or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › HTPC Gaming › Valve's take on the dying PC gaming scene
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Valve's take on the dying PC gaming scene - Page 3

post #61 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch View Post

I have a better idea, lets look at what you can do with a $600 videocard today with what you can do with a 3 year old $350 console like the 360. Compare Call of Duty 4 on the 360 with Call of Duty 4 on the PC. Graphically? Almost identical.

A $600 graphics card is exerting a mere fraction of it's potential when playing CoD4 compared to the consoles. Of course that doesn't make up for the huge price. Then again, you certainly do not need a $600 card. A $150 card will surpass PS3 and 360 graphics as of today, no problem. 8800GT for $149.99
Now, of course you still have to buy the rest of the PC (assuming you don't have one to upgrade with this card), which is a big deal when considering only gaming. If you don't only care about gaming though, then it is value for money, as a PC is a very useful thing to have for the family, for fun, and for work.


PC gaming will not be truly threatened until consoles have some successful MMOs, as they (Ok, WoW mainly) are raking in the dough right now. If they can take that from the PC, then that is a different story.
post #62 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben_the_man View Post

I've played tactics, and I guess you're right, it is very thoughtful. However I maintain that these types of games, especially as a percentage of what is released, are negligible in the console space, and relatively prominent in the PC space.

The two games I mentioned have both sold millions of copies and established franchises. In the case of Disgaea, it established the whole fricking company (every one of their games sells well, too). They have sold better than Sins of a Solar Empire, that's for sure!

These games might be a smaller piece of the pie, but thats only because its a much bigger pie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ben_the_man View Post

I agree, but as I mentioned earlier, these are games I have no problem letting consoles take over completely... I'm honestly fearful for the future of the gaming industry, and I see consoles as the main promoter of normative crap.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ben_the_man View Post

The PC has a solid tradition and fan base for strategy and puzzle games which I do not think will ever appeal to your average couch potato.

See, strategy and puzzle games have been around for a long long time on consoles. They were pushing out Romance of the Three Kingdoms and what not onto the NES. Strategy and puzzle games are in abundance, especially if you also own a DS (the most popular system at the moment).
post #63 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephJEHancock View Post

If you don't only care about gaming though, then it is value for money, as a PC is a very useful thing to have for the family, for fun, and for work.

Knock work off that list and you have exactly why consoles will come to dominate. Family, fun, and entertainment is exactly why Microsoft & Sony are pushing the concept of "media center".

Which is of more overall "value" to a family?

The device that plays movies, games, connects to the internet, does slide shows all on the family's television? Or the computer that for the most part is used by one person on a small screen off in some room? Even a laptop simply add portability.

That's why they're pushing the "one device does it all" concept.
post #64 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben_the_man View Post

but all I am saying is I like the type of games that are suited for the PC.

RTS's

Quote:


Console games, because of their nature, are lowest common denominators. Games are designed to appeal to EVERYONE, and EVERYONE is usually fairly dumb. Name me a console game that is intelligent, and I will retract this statement.

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?

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?

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.

But honestly I don't get your arguement....

Quote:


Console ports, like Assassins Creed, always tend to be completely mindless and brutally boring after the first 5 minutes. I have no idea how console people do it. Meanwhile, Ive been playing Warcraft 3 since 2003, and Civ games since the early 90s. These games are constantly challenging and, as a result, more fun. Maybe the level of difficulty involved with getting a PC to even play a game is what attracts the type of gamers that like these intellectually challenging gaming experiences... I'm not sure.

I really don't understand how you can say a game like Warcraft 3 is intelligent. Its like every other RTS game......???>

Quote:


I seriously doubt a game like Sins of a Solar Empire would appeal to most people. They would find it boring. Especially kids. I, however, do not think many kids would find Gears of War boring... which is ironic, because that was one of the most boring games I've ever played. I don't understand how people can shoot at things for 20+ hours and still think its fun. That'y why I say PC games may be more adult: kids would be bored silly by a lot of em, because console games have reduced their attention spans to 4 seconds.

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.

Quote:


Its true if you want to keep playing the newest, greatest games you need to continually pump money into your system. However, I consider this an asset; its something that cannot be done with a console, and is an advantage on the PC. I appreciate that while a console stagnates for 5-6 years, the PC releases an optional graphics upgrade every 6 months or so. By the end of the last console generation, the difference between PC and console graphical quality was immense, and I have no doubt by the end of this generation it will be no less noticeable.

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......while the PC has caught up, so to speak with cheaper hardware able to pull off those graphics, the PC is no longer the leader in that regard.

Crysis looks pretty, but lets face it....when you can drop $3000 on a PC and STILL not hit 60fps in that game, something is truly fubared and thats the type of thing that will drive people away from PC gaming by the boatloads.

The PC generation is moving on...more kids are using cellphones and pdas and laptops than Desktops these days. PC gaming still exists, but its a shell of what it once was.....Microsoft released Directx10..then 10.1...and now they just announced 11, and nobody seems to care. Is a game development company going to release a game on the PC after 4 or 5 years of development, or on a console where they will attract tons more attention?

I guess if its an RTS or something like that, a game that doesn't *require* 4 or 5 years of R&D to put out...then perhaps yes, the PC is the environment of choice...but this whole "more intelligent" arguement is just crap...really, it is.
post #65 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey151 View Post

Which is of more overall "value" to a family?
The device that plays movies, games, connects to the internet, does slide shows all on the family's television? Or the computer that for the most part is used by one person on a small screen off in some room? Even a laptop simply add portability.
That's why they're pushing the "one device does it all" concept.

I agree there. Once they have something that does all that well, then it will be the preferred option for many/most. As the other guys said though, it may be 5 years or so away, as the current generation are still severely lacking when it comes to general office and internet use. Maybe Sony could push the Linux angle a bit more for people wanting a decent OS for PS3 (Yellow Dog isn't perfect), but I expect it will wait for the PS4.

By the time the consoles can do all of this, they will simply be cheap and easy PCs, which is of course a good thing.

Pro: No upgrading
Con: No upgrading

For some the lack of having to upgrade or fiddle to get things to work is great, but unless they have a way to upgrade these PC-ONSOLEs, then a lot of amateur multimedia editors will be behind the times halfway through the system's life when it comes to performance and functionality.

But, back to your points, yes it will sell very well, being great value and a nice central hub for your home electronics.


EDIT:

In regards to gaming, I am certainly not going to accuse console gaming of being stupid, like some others. It would be a bit silly to do so really, considering there are just as many 'simple' titles on PC. Hell, I play a lot of them myself.

Halo/Crysis/Gears of War none of these are 'clever', but there is nothing wrong with enjoying them.
post #66 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch View Post

Crysis looks pretty, but lets face it....when you can drop $3000 on a PC and STILL not hit 60fps in that game, something is truly fubared and thats the type of thing that will drive people away from PC gaming by the boatloads.

The problem is that many of my fellow PC gamers are spoiled these days. For the last couple of years we have had some really good graphics cards that will play most games on the highest settings at a reasonable resolution. The problem is that while many still play at say, 1280x1024, there are a whole new crowd of them that insist on 1920x1200 and 4xAA (probably from playing Source games for the last 4 years). It's a bit like all the whining little nobs that complain about not getting 1080p (native) and 60fps on Gears of War or Haze. There has to be a compromise, both on current consoles, and on PCs that are still affordable (in other words, not exactly Crysis killers LOL).

If people were playing at the relatively low resolution of 1280x720 (720p) (most people browse the internet on old CRTs at a higher RES than that), then playing Crysis on Very High would not be such a problem. Hell, at that res, just buy the cheapest 9600GT you can find and put Crysis on high settings. 25-30fps and still the most advanced visuals.

1280x720p = 0.92 MegaPixels
1280x800= 1.02 MegaPixels

If more people were to hook up to a nice 720p HDTV (I am on a 1080p HDTV), then they would save a lot of money in upgrades.
post #67 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephJEHancock View Post

The problem is that many of my fellow PC gamers are spoiled these days. For the last couple of years we have had some really good graphics cards that will play most games on the highest settings at a reasonable resolution. The problem is that while many still play at say, 1280x1024, there are a whole new crowd of them that insist on 1920x1200 and 4xAA (probably from playing Source games for the last 4 years). It's a bit like all the whining little nobs that complain about not getting 1080p (native) and 60fps on Gears of War or Haze. There has to be a compromise, both on current consoles, and on PCs that are still affordable (in other words, not exactly Crysis killers LOL).

If people were playing at the relatively low resolution of 1280x720 (720p) (most people browse the internet on old CRTs at a higher RES than that), then playing Crysis on Very High would not be such a problem. Hell, at that res, just buy the cheapest 9600GT you can find and put Crysis on high settings. 25-30fps and still the most advanced visuals.

1280x720p = 0.92 MegaPixels
1280x800= 1.02 MegaPixels

If more people were to hook up to a nice 720p HDTV (I am on a 1080p HDTV), then they would save a lot of money in upgrades.


Exactly...last week end I was installing a upgrade vid card for a PC I built at a clients place. Took out his 7600GT and replaced it with 8800GTS 512. Boy the pic didnt impress me. Then it dawn on me that he is using a 720p LCD TV as a monitor. His frame rates went up...but the over pic quality was barely improved (to my eyes) due to the low rez. I mean the upgrade did give him many more eye candy stuff but the rez for me was just not acceptable if that was my gaming rig.


Hell...I will accept 1920x1200 but I insists on 2560x1600...just joking...
post #68 of 121
Yeah, we (PC/Console guys) do have different standards. If PC people sat on their sofa with a gamepad, 6+ feet from a 720p screen, then it would not be a problem. I'm just so used to being closer (besides, I have an armchair to sit in which is more comfortable than most computer chairs).
post #69 of 121
Quote:


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.

Quote:


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.

Quote:


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.

Quote:


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.

Quote:


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.

Quote:


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)
post #70 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben_the_man View Post

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.

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.

All around bummer then, C&C RA III is due out for the PS3 in '09. Having played these type of games for quite some time I see no reason why they won't work on a console. C&C's biggest innovation & what really kicked these games up in popularity was the simplified control scheme. This scheme will work on a console & one could even argue that with more innovative interfaces like those on the Wii the scheme will work better than a mouse/keyboard.

And as much as you might like to tell yourself they're not, they ARE build & rush games - chess they ain't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ben_the_man View Post

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.

Not certain I follow. So you spend $150 + $500 ($250 CPU, $125 MB, $125 RAM) in 5 years.............this is somehow equal to a $399 console? Strange math where $400 = $600 (and exclude the every few cycle extras like HDD, etc)

And just because I see it coming doesn't mean I'm a console cheerleader either. My gaming goes back to tic-tac-toe under the "revolutionary" TSO to Adventure to Zork................................... = long time "PC" gamer. But at this time I can't see PC gaming going forward, it's simply not worth the constant upgrade cycles for such a limited device (recreation end, not work). At this point a console just offers so much more functionality - movies, media, gaming......... Though I will admit I'm still struggling to adapt to the controls Now if they offered the Wii's "point & shoot" controls with an HD console I'd be in heaven.
post #71 of 121
This thread is now reminding me of the old ones where people would buy $5000 scalers and conditioners to clean up their Cable Signals to get them to look good on their new HDTV's.

*EDIT* I responded to the wrong thread, this reply was supposed to go to the one about playing Genesis on your RGB monitor at ABSOLUTE HIGHEST QUALITY!*
post #72 of 121
Thread Starter 
It actually reminds me of the old anolog audio days. When pple buying a "RACK" system (everthing that is needed, direct drive turntable with a cheap Shure phono cartridge, RCVR with 200w "RMS" or worst dynamic power, cassette deck and "800w" that goes from "20-20K" speakers along with a cheap stand and maybe throw in some cheap speaker wire as a bonus) from their local stereo store and go home and think its the best sound they ever heard. Yes its the best they ever heard until they hear something real better ie hi end.

Yes I use to distribute snake oil...hi end stuff like cables , air bearing turntables and air bearing tone arms and phono cartidges and power/pre amps. I still use the cables with my speakers...$3-6K+ cdn for 10ft pairs for speaker cables and $500-$2K+ for interconnects. Yes there are major diff's and the stuff was a lot better but the rest of the system also had to be up to snuff if you were to get the benefits. Yes...maybe elitists vs the good enuf's, but, if you only want the best. Did the good enuf's enjoy their rack systems...if the answer is yes then the bottom line is be happy with what you have and be satisfy but dont fool your self claiming its the best possible. But even the best gear didnt rival a live performance . Now bring on the holo deck...
post #73 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben_the_man View Post

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.

Heroes of Might and Magic actually was released on the PS2. It wasn't particularly great (3DO kind of sucked as a company and developer by then), but it definitely was a good proof of concept. The game can work very well on consoles and with a pad, do to its turn-based nature and focus on only a handful of units. Better than Civ, even, I wager.

As for modding... UT3 on the PS3 kind of puts that to bed. You need a PC to build the mods, which wouldn't change I guess, but mods can definitely run on a console.
post #74 of 121
Wow, there are a lot of people who seem to like their consoles on this forum. Probably representative of the 10:1 ratio in real life.

Quote:


Not certain I follow. So you spend $150 + $500 ($250 CPU, $125 MB, $125 RAM) in 5 years.............this is somehow equal to a $399 console? Strange math where $400 = $600 (and exclude the every few cycle extras like HDD, etc)

I never said the costs were equal. I said computers are more expensive; often MUCH more expensive if you want a really good one (although they don't have to be). On my computer, however, I can also rip and transcode video, run photoshop, compile programs... do many things a console cannot. As JUST a gaming machine, the PC probably is a rip off. Good thing that is not all it is.

Also, consoles do not represent their true costs at all. There is no way a PS3 cost $399 or whatever they're charging now. Sony sells each one at a loss, especially when they launched. As you may know, companies almost never like losing money, so these costs have to be recouped somewhere. My guess is the proprietary games available for each system cost significantly more than PC games of the same type in order to subsidize and justify the hardware. Microsoft, in fact, has never made a profit on its xbox console since the original was released. You guys may think "sweet, means we're getting a good deal!!" But I see something which is either unsustainable or that you will pay for eventually in game cost premiums.

I realize Red Alert 3 is coming out for the PS3, and it will be terrible. If it is just a rushing game like you say, (which is complete horse-**** btw), then its sure going to be hard to win when you can't select individual units or groups of units with a mouse. Playing a RTS without a mouse and hotkeys is an enormous an unacceptable handicap. And furthermore I think it goes deeper than this. I can't predict the future, but I would imagine that Red Alert will be outsold probably 100:1 by the latest halo or GTA pile of garbage.

Quote:


This thread is now reminding me of the old ones where people would buy $5000 scalers and conditioners to clean up their Cable Signals to get them to look good on their new HDTV's

If you're saying I'm diluting myself with imaginary differences that cost a lot of money, I again think you're missing my point. If Consoles are platforms where turn based and real time strategy games become popular and fun, I will abandon the PC immediately. If, however, the PC dies as you are saying it must, I think these will largely be niches that go unfilled. The focus of a console is on shallow learning curves and universal appeal. Take Civ revolutions for example. Anyone who plays the real thing understands that 99% of what makes Civ great (ie the strategy component) was either removed or dumbed down for its console version. That's not something I imagined... that really happened.

Oh well, at least the PC won't die before Starcraft 2 and Empire:Total War and Fallout 3 come out. After that, maybe I'll try and develop a taste for beating up hookers and stealing cars.
post #75 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben_the_man View Post

On my computer, however, I can also rip and transcode video, run photoshop, compile programs... do many things a console cannot. As JUST a gaming machine, the PC probably is a rip off. Good thing that is not all it is.

Ah, but you can do all of those things with the PC you own that doesn't need to be upgraded...lets face it...people upgrade due to gaming. Or to play pirated HD video feeds. Otherwise everyone is still happy doing email and pictures and mp3's on their P4's or Athlons....

Quote:


Microsoft, in fact, has never made a profit on its xbox console since the original was released.

Mircosoft never attempted to make a profit on the xbox, which is why they dropped it immediately when 360 came out. It was all 3rd party parts costing them a fortune, the 360 is much more dialed in. I can tell you're one of those dudes who can't see the writing on the wall...

Xbox was their entrance into the market place...designed to set up LIVE. No, really, xbox existed solely to put together LIVE. It also allowed them to get their feet wet in media streaming/compatibility. 360 is their great experiment in "taking over the entertainment media center" on your couch. Live and Media Streaming have evolved, and now they are trying to build the Social Networking aspect of it. Their next unit, I am convinced, will be designed to replace the PC with web browsing, more ram, and basic applications like Email and so forth. Keyboard/mouse support too...but it'll have to be a Microsoft keyboard and mouse, so they can make money there too.

Microsoft knows they can't make money off Desktop OS's that people dont want and upgrades to expensive business suites that most people dont need or want to pay for, consoles represent Microsoft getting the lions share of the profit for not only the hardware sales, but all of the software sales too. The PC market has slowed for years....the more consoles develop the less people are upgrading their PC's. Microsoft knows its cash-cow future is in more-functional consoles.

They would effectively control their own hardware/software market. Its coming, watch it happen.

Quote:


I realize Red Alert 3 is coming out for the PS3, and it will be terrible. If it is just a rushing game like you say, (which is complete horse-**** btw), then its sure going to be hard to win when you can't select individual units or groups of units with a mouse.

Maybe it'll be hard for you, perhaps....it wont be ideal, but if two human opponents are playing with a joypad, they share the same limitations and baseline the playing field.

Quote:


Playing a RTS without a mouse and hotkeys is an enormous an unacceptable handicap.

...if you are playing against someone with a keyboard and a mouse.

Wait are you one of those crazy Korean dudes who spends hours each day playing lightning-fast competetive rounds of Starcraft or something!?!?

Quote:


And furthermore I think it goes deeper than this. I can't predict the future, but I would imagine that Red Alert will be outsold probably 100:1 by the latest halo or GTA pile of garbage.

Your bias is rapidly labeling you as "strategy fanboy".....



If you're saying I'm diluting myself with imaginary differences that cost a lot of money, I again think you're missing my point. If Consoles are platforms where turn based and real time strategy games become popular and fun, I will abandon the PC immediately. If, however, the PC dies as you are saying it must, I think these will largely be niches that go unfilled. The focus of a console is on shallow learning curves and universal appeal. Take Civ revolutions for example. Anyone who plays the real thing understands that 99% of what makes Civ great (ie the strategy component) was either removed or dumbed down for its console version. That's not something I imagined... that really happened.

Oh well, at least the PC won't die before Starcraft 2 and Empire:Total War and Fallout 3 come out. After that, maybe I'll try and develop a taste for beating up hookers and stealing cars.[/quote]
post #76 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBI View Post

I had NFS most wanted on my 360.. 42inch LCD/720p. My friend had the same game on his 19inch monitor with everything maxxed out.. The difference was very noticeable. I couldn't believe what I was missing. PC games will always look better then console games, cause the consoles technology is stagnant, & stuck for 5-6 yrs.. While better graphic cards come out every yr or so.. PC/PC games advance at such a great rate.. & the consoles are not all that powerful IMO...H3 wasn't even HD & a lot of games can't support X2-x4 AA without killing the frame rate. MS stated that all 360 games must support at least X2 AA & 720p.. This was before the 360 was released..But the hardware isn't capable.

I prefer consoling gaming over PC for many reasons. I hate using the keyboard, upgrading, making sure your specs match the games requirement, etc.. But PC games will give you the better gaming experience.. The keyboard is superior to a controller..Even though I hate gaming on a keyboard. It offers tons of customization & other options.. Many options on the video side that consoles can't provide.. Consoles will never catch up to PC hardware wise.. In 5 yrs lets compare the same game on a maxxed out PC & 360, using 5 yr old technology..

It's my understanding that most of the big games for both 360 and ps3 aren't 720, but generally in the 600's and upscaled; where as pc's res can be well above that. Kinda crazy. love my ps3 and some games look fantastic, but a pc with a good card, doesn't get much better. of course, we're still in the beginning with the ps3. i was amazed that they got 1080i out of the ps2 with GT4, so who knows what they can get out of the ps3.
post #77 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeadRusch View Post

Your bias is rapidly labeling you as "strategy fanboy".....

And there's nothing wrong with being a strategy fanboy, but ben_the_man is like, "omg consoles suck because they have no strategy games* and not just that consoles suck but people who play on consoles are idiot drooling kiddie retards".

Then he takes it one step further and says that "console gamers are idiot drooling kiddie retards because they are playing games that were born and popularized on the PC". Yet PC gamers are cognac sniffing sophisticates.

*this is a lie btw, which I pointed out. There are not just strategy games, but they are popular, they sell, and they keep getting released.
post #78 of 121
I have no problem with RTS games on consoles, but I won't play them on console if it is a game out for PC. Of course a lot of RTS games can be played well on consoles, though I would hate to use a gamepad for it.

As I said before, I don't buy into the 'consoles' dumbing down gaming claims. Dumbed down people are to blame for dumbed down games. They buy them, so they get made.
post #79 of 121
Quote:


Yet PC gamers are cognac sniffing sophisticates

Man **** cognac, I'm drinkin 75 year old Port from a gold chalice... more my style.

Quote:


Maybe it'll be hard for you, perhaps....it wont be ideal, but if two human opponents are playing with a joypad, they share the same limitations and baseline the playing field.

The problem with this to me is that it may place emphasis on different parts of the game. If the awkwardness of the controls in limiting in any way, maybe its the person who can't add a tip onto their bill who wins, just because they are able to master the control scheme. I am just afraid the strategy element would take a back seat to manipulating the joypad, making these games much more like a halo deathmatch.

Quote:


Your bias is rapidly labeling you as "strategy fanboy".....

I AM a strategy fanboy! And I want these games to keep getting made! That's the whole reason I don't want the PC to die! The only PC to console port of a strategy game in recent memory that I can think of Civ 4 turning into Revolutions. This precedent almost made me cry. They took probably the most intelligent modern game, and dumbed it down so a toddler could play it. If consoles take over, and maintain the tradition of excellence strategy has enjoyed on the PC, then I am ALL FOR IT. If things turn revolutionesque, I will mourn for the human race.

Quote:


"omg consoles suck because they have no strategy games* and not just that consoles suck but people who play on consoles are idiot drooling kiddie retards"

I have never said people who play console games are any stupider, I just said the games are; and I stand by that. The rare exceptions are still no match more the strategy dynasties on the PC.

Quote:


Mircosoft never attempted to make a profit on the xbox, which is why they dropped it immediately when 360 came out. It was all 3rd party parts costing them a fortune, the 360 is much more dialed in. I can tell you're one of those dudes who can't see the writing on the wall...

Xbox was their entrance into the market place...designed to set up LIVE. No, really, xbox existed solely to put together LIVE. It also allowed them to get their feet wet in media streaming/compatibility. 360 is their great experiment in "taking over the entertainment media center" on your couch. Live and Media Streaming have evolved, and now they are trying to build the Social Networking aspect of it. Their next unit, I am convinced, will be designed to replace the PC with web browsing, more ram, and basic applications like Email and so forth. Keyboard/mouse support too...but it'll have to be a Microsoft keyboard and mouse, so they can make money there too.

Microsoft knows they can't make money off Desktop OS's that people dont want and upgrades to expensive business suites that most people dont need or want to pay for, consoles represent Microsoft getting the lions share of the profit for not only the hardware sales, but all of the software sales too. The PC market has slowed for years....the more consoles develop the less people are upgrading their PC's. Microsoft knows its cash-cow future is in more-functional consoles.

They would effectively control their own hardware/software market. Its coming, watch it happen.

I would actually have no problem with this... you're saying that they would just turn into Dell or HP or something; selling proprietary PCs with artificial limits on what they are allowed to run. If these things work out to cost less money than a computer, but essentially are one, then that's fine with me I guess. I'll plug in a keyboard and mouse and play some xbox720 starcraft.

I don't see how anyone can argue that a genre of game labeled "strategy" is more "intelligent" than a genre labeled "first person shooter" or "action". And I moreover don't see how anyone can argue the prevalence and quality of "strategy" games on the PC eclipses the console world.

Again, so as not to offend (too much): I am not saying games which heavily recruit brain power are any more fun, or relevant, or meaningful, than games which recruit fast reflexes or one's imagination. For **** s sake, games are just games, and are a waste of time no matter what kind they are. I am just saying that intelligence driven games, which I think are far more prevalent on the PC, are in danger of extinction if consoles take over.

That and consoles suck balls and anyone who uses one can eat **** and die.
post #80 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben_the_man View Post

On my computer, however, I can also rip and transcode video, run photoshop, compile programs... do many things a console cannot. As JUST a gaming machine, the PC probably is a rip off. Good thing that is not all it is.

You'll note I said "aside from work"................and just because the application has yet to be written doesn't make it impossible. And I never said the PC doesn't have it's place, it's simply not going to be the gaming/media center for very much longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ben_the_man View Post

Also, consoles do not represent their true costs at all. There is no way a PS3 cost $399 or whatever they're charging now. Sony sells each one at a loss, especially when they launched. As you may know, companies almost never like losing money, so these costs have to be recouped somewhere. My guess is the proprietary games available for each system cost significantly more than PC games of the same type in order to subsidize and justify the hardware. Microsoft, in fact, has never made a profit on its xbox console since the original was released. You guys may think "sweet, means we're getting a good deal!!" But I see something which is either unsustainable or that you will pay for eventually in game cost premiums.

What has the actual cost of the platform got to do with anything? I, the consumer, don't give a rat's arse what Sony/M$ pay to have it built...........all I care about is what I pay.

Yep, that's the way it will go...................much like printers & razors - you get the item darn near free & pay for the supplies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ben_the_man View Post

I think these will largely be niches that go unfilled.

Nobody can say. All we can say is that as the demographic changes so will the market place. The software vendors will respond, a simple check of threads here show many complaints about a changing market.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ben_the_man View Post

I realize Red Alert 3 is coming out for the PS3, and it will be terrible. If it is just a rushing game like you say, (which is complete horse-**** btw), then its sure going to be hard to win when you can't select individual units or groups of units with a mouse. Playing a RTS without a mouse and hotkeys is an enormous an unacceptable handicap. And furthermore I think it goes deeper than this. I can't predict the future, but I would imagine that Red Alert will be outsold probably 100:1 by the latest halo or GTA pile of garbage.

Which really just highlights your personal limitations more than the control scheme. While I can't do it I have seen folks who are darn near as fast as a mouse with a stick. They are accurate & fast, they can hit any point on the screen = easy for them to pick a unit or an individual.

And then there's the interface combination like the Wii. Gives you the optimum movement device (the analog stick) AND a pointing device. Having played a FPS with this combo I can say it's an excellent replacement for a mouse = it works. I'd wager both the other consoles have some sort of similar device in the next cycle.

Yep, GTA will outsell...............but they won't be getting my $$$ for it

Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephJEHancock View Post

As I said before, I don't buy into the 'consoles' dumbing down gaming claims. Dumbed down people are to blame for dumbed down games. They buy them, so they get made.

And that sums it up to a T - the software companies produce what sells. Capability or the market? My money is on the latter.
post #81 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben_the_man View Post

They took probably the most intelligent modern game, and dumbed it down so a toddler could play it.

Hmm. This is debateable. While its true they simplified a few things too much (most notably diplomacy), IMO Firaxis did a really good job at taking out the stuff that makes the endgame so tedious and drawn out - a flaw that is generally acknowledged even by hardcore Civ fans.

It's actually kind of interesting. Early on in the Civ 4 process Firaxis said their goal was to make a game that would also run a bit faster, and be more geared towards multiplayer. Except with Civ 4 the "normal" mode seemed way too rushed, and the game never caught on with multiplayer. Civ Rev is those design goals in the flesh - the game can be completed in 2-4 hours and does not feel rushed and is great for multiplayer. Does that make the game kiddified or dumbed down? I don't think so. It's a different focus. As a Civ game meant to be played in 2 hours instead of 10, its nearly perfect. I think it would work well on the PC, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ben_the_man View Post

I don't see how anyone can argue that a genre of game labeled "strategy" is more "intelligent" than a genre labeled "first person shooter" or "action". And I moreover don't see how anyone can argue the prevalence and quality of "strategy" games on the PC eclipses the console world.

Like I said, its different. Obviously if you like RTS games, the PC is the best. Structurally, the PC allows for niche genres like wargames and what not. But if you like SRPGs, there are few games like it on the PC. The DS is actually really, really good for strategy games. There is a great version of Anno 1701 on it and the Age of Empires series has been converted to a really good turn based game (I am waiting for #2 this Fall).

I think what is ultimately holding down the adoption of strategy games on consoles is the interface. Sony lets you use a m+k with PS3 but the 360 does not. There is no reason why an exact port of StarCraft 2 could not be made for PS3. Literally, exact, coming out the same day as the PC one - it has the interface, the graphics capabilities, the hard drive for custom maps and mods, internet access, and so forth. Blizzard could even put Battle.net on it.
post #82 of 121
More indication of the changing times I guess:

Quote:


Epic's Capps: Unreal Engine 4 Due For 'Next Console Generation'

Speaking at Gamefest in Seattle, Epic's Mike Capps has been discussing Unreal Engine 4, suggesting the next version of the dominant game engine is in production and will debut "...in the next console generation - our rough guess is 2012 - 2018."

Specifically, Epic president Capps - who introduced a Gamasutra-attended Gamefest panel that included notable Unreal Engine 3-using creators such as Gearbox's Randy Pitchford, mentioned that the Unreal Engine tools had a markedly "console focus" going forward, and then noted:

"We've got Unreal [Engine] 4 in production right now... it's going to be in the next console generation - our rough guess is 2012 [to] 2018."

This ties up with recent comments made by Epic's Tim Sweeney about plans for the next version of the dominant middleware engine, with the Unreal engine franchise's technical mastermind commenting in a March interview with TGDaily:

"Version 4 will exclusively target the next console generation, Microsoft's successor for the Xbox 360, Sony's successor for the Playstation 3 - and if Nintendo ships a machine with similar hardware specs, then that also. PCs will follow after that."

Gamasutra will have more details from the Unreal Engine 3 panel - which included postmortems of development experiences from several UE3 licensees - in the near future.

Kinda sad when PCs are 4th in line on the development schedule when they used to spearhead Unreal Engine releases.
post #83 of 121
The Netflix/M$ deal is going to be a huge shaker in the industry. Consoles are the future; there really is no stopping them at this point. PC gamers will be a niche market while the mainstream gaming development will be on consoles. I used to buy a lot of PC game titles but now I don't buy any. If I do, I wait until they are sub $20. I doubt I am the minority on my move to the console. There is a reason why BB has dropped from four rows of PC games to only one in most stores.
post #84 of 121
Quote:


You'll note I said "aside from work"................and just because the application has yet to be written doesn't make it impossible. And I never said the PC doesn't have it's place, it's simply not going to be the gaming/media center for very much longer.

You can't say "aside from work". Most people here seem to be arguing that consoles are cheaper than equivalent PCs with 6 million dollar graphics cards and ten-thousand-core-processors. But if you need to buy a console to game AND a computer to do everything else, the combined costs will probably add up to more than just buying a decent computer which can do both.

Quote:


What has the actual cost of the platform got to do with anything? I, the consumer, don't give a rat's arse what Sony/M$ pay to have it built...........all I care about is what I pay.

Yep, that's the way it will go...................much like printers & razors - you get the item darn near free & pay for the supplies.

So you understand this concept: the console is not "cheaper", its costs are just subsidized by its software, and probably proprietary accessories as well. Why, then, do you not "give a rat's arse?" You want to end up paying way more, yet think you are getting some kind of deal?

Quote:


Yep, GTA will outsell...............but they won't be getting my $$$ for it

Good man!

number1laing - your posts always seem very balanced, and you seem to have a solid grip on gaming and strategy gaming in particular. I would have thought, given what you have said so far, that you would be more on my side of this... lamenting instead of celebrating the end of the PC.

Are you just pushing back towards a middle ground after my ridiculously one-sided and bias opinions? Or do you genuinely want consoles to be the only gaming option in town?

I just think I should add as well that, especially with the PS3, we are still very early in this generation of consoles, and already graphical capabilities on the PC have surpassed them by a factor of ~10 (4070x2 ~2TFlops). Assuming the PS4 and/or xbox720 don't get released until ~2012, maybe the advantage PCs enjoyed over the last generation of consoles towards then end of their life-cycle will reassert itself... here's hoping.
post #85 of 121
Sony and MSFT both spend millions and millions and millions of dollars promoting and advertising for their respecting to system. Who is doing that for the PC? No one. Certainly not MSFT and if not them who would? "PC is dying" is a classic case of the loudest kid (not the best or worst kid) in the classroom getting all the attention.

For me, I just love video games and I really don't give a rats ace who's winning the race. I prefer PC gaming, but honestly I intend on getting a PS3 in the near future. For me I much more enjoy button mashers on the consoles (adventure games & fighting games). However, nothing beats the mouse and keyboard for first person shooters and RTS. My opinion of course...
post #86 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben_the_man View Post


number1laing - your posts always seem very balanced, and you seem to have a solid grip on gaming and strategy gaming in particular. I would have thought, given what you have said so far, that you would be more on my side of this... lamenting instead of celebrating the end of the PC.

I'm really not celebrating the end of the PC, I just think strategy games will continue to come out on that platform and continue to be experimented with on the consoles and DS. This does not strike me as a bad development. Even if consoles get a keyboard and mouse and the big ones all move to console (which I do not think will happen), there will still be "niche" titles like Heart of Iron, Dominion 3, Combat Mission, or Europa Universalis. There is no chance any of them hit a console any time soon (except, maybe, the DS), just because of the way the businesses work.

p.s. C&C3 and that LOTR RTS both game to the 360 with pretty much everything intact... the controls were really not that great (passable if anything), but they were not dumbed down at all.
post #87 of 121
McDonalds sells the most burgers but I don't eat that garbage.
post #88 of 121
The very vast majority of games on consoles are absolute trash. Seriously. I've been called on this statement before but really, most are absolute rubbish. On the PC side, that just don't fly. You make trash on the PC side and you shall be chastised for making trash. YES, there are some few and far between 50$ console games that are great. And YES I own TWO of the consoles on the market.....Most of the games SUCK. Consoles will always bring in the big bucks based on a far less knowledgeable buying audience. You can shovel **** to the consoles and people will continue to buy it based on marketing tie-ins etc. This really doesn't work any more on the PC side. The unfortunate turn of events is that the actual quality game manufacturers of course want to release on the console side (not only will the console masses buy trash but hopefully Sony or MS will chip in to buy them as a company or 'make it worth their while'). Let's look at Grand Turismo on the Sony side. AWESOME. Great game....Basically subsidized by Sony to be exclusive. Halo? Great game on the Xbox.....Mediocre at best on the PC even though it's the same damn game. PC buyers won't put up with that trash. At the same time if MS made it an exclusive title for xbox, would selling a PC version hurt? No, not really. If you can get a multi billion dollar company behind you to protect you, it's a win-win all around.

-Trouble
post #89 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubleshooter View Post

The very vast majority of games on consoles are absolute trash. Seriously. I've been called on this statement before but really, most are absolute rubbish. On the PC side, that just don't fly. You make trash on the PC side and you shall be chastised for making trash. YES, there are some few and far between 50$ console games that are great. And YES I own TWO of the consoles on the market.....Most of the games SUCK. Consoles will always bring in the big bucks based on a far less knowledgeable buying audience. You can shovel **** to the consoles and people will continue to buy it based on marketing tie-ins etc. This really doesn't work any more on the PC side. The unfortunate turn of events is that the actual quality game manufacturers of course want to release on the console side (not only will the console masses buy trash but hopefully Sony or MS will chip in to buy them as a company or 'make it worth their while'). Let's look at Grand Turismo on the Sony side. AWESOME. Great game....Basically subsidized by Sony to be exclusive. Halo? Great game on the Xbox.....Mediocre at best on the PC even though it's the same damn game. PC buyers won't put up with that trash. At the same time if MS made it an exclusive title for xbox, would selling a PC version hurt? No, not really. If you can get a multi billion dollar company behind you to protect you, it's a win-win all around.

-Trouble

1. yes it does fly. There is at the very least as much shovelware trash as there is on any console, and probably much more except the Wii (because of the ease of entry). The trick is, as with the consoles, is to ignore it. Games like "Jumper" don't sell on any platform.

2. Gran Turismo is a first party game developed by an internal Sony team on Sony's dime. Of course its exclusive. Sony paid for the studio, Sony took the risks on the series.
post #90 of 121
Quote:


Originally Posted by Troubleshooter View Post
The very vast majority of games on consoles are absolute trash. Seriously. I've been called on this statement before but really, most are absolute rubbish. On the PC side, that just don't fly. You make trash on the PC side and you shall be chastised for making trash. YES, there are some few and far between 50$ console games that are great. And YES I own TWO of the consoles on the market.....Most of the games SUCK. Consoles will always bring in the big bucks based on a far less knowledgeable buying audience. You can shovel **** to the consoles and people will continue to buy it based on marketing tie-ins etc. This really doesn't work any more on the PC side. The unfortunate turn of events is that the actual quality game manufacturers of course want to release on the console side (not only will the console masses buy trash but hopefully Sony or MS will chip in to buy them as a company or 'make it worth their while'). Let's look at Grand Turismo on the Sony side. AWESOME. Great game....Basically subsidized by Sony to be exclusive. Halo? Great game on the Xbox.....Mediocre at best on the PC even though it's the same damn game. PC buyers won't put up with that trash. At the same time if MS made it an exclusive title for xbox, would selling a PC version hurt? No, not really. If you can get a multi billion dollar company behind you to protect you, it's a win-win all around.

-Trouble

Thanks trouble... couldn't agree with you more. I honestly thought I was the last person alive to think like this. As long as people like us exist, things are gonna work out

They made jumper into a game?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HTPC Gaming
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Home Theater Gaming › HTPC Gaming › Valve's take on the dying PC gaming scene