Yes. We are now approaching crazy season for video games. True, we've been in the on season for at least a few weeks now and two AAA titles (Spore and Mercs 2, both of which were disappointing) have already come out, but they are nothing compared to the upcoming onslaught of major titles that essentially start on October 20th with Dead Space (or the 14th for all you Console gamers). The day after, it's Far Cry 2, Fable II, Little Big Planet and Bioshock on the PS3. Then we wait a week and get Guitar Hero: World Tour on the 26th, C&C 3 Red Alert on the 27th, and Fallout 3 on the 28th. November is even bigger, but by my estimation no will have any money left by then, so no worries. 

I have no idea why everybody feels like they have to release all their games for Q4. Wait until April comes around, there will be 0 games on the market, and then whatever game company decides to release then will make a killing. I saw a Fracture review today. Who even knew that game was coming out? Who is going to buy that game next to Gears of War 2 or even Mercs? This same thing happened to games like Time Shift last year. Remember Time Shift? Of course not. It launched next to Call of Duty 4 and Halo 3. Not that either of these games are good. Far from it. But they could at least make some money by not going up against the biggest releases of the season. Even KOTOR 2 couldn't really stand up to that year's Q4 line up. Bioware was better off launching in the spring. Take note publishers: Please spread out the release of your big titles. I would love to buy all of them, but as it stands now you are forcing me to make a choice I don't want to make. I can't even believe I'm saying this, but I probably won't ever end up getting Far Cry 2. By the time I actually have the money to spend on it, that game will be too outdated or a new, better version of that same open world idea will be just coming on to the market. 

I just hope Banjo can handle this onslaught. Rare could use some success on the current generation platforms and I'm not so sure Banjo is still a relevant enough IP to garner sales from a wide audience outside of people who actually played the first two on the N64. By reading this post, you have agreed to buy that game. Problem solved. 

There are two things I want to highlight about this list, the first being that NONE of the new exciting games coming out this Q4 are even affiliated with Nintendo or coming out for the Wii. This is because the WIi is not a console, it is a TV board game. The second thing is that all of these games except the 4 console exclusives (2 from Sony, 2 from Microsoft) are coming out for the PC. So, a preemptive happy holidays to those of all games systems, this Q4 season looks like a great few months of games regardless of what system you own (except Wii owners, to whom I also wish a happy holidays, but unfortunately I cannot think of any good games coming to your console).

I will be the first person to congratulate publishers, from Bungie to Infinity Ward, for making console shooters at least somewhat playable. The Call of Duty series should be especially congratulated for almost pioneering the hold-the-gun-to-your-shoulder semi-zoom that has now been adapted in some way by almost every modern console FPS (Gears, Killzone, every other WWII shooter) except Halo. However, there is still the lingering problem of the controller itself being an unbelievably imprecise instrument. The semi-zoom fixes some problems, but it really just postpones the main issue instead of solving it,  and it never will solve it unless all console games suddenly start offering infinitely-scalable zoom on their guns to account for the inherent lack of accuracy provided by the analog-stick controls (which would of course break the gameplay). 

Currently, there are two main drawbacks to PC gaming, the first being the overall price and complexity. Buying a new PC requires significant research on the buyer's part, and at 1600 to $2000 for a decently powerful machine and monitor, this choice requires a significant monetary investment as well. True, many of these purchases are one time investments, or at least rare ones. Once one has a competent monitor and case, he or she will probably be able to use both of them for a few years to come. The same is true for processors, which are becoming increasingly irrelevant in the age of the GPU. At this point, if you have a new processor, it is unlikely you will need to upgrade it in the near to mid future in order to be able to play the newest games. There will always be Crysis style games that break this rule, and if you NEED to play these on max settings then you will need to spend a significant amount of money somewhat frequently. However, for most users, the only component they will need to upgrade with any regularity is the GPU, which will likely cost less then a new console (once again, the Crysis exception applies, but you don't see Crysis on the console either). Additionally, games cost less for the PC and multiplayer is free. However, despite the "one time" nature of a couple of these purchases and the rare replacement of other components, at best it will take a long time for a PC to recoup its cost through the aforementioned potential savings. 

The second drawback is the console-centric direction the industry is currently headed, although this trend may now be reversing and could also, theoretically,  be an advantage. It is no surprise that with both Sony and Microsoft pouring millions into PR and hype for their consoles, developers are very interested in making their games console games first and foremost. Combine that with the large sums of money both these companies will often throw to developers in order to make their games Microsoft or Sony exclusives and it's not hard to understand why some consider the PC, at least as a gaming platform, to be slowly dying (these people are wrong, but I understand why they think what they do). However, Valve Co-Founder Gabe Newell probably hit the name on the head when he pointed out that the only reason it seems this way is because there is not even one company spending tons of money trying to convince everyone that the state of PC gaming is amazing, like Sony and Microsoft both do for consoles. Therefore, it makes sense that the PC would seem to be doing worse off than the consoles because of its comparative lack of hype when such is actually not the case. Newell's position is supported by the fact that most of the games at E3 this year (in fact, almost all AAA games), perhaps thanks to Microsoft's games for windows program, are also coming out on the PC simultaneous to their console release. Finally, the possible advantage to console centric development combined with simultaneous PC release is that PC game graphics will begin to move in sync with their console counterparts. While this might not be an advantage for the Crysis crowd, this slower graphics progression could potentially mean a slower GPU and CPU upgrade cycle for PC owners. If this prediction comes true, it will mean that PC gamers will be able to save a substantial amount of money and might even make the PC equivalent to a console with a keyboard and mouse, which I think is what everyone secretly wants anyway.