"I was also confused about the media. From what I researched, it seems all Games for Windows come in DVD-ROMs? Are those dual-layered (HD DVD) like 360 games or just standard DVDs? Can I assume that they do NOT output in HD on the PC like it would via blu-ray discs on the PS3?"

This seems to indicate a fundamental mis-understanding of how storage works. First off 360 games and PC games are on duel layers dvd's, not HD-DVD, its long dead now. PC's DO support blu-ray however but games are not released on the medium as not everyone has got a blu-ray drive on their PC.

The only functional difference between a blu-ray disc and a DVD, and a DVD to a floppy disc is storage size. You can fit HD content onto a floppy disc if you want; you just wont get alot on there ;)

HD resolutions are a very different thing to HD movies too. PC games can run at higher than 1080p resolutions and if you consider 1080p as "Full HD" then PC's can do "Full HD+" even only having a DVD drive. Resolution has almost nothing to do with storage and everything to do with power.

Textures and HD Movies, now they can take up alot of space! Textures can be ultra compressed and uncompressed during the install process however so that everything can run off the users drive and downloads like high-resolution packs can bridge the prettiness gap.

Dragon Age 2 is a perfect example. The highest resolution, the best texture resolution can ONLY be found on the PC: http://social.bioware.com/page/da2-patches its 1.08 GB and it makes a very decent difference :)

The only thing a PS3 game could do better than a PC is stream hours of 1080p movie content in a game on a single disc... the PC would have to download or use multiple discs to install it (only once but still)

I hope that makes sence :)

Battle? more like orgy. How could anyone survive without all of them? :)

I think the only one i could possibly drop if i had to was Dark Souls, but the other two... its just gonna happen;

Have to go with Planescape: Torment as well... Balders Gate 1/2 were also great. Enjoyed KOTOR/Mass Effect/Dragon Age quite a bit too. But i guess thats how my tastes go.

Seems a bit to personal a thing to have a single game be the 'best'... like Art there are many greats (that you may like or dislike personally) but the best of all time is next to impossible to pin down when its all so personal :)

There is no 'magic' to it, you can't just put a game on the PC and have it look better.

If you make a game that looks great for the majority of your audience (ps3 + 360) year+ of work, graphic design etc... you have to ask yourself:

do you have the time/money to upgrade the entire application for the PC?
and while your at it make sure it degrades nicely for older PC's?
testing on lots of PC platforms to make sure it doesn't break under many many different hardware configs?
will the result be different enough to push X $'s into it, to make it happen?

The real pro's make it PC and degrade it for consoles, check out the PC, PS3 and 360 Dragon Age comparasion for example the textures on the consoles are TERRIBLE compared to the PC. But some developers prefer to focus on the consoles first as they are the primary audience so you ahve no ultra high resolution textures for the PC to shine with... no extra poly's to push, no extra levels of fog and effects to make it more awesome.

The hardware available on PC's is vastly superior to consoles, but its still a long way from being able to do graphics to the point we all might wish, physics is something that is being pushed alot now, and other CPU related things (like AI)... but graphical things are coming! here is a quick google and paste:

http://news.cnet.com/Intel-shows-off-80-core-processor/2100-1006_3-6158181.html (yes its 2007... think how close it will be as they said in 5 years in 2006)

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=506&type=expert&pid=1 (nice 2008 article about ray tracing in games and the benefits and flaws of rasterization)

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,654068/Raytraced-games-in-2-to-3-years-says-Intel/News/ (2008 article)

While consoles can do some raytracing in real time, (there is a ps3 demo you might want to check out!) the PC has alot more direct horsepower to render higher resolutions (each pixel is a trace and resolution increases the need for power) so this is where the PC can really shine once all this takes off

However the timeline seems nicely suited for a new set of Next-gen consoles with ray tracing rendering as a focus perhaps with 2-4 80 core cpus? :)

But for now, any game that is available for PC i'll get it on PC as the framerates are better at least (Mass Effect for example plays alot smoother... but doesn't really look any better) and at best it looks better too. However i have my 360, ps3, wii and ds still to make up the slack where needed.

The best experiance are still with a PC: connected to a 60 inch plasma and surround sound system, wireless keyboard n mouse in a comfy chair or using the 360 contoller if you can manage it

I think there should be a high level of checkpoints with autosave instead of quick saves... quick saving and getting shot just before you hit the button so your game has yo on 8% life? awesome.

And indeed its a huge pain in the %&& to re-do major parts of the game from dying. Thats *not* fun and gaming is about *fun* end of story. Fustration is not good for anyone.

So i think there should be large amounts of checkpoints. Areas that would be considered 'cheap' to quick save through would be no problem as when you die you go to the start of that sequence/area and another checkpoint right after it so when you get through you are done. If i lose only 1-2mins of time thats ok, not 15-30mins that equates to a lowering of gaming enjoyment and lessens the experience. Sure it might artifically extended the time the game lasts... but its cheap way to do so.

As they are checkpoints not normal save items you cannot choose to load from them at any time you want, you have to die to spawn there again. If the baby pulls the power on the console or your pc then its saved at the last one still and you lose not much at all.

A few games do this pretty well, i think its the almost perfect compromise while still allowing your character to actually die.

About GTA4, Thats your opinion... i prefer it to all the other previous GTA games. I find it less 'random' and more structured with a better story and more realistic world (i seriously hated GTA:SA actually heh... i couldn't even play it for more than a few hours. Again thats just my opinion there too)

MGS4 is a fairly niche game but games should be rated on what they set out to achieve as well, if Tetris doesn't have graphics like Crysis does that mean it should only get 1/10 for graphics and therefore be impossible to get a high rating? If MGS4 isn't *your* kind of game thats fine but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve its rating... i loved the game and i never played *any* of the others ;) Thank god for the gametrailers retrospective heh (the wife even watched me play the whole game)

So yea...if a platforming game doesn't have a deep story like a RPG does that mean it should be rated lower? no; if a game hits its goal and "perfectly" represents what it set out to achieve then its 10/10 and i think thats a fair rating for both MGS4 and GTA4.

http://au.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/galacticcivilizationsiiendlessuniverse/images.html

saw the pics on the homepage with that title so checked the game images themselves... im not sure if the game looks better or worse :P