Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok windows 7 has its + points but does it have any plus points for gamers?

Im a pc gamer and have been since my dad came home with a windows 95 pc with doom, now we have come much further than the doom days but is gaming on a pc any better?

Windows 7 is the most insane OS ever made, it will not run coutless games due to "compatability issues". What i cannot understand is why it will run diablo, diablo 2 and LoD, Baldurs gate 1 and TotsC, baldurs gate 2 and ToB it will even run final liberation, chaos gate and shadow of the horned rat yet it refuses to run dungeon siege LoA, Divine divinity and beyond divinity, fire warrior (works but is terribly slow and well not a great game anyway) and master of orion 2. These are all older games, yet they all work fine on vista and xp yet 7 just out right refuses to run them.

My other major hate of microsoft not so much windows 7 is the use of a 360 pad on pc games that are released on both platforms. If you have a 360 pad chances are you will have a 360 so why buy the game for pc!

This is more of a videogames forum question.

You need windows 7 or vista to use the latest direct x drivers which make several games look better.

If you just want to run older games there is little benefit in getting 7.

I run the best possible version of vista (SP1+SP2, etc). I've played Battlefield Bad Company 2 (known for its computer-intensive kind of stuff) and it lags on the lowest of settings with an excellent video card, but an older processor.

I take Windows 7, with the same hardware, and I can run battlefield BC2 on medium settings with no lag whatsoever, and on high where it is barely noticeable.

Vista just takes up too much resources. I still use Vista, because I'm too lazy to backup everything and switch to 7.

gloomygrim wrote:Windows 7 is the most insane OS ever made, it will not run coutless games due to "compatability issues". What i cannot understand is why it will run diablo, diablo 2 and LoD, Baldurs gate 1 and TotsC, baldurs gate 2 and ToB it will even run final liberation, chaos gate and shadow of the horned rat yet it refuses to run dungeon siege LoA, Divine divinity and beyond divinity, fire warrior (works but is terribly slow and well not a great game anyway) and master of orion 2. These are all older games, yet they all work fine on vista and xp yet 7 just out right refuses to run them.

I suspect you'll find that this is because a lot games from that era are 16bit, if you've previously been running a 32bit OS (XP and some versions of Vista) they would indeed have run perfectly but a 64bit OS simply cannot run a 16bit application because Microsoft don't support such old software on their most up to date OSs (ie anything that's 64bit)

I've had some trouble with Fallout 3 on windows 7, but that can be fixed by rewriting some of the commands.

gloomygrim wrote:
Ok windows 7 has its + points but does it have any plus points for gamers?

Im a pc gamer and have been since my dad came home with a windows 95 pc with doom, now we have come much further than the doom days but is gaming on a pc any better?

Windows 7 is the most insane OS ever made, it will not run coutless games due to "compatability issues". What i cannot understand is why it will run diablo, diablo 2 and LoD, Baldurs gate 1 and TotsC, baldurs gate 2 and ToB it will even run final liberation, chaos gate and shadow of the horned rat yet it refuses to run dungeon siege LoA, Divine divinity and beyond divinity, fire warrior (works but is terribly slow and well not a great game anyway) and master of orion 2. These are all older games, yet they all work fine on vista and xp yet 7 just out right refuses to run them.

My other major hate of microsoft not so much windows 7 is the use of a 360 pad on pc games that are released on both platforms. If you have a 360 pad chances are you will have a 360 so why buy the game for pc!

It supports DX10 and onward, has a hell of a lot more threading support, is 64 bit compatible, manages memory much better, and has a better file structure for managing largescale files. If you want to play 12 year old games use a 12 year old computer, it's not a game console, it's a PC. For newer games the newer operating system is either required or vastly superior to XP with what it can support technically.

My Windows 7 drive was going great (even got to play Oblivion, woo) until I installed Starcraft 2 and the whole thing went to gak.

Turned out it was registry errors from a bunch of crappy shareware screen-casting software. Like 1980's open source Fraps. Like I can afford $35.

I was dealing with it until now I am finally unable to boot into it to be honest, although I am able to read the files from the other partition.

Anyway I am unhappy but on the other hand when you use your computer regularly you should expect to have to deal with crashes, re-installs etc.

gloomygrim wrote:
Ok windows 7 has its + points but does it have any plus points for gamers?

Direct X 11? Improved stability over Vista?

Im a pc gamer and have been since my dad came home with a windows 95 pc with doom, now we have come much further than the doom days but is gaming on a pc any better?

ecause games play better on PC.

How do you figure?

I regularly play my PC games at 2560x1600 resolution.

Ahh, so you've invested a significant amount in your PC and display. I'm sure that makes them play better.

Games on the 360 are rendered at sub 720p resolutions.

Thats called 720i, which is 720 pixel height interlaced. It's the basic standard for composite cable connections which are the lower end of the two options given. The other being 1080p via HDMI though a few games are upscaled from a resolution bridging the two to maintain framerates. This happens in some PC games too though.

I can also benefit from Nvidia 3d and phisx.

PhysX* and does your monitor actually support active shutter 3d? If not his 360 can do pretty much the same thing.

The question should be "why would I buy the game on the 360?"

"Because the game isn't available on your PC and most console to PC ports are half assed and buggy."

Don't get me wrong, I love all platforms, but -at the end of the day, my 360 cost a few hundred pounds, it's a nice toy, has some good exclusives etc, but I've sunk way more money and time into gaming my PC (so it darn well SHOULD be better!)

Have fun playing marvel vs capcom 3 or halo on your bigbox that you spent six times as much on!

why do the PC fanbois always have to run in and trump their godboxes while ignoring the fact that a gaming console itself is likely cheaper then their graphics card was alone.

The PC is the "wealthy" mans game playing machine, that can do much more than, well, play videogames.

The various consoles is the "poor" mans game playing machine. It can play videogames, but not as well on a PC that costs 3 times or more, as it should be.

ShumaGorath wrote:
How do you figure?

Ahh, so you've invested a significant amount in your PC and display. I'm sure that makes them play better.

Yes, indeed it does. Better frames per second as well (as much as I love Killzone 3 on my PS3, the FPS drops to 25 or so during moments of intense action, which is annoying. )

Think of it this way:

I can spend £40 on say Skyrim -when it comes out-
Play it at sub 720p resolutions, without access to mods or modding tools, have it running at (probably) 30 frames a second, maybe 25 when there's some slowdown and put up with either offensive Vaseline bloom effects, or horribly aliased edges.

OR

I can spend £29 on the same game, play it at 2560x1600, have access to an entire internet's worth of mods, and have it running at probably about 40-50 frames a second with full anti-aliasing.

Completely hypothetical of course, I don't know whether Bethesda will include mod tools or whatever, but I'm going on previous experience here.

Thats called 720i, which is 720 pixel height interlaced. It's the basic standard for composite cable connections which are the lower end of the two options given. The other being 1080p via HDMI though a few games are upscaled from a resolution bridging the two to maintain framerates. This happens in some PC games too though.

That's a negative. Games like COD on the consoles are actually rendered at 1024x600 and then subsequently scaled to 720p, or 1080p depending of course, on your TV/av interconnects. Oh, and composite can't do 720, I believe you mean component as opposed to composite?

PhysX* and does your monitor actually support active shutter 3d? If not his 360 can do pretty much the same thing.

Not even remotely close. The Nvidia software works as a wrapper at the driver level, so any modern game (so long as there's polygonal rendering) will benefit from the 3d effect. The only console games I know of that work well with 3d are Wipeout 3d and Killzone 3.

"Because the game isn't available on your PC and most console to PC ports are half assed and buggy."

Buggy games are sadly released on all platforms. The term "PC port" is actually somewhat misleading in this day and age of multiplatform releases and so forth. (going by that logic, almost all PS3 multiplatforms would be "360 to PS3 ports" as the 360 is generally what developers use as the lead platform.)

Have fun playing marvel vs capcom 3 or halo on your bigbox that you spent six times as much on!

The PC has exclusives too you know. Anyway, if I had any interest in those games, I would buy them for my console. Which, in the case of Halo, I did, as I enjoy the storyline. Gameplay-wise, it doesn't hold a candle to PC native FPS games though.

why do the PC fanbois always have to run in and trump their godboxes while ignoring the fact that a gaming console itself is likely cheaper then their graphics card was alone.

Please refrain from using the word fanboy (let alone, the derogatory term "fanboi", it's unbecoming). I like all platforms.

The only downside of PC gaming, in my opinion, is hardware cost and DRM on games. The games are generally a bit cheaper, and since I buy a lot of games a year, it tends to even out.

Yes, indeed it does. Better frames per second as well (as much as I love Killzone 3 on my PS3, the FPS drops to 25 or so during moments of intense action, which is annoying.

That sounds like more of an issue with killzone as the majority of console titles are frame capped and designed to never drop below a specified minimum framerate. Gran Turismo 4 for instance will rarely drop below 60fps by design.

I can spend £40 on say Skyrim -when it comes out-
Play it at sub 720p resolutions, without access to mods or modding tools, have it running at (probably) 30 frames a second, maybe 25 when there's some slowdown and put up with either offensive Vaseline bloom effects, or horribly aliased edges.

Do you have a gakky tv? Why are you playing at "sub 720P resolutions" when the ps3 and 360 have been capable of 1080p playback for six years.

I can spend £29 on the same game, play it at 2560x1600, have access to an entire internet's worth of mods, and have it running at probably about 40-50 frames a second with full anti-aliasing.

Completely hypothetical of course, I don't know whether Bethesda will include mod tools or whatever, but I'm going on previous experience here.

I'm sure skyrim will have just as many nude mods as oblivion had.

That's a negative. Games like COD on the consoles are actually rendered at 1024x600 and then subsequently scaled to 720p, or 1080p depending of course, on your TV/av interconnects.

The other being 1080p via HDMI though a few games are upscaled from a resolution bridging the two to maintain framerates.

Looks like I had just said that. Thats an exception, not the rule with console games.

I believe you mean component as opposed to composite?

Yes.

Not even remotely close. The Nvidia software works as a wrapper at the driver level, so any modern game (so long as there's polygonal rendering) will benefit from the 3d effect. The only console games I know of that work well with 3d are Wipeout 3d and Killzone 3.

I didn't say the capability was ubiquitous, just that they could do it and unless you have spr glasses and a reflex 3d capable monitor then you're getting the same crap experience that they were handing out a decade ago with 3d capable graphics cards. It's not a "new" technology and the recent rush to 3d isn't the standard that graphics chipmakers have been pushing for the last few cycles.

Buggy games are sadly released on all platforms. The term "PC port" is actually somewhat misleading in this day and age of multiplatform releases and so forth. (going by that logic, almost all PS3 multiplatforms would be "360 to PS3 ports" as the 360 is generally what developers use as the lead platform.)

Modern warfare 2 on the PC was buggier, poorly coded, less feature filled, more expensive, and was quite clearly an afterthought pc port of a title designed for home consoles. The same can be said for assassins creeds, arkham asylum, resident evil IV, every grand theft auto, and every fighting game to ever touch a PC, etc. It's a worsening trend and has been directly touted as the development path for most major game releases these days as PC sales are a very small market by comparison to home consoles.

The PC has exclusives too you know. Anyway, if I had any interest in those games, I would buy them for my console. Which, in the case of Halo, I did, as I enjoy the storyline. Gameplay-wise, it doesn't hold a candle to PC native FPS games though.

Like team fortress? Thats just about the only FPS competitor thats not a console game ported to PC. Bad company 2 as well I suppose, though thats not really a comparable title to most competitive first person shooters.

Please refrain from using the word fanboy (let alone, the derogatory term "fanboi", it's unbecoming). I like all platforms.

Yet you directly imply the experience is superior instead of just admitting that there is a give and take between the two. Consoles are clearly superior in providing in house multiplayer experiences, they have a much larger AAA game library these days, they lack technical issues of driver support, hardware costs, installation issues, update issues, DRM issues, and their cost performance is orders of magnitude better then trying to keep up with PC trends. They don't have the same high end for providing mass online experiences that MMOs give and they can't keep up graphically with PC hardware that is five to ten times the home consoles cost. Everything else is a wash.

The only downside of PC gaming, in my opinion, is hardware cost and DRM on games. The games are generally a bit cheaper, and since I buy a lot of games a year, it tends to even out.

Ten dollars cheaper new. Good luck finding a "greatest hits" selection of games cheaply in store or really anywhere outside of steam. The used wall at a gamestop puts the "cheapness" of PC titles to shame and waiting on steam (which doesn't have all games) to give a good sale can take months if it happens at all.

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm sure skyrim will have just as many nude mods as oblivion had.

I can't believe we are having a PC vs Console war. Have both, live life to the fullest. Feels good.

Well if you have a nice PC you can play Starcraft 2. It stands to reason you can probably play a bunch of other games, too.

Windows 7 professional came with a compatibility mode that allows for many older games to be played. For instance, I can run Diablo 2 on my computer as well as starcraft. Really old games will not be playable on newer systems unless you have multiple OS installed, but that is and has been a great thing about windows, the ability to install multiple operating systems on a single machine and run them simultaneously.

ShumaGorath wrote:

That sounds like more of an issue with killzone as the majority of console titles are frame capped and designed to never drop below a specified minimum framerate. Gran Turismo 4 for instance will rarely drop below 60fps by design.

Frame capped means that the frames shall not exceed a certain count, not the other way 'round.

Do you have a gakky tv? Why are you playing at "sub 720P resolutions" when the ps3 and 360 have been capable of 1080p playback for six years.

No need for the language. I actually have 2 last-gen, 1080p Pioneer Kuros in the house. TVs that were so awesome that Pioneer had to cease manufacturing them on the basis that they eventually produce more lifelike images than real life. (these are regarded as the "best" plasma TVs)

I'm sure skyrim will have just as many nude mods as oblivion had.

What nonsense! It's well known that -on release- the levelling system in Oblivion was Broken. PC users, at least, were able to fix this. Thanks to PC users, and modding tools, Oblivion still looks great today, with texture mods and so forth.

Modern warfare 2 on the PC was buggier, poorly coded, less feature filled, more expensive, and was quite clearly an afterthought pc port of a title designed for home consoles.[?QUOTE]
In what way was it more expensive? £29.99 is less expensive than £44.99. With regards to the other points, it was actually a fairly polished release. Black Ops however, was not (and wasn't on the consoles either. Look at the various online petitions by PS3 users, etc)

The same can be said for assassins creeds[?QUOTE]
PC version had the nice bonus of DX10 support. Looks better than the console versions.

arkham asylum

You're kidding right? The PC version has an improved physics system, nativley supports 3D, runs perfectly, etc etc.

resident evil IV

and Capcom learned their lesson by ensuring that Resi V on PC was the best version of that game. Resi IV was released so many years ago that it's bearly worth mentioning.

every grand theft auto

Agreed. Textbook definition of ports.

and every fighting game to ever touch a PC, etc.

Except Streetfighter IV. The PC version plays extremely well, and is used by quite a few "professional" players.

I appreciate that there is quite a high "barrier to entry" when it comes to gaming on PC, and I prefer it that way. It's like living in a gated community. You don't have to put up with the punk kids on XBL, and you can generally get a more communitarian online experience.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Like team fortress? Thats just about the only FPS competitor thats not a console game ported to PC. Bad company 2 as well I suppose, though thats not really a comparable title to most competitive first person shooters.

Arma II? Crysis? 64 player version of Battlefield 3? (FPS wise)
Shogun 2, Starcraft 2, DOWII (RTS wise)

Frame capped means that the frames shall not exceed a certain count, not the other way 'round.

You need to fully read the sentences, this is the second time you've done this. Go back and read it again, I stated frame capped and designed not to drop below a specified frame rate. Frame capping improves performance (check on release starcraft 2 rendering issues for why).

No need for the language. I actually have 2 last-gen, 1080p Pioneer Kuros in the house. TVs that were so awesome that Pioneer had to cease manufacturing them on the basis that they eventually produce more lifelike images than real life. (these are regarded as the "best" plasma TVs)

The kuro had that title when i was working at sears 3.5 years ago, they've since discontinued the line and competitors have caught up.

What nonsense! It's well known that -on release- the levelling system in Oblivion was Broken. PC users, at least, were able to fix this. Thanks to PC users, and modding tools, Oblivion still looks great today, with texture mods and so forth.

"On release" I was able to level up just fine.

You're kidding right? The PC version has an improved physics system, nativley supports 3D, runs perfectly, etc etc.

When its not bogging down systems with poor driver support and bad memory allocation.

and Capcom learned their lesson by ensuring that Resi V on PC was the best version of that game. Resi IV was released so many years ago that it's bearly worth mentioning.

The best version of the game which improves little outside of graphics (which looked comparably bad next to other PC titles at the time). Are you tying mouse use into quality? Otherwise it was a direct port that was inhibited heavily by games for windows live, which at RE5's release was functionally useless and memory intensive. It also required a high end PC to run without slowdown.

Except Streetfighter IV. The PC version plays extremely well, and is used by quite a few "professional" players.

But not super street fighter IV, the game that professional players actually, y'know, play. Shoryuken recently reported they were mulling over the decision to port it to pc, which implies at this stage that the previous title didn't sell well.

I appreciate that there is quite a high "barrier to entry" when it comes to gaming on PC, and I prefer it that way. It's like living in a gated community. You don't have to put up with the punk kids on XBL, and you can generally get a more communitarian online experience.

I see you've never played starcraft 2, league of legends, or team fortress 2. The communities aren't exactly bush league and they're every bit as populated with kids as XBL. That barrier to entry prevents certain forms of play and entertainment. Fighting games which require specific imput types that are ill suited to keyboards and which benefit from a couch and monitor solution are exemplery of the kinds of short pick up and play experiences that PC gaming doesn't offer. The barrier to enjoyment of installation, patching, technical issues, hardware issues, and DRM issues palpably effect a persons enjoyment on a PC. I would probably have a much more rosy picture of PC gaming if mine wasn't three years old. It has a hard time running modern games with respectable framerates and graphics that don't look like mud.

Oddly enough, my 360 plays every game that comes out perfectly and is two years older then the PC (and cost a sixth as much).

Arma II?

You can play with the 12 people online at any given time.

64 player version of Battlefield 3?

Battlefield 3 isn't coming out for a while.

Crysis?

Do people still play crysis? Did they ever for any reason other then to brag about their alienwares? Except for the theoretical battlefield 3 none of the games listed are particularly heavy hitter currently, with crysis never having truly attained that status due to its system reqs (the developers have admitted to seeing sales negatively impacted in a meaningful fashion by the requirements).

I didn't bring up RTS's because the form factor doesn't fit consoles and it's a genre thats missing (just as fighting games are generally missing from PCs).

Shoryuken recently reported they were mulling over the decision to port it to pc, which implies at this stage that the previous title didn't sell well.

I remember Capcom putting out a statement about SFIV being so highly pirated they were not going to do any more PC ports of it.

Pc has mouse and keyboard. You can hit with them.

Consoles have pads. You can't hit with them.

proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fGFLup_lQ0

(aimbotting isn't hitting)

On-topic

I've heard that 7 has better performance than vista but it is rather marginal diffirence. Xp has more gaming power but it isn't sold anymore and it lacks dx 10 and 11 support. 7 and vista also perform better at multimedia.

ghosty wrote:I've had some trouble with Fallout 3 on windows 7, but that can be fixed by rewriting some of the commands.

Fallout 3 is a very faulty software sadly. I never got it to start a new game on my Vista.