good point. but personally i intend to get an ultra gaming rig as soon as i am able to, regardless of USE. its been an aspiration of mine since i was 8.
I've owned a few "ultra gaming rigs" in my time, and let me tell you, it's awesome when you get it, but it doesn't last. In less than a year they're already coming out with new tech and the stuff you own is going down in price. So it's a real waste, in the end. Don't get the computer, get the games, and then get the computer to enjoy those games. And get an OS that doesn't suck (don't just get the newest one, just to have the newest one). Then again, if you want to jump on the Win7 fanboy wagon, you can get a cheaper "upgrade" until January if you're a student. But every new OS from M$ takes time to get patched up and actually decent for games. I figure I can use the extra memory saved on an older one and that's just peachy. If a new title is artificially locked off from older versions that's just greed on their part. New PC buyers may not have a problem, but not everyone is going to buy a new PC every year to play that year's "hot game."
My opinion: i think it's the roll of technology. if no one moved past an old OS, there would be no incentive to create new ones. If new ones aren't created, then there won't be a any new features, capabilities, etc. If that didn't happen, technology in general wouldn't be able to move past a certain point.
Yeah but a new OS (windows in this case) is not needed to play new games. Look at the average lifespan of a gaming console... (was 10 years, now 5 years). So for all that time developers are making games for this "frozen technology" and people are buying them like hotcakes. Console games outsell PC games and go for higher prices on the resell. Unlike a console, you can upgrade the parts of a PC... new ram, new motherboard, new video card, sound card, monitor, controllers, EVERYTHING short of the OS. The OS is more of a hindrance than a help for gamers. It's just a menu so you can get to the game, and do OTHER non-gaming related stuff (typing, web surfing, photoshop, etc). That's why the good consoles have a very transparent OS, if one is visible at all.
So anyway, the point is that making a new OS every five years or so with double the memory requirements of the last one, to do pretty much the same things is a thorn in the side of gamers. They don't NEED it, it's being forced upon them by a corporation that has such power in the marketplace.
since Windows owns such a huge percent of the OS market, it affects more people than any other OS (maybe even software) on earth. With new versions of windows, new capabilities are introduced, and with it, people are given the power to accomplish new things. if windows didn't move past windows 3 for example, the whole world wouldn't be able to do things we take for granted with XP today.
Yeah but none of these things actually are required to improve games. Windows 3.xx wasn't actually an Operating System in itself, but a dos shell. Nobody used it for games (other than solitare or mine-sweeper), because all the good games on the PC were in DOS. DOS was the operating system and it took a long time for it to be replaced by something better (win98SE). Even today there's a big back catalog of DOS games that people play via emulators like DosBox in the new versions of windows.
the abandoning of support for older OS's is just what pushes things along, and game support is simply a part of that.
More like they're FORCED to be moved along, not that the new OSes are what drives game innovation. Far more important for game evolution are the pieces of HARDWARE, like video and sound cards. Developers can program software for consoles, they don't need a bloated consumer/business OS to make it work. But yes, the key to
controlling the market and getting people to do what you want have to do with the business side of things
not with the actual content. That's why in the game console race, typically the most powerful console
is not the one that dominates the market, but the one that is marketed the best and snaps up the most lucrative licenses. The stuff in Windows today has been in other OSes (like MacOS) for years, but it's just that now
millions more people are being "forced" to use it (through business liscenses and being pre-installed in new computers).
Do you think if every new computer came with Ubuntu or OSX and you could only buy Windows on a disc
to install that it would be as popular? Who do you think game companies would develop most for?
basically, since OSes (windows) are the single most affecting bit of software for humans, if they didn't
advance, we wouldn't advance. (technologically)
Let's not get carried away here. We're talking about games, not the human race. We lived for millions of
years without OSes, and most of our advancements have come in spite of them, not because of them.
An OS is just software to make a computer work. Windows is just a point and click GUI to control an OS
which M$ didn't even invent in the first place.
Besides, the only reason "everyone" uses Windows is because M$ controls the market. If it were Linux,
you'd be saying that about Linux, or MacOS, or even DOS (think if we'd continued with command line
interfaces and shells, which many programmers prefer anyway).
Cover Ya A**
Basically I mean inflating the requirements just a bit to stave off complaints and saying "we don't support X" so that people won't bother them with questions (even if it works pretty much perfectly).
Back to The Force Unleashed: Ultimate Sith Edition:
So from what I hear, it's about 6-10 hours of gameplay (maybe a little more
if you go back for the second ending, add 1-2 more hours for the bonus levels).
I would think this would be the type of game where you'd spend a lot of time
messing around. Though if it's just straight combat, who knows.
Remember how much time we spent in JK2/JA just creatively force-killing people
or randomly placing objects? Then again you can do that with pretty much any
game these days. The multiple endings thing will all depend on how early in the game
you have to make the "branching" decision, or if it's just a matter of a quick save here
and then boom, new ending, play one slightly different mission, etc. I realize the "bonus"
levels assume you've gotten one of the two endings, but you can choose to play them
RIGHT FROM THE START (which is a good thing).
My thing about high system requirements isn't that "progress" shouldn't be made in games,
it's that this comes off as being of such necessary high reqs because it's
a bloated console port, not that it actually would have needed them if it were designed
as a pc game from the ground up. They even included support for the 360 controller
(I'm betting the key/mouse support sucks, similar to the Spider-Man games) as a time
saving measure. The other deal is that the newer Windows OSes require more memory
just for the OS, so that is always going to pad the requirements. I mean, Vista/Windows 7
wants 1 Gig of ram for all but the lowest iteration (which is like 512 megs). XP wanted 64/128.
These aren't even games...
Anyway, rants aside, I'll wait with interest to see what the reviewers think. It'll be interesting
to hear from non-console fanboys and seasoned SW gamers what they think. I imagine the
review sites may give it short shrift and focus their attention on the console versions out of