The most heroic character on that list is Jaina, so I'm thinking that's who's gonna kill Arthas.

Definitely not Illidan. But why aren't any Night Elf sentinels on the list, like Malfurion Stormrage?

you do know you can change the graphics settings ?naval

Of course I do, but I wish for more versatility

[QUOTE="psiklone"]@ Skizi: Once again, most people already have a computer capable of performing all of those other tasks, so that's why I think PC developers lower the minimum requirements, maybe my making the ability to scale back graphics more versatile.skizi1

A dell PC with a core 2 duo now costs around 700. That's your home PC right there. A NVIDIA 8800GT costs $250, it can run Crysis on high. That $250 is your gaming hardware right there. Throw in a new CPU every 4 years and it comes out to less than what a console costs.

you can use a comp for everything, not just gaming, and most people like controlers better thatn a keybord and mouseDrazule

It seems to me like, game-wise and graphics wise, the PC is the superior console to buy. Basically all of the best Xbox 360 games are available on the PC (except Halo 3 of course) with the addition of many solid platform exclusives and the ability to make mostly any game endlessly entertaining with mods AND being able to play many older games completely free (on the Wii you can buy a ten-year-old Mario game for 5 bucks, but on PC did you know, until Dec. 31 you can play Psychonauts on Gametap for free?). Graphics on PC have always been superior, since they update far more frequently than consoles. And let's not forget that on PC, you don't have to pay additional fees to play games on the internet (yes, I still think paying for Xbox Live is **** So why is it that most gamers choose consoles over PC? Well, obviously, it's the price.

In the PC gamer magazine, a good "entry-level" PC will set you back one grand, so it's no surprise that gamers will quickly choose an four-hundred dollar Xbox 360 over a decent next-gen PC. Sure, there will always be the hardcore, older players shelling out sacks with dollar signs on them for the newest video card, because, well, that's what you need to do to play Crysis on PC. But what if Crysis didn't have the life-like visuals it has, or, better yet, had the option to set its graphics back to Xbox level as opposed to PS3 level? It might not have the same praise it has now, but maybe, just maybe, more casual gamers would buy it.

I don't know how many gamers there are like me, but I have watched so many great PC games fly by, wishing I could play them, but not having the rig necessary to play them. Supreme Commander, Half-Life 2, Prey, FEAR, all come and gone without me getting so much as a chance to play them because I don't have a grand to shell out for the PC necessary.

Basically what I'm trying to say is maybe PC gaming would be a richer industry if every big game didn't push the graphics to the limit. The best selling consoles now (the Wii and the DS) are also the cheapest, and the weakest graphically, so having every game released have the next-gen graphics is unwise. Even the best selling PC game ever, the Sims, was not praised for its graphics. World of Warcraft also has relatively low system requirements compared to Everquest 2 and other not-as-popular MMOs. So what I'm saying is maybe the PC game industry would benefit from uglier graphics. Imagine if Bioshock could run on any PC released after 2002. Generally, that's the type of computer the average household contains, so why prevent your own customers from buying your game by requiring a computer very few people actually own?

I'm not really trying to argue this point, it's really something I was thinking about and can't think of an answer for.