Joint Operations

spm1138: I understand your point of view and even respect it. Back in the day, I was all about PCs and upgrading them all the time and always being on the bleeding edge, too.

I just got sick of it. I've got better things to spend my money on.

And the point where I disagree with what you've said is more symantics than anything else. You said:

Because the PC by virtue of having obscenely expensive bleeding edge technology will always be able to offer gaming experiences that would cause the equivalent generation console to bust an aneurysm. You get what you pay for performance wise.

Click to expand...

I say, maybe you get graphics that would cause the consoles to have fits. I think there is a difference between the graphics of a game and the gameplay experience. I can still fire up Punch Out! all these years later and have a great gameplay experience with it - even though the graphics are a piece of crap by modern standards.

Otherwise, you're right on. PCs are an arms race, be prepared to spend early and often to keep up with the requirements of the latest and greatest games.

I just wonder what would be possible in the PC world if PC developers took the stance of console developers - economize the code rather than relying on newer and faster hardware...

Matthew

spm1138: Great points.

You're right that many games are starting to use graphics as an integral part of the gameplay experience - Splinter Cell is a great example, the reliance on lighting and shadows and such... Had that not been modeled as realistically as it had been, the gameplay would not have been as good as it is.

And the ability to modify games as well as have games with much greater depth and control options (flight sims are a great example - lots of nice specialized hardware for flight sims, as well as needing a keyboard in addition for all the myriad options - how on earth would you do that with an 8 button console controller?) are strong reasons why PC gaming will never truly die. There are cetain niches that PC games fill that consoles will likely never be able to fill - or at least wouldn't be able to do so while still selling enough units to make a profit (see that XBox mech game with the $200 controller).

Still, consoles have come a long way and can only get better. The XBox currently does support (albeit limited) modifications to games. Several games already have added levels available for download, and I think that MechAssault even had a whole new gameplay type added. And I'm willing to bet a large bit of money that all the next-gen consoles will sport hard drives for such capabilities in the future.

Also, the performance gap isn't as great as it was in the past. Splinter Cell proves that even if you are going to make graphics an integral part of the game experience, consoles do have the power to pull it off. Sure, an XBox or PS2 doesn't have the power of a brand new, bleeding-edge PC. But at some point you're looking at diminishing returns - how much more added detail truly adds to gameplay?

Matthew

It's expensive and elitist and I f cking love it. And this has always been the case.

Click to expand...

True enough. Im not saying I wouldnt like to be in the position to splurge on an upgrade every six months. Nor is the PC just about to die as a gaming platform. Is it just me though, or is the level of investment required to stay current actually increasing?

But, for the first time the console is starting to emerge as a viable contender in gaming for me. And I say that as someone who has always played games on a computer - from an Atari 800, ZX Spectrum, C64, Amiga 500/600/1200 to the PC. Price is a huge factor in this.

The point you make about PC games being more in depth is valid too, but it can only be a matter of time before the market addresses this. The mod thing really would require an open architecture though, so the PC will retain the edge there for the foreseeable future.

The gap between the system requirements of games and fastest hardware has been decreasing rapidly recently. It's going to come to a point where games have to be put on hold just because not enough people could run it well enough, and so won't sell as well. Maybe then the writers could think more about efficiency than just 'lets just stick this in because it looks way better than that competitor's game'.

That's one of the reasons I've always liked Blizzard's games. They have relatively low system requirements, don't sacrifice anything at all in gameplay, and very little in visual quality.

Besides, stuff like Joint Operations may look nice in screenshots, but in real gaming terms most people will not use/get the reflective/rippled water etc etc. Screenshots always look better than the actual thing.

There was a Collector's edition of Splinter Cell for PC released in the UK with 3 extra levels IIRC, but Ubi has made no plans to allow PC users to download them

Apparently they're floating around the Internet, so I'll have a look for them.

That's funny - I wonder why Ubi hasn't released the extra levels for download on the PC like they did on the XBox?

Matthew

Because Ubi sucks majorly is the best reason that springs to mind.

'Joint Operations' ... looks nice, but I'm waiting for 'Söldner : Secret Wars' which is supposed to have 2d 'iron sights' and (eventually) up to 100 ppl per servers as well.
Realism is supposed to be somewhere between OFP & BF1942, but at least you get to destroy the environment *evil grin*

I like Ubi

WARNING!
If you see a game in stores called Team Sabre, DO NOT BUY it thinking it is this thing. Team Sabre is an expansion for BHD, and it is pure, unadulterated shit! Just a friendly little warning.

"It's expensive and elitist and I f cking love it."
C&P'ed to notes.txt.

Actually, a friend of mine got it and I gave it a go.

If only Independence Lost wasn't delayed until after Operation Flashpoint 2