Jimquisition: The Beautiful Irony of PC Gaming

[Koroviev]

Great video, but I hated eye. It was a buggy piece of shit and infinite respawning really pisses me off when a fucking attack chopper comes at you every minute along with rocket launcher wielding goons.

Now if only console players would listen to this video...

You don't need to upgrade a PC every year and it doesn't cost thousands for a PC. Also the games are cheaper.

The mis-information annoys me.

I think that whether or not PC gaming is expensive depends on your starting point. I was fortunate enough to have a budget desktop with decent RAM (4 GB) and a 3.0 GHz CPU. All I had to do was upgrade the PSU and the GPU in order to play most games. However, most people are stuck with laptops that, despite having decent specs, can't handle the heat of even mild gaming.

However, PC games are unequivocally cheaper. If my PC will run it, I'm buying it for PC, which means that virtually all of my games are for PC, barring console exclusives (esp. Japanese games).

EDIT: I did not mean to necro a thread. The video popped up in a sidebar or something and I (wrongfully) assumed that it was current. Apologies for that.

 

[shteev]

'I'm always playing Doom'

Jim, it took me a while, but I officially love you now.

 

[Houshou]

I love how everyone keeps mentioning Minecraft. While yes, it doesn't have the greatest graphics in the world, my 2009 laptop lags out when playing it on every single lowest setting possible.
Its not because the graphics are that intense, but because it demands so much from a processor that my laptop can barely handle it. Sure, its not top of the line. But it runs Torchlight, Diablo II, and Morrowind. I'm certain if I installed Red Alert 2 it'd do fine with that too.

While I am building a newer desktop one piece at a time. My consoles see more play time. But its not just my PS3. My N64 gets a good workout, My Gamecube, Wii, NES, SNES, and Sega Genesis. There may be no equal to computer gaming and its capacity for emulation and modding. But seriously. There's no better feeling than to beat an old video game, un-modded, no save files. Just you, that square sharp edged controller with a stiff D-pab and 4 buttons.

 

[A Raging Emo]

I always did wonder why those women in White Cocktail Dresses were shooting at me.

 

[Strazdas]

first thing i do in games is to set all graphics to minimum. gameplay will always be theo nly thing that matters to me. i been playing 90s games for the last 6 months anyway. and im a pc exclusinve gamer.
thing is, im a minority. majority of pc gamers do ONLY care about graphics. this is sad but it is true. ive seen many people tell me they wont even bother with a 2008 game because "its too old to look nice". on the other hand i have wonderful time on my 4 year old laptop and 9 year old desktop (yes its still runing, but cant run anything past 2003). problem is, majority of pc gamers are grpahic whores, and the new games reflect that. as you said yourself - games are not being designed to maximize the graphic engine, not the gameplay.

and well there is always the mouse argument. because its not like controllers have anything that comes even close. but i guess you didnt want to take the easy way.

Man if he's going to talk about not needing great graphics for a cool game should mention Civilisation or something of the like.

Funny thing - Civ 4 used to complain about my graphics settings all the time (but ran fine). On the other hand, Civ 5 didn't, but the "lowest settings" at the time was almost unplayable.

Civilization is a funny beast. 1-3 could be run on your hamster wheel. they ran on anything.
4. is very depending on a map. it keeps crying (and crashing) on my 9 year old desktop, but not on my newer laptop, though both of them have a similar actual power. but its all about map. you can play normal maps fine, but as i always play huge maps on slowest one sometimes it accumulates to having to move hundreds of units per turn. it doesnt really like that. civ 4 is terribly optimized. civ 5 is a step to better the pace, and that looks nice, though i havent played it much.

 

[LongMuckDong]

Fuck me.. Cameo's word up joke made me roll on the floor..

Great stuff Jim.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Derp.
He utterly fails to realise that the games are made simple on purpose so that they can run on the consoles.
If devs ignored the consoles, then games such as Portal 2 would have looked far better.........but of course a market 80 million larger is better than more shiny graphics from the devs perspective.

 

[midij19]

i'm extremely surprised that anyone at all remembers void, +1 internets to Jim

 

[Grabehn]

Love the video, I hate when people talk about graphics to be mandatory and the only reason to play on PC. I ran Crysis when it came out on a computer that was 3 years past the last modification, which was a video card with 3D visuals, cuz a Tazmania game I got from a newspaper gift wouldn't run without it.

I always did wonder why those women in White Cocktail Dresses were shooting at me.

Just cause they can. By the way, is EYE worth it?

 

[likalaruku]

Have to agree on the graphics; most of my favorite games are very dated & a few are even flash or java based.

For me, the allure of PC gaming is mouse & keyboard. Wouldn't dislike gamepads so much if they used soft rubber buttons instead of hard plastic, but that doesn't help the clawhand I develop from just holding them, especially since I can play upwards of 8-11 hours on some days.

When consoles were more restrained in what they could do, mods, MMOs, backwards compatibility, indie library, & internet access used to be part of the PC preference package.

I would play a console that let me hook up a backlit keyboard & mouse.

 

[ToastyMozart]

There are a few false claims in this video, the first being that the source engine is the same engine as it was in 2004.

Valve constantly updates it, they even retroactively added HDR lighting to all of Half Life 2 via patches (which is why it still looks so good). This is like saying that because the Infinity Ward Engine uses the Quake 3 team arena engine called ID Tech 3 (and yes, it does) that it's now a 13 year old engine, despite all the extensions IW made to it. It's a completely fallacious statement and I feel it was wrong of Jim to lie like that.

Additionally, Recettear actually does require a pretty powerful computer because it was optimized like absolute shit.

ALL that being said, I understand the point of this video. PC is driving innovation not through graphics, but through gameplay. I also support trying to get non pc-gamers to try out some of the more unique but easy to run titles.

Well, Source is starting to run into problems, but yeah. They deliberately made Source modular so they can keep upgrading it over time. That's why it still looks nice, despite it's "age."

And if we're dating engines by their oldest components, Source still has a few bits and pieces from the original Quake engine from 1996.

 

[ToastyMozart]

Love the video, I hate when people talk about graphics to be mandatory and the only reason to play on PC. I ran Crysis when it came out on a computer that was 3 years past the last modification, which was a video card with 3D visuals, cuz a Tazmania game I got from a newspaper gift wouldn't run without it.

I always did wonder why those women in White Cocktail Dresses were shooting at me.

Just cause they can. By the way, is EYE worth it?

Hell, you can still run most games passably on Low using Intel HD4000.

Personally, I like gaming on PC because it's actually more cost effective for me. The hardware cost is fairly quickly compensated by the fact that GameStop seems to be allergic to sales of more than %15 off.
And hell, if I'm going to be working in AutoCAD anyways, may as well use my hardware for fun too.

 

[ToastyMozart]

I love how everyone keeps mentioning Minecraft. While yes, it doesn't have the greatest graphics in the world, my 2009 laptop lags out when playing it on every single lowest setting possible.
Its not because the graphics are that intense, but because it demands so much from a processor that my laptop can barely handle it. Sure, its not top of the line. But it runs Torchlight, Diablo II, and Morrowind. I'm certain if I installed Red Alert 2 it'd do fine with that too.
Snip.

Yeah, Minecraft's a bit of a ***** when it comes to optimization. Mostly it's a side effect of it being built in Java, which is more or less functionally an emulator when it comes to gaming. This is mostly because Java's easy to work in (it solves the different configuration problem because, internally, every system running it is the same), and they weren't expecting the game to explode like it did. The performance would be MUCH better if they had made it in an actual game engine. It says a lot when people running a minecraft-inspired mod in Gmod can get better performance than with the actual game.

Though I suppose Java's ease of use is also partially responsible for the giant list of mods.

 

[ToastyMozart]

thing is, im a minority. majority of pc gamers do ONLY care about graphics. this is sad but it is true. ive seen many people tell me they wont even bother with a 2008 game because "its too old to look nice". on the other hand i have wonderful time on my 4 year old laptop and 9 year old desktop (yes its still runing, but cant run anything past 2003). problem is, majority of pc gamers are grpahic whores, and the new games reflect that. as you said yourself - games are not being designed to maximize the graphic engine, not the gameplay.

There are certainly way too many graphics whores on the internet, but I don't think it's fair to say the majority are. If that were the case, high-end video cards would sell much better than the midrange stuff, which is not the case.
A lot of PC gamers certainly try and get the most out of their hardware, and I can't really blame them, but It's a stretch to say that that's all they care about. Complaints about graphical fidelity are usually just from those people with really good hardware who are upset when a game doesn't have high-rez textures available or so on.

Millions still play TF2, a game from 2007. CounterStrike 1.6 still has a dedicated following. The old adage of "every time you mention Deus Ex(a game from 1999), someone reinstalls it" still holds fairly true, and the emulation scene for retro gaming is still massive. Additionally, Indie games are THRIVING on PC, despite them usually not having the most technically advanced visuals.

 

[Strazdas]

thing is, im a minority. majority of pc gamers do ONLY care about graphics. this is sad but it is true. ive seen many people tell me they wont even bother with a 2008 game because "its too old to look nice". on the other hand i have wonderful time on my 4 year old laptop and 9 year old desktop (yes its still runing, but cant run anything past 2003). problem is, majority of pc gamers are grpahic whores, and the new games reflect that. as you said yourself - games are not being designed to maximize the graphic engine, not the gameplay.

There are certainly way too many graphics whores on the internet, but I don't think it's fair to say the majority are. If that were the case, high-end video cards would sell much better than the midrange stuff, which is not the case.
A lot of PC gamers certainly try and get the most out of their hardware, and I can't really blame them, but It's a stretch to say that that's all they care about. Complaints about graphical fidelity are usually just from those people with really good hardware who are upset when a game doesn't have high-rez textures available or so on.

Millions still play TF2, a game from 2007. CounterStrike 1.6 still has a dedicated following. The old adage of "every time you mention Deus Ex(a game from 1999), someone reinstalls it" still holds fairly true, and the emulation scene for retro gaming is still massive. Additionally, Indie games are THRIVING on PC, despite them usually not having the most technically advanced visuals.

The reason mid-range stuff sells better is because there is no reason to have high end stuff unless your future-proofing. i can buy a mid-range card and play every game currently released on high setting on it on a above 1080p resolution. Only people who go for 4k or fanatics of PC tinkering buy the highest end stuff, and well people who buy a high end PC and then run it for 6-7 years. Thats why even graphic whores buy mid-range stuff. there are no purpose on going higher as graphics are limited by consoles.
Thats all that some of PC gamers care. as i said ive seen people who would now pronouce that 2011 game is too old because it looks ugly. Then to be honest most developers dont bother with textures now truly and msot games DO have terrible textures.
TF2 is not a game, its a complex hat simulator. CS1.6 is a mystery to me. one of the most boring games in existence which is still played. Deus Ex has agend terribly to the point of becoming hideous to play now and the people reinstalling it are people who keep playing it and crashed it with new mod hehe.
Indie games are thriving untill you look at the numbers. there are what, less than 10 indie games that made it to sale numbers of mid-budget title. when you see 10 million units sold on day 1 compared to 100k lifetime sales (and thats lucky for an idnie unless your minecraft) they really arent that thriving.
yes, not everyone cares about graphics, but great many people do. which i admit is not great but it is what it is. and grasping at straws and exceptions to prove otherwise is only running away from the problem.