This has nothing to do really with mouse + keyboard vs console controller.
I just watched the video. There are 2 main factors to why in 2007 PC games sales did not produce thenumbers they were trying to attain. Each of these reason are very simple. 1. Hack/Crack of PC games. This is a HUGE problem in the PC FPS and RTS game market. It isn't so much of a problem for MMO's because the companies themselves monitor the games in real time as to cracks and keys, cheats, exploits ect. When it comes to a FPS / RTS stand alone game, any noob can wonder to their favorite bittorrent site and download + crack any of these games with-in an hours time. Why buy what you can get for free? This is the common mentality of cracker / hacker. I personally know 20 people who did not buy COD4 because they had it downloaded and cracked within the first 12 hours of release. I personally could care less about other people's piracy morality issues. I can't really get mad at an extremely smart person for being smarter than a game developer.... when the developer gets paid to prevent this from happening. Tough love buddy get better at making games and hire someone who is better at game security measures.
2. PC hardware pricing When Crytek made Crysis after years of development. They knew precisely what would be needed to push this game in PC hardware. Hell it's stated right on the box with MIN vs MAX requirements. To play Crysis smooth, Which I have and do, You need some pretty astounding and might I add COSTLY PC hardware parts. I have 3 PC's in my house. My computer, My wifes computer and My old faithful standby (an Alienware 2nd Gen). Without going into great depth on each of them I will break down the 3 major components needed to play a game and play it well. My personal PC - 2 8800GT's in SLi Mode, 6000+ Duel AMD, 4 Gigs RAM Plays Crysis and COD4 Flawless MAX My Wifes PC - 2 7800GT's in SLi Mode, 5800 AMD, 2 Gigs RAM Plays COD4 on High, Crysis on Low Old Standby - 1 5900 GT Ultra Overclock, 5200 AMD, 2 Gigs RAM Can't really play Either with any amount of "gameplay" factor. Now my machine is a extreme example of what is needed to play Crysis and COD4 MAX flawlessly. However most people and I need to stress this MOST people cannot afford a PC like the one on the top of this list. This PC was hand built and cost in upwards of $3200+ dollars. I would assume that the average PC gamer in 2007 is either at my wifes PC specs or somewhere between my old standby and my wifes PC. Alot of adults may be playing at specs like mine but MOST kids are not. I do not care how much money mommy and daddy have, I dont see them handing a 13 year old kid $3200 bucks and saying "here baby go build a new pc so you can play crysis with your friends." HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO SELL 1 MILLION COPIES OF CRYSIS IN 1 MONTH WHEN THERE PROBABLY ARE NOT 1 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE US WHO OWN COMPUTERS HIGH END ENOUGH TO PLAY IT. come on now Crytek use your brain some guys. So these new games being produced are targeted for users on high end gaming rigs... when most of the populace has not caught up to the "norm" of pc hardware yet. Pretty simple... Noone is going to buy your game... if they can't play it at a reasonable quality level.
With your second point you're missing one thing. Someone who has a computer like your wife's that can play Crysis on low now, but in 5 years can have a computer that plays is flawlessly on high. With consoles the game is the same game forever. With PCs you can go back to your old games 5-10 years down the road with better computers and get a better experience out of them.
Gah, RPGs are better on consoles? Don't make me barf. Stupid JRPGs, with their lame plots, long cutscenes, and ridiculous turn based boring system.
Give me Baldur's Gate 2 any day.
You would be a minority of RPG gamer, I like baulder's gate, dungeon siege, neverwinter nights, and many other good pc rpg titles.
Fact still remains tho Console RPG's may not be for you, the billions of copies these games have sold over the last 10 years would prove us both wrong that PC RPG's are better than Console ones.
Much as I like the baulder's gate game... which was also on console. To say that japanese rpg's have no plot makes you seem a little well... I wont go there. Any game that would take you over 80 hours to beat obviously has a plot of some kind. I have played most console RPG's all with a unique story, and plot, nice diverse characters, great cut scenes. Nothing to barf over.
I notice you left out great, nice, unique gameplay. Because really, I play games to, y'know PLAY GAMES. JRPGs weren't meant to be played. They were meant to be looked at because they're pretty. The gameplay is like smacking your head against a wall.
As for them having no plot, most don't. Sorry, FF7 had a lousy plot. And its generally lauded as one of the best. Just read the wikipedia plot page for FF7, compare it to Baldur's Gate. Or, y'know, play both games. FF7 is confusing, annoying, poorly laid out, presents its plot in fits and spurts (sometimes slamming you face first into a cutscene, other times leaving you to wander for quite some time, with little rhyme or reason). And its one of the better ones. FF10 deliberately tried to annoy you with its plot, I swear.
I would take you for a troll if I thought for one minute you were actually serious. I do not know 1 person that smacked there head playing FF7..... I know people that didnt go to class or work to play it tho..... For you to slander one of the greatest RPG's of our time with "it had no plot" is ridiculous. Your trying to be a bait troll.
People could write you a friggin noval on FF7's plot, theories and conspiracies.
For a game that had NO plot, it sure did spawn a huge cult following, a full length CG animated movie, a 2 part OVA movie series, 2 Spin off sequel games Dirge of Cerebus and the new Crisis Core : PSP. All that for a game noone thinks is any good or has a plot.....
Off the top of my head, WoW, Enemy Territiory, UT3, Joint operations, Armed Assault, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 1&2, Dawn of War, Supreme Commander, Fear, Half life 2, any of the battlefiled games and every multiplayer game that hosts more than 8 players of which there are hundreds. As far as I know, none of the top end PC games can be ported to console. Which is why they haven't been. You get total remakes of popular brandnames made by completely different companies on completely different game engines. We on the other hand get direct ports of Console games, because our platforms specs can handle it.
Bioshock won't work nicely on any PC cheap or expensive. It's a port. It will always lag. If you want to play Bioshock, buy an Xbox 360.
Essentially the games that won;t work on consoles are those that need a lot of processing, i.e that can host many players, or manage lots of AI. Those that need lots of RAM, ie large maps or hosting lots of players (16+). Those that have high resolution graphics using textures > 128K or last 2 generation SFX. (Triple screen, head tracking, bla bla bla). Those that use EAX sound.
If you want to buy a PC just to play Bioshock, you don;t need a new one, try Ebay. 512 RAM and a 256 VRAM card plus onboard sound will do you fine.
Sorry for asking, but what was the point of naming those games? Most of those games are avaible on consoles. UT 3 is avaible on consoles, Ghost recond advanced warfighter 1 + 2, Supreme Commander is currently being ported to the 360, fear and Half life 2 are both avaible on consoles.
Also, Resistance 2 will contain 60 player multiplayer, I have no idea where you found that 8 player match, are you still talking about the previous generation or something?
Almost no console games have mods and you still need a pc to make them.
But most people don't make or play mods. There are so MANY console FPS that I really don't have time to go through all the time, not to mentioned amateurish mods.
Really now just about every PC owner uses Mods nowadays and most mos are very nicely made now.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Gah, RPGs are better on consoles? Don't make me barf. Stupid JRPGs, with their lame plots, long cutscenes, and ridiculous turn based boring system.
Give me Baldur's Gate 2 any day.
You would be a minority of RPG gamer, I like baulder's gate, dungeon siege, neverwinter nights, and many other good pc rpg titles.
Fact still remains tho Console RPG's may not be for you, the billions of copies these games have sold over the last 10 years would prove us both wrong that PC RPG's are better than Console ones.
Much as I like the baulder's gate game... which was also on console. To say that japanese rpg's have no plot makes you seem a little well... I wont go there. Any game that would take you over 80 hours to beat obviously has a plot of some kind. I have played most console RPG's all with a unique story, and plot, nice diverse characters, great cut scenes. Nothing to barf over.
I notice you left out great, nice, unique gameplay. Because really, I play games to, y'know PLAY GAMES. JRPGs weren't meant to be played. They were meant to be looked at because they're pretty. The gameplay is like smacking your head against a wall.
As for them having no plot, most don't. Sorry, FF7 had a lousy plot. And its generally lauded as one of the best. Just read the wikipedia plot page for FF7, compare it to Baldur's Gate. Or, y'know, play both games. FF7 is confusing, annoying, poorly laid out, presents its plot in fits and spurts (sometimes slamming you face first into a cutscene, other times leaving you to wander for quite some time, with little rhyme or reason). And its one of the better ones. FF10 deliberately tried to annoy you with its plot, I swear.
I would take you for a troll if I thought for one minute you were actually serious. I do not know 1 person that smacked there head playing FF7..... I know people that didnt go to class or work to play it tho..... For you to slander one of the greatest RPG's of our time with "it had no plot" is ridiculous. Your trying to be a bait troll.
People could write you a friggin noval on FF7's plot, theories and conspiracies.
For a game that had NO plot, it sure did spawn a huge cult following, a full length CG animated movie, a 2 part OVA movie series, 2 Spin off sequel games Dirge of Cerebus and the new Crisis Core : PSP. All that for a game noone thinks is any good or has a plot.....
Troll Poo
FF7 was a really good game, but unless you are just a fanboy the plot made little to no sense. That's why everything they've used to extend the story like the movies and games you mentioned sucked ass. Something doesn't have to be good to have a cult following. Actually typically cult followings are using for things that are crap that small groups refuse to accept.
Gah, RPGs are better on consoles? Don't make me barf. Stupid JRPGs, with their lame plots, long cutscenes, and ridiculous turn based boring system.
Give me Baldur's Gate 2 any day.
You would be a minority of RPG gamer, I like baulder's gate, dungeon siege, neverwinter nights, and many other good pc rpg titles.
Fact still remains tho Console RPG's may not be for you, the billions of copies these games have sold over the last 10 years would prove us both wrong that PC RPG's are better than Console ones.
Much as I like the baulder's gate game... which was also on console. To say that japanese rpg's have no plot makes you seem a little well... I wont go there. Any game that would take you over 80 hours to beat obviously has a plot of some kind. I have played most console RPG's all with a unique story, and plot, nice diverse characters, great cut scenes. Nothing to barf over.
I notice you left out great, nice, unique gameplay. Because really, I play games to, y'know PLAY GAMES. JRPGs weren't meant to be played. They were meant to be looked at because they're pretty. The gameplay is like smacking your head against a wall.
As for them having no plot, most don't. Sorry, FF7 had a lousy plot. And its generally lauded as one of the best. Just read the wikipedia plot page for FF7, compare it to Baldur's Gate. Or, y'know, play both games. FF7 is confusing, annoying, poorly laid out, presents its plot in fits and spurts (sometimes slamming you face first into a cutscene, other times leaving you to wander for quite some time, with little rhyme or reason). And its one of the better ones. FF10 deliberately tried to annoy you with its plot, I swear.
I would take you for a troll if I thought for one minute you were actually serious. I do not know 1 person that smacked there head playing FF7..... I know people that didnt go to class or work to play it tho..... For you to slander one of the greatest RPG's of our time with "it had no plot" is ridiculous. Your trying to be a bait troll.
People could write you a friggin noval on FF7's plot, theories and conspiracies.
For a game that had NO plot, it sure did spawn a huge cult following, a full length CG animated movie, a 2 part OVA movie series, 2 Spin off sequel games Dirge of Cerebus and the new Crisis Core : PSP. All that for a game noone thinks is any good or has a plot.....
Troll Poo
Some people consider any RPG that isn't based on generic tolkien/D&D fantasy storyline as trash.
Off the top of my head, WoW, Enemy Territiory, UT3, Joint operations, Armed Assault, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 1&2, Dawn of War, Supreme Commander, Fear, Half life 2, any of the battlefiled games and every multiplayer game that hosts more than 8 players of which there are hundreds. As far as I know, none of the top end PC games can be ported to console. Which is why they haven't been. You get total remakes of popular brandnames made by completely different companies on completely different game engines. We on the other hand get direct ports of Console games, because our platforms specs can handle it.
Bioshock won't work nicely on any PC cheap or expensive. It's a port. It will always lag. If you want to play Bioshock, buy an Xbox 360.
Essentially the games that won;t work on consoles are those that need a lot of processing, i.e that can host many players, or manage lots of AI. Those that need lots of RAM, ie large maps or hosting lots of players (16+). Those that have high resolution graphics using textures > 128K or last 2 generation SFX. (Triple screen, head tracking, bla bla bla). Those that use EAX sound.
If you want to buy a PC just to play Bioshock, you don;t need a new one, try Ebay. 512 RAM and a 256 VRAM card plus onboard sound will do you fine.
Sorry for asking, but what was the point of naming those games? Most of those games are avaible on consoles. UT 3 is avaible on consoles, Ghost recond advanced warfighter 1 + 2, Supreme Commander is currently being ported to the 360, fear and Half life 2 are both avaible on consoles.
Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter for the Xbox, is not the same software as Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter on the PC. GRAW for the PC is a first person Shooter. They have the same theme and same titles but are totally different softwares made by totally different studios. One has long draw distances, 512 MB GFX textures, 1.5 GB maps and the other one has less than 512 MB system files, maps and textures combined.
Half life 2 and UT3 are both gimped for Xbox 360 as will be Supreme Commander.
In Half Life 2 you lose GFX options and map size. In UT3 you lose GFX options, online player limits and AI count. In Supreme Commander you will lose literally thousands of units from your unit count not to mention significant map size. If you played C&C3 on both the PC and the Xbox 360, you will notice that the PC version suffered from tiny maps and low unit counts, while the Xbox version lagged from the strain.
Both Half life 2 and UT3 however should, in my humble opinion, cross over well to the Xbox 360 and PS3. While those machines can't reproduce the games as well as a good PC, they can do it well enough to enjoy the core gameplay. Both use very scaleable game engines and can provide comfortble perormances on a wide variety of equipment.
Here's a little exert from an XBox Supreme Commander review at Yahoo games..
"With such high system recommendations on the PC, it's no surprise that Supreme Commander doesn't look quite as good on the console. It looks better than the game running on the lowest settings, trust me I know. But compared to the highest settings on the PC you'll notice lower resolution textures, an absence of the biggest maps and only four player online play instead of eight. We also noticed regular dips in the framerate while playing, though the game isn't quite finished. In the final build, we were promised that the framerate would be steady while the AI simply slows down to accommodate the huge number of on-screen units."
The problem with Supreme Commander, is the only thing that set's it aside from the other RTS's. It's no.1 sales gimmick is the aomunt of power it uses to provide you with the biggest and most heavily populated warzones found in any RTS to date. I use a full 3 GB of RAM to play this game. You think 512 RAM can do what 3GB can do? It can't. You will be getting the scaled down version. My advice to you is don't bother. Buy a PC and a damn big one at that if you want to play this game.
Off the top of my head, WoW, Enemy Territiory, UT3, Joint operations, Armed Assault, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 1&2, Dawn of War, Supreme Commander, Fear, Half life 2, any of the battlefiled games and every multiplayer game that hosts more than 8 players of which there are hundreds. As far as I know, none of the top end PC games can be ported to console. Which is why they haven't been. You get total remakes of popular brandnames made by completely different companies on completely different game engines. We on the other hand get direct ports of Console games, because our platforms specs can handle it.
Bioshock won't work nicely on any PC cheap or expensive. It's a port. It will always lag. If you want to play Bioshock, buy an Xbox 360.
Essentially the games that won;t work on consoles are those that need a lot of processing, i.e that can host many players, or manage lots of AI. Those that need lots of RAM, ie large maps or hosting lots of players (16+). Those that have high resolution graphics using textures > 128K or last 2 generation SFX. (Triple screen, head tracking, bla bla bla). Those that use EAX sound.
If you want to buy a PC just to play Bioshock, you don;t need a new one, try Ebay. 512 RAM and a 256 VRAM card plus onboard sound will do you fine.
Sorry for asking, but what was the point of naming those games? Most of those games are avaible on consoles. UT 3 is avaible on consoles, Ghost recond advanced warfighter 1 + 2, Supreme Commander is currently being ported to the 360, fear and Half life 2 are both avaible on consoles.
Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter for the Xbox, is not the same software as Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter on the PC. They have the same theme and same titles but are totally different softwares made by totally different studios. One has long draw distances, 512 MBGFX textures, 1.5 GB maps and the other one has less than 512 MB system files, maps and textures combined.
Half life 2 and UT3 are both gimped for Xbox 360 as will be Supreme Commander.
In half life 2 you lose GFX options and map size. In UT3 you lose GFX options and AI count. In Supreme Commander you will lose literelally thousands of units from your unit count no to mention significant mapo size. If you played C&C3 on both the PC ans the Xbox 360, you will notice that the PC version suffered from tiny maps and low unit counts, while the Xbox version lagged from the strain.
Here's a little exert from an XBOx Supreme Commander review.
"With such high system recommendations on the PC, it's no surprise that Supreme Commander doesn't look quite as good on the console. It looks better than the game running on the lowest settings, trust me I know. But compared to the highest settings on the PC you'll notice lower resolution textures, an absence of the biggest maps and only four player online play instead of eight. We also noticed regular dips in the framerate while playing, though the game isn't quite finished. In the final build, we were promised that the framerate would be steady while the AI simply slows down to accommodate the huge number of on-screen units."
The problem with Supreme Commander, is the only thing that set's it aside from the other RTS's. It's no.1 sales gimmick is the aomunt of power it uses to provide you with the biggest and most heavily populated warzones found in any RTS to date. I use a full 3 GB of RAM to play this game. You think 512 RAM can do what 3GB can do? It can't. You will be getting the scaled down version. Little Gimpy.
Half Life 2 and UT3 are nearly identical on the consoles as on the PC, I own both Half Life 2 on the PC and the Orange Box version on the Xbox360 and there is barely any difference. UT3 is also said to be nearly identical to it's PC counterpart, saying that it's gimped is nothing short of ignorance.
It's clear that you did no research on the online capabilities of consoles whatsoever. Saying that consoles can't handle games with less then 8 players is downright ridiculous. Even the first Xbox could handle much more than just 8 players.
Also, that article doesn't say anything about the amount of units on screen being pushed back.
Sorry to be rude about this but you are living on fantasy island. 512 MB RAM can't do the same job as 3 GB. If you need "an article" to explain that to you, you shouldn't be buying your own equipment without advice anyway.
I've done my best to explain it you, GL. The rest is up to you mate.
Lower system specs mean smaller games. This isn't rocket science.
There are finite limits and I've done my best to explain to you what differences you should expect to find.
Considering you were unwilling to spend $600 on your PC, I'm not suprised you don't see a great deal of difference between Half life 2 on PC and Xbox. I however, do. That said I would be very pleased to own Half life 2 on the Xbox 360, I think it is a game that will work well on the system.
I feel very much the same about UT3. UT3 on the PC however has double the amount of players available in MP and larger maps to match. The Xbox version is restricted to 16 players maximum.
Go get the demo and count them for yourself mate. I run with 10,000 units. Sorry to be rude about this but you are living on fantasy island. 512 MB RAM can't do the same job as 3 GB. If you need "an article" to explain that to you, you shouldn't be buying your own equipment without advice anyway. I've done my best to explain it you, GL. The rest is up to you mate. Lower system specs mean smaller games. This isn't rocket science. There are finite limits and I've done my best to explain to you what differences you should expect to find.
Considering you were unwilling to spend $600 on your PC, I'm not suprised you don't see a great deal of difference between Half life 2 on PC and Xbox. I however, do. That said I would be very pleased to own Half life 2 on the Xbox 360, I think it is a game that will work well on the system.
Half Life 2 is 2 year old game, you don't need a modern 1000$ system to run it. I can play Half Life 2 on max on my current PC, and I see no noticable difference between the PC version on max and the Xbox360 version.
There are sure to be differences between a top of the line computer and a game console, but the difference is not as big as you claim it to be in terms of games.
The difference will be maps 1/2 of the size in Supreme commander, and an AI count of 1/8th and textures of 1/4. This is beacuse of the hardware limitation. Do the maths for yourself, you don't have to be looking at it to be able to count.
Further to this the MP limit is exactly one half of the PC on the Xbox.
In UT3 the largest Xbox maps will again be half the size of some found on the PC version and the server population is half. The XBox 360 is fully 2 generations behind the PC on SFX and can't reproduce the advanced sounds either.
I don't know about you, but I can easily spot the difference between an 8 a side game and a 16 a side game and when a guy who can hear where I am on the map pwns me I won't be crying "hax".
Lets not even bother with Battlefields 64 player games, or Joint Ops' 150. You can't see the difference? I can and it's a hobby I don't mind paying extra for.
I absolutely agree that you don't need to spend $1,000 on a Half Life 2 system. That said, if you already have one, you will see the difference from a $600 system and most especially a $270 system. You get what you pay for.
As a long time PC gamer, I've just go to say serves them right for releasing so much fjcking clones. Seriously, maybe if you investors would be willing to drop your money on an original concept from time to time PC gaming wouldn't be in such a slump! Right now, the industry seems to be going to the indy developer, and more power to them. You dropped the ball big time on this one, corporate America.
That said, piracy is definately a contributing factor as well. We're probably going to see a lot more software distributed via a Gametap or Steam-like model in the future because crackers are far too good at what they do. No software-based protection has a chance, only proprietary hardware will even slow them down, and they'll get around that too eventually.
The difference will be maps 1/4 of the size in Supreme commander, and an AI count of 1/8th and textures of 1/4. This is beacuse of the hardware limitation. Do the maths for yourself, you don't have to be looking at it to be able to count. Further to this the MP limit is exactly one half of the PC on the Xbox. In UT3 the largest Xbox maps will again be half the size of some found on the PC version and the server population is half. The XBox 360 is fully 2 generations behind the PC on SFX and can't reproduce the advanced sounds either. I don't know about you, but I can easily spot the difference between an 8 a side game and a 16 a side game and when a guy who can hear where I am on the map pwns me I won't be crying "hax". Lets not even bother with Battlefields 64 player games, or Joint Ops' 150. You can't see the difference? I can and it's a hobby I don't mind paying extra for.
I absolutely agree that you don't need to spend $1,000 on a Half Life 2 system. That said, if you already have one, you will see the difference from a $600 system and most especially a $270 system. You get what you pay for.
If the PS3 can handle all maps, then I see no reason why the Xbox 360 can't, especialy considering Epic has not announced any content scrap from the Xbox 360 yet.
Also, the limit of multiplayer on the xbox 360 is not 8 players.
If Madden Football, Halo, Pokemon (and insert you fav franchise name) sell millions and millions of each sequel, it is hard to see why an investor would want to support anything but those. The consumers obvious preference for sequel is driving the market.
Sometimes original ideas work (like Mass Effects) but still, if it is my investment on the line, I want the guarantee ROI.
Gah, RPGs are better on consoles? Don't make me barf. Stupid JRPGs, with their lame plots, long cutscenes, and ridiculous turn based boring system.
Give me Baldur's Gate 2 any day.
You would be a minority of RPG gamer, I like baulder's gate, dungeon siege, neverwinter nights, and many other good pc rpg titles.
Fact still remains tho Console RPG's may not be for you, the billions of copies these games have sold over the last 10 years would prove us both wrong that PC RPG's are better than Console ones.
Much as I like the baulder's gate game... which was also on console. To say that japanese rpg's have no plot makes you seem a little well... I wont go there. Any game that would take you over 80 hours to beat obviously has a plot of some kind. I have played most console RPG's all with a unique story, and plot, nice diverse characters, great cut scenes. Nothing to barf over.
I notice you left out great, nice, unique gameplay. Because really, I play games to, y'know PLAY GAMES. JRPGs weren't meant to be played. They were meant to be looked at because they're pretty. The gameplay is like smacking your head against a wall.
As for them having no plot, most don't. Sorry, FF7 had a lousy plot. And its generally lauded as one of the best. Just read the wikipedia plot page for FF7, compare it to Baldur's Gate. Or, y'know, play both games. FF7 is confusing, annoying, poorly laid out, presents its plot in fits and spurts (sometimes slamming you face first into a cutscene, other times leaving you to wander for quite some time, with little rhyme or reason). And its one of the better ones. FF10 deliberately tried to annoy you with its plot, I swear.
I would take you for a troll if I thought for one minute you were actually serious. I do not know 1 person that smacked there head playing FF7..... I know people that didnt go to class or work to play it tho..... For you to slander one of the greatest RPG's of our time with "it had no plot" is ridiculous. Your trying to be a bait troll.
People could write you a friggin noval on FF7's plot, theories and conspiracies.
For a game that had NO plot, it sure did spawn a huge cult following, a full length CG animated movie, a 2 part OVA movie series, 2 Spin off sequel games Dirge of Cerebus and the new Crisis Core : PSP. All that for a game noone thinks is any good or has a plot.....
Troll Poo
FF7 was a really good game, but unless you are just a fanboy the plot made little to no sense. That's why everything they've used to extend the story like the movies and games you mentioned sucked ass. Something doesn't have to be good to have a cult following. Actually typically cult followings are using for things that are crap that small groups refuse to accept.
If you happened to enjoy FF7's gameplay, good for you. I don't particularly like the genre (turn-based RPG combat) but that doesn't make the genre bad, per se, simply something I dislike.
But anyone who doesn't agree about the plot is just fanboying. As for the person who said it wasn't a D&D plot... what the hell is a D&D plot? You're probably refering to Forgotten Realms, instead of Planescape: Torment, Ravenloft, or Dark Sun? I mean that's just a guess, but clearly you have very little idea of what D&D is.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Gah, RPGs are better on consoles? Don't make me barf. Stupid JRPGs, with their lame plots, long cutscenes, and ridiculous turn based boring system.
Give me Baldur's Gate 2 any day.
You would be a minority of RPG gamer, I like baulder's gate, dungeon siege, neverwinter nights, and many other good pc rpg titles.
Fact still remains tho Console RPG's may not be for you, the billions of copies these games have sold over the last 10 years would prove us both wrong that PC RPG's are better than Console ones.
Much as I like the baulder's gate game... which was also on console. To say that japanese rpg's have no plot makes you seem a little well... I wont go there. Any game that would take you over 80 hours to beat obviously has a plot of some kind. I have played most console RPG's all with a unique story, and plot, nice diverse characters, great cut scenes. Nothing to barf over.
I notice you left out great, nice, unique gameplay. Because really, I play games to, y'know PLAY GAMES. JRPGs weren't meant to be played. They were meant to be looked at because they're pretty. The gameplay is like smacking your head against a wall.
As for them having no plot, most don't. Sorry, FF7 had a lousy plot. And its generally lauded as one of the best. Just read the wikipedia plot page for FF7, compare it to Baldur's Gate. Or, y'know, play both games. FF7 is confusing, annoying, poorly laid out, presents its plot in fits and spurts (sometimes slamming you face first into a cutscene, other times leaving you to wander for quite some time, with little rhyme or reason). And its one of the better ones. FF10 deliberately tried to annoy you with its plot, I swear.
I would take you for a troll if I thought for one minute you were actually serious. I do not know 1 person that smacked there head playing FF7..... I know people that didnt go to class or work to play it tho..... For you to slander one of the greatest RPG's of our time with "it had no plot" is ridiculous. Your trying to be a bait troll.
People could write you a friggin noval on FF7's plot, theories and conspiracies.
For a game that had NO plot, it sure did spawn a huge cult following, a full length CG animated movie, a 2 part OVA movie series, 2 Spin off sequel games Dirge of Cerebus and the new Crisis Core : PSP. All that for a game noone thinks is any good or has a plot.....
Troll Poo
FF7 was a really good game, but unless you are just a fanboy the plot made little to no sense. That's why everything they've used to extend the story like the movies and games you mentioned sucked ass. Something doesn't have to be good to have a cult following. Actually typically cult followings are using for things that are crap that small groups refuse to accept.
If you happened to enjoy FF7's gameplay, good for you. I don't particularly like the genre (turn-based RPG combat) but that doesn't make the genre bad, per se, simply something I dislike.
But anyone who doesn't agree about the plot is just fanboying. As for the person who said it wasn't a D&D plot... what the hell is a D&D plot? You're probably refering to Forgotten Realms, instead of Planescape: Torment, Ravenloft, or Dark Sun? I mean that's just a guess, but clearly you have very little idea of what D&D is.
Final Fantasy 7 is famous for it's plot, get over it. Just because someone enjoys the storyline does not mean that person is a fanboi. Just because you found it confusing does not mean other people find it confusing. The plot was interesting and it managed to reveal parts of the plot untill the very end of the game.
also, a D&D plot is what I consider typical generic western fantasy lore.
Final Fantasy 7 is famous for it's plot, get over it. Just because someone enjoys the storyline does not mean that person is a fanboi. Just because you found it confusing does not mean other people find it confusing. The plot was interesting and it managed to reveal parts of the plot untill the very end of the game. also, a D&D plot is what I consider typical generic western fantasy lore.
I think i shall join in here in agreeing with Gameloading in saying that the plot in FF7 was very engrossing. In fact it was my very first Final Fantasy Ive ever played so i guess it made quite an impression with me.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
Console gaming is getting just as pricey as mid level pc's and they still do less. It may only be 400 to 600 dollars for the box but then you gotta have all the 'extra' doo dads that companies like Sony and Microcrap er Microsoft leave off so they can continue to bleed money out of you like extra controllers, an extra internet connection fee (for the xbox360 users), memory cards if you want to take a game to your friends house, etc etc.
Personally I don' t think PC gaming will ever die out it'll just continue to evolve. Though hopefully they'll get back to make games fun instead of just pretty.
No they're not. Computer manufactors sell hardware at a profit, consoles are sold at a loss which is made up through software sales. also Xbox360 and PS3 equal high end pc's, not mid level pc's. PC gaming is dying at worst and turning into a very small niche genre at best. The hardware is to expensive and the features are dropping one by one. Online Multiplayer? Now avaible on Consoles. Mods? Now avaible on consoles.
ofcourse we get the old tiresome argument :"b-but I can upgrade my PC!" yeah well guess what: You're a minority. The vast majority of people are not prepared to pay up 200$ ~ 300$ every 2 years, so you're not going to be the target audience for the vast majority of game developers. Games like Bioshock, Call of Duty 4 and UT3, all considered to be some of the best looking games avaible, are easily done on consoles.
XBox 360's and PS3 = low to mid end PC's. You can't actually buy a new PC that isn't twice as powerful. No one has made anything that low spec for over 3 years now. The GFX are 2 generations old, the processors, abandonware designs that the PC market passed over in favour of the Athlon 64. The RAM is slow and substantially less than commonly found in many of todays mobile phones.
They still rock of course, but I wouldn't be getting any silly idea's about them being high powered in comparison to PC's.
I think you may have confused a comparison of the expected power of the console, 3 years before it came out with the PC's of that date and forgot to re-make comparison of what is actually on offer today.
Add to that a basic gaming PC costs less than a PS3 as does it's software and any price argument hardly holds water. As you say the console cost is subsidised by a premium on the games. It isn't cheaper for the end user, and there is simply no way any console manufacturer can compete with PC for hardware prices, their market is positively tiny by comparison.
For the record, computer manufacturers also sell their products at a loss when they are seeking to gain market share with a new product in a competative market. This is common practise in most industries. Intel do it all the time.
I think some one needs to recognise when he has been pitched a sale.
I totally agree with you in terms of the hardware. Even a PS3 has pretty meager stats on paper compared to a $600 PC.
The problem is that on a console you don't just get a little more graphical bang for your buck, you get about ten times as much. An X-box 360 game that really pushes the hardware to the limit will run on every single X-box 360. A PC game that pushes a high end PC to the limit will run like balls on at least 95% of PCs in homes.
Because of this console developers can afford to push the hardware to it's absolute limits, whereas PC developers have to be pretty cautious. And because of that, to get graphics about on par with a $400 X-box 360 or PS3 on a good TV, you need at least a $1500 PC, if not an even better one.
Don't get me wrong. Pc gaming is certainly not going anywhere. In fact I consider it nearly inevitable that eventually PCs will replace consoles, or consoles will evolve into PCs. Once BB access is universal, and you can play games that look as good as anything out on the market now through a web browser, I suspect that the current system through which games are distributed will become utterly obsolete. The line between your TV and your PC monitor is also a very artificial one. Slowly but surely it is beginning to erode.
But for the time being, consoles are much more user friendly than PCs and have graphics on par with a high end gaming PC. Yes a hardcore PC gamer can tell the difference. But to Joe Average consumer, anything from Wii on up probably looks about the same. Certainly Joe Average is not going to look at Halo III and think, "Wow, this looks like shit next to an average game on a $5000 PC." Hell, I do 95% of my gaming on the PC and I wouldn't say that.
I don't want to write this, and you don't want to read it. But now it's too late for both of us.
The difference will be maps 1/4 of the size in Supreme commander, and an AI count of 1/8th and textures of 1/4. This is beacuse of the hardware limitation. Do the maths for yourself, you don't have to be looking at it to be able to count. Further to this the MP limit is exactly one half of the PC on the Xbox. In UT3 the largest Xbox maps will again be half the size of some found on the PC version and the server population is half. The XBox 360 is fully 2 generations behind the PC on SFX and can't reproduce the advanced sounds either. I don't know about you, but I can easily spot the difference between an 8 a side game and a 16 a side game and when a guy who can hear where I am on the map pwns me I won't be crying "hax". Lets not even bother with Battlefields 64 player games, or Joint Ops' 150. You can't see the difference? I can and it's a hobby I don't mind paying extra for.
I absolutely agree that you don't need to spend $1,000 on a Half Life 2 system. That said, if you already have one, you will see the difference from a $600 system and most especially a $270 system. You get what you pay for.
If the PS3 can handle all maps, then I see no reason why the Xbox 360 can't, especialy considering Epic has not announced any content scrap from the Xbox 360 yet.
Also, the limit of multiplayer on the xbox 360 is not 8 players.
The multiplayer limit is 16, exactly half the multiplayer limit of the PC version. (16 = 8 a side)
The multiplayer limit is 16 for the PS3 also.
Neither the PS3 nor the Xbox 360 can handle the 32 player maps.
I concur that the XBox 360 and the PS3 have effective hardware parity.
Quotes from your review
"it manages to nearly match the PC's visual capabilities"
"The only noteworthy differences are the game's pacing, the controls, and the online options. The PlayStation 3 version of the game has been slowed down a bit; if you consider the PC version to be dialed in at 11, the PS3 version would fall somewhere in the range of 7 to 9. "
Good enough to be a very enjoyable game, just as a Ford Mondeo would be good enough to drive me from A to B or a two up two down would be more than adequate space for my family home. The thing is, I'm not that guy.
I am quite willing to believe that UT3 will be a fun game on the PS3 or Xbox. I think both of those machines have the power to do justice to the game and it's very scaleable so it will convert well to their systems. Once again however, this is a technology title, many of the real advances in this game from it's previous incarnation simply won't be visible on consoles. A significant factor in the games appeal has been removed for console players. You don't get to see what the latest in computer games SFX are. You don't get to see what all the next gen of Unreal engines will be capable of producing. You just get more of the same Unreal that is already maxing out your system with some new maps.
Beyond bad sales... The issue is coming down to... Why make PC games? Consoles can handle most of the modern graphics(and most pcs can't handle the pumping top notch games above what consoles can do anyway).
Keyboards and mouses can be attached to consoles.
You can browse the net on a console.
You can download games and movies and patches onto consoles.
And at the same time, developers have it much easier because they don't have to configure the game for 1000000 different hardware setups, you don't have people having invisible characters because of their version of windows and video card drivers.
I could honestly see in 10-20 years pcs being the "programmer/developer" console, and "consoles" being the gaming/recreational "console". Because each iteration of console generation grows closer and closer to being a pc.
Also have you seen any good non mmorpg pc games that are pc exclusive? I have. All 3 of them.
Comments
With your second point you're missing one thing. Someone who has a computer like your wife's that can play Crysis on low now, but in 5 years can have a computer that plays is flawlessly on high. With consoles the game is the same game forever. With PCs you can go back to your old games 5-10 years down the road with better computers and get a better experience out of them.
member of imminst.org
You would be a minority of RPG gamer, I like baulder's gate, dungeon siege, neverwinter nights, and many other good pc rpg titles.
Fact still remains tho Console RPG's may not be for you, the billions of copies these games have sold over the last 10 years would prove us both wrong that PC RPG's are better than Console ones.
Much as I like the baulder's gate game... which was also on console. To say that japanese rpg's have no plot makes you seem a little well... I wont go there. Any game that would take you over 80 hours to beat obviously has a plot of some kind. I have played most console RPG's all with a unique story, and plot, nice diverse characters, great cut scenes. Nothing to barf over.
I notice you left out great, nice, unique gameplay. Because really, I play games to, y'know PLAY GAMES. JRPGs weren't meant to be played. They were meant to be looked at because they're pretty. The gameplay is like smacking your head against a wall.As for them having no plot, most don't. Sorry, FF7 had a lousy plot. And its generally lauded as one of the best. Just read the wikipedia plot page for FF7, compare it to Baldur's Gate. Or, y'know, play both games. FF7 is confusing, annoying, poorly laid out, presents its plot in fits and spurts (sometimes slamming you face first into a cutscene, other times leaving you to wander for quite some time, with little rhyme or reason). And its one of the better ones. FF10 deliberately tried to annoy you with its plot, I swear.
I would take you for a troll if I thought for one minute you were actually serious. I do not know 1 person that smacked there head playing FF7..... I know people that didnt go to class or work to play it tho..... For you to slander one of the greatest RPG's of our time with "it had no plot" is ridiculous. Your trying to be a bait troll.
People could write you a friggin noval on FF7's plot, theories and conspiracies.
For a game that had NO plot, it sure did spawn a huge cult following, a full length CG animated movie, a 2 part OVA movie series, 2 Spin off sequel games Dirge of Cerebus and the new Crisis Core : PSP. All that for a game noone thinks is any good or has a plot.....
Troll Poo
Sorry for asking, but what was the point of naming those games? Most of those games are avaible on consoles. UT 3 is avaible on consoles, Ghost recond advanced warfighter 1 + 2, Supreme Commander is currently being ported to the 360, fear and Half life 2 are both avaible on consoles.
Also, Resistance 2 will contain 60 player multiplayer, I have no idea where you found that 8 player match, are you still talking about the previous generation or something?
But most people don't make or play mods. There are so MANY console FPS that I really don't have time to go through all the time, not to mentioned amateurish mods.
Really now just about every PC owner uses Mods nowadays and most mos are very nicely made now.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
You would be a minority of RPG gamer, I like baulder's gate, dungeon siege, neverwinter nights, and many other good pc rpg titles.
Fact still remains tho Console RPG's may not be for you, the billions of copies these games have sold over the last 10 years would prove us both wrong that PC RPG's are better than Console ones.
Much as I like the baulder's gate game... which was also on console. To say that japanese rpg's have no plot makes you seem a little well... I wont go there. Any game that would take you over 80 hours to beat obviously has a plot of some kind. I have played most console RPG's all with a unique story, and plot, nice diverse characters, great cut scenes. Nothing to barf over.
I notice you left out great, nice, unique gameplay. Because really, I play games to, y'know PLAY GAMES. JRPGs weren't meant to be played. They were meant to be looked at because they're pretty. The gameplay is like smacking your head against a wall.As for them having no plot, most don't. Sorry, FF7 had a lousy plot. And its generally lauded as one of the best. Just read the wikipedia plot page for FF7, compare it to Baldur's Gate. Or, y'know, play both games. FF7 is confusing, annoying, poorly laid out, presents its plot in fits and spurts (sometimes slamming you face first into a cutscene, other times leaving you to wander for quite some time, with little rhyme or reason). And its one of the better ones. FF10 deliberately tried to annoy you with its plot, I swear.
I would take you for a troll if I thought for one minute you were actually serious. I do not know 1 person that smacked there head playing FF7..... I know people that didnt go to class or work to play it tho..... For you to slander one of the greatest RPG's of our time with "it had no plot" is ridiculous. Your trying to be a bait troll.
People could write you a friggin noval on FF7's plot, theories and conspiracies.
For a game that had NO plot, it sure did spawn a huge cult following, a full length CG animated movie, a 2 part OVA movie series, 2 Spin off sequel games Dirge of Cerebus and the new Crisis Core : PSP. All that for a game noone thinks is any good or has a plot.....
Troll Poo
FF7 was a really good game, but unless you are just a fanboy the plot made little to no sense. That's why everything they've used to extend the story like the movies and games you mentioned sucked ass. Something doesn't have to be good to have a cult following. Actually typically cult followings are using for things that are crap that small groups refuse to accept.
member of imminst.org
You would be a minority of RPG gamer, I like baulder's gate, dungeon siege, neverwinter nights, and many other good pc rpg titles.
Fact still remains tho Console RPG's may not be for you, the billions of copies these games have sold over the last 10 years would prove us both wrong that PC RPG's are better than Console ones.
Much as I like the baulder's gate game... which was also on console. To say that japanese rpg's have no plot makes you seem a little well... I wont go there. Any game that would take you over 80 hours to beat obviously has a plot of some kind. I have played most console RPG's all with a unique story, and plot, nice diverse characters, great cut scenes. Nothing to barf over.
I notice you left out great, nice, unique gameplay. Because really, I play games to, y'know PLAY GAMES. JRPGs weren't meant to be played. They were meant to be looked at because they're pretty. The gameplay is like smacking your head against a wall.As for them having no plot, most don't. Sorry, FF7 had a lousy plot. And its generally lauded as one of the best. Just read the wikipedia plot page for FF7, compare it to Baldur's Gate. Or, y'know, play both games. FF7 is confusing, annoying, poorly laid out, presents its plot in fits and spurts (sometimes slamming you face first into a cutscene, other times leaving you to wander for quite some time, with little rhyme or reason). And its one of the better ones. FF10 deliberately tried to annoy you with its plot, I swear.
I would take you for a troll if I thought for one minute you were actually serious. I do not know 1 person that smacked there head playing FF7..... I know people that didnt go to class or work to play it tho..... For you to slander one of the greatest RPG's of our time with "it had no plot" is ridiculous. Your trying to be a bait troll.
People could write you a friggin noval on FF7's plot, theories and conspiracies.
For a game that had NO plot, it sure did spawn a huge cult following, a full length CG animated movie, a 2 part OVA movie series, 2 Spin off sequel games Dirge of Cerebus and the new Crisis Core : PSP. All that for a game noone thinks is any good or has a plot.....
Troll Poo
Some people consider any RPG that isn't based on generic tolkien/D&D fantasy storyline as trash.
Sorry for asking, but what was the point of naming those games? Most of those games are avaible on consoles. UT 3 is avaible on consoles, Ghost recond advanced warfighter 1 + 2, Supreme Commander is currently being ported to the 360, fear and Half life 2 are both avaible on consoles.
Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter for the Xbox, is not the same software as Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter on the PC. GRAW for the PC is a first person Shooter. They have the same theme and same titles but are totally different softwares made by totally different studios. One has long draw distances, 512 MB GFX textures, 1.5 GB maps and the other one has less than 512 MB system files, maps and textures combined.
Half life 2 and UT3 are both gimped for Xbox 360 as will be Supreme Commander.
In Half Life 2 you lose GFX options and map size. In UT3 you lose GFX options, online player limits and AI count. In Supreme Commander you will lose literally thousands of units from your unit count not to mention significant map size. If you played C&C3 on both the PC and the Xbox 360, you will notice that the PC version suffered from tiny maps and low unit counts, while the Xbox version lagged from the strain.
Both Half life 2 and UT3 however should, in my humble opinion, cross over well to the Xbox 360 and PS3. While those machines can't reproduce the games as well as a good PC, they can do it well enough to enjoy the core gameplay. Both use very scaleable game engines and can provide comfortble perormances on a wide variety of equipment.
Here's a little exert from an XBox Supreme Commander review at Yahoo games..
"With such high system recommendations on the PC, it's no surprise that Supreme Commander doesn't look quite as good on the console. It looks better than the game running on the lowest settings, trust me I know. But compared to the highest settings on the PC you'll notice lower resolution textures, an absence of the biggest maps and only four player online play instead of eight. We also noticed regular dips in the framerate while playing, though the game isn't quite finished. In the final build, we were promised that the framerate would be steady while the AI simply slows down to accommodate the huge number of on-screen units."
The problem with Supreme Commander, is the only thing that set's it aside from the other RTS's. It's no.1 sales gimmick is the aomunt of power it uses to provide you with the biggest and most heavily populated warzones found in any RTS to date. I use a full 3 GB of RAM to play this game. You think 512 RAM can do what 3GB can do? It can't. You will be getting the scaled down version. My advice to you is don't bother. Buy a PC and a damn big one at that if you want to play this game.
Sorry for asking, but what was the point of naming those games? Most of those games are avaible on consoles. UT 3 is avaible on consoles, Ghost recond advanced warfighter 1 + 2, Supreme Commander is currently being ported to the 360, fear and Half life 2 are both avaible on consoles.
Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter for the Xbox, is not the same software as Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter on the PC. They have the same theme and same titles but are totally different softwares made by totally different studios. One has long draw distances, 512 MBGFX textures, 1.5 GB maps and the other one has less than 512 MB system files, maps and textures combined.Half life 2 and UT3 are both gimped for Xbox 360 as will be Supreme Commander.
In half life 2 you lose GFX options and map size. In UT3 you lose GFX options and AI count. In Supreme Commander you will lose literelally thousands of units from your unit count no to mention significant mapo size. If you played C&C3 on both the PC ans the Xbox 360, you will notice that the PC version suffered from tiny maps and low unit counts, while the Xbox version lagged from the strain.
Here's a little exert from an XBOx Supreme Commander review.
"With such high system recommendations on the PC, it's no surprise that Supreme Commander doesn't look quite as good on the console. It looks better than the game running on the lowest settings, trust me I know. But compared to the highest settings on the PC you'll notice lower resolution textures, an absence of the biggest maps and only four player online play instead of eight. We also noticed regular dips in the framerate while playing, though the game isn't quite finished. In the final build, we were promised that the framerate would be steady while the AI simply slows down to accommodate the huge number of on-screen units."
The problem with Supreme Commander, is the only thing that set's it aside from the other RTS's. It's no.1 sales gimmick is the aomunt of power it uses to provide you with the biggest and most heavily populated warzones found in any RTS to date. I use a full 3 GB of RAM to play this game. You think 512 RAM can do what 3GB can do? It can't. You will be getting the scaled down version. Little Gimpy.
Half Life 2 and UT3 are nearly identical on the consoles as on the PC, I own both Half Life 2 on the PC and the Orange Box version on the Xbox360 and there is barely any difference. UT3 is also said to be nearly identical to it's PC counterpart, saying that it's gimped is nothing short of ignorance.
It's clear that you did no research on the online capabilities of consoles whatsoever. Saying that consoles can't handle games with less then 8 players is downright ridiculous. Even the first Xbox could handle much more than just 8 players.
Also, that article doesn't say anything about the amount of units on screen being pushed back.
Go get the demo and count them for yourself mate.
I run with 10,000 units.
Sorry to be rude about this but you are living on fantasy island. 512 MB RAM can't do the same job as 3 GB. If you need "an article" to explain that to you, you shouldn't be buying your own equipment without advice anyway.
I've done my best to explain it you, GL. The rest is up to you mate.
Lower system specs mean smaller games. This isn't rocket science.
There are finite limits and I've done my best to explain to you what differences you should expect to find.
Considering you were unwilling to spend $600 on your PC, I'm not suprised you don't see a great deal of difference between Half life 2 on PC and Xbox. I however, do. That said I would be very pleased to own Half life 2 on the Xbox 360, I think it is a game that will work well on the system.
I feel very much the same about UT3. UT3 on the PC however has double the amount of players available in MP and larger maps to match. The Xbox version is restricted to 16 players maximum.
Half Life 2 is 2 year old game, you don't need a modern 1000$ system to run it. I can play Half Life 2 on max on my current PC, and I see no noticable difference between the PC version on max and the Xbox360 version.
There are sure to be differences between a top of the line computer and a game console, but the difference is not as big as you claim it to be in terms of games.
The difference will be maps 1/2 of the size in Supreme commander, and an AI count of 1/8th and textures of 1/4. This is beacuse of the hardware limitation. Do the maths for yourself, you don't have to be looking at it to be able to count.
Further to this the MP limit is exactly one half of the PC on the Xbox.
In UT3 the largest Xbox maps will again be half the size of some found on the PC version and the server population is half. The XBox 360 is fully 2 generations behind the PC on SFX and can't reproduce the advanced sounds either.
I don't know about you, but I can easily spot the difference between an 8 a side game and a 16 a side game and when a guy who can hear where I am on the map pwns me I won't be crying "hax".
Lets not even bother with Battlefields 64 player games, or Joint Ops' 150. You can't see the difference? I can and it's a hobby I don't mind paying extra for.
I absolutely agree that you don't need to spend $1,000 on a Half Life 2 system. That said, if you already have one, you will see the difference from a $600 system and most especially a $270 system. You get what you pay for.
People would rather sit on a couch than sit at a desk.
People do not like dealing with compatibility issues.
People do not like worrying about system requirements.
People are okay with the limitations of consoles vs. the most uber PC rig.
Consoles do not get viruses, no matter how stupid the user is.
Console games are FUN.
No amount of technical mumbo-jumbo means anything in the face of these statements.
If you do not agree with these statements, you are in the minority.
As a long time PC gamer, I've just go to say serves them right for releasing so much fjcking clones. Seriously, maybe if you investors would be willing to drop your money on an original concept from time to time PC gaming wouldn't be in such a slump! Right now, the industry seems to be going to the indy developer, and more power to them. You dropped the ball big time on this one, corporate America.
That said, piracy is definately a contributing factor as well. We're probably going to see a lot more software distributed via a Gametap or Steam-like model in the future because crackers are far too good at what they do. No software-based protection has a chance, only proprietary hardware will even slow them down, and they'll get around that too eventually.
Investors don't do original concepts. Entrepreneurs do that.
Investors do tried and tested, risk evaluated formula's.
If the PS3 can handle all maps, then I see no reason why the Xbox 360 can't, especialy considering Epic has not announced any content scrap from the Xbox 360 yet.
Also, the limit of multiplayer on the xbox 360 is not 8 players.
If Madden Football, Halo, Pokemon (and insert you fav franchise name) sell millions and millions of each sequel, it is hard to see why an investor would want to support anything but those. The consumers obvious preference for sequel is driving the market.
Sometimes original ideas work (like Mass Effects) but still, if it is my investment on the line, I want the guarantee ROI.
Why buy a new game when you can still play CounterStrike and Galaxies ROFL.
Seriously though all the good games in 2007 got pushed back to 2008 so dont get misled.
You would be a minority of RPG gamer, I like baulder's gate, dungeon siege, neverwinter nights, and many other good pc rpg titles.
Fact still remains tho Console RPG's may not be for you, the billions of copies these games have sold over the last 10 years would prove us both wrong that PC RPG's are better than Console ones.
Much as I like the baulder's gate game... which was also on console. To say that japanese rpg's have no plot makes you seem a little well... I wont go there. Any game that would take you over 80 hours to beat obviously has a plot of some kind. I have played most console RPG's all with a unique story, and plot, nice diverse characters, great cut scenes. Nothing to barf over.
I notice you left out great, nice, unique gameplay. Because really, I play games to, y'know PLAY GAMES. JRPGs weren't meant to be played. They were meant to be looked at because they're pretty. The gameplay is like smacking your head against a wall.As for them having no plot, most don't. Sorry, FF7 had a lousy plot. And its generally lauded as one of the best. Just read the wikipedia plot page for FF7, compare it to Baldur's Gate. Or, y'know, play both games. FF7 is confusing, annoying, poorly laid out, presents its plot in fits and spurts (sometimes slamming you face first into a cutscene, other times leaving you to wander for quite some time, with little rhyme or reason). And its one of the better ones. FF10 deliberately tried to annoy you with its plot, I swear.
I would take you for a troll if I thought for one minute you were actually serious. I do not know 1 person that smacked there head playing FF7..... I know people that didnt go to class or work to play it tho..... For you to slander one of the greatest RPG's of our time with "it had no plot" is ridiculous. Your trying to be a bait troll.
People could write you a friggin noval on FF7's plot, theories and conspiracies.
For a game that had NO plot, it sure did spawn a huge cult following, a full length CG animated movie, a 2 part OVA movie series, 2 Spin off sequel games Dirge of Cerebus and the new Crisis Core : PSP. All that for a game noone thinks is any good or has a plot.....
Troll Poo
FF7 was a really good game, but unless you are just a fanboy the plot made little to no sense. That's why everything they've used to extend the story like the movies and games you mentioned sucked ass. Something doesn't have to be good to have a cult following. Actually typically cult followings are using for things that are crap that small groups refuse to accept.
If you happened to enjoy FF7's gameplay, good for you. I don't particularly like the genre (turn-based RPG combat) but that doesn't make the genre bad, per se, simply something I dislike.But anyone who doesn't agree about the plot is just fanboying. As for the person who said it wasn't a D&D plot... what the hell is a D&D plot? You're probably refering to Forgotten Realms, instead of Planescape: Torment, Ravenloft, or Dark Sun? I mean that's just a guess, but clearly you have very little idea of what D&D is.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
You would be a minority of RPG gamer, I like baulder's gate, dungeon siege, neverwinter nights, and many other good pc rpg titles.
Fact still remains tho Console RPG's may not be for you, the billions of copies these games have sold over the last 10 years would prove us both wrong that PC RPG's are better than Console ones.
Much as I like the baulder's gate game... which was also on console. To say that japanese rpg's have no plot makes you seem a little well... I wont go there. Any game that would take you over 80 hours to beat obviously has a plot of some kind. I have played most console RPG's all with a unique story, and plot, nice diverse characters, great cut scenes. Nothing to barf over.
I notice you left out great, nice, unique gameplay. Because really, I play games to, y'know PLAY GAMES. JRPGs weren't meant to be played. They were meant to be looked at because they're pretty. The gameplay is like smacking your head against a wall.As for them having no plot, most don't. Sorry, FF7 had a lousy plot. And its generally lauded as one of the best. Just read the wikipedia plot page for FF7, compare it to Baldur's Gate. Or, y'know, play both games. FF7 is confusing, annoying, poorly laid out, presents its plot in fits and spurts (sometimes slamming you face first into a cutscene, other times leaving you to wander for quite some time, with little rhyme or reason). And its one of the better ones. FF10 deliberately tried to annoy you with its plot, I swear.
I would take you for a troll if I thought for one minute you were actually serious. I do not know 1 person that smacked there head playing FF7..... I know people that didnt go to class or work to play it tho..... For you to slander one of the greatest RPG's of our time with "it had no plot" is ridiculous. Your trying to be a bait troll.
People could write you a friggin noval on FF7's plot, theories and conspiracies.
For a game that had NO plot, it sure did spawn a huge cult following, a full length CG animated movie, a 2 part OVA movie series, 2 Spin off sequel games Dirge of Cerebus and the new Crisis Core : PSP. All that for a game noone thinks is any good or has a plot.....
Troll Poo
FF7 was a really good game, but unless you are just a fanboy the plot made little to no sense. That's why everything they've used to extend the story like the movies and games you mentioned sucked ass. Something doesn't have to be good to have a cult following. Actually typically cult followings are using for things that are crap that small groups refuse to accept.
If you happened to enjoy FF7's gameplay, good for you. I don't particularly like the genre (turn-based RPG combat) but that doesn't make the genre bad, per se, simply something I dislike.But anyone who doesn't agree about the plot is just fanboying. As for the person who said it wasn't a D&D plot... what the hell is a D&D plot? You're probably refering to Forgotten Realms, instead of Planescape: Torment, Ravenloft, or Dark Sun? I mean that's just a guess, but clearly you have very little idea of what D&D is.
Final Fantasy 7 is famous for it's plot, get over it. Just because someone enjoys the storyline does not mean that person is a fanboi. Just because you found it confusing does not mean other people find it confusing. The plot was interesting and it managed to reveal parts of the plot untill the very end of the game.
also, a D&D plot is what I consider typical generic western fantasy lore.
I think i shall join in here in agreeing with Gameloading in saying that the plot in FF7 was very engrossing. In fact it was my very first Final Fantasy Ive ever played so i guess it made quite an impression with me.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
No they're not. Computer manufactors sell hardware at a profit, consoles are sold at a loss which is made up through software sales. also Xbox360 and PS3 equal high end pc's, not mid level pc's. PC gaming is dying at worst and turning into a very small niche genre at best. The hardware is to expensive and the features are dropping one by one. Online Multiplayer? Now avaible on Consoles. Mods? Now avaible on consoles.
ofcourse we get the old tiresome argument :"b-but I can upgrade my PC!" yeah well guess what: You're a minority. The vast majority of people are not prepared to pay up 200$ ~ 300$ every 2 years, so you're not going to be the target audience for the vast majority of game developers. Games like Bioshock, Call of Duty 4 and UT3, all considered to be some of the best looking games avaible, are easily done on consoles.
XBox 360's and PS3 = low to mid end PC's. You can't actually buy a new PC that isn't twice as powerful. No one has made anything that low spec for over 3 years now. The GFX are 2 generations old, the processors, abandonware designs that the PC market passed over in favour of the Athlon 64. The RAM is slow and substantially less than commonly found in many of todays mobile phones.
They still rock of course, but I wouldn't be getting any silly idea's about them being high powered in comparison to PC's.
I think you may have confused a comparison of the expected power of the console, 3 years before it came out with the PC's of that date and forgot to re-make comparison of what is actually on offer today.
Add to that a basic gaming PC costs less than a PS3 as does it's software and any price argument hardly holds water. As you say the console cost is subsidised by a premium on the games. It isn't cheaper for the end user, and there is simply no way any console manufacturer can compete with PC for hardware prices, their market is positively tiny by comparison.
For the record, computer manufacturers also sell their products at a loss when they are seeking to gain market share with a new product in a competative market. This is common practise in most industries. Intel do it all the time.
I think some one needs to recognise when he has been pitched a sale.
I totally agree with you in terms of the hardware. Even a PS3 has pretty meager stats on paper compared to a $600 PC.
The problem is that on a console you don't just get a little more graphical bang for your buck, you get about ten times as much. An X-box 360 game that really pushes the hardware to the limit will run on every single X-box 360. A PC game that pushes a high end PC to the limit will run like balls on at least 95% of PCs in homes.
Because of this console developers can afford to push the hardware to it's absolute limits, whereas PC developers have to be pretty cautious. And because of that, to get graphics about on par with a $400 X-box 360 or PS3 on a good TV, you need at least a $1500 PC, if not an even better one.
Don't get me wrong. Pc gaming is certainly not going anywhere. In fact I consider it nearly inevitable that eventually PCs will replace consoles, or consoles will evolve into PCs. Once BB access is universal, and you can play games that look as good as anything out on the market now through a web browser, I suspect that the current system through which games are distributed will become utterly obsolete. The line between your TV and your PC monitor is also a very artificial one. Slowly but surely it is beginning to erode.
But for the time being, consoles are much more user friendly than PCs and have graphics on par with a high end gaming PC. Yes a hardcore PC gamer can tell the difference. But to Joe Average consumer, anything from Wii on up probably looks about the same. Certainly Joe Average is not going to look at Halo III and think, "Wow, this looks like shit next to an average game on a $5000 PC." Hell, I do 95% of my gaming on the PC and I wouldn't say that.
I don't want to write this, and you don't want to read it. But now it's too late for both of us.
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/games/unreal-tournament-3-review.ars/3If the PS3 can handle all maps, then I see no reason why the Xbox 360 can't, especialy considering Epic has not announced any content scrap from the Xbox 360 yet.
Also, the limit of multiplayer on the xbox 360 is not 8 players.
The multiplayer limit is 16, exactly half the multiplayer limit of the PC version. (16 = 8 a side)
The multiplayer limit is 16 for the PS3 also.
Neither the PS3 nor the Xbox 360 can handle the 32 player maps.
I concur that the XBox 360 and the PS3 have effective hardware parity.
Quotes from your review
"it manages to nearly match the PC's visual capabilities"
"The only noteworthy differences are the game's pacing, the controls, and the online options. The PlayStation 3 version of the game has been slowed down a bit; if you consider the PC version to be dialed in at 11, the PS3 version would fall somewhere in the range of 7 to 9. "
Good enough to be a very enjoyable game, just as a Ford Mondeo would be good enough to drive me from A to B or a two up two down would be more than adequate space for my family home. The thing is, I'm not that guy.
I am quite willing to believe that UT3 will be a fun game on the PS3 or Xbox. I think both of those machines have the power to do justice to the game and it's very scaleable so it will convert well to their systems. Once again however, this is a technology title, many of the real advances in this game from it's previous incarnation simply won't be visible on consoles. A significant factor in the games appeal has been removed for console players. You don't get to see what the latest in computer games SFX are. You don't get to see what all the next gen of Unreal engines will be capable of producing. You just get more of the same Unreal that is already maxing out your system with some new maps.
You'd do better buying Halo 3.
Beyond bad sales... The issue is coming down to... Why make PC games? Consoles can handle most of the modern graphics(and most pcs can't handle the pumping top notch games above what consoles can do anyway).
Keyboards and mouses can be attached to consoles.
You can browse the net on a console.
You can download games and movies and patches onto consoles.
And at the same time, developers have it much easier because they don't have to configure the game for 1000000 different hardware setups, you don't have people having invisible characters because of their version of windows and video card drivers.
I could honestly see in 10-20 years pcs being the "programmer/developer" console, and "consoles" being the gaming/recreational "console". Because each iteration of console generation grows closer and closer to being a pc.
Also have you seen any good non mmorpg pc games that are pc exclusive? I have. All 3 of them.