I think I'm falling away from Pc Gaming

a lot of games have free demos that let you play one level or area to get a feel for it or at least see what it's like. it might be helpful to try downloading the demo for a game you hear about before buying it so you're more likely to enjoy what you play. i don't think there's anything "wrong with you"- you just have a wider definition of fun than only computer games. there's nothing wrong with that!

I don't think there is anything wrong with you ... games on the 360 (and Motorstorm on the PS3) are very good, so it's easy to see how that might satisfy you.

I chose to buy BIOSHOCK the old-fashioned way ( I still haven't finished Half Life 2 because I hate Steam), and I'm loving it ... playing it on my PC (which I've recently upgraded to the E6850 and 8800GTX). It plays fantastic, and I'm really enjoying the game. I do like playing my 360 on the BigScreen, but still find the PC gaming experience more immersive.

Try upgrading your PC and see how you feel.

I haven't given up PC Gaming yet. Despite the fact that I only play Multiplayer shooters like Battlefield, CS, and Quake Wars. I tend to only like single player in my RTS games. I've owned NES, Sega Genesis, Sega Dreamcast, and an Xbox and all of them got sold at one point or another because I never played them hardly. The PC has always held my attention better than any console game has. Halo 2 was ok, and Halo 1 I couldn't stand due to the lazy level design and the fact that the 2nd half of the game was the 1st half in reverse with a few new enemies tossed in.

The problem is the prevalence in the gaming industry of the desire to re-create the same old FPS's in ever newer versions. There isn't much diversity in the gaming experience on the PC becuase developers aren't developing interesting games for it. Thus, from the developers' POV, the limitations inherent in console gaming (this article presents an interesting look at some: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=445) aren't a big issue. I guess they want to spend less time designing and programming and put more titles on the shelves in the hopes that it will generate more revenue. Personally I'm finding it interesting revisiting some of my older DOS based games.

Well, I must say, you are quitting before some great games will be coming out...but it's understandable to dislike PC gaming. It's a ridiculously expensive hobby making the gamers upgrade on a generally frequent basis. Rather than in console gaming where you buy a single $300 system and you're good to go. No one has unfair advantage or better performance, it's all the same system.

I've thought about this as well because it does cost much more to be a PC gamer, however I find that the imprecise controls of consoles are not to my liking. When I tap the joystick, I don't want it to shoot the crosshair a quarter way across the screen. With the mouth I can control everything more exactly.

I can't wait for Crysis, Quake Wars and Call of Duty 4

i think pc gaming hasn't advanced as much as console gaming. I don't mean in terms of graphics. In that case, the pc always wins. But a lot of the same exact games come out. nobody tries anything new.

That's the problem with pc gaming, you'll always have your shooters, your mmo's that try to mimic WoW. So it gets old. Not to say all pc games are like this, but i think consoles are better in the originality department.

and to play games that aren't that new, it isn't really worth it to spend money on an upgrade every time a new game comes out. consoles will always be better in that respect because they last for 5 years (well according to the previous trends, who knows what will happen with this generation)

but you can't beat the online features of the PC. xbox live can't compare.

unfortunately i can't live without my counterstrike fix. It's a drug. I always end up coming back to play that game.

The only people that say PC Gaming is expensive are the ones that buy into the hype that they absolutely must have a $300 CPU and $300 graphics card to play any games at all. You can get more than adequate performance with a $150 CPU and $150 graphics card and the cheapest 2GB of memory you can get your grubby little mitts on. Not the best in the universe, but more than enough to satisfy most. If you have a console you're going to need a base system anyway. You just have to consider the $400 you spend on gaming hardware for your PC as putting the gaming console into a basic computer that really can't play games. Console gaming is still a bit cheaper, but not by as big a margin as some make it out to be.

The really expensive uber hardware is for those that feel they must compensate for an anatomical shortcoming or those allergic to money.

Not at the same quality in many cases... Sure you could buy a 7600GS to play games, but you'll have to run them on low settings and upgrade the GPU in a year. Plus, you're only tallying a CPU and GPU when in reality there is more than that. Try to put together a build it yourself PC for less than $500 while trying to play games at a medium setting level (which would be about equal if not worse than on a console). That already sets the bar $200 more than consoles and we're not even talking high quality. Sure, I'm defending my buying a $1700 gaming rig, but if you enjoy playing games in their full beauty and you have the money, why not spend it. Money means nothing if not to be spent.

You're going to have to have the $500 PC anyway since your gaming console does not possess a word processor or e-mail client or full fledged web browser.

I've been in this system building club for a while. I know my stuff. It doesn't take as much money as you think.

Here I am, trying to get people not to buy a 1500 dollar cpu for their little AW, but I'm buying a 300 dollar Q6600 G0.

but you guys are making fun of that.

=(

p.s. come back to pc gaming. It will always be better than consoles

That's what I'm thinking. Look at the guy over in AW, bought a $8000pc that will barely out perform one for $6000 less....besides in the e-peen and artificial benchmark categories

While it is nice to have the fastest and baddest if you have the money and you want it, I don't usually buy the hype that you need to run your games at 30000x2000 at a bajillion frames per second with 98AA and 400AF.

Game manufacturers know this and they usually support games that will run on um... outdated hardware (say 3-4 years). They know that not everybody has the latest $1000 CPU(s) and $900 video card(s), and that most people are simply satisfied by being able to run their games satisfactorily.

Only the 1337 snobs are the ones who bitch that if they get something slower they won't be able to run their games (in a tone that it won't run at all or give two frames per second less that their standards which then becomes unnaceptable).

Here's how Bioshock looks on my "outdated" computer:



Not bad for a P4 @ 2.4Ghz, 1GB RAM and 7600GS, huh?

In short, if you can get the best of the best and want it simply get it. Just don't troll around alarming everybody that if you can't run things at a bajillion frames per second you won't be able to enjoy your games.

Bottom line, just simply get what need or want as long as you know it will make you happy. You want a computer go ahead and buy one, you want a console go ahead and buy one, your choice, your money, not others.

I hate to tell you moidock, but you're probably in a bad forum to be saying this over in Dell constantly I have to remind people that just because a game doesn't run at 50+ fps at 1920x1600 does not mean the card sucks

Oh man I didnt think moiduck would have such a dated machine!

The problem with PC gaming is your limited to FPS, RTS, MMO type games which you'll find plenty of. For many people such as myself and MrEvil this isnt really a problem since those are the games we look forward too as it evolves. The consoles cater to everyone and thus along the way you get ports of popular PC titles and hope the control scheme doesnt bug you at all. I really cant live without a mouse and keyboard and if I am playing a console game its likely going to be on my DS.

I love building computers for how fast they will run, but I'd never pay someone else to do it for me and I'd never pay that price.

I can build a system for 3k that will out perform that 8k one and I'll be playing it for two months before they get their computer...

That's not always entirely true.

Look at this thread for example.

The parts are identical, the price is $100 off and that doesn't include the RAID or warranty for the self built.

http://www.notebookforums.com/thread203305.html

Also though, it depends on manufacturers and how you configure things. I think buying an ALX is simply retarded. That may be just me.

Plus, people love to build there machines, it really does carry self pride along with being able to do it.

ummm, yeah... If you don't buy the ultra and the stupid 1500 dollar cpu, you buy the Q6600, overclock it to 3.0ghz and take a GTX, overclock it to ultra levels. You just saved 2,000 dollars with the exact same performance.

;-)


You get 1 year warranties and I think evga has a better warranty than an AW.

just my .02

My response was to you saying buying from a vendor is a waste of money. My post proves that its not. Ultra 579 GTX 549 savings of $60 QX6850 1399 QX6700 975 savings of $425 -$485 from self built ~$4200 same config through AW = $3744 (which still includes two 250 GB drives in RAID 0)