Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Episode 23 - Building a Computer
Ok, so we tried to do an informative episode. We thought that being informative might suck, but this seemed to work out. But I need to know how other people liked it. Also, feel free to discuss the art of computer construction.
Comments
You guys make it sound like I'm trying to buy a 3,200 dollar computer or something.
Anyhow, What would you suggest as the best midrange graphic card? I've been looking around and have a few ideas but what do you think?
As far as video cards just get a GeForce FX something. Just be sure it fits in your motherboard. To figure out which number just keep increasing the number until prices start to increase exponentially, then go down one card.
Also, for dual monitors check to see if the monitors are DVI or VGA. Then make sure your video card has two matching plugs on it.
Granted, we are not blessed with a derth of wonderful new PC games, but I wouldn't say the market is dead; it simply does not offer to you anything tremendously interesting.
Tell me, Scott, aside from Half-Life 2, what is the most recent PC game you've played? I'm curious as to what evidence you use to back up your "PC gaming is dead" comment.
The last standalone PC game to gain any real mindshare outside of the PC gaming community itself is Half Life II. Even non-gamers are cognisant of "Halo," "Grand Theft Auto," "Mario -something-," et al. Most people, however, aren't familiar with a single PC game since Quake/Half Life aside from the current run of MMORPGs.
Part of the reason ultra-high-end PCs are so cheap these days is that there isn't much of a market for them. Gaming is their only purpose. (3D, audio, or image work requires a different sort of "high-end"). Alienware and the like GROSSLY overprice their systems.
A mid-range PC (~$400) will play most of the games that exist just fine. A high-end one will cost double and allow you to play one or two more games.
As for PC gaming actually being dead or not, I defy TheWhaleShark to name a "good" PC game that has come out in the past 6 months. ;^)
I could name a few "good" PC games that have come out in the past 6 months, sure. Of course, what games we all consider to be "good" is a subject of debate, being that "goodness" is not some objective concept. I don't care how many Ayn Rand books you've read, you can't quantify fun.
Off the top of my head, FEAR and Dragonshard come to mind. There's also Dungeon Siege II, and there were some relatively recent expansions for Dawn of War.
Of course, that's wholly irrelevant, considering I am attempting to ascertain how recent Scott's experience with PC games actually is. Technically, Rym, I should ask the same of you, considering your PC is old as death and I'm sure you couldn't actually PLAY any games from the past 6 months. :P
Civilization 4
A bunch of MMOs
...
Quake 4 came out, and nobody cared. It was just Quake 3 with better graphics. That Battlefield 2 game came out. I guess it was good, but not nearly enough to support the PC as a gaming platform. Also, now that the Nintendo DS and the Xbox have internet multiplayer there are fewer and fewer things making the PC different for gaming.
I do see the PC as worthwhile for the indy gaming scene. Anyone can make PC games, therefore lots of new interesting indy games are going to appear on the PC, especially due to the renewed interest in such games. Just look at Darwinia and Rag doll kung-fu on Steam. But indy games are going to have low system requirements due to low budgets, no fancy graphics there. You'll get all of those with the $400 computer just fine.
Again, Civ4 and Steam appear to be only $50 each. But add the cost of Windows and a doubly powerful computer. Would you pay $700 for just those games? That doesn't even count the cost of MMOs which, by the way, require more bandwidth than video card.
Only that fatality guy needs a $1000 computer.
I've gotten to the point where I feel I'm better off always staying one generation behind on PC games. Half-life II will be just as good next year as it is now, only I'll be able to play it at full framerate for less than half the cost.
Well, maybe. I don't have Windows anymore, and I don't plan on buying Vista anytime soon...
-last computer died
-to make high end graphics faster (ie create 11x17 300+dpi paintings in photoshop)
If you honestly say that there are NO PC games that interest you, I can't argue with that. My contention is that unless you acutally TRY new PC games, you can't really give an opinion on them with full confidence. Perhaps some games you can immediately weed out as being crap, but I doubt either Rym or Scott have played, say, Farcry. Have you actually ever heard of Dragonshard or Dawn of War? It seems to me that your "PC gaming is dead" attitude is more of a predisposition than an actual conclusion reached from experience.
I will, however, grant that given a choice between spending 200 bucks to upgrade your PC or 200 bucks to buy a DS and some games, you're better off with the DS.
Rym: Wouldn't your opinion on PC games, always staying one generation behind because the game will be just as good in a year, also apply to console games? Hell, doesn't it apply to games in general?
I played Farcry, just another crap fps. A few tiny innovations and shiny graphics here and there, but not worth a dime. Half-Life 2 wipes the floor with it.
Honestly never heard of Dragonshard or Dawn of War until just now. But I did just peruse their official websites. I would like to point out two things. First, the minimum sytem requirements for Dawn of War listed a GeForce 3. This is not a game that requires more than a $400 computer. Second, I contend that you are only interested in these games because of the D+D and Warhammer licenses. If these games did not have those licenses you wouldn't give two shites about them. In other words, it is highly unlikely they will be such great games as to be worth the added expense. If I wanted to buy games just for licenses I'd get some crap X-Men or TMNT themed gauntlet clones for my favorite console. (Oh, burn!)
Also, Rym DOES play console games a generation behind. He still has yet to play Zelda 64. So he wins there.
The DS is the last system I played first-gen. The SNES was the one previous. I'm JUST NOW playing N64 and PS1 era games. I'm planning on buying a PS2 a week or so after the PS3 comes out.
The DS is special. First, I didn't own an SP, so it gave me access to the old/cheap GBA game catalogue. Second, the system was very cheap, as are the games. (I also note that I'm buying many of my DS games used).
I play Gran Turismo II, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and Civ II. I play Counterstrike (not source) and Natural Selection. There are so many good old games to play that it would be outright silly to waste money on new games now.
The only thing that can rouse me to action is a truly revolutionary game that warrants the expense of immediate play. The last game to do that was Quake II. The last console to do it was the DS. The ball's in the game industry's court.
Of course, then again, both Scott and Rym were early adopters of the DS, so the "one generation behind" is certainly not consistent.
It is true that what sparked my interest in both Dragonshard and Dawn of War were the respective liscenses; however, the actual mechanics of each game were intriguing, and if the mechanics were advertised sans liscense, I STILL would have played them. They brought some freshness to the RTS genre, which is in bad need of some new hotness.
I will contend that Half-Life 2 is better than Farcry, but that doesn't stop Farcry from being good. Led Zeppelin is the best hard rock band ever; that doesn't stop AC/DC from being good and enjoyable. Again, it seems to me that you're just speaking from a preconceived bias rather than actually trying to enjoy a game for what it is. When all is said and done, Half-Life is just an FPS. It's immersive, certainly, but the game is, at its core, the mechanics are no different from any other FPS.
Though the real point of all this is that nobody really needs a $3000 Alienware penile compensation device; as Scott said, doing Photoshop and other artisty and rendering intesive things will require a powerful PC, but otherwise, spending more than $1000 on a computer is a waste, even if you play current games.
Granted, we'll touch on them anyway, but here's your chance to appear on our show as more than just a quotation ;^)
In particular, I'd like to hear some other folks weigh in; amethisttomoe brought up one reason for having a more powerful computer, and I have brought up the notion of playing the latest games. What do some of the rest of you think?
The final conclusion that I would posit is this: a hypothetical 400 - 500 dollar PC will play all the shiny games that are currently out there, so right now, if your reason for wanting to spend about a grand is gaming, 400 or 500 bucks will do you fine. Probably 400, really.
The next round of PC games, however, would probably prove more troublesome. There, the debate would then be: would it be better to plunk down an extra 500 or so for a more muscley PC, or just get an Xbox 360? I contend that for future gaming, the difference between a 1000 dollar PC and a 500 dollar PC plus a 360 is roughly negligible, if one accounts for the popularity of MMO's and the tendency of the 360 to crash and of its power converter to be larger than your house. Of course, this is all up to the individual.
Really, though, if you're that into gaming, just get a Gamecube and a DS. Don't buy a brand new PC just for games; if you have a PC, maybe you could upgrade a component to open up new PC game possibilities, but buying a brand new rig for games is silly these days.
I can run civ 4 just fine. I also run quake 4 just fine. My computer was $800...over 2 YEARS ago. Anyone who cares, price out the following:
Pentium 2.4 Ghz (800 Mhz FSB)
512 MB DDR500 (I have 1 GB, but only for WoW)
GeForce 6800 (or, alternatively, 6600 GT)
Some damn motherboard (don't get mine...it's a crappy ASUS that prevents me from running Linux)
I OC it to 3.2 (which gives me maybe a 5% increase in Quake 4 framerate).
I'm sure that would cost very little now. And, as I said, perfect performance in Quake 4, Civ 4, World of Warcraft, Star Wars Galaxies, Call of Duty 2, Doom 3, etc etc.
For most people (everyone reading this), the difference between a $500 computer and a $1000 is not what games it can play. It's whether you're buying a new core (cpu+mobo+ram+video) or a new computer (core+sound+case+monitor+speakers+peripherals). That other stuff makes up the other $500.
People really overlook that when buying, say, a Dell. You are buying new components (such as a case, fans, psu, hard drives, etc) that you do not need, because you already have them.
Yeah.
We have some explaining to do.