HDTV Spells The End to Computer Gaming

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom