The "Xbox Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The PC has always been considered an underdog in the gaming world. This is perhaps an unwelcome tag, as the PC has enormous potential as a gaming machine. But why is it not up there with the consoles?
Perhaps the most important reason is the PC's ageing process. It is very true that to be able to get XBox style graphics on a PC requires the very latest in components. However, this is a 2GHz processor and a £200 graphics card. Gamers are undoubtedly put off by having to face a costly upgrade every year or so.
So why does a PC require top-notch components, while the XBox, for example, only requires a decent graphics card and a mediocre processing speed. To add, the amount of RAM in the XBox would barely be able to handle the latest installment of Windows. However, the XBox fires out fantastic graphics and will be able to run beautiful looking games for a fair few years at least. Two reasons underpin this distinction.
PC game developers tend to update the game code, without optimising it. Thus game after game is built on an age-old foundation resulting in a huge unmanageable lump that the PC has to handle. This is perhaps the basis for the PC having to push out so much processing and graphics power in order to run the latest games. Console games, on the other hand, are much more neatly coded, because the developers are given the specifications, and work the game around a set menu. In other words, PC developers can feasibly ask for more powerful machines, yet console developers are stuck with what they have.
The second reason is perhaps the way the two machines run the given games. A PC has to load a hefty operating system, which uses up much vital resorces that the PC has. Consoles have game-optimised OS's which use a minimal amount of resources. To add, Microsoft are known for asking more and more of the PC with every release of the Windows OS, causing the user to upgrade. The user on the other hand is forced to upgrade or he/she cannot run the latest games which are modelled on the latest OS! A bit of a consumer conundrum!
Difficulties aside, a top-of-the-range PC is more than capable of running today's games. So why are even the best PC's falling at the first hurdle when it comes to games? The answer is perhaps the way the PC operates. PC's are not built for games - thus they have bulky keyboards, mice, floppy drives, and whatever else you care to mention. These devices, neat as they are, are not what gamers want. A typical gamer will ask no more than:
1) A place to insert the game
2) A place to insert the pads
3) For the system to allow the pads to run the game
A simple formula that the PC seems to miss out on. A typical PC game needs to firstly be installed to the hard disk. A daunting task for the technophobes, and a task that inevitably evades gamers. Secondly, in order to attach game pads and set them up is a bit of a nightmare. The user must first make sure he/she has enough ports, or he/she will have to buy and fit a game card inside the PC. Then the gamer will have to plug the pads into the back and set them up in the OS, then configure them in the game. A task that consoles manage effortlessly, due to their architecture.
However, if can look by the technicalities, the PC has an enormous range of games on the market. Many of the console games we play are also available of PC CD-ROM. However, in my mind, the PC has one major influence over the gaming world, emulation.
Theoretically, any console game is playable on the PC. Why? The PC has an open architecture that allows third-party developers to emulate and distribute emulators that can run console games. This may range from NES emulators, where the cartridge image is downloaded to the hard disk, to Playstation emulators, where the CD is understood by the emulator. The legality of emulation (as I understand) is that the user must own the game he/she is intending to run. However, the pure scale of emulation makes this legality worthwhile. The PC is purely a generic machine, with limitless possibilities, which are being expressed by developers. I for one enjoy playing all my old SNES and N64 games on my PC without the hassle of setting the consoles up. For me, the PC is the one piece of equipment that will always be with me.
Perhaps the most important reason is the PC's ageing process. It is very true that to be able to get XBox style graphics on a PC requires the very latest in components. However, this is a 2GHz processor and a £200 graphics card. Gamers are undoubtedly put off by having to face a costly upgrade every year or so.
So why does a PC require top-notch components, while the XBox, for example, only requires a decent graphics card and a mediocre processing speed. To add, the amount of RAM in the XBox would barely be able to handle the latest installment of Windows. However, the XBox fires out fantastic graphics and will be able to run beautiful looking games for a fair few years at least. Two reasons underpin this distinction.
PC game developers tend to update the game code, without optimising it. Thus game after game is built on an age-old foundation resulting in a huge unmanageable lump that the PC has to handle. This is perhaps the basis for the PC having to push out so much processing and graphics power in order to run the latest games. Console games, on the other hand, are much more neatly coded, because the developers are given the specifications, and work the game around a set menu. In other words, PC developers can feasibly ask for more powerful machines, yet console developers are stuck with what they have.
The second reason is perhaps the way the two machines run the given games. A PC has to load a hefty operating system, which uses up much vital resorces that the PC has. Consoles have game-optimised OS's which use a minimal amount of resources. To add, Microsoft are known for asking more and more of the PC with every release of the Windows OS, causing the user to upgrade. The user on the other hand is forced to upgrade or he/she cannot run the latest games which are modelled on the latest OS! A bit of a consumer conundrum!
Difficulties aside, a top-of-the-range PC is more than capable of running today's games. So why are even the best PC's falling at the first hurdle when it comes to games? The answer is perhaps the way the PC operates. PC's are not built for games - thus they have bulky keyboards, mice, floppy drives, and whatever else you care to mention. These devices, neat as they are, are not what gamers want. A typical gamer will ask no more than:
1) A place to insert the game
2) A place to insert the pads
3) For the system to allow the pads to run the game
A simple formula that the PC seems to miss out on. A typical PC game needs to firstly be installed to the hard disk. A daunting task for the technophobes, and a task that inevitably evades gamers. Secondly, in order to attach game pads and set them up is a bit of a nightmare. The user must first make sure he/she has enough ports, or he/she will have to buy and fit a game card inside the PC. Then the gamer will have to plug the pads into the back and set them up in the OS, then configure them in the game. A task that consoles manage effortlessly, due to their architecture.
However, if can look by the technicalities, the PC has an enormous range of games on the market. Many of the console games we play are also available of PC CD-ROM. However, in my mind, the PC has one major influence over the gaming world, emulation.
Theoretically, any console game is playable on the PC. Why? The PC has an open architecture that allows third-party developers to emulate and distribute emulators that can run console games. This may range from NES emulators, where the cartridge image is downloaded to the hard disk, to Playstation emulators, where the CD is understood by the emulator. The legality of emulation (as I understand) is that the user must own the game he/she is intending to run. However, the pure scale of emulation makes this legality worthwhile. The PC is purely a generic machine, with limitless possibilities, which are being expressed by developers. I for one enjoy playing all my old SNES and N64 games on my PC without the hassle of setting the consoles up. For me, the PC is the one piece of equipment that will always be with me.
OK, so consoles can play slightly better games then a PC can but can a console visit specialreserve.net ??? WEll lets look at the pro's and con's of a PC and a console, Gamecube say:
PC
-Expensive
-Bulky
+Don't need a TV
+Don't always need a disk to play
+Games will always come out for the PC
+Lots of input slots
+easily upgradable
+Multiplayer Online
+Tons on hard disk (a PC my Dad is working on has like 1 Terrabyte)
+Loads of Memory 256/512MB
+fast processors (1800mhz)
+Can burn CDs and DVDs
Gamecube
-Need a TV
-Only 40MB of memory
-No Hard Disk
-Only 485mhz processor
+Cheap
+Very Good Graphics
+4 controller ports (same as my pc(it got 4 usb + mouse + keyboard))
+great controllers
+Small
And the list goes on.............
The main thing - PC can do a lot more!
PC
-Expensive
-Bulky
+Don't need a TV
+Don't always need a disk to play
+Games will always come out for the PC
+Lots of input slots
+easily upgradable
+Multiplayer Online
+Tons on hard disk (a PC my Dad is working on has like 1 Terrabyte)
+Loads of Memory 256/512MB
+fast processors (1800mhz)
+Can burn CDs and DVDs
Gamecube
-Need a TV
-Only 40MB of memory
-No Hard Disk
-Only 485mhz processor
+Cheap
+Very Good Graphics
+4 controller ports (same as my pc(it got 4 usb + mouse + keyboard))
+great controllers
+Small
And the list goes on.............
The main thing - PC can do a lot more!
The PC has always been considered an underdog in the gaming world. This is perhaps an unwelcome tag, as the PC has enormous potential as a gaming machine. But why is it not up there with the consoles?
Perhaps the most important reason is the PC's ageing process. It is very true that to be able to get XBox style graphics on a PC requires the very latest in components. However, this is a 2GHz processor and a £200 graphics card. Gamers are undoubtedly put off by having to face a costly upgrade every year or so.
So why does a PC require top-notch components, while the XBox, for example, only requires a decent graphics card and a mediocre processing speed. To add, the amount of RAM in the XBox would barely be able to handle the latest installment of Windows. However, the XBox fires out fantastic graphics and will be able to run beautiful looking games for a fair few years at least. Two reasons underpin this distinction.
PC game developers tend to update the game code, without optimising it. Thus game after game is built on an age-old foundation resulting in a huge unmanageable lump that the PC has to handle. This is perhaps the basis for the PC having to push out so much processing and graphics power in order to run the latest games. Console games, on the other hand, are much more neatly coded, because the developers are given the specifications, and work the game around a set menu. In other words, PC developers can feasibly ask for more powerful machines, yet console developers are stuck with what they have.
The second reason is perhaps the way the two machines run the given games. A PC has to load a hefty operating system, which uses up much vital resorces that the PC has. Consoles have game-optimised OS's which use a minimal amount of resources. To add, Microsoft are known for asking more and more of the PC with every release of the Windows OS, causing the user to upgrade. The user on the other hand is forced to upgrade or he/she cannot run the latest games which are modelled on the latest OS! A bit of a consumer conundrum!
Difficulties aside, a top-of-the-range PC is more than capable of running today's games. So why are even the best PC's falling at the first hurdle when it comes to games? The answer is perhaps the way the PC operates. PC's are not built for games - thus they have bulky keyboards, mice, floppy drives, and whatever else you care to mention. These devices, neat as they are, are not what gamers want. A typical gamer will ask no more than:
1) A place to insert the game
2) A place to insert the pads
3) For the system to allow the pads to run the game
A simple formula that the PC seems to miss out on. A typical PC game needs to firstly be installed to the hard disk. A daunting task for the technophobes, and a task that inevitably evades gamers. Secondly, in order to attach game pads and set them up is a bit of a nightmare. The user must first make sure he/she has enough ports, or he/she will have to buy and fit a game card inside the PC. Then the gamer will have to plug the pads into the back and set them up in the OS, then configure them in the game. A task that consoles manage effortlessly, due to their architecture.
However, if can look by the technicalities, the PC has an enormous range of games on the market. Many of the console games we play are also available of PC CD-ROM. However, in my mind, the PC has one major influence over the gaming world, emulation.
Theoretically, any console game is playable on the PC. Why? The PC has an open architecture that allows third-party developers to emulate and distribute emulators that can run console games. This may range from NES emulators, where the cartridge image is downloaded to the hard disk, to Playstation emulators, where the CD is understood by the emulator. The legality of emulation (as I understand) is that the user must own the game he/she is intending to run. However, the pure scale of emulation makes this legality worthwhile. The PC is purely a generic machine, with limitless possibilities, which are being expressed by developers. I for one enjoy playing all my old SNES and N64 games on my PC without the hassle of setting the consoles up. For me, the PC is the one piece of equipment that will always be with me.
Perhaps the most important reason is the PC's ageing process. It is very true that to be able to get XBox style graphics on a PC requires the very latest in components. However, this is a 2GHz processor and a £200 graphics card. Gamers are undoubtedly put off by having to face a costly upgrade every year or so.
So why does a PC require top-notch components, while the XBox, for example, only requires a decent graphics card and a mediocre processing speed. To add, the amount of RAM in the XBox would barely be able to handle the latest installment of Windows. However, the XBox fires out fantastic graphics and will be able to run beautiful looking games for a fair few years at least. Two reasons underpin this distinction.
PC game developers tend to update the game code, without optimising it. Thus game after game is built on an age-old foundation resulting in a huge unmanageable lump that the PC has to handle. This is perhaps the basis for the PC having to push out so much processing and graphics power in order to run the latest games. Console games, on the other hand, are much more neatly coded, because the developers are given the specifications, and work the game around a set menu. In other words, PC developers can feasibly ask for more powerful machines, yet console developers are stuck with what they have.
The second reason is perhaps the way the two machines run the given games. A PC has to load a hefty operating system, which uses up much vital resorces that the PC has. Consoles have game-optimised OS's which use a minimal amount of resources. To add, Microsoft are known for asking more and more of the PC with every release of the Windows OS, causing the user to upgrade. The user on the other hand is forced to upgrade or he/she cannot run the latest games which are modelled on the latest OS! A bit of a consumer conundrum!
Difficulties aside, a top-of-the-range PC is more than capable of running today's games. So why are even the best PC's falling at the first hurdle when it comes to games? The answer is perhaps the way the PC operates. PC's are not built for games - thus they have bulky keyboards, mice, floppy drives, and whatever else you care to mention. These devices, neat as they are, are not what gamers want. A typical gamer will ask no more than:
1) A place to insert the game
2) A place to insert the pads
3) For the system to allow the pads to run the game
A simple formula that the PC seems to miss out on. A typical PC game needs to firstly be installed to the hard disk. A daunting task for the technophobes, and a task that inevitably evades gamers. Secondly, in order to attach game pads and set them up is a bit of a nightmare. The user must first make sure he/she has enough ports, or he/she will have to buy and fit a game card inside the PC. Then the gamer will have to plug the pads into the back and set them up in the OS, then configure them in the game. A task that consoles manage effortlessly, due to their architecture.
However, if can look by the technicalities, the PC has an enormous range of games on the market. Many of the console games we play are also available of PC CD-ROM. However, in my mind, the PC has one major influence over the gaming world, emulation.
Theoretically, any console game is playable on the PC. Why? The PC has an open architecture that allows third-party developers to emulate and distribute emulators that can run console games. This may range from NES emulators, where the cartridge image is downloaded to the hard disk, to Playstation emulators, where the CD is understood by the emulator. The legality of emulation (as I understand) is that the user must own the game he/she is intending to run. However, the pure scale of emulation makes this legality worthwhile. The PC is purely a generic machine, with limitless possibilities, which are being expressed by developers. I for one enjoy playing all my old SNES and N64 games on my PC without the hassle of setting the consoles up. For me, the PC is the one piece of equipment that will always be with me.