[QUOTE="ShotGunBunny"]They can't program a decent game.[/QUOTE[QUOTE="Hellboard"][QUOTE="zanelli"][QUOTE="Hellboard"]

id say the scre the port eg in some cards you can run it on max but with no lag...the textures dissapear!

Hellboard

Erm are you typing with your feet?

I'll have to get GTAIV to see how it runs on my now aging 88gtx, other ports from this year like DMC4, Assassins Creed and Mass Effect, run perfectly on the higher settings, so I hope it's going to be the same.

Yeah I don't think I did. I was more talking about your lack of grammer in some of your previous posts, not just the spelling mistakes. I should have just put it down to your apparent age.

My answer was clear and correct in terms of the question and what you had put in your first post, but it was more just to put facts across

True PC developers aren't killing PC gaming, just look at Blizzard, Crytek, Relic, Epic, Valve...ect

Hmm yeah vista drivers would be a problem, but I guess it's the price we pay to play with dX10.

Seen I'm mainly tring to get a card that'll improve sound and overall game proformance, I might be better off going with the X-Fi. The abillty to do advance sound recording and added effects with a guitar would be an extra

If anyone knows of a resonable card that'll do both then please let me know, I should be purchasing one in the next week for christmas

Okay this is a bit of a strange question.

For gaming and general sound quality is it better to go for a Creative X-Fi Sound sound card or an industry standard audio card like this one?

http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/shop/flypage/product_id/1142

This is because I need to ugrade my sound card, but would like one that'll do all the media side of stuff, like 5.1 and in game sound optimization, but I could also plug my guitar in and have some fun.

Would I lose most or all of the media and gaming stuff if I got a audio card? or can the X-Fi ones do zero latency sound input?

Okay out of the few hundred I've seen this year the widescreen Samsung SyncMasters with the pebble surround have the best image quailty followed by the LG Flatron.

But with anything you pay for quailty.

Puzzle Quest.

Trackmania: United. This game is a free download.

Trackmania was an awesome time filler, untill I got to the later levels and then got a bit obsessed tring to get the golds and spent a bit more time than i should have been lol

I'm geting a demo of Puzzle Quest now to give that a go

Okay I need something new to fill the time between playing a full game and time spent working.

As I'm still filling the 10 min breaks while doing image editing, web design,..ect with audiosurf and while it's hardly made a dent in my vast music collection, I think it's time to play something else as well.

So what are the best mini games around atm?

id say the scre the port eg in some cards you can run it on max but with no lag...the textures dissapear!

Hellboard

Erm are you typing with your feet?

I'll have to get GTAIV to see how it runs on my now aging 88gtx, other ports from this year like DMC4, Assassins Creed and Mass Effect, run perfectly on the higher settings, so I hope it's going to be the same.

[QUOTE="zenarblade"]I don't think so. The developers want to protect their games (like whit Secu-ROM) and to prevent piracy (like clone CD-s). The bad thing is that in the moment PC's are far away from the consoles. An example: an INTEL (c) DUAL-CORE (c) is clocked (in allmost casses) at 4.2 Ghz, and a Playstation 3 is clocked at ~ 6.110 Ghz. So, what? It seems that the consoles are much more "efficient" than the PC's, so the developers are orientated for consoles. :DMOCHIRON_MAN

That has nothing to do with it; Ever heard of a little thing called "Optimization"?

Okay this might be a little long winded but it's an important point here.

All the consoles are built down to a budget and all PC gamers know if they budget there rig not to expect maxing out there graphics.

Due to the fact that all console technology is based off existing pc technology (what do you think games are made on), I know that even the low end Core 2 Duos will be faster than the PS3's processor. None of Intel's Core 2's are base clocked at 4.2, so I can easily say without checking the PS3 is not clocked at 6.1 (clock speeds are not multiplied by cores; they're just two processors running at the same speed), but modern day pc gaming isn't as processor based as a few years ago and puts more stress on the graphics card than anything else.

This is because of the traditional PC gaming setup, which uses higher than HD resolutions, large textures and large amounts of anti-aliasing to provide the best experience while sat at a close distance to the screen.

PC gaming is the bleeding edge of gaming which makes it hard to develop for such widely varied hardware.

So to tie this all together; developers have gotten lazy, because it's easier to optimise a game for the set hardware of a consol. So my advice is if you want to play ports on a PC you'll need a High End system with some of the latest hardware.

PC games will always be miles ahead of the consol.

That could be why.

Thanks.