SHP Forums

Tawmis wrote:

jujigatame wrote:64-bit OS is an absolute must if you're buying a new PC today. New games are already requiring 2 GB RAM, it's only a matter of time until they start requiring 4 GB, and consequently, 64-bit OSs.

Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffft. Forget buy gaming for the PC. Console games is the way to go these days. Screw trying to need enough memory, the right DirectX version, big enough hard drive, the right sound card, blah blah blah.

These days? Console > PC for games.

Actually, I've had this mentality since about 2000... I might have missed out on some good games, but then again, I missed out on a lot of unnecessary computer upgrades too.

..dane

PC gamer for life here. I really enjoyed console games as a kid, but as an adult I have no desire to hook a console up to my TV and play everything via controller.

Funny to see PC gaming getting derided on a forum devoted to keeping it alive!!

The one thing that bothers me about consoles is the idiotic save point systems. The worst part is when games are ported (or designed concurrently) for the PC and save points are still used!

There are NO excuses for this laziness. PC games have been able to use a "save anywhere" system since the early-to-mid 1980s. Consoles at one time didn't have the capability to save anywhere and therefore needed save points, passwords, etc. That hasn't been the case in years and going back top the original Xbox (released in 2001), it was shown that console games could be made to save anywhere. But most developers don't do it since they're lazy and using save points is easier on them.

What really pisses me off is when these same assholes claim that their lazy design schemes create tension for the gamer. No, actually all it does is create frustration. If you need to disable a feature of the hardware in order to "create tension" then you should stop developing games.

Look at the two compared:

SAVE ANYWHERE: Save when you want and able to leave the game whenever you want/have to do so.

SAVE POINT: Can't save when you want and unless you want to start over (at least from your last save point), you need to desperately race around hoping to find a spot to save.

Yeah... I can see why using save points is so "great." Maybe it is if your life revolves around that one game, but as someone who actually has a life that goes beyond gaming, I'll stick with being able to save anywhere.

I'm resurrecting this thread ONCE AGAIN to highlight my amazement at some gamers. My example is Dragon Age: Awakenings.

I know some of you have played it and therefore might have encountered the same bug Maia did. It involved her losing her items (with no way to gain them back) after an encounter in a mine. I forget the actual name of the area, but this bug is well known among the DA community. There is a way around it, but it's annoying and unnecessary consideering how easily it could be patched by BioWare.

While reading the BioWare forum, I saw posts on this subject and was stunned to see how many people ONLY used quick saves or only saved once in a while. These very same people were angry that they had to redo a large chunk of the game or even start all over.

All I can say is: Good. I'm glad your game was ruined. While I think the bug is the result of some terrible programming, the fact these people seemingly forgot the "save now, save often" rule makes me laugh.

Maybe this is where some developers (and gamers) have come up with the idea that unless forced to save (i.e. save point), that they'll somehow forget to do so. The very idea of forgetting to save is foreign to me, but apparently not to some individuals.

If your computer crashed or lost all of your save games in a way that was beyond your control, I'd understand and sympathize. But to forget or neglect to save yourself? Wow. I hope these people have more common sense in real life.

I can't really disagree with that, although the last time I played a game that used save points (Dead Space) they were frequent enough where it wasn't really a problem.

My preference for PC gaming basically revolves around:

1) Using keyboard/mouse for FPS games
2) Adventure games
3) Strategy games

Also, for single-player gaming (which constitutes 99% of my gaming) I prefer sitting at a desk fairly close to the screen. Can't really put my finger on why, maybe I've just grown accustomed to it.

jujigatame wrote:Funny to see PC gaming getting derided on a forum devoted to keeping it alive!!

Many people don't back up their data very often (if at all) either...

audiodane wrote:Many people don't back up their data very often (if at all) either...

Yeah, that's true.

I back data up on CD, DVD, USB flash drives and an external hard drive. Yeah, I'm paranoid, but better that then losing a ton of files later.

jujigatame wrote: Funny to see PC gaming getting derided on a forum devoted to keeping it alive!!

This forums is mostly about the classic Sierra games.
There's absolutely NO NEED at all to have a 64 Bit OS System with 4GB of Ram and the latest video card and sound card to play these classic games. None. What. So. Ever. Especially when DOSBox is needed to play 90% of the games that are supported on here.

So for modern games, give me consoles. For classic games, my Windows XP 32Bit System is more than fine.

DeadPoolX wrote: The one thing that bothers me about consoles is the idiotic save point systems.

Where have I heard this before?

DeadPoolX wrote: Look at the two compared:
SAVE ANYWHERE: Save when you want and able to leave the game whenever you want/have to do so.
SAVE POINT: Can't save when you want and unless you want to start over (at least from your last save point), you need to desperately race around hoping to find a spot to save.

It depends on the game, entirely. The Save Point option is the same in Marvel Ultimate Alliance. And the Save Anywhere is the same on Both for like Dragon Age. Depends entirely on the developer not the console/PC option.

Not always, anyway.

Tawmis wrote:It depends on the game, entirely. The Save Point option is the same in Marvel Ultimate Alliance. And the Save Anywhere is the same on Both for like Dragon Age.

The game type is irrelevant. The point being that without the option to save whenever the player wants, the option to leave the game is extremely limited.

In order to play "save point" games, I have to schedule time and make sure NOTHING interrupts me. That's hardly realistic. It's not often you have a huge chunk of time to play video games.

There are only TWO instances in which I've found the "save point" system palatable:

1. The GTA games give you safe houses in which you can save your game. You can visit these safe houses (many are scattered through the city) anytime you wish. So if you need to stop playing, it's a quick drive to a safe house.

2. Batman: Arkham Asylum saves your game EVERY SINGLE TIME you enter or exit a room. That enables me to save whenever I want since it's easy to walk into a separate room.

But that's hardly the norm. Most games with a "save point" system make the player run around crazily, hoping to end the level or somehow find the one (or maybe two) spots they can actually save at.

That's not my idea of fun. If I have to lose my progress (or put off something important) simply to play long enough to FIND a place to save, then I won't play that game. A game is meant to be fun, not a chore.

Tawmis wrote:Depends entirely on the developer not the console/PC option.

Unfortunately, the platform does matter. Consoles have traditionally opted for save game methods unlike those on the PC. As I said before, passwords were once common. Then "save points" came into play. Despite the fact ALL of the consoles can easily allow the player to save when they want, developers choose the lazy way out BECAUSE they know console gamers have grown up without the expectation of saving whenever they wish.

This has leaked over to the PC since console gaming is more profitable than PC gaming. Retooling the game's save system for the PC would take too much time and cost too much money. This is despite the fact most PC gamers have long enjoyed the ability to save whenever they want.

DeadPoolX wrote:

Tawmis wrote:Depends entirely on the developer not the console/PC option.

Unfortunately, the platform does matter. Consoles have traditionally opted for save game methods unlike those on the PC. As I said before, passwords were once common. Then "save points" came into play. Despite the fact ALL of the consoles can easily allow the player to save when they want, developers choose the lazy way out BECAUSE they know console gamers have grown up without the expectation of saving whenever they wish.

This has leaked over to the PC since console gaming is more profitable than PC gaming. Retooling the game's save system for the PC would take too much time and cost too much money. This is despite the fact most PC gamers have long enjoyed the ability to save whenever they want.

My point is - this is not the case for all console games. You're blaming the console when it's the folks making the games. Dragon Age PC and XBOX360 - Save Anywhere. Mass Effect - PC/Console - Save Anywhere. Marvel Ultimate Alliance PC/XBOX360 - Save Points.

Yes, and my point is that developers are clinging to old console game creation methodology. They feel that since MOST console games haven't given the player the ability to save anywhere, they can continue the "save point" system and no one will question it.

The "save point" system was a staple of console games for a long time. It only hit the PC when console ports arrived or, in some cases, both the PC and console version were created at the same time.

Nowadays the trend should be the reverse of what's above: because consoles can use a "save anywhere" system (and obviously so can PCs), developers should abandon save points entirely.

Tawmis wrote:

jujigatame wrote: Funny to see PC gaming getting derided on a forum devoted to keeping it alive!!

This forums is mostly about the classic Sierra games.
There's absolutely NO NEED at all to have a 64 Bit OS System with 4GB of Ram and the latest video card and sound card to play these classic games. None. What. So. Ever. Especially when DOSBox is needed to play 90% of the games that are supported on here.

So for modern games, give me consoles. For classic games, my Windows XP 32Bit System is more than fine.

BUT... when those games were "new," they drove hardware upgrades just as much as games today.. That's why I was agreeing that it is humorous.. Of course a "new" AGI/SCI game today would be an entirely different matter (doesn't need much horsepower compared to today's average PC). But at the time, they were pretty demanding. Have you tried to set DOSBox to emulate an 8086 with a 4.77MHz CPU? That's setting DOSBox to "cycles=330" (0.33MIPS). Try running even KQ1 on "normal" speed there... whew! Even "fast" is pretty pokey. We had an 8086 from about 1984 until about 1987.

I recall a few of the games back in the day required me to work for several HOURS (days???) trying to create a special boot disk that would load the drivers needed but not all the other stuff I was loading for my MS WFW-based PC. Fiddling with LoadHigh and EMS/XMS drivers...

Whew.. those were the days...

..dane

Tawmis wrote:

jujigatame wrote: Funny to see PC gaming getting derided on a forum devoted to keeping it alive!!

This forums is mostly about the classic Sierra games.
There's absolutely NO NEED at all to have a 64 Bit OS System with 4GB of Ram and the latest video card and sound card to play these classic games. None. What. So. Ever. Especially when DOSBox is needed to play 90% of the games that are supported on here.

So for modern games, give me consoles. For classic games, my Windows XP 32Bit System is more than fine.

Fair enough, but I simply cannot abide using a controller for FPSs. And there's no way I'm missing out on Civ 5.