[deniro]

Originally Posted by remixor

Nobody is saying YOU should use a PC.

They're not? Could've fooled me. If I wanted to play Grim Fandango, I would have to buy a PC. If I wanted to play most of the adventures that come out and that get reviewed on this web site, I would have to buy a PC. Even if I could afford it, I doubt I would do it.

One platform. One way of doing things. That's not a market. That's a monopoly. And it hurts us all in the long run.

I understand the financial ramifications of a monopoly. So, no, I'm not shocked when games are released for the monopoly but not for the Mac. And, yes, I understood that when I bought my Mac many years ago.

But that doesn't mean I have to like the situation that exists or defend it. And it doesn't mean that I have nothing in common with other computer users.

[deniro]

By the way, I thought both The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones sucked. I don't now where the Lucas money is being spent these days, but it sure isn't on imaginative screenplays or adventure games.

The last great Lucas effort I saw was Full Throttle. How long ago was that?

[mag]

Originally Posted by Jake
That's already one Gamecube-defender and one Mac-defender coming out with posts blasting other people completely unprovoked Kinda funny. High strung much?!

I prefer to think of myself as a Linux-defender.

Originally Posted by deniro
One platform. One way of doing things. That's not a market. That's a monopoly. And it hurts us all in the long run.

I don't know. I think there might be some good to having one platform that everybody uses. In fact, you're problems stem from the fact that this isn't a true monopoly. Think about it. If there were only one platform, you wouldn't have a Mac in the first place. You'd have exactly what everybody else has because that's the only thing available. So that's the platform that all the games would be made for. You get these incompatibility problems because there are so many different platforms--Windows, Mac, Linux, PS2, Xbox, GameCube. A lot of the time you can't make your game for all of them, so you go with the most popular. So having one platform that everything can play on might be kind of nice. And not necessarily as a monopoly either. It could be like the VHS of computer systems.

mag

[Royal Fool]

I don't recall anyone really 'owning' the PC platform. Unless you're talking about Microsoft, of course... heh.

[Jackal]

All issues of quality or "fairness" aside, your comparison is completely unfounded.

The games you can't play do exist. Ultimately it's YOUR choice not to use a platform that supports them. Sam and Max will simply never BE. There are no options, period. There are no second class citizens in this, because there are no FIRST class citizens. Every gamer loses.

Your comparison is far more like PC owners not being able to play Psychonauts. We may think it stinks that it's Xbox exclusive, but we understand the realities, and either we buy an Xbox, or don't play it. Our choice.

[JayNun]

Originally Posted by deniro

I have no desire to buy a lesser platform (Windows, Linux) merely for the sake of playing games. Still, it would be nice to have some of the games, like Grim Fandango, that everyone raves about, rather than being treated like a second-class citizen. Competition, after all, is what a market economy is all about, and we are all supposed to be in favor it.

deniro, from one Mac user to another, have you tried Virtual PC? I managed to install and successfully run CMI, GF, and a number of the older Sierra games on version 5.0, thus subverting the adventure gaming void a little. I think, if the game doesn't require a 3D card and doesnt have too big a system requirement (Does Runaway need an accelerator? Not sure...) you can get it running smoothly.

Mind you, at the moment, something horrible and ghastly seems to have happened on my computer where every Windows 95 hard disk image I make seems to corrupt nigh-on instantly and provide me with screen after delightful screen of the Windows/IOS protection errors PC manufacturers and users seem to favour, meaning I can't really get at a lot of these games. Bollocks Bollocks Bollocks...

[remixor]

Originally Posted by deniro

They're not? Could've fooled me. If I wanted to play Grim Fandango, I would have to buy a PC. If I wanted to play most of the adventures that come out and that get reviewed on this web site, I would have to buy a PC. Even if I could afford it, I doubt I would do it.

One platform. One way of doing things. That's not a market. That's a monopoly. And it hurts us all in the long run.

I understand the financial ramifications of a monopoly. So, no, I'm not shocked when games are released for the monopoly but not for the Mac. And, yes, I understood that when I bought my Mac many years ago.

But that doesn't mean I have to like the situation that exists or defend it. And it doesn't mean that I have nothing in common with other computer users.

As I think I very clearly indicated in my post, I meant that nobody on this site is telling you that you should buy a PC. You accused us of Mac bigotry for some reason, and I'm telling you that's ridiculous. But since you bring it up... Are you essentially saying that every game must be released on multiple formats? Why? Everyone is aware the Mac is simply not a gaming machine. It's not some sort of prejudice. I don't complain that the Final Fantasy games don't come out on GameCube (except Crystal Chronicles), despite Final Fantasy being a historically Nintendo-oriented series. It's just not how it is now. If I want to play Final Fantasy games, I must own a PS2. Oh well. Claiming that's some sort of "second-class citizenship" is absurd. You must think that the Mac has benefits that outweigh the positives of gaming. That's wonderful, and I don't think anyone here has a problem with that. When you're a second class citizen, that generally indicates you didn't have a choice in the matter. For example, if you are black and you consistently are given lesser benefits than a white person whose non-racial attributes are very similar, you could say that's an example of second-class citizenship. When you are a Mac user knowing full well that the strengths of the Mac platform are oriented towards mainly non-gaming areas, that's just your choice. Just because we don't have sympathy towards your perceived "second-class citizenship" doesn't mean we have any bias against the Mac, or Mac users, and we're not saying you should switch. If gaming really was that important to you, you'd probably switch. Honestly, we don't mind either way, I promise.

[simpson_yellow]

Originally Posted by deniro

Frankly, I found the reponses to my post surprisingly immature.

I hardly think this is a fair remark, particularly following your "Learn to read, kids" comment. This is one of the most level-headed and balanced forums I've participated in (or even read for that matter).

And reading back over the other posts in the thread, I can't see a single post that constitutes "attacking the platform" except, ironically, for Bastich's comment about the PC becoming an "an expensive, glorified console"

I think all people are saying in response to your original post is that, if you want readily accessible spare parts, you don't buy a Ferrari.

I sympathise with your plight, but as others have mentioned, you chose to buy a Mac. I just don't think it's entirely analogous to the SnM2 issue.

[TheDerman]

What's so great about the Mac anyway?

I've never owned one, I've never used one, I've never read an argument that would make me want to use or own one.

So, tell me, nicely, what is so great about a Mac?

[Erwin_Br]

Originally Posted by TheDerman

What's so great about the Mac anyway?

I've never owned one, I've never used one, I've never read an argument that would make me want to use or own one.

So, tell me, nicely, what is so great about a Mac?

The OS is much more stable and intuitive than Windows.

--Erwin

[TheDerman]

Which means what exactly? I don't have any trouble getting around Windows - can't see how it could be much simpler - and it only crashes a couple of times a week - I'm certainly not going to get a Mac because it might only crash twice a month, or never.

Anything else?

[Pappapisshu]

Originally Posted by TheDerman

and it only crashes a couple of times a week

Really? It's crashed like two times in the latest seven months or so for me.

[mag]

Originally Posted by Singer
All issues of quality or "fairness" aside, your comparison is completely unfounded.

I don't think it's an unfair comparison. All he's really saying is that Mac gamers know what it's like not to get a game they look forward to. I do feel bad for Mac gamers. They're always the ones getting screwed on compatibility. The only platform worse for gaming than OS X is Linux.

Of course, titling the post "Welcome to my world" on the day the game everybody here was looking forward to most was cancelled might not have been the best idea. But I still see what he's saying.

Originally Posted by TheDerman
and it only crashes a couple of times a week - I'm certainly not going to get a Mac because it might only crash twice a month, or never.

A couple times a week? Is that all?

Well, if you like putting up with that, that's your choice. But other operating systems don't crash like Windows does. Also, OS X is much more secure. It's extremely rare to have a virus that's actually a problem on anything other than Windows. Windows is really inferior in just about every regard. The only reason to keep it around is because there are some programs you can't use on OS X or Linux. Of course, now there are lots more programs for those too. And better ones than what Windows has. So really, the best thing Windows has going for it is its buggy games. Once developers start moving over to Linux, Windows will be worthless.

mag

[TheDerman]

Originally Posted by Pappapisshu

Really? It's crashed like two times in the latest seven months or so for me.

Really? That's great - I have a PC built by an incompetent muppet, who seems to have disappeared off the face of the planet, so retribution is not an option - I think THAT is more the problem for me, not Windows.

But that's beside the point - what does a Mac have in its favour that a Windows machine doesn't have, which would convince me it's any better?

That's my question, and a serious question it is too.

Mag - I don't really consider it "putting up with it" - a crash a couple of times a week doesn't cause me to lose any sleep at night or lose any time when working, so I'm really not that bothered, and if all a Mac has to offer me is less crashes, then really that's not enough, in my opinion.

And I thought the reason there were more viruses (Virii? Not convinced) on Windows machines was simply because there are more Windows users and said viruses are written to exploit Windows, NOT Macs - Viruses in general can affect Mac's just as much as Windows, is my understanding.

[remixor]

Originally Posted by mag

So really, the best thing Windows has going for it is its buggy games.

Buggy, but existant. Honestly though, let's not turn this into a platform war, there's no point. Why not just say everyone has their own reasons for using the platform they do, and that's that? I certainly don't care if people use Linux or Mac OS instead of Windows, and other people shouldn't either. Everybody here has heard all the jokes about Windows crashing, and Mac users not getting games, and Linux users not getting any software at all, and I'm sure users of all these respective operating systems could refute or support those claims all day long, so what's the point?

[deniro]

Had no intention of starting a platform war. Quite the opposite -- I thought I was pointing out something we had in common.

Thanks for the VirtualPC suggestion. That might work with some games. Otherwise, what the rest of you have said is true: If I wanted to play adventure games, I should have gotten a PC.

Nevertheless, I voted in the Sam and Max poll anyway at gamespot because it's a shame to see a product praised and then discontinued. Maybe the solution here is for companies to keep their projects secret until completion and for the press to avoid concerning itself with "up and coming" projects. There should be enough games currently on the shelves to talk about as it is.

Or so I've heard.

[TheDerman]

I'm not trying to start a war either - I genuinely would like to know what, other than "they're more stable", makes Mac's better than Windows machines - I've never even used one so can't claim Windows is any better - all I'm saying is, if all Macs have to offer is fewer crashes, is that enough to make me buy one over a Windows machine? I don't think it is.

[deniro]

Originally Posted by TheDerman

I'm not trying to start a war either - I genuinely would like to know what, other than "they're more stable", makes Mac's better than Windows machines - I've never even used one so can't claim Windows is any better - all I'm saying is, if all Macs have to offer is fewer crashes, is that enough to make me buy one over a Windows machine? I don't think it is.

Well . . . since you asked, you can start here. Mac v. PC
That's the most comprehensive study I know of. Or you can try apple.com

Put briefly, I would suggest things like: it's not made by Microsoft, no viruses, better security, quieter; easier to use, troubleshoot and upgrade; and cheaper in the long run. Also, you get the benefit of buying music from the Apple Music store to download to your ipod, iTunes to organize the music on your iPod, plus some other cool software like the Safari browser, Garage Band, Keynote, iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie (the iLife package).

OS X is based on a Unix foundation if you feel like tampering with a command-line interface, making Linux more or less superfluous.

[Dale Baldwin]

"no viruses" isn't quite accurate, is it. See here.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by mag

I don't think it's an unfair comparison. All he's really saying is that Mac gamers know what it's like not to get a game they look forward to. I do feel bad for Mac gamers. They're always the ones getting screwed on compatibility. The only platform worse for gaming than OS X is Linux.

Of course, titling the post "Welcome to my world" on the day the game everybody here was looking forward to most was cancelled might not have been the best idea. But I still see what he's saying.

Of course the feeling is similar, but the situation is not. As I said, I was leaving the issue of fairness aside. Yes it sucks, and I wish for their sake that Mac users had more games available. But I feel no more sorry for them than I do for PC owners not being able to play console-only games that interest them. There are options, and it's a choice.

That still has nothing to do with Sam & Max, which offers no alternatives.