metadigital

I was going to ask how the tiger's method of defecation mattered to the price of tea in China, but then thought better of it.

... And it's goodnight from him.

Eeeewww, Bok plays The Sims ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's pretty clever.

But there are many patches for Freelancer. Granted the only official one is the server patch but saying "there is no patch" induces your fans in error. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's not a patch

... Which is the real reason why he had to die ...

It was more to do with oversaturating the memory-CPU bus, IIRC.

Um, that wasn't what I was saying, either. I said that PC gaming gives better performance: the graphcis and sound are better, because the games don't have to be build DOWN to a unified standard, they can take advantage of hardware that hasn't even been released yet (think of Doom 3). Mr deganawida then replied that there was a greater chance that a game on a PC will not play, as compared to a console. (I remember the problems I had with Theme Park Tycoon, on whatever console that was.) I said that was not a factor for top-end systems.

Are you suggesting that the development of games on one platform (consoles) is inherently easier and less troublesome than another (PCs)? Because they are both IT development projects.

Not really. Quality of the gaming experience should include such factors as work needed to play game, ability to play game at the advertised level (witness the anger over Oblivion's graphics, for example, when players found out that at the lower graphics settings the game was flat-out ugly), reliability (should not experience crashes or memory-leaks), and code as free from bugs as possible (MoO, VtM: Masquerade, numerous others were bug-filled crap-fests), amongst others. When these factors are included (and, keep in mind, many of the factors that I listed above are independent of the PC the game is played on, and are, in fact, on the developers'/publishers' end of the deal), PC gaming's quality is reduced significantly. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're making a mountain out of a molehill. If you purchase a QUALITY GAMING RIG, you will not have a bad gaming experience. Period. You might not have good value-for-money, but you will play the game BETTER than a console gamer. Guaranteed. (A pair of CrossFire X1900XTs can draw resolutions of capable of powering the Dell 30" LCD panel at 2560 x 1600, that's WQXGA, baby! The Xbox 360 can't do better than 720p, which is 1280

Games have very little to do with this generation of consoles: it is the battleground for the living room internet.

Oooo! I'll have to check the article (I hope it was a Custom PC one, because it is almost impossible to find articles in PC Format ... )

I said that.

Did anyone hear something?

You have to have more than 2GB of RAM ... not many people in that situation ... "

Ah, but will it play it well? That's the question, isn't it? My home PC is good (maybe not the best, but better than most mentioned in this thread), and it doesn't run some games well despite exceeding recommended system specs. Optimization is a problem in PC game design. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You seem to be confusing the ability to play a game with the quality of the gaming experience. I can buy a Radeon X1900XTX card NOW that will allow me to play at resolutions to make the not-yet-released Playstation 3 blanche with embarrassment. The point is that PC gaming is at a higher specification than console gaming: console gaming is better value, not better quality.

Yeah, kudos for working out how to draw a good character.

It's more a point of personal interest ... my father fought in both theatres of WW2, so I'm about as familiar as I want to be with the conflict, AND I don't particularly enjoy the "kill the N4z1z0rz!!!1" theme of games.

If the PC is in the upper, newer spec, then there it is negligible (i.e. < chance of console game not working) that the PC won't play any game.

I read a review recently (Custom PC, I think it was) that found too much RAM (4GB) caused other problems with caching, etc, and made performance worse.

Maybe. I'm not a big war fan (first-person perspective: quite a fan of general's-pov countries versus each other, type war).

Which explains why you don't know what you're talking about. The Quake games changed FPS forever: they married great technology and narrative AND great sound track (music by Rob Zombie and Sonic Mayhem); Quake 3 Arena is STILL one of the top three online shooters. FWIIW, Quake 4 is okay, and I'm enjoying playing it. It is MUCH better than Doom 3 (I have the expansion on order: picked it up for