Star Citizen works horrible on _all_ my machines. No idea why, but the optimalisation is non-existant. If I look how well Elite Dangerous runs compared to Star Citizen, they still have a lot of work to do (although I will be the first to admit the games aren't really comparable as it's mainly a Dogfighter/economics type of game without ground combat). But I totally prefer the flight/combat model of Elite compared to Star Citizen.
Heh. Doom. Or WOOD, depending on box orientation.
Graphically nice, and crushing demon skulls in "glory kill" never stopped being satisfying. Also, I liked the overall feeling of fairness in that game, even on the high difficulty levels. Last game I clocked on PC. But I'm predestined to like Doom games. It's my curse.
It was my first FPS game on PC's which I played on a 386sx cpu machine running at 16Mhz.
Elite is even worse when I think of it : I played that first on a Commodore 64 where a fully 7-galaxies big universe with a couple of thousand planets all with their own ecoomical and political system was crammed into 38K or ram and a 6510 cpu running at 1Mhz, made possible due to the wonders of procedural programming, inclusive 3D wireframe graphics, dynamic economics systems, special missions and no patches/bugfixes or whatever after launch. And before I forget it : inclusive Tribbles.
I totally agree with Trevor when it comes to HL2.
If you've never played HL2 (you don't really need HL1 to enjoy HL2 imho, though the game is certainly story-driven the new gamer is guided into the game world very fast) it's pretty impressive a 13 year old game still is so playable these days, and some levels are still nifty to see and play (..Ravenwood.
) and going 1:1 against a Strider still looks awesome.