Long-awaited sequels whose extended wait prevented you from finally playing them?

[Goodsport]

I just recently found out about the upcoming Majesty 2: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim and Tropico 3, both due for release next month (September).

I enjoyed the heck out of both 2000's Majesty: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim and its expansion (until my switch from Windows 2000 to Windows XP unintentionally rendered the game inoperable ) and 2001's Tropico and its expansion (though I never really got into 2003's differently-themed Tropico 2: Pirate Cove). Majesty was even set to have a sequel shortly afterward but was canceled due to a lack of a willing publisher.

In any case, both the minimum and recommended system requirements for the upcoming sequels are way above my old PC system, with financially no chance for me to upgrade it anytime in the near future.

Have there been sequels to games you've waited longer than originally anticipated for, so much so that by the time they were finally released, their system requirements practically rendered them unplayable on your system?


-G

 

[drothgery]

I just recently found out about the upcoming Majesty 2: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim and Tropico 3, both due for release next month (September).

I enjoyed the heck out of both 2000's Majesty: The Fantasy Kingdom Sim and its expansion (until my switch from Windows 2000 to Windows XP unintentionally rendered the game inoperable ) and 2001's Tropico and its expansion (though I never really got into 2003's differently-themed Tropico 2: Pirate Cove). Majesty was even set to have a sequel shortly afterward but was canceled due to a lack of a willing publisher.

In any case, both the minimum and recommended system requirements for the upcoming sequels are way above my old PC system, with financially no chance for me to upgrade it anytime in the near future.

Have there been sequels to games you've waited longer than originally anticipated for, so much so that by the time they were finally released, their system requirements practically rendered them unplayable on your system?


-G

I don't believe in PC gaming, for precisely this reason. Looking at things, though, Majesty 2's requirements seem insanely high at first glance, but I think you could probably build a sub-$600 box that would meet them if you were in to that sort of thing (at least if you fudge and figure a 2.93 GHz C2D E7500 CPU and a Radeon 4870 will work, that leaves you with $300 for the rest; if you can scavange parts from an old PC, it's extremely doable); Tropico 3 looks like it'd work with anything fairly recent CPU-wise and a $100 video card.

 

[stonegod]

Woot! Tropico 3. Just in time for the wife's birthday!

I'm with drothgery here: When my Alienware PC died, I either was looking at $5k to continue on the PC-gaming wheel or an XBox for a fraction of that. The choice was easy.

 

[frankthedm]

Anything that comes out for Wii or PS3

 

[Kaodi]

I'm with drothgery here: When my Alienware PC died, I either was looking at $5k to continue on the PC-gaming wheel or an XBox for a fraction of that. The choice was easy.

stonegod, what the hell are you playing that you could possibly need a $5000 PC for?

 

[LightPhoenix]

stonegod, what the hell are you playing that you could possibly need a $5000 PC for?

Crysis.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I don't believe in PC gaming, for precisely this reason.

I've heard this before, and I don't particularly understand this argument. The XBOX came out in 2001, the XBOX 360 in 2005, a four year difference. The PS2 came out in 2000, the PS3 in 2006 - slightly better, a six year difference. If I put together a computer with pretty good specs today, I would estimate needing to upgrade for games in about four to five years.

Now, admittedly, the cost will be more for the computer. I will probably need to spend about $600 all told to upgrade to where I would want to be right now. That's not drastically higher than the cost of a console.

I think there's another reason why a lot of people have this opinion as well. It seems to me that a lot of big game developers (versus, say, flash game developers) use system specs as an excuse for poorly optimized games. The example that comes to mind immediately is Ultima IX.

So I guess I kind of lied - I do understand why people have a negative opinion of computer gaming. I guess I just don't subscribe to it, is all.

 

[Nebten]

Don't forget that after 2 years though of XBox gaming you get the red ring of death (if it lasts that long). =v)

 

[drothgery]

I've heard this before, and I don't particularly understand this argument. The XBOX came out in 2001, the XBOX 360 in 2005, a four year difference. The PS2 came out in 2000, the PS3 in 2006 - slightly better, a six year difference. If I put together a computer with pretty good specs today, I would estimate needing to upgrade for games in about four to five years.

Huh? After four years, you generally need to upgrade a PC just for normal business apps. Serious gamers pretty much can't get away with upgrading their video card (and until very recently high-end video cards cost more than consoles even ignoring the insanely expensive PS3) less often than every other year, if not every year. After five years, you're lucky if you still can use your mouse and keyboard with a new computer; it's unlikely anything else will work.

Five years ago, you were still looking at single-core CPUs; four years ago, the very earliest dual cores (the hacked-together Pentium D and first-generation Athlon 64 X2). The highest-end desktop you could buy in 2005 would be easily outperformed by a $300 budget box with a $100 video card today. And that video card likely could not be used on the old PC, because of the AGP to PCI Express transition (which started in 2004). Hard drive interfaces have changed. USB devices have become ubiquitous, requiring more slots (plus standards have moved on to USB2). Memory has gone from DDR and RDRAM to DDR2 to DDR3 (in new high-end systems, and poised to move down-market later this year with the mainstream Core i7 variants).

 

[Kaodi]

I think there's another reason why a lot of people have this opinion as well. It seems to me that a lot of big game developers (versus, say, flash game developers) use system specs as an excuse for poorly optimized games. The example that comes to mind immediately is Ultima IX.

Though I am no expert on the topic, I can say that I have been amazed a couple times over the years at how a relatively mediocre looking game could run like crap while a beautiful game could run beautifully, and with little memory used.