I'm SO tired of different companies treating pc gamers like second class gamers.
Yeah sure console is more money worth, but here's two things that a lot devs dont actually pay attention too:
- PC Games have a way longer shelf life, once a console game is off the shelves it's really never played again. Meaning a lot more money.
- PC's are so much more powerful, xbox and ps3 are joke compared too my computer. My computer is about four times how powerful they are.
- You can play ANY and EVERY type of game on a pc. Racing games: You can go buy a racing wheel. Fight games: There's fighting sticks for them and you can plug in xbox controllers into them. Etc.
- You can do about everything faster, you can move your mouse a lot faster than a person can move on an xbox controller. Thus a better performance.
Thats several other reasons, but im so sick of devs treating us like second class gamers. I just wanna hear other peoples opinions and arguments on this.
I played GTA4 and i had no problems with the controls, and i thought it was some kind of easier cuz you can change the controls to your liking's and i really can't handle those stupid sticks on a controller.
I wasn't even talking about the controls (which were fine). I was talking about the abysmal performance of the game. Loads of people had trouble playing the game even with minimum hardware requirements and it crashed constantly.
PC's are so much more powerful, xbox and ps3 are joke compared too my computer. My computer is about four times how powerful they are.
That is the thing, though...
When developers create new games for the PC, they have to take in consideration older computers that are powerful enough to run it. They have to keep in mind diferent sound cards, graphics cards, Operating Systems, system configurations, etc.
Some examples:
I had got a new computer about two years ago. It could run Plants Vs. Zombies like a dream, only getting lagging on Survival: Endless. My 8 year old computer upstairs lags more often, but still runs well.
The new computer could run Civilization 4: Colonization at maximum settings like a dream, but failed to meet the minimum requirements for Civilization 5.
Don't underestimate Minecraft. The game isn't even released yet, and has already sold well over a million (and since there was no publisher or anything involved, ALL the money went straight to Notch). I can totally see the game exploding in sales, if they ever put out a retail version.
I'm only saying that Minecraft isn't such a big deal since it wasn't such an immensely hard thing to do, it took not a great amount of investment. Like this: One guy made it, and then when it exploded the maker expanded etc. Minecraft is one of the best games out there but in no way was it the most difficult to create or learn.
Just to add, more effort = better game= more sales If they keep screwing up the PC version, they'll ultimately kill their audience because nobody feels like buying an inferior version.
Well adding the adaptability and graphics to the PC version when often the console version can get more sales... sometimes it can roll in reverse and not pay off so well. It's not like they're making any upgrades to the console versions, they're just opening up to the PC ones.
That, and in the other thread "What makes a good video game?" I think I pointed out that quality of a game does not directly correlate to the amount of sales.
The reason it sold so well is the reason why I think you don't need all those "epic stories", "drama", or "awesome cutscenes" to make a good game.
One of the things is that people can focus on specific parts of a game which makes it awesome. Guitar Hero - music. Space Invaders - tonnes of blowing up stuff (music amplifies its effect of entertainment exponentially but is not the main point) Mass Effect II - pretty much entirely story whilst implementing viable third person shooting and RPG aspects which come into effect with the story more often than not.
Sorry but I just couldn't resist.
Thanks for the link man, I enjoyed that.
And who gets Crysis and Far Cry. How about Warcraft 3 Frozen Trone or The Witcher And Company of Heroes and Amnesia look-alike Penumbra (very nice after i completed Amnesia, it is different but also it is the same as Amnesia)
Crysis has preorder problems, Warcraft 3 is very old, The Witcher is pretty bad or generic from what I've seen, Company of Heroes is also very old, Amnesia is an indie game and thus very little effort was made by a collective but my god was it awesome (Penumbra made by same guys) -- indie games are easier on PC.
Far Cry? Pretty much a spiritual predecessor for Crysis if you ask me... Bare in mind I haven't played it in years and remember very little.
I had got a new computer about two years ago. It could run Plants Vs. Zombies like a dream, only getting lagging on Survival: Endless. My 8 year old computer upstairs lags more often, but still runs well. The new computer could run Civilization 4: Colonization at maximum settings like a dream, but failed to meet the minimum requirements for Civilization 5.
Makes it more expensive whilst not making it a better game (just allows it to run on a wider variety of stuff), then, correct?
I'm only saying that Minecraft isn't such a big deal since it wasn't such an immensely hard thing to do, it took not a great amount of investment. Like this: One guy made it, and then when it exploded the maker expanded etc. Minecraft is one of the best games out there but in no way was it the most difficult to create or learn.
Of course it doesn't have nearly as much manhours put into it as any other AAA game, but Notch DID have experience in making before making it so atleast some semblance of difficulty is to be expected ;D
Crysis has preorder problems, Warcraft 3 is very old, The Witcher is pretty bad or generic from what I've seen, Company of Heroes is also very old, Amnesia is an indie game and thus very little effort was made by a collective but my god was it awesome (Penumbra made by same guys) -- indie games are easier on PC.
Not to mention it's just much less of a hassle to make indie games on PC. I've heard the console manufacturers won't actually let you make console games unless you have a registered office. The one exception to this would be the X-Box live indie games section(which has limitations).
Far Cry? Pretty much a spiritual predecessor for Crysis if you ask me... Bare in mind I haven't played it in years and remember very little.
Of course it doesn't have nearly as much manhours put into it as any other AAA game, but Notch DID have experience in making before making it so atleast some semblance of difficulty is to be expected ;D
Yeah, I don't want someone to read this and think "So this guy thinks C++ is easy? Well I'd like to see him do it!" or something -- of course it is difficult but I'm talking "compared to a Triple A title...", thanks for clearing that up
Talking about clearing up, when I said
indie games are easier on PC.
I'm fairly sure you misinterpreted given your answer
Not to mention it's just much less of a hassle to make indie games on PC. I've heard the console manufacturers won't actually let you make console games unless you have a registered office. The one exception to this would be the X-Box live indie games section(which has limitations).
I pretty much meant that... well yeah - easier to make for PC Especially with all the possible advertisement from Steam etc, look how far Magicka and Amnesia have gotten simply through videos with Totalbiscuit (and various other casters / commentators / YouTubers), JenoMorph (Hey Jay: Let's play Amnesia: The Dark Descent), Dildo***** (Holy Seep Amnesia what the FUUUUUUUDGE), the Yogscast (Magicka playthrough), MaximusBlack (Amnesia: The Dark Descent playthrough), Athene (Tanya plays Amnesia: The Dark Descent), Huskystarcraft (Magicka), and others I do'nt even know about.
Anyway my point is comparing that to the advertisement / exposure consoles can get, for what exactly? MW2 Map Pack giveaways? :P
Well Duh, it's made by the same people xP
Right! I forgot. That, and I remember reading that World of Warcraft is the spiritual successor to Diablo :P
/sarcasm Just kidding, but yes, I know they were both made by CryTek, just that I be careful about how I put something since I'm not certain.
I'm fairly sure you misinterpreted given your answer
Well I *somewhat* got it xP
I just felt like expanding on it, since I have a slight bit of knowledge on the subject (mostly from watching the indie scene for more awesomeness).
I pretty much meant that... well yeah - easier to make for PC Especially with all the possible advertisement from Steam etc, look how far Magicka and Amnesia have gotten simply through videos with Totalbiscuit (and various other casters / commentators / YouTubers), JenoMorph (Hey Jay: Let's play Amnesia: The Dark Descent), Dildo***** (Holy Seep Amnesia what the FUUUUUUUDGE), the Yogscast (Magicka playthrough), MaximusBlack (Amnesia: The Dark Descent playthrough), Athene (Tanya plays Amnesia: The Dark Descent), Huskystarcraft (Magicka), and others I do'nt even know about.
Of course, word of mouth will ALWAYS be more powerful. Minecraft had no marketing or advertising whatsoever and sold solely based on word of mouth and Youtube Let's Plays. But at the same time, Steam is relatively unknown to the average console gamer, making the it a bit hard to sell your game popular outside the PC audience. Of course, retail releases are pretty much out of the question for indie devs (which is a shame T_T) but it would surely help getting their games "out in the open".
Anyway my point is comparing that to the advertisement / exposure consoles can get, for what exactly? MW2 Map Pack giveaways? :P
Consoles are just more wide-spread in most parts of the world, which obviously means they are backed more by huge marketing companies. Not much one can do really xP
just my opinion pc gamers should stick to wow and other role playing stuff leave it to the consoles to take care of fps shooters like cod
This I think is a nice example of a dumb comment. Has no ground, no explanation, implies insult to a different types of people and obviously bares no intelligence.
Oh, and yes:
This is exactly what attitude I don't want devs treating pc gamers like. If anything pc should have the FPS games more than a console does.
PC should have more than Console because it has the capability to run it - what's stopping them? What it's given. It'd be like judging music genres on it's bands, it doesn't give an opinion on the idea but the result of it, same with this - because Computers' results is let's be fair friggin' dire. We don't get much and the games we "get" that are PC exclusive? I wouldnt' be surprised if I hear people say that isn't a lot of PC exclusives - it isn't.
I wasn't even talking about the controls (which were fine). I was talking about the abysmal performance of the game. Loads of people had trouble playing the game even with minimum hardware requirements and it crashed constantly.
It was even said to be unplayble with ATI cards
Then next week you come to my house, bring GTA 4 and i play it on my ATI Radeon HD 4870 or something what looks like it, and it will run fine.
The Witcher is pretty bad or generic from what I've seen,
Yes from what you have SEEN. Do you played it, from the quote it is a No.
Well i say i prefer gaming on a PC and i think that my pc is better then a PS3 or a XBOX 360 and have fun playing Age of Empires on your xbox.
Then next week you come to my house, bring GTA 4 and i play it on my ATI Radeon HD 4870 or something what looks like it, and it will run fine.
You mean almost 3 years after it's initial release?
I have an ATI card as well and it worked for me too. But that doesn't change the fact the game was a shoddy port and obviously not adapted to run with a lot of different hardware setups, since it remains a fairly hardware hungry game. Just look around the Internet. There's loads of forum thread everywhere complaining about the performance or "will it run?" questions.
The gamefaqs board is still active with the most asked questions being - you guessed it - hardware related ones.
Yes from what you have SEEN. Do you played it, from the quote it is a No.
Nowadays, you don't need to play a game nowadays to get a good impression of it.
Having said that, I've started playing the game yesterday and there's no denying that the entire thing seems somewhat clunky and unfinished. I'll still play it some more to give it a fair chance, but it doesn't come close to being a Baldur's Gate, a Dragon Age or a Mass Effect.
Yes from what you have SEEN. Do you played it, from the quote it is a No. Well i say i prefer gaming on a PC and i think that my pc is better then a PS3 or a XBOX 360 and have fun playing Age of Empires on your xbox.
Why do you appear so aggressive?
And no, but as Kenty has said:
Nowadays, you don't need to play a game nowadays to get a good impression of it.
The ONLY TIME I have needed to try a game (or in this case a demo) for myself to actually appreciate how deep it is is Amnesia, I thought this guy was pathetic -- if anything I would admire him for having the balls to carry on when in that condition. :P
Having said that, I've started playing the game yesterday and there's no denying that the entire thing seems somewhat clunky and unfinished. I'll still play it some more to give it a fair chance, but it doesn't come close to being a Baldur's Gate, a Dragon Age or a Mass Effect.
Fable 1 is baws btw. Not too sure about Fable II or III, they don't seem to maintain the original style that Fable 1 had... a shame. :<
By the way that Amnesia video is NSFW. :P Maybe I should start putting that up more in my posts.
