What games do you think are truly unique to PC gaming? Are there features that you think will never be accomplished on consoles to the same level as PCs? Do you think PC gaming still have some new experiences in store in the future?

What games do you think are truly unique to PC gaming? Are there features that you think will never be accomplished on consoles to the same level as PCs? Do you think PC gaming still have some new experiences in store in the future?

Until console gaming has the same support for its back catalogue of games as the PC can handle, I won't quit PC gaming.  Also, in terms of RPG's and MMORPG's, there are just certain games that couldn't possibly translate over to a console.  MMORPG's are gaining in popularity, and so long as they continue to do so, I doubt we'll see PC games going down a sinkhole any time soon.

What I'm also amazed at is the growing support for indie developers.  Sites like Steam and GOG are pumping out games into the ether that otherwise would probably be ignored.  This makes me hopeful that we'll see an eventual return of the renaissance of PC gaming innovation and support.

My $600 pc

Why, oh why, would I ever buy a console?

Crysis was mediocre. Might I recommend you play STALKER and tell me there's little core difference with that and CoD4?

Another thing is- if technology is being pushed, graphically or otherwise, it will be on the PC first. A console, for example, wouldn't be able to render a battle in Empire Total War in full pitch at a smooth framerate, not because of the graphics, but because of lack of raw processing power.

There's a difference between user-created content and a mod community. I mean, LBP's creator can be roughly compared to GMod, and Source SDK is much more versatile than that. At the end of the day, until you can hack apart the code that keeps a game together the PC will always have the better user content community.

As for indie titles, note also the presence of niche games, particularly(now) the TBS genre. You won't see games like Hearts of Iron or Europa Universalis do well on consoles(although there are a few relatively small developers who still get decent sales- Suda and Team ICO spring to mind). Although they may soon go the way of the space sim(last decent one was X3, and I use the word 'decent' loosely.)

And certain genres do not work on the console, like the RTS, but, with a purchased controller, all genres work perfectly well on the PC.

And define 'indie'. Does Mount and Blade count as indie?

I've always viewed PC as always one big step ahead of consoles. Now I'm not so sure. Hardware, yes, content is becoming less distinct between PC and console gaming. I started PC gaming in 1991, and back then, PC was way beyond console gaming.

if technology is being pushed, graphically or otherwise, it will be on the PC first.

A console, for example, wouldn't be able to render a battle in Empire Total War in full pitch at a smooth framerate, not because of the graphics, but because of lack of raw processing power.

As for indie titles, note also the presence of niche games, particularly(now) the TBS genre. You won't see games like Hearts of Iron or Europa Universalis do well on consoles(although there are a few relatively small developers who still get decent sales- Suda and Team ICO spring to mind). Although they may soon go the way of the space sim(last decent one was X3, and I use the word 'decent' loosely.)

Often times the practical application of said technology appears on console first though.  Everything from the Wiimote to Natal.

Turn down the graphics enough in Empire TW, and you could run it on a Wii.

Consoles have their own set of TBS games though.  It's actually pretty well represented by stuff like Culdcept Saga and Valkyria Chronicles.As far as wargames like Hearts of Iron, I think that boat has already sailed. "

The Wiimote promised 1:1 control, but that's being sold in an accessory. And everything we've seen about NATAL(pigmentation issues, BAM THERE IT IS), points to it being in severe need of an overhaul at best and flawed by design at worst.

Yeah, just like what happened with Dead Rising, right?

Grand Strategy games are still, again, a pretty popular niche market(in Europe, if I recall correctly).Either way, it's far from dying. "

I agree Wiimote fell short (but I knew it would), and NATAL seems less than promising, but the point is technological application to games can appear first on consoles, as we've seen.  It's an advantage of the proprietary format.

They were still trying to present a product with nice (for Wii) graphics and sound.  Make it look like Doom or Quake 1, and you'd be able to port it right.  My point is, processing power isn't often leveraged for gameplay elements.  Only really takes place when they're using a lot of physics to affect the gameplay (collapsing buildings for example).  I don't think Empire Total War is a good example, anyways.  Supreme Commander I might have agreed with, still if you made the graphics with absolutely simple graphics it's not so taxing.

The genre, however you call it, used to be much bigger than it is today. "

And what I'm trying to say is.....well, here:  [video removed for quote]

And then you've got stuff like Valve putting out support for the Noviatis Falcon or whatever it was called too. Sure, there's no standardised format, but these sort of technologies have been around for a while, in varying degrees of effectiveness. Only the Wii really wins out in this argument because it was designed with the Wiimote in mind, and Natal and whatever Sony calls the wand are both add-ons, so I doubt they'll be universally used.

Maybe a better example would be the dwarfs in Dwarf Fortress. When there's a very high number of them, it's known for crashing PCs, and Dwarf Fortress is about as basic as it gets, graphically speaking.

Sadly true. The RPG genre was also much bigger than it is today. That doesn't mean it's dying. Not at all.

Civ 4, Galactic Civilizations 2, Sins of a Solar Empire (not a conventional RTS) and others, show the Strategy genre's also going strong still.

I think you could argue that the techs are at least experimented with on PC first, in tech demos and development.  It just doesn't have a real relavance towards consumer gaming.

I dunno, I think sales for RPGs are probably higher these days than ever before.  You get less releases because of development costs, but there's still quite a few RPGs coming out.  Wargames are in a similar shape to flight sims these days.  I don't think any genre will ever die, but it's in really bad shape. "

Mass Effect an example of RPG sales? No... As for Bioware and Bethesda dominating, eh, always a few companies appear to dominate in the eyes of fans. Before that it was Black Isle, and hell, that was the golden years of CRPGing... The genre seems fine popularity wise.

Though personally I look more forward to indie titles like Age of Decadence.

Anyway, PC gaming's as relevant as ever, hated and loved by many. That death talk has been going since the PS1 days. It hasn't happened. The PC market is as diverse as ever, with seemingly any company able to make it if they provide the required quality and/or freshness. You have mainstays like Valve and Blizzard, newcomers (ish) like Stardock and CDProjekt (gog.com?), companies focusing in satisfying different niches, an immense casual market rivaling the Wii and a host of worthwhile indies, while it still gets most high profile blockbuster multiplatform titles.

If they ever figure out how to make an RTS for consoles the i will stop thinking of pc gaming as relevant.  I think the best rts for consoles would be kingdom under fire for xbox, and End war.  That hybrid feel seems much more fluid than the stupid radial and other menus that get thrown into game like red alert and LOTR.

At what point do we say the consoles have just become PCs and so the PC format has 'won' by infiltration?

I would argue that your modern 360 experience is a lot closer to a traditional PC experience than it is to a traditional console experience.  They've already adopted installations, patches, online gaming (and everything that goes with it), secondary multimedia purposes, complex system settings, etc. 

What's really the difference between them nowadays?  You don't typically sit at a desk, that's about it - and that's basically the only barrier that has so far stopped them introducing a mouse and keyboard setup already.

Console gaming hasn't killed PC gaming, it has become PC gaming.  It's just standardized (a pro) and you have less freedom (a con) - for me, those are the only meaningful differences that remain.

That much is also true, I was going to post that myself, but focused on the present instead. I mean, if a console has to provide everything a PC does, with web browsing, media applications, and God knows what more in the future, then it's become a PC. Still, the difference is the proprietary formats and the first party involvement, and I don't see that dominating without an open platform available still. I think the traditional PC will very much remain for a long time to come.

Nothing. It's just not really an RPG as far as I'm concerned. Still, just because The Witcher sold less doesn't mean such projects aren't viable and won't keep coming. I mean, it sure as hell put CDProjekt on the map. Not every game has to sell multi millions. Atlus is also pretty successful. They're not leaking money and will shut down in 5 years or something, they're doing good and expanding, They're profitable companies. If anything, others look up to that sucess, than hope to surpass it. Other low-profile CRPGs like Drakensang still did good for themselves, despite not even reaching The Witcher's numbers, which were actually quite high, since i remember very early sales exceeding 1 million.

Taking that kind of CRPG and converting it to an action RPG for the consoles was hardly an ideal task. They lost resources by taking it on and then cancelling it, but at least The Witcher's success has allowed them to have such a failure and still remain afloat and create a next project.

True that. I see where you're coming from.
Similarly, I'm not too confident about GSC's port of Shadow of Chernobyl to consoles. stuff like the inventory system and the leaning might be dumbed down or taken out altogether,

Check the Age of Decadence link I posted earlier since you seem to appreciate old school stuff. Here's a glimpse of what you can expect from it:

I remember commenting on how that used Fallout's sounds.

Right, it does, they released the video aeons ago without sounds and a fan made this using Fallout sounds to address some complaints showing how it enhanced the feel when it's a more complete package. Obviously the actual release won't have those :-)

" Civ 4, Galactic Civilizations 2, Sins of a Solar Empire (not a conventional RTS) and others, show the Strategy genre's also going strong still. "

Anyway, PC gaming's as relevant as ever, hated and loved by many. That death talk has been going since the PS1 days. It hasn't happened. The PC market is as diverse as ever, with seemingly any company able to make it if they provide the required quality and/or freshness.

I mean, if a console has to provide everything a PC does, with web browsing, media applications, and God knows what more in the future, then it's become a PC. Still, the difference is the proprietary formats and the first party involvement, and I don't see that dominating without an open platform available still. I think the traditional PC will very much remain for a long time to come.

I didn't say they're not dominating (though, not 100%, see WoW, Steam), I just don't see an open platform like the PC not being also available alongside them. It's lasted this long despite the constant abuse by the nay sayers since the 90s, and with technology becoming cheaper over time (look at the various online guides that show you how to build a very cheap yet powerful gaming PC) they can last that much more. And eh, Civ 4 and Galacic Civilizations are exactly turn based, grand strategy, 4x games. Sins of a Solar Empire is also a 4x strategy title, just (very slow paced) real-time. Which is why I only mentioned these and not a host of succesful RTS titles as I don't consider them the same genre either.

And eh, Civ 4 and Galacic Civilizations are exactly turn based, grand strategy, 4x games. Sins of a Solar Empire is also a 4x strategy title, just (very slow paced) real-time

Full Spectrum Warrior was pretty succesful recently-ish. I'm sure if a company wanted to satisfy that niche with a good effort, they'd do well enough. It's always about large scale lately, going back to a mere squad-based RTS type of game isn't desirable. Silent Storm also did well, though that's not exactly the same type being action-point based. Then again, that's another style that's lost its momentum. No more X-Com and the like. Still, genres die regardless of system, trends and habits change, that's all. Maybe they'll return someday, like the point & click genre did. You could say some of it is mixed in other genres... Ie, Close Combat has gone all FPS with Armed Assault 2, Operation Flashpoint 2 etc...

Amazing, someone gave this doofus, who actually believes PC's will eventually die out completely, a fucking IT degree.

Someone call the accreditation people...they fucked up.

Apparently there is also little difference to the core gameplay between Crysis and CoD4. Right...I think if that was actually true, we could also reasonably say that there is little difference to the core gameplay between ALL FPSs. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Amazing, someone gave this doofus, who actually believes PC's will eventually die out completely, a fucking IT degree.

" @Diamond: How does that, even in the slightest, mean that the PERSONAL COMPUTER will be completely gone one day? Sure one day there MAY be a new instruction set architecture, but I wouldn't be surprised if they just kept adding extensions and additions to x86 for a long time to come.Just to clarify x86 isn't an automatic lead in to 'IBM compatibles' or 'IBM PC compatibility' since this would also imply a lot of other different hardware. There was also hardware supporting x86 chips in use before the 'IBM PC compatible' market even sprung up. "

Mods, installing, illegal downloads (Its a bad thing but its a plus), and being constantly on the cutting edge of technology. Consoles cant do those things, and are restricted by the company that makes it. On a PC, if you dislike the OS you were given, you can get linux, or a Mac OS, that runs on PC,  if you dont like the way your console is set up, Microsoft (Or Sony, nintendo, whoever) isnt going to let you change anything about it, and if you do they'll be sure to get you back in some way.

 it will take years for Console makers to allow any type of true mod support, Little big planet lets you post levels, that often get taken down due to licensing issues, on a PC you can spread your mod across the entire internet, thats freedom that console makers will only limit further as time passes, and in little big planet you can only make a level using what they give you, on Pc you can make your own items, textures, etc.

And its a shame that PC gaming will likely die due to the ignorance of the consumer, most dont want to bother with hardware so they buy a console, when given some hardwork they could enjoy more freedom on PC, that being said, i like consoles, its just i dont think they are truly as capable as a PC can be (its just harder to do), i hate to see the day when the entire gaming world is limited by whatever the company that made their console wants to do. Am i the only one whos sees that as an issue?  And what if onlive succeeds? That means some company has direct control of something you own, thats just scary.

" it will take years for Console makers to allow any type of true mod support, Little big planet lets you post levels, that often get taken down due to licensing issues, on a PC you can spread your mod across the entire internet, thats freedom that console makers will only limit further as time passes, and in little big planet you can only make a level using what they give you, on Pc you can make your own items, textures, etc.

And its a shame that PC gaming will likely die due to the ignorance of the consumer, most dont want to bother with hardware so they buy a console, when given some hardwork they could enjoy more freedom on PC, that being said, i like consoles, its just i dont think they are truly as capable as a PC can be (its just harder to do), i hate to see the day when the entire gaming world is limited by whatever the company that made their console wants to do. Am i the only one whos sees that as an issue?  And what if onlive succeeds? That means some company has direct control of something you own, thats just scary."

You can't run arma2 on consoles it's too real. Pc has realistic games like crysis on very high. Not to mention the framerates are higher than console games. You can max out AA, aniostropic filtering. The textures are perfect unlike console games, and the resolution is higher than any console games, of course it depends on your lcd monitor, if you don't use crt and have a 22" monitor or higher. Pc usually has the best looking game of every multiplatform game and the controls are very precise.

Pc gaming is for enthusist, not console gamers complaining about the price and stuff, it's for ppl who wants more out of their gaming platform without compromising. Not everyone understands that because it's not a mainstream platform compared to consoles nowdays.

Well, I read some of the above, but I don't really have the patience to read all of the above, so I am probably repeating somebody else.

With that out of the way, I have noticed that the main point you are making is that there is nothing PC's can do that consoles won't be able to do eventually. Do you realize that there is nothing consoles can do that PC's cannot do currently? Connect to TV, Play with a controller, all that jazz. There are, in my opinion, only 3 reasons one might prefer consoles to PC's (I don't, in case you couldn't tell). First, and most obvious, usually, is the price. A good gaming rig is going to be a good deal pricier than a console. Second is the 'put it in and play' factor, where with a console you just pop the game in and get going, whereas on a PC you must install first, etc. The third is exclusive games.

Some of those are becoming moot though. Consoles are losing their "put it in and play" ability -- You can install games on consoles (PS3 at least, Dunno about 360) and they are now require patches and updates. The exclusive game factor isn't an inherent property of consoles -- there is no game that can be run on a console that cannot be run on a PC. In fact, the games can play exactly the same, if you use a controller on a PC. I use a standard 360 controller, since its USB and windows already has the drivers.

The biggest issue, then, is the price. You do get what you pay for though, Graphics and performance on PC games are scalable, and a good gaming PC will look better than and outpreform a console, even on the same game. Higher resolution, true Anti Aliasing, etc. Since PC hardware is modular and upgradable, you can keep improving it, and game will keep looking and playing better and better, while consoles can only be upgraded whenever a new one is released. The ability to install lots of games, especially through things like Steam, and play any one of them quickly and easily, is another advantage of PC's.

What you are saying (I believe) is that eventually consoles will be able to do what PC's can do, and thereby will replace PC's. So, a console that would have the capabilities of a PC would have modular hardware, upgradeable from standard parts, the ability to install and play multiple games, a keyboard and mouse, Internet browsing, The ability to play decades worth of older PC games (since that is another advantage of the PC -- almost complete backward compatability) the ability to mod and customize games and settings, and more (since the PC is a very versatile platform). Ok, sure that could replace a PC... except, it it could do all that, it would essentially, or exactly, BE a PC, and then it would have been consoles that would have been replaced.

However, I don't think either is likely to dissappear soon, PC's never, because of their versatility, and a console can't replace that because the very virtues of a console (price, ease of use, etc) rely on the fact that is is a dedicated machine, not something flexible like a PC.

To answer some of the questions you posed, what games do I think are unique to PC gaming? All the PC Exclusive games that have come out in the last 2 decades, most of which still work on modern PC's with little or no extra work, and many of which are fantastic titles. The FPS won't dissappear from the PC either, until consoles can use PC keyboards and mice, since many, myself inlcuded, prefer those controls to a game pad (not just because we are used to it, there are definite advantages, like the responsiveness and precision of a mouse.)  Also, any games that involve pointing and clicking -- mostly RTS and CRPG's, well, you can't really point and click with a controller. Oh, and mods -- I don't see game SDK's being released on consoles soon, and you dont see the huge content base of mods that Bethesda's games or the STALKER games have on anything on consoles, and I don't think that is likely to happen soon.

Ok, almost done (if anybody has actually bothered to read through this). I can't find it now, but somebody was saying the STALKER and COD4 are basically the same thing. I would very much like to object to that. Certainly the are both FPS's and even feature a number of the same weapons, but the similiarities end there. STALKER is an open world, exploration based game with a good number of RPG elements. COD4 has a linear, non open storyline. Both good, not the same thing. The gameplay is not that similar either, since the game engines are different. For instance, STALKER has a superior ballistics engine (able to accomodate the larger variety of weapins and weapon and ammo types). The gameplay is quite different anyway, apart from the core elements making them FPS's.

Whew, ok, done. Good to get that rant out. Please reply if you agree/disagree, I like discussing this stuff.

I imagine we might see a 'PC console' - e.g. a mainstream, cheap-for-what-you-get gaming computer which plays games at optimised settings with mouse and keyboard or controller.