Vista's 'Game' menu: why so inflexible

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-10-19 05:48pm

Rar rar Vista sucks.

But anyway, it has this crazy 'Games' menu, at the same Start menu level as Computer. Initially it only lists the Games for Windows games, but you can poke it to grab more. It does an iTunes and grabs cover art (and apparently other information), and since the Vista start menu sucks assballs I actually use it.

However, it's pretty wierd. It knows what Kohan Ahriman's Gift is, but not Uplink (so it scales the tiny Uplink icon up). It finds games but not the addons, like BFME2 and you have to manually point the shortcut at the addon exe. Is it a part-implemented feature? The only additional stuff you get with 'official' Games for Windows games is the silly 'Windows Experience Index' requirements, which are all really low (like 1.0 for CoH).

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2007-10-19 07:15pm

Basically, their database is very uneven at this point. Most of the old games (pre-2006) are included but have no or poor info (often its just the cover art), and since it appears to be based on publisher submissions, newer games (read games after mid 2006 or so) have a really spotty record of showing up. Indie games you can basically forget about being supported from what I've seen so far.

As with a lot of things like that, the more Vista becomes important as a gaming system, publishers will take Vista Game Explorer compatibility more seriously.

For most intents and purposes, this is just a slightly more informative and flexible way to launch games and assorted utilities/homepages/whatever instead of a folder in the start menu, however it does hook up to some interesting features in the parental controls (you can limit a child, or more technically, a non-administrative account, to a specific time period, only games up to a specific rating, etc.). Also, its intended to bring more simplicity to Windows gaming (hence the performance rating system that is supposed to at some point replace the usual min/recommended specs that are supposedly daunting to joe sixpack), in an attempt to get some of the console crowd to (or get back to) also game on the PC.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-10-19 07:49pm

Yeah, it's an interesting idea, and given the current state of the Start Menu (ie being completely fucked) it's a nice alternative. I habitually simply browse to my software anyway, but it's convienient to use the games folder. It's a shame it's a bit haphazard at the moment: I was hoping there would be more information available for non-Games for Windows games.

And yeah, Uplink is indy so I can see why it wouldn't be entered in the db, but Stalker is a THQ game from earlier this year, so it's odd it isn't in there.

I can see the utility of the 'experience index', but they need to be more useful: CoH for instance is very scalable (so you probably can run it with a minimum spec of 1.0) but at the high end you need a fair system, but recommended is ALSO 1.0.

I'm not very solid on how they work out the 'experience rating' or even what it's out of - changing from 6600GT/3200x64 to 8600GTX/e6750 changed my rating from 5.1 to 5.5...

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2007-10-20 04:19am

The experience rating is actually designed pretty intelligently - it is based on your lowest scoring subsystem in an attempt to force manufacturers to actually build balanced systems instead of computers with a speed demon processor, decent ram.... and integrated or something300 graphics and selling that as a gaming PC. There are links in CP>Performance Information and Tools that go into details for each subsystem.

As for the current numbers, yeah, it seems publishers simply must have that 1.0 for minimum no matter how realistic it is. On the other hand, NWN2 pretty bravely put up 5.0 as recommended - my system has all the components somewhere in 4.x with 4.1 overall do to CPU and I'd probably put it up as recommended, with a few caveats so in this case I think they were realistic or even a little conservative. I'm sure in time as they get used to it the numbers will get realistic in most cases, although I am fearing the common 1.0 minimum becoming a bit too common.

All in all, I find that I'm actually using it to launch my games - for the non-supported ones I've been moving their installer-created desktop shortcuts into the game explorer - it reduces clutter (only one icon on the desktop in my case) and for supported games its actually a better interface then the usual folder.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2007-10-20 04:37am

Vista start menu comes with a quick search for a reason. Because after 12 years of no hard limits, the Start Menu is fucking hopeless if you let applications dump stuff where ever they feel like it.

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2007-10-20 04:42am

Well, yes, that too. Still, for games, with game explorer they're 4 clicks away from launching, while, even with quicksearch I'd have to type in a good chunk of the name before getting a useful shortcut in the start menu. Not that its not a very useful new feature otherwise.

Executor32 · Post by **Executor32** » 2007-10-20 02:15pm

I just do what I did under XP: Put the shortcuts for games in the Quick Launch bar, but have the bar sized so only 3-5 icons are visible (in my case, Firefox, Thunderbird, Winamp, and WMP are visible). This has the effect of making a sort of mini-Start Menu with only my games on it, accessible by clicking the >> button on the right of the Quick Launch bar. All I have to do is click the button, then click the game.

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2007-10-20 02:57pm

Well, yes, for launching games you do get the same functionality, however notice that we're commenting how the game explorer does, when it works, have quite a few useful extras over that. Nothing spectacular, mind you, but it is a nice interface, albeit one, like many other things, that could have been even better if Microsoft wanted to rock the boat a bit more (how about a standardized installer for games and other standardizations to really make them console-like simple?)

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-10-20 07:34pm

Xon wrote:Vista start menu comes with a quick search for a reason. Because after 12 years of no hard limits, the Start Menu is fucking hopeless if you let applications dump stuff where ever they feel like it.

It doesn't help that they force it to stay within the same frame instead of folding out everywhere, and then fill the whole upper area of the program list (even on 1680x1050) with useless Windows shit so you can't even SEE the useful stuff. My usage of recent apps and games is 100% motivated by the total disaster which is the current Start Menu.

It amuses me that like Executor says, people have beeen avoiding the Start Menu for years with workarounds: that's how bad it is. I've always been comfortable with the directory structure, but I know people whose XP program tab fills four whole columns of their screen using the XP Start Menu. Turns out letting manufacturers put their shit in ridiculous 3-tiered branded folders (which aren't even consistent, Eidos + Eidos inc etc) was a bad fucking idea. Amusingly, people like HP etc do the same thing with their OSX drivers.

But I hear Finder is hopeless and difficult to use!

For true quick launching, I'd *love* a decent Windows quicksilver thingy. It uses a cached list, so it doesn't have to use Vista's 'not very quick at all' quick search, and it's quite good at learning.

Commander 598 · Post by **Commander 598** » 2007-10-22 01:13pm

Games Menu? I just use the "Quick Search" or run it through Steam... In fact, I use the Quick Search for everything involving the Start Menu.

And what are you talking about "Not very quick at all"? I can get "full" results in 2 seconds and half a second for start menu entries.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-10-22 05:40pm

Yeah, and OSX's search is way faster than that on poorer hardware. Do keep up. If you honestly think mousing then typing then looking then clicking faster than a menu, well... it still wouldn't be relevant to a discussion of the poor implementations. You apparently don't even know what Quicksilver is!

And Steam? Fucking Steam? Are you serious?