Post by: JonLeung on October 26, 2006, 05:42:23 PM
Let's look at the PC games I've been played/replayed this year:
Beyond Good & Evil
Hitman: Blood Money
LEGO Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy
Pac-Man World 3
Prince Of Persia: Warrior Within
Psychonauts
Silent Hill 3
Silent Hill 4: The Room
Tomb Raider: Legend
Well, what do you know, all these games are also console games.
Now with the exception of Hitman (on the keyboard and mouse), I've played these games with an N64 controller (connected to my PC through a USB adaptor thanks to Lik-Sang) or a Logitech Dual Action game pad that resembles a PlayStation Dual Shock controller. Also, both my computers are capable of being hooked up to our 57" widescreen TV. So the controllers and the ability to play on a TV...same as if I was a strictly console gamer.
So if I continued to play only games that are also on consoles in a fashion similar to that of consoles but technically it's on a PC, does this make me a PC gamer or a console gamer, or would I be a double agent in the pointless war between console gamers and PC gamers?
Of course, neither format has had as much time spent on as on my DS/DS Lite. (Too many DS games to play right now, grrr.) Why are handhelds, PC, and consoles considered different markets? How many people honestly strictly avoid or stick to just handhelds, PC, or consoles? Am I the weirdo here for playing all three?
Post by: Smoke39 on October 26, 2006, 06:24:50 PM
Deus Ex: Invisible War, for example, got a lot of hate from a lot of fans of the original, being accused of being dumbed down for console gamers, and designed with the technical limitations of an XBox over a PC in mind. I personally think the former was a coincidence (wanting to streamline the experience for wider appeal at the same time they decided to design the game for both platforms simultaneously), but I think the latter is true (it was quite obviously designed with little RAM in mind, and some of the configuration files in the final PC version even still had settings calibrated for the XBox build).
I can understand complaints of stuff being lost in translation between the two (many PC ports ARE pretty half-assed), but I definitely don't agree that console games are for simpletons or anything. I think they both just tend to offer different flavors of games.
Post by: Strell on October 26, 2006, 06:27:39 PM
I don't know if they got into hot water for it, because I can't find it in their archives anymore. It was most hilarious.
It was written around the time Starcraft: Ghost was announced primarily as a console game. PC gamers went into sh*tfits about it.
If someone has this comic, please alert me.
Post by: JonLeung on October 26, 2006, 06:44:06 PM
Now, no one's commented on the games I played this year, but what I noticed about this past generation of PC games and the GameCube/PS2/Xbox games is that some developers like UbiSoft have churned out games for three or four platforms, many simultaneously. I can understand that with the rising costs of game development, an easy way to translate games to play on all systems (and developing them with that in mind) is probably a good way to squeeze more money out of each game.
Now, with games like Final Fantasy XI on the PS2 and Xbox 360 where you have to set it up and spend a while installing, it's not really that different from a PC game, now is it? The insert-disc-and-play-right-away appeal of consoles is immediately removed.
Consoles are now online too. And with the different models of game consoles to choose from (two versions of each of the Xbox 360 and PS3), while still simpler than making choices for a gaming PC, it's still another choice more than it used to be. And decent video cards are now not any more expensive than a new console. So the line between console gaming and PC gaming is blurring, and yet some people seem to still think they're somehow so different, and arrogantly so.
Post by: Shecky on October 26, 2006, 07:05:33 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 26, 2006, 07:11:15 PM
Post by: Nick DiMola on October 26, 2006, 07:27:44 PM
All in all, the whole fight between the two sides is completely retarded and I hate the argument. Going to college at a really technical institute (RIT) I constantly get sh!t for being a console gamer, and it just makes no sense. I am proudly a gamer, I will play any and all systems without discrimination, from PC to console to handheld.
Post by: Smoke39 on October 26, 2006, 08:13:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
I find companies who make PC games are usually very lazy and sloppy and will not bother optimizing games because amazing hardware is available.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. PCs have a lot of OS overhead that consoles don't, and making sure PC games run on any of countless different system configurations can be a huge headache.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 26, 2006, 08:48:58 PM
When I'm presented with both options, I'd rather have the "sitting back in a home theater" style of setup. A mouse+desk simply doesn't offer that kind of convenience and comfort (then there's all the other kinds of traits inherent in the mouse, like its complete uselessness for non-shooter action gaming and the general lack of tangible feedback from all those stale pointy clicky shooty games (i have ubisoft to blame for destroying the franchises that would otherwise balance the quota)).
Post by: Nick DiMola on October 26, 2006, 08:50:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
I find companies who make PC games are usually very lazy and sloppy and will not bother optimizing games because amazing hardware is available.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. PCs have a lot of OS overhead that consoles don't, and making sure PC games run on any of countless different system configurations can be a huge headache.
Well, I don't know about OS overhead, all you really have in that department is MFC code to deal with(assuming we are working with Windows) and DirectX (same assumption). I agree that configuring for many different setups can be very annoying, but if they choose a standard setup (ie - something most people can afford) and optimize within that realm they could probably provide amazing graphics without the need for ridiculous hardware. Half Life 2 is my case-in-point. That game ran flawlessly on my computer that had a crappy DirectX 8.0 compatible graphics card and looked absolutely gorgeous. Most companies would not put the effort in to get their game running on a lower end system, and I can only attribute that to pure laziness. It may be the publishers fault, but their is definitely a need for some more optimization in PC games. This also happens quite often with console games ported to the PC. Some nameless company does a half-ass port with no optimization and the game requires a set up so much more advanced than a console to run it's ridiculous. I could be totally wrong, but from friends I know who work in the industry, their apparantly is a lot more time invested in optimization for console games than PC games.
Post by: Smoke39 on October 26, 2006, 09:03:12 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on October 27, 2006, 12:07:02 AM
While we're at it, anyone here playing Company of Heroes?
Post by: Nephilim on October 27, 2006, 02:35:18 AM
Quote
Valve's Source engine is definitely good at scaling to a variety of hardware setups. I don't know the relative amount of time that's usually spent on optimizing for consoles v. PCs, but I find it hard to believe that PC game programmers are more lazy than those who program console games. Game programmers are game programmers, and I think most people who get into game development do so out of passion, because it's a tough industry to be in.
I totally disagree, valve did a horrid job on HL2 with compatability
Profiles were totally messed up, if you had a bad old card like a 5600(2004), it would load medium and run at 8fps
Halo PC also did this, Im guessing they do this so it gives off the impression that the min video card is really a 64mb card from 4years ago, when it isnt
Post by: Smoke39 on October 27, 2006, 02:28:57 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on October 27, 2006, 07:40:20 PM
not really
Post by: JonLeung on October 28, 2006, 05:50:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
This is why I think the Wii has gotten me so excited, for the first time since the N64 days console gaming will be a unique entity compared to the PC with new experiences!
This is why I go with Nintendo...unlike most of the Xbox/Xbox 360's best games and some of the PS2's, Nintendo's best games are on Nintendo's consoles and handhelds and nowhere else. If I want Zelda and Metroid, I know where to look. If I want anything else, chances are it could also be for the PC which I already have.
When people say "why don't you have an Xbox/Xbox 360?" and I explain that many of the games are also on the PC, they look at me like I'm some kind of snob, even if they may be PC gamers themselves. I don't get that.
Post by: couchmonkey on October 28, 2006, 07:49:43 AM
Edit: but none of that is to say that I think PCs are bad for gaming or anything. I'm much more neutral to them than other consoles because I don't see PC gaming as competing for the same market as Nintendo.
Post by: Smoke39 on October 28, 2006, 09:51:59 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 28, 2006, 12:10:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39
That's exactly why I've always stuck with Nintendo, Jon. To me the 360 seems kind of like a PC without a mouse.
Exactly and that is why I haven't felt as excited for a console until the Wii. I really do fear, like stated earlier, that PC gaming and console gaming will mix together which I do not think is a good thing.
Post by: Smoke39 on October 28, 2006, 02:21:00 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 28, 2006, 03:18:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39
PC and console gaming mixing seems like a bit of a double edged sword to me. Multiplatform means a wider audience, which means developers can make more money. It also means that PC gamers can get console games without having to buy a console, and console gamers can get PC style games and still have the convenience consoles have over PCs. But you also have the potential for developers designing for the least common denominator so their game can work on everything, rather than catering to each platform's strengths.
You have a point, though I do think PC gamers have a better deal going for them because of the mouse/keyboard along with gamepads. But like you said there is a tendency to be lazy and developers make games for the least powerful system and rush out a port (usually from console to PC) without taking full advantage of the unique control methods. That is why I am really glad that we should not be seeing this stuff with the Wii, it will have a unique experience.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 28, 2006, 08:16:59 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on October 28, 2006, 08:46:12 PM
Though, there are several things that keep console games more mainstream than PC gamers.
1)Console is in a more central location of the house, and usually a gathering room...so it can be a social event, where computers are usually in an office, or atleast not the most convenient means to play multiplayer games.
2)Standardized control system makes playing Console gamers quicker to grasp and easier to embrace and play in the most part.
3)No installation of games, or hardware configurations to deal with.
4)Once you own a system you know what games you can play on it...without worrying about compatiability.
It is interesting...I think more casual to non-gamers play actual computers via solitare or so simple online game. However, they would not consider themselves a casual gamer. Yet, the console has the bigger market for gamers of all markets in general. Console gaming is becoming mainstream and cool, while computer gaming still appears geeky/techy.
Personally I can't stand playing games on the computer. I find it difficult to set the games up, and almost always do I find the controls for the game to be quite lacking. Finally, sitting in front of the computer playing a game depresses me, which isn't true about playing games in a larger sized living room.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 28, 2006, 11:50:27 PM
Post by: JonLeung on October 29, 2006, 06:52:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
One advantage of the PC is that most of the time it's more powerful than a console so any framerate drops the game may have had on the console (I think Megaman X 8 has those) are gone in the PC version unless your PC is seriously outdated.
Oh, yeah! (As in, you just reminded me.)
Did you know that the main Mega Man X games (except for 2) are all available for the PC? Those are hard to find, as if Mega Man's just known as just a console game or something. Or PC gamers wouldn't touch it. I've been trying to find X 7 and X 8 myself (for the PC) for a while now...
I do like that the Logitech Dual Action gamepad (the one that's like a PlayStation Dual Shock) I got from E3 must be trying to set a standard...a lot of recent PC games recognize it and give me PS2-style controls right off the bat!
Post by: Smoke39 on October 29, 2006, 10:53:23 AM
Post by: Athrun Zala on October 29, 2006, 05:10:26 PM
QuoteI thought that X7 wasn't released on PC, but I just found out it was :|
Originally posted by: JonLeung
Did you know that the main Mega Man X games (except for 2) are all available for the PC? Those are hard to find, as if Mega Man's just known as just a console game or something. Or PC gamers wouldn't touch it. I've been trying to find X 7 and X 8 myself (for the PC) for a while now...
in any case, that leaves X2 (the best one) and X6 as the ones without a PC port (not that I actually want one, the other games' ports are craptacular as best....)
Post by: Shecky on October 29, 2006, 05:49:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
One advantage of the PC is that most of the time it's more powerful than a console so any framerate drops the game may have had on the console (I think Megaman X 8 has those) are gone in the PC version unless your PC is seriously outdated.
Tell that to the PC port of Halo
Post by: KDR_11k on October 29, 2006, 08:13:12 PM
I finished X5 and Legends on the PC but never beat the final boss in X8.
I've been trying to find X 7 and X 8 myself (for the PC) for a while now...
X8 is everywhere now 'round here, every store has it for a tenner. I'd recommend setting the voice option to Japanese, the nav I used all the time (Pallette) sounds horrible in English and slightly acceptable in Japanese. I think you're too late for X7, though, that was everywhere a year ago but has disappeared since.
BTW, I'm not sure whether to find it funny or sad that Megaman X games are now labelled "known from the TV series!".
Post by: Hocotate on November 01, 2006, 12:15:58 PM
Quote
PC > consoles. always has been. keyboard and mouse > controllers. trying to play Halo or one of those war games after playing any of the Quake games all your life is like trying to eat mcdonalds after eating mostly filet minons and porterhouses all your life. consoles = no World of Warcraft, which is reason enough for me to say poo to any next gen consoles. console controllers = no macro (custom hotkey) abilities, or key binding ability to make the game more fun for YOU.
PC gaming can do anything console gaming can do 10x better. i was playing a ROM of SNES Super Mario Kart the other day, and was able to do far far FAR better than i ever did playing that game on an SNES controller, even after not playing it in over 10 years. even some of those games that just HAVE to have controllers to play right, you can buy USB or PS2(no, that doesnt stand for Playstation 2) controllers with the same button settings as any console controller out there and plug em in to your computer.
so how do i feel about the "console wars"?
i personally could not care less. so long as anyone interested in consoles gets the one they want, what the f*** does it matter how many units each one sells? ill still be in here, playing better games on my far superior technology while you fanboys tear eachother apart betting on which console will outsell the other at launchdate.
I already have a very good idea of how I am going to reply to this, but just for laughs, how would you all respond to this opinionated rant with no base but this nub's own backward opinion?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 01, 2006, 09:41:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Hocotate
I thought this would be the best place to post this. I visit a small msg board community and this has been brought up:Quote
PC > consoles. always has been. keyboard and mouse > controllers. trying to play Halo or one of those war games after playing any of the Quake games all your life is like trying to eat mcdonalds after eating mostly filet minons and porterhouses all your life. consoles = no World of Warcraft, which is reason enough for me to say poo to any next gen consoles. console controllers = no macro (custom hotkey) abilities, or key binding ability to make the game more fun for YOU.
PC gaming can do anything console gaming can do 10x better. i was playing a ROM of SNES Super Mario Kart the other day, and was able to do far far FAR better than i ever did playing that game on an SNES controller, even after not playing it in over 10 years. even some of those games that just HAVE to have controllers to play right, you can buy USB or PS2(no, that doesnt stand for Playstation 2) controllers with the same button settings as any console controller out there and plug em in to your computer.
so how do i feel about the "console wars"?
i personally could not care less. so long as anyone interested in consoles gets the one they want, what the f*** does it matter how many units each one sells? ill still be in here, playing better games on my far superior technology while you fanboys tear eachother apart betting on which console will outsell the other at launchdate.
I already have a very good idea of how I am going to reply to this, but just for laughs, how would you all respond to this opinionated rant with no base but this nub's own backward opinion?
Well most of what he says is crap but I couldn't agree more about his point about Halo or really any current FPS on consoles, even the "hot" new FPSs for the console systems feel outdated, not only for the clumsy controls but their design is usually generic as heck.
Post by: Smoke39 on November 01, 2006, 10:30:06 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 02, 2006, 12:10:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39
Are PC shooters really faring any better, though?
Besides ports of PC games, there has been nothing remotely unique in the way of FPSs for the consoles, but I think that could also be due to the controls more than anything. You are right though in that many PC FPSs are getting into a rut as well, but still some of the worse are better than some of the best exclusive FPSs for the consoles, especially when it comes to multiplayer.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 02, 2006, 02:30:58 AM
I think any argument where you call something else stupid without trying it first is just ignorant. Once upon a time I couldn't swallow my own pride and I limited myself greatly in life just because of my own ignorance. Now I try everything before saying I don't like it. As a matter of fact, about two years ago when I had this revelation, the first thing I did was buy a Mac, now I love them. The second thing I did was buy a PS2, and I found a ton of games on there I love. From then on it became easier and easier to let go of these ridiculous notions I carried. Now I try and enjoy everything life has to offer.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 02, 2006, 08:43:21 AM
Some of the best things about PCs back then was then when you got a new PC EVERY PC game in existence worked for it. These days the default graphics cards with brand new PCs won't work with current games or even some older games. My family bought a new PC and now I could play Warcraft II without any hassle. You also had near perfect backwards compatibility back then. Prior to XP it so simple to get old games working. Now you have to fart around with DOS Box and all sorts of workarounds. PC gaming has gone from being a pasttime to a full-on hobby. It takes effort, time, and money to keep up with PC gaming and I don't have the patience anymore when consoles are so easy. I think the effort to be a PC gamer is what has caused the rift. PC gaming is going to attract more, well, geeks while consoles are going to attract more of the mainstream.
When I was a kid my dream console had four controller ports, a mouse, and a keyboard. Around 1994 that seemed like the ultimate game console that could play anything.
One thing I don't like about PC gaming today is that there are less genres than before. Now we just seem to have FPS, MMORPG, RTS, and tycoon style games. There used to also be flight sims, graphic adventures, platformers. I think there are some types of games that have been so neglected that re-introducing them could result in some killer apps.
I'm surprised no console has ever had a standard mouse, though I guess with the Wii it isn't needed as much as it was.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 02, 2006, 12:28:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
In the early 90s I could classify myself as a PC gamer. My parent did not buy us any consoles and us kids didn't have much money. But my Dad had to have a decent PC for his job so until we saved up enough for a SNES that was our de facto videogame system. We played a lot of shareware games like Commander Keen, Scorched Earth, Wolfenstein 3D, and Doom. Althought this isn't a good thing piracy was real easy back then so if one of our friends got a game everyone in the circle got a copy. I got to play a lot of stuff and even after getting a SNES I still played a lot of PC games.
Some of the best things about PCs back then was then when you got a new PC EVERY PC game in existence worked for it. These days the default graphics cards with brand new PCs won't work with current games or even some older games. My family bought a new PC and now I could play Warcraft II without any hassle. You also had near perfect backwards compatibility back then. Prior to XP it so simple to get old games working. Now you have to fart around with DOS Box and all sorts of workarounds. PC gaming has gone from being a pasttime to a full-on hobby. It takes effort, time, and money to keep up with PC gaming and I don't have the patience anymore when consoles are so easy. I think the effort to be a PC gamer is what has caused the rift. PC gaming is going to attract more, well, geeks while consoles are going to attract more of the mainstream.
When I was a kid my dream console had four controller ports, a mouse, and a keyboard. Around 1994 that seemed like the ultimate game console that could play anything.
One thing I don't like about PC gaming today is that there are less genres than before. Now we just seem to have FPS, MMORPG, RTS, and tycoon style games. There used to also be flight sims, graphic adventures, platformers. I think there are some types of games that have been so neglected that re-introducing them could result in some killer apps.
I'm surprised no console has ever had a standard mouse, though I guess with the Wii it isn't needed as much as it was.
Ian you are right about the genres being more limited, but there are still multiple new games that fit within your "missing games" list, you just have to look for them, except for maybe platformers which I don't recall ever being popular for PC (besides 2D ones). But just recently Microsoft released Flight Simulator X, and I believe there were a couple other flight sims (both war and aviation). Adventure games still pop up often, with the best one being the Longest Journey 2 (in fact 2005's game sales were 5% Adventure).. THe PC is still vastly more diverse in the games it has compared to console.
Post by: Hocotate on November 02, 2006, 02:49:22 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 02, 2006, 03:40:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Hocotate
Thanks for the comments on my post fellas. Anyway, I agree with Ian. PC gaming requires too much time, money, and effort just to keep up. The variety (or lack thereof) when it comes to games does not appeal to me.
Where in the heck do you guys get PC Gaming does not have variety? Not only does it have a myriad of console games on it but it also has various other games that can not be done on consoles. If you look hard enough you can find tons of different and unique games for PC which is due to an ease of entry for developers to put out their quirky titles even if they only end up getting minimal shelf space.
Post by: KDR_11k on November 02, 2006, 10:04:19 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 02, 2006, 10:14:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I think it's because way too many PC games use similar themes now. Take the awesome Company of Heroes, if you saw that on a shelf without ever having heard of it you'd think "great, another crappy Omaha Beach game". Looking at the shelves you can barely tell what is what genre.
Sounds like the 360 shelf
. Seriously though there is plenty of diversity if you take the time to look, like I said PC IS the place to find unique games because about anyone can create a game for it, no matter how small they are (shelf space is another matter!). With consoles there is a much smaller crack to get through and thus many unique ideas are kept out if the developer could not find a publisher who had a license to a certain console.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on November 03, 2006, 04:34:44 AM
Other stores are better, but they've all dramatically cut down shelf space for PC games. My local Circuit City used to have a gigantic game section with PC games lining three walls, but now it's a single short aisle on the other end of the store from the console game section. The good news is that they carry more games there now than they did immediately after the remodel, and I have to admit that the tiny boxes that spelled the end of decent manuals have a lot to do with that.
Post by: KDR_11k on November 03, 2006, 04:49:18 AM
That's why Gamestop sucks for PC games. Well, okay, they suck for all kinds of games due to their cramped stores and wasting half the space on used games.
Reminds me that I wanted to pick up Eets. Well, not really wanted but was considering. That website looks like you can get a lot of mileage out of the game (downloadable puzzles), guess I should really get it then.
Post by: JonLeung on November 05, 2006, 04:16:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
Where in the heck do you guys get PC Gaming does not have variety? Not only does it have a myriad of console games on it but it also has various other games that can not be done on consoles. If you look hard enough you can find tons of different and unique games for PC which is due to an ease of entry for developers to put out their quirky titles even if they only end up getting minimal shelf space.
Just wondering, are there many PC-exclusive platformers these days? Or many at all? Seems like whatever platformers there are are likely to also be on a console.
I've heard people thinking that "platformers" meant console games. They were like, "if it's not on a PC, it's on a platform, hence, platformer". I can see how that confusion arises when platforming games, especially these days, are more likely to be on consoles.
Post by: KDR_11k on November 05, 2006, 04:38:53 AM
Some. None made by major developers/publishers, that much I can guarantee (because the demographic that likes jump and runs is more likely to own a console and there's really no reason to keep something PC exclusive other than technical limitations). Usually just indie games that don't look much different from "the noise" (the tons of cheap clones that infest PC game shelves). I think there are more download-only (free or paid-for) than retail sold JnRs for the PC. Though I've seen some in stores (and one I've been considering buying since it costs 1€).
Cave Story (not the official site but has a convenient package download), Glace Obake and N are some freeware JnRs I can think of and I think most people here have at least played one or two of them.
Post by: Bubba on November 05, 2006, 06:41:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
I've always considered PC gaming to have too high of an entry point. I usually come in and out of the PC gaming arena depending on my current hardware setup. Most of the time I can't play the latest and greatest because it is too costly. Regardless, PC gaming really is no different than console gaming. I do prefer the keyboard and mouse setup for shooters (now perhaps the Wiimote will pass that up) and I generally enjoy the higher caliber of graphics (hardware permitting). One part of PC gaming that I've always hated is the whole installation bit. If I buy a game I want to pop it in the disc drive and play. I find companies who make PC games are usually very lazy and sloppy and will not bother optimizing games because amazing hardware is available. When in a closed domain (console), you are forced to innovate to bring a certain experience to that platform. This is something I generally find lacking on the PC game end aside from a few very unique cases.
All in all, the whole fight between the two sides is completely retarded and I hate the argument. Going to college at a really technical institute (RIT) I constantly get sh!t for being a console gamer, and it just makes no sense. I am proudly a gamer, I will play any and all systems without discrimination, from PC to console to handheld.
Nice to see another rochester student. I'm a UR student myself.
I agree, each system has its benefits. I like playing on the PC as well as console, but for games where graphics make a big impact, I would rather play it on my pc because of the higher resolution.
