the state of PC gaming

[lord of the mark]

the discussion thus far

1. Piracy - Its said to be a growing issue, a problem for PC games, and to favor consoles. Accounts for less development, etc .

Its countered that console games are pirateable as well, so no overwhelming advantage to consoles. The voices of Wardell and others are cited on its unimportance, and studies about filesharing.

Its replied that Wardell speaks for developers of small/medium games - big selling PC games much more heavily pirated. And filesharing is only a portion of all piracy, esp in eastern europe and east asia. But how important are those markets to publishers?

2. Sys requirements - High requirements cutoff part of the market, arguably with little return in some recent games, but its countered that for most games sys requirements arent that high (I think we could do a seperate thread on that, one that got into the prices of specs of current budget machines, and even 2nd hand machines)

3. Modding - Some games that are mod friendly have poor basic gameplay - the CTP's, MOO3, and NWN. OTOH there seem to be plenty of titles where modding has made little difference and NWN has a following (if MOO3 does not ) Most still think this as an advantage of PC games, and not a factor accounting for their weakness - though it may harm SOME titles.

4. Did gaming become TOO popular, and thus too casual? Problematic, as its hard to classify games as casual or not, and its not clear why this would impact PC games more than console games. Best for another thread, anyway @ Spikey.

5. Console capabilities have grown, but this still leaves PC dominant in some categories. And in the case of the Xbox perhaps it creates a platform whose development environment (do i have the terms right?) is close enough to PC, to make joint development easier,and ease fears of a paucity of PC titles.

6. This may not be the golden age of PC games, but there are still some good PC games coming out, and the infrastructure, from developers to publishers to retailers, is still there for a revival.


7. No comments on the alternate retail venues question. Some indication that PC shelfspace doing better in Europe than in US.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I presume then you mean BG1 and BG2 as examples of the superior (to KOTOR) IE engine games. Many agree, but I can't comment until I get around to them. I have them both, so that's a start.

Planescape is better too. IWD is at least better in combat. The story in IWD, though not that developed, is a subject that hasn't been done to death like with KOTOR.

[Imran Siddiqui]

BG1 was far inferior to KOTOR, as was IWD. Better in combat? Why, because you could move them around? If that's your gripe, then you weren't playing the combat right (it was fairly easy to move players around). IWD was just a beautified hack n' slash game that got so utterly repetitive I gave up on it very early.

KOTOR, OTOH, has some fun combat (with some interesting choices to be made in terms of attacking).

And you simplify the story to twist it for your own explanation. The basics of the main story have been done before, but not with the BIG twist involved. And ALL the characters were good fun and well nuanced. Judging from your detail of Bastilla, you really didn't pay attention that much to the story of the characters and just wanted to play some hack n' slash instead.

And you are complaining about the good/evil dicotomy? It's STAR WARS for God's sake. And there are few games which really change based on if you act good or evil. Most of the IE games allow you to be evil, but then you end up doing most of the same things anyway; people are just colder to you and you get other party members. Whoop-te-do.

[lord of the mark]

summary

RPGs (other than particulars subgenres) are a genre where PC games traditionally outclass consoles

KOTOR seems to represent a breakthrough, as compared to previous console RPG's.

KOTOR isnt for everyone, a significant portion of PC RPGers find it inferior to the bioware RPGs

Some folks like KOTOR as much as the Bioware RPG's. Not all of the Bioware RPGs were equally good.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by pg


i disagree. i think most games which require 1ghz+ to be playable are pretty high.

as one who is constantly scanning for a replacement for my dinosaur 'puter, I can report that you cant find a new 1 ghz desktop anymore. The most basic budget machines, retailing for less than $400(US) have processors in excess of 2 Ghz. I think you could find a used PC with at least 1 Ghz, for rather less, even at a used PC retail outlet.

[Pythagoras]

I think the bottom line is that with a PC game you expect sometimes thousands upon thousands of hours of entertainment for the same price you might get (in most cases) no more then 100 hours from a console game. (KOTOR takes no more then 50-60) PC gamers demand more, and more expandability. Console gamers are happy with what they have. PC gamers want games such as civ3 and games with endless multiplayer options. Console gamers, though just entering the online world, can live with a simple non-replayable single player mode and limitted multiplayer options. There was an article written on a now defunct gaming site about how replayability will kill PC games. I think, however, we may be bottoming out in that respect. More and more games come out with expansion packs these days, which I wholeheartedly support.

Other things such as piracy and the standardized platforms of consoles are important, but I think this is the kicker.

[Kuciwalker]

I think the bottom line is that with a PC game you expect sometimes thousands upon thousands of hours of entertainment for the same price you might get (in most cases) no more then 100 hours from a console game. (KOTOR takes no more then 50-60) PC gamers demand more, and more expandability.

Halo multiplayer gives WAY more than 100 hours of gameplay

[Tassadar500]

Easily. In fact, if Halo 2's multiplayer is as good (or better) than Halo's, I could imagine hundreds of hours more as well. You can now have more than two teams playing at a time.

[Zero]

I dont think you could really speak out for console because obviously you know nothing about it.

Originally posted by Pythagoras
I think the bottom line is that with a PC game you expect sometimes thousands upon thousands of hours of entertainment for the same price you might get (in most cases) no more then 100 hours from a console game. (KOTOR takes no more then 50-60) PC gamers demand more, and more expandability. Console gamers are happy with what they have.

PC games are just as short as consoles. Actually PC Single players elements have been getting worse and worse... while console has been getting better. I can't recall playing a PC games in 21st century that I couldn't beat overnight, skipping classes and finishing it in one straight sitting...

PC gamers want games such as civ3 and games with endless multiplayer options. Console gamers, though just entering the online world, can live with a simple non-replayable single player mode and limitted multiplayer options.

endless hours of playing? TTT, SF3, Halo, SC2, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, SSBM, NFS:U Madden, NBA Live etc etc etc etc etc etc... where should I stop....

Name one PC game that has been popular for so long as SF2... and name one game other than Starcraft thats been in tourney scene as long as MVC2....

Limited? Why is FFXI released in both PS2 and PC? And if you wanna call library of xbox games as being "limited", I don't know what to say to you........

[Tassadar500]

What's your point?

[Pythagoras]

Originally posted by Zero
I dont think you could really speak out for console because obviously you know nothing about it.


PC games are just as short as consoles. Actually PC Single players elements have been getting worse and worse... while console has been getting better. I can't recall playing a PC games in 21st century that I couldn't beat overnight, skipping classes and finishing it in one straight sitting...

PC gamers want games such as civ3 and games with endless multiplayer options. Console gamers, though just entering the online world, can live with a simple non-replayable single player mode and limitted multiplayer options.

endless hours of playing? TTT, SF3, Halo, SC2, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, SSBM, NFS:U Madden, NBA Live etc etc etc etc etc etc... where should I stop....

Name one PC game that has been popular for so long as SF2... and name one game other than Starcraft thats been in tourney scene as long as MVC2....

Limited? Why is FFXI released in both PS2 and PC? And if you wanna call library of xbox games as being "limited", I don't know what to say to you........

I beleive that if you take the most replayable console games, they will not compare with the hours/player for the most replayable pc game. Especially 3-5 years ago at the peak of replayable games. Half-Like and Civ 2 are still played and modded today. Who would buy a counterterrorism game when they can get counterstrike for free (legally or illegally). The most replayable console games at the time (say, Perferct Dark) did not come close to comparing to the modability of Half-Life and Civ2. At least 50% of my game play time during college was given toward HL or some variant therein. I could have bought more games to take up that time

Currently, console games are catching up leaps and bounds, but so far I don't beleive they've caught up. I play Halo a lot, but it gets old. Timesplitters 2 is very replayable and somewhat modable, but it doesnt seem to draw players in like Halo or HL.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
BG1 was far inferior to KOTOR, as was IWD. Better in combat? Why, because you could move them around? If that's your gripe, then you weren't playing the combat right (it was fairly easy to move players around). IWD was just a beautified hack n' slash game that got so utterly repetitive I gave up on it very early.

KOTOR, OTOH, has some fun combat (with some interesting choices to be made in terms of attacking).

And you simplify the story to twist it for your own explanation. The basics of the main story have been done before, but not with the BIG twist involved. And ALL the characters were good fun and well nuanced. Judging from your detail of Bastilla, you really didn't pay attention that much to the story of the characters and just wanted to play some hack n' slash instead.

And you are complaining about the good/evil dicotomy? It's STAR WARS for God's sake. And there are few games which really change based on if you act good or evil. Most of the IE games allow you to be evil, but then you end up doing most of the same things anyway; people are just colder to you and you get other party members. Whoop-te-do.

You could barely move around in KOTOR. And the best defense was the best offense so there wasn't too much point in any of the defensive abilities. There was pretty much one really good basic attack and that was Flurry or the ranged weapon equivelent. There were some other times when other attacks were good, but most of the time not, especially unless there were bosses. That big twist might have made it different, but not much. And it wasn't that big since it was kinda expected. The whole love interest knowing about it had been done before too. I did pay attention to the story and characters. They weren't too much more detailed that BG1's. And I'm not saying that things have to really change based on good and evil. I'm saying that it shouldn't be so black and white. Like with the famers in the area above the Friendly Arm in BG1. You don't immediately know who is bad or not. It's one of the more simple examples, but that just goes to show KOTOR doesn't really have anything above that.

[pg]

console games have just as much endless replayability as pc games especially now that they have mmorpgs/online play. i've probably spent more time playing mario kart/san fran rush/racing games on consoles than i have playing rpgs on pc. i can't believe you guys are arguing over this. both platforms have so much replayability the only way you are going to get bored is if you burn yourself out by playing too much.

[Apocalypse]

Racing games get really boring for a lot of people though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You could barely move around in KOTOR.

You must have played a different game then. I could easily select a character in combat and run him to another area of the battle.

here was pretty much one really good basic attack and that was Flurry or the ranged weapon equivelent.

Just because you played with one attack doesn't mean we all did. I hardly did Flurry. I mostly did the Power Attack, but usually used Force Wave.

That big twist might have made it different, but not much. And it wasn't that big since it was kinda expected.

Which is easy to say in hindsight. Oh yeah, I knew it all along. Kind of like people who say, oh yeah, I knew Vader was Luke's dad before the end of ESB.

I'm saying that it shouldn't be so black and white.

Once again, it's STAR WARS! If it wasn't black and white it'd wouldn't Star Wars.