Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Gaming in Linux

Last response: in Linux/Free BSD
Share
October 6, 2010 9:39:25 PM

Hey everyone,

I was just wondering, how would one go about playing today's top games in a Linux environment?
Do you just use wine, create a virtual windows machine within it, or something else?
Is there a particular linux flavor that is better than others?

Cheers,

AL3X

More about : gaming linux

Best solution

a b 5 Linux
October 6, 2010 10:24:05 PM

Virtual Machines cannot directly access your video card, so it has to use an emulated GPU. This means that 3D performance is usually quite poor within VMs. Wine supports the majority of modern games, so that's the route I'd most likely go. The program PlayOnLinux is meant to install games from CD's/DVD's through Wine, and just gives you an easy-to-use interface. You can install normally through Wine as well.

Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva... any popular distro would be your best bet. the WineHQ appDB has compatibility reports for games as well as distributions.
Share
a b 5 Linux
October 7, 2010 6:20:42 AM

If gaming is your primary use of the computer, stick with Windows. You'll be a lot less frustrated.
m
0
l
Related resources
October 7, 2010 12:52:23 PM

How so randomizer?
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 7, 2010 1:17:01 PM

Because Windows software is meant to be run in Windows. Wine is not a replacement for Windows. If you want to run the odd Windows application then fair enough, but if you're mostly running Windows software then it is rather pointless trying to run it on Linux when it is likely to work better, and be far easier to set up, on Windows.
m
0
l
October 7, 2010 1:28:01 PM

ok kool thx and for gaming what windows would you go with?
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 7, 2010 1:55:14 PM

Whichever you want. Win7 is the newest release, so why not go with that? WinXP is nice as well if you just want a plain, somewhat stable OS. I'd avoid Vista like the plague (speaking from experience).
m
0
l
October 7, 2010 2:02:28 PM

perfect thx a lot guys
m
0
l
October 7, 2010 2:02:57 PM

Best answer selected by MyGodAL3X.
m
0
l
October 9, 2010 3:40:00 AM

Yeah, I agree with randomizer, if all you want is gaming, go windows. And Pyroflea...speaking from personal expirience, after the updates its gotten, hundreds of them, vista is a pretty rock solid OS. No issues really. Just make sure all updates are installed.
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 9, 2010 2:26:04 PM

I'll second that. Good two years without so much as a blue screen on Vista 64. One of the reasons I've still not gotten round to installing *buntu on it.
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 10, 2010 12:36:52 AM

Yes, I do agree it's a LOT better now than it was when it released. I got Vista very shortly after release, and it really just ruined it for me. It's also just an absolute resource pig, not that W7 is much better.
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 10, 2010 1:13:39 AM

Windows is boring. That's why I don't use it as much any more.
m
0
l
October 10, 2010 4:26:35 AM

Pyroflea: Just because Vista and Windows 7 take up much more ram then windows XP doesn't make them resource pigs...they take up around 1GB on idle...its fine. You think its a resource pig because you are comparing it to linux and Xp most likley....Don't. Windows 7 has tons more features, it is much more graphical...etc...etc. Move into the future. Its like complaining that a newer more powerful car consumes more gas then an old and crappy one...well NO duh...

And randomizer...I agree, if you are refering or implying that you use linux now...I agree, linux is a hell of a lot more fun/interesting to use, but I just don't have the time and motivation/energy to get all my *** to work which is why I am with windows, plus I know windows so well compared to linux that I just get my way around faster and feel safer incase something goes wrong because chances are i'll fix it with ease.
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 10, 2010 4:34:14 AM

blackhawk1928 said:
plus I know windows so well compared to linux that I just get my way around faster and feel safer incase something goes wrong because chances are i'll fix it with ease.

I had that problem initially. Then I realised that it was far simpler to fix a problem with correcting a line in a text file than it was spending all day on Google trying to find the meaning of some error code and finding other people who got advice along the lines of:

"Try abc, does that fix your problem?"
"No"
"Ok then, try xyz, does that fix your problem"?
"No"
"Ok then, try uibohayczw, does this work?"
"No"
"I guess you need to reformat"
"Ok"

If only Windows could be configured using text files. It would save so much time digging through an endless GUI.
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 10, 2010 11:34:24 AM

It was once upon a time (Win 3.11 and even a fair bit of Win95). Some of the software I support still uses INI files, makes moving the software to a new machine so easy, just install and copy over the ini files from a working installation.

What amuses me though is that you can still send people settings in files. I frequently just send a .reg file to customers who seem unable to follow illustrated guides on how to use the front end to get the same result. Same with moving software. It alarms me the number of alleged techs that just don't know what can be done with the registry.

m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 10, 2010 11:41:44 AM

The registry is about as close as you're going to get. It's still very clicky-clicky if you want to find something though.
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 10, 2010 6:11:26 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
Pyroflea: Just because Vista and Windows 7 take up much more ram then windows XP doesn't make them resource pigs...they take up around 1GB on idle...its fine. You think its a resource pig because you are comparing it to linux and Xp most likley....Don't. Windows 7 has tons more features, it is much more graphical...etc...etc. Move into the future. Its like complaining that a newer more powerful car consumes more gas then an old and crappy one...well NO duh...


I don't see why you're so against me saying Windows uses more RAM than it needs to. I'm aware that newer OS's will take full advantage of cheaper RAM prices, but I don't see the need to take 1+ GB of RAM at idle for an OS that is honestly nothing special. Yeah, it's a hell of a lot more feature-rich than XP was, and I have no issues with using W7 (I am right now as a matter of fact, quite fond of it as far as Windows goes), but when I can have a Linux installation that looks (in my humble opinion) much better, plus has full desktop effects, use 25% less RAM, then I think it's a fair comparison to make. My desktop only has 3GB of RAM, so when Vista was using ~50% of my RAM at idle, that was unacceptable.

I'm just speaking from my experience, and am in no way saying that my experience applies to anybody else in the world.
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 10, 2010 6:34:28 PM

randomizer said:
The registry is about as close as you're going to get. It's still very clicky-clicky if you want to find something though.


You can return registry values very easily with powershell or you can just search for the term you need. Even if you click don't forget that it's a centralised location, with the old ini model you had to first find the file which was an explorer feast at best. Settings are either going to be in the registry or an applications own (normally binary) configuration file.

My take on the registry is that it looks a lot worse than it really is. The big problem is the quality of installers used by so much software that leave massive amounts of crap around when you remove things.
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 10, 2010 6:44:07 PM

Pyroflea said:
I don't see why you're so against me saying Windows uses more RAM than it needs to. I'm aware that newer OS's will take full advantage of cheaper RAM prices, but I don't see the need to take 1+ GB of RAM at idle for an OS that is honestly nothing special. Yeah, it's a hell of a lot more feature-rich than XP was, and I have no issues with using W7 (I am right now as a matter of fact, quite fond of it as far as Windows goes), but when I can have a Linux installation that looks (in my humble opinion) much better, plus has full desktop effects, use 25% less RAM, then I think it's a fair comparison to make. My desktop only has 3GB of RAM, so when Vista was using ~50% of my RAM at idle, that was unacceptable.

I'm just speaking from my experience, and am in no way saying that my experience applies to anybody else in the world.


You've missed the point here, as have a lot of users and a lot of the press. Most of that ram is cache or prefetch data. If you pull out a stick of RAM you will see it uses less memory. Go on, give it a try. If it wasn't then there would be no way all those laptops with just 1Gb of ram would work is there? But they do!

It's actually much closer to the Linux way of doing things than ever before. I saw this the other way moving from XP to Ubuntu, which used more of my RAM at idle than XP does. What's the point of having lovely fast ram if the system does not make use of it? It's only an issue if it fails to free it up when you try and load data you need to work on or large executables. Something it manges reasonably well, so long as it a reasonable well written application.
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 10, 2010 6:53:29 PM

audiovoodoo said:
You've missed the point here, as have a lot of users and a lot of the press. Most of that ram is cache or prefetch data. If you pull out a stick of RAM you will see it uses less memory. Go on, give it a try. If it wasn't then there would be no way all those laptops with just 1Gb of ram would work is there? But they do!

It's actually much closer to the Linux way of doing things than ever before. I saw this the other way moving from XP to Ubuntu, which used more of my RAM at idle than XP does. What's the point of having lovely fast ram if the system does not make use of it? It's only an issue if it fails to free it up when you try and load data you need to work on or large executables. Something it manges reasonably well, so long as it a reasonable well written application.


Fair enough. I wasn't aware that this was what was taking place. I still found Vista to be slow and clunky in its earlier days though, however it is considerably better now, and W7 is infinitely better than Vista was. I still just prefer to use Linux though :) 
m
0
l
October 10, 2010 8:47:00 PM

Pyroflea said:
I don't see why you're so against me saying Windows uses more RAM than it needs to. I'm aware that newer OS's will take full advantage of cheaper RAM prices, but I don't see the need to take 1+ GB of RAM at idle for an OS that is honestly nothing special. Yeah, it's a hell of a lot more feature-rich than XP was, and I have no issues with using W7 (I am right now as a matter of fact, quite fond of it as far as Windows goes), but when I can have a Linux installation that looks (in my humble opinion) much better, plus has full desktop effects, use 25% less RAM, then I think it's a fair comparison to make. My desktop only has 3GB of RAM, so when Vista was using ~50% of my RAM at idle, that was unacceptable.

I'm just speaking from my experience, and am in no way saying that my experience applies to anybody else in the world.


Sorry, I guess you are right, I kind of misinterpreted your comment. I just thought that since windows has a much more developed GUI and supports more applications and etc..then it should technically take up plenty of ram.
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 10, 2010 9:24:14 PM

blackhawk1928 said:
Sorry, I guess you are right, I kind of misinterpreted your comment. I just thought that since windows has a much more developed GUI and supports more applications and etc..then it should technically take up plenty of ram.


I agree 100%. We all kind of misunderstood each other, but I think we got things worked out :D 
m
0
l
October 10, 2010 9:35:51 PM

Hmmm... okay, Windows 7 has so many more features than Linux? Hmmm... Okay, the one that I notice, Aero this new found amazing revolutionary technology in window effects? *cough* KDE *cough*

So does KDE use more, the same, or less resources than Windows 7? I am just saying... there have been a lot of features that Microsoft takes credit for, but concept and idea came from another person... I would probably go as far as some of the coding was duplicated as well.

Microsoft's trademark is using the most amount of anything without getting too many complaints. Vista they tried to go above and beyond on that one, haha. Why did that one die? I wouldn't even know where to begin, but I'd say memory could be a good starter.
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 10, 2010 10:41:30 PM

peptobismal said:
Hmmm... okay, Windows 7 has so many more features than Linux? Hmmm... Okay, the one that I notice, Aero this new found amazing revolutionary technology in window effects? *cough* KDE *cough*


This is the case with 99.9% of things in the world. Credit is rarely given where due. It's just how things go. I don't think comparing MS's DWM to KDE is a realistic comparison, as they're very different beasts.

peptobismal said:
So does KDE use more, the same, or less resources than Windows 7? I am just saying... there have been a lot of features that Microsoft takes credit for, but concept and idea came from another person... I would probably go as far as some of the coding was duplicated as well.


KDE uses quite a bit of resources itself, and is probably quite comparable to W7. I don't like KDE personally, so I can't give you a comparison. I do agree that Linux has had a lot of features for quite a while that both MS and Apple have taken credit for (although OSX is Unix so that's a tad different, but I digress), but that's just how things go. In all fairness, they are advertising their implementation of a feature, not taking credit for re-inventing the wheel.

peptobismal said:
Microsoft's trademark is using the most amount of anything without getting too many complaints. Vista they tried to go above and beyond on that one, haha. Why did that one die? I wouldn't even know where to begin, but I'd say memory could be a good starter.


Vista was released earlier than it should have been, and wasn't tested enough; it's as simple as that. With the release of SP1, it was a decent OS. Microsoft learned from their mistakes, and had a large amount of open-beta for W7, and it shows. It's a very well polished OS.
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 10, 2010 10:46:11 PM

audiovoodoo said:
You can return registry values very easily with powershell or you can just search for the term you need.

Hehe, there's nothing like searching for the entries made by a program that won't uninstall itself at all. I had to do that with a game once. I had to search for and delete almost 100 entries :lol: 
m
0
l
October 10, 2010 11:19:38 PM

I bought this awesome utility called JV16PowerTools. Best buy I have made for my computer. It does practically everything...its the best all in one. And if a program won't uninstall, this program will, and you can make delete all obsolete registry entries and it can do...as i said...anything.
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 10, 2010 11:54:06 PM

CCleaner will also do that and you don't have to pay for it. Application programmers really need to learn to clean up though because having to "clean" the registry manually means that there's another problem that hasn't been dealt with.

I'm glad the OP got his question answered. We went from gaming to the registry :lol: 
m
0
l
a b 5 Linux
October 11, 2010 9:44:33 AM

+10 on CCleaner, although the guys as sysinternals have other options. Auslogics registry defrag is also a top tool. Improved my boot time by over 20 seconds!
m
0
l
October 14, 2010 6:59:43 PM

Quote:
I'm glad the OP got his question answered. We went from gaming to the registry :lol: 


Lol that's fine, I still kept on reading the thread lots of kool stuff in here so im all good with the diversion of topic ;) 
m
0
l
November 15, 2010 2:23:29 PM

Isn't there still some titles coming to Linux that are natively ported (even if not officially supported)? I think QW:ET was one example from recent years.

Though, 10 years back when Loki Games was around it was somewhat better, you actually had a good handful of serious commercial titles available for Linux. Nowadays it looks like just OSX or even consoles are the alternative gaming platform.

If you are serious about gaming on Linux, you should probably start following the relevant sites, such as www.linuxgames.com and umm... haven't followed the scene too much myself lately but do a google search and see what you find.
m
0
l
November 16, 2010 6:08:13 PM

Savage 2 is a decent native game for linux.. its an interesting mix between rts and fps genres
m
0
l
!