55 replies to this topic

[n5p29]

besides lack of HDMI, there's something I dont like in Wii: I got bored seeing that red hat plumber moustache guy.

W!, on 8 Jan 2010, 0:37, said:

Emulators never give you a good feel to the game either, I much prefer playing console games with console controllers.

emulators can be run with a joystick/controller, not a big deal.

yet, both PC and console have their own advantages and disadvantages.
if you have a lot of money, why not having both? if dont have money, ask your friends to buy it and go play it on their home.

[Wizard]

This article is aworthy reason to bump this topic imo. Interesting snippet by one of those few professional gaming writers that has had a look into an area that we are all very much concerned with and have been even more concerned with following some of the latest blockbuster releases. Worth a read if nothing else.

Quote

...As we move into 2010, the entire gaming industry is in the midst of some interesting shifts that will have a profound impact on the PC. Whether or not those changes are positive or negative will depend not only on the efforts of publishers and developers but also on our own expectations.

Over the last decade or so, the PC has seen some of its core strengths absorbed or challenged by the compromises of cross-platform development and the realities of a tougher economic climate. The democratic development environment usually associated with the PC has spurred much of the creativity in the industry, from the creation and preservation of entire genres to the development of hardware and software formats that make developing and sharing content easier across all platforms.

...

PC gamers sometimes complain about the "dumbing down" of the PC catalog and point to a particular franchise's new console direction as the reason for lowered expectations in the PC marketplace...

The difference between the console and PC markets is kind of like the difference between network and cable TV. NCIS and Dancing with the Stars will always have more mass appeal than Iron Chef or SpongeBob simply because they're designed and positioned to attract a larger demographic. But the specific appeal of the cable show is in finding a smaller niche or an underserved segment of the market and delivering the content they're not able to get from the major networks. The mass-market games like Madden or Street Fighter or Mario are a great fit for the consoles, but I don't think that the most profitable future for PC games is in trying to adopt that same mentality. To the extent that the PC catalog reflects this thinking, it fails to serve the individual gamers who want their war games, racing sims, or sports management titles to have a depth of detail that only the most hardcore can appreciate.

It's often perceived as a necessity on the console side to make a particular game as appealing as possible to every person who owns a console. The problem is that game publishers have let that thinking creep over into the PC market so now the development and marketing is driven by a need to make a single game that suits everyone. We see it all the time in the dreaded promise of all press releases that a game "will appeal to casual and hardcore players alike." (And if it's a licensed game, this is usually followed by the equally obnoxious claim that it will please both "fans and newcomers.") It's time to stop making such ridiculous claims, and more than that, to stop letting them be the sole consideration that determines how games are made and which ones get published, particularly on the PC.

I'm not saying that PC games have to aim for obscurity. Games like The Sims and World of Warcraft have proven that PC can enjoy as much mass-market appeal as any title on the consoles. But neither game earned its success through the traditional release model. Both rode waves of tremendous post-release support, found ways to generate cash far beyond the initial retail purchase, and leveraged the unique strengths of the PC in a way that simply wouldn't have been possible in a console format.

Is it naive to hope for a return to the days of the 1990s when a developer could sell 80,000 copies of a game and still consider itself successful enough to stay in business long enough to make another game? Obviously part of the problem is the skyrocketing development budgets, but as games like Plants vs. Zombies or AudioSurf proved, concept and design are still the main drivers of popularity. The digital publishing revolution is making things a bit easier, but we still need to tackle the harmful expectations that anything less than a blockbuster is an outright failure. It's a sad result of the mass-market mentality that Gears of War can be looked on with pity because it's only the tenth most popular game on Xbox Live. If I made the tenth most popular game on Xbox Live, I'd get a tattoo.

...

Naturally, cross-platform success allows developers to keep making better games, which is a definite benefit to the industry. But I think publishers, developers and gamers all need to adjust their expectations about what constitutes success and whether or not we want games to be equivalent across all platforms. If we start assuming that we have to make games that appeal to everyone, we're destined to lose the unique qualities that make PC gaming so vital and attractive.

Personally, I don't want a game that anyone can play; I want a game that meets me where I am. The PC has been doing a pretty good job of that for the last twenty years and I hope it continues for twenty more.

Sauce?

[CodeCat]

Sauce.

[TehKiller]

I didnt really liked the sound of this by the way he started the article but i must say the man has a point. The whole point of PC gaming is that games are not all carbon copies but nowadays its all about profit and games are literally all the same except they slap a different title onto the cover of the game.

[BeefJeRKy]

Part 2 of the article Wiz posted is available as well.

Quote

...
Rather than comparing and contrasting the hardware, graphics or catalogs of the different system, I instead focused on the way that consoles have impacted our expectations and perceptions of PC games. Judging by the response it has received, a lot of PC gamers appreciated the overall tone of the article, but there were a few commentators who were disappointed about some of the things I intentionally didn't say.
...

One of the problems with this debate is that it inevitably spirals into an endless loop of righteous bitterness and cynical snobbery. Anyone who has read the last several comments on the previous article can see how the conversation turned from "We need to see the PC differently than we see the consoles" to "We can prove (or disprove) the PC is superior to the consoles." While it's fine to have those opinions at an individual level, the fervent support that mature and educated gamers have for all platforms suggests that there's no objective standard by which we can prove one platform's supremacy over another.
...

The previous editorial didn't touch much on the subject of mods and community-created content, but that's another area where the success of console games is threatening the open-ended nature of the PC gaming experience. Combine increased broadband connectivity with the existing payment structures already in place for the consoles and you have an easy avenue for publishers to make money from selling post-release content directly to the consumers.
...

It is a myth that the PC platform requires an hefty financial investment or a tedious level of technical knowledge. Quality, off-the-shelf gaming PCs are more expensive than most consoles but hardly require the $1000 yearly upgrades that many critics cite as a primary reason to prefer console gaming. When you subtract the cost of the PC you're currently using for web browsing or productivity, the additional expense sometimes required for console peripherals and additional hardware, and the greater longevity of the PC, the price difference isn't as considerable as some people suggest.

Steak sauce

[Sgt. Rho]

The thing nowdays is that it almost seems like a race between all publishers to release the most games in the shortest ammount of time. It's all about quantity, 10 years ago, it was about quality...a few publishers still let the makers enough time to actually FINISH the game before releasing it... Blizzard for example... Then there are the previously mentioned "fastfood game publishers", like EA.