PC, Public Contempt

I disagree with this thread. Why should games and technology just stop? There was never a case where games required you to upgrade that often. If you get a top-end PC now, it will still be just fine 3-5 years down the road.

Like i said, I dont think you have a point asking the technology and games not to move forward.

I'm tired of people whining because they are "forced" to tab down to "medium" or "low" settings on new games, instead of being able to gloat about running on "high". You buy a rig and you commit yourself to a certain visual fidelity, unless you upgrade. Each new game for two ~ three years runs fine, it simply doesn't raise the *visual bar* unless you upgrade, and you must turn down settings each time.

Yet, the visual quality you paid for remains *the same* - the only complaint seems to come from *bruised ego* at not being able to "max out" the game.

I'm sorry, I have no sympathy, technology should not stop because your ego needs to feel grand.

I disagree with this thread. Why should games and technology just stop? There was never a case where games required you to upgrade that often. If you get a top-end PC now, it will still be just fine 3-5 years down the road.

Like i said, I dont think you have a point asking the technology and games not to move forward.

The_PC_Gamer

really? tell you what you take your 3 year old rig and go play Crysis and let me know how that goes.

why would u want to run crysis on 3 year old tech anyways?

pc gaming is always on the edge of tech, thats the main reason i like it, and if it means i have to upgrade, then i do, its my hobby and i make i dedicate money twards it, if i didnt have to upgrade alot it wouldnt be as fun.

I'm tired of people whining because they are "forced" to tab down to "medium" or "low" settings on new games, instead of being able to gloat about running on "high". You buy a rig and you commit yourself to a certain visual fidelity, unless you upgrade. Each new game for two ~ three years runs fine, it simply doesn't raise the *visual bar* unless you upgrade, and you must turn down settings each time.

Yet, the visual quality you paid for remains *the same* - the only complaint seems to come from *bruised ego* at not being able to "max out" the game.

I'm sorry, I have no sympathy, technology should not stop because your ego needs to feel grand.

subrosian

i have to agree with subrosian, ive been playing games low/med quality for the last couple years, i bought a new gfx card and it wont run crysis on max. doesnt mean its not fun anymore

You can play crysis on a 3 year old pc. My flatmate does. He loves it.

Theres a big uproar about this because pc gaming is making big headlines at the moment, because its got something shiny and new - DirectX 10 and the dx10 graphics cards, and the games that make use of it (eg, cryisis). But, wait a minute - What about that oblivion game? Didnt that need the best hardware available at the time to max it? Didnt doom 3 also? The source engine? This is what pc gaming is about - the cutting edge. If you want to remain on it, you'll have to do a big upgrade at least once a year.

The thing is, you dont have to. When i first got half life 2, i ran it on a geforce fx5500. That was a weak graphics card, even at the time. It looked fine, ran well, and i loved the game. Its the same with my flatmate, with crysis. He doesnt actually meet the minimum spec for the game, yet i think hes played it the most (another flatmate and i have a quadcore and an 8800gts, we run it very nicely). Some games dont scale back so well, its true (oblivion is a good example) but the vast majority do, to at least be playable.

If this really upsets you so much, get a console and be done with it. Dont get me wrong, the consoles are great(i want a 360), but i like my cutting edge dx10 crysis goodness, thank you very much. Its true that it costs more, but its worth it.

PC gaming isn't all about the latest games you know? and it's not about the how mucvh money you can spend on your rig either.

There are thousands and thousands of games you can play that don't need an expensive system to run them. If your having problems running a game, lower the settings, simple.

Maybe our problem is with games that don't run well on older systems or at least the specs that the majority of PC gamers have. Those geniuses out there should run a poll of who owns the most of what video card (as a basis of comparison). Whoever wins as the most common video card should have a test of the game with it and there should be an awards thingy for the best running on standard generation cards.

A good example is to use the Ge-Force 6600, the most common videocard for all of Valve's customers based on online statistics. Whoever can run the best and look the best on it should be given recognition at least with games websites. Consumers deserve to know that what you see on screenshots and boxes is not exactly the game you're going to play. Take away FEAR's eye candy and run it on a lower card and we'll see how much frightening it will still be. One game's medium settings might be another game's highest settings regardless of what time it was released.

Pushing for high technology is a good thing. Pushing poeple to upgrade too soon before they should is simply failure of the game developer to address thier market and just plain consumerism. And here I thought these young people are all about fighting the system and being radical and non-conformist. Sheep. Just like any other generation. Remember cigarettes being cool some decades ago? Oh no you probably don't.

[QUOTE="The_PC_Gamer"]

I disagree with this thread. Why should games and technology just stop? There was never a case where games required you to upgrade that often. If you get a top-end PC now, it will still be just fine 3-5 years down the road.

Like i said, I dont think you have a point asking the technology and games not to move forward.

GOML

really? tell you what you take your 3 year old rig and go play Crysis and let me know how that goes.

Most of us aren't dumb enough to try to play Crysis on a 3 year old rig and expect good quality. It is not hard to make very moderate upgrades through out that 3 year period. For instance you can get really good performance out of a 250 USD 8800GT. That will last you till awhile and when the next series is released you can buy the midrange card also. PC gaming is not for you TC go back to consoles.

Well, I can't say I can complain on the graphics department, I recently bought a new pc and I play Crysis on high settings with 30 FPS (which still has me kind of worried though)

But I would actually agree with the OP, that stopping or slowing down the advances in graphics are actually better for games in general.

I mean, when is the last time that you played a game, and felt like that was it was just worth every second, that you felt like you'd gladly pay twiceas much for a similair game.
I honestly say that it's been a while for me.

I keep hearing people say "well, I'd rather have a short game that's really good, then a longer game that isn't that good."
And I agree, however, it seems that everybody has simply forgotten about the long AND good games.
Right now, I can see this trend that games need as muchcool stuff,by which I don't simply mean graphics, but also physics and "intelligent AI" and what not,crammed into them in the shortest amount of time. Kinda like movies, if you watch an '60 movie, you might fall asleep because of the damned slow pacing. The brand new movies are in comparison moving at ultrahypermega speed.

I really can't help but feel that games are going to be just like movies in a short while, I won't be surprised if 4 hours of gameplay is a lot in a few years.
It all comes down to us gamers, really. We keep hearing all these promises about how good games will be, and then they don't turn out that well, not nearly. And we go, oh well, it's not that bad. IT IS!

What we're doing is basicly let developers lower our standards every game we play.
I mean, take the whole Battlefield, Battlefront, Quake Wars etc. line. They all boil down to exactly the same game, which is Battlefield 1942. However, even Crysis, the game that is being heralded as the second coming of jesus christ, has this lame uninspired multiplayer.
Take Halo, I hear so many people saying "Halo is simply the best game series in the whole world and it will always be so"
However, they're also saying that multiplayer is the "good part" of the game. I've heard that so many times. But seriously, if it's so goddamn good, why the hell is the singleplayer so bad?

It's actually funny at yet so sad I could cry at the same time: when the first Crysis screens were released, it was all like "zomg, best game evor." etc. You know, with the ! and 1's. People were going crazy over which game was the best looking, and it appeared that that also meant that it would automatically be the best game ever. I mean, are you really retarded of are just acting like one? You've not even played the game.
So I was immediatly sceptical, a company that can't shut up about how good their game looks, but fails to actually tell us anything concrete about how the game will play, isn't very trust worthy. Although I have to say that I really enjoyed the Crysis singleplayer demo, to my own surprise, so perhaps there's yet hope, but I definatly feel that the last few years have seen some serious "more jive, less substance."
The question in my mind right now is"will every AA game be just like every damn AA movie-that-everyone-wants-to-see-but-not-because-it's-factually-a-good-movie(think the whole POTC series) or will pc gaming go into a sort of new age, where we'll be bombarded with fantastic gameplay and story every step we take?"
I'm anxious to see what it's going to be.

[QUOTE="The_PC_Gamer"]

I disagree with this thread. Why should games and technology just stop? There was never a case where games required you to upgrade that often. If you get a top-end PC now, it will still be just fine 3-5 years down the road.

Like i said, I dont think you have a point asking the technology and games not to move forward.

GOML

really? tell you what you take your 3 year old rig and go play Crysis and let me know how that goes.

The simple fact is, that 5% of the people who buy crysis will be able to run it on max settings, and keep resonable frame rates. The rest of us, who live in the real world, will stick with low-high settings depending on when you upgraded your computer.

If you want the best, then expect to pay for it. Personally, games for me are about more then graphics, and i do not need to see the shadow on the tree leaf 50 yards away all the time. I upgrade my computer every 2-3 years and never really have a problem running any game that is released. If the OP wants the best, he should stop whining about it and figure out how to get it, but that would be to hard for people today.

Mark, i agree with you to some extent, but the 6xxx series of cards are 3 years old or older now, and really have reached the end of their life cycle. thats a pretty good run for most computer products. The OP isnt complaining about not being able to run crysis, hes complaining that he does not get all the bells and whistles because its a new game and his computer is not new.

Shot, Pushing technology has made systems like the 360, ps3 etc available. slowing down technology, means everything that it relies on will be slowed down as well. games are alike movies already, they are just mini-series. The consumer market is pushing it that direction though. The ADHD generation pretty much wants it now,and has the attention span of a gnat. Once they get bored they have to have the next great thing. your comments about greatest game ever based on screenshots is a typical example. Why wouldnt smart developers produce what consumers want along those lines, it only means more profit for them long term.

If you want a good long game, try the witcher. Probably one of the top 5 games released this year imo,and it brings back some of the old school feelings when playing a computer game.

you do know your 3year old PC was a dream for gamer of the year 2000, right?

I hope it never ends, and I'm really looking forward for a game that nobody can really run. Like FarCry, it wasn't until the 6800 Nvidia that people could max it... The 6800 is a crap card today... what, $10?

[QUOTE="The_PC_Gamer"]

I disagree with this thread. Why should games and technology just stop? There was never a case where games required you to upgrade that often. If you get a top-end PC now, it will still be just fine 3-5 years down the road.

Like i said, I dont think you have a point asking the technology and games not to move forward.

GOML

really? tell you what you take your 3 year old rig and go play Crysis and let me know how that goes.

Yes because we all know that the companies force us to play the game, or that there is soo few games for the PC you just have to play that agame :roll:.. Get serious people half of you sound like spoiled 10 year olds, the PC has the largest library out there, you can play an uncountable amount of quality titles on that PC for ages to come.. It just sounds like your graphic whores while at the same time cheap skates wanting to play the most cutting edge games out there while expecting it to run just fine.

problem is, u cant tell how good a game is by looking at screenies. u see a screenie and the only u thing u CAN tell is how good it looks. u can wait for a demo, but not all games have demos. you can read previews to find out how well it actually plays, but only if u have exactly the same taste as the previewer, not to mention the devs might make changes (bad changes, to be short).

so now u play the demo. u cant run the game on ultra visual quality (which, remember, was the thing that caught ur attention in the first place). and u dont like its gameplay. perhaps because the lower graphics remove the "feel" or atmosphere of the game?

now theres nothing left that you like

of course, it could just be about opinion, because surely someone else would be loving it

lets face it, the best way for devs to show off new games is screenshots

Oh please, the self-pity has grown to monstrous levels. You weren't deceived or cheated, there is a free demo available, and it has been made *very clear* how system intensive running the game at high settings will be. If you *only want Crysis for the visuals* and yet are gaming on mid-range hardware, I have to raise an eyebrow. The point is, your expecatations are unrealistic, and entirely ego driven.

Seeing as how the game is not out, and you could not have spent any money, the only thing you can be angry about is your own lack of high-end hardware. There's nothing wrong with running this game on medium, I do, and the visual fidelity is still where every other game to grace my 8600gt has been - it's not an unoptimized nighmare like Lost Planet or Neverwinter Nights 2 by any means.

Ya, I also hate how cars keep getting faster and faster but I am stuck with a reliable, fun-to-drive Jeep Cherokee from 1995. I also hate how your average Joe broccali costs $0.99 per crown, but the organic stuff costs $2.00 a head.I also hate how...

Sorry for getting a bit dramatic, but you make do with what you got. You dont go out and buy a new car because the one you have isnt as good as the new one, and you dont go out and start buying more expensive produce because its trendy and more expensive.

With video cards, I dont see it too differently. So youre stuck with an 80-dollar Geforce 7600? Thats more than adequate to run World in Conflict and Crysis at 1024x768 with medium detail. You dont need to get all uppity about new video cards, or upset that a few companies tailor to the high end crowd. Not to mention this has ALWAYS occured. Remember when Far Cry came out? Anyone with a 5000 series card couldnt run it, 6000 series struggled, and it seemed only a 7000 series could max it.

I understand your complaints, but its just the way of the world. Things need to improve, and consumers eventually need to improve their hardware. But never do you need to be on the cutting edge, and there are always economically-priced solutions.

Im just repeating what everyone else already said, but no one if forcing you to do anything. IF you cant sleep at night because you have to set settings to medium or low thats your problem.

Im an average joe in College with an average job and I still afford a high end rig.

I played FarCry on a GeForce 3 Ti200 on medium so =>kyrieee

*sigh*

but how well did it run? I remember I could barely play it on 1024x768 with medium detail and I had like a 5 or 6000 series card.

I beat the game on realistic :D so it ran like 25+ fps, 800*600

some things were on low though! and the CPU was well above minimum

[QUOTE="The_PC_Gamer"]

I disagree with this thread. Why should games and technology just stop? There was never a case where games required you to upgrade that often. If you get a top-end PC now, it will still be just fine 3-5 years down the road.

Like i said, I dont think you have a point asking the technology and games not to move forward.

GOML

really? tell you what you take your 3 year old rig and go play Crysis and let me know how that goes.

this is like the graphics vs gameplay debate's, unfortunatly im in the opinion that the majority of new "next-gen" games are pushing the system requirments to higher limits at a far faster rate than hardware is keeping up with, while at the same time dumbing down or completely negating gameplay and or new playing sytels or idea's. (take the wii for example fo providing new ways to play while not going fo flash and retaining the fun factor)

crysis = farcry with a suit, plays the same runs like arse. provides nothing that farcry didnt have years ago... thats just one example. the thing is farcry runs better than crysis would on a 3 year old rig but in max detail and you wont miss anything because they are the same.

imo.

PC gaming is what it is...More and more it has been dominated by those who are enthusiasts and it is a hobby to tinker and sometimes overclock hardware. The newest games that have come out, I have to play on a 3 year old pc and there is alot of them I can play and a few that I cant. But, I have enjoyed tweeking here and there...sometimes upgrading a little etc.etc. Most of the time I have to put setting on medium but thats okay by me because bills and other stuff comes first.

If you get a console you have to upgrade anyway...eventually....

Admit it, this's how PC gaming evolves.thusaha

Concise and accurate. I like it. That is the way it goes with gaming. I bought my first pc in the early 80s (my rents helped). It was out of date two years later. That was the Commodore 64. That's how technology works. You're going to have the same experience with consoles. If you must play the latest games, plan on upgrading every 2-4 years.