PC megahits Crysis and UT3 flop in Nov. sales

[Cuddly Knife]

Dec 17, 2007 @ 11:40am
Summary:
Despite their high-profile, Crysis and Unreal Tournament 3 sales fizzled in November according to the NPD Group. Are PC gamers flocking to less expensive consoles?

Full Text:

The simExchange reports that neither Crysis or UT3 managed to sell more than 100,000 units in their debut last month.

Crysis, which requires an unprecedented $1500-$2500 in PC upgrades to play, sold 86,633 copies in the U.S., while Unreal Tournament 3 sold just 33,995 copies.

In January 2005, Vivendi said it sold 1.7 million copies of Half-Life 2 in just two months; much more than either Crysis or Unreal 3 for a similar period.

Though both games were released in the middle of the month, their numbers are clearly less than what EA and Midway had hoped for.

Are gamers abandoning the PC? Without jumping the gun, some believe the PC market is shrinking with exception to a few specific genres like the massively popular World of Warcraft MMO.

Indeed, both Xbox 360 and PS3 offer comparable, if not equal, graphics technology in most cases at a fraction of the cost. What was once the platform for hardcore shooters has seemingly been relegated to second place.

In related news, Midway dropped their PR agency of three years on Monday in favor of more "dedicated" representation. Can I get a :D?

Actually, I don't want to say much, because I'd like to see what kind of numbers that the PS3 version of UT3 is doing. Hell, it might be just because gamers aren't that interested in a mindless multi-player shooter(Warhawk and Halo3 are not mindless). I don't know why they're not buying Crysis, though. Mochan? Can you answer that one? You're playing Crysis, right?

[Robert-The-Rambler]

Can I get a :D?

Actually, I don't want to say much, because I'd like to see what kind of numbers that the PS3 version of UT3 is doing. Hell, it might be just because gamers aren't that interested in a mindless multi-player shooter(Warhawk and Halo3 are not mindless). I don't know why they're not buying Crysis, though. Mochan? Can you answer that one? You're playing Crysis, right?

To so called play it the right way you need to have so much power at hand you could probably burn out a 15 amp circuit. I would rather play Oblivion at 2560 * 1600 with max detail than play Crysis right now. I just don't understand why it has to perform so poorly. Does it look that good? I'm not so sure.

[Mochan]

Crysis I can understand not selling well, Far Cry was a niche game when it hit and Crysis even more so because of the steep system requirements. They said it in the article Cuddly -- most gamers need to pay over a grand in upgrades just to play it properly. I spent about $400US to be able to play it. Most people don't have the luxury to do so. But let me tell you I am not disappointed. Best $400 I spent all year long.

UT3 though is a surprise I was expecting more support for this title, once upon a time UT2K4 was the premiere deathmatch game and everyone was playing it. I have to admit I'm not playing UT3 myself even though I have the game.

[silversparrow]

Considering $2000 worth of video cards (http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2007/12/14/even-2000-of-video-cards-wont-max-out-crysis-cryengine2) won't even run Crysis smoothly on max settings, I'd say the game is way too demanding, even at medium settings, for 98% of PCs out there.

However, just because games have poor sales numbers during release, doesn't mean they'll be a failure in the long term. Far Cry didn't make huge waves at retailers when it was first released, but it was a consistent seller, eventually being bundled with many video cards. In the end it went on to sell over a million copies.

As the article noted, the game's engine, CryENGINE2, will be around for a long time.

UT3 is a big surprise though. Perhaps the FPS market is over-saturated right now.

[Mochan]

I will say that Crysis does run perfectly fine at Medium settings at 720p resolution on an 8800GT and any dual core CPU. But I will also say that the game is not worth playing at Medium Settings, you just lose so much it hurts.

Anyway Silversparrow and I have the exact same sentiments here. Far Cry was niche when it hit, but sold well in the end. I can see Crysis doing the same. But UT3 is the real puzzle how did this happen? I'm not a big Epic fan and I wasn't all that hot over UT2K4 (even though I beat Bane and his girlfriend up in it over and over LOL) but I really wasn't expecting such a fall from grace.

[Dancer O_o]

Can I get a :D?

Actually, I don't want to say much, because I'd like to see what kind of numbers that the PS3 version of UT3 is doing. Hell, it might be just because gamers aren't that interested in a mindless multi-player shooter(Warhawk and Halo3 are not mindless). I don't know why they're not buying Crysis, though. Mochan? Can you answer that one? You're playing Crysis, right?

ilnadmy will weep blood over this news. I'd love to have a cutting edge PC, but for that kind of scratch I can get a 60 inch monster HD tv and take a week off in the Gulf of Mexico too...

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Actually it is UT3 that doesn't surprise me. I think gamers are getting bored with it. Mochan and I had this argument a long time ago, when he said he would rather have UT3 over Gears. I think most gamers on the PC are actually looking forward to a year old port of GEARS than UT3. I think people want a good story and a good single player campaign. I can get UT3 for PS3, but I have not an ounce of interest in another mindless fragger.

Crysis surprises me, I think this does kind of signal the PC market is not nearly as robust and as enthusiastic as it use to be. Back in the day, there were always games forcing PC gamers to upgrade, and we did so eagerly. It seems PC gamers aren't as eager to upgrade for a great experience anymore. I can certainly see why, it is just not worth it.

The question now is can this CryEngine or whatever be scaled down and used on a closed system like the PS3 or the 360. If they really want to make some money with it look at HL2, phenomenal numbers, look at Infinity Ward, look at Epic with Gears and the Unreal Engine.

Oh well, poor Mochan, completely wrong about everything this gen, sorry bud, gotta rub it in.

[Gadfly2317]

UT3 is a big surprise though. Perhaps the FPS market is over-saturated right now.

Perhaps?

[ilnadmy]

Perhaps?

Hahaha.

Yeah, Crysis is a bit too powerful for its own good, and as far as UT3 the only thing I can think of is that with the release of COD4 and its amazing online component, many people aren't bothering with UT3 yet. Also, Epic fans already have Gears of War to enjoy online.

[Mochan]

It could just be the timing of it ... these are the tail-end shooters for this year, I think the last 3 shooters to come out are Black Site Area 51, Crysis and UT3 respectively. Coming right after everyone has just bought COD4, Bioshock, Orange Box, Halo 3 and even Gears of War, I would imagine too many people have too much on their plate.

Area 51 is getting panned left and right (just like Jericho) so that explains why nobody cares about it, Crysis and UT3 might have to contend with the fact that every gamer out who would have bought either of these titles already has at least 2 shooters they are playing for the holidays.

It would be interesting to see what the figures for the PS3 sales of UT3 look like. It's a shame that these games don't have 360 versions to get a bigger picture of what's going on in the sales department. It could very well be that all the shooter fans are already on the 360.

[thelastword]

Crysis looks good, the large open levels, the lighting and physics are really top notch, but the demands that are required to run this game at very high settings is just plain ridiculous. So it would seem, that many are waiting till their rig can actually do this game justice. There's no way you will play crysis at medium settings and tell me you're actually playing (CRYSIS), certainly not in the way it was meant to be played.

At high settings and top rez it looks really good however, I was playing at 1900*1200 on high with 4xaa and mustered 25-30fps, that was before I had to delve into the world of Uncharted, but it looked amazing and is very much playable. It's also worth noting that you do get a boost running Crysis on Vista 64bit, from what I have seen though, it's slight. Still, I was running Crysis in 64 bit vista at that rez and the gameplay was pretty solid overall, though the Ai can be a bit spotty at times.


If you do have a bit more ram than a 32bit os allows, it will definitely be in your favour running the 64 bit code I would imagine. I've got 4gbs of ram that Vista 64 sees, Vista 32 bit only sees 3.5gb of my ram, but in the end I've not witnessed the 10-20 percent difference in performance Crytek hinted at, that is switching from 64 to 32 bit OS's. Regardless, I must say that the bit I've played was really good, the suit powers are ace and the fact that you can approach these koreans in any which way makes you define how you want to play. I've heard though that it gets a bit linear in the end, but let's hope I can get back to it soon.

As for the performance of Crysis and UT3, this year was clearly the year of the FPS, just so many, and so many of these shooters were acclaimed in the media. I don't think the initial sales of these titles will impede further sales to any alarming degree however, I think these games will have legs, especially UT3. I've already heard of someone working on a starwars mod for e.g. even a gears mod, so the legs of UT3 is a no brainer, when the mods start to come through, more people will be purchasing the game and we should'nt forget that you need the PC version of UT to make mods for the PS3 version, so there are definitely additional sales coming through, and let's not forget EPIC's unreal mod tourneys, where the winner gets lumps sums of the expendable.

What I've concluded so far, is that games like COD4, Acreed, Orange Box and Guitar Hero are definitely the limelight games for now. A bit less the orange box, but these are the games that were being pushed in November, so the sales on these titles would always outclass Crysis and UT3. I think we will actually start seeing more of a push for Crysis and especially UT3 in the new year, there's no doubt that the mod scene will be in gear and Nvidia would very likely announce it's 9800 line of GPU's come CES in January. That would mean, that folk would finally see the GPU that's going to run crysis at 1200p at 60fps on very high. These games will have legs, although they won't outdo the likes of COD on consoles.

[Jaa Phaanom]

anyone know how much CoD4 has sold on the PC? Could a part of the reason be that PC gamers can pirate stuff more easily?

[T.Tashi]

It could just be the timing of it ... these are the tail-end shooters for this year, I think the last 3 shooters to come out are Black Site Area 51, Crysis and UT3 respectively. Coming right after everyone has just bought COD4, Bioshock, Orange Box, Halo 3 and even Gears of War, I would imagine too many people have too much on their plate.

Don't forget Time Shift.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

I forgot to mention this, G.I. said GEARS on the PC will bring your system to its knees. In fact, here's exactly what they said:
<b>"Gears on the PC is exactly the same as its 360 predecessor - except with a lower framerate and generally worse visuals unless you have a crazy-powerful DirectX 10 rig at your disposal."</b>

Wow, then they go on to slam the much vaunted KYB/M as it pertains to this game, they even recommend just plugging in a 360 controller, ha!

So once again, Mochan is completely wrong. He bragged about getting the "real" version of the game, looks like the wait is definitely not worth it. And unless u got a uber-rig with a 360 controller, an actual worse gaming experience.

Ahh the splendors of PC gaming. Too damn expensive, problems like in Bioshock and HL2, missing out on great games like Uncharted, Halo3, AC, ME, and then getting late ports better done on the consoles. Enjoy Mochan, enjoy.

[Robert-The-Rambler]

[QUOTE=ThaMaskedGamer
Ahh the splendors of PC gaming. Too damn expensive, problems like in Bioshock and HL2, missing out on great games like Uncharted, Halo3, AC, ME, and then getting late ports better done on the consoles. Enjoy Mochan, enjoy.[/QUOTE]

2560 * 1600!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only real reason to PC Game right now.

[thelastword]

I forgot to mention this, G.I. said GEARS on the PC will bring your system to its knees. In fact, here's exactly what they said:
"Gears on the PC is exactly the same as its 360 predecessor - except with a lower framerate and generally worse visuals unless you have a crazy-powerful DirectX 10 rig at your disposal."
That statement does not make any sense, I don't think anyone expects to run gears properly with a P4 with an on board intel GPU. The fact is, DX10 GPU's are available now and there are some reasonably priced cards out there that can run gears nicely at better reolutions than 1280*720. If a major magazine like GI can't afford a decent DX10 gpu in the age of vista, then something is wrong with them.


Wow, then they go on to slam the much vaunted KYB/M as it pertains to this game, they even recommend just plugging in a 360 controller, ha!

I mentioned that I would be getting an xbox controller to use on my PC when Gears hit, but I have not, regardless, I do think that it controls a bit better with the controller. This is not the only review indicating a preference for the controlelr overall, I've been gauging the PC version in previews before release and it seems that a controller was always plugged in. As I've said before, Gears is a game built more to the tune of a gamepad, but it's by no means unplayable via KYB/M, I'm playing it just fine with that setup atm.


I don't know what type of computer GI has, but I'm running Gears at UBER detail at 1900*1200, it's locked at 60 with vsync on, the resolution is better and props up the detail, the ligting is way superior to the 360 version, however, I have seen some blurry textures up close and the armor of these guys are really just mapped on. It's a great looking game, much better on my rig than the 720p 360 effort, despite that, Uncharted destroys it graphically.


Ahh the splendors of PC gaming. Too damn expensive, problems like in Bioshock and HL2. There were problems in HL2? Bioshock runs fine on my PC, it looks really good actually, with a resolution bump, max detail and aa. TF2 on the PC has been smooth unlike the console versions.


missing out on great games like Uncharted, Halo3, AC, ME, and then getting late ports better done on the consoles. Enjoy Mochan, enjoy.Thank you very much, it was clear to me that your bsing thread on the abysmal Kane and Lynch was just typical xbotting, but I hope all these guys knew that, it was so plain afterall.

[Mochan]

Ahh the splendors of PC gaming. Too damn expensive, problems like in Bioshock and HL2, missing out on great games like Uncharted, Halo3, AC, ME, and then getting late ports better done on the consoles. Enjoy Mochan, enjoy.

Don't be an idiot, Gears runs a hell of a lot better on my PC than it does on your cruddy 360, we get all the levels, and the m/kb setup is spot on. Now who's giving retarded reviews a blow job?

I don't care who GI is if they really think that they are sorry excuses for gamers. They must have some Jurassic rig with atrophied wrist action in their hands.


Oh, and there was a time when XBots like you were whining about how I used yo doubleteam the Xbox with a tag team of the PS2 and the PC, and now here you are doubleteaming the PC with the PS3 and 360. Funny how things change, the PC with its tech advantage and reinvigorated lineup is more than a match for all your consoles combined, TMG.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

That statement does not make any sense, I don't think anyone expects to run gears properly with a P4 with an on board intel GPU. The fact is, DX10 GPU's are available now and there are some reasonably priced cards out there that can run gears nicely at better reolutions than 1280*720. If a major magazine like GI can't afford a decent DX10 gpu in the age of vista, then something is wrong with them.Makes plenty sense to me, you guys will upgrade your PCs and buy stupid OS solely for games and you rationalize the expense. When you step back from the situation and get away from it for some time, you realize what a PC gamer considers reasonable is very damn expensive. It isn't that people cannot afford to do it, but people understand it is not very smart, especially to play a year old 360 game. But hey, people can use their money as they wish, but obviously fewer and fewer people are convincing themselves that the small advantages only in graphics is worth the extra costs. Major pc titles are slowing in sales and even crappy console games sales are exploding. If PC gaming were so great people would be upgrading their PCs in increasing trends and game sales would be increasing. Everyone has a PC and i'm sure most people have done the math in their head and said, this is not worth it.


<b>
Thank you very much, it was clear to me that your bsing thread on the abysmal Kane and Lynch was just typical xbotting, but I hope all these guys knew that, it was so plain afterall.</b>That's because you are a simpleton, you can't understand that I realize COD4, Uncharted, SMG, MP3 etc., are all considered great games by the public and gaming media, and that my own opinion is just that. Over all these years you people continue to get upset, because I have an opinion, even when I recognize my opinion doesn't agree with the publics.

I never said Uncharted was garbage. I liked Uncharted, but I do recognize it is VERY weak on actual gameplay. No matter what u Milkdrinkers say. The game shines in several areas, but not actual combat, and the enemies are very boring. But I understand to a lot of guys graphics is all that matter. It doesn't even matter if there are no physics behind the graphics, it doesn't even matter if the game world is just a painted picture, non-interactive. COD4 and Uncharted are two good games imo, but not great, they are the two most superficial blockbuster games of the year. A lot of people, media and fanboyz here, have fallen for that lack of depth, or simply feel that the positives outweigh the negatives. I think in Uncharted the positives do outweigh the negatives, but the brevity of the game and the poor ending made it fall short of greatness for me. It is a good game but not great. But of course to Milkdrinker's it is this great game, they only feel that way because it is exclusive. And it may look better than GEARS, I happen to think GEARS is more visually impressive because Uncharted has luscious environmentals but GEARS has much more depth, much more action, the scope of the game is much more impressive. But that doesn't matter, they both look great, but in terms of game play, GEARS destroys Uncharted, be fair. I guess Uncharted has better gameplay than Halo3 too right and Bioshock right, I guess Uncharted is the real game of the year.

I can't wait for the day PS3 has an abolute AAA killer app, with the whole package, but Uncharted falls short.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Don't be an idiot, Gears runs a hell of a lot better on my PC than it does on your cruddy 360, we get all the levels, and the m/kb setup is spot on. Now who's giving retarded reviews a blow job? Yeah on your PC, which also runs Crysis. What a d*ck, u still don't get it, lol. And enjoy your extra level, hope it was worth the wait.

<b>
Oh, and there was a time when XBots like you were whining about how I used yo doubleteam the Xbox with a tag team of the PS2 and the PC, and now here you are doubleteaming the PC with the PS3 and 360. Funny how things change, the PC with its tech advantage and reinvigorated lineup is more than a match for all your consoles combined, TMG.</b> Dude I never stopped believing 360 ALONE is the BEST nextgen gaming platfrom, PERIOD! But if you couple it with ANY other platform it is not even a contest. This holiday i'll be playing games from DDR, Naruto, and Scene-it, to Forza2 and M.E. and Assassin's Creed all on one console, with a possibility of Rockband. Then I still have to get Undertow from XBLA. Hell of a way to end a phenomenal year in gaming, whilst you play Lost Planet and Gears, leftovers and sloppy seconds.

[BaneNWN]

Crysis was very hyped over its graaphical greatness.Im pretty sure the UT players are taking there time switching over from ut 2004 to ut 3.same thing happened when each new UT cameout.Dont kid yourself UT 3 will outsell Crysis in the end by a wide margin.

[Mochan]

Hell of a way to end a phenomenal year in gaming, whilst you play Lost Planet and Gears, leftovers and sloppy seconds.

You continue to show what a true ignoramus w/ tunnel vission you have, if you think the only games PC gamers have to play are Lost Planet (which I threw in the garbage several months ago) and Gears.

[thelastword]

Makes plenty sense to me, you guys will upgrade your PCs and buy stupid OS solely for games and you rationalize the expense. When you step back from the situation and get away from it for some time, you realize what a PC gamer considers reasonable is very damn expensive. It isn't that people cannot afford to do it, but people understand it is not very smart, especially to play a year old 360 game. But hey, people can use their money as they wish, but obviously fewer and fewer people are convincing themselves that the small advantages only in graphics is worth the extra costs. Major pc titles are slowing in sales and even crappy console games sales are exploding. If PC gaming were so great people would be upgrading their PCs in increasing trends and game sales would be increasing. Everyone has a PC and i'm sure most people have done the math in their head and said, this is not worth it.Dude, that makes no sense whatsoever, it's been a year since I've had my 8800GTX and I don't review games for a living, there's no reason why I can have a DX10 gpu for over a year and the guys who review the latest PC games are crying about plopping the coin for one. Eff, the latest games demand the latest hardware. I can't run PS3 games on my PS2, that's the analogy drawn from these guys at GI, only in the PC sense, it's a big effin DUH!.

Since you're a bit on the short side, I'll tell you this, there are much cheaper DX10 cards out there, other than the one I have, there's the 8600 and 8800 GT's which are much cheaper and runs gears much better in terms of framerate and graphics over the 360, so no, it's not a simple upgrade which ushers better lighting and better detail, it also runs at double the framerate over the 360 version making it even smoother when you play. Yeah you've played it, what? a year ago, but even then we knew it was coming to the PC, and we knew it would look and perform better on our rigs. Playing Gears now or earlier doesn't make it a different game, hell it's even better not only because of the better graphics and framerate, but also because of the added content or in Gears case, the complete game. it's not like we were twiddling our thumbs playing lesser games till it's release, as we've been saying, we've played better games than Gears before it and there are so many games on our tables we still haven't touched.

I won't deny that having the latest PC hardware can be a bit costly, but if you're a gamer you understand that. PC gamers have to plop it on the hardware, but it's easier on them as it relates to software prices, they also don't have to pay to play online....Ohhh shi......t, we're talking Gears right? MS want's to implement the same anal gutting Live service on the PC, you can't really experience full Gears multiplayer without LIVE gold.


SIDENOTE TO KNIFE: Since we're here, can you tell me why you must be a gold member to access the burnout demo on live? a demo? I mean come on knife, first you've got to pay to play full games, but you also got to pay to get access on demo's on release? This is no conspiracy on MS, RROD+PAYING for subpar p2p online play with bullsilver policies just don't cut it.

Sorry about the sidetrack, had to address Knife here, from a bit he wrote in the burnout thread. Anyhoos...

That's because you are a simpleton, you can't understand that I realize COD4, Uncharted, SMG, MP3 etc., are all considered great games by the public and gaming media, and that my own opinion is just that. Over all these years you people continue to get upset, because I have an opinion, even when I recognize my opinion doesn't agree with the publics.
Dude your opinion agrees with Microsoft, whatever opinion they have becomes your motto. COD4 is rated greater than Halo, so now, it's all about you against the man, you've always disagreed with these reviewers? lol, I'm sure:rolleyes:. I told you from the start that COD4 would be a better shooter than Halo3, Halo's single player campaign is a joke in comparison and it's furniture changing MP can't light a candle to the perk system setup in COD, overall you can't give the nod to Halo, when it's top scores were mostly derived from it's multiplayer which is clearly outclassed by COD's, so now you come in to shoot COD's singleplayer and praise Halo's, blame COD for not having cover, but never asked that in Halo, come on man, I've told you already you're too transparent, your arguments have too many holes, cover up, please.

I mean you really dont have to be biased to recognize the plusses and negatives of both games and which one delivers more. In my case though, I always state clearly why I hold a particular view. When I say RFOM's singleplayer is better than COD's (making it better than Halo, evidently). It's because it has a much longer single player campaign (something you're actually demanding in your next gen games), I think the Ai in RFOM is better and helps you out much more and the weapons are more varied and tactical.

When I say RFOM's multiplayer is better, I truly believe COD4's MP is ace and a good step up in fps, but we all know the initial issues with getting games running smoothly in COD4 mp on consoles, we all know that P2P somewhat contributed to that and IW had to patch it up and is still in the process of putting more patches out there. What I've been saying is that RFOM ran perfectly smooth from day one, with dedicated servers and stats tracking that can't be touched by any shooter launched in 2007. Ranked matches, clan matches and a myriad of mp modes, and this is what I've stamped in most frequently, all of that runs at a smooth and lagless clip.


I never said Uncharted was garbage. I liked Uncharted, but I do recognize it is VERY weak on actual gameplay. No matter what u Milkdrinkers say. The game shines in several areas, but not actual combat. Why don't you play Uncharted on crushing and let's hear some feedback from you. My first try was on hard and I thought these guys were engaging on the level of the Ai in FEAR. In crushing, these guys simply crush, lol, and you've got to land headshots, not try, you've got to, use melee and run and gun, like I've recommended before. As I've said earlier, when you use all the gameplay elements at your disposal that's when you really appreciate uncharted's gameplay, in hard mode and above.


and the enemies are very boring. But I understand to a lot of guys graphics is all that matter. It doesn't even matter if there are no physics behind the graphics, it doesn't even matter if the game world is just a painted picture, non-interactive. COD4 and Uncharted are two good games imo, but not great, they are the two most superficial blockbuster games of the year. A lot of people, media and fanboyz here, have fallen for that lack of depth, or simply feel that the positives outweigh the negatives. I think in Uncharted the positives do outweigh the negatives, but the brevity of the game and the poor ending made it fall short of greatness for me. How can these guys be boring, when they say "Is that your head boolay", punch you in the face, steer you up while you crimp in pain and say "it hurts huh?". I mean come on, try to be a little less transparent, these guys flank you, flush you out of cover, run up to you with shotties when you stay in cover too long, they run and gun and encroach, and a lot of what they do is realistic and smart. I mean come on, If you jump on a guy's back for a neck snap what do you expect the other guy to do, look at you in admiration and awe, whilst you snap his colleague's neck, of course he'll put silver in your back. That's smart ai, that's why being more tactical in uncharted is where it's at.


I can't wait for the day PS3 has an abolute AAA killer app, with the whole package, but Uncharted falls short. I think that Uncharted is AAA based on my time with it, it's gunplay is a solid step up from what Gears did over a year ago. Differences, Marcus is a professional hulking marine with 2 tonnes of armor on his chest, Drake is a treasure hunting normal day guy with no armor. Gears animations pale in comparison, it's story, it's characters. Ive' heard great things about the fight with Raam, so I'm looking forward to that. As for your Uncharted/Cod has static levels? answer this, was there destructible cover and platforms in gears? NO. So all of the points mentioned above including the fact that uncharted has a superior score with the element of excellent platforming inexistent in Gears paints the whole picture. This is the breakdown, the writing is on the wall and you can't refute what I've said on the game's ending in the Kane and Lynch thread, funny, I'm sure Halo3's ending was simply outstanding.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

You continue to show what a true ignoramus w/ tunnel vission you have, if you think the only games PC gamers have to play are Lost Planet (which I threw in the garbage several months ago) and Gears.

Just like you are a true ignoramus if u think waiting a year to play, an arguably crispier, version of the same game on the PC is a bonus or even worth waiting for. The fact is it isn't worth the wait, and most of the games u wait for, if they aren't a FPS, control like crap on the KY/M making the wait even less fruitless. But I guess you'll find that out, again, a few years from now with ME and AC. And then if u get a thrown a little bone like a like an extra level u will be exclaiming how worth the wait it is, lol.

[silversparrow]

The fact is it isn't worth the wait, and most of the games u wait for, if they aren't a FPS, control like crap on the KY/M making the wait even less fruitless.

You don't have to use the KB/M for all PC games. Both the Xbox 360 and Sixaxis controllers work in Windows. You also have gamepads available from Logitech.

Personally I find the KB/M fairly versatile. I played through Tomb Raider: Anniversary a few months ago without any problems using this setup. Of course there are a few games that won't work well with KB/M (DMC4 probably won't) but like I said, you have the option of using any gamepad you want.

[ThaMaskedGamer]

Dude, that makes no sense whatsoever, it's been a year since I've had my 8800GTX and I don't review games for a living, there's no reason why I can have a DX10 gpu for over a year and the guys who review the latest PC games are crying about plopping the coin for one. Eff, the latest games demand the latest hardware. I can't run PS3 games on my PS2, that's the analogy drawn from these guys at GI, only in the PC sense, it's a big effin DUH!.

Since you're a bit on the short side, I'll tell you this, there are much cheaper DX10 cards out there, other than the one I have, there's the 8600 and 8800 GT's which are much cheaper and runs gears much better in terms of framerate and graphics over the 360, so no, it's not a simple upgrade which ushers better lighting and better detail, it also runs at double the framerate over the 360 version making it even smoother when you play. Yeah you've played it, what? a year ago, but even then we knew it was coming to the PC, and we knew it would look and perform better on our rigs. Playing Gears now or earlier doesn't make it a different game, hell it's even better not only because of the better graphics and framerate, but also because of the added content or in Gears case, the complete game. it's not like we were twiddling our thumbs playing lesser games till it's release, as we've been saying, we've played better games than Gears before it and there are so many games on our tables we still haven't touched. I hear you, but don't agree with you. My laptop is going on 3 years old, my kids desktop I built is like 4 or 5 years old. There isn't a game out there that would prompt me to upgrade ANYTHING. Especially considering, i'd have to really get a new monitor, what good is it playing in ultra sharp rez, on a 17 inch monitor, none to me. PC gaming is a hobby that is too damn expensive for the additional graphical performance over the console. Not to mention all the other negatives that go along with PC gaming, which have been covered ad nauseum each time this debate comes up. I don't feel like wasting the time rehashing the same arguments. If u think you've been thrown a bone with GOW congratulations sucker, i'm sure that's PC peripheral companies, MS, and Epic wanted you to think. But everyone sees the fact u been had. The only way PC gaming would be advantageous would be if the differential in performance and quality of games was the way it was back in the days of PSone and N64. Back then EVERY PC game stomped the crap out of console games, and there was NO online gaming on the consoles, no fps(really), no sim racers, no western rpgs, so you were getting many products to make it worth it. Now, its a completely different environment, the best PC teams are on the consoles, and throwing scraps to the PC community, and performance differences are negligible if anything. It ain't worth it no more son.

<b>
I won't deny that having the latest PC hardware can be a bit costly, but if you're a gamer you understand that. PC gamers have to plop it on the hardware, but it's easier on them as it relates to software prices, they also don't have to pay to play online....Ohhh shi......t, we're talking Gears right? MS want's to implement the same anal gutting Live service on the PC, you can't really experience full Gears multiplayer without LIVE gold.</b> Yeah but u can't conveniently rent PC games, $49 bucks a year for online is practically nothing, if u don't want the additional services u can go the PS3 route which is free, plus the best PC games online u definitely have to pay a lot for up to $15 a month for one game! So come on be fair. Also u can get games used online, on Ebay, or even at retail stores to defract the cost, plus u can trade-in. Heck Halo3 cost me $60, I traded it in for $35, in the end it cost me $25. What is the trade on PC games?


<b>
Dude your opinion agrees with Microsoft, whatever opinion they have becomes your motto. COD4 is rated greater than Halo, so now, it's all about you against the man, you've always disagreed with these reviewers? lol, I'm sure:rolleyes:. I told you from the start that COD4 would be a better shooter than Halo3, Halo's single player campaign is a joke in comparison and it's furniture changing MP can't light a candle to the perk system setup in COD, overall you can't give the nod to Halo, when it's top scores were mostly derived from it's multiplayer which is clearly outclassed by COD's, so now you come in to shoot COD's singleplayer and praise Halo's, blame COD for not having cover, but never asked that in Halo, come on man, I've told you already you're too transparent, your arguments have too many holes, cover up, please. </b>I thought from the start that COD4 would be better than Halo3, but it isn't even close. Stupid AI, one dimensional gameplay because those weak excuses for vehicles was a joke, a 5 or 6 hour game, when u scale it up to VET mode, the game breaks. And Modern Warfare, yeah 2 guns and a grenade, real modern. Both of the games are highly rated, but on one console, Halo3 will sell more and be played longer than COD4 will. There is only one thing that COD4 has over Halo3, graphics, and that's because the game doesn't have half the scope of Halo3. If Halo3 focused only on ground combat in small areas they could max out the details easily. So yeah, keep pimping a game in which u can't really do anything, u can't control any aspects of the game, not even what weapons u want to use, u can't interact with your squad, and most of the game is on rail with no replay value. It just shows how u like games that lack depth, and also how much u hate this great great franchise, Halo.

No comment on RFOM, except I can't wait to play it. I think this is probably PS3's best game, we will see. R&C is not even close. Uncharted beautiful, but I'm sure RFOM has deeper gameplay that is more fun.

Not going to argue which game has the best multiplayer. Although I can say that if these games don't have the Air/Ground combat and lack the vehicles of Halo3, I can't see how they are better online.

<b>
Why don't you play Uncharted on crushing and let's hear some feedback from you. My first try was on hard and I thought these guys were engaging on the level of the Ai in FEAR. In crushing, these guys simply crush, lol, and you've got to land headshots, not try, you've got to, use melee and run and gun, like I've recommended before. As I've said earlier, when you use all the gameplay elements at your disposal that's when you really appreciate uncharted's gameplay, in hard mode and above.</b>I explained this in another thread. Basically I put Conan on the hardest setting, and damn near couldn't finish it before I had to return it, mainly because of stupid time sapping game constructs. So Uncharted being part platform, I thought it might have some silly platform challenges that would sap time, so I made a mistake. I wish I had played it on the hardest setting, but once I finished it, even if I owned it, I wouldn't have went back, because there is no replay value there. I'm sure it is better on the hardest setting, most games are, except for COD4.

<b>
I think that Uncharted is AAA based on my time with it, it's gunplay is a solid step up from what Gears did over a year ago. Differences, Marcus is a professional hulking marine with 2 tonnes of armor on his chest, Drake is a treasure hunting normal day guy with no armor. Gears animations pale in comparison, it's story, it's characters. Ive' heard great things about the fight with Raam, so I'm looking forward to that. As for your Uncharted/Cod has static levels? answer this, was there destructible cover and platforms in gears? NO. So all of the points mentioned above including the fact that uncharted has a superior score with the element of excellent platforming inexistent in Gears paints the whole picture. This is the breakdown, the writing is on the wall and you can't refute what I've said on the game's ending in the Kane and Lynch thread, funny, I'm sure Halo3's ending was simply outstanding.</b>I'm not buying your excuses for Uncharted's ending, the ending was simply pathetic, period. Also not exploring the cursed spaniards more and offering different kinds of enemies was a bad choice imo. So I thought the last bits of the game were a let down, and that wouldn't have changed with a higher difficulty level. I have definitely, many times, blasted GOW for its ending, not just the ending but the whole train section was a let down. But chapters 1-4 were so intense that the game was incredible. And Halo3's drive-out wasn't the greatest ending, but again the last bits of the game overall were excellent and intense, what did u want the game to end as soon as they got Cortana or Killed The Truth? But there is no comparing Uncharted to GOW or Halo3 those games are just on a different level in terms of scale, scope, intensity. And take a good look at Chapter 3 of GOW and tell me Uncharted looks better!

And also since u say I rely on the reviews, well the reviews draw a clear distinction between Uncharted and GOW and Halo3, the latter two are solid sub 95% games, while Uncharted can't crack 90%. I actually have not READ ONE review of Uncharted, so I can't say what held the game back, but this is certainly not the AAA killer app, close but no cigarrrr!

[thelastword]

The only way PC gaming would be advantageous would be if the differential in performance and quality of games was the way it was back in the days of PSone and N64. Back then EVERY PC game stomped the crap out of console games, and there was NO online gaming on the consoles, no fps(really), no sim racers, no western rpgs, so you were getting many products to make it worth it. Now, its a completely different environment, the best PC teams are on the consoles, and throwing scraps to the PC community, and performance differences are negligible if anything. It ain't worth it no more son. I'm sure that was a joke post/rebuttal, but even then, saying every pc game stomped every PSONE and N64 game is just plain ludicrous, if one must talk about it, it's quite apparent that these consoles, especially the PS1 really popularized gaming and was mainly responsible for taking gaming to the mainstream in that era, and it certainly wasn't the hardware that did it, I'll tell you, it was the great games.

Ever heard of Final Fantasy 7 (that game did tonnes for gaming), how about Metal Gear and Tekken 3, some of the most popular and most played games ever, how about OOT and SM64? the former being the best rated game of all times and the latter being in the top ten of the best rated games, as is Tekken 3. The PC did it's fair share too and it can't be denied the depth of certain PC focused genres back in the day, but the games I've mentioned are also more console focused and were lacking on the PC. I think these consoles did more for gaming then, certainly over the PC in that era. Your problem though, is that you like to isolate your perceptions of gaming contributions based on what you own. I'm sure you owned a top notch pc then and were pc gaming then, so you praise it in that timeframe, but deny it's relevance alltogether now.

The difference between you and I, is that I realize the PC's contributions then and I do so now. I do believe that consoles are the better gaming units overall, as they cover more genres, but the PC do have their genre strengths and there's still quite a number of PC exclusives not available on consoles.
So yeah, keep pimping a game in which u can't really do anything, u can't control any aspects of the game, not even what weapons u want to use, u can't interact with your squad, and most of the game is on rail with no replay value. It just shows how u like games that lack depth, and also how much u hate this great great franchise, Halo.

Not going to argue which game has the best multiplayer. Although I can say that if these games don't have the Air/Ground combat and lack the vehicles of Halo3, I can't see how they are better online.
I'm not pimping COD, there's no need to, it is a bonecrushing shooter with a very cinematic feel, Halo attempts to be deeper, but it's still shallow, the gimmicks didn't fool anyone, that's the point. At the end of the day, COD is the better shooter over Halo especially when you factor in the SP+MP, it's all about the sum of all the parts. Funny that you're talking about vehicles and all that jazz in fps, I can't say I remebered you ever praising the battlefield series, question is, are you a hypocrite?

And for the record I don't hate Halo, I think it's a good shooter, I believe Gears is a good game too, I just point out their inefficiencies unlike you, and if there's a better game in the genre I'll point it out just the same.

I explained this in another thread. Basically I put Conan on the hardest setting, and damn near couldn't finish it before I had to return it, mainly because of stupid time sapping game constructs.These games had demos out there at almost the same time, I played one demo to death (uncharted) and played through the conan demo, it wasn't terrible per se but it pales in comparison to other games in the genre, there's no way I'd even rent conan as there were just too many top tier games out there, which I still haven't beaten.


But there is no comparing Uncharted to GOW or Halo3 those games are just on a different level in terms of scale, scope, intensity. And take a good look at Chapter 3 of GOW and tell me Uncharted looks better! Your problem is, you only like to simulate the life of marines and professional fighters like you really dream of being out there in the intergalactic, nailing locust scum et.al saving mankind and all that jazz from all threats unbeknownst to them, so yes, hulking marines and soldier gadgeteers are all you need in your gaming appetite. No way can a normal/everyday guy like drake with normal reactions to peril and all that, be appealing to you, you want to be that armored professional or bust, saving the world from all that grub. I get you, perhaps someday you'll learn to see things in a different light.


And also since u say I rely on the reviews, well the reviews draw a clear distinction between Uncharted and GOW and Halo3, the latter two are solid sub 95% games, while Uncharted can't crack 90%. I actually have not READ ONE review of Uncharted, so I can't say what held the game back, but this is certainly not the AAA killer app, close but no cigarrrr!Uncharted is at 90% spot on, but why are using that, COD is greater than Halo too in that scenario....Oh shiiiiiiit, how about Kane and Lynch? It can't even crack 68%. To be very honest, I think Stranglehold is a much better game than Kane and Lynch, hell, even the reviews say so with Stranglehold at 78%. K&L is truly abysmal and Gertsmann should have been promoted for telling the truth.

[Mochan]

Just like you are a true ignoramus if u think waiting a year to play, an arguably crispier, version of the same game on the PC is a bonus or even worth waiting for.

When have I *ever* said I was waiting for Gears? I've made it quite clear that I did NOT like Gears when it came out and I played it on my friend's 360. There you go once again with your strawmans, you're acting as if Gears and Lost Planet are the best games int he world, and we PC gamers were drooling and gnashing our teeth for a year waiting for God Almighty to give us an ounce of mercy and drop a shred of manna our way.

Reality check buster PC Gamers were quite happy playing all the other games on the PC before then such as Medieval 2, Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, Mask of the Betrayer, etc. not to mention the multiplats we had alongside their console brethren.

With your logic, I could laugh at all you console losers who had to wait for FEAR and C&C3 to finally arrive on your god-forsaken machines. But I never did, did I? Because I realize how stupid doing so would be. You, however, are too stupid to realize that.




And then if u get a thrown a little bone like a like an extra level u will be exclaiming how worth the wait it is, lol.


LOL like how I've just been totally rejoicing at Gears of War, eh? Hilarious TMG, hilarious.

[thelastword]

Reality check buster PC Gamers were quite happy playing all the other games on the PC before then such as Medieval 2, Company of Heroes, World in Conflict, Mask of the Betrayer, etc. not to mention the multiplats we had alongside their console brethren.

With your logic, I could laugh at all you console losers who had to wait for FEAR and C&C3 to finally arrive on your god-forsaken machines. But I never did, did I? Because I realize how stupid doing so would be. You, however, are too stupid to realize that.That's the point Chan, and what about folk with a gaming PC, who also have a PS3, we were playing some really great games, like Warhawk, RFOM, Hsword, Mstorm, Ratchet, Uncharted, Everyday Shooter, SSHD, GT Prologue and a tonne of other gems, hell, atm we're just getting our feet wet with UT3 and there was just new updates and maps for MSTORM, RFOM and WARHAWK, the first PS3 map/mod for UT3 was released yesterday and it's really a seamless process. So as I've said, no one was twiddling their thumbs thinking oh man! We're salivating for Gears, I'll be surprised if Gears even did 75k irrespective of the fact that it offered much more and is the definitive version. There were too many games we were having fun with and anticipating ahead of Gears.