Trigger, it's pretty damn stupid to compare Doom 3 to SMB. Why not compare it to Halo a current generation game in the same genre.

But like I said. I'm not a graphics whore. I only care about fun gamplay. Graphics are just a bonus. And PCs aren't very far ahead of the consoles.

They may have more polygons and higher resolutions, but I don't give a crap about that kind of stuff. That's for the tech geeks to drool over. They don't make the games any more fun to play IMO.

I'd much rather play the original Mario Bros than Doom 3 because I don't much care for FPS games.

Josh, it's fine for you to say that, since everyone is entitled to their opinion. The fact is, however, that's not how the market as a whole seems to feel. Just look at the marketing for any new console that's been released since the beginning. Every one of them touted improved graphics as a major selling point. Half of all the hype about GC and XBox that I saw on this board last year was about how awesome the graphics for those systems were.

Most people get excited by great graphics and no matter how often you pipe in with "it's all about the gameplay," that's not going to change. And eventhough, I understand your point and agree with it to a large degree, I still find it silly for anyone to say that 3D graphics getting better wouldn't improve your enjoyment of a game.

I mean, if Mario Sunshine were coming out for N64 and it had the exact same gameplay as the GC version, would you choose the N64 version if it was say $10 less than the GC version? I mean, you'd have just as much fun since the gameplay is identical wouldn't you? The better graphics on the GC wouldn't add anything, right?

So is any discussion of THIS now off topic??? Or do we need three threads on this?

Graphics are just an added plus. Sure they're nice, and I don't mind buying a new console every 5 years to enjoy them.

I don't care enough to bother with the more frequent upgrading required on the PC front though.

And I know many people care a lot about graphics. Too much in fact. It's a big problem with the industry, and it's caused to much emphasis to be put on graphics and not enough on coming up with creative new gameplay.

I compared those two as a joke - why don't you chill out a little bit.

PCs are lightyears ahead of consoles and they always will be.









If you can't tell the difference, then there's something wrong with your eyes.

A fair comparison would be Doom 3 running on xbox compared to running on PC. The tech in Halo is atleast 2 yrs older than Doom 3, of course it doesn't look as good. The comparison is moronic.

Anyway, if you want a good taste of the joys of PC gaming have a glance over at the Neverwinter Nights Self Help Tech Support forum, and see how many posts there are. It would be hilarious if I wasn't one of the poor saps posting.

Chris

Wow - I can't win - people calling me stupid and moronic. Anyway - what difference does it make if Doom 3 is a newer
game? The first Doom 3 screen shot I posted was made before the Xbox came out. The point of the argument is that consoles
can't keep up with PCs. Show me a console game that is set to come out sometime in the next year or even 2 years that has a
screen shot that even comes close to Doom 3. It's still up in the air whether Doom 3 will come out on Xbox or not - some say the
Xbox probably isn't powerful enough to handle Doom 3. If they release Doom 3 on Xbox, the game will probably have to be
modified so it'll run on it - like they did with Medal Of Honor for the PS2. Ever look at Medal of Honor for the PC versus for the
PS2? You're crazy if you think there's no difference.

I won't argue that PC games don't look better. All I'm saying is they only difference is higher polygon counts and higher resolutions. That doesn't make the gameplay better. Doom 3 looks better than Halo, that doesn't mean it will be a better game than Halo or more fun to play.

My original point was that I don't see why some PC gamers shell out money year after year to play stuff like Doom 3 at the highest settings.

My only conclusion is that they are graphic whores or tech geeks that just get off on that kind of stuff.

I just want to have fun playing the game, I honestly don't care what it looks like.

Sadly I'm probably in the minority, which is why there are so many games that look great and play like crap.

I still would say that Halo single player (and coop) is better than anything going round on PC atm. Only Half-life 1 player comes close. Maybe Doom 3 will be better but who knows until it actually comes out.

Maybe the Xbox won't be able to handle Doom 3.. but the end result is that thousands of PC gamers will be cursing as they're forced to fork out hundreds of dollars for GeForce 4/5s, more ram, and fast CPUs.

Chris

Uhh...Someone who programmed Doom3 said the Xbox was powerful enough to handle Doom3. And Flay said someone was quoted as saying it was already running on the Xbox. Check out his thread.

I usually buy a video card a generation or two behind. I used my Voodoo 3 3000 for a long time then got a Voodoo 4 4500 cheap.

my most recent card was a Geforce 2 GTS card I got for a computer upgrade. then it stayed for my last new computer until I got a great deal on a Geforce 4 Ti4600 for $285 shipped.

this card will stay with me for a few years unless a great deal on a better card crops up. I tend to upgrade my computers slowly by finding deals and buying a part here or there.


In the last 5 years I have gone thru 4 video cards. however I have built new computers 4 times in that time also. all my older computers where stripped down with me using some parts on my upgrades and then I rebuilt them with parts from even older computers to give to family members. My mom is using my Voodoo 4 4500 P3 800 computer and my younger brother is using my Athlon 1.2 Ghz with geforce 2 GTS-v card. my other brother is using my old GTS card.

so my 2 of my old video cards are still being used by my family.

They love it when I decide to upgrade

Uhh... I didn't say it wasn't a possibility. In fact, I've been saying in another thread how I had heard it would make it to Xbox and everyone argued with me that it wouldn't - so whatever. Fact is, even if it does make it to a console, it won't look nearly as good. Anti-aliasing with high res graphics will look better than jaggies and low res graphics on a TV in any game any day.


That's your opinion - I've been playing First Person Shooters since forever and while Halo was fun to play on a TV in my living room and the controls were acceptable, the levels were repetitive and the story was lacking and the graphics weren't nearly as impressive as any FPS in the last 3 years. Halo doesn't even make my top 10 list of great FPS games. It does make my list of top 10 console games though. Besides - Halo was originally slated as a PC game, so as far as I'm concerned that doesn't really help your argument.


Good - I'm glad you've stopped arguing that PC games don't look better. You're also wrong if you think the only difference is polygon counts and higher resolutions. Better graphics makes the games more immersive for me, but then again I prefer more realistic games like first person shooters over platform games like Sonic or Mario or whatever. Doom 3 does indeed look better than Halo and while that doesn't mean it will be more fun to play, having seen the game in action, I can assure you it will be 100 times more fun to play.

Most gamers don't shell out money every year to play the latest games. Doom 3 should be able to run on most graphics cards purchased in the last 2 years. If a gamer is running old hardware at the time of Doom 3's release and they want to play it, by then they'll be able to pick up a video card for under 100 bucks that will do the job.

You're conclusion that people like me are graphic whores or tech geeks pisses me off first of all and second of all makes you look ignorant. If you are going to resort to insulting comments because you fail to understand (or even try to listen), then why am I even talking to you? I don't "get off" on upgrading my PC.

You can say you don't care what it looks like, but I do. That's why I posted the shots of Doom 3 versus Super Mario. We just play different games I guess. Graphics are important to me - and so is gameplay.

Very few PC games look great and play like crap - typically, they look like crap and play like crap. Daikatana was a highly anticipated FPS for the PC and when it came out the graphics were dated and the gameplay sucked. It seems to me that this phenomenon you are talking about (look great, play crap) is mainly a console problem based on the games I've been renting and buying. Also - this argument just sounds like you are bitter and frustrated because your argument has nothing to back it up. I never said you had to play PC games - all I'm saying is that I prefer PC games and I'd rather put 300 bucks into my computer than in the latest console system. I put 300 bucks into my computer and all my older games still work. I buy a new console for 300 bucks and I have to buy all new games to play on it. Only exception so far is the PS and PS2 - you buy a PS2 and you can still play all your PS games, but can you play your genesis or Super Nintendo games on a PS2? No. I don't think that my desire to upgrade my computer every few years makes me a geek or a whore. I don't flaunt my computer specs everywhere I go and I don't benchmark my PC either.

All I've been trying to do is answer your original baited question about why people like to buy new video cards every year. If you don't like my answer, then ask someone else - but don't try to insult me or people like me (which you have been trying to do starting with the original question). I can only assume that the answer you were seeking in the first place was "because PC gamers are dumbasses who have rich parents and aren't old enough to get a car to tweak out so they tweak out their PC for the purpose of small penis compensation".

Well as you said your opinion.. and I'll agree that repetitive levels was by far the biggest flaw in the game. With a bit more originality on the later levels, well it would have been something quite special.

However, I found the story enthralling.. the graphics perfect for a sci-fi setting.. the use of vehicles added a lot to the game.. the AI of the marines... the monsters were quite tough (particularly on the highest difficulty level), the 5.1 sound... loved the xbox controller as well.

These days it seems that single player mode in PC FPS is almost an after thought (if it exists at all). I've been playing SoF2 a lot lately and I played the single player missions for about an hr before I went straight back to the multiplayer (which I've play for so many hrs it's almost insane).

And yes I've been playing FPS games forever as well, from Wolvenstein/Doom to Quake (and all the mods) to Unreal, Halflife, etc... I even have a high endish pc as well .

Chris

Every time I upgrade, I seem to manage to have enough extra parts to build a new frankenstein PC. I have 4 currently and hooking them up to the network is a blast. I've given away a few older frankensteins. Except my last computer which I built from scratch, I've been able to do a complete upgrade (processor, mobo, video, etc) for around 400 bucks. I've done that twice in 3 years - once would've been enough, but I wanted an extra PC. I think it's pretty cheap to upgrade these days, and it's not like I throw old parts away like they are garbage.

I hear what you're saying with SOF2. I preferred the original. I'm also a little disappointed so far with Jedi Outcast... it's supposed to get better though. Medal of Honor kicked ass. Deus Ex was awesome. Undying was great. Wolfenstein was great. No One Lives Forever was fun. There's about a dozen new FPS games on the horizon that look kick ass. What you're talking about with the single player experience being an afterthought - I can agree that that has been a trend for a year or so with the tactical shooters, Quake 3, Red Faction and Unreal Tournament etc - but the games on the horizon are shaping up to be more single player oriented. Duke, Doom, Red Faction 2, Deus Ex 2, Call of Cthulhu, Tron, XIII etc all look like they're going to rule. I'm excited.

@ frankenstein pc.

I don't see what the big deal about vid cards is; then again, I don't upgrade like some people. My friend will literally always buy the top of the line card whenever it comes out. I'll never understand that mentality but alas it's his money. I've had my Geforce 2 GTS 32 mb for about 2 years now and it suits me very well. I even play Warcraft III and it works fine with decent settings.

I recently ordered a new pc with a 128 mb geforce 4 ti4200 and I expect that to last me at least 2 years, probably more like 3 years.

Is the lifespan of a console really 5 years when it comes to the average consumer? Maybe I'm not the norm but I don't wait 5 years to get a new console. I don't think many people buy a console the day it comes out, then wait till it's officially dead to move onto another console. I probably get a new console every 3 years or so (if new ones are out) and they typically cost more than the video cards I get (I never get a top of the line 350 dollar card, I usually get whatever is around 150 and it lasts me at least 2 years) so I don't think the difference in price is that much.

And trying to include the cost of the whole pc when talking about this really isn't warranted for obvious reasons. You don't use pc's to only play games.

Interesting thread.

I enjoy pc games immensely.

I enjoy console games immensely.

one more thing you console guys seem to keep on forgetting is:
Games are NOT the only reason us pc dudes upgrade our pcs,
vid cards maybe but the pc is able to do about a million more things than a console, and you say that we are stupid for paying more for that?
thats just narrowminded and plain dumb


on the subject of deus ex, baldurs gate, umm max payne and etc etc etc

look at how bad the controls are for those respective games on consoles. compared to the pc, its horrendous

but i have my keyboard and mouse to save the day

oh yeah, and on the pc side, there is a overabundance of fps these days

but wheres my fallout 3??

and MOH:AA with all the details up, high resolution, 4x FSAA, and surround sound is super billy badass

You'd have to admit though it's a bit hard to justify the cost of buying a GeForce4 for office applications and web surfing though. I would assume most GeForce4 owners have bought it purely for gaming.

Chris

I just upgraded my Geforce 2 GTS to a Geforce 4 ti4200 ($147.50 shipped). I upgrade about every 2 years. So $147.50/2 = roughly $74.00. Chump change compared to the enjoyment it provides.


PC Gamers aren't asking for pity...so don't feel sorry for us.

I have no idea how far you are, but I can tell you that the game is boring as hell until you get the lightsaber, and then it's gravy.

Graphics aside, there are simply many games that do not work nearly as well on a console as on the computer. Sitting at a desk with a mouse and keyboard with a monitor in front of you is a totally different gaming experience than sitting on the couch with a controller in your hand. If you can't understand that concept, you'll never get PC gaming.

I guess I'll never get it then. I despise sitting at a desk in front of a monitor for more than 30 mins or so at a time for any reason.

Trigger: Games that look great and either suck or are just average in the gameplay department is plaguing both PCs and Consoles. Pick up any magazine and look at the reviews. You'll see several games on every platform that get poor or average reviews overall, but either get high marks in the visuals category or the reviewers mention that it looks nice.

This is all because of too much emphasis being put on graphics by many people, whom I call graphics whores because they are personally affecting the quality of the games I have to chose from.

If you want to take that personally, so be it.

Im with you there.