View Full Version : On Diablo III and how Blizzard restored my belief in PC gaming
So here's the thing. Recently I saw a Diablo III trailer (http://www.gametrailers.com/game/8234.html) and I have to admit that I liked what I saw. Yes, it's not as cold and gothic and whatnot like the the first two, but that's not necessarily a flaw. I mean, how many times can you rehash the same old setting and still keep it fresh? I think two is quite enough. I think this revamped look is a nice refreshment, but then again I only know what I saw in the trailer. Anybody agree with me or do you already have the fire and brimstone ready for Blizzard people?
Now, I'd like to expand the topic a little bit. I'm a huge RPG fan. Diablo was the first RPG I ever played and naturally I'm very eager to play the third installment (though I have to admit that the second one wasn't 'all that and a bag of peanuts', not for me anyways). I'm also primarily a PC gamer, though consoles are not alien to me. However, PC is really the system I feel most comfortable with. As such it was nice to hear that Blizzard is sticking with the PC when it comes to Diablo III. In fact, they mentioned that they will try to make it playable on as many different computers as they can. Yes, this is partially to rake in more dough, but it's also a very welcome way of thinking. Not everybody has money for monster computers that eat little children when you turn them on.
Why do I mention this? Because there are treacherous, lazy bastards out there that turn a blind eye to this. And by this I mainly think of LucasArts and their Star Wars: Force Unleashed title. One of their CEOs recently stated that they don't plan to make Force Unleashed available for PC. Their excuse? Because they fear that people with weaker computer won't be able to experience the full extent of the game. Do you smell bullshit as well as I do? This is an excuse that pretty much every game developer can use in order not to make a PC game and make the necessary optimizations. Furthermore, they will make a PSP version of Force Unleashed. Because apparently PSP hardware is stronger then 90% of PCs out there and the quality of the game won't be compromised. This is almost enough for me to turn my back to LucasArts once and for all. Unfortunately, I love Star Wars and I have a PSP, so I won't. Kind of hypocritical, but whatever.
Anyways, this is a bit too longish. Any thoughts on what I mentioned? Eagerly awaiting Diablo III? If not, why do you hate black people? Hate the money-grubbers from LucasArts as well? Something else?
Arsène
09-08-08, 04:21 PM
I loved Diablo 2. It was the first RPG I ever played, and with its Gothic nature and twists and turns, it had me pretty damn captivated throughout the entire thing. However, I could never really get into Diablo. It felt so colorless and dead. It was like fucking a corpse. Sure, it's fun for awhile and the holes are pretty damn tight, but just looking at that face ruins the entire moment.
Admittedly, I've always loved Blizzard games. I think they're a great company that loves their customers almost as much as they love sweet, sweet money. And boy, do they love money.
I don't really PC game, aside from RTS, so I've never really been affected by this strange love/hate relationship when it comes to game companies and PC gamers. But since most PC gamers are purists who think Halo is akin to sodomy and that Half-Life should only be enjoyed with a mouse in one hand and their dick in another, I'd say it's a even trade.
I got into Diablo III the weekend they unveiled it. I've been waiting eagerly for them to present more classes for us to chew on, but I'm starting to believe that Blizzard actually considers the wait between updates to be foreplay. I suppose after BlizzCon we'll glean more information about some of the other classes, but until then I cannot wait. I'm already in the market for a new computer, but with Diablo III and my recent obsession with Team Fortress 2, I'm overhauling my efforts to make the computer I get to be for gaming purposes as well as academic work.
I've always thought star wars was mediocre, and it was only two of the last 3 episodes that piqued my interest in the series (And maybe Return of the Jedi. Maybe.). So, I really don't mind if LucasArts is going to try to cut out the PC as the middle man for a gaming medium. They want to lose a good portion of their audience? Fine. I've read some reviews that say the Force Unleashed isn't that great of a game anyway. As long as we have companies like Valve and Blizzard in business for PC gaming, it'll never die.
Also. Welcome to Business 101 and the true nature of George Lucas. The man completed his fucking series of movies a few years ago and he still is in association with a company trying to beat a very dead horse by ways of marketing video games, books, and other shit. His legacy would probably have a longer reach into history if he didn't try to clout it with this stupid shit. :rolleyes:
Visla Eraclaire
09-08-08, 05:11 PM
Pro: Diablo III
Contra: Lucas
Valanthe
09-08-08, 05:21 PM
I love Blizzard. Diablo 2 had such an awesome storyline, at least for me. It was so immersive that when I got really into it, The real world ceased to exist, and for all intents and purposes, I WAS in the diablo world, physically existing there as I do here. Now that's good storytelling and gaming at it's peak.
I'm glad I can say I never played a lucas arts game.
I was never really into Diablo so I don't know how I feel about it. It looks to be a pretty sweet game so I might try it out. But I'm more of an FPS guy myself.
As far as PC gaming goes, it seems a lot of the game companies have forgotten about us. Consoles seems to be where it's at right now, for some reason. So what happens is when they finally do make a PC game, it's a port from a console game, so that when you turn on all the pretty graphic options, it will still run on any computer as fast as an Xbox.
Speaking as someone who has a computer that runs on a steady diet of small children, woodland creatures, and liquid rainbows, I want to see more games that are made to take advantage of the full horsepower of my computer, but with the option to scale back the graphics for those who don't have that horsepower.
If the scale is like this:
----------|
Then you max it out and it's pretty good. But if it's like
-----------------------------|
Max it out and it looks amazing, but if you can't you can still do
----------|-------------------
And not be any worse off than before.
Having said all that, it's all for naught if the game isn't fun to play. That's what really matters to me. Call of Duty 4 is a console port and my computer runs it steadily in excess of 100fps (not bragging, just illustrating my point). But it's still my favorite game because it's fun.
Bottom line, make it fun first, then make it pretty if you can.
I loved Diablo 2. It was the first RPG I ever played, and with its Gothic nature and twists and turns, it had me pretty damn captivated throughout the entire thing. However, I could never really get into Diablo. It felt so colorless and dead. It was like fucking a corpse. Sure, it's fun for awhile and the holes are pretty damn tight, but just looking at that face ruins the entire moment.That's probably because you played II, then I. I get the same feeling about Final Fantasy VII and VIII. I played VIII first and could never get into VII. Sans the necrophilia analogy.
I don't really PC game, aside from RTS, so I've never really been affected by this strange love/hate relationship when it comes to game companies and PC gamers. But since most PC gamers are purists who think Halo is akin to sodomy and that Half-Life should only be enjoyed with a mouse in one hand and their dick in another, I'd say it's a even trade.Most PC gamers, but not all. I played Halo on PC and actually enjoyed it. Half-Life still > Halo, though. :P
I got into Diablo III the weekend they unveiled it. I've been waiting eagerly for them to present more classes for us to chew on, but I'm starting to believe that Blizzard actually considers the wait between updates to be foreplay. I suppose after BlizzCon we'll glean more information about some of the other classes, but until then I cannot wait. I'm already in the market for a new computer, but with Diablo III and my recent obsession with Team Fortress 2, I'm overhauling my efforts to make the computer I get to be for gaming purposes as well as academic work.I know. It's like they give you just enough to get you all pumped up without actually revealing too much. Clever bastards. But I think that, regardless of how annoying it can sometimes be, it's a good tactic. Most companies try to assure you that their product is the bomb before it's actually done, while Blizzard just keeps working and saying that it'll come out when it's done. But luckily not in the Duke Nukem Forever way of 'when it's done'.
I've always thought star wars was mediocre, and it was only the two of the last 3 episodes that piqued my interest in the series. So, I really don't mind if LucasArts is going to try to cut out the PC as the middle man for a gaming medium. They want to lose a good portion of their audience? Fine. I've read some reviews that say the Force Unleashed isn't that great of a game anyway. As long as we have companies like Valve and Blizzard in business for PC gaming, it'll never die.
Also. Welcome to Business 101 and the true nature of George Lucas. The man completed his fucking series of movies a few years ago and he still is in association of a company trying to kick a very dead horse by ways of marketing video games, books, and other shit. His legacy would probably have a longer reach into history if he didn't try to clout it with this stupid shit.See, the thing is, LucasArts wasn't always a congregation of assholes they are now. I mean, back in the day when they were making some of the legendary adventure games (Monkey Island, Full Throttle) and other Star Wars games (Jedi Knights, for example), they were good people. But yeah, I guess it's all comes down to business and the moolah and consoles seem more profitable. I'm not entirely certain just how much blame is on George Lucas, though. I mean, yeah, he probably rakes in a nice profit from every Star Wars, but I think when it comes to games and stuff he isn't signing directly, he doesn't give much crap about it. None of the games' stories are actually written by him and I kind of doubt he's sitting in an room with a bunch of developers, telling them for which system should the game be made. Then again, maybe he is.
Pro: Diablo III
Contra: Lucas Nobody loves poor old George.
As far as PC gaming goes, it seems a lot of the game companies have forgotten about us. Consoles seems to be where it's at right now, for some reason. So what happens is when they finally do make a PC game, it's a port from a console game, so that when you turn on all the pretty graphic options, it will still run on any computer as fast as an Xbox.I think the main reason for this is that it's easier to make a game for a console. I mean, you have a set amount of raw power in the console and your main worry is to make the game run smooth on one set of hardware. When it comes to PC, you have to do some additional work with optimizing the code so the game looks decent regardless of how much detail you choose. That's why I appreciate the work of the PC developers so much more.
Having said all that, it's all for naught if the game isn't fun to play. That's what really matters to me. Call of Duty 4 is a console port and my computer runs it steadily in excess of 100fps (not bragging, just illustrating my point). But it's still my favorite game because it's fun.Call of Duty 4 was awesome. And an example of how a game can run perfectly on all platforms. I mean, I don't have a killer computer, but I was still able to play it with high details in a decent resolution and even with some anti-aliasing. Which is odd because anti-aliasing always killed the performance on all of the ATI cards I had so far. It shows that, if you make an effort, you can make the game fun and make it look pretty.
Caden Law
09-08-08, 08:29 PM
I don't really PC game, aside from RTS, so I've never really been affected by this strange love/hate relationship when it comes to game companies and PC gamers. But since most PC gamers are purists who think Halo is akin to sodomy and that Half-Life should only be enjoyed with a mouse in one hand and their dick in another, I'd say it's a even trade.
Speaking as a PC gamer: Fuck you, sir :p
re: D3: I'm looking forward to it, but not as much as Starcraft II.
Valanthe
09-08-08, 08:48 PM
Speaking as a PC gamer: Fuck you, sir :p
re: D3: I'm looking forward to it, but not as much as Starcraft II.
You know, I've never played starcraft, and it feels like I've been deprived.
Visla Eraclaire
09-08-08, 09:38 PM
I personally don't care much for Starcraft as a game. I recognize that the world seems to disagree with me on that point, but I don't much care. I like the world though. One of my oldest emails was "En_taro_adun@whatevermailwaspopularthen.com"
Call of Duty 4 was awesome. And an example of how a game can run perfectly on all platforms. I mean, I don't have a killer computer, but I was still able to play it with high details in a decent resolution and even with some anti-aliasing. Which is odd because anti-aliasing always killed the performance on all of the ATI cards I had so far. It shows that, if you make an effort, you can make the game fun and make it look pretty.
I couldn't agree more. This is one of the reasons I don't like Crysis, because yes the game is mind-numbingly beautiful, but it takes up too much power for what you get. The code just isn't optimized at all. I mean I think it's ridiculous that people running brand new GTX280s in SLI are bragging about the 30 fps they get in Crysis. Now Crysis looks good, but it should look so much better if it is taking that kind of juice.
Call of Duty 4 is a great example of how you can make a game look good without sucking down the power. Now what I want to see, and what I was getting at in my first post, is what happens when you have optimized code, and then push the limits of hardware. Then you get an eye orgasm.
Sadly, you're right in that this is really hard to pull off. Optimizing games to run at different levels is not easy, which I think is why all the developers just give up on it. But hey, Call of Duty 4 was the best selling computer game for a while and was in the top 10 for a very long time, so that should tell developers that there IS a market out there.
AdventWings
09-09-08, 03:02 AM
*Sneakz onto the Internet during Lab*
Halo < Half-Life < System Shock 2. In that order.
But that's just me being biased about their replayability. And story, can't forget how engaging System Shock 2 is. It leaves Half-Life for shame.
*ahem*
On Diablo III, I've seen the trailer two months ago and it made me glad I still have my Diablo II game running. Of all the Fantasy RPGs I've played, from the Final Fantasy series to Breath of Fire and even the relatively obscured La Pucelle: Tactics (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Pucelle_Tactics) (by Nippon Ichi, just so you know), Diablo II is the easiest game I could get into and not feel bored grinding through the levels. It's easy to play, easy interface and an engaging background story that pushes us forward with each completed mission we do. Sometimes I feel the quests are a bit redundant and unoriginal, but the in-between action more than makes up for the anti-climatic boss encounters.
I'm a bit sadden to see that my favorite class the Necromancer will be replaced by the Witch Doctor. I'll see what the other classes are before I praise/complain anymore than this.
That aside, the System War I see going on here (Console vs PC) I have to say I'm divided on the issue. There are some games that reply strictly on console controls (Ace Combat series come to mind) while others are better played in the PC (FPS and RTS/Tactical games). I'm not a fan of ports, so I have to say that it's inevitable there will be system-specific games that aren't popular with the people.
I'm ambivalent on the issue, since I play on both types of systems.
I couldn't agree more. This is one of the reasons I don't like Crysis, because yes the game is mind-numbingly beautiful, but it takes up too much power for what you get. The code just isn't optimized at all. I mean I think it's ridiculous that people running brand new GTX280s in SLI are bragging about the 30 fps they get in Crysis. Now Crysis looks good, but it should look so much better if it is taking that kind of juice.Ah, yes, Crysis, a game that's about two generations ahead of the current hardware. I have to say that I don't know anyone who can run it in a perfectly smooth manner. That's what happens when the developers overdo the 'making it look good' part. And I fear that Far Cry 2 would be no different. Makes me wonder, what's the point of making such a beautiful game when only like 1% of computers out there can run it in full detail? Just because they can?
Halo < Half-Life < System Shock 2. In that order.If we're going down that road then: Halo < Half-Life < System Shock 2 > Deus Ex. ;)
I'm a bit sadden to see that my favorite class the Necromancer will be replaced by the Witch Doctor. I'll see what the other classes are before I praise/complain anymore than this.I played the Necromancer my first time through the game (which is pretty damn weird since I usually choose a fighter class in this sort of games). I didn't like him too much, though. I found that while he's fun to play through the levels what with blowing up corpses and raising golems, it's very difficult against the bosses. Killing Diablo took me like 45 minutes. And I'm not exaggerating.
That aside, the System War I see going on here (Console vs PC) I have to say I'm divided on the issue. There are some games that reply strictly on console controls (Ace Combat series come to mind) while others are better played in the PC (FPS and RTS/Tactical games). I'm not a fan of ports, so I have to say that it's inevitable there will be system-specific games that aren't popular with the people.I agree. There are console specific games and I don't mind when they don't make one of those for PC. Like, imagine playing Soul Calibur on the keyboard. It would totally ruin the feeling. I do mind, however, when things like FPSs and RPGs wind up as console (temporary) exclusives. Like Mass Effect. Yes, I know it came out for a PC as well, but it first came out for Xbox360, proving once again that money is everything and Microsoft has a lot of it.
I'm a bit sadden to see that my favorite class the Necromancer will be replaced by the Witch Doctor. I'll see what the other classes are before I praise/complain anymore than this.
I played Necromancer on D2 my first go around as well, and I hated how weak he was on multiplayer. I thought changing him to the Witch Doctor was a nice change of pace. It's essentially still necromancy that the class is practicing, only with different methods. You're right that we probably should wait for the other classes to be revealed before making a big argument about all of it, but eh.
Witch Doctor was a curve ball, though. And it makes me wonder what else they have in store for us. I'm hoping for some more new takes on old classes, because even if the premise hasn't changed, I think the characters need to be continually updated to keep the game fresh and exciting.
Yes, I know it came out for a PC as well, but it first came out for Xbox360, proving once again that money is everything and Microsoft has a lot of it.
Kinda like how Bill Gates approved the making of the Xbox in the first place? Sort of like using the Xbox as a medium to funnel money through and get a few tax write-offs? It's always about money, the only difference is what they're able to deliver in exchange for those hard-earned dollars. Still, I always thought it was amazing how the whole entire point of the Xbox was for some rich guy to get rid of some extra cash and has been in the lead of these 'console wars' ever since.
I was loyal to Sony before they unveiled the PS3. If you want an unfair cash-cow to waste money on, that heap of crap is it.
Please, let's not turn this into the cliche console wars thread with people dissing one system or another. Technically, Wii is currently the wiinner of the console wars (next gen), selling more than Sony and Microsoft combined, and PS2 is by far the most popular last gen console. So I wouldn't say that Xbox is in the lead. Maybe in the segment of online support, but not overall.
PS3 a waste of money? I don't know. Game-wise, it's the more powerful system than Xbox360. Developers pretty much make games for both systems nowadays, save some exclusives (and there are good exclusives on both sides of the fence). Also, keep in mind that PS3 is pretty much the cheapest Blu-Ray player out there. And Blu-Ray pretty much won the battle with HD-DVD, so more and more companies support that format. So I wouldn't exactly call it a waste of money. Then again, I am still loyal to Sony. :P
Also, on an unrelated note, Sorahn, what are the specs of your system? Just out of curiosity.
Please, let's not turn this into the cliche console wars thread with people dissing one system or another. Technically, Wii is currently the wiinner of the console wars (next gen), selling more than Sony and Microsoft combined, and PS2 is by far the most popular last gen console. So I wouldn't say that Xbox is in the lead. Maybe in the segment of online support, but not overall.
Hey, if you're going to talk about gaming, you'll have to tolerate a little bias. Otherwise, why bother?
And I'm just saying what I've experienced in my home about the PS3 console. My brother owns a PS3. He's bought more controllers for it than we have for the PS2 in years. Most of the games are so-so, but has a few hit exclusives that appeal to older audiences. But when you don't have a controller to play them, what's the point?! As for the Blu-Ray, okay it has that. But when the biggest feature of a gaming console is what it can do that has very little to do with gaming, how does that justify the cost? As for gaming power, one could make the argument that both the Xbox 360 and PS3 are matched. The PS3 has a lot of bells and whistles that Sony has had to eat the cost of in order to sell more gaming units.
The Xbox 360 has a variety of games from all sorts of developers and very few of them are held as both exclusives and big titles, and a lot of the games can be found on the PC as well, so it appeals to a PC gamer audience as well. But, the Xbox has the 'red ring' phenomena that Microsoft won't disclose many of the details to and you've got to walk on eggshells every time you use the system because you don't know exactly when an incident like that will occur. And you've got to keep in mind that the console is being used for a billionare to spend excess money. If the 360 wasn't making a profit, there's very little argument that Gates wouldn't cut the funding for the console and support from his own flagship company to go spend the money on something else that might net more money without eating at his wallet.
I spoke a bit too soon about the Xbox 360 being in the lead, but ever wonder why the Wii is in the lead today? Nintendo has an edge over the rest of the consoles because it appeals to a younger audience that is one of the biggest demographics for gaming and manages to capture the attention of adults as well with some of the different things it can do and the age-old genres it still has gives it that nostalgic feeling some older audiences crave while remaining kid-friendly. But, the Wii also has a controller that needs to be secure on your person or you could end up flinging it at your television, which Nintendo has had to deal with litigation over. Nintendo's game selection, although fun and appealing to a lot of people, is limited because it's the same stuff Nintendo has been churning out for years, only with a different paint job and some new bells and whistles.
So there, at least instead of shitting on one console and making another look golden, I've shat on all of them and kept the playing field level. None of the consoles are perfect, and one company is always going to find a way to take the lead.
The ultimate next-gen console is the PC. It was also the best last-gen console, too, and I think it will be the best next-next-gen console.
As for my rig:
http://www.markisawesome.com/stuff/zwei.jpg
It's got an Intel Core 2 Quad (Q6600) clocked at 2.4ghz
4gb of OCZ Reaper ram clocked at 1066mhz
an Nvidia 8800GTS 640mb superclocked
a Western Digital Velociraptor 300gb at 10,000rpm
2 Western Digital sata drives 2x150gb = 300gb at 7200rpm
and a Western Digital IDE drive 250gb
(that makes 850gb of HDD space... I have lots of stuff <.<;;)
uh...
PC Power and Cooling 750watt power supply...
I think that's all the interesting stuff.
EDIT: Oh yeah all that's running on an EVGA 750i FTW motherboard. I might go SLI someday.
I plan on overclocking if I just get off my lazy butt and do it. That massive Zalman heatsink you see through the window there keeps my processor cold as ice and the Q6600 is solid as a rock so it can overclock like crazy, I just haven't had the patience to sit down and tweak the voltages to make it stable.
Hey, if you're going to talk about gaming, you'll have to tolerate a little bias. Otherwise, why bother?
And I'm just saying what I've experienced in my home about the PS3 console. My brother owns a PS3. He's bought more controllers for it than we have for the PS2 in years. Most of the games are so-so, but has a few hit exclusives that appeal to older audiences. But when you don't have a controller to play them, what's the point?! As for the Blu-Ray, okay it has that. But when the biggest feature of a gaming console is what it can do that has very little to do with gaming, how does that justify the cost? As for gaming power, one could make the argument that both the Xbox 360 and PS3 are matched. The PS3 has a lot of bells and whistles that Sony has had to eat the cost of in order to sell more gaming units.
The Xbox 360 has a variety of games from all sorts of developers and very few of them are held as both exclusives and big titles, and a lot of the games can be found on the PC as well, so it appeals to a PC gamer audience as well. The Xbox has the 'red ring' phenomena that Microsoft won't disclose many of the details to and you've got to walk on eggshells every time you use the system because you don't know exactly when an incident like that will occur. And you've got to keep in mind that the console is being used for a billionare to spend excess money. If the 360 wasn't making a profit, there's very little argument that Gates wouldn't cut the funding for the console and support from his own flagship company to go spend the money on something else that might net more money without eating at his wallet.
I spoke a bit too soon about the Xbox 360 being in the lead, but ever wonder why the Wii is in the lead today? Nintendo has an edge over the rest of the consoles because it appeals to a younger audience that is one of the biggest demographics for gaming and manages to capture the attention of adults as well with some of the different things it can do and the age-old genres it still has gives it that nostalgic feeling some older audiences crave while remaining kid-friendly. But, the Wii also has a controller that needs to be secure on your person or you could end up flinging it at your television, which Nintendo has had to deal with litigation over. Nintendo's game selection, although fun and appealing to a lot of people, is limited because it's the same stuff Nintendo has been churning out for years, only with a different paint job and some new bells and whistles.
So there, at least instead of shitting on one console and making another look golden, I've shat on all of them and kept the playing field level. None of the consoles are perfect, and one company is always going to find a way to take the lead.Hey, I'm not against bias as long as it's backed up with something other than "OMFG XBOX SUX!!!LOL!!". ;)
Anyways, I think that viewing any next gen console as only a gaming platform is wrong. More and more consoles are becoming centers of home multimedia, with support for internet browsing, displaying videos, playing music, IM. They still don't have the wide array of option a PC has, but they have ceased to be just for gaming for quite some time now. That's where Blu-Ray comes into play. It's bound to become to DVD what DVD was to a CD, offering significantly more space for data. And we all love space for data. And if anything, games are getting more and more demanding, what with HD graphics and surround sound and whatnot.
As for the raw power, I think it's quite safe to say that PS3 has a significantly stronger processor, but like the one in PS2, it's more complicated to develop games that would run on it and use it to the fullest. Xbox on the flip side has a PC-like structure and it's significantly easier to make something run on it. So it basically evens out more or less. I mean, most of the multiplatform games look and run pretty much the same on both systems. It all comes down to what your preferences are, and I like Metal Gear Solid very much. :P
I totally agree on the Wii, though. It seems that there are a lot of casual gamers out there, people who just want something fun, something easy, something to kill time with. Hell, I even know people who are hardcore gamers who got into all the Wii swinging and swatting rather easy. Also, there's the price. Wii is significantly cheaper than the other two consoles. But I don't see myself buying one. That kind of games don't appeal to me and never did. And also, I was never much of a Nintendo fan anyways.
I think that the bottom line is rather simple and pretty much always the same, regardless of what generation of hardware we are talking about. The titles you want to play dictate which platform you choose. Unless you have lots of money and have them all.
The ultimate next-gen console is the PC. It was also the best last-gen console, too, and I think it will be the best next-next-gen console.
As for my rig:
It's got an Intel Core 2 Quad (Q6600) clocked at 2.4ghz
4gb of OCZ Reaper ram clocked at 1066mhz
an Nvidia 8800GTS 640mb superclocked
a Western Digital Velociraptor 300gb at 10,000rpm
2 Western Digital sata drives 2x150gb = 300gb at 7200rpm
and a Western Digital IDE drive 250gb
(that makes 850gb of HDD space... I have lots of stuff <.<;;)
uh...
PC Power and Cooling 750watt power supply...
I think that's all the interesting stuff.
EDIT: Oh yeah all that's running on an EVGA 750i FTW motherboard. I might go SLI someday.
I plan on overclocking if I just get off my lazy butt and do it. That massive Zalman heatsink you see through the window there keeps my processor cold as ice and the Q6600 is solid as a rock so it can overclock like crazy, I just haven't had the patience to sit down and tweak the voltages to make it stable.Dude, no offense or anything (we all have our preferences), but I do so hate these new flashy PCs with all the little spinning lights and doohickeys. They always look like a neon signs gone very bad. I prefer it to be flashy on screen. It's what you don't see that counts anyways. But to each his own.
It's a sweet rig, though. Reminds me just how much I need to upgrade mine. I never had an Nvidia video card. They mostly have like the crappy cheap GS or something cards and ultra-mega-super cards that cost an arm and a leg. Seldom they have something good in the middle class, and if they do, you can't get your hands on it. At least that's how it is here. ATI on the other hand always has several options in that best buy segment.
I'm stuck with:
Athlon 64 Dual Core 5200+, clocked at 2,61 Ghz
3Gb of something that should be brand name RAM, but really isn't
Ancient Ati 2600XT 256 Mb (very soon to be Ati 4850)
Seagate Barracuda 250 Gb 7200 rpm
An MSI K9A motherboard, but I'll never have the dough to go Crossfire :P
Oddly enough, with the exception of Crysis, I was able to play pretty much any newer game on it. In reasonable resolutions with decent details. And then the GPU on my video card started overheating (100+ degrees Celsius O_o). Good thing it's still under warranty.
I never dared to overclock anything. I never had the money to take the chance. I mean, shit, if I burn out the processor or something, I'd have to live on bread and water to buy myself a new one fast and the potential gain isn't even that much. I looked over some overclocking charts and at best you gain a couple of fps here and there.
AdventWings
09-09-08, 09:16 PM
Geez, that thing's a monster.
I'm content with NeNeNe (Toshiba Satellite L30) since she can play most of my favorite (old) games. Whenever I have enough money to buy another laptop (Yes, I'm stuck to laptops for mobility's sake) I'll get one that can play Diablo III and Tiberium War. I'm just glad she can still play Diablo II. :D
Dude, no offense or anything (we all have our preferences), but I do so hate these new flashy PCs with all the little spinning lights and doohickeys. They always look like a neon signs gone very bad. I prefer it to be flashy on screen. It's what you don't see that counts anyways. But to each his own.
It's a sweet rig, though. Reminds me just how much I need to upgrade mine. I never had an Nvidia video card. They mostly have like the crappy cheap GS or something cards and ultra-mega-super cards that cost an arm and a leg. Seldom they have something good in the middle class, and if they do, you can't get your hands on it. At least that's how it is here. ATI on the other hand always has several options in that best buy segment.
I'm stuck with:
Athlon 64 Dual Core 5200+, clocked at 2,61 Ghz
3Gb of something that should be brand name RAM, but really isn't
Ancient Ati 2600XT 256 Mb (very soon to be Ati 4850)
Seagate Barracuda 250 Gb 7200 rpm
An MSI K9A motherboard, but I'll never have the dough to go Crossfire :P
Oddly enough, with the exception of Crysis, I was able to play pretty much any newer game on it. In reasonable resolutions with decent details. And then the GPU on my video card started overheating (100+ degrees Celsius O_o). Good thing it's still under warranty.
I never dared to overclock anything. I never had the money to take the chance. I mean, shit, if I burn out the processor or something, I'd have to live on bread and water to buy myself a new one fast and the potential gain isn't even that much. I looked over some overclocking charts and at best you gain a couple of fps here and there.
Yeah man, to each his own. Perhaps I'm subconsciously obsessed with glowing things. My last computer glowed blue, so I built one that glowed green. It's more of a side thing. The computing power is what really matters.
As for nVidia cards, they have a smorgasbord of them out now. To me, one of the best cards out there as far as bang for buck is the 8800GT. 512mb of ram and a redesigned architecture that consistently beats my card, plus it goes for like $100 bux now. I'm a little bitter that it came out a couple months after I bought my card at the tune of like $300. But that was a year ago, and if computers change drastically in a year, graphics cards are even more so. Anyways my card plays everything I want to play at my monitor's native resolution (1440x900) so I don't have a reason to upgrade that right now.
The main issue with overclocking processors is sometimes it bottlenecks your graphics card. As in, your computer is only as fast as the slowest part. If you have a beefy graphics card and a crappy processor, you could be hindering your graphics card. If that's the case then overclocking a processor can lead to significant FPS gains, but if that's not the case then there's really no point.
Plus what I want to do is a mild overclock. I would shoot for 3.0 ghz. I've heard of people getting 3.8 and stuff out of this processor on liquid rock solid.
Your rig is pretty solid. A dual core at 2.6 can still run most things. I don't think any game has really tapped the potential of quad cores and the like. 3gb of ram will do the job, too. All you really need is to beef up your video card and you'd be set. Like I said up there, an 8800GT runs I think just over $100 or so. Plus, ebay is your friend. And forums... sometimes dudes are trying to upgrade to the latest and greatest and you can get some good deals on their slightly used gear.
Lol this thread has gone from the Diablo III thread to the PC gaming thread.
As for nVidia cards, they have a smorgasbord of them out now. To me, one of the best cards out there as far as bang for buck is the 8800GT. 512mb of ram and a redesigned architecture that consistently beats my card, plus it goes for like $100 bux now. I'm a little bitter that it came out a couple months after I bought my card at the tune of like $300. But that was a year ago, and if computers change drastically in a year, graphics cards are even more so. Anyways my card plays everything I want to play at my monitor's native resolution (1440x900) so I don't have a reason to upgrade that right now.Graphics cards are like the worst investment ever, and yet it's something you must invest in over and over again. Their prices drop significantly after the first six months. Shit, a brand new graphics card like the one I own can now be bought at less than half the price at which I bought it. Which sucks, but what can you do?
I heard a lot of good stuff about 8800 GT, but it's becoming rather outdated by now, what with the 9 and N series out. ATI 4850, on the other hand, is a new card that cost a bit more, but seems to perform better from what I've seen in some of the reviews. They also say it doesn't suck that much power which is kind of important unless you want your computer to spend as much power as a washing machine. I think it's a good choice for a balanced machine. And for an ATI fan such as myself.
The main issue with overclocking processors is sometimes it bottlenecks your graphics card. As in, your computer is only as fast as the slowest part. If you have a beefy graphics card and a crappy processor, you could be hindering your graphics card. If that's the case then overclocking a processor can lead to significant FPS gains, but if that's not the case then there's really no point.See, when I buy the parts for my computer, I always try to keep everything rather balanced. I don't go spending a lot of dough on an uber graphics card and then let it work at like half of what it can do. I do this partially because most of the time I don't have the money for a top notch card and partially because balanced systems tend to be more reliable. So I'm seldom tempted to overclock anything. The only thing I ever overclocked was my old 9600XT and only because the overclocking of that specific card was approved by the company that made it. Talk about playing it safe. :P
Lol this thread has gone from the Diablo III thread to the PC gaming thread.Yeah. Shame there's like a total of four of us PC gamers on these boards.
Visla Eraclaire
09-10-08, 07:11 PM
Yeah. Shame there's like a total of four of us PC gamers on these boards.
It's a shame everyone isn't just a gamer. It's a shame that our pastime is chopped up among different expensive pieces of technology, proprietary and otherwise.
I'm just fortunate enough to be able to afford most of the platforms (I don't have a 360) so I can enjoy most of the experiences. I kind of miss the heyday of PC gaming, when it was where real deep gaming happened, where consoles were for platformers and the occasional RPG. All the same, the more outlets the more opportunities for good games, in theory.
I really can't wait for Diablo III. I still remember the day I got D2... vividly. I didn't have a car, but I had the cash, and I called my grandfather and begged him to drive me to the mall. I can't believe it was that long ago. Feels like yesterday. I played a Bowazon and didn't leave my room for hours.
Destrudo
09-10-08, 08:00 PM
Yeah. Shame there's like a total of four of us PC gamers on these boards.
Five, but I have nothing relevant to add to the conversation.
Amaril Torrun
09-12-08, 03:06 PM
I was pretty disappointed when the Baulder's Gate (playstation version) trilogy ended without the release of the third part of the story. I think some sort of law got in the way of the final release, but I don't exactly remember. Whatever happened, it left us players hanging.
Oh, and I think Warcraft, on DOS, was my first RPG, if it counts. If not, then Baulder's Gate on the PC or Althanas.
Oh, and I think Warcraft, on DOS, was my first RPG, if it counts. If not, then Baulder's Gate on the PC or Althanas.
I'm pretty sure that Diablo I was my first 'gamer game'.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.