|
I’ve always been a PC gamer first. It’s where I started and
what I like to use. I prefer mouse and keyboard, I like tinkering with my PC, I
like mods and variety. However, I haven’t always had a computer capable of
playing great games.
Some games run on almost any computer. World of Warcraft
is certainly a commonly cited example of a game with relatively simple hardware
requirements, allowing for a vast number of potential players. There are also
games that push existing hardware as far as it can go, appealing to the
hardcore hardware aficionados.
However this is a niche market, as there are few PC builders and tinkerers in comparison to the number of PC owners who haven’t
so much as changed a video card or added RAM to their computer.
For good and for bad, computers are complex machines with
many hardware parts and numerous levels of software. Problems can and do occur
anywhere, from overheated parts to failing hard discs to viruses to
incompatible hardware/hardware, hardware/software or software/software
combinations.
Thanks to this complexity, the early 2000s saw many gamers go to
console-only gaming. I believe that the ease-of-use and lower system cost for a
console was then and is now an incredibly compelling argument for gaming only
on a console. However, given recent reports of the exceptionally high fail-rate
on an Xbox 360, it is apparent that there are plenty of problems with console
hardware systems as well.
What makes these problems forgivable for gamers is
that the systems are all the same. A console owner that has a problem with
his/her console knows what to do – try to get it fixed by its maker, or replace
it. A PC owner can go to the maker of the PC, however there are numerous parts
that could be causing the problem, and often warranties don’t last long enough
or cover enough to get it fixed. Not to mention the hardware may not be the
cause of the problem – it could be the software or other software getting in
the way.
In the end, gaming on a pc is a generally more complicated
and costly affair than on a console. The benefits, however, are exceptional;
one in particular is worth noting: Games can be made like WoW, appealing to a
relatively low-denominator of hardware requirements; or they can be made like
Crysis, damning those with older or lower level rigs to much lower graphics
than what the game can provide.
While anyone playing on a console has the same
experience as everyone else, the PC provides variety. And this is where its brilliance
shines through all the blue screens of death, memory errors, and hard-drive
crashes. Games on a PC exist across a gamut of technological requirements,
ensuring that any PC bought within the last few years can play some great
games, while always allowing for the cutting edge of gaming graphics to be
pushed further and further.
What this means is that there are games for
everyone, no matter what system they have. Given the recognition of WoW’s
money-making power despite its lack of graphics-power, there are many
developers attempting to create games that can be playable on systems as basic
as a netbook. Which means all the merrier for us PC gamers.
|
Ya I think PC gaming has a bit of an unfair wrap. If you know what you are doing you can build a gaming PC that can run anything out there really well for $500 (with no monitor). Unfortunately though, you are right, it is certainly not a straight forward process.
I think a very , very understated and under-explored element of Blizzard's huge success has been their low hardware requirements. If WoW , or Starcraft, or Diablo, where like almost pretty much any other big-budget PC game that only runs well on hardware less than 1.5 years old, in a market where most people don't even have dedicated video cards, than those games would not nearly been as successful, I think.
I always thought many PC dev's unnecessarily vastly limit their audience with high hardware requirements. Like Crysis for instance, when it came it out, I was playing it on a gaming computer that was a new, top-end gaming machine at the time, and it still did not even run very well. I don't understand how they can expect to sell tons of copies when only 1/1000 PC's could handle the game.
And as Blizzard shows, you don't necessarily need razor's edge graphics to have a successful product. Gameplay is much more important. You can make an awesome, great -selling game with just 'functional' graphics.
I have no factual evidence to support this, but it would not surprise me if hardware-demanding games (e.g. Crysis) are pirated more, in party because of a concern about actually being able to run and enjoy the game. It's bad enough when a game looks good but doesn't play good, but it's even worse when you can't even get it to look good on your system. Of course I don't think this describes Crysis, as for me it played very well (and I got it to look good, too, at least when it wasn't crashing), but I can certainly appreciate a person fearing a game that is supposed to look good but doesn't, and isn't fun either.
Can upgrade
Can play games from 15 years ago (:
Resolution!!!
Mouse / Keyboard / Plenty of other controllers, such as the xController
ALT/Tab into MySpace, Yahoo, etc for chat. +Steam, xFire
It was so unoptimized -- Crysis Warhead was the same engine but ran way better. I know engine optimization isn't an easy task or anything but whoa, what a difference between the two games. Warhead is about the only sequel I can think of that actually has lower hardware req's than the the prior game in a series.
Just a thought on this subject: back in the PC gaming glory days, it was all about pushing the hardware to the max, and getting the cutting edge graphics. Now I think this might be on the descent.
While console supremacy is bad news for big PC gaming fans like us, it might however have the side benefit that because an increasing amount of PC games are console ports, and PC hardware is more capable than current gen console stuff, this might result in relatively lower PC hardware requirements for games.
Especially for MMO's the having lower video card requirements is a benefit, not a hindrance. It's interesting to compare something like Age of Conan (which ran like a pig) with high-end graphics to something like to Dungeon Fighter Online ('90s arcade style side scrolling visuals).
Who knows -- it might a good idea for studios to give their dev's 3 year old computers to make the games with -- maybe then they'd better appreciate how the games actually will run for most of their potential customers, not just the small minority with the $3000 gaming machines. Well, it would make for an interesting experiment anyways :)
Agreed.
One thing I still wonder is why the now called Bodylobus Reflex Control didn't make it. I have that idea some years ago and googled it and found that prototype.
Recently I bought the Logitech Trackman Wheel and I'm loving it, don't feel any difference and bring it to the nearest lan-house to enjoy some Counter Strike with my friends. That's the only mouse I use at home. I'd migrate all my A gamming to consoles if that was the standard controller. But I can't see how Computer could have any uniqueness against that.