[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Doesn't this perfectly illustrate the problem with PC gaming, the notion that it's for a specific type of game? There's nothing about the PC that stops it running every sort of game.

You are absolutely right. It's only that PC-centric games/games built from the ground up with PC's native interface and games suited for them have sold better than console-centric games/ports. Microsoft can't expect GeoW type of game to outsell Age of Empires on PC (as it didn't with GeoW/AoE3).

Computers due to their nature can never be at the accessibility and simplicity level of the consoles. If that's what the mass market wants, then so be it. Like you've said, with a little bit or more effort it can be set up to function as HTPC in the living room, but it's still more hassle than a console. It all comes down to that perceived complexity of gaming on computers and how much the average user wants to go through the effort and whether it's worth it. However, it could have turned out differently if Microsoft chosed the path MfA desribed. "Big" and indie developers will provide some of the "PC-centric" games for those who care for them. However, I don't think we'll see another game at the level of Warhead, Independance War or Freespace 2 in the near future or ever for that matter. Strange how the genre died/faded considering the requirements for making them and budgets. There are no huge ammount of polys to push, almost no environment to render and almost no animation system.

[Mobius1aic]

It's pretty ridiculous how un-streamlined consoles are becoming with mandatory installs, of course most notably on the PS3. Also, I'm a big proprietor of not comparing entire PC costs but just graphics cards vs console costs, since you need a computer in the first place. It's only a shame that laptops pretty much will never have the mainstream capability to switch out graphics hardware without screwing something up thanks to the issues involving MXM graphics boards, power needs, space and heat management.

[swaaye]

What's interesting about the DirectX Box thing is that Xbox is essentially just that. It's an x86 PC running a NT kernel, uses D3D and has familiar NV hardware. Sure the OS isn't exactly Windows but this wasn't anything like making a game for PS2 or Gamecube. It was essentially a PC as a console.

And there was also Dreamcast's WinCE mode that used D3D. There were a number of half assed Windows->DC ports because developers wanted to cash in quick.

Personally I don't really have a problem with consoles aside from how they seem to be incapable of having really flexible input devices and how this negatively impacts some genres. I think the modern consoles are just as good as a PC at delivering a quality gaming experience in most cases. The PC's main advantages are modding, optional hardware tweaking, strategy games and input-intensive RPGs (MMOs primarily).

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by swaaye

Personally I don't really have a problem with consoles aside from how they seem to be incapable of having really flexible input devices and how this negatively impacts some genres. I think the modern consoles are just as good as a PC at delivering a quality gaming experience in most cases. The PC's main advantages are modding, optional hardware tweaking, strategy games and input-intensive RPGs (MMOs primarily).

Anything that is first-person/third-person plays much better on m&kb. The advantage is of course less on 3p side. Action games like Ninja Gaide and platformers are advantageous to gamepads.

M&kb allows for hybrid game like Natural Selection, Battlezone and fast-paced FPS games to be made in the first place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdkDjsBiO58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUVU9fWNAKs

Gamepad limits what can be done in the game, particularly level design which is mostly flat in console FPS's. E.g., in Halo there are jetpacks but they have much more limited use than in something like Tribes. And we already saw how "streamlining" went from SS2 to Bioshock, even if SS2 has one page of inventory.

The disadvantage of m&kb is in lack of analog controls. For example, in Splinter Cell games on PC you use mousewheel to change movement speed, while on gamepads you have more control over Sam's movement speed. All FPS/TPS games today are designed around kb movement or "digital" controls, even if controllers will be used at the end. "Double-tap" autolock in console CoD speaks a lot about disadvantage of precision aiming on DA. Though, more limited movement controls can have advantages in games like Quake/UT. Crazy moves there can't done on analog sticks.

[swaaye]

Oh obviously mouse and keyboard is best for first person. But I think there are millions of people playing consoles that don't care and I think that the advantage is meaningless as a result.

The game types I always use mouse and keyboard for are FPS and strategy. Otherwise a gamepad is fine IMO. I have one of those Xbox 360 gamepads for PC and I use it for most 3rd person and racing games.

The only way that new games are going to stop being mostly designed for gamepads is if
1) consoles lose their market power (fat chance)
2) console gamers all start using something besides a gamepad. It would probably have to come with the console.

Basically some exceptionally brilliant person has to come up with a superior input device that isn't as ugly as a keyboard + mouse setup but offers more flexibility than a gamepad. That motion nonsense isn't the answer.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by swaaye

What's interesting about the DirectX Box thing is that Xbox is essentially just that. It's an x86 PC running a NT kernel, uses D3D and has familiar NV hardware.

And there's nothing really stopping a dual-boot system which can offer Windows Lite to run games. If I were MS, I'd be looking to port XNE for that very purpose, to have everyone's PC boot into an entertainment mode when they want fun, and the work mode for running applications. That'd solve a lot of the useability issues and general fear of using computers.

Personally I don't really have a problem with consoles aside from how they seem to be incapable of having really flexible input devices...

Well, PS3 support all sorts of input devices including mice and graphics tablets. Just no-one will support them in software as they are non-standard. By that same token I presume PC games don't support joypads as mice replacements?

Originally Posted by green.pixel

Gamepad limits completely what can be done in the game, particularly level design which is mostly flat in console FPS's.

I dare say this is one of the advantages of console gaming, that the games don't require the player to memorise 30 different keyboard actions! And simpler level design is going to be more accessible to new players. The advantages of PC input methods seem wholely suited to seriously hardcore players who like lots of complexity. This is something mainstream game development that has an eye on the console gamer will probably avoid, further contributing to the divide between PC gamers and console gamers who find their hobby doesn't translate well to the other platform.

[swaaye]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Well, PS3 support all sorts of input devices including mice and graphics tablets. Just no-one will support them in software as they are non-standard. By that same token I presume PC games don't support joypads as mice replacements?

That has been the case forever. Dreamcast had keyboard and mouse accessories and the shooters supported it. But if the console doesn't come with a peripheral, it will only sell in tiny quantities almost without exception.

PC games typically support the MS 360 gamepad, especially if it is a GFW game. Most games will detect it and automatically map the controls. Even Crysis supports it perfectly but it's hard to play because the auto aim is too limited.

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by swaaye

The game types I always use mouse and keyboard for are FPS and strategy. Otherwise a gamepad is fine IMO.

What about RPGs?

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

I dare say this is one of the advantages of console gaming, that the games don't require the player to memorise 30 different keyboard actions! And simpler level design is going to be more accessible to new players.

Well, we'll see how Orion: Prelude will turn out on consoles.

[Malo]

I dare say this is one of the advantages of PC gaming, that the games don't require the player to memorise 16 different button actions or memorizing which finger to use for which action! And more complex level design is going to be more accessible to real gamers. The advantages of console input methods seem wholely suited to 12-year old kids who like to stuff cheetos in their face while bashing a controller with their distended forehead. This is something mainstream game development that has an eye on the elite PC gamer will probably avoid, further contributing to the divide between PC gamers and console gamers who find their hobby doesn't translate well to the other platform.

[eastmen]

Originally Posted by green.pixel

Fable 3 is not a good PRG, and therefore not a very good game. It is even more "casualized" than the previous games.

i had alot of fun with part 2 on my xbox 360. Its leaps and bounds better than any final fantasy since part 6. So I have to say while it may be your opinon not every pc gamer feels as you do.

[Mize]

Console gaming is to PC gaming as McDonalds is to gourmet cuisine.
It's no wonder PC gaming is getting its butt kicked

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by eastmen

i had alot of fun with part 2 on my xbox 360. Its leaps and bounds better than any final fantasy since part 6. So I have to say while it may be your opinon not every pc gamer feels as you do.

Well, I'm not fond of FF games either, since to me they are more tactics games with cutscenes than RPGs.
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/

[Neb]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

And there's nothing really stopping a dual-boot system which can offer Windows Lite to run games. If I were MS, I'd be looking to port XNE for that very purpose, to have everyone's PC boot into an entertainment mode when they want fun, and the work mode for running applications. That'd solve a lot of the useability issues and general fear of using computers.

Dual-boot!? Virtual PC with VMware WS FTW, no dual-boot.

Well, PS3 support all sorts of input devices including mice and graphics tablets. Just no-one will support them in software as they are non-standard. By that same token I presume PC games don't support joypads as mice replacements?

Most actually do, even exclusives. And that since years ago and even lastgen to and further back. But this gen it has been more frequent. Ofcourse some exclusive games cant be played with gamepad in anyway due to the limitations of gamepads.

I dare say this is one of the advantages of console gaming, that the games don't require the player to memorise 30 different keyboard actions! And simpler level design is going to be more accessible to new players.

But such amounts of keyboard actions are for more tactical/sim games. Console gamers would not even buy such games which could be X3, Arma 2 series etc. Besides nothing forces you to use all shortcuts but they exists to make it far easier for you.

And thus I want to say that becouse a game like say X3 supports 100+ shortcuts doesn't mean you need to master/use them to be able to play. Hell I played for a long time with tops 10-15 shortcuts. But with time I learned more shortcuts and it made it easier for me instead of having to guide mouse pointer through multiple menus for same function.

[3dcgi]

Originally Posted by Mobius1aic

I'm a big proprietor of not comparing entire PC costs but just graphics cards vs console costs, since you need a computer in the first place. It's only a shame that laptops pretty much will never have the mainstream capability to switch out graphics hardware without screwing something up thanks to the issues involving MXM graphics boards, power needs, space and heat management.

I don't think you can compare just a graphics card cost to a console cost. Most of my friends don't even have desktop computers anymore and their laptops are too underpowered to make games look better than a console. Plus, many of them have work laptops and might not be able to install any game they want.

I like playing single player RPGs on the PC so hopefully Dragon Age doesn't take away the advantages of a mouse + keyboard. There's already a thread about that though...

[swaaye]

Originally Posted by green.pixel

What about RPGs?

Depends on how extreme they are with stats and inventory. I'm not a real big fan of that kind of RPG anyway.

[tongue_of_colicab]

Originally Posted by 3dcgi

I don't think you can compare just a graphics card cost to a console cost. Most of my friends don't even have desktop computers anymore and their laptops are too underpowered to make games look better than a console. Plus, many of them have work laptops and might not be able to install any game they want.

I like playing single player RPGs on the PC so hopefully Dragon Age doesn't take away the advantages of a mouse + keyboard. There's already a thread about that though...

I think you can. Complaining that your 400 euro laptop won't play games is pretty silly. If you buy such a machine I hope you have the common sense to not expect it to be a great performer. That said, even at 600 euro's you can buy laptops that will play most games pretty decent.

Though buying a laptop or desktop doesn't change that much (only the fact you can't upgrade). The fact is you need a laptop/desktop anyway. So that means that at 400 euro's you can buy a desktop or laptop (cheapest models in my country). So that is money you are going to spend anyway because you need a pc. Spending 200 euro's extra will, certainly on a desktop, give you a system that is very well capable of playing games at 1680x1050 with good settings.

The other day I configured a 500 euro system with the cheapest intel quad core, 2gb ram and a HD5770 (If I remember right) and that should perform about as well as my q6600, 2gb ram and HD4870 when I did a quick benchmark check.

So atm pc gaming defenitly isn't very expensive and you might even say that if you jumped in on this gen consoles at the beginning you might even be off cheaper with the extra expense in pc hardware.

I think pc gaming will always be there. It might even get stronger now that console game budgets need to get bigger and bigger while the prices of games stay stay the same and the ps360 userbase is actually smaller than the last generation ''core'' console base. It also seems that stuff that runs on x360 can be ported to pc with relative little effort so that also helps. Ofcourse as a pc gamer I'm not really screaming in joy for getting console ports (though I do like getting some games, like darksiders. Genres like that never really been that prominent on pc I believe) but it might help getting new pc games or having devs update the ports to suit the pc more.

Though I feel that genreally games are becoming more and more thumbed down. These days I start most games on hard knowing that anything lower will likely feel like a walk in the park while before normal would already challenge me.

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by swaaye

Depends on how extreme they are with stats and inventory. I'm not a real big fan of that kind of RPG anyway.

Well, we know how the first attempt at streamlining Deus Ex turned out.

And SS2->Bioshock.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/featur..._boston2k_.php

In terms of design, we created a depth and density of game systems that fit into a game about character building and choice, but would not have been competitive as an FPS. Around the time that the game went into alpha, we took a hard look at that gameplay and realized that, although there were many choices, they weren't very compelling.

This was because we hadn't been thinking as much about making a shooter as we should have, and many of our key interactions (weapons tuning, plasmids, length of AI engagement) were designed and tuned for a slower and more cerebral experience.

Once we recalibrated the game to be more like a shooter, we simplified many of the deeper systems tremendously so that the user would be able to understand them.

But as the game neared alpha, key people began looked more closely and saw that BioShock wasn't on track to become an accessible and marketable game.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost...8&postcount=52

Ken Levine on one of the Irrational podcasts said something to the effect of being tired of being the company that makes "honorable" cult games that critics and some fans really dig, but that remain relatively obscure and don't sell buckets. Bioshock was an attempt to remedy that - unfortunately, it was done by throwing out a lot of what made games like System Shock 2 so special.

It was effective, so from a business standpoint, way to go. From a PC gamer's standpoint, it's just unfortunate, as these situations always are.

[AlphaWolf]

Originally Posted by tongue_of_colicab

I think you can. Complaining that your 400 euro laptop won't play games is pretty silly. If you buy such a machine I hope you have the common sense to not expect it to be a great performer. That said, even at 600 euro's you can buy laptops that will play most games pretty decent.

Though buying a laptop or desktop doesn't change that much (only the fact you can't upgrade). The fact is you need a laptop/desktop anyway. So that means that at 400 euro's you can buy a desktop or laptop (cheapest models in my country). So that is money you are going to spend anyway because you need a pc. Spending 200 euro's extra will, certainly on a desktop, give you a system that is very well capable of playing games at 1680x1050 with good settings.

The other day I configured a 500 euro system with the cheapest intel quad core, 2gb ram and a HD5770 (If I remember right) and that should perform about as well as my q6600, 2gb ram and HD4870 when I did a quick benchmark check.

So atm pc gaming defenitly isn't very expensive and you might even say that if you jumped in on this gen consoles at the beginning you might even be off cheaper with the extra expense in pc hardware.

I think pc gaming will always be there. It might even get stronger now that console game budgets need to get bigger and bigger while the prices of games stay stay the same and the ps360 userbase is actually smaller than the last generation ''core'' console base. It also seems that stuff that runs on x360 can be ported to pc with relative little effort so that also helps. Ofcourse as a pc gamer I'm not really screaming in joy for getting console ports (though I do like getting some games, like darksiders. Genres like that never really been that prominent on pc I believe) but it might help getting new pc games or having devs update the ports to suit the pc more.

Though I feel that genreally games are becoming more and more thumbed down. These days I start most games on hard knowing that anything lower will likely feel like a walk in the park while before normal would already challenge me.

The thing is when you have a pc and a console, you HAVE a pc AND a console. If you spend the money on just a gaming machine, you still just have the one thing. That might be fine for some of you 20 something kids that live by yourselves, but that doesn't describe everyone. I can be browsing on my PC while someone else is playing a game on my console.

So just upgrading the graphics card is a bad argument, try again.

[Neb]

Originally Posted by tongue_of_colicab

I think you can. Complaining that your 400 euro laptop won't play games is pretty silly. If you buy such a machine I hope you have the common sense to not expect it to be a great performer. That said, even at 600 euro's you can buy laptops that will play most games pretty decent.

Until 360 or PS3 is portable then one cannot complain on laptops as they aint really designed for high-end gaming except high-end laptops. But then a high-end laptop would run circles around 360 + PS3 capabilities and perfomance.

[Neb]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf

The thing is when you have a pc and a console, you HAVE a pc AND a console. If you spend the money on just a gaming machine, you still just have the one thing.

If there is something you can notice then it is that PC gamers tend to have both PCs and consoles more than the other way around.

Many PC gamers have already had experience/played console games but few console gamer have played PC games and only knows one game.. Crysis. I guess it has to do with the age group.

[green.pixel]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf

The thing is when you have a pc and a console, you HAVE a pc AND a console. If you spend the money on just a gaming machine, you still just have the one thing. That might be fine for some of you 20 something kids that live by yourselves, but that doesn't describe everyone. I can be browsing on my PC while someone else is playing a game on my console.

Then you just buy mutiple PCs/consoles depending on your needs and budget. You are looking at it from a wrong "either-or" perspective. If you had to choose just one device, you'd be better off with gaming PC, because unlike the consoles it can do other (advanced) computing tasks. You could also say: you are browsing on your "home office" desktop/notebook/netbook PC, while someone else is playing a game on (HT)PC(s) in other room(s).

If you have a non-gaming notebook/netbook, and want to play PC games not available on consoles and/or multipatform games with the advantages of higher IQ/better/customizable perfomance/input choice/lower prices/vast library/mods/eternal backwards compatibility/emulation, you buy a desktop gaming PC or a gaming notebook. Otherwise, you buy a console.
If you have a non-gaming desktop, you upgrade it/get a new one or buy a console for the same reasons listed above.

[3dcgi]

Originally Posted by Nebula

If there is something you can notice then it is that PC gamers tend to have both PCs and consoles more than the other way around.

Many PC gamers have already had experience/played console games but few console gamer have played PC games and only knows one game.. Crysis. I guess it has to do with the age group.

Most of my friends are in their 30s and 40s and now play console games more than PC games so they certainly don't fit your profile. I'm not sure that anything can be extrapolated from anecdotal evidence like this though.

To be on topic, I think PC gaming has a great future and its flexibility will help it stay relevant and co-exist with other platforms. Now Microsoft needs to get off their butts and fully integrate the Windows and Xbox Live experiences so there is feature parity and some games can be played across platforms.

[AlphaWolf]

Originally Posted by green.pixel

Then you just buy mutiple PCs/consoles depending on your needs and budget. You are looking at it from a wrong "either-or" perspective. If you had to choose just one device, you'd be better off with gaming PC, because unlike the consoles it can do other (advanced) computing tasks. You could also say: you are browsing on your "home office" desktop/notebook/netbook PC, while someone else is playing a game on (HT)PC(s) in other room(s).

If you have a non-gaming notebook/netbook, and want to play PC games not available on consoles and/or multipatform games with the advantages of higher IQ/better/customizable perfomance/input choice/lower prices/vast library/mods/eternal backwards compatibility/emulation, you buy a desktop gaming PC or a gaming notebook. Otherwise, you buy a console.
If you have a non-gaming desktop, you upgrade it/get a new one or buy a console for the same reasons listed above.

The argument was that you can upgrade an existing PC to get the same result as buying a console. Buying the console adds a device, upgrading an existing device does not. Multiple devices offer added utility that a single device cannot provide.

[joker454]

Originally Posted by 3dcgi

To be on topic, I think PC gaming has a great future and its flexibility will help it stay relevant and co-exist with other platforms.

Let me play devil's advocate for a second. What happens if next gen consoles solve most of the visual issues and are generally considered good enough visually? Looking back at the history of consoles, you can see where the pc improved on things. Both those difference continue to narrow. Remember the old days with color, when consoles could only do 64 or 256 colors whereas the pc had far more. Consoles have long since caught up and we don't think of color anymore at all, both console and pc handle it adequately enough to where it's a non issue. So lets look at some more recent examples between pc and console such as resolution, texture filtering, anti aliasing, texture resolution, and shadows.

1) Resolution. Back in the day the difference was huge, consoles were at 320x200 and pc's were far higher. Obvious difference. Today it's pc at 1920x1080, console at 1280x720. Still a difference, but not as obvious. Next gen console will be at 1920x1080. Pc will be higher still, but at typical 42" to 65" tv size, will it even matter anymore?

2) Texture filtering. Pretty bad on console this gen, very obvious difference between pc and console since you are often comparing blurry floor to non blurry floor. But next gen consoles will do 16x af easily. I'm sure pc will improve it in some other regard, but will be be noticeable when you are now comparing sharp floor to slightly sharper floor?

3) Anti aliasing. Fairly crappy this gen, easy to see the difference between jaggie console games and smooth pc. Next gen console will do 8xmsaa easily however. Pc as always will have the edge, but whereas today it's jaggie vs. smooth, next gen it will be smooth vs. smoother. Once again, will people notice or even care?

4) Shadows. This gen of console they are blocky and crappy, and you see shadow map transitions easily. Next gen, not so much. Today's techniques on pc will be totally doable. Will they be good enough to where people can't tell much difference anymore?

5) Texture resolution. Definitely held back on console due to limited ram. But between 2gb of ram and virtual texturing techniques, will the difference be that big next gen between console and pc?

See what I'm getting at? Todays major visual issue will not be quite so major next gen. PC will still hold the edge I'm sure, and it will likely be 30fps console vs 60fps pc all over again. But many of those areas that mar todays image quality on console will be solved for next gen. Given that, how will the pc stand out if stuff like resolution, texture filtering, shadows, texture resolution and anti aliasing are deemed a wash for most people on typical tv's?

[eastmen]

Originally Posted by joker454

Let me play devil's advocate for a second. What happens if next gen consoles solve most of the visual issues and are generally considered good enough visually? Looking back at the history of consoles, you can see where the pc improved on things. Both those difference continue to narrow. Remember the old days with color, when consoles could only do 64 or 256 colors whereas the pc had far more. Consoles have long since caught up and we don't think of color anymore at all, both console and pc handle it adequately enough to where it's a non issue. So lets look at some more recent examples between pc and console such as resolution, texture filtering, anti aliasing, texture resolution, and shadows.

1) Resolution. Back in the day the difference was huge, consoles were at 320x200 and pc's were far higher. Obvious difference. Today it's pc at 1920x1080, console at 1280x720. Still a difference, but not as obvious. Next gen console will be at 1920x1080. Pc will be higher still, but at typical 42" to 65" tv size, will it even matter anymore?

We pc gamers are moving to multi monitors something that i don't think we will ever see with consoles. Consoles seem to also be making the move to 3d. Which along with resolution will make the jump in generation hardware seem smaller than ever before.

2) Texture filtering. Pretty bad on console this gen, very obvious difference between pc and console since you are often comparing blurry floor to non blurry floor. But next gen consoles will do 16x af easily. I'm sure pc will improve it in some other regard, but will be be noticeable when you are now comparing sharp floor to slightly sharper floor?

Perhaps , who knows what we will see on the pc or on consoles.

3) Anti aliasing. Fairly crappy this gen, easy to see the difference between jaggie console games and smooth pc. Next gen console will do 8xmsaa easily however. Pc as always will have the edge, but whereas today it's jaggie vs. smooth, next gen it will be smooth vs. smoother. Once again, will people notice or even care?

Isn't this alot to expect ? 1080p , 8x fsaa and 3d ? I don't see it happening. One thing to remember is bandwidth and the pc will allways have more of it for the video cards. I don't see a next gen console having the bandwidth of even todays cards

4) Shadows. This gen of console they are blocky and crappy, and you see shadow map transitions easily. Next gen, not so much. Today's techniques on pc will be totally doable. Will they be good enough to where people can't tell much difference anymore?

Again i'm not so sure , its generaly one of the first things i turn down to get better performance even on my 5850.

5) Texture resolution. Definitely held back on console due to limited ram. But between 2gb of ram and virtual texturing techniques, will the difference be that big next gen between console and pc?

More ram ? Consoles may have 2 gigs of ram. But the pcs will have 12 gigs of ram plus 2-4 gigs of ram on the graphics card plus fast ssd's to load from.

See what I'm getting at? Todays major visual issue will not be quite so major next gen. PC will still hold the edge I'm sure, and it will likely be 30fps console vs 60fps pc all over again. But many of those areas that mar todays image quality on console will be solved for next gen. Given that, how will the pc stand out if stuff like resolution, texture filtering, shadows, texture resolution and anti aliasing are deemed a wash for most people on typical tv's?

Who knows what will happen