Consoles are only the future of gaming if developers force it to be so. PC gamers (frankly there's more of us than you console folks) will not go quietly into -that- good night. You have to keep in mind that NO MATTER WHAT developers say their reasons will be, their ONLY real reason is that they can increase their profit margin.
Look at this way, when PC gaming finaly ends up on the outskirts of gaming universe as a homebrew scene with moders as the only thing keeping it alive, you'll feel more special and smarter than ever.
Well so do I, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is the degradation of an entire genre.
Seriously, there have NEVER been any "good" MMORPGs, only tolerable ones. Making MMORPGs for consoles sure as hell couldn't do any more damage than was done when two college kids decided to make a graphical Diku.
Well so do I, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is the degradation of an entire genre.
Correction: It's your perception that the genre is degrading.
I'm one of a large number of people on this site that believe that the MMORPG genre has great potential, but has yet to make a "good" game. If it wasn't for the community of most MMORPGs, no one would bother playing them. Right now, I can get the MMO experience just by playing Hybrid Heaven, windowed, on my Nintendo 64 emulator while bullshitting with my friends on Ventrillo....
Seriously, there have NEVER been any "good" MMORPGs, only tolerable ones. Making MMORPGs for consoles sure as hell couldn't do any more damage than was done when two college kids decided to make a graphical Diku.
Really? Cause I've been playing video games since I was five, so coming on about 16 years. I've been playing mmos since EQ, just about over a decade. Now considering the video game industry is about 35 years old my experience covers damn close to half that. So unless you're about 45 and have been gaming for that entire time, I seriously doubt it's drastically longer bud.
As far as mmo's being grindfests or that "none of them are good, waaaaaaahhhhh" you'd be pretty damn wrong. UO was a freaking fantastic game, DAoC was also a fantastic game. Think about how much fun you can have on an mmo compared to even the longest of single-player games (regardless of console). Once you beat a game once (on average about 22 hours of gameplay depending on genre) there's no real reason to play through it again. And once you do, you've already seen all of the story, all the big surprises are gone and it's just a major grindfest (yes, a GRINDFEST) to discover that one secret area you missed or find that one extra item you didn't get.
I haven't played a really good mmo since the early days of DAoC, it was so fun, creative and new that nothing really matched it. And even then they weren't quite as good as the quality days of UO. Besides that, your MMO experience depends hugely on what you decide to make it. If you've had bad or boring experiences that's probably entirely -your- fault. Single-player games seem more fun because they're linear (a beginning, rising action and a definitive end), you are given a direction and pushed along it -and- you're playing a hero, a character that is built up beyond the norm.
In mmo's there really is no end (if there is enough content, which lately has lacked), -you- set your goals and -you- pursue them. Your character(s) aren't some all-powerful heroes either, you make your character what it is and you either choose to build yourself up and become "famous" (or infamous) or not.
Having the OPTION to tweek your graphics files for two hours (horseshit) counts for nothing? I realize the 8 hour guy was sarcasm, but it concerns me that the 2 hour guy was serious. Besides, you cant play Unreal 2 as Homer Simpson on a console. You can download maps, but you can't MAKE maps.
Consoles are like air hockey, and PC's are like the arcade where the air hockey tables sit. Sure it's fun to play airhockey, but sometimes you would just like a bit more variety.
Right now theres not a lot of games on consoles where you can make maps for but in halo 3 and folklore you can make your own maps. And maybe in the up coming Tom Clancys End War.
e with a straight face and think that the map editing on a console is the same as a PC? No freaking way.
Consoles are only the future of gaming if developers force it to be so. PC gamers (frankly there's more of us than you console folks) will not go quietly into -that- good night. You have to keep in mind that NO MATTER WHAT developers say their reasons will be, their ONLY real reason is that they can increase their profit margin.
Not to mention console games are a good 10-20 dollars more (new) on average than a new pc game to begin with. Doesn't make much sense if developers say they can make games for consoles so much cheaper, does it?
You're honestly going to sit therOriginally posted by tkreep
Originally posted by mellobri
Having the OPTION to tweek your graphics files for two hours (horseshit) counts for nothing? I realize the 8 hour guy was sarcasm, but it concerns me that the 2 hour guy was serious. Besides, you cant play Unreal 2 as Homer Simpson on a console. You can download maps, but you can't MAKE maps. Consoles are like air hockey, and PC's are like the arcade where the air hockey tables sit. Sure it's fun to play airhockey, but sometimes you would just like a bit more variety.
Right now theres not a lot of games on consoles where you can make maps for but in halo 3 and folklore you can make your own maps. And maybe in the up coming Tom Clancys End War.
e with a straight face and think that the map editing on a console is the same as a PC? No freaking way.
Consoles are only the future of gaming if developers force it to be so. PC gamers (frankly there's more of us than you console folks) will not go quietly into -that- good night. You have to keep in mind that NO MATTER WHAT developers say their reasons will be, their ONLY real reason is that they can increase their profit margin.
Not to mention console games are a good 10-20 dollars more (new) on average than a new pc game to begin with. Doesn't make much sense if developers say they can make games for consoles so much cheaper, does it?
Do you seriously believe this statement!
Yes, yes I do. Considering (this is off the top of my head from an article I read last week) that recent sales figures in total of consoles are something like - 15m 360, 6.8m ps3 25-30m Wii and many people own many or all three of those systems.
Now consider how many people own a desktop or laptop. Then consider how many computer games there are in total on the market.
Of course you also have to consider that many of owners from both sides of the coin don't really think about gaming as much as we do here. Even then, there are still far more discerning PC gamers than there are console.
Originally posted by Lord_Ixigan Yes, yes I do. Considering (this is off the top of my head from an article I read last week) that recent sales figures in total of consoles are something like - 15m 360, 6.8m ps3 25-30m Wii and many people own many or all three of those systems. Now consider how many people own a desktop or laptop. Then consider how many computer games there are in total on the market. Of course you also have to consider that many of owners from both sides of the coin don't really think about gaming as much as we do here. Even then, there are still far more discerning PC gamers than there are console.
Well, there is 10M+ pc gamers just in WOW... and that's one game, one genre etc...
You're honestly going to sit therOriginally posted by tkreep
Originally posted by mellobri
Having the OPTION to tweek your graphics files for two hours (horseshit) counts for nothing? I realize the 8 hour guy was sarcasm, but it concerns me that the 2 hour guy was serious. Besides, you cant play Unreal 2 as Homer Simpson on a console. You can download maps, but you can't MAKE maps. Consoles are like air hockey, and PC's are like the arcade where the air hockey tables sit. Sure it's fun to play airhockey, but sometimes you would just like a bit more variety.
Right now theres not a lot of games on consoles where you can make maps for but in halo 3 and folklore you can make your own maps. And maybe in the up coming Tom Clancys End War.
e with a straight face and think that the map editing on a console is the same as a PC? No freaking way.
Consoles are only the future of gaming if developers force it to be so. PC gamers (frankly there's more of us than you console folks) will not go quietly into -that- good night. You have to keep in mind that NO MATTER WHAT developers say their reasons will be, their ONLY real reason is that they can increase their profit margin.
Not to mention console games are a good 10-20 dollars more (new) on average than a new pc game to begin with. Doesn't make much sense if developers say they can make games for consoles so much cheaper, does it?
Do you seriously believe this statement!
Yes, yes I do. Considering (this is off the top of my head from an article I read last week) that recent sales figures in total of consoles are something like - 15m 360, 6.8m ps3 25-30m Wii and many people own many or all three of those systems.
Now consider how many people own a desktop or laptop. Then consider how many computer games there are in total on the market.
Of course you also have to consider that many of owners from both sides of the coin don't really think about gaming as much as we do here. Even then, there are still far more discerning PC gamers than there are console.
Too bad us PC gamers arent buying as much as console gamers
"Last year (2007) the games industry made a jaw-dropping $18.85 billion according to Shacknews, but only $910.7 million of that came from PC sales - which is pretty shocking when we saw games like World in Conflict, Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis pushing to the fore, as well as a new Half-Life Episode.
"
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
I think I will use something like a "context menu" that will show once the pointer point to something. Point to a player, and a option to open voice chat will be available, and other option to trade (+voice chat).
Point to a mob, and a option to start a fight will show, and maybe another button to automatically start the fight.
If you have played Witcher, and If you are a good gamer you must, because is the latest RPG classic, this RPG has a nice combat system, that can work with a simple pre-setup and a single button. And It don't feel nerfed. It feel dynamic and fun. You could mix that with consumables, like having stacks of consumables, or something. You can be creative, and create a good system for consoles.
My hatred for consoles is TOTAL and HORRIBLE, but anyway, I think could be a interesting system to create MMO's, not as popular as the PC, but interesting.
Too bad us PC gamers arent buying as much as console gamers
"Last year (2007) the games industry made a jaw-dropping $18.85 billion according to Shacknews, but only $910.7 million of that came from PC sales - which is pretty shocking when we saw games like World in Conflict, Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis pushing to the fore, as well as a new Half-Life Episode.
"
14% is nothing to laugh at, & considering that figure doesn't even include digital downloads - which play a huge part of PC sales these days - you have a pretty strong platform IMO.
If all MMORPG's were on console I'd be much happier since I would only be spending / would have spent <$1000 every few years to keep up with the tech. vs. >$2000 for a PC every few years. ( Interestingly, the price seems to always be the same for each new computer, $2000-3000. )
My self built 1GHz of yesteryear ( Giga ) , can handle e-mail and websurfing and HL just fine. Unfortunately, Giga can't handle HL2 and all the other next gen FPS games, all that well, if at all. Which is why I had to build my 2.53 GHz machine ( Main ) in 2003. I am currently running a late 2006, Dell XPS 2.93GHZ dual core ( overclocked to 3.2GHz ) Quad SLI Dual GeForce 7950 GX2's (Beast) ( which may not be able to use DX10 ).
Giga is barely running a WinTV card, and Main is handling all the e-mail/websurfing duties. With Giga and Main running SyncMaster 204B's ( 1600x1200 native resolution 20" flat panels) and Beast running a 30" 2560x1600 Wide screen flat panel, we're looking at almost $10000 ( in dollars spent ) ( if not more ) spent over the years, in equipment, instead of the maybe $3000 I would have spent on consoles. Heck, it would be more than that if we count my first 90MHZ PC (bought for Doom!) and the 450MHz HP I bought after that.( Which ran the WinTV until I bought Beast and I retired it. ( Oh and also not counting the laptops I've bought over the years! But we won't count these since there isn't a comparable mobile console.)
I think FFXI went the wrong direction releasing a PC version. IMO, and in hindsight , we'd be better off on consoles. At least money wise that is. Community wise, eh, maybe not, although,as a veteran of Barrens chat, that doesn't really matter all that much...
So, to recap:
Web surfing and e-mail: that old 1MHz -> 1GHz PC will mostly handle it. ( Although, 1MHZ would have a problem with Flash laden sites like this. Actually, anything > than a text only site would be a problem. )( Consoles can probably do these but I have no experience with this. LOL, my latest console is an NES!)
FPS type games / MMORPG's: Consoles can do it, cheaper.
Until the diversity of PC games makes it's way firmly onto consoles, we are stuck with PC's as game platforms.
My only problem with consoles is I don't have any comtroller skillz! I can run forward and sidestep just fine with a kb/mouse. I even find myself doing it with out thinking!
FYI, there is/was a good series on the history of computer games playing on The Discovery Channel(s), "Download" or something. The only thing that separated the machines ( consoles/pc ) and genres seems to be storage space. PCs had HD's so were more suited for RPG's with their ever-branching story lines and heavy memory/GFX requirements. ( Oh, and Sierra and Leisure Suit Larry had something to do with it. )
I blame Larry for the great PC/Console Divide!!
Imagine what would have happened if Nintendo(NES) had followed PC's and had a HD, instead of following Atari and using cartridges. I wonder if it would it have been early enough to have changed the landscape by now?
Too bad us PC gamers arent buying as much as console gamers
"Last year (2007) the games industry made a jaw-dropping $18.85 billion according to Shacknews, but only $910.7 million of that came from PC sales - which is pretty shocking when we saw games like World in Conflict, Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis pushing to the fore, as well as a new Half-Life Episode.
"
14% is nothing to laugh at, at considering that figure doesn't even include digital downloads - which play a huge part of PC sales these days - you have a pretty strong platform IMO.
More than you think. And this don't include poker, shareware apps, etc.. but there are much more people, and only one cake.
Well so do I, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is the degradation of an entire genre.
Correction: It's your perception that the genre is degrading.
I'm one of a large number of people on this site that believe that the MMORPG genre has great potential, but has yet to make a "good" game. If it wasn't for the community of most MMORPGs, no one would bother playing them. Right now, I can get the MMO experience just by playing Hybrid Heaven, windowed, on my Nintendo 64 emulator while bullshitting with my friends on Ventrillo....
Seriously, there have NEVER been any "good" MMORPGs, only tolerable ones. Making MMORPGs for consoles sure as hell couldn't do any more damage than was done when two college kids decided to make a graphical Diku.
Really? Cause I've been playing video games since I was five, so coming on about 16 years. Been my hobby since I was old enough to be aware of them. So since I was about four years old which would have put it at 1978. I graduated high school at the time you began playing games. I've been playing mmos since EQ, just about over a decade. I actually played Neverwinter Nights on AOL and Meridian 59 on the month it launched. At that time, 500 players on a server was "massive." Of course I also had plenty of MUD experience as well. My first MUD was the now defunct Chiba MUD based on William Gibson's Neuromancer trilogy. Now considering the video game industry is about 35 years old my experience covers damn close to half that. And you missed some of the greatest games ever made... So unless you're about 45 I'm 34 and have been gaming for that entire time, About 30 years I seriously doubt it's drastically longer bud. I think that pretty much speaks for itself.
As far as mmo's being grindfests or that "none of them are good, waaaaaaahhhhh" you'd be pretty damn wrong. Opinions are neither right or wrong, that's why we call them opinions. UO was a freaking fantastic game Yep, nothing beats the excitement of making ten thousand skull caps so you can buy a sword only to still get your ass kicked by a rabbit..., DAoC was also a fantastic game. Or would have been if you could have competed in RvR from the git rather than having to wade through the epic boring grind. Think about how much fun you can have on an mmo compared to even the longest of single-player games (regardless of console). I have, but as of yet, no one has been able to produce that. Once you beat a game once (on average about 22 hours of gameplay depending on genre) there's no real reason to play through it again. That depends on the genre and how you approach it. When I play shmups, for instance, I generally try to beat them without continues. Once I've done that, I try to beat the game with just one life and then it's all about beating my highest score. This actually is the progression of all arcade games made after 1990. Even if there isn't a score, there's always speed running. And once you do, you've already seen all of the story, all the big surprises are gone and it's just a major grindfest (yes, a GRINDFEST) to discover that one secret area you missed or find that one extra item you didn't get. Wrong. Grind isn't doing the same thing a thousand times. Grind is doing the EXACT same thing a thousand times. In most non-RPG games, there's enough variation that you can still be surprised even after you've played through the same level several times. In the last levels of the NES version of Ninja Gaiden, you have to be completely aware and engaged the entire time because one misstep will send you back to the beginning. The timing adjusts itself to the player's movements, so if you change rhythm, so does the rest of the game. Come to think of it, I've run through Dragon Warrior for the NES and Phantasy Star for the Sega Master System several times over the years. One reason is nostalgia, but another is to see how quickly you can beat the game. the lowest lvl I've ever beaten Dragon Warrior at was 17... I think....
I haven't played a really good mmo since the early days of DAoC, it was so fun, creative and new that nothing really matched it. I highlighted those words because I think you've mistaken the death of novelty with declining quality. The games haven't changed one wit. You have! And even then they weren't quite as good as the quality days of UO. Besides that, your MMO experience depends hugely on what you decide to make it. I'll admit to being extremely antisocial If you've had bad or boring experiences that's probably entirely -your- fault. Single-player games seem more fun because they're linear (a beginning, rising action and a definitive end), you are given a direction and pushed along it -and- you're playing a hero, a character that is built up beyond the norm. So what about the games that I'm normally drawn too like Tribes, Virtual Fighter, Command & Conquer, SOCOM, and many other games that I play exclusively for the multiplayer modes, never touching the single player? Maybe MMOs suck to me because they aren't designed as anything more than chat rooms with crappy RPGs slapped on them. In mmo's there really is no end (if there is enough content, which lately has lacked), -you- set your goals and -you- pursue them. Provided that those goals involve killing monsters for gold and XP so that you can buy better stuff and buff your character so that you can kill bigger monsters for more gold and even more XP so that you can buy even better stuff and buff your character more so that you can kill bigger monsters still and... Your character(s) aren't some all-powerful heroes either Uh... yeah... that's why first lvl n00bs are constantly pwnzoring lvl 70 characters.... en stuff... , you make your character what it is and you either choose to build yourself up and become "famous" (or infamous) or not.
After reading your response I felt that I had adequate support for my conclusion that you're just here to make yourself feel superior to others. Nobody else feels that you're superior, but you seem to believe it. So I'm going to leave you to your meaningless epeen waving. Enjoy.
You're honestly going to sit therOriginally posted by tkreep
Originally posted by mellobri
Having the OPTION to tweek your graphics files for two hours (horseshit) counts for nothing? I realize the 8 hour guy was sarcasm, but it concerns me that the 2 hour guy was serious. Besides, you cant play Unreal 2 as Homer Simpson on a console. You can download maps, but you can't MAKE maps. Consoles are like air hockey, and PC's are like the arcade where the air hockey tables sit. Sure it's fun to play airhockey, but sometimes you would just like a bit more variety.
Right now theres not a lot of games on consoles where you can make maps for but in halo 3 and folklore you can make your own maps. And maybe in the up coming Tom Clancys End War.
e with a straight face and think that the map editing on a console is the same as a PC? No freaking way.
Consoles are only the future of gaming if developers force it to be so. PC gamers (frankly there's more of us than you console folks) will not go quietly into -that- good night. You have to keep in mind that NO MATTER WHAT developers say their reasons will be, their ONLY real reason is that they can increase their profit margin.
Not to mention console games are a good 10-20 dollars more (new) on average than a new pc game to begin with. Doesn't make much sense if developers say they can make games for consoles so much cheaper, does it?
Do you seriously believe this statement!
Yes, yes I do. Considering (this is off the top of my head from an article I read last week) that recent sales figures in total of consoles are something like - 15m 360, 6.8m ps3 25-30m Wii and many people own many or all three of those systems.
Now consider how many people own a desktop or laptop. Then consider how many computer games there are in total on the market.
Of course you also have to consider that many of owners from both sides of the coin don't really think about gaming as much as we do here. Even then, there are still far more discerning PC gamers than there are console.
Well it sounds good, but not every PC/Laptop owner plays games, where as anyone who owns a console buys it for the purpose of playing games. Then look at how more and more games are being made for consoles vs games being made exclusivly for PC. Saying PC gamers out number console gamers is the worst argument ever. Most games on PC these days are games that are released on console at the same time, if not before the PC counterpart.
As for the total market for PC vs Console games, there are more singular titles being made for 1 console than there are for the entire PC market. You can see this at any software store/online retailer.
As for diserning gamers; PC gamers are not more intelligent or mentally superior to those who play/buy console games. If anything, PC gamers are more masochistic than the console crowd. PC gamers happily plop down money for games that are released in horrible states, games that require multiple patches to work correctly. Console games rarely suffer from this, unless its a direct port of the already shoddy PC game.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
as I said before, of course there are more console games made....they don't last as long as PC games. A console game is "beat" in a few days, and you're on to another game. A PC game can last for years, between mods, and subscription type games. For example, a dedicated WoW player plays ONE game....WoW. His console-playing friend buys a couple of games per month.
I played Oblivion on my 360 for like 2-3 months, mass effect for about one month, I still play gears of war in multiplayer, halo 3, lost planet, final fantasy 11 I played for about 2 years. And other people I know still play games like Phantasy Star Universe. I am sure Super Smash brothers brawl will last awhile too especialy with online multiplayer and content. Oh I almost forgot the awsome Call Of Duty 4. Theres prolly a lot more. And upcoming End War.
as I said before, of course there are more console games made....they don't last as long as PC games. A console game is "beat" in a few days, and you're on to another game. A PC game can last for years, between mods, and subscription type games. For example, a dedicated WoW player plays ONE game....WoW. His console-playing friend buys a couple of games per month.
I played Oblivion on my 360 for like 2-3 months, mass effect for about one month, I still play gears of war in multiplayer,
I have played Quake maybe 10 years, and Morrowind like 3 years. Of course, there are tons of dedicated servers for QuakeWorld TeamFotress.
I have read that XBox don't have dedicated servers, If that is true, I will go to laught.
as I said before, of course there are more console games made....they don't last as long as PC games. A console game is "beat" in a few days, and you're on to another game. A PC game can last for years, between mods, and subscription type games. For example, a dedicated WoW player plays ONE game....WoW. His console-playing friend buys a couple of games per month.
I played Oblivion on my 360 for like 2-3 months, mass effect for about one month, I still play gears of war in multiplayer,
I have played Quake maybe 10 years, and Morrowind like 3 years. Of course, there are tons of dedicated servers for QuakeWorld TeamFotress.
I have read that XBox don't have dedicated servers, If that is true, I will go to laught.
I know PC games are long lasting too but I was just pointing out that not all console games only last a few days of fun. And 10 years is just obsession, a few months to maybe 2-3 years is satisfactory to me depending on the game. Some people dont even like playing for that long no matter how great the game is, they will get sick of it and want something new. What I am saying is, its all up to the player on how long the game last for him/her. I played quake and other PC games and I havent played any none mmo over maybe 2 months.
I have played Quake maybe 10 years, and Morrowind like 3 years. Of course, there are tons of dedicated servers for QuakeWorld TeamFotress. I have read that XBox don't have dedicated servers, If that is true, I will go to laught.
I have never played any game...even PC games for that length of time. So I think this depends on the person more than the game...
Plus the reason people on consoles move on to games more often is because there aren't any games like WoW...
And console gamers have lots of games that are good...compared to the PC, which myself I haven't bought a good PC game in about 2 years.
I have played Quake maybe 10 years, and Morrowind like 3 years. Of course, there are tons of dedicated servers for QuakeWorld TeamFotress. I have read that XBox don't have dedicated servers, If that is true, I will go to laught.
I have never played any game...even PC games for that length of time. So I think this depends on the person more than the game...
Plus the reason people on consoles move on to games more often is because there aren't any games like WoW...
And console gamers have lots of games that are good...compared to the PC, which myself I haven't bought a good PC game in about 2 years.
Aye,
EQ:OA was a poor attempt by SOE to break into the whole MMO on console scene, at a time when even PC MMOs were a niche genre.
SquareEnix made the mistake of sticking US players in a 2 yearold game populated by japanese players. Where most US players act like children in MMOs, the Japanese players didn't want to deal with them and vise versa. The game might have done better if english speaking players were allowed the option to pick clean US servers (kinda like how WoW keeps each region separate) and not randomly throw players on servers, where you had to either buy a world pass or constantly reroll until you landed on a server with your friends.
Once a game like WoW hits a console you will see people gravitate to it.
Good PC games are few and far between. Stable PC games are even fewer at launch. And with all the bad releases, pirating, poorly executed anti-pirating mechanics, etc, PC gaming in general is slowly at a decline, where as console gaming is where developers hope to contiune making money (going by developer comments/panels from the last couple of years of gaming confrences/gaming shows)
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
And The Many Reasons Why They Should NOT Interbreed!!!
brought to you by our sponsor,
Miraculous Epiphanies
Page one --> Keep them seperate, keep them safe... Lol!
If your just joining us, for your viewing pleasure, please refer to post #71. It should prove useful as you later read through this thread ending up back at this post.
It will ultimately clear up any Rainbow and Loli-pop philosophy you entertain on the future of the gaming industry and possibly your sinus cavities as well.
* Life is not black or white, it's shades of grey. But, at it's best/worst, it hints at 32bit color. -Me (a.k.a. RuthlessTimes)
* I do not need to know how to make a better game than you. I just need to know how to cancel my subscription. -Antarious(a slight misquote but the sentiment remains)
as I said before, of course there are more console games made....they don't last as long as PC games. A console game is "beat" in a few days, and you're on to another game. A PC game can last for years, between mods, and subscription type games. For example, a dedicated WoW player plays ONE game....WoW. His console-playing friend buys a couple of games per month.
I played Oblivion on my 360 for like 2-3 months, mass effect for about one month, I still play gears of war in multiplayer,
I have played Quake maybe 10 years, and Morrowind like 3 years. Of course, there are tons of dedicated servers for QuakeWorld TeamFotress.
I have read that XBox don't have dedicated servers, If that is true, I will go to laught.
I know PC games are long lasting too but I was just pointing out that not all console games only last a few days of fun. And 10 years is just obsession, a few months to maybe 2-3 years is satisfactory to me depending on the game. Some people dont even like playing for that long no matter how great the game is, they will get sick of it and want something new. What I am saying is, its all up to the player on how long the game last for him/her. I played quake and other PC games and I havent played any none mmo over maybe 2 months.
agreed, but unfortunately console games with any amount of longevity are the exception, not the rule.
Most console games are designed to make a quick buck. They aren't meant to last. This is why console players buy more games...they need to, because they are for the most part, single-serving entertainment. Much like movies. There are the few classics that you watch over and over, and there are the numerous ones that you watch once and never watch again.
agreed, but unfortunately console games with any amount of longevity are the exception, not the rule.
As are PC games.
What is longevity? Multiplayer, RTS, content?
Multiplayer is normal on consoles as of this generation, content, GTA4 should have 100ish hours of gameplay, Fallout 3 also. Only thing realy missing from consoles is RTSs, but the next Civilisation game is axclusive to consoles, EndWar for xbox and Halo Wars too. If it works, trend will only continue, so I ask again, what is longevity?
Moding is not the answer, I haven't seen any studys, but I firmly believe that people who use mods (on a regular basis) are few and far between. Talking about singleplayer games here.
Multiplayer is normal on consoles as of this generation, content, GTA4 should have 100ish hours of gameplay, Fallout 3 also. Only thing realy missing from consoles is RTSs, but the next Civilisation game is axclusive to consoles, EndWar for xbox and Halo Wars too.
OFF-TOPIC:
Is EndWar a exclusive for consoles, or a dumbed down migration of World in Conflict with a gimmicky control, less units, less option and less maps?
It sound like a cool game, and a good idea, and maybe will be more fun than WiC, and maybe will be played more and longer than WiC, but It still look like "a mod" more than a different game.
Comments
Look at this way, when PC gaming finaly ends up on the outskirts of gaming universe as a homebrew scene with moders as the only thing keeping it alive, you'll feel more special and smarter than ever.
The thing is, PC gamers tend to play a game a lot longer due to mods, and subscriptions, than console gamers do.
Console games typically only last a few days before they've been "beaten", and either traded in, or tossed in a pile somewhere.
So they buy more games, because their games don't have the longevity that a good PC game has to offer.
PC gaming isn't "dying" by any means....it's just that our games are not disposable, single-serving cheap thrills.
Well so do I, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is the degradation of an entire genre.
Seriously, there have NEVER been any "good" MMORPGs, only tolerable ones. Making MMORPGs for consoles sure as hell couldn't do any more damage than was done when two college kids decided to make a graphical Diku.
Correction - that's your perception.
Well so do I, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is the degradation of an entire genre.
Correction: It's your perception that the genre is degrading.
I'm one of a large number of people on this site that believe that the MMORPG genre has great potential, but has yet to make a "good" game. If it wasn't for the community of most MMORPGs, no one would bother playing them. Right now, I can get the MMO experience just by playing Hybrid Heaven, windowed, on my Nintendo 64 emulator while bullshitting with my friends on Ventrillo....
Okay, so I won't have the "joy" of suicidal douche bags wiping the whole team, but I think you get the idea.
Maybe it's because I've been playing video games waaaaaaaayyyyyyyy longer than you have, or maybe it's just the fact that I realize that complexity doesn't equal depth, that allows me to see this genre as the repetitive grindfest that it is.
Seriously, there have NEVER been any "good" MMORPGs, only tolerable ones. Making MMORPGs for consoles sure as hell couldn't do any more damage than was done when two college kids decided to make a graphical Diku.
Really? Cause I've been playing video games since I was five, so coming on about 16 years. I've been playing mmos since EQ, just about over a decade. Now considering the video game industry is about 35 years old my experience covers damn close to half that. So unless you're about 45 and have been gaming for that entire time, I seriously doubt it's drastically longer bud.As far as mmo's being grindfests or that "none of them are good, waaaaaaahhhhh" you'd be pretty damn wrong. UO was a freaking fantastic game, DAoC was also a fantastic game. Think about how much fun you can have on an mmo compared to even the longest of single-player games (regardless of console). Once you beat a game once (on average about 22 hours of gameplay depending on genre) there's no real reason to play through it again. And once you do, you've already seen all of the story, all the big surprises are gone and it's just a major grindfest (yes, a GRINDFEST) to discover that one secret area you missed or find that one extra item you didn't get.
I haven't played a really good mmo since the early days of DAoC, it was so fun, creative and new that nothing really matched it. And even then they weren't quite as good as the quality days of UO. Besides that, your MMO experience depends hugely on what you decide to make it. If you've had bad or boring experiences that's probably entirely -your- fault. Single-player games seem more fun because they're linear (a beginning, rising action and a definitive end), you are given a direction and pushed along it -and- you're playing a hero, a character that is built up beyond the norm.
In mmo's there really is no end (if there is enough content, which lately has lacked), -you- set your goals and -you- pursue them. Your character(s) aren't some all-powerful heroes either, you make your character what it is and you either choose to build yourself up and become "famous" (or infamous) or not.
Do you seriously believe this statement!
No signature, I don't have a pen
*edited*
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
Right now theres not a lot of games on consoles where you can make maps for but in halo 3 and folklore you can make your own maps. And maybe in the up coming Tom Clancys End War.
e with a straight face and think that the map editing on a console is the same as a PC? No freaking way.Consoles are only the future of gaming if developers force it to be so. PC gamers (frankly there's more of us than you console folks) will not go quietly into -that- good night. You have to keep in mind that NO MATTER WHAT developers say their reasons will be, their ONLY real reason is that they can increase their profit margin.
Not to mention console games are a good 10-20 dollars more (new) on average than a new pc game to begin with. Doesn't make much sense if developers say they can make games for consoles so much cheaper, does it?
Do you seriously believe this statement!
Yes, yes I do. Considering (this is off the top of my head from an article I read last week) that recent sales figures in total of consoles are something like - 15m 360, 6.8m ps3 25-30m Wii and many people own many or all three of those systems.
Now consider how many people own a desktop or laptop. Then consider how many computer games there are in total on the market.
Of course you also have to consider that many of owners from both sides of the coin don't really think about gaming as much as we do here. Even then, there are still far more discerning PC gamers than there are console.
Well, there is 10M+ pc gamers just in WOW... and that's one game, one genre etc...
Right now theres not a lot of games on consoles where you can make maps for but in halo 3 and folklore you can make your own maps. And maybe in the up coming Tom Clancys End War.
e with a straight face and think that the map editing on a console is the same as a PC? No freaking way.Consoles are only the future of gaming if developers force it to be so. PC gamers (frankly there's more of us than you console folks) will not go quietly into -that- good night. You have to keep in mind that NO MATTER WHAT developers say their reasons will be, their ONLY real reason is that they can increase their profit margin.
Not to mention console games are a good 10-20 dollars more (new) on average than a new pc game to begin with. Doesn't make much sense if developers say they can make games for consoles so much cheaper, does it?
Do you seriously believe this statement!
Yes, yes I do. Considering (this is off the top of my head from an article I read last week) that recent sales figures in total of consoles are something like - 15m 360, 6.8m ps3 25-30m Wii and many people own many or all three of those systems.
Now consider how many people own a desktop or laptop. Then consider how many computer games there are in total on the market.
Of course you also have to consider that many of owners from both sides of the coin don't really think about gaming as much as we do here. Even then, there are still far more discerning PC gamers than there are console.
Too bad us PC gamers arent buying as much as console gamers
"Last year (2007) the games industry made a jaw-dropping $18.85 billion according to Shacknews, but only $910.7 million of that came from PC sales - which is pretty shocking when we saw games like World in Conflict, Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis pushing to the fore, as well as a new Half-Life Episode.
"
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
I think I could design a MMO for a console.
I think I will use something like a "context menu" that will show once the pointer point to something. Point to a player, and a option to open voice chat will be available, and other option to trade (+voice chat).
Point to a mob, and a option to start a fight will show, and maybe another button to automatically start the fight.
If you have played Witcher, and If you are a good gamer you must, because is the latest RPG classic, this RPG has a nice combat system, that can work with a simple pre-setup and a single button. And It don't feel nerfed. It feel dynamic and fun. You could mix that with consumables, like having stacks of consumables, or something. You can be creative, and create a good system for consoles.
My hatred for consoles is TOTAL and HORRIBLE, but anyway, I think could be a interesting system to create MMO's, not as popular as the PC, but interesting.
14% is nothing to laugh at, & considering that figure doesn't even include digital downloads - which play a huge part of PC sales these days - you have a pretty strong platform IMO.
What is there to debate?
If all MMORPG's were on console I'd be much happier since I would only be spending / would have spent <$1000 every few years to keep up with the tech. vs. >$2000 for a PC every few years. ( Interestingly, the price seems to always be the same for each new computer, $2000-3000. )
My self built 1GHz of yesteryear ( Giga ) , can handle e-mail and websurfing and HL just fine. Unfortunately, Giga can't handle HL2 and all the other next gen FPS games, all that well, if at all. Which is why I had to build my 2.53 GHz machine ( Main ) in 2003. I am currently running a late 2006, Dell XPS 2.93GHZ dual core ( overclocked to 3.2GHz ) Quad SLI Dual GeForce 7950 GX2's (Beast) ( which may not be able to use DX10
).
Giga is barely running a WinTV card, and Main is handling all the e-mail/websurfing duties. With Giga and Main running SyncMaster 204B's ( 1600x1200 native resolution 20" flat panels) and Beast running a 30" 2560x1600 Wide screen flat panel, we're looking at almost $10000 ( in dollars spent ) ( if not more ) spent over the years, in equipment, instead of the maybe $3000 I would have spent on consoles. Heck, it would be more than that if we count my first 90MHZ PC (bought for Doom!) and the 450MHz HP I bought after that.( Which ran the WinTV until I bought Beast and I retired it. ( Oh and also not counting the laptops I've bought over the years!
But we won't count these since there isn't a comparable mobile console.)
I think FFXI went the wrong direction releasing a PC version. IMO, and in hindsight
, we'd be better off on consoles. At least money wise that is. Community wise, eh, maybe not, although,as a veteran of Barrens chat, that doesn't really matter all that much...
So, to recap:
Web surfing and e-mail: that old 1MHz -> 1GHz PC will mostly handle it. ( Although, 1MHZ would have a problem with Flash laden sites like this. Actually, anything > than a text only site would be a problem. )( Consoles can probably do these but I have no experience with this. LOL, my latest console is an NES!)
FPS type games / MMORPG's: Consoles can do it, cheaper.
Until the diversity of PC games makes it's way firmly onto consoles, we are stuck with PC's as game platforms.
My only problem with consoles is I don't have any comtroller skillz! I can run forward and sidestep just fine with a kb/mouse. I even find myself doing it with out thinking!
FYI, there is/was a good series on the history of computer games playing on The Discovery Channel(s), "Download" or something. The only thing that separated the machines ( consoles/pc ) and genres seems to be storage space. PCs had HD's so were more suited for RPG's with their ever-branching story lines and heavy memory/GFX requirements. ( Oh, and Sierra and Leisure Suit Larry had something to do with it. )
I blame Larry for the great PC/Console Divide!!
Imagine what would have happened if Nintendo(NES) had followed PC's and had a HD, instead of following Atari and using cartridges. I wonder if it would it have been early enough to have changed the landscape by now?
------- END TRANSMISSION
14% is nothing to laugh at, at considering that figure doesn't even include digital downloads - which play a huge part of PC sales these days - you have a pretty strong platform IMO.
More than you think. And this don't include poker, shareware apps, etc.. but there are much more people, and only one cake.
Well so do I, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is the degradation of an entire genre.
Correction: It's your perception that the genre is degrading.
I'm one of a large number of people on this site that believe that the MMORPG genre has great potential, but has yet to make a "good" game. If it wasn't for the community of most MMORPGs, no one would bother playing them. Right now, I can get the MMO experience just by playing Hybrid Heaven, windowed, on my Nintendo 64 emulator while bullshitting with my friends on Ventrillo....
Okay, so I won't have the "joy" of suicidal douche bags wiping the whole team, but I think you get the idea.
Maybe it's because I've been playing video games waaaaaaaayyyyyyyy longer than you have, or maybe it's just the fact that I realize that complexity doesn't equal depth, that allows me to see this genre as the repetitive grindfest that it is.
Seriously, there have NEVER been any "good" MMORPGs, only tolerable ones. Making MMORPGs for consoles sure as hell couldn't do any more damage than was done when two college kids decided to make a graphical Diku.
Really? Cause I've been playing video games since I was five, so coming on about 16 years. Been my hobby since I was old enough to be aware of them. So since I was about four years old which would have put it at 1978. I graduated high school at the time you began playing games. I've been playing mmos since EQ, just about over a decade. I actually played Neverwinter Nights on AOL and Meridian 59 on the month it launched. At that time, 500 players on a server was "massive." Of course I also had plenty of MUD experience as well. My first MUD was the now defunct Chiba MUD based on William Gibson's Neuromancer trilogy. Now considering the video game industry is about 35 years old my experience covers damn close to half that. And you missed some of the greatest games ever made... So unless you're about 45 I'm 34 and have been gaming for that entire time, About 30 years I seriously doubt it's drastically longer bud. I think that pretty much speaks for itself.As far as mmo's being grindfests or that "none of them are good, waaaaaaahhhhh" you'd be pretty damn wrong. Opinions are neither right or wrong, that's why we call them opinions. UO was a freaking fantastic game Yep, nothing beats the excitement of making ten thousand skull caps so you can buy a sword only to still get your ass kicked by a rabbit..., DAoC was also a fantastic game. Or would have been if you could have competed in RvR from the git rather than having to wade through the epic boring grind. Think about how much fun you can have on an mmo compared to even the longest of single-player games (regardless of console). I have, but as of yet, no one has been able to produce that. Once you beat a game once (on average about 22 hours of gameplay depending on genre) there's no real reason to play through it again. That depends on the genre and how you approach it. When I play shmups, for instance, I generally try to beat them without continues. Once I've done that, I try to beat the game with just one life and then it's all about beating my highest score. This actually is the progression of all arcade games made after 1990. Even if there isn't a score, there's always speed running. And once you do, you've already seen all of the story, all the big surprises are gone and it's just a major grindfest (yes, a GRINDFEST) to discover that one secret area you missed or find that one extra item you didn't get. Wrong. Grind isn't doing the same thing a thousand times. Grind is doing the EXACT same thing a thousand times. In most non-RPG games, there's enough variation that you can still be surprised even after you've played through the same level several times. In the last levels of the NES version of Ninja Gaiden, you have to be completely aware and engaged the entire time because one misstep will send you back to the beginning. The timing adjusts itself to the player's movements, so if you change rhythm, so does the rest of the game. Come to think of it, I've run through Dragon Warrior for the NES and Phantasy Star for the Sega Master System several times over the years. One reason is nostalgia, but another is to see how quickly you can beat the game. the lowest lvl I've ever beaten Dragon Warrior at was 17... I think....
I haven't played a really good mmo since the early days of DAoC, it was so fun, creative and new that nothing really matched it. I highlighted those words because I think you've mistaken the death of novelty with declining quality. The games haven't changed one wit. You have! And even then they weren't quite as good as the quality days of UO. Besides that, your MMO experience depends hugely on what you decide to make it. I'll admit to being extremely antisocial If you've had bad or boring experiences that's probably entirely -your- fault. Single-player games seem more fun because they're linear (a beginning, rising action and a definitive end), you are given a direction and pushed along it -and- you're playing a hero, a character that is built up beyond the norm. So what about the games that I'm normally drawn too like Tribes, Virtual Fighter, Command & Conquer, SOCOM, and many other games that I play exclusively for the multiplayer modes, never touching the single player? Maybe MMOs suck to me because they aren't designed as anything more than chat rooms with crappy RPGs slapped on them.
In mmo's there really is no end (if there is enough content, which lately has lacked), -you- set your goals and -you- pursue them. Provided that those goals involve killing monsters for gold and XP so that you can buy better stuff and buff your character so that you can kill bigger monsters for more gold and even more XP so that you can buy even better stuff and buff your character more so that you can kill bigger monsters still and... Your character(s) aren't some all-powerful heroes either Uh... yeah... that's why first lvl n00bs are constantly pwnzoring lvl 70 characters.... en stuff... , you make your character what it is and you either choose to build yourself up and become "famous" (or infamous) or not.
After reading your response I felt that I had adequate support for my conclusion that you're just here to make yourself feel superior to others. Nobody else feels that you're superior, but you seem to believe it. So I'm going to leave you to your meaningless epeen waving. Enjoy.
Right now theres not a lot of games on consoles where you can make maps for but in halo 3 and folklore you can make your own maps. And maybe in the up coming Tom Clancys End War.
e with a straight face and think that the map editing on a console is the same as a PC? No freaking way.Consoles are only the future of gaming if developers force it to be so. PC gamers (frankly there's more of us than you console folks) will not go quietly into -that- good night. You have to keep in mind that NO MATTER WHAT developers say their reasons will be, their ONLY real reason is that they can increase their profit margin.
Not to mention console games are a good 10-20 dollars more (new) on average than a new pc game to begin with. Doesn't make much sense if developers say they can make games for consoles so much cheaper, does it?
Do you seriously believe this statement!
Yes, yes I do. Considering (this is off the top of my head from an article I read last week) that recent sales figures in total of consoles are something like - 15m 360, 6.8m ps3 25-30m Wii and many people own many or all three of those systems.
Now consider how many people own a desktop or laptop. Then consider how many computer games there are in total on the market.
Of course you also have to consider that many of owners from both sides of the coin don't really think about gaming as much as we do here. Even then, there are still far more discerning PC gamers than there are console.
Well it sounds good, but not every PC/Laptop owner plays games, where as anyone who owns a console buys it for the purpose of playing games. Then look at how more and more games are being made for consoles vs games being made exclusivly for PC. Saying PC gamers out number console gamers is the worst argument ever. Most games on PC these days are games that are released on console at the same time, if not before the PC counterpart.As for the total market for PC vs Console games, there are more singular titles being made for 1 console than there are for the entire PC market. You can see this at any software store/online retailer.
As for diserning gamers; PC gamers are not more intelligent or mentally superior to those who play/buy console games. If anything, PC gamers are more masochistic than the console crowd. PC gamers happily plop down money for games that are released in horrible states, games that require multiple patches to work correctly. Console games rarely suffer from this, unless its a direct port of the already shoddy PC game.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
as I said before, of course there are more console games made....they don't last as long as PC games.
A console game is "beat" in a few days, and you're on to another game.
A PC game can last for years, between mods, and subscription type games.
For example, a dedicated WoW player plays ONE game....WoW. His console-playing friend buys a couple of games per month.
I played Oblivion on my 360 for like 2-3 months, mass effect for about one month, I still play gears of war in multiplayer, halo 3, lost planet, final fantasy 11 I played for about 2 years. And other people I know still play games like Phantasy Star Universe. I am sure Super Smash brothers brawl will last awhile too especialy with online multiplayer and content. Oh I almost forgot the awsome Call Of Duty 4. Theres prolly a lot more. And upcoming End War.
I played Oblivion on my 360 for like 2-3 months, mass effect for about one month, I still play gears of war in multiplayer,
I have played Quake maybe 10 years, and Morrowind like 3 years. Of course, there are tons of dedicated servers for QuakeWorld TeamFotress.
I have read that XBox don't have dedicated servers, If that is true, I will go to laught.
I played Oblivion on my 360 for like 2-3 months, mass effect for about one month, I still play gears of war in multiplayer,
I have played Quake maybe 10 years, and Morrowind like 3 years. Of course, there are tons of dedicated servers for QuakeWorld TeamFotress.
I have read that XBox don't have dedicated servers, If that is true, I will go to laught.
I know PC games are long lasting too but I was just pointing out that not all console games only last a few days of fun. And 10 years is just obsession, a few months to maybe 2-3 years is satisfactory to me depending on the game. Some people dont even like playing for that long no matter how great the game is, they will get sick of it and want something new. What I am saying is, its all up to the player on how long the game last for him/her. I played quake and other PC games and I havent played any none mmo over maybe 2 months.
I have never played any game...even PC games for that length of time. So I think this depends on the person more than the game...
Plus the reason people on consoles move on to games more often is because there aren't any games like WoW...
And console gamers have lots of games that are good...compared to the PC, which myself I haven't bought a good PC game in about 2 years.
I have never played any game...even PC games for that length of time. So I think this depends on the person more than the game...
Plus the reason people on consoles move on to games more often is because there aren't any games like WoW...
And console gamers have lots of games that are good...compared to the PC, which myself I haven't bought a good PC game in about 2 years.
Aye,
EQ:OA was a poor attempt by SOE to break into the whole MMO on console scene, at a time when even PC MMOs were a niche genre.
SquareEnix made the mistake of sticking US players in a 2 yearold game populated by japanese players. Where most US players act like children in MMOs, the Japanese players didn't want to deal with them and vise versa. The game might have done better if english speaking players were allowed the option to pick clean US servers (kinda like how WoW keeps each region separate) and not randomly throw players on servers, where you had to either buy a world pass or constantly reroll until you landed on a server with your friends.
Once a game like WoW hits a console you will see people gravitate to it.
Good PC games are few and far between. Stable PC games are even fewer at launch. And with all the bad releases, pirating, poorly executed anti-pirating mechanics, etc, PC gaming in general is slowly at a decline, where as console gaming is where developers hope to contiune making money (going by developer comments/panels from the last couple of years of gaming confrences/gaming shows)
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
ROFLMAO @ this thread.
DOGS 'n' CATS-
And The Many Reasons Why They Should NOT Interbreed!!!
brought to you by our sponsor,
Miraculous Epiphanies
Page one --> Keep them seperate, keep them safe... Lol!
If your just joining us, for your viewing pleasure, please refer to post #71. It should prove useful as you later read through this thread ending up back at this post.
It will ultimately clear up any Rainbow and Loli-pop philosophy you entertain on the future of the gaming industry and possibly your sinus cavities as well.
* Life is not black or white, it's shades of grey. But, at it's best/worst, it hints at 32bit color. -Me (a.k.a. RuthlessTimes)
* I do not need to know how to make a better game than you. I just need to know how to cancel my subscription. -Antarious(a slight misquote but the sentiment remains)
I played Oblivion on my 360 for like 2-3 months, mass effect for about one month, I still play gears of war in multiplayer,
I have played Quake maybe 10 years, and Morrowind like 3 years. Of course, there are tons of dedicated servers for QuakeWorld TeamFotress.
I have read that XBox don't have dedicated servers, If that is true, I will go to laught.
agreed, but unfortunately console games with any amount of longevity are the exception, not the rule.I know PC games are long lasting too but I was just pointing out that not all console games only last a few days of fun. And 10 years is just obsession, a few months to maybe 2-3 years is satisfactory to me depending on the game. Some people dont even like playing for that long no matter how great the game is, they will get sick of it and want something new. What I am saying is, its all up to the player on how long the game last for him/her. I played quake and other PC games and I havent played any none mmo over maybe 2 months.
Most console games are designed to make a quick buck. They aren't meant to last. This is why console players buy more games...they need to, because they are for the most part, single-serving entertainment. Much like movies. There are the few classics that you watch over and over, and there are the numerous ones that you watch once and never watch again.
As are PC games.
What is longevity? Multiplayer, RTS, content?
Multiplayer is normal on consoles as of this generation, content, GTA4 should have 100ish hours of gameplay, Fallout 3 also. Only thing realy missing from consoles is RTSs, but the next Civilisation game is axclusive to consoles, EndWar for xbox and Halo Wars too. If it works, trend will only continue, so I ask again, what is longevity?
Moding is not the answer, I haven't seen any studys, but I firmly believe that people who use mods (on a regular basis) are few and far between. Talking about singleplayer games here.
Multiplayer is normal on consoles as of this generation, content, GTA4 should have 100ish hours of gameplay, Fallout 3 also. Only thing realy missing from consoles is RTSs, but the next Civilisation game is axclusive to consoles, EndWar for xbox and Halo Wars too.
OFF-TOPIC:
Is EndWar a exclusive for consoles, or a dumbed down migration of World in Conflict with a gimmicky control, less units, less option and less maps?
It sound like a cool game, and a good idea, and maybe will be more fun than WiC, and maybe will be played more and longer than WiC, but It still look like "a mod" more than a different game.