Is PC gaming doomed? Apolyton 2008 edition

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by El_Cid
Well more of the biggest AAA(ie the publishers with the most cash to burn) titles now always advertise on TV.
The marketing industry people know that TV advertisments = lots of sales.

It doesn't reflect on the games quality at all of course, but modern games publishing isnt about that, it's about sales only.

So make a standard s**t game, give it good graphics(or better yet use "graphics not indicitive of actual gameplay" in your advert) and spend 50% of the budget on a good run of tv adverts. Profits secure.

Welcome to the wonderful world of modern gaming

It's like the movie industry. Around 90% of the releases are total trash, but this doesn't mean there aren't any fantastic games. Like Civ4

[DarkCloud]

-Problem is, 90% of the releases today mean perhaps 100 computer games in a year whereas in 1996 that meant 400-500 games, not counting all the freeware and shareware.

that being said, I have no idea how many free games or internet games are developed each year... Perhaps the real creativity has just migrated to net-based platforms?

(Numbers above are not exact at all...Based on shelf-space sighting estimates)

[Asher]

Originally posted by Traianvs


I know that FPS has moved to the console. What I don't understand is how you can efficiently strafe and aim at the same time without a mouse/keyboard.

Dual analog sticks, it's not hard.

Have you never played a console FPS?

[El_Cid]

I'm lazy and cant find the browser based game thread(didnt look hard).
Anyway as you can play this on PC and NOT console i thought i'd post the link here:

http://www.ferion.com/portal/spacestrategygame.php

It looks pretty good, and i'm just about to start to play

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Asher

Dual analog sticks, it's not hard.

Have you never played a console FPS?

10 years ago, when I played 007 Goldeneye on a friends Playstation I think. I then decided that all consoles except nintendo 8-bit suck balls.

So yes I don't know how to play it, but I still can't imagine playing Quake competitively strafing, rocketjumping, switching weapons and pressing binds almost simultaneously

I simply like a challenge and these days only fast-paced multiplayer can give that, and for me that's mainly the 9 year old crap game soldier of fortune 1

I did play Bioshock (on PC but it's also a console game) but that was just too easy. A shame really because the game design was pretty sweet.

[Asher]

Left stick = move foreward/move back/strafe left/strafe right.
Right stick = look up/down/left/right.
Right trigger = shoot
Then you've got the left stick and bumper, and A/B/X/Y buttons your right thumb can touch...and if you click in the sticks it's another button.

It's not hard to play FPS on a console. It's not as precise as the mouse, but it doesn't have to be.

[El_Cid]

If done well(and most console fps's seem to do a good job) the kind of 'sensitive auto aim' they use doesn't detract from the game too much. But for sure i never feel the exact same sense of satisfaction when taking down an enemy in a console fps. It does half the work for me after all.

Still as pleanty of console games are designed from the 'shooting fish in a barrel' school of design, the relative merits of the auto-aim become moot to me.

Console games are designed to be easy to finish on anything but the hardest levels of play(and often even those are pretty easy). They want you to buy the next game as soon as possible. And that is one of the reasons I get bored with console gaming - its just so designed around marketing and whats best for the publisher, that that gets in the way of many of my game experiences on these platforms.

I like challange, i like not being able to finish a game first time through, i like that a game may keep me coming back for more many months after i have bought it(either be replayability or not having finished it in a single 13hours session).
Thats one of the reasons console gaming just doesn't really interest me anymore. I'm not in gaming to make millions of dollars for a games publisher, i'm in it to find interesting game challanges for me to test myself against, and have a good time while doing so.

The flip side of that that i also find very annoying about console gaming, is they are often of the 'on-rails' design(all those graphics require a focused game play style), and that can lead to sudden impassible sections of a game, where the difficulty level for that particular section ramps up way too much compared to the rest of the game up until that point. Then with no other way to progress(as you have liniar progression through the game) you just give up.

If i want to shoot fish in a barrel, well i'd just buy a barrel, some fish and a gun(that bit is difficult in the uk!). It would also be much cheaper than buying a console and constantly 'chasing' that next game because i've finished all the others i own(I'm looking at the 'best of' 50 odd console titles that sit on my shelf mostly gathering dust).

If i want 'artificial' difficulty to counter the 'fish in a barrel' syndrome, then i'll just play space invaders and die at level 30 everytime.
These are not exclusively console game issues of course, but pretty much every console game i've played exhibits one or the other. PC gaming while it has these issues also(they are just game design issues) has loads and loads of games that offer an incredible challange for the gamer. I have hundreds of PC games i've never finished, and dozens i still play trying to get further, maybe even to finish one day?
Either way, short game play forcing me to buy more just gets boring and makes me feel like a mug. I'm happy that people make money out of making games, just now, well i can 'feel' that(90% of the time) when i play. pah! hum bug!

By the way that browser based game i linked above is very hard, probably too hard for me? And it's free but at some point if you get into it you need to pay for the full access. Still if you like very complicated browser space games, you may love it?

[Maquiladora]

After ****ing with my PC for the last week to get PES 2009 working, (and then receiving a reply from Konami admitting it's a software fault and a patch is forthcoming) I'm done with PC gaming.

Well, except for playing oldies now and again.

Originally posted by El_Cid

Console games are designed to be easy to finish on anything but the hardest levels of play(and often even those are pretty easy). They want you to buy the next game as soon as possible. And that is one of the reasons I get bored with console gaming - its just so designed around marketing and whats best for the publisher, that that gets in the way of many of my game experiences on these platforms.

Come on, that is silly. All games are different. Saying all console games are easy or short, is like me saying all PC games crash all the time.

[El_Cid]

Well yes it was a gross generalisation - but honestly when i compare my library of console games with my PC collection i can say i've completed many more of the console titles. And not just because the PC games crash(although that does happen ). AAA Console games are designed to be 'easy' to finish, in part because the whole finacial model they are based around requires it.

And maybe keep in mind that currently(and for the last few years) publishers want you to give up the PC and move to console. They can make more profit once you are there. Not all publishers, but probably some of the biggest that count.

this is an interesting article from the head of EA no less - on how aiming just for profits(as most console AAA game publishers do, and have to) can be a bad thing. From EA - is this irony?

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20730

[Felch]

If you're looking for a challenge on the consoles, I suggest Ninja Gaiden. It's one of the only games that's come out lately where you probably won't beat the first level on normal difficulty without some practice.

[El_Cid]

Yes there are a few like that, and that is part of the problem(as mentioned above in my bigger post). Games like that on console often get attempted a few times and then left. With a liniar game design(which in part is due to graphical demands as discussed in this and other threads) you just get stuck. Not fun either.

These are just my opinion of console gaming having spent a good few years last gen playing pretty much everything i could. This gen i've been restricted to playing stuff at friends or on 'demo' in the high street stores, and frankly, for me, nothing has changed to make me want to own any of the current gen. Good games do come around, but good and value for money?(ie not over in a dozen hours) - those are very rare, and for a reason imho.

PC games outside of the incredibly buggy and frustrating DRMed to hell and back AAA releases offer more i think. Not to mention the amazing back catalogue of some of the best games ever made(if you are prepared to get them working!).
It's not perfect yet, but slowly going in the right direction. but yeah if you want AAA games, and like to spend a lot and often consoles are the way to go.

[DrSpike]

A standard El Cid post full of oversimplification and generalisations.

I cannot name one FPS on the 360 that is easy on the highest difficulty level (and I have all the top titles). Yes there are easy difficulties but the whole point is that each person can find something that suits them.

And in terms of hours of play and replayability lets take an informed look at the big 3, rather than one based on conjecture from someone that doesn't own any of the games in question.

Gears of War: Really fun combat - I played through this through twice on hard and once on insane, cooperatively with another player. Circa 30 hours of top quality gameplay. With the option of almost infinite replayability through MP if you want it.

Halo 3: Played this through once on normal, once on heroic, once for score based achievements and skulls, and still need to finish legendary co-op. Again 30 hours of high quality gameplay. Again option of almost infinite replayability through MP.

Call of Duty 4 - played this through twice, once on hard and once on veteran. I invite El Cid to try the latter if he thinks consoles games are easy. I've also replayed some cool levels (of which there are several - it's such a well constructed game with some genuinely moving scenes) for the score based competition system. Probably about 20 hours in total. Again option of almost infinite replayability through MP.

Based on this experience I find it hard to reconcile with the blinkered view consistently expressed in these forums, and frankly it's getting pretty irritating. As soon as the discussion turns to specific games it becomes immediately apparent how ill-informed the commentary really is.

Wider than FPS there are lots of games with replayability - Forza 2 has almost infinite replayability in SP or MP. Games like Guitar Hero people play for 100s of hours slowly improving scores. I've played Bioshock and Mass Effect twice, both around 40 hours play. Not sure what more people want?

The only half valid point (which wasn't actually made) is around TBS. This is a genre which doesn't work well on consoles and has lots of replayability. But some of us who like both TBS and other quality games have (gasp) a PC and a console.

Really, this is getting old. I will not allow any more generalisations to take place without challenge on this matter in OG, either pro or anti PC/360.

Post about what makes you happy gaming-wise, fine. Most of us don't have the need to force our preferences on others (except maybe Asher ). But criticisms are to be backed up with examples from now on or my wrath shall be felt.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by DrSpike
A standard El Cid post full of oversimplification and generalisations.
Call of Duty 4 - played this through twice, once on hard and once on veteran. I invite El Cid to try the latter if he thinks consoles games are easy. I've also replayed some cool levels (of which there are several - it's such a well constructed game with some genuinely moving scenes) for the score based competition system. Probably about 20 hours in total. Again option of almost infinite replayability through MP.

While I agree with your general point, that El Cid is being unfairly harsh on console games, I would like to say that one thing El Cid doesn't like is linear games that have sections that jump in difficulty. I think CoD4 definitely qualifies as demonstrating that fault, especially regarding the TV studio. I almost quit playing the game because of that (and other) sections, for the very reason El Cid was describing.

The only half valid point (which wasn't actually made) is around TBS. This is a genre which doesn't work well on consoles and has lots of replayability. But some of us who like both TBS and other quality games have (gasp) a PC and a console.

I do think TBS is best on a computer, but consoles aren't that bad, especially for the simpler TBS games. I'm ashamed to think about the hours I played and continue to play Advance Wars and its sequels. Not because of the games, they are top-tier imo, but because the amount of hours is obscene. And this is on a hand-held, if they would make good games in this vein on the actual consoles...

Though I will say RTS is horrible on consoles, you really need a keyboard and mouse for RTS. But that just begs the question: Are FPS, RTS, TBS, etc. games really bad on consoles because of the consoles, or because of a lack of proper control devices? I'll still admit that with the peripheral and hardware configurations of current consoles and PCs, these genres are generally better on PC, but I don't see any reason that can't change.

[El_Cid]

Yes i dont like liniar games, even highly rated ones(like Slinter Cell etc). Dr.Spike does so thats cool for him.

And obviously not owning any of this generation of console i cant comment on the exact games Dr.Spike mentions, but:

Gears of war - is a highly rated liniar game(see first comment above), I just dont enjoy that style of game, sorry. I prefer to think about different ways around problems, or maybe to leave that bit for now and try something else(an Fps that allowed that to some extent was the excellent Dues-Ex). But massive 3D overheads contribute and fit well with a liniar progression model of game design.

Halo 3 - well unless something amazing happened in the franchise overnight, i'll probably pass on this one. Halo was good at the time, decent game, decent amount of playtime(probably 30 odd hours as you say Halo3 has?), but little replayability imo. Halo 2, very dissapointing, over in exactly 13hours on medium difficulty.

Call of Duty 4(another highly rated series), but oh dear - it, apparantly is another on-rails type of shooter. hmmm where's my barrel full of fish? Fun! fun! fun!

Not my impression but my friends was that the 40 odd hours he got out of Mass effect was a little light? He felt the game could have, and should have offered more, it's genre was perfectly suited to do so. KOTOR gave a bit more(80 odd? i think was my first game through).

Bioshock - well in protest of the DRM(on PC) i didnt want to buy it. And besides System Shock 2 is a better game, still.

Guitar hero(and rock band) are great+cool games, with lots of replayabiltiy but quite unique you will agree.

Look if you(or anyone) is happy, even gratefull that a game gives 40 hours of game play, and maybe allows a little replayability within that, then great for you, really i'm very happy that you are fine with that, as are the console publishers for sure!
But we all know the average time per title is closer to 15hrs. If that rocks your boat then cool stay happy and keep buying, every other weekend!

I just want more from my games, I expect more as we were, once upon a time being given more and it was good - and imho gaming was much better than what we mostly get today, not always but the best was way better than today. But thats just an opinion. You dont have to cry about it, if you love your console and your games on it - great! I'm just not that impressed by what i've played and seen

"but yeah if you want AAA games, and like to spend a lot and often consoles are the way to go." - from my last post.

PS - Important point: I'm not a blind console hater. I loved my xbox for the first 12 months, and played some great games. I liked my GC a little less, but the GBA player thing added a certain longevity to it(my gf loves the GC still - animal crossing/harvest moon etc). I currently really enjoy my PS2 - it is the best, in terms of games you can get for it of that generation imo.

But, especaily with my Xbox i just started to find the games on it very samey, and actualy very few were really great games that would stand the test of time(unlike Civ/Xcom/FM/EU/DuesEx/SytemShock2/etc etc on PC). Looking at the 360(and PS3) now, i can see that aspect has improved, but unless you are online(and happy to pay the extra for that) things are still pretty uniteresting for the most part imho.

[Asher]

For **** sakes, it's spelled linear.