These days?  Very little.  In the last five years, I've drifted away from PC games and toward console games.  On the whole, I prefer PC games, but PC game developers have made their choices and I've made mine.

And you're talking to someone who reinstalls and plays through JA2 every year or two.  If EWOM is any good, I can live without a day 0 patch.

3rd guest pass.... i get this for my self on Tuesday

Boo! Consoles are even more draconian and ridiculous than PC games, especially on Xbox. I have all of the consoles, but only for a few games and to play with friends. PC gaming is still the best when done right (Stardock, Valve, and other indie devs).

Isn't the GT 220 an incredibly low end card? Not basing this on knowledge, it just sounds like one of the lower ones.

That said, the problems you're talking about are incredibly uncommon. Sucks for you, but doesn't really say anything about the quality of the game.

A 220 isn't really a gaming grade card, yeah

A 220 is a bit of plastic with some silicon melted on it. Nvidia may as well write "<New Grahics Card Goes Here!>" on them.

Yeah, what nonsense. SC2 is one of the most polished games i've ever played.

Man I have to say, really enjoy the campaign alot. Then after that, its time to get wrecked in multiplayer.

I've finished the single player campaign for my friend, and used one his seven hour guest passes, and I was honestly fairly disappointed.  Unlike Blizzard's other sequels, which expand upon the original (Diablo II was essentially just Diablo, but with a lot more in it and really polished) this really is just a fresh coat of paint for the original and a higher price tag.  I dominated my seven hours of multiplayer using strats that worked in Starcraft 1.  There are no expanded rosters, no game changers; I've been playing this same game on and off for ten years and the only really 'new' idea in the game are units that can jump up and down cliff faces and elevated terrain. 
Battle.net 2.0 is a pretty pathetic system; it feels like a grave yard - no community interaction of any kind.  In-game chat isn't used due to the nature of the beast, and the forums are filled with people asking to change profile names, move to different regions to play with their friends and wondering why they can't access custom content.  And the Single Player was bloated - over half the game is filler content!  It's certainly not terrible, but it's not up to Blizzard's usual standards in my opinion.  Their first game that I've honestly walked away from disappointed.

What half do you think is filler content? I am interested because i thought the sp campaign was great.

Some people just like to complain.  You could give them a free car and they'll complain it's not a lexus.  You could give them a free, brand new lexus and they'll complain it's not a fucking space shuttle capable of going to Mars.

Bah, I wrote a response and the forums had a meltdown or something and now it's gone.  I'll write it up again later.

Your complaining that the story is too long, and has too many extras... that's just ridiculous lol.  Your opinions can be valid no matter what, they're just opinions.  My point was that no matter which direction Blizzard took, there will be people who will complain that it was wrong and they hate it.  Although I've never seen someone complain that there is too much content.

Now that I think about it, I really haven't drifted toward console games, by the definition of buying newer stuff like the PS3 and the Xbox.  I have a PS2, and I've been playing through some of the classic titles.  Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal Shadow of the Colossus, and God of War 1 & 2 were fantastic. 

I got about 10 hours in to Dragon Quest 8, but combat was insanely boring.  It's shelved until I can get an emulator or something.  Final Fantasy 12 was cool until I realized I needed to grind for several hours before I could beat a roadblock boss, and that's not gonna happen.

I tried RE4 and DMC3 (or possibly DMC4 and RE3?).  I thought both of them were total coasters, but at 7 bucks apiece, who cares?

If anyone has PS2 recommendations, I'm happy to hear them.

One good thing about not finding many games to play is that I've been exercising a lot more.  I'm currently working my way into barefoot running, and I cannot describe how awesome it's been so far.

I'm gonna get it simultaneously as getting a 24" 1920x1080 monitor. Can't play StarCraft II with a shitty 19" 1280x1024 monitor

CyrusNunn

With barefoot running you mean without shoes, socks and any protection whatsoever?         Indoors I assume then.

I read some article about some professor who had backproblems but walking barefooted in riceplantages in Asia fixed his problems.

Outdoors, no shoes is the goal.  I mostly run in uncushioned flats at the moment, until I build up better calluses.  I can only do about a half mile barefoot now.  After that, I risk blisters.

In barefoot running, you land on the balls of your feet, you keep your calf muscle tight so that your Achilles' tendon acts as a spring.  If you do it right, your heels barely touch the ground.  It's practically no impact on your knees and back, like you get from landing on your heel. 

I was skeptical at first, but I'm a convert now.  My knee problems have completely gone away since I started. 

If you want to know more, there's a ton of books on Amazon.

For anyone curious this is what CyrusNunn is talking about:

Seems to make sense. I heard about this a while ago and I've been thinking about doing it. I'd need to get the barefoot stile shoes though, because I don't think I'd want to run completely barefoot in the streets here; due to them being hot enough to fry eggs and all.

The original Starcraft had filler content too.  When they talked of seperating the second's story into three seperate entries, they said it was because there was simply too much game for one release, and that they were working on a truly Epic Story that we'd love!  Unfortunately, they could have cut out half of the game that they made and no one would have noticed because it makes no sense in context and honestly has no bearing of any kind on this story - the, apparently, sole reason for splitting the game up into pieces.  Their justification for three price tags is made invalid by even including filler content and padding

When you charge three times for a single and complete story, that story needs to justify it.  It doesn't.  At all.  They could have cut out 15 missions without any consequences, compressed a few missions with smart writing and added in two seperate campaigns and given a real sequel to Starcraft.  A lot of people argued that we were getting 1/3rd of a game.  Well, content wise, that's not true - there's a decent length to the Single Player game content wise.  Unfortunately, ultimately, it is 1/3rd of a full experience.  There is zero character development and the story's only real development or advancement takes place during three missions (Spoiler: The Protoss Missions) which ultimately makes Starcraft II over-priced and bloated.

I wanted to love Starcraft II (shit, I still have Starcraft installed on this very machine!) however with a cost of AU$100.00, and a requirement of two purchases still to go to see the end, I have to call into question the value and reasoning of around AU$300.00's worth of purchases.  There just isn't AU$300.00 worth of story here, and that's what was promised.  Optional missions don't make up for AU$200.00 extra dollars on the price tag.

Add into that uprising on the Battle.net forums regarding custom content, which for some is a big reason for purchase, the absolute lack of features for Battle.net 2.0 - feature which were supposed to justify the online requirement - and you have a game which ultimately disappoints.  If you like, all well and good, however my complaints are quite valid.

We should really keep this out of the SC2 discussion, but I wanted to add a word of caution: you don't want to switch over to full-on barefoot running all at once, because various bits of your feet have to adapt to the new style.  There are several guides you can read, but I think the general idea of all of them is that you should work on a "barefoot" form in regular running shoes, then change over to flats, then go barefoot or use Vibram Five Fingers.

I like soft feet...

Which is totaly on topic for Starcraft II.

You know... err... soft footed like a ghost?

I dont agree, but i can understand your point of view now. Thanks for explaining.

I thought the way they did the campaign was pretty good. There was kinda three story lines. Two short ones intertwined with the main. The fact that you get to see a couple of them to some kind of conclusion softens the blow of the main left to continue I thought.

And you had to wonder if *spoilerlite*Raynor was going to tag the Doc

@ZehDon, thanks for sharing your views. I appreciate them since there aren't that many reviews out yet. I've read a lot people saying that the campaign is quite long so the game is worth its money, espcially if you also want to play lots of mp. HOwever, now I'm not so sure. Perhaps I will first play more Distant Worlds and Sins, before I try SC2.

The "filler" content in the single player I think ZehDon is referring to is basically the optional missions. I LOVE all of the optional missions and different choices you can make which actually affect the rest of the campaign. Unlike a LOT of similar games where every single mission is "build a base, destroy the enemy base," I'd say at least 80% of the campaign missions have a unique twist that make them different. Some of the missions may "feel" like filler because they don't tie in directly with the story, but then again, they can't be imperative to the story without becoming mandatory.