PC Gaming and it's revalance.

Dwarf Fortress
Crysis
Starcarft
In my opinion, I believe PCs as well as PC gaming will eventually die out due to other devices taking the PC's primary roles. Such as smart phones, set-top boxes and what not. But, the things that make PC gaming great will eventually move over to consoles. For now though, PC gaming is still relevant.


To be honest, I haven't played a new big budget PC game in a while. I'm more into the indie or old school ascii and roguelike games. I believe graphics aren't the best thing PCs have to offer. Of course graphics do matter to an extent. All my friend think I'm crazy for liking a game thats completely displayed in symbols or crappy unanimated sprites.

I showed a friend of mine the Crysis demo at a reasonably high setting. He thought shooting down trees were cool but really, he did not care about the best graphics that a game has ever achieved. He later next year bought a good gaming PC for World of Warcraft after I got him to play it for the first few levels.

The controls are a barrier also. I didn't even know it but he found it increasing awkward to use the WASD keys that he went out and bought a gaming keyboard with arrows keys and a number of buttons around it.


We need to show what PCs can do differently from consoles. PCs can do Graphics better and its nice feeling seeing an awesome view but, consoles can achieve these experiences also. They are relatively short lived compared to actual gameplay. Really, there is little difference to the core gameplay between Crysis and Call of Duty 4 on consoles as they both are FPSs. Of course they all have unique features that make them different but, its not so drastic that you NEED to buy a PC right now and play it.

People need to focus on games that are completely different from consoles games like Starcraft for example. Its a RTS which has been done on consoles and has been done reasonably well in some occasions. Though the sweetness of RTSs still come from PCs.



One of which is user created content in terms of Starcraft, UMS maps or mods from Half-life. UMS maps made Starcraft a better game by far. You can play tons of different varieties of maps from role play to obstacle courses. The big thing is that its reasonably easy to make one compared to a Half-life mod, so there are tons and tons of different ones to try out.
Hell, I made a extremely popular and heavily triggered map (Special Forces Extreme) for Starcraft 7 or 8 years ago with no programming knowledge what so ever. I had my first computer for only a year. I didn't even know what a hard drive was. Now with an IT degree, I look back and I'm quite amazed that Blizzard made something that an idiot could understand and create an amazing experience with. I essentially programmed a game without realizing it.

Consoles are getting into user created content like Little Big Planet but that is only one game from one console compared to the tons of mod supported PC games. They will be catching up as I said above, all things that make PC gaming great will be heading over to consoles sooner or later.

MMOs are quite unique to PCs too. Though, it seems like it won't be long until they will start booming on consoles. But surely playing what is essentially a coop RPG is quite an experience, especially something like doing a raid in World of Warcraft. Killing a boss with the combined effort of a large group of players is truly unique to the PC.

Graphics are a nice bonus but, it won't convert most people into PC gaming. Show off games that don't need to play a brand new PC for and like the Wii, give them something they never experienced before and they will come in droves.
I play both and my friends primarily play consoles. I am not going to advocate them on buying a decent gaming PC. I'll show them awesome PC games that I think are cool and unique to PCs like RTSs and MMOs. I also do this for consoles games too. In my opinion, I believe PCs as well as PC gaming will eventually die out due to other devices taking the PC's primary roles. Such as smart phones, set-top boxes and what not. But, the things that make PC gaming great will eventually move over to consoles. For now though, PC gaming is still relevant. To be honest, I haven't played a new big budget PC game in a while. I'm more into the indie or old school ascii and roguelike games. I believe graphics aren't the best thing PCs have to offer. Of course graphics do matter to an extent. All my friend think I'm crazy for liking a game thats completely displayed in symbols or crappy un-animated sprites. I showed a friend of mine the Crysis demo at a reasonably high setting. He thought shooting down trees were cool but really, he did not care about the best graphics that a game has ever achieved. He later next year bought a good gaming PC for World of Warcraft after I got him to play it for the first few levels. The controls are a barrier also. I didn't even know it but he found it increasing awkward to use the WASD keys that he went out and bought a gaming keyboard with arrows keys and a number of buttons around it. You need to show what PCs can do differently to consoles. PCs can do Graphics better and its nice feeling seeing an awesome view but, consoles can achieve these experiences. Though, they are short lived compared to the actual gameplay. Really, there is little difference to the core gameplay between Crysis and Call of Duty 4 as they both are FPSs. Of course they all have unique features that make them different but, its not so drastic that you NEED to buy a PC right now and play it. People need to focus on games that are completely different from consoles games like Starcraft for example. Its a RTS which has been done on consoles and has been done reasonably well in some occasions. Though the sweetness of RTSs come from PCs. One of which is user created content in terms of Starcraft, UMS maps or mods from Half-life. UMS maps made Starcraft a better game by far. You can play tons of different varieties of maps from role play to obstacle courses. The big thing is that its reasonably easy to make one compared to a Half-life mod, so there are tons and tons of different ones to try out. Hell, I made a extremely popular and heavily triggered map (Special Forces Extreme) for Starcraft 7 or 8 years ago with no programming knowledge what so ever. I had my first computer for only a year. I didn't even know what a hard drive was. Now with an IT degree, I look back and I'm quite amazed that Blizzard made something that an idiot could understand and create an amazing experience. I essentially programmed a game without realizing it. Consoles are getting into user created content like Little Big Planet but that is only one game from one console compared to the tons of mod supported PC games. MMOs are quite unique to PCs, though it seems like it won't be long until they will start booming on consoles. But surely playing what is essentially a coop RPG is quite an experience, especially something like doing a Raid in World of Warcraft. Killing a boss with the combined effort of a large group of players is truly unique to the PC. Graphics are a nice bonus but, it won't convert most people into PC gaming. Show off games that don't need to play a brand new PC for and like the Wii, give them something they never experienced before and they will come in droves.

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?

38 Comments
39 Comments
Posted by Vager
Dwarf Fortress
Crysis
Starcarft
In my opinion, I believe PCs as well as PC gaming will eventually die out due to other devices taking the PC's primary roles. Such as smart phones, set-top boxes and what not. But, the things that make PC gaming great will eventually move over to consoles. For now though, PC gaming is still relevant.


To be honest, I haven't played a new big budget PC game in a while. I'm more into the indie or old school ascii and roguelike games. I believe graphics aren't the best thing PCs have to offer. Of course graphics do matter to an extent. All my friend think I'm crazy for liking a game thats completely displayed in symbols or crappy unanimated sprites.

I showed a friend of mine the Crysis demo at a reasonably high setting. He thought shooting down trees were cool but really, he did not care about the best graphics that a game has ever achieved. He later next year bought a good gaming PC for World of Warcraft after I got him to play it for the first few levels.

The controls are a barrier also. I didn't even know it but he found it increasing awkward to use the WASD keys that he went out and bought a gaming keyboard with arrows keys and a number of buttons around it.


We need to show what PCs can do differently from consoles. PCs can do Graphics better and its nice feeling seeing an awesome view but, consoles can achieve these experiences also. They are relatively short lived compared to actual gameplay. Really, there is little difference to the core gameplay between Crysis and Call of Duty 4 on consoles as they both are FPSs. Of course they all have unique features that make them different but, its not so drastic that you NEED to buy a PC right now and play it.

People need to focus on games that are completely different from consoles games like Starcraft for example. Its a RTS which has been done on consoles and has been done reasonably well in some occasions. Though the sweetness of RTSs still come from PCs.



One of which is user created content in terms of Starcraft, UMS maps or mods from Half-life. UMS maps made Starcraft a better game by far. You can play tons of different varieties of maps from role play to obstacle courses. The big thing is that its reasonably easy to make one compared to a Half-life mod, so there are tons and tons of different ones to try out.
Hell, I made a extremely popular and heavily triggered map (Special Forces Extreme) for Starcraft 7 or 8 years ago with no programming knowledge what so ever. I had my first computer for only a year. I didn't even know what a hard drive was. Now with an IT degree, I look back and I'm quite amazed that Blizzard made something that an idiot could understand and create an amazing experience with. I essentially programmed a game without realizing it.

Consoles are getting into user created content like Little Big Planet but that is only one game from one console compared to the tons of mod supported PC games. They will be catching up as I said above, all things that make PC gaming great will be heading over to consoles sooner or later.

MMOs are quite unique to PCs too. Though, it seems like it won't be long until they will start booming on consoles. But surely playing what is essentially a coop RPG is quite an experience, especially something like doing a raid in World of Warcraft. Killing a boss with the combined effort of a large group of players is truly unique to the PC.

Graphics are a nice bonus but, it won't convert most people into PC gaming. Show off games that don't need to play a brand new PC for and like the Wii, give them something they never experienced before and they will come in droves.
I play both and my friends primarily play consoles. I am not going to advocate them on buying a decent gaming PC. I'll show them awesome PC games that I think are cool and unique to PCs like RTSs and MMOs. I also do this for consoles games too. In my opinion, I believe PCs as well as PC gaming will eventually die out due to other devices taking the PC's primary roles. Such as smart phones, set-top boxes and what not. But, the things that make PC gaming great will eventually move over to consoles. For now though, PC gaming is still relevant. To be honest, I haven't played a new big budget PC game in a while. I'm more into the indie or old school ascii and roguelike games. I believe graphics aren't the best thing PCs have to offer. Of course graphics do matter to an extent. All my friend think I'm crazy for liking a game thats completely displayed in symbols or crappy un-animated sprites. I showed a friend of mine the Crysis demo at a reasonably high setting. He thought shooting down trees were cool but really, he did not care about the best graphics that a game has ever achieved. He later next year bought a good gaming PC for World of Warcraft after I got him to play it for the first few levels. The controls are a barrier also. I didn't even know it but he found it increasing awkward to use the WASD keys that he went out and bought a gaming keyboard with arrows keys and a number of buttons around it. You need to show what PCs can do differently to consoles. PCs can do Graphics better and its nice feeling seeing an awesome view but, consoles can achieve these experiences. Though, they are short lived compared to the actual gameplay. Really, there is little difference to the core gameplay between Crysis and Call of Duty 4 as they both are FPSs. Of course they all have unique features that make them different but, its not so drastic that you NEED to buy a PC right now and play it. People need to focus on games that are completely different from consoles games like Starcraft for example. Its a RTS which has been done on consoles and has been done reasonably well in some occasions. Though the sweetness of RTSs come from PCs. One of which is user created content in terms of Starcraft, UMS maps or mods from Half-life. UMS maps made Starcraft a better game by far. You can play tons of different varieties of maps from role play to obstacle courses. The big thing is that its reasonably easy to make one compared to a Half-life mod, so there are tons and tons of different ones to try out. Hell, I made a extremely popular and heavily triggered map (Special Forces Extreme) for Starcraft 7 or 8 years ago with no programming knowledge what so ever. I had my first computer for only a year. I didn't even know what a hard drive was. Now with an IT degree, I look back and I'm quite amazed that Blizzard made something that an idiot could understand and create an amazing experience. I essentially programmed a game without realizing it. Consoles are getting into user created content like Little Big Planet but that is only one game from one console compared to the tons of mod supported PC games. MMOs are quite unique to PCs, though it seems like it won't be long until they will start booming on consoles. But surely playing what is essentially a coop RPG is quite an experience, especially something like doing a Raid in World of Warcraft. Killing a boss with the combined effort of a large group of players is truly unique to the PC. Graphics are a nice bonus but, it won't convert most people into PC gaming. Show off games that don't need to play a brand new PC for and like the Wii, give them something they never experienced before and they will come in droves.

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?

Online
Posted by Sparky_Buzzsaw

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.

Moderator
Edited by oDawg
@Vager:
My $600 pc is connected to a 1080p tv, surround sound stereo, and it has 2 rumblepad 2 wireless joysticks, 2 360 controllers, and a mouse and keyboard.  I get my games on Steam or Impulse at will, and can play my games anywhere I go by simply loging in to steam. Steam keeps my games forever in a nice place and I never have to put a disk in the drive.

Current games: SF4, Fallout 3, Trine, The Witcher, Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress 2, GTA4, Last Remnant, DMC4, Dead Space, NBA 2k9, Fifa
Older games: Age of Conan, World of Warcraft, Crysis, Mass Effect, Oblivion, Sins of the Solar Empire, Warcraft 3, Battlefield 2, Sacred Gold [awesome fun on a lan]

I have an old machine that can be brought in for Warcraft 3/battlefield 2 lan battles.

My $600 machine is also a powerful PVR, which can record a tv show with the click on my Harmony universal remote. And even better, when I run out of HD space recording, it only costs 70 bucks to add 1000 gigs of space.

I can add blu-ray [but whats the point] for $120.

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


[edit - and what the guy above me said about indie games!!! /signed]














Posted by Diamond
@Vager:
All good points.  I don't think there's anything that PC can do that consoles couldn't do at some point, in theory.  Stuff like complete user mods, free indie games and such are always going to be resisted by a proprietary platform maker.  I think the barriers to MMOs on consoles will disappear over time.

One thing that could really hurt PC gaming in the future would be wide spread high quality motion controls.  It's easier for a console maker to standardize a new control method than PC.  Would MS standardize motion controls on PC like they did with 3D graphics in DirectX, if the market wanted it?  Who knows.

@oDawg said:
My $600 pc
Did you ever post your specs here on Giant Bomb?  Just curious what you're running.

@oDawg said:
Why, oh why, would I ever buy a console?
Exclusive games, but you didn't really want an answer to that, right?

Edited by atejas

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?

Posted by super_machine

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.

Posted by Diamond
@atejas said:
if technology is being pushed, graphically or otherwise, it will be on the PC first.
Often times the practical application of said technology appears on console first though.  Everything from the Wiimote to Natal.

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

@atejas said:
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.)
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.
Edited by atejas
@Diamond said:
Often times the practical application of said technology appears on console first though.  Everything from the Wiimote to Natal.
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.

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

Yeah, just like what happened with Dead Rising, right? And what's happening with OFP2 as well, I guess.
@Diamond said:
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. "

And Disgaea, although that's more of an SRPG.

Grand Strategy games are still, again, a pretty popular niche market(in Europe, if I recall correctly).
Either way, it's far from dying.
Posted by Diamond
@atejas said:
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.
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.

@atejas said:
Yeah, just like what happened with Dead Rising, right?
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.

@atejas said:
Grand Strategy games are still, again, a pretty popular niche market(in Europe, if I recall correctly).Either way, it's far from dying. "
The genre, however you call it, used to be much bigger than it is today.

Edited by atejas
@Diamond said:
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.
And what I'm trying to say is.....well, here:

  
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.

@Diamond said:
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.
At some point, processing power is processing power, and graphical power, graphical power. I see your point, though. There's really no reason for all those fancy effects in Empire outside of looking cool.
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.


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

Sadly true. The RPG genre was also much bigger than it is today. That doesn't mean it's dying. Not at all.
Edited by Diamond
@atejas said:
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.
Yea, these techs can pop up on PC first, but they rarely get widespread support.  The new Nvidia 3d shutter glasses system is a good example, but this isn't the first time a company tried to push 3D tech on PC (remember the 3dfx 3d glasses?).

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.

@atejas said:
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.
Good point about Dwarf Fortress, although that will run at max framerate on my PC with a 6 year old processor.  Probably would be too much for a Wii to run at a high speed, but I don't know how well it is programmed.


@atejas
said:
Sadly true. The RPG genre was also much bigger than it is today. That doesn't mean it's dying. Not at all.
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.
Edited by Al3xand3r

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.

Posted by atejas
@Diamond said:
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.
That's exactly what I was trying to say when I talked about pushing technology. Consoles may standardise it and bring it to the mass market, but it' s precisely this lack of standardisation that promotes experimentation(however flawed) on the PC.
@Diamond said:
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. "
Bioware and Bethesda pretty much dominate the wRPG market today, that's what I mean. And jRPGs by Squenix, Namco and a few others.
Sure, there's some companies like CDProjekt and Atlus, but if you compare the sales of Mass Effect and The Witcher or Persona and FF, I think it's obvious which way the market's going.

Oh, and sorry for reposting the video, damn editing didn't remove it.

Edited by Al3xand3r

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.

Posted by spiredcrescent

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.

Edited by Jimbo

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.

Posted by Al3xand3r

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.

Posted by atejas
@Al3xand3r: What was wrong with Mass Effect's sales?
Edited by Al3xand3r

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.

Posted by atejas
@Al3xand3r: I agree with you about Mass Effect, but consider this; Rise of The White Wolf has been delayed.
Indefinitely.
Edited by Al3xand3r

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.

Posted by atejas

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,

Edited by Al3xand3r

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:

  

Posted by atejas

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

Edited by Al3xand3r

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 :-)

Posted by Diamond
@Al3xand3r said:
" 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. "
They're not niche TBS, wargames, 'grand strategy' or whatever you call them.  Strategy as a whole is doing as great as ever.

@Al3xand3r said:
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 think PC gaming is far less relevant than it used to be, userbase, diversity of games released, and business-wise.  The 'death' of PC gaming really wasn't talked about rationally before recently, does a single usenet post about PC gaming dying in 1992 count?  Short term PC gaming isn't going to die, but long term I can see some sort of set top box taking over.

@Al3xand3r said:
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.
What defines PC and console in that case?  Consoles could be called personal computers now.  Is a 'PC' strictly something with x86 legacy support?  People often distinguish 'Mac' and 'PC', yet they run the same processors, can run the same OSs, and so on.  Every open platform is not a 'PC'.  'PC' today is what used to be called an 'IBM PC'.

Anyways, already closed platforms are dominating the gaming industry, and I can see that trend continuing.
Edited by Al3xand3r

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.

Posted by Diamond
@Al3xand3r said:
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
There used to be a genre called 'wargames', which would include stuff like Korsun Pocket, Close Combat, and Supreme Ruler 2010.  That genre has really shrunk.
Edited by Al3xand3r

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...

Posted by RsistncE

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.

Posted by Diamond
@RsistncE said:
Amazing, someone gave this doofus, who actually believes PC's will eventually die out completely, a fucking IT degree.
x86 legacy supporting 'IBM compatibles' will absolutely positively die out completely, some day.
Edited by RsistncE
@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.
Posted by Diamond
@RsistncE said:
" @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. "
It doesn't, but when people say 'PC gaming is dying' or 'PC gaming will live forever' or whatever, it seems very unclear to me.  The PC as we know it today will absolutely 'die' at some point (and I don't mean at the end of the world), but whether it be through new processors that drop legacy support, or set top boxes, or anything else, computers will live on.

A Xbox 1 has a x86 chip, so yea, that's why I said both.  Not sure if there's a better term for what people currently call PCs.
Edited by RsistncE
@Diamond: A PC is just that...a personal computer. By logic this includes Mac's, Windows bases, and LInux. I wouldn't doubt that in the future the 'tower' instead will become implemented into the house, being the centre hub for entertainment, control etc. The problem with the OP's statement is he said it would be replaced by LESSER hardware, like handhelds and what not. This is just ludicrous. These devices will never be as powerful as full blown, larger, computer hardware. As for x86 'absolutely' dying, there is no evidence thus far to say that is true. I'm willing to say it could go either way, but at the moment there is no successor in the works or one that has even been discussed, to the x86 chips.
Edited by Mikemcn

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.

Posted by Vager
@oDawg:
Thats practically what I would think a set top box would be. Just more "packaged" so the average consumer can have the same setup as you.

@atejas:
True, all genres work perfectly well on a PC compared to a console but the issues here are the controls. I don't believe plugging a keyboard/mouse into a console will make it a PC.

What I consider to be an indie game is a game created by small group. I would consider Mount & Blade an indie game, I awesome one at that.
I tend to believe that making indie game good is that they have no dead line, no higher ups telling them what sells well. Just a group of people making a game that they think is fun with out any intervention.
I'll most likely compile a list of must play free indie games in a blog post relativity soon.

@RsistncE:

I did not say it would be replaced by lesser hardware. Mobiles is just one part that I think will replace PCs eventually, due to its obvious mobility. There are things that don't require up to date hardware do be useful. Look at the Internet, it's the primary use for most users of a PC and you can use it with extremely outdated hardware. Gaming, Industry specific software and OS upgrades are pretty much only things that require up to date hardware.

What I meant about set top boxes is almost exactly what you stated about a central hub. A computer with up to date hardware controlling the entertainment. I was going for a more confined area of the TV but its essentially the same thing.

I'm not saying computers are going to go away, just the notion of a computer on a desk for entrainment/communication aspect, which is basically what a PC is. Well thats how I would define a PC.

What I'm basically saying is that mobiles will replace the communication needs of a PC and set top boxes will take the entertainment needs.

I'm quite open minded and open to debate. I do concede when some one flat out proves me wrong, but insulting people tends not be go to your favor.


@Mikemcn said:
" 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."
I think that transfer all of PC's attributes will move over to other platforms and I see proof of that. But, them being as open as a PC is something I didn't think of and is a pretty big stumbling block. My mind was focused on what makes PC gaming great rather then it's move to consoles when I wrote that. I want to think that all platforms will eventually be open due competition with companies trying to up each other and one company eventually going with an open platform while the other follow suit so they can compete. I have a feeling some platforms are on the process of doing this now but, I can't think of any. Brain seems dead right now.
Online
Edited by HitmanAgent47

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.

Posted by coaxmetal

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.

Posted by Haggard

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.