-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
What was the Downfall of Computer Gaming? An Attempted Analysis
- Thread starter A Black Falcon
- Start date
It seems like A Black Falcon and Flying Phoenix are equating the health of the PC platform with big budget exclusive titles (which by their very nature being on the PC push technology). If that is your perspective, then I can't argue with it. But, this isn't just true for PC. AAA games cost more money to make, so no one is making them as exclusives for any platform except for the parties who have a vested interest (Sony and Microsoft).
And I just want to add, because of how expensive AAA games are and how much risk is involved in modern times, they almost always lack any kind of risk taking behavior. So they end up being derivative drivel that games press enthusiast can slobber over. Sure, I enjoy another by the numbers third person shooter as much as the next guy, but that's not what I'm looking for when I purchase the majority of my games.
When I think about the health of the PC platform, I think about three factors...
1. # of quality games being released for it
1a. I do think about console ports vs. built for PC #s here. Console ports are fine, but I really give more weight to built for the PC games
2. Amount of studios able to have enough success to keep making games
3. Amount of money being spent on the platform.
When considering all three of those factors, PC gaming is doing just fine imho.
And I just want to add, because of how expensive AAA games are and how much risk is involved in modern times, they almost always lack any kind of risk taking behavior. So they end up being derivative drivel that games press enthusiast can slobber over. Sure, I enjoy another by the numbers third person shooter as much as the next guy, but that's not what I'm looking for when I purchase the majority of my games.
When I think about the health of the PC platform, I think about three factors...
1. # of quality games being released for it
1a. I do think about console ports vs. built for PC #s here. Console ports are fine, but I really give more weight to built for the PC games
2. Amount of studios able to have enough success to keep making games
3. Amount of money being spent on the platform.
When considering all three of those factors, PC gaming is doing just fine imho.
Macmanus
Member
A Black Falcon said:
You're really just sort of making up stuff at this point.
The golden age of PC gaming is something you made up in your head that is colored in a rose tint cultivated by a bizarrely idolized sense of nostalgia.
The golden age of PC gaming is now. Hardware costs are at an all time low with the hardware cycle being at an all time high. Software costs are at an all time low with the largest available library we've ever seen at our finger tips. Indie development is taking off and game production is more accessible than it ever has been.
The "downfall of PC gaming" isn't an industry issue, it's a personal one.
Bisnic said:
Seriously, ignorant console gamers like to think you need a $2000 computer to play games and then you need hundreds of dollars of upkeep a year.
This onlive service sounds good to me though.
One of my PC's is 5 years old and it's basically useless unless I want to play games that came out, latest, a year after I built that rig.
So after 4 years its useless? Considering I paid almost 800 to build that rig and it was pretty much very respectable at the time the depreciation on it comes close to paying for Onlive except I don't have to deal with how to get rid of old hardware which I can hardly give or sell away for so little since I had bought it for so much at one point.
SocksForWoks
Banned
It didn't get the popular franchises that people want to play, because it was unprofitable.
SocksForWoks said:
If it was unprofitable, why does pretty every third party developer continue to make games for it to this day? EA, Activision, Ubisoft, THQ, SEGA, ZeniMax, Square-Enix/EIDOS, Konami, etc.. And all of them support the platform with very popular franchises: Mass Effect, Prototype, Diablo, Starcraft, Total War, Fallout, Dragon age, Warhammer 40,000, Assassins Creed, Tomb Raider, Pro Evo Soccer, etc.
BurritoBushido said:
Pretty much this. If you don't know what you're doing PC gaming can be a giant pain in the ass. People who stay on top of PC gaming and keep their machines in pristine condition wonder why many of the so called hardcore gamers are happy to play on inferior hardware. It's because the learning curve for getting the most of out of pc gaming is rather steep. In the 90's it was well worth it since it was the only platform to provide half decent online play. That of course is no longer true so people are no longer willing to go through the lengthy learning process in order to get the most out of their games.
No matter, the pc enthusiasts well never give it up and there's enough of us to make sure that the platform will never die
A Black Falcon
Member
CecilRousso said:
I discuss this below... but yes, they are good. Just not up to the level of Lucasarts, probably apart from EfMI. (EfMI was okay, but definitely the worst Lucasarts adventure game I have played...)
I discuss Bioware below too.
... You didn't pay attention to what I said at all, did you. I specifically said that things weren't all bad now, and that there were still good PC games. And yet you somehow think that I said that there are no good PC games now or something? Huh? I never said or implied that!
Two of my three most played games ever come from the '00 decade, Warcraft III and Guild Wars (the other one in the top three is Starcraft). There are obviously still good games.
(Oh yeah though, Supreme Commander 2 is consolized and not that great compared to the amazing first game... but yeah, the first one is fantastic, as are many of the games in your list.)
Pretty much completely gone:
Space sims
Mech sims (unless MW5 actually is still underway, in which case this moves up a category)
Tank sims
Rare now, but there are a few, but far far fewer than there used to be, and they mostly have much lower budgets by their time's standards than many of the older games had? That is, faded but still out there if you look:
Wargames
Adventure games
Sub sims (Silent Hunter and nothing)
Flight sims (even Microsoft ditched their Flight Simulator series... is this genre heading towards dead?)
Racing sims (there are a couple, web-only distribution pretty much, but everything else is a console port)
Arcade-style or futuristic racing games that aren't were designed for the PC first (maybe this should go to "dead", there really aren't any of these anymore. There used to be many.)
Perhaps also great educational games, I've heard they're nowhere near as good these days but haven't played any since the mid '90s so I can't say for sure.
Dead at retail, only surviving in DD because of the lower distribution costs:
2d/2.5d platformers
topdown action/arcade style games
Still made, but now often or usually made for PCs and consoles simultaneously, even if the PC version is the focus:
RPGs (if they are first or behind-the-character third person)
RTSes (except Blizzard)
Puzzle games
FPSes
Still usually PC exclusive:
RPGs (if they are top-down or isometric)
MMOs
TBSes
Eastern European games (not always, some are also on consoles)
Ten or more years ago no genres common on the PC were usually designed for consoles simultaneously. The closest I can think of is non-sim racing games, and even there if a majority were also on consoles it was close. In addition all of the genres I just listed still existed as supported genres with major titles. All genres I have just listed except for 2d/2.5d platformers and topdown action games were common, and not rare or dead as they now are. (PC-exclusive 2d platformers were common into 1998 or so, but after that faded out for a while, as they were doing at the same time on consoles)
Even stuff like Anno has console spinoffs now... though that is perhaps one of the better cases, considering that the console games are quite different from the PC title, so they both released the much harder-core PC game and the simpler console games. Civilization did something similar with Civilization Revolution between the fourth and fifth main games. That's a kind of console spinoff I don't mind, one that doesn't affect the main series...
Not those Eastern European ones from where consoles haven't penetrated that much yet, but most of the rest of the stuff, yes, I would say so, to some degree or another.
Again, Dragon Age was after five straight console-focused games; it is great that Bioware is supporting PCs too, but five to one... it's clear where their top focus is.
Portal 2 - Valve is one of those two remaining major holdouts, with Blizzard.
Metro 2033 - Eastern European, and simultaneous PC/X360 release too. (Remember that it's going to be a lot cheaper to develop in the Ukraine than in America or something, making games like that easier to fund...)
Total War - Long-running series... it is interesting that The Creative Assembly hasn't gone more into consoles, though. They did a couple of games, but haven't done console ports of their main series titles, interestingly enough... perhaps it's a little easier because they're British and not American, and PCs are more popular in Europe (I said both North America and Western Europe, but it probably is worse in North America than Western Europe, though certainly present in both). But like with Civilization, I'm sure the fact that their games are part of a successful, long-running series must help a lot.
The definining aspects of PC gaming is the reason that I´m still a pc gamer. I just don´t have the needy feelings of every gaming publication focusing on PC games. I can find them myself (and through Rock, Paper, Shotgun).
Developers like Valve, Blizzard, Telltales, Creative Assembly, Bioware and Runic Games gives me what I need and desire.
The business model around AAA games today is just sick and broken, and I don´t have the need for all my games to be the games that they produce, since they are almost always streamlined single player action games.
Yeah, I agree that it's unfortunate that that's the direction so many studios went in. With how so many of them are in trouble now though, perhaps they'll rethink it?
Macmanus said:
You really think that Telltale's games are the equal in budget, quality, and design to the Lucasarts classics? Seriously? Funny, because I don't think that yours is the majority opinion...
I mean, Telltale's games are pretty good, yes. As good as the worst Lucasarts adventure games, such as Escape from Monkey Island? Perhaps, yeah. But as good as the rest of the Lucasarts adventure games? No.
That's so ridiculously, totally far off base that I don't know if there's anything I can even say...
Were you even playing PC games in the '90s?
That even WITH cheaper hardware prices and lower software costs big-budget PC-exclusive game development is just about at its deadest point since before PCs became popular is pretty sad, but true.
Actually in Asia, it's still relatively the same PCs everywhere. Console gaming has taken off but PC is still number 1.
I don't know to me, the real downfall/raise of gaming was the 3D accelerator. Once that took off games look so much better than console counterparts during the days BUT you need to have one and that cost $$$$$$.
The only pull back to me for pc gaming , was steam and it's cheap source of games, plus also Steam treats you like a Human and not like pirate like other shitty developers *stares at UBI*
Also computer hardware costs has dropped by metric tons.... for a 1.8K SGD machine now I can probably get a PC that was worth 3.5K SGD about 2 - 3 years back.
I don't know to me, the real downfall/raise of gaming was the 3D accelerator. Once that took off games look so much better than console counterparts during the days BUT you need to have one and that cost $$$$$$.
The only pull back to me for pc gaming , was steam and it's cheap source of games, plus also Steam treats you like a Human and not like pirate like other shitty developers *stares at UBI*
Also computer hardware costs has dropped by metric tons.... for a 1.8K SGD machine now I can probably get a PC that was worth 3.5K SGD about 2 - 3 years back.
Zzoram said:
BFBC 2 says Hi.... you gotta be joking that hunk of junk can play all new releases at near-max settings? You can't even load GTA 4 PC unless u tone it down to low/medium and that depends on your resolution.
If you said a 4870 or 4890, I would have shut my mouth.... but a 8800GT, ugh... rather play the said game on xbox 360.
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
blackfalcon, i love your threads and posts. just so informative and extensive.
thanks for this.
thanks for this.
A Black Falcon
Member
ghst said:
First, before you posted that I'd already rephrased that; "mostly gone" is gone, replaced with a more accurate "That is, faded but still out there if you look".
Beyond that, are you saying that those genres are actually in good shape or something? Um, that's different...
You're right that those two genres are something of a different category from the other genres in that same category, though. That is, those other ones really are mostly gone, and that old label does describe most of them well; wargames and adventure games, however, still exist, but probably will never again reach the levels of relevance they once had. This means lower budgets and much less prominent releases, but there are some here and there. Compared to where those genres used to be, I think that that's absolutely the right category to put them in.
Adventure games were pretty much dead from 1999 to 2008. During that period Europe was the only place that still made adventure games, and apart from The Longest Journey most of them weren't exactly up to the level of the Lucasarts and Sierra ones from the previous decade(s). The genre does seem to have recovered a bit in the past year or so, with the success for instance of Tales of Monkey Island and The Secret of Monkey Island's remake, but I think it's still obvious to everyone that the genre is not that important anymore, and probably never will be again. The result is, well, see what Hal Barwood said about making adventure games with lots of areas and multiple routes these days...
Wargames faded to near-irrelevance back in the early '00s, and have not recovered. As I said earlier in the thread, they're still out there, if you look hard enough, but outside of people who regularly play the games, most people don't even know that they still exist. They have not recovered in any way since fading out in the late '90s or early '00s. When's the last time you saw a serious hex-based wargame in Gamestop or even Best Buy, or featured prominently on major PC gaming websites? Back in the '90s, the answer would have probably been "The last time I was there". Now... not exactly.
Wargames are stronger than ever. Interfaces are getting better (higher resolution also helps a lot here), mechanics are getting improved upon, and we are getting tons of releases every year, and in more settings than just WW2 (the American Civil War and Napoleonics has been getting particular attention in the last few years).
Now that the technology allows for it, you can actually reproduce a realistic real-time system of command and control that can also emulate order delays and create an ebb and flow of combat that would feel much more abstracted in turn-based format. Even on the more tactical side of things, improved technology allows for better calculation of physics/ballistics.
It's true that we haven't had a recent 'big hit' like Close Combat or Panzer General, or even Combat Mission. But compare and contrast the graphics of wargames back in the day vs other games of their era, and current wargames (higher res, sure, some even have some primitive 3d modelling!) vs current games. The wargames are still there, and the gameplay has been getting refined more and more over the year. The gameplay complexity already calls for it being a very niche market, and that's where the limited resources are spent on. You can spent those resources on graphics or whatever, but you'd also have to 'streamline' very significantly if aiming for mass-market appeal. Big bucks means big risks.
You're doing a great disservice to the genre by wanting it to go mainstream. Not everyone wants to orchestrate the entire Pacific Theater of Operations down to individual ships. Some people do, and the games still sell; thus, they are still made, and will continue being made.
Now that the technology allows for it, you can actually reproduce a realistic real-time system of command and control that can also emulate order delays and create an ebb and flow of combat that would feel much more abstracted in turn-based format. Even on the more tactical side of things, improved technology allows for better calculation of physics/ballistics.
It's true that we haven't had a recent 'big hit' like Close Combat or Panzer General, or even Combat Mission. But compare and contrast the graphics of wargames back in the day vs other games of their era, and current wargames (higher res, sure, some even have some primitive 3d modelling!) vs current games. The wargames are still there, and the gameplay has been getting refined more and more over the year. The gameplay complexity already calls for it being a very niche market, and that's where the limited resources are spent on. You can spent those resources on graphics or whatever, but you'd also have to 'streamline' very significantly if aiming for mass-market appeal. Big bucks means big risks.
You're doing a great disservice to the genre by wanting it to go mainstream. Not everyone wants to orchestrate the entire Pacific Theater of Operations down to individual ships. Some people do, and the games still sell; thus, they are still made, and will continue being made.
A Black Falcon
Member
Llyranor said:
This was true even in the '90s though, the hardcore wargames were very unapproachable and were only played by many of the same people playing them now, while the more mainstream ones had better graphics, less depth, and such. My point was that the popular kind of wargame pretty much disappeared, leaving only the hardcore ones, and that even those faded a little more from public view thanks to retail losing importance, etc. I don't think you contradict that here (you admit that the popular ones are gone). You don't mind that, I guess, as long as the games that there are are good...
Oh, absolutely, games like that always have been niche, and I'm not wanting that to change. Panzer General wasn't exactly a super-technical wargame even by its time's standards, and Sid Meier's Gettysburg! was half RTS, but you don't think that the genre wouldn't be a little better with a little bit more attention in the PC gaming world? I'm not saying anything about changing the very niche ones. Given that they always have been that way, the internet is probably actually good for them because they can reach their whole audience, most of whom probably know about them anyway...
So yeah, I'm sure you're right about game quality -- that is, that the games themselves are as good as ever. If you don't care about popularity then I can see saying that the genre is in fine shape, okay. For wargames I didn't mean that the games got worse, just that they got less popular. Wargaming's lucky, they don't need the budgets of vehicular sims, so they could survive that lack of popularity where the vehicular sim genres could not.
The closest things I can think of to popular "wargames" these days are things like Advance Wars, if that counts, which are great games, but very much simpler than even a Panzer General.
Like, think of how PC Gamer (US) used to have an entire column devoted to wargames, and another to all kinds of sims, among others. I know I heard about a lot of games there that I'd probably never have heard about otherwise. And companies like SSI, Interactive Magic, and Talonsoft made wargames with a presence in the PC gaming community unmatched by any since. I guess you don't mind that, though I do. You're right that the genre still exists though, so perhaps thanks to services like Steam some can reach some prominence again. We'll see. Maybe I should be a little less pessimistic with wargames.
Really though, genres do get more and less popular. Any one genre changing in popularity doesn't prove anything, that happens everywhere. What I think proves something is when almost every single genre on the platform has something somewhat similar happen to it at the same time (yes, even including FPSes, look at how many are console-focused now!), most developers stop making exclusives on the platform, retail space shrinks (and DD would not start to fill in the gap for some years afterwards), boxes get smaller, manuals shrink almost to the point of disappearing, other extras disappear for anyone not paying extra for a collector's edition, a new genre emerges that absorbs huge amounts of time and money from platform fans that is then not being spent on other kinds of games (MMOs), many of the top longtime developers and publishers on the platform either go bankrupt or get bought up by larger multiplatform publishers, more people start getting computers that can't run high end games well (laptops/netbooks) or replacing some of their PC time with cellphone time and thinking about the PC less as a result, and more... THAT'S when you know you have a problem.
bigswords said:
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I have a 4850 (a little better then the 8800, slightly more powerful than the 9800 (the modern incarnation of the 8800) in most games, but definitely in the same ballpark), and I have yet to come across a game that I can't play at 1680*1050 (double the resolution of 720p console games, which btw a lot of console games don't even have) on medium settings at worst, and still maintain a playable 30fps. The vast majority of games I can easily play at 1080p with high settings. I can play GTA4 at double the resolution of the console and significantly higher settings and get better performance then you will ever get on the 360/PS3.
As for BFBC2, I haven't played it personally. But based on this benchmark, both the 4850 and 9800 (which is again, an 8800gt rebranded) can play it above 30fps with high settings at 1680x1050, again, double the resolution of the consoles, and definitely better textures, etc. To suggest playing it on the 360 would be a superior experience seems disingenuous to me at best.
Edit: GTA4 is an awful game to talk about when discussing GPUs, since it is so CPU intensive, but since you brought it up, here is a benchmark showing GTA4 running on a 9800gt at 1680x1050 with above 30fps (something the console version struggled to do frequently.) In fact the 9800gt is pretty comparable to the much more powerful gtx280 for this game (because it's so CPU intensive). It'd be hard to notice a 6fps difference.
DodgyGeezerFella
Member
bigswords said:
I would have to disagree too. While i cant comment on BC2, GTA4 ran perfectly on my 8800GT. No, i didnt have all the sliders set to MAXIMUM, but were set the same or above what Rockstar said the console versions use, the game had a much higher and steadier frame rate, and after a patch which reduced vRAM usage, i happily played at 1080p no problems.
Hexadecimalt
Banned
Entire thread reeks of troll.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
To add to this topic I think we need to acknowledge how the gaming industry has evolved.
The industry started out as literally just a toy industry. Games were made by a single programmer and lacked any sorts of presentation.
For an example this was the most "epic" game of the 70's.
As time went on technology advanced as well as gameplay, and games consisting of a single developer started consisting of small teams. Not only that but the difference between what the team sizes were capable of started to widen. But still gaming costs weren't out of hand.
However the next generation 3D gaming happen which brought upon two things: a totally new style of gaming and rising development costs. The former needs no explanation but the latter wasn't do just to the move to polygonal gaming, but cinematic gaming. Cutscenes, voice acting, CD quality music, bigger and longer games, etc. were all due to two things: the CD medium going mainstream and most of all gaming moving on from the children market to the young adult male market. This market craved for games to be as realistic and as high tech as possible with games like Final Fantasy 7 and Resident Evil as a forefront.
The next generation brought upon yet another rise in development costs due to more ambitious game design and polished presentation. I recall there being much talk upon how it was becoming increasing harder and harder for small developers to make it and how creative games were on the decline. Remember the whole Psychonauts nonsense?
At the start of this generation this thinking went full force. Remember the whole "in game advertising" or the "episodic content" fiasco at the start of the generation? Most developers found next generation games too risky to create so they thought the solution was to either whore themselves to death or just give us fractions of the games. Eventually we know how things panned out, but the development costs are still a HUGE problem.
Not only that but the money in games is turning away from the young adult male to women and adults. "Casual" games like Wii Sports and Farmville and games with broad appeal, such as World of Warcraft, are taking over the market. And these people not only do not care much about things like presentation and tech but they all own very different platforms they game on as well as have different gaming habits. So not only are the traditional style of gaming getting too expensive but it's no longer the forefront of profit or contains the biggest market which requires are far far smaller budget to satisfy.
A lot will change soon in gaming, but I don't think it will be focused on Nintendo's next console. But more so the systems that have a more lowest common denominator (I.E. netbooks, media devices, etc.) People may call me crazy but this is the direction I think gaming is really going to go.
To counter this however indie development is growing and growing fast due to better development tools. Games like Machinarium is really starting to blur the lines between independent and full production. So the genres the big time developers have abandoned will always find life. However those who want the huge AAA specific niche games will find their offerings further and fewer in between in the not so distant future.
The industry started out as literally just a toy industry. Games were made by a single programmer and lacked any sorts of presentation.
For an example this was the most "epic" game of the 70's.
As time went on technology advanced as well as gameplay, and games consisting of a single developer started consisting of small teams. Not only that but the difference between what the team sizes were capable of started to widen. But still gaming costs weren't out of hand.
However the next generation 3D gaming happen which brought upon two things: a totally new style of gaming and rising development costs. The former needs no explanation but the latter wasn't do just to the move to polygonal gaming, but cinematic gaming. Cutscenes, voice acting, CD quality music, bigger and longer games, etc. were all due to two things: the CD medium going mainstream and most of all gaming moving on from the children market to the young adult male market. This market craved for games to be as realistic and as high tech as possible with games like Final Fantasy 7 and Resident Evil as a forefront.
The next generation brought upon yet another rise in development costs due to more ambitious game design and polished presentation. I recall there being much talk upon how it was becoming increasing harder and harder for small developers to make it and how creative games were on the decline. Remember the whole Psychonauts nonsense?
At the start of this generation this thinking went full force. Remember the whole "in game advertising" or the "episodic content" fiasco at the start of the generation? Most developers found next generation games too risky to create so they thought the solution was to either whore themselves to death or just give us fractions of the games. Eventually we know how things panned out, but the development costs are still a HUGE problem.
Not only that but the money in games is turning away from the young adult male to women and adults. "Casual" games like Wii Sports and Farmville and games with broad appeal, such as World of Warcraft, are taking over the market. And these people not only do not care much about things like presentation and tech but they all own very different platforms they game on as well as have different gaming habits. So not only are the traditional style of gaming getting too expensive but it's no longer the forefront of profit or contains the biggest market which requires are far far smaller budget to satisfy.
A lot will change soon in gaming, but I don't think it will be focused on Nintendo's next console. But more so the systems that have a more lowest common denominator (I.E. netbooks, media devices, etc.) People may call me crazy but this is the direction I think gaming is really going to go.
To counter this however indie development is growing and growing fast due to better development tools. Games like Machinarium is really starting to blur the lines between independent and full production. So the genres the big time developers have abandoned will always find life. However those who want the huge AAA specific niche games will find their offerings further and fewer in between in the not so distant future.
Yep, the face of big budget development has changed dramatically. Expecting every genre to make the jump as the definition of "big budget" goes from $500k through to $30 million is naive. This is not a PC specific issue. The best to hope for is that genres drop out of the arms race and continue to be made on a lower budget, which does seem to happen a lot of the time when the biggest publishers aren't involved.
CecilRousso
Member
A Black Falcon said:
Did you really play through the whole series of Tales of Monkey Island, with the amazing chapter 5?
I love LucasArts adventure games, but people do have a tendency to make every single one of them better than they really were. Telltale surely haven´t done a Grim Fandango yet, but they definitely have reached or even surpassed the levels of games like Sam&Max: Hit the Road, the Indiana Jones games, Loom, Zak McKracken and Curse of Monkey Island.
As for the genres you say are missing now, you have one real strong point.
Simulators.
They are fewer now, no doubt, which is only natural since the increase in gaming budgets make them more difficult to sell to publishers as viable projects.
The funny thing is to ask for more high profile big budget games as a solution to that.
High profile games + larger budgets = smaller risks being taken = single player action games.
That is not the downfall of PC gaming. That is the downfall gaming, period.
Why do people ask for this to happen to PC gaming?
As for adventure games - if you can´t acknowledge Telltale, it´s no idea to discuss this part any further.
As for platformers - start acknowledge indie games. If you do, you will find some truly amazing gems like VVVVV, Spelunky, Braid and Saira., and upcoming ones like Super Meat Boy.
A Black Falcon said:
I´m sorry, but if you need studios to be total exclusive to PC to be satisfied, then you are in for a rough ride if you want high profile games. I think no one can fault Biowares commitment to PC if you think about Dragon Age, day 1 release of Mass Effect and The Old Republic. If that doesn´t do it for you, well, tough luck.
A Black Falcon said:
Why does a simultaneous release make the PC release worse? It´s not a sign of weakness for the platform, it´s only a sign of what high budget games demand of the developers. It would be stupid of the developers to say no to the extra cash that multiformat gives them, so it´s naive to think they wouldn´t. It´s just as stupid the other way around, which is way we nowadays get PC versions of console games that before never would have reached the platform.
Wickerbasket
Member
Ran without a hitch for me; I'm using a 4870 and a Q6600 quad core at 1680x1050 with all the settings maxed.Fredescu said:
A Black Falcon
Member
CecilRousso said:
Curse of Monkey Island is my favorite game in the series, and Indiana Jones and Sam & Max and Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis were often mentioned as two of Lucasarts' three best adventure games, along with Grim Fandango... no, Telltale is not at that level. Yes they are good though, certainly; it's not like even back in the '80s or '90s anyone else was up to Lucasarts' level! Even Sierra wasn't, they had quite a few not-as-great adventure games. They made many more so it perhaps balanced out, but did have many more misses along the way. By any standards Telltale is a great adventure game developer, yes. They just don't match Lucasarts. That's alright though, no one ever did...
It's already happened though, as you say... and yeah, that probably is an important part of how it's gone. Ballooning budgets have forced them to turn to doing the safest kinds of games.
Can we all agree, though, that losing all of those games with real depth has been bad for the industry as a whole?
I mean, perhaps you see no solution that brings simulators back, given how large their budgets generally are, but still, I wonder if there's anything at all that could be done, even on a smaller scale...
How is saying that they're good but not as good as the best ever in the genre "not acknowledging" them? I'd say it's acknowledging them, but disagreeing on the details of how great their games are...
Isn't that what I said, though? Platformers exist in download-only, low-budget (mostly homebrew-style) form because they don't sell well enough on the PC anymore for many full-scale titles? That's not an insult, I was a huge shareware fan in the early '90s and loved lots of those games, which should be quite comparable category-wise to that stuff you mention there. Even then that's where most of the PC platformers came from; there were some retail too, but a lot of the exclusives were shareware games... and really good ones.
I was just saying that those few retail ones did disappear, and the shareware-style stuff did too for a while; it's back now, as you say, but for some time, platformers were pretty dead on the PC I think, even in indie games...
I´m sorry, but if you need studios to be total exclusive to PC to be satisfied, then you are in for a rough ride if you want high profile games. I think no one can fault Biowares commitment to PC if you think about Dragon Age, day 1 release of Mass Effect and The Old Republic. If that doesn´t do it for you, well, tough luck.
One of my major points has been that just because a game is on the PC doesn't make it a PC-style game. Mass Effect is most definitely not a PC-style game, so while sure, it's nice that it's on the PC at all, it doesn't count for that much compared to a real PC game like Dragon Age.
Also, if I'd liked NWN1 maybe I'd have been less disappointed in Bioware last decade, but I thought NWN1 wasn't that interesting at all, so after 2001's BG2:ToB, the only Bioware game I even played really was KotOR 1 for the PC... which I found fun, but frustratingly simplistic and consolish gameplay and interface-wise (on that note, the inventory was utterly abysmal, a horrible single long list of items...).
Whether we're talking about consoles or PCs, I think that most fans of a platform would say that an exclusive is considered a better sign for the platform than a multiplatform game... it's a greater sign of confidence for one thing for sure, and it shows that the system can maintain major releases on its own.
I mean, you're right that budgets are a key reason why most games aren't exclusive anymore, though I would say that just a general desire for more sales is a reason too, and the feeling that "games should be on consoles too" which seems to exist now, but those are all parts of how PC gaming has faded... before budgets got so out of control the PC could maintain many more big-budget exclusives. Of course the fact that it can't now is at least in part a bad sign for the platform, even if Flying_Phoenix and Fredescu are at least partially right that game budgets are crazy now and a real problem and worry.
And the result is that the games get consolized and simplified for those console audiences, and what made PC gaming unique is gradually lost. And that is awful.
Look at Epic, for their first decade PC exclusive, and they aren't even releasing PC versions of some of their major titles anymore... is that the direction things are going in?
A Black Falcon said:And the result is that the games get consolized and simplified for those console audiences, and what made PC gaming unique is gradually lost. And that is awful.
Look at Epic, for their first decade PC exclusive, and they aren't even releasing PC versions of some of their major titles anymore... is that the direction things are going in?
Well, for every dev that doesn't support pc anymore, there are still devs that still support. Like for example valve and blizzard and Bioware. When some devs find it hard to support a particular gaming system (PC included) another one will takes it place.
I wouldn't say that not all things consolized makes pc games bad, for example party based friend invites and etc, would not have been possible if consoles didn't do it (not sure whether steam or xbla did it first, but it's a godsent option).
Basileus777
Member
A Black Falcon said:
Platform exclusives that aren't funded by a first-party are essentially dead. No one is listing the 360s lack of 3rd party exclusives as an indicator of the platform's health because they understand that the economics of game making have changed. In some ways this is actually helping PC gaming, as publishers are porting their consoles games to the PC more than ever in order to maximize revenue.
A Black Falcon
Member
Basileus777 said:
Well that is true, at least the PC is getting much more timely console ports than it used to.
Of course though, as I've been saying all along most PC-focused genres are quite different from most console-focused genres, and the result has been simplification, fading in the marketplace, dissapearance, reduction to even more niche status, etc. for most PC genres. This has been to the benefit of console games and genres as I've said, but I think the loss on the PC side is worse and more significant... it's not like there's anything on the console side to replace all those missing space sims.
In contrast, particularly between the PS3 and 360, the systems are so similar structurally that the difference doesn't matter nearly as much... but with the PC, when a major release is designed for just the PC, it generally ends up technologically more advanced, and with more depth of gameplay, than if it was designed for consoles too. Not always true of course, but often. Note that if there is a later console port this doesn't affect the original title if it wasn't planned from the start. It's just that when games get consolized things do often start to get compromised... compare KotOR to Baldur's Gate II, Crysis to most other FPSes from the past few years (technologically there, primarily, not depth), etc, etc. The resulting games aren't bad or anything, they're just quite different. I just want or hope that major PC-style games to continue to exist, because they're great games.
It also doesn't help that the PC really has no first party. Microsoft cares about the 360, not the PC, for gaming. And what they have done recently hasn't exactly been helpful, as Games for Windows' example shows...
Of course, as several people have said, that even with games on PC, PS3, and 360, lots of developers are finding now that they just aren't making money unless their games are big hits, and most games aren't. So what happens, game prices go way, way up -- unlikely -- or things start to fall apart like Flying_Phoenix said?
Regardless of that though, what's happened to PC gaming is sad. Perhaps it's a sign of what's to come, or what's happening now, in the console world as well, or perhaps things won't get worse on consoles (though if new, even more powerful systems come out I can't see ANYTHING aside from the very, very most successful games continuing to make a profit...). We'll see. But either way, I do like both PC and console style games, and think that their merger is much more bad for PC than consoles, particularly from a game design standpoint. There certainly are still a lot of great PC games to play, but still. The situation is really too bad. Now that the possibility has been raised, though, here's hoping that console gaming at least does not follow it into Farmville-spawned oblivion... or something like that...
evil solrac v3.0
Member
OP keeps bringing up tiny, small morsels of points that don't add up to PC gaming dying, close to dying or even catching a cold.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
To add on to what I said before, while it's obvious that what PC gaming once was gone there will always be some developers to pick up the ball. Developers like CDProjeckt (with "The Witcher") and Arc System Works (with "Blazblue") are continuing making big production premiere games of genres abandoned years ago (with CDProjekt it's traditional computer RPG's, with Arc System Works it's sprite based 2D fighting games which while has had a recent surge in popularity, I wouldn't say it's out of the woods yet).
Not only that but there are always other smaller developers putting in productioned work to keep relevant games in a genre or style of gaming afloat (I.E. Vanillaware, Wayforward, Amita Design, etc.) and as independent development improves, worrying about these genres will be a thing of the past. It already fuels genres such as adventure games, shoot-em-ups, platformers, and 2D fighters. It's only a matter of time before it spreads to WRPG's, JRPG's, Tactical FPS's, Strategy Games, etc.
I know this isn't the most relevant thing to say now, but it's just that I felt odd about leaving it out of my last post.
Once again he is not saying that PC gaming is dying, but PC gaming as we know it (or in this case knew it) is dying (or in this case dead).
Not only that but there are always other smaller developers putting in productioned work to keep relevant games in a genre or style of gaming afloat (I.E. Vanillaware, Wayforward, Amita Design, etc.) and as independent development improves, worrying about these genres will be a thing of the past. It already fuels genres such as adventure games, shoot-em-ups, platformers, and 2D fighters. It's only a matter of time before it spreads to WRPG's, JRPG's, Tactical FPS's, Strategy Games, etc.
I know this isn't the most relevant thing to say now, but it's just that I felt odd about leaving it out of my last post.
evil solrac v3.0 said:
Once again he is not saying that PC gaming is dying, but PC gaming as we know it (or in this case knew it) is dying (or in this case dead).
I don't get\agree with the criterion used to judge PC-centric genres as dead. You seem to be only concentrating on big budgets titles from the biggest publishers, and in that regard the phenomenon you point at is not PC-specific.
Most publishers play it safe, going along the lines of what currently sells. You are talking about an industry which deemed leaving WWII setting in favour of a modern one as risky in FPS's. Seeing that most publishers and developers are trying to create games that sell (rather than maybe doing a sim.\space game) they narrow down or being narrowed down to make FPS\Action\Adventure games which sell the best on all platforms.
Most developers don't have the financial backbone or the creative freedom to decide doing a game in one of the 'lesser' genres. I'm sure if Valve or Blizzard were to announce a Freespace kind of game, people would be all over it.
Furthermore, the RTS genre is as strong as it ever was, many games and many from those big publishers and with a big dedication. Those games are pretty much only directed to PC, seeing that the attempt to being RTS to consoles pretty much tanked.
The same goes for RPG games. The selection is varied, from Action RPG to Top-down stuff. I don't understand why every one has to have a huge budget.
The P&C genre is far from fading away. Alot of high-profile games are in production and 2010 is set to see the release of some much-anticipated games.
In short, the big publishers are busy trying to duplicate the games that are successful in present so naturally that means putting their budgets on very specific kind of genres and games.
Moreover, alot of the things that are currently 'in' begun as a risky proposal and were rejected until one game had them and people seemed to like it. It's like that saying that people don't know what they want - an big-budget from known dev. adventure game can be released tomorrow and suddenly people will be all over it. (somewhat close to the HR case).
Most publishers play it safe, going along the lines of what currently sells. You are talking about an industry which deemed leaving WWII setting in favour of a modern one as risky in FPS's. Seeing that most publishers and developers are trying to create games that sell (rather than maybe doing a sim.\space game) they narrow down or being narrowed down to make FPS\Action\Adventure games which sell the best on all platforms.
Most developers don't have the financial backbone or the creative freedom to decide doing a game in one of the 'lesser' genres. I'm sure if Valve or Blizzard were to announce a Freespace kind of game, people would be all over it.
Furthermore, the RTS genre is as strong as it ever was, many games and many from those big publishers and with a big dedication. Those games are pretty much only directed to PC, seeing that the attempt to being RTS to consoles pretty much tanked.
The same goes for RPG games. The selection is varied, from Action RPG to Top-down stuff. I don't understand why every one has to have a huge budget.
The P&C genre is far from fading away. Alot of high-profile games are in production and 2010 is set to see the release of some much-anticipated games.
In short, the big publishers are busy trying to duplicate the games that are successful in present so naturally that means putting their budgets on very specific kind of genres and games.
Moreover, alot of the things that are currently 'in' begun as a risky proposal and were rejected until one game had them and people seemed to like it. It's like that saying that people don't know what they want - an big-budget from known dev. adventure game can be released tomorrow and suddenly people will be all over it. (somewhat close to the HR case).
ZombieSupaStar
Member
Flying_Phoenix said:
I think thats gaming in general honestly.
Bladed Thesis
Member
This thread was dumb in 2010.
It didn't take NVidia in 2020.
It didn't take NVidia in 2020.