Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HDTV Spells The End to Computer Gaming

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 5:03:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

I’m a computer game player first and formost. But after playing Halo2
on Xbox I couldn’t help but thinking that the already dwindling
computer gaming scene will shrink even further. The cinematic
experience of playing games on a 50 inche screen with full blasting
5.1 audio simply cannot be matched by computer. Make no mistake, HDTV
is here to stay and HD DVD is coming before the end of 2005. In 2 or
3 years time, you probably can but a 50 inche HDTV for close to a
thousand buck and pick up a $99 5.1 package on your way out of
Walmart.



Why play games on computers anymore? Sports and action games are
already better to be played on HDTV. The adventure genre has been
dead like water for close to a decade. That leaves only the strategy
and simulation genres which computer has an edge on.



The next generation consoles could easily handle the 1080i HDTV
graphic requirements which essentially requires the processing power
of 540p. Why would anyone spend $500 to buy the latest Nvidia card
just to play Doom 3 in front of a 19” screen when they can buy a $150
Xbox and play the same game on a 50” screen?



I know I might sound cliché but I truly see computer gaming, my
beloved past time for the last ten years, die within the next 5 years
or so.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 5:03:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

<nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:rkigv0t4066vvjvdsr4kj6lc3d35jaed21@4ax.com...
> I’m a computer game player first and formost.
<snip>
> Why play games on computers anymore? Sports and action games are
> already better to be played on HDTV. The adventure genre has been
> dead like water for close to a decade. That leaves only the strategy
> and simulation genres which computer has an edge on.

You'll be happy to learn that it's quite easy to hook up computers to
HDTV's, and has been for a number of years.

www.ati.com

Pagan
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 5:03:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

*yawn* ... another "PC gaming is dead" thread to kill... and after
2004, the biggest year in PC gaming ever. Some people just don't "get
it" that a market doesn't have to grow as fast as console gaming in
order to survive, even prosper. They also don't get it that when their
is a predominant paradigm, people will pay big bugs to transcend it,
and businesses want those bucks.

And why should I limit my resolution to HDTV? I already game at higher
resolutions. Anyway I payed way less than $500 for my last video card
that plays Doom 3 full-out. PC gaming is actually more affordable and
more enjoyable then ever.

Next troll, please.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 5:03:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

2004 being biggest year in PC gaming? This reminds me of all those fans
who used to claims OS2 is superior to Windows, or Mac is better than PC
in everyway. Die-hard fans never realize the facts as I have observed.
I would call 2004 is one of the most disappointing year for PC gaming
instead, unless one plays only MMORPG and FPS, there is hardly any
interesting titles in 2004 compared to the past.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 5:03:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

HDTV's aren't cheap enough... yet. When the price for a 50 inch display
gets down to 500 dollars or so, maybe then they will be adopted by the
masses. Are you aware only about 55 percent of the country's population has
home access to the internet? Not everybody is wired in.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 7:38:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

nospam@nospam.com wrote in news:rkigv0t4066vvjvdsr4kj6lc3d35jaed21@4ax.com:

> Why play games on computers anymore? Sports and action games are
> already better to be played on HDTV.

Are you suggesting to play sports/action games on 50" HDTV?? To get a
decent picture you'll have to sit meters away from it. This will introduce
horrible lag required for the light waves to travel from the screen to your
eyes and then for your input to the console. Or if you put your console
near yourself, things will be even worse, because you'll be seeing the
picture that has been hopelessly outdated because of the time it will take
it to reach HDTV.

No competitive gamer would do such a thing ;) 
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 10:51:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:03:20 GMT, nospam@nospam.com wrote:

>I’m a computer game player first and formost. But after playing Halo2
>on Xbox I couldn’t help but thinking that the already dwindling
>computer gaming scene will shrink even further. The cinematic
>experience of playing games on a 50 inche screen with full blasting
>5.1 audio simply cannot be matched by computer. Make no mistake, HDTV
>is here to stay and HD DVD is coming before the end of 2005. In 2 or
>3 years time, you probably can but a 50 inche HDTV for close to a
>thousand buck and pick up a $99 5.1 package on your way out of
>Walmart.
>
>
>
>Why play games on computers anymore?

Because I don't like shooting games.
January 27, 2005 4:08:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

alexti wrote:

This will introduce
> horrible lag required for the light waves to travel from the screen to your
> eyes and then for your input to the console.

Lol. Remind me never to play you at online - speed of light not quick
enough for you eh? :-)


--
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."

Martin Luther King, Jr.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 5:41:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) writes:
>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:03:20 GMT, nospam@nospam.com wrote:
>>I'm a computer game player first and formost. But after playing Halo2
>>on Xbox I couldn't help but thinking that the already dwindling
>>computer gaming scene will shrink even further. The cinematic
>>experience of playing games on a 50 inche screen with full blasting
>>5.1 audio simply cannot be matched by computer. Make no mistake, HDTV
>>is here to stay and HD DVD is coming before the end of 2005. In 2 or
>>3 years time, you probably can but a 50 inche HDTV for close to a
>>thousand buck and pick up a $99 5.1 package on your way out of
>>Walmart.
>>
>>
>>
>>Why play games on computers anymore?

>Because I don't like shooting games.

Even if you do, I haven't seen any console game, Halo included, that is
as good as Halflife 2....

--
Chas Blackwell <Black Isis> CITES Systems Management Group
<cblkwell@uiuc.edu>
I don't even know what CITES stands
for, so I don't speak for them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As we were forged we shall return, perhaps some day. | VNV Nation,
I will remember you and wonder who we were." | "Further"
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 6:58:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:41f842dc.1340254981@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:03:20 GMT, nospam@nospam.com wrote:
>
>>Why play games on computers anymore?
>
> Because I don't like shooting games.

Besides which, despite Halo and Halo 2, most shooting games are better on
PC, using mouse control (and Halo would be too if it weren't such a poor
conversion).
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 10:12:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:22:34 GMT, The Grand Wombat
<wombatgrand@hotmail.com> wrote:

>And there's so little for a turn-based strategy gamer like me there, I
>don't even know why I bother looking anymore.


Imagine how the text based adventure guys feel.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 1:10:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 26 Jan 2005 18:44:27 -0800, "HangFire" <hangfirew8@netscape.net>
wrote:

>*yawn* ... another "PC gaming is dead" thread to kill... and after
>2004, the biggest year in PC gaming ever.

Huh? I don't appreciate the trolls any more than you do, but PC game
sales dropped 12% last year:

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/stocks/troywolverton/10...
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 7:27:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> In 2 or 3 years time, you probably can but a 50 inche HDTV for close
> to a thousand buck and pick up a $99 5.1 package on your way out of
> Walmart.

In Wal-mart the other day and they had a 47" Plasma for ~$2200 and 5.1
speaker package for $89.
--
Mac Cool
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 8:30:03 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

no@nowhere.com wrote:
> Just walk into any software store and look at the dwindling shelf
> space for PC games. The PC sections today remind me of the Mac
section
> that have disappeared. ;(

Who in their right mind buys PC games in a software store? We're not
gullible teenage console gamers with no credit card willing to pay over
the odds for the latest console game from the local store: we can buy
online and save money.

Even if the store has the game on release day and online stores don't,
there's little benefit these days when most games are full of bugs (in
some cases to the extent of being literally unplayable, or at least
impossible to complete) until the first patch.

Mark
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 8:33:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

nospam@nospam.com wrote:
> The cinematic
> experience of playing games on a 50 inche screen with full blasting
> 5.1 audio simply cannot be matched by computer.

Yeah, why would I want to play games at 75fps on a progressive display
with 7.1 sound when I could be playing at 25fps on an interlaced
display with 5.1?

Sarcasm aside, I can see some benefits: the only console game I've
liked enough to play much was 'Point Blank', and shooters like that
with gun controllers would probably benefit substantially from big
displays without losing much from low frame rates. But otherwise... why
would I sacrifice the quality of a PC monitor and sound card for an
HDTV display?

Mark
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 9:34:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

When Brad Wardell starts developing exclusively for consoles, then you
know the world has come to an end. As of now, consoles do not get
moddable games, or enough strategy titles. Massive Multiplayer is also
lacking.

PC gaming, at this stands now, is the entry point for people into the
business. Doing mods also is a major subset of this.

So, no PC gaming won't ever die. Become marginalized, yes, but not
die.

- Richard Hutnik
January 28, 2005 10:01:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

<the_professor@atbi.com> wrote

> The Grand Wombat wrote:
>>And there's so little for a turn-based strategy gamer like me there, I
>>don't even know why I bother looking anymore.

> Imagine how the text based adventure guys feel.

Strangely enough, although there are few (if any) professional games being
released, I bet there's loads of amateur ones.

Whereas it takes several person-years to produce a top class 3D FPS, it's
still possible for a single person to produce a decent text adventure in
their spare time.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 1:06:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Nats wrote:
> I thought Microsoft was going to produce their next console with
harddrive
> etc? This would make is very similar to a PC. All PCs are are
consoles with
> a harddrive and non standard components. Once someone produces a
decent
> console with a harddrive and internet access that can play games
equivalent
> to a PC I for one will be glad to get rid of this rubbish machine -
PCs are
> just far too much trouble. Every game you get seems to be unstable in
some
> way because of your particular set up. And no matter how fast your
machine
> is theres always a new game that will play too slowly on it. And
older games
> play far too fast. Give me a decent stable gameplaying machine
anyday. As
> long as it can connect to a printer and be used as a wordprocessor
etc I
> wont be worried about leaving PCs behind.


Do you care what kind of games do you play? I mean, does it not matter
to you whether the title is a twitch candy game or a strategy title?

This is the problem with consoles, there aren't enough strategy titles
with them. For one thing, I am not getting
http://www.zillionsofgames.com on them or http://www.brettspielwelt.de
either.

- Richard Hutnik
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 4:03:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:03:20 GMT, nospam@nospam.com wrote:

>Why play games on computers anymore?

Because of the games. The games I have on PS2 are no match and nowhere
near as interesting (for me) as the games I play on my PC.

>The next generation consoles could easily handle the 1080i HDTV
>graphic requirements which essentially requires the processing power
>of 540p. Why would anyone spend $500 to buy the latest Nvidia card
>just to play Doom 3 in front of a 19” screen when they can buy a $150
>Xbox and play the same game on a 50” screen?

1. Because it is not the same game on the console. Smaller levels due
to memory restrictions? Having to use a gamepad for a FPS?

2. Because Doom III is not the only type of game on PCs.

>I know I might sound cliché but I truly see computer gaming, my
>beloved past time for the last ten years, die within the next 5 years
>or so.

No it won't, for the simple reason that anyone is free to make PC
games, while for making console games you need to get a license. But
it may be true that you will get blockbuster games on PC less, and
they will primarily appear on consoles.

Well, if the console games are as boring as the PS2 and XBox games of
today (just with better graphics), I may just as well give up gaming
altogether at that point.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 4:23:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:22:34 GMT, The Grand Wombat
<wombatgrand@hotmail.com> wrote:

>You've hit the nail on the head, here. In the last year, I've seen shelf
>space for PC games be cut in half in the local software stores. It does
>remind me of the shrinking Mac sections of years past, but it reminds me a
>lot more of the shrinking sections for records and cassettes in music
>stores.
>
>If there's little shelf space, there's little sales. Even stores like

Have you taken into account the online sales here? (I am not talking
about Steam here)

I assume PC gamers buy games online more often than console gamers,
after all you use a PC to order your stuff online, not really
achievably that well on consoles even if some of them may have some
rudimentary online web browsing. ;-)

>And there's so little for a turn-based strategy gamer like me there, I
>don't even know why I bother looking anymore.

Consoles are your answer then? Turn-based strategy games are a true
niche market, there must be around 10 people around the world still
interested in them. Lack of them hardly says anything about the
"demise of PC gaming", it just says there aren't enough people
interested in that niche market.

Are consoles in trouble because there are less and less 2D shooters on
them? I mean, SNES and even Sega Saturn had more of them.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 4:26:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:30:52 GMT, Spalls Hurgenson <yoinks@ebalu.com>
wrote:

>Nonetheless, 2004 was a pretty poor year for PC games, with only a few
>"must haves"; hopefully next year (erm, this year :)  will be better.

It is interesting though that 2004 is touted as a poor year for PC
games, even though it had two of the most awaited action games
released (Doom 3 and Half-life 2), and other high-profile games as
well like FarCry, Rome: Total War and Forgotten Battles. I've seen far
worse years PC gaming-wise.

What would you call a "a good PC gaming year" then? Hopefully in this
millenium.
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 5:22:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

I'm personally surprised thats all they dropped. But the bulk of the buying
must certainly be FPS and RTS games which are artificially keeping the genre
going. Otherwise PC gaming is either dead or stagnating. Certainly theres no
good strategy, space or flight sim games coming out. I cant remember the
time I last saw a new fun playable imaginative game on the horizon, except
Silent Hunter 2 (perhaps) and thats still a sequel.

Developers are all money based these days, theres no fun factor in the
industry now.

--
Regards
Nats

"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."

"Joe62" <jmcginnNOSPAM@radicalREALLYNOSPAM.ca> wrote in message
news:05piv09q5p81rhg530de2u8f23cqsr3l28@4ax.com...
> On 26 Jan 2005 18:44:27 -0800, "HangFire" <hangfirew8@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
>>*yawn* ... another "PC gaming is dead" thread to kill... and after
>>2004, the biggest year in PC gaming ever.
>
> Huh? I don't appreciate the trolls any more than you do, but PC game
> sales dropped 12% last year:
>
> http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/stocks/troywolverton/10...
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 5:42:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

I thought Microsoft was going to produce their next console with harddrive
etc? This would make is very similar to a PC. All PCs are are consoles with
a harddrive and non standard components. Once someone produces a decent
console with a harddrive and internet access that can play games equivalent
to a PC I for one will be glad to get rid of this rubbish machine - PCs are
just far too much trouble. Every game you get seems to be unstable in some
way because of your particular set up. And no matter how fast your machine
is theres always a new game that will play too slowly on it. And older games
play far too fast. Give me a decent stable gameplaying machine anyday. As
long as it can connect to a printer and be used as a wordprocessor etc I
wont be worried about leaving PCs behind.

--
Regards
Nats

"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
<richardhutnik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106922890.914948.157110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> When Brad Wardell starts developing exclusively for consoles, then you
> know the world has come to an end. As of now, consoles do not get
> moddable games, or enough strategy titles. Massive Multiplayer is also
> lacking.
>
> PC gaming, at this stands now, is the entry point for people into the
> business. Doing mods also is a major subset of this.
>
> So, no PC gaming won't ever die. Become marginalized, yes, but not
> die.
>
> - Richard Hutnik
>
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 6:27:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Hi,

Nats <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
#And no matter how fast your machine
#is theres always a new game that will play too slowly on it.

I have D3 and HL2. Not only does it play fast on my "top" machine, they
play fast on my 3.5 year old "second" machine, albeit turned down to
1024x768 and medium detail. The older PC wasn't even top-flight when it
was bought, either.

# And older games play far too fast.

Too fast? hahahaha

So you've been out of PC gaming for how long, more than a decade? The
last major game that played "too fast" that I know of was Falcon 3.0...
it survived anyway because it was ground-breaking, but was heavily
criticized for that feechur. The nature of the Intel/Microsoft megahertz
escalation has required game makers to take different speeds into
account since the days when 386's became affordable.

The real game obsolecense came when XP came out, that would be a valid
criticism. DOS box emulation fixes most of that.

# Give me a decent stable gameplaying machine anyday.

Sure, you can have it. There will always be least-common-denominator,
closed-box hardware on the market for the Joe Average User. Have you
seen the new MiniMac? Sounds just right for you.

As
#long as it can connect to a printer and be used as a wordprocessor etc I
#wont be worried about leaving PCs behind.

Huh? So you really want to use your game console as a PC as well? I
think what you want has already been done, you want an Atari 800XL or a
Coleco Adam or something like that.

Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Close the VT SVC Ctr boondoggle and
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | return services to local CIS offices!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 3:16:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

there are 8 million stories in the uncanny valley riku
<riku@invalid.none.com> told one of them in
news:hnekv0tlqnshv92pss2if03ljjq22agoek@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:22:34 GMT, The Grand Wombat
> <wombatgrand@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You've hit the nail on the head, here. In the last year, I've seen
>>shelf space for PC games be cut in half in the local software stores.
>>It does remind me of the shrinking Mac sections of years past, but it
>>reminds me a lot more of the shrinking sections for records and
>>cassettes in music stores.
>>
>>If there's little shelf space, there's little sales. Even stores like
>
> Have you taken into account the online sales here? (I am not talking
> about Steam here)

I don't think they're significant to the point where shelves and shelves
get turned over to console games. Or DVDs, which certainly aren't less
likely to be ordered online.

>
> Consoles are your answer then? Turn-based strategy games are a true
> niche market, there must be around 10 people around the world still
> interested in them.

Sales of Civ 3 say otherwise. The software companies would have more
success with this genre, if they simply tried more often. But it's not
flashy enough to make a huge splash, so we wind up with a few impressive
products that sell well and a lot of mediocrity that looks good and plays
awful.

The demand's there, it just isn't being served.


--
The Grand Wombat - maker of the 100,000,000th post to Usenet!!
mhm 20x10
meow -- wombats r us
January 29, 2005 3:38:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <1106919231.314632.142000@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
mmaker@my-deja.com says...
> nospam@nospam.com wrote:
> > The cinematic
> > experience of playing games on a 50 inche screen with full blasting
> > 5.1 audio simply cannot be matched by computer.
>
> Yeah, why would I want to play games at 75fps on a progressive display
> with 7.1 sound when I could be playing at 25fps on an interlaced
> display with 5.1?
>
> Sarcasm aside, I can see some benefits: the only console game I've
> liked enough to play much was 'Point Blank', and shooters like that
> with gun controllers would probably benefit substantially from big
> displays without losing much from low frame rates. But otherwise... why
> would I sacrifice the quality of a PC monitor and sound card for an
> HDTV display?

Which big displays do those guns actually work with?

DLP? LCD? LCOS? RP-anything?

Plasma?

FP-anything?
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 4:23:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

I was once an avid pc gamer finishing on average 1-2 games a month.
But that was like 5, 10 years ago. Lately, other than CNC Generals
and Battlefield, I haven’t played any games extensively. Maybe it’s
because I just moved in to a house and there’s a lot of chores to do.
Mostly, it’s because the lack of interesting titles to me. HL2, Doom3
are interesting enough titles but my vintage 9700Pro can’t run them
well at high enough resolution. If I dumb down the resolution, I
might as well just play Doom3 on Xbox.



There are so much more to do now than during the PC gaming heydays of
a decade ago. DVD watching is taking away a lot of my free time and
after work, chores, maintaining the yard, the car and a baby on the
way, I simply don’t have much time left. The days when I can spend a
whole weekend trying to get the 8 Bit SB card working with the Trident
Video card is a luxury I don’t have anymore. Granted PC games are a
lot easier to run on today’s almost standardised PC platforms. But
people are a lot busier and have a lot to chose from for their
entertainment hours.



Here in Canada, people say the NHL doesn’t matter as much as they did
in 1994 because people have a lot more to do now. And that’s true to
PC gaming as well. 200 channel cable, ton of DVD movies, HDTV,
sports, Hollywood, there’s a lot more that we can do comparing to 10
years ago and who wants to spend their precious free time to try to
get their PC games working.



And after getting their PC games to run, you think today’s kids would
want to spend 5 hours to learn how to play Civ 3?



Things come and go, I used to be an avid music lover and remembered
the days when Madonna and Michael Jackson romped the earth, when they
were the biggest celebrities. Now can anymore name the best selling
albumns and artists of the past couple of years? I can’t. PC gaming
will go the same path and become the board game of the new millenium.



Unless, Nvidia and ATI come to the resuce, Civ4 and Playboy Mansion
cannot save the industry alone.
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 8:18:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"One Punch Mickey" <fantantiddlyspan@hotmail.com> wrote:

>dealing with 'video games' as a whole. According to what I can see from the
>latest Entertainment Software association figures, PC gaming dollar and unit
>sales *fell* by a few percent in 2004...

12% according to this source:

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/stocks/troywolverton/10...

Joe
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 11:14:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:23:48 GMT, nospam@nospam.com wrote:

>And after getting their PC games to run, you think today’s kids would
>want to spend 5 hours to learn how to play Civ 3?

I don't think kids of today are really that different of kids of 80s
or 70s. Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3? No, they were
playing simple 2D space shooting games (Space Invaders, Galaga etc.),
Pac Man, Dig Dug, platform jumping games etc. Think of Atari VCS or
Mattel Intellivision, did they have games like Civ 3?

Anyway, as those kids (who played those simplistic games on early
consoles and home computers) grew up, they started demanding more from
their games. That's when they started getting interested in more
demanding and deeper games.

I don't see why this should be any different for the kids of today.

>Things come and go, I used to be an avid music lover and remembered
>the days when Madonna and Michael Jackson romped the earth, when they
>were the biggest celebrities. Now can anymore name the best selling
>albumns and artists of the past couple of years? I can’t. PC gaming
>will go the same path and become the board game of the new millenium.

Probably not, unless there will be an open-source console which is
open for all game developers, without licenses. Till then, PC will
always be the platform for new game developers to try their wings.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 11:18:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:42:43 -0000, "Nats"
<nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>I thought Microsoft was going to produce their next console with harddrive
>etc?

LOL! Apparently you didn't know XBox (the existing console) already
has a harddrive, while XBox 2 apparently will not?

>This would make is very similar to a PC.

Is XBox with its hard drive "very similar" to a PC? No.

You forget that there are much more differences between consoles and
PC than mere harddrive (or keyboard/mouse for that matter). The
biggest difference is that PCs are open platforms, and there are no
licences or restrictions to the new developers on it.
February 1, 2005 11:26:09 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"riku" wrote

> I don't think kids of today are really that different of kids of 80s
> or 70s. Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3?

Obviously not.

> No, they were
> playing simple 2D space shooting games (Space Invaders, Galaga etc.),
> Pac Man, Dig Dug, platform jumping games etc. Think of Atari VCS or
> Mattel Intellivision, did they have games like Civ 3?

No.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 3:39:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:26:09 GMT, "Vince"
<vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>"riku" wrote
>
>> I don't think kids of today are really that different of kids of 80s
>> or 70s. Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3?
>
>Obviously not.
>
>> No, they were
>> playing simple 2D space shooting games (Space Invaders, Galaga etc.),
>> Pac Man, Dig Dug, platform jumping games etc. Think of Atari VCS or
>> Mattel Intellivision, did they have games like Civ 3?
>
>No.

I should have mentioned they were rhetorical questions, but I assumed
everyone understood that.
February 1, 2005 7:26:19 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"riku" wrote
> "Vince" wrote:
>>"riku" wrote
>>> I don't think kids of today are really that different of kids of 80s
>>> or 70s. Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3?

>>Obviously not.

>>> No, they were
>>> playing simple 2D space shooting games (Space Invaders, Galaga etc.),
>>> Pac Man, Dig Dug, platform jumping games etc. Think of Atari VCS or
>>> Mattel Intellivision, did they have games like Civ 3?

>>No.

> I should have mentioned they were rhetorical questions, but I assumed
> everyone understood that.

"Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3?" is not a rhetorical question;
It's a stupid question.

I think everyone understood that.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 7:36:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:26:19 GMT, "Vince"
<vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>>>> I don't think kids of today are really that different of kids of 80s
>>>> or 70s. Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3?
>
>>>Obviously not.
>
>>>> No, they were
^^

>>>> playing simple 2D space shooting games (Space Invaders, Galaga etc.),
>>>> Pac Man, Dig Dug, platform jumping games etc. Think of Atari VCS or
>>>> Mattel Intellivision, did they have games like Civ 3?
>
>>>No.
>
>> I should have mentioned they were rhetorical questions, but I assumed
>> everyone understood that.
>
>"Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3?" is not a rhetorical question;
>It's a stupid question.
>
>I think everyone understood that.

Still wrong. Anyone, except the stupid ones, would know the answer is
obvious. I even gave the answer right after that, the word starting
with "N...". Heck, I even highlighted it for you, if you have
comprehension problems.

Did you have any point to make, or are you just being an ass? That's
ok, I understand.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 1:43:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

> > Sarcasm aside, I can see some benefits: the only console game I've
> > liked enough to play much was 'Point Blank', and shooters like that
> > with gun controllers would probably benefit substantially from big
> > displays without losing much from low frame rates. But otherwise... why
> > would I sacrifice the quality of a PC monitor and sound card for an
> > HDTV display?
>
> Which big displays do those guns actually work with?
>
> DLP? LCD? LCOS? RP-anything?
>
> Plasma?
>
> FP-anything?

I just hooked up my old Dreamcast to see if House of the Dead 2
would work with the gun on my new 52" DLP and (as I expected) it
would not work :( 

That would be so SWEET to play that game on that big screen too!

Hi ho...

Kevin
February 4, 2005 1:34:33 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <jgeuv0trdc8qnagrgbdou0p2q1ifm19rgj@4ax.com>,
riku@invalid.none.com says...
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:42:43 -0000, "Nats"
> <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I thought Microsoft was going to produce their next console with harddrive
> >etc?
>
> LOL! Apparently you didn't know XBox (the existing console) already
> has a harddrive, while XBox 2 apparently will not?
>
> >This would make is very similar to a PC.
>
> Is XBox with its hard drive "very similar" to a PC? No.

Yes. Its pentium 3, with a geforce "2.5", a regular old ide hard drive,
ram, and runs an OS that is essentially a stripped down windows.
(windows 2000 iirc.)

> You forget that there are much more differences between consoles and
> PC than mere harddrive (or keyboard/mouse for that matter). The
> biggest difference is that PCs are open platforms, and there are no
> licences or restrictions to the new developers on it.

That really doesn't differentiate the device from a technical
standpoint, which is the relevant one here.

Essentially Microsoft built a PC, told people they'd have to pay them to
release software for it, and called it an xbox.

A similiar example is Fedora Core vs Red Hat Linux. They are essentially
the same operating system, differing only in terms of the support and
licensing terms. That is pretty much the degree of difference between an
xbox and a pc. Very nearly nil.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 11:07:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 22:34:33 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <jgeuv0trdc8qnagrgbdou0p2q1ifm19rgj@4ax.com>,
>riku@invalid.none.com says...
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:42:43 -0000, "Nats"
>> <nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >I thought Microsoft was going to produce their next console with harddrive
>> >etc?
>>
>> LOL! Apparently you didn't know XBox (the existing console) already
>> has a harddrive, while XBox 2 apparently will not?
>>
>> >This would make is very similar to a PC.
>>
>> Is XBox with its hard drive "very similar" to a PC? No.
>
>Yes. Its pentium 3, with a geforce "2.5", a regular old ide hard drive,
>ram, and runs an OS that is essentially a stripped down windows.
>(windows 2000 iirc.)

The technical specs are not relevant here, but how the system is and
can be used. Just putting a PC CPU into a console does not make it a
PC.

Since XBox2 won't even have a "PC CPU" (Intel or AMD), does that mean
it is less a PC than its predecessor?

>> You forget that there are much more differences between consoles and
>> PC than mere harddrive (or keyboard/mouse for that matter). The
>> biggest difference is that PCs are open platforms, and there are no
>> licences or restrictions to the new developers on it.
>
>That really doesn't differentiate the device from a technical
>standpoint, which is the relevant one here.

Quite wrong. The technical specs are irrelevant here. A console does
not replace a PC just because it has a PC CPU and a hard drive, if the
console still can't and won't do what a PC does.

>Essentially Microsoft built a PC, told people they'd have to pay them to
>release software for it, and called it an xbox.

It can't replace the PC behemoth until it becomes an open platform
where one can use any of a number of dev tools, there are no license
fees to prevent new programmers entering it, etc.

The thing that differentiates PCs from consoles is that the former are
an open platform with various hardware manufacturers, standardized
ports (backwards compatibility) and no license fees. The CPU or
graphics chip inside the box is quite irrelevant.

>A similiar example is Fedora Core vs Red Hat Linux. They are essentially
>the same operating system, differing only in terms of the support and
>licensing terms. That is pretty much the degree of difference between an
>xbox and a pc. Very nearly nil.

Hogwash. The technical differences are not really important.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 11:54:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On the 1 Feb 2005, riku <riku@invalid.none.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:23:48 GMT, nospam@nospam.com wrote:
>
> >And after getting their PC games to run, you think today’s kids would
> >want to spend 5 hours to learn how to play Civ 3?
>
> I don't think kids of today are really that different of kids of 80s
> or 70s. Were the kids of early 80s playing Civ 3? No, they were
> playing simple 2D space shooting games (Space Invaders, Galaga etc.)

Well, I and a lot of my friends back then were playing a complex 3D
space shooting and trading game - Elite.

When I was a kid, I quite enjoyed more complex games. IIRC, my first
strategy game was Yellow River Kingdom on the BBC B. Later, I went on
to play Sim City, Sim City 2000 and various football management games.

It wasn't until I went to Uni and got a PC that I could really go nuts
buying strategy games, though.

--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.

nospam@jades.org /is/ a real email address!
Anonymous
February 19, 2005 12:25:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.tv.tech.hdtv,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.sports,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

How many times do we have to endure these over-reacting "the end of
computer gaming" nonsense? They've been saying this ever since
Nintendo consoles hit mainstream. Computer games are still around,
although a lot of genres have died.

The only way computer games will completely die is if home computer
dies. That's when humans have finally discovered the secret of sorcery.
!