" @Metal_Mills:: 

I own DoW2 and Fallout 3 from day one and never had a problem. The biggest bug I found in DoW2 was the mouse stops responding, mash it and it starts working again. Fallout 3...hell, I haven't updated ever and never had a crash. Demigod did have a bad netcode but seriously, bugs aren't just on PC games and it's a LOT easier to fix them on PC. "

Then you never tried to play DoW 2 online.  They had major gameplay bugs with online play.  Units permanently took up population cap and just destroyed the game.  They took months to fix it and when they did just added a bunch of other bugs like being able to take 3 people into a 2v2 and play a 3v1 instead.  Those are hardly minor bugs.

Fallout 3 had a large amount of issues for a number of players.  I could not get that game stable and it is the only game that will crash for me.  The patches just make the game crash more too.

Game destroying bugs are pretty exclusive to the PC because console games with bugs like that tend to go straight to the trash bins.

"

" Well if it's vendor default then leave it, that's how it's supposed to work and you paid for that anyways. Sounds like you got it prebuilt. Not liking. "

a good write up! Reminds me of the past when PC gaming was all that mattered :)

" I think that's more just you. :PThere's a lot to play on PC right now. Trine (demo), Zeno Clash, STALKER series (3rd one is in development), Mirror's Edge (way better with mouse and keyboard controls), Cryostasis, Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood, FEAR 2, etc. There are others, but those are the ones that have my immediate interest. Also, you even said it in the endurance run: PC is the system to play FPS games on. "

" @Hamst3r said:

" I think that's more just you. :PThere's a lot to play on PC right now. Trine (demo), Zeno Clash, STALKER series (3rd one is in development), Mirror's Edge (way better with mouse and keyboard controls), Cryostasis, Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood, FEAR 2, etc. There are others, but those are the ones that have my immediate interest. Also, you even said it in the endurance run: PC is the system to play FPS games on. "

See, I don't think this is what he was talking about. Most of the games you mentioned are multiplatform and would therefore run comparably on a PS3/360. Not exactly the kind of stuff that would stress his new hardware. "

Comparably? Surely you jest. On the console games typically run at approximately 1280x720 res, 30 fps (sometimes 60, though also sometimes lower) and the equivelent of medium to medium-high detail with 2x AA (at least on 360, on PS3 there is no AA). That is not comparable to running a game at 2560x1600 res, 60 fps or higher and on maximum detail with 4x or higher AA. I have a powerful gaming PC, built last week and even it chokes up on these games when they're maxed out. :)But anyways; I don't think he was looking for games to stress the new hardware. That's not it at all. The issue is that he doesn't care about stressing out new hardware anymore and there aren't any PC games that he's interested in. Thus, I named a few games that play well on PC and are somewhat recent. "

Um, no they don't, AA,AF, draw distances, texture details (resolution), physics calculations, DX10 effects, LOD distances, post processing effects, and other things are compromised... And they do usually run @ only 30 fps, though there are exceptions. If you don't notice, that's a whole different issue... I suppose the biggest issue is the fps loss though, I can't stand anything much lower than 60, it gets really jarring at around 45, even on PC I'd rather reduce settings (a little, not enough to make the game ugly) than put up with that... Though I don't have to after my upgrade.

" Um, no they don't, AA,AF, draw distances, texture details (resolution), physics calculations, DX10 effects, LOD distances, post processing effects, and many other things are compromised... And they do usually run @ only 30 fps, though there are exceptions. If you don't notice, that's a different issue... "

COD4!

" @Hamst3r said:

Comparably? Surely you jest. On the console games typically run at approximately 1280x720 res, 30 fps (sometimes 60, though also sometimes lower) and the equivelent of medium to medium-high detail with 2x AA (at least on 360, on PS3 there is no AA). That is not comparable to running a game at 2560x1600 res, 60 fps or higher and on maximum detail with 4x or higher AA. I have a powerful gaming PC, built last week and even it chokes up on these games when they're maxed out. :)But anyways; I don't think he was looking for games to stress the new hardware. That's not it at all. The issue is that he doesn't care about stressing out new hardware anymore and there aren't any PC games that he's interested in. Thus, I named a few games that play well on PC and are somewhat recent. "

Most multiplatform 360 games run equivalent to maxed settings on PC...  There are some like GTA4 which have a lot of LOD settings considerably lower, and require a beast to run fully.  Otherwise like you said, around 720p, 30-60fps, 2xAA, rarely 4xAA.  But how many games that push the graphical limits on a 360 run at 2560x1600, 60fps or higher with higher image quality though?  Damn few.  COD4 might if you have quad SLi.  Maybe you've just using hyperbole, but obviously for a decent PC most multiplatform games run at least a bit better on a PC.  Most people just don't care about that though.  Hell, lots of people are stuck using low quality LCDs these days anyways.  60Hz, 720p, small size, low quality displays...That's the point, comparable because you're getting the same graphics quality at a lower resolution, not looking quite as crisp but having all the same details.  That's damn comparable no matter how many times people deny it. "

"@Alwaysrun said:

" After all that and poor Jeff gets a 192 sp version of the 65nm gtx 260, those are going for $150 bucks up here in Canada where our dollar isn't a dollar. Ohh well it'll still do you just fine for gaming jeff but with a little more leg work you could have saved yourself $50 and gotten a card that achieves 10% better framerates, has lower power consumption and runs 10 degrees cooler at load. btw what if anything do you plan on doing with your old 8800 ultra? Anyways I'm glad you got your pc up and running Jeff, it may not be your platform of choice for gaming but at least now you have the pc option if the mood strikes you. "

Already said this earlier in the thread, but it's a 216. "

I don't see why Nvidia is a better choice. The Radeon 4890 can be bought for slightly over $200 and is slightly better than the GTX 275. And I don't know about Nvidia drivers being better. I've been using Geforce 8800GTS 512MB for some time, but I can't upgrade the drivers to anything newer than 178 or else I get no video during movies. The GTX 260 is still good though, it could have been worse. I remember a friend of mine who was desperete to get a new video card that he went and bought a X850pro for almost $300 and this was about the time where you could get a X1950pro for that price or less online, one generation newer.

The state of PC gaming is sad. I would upgrade my PC, but I see no reason for it. There's no games that I would want to play that I can't play on my 360. All I can think of is HL2 episode 3, SW:TOR and maybe I want to play Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 and none of those games are likely to demand even as much as Crysis, a 2007 game. Now it's all about making games that people can play with their built in video chip or $50 video card.

heh funny you mention you have a dell. my dell just did the same exact thing to my video card although my setup is far less glamorous than yours seeing as it was outdated a full year before it was ordered. now i get to "upgrade" to a geforce 9400...woopie

It's a very interesting topic about the current state of PC gaming. However, the cool stuff has been happening in the mmo space buds, granted I have a Q6600, 8800GTX $3,000 Dell desktop suited with logitech devices from keyboard to mice sitting in the corner while I game mmo's like World of Warcraft on my laptop. Certainly there are other great titles out there such as Team Fortress 2, but there isn't enough of it to warrant that level of satisfaction the PC space offered many years ago. Building custom PC's is always fantastic to urge that sense of how this game will run ect. but that sense does fatigue overtime where at the core of it the games you hold on to are titles with great gameplay.

It was no suprise that the console space specifically the xbox 360 will draw an audience for online gaming, and I say this because when Halo 2 launch it was just amazing to see players from around the world engaing on your television, in addition Halo 2 was a marvelous FPS entirely. However, even with titles like Splinter Cell Chaos Theory or Nba 2K, online gaming on consoles provided the "having your friends over to play some multiplayer" only now it's less hassle due to you don't have to provide food and extra controllers, lol.

I'll keep my post short, but here are some pics of my current setup, later guys..
http://i430.photobucket.com/albums/qq27/Taheed_McClain/PC/DSC_0077.jpg

http://i430.photobucket.com/albums/qq27/Taheed_McClain/PC/DSC_0072.jpg

http://i430.photobucket.com/albums/qq27/Taheed_McClain/PC/DSC_0074.jpg

Oh yea, if you see this by any chance check this out Jeff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYP0BCokPzg

Yep I have a Dell 8100 that blows balls since day 1 of owning it!!!  The thing needs more ram but of course it just happens to have been bought at that brief moment where Dell was using the waaaaay over priced RD-ram!!!  All I know is the price is sooooo high that I'd rather just buy a new PC then give in to Rambus's RD-ram pricing! 

Sincerely,
I Hate RD-Ram

The highest graphical settings in numerous games on PC are superior to what the 360 can push and it's not just LOD settings. The 360 versions have lower resolution textures and various graphical effects reduced in quality. Take a look at this Lost Planet comparison image if you don't believe me.

That's how it is with just about every game, I kid you not. It's like night and day.

It looks fine, particularly on a TV that's a few feet away, don't get me wrong on that. I'm not saying the 360 has crap graphics...but once you put the game on a PC and you're only a foot or less away from the screen - which has a much finer pixel array as well- the 360 graphics simply don't hold up.

As for playing at 2560x1600, 60fps and higher quality - you don't need quad SLI. Only Crysis really stresses a PC out that bad. I played Gears of War, Mirror's Edge, Call of Duty 4, Lost Planet and Mass Effect at those settings. Those are all pretty graphically intensive games. You need a beefy machine, but it definitely doesn't have to be quad SLI. It does have to be more than what the 360 has in it though.

I've read in many Mass Effect reviews that the 360 version has framerate issues - it has trouble keeping up, even at ~720p, so please don't overstate the power of the 360, it's not the powerhouse system you're trying to make it out to be.

When was the point about low res LCDs and "most people"? We're talking about Jeff's computer. Jeff is a video game journalist. He probably owns some good stuff. We're not talking about your average Joe - at least, I never was. There are only two computers taken into account with my prior posts: mine and Jeff's. :)

A $200 card like the GTX 260 will run every PC game except Crysis & ArmA II (and maybe GTA 4) at 60fps at 1900 * 1200 resolution with AA and AF enabled.  Almost all 360 games run at 720p or less, so there's less half as many pixels on screen, and often struggle to stay above 30 fps even though there's usually only a little bit of AA going on.  One of the reasons CoD4 is so celeberated on the 360 is because it's one of the few big games to run at 60 fps, and of course it only does that by outputting at 600p.

The difference in graphical quality might not matter to you or a lot of people, but it's very significant and very obvious.

The difference in graphical quality might not matter to you or a lot of people, but it's very significant and very obvious.

Part of the reason CoD4 plays so well is because of the 60 fps frame rate it runs at.

Saying that the graphical difference between the 360 and PCs is significant is opinion.  So is saying the graphical difference between the Wii and 360 is significant.  The fact is that PCs with video cards that cost less than $200 can run the same games you get on the 360 at more than double the resolution, with more AA and AF, and often at double the frame rate.

EDIT - If you've been gaming so long I find it surprising that you don't appreciate how important it is for a fast-moving game to run at a constant 60 fps instead of the 20-30 fps chugfests you so often see on the consoles, especially on the PS3 version of multiplatform titles.

Unsurprisingly, I don't have a 6800 GT and a GTX 260 just laying around, so perhaps you'd like to explain what you think I would learn if I did have them and the desire to spend all night testing them with Crysis. 

Saying that the graphical difference between the 360 and PCs is significant is opinion.  So is saying the graphical difference between the Wii and 360 is significant.

If you've been gaming so long I find it surprising that you don't appreciate how important it is for a fast-moving game to run at a constant 60 fps instead of the 20-30 fps chugfests you so often see on the consoles, especially on the PS3 version of multiplatform titles.Unsurprisingly, I don't have a 6800 GT and a GTX 260 just laying around, so perhaps you'd like to explain what you think I would learn if I did have them and the desire to spend all night testing them with Crysis.  "

" @Hamst3r said:

The highest graphical settings in numerous games on PC are superior to what the 360 can push and it's not just LOD settings. The 360 versions have lower resolution textures and various graphical effects reduced in quality. Take a look at this Lost Planet comparison image if you don't believe me.

Sorry, but you're still wrong.  Lost Planet is one of the few exceptions to the rule these days.  Even when a game gets upgraded features, it's usually pretty insignificant : Gears of War 1 got some texture improvements (the game looks considerably worse than Gears of War 2 for that matter), Mirror's Edge got the additional Phys X support (comes at a performance cost), DMC4 got a mode with extra enemies on screen, Bioshock got soft particle support in DX10...

"As it is, the PC version's superior looks aren't limited to more pixels and a consistently higher refresh rate - textures have more detail, there are more light sources, and shadows are more realistic and complex. Motion blur is supported on all versions, but on PC, where movement is that much faster it just makes much more sense, and has much more of an impact."

Devil May Cry 4 at max settings has much higher quality graphics on the PC version, even in DX9, and runs at 60 fps+ at 1900 x 1200 even on rigs that aren't that powerful.  And it's already almost a year old.  Your claim that multiplatform 360 games run equivalent to maxed settings on PC is absurd, no matter how many times you call people chumps or shout that they're wrong, the evidence is clear:

"30FPS is a chugfest?  Wow, you really are confused. 

" @Diamond said:

"30FPS is a chugfest?  Wow, you really are confused. 

30fps locked is OK.  20-30 fps (which is what I actually said) is a chugfest for gamers who are used to playing at 60fps.  I think you''d be better off toning down your arrogance if you can't even quote someone's post  accurately.  Calling people chumps and fanboys just shows you that you're getting a bit desperate.Keep shouting that the textures in the 360 versions of multiplatform titles are the same as those on max settings on the PC versions till you're blue in the face.  It won't make it any more true, but it will be rarher amusing. "

It's not 1 or 2 exceptions, and you aren't telling the truth.  The PC versions of FEAR 2 and Far Cry 2 and DMC 4 are not rare in having higher quality textures & effects available at max settings than on the console versions.  Hamst3r had it right a page ago when he said the 360 versions are the  equivalent of medium to high detail, but your desire to troll was so great that you couldn't help but make make a fool of yourself with this maxed settings nonsense.  Why don't you post your junk in the PC threads at GAF and let a whole community show you how full of shit you really are.

Reading your embarrassingly arrogant missives about teaching the truth has gone from being amusing to almost masochistic, so I'll just end with a quote from Richard Leadbetter:

"We can safely assume that the master assets are in the PC game, with the console versions being cut-down versions of what computer owners with the right hardware can enjoy."

" It's not 1 or 2 exceptions, and you aren't telling the truth.  The PC versions of FEAR 2 and Far Cry 2 and DMC 4 are not rare in having higher quality textures & effects available at max settings than on the console versions.  Why don't you post your junk in the PC threads at GAF and let a whole community show you how full of shit you really are.Reading your embarrassingly arrogant missives about teaching the truth has gone from being amusing to almostmasochistic, so I'll just end with a quote from Richard Leadbetter: "We can safely assume that the master assets are in the PC game, with the console versions being cut-down versions of what computer owners with the right hardware can enjoy." "

PC gaming is small

except wow

8800 Ultra is old?? Then I guess my GeForce 6600 is... an antique.  Yeah, I have 360 so I don't game on my PC anymore. :S (Well with release of compelling new games on PC lately, I'm starting to consider gaming on PC again... Just started considering, though)