Bhaalspawn said:
Well actually, there are differences, just not in the particular game design themselves.
Eh, there are certain design limitations and requirements that find their way into console ports even today. But, as with the end of the last console cycle, the technical gap is starting to become wide enough that the PC alternatives are getting more attention than before.
Problem was: Only a few companies dared to address PROPERLY adjusting their games for the PC market before (at least many of them eliminated Quick Time Events; thank you for that small mercy, Bioware. Thank you.), so the games weren't really standing out on the PC platform at all.
A lot of PC Gamers like to claim PC versions of console specific games as superior because the PC has superior hardware attached to it. Not only do PC's have processing and graphical power that is magnitudes better than most unmodded consoles (yes, Console modding is possible without voiding a warranty, but expensive) but PC's have superior input as well.
That's all well and good, but if the SOFTWARE doesn't support it, it makes no difference.
Case in point: All 360 titles rely on the comparatively ancient DirectX 9.0c. PC Gaming has moved ahead to DirectX 11.
Just in those two versions, graphics processing (and efficiency) has made incredible advancements.
Yet, until relatively recently, most ports of console games (which comprise an overwhelming majority of what you see from the AAA market) only supported DX9 or equivalent.
All sorts of advancements that console versions cannot use. And if you port your title to PC, you have to spend more money implementing those features; either for stability (32-bit -> 64-bit conversion isn't cheap; to date, only Blizzard and Valve have offered both versions, and Blizzard doesn't even count because they've been PC-only for the last decade) or for generating new content to make use of those features (hi-resolution textures and models).
If a company doesn't deem the PC market significant enough, they will generally just try to get it to run on most machines as-is, and never support/patch it again. And now you're just left with the original console-version, but with potential bugs and glitches.
Let me put it this way. Have you ever wondered why there is no Cross-Platform gaming out there, aside from a few MMO's? There was one online FPS that tried cross platform multiplayer, and the PC players were wiping the floor with console players, because no amount of console dedication is going help you when your opponent is using a mouse instead of an analog stick to aim.
If you're playing an online FPS on the PS3 and the other players become aware that you're using an Eagle Eye (mouse/keyboard interface for PS3) then you WILL hear the shouts, because you're going to be dominating.
Yeah, they actually tried the cross-platform gig with Shadowrun (PC and 360). Those with a mouse slaughtered those on a controller.
So I agree with that, but it's sort of side-tracking the point; most of these AAA titles are still designed and balanced for console controls/inputs. Giving someone access to better controls is going to give them an advantage, and skew that balance on PC.
As I said before, that is a significant difference, but it's one that we didn't want!
It's a product of consequence, rather than intentional design.
PC Gaming is less about specific differences to a game, but rather the differences between controls and what you can actually do with a game.
Reiterating my previous point above isn't going to accomplish anything, but I did notice this while thinking about my reply here: Good grief are there a *LOT* of the multi-platform games are shooters or other such first/third person titles.
Also, let me ask you. What's the difference between XBox and PS3? None. So why exactly should there be a clear difference between console and PC?
Depends on what those differences are. Are they of design? Or consequence?
I don't want the differences to include:
1) Lousy graphical limitations
2) Bugs/Glitches
3) Skewed Gameplay balancing
A game that doesn't let me take advantage of my system's capabilities is something of a waste, and an indicator that the game wasn't really made for my market.
There are games for PC which take full advantage of controls, interfacing, and graphical capabilities. Those games make up a TINY FRACTION of the AAA gaming market, which is what makes up the majority of the reported sales (based on the bestsellers' list provided).
Which harkens back to my original argument: "Console games selling well on PCs".
If "PC Gaming" were truly on the rise, we would see far more PC-centric games on that list.
(I have to run right now, but I imagine this post was entirely too long anyway so...)
