I'm running it on medium settings from a Toshiba Satellite P105-S921, Centrino Duo (1.83 GHz), 1 GB RAM, GeForce Go 7900 GS, so pretty close to what you described.
The frame rate goes through the basement when the battles get big, but that seems to be a nearly universal issue. Otherwise you should be good to go.
I don't know if they're destroying PC gaming so much as diverting resources. Even though most developers know they aren't going to compete with WoW and its ilk in terms of popularity, they still want to get a share of the online action -- because, hey, that's where the money is. As a result we have the market filled with games which either have decent gameplay but poor multiplayer support or good multiplayer support but nobody playing; and in the meantime, single-player titles get less and less treatment, so you end up with a lot of the same (ZOMG, another WWII-based game is coming out!).
Although I must say that 2007 looks like it's shaping up to be a good year for the single-player die-hards (e.g., me).
Just about everything these days comes with a multiplayer. So while some of the games I'll list do have a multiplayer attached, the single-player value is strong.
Stepping outside the largely FPS/RPG lists posted above -- which have some great ones listed, don't get me wrong -- there's:
Europa Universalis III Rome: Total War Medieval II: Total War Hearts of Iron II {Wasn't too hot on the first one} Galactic Civilizations II Civilization III and IV SimCity 4 Combat Mission {Series} The Sims 2
SimCity 4. City Life tried too hard to work in social diversity which, while a good concept, was poorly executed. Plus visually it seemed a bit behind the curve (If you check my game collection, no, City Life isn't in there - it was one of the few games I returned after purchase).
SC4 will keep you occupied for a good while without getting overly complicated. It got me through my Urban Geography forbidden>
Command & Conquer is one of the few games I can remember from my young gaming days, way back when a 1 gigabyte hard drive was more space than you knew what to do with and Prodigy was the ISP of choice (well, for me). I devoured the game, and its many sequels and add-ons over the years. So when I downloaded the CnC3 demo, I of course thought that I was going to be thrilled and that I would soon be hoping down Memory Lane as things went Boom! on screen. I'd slip into familiar roles and get pumped for the full release, eager to dive into the campaigns and fight the Tiberium War of all Tiberium Wars.
But as I played, it hit me: I was really, really uninspired, and I really, really didn't like the game. And then it occured to me that, since CnC3's announcement, I haven't once felt excited about the game. I haven't cared about the Scrin or their connection to Tiberium, nor have I been shocked by the revival of Kane - because, really, how were they going to have a game without him? Nor have I been compelled by Kane, period!
I just absolutely do not care about this installment, and as someone who prides himself on being the last remaining dinosaur of those who get excited by single-player games for the PC (even if they almost all come with multiplayer these days), I have mixed feelings about turning my back on the game that really launched my gaming experience.
Are there any others of you out there who feel like this, or did I just doom myself to be burnt at the stake for PC gaming heresy?
Log in to comment