rec.autos.simulators

> >>>It may lack the depth and length of $40-50 PC
> >>> shooters, but at $20 it was a well priced value.

> >> Actually, Serious Sam for the Xbox is both versions of the game.

> > (snip)

> > From Babbage's website: Serious Sam Gold (XBox) = $49.99 with ETA 12
> > November 2002.

> > From Babbage's website: Serious Sam Gold (PC) = $29.99 with ETA 21
January
> > 2003.

> > From Babbage's website: Serious Sam (Original(PC)) = $6.99 available
now.

> > Why would I pay $30 OR $50 when I can buy BOTH games (PC version) for
under
> > $22 ($6.99 (SS1) + $14.99 (SS2))? Actually I think I bought both
versions
> > when they were on sale for $9.99 each (several months apart, of course)
so
> > it was slightly less than $20.

> > Makes me wonder about the mentality of the average console game buyer.
Have
> > they no concept of bargain hunting and/or simply refusing to pay
exorbitant
> > prices for products?

> Makes me wonder about the PC gamers, myself.  Have they no concept of the
> value of game time?  The reason that PC games are cheaper (in some cases,
> not in all as PSX games are often in the $10 range now) is that PC games
> are largely a do-it-yourself proposition.  The $20 you save isn't any
> bargain if it takes an hour to get the game working.  The PC gamer does a
> whole lot of the work himself; work which console games take care of.

> The last game I bought for XBox was Sega GT 2002, along with the Mad Catz
> MC2 wheel setup (nice wheel, btw).  From the time I got home with the
> goods to the time I was playing the game with the wheel working perfectly
> was just about 10 minutes flat.  You can't do that sort of thing on a
> PC at all.  If you put a wheel on a PC then you get to install the
drivers,
> play 20 questions with "Install Shield", and then you get to do the same
> thing with the new game.  Moreover, there's no guarantee that the game
will
> even work with that peripheral after you've spent the better part of an
> hour jumping through hoops.

> I quit PC *** long ago.  The last PC game I ever bought was Duke
Nukem3D,
> and after fighting with that game for days trying to tweak every setting
> just right, something snapped.  I bit my lip, tasted *** and promptly
> smashed my keyboard (I hated that keyboard anyway).  I will not ever fight
> to make my entertainment work again.  I want entertainment that works for
> ME, not the other way around.

> Every other form of entertainment gives immediate gratification.

> Would anyone put up with a music CD that ran Install Shield?  HECK NO!
> Would anyone put up with a movie DVD that installed drivers?  HECK NO!
> Most folks don't even like renting videotapes that haven't been rewound.
> Console games are part of the same line of reasoning.  Put them in and
> they work just like they're supposed to, no muss, no fuss, no grief.

> It's PC gamers who are the nutcases paying for recreation and bringing
> home aggravation.  I don't call that any bargain at all.  You save your
> $20, PC gamers.  You'll be needing that money for therapy.

> --
> Oh, oh.  Here come those crazy aliens again.  Help me, Elllleeot!
> Help me get home!  (Atari 2600 E.T. manual, worst game ever made)

> >>Every other form of entertainment gives immediate gratification.

> >>Would anyone put up with a music CD that ran Install Shield?  HECK NO!
> >>Would anyone put up with a movie DVD that installed drivers?  HECK NO!
> >>Most folks don't even like renting videotapes that haven't been rewound.
> >>Console games are part of the same line of reasoning.  Put them in and
> >>they work just like they're supposed to, no muss, no fuss, no grief.

> >   So what you are saying is that console gamers are lazy and/or
retarded?

> No, I'm saying that they want to have FUN!  You've heard of that, right?
> FUN?  Where you enjoy what you're doing?  Have a pleasant experience?
> There's NOTHING pleasant about fighting with a setup program that can't
> even detect what freakin' sound card you have.  Why in the heck should
> I have to know that I'm running a Soundblaster 32 with an IRQ of 7 and
> an IO address of 220?  I WANT TO PLAY A GAME.  I'm on my free time, I'm
> looking for something to do, and playing "how well do you know your PC's
> config" is not my idea of a game.  I WANT TO PLAY A GAME!

> No, I don't want to fill out a survey.
> No, I don't want to register online.
> No, I don't want to install Adobe Acrobat reader.
> No, I don't want to receive e-mail offers.
> No, I don't want to get a trial subscription to a sucky magazine.

> I WANT TO PLAY THE DAMNED GAME!  Is that too much to ask?  I want to
> take the disc, put it in the drive, and PLAY.  It's such a simple
> request.  Consoles have been doing that for over a decade now, but
> can PC's do that?  NO!  They insist on pissing me off.

> >>It's PC gamers who are the nutcases paying for recreation and bringing
> >>home aggravation.  I don't call that any bargain at all.  You save your
> >>$20, PC gamers.  You'll be needing that money for therapy.

> >   I can't remember the last time I had any big problems with my computer
> > getting games to run.  It must have been over a year ago.  All that
stuff
> > you are brining up is old, tired arguements.

> That's total B.S.
> I just bought a new monitor (plug and pray, hehehe) for my new PC.  The
> MONITOR (Viewsonic) came with an install disc.  This is SEVEN YEARS after
> Windows 95 promised Plug-and-Play, and EASY things like VGA monitors still
> come with driver discs.  Even worse, the "autorun" didn't even work.
> Apparently Windows XP is such an upgrade that silly things like
autobooting
> discs are a thing of the past.  I had to look at the autorun file to see
> which program the damned install wanted to run, run it, and then I had to
> know that Windows XP is basically a sequel to Windows 2000 which is
basically
> a sequel to Windows NT.  Otherwise I wouldn't have known to grab the
drivers
> for NT.  THAT SUCKS.  Plus it had to restart the machine.  That's
PATHETIC.

> I'm not technologically illiterate.  Far from it, I'm a telecommunications
> field technician and I'm used to fighting with broken machines all the
time
> (and winning), but I get PAID to do that because it's work.  I don't want
to
> do that when I'm trying to PLAY.

> If a console game worked like that the console wouldn't sell worth beans.
> It's unbelievable.  I can put a game into my Sega Saturn running a Hitachi
> SH2 at 28 Mhz and be playing in less than a minute.  I can't get this
> stupid AthlonXP2000+ (supposedly better than a Pentium 4 2Ghz) to do
> anything new that quickly, and it's SUPPOSED to be 70 times faster?  I
sure
> don't see it.  PC's are junkpiles next to consoles, because they're so
> bogged down by all their crapola that they don't get the *** to the
road.
> It's like driving a Ferrari on metal rims.  It doesn't matter what's under
> the hood if the power ain't getting to the user.

> --
> Oh, oh.  Here come those crazy aliens again.  Help me, Elllleeot!
> Help me get home!  (Atari 2600 E.T. manual, worst game ever made)

> > When and IF the console games reach the quality of current PC games with
> all
> > of the required accessories, as in a KB, internet connection,
> wheels/pedals,
> > hotas's, etc etc then maybe I'll plunk down my $150.  Till then there
> isn't
> > any comparison of the two platforms.

>   Consoles already have keyboards, but I can say from experience they are
> not that useful like on a PC.  You can get racing wheels for a console,
too.
> I'm not a big racing fan, but I have Gran Turismo 3 for my PS2 that I
bought
> on sale and I like playing it.  I just use a gamepad.
> The graphics are great, but they are a lot more jaggy than what I'd get on
a
> PC and sometimes my eyes get tired of looking at the murky image.

>   No HOTAS on a console, yet.   I can't see a sim with that steep of a
> learning curve ever selling to a mass market audience.  Playstation had a
> port of Gunship 2000 that was great, though, and the gamepad had alot of
> shift functions built in.

> > When you can play Nascar 2002 on your Sega Saturn in under a minute then
> > come talk to us :-)

>   You can run it on PS2, and I assume there's an XBox version (I rented
it,
> wasn't real thrilled with PS2 version, too much jaggies).  The PC version
is
> pretty much the same game, BTW.

> > > I'm not technologically illiterate.  Far from it, I'm a
> telecommunications
> > > field technician and I'm used to fighting with broken machines all the
> > time
> > > (and winning), but I get PAID to do that because it's work.  I don't
> want
> > to
> > > do that when I'm trying to PLAY.

> > > If a console game worked like that the console wouldn't sell worth
> beans.
> > > It's unbelievable.  I can put a game into my Sega Saturn running a
> Hitachi
> > > SH2 at 28 Mhz and be playing in less than a minute.  I can't get this
> > > stupid AthlonXP2000+ (supposedly better than a Pentium 4 2Ghz) to do
> > > anything new that quickly, and it's SUPPOSED to be 70 times faster?  I
> > sure
> > > don't see it.  PC's are junkpiles next to consoles, because they're so
> > > bogged down by all their crapola that they don't get the *** to the
> > road.
> > > It's like driving a Ferrari on metal rims.  It doesn't matter what's
> under
> > > the hood if the power ain't getting to the user.

> > > --
> > > Oh, oh.  Here come those crazy aliens again.  Help me, Elllleeot!
> > > Help me get home!  (Atari 2600 E.T. manual, worst game ever made)

> > On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 06:58:55 -0700, Charles Doane

> > sounding like this... :

> >>That's total B.S.
> >>I just bought a new monitor (plug and pray, hehehe) for my new PC.  The
> >>MONITOR (Viewsonic) came with an install disc.  This is SEVEN YEARS
after
> >>Windows 95 promised Plug-and-Play, and EASY things like VGA monitors
still
> >>come with driver discs.  Even worse, the "autorun" didn't even work.
> >>Apparently Windows XP is such an upgrade that silly things like
autobooting
> >>discs are a thing of the past.  I had to look at the autorun file to see
> >>which program the damned install wanted to run, run it, and then I had
to
> >>know that Windows XP is basically a sequel to Windows 2000 which is
basically
> >>a sequel to Windows NT.  Otherwise I wouldn't have known to grab the
drivers
> >>for NT.  THAT SUCKS.  Plus it had to restart the machine.  That's
PATHETIC.

> > Most monitors are pllug and pray, moron.  However, if you have drivers
> > for them ,then you can use your video card and the monitor to their
> > best abilities.  Without the drivers, you often can't set the refresh
> > rate on monitors above 60 hz, for example.

> What monitor made in the last decade can't pull off better than 60 Hz?
> I think default has been 75 Hz since back in the Windows 3.1 days.
> If the PC would PICK A VIDEO CHIPSET and stay with it the PC would be
> a lot more viable of an option for ***, but as it is, it's horrible.

> The power PC gamer goes and buys himself a $300 video card, the latest
> and greatest, and then what?  He finds that there's not but two or three
> games on the planet that support the thing.  So he's screwed.

> The budget PC gamer goes and buys himself a $50 video card, one which
> will run most of the games, and then he sees something like Doom III
> coming down the pike and his video card won't support that.  So he's
> screwed too.

> No matter which route a PC gamer takes, he's gonna get shafted.

> >>If a console game worked like that the console wouldn't sell worth
beans.
> >>It's unbelievable.  I can put a game into my Sega Saturn running a
Hitachi
> >>SH2 at 28 Mhz and be playing in less than a minute.  I can't get this
> >>stupid AthlonXP2000+ (supposedly better than a Pentium 4 2Ghz) to do
> >>anything new that quickly, and it's SUPPOSED to be 70 times faster?  I
sure
> >>don't see it.  PC's are junkpiles next to consoles, because they're so
> >>bogged down by all their crapola that they don't get the *** to the
road.
> >>It's like driving a Ferrari on metal rims.  It doesn't matter what's
under
> >>the hood if the power ain't getting to the user.

> > Well, most of the bogging down in PCs comes from one place: Windows
> > and its bloatware.  Add in that multiple other programs like to set
> > themselves up to auto run as soon as your PC starts, and you're losing
> > resources (not even taking into account how horrible Windows is at
> > managing resources to begin with).

> I've always believed that to be the main reason there's never been a
> good fighter on a PC.  All of the software drivers cause far too much
> latency to ever hope to play any game with 100 millisecond or less
> timing windows.

> > Try using a different OS and see if the same bog down issues happen.
> > Granted, you won't find as much program support on the other OSes, but
> > 9 out of 10 times you will find that the programs run smoother, and
> > the entire PC runs smoother all the time without G%^ damn Explorer
> > crashing every 5 seconds.

> I wouldn't mind doing that except for the fact that practically all
> documents I work with tend to be in a Microsoft format (ie. DOC or
> MDB) and I need to view those.

> > It really doesn't matter how fast the PC is when it has Windows
> > running on it.  Hell, as son as I get my Linux box up and running, I
> > won't ever need to use this Windows one ever again, unless a game I
> > want to play doesn't have Linux drivers.

> Which probably means that all of your old games are junk and you won't
> be able to play them.  Which is par for the course on a PC.  I don't
> know why people even bother claiming that PC's are backwards compatible.
> They really aren't, and the more specialized the app the less likely it
> will be supported in the future.  Games are pretty specialized apps when
> it comes right down to it, so they're among the least likely to work in
> the future.

> --
> Oh, oh.  Here come those crazy aliens again.  Help me, Elllleeot!
> Help me get home!  (Atari 2600 E.T. manual, worst game ever made)

> > <snip history of problems running PC games>

> >>I quit PC *** long ago.  The last PC game I ever bought was Duke

> > Nukem3D,

> > LOL well no wonder all you can recount are horror stories of playing PC
> > games, ROFL! You might want to consider waking up to the 21st century
and
> > trying out the 8 or 9 versions of Windows that have come out since then.
> > Life is pretty good on the PC *** side now. Sheesh. (rolls eyes)

> I just got to play with Windows XP.  On this machine, I mean the one I'm
> posting on.  It sucks.  I still haven't fixed my Logitech trackball (dumb
> box thinks it's a PS/2 mouse), it took me great effort to get the drivers
> working for my "plug and play" monitor, and I had to install my scanner.

> This is 2002.  Windows 95 was supposed to fix all of that.  Yeah, there
> has been 8 or 9 versions of Windows since then, and I've used most of
> 'em.  There's not supposed to BE any installation anymore.  So why does
> everything still come with installation discs?  It's pathetic.

> I can honestly say that I've never had a console game ask me if I wanted
> a full or a custom install.  They tend to say "Press Start".
> I've never had a console say "new hardware detected, would you like to
> install drivers for it?".  That is bar none the stupidest damned question
> ever.  It's not there for the LOOKS, you dumb freaking box!  For a console
> to match that stupidity, it would have to say "new game detected, would
> you like to play it?".

> PLAY IT!  JUST GO AHEAD AND PLAY IT!  There's nothing that pushes my
> buttons like stupidity.  If it's THERE, it's because I put it THERE,
> so I want it THERE.  Is that logic too hard to follow?  Why can't a
> PC get that?  Consoles do.  My Xbox doesn't ask about new hardware when
> I plug in the joystick for a few rounds of DOA3.  It just does it.

> I hate PC's.  Inefficient pieces of ***get beat all to hell by
> consoles with less than a quarter of their power.

> --
> Oh, oh.  Here come those crazy aliens again.  Help me, Elllleeot!
> Help me get home!  (Atari 2600 E.T. manual, worst game ever made)

> > Really?  I haven't seen any cache to a great degree, I wish they would.
> > At least I haven't noticed any cached data left behind after the game
was
> > removed.

> > I haven't noticed any impact the number of blocks free either.  Like for
> > ripping CDs into it.

>   A review of DOA3 I read mentioned it caches a large amount of data to
the
> hard disk the first time a player runs the game.

>   My point is it's generally much better to store data on a hard disk over
a
> CD or DVD-ROM- access times are much shorter.  And on a PC, this is called
> "installing".

> > --

> > ====================================================

> > :


> > :
> > : > Who says there's not supposed to be any installation? What mythology
> is
> > : > this?
> > :
> > :   The irony is, of course, the XBox cache's data to the hard disk, in
> some
> > : cases large amounts.  The difference between this and "installation"
is
> > : purely semantics.
> > :
> > :
> > :

> Hmmm... Wondering if you posted with your tongue in your cheek?

> > > Really?  I haven't seen any cache to a great degree, I wish they
would.
> > > At least I haven't noticed any cached data left behind after the game
> was
> > > removed.

> > > I haven't noticed any impact the number of blocks free either.  Like
for
> > > ripping CDs into it.

> >   A review of DOA3 I read mentioned it caches a large amount of data to
> the
> > hard disk the first time a player runs the game.

> >   My point is it's generally much better to store data on a hard disk
over
> a
> > CD or DVD-ROM- access times are much shorter.  And on a PC, this is
called
> > "installing".

> > > --

> > > ====================================================

> > > :


> > > :
> > > : > Who says there's not supposed to be any installation? What
mythology
> > is
> > > : > this?
> > > :
> > > :   The irony is, of course, the XBox cache's data to the hard disk,
in
> > some
> > > : cases large amounts.  The difference between this and "installation"
> is
> > > : purely semantics.
> > > :
> > > :
> > > :

>>No, I'm saying that they want to have FUN!  You've heard of that, right?
>>FUN?  Where you enjoy what you're doing?  Have a pleasant experience?
>>There's NOTHING pleasant about fighting with a setup program that can't
>>even detect what freakin' sound card you have.  Why in the heck should
>>I have to know that I'm running a Soundblaster 32 with an IRQ of 7 and
>>an IO address of 220?  I WANT TO PLAY A GAME.  I'm on my free time, I'm
>>looking for something to do, and playing "how well do you know your PC's
>>config" is not my idea of a game.  I WANT TO PLAY A GAME!

> Let me guess: You have just crawled out from beneath the rock under
> which you have been sleeping for most of the last decade.