ID Software: PC gamers moving to console

[FallenMystic]

right. this post would be relevant in 2002.

Typical biased PC fanboy, knowledge of console gaming still lagging many years behind. bet its also a surprise to you that consoles have more than composite outputs now?

Actually I have both a PC and console; my point is that the standards for what makes a good FPS on a console vs what makes a good FPS on a PC are different. Again use Halo, console it sold very well; PC the sales were drek at best; why; it was nothing better than average. Same holds true for UT3; sold/is selling well on consoles but crappy sales due to it being a crappy game on the PC.

Loved Halo PC

Based on the sales; you would be one of the few; there will rarely be a game that doesn't sell at all; someone/group will invariable love it.

The thing is - in the perspective of a game developer sales are worth a hell of a lot more than any critical acclaim or demands on an enthusiast messageboard.
Yes, PC gamers will forever say that Halo is "average" and this and that - but it's outsold every PC shooter in the last 10 years and it got stellar ratings to boot. All 3 did in fact. Yet, I'm sure PC gamers will find a way to discard that critical acclaim (and $ made) yet accept the acclaim for a PC game like HL2. It's a double standard.

As as been stated before, sales != good game, or in general good product. Halo sold well because it was one of the first FPS games on a console. Halo2/3 sold well because they were one of the first MP FPS games on a console. Big selling points which would draw a crowd in; another thing that would lead to big sales would be MS's advertising budget. Count how much was spent on HL2 advertising vs any one of the Halo advertising, (your examples,)... more pubic eye = more potential sale.

And yes HL2 is a better game than all 3 of the Halo's; not because of the acclaim but because it was a better game. It played better, was more fun and actually had a good storyline; unlike the Halo storyline which read like it was freshly spiewed out of some grad-student's FanFic blog.

Fact is, the developers see that console shooters can be great and they're selling like hotcakes.

Great for their sales yes; again has nothing to do with how good or not good a game is; you tend to equate $$ with quality which is not always the case.

If they can ever do that, you'll see even more of the hardcore PC gamers (the few left) make the switch, too.

If PC gaming goes away, (which it will not,) it would be bad for gaming as a whole; innovation happens on a PC, the new hardware to push the latest and greatest causes the machine to move ever forward; if the devs have the same hardware to program on for a 7 to 10 year span... how much innovation will you see come out of that?

No. not superior in every way, mr biased pc gamer. there are only 2 things the mouse/keyboard setup is better at, and that is precision(mouse) and the capacity for more buttons(keyboard). thats it.

The way you continue to toss around titles like 'mr biased pc gamer' simply sheds light on your own zelotry towards consoles; you realize this yes? I will agree that precision on a mouse is far better than a controller, (for some things,) but to say that these are the only advantages are bunk.

The weaknesses of the keyboard/mouse setup are that it requires a large flat surface to fit both of the devices. which is why on a couch its impractical. Another weakness is that it's simply more ergonomic and relaxing to use a console controller.

the controller is only more ergonomic if the controlls are programmed properly and the 'one size fits all' controller fits you. I know a fair number of people that had to order a 360 controller from Japan becase the american version was to large to be comfortable. On top of that if the buttons aren't assigned correctly by the dev, (and not all games allow you to remap,) then it gets real uncomfortable real quick.

Many gamers just want to chill. they aren't like some amped up PC gamers who can only think about competition on a game(thus makinga big deal about mouse speed). some gamers like to have fun. crazy I know.

Another vast generalization; see some of the most pouplar games on the PC, (SIMS, Civ etc...) aren't overly amped games and I've seen just as many 'chill consolers' go ape over a Halo multi-player match as any pc gamer... has nothing to do with the platform has to do with the attitude of the individual... your statement above = Fail.

The thing about it being a "superior" form of control is an opinion. Yes, the mouse aims faster - but with a pad everything is all there.

yes everything is there for a controller over a mouse; but when something becomes simplified that is much easier to occur. Controls on a comtroller aren't as precise because they don't need to be; the level of auto-aim in most console FPS games helps to compensate for that.

Consoles/controllers definately have their place, honestly I couldn't play through some of the games I enjoy without a controller, most of that though occurs through general lazyness of the programmers. GTA series, flying is tons easier with a controller, (though would be even easier with a flight stick but whatever...) Legos starwars much easier with a controller, though this is due to lazyness in the port.

 

[brom42]

I am one of those people who moved. I was completely PC gaming only until Xbox and GCN were released. Then I went to both systems. When the 360 came out, I moved completely to console gaming and abandon PC gaming.

The problem is where PCs are moving. All of the students at the school I work at have laptops, because students need to be mobile. 95%+ of the laptops are cheaper laptops that can barely run Vista, let alone games at any decent rate. 75-80% of the dorm rooms have at least 1 console in them. The kids these days are being born and raised as console gamers. Habits are hard to break. Most of them think PC games are limited to WoW and addictinggames.com. Everything else they do is on their consoles.

Until low power, low cost laptops can play games with the graphics turned up and look better than a console, the trend is going to continue.

 

[spaceman]

cod4 = best multi fps I have ever played just b/c of the knifes and speed.

pc forever. gamepads hurt my hands.

 

[Domingo]

Great for their sales yes; again has nothing to do with how good or not good a game is; you tend to equate $$ with quality which is not always the case.

Check out the actual reviews for Halo, though. They're on par with some of the greatest games ever. Most were neck and neck with HL2. Even the Japanese magazines loved it. That's the weird point. PC gamers always say it sucked...but the press disagrees along with the sales numbers.

 

[obs]

No. not superior in every way, mr biased pc gamer. there are only 2 things the mouse/keyboard setup is better at, and that is precision(mouse) and the capacity for more buttons(keyboard). thats it.

The weaknesses of the keyboard/mouse setup are that it requires a large flat surface to fit both of the devices. which is why on a couch its impractical. Another weakness is that it's simply more ergonomic and relaxing to use a console controller.

Many gamers just want to chill. they aren't like some amped up PC gamers who can only think about competition on a game(thus makinga big deal about mouse speed). some gamers like to have fun. crazy I know.

Yes, I am well aware you need a flat surface for a keyboard/mouse and hence that being it's largest detriment. More buttons and more precise and faster movements is absolutely everything to FPS controls. It is better in terms of actual control by leaps and bounds of console.

The thing about it being a "superior" form of control is an opinion. Yes, the mouse aims faster - but with a pad everything is all there. There's a whole generation of players who consider playing games with a keyboard to be akin to playing with a Coleco paddle. After all, it had an analog stick and a ton of buttons 15 years before any other controllers did.
That's the infamous PC gamer myth. The mouse is a faster mode of aiming - but it's still a clumsy set-up of having to have 2 large devices to play a simple game.
10 years ago when fighting games got big, there was a huge movement that gamepads were inferior to a joystick. Now more people are using them in tournaments than sticks are - and they're doing just fine.

Everything to play guitar hero exists on wii controller. Just because it's there doesn't mean it isn't done significantly better with different input device(s).

 

[FallenMystic]

Check out the actual reviews for Halo, though. They're on par with some of the greatest games ever. Most were neck and neck with HL2. Even the Japanese magazines loved it. That's the weird point. PC gamers always say it sucked...but the press disagrees along with the sales numbers.

The press reviewed it from a colsole POV not from a general game POV which is why you would see a difference. Most review site/trades review a given game from a standpoint of, here is my audiance; here is how I'm going to present the review. You can't review a game/item, (legit,) and compare it against something that is in the genre but not in the same demographic/not considering the audiance. The results will look skewed. There has also been long standing rumors that MS bought some of those reviews. I would be interested that if Halo was released today, (not from MS), how it would be recieved, (not factoring in graphics etc...)

Non-game Example:

Car reviewer reviews/test drives a MR2 Spyder and declairs it to be an excellent sports car. That same reviewer no reviews a Diablo; just because they are both sports cars can they really be compared? Not really because those that would buy the Diablo would look at the Spyder as a toy, no where near the diablo. Where in reality the MR2 is a great car in its class; it's just not in the same class as a Diablo.

Similar paralells can be drawn here In its class, (consoles,) Halo is a good game, but as soon as you bump that to a different class where expectations are different, (Halo for PC) then the vision of the review is changed thus the review/preception is changed.

 

[Nytegard]

Until low power, low cost laptops can play games with the graphics turned up and look better than a console, the trend is going to continue.

Low power, low cost laptops can play games and look objectively better than a console. But it's because people play a PC game 2 ft away from the monitor whereas they play on a console 15 ft away that the 1366x768 resolution of the console (if that even) looks better than the 1920x1200 resolution of the PC. The graphics on the PC are objectively better, just not subjectively, and that's because people are comparing them under 2 different circumstanstances.

As for the mkb vs a controller. As was mentioned earlier, when it comes to FPS's, precision is pretty much the most important thing. The analog gamepad cannot have the precision of the mouse, regardless of how good you are, because of the way gamepads work. They never return to a 0 state, unlike the mouse. They never will have true precision because of how real life physics work. So the hardware designers have to compensate for the lack of precision, and add in features such as dead zones, auto aim/aim assist, etc. As for ergonomics, that depends who you are. The new controllers absolutely **** for me as they're way too small. The original XBox controllers were fine for me. Yet to other people, it's the reverse. With PC hardware, there are a billion different types of hardware, where I can find one that feels right for me. With consoles, due to licencing restrictions, this isn't true.

Yet how many truly great games were innovative graphically? Crysis isn't anything special gameplay-wise. Doom3 wasn't anything spectacular when it came out.

Hmm. Destructable environments? Free roam? Yeah, Crysis is just a typical FPS. Sorry, the fact that you can blow up TV's in CoD4 or barrels move in Halo does not even come close to the interactivity that exists in Crysis. Is Crysis a tech demo more than a game? Sure. But game play wise it crushes the "great FPS's" that people adore here. Other great games that had were graphically innovative? Ultima Underworld, System Shock, heck, practically any game made by Looking Glass. But Looking Glass went out of business because the games didn't sell. Yet other games created years later, which were mearly a shell of games created by Looking Glass, went on to sell extremely well, such as Half Life. Besides, what makes a great game? Half the games listed in the "Best game you ever played" thread, I thought were downright aweful. And don't even attempt to bring up a game that contains Mario or Zelda or Final Fantasy in the title. Those games sell more on name recognition and overblown advertising than on actual gameplay.

 

[Ub3rn00b]

And I have an XFPS 360 sniper and XIM on the XBox 360 side, and it's just not the same. Sure, my Halo 3 KDR tripled, and my skill rating jumped, but it still feels like I'm a cripple compared to what I can accomplish on a PC with a kbm.

Wait for XIM 2. The reason the control with the XIM feels funny on the 360 is probably because of the 35ms delay. There is no delay with the XIM 2 since it doesn't use an XFPS to translate signals. Plugs right into the PC then from PC into the 360. Still requires the wired controller though. And still includes all the adjustments to the sensitivity/deadzone and all the keymapping. Should be pretty kick ass.

 

[Focker]

I love how everyone goes back to Halo in discussions like these. Forget the fact that it didn't come out on PC 'til a year or two later AFTER everyone had played it on the xbox. Meh. Halo WAS a great game when it released on the xbox. If it had came out on the PC first it would have been a great game with great reviews. (I didn't care for it on the pc much either, but it's because I had already played it out on xbox)

I don't think the problem is with MS not wanting KB/M support as much as it is that some of you refuse to adapt. I was an above average FPS gamer on PC, and I adapted to become an above average FPS gamer on the consoles. Basic strategies and gaming styles apply to both formats.

 

[Nytegard]

Wait for XIM 2. The reason the control with the XIM feels funny on the 360 is probably because of the 35ms delay. There is no delay with the XIM 2 since it doesn't use an XFPS to translate signals. Plugs right into the PC then from PC into the 360. Still requires the wired controller though. And still includes all the adjustments to the sensitivity/deadzone and all the keymapping. Should be pretty kick ass.

It's not really the XFPS which killed me. Well, maybe the lag hurt a bit, but it was more of the games themselves. I can't tell you how many times I was pissed with the auto aim or aim assist going off at just the wrong time. And with PC games with a mkb, I can do a 180 and land on a dime in less than 1/4 of a second. Even with Halo 3 on max sensitivity I couldn't turn as fast as I'd prefer.

Not that I don't understand why Bungie had to do what they did. Limitations of gamepads would just make games completely unplayable if they did not give assistance to players (such as Shadowrun). And certain games such as UT3 had to be slowed down to accomodate for gamepads.

 

[Nytegard]

I love how everyone goes back to Halo in discussions like these. Forget the fact that it didn't come out on PC 'til a year or two later AFTER everyone had played it on the xbox. Meh. Halo WAS a great game when it released on the xbox. If it had came out on the PC first it would have been a great game with great reviews. (I didn't care for it on the pc much either, but it's because I had already played it out on xbox)

I don't think the problem is with MS not wanting KB/M support as much as it is that some of you refuse to adapt. I was an above average FPS gamer on PC, and I adapted to become an above average FPS gamer on the consoles. Basic strategies and gaming styles apply to both formats.

What made Halo great though? What was groundbreaking about it that would have made it sold well on the PC?

Vehicles? Operation Flashpoint came out before.
Multiplayer? Don't make me laugh.
Tactics? Counterstrike.
Pure Mayham? UT99 or Quake 3.

Why was Halo innovative, or what did it do well?
Even Health Regeneration wasn't a new feature that Halo created.

Halo is a substandard FPS that was heavily advertised, and one of the few FPS's available for consoles, and the only way it could be innovative is bringing these featueres which existed on PC's for years to a generation raised on the XBox.

*EDIT*

That year on the PC, Halo would have had to compete with Tribes 2, Deus Ex, Operation Flashpoint, Serious Sam, Aliens Vs Predator 2, No One Lives Forever, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Quake 3 Gold, Max Payne.

And just after it was released, games such as Jedi Knight 2 were released. Yeah, Halo would have been a top seller if it had been released on the PC, and overshadowed all those games.

 

[Bigbacon]

Yet how many truly great games were innovative graphically? Crysis isn't anything special gameplay-wise. Doom3 wasn't anything spectacular when it came out.

It'd be a good thing for developers to stop trying to push the envelope graphically and spend time making quality games. cutting-edge graphics are nothing without a great game behind it.

i mean many PC 'gamers' get a hard-on seeing new tech, but personally I like great games.

I'm not saying the games are good or bad, but the innovation in making them look better has always been from the PC side of things. Graphics don't make good games but they can surely make great games even greater.

Yet it all comes down to $$$$$. I think the gaming companies could care less how good/bad the game is as long as it makes them $$$$$.

EA could spit out a new Sims game every 6 months and they would sell millions of copies yet they would be none better or worse than the last. They wouldn't care because they see only green.

 

[Chombo]

What made Halo great though? What was groundbreaking about it that would have made it sold well on the PC?

Vehicles? Operation Flashpoint came out before.
Multiplayer? Don't make me laugh.
Tactics? Counterstrike.
Pure Mayham? UT99 or Quake 3.

Why was Halo innovative, or what did it do well?
Even Health Regeneration wasn't a new feature that Halo created.

Halo is a substandard FPS that was heavily advertised, and one of the few FPS's available for consoles, and the only way it could be innovative is bringing these featueres which existed on PC's for years to a generation raised on the XBox.

*EDIT*

That year on the PC, Halo would have had to compete with Tribes 2, Deus Ex, Operation Flashpoint, Serious Sam, Aliens Vs Predator 2, No One Lives Forever, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Quake 3 Gold, Max Payne.

And just after it was released, games such as Jedi Knight 2 were released. Yeah, Halo would have been a top seller if it had been released on the PC, and overshadowed all those games.

I believe Tribes did almost everything Halo did way earlier.

I played Halo PC, it was ok but it wasn't great.

 

[Focker]

What made Halo great though? What was groundbreaking about it that would have made it sold well on the PC?

Vehicles? Operation Flashpoint came out before.
Multiplayer? Don't make me laugh.
Tactics? Counterstrike.
Pure Mayham? UT99 or Quake 3.

Why was Halo innovative, or what did it do well?
Even Health Regeneration wasn't a new feature that Halo created.

Halo is a substandard FPS that was heavily advertised, and one of the few FPS's available for consoles, and the only way it could be innovative is bringing these featueres which existed on PC's for years to a generation raised on the XBox.

*EDIT*

That year on the PC, Halo would have had to compete with Tribes 2, Deus Ex, Operation Flashpoint, Serious Sam, Aliens Vs Predator 2, No One Lives Forever, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Quake 3 Gold, Max Payne.

And just after it was released, games such as Jedi Knight 2 were released. Yeah, Halo would have been a top seller if it had been released on the PC, and overshadowed all those games.

Where did I say it was innovative? It was a great game. If it had came out on PC first (and optimized for it obvioiusly) I would bet my left nut some of your opinions would be much different. But then again I'm more open minded than some of you close minded people. A kb/m does not make a bad game good or vice versa. Why some of you don't see that I don't know.

 

[FallenMystic]

edit

 

[FallenMystic]

Where did I say it was innovative? It was a great game. If it had came out on PC first (and optimized for it obvioiusly) I would bet my left nut some of your opinions would be much different. But then again I'm more open minded than some of you close minded people. A kb/m does not make a bad game good or vice versa. Why some of you don't see that I don't know.

I don't see where many/any people are saying it was a bad game because it didn't have KB/M interface; they are just saying it's nothing speical as far as FPS's go; it's meerly adequate.

What in your eyes makes it a 'great' game; that might help to further your arguement over simply restating your opinion that it's a 'great game'.

I played it when it first came out... the only reason why I finished it was because a buddy came over and we blew through it co-op in a night; otherwise there wasn't anything to keep me interested enough to see it through to the end. As has been stated before everything that Halo did was done before and done better elsewhere.

 

[Domingo]

Everything Halo did had been done elsewhere...but then again, almost everything done in any FPS has been done elsewhere. It was the total package. The sum was greater than the parts.
I refuse to believe that millions of people bought it and continued to play it for YEARS if it was merely adequate.

 

[Json23]

More likely Id sees it this way - Consoles = Less piracy.

Or in Epic's case - Consoles = People willing to devour our recycled gameplay every 2 years. Unlike PC gamers who see through the shit.

 

[Grimlaking]

It is kinda sad. Most of my gaming is on the consoles... I have the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii... and between the hardware for all three I spent a like amount for my pc. Lol.

 

[HRslammR]

It is kinda sad. Most of my gaming is on the consoles... I have the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii... and between the hardware for all three I spent a like amount for my pc. Lol.

and thus, this is why consoles are a major force that PCs are just going to have to deal with.

john q public doesn't want to pay 2k for a PC that'll become relatively obsolete within a year or two.

however he will pay up to 600 dollars for a system that'll be around for a minimum of 2-3 years.

 

[Chombo]

and thus, this is why consoles are a major force that PCs are just going to have to deal with.

john q public doesn't want to pay 2k for a PC that'll become relatively obsolete within a year or two.

however he will pay up to 600 dollars for a system that'll be around for a minimum of 2-3 years.

Sigh, $600 gets you a pretty quick computer. 2K gets you a SLI set up.

 

[damonposey]

Yes, I am well aware you need a flat surface for a keyboard/mouse and hence that being it's largest detriment. More buttons and more precise and faster movements is absolutely everything to FPS controls. It is better in terms of actual control by leaps and bounds of console.

better is subjective. the mouse is more accurate, and the keyboard allows for more keys. those may or may not be something the user wants, depending on the person.

 

[damonposey]

Another vast generalization; see some of the most pouplar games on the PC, (SIMS, Civ etc...) aren't overly amped games and I've seen just as many 'chill consolers' go ape over a Halo multi-player match as any pc gamer... has nothing to do with the platform has to do with the attitude of the individual... your statement above = Fail.

its not a generalization at all. notice i said 'many' which is true. if i would have said 'console gamers are chill' than yes it would have been a generalization. so try and pay attention before you say stupid things.

and also, you put my name on some quotes that weren't mine, so, in general please don't be an idiot. thanks.

 

[FallenMystic]

its not a generalization at all. notice i said 'many' which is true. if i would have said 'console gamers are chill' than yes it would have been a generalization. so try and pay attention before you say stupid things.

and also, you put my name on some quotes that weren't mine, so, in general please don't be an idiot. thanks.

Many is sitll a generalization; denoting majority. Apoligies for the misquotes; an overly quick copy/paste was the culprate; you may want to get your knickers out of a knot though; seems to be causing you some discomfort.

 

[Ub3rn00b]

Sigh, $600 gets you a pretty quick computer. 2K gets you a SLI set up.

2k? bah...

asus p5n-d motherboard = 150
e8400 = 220 (inflated even higher now though...wait for price to drop maybe)
4gb ddr2 800mhz Supertalent = $110
700w psu = $130
500gb sata 2 HDD = $110
8800gt = 200 x2 = $400
case = $70
whatever I forgot to mention = $200 Keyboard/mouse/mousepad/headphones, etc.

Total $1390 for a good gaming system

If you're going to add a REALLY nice monitor, you might be able to push this setup to 2k.

I recommend the dell 2407wfp. I have hooked up to it: Computer: DVI. XBOX 360: VGA DirecTV HD: Component. Also had a PS2 hooked up to the composite input and an original xbox hooked up to the vga via a KVM switch with the 360. I have since gotten rid of those. They were just taking of space

Now, that's for a complete system package. Chances are, people who already have a system are going to have some reuseable parts. Especially the HDD unless you're coming from a MUCH older system. On my latest build, I bought the motherboard, cpu, and ram and that was it. Reused everything else. Came from an x2 4400 and 2x 7900GTOs SLI, so it was a pretty decent upgrade for me.

$600 could get you a computer. I wouldn't want to use it for gaming though. You could get say 2gb of ram for 60 bux, a standard motherboard, 60 bux or so, 500w psu for 60 bux, cheap case for 30 bux. Slap in a 8800GT on sale for 170 maybe somewhere and a e6750 for 150 somewhere. That would be a total of $530. Add on a 160gb hard drive or so, add some cheap keyboard and mouse. That'll get you a decent system for 600 bux. It actually might be doable for a gaming system depending on what you're playing.

 

[fallguy]

Check out the actual reviews for Halo, though. They're on par with some of the greatest games ever. Most were neck and neck with HL2. Even the Japanese magazines loved it. That's the weird point. PC gamers always say it sucked...but the press disagrees along with the sales numbers.

Reviews of the PC version are not that good. In fact, not even close to HL2. Because compared to most PC FPS's, Halo is average.

It was and is such a huge hit because it was the first of its kind for consoles. Halo 3 sold a ton of copies, yet its the worst of the series. Selling a lot of copies, doesnt make a good game. Titanic was a huge (one of the biggest ever) hit at the movies, that doesnt make it even close to the best movie ever.

If console makers would stop screwing over customers, and just adopt real mouse/kb's, it would be fantastic. They say it gives an unfair advantage to kb/mouse users. I say, then buy one. The fact is, kb/mouse gives better controls, and not giving your customers the ability to play to their best, or to use what they prefer, is idiotic. I would probably pick up Halo because it is fun to play, but I just cant use a friggin' controller for a FPS game anymore. Compared to a mouse/kb is horrible to me. Just give us what we want, and they'd sell even more copies.

 

[damonposey]

i dont think anyone claims halo is the best fps ever. the most common error is that PC gamers say its complete crap, which is well, completely untrue. it is a good game. but bitter pc gamers love to exaggerate.

now can we discuss how awesome the movie titanic was?

 

[damonposey]

Many is sitll a generalization; denoting majority. Apoligies for the misquotes; an overly quick copy/paste was the culprate; you may want to get your knickers out of a knot though; seems to be causing you some discomfort.

many does NOT denote a majority. you could be talking about 5 million women. and 1 million of them could have herpes. thats still MANY people of the 5 million. many means a large number.

 

[FallenMystic]

many does NOT denote a majority. you could be talking about 5 million women. and 1 million of them could have herpes. thats still MANY people of the 5 million. many means a large number.

And now we are arguing about the subjective nature of the word 'many' which is pointless. The viewpoint dictates if many fallis into majority, minority or neither standard.

Point in hand to an earlier comment of yours:

i dont think anyone claims halo is the best fps ever. the most common error is that PC gamers say its complete crap, which is well, completely untrue. it is a good game. but bitter pc gamers love to exaggerate.

There have been a few earlier in this thread that are equating high sales numbers with the quality of the game; which is where many comments are coming from. Personally I never said it was a bad game, simply a mediocre game, nothing more, nothing less. I haven't seen a FPS yet on a console that makes me say "WOW this I've got to play". Move outside of the genre and there are quite a few that have made me want to go pick up a 360/PS3.

 

[jsu718]

$600 could get you a computer. I wouldn't want to use it for gaming though. You could get say 2gb of ram for 60 bux, a standard motherboard, 60 bux or so, 500w psu for 60 bux, cheap case for 30 bux. Slap in a 8800GT on sale for 170 maybe somewhere and a e6750 for 150 somewhere. That would be a total of $530. Add on a 160gb hard drive or so, add some cheap keyboard and mouse. That'll get you a decent system for 600 bux. It actually might be doable for a gaming system depending on what you're playing.

And even the $600 is an inflated price for something that would be good.
I could get a Phenom 9600 with mobo for $169, which is $50 cheaper than what you listed.
I could get the case and PSU for $50, so that is $40 less than what you said.
I can (and did) get 2GB of ram for under $40, so that is another $20 off, and 1GB is enough
So even with the 8800GT, it would be a very good gaming system for $490, with still more cost cutting to be had in some places if it came down to it.

 

[Nytegard]

i dont think anyone claims halo is the best fps ever. the most common error is that PC gamers say its complete crap, which is well, completely untrue. it is a good game. but bitter pc gamers love to exaggerate.

No, it's not an exaggeration, it's an opinion. You like Halo. Fine. But I think it's a substandard FPS. It's not wrong nor right, it's my opinion.

Halo did nothing revolutionary. It's graphics at the time were not better than games at the time. It's story was not better. It's total package was not better than many FPS's at the time. Much of the bitterness I think you interpret because we're stating Halo isn't all that. I have yet to see anyone state that it's a horrible FPS, rather that it's just not a good FPS. There are shades of grey in between horrible and great.

No one's denying sales numbers. No one's denying the reviews it got. But part of that is because of a different taste that exists between the communities.

I will state though that had Halo come out on the PC instead of the XBox in 2001, it would not have sold nearly as well as it did. A, the community the XBox had just wasn't there. B, the advertising definately would not have been there. C, it would have had to compete against multiple games that year that were just overall in every area, just plain better than Halo. Tribes 2, NOLF, AvP2, Serious Sam, Max Payne, RtCW? Even if I thought Halo was a good game, it still would have been buried in a sea of great FPS's had it come out on the PC that year. The XBox had a grand total of TWO FPS's that year. Max Payne (which came out 5 months after the PC version) and Halo. And the XBox had only 1 multiplayer FPS, that being Halo. If you have no competition, you're going to be getting a larger audience than on a system where you'd just be one FPS out of 107 that were released that year for the PC.

 

[Domingo]

Reviews of the PC version are not that good. In fact, not even close to HL2. Because compared to most PC FPS's, Halo is average.

That was a lousy port of a 2 year old game that ran poorly on the PC and had horrendous multiplayer issues.
Different game. Just because the PC versions of Devil May Cry 3 and Resident Evil 4 were horrible doesn't mean the originals weren't good.
Apples to apples. Compare the best versions of each game to one another.
Sales aren't the biggest factor in a games greatness...but active players are. People are still playing the shit out of Halo 3. Hell, there's still a decent community for #2 as well. There are likely only 1-2 PC games *ever* that have had the number of players those games do. If Halo's so bad, why are people still playing it? That's the main argument against the sales not lying. If it was garbage, nobody would continue to play it. If PC shooters were so great, why are people still playing a 10-year old game more than all of the others combined?

 

[Chombo]

That was a lousy port of a 2 year old game that ran poorly on the PC and had horrendous multiplayer issues.
Different game. Just because the PC versions of Devil May Cry 3 and Resident Evil 4 were horrible doesn't mean the originals weren't good.
Apples to apples. Compare the best versions of each game to one another.
Sales aren't the biggest factor in a games greatness...but active players are. People are still playing the shit out of Halo 3. Hell, there's still a decent community for #2 as well. There are likely only 1-2 PC games *ever* that have had the number of players those games do. If Halo's so bad, why are people still playing it? That's the main argument against the sales not lying. If it was garbage, nobody would continue to play it. If PC shooters were so great, why are people still playing a 10-year old game more than all of the others combined?

Remind me again, what other big name FPS are there for multiplayer on Xbox 360 besides CoD4?

 

[Domingo]

Rainbow Six Vegas 1 & 2, GRAW, COD 2 & 3, Battlefield 2, Far Cry, etc.
Not all of those are good, hence why people aren't playing them. Much like a lot of PC shooters. If you look at *recent* PC shooters, other than Crysis - you'll see almost the same titles.
The PC hasn't exactly had a great shooter line-up lately either. It's one of the many other reasons people are still playing the tired 'ol Counter Strike.

 

[fallguy]

Remind me again, what other big name FPS are there for multiplayer on Xbox 360 besides CoD4?

^^ Exactly. Too bad some people are too blind to see the truth. The fact that CoD4 even beat Halo 3 as the most played game is amazing. It hasnt sold anywhere near the copies it has. Most people seem to prefer CoD4 over Halo 3 that have both games. Look on some xbox forums for polls.

And I never called Halo garbage. I said I would buy it, if they would wise up and let you use a kb/mouse. Playing with a controller is too crappy for me. Mouse/kb is just better, thats a fact.

Funny story to back up what I said. PC Gamer, and The Official Xbox mag had a Halo 2 competition. Played on a PC. The Xbox mag guys used a 360 controller, on the PC. The PC Gamer guys used a kb/mouse. Guess who won? The PC Gamer guys. Despite the fact that the Xbox mag guys played it countless hours more, despite the fact that they played as a team all the time in the game, despite all their advantages. When they went up against players with a kb/mouse combo, they lost. Because its better, plain and simple.

Not giving people the option to use a kb/mouse on any console, with any game is silly to me. It can be done, UT3 does it just fine on the PS3. They're just being stubborn.

 

[Chombo]

Rainbow Six Vegas 1 & 2, GRAW, COD 2 & 3, Battlefield 2, Far Cry, etc.
Not all of those are good, hence why people aren't playing them. Much like a lot of PC shooters. If you look at *recent* PC shooters, other than Crysis - you'll see almost the same titles.
The PC hasn't exactly had a great shooter line-up lately either. It's one of the many other reasons people are still playing the tired 'ol Counter Strike.

Thank you for illustrating my point for me. Halo is popular because of the lack of decent competition.

I wouldn't know about recent PC MP FPS since I don't play online however from what I understand, TF2 is rocking.

 

[Nytegard]

Rainbow Six Vegas 1 & 2, GRAW, COD 2 & 3, Battlefield 2, Far Cry, etc.
Not all of those are good, hence why people aren't playing them. Much like a lot of PC shooters. If you look at *recent* PC shooters, other than Crysis - you'll see almost the same titles.
The PC hasn't exactly had a great shooter line-up lately either. It's one of the many other reasons people are still playing the tired 'ol Counter Strike.

In 2007, the XBox 360 had 25 FPS's released. The PC had 123 FPS's released. I don't deny that the PC hasn't had a great lineup of FPS's. But part of why I feel that Halo is more popular is because you don't have nearly as much **** as what exists on the PC. And even good games become tired quickly when you're flooded with the genre. Sort of like what happened with the video game crash of the early 1980's.

 

[Domingo]

Thank you for illustrating my point for me. Halo is popular because of the lack of decent competition.

I wouldn't know about recent PC MP FPS since I don't play online however from what I understand, TF2 is rocking.

Name a major FPS on the PC (from the last 3 years) that isn't also on a console. Now take Crysis off of that list. What's left?
TF2 is rocking on the 360 too. Neither can touch COD4, Counter-Strike, or Halo 3.
There are a buttload of PC FPS games, but how many are throw away Vietnam shooters that look like they were made on a shoestring budget?
Crysis is the only major PC exclusive 3D shooter in recent times.

 

[Chombo]

Name a major FPS on the PC (from the last 3 years) that isn't also on a console. Now take Crysis off of that list. What's left?
TF2 is rocking on the 360 too. Neither can touch COD4, Counter-Strike, or Halo 3.
There are a buttload of PC FPS games, but how many are throw away Vietnam shooters that look like they were made on a shoestring budget?
Crysis is the only major PC exclusive 3D shooter in recent times.

STALKER, Planetside, Crysis etc. Why don't you name some good exclusives yourself? All the ones listed are gimped versions of the PC original which is rediculous to compare. Like Far Cry Instincts. Its not our fault the games listed have to start off on the PC. Hell games like GRAW PC are different from its console version.

Plus PC games are also compared against what we expect from a historical standpoint. Most of my favorite shooters are from 1998-2003.

 

[Grimlaking]

Alright guys listing part builds for a descent gaming box. Yes you or I can do that just fine.

List me a retail solution that is a good gamer compareable to an Xbox 360 or PS3. Then tell me the price. I don't want a one time limited time only deal. I want a set price this is the price kind of deal.

So let me have it.

Oh and make sure two or three players can play on the same machine at the same time while your at it.

Ok ready??? GO!

Answer is really that is not feasable. If you want a pure entertaintment device for the money nothing beats a console.

If you want to tweak and modify and take advantage of a community that knows the program backend better than you ever could and you know computers OF COURSE the computer is the choice for you.

If you are the parent of a couple kids that want a gaming solution you probably don't want a computer unless it is also for educational use. Plus it is easier to police what a person does on a console as opposed to a computer.