Jump to content
IGNORED

FPS genre and the PC


memories
 Share

Recommended Posts

Fallout 3 controls so, so, so much better on a mouse. I played it on a pad for about 25 hours on 360 before giving up and getting the PC version.

I bought Fallout 3 for the PC when my Xbox 360 broke down while I was in the middle of a huge Fallout 3 addiction and I was glad to return to the 360 version when I got it back. Even though my PC ran it perfectly well, it felt 'wrong'.

Also, can lefties not play WASD? A guy at my office is a Cod fanatic and a lefty, and he plays WASD on his right hand and uses a left handed mouse.

The main problem with using WASD is that other keys you may need (spacebar for example) is painful to reach. And it feels uncomfortable to be hunched up on the left side of the keyboard if you can't move it around freely (like my desktop is completely full so I can't move the keyboard 10 inches to the right just for playing a game). I suppose you can adapt to everything, eventually, but then you'll have to be arsed to bother with it in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fallout 3 controls so, so, so much better on a mouse. I played it on a pad for about 25 hours on 360 before giving up and getting the PC version. It takes about five times as long to loot each room, focusing on each and every item with a pad was torturous.

That's interesting. I'm loving Fallout 3 at the moment, on the 360. I knew it's better on the PC with the availability of mods, but didn't consider the ease of looting. I'm really getting sick of rifling through cellars looking for what amount to very similar bits and pieces of junk to sell, and it's dimming my enjoyment of the game (many hours in) - it's making exploring every indoor area into a slog. I have so much cash now I wouldn't even bother looting, except I still need ammo and you often find unique or rate items, or quest items like keys, data tapes, etc. so you do need to look in everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk of PC FPS games having more "depth" than console FPS game isn't really valid, in my view. In strategy games, yes, but not FPS.

They don't really, it's just a wistful nostalgia for how PC games used to be niche and in-depth, but rising development budgets meant they couldn't survive on this userbase and needed to sell to a wider audience, watering themselves down in the process. Inevitably this meant going multiplatform too.

Off course, it's console gamers that get the blame for this, and not the drive to greater graphics and higher production values that the PC has been the main driver for, for pretty much the entire history of the gaming industry. I wonder how many people lashing out at "contards" have $400 video cards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I

(Brerlappin, it's nice to see I'm not the only person who thinks MW2 plays like a Quake 3 mod, though I really like it for that reason).

Also, the original Stalker on console would have been fucking funny. I'd love to watch a live feed of Smitty or Napoleon trying to play Stalker fresh out of the box, sans patches or mods, on a control pad :lol:

It honestly wouldve been hilarious to see stalker on consoles. I think it wouldve been absolutely panned, not because i think console gamers are dumb and wouldnt understand it or anything (as i say im a huge console gamer myself), but because it wouldve run at about 1 FPS and needed 2 joypads just to manage the fucking inventory :lol:

All this talk of PC FPS games having more "depth" than console FPS game isn't really valid, in my view. In strategy games, yes, but not FPS.

Sorry, but i have to disagree. Take call of duty for example. When it was only on PC, it started off with its MP component as a basic team deathmatch style game. Then along came United offensive expansion and suddenly cod had vehicles, new gamemodes, everything. UO was absolutely brilliant, i think there was a map was called carentan, im not sure, some snow map, where you had tanks, jeeps, everything, all milling around this village. It was a real step forward for CoD gameplay, but then CoD went multi format with CoD2, and the gameplay went straight back to basic team deathmatch stuff. and since then the only innovation in its gamepaly has been to add more unlocks and killstreaks.

And as i said, at the same time that the best example of a console shooter was still 4 player goldeneye, PC had 64 man games of BF 1942 - BF:V, where it wasnt jsut about shooting, players all had roles. You couldnt just hop in a chopper and expect to fly it, you needed to practice. I remember playing games where youd literally stop fighting on the ground because 2 brilliant jet pilots would be going at it in the skies, and it took real skill to be able to pilot a mig or a phantom properly. That was an FPS with incredible depth, it could be a straight shooter, it could be a flight combat game, it could borderline be a strategy game when you were getting into clan tactics and whatnot. BC2 is about as close as youll get to it on console nowadays, but its still only max 32 players, and only getting it now, whereas PC was doing it back in 2003

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call of Duty 3 had vehicles. Halo has vehicles. Bad Company has vehicles. New Super Mario Bros Wii has dinosaur shaped vehicles. Vehicles do not equal depth.

I'd also argue that poorly designed UI doors not equal depth or that bad controls do not equal depth. Obviously dual analog sticks will make it easier to fly a plane. Just because it's removing a cumbersome barrier doesn't automatically make it a bad thing.

You can't even play the numbers game anymore with MAG rocking 256 players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you use your left hand on the keyboard, but not if you are using the left hand for your mouse surely?

Fair point! But then I'm pretty sure most games allow you to change the keybindings, so you could just mirror it and use IJKL or PL;' or something, or even the arrow keys. I get that this doesn't help if the game doesn't allow it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find both Call of Duty and even Battlefield are very much arcade 'a' like these days but not in a bad way.... They're great games that handle pretty much equally on both console and PC.

But one FPS game that does separate the two formats is Arma2. Its would seem to be all about complexity to me.

It's got to be said that there are more games finding middle ground and to be honest the only difference (as always) is the controller. Thats all its ever been about really.

Despite the fact PC graphics are somewhat better, it doesn't really make a great difference but we like to think it does.

Basically the tech exists on the consoles to do anything a PC can until you get to the controller. But it would seem theres many more joint games on the console/PC games out there.

True' date=' but our dislike for having to remap all fucking keys was what started this off in the first place[/quote']

But that woe still exists on the consoles....just ask Meerman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing about the PC discussions that gets raised a lot is the higher resolution graphics.

That's nice, but when it comes down to it the things that make a game gorgeous to look at aren't technology and power, they're art design and direction. Playing a game at full 1080p and 60fps isn't going to make something any prettier to my eyes, and unless there's something fundamentally wrong with the 720p version I'm seeing on my console (such as an exceedingly poor framerate) then it's not going to be a big enough leap. Comparing the SNES and PC versions of Doom, there's a leap in graphical fidelity worth talking about. Bioshock from 360 to PC? It's not even the leap from SD to HD television.

I appreciate for many, framerate in particular is a bugbear, and also that some games are genuinely improved with higher resolutions - particularly where distance is concerned such as a racing game or long-distance shooter. The race for improved fidelity goes on and the more options there are for people who need it, great. But prettier? Not for me.

I also don't really know where I stand on mods. The big sensible bit of my head (I swear one exists) has nothing but respect for them, especially after reading about the mods you can get for Stalker which fix some rather crucial AI errors involving fellow stalkers strolling through anamolies and promptly dying, or having enemies spot you from ludicrously long range when you'd expect to stay undetected. I have absolutely no doubt that when I finally get around to playing that copy I bought on Steam for a paltry £1.39 in December, these things are going to improve my enjoyment of the game enormously.

The other, smaller bit of my head (you can tell I'm not a neuroscientist) thinks there's something fundamentally wrong with a medium that requires a group of amateur hacks to correct the work of professional artists, either to bend the work to their whim, or to fix flawed elements in the original. Bug fixes are something that really should be down to the developer to rectify (although I appreciate it's often not possible), whilst added content and rearrangements just scream fanfic at me. I'm sure some fanfic is really rather good, I just wish they'd write their own stories.

In the end, the big bit outweighs the small bit by a rather vast margin, and not only because of my bizarre statements about fanfic. The end work can be improved without affecting the original goals. What I wish is that it wasn't necessary enough to be an argument for one platform to be preferred to another, and to be honest I've rarely played a good game on any platform and wished for someone to come and mod the hell out of it.

For that matter, I can find few arguments to swing a discussion either way. Problems with controls, or lack of left handed support, are a problem to be addressed in software rather than hardware. A preference for mouse and keyboard control is exactly that - a preference - and any benefits offered by the streamlined, ease-of-use of consoles are slowly but surely being eroded by the likes of Steam. As such I can't really find much to treat PC gaming any different than I do gaming on another machine. It still comes down to the core questions - what games do I want to play, where are they available, and where do I buy?

And that's why I own a PC and a console.

Not a PS3 though, I'm not an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call of Duty 3 had vehicles. Halo has vehicles. Bad Company has vehicles. New Super Mario Bros Wii has dinosaur shaped vehicles. Vehicles do not equal depth.

I'd also argue that poorly designed UI doors not equal depth or that bad controls do not equal depth. Obviously dual analog sticks will make it easier to fly a plane. Just because it's removing a cumbersome barrier doesn't automatically make it a bad thing.

You can't even play the numbers game anymore with MAG rocking 256 players.

I dont recall saying vehicles = depth. I was just pointing out that when multiplayer console gaming was limited to a 4 players and nothing but deathmatch, PC games had a depth unheard of on consoles. And noone ever claimed that stalkers UI was what gave it depth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't really, it's just a wistful nostalgia for how PC games used to be niche and in-depth, but rising development budgets meant they couldn't survive on this userbase and needed to sell to a wider audience, watering themselves down in the process. Inevitably this meant going multiplatform too.

Off course, it's console gamers that get the blame for this, and not the drive to greater graphics and higher production values that the PC has been the main driver for, for pretty much the entire history of the gaming industry. I wonder how many people lashing out at "contards" have $400 video cards?

OH my god, you're not STILL going on about this are you? PC graphical demands haven't moved since Crysis in 2007, and when the 360 came out, there was barely a PC that could touch it. You rant on, and on, and on, and on about this point, but you're wrong. You seem desperate to crowbar in the idea of 'accelerating graphics' 'raising the budget' of games to breaking point. Where is this acceleration?! We've been playing with the same consoles with the same GPUs for five years, and by far the biggest growth in popularity and revenue has been low budget independent games, mobile games, MMOs and the Wii. The next big push is for Kinect and Move, rather than for new consoles with higher graphical capabilities. DX10 and DX11 have been both been about consolidation and efficiency. Every 'accelerative' PC graphics engine has been retooled as a better optimised multi-format engine.

Dude, drop it.

(Also Fry Crayola - your specific example of Bioshock is a poor one, and it looks noticeably better on PC. However, I agree with much of your general sentiment)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as i said, at the same time that the best example of a console shooter was still 4 player goldeneye, PC had 64 man games of BF 1942 - BF:V, where it wasnt jsut about shooting, players all had roles. You couldnt just hop in a chopper and expect to fly it, you needed to practice. I remember playing games where youd literally stop fighting on the ground because 2 brilliant jet pilots would be going at it in the skies, and it took real skill to be able to pilot a mig or a phantom properly. That was an FPS with incredible depth, it could be a straight shooter, it could be a flight combat game, it could borderline be a strategy game when you were getting into clan tactics and whatnot. BC2 is about as close as youll get to it on console nowadays, but its still only max 32 players, and only getting it now, whereas PC was doing it back in 2003

It's worth noting that the best example of a console shooter when BF 1942 came out would probably widely be considered to be Halo, rather than Goldeneye. Though I suppose it would make your argument easier if you were allowed to pretend that there had been no significant development of the console FPS for five solid years. Of course, it's still pre-Live!, and so was limited to 16-player games (across system-linked Xbox's). But, y'know, it was still bloody brilliant.

Also worth noting that while it took real skill to fly in BF 1942, that was more to do with godawful vehicle controls than 'depth'. But yes, the PC had, unsurprisingly, tended to lead the way when it came to online shooters. Something to do with consoles not getting serious about being online 'til the Dreamcast, and even then it not really catching on until Xbox Live! came along.

But yeah, it's fair to say that, even now, the PC offers a far wider range of multiplayer experiences. Hell, it offers a far wider range of experiences, full stop - that's rather the point, what with them being a nice, open platform. But, er, quite what that has to do with the 'depth' of their respective shooters, I don't know - the irony is, when it comes to multiplayer, 'depth' is the one thing that can't be measured meaningfully: a 4-player game of Halo CTF can be just as 'deep' as a 64-player BF match, it's entirely down to the teams. It's rather like trying to argue that Street Fighter III is less deep than Virtua Fighter 5 because it has less moves in it. Or that neither of them are as deep as Marvel Vs Capcom 2 because they only allow you to play with one character at a time.

Where you can make meaningful arguments for 'depth' is in the single-player mechanics of each game; which, as I addressed on the first page, the vast majority of FPS's have always tended towards the shallow end. What few games there were that tried to eke out a bit more than simply 'walk along corridor blasting things' did, initially, tend to be on PC (usually copping other genre's ideas - particularly the RPG, of course), but, as I said before, as the genre's become more prevalent on the consoles, console gamers have gotten more genre-savvy. And as console gamers got more comfortable with FPS's, so the genre has 'deepened', to the point where companies like GSC feel comfortable putting their 'complex' FPS's onto them.*

So, no, I don't believe that PC shooters are inherently deeper than console ones, or indeed that console shooters have some sort of a lower 'depth-cap'. I'll certainly agree that they'll never be as good for twitch shooters, or that their closed nature means that their online multiplayer will tend to fall short of the PC equivalent, but neither of these things say a thing about the depth of the games.

Oh god, I can't bring myself to proof this properly - I've been awake since yesterday morning, so concentration is, er, fading a little. Still, hopefully this all makes sense and is somehow a relevant response to BrerLappin's post. Apologies if not.

*though, of course, this is hardly the first time such games have been released on console. Lest we forget, Operation Flashpoint was brought out on the Xbox, and Hidden & Dangerous made its way to the Dreamcast, way back when.

Edit: it also appears that everybody and their dog responded in the time it took me to hammer this out. Ah well.

Edited by Wiper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between depth and bewildering niche complexity. I'm happy to have the rough edges smoothed off, personally. I don't believe console popularity has anything to do with games becoming inherently easier to approach, that's just good business sense. Part of the problem is console gamers pigeonholing PC gamers/games and vice versa. The only real difference now is that the console grants you ease of use and the PC grants you more freedom. As far as I'm concerned, every game can come out on every format for all I care. With a few specific examples aside (like complex RTS games) almost everything can be translated successfully from one format to the other. It's down to the skill of the developer to play to the strengths of the format.

I enjoy PC because it's something of a Swiss army knife, but I don't kid myself that it somehow magically makes for better game design. If anything PC gamers should be thanking consoles for keeping some of their franchises alive during the last few years - now we have something of an ace in the form of Steam. The two formats are fairly symbiotic, the console providing an easy entry point/delivery mechanism for the formerly niche PC titles, and the PC providing an enhanced experience through better performance, moddability etc. I'm happy with the way things are going for PC, we've been lucky that there is no rush to a new console, and that Steam has effectively demonstrated the purchase model for the next round of consoles.

Think of it like digital cameras. If it weren't for the massive uptake of easy to use point and shoots, the SLR market wouldn't be as successful as it is right now. It gives people an 'in', and whether or not they choose to jump to the next step at increased cost and complexity, but benefiting from better results and more freedom, is their prerogative. The diehard PC fanboys sound like film-only photographers do. Fine, do whatever you want with your money and free time, but don't pretend the world hasn't changed and your hobby hasn't benefited from being brought to the masses, with all the good and bad that brings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony of PC hi Res gaming is that the one title that currently pushes video cards is available on both formats. Metro 2033.

(obviously theres Crysis Warhead too, but Crysis 2 is also coming to all formats). I was going to mention Rage here too, but i suspect that will be fantastically programmed whatever you own.

*edit*

But Morrius has made a great point about controllers - the PC has no such massmarket Wii like controller as yet although i'm not sure it'll make any difference. I don't think you'll lose people.

The PC has too many fans ingrained in its older titles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Also Fry Crayola - your specific example of Bioshock is a poor one, and it looks noticeably better on PC. However, I agree with much of your general sentiment)

Damn! I plucked that one out of thin air, to be honest, because it's a game that's been lovingly designed to create a particular aesthetic, rather than just mimicking reality. I think it looks great on 360, but have never played the PC version.

Ultimately I think that outside of personal preferences, there's no one thing about any format that's objectively better than the rest to a degree worthy of consideration. Not even price - PC games are cheaper, but the hardware is more expensive. I think you'd have to buy about 20 full price games before you start to see it even out. Whether or not that's a lot of games I suppose depends on the person.

(Also, the PS3 comment was a joke)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn! I plucked that one out of thin air, to be honest, because it's a game that's been lovingly designed to create a particular aesthetic, rather than just mimicking reality. I think it looks great on 360, but have never played the PC version.

Ultimately I think that outside of personal preferences, there's no one thing about any format that's objectively better than the rest to a degree worthy of consideration. Not even price - PC games are cheaper, but the hardware is more expensive. I think you'd have to buy about 20 full price games before you start to see it even out. Whether or not that's a lot of games I suppose depends on the person.

(Also, the PS3 comment was a joke)

Yeah i have both versions, and while its true the PC version looks much better, oddly enough, the KB&M controls just dont feel right for BS on PC. I preferred a controller for that game.

I think anyway as to the point of the thread, we can all agree that no FPSes havent had their day on PC, and that both pc and console are capable of having deep fps'es.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH my god, you're not STILL going on about this are you? PC graphical demands haven't moved since Crysis in 2007, and when the 360 came out, there was barely a PC that could touch it. You rant on, and on, and on, and on about this point, but you're wrong. You seem desperate to crowbar in the idea of 'accelerating graphics' 'raising the budget' of games to breaking point. Where is this acceleration?! We've been playing with the same consoles with the same GPUs for five years, and by far the biggest growth in popularity and revenue has been low budget independent games, mobile games, MMOs and the Wii. The next big push is for Kinect and Move, rather than for new consoles with higher graphical capabilities. DX10 and DX11 have been both been about consolidation and efficiency. Every 'accelerative' PC graphics engine has been retooled as a better optimised multi-format engine.

Dude, drop it.

Because all the stuff I talked about had happened by 2007? Crysis is hardly a niche or particularly complex title, as much as I love it. I'm talking about the move from games like Baldurs Gate and Half Life to the modern PC market, not 2007-present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah i have both versions, and while its true the PC version looks much better, oddly enough, the KB&M controls just dont feel right for BS on PC. I preferred a controller for that game.

I think anyway as to the point of the thread, we can all agree that no FPSes havent had their day on PC, and that both pc and console are capable of having deep fps'es.

They do feel a bit weird, it's because the FOV is fucked and the crosshairs are all rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because all the stuff I talked about had happened by 2007? Crysis is hardly a niche or particularly complex title, as much as I love it. I'm talking about the move from games like Baldurs Gate and Half Life to the modern PC market, not 2007-present.

That graphical leap was directly caused by the cross platform development of PC and Xbox/360. Not much has changed since then. Are you saying the PC fell into a hole when the games started to be developed for consoles, because of the accelerating demands? I don't understand. I don't recall a time on PC, prior to the rise in multiplatform development, when nobody could keep up with PC hardware demands because they were so expensive. Sure, it was a myth perpetrated by some, usually those who went out and spent £2k on a TIME or Packard Bell prebuilt, underspecced, already out of date machine, and then figured they'd have to buy a whole new one for £2k again because the next Quake wouldn't run on it. I've been PC gaming since I was 13 (13 years, fact fans), I've only had four graphics cards in that time, which is comparable to the number of console generations. My current PC was bought 18 months ago, and there isn't really anything on the market I could sensibly upgrade to, even if I wanted to. I certainly don't need to, and I won't need to anytime soon. Probably around, ooh, the next console generation? :lol:

The only genuine 'move it or lose it' leaps I can think of were when software mode was no longer a valid option, and when the source engine first hit. Buying into PC gaming entails a little upgrading from time to time, but it's not like every game that comes out (or came out during the heyday) was a system scorcher that required dropping £300 notes on a new GPU just to render the title screen. And, no-one said Crysis was niche or complex, I said it was the last game to come out with truly demanding graphical requirements, and that PC requirements in general have not exceeded (indeed, the opposite) since then. Metro 2033 seems to be something of an exception to this, but I think more so due to the high integrated of DX11 and the need for DX11 card owners to feel vindicated. In terms of actual performance requirements, it's on par with Crysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That graphical leap was directly caused by the cross platform development of PC and Xbox/360. Not much has changed since then. Are you saying the PC fell into a hole when the games started to be developed for consoles, because of the accelerating demands? I don't understand. I don't recall a time on PC, prior to the rise in multiplatform development, when nobody could keep up with PC hardware demands because they were so expensive. I've been PC gaming since I was 13, I've only had four graphics cards in that time, which is comparable to the number of console generations. My current PC was bought 18 months ago, and there isn't really anything on the market I could sensibly upgrade to, even if I wanted to. I certainly don't need to, and I won't need to anytime soon. Probably around, ooh, the next console generation? :lol:

What are you talking about? What does this have to do with what I was saying?

I never said anything about keeping up with hardware demands. My point was, in my last post, that PC games, have been the main driver towards increased graphics and production values within this industry, but the costs associated with these rises means PC games have had to abandon being niche and reach a wider audience, which eventually meant becoming multiplatform.

On RPS and other PC-centric places you get a lot of people moaning about how nothing's like the good old days where games were complex and challenging, but these same people probably have always had a PC bristling with high-end hardware making them a big driver of better graphics and higher production values. In short, they're part of the problem they decry and instead of recognising this, blame the symptoms (console ports and "contards") rather than the cause (focus on graphics and production values).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but i have to disagree. Take call of duty for example. When it was only on PC, it started off with its MP component as a basic team deathmatch style game. Then along came United offensive expansion and suddenly cod had vehicles, new gamemodes, everything. UO was absolutely brilliant, i think there was a map was called carentan, im not sure, some snow map, where you had tanks, jeeps, everything, all milling around this village. It was a real step forward for CoD gameplay, but then CoD went multi format with CoD2, and the gameplay went straight back to basic team deathmatch stuff. and since then the only innovation in its gamepaly has been to add more unlocks and killstreaks.

And as i said, at the same time that the best example of a console shooter was still 4 player goldeneye, PC had 64 man games of BF 1942 - BF:V, where it wasnt jsut about shooting, players all had roles. You couldnt just hop in a chopper and expect to fly it, you needed to practice. I remember playing games where youd literally stop fighting on the ground because 2 brilliant jet pilots would be going at it in the skies, and it took real skill to be able to pilot a mig or a phantom properly. That was an FPS with incredible depth, it could be a straight shooter, it could be a flight combat game, it could borderline be a strategy game when you were getting into clan tactics and whatnot. BC2 is about as close as youll get to it on console nowadays, but its still only max 32 players, and only getting it now, whereas PC was doing it back in 2003

You've given the example of a couple of specific games, but that doesn't really refute my point that the PC doesn't have the monopoly on depth.

There are console and PC games that have depth. I could say that Perfect Dark had AI bots the player could give orders to, for example. Goldeneye and PD both had a lot more in them than just shooting (complex mission objectives, for example, or the strategies that the weapons' varied secondary fire modes added to multi-player). I'd argue the combat in Halo:CE was as deep as anything produced before or since, and the sheer amount of options that emerged in every encounter made it both a straight shooter, and "borderline strategy", as you put it.

Supporting more players might make certain games more enjoyable, but that, again, is just an example of a certain type of gaming, not an indicator of depth. The console equivalent would be arguing that the PC rarely offers split-screen play, while nothing's easier than sitting around the TV with your mates, enjoying a Bond-tastic shootout. Again, that isn't more depth - that's just offering a distinctive type of play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? What does this have to do with what I was saying?

I never said anything about keeping up with hardware demands. My point was, in my last post, that PC games, have been the main driver towards increased graphics and production values within this industry, but the costs associated with these rises means PC games have had to abandon being niche and reach a wider audience, which eventually meant becoming multiplatform.

On RPS and other PC-centric places you get a lot of people moaning about how nothing's like the good old days where games were complex and challenging, but these same people probably have always had a PC bristling with high-end hardware making them a big driver of better graphics and higher production values. In short, they're part of the problem they decry and instead of recognising this, blame the symptoms (console ports and "contards") rather than the cause (focus on graphics and production values).

Since when having high end hardware make a game more complex and challenging?! Starcraft ran on just about anything, Serious Sam didn't You're really rummaging for arguments now.

Why has the PC been the main driver? It's the console companies that practically bankrupt themselves to develop new consoles, then market them, then sell them at a huge loss. You're utterly obsessed with shoehorning your argument about an imaginary focus on graphics and production values into just about every thread. How on earth would you set about building an industry without the products evolving over time? To say the focus is on graphics (or that the focus on graphics belongs to the PC) does a disservice to every good idea in every game since Space War. Now more than ever there is space for all types of development, from the big budget triple-A stuff (buoyed by the revenue from a multi-format release) to the small indie stuff (buoyed by the ease of digital distribution and emerging successful markets like the App store, Android market and Steam).

I utterly don't understand your argument. Are you saying we should all be content with sprite based software engines and not try to improve upon every aspect of what was previously produced? Your argument seems to centre around the idea that big budget games with massive production values leave the smaller studios falling behind. It's been a difficult few years for the now-shuttered studios producing average to poor games which attempt to compete with the biggest releases (recession, cough) but it's also been an incredibly formative and fast moving period for new types of small-budget games or games with different pay models. You seem to fear a future in which there are only three or four developers with the budget to produce quality titles, but I don't see this happening. We may have lost Grin studios and countless others of that vein this year, but we've also gained a massive glut of savvy smaller studios working on Steam, XBL/PSN or mobile games who are producing great content and positively raking it in. There may be something of a gap between the two at the moment, but as the smaller companies gain revenue and expand, and the larger companies slim down as we've seen them do over the last couple of years, the gap gets smaller.

It's comparable to film - Transformers 2 had a ridiculous budget, sucked ass, and took millions at the box office, It hasn't stopped all kinds of smaller releases from firstly being much better, and secondly making more than enough profit for everyone who invested. It's about having realistic expectations and managing your projects conservatively. The problem as I see it, is when a genre, studio or franchise loses its appeal, and the game releases expecting to sell four or five million copies. The last proper Tomb Raider game is a good example. Look at the direction they've gone with it now. They know the old formula can't compete at £40 a pop, so they've retooled the characters for a more budget-conscious (and much better received) release, which should help to fund the upcoming reboot, in a bid to make to bring it back to relevancy.

Regardless, maybe you're right! Even so, it's completely irrelevant now, as the graphics market has slowed to a crawl, each respective format is well-placed and well-matched, each is profitable and each is demonstrably not focusing on graphics to the detriment of other aspects, and each has become more open than ever to independent studios with smaller teams and smaller budgets. Just because a batch of middling studios have suffered drastically during the recession, doesn't mean a new round of smarter studios won't rise through the indie/small budget scene to take their place and learn from their mistakes. Markets evolve, the recession is one hell of a selection pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you use your left hand on the keyboard, but not if you are using the left hand for your mouse surely?

What about something like this...

2009122911313949984.jpg

Or one of the many cheaper variants thereof. This is only £12

522392-a.jpg

:lol:

Edit - Left handed deathadder too. Good mouse:

razer-deathadder-left-handed.jpg

Or just man up and remap your keys. You think that's bad? Try having a support act with a left handed drummer switch your entire drum kit round the wrong way without telling you and then 'forget' to put it back...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about something like this...

2009122911313949984.jpg

Or one of the many cheaper variants thereof. They're usually symmetrical, at least in key layout.

I think I saw a woman in Tescos carrying around one those, obviously preparing for a night of Crysis after her shift knocked off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im just playing a bit of catch up with this now....

Quality post

Excellent post Wiper, even with the punctuation lesson added, if I could give you a +and a – I would :P but have a + instead.

As others are saying, with the costs involved why wouldn’t a dev these days make the games to capture the biggest market and thus make them multiformat, it would be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face really.

Qazimod back at the start mentions the original Crysis and this is the big bugbear for my mate, for him Crysis really pushed the PC and showed what was capable and this was what, 3 years ago. He feels that these days are gone, that nothing is pushing or innovating on the PC anymore when it used to be a leader.

Personally I think that Crysis was ahead of its time for even the PC market and the related costs etc to get it running decently had a bigger negative effect on the game, but that could be another thread in itself and has probably already been discussed in the Crysis thread at the time.

My own feelings seem to mirror Naps in this thread, I don’t want the faffing about that comes with it, I just want to pop in a game and go.

I own Stalker CoP, Stalker Clear Skies and the Witcher for PC but have yet to even install any of them, partially due to time and if Im being honest partially because I have a feeling I will have hassles getting them running, although that is going a bit off topic really.

Games generally aren't ported to PC any more, PC releases are co-developed with PS3 and 360 often with exactly the same toolset. The idea that that's "making do" is a bit odd, particularly when you've got something like Deus Ex 3 coming along looking like it's retaining all of the depth of the original game without being 'consolified'. It has a grid based inventory FFS. If anyone is making do it's console owners with their lower powered hardware and pad controls and lack of dedicated servers and no mods and waiting ages for platform gatekeepers to certify updates and so on.

Certainly seems more and more are being developed side by side. The likes of Rage and Crysis 2 appear to be going down that route.

Interesting thoughts on the it being eh console side that is “making do”, I hadn’t really thought in it that way before.

I think with the extended life cycle of the current gen consoles we are going to see a bit of a resurgence in PC gaming.

Yeah this I agree with. I have always thought of stuff like the quality of visuals etc as being a sort of cycle. When new consoles come out and devs get the hang of the hardware stuff on consoles looks the best, then PC catches up and they go side by side for a bit and then PC steam ahead of what is on console for a bit, rinse and repeat. If I could draw a graph it would be like two waves slightly out of sync if you get my meaning.

With the extended lifecycle for consoles I think we can expect to see decent leaps on the PC

They are both good at doing what they do so these discussions end up being null really. Picking a genre in point changes nothing.

Ultimately yes, I narrowed it to a genre as it was the particular conversation I was having with my mate and was interested in others folks thoughts.

Im not after a “PC LOL its dying” “consoles suxor” type thing, I think we have all had enough of that pish, well unless you are Morrius I guess.

Too true. It's like arguing who is a better shag, a brunette or a blonde. At the end of the day we all win (cum).

Well quite :lol:

I was only joking, memories seems to have taken it rather seriously :o

:D it just came at spookily the same time I was having the FPS discussion with my mate.

You should post more like your first post in this thread though and less of the PC fanboy stuff, its much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.