Video game addicts...

[UnderNewOwnership]

Originally Posted by Squelch

I play shooters, RPGs and sports games on my XBox.

Which is a shame, because mouse+WASD is far better than buttons X, Triangle, Square, whatever etc. on the pad.

Originally Posted by Squelch

I may look at Total War - I used to play strategy games all the time on my computers, because they seemed much better suited for mouse controls.

Rome II: Total War will appear sometime this year. The latest installment is the Fall of the Samurai expansion for Shogun II: Total War.

[Squelch]

Originally Posted by UnderNewOwnership

Which is a shame, because mouse+WASD is far better than buttons X, Triangle, Square, whatever etc. on the pad.

It may be more accurate, but I much prefer to sit on my couch, relaxing with my feet up when I play shooters. I'm not competitive or anything - I simply look at it as a way to relax. It's a heck of a lot easier to relax on the couch than in my office chair! I used to play Battlefield 1942 with the Desert Combat mod on my computer, and spent way too much time sitting at my desk. But once I got an XBox I never went back.

The computer is definitely better for strategy games, as it's much easier to use keyboard commands to select, move, etc.

[ImaPoser]

Originally Posted by NikonsAndVStroms

I've got you beat, Sim City 2000

Make water on hills, put hydro plant on that single block of water

The last time I played sim city was on my commodore 64. Has it changed much since then?

[NikonsAndVStroms]

Originally Posted by UnderNewOwnership

Which is a shame, because mouse+WASD is far better than buttons X, Triangle, Square, whatever etc. on the pad.

Screw that, I use an XBox 360 controller with my PC too

[WVhillbilly]

Originally Posted by ADK

Hmmm...I was just wondering, on these war games do you ever get to go on RnR to party, get laid and tattoos?

Not that realistic.......yet.

[Off the grid]

Originally Posted by Squelch

It may be more accurate, but I much prefer to sit on my couch, relaxing with my feet up when I play shooters. I'm not competitive or anything - I simply look at it as a way to relax. It's a heck of a lot easier to relax on the couch than in my office chair! I used to play Battlefield 1942 with the Desert Combat mod on my computer, and spent way too much time sitting at my desk. But once I got an XBox I never went back.

The computer is definitely better for strategy games, as it's much easier to use keyboard commands to select, move, etc.

My office chair is super comfy, and I have an ottoman under my desk. A true game knows that he must elevate his feet to avoid edema and DVTs.

Mouse+Keyboard 4-EVAR!!!!!

[EvilGenius]

Originally Posted by Squelch

It may be more accurate, but I much prefer to sit on my couch, relaxing with my feet up when I play shooters. I'm not competitive or anything - I simply look at it as a way to relax. It's a heck of a lot easier to relax on the couch than in my office chair! I used to play Battlefield 1942 with the Desert Combat mod on my computer, and spent way too much time sitting at my desk. But once I got an XBox I never went back.

The computer is definitely better for strategy games, as it's much easier to use keyboard commands to select, move, etc.

+1

I used to be all about pc games, but after a while I got tired of trying to keep up on all the different fronts of display size, ram, processors, etc.

I'll give a little bit of "quality" and "accuracy" to have something that's setup to run fine on the system I already have.

Plus, couches man...

[Dismount]

I do my pc gaming from a recliner and with a 1080p projector.

An old laptop pad with a hard top makes a fine mouse surface.

[UnderNewOwnership]

I'm in a bit of a quandary. I need to upgrade my desktop this year (this ancient Barton tractor ain't cutting it no mo'), but I don't know which path to choose. I still wish to play reasonably recent games at decent detail; however, I don't game as much as I did, say, 10 years ago (I was a humongous game-fiend back then). The upcoming release of AMD's Richland revision of their Trinity architecture has made me think about whether I'd be happier with an integrated solution rather than go for second-hand discrete parts (like, say, a Thuban-core Phenom II and a Radeon HD5870). On the one hand, the higher price/performance ratio of the discrete parts is evident; on the other, there's something appealing about the simplicity of an APU.

[NikonsAndVStroms]

Originally Posted by UnderNewOwnership

I'm in a bit of a quandary. I need to upgrade my desktop this year (this ancient Barton tractor ain't cutting it no mo'), but I don't know which path to choose. I still wish to play reasonably recent games at decent detail; however, I don't game as much as I did, say, 10 years ago (I was a humongous game-fiend back then). The upcoming release of AMD's Richland revision of their Trinity architecture has made me think about whether I'd be happier with an integrated solution rather than go for second-hand market discrete parts (like, say, a Thuban-core Phenom II and a Radeon HD5870). On the one hand, the higher price/performance ration of the discrete parts is evident; on the other, there's something appealing about the simplicity of an APU.

I think it was mentioned when talking about the steambox that there is a hybrid SLI or crossfire whichever one it is between the GPU and APU. If that's the case then get the AMD equivalent of the GTX650, Ti, or 660, so the price range is 100-200 bucks but you'll have a really nice graphics setup.

Found an example:

http://www.techwarelabs.com/amd-llano-a8-3850-apu/5/

[UnderNewOwnership]

Yes, the AMD Dual Graphics. El cheapo Radeon (think HD6670/7670) + IGP = performance roughly equal to a mid-end dedicated. Unfortunately, it's a software-dependent solution, meaning older and/or unoptimised games might not fully use the combo. Still, an (upcoming) A10-6700 with two sticks of 4GB running at 2133 MHz with some decent latencies (9-10-10-27-1T) could be an HTPC solution that would not be completely paralysed by some medium gaming (and I'm leaning more and more towards this route, what with ASRock releasing a mini-ITX A85X-based mainboard) even without a dedicated card for Dual Graphics.

[Jonnylotto]

Originally Posted by UnderNewOwnership

I'm in a bit of a quandary. I need to upgrade my desktop this year (this ancient Barton tractor ain't cutting it no mo'), but I don't know which path to choose. I still wish to play reasonably recent games at decent detail; however, I don't game as much as I did, say, 10 years ago (I was a humongous game-fiend back then). The upcoming release of AMD's Richland revision of their Trinity architecture has made me think about whether I'd be happier with an integrated solution rather than go for second-hand discrete parts (like, say, a Thuban-core Phenom II and a Radeon HD5870). On the one hand, the higher price/performance ration of the discrete parts is evident; on the other, there's something appealing about the simplicity of an APU.

Do both.

Upgrade to the integrated solution but make sure there is at least one open slot for a video card. Then, if something comes along that you really want to play and the integrated graphics can't do, you can buy a last generation GPU of your choice at a good discount.

[twowheelpilot]

xbox games have aim-assist for controllers. ie halo. i agree controller is much more comfortable than a keyboard.

[UnderNewOwnership]

[Dismount]

I've been playing the firefall beta. it's actually fun. which surprised the hell out of me. At least with friends anyway.

And supposedly will be free to play. sweet.