#1 Edited by Illuminosopher (328 posts) -

I had this discussion in the Skyrim forums and I was wondering what people here would think.

The disscussion topic on that one was, Did Skyrim suffer due to consoles?

What I said :

"The only thing I will add to this discussion and this is just my opinion if it were not for consoles PC upgrading would still be running rampant you would still have to update your computer every year like you did in the late 80's early 90's and I'm willing to bet that a lot people couldn't keep up with that. So I guess be glad that PC's are now more affordable"

I'm just curious what a broader range of people think of this I can post more of that discussion if people want (a big reason I am making this post here is that other one got locked on that forum)

Edit : better yet here is a link to that Topic http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1348072-did-skyrim-suffer-due-to-consoles/

#2 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

You make a good point, the consoles being ancient in technology makes us upgrade our PCs less often that in the past. However that shouldn't mean that the reality we have today should exist.. The reality of Skyrim depending heavily on mods created by the users to run well and look good and have a proper UI and PC functionality, and the fact that Battlefield 3 has shit feature/interface design and a lot of gameplay limitations because of the consoles. 
 
Developers need to find the middle ground between pushing the tech envelope and between holding back the PC version because of the console versions.

#3 Posted by ShadowSkill11 (1783 posts) -

Think Mario Kart. There is a rubber banding effect with consoles and computers. Consoles make a performance spike to become close to a modern PC's capabilities and then decline due to the static nature of their hardware and the steady improvements computer tech continues to make. All this has happened before, all this will happen again.

The only thing that hurts PC games is the fact their are so many poor people that game and don't know how to build computers. Forcing developers and publishers to make big budget titles multiform.

#4 Posted by Hosstile17 (763 posts) -

It is a double-edged sword. Sure, games might not look as good as they could on PC because of their console roots. But, if it wasn't for the console versions of those games, there probably wouldn't be a PC version at all. The piracy of the mid 2000s scared off many of the more prolific PC developers. The PC market is improving. But, you don't see too many developers out their sinking huge budget dollars into producing exclusive PC games.

#5 Posted by mrcraggle (1938 posts) -

I think there's needs to be more differentiation between consoles and PCs like back in the 90s with the SNES and MegaDrive. You bought those because of the games they had and PCs had completely different experiences. Nowadays, consoles and PC games are pretty much the same apart from graphics and in some cases PC gamers get ports of their console counterparts and they can just be terrible (GTA IV & LA Noire ports come to mind).

#6 Posted by AlexW00d (6275 posts) -

@mrcraggle said:

I think there's needs to be more differentiation between consoles and PCs like back in the 90s with the SNES and MegaDrive. You bought those because of the games they had and PCs had completely different experiences. Nowadays, consoles and PC games are pretty much the same apart from graphics and in some cases PC gamers get ports of their console counterparts and they can just be terrible (GTA IV & LA Noire ports come to mind).

Apart from the all the thousands of PC games that aren't released on consoles.

#7 Edited by believer258 (11907 posts) -

Take cover! Shitstorm incoming!

Anyway, there's a middle ground that consoles and PC's have to make from here forward. The potential is there for PC games to be much better-looking and far more expansive than they are now. But how many people can honestly afford top-of-the-line PC's all of the time? Enough for those games to make a profit? No, I don't think so. If console and PC games were still separate, then the PC market probably would have died by now. This all really boils down to profit and business. If anything is truly holding gaming back, it's that.

I think Battlefield 3 and Just Cause 2 are two examples of what really needs to be happening for everyone to be happy. The former gives a premium experience on PC, with much better graphics and 64 players online, while still being scaled back for console players to play and so that the business end of the whole deal can make money (and tons of it). Just Cause 2 is a made-for-console game that was scaled up for PC's, and by all accounts that I've heard is one of the absolute best ports out there, with enough bells and whistles to really float the PC gamers' boat. Again, the business end of the whole thing is still happy and so is everyone else.

I just think those two are examples of what really needs to happen for every game if everyone is going to be happy.

#8 Edited by DragonBloodthirsty (470 posts) -

The primary difference between computer games and console games from a gameplay standpoint is the interface. I have noticed that games that are made to run on consoles (in general) tend to suffer from sub-optimal controls on the PC, and that makes me sad. I'm frustrated every time the potential of the keyboard is neglected, or when the game doesn't feel right unless you have a controller. I recall From Dust had atrocious controls on PC, so I think the PC version suffered greatly.

The usual "suffered" complaints usually get aimed squarely at graphics, though, and I don't put that very high on my list of priorities when rating a game. If it works and doesn't make me fall to the floor frothing at the mouth, I'm content.

#9 Posted by mrcraggle (1938 posts) -

@AlexW00d: TBH I meant more on the console side. The xbox line up of exclusive games is pretty much non-existent. I feel like this gen has lost what made gaming great in the past and that was getting together with your mates and playing some games. I used to go around my friends house and play crappy wrestling games, Time Splitters, Golden Eye etc but that's not so much a thing these days. I love gaming on my PC. I have 142 games purchased on Steam and as of the past year, is where I've spent a bulk of my gaming. I pretty much only play my Xbox now for XBLA games and my PS3 for a few exclusives.

#10 Posted by Jams (2961 posts) -

@believer258 said:

Take cover! Shitstorm incoming!

Anyway, there's a middle ground that consoles and PC's have to make from here forward. The potential is there for PC games to be hugely better-looking and more expansive than they are. But how many people can honestly afford top-of-the-line PC's all of the time? Enough for those games to make a profit? No, I don't think so. If console and PC games were still separate, then the PC market probably would have died by now. This all really boils down to profit and business. If anything is truly holding gaming back, it's that.

The PC market will never die. As long as people use computers for work, there will also be games. There is nearly zero cost to make games for the PC. That's what we get games like Evochron Mercenary , Magicka, Terraria, Minecraft, Dungeons of Dredmor, Overgrowth etc. etc. etc. You can literally be a one man developer, make a fantastic game and be successful and as long as you can do that, the PC will never stop being a game platform.

#11 Edited by believer258 (11907 posts) -

@Jams said:

@believer258 said:

Take cover! Shitstorm incoming!

Anyway, there's a middle ground that consoles and PC's have to make from here forward. The potential is there for PC games to be hugely better-looking and more expansive than they are. But how many people can honestly afford top-of-the-line PC's all of the time? Enough for those games to make a profit? No, I don't think so. If console and PC games were still separate, then the PC market probably would have died by now. This all really boils down to profit and business. If anything is truly holding gaming back, it's that.

The PC market will never die. As long as people use computers for work, there will also be games. There is nearly zero cost to make games for the PC. That's what we get games like Evochron Mercenary , Magicka, Terraria, Minecraft, Dungeons of Dredmor, Overgrowth etc. etc. etc. You can literally be a one man developer, make a fantastic game and be successful and as long as you can do that, the PC will never stop being a game platform.

Maybe I should have clarified. I meant the big-name games that really push the limits of what a PC can do, though now that you mention it I was being a bit shortsighted there. The indie market didn't really come to my attention. Unfortunately, though, this thread seems to be about AAA games that are expected to make tons in profits during the first week of release. With a small handful of exceptions, that just doesn't generally happen anymore with PC exclusives.

#12 Posted by Tennmuerti (8100 posts) -

Sure they do.

But they also help: budgets and sales.

I take the good with the bad, the rest is on a per game basis and up to individual developers.

#13 Posted by AlexW00d (6275 posts) -

@Jams said:

@believer258 said:

Take cover! Shitstorm incoming!

Anyway, there's a middle ground that consoles and PC's have to make from here forward. The potential is there for PC games to be hugely better-looking and more expansive than they are. But how many people can honestly afford top-of-the-line PC's all of the time? Enough for those games to make a profit? No, I don't think so. If console and PC games were still separate, then the PC market probably would have died by now. This all really boils down to profit and business. If anything is truly holding gaming back, it's that.

The PC market will never die. As long as people use computers for work, there will also be games. There is nearly zero cost to make games for the PC. That's what we get games like Evochron Mercenary , Magicka, Terraria, Minecraft, Dungeons of Dredmor, Overgrowth etc. etc. etc. You can literally be a one man developer, make a fantastic game and be successful and as long as you can do that, the PC will never stop being a game platform.

Especially as you take a game like the Witcher 2, which is visually incredible, that took maybe a tenth of the budget that a game like CoD or Gears of War, or whatever big console game you want, would take, and they comparatively look like ass.

#14 Posted by Jams (2961 posts) -

@AlexW00d said:

@Jams said:

@believer258 said:

Take cover! Shitstorm incoming!

Anyway, there's a middle ground that consoles and PC's have to make from here forward. The potential is there for PC games to be hugely better-looking and more expansive than they are. But how many people can honestly afford top-of-the-line PC's all of the time? Enough for those games to make a profit? No, I don't think so. If console and PC games were still separate, then the PC market probably would have died by now. This all really boils down to profit and business. If anything is truly holding gaming back, it's that.

The PC market will never die. As long as people use computers for work, there will also be games. There is nearly zero cost to make games for the PC. That's what we get games like Evochron Mercenary , Magicka, Terraria, Minecraft, Dungeons of Dredmor, Overgrowth etc. etc. etc. You can literally be a one man developer, make a fantastic game and be successful and as long as you can do that, the PC will never stop being a game platform.

Especially as you take a game like the Witcher 2, which is visually incredible, that took maybe a tenth of the budget that a game like CoD or Gears of War, or whatever big console game you want, would take, and they comparatively look like ass.

And also, you have to keep in mind that developers like Epic that concentrate mostly on consoles came from the PC. In other words, there's no reason why a new developer can't start on PC and work his way to becomes another big name developer. Kind of like what CD Projeckt is doing with the Witcher. They started with 1 and 2 on the PC and now that they are popular enough they're going to screw over the PC and start developing with the consoles in mind for their next game. The PC has always been a great starting point for good developers.

It's a crude analogy, but I think of the games as a band and the PC as the their first die hard fans. Once the band gets more popular, they start expanding out. The consoles are the big music companies. So once the band gets signed to that company there's a good chance they'll become cash hounds. They'll start changing their lineup from what their publisher tells them is the popular thing and having people write for them. Making them too good for the fans that made them famous and shutting them out completely.

#15 Posted by mrcraggle (1938 posts) -

@Jams: I don't see them screwing over the PC crowd as you so put it but they will probably release both PC and console releases at the same time in the future. They also run GOG so they're pretty invested in the success of games on the PC.

#16 Posted by Commisar123 (1792 posts) -

I think it has lowered the the pace of technical advance on the PC, but I'm not sure that is a bad thing. I also don't think Skyrim suffered from having console releases, in fact I think it was a good thing.

#17 Posted by Jimbo (9810 posts) -

Hurts in some ways, helps in others.

I'd blame ease of PC piracy before blaming consoles though.

#18 Posted by Swoxx (2999 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

You make a good point, the consoles being ancient in technology makes us upgrade our PCs less often that in the past. However that shouldn't mean that the reality we have today should exist.. The reality of Skyrim depending heavily on mods created by the users to run well and look good and have a proper UI and PC functionality, and the fact that Battlefield 3 has shit feature/interface design and a lot of gameplay limitations because of the consoles. Developers need to find the middle ground between pushing the tech envelope and between holding back the PC version because of the console versions.

Duder makes sense

#19 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -

I don't care too much about graphics, but I would like a halfway decent UI on the PC once in a while. It is just insane that I have to open up submenus to make further commands, while my 100 other unmapped keys do nothing.

#20 Edited by PenguinDust (12517 posts) -

Console sales are where the money is at. Like it or not, that's how the business is today. And, if that's what it takes to keep the publishers profitable, I am willing to put up with some console features creeping into my PC games. It may take a bunch of mods to get things up to PC standard, but that's not too different than the trouble I had getting games to run smoothly on the PC a decade ago. Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other, as they say.

#21 Posted by AndrewB (7614 posts) -

That's funny. I was just about to post that consoles are the graphics equalizer. They're a part of the reason I can go nearly 5 years on the same video card and not feel like I'm missing out on anything.

The one thing I dislike about PC gamers is their aversion to using a gamepad. I do a ton of my PC gaming using a 360 pad these days. There are games where I feel like they should *only* be played that way, and then there continues to be game types that take advantage of the keyboard/mouse. It depends on the game design and where the focus went. A well-developed game that was clearly made for a gamepad is not a bad thing.

#22 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

I think that's an interesting perspective, but I also suspect that if thigns had gone on as they had been that we would have seen games designed for a wide range of specs anyway. Even the cheapest hardware is powerful enough that you can design a worse-looking version of your high-res thing and it will still be functional. It's not like the days where having a 3D accelerator was a big deal and allowed you to do new and exciting things.