StillLife

I think they're all likely to be much closer in terms of sales this generation. They all seem to have found their niche and are playiing to it this time around, but it's whether or not they can expand their focus that will generate new success, or in Sony's case, allow them to hold onto their lead. Xbox 360: Like the Xbox, seems to have a distinctly Western presentation and appeal. Microsoft has to get their business together when it comes to providing some RPGs for the platform this time. You just can't have a well-rounded console while mainly ignoring that genre. I really don't see that changing much yet though. Just like with the Xbox, they've got Bethesda and BioWare trying to help them out, but that wasn't enough last time and probably won't be this time around, especially with Beth blowing their load so early. There they were sitting on an established, somewhat reconizable RPG franchise, and they make a squad-based action shooter out of it. Way to go fellas. Playstation 3: They've still got Square/Enix, Konami, and several of the other huge Japanese developers in their pocket, and will probably continue to be king for anyone who enjoys games from the Japanese market and especially the fruity anime lovers. No more GTA exclusive though, which could hinder them a bit in the West if they don't get a suitable sized replacement. The launch price is sounding a bit intimidating, but they're also claiming to have a free online service to compete with Live. People are generally moronic though and will probably fail to realize it might be just as pricey to buy a PS3 if you like online gaming as buying a 360. Nintendo: They seem to have really accepted their position as the quirky underdog of the bunch and are doing the right thing going after a side market rather than trying to compete for the traditional one. For someone who might already have a primary system they play games on, the Wii should make for a good backup; an alternative when you want something a little different. However they aren't going to make it by just continuing to rehash the same old Nintendo franchises yet again, regardless of the gimmicky new controller.

The first time I tried to hit esc to increase the brightness and it crashed to desktop. The second time I entered some room in the newspaper building and the camera panned away like it was going to do a mini cinematic, but it locked up and just sat there. The third time my damn spyware thing came up and I guess the game isn't fond of application switching as I had another CTD again. Knowing that it was ported basically by one guy and the low price makes the technical issues somewhat tolerable though I suppose.

You're trying to get all the tumblers(the bars) stuck into the top. It's mainly a matter of timing, and figuring out the sweet spot at which they stick, which unfortunately makes lockpicking entirely too easy once you have. No attacking from horseback - you gotta dismount.

I'm in the process of playing it now. Seems pretty cool so far, but the bugs are pretty rough. I've had to play through the same section(when you discover the basement in the grocery store + the old printing press) three times. I like how the main character comments on everything you check. It adds quite a bit to the atmosphere and immersion.

What is the deal with that? The Bio Jr. thing is supposed to be a joke...right?

I found when looking at the Twilight Princess footage, that using the remote seemed...just wrong. Had a little bit of that feeling with Mario Galaxy too. Flicking your wrist to do a power move seems kinda hokey, and eventually annoying. I could be totally off base though, of course. The Wario Ware game looked pretty cool, and that's more the direction they oughtta go with games using the device to make it truly interesting. I would've had to head straight for the Nintendo booth were I to attend E3 this year too. It's definitely got everyone's interest, which is a good sign it might fare well at least in the initial stages of getting off the ground.

Convenient. If it's so easy to do, it shouldn't be a hassle at all. If you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is and support your claims, then don't bother making them. Oh please, don't be a hypocrite. Throughout most of this thread you've been slinging baseless claims around. Bargain hunting is rarely easy and often time consuming - as you undoubtedly know, which is why you're using it as an excuse to dismiss everything I've said. I'm not gonna waste my time for you anymore than I have by trying to respond to your comments pal. I never said it's easier - that wasn't part of this discussion. What are you trying to prove anyway with a comment like that, smart guy? That people shouldn't use computers for gaming or that developers shouldn't support the platform? Or are you just a console fanboy looking to rag on something you don't approve of? Don't be an idiot. You don't get to decide what other people prefer.

Too much of a hassle to scour around the Internet for custom parts or good deals from manufacturers when I'm not in the market for a new comp, sorry. Look around, especially during the holidays. 1) Keep in mind the X1600 Pro I mentioned is a 512MB PCI Express - not AGP, and Best Buy is usually rip-off in terms of computer hardware. 2) Those numbers are suspect, considering when you add on 2xAA and AS X4 with max quality settings for FEAR in that menu, the X1600 Pro AGP 256 shows 28 FPS. http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.htm...l2=303&chart=94 Unfortunately I've had trouble finding a benchmark for the specific card I pointed out, but it could be assumed there'd be a notable performance improvement with the PCI-E 512MB over the AGP 256. FEAR is pretty taxing on a system though, and if you can run it at max quality with AA and AS, you'll probably be able to run any game to come for the next three years with at least good-medium quality. An even better deal might be to go with an X1800 PCI-E 256MB(retail). Spotted one at NewEgg for $239. Actually I came across one for $128(also retail) earlier, but it disappeared. Again, I'm not in the market for a new card and too disinterested to do much research as a result, so there could very well be a much better investment than the one's I'm mentioning. There's also the consideration of DirectX 10/Vista coming up. I'm not sure how any of the current crop of cards will work with them, so it may be a poor time to be in the market for a video card that will have good performance for several years at all right now. I ran FEAR at fairly good quality settings in 1024X768 with my 9800 Pro 128 at a nice framerate(30ish). Can't remember if I had any AA. That's another reason those benchmarks seem a little questionable to me though. You're right. The X1300--after looking around a bit--seems to be a horrible card for it's price in general. I've been a bit out of the loop so I wasn't aware of that. My bad. Bear in mind my Geforce 2 was a PCI. I didn't have an AGP slot on my old computer. That computer's(it was five years old and cheap when I bought it) main downfall was its processor, which is what prompted me to upgrade to an entirely new system. Oblivion gives my 9800 Pro quite an ass kicking too, though I still ran it at 1024x768 with mediumish details; distant land on, bloom, etc, albeit with the framerate dipping into the low 20's at points. WTF are you doing to have to play it in 640x480? I'm using a P4 2.8 Ghz, 1GB 3200 RAM. Oblivion is probably the biggest graphics hog on the market right now though, and isn't likely to be matched for some time to come. Not exactly a sign that 9800 Pro's don't still have some life in them. There were only about 4 years between the release of the Xbox and the Xbox 360. Three years is hardly half the lifespan. The PS2? Sure, but it's looked quite bad for the majority of its lifetime too and I doubt the PS3 will run nearly as long now that they're competing with MS. Unlike a single console, PC games are constantly improving visually, have better load times than console games, and because of the large advantage in certain areas like excessive RAM, are capable of doing things consoles can't. You may have to upgrade a PC slightly more frequently, but it also comes with large performance advantages over having a static console which must be taken into consideration when trying to make a cost comparison. Ok, this thread has gotten beyond tedious and time consuming into the realm of asinine, so I'm bowing out. Buy a 360, hate on computers for gaming, I don't really care. But claiming that going with a 360 is a much cheaper alternative to buying a PC for gaming just isn't true when you really examine all the angles. I still think it's likely just as, or even be more expensive in the long run if you already have any interest in using a PC and like multiplayer gaming at all.

I have to agree with Volourn. As gamers, can we please stop lowering our expectation sometime in the near future? It's gotten so: -Short games are just dandy! 5-20 hours for $50? Hey, no problem! -Mediocre clone games are awesome! -Crappy single-player is ok if the multiplayer is good or visa versa -Unfinished games are fine if they come out faster, it's just plain mean to expect the developers to include promised features! -Bugs are fine, they can just patch it later! In no other business I can think of are consumers so willing to assume the position of door mat.

Fair enough. I'm still interested in what sort of capable gaming machine he can get for $400, unless the "upgrades" is one of those $400 video cards that are out now. To get a video card that will continue to play games for the 3-4 years (which is what he said initially), you'd have to plop down $400 on a video card alone right now. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Spider pointed it out to you, but I wasn't claiming you could buy a PC suited for gaming for $400. That would be kinda stupid. But add on $400-500 or so to that on top of what you'd pay for a standard PC, and you have a machine ready for gaming that will be good for at least several years. You do not need a top of the line video card for it to last 3-4 years, those are for people who want all the bells and whistles for that duration. You could get a Radeon Pro X1600 with 512 MB from friggin Best Buy(which probably isn't the cheapest route) for $250, or an X1300 256 for $80. With all the Vista stuff coming up, it's a little tricky to predict whether a X1300 would last you 3-4 years, but I'd bet a X1600 Pro with 512MB would and still be able to keep the settings around medium or higher in most games. Keep in mind what I said about the extra price over a three year period you'd have with a basic Xbox 360 package, and you'll see it's really not any cheaper then making a PC fit for gaming.

From a purely selfish perspective, I don't care. As someone who plays and buys games, I think it's a bad decision in the grand scheme of things. Considering a large number of people like NWN for all it's multiplayer features and aren't overly concerned about single-player, it's not good for them.

I don't really care about the online stuff anyway, but it's still lame especially when considering the single-player sounds like a mini campaign. I wouldn't place all if any of the blame on Atari, Feargus has always seemed determined to only work within short development cycles. It's going to bite them in the ass eventually. Interview with FU People appreciate games that are finished, that's an important lesson to learn.

I think Metzen still works for Blizz, last I heard which was a few months ago. They still have to go through him before adding even more crappy new raid dungeons into WoW.

Golden Axe was nice in its day. Unfortunately hack & slashes are a dime a dozen these days so... *yawn*

At what resolution? Well, the feeling is mutual. WTF? Here's what I was responding to: ATI makes the Radeon series. I still don't even know what you're confused about though and it doesn't seem like do you either. Nice of you to take preemptive measures and just assure me I'm "blowing chunks"(which means vomitting btw) though bud! :D Hey, same thing I thought last round. I bought an Xbox assuming it would be a cheaper but similar enough alternative to gaming on a PC. All things considered, it wasn't. Good luck though.

... Don't fix what isn't broke, especially when your result makes no sense in the context of how I wrote it. You seem a bit desperate to confuse my point, or perhaps you just have a great deal of difficulty with reading comprehension. I thought it was fairly obvious what I was getting at, but here's a breakdown: Barebones PC with a decent processor = $400(don't give me the E-Machine crap, few people settle on those as their primary system) Basic Xbox 360 package = $400 Upgrades to make a PC fit for several years of gaming = $400-500 There ya go. Yet over time, given free online play for the PC, as well as the cheaper games, it pulls ahead in cost efficiency. Now, if you're someone with absolutely no desire to own a PC for anything, then the Xbox 360 would be a wise choice. Otherwise, there's little point unless it's a personal preference thing. You may have to buy a new video card after four years or so(with a card that goes for $200, not a few hundred), but the games you play on the new one are gonna look a hell of a lot better than that four year old Xbox. It's not much more expensive with this current generation as I just pointed out to you, stop with that BS. There's more room to spend money if you're a technology whore than on a console, but it's not at all necessary to have a high quality experience. BTW, individually sure the PC has a tiny base compared to all three of the large console manufacturers(which is an unfair comparison), but it's quite substantial when compared to just the Xbox or GameCube individually. PC developers do not have to pay anyone to release their games, like developers working for consoles do. There are multiple reasons why PC games are cheaper aside from just a smaller market, but still as a consumer I don't really give a damn about why they are, when the fact is they are cheaper. The facts say otherwise. You should try referring to them sometime before making blanket statements. That's a top of the line card for people with too much money to blow. You're confusing necessity with luxury and trying to make them out to be the same. I paid $190 for my 9800 Pro three years ago man, and cards have only been getting more affordable over time, while consoles are getting more expensive. LOL! Now you're just slinging totally misleading hyperbole. $190 is a hell of a lot less than $600 bud. Someone could still be using a PC they paid $400 for games too btw, as well as for a multitude of other things. The one's that have been released don't magically vanish. Look, I'm glad you love consoles, I do too, that's why I always own at least one from each generation. I even defend them all the time from PC users who claim they suck. What I don't buy is that bull**** that developers should stop making games for PCs, or that PCs for gaming are still far more pricey than consoles. Those kinds of statements are ridiculous and false when you really look at the abundance of evidence to the contrary. I'd never argue with someone who had a personal preference for consoles over PCs, but price is becoming a non-issue in the comparison between them. Feel free to keep pretending if it makes you feel better about your purchases though. Just know reality isn't on your side.

If you buy their products because you tend to like the things they make, that's loyalty to them. Just because it's in your best interest doesn't make it any different, don't be silly. If a soldier follows a captain who's been very successful in battles they've been involved with in the past, of course that's because it's been good for him. That's exactly why he's still loyal to the captain and is likely to follow him into the next one.

Bingo, but by shelling out a few hundred dollars for a PC, you get everything you get from a PC, plus a gaming system. If you have any interest in both--which a rapidly increasing number of people do these days--might as well get a nice PC. So what? Those advantages have been consistent to the PC for over a decade now. That's why you shell out the money for a good card to begin with. I'm still using my Radeon 9800 Pro from three years ago and will be for at least another year if possible. Before that I used my GeForce 2 in my old PC for ages. That's where much of the cost for a gaming PC comes from in the first place, so don't really see your point. Of course you're not going to buy a $100 card and expect it to last a long time.

Yet you buy the vast majority of things they have made and rabidly defend them on message boards. If that's not loyalty, I don't know what is. Exactly, so you have loyalty to them. False. You lost me there. I didn't say the actions of a company aren't important, just that the end result of those actions often comes down to the consumer. As such, they are not more important than customers. Haven't you ever heard that expression "the customer is always right?" Right, and customers decide which product is more appealing, and often loyalty can be what decides a purchase when it comes to two similar products. I win? " Well of course people only remain loyal for so long. Loyalty isn't unending you know? If a company makes products you enjoy consistently, you'll choose their stuff over an unkown, and even buy things they've made that might not interest you so much...at least until you get sick of it. That's loyalty. R00fles!

Same here.

Most modern computers couldn't even run Vista currently, that's why it sucks. Gotta love Microsoft, PC gaming is already in a rough spot so their solution is to make it even more expensive by forcing people to buy new, fancy systems just to play games that aren't even that technologically demanding. I'll have to pass on a Shadowrun squad-based shooter. What a grotesque misuse of an established, interesting RPG setting.

Consumer support is the deciding factor in the end. It's certainly a contributing factor. Because most likely Microsoft had them agree to an exclusivity deal which has likely expired. Sure you can, look at you and BioWare. Not staying loyal to your customers/fans can cost you business. If you have built up a large fanbase doing one thing, then you go do something else that works contradictory to their interests, it's bound to annoy some of that base and can be considered as abandonment of their interests. Once again, the big lesson here is simple: Wrong. Loyalty can contribute to financial success, so again that's simply not true.

Volourn, the money from customers is what makes a company successful in the long run. If you can't understand that basic concept, I can't help you. It will be released before any other game they have in the works, and it's in a further state of development than any other game they're making so it does count. KOTOR was primarily an Xbox game. It took like six months to release the PC version, but you can have that one anyway as what I said still holds true. "Two years after it was released? They just want all the sales they can garner so the game doesn't end up being such a financial let-down." Porting it won't cost that much, especially since they're not adding in any substantial new features. 600k for a game isn't that great for a game any way you look at it, especially compared to BioWare's previous huge successes. Again, they're making JE for the PC to get more money, not out of the goodness of their hearts. I said fan, not mindless fanboy. I bought an Xbox for KOTOR, before it was announced it would come to PC too. By the time JE came out, I was just too disinterested in my Xbox to bother even touching it. A fact it's crap. Nope, because they are. There isn't much reason for one person to have multiple accounts to themselves. Nice way to back up your opinion with blanket statements. Barely cheaper. Can you guys grasp the concept that a PC does a hell of a lot more than a console? Rentals are one thing consoles do have in their favor for sure, but PC games are cheaper in many ways than console games. Their price goes down faster and lower, and the initial price is lower. I'm not knocking consoles in general, just the Xbox. Nintendo and Sony have things with their system that you won't get with a PC. Xbox 360 is basically just PC Jr. without the plethora of features.

I meant available Volourn. A few tidbits on an official message board and a crappy website don't amount to much. People buying the games they made is what made them successful. You can make a great game and if no one buys it, it's still a financial failure. Two years after it was released? They just want all the sales they can garner so the game doesn't end up being such a financial let-down. They don't give a rats ass about PC gamers. I'm a BioWare fan, I own an Xbox, yet I don't have Jade Empire, I doubt I'm alone. Excuses excuses. Of course it is. Had they of released it on the PC, they could've even pumped in some more money from an expansion for it. That's crap. Haven't played it so I don't know. 10 million would be pretty poor on a global scale and still insignifcant to the PC market. There are six million unique accounts just for one PC game: World of Warcraft. Your arguments are what people said for the Xbox(myself included). It didn't come to pass, and I doubt it will this time. People will always need PCs and many people just prefer playing games on them for the distinct advantages they currently have over consoles(mainly the Xbox). I've had this same rig for three years now and haven't had to make a single upgrade for it aside from buying a new keyboard. It was $1200(including the monitor) and I can still play most modern PC games on high settings, or in the case of Oblivion, mediumish. Lets compare that to three years with an Xbox 360 with Live service. 10 dollars extra for Xbox 360 games. Assuming you buy 10 games a year, that's an extra 300 dollars you wouldn't have spent buying PC games. 3 years for Xbox Live gold, at around $150. $450 + $400(for the most basic bundle) = $850. Not including the cost of an HD TV, as that wouldn't be really fair. I'm not including all the marketplace BS either. For a few hundred dollars more, you could buy a nice gaming rig, and get all the advantages a PC provides just aside from gaming. Anyone who really thinks buying an Xbox 360 is the more cost effective alternative to buying a decent PC is a fool.

I'm sorry, but that's bull****. Consoles != automatic success, especially any of the consoles that don't have Playstation in the title. As far as I know, Jade Empire for example was BioWare's lowest selling game to date(post Baldur's Gate)? For wildly successful console titles, there are almost an equal number of PC one's to match them. The difference is a crappy console game can garner at least a small number of sales, just from rental chains and the like, where it would likely fail miserably on the PC. I don't think BioWare is aiming to make a crappy game with Mass Effect though. The number of Xbox 360's in homes is miniscule to the number of gaming ready PCs around. All of that aside though, it's still better to at least release a game for the PC and a console, if you're really trying to reach the broadest audience. Look at Oblivion.