The Whining and Bitching Thread

zabu of nΩd;9520565 said:
Even with his career over he's probably still more qualified for an award than most of the people who win Grammies

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Err, you really shouldn't need to spend much more then 1000 dollars to get you a PC that can run everything on max right now and for quite a few years.



Hell, a 600 dollar rig should do the job.
 
$600 won't even get you a processor and video card worth a shit tbh. Not only that, but they'd be outdated in less than a year.

The problem is building your own pc is a waste of time and money anymore. There are so many pre-built pcs out there that it's just much easier to spend a little extra money for the same thing, not only that, but you get warranties with pre-built pcs. I know right now Digital Storm is offering 4 year free warranties on all gaming desktops. You can't beat that.

Btw, all I need is the tower. I use my 46" Samsung LCD 1080p tv as my monitor so it's whatev. I think I could pay around $1500 for a very good, stable pc with top-notch hardware that will last me a couple years. Depending on how much you play (I do quite a bit when I'm not busy with other stuff) will determine the lifespan of your hardware obviously. And if you're like me, it's hard to turn down a an upgrade that happens to be on sale.
 
Outdated doesn't mean shit. So what if it can't run on ultra high settings etc. I still have a 8500 GT and I haven't run into anything I couldn't play. Sure, I can't play a lot of things on High, but the card is 4 fucking years old and still runs games fine.

tl;dr go buy a $200 computer on craigslist
 
^I don't understand what you mean.

@Strongontherothge: I completely disagree with you, and it has nothing to do with the aging hardware itself, it has to do with the improving quality and the system requirements.
 
I'm not aware of the details, but I kinda assumed consolization was at fault. My impression is that usually the new generation of consoles are ahead of PC graphics at launch, at least for a little while, but this time around I think PCs had already eclipsed both the 360 and PS3 at launch. Sadface. If only there was money in big-budget PC-exclusive titles.
 
Even PC focused developers like Valve seem to be holding back. (although some could argue it's because of the Source engine(although, the engine was made with the idea that it would be updated quite a bit(plus I'm sure once Half Life 3 is made, there will be a new engine(>implying Half Life 3 will ever come out))))
 
^I don't understand what you mean.

@Strongontherothge: I completely disagree with you, and it has nothing to do with the aging hardware itself, it has to do with the improving quality and the system requirements.

But then how am I still playing new games (i.e. Fallout New Vegas) despite my card being 4 years old (and one of the lower end ones on top of that?). I think if someone built a fairly top of the line PC now it would last years without a problem.
 
But then how am I still playing new games (i.e. Fallout New Vegas) despite my card being 4 years old (and one of the lower end ones on top of that?). I think if someone built a fairly top of the line PC now it would last years without a problem.

Because games that are made for both PC and consoles are developed according to what the console hardware can handle, and obviously those are five years old now.
 
Nothing I've seen surpasses Far Cry 2, and nothing since then has matched it. And that was kind of a while ago. The newer COD games have snazalicious textures, but meh@everything else.

Also, just a general complaint: why for the love of god do developers of first-person games not put more time into coming up with convincing dirt and grass textures?
 
I'm more interested in, like, storyline and gameplay when it comes to video games than I am graphics. Not that I'm a big gamer...I don't even have any of the current consoles. But seriously, how much a game can push a computer has basically nothing to do with how good the game is.
 
Because games that are made for both PC and consoles are developed according to what the console hardware can handle, and obviously those are five years old now.

That was sort of the point I was trying to make. KD said "it has to do with the improving quality and the system requirements." but since nothing is developing all that much further, a lot of the pc hardware isn't becoming outdated.
 
It is becoming outdated, actually. I personally want the best gaming experience I can get, within reason of course, so to me upgrading essential pieces of hardware is what you have to do.

Yes, you can in fact play whatever game you want, but like you said, you're limiting yourself because of the power of your equipment. If that's how you enjoy playing, gfy, but that's not me, and it doesn't mean I'm wrong either.

I priced out a good gaming pc based on minimum system requirements for Black Ops and it was $1,099.75 + shipping. To build this pc, there's no way I could have put a video card and processor in there for $200 without severely hindering the performance of the pc.

Besides, there are games out there that take a boat load of power to operate like Crysis. When that game first came out most people couldn't afford a pc powerful enough to play it. Now three years later, to meet the minimum requirements for that game is still going to cost you at least $1k. So I think it's safe to say that the technology is improving and the demand for more powerful pcs is ever increasing, it just appears not to be affecting you all that much.