If you could change one event in gaming history. . .

[Mareus]

Seems like console gamers have a bright future:

http://www.animationarcade.com/animation/declineofvideogaming.html

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

Nintendo should have used a CD drive in N64. Maybe then it would have been a lot more successful and perhaps their later consoles wouldn't have been cheap toys.

 

[Balor]

What event in gaming history would you change if you had the chance?

Personal computers becoming accessible to wider audiences.

 

[SpaceKungFuMan]

I don't get how the casual/hardcore divide is getting brought up here. I never said that console gamers were more casual, just that they did not traditionally play games were not on consoles. And until the xbox, the games were pretty clearly divided, since 1) the bulk of console developers were based in Japan and most PC developers were in NA/Eurpoe, 2) the development cycles for consoles and PCs is very different, 3) there is a high cost in learning to code games for a new type of hardware, and PC developers probably found it more economical to continue to make games on hardware they knew for a built in fanbase and 4) even if they ate the cost of learning to make console games, they had to contend with the high cost of developing a game on two or more radically different architectures.

This has nothing to do with hardcore vs casual gamers. The status quo was just separation, for a number of reasons. Then the xbox came out, with no built in developer support from the traditional console gaming companies, development tools almost identical to those used on the PC, and hardware that was similar enough to make cross platform development easy. I feel like a broken record at this point, but noone has responded to what I see as the most important point regarding the merger of console gaming and PC gaming. What impact the merger had is debatable, but does anyone really think that in a world where Nintendo and Sony continued to battle it out in the console arena, it was inevitable that all the PC companies start making games for consoles? If so, then what do you think would account for them making the move given the problems listed above, when they had not elected to do so for so many years, despite the perpetual problems of piracy, incompatibility, etc? And you can say the publishers drove the move all you want, but before the xbox, MS, Atari, and a host of other publishers handling the new console games by PC developers simply were not publishing for consoles much if at all.

 

[J1M]

Furthermore consoles are evolving too, but one thing I am sure off when it comes to japanese developers. They will put a lot of effort into the story. Some of you may hate japanese games, but I am most of the times amazed by the story they manage to produce. Even games like Kingdom Hearts, which I thought would be just a silly FF clone, turned out... WOW for me.

Unfortunately, those of us who had parents that read us the Berenstein Bears as children find jap game stories sorely lacking in all respects. Especially character design, dialogue, plot, motivation, and internal consistency.

Frankly, calling Kingdom Hearts' story coherent is a stretch. I don't have the diction to describe what calling it "WOW" would be.

 

[Dark Matter]

The Xbox is the greatest thing ever. It allows me to play PC shooters and western RPGs, along with plenty of console-oriented games (action adventure games, sports games, fighting games, racing games) without having to purchase and continually upgrade/maintain a $2000 computer.

The only thing it needs is strategy games that don't suck, and it'll be the ultimate gaming machine.

 

[Brother None]

Even granting everything that you said in your post, the move to consoles was not inevitable.

Doubtlessly so, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the move to console is a part of the general move to a larger market, but it is not the cause of this general move. If consoles didn't exist, these large-scale games would be just as dumb as they are now, but they'd be that dumb on PC.

Not to say that there's no difference whatsoever between the platforms and markets, but the clear "stupid-smart" divide is just about perspective, it doesn't actually exist.

The same then goes for a divide between PC RPGs and console RPGs, rather than the criss-crossing platforms we have now. It doesn't matter, publishers will still go for the biggest buck.

Unless the market is a bit different, like in Russia and - to a lesser extent - the EU.

Don't believe me? Well, consider this oft-ignored fact: the top selling games on the PC are not dumber or more intelligent than the top selling games on the console. Different genres? Yes. But is World of Warcraft really a "smarter" game than GTA IV? I doubt it.

That being said, consoles most definitely did cause the high-cost/high-attempted reward model that Brother None talked about. The consoles created a set of consumers who wanted nothing more than to buy the latest pretty game which could make them feel like their investment in a console was warranted.

That is ridiculous. How can a piece of hardware "create" a set of consumers?

These gamers exist, period. If they didn't find the PS3/Xbox 360 more convenient than the PC, they'd be on the PC. They're not created by anyone.

Unless you were one of the unlucky ones who bought a Sega Dreamcast

I'd go for averting the decline of Sega.

+1. Sega was always something else, including their approach to the market.

 

[Castanova]

That is ridiculous. How can a piece of hardware "create" a set of consumers?

Have you ever read a 360 vs. PS3 fanboy forum war? Obviously the Playstation 3 did not impregnate your mother. But it does create affiliations which leads to demand for games which support said affiliations. These games, by definition, are ones that look good and are hyped. Halo is the perfect example of a franchise that has only the XBOX to thank.

 

[Warden]

I'd change HoMM V being released with a much better non cheating AI.
NWN2 not being linear (until the KoS part probably..) - yeah, that's a radical change of concept, and having no parasite party members. Damn, I'd change so many things about the NWN2 OC.. like not having that uber silver sword at the end no matter what; which pretty much nullifies all your effort to find the best weapons for your pc throughout the game.. and so on and so on.


Yes, there are some other games I played whose concept/graphics etc. I didn't like.. like NWN1; but those games obviously don't have enough appeal for me to whine how they could have been much better.

 

[Lumpy]

The Xbox is the greatest thing ever. It allows me to play PC shooters and western RPGs, along with plenty of console-oriented games (action adventure games, sports games, fighting games, racing games) without having to purchase and continually upgrade/maintain a $2000 computer.

More like eleventy thousand hundred $ amirite?

Anyway, let me get this straight. I assume any game that works on a console also works on a PC of equal characteristics. So you basically have to buy only one PC with each generation of consoles. Sure, it might be more expensive, but the consoles are only cheaper because the developers make money primarily from the extra cost of console games.

So you're not really saving any money in the long term, you're just getting a seriously handicapped PC that can't do anything except games. Thus, you also have to buy a PC on the side for the Internet and porn, which can't be any cheaper than $500 if you want something decent.

So how are consoles such a great deal again?

 

[Texas Red]

So how are consoles such a great deal again?

Halo.

 

[Trash]

The rise of the internet. BBS for the win motherfuckers!

 

[Dark Matter]

Yes, you only need to buy one PC. A PC which needs to be upgraded once every 2-3 years. The cost of a high end graphics card alone is around the same as a whole console. With a console, you just need to spend around $300-$400 once every five years. One PC per generation of consoles doesn't cut it. Right now, I have a PC which back in 2004-2005 could play about every game on max settings smoothly and it's already becoming obsolete. I can barely run Crysis on low/mediumish settings and it looks worse than Far Cry on my computer. On the other hand, with a console you know that you're always getting the full experience.

And sure, you'll always need a PC for internet and porn, but you don't need a high end computer for it; you can just get a cheap PC and only upgrade it once every 7-8 years and even then, you can just buy older/cheap hardware, rather than having to buy the latest quad-core processors and nVidia grafix cards. A PC is great and still a must have. But a GAMING PC is a waste of money. XBOX is the future of gaming.

"Halo"

That too.

 

[Lumpy]

Yes, you only need to buy one PC. A PC which needs to be upgraded once every 2-3 years. The cost of a high end graphics card alone is around the same as a whole console. With a console, you just need to spend around $300-$400 once every five years. One PC per generation of consoles doesn't cut it. Right now, I have a PC which back in 2004-2005 could play about every game on max settings smoothly and it's already becoming obsolete. I can barely run Crysis on low/mediumish settings and it looks worse than Far Cry on my computer. On the other hand, with a console you know that you're always getting the full experience.

And sure, you'll always need a PC for internet and porn, but you don't need a high end computer for it; you can just get a cheap PC and only upgrade it once every 7-8 years and even then, you can just buy older/cheap hardware, rather than having to buy the latest quad-core processors and nVidia grafix cards. A PC is great and still a must have. But a GAMING PC is a waste of money. XBOX is the future of gaming.

"Halo"

That too.

So what RPGs do you play?

Also, why are Consoles all that much cheaper? It's not like they use different hardware. Isn't it just because Microsoft sells each console at a loss so that they sell as many as possible?
Now, might I assume that they make that money back somehow? Say, by pricing the games higher, so that you pay the same amount in the end?

 

[Fez]

It does help with the cost of consoles and game development that they can sell the same hardware set-up a million times, rather than a wide range of configurations.

 

[Solohk]

Yes, you only need to buy one PC. A PC which needs to be upgraded once every 2-3 years. The cost of a high end graphics card alone is around the same as a whole console. With a console, you just need to spend around $300-$400 once every five years. One PC per generation of consoles doesn't cut it. Right now, I have a PC which back in 2004-2005 could play about every game on max settings smoothly and it's already becoming obsolete. I can barely run Crysis on low/mediumish settings and it looks worse than Far Cry on my computer. On the other hand, with a console you know that you're always getting the full experience.

And sure, you'll always need a PC for internet and porn, but you don't need a high end computer for it; you can just get a cheap PC and only upgrade it once every 7-8 years and even then, you can just buy older/cheap hardware, rather than having to buy the latest quad-core processors and nVidia grafix cards. A PC is great and still a must have. But a GAMING PC is a waste of money. XBOX is the future of gaming.

"Halo"

That too.

Uhhh, once you throw in all the accessories like extra controllers, that total surges up to $600 without even trying. Also, if you want to branch out and get multiple consoles for each generation to snatch up more exclusives you're looking at over $1000 very easily for 2, or $1500 for all 3.

You can build a nice gaming rig for ~$1000 especially if you cannibalize your previous PC (optical drives, monitor, kb/m, hard drive possibly) and be good for about 2 - 3 years before noticing you're running everything on low.

Also, if you be a little more fair and realize that for gaming PC's a majority of the added cost vs a regular desktop is in the video card, you aren't really paying $1000 for gaming assuming you need a PC anyway.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

So what RPGs do you play?

The same ones you do. RPGs used to be my reason for PC gaming elitism along with high quality other stuff like System Shock 2, Thief, Jagged Alliance 2, and Deus Ex. They were simply better because consoles were filled with only jap-trash. I liked a lot of console games, but the PC still reigned supreme to me. Then, RPGs started sucking, and the PC was no longer getting other high quality games. I saw the boat sinking, and decided to jump ship.

I really honestly see little reason to stay with "modern" PC gaming anymore. Everything PCs do, besides strategy games, consoles are doing well enough for me, and at a reduced price. The only games I'm in the least bit interested in are Starcraft 2, Mask of the Betrayer, and Dragon Age....none of which I will be able to play in less than 4 or 5 years because they're too graphics intensive for my laptop which can run Bloodlines fine enough...but chokes on Obsidian's poorly scaled for lower performance PCs engine and has no chance in hell with the other two.

Maybe when PC gaming actually brings good games to the table en masse like it used to, and the upgrade cycles slow down a bit, I'll come back and be a PC gaming elitist....but now...it's just stupid because PC gaming is undead.

 

[Dark Matter]

"So what RPGs do you play? "

Mass Effect, Arcanum and Halo.

"Also, why are Consoles all that much cheaper? It's not like they use different hardware. Isn't it just because Microsoft sells each console at a loss so that they sell as many as possible?"

Who cares? All I know is I'm spending less. Although paying to play online is pretty lame.

 

[Lumpy]

"So what RPGs do you play? "

Mass Effect, Arcanum and Halo.

Trolling, right?

"Also, why are Consoles all that much cheaper? It's not like they use different hardware. Isn't it just because Microsoft sells each console at a loss so that they sell as many as possible?"

Who cares? All I know is I'm spending less. Although paying to play online is pretty lame.

So assuming you buy, say, 30 games for a particular console, that's $300 more dollars going towards the price of the console.
Is the PC so much more expensive?

Also consoles can't run MotB and the Witcher so they are mostly fail when it comes to modern RPGs.

 

[AzraelCC]

Maybe when PC gaming actually brings good games to the table en masse like it used to, and the upgrade cycles slow down a bit, I'll come back and be a PC gaming elitist....but now...it's just stupid because PC gaming is undead.

Very true. There just aren't any good games anymore for the PC, particularly exculsively for the PC. Which is ironic, since the PC should be able to do more than consoles. But right now, every gaming advantage of the PC (Internet multiplayer, graphics, depth) have been adopted by consoles. Hell, could you even say that console users are the 'graphics whores' they are often perceived to be, when they can tolerate visuals which could appear better in a powerful PC?

The PC as a platform needs a good, accessible, exclusive game that would appeal to a broad audience just so game developers could garner enough support to make good games again in the PC. Right now it's a vicious cycle--PC game developers can't make good games because they have too few resources, then their lackluster sales drive the available resources further down the abyss.

 

[SpaceKungFuMan]

The same ones you do. RPGs used to be my reason for PC gaming elitism along with high quality other stuff like System Shock 2, Thief, Jagged Alliance 2, and Deus Ex. They were simply better because consoles were filled with only jap-trash. I liked a lot of console games, but the PC still reigned supreme to me. Then, RPGs started sucking, and the PC was no longer getting other high quality games. I saw the boat sinking, and decided to jump ship.

I really honestly see little reason to stay with "modern" PC gaming anymore. Everything PCs do, besides strategy games, consoles are doing well enough for me, and at a reduced price. The only games I'm in the least bit interested in are Starcraft 2, Mask of the Betrayer, and Dragon Age....none of which I will be able to play in less than 4 or 5 years because they're too graphics intensive for my laptop which can run Bloodlines fine enough...but chokes on Obsidian's poorly scaled for lower performance PCs engine and has no chance in hell with the other two.

Maybe when PC gaming actually brings good games to the table en masse like it used to, and the upgrade cycles slow down a bit, I'll come back and be a PC gaming elitist....but now...it's just stupid because PC gaming is undead.

I feel the same looking at the crossover of PC and console gaming, but i came to the exact opposite conclusion you did, and feel like owning a PC makes owning a current console almost meaningless. For the life of me, I can't find more than 1 or 2 games (current or in the future) that would make a 360 worthwhile to me, since everything I want is on PC. Are there 360 exclusives that are more appealing to you than MotB, TW, SoZ, or DA?

Also, for what its worth the upgrade prices are the lowest now they've been in years. You can get a fantastic crysis playing video card for $200 now.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Better not mention DA... from what we've seen of it so far, it looks shit.

MotB and The Witcher are both excellent PC exclusives though.

 

[Texas Red]

PCs are cheaper since you don't have to pay for games

 

[Darth Roxor]

PCs are cheaper since you don't have to pay for games

in before 'great job Bioware'

 

[Dark Matter]

So assuming you buy, say, 30 games for a particular console, that's $300 more dollars going towards the price of the console.

Admittedly, it does add up when you count the extra game costs, the online service costs, extra controller etc., but even with all that, if someone were to do a proper calculation on all this, you'll likely find that maintaining a high end PC is still considerably more expensive.

Also consoles can't run MotB and the Witcher so they are mostly fail when it comes to modern RPGs.

They have Mass Effect and are getting FFXIII.

But seriously, the way things are going, it doesn't look it'll be long before MMORPGs are the only PC exclusive "RPGs". Upcoming Obsidian RPG AP is multiplat and it looks like the Aliens RPG is gonna be the same. Bioware and Bethesda are already on the console bandwagon. Gothics or whatever the hell else those guys are coming up with are also planned on being multiplats I believe. That leaves us with...who? CD Projekct and indie RPGs (for which you don't need a good gaming PC)?