EA: "We might have you start buying demos."

[schild]

It's almost hard for me to see how someone could have played PC games from the 80s onward and not think that they used to be better.

Console games are another story. Although I will say that in many ways simpler abstract graphics are better at communicating gameplay than super advanced tech. Or put another way I never died in Megaman because I jumped onto a block that turned out to be a texture in the same way I did 5 minutes into Uncharted.

This is all utter crap. Also, that last bit is a personal problem.

That's my spiel, now for something a bit more scientific I googled top PC games of 1995:

http://games.toptenreviews.com/list_ranking_pc_1995.htm

Full Throttle, Gabriel Knight, Command and Conquer, Warcraft 2, Descent, Mechwarrior 2 and Myst. It's even worse than I thought!

1996: Quake. Diablo. Duke Nukem. Moo2. Civ2. Red Alert. Descent 2. Tomb Raider. Daggerfall.

These are some killer lineups! Great, genre defining titles in a wide variety of genres that retain a genuine PC flavor.

Keep going. 1995-2000 were the golden years of PC Gaming. It was nonstop perfection from all the genres. It was bookended in 2000 with Diablo 2, Deus Ex, UT, Sacrifice, and The Sims. Honestly, that period was pretty unstoppable for console gaming also, except it took a bit longer for the PS2 to overtake the SNES as the best system ever.

Edit: 2000 also had NOLF.

-

tgr, more shift key, less rambling. Thanks.

[Margalis]

I do find it funny though for all the talk about how gameplay was better, that 1995's top games that you listed include two point and click adventure games in Full Throttle and Gabriel Knight (which were fun games for the time but by no means an example of great gameplay), 2 RTS games in Command & Conquer 2 and Warcraft 2 (which many would argue have been outdone gameplay-wise by more recent RTS games including the Dawn of War games, the upcoming Starcraft 2, Company of Heroes, etc...) and Myst (which was actually originally released in 1993).

I was listing great games, not the games with the best pure gameplay. PC gaming used to cover a wide variety of genres so of course some of them are going to be simple from a gameplay perspective. If you compare apples to apples then I'd put Full Throttle way ahead of current point and click games and Descent way ahead of all zero of the Descent-style games of today.

Which is a large part of the argument - the number of genres on the PC has winnowed away and moved much more towards console-style games.

But really I think the point here is less that people want exact replicas of games released in 1994 complete with 800x600 graphics and more that they want logical evolutions of those games with modern (but not extravagant) production values. If you look at where PC gaming was in the 90s and where it is now there is a pretty large schism.

[naum]

Keep going. 1995-2000 were the golden years of PC Gaming. It was nonstop perfection from all the genres. It was bookended in 2000 with Diablo 2, Deus Ex, UT, Sacrifice, and The Sims. Honestly, that period was pretty unstoppable for console gaming also, except it took a bit longer for the PS2 to overtake the SNES as the best system ever.

Yes.

Last decade has been a lost decade. Yeah, games got 3D and glitzier graphics, but no revolutionary gameplay, other than recent advent of draconian DRM. That and lots of gameplay is done now via the web browser, as many had predicted would come to fruition.

But the late 90s was indeed a golden age of PC gaming — the best RTS implementations (which have yet to be surpassed, sorry WC3 OK but not as cool as C&C, AoE, Kohan, etc.…), MMOG started to flower (EQ, later given a less glitchy skin with WoW), Civ2, Sim universe of games (before they transformed into EA retread status), etc.…

[tgr]

But really I think the point here is less that people want exact replicas of games released in 1994 complete with 800x600 graphics and more that they want logical evolutions of those games with modern (but not extravagant) production values. If you look at where PC gaming was in the 90s and where it is now there is a pretty large schism.

The best example of that schism, I believe, is to be found in the comparison between ArmA2 and OpFlash2. They were both trying to make the "same" game, yet ArmA2 is by far the most PCish of the two, with TONS of features like leaning, authentic aiming based on where the weapon is pointing, not where your PoV is pointing, the ability to look away from where you're heading, etc etc etc. OpFlash2 has better graphics than ArmA2 (albeit not by much), but there's something just wrong when my guys automatically respawn after I reach a certain point on the map during a mission. That's some serious consoleitis right there.

[sinij]

The only way this would be acceptable if full game was discounted by the amount you paid for the demo, if you chose to purchase it.

[eldaec]

Zork, Paradroid, Elite, Impossible Mission, and Spy vs Motherfucking Spy beats out all that turn of the century bullshit.

Or maybe some people should listen to themselves for a moment and then stop being retarded.

That modern games run into trouble because they get dumbed down for consoletards is an obvious truth, but trying to claim you'd rather be playing morrowind than dragon age or whatever is just stupid.

[Minvaren]

Zork, Paradroid, Elite, Impossible Mission, and Spy vs Motherfucking Spy beats out all that turn of the century bullshit.

I see you grew up at the same time I did.   

[Goreschach]

Games suck now because no matter how creative you are you can only think up so many games composed entirely of the color brown.

[Margalis]

That modern games run into trouble because they get dumbed down for consoletards is an obvious truth, but trying to claim you'd rather be playing morrowind than dragon age or whatever is just stupid.

Thinking that that march of time automatically improves all things is pretty dumb to put it mildly.

[tgr]

Zork, Paradroid, Elite, Impossible Mission, and Spy vs Motherfucking Spy beats out all that turn of the century bullshit.

Or maybe some people should listen to themselves for a moment and then stop being retarded.

That modern games run into trouble because they get dumbed down for consoletards is an obvious truth, but trying to claim you'd rather be playing morrowind than dragon age or whatever is just stupid.

Oh, really. I haven't played Morrowind, so I've no idea what makes it suck so much compared to today's games that I'd be stupid to say I'd rather play it than Dragon Age. Do tell.

[Azazel]

I'm still waiting for updated, non-shitty updates of Desert Strike and Road Rash. Also that SNES Desert Strike-Alike that had you flying an A-10 Warthog. 

[Sheepherder]

Oh, really. I haven't played Morrowind, so I've no idea what makes it suck so much compared to today's games that I'd be stupid to say I'd rather play it than Dragon Age. Do tell.

It's sole redeeming feature is the game world.  Almost literally every other component of a game you can name is flawed, broken, kludgy, or nonexistent.

[UnSub]

That modern games run into trouble because they get dumbed down for consoletards is an obvious truth

Even assuming you are just talking about PC games, that isn't the problem.

[Rendakor]

I think a lot of what's going on in this thread is rose colored glasses. I'm sure in 10 years all the kids will be whining about how Call of Duty 12 is shit and MW2 was the pinnacle of the series. 

We all have a time that we see as the golden age of gaming. For most of the people here, that's the late 90s on the PC, when PC gamers were still a respected part of the gaming community. All that's really left on the PC now are MMOs and facebook shit, so I can see why people would be bitter. And I could rant about how my favorite genre hasn't been the same since back in the day but really, what's the point?

[Tebonas]

In some it definitely was, especially during the Xbox era. The first that came to mind - Deus Ex 2.

Also, before the fan patch, the Oblivion UI got a bad case of consolification.

These represent problems regarding PC/console games.

1.) Smaller game zones and less quality art assets due to console restrictions. That one has all but gone away with the more powerful new gen consoles.

2.) Optimization of UI and control scheme for consoles, meaning that makes it suboptimal for the PC, not utilizing the full power of the mouse/keyboard combo, especially in game menu/inventory management.

Edit: Nonsense, there are still genres the PC is better for. See my point 2. See how they "streamlined" Civilization to make it run on consoles and how inferior it is to the PC version. Also, mods. If you are into Roleplaying and Strategy games, the PC is the platform to be on. Just look at the differencen in Dragon Age. What you have to realize is that many games just put the console version 1:1 on the PC, and thus you never see that difference or what is "lost" in that particular game. Of course, your examples were shooters, a genre that really shines on consoles.

[Rendakor]

Hey, I prefer Dragon Age (and Oblivion, and other western RPGs) on the PC to the console, don't get me wrong. It doesn't matter how much "better" it is on PC though, because there are WAY more console gamers than traditional PC gamers. A lot of people here (tgr) don't seem to get that.

The point I was making is that there are only a few genres that are dominated (in terms of sales, not performance) by PC; MMOs and social games came immediately to mind, although I admit I forgot Strategy games. As for RPGs, well, it depends what flavor you're into I guess. Western RPGs are still big on PC, but they're mostly appearing on consoles too. JRPGs however are console exclusive; SRPGs too pretty much.

[Tebonas]

I'm somewhat wary on sale numbers as a quality statement. Especially since Steam doesn't give out Sales numbers and I for example buy 95% of my games over Steam.

[Rendakor]

Sales are what drive future development. I realize your point about Steam and I'm not about to get into a pissing contest about the sales figures for Game X; however, I think you'll be hard pressed to name a genre that's still relevant where PC outsells Console besides the 3 I just named. FPS? Horror? Fighting? Action? Platforming? All sell way better on consoles or console exclusive. FPS was just my original example because it was the most recent genre to go full-tilt to the consoles.

Seriously though, you can't think you're in the majority. Maybe here, but F13 hardly represents the mainstream gaming public.

[Tebonas]

I see your point, and I agree. But thats irrelevant. The PC market doesn't have to be larger than the console market, it just has to be there and profitable in itself.

Plus if you almost exclusively play those three genres you are starved to death on consoles and have no choice but play on the PC. And your money is just as good as everybody elses.

This is no either-or situation.

[Rendakor]

Fair enough, in the short term. But how before those move to consoles? Strategy games will probably be a while, although there have been gestures in that direction (Civ: Rev comes to mind as an entirely passable, if dumbed down, port). Both 360 and PS3 have added Facebook and Twitter support, so I can't imagine it'll be long before you can get Farmville on Xbox Live. Finally, the list of studios who have attempted or expressed interest in a console MMO would be too long to name; eventually someone will get it right.

[Tebonas]

Maybe, but with the lower entrance barrier Indy developers will always flock to the PC, hardcore strategy gamers will still live a few years before old age gets them and are a market that won't accept passable dumbed down, and big studios will try to bag a few extra bucks on the side.

PC gaming is dead for so long it isn't funny anymore.

[tgr]

Hey, I prefer Dragon Age (and Oblivion, and other western RPGs) on the PC to the console, don't get me wrong. It doesn't matter how much "better" it is on PC though, because there are WAY more console gamers than traditional PC gamers. A lot of people here (tgr) don't seem to get that.

I disagree. I do get that there are way more console gamers than traditional PC gamers, and I know that means the market there will be bigger and more profitable and more interesting for the bigwig publishers. You just have to look at MW2 to see that very distinctly, where the PC port was what, 20% of the entire launch week? And just to reiterate, that is not what I'm complaining about.

I think the games that are released on the PC have gone down in quality when it comes to the gaming aspect. I honestly haven't got that much of a hunger for graphics shock and awe, I'm in there for the gaming experience and/or story. Graphics matter but a few seconds of that, and then it's just ... there. That wasn't the case 10-15 years ago, but we've progressed so far that we're falling into the uncanny valley where we have to start doing a lot more work for very little return in quality (or as it may be, believability).

As for the PC vs Console issue, no games have driven that home more clearly than ArmA2 vs OpFlash2. Playing games like OpFlash2 after having played games like ArmA2, is depressing to me, because I see what the smaller studios are capable of doing on the PC, and I see how the bigger studios appear utterly incapable of doing the same thing. And that is what I'm complaining about.

I wouldn't say PC gaming is dead, per se. We still have developers like Bohemia Interactive who haven't completely given up (and whom I will support for as long as they don't go DRM-tarded), but they're becoming dangerously thin on the ground. Them, and small independent developers like positech with games like this, so chances are I'll still be able to find games I like and want to buy.

Strategy games will probably be a while, although there have been gestures in that direction (Civ: Rev comes to mind as an entirely passable, if dumbed down, port).

Why should Civ:Rev have to be dumbed down? Is it the controller? Is it that today's gamers are too ADD that they can't even bare the thought of sitting down and playing a game for more than 30 minutes at a time before they have to do something else? What?! I'm honestly at a loss, because it feels like console gamers are speaking a completely different language than I am when it comes to what makes a game good.

[Rendakor]

Half of it is the controller; moving a pointer with an analog stick is much more annoying than a mouse, and you have a much more limited base of hotkeys to fall back on. The other is that the average age of an Xbox 360 game is probably 10 years younger than the average core PC gamer. Also, have you played Civ: Rev? It's still time consuming, it's just that a lot of mechanics and micro has been removed in favor of accessibility.

Regarding the graphics vs. gameplay, I'm with you 100%, and that's not a problem unique to PC games. Look at fucking Final Fantasy. Since FFVI they've been trending hard away from gameplay and more toward graphics and presentation. This is happening to all of us, and if you want to really stand behind that argument I'll back you up. In return, stop using stupid terms like consolitis, indicating that consoles are the minority. They're not, you are, and they're not going away.

[tgr]

I haven't played Civ:Rev, no. Strategy games and consoles strike me as more annoying/awkward due to the controller, so I haven't even considered it.

As to the average age of a console gamer vs PC gamer, I'm not really sure that's all that relevant in and of itself, as I probably fiddled more with my computer when I was between 10 and 15 than I think console users do today. I'm starting to wonder if it isn't more a generation gap thing, where they just have a very different outlook on things.

My outlook is 100% PC (with the exception of a few 360 games right after I was given one by my employer, and ME1), but hearing it's an everlasting trend over the whole gaming industry doesn't exactly strike me as a huge surprise.

As for consoleitis, it's not trying to make it sound like consoles are the minority. Far from it. It's more that I call the entire change a disease on gaming as I know it, and consoles seem to be at the forefront of that change. I can dial that back a bit if it annoys you, but I won't make a promise to never use it since it's just how I perceive the whole situation. At least we're in agreement on one of the problems, I'm probably just being more of a bitter vet about it than you are. (oh god I've played EVE for far too long)

[UnSub]

My gaming background was Commodore 64 -> Amiga 500 -> PC + Console (PS, Xbox, Xbox 360), plus some other diversions (gaming at arcades and on BBC Micro / Acorn, etc). Consoles have not been, nor are now, a disease on gaming.

PC gaming isn't dead, but it is moving away from being the major platform to develop single player games on and towards other things. I remember reading complaints that adding in mouse support in adventure games made things too easy; there is always a tendency to look back and think that what came out in your youth is better than what is around now. In most cases, it isn't so much better as it is very familiar and blanketed by the warm cocoon of time.

[Sheepherder]

I first played through Planescape this year.  It's as good as people say it is.

[Mosesandstick]

I'm playing through xenogears and enjoying it. Game would've been much better if they got better translators, which seems like the norm nowadays.

[Kageru]

I disagree. I do get that there are way more console gamers than traditional PC gamers, and I know that means the market there will be bigger and more profitable and more interesting for the bigwig publishers. You just have to look at MW2 to see that very distinctly, where the PC port was what, 20% of the entire launch week? And just to reiterate, that is not what I'm complaining about.

Yet strangely BC2 PC sales were greater than either console according to the developers twitter. Perhaps indicating that Console users are more trend driven or putting out a known "PC port" hurts your sales. That number may also include steam sales though, who knows?

[UnSub]

Kageru, are you talking about this quote?

During peak US hours the Xbox 360 dominates the player numbers. When that post was made it was the Europeans playing and pushed the PC numbers higher.

Also PC had higher numbers of players than Xbox 360 or PS3, not the two combined.

Because obviously 'playing online' and 'sales' are different things.

[tgr]

Consoles have not been, nor are now, a disease on gaming.

I was going to let this topic go, but I figure I should just point out a quick distinction. There's a trend towards making things simpler across the board, but in my view the console's controls hasten this or directly cause this to happen on other parts than just gameplay. That is, UI and stuff like auto-aim or auto-snap-to. I tried God of War 2 on the PC once, and I couldn't help but get annoyed with how the character snapped to structures. Same with mass effect 2 (I didn't test out ME1 on the PC). That's the disease part I'm referring to, which may or may not be a definition others agree with. I'll drop this subject for now though, don't want to shit the thread up more than I already have.

Yet strangely BC2 PC sales were greater than either console according to the developers twitter. Perhaps indicating that Console users are more trend driven or putting out a known "PC port" hurts your sales. That number may also include steam sales though, who knows?

That does surprise me a bit, to be honest. But when you say PC port, do you mean like MW2 put out a port from the console, or that BC2 is marketed as a PC game ported to the console?

And just to include UnSub's post, does this mean that europeans is where the PC market is, while the americans are more the console nation? And if so, it would be interesting to know why, and what the piracy rate for both consoles and the PC were in the respective regions.

[Kageru]

Because obviously 'playing online' and 'sales' are different things.

Yes, I went looking for the original tweet and couldn't find it, so it looks like I mis-represented it. Still thought it was an interesting comment. Though given how short the single player is I can't imagine who would buy it for that.

By "Console port" I meant it's a console game with the minimum work to get it running on the PC, rather than a full fledged release.

[UnSub]

I think that comment came across more harshly than I intended.

Also, a lot of the PC gaming press took the comment exactly as you did, and used it to say, "SUCK ON THAT, CONSOLETARDS".

On consoles, lots of people buy games they may never play multiplayer on. The barriers for a PC player to play multiplayer aren't anywhere near as high as they are for consoles.

[tgr]

May or may not be relevant, but these are some interesting numbers:

http://dubiousquality.blogspot.com/2010/05/electronics-arts-wtfening.html

In the last three years, EA has lost over $2 billion. If that graph were a short story, it would be Stephen King's "Survivor Type".

EA did make $30 million in the last quarter, but their projections for fiscal year 2011 seem relatively dismal: beween $3.35-$3.60 billion in revenue, with losses of $279-$378 million.

I can see why they'd like to get us to pay for demos.

[WayAbvPar]

Another naked EA cash grab. Doesn't really affect me, since I don't rent or buy used games, but still not a big fan of the precedent.

[Nightblade]

Another naked EA cash grab. Doesn't really affect me, since I don't rent or buy used games, but still not a big fan of the precedent.

I love the marketing speak on that link, it almost sounds like a good thing. I never knew product keys could be so riveting.