"Revolutionary"?? LOL Not the word that most people would use considering that PC gamers have had these tools for, um, forever. Not to mention we've had the ability to tape video clips in-game via the Battlefield TV feature and/or FRAPS if you wanted a standalone solution. Silly console gamers, always hyping things that have been done previously and (frequently) better by the PC. Will they ever learn? ;)
Good-looking game except for the crappy synchronized infantry animations - ugh. So dorky and unrealistic looking. For some reason this seems to be the bailiwick of foreign RTS developers. Other than that and the lameness of not having special unit abilities autocast themselves, it's a pretty darn good game. Thankfully my system chews this game up and spits it out. ;) 8800 GTX, Quad-core Intel, and 2 gig of RAM will do that for ya. :D
Is there some lame reason that Gamespot forgot to use the 1900x1200 resolution setting for people with larger monitors. It's quickly becoming the de facto screen resolution for any kind of graphic tests like these. Guess they should stick to games and not hardware...
Agree with the majority here, the PC version is quite better in many, many ways from better control and control options, to better graphics in general, to access to cool mods and the PC version was able to get their widescreen fix first, as well (albeit a fan-made one but it's still a fix, nonetheless). Furthermore, I think the writer of this article is unfamiliar with how many PC gamers DO, in fact, have Surround stereo systems on their PCs. You can tell that he was talking out of his @$$ for that point as he didn't provide any statistics or source to back up his claims for that particular point. Good ol' Gamespot, always winging it. LOL
Wow, what a change. /sarcasm This is a classic case of someone offering something (i.e. Halo 2 on PC) that no one wants. We have at least, by last count, 10 FAR better games than this piece o' crud. Thanks but no thanks, Microsoft. PC gamers can do FAR better than this shooter.
Well you could clearly tell that they were attempting to cover every platform equally, despite perceived quality of the expected titles. Everyone knows that this is a HUGE year for the PC (most big-name releases of any platform) yet there were only a couple of editors who chose PC games. I think we all know that this is par for the course with Gamespot, considering their recent (past couple of years) slant towards console gaming but it was still disappointing to see. Where was Supreme Commander? UT2007? C&C 3? S.T.A.L.K.E.R.? Hellgate: London? Dragon Age? (The main omissions) It's not that there wasn't some cool games on the list, there definitely was some deserving choices up there, but these omissions were just that much stranger for not being there. Oh well, there's no accounting for Gamespot editors' tastes, I suppose.
My thoughts...is this even news? Another year another console, albeit this time it's with twice the gimmicky goodness. Newsflash for console hardware developers, it's about the games. I see nothing, other than possibly Zelda (which for me, is boring as crap and getting long in the tooth), that's any good in Nintendo's line-up of games for the first several months. No thanks, I'll stick to my PC which in October and November alone will see a HUGE impressive line-up of games. That's how you do it.
If any of us even cared about the PS3 launch, this might be a slight disappointment. Instead of crying and fussing over the delay, just spend the money on a better platform, like a gaming PC instead. The games will be better and you'll save money in the long run since you won't have to blow a grand on an HDTV to enjoy high resolutions.
Love Ron but tired of hearing all the doom and gloom. I doubt we're looking at any kind of industry 'crash' any time soon, if ever. There are tons of great games coming out all the time, especially on the PC at least, if nowhere else.
wytefang's comments