Half-Life source

[Mozgus]

And that's not at all what I wrote.

There's nothing at all wrong with designing games for advanced graphics cards (though the wide range of models and subtle variations in specifications makes it a troublesome task at times for consumers trying to pick a card). But not all good games should require them. There's a place for expensive graphics cards and a place for games that don't need them, and those games that don't need them shouldn't be limited to Solitaire and PopCap puzzlers. RPGs don't need tons of 3D. With a good art team 2D graphics can be gorgeous and well-animated with the 3D special effects even onboard video provides. Heck, lots of the games that show up on the Xbox Live Arcade would work just fine on a PC without discrete graphics.

I'm not saying the industry should turn away from 3D cards any more than I think it's a good idea to shun computer users without them. I'm calling for more balance. There are great game ideas that can be produced with polish and style that can appeal to hardcore gamers without requiring expensive graphics cards, and I wish more game designers were attempting to tap that market.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Just learn to read box specs. That's the division of the market, right there. There are a ton of games that are made for low end systems. In fact, the majority are low end compatible. It's just that the high end games are the ones that get all the press, because they are what is keeping the PC platform alive in gaming, and making all the progress.

Steam has a fuckton of games that I can run on my low end laptop just fine. Most of them are indie titles that couldn't afford to advertise. That's why you don't know about them. I just bought aquaria on there, and its one of the best looking 2D games of all time. Guess what? My laptop runs it.

The cheap, casual types have enough games to play. It's very selfish to demand even more of the ratio. I bought a good video card because I want to be impressed by visuals sometimes. I'm entitled to that. Your argument is no different than if you were saying you wanted PS2 to still be getting as many releases as PS3, because you can't afford/don't want a PS3. That's just called whining.

So just do some research.

[marurun]

Yeah, the box specs make sense to you and me, but to Joe Gamer who just wants to play games on their PC? Not a chance. It's difficult to make sense of the specs on the box, especially considering that the minimum specs are usually too low. And the games that demand beefier 3D hardware are the titles that tend to take up the premium shelf space in the stores. All you have to do, though, is look at PopCap's success and the success of The Sims to see that the 3D intense FPS games are not what drive PC gaming. They draw lots of attention, but they are ultimately niche games compared to the broader PC games market.

I agree, there are already great games out there, but I think the reason the PC games market is having such trouble has to do with exactly what I'm pointing out here. The high profile games appeal to niche gamers with expensive gear, while most computer owners are not in the market for those titles at all. Of course the high profile PC games are not selling like mad. Most of the market can't play them. When you limit your audience your sales will also be limited.

And no, my argument is nothing like your PS2 vs PS3 example, not in any way, shape, or form. Everything made for the PS2 runs on every PS2. There aren't different degrees or grades of PS2. The same with the PS3. PCs are not the same deal. If game developers want to limit their audience and thus their profit, that's fine. That's their choice. But integrated video isn't going away, and most new PCs sold use integrated video instead of discrete. If game developers want the widest market possible market and the greatest sales opportunities they'll develop for what most people have.

Also, I'd like to point out that sales of those high-profile PC games usually drop off pretty quickly, whereas games like Aquaria and the PopCap titles probably have slower initial sales but more consistent sales over time.

[Mozgus]

We're not even arguing about the same topic now. You're completely missing it.

[marurun]

Wow, you're in rare form in this thread. If I missed something it's because you didn't communicate it clearly. You're welcome to run it by me again, though. Sparring keeps me sharp.

[cowgod]

Yeah, the box specs make sense to you and me, but to Joe Gamer who just wants to play games on their PC? Not a chance. It's difficult to make sense of the specs on the box, especially considering that the minimum specs are usually too low.

that's what the "games for windows" initiative is trying to fix and make simpler to understand. in windows vista you have the "windows experience index" (WEI) that rates your system and gives you a simple score of your hardware. then it is supposedly as simple as going to the store and looking for games that require that WEI or less to play. it still hasn't taken off fully in the market but microsoft is trying to change that.

[marurun]

I guess that's a nice start, as long as those "benchmarks" are meaningful and developers make sure the minimum requirements still grant a compelling play experience.