PC Love?

[Antiriad2097]

System requirements aren't that big an issue these days. I'm still able to play most games on the laptop I bought a couple of years ago. Its far from cutting edge, but still holds its own against 360 and PS3 games.

I saw Splinter Cell: Conviction on sale in Game a few weeks ago. Picked it up, went to the till, took it home and installed it on the laptop. Started playing. It was that easy. Didn't even need to tweak any settings, it just ran and was configured for the 360 pad when I plugged it in.

Conversely, my Wii keeps grumbling at me about the need for new batteries in the Wiimote. Its crashed more often than my PC games in the last year too. Then there was all the faffing about with moving stuff to SD card as the memory was full. Honestly, the Wii has given me more grief than PC.

So there

[theantmeister]

I was refuting Antriad's "PC gaming is probably easier" post in a light-hearted and quite obviously non-serious manner, with only my main point, system requirements, being the one to take notice of. Posting "system requirements" is kinda dull, y'see.

Hmm, yes, dull.

Can we get back to talking about games?

Did anyone ever work out what the hell you're supposed to do in Eye of Horus? To be fair, I didn't have the manual, so maybe it was explained in there? I would just walk/fly around the pyramid shooting random shapes an eventually dieing. A very similar experience to Thexder, really.

[Freestyler]

The whole System Requirements thing has come a long way since the early 2000s.

Back then Publishers knew certain titles were basically graphics demos, and so would only list the "requirements" for the game to actually load the title screen. Yes, many a forum was blasted by angry gamers all wanting to know why they met the minimum requirements, yet the game wouldn't actually start.

For me it was Everquest 2. I easily met (and exceeded) the recommended specs, but no amount of fiddling with the engine and .ini files could get it to run anywhere near what I would have termed acceptable. (30 FPS and an average resolution is more than fine for me btw) yet the game choked. It transpired that Sony had made the game "Future Scalable" in that it was - and here's the kicker - designed to be played on machines up to five years away.

I finally got to get the game working (a BIG shout out to the industrious fans at the forums who sweated buckets trying to get it to run. God knows you had no help from Sony or Ubisoft) and managed to play for a while, but the bad taste this game, and others like it gave me (Star Wars: Galaxies, Warhammer Online) has taken it's toll. About the only PC game I play now is World of Warcraft. Mostly because even a calculator could play that bag of censored. I've noticed the Specs for that are creeping up as well, as they add pointless "Features" such as DX11 compatibility (it's broken) in an attempt to get their ancient engine looking less creaky when compared to the rest.

Steam has to be saluted though. They've made the horribly arcane world of PC games as easy as it's probably possible to get.

[Rayne]

PC Gaming blows because as I'm sure has been said, I've never got any idea if a game will play or not.

My laptop's fairly decent (I like to think) and still can't run censored. Steam is a great service but why in the name of god does it not feature a quick patch download where you can test to see if your system will run a game you want to buy? As it stands you have to buy and risk money on something that might not play

[Antiriad2097]

My laptop's fairly decent (I like to think) and still can't run censored.

PICNIC

[paranoid marvin]

For ease of use , the days of just sticking a game in your console 'and away you go' are well and truly in the past. Can't remember the last time I had a problem playing/installing a PC game was a good old while ago. And they're better and (nce installed) usually quicker to get going.

[Rayne]

My laptop's fairly decent (I like to think) and still can't run censored.

PICNIC

Umm..?

[Fred83]

on the issue of pc specs vs console type plug and play,could you say playstation had it lucky smash hit with its port of doom?.

[Farzlepot]

For those experiencing difficulties with getting games to work on their PC, I always found that http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/cyri/ was handy.

Of course, laptops are not built, and generally shouldn't be used, for games outside of older releases. Unless you've got one of those hyper-expensive ones with near-desktop specs, of course. For the most part the laptops you can buy from Tescos and Currys aren't game-spec, even if the tech advisors say otherwise.

[EvilASh]

Although I always kind of understood the "out of the box" argument that console players always used, I could never relate to it. I am somewhat technically inclined, so I barely ever had any trouble running things back in the day (or now, although I don't really play new releases anymore). And if some custom configuration actually was required, it was fun to me to figure things out.
As a shameless self-promotion: Here's my pc ms-dos game-review blog/thingy: http://www.dosnostalgia.com

[Antiriad2097]

My laptop's fairly decent (I like to think) and still can't run censored.

PICNIC

Umm..?

My point exactly. A quick Google would have clarified it - see here for example.

Aside from Darran, are all the people who struggle with emulators those who grew up with consoles? It may lend some credence to the recent news reports that IT skills are diminishing in the young. Having grown up primarily as a computer gamer, fiddling with the odd menu to set things up how I want doesn't seem particularly troubling.

[che_don_john]

PC gaming is no more difficult than console gaming these days. In fact, given XBL subs and PSN hacks, its probably easier.

Plug in the HDMI to telly and a 360 pad and its even more so.

Any accusations of PCs being difficult gaming systems are based on experiences pre-Windows XP imo. I can't think of a PC game in the last few years I've had any issues running at comparable levels to the console versions and there's always the option (if your system can handle it) of whacking up the detail levels in the game options. As far as playing them goes, it takes far less time to install and play a PC game than it does on PS3. I've lost entire hours to just installing a single game there before being able to play, consuming my entire gaming window for the day.

Maybe it's simpler these days to install the games, but then that's not exactly a deal breaker or an important thing. What is important is the ease at which you can get a game running and get the most out of it. Multiplayer/co-op over LAN is still a faff. There's making sure the firewall isn't getting in the way; then there's getting round the anti-virus; and, once you've done that, there's making sure everyone involved has exactly the same patch/version (and that's before discovering someone has an incompatible graphics card). There are far more variables and conditions that need to be met in PC gaming than in console gaming.

As for the notion of simply plugging in a 360 pad, I just don't believe that's the case. Even if you get a pad to work, there's still no guarantee that the game you are playing will recognise it - there seems to be a number of multiplatform titles for which the PC versions do not have controller support.

Don't get me wrong - I think PC gaming can be worth all the faffing and stressing. But in my experience console gaming has been far easier, and is getting easier still.

[greenberet79]

I only ever really used my PC for point and click games. If a game needed heavy joypad use then I'd get the console version, or do without.

[che_don_john]

I only ever really used my PC for point and click games

God I miss them.

[paranoid marvin]

I only ever really used my PC for point and click games

God I miss them.

No need to miss them , most are still perfectly playable thanks to SCUMM and other utilities.