Is it time for another company?

[Frozen]

Do you think it's time for a fourth competitor to enter the realm of the console market/business?

Sorry if the question sounds stupid.But around the earlie 80's around the big market crash and the earlie middle 90's there were more than three.

Look at xbox and microsoft before microsoft just had control of the internet on computers now they have control of the internet on pc and consoles.

Is it possable a fourth company could be successful like microsoft and not fale like saga?

Saga had not one but two chances whith in my opinion not only at the time but saturn and dreamcast were ahead of it's time and the most powerful console on the market.
But did not fire the japan people so they faled.

I ask because sony has lost there head and now it's up there ass if it weren't for xbox and the wii sony would not have any ideas to steal from.

Xbox 360
1.Xbox is no threat outside america and i think europe?
2.Fail rate is over 30%

Wii
1.while the controller is a good idea i have yet to see any game use it.
Non of the top ten games listed here use it.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/wii/
2.Kidy games this is not the 80's/90's gamers have matured and want to play some more adult via gta.

Ps3
1.TOO godam expensive sony has there head up there ass.
2.I don't think sony could make a system half as good if they didn't have ideas to steal from.

[RonDo]

Do you think it's time for a fourth competitor to enter the realm of the console market/business?

Sorry if the question sounds stupid.But around the earlie 80's around the big market crash and the earlie middle 90's there were more than three.

Look at xbox and microsoft before microsoft just had control of the internet on computers now they have control of the internet on pc and consoles.

Is it possable a fourth company could be successful like microsoft and not fale like saga?

Saga had not one but two chances whith in my opinion not only at the time but saturn and dreamcast were ahead of it's time and the most powerful console on the market.
But did not fire the japan people so they faled.

I ask because sony has lost there head and now it's up there ass if it weren't for xbox and the wii sony would not have any ideas to steal from.

I do not think there is room for a 4th console. If there was to be one, they had better come up with something revolutionary that can get the support of developers and is of a reasonable price to consumers.


Xbox 360
1.Xbox is no threat outside america and i think europe?
2.Fail rate is over 30%


The american console for sure but I believe the failure is down a bit nowadays. My original 360 from launch runs like a charm.


Wii
1.while the controller is a good idea i have yet to see any game use it.
Non of the top ten games listed here use it.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/wii/
2.Kidy games this is not the 80's/90's gamers have matured and want to play some more adult via gta.


Looking at that top 10, I would have to say that all of them support use of the Wiimote. It doesn't mean you have to use it but they can all be played using it.

I don't find Super Smash Brothers, Super Mario Galaxy, Wii Fit, Super Mario Kart, Zelda: Twilight Princess, and Guitar Hero III to be "adult" games per say and they all sold/selling very well on this system. Some gamers have matured..and some gamers are just being born. Not everyone is gonna be an "adult" nor have the craving to play "adult" games.


Ps3
1.TOO godam expensive sony has there head up there ass.
2.I don't think sony could make a system half as good if they didn't have ideas to steal from.


I won't argue the fact that it is expensive as a game system, but as a multimedia device, it is a pretty good value.

I'm not sure what to say on the idea stealing comment though..at least not now.

[Frozen]

I do not think there is room for a 4th console. If there was to be one, they had better come up with something revolutionary that can get the support of developers and is of a reasonable price to consumers.

THat's why i brought up the 80's/90's there were alot of systems and nintendo and saga did fine.




I won't argue the fact that it is expensive as a game system, but as a multimedia device, it is a pretty good value.
As a cheap hd dvd player 150% yes.
But if you already have a hd player and look at this list theres two games final fantasy and re5 isn't out yet and a few rentals.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/ps3/

I'm not sure what to say on the idea stealing comment though..at least not now.

When nintedo reveald the wii remote sony emeditly anounced there controller was gonna have motion controle

[SpaceProg]

Ladies and Gentlemen it's the LawsonCubeBoxStation360! Able to play any game, any time, anywhere. Just plug it into your brain and you'll be playing anything from Duck Hunt to MG: Sons of the Patriots. WITH YOUR MIND! Even games that haven't been created yet! The LawsonCubeBoxStation360: So Leet, it's from the FUTURE!

[Frozen]

Hm... no. I think Microsoft needs to pack up their machine and go home to what they do best. Computers. :P
... uh ... Exuse mwa? uh hm er yeah..
Microsoft couldn't make a computer if it meant bankruptcey.

[Frozen]

I'm talking about the operating system, Windows. -_-
There is still huge inpromvent.Because micrsoft doesn't have a compititor it will never happin.

[RonDo]

I don't have an issue with Microsoft staying in the console race. Will they will ever have console saturation outside of the US, I don't think so.

Microsoft would have to come up with something very sleek and sexy (which they sure as heck haven't yet) for a console. Also, they would need more Japanese developer support that are making games the Japanese wants (dating sims and other weird ass games) that are exclusive to the console..at least for a little while. I just don't think Microsoft has very good knowledge of the gaming market outside of the US at this time.

[Frozen]

Yeah there a little behind in experince nintedo has 3 sonsoles more whorth of experiance and sony has one.

[Z]

Nintendo:
1) NES
2) Virtual Boy
3) Gameboy
4) SNES
5) Nintendo 64
6) Gameboy Advanced
7) Nintendo Game Cube
8) Nintendo DS
9) Nintendo Wii

Sony:
1) Playstation
2) Playstation 2
3) PSP
4) Playstation 3

Nintendo: 9 Systems. Sony: 4 Systems.

[The Moody Ronin]

Yeah there a little behind in experince nintedo has 3 sonsoles more whorth of experiance and sony has one.

...uhm... 7 and 3 by my count...

edit: Z beat me to it...

[Frozen]

Oh well i was going by non hand helds.
And why hasn't microsoft made one?

[Charlie]

We've already got a fourth console, so to speak. Even if it's not exactly a console, by the whole standard of things. And that's the PC. With the PC, PS3, 360, and the Wii, that's more than enough. And personally, I'd be satisfied with only the PC (for internet purposes, music, etc.), and the PS3 (for video games, online and off). But, yeah. Personally, and on the grand scheme of things, I think we should be good until at the VERY earliest 2012 or 2013. When the next generation is most likely to become prominent.

[Bloodcinder]

I think the PC currently equates with the XBOX, since both are Microsoft platforms. (Nobody plays PC games on anything but Windows.)

[Gio Takahashi]

that's because too few developers would go with mac and linux, because of microsoft's windows domination in the market.

Do we need a fourth company? No. It's already annoying that some people have to choose between three consoles: Wii, Playstation 3, and Xbox 360. Even then, that fourth company would have some strong support to get started, since most developers are all over 360 and Ps3. Why should they develop for the new console? why would they? what benefit would they get?

Keep in mind that when it all breaks down to it, the video game library will truly define what the console is. What good is a videogame console if they don't have good library line up.

[Frozen]

Do bad the graphics are shit.

[Arainach]

First of all, it's Too, not Do. Do you even proofread your own posts? (Don't bother answering, that's rhetorical). Second of all, gaming is about having fun, not graphics.

[Gio Takahashi]

Wii wasn't made as a powerhouse compared to 360 and PS3, so don't expect HD graphics on Wii. It was made as what a video game console should be. Fun, innovation, entertainment.

[Z]

gaming is about having fun, not graphics.

Absolutely, 100% agreed.

Never, EVER judge a game based on the graphics. Just look at Geometry Wars:

http://o.aolcdn.com/gd-media/games/geometry-wars-galaxies/wii/11.jpg

Graphically speaking, it's just shapes and colors yet this game is one of the better rated, best reviewed games out there on the market right now.

GameSpot (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/geometrywarsretroevolved/review.html): 8.2/10
IGN (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/668/668593p1.html): 8.0
Metacritic (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/wii/geometrywarsgalaxies) (Collection of reviews): 8.0

Hell, I still like playing classic Space Invaders and Tetris, both very graphically underdeveloped.

[Arainach]

Geometry Wars is the #1 game I play on my 360. More than Dead Rising. More than Vice City. More than Gears of War. Hell Yeah.

[Killer_Man_]

What the hell is Geo wars? It looks interesting but very bright.

Second, once again, I will state.

NINTENDO NEVER GOES FOR GRAPHICS. *HUFFS*

Nintendo never made power house consoles. Why do you think they always make money off their consoles?

I am just saying that Nintendo may milk their franchises but they do it with such skill and they don't need spiffy graphics to do it.

[Detrevni]

That looks like someone with worms ate alphabet soup and vomited on a computer screen.

[Frozen]

So you would go and buy a new computer game like starcraft 2 even tho your computer can't creat good graphics?

[Detrevni]

And saying it has crappy graphics would be like saying the PS2 or original Xbox had bad graphics. People never went around saying that though, and I believe the Wii can put out somewhat better graphics than those previous generation consoles...

Actually the Original xbox is pretty much the exact same power-wise as teh Wii. Marginally faster, in fact. look it up :)

[Z]

So you would go and buy a new computer game like starcraft 2 even tho your computer can't creat good graphics?
If my computer couldn't run the game, I would not buy it but I think you've missed the point entirely.

We're just trying to say that a good game does not require good graphics. Super Mario World is still considered one of the better games ever made and it was launched with the Super Nintendo, a console that could only support 16-bit graphics.


http://www.consoleclassix.com/info_img/Super_Mario_World_SNES_ScreenShot2.jpg


Whereas You Are Empty, a relatively unknown and notably horrible game, has much more advanced graphics but is much, much, MUCH less fun to play. (See the dismal review HERE (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/youareempty/review.html))


http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/322/reviews/920444_20071119_embed002.jpg

[Gio Takahashi]

Damn, that screenshot looks wrong.

Most of the greatest games were made in the 90s, when the graphic wasn't all THAT of a big deal:

goldeneye 007, Super Mario World, Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past, Sonic 1, 2, 3 and Knuckles and Spinball, Doom, hell let's go all the way back to Wolfenstein 3D. It is the gameplay that's what counts, moreso than just graphics.

[Seegtease]

Sadly, most youth of today rate games almost entirely on graphics. Try taking somebody who is 13 and give them one of the better NES games. They won't have attention on it for very long.

Graphics are only a factor in game quality. You don't check to see if it has good graphics, THEN check to see if it's a good game (with an initial bias due to graphics). You judge the game on graphics, gameplay, story, sound, whatever else suits you. There are many very pretty games that I'd get minimal enjoyment from.

[Gio Takahashi]

Yes, now that you mentioned it, I find myself playing my games a lot less than I used to. Also I find my self a lot less attracted to certain games as well.

[Killer_Man_]

Same, I got paid recently and I was like, LETS GO BUY SOME GAMES!!!!

I go to bestbuy, gamestop and etc. Sadly I left without buying anything. Just for the sheer fact that I stand there thinking, this sounds like a good game... But I bet it sucks cause the graphics are so good.

Sadly, back in the day due to low tech. They HAD to put a good storyline to get people to play. Nowadays to cut back on money and to make a lot of money. They cut back a lot on the story to put in shiny graphics.

I always judge a game by these things.

My interest in the genre, game play, replayability, how open the game is(Such as Dead Rising with many weapons, it's basically a sand box but too much of a sand box is bad), sound, and then graphics.

That is why if I have kids, I'm going to force them to play the older systems first, and work their way up. Hopefully they'll take pride and enjoy the history of games. What still shocks me is that it's been what? 20-30 years since games/PC games started to come out and yet look at the graphics.

I still think there is going to be a bottleneck sometime soon with graphics. They can only make it as life like so much, then they have to worry about other aspects.

[Seegtease]

They need more stealth games. They're fun and take some strategy rather than just button mashing.

[Killer_Man_]

MGS was only good for the first two IMO.

[Z]

I'm told Metal Gear Solid 4 is the best in the series (by several sources) and I personally enjoyed all the entries in the series. MGS3 was just different but definitely not bad. In fact, I'd argue that stealth played even more of a role in it then the previous 2.

Zeit, some good stealth games off the top of my head:
• Theif (PC)
• Hitman (any system)
• Metal Gear Solid
• Splinter Cell

But if you like strategy + stealth, I'd really give the Hitman series
a shot. I've been playing them a lot recently. Very very fun. Metal Gear is stealthy but linear. In Hitman, there are several ways to complete missions and you get bonus weapons for being uber stealthy.

[Frozen]

What about hollywood? they have more studios than three.

.
And the problem whith this genereation is they are so use to halo they won't play any thing that's not prety.
Also your right games are very young.It took movies 30 years before they hade talking and 60 years before they uses colur.

Where games will be in 2040 i don't know.

I sometimes wish games stayd 2d i think sometimes 3d hurt it a little

[tjkitsune]

Actually, I would say 3D games helped quite a bit. Goldeneye 007 and Shenmue wouldn't have been the games they were without 3D. There are some games that shouldn't have gone to 3D, or went too early, such as Sonic... Mario 64 was pretty good, and that was 3D.

[Killer_Man_]

Frozen, Halo is quite ugly to be honest. The levels are quite plain and boring, especially the VS maps.

Second, kids were hooked on graphics since PS/PS2.

[Gio Takahashi]

From what I saw in Starcraft 2, they stick to the way Starcraft was MEANT to be, an overhead RTS game. That makes me happy.

[Killer_Man_]

But SC2 looks like they took the WCIII interface, splash some SC and use the same engine as WCIII.

[Detrevni]

They're developing a new engine for it I thought.. the interface will be the same but I thought the graphics engine would be brand new.

[Killer_Man_]

Perhaps you are right but from all the videos from their website, it kinda like like WC3 in space. :X

[Seegtease]

I'm told Metal Gear Solid 4 is the best in the series (by several sources) and I personally enjoyed all the entries in the series. MGS3 was just different but definitely not bad. In fact, I'd argue that stealth played even more of a role in it then the previous 2.

Zeit, some good stealth games off the top of my head:
? Theif (PC)
? Hitman (any system)
? Metal Gear Solid
? Splinter Cell

But if you like strategy + stealth, I'd really give the Hitman series
a shot. I've been playing them a lot recently. Very very fun. Metal Gear is stealthy but linear. In Hitman, there are several ways to complete missions and you get bonus weapons for being uber stealthy.

Thief is awesome. Deus Ex allowed for stealth. Even Vampire: The Masquerade allowed some stealth. Those are all some of my favorite PC games. MGS is an obvious favorite, too. Splinter Cell never appealed to me, but Hitman? I've done research for stealth games and nobody ever lists it as a stealth game or I would have no doubt tried it.

[Arainach]

Hitman's definitely a stealth game, especially on the harder difficulty levels. A rather enjoyable one too. I've only played Blood Money, but I loved it.

[Z]

I finished Hitman 2 and 3. I'm about to do Blood Money next. I'm glad you liked it. Makes me look forward to it more.

[Killer_Man_]

I didn't like Hitman that much, I never heard of Thief. Splinter Cell or any Jim Clancey(sp?) games I never really liked. I got one with my video card, I forgot the name of it but I don't really enjoy it that much. Especially since the AI only does what you order it to. So if you tell it to follow you, it'll follow you and not fire. What the hell? Sorry but too realistic for my taste.

[Gio Takahashi]

It's Tom Clancy, by the way.

[Killer_Man_]

I knew it was something like that. :X

EDIT:

I should note to Frozen that it's much cheaper to update a computer(Such as buying a graphics card or a new mobo and etc) than it is for a console game system. Computer just has more versatility. Yes, consoles will always work with a game but because my computer is new and i left plenty of room to update it. I can easily go out get a new processer or something to that effect and be able to run games even better.

Frozen, you should know by now that Blizzard will optimize the game to please everyone.

Look at WoW, I could run that game no music, low graphics, 640X480(Or was it 800X600 I ran it on? *Shrugs*) and still pull out 30 frames, sure it sucked in cities and raids but it still ran. That's all that counts.

[Arainach]

Err....KM, a new Graphics Card costs as much as a new Console.

[Z]

Splinter Cell or any Jim Clancey(sp?) games I never really liked. I got one with my video card, I forgot the name of it but I don't really enjoy it that much. Especially since the AI only does what you order it to. So if you tell it to follow you, it'll follow you and not fire.

You're thinking of Rainbow Six. Entirely different genre.

[Killer_Man_]

I know it's an entirely different genre, but I still didn't like them. Just like I didn't like Splinter Cell or Hitman.

Ary, my 640 MB video card cost me 275ish. That's the cost of little more than a Wii and will last for 10 years atleast. I have yet to find a game that needs more than 256-400 MBs of video ram.

That and Ary, to me it's worth more for my buck to blow it on computer related items than a console or games.

[RonDo]

I know it's an entirely different genre, but I still didn't like them. Just like I didn't like Splinter Cell or Hitman.

Ary, my 640 MB video card cost me 275ish. That's the cost of little more than a Wii and will last for 10 years atleast. I have yet to find a game that needs more than 256-400 MBs of video ram.

That and Ary, to me it's worth more for my buck to blow it on computer related items than a console or games.

In a literal sense, yeah..that card may actually last up to 10 years..but its support by games won't likely last near as long. Up to date games tend to move past cards on a fairly regular basis. My ATI 9700 came out a mere 6 years ago and is inadequate for most newer games released today (wow, sure feels longer than that).

You are likely to get more use out of the Wii in those 10 years than that video card in the same time.

[tjkitsune]

Console lifespans are usually 4+ years as it is, with the exception of most of SEGA's systems.. The PS2 is still coming out with games and is still selling. They just came out with the silver color not too long ago and the PS2 was released nearly 8 years ago. Hell, even gamecube games are still selling, being that the Wii can play them.

[RonDo]

Console lifespans are usually 4+ years as it is, with the exception of most of SEGA's systems.. The PS2 is still coming out with games and is still selling. They just came out with the silver color not too long ago and the PS2 was released nearly 8 years ago. Hell, even gamecube games are still selling, being that the Wii can play them.

Lifespans, when tied to game releases, I would agree. However total lifespan for a system can be nice and long as my Sega Genesis and NES. Playing games on those systems is much easier than playing games from my PC around that same time period.

[tjkitsune]

Lifespans, when tied to game releases, I would agree. However total lifespan for a system can be nice and long as my Sega Genesis and NES. Playing games on those systems is much easier than playing games from my PC around that same time period.

LOL. Yeah, it is much easier to slap a cartridge into a system and hit the power button then to boot a computer up, wait for it to load, open the CD drive, find the CD, or floppy disk, load the exe program, and get into the game. Whew.. I think I just wore myself out there just explaining that. :gamecubev2right1mk:

[RonDo]

LOL. Yeah, it is much easier to slap a cartridge into a system and hit the power button then to boot a computer up, wait for it to load, open the CD drive, find the CD, or floppy disk, load the exe program, and get into the game. Whew.. I think I just wore myself out there just explaining that. :gamecubev2right1mk:

And that is if you have a PC that is compatible with those older games. I know for sure I don't have anything ready to run some of my older 5 1/4" and 3 1/2" like Ikari Warriors, Marble Madness, and Star Control.

[tjkitsune]

Ducktales for Windows 3.1.1 on 5. 1/4" FTW!!

[Killer_Man_]

In a literal sense, yeah..that card may actually last up to 10 years..but its support by games won't likely last near as long. Up to date games tend to move past cards on a fairly regular basis. My ATI 9700 came out a mere 6 years ago and is inadequate for most newer games released today (wow, sure feels longer than that).

You are likely to get more use out of the Wii in those 10 years than that video card in the same time.

Not really, my card is direct X 10 and Vista ready. So if I had to upgrade to vista I can, and still get full power. Same with everything on my comp. I left plenty of room to upgrade easily. ;)

[Gio Takahashi]

I bet it'll be 2 or 3 years before you change card.

Which as a matter of fact, Desktop lifetime is 3~4 years, laptop is 2~3 years before major upgrade.

[Seegtease]

If you're keeping up on newer games, a good card won't last more than 2 years before you lose too many frames. Of course, the lifespan of a console isn't much longer. But computer is so much more versatile. Most PC games has better consoles, third party add-ons, and are designed for keyboard and mouse, with an option for a gamepad.

That's why PC gaming will always rank high on my charts.

[Killer_Man_]

I still highly doubt it, I feel I am going to be changing my processer and adding more ram then I change my video card. My old comp kept up for 10 years before I had to change the whole comp.(Processer is a 2.8 GHZ and 2 gigs of ram)

[Gio Takahashi]

Technology changed a great deal more over the past 5 years than the past 10 years. Hence why Microsoft came out with Vista. At the time XP was released, technology was somewhat chugging along. Cable modem was still a new thing, and hardly anyone had at least a gigahertz processor.

I HIGHLY doubt that the computer NOW will last the next 10 years, let alone five.

there are new forms of processors that are in the works that will soon be coming out. I'm pretty sure that it will most likely change the way processing works.

[Arainach]

Changing the way processing works != changing the way computing works. You can add all the bloody cores you want, doesn't mean it does anything. Parallelizing algorithms is an astoundingly difficult task. One of the toughest in computing. And a lot of what we currently do with computers plain and simple can't be parallelized. It'll be a while before any paradigm shifts happen.

[Gio Takahashi]

I never said changign the way computing works, I said changing the way processors work. I recall an experimental 88 core processors, I posted an article about that a couple of years ago.

I was saying that computers are changing very rapid, and so are the games with it.

as I play FFXI, remember that when it first came out, only very few computers would be able to run it very decently with decent FPS, and Square Enix had to release a benchmarking software so gamers could determine whether their computer could run it or not. that was only four, five years ago.

Right now, any currently update computer could run FFXI. It's an interesting thought.

[Arainach]

But my point is that right now an average user won't notice a big difference between 2 2Ghz cores and 4 2 Ghz cores. They won't notice ANY difference between 4 cores and 40. These new styles of processors don't mean anything until there's software to use them.

[Gio Takahashi]

Yes, that is very true. I don't think windows hardly utilize the dualcore, do they?

When I was building Nume II (my current computer) I chuckled at the thought of people buying out the new AMD quad core (I forgot the name, adn too tired to look it up), seeing as NOTHING would be able to utilize the quad core processors.

It is only a matter of time until that changes though.

[Arainach]

Windows utilizes SMP as much as any UNIX-based operating system. It's not an operating system thing; the programs themselves have to be optimized for SMP.

[Gio Takahashi]

Ah. gotcha.

[Killer_Man_]

Well, I still think my comp will outlast a good deal of time. 640 MB is a lot and no computer game really requires that much save for Crysis. xD

Tis all I am saying, right now the only thing I could see myself getting is a faster processer and more ram.

[Seegtease]

I still highly doubt it, I feel I am going to be changing my processer and adding more ram then I change my video card. My old comp kept up for 10 years before I had to change the whole comp.(Processer is a 2.8 GHZ and 2 gigs of ram)

KM, 10 years ago, Windows 98 was new. 2.8ghz didn't even exist. I'm pretty sure they were revolutionary in just breaking the 1ghz.

10 years ago, I think half-life was 2 years old.

Your system did not last 10 years even if you bought the very best one on the market. That is, unless you only play 10 year old games.

[Killer_Man_]

My old system could play everything till DVD drives were there. I played WoW, Sim City 2k and many of the newer 2005 games, after a bit everything went to DVDs.

Perhaps not 10 years, I mean 7ish. I got the comp at 2000 with windows ME before I upgraded(for 50 bucks cause it was on special at christmas at bestbuy.). Either way, like I said, the only thing I would really have to update is the processer and the ram. Cause 640 MB is a bit too much for most games. xD

[Gio Takahashi]

Well, I still think my comp will outlast a good deal of time. 640 MB is a lot and no computer game really requires that much save for Crysis. xD

Tis all I am saying, right now the only thing I could see myself getting is a faster processer and more ram.

Replace Crysis with FFXI and 640 with 64 megabytes, rewind the date to five years ago you would be saying the same exact thing.

Right NOW Most games won't even match up to 640 megabytes graphic cards, but it is only a matter of time until that changes. IF Crysis can do it, so will other games in the near future.

Games will continue to evolve with technology, and companies will definitely continue to push games to the current PC standard's limit.

Imagine Grand Theft Auto 4 on PC. That would be something.

[Killer_Man_]

GTA4 on computer, are you talking a port or a repolish? ;) Because a port would mean it would only be as powerful as it is on the xbox.

And yes, I know what you are saying but I have updatable room where I can twink here and there and get my money's worth off the graphics card.

Crysis is just one of those games where they went too far with their tech and is basically a game to say, HEY LOOK I CAN RUN IT FULL BLOWN JUST CAUSE I CAN!!!

[RonDo]

Running my games at 1920x1200 pushes my card's ram. Higher resolutions eat the ram up.

[Killer_Man_]

Most games I run at 1078ish by whatever.(Whatever it is) but if I can handle it, I push it to 16:10.

[Arainach]

There's no such resolution. 1024x768. Also, that's kind of sad. If your computer can't run it at the native resolution of your monitor, it can't run it.

[Killer_Man_]

Depends on the game, it can run it, but if it's choppy such as an MMORPG, not worth putting it on such high resolution.

Ninja edit:

And some games look better at that resolution than at 16:10.