Ken Levine: The Future of Gaming Is In the PC
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Fair enough, Nvidia is pushing 3D, I'll give you that. Is it innovative? Nope. Same array of high-priced glasses, a new monitor, new card, etc., as it almost always is, and almost always has been, ad nauseum. Putting out the equipment that many other companies are putting out for the purpose of keeping up with the market is fine, but it's not innovative. And while they might be mostly tediously over-designed play things, motion controls have led to innovation. New tracking technologies to develop almost 1:1 control, for instance. And while it's not something truly spectacular, it's something new, which is more or less exactly what innovation means. Computer gaming, while perfectly well developed and adequate, doesn't innovate. Size, resolution, sound quality might all change, but year after year the interface has been the same. Graphical enhancements of 2% over leading competitors sound wonderful, but that's just oneupsmanship, a practice that has been around as long society. Yes, the way they deliver the games might have changed, and good for them for doing that, but once the game is in hand, there's nothing new.Woodsey said:
Nintendo: Arcade developer turned console developer.FloodOne said:
Capcom: Arcade developer. Long tradition of computer game development.
Square: Initially a computer game developer but driven to consoles by lack of success.
Enix: Started out on personal computers. Most famous game was based on a game for Apple computers.
Sony Santa Monica: Pretty much a console dev.
Naughty Dog: First game was on a computer but mostly a console dev.
Rockstar North (GTA): As DMA design they were a pretty major computer game developer with titles like Lemmings. Console development came later.
Insomniac: Console dev.
Atlus: Mostly Console.
Sega: Arcade dev.
As a bonus, Metal Gear started out as a computer game series. As did Tetris. As did Bomberman. Rare started out making computer games.
So what do console have to offer that counter
1) Easy upgradability
2) Mods
3) Customization, both hardware and software.
I'll stick to my platform of choice until consoles have something better to offer.
Which will be never.
1) Easy upgradability
2) Mods
3) Customization, both hardware and software.
I'll stick to my platform of choice until consoles have something better to offer.
Which will be never.
Capcom are 'great' developers? Same question on Square Enix. Sony Santa Monica made...what? Checking into Naughty Dog, their first game was on the "Apple IIGS", a personal computer, even if it was a Mac.FloodOne said:
As for Rockstar, GTA was originally for DOS, then ported later to Windows and Playstation (i.e. started on the PC)
The other 3 on your list? Not a clue, don't really care about them - so, that leaves Nintendo, who are a special case, given they make the hardware they program on!
No, as anyone with a PC by their telly will testify. And no, both Bioshocks had a PC version.The Austin said:
Quite so! Its good at last for someone to realises that bland console entires that are generally shallower than PC games need the PC for innovation, given new blood can't come in onto consoles without alot of cash to get them started.BJ777 said:
Actually... that probably is true.AC10 said:
(granted it looks decent, but I'd rather, say, CryEngine)
Naughty Dog and Rockstar both started on the PC. Just thought I'd throw that out.FloodOne said:
OT: It all boils down to personal preference. Personally, since I'm probably gonna need a computer anyway, I'd rather get a good one then an average computer w/ a console. Still, local multiplayer without LAN will always be superior on console, unless you have your PC hooked up to your TV.
Well, that might all be fine and dandy.
But if I got the choice of a pc game or it's console port. I usually pick the console version.
Why?
Because at least I KNOW it will run properly.
My pc is okay, it's not great, but it's okay.
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual core 4200+ 2,0GB RAM, NVIDIA 8600GT.
But I did notice that Civ V has some troubles on large maps with many Civ's together.
AKA, it's getting at the point where not all purchases are sure to run.
And with the current way pc work, I can't return a copy to the store if it turns out the developer "enhanced" the truth a bit on the minimum specs.
I am happy to know that Fallout New Vegas will run as smoothly now, as it will next month. My Xbox always has the proper specs.
But if I got the choice of a pc game or it's console port. I usually pick the console version.
Why?
Because at least I KNOW it will run properly.
My pc is okay, it's not great, but it's okay.
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual core 4200+ 2,0GB RAM, NVIDIA 8600GT.
But I did notice that Civ V has some troubles on large maps with many Civ's together.
AKA, it's getting at the point where not all purchases are sure to run.
And with the current way pc work, I can't return a copy to the store if it turns out the developer "enhanced" the truth a bit on the minimum specs.
I am happy to know that Fallout New Vegas will run as smoothly now, as it will next month. My Xbox always has the proper specs.
As can a TV remote, or a laser pointer. And DPI upgrades aren't anything revolutionary, merely minor improvements here and there. And while I have no interest in motion controls, I do find them to be, you know, something new. I see that they might be the first step towards something better than what we have now, and want to see what comes next. Replication of the action was supposed to be more immersive, but since that hasn't yet panned out as idealistically hoped, the next step might be something that takes the failures here and fixes them. Continuously sitting waggling a mouse and ticking four keys is fine, but it's stagnation, not progress.Xzi said:
Yes, exactly! Because PC's are able to browse the internet, and by paying attention to online articles, you can find out what's happening in the future (or what already happened)!Andy Chalk said:
Kind of an odd way to end his argument.
Also, "it drives innovation"? HAH! With similar competitive FPS's, RTS's, and MMO's popping up like popcorn, I doubt it. Sure, plenty of innovative games on the PC come from flash games and stuff, but they aren't capable of "driving" innovation. PC is more of a simple introduction to innovation while other means are taken to expand on and strengthen said innovation. Games like Minecraft deserve plenty of credit, but these games are too rare to make for a good defense.
And it's probably not a good idea to use games that aren't exclusives as defense.
If the PC was a console platform it'd have the largest install base of any home console, EVER.
Shame about the lack of proper, cost effective hardware setups that developers can easily support. That's the edge consoles still have on PCs, hassle free, just pop the disc in and play.
Could the PC beat that?
Shame about the lack of proper, cost effective hardware setups that developers can easily support. That's the edge consoles still have on PCs, hassle free, just pop the disc in and play.
Could the PC beat that?
That man speaks the truth. You should listen to him. Games used to be so much better and not to mention longer before this generation of consoles. Now you have to hope that the game you're about to buy lasts longer than 10 hours and that it doesn't have all kinds of bugs and glitches. And what happens when the next generation of consoles is released and your old console dies? How are you gonna download the patches for the old console game if you feel like playing it? Lets say 10 years from now you want to play New Vegas again. You don't have your console anymore, there are no patches available on the new Xbox live. You can't do anything about it. Console games don't have a steady future anymore. On PC you can still play games that came out 20 years ago like they came out yesterday. And patching is always available. Not to mention the PC community that makes old and boring games worth playing again.