You seem to mean "name me a console game that requires a keyboard and a mouse" because thats your entire arguement, that it's a dumb game unless its got 30 sub menus and build trees, yes?
Sort of, but you're missing the point almost entirely. A keyboard and mouse are often, but i guess not always, coincident with a "smart" game. Its not that a keyboard and mouse make a game intelligent, its just difficult to design one without a sufficiently complex control scheme in mind. Similarly, having "sub menus (whatever those are)" and "build trees" will not make a game smart. But what you may be implying is that these are often common elements in smart games, and this may be true. However, an intelligent game most certainly does not necessitate them.
You also seem to imply that if Assasins Creed were made for the PC first that it would have been a substantially different game....more "intelligent" right?
I was only saying that this was a game that received by and large positive reviews, and was lauded as a great console game. I'm sure it sold very well. I decided to buy it for the PC based on these reviews. It might have been close to the worst thing I've ever played. What the hell!??! You run around, do repetitive garbage against a predictable AI, and then marvel at the scenery when you jump 20 stories into a small pile of hay. And that doesn't even mention the whole "genetic memory" thing. This is the kind of game that is made for consoles, and this is the kind of game that appeals to console gamers. If it was made for the PC first, I still would have thought it was monotonous and boring - but at least I'd have genuinely fun titles to fall back on; something I cannot say about a console.
How about Knights of the Old Republic or Mass Effect, two fairly complex games that require some thought on the part of the game player. Both on consoles, and ported to PC's.
If these titles are your idea to thought provoking entertainment, then there's nothing left to argue. My 9 year old cousin beat Mass Effect in like 3 days. He might even be able to beat me at KotOR in multiplayer. I doubt, however, that he would ever beat me at a game of Civ IV.
There is a fundamental flaw in your logic here. First, you say that you are fine with consoles taking over fundamentally PC genres, then you say that consoles suck for taking over those same games. PCs have been pushing out this "normative crap" for a loooong time, and they were established and sold tons of copies on the PC - moving onto consoles is a relatively new phenomenon.
I completely agree. PCs have been pushing normative crap for a long time, and I have also said many
times I have no problem with consoles taking over genres it makes sense for them to acquire. Call of Duty should be on a console. Halo should be on a console. Mario Kart should be on a console. They are fun on these systems, and I have no problem with that at all. Heroes of Might and Magic should not be on a console, nor should command and conquer, any of Blizzards -crafts, any total war series games, and any games that have enormous modding potential, like those built on the Source engine.
Many games do not naturally fit on a console, and I think what most often separates these categories is the intellectual nature of computer games over console games.
But all you appear to do is build units and rush bases......how is that any more intelligent than choosing which weapon to gun-down a bunch of bad guys with?
You just dont like action games...simple.
Are you serious? Do you ever play strategy games? Anyone who plays them would understand how ridiculous this is. Its like saying "whats so hard about chess, all you appear to do is move pieces around and eventually win". Against an opponent trying to do the same thing, it is the smartest who wins.
In order for me to upgrade my PC to play the next "class" of games I'd have to spend far more than the cost of a new console.
But more importantly, you're using the same arguement that Biased PC zealots have used for 20 years..and for 15 years they were Right...but now they are wrong. With the release of the Xbox, the original one, the tables began to shift and PC gaming suddenly found itself on the losing end of things. CompUSA stores and others like it are closing up.
When the Xbox was released it had graphics that looked "close" to what could be done on a PC. When the 360 was released, it had graphics that looked *better* than what could be done on a PC, the only advantage the PC had was resolution. The xbox was better at doing HDR (while PC titles were still struggling to do the effect without bringing framerates down into the single-digits), it also did Light Blooming and other types of effects with far less effort than the PC required
Again, I don't know where you get your numbers from. You can buy a perfectly adequate vid card for $150, which at the time of its purchase will be able to play anything reasonably. So long as you do this every 1.5-3 years, and then do a major upgrade (mobo, cpu, ram) every 4-5 years, you're fine. It is more expensive, but no where near as expensive as you are suggesting.
The R500 GPU package on the xbox 360 contains two separate silicon dies, each on a 90 nm chip with a clock speed of 500 MHz and a combined 382 million transistors. One of the cores is more or less dedicated to HDR and AA, which is why it can pull these features off with little performance loss. A cheap, new graphics core like the 4050 (~$150) has 956 million transistors on 55nm fabrication process, and is capable of ~1TFLOP, as opposed to the xbox's ~115.2 gigaflops. Just sayin.
Games are supposed to be fun. A game which is mindless can be equally or more fun than a game which is intellectually engaging. There is no hierarchy here. If I say PC games, on average, may take more smarts than console games, I am in no way saying these games are better
, just different - and appealing to a different audience. This audience may be much smaller than the one that predominantly enjoys consoles, but it is nevertheless a large market, and one which I hope will be around for a while longer (or else I might have nothing to do