Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PC gamer/got a xbox360 & gears of war = very disappoint

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 30, 2006 8:50:36 AM

Girlfriend bought me an xbox360 for my birthday i got gears of war, the graphics are nice but nothing really special, and the game play is terrible, i played it for two hours last night and got bored it's the same action repeated again and again: run, take cover, aim and fire, this game got rave reviews so i was expecting something good, theres alot of people wondering if this is coming to the pc, trust me your not missing anything, is it just me or is gaming in general getting boring. anyone one else of the same opinion
November 30, 2006 9:55:59 AM

I don’t like that it takes about 20 shots to kill someone in the game when you have the skill setting set to hard... I mean would in not be better to make the AI work harder than just to simply make the enemy take more hits?, unrealistic in that sense.

If you have a PC then this game is nothing new to gaming, it does offer good graphics but very little substance. Multiplayer is good but by no means great, why cant Microsoft make it that instead of hosting servers on your own 360 you could do just like the PC’s do and have commercial servers and servers running off players PC’s or something?
November 30, 2006 6:57:23 PM

Quote:
Girlfriend bought me an xbox360 for my birthday i got gears of war, the graphics are nice but nothing really special, and the game play is terrible, i played it for two hours last night and got bored it's the same action repeated again and again: run, take cover, aim and fire, this game got rave reviews so i was expecting something good, theres alot of people wondering if this is coming to the pc, trust me your not missing anything, is it just me or is gaming in general getting boring. anyone one else of the same opinion



That can be said for every single game that has ever been released since:
Wolfenstien 3d
Command and conquer.

hell even further back then that. I just never played those.

Serisouly think about it. All these new games only offer better eye candy, and online play. other then that, there are only so many angles to take on a shooter game, or an RTS game.

You either run for cover and shoot bad guys.
Or you manage the same resource pool and mass tanks to obliterate your enemy.
Related resources
December 1, 2006 8:05:23 AM

Sounds like you have been out of the loop for a while, games are getting a lot more complex and diverse than they were in the Wolfenstien 3D days, a game where you could not even look up or down or even jump. You have games like Battle Field that give you a mixture of first person play style mixed with playable tanks and aircraft, even submarines and battle ships. There have even been FPS and RTS mixed games like Command and Conquer Renegade (that was not so good) and Natural Selection (which is probably the best Half Life mod in history).

Games still have a long way to go as well I think, with hardware accelerating you will see more games that are mixing with more genres. Something more of a Deus Ex style where it mixes RPG and FPS in to one game. Hell you could even call Battle Field 2142 an RPG in the way it lets you upgrade your player, if it was not for the lack of a story it probably would be.

I can just imagine games coming out that are FPS, RTS and RPG all mixed in to one where you will have a story online that is needed to be played through. None of this MMORPG crap hardly present story shit either a proper story that lets 10 or more player’s play through a game all together… Hey I have a great idea… Maybe I have said too much… I’m off to design a game :lol: 
December 5, 2006 10:56:07 AM

The problem is you're a pc gamer playing a console game. I can't bring myself to play any game on a console except a beat em up or a party type game like Monkey Ball.

Just remember for future reference that consoles are poo and forever will be poo once you get into pc gaming.
December 5, 2006 2:26:02 PM

Don’t know about that... I loved my Dreamcast, even enjoy playing my PS2 for a fair few hours here and there when I get back from work. I guess what it is, is a case where Microsoft are trying to get the 360 to imitate or even take over the PC but they simply just don’t have the content to do so… But it wont stop them trying.

What you will find soon is a lot of 360 exclusives in more things than just FPS type games. And the last thing I want to go through again is a time when I really want to play a game like Fable or Final Fantasy but cant because they are consol exclusives.

This will probably be the most expensive year I have had yet:

*Got a 360 at the start of the year (£280)
*Got a new widescreen monitor to play games on my PC and 360 (£300)
*New PC upgrade because of PCI Express and DDR2 (900 fecking quid)
*PS3 from Hong Kong (£280)
*50” DLP 1080p for the sodding PS3 (£900)

I need to start drinking again…
December 5, 2006 5:24:39 PM

I agree with all of your comments. I've been a PC gamer since the x386 days and I'm still a PC gamer. Yeah, I went out and bought a PS2 when it first came out, but I'm having a hard time trying to decide if I want to buy a PS3 or 360 console.

The only games that I think are great on console systems are fighting games, sports games, and 3rd person games.

I could not imagine playing a RTS or FPS on a console system. It just doesn't work.

Also, I heard that many future games will only be released on the console systems and will never make it to the PC arena. For an example, Call of Dutiy 3 has no plans on being released on the PC, although it was first introduced as a PC FPS. If game developers force me into buying a console for a game, I will be extremely pissed. COD3 has already got me going.

The only game that I can't wait for is the New Rainbow Six- Vegas on the PC that should be releaed by mid-Dec.
December 5, 2006 6:19:49 PM

You know whats happening, and why consoles are going to win the Game wars against pc's?

Becuase everyone spends too much cash upgrading. Seriously, just like previous poster said.. you spent 900 quid on a new system... Ive spent 1400$ cad. and I still cant play the newest games at the max resolution setting..

Its getting rediculous.. Not only that, you need to constantly upgrade. Dont get me wrong, I love PC games, but its getting to a point where the game manfucatures want to push the highest quality settings when the majority of the users cant even play the game.

A perfect example is Tribes 2. When it came out, i twas ground breaking. Awesome online play, everything about it was terrific. But you know why it suffered? Not because of lack of support. But because no one could run the stupid thing on their system unless they had over 1000$ to upgrade.

Id rather just spend 400-500$ on a PC that I can use for videos, music, downloading the what not, internet, work, and buy my self an xbox 360.
Cuz right now for 400$ I can get my self an x360 that plays the latest games and displays amaizng on my TV.

And this is why PC games are loosing out to the consoles.
Console systems games are better optimized all around. Weve got all these stupi dPC games that are optimized to shit and cant run properly on the best of systems because they dont take full advantage of the drivers.

And as long as the developers push for console releases, the PC gamers will get tier 2 level games as the publishers are too lazy to optimize for a smaller market.. which is true.. When you got a console like an X360, you can run all games on the x360.

when u got a PC, you do not know if your specs can handle the latest game. Why release to a group of people in which 20% can run the game the way its meant to be played, 30% have driver and display issues, and 50% have less then the minimum requirements?

and from a business perspective, I dont blame them either. The only thing that the PC market has over the console market is real time strategy games. Thats the only gaming genre that the console cannot beat.
December 5, 2006 9:41:21 PM

Hmmmm..... Im sure your xbox on a standard tv looks just amazing. :p 
BTW do you pay the monthly xbox live fee? Why pay for game patches that should be FREE. I only pay for internet and I get FREE game play with no subscription.
With the money saved I can buy new parts. As for games just borrow you bro's and crack em.
December 6, 2006 8:16:35 AM

You’re forgetting about that £900 DLP and the sodding PS3 that I am shelling out for. The thing is I have not upgraded my PC for about 2 years now and when I did all that I changed was a £200 GFX card that has only just started to show it’s age with the new monitor I got.

I have had to shell out for three consoles every three or four years now and at £200 a piece on average that’s not really much cheaper than the PC upgrades. Also the premium I now have to pay on the games that are made for the consoles because they are now sold at a loss is a very unattractive thing to have to go and pay for. Reminds me of the PSX games before the major price cut on all games from £49.99 to £39.99 back in 1999 (£50 = $100).

I want to also comment on what you said about games on consoles surpassing games on the PC… I just don’t believe that to be true. First Person titles for instance are almost always much better than the console variant. Not only because of the simple fact that the keyboard and mouse control system is much better suited to that type of game, but because there is simply still to this day more choice.

You will start to see games that have been designed for the PC that will simply need more power than the console has to offer and will have to either be redesigned or not produced for the console market at all. You can already see this in effect already with games like Oblivion. I originally got this game for the X360 and it did run well and did look great but after I tried it out on my PC I noticed the version for the PC looks even better and with a few upgrades will run much better too. Already you can build a PC that has about four times as much graphics horsepower as the X360 and it wont be too long before something like that becomes more affordable.

PC gaming is here to stay and nothing, not even a console that is able to upgrade will take that away. PC is a universal tool for not only entertainment but work and organisation and even information and education too. And because of that the PC has a wider customer base than any if not all consoles ever will.
December 6, 2006 11:28:33 AM

I definately agree with all those poins. However, in response to your Oblivion comment, while it does look spectacular on a 400$ cad. xbox360, in order to match the same detail on a computer you need at a minimum a 800$ rig.

As for shelling out the extra cash every 2 years to buy a new system, that is because you are not content with the first system you bought. The original xbox that came out has been in the market for almost 5 years if not longer. And they are still making content for it. The Xbox360 has already been out for 1 year. YOu bought the PS3 because you had to have one not because of any other reason. What I am trying to say here is that while you may have spent the dough to but another PS3, I wouldn't have since I would have already owned an X360, and I tend to stick it out with what I got, and not purchase a ps3 at the issanely high price.

The x360 is an impressive machine. While on a standard TV it may not look as great, it still plays and does look better then anything I have seen on any of my pc's.. (well thats pending, I am getting a 7800 GTX OC today, so time will tell how amazing it is). The x360 will be around for a solid 3-4 years.

If you compare to computer upgrade time, every 2 years you need a major upgrade if you want to stay up to date. This is more then 800$ as all the parts are different in that point in time.. DDR1 to DDR2 for example... or 478 pin to 775.

Of course PC gaming is here to stay. It was just my cynical mind talking. But I thikn you can see what I mean. For those who dont have the cash to afford expensive computers to stay up today for the gaming alone, would deifnatley look into a console for their gaming purposes.

Lets be honest, you do not need more then a 1ghz p3, 5123 mb ram to do your homework, watch videos, burn music/dvds. Infact I had a p3 733 for the last 5 years. I nevert used it for gaming. It ran windows Xp great, played my movies, my music, did all my school work. Now it cost a bit more when it first came out, but now what is worth? 80$?? But I didn't have to upgrade to a faster computer. Infact if it was just games that I wanted the Xbox360 has a lot of titles.. But I can afford to upgrade and have more systems in my hose so I did.. I hope you see the perspective I am talking about here. Computers are needed for work purposes. No doubt about it. Infact every household needs a computer that can at least access the internet and use word. Its a very usefull tool.

As for online gaming, x360 as far as I know costs 70$ a year for gold membership. Which also comes with a 20$ off any game purchase. Sony's systems, say you just upgrades from a ps2 to a ps3, has free online gaming. There are many pc games that require monthly subscriptions as well... WOW? Eve?? those games cost over 100$ a year to play and be subscribed ontop of your internet cost. If people can afford to do that, then I dont see what the big deal with paying less then 5$ permonth for yearly xboxLIVE.

As for pirating games. This is a flaw in the other posters argument. If you realy want, you can hack your x360 and also download and burn games for that system too. Same with the original XBOX with the mod chip. Except that you cant play online. This is no different the PC's though as a hacked game most likely wont play online.... except for maybe the first week of its release until a patch gets rid of it.
December 6, 2006 1:31:31 PM

You mentioned that $70 (more than $100 in the UK) but what do you get for this payment:

*Friends List
*The ability to leave voice messages
*Can download demos and updated content

Well I don’t know about you but I can do all that and a hell of a lot more for free on my PC. It’s all about Microsoft trying to make back all that they lost on the console and more. It costs you £8 to change your user name for goodness sake, which made me real mad.

Also you where talking about MMORPG’s costing you money per month to play, are you forgetting that the same games cost you just as much on top of your monthly pay to Microsoft for the same games when used on the X360, games such as Phantasy Star Online and Final Fantasy 11. You can’t really justify what you are being charged to use and lets face it a really shitty system for connecting your Xbox to the Internet. The Dreamcast had better features for connecting online and that’s a console that was released a good 6 years ago.

You can also use the PC and the Internet for things like downloading old games free over the Internet like Enemy Territory and the GTA back catalogue amongst a whole other load of games that are completely free and legal to download off the Internet.

I just can’s see consoles eating in to the PC hardware market any time soon, maybe if the console became and add-on for the PC where you could literally link it in to your PC and use that to do all the graphics processing and CPU calculations then yeh maybe it will completely over take stand alone PC gaming but not when the PC and the console are separate entities.
December 6, 2006 2:04:56 PM

I thinkl you are missing the generaization that I am making. Of course you cant compare the console to a pc when it comes too downloading and working. AT least not yet anyway. But eventaully there will come a point in which consoles will be like Media PC's, and have the capabilities - or at least very similar capabilities to that of a pc in regards to downloading, surfing the net. I could very well see in a couple of years this market being looked into..

The ps3 has free online game play. So I dont understand why you are only using that as a comparison and not using other systems as well.. The dream cast is also a console. I am talking about consoles in general. The x360 is a good system, but, its not the only good system. I am making a comparison between gaming on pc's and gaming on consoles and the eventaul switch.

Tell me, if you purchase Gears of War for the Xbox 360, and put it in the xbox 360, dont you epxect the xbox 360 to run it since it s agmae made for the x360?

if u buy the same game for the pc 1 year down the road woudn't u expect your pc to run it? But it might not because you haven't upgraded. In that sense, the console world is superior to the pc world. no upgrades. 1 game works on all systems. Less developemnt time is done overall to account for different system specs, or multiple textures..
December 7, 2006 1:49:39 AM

Your missing the point. What happens when the xbox 720, ps4, etc come out? You will have to upgrade, hence making all your games useless. Granted I will have upgraded my pc, but not replaced it, yet. Nor will I have to buy new games at $50 a crack. See, WE BOTH WILL HAVE TO UPGRADE. In fact I have games on my system that are very old and I sometimes play. Like UT, tribes 1, sof2, etc..... 6+ years these games have been playable with supported servers. For free. Also 3rd party mods which make 1 game into 2. Like desert combat for bf1942.
Not to even get into game speed. Servers that run at 125%speed, can you aim that fast with a ps controller, hell no. I dont mean those games where the game helps you aim(lame). Ive played UT on the ps2 and it was a joke.
Plus your missing out on 64 man servers running bf2 etc. Drive tanks, apc's, hummers, heli's, jets, ......squad support. When the consloe servers reach 64 man, we'll be playing on 240 man servers. What about physics? Thats seems to be the next big thing.

Too me its a wash. Your going to spend money either way. So why not have a system that can do it all. Fast, beautiful, smooth.

mars<---who has paid for 2 games in 2 yrs and has chit load on system.

btw-from my experience most gamers find 1 or 2 games they really like, and just play those 1 or 2.
December 7, 2006 7:23:37 AM

Quote:

Your going to spend money either way. So why not have a system that can do it all. Fast, beautiful, smooth.


And you can't get porn on consoles either.
December 7, 2006 8:24:59 AM

Quote:
from my experience most gamers find 1 or 2 games they really like, and just play those 1 or 2.
From your experience… what are you, do you think your half the gaming populous or something. Gamers don’t play 1 or 2 games and they especially don’t play them for a long period of time. Go to any LAN party and you will find any gamer has on average about 10 or more games installed on there PC at any one time. Yes they have 1 or 2 games they prefer to play but by no means do they only play thoughts games and nothing else.

What I have been trying to say is that you will spend just as much on consoles as you will do on PC’s. The good thing about PC’s is that they have more than one use. Another good thing about them is they don’t need replaced when they get old, they just need certain parts replaced when needed. Games on the PC are also just as available as all the consoles put together.

So really unless there is a certain game franchise that is exclusive to that once console, there really is no point in actually buying one. This was my mistake with the 360 and I am now regretting it, as there is still no games for that console that are exclusives that I could not live with out playing. It really has just become a heavy looking paperweight on my desk next to my monitor.

Quote:
And you can't get porn on consoles either.
How could we forget the most important use for a PC :lol: 
December 7, 2006 1:29:01 PM

First off Im not debating the cost with you. The only thing Im debating is the value and quality of what you get for what it costs.

Quote:
from my experience most gamers find 1 or 2 games they really like, and just play those 1 or 2.
From your experience… what are you, do you think your half the gaming populous or something. Gamers don’t play 1 or 2 games and they especially don’t play them for a long period of time. Go to any LAN party and you will find any gamer has on average about 10 or more games installed on there PC at any one time. Yes they have 1 or 2 games they prefer to play but by no means do they only play thoughts games and nothing else.

What I have been trying to say is that you will spend just as much on consoles as you will do on PC’s. The good thing about PC’s is that they have more than one use. Another good thing about them is they don’t need replaced when they get old, they just need certain parts replaced when needed. Games on the PC are also just as available as all the consoles put together.

So really unless there is a certain game franchise that is exclusive to that once console, there really is no point in actually buying one. This was my mistake with the 360 and I am now regretting it, as there is still no games for that console that are exclusives that I could not live with out playing. It really has just become a heavy looking paperweight on my desk next to my monitor.

Quote:
And you can't get porn on consoles either.
How could we forget the most important use for a PC :lol: 

LOL have you been to a lan party? We used to have them every friday night. 2-3 games will get played by the majority of people. Yes pc gamers will have a lot of games on there system, but most will never get played unless someone begs to play it. For instanace, I recently installed 2142. Played 10 mins online and havent touched it since. Why? I guess Im not into it. Same with the new Ghost recon. Looks great, but time is precious and I dont have to to learn all the detail stuff in every game. BF games are very deep. Plus ranks etc...Why do you think so many people still play CS?
December 7, 2006 2:38:56 PM

Last LAN party I went to I must have played about 6 or 7 different games 4 where for tournaments.

Dawn of War
Battle Field 2
Counter Strike
FEAR
SWAT (that was fun)
Homeworld 2... dont know why we where playing that.
Black and white 2 was also played... I think it was just out that weekend...
December 9, 2006 9:21:11 AM

if u buy the same game for the pc 1 year down the road woudn't u expect your pc to run it? But it might not because you haven't upgraded. <-- lower ur graphic settings maybe? oh there u go =)
December 9, 2006 9:26:27 AM

and from a business perspective, I dont blame them either. The only thing that the PC market has over the console market is real time strategy games. Thats the only gaming genre that the console cannot beat. <~~ eh real time strategy? what about first person shooter and MMORPG games??? all those sucks on consoles
December 9, 2006 1:25:01 PM

Quote:
if u buy the same game for the pc 1 year down the road woudn't u expect your pc to run it? But it might not because you haven't upgraded. <-- lower ur graphic settings maybe? oh there u go =)


1year down the road the game would run exactlly the same as when you bought it. The engine that runs the game has not changed.
December 11, 2006 5:30:17 PM

well i finished gears of war, took about eight hours, turned out it wasn't that bad, the only problem i have with pc gaming is upgrading, i upgraded around 13 months ago and it cost me around 1500euro, in that time I've really only played 4 great games, now DX10 is coming out and i want to upgrade just to play crysis it will probably cost me around 1000euro, it just that when you upgrade you only get to play 3/4 AAA titles.
December 11, 2006 9:36:30 PM

Quote:
The problem is you're a pc gamer playing a console game. I can't bring myself to play any game on a console except a beat em up or a party type game like Monkey Ball.

Just remember for future reference that consoles are poo and forever will be poo once you get into pc gaming.



I have to disagree, some console games are better then PC games and some PC games are better then console games. But as the case with Gears of War is that its a FPS on a console. Most PC gamers are too used to FPS games on PC because FPS games are tailor made for PCs.
December 12, 2006 10:20:05 AM

Quote:
it just that when you upgrade you only get to play 3/4 AAA titles.
Don’t know about you but when I last upgraded, about 2 years ago now. I must have played about 60 to 70 different games on my PC and in that time I would say about 20 of them have been extremely pleasing to play. So when you say, “When you upgrade you only get to play 3/4 AAA titles.” I think you mean to say ‘you’ I think you mean to say ‘I’.

Also this is not true about FPS being tailor made for PC’s you may not have noticed that gears of war does not have any crosshair unless in aim mode. And also the un-aimed mode has a huge person plonked in your screen. Both those things would be very unwelcome in a PC title. It’s just that this game does not have any real life to it, making it dull. I just remember nearer to the end that I just wanted a part of the game where I could rest for a little and take in some story and background to this whole game and actually find out why all this was happening. Non of this happened and I finished the game with more questions than I started with. I actually gave out a sigh of relief that I had finally finished the game as the credits scrolled up my screen.
December 12, 2006 10:52:27 AM

well the only really good games that stand out in my mind in the last two years(or there abouts) are as follows, thief 3, Fear, battlefield 2(can only play single player cant get broadband looks great on my DLP projector and a decent sound system), Hitman(the new one)splinter cell CT, ES oblivion. and i really loved Far Cry,

The rest dark messiah, Half-life 2(over hyped to linear), prey were good but hardly worth the buy, i mostly play FPS but lately i'm just loosing interest in games, maybe it because the games aren't living up the hype and the constant disappointments are crushing my will to continue :lol: , to be honest the xbox360 doesn't really interested me, i used to be a console gamer for a long time until i built my first computer(amd 3200+ 9800pro 1GBram), and that was the end of that.
December 12, 2006 11:53:17 AM

I remember my first PC… 650MHz Athlon K6 I think, with 64MB’s of RAM and a voodoo 3 Unreal was sweet :o 

But games for me have been quite different I enjoyed Half Life 2 and Counter Strike Source has actually done me well for many months of game play. There has been many other games like Rome Total War and it’s medieval variant as well as games like Civilizations 4 that has made the time fly very well. I could really go on all day listing games that have rated very well with me but I have not got the time nor the will to do so and I suspect that many would not be bothered reading either.

Long story short I think you need to see the wider picture, it’s more than just the games you found fun. Many other people can find a great many games a lot more enjoyable than your self. PC’s have the good fortune of having a very wide array of people using them, which makes it a very good platform for releasing unorthodox games on. Some of these games can become huge classics while some will just appeal to a small minority.

As it stands Consoles just wont beat the PC with the way they are going just now. Just supporting the big company’s while not even giving the smaller company’s/games a chance is not the best way to work things in the long term…
December 12, 2006 1:25:26 PM

i agree, games like civ and RTW don't really appeal to me, i don't feel involved in the game when i play, the main issue i had with GOW was that the player is forced to play the game a certain way, i.e. running for cover and taking pop shots, this in it's self isn't a bad thing, but when this is the only way to play a game it gets old fast and this was only compounded by the fact that the game was fairly linear, this is what i didn't like about half-life, i think half-life got critical acclaim because of the features it brought to genre that no body had experienced before(i.e. physics) although Far Cry did steal some of it's thunder, i think this is why gears is receiving such good reviews because technically it is good(brilliant if you only ever played consoles games). I liked Far Cry because it is less restrictive at lets the player approach the situations from different angles. i like CS source and 1.6 but i really only get to play these games at lans, because i cant get broadband, i think FPS genre is stagnating nothing really grabs my attention anymore except the new crysis game which looks amazing. but then again graphics aren't everything i'll have to wait and see but as of now I'm really looking forward to playing this game, this game is the only thing driving my desire to upgrade to a new system. this leads back to my point i'll upgrade to a new system but only play 3/4 games that i really enjoy the rest are average or just some clone of another game i just cant really justify paying 1000 euro on a upgrade, although i dont only use my system for gaming, although when i built that was the only purpose for it i could lie and say it wasn't :lol: , i mainly use my current system(amd 3700,1GB OCZ Platnium 7800GT 256mb ) for watching films and listing to music although that would change big time if i had broadband
December 12, 2006 6:04:50 PM

I'll add myself to the group of PC gamers who only pick up a few titles a year and play them LOTS, when they find something they really like.

I find single player gaming in general immensely boring, so that extremely limits my enjoyment of a large spectrum of games. I have been playing online since my high-end 33.6 boca modem days playing WC2 on my 133mhz AST computer. I have enjoyed playing with other people so much(especially the same people regularly), I find it hard to enjoy solo play at all most of the time.

This year, the only games I played for any length of time were Quake 4 (single player only, which I really enjoyed), BF2, CSS and more recently WoW. I tried a LOT of other games (oblivion, nfs carbon, guild wars, x3 reunion, medieval total war 2, prince of persia, BF2142, star wars something or other [bf2 clone]), and the list goes on. I REALLY try not to limit my gaming and try everything, but as with the other poster, I tend to only find a few games per year that really grab my attention and hold it.

Guess I should get back to the main point of this thread. I cannot possibly imagine trying to play BF2 or CSS on a console. the controls would be impossible (for me) to play even half as well. Plus, the only piece of hardware I purchased in the last year was a $200 video card, which is still going strong. Mind you, because I have no console I know I am missing out on the new generations of fighting games, which I used to enjoy quite a bit in the early Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat days. That is all I feel I am missing, and i can live with that. I HAVE tried Halo, halo2, and one of the new xbox360FPS games, and although the XBOX was a drastic improvement in control once I got used to it from Halo, it was still no CSS or BF2 anyways.

side note: I will be buying a Nintendo Wii if I don't get one for christmas. this gaming system is in a league of its own as far as I'm concerned, it really fascinates me. that fighting game looks pretty fun too.
December 14, 2006 5:09:03 PM

Quote:
i got gears of war...the game play is terrible...run, take cover, aim and fire, this game got rave reviews so i was expecting something good...is it just me or is gaming in general getting boring. anyone one else of the same opinion


Yes, I agree with your opinion. This isn't an Xbox thing. It's not a PCs-are-better thing. This is games in general lacking depth.

(This is the part where a whole bunch of idiotic comparisons are made, and a whole lack of points. And then...)

Quote:
well i finished gears of war, took about eight hours, turned out it wasn't that bad


Man I wish that was the second post. This whole debacle could have been avoided. The parties involved must have personal agendas, because almost every point they made is biased, and poorly represented.

FPSs are better on PC: Lame argument, not true, based on personal preference, and whether the developers didn't screw up the conversion. And this is a third person shooter, not an FPS.

The only thing PCs do better is RTS: Also not true. Genre choices are again based on personal preference, but the main benefit of PCs isn't genres or game types, it's mods and independent development. And that's changing.

PCs have a bigger user base: Office users are not gamers! Solitaire doesn't count! I'd say, without data to back myself up, that they are equal. Because I don't care, and neither should you. Preference is the key, not how many people agree with you.

PCs cost more money! No, console cost more money! No...: Did it occur to you in this back-and-forth that they both cost a lot of money? Did you neglect to notice that every hobby worth doing costs a lot of money? Expect it; deal with it; live with it. And save money for what's important to you. I have more than both: a PC, console, handheld, PDA, and cell. Gaming is important to me, not the system it's running on.

Xbox Live doesn't give you anything new for the money: Did it occur to anyone else that most of that list of benefits was from Silver (FREE!) accounts? Silver gives you a friends list, the ability to send/receive messages, marketplace downloads, and other benefits like an identity that follows you in every game you play and a Gamerscore that shows what you've achieved in the games you play. Gold accounts give you all of that plus multiplayer, matchmaking (based on in game skill, connection speed, region, play style, etc.), tournaments, Game with Fame, and exclusive downloads (and I've likely forgotten something). No, you don't get all those features for free on a PC. And it's arguable whether it's worth it for you. (To me it is, probably because I have friends.)

You can get porn on a PC: I don't think I'll touch this, except to say, "Porn does not have a PC Exclusive sticker!"

From my experience...: It's really sad when one person negates the experience of another by saying, "You don't represent all gamers...but I do!" We are the vocal minority. Deal with it.

PCs can do more than game: So can consoles. Two words: hardware modifications. Guess what, with some hacking, you too can turn a cheap console into a cheap PC, and still play the console games on it. In fact, tons more than originally intended with emulation. It's like no-one reads anymore. Didn't anyone else see where the Xbox came from? Remember when DreamWorks started? Then GameWorks from that? Remember the picture of Bill Gates shaking Steven Spielberg's hand at a press conference? That's where the Xbox was born. It was supposed to be a media center. Not a media center PC, a media center. All your movies, music, gaming, web surfing, television, tivo, everything media. Developers wouldn't support it. Too ambitious they said. How about a console MS inquired. Sure was the resounding reply. And now we have the Xbox (and PlayStation for that matter) evolving into the dream media center.

Console will replace PCs some day: False. The functionality of the too is merging -- Games for Windows anyone? -- but there will always be a market for one device that's plug and play simple in the living room and another for work and geeking out in the study.

Here's what's important, "You gotta play the game that's right for you." (I feel sorry for anyone who knows that quote.) If you're a serious gamer, play both. But if you have money restrictions or a serious case of fanboism, get whichever one you want more. You could also try hybrid gaming. For example, hook your PC up to an HDTV and add a USB gamepad. Or you could hook up a console to a PC monitor and plug in a keyboard. That's what I do. In this argument, it has almost nothing to do with the features of the platform and almost everything to do with the games. The point of this thread was Gears of War was a little disappointing to a PC Gamer and with that I would have to agree.

Disclaimer:

I'm not disagreeing with everyone here, so shut up before you respond with, "I already said that!" Several of you had good points, but in those same posts, several of you were clouded and missed key points both in what you contended with and what you said. I'm not saying I know I'm right and your wrong, but so many things said here I felt weren't properly represented. Disagree all you like, but don't make any more stupid statements, or I will be a jerk again.
December 14, 2006 8:10:51 PM

Word.
Well put and I agree with your well thought out post.
December 14, 2006 8:33:21 PM

I have a dream...that all systems will not be judged by the color of their fanbois' faces, but by the content of their games. :wink:
December 15, 2006 5:27:17 AM

My room mate has an xbox 360. We recently rented Gears of War. I'm personally a PC Gamer, and just recently built a very nice rig.

That being said, Gears of War was an absolutely amazing game. I really believe that people who say it isn't good, pc gamer or not, must have a hard time liking any game at all.

The graphics were awesome. I was recently reading the new EGM review of GoW and what they said about the graphics really explained what I thought. They just seem natural and seem to flow. They look great, but you don't really notice them because they feel so natural.

The cover-shoot gameplay was a ton of fun. We played through on Cooperative mode on hardcore, and the game was just the right difficulty to require us to work together alot. One of us would distract machine gunners while one of us would shoot him. I personally liked to be somewhat of a specialist the entire game. I carried the sniper rifle from the moment we found it. My room mate would often distract a lot of the tougher monsters while I put slugs in their head. Laying cover fire while my partner flanked the enemies was also very satisfying.

The controls were well done, and I rarely ever had a problem controlling my character and having him do just what I want.

It was a refreshing change from the run and gun shooter style that most other games use. I have only two real complaints about the game. First, the game was way to short. We beat it in about 12-16 hours on hardcore. ****

*SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER*****Second, the final boss was an absolute joke. I mean really, an absolute joke. We first shot him a little, then we thought "THere has to be something we have to do. Lets try to get to that mounted machine gun up there", or "Maybe we have to find a light to kill all the bats first". We died a couple a times messing around, and then we just say f*** it. We both just unloaded on him, and whaddya know. He died. Worst end boss I've seen in a while.
December 15, 2006 10:05:02 AM

well here the review it got on XBOX 360 Gamer which i think is a bit overrated
"easily the best shooter ever gears will be the benchmark for all future games, there was no learning curve to the controls it was truly pick up and play, at last we have a game that is visually stunning and back by easy controls and superb game play 9/10" because of reviews like this, i was expecting something outstanding, don't get me wrong the game wasn't that bad hardly the best shooter ever.
December 15, 2006 11:08:22 AM

Quote:
The only thing PCs do better is RTS: Also not true. Genre choices are again based on personal preference, but the main benefit of PCs isn't genres or game types, it's mods and independent development. And that's changing.


great post VBDude, but I just wanted to add a bit to this portion. For me personally (and not everyone), the main benefit of the PC is MULTIPLAYER. I will state that I have never tried xbox live, so I have to base my opinion on the information I have read about it (mostly from live users).

So far (this may change), the pc platform has a LOT more multiplayer users on the internet for most games (I would imagine Halo would be a noted exception, but cannot confirm). There is also an infrastructure for many PC games where an independent user can set up their own server for friends or even the mass public to play together. Also, with PC multiplayer up to this point, the games which are played on both platforms seem to always have a larger maximum number of players per server in a PC game. That may not sound like much, but personally I LOVE games with a whole bunch of people play together (BF2 64 players for example). There is a lot more advantage in that environment to having a good "commander" player, and I love when a team is really working well together (even if we lose).

I think FF11 is also on console right? I guess there must be a few exceptions to the sheer "number of users" rule, but just MMORPG's? I would welcome anyone to correct me on that, because I would honestly love to learn that my Wii which I will have after Christmas, will support the number of players I'd really like to have.

oh, and because there are 3 consoles with 3 seperate online services which do not interact with eachother, the PC still allows the best method to be able to reach more players, because they are on a common platform.

I hope my post was not empty drivel, I tried to make a point, really! :) 
December 15, 2006 9:10:20 PM

You both had interesting points.

Quote:
Gears of War was an absolutely amazing game. I really believe that people who say it isn't good, pc gamer or not, must have a hard time liking any game at all.

The graphics were awesome. I was recently reading the new EGM review of GoW and what they said about the graphics really explained what I thought. They just seem natural and seem to flow. They look great, but you don't really notice them because they feel so natural.

The cover-shoot gameplay was a ton of fun. We played through on Cooperative mode...


Yes, the graphics are great. It's Unreal Engine 3. Why wouldn't they be? I just about died as everyone else did when I saw the first screenshots of UE3, and then fought for air again when I learned those screenshots were from GOW. The graphics are highly detailed, but the color brings back memories of Quake. Lots and lots of browns.

But the big difference between our experiences is that I play primarily single player when going through the main story. I haven't had a chance to play co-op or I'm sure I'd love the experience a lot more. While the AI is decent for your squad, it doesn't make the game play any less drab. Tactics are much harder to utilize when you're on your own.

I did like appreciate the banter among squad mates, and the exclamatory "Nice!" is still stuck in my head. There were also some interesting twists in the game play, like pushing a burning car to use as cover and light, or sneaking to avoid the creature sensitive to noise. But that's not what I remember most from the gameplay. The repetitiveness is.

Now before I go making my comments a definitive review, I'd like to point out that I haven't yet finished the game, so I'm very greatful you didn't spoil the end for me. I got to the fifth of six sections on hardcore, if I remember the details correctly, and took a break to hook up the Xbox to my recently purchased projector to watch a few movies. When I hooked the box back up to my game setup a week later, I'd lost interest in GOW. I can't make my final call on it till I finish it, as I do with all games. I just wanted to make you aware of how much impact your method of play can have on your ultimate enjoyment. It could be argued that if your playing with a fun enough friend, even a bad game will seem better if it has co-op, but I'll leave that to someone else to debate.

Quote:
I just wanted to add a bit to this portion. For me personally (and not everyone), the main benefit of the PC is MULTIPLAYER. I will state that I have never tried xbox live, so I have to base my opinion on the information I have read about it (mostly from live users).

So far (this may change), the pc platform has a LOT more multiplayer users on the internet for most games (I would imagine Halo would be a noted exception, but cannot confirm).


Actually, I didn't feel all that good about my own point myself, but I don't entirely agree with yours either. (I may need to study the platform benifits more. :wink:)  Though there is some truth to that as most people have their PC hooked up to the net, while fewer console users are. But again, the reason most PCs is hooked up to the net isn't for gaming.

Depending on the game you play, there may be a lot more players on PC, or there might be more on a console, but I don't think the statement is based on the platforms benifits. I think this is another preference thing. As we already know, some people prefer certain genres on certain platforms. Though people can choose there own way, the majority of FPS online gamers play on the PC. So in FPS gaming you'll find more people on the PC, generally.

But the old comparison of quantity vs. quality comes to mind. I don't think numbers are that important. It's who your playing with. I don't enjoy playing against people I don't know. I don't like their swearing, I don't like poor sportmanship, and I don't like losing. :p  The only time I played a game online and had a wave of good people playing was on Xbox Live with UNO, but that only lasted an hour before two jerks popped in and we had to create another game. I think I just had a bit of luck, not the norm.

I think the most important thing with multiplayer is which platform your friends are playing. That will be the one that will be the best for you.

As for the infastructure, Xbox Live lets you host your own games, heck it requires someone to host a game, but it doesn't allow Xboxes to be dedicated servers. That's the big difference. And support for more players in a game is rising...slowly...
December 15, 2006 10:34:13 PM

You make a very valid point about playing throug with a friend. I can definately think of a few parts of the game that would have been terrible without a partner.

I highly reccommend you get a friend to play through with you. It might make a huge difference.
!