I have been out of PC gaming for forever.  I mean the last PC related
thing I bought (outside of maybe Oasis, which I haven't played) is the
Civ 4 expansion.

I used to post a lot on PC gaming newsgroups, particularly strategic,
but I am way out of it.  So much out of it, that seeing Sid Meiers
Railroads on the shelves was a shock.  Mostly I have limited myself to
XBox 360 stuff, and Arcade downloads.  Yes, I am out of it.

Anyhow, can people here get me pumped up as to what is coming out worth
dropping $1500+ to get a new rig for?

Thank you for your time...
- Rich

On 30 Dec 2006 17:56:45 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:

>I have been out of PC gaming for forever.  I mean the last PC related
>thing I bought (outside of maybe Oasis, which I haven't played) is the
>Civ 4 expansion.
>
>I used to post a lot on PC gaming newsgroups, particularly strategic,
>but I am way out of it.  So much out of it, that seeing Sid Meiers
>Railroads on the shelves was a shock.  Mostly I have limited myself to
>XBox 360 stuff, and Arcade downloads.  Yes, I am out of it.
>
>Anyhow, can people here get me pumped up as to what is coming out worth
>dropping $1500+ to get a new rig for?
>
>Thank you for your time...
>- Rich

Some games are just not available on XBox360 (Dark Messiah, Flight
Simulator X, Civilization IV, Counterstrike:Source) and those games
available on both platforms (Rainbow Six Vegas, Oblivion, etc) are
usually infinitely better looking and have much better control
options, as well as a generally more fun online experience.  Everytime
I see a title for 360 that's not yet on PC, it is either of no
interest at all to me, or it is a title that is on it's way for PC.  

With Core2Duo processors and DX10 graphics cards like nVidia 8800, the
processing power and graphic capability of the PC is considerably more
powerful than PS3.  Although most games out now are single threaded,
the good ones in the last year have patches that make them run better
on multi-core processors, and most games coming out from here on out
will take advantage of multi-core processors.

Do some reading into the benefits and architecture of DX10 which will
run on Vista, that alone should get you quite revved up about it.

Only thing is, right now the cheapest DX10 card you can get is the
8800 GTS, which might complicate your goal of a $1500 gaming machine.
If I were you I would go ahead and invest in the following:

1) Good motherboard such as the nforce 680i.  This will even support
up to the new 1333mhz FSB quadcores that are not even out yet, plus
has so many other features that facilitate upgrades.
2) Good RAM.  Get high-end, low latency SLI certified RAM, at least 2
gigs.  Don't skimp on quality or quantity here, otherwise you will
find yourself having to discard (or sell on ebay) what you have when
it comes time to upgrade.
3)  Good CPU -- E6600 is a good value right now.  You can upgrade
later if needed.  If you're the type that doesn't mind upgrading the
CPU yourself at a later point in time, and you really need to save a
buck, you can get a E6400 knowing you will want to upgrade it later.
4) Good case and powersupply.  The case should be big and high quality
with good airflow and cooling.  The 8800 GTX cards are bigger than
most PCIe cards and won't fit in standard midtower cases for the most
part.. even though you're not going to get a 8800 GTX right now, you
might wish later to get one when prices drop.  Your powersupply should
be minimum 550watt, IMHO, maybe even 700watt is better for future
upgrades.  
5) Decent hard drive -- you're not going to get quad raptors in RAID 0
for your budget, but you should be able to get a large SATA-II segate
baracuda or something, they are not too expensive.  Just remember that
size matters because the larger the percentage of your hard drive you
can keep unused, the better (generally) it will perform.  You can add
more hard drives later but you want your primary hard drive to be as
fast as possible.  Newer games that come out seem to get load times
that take longer and longer.  
6) Cut costs on the video card.  Get the least expensive, single video
card that plays the games you want adequately enough, because this is
the component you will most likely want to upgrade sometime next year.
I am thinking something like a single 7600 GT here..  By that I mean
at your budget, don't drop $350-500 on a video card because that's the
component you are most likely to want to upgrade sometime next year.

This is of course just one strategy, by no means the only strategy,
for buying.  That's the approach I would take if I only wanted to
spend about $1500 or so.

Michael wrote:

> Some games are just not available on XBox360 (Dark Messiah, Flight
> Simulator X, Civilization IV, Counterstrike:Source) and those games
> available on both platforms (Rainbow Six Vegas, Oblivion, etc) are
> usually infinitely better looking and have much better control
> options, as well as a generally more fun online experience.  Everytime
> I see a title for 360 that's not yet on PC, it is either of no
> interest at all to me, or it is a title that is on it's way for PC.

I think part of the reason why I dropped out was that I lost EB as a
place where I could safely by PC games.  If it sucked bad, or didn't
work, I could return it.  Those days are over, and PCs seem like
crapshoots.  I could look to get a new PC, but just don't see where
$1000+ before games, would be worthwhile, considering my limited time
to play stuff.  I find console gaming just easier.  But, I did see the
2007 PC title selection, and the mix of strategy stuff is piquing my
interest.  I have fallen out of the whole Mad Onion mentality of frame
rate and running as high of resolution as I can.  But the 2007 list did
pique my interest and thread on predictions from 25 years ago dragging
me back here.

I guess maybe Spore is also particularly of interest, but I think,
"$1000+ man", and go, errr... not sure it is worth it.  I was looking
for some cheerleading to maybe get me back in the mood again.

- The Rich

On 30 Dec 2006 18:48:29 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:

>
>Michael wrote:
>
>> Some games are just not available on XBox360 (Dark Messiah, Flight
>> Simulator X, Civilization IV, Counterstrike:Source) and those games
>> available on both platforms (Rainbow Six Vegas, Oblivion, etc) are
>> usually infinitely better looking and have much better control
>> options, as well as a generally more fun online experience.  Everytime
>> I see a title for 360 that's not yet on PC, it is either of no
>> interest at all to me, or it is a title that is on it's way for PC.
>
>I think part of the reason why I dropped out was that I lost EB as a
>place where I could safely by PC games.  If it sucked bad, or didn't
>work, I could return it.  Those days are over, and PCs seem like
>crapshoots.  I could look to get a new PC, but just don't see where
>$1000+ before games, would be worthwhile, considering my limited time
>to play stuff.  I find console gaming just easier.  But, I did see the
>2007 PC title selection, and the mix of strategy stuff is piquing my
>interest.  I have fallen out of the whole Mad Onion mentality of frame
>rate and running as high of resolution as I can.  But the 2007 list did
>pique my interest and thread on predictions from 25 years ago dragging
>me back here.
>
>I guess maybe Spore is also particularly of interest, but I think,
>"$1000+ man", and go, errr... not sure it is worth it.  I was looking
>for some cheerleading to maybe get me back in the mood again.
>
>- The Rich

Well most games now days come with decent demos.  I'm not sure how
long ago you left PC gaming, but that's one trend I've noticed that I
think is great and really reduces your need to return games, because
the retail version is usually much better than the demo, so there is
very little chance of going "this demo is great", going out and buying
the game, and then being disappointed.  10 years ago, most people
didn't have high-speed internet, so there was little point in putting
out a demo that most people would not bother to download, but that has
all turned around.

Also many services like Steam will have occasional offers where you
try a game before buying it.  There are a few people who hang out in
these newsgroups who think Steam is evil, but I think it has actually
been a tremendous asset to PC gaming.

After hearing what you like, you might REALLY want to look into a
service called Gametap.  It isn't just "legacy arcade games" and old
nintendo ROMS.  They have some very recent games, and you pay a flat
fee of 10 bucks a month.

Another thing to think about with PC gaming... yes it might be $1000+,
but you use the machine for MUCH more than gaming.  You do surf the
internet, don't you?  When I upgraded from a P4 3.6ghz to a more
modern dual core, I was suprised how even simple internet surfing is
much faster.  Not the downloading part -- bandwidth is bandwidth.  But
running at high resolutions (1680x1050 and up), you can really feel
the responsiveness of the web browser.  The reason is that as time has
gone on, web designers have increased the amount of crap that gets
loaded onto a single page.  More images, more flash content, etc.. You
feel your productivity surge even doing something like just using the
scroll bars to navigate a page that exceeds your vertical viewing
area.  It even makes me more productive using my newsreader.  I didn't
realize it until I got the new PC, how much CPU lag there is when
dealing with large lists of messages etc.  I know it sounds strange
but the productivity advantages add up to my hands and eyes feeling
less fatigued at the end of the day because I just get more done. It's
kind of like when I first got a TIVO and started recording TV instead
of watching it live, zipping through commercials and watching a 60
minute show in 40 minutes instead.  At the end of the day you just
find yourself with time to spare and your quality of life seems
better.

Michael wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2006 18:48:29 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:
> Another thing to think about with PC gaming... yes it might be $1000+,
> but you use the machine for MUCH more than gaming.  You do surf the
> internet, don't you?  When I upgraded from a P4 3.6ghz to a more
> modern dual core, I was suprised how even simple internet surfing is
> much faster.  Not the downloading part -- bandwidth is bandwidth.  But
> running at high resolutions (1680x1050 and up), you can really feel
> the responsiveness of the web browser.  The reason is that as time has
> gone on, web designers have increased the amount of crap that gets
> loaded onto a single page.  More images, more flash content, etc.. You
> feel your productivity surge even doing something like just using the
> scroll bars to navigate a page that exceeds your vertical viewing
> area.  It even makes me more productive using my newsreader.  I didn't
> realize it until I got the new PC, how much CPU lag there is when
> dealing with large lists of messages etc.  I know it sounds strange
> but the productivity advantages add up to my hands and eyes feeling
> less fatigued at the end of the day because I just get more done. It's
> kind of like when I first got a TIVO and started recording TV instead
> of watching it live, zipping through commercials and watching a 60
> minute show in 40 minutes instead.  At the end of the day you just
> find yourself with time to spare and your quality of life seems
> better.

Let me state this here.  I have 1.5GHz machine I can use to play Civ 4
or a pile of older games and I am not doing that.  I also have a laptop
(using it now) to access the Internet.  I am just not seeing why to get
a NEW PC to do things.  I am running broadband there.  I doubt the new
rig would make that much of a difference.

Maybe I am just flat out lost to PC gaming at this point, due to shifts
in my life.  This may be so, as I wish steam-hating pc gamer on here
would go play in traffic.

- Rich

"Michael" <mike@no_return_addr.com> wrote in message 
news:157ep2t4cv0mos3t66o0f18040qk0t11f7@4ax.com...

>  and those games
> available on both platforms (Rainbow Six Vegas, Oblivion, etc) are
> usually infinitely better looking and have much better control
> options, as well as a generally more fun online experience.

I'm not looking to start a console / PC war here, but the things you mention 
above are really not true anymore. I'm not some console fanboy - I've been 
playing PC games for a long time (since the 80's), but I have to admit, the 
consoles have come a long way. I had an x-box, and it was just "ok". But the 
360 is a different animal altogether.

Yes, with the right video card / monitor, a PC will look a little better. 
"Infinitely" better? No. My 360 on my 4-year old rear projection 42" HDTV 
looks incredible.

Control? To be honest, I have found the controller to be just as intuitive 
as a mouse / keyboard for most games. Including shooters. In fact, I find 
the controller somewhat *more* immersive. It's all a matter of getting used 
to it. Yes, it still can't do everything, and the keyboard has many more 
mapping capabilities. But for most games, I find using the controller is a 
non-issue.

Online? Having used both, X-Box live blows away anything the PC has to 
offer. It's not even close. Plus, you can easily  download demos, additional 
content, patches, etc. The PC no longer has the "you can patch PC games and 
get additional content" as an advantage. The PC *does* have the advantage of 
LAN parties and such (because, let's face it, bringing a TV to a friend's 
house is impractical.) But many console games can counter with split-screen 
multiplayer (which can be great fun)

I've been on a two-year computer upgrade path for the last decade or so (for 
gaming purposes largely) My two year anniversary is coming up soon (April), 
and this will be the first time I miss it. I see no compelling need to 
upgrade (my PC performs just fine for work / music / etc.)  I do like the PC 
advantage of user modes (like in Oblivion), and it's unsurpassed in strategy 
games, but my 360 has taken over as my main gaming machine. 

On 31 Dec 2006 09:05:43 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:

>
>Michael wrote:
>> On 30 Dec 2006 18:48:29 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:
>> Another thing to think about with PC gaming... yes it might be $1000+,
>> but you use the machine for MUCH more than gaming.  You do surf the
>> internet, don't you?  When I upgraded from a P4 3.6ghz to a more
>> modern dual core, I was suprised how even simple internet surfing is
>> much faster.  Not the downloading part -- bandwidth is bandwidth.  But
>> running at high resolutions (1680x1050 and up), you can really feel
>> the responsiveness of the web browser.  The reason is that as time has
>> gone on, web designers have increased the amount of crap that gets
>> loaded onto a single page.  More images, more flash content, etc.. You
>> feel your productivity surge even doing something like just using the
>> scroll bars to navigate a page that exceeds your vertical viewing
>> area.  It even makes me more productive using my newsreader.  I didn't
>> realize it until I got the new PC, how much CPU lag there is when
>> dealing with large lists of messages etc.  I know it sounds strange
>> but the productivity advantages add up to my hands and eyes feeling
>> less fatigued at the end of the day because I just get more done. It's
>> kind of like when I first got a TIVO and started recording TV instead
>> of watching it live, zipping through commercials and watching a 60
>> minute show in 40 minutes instead.  At the end of the day you just
>> find yourself with time to spare and your quality of life seems
>> better.
>
>Let me state this here.  I have 1.5GHz machine I can use to play Civ 4
>or a pile of older games and I am not doing that.  I also have a laptop
>(using it now) to access the Internet.  I am just not seeing why to get
>a NEW PC to do things.  I am running broadband there.  I doubt the new
>rig would make that much of a difference.
>
>Maybe I am just flat out lost to PC gaming at this point, due to shifts
>in my life.  This may be so, as I wish steam-hating pc gamer on here
>would go play in traffic.
>
>- Rich

Are you sure Civ 4 plays well on a 1.5ghz box?  I will take your word
for it it just seems like a stretch.

Just as an acid test you might want to download some newer game demos
within the genre you prefer.  If you like strategy games, try Company
of Heros, Medieval Total War II, or similar.  If you like shooters,
try Battlefield2 (not really new, but fun), Dark Messiah of Might and
Magic, etc. 

Do those games stutter, crawl, fail to run, etc?  If so then you are
missing out, plain and simple.

I would also caution anyone against falling into the trap of thinking
"why would I want to spend money on a PC to play this crap game" after
trying a demo.  A lot of the reasons a game is rejected is because it
is sampled by the end-user on inadequate hardware.  They conclude the
game sucks, the programmers were too lazy to "fix it" to run on their
486, etc.  But the truth is if you play some of these games on a
modern, mid to high-end PC you will get an entirely different
experience.

If you look at Gamespot scores (both editor scores and user-consensus)
for games, there is about a 5:1 ratio of PC games that have scored
over 8.5 in the last 18 months compared to 360, PS3 and Wii combined. 
Let me summarize with this:   Do you enjoy playing your Xbox more than
your 1.5ghz (completely ancient by today's standards, no offense), PC?
If so, ask yourself why?  The graphics? The audio? The control?
If any of that is true, then by the same logic you would enjoy a good
modern PC setup even more than you enjoy your Xbox, because all that
is magnified and it will be even more so with the release of Vista and
DirectX10.

I think that's as far as I want to go toward helping you "get pumped"
to buy a new PC.  From the original topic, it seemed you WANTED to be
encouraged or motivated to buy one, so I was trying to show you some
of the things I get out of mine.  It's inevitable that you upgrade
eventually, if for no other reason because Microsoft will at some
point stop releasing updates for the OS you run now (I'm guessing XP,
but your PC most surely is not Vista-capable), and when that happens
you are a sitting duck security-wise when connected to the Internet.

But, if you choose not to upgrade right now, then I would say enjoy
your console and upgrade when it feels right.  I do think that you
would be impressed by what you can get for $1500-2000, possibly even
to the point of not wanting to mess with your console anymore.  If you
bought really high-end hardware, you'd never go near the xbox again.

I was playing Dark Messiah multiplayer on a reasonable 3.6ghz machine
before and having a decent time, thinking my machine was running it
"pretty well".  It wasn't until I upgraded to a high end machine until
I truly understood the difference in makes in the fun factor of a
game.

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:34:06 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>"Michael" <mike@no_return_addr.com> wrote in message 
>news:157ep2t4cv0mos3t66o0f18040qk0t11f7@4ax.com...
>
>>  and those games
>> available on both platforms (Rainbow Six Vegas, Oblivion, etc) are
>> usually infinitely better looking and have much better control
>> options, as well as a generally more fun online experience.
>
>I'm not looking to start a console / PC war here, but the things you mention 
>above are really not true anymore. I'm not some console fanboy - I've been 
>playing PC games for a long time (since the 80's), but I have to admit, the 
>consoles have come a long way. I had an x-box, and it was just "ok". But the 
>360 is a different animal altogether.
>
>Yes, with the right video card / monitor, a PC will look a little better. 
>"Infinitely" better? No. My 360 on my 4-year old rear projection 42" HDTV 
>looks incredible.
>
>Control? To be honest, I have found the controller to be just as intuitive 
>as a mouse / keyboard for most games. Including shooters. In fact, I find 
>the controller somewhat *more* immersive. It's all a matter of getting used 
>to it. Yes, it still can't do everything, and the keyboard has many more 
>mapping capabilities. But for most games, I find using the controller is a 
>non-issue.
>
>Online? Having used both, X-Box live blows away anything the PC has to 
>offer. It's not even close. Plus, you can easily  download demos, additional 
>content, patches, etc. The PC no longer has the "you can patch PC games and 
>get additional content" as an advantage. The PC *does* have the advantage of 
>LAN parties and such (because, let's face it, bringing a TV to a friend's 
>house is impractical.) But many console games can counter with split-screen 
>multiplayer (which can be great fun)
>
>I've been on a two-year computer upgrade path for the last decade or so (for 
>gaming purposes largely) My two year anniversary is coming up soon (April), 
>and this will be the first time I miss it. I see no compelling need to 
>upgrade (my PC performs just fine for work / music / etc.)  I do like the PC 
>advantage of user modes (like in Oblivion), and it's unsurpassed in strategy 
>games, but my 360 has taken over as my main gaming machine. 
>

I was actually headed in the same direction until I saw Oblivion
running in highend Core2Duo with 8800GTX and I had to have one!
Rainbow Six Vegas on a high-end PC blows away the 360 version.

"Michael" <mike@no_return_addr.com> wrote in message 
news:2g1gp2tf76k1p0oll5kt7dc03f02g7c5lc@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:34:06 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>>I've been on a two-year computer upgrade path for the last decade or so 
>>(for
>>gaming purposes largely) My two year anniversary is coming up soon 
>>(April),
>>and this will be the first time I miss it. I see no compelling need to
>>upgrade (my PC performs just fine for work / music / etc.)  I do like the 
>>PC
>>advantage of user modes (like in Oblivion), and it's unsurpassed in 
>>strategy
>>games, but my 360 has taken over as my main gaming machine.
>>
>
> I was actually headed in the same direction until I saw Oblivion
> running in highend Core2Duo with 8800GTX and I had to have one!
> Rainbow Six Vegas on a high-end PC blows away the 360 version.

I like Oblivion on the PC better, mostly because of the mods.

RB6V? I dunno - it looks pretty sweet on the 360 (although I don't have it 
for the PC - i'm sure the PC does look a little better.) And it's just FUN 
on the bigger TV (and it was obviously made with the controller in mind - 
it's very intuitive)

Do you have a 360? If not, I highly, highly recommend one. If you're a 
gamer, there's room in your life for both :) 

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:10:53 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>"Michael" <mike@no_return_addr.com> wrote in message 
>news:2g1gp2tf76k1p0oll5kt7dc03f02g7c5lc@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:34:06 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>I've been on a two-year computer upgrade path for the last decade or so 
>>>(for
>>>gaming purposes largely) My two year anniversary is coming up soon 
>>>(April),
>>>and this will be the first time I miss it. I see no compelling need to
>>>upgrade (my PC performs just fine for work / music / etc.)  I do like the 
>>>PC
>>>advantage of user modes (like in Oblivion), and it's unsurpassed in 
>>>strategy
>>>games, but my 360 has taken over as my main gaming machine.
>>>
>>
>> I was actually headed in the same direction until I saw Oblivion
>> running in highend Core2Duo with 8800GTX and I had to have one!
>> Rainbow Six Vegas on a high-end PC blows away the 360 version.
>
>I like Oblivion on the PC better, mostly because of the mods.
>
>RB6V? I dunno - it looks pretty sweet on the 360 (although I don't have it 
>for the PC - i'm sure the PC does look a little better.) And it's just FUN 
>on the bigger TV (and it was obviously made with the controller in mind - 
>it's very intuitive)
>
>Do you have a 360? If not, I highly, highly recommend one. If you're a 
>gamer, there's room in your life for both :) 
>

I've considered getting one, but it seems the games I really want are
also available on PC shortly after XBOX release, so thus far I haven't
had a compelling reason to get one.

getrich@1upandup.com wrote in 
news:1167530204.975878.69640@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I have been out of PC gaming for forever.  I mean the last PC related
> thing I bought (outside of maybe Oasis, which I haven't played) is the
> Civ 4 expansion.
Civ 4 was the most resource-gobbling strategy game I can think of. I don't 
think expansion was any better. So if you could run it perhaps no need to 
upgrade. Finding good games is another story. They are few and far 
apart....

"Michael" <mikeys@no_return_addr.com> wrote in message 
news:uq3gp2d3385md559eisi03mlqvqcgnv8dc@4ax.com...

> I've considered getting one, but it seems the games I really want are
> also available on PC shortly after XBOX release, so thus far I haven't
> had a compelling reason to get one.

allow me to help:

Dead Rising
NHL07
Gears of War
Burnout Revenge
Fight Night Round 3

seriously - I was always a big time PC gamer, and wasn't all that impressed 
with the original x-box (it was fun, but in no way challenged the PC in my 
mind), but the 360 has won me over (I bought it for Dead Rising, and have 
been very surprised at the quality of the other games and how much I'm 
enjoying this console)

If you have a decent sized HDTV, it's almost a no-brainer. 

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:10:15 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>"Michael" <mikeys@no_return_addr.com> wrote in message 
>news:uq3gp2d3385md559eisi03mlqvqcgnv8dc@4ax.com...
>
>> I've considered getting one, but it seems the games I really want are
>> also available on PC shortly after XBOX release, so thus far I haven't
>> had a compelling reason to get one.
>
>allow me to help:
>
>Dead Rising
>NHL07
>Gears of War
>Burnout Revenge
>Fight Night Round 3
>
>seriously - I was always a big time PC gamer, and wasn't all that impressed 
>with the original x-box (it was fun, but in no way challenged the PC in my 
>mind), but the 360 has won me over (I bought it for Dead Rising, and have 
>been very surprised at the quality of the other games and how much I'm 
>enjoying this console)
>
>If you have a decent sized HDTV, it's almost a no-brainer. 
>

Gears of War is the only one that really catches my eye, and playing
with a mouse is such a critical need to an aiming perfectionist like
myself, that I have no reason to want to pollute my mousing skills by
spending time with an xbox controller (not enough gaming hours in the
day to do both well, in my case).

To be honest if 360 or PS3 games supported a mouse and keyboard I
would pick one up tomorrow.

Ive played the other games you mentioned on a friends 360 and they
didn't do it for me, probably because of the controller issue.

"Michael" <mikeys@no_return_addr.com> wrote in message 
news:hf6gp2tcau2gik79ujf1i4iolc4kg1g3pa@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:10:15 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Michael" <mikeys@no_return_addr.com> wrote in message
>>news:uq3gp2d3385md559eisi03mlqvqcgnv8dc@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I've considered getting one, but it seems the games I really want are
>>> also available on PC shortly after XBOX release, so thus far I haven't
>>> had a compelling reason to get one.
>>
>>allow me to help:
>>
>>Dead Rising
>>NHL07
>>Gears of War
>>Burnout Revenge
>>Fight Night Round 3
>>
>>seriously - I was always a big time PC gamer, and wasn't all that 
>>impressed
>>with the original x-box (it was fun, but in no way challenged the PC in my
>>mind), but the 360 has won me over (I bought it for Dead Rising, and have
>>been very surprised at the quality of the other games and how much I'm
>>enjoying this console)
>>
>>If you have a decent sized HDTV, it's almost a no-brainer.
>>
>
> Gears of War is the only one that really catches my eye, and playing
> with a mouse is such a critical need to an aiming perfectionist like
> myself, that I have no reason to want to pollute my mousing skills by
> spending time with an xbox controller (not enough gaming hours in the
> day to do both well, in my case).
>
> To be honest if 360 or PS3 games supported a mouse and keyboard I
> would pick one up tomorrow.
>
> Ive played the other games you mentioned on a friends 360 and they
> didn't do it for me, probably because of the controller issue.

 I used to feel the same way - you know what changed my mind? Spending a 
weekend at a friend's house with no other gaming (and nothing much else to 
do) except Halo split-screen multiplayer - it totally made me look at the 
controller in a different way. I'm convinced it's simply a "getting used to 
it" issue more than anything. 

"jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:45981e7a$0$27085$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> "Michael" <mikeys@no_return_addr.com> wrote in message 
> news:hf6gp2tcau2gik79ujf1i4iolc4kg1g3pa@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:10:15 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael" <mikeys@no_return_addr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:uq3gp2d3385md559eisi03mlqvqcgnv8dc@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> I've considered getting one, but it seems the games I really want are
>>>> also available on PC shortly after XBOX release, so thus far I haven't
>>>> had a compelling reason to get one.
>>>
>>>allow me to help:
>>>
>>>Dead Rising
>>>NHL07
>>>Gears of War
>>>Burnout Revenge
>>>Fight Night Round 3
>>>
>>>seriously - I was always a big time PC gamer, and wasn't all that 
>>>impressed
>>>with the original x-box (it was fun, but in no way challenged the PC in 
>>>my
>>>mind), but the 360 has won me over (I bought it for Dead Rising, and have
>>>been very surprised at the quality of the other games and how much I'm
>>>enjoying this console)
>>>
>>>If you have a decent sized HDTV, it's almost a no-brainer.
>>>
>>
>> Gears of War is the only one that really catches my eye, and playing
>> with a mouse is such a critical need to an aiming perfectionist like
>> myself, that I have no reason to want to pollute my mousing skills by
>> spending time with an xbox controller (not enough gaming hours in the
>> day to do both well, in my case).
>>
>> To be honest if 360 or PS3 games supported a mouse and keyboard I
>> would pick one up tomorrow.
>>
>> Ive played the other games you mentioned on a friends 360 and they
>> didn't do it for me, probably because of the controller issue.
>
> I used to feel the same way - you know what changed my mind? Spending a 
> weekend at a friend's house with no other gaming (and nothing much else to 
> do) except Halo split-screen multiplayer - it totally made me look at the 
> controller in a different way. I'm convinced it's simply a "getting used 
> to it" issue more than anything.
>

Yeah. I made an impulse buy of an XBOX 360 recently. $100 Mail-In-Rebate at 
Micro Center coupled with a $50 gift voucher, made it a pretty sweet deal. I 
already finished Rainbow Six Vegas, Splinter Cell Double Agent, and am now 
plowing through Gears of War and soon Call of Duty 3. I always had trouble 
with the game controller on the original XBOX and PS2. But the X360, either 
the controller or the console or just the way the games are programmed, it 
seems much easier to target and shoot accurately. 

"HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:B9ydnT6ic8mWtQXYnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@comcast.com...

> Yeah. I made an impulse buy of an XBOX 360 recently. $100 Mail-In-Rebate 
> at Micro Center coupled with a $50 gift voucher, made it a pretty sweet 
> deal. I already finished Rainbow Six Vegas, Splinter Cell Double Agent, 
> and am now plowing through Gears of War and soon Call of Duty 3. I always 
> had trouble with the game controller on the original XBOX and PS2. But the 
> X360, either the controller or the console or just the way the games are 
> programmed, it seems much easier to target and shoot accurately.

It does, doesn't it? I find it very immersive, in fact (not that either 
mouse/keyboard or controller is like firing a real gun, but if I *had* to 
pick one of the two, I'd say the controller is closer to the real thing) 

Michael wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2006 09:05:43 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:
> Are you sure Civ 4 plays well on a 1.5ghz box?  I will take your word
> for it it just seems like a stretch.

It does.  You turn the graphics down, and animation off, and run the
graphics 1040 by whatever.  Don't run the largest sized world, and it
works.

> Just as an acid test you might want to download some newer game demos
> within the genre you prefer.  If you like strategy games, try Company
> of Heros, Medieval Total War II, or similar.  If you like shooters,
> try Battlefield2 (not really new, but fun), Dark Messiah of Might and
> Magic, etc.
>
> Do those games stutter, crawl, fail to run, etc?  If so then you are
> missing out, plain and simple.

I don't even bother to download now.  It just doesn't fit my schedule.
My interest in PC gaming has seriously waned and I have fallen to the
"dark side" (don't tell pc gamer, he may want to send a hit squad
against me) and look mostly consoles.  It is just plain easier.  It is
also a case where I could do the likes of Gal Civ 2, Age of Wonders 2:
SM, or Civ 4, all I think are fantastic.  I also have other games I
didn't even get to.

> I would also caution anyone against falling into the trap of thinking
> "why would I want to spend money on a PC to play this crap game" after
> trying a demo.  A lot of the reasons a game is rejected is because it
> is sampled by the end-user on inadequate hardware.  They conclude the
> game sucks, the programmers were too lazy to "fix it" to run on their
> 486, etc.  But the truth is if you play some of these games on a
> modern, mid to high-end PC you will get an entirely different
> experience.

I have converted to consoles, because they are less of a headache
actually.  Being out of touch (to the extent that Railroads was a
surpise for me), I end up asking why PC gaming now?  It is bad.  I
didn't even bother to install Darwinia, which I wanted to try, which I
got for under $10 in clearance.

> If you look at Gamespot scores (both editor scores and user-consensus)
> for games, there is about a 5:1 ratio of PC games that have scored
> over 8.5 in the last 18 months compared to 360, PS3 and Wii combined.
> Let me summarize with this:   Do you enjoy playing your Xbox more than
> your 1.5ghz (completely ancient by today's standards, no offense), PC?
> If so, ask yourself why?  The graphics? The audio? The control?
> If any of that is true, then by the same logic you would enjoy a good
> modern PC setup even more than you enjoy your Xbox, because all that
> is magnified and it will be even more so with the release of Vista and
> DirectX10.

It is convenience, and not having to worry about things crashing.  I
have a TON of strategy games that deserve my attention that I haven't
gotten to.  I guess with myself, it is just plain easier hoping for
strategy stuff to come to the 360, than going through the old way of
upgrading or getting a new PC, and then buying from the store and
hoping it is decent.  Look at it this way, even with my 360, when I get
10-20 minutes, I play Live arcade downloads.  It boots up in seconds
and away I go.  Play a quick burst and done.  No need to insert disks
at all.  Call it falling to a change in lifestyle.  And my free time, I
would love to do some boardgame stuff.  Graphics just need to be "good
enough".  I think I am off the Mad Onion thing at the moment (ya know,
get the rig, run the benchmarks), for ego bit.

> I think that's as far as I want to go toward helping you "get pumped"
> to buy a new PC.  From the original topic, it seemed you WANTED to be
> encouraged or motivated to buy one, so I was trying to show you some
> of the things I get out of mine.  It's inevitable that you upgrade
> eventually, if for no other reason because Microsoft will at some
> point stop releasing updates for the OS you run now (I'm guessing XP,
> but your PC most surely is not Vista-capable), and when that happens
> you are a sitting duck security-wise when connected to the Internet.

I wanted to get pumped up again to get back into PC gaming.  I just
have been out of touch.  Maybe it no longer fits my lifestyle.  It is
just console gaming is so much easier.  And I could touch a bunch of my
360 stuff to, like playing Gears of War.

> But, if you choose not to upgrade right now, then I would say enjoy
> your console and upgrade when it feels right.  I do think that you
> would be impressed by what you can get for $1500-2000, possibly even
> to the point of not wanting to mess with your console anymore.  If you
> bought really high-end hardware, you'd never go near the xbox again.

Probably if I had more free time, and more money come in, I would get
into it.  But, the consoles now are doing things you don't get on PCs.
Fighting games are history on PCs.  A lot of things are.  PC still has
its niche, with strategy and massive multiplayer online being two
biggies.  Consoles have exclusives.

> I was playing Dark Messiah multiplayer on a reasonable 3.6ghz machine
> before and having a decent time, thinking my machine was running it
> "pretty well".  It wasn't until I upgraded to a high end machine until
> I truly understood the difference in makes in the fun factor of a
> game.

How does the GAMEPLAY improve though?  Sure, better eyecandy, but
gameplay?

- The Rich

alexti wrote:
> getrich@1upandup.com wrote in
> news:1167530204.975878.69640@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I have been out of PC gaming for forever.  I mean the last PC related
> > thing I bought (outside of maybe Oasis, which I haven't played) is the
> > Civ 4 expansion.
> Civ 4 was the most resource-gobbling strategy game I can think of. I don't
> think expansion was any better. So if you could run it perhaps no need to
> upgrade. Finding good games is another story. They are few and far
> apart....

If I wanted to run graphically intensive games, then I would definitely
need an upgrade over my 1.5Ghz tower PC.  Yes, it is ancient.  But, if
you tone down a lot of things, making the graphics functional, rather
than gorgeous, then Civ4 works well on my rig.  I can play it and not
worry about much else.

But, I work a schedule Wed-Sun. second shift (I am at work now, on
support, waiting for the phone to ring), and have off Monday and
Tuesday.  Of the free time, I use it to work on a business I am
running.  I get gaming in bursts, or looking towards New Years Day to
go over to a friends house and do some boardgames.  My gaming is 20
minutes here, 15 minutes here.  Boot up my 360 in less than 30 seconds
and play an 360 Live arcade game, trying to nail down another
achievement, which is addictive.  I could even boot up my DS and try
Advance Wars on it.

Anyhow, I have seriously fallen out of it.  I used to be big on here,
when I had a job with IBM and would do the upgrades, run the Mad Onion
demo, and get the latest and latest.  Well, hardly played much, but got
them.  I have multiple packing boxes of PC games I didn't play.

I also think I could fire up Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic, and try some
of that, or even HOMM 3 with the expansions or Gal Civ 2, or a glut of
stuff.  Sure, I don't get the "oh my, those graphics blow me away", but
I still get stuff I have enjoyed.

Maybe I have moved on here.  Just pondering what I might be missing.
To show where things are, I am more pumped to get a Wii and a few
things for that, than a new PC rig.

- The Rich

"jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:45983193$0$27049$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> "HockeyTownUSA" <cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:B9ydnT6ic8mWtQXYnZ2dnUVZ_qGjnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>> Yeah. I made an impulse buy of an XBOX 360 recently. $100 Mail-In-Rebate 
>> at Micro Center coupled with a $50 gift voucher, made it a pretty sweet 
>> deal. I already finished Rainbow Six Vegas, Splinter Cell Double Agent, 
>> and am now plowing through Gears of War and soon Call of Duty 3. I always 
>> had trouble with the game controller on the original XBOX and PS2. But 
>> the X360, either the controller or the console or just the way the games 
>> are programmed, it seems much easier to target and shoot accurately.
>
> It does, doesn't it? I find it very immersive, in fact (not that either 
> mouse/keyboard or controller is like firing a real gun, but if I *had* to 
> pick one of the two, I'd say the controller is closer to the real thing)
>

I'm not sure. It's just that I think these newer consoles, whether software, 
software, or combination of both, are much better. On my original XBOX I 
only played Halo 1 and 2 half way through because I got way too frustrated, 
not to mention getting my ass handed to me in multiplayer.

But with the X360 it's just more comrfortable. I still prefer keyboard & 
mouse, but this is much improved. 

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:31:19 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>"Michael" <mikeys@no_return_addr.com> wrote in message 
>news:hf6gp2tcau2gik79ujf1i4iolc4kg1g3pa@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:10:15 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael" <mikeys@no_return_addr.com> wrote in message
>>>news:uq3gp2d3385md559eisi03mlqvqcgnv8dc@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> I've considered getting one, but it seems the games I really want are
>>>> also available on PC shortly after XBOX release, so thus far I haven't
>>>> had a compelling reason to get one.
>>>
>>>allow me to help:
>>>
>>>Dead Rising
>>>NHL07
>>>Gears of War
>>>Burnout Revenge
>>>Fight Night Round 3
>>>
>>>seriously - I was always a big time PC gamer, and wasn't all that 
>>>impressed
>>>with the original x-box (it was fun, but in no way challenged the PC in my
>>>mind), but the 360 has won me over (I bought it for Dead Rising, and have
>>>been very surprised at the quality of the other games and how much I'm
>>>enjoying this console)
>>>
>>>If you have a decent sized HDTV, it's almost a no-brainer.
>>>
>>
>> Gears of War is the only one that really catches my eye, and playing
>> with a mouse is such a critical need to an aiming perfectionist like
>> myself, that I have no reason to want to pollute my mousing skills by
>> spending time with an xbox controller (not enough gaming hours in the
>> day to do both well, in my case).
>>
>> To be honest if 360 or PS3 games supported a mouse and keyboard I
>> would pick one up tomorrow.
>>
>> Ive played the other games you mentioned on a friends 360 and they
>> didn't do it for me, probably because of the controller issue.
>
> I used to feel the same way - you know what changed my mind? Spending a 
>weekend at a friend's house with no other gaming (and nothing much else to 
>do) except Halo split-screen multiplayer - it totally made me look at the 
>controller in a different way. I'm convinced it's simply a "getting used to 
>it" issue more than anything. 
>

I have no doubt that is true, as I said part of the problem is my
limited gaming hours.  If I had enough time, I would own one of each
new console and still go back and play my SNES once and a while :)

But, with limited time I have to realize that I cannot play an online
game like Rainbow Six Vegas one night, then play 360 for a day, then
play PS3 for a day, then come back to Vegas and expect to do well at
it.  I'm the type that practice makes perfect and I like to get a
half-decent score in the games I play.

On 31 Dec 2006 13:54:57 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:

>Michael wrote:
>> On 31 Dec 2006 09:05:43 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:
>> Are you sure Civ 4 plays well on a 1.5ghz box?  I will take your word
>> for it it just seems like a stretch.
>
>It does.  You turn the graphics down, and animation off, and run the
>graphics 1040 by whatever.  Don't run the largest sized world, and it
>works.
>
>> Just as an acid test you might want to download some newer game demos
>> within the genre you prefer.  If you like strategy games, try Company
>> of Heros, Medieval Total War II, or similar.  If you like shooters,
>> try Battlefield2 (not really new, but fun), Dark Messiah of Might and
>> Magic, etc.
>>
>> Do those games stutter, crawl, fail to run, etc?  If so then you are
>> missing out, plain and simple.
>
>I don't even bother to download now.  It just doesn't fit my schedule.
>My interest in PC gaming has seriously waned and I have fallen to the
>"dark side" (don't tell pc gamer, he may want to send a hit squad
>against me) and look mostly consoles.  It is just plain easier.  It is
>also a case where I could do the likes of Gal Civ 2, Age of Wonders 2:
>SM, or Civ 4, all I think are fantastic.  I also have other games I
>didn't even get to.
>
>> I would also caution anyone against falling into the trap of thinking
>> "why would I want to spend money on a PC to play this crap game" after
>> trying a demo.  A lot of the reasons a game is rejected is because it
>> is sampled by the end-user on inadequate hardware.  They conclude the
>> game sucks, the programmers were too lazy to "fix it" to run on their
>> 486, etc.  But the truth is if you play some of these games on a
>> modern, mid to high-end PC you will get an entirely different
>> experience.
>
>I have converted to consoles, because they are less of a headache
>actually.  Being out of touch (to the extent that Railroads was a
>surpise for me), I end up asking why PC gaming now?  It is bad.  I
>didn't even bother to install Darwinia, which I wanted to try, which I
>got for under $10 in clearance.
>
>> If you look at Gamespot scores (both editor scores and user-consensus)
>> for games, there is about a 5:1 ratio of PC games that have scored
>> over 8.5 in the last 18 months compared to 360, PS3 and Wii combined.
>> Let me summarize with this:   Do you enjoy playing your Xbox more than
>> your 1.5ghz (completely ancient by today's standards, no offense), PC?
>> If so, ask yourself why?  The graphics? The audio? The control?
>> If any of that is true, then by the same logic you would enjoy a good
>> modern PC setup even more than you enjoy your Xbox, because all that
>> is magnified and it will be even more so with the release of Vista and
>> DirectX10.
>
>It is convenience, and not having to worry about things crashing.  I
>have a TON of strategy games that deserve my attention that I haven't
>gotten to.  I guess with myself, it is just plain easier hoping for
>strategy stuff to come to the 360, than going through the old way of
>upgrading or getting a new PC, and then buying from the store and
>hoping it is decent.  Look at it this way, even with my 360, when I get
>10-20 minutes, I play Live arcade downloads.  It boots up in seconds
>and away I go.  Play a quick burst and done.  No need to insert disks
>at all.  Call it falling to a change in lifestyle.  And my free time, I
>would love to do some boardgame stuff.  Graphics just need to be "good
>enough".  I think I am off the Mad Onion thing at the moment (ya know,
>get the rig, run the benchmarks), for ego bit.
>
>> I think that's as far as I want to go toward helping you "get pumped"
>> to buy a new PC.  From the original topic, it seemed you WANTED to be
>> encouraged or motivated to buy one, so I was trying to show you some
>> of the things I get out of mine.  It's inevitable that you upgrade
>> eventually, if for no other reason because Microsoft will at some
>> point stop releasing updates for the OS you run now (I'm guessing XP,
>> but your PC most surely is not Vista-capable), and when that happens
>> you are a sitting duck security-wise when connected to the Internet.
>
>I wanted to get pumped up again to get back into PC gaming.  I just
>have been out of touch.  Maybe it no longer fits my lifestyle.  It is
>just console gaming is so much easier.  And I could touch a bunch of my
>360 stuff to, like playing Gears of War.
>
>> But, if you choose not to upgrade right now, then I would say enjoy
>> your console and upgrade when it feels right.  I do think that you
>> would be impressed by what you can get for $1500-2000, possibly even
>> to the point of not wanting to mess with your console anymore.  If you
>> bought really high-end hardware, you'd never go near the xbox again.
>
>Probably if I had more free time, and more money come in, I would get
>into it.  But, the consoles now are doing things you don't get on PCs.
>Fighting games are history on PCs.  A lot of things are.  PC still has
>its niche, with strategy and massive multiplayer online being two
>biggies.  Consoles have exclusives.
>
>> I was playing Dark Messiah multiplayer on a reasonable 3.6ghz machine
>> before and having a decent time, thinking my machine was running it
>> "pretty well".  It wasn't until I upgraded to a high end machine until
>> I truly understood the difference in makes in the fun factor of a
>> game.
>
>How does the GAMEPLAY improve though?  Sure, better eyecandy, but
>gameplay?
>
>- The Rich


Well I will give you an example..  Today I was messing around with
Dark Messiah of Might and Magic.  Despite crappy magazine reviews, an
amazingly fun single player FPS/action-with RPG elements game.  And
despite being a new game and somewhat more hardware intensive than
HL2, it is still based on the source engine thus runs relatively well
on older PCs.

On my 2 yr old P4 3.6ghz with 7800 GT the game was fun and quite
playable.  On my Core2Duo with 8800 GTX, I can turn up ALL the
eyecandy, and the smoothness that I feel while mousing around in the
environment while playing makes the world feel that much more real. It
just feels much more immersive when I can play at 1600x1200 with all
options on high quality, and watch the FPS meter stay solid green with
about 150fps average in outdoor environments (hard to tell in this
game what the average FPS is, because they flash by so fast).  

On my old machine, the game is still very very playable, from a
subjective standpoint.  At 1024x768 with medium-ish graphic options, I
felt it was a fun game and the only thing that bothered me was the
occasional stuttering (which of course disappears on a decent modern
PC).  

But as soon as you play it on the new machine you realize the whole
level of immersiveness has changed.  I copied my single player saved
games to my new machine so I could do an EXACT side-by-side
comparison.  With both mice on both machines in hand, I noticed
several things:

When I heard a creepy noise behind me, doing a quick 180 degree turn
to have a look was so much choppier on my old machine, smooth as glass
on the new one.  I didn't really pay attention to this level of
choppiness when I first played the game thru on my old machine,
because I didn't have something to compare it to.  But, this
choppiness does detract from the realism of the game, and because of
that I would have probably given DMOMM about a 7.8 rating if I were
reviewing it, because subconsciously (if nothing else) choppiness and
lag take away from my feeling of "really being there".  Once I saw the
single player differences side-by-side, and THEN factored in the
difference in multiplayer (which is like night and day -- I had to
turn it down to 800x600 on my old system which looked like crap), I
would have to give this game a 9.0 easily.

Another thing...  I sat there in a complex outdoor environment in the
game, (again loading the same game save file into memory so I could
compare side by side)..  Just for fun I put both hands on both mice
and started firing arrows from my firebow directly upward (hoping one
of the arrows would come straight down and hit me.. lol)...
I noticed that tapping the mice at an identical rate, my bow on my new
PC was firing off the arrows much faster.  This had nothing to do with
framerate because I was staring at the sky (no complex polygons or
textures), just clicking the mouse button on both PCs.  What does that
mean?  Well the process of seeing my new PC keep up with my mouse
clicks much better was simply more satisfying.  It also means that I
had many more fire arrows falling all around me, which made for a much
nicer fireworks display than what was going on with my old PC ! :) And
lastly, it means when I enter multiplayer mode, I can be sure that my
rate of fire is not being CPU limited, so I should score higher than
some poor schlump with a dated PC, thus making the game more fun for a
competitive guy like myself.  (Evil grin).

I didn't really mean to go off on a tangent about a particular game, I
just wanted to point out how much more fun a game is when your machine
is no longer limiting the realism of the animation and physics.

On 31 Dec 2006 14:04:39 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:

>
>alexti wrote:
>> getrich@1upandup.com wrote in
>> news:1167530204.975878.69640@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > I have been out of PC gaming for forever.  I mean the last PC related
>> > thing I bought (outside of maybe Oasis, which I haven't played) is the
>> > Civ 4 expansion.
>> Civ 4 was the most resource-gobbling strategy game I can think of. I don't
>> think expansion was any better. So if you could run it perhaps no need to
>> upgrade. Finding good games is another story. They are few and far
>> apart....
>
>If I wanted to run graphically intensive games, then I would definitely
>need an upgrade over my 1.5Ghz tower PC.  Yes, it is ancient.  But, if
>you tone down a lot of things, making the graphics functional, rather
>than gorgeous, then Civ4 works well on my rig.  I can play it and not
>worry about much else.
>
>But, I work a schedule Wed-Sun. second shift (I am at work now, on
>support, waiting for the phone to ring), and have off Monday and
>Tuesday.  Of the free time, I use it to work on a business I am
>running.  I get gaming in bursts, or looking towards New Years Day to
>go over to a friends house and do some boardgames.  My gaming is 20
>minutes here, 15 minutes here.  Boot up my 360 in less than 30 seconds
>and play an 360 Live arcade game, trying to nail down another
>achievement, which is addictive.  I could even boot up my DS and try
>Advance Wars on it.
>
>Anyhow, I have seriously fallen out of it.  I used to be big on here,
>when I had a job with IBM and would do the upgrades, run the Mad Onion
>demo, and get the latest and latest.  Well, hardly played much, but got
>them.  I have multiple packing boxes of PC games I didn't play.
>
>I also think I could fire up Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic, and try some
>of that, or even HOMM 3 with the expansions or Gal Civ 2, or a glut of
>stuff.  Sure, I don't get the "oh my, those graphics blow me away", but
>I still get stuff I have enjoyed.
>
>Maybe I have moved on here.  Just pondering what I might be missing.
>To show where things are, I am more pumped to get a Wii and a few
>things for that, than a new PC rig.
>
>- The Rich

I've been eyeballing the Wii as well, but the fact that I use my PC
for much more than games (reading, as well as doing work) gives me an
added reason for wanting a high-end machine.  

If strategy games are your thing, I think you would be really
disappointed if you loaded up Rise of Legends on your PC, and I don't
think it will ever be available for 360 (would suck to use a
controller for this type of games)..  That was another one that got
quite choppy on my 2 yr old PC.

On 31 Dec 2006 13:54:57 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:

\
>Probably if I had more free time, and more money come in, I would get
>into it.  

but dude your website, www.1upandup.com claims that I can get rich
fast!  if youre struggling so hard you can only by a xbox and nintendo
why should i believe you can make me rich rich rich rich rich
rich!!!!!!!   

>> I was playing Dark Messiah multiplayer on a reasonable 3.6ghz machine
>> before and having a decent time, thinking my machine was running it
>> "pretty well".  It wasn't until I upgraded to a high end machine until
>> I truly understood the difference in makes in the fun factor of a
>> game.
>
>How does the GAMEPLAY improve though?  Sure, better eyecandy, but
>gameplay?
>
>- The Rich

getrich@1upandup.com wrote in
news:1167602679.418681.57230@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com: 

> 
> I also think I could fire up Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic, and try some
> of that, or even HOMM 3 with the expansions or Gal Civ 2, or a glut of
> stuff.  Sure, I don't get the "oh my, those graphics blow me away", but
> I still get stuff I have enjoyed.
I'm not sure what to suggest. There were times when I considered either of 
pretty good. But since Dom2 I can't really get in any of those or similar 
games anymore. They just feel too shallow. Either of Dominions (2 or 3) 
should run fine on your computer, they're about gameplay and not graphics 
anyway. You can play in 15-30 minutes bursts, but you'll have put an hour 
or two of thinking in between (you don't have to be in front of the 
computer to do that). But if you're into shorter games I'd suggest looking 
at BrettspielWelt. More fun and less micromanagement.

In article <1167533309.460316.58370@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, 
getrich@1upandup.com says...

> I guess maybe Spore is also particularly of interest, but I think,
> "$1000+ man", and go, errr... not sure it is worth it.  I was looking
> for some cheerleading to maybe get me back in the mood again.

The only thing I expect of Spore is that it will be #1 on all future 
lists of "Most Overhyped Games Ever".

- Gerry Quinn

In article <1167584743.539864.275510@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 
getrich@1upandup.com says...

> Let me state this here.  I have 1.5GHz machine I can use to play Civ 4
> or a pile of older games and I am not doing that.  I also have a laptop
> (using it now) to access the Internet.  I am just not seeing why to get
> a NEW PC to do things.  I am running broadband there.  I doubt the new
> rig would make that much of a difference.

So do I, though Civ4 needs 1GB of RAM so you shoulod get that if you 
haven't.

So what exactly are you wittering about?

If you don't like playing computer games, go watch a film or read a 
book.

- Gerry Quinn

In article <1167602097.200908.286370@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, 
getrich@1upandup.com says...
> Michael wrote:

> I have converted to consoles, because they are less of a headache
> actually.  Being out of touch (to the extent that Railroads was a
> surpise for me), I end up asking why PC gaming now?  It is bad.  I
> didn't even bother to install Darwinia, which I wanted to try, which I
> got for under $10 in clearance.

I tried the demo.  Didn't like it.

> How does the GAMEPLAY improve though?  Sure, better eyecandy, but
> gameplay?

How the heck would the answer be of any use to you, because you don't 
play games?

- Gerry Quinn

Tobey FunBall wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2006 13:54:57 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:
>
> \
> >Probably if I had more free time, and more money come in, I would get
> >into it.
>
> but dude your website, www.1upandup.com claims that I can get rich
> fast!  if youre struggling so hard you can only by a xbox and nintendo
> why should i believe you can make me rich rich rich rich rich
> rich!!!!!!!

Hehehe :-)

No, I am Rich.  In order to Get Rich (me), you are to email.  Then you
get emailed info on how to reach me with my actual email address.  To
fight getting spammed by Usenet email harvesters, I do this, plus give
them a sales pitch.

And actually it is TIME and MONEY also.  And a case of priorities.
Even if my funds weren't tied up in other money-making things at the
moment now, I still would need to see if it is worth the money.  And it
isn't a matter of only can buy it, it is more of what is of INTEREST to
me.  And PC gaming fell way off.

As for the 1Up and Up System, it is a compensation system for a program
that makes $15/month per person.  The system is set up that it gets
people profitable much faster then usual network marketing compensation
systems.  Due to the smallness of funds the program generates I have
moved away from it.  I actually got rid of another program that paid
only $10/month. Now, if something else generated like $50/month per
person and also offered good value for the money, and used The 1Up and
Up System, I would be doing that.

Currently, my money is tied up in other things that are generating a
bunch of money for me, but I am looking to use the funds to generate
more.  I am more interested in pulling in over $20K a month, than say
$5K a month, so the money is working to make more, rather than being
consumed on a new PC gaming rig.  So, in my case it is more a matter of
priorities than availability of funds.

- The Rich

alexti wrote:
> getrich@1upandup.com wrote in
> news:1167602679.418681.57230@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > I also think I could fire up Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic, and try some
> > of that, or even HOMM 3 with the expansions or Gal Civ 2, or a glut of
> > stuff.  Sure, I don't get the "oh my, those graphics blow me away", but
> > I still get stuff I have enjoyed.
> I'm not sure what to suggest. There were times when I considered either of
> pretty good. But since Dom2 I can't really get in any of those or similar
> games anymore. They just feel too shallow. Either of Dominions (2 or 3)
> should run fine on your computer, they're about gameplay and not graphics
> anyway. You can play in 15-30 minutes bursts, but you'll have put an hour
> or two of thinking in between (you don't have to be in front of the
> computer to do that). But if you're into shorter games I'd suggest looking
> at BrettspielWelt. More fun and less micromanagement.

BSW is real good, and I don't need to upgrade either.  Also, play
humans and not AIs.

I did managed to play a few boardgames today.  Tried Imperial, which is
excellent, and the First City of Catan (Elasund I think it its name),
and that was also good.

- The Rich

On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 14:56:44 -0000, Gerry Quinn
<gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:

>The only thing I expect of Spore is that it will be #1 on all future 
>lists of "Most Overhyped Games Ever".

Too true, the next Black & White.
-- 
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

On 30 Dec 2006 17:56:45 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:

>I have been out of PC gaming for forever.  I mean the last PC related
>thing I bought (outside of maybe Oasis, which I haven't played) is the
>Civ 4 expansion.
>
>I used to post a lot on PC gaming newsgroups, particularly strategic,
>but I am way out of it.  So much out of it, that seeing Sid Meiers
>Railroads on the shelves was a shock.  Mostly I have limited myself to
>XBox 360 stuff, and Arcade downloads.

Interesting that a strategic gamer would jump bandwagon to consoles,
where there are hardly any strategy games (yes I know there are
_some_, even I have some for PSX/PS2). Maybe you were just getting
tired of the more serious stuff, and needed to try the other side
(simpler console like action games) for awhile? Nothing wrong with
that IMHO.

Sometime in the future you might see yourself craving for the
old-skool PC games, at which point it is a good idea to check whether
you'd want to jump back into PC gaming. I don't see why others should
try to convince you back to PC games, if you just don't see the pull
at the moment.

Some of us are at both camps at the same time, although I have to say
I am unable to find very much anymore I'd like to buy for my consoles.
Neither have I seen anything which makes me want to buy a XBox360 yet
(Gears of War is good-looking crap with very simplistic and repetitive
gameplay IMHO, and it fails to be pure fun like e.g. Serious Sam was
with its simplistic and repetitive gameplay, maybe because GoW
pretends to be something else.).

>Anyhow, can people here get me pumped up as to what is coming out worth
>dropping $1500+ to get a new rig for?

Come to think of it, maybe this was a mere troll and I've been baited?
Seriously, I don't see why anyone would ask others to convince himself
to buy a $1500 gaming machine. If you have to ask, you wouldn't
seriously consider it.

On 31 Dec 2006 13:54:57 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:

>I guess with myself, it is just plain easier hoping for
>strategy stuff to come to the 360, than going through the old way of
>upgrading or getting a new PC, and then buying from the store and
>hoping it is decent.

I'm surprised you'd need to upgrade your PC that much for strategy
games (at least I don't). Usually you need to do that for action
games, or new RPGs with 3D first-person view interfaces.

As for strategy games for 360, do you really want to play them with a
gamepad controller? To each his own I guess. At least they would need
to be heavily modified to work ok on them. At least I know the RTS
ports to PSX and PS2 have been horrible.

Console user base, including XBox360, is just somewhat different from
PC gamers, that's why you get more action/sports/party games and less
strategy/simulation on them. Considering that you now see consoles
more lucrative mainly due to their hassle-free operation, I'm not
convinced you are necessarily looking that much for more serious and
deeper stuff anymore, where you'd need to concentrate on the game
instead of just turning on the console and play a quick 15 minutes
some simple arcade game before changing TV channel to watch your
favorite TV show.

>Look at it this way, even with my 360, when I get
>10-20 minutes, I play Live arcade downloads.  It boots up in seconds
>and away I go.  Play a quick burst and done.

Like I said above...

>I wanted to get pumped up again to get back into PC gaming.  I just

Why? That is an interesting phenomenon: trying to convince yourself to
do something you don't necessarily like that much anymore than you
used to. Let it go. If and when you get urge to get back to PC gaming,
you will. For most people things like that go in cycles depending on
what happens in their life. When you grow out of playing baseball on
the street, you just stop doing it and start dating girls instead.

>Probably if I had more free time, and more money come in, I would get
>into it.  But, the consoles now are doing things you don't get on PCs.
>Fighting games are history on PCs.  A lot of things are.  PC still has

Hmm, were fighting games ever big on PC? All I can remember on PC were
either some pretty poor arcade ports which ran better and had better
controls on lowly consoles, and maybe a few simple PC-exclusives like
OMF(G) which were nifty but would have been laughed at on consoles.

>> I was playing Dark Messiah multiplayer on a reasonable 3.6ghz machine
>> before and having a decent time, thinking my machine was running it
>> "pretty well".  It wasn't until I upgraded to a high end machine until
>> I truly understood the difference in makes in the fun factor of a
>> game.
>
>How does the GAMEPLAY improve though?  Sure, better eyecandy, but
>gameplay?

It affects mostly immersion. Of course if the game ran slowly on
earlier machine, it affect also gameplay.

I am not that much of a graphics whore, yet I am still primarily a PC
gamer. Maybe that is also why I could see fast past the great graphics
of Gears of War, and see the stupid gameplay behind it.

Lately I've been playing away my backlog of old PC games. Yet I still
find those (even a decade old PC games) more interesting that the
games I have on my PS2. Yes, PS2 operation is much less hassle, but I
also get bored of its games much faster. And maybe I am not just grown
to the console gaming paradigm where the essence of the gameplay is to
memorize different button combinations (fighting games, newer Prince
of Persia games and its ilk etc.).

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:34:06 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Control? To be honest, I have found the controller to be just as intuitive 
>as a mouse / keyboard for most games. Including shooters. In fact, I find 
>the controller somewhat *more* immersive. It's all a matter of getting used 
>to it. Yes, it still can't do everything, and the keyboard has many more 
>mapping capabilities. But for most games, I find using the controller is a 
>non-issue.

Gamepads are jacks-of-all-trades which are not really great
controllers for any type of game, but passable for many.

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:10:53 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Do you have a 360? If not, I highly, highly recommend one.

Why? Besides having a bit better graphics, what does its games have
over e.g. PS2 and XBox games (two consoles I already own)?

Would you also recommend PS3 as the fourth console box to me to
accompany it? Oh and then there is Nintendo Wii too with its fantastic
controller, does XBox360 have anything like that? That would be fifth
I guess.

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:10:15 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>"Michael" <mikeys@no_return_addr.com> wrote in message 
>news:uq3gp2d3385md559eisi03mlqvqcgnv8dc@4ax.com...
>
>> I've considered getting one, but it seems the games I really want are
>> also available on PC shortly after XBOX release, so thus far I haven't
>> had a compelling reason to get one.
>
>allow me to help:

My two cents as a PS2/XBox-owning PC gamer:

>Dead Rising

Never heard, I'll have to check. Hopefully not yet another generic 3rd
person shooter or beat'em up, never cared for them that much.

>NHL07

Not interested in sports games at all. Not on PC nor on consoles. One
exception though: Speedball 1-2 on Amiga (and the latter also on PC).
They were great fun for the time, but maybe I just grew out of them
(sports games).

>Gears of War

Very linear and repetitive gameplay, I did not like it that much.
Mostly good for showing friends the graphics capabilities of XBox360,
that's about it.

>Burnout Revenge

I bought Burnout 3 for PS2 because it got so much praise everywhere,
and I was a bit surprised how fast I got totally bored with it. The
over-simplistic gameplay was apparently just not for me. The way I
like PS2 Gran Turismo 3 & 4 so much better and satisfying driving
games (along with PC driving sims like the good old GP Legends etc.)
suggests the same.

>Fight Night Round 3

Hopefully not a wrestling game? Not a big fan of them. Brainless "fun"
for maybe 5 minutes, but not something in which I'd really get
immersed.

>seriously - I was always a big time PC gamer, and wasn't all that impressed 
>with the original x-box (it was fun, but in no way challenged the PC in my 
>mind), but the 360 has won me over (I bought it for Dead Rising, and have 
>been very surprised at the quality of the other games and how much I'm 
>enjoying this console)

Could you give some good suggestions for great XBox360 strategy,
(flight combat) simulation and RPG games? All games you listed seemed
to be only action/sports, which I get bored with quite fast. Thanks.

>If you have a decent sized HDTV, it's almost a no-brainer. 

For what purpose? Showing off for friends, or playing? I play many PC
games even on a laptop with a tiny screen, so showing off is not the
primary function for me with PC games. Heck, some kids play even with
smaller displays on their Nintendo DS, and seem perfectly happy.

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:31:19 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> I used to feel the same way - you know what changed my mind? Spending a 
>weekend at a friend's house with no other gaming (and nothing much else to 
>do) except Halo split-screen multiplayer - it totally made me look at the 
>controller in a different way. I'm convinced it's simply a "getting used to 
>it" issue more than anything. 

Yep, you can even get used to be playing with your feet if you lost
your both arms. In fact, you can get used to almost anything.

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:13:45 -0500, "HockeyTownUSA"
<cyberpilot@gmail.com> wrote:

>plowing through Gears of War and soon Call of Duty 3. I always had trouble 
>with the game controller on the original XBOX and PS2. But the X360, either 
>the controller or the console or just the way the games are programmed, it 
>seems much easier to target and shoot accurately. 

After you have seen Nintendo Wii, you wouldn't even consider a normal
gamepad anymore. Too bad the Wii controller does not replace a mouse
that well at least in FPS games, but other than that...

On 31 Dec 2006 14:04:39 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:

>But, I work a schedule Wed-Sun. second shift (I am at work now, on
>support, waiting for the phone to ring), and have off Monday and
>Tuesday.  Of the free time, I use it to work on a business I am
>running.  I get gaming in bursts, or looking towards New Years Day to
>go over to a friends house and do some boardgames.  My gaming is 20
>minutes here, 15 minutes here.

Then console gaming and games are probably much more suitable for you,
because that is how I treat 90% of console games as well. Unlike with
PC games, I hardly ever find a console game that I would want to play
for longer than half an hour or so, then I get the bored "What's on
other TV channels?"-feeling. Gran Turismo 3-4 have been exceptions for
me.

Once again, why do you insist on getting back to PC gaming, if you
simply have no time nor interest to it anymore due to your new hectic
lifestyle? I don't get it.

Or was it just so that you needed to get it out of your chest to
everyone that "Sorry guys, I am not a PC gamer anymore, so get over
it."? Don't worry, many PC gamers turn to console gamers, and
sometimes even vice versa. Some play with both, and some don't play at
all but think all electronic gaming is for kids, not adults.

"riku" <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote in message 
news:unlkp2ha9avqj4iug4ubdfrt0km0lu52uu@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:10:15 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"Michael" <mikeys@no_return_addr.com> wrote in message
>>news:uq3gp2d3385md559eisi03mlqvqcgnv8dc@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I've considered getting one, but it seems the games I really want are
>>> also available on PC shortly after XBOX release, so thus far I haven't
>>> had a compelling reason to get one.
>>
>>allow me to help:
>
> My two cents as a PS2/XBox-owning PC gamer:
>
>>Dead Rising
>
> Never heard, I'll have to check. Hopefully not yet another generic 3rd
> person shooter or beat'em up, never cared for them that much.


Third person, fighting zombies in a mall. Fun.


>
>>NHL07
>
> Not interested in sports games at all. Not on PC nor on consoles. One
> exception though: Speedball 1-2 on Amiga (and the latter also on PC).
> They were great fun for the time, but maybe I just grew out of them
> (sports games).

No need to get condescending (you "gerew out of them", meaning those that 
play them didn't.) You don't like them - fine.

>
>>Gears of War
>
> Very linear and repetitive gameplay,

you could say that about almost *any* game.

> I did not like it that much.
> Mostly good for showing friends the graphics capabilities of XBox360,
> that's about it.

>>Burnout Revenge
>
> I bought Burnout 3 for PS2 because it got so much praise everywhere,
> and I was a bit surprised how fast I got totally bored with it. The
> over-simplistic gameplay was apparently just not for me. The way I
> like PS2 Gran Turismo 3 & 4 so much better and satisfying driving
> games (along with PC driving sims like the good old GP Legends etc.)
> suggests the same.

Burnout revenge is much better than BO3. But if you find it simple, fine. 
Project Gotham is a nice driving game too.

>>Fight Night Round 3
>
> Hopefully not a wrestling game?

Boxing. Done right.

Not a big fan of them. Brainless "fun"
> for maybe 5 minutes, but not something in which I'd really get
> immersed.

again with the condescending crap. No need to call games others like 
"brainless". Unless you feel a need, for some odd reason, to let all of us 
know YOUR brain is beyond that.

>
>>seriously - I was always a big time PC gamer, and wasn't all that 
>>impressed
>>with the original x-box (it was fun, but in no way challenged the PC in my
>>mind), but the 360 has won me over (I bought it for Dead Rising, and have
>>been very surprised at the quality of the other games and how much I'm
>>enjoying this console)
>
> Could you give some good suggestions for great XBox360 strategy,

none - I have yet to see a good console strategy game.

> (flight combat) simulation

I'm not interested in these - however, I would think a console / controller 
a natural for a flight combat game (although not a serious simulation - you 
need a keyboard for that)

> and RPG games?

Oblivion (but that's on the PC too)

I could ask the same question for PC games - there are no good RPG's period. 

riku wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2006 13:54:57 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:
>
> >I guess with myself, it is just plain easier hoping for
> >strategy stuff to come to the 360, than going through the old way of
> >upgrading or getting a new PC, and then buying from the store and
> >hoping it is decent.
>
> I'm surprised you'd need to upgrade your PC that much for strategy
> games (at least I don't). Usually you need to do that for action
> games, or new RPGs with 3D first-person view interfaces.
>
> As for strategy games for 360, do you really want to play them with a
> gamepad controller? To each his own I guess. At least they would need
> to be heavily modified to work ok on them. At least I know the RTS
> ports to PSX and PS2 have been horrible.

This is one point I am a bit sore about with consoles, is the area of
strategy games.  However, I also think of the pile of older stuff I
have, and didn't get to, that I could run, and it might be worthwhile.
Then I think what I have not played.  I am looking to get rid of
several boxes of older PC games and keep what I found was best. Keep
Kohan and The Operational Art of War.  There is also the likes of
Diablo II.  Others will be gone though.  Way things are, 1.5 Gig will
soon need an upgrade for the graphics.

> Console user base, including XBox360, is just somewhat different from
> PC gamers, that's why you get more action/sports/party games and less
> strategy/simulation on them. Considering that you now see consoles
> more lucrative mainly due to their hassle-free operation, I'm not
> convinced you are necessarily looking that much for more serious and
> deeper stuff anymore, where you'd need to concentrate on the game
> instead of just turning on the console and play a quick 15 minutes
> some simple arcade game before changing TV channel to watch your
> favorite TV show.

Well, that is the part of the conversation I am in now. I am wondering
if I did face a lifestyle shift that results in myself not having deep
stuff in mind.  I am thinking I am more interested in doing lighter
stuff I can play quick, with a persistent presense.  Yes, would like
some strategy stuff, but not too heavy.  Doesn't mean I am not able to
get into the serious stuff, but just it doesn't fit.  I am at a place
where I think whether or not I really want to use a lot of hours on a
day off on a deep game, or work on my business.

> >I wanted to get pumped up again to get back into PC gaming.  I just
>
> Why? That is an interesting phenomenon: trying to convince yourself to
> do something you don't necessarily like that much anymore than you
> used to. Let it go. If and when you get urge to get back to PC gaming,
> you will. For most people things like that go in cycles depending on
> what happens in their life. When you grow out of playing baseball on
> the street, you just stop doing it and start dating girls instead.

That could be it.  I used to be big time into it.  Now they are there
still, and I could still enjoy them.  But I am not.  Was wondering what
would justify a $1500+ cost with me.

> Hmm, were fighting games ever big on PC? All I can remember on PC were
> either some pretty poor arcade ports which ran better and had better
> controls on lowly consoles, and maybe a few simple PC-exclusives like
> OMF(G) which were nifty but would have been laughed at on consoles.

There was a time PCs and computers were doing it all.  Now they
retreated to a niche.  What I believe I am seeing is that niche has
shrunk.  Consoles are stepping up more and more.  I see garage games
getting a life on the XBox 360.  Massive multiplayer online is also
likely left to go.  What might be left here is moddable FPS's and
possibly strategy stuff.  The barriers of entry is real low on PCs, so
they will always be around.  Even sports have made a jump to consoles
in a big way.  Sure, the hardcore serious sim stuff not yet, but others
have.

> Lately I've been playing away my backlog of old PC games. Yet I still
> find those (even a decade old PC games) more interesting that the
> games I have on my PS2. Yes, PS2 operation is much less hassle, but I
> also get bored of its games much faster. And maybe I am not just grown
> to the console gaming paradigm where the essence of the gameplay is to
> memorize different button combinations (fighting games, newer Prince
> of Persia games and its ilk etc.).

Thing is that I don't need a new console to play my old stuff.  That
was my question regarding it.  For me, the 360 ends up being the way to
play of choice.  It sits near my laptop here and I can boot it up and
play off the harddrive, if i just want to have a few minutes to play
something.  I am not even putting in the disk-based games, just stuff
installed on the hardware.  Yes, I am treating it like a PC game
machine, except the bootup is in seconds.  Go figure.

- The Rich

On 2 Jan 2007 09:30:24 -0800, getrich@1upandup.com wrote:

>> Hmm, were fighting games ever big on PC? All I can remember on PC were
>> either some pretty poor arcade ports which ran better and had better
>> controls on lowly consoles, and maybe a few simple PC-exclusives like
>> OMF(G) which were nifty but would have been laughed at on consoles.
>
>There was a time PCs and computers were doing it all.

More like: tried to do it all, but did not succeed so well
necessarily. Sure you got platform games and beat'em ups on PC, but
they didn't always work that well. And people who liked them the most
were probably already in the SNES/PSX land anyway. PC was not really
that suitable for multiplayer sports games either because
multi-controller support was dodgy at best, and a small monitor is not
that suitable for multiplayer games on same machine. Of course that
didn't stop many people, me included.

>Now they retreated to a niche.  What I believe I am seeing is that niche has
>shrunk.  Consoles are stepping up more and more.

Frankly, I like it better that PC games are somewhat different from
mainstream consoles. Just like many people feel it is good Nintendo
Wii is not trying to directly compete with XBox360 and PS3 with
similar games, but something different. It is its strength.

Frankly, if PC was mainly for playing console games, I probably
wouldn't care that much about PC gaming. I could have a console
instead and be done with it. There was a time a rejoiced seeing games
like Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy 7-8 appear on PC, but
afterwards I felt maybe it just wasn't worth it, as those games could
have just as well be played on smaller cheap boxes. I did buy and play
FF7-8 on PC though.

>they will always be around.  Even sports have made a jump to consoles
>in a big way.

Sports games have never really jumped from PC to consoles. They were
pretty much always better (= more playable) on consoles, especially
with Playstation's arrival.

>Sure, the hardcore serious sim stuff not yet, but others have.

I see PC coming back to its roots (late 80s and early 90s stuff):
simulations, strategy, more "serious" stuff which makes some people
claim PC games aren't "fun". Playing something Steel Beasts on PC
gives a similar feeling like playing Gunboat on PC in 1989 or so. It
was quite different from console gaming.

Already then you saw some Amiga/SNES arcade games appearing on PC and
some of them were pretty good ports too, but they weren't really what
PC gaming was about. Actually I feel PC gaming temporarily lost some
of its old charm with the era of Doom/Duke3D and 3D accelerator cards
a few years later. I think that was when many game developers
foolishly thought PC gaming should be like console gaming, and we
started seeing masses of completely useless console ports on PC
(Battle Arena Toshinden anyone?).

>Thing is that I don't need a new console to play my old stuff.  That
>was my question regarding it.  For me, the 360 ends up being the way to
>play of choice.  It sits near my laptop here and I can boot it up and
>play off the harddrive, if i just want to have a few minutes to play
>something.  I am not even putting in the disk-based games, just stuff
>installed on the hardware.  Yes, I am treating it like a PC game
>machine, except the bootup is in seconds.  Go figure.

But you are still not primarily playing PC-like games on it IMHO. Ok
so it has Oblivion, that's one I consider a PC like game.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 12:06:08 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Burnout revenge is much better than BO3. But if you find it simple, fine. 
>Project Gotham is a nice driving game too.

I simply don't like normal "arcade racing games" that much fun
anymore.

>again with the condescending crap. No need to call games others like 

The thing is, you claimed those games are a good reason for a PC gamer
to run out and buy a XBox360. I don't necessarily agree, because they
are not necessarily the type of games what PC gamers usually like. For
those who likes those kinds of games, these people would already play
them on Xbox, PS2, PSX, heck even SNES.

I think your picks may be a good list for an die-hard PS2 or XBox fan
to buy XBox360. If you wanted to impress me as a PC gamer, you
probably should have picked examples of great XBox360 simulations
(flight combat, driving etc.), strategy games, maybe space combat
sims, western roleplaying games etc. The stuff which keeps people
playing games on PC.

>> and RPG games?
>
>Oblivion (but that's on the PC too)
>
>I could ask the same question for PC games - there are no good RPG's period. 

Are you referring to Japanese adventure games, also known as J-RPGs?

I am not trying to convince a normal console gamer who likes beat'em
ups and sports games to become a PC gamer in order to play simulations
and strategy games. Quite possibly he or she just does not care for
such games that much, thus he is not already a PC gamer.

This just goes to show that PC gaming and console gaming worlds are
quite different from each others, and one is not replacing the other
completely (even if there are genres which appear on both). Of the
games you mentioned, I would say only Gears of War is potentially a
"PC like game". I don't even consider normal sports (like NHL07) games
PC's bread and butter, because they have always been more playable on
consoles.

"riku" <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote in message 
news:v68np2dal5dddg674a0lgb8mv5hgpn9tr1@4ax.com...

>I don't necessarily agree, because they
> are not necessarily the type of games what PC gamers usually like.

in your opinion only. For example, it doesn't ring true with the first 
person i know - me. I'm a long-time PC gamer. I'm also a console gamer. And 
a tabletop gamer. I used to be an arcade gamer. In short, I'm a gamer. Fun 
games are fun games. That's what I was pointing out - fun games on the 360. 
If you don't find them fun, so be it. But don't presume to know what the 
rest of "PC Gamers" want or like. 

In article <459bea93$0$5160$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, jwb 
<nobody@nowhere.com> writes
>"riku" <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:v68np2dal5dddg674a0lgb8mv5hgpn9tr1@4ax.com...
>
>>I don't necessarily agree, because they
>> are not necessarily the type of games what PC gamers usually like.
>
>in your opinion only. For example, it doesn't ring true with the first
>person i know - me. I'm a long-time PC gamer. I'm also a console gamer. And
>a tabletop gamer. I used to be an arcade gamer. In short, I'm a gamer. Fun
>games are fun games. That's what I was pointing out - fun games on the 360.
>If you don't find them fun, so be it. But don't presume to know what the
>rest of "PC Gamers" want or like.
>
>

I was a die-hard PC gamer for years. I had no interest in consoles 
whatsoever. I bought a PS2 a few years back, played it for a month or so 
and lost interest and sold it.

Bought an Xbox, enjoyed that more than the PS2 and split my time pretty 
evenly between that and the PC.

Got a 360 on launch day and it takes up most of my gaming time now. I do 
still play PC games, mainly Civ4, MTW2 and FSX, but there's so much good 
stuff on the 360 now and it's so much more comfortable sitting back on 
the couch, playing games in HD with a 5.1 sound, and Xbox Live is 
fantastic, a joy to use.

-- 
Sean Black

As my dad used to say, wryly, "You can get used to hanging- if you do
it long enough"

getrich@1upandup.com wrote in 
news:1167759024.327869.327640@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> 
> There was a time PCs and computers were doing it all.  Now they
> retreated to a niche.  What I believe I am seeing is that niche has
> shrunk.  Consoles are stepping up more and more.  I see garage games
> getting a life on the XBox 360.  Massive multiplayer online is also
> likely left to go.  What might be left here is moddable FPS's and
> possibly strategy stuff.  The barriers of entry is real low on PCs, so
> they will always be around.  Even sports have made a jump to consoles
> in a big way.  Sure, the hardcore serious sim stuff not yet, but others
> have.
It's not exactly true. There is console version of RBR and that's probably 
the most realistic driving sim. Ironically, that's the only game I wouldbuy 
console for. But of course, RBR run on PC too :)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic getrich@1upandup.com wrote:

> I used to post a lot on PC gaming newsgroups, particularly strategic,
> but I am way out of it.  So much out of it, that seeing Sid Meiers
> Railroads on the shelves was a shock.  Mostly I have limited myself to
> XBox 360 stuff, and Arcade downloads.  Yes, I am out of it.

Huh, imagine running into you here..and for moreorless the same reason too.

My current PC is about 5.5 years old, being a 1.2something GHz AMD based 
system with 1GB RAM, and a 256MB GeForce-based card.

Like you, in recent years I've focused more on console gaming, playing 
only ocassional titles on my PC.  Last game I bought was GalCiv2.  I know 
it's time for a new PC as even that has some slowdown now and then.

Also, like you, I've set a budget of about $1500.

The games I am looking to play in the near term would be things like FEAR, 
Half Life2, Doom3.  Of course there's also SPORE, and I'm sure there's a 
bunch of strategic titles I'm missing as well, but I'll worry about doing 
more research once my new PC is up running.  Yes, I'm way behind...

My thoughts on why to upgrade are this:
* I prefer the PC version vs. the console version of a game since I like 
using mouse/keyboard better. (Oblivion, Doom3, Half Life2 ...)

* I can play on the PC while the wife watches TV.

* Can't upgrade my current system any further.

* Homebrew/independent publishers looking more interesting.

Unfortunatly, choosing PC hardware has gotten a lot more aggravating 
lately as it's no longer simply a matter of just buying the part with the 
biggest numbers you can afford ;)  And then this whole DX10/Vista 
thing...  Arg.

Anyways, I'm thinking of a 2.xGhz dual core chip (haven't decided on one 
yet), 2GB of RAM, NO SLI VIDEO CARD.  I personally think SLI is a waste of 
money.  Since I'm running behind, I plan to get a lower-end 512MB video 
card and use that for awhile.  WHEN/IF I decide to upgrade to Vista, I'll 
also upgrade the video card to one that's DX10 compliant.  Right now, all 
the DX10 cards are way too expensive, and not worth the money.  Same with 
Vista - not needed, not worth the money. 

Add a large SATA2 drive, a basic DVD-ROM drive, and put it into a case 
with a 400-500W PSU and that should be that. Keyboard, mouse, speakers, 
and monitor will transfer over.  The old PC will be re-formatted and 
presented to the in-laws where I'm sure it'll be the envy of their 
neighbors.

-- 
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:
> My two cents as a PS2/XBox-owning PC gamer:

> >Dead Rising

> Never heard, I'll have to check. Hopefully not yet another generic 3rd
> person shooter or beat'em up, never cared for them that much.

I guess you could call it a beat'em up...  Schlocky horror movie story - 
you're stuck in a mall full of zombies.  Use anything and everything to 
bash the zombies and survive.

> >Burnout Revenge

> I bought Burnout 3 for PS2 because it got so much praise everywhere,
> and I was a bit surprised how fast I got totally bored with it. The
> over-simplistic gameplay was apparently just not for me. The way I
> like PS2 Gran Turismo 3 & 4 so much better and satisfying driving
> games (along with PC driving sims like the good old GP Legends etc.)
> suggests the same.

I rented it for the Xbox, and while it was fun for awhile, I got bored 
with it too.  I'm really not into driving games at all, but being able to 
smash your oppenents into an oncoming semi-truck was just pretty fun for 
awhile.  Unfortunatly the tracks were largely the same, being either 
city-based or outdoors/mountain based.

> >Fight Night Round 3

> Hopefully not a wrestling game? Not a big fan of them. Brainless "fun"
> for maybe 5 minutes, but not something in which I'd really get
> immersed.

Boxing game.  


In addition to the ones mentioned, I'd throw in:

Kameo - 3rd person adventure/platforming type game.

Viva Pinata - Create a garden to attract creatures called Pinata's.  Be 
careful, some pinatas aren't very nice, and may need you to smack them 
with your shovel to get them to behave.

Enchanted Arms - Japanese style RPG with some nice features with regards to 
training combat options.

> Could you give some good suggestions for great XBox360 strategy,
> (flight combat) simulation and RPG games? All games you listed seemed
> to be only action/sports, which I get bored with quite fast. Thanks.

The only RPGs I can think of off the top of my head for the 360 are 
Enchanted Arms and Oblivion.  Blue Dragon has gotten a lot of buzz in 
Japan but hasn't been announced for the US yet.

Flight sims on consoles tend to be more arcade-y than the ones you'd 
expect for the PC.

Strategy games are few and far between on consoles in general.  Best to 
stick to PCs for those.

> >If you have a decent sized HDTV, it's almost a no-brainer. 

> For what purpose? Showing off for friends, or playing? I play many PC
> games even on a laptop with a tiny screen, so showing off is not the
> primary function for me with PC games. Heck, some kids play even with
> smaller displays on their Nintendo DS, and seem perfectly happy.

The 360's games support HD.  They'll still work on a regular TV too, but 
you won't get the same level of graphics.

-- 
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic jwb <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > (flight combat) simulation

> I'm not interested in these - however, I would think a console / controller 
> a natural for a flight combat game (although not a serious simulation - you 
> need a keyboard for that)

I don't know, I tried this one flight-sim like game on the PS2 (I forget 
it's name - it was in French, but had anime-style anthropomorphic cats as 
the characters) and really really really wanted a normal flight stick.  
Then again, I went through all the Wing Commander and X-Wing games on the 
PC in the past.

> > and RPG games?

> Oblivion (but that's on the PC too)

> I could ask the same question for PC games - there are no good RPG's period. 

I never liked most PC RPGs too much.  Diablo2 was fun - but then again, 
I'm a big fan of rogue-likes in general (Moria, Angband, Nethack,...)

I prefer the story and character driven Japanese style RPGs on the 
consoles, and this remains my primary genre for consoles.

-- 
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:

> Interesting that a strategic gamer would jump bandwagon to consoles,
> where there are hardly any strategy games (yes I know there are
> _some_, even I have some for PSX/PS2). Maybe you were just getting
> tired of the more serious stuff, and needed to try the other side
> (simpler console like action games) for awhile? Nothing wrong with
> that IMHO.

That's pretty much what happend to me.

I saw my roommate playing various RPGs on his Playstation but couldn't 
bring myself to buy one.  Then a legal loophole gave me a chance to spend 
$500 at Best Buy at Microsoft's expense...  I grabbed a Playstation and a 
few RPGs and that was that, basically.

Oh I still played strat games on the PC too, but it was clear even back 
then (~97) that the PC game market was begining to decrease.  People were 
either going for the more casual PC games, or were getting sucked into the 
console world.

I even upgraded my PC and caught up, briefly, with FPS games but I can 
only play for awhile before getting bored with them as a whole.  

> Sometime in the future you might see yourself craving for the
> old-skool PC games, at which point it is a good idea to check whether
> you'd want to jump back into PC gaming. I don't see why others should
> try to convince you back to PC games, if you just don't see the pull
> at the moment.

I'm sort of in the same situation as GetRich is.  Older PC, time for an 
upgrade but is it really worth it?

To me, the PC gaming market is changing - going from the big corporate 
production houses, to the smaller, niche and garage publishers.  This 
actually interests me more, since I can recall the interesting stuff that 
Epyx and Apogee used to put out in the early 90s.  Then Civ burst on the 
scene, bringing along with it a whole bunch of strategy games like MOO and 
MOM, and the beloved XCOM.  But I think most people aren't interested in 
those types of games.  And the new and interesting stuff seems to have 
moved over to consoles - at least for the most part.  I just don't see the 
same diversity in the PC game market that you see for consoles unless you 
start digging into the smaller publishers - the ones that don't put boxes 
on the shelves at the local Best Buy.

I've already decided it's worth doing the upgrade and am slowly compiling 
a list of PC games to catch-up-buy.  

> Some of us are at both camps at the same time, although I have to say
> I am unable to find very much anymore I'd like to buy for my consoles.
> Neither have I seen anything which makes me want to buy a XBox360 yet
> (Gears of War is good-looking crap with very simplistic and repetitive
> gameplay IMHO, and it fails to be pure fun like e.g. Serious Sam was
> with its simplistic and repetitive gameplay, maybe because GoW
> pretends to be something else.).

Which console(s) do you currentally have?  Xbox was mostly a 
dissapointment for me, GameCube had some nice titles, and the PS2 is still 
going strong even though the PS3 launched this past Christmas.

The main stuff on my PS2 are J-RPGs, 3rd person shooter/beat'em-ups like 
Star Wars LEGO or Dynasty Warriors, and other odds and ends like Katamari 
Damacy, which doesn't really fit into any category very easily, other than 
'Really fun game!'

-- 
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98

Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in
news:12q8dpn5u8755ab@corp.supernews.com: 

> 
> I'm sort of in the same situation as GetRich is.  Older PC, time for an
> upgrade but is it really worth it?
I think that right now it's a bad time for upgrade. PC landscape is 
changing and we are going toward parallelization. Things are really flying 
on current dual-core CPU * 4 machines (Ok, now they're flying if you're a 
programmer and have access to the source code :) ). But I'm sure it's just 
the beginning, both Intel and AMD has extensive plans in this direction.
 
> To me, the PC gaming market is changing - going from the big corporate 
> production houses, to the smaller, niche and garage publishers.  This 
> actually interests me more, since I can recall the interesting stuff
> that Epyx and Apogee used to put out in the early 90s.  Then Civ burst
> on the scene, bringing along with it a whole bunch of strategy games
> like MOO and MOM, and the beloved XCOM.  But I think most people aren't
> interested in those types of games.  And the new and interesting stuff
> seems to have moved over to consoles - at least for the most part.  I
> just don't see the same diversity in the PC game market that you see
> for consoles unless you start digging into the smaller publishers - the
> ones that don't put boxes on the shelves at the local Best Buy.
I mostly agree. And I kind of like movement of mainstream towards consoles. 
Perhaps PC gaming scene will become more like 80-90s with fun gameplay 
taking priority over fps and polygon counts. With the need of huge 
financial backing necessary to create "state of art" gone, indies with 
creative ideas will have much easier entry.

Alex.

"Doug Jacobs" wrote:

> I prefer the story and character driven Japanese style RPGs on the
> consoles, and this remains my primary genre for consoles.

Doug, since you mentioned you have a PS2 and also enjoy story and 
character-driven Japanese-style RPGs, you *must* get "Okami":

http://tinyurl.com/y5xw77

(Link takes you to the full Gamespot review)

It's probably the finest hour of the last years of made-for-PS2 games (and 
probably will be playable on the PS3, but I don't have a PS3 so I don't 
know). It's a considered a "Fantasy, Action-Adventure" game. If you enjoy 
Japanese mythology, beautiful graphics and effortless gameplay, then this 
may well be the finest PS2 game you will ever play.

I only wish it was for the PC, as well.

Mark 

On the 3 Jan 2007, riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Sports games have never really jumped from PC to consoles. They were
> pretty much always better (= more playable) on consoles, especially
> with Playstation's arrival.

One of the sub-genres of sport games, football management, has always 
been better on PC - nothing has really come close to touching Football 
Manager. OK, you can now get the game on XBOX but I'm not sure how 
much they've had to cut it down to make it work. The most surprising 
thing is that they've ported it to PSP!

-- 
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.

nospam@jades.org /is/ a real email address!

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic MP <markparrish@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Doug, since you mentioned you have a PS2 and also enjoy story and 
> character-driven Japanese-style RPGs, you *must* get "Okami":

Oh yes, I've been keeping an eye on this title.  I'll get around to it 
sooner or later for sure.


-- 
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic riku <riku@none.invalid.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:10:53 -0500, "jwb" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> >Do you have a 360? If not, I highly, highly recommend one.

> Why? Besides having a bit better graphics, what does its games have
> over e.g. PS2 and XBox games (two consoles I already own)?

Consoles are bought for specific games.  Right now, the 360 is by far the 
better console between the PS3 and 360.

The Wii, on the other hand, should at least be given due consideration, if 
for no other reason than that it'll give you access to the GameCube's 
library, as well as the Virtual Console feature, which lets you download 
and play any game released for the NES through the N64. (you'll pay about 
$2-7 a game supposedly.)  The Wii's motion sensitive controllers also 
bring a novel twist to gaming - just be sure to get the new wrist-straps 
from Nintendo, or else you could end up like the poor souls on 
www.wiihaveaproblem.com.

> Would you also recommend PS3 as the fourth console box to me to
> accompany it? Oh and then there is Nintendo Wii too with its fantastic
> controller, does XBox360 have anything like that? That would be fifth
> I guess.

I would strongly reccomend waiting on the PS3.  Right now, it's the most 
expensive console on the market, and offers only 1 decent exclusive game, 
a FPS called 'Resistance: Fall Of Man.'  No single game is worth 
$500-600...  The rest of the PS3's exclusive games got really bad reviews, 
and the rest of the current games are available for the 360, often with 
better framerates and features.  For example, Tony Hawk 8 doesn't even 
feature online play for the PS3.

Right now, I reccomend buying a PS2.  It's cheap ($130) and has a TON of 
great games available for it at $20 (or less, if you don't mind buying 
used games.)  The PS2 will continue to see new games released for it 
throughout 2007 and maybe into 2008, so you won't run out of games for 
awhile.  The PS3 is backwards compatible with PS2 games, so if you do 
eventually buy one, you'll be able to play (most of) your old games there 
if you want.  However, there are many major incompatibility issues right 
now, and games on the PS3 actually look WORSE than they do on the PS2, so  
this is another reason to buy (and keep!) a PS2.

After that, depending on how your tastes run, you might want to consider 
either a Wii or 360.  I talked about the Wii above.  Nintendo still has a 
reputation for being somewhat "kiddy" in their game design, despite the 
ocassional "M" gem like Eternal Darkness or Resident Evil.  However, if 
you find a few games you want to play, you might as well get a Wii, and 
then you can sample some of the more legendary games from the past using 
the Virtual Console feature.

If you're already a heavy PC FPS gamer, a 360 may not be the best of 
choices.  The 360's library, as with the first Xbox, has a lot of FPS type 
games in it - including many that are also available on the PC.  That said 
there are a handful of good non-FPS games that may interest you.  The 360 
also sports a very robust online system called Xbox Live, allowing you to 
use a single username/account across all online-capable games for the 
360.  This is one area where the 360 may be considered superior to the PC 
experience.  In fact, I've seen some hardcore PC gamers try out a few FPS 
titles on the xbox or 360, only to end up being fully converted.


Regardless of which console(s) you decide to try out, GameRankings.com is 
always a good resource to get an idea about how well a particular game did 
amongst a number of different reviewers.  Also, many reviewers will also 
discuss any platform specific differences, such as graphic performance, 
additional features or characters, etc.

Also, be aware that consoles specialize in different genres from PCs.  
While the Xbox/360 can be seen as a sort of crossover console because it 
has a number of titles that are also available on the PC, as well as other 
consoles, you aren't going to find certain genres represented very well, 
if at all.  Examples would include flight sims.  Most flight games on 
consoles are pretty arcadey.  If you're a hardcore sim player, stick to 
the PC and your HOTAS.  Same with strategy games.  There are a few console 
games that involve some strategy, but you aren't going to find something like 
Civ or Starcraft..well, actually these DID come out for older consoles, 
but the experiences paled compared to their PC counterparts.

Good luck, and enjoy!

-- 
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic alexti <QQalextiQQ@sfs.dfsdf> wrote:
> > I'm sort of in the same situation as GetRich is.  Older PC, time for an
> > upgrade but is it really worth it?

> I think that right now it's a bad time for upgrade. PC landscape is 
> changing and we are going toward parallelization. Things are really flying 
> on current dual-core CPU * 4 machines (Ok, now they're flying if you're a 
> programmer and have access to the source code :) ). But I'm sure it's just 
> the beginning, both Intel and AMD has extensive plans in this direction.

Eh, it's always a bad time for an upgrade, isn't it?  Everytime you do one, 
a week or maybe a month goes by, and someone releases a new component that's 
[Positive Adjective]-er than yours and costs less.

I know that DX10 cards will become the norm, especially once Vista 
actually arrives.  But do I really *NEED* one of these behemoths NOW?  
Most of the games I'm looking to play are going to be "older".  And I 
figure I'll upgrade my graphics card in a few years when (IF) I upgrade to 
Vista anyways.

I know that quad (and even octo!) core CPUs are on the horizon for this 
year but again, will today's software NEED, much less even be able to 
fully USE, that much power?  Remember, I'm coming from a single core 
1.2Ghz Athlon here ;)

Is it worth waiting for the 'next big thing'?  Maybe, for some things.  
But there's always 'next big thing''s coming out that replace the previous 
'next big thing'.




-- 
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98

Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in
news:12qak6k6r4vi7a9@corp.supernews.com: 

> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic alexti <QQalextiQQ@sfs.dfsdf> wrote:
>> > I'm sort of in the same situation as GetRich is.  Older PC, time for
>> > an upgrade but is it really worth it?
> 
>> I think that right now it's a bad time for upgrade. PC landscape is 
>> changing and we are going toward parallelization. Things are really
>> flying on current dual-core CPU * 4 machines (Ok, now they're flying
>> if you're a programmer and have access to the source code :) ). But
>> I'm sure it's just the beginning, both Intel and AMD has extensive
>> plans in this direction. 
> 
> Eh, it's always a bad time for an upgrade, isn't it?  Everytime you do
> one, a week or maybe a month goes by, and someone releases a new
> component that's [Positive Adjective]-er than yours and costs less.
> 
> I know that DX10 cards will become the norm, especially once Vista 
> actually arrives.  But do I really *NEED* one of these behemoths NOW?  
> Most of the games I'm looking to play are going to be "older".  And I 
> figure I'll upgrade my graphics card in a few years when (IF) I upgrade
> to Vista anyways.
> 
> I know that quad (and even octo!) core CPUs are on the horizon for this
> year but again, will today's software NEED, much less even be able to 
> fully USE, that much power?  Remember, I'm coming from a single core 
> 1.2Ghz Athlon here ;)
It depends on the software. A lot of software NEEDS that power. How much 
can actually USE it is another question. And answer is not very encouraging 
right now if you aren't in the development. But that will probably change 
as multi-CPU/core system become more mainstream. In gaming strategy and sim 
racing are in a big need of more power and they're well suitable to use 
parallel systems. In strategy, it's for AI thinking and in sims to get full 
physics for computer opponents.

Though I admit that with 1.2GHz waiting for another 6-12 months doesn't 
look particularly attractive :)

Alex.

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic alexti <QQalextiQQ@sfs.dfsdf> wrote:

> It depends on the software. A lot of software NEEDS that power. How much 
> can actually USE it is another question. And answer is not very encouraging 
> right now if you aren't in the development. But that will probably change 
> as multi-CPU/core system become more mainstream. In gaming strategy and sim 
> racing are in a big need of more power and they're well suitable to use 
> parallel systems. In strategy, it's for AI thinking and in sims to get full 
> physics for computer opponents.

Such is my thinking.  Even when new equipment comes out, it always seems 
to take software a few years to catch up - by which time hardware has 
jumped ahead at least a full generation - if not more.  So I know I'll see 
4x and even 8x systems coming out this year while I'll still be breaking 
in my 2x, but I'm OK with that.  As I said, when/if I upgrade this box to 
Vista, I'll probably upgrade the hardware a little as well - get a newer 
video card, and throw in some more RAM.

But I figure I'm a good 3-4 years behind in terms of PC gaming.  Plenty to 
play even with my soon-to-buy, and soon to be obsolete system ;)


-- 
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98