PDA

View Full Version : Do you do more gaming in OSX or Bootcamp?




Jack Flash
May 22, 2007, 08:55 PM
One would assume that because there are more PC games, more gaming is done in Bootcamp, but do you go out of your way to get the Mac version of a game, or the often cheaper PC version?

In general, which is faster, too? For instance Halo Mac or PC, Call of Duty 2 Mac or PC?



Chone
May 22, 2007, 09:23 PM
Well actually, I do way more gaming on Bootcamp than OSX, performance, features and flexibility, those are the advantages you get on Windows over OSX.

To be honest the only advantage OSX has for gaming is convenience, that is not having to reboot everytime you want to play a game.

It is as simple as that, most games just run a lot better on Windows than OSX for a variety of reasons,

apfhex
May 22, 2007, 09:32 PM
If I played WOW maybe, I'd play it in OS X for sure. But all the PC games I've been interested in have been Windows only so.... I game there (but if there were Mac versions I'd sure as hell play them more often, I hate having to drop everything and reboot into another OS).

Jack Flash
May 22, 2007, 09:35 PM
Does the GMA 950 do better in Windows being that it can borrow up to 224MB of Memory for video RAM?

Mantronix
May 22, 2007, 09:42 PM
Only game I would play on OS X is WoW but I quit playing it a few months ago. I know Starcraft 2 will run on a Mac but I hope Hellgate: London and Warhammer online does also.

janey
May 22, 2007, 09:46 PM
most of the time the games i play aren't available for mac (currently stalker). so obviously i game more in bootcamp.

plus even if there was a choice, i'd go pc anyway because my pc is better for gaming than any of my macs. money saving :o

itsallinurhead
May 23, 2007, 12:53 AM
Os X: Ut2k4

Veritas&Equitas
May 23, 2007, 01:13 AM
LOL! "Gaming in OS X" :eek: What a nightmare and a half. Unless it's Bejeweled.

No matter what your "Mac" setup is, even in Boot Camp, true "gaming" with all the eye candy cannot be found unless you're on a PC. Even in the "high-end" Mac's, the 7600 gt is a joke of a card if it's being considered "top of the line."

P.S. Didn't see your response before answering, but right on janey.

machris
May 23, 2007, 01:19 AM
I play a lot of poker in OS X, does that count?

djstarrock
May 23, 2007, 02:07 AM
Well since I don't have windows I game on OS X.

janey
May 23, 2007, 02:36 AM
P.S. Didn't see your response before answering, but right on janey.
my pc has a 7600gt, and that was mediocre a year ago (and lol @ the mac pro coming with the 7600gt). i'm contemplating building a new machine and perhaps sli/crossfire, but i'm waiting for updates. :o

RedTomato
May 23, 2007, 04:51 AM
I played through Angband a couple of years ago on my powerbook.

ronni3
May 23, 2007, 07:27 AM
Definitely Bootcamp

heyisa
May 23, 2007, 09:15 AM
I play legacy LAN games on my powerbook - Civ 3 and Starcraft, but besides that just some mac shareware games.
Would love to play Half life 2 and soon team fortress 2 though......

Kelmon
May 23, 2007, 11:45 AM
Seriously, bollocks to Boot Camp. I installed it mostly to play the Dawn of War series but I hardly ever boot into it and I wouldn't consider buying a game these days if it wasn't an OS X version. In fairness to it there isn't that much worth knowing about for Windows these days anyway since its mostly rehashes of games that have been done before. While I almost exclusively play WoW at the moment, I do also own Call of Duty 2 and Quake 4 and both are fine on the MacBook Pro.

In fairness my biggest issue with Boot Camp is not so much the inconvenience of booting into it but the time that it takes to reboot OS X and for the caches to become optimal again. The other thing is that Dawn of War tends to crash on me so I can't be arsed to go through the hassle for very little benefit.

janey
May 23, 2007, 07:27 PM
...I wouldn't consider buying a game these days if it wasn't an OS X version.
I would rather shoot myself in the head than wait for Mac ports of perfectly awesome Windows games that will probably never be ported. That's ignoring the lack of good gfx cards for Macs too.

/me for one can't wait for games like Crysis, BioShock and UT3 (oh wait, this one's gonna be for mac too...)

GFLPraxis
May 23, 2007, 07:31 PM
Boot Camp by far.

I bought most of my games when the PC releases came out, and my MMO City of Heroes is PC-only.

I don't really have many games that run in Mac OS X outside of freeware (plasma pong FTW!).

WildPalms
May 23, 2007, 09:06 PM
I dont know what you people are running, but Bootcamp on my Mac is just a mechanism for kickstarting Windows (which does not have complete support for EFI yet) so after Bootcamp has completed and Windows is runnning, I play games in Windows. I also game in OS X for some games that run better on the Mac under OpenGL.

applekid
May 23, 2007, 10:55 PM
Gaming on the Mac.

I don't know about your computing habits, but I cannot just say, "Hey, I want to play a game. I'm going to reboot now." I have several windows and applications opened at once, doing various projects/assignments/amusing myself, that rebooting for any reason is not an option. I will reboot for Battlefield 2 and FEAR Combat. That's it. I own Half Life 2 GOTY and Episode 1, but I can't say I play either regularly, nor are they installed currently.

On the Mac, I play the ports. I might demo games on the PC. I remember demoing Prey on my MacBook Pro before playing the demo for the Mac on the same MacBook Pro. Performance was equivalent.

Mac hardware has some catching up to do right now (GPU-wise), but the 7600 GT was a few months old when the Mac Pro was released, not unlike the PC market. The hardware you get on the Mac can be up to date, but the current line certainly isn't. When the iMac Core Duo and MacBook Pro came out, they sported the ATI X1600, a new GPU that performed well, which not to mention was standard on many mid- and high-end PC laptops released at a similar time. I remember reading Engadget seeing the new PC laptops with the new Intel chips and the crazy CES technology thinking how can Apple top this. Well, they matched it and more. But, right now, the GPUs need major upgrades across the line. Apple could add some more options for upgrading GPUs, too.

You won't even get "true gaming" on a retail PC. If you upgrade your PC or build, sure you get "true gaming," but how many people really do either of those things? Although we get all sorts of "Why isn't my game working?" threads here, it's really no different from your typical PC forums (unless of course it's a hardware-enthusiast/gaming forum where they actually have the hardware to play their games). You can't compared a built-PC to a Mac. I'm glad you can build your cheap PC gaming hogs, but I can't build myself a Mac. A Mac to a retail PC is more appropriate. Compare your typical Dell to a Mac and you will not see such a price difference between either, when equipped with similar hardware.

Which brings me to a solution for a Mac gaming. There is a gap between the iMac and Mac Pro. Look at Dell's XPS machines for a moment. They don't use Xeons! They use Core 2 Duos! If Apple sold a Mac tower machine with Core 2 Duos and kept the machines as upgradable as any Mac Pro, you would have an affordable and customizable Mac that has never been seen before. It would just call for gamers.

There's reason for console games to be so much more appealing. There hasn't been a PC game that has been able to grab my attention and hold it long enough. Sounds like that's the general feeling of the industry at the moment. There hasn't been that next-gen game since Doom 3/Half Life 2/Far Cry.

And don't get me started about the hassle of using a PC. Why do I get a damn warning to reboot after downloading/installing an update every 30 minutes?! Of course there's more, but you know how that story goes.

Mantronix
May 23, 2007, 11:12 PM
If a game is not designed to run on a Mac then I don't wouldn't worry about. Thankfully all the games I plan on playing on a Mac is made by Blizzard and their games can run on a Mac or windows machine like WoW, Warcraft 3 and soon to be Starcraft 2. As it stands now I play more games on my Xbox 360 than my PC.

I still plan to keep my windows machine for certain games. It's has an AMD 64 3200 processor, 2 gigs of PC 3200 ram and a Radeon X800 pro card and I can run all the games I want to play.

janey
May 24, 2007, 12:42 AM
I don't know about your computing habits, but I cannot just say....
This is why I have a separate computer for gaming. I dislike rebooting for a game, but if I am doing nothing else and I'm on, say, my MacBook, I will gladly reboot for the <1min it takes so I can play a game.

Mac hardware has some catching up to do right now (GPU-wise), but the 7600 GT was a few months old when the Mac Pro was released, not unlike the PC market. But, right now, the GPUs need major upgrades across the line. Apple could add some more options for upgrading GPUs, too.
Sigh. I just checked and the Mac Pro has a 7300gt (upgradable to the x1900xt or quadro fx 4500). The 7600gt is an upgrade for the 24" iMac.

The 7300gt is a joke considering everything else in the Mac Pro..now if it had a 7600gt, a teeny tiny bit less of a joke, but I honestly believe the x1900xt should come default with all Mac Pros. :rolleyes:

The 7300gt was new (not necessarily good...) when the Mac Pro was new, but it's been almost a year with no changes to some of the more preposterous specs in the Mac Pro - e.g. the gfx card and 1gb ram (well...maybe given this is fb-dimm the 1gb isn't so ridiculous...)

You won't even get "true gaming" on a retail PC. ...Compare your typical Dell to a Mac and you will not see such a price difference between either, when equipped with similar hardware.
<-- built many of her own PCs, partially because of the above

I understand that nobody else has anything unlike most of the Macs in terms of a lot of the components, but why the hell are we comparing Apple to the similarly underpowered overpriced offerings of other manufacturers? It's like saying "hey they're crappy, so it's okay for Apple to be crappy because they are".

...you would have an affordable and customizable Mac that has never been seen before.
You and me and half this forum, mate :mad: :(

There's reason for console games to be so much more appealing. There hasn't been a PC game that has been able to grab my attention and hold it long enough. Sounds like that's the general feeling of the industry at the moment. There hasn't been that next-gen game since Doom 3/Half Life 2/Far Cry.
Depends on what kind of genre you like, honestly. That's you...but other people have different wants and needs.

What about Crysis or Half-Life 2 Episode 2 and 3? I'm looking forward to those, as well as a few other games coming...someday...

And don't get me started about the hassle of using a PC. Why do I get a damn warning to reboot after downloading/installing an update every 30 minutes?! Of course there's more, but you know how that story goes.
That's you...I don't have problems with Windows Update :rolleyes:

Well, to be picky, yes I do, but it's along the same lines as Software Update for Mac OS X, nothing particularly annoying.

applekid
May 24, 2007, 09:11 AM
Sigh. I just checked and the Mac Pro has a 7300gt (upgradable to the x1900xt or quadro fx 4500). The 7600gt is an upgrade for the 24" iMac.

The 7300gt is a joke considering everything else in the Mac Pro..now if it had a 7600gt, a teeny tiny bit less of a joke, but I honestly believe the x1900xt should come default with all Mac Pros. :rolleyes:

The 7300gt was new (not necessarily good...) when the Mac Pro was new, but it's been almost a year with no changes to some of the more preposterous specs in the Mac Pro - e.g. the gfx card and 1gb ram (well...maybe given this is fb-dimm the 1gb isn't so ridiculous...)

This is what I get for furiously typing my long reply after watching that intense episode of Lost ;)

Nevertheless, I think we can all agree the GPUs need some updating on the Mac line up :D Next update will hopefully be the nVidia 8-series, which appears to be the "standard" in the market right now.

I understand that nobody else has anything unlike most of the Macs in terms of a lot of the components, but why the hell are we comparing Apple to the similarly underpowered overpriced offerings of other manufacturers? It's like saying "hey they're crappy, so it's okay for Apple to be crappy because they are".

Because those manufacturers are the competition. All of these high-end PC makers like Alienware and VoodooPC and user-built PCs are not Apple's competition. Until I can build my own Mac without some ridiculous hacking to get Mac OS X to install, there is no reason to consider these niche PC makers or user-built PCs as equals. You and others may have built your own PCs, but that is not that prevalent a practice.

What about Crysis or Half-Life 2 Episode 2 and 3? I'm looking forward to those, as well as a few other games coming...someday...

I am looking forward to the Orange Box, but PC games haven't gotten the buzz that we got from the next-gen game engines from 3 years ago. The popularity of WoW doesn't help since people are investing so much time in that one game. And the prospects of the whole Windows Live gaming and Windows Vista is not making the situation much better.

The good news is that Intel Mac sales have been very good, enough for the Mac game market to make any release break even or be profitable easily. Perhaps it means more ports are possible, but there are still problems with middleware and nobody knows how Vista will affect Mac porting.

That's you...I don't have problems with Windows Update :rolleyes:

Well, to be picky, yes I do, but it's along the same lines as Software Update for Mac OS X, nothing particularly annoying.

At least when I can quit Software Update and never worry about it asking to update again in another 30 minutes. Microsoft, please get rid of the Remind Me Later button. Just give me a button that says Understood. I'll restart my computer eventually. Tabbing out of Battlefield 2 when I'm in the middle of matches is very uncool.

miniConvert
May 24, 2007, 09:27 AM
I play World of Warcraft on OS X, and vastly prefer it to playing under Windows :)

wyrmintheapple
May 24, 2007, 11:59 AM
I dont know what you people are running, but Bootcamp on my Mac is just a mechanism for kickstarting Windows (which does not have complete support for EFI yet) so after Bootcamp has completed and Windows is runnning, I play games in Windows. I also game in OS X for some games that run better on the Mac under OpenGL.

What a load of tosh. Why do people always think this. The firmware for all new Mac machines has a CSM built in. Windows doesn't NEED EFI to boot on the Mac, it pretends to have a BIOS. You can install windows and overwrite Mac OS X without ever even viewing the bootcamp webpage, let alone installing it. BootCamp partitions the hard disk, and makes a driver disk..... and thats IT. It does not "run", it does not "emulate", It does NOTHING when the machine is booting windows at all.

kiang
May 24, 2007, 12:58 PM
There hasn't been that next-gen game since Doom 3/Half Life 2/Far Cry.
Have you even SEEN Supreme Commander?
no more comments needed....

CJM
May 24, 2007, 02:23 PM
Have you even SEEN Supreme Commander?
no more comments needed....

Saw it... Looked at the website... looked at the screenshots. From the outset it looked rubbish.

Unless there's something revolutionary about the gameplay, seemed like same-old, same-old.

kiang
May 24, 2007, 04:32 PM
Saw it... Looked at the website... looked at the screenshots. From the outset it looked rubbish.

Unless there's something revolutionary about the gameplay, seemed like same-old, same-old.

revolutionary gameplay? well, it's a sequel tot the best RTS ever (Aslo the first RTS to use 3D accel, for the ones who failed history class: I'm talking about Total Annihilation), so they didn't really change the formula, But the GFX are the best for RTS to date (512 MB VRAM is recommended) and it's the first game to fully support dual displays, seen the strategic map one of the most important aspects of the game.
the special thing about the map is that it's not really a separate interface: you can zoom out as far as you want to, and turn the camera in every angel you like.
ofcourse there are many more enhancements like pumped up GFX and virtually no population cap.
But I can see why you wouldn't call it a revolutionary game: The way you play isn't that different from other RTS games.
well, ok, but so weren't Doom3, FarCry and others.
The thing about SuCo is that it pushes the limits of RTS a whole lot further. And as soon as you use the limitless zoom, you'll miss it in every other RTS, so I guess any future RTS will steal this feature :p

and btw: it looked rubbish.
it got 9/10at gamedaily, and I guess they know what they are talking about;):p

CANEHDN
May 24, 2007, 09:20 PM
OS X for me. The only things I run on Windows is C&C3 and Myst. OS X for the rest.

janey
May 25, 2007, 12:05 AM
...All of these high-end PC makers like Alienware ...
Alienware is not niche, Alienware was acquired by Dell. Just saying. :D
The good news is that Intel Mac sales have been very good, enough for the Mac game market to make any release break even or be profitable easily....
The idea is that if those computers can run Windows, why bother wasting the time, money and employees to port a game that'll run fine on the same computer...albeit on a different OS? Besides, if given the choice of choosing between the Mac or Windows version of the same game (if that rare event even happens), like I said above, I would most definitely go with the Windows version because I can run it on more than one computer if I felt like it, it would (if at all) usually come with more stuff than the Mac version, and it would probably be cheaper as well.

Windows doesn't NEED EFI to boot on the Mac, it pretends to have a BIOS...
Windows XP doesn't even support EFI, it's not on a want/don't want basis, but an absolutely cannot support basis. It's the updated firmware with support for BIOS emulation that's a requirement for bootcamp, not Windows XP being able to emulate a BIOS when dealing with EFI. But you are right, you could in theory not look at the bootcamp page and do a windows install provided you have the correct firmware.

however, you lose much of the functionality of the hardware if you don't install the drivers.

psychofreak
May 25, 2007, 12:10 AM
Alienware is not niche, Alienware was acquired by Dell. Just sayingAlienware is still niche:
Niche: a specialized but profitable corner of the market

High end gaming computers are 'specialized' but profitable...

*oddly, I copied and pasted the definition from the dictionary, but Safari wants specialized to be specialised...weird...

phungy
May 25, 2007, 12:10 AM
Gamed on XP for a few hours before I found a patch for Brood War on OSX. OSX for teh win!

Side note: Anyone here play Tremulous?

kiang
May 25, 2007, 02:17 AM
...
specialized to be specialised...weird...
UK English vs US ENglish I guess :p (eg for<->four)

Chone
May 25, 2007, 07:19 AM
revolutionary gameplay? well, it's a sequel tot the best RTS ever (Aslo the first RTS to use 3D accel, for the ones who failed history class: I'm talking about Total Annihilation), so they didn't really change the formula, But the GFX are the best for RTS to date (512 MB VRAM is recommended) and it's the first game to fully support dual displays, seen the strategic map one of the most important aspects of the game.
the special thing about the map is that it's not really a separate interface: you can zoom out as far as you want to, and turn the camera in every angel you like.
ofcourse there are many more enhancements like pumped up GFX and virtually no population cap.
But I can see why you wouldn't call it a revolutionary game: The way you play isn't that different from other RTS games.
well, ok, but so weren't Doom3, FarCry and others.
The thing about SuCo is that it pushes the limits of RTS a whole lot further. And as soon as you use the limitless zoom, you'll miss it in every other RTS, so I guess any future RTS will steal this feature :p

and btw:
it got 9/10at gamedaily, and I guess they know what they are talking about;):p

Sorry to be an ass but your post was basically "Supreme Commander rocks because it has great graphics, oh and did I mention it has great graphics?". An RTS is all (or at least should be) all about gameplay, this is basically why Starcraft II has those graphics (which don't look demanding of a good comptuer at all) because then more people can run it and they are most probably focusing on gameplay.

This is why Blizzard RTS are so good.

Maxx Power
May 25, 2007, 01:26 PM
Windows XP doesn't even support EFI, it's not on a want/don't want basis, but an absolutely cannot support basis. It's the updated firmware with support for BIOS emulation that's a requirement for bootcamp, not Windows XP being able to emulate a BIOS when dealing with EFI. But you are right, you could in theory not look at the bootcamp page and do a windows install provided you have the correct firmware.

however, you lose much of the functionality of the hardware if you don't install the drivers.
I think that's what he meant, wyrmintheapple implied that the "Mac" has the Bios built in since the first firmware update brought along with the first beta of BootCamp release. There are a lot of places where MacTels are sold with only Windows XP. All one needs to do is format the HDD, and install from WinCD from scratch.

As for the drivers, except for the apple specific features such as the camera and so on, the drivers can be downloaded and installed from elsewhere.

I used bootcamp to prepare the Driver Disk, but because I used a highly customized and stripped version of XP, the Driver installation procedure never completes. I ended up extracting the installation file into driver components using the extract only switch and then might as well get the updated versions from manufacturers direcly once I knew who made the individual packages such as the audio and motherboard, etc.

Maxx Power
May 25, 2007, 01:45 PM
Sorry to be an ass but your post was basically "Supreme Commander rocks because it has great graphics, oh and did I mention it has great graphics?". An RTS is all (or at least should be) all about gameplay, this is basically why Starcraft II has those graphics (which don't look demanding of a good comptuer at all) because then more people can run it and they are most probably focusing on gameplay.

This is why Blizzard RTS are so good.

RTS = Great Gameplay, Story Line for Single Player Mode
Shooter = Graphics, Realism, Unrealism, Seamless Multiplayer
Role Play/Adventure = Story Line, Game Play, Graphics A Bonus

Those are the priorities in my opinion, feel free to amend as necessary.

Some of the greatest games ever made had those characteristics:

DeusEx (RolePLay/First Person) - Excellent Story Line, Good Graphics, Fantastic Game Play and Replay
StarCraft (RTS) - Top Notch Game Play, Excellent Single Player Story Line
System Shock 2 (RolePlay/First Person) - Excellent Game Play, Good Graphics, Good Story Line
Fallout 1/2 (RolePlay) - Excellent Story Line, Fantastic Game Play, Good Graphics
Monkey Island Series - Great Story Line, Tremendous Entertainment

and on and on and on...

Graphics alone can never make a great game, and from history, it can never break a great game. A lot of the dated games have crappy graphics by today's standards, but are still excellent games and frequently played - StarCraft for example.

MacsRgr8
May 25, 2007, 02:40 PM
Don't have a Mac Pro (yet), and I like reading the responses to this question.

Because my ultimate computer will be the Mac Pro with DirectX 10 compatible grfx card, which has OS X drivers...

I can imagine myself installing all my games in Vista, while doing my "normal stuff" in OS X. But I wonder if it becomes annoying over time... having to restart into Winblows just to play a game.... especially if someone suddenly calls, and I need to get back into OS X... hmm... :rolleyes:
Time shall tell.

Right now I have a G5 Quad with 7800 GT and it runs the couple of games I throw at it in OS X very well! (Doom 3, COD 2).
I used to own a fast PC gaming rig (but it died on me), and I do miss the games that are not available on the Mac (especially racing games).
But, I am not going to get myself another PC just for gaming, if a Mac Pro with Boot Camp will do it too.... (choices choices... :p )

Chone
May 25, 2007, 02:46 PM
RTS = Great Gameplay, Story Line for Single Player Mode
Shooter = Graphics, Realism, Unrealism, Seamless Multiplayer
Role Play/Adventure = Story Line, Game Play, Graphics A Bonus

Those are the priorities in my opinion, feel free to amend as necessary.

Some of the greatest games ever made had those characteristics:

DeusEx (RolePLay/First Person) - Excellent Story Line, Good Graphics, Fantastic Game Play and Replay
StarCraft (RTS) - Top Notch Game Play, Excellent Single Player Story Line
System Shock 2 (RolePlay/First Person) - Excellent Game Play, Good Graphics, Good Story Line
Fallout 1/2 (RolePlay) - Excellent Story Line, Fantastic Game Play, Good Graphics
Monkey Island Series - Great Story Line, Tremendous Entertainment

and on and on and on...

Graphics alone can never make a great game, and from history, it can never break a great game. A lot of the dated games have crappy graphics by today's standards, but are still excellent games and frequently played - StarCraft for example.

I agree completely, to me graphics are important in a shooter because many shooters rely on atmosphere, setting and mood to enhance the experience, Doom 3 with Quake 1 graphics would be such a crappy game... just to give you an example.

What an RTS needs above all is fun, varied and balanced gameplay mechanics with a good "theme" (storyline, factions, unit design, etc, etc), as far as graphics go, they just need to be clear and consistent. Warcraft 3 and Starcraft are not exactly the prettiest of games (and they weren't either when first released) but the style is awesome and the units, buildings and symbols are pretty easy to recognize, I mean, thats what an RTS needs, THAT is why SC and WC3 are the biggest names in competitive RTS games.

And Monkey Island is such a great game...

Antares
May 25, 2007, 05:06 PM
This thread should have included a poll.

Anyway, I game solely via OSX. Sure, I miss out on some games but I would rather support Mac developers. In fact, some of the smaller studios actually produce some of the best games. Freeverse and Ambrosia anyone?

Cheesecake
May 26, 2007, 01:51 AM
90% of my gaming takes place in Windows via bootcamp. Most of my games are windows exclusive and it takes the fun out of everything because I have to reboot all the time since I use Bootcamp for gaming only.

In windows, I play the Valve catalog of games, as well as Phantasy Star Universe and the recently released collectors edition of 'Another World'. None of these are on OS X, which bums me out greatly. The only games I have installed on my Mac at this point in time are Bone: Out from Boneville (demo), Quake 4 (demo) and Halo (demo)

OS X just doesn't have the games I want to play.

kiang
May 26, 2007, 04:19 AM
Sorry to be an ass but your post was basically "Supreme Commander rocks because it has great graphics, oh and did I mention it has great graphics?". An RTS is all (or at least should be) all about gameplay, this is basically why Starcraft II has those graphics (which don't look demanding of a good comptuer at all) because then more people can run it and they are most probably focusing on gameplay.

This is why Blizzard RTS are so good.
indeed, gameplay is the most important aspect in RTS, but the gameplay was already pretty much perfect in it's predecessor. and indeed, apart from the pumped up GFX, SuCo has no revolutionary aspect compared to any other RTS, but IMO that is because RTS is now as good as it gets, so the only aspect to improve is the game GFX and AI. (didn't mention that: the AI can analyse your weaknesses and exploit them is suco, which can make the enemy a big pain in the *ss :p)
the story in an RTS on the other hand is IMO of no importance, tha game is about the experience you have while gaming, not what you feel when you hear at the end of the level why you have done what you did and why you have to do what you are going to do.
story only matters in adventure games IMO.

sliceofman
May 26, 2007, 11:42 AM
I play the best games i know and they are only on the mac: marathon 1, 2, and infinity, lode runner the legend returns, aperion, afterlife, descent, abuse, warcraft 1 and 2, i could go on. :D

:apple: last of the true macs iMac G5, 2gh, 250hd, 1gig ram,
and my gaming station OS 8.6 Power Macintosh 5260/120 :apple:

Diatribe
May 26, 2007, 12:17 PM
Well, at least UT3 and Starcraft2 will be on OS X. But I definitely want Crysis, it is a shame that most games are still PC only. But give this 5 more years and the Mac marketshare will push the companies to release more Mac games. I don't think UT2004 or Wow or Warcraft have ever made their publishers lose money. As long as the game is good it will make the port worthwhile.

WildPalms
May 27, 2007, 07:16 PM
What a load of tosh. Why do people always think this. The firmware for all new Mac machines has a CSM built in. Windows doesn't NEED EFI to boot on the Mac, it pretends to have a BIOS. You can install windows and overwrite Mac OS X without ever even viewing the bootcamp webpage, let alone installing it. BootCamp partitions the hard disk, and makes a driver disk..... and thats IT. It does not "run", it does not "emulate", It does NOTHING when the machine is booting windows at all.


....I think you need to reread my post. Either you are misunderstanding or dont have a grasp on boot processes. Quote where I stated or even inferred emulation. Think before you post in haste.

WildPalms
May 27, 2007, 07:26 PM
OS X for me. The only things I run on Windows is C&C3 and Myst. OS X for the rest.

Grab the Myst pack for OS X. It has all the versions of Myst 1 - 5 included and I believe the latest pack has RealMyst as well. :)

failsafe1
May 27, 2007, 08:01 PM
Has to be Bootcamp since I am FPS man.

chadi
May 29, 2007, 02:08 AM
I have to say I find this thread very ... interesting.

I have a 'custom' built pc e6600 cpu / evga nvidia 8800gtx 768MB card / 2GB paired Crucial Ballistix DDR 800 , 2x raid 0 arrays (OS/Data) blah blah blah...oh it's in a really nice Antec P180 case as well...holds 6 drives and has separate cooling for them...

I just packed it up and put it in my 'for sale' pile. I got my macbook pro now and I'll get a Mac Pro after they update them...I got the mac because after reading up on it it looked like I was getting Linux with driver support...and that's pretty much what it feels like to me. It has commercial applications and drivers for hardware (printers / audio recording equipment) that isn't available on Linux.

So for me the whole 'switch' business was because it does more of what I want (work) and less of what I don't want (play).

I also have a closet full of PC games, so if anyone wants to trade me mac versions for my PC ones...Civ 4 + exp / Aoe 3 / star wars galaxies at war....etc; I have most of the latest and greatest...just wasting to much of my time.

Oh...I was happy to find out my mac came with chess...after all these years of solitaire on my laptops it's nice to see a bundled change :P (I sold my PC laptop within days of getting my MBP).

FriarTuck
May 29, 2007, 02:46 PM
My current game of choice is Call of Duty 2 and I am perfectly happy with its performance on my Core 2 Duo iMac, both single player and multiplayer, in OS X.

Eidorian
May 29, 2007, 02:48 PM
Boot Camp

For Joint Operations and Company of Heroes.

Sargiel
May 29, 2007, 04:56 PM
While I am occassionally tempted to buy windows and install on my iMac for that classic game I know won't be ported to OS X, at the end of the day I resist the urge. I don't really want to have Windows on my system or have to reboot to play a game. And if it came to it I'd rather buy a few more Mac games and support the developers that bring games to OS X than buy a copy of windows that I don't really need.