Curse

Kerwyn Nasilan · May 11, 2008, 04:55 PM // 16:55

After hearing so much good about this game I am thinking about getting it. I wanted to know if anyone who has played thinks its good and, if my computer can play GW on highest settings if it could play BioShock on at least the lowest settigns. Thanks ahead of time.

Bryant Again · May 11, 2008, 04:58 PM // 16:58

How well at GW's highest settings? Are you able to maintain a consistent and high framerate, or are you barely holding together? If the former, it should work alright. If the latter, it'll be pretty blocky.

That said, it's an amazing game. It has very little role-playing depth or customization, but aside from that it's still incredible.

Nevin · May 11, 2008, 05:01 PM // 17:01

It's a great game I would recommend at least a GeForce 7900 GS to run it, 2 gigs of ram would help, and perhaps a processor that exceeds 2.3 Ghz. This would be around the closest you could get the max settings with out really being able to tell the difference between "high" and "very high"

Mike_version2 · May 11, 2008, 05:02 PM // 17:02

Cant help you with the spec stuff, but its a brilliant game and definitely recommend buying it.

blurmedia · May 11, 2008, 05:44 PM // 17:44

Or you could buy it on Xbox

Mike_version2 · May 11, 2008, 05:50 PM // 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by blurmedia

Or you could buy it on Xbox

Thats what I did, definitely one of the best games on the 360.

Nevin · May 11, 2008, 05:59 PM // 17:59

Consoles = PC's for the lazy gaming crowd.

You'd be surprised at how cheap upgrading can be once you do your research and find the best deals, it just takes effort- something people seem to find unexpendable nowadays.

Edit: Not to mention the benefits from the knowledge you gain from learning such things. Heck I got my first tech support job just with experience as a PC hobbyist, beats flipping burgers.

Kerwyn Nasilan · May 11, 2008, 06:04 PM // 18:04

It runs GW at a fairly consist rate only problem being some lag.
K wil buy then, I don't have a 360 and they have bounced between releasing and not releasing in on PS3 so ima just buyit fot my PC.

Aera · May 11, 2008, 10:24 PM // 22:24

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/referrer/srtest

Check that.

Also, it's an awesome game, can't say much about it other than play it!

-Loki- · May 12, 2008, 08:34 AM // 08:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevin

Consoles = PC's for the lazy gaming crowd.

Lazy in which way? I've turned to consoles because I simply don't want to pay $2000 for a new rig (no, I'm not looking at retail prices). There's better things to spend my money on. That and the only games that play better on PC are RTS and FPS, and there's been none of either, or being released in the near future, for PC that really get me interested. If you mention Starcraft 2, I will kill you. 2 times.

Etta · May 12, 2008, 09:01 AM // 09:01

Starcraft 2.

The next game on pc that I'm gonna get will be Fallout 3. Oh yeah and BioShock is one of those games that you must play before you turn 40. Look around for System shock 2 and its "hi-res" mod on the web if you wanna go old school. SS1 is way too old though, so dont bother.

-Loki- · May 12, 2008, 11:20 AM // 11:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Etta

SS1 is way too old though, so dont bother.

Games don't lose quality with age.

Nevin · May 12, 2008, 08:42 PM // 20:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Loki-

Games don't lose quality with age.

I'm not so sure about that. Starcraft was amazing back in the day, I wouldn't go within 50 feet of it now however. If I remember correctly from when I reinstalled it a few years back, the AI in the game doesn't even have a difficulty setting. The bar can be raised higher, standards become more steep, I don't think just because something used to be good means it'll be consistently as good for ever.

As for the lazy gamer I mean just as you thought I meant. I find it hard to think that when comparing high end PC rigs with high end entertainment setups that the prices can vary enough to validate choosing consoles over PC's. After all to "fully" enjoy a console isn't it necessary to have a HD widescreen flat panel to fully appreciate the visuals, and surround sound speakers as well for full immersion?

2,000 dollars would cover the cost of a high end PC with monitor, mouse, keyboard, and audio. I don't personally think that the same amount of money could be used to achieve the same quality of visuals and audio for a console gamer. This however is all dependent on what one considers high end. I'm sure you personally do not have an "in home theater" specifically for your gaming console needs, but in the right hands the same quality could be recreated through PC's at a much higher level of convenience. So in essence high-end is really something no one ever achieves, and this is why many choose consoles. Because its easier to obtain the "almost" best entertainment qualities with a console, than it is with a PC. But when trying to get the "very" best entertainment qualities, you'll have an easier time with PC's.

My argument against consoles however spawns directly from the fact that for the amount consoles cost, one could custom build a PC with the same graphical capabilities for cheaper. It also seems that people seem to recognize PC's for only their gaming possibilities when comparing them to consoles, but as we've all seen with the Xbox 360 and PS3, they're quickly trying to catch up in the applications aspect as well. If you compare the application processes of a PC vs a PS3 or Xbox360, the victor is clear. And yes that may be a cheap blow, but what do the console makers think of all of it? Adding limited website surfing capabilities, downloadable content, etc etc. Sony's release of the whole house interface just reinforces that point.

As much as a PC elitist as I may sound however, I do own consoles. I believe that enjoying the best of both worlds is the wisest choice. However if I had to chose over a console or PC, I'd pick a PC.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/33825.html

Winterclaw · May 12, 2008, 08:50 PM // 20:50

Aren't they doing a Bioshock movie?

Mist Walker Skarloc · May 12, 2008, 09:01 PM // 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

Aren't they doing a Bioshock movie?

I certainly hope so. That's news to me, though.

Kerwyn Nasilan · May 13, 2008, 02:34 AM // 02:34

Bought it and OMG <3! And yes there is a movie. Uwe Boll is directing it so

El Presidente · May 13, 2008, 03:03 AM // 03:03

Uwe Boll? This guy's movies barely make half the cost of the movie's budget and yet they want him to produce it??? If it weren't for German tax laws relating to investments in film, he'd never be hired again.

This idiot believes that his so-called "adaptation" of Postal will beat Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull at the box office...

Kanyatta · May 13, 2008, 03:22 AM // 03:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerwyn Nasilan

Bought it and OMG <3! And yes there is a movie. Uwe Boll is directing it so

Not true, Gore Verbinski is directing it, the guy who directed Pirates of the Caribbean. Apparently, the producers didn't want Boll getting near it. Google it

About the game, its amazing, definitely my favorite game of '07, its only competitor being COD4. If your computer can run it, get it for PC, if not, get it for 360, still worth the purchase. I personally just think FPS's handle better on PC when compared to consoles.

-Loki- · May 13, 2008, 09:05 AM // 09:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevin

As for the lazy gamer I mean just as you thought I meant. I find it hard to think that when comparing high end PC rigs with high end entertainment setups that the prices can vary enough to validate choosing consoles over PC's. After all to "fully" enjoy a console isn't it necessary to have a HD widescreen flat panel to fully appreciate the visuals, and surround sound speakers as well for full immersion?

A PS3 and a 26" 1080p TV cost me less than the rig I wanted. Sure, the TV isn't huge, but I don't sit 30ft from it either, so the size is fine. I wouldn't class someone who didn't want to pay a ridiculous amount of money for a PC as lazy, just someone who doesn't want to spend that much on something. Lazy is completely different. Personally I work full time and could easily afford the rig I wanted - but I'm not about to go spend the money on it. There's other things to spend the money on. As for Bioshock 3, I'll grab it if the rumored PS3 version comes about.

Blackhearted · May 13, 2008, 10:44 AM // 10:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by -Loki-

Lazy in which way? I've turned to consoles because I simply don't want to pay $2000 for a new rig (no, I'm not looking at retail prices).

You do realize you don't need the ultra highiend Intel extreme edition cpu's and quad SLI to play games on a pc right? You can build a competent pc that can handle games for half that price(maybe less if you find some deals). And also very likely have it cost no more than your ps3+hdtv. Sounds to me that you switched to consoles cause you're kinda mis/uninformed about how much a decent pc actually costs.