jacardin / Member

Forum Posts Following Followers
25 25 2

jacardin Blog

Fall Systems 2008

Only minor updates in the CPU world for 2008, GPUs, fortunately, continue to move at an alarming rate. Prices overall are lower this year, as there seems to be little need to buy the super-expensive stuff right now, with the 9800GX2 giving us 60fps in most games at 2560x1600, and only small gains being recognized in memory faster than DDR2-800. Spring 2009 will change that for memory though, as DDR3 will become mainstream by then. At that point DDR3-1600 is likely to become the recommendation.

Entry-Level Gamer ($227 total core)
2.8GHz Dual-Core Athlon X2 5400+ Black 1MB ($77)
4GB DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 ($50)
GeForce 9800GT ($100)

Mid-Range Gamer ($370 total core)
3.16GHz Dual-Core Core 2 E8500 6MB ($180)
4GB DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 ($50)
Radeon HD 4850 ($140)

High-End Gamer ($650 total core)
2.83GHz Quad-Core Core 2 Q9550 12MB ($320)
8GB DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 ($100)
GeForce 9800GX2 ($230
)

Back to school systems for 2007

Budget Gamer ($330 Core Total):
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ 2.6GHz 2MB ($130)
2GB DDR2-800 4-4-4 ($80)
GeForce 8600GT 256 ($120)

Basic gaming with medium quality settings up to 1680x1050, high quality at 1440x900 and below.

Mid-range Gamer ($520 Core Total):
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33GHz 4MB($180)
2GB DDR2-667 3-3-3 or DDR2-800 4-4-4 ($80)
GeForce 8800GTS 320 ($260)

The mid-range offering will allow games to fly at 1680x1050 and most high quality settings at 1920x1200.

Best Performance/Value Gamer ($740 Core Total):
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz 4MB ($210)
4GB DDR2-667 3-3-3 orDDR2-800 4-4-4 ($180)
GeForce 8800GTS 640 ($350)

This setup will handle ultra-high detail settings at resolutions up to 1920x1200. If you want the max without breaking the bank, this is the way to go. If you need 2560x1600, start with an 8800GTX 768 card and seriously consider 2 8800GTS cards in SLI.

Fall Gaming Systems Report and Comparison

Fall Systems Report:

Best budget gamer (AM2): ($380 base)
Athlon 64 3200+/3800+ ($90-110)
1GB DDR2 (1 stick for upgrade) 4-4-4-12 ($150)
GeForce 7600GT 256 ($130)

This gives you a decent processor and video card while allowing you DDR2 now so you can upgrade to a Core 2 platform when you need to.

Best midrange gamer (Core 2): ($650 base)
Core 2 Duo E6300 @1.86GHz ($180)
2GB DDR2 (2 sticks) 5-5-5-12 ($250)
Radeon X1900GT / X1900XT 256 ($200-240)

This midrange gamer should handle anything you throw at it right now quite well.

Best performance/value gamer (Core 2): ($940 base)
Core 2 Duo E6600 @2.4GHz ($320)
2GB DDR2 (2 sticks) 4-4-4-12 ($300)
Radeon X1900XT 512 ($320)

Want to run everything on highest settings and be future-proofed for 6 months or so? This system will do the trick and won't break the bank either. If you need to run everything above 1600x1200, then strongly consider a dual-GPU setup. At 1600x1200 and below, single card presents the best performance/value.

~Paladin~

Oblivion and Modern RPGs

Like almost every other RPG aficionado, I am greatly awaiting Oblivion's release. But I am still wary of the characteristics that have turned me off to modern RPGs being brought into this game...

1.) Character skill extremes: Having 21 different skills to learn seems like it would add a tremendous amount to the depth, but it really doesn't. For magic, I can see having 7 schools independently classified, as they are all different. But having 7 weapon types? In my opinion, Gothic II did it right here. You have 1 handed weapon skill, and you have 2 handed weapon skill. If I'm good at swinging a sword, I'm going to be good at swinging a mace, axe, or hammer too. But maybe not a dagger. So why don't we group weapon skills instead by small, medium and large, but have them raise more slowly to balance? And have each hand ranked differently, with a weaker hand harder to raise in skill. And then, have more independent skills like repair, mercantile, persuasion, etc., that don't overlap any of the others. Betrayal at Krondor does well here, and even Neverwinter Nights was on the right track here.

2.) Building god-heroes: I like to have the best character I can make in a game. That's a warrior who is good at the best spells and can pick locks and disarm traps. But please, don't let me do this!!! If I choose a warrior type, put some restrictions in that will keep me playing the role of a warrior type. Sure, it's okay if I learn a magical ability or two, but I should not have access to hundreds of spells. This new magic mode makes me nervous of magic being too easy for other classes to use well. MAKE me PICK a wizard character if I want to be good at magic. Make it so my warrior must wield a STAFF in order to cast spells. Make it so my wizard CAN'T use claymores and cast at the same time. Put a limit on the number of thief skills my warrior and wizard can learn, maybe make it limited by their dexterity. If you make it limited by their dexterity, don't allow characters to raise all skills to 100. For my rogue, sure, allow me to learn large weapons, but make this count way against my thief skills so I don't want to use them.

I am tired of creating gods and having my character go through the end of the game without any faults. As limiting as AD&D games are, they do this right! In 2nd edition, primary stats CAN'T be raised permanently. In 3rd edition, you can only raise 1 point every 5 levels. In Gothic II, you can raise intelligence as a fighter, but it doesn't do much good unless you're a mage. I'm all for allowing any class to use any weapon, but please, if it doesn't fit their archetype, make serious drawbacks for it. No more fighter-mage-cleric-thieves that can do everything as well as the pure classes of each!

3.) Task-manager interface: Why does every game now have a system of managing quests that gives you a list of things to do so you can check, check, check them off 1 by 1? While this is created to make things easier to remember, I would rather just be in the world, explore and adventure as I wish to, talk to who I want, help who I want. Modern games, especially the NON-linear ones, have a way of guiding you through them, and isn't the point of non-linear to NOT be guided through?

Remember Stonekeep back in 1995? Had a great journal, told you about characters, items, even made maps as you explored. Even held statistical info in there. The most intuitive thing was the "clues" it took for you. That was perfect, in my opinion. It didn't make you feel like you were checking off a list as you played the game; it simply remembered things people said or that you read that might be important later.

-----

We need the archetype system if we want to get a balanced gaming experience. This doesn't necessarily mean restrictions, but at least heavier bonuses and penalties. As for skill systems, we need to rethink what skills we can develop, and be sure that they do not overlap, that each is unique. And the quest log needs to go. Maybe have a quest log that shows what you've done, but certainly not what still needs to be done.

Ultra High-End Components

8 years ago, paying $3000+ for a good computer was quite common. In fact, in order to get top mid-range components and a system that would last for a few years without upgrades, it was necessary.

Things have changed, although the market wouldn't like you to think so. Even the most basic modern computer parts allow for fast web-browsing and application use. A good system with 2GHz processor with 512MB RAM and an 80GB hard drive can be had for $600 now. Double this to $1200 and you have a very good gaming computer. Even if you want a top of the line gamer, sporting the best and smoothest graphics, you'll be hard pressed to spend more than $2000 if you buy wisely.

The problem is, Intel still has their Extreme (EE) series CPU out for over $1000, AMD's FX chips are still close to $1000, nVidia and ATI released $700 graphics cards, which fools will still put in SLI ($1400) to get way more than they need. Hard Drives are up to 500GB (I haven't even used 20GB of my 80GB drive). When you put all these components together, you get a $4000+ system, and it's only going to perform 5% better than that $2000 system we just looked at, while costing 100% more. In fact, it's only going to perform 20% better than the $1300 system, while costing 150% more.

What do you do? Well, lay low and upgrade only when necessary. Don't be fooled by these top-of-the-line parts that are just there to make money, because they will still be obsolete in a year.

Core: Get a mid-range dual-core processor, it'll be worth it going into 2006, and single-core chips will be obsolete by 2007. Start with 1 to 2 GB of memory, and a "small" 80-160GB or "mid" 250-300GB hard drive. Don't pay a premium for 400GB+. Even power supplies are out of control; you don't need more than 400W if you're only running 1 graphics card. 350W is fine for most of you.

Video: For your video card, there are a ton of choices. I prefer nVidia right now, but either way, keep yourself between $100 and $300. Nothing else is worth the price. For your monitor, that's up to you. With a mid-range ($150-200) video card, a 12ms 19" monitor for $250-300 works perfect for games at 1280x1024. If you have a high-end ($250-300) video card, go ahead and buy that 12ms 21" monitor for $750-800 with 1600x1200 resolution. It's the best you can get and one purchase that's truly worth the money.

Audio: For audio, avoid the X-Fi cards for now as I hear they have gaming issues with some modern games not designed for them. Stick with your Audigy 2 ZS or onboard if it's better than the Realtek ALC850 chip. And these speakers sporting 500W-700W of power. I have a 200W system and it's way too loud for my apartment. 100-200W total is plenty.

Follow these rules, buy in moderation, and your total system cost will be between $1000 and $1600. And you'll be able to play all modern games on high settings. Be ready to upgrade your video card (another $100-300) in 2 years, but so what? 

Get that $3000 system and you'll have the hottest system on the block, for 6 months, until the next person wastes another $3000 on buying the new hottest system, and so on. You could spend $3000 on a computer, and still have to upgrade the video card after 3 years, or spend $1300 on a computer and upgrade the video card after 2 years. Hmmm... 

Re: The Problem with Ratings...

Exactly, Polyhymnia!

The entire world has come to expect games that are rated anything below an 8 to be mediocre, and anything below a 7 to suck. When you score anything less than 70% on a test, you suck, right?

In my game ratings, I primarily rate RPGs. Each game's rating is rated as an RPG. I evaluate on Gameplay, Design, Depth, Story, Effects, and Replay value. Anything below 5 is below 5 for a reason. However, any game that earns a 5-7, in my opinion, is a good game, but just a mediocre RPG! If I give out a 7-8, that means I feel the game is excellent, and one of the better RPGs. RPGs that manage to receive an 8-10, should be considered as excellent games by any standard, and among the top RPG experiences.

Reader ratings for games are WAY too high, simply because people are "afraid" of rating good games as a 5, 6, or even 7. People, please, reserve your 8s and 9s for only the best games, your top 10, for example!

~Paladin~

P.S. I just looked at my collection (140 games). Out of my RPG ratings alone, I've rated three 9s, and nine 8s. Most are rated 5-7.