Why would you want everyone to play the game at with exactly the same framerate and graphics settings for everyone though? For a competitive multiplayer game it’s important that every player has the similar advantages etc, but as far as graphics go they’re just a skin covering the gameplay, and so if a person has a more up to date system it makes sense to be able to have the graphics improved accordingly and not be held back by the technology of three or four years ago. So if I’m given the choice of playing Fable on my Xbox or my two year old PC, I’d choose the PC over the Xbox any day.
Money needed aside, the game is still going to ultimately look better (and possibly run better as well) on a PC that can handle it. Now if you’re content to play the Xbox version by all means do, but if you already had a PC that was capable of running the game would you rather play it Xbox or PC? Assuming you had a control pad, and could set it up in front of your couch as well of course
Games like Morrowind and KOTOR run worse on Xbox than their PC counterparts (unfortunately), so despite the fact that the Xbox itself is cheaper, I’d much rather play those games on the PC. And Fable looks like it’s going to be the same - as with Morrowind it has some framerate issues that won’t be such an issue if you run the games on a PC that it handles them properly.
i agree with solo
With a PC you get improved graphics, higher framerate, higher refresh rate, etc (usually)
PC games are also less buggy due to the fact that develpoerd release patches and bug fixes. Multiplayer is also a lot better on the PC (but i havn’t used xbox live so i can’t compare it to that)
But then again, some people can’t be bothered witht he fuss of setting everything up, changing options, installing things etc, and just want to put in the game and play it.
But for me, with my nice system, joypad, and surround sound, i’ll stick with my PC
In the Xbox’s defense, I’d say that Xbox Live has a slight edge over PC multiplayer in some ways. It?s definitely the best no fuss solution. Since everyone has the same system, and every one requires a broadband connection, issues with lag are a lot rarer. This means that players all have roughly the same advantage as one another. With Xbox Live you can also invite players who are playing other LIVE games to join your party which I can see being a really useful feature. A similar thing can be done via MSN messenger on PC, it’s just not as smooth.
The best thing about Xbox Live is that nearly everyone has a headset. cough nearly. It’s a lot easier to curse someone for stabbing you in the back with the convenant energy sword out loud than typing a response and being killed again as you type it. Not everyone has a headset, but since there isn’t much of a choice more people choose it, whereas a lot of PC gamers don’t bother and simply type instead.
However, saying all this, many of Xbox Live’s features are available on PC on a game by game basis, and with the ability to play mods as well, there are heaps of additional levels and even whole games that can be downloaded from the internet for free to make your game last for years if you want it to. Value for money indeed.
[quote=“Scott”]But then again, some people can’t be bothered witht he fuss of setting everything up, changing options, installing things etc, and just want to put in the game and play it.
[/quote]
It’s not so much that we can’t be bothered, we just can’t afford it.
[quote=“Scott”]i agree with solo
With a PC you get improved graphics, higher framerate, higher refresh rate, etc (usually)
PC games are also less buggy due to the fact that develpoerd release patches and bug fixes. Multiplayer is also a lot better on the PC (but i havn’t used xbox live so i can’t compare it to that)
But then again, some people can’t be bothered witht he fuss of setting everything up, changing options, installing things etc, and just want to put in the game and play it.
But for me, with my nice system, joypad, and surround sound, i’ll stick with my PC ^_^[/quote]
Less buggy you’re having a laugh, I remember the bug fest that was Black and White. And the fact that you have to download patches in the 1st place , proves PC games on the whole are more buggy.
PC will always have the advantage with it’s come to Res, and RAM. Fine if you got the money, but I rather spend the cash on the games.
And yet me tell you nothing beat LIVE. It’s the best online service there is .
It’s not so much that we can’t be bothered, we just can’t afford it.[/quote]
I was talking more along the terms of the option configurations, and settings. And things you have to install in order to get the game to work (graphic drivers, directX, steam in some cases, etc)
Alot of people just want to put the game in and play it
On PC, there is no “first party” that ensures the level of quality of a product. While lately, things have been getting worse on the console side, until recently, console games were much less bug-ridden than PC games. Why do you think PC games need patches? Ask any developer… testing on a PC is a nightmare. Heck, just ask Blizzard how much fun they’re having with WoW
On the contrary, though, if a game is released on a console that is buggy, it’s a lot harder for the developer to fix that game after it is released. On the PC there is no finished product, which is both a blessing and a curse, but at least it ensures that games can be improved if they need to be. Who wants to buy a “game of the year” edition of Morrowind in order to fix the numerous bugs found in the original Xbox version of the game? Or sign up for Xbox Live. Gamers shouldn?t have to pay extra for things that should have been included in the original game IMO.
Also, is having a first party controlling what games are released really such a good thing? Sure they approve games first, which ensures a level of quality, but what if they don’t approve something that is actually worthwhile. If I’m not mistaken, I recall Sony not allowing Capcom to release certain 2D games on the Playstation 1. With the PC anyone can release any game which is why I can’t see things like mods taking off on a console.
While there are certainly exceptions, most of the bugs that make it onto console games are pretty minor (KOTOR2 is the biggest recent offender of this… sheesh, that game was buggy), but for the most part, console games don’t have issues that need patching.
Ever try to play Ultima 9?? I rest my case
But in all seriousness, sure, first parties may sometimes prevent games from coming over, but for the amount of money you’d pay to upgrade your computer to run newer games, you could purchase an entire new Japanese PS2 and just import that games
Heck, I was considering buying one of those flat PS2s in Japan, simply because it’s $150, and it can fit right on top of my old one (don’t want to modchip my PS2, since it was a gift from my fiance, and don’t want to risk breaking it).
I thought the point of the Xbox GOTY Morrowind was to allow Xbox players to play the two expansions. I’ve played both the Xbox (original) and PC versions of Morrowind, and I have to say I had a much easier time of it (glitch-wise at least) with the Xbox version. Even if the Xbox version of Morrowind is glitchy and I just lucked out, it would definitely be an exception.
I do absolutely agree with you on the mod/independent game thing though.
I was under the impression that the developers included bug fixes for Morrowind in GOTY edition (as well as the two expansion packs). My point was really that with PC games, those patches could be downloaded independently, rather the developer having to re-release the whole game.
About Morrowind’s bugs though. I didn’t play a lot of the game because I didn’t end up liking it a lot, but I noticed several bugs, and “stuck” places. The game also had some quite notable framerate issues. At least with the PC version, either toning down the visuals or upgrading to a more powerful machine could fix the framerate.
Can’t say I have, but I seem to remember you mentioning on another topic what an abomination it was
Now, yes, but back when the PS2 launched and could actually be considered a powerful machine you’d be lucky to remembers the price early PS2s were selling on eBay. Ultimately you pay for what you get, and more powerful hardware usually costs more, but it is worth it if you’re after the smoothest gameplay experience. But getting back to the topic at hand, why should you have to pay for two versions of nearly exactly the same piece of hardware when your current PS2 packs enough power to handle any Japanese PS2 game? Looks like Sony trying to rip off their customers to me >:)
Actually, the region encoding thing has a lot to do (but not everything… controlling the market is a part of it, too) with DVD licensing. Which, at it’s source, is also about controlling the market, so… yeah. But, it’s meant to prevent cannibalization of sales across territories, as well.
As for prices, prices on Ebay don’t count. That was just stupid fanboyism at work (who the heck would pay $3000 for a PS2? at launch, even!?). Even then, it was only $300 in the US at retail.
As for Ultima 9, I forget the details, but it took like 4 patches before the game was even playable for most people, then users had to go in and hack the game themselves in order to prevent the game from randomly corrupting saves files every few hours. Oh, and the game ran at like 5 fps even on newer machines, unless you had a very specific setup.
Exactly. The question is, why don’t we see that kind of control on handhelds or the PC as well? Also, with DVDs you can get DVD players that can play movies from any region. These kind of issues are a complete nightmare for the hardcore gamer who doesn’t want to miss out on games such as Phantom Dust and yet still wants to play online (since Microsoft bans modded consoles from Xbox Live). Especially in the case of import only games it seems like an unnecessary level of control to me. Happy customers are more important than a few lost sales.
Fair enough about eBay prices not counting. Still, if you bought a Japanese PS2 and an American PS2 at launch that’s US$600. You could upgrade your PC to quite a beast with that Now, you might be thinking “it isn’t the PS2 launch era anymore”, but in that case we can only really compare the two PS2s to the price of a PC upgrade that runs games as well as the PS2. And I think you’ll find that such a PC would be able to out perform the PS2 (correct me if I’m wrong).
About the Ultima 9 thing, it sounds like the game shouldn’t have been released like that in the first place, on PC or console, in such a state. However when it comes to multiplatform games that are released on both PC and console, from my experience the PC version usually runs fine or if there are small issues a patch is released soon after. If there are issues with the console version, however, patching the game up is usually out of the question and with the complexity of today?s games that is sometimes quite an issue.
It’s not so much the games being horrible, so much as running horribly. Slowdown, for instance, is more commonly found on PC titles. Crashing is more common too.
And then, even if your computer meets the minimum system requirements, there’s no guarantee it would still be a smooth and beautiful experience. The original Baldur’s Gate, which was a pretty good game for the time it came out, had a notorious fit half the time it ran on my old Compaq (my very first Windows PC). Getting through each playing session was a crapshoot, but the computer met requirements. There was probably some incompatibility somewhere (aside from the computer being a Compaq :P) to account for it, but that’s the way it goes with the PC market.
Whereas with a console game, it might be a bad game, but you know it will run. Chances are, any random console game you pick off the store shelf will play just fine on its designated system and without crashing.
But usually, if you’re a PC gamer, you will know quite a bit about things, and you should be able to easily tell why a game crashes/has slowdown and fix it. I never have probelms with my PC games to be honest…
And everyone knows not to trust minimum requirements =P
[quote=“Scott”]
But usually, if you’re a PC gamer, you will know quite a bit about things, and you should be able to easily tell why a game crashes/has slowdown and fix it. I never have probelms with my PC games to be honest…
And everyone knows not to trust minimum requirements =P[/quote]
That’s exactly the issue. The console allows you to plop down a reasonable amount of money, and never have to worry about things like that. You know that every game you purchase with the PS2/Xbox/GC logo on it will work perfectly (barring the very rare exception). On PC, you have to research if there are issues, give it a try, and if something doesn’t work, you have to look for upgraded drivers, hack fixes, downloads, etc. Not what you would call a user-friendly experience, and not to mention extremely stressful/time consuming.
As for your example about the US/Japanese PS2s, that’s assuming you needed to buy a Japanese PS2. Most games make it across the ocean anyway, and the ones that don’t (for the most part) usually aren’t worth it. There are exceptions, of course (man, I’m getting sick of saying that word), but even though I can read Japanese, I rarely see a game that even remotely interests me (lately, that is… used to import all the time).
Also, the difference between buying a console not-at-launch, and buying slightly older PC hardware is that the PC hardware quickly becomes obsolete. As soon as a killer app comes out, you need to upgrade in order to even get it to run smoothly. With a console, even after price drops and whatever, you’re still guaranteed perfect compatibility with all software that is released. Very different, if you ask me.
To add to what Scott said, the minimum specs are exactly what they suggest - the minimum you’ll need to get that game running at all. That doesn’t mean that the game with run smoothly however, even with the graphics turned right down. For a smooth gameplay experience, I’d always go by the recommended specs. One thing that may not be true, however, is when developers say a “DirectX 9 graphics card” is recommended… there are some really cheap DirectX 9 cards out there, but not all of them are enough to run the game at a smooth framerate, so what they should really mean is a good graphics card.
Another thing, about PC gaming… you mentioned that the computer you were using was a Compaq. If the computer was just a machine bought straight from a shop, it was likely to be bundled with the cheapest motherboard and graphics card that the company thought that they could get away with. Often PCs that you buy straight from a store are advertised by how fast or how much RAM they process, but then they give you some budget onboard graphics card that won’t run the latest games. From my experience, it’s always best to get your PC custom built if you’re getting one for gaming - it works out cheaper in the end too, and there are plenty of places that will assemble the machine for you if you’re not comfortable with doing it yourself.
One last thing I wanted to respond to was the point about crashing. Can I ask if you’ve been gaming on the PC recently as well? I certainly agree that gaming on Windows 98 isn’t always very fun. From my experience stability has gotten a lot better since Windows 98 and 95. The old blue screens of death appear very very rarely on XP.
XP certainly is much better at handling application errors, but if I play World of Warcraft for longer than an hour, when I log off, it unfailingly crashes to the blue screen. It’s gotten to the point that the moment I log off, I just reset the computer. =\
Three years isn’t really that quick in computer/gaming industry, although it can be fast for our wallets
What I’m really getting at though, is that for the hardcore gamer who wants to play a game in high res and with a guaranteed smooth framerate (since with PC games the framerate isn’t fixed; it depends on your hardware) a custom built PC is pretty much the ultimate solution in every area apart from price. If a user simply wants to play games causally, or can’t afford the price of an upgrade every three years or so then an Xbox is okay. But for the best performance, a new PC easily outperforms the Xbox. And with the Xbox severely lacking in exclusive games, it seems more like a stripped down PC to me.
The only game I’ve had major problems trying to getting working on my current PC is Final Fantasy VII and that is quite an old game now. For the majority of games being released these days, a patch isn’t even required, and if it is then it’s simply a matter of going to the games’ website, downloading the patch, and following a simple wizard to get the game up and running. That’s a small sacrifice to pay for playing the game in high res.
I’ve actually tried World of Warcraft (I borrowed a friends version for a few days to see what it was like) and I did notice a few bugs in the game but nothing to that extreme… I wonder if something is up with your setup itself rather than the game? It’s quite rare for a game to actually make XP itself crash like that. When was the last time that you reformatted, and have you tried scanning for adware/spyware/viruses etc?
Now, you might be thinking “it isn’t the PS2 launch era anymore”, but in that case we can only really compare the two PS2s to the price of a PC upgrade that runs games as well as the PS2. And I think you’ll find that such a PC would be able to out perform the PS2 (correct me if I’m wrong).