's worth finding out. Oddly I was in the middle on that. Loved it for a week then didn't play it again. Still worth a fiver for the time I spent on it.
I got Flatout 2 for about £4. Good little game and lots of fun. I got Football Manager 07 (uh oh I said it..) for £1.99 lmao. Was a bit too complex for me to pick up quickly, but I'll read the fucking manual when the weather turns cack haha.
Juiced 2 : Hot import nights is simply awesome. Fantastic graphics and good fun. It's totally unrealistic, but it's still great bloody fun.
They now do a super duper mega Orange Box for HL2 that includes loads of games for about £15. If you've not played through the HL2 series do so, they're fanny tastic (all apart from Ep1 which I thought was pants). Ep2 was fantastic, though.
What I usually do is go to IGN.com. Load up reviews, change to PC and then take a look through. Nice thing about PC games is that everything from the past 4-5 years still looks incredible and can be had for pennies
Kovacs Caprios wrote:
@Mr Dave.. Company of heroes worked well on my Dell D610 and on my D630 laptops with out a problem.. They are not gaming laptops at all..
Exactly. My laptop should be capable (and indeed, ran the demo with all the settings on high in it's native resolution) but needs to be set on 1024x768 (thereby stretching everythin as it's widescreen) and everything on low and it's still a bit juddery from time to time.
Quote:
`so I have added to my want list
Crysis
Dawn of War
Crysis
Dawn of War
Just a note... Dawn of War amd DoW 2 are really very different.
DoW, you'd have to ask t'others about, but DoW2 is a small scale RPG/RTS. Take 4 distinct, customisable squads into combat. (Or play co-op and have 2 each) No base building.
Having only played about 4 missions - so don't know how long/varied it is -but it's been really fun so far. Can't get past the 4th due to performance issues. I'd put it on my desktop, but it's lacking in an antenna for the wireless card.
JohnCoffey wrote:
Stalker is about a fiver now. Love or hate? for that much it's worth finding out. Oddly I was in the middle on that. Loved it for a week then didn't play it again. Still worth a fiver for the time I spent on it.
I utterly loved Stalker, yet for some reason Clear Sky is totally failing to grab me by the balls. Maybe it's because I could whack everything in the settings up to Max on the original, plus have a few mods running and have a totally silky smooth gameplay experience with it, but Clear Sky runs like a total dog on my PC.
Zio wrote:
Mr Dave wrote:
Zio wrote:
Am I wrong in massively preferring the new Colonization over Civ IV? Even if it is BASTARD FUCKING HARD?
But there's the thing: It's not hard, it's broken. It's possible to win it on the hardest difficulty in something like 30 turns. The AI is weak, and the only difficuly comes from the revolution. Which scales according to liberty bell production, so in order to win, just don't produce them.
Not that I wish to derail the thread, but I must be playing the game wrong. Liberty Bell production seems to take so long for me that I struggle to have enough to start a revolution before the time runs out if I don't produce it till around the half-way point.
There's of course the other secret to success: If you want to win, fewer colonies is better. With fewer colonies, you need to produce fewer bells, and so reaching the required amount is easier. (I found one port and 3 inland towns to be best, 4 if the resource layout wasn't good enough)
The game should reward liberty bell production (founding fathers), and it should reward a large amount of colonies with a bustling economy, but it doesn't. It actively punishes you for both.
Zio wrote:
JohnCoffey wrote:
Stalker is about a fiver now. Love or hate? for that much it's worth finding out. Oddly I was in the middle on that. Loved it for a week then didn't play it again. Still worth a fiver for the time I spent on it.
I utterly loved Stalker, yet for some reason Clear Sky is totally failing to grab me by the balls. Maybe it's because I could whack everything in the settings up to Max on the original, plus have a few mods running and have a totally silky smooth gameplay experience with it, but Clear Sky runs like a total dog on my PC.
Stalker was apparently in production for about five years. Had THQ not come along and started jamming toes up arses it would likely never have been finished. It's buggy as fuck if I'm honest, my text shot out of the boxes it was supposed to reside in. But it was the 'have a nose around Chernobyl' part of it that really grabbed me. Eerie, creepy and quiet. Dirty, rusty and old. It definitely has a shit load of presence.
Sadly it was when I had seen and felt all of that presence that my attention started to wander. But it was fucking awesome while it lasted. Clear Sky was buggy as balls. I never did get it because every review I read made it clear that it was an unfinished beta and would need the mother of all patches to get it working.
markg wrote:
As for it becoming a hotbed of innovation for indie developers, I don't see it somehow. I think their efforts are more likely to go increasingly towards the emerging platforms such as the iPhone and XBLA rather than the PC.
Mibby, but they're always going to need somewhere to show off their skills & PCs are perfect for this, I mean everyone has a PC so you've literally got unlimited playtesters & every gaming forum/blog is a potential distribution centre. Then you've got all the 'Free' software communities, who are writing & improving stuff all the time. JohnCoffey wrote:
Zio wrote:
JohnCoffey wrote:
Stalker is about a fiver now. Love or hate? for that much it's worth finding out. Oddly I was in the middle on that. Loved it for a week then didn't play it again. Still worth a fiver for the time I spent on it.
I utterly loved Stalker, yet for some reason Clear Sky is totally failing to grab me by the balls. Maybe it's because I could whack everything in the settings up to Max on the original, plus have a few mods running and have a totally silky smooth gameplay experience with it, but Clear Sky runs like a total dog on my PC.
Stalker was apparently in production for about five years. Had THQ not come along and started jamming toes up arses it would likely never have been finished. It's buggy as fuck if I'm honest, my text shot out of the boxes it was supposed to reside in. But it was the 'have a nose around Chernobyl' part of it that really grabbed me. Eerie, creepy and quiet. Dirty, rusty and old. It definitely has a shit load of presence.
Sadly it was when I had seen and felt all of that presence that my attention started to wander. But it was fucking awesome while it lasted.
i did not encounter one single bug in STALKER. Maybe i was lucky. I'm quite surprised that your attention started to wonder, as the game throws new stuff and locations all the time, unlike other games (*cough* Oblivion). The brain scorcher or the sarcophagus for example. All unforgettable experiences. The game is still one of the best looking available. It has the best use of lightning i've ever seen. None of this bloomy bullshit that most games have nowadays.
Mr Dave wrote:
Surprise: a man who owns a PC and a Wii has PC games as his favourite games.
My point is that the games are exclusives. I could have mentioned Bioshock, Gears of War or Mass Effect.
This reminds me that I have to post that review of Silent Hunter 3, my fave PC game.
I did a tweak guide for Company of Heroes, it's around somewhere online I'm sure. I'll try digging it out, as its worth reading. There are several settings that MASSIVELY affect FPS on CoH. Trees are one, shadows another. Also it becomes way more smooth a couple of patches in.
I did a tweak guide for Company of Heroes, it's around somewhere online I'm sure. I'll try digging it out, as its worth reading. There are several settings that MASSIVELY affect FPS on CoH. Trees are one, shadows another. Also it becomes way more smooth a couple of patches in.
Ruysan. The combat in Stalker was totally and completely outbalanced and unfair. No matter where you are the fuckers *will* hit you even though your rifle seems incapable of hitting the back side of a barn. In the end I got frustrated with being hit from miles away (what the fuck are they crack marksmen?) and I started to go off it.
I should have found a cheat and ploughed on.
Deffo think I'm going to reinstall it soon. Just to max it out.
I should have found a cheat and ploughed on.
Deffo think I'm going to reinstall it soon. Just to max it out.
RuySan wrote:
i did not encounter one single bug in STALKER. Maybe i was lucky. I'm quite surprised that your attention started to wonder, as the game throws new stuff and locations all the time, unlike other games (*cough* Oblivion). The brain scorcher or the sarcophagus for example. All unforgettable experiences. The game is still one of the best looking available. It has the best use of lightning i've ever seen. None of this bloomy bullshit that most games have nowadays.
One of the mods I had for Stalker gave it proper day and night lighting - which meant it was completely pitch black at night, save for any torch you might have equipped. Made travelling around outside at night an almost suicidal prospect, which kinda added something to the game in a way.
As for bugs... I never encountered anything show-stopping, but I think it would be very difficult to claim the game is especially polished.
AngryPete wrote:
I did a tweak guide for Company of Heroes, it's around somewhere online I'm sure. I'll try digging it out, as its worth reading. There are several settings that MASSIVELY affect FPS on CoH. Trees are one, shadows another. Also it becomes way more smooth a couple of patches in.
Version is 2.600
Literally everything is on its minimum setting in the graphics menu.
The hardware is obviously capable of full settings at 1440x900(Demo proved this) so I'm a little confused.
Page 2 of 45 [ 2211 posts ]