I never thought I'd be saying this, but I am now totally over consoles. Once you accept games are just better when played with mouse and keyboard, you can't really justify not playing games on PC. I finally came to this conclusion after another Call of Duty match on the 360 where I once again found myself shooting to far to right, then over correcting with the analog stick and missing to far the left. Of course, I didn't die instantly because the person I was shooting at was having the same problem. After about 5 seconds of mutual missing, I finally landed a shot on my opponent, who then ducked into cover. I now had an empty clip and had just wasted valuable time (giving up concealment in the process), only to be reminded of how difficult it is to shoot with a damn controller.
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.
Log in to comment