PC Gaming

[lobotomy42]

I'll avoid asking the eternally-obnoxious "Is it dead yet?" in lieu of a slightly-less obnoxious "Does it completely suck these days or what?"

I used to be a PC-exclusive gamer, but these days the market seems even more generic and derivative than all the consoles and handhelds, which are pretty derivative themselves. I subscribe to "Games for Windows - The Official Magazine" (formerly Computer Gaming World), and it seems like every game for the PC can be lumped into one of four categories:

- stuff for the Source engine

- real-time strategy

- MMOs

- niche adventure games

Not that I'm opposed to any of these categories, but...come on! Each of the major console manufacturers does a good job of lining up a variety of content for their system from all across the spectrum. By comparison, the PC market feels like a couple of narrow genres with hard-core devoted fans, where each game is a marginally more complicated (and more niche) version of the last one.

There are so many RTS's now that you can't sneeze without knocking one off the shelf, but God help you if you decide to actually get into the game. The mechanics have become so intense and layered upon the foundations of previous games that newcomers are completely lost. (Or at least, I would be, were I a newcomer.) I liked WarCraft 2, gosh darn it. There was gold, and occasionally, a tree. Whoever got to the dragons first pretty much won and that was that!

The same can be said for the other genres as well. Either you're an expert and can jump in, or you're not, and you can't. I suppose adventure games have a slightly smaller learning curve, but they almost never show up on shelves anyway.

What happened to dialogue-heavy RPGs? Or turn-based strategy? Or action? Or even flight sims? Or whatever genre "SimCity" was? Some have moved to consoles, certainly, but it seems that most PC-centric genres have just plain died.

I don't know that I have a point to make, other than...it sucks. I keep wanting to buy a new gaming PC, but then I think "Why?" It used to be expensive to be a PC gamer, but now it's just pointless.

[SiN]

Totally agree!

I used to be an exclusive PC-gamer, but I don't see the point anymore. I have more than enough money to replace my piece-o-crap laptop with a top of the line PC gaming rig, but instead, I've chosen to buy a Wii, and will pick up a 360 some time this year.

Like you said, the PC has become this platform with hardcore games in niche genres. I used to be a huge RTS fan, but the last RTS I can remember enjoying was Shogun: Total War. Now, I'm totally lost in the genre. And hell, the last PC game I recall enjoying was Darwinia.

One aspect you missed out on though, is that not only are the games hardcore, but so are the system requirements! Since games are being made for the hardcore, there isn't a need to support lower-end systems like mine, so the "bar for entry" has been raised even higher. I know it's always been this way for PC games, but it's never been this bad.

The real hope for the PC is in the indy scene. It's no coincidence that the last PC game I played was Darwinia.

SiN

[Jayel]

I haven't upgraded my PC in 2 years (apart from the rocking big-ass widescreen monitor - which is totally wasted because none of the games I play support widescreen mode) and continue to see no reason to.

I hope Vista doesn't end up completely destroying whatever's left of the PC gaming market:

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=12314

[LOPcagney]

I'm an exclusive PC gamer now (until I can find a Wii) and I'll tell you why I chose the Wii over the other two systems. I has another lump-worthy category I think far too many console games becoming lately:

All-age-appropriate Party Games

I could say the same thing about PS3 and XBox that you did about the PC, but with fewer categories.

You've got your first-person-action games. That pretty much covers it. Then 3rd-person action games. Those last two can be grouped together. Then racing games and RPGs.

Unfortunately for us, all the dialogue-heavy RPGs went to PS3, and that seems not to be doing so well. I like the Wii because it adds some interactivity and group enjoyment factor that is necissary for parties etc. Frankly, thats the only thing the PC is missing. Not only does it have at least 100 times the number of games of all the consoles combined, but it can always be upgraded and best of all can play older games just as easily. It's a different experience. For example, as my signature says, I'm juggling Half-Life the first, Final Fantasy VIII, No One Lives Forever 2, and Rainbow Six right now, 3 for the four of which are better than anything coming out for PS3, or perhaps even 360.

What I'm upset about is that all consoles are pretty niche in and of themselves. 360 has to live up to it's predecessor's legacy and be a testosterone powerred shooting machine. So-called groundbreaking games like Gears of War, while fun, aren't really innovative in any real sense just because the blood looks realistic. None of the mechanics themselves are new. PS3 has it's long-since established franchises, most of them Japanese (i.e. Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, etc.), but is all in all a system for RPGs and shooters.

Wii is as well. It will never hit the audience looking for a more "adult" gaming experience. It's fun and extreemly innovative, but it's unlikely to have a shooter that any hard-core FPS fan will take seriously. Red Steel and Far Cry are evidence of this.

I maintain that the most innovation, game-wise, will come from Nintendo or a computer-software company. Nintendo has a recipe for interractivity, and you really don't need blood and bullets to enjoy a console game. Computer programming, on the other hand, is such a fluid industry. Advances in technology can be deliverred to individuals who can instal plug-and-play graphics card, etc. To modify a console, you essentially need to be a programmer or a hacker. Plus it's harder to develop for consoles than it is for PC. PC gets the indie game market, which is always 5-10% of the best gaming out there.

Simply put, due to the high development costs of games for consoles and the inability to modify individual systems will mean developers will be less likely to take risks and from risk is born innovation.

That being said, it is true that there's been a scarcity of good 1st-tier computer games lately because, frankly, what everyone wants now is another Source (or Doom 3) Engine shooter, and there's not enough people who want another Grim Fandango. And there are some amazing games for the consoles as well. Final Fantasy is supposed to be good, Zelda too, Lost Odyssey's cutscenes are jawdropping, and Lost Planet looked interresting to me. But I think there's more quality gameplay out there for PC, even if it means sticking with a few categories you think we've seen a little too much of.

Looking back on what I've written, it seems kind of harsh. I'm not snapping or anything, I'm just passionate about my PC gaming.

Well, if anything, the one reason 1st-tier PC gaming doesn't (or won't) suck is:

SPORE.

[SiN]

I haven't upgraded my PC in 2 years and continue to see no reason to.

What do you play?

For example, as my signature says, I'm juggling Half-Life the first, Final Fantasy VIII, No One Lives Forever 2, and Rainbow Six right now, 3 for the four of which are better than anything coming out for PS3, or perhaps even 360.

Yes, there are some fantastic games on the PC, we all agree. But what fantastic games are there *now*? I have a shelf full of great PC games. But over the past two years, I've added tonnes of DS, PSP, (and more recently) Wii & Gamecube games to the shelf. The only two PC games I've added are Darwinia and Defcon.

So-called groundbreaking games like Gears of War, while fun, aren't really innovative in any real sense just because the blood looks realistic.

Well, there are some cool new gameplay mechanics in GoW, but that's beside the point. What innovation has the PC seen? Like lobotomy said, it's been the same 4 genres rehashed over and over again.

Simply put, due to the high development costs of games for consoles and the inability to modify individual systems will mean developers will be less likely to take risks and from risk is born innovation.

Uhh, that doesn't make sense. Development costs are higher on the PC because there's alot more QA to be done. And it's easier to develop console games. Since it's a fixed platform, scaling graphics, configurable controls, configuration-specific bugs, etc don't exist.

I think we're getting a bit confused here. I think you're talking about is the indy scene. And to that extent I'll agree, I think the indy scene is all the PC has left. Because looking at retail scene, it looks very bleak.

Well, if anything, the one reason 1st-tier PC gaming doesn't (or won't) suck is:

SPORE.

Agreed!

SiN

[miffy495]

I completely know what you guys are on about. I used to be PC all the way, with Gamecube every once in a while for a party game or something weird like Chibi-Robo. Luckily, I got a good deal on a 2nd hand PS2 around the same time FEAR came out, and that has meant that the droughts for the two systems that were my mainstays before didn't hurt me too much. This summer, when the PC still wasn't getting much interesting, I opted for a 360 so that when the Wii came out, I could play it and still have somewhere to play more traditional games. My PC has sat mostly dormant (forums aside) for a long while now.

Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed other PC games since then. Sam & Max, Darwinia, the PC version of Psychonauts, HL2 Ep 1, etc have all been great. Problem is that while there have been 5 or 6 really good PC releases over the last year or so, the 360, PS2, and Wii have each had a pretty constant stream of awesome (OK, it's a bit early to tell with the Wii, but so far so good.) to keep me gaming. The real kicker is how many of the best PC games have been multi-platform.

LOPcagney mentions Rainbow Six in his post, and that's a great example of what I'm talking about. I was given Rainbow Six Vegas for Christmas (for once a misguided relative's "I saw him reading the book a few years ago" purchase works out!) for the PC. Installing it, I was appalled to discover that the install is 7GB. That's quite a long install. As soon as I had it ready to go, it insisted on patching itself first. The patching process took another 20 minutes, all told. I was starting to get frustrated, but the game looked really good, so I kept at it. I booted it up and looked for a widescreen option. Well damn, I guess that a game that was released on the 360 as well (a system that looooves widescreen) doesn't give users the same love on the PC. After finding a proper hack and getting it running, I had it in 16:10 (although the HUD wouldn't scale, leaving a weird semi-transparent 4:3 border in my view) and looking pretty. New problem: Computer, while by no means bad (AMD Athlon 3000+, Geforce 7800GTX, 3 gigs RAM, X-Fi sound card) is not quite up to running the game as smoothly as it should. Tweaking the settings finds the game running well, but missing some major prettification like advanced shadows and particle effects.

Now, the game is great. Lotsa fun, very tense, and the cover system is brilliant. But if I'd had it on 360, I could've gotten straight into the game. Native widescreen support, no fucking around with installs and patching, and no worries about whether or not my 360 was powerful enough for the game. It would've just run smoothly. I don't mind having to install things on my computer. I don't mind patching. But mandatory patches before the game will run and 7 GB installs are crossing the line from innocuous little steps into major irritations. Then there's the fact that my PC, which while not top of the line is still pretty solid, is chugging when trying to run it as it should. It's mostly my processor that's the problem. Yet there it is. If I wanted to run it at full tilt, I could spend $350 on a new processor or $60 on a second copy of the game for 360. An interesting choice, no?

Anyway, I've ranted enough. SiN seems to have most of it covered. And while Spore looks fantastic and I can't wait for it, one fantastic new game does not a fulfilling system make.

[Nick]

I'm currently looking forward to...

Bio-Shock (FPS)

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars (Multiplayer FPS)

Spore (Or whatever genre "SimCity" was?)

Vanguard: Saga of Heroes (MMO)

Hellgate London (First Person Diablo?)

I was also looking forward to STALKER but not so much anymore, I'll probably check it out though.

Also currently out at the moment you have...

Company of Heroes (RTS)

NWN2 (RPG)

FlatOut2 (Racing)

Defcon (Strategy)

As well as some games that have passed by that I didn't play, but that friends raved about and were probably quite good such as Oblivion and Dark Messiah.

I personally enjoy a good RTS now and then and I'm quite a fan of MMOs. Maybe that's what's kept me going, but I think there's enough on the PC to keep me entertained and interested without struggling to finish everything before the next big release.

[Marek]

I used to be 100% a PC gamer. When I played console games, it was only on other people's consoles. But I have gotten completely fed up with PC gaming. The upgrading, patching and messing with DirectX or video card settings is no longer worth it to me. Also, increasingly, I can get the kinds of games I love on the PC on consoles.

Even the controls of console RTS games are improving. I played a bit of Battle for Middle-Earth II on the 360 and after half an hour, I no longer felt like I was missing the mouse. If I were playing RTSes super competitively or on the hardest setting I would definitely want to play them on the PC, but for regular games, a gamepad works just fine.

The occasional new Half-Life 2 episode or MMO aside, I see the PC mainly as a platform where I can get a lot of relatively low-spec indie (or quasi indie) games like Sam & Max, Defcon or Surpreme Commander.

The consoles have outlets like XBLA, XNA, e-Distribution Initiative, and potentially WiiConnect24, but those are still closed and controlled. PC will remain the platform of choice for indie games for many years to come.

Sadly there's still too little of it, and not enough aggregators. I was hoping Manifesto Games would take the lead but I have come to completely hate their attitude. "SUP COMRADS, EA are capitalists!!!!! Buy indie games AND FIGHT THE SYSTEM."

[Wrestlevania]

I was a die-hard PC gamer until about 2 years ago, when I bought a DS. I've been playing PC games since a 486 25SX was considered "The Shit", and I'd definitely say things have changed in the last few years.

I think the multi-platform stuff has probably done the most harm to PC gaming because a) it's expensive to do; it's driven purely by monetary reasons, not by the audience or the developers (strictly speaking); and c) it yields relatively low returns when compared to the intended console versions. I'm lead to believe that even the GameCube versions of pretty much any multi-format title sold much better than the PC version--irrespective of the franchise. This, in turn, leaves the PC gamers with a somewhat stale catalogue of games to choose from, and leaves major publishing houses with the skewed reality that PC development is both cost-ineffective and highly niche.

Throughout the 90's I rabidly upgraded my PC as soon as I had the money to do so, reaping the rewards by playing stuff like Total Annihilation, Half-Life and Quake 3 Arena in all their audio-visual glory. I think I've pretty much exhausted every PC genre I was interested in now though, with the last truly essential game being Half-Life 2. (However, even that fact hasn't motivated me enough to spend the £10 or so to get Episode 2 via Steam.) My PC nowadays is a seriously out-of-date Acer Ferrari, but I've no impetous to upgrade anymore. The most fun I have regarding PC gaming nowadays is playing free indie shooters, which my aging machine is more than capable of running with all the bells and whistles maxed out. I'm really enjoying console gaming again, having not bought anything 'current' since the SEGA MegaDrive--and I loved that machine far more than I ever did my old PCs.

With my DS constantly to hand, my Dreamcast under the TV - and a Wii appearing next to it some time this year - PC gaming for me personally is pretty much obsolete. And with that realisation it feels like a little piece of me just died. :\

[Roderick]

Wow, this really seems to have been a massive exodus on the Thumb, but I too was a PC-only guy my whole life until about three years ago I got the Gamecube and the Nintendo handhelds, and ever since I've become fed up too with looking at system specs and patching. That is to say; I've become jaded with the idea of buying a game without any worries and that it's actually solid and bug-free 99% of the time.

As for the games that are available on all and any systems; I can be frank. Most games suck. That's a simple rule right there. It doesn't matter where you look, 90% of the games on any system are uninteresting to me. The same rule applies for games that are simply copies or clones of some other game, or the thirteenth in a dozen in any one genre. In that respect; the PC doesn't necessarily have a disadvantage over other platforms. Yes, most of it is drivel and clones, but there's still a huge diversity on the PC, little niche things, just like on consoles.

So it's a purely personal thing when I say that I've made a 180 since a few years ago. Where once I thought console games were limiting and didn't offer the richness of PC games; now I have the feeling that PC games aren't as 'real' or complete, which is a very ambiguous feeling. But the fact of the matter is that I just haven't invested any time anymore into PC games. My RSI was partly to blame, but also that I didn't want to run with the arms race of upgrading anymore.

But concluding; as far as diversity goes, PC gaming isn't any more or less interesting or uninteresting qua gaming catalogue as the console. Apart from preferences in genre.

[Marek]

Oh, as an aside: Spore is often mentioned as the one killer game for the PC, but it is going to be multiplatform. Even more multiplatform than the regular multiplatform game. It starts with Spore on PC, but handheld and mobile versions will be able to use the same universe. (If they're doing handheld tie-ins, which has more or less been confirmed, they're clearly doing consoles too.) Just saying, don't see Spore as something that's PC exclusive.

[Spaff]

PC gaming is not dying, calm down you ranters.

I’ve noticed is that a lot of people are saying “I used to be a 100% PC gamer until I bought a DS 2 years ago” or whatever. Well… what can I say? Some of us have been playing consoles and pcs for the last god knows how long. You have recently discovered console gaming, and the merits and benefits it has, you are late to the party.

Maybe it is an age thing? When I was 6 I had a spectrum, and my friend’s NES was far more powerful. If you were 6 and you could play Doom on PC, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t give a fuck about N64.

Aaanyways, on top of that, we have also had this happen over the last few years:

The PC games (after 1990 ish era) that were better suited to short gaming stints or console controls migrated themselves to consoles slowly but surely, and that didn’t used to be possible because a pc was 1000 times more powerful than a console, and now consoles ARE just PCs in disguise, and they brought PC genres and pc style graphics and gaming along for the ride.

You still cannot get one of the games listed in post #1 on a console that is even remotely decent control wise... FACT. Even back then you couldn’t (lemmings SNES? Monkey Island on SEGA CD? Quake N64? Worst ever.)

Also - there *are* good PC games coming out that I am really looking forward to - mainly they are FPS games sure, so what? I also play console games and but I wouldn’t even dream of playing a console fps seriously, they are so CLUNKY. ugh. They may he graphically matched with pc games, but control wise they are useless.

Patching – well, yeah it sucks kinda, but is now prevalent in console games since the arrival of the Xbox, and most PC games are clever enough to patch for you these days anyways (mainly because they require online play).

I do agree that the hardy submission process at Nintendo, Sony etc makes for better quality releases *most of the time* and that with pc games they are released whenever the publisher likes... maybe that will be addressed with things like Steam one day.

So: there are times for console gaming and times for pc games, times for handheld gaming and.... never times for mobile gaming. And I’m not giving up my pc any time soon – in fact I plan to spend my entire week off next week playing on it, in between periods of phoenix Wright and WarioWare Smooth moves.

[Spaff]

also

SAM AND MAX

surely that excites you, you little adventure gaming nerds you

[vimes]

I don't think that the PC game offer is dying, it's just that we don't look hard enough : there is plenty of great independant games out there and not just cheap adventure games... one needs to watch the consolevania Independant special to understand that. I, for one , am currently too lazy to go look for them.

[Jayel]

What do you play?

The most recent game I played was Situation Comedy. Right now I'm STILL trying to get through Baldur's Gate 2 so that I can finally move onto other RPGs. Widescreen monitor has somewhat rekindled my interest in Half-life2 but not much.

Part of the reason why I'm not that excited about PC gaming is that I'm pretty much spending 10 hours a day on a PC at work. I don't want to come home and spend an extra couple hours sitting in front of another PC.

[castorp]

I still do like my PC and need it to play the games on my old-games-I-missed-list and the ones I just want to enjoy again, but what made me buy a PS2 was, that every PC I bought kind of fucked me over. In my current one the graphic card decided from one day to another to overheat calculating some high-end-3D-gaming. Years ago I would have searched the internet for a solution, corresponded with some support person and probably would have found a way to make it work again, but not before days of major hassle and disappointment. To tired for that I just stopped playing new 3D, got me a PS2 and really like the change and simplicity.

As for games I do think that there are enough good ones on the PC, but for now I just extend said list and maybe get to them in some years when I learned again how to trust. Oh, and when I figure a way out to get Sam & Max without having a credit card or paypal, there is that.

[Spaff]

Part of the reason why I'm not that excited about PC gaming is that I'm pretty much spending 10 hours a day on a PC at work. I don't want to come home and spend an extra couple hours sitting in front of another PC.

that is also a good point.

[Nick]

no.

[LOPcagney]

Well, there are some cool new gameplay mechanics in GoW, but that's beside the point. What innovation has the PC seen? Like lobotomy said, it's been the same 4 genres rehashed over and over again.

SiN

I guess this is true. I just see innovation on PCas being equal to that on the consoles. Half-Life 2 Portals for example, and Prey, with their portal gameplay mechanics. And the indie game market will still always dominate on PC.

PC gaming is not dying, calm down you ranters...

...The PC games (after 1990 ish era) that were better suited to short gaming stints or console controls migrated themselves to consoles slowly but surely, and that didn’t used to be possible because a pc was 1000 times more powerful than a console, and now consoles ARE just PCs in disguise, and they brought PC genres and pc style graphics and gaming along for the ride...

...Also - there *are* good PC games coming out that I am really looking forward to - mainly they are FPS games sure, so what?

Spaff basically said just what I was trying to and wanted to, just better than I managed to.

In some sense, I see consoles as taking two paths. PS3 and 360 are one step closer to being PC's, with equal or better graphical capability and features like DVD players, messaging, etc. The only real difference between a gamer's PC and a 360 is the games specific to each system and the easy indie development for the PC. When I said that the development was easier, I guess I didn't mean in terms of what's being created, but the ease of obtaining the means of creating and distributing games. Something like Gibbage would never make it to a console, despite it being an excellent game, because making the game is as easy (or as difficult) as writing the code and physically designing it, without the additional trouble of finding a publisher and making cover-art, etc.

On the other hand, the only way to really be innovative in a broader sense is to look past gameplay mechanics into how the user interacts, which is what Nintendo has done with the Wii.

So I see PCS360 in one corner, and Wii, DS, etc. in the other.

And again, it just works out that all the great 1st-tier games are heading for consoles, while the PC has the indie circuit.

Not to say Vegas, F.E.A.R., and Prey aren't fun, and SPORE, BIOSHOCK and Portals won't be.

[Nick]

PS3 and 360 are one step closer to being PC's, with equal or better graphical capability and features like DVD players, messaging, etc.

I don't think they'll ever have better graphical capability than a PC.

Can someone please list all the hundreds of genres that consoles have and PCs are missing out on.

I'll start the ball rolling with Platformers and Beat 'em Ups. These two have always been best for console though and in my mind it's not like there used to be a lot of highly anticipated releases for the PC in these genres, with a noticable decrease in recent years.

Having said that however, you can get games such as LEGO Star Wars or the new Prince of Persia games for the PC. It's just, as said earlier, some games are better suited to console and some to PC.

IMHO, FPS and RTS games just don't cut it on consoles, Platformers and Beat 'em Ups are more suited to console, but are still good on PC.